"A Glimmer of Sanity"

Arlene Kushner

Just a glimmer. But I'm grateful for every good thing.

Yesterday, there was a program held in the Knesset under the auspices of NGO-monitor (www.ngo-monitor.org) to examine the issue of European funding provided to Israeli NGOs. Involved are close to 20 NGOs, many of which represent themselves as human rights organizations: Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, B'Tselem, Hamoked Center for the Defense of the Individual, etc. The situation here is extraordinary, outrageous, and completely unacceptable. As Gerald Steinberg, director of NGO-Monitor has written:

"The nature and scale of European influence is unique - in no other case do democratic countries use taxpayer money to support opposition groups in other democracies. Imagine the French response to U.S. government financing for radical NGO anti-abortion campaigns in Paris, or for promoting Corsican separatists under the guise of human rights. Would Spain tolerate foreign government funding of NGO campaigns involving the violent Basque conflict? But here, as in other areas, Israel is singled out and subject to different rules."

Needless to say, the organizations being funded do not represent genuine Israeli interests. but, rather, the political interests of the funding European nations, which tilt towards the Palestinian Arabs. They have done us enormous damage, most particularly in the international arena, where we are fighting delegimization.

"This often hidden support helps pay for expensive newspaper advertisements, such as those recently announcing B'Tselem's 20th anniversary; the salaries of lawyers involved in dozens of High Court cases about the security barrier, treatment of Palestinian terrorists, etc.; the Geneva Initiative's conferences and booklets; and a flood of statements submitted to the United Nations condemning Israeli policies. Recipient NGOs have a major influence on many issues in our lives, and on the decisions of our democratically elected government."

Between 2006 and 2009, 16 Israeli NGOs received a total of 31.5 million shekels in European funding.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/manipulating_the_marketplace_of_ideas

~~~~~~~~~~

Make your blood boil? It should.

This is just one of many ways in which Israel is treated differently, and (to put it mildly) less respectfully, than other nations in the world community. It's as if we are not seen as a sovereign nation. The only proper response is a tough one that establishes our national integrity.

As Steinberg wrote:

"Taken together, the large sums provided to NGOS by European governments through secret processes constitute a major effort to manipulate the Israeli marketplace of ideas. This is inherently colonialistic, undermining the goals of Zionism and Jewish sovereign equality."

~~~~~~~~~~

Not only was this issue discussed in the Knesset for the first time yesterday, the point is that legislation is being proposed to address it. The law being proposed would require full transparency with regard to foreign funds that are accepted. If, we must fervently hope, this passes, the next step may be requirement that the NGOs register as foreign agents.

Then there is one other issue to be addressed: Our legal system is liberal in the extreme. There is a principle known as b'gatz, which permits any individual or group here in Israel to go before the High Court and petition it with regard to anything. In most, if not all, democracies -- certainly in the US -- the petitioning party must have standing in the case or the court will not hear it. Not so here.

So, we've had ludicrous and damaging situations in which, say, Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) has gone to the court and said that such and such a group is building an "illegal" outpost on land that shouldn't be used for that purpose, and it demands that something be done about it. Shalom Achshav may be totally off base in its claims, and yet succeed in making trouble for the group doing the building. And when you consider that Shalom Achshav has no standing in the case -- it doesn't, for example, own the land that building is being done on -- and that it is receiving foreign funds to pay for its lawyers, you understand how intolerable and damaging this situation is.

The ultimate -- and most appropriate -- final goal legally would be to prevent any group that receives foreign funds from being permitted b'gatz.

We are only now at the beginning of a process, but I have some hope that this represents a step towards standing up for ourselves as a nation and taking back the authority that is rightfully ours. And I pray that this attitude may extend to other issues as well.

~~~~~~~~~~

It's painful -- seeing the tensions within the nation with regard to that building freeze. We've got enough to fight on the outside without fighting each other. And yet this is the situation that has been created: Residents and aspiring residents of communities in Judea and Samaria are legitimately furious, and feelings are high when inspectors come to check on whether building has been halted. (Note: The rule of thumb is supposed to be that construction is being halted if a foundation isn't in place.)

Some residents try to block entry of inspectors onto construction sites. Others declare that they will not obey orders when papers are handed to them. There is the feeling that what is happening is not legal. As each person having construction done went through a bureaucratic legal process to secure permission to build, it is said that these procedures now must be honored.

~~~~~~~~~~

There is one way in which this can also be seen as a positive. There would not be passive acceptance of any government decision to pull out of Judea and Samaria. Let the government and the world be put on notice.

~~~~~~~~~~

Mindful of the anger of residents of these communities, PM Netanyahu last night made a statement on the issue during the course of a talk he was giving at an economics conference near Ben Gurion Airport:

"This is a one-time and temporary decision. Just as was written in the security cabinet decision, and just as I have made clear in both public and private meetings. We will go back to building at the end of the suspension."

The future of communities in Judea and Samaria, he said, would be determined only via final status negotiations, and "not one day sooner."

~~~~~~~~~~

Well, you've got me, in terms of what this accomplishes. If the goal is to bring the PA to the table -- and oh! Netanyahu continues to implore them fervently to come -- then saying we'll start building again in 10 months just about guarantees that they will not come. (Isn't this blatantly obvious?)

Or, conversely, in the extremely unlikely even that they did start serious negotiations, then he is kidding himself -- and more importantly those to whom he is giving his word -- if he thinks he would be able to easily start building again.

This, presumably, is being done for Obama. But what the American president gains here, if it's being stated up front that the halt in building is only temporary, is not clear either. Power politics? Showing he can get the Israelis to cave? Maybe. One source maintains that Abbas had given Obama a commitment to come to the table, and is now reneging.

With it all, Netanyahu is lending the impression to the world that "settlements" are a key to peace, and is angering some very good Israelis in the process. He took the time to praise them last night, as part of his strategy of mollifying them: "they are an integral part of our people -- they contribute, they serve in the army, they volunteer, they are our brothers and sisters."

~~~~~~~~~~

That's nice. One "sister" in Tekoa, who had just received a permit to build -- after she and her husband had waited two years -- and was excited because the contractor had just brought a tractor onto the site, saw work summarily and abruptly stopped, and the tractor confiscated. She told the Post: "It's a shame that the nation which we feel an allegiance to has treated us in this way."

Activist Eve Harrow, of the Judea community of Efrat, speaking on IBA news last night, said that residents of Judea and Samaria are additionally incensed because there is a double standard: Arabs are not being required to stop building.

Harrow also raised an issue that had been raised earlier to me privately by a reader (thanks, Doris M.): It is also Arabs in Judea and Samaria who are suffering because they hire on for the building projects and need the money to provide for families. Many are hurting because their source of income has been halted.

~~~~~~~~~~

It was announced yesterday that the European Union, at a meeting of its ministers in Brussels next week, will entertain a proposal to take a stance on Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. This would be advanced by Sweden, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU.

While Britain backs this, a number of nations -- including Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland and Slovenia -- do not, and so it is not clear what form a final resolution would take.

The reaction from members of the Knesset across the political spectrum was strong, and Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin delivered a statement saying that Jerusalem will never be divided no matter what the EU plans.

~~~~~~~~~~

Members of our government are incensed by this proposal -- which, for the first time, refers to "Palestine." One senior diplomatic official cited by the Post said:
"This resolution shows that what Israel does is never enough, and the onus is only on us. It shows that the Palestinians want to get an agreement without having to go through negotiations."

Noting that the draft proposal represented "a near-full acceptance of the Palestinian narrative," that does not take Israel's needs into consideration, he remarked that, "They don't mention our issues, and when we bring them up, they say only that these will be dealt with during the negotiations. However, the Palestinian issues they put in the conclusions - those issues don't have to be negotiated."

What's happening here is that Abbas is reinforced in his impression that he can get it all without negotiations. Others seem to be doing it for him. This proposal, thus, actually makes it even less likely that the PA will come to the table.

~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, the offical lamented that while Netanyahu "went the extra mile" in declaring the freeze, the Europeans, instead of praising us, put all the pressure on us.

That final statement should be embroidered in large letters and put up in a frame on the wall of the Foreign Ministry, or, better, the Prime Minister's Office. If this doesn't finally teach us a lesson, what will?

~~~~~~~~~~

Iran is continuing to be defiant, and now today the word is that -- forget China -- Russia is likely on board for sanctions. Don't know what tomorrow's word will be. It's all so qualified.

A great deal will depend in coming weeks on the new, incoming head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, of Japan.

~~~~~~~~~~

Barry Rubin wrote the other day about the gradual takeover in Iran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"The Iranian government has generally been radical since the revolution, 30 years ago. But now the most extremist faction of all has taken over, pushing out its rivals...

"The IRGC is the most fanatical and risk-taking part of the regime. It is very much committed to expanding the revolution and maintains the regime’s links with foreign revolutionary and terrorist groups.

"Oh, and it will also be the institution that will have actual possession of Iran’s long-range missiles and nuclear weapons.

"Not only are these people nobody can make a deal with, but they are also the ones most likely to make a war some day...

"Judging from his statements, President Obama seems to have the following picture of Iran:... Iran should be judged by its past record, which has often shown caution. In this conception, it is possible to engage Iran, appeal to its interest, and find some relative moderates or pragmatists who will make a deal.

"One could argue this position two years, perhaps even a year ago. But it no longer applies. The Iranian regime has changed to become far more hardline and risk-taking."

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/11/coup-in-iran-and-what-it-means.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Rubinreports+%28RubinReports%29

This was shared by a reader, Sandra K, whose roots are in Iran. When she sent me this Rubin piece, she wrote:

"Barry Rubin, I'm afraid to say from first hand experience of my own, has very well understood the real danger in this group, and I am there to confirm that they were number one on my list of who was most likely to make the revolution last it its very outset..."

Do you think Obama has been told the truth?

~~~~~~~~~~

"The Good News Corner"

Researchers at Ben Gurion University in Beersheva have developed the Optical Spectro-Polarimetric Imaging (OSPI) instrument, which permits detection of skin cancer at an earlier stage than has been possible until now. Most of the time dermatologists and surgeons diagnose skin cancers with the naked eye.
__________

An Israeli company, Agrotop, has developed a revolutionary "henhouse of the future," that addresses both the comfort of the hens and various ecological issues.


Chickens will have adequate room to move around, access to sunlight and fresh air, artificial grass, and a comfortable "cushion" to rest on. Wind and solar power will be used to generate electricity, wastewater will be recycled and chicken waste will be processed.

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Reservists will 'Freeze' Service Until Freeze Ends

Gil Ronen
A7 News

Reservist officers and non-commissioned soldiers have begun circulating a letter in which they declare that they will cease going on reserve duty stints for the duration of the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria. he letter, which organizers say has been signed by several dozen soldiers, reads thus:On Thursday, 9 Kislev, November 26 2009, the Cabinet decided to freeze construction in the settlements, to strip all of the local authorities in Judea and Samaria of the authority to grant construction permits to hundreds of thousands of tax-paying citizens, who serve in the reserves and see themselves as an integral part of the State of Israel. We see this as a racist decision that infringes on our human rights and our rights as citizens, contradicts the rights of the Jewish nation to its land, and goes against morality and justice.



There is reason to fear that the freeze decree also involves the destruction, demolition and expulsion of residents from 23 new communities known as 'outposts'. In view of the cold shoulder which the government and the institutions of state have turned to hundreds of thousands of their citizens; in view of the hardheartedness of the High Court in all matters pertaining to the rights of Jews to their land and country, we have no choice but to take a unilateral step: to freeze our active reserve duty for the duration of the 'freeze.' Once construction is thawed again, and we go back to being citizens with equal rights, we will return to seeing ourselves as citizens with equal duties as well.

This is not an easy step; it is a painful one, and we take it out of wide national considerations, in order to preserve Jewish sovereignty on the territory of the Land of Israel.

Signed,

Officers and soldiers in active reserve duty, lovers of the Land of Israel

Comment: This is only the beginning of a strategy to pit Israeli against Israeli. Divide and conquer. where are the Israeli government voices shouting, "We are all Israeli citizens, we must stand united and stop fighting against one another"-if this does not happen and soon, I fear for the worst outcome.

Exclusive: Our Suicidal Impulses

Leslie Sacks

Is American-born Jewish liberalism pushing us, lemming-like, into the morally opaque sea of self-defeating multiculturalism? This may be the defining question for contemporary American Jewry. That over 75 percent of Jews voted for Obama, and that in the past the Democrat party generally garnered 70 percent of the Jewish vote or higher, is no accident. The reasons, however, are many – as well as counter-intuitive.With Abraham, the first Jewish conservative came into being; his belief-bound pragmatism and his quest for the survival of his (newly born) people became basic conservative seeds. In Pharaoh's Egypt, Jews developed a profound appreciation for freedom and a passion for their homeland, Israel – a passion both amplified and tested by the delayed gratification of 40 wandering years in the desert. There followed a thousand years of Hebrew kingdoms, the codifying of the laws, the writing of the Old Testament and its commentary, the Talmud, the integration of the world's first monotheism into everyday life. During this period, the Jews seemingly fought everyone (sometimes unsuccessfully) to maintain their independence; the Persians followed the Babylonians, then the Greeks moved in, and of course the Romans burned the Second Temple to the ground and banished most of the Judeans to the four corners of the Diaspora.

Thus, for some 2,000 years following Abraham, Jews were intimately tied to conservative ideals, coexisting where possible but ultimately dedicated to preserving their heritage and people-hood for future generations. What's more, the Jews simultaneously developed the most comprehensive and advanced system of laws and ethics the world had yet witnessed, establishing standards and rules designed to help maintain social stability and morality as well as codify man's relationship with God.

Then came another 2,000 years in exile where anti-Semitism and cruelty were the norm. Herded into ghettos and classified as transient, second-class citizens, Jews learned to practice the arts of invisibility, co-existence among strangers, and pragmatic survival. There was no place, no opportunity for liberalism in these tenuous times. Forbidden from owning land, Jews were forced to be money lenders and petty traders, occupying the lowest rungs of the then agrarian-based economic structures. Universities were forbidden, music and the art excluded. Politics, verboten. So Jews focused inward – on their religion, their culture and their families, always turning toward Jerusalem with hope and undimmed memories.

With the late 18th and 19th centuries, modernity arrived with emancipation and enlightenment for Europe's Jews. No longer endemically repressed or barred from science, the arts, politics, and big business, Jews flourished, with many taking nationalism's assimilationist bait wholeheartedly, relegating culture and religion
to the back-burner. The best of Europe's Jews began to disproportionately fill the ranks of Nobel Prize winners, and the world opened up as never before. Sigmund Freud, Felix Mendelson, Albert Einstein, Marc Chagall, Karl Marx, Franz Kafka, Benjamin Disraeli, Leon Trotsky, and so on.

While Hitler and the Holocaust utterly and tragically destroyed the enlightened argument for Jewish assimilation into the nation-states of Europe, liberalism remained a potent force among Jews in the American diaspora.

In the United States – the Goldene Medina – many Jews opted to throw off the yoke of repression and history and determined to reinvent God, religion and culture, dumping intolerance, racism, aggression, selective rights and injustices into the dustbin of history for all time. They wanted distance from the past, and focused on a new future in a new world, born of optimism, hope and ultimately, fantasy. In the effervescence of their new and limitless freedom, these Jews found new religion in every form (including sexual) of expression and in an embrace of multiculturalism, where every people, every culture, and every religion was equal and must be similarly tolerated, irrespective of its tenets or its apparent dangers. In the post-war period, this near-absolute tolerance for all, for everything, infused the universities, the arts and the left-wing of the Democrat Party - often with American Jews leading the charge.

As a result, many of us Jews have recreated an image of mankind without our invaluable lessons of human history, forgetting man's fickle bloodlust and his inconsistence justice. We aspire to "world citizenry" and view our national and religious traditions as backwards and tribal. Our bonds to Israel, at the forefront of a struggle against the antithesis of liberalism, become loosened in our overriding desire to understand and appease the other. Negotiation with and unbridled tolerance towards those who hate us, who wish us ill, is now the sine qua non of much of our most educated set.

This naïve fantasy not only stands in contrast to Jewish history and our current realities; it is also highly dangerous. It risks our ability to save family, country, culture, religion and ultimately Western civilization from the vicissitudes of a venal and jealous world waiting to wrest from us our latest multicolored coat, our inheritance from Joseph. Has the natural evolution of Europe's old world ghetto conservatism progressed far too deep, far too wide, making our sincere, humanistic and tolerant liberalism incapable of protecting our country, our freedom and our future?

It seems the voting record of America's Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, deeply myopic, still has a ways to go.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Leslie Sacks is an art dealer and gallerist in Los Angeles. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.

PM: Settlement freeze a one-time offer

Dec. 2, 2009
TOVAH LAZAROFF and HERB KEINON , THE JERUSALEM POST

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared Tuesday evening that the 10-month moratorium on new housing starts in the West Bank is a one-time, temporary deal, and that building will begin anew once this period ends.

He spoke as civil administration inspectors spread across the West Bank for the second day in a row to enforce the building freeze declared last week. Since Monday, the inspectors have visited 90 settlements and handed out 64 stop-work orders. The moratorium has infuriated the settlers, who fear it is a death knell to the future of their communities in Judea and Samaria.

Addressing an economics conference at Airport
City near Ben-Gurion Airport, Netanyahu sought to assuage settler fears.

"This is a one-time and temporary decision," he said. "Just as was written in the security cabinet decision, and just as I have made clear in both public and private meetings, we will go back to building at the end of the suspension."

Netanyahu said that the future of the settlements in Judea and Samaria would be determined only through final-status peace negotiations, "and not one day sooner. We need to start the peace negotiations in order to complete them, and I hope the Palestinians will stop their refusal to begin talks. They need this peace no less than we do."

The prime minister, who has come under sharp criticism from the settlement leadership and those on the right within his own party, took the opportunity to praise the Jews living beyond the Green Line, saying "they are an integral part of our people - they contribute, they serve in the army, they volunteer, they are our brothers and our sisters."

Netanyahu said the decision to suspend construction, except for public structures and some 3,000 units already underway, was taken with the "widest national interests" in mind, as well as with the hope that this would re-start peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat immediately rejected Netanyahu's statements.

"Netanyahu never stopped building settlements so nothing has changed," he told The Associated Press.

But even as he lauded the settlers, Netanyahu has yet to reschedule a meeting with them initially set for Tuesday. It was canceled due to his brief illness, which also forced him to bow out of a trip to Germany this week, and as of press time, had not yet been rescheduled.

Netanyahu has not held a formal meeting with the heads of the (Yesha) Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip since he took office at the end of March.

Some settler leaders did meet Tuesday with the cabinet secretary and the director-general of the Prime Minister's Office.

Earlier this week, Uzi Keren, who had served as the settlement adviser under former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon, quit.

It had been expected that he would leave with Olmert, but he had agreed to stay on until Netanyahu found a replacement for him. When that process dragged on, Keren decided to step down. The post is vacant at this time and the Prime Minister's Office could not say when it would be filled.

In a farewell interview Keren gave to Army Radio on Tuesday, he said he believed that evacuations would eventually follow the freeze.

Netanyahu, he said, had no choice but to issue the freeze.

"It's a tactical maneuver, not a strategic one," said Keren. "You cannot sit on every hilltop. You have to have two states for two peoples."

The moment that Netanyahu spoke of recognizing a Palestinian state, a freeze had to follow, he said. Still, he said, the government should have been more selective and imposed a moratorium only in places that it knew it must relinquish in a final-status arrangement with the Palestinians. For example, he said, the government should have refused to halt building in Gush Etzion.

Keren warned that the more time dragged on, the harder it would become to evacuate settlers from their homes.

The 2005 withdrawal from Gaza was difficult, he said, and the demolition of nine homes at the Amona outpost in 2006 was even harder.

He urged the government to find a way to come
to an agreement with the settlers with regard to the measures it must now take in Judea and Samaria.

But far from looking to engage in dialogue, settlers have sworn to fight the moratorium.

The settlers' council on Monday urged the settlements to bar inspectors from entering their communities and not to cooperate with them.

It reissued this message on Tuesday, as inspectors visited 40 West Bank settlements, angering their residents.

Gush Etzion Regional Council head Shaul Goldstein sped to the Har Gilo settlement when he heard that the inspectors were on their way. His plan to keep the gate locked was thwarted when the inspectors failed to arrive.

"Had they come," he warned, "we would not have let them in."

He said that the construction in the small
community located near Jerusalem was legal and that what was illegal was the moratorium which was approved only by the security cabinet, but not by the government or the Knesset.

Binyamin Regional Council head Avi Ro'eh, who met the civil administration inspectors at the gates of the Kochav Ya'akov settlement, said that what upset him was that the policy targeted Jews only - a move that reminded him of the nation's long struggle with anti-Semitism. Palestinians in the West Bank may continue building, but only Jews may not, he complained.

After they were held up at the entrance to Kochav Ya'akov for some 15 minutes, the inspectors were, nevertheless, allowed into the settlement.

They were able to access most of the communities even though they were met with some resistance in Kiryat Arba, Karnei Shomron, Shavei Shomron, Revava and Tapuach.

Settlers claimed they had blocked the inspectors from entering Har Bracha, Yitzhar, Itamar and Elon Moreh.

Fourteen stop-work orders were issued in the settlements of Mitzpe Yericho, Mitzpe Shalem, Beit Horon, Halamish, Kochav Ya'akov, Nahliel, Psagot, Givat Ze'ev, Carmel, Pnei Hever, Ma'aleh Shomron, Karnei Shomron, and Peduel.

David Ha'ivri, director of the Shomron Liaison Office said: "We have been receiving calls from supporters from around the world who are interested in investing in building homes in Samaria to show their support and to make a clear statement to the world that the Land of Israel is for the Jewish people and will stay in our hands forever."

As part of the settlers' continued efforts to combat the moratorium, a group which calls itself "Mothers for a Normal Life" plans to hold a conference to protest the freeze in Efrat on Wednesday evening.

In spite of the protests, Defense Minister Ehud Barak stressed on Tuesday that the moratorium would be fully implemented.

"Government decisions must be obeyed and will be fully implemented, in a way that will ensure as much dialogue with the settlers as possible," Barak said.

He spoke after meeting with reservists at the Judea and Samaria Division headquarters ahead of a session with the IDF commanders charged with reinforcing the edict to halt building.

"The Judea and Samaria leadership is responsible, patriotic and Zionist, and has withstood many ordeals. I believe and hope we shall overcome this ordeal, while executing the government's decisions," Barak added.

AP contributed to this report.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243057197&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Plea to Supreme Court: What About Illegal Arab Construction?

Hillel Fendel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com

The Regavim Movement for the Preservation of the Nation’s Lands filed three petitions with the Supreme Court on Monday, demanding the enforcement of construction laws on illegal Arab building in various places throughout Judea and southern Samaria. The illegal construction cited in the petitions is located outside Migron, Beit El, and Givat Assaf in the Binyamin region, as well as near Taibe, N’vei Daniel, located near Efrat, the Yakir Junction in northern Samaria and elsewhere.

Givat Assaf, For Instance
Givat Assaf is one example of Jewish homes coming under the threat of demolition while neighboring illegal Arab buildings remain standing. Givat Assaf was a large, empty expanse of land until just over 10 years ago, when the Ramallah-bypass highway was paved between Jerusalem and Beit El. Shortly afterwards, a continuation of the road was paved towards Ofrah, and the route towards Beit El became just a “turnoff” along the new highway. In order to create a Jewish presence at that critical juncture, an old bus was placed there and Torah studies were conducted. Gradually, the site became a full-fledged neighborhood, with 20 families now living there in small caravans under constant threat of demolition and evacuation.

At the same time, however, the open expanse towards the east gradually became dotted with huge Arab mansions – illegal and threatening Jewish control of the area but facing no danger of demolition.

It is this phenomenon that Regavim is seeking to stop. It asks the Supreme Court to enforce its own guideline, according to which the government may not claim it is enforcing illegal-building laws according to “priorities” where it is clear that no attempt was ever made to enforce the law.

The above guideline was established by the Supreme Court in a recent case regarding the Jewish outpost neighborhood of Haresha. It stipulates that the State must set a clear timetable for enforcing building laws in places where it is undisputed that the construction was carried out illegally.

This past month, in the framework of its activities on behalf of keeping Israeli land Jewish, Regavim filed another court suit against an illegal Arab “outpost” near Haresha and has protested against illegal Bedouin encampments in the Negev.

The Hebron Fund Dinner - 2009

David Wilder

Dinners, as dinners go, can be terribly boring. No, not our evening family meals together, rather the annual fund-raising events hosted by dozens of non-profit organizations. Getting hundreds of people together, providing good food, while honoring a few worthy people or families is a wonderful excuse to ask for money.But, I must say, (even if I'm not, in this case, the most objective person around), that this year's Hebron Fund dinner was far from being boring. To the contrary, it was a wonderfully enjoyable event.

First of all, I must offer much gratitude to Abdalah – New York, for assisting to make this event the success it was. It is no secret that the financial meltdown, together with the Medoff fiasco, has caused many a crisis in numerous organizations. Donations are down and it's not as easy today to get people out to 'dinners' as it once was.

But, we had help. Abdalah-New York decided to actively protest against the New York Mets' decision to rent the Hebron Fund the Ceasar's Club for the dinner. Their protest made the news, and as a result, the Hebron Fund received lots of free publicity, in newspapers and on the internet.

Of course, their protests failed and the event took place as scheduled. I have no doubt that their 'assistance' backfired, bringing out people who might otherwise have stayed home.

I must add that Citi Stadium was a wonderful choice of venue. The hall itself was beautiful, and the other accommodations just right. There was lots of free parking, and the location was about 20 minutes to a half hour from where almost everyone who attended lived, so what could be better than that?! Kudos to the Mets!

The event, was, as earlier stated, not boring at all. The meal was buffet, with a choice of just about anything your heart, or stomach, could desire. Sushi, meat, salads, chicken, you name it and it was there, and it was scrumptious. The hall provided small tables, as well as 'coffee corners' with sofas and chairs, for all those who preferred to sit. Other could wander around, meeting old friends who perhaps they hadn't seen in quite some time. Of course, all attending had at least one thing in common: all were friends and supporters of Hebron!

After about an hour and a half, the official program began. I won't go into all the gory details about the guests-of-honor, except to say that they included: Josh and Sherrie Miller, Bernie and Debbie Thau, Daniel and Tova Lieberman, Rabbi Aaron and Karen Goldscheider, and our own Noam Arnon, who was also awarded this year's Moskowitz Prize for Zionism. Anyone interested in photos and short 'guest-of-honor videos' are invited to peak in at: http://www.hebron.com/english/gallery.php?id=303. Take a look – the videos, or perhaps better put, the people in the videos, are really very inspiring.

The program included some prayers for our soldiers and for Israeli POWS. Participating from Hebron were Avraham Ben Yosef, Noam Arnon, Yoni Bleichbard, Rabbi Simcha Hochbaum, Rabbi Danny Cohen and yours truly. The man who put it all together is Yossi Baumol, Executive Director of Hebron Fund, who worked very very hard to make the evening the success that it was. Many others participated in putting the event together, and if I start naming names, I'll inevitably forget someone, so I'll just add a blanket 'thank you' from all of us here in Hebron to all the wonderful people who invested so much time (and money) to bring the evening to fruition.

So, you might now ask, 'well, it sounds like a fairly normal, 'everyday' kind of fund-raising dinner. What made this one so 'special?'

Very simple. It's not easy to describe in words – I guess you had to have been there – but the atmosphere, the warmth, the electricity present for those few hours, was really unique. I've attended many such events, but don't remember one as pleasant and as memorable as this one. And I have proof: Usually, as dinners draw to and end, not too many people are still hanging around; they've eaten, watched the show, had dessert, paid their donation, and left. But this time around, people were literally requested to leave and were shown to the door, before the witching hour for which we had rented the hall, struck twelve. I don't ever before recall guests being asked to leave.

As I said, a really really enjoyable evening. I can honestly say that anyone not there missed a worthwhile, meaningful and pleasant evening. But don't despair. They'll be another one next year. And whoever would like to still show some tangible support for Hebron can, at: www.hebrontruma.com.

Until next time…..

With blessings from Hebron.

Reality Check: A change of heart? Not likely

JEFF BARAK (former editor of the Jerusalem Post)

Perhaps Bennie Begin was right after all when he said that Binyamin Netanyahu had changed over the past decade. The often hesitant Netanyahu of the past nine months bears little resemblance to the impulsive Bibi of old, while the prime minister's major policy announcements are tantamount, at least at first glance, to a rejection of his previously deeply held beliefs. Last week's security cabinet decision to announce a 10-month freeze on private building in the West Bank certainly marks a declarative change of direction for Netanyahu, who until now had steadfastly insisted that he would not halt "natural growth" construction in the settlements. Coupled with his Bar-Ilan speech in which he became the first right-wing leader to utter the words "two states for two peoples," the Likud leader has now gone down in history as the first prime minister, from any party, to order a settlement freeze in the West Bank.

Interestingly, Netanyahu has not received a thing from the Palestinians in return. The "reciprocity" mantra of his first term in office has disappeared as Israel finds itself making unilateral concessions to the Palestinians to stave off an increasingly hostile international diplomatic environment.

And in between recognizing the Palestinian right to statehood and freezing Jewish construction in the West Bank, Netanyahu has also been negotiating a prisoner exchange with Hamas for Gilad Schalit, agreeing, as far as one can tell, to the serial release of deadly terrorists, responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israelis, and proving more flexible in his determination to get a deal than Ehud Olmert during his final days in office.

This particular surrender to terrorism is definitely not reminiscent of the young Netanyahu, who first came to fame as an anti-terror expert. While Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1985, Netanyahu wrote to foreign minister Yitzhak Shamir complaining that the Jibril deal, in which 1,150 Palestinian detainees were released in return for three IDF soldiers, would only endanger the lives of more Israelis in the future.

A decade later, in his book A Place Under the Sun, Netanyahu joined those who argued that this prisoner release helped spark the flames of the first intifada that broke out a couple of years later.

It's hard to know how Netanyahu justifies his change of approach to a prisoner release because he has successfully avoided discussing the Schalit case. In this, he has been helped by the heavy-handed use of military censorship to prevent details of which Palestinian terrorists stand to regain their freedom, which has further dampened any public discussion of the deal.

BUT HAS Netanyahu really changed as some media commentators insist or, particularly with regard to the peace process, is he just seeking to buy time and appease Washington - not the Palestinians - by minor gestures? Again, it's worth looking at what MK Begin has to say and he is undoubtedly right when he notes that the 10-month settlement freeze will not change the reality of construction work in the West Bank in any meaningful way.

The settlers knew what was coming and prepared accordingly. According to Defense Ministry data, around 2,500 housing units are presently under construction and so will not be affected by the freeze, which only refers to new building starts. On top of this, Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently approved the construction of another 490 units, which will also escape the freeze. The security cabinet's decision also permits the building of public facilities such as schools and synagogues, as opposed to private housing, and almost immediately after the security cabinet vote, Barak authorized the construction of 28 new public facilities in the settlements.

So, as Begin said in a television interview following Netanyahu's announcement, whoever thinks he won't be seeing tractors and bulldozers working in Judea and Samaria over the next 10 months is deluding himself. Furthermore, east Jerusalem, the most sensitive of all areas in the territories, has not been included in the settlement freeze.

BEGIN IS a rarity in Israeli politics, a true man of principle. If he could bring himself to vote in favor, and later enthusiastically defend, a cabinet decision announcing a settlement freeze, it's clear that he does not view this decision as weakening Jewish settlement in the West Bank in any substantive manner. Ten months, as Begin further remarked, is not a particularly long period of time, and after this date the government is not committed to anything.

Netanyahu has shown great political skill in establishing and maintaining his coalition, but he is still failing to communicate exactly where this government is heading. If he was that anxious to kick-start the peace process with the Palestinians, there was no need for him to have waited this long before announcing a settlement freeze.

Imagine how much stronger the impact of his Bar-Ilan speech would have been had he announced then his support for a two-state solution, coupled with a freeze on all settlement construction. Such a speech would not have left him in the position he found himself earlier this month, begging for a White House meeting.

But given that Netanyahu is not explaining himself to the Israeli people, it seems that we will have to use Bennie Begin as the bellwether of the prime minister's intentions. And as long as Begin is in the government, one can conclude that Netanyahu is not serious about reaching a deal with the Palestinians based on two states for two people.

The writer is a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243034206&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Joel Beinin Whines about Israeli Airport’s “Harassment” – by Steven Plaut

Being a leftist Anti-Zionist means not only never having to say you are sorry, such as when you get your facts all wrong. It also means that you have an obligation to represent yourself as a victim of harassment. Armchair martyrdom is as fundamental a part of leftist ideology as anti-Americanism and hatred of Israel. In his now-famous essay from July, 1976, “The Intelligent Co-ed’s Guide to America,” Thomas Wolfe wrote about how desperately American academics wish to feel persecuted. A pretense of being persecuted today seems to do wonders both for their ego and for their web traffic. The entire “Zionist Lobby” is largely an invention by these same people, anxious to show that they are being oppressed by an evil nefarious conspiracy. You just need to wave your stigmata and denounce the “Neo-Conservatives,” the “Rightwing McCarthyists,” and – of course the Jews. Whining about being persecuted seems to be the leading participation sport of today’s far Leftists and the radical armchair postureurs.

As documented recently on this web site, Joel Beinin, the Israel-hating pro-Hamas sometimes-Maoist professor of Middle East Studies at Stanford University is just such a persecution whiner. Here is what we wrote:

‘“McCarthyism” seems to be Beinin’s third favorite “m” word, after Marxism and Mao, and he applies it liberally to anyone who dares to criticize him. Beinin wrote a 2004 article called “The New McCarthyism: Policing Thought about the Middle East.” In it, Beinin denounced the Ford Foundation’s decision to withdraw funding from any university grantee that finances the promotion of “violence, terrorism, or bigotry or the destruction of any state.” What worried Beinin was that such restrictions could potentially hurt a “Palestinian student group [that] called for the replacement of the state of Israel with a secular, democratic state,” meaning one seeking the extermination of Israel.’

Beinin went on to declare that Bay Area Zionists silenced him and prevented him from giving a talk to a school in San Jose. The San Francisco Chronicle checked and reported that no one at all from the local Jewish Community had even spoken with anyone at that school.

Well, the good professor is back. Over the Thanksgiving weekend he widely circulated the following epistle, which we reprint for you here in full, spelling errors and all:

26 November 2009

I arrived in Israel at about 15:00 on Wednesday, 25 November afternoon to visit my mother, brother, and sister who are Israeli (and US) citizens resident in Israel since 1973. My mother has been ill, and this visit was prompted primarily for that reason. I have visited Israel dozens of times before – most recently December 2008 – and resided in the country for extended periods on several different occasions. Yesterday, for the first time since my first visit to Israel in 1965, I was detained without explanation at Ben-Gurion airport for nearly two hours and ultimately interrogated. The questioners asked questions that they surely already knew the answers to. The asked, for example, my profession and my email. My position as Donald J. McLaughlan Professor of History and Professor of Middle East History at Stanford University and my email are a matter of public record, easily obtainable from the website of Stanford’s Department of History. The questioners also asked whether I had travelled (sic) to “other countries in the region” which, since they had my passport in their hands for the better part of two hours with all the relevant visa stamps, was also not obscure information. My luggage was not searched nor was I asked any question remotely related to the security of Israel except whether I had traveled (sic) to Iran (I was there once, for two weeks, in 1970 when Israel had warm relations with the Shah’s regime).

It therefore appears that this “investigation” had no purpose other than to harass and intimidate me.

Upon leaving I was told that I would be contacted further by one “Amos” from the Ministry of Defense. For my convenience, I was given his phone number: 054-*******.

Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History
Professor of Middle East History
Joel Beinin
Contact in Israel: 054-565-2320

The main reports about the horrific suffering by Beinin at the hands of the security personnel at Israel’s airport have been on web sites run by Israel’s own predominantly-Arab Stalinist communist party and on one of its front groups named “The Left Bank.”

Now the above Beinin hysterics about being “intimidated” need a dose of deconstruction. Beinin routinely travels to countries that happen to be at war with Israel, and has visited Iran, which happens to be officially on record as calling for the annihilation of Israel and its population. By his own admission, Beinin’s passport is bristling with visas from such countries. One would expect even the sleepiest airport passport inspector at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport to sit up and take notice of someone coming into the country with such visas. Most passport inspectors at Tel Aviv airport, by the way, are teenage girls. So you can imagine the terror and intimation experienced there by the poor professor.

Now Beinin’s insistence that the airport security staff must have known who he is rings a bit curious. I did a search of the Hebrew web, and – sure enough – there are some internet mentions of him in Hebrew, but almost all of those are on the web sites of communist party and its fronts, which the airport inspectors may not visit on a regular basis. There are two mentions of Beinin’s getting sued by Los Angeles journalist Rachel Neuwirth for his posting false smears about her.

What about Beinin’s claim that being questioned about his travels in belligerent countries constitutes “harassment” and “intimidation?” (We have only his word that the questioning took two hours, and no mention at all of his being offered cookies and tea; I have waited in that airport for longer just to get a guitar case out of the belly of a plane!) Well, an acquaintance of mine named Julia is an Israeli Jew born in Libya, a fact noted on her Israeli passport, and you would not believe the hassle she goes through every time she wants to come to the United States for a visit! My wife was questioned at length and searched at Tokyo airport after 9-11 because her passport says she was born in the Middle East.

More to the point, Joel Beinin is an anti-Israel hate propagandist, someone who has made a career out of rationalizing anti-Jewish terrorism and endorsing Arab demands for Israel’s annihilation. Other countries routinely bar hostile propagandists for far less provocation. Canada banned ultra-leftist and Saddam’s agent George Galloway from entering, and also banned some other radicals. Canada also banned a controversial rap group from entering. The US banned Tariq Ramadan due to his terrorist connections. It has banned others for security reasons, including Cat Stevens, the British author Sebastian Horsley, a pro-LSD Canadian psychologist, and at least one Israeli. The UK banned radio host Michael Savage (along with 15 other people) for being insensitive to Moslems, and tried to ban Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Egypt has barred Hamas members from entering. The Ukraine banned the mayor of Moscow from entering the country because of things he said.

Now as it turns out, Israel almost never prevents anti-Israel propagandists and anti-Semitic hate-mongers from entering the country. For example, it rather stupidly allows lots of “anarchists” from the “International Solidarity Movement” and similar pro-terror groups to enter the country and then to attack its policemen and soldiers as their attempt to help Palestinian terrorists. The only two anti-Israel propagandists of note who have been barred from entering Israel in recent years were: 1. Norman Finkelstein, a Neo-Nazi who was fired by DePaul University and who was barred from entering Israel due to his intimate ties with the Hezb’Allah, and 2. Richard Falk, the anti-Semitic retired professor from Princeton who was barred from entering Israel as head of an anti-Israel UN propaganda “commission.” (When Falk arrived earlier as a private person to give university lectures, he was admitted.)

Anti-Israel fanatics, like Noam Chomsky and the Swedish journalist who recently invented a medieval blood libel about Jews stealing the body parts of Palestinians, have been admitted to Israel freely, although they never would be if I had anything to say about it. Even Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, whose nasty diatribe, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, has become the Koran for Israel-bashers and Jew-haters around the world, were welcomed in Israel for a speaking tour.

It goes without saying that Beinin has never expressed any criticism of the fact that Israelis are prohibited altogether from entering Iran and most Arab countries. Some of those countries prohibit entry to Jews from anywhere. In Saudi Arabia you will get expelled and beaten to a pulp if you have a Hanukka Menorah or a Christmas tree.

Of course the greatest irony in all of this is that Beinin was not banned from Israel at all, in spite of being a fanatical pro-terror anti-Israel propagandist. He was simply interviewed by an alert young passport inspector, suspicious of all those visas in Beinin’s passport from countries seeking Israel’s annihilation. For Beinin, however, the incident was a priceless opportunity to wave his stigmata and show the world what a persecuted martyr and victim he is. His questioning in the airport proves he is being intimidated and harassed by them damned Zionists!

EU Joins PA’s Diplomatic War on Jerusalem

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News

The Foreign Ministry warned Tuesday morning that a Swedish-led attempt to have the European Union recognize eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian Authority will backfire. The draft proposal, expected to be placed on the EU table next week, would damage efforts to reach peace with the PA and damage the EU’s standing as a trusted entity, ministry spokesman Yossi Levy said. “The Europeans must pressure the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table," he added. "Such moves like the one being led by Sweden lead to the opposite outcome."

The Swedish proposal also omits any recognition of the rest of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Government officials estimate that several EU members will oppose the proposal by Sweden, which retains the rotating presidency of the European body until next month.

Likud Knesset Member Tzipi Hotovely blamed her own government for the EU move, saying, “This is more proof that the erosion of legitimacy for residents of Judea and Samaria is the direct cause for the erosion of the status of Jerusalem.”

The draft proposal of the EU will include its readiness to recognize the PA as a “democratic” and independent entity if PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas carries out his plan to unilaterally declare statehood. Abbas has asked the United Nations to recognize the PA as an independent state based on the 1949-1967 borders of Israel, a move which in effect destroys the Roadmap plan and American efforts for a negotiated agreement with Israel.

"When I Stop Laughing"

Arlene Kushner

Sometimes I have a choice: either I laugh, or I weep. And, as my friends know, while it's not always possible (I cannot laugh about a nuclear Iran), I do try to choose the former. Without laughter, I'd lose it completely in this insane world. That said... I look at a piece by Barry Rubin. The settlement freeze, he tells us, has improved US-Israel relations. No surprise there, and nothing funny either. This, clearly, is what Netanyahu was about with that freeze: attempting to make the US administration happy, or at least less discontent.

The freeze will have no effect, however, Rubin advises us: "On the contrary, the Palestinians and the Arab states will complain that it isn't enough and that they have more demands."

Then, says Rubin, whom I respect as a frequently savvy, "tell-it-like-it-is" observer of the political scene, "In giving something in exchange for no material gain or even a gesture from the other side, Israel can only hope that the president appreciates this and remembers that he did not deliver on his promise to get some concession from the Arab side to match it."

That's when I started laughing. For, rather than feeling appreciation and recalling that he let us down, Obama has already tightened the screws. Hope? We can expect nothing from him, and any expectation that it is otherwise will turn out to be, well, laughable.

~~~~~~~~~~

Consider this report from today's Haaretz, which is right in line with what I wrote about yesterday. Israel is now announcing that the number of prisoners to be released to Hamas, if there is a trade for Shalit finalized, will be 980, released in two stages (if this progresses, I'll follow with details). However, this does not account for "the hundreds of prisoners Israel is likely to release in a bid to furbish the image of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas."

The release would be done at the behest of the American president, if reports are correct. Some gratitude. At the end of the day, we may see close to 2,000 prisoners released. This is cause for weeping and wailing.

~~~~~~~~~~

In passing I would like to mention one other possible motivation for Netanyahu to have decided on that freeze. I doubt that this was the major factor, but a factor it indeed may have been:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is head of the Labor party, has been having trouble within his party with dissidents who are threatening to split. They had been sorely discontented with the leader of their left-wing party holding a major position in a centrist/right government. Then, lo and behold! the centrist/right prime minister out-does leftist prime ministers with his offer to freeze building in Judea and Samaria.

Yesterday, Barak told his party's executive committee that he was responsible for the decision to freeze building. See? he declared to the rebels, there is good and solid reason for us to be in this government. And at least some of the rebels are listening.

All of this plays to the stability of Netanyahu's coalition.

What is unsettling is one comment that Barak made, which has the absolute ring of truth. "Everyone should close their eyes and ask themselves who would be in the government without us. [National Union MKs Ya'akov] Katz,Uri Ariel and [Michael] Ben Ari. Would a narrow right-wing government have frozen settlements and could it have begun a diplomatic process?"

Well, never mind that there is no diplomatic process because the PA doesn't want one. Barak's point is clear. And we are left to ponder precisely what Netanyahu had in mind when he chose Labor as a coalition partner over National Union.

~~~~~~~~~~

I spoke today with the Chief of Staff for MK Danny Danon, who says that Netanyahu can make declarations as he wishes about not honoring requests to hold a debate about the freeze in the Likud Central Committee, but the law is not with him. Danon has collected the necessary 500 signatures on the required petition and expects to gather some 200 additional signatures. I will be following with more on this.

~~~~~~~~~~

Iran. It is behaving as obstinately and non-cooperatively as possible, which is stiffening backs somewhat. The latest ominous announcement is that there will be another 10 uranium enrichment plants developed. The decision to do this was made, it seems, as an act of deliberate defiance. According to the Washington Post :

"Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi told state radio that Iran needed to give a strong response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution Friday demanding that Iran halt...construction of its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility and end all other enrichment activities."

But stiffened backs is not enough. What is needed is international outrage of such proportions that actions are actually taken. And somehow, that point is never quite reached.

For example, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday:

"If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself....Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program."

Time is running out??? It ran out a long time ago.

But the Washington Post also cited "a senior official" as saying:

"Iran will face a 'package of consequences' if it does not soon become a 'willing partner' in talks on its nuclear ambitions.

That allusion to Iran as a willing partner is worth at least a chuckle. If anything, Iran would be dragged kicking and screaming, but even that is not going to happen.

~~~~~~~~~~

And yet, and yet, we do seem to be at a turning point that will lead to actions against Iran. They better be taken mighty fast, and they had better be serious. The Wall Street Journal reports that discussions with regard to sanctions are focusing on specific areas that could be targeted: Iranian banks, shipping companies, insurance firms and energy assets. "U.S. officials said they have also focused on the assets of Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guard."

Iran is vulnerable and serious sanctions could have the desired effect. The Iranians are defiant now, but may face the point at which they must cave or collapse.

~~~~~~~~~~

Please see this extremely important piece by Fouad Adjami in the Wall Street Journal, "The Arabs have stopped applauding."

"'He talks too much,' a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

"He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

"He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will..."

"...There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled 'Arab street' that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

"...Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.

"The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. 'My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger,' goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.

"Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with 'the people' and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to 'engage' the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.

"On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to 'engage' Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.

"Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.

"...Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many peace plans' that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity—statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism—Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.

"...The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making."

http://online.wsj.com:80/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558300500152682.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Switzerland has passed a law that forbids the building of new minarets -- the towers on mosques from which the call to prayer is done.

Daniel Pipes sees this as a possible turning point.

"The constitutional amendment does not ban mosques, it does not pull down the country's four existing minarets, nor does touch the practice of Islam in Switzerland...

"But on another level, the 57.5 to 42.5 percent vote represents a possible turning point for European Islam, one comparable to the Rushdie affair of 1989. That a large majority of those Swiss who voted on Sunday explicitly expressed anti-Islamic sentiments potentially legitimates such sentiments across Europe and opens the way for others to follow suit. That it was the usually quiet, low-profile, un-newsworthy, politically boring, neutral Swiss who suddenly roared their fears about Islam only enhances their votes' impact."

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/11/swiss-ban-minarets

Commentator Robin Shepherd agrees:

"It looks as though a backlash against Islam in Europe by nationalist forces energized by the failures of multiculturalist orthodoxies is now really starting to take hold. There's more of this to come. You can rely on it."

Let us pray that Europe will respond now, at the 11th hour, before it is too late.

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info.

Breaking News: Tehran OKs Ten Uranium Enrichment Facilities; U.S. Government Begs Iran to Negotiate

RubinReports
Barry Rubin

Iran's government announced a cabinet-level decision approving construction of ten new facilities to make enriched uranium, defying the United States and the UN. U.S. reaction so far? Please please talk with us . This is the moment for the president to make that "My fellow Americans..." getting tough and imposing high sanctions speech, showing leadership and urging Europe to follow him. Why is it one doubts that will happen?This is not just another slap, it is a hitting over the head with a two by four. It’s getting pretty obvious that Iran doesn’t want to make nice no matter how hard the West and particularly President Barack Obama tries. There’s a broader lesson here: if you apologize, they take it as weakness. If you take too long to react, they use it as an opportunity to advance. If you make a concession they demand more. If you pass a resolution, they laugh in your face.

At some point in history, perhaps Western leaders, academics, and intellectuals will understand this. How about today?

After all, the Iranian regime has now approved a plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities (start building five; start planning five more). Get it? You criticize us for building one, so our answer is to build 10. You criticize us for building one in secret, so we do it right before your eyes.

What are you going to do about it? Come and get me, copper! You don’t like it? Go drink the Nile. And a lot of other expressions which require words I don’t use but an example has two words, the first of which has four letters and the second of which is “you.”

It should be noted that this probably isn't going to happen. When the regime starts talking about 500,000 centrifuges that is a fantasy, so is the idea of building ten facilities. It's a largely--but not necessarily totally--demagogic response. Yet it also indicates the likelihood that Iran will build (is building? has already built?) more facilities.

Of course another motive is that if you build multiple facilities it is harder to bomb them and destroy your weapons’-building capability.

The key point is that we have now reached the definitive point where Iran is clearly going ahead with its project. The engagement era is--or, rather, should be--over.
But what is the American response to this and other such developments? Here it is, admittedly an interim position, from a senior U.S. official:

"If carried out, this [action] would constitute yet another violation of Iran's continuing obligation of suspension of all enrichment-related activities, including construction of new plants. There remains a fleeting opportunity for Iran to engage with the international community, if only it would make that choice,"

How about this from a senior official at Rubin Reports: “There remains a fleeting opportunity for the international community, following U.S. leadership, to stop Iran from changing the entire strategic balance in the Middle East and unleashing decades of bloody wars and revolutions, if only it would make that choice,"

Let's be generous. Up to this point it is somewhere between possible and likely that the Obama Administration didn't understand, due to its world view, what it was up against. This can no longer be true. From now on inaction must be attributed to fear of getting tough and facing a crisis.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

Will the Real J-Street Please Stand Up? – by Anav Silverman

For a growing Jewish political lobby group that claims to represent Americans “who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland,” J Street seems to be advocating the very opposite of those sentiments.

A look into J Street’s donor list and a quick perusal through the organization’s website clearly reveals a very questionable pro-Israel policy. According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission, donors to J Street’s political action committee (JStreet PAC) hail from forums aligned against Israel. J Street’s donors are affiliated with the National Iranian American Council, ‘Stop the Occupation’, AMIDEAST, the US State Department and the Arab American Institute—establishments not exactly known for pro-Israel views.

Among the many private Jewish and Christian donors to J Street, there are also a number of Islamic and pro-Iranian activists, as well as Palestinian-and-Arab American businessmen. One such example is Zahi Khouri, a major Palestinian businessman with a Coke franchise in the West Bank. Khouri actually decried Israel’s attempts towards economic peace with the Palestinians in an article he wrote in the New York Times on September 9.

In regard to the recent Gaza conflict, it is J Street’s address of Israel’s side that truly casts some doubt on its ‘pro-Israel’ stance. J Street’s website features a section titled “J Street’s Response to the Gaza Crisis” (note, the word, crisis). The organization lists a number of statements and articles condemning Israel’s military response to the rocket attacks, calling it “disproportional,” “counterproductive” and “deepening the cycle of violence.” No such criticism exists for Hamas’s rocket warfare and even more disturbing is the website’s lack of information about the destructive impact of the Gaza rockets on Israeli civilians.

For J Street, the issue of the Gaza conflict is not even about Gaza but Israel’s military response to Palestinian rocket terrorism.

According to the J Street website, “ The right question to ask…is whether the specific actions taken by Israel in Gaza actually serve Israel’s legitimate long-term security interests and America’s best interests. In this case, J Street believes they may well not.”

J Street offers one solution to stop Gaza rocket fire against Israel and that is temporary ceasefires. J Street asserts that “Israel too recognizes that in the end, the only way to truly halt rocket fire into southern Israel is a diplomatic solution.” To back their point, J Street uses the Hamas ceasefire of 2008. “Throughout the 6-month ceasefire between Hamas and Israel that began on June 19, 2008, there was not a single Israeli casualty,” according to the J Street website.

J Street could not be more wrong in its assessment. During the 2008 ceasefire, Hamas built up its rocket infrastructure, expanded its tunnel smuggling system, conducted massive smuggling of Iranian weapons, and trained its soldiers to ultimately prepare for rocket war against Israel. Six weeks before the ceasefire was to end, Hamas fired more than 500 rockets against civilian populated areas in the western Negev region. The rockets shattered normal life for Sderot residents as their homes, properties, and businesses were heavily damaged. Hundreds of Israeli residents suffered shock and trauma as well as physical injuries during the ‘ceasefire’ period.

J Street asserts that ceasefires are “positive first steps in the long road to a lasting two-state solution.” The organization deliberately overlooks that three ceasefires between Hamas and Israel have all contributed to the strengthening of the Islamic government regime in Gaza, since Hamas came to power in 2006.

The Jewish lobby justifies Palestinian rocket fire against civilian Israelis. J Street explains on their website that the “Palestinian people nurture an anger that leads some to armed struggle.”

Not once does J Street point out that Palestinians who commit terror acts against Israel adhere to a radical Islamic ideology that teaches them to do so, nor that key players, like Iran and Syria, are heavily involved in supporting the terror war against Israel. Of course, J Street also refrains from mentioning that Hamas’s charter calls for the complete destruction of Israel.

Indeed, if J-Street was “so clearly grounded in Jewish values and a desire to support the State of Israel,” as its executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami has declared (Jerusalem Post: August 14, 2009), one would expect that the Jewish lobby work with concrete facts instead of distorting the Middle East reality to fit their left-wing agenda. More importantly, one would imagine that J Street, which labels itself as a “primarily Jewish organization,” would at least empathize with the suffering of Israelis living under Gaza rocket fire.

J Street’s main objectives– to conclusively support a two-state solution, ramp up America’s world image, and support President Obama’s administration, overrides any sense of obligation to the Jewish people of Sderot and the rest of Israel. With a $3 million budget and a growing donors list, J-Street’s work as a pro-Palestinian organization, dedicated to Mideast policies that will weaken Israel and delegitimize the Jewish democracy, may be more damaging to Israel in the long term than Hamas rocket warfare.

Anav Silverman is the international corresspondent for Sderot Media Center, www.SderotMedia.org.il, a media advocacy organization dedicated to bringing the voices of Sderot residents to the attention of the global community.
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/30/will-the-real-j-street-please-stand-up-by-anav-silverman/

Obama's Search for Peace in Our Time

The West goes wobbly on Iran.
by Matthias Küntzel
12/07/2009, Volume 015, Issue 12

On November 18, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki rejected a proposal that his country should export some 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium for further processing abroad. On November 20, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany met in Brussels and urged Iran to reconsider. "I continue to hold out the prospect that they may decide to walk through this door," explained Barack Obama, though he noted at the same time, "Over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps .  .  . that would indicate our seriousness to Iran." Russia's foreign ministry, as usual, contradicted him: "There is currently no discussion on working out additional sanctions against Iran."So was this merely the latest manifestation of the same fruitless maneuvering that has gone on every year since the struggle over Iran's nuclear weapons began in 2003? Not at all. It was not the ploys of the Iranians that provoked astonishment at the most recent negotiations in Geneva and Vienna, but rather the attitude of the United States.

Whereas in the past Washington sought to increase pressure on Iran, and Europe stepped on the brakes, today it is Obama who is stepping on the brakes while France and Great Britain push for sanctions. Whereas George W. Bush denounced the Islamism of the Iranian regime, his successor attempts to ingratiate himself by offering compliments and apologies. Whereas before it was the Europeans who packaged their failures as successful "dialogue," now it is Washington that does so.

The date that marked the high point of the old American Iran policy was December 23, 2006. On that day, the Bush administration obtained a unanimous resolution from the U.N. Security Council calling on the mullahs to cease all uranium enrichment and plutonium projects without delay. At the same time, sanctions were placed on Iran in order to back up these demands. The sanctions prohibit other countries from engaging in nuclear trade with Iran. The material effect of these sanctions is limited. But their legal importance remains considerable. In Resolution 1737, the Security Council classified Iran's nuclear program as a threat to international peace. In the event that Tehran failed to comply, the resolution for the first time threatened additional pressure under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Article 41 lists nonmilitary measures that may be taken to enforce compliance with U.N. resolutions, including the complete or partial cessation of economic and political relations, the severing of all transport connections, and the interruption of postal, telegraphic, and other means of communication.

The date marking the arrival of the new American Iran policy is September 11, 2009. On that day, the Obama administration agreed to talks with Iran in which neither Iran's uranium enrichment activities nor its newly discovered and hitherto secret facility in Qom would be on the agenda. The talks would take place under conditions dictated exclusively by Tehran. This fact alone was tantamount to a form of defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The uranium enrichment facility being constructed in Qom is hidden deep under a mountain. It is designed for military purposes, and the Iranian ministry of defense is in charge of it. So it is all the more puzzling that the "5+1" powers (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States plus Germany) have thus far refrained from referring the matter to the Security Council. It is even stranger that none of the powers has yet called for work on the facility to be stopped. Instead, they are valiantly demanding that the Iranian regime do what it in any case offered to do following the discovery of the facility: namely, submit it to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In this regard as well, the very purpose of Resolution 1737 is being foiled.

Obama, moreover, appears to have no problem offering Iran assistance for precisely those uranium enrichment activities that, per the decision of the international community, are supposed to be suspended. The context for Obama's offer is provided by a small research reactor at the University of Tehran that runs on 19.75 percent enriched uranium. Once uranium has been enriched to 20 percent, it is considered weaponizable.

In June 2009, Iran's government addressed a request to the IAEA. With the help of the IAEA, the Iranians wanted to import enriched uranium in order allegedly to refuel the research reactor. Of course, the Vienna-based agency could not agree to the request, given that the Security Council had prohibited the shipment of any and all nuclear material to Iran. From a legal perspective, the situation was and is clear: Only once Iran no longer represents a threat to international peace--only once it has suspended its uranium enrichment activities--can it again benefit from the assistance of other countries in the nuclear domain.

It is as if these legal facts simply did not exist for Obama. He is seeking a successful agreement with the Iranian regime and appears to consider its request for more enriched uranium a good opportunity. The deal that the Obama administration has proposed is as follows. The United States and its "5+1" partners implicitly recognize the legitimacy of Iran's uranium enrichment. They guarantee that Iran will receive the nearly 20 percent enriched uranium for its research reactor. In return, Iran has to part with some 1.2 tons of its now low-enriched uranium, since the more highly enriched uranium is supposed to be produced in Russia from precisely these stocks.

Tehran would have little to lose in agreeing to this deal. As the White House admits, the mullahs would be able to replace the 1.2 tons of low-enriched uranium in less than a year through Iran's own production. Nonetheless, the Obama administration defends the deal, maintaining that the export of the low-enriched uranium would delay Iran's progress toward the bomb. More time would be gained for negotiations, and, in particular, Israel could be held back from undertaking military strikes for another year. There is indeed a tactical advantage to be gained from such a delay. But it is more than offset by the strategic loss of the ability to pressure Iran to suspend its enrichment activities.

Up until September 2009, one could have the impression that Obama wanted to use patient diplomacy in order to convince the international community of the inevitability of massive sanctions. He appears now to have let the Islamist regime have its way on the decisive issue: the production of enriched uranium. Instead, of focusing on this issue, the Obama administration seems to focus now on secondary matters that actually presuppose that Iran's enrichment facilities will be active, such as tighter monitoring of the facilities and of the export and import of uranium.

Why is America easing the pressure on the despotic and crisis-ridden Iranian regime? Or, as the Jerusalem Post put it in a November 1 headline, "Why does the U.S. insist on playing Iran's game?"

A partial answer is provided by a look back at the European and German obstructionism that has prevented effective sanctions against Iran for many years. Already in the 1990s, Germany foiled American attempts to use economic pressure to dissuade Iran from pursuing its nuclear projects. Hossein Mousavian was then the Iranian ambassador to Berlin. In his memoirs, Mousavian writes that "Iranian decision-makers were well aware of Germany's significant role in breaking the economic chains with which the United States had surrounded Iran." Tehran, according to Mousavian, "viewed its dialogue and relations with Germany as an important means toward the circumvention of the anti-Iranian policies of the United States."

In 2003, it became known that Tehran had been running a secret nuclear program for some 18 years and had thus violated the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States pressed for the referral of the matter to the Security Council. Under the IAEA statute, the Iranian violation had indeed to be taken up by the U.N. Security Council by November 2003 at the latest. But Germany, France, and Great Britain delayed the referral until March 2006: 28 months that the Iranian regime used to rapidly develop its nuclear facilities. In September 2004, the German foreign minister Joschka Fischer captured the nature of the European assistance in a revealing remark. "We Europeans," he said, "have always advised our Iranian partners that it is in their considered self-interest to regard us as a protective shield."

Nonetheless, in December 2006, American diplomacy achieved its important success with the unanimous passage of Resolution 1737 by the Security Council. At this point, however, America's German ally again "ran from the flag," as the Washington correspondent of Germany's leading daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, put it. The Security Council had given the mullahs a deadline to comply with its demands. In February 2007, the deadline passed. Iran didn't budge. Everything depended on how the "5+1" would react to its intransigence. Would they back off, thus undermining the credibility of the U.N.? Or would they do what the U.N. Charter requires in such cases: continually tighten the sanctions until Tehran was forced to change its behavior? It was then that the German government broke ranks with France, Great Britain, and America in order to join Russia and China in preventing tougher sanctions. The "fateful friendship" between Germany and Iran again won out over the alliance with Washington.

The many years of obstructionism appear to have taken their toll and contributed to Washington's abandonment of its earlier determination to bring the Iranian nuclear program to a halt. But this alone is not sufficient to explain the conciliatory turn of the Obama administration's Iran policy.

Obviously, the new American president would like to be better loved by the global public than his predecessors. Obama sees himself as the anti-Bush. He personifies the attempt to placate anti-Americanism through concessions to America's enemies. He does not want to disappoint the hopes for peace that he repeatedly raises in his speeches and that won him his hollow Nobel Prize. Since Tehran will not change, he prefers to change his view of the Iranian regime. "This is not about singling out Iran," Obama insisted after the negotiations in Geneva. "This is not about creating double standards." The president sounded as if he were trying to convince himself and convince the world that the mullahs' regime is a government like any other.

The West is not deterring the mullahs. Instead, the mere prospect of their nuclear capability is deterring the West. Ahmadinejad and his friends sense their chance. They are putting pressure on the democratic nations to drop Israel in exchange for a tempering of Tehran's hostility. They are using the entire repertoire of intimidation, ridicule, and insult in an attempt to transform the Jewish state into what the Czech Sudetenland was for France and Great Britain in 1938: the price to be paid for "peace in our time."

Similar mechanisms led British prime minister Neville Chamberlain to acquiesce to the Munich Accord that ceded the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany. Chamberlain felt the pressure of the memory of the First World War, while today the memory of the (far less costly) Iraq war weighs on Obama. Chamberlain was well aware of the pacifist mood in Europe that would gain expression in the euphoric celebrations after the signing of the agreement. Of course, Chamberlain wanted to prevent a war. But his policy resulted in the opposite of what it aimed to accomplish. Obama does not want war either. But it is to war that his present approach is leading.

Whereas Chamberlain's policy led to a conventional war, the current policy of the Obama administration is conjuring up the threat of a nuclear war. Nobody can be sure that a nuclear-armed Iran will allow itself to be disarmed and deprived of its power without using its nuclear weapons. In that case, the world may be faced with the choice of either submitting to Islamism or defeating it--albeit at an unimaginable price.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provides no protection against such a scenario. In the first place, the treaty allows the parties to it to obtain the components for nuclear weapons while being monitored by the IAEA. Second, the inspections regime established by the treaty depends upon the good will of the monitored states. This good will is lacking in the case of Iran. Third, the treaty contains a clause that permits state parties legally to withdraw from it. Neither the tightening of IAEA inspections--which the Iranian regime can unilaterally renounce whenever it wants--nor Obama's assistance plan provides any form of assurance.

There is only one thing that can prevent the building of the Iranian bomb: the shutting down or destruction of the facilities that are producing the nuclear materials for it. But this will only be possible if the American administration revises its present course.

Matthias Küntzel, a Hamburg-based political scientist, is the author most recently of The Germans and Iran: The Past and Present of a Fateful Friendship (in German). John Rosenthal translated this article from German.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=17275&R=163FA14218

The Region: More, more, more!

Barry Rubin , THE JERUSALEM POST

Finally, we know the terms of the US-Israel agreement on freezing construction in West Bank settlements. It is a good plan and represents a considerable, well-crafted, albeit unilateral, concession by Israel. No licenses will be granted or apartments started in the West Bank for the next 10 months. And Israel doesn't consider east Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank. The US government praised the decision; after all it was pretty much what President Barack Obama has been trying to obtain for nine months and has worked hard to negotiate. "We believe the steps announced by the prime minister are significant and could have substantial impact on the ground," said George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East special envoy.

But, of course, it will have no impact whatsoever. On the contrary, the Palestinians and the Arab states will complain that it isn't enough, that it doesn't mean anything, and that they have more demands. Their openly stated demand is that Israel just hand over all the West Bank and east Jerusalem in exchange for nothing.

In giving something in exchange for no material gain or even a gesture from the other side, Israel can only hope that the president appreciates this and remembers that he did not deliver on his promise to get some concession from the Arab side to match it.

But will it be appreciated and even kept by the Obama administration? Will the world give Israel any credit for making one more effort to show that it wants peace? Is it going to be widely understood as demonstrating - unfortunately - that the other side doesn't? Is this going to affect the knee-jerk media view of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as "hard-line"?

Probably, not but it's worth a try. Obama will be president another three to seven years and he should be shown that Israel wants peace and is willing to cooperate with his efforts to a reasonable extent.

But that's also why there's a time limit. It's not a high price to pay for keeping the US happy and showing Obama that Israel wants peace, is cooperative and is willing to make him look good. Certainly, it won't please the Palestinians.

FOR REASONS different from what you might think, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is not so happy. He's complained in an interview that Obama is "doing nothing right now" regarding the peace process."I hope he'll take a more important role in the future," Abbas said. The Palestinians "are waiting for the United States to put pressure on Israel so it respects international law, so it takes up the road map... It can do two things: put pressure on the Israelis so they reject settlements, and put pressure so they accept withdrawing to the 1967 borders."

Can you see the humor in this? Here's Obama who campaigned and continues to say that his predecessor was "doing nothing" on the issue and that's why it hadn't been solved. Could Obama have possibly tried harder? He made it his most outspoken issue, talked about it constantly, met with leaders, put forward plans, pressured Israel, reached a deal with Israel that involved considerable Israeli concessions and asked for - but didn't receive - Arab help.

Could the lesson be more obvious? The problem isn't Obama or Netanyahu, it's Abbas. He is the one refusing to negotiate and is making a president who promised talks within two months look bad.

Why is Abbas behaving this way: because he's frustrated that progress isn't being made? This claim is rather ironic since he's the one blocking progress. The real reason is that he wants Obama to get him everything he wants without him making any compromises or concessions.

It isn't going to happen. And the Palestinians, Arabs in general and many Muslims will blame Obama. This must be a shock to him since he'd have tried so hard and bent over backwards to make them happy. And this disrespect is coming from Abbas, leader of the group which Obama has tried hardest to help.

Ironically, too, this is the first real foreign policy success for the Obama administration after 10 months in office. Yet the White House isn't eager - or not likely to be successful - in so claiming since so many people never want to credit Israel's compromises. Once Arab sources criticized Hillary Clinton's enthusiasm, the administration backed down in its praise and looked for still new, albeit small, ways to show that it is tough on Israel.

Objectively, though, bilateral relations are good, due in no small part to this step.

If the Palestinian side was sincere about negotiating and making peace, it would respond rationally.

Okay, they could say, it is only for 10 months but we can use that period to make so much progress that it will be extended. Even better, they could understand that if they made a peace treaty and got a state, there wouldn't be any more settlements in the territory they would be ruling (though there would be on land swapped with Israel).

But, of course, Abbas and the PA don't intend to do anything serious diplomatically in the next 10 months, or 20, or 30. All Abbas wants is that the United States force Israel to "accept withdrawing to the 1967 borders" and give up demands for settling Palestinians only in Palestine, not Israel.

Let's all watch, see and draw appropriate conclusion about what actually happens. And for those who didn't learn this lesson the last half-dozen times - most importantly from the fate of the 1990s' peace process, Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon, Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip - this can be a less costly way of understanding that it is the Palestinian side that is blocking peace and that support for Israel is the proper response to this situation.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243034176&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

The “Coup” in Iran and What it Means

RubinReports
Barry Rubin

For a couple of years it has been visible; for months the opposition has been talking about it. What’s happening is the gradual takeover of a huge amount of power by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The Iranian government has generally been radical since the revolution, 30 years ago. But now the most extremist faction of all has taken over, pushing out its rivals. Of course, Spiritual Guide Ali Khamenei is the most powerful man in Iran. But obviously he has no problem with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being president and the IRGC becoming the power behind the throne.

This is important because the IRGC is the most fanatical and risk-taking part of the regime. It is very much committed to expanding the revolution and maintains the regime’s links with foreign revolutionary and terrorist groups.

Oh, and it will also be the institution that will have actual possession of Iran’s long-range missiles and nuclear weapons.

Not only are these people nobody can make a deal with, but they are also the ones most likely to make a war some day.

The BBC reports that the IRGC now controls one-third of Iran’s economy, either openly or through front groups. This is probably too high. But more than one-third is controlled either by the IRGC or foundations under the control of regime hardliners so the basic idea isn’t far off. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has been appointing former IRGC commanders to a lot of top jobs, including cabinet ministries and provincial governorships.

Now the group has won a $2.5 billion contract to build a big railroad project. And the IRGC is taking control of intelligence, running key prisons, and taking custody of political prisoners.

This is one reason why foreign observers can underestimate the regime's stability. With the IRGC playing such a central role, so well-armed, united, and ready to fight, any serious threat of a revolution or internal collapse would be blocked, no matter how much bloodshed it takes. The opposition and those critical of the regime are also aware of that fact.

Another reason why this is important regards Iran's intentions after getting nuclear weapons. Whether or not it would fire off such armaments, Iran will certainly use them to become more powerful, threatening, and influential throughout the region. The loser here will be the United States, its interests, and policies.

Judging from his statements, President Obama seems to have the following picture of Iran: There are many factions; the supreme guide really runs the show; Ahmadinejad is just a noisy front-man without much power. Iran should be judged by its past record, which has often shown caution. In this conception, it is possible to engage Iran, appeal to its interest, and find some relative moderates or pragmatists who will make a deal.

One could argue this position two years, perhaps even a year ago. But it no longer applies. The Iranian regime has changed to become far more hardline and risk-taking.

My personal view is that Khamenei is preparing for his departure from the scene by putting the revolution into the hands of those who he trusts not to dilute it. While Iran is a country of endless factional bickerings, this analysis means that the power of Ahmadinejad and the IRGC will grow greater in the coming years. That provides still another reason why soft diplomacy won't work and that a world where Iran--meaning Ahmadinejad and the IRGC--have nuclear weapons and long-range missiles is far more dangerous.

That doesn't mean that Iran will immediately attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Even in the radical worldview that would be foolish. What is more likely is that Iran will systematically try to turn much of the region into Islamist satellite states, putting off any confrontation with Israel to the future. (This is parallel to the strategy of Arab nationalist regimes--despite their 1967 miscalculation and 1973 attempt at revenge--over the last half-century.)

Do you think the Arab states will choose to appease Iran or stand firm in the belief that President Barack Obama will go to war on their behalf?


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).