Robert Satloff
washingtoninstitute.org
April 27, 2010
The tempest in a teapot about Gen. James L. Jones's opening joke in his address to The Washington Institute's twenty-fifth anniversary symposium last week diverted attention from the truly newsworthy aspects of the national security advisor's remarks. On five key issues, he made important, substantive, and at times innovative statements of policy. Given the political and strategic timing of his remarks, they should be viewed as one of the most significant statements of administration policy on Middle East issues this year. National Security Strategy
In a passage totally overlooked by the media, General Jones gave the first glimpse into the new National Security Strategy (NSS) that he said will be unveiled in the coming weeks. This document, which transcends Middle East issues, concretizes the overall foreign policy approach of an administration and usually reflects the thrust of a president's approach to international security. In his remarks, General Jones said the new NSS would be based on four pillars:
* Security -- "We have an enduring interest in the security of the United States, our citizens, and U.S. allies and partners."
* Prosperity -- "We have an enduring interest in a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity."
* Values -- "We have an enduring interest is upholding universal values, at home and around the world."
* International order -- "We have an enduring interest in an international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges."
A detailed assessment of these pillars and the policies they represent is beyond the scope of this article. But it is important to point out that enunciation of these pillars alone marks a significant shift from the key principles of the final George W. Bush and Bill Clinton NSSs. For example, there is no reference in the Jones statement to democracy, freedom, or liberty, terms that dominated the Bush NSS. Democracy promotion, not specifically mentioned in General Jones’s remarks, was also a stated pillar of Bill Clinton’s final NSS. Interestingly, there was in the general's statement an echo from a doctrine advanced by an earlier president -- the reference to "international order" sounds eerily similar to the post-Gulf War call by President George H. W. Bush for the creation of a "new world order." How the new NSS fleshes out these principles into a full strategy will provide a fascinating window into the administration's deepest thoughts about the direction of foreign policy.
Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Bomb
On dealing with Iran, General Jones hinted at a broader commitment about Iran's nuclear program and presented the administration's critique of Iranian behavior in starker and more severe tones than has been the case with most other expositions by senior officials.
In describing Iran's behavior, for example, General Jones's words were blunt and direct, unadorned by qualifiers or comparatives.
To date, we have seen no indication that Iran's leaders want to resolve these issues constructively. After initially accepting it, they rejected the Tehran Research Reactor proposal. They have refused to discuss their nuclear program with the P-5 + 1. The revelation of a previously covert enrichment site, construction of which further violated Iran's NPT obligations, fed further suspicion about Iran's intentions. Iran recently increased the enrichment levels of its uranium to 20 percent. All the while, Iran continues to brutally repress its own citizens and prohibit their universal rights to express themselves freely and choose their own future.
These are not the behaviors of a responsible international actor, and they are not the actions of a government committed to peaceful diplomacy and a new relationship with a willing and ready partner. (Emphasis added)
In effect, General Jones delivered what can be termed the administration's bill of indictment against the Islamic Republic, setting the predicate for further action. The goal of U.S. policy is, as General Jones said, "to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons." Importantly, the use of the word "developing" -- as Vice President Biden did in his similarly overlooked remarks at Tel Aviv University last month -- suggests an expanded objective; the more common formulation is that the United States is committed to prevent Iran from "obtaining" or "acquiring" a nuclear weapon. Whether the president chooses to act -- by implementing sanctions outside the UN Security Council or some other preventive action, for example -- is a separate matter; in his Washington Institute remarks, General Jones delivered the rationale for more assertive action should the president choose to pursue it.
Repairing U.S.-Israeli Ties and the Perception of Tension
The main thrust of General Jones's speech was devoted to an unconditional statement of U.S.-Israel strategic alignment and security partnership. Recently, some other administration officials can be said to have delivered remarks that tried to thread the needle between, on the one hand, celebrating the "unshakeable, unbreakable" bond between the United States and Israel and, on the other hand, hinting that the relationship was also conditioned on how Israel behaves vis-a-vis the peace process. In his remarks, Jones set out to remove any whiff of conditionality from U.S.-Israeli ties:
And we will never forget that since the first minutes of Israeli independence, the United States has had a special relationship with Israel. And that will not change. Why? Because this is not a commitment of Democrats or Republicans; it is a national commitment based on shared values, deep and interwoven connections, and mutual interests.
Jones went further. He evidently decided this was the forum to correct the impression left by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus's remarks, echoed by President Obama, that inaction on the Middle East peace process -- a codeword for Israeli recalcitrance -- complicates U.S. regional policy and may even extract a heavy cost in terms of U.S. "blood and treasure." To do so, he offered a ringing endorsement of the value of the U.S.-Israeli relationship to U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. While this reiterated statements the president himself made, Jones's comments had special significance given his military background.
I can also say from long experience that our security relationship with Israel is important for America. Our military benefits from Israeli innovations in technology, from shared intelligence, from exercises that help our readiness and joint training that enhances our capabilities, and from lessons learned in Israel's own battles against terrorism and asymmetric threats.
Over the years, and like so many Americans -- like so many of you here tonight -- I've spent a great deal of time with my Israeli partners, including my friends in the IDF. These partnerships are deep and abiding. They are personal relationships and friendships based on mutual trust and respect. Every day, across the whole range of our bilateral relationship, we are working together for our shared security and prosperity. And our partnership will only be strengthened in the months and years to come.
Balancing Israeli and Palestinian Demands
On the Middle East peace process, General Jones repeated previous statements by the president in support of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because, as he said, it is in U.S., Israeli, Arab, and global interests -- and because it denies Iran an opportunity to exploit conflict for its own gain. On the peace process, the innovation in his remarks came in the toned-down formulation he used when he hinted at what is widely viewed as the source of deep tension in U.S.-Israeli relations in recent weeks, i.e., U.S. consternation over Israeli housing policy in Jerusalem.
Specifically, in the brief and relatively mild reference he made to this issue, he made sure to include in the same breath a U.S. demand of the Palestinians regarding incitement: "We also continue to call on all sides to avoid provocative actions, including Israeli actions in east Jerusalem and Palestinian incitement, that fuel suspicion rather than trust." Here, his objective seems to be to refute allegations that Washington has singled out Israel and to underscore the fact that both parties need to take measures to improve the prospects for diplomatic progress. Indeed, the new grammatical formulation is such that copyeditors would have to mangle Jones's sentence if they only wanted to focus readers' attention on the request to Israel.
A Robust Counterattack on the Charge of Dual Loyalty
General Jones opened his remarks to the audience with generous words about his host, The Washington Institute. In such circumstances, these remarks are usually warm and brief. In this case, however, the general devoted 458 words to his discussion of the Institute, constituting a substantial portion of his address. The effect was to deliver a clear and direct rebuttal to accusations made recently about "conflicts of interest" or "dual loyalty" by current and former Washington Institute scholars. If he had been asked to testify against the charge of special pleading for any particular foreign power, General Jones's words could not have been more powerful:
I especially want to thank the Institute for your work on behalf of the effort that President Obama called for in his speech last year in Cairo -- that is, greater understanding between the United States and Muslim communities around world.... In that spirit, you've been promoting mutual understanding for many years, whether it's welcoming to Washington scholars from Cairo to Baghdad, your Arabic-language website, Rob's weekly Arabic-language interview show, or his recent documentary recounting the little-known story of how Arabs saved Jews from the Holocaust.
So thank you all...for analysis that has strengthened our national security...and for promoting the mutual understanding that can lead to a safer, more secure world for us all. And I wish you continued success, because, frankly, our nation -- indeed, the world -- needs institutions like yours now more than ever.
While spurious accusations against the bona fides of Institute scholars are largely an inside-the-Beltway issue, they have important ramifications -- for the careers of current and former Institute scholars, for the receptivity within the halls of government to Institute research and analysis, and, more broadly, for the promotion of vigorous debate on the direction of U.S. policy. On all these levels, General Jones delivered a definitive statement.
Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The West Should Use Resolution 1701 to Roll Back Hizbullah's Effective Take-over of the Lebanese Government
Jonathan Spyer *
April 26, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/04/west-should-use
The summoning by the United States of Syrian Deputy Chief of Mission Zouheir Jabbour for a review of Syrian arms transfers to Hizbullah is the latest evidence of the serious basis to the recent tensions in the north.
Syria has continued to deny recent reports suggesting that it permitted the transfer of Scud-D ballistic missiles to Hizbullah.
But the issue of the Scuds is only a significant detail within a larger picture, which has been emerging into clear view since August 2006. This is the reality in which UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war between Israel and Hizbullah in 2006, has been turned into a dead letter by the "resistance bloc" of Iran, Syria and Hizbullah.
It is worth recalling that Resolution 1701 was hailed as a significant achievement for diplomacy at the time. The resolution was supposed to strengthen the basis for the renewed Lebanese sovereignty that seemed possible after Syrian withdrawal in 2005.
Its provisions are quite clear. The resolution calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that... there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state." It also explicitly prohibits "sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government."
Hizbullah and its backers calculated, correctly, that neither the government of Lebanon, nor the United Nations, nor the "international community" would be able or willing to enforce these clauses.
The UN has itself admitted the severe inadequacy of arrangements along the Syrian-Lebanese border. Two UN border assessments have been carried out since 2006 - in June 2007 and August 2008.
The second report found, in the dry language employed by such documents, that "even taking into account the difficult political situation in Lebanon during the past year," progress toward achieving the goals laid out in Resolution 1701 had been "insufficient."
The "difficult political situation" of 2008 is a reference to the fact that the elected Lebanese government's single attempt at enforcing its sovereignty over the allies of Syria and Iran in the country ended in May 2008 with the violent rout of the government.
Hizbullah and its allies simply made clear that any attempt to interfere with their military arrangements would be met with blunt force, and no further attempt was made.
The result has been that over the past three-and-a-half years, under the indifferent eyes of the world, the roads between Syria and Lebanon have hummed to the sound of arms trucks and suppliers bringing Syrian and Iranian weaponry to Lebanon.
The response of Israel has been to observe the situation, and to make clear that the crossing of certain red lines in terms of the type and caliber of the weaponry being made available to Hizbullah would constitute a casus belli.
The recent heightening of tensions has come because of emerging evidence that these red lines are being flouted with impunity.
This did not begin with the reports of the Scuds. Evidence has emerged into the public sphere over the last months of weaponry suggesting a Syrian and Iranian desire to transform Hizbullah into a bona fide strategic threat to Israel.
The weaponry supplied to Hizbullah include M-600 surface-to-surface missiles, the man-portable Igla-S surface-to-air missile system, which would threaten Israeli fighter aircraft monitoring the skies of Lebanon, and now the Scud-D ballistic missile system.
If the reports regarding such weaponry are correct, they would make Hizbullah by far the best-armed non-state paramilitary group in the world.
These reports do not mean that war is necessarily imminent.
Israel appears in no hurry to punish Hizbullah and Syria for the flouting of red lines. Unlike its enemies, the Israeli government is publicly accountable, and would find it difficult to justify a preemptive strike - which might well result in renewed war - to the Israeli public.
Hizbullah and Syria also seem in no rush to initiate hostilities. They have merely internalized the fact that nothing serious appears to stand in the way of their activities across the eastern border of Lebanon, and are hence proceeding apace.
The clearest lesson of the latest events is the fictional status of international guarantees and resolutions if these are not backed by a real willingness to enforce them.
The Western failure to underwrite the elected government of Lebanon has led to the effective Hizbullah takeover of that country. The failure to insist on the implementation of Resolution 1701 has allowed the apparent strategic transformation of Hizbullah over the last three and a half years.
While the "resistance bloc" does not necessarily seek imminent conflict, there is also no sign whatsoever that its appetite has been satiated by its recent gains. Laws, elections and agreements do not stand in its way. It operates, rather, according to the dictum of a certain 20th-century German leader, who said, "You stand there with your law, and I'll stand here with my bayonets, and we'll see which one prevails."
The real question, of course, being how long the intended victim of such an approach is prepared to allow it to continue.
*Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya, 46150, Israel
info@gloria-center.org- Phone: 972-9-960-2736 - Fax: 972-9-960-2736
April 26, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/04/west-should-use
The summoning by the United States of Syrian Deputy Chief of Mission Zouheir Jabbour for a review of Syrian arms transfers to Hizbullah is the latest evidence of the serious basis to the recent tensions in the north.
Syria has continued to deny recent reports suggesting that it permitted the transfer of Scud-D ballistic missiles to Hizbullah.
But the issue of the Scuds is only a significant detail within a larger picture, which has been emerging into clear view since August 2006. This is the reality in which UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war between Israel and Hizbullah in 2006, has been turned into a dead letter by the "resistance bloc" of Iran, Syria and Hizbullah.
It is worth recalling that Resolution 1701 was hailed as a significant achievement for diplomacy at the time. The resolution was supposed to strengthen the basis for the renewed Lebanese sovereignty that seemed possible after Syrian withdrawal in 2005.
Its provisions are quite clear. The resolution calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that... there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state." It also explicitly prohibits "sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government."
Hizbullah and its backers calculated, correctly, that neither the government of Lebanon, nor the United Nations, nor the "international community" would be able or willing to enforce these clauses.
The UN has itself admitted the severe inadequacy of arrangements along the Syrian-Lebanese border. Two UN border assessments have been carried out since 2006 - in June 2007 and August 2008.
The second report found, in the dry language employed by such documents, that "even taking into account the difficult political situation in Lebanon during the past year," progress toward achieving the goals laid out in Resolution 1701 had been "insufficient."
The "difficult political situation" of 2008 is a reference to the fact that the elected Lebanese government's single attempt at enforcing its sovereignty over the allies of Syria and Iran in the country ended in May 2008 with the violent rout of the government.
Hizbullah and its allies simply made clear that any attempt to interfere with their military arrangements would be met with blunt force, and no further attempt was made.
The result has been that over the past three-and-a-half years, under the indifferent eyes of the world, the roads between Syria and Lebanon have hummed to the sound of arms trucks and suppliers bringing Syrian and Iranian weaponry to Lebanon.
The response of Israel has been to observe the situation, and to make clear that the crossing of certain red lines in terms of the type and caliber of the weaponry being made available to Hizbullah would constitute a casus belli.
The recent heightening of tensions has come because of emerging evidence that these red lines are being flouted with impunity.
This did not begin with the reports of the Scuds. Evidence has emerged into the public sphere over the last months of weaponry suggesting a Syrian and Iranian desire to transform Hizbullah into a bona fide strategic threat to Israel.
The weaponry supplied to Hizbullah include M-600 surface-to-surface missiles, the man-portable Igla-S surface-to-air missile system, which would threaten Israeli fighter aircraft monitoring the skies of Lebanon, and now the Scud-D ballistic missile system.
If the reports regarding such weaponry are correct, they would make Hizbullah by far the best-armed non-state paramilitary group in the world.
These reports do not mean that war is necessarily imminent.
Israel appears in no hurry to punish Hizbullah and Syria for the flouting of red lines. Unlike its enemies, the Israeli government is publicly accountable, and would find it difficult to justify a preemptive strike - which might well result in renewed war - to the Israeli public.
Hizbullah and Syria also seem in no rush to initiate hostilities. They have merely internalized the fact that nothing serious appears to stand in the way of their activities across the eastern border of Lebanon, and are hence proceeding apace.
The clearest lesson of the latest events is the fictional status of international guarantees and resolutions if these are not backed by a real willingness to enforce them.
The Western failure to underwrite the elected government of Lebanon has led to the effective Hizbullah takeover of that country. The failure to insist on the implementation of Resolution 1701 has allowed the apparent strategic transformation of Hizbullah over the last three and a half years.
While the "resistance bloc" does not necessarily seek imminent conflict, there is also no sign whatsoever that its appetite has been satiated by its recent gains. Laws, elections and agreements do not stand in its way. It operates, rather, according to the dictum of a certain 20th-century German leader, who said, "You stand there with your law, and I'll stand here with my bayonets, and we'll see which one prevails."
The real question, of course, being how long the intended victim of such an approach is prepared to allow it to continue.
*Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya, 46150, Israel
info@gloria-center.org- Phone: 972-9-960-2736 - Fax: 972-9-960-2736
Monday, April 26, 2010
Chris Matthews and the Jews
Stuart Schwartz
Jews.
Everywhere, there are Jews. They have penetrated the highest ranks of government, control vast swaths of the economy, and bend nations to their demonic will. But not to worry: Chris Matthews is on the case.
The host of "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on radical-left MSNBC has become a modern-day Paul Revere. But instead of the British, he gallops each weekday into a few (very few, with first-quarter ratings down 46% compared to last year) homes and warns the nation of the threat of this international circumcision cult that wants to serve up a heaping helping of world domination along with its bagels and lox. One if by land, Jew if by sea. Welcome to the world of Chris Matthews. Oy.
As one writer for the radical Nation approvingly put it, Matthews demonstrates "nearly every night" his understanding of the threat posed by "socially- and politically-empowered hawkish Jews" to the United States. Matthews is a protégé of former president Jimmy Carter (notorious for blaming the Jews for everything from his failed presidency to elder abuse) and friend of MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan, who blames "U.S. Jewry" for such varied perversions as Hillary Clinton and anal sex in Hollywood.
Both are good friends and frequent guests on his show, as is Rep. Jim Moran, the Virginia Democrat who is not shy about sharing his nuanced view of the cause of America's ills: The Jews did it, the Jews are doing it, and the Jews will continue to do it until stopped. In a public letter in the Beliefnet website owned by the Washington Post, former New York City mayor Ed Koch accused this "good friend" Chris Matthews of peddling "anti-Semitic blood libels."
Matthews has long used his television platform to spotlight the danger to the United States posed by Israel and American Jews who actively conspire against the country. Call it "The Protocols of Chris Matthews," or, perhaps, "The Protocols of the Elders of MSNBC." Rid us of Israel, rid us of Jews, and Pandora will return to its pre-kosher bliss.
He plays the same role on behalf of the Democratic Party that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion played more than a century ago for the Russian empire. This set of anti-Semitic documents was put together by a Russian government that hoped to blame Jews for the growing unrest it faced at the beginning of the twentieth century.
The problem, of course, was not Jews; rather, it was a Russian elite that acquired power and wealth by stealing from its citizens. In other words, we're talking early-day versions of Obama and Pelosi, in fur-lined hats and Coronation Herald boots, squeezing the rubles out of every Tom, Dick, and Ivan.
And now, a century later, Chris Matthews does the same thing for Democratic and media elites, attacking those with Jewish-sounding names who are behind Republican opposition, Tea Parties, and Sarah Palin. Especially Sarah Palin, she of the Israeli flag in her office and the Israel lapel pin that shouts "dual loyalty," a theme of Matthews.
Matthews hates Palin with a passion aroused, in part, by her admiration of the pluck, character, and accomplishments of Israel. Jews, she puts Jews first, he screams...but only because she is ignorant and illiterate, an "empty" head filled by Jewish conservatives with pro-Israel poison on those policy cruises hosted by conservative media.
Why, all those "neocons" with Jewish names, doing the bidding of the Israel Lobby and conservative media. You can't fool Matthews: He knows -- knows, I tell you -- that the Palins are always there with their nets when the gefilte fish are running in Bristol Bay off the coast of Alaska.
For Matthews, Jews are behind the growing dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership. This is never more evident than during the frequent appearances on "Hardball" by his former boss, Jimmy Carter. They are not so much interviews as dances, two longtime friends secure in the knowledge that there is no such thing as failure -- only more or less Jewish influence.
The Washington Post has described Jimmy Carter as a failed former president who "trivializes the murder of Israelis" and speaks in "anti-Semitic stereotypes." An American Thinker commentator described Carter as a "Jew-hater" who often expresses "that ugly old [a]nti-Semitic stereotype that the Jews control the media, Congress, and the U.S. Foreign policy."
But for Matthews, Jimmy Carter is a hero who got a "raw deal" largely because he spoke truth to power -- Jewish power. And so the Jews and Israel went after him, destroying his presidency and reputation. Now, Matthews says, Israel is doing the same to Obama, going after him because he is trying to break its stranglehold on the world and "because he is black."
National Review's Jonah Goldberg has described Matthews's obsession with Jews as the "staple trope" of someone "who talks about Jews in the [Bush] administration the way Tailgunner Joe talked about Communists in the State Department." Thomas Lifson, publisher of American Thinker, is more to the point, calling the Matthews description of Israel "nauseating."
Jews are everywhere, into everything. A LexisNexis search of MSNBC transcripts shows, as far back as 2002, Matthews was complaining to Pat Buchanan about a Bush White House speechwriting office "infested with neo-conservatives" (i.e., Jews) who were doing the bidding of the Israeli government. And, just as they put words in the mouth of Bush, Israel is now forcing Iran to arm itself while disloyal American Jews make it impossible for President Obama to pursue the interests of real Americans.
Yes, Matthews's "good friend" Jim Moran is right: The Jews are "extraordinarily powerful" and use their wealth to "control [American] policy." This nation needs more legislators like the Virginia congressman, which is why Matthews has donated to his campaign and enthusiastically praises him as a "regular guy" standing up to the Star of David.
And so it goes -- Matthews blithely spouting his inside-the-beltway refinement of the anti-Semitism that riddled the British aristocracy of the 1930s, emboldened Hitler in his slaughter of European Jews, and plunged the world into a brutal war with Nazi Germany.
He laughs uproariously at the notion that Iran wants to exterminate Israel and the Jews. No, this wonderful nation, this awesome culture, is a victim...of the Jews. Give the ayatollahs what they want -- rid them of the Jewish threat, and the world will be a wonderful place.
It is not too hard to envision Chris Matthews on the "Hardball" set the day Iran launches its first nuclear weapon. He faces the camera, forehead red against his blond mop, and screams out the words of the Duke of Wellington on the first day of the Second World War:
"It's all the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f---ing Jews!"
Stuart Schwartz is on the faculty of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/chris_matthews_and_the_jews.html at April 26, 2010 - 02:48:07 PM CDT
Jews.
Everywhere, there are Jews. They have penetrated the highest ranks of government, control vast swaths of the economy, and bend nations to their demonic will. But not to worry: Chris Matthews is on the case.
The host of "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on radical-left MSNBC has become a modern-day Paul Revere. But instead of the British, he gallops each weekday into a few (very few, with first-quarter ratings down 46% compared to last year) homes and warns the nation of the threat of this international circumcision cult that wants to serve up a heaping helping of world domination along with its bagels and lox. One if by land, Jew if by sea. Welcome to the world of Chris Matthews. Oy.
As one writer for the radical Nation approvingly put it, Matthews demonstrates "nearly every night" his understanding of the threat posed by "socially- and politically-empowered hawkish Jews" to the United States. Matthews is a protégé of former president Jimmy Carter (notorious for blaming the Jews for everything from his failed presidency to elder abuse) and friend of MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan, who blames "U.S. Jewry" for such varied perversions as Hillary Clinton and anal sex in Hollywood.
Both are good friends and frequent guests on his show, as is Rep. Jim Moran, the Virginia Democrat who is not shy about sharing his nuanced view of the cause of America's ills: The Jews did it, the Jews are doing it, and the Jews will continue to do it until stopped. In a public letter in the Beliefnet website owned by the Washington Post, former New York City mayor Ed Koch accused this "good friend" Chris Matthews of peddling "anti-Semitic blood libels."
Matthews has long used his television platform to spotlight the danger to the United States posed by Israel and American Jews who actively conspire against the country. Call it "The Protocols of Chris Matthews," or, perhaps, "The Protocols of the Elders of MSNBC." Rid us of Israel, rid us of Jews, and Pandora will return to its pre-kosher bliss.
He plays the same role on behalf of the Democratic Party that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion played more than a century ago for the Russian empire. This set of anti-Semitic documents was put together by a Russian government that hoped to blame Jews for the growing unrest it faced at the beginning of the twentieth century.
The problem, of course, was not Jews; rather, it was a Russian elite that acquired power and wealth by stealing from its citizens. In other words, we're talking early-day versions of Obama and Pelosi, in fur-lined hats and Coronation Herald boots, squeezing the rubles out of every Tom, Dick, and Ivan.
And now, a century later, Chris Matthews does the same thing for Democratic and media elites, attacking those with Jewish-sounding names who are behind Republican opposition, Tea Parties, and Sarah Palin. Especially Sarah Palin, she of the Israeli flag in her office and the Israel lapel pin that shouts "dual loyalty," a theme of Matthews.
Matthews hates Palin with a passion aroused, in part, by her admiration of the pluck, character, and accomplishments of Israel. Jews, she puts Jews first, he screams...but only because she is ignorant and illiterate, an "empty" head filled by Jewish conservatives with pro-Israel poison on those policy cruises hosted by conservative media.
Why, all those "neocons" with Jewish names, doing the bidding of the Israel Lobby and conservative media. You can't fool Matthews: He knows -- knows, I tell you -- that the Palins are always there with their nets when the gefilte fish are running in Bristol Bay off the coast of Alaska.
For Matthews, Jews are behind the growing dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership. This is never more evident than during the frequent appearances on "Hardball" by his former boss, Jimmy Carter. They are not so much interviews as dances, two longtime friends secure in the knowledge that there is no such thing as failure -- only more or less Jewish influence.
The Washington Post has described Jimmy Carter as a failed former president who "trivializes the murder of Israelis" and speaks in "anti-Semitic stereotypes." An American Thinker commentator described Carter as a "Jew-hater" who often expresses "that ugly old [a]nti-Semitic stereotype that the Jews control the media, Congress, and the U.S. Foreign policy."
But for Matthews, Jimmy Carter is a hero who got a "raw deal" largely because he spoke truth to power -- Jewish power. And so the Jews and Israel went after him, destroying his presidency and reputation. Now, Matthews says, Israel is doing the same to Obama, going after him because he is trying to break its stranglehold on the world and "because he is black."
National Review's Jonah Goldberg has described Matthews's obsession with Jews as the "staple trope" of someone "who talks about Jews in the [Bush] administration the way Tailgunner Joe talked about Communists in the State Department." Thomas Lifson, publisher of American Thinker, is more to the point, calling the Matthews description of Israel "nauseating."
Jews are everywhere, into everything. A LexisNexis search of MSNBC transcripts shows, as far back as 2002, Matthews was complaining to Pat Buchanan about a Bush White House speechwriting office "infested with neo-conservatives" (i.e., Jews) who were doing the bidding of the Israeli government. And, just as they put words in the mouth of Bush, Israel is now forcing Iran to arm itself while disloyal American Jews make it impossible for President Obama to pursue the interests of real Americans.
Yes, Matthews's "good friend" Jim Moran is right: The Jews are "extraordinarily powerful" and use their wealth to "control [American] policy." This nation needs more legislators like the Virginia congressman, which is why Matthews has donated to his campaign and enthusiastically praises him as a "regular guy" standing up to the Star of David.
And so it goes -- Matthews blithely spouting his inside-the-beltway refinement of the anti-Semitism that riddled the British aristocracy of the 1930s, emboldened Hitler in his slaughter of European Jews, and plunged the world into a brutal war with Nazi Germany.
He laughs uproariously at the notion that Iran wants to exterminate Israel and the Jews. No, this wonderful nation, this awesome culture, is a victim...of the Jews. Give the ayatollahs what they want -- rid them of the Jewish threat, and the world will be a wonderful place.
It is not too hard to envision Chris Matthews on the "Hardball" set the day Iran launches its first nuclear weapon. He faces the camera, forehead red against his blond mop, and screams out the words of the Duke of Wellington on the first day of the Second World War:
"It's all the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f---ing Jews!"
Stuart Schwartz is on the faculty of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/chris_matthews_and_the_jews.html at April 26, 2010 - 02:48:07 PM CDT
Arab MKs Who Visited Libya Can't Serve in Next Term
Gil Ronen
A7 News
MK Zevulun Orlev (Jewish Home) said Sunday that six Arab MKs who visited Libya have disqualified themselves from running for the Knesset again.
Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi hosted six Arab members of the Israeli Knesset and forty other Arab public figures from Israel Sunday. He spoke before them for more than an hour inside a giant Bedouin tent in the city of Sirat. MK Orlev noted that a law which he had initiated, and that was passed in the previous Knesset, determines that a candidate for Knesset who illegally visited an enemy state in the seven years preceding the election will be seen as having supported armed struggle against Israel and disqualified from running.
Libya an enemy?
Orlev said that he checked with the Defense Ministry and Ministry of Interior and confirmed that Libya is on the list of enemy states, and that the MKs did not receive permission to travel to Libya. The MKs who traveled to Libya include Ahmed Tibi and Taleb A-Sana of Raam-Taal and Muhammad Barakeh of Hadash..
Orlev sent a letter to Judge Ayala Procaccia, the Chairwoman of the Central Elections Committee for elections to the 19th Knesset, and asked that the committee meet soon to decide that the participating MKs and the parties that they represent are disqualified from running for another term.
MK David Rotem (Israel Our Home), Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution Law and Justice Committee, said in a discussion of the MKs' trip earlier in the day that Libya is not formally considered an enemy state.
Hamas terrorist killed in Hebron
JPOST.COM STAFF
26/04/2010 09:14
Wanted Palestinian barricades himself, exchanges fire with IDF.
Wanted Hamas member Ali Ahmed Sweiti was killed on Monday morning in an exchange of fire with security forces in the village of Beit Awa, near Hebron.
Sweiti, who killed 20-year-old Border Policeman Yaniv Mashiach and wounded two others in an ambush in the southern Hebron Hills on Remembrance Day in 2004, had been on Israel's wanted list for six years.
He was killed in a joint operation by the IDF, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and Border Police. Earlier that morning, IDF troops and a special police force had surrounded Sweiti's house in an attempt to coerce him to come out and turn himself in.
Sweiti, however, barricaded himself inside the house and shot at the troops outside. The troops shot back and used explosives to destroy a part of the house. Sweiti was killed in the exchange.
Following the incident, security forces demolished the house using bulldozers.
No casualties were reported among the troops, and Sweiti's family was notified of his demise.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Iran Trades Oil for Enriched Uranium from Zimbabwe
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
Iran last month sealed a secret deal to trade oil for enriched uranium from Zimbabwe, which hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, according to the London Telegraph. The deal was signed last month “away from the media glare” when an Iranian minister visited Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, a source from the African country told the newspaper. The oil-for uranium agreement gives Zimbabwe badly needed oil and allows Iran free and unsupervised access to material that can be used to produce a nuclear weapon. Israel, the United States and several Western countries have assumed that Iran is lying in claiming it has no intentions of building a nuclear weapon, which it presumably would try to use to carry out its repeated threat to “wipe Israel off the map.”
The reported deal with Zimbabwe would violate United Nations sanctions on Iran, which suddenly stated last week that it is willing to let U.N. nuclear watchdogs inspect its nuclear facilities.
Ahmadinejad last week visited Zimbabwe, whose Muslim population accounts for only one percent of its citizens. He showed support for Mugabe against “expansionist countries’ satanic pressures on the people of Zimbabwe” by allegedly trying to manage the country’s natural resources.
Mugabe responded, "We remain resolute in defending Zimbabwe's right to exercise its sovereignty over its natural resources. We have equally supported Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy as enshrined in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.”
Zimbabwe is estimated to have nearly half a million tons of uranium, five percent of which can be extracted.
Ahmadinejad was the first leader outside of Africa to open the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair, where Iran was the biggest foreign exhibitor.
Comment: Tough sanctions? Sanctions at all? The truth is Obama has spent any leverage with the international community he had some 14 months ago. The mark of a true leader is to use pressure, leverage and old fashioned diplomacy to secure a large coalition of countries who will resist any business with Iran-from banks to oil to gasoline to weapons parts and munition. He has failed and failed miserably. He alone is responsible for Iran's march toward the bomb. Remember, he told us, he insisted that he and he alone could change the culture of anti-USA mood and behavior across all of the planet. He cannot even get his Western partners to refrain from doing business with Iran; he cannot get them to stand down. He has brought CHANGE to the world-a weakened USA posture across the globe that has endangered all of us!
Schumer Blasts White House on Israel Policy
Hana Levi Julian
A7 News
U.S. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and a leading Demcoratic Congressman have strongly criticized Obama administration policies against Israel. New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who once worked for Sen. Schumer and is the fiancé of a Muslim aide to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also came out swinging. “The appropriate response was a shake of the head – not a temper tantrum," Rep. Weiner said. “Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, not a punching bag. Enough already.”
Sen. Schumer told listeners on the Nachum Segal Show in New York that the White House stance on Israel has been “counterproductive”. The senator, who faces elections in the fall, said he had told White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel weeks ago that he would take a public stand if the State Department did not back down from its “terrible” treatment of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
“This has to stop,” Schumer said he told the White House.
Schumer said there was an internal “battle” going on in the White House between members of the president's staff. “One side agrees with us, one side doesn't, and we're pushing hard to make sure the right side wins – and if not, we'll have to take it to the next step,” he said.
“Palestinians don't really believe in a State of Israel,” Schumer noted. “They, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.
“If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, 'Why should we negotiate?' [State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations,” Schumer added.
This was apparently the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for the senior senator, who until now has been one of Obama's closest allies among the Jewish Democrats. Schumer was referring to a briefing in which the State Department spokesman said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words, but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process.”
Up to this point, Schumer had been largely silent about the growing hostility of the Obama administration towards the State of Israel, despite numerous calls by grassroots groups for legislators to stand up and support the Jewish State.
The contention of the State Department that the so-called “unbreakable bond” between Israel and the U.S. could now depend on the pace of talks with the PA, however, was the red line for Schumer.
He explained, “That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans – Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew – would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, 'If you don't retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this.”
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded Friday, “We have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people. You heard General [James] Jones speak about that earlier in the week. We have said that from the beginning of the administration. I don't think it is a stretch to say we don't agree with what Senator Schumer said.”
Police: Object found in Eilat a rocket
Authorities say suspicious object found earlier Saturday in Eilat Bay a Grad rocket
Hanan Greenberg
YNET News
The suspicious object pulled out of the water of Eilat Bay earlier Saturday is a 120mm Grad rocket, officials say.
The object was identified after it was examined by the Navy, other IDF officials, and the police. The rocket's identification reinforces the estimate that it was fired from Sinai Thursday.
However, at this time the rocket's target is unclear. No answers to the question have been found on the intelligence front, while Israel, Egypt, and Jordan continue to look into the incident.
A security official said that Palestinian organizations affiliated with Global Jihad were believed to be behind the attack, and may very well have tried to target Eilat, Israel's most southern city and a thriving tourist site.
End of article And here is the rest of it.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The time of testing is coming for Obama
Jim Stuart
In 1962, after nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced down his Soviet Rival Nikita Khrushchev, almost precipitating a nuclear exchange. The principal reason JFK took a firm stand was to protect his image. In those days, with the Cold War in full swing, it was important to maintain a posture of strength and resolve. Each side was constantly testing the other for signs of weakness that could be exploited. Earlier in 1961, Kennedy had been humiliated at the Bay of Pigs, and Eisenhower had warned him that the Soviets would be emboldened as a result. So when the missiles were discovered, Kennedy's primary concern was not any strategic advantage they might pose (the US had offsetting nuclear missiles already installed in Italy and Turkey), but rather, that he not appear weak. Such was his concern for his image of strength and resolve that he was willing to risk a nuclear confrontation.
Fast forward to the year 2010. While the Cold War has ended and the Soviet Union exists no longer, there is no shortage of hostile regimes or groups facing off against the US. These - Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, North Korea, Russia, China, and Al Qaeda who - while not as powerful militarily as was the USSR - are perhaps more aggressive and less predictable than the old foe. Certainly, there is little doubt that any one of them could wreak havoc if a major conflict were to break out.
From the perspective of our enemies, how is this administration shaping up in the area of strength and resolve? Under little or no pressure, Obama withdrew missile defenses in Eastern Europe. He has created deadlines and threatened sanctions against Iran which have been ignored without consequences. He has refused to confront Islamic jihad, treating the threat as a criminal issue, and been unwilling to address the theological roots of the conflict. When Russia orchestrated a coup in Kyrgyzstan, the Obama administration did not react. When China insisted that Obama not meet with the Dalai Lama, he backed down. When our military leaders recommended a surge in Afghanistan, Obama waffled for months, finally agreeing, but with the proviso that the troops be pulled out in 18 months. The 4th generation advanced fighter (Raptor) program was cancelled, as was our manned space program. Missile defense development has been curtailed. The primary military initiative of this administration has been political correctness with respect to Muslim extremists, the equal treatment of homosexuals in the army, and prosecuting Seals and CIA agents.
The administration has virtually and publically withdrawn its support for Israel, while Syria has been funneling large quantities of Iranian rockets and other weapons to Hezbollah, in violation of UN agreements. Recently, it was reported that these weapons included Scud missiles. Hardly a week goes by without an announcement by Iran that it is expanding and accelerating its uranium enrichment program, and will not reverse course under any circumstances. On the contrary, it has signed technology-sharing deals with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who, given the a little more time, will surely become a serious troublemaker himself. Lastly, but by no means least, a South Korean naval vessel was recently sunk by what is currently thought to have been a North Korean torpedo. What could possibly be North Korea's intent, by such an action, except to test South Korea and the US?
Most of us have been too fixated by the spectacle of our country being overturned by Marxist revolutionary zealots to pay much attention to external threats. But in the meantime, our enemies have been watching as the US shows no will to fight, and no inclination to oppose aggression with anything stronger than teleprompted words. Surely, they must think, - this situation will not last, and that now is the time for adventurism. I do not believe we have long to wait.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/the_time_of_testing_is_coming.html at April 24, 2010 - 07:37:22 AM CDT
In 1962, after nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced down his Soviet Rival Nikita Khrushchev, almost precipitating a nuclear exchange. The principal reason JFK took a firm stand was to protect his image. In those days, with the Cold War in full swing, it was important to maintain a posture of strength and resolve. Each side was constantly testing the other for signs of weakness that could be exploited. Earlier in 1961, Kennedy had been humiliated at the Bay of Pigs, and Eisenhower had warned him that the Soviets would be emboldened as a result. So when the missiles were discovered, Kennedy's primary concern was not any strategic advantage they might pose (the US had offsetting nuclear missiles already installed in Italy and Turkey), but rather, that he not appear weak. Such was his concern for his image of strength and resolve that he was willing to risk a nuclear confrontation.
Fast forward to the year 2010. While the Cold War has ended and the Soviet Union exists no longer, there is no shortage of hostile regimes or groups facing off against the US. These - Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, North Korea, Russia, China, and Al Qaeda who - while not as powerful militarily as was the USSR - are perhaps more aggressive and less predictable than the old foe. Certainly, there is little doubt that any one of them could wreak havoc if a major conflict were to break out.
From the perspective of our enemies, how is this administration shaping up in the area of strength and resolve? Under little or no pressure, Obama withdrew missile defenses in Eastern Europe. He has created deadlines and threatened sanctions against Iran which have been ignored without consequences. He has refused to confront Islamic jihad, treating the threat as a criminal issue, and been unwilling to address the theological roots of the conflict. When Russia orchestrated a coup in Kyrgyzstan, the Obama administration did not react. When China insisted that Obama not meet with the Dalai Lama, he backed down. When our military leaders recommended a surge in Afghanistan, Obama waffled for months, finally agreeing, but with the proviso that the troops be pulled out in 18 months. The 4th generation advanced fighter (Raptor) program was cancelled, as was our manned space program. Missile defense development has been curtailed. The primary military initiative of this administration has been political correctness with respect to Muslim extremists, the equal treatment of homosexuals in the army, and prosecuting Seals and CIA agents.
The administration has virtually and publically withdrawn its support for Israel, while Syria has been funneling large quantities of Iranian rockets and other weapons to Hezbollah, in violation of UN agreements. Recently, it was reported that these weapons included Scud missiles. Hardly a week goes by without an announcement by Iran that it is expanding and accelerating its uranium enrichment program, and will not reverse course under any circumstances. On the contrary, it has signed technology-sharing deals with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who, given the a little more time, will surely become a serious troublemaker himself. Lastly, but by no means least, a South Korean naval vessel was recently sunk by what is currently thought to have been a North Korean torpedo. What could possibly be North Korea's intent, by such an action, except to test South Korea and the US?
Most of us have been too fixated by the spectacle of our country being overturned by Marxist revolutionary zealots to pay much attention to external threats. But in the meantime, our enemies have been watching as the US shows no will to fight, and no inclination to oppose aggression with anything stronger than teleprompted words. Surely, they must think, - this situation will not last, and that now is the time for adventurism. I do not believe we have long to wait.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/the_time_of_testing_is_coming.html at April 24, 2010 - 07:37:22 AM CDT
Haniyeh: US conditions remain obstacle to unity
www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=278718
Gaza – Ma'an – Egypt's refusal to re-open the unity file is based on
stubborn American conditions which ultimately prevent Palestinian unity and
weaken the national position, de facto government Prime Minister Ismail
Haniyeh said Thursday. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is clinging to the US conditions,
Haniyeh stated during an address to commemorate the death of poet and Muslim
Brotherhood member Abdul Rahman Baroud, who was killed in early April.
Haniyeh's statements come as US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is
set to arrive in the region, in what officials say will be his latest
attempt to kickstart the peace process. Some analysts have said the trip
could include some succinct ultimatums for Israeli behavior over the issue,
though most remain skeptical.
"They are talking about the arrival of Mitchell to the region to activate
the negotiations and we wonder what negotiations they talking about,"
Haniyeh said. He wondered how talks could go forward "while the occupation
has issued three dangerous orders - the Judaization of Jerusalem, the
deportation of Gaza residents from the West Bank, and the tunnel digging
beneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque - and continues to fulfill them." Optimism in
Ramallah, Haniyeh said, only lends legitimacy to the occupation.
Comment: Until the Western world puts some pressure upon Gaza, the so-called West Bank there will be no movement toward talks. The West, similar to how mis-guided parents treat a spoiled child, have actually motivated the Arab-Palestinians to wait, do nothing but complain and blame everyone else for their behavior.
Gaza – Ma'an – Egypt's refusal to re-open the unity file is based on
stubborn American conditions which ultimately prevent Palestinian unity and
weaken the national position, de facto government Prime Minister Ismail
Haniyeh said Thursday. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is clinging to the US conditions,
Haniyeh stated during an address to commemorate the death of poet and Muslim
Brotherhood member Abdul Rahman Baroud, who was killed in early April.
Haniyeh's statements come as US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is
set to arrive in the region, in what officials say will be his latest
attempt to kickstart the peace process. Some analysts have said the trip
could include some succinct ultimatums for Israeli behavior over the issue,
though most remain skeptical.
"They are talking about the arrival of Mitchell to the region to activate
the negotiations and we wonder what negotiations they talking about,"
Haniyeh said. He wondered how talks could go forward "while the occupation
has issued three dangerous orders - the Judaization of Jerusalem, the
deportation of Gaza residents from the West Bank, and the tunnel digging
beneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque - and continues to fulfill them." Optimism in
Ramallah, Haniyeh said, only lends legitimacy to the occupation.
Comment: Until the Western world puts some pressure upon Gaza, the so-called West Bank there will be no movement toward talks. The West, similar to how mis-guided parents treat a spoiled child, have actually motivated the Arab-Palestinians to wait, do nothing but complain and blame everyone else for their behavior.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Israel is not a Typical Foreign Policy Issue for Most Americans
http://www.theettingerreport.co.il
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought," Jerusalem, Israel
Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
American voters approve 48 - 42 percent of the way Obama is handling foreign policy and approve 49 - 39 percent of the way he is handling the situation in Afghanistan. The U.S. is doing the right thing fighting in Afghanistan, voters say 56 - 36 percent, and eliminating the threat of terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for, voters say 61 - 31 percent. HOWEVER:
1. The one negative area in voter appraisal of Obama's foreign policy is that voters disapprove 44 - 35 percent of the way the President is handling the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.
2. Israel benefits, mostly, from non-Jewish voters!
3. Jewish voters, generally supportive of Obama on other issues, turn 67 - 28 percent thumbs down on his handling of Israel and the Palestinians.
4. While 50 percent of Jews see Obama as a strong supporter of Israel, only 23 percent of Protestants and 35 percent of Roman Catholics see it that way. One explanation may just be that the President's low overall approval among Protestants and Catholics contributes to this disparity.
5. American voters say 57 - 13 percent that their sympathies lie with Israel.
6. Americans say 66 - 19 percent that the President of the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel.
7. Voters say 42 - 34 percent that Obama is not a strong supporter of Israel.
8. Only 16 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents think the President is a strong supporter of Israel, while 53 percent of Democrats do. The wealthier and older the voter, the more likely they are to question Obama's support for Israel. And the racial gap is yawning: 31 percent of white voters, but 54 percent of black voters see him as a strong supporter of Israel.
9. Voters support 70 - 28 percent the U.S. and Russia working to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world, but they say 87 - 11 percent that such a goal is not realistic. And voters say 25 - 18 percent that Obama's nuclear policy increases, rather than decreases, the chance of nuclear war, while 47 percent say the nuclear policy doesn't make a difference. "American voters like the dream of a world without nuclear weapons, but they believe it is just that - a dream," "But very few voters believe any of this makes the world any safer," Brown added.
10. Voters agree 79 - 17 percent that the biggest threat to U.S. security is the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.
From April 14 - 19, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,930 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points.
12. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling - the situation between Israel and the Palestinians?
POL PHILOSOPHY... PartOfTea
Tot Rep Dem Ind Lib Mod Con PartyQ17
Approve 35% 15% 59% 33% 55% 41% 19% 10%
Disapprove 44 68 19 47 22 33 68 80
DK/NA 21 17 22 20 23 25 13 10
WHITE.............
BrnAgn
Men Wom Evngl Prot Cath Jew Wht Blk
Approve 37% 34% 21% 26% 34% 28% 30% 68%
Disapprove 48 40 58 54 44 67 49 20
DK/NA 15 26 21 20 22 6 22 12
Military NoColl Coll AGE IN YRS.......
Households Degree Degree 18-34 35-54 55+
Approve 30% 33% 41% 40% 36% 32%
Disapprove 54 44 42 38 44 46
DK/NA 16 23 17 22 20 22
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Iran?
Apr 22 Oct 7
2010 2009
Approve 44 45
Disapprove 43 39
DK/NA 13 17
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
April 21, 2010 - Obama's Bounce Goes Flat
President Barack Obama's job approval, which bounced slightly to a 45 - 46 percent split March 25 in the wake of his health care victory, has flattened out at 44 - 46 percent, his lowest approval rating since his inauguration, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
"President Barack Obama's approval rating hovers at an all-time low. The White House had predicted passage of the health care overhaul would boost his fortunes, but that has not been the case, and that legislation itself remains decidedly unpopular," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Congress, which gets a 71 - 20 percent disapproval
But they disapprove 53 - 39 percent of the federal health care overhaul that he recently signed into law.
Voters disapprove 55 - 40 percent of the way Obama is handling the economy and disapprove 55 - 40 percent of the way he is handling health care. By a narrow 42 - 39 percent margin voters trust Obama, rather than congressional Republicans to handle health care.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought," Jerusalem, Israel
Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
American voters approve 48 - 42 percent of the way Obama is handling foreign policy and approve 49 - 39 percent of the way he is handling the situation in Afghanistan. The U.S. is doing the right thing fighting in Afghanistan, voters say 56 - 36 percent, and eliminating the threat of terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for, voters say 61 - 31 percent. HOWEVER:
1. The one negative area in voter appraisal of Obama's foreign policy is that voters disapprove 44 - 35 percent of the way the President is handling the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.
2. Israel benefits, mostly, from non-Jewish voters!
3. Jewish voters, generally supportive of Obama on other issues, turn 67 - 28 percent thumbs down on his handling of Israel and the Palestinians.
4. While 50 percent of Jews see Obama as a strong supporter of Israel, only 23 percent of Protestants and 35 percent of Roman Catholics see it that way. One explanation may just be that the President's low overall approval among Protestants and Catholics contributes to this disparity.
5. American voters say 57 - 13 percent that their sympathies lie with Israel.
6. Americans say 66 - 19 percent that the President of the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel.
7. Voters say 42 - 34 percent that Obama is not a strong supporter of Israel.
8. Only 16 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents think the President is a strong supporter of Israel, while 53 percent of Democrats do. The wealthier and older the voter, the more likely they are to question Obama's support for Israel. And the racial gap is yawning: 31 percent of white voters, but 54 percent of black voters see him as a strong supporter of Israel.
9. Voters support 70 - 28 percent the U.S. and Russia working to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world, but they say 87 - 11 percent that such a goal is not realistic. And voters say 25 - 18 percent that Obama's nuclear policy increases, rather than decreases, the chance of nuclear war, while 47 percent say the nuclear policy doesn't make a difference. "American voters like the dream of a world without nuclear weapons, but they believe it is just that - a dream," "But very few voters believe any of this makes the world any safer," Brown added.
10. Voters agree 79 - 17 percent that the biggest threat to U.S. security is the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.
From April 14 - 19, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,930 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points.
12. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling - the situation between Israel and the Palestinians?
POL PHILOSOPHY... PartOfTea
Tot Rep Dem Ind Lib Mod Con PartyQ17
Approve 35% 15% 59% 33% 55% 41% 19% 10%
Disapprove 44 68 19 47 22 33 68 80
DK/NA 21 17 22 20 23 25 13 10
WHITE.............
BrnAgn
Men Wom Evngl Prot Cath Jew Wht Blk
Approve 37% 34% 21% 26% 34% 28% 30% 68%
Disapprove 48 40 58 54 44 67 49 20
DK/NA 15 26 21 20 22 6 22 12
Military NoColl Coll AGE IN YRS.......
Households Degree Degree 18-34 35-54 55+
Approve 30% 33% 41% 40% 36% 32%
Disapprove 54 44 42 38 44 46
DK/NA 16 23 17 22 20 22
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Iran?
Apr 22 Oct 7
2010 2009
Approve 44 45
Disapprove 43 39
DK/NA 13 17
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
April 21, 2010 - Obama's Bounce Goes Flat
President Barack Obama's job approval, which bounced slightly to a 45 - 46 percent split March 25 in the wake of his health care victory, has flattened out at 44 - 46 percent, his lowest approval rating since his inauguration, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
"President Barack Obama's approval rating hovers at an all-time low. The White House had predicted passage of the health care overhaul would boost his fortunes, but that has not been the case, and that legislation itself remains decidedly unpopular," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Congress, which gets a 71 - 20 percent disapproval
But they disapprove 53 - 39 percent of the federal health care overhaul that he recently signed into law.
Voters disapprove 55 - 40 percent of the way Obama is handling the economy and disapprove 55 - 40 percent of the way he is handling health care. By a narrow 42 - 39 percent margin voters trust Obama, rather than congressional Republicans to handle health care.
Why Is the L.A. Times Burying the Obama/Khalidi Tape?
Roger L Simon
Pajamas Media
Given the extraordinary sudden turnabout in US policy toward Israel under the Obama Administration, I have become obsessed by the repressed 2003 videotape of Rashid Khalidi and Barack Obama. That tape — or so we are told — is ensconced in a safe at the Los Angeles Times building. In the current situation, its release by the paper is more important and newsworthy than ever. The Khalidi tape could be of tremendous significance in revealing the provenance of Obama’s views on the Middle East and the degree to which the public was misled on those views during the presidential campaign.
I am writing to solicit the help and ideas of Pajamas Media readers for seeking the release of the tape to the public. But first a little background, if your memories are as foggy as mine can be.
Rashid Khalidi — a Palestinian-American historian known for his strong pro-Palestinian opinions — is currently the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia and director of that university’s Middle East Institute. After Khalidi received this Columbia appointment in 2003, a farewell dinner party was held in his honor in Chicago. A videotape was made of that party where many good things were said about the Palestinian cause and many bad things about Israel. Then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama was in attendance, as were, some say, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
That tape, as Leon DeWinter [1] reminded us, was given at some point by an unknown person to Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times. Wallsten then reported on some of its contents in a brief LAT article of April 10, 2008 titled “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama.” [2]
Perhaps because it was so attenuated, that article engendered a cry for the release of the full tape. What really happened at the party? What was said? How did Obama react? People wanted to know more details of the Middle East views of the presidential candidate. But the LAT was effectively mum and sequestered the tape in its safe.
In response to a charge of suppression of information [3] by the McCain campaign, the paper’s editor Russ Stanton said:
“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to sources.”
Was this an oral promise made by the paper or by the reporter? Or was there a written agreement, as would be more proper and normal in such circumstances? The Times has not told us, nor have they produced a written agreement of any sort, even without the source’s name. We don’t know either whether a transcription is proscribed.
They have told us almost nothing. We have to take this all on faith, just as we do this risible comment by the paper’s ‘readers’ representative’ Jamie Gold, quoted in the same article with Stanton:
“More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light.”
Detailed? Brought the matter to light? I am tempted to use the tired Internet acronym ROFLOL. But let’s examine Wellsten’s original article instead. It begins:
It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
And? Well, that’s about it. Wellsten doesn’t tell us much more from the videotape or the party other than:
“a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”
One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”
That’s it. No word of the details of how Obama reacted or what he really said, other than the short quote above.
Interestingly, that sole quote from Wallsten contains an ellipsis in the middle. After the then-state senator says the Khalidis had given him “consistent reminders to me of my own blinds sports and my own biases” comes a strategically placed dot-dot-dot. We don’t know what those blind spots and and biases were and what he might have thought of them. Or how he might have changed. That, in Wellsten’s or some Times editors’ judgement, was best left on the tape.
So what are we to think? We have an administration that not only ascribes most of the Middle East blame to Israel, but also has banned “Islamism” and all related words, even “Islam” and “jihad” from our national security documents [4]. They’re completely gone. Indeed, even the Fort Hood massacre, so clearly inspired by Islamic extremism, has now been shifted into the comfortable category of the lone, angry killer. Rashid Khalidi should be happy. And, in fact, he is [5].
Sometimes I want to yell and scream. What is wrong with the Los Angeles Times? Are they a news organization or the propaganda wing of some leftover unit of the IWW? No wonder subscribers are deserting them in droves.
But I won’t yell and scream. I want to be polite. I have old friends at the Times. And what I seek is the release of the tape. Even if there is a legitimate promise to the source, the public interest now overwhelms this. Few stopped to criticize when the Pentagon Papers were published by the New York Times. And they were stolen from the Department of Defense. Let’s get this done. If the tape exonerates Obama, they should be anxious to publish it. If it doesn’t, the Times has done a public service. That’s their job.
But failing that, I turn to you, dear reader. What is to be done? We can’t send a FOIA request to the Los Angeles Times. They’re a private company — or owned by one. There must be other means.
One way is to go to the original reporter Mr. Wallsten. He now works for the Wall Street Journal. I have put in a call to him. We shall see how, or if, he replies. Another way is to find and contact the person who gave Wellsten the tape. Deborah Schlussel [6] believes that person is Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada and Arab American Action Network, an organization founded by the Khalidis. I don’t know if that is true, although I can speculate on the motives.
Whatever the case, the time to reveal the tape is now. Please make your suggestions for what to do. It will be an interesting experiment in citizen journalism to try to do it together. And, unlike the current administration, to do it transparently.
Pajamas Media
Given the extraordinary sudden turnabout in US policy toward Israel under the Obama Administration, I have become obsessed by the repressed 2003 videotape of Rashid Khalidi and Barack Obama. That tape — or so we are told — is ensconced in a safe at the Los Angeles Times building. In the current situation, its release by the paper is more important and newsworthy than ever. The Khalidi tape could be of tremendous significance in revealing the provenance of Obama’s views on the Middle East and the degree to which the public was misled on those views during the presidential campaign.
I am writing to solicit the help and ideas of Pajamas Media readers for seeking the release of the tape to the public. But first a little background, if your memories are as foggy as mine can be.
Rashid Khalidi — a Palestinian-American historian known for his strong pro-Palestinian opinions — is currently the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia and director of that university’s Middle East Institute. After Khalidi received this Columbia appointment in 2003, a farewell dinner party was held in his honor in Chicago. A videotape was made of that party where many good things were said about the Palestinian cause and many bad things about Israel. Then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama was in attendance, as were, some say, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
That tape, as Leon DeWinter [1] reminded us, was given at some point by an unknown person to Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times. Wallsten then reported on some of its contents in a brief LAT article of April 10, 2008 titled “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama.” [2]
Perhaps because it was so attenuated, that article engendered a cry for the release of the full tape. What really happened at the party? What was said? How did Obama react? People wanted to know more details of the Middle East views of the presidential candidate. But the LAT was effectively mum and sequestered the tape in its safe.
In response to a charge of suppression of information [3] by the McCain campaign, the paper’s editor Russ Stanton said:
“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to sources.”
Was this an oral promise made by the paper or by the reporter? Or was there a written agreement, as would be more proper and normal in such circumstances? The Times has not told us, nor have they produced a written agreement of any sort, even without the source’s name. We don’t know either whether a transcription is proscribed.
They have told us almost nothing. We have to take this all on faith, just as we do this risible comment by the paper’s ‘readers’ representative’ Jamie Gold, quoted in the same article with Stanton:
“More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light.”
Detailed? Brought the matter to light? I am tempted to use the tired Internet acronym ROFLOL. But let’s examine Wellsten’s original article instead. It begins:
It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
And? Well, that’s about it. Wellsten doesn’t tell us much more from the videotape or the party other than:
“a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”
One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”
That’s it. No word of the details of how Obama reacted or what he really said, other than the short quote above.
Interestingly, that sole quote from Wallsten contains an ellipsis in the middle. After the then-state senator says the Khalidis had given him “consistent reminders to me of my own blinds sports and my own biases” comes a strategically placed dot-dot-dot. We don’t know what those blind spots and and biases were and what he might have thought of them. Or how he might have changed. That, in Wellsten’s or some Times editors’ judgement, was best left on the tape.
So what are we to think? We have an administration that not only ascribes most of the Middle East blame to Israel, but also has banned “Islamism” and all related words, even “Islam” and “jihad” from our national security documents [4]. They’re completely gone. Indeed, even the Fort Hood massacre, so clearly inspired by Islamic extremism, has now been shifted into the comfortable category of the lone, angry killer. Rashid Khalidi should be happy. And, in fact, he is [5].
Sometimes I want to yell and scream. What is wrong with the Los Angeles Times? Are they a news organization or the propaganda wing of some leftover unit of the IWW? No wonder subscribers are deserting them in droves.
But I won’t yell and scream. I want to be polite. I have old friends at the Times. And what I seek is the release of the tape. Even if there is a legitimate promise to the source, the public interest now overwhelms this. Few stopped to criticize when the Pentagon Papers were published by the New York Times. And they were stolen from the Department of Defense. Let’s get this done. If the tape exonerates Obama, they should be anxious to publish it. If it doesn’t, the Times has done a public service. That’s their job.
But failing that, I turn to you, dear reader. What is to be done? We can’t send a FOIA request to the Los Angeles Times. They’re a private company — or owned by one. There must be other means.
One way is to go to the original reporter Mr. Wallsten. He now works for the Wall Street Journal. I have put in a call to him. We shall see how, or if, he replies. Another way is to find and contact the person who gave Wellsten the tape. Deborah Schlussel [6] believes that person is Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada and Arab American Action Network, an organization founded by the Khalidis. I don’t know if that is true, although I can speculate on the motives.
Whatever the case, the time to reveal the tape is now. Please make your suggestions for what to do. It will be an interesting experiment in citizen journalism to try to do it together. And, unlike the current administration, to do it transparently.
Washington Think Tank Predicts New Mideast War
Hana Levi
A7 News
A U.S.-based think tank has issued a report saying that a new Middle East war may be looming on the horizon. If hostilities do in fact break out, writes David Schenker of The Washington Institute, “fighting could take on a regional dimension not seen since 1973.” The prediction comes in response to reports that Syria has supplied the Lebanon-based Hizbullah terrorist organization with advanced Russian-made 9K38 Igla-S anti-aircraft missiles. Transfer of the shoulder-fired ordnance to the terrorist group has previously been marked by Israeli officials as a “red line” issue.
Schenker also cited pronouncements posted in late February on the internet by the Lebanon-based Hizbullah terrorist organization hinting the group might renew its aggression against the Jewish State. The statement followed an unprecedented trilateral summit / dinner meeting on February 26 in Damascus between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah.
A new development
Meetings between the Syrian and Iranian presidents have become very common in the past several years; however, Nasrallah's presence at the table marked a new chapter in the development of the Evil Axis. Little was publicized about the discussion, other than what was later posted on the Hizbullah website, said Schenker, noting the account recounted “the escalating strategic response of the axis of the confrontationist, rejectionist, and resistance states” to the so-called U.S.-Israeli threat.
Schenker also noted Nasrallah's sabre-rattling earlier in February, during a speech delivered on Hizbullah's Martyred Leaders Day, in which the terrorist laid out the new strategy for reprisals against Israel:
“If you [meaning Israel -ed.] bomb Rafik Hariri International Airport in Beirut, we will bomb Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. If you bomb our docks, we will bomb your docks. If you bomb our oil refineries, we will bomb your oil refineries. If you bomb our factories, we will bomb your factories. And if you bomb our power plants, we will bomb your power plants,” Nasrallah declared.
Recent reports that Syria has provided the terrorist group with Scud missiles capable of reaching deep into Israel's central and southern regions have supported and underscored Nasrallah's threats. The U.S. State Department summoned the Syrian Ambassador, Imad Mustafa, to “inform his government about the level of danger if the missiles crossed the border” but did little more.
Syria 'broke the code'
The Institute has also concluded that “Damascus has finally broken the code to Europe, and appears to be on the verge of doing so with the Obama administration as well. Currently, Syria appears to be in a position where it can cultivate its ties with the West without sacrificing its support for terrorism.”
In addition, the report noted IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi's testimony in mid-March before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Hizbullah was “building up its forces north of the Litani [River].” Ashkenazi reported at the time that the northern border was secure and calm, but that “this can change.”
The fact that Hizbullah continues to stockpile weapons in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, the ceasefire agreement that ended the 2006 Second Lebanon War, and that Iran and Syria continue to provide the group with illegal arms, observed the Institute, has contributed to the deterioration of the security situation in the north.
“Hizbullah retaliation against Israel for the 2008 assassination of its military leader Imad Mughniyeh could spark a war,” writes Schenker. “So could Hizbullah firing missiles in retribution for an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The transfer of sensitive Syrian technology to [Hizbullah] could also prompt an Israeli strike. Regrettably, even if Israel continues to try and defuse tensions in the north, given the central role Tehran has in determining Hizbullah policy, a third Lebanon war may be inevitable.”
Netanyahu Reassures Public: No Freeze in Jerusalem
Gil Ronen
A7 News
In an interview with Channel 2 television news, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that there will not be a construction freeze in Jerusalem, and that there is “a full understanding that there must not be preconditions for negotiations.” Our policy on Jerusalem will not change,” he said, noting that his government's policy on the 3,000-year-old Jewish capital was the same as that of all Israeli governments in the last 43 years.
He tried to play down the perception that US President Barack Obama humiliated him in his recent visit to Washington. “He is not humiliating me,” he muttered in an undertone, then asserted: “The United States does not agree with us about everything. There are ups and downs. There are difficult things and there were some even more difficult things. But there is a very strong fabric of relations that lets us overcome these problems.”
The meaning of independence
When pressed by interviewer Yonit Levy on Jerusalem, Netanyahu asked: “Why should I give up in Jerusalem?” Turning from defense to offense, he asked her where she was born. She told him that she was originally from French Hill in Jerusalem. Netanyahu, who may have known the answer in advance, explained that the current argument is over parts of Jerusalem like French Hill, which were unpopulated when they were liberated in 1967.
The United States reportedly wants Israel to freeze construction in the sections of Jerusalem that were under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967.
Asked whether he could trust the US to lead the campaign against Iran, Netanyahu said Israel preferred a scenario in which the Americans take the lead. He reminded viewers, however, that Israel had just celebrated Independence Day – and that Jewish independence meant “first and foremost a Jewish state, and the ability to defend ourselves. Israel will always retain the right of self-defense.”
Open letter to Israeli Academic Giora
Below is a copy of my open letter to Professor Giora. This letter together with BOYCOTT's letter to CRH may be viewed at http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id271.html and http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/crh.pdf
Maurice
An Open Letter to professor Rachel Giora from Maurice Ostroff
April 22, 2010
Dear Professor Giora,
I refer to the open letter to which you subscribed, addressed by BOYCOTT! (Supporting the Palestinian call for BDS from within), to the management of the Irish public limited company, CRH, urging it to divest from Israeli cement company Nesher.
Since you signed as a professor, I fear that the shallow unsubstantiated arguments presented in BOYCOTT's political appeal are unworthy of the rigorous academic standards one is entitled to expect of the university you represent. BOYCOTT's letter to CRH not only lacks rational argumentation, it employs highly emotive inaccurate language hardly appropriate from an academic. The title professor conveys a false sense in the mind of the reader that the material is authoritative, even though your field of linguistics is no guarantee of expertise in Middle East politics.
If the reader of your letter is expected to reach an informed opinion he/she ought to be informed that the $140 million investment in Nesher Ltd. is a very small part of CRH's acquisition program. By comparison, the Dublin based company, a leader in the global building materials market, spent EUR1 billion in a single year in building its international network of companies. Nesher, which supplies cement to the PA as well as to Israel and is a leader in advanced production technology was a natural target for acquisition by CRH, providing synergetic advantages to Ireland, Israel and the PA. It is with respect that I ask who would benefit and who would suffer if your effort to coerce CRH to divest from the Israeli company succeeds?
I ask too, whether you are consistent in making judgments. Does BOYCOTT! apply the same standards to Palestinian suppliers of cement for the security barrier and for construction in settlements? According to Pravda, the Al-Quds Cement Company, a firm owned by the family of Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala), provides materials to help build Israel's security barrier and constructing houses in settlements.
See http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?216867-Palestinian-PM-s-family-s-cement-firm-quot-helping-build-Israel-s-wall-quot
And on the subject of being consistent, surely you will agree that if Boycott Divestment and Sanctions are to be realistic, boycotters will have to live without Israeli input into anti-virus program, computers, cellular phones, voice over the internet, instant messaging and life-saving drugs and devices like stents,.
Most importantly, I ask whether as an intellectually honest academic, you checked the validity of the statement to which you subscribed that Israeli settlements are illegal by international law and I suggest that you owe it to your audience to familiarize them with the conclusions of the Late Eugene W. Rostow who played a leading role in producing resolution 242 and who stated unambiguously that the Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is not illegal.
For anyone who is conscientiously interested in gaining a balanced perspective on the legalities of the settlements, the authoritative views of authorities like Rostow and the late Professor Julius Stone, one of the world's leading experts on the Law of nations should be compulsory reading. They may be viewed at http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id91.html and http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id45.html
I also believe that as an academic scholar, you cannot afford to ignore the work of Canadian Lawyer Dr. Jacques Gauthier, who spent twenty years of research on the legal status of Jerusalem. His dissertation comprises some 1,300 pages with 3,000 footnotes. You may hear an interview with him at http://ctstv.com/ontario/player.php?ctsvidID=17133&show=On
This open letter is being made public and I would very much appreciate a considered response from you, which will be similarly publicized.
Sincerely
Maurice Ostroff
Maurice
An Open Letter to professor Rachel Giora from Maurice Ostroff
April 22, 2010
Dear Professor Giora,
I refer to the open letter to which you subscribed, addressed by BOYCOTT! (Supporting the Palestinian call for BDS from within), to the management of the Irish public limited company, CRH, urging it to divest from Israeli cement company Nesher.
Since you signed as a professor, I fear that the shallow unsubstantiated arguments presented in BOYCOTT's political appeal are unworthy of the rigorous academic standards one is entitled to expect of the university you represent. BOYCOTT's letter to CRH not only lacks rational argumentation, it employs highly emotive inaccurate language hardly appropriate from an academic. The title professor conveys a false sense in the mind of the reader that the material is authoritative, even though your field of linguistics is no guarantee of expertise in Middle East politics.
If the reader of your letter is expected to reach an informed opinion he/she ought to be informed that the $140 million investment in Nesher Ltd. is a very small part of CRH's acquisition program. By comparison, the Dublin based company, a leader in the global building materials market, spent EUR1 billion in a single year in building its international network of companies. Nesher, which supplies cement to the PA as well as to Israel and is a leader in advanced production technology was a natural target for acquisition by CRH, providing synergetic advantages to Ireland, Israel and the PA. It is with respect that I ask who would benefit and who would suffer if your effort to coerce CRH to divest from the Israeli company succeeds?
I ask too, whether you are consistent in making judgments. Does BOYCOTT! apply the same standards to Palestinian suppliers of cement for the security barrier and for construction in settlements? According to Pravda, the Al-Quds Cement Company, a firm owned by the family of Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala), provides materials to help build Israel's security barrier and constructing houses in settlements.
See http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?216867-Palestinian-PM-s-family-s-cement-firm-quot-helping-build-Israel-s-wall-quot
And on the subject of being consistent, surely you will agree that if Boycott Divestment and Sanctions are to be realistic, boycotters will have to live without Israeli input into anti-virus program, computers, cellular phones, voice over the internet, instant messaging and life-saving drugs and devices like stents,.
Most importantly, I ask whether as an intellectually honest academic, you checked the validity of the statement to which you subscribed that Israeli settlements are illegal by international law and I suggest that you owe it to your audience to familiarize them with the conclusions of the Late Eugene W. Rostow who played a leading role in producing resolution 242 and who stated unambiguously that the Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is not illegal.
For anyone who is conscientiously interested in gaining a balanced perspective on the legalities of the settlements, the authoritative views of authorities like Rostow and the late Professor Julius Stone, one of the world's leading experts on the Law of nations should be compulsory reading. They may be viewed at http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id91.html and http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id45.html
I also believe that as an academic scholar, you cannot afford to ignore the work of Canadian Lawyer Dr. Jacques Gauthier, who spent twenty years of research on the legal status of Jerusalem. His dissertation comprises some 1,300 pages with 3,000 footnotes. You may hear an interview with him at http://ctstv.com/ontario/player.php?ctsvidID=17133&show=On
This open letter is being made public and I would very much appreciate a considered response from you, which will be similarly publicized.
Sincerely
Maurice Ostroff
PMW to Run TV Ad on Palestinian Leaders Abbas and Fayyad
Palestinian Media Watch to Run Ad More Than 1000 Times in Washington About Palestinian Leaders Abbas and Fayyad
Ad Highlights Glorification of Terror as an Obstacle to Peace
Jerusalem, Israel – Palestinian Media Watch, a nonprofit research institute, will launch a TV ad campaign in Washington to highlight the need for peace education to help bring peace to the Middle East. PMW focuses on the messages that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas send to the population through the broad range of institutions and infrastructures they control. PMW studies Palestinian society from a variety of perspectives, including monitoring and analyzing the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks. PMW founder and director Itamar Marcus commented: “Finding a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not going to be easy. But one thing is certain: As long as terrorist attacks are glorified by the Palestinian Authority and media, a peaceful solution will be much harder to find. It is time that the PA truly prepares its people for peace.”
The television ad will run nearly 1,000 times on CNN, FOXNews, MSNBC and Headline News in the Washington area over the next month, and will shine a spotlight on some of the Palestinian Authority’s most recent actions to glorify terrorists. Itamar Marcus will be in Jerusalem, New York City and Washington, D.C., May 3-7, and is available for interviews. To set up a meeting with Mr. Marcus in Israel, please contact, Charley J. Levine at clc@netvision.net.il. To set up a meeting with Mr. Marcus in New York City or Washington, D.C., please contact, Marty Irom at (516) 567-4348 or IROMARTIN@aol.com.
The script states:
To view the ad click here.
The Obama Administration has strongly condemned Palestinian glorification of terrorists and says it imperils peace.
But Palestinian President Abbas recently promoted a terrorist who planned the killing of three Americans, and supported naming a city square after the leader of an attack that killed 37 civilians.
And Prime Minister Fayyad just sponsored a sports tournament for teens named after terror-mastermind Abu Jihad.
If terrorists are glorified, how can there be peace?
The ad comes at a time when the Obama administration has strongly and publicly condemned Palestinian glorification of terrorists as an impediment to peace. Secretary of State Clinton said in a recent address in Washington in reference to a public square in the West Bank, “... municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict. And when instigators deliberately mischaracterize the rededication of a synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem's old city and call upon their brethren to ‘defend’ nearby Muslim holy sites from so-called ‘attacks,’ it is purely and simply an act of incitement. These provocations are wrong and must be condemned for needlessly inflaming tensions and imperiling prospects for a comprehensive peace.”
Additionally, Phillip Crowley, Assistant Secretary at the State Department, commented, “Regarding the Middle East, we are disturbed by comments of Palestinian Authority officials regarding reconstruction and refurbishing of Jewish sites in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Remarks by the Palestinian ministry of information denying Jewish heritage in and links to Jerusalem undermine the trust and confidence needed for substantive and productive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. We also strongly condemn the glorification of terrorists. Honoring terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians, either by official statements or by the dedication of public places, hurts peace efforts and must end. We will continue to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement.”
PMW has published many reports and studies on Palestinian summer camps, poetry, schoolbooks, crossword puzzles, religious ideology, women and mothers, children's music videos and the PA’s indoctrination of adults and children to seek Shahada (Martyrdom). PMW has presented its findings before members of the US Congress and to members of Parliament in numerous countries, including the European Union, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Australia, and has lectured at universities and conferences around the world.
PMW material has been presented before the Foreign Affairs Committee in the US Congress and the US Senate Committee on Allocations. In addition, PMW reports regularly on how foreign aid is misused by the PA for terror promotion. These reports have led to changes in legislation and funding procedures.
On Palestinian Media Watch:
“It is my privilege once again to join Palestinian Media Watch for this press conference, and for the latest report that they have compiled about the Palestinian textbooks. Director Itamar Marcus, who has been a steadfast leader, has helped to deliver this message which we repeat again today - we must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are being exposed. That must be a priority for all people who care about children, who care about the kind of peace, stability, safety and security that Israel deserves to be guaranteed. And it should be a priority for everyone who cares about the future of the Palestinian people.”
–Senator Hillary Clinton, February 8, 2007
"The violence and hatred being promoted to children by the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks is made dismayingly clear by PMW's invaluable report. Most painful for those who desire and end to bloodshed in the Holy Land is that is becomes all but impossible to conceive of a negotiated peace with people who either teach this evil or who are raised on it."
–Senator Sam Brownback, March 2007
About Itamar Marcus, Director of Palestinian Media Watch
Itamar Marcus, Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, is one of the foremost authorities on Palestinian ideology and policy. Mr. Marcus was appointed by the Israel Government to represent Israel in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on Incitement. He has presented analyses of Palestinian ideologies in academic, cultural and government frameworks, including hearings, lectures and briefings to members of US Congress and Senate, the Canadian, British, French, German, Norwegian, Swiss and Australian Parliaments, and members of European Parliament. He has lectured at conferences and at universities and to senior security officials world wide. He gives analysis on CNN, FOX News, BBC, and the full range of world TV news.
Ad Highlights Glorification of Terror as an Obstacle to Peace
Jerusalem, Israel – Palestinian Media Watch, a nonprofit research institute, will launch a TV ad campaign in Washington to highlight the need for peace education to help bring peace to the Middle East. PMW focuses on the messages that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas send to the population through the broad range of institutions and infrastructures they control. PMW studies Palestinian society from a variety of perspectives, including monitoring and analyzing the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks. PMW founder and director Itamar Marcus commented: “Finding a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not going to be easy. But one thing is certain: As long as terrorist attacks are glorified by the Palestinian Authority and media, a peaceful solution will be much harder to find. It is time that the PA truly prepares its people for peace.”
The television ad will run nearly 1,000 times on CNN, FOXNews, MSNBC and Headline News in the Washington area over the next month, and will shine a spotlight on some of the Palestinian Authority’s most recent actions to glorify terrorists. Itamar Marcus will be in Jerusalem, New York City and Washington, D.C., May 3-7, and is available for interviews. To set up a meeting with Mr. Marcus in Israel, please contact, Charley J. Levine at clc@netvision.net.il. To set up a meeting with Mr. Marcus in New York City or Washington, D.C., please contact, Marty Irom at (516) 567-4348 or IROMARTIN@aol.com.
The script states:
To view the ad click here.
The Obama Administration has strongly condemned Palestinian glorification of terrorists and says it imperils peace.
But Palestinian President Abbas recently promoted a terrorist who planned the killing of three Americans, and supported naming a city square after the leader of an attack that killed 37 civilians.
And Prime Minister Fayyad just sponsored a sports tournament for teens named after terror-mastermind Abu Jihad.
If terrorists are glorified, how can there be peace?
The ad comes at a time when the Obama administration has strongly and publicly condemned Palestinian glorification of terrorists as an impediment to peace. Secretary of State Clinton said in a recent address in Washington in reference to a public square in the West Bank, “... municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict. And when instigators deliberately mischaracterize the rededication of a synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem's old city and call upon their brethren to ‘defend’ nearby Muslim holy sites from so-called ‘attacks,’ it is purely and simply an act of incitement. These provocations are wrong and must be condemned for needlessly inflaming tensions and imperiling prospects for a comprehensive peace.”
Additionally, Phillip Crowley, Assistant Secretary at the State Department, commented, “Regarding the Middle East, we are disturbed by comments of Palestinian Authority officials regarding reconstruction and refurbishing of Jewish sites in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Remarks by the Palestinian ministry of information denying Jewish heritage in and links to Jerusalem undermine the trust and confidence needed for substantive and productive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. We also strongly condemn the glorification of terrorists. Honoring terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians, either by official statements or by the dedication of public places, hurts peace efforts and must end. We will continue to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement.”
PMW has published many reports and studies on Palestinian summer camps, poetry, schoolbooks, crossword puzzles, religious ideology, women and mothers, children's music videos and the PA’s indoctrination of adults and children to seek Shahada (Martyrdom). PMW has presented its findings before members of the US Congress and to members of Parliament in numerous countries, including the European Union, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Australia, and has lectured at universities and conferences around the world.
PMW material has been presented before the Foreign Affairs Committee in the US Congress and the US Senate Committee on Allocations. In addition, PMW reports regularly on how foreign aid is misused by the PA for terror promotion. These reports have led to changes in legislation and funding procedures.
On Palestinian Media Watch:
“It is my privilege once again to join Palestinian Media Watch for this press conference, and for the latest report that they have compiled about the Palestinian textbooks. Director Itamar Marcus, who has been a steadfast leader, has helped to deliver this message which we repeat again today - we must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are being exposed. That must be a priority for all people who care about children, who care about the kind of peace, stability, safety and security that Israel deserves to be guaranteed. And it should be a priority for everyone who cares about the future of the Palestinian people.”
–Senator Hillary Clinton, February 8, 2007
"The violence and hatred being promoted to children by the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks is made dismayingly clear by PMW's invaluable report. Most painful for those who desire and end to bloodshed in the Holy Land is that is becomes all but impossible to conceive of a negotiated peace with people who either teach this evil or who are raised on it."
–Senator Sam Brownback, March 2007
About Itamar Marcus, Director of Palestinian Media Watch
Itamar Marcus, Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, is one of the foremost authorities on Palestinian ideology and policy. Mr. Marcus was appointed by the Israel Government to represent Israel in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on Incitement. He has presented analyses of Palestinian ideologies in academic, cultural and government frameworks, including hearings, lectures and briefings to members of US Congress and Senate, the Canadian, British, French, German, Norwegian, Swiss and Australian Parliaments, and members of European Parliament. He has lectured at conferences and at universities and to senior security officials world wide. He gives analysis on CNN, FOX News, BBC, and the full range of world TV news.
Half-way
Arlene Kushner
Or, possibly, less than half-way. Not a total cave from our prime minister. He's taken one good stand, on one very important issue. But for the rest?
It's official from the prime minister's office: the US gov't has been told that we will not be freezing construction in Jerusalem. This follows several public statements the prime minister has made lately regarding the fact that there would be no freeze in Jerusalem.
However, there apparently have been concessions on other issues "demanded" by Obama. These are not being reported by the officials in the prime minister's office -- who seem to have restricted themselves to the good news. What I'm reading comes from US sources and should probably be considered fairly accurate. But none of this is official.
What bothers me the most (although it all bothers me) is that US sources are saying we've agreed to delay construction in Ramat Shlomo for two years. This, if true, would be a sop to the Obama administration for the "embarrassment" caused by an announcement of planned construction there while Biden was visiting. Obama extracting his due, or something. Blood-boiling, for we had and have a right to build there. Young couples who need housing will be paying the price.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then, according to the Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu agreed to several other things, including: "the release of Palestinian prisoners, easing the flow of goods into Gaza, and the removal of more roadblocks in the West Bank. Israel also said it would expand the area of responsibility for Palestinian security forces in the West Bank."
We need to wait for official confirmation of all of this. Prisoners to be released? How many? Only without blood on their hands? With how much of their sentences remaining? Roadblocks removed? Which ones? And so on...
~~~~~~~~~~
But I would like to address one issue now, and that is the expansion of area of responsibility for Palestinian security forces.
It made the news yesterday that the IDF has drafted plans for a "pullback to pre-intifada lines," should our government agree to this.
In the heady days of Oslo, when we were supposed to be giving the PA latitude to manage its own affairs, we pulled out of major PA cities in Judea and Samaria. But then the second intifada saw horrendous terrorist attacks emanating from the areas where we were no longer in control. And so we launched Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 and went back in. It did the trick. And since then we've maintained the right to go in for security reasons. Nightly, we do operations that keep matters in check.
Of late, there is supposed to be an improvement in the capabilities and professionalism of these PA security forces, as they are being trained on the US dollar, under the supervision of Gen. Keith Dayton. What you've been hearing from me, and will continue to hear from me, is that these forces do not cut it. They will not consistently and reliably take out terrorists.
And here we have it as part of the news report from the JPost yesterday:
"The Post has learned that the IDF brass, particularly the Central Command, have recommended not carrying out such a withdrawal.
"'The IDF's freedom to operate everywhere is extremely important in keeping terrorism down to a minimum,' the senior defense official said. (emphasis added)
"As proof, the official referred to a recent IDF operation in Jenin, during which troops arrested two top Islamic Jihad operatives. Operations in Jenin are still carried out, the official said, despite the 'Jenin Model' program that saw the deployment of US-trained PA forces in the city and Israel's decision to scale back its operations.
"'We still operate there whenever we believe there is a threat,' the official said."
One would not know this from certain reports that extol the excellent performance of the PA troops. But it's exceedingly significant information.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, I do not believe that the current concession with regard to IDF pullbacks (if there is such a concession) would return us to the "pre-intifada lines." It would be more modest than this. And yet...
Decisions such as this are made by political and not military leaders -- the civilian government decides how the army will operate. That's how a democracy functions. However, in our particular situation there is a very precarious balance -- one that I've been watching with enormous unease and considerable anger for years: What plays well politically or diplomatically -- let me rephrase this: that a particular government may perceive as playing well politically or diplomatically -- may not be what is in the best interests of the security of the Israeli populace.
We hear meaningless platitudes about balancing the "legitimate security needs" of Israel with the "legitimate desires of the Palestinian people for a state." To "advance peace," innocent lives are put at risk, and sometimes lost. And who cares?
We should watch this situation closely, and scream loudly when necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~
I do not minimize the horrendous pressure being put on Netanyahu by an American regime that is either hostile or indifferent to our legitimate interests. I would have preferred a blanket "no" across the board from our prime minister, but I knew that wasn't going to happen: it's a question of seeing how much has been conceded.
Left still up in the air is the very important issue of whether Netanyahu will accede to Obama's demand that the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria be extended beyond its original 10 months (which brings us to September). Netanyahu has promised faithfully again and again that there would be no extension. I'm uneasy that there is no word on this yet. There will be hell to pay here if it is extended.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also to be watched is reference I've picked up in some quarters to discussions about permitting PA institutions to operate in eastern Jerusalem. That would be a horrendous, for it would de facto would give the PA a foot in our city. But I have no confirmation of anything with regard to this.
~~~~~~~~~~
And one proviso here, which I share with a modicum of reluctance: Akiva Eldar has a piece in Haaretz that says Netanyahu is only pretending to refuse to freeze building in Jerusalem, while he will in fact stop all tenders for new construction unofficially. According to Eldar, the US is privy to this, and the PA will accept it.
I find it hard to believe this on several accounts. One being that the PA would not have sufficient "face" satisfaction with such an arrangement (i.e., it wouldn't be clear to the world that we had backed down). Then there is the fact that Elder, far to the left, may promote the story that fits his perception of how it "should" be. But this is not the first time we've heard this. For whatever it is or is not worth.
~~~~~~~~~~
The bottom line here, when all is said and done, is the refrain repeated regularly by US officials that if there are going to be much needed "peace negotiations," it's up to us to give more. And more. And more. A one-sided and unreasonable demand that doesn't acknowledge what we've done.
Consider this from National Security Advisor Jim Jones:
"It is time to begin those negotiations and to put an end to excuses. It is time for all leaders in the region-Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab-to support efforts for peace."
Excuse me? Who is it that is refusing to come to the table? Why the false equivalence?
High level diplomats from Israel and the US have been huddling to work out details of various matters, and Envoy George Mitchell is due here this evening.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes, I review the news, and in response to one item after another I have an impulse to say, "Nah, this can't be. Would you mind repeating that?"
Take, for example, the information that came out yesterday that, at least for the "near future," a military strike is "off the table" for the US. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during a press briefing, "Right now the focus is a combination of engagement and pressure in the form of sanctions."
Nah, she couldn't have said that. But, alas, she did. Engagement? After everything, she mentions this again? And the foolishness of telling Iran that military action is not a possibility, even if it's true. The foolishness of not letting them worry and wonder.
~~~~~~~~~~
But this business of engagement is really big with the Obama administration. Today, Secretary of State Clinton again defended the decision to send an ambassador to Damascus in spite of the "deeply disturbing" reports about Syria supplying Hezbollah with Scud missiles. Said she:
"We have a long list of areas that we have discussed with the Syrians and we intend to continue pushing our concerns, and we think having an ambassador there adds to the ability to convey that message strongly and hopefully influence behavior in Syria."
Influence behavior in Syria? You think she'd mind repeating that again?
~~~~~~~~~~
But hey, this is good compared to some of the things Clinton says. The statement of hers, below, made at an event recently, could take your breath away. I believe she actually said this with a straight face:
"...and I sometimes look at the President when I’m with him and talking about some issue or another, and think about a grandfather [Obama's] who marched in Patton’s Army and a great-uncle [Obama's] who helped to liberate Buchenwald. And I know how rock solid and unwavering his commitment is to Israel’s security and Israel’s future."
This folks, constitutes my joke for the day. This is a "laugh so I don't cry" situation.From the Obama administration and friends I'm picking up three main themes with regard to what's happening now. One is a solemn declaration of devotion to Israel's security. Thus, for example, there is a letter that Obama just wrote to Alan Solow, Chair, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, in which he speaks about "[America's] special relationship with Israel that will not change," and the intertwining of American and Israeli security issues.
The second is the acknowledgement that only the parties can make peace, and that the US cannot impose it. Even Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel has come out with a statement about this not being the right time to advance a plan.
However, there is another thrust that simply will not go away: And that's the linkage of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, and the ability to stop Iran. That logic has it that the Arab states are so upset that the Palestinians don't have a state that they won't help stop Iran. An Iran that terrifies them, it should be noted. And Palestinian Arabs for whom they care not a fig.
Thus does Jim Jones say:
"One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas."
It's a crock. And he's got it backwards: If Iran is taken down, the power of Hezbollah and Hamas to do damage will be reduced.
~~~~~~~~~~
From several quarters I'm picking up an interesting analysis of Secretary of State Robert Gate's secret memo, exposed by the NYTimes this week, stating that the administration has no real plan B on Iran. This memo was originally described as a "wake up call" to the government.
But no, say some, this is an attempt by Gates to set the record straight for history with regard to his position on Iran -- a cover-his-rear tactic that will likely be followed by his resignation.
See a video clip with John Bolton on this:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/04/understanding-gates-memo.html
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Or, possibly, less than half-way. Not a total cave from our prime minister. He's taken one good stand, on one very important issue. But for the rest?
It's official from the prime minister's office: the US gov't has been told that we will not be freezing construction in Jerusalem. This follows several public statements the prime minister has made lately regarding the fact that there would be no freeze in Jerusalem.
However, there apparently have been concessions on other issues "demanded" by Obama. These are not being reported by the officials in the prime minister's office -- who seem to have restricted themselves to the good news. What I'm reading comes from US sources and should probably be considered fairly accurate. But none of this is official.
What bothers me the most (although it all bothers me) is that US sources are saying we've agreed to delay construction in Ramat Shlomo for two years. This, if true, would be a sop to the Obama administration for the "embarrassment" caused by an announcement of planned construction there while Biden was visiting. Obama extracting his due, or something. Blood-boiling, for we had and have a right to build there. Young couples who need housing will be paying the price.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then, according to the Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu agreed to several other things, including: "the release of Palestinian prisoners, easing the flow of goods into Gaza, and the removal of more roadblocks in the West Bank. Israel also said it would expand the area of responsibility for Palestinian security forces in the West Bank."
We need to wait for official confirmation of all of this. Prisoners to be released? How many? Only without blood on their hands? With how much of their sentences remaining? Roadblocks removed? Which ones? And so on...
~~~~~~~~~~
But I would like to address one issue now, and that is the expansion of area of responsibility for Palestinian security forces.
It made the news yesterday that the IDF has drafted plans for a "pullback to pre-intifada lines," should our government agree to this.
In the heady days of Oslo, when we were supposed to be giving the PA latitude to manage its own affairs, we pulled out of major PA cities in Judea and Samaria. But then the second intifada saw horrendous terrorist attacks emanating from the areas where we were no longer in control. And so we launched Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 and went back in. It did the trick. And since then we've maintained the right to go in for security reasons. Nightly, we do operations that keep matters in check.
Of late, there is supposed to be an improvement in the capabilities and professionalism of these PA security forces, as they are being trained on the US dollar, under the supervision of Gen. Keith Dayton. What you've been hearing from me, and will continue to hear from me, is that these forces do not cut it. They will not consistently and reliably take out terrorists.
And here we have it as part of the news report from the JPost yesterday:
"The Post has learned that the IDF brass, particularly the Central Command, have recommended not carrying out such a withdrawal.
"'The IDF's freedom to operate everywhere is extremely important in keeping terrorism down to a minimum,' the senior defense official said. (emphasis added)
"As proof, the official referred to a recent IDF operation in Jenin, during which troops arrested two top Islamic Jihad operatives. Operations in Jenin are still carried out, the official said, despite the 'Jenin Model' program that saw the deployment of US-trained PA forces in the city and Israel's decision to scale back its operations.
"'We still operate there whenever we believe there is a threat,' the official said."
One would not know this from certain reports that extol the excellent performance of the PA troops. But it's exceedingly significant information.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, I do not believe that the current concession with regard to IDF pullbacks (if there is such a concession) would return us to the "pre-intifada lines." It would be more modest than this. And yet...
Decisions such as this are made by political and not military leaders -- the civilian government decides how the army will operate. That's how a democracy functions. However, in our particular situation there is a very precarious balance -- one that I've been watching with enormous unease and considerable anger for years: What plays well politically or diplomatically -- let me rephrase this: that a particular government may perceive as playing well politically or diplomatically -- may not be what is in the best interests of the security of the Israeli populace.
We hear meaningless platitudes about balancing the "legitimate security needs" of Israel with the "legitimate desires of the Palestinian people for a state." To "advance peace," innocent lives are put at risk, and sometimes lost. And who cares?
We should watch this situation closely, and scream loudly when necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~
I do not minimize the horrendous pressure being put on Netanyahu by an American regime that is either hostile or indifferent to our legitimate interests. I would have preferred a blanket "no" across the board from our prime minister, but I knew that wasn't going to happen: it's a question of seeing how much has been conceded.
Left still up in the air is the very important issue of whether Netanyahu will accede to Obama's demand that the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria be extended beyond its original 10 months (which brings us to September). Netanyahu has promised faithfully again and again that there would be no extension. I'm uneasy that there is no word on this yet. There will be hell to pay here if it is extended.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also to be watched is reference I've picked up in some quarters to discussions about permitting PA institutions to operate in eastern Jerusalem. That would be a horrendous, for it would de facto would give the PA a foot in our city. But I have no confirmation of anything with regard to this.
~~~~~~~~~~
And one proviso here, which I share with a modicum of reluctance: Akiva Eldar has a piece in Haaretz that says Netanyahu is only pretending to refuse to freeze building in Jerusalem, while he will in fact stop all tenders for new construction unofficially. According to Eldar, the US is privy to this, and the PA will accept it.
I find it hard to believe this on several accounts. One being that the PA would not have sufficient "face" satisfaction with such an arrangement (i.e., it wouldn't be clear to the world that we had backed down). Then there is the fact that Elder, far to the left, may promote the story that fits his perception of how it "should" be. But this is not the first time we've heard this. For whatever it is or is not worth.
~~~~~~~~~~
The bottom line here, when all is said and done, is the refrain repeated regularly by US officials that if there are going to be much needed "peace negotiations," it's up to us to give more. And more. And more. A one-sided and unreasonable demand that doesn't acknowledge what we've done.
Consider this from National Security Advisor Jim Jones:
"It is time to begin those negotiations and to put an end to excuses. It is time for all leaders in the region-Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab-to support efforts for peace."
Excuse me? Who is it that is refusing to come to the table? Why the false equivalence?
High level diplomats from Israel and the US have been huddling to work out details of various matters, and Envoy George Mitchell is due here this evening.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes, I review the news, and in response to one item after another I have an impulse to say, "Nah, this can't be. Would you mind repeating that?"
Take, for example, the information that came out yesterday that, at least for the "near future," a military strike is "off the table" for the US. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during a press briefing, "Right now the focus is a combination of engagement and pressure in the form of sanctions."
Nah, she couldn't have said that. But, alas, she did. Engagement? After everything, she mentions this again? And the foolishness of telling Iran that military action is not a possibility, even if it's true. The foolishness of not letting them worry and wonder.
~~~~~~~~~~
But this business of engagement is really big with the Obama administration. Today, Secretary of State Clinton again defended the decision to send an ambassador to Damascus in spite of the "deeply disturbing" reports about Syria supplying Hezbollah with Scud missiles. Said she:
"We have a long list of areas that we have discussed with the Syrians and we intend to continue pushing our concerns, and we think having an ambassador there adds to the ability to convey that message strongly and hopefully influence behavior in Syria."
Influence behavior in Syria? You think she'd mind repeating that again?
~~~~~~~~~~
But hey, this is good compared to some of the things Clinton says. The statement of hers, below, made at an event recently, could take your breath away. I believe she actually said this with a straight face:
"...and I sometimes look at the President when I’m with him and talking about some issue or another, and think about a grandfather [Obama's] who marched in Patton’s Army and a great-uncle [Obama's] who helped to liberate Buchenwald. And I know how rock solid and unwavering his commitment is to Israel’s security and Israel’s future."
This folks, constitutes my joke for the day. This is a "laugh so I don't cry" situation.From the Obama administration and friends I'm picking up three main themes with regard to what's happening now. One is a solemn declaration of devotion to Israel's security. Thus, for example, there is a letter that Obama just wrote to Alan Solow, Chair, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, in which he speaks about "[America's] special relationship with Israel that will not change," and the intertwining of American and Israeli security issues.
The second is the acknowledgement that only the parties can make peace, and that the US cannot impose it. Even Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel has come out with a statement about this not being the right time to advance a plan.
However, there is another thrust that simply will not go away: And that's the linkage of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, and the ability to stop Iran. That logic has it that the Arab states are so upset that the Palestinians don't have a state that they won't help stop Iran. An Iran that terrifies them, it should be noted. And Palestinian Arabs for whom they care not a fig.
Thus does Jim Jones say:
"One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas."
It's a crock. And he's got it backwards: If Iran is taken down, the power of Hezbollah and Hamas to do damage will be reduced.
~~~~~~~~~~
From several quarters I'm picking up an interesting analysis of Secretary of State Robert Gate's secret memo, exposed by the NYTimes this week, stating that the administration has no real plan B on Iran. This memo was originally described as a "wake up call" to the government.
But no, say some, this is an attempt by Gates to set the record straight for history with regard to his position on Iran -- a cover-his-rear tactic that will likely be followed by his resignation.
See a video clip with John Bolton on this:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/04/understanding-gates-memo.html
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Round 2: Lauder vs. Obama
Netanyahu's close associate Ron Lauder again publicly criticizes American president, says US policies toward Israel are 'disproportionate'
Ynet
A week after publishing an open letter in which he criticized US President Barack Obama, Ron Lauder on Wednesday continued to slam the American president and his Middle East policies. In an interview with the German Der Spiegel, Lauder - who serves as president of the World Jewish Congress and is considered a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - said that Washington's criticism of Israel was "disproportionate."
"The Obama administration is blaming Israel for the stalling peace process, but it is in fact the Palestinians which are opposed to negotiations," he said.
When asked whether the Israeli government can also be blamed for the recent deterioration between the two countries, following its announcement of a plan to build 1,600 new housing units in east Jerusalem during US Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel, Lauder noted the "bad timing."
However, he said that the Israeli government has made extraordinary concessions: "It has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state, a moratorium on settlement building, and it has removed over a hundred roadblocks in the West Bank."
Lauder stressed that despite his close relationship with the prime minister, he does not act as his spokesman.
"I don't represent my friend, but Jews worldwide. I would have written the same letter if someone else were prime minister in Jerusalem. Over his attempts to engage the Muslim world, Obama has strongly neglected the relationship with Israel," he said.
During the interview, Lauder rejected claims that the conflict in the Middle East was harming American national security and said that Washington's "main concern should be Iran. The regime in Tehran is threatening Israel and the entire Western world with its plans to build a nuclear bomb. That is why Obama should end his feud with Israel."
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Ex-US Envoy Indyk: Bibi’s Refusal to Obama ‘Threatens Alliance’
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu Indyk: Bibi Risks US Alliance
Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, castigated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in The New York Times and on Israel’s IDF Army Radio, saying the prime minister prefers a nationalist government over being friends with the United States. “Netanyahu must make a choice: take on the president of the United States, or take on his right wing,” Indyk wrote in the Times. If he continues to defer to those ministers in his cabinet who oppose peacemaking, the consequences for U.S.-Israel relations could be dire.”
National Union chairman and Knesset Member Yaakov (Ketzaleh) Katz sharply criticized Indyk, stating that the “Diaspora has succeeded in creating a Jew like Indyk who is prepared to see the destruction of his people on the sacrificial altar of the masters whom he serves.”
“We survived Pharaoh, and we will survive Indyk.”
MK Katz charged that the former ambassador is “totally disconnected from the U.S. Congressional majority that [acknowledges] Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and has the democratic right to build in all of its neighborhoods.”
Indyk had previously called for the de facto recognition of Palestinian Authority sovereignty in Jerusalem, which Israel fears would be the effect of the American demand for a freeze on building for Jews in areas of the capital.
Under the headline “When Your Best Friend Gets Angry,” Indyk charged in the Times that “one suspects” that Prime Minister Netanyahu stayed away from U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent “nuclear summit” because “he does not have an answer to President Obama’s demand that he freeze new building announcements” in united Jerusalem.
Indyk repeated his reasoning on IDF Army Radio Wednesday morning, saying that if Israel needs aid from the United States, it needs “to take into account America's interests” and distance itself from the government’s largely nationalist coalition.
In both the article and interview, Indyk tried to link an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, based primarily on demands of the Arab world, with solving the Iranian nuclear threat and the American-led counter terrorist war in what he called the “greater Middle East.” He pointed out that the United States has committed 200,000 American troops to fighting terrorism while Prime Minister Netanyahu allegedly ignores American policy that the Arab-Israeli struggle is a problem for American security.
Indyk wrote that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s absence from the nuclear summit left President Obama holding the bag to take on the task of trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program that Israel says threatens its very existence. The former ambassador claimed that President Obama succeeded in “persuading China to join in a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran,” although he did not refer to China’s outright rejection of harsh sanctions, particularly in the energy sector.
“The inability to make progress on the Palestinian [Authority] issue…gives Iran the opportunity to use Hamas and Hizbullah as proxies to provoke conflict with Israel, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seen as the hero,” according to Indyk.
The former envoy also reasoned, “Nothing could better help Obama to isolate Iran than for Netanyahu to offer to cede the Golan [Heights]. Given Israel’s dependence on the United States to counter the threat from Iran and to prevent its own international isolation, an Israeli prime minister would surely want to bridge the growing divide."
Indyk referred to Israel’s refusal to halt building for Jews in parts of Jerusalem that the United States does not recognize as under Israeli sovereignty. He called on Prime Minister Netanyahu to follow the steps of former prime ministers Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, who surrendered the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and a Jewish civilian and military presence in the Gaza region.
According to Indyk, Begin and Sharon acted in order to maintain friendship with the Carter and Bush administrations and Netanyahu should do the same.
He also recalled favorably the famous handshake between former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, orchestrated by Rahm Emanuel, who now is President Obama's White House Chief of Staff. The handshake heralded the Oslo Accords, which were followed by dozens of Arab suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and wounded thousands of others.
The former ambassador also made no reference to the cold peace with Egypt, whose President Hosni Mubarak has refused to visit Jerusalem except for the funeral of Rabin. In his article, Indyk did not mention the thousands of rockets and mortar shells that rained down on Israel following the expulsion of Jews and withdrawal of troops from Gaza, as well as from the smuggling border with Egypt.
Comment: Again, another character actor enters this play-as if on cue, he steps forward to launch a tirade at our PM-please be advised he knows better but his "loyalty" to the cause overrides anything that is still decent within!!
Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon's Message for Diaspora Jews
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137092#replies
by Arutz Sheva staff
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon addressed Diaspora Jews in honor of Israel's Independence Day and recalled the many sacrifices Jews made in order to create the State of Israel, as well as
Ayalon's message follows:
This year we celebrate 62 years since the re-establishment of the State of Israel and 150 years since the birth of the Zionist visionary Theodore (Binyamin Ze'ev) Herzl. We can look around our nation and take enormous pride in what we have achieved in the short few decades since Jewish sovereignty returned to the land of our fathers. Herzl famously wrote "If you will it, it is no dream" over 100 years ago, but unfortunately he died only a few years later. His dream, a Jewish State, would, against all the odds, be recreated in its ancient land, as he prophetically stated, less than five decades later.
Today, most of us do not know a time without the State of Israel. Few alive remember the battles, the struggles and sacrifice that the early Zionists and even early Israelis had to endure to ensure that Herzl's vision would not remain a dream. Too many take the presence of Israel for granted and it has allowed us to become complacent about its role and its future. We must never forget that we are a reborn nation surrounded by many enemies intent on our destruction through various means.
When David Ben-Gurion read aloud the Declaration of Independence at the Tel Aviv Museum in 1948, the ink had barely dried before five Arab armies invaded our infant state to destroy us militarily. For many decades afterwards, Arab armies would attempt to destroy Israel on the conventional battlefield, but none were successful. Today, we can claim with pride that we have the strongest military in the region, and those hostile to us learnt that they can not defeat us this way.
Next, our enemies tried to defeat us economically. The Arab League initiated a boycott against our state when we were welcoming hundreds of thousands of our brothers and sisters from across the globe. They gave ultimatums to every company in the world, telling them that if they conduct business with the Jewish State, they will not be able to conduct business with any of the Arab states. This was extremely difficult for the new state, but fast forward today we have one of the strongest economies worldwide and we are about to join the OECD, the forum of the most powerful global economies.
After this too failed, our enemies began an unconventional and terrorist war against Israel. Israelis and Jews have been butchered in their thousands by extremists who chose their death over our life. Although no one can argue that the threat is 100 percent extinguished, we have once again managed to beat this scourge and today far fewer innocent people are being killed by terrorists, even though there are daily attempts.
Having failed on so many occasions and learning the lessons, our enemies have sought a new attempt to defeat us. This is through the current delegitimization campaign and so-called ‘Lawfare'. This may become our toughest battle yet. Our enemies know that they have distinct advantages over us that are difficult to contend with. They have an automatic majority in international institutions and have created a systematic and orchestrated system to tar the Jewish State as akin to the Nazis or the racist Apartheid regime. They prevent us from speaking on campuses, having our voice heard in forums and deny our freedom of speech because they know that if our voice is heard loud and clear then our enemies' flawed narrative will collapse.
Although few know it, or report on it, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) clearly stated on a number of occasions that they initiated the Goldstone Commission. How many of those who scream about Israeli war crimes know that they are the mouthpiece of ugly autocratic oppressive regimes? How many of those who read about the attempted arrest of Israeli officials in Europe realize that these attempts are initiated, supported and funded by those in our region who will not allow a woman to vote and oppress their own people?
However, the verbal terrorism and attacks on our legitimacy will fail just as every other tactic before it. Nevertheless, to win this battle we must reinforce education and understanding of our history and purpose. We need to further the understanding of our historical, religious, moral and legal rights. Too few of our people understand that our modern legal national rights are not based on history, religion or the Holocaust, as important as each of these are, but because the international community came together in 1920 as rarely seen before and conferred national rights in Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people.
Less than a week after we celebrate Israel's Independence Day, we will commemorate 90 years since the San Remo Conference. Few nations in the world can show such a determined and unified statement of intent for their national aspirations. When we add this to the corpus of international statements, resolutions and treaties, we will find that although we are perhaps the only member of the United Nations whose legitimacy is regularly questioned, few nations on earth have such modern legal instruments as the Jewish State to cement our legitimacy. We need to learn these facts and to teach them to others.
On this, Israel's Independence Day, many see the glass as half-empty. We have so many challenges and obstacles to overcome. However, we should remember our achievements. In a time when intellectual property will become the greatest resource of the 21st century, Israel stands at the forefront of innovation and technology. Israel's inventions and technological knowledge are making the deserts bloom in Africa, saving millions of lives through its medicinal innovations, creating alternative energies and securing the future of many people around the world.
We have continued Herzl's vision, even after our independence, and we are dreaming of bigger and better things to come. This is why we have a bright future, and with your help we can make it even brighter, not only for Israel, but also for all the people who are inspired, assisted and supported by Israel. We hope to see you here during Israel's 63rd year since our reestablishment and help celebrate the dream of the Zionist visionary that was born 150 years ago. (IsraelNationalNews.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)