Daled Amos

Video: Latma--Obama Administration Guarantees Peace With Egypt

2012-01-27T12:15:00.000-05:00

As Shabbos approaches, here is the latest edition of Latma.
Enjoy:

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East and Egypt and Obama.

The Middle East Media Sampler 1/27/2012: Anti-Semitism Back In Style

2012-01-27T11:41:00.001-05:00

From DG:

1) The fault lines of the 'Arab Spring'

Jonathan Spyer in PJMedia 'Arab Spring' leaves a weakened Hezbollah:

This investment in the survival of Assad indicates which of the four aspects of Hezbollah’s identity mentioned above are most important to it. The link with the Iran-led alliance and maintaining the ability to wage war against Israel are the cardinal interests. To maintain these, Hezbollah has to a great extent sacrificed its more nebulous self-image as a leader of pan-Islamic “resistance.” Syrian Sunnis leading the uprising against Assad now count Hezbollah among their enemies. The movement’s flag has been burnt at opposition rallies.

So the uprising in Syria has served to remove the veil of “resistance” from the face of Hezbollah. The sectarian visage beneath has been revealed. Hezbollah has been exposed as a sectarian, Iran-aligned Shia force, backing a vicious, non-Sunni dictatorship in its war against its own, largely Sunni people.

Polls show the resulting disappearance of the high regard in which Hezbollah was once held across the Arab world.
Guy Bechor in Ynet, Hamas in deep trouble (h/t Challah Hu Akbar):

Nothing stopped Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister in Gaza, from making Ahmadinejad-style declarations that Israel’s days are numbered and calling for the establishment of an Arab Jihad army for Palestine’s liberation. Yet behind the pretentious slogans lies a grim reality for Hamas that can no longer be hidden.

First, Hamas’ alliance with Iran has come to an end. This pact was unnatural to begin with, given that we saw a Sunni organization endorsing a non-Arab Shiite state. Yet when Hamas refused Iran’s orders to support the fading Bashar Assad, Tehran shut its door to the group. What’s worse, the flow of money used by Hamas to pay some 50,000 officials and troops in Gaza has ended.
Hugh Naylor in The National Hamas Attack on Gaza Shiites May Indicate Political Shift(h/t Daily Alert)

Saturday's crackdown on Shiites - occurring as Hamas dismantles its headquarters in Damascus amid Syrian president Bashar Al Assad's political troubles - is an obvious affront to its long-time patron and may be a sign that one strut of that axis is rickety.

It also may be an indication that the tectonic political shifts underway since the Arab Spring erupted last year may be affecting the Gaza Strip.

"Because Hamas is straying from this Hizbollah-Syria relationship, that means they are freer to do these kinds of things," said Hani Habib, a political analyst and writer, who lives in Gaza.
Hamas might not suffer long term ill effects from losing its Iranian sponsor, with the Sinai being a new front, Hamas should be able to get significant new sources of financing and weaponry. Hezbollah's situation would appear to be a bit more tenuous.

Finally, there's Michael Segall's Iran: The Syrian Highway in the Fight Against Israel Is Still Open:

For as long as it lasts the crisis in Syria will manifest the inter-Arab fault line of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vs. Syria, and deepen the Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shiite, and historical Persian-Turkish (Ottoman) fault lines. Parallel to the metahistorical processes is the ongoing weakening of the United States in the Middle East and the rise of Islamic regimes that, albeit mostly Sunni, are much closer to Iran than to America. From Tehran's standpoint, the real challenge is Turkey, as illustrated by the crisis with Syria. Turkey sees what is happening in Syria - its backyard - as part of the Arab Spring and calls on the president to respond to the will of the people, while Iran keeps backing Bashar and claims the Arab Spring is just a pretext to get rid of him. Both of these states have a superpower-imperialist past they would like to bring back, and will continue their dispute as the Middle Eastern tumult intensifies and even when the dust of the "Arab revolutions" settles.

Both, with their apparent Islamic agenda, are competing for the same public, but still a wide gap yawns between them.

Iran appears to be at an advanced stage of reshaping what it calls the resistance camp. The fall of one of its mainstays, the Assad regime, would affect Iran's ability to help Hizbullah in "real time" in the event of another round of hostilities with Israel, and the freedom of action of the Hamas headquarters in Damascus. Yet, at the same time, opportunities will open for Iran in the region. In its view, the electoral victories of the Islamic forces (even if Sunni) and the possibility of communicating with them without fear of governmental repression - particularly in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, while in eastern Saudi Arabia the Shiite minority is still under tight control - opens for Tehran a new range of ideology-driven opportunities. As in the past, the common denominator around which it seeks to unite all members of the camp is hatred of the West and Israel. Here, Iran's rhetoric about the Syrian crisis, which it portrays as an attempt to harm a central Arab actor that has operated against Israel and has paid and is paying a price for its actions, plays a salient role.

Iran will try to consolidate the resistance camp in accordance with the changing geostrategic conditions of the region. In the first stage, it will work to widen the camp's ideological reach to include both a religious basis of Islam and an ideological-political basis of hatred of Israel and the United States. As for the practical aspects of the struggle against Israel, Iran will continue to leave them in the hands of Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, attempting to broaden the scope of military-terrorist conflict with Israel in the future. Meanwhile, Iran is assigning an important role to its nuclear program and to formulating an appropriate deterrence concept that will be combined with its current "resistance camp" doctrine.
As the Muslim Brotherhood and its associated movement gain strength Shi'ite Iran holds less interest for the newly dominant Sunni Islamists coming to power. Colin Kahl writes:

When Mubarak fell, Iran's leaders moved out with swagger. They saw one pivotal U.S. ally gone, and perceived an opportunity to exploit unrest to undermine other pro-Western regimes, especially Saudi Arabia. They sought to develop contacts with Islamists in Egypt and Libya, expand ties to opposition movements in Yemen, and capitalize on the indigenous Shiite protests in Bahrain. And Iran's leaders seemed confident that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, Tehran's state ally in the Middle East, was immune from the populist wave because of its militant stance toward Israel and the United States.

One year later, however, it is hard to find evidence that Iran has benefited from the Arab uprisings. In fact, Iran's regional position has taken a big hit. With the partial exception of Yemen, Tehran has struggled to build new networks of influence with emerging Islamist actors. Meanwhile, Assad's regime has been thoroughly delegitimized, expelled from the Arab League, and is wobbling in the face of nationwide protests. This, in turn, has created considerable anxiety for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that constitutes Iran's chief non-state ally.

The perception of Iranian meddling has also decimated Tehran's "soft power" appeal across the Arab world. Surveys conducted in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates by Zogby International show Iran's reputation in free fall since the Arab Spring began. Just a few years ago, Iran enjoyed a strong majority of support among the populations of all these countries; as of July 2011, Iran had a net unfavorable rating in every country but Lebanon.
2) Pre-occupation with occupation

UN Watch asked a spokesman for the UN if Gaza was still occupied. The response was not encouraging, though hardly surprising.:

Furthermore, there is a resolution from the General Assembly from 20 December 2010, and while it noted the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank, it also stressed, in quotes, “the need for respect and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. So just to repeat that the United Nations will continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory until either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view on the matter.
Elder of Ziyon recently attended a lecture given by Prof. Eugene Kontorovich that addressed this very issue. Toward the end, Elder of Ziyon presents this summary of Kontorovich's conclusions:

Kontorovich didn't get into the issue of Gaza, which may seem to be a problem since it has a different government, but he argues that since Area A is unquestionably part of what is claimed to be Palestine, that West Bank entity is undoubtedly a state. Having defined territory is not the same as having defined borders, and "Palestine" has st least some territory that it can call its own.

Therefore, the professor says, the entire issue nowadays between Israel and the Palestinian Arab state is not an issue of occupation or legality - it is simply a border dispute that must be resolved the way all border disputes are resolved (or not.)
The UN seems intent on maintaining the Palestinians' grievances against Israel. It is those who deny Israel's many concrete concessions over the past 18+ years and who attach importance to a phony definition of "occupation" who are undermining peace and keeping the conflict alive.

3) The ugly American Jewish supporters of Israel

The AP has a generally unflattering profile of Sheldon Adelson, perhaps Newt Gingrich's largest individual donor (actually he doesn't give to Gingrich directly but to his related PAC),Gingrich’s biggest benefactor is a casino mogul, a hardliner on Israel and very, very rich. The article observes:

No other candidate in the race for president appears to be relying so heavily on the fortune of a single donor. It’s been made possible by last year’s Supreme Court rulings — known as Citizens United — that recast the political landscape by stripping away restrictions on contributions and how outside groups can spend their money.

Sheldon Adelson is Citizens United come to life.

“The bottom line is that it creates that potential for one person to have far more influence than any one person should have,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance watchdog group Democracy 21.
In addition to portraying Adelson as extreme here the article accuses him of (legal) corruption. Is there any evidence for Wertheimer's charge? Of course not. In the The mainstreaming of antisemitism, Meryl Yourish writes:

This is how modern anti-Semitism works. In the shadows of the mainstream press, with the wink-wink nudge-nudges of innuendo and reading between the lines. Sheldon Adelson has bought and paid for a candidate who is running for president, and it’s clear that the quid pro quo will be Israel. Watch for Andrew Sullivan and his progressive brothers-in-arms to wave this news article like a flag on how Israel is controlling America.
A brother in arms, Wayne Barrett has done exactly that at the Daily Beast. (h/t Lauri Regan)
Of course the Jewish American press has been up in arms over this viciousness. Actually it hasn't. The Forward's Gal Beckerman piles on with the offensive What Sheldon's money buys, which isn't appreciably different from the AP article.

Generally when the subject is Jewish support for Israel, the media is willing to engage in all sorts of innuendo, suggesting that support for Israel is based on ignorance, misplaced priorities or even dual loyalty. Prior to the Democratic primary in Florida four years ago, Jodi Kantor of the New York Times wrote, As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts:

Because of a dispute over moving the date of the state’s primary, Mr. Obama and the other Democratic candidates did not campaign in Florida. In his absence, novel and exotic rumors about Mr. Obama have flourished. Among many older Jews, and some younger ones, as well, he has become a conduit for Jewish anxiety about Israel, Iran, anti-Semitism and race.

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.)
He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)
The gist of the article is that the only reason Jews wouldn't vote for Obama was out of ignorance. The tone of the article was extremely condescending.

Back in 2003, a former managing editor of the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser wrote Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy. Despite the anodyne sounding headline, the article asserted:

Since then, U.S. policy has been in step with Sharon's. The peace process is "quiescent," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's special envoy to the region. "I've kind of gone dormant," he added. In December Bush appointed an articulate, hard-line critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council.

"The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official, using a Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party. Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by his boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, by Vice President Cheney and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said.

Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration who was convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal, then pardoned by President George H.W. Bush. In October 2000, Abrams wrote: "The Palestinian leadership does not want peace with Israel, and there will be no peace."
Later on the article suggested that support for Israel was also tied to support for attacking Iraq. While many American supporters of Israel did support the second Gulf War, official Israel didn't see Saddam as an immediate threat. Kaiser didn't consider the merits of the Israeli arguments, just that the administration was following Israeli or neo-conservative dictates. Pat Buchanan cited Kaiser as proof that Jews were leading the United States into war against its own interests.

The trend Meryl Yourish observed of grossly overstating Jewish influence in politics and ascribing sinister motives to that influence has been going on for awhile and unfortunately it is likely to continue.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East and Arab Spring and Antisemitism.

Ten Question Quiz To Identify Politicians' Gaffes

2012-01-27T08:58:00.000-05:00

I came across this on the Points and Figures blog, where Jeffrey Carter has come up with a 10 question quiz illustrating The Soaring Rhetoric of Politicians:

This is a fun quiz. Listed below are 10 direct quotes. You have to guess
which American politician said it. Your four choices are:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
Former VP Dan Quayle
President Barack Obama
Former President George W. Bush

Ready? Here we go!

1) “Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

2) “I’ve now been in 57 states I think one left to go.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

3) “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen
heroes, and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

4) “What they’ll say is, ‘Well it costs too much money,’ but you know what?
It would cost, about. It it it would cost about the same as what we would
spend. It. Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us.
(nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We’re going to. It. It would cost us about
the same as it would cost for about hold on one second. I can’t hear myself.
But I’m glad you’re fired
up, though. I’m glad.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

5) “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and
inefficiencies to our health care system.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

6) “I bowled a 129. It’s like – it was like the Special Olympics, or
something.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

7) “Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution,
few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court
justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often
serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged
with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20
centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

8) “Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the
emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a
hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them
treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a breathalyzer, or
inhalator, not a breathalyzer. I haven’t had much sleep in the last 48
hours.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

9) “It was interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not
that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of I don’t know
what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

10) “I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in
the future.”

A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

The answer to all of them is A. Quayle was tongue tied at times. Bush brought the West Texas dialect to the White House. I can forgive Bush. I have listened to a near Chicago South Side dialect in power for my entire life in Chicago. Sometimes, it’s not the words but the inflection and body language. You get the point. Palin is Palin. She has that northern Minnesota accent. Think the movie Fargo.

Obama though is Mr. International. He was supposed to be a rocket scientist. Over the past few years, we have found out he is merely human. He also was supposed to be so “pragmatic”. But, alas, he is not. He is just a brass knuckles idealogue.

I still remember when, after Obama was elected, we were told that comedians would have nothing to make fun of in the Obama administration.

How badly the media misrepresented Obama--both then and now.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Video: Quick Comparison Of Obama State Of The Union Addresses

2012-01-26T16:03:00.000-05:00

Yes, I'm sure that politicians in general, and presidents in particular, rework successful themes--but it's still jarring to see this from the president touted as being such a smooth expert speaker as Obama.

Here is a comparison of the 2012 State of the Union Address with Obama's State of the Union Address of 2011 and 2010:

Technorati Tag: Obama and State of the Union Address.

Video: Newt Gingrich Scores Again Off Media Question During Debate

2012-01-26T15:07:00.000-05:00

Challenging the media instead of apologizing to them is becoming popular!
But it still doesn't mean Newt Gingrich is electable.

Here's the video:

Technorati Tag: Newt Gingrich and Election 2012.

Video: Cato Institute Debunks Obama's 2012 State Of The Union Address

2012-01-26T14:02:00.000-05:00

Scholars from the Cato Institute respond to and debunk claims made by Obama in his 2012 State of the Union Address

Technorati Tag: Cato Institute and Obama and State of the Union Address.

Barry Rubin: Israel Is Not About to Attack Iran and Neither is the United States: Get Used To It

2012-01-26T13:03:00.000-05:00

Israel Is Not About to Attack Iran and Neither is the United States: Get Used To It

By Barry Rubin

The radio superhero, The Shadow, had the power to “cloud men’s minds.” But nothing clouds men’s minds like anything that has to do with Jews or Israel. This year’s variation on that theme is the idea that Israel is about to attack Iran. Such a claim repeatedly appears in the media. Some have criticized Israel for attacking Iran and turning the Middle East into a cauldron of turmoil (not as if the region needs any help in that department) despite the fact that it hasn’t happened.

On the surface, of course, there is apparent evidence for such a thesis. Israel has talked about attacking Iran and, objectively, one can make a case for such an operation. Yet any serious consideration of this scenario—based on actual research and real analysis rather than what the uninformed assemble in their own heads—is this: It isn’t going to happen.

Indeed, the main leak from the Israeli government, by an ex-intelligence official who hates Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been that the Israeli government already decided not to attack Iran. He says that he worries this might change in the future but there’s no hint that this has happened or will happen. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has publicly denied plans for an imminent attack as have other senior government official.

Of course, one might joke that the fact that Israeli leaders talk about attacking Iran is the biggest proof that they aren’t about to do it. But Israel, like other countries, should be subject to rational analysis. Articles being written by others are being spun as saying Israel is going to attack when that's not what they are saying. I stand by my analysis and before December 31 we will see who was right. I'm not at all worried about stating very clearly that Israel is not going to go to war with Iran.

So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way –indeed, the only way Israel has--to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanction and diplomatic efforts. If one believes that somehow pushing Tehran into slowing down or stopping its nuclear weapons’ drive is the only alternative to war, that greatly concentrates policymakers’ minds. Personally, I don't participate--consciously or as an instrument--in disinformation campaigns, even if they are for a good cause.

Why should Israel attack Iran now? Because one day Iran will have nuclear weapons that might be used to attack Israel.

Does Iran have such deliverable weapons now? No.

If Israel attacks Iran now does that mean Iran would never get nuclear weapons? No, it would merely postpone that outcome for at most a year or two more than it would take otherwise. And then it would ensure an all-out endless bloody war thereafter.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear installations would that ensure future peace between the two countries? Would it make it less likely that the Tehran regime uses such weapons to strike at Israel in future? No. On the contrary, it would have the exact opposite effect. Again, it would ensure direct warfare between the two countries and make Iran’s use of nuclear weapons against Israel 100 percent probable.

Why is this different from Israeli attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities? Because in those case a single strike by a small number of planes would be sufficient to destroy a single building. And the two regimes, precisely because of the strategic situation, would and could not respond. And if you believe Iran's regime to be so totally irraitional then factor that point into how it would respond to a direct attack like that.

If Israel attacks Iran would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Iranian retaliation against oil shipping and terrorist attacks would lead (not overly brave and already appeasement-oriented) Western governments to blame Israel, not Iran. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today.

Would such an attack by Israel be likely to succeed even in doing maximum damage to Iranian facilities? No, a great deal could go wrong, especially against multiple hardened targets at the planes’ maximum range. Planes could get lost or crash or have to turn back. Planes arriving over the targets could miss, or accidentally drop their bombs on civilians, or simply not do much damage. Many targets would remain unscathed.

Additional waves of attack would be needed in a situation where Iran would be better prepared to shoot down the planes. And the second wave would face huge Western opposition. But it would be too late either way since Israel would now be in a full war with Iran.

So given all of these factors why should Israel possibly attack Iran? It is an absurd idea.

The counter-argument is this: Iran’s regime is irrational and wants to destroy Israel even if the resulting counterattack would kill millions of Iranians and wreck the country. Yet while that analysis should not be totally ruled out, it is far from a certainty. Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons to make itself invulnerable to the costs of its non-nuclear subversion and support for terrorist and revolutionary forces. And a lot of what the Iranian leadership says is demagoguery to build support for itself at home, and to convince the masses to ignore its incompetence and mismanagement.

Yet given the points made above, even the Iran as irrational analysis--and even assuming it to be correct the probability of being right about Iran ever trying to launch a nuclear attack is far lower than 100 percent--does not justify an Israeli attack at this time.

And, finally, Israel has other options. The alternative is this: As the Iranian regime works hard to get nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying them, Israel uses the time to build a multi-level defensive and offensive capability. These layers include:

U.S. early warning stations and anti-missile missile installations in the Gulf; Israeli missile-launching submarines; Israel long-range planes whose crews have rehearsed and planned for strikes at Iranian facilities; different types of anti-missile missiles capable of knocking down the small number of missiles Iran could fire simultaneously; covert operations, possibly including computer viruses and assassinations, to slow down Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; improved intelligence; help to the Iranian opposition (though the idea of "regime change" in the near future is a fantasy); and other measures.

If and when there was a clear Iranian threat to attack Israel, then Israel could launch a preemptive assault. And if no such threat ever materializes, Israel need never attack. Any future Iran-Israel war will happen if Iran’s regime makes it unavoidable, not in theory but in actual practice.

Note that attacking a limited number of missiles and launch facilities, that must be located closer to Israel within Iranian territory, is easy. Attacking multiple nuclear facilities buried deep in the ground anywhere in Iran is hard.

Ah, but what if Iran gives small nuclear devices to terrorists? Well ask yourself two simple questions:

1. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that this didn't happen? Answer: Not at all.

2. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that Iran would definitely give nuclear devices to terrorists and try to strike against Israel as quickly and as frequently as possible? Absolutely yes.
Does this Israeli strategy assume that Iran’s regime is “rational” and “peace-loving” and will be deterred by Israel’s ability to strike back? Absolutely not. Indeed, quite the opposite. No such assumption is required. Israel will simply be ready and alert based on the assumption that Iran might attack some day. But such a war, however possible, is not inevitable. And since Israel cannot prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by attacking, there is no point in doing so.

Whether you hope for or fear an Israeli attack on Iran, it isn’t going to happen.

At the same time, a new theme in the America mass media--for example here and here--is that the United States is headed toward war with Iran either by electing a Republican president, the inevitable weight of events, or through having sanctions so effective that a cornered Iran will attack. The fact is that neither country wants to have an armed conflict and such a battle is easily avoidable. Ironically, those who claim Iran is going to attack are using the crazy Tehran regime concept that they reject when it comes to nuclear weapons. And the "watch out for the warmongering Republicans slogan" is part of the election campaign.

Warning against tough sanctions is a way of avoiding tough sanctions. The argument boils down to saying that sanctions better not hurt Iran or else the consequences will be disastrous. We will be hearing the same argument soon about Hamas, Hizballah, Egypt, and maybe even Libya or Turkey. The effort to use U.S. leverage will be said as triggering war or an anti-American explosion among Muslims. Thus, for example, whatever the Egyptian regime does toward Israel or its own people, we will be told that reducing U.S. aid is not an option.

Going to war with Iran is a mistake and the hysteria on this issue, including claims the regime is about to fall, that it can easily be brought down, or that an Iranian nuclear attack on others is inevitable, should be reined in. That's precisely why sanctions and other measures should be applied to the fullest extent possible.

And there isn't going to be any war unless Iran's regime tries to use them or make a big mistake. It could, as Egypt did in 1967 or Saddam Hussein did in the late 1990s, rattle "nuclear sabers" enough to convince Israel that an attack is imminent. Even if it did not intend to attack, Tehran could push too hard and trigger an Israeli attack. By the same token, some Iranian attack on Western forces or on oil traffic in the Gulf--more likely triggered by a local commander without regime permission--could produce a slide into war with the United States.

But here's what's most likely going to happen: Iran will get nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to stop its nuclear drive (though it could stop short of actually building bombs or warheads ready to go). Western policies are not so bold or adventurous as to go to war; Israel's interests and capabilities do not make attacking sensible. An attack would not solve but increase problems. And no matter how crazy you think Iran's regime is, the inescapable predicable threat is not high enough to force policymakers to risk getting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people killed, when the chance of avoiding such an outcome is very high.

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). His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, to be published by Yale University Press in January 2012. You can read more of Barry Rubin's posts at Rubin Reports, and now on his new blog, Rubin Reports, on Pajamas Media
Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran.

The Middle East Media Sampler 1/26/12: New York Times Media Bias

2012-01-26T11:43:00.000-05:00

From DG:

1) Mahmoud the two-faced

Maariv (in Hebrew) reported (translated by Daily Alert)

The talks underway between Israel and the Palestinians in Amman have not lead to any progress. The opposite is true: the Palestinians refused to talk with Israel on the issues related to security arrangements for their future state, even though at issue is one of the central subjects in the conflict. The prime minister’s envoy to the negotiations, Adv. Yitzhak Molcho, brought to the meeting between the parties on Saturday night Brig.-Gen. Assaf Orion, the head of the strategic unit of the IDF Planning Branch, in order to present Israel’s positions on security in the talks. However, the head of the Palestinian negotiating team, Saeb Erekat, refused to allow the officer to appear before them.
The Palestinians want to speak about borders and less on the issue of security. According to senior sources in the Israeli security establishment, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is under pressure not to continue the direct talks with Israel after Jan. 26, so that he will “leverage” the failure of negotiations for “PR purposes” and strengthen the legitimacy of the Palestinians in the international community.
Khaled Abu Toameh on The New Hypocritical Stance of of Mahmoud Abbas:

The Palestinian Authority claims that the Israeli arrests are aimed at sabotaging the "reconciliation" process between Fatah and Hamas. But the truth is that the Israeli clampdown on Hamas in the West Bank is first and foremost designed to help Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
The Palestinian Authority is fighting Hamas in the West Bank because it fears that the Islamist movement is working to undermine Abbas and Fayyad. Israel is fighting Hamas to prevent terror attacks and stop the movement from toppling the Palestinian Authority.
Abbas alone cannot fight Hamas; he needs Israel's help -- and gets it. He knows that without the Israeli security crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, his regime would not be able to remain in power for one day.
The hypocrisy is understandable. Abbas knows that Hamas is popular. It's one thing for him to take action against his rivals; politically having Israel do it shows him to be weak and allows Hamas to accuse Abbas of being Israel's stooge.

Plus the IDF gives the Truth behind Hamas' funding.

2) Just dropped in to see what condition my preconditions are in

Above I cited an incident as reported by Ma'ariv, however Isabel Kershner reports it differently in the New York Times, Palestinians and Israelis Don’t Agree on New Talks (h/t Daroff):

The final meetings in Jordan were tense. On Saturday, there was an open clash between the Israeli envoy, Yitzhak Molho, and the Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, according to a Palestinian official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Mr. Molho brought an Israeli military expert to the meeting to present an outline of Israel’s security concerns. Mr. Erekat strongly objected because the sides were not supposed to be conducting negotiations at a technical level and the Palestinians had not brought an expert of their own.
Palestinian leaders have been facing tough questions from their own politicians and the public about their readiness to hold even preliminary talks in Jordan without longstanding conditions having been met.

Even if Erekat was technically correct (something I can't confirm) it's interesting that Kershner doesn't even seek out the Israeli view on the matter (that Abbas isn't interested in discussing security matters with Israel and that he wants the talks to fail) but simply provides the Palestinian narrative.

The final paragraph even justifies Abbas' refusal to negotiate. Her final sentence is misleading as "longstanding conditions" really means "preconditions." (Earlier in the article Kershner had reported that previous talks had stopped when the Israeli settlement freeze expired in 2010. That settlement freeze was a new step Israel had taken at the behest of the Obama administration. So it is neither a "condition" nor is it "longstanding.")

In Hebrew, Walla reports (h/t Challah Hu Akbar):

.לדברי אבו מאזן, אין טעם לחזור למו"מ רשמי ללא תנאים מקדימים
which means:

According to Abu Mazen there is no point to returning to official negotiations without preconditions.
It's pretty clear why there are no serious negotiations. You may not know that if you read the New York Times though.

3) The Egyptian blogger who was ahead of the curve

Recently the Egyptian blogger, Maikel Nabil Sanad was released from jail. Max Strasser observes that, in one way, he differed from most of the other public revolutionaries (h/t Shmuel Rosner):

Nabil never bought into the "one hand" rhetoric. On Jan. 30, he went to Tahrir Square carrying a sign that read, "We refuse to allow the army to steal the people's revolution."
While most activists saw Hosni Mubarak and his cronies as their primary target, Nabil, a pacifist, bore a grudge against the Egyptian armed forces that stretched back before the revolution. In November 2010, he was briefly arrested for his campaign against compulsory conscription. "I hope that the day comes when the Egyptian military goes back to its barracks and to stop interfering in politics, so Egypt would be transformed into a civilian country without powers of military people on civilians," he wrote in October 2010.
The past year's events have brought many Egyptians around to Nabil's point of view. In addition to the widespread use of military trials, the military's security forces have killed scores of civilians and injured hundreds more since February. The political transition has also been ill-defined and characterized by backroom deals, as the military junta looks to entrench its power and prevent oversight of their activities. This month, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a leading voice of the revolution, withdrew from the presidential race in protest of the military's grip on power.
There's one other way Nabil is different. It's a point emphasized by Honest Reporting and ignored by Robert Mackey: Nabil's pro-Israel.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East and Media Bias.

WebYeshiva Offering Free Online Torah Classes

2012-01-26T08:55:00.000-05:00

Online learning at WebYeshiva is led by the Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Brovender:

For people seeking serious Torah learning at their own convenience, WebYeshiva.org offers the ability to join other Jews in an accessible, interactive community for all levels, with its dynamic online classrooms and web presence.

Free Winter Semester shiurim will run from Januart 15th through March 6th, 2012.
Enjoy!

If you can't participate live, you can still listen to the class in the archived recording at your convenience.

Note: All Torah classes are free

Check out the WebYeshiva Website--and the WebYeshiva Blog

Here are 2 sample shiurim of the kind of online learning available:

How to Study Jewish Religion at WebYeshiva:

Online-Shiur Sample from WebYeshiva

Current and upcoming shiurim include:

o Megillat Esther with the Vilna Gaon
6 hours, 13 minutes

o Torah and Science (Jan 19, 26, Feb 2)
12 hours, 13 minutes

o The Zohar on Creation II
13 hours, 13 minutes

o Mishlei: Good vs. Evil
14 hours, 13 minutes

o Advanced Gemara Pesachim Chapter 1
21 hours, 13 minutes

Technorati Tag: Torah and Yeshiva.

The Muslim Massacre Of Christians In Nigeria That Never Happened

2012-01-25T16:45:00.002-05:00

The following has been making the rounds on Facebook periodically--and is still showing up:Christians burnt alive by Sunni Muslims in Nigeria:

Christians burnt alive by Sunni Muslims in NIGERIA…(Posted by Jillian Becker in Africa, Arab States, Christianity, Christians burnt alive by Sunni Muslims, Islam, Muslims, jihad)…..PLEASE SHARE IT OR JUST UPLOAD YOUR OWN…BUT SOMEHOW SPREAD IT IF YOU’RE EVEN 1% CHRISTIAN — It is still not over yet! —

The truth however is that this took place in the Congo, not in Nigeria and more importantly--the deaths were the result of an explosion, not a Muslim massacre.

Loonwatch covered this last year: Fake Nigerian Christians Burnt Alive Photo Resurfaces on Facebook and gives the sources for what really happened--

From Afrik.com: DRC: the horrific images of the drama of Sange in South Kivu
FRIDAY, JULY 9, 2010

The explosion, on July 3, a tanker truck in the village of Sange, South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), was 235 dead.

and Reuters: Fuel tanker explosion kills over 230 in Congo
Sat Jul 3, 2010

(Reuters) - At least 230 people were killed when a fuel tanker overturned and exploded in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, unleashing a fire ball that tore through homes and cinemas packed with people watching World Cup soccer.

CNN covered this also: 230 Dead in Congo's Tanker Explosion:

There is enough terrorism going on in the world that we don't need to wrongly attribute terrorist acts where they do not exist.

Technorati Tag: Congo and Nigeria and Terrorism.

The Middle East Media Sampler 1/25/12: Egypt's Revolution A Year Later

2012-01-25T14:26:00.000-05:00

From DG:

1) Really?

The New York Times has a short item, Lebanon: Former General Sentenced in Spying Case. The former general, Fayez Karam was convicted of giving information to Israel. I've been skeptical of these announced arrests of spies in Lebanon. Two years is an awfully light sentence for an espionage conviction.

2) Fouad Ajami on the Assads

Fouad Ajamai has an essay The Lost Bequest of Hafez Aassad, that concludes with observations about his son, Bashar. (h/t Martin Kramer )

Hafez Assad was visited by personal tragedy in 1994: the death in a car accident of his oldest son, Bassel. He had been grooming him for succession. He never recovered from the grief. In the years left to him, he settled on his son Bashar, the eye doctor, as his successor. He bent the Constitution and the leadership to his will. He died in 2000, and his hapless son, 34 years of age, was anointed as his successor. Syrians hoped for the best, thought that perhaps this gangly youth, with a stint in London behind him, would grant them the freedoms his father had denied them. There was a Damascus Spring in the offing, it was said. The new ruler permitted the importation of Western cigarettes; jazz clubs and art galleries made their appearance. Bashar offered his people an olive branch: he married well, a London-born upper-bourgeois young woman from a Sunni family of Homs, Asma al-Akhras. The young couple presented themselves well. But the Damascus Spring was snuffed out. The civic forums were shut down, dissidents were rounded up and dispatched to prisons. The young inheritor was his father’s son.

A year ago, when the political hurricane known as the Arab Spring hit the region, Bashar al-Assad proclaimed his country’s immunity to the troubles. He was young, the rulers challenged by their people were old, he was anti-American and anti-Israeli, hence the immunity of his regime. He was at one with his people, he said. Then a group of boys in mid-March, in the forlorn southern town of Daraa, went out and scribbled anti-regime graffiti on the walls. They were picked up and tortured. It was as though the custodians of this dictatorship knew that their order hung by a thread. The system rested on fear, and that barrier was crossed. He put his medical training to use. He described the protesters as germs. Four decades of a drab tyranny had not robbed the Syrians of their humor. The Syrian germs require a new doctor, one banner proclaimed. Bashar had squandered his father’s bequest.
The other day, it was reported that Syrian troops killed a general. (h/t Daily Alert)

An intelligence general in Syria called Adel Mustafa was killed by his own men who refused to obey his order to shoot protesting civilians in the Bab Qebli suburb in Hama.
There have been reports of troops being arrested or killed for refusing to fire on civilians. How widespread these incidents are is unclear.

3) Egypt's economic (and political) crisis

The New York Times reports Economic Potholes Add Dangers on Egypt’s New Political Path. One effect is:

"Nobody is getting married after the revolution,” said Amr el-Khodary, 37, who was forced to close his shop that rents cars for wedding parades.

Ibrahim Mohamed, a 26-year-old cab driver with a college degree, is a case in point. A steep decline in fares, he said, has prevented him from saving up the roughly $7,000 for an apartment, furniture, a small wedding and the customary gift of jewelry that he says he needs to marry.

“If it weren’t for the revolution,” he said, “I would have been able to get married.”
Spengler writes about the very bleak larger picture (h/t Israel Matzav):

Egypt faces a disaster of biblical proportions, and the world will do nothing about it. Officially, Egypt's foreign exchange reserves fell by half during 2011, including a $2.4 billion decline during December - from $36 billion to $18 billion, or about four months of imports.

But the situation almost certainly is worse than that. More than $4 billion left the country during December, estimates Royal Bank of Scotland economist Raza Agha, noting that the December drop in reserves was cushioned by a $1 billion loan from the Egyptian army and a $1 billion sale of dollar-denominated treasury bills.

The rush out of the Egyptian pound is so rapid that Egyptian investors refuse to hold debt in their own national currency, even at a 16% yield. After Islamist parties won more three-quarters of the seats in recent parliamentary elections - 47% for the Muslim Brotherhood and 25% for the even more extreme al-Nour Party - the business elite that prospered under military rule is counting the days before exile.
Eric Trager writes in Happy Birthday to Egypt’s Doomed Revolution:

IT IS TEMPTING to believe that things might have turned out differently had Washington worked harder to bolster the young revolutionaries who seemingly exemplified America’s own liberal values when they took to the streets last January. These brave activists, after all, had won America’s hearts to the tune of an 82-percent approval rating at the height of the revolt, and their photogenic faces carried the promise of a more democratic, friendly Egypt.

But the activists were never who we hoped they were. Far from being liberal, their ranks were largely comprised of Nasserists, revolutionary socialists, and Muslim Brotherhood youths—an alliance of convenience for opposing Mubarak and, later, for denouncing the U.S.
4) A reconsidered Diehl

Yesterday, I wrote a critical assessment of Jackson Diehl's Turkey’s government is the new normal in the Middle East. Barry Rubin argues that Diehl's column, though imperfect, was important:

At least one can have a serious dialogue with Diehl, who is actually thinking about the complexities of the issues involved. I simply cannot think of a single other mass media journalist — not one- — who either thinks or writes as he does. That’s pretty devastating.

Moreover, since the columns and airtime of the mass media are basically closed for contrasting views, how can one possibly reach the same audience, especially since part of the mass media’s propaganda mission is to caricature the critics by highlighting the dumbest statements and painting dissent as Islamophobia?

Equally, though, Diehl’s challenge to the critics of the mainstream thinking on the Middle East is also very serious. Unless Republican presidential candidates, conservative thinkers, and those holding alternative views can develop an accurate and sophisticated analysis, they are not going to win this debate or develop a better strategy.

Technorati Tag: Egypt and Syria and Middle East and Media Bias.

Barry Rubin: Obama’s State of the Union Speech: My Response Discovers Some Curious Insights and Strange Formulations

2012-01-25T13:12:00.001-05:00

Obama’s State of the Union Speech: My Response Discovers Some Curious Insights and Strange Formulations

By Barry Rubin

In his State of the Union message, President Barack Obama began by wrapping himself in the flag, patriotism, and love of the armed forces while trying to highlight his foreign policy achievements. Among his points:

–“The United States [is] safer and more respected around the world.”

Presumably, a lot of Americans will believe this. The United States may be said to be safer in terms of facing direct terror attacks but that was basically true in 2002. As for “more repected”—a phrase no doubt chosen to seem more statesmanlike than saying “more popular,” that is a joke. If there’s one thing that should be obvious (and this is often revealed even by international public opinion polls) the United States is not more respected at all.

Moreover, while individual Americans may be relatively safe from terrorist attacks in their homes, neighborhoods and workplaces within the territory of the United States—a perception partly reinforced by redefining terrorist attacks as something else—U.S. interests abroad are far less safe.

Continue reading Obama’s State of the Union Speech: My Response Discovers Some Curious Insights and Strange Formulations

Video: The Myth Of Arab East Jerusalem

2012-01-24T19:06:00.000-05:00

Out of 3,000 years Jerusalem was divided for only 19 years:

The history of Jerusalem did not start in 1967. Thousands of years of Jewish history took place in what is now called 'Arab East Jerusalem.'

Only when the Jewish residents were driven from their homes in 1948 was the city divided between East and West.

The 19 year division of Jerusalem is being exploited as a reason to divide Israel's capital today.

Here is the video:

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jerusalem and Arab East Jerusalem.

Barry Rubin: Where the “Counter-Obama” View of the Middle East is Right and Where It’s Wrong

2012-01-24T17:04:00.000-05:00

Where the “Counter-Obama” View of the Middle East is Right and Where It’s Wrong

By Barry Rubin

Jackson Diehl is by far the best journalist writing in the mass media about the Middle East. In a recent column he tries to find some middle ground between the dominant ideas — that Islamist regimes are no problem at all and that the Muslim Brotherhood is really moderate — and what he defines as an excessively extreme conservative and Republican analysis.

While I don’t quite agree with him, there is much of merit in his dichotomy. We should all learn from it even though I’m going to suggest that it needs to be adjusted. Even if Obama’s critics are on the right side about the Middle East and generally understand what’s happening, many of them also make factual and analytical mistakes that undermine their credibility and may sometimes subvert their policies if they win office.

In addition, Diehl reminds us (how rarely that happens nowadays!) how good it feels to debate with people who actually think about the issues and cite evidence even if we disagree with them. He actually believes that there is merit on both sides of the argument, again an attempt at balance what often seems to be close to extinction in this sad era.

Continue reading Where the “Counter-Obama” View of the Middle East is Right and Where It’s Wrong

Arlene Kushner On Migron

2012-01-24T14:07:00.000-05:00

From Arlene Kushner:

January 24, 2012

"MIGRON in the spotlight"

My readers have heard from me about Mitzpe Avichai, and now it is time to turn our attention to Migron -- which presents some very serious issues. You will learn things here that it is unlikely you've heard from your mainstream media sources.

Migron is a Jewish community on a hilltop in the Binyamin Regional Council in Samaria, north of Jerusalem. With 49 families, it is the largest of the communities that are frequently referred to as "unauthorized settlements."

Source: Indynewsisrael

Source: Syd's-blog Source: Wikipedia

~~~~~~~~~~

In order to properly understand the situation of this community, we will need a bit of background, which has been provided by a resident of Migron who serves as a spokesperson:

In 1960, the king of Jordan divided the area where Migron is now located into some 60 plots and gave them to individual families. It was, however, with the proviso that they begin farming within three years, or the land would revert back to the kingdom. No farming was done, not for three years and not for seven years -- which is when the land came under Israeli control.

Land that reverted back to the kingdom should have become Israeli state land. This should have been the end of the story. (As I understand it, to ensure there would be no problem, the Jews who came to establish Migron purchased the land in any event.)

~~~~~~~~~~

In 1999, establishment of Migron began with the set-up of the first caravans. The very first residents were actually part of an archeological expedition in the area, which, it should be noted, provided evidence -- including a winepress -- of an exclusively Jewish presence.

The community, as it grew, worked with a host of government ministries that provided support for phone lines, electricity, water, staff of day care and nursery schools and more.

In point of fact, the government saw a need for a Jewish community in this location for security reasons. A by-pass road had been established at the foot of the hill on which Migron is situated so that Jews would be able to travel -- via route 60 -- while avoiding entry into Ramallah. It was understood that without Jews on this hill, Jews traveling the road below would be at risk. (It is certain that Arabs would be up there, if Jews were not.)

Additionally, from the height of that location Jews are able to overlook the north of Jerusalem and communities situated between Migron and the Dead Sea.

But, for all the sanction the government gave to the establishment of this community, what was missing was the final authorization from the Ministry of Defense. From mid-1999, and for two years subsequent, Ehud Barak was Defense Minister, and so it is possible that he was the one who would have had to sign off on this. (What a surprise!) Or, as these approvals take time, perhaps the very leftist Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who followed him.

This is a common story. It feels rather schizoid -- with one hand not knowing, or approving, what the other is doing. This is a function of the nature of the administration of Jewish communities beyond the Green Line. Were civil law to be applied, the Ministry of Defense would not be involved.

~~~~~~~~~~

In 2006, Peace Now got into the act, going to the High Court and claiming that the land Migron was situated on belonged to Arabs. Ostensibly, Peace Now spoke on behalf of a group of Arab plaintiffs, who were from local villages. Residents of Migron observed that these plaintiffs, who seemed to have been drafted by Peace Now, were "without a clue."

Migron residents, I have been told, have never had a problem with their Arab neighbors, and it seemed to them more than a bit strange that, if the Arab plaintiffs knew that Jews were occupying their land, they would have waited the seven years since Migron had been established before registering a claim.

My Migron source tells me that various documents were provided to the Court that were never taken into consideration. With various legal delays, it was not determined until early last year that Migron was to be demolished by the end of March 2012.

~~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime, the Arabs who were claiming that Migron was on their land brought a suit into the Jerusalem Magistrates Court, demanding that the State provide them with compensation for the years in which they were deprived of their land. (Never mind that in the years before Migron was established they had not in any way utilized this land.) But this court demanded of the plaintiffs that they provide proof of ownership of the land and gave them a deadline, which recently expired.

Just last week, the Jerusalem Magistrates Court ruled that the plaintiffs, as they could not provide proof of land ownership, had to pay compensation to the residents of Migron for their trouble and were forbidden from bringing further lawsuits on this issue.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I asked myself, if the Arab plaintiffs that Peace Now was representing could not prove their right to the land of Migron, why is it that the High Court order to demolish Migron stands.

Today I posed that question to a representative of the Legal Forum of the Land of Israel. The answer is stunning:

This issue, I was told, is political, not legal. For the Court did not rule that the government had to demolish Migron. The government volunteered to do it. Let me repeat this: The government volunteered to do it.

What happened is that the Court turned to the government and said, these claims are being made against Migron, how are you going to handle this? And the answer from the government was, we'll demolish Migron by March 31, 2012.

The government said this? Even though government ministries had helped to establish Migron and there was clear recognition on the part of the government that putting a Jewish community on that hill was a wise thing to do from a security perspective?

So I have been advised.

~~~~~~~~~~

If you are totally confused, it is understandable. But I believe I can explain what's happening here.

It is exceedingly unlikely that the government would have taken action against Migron if not for the petition of Peace Now, which acts as the "impetus" in many of these cases.

But once a petition such as this one is filed, the representatives of the government show themselves to be without the courage of their convictions. Or perhaps better put, they have no convictions. That is, they are not guided by a determination to stand by Jewish rights and to fight for those rights. They are guided by pragmatics and not by principle or ideology. They cave, out of fear of being criticized by the international community for taking Arab land, etc. etc.

And fairness to the residents of Migron, who were assisted by government agencies in establishing their community? What does this have to do with anything?

~~~~~~~~~~

Right now this is a very hot political potato, with many incensed at the notion of taking down Migron. Speaker of the Knesset Ruby Rivlin (Likud) has spoken out on this with vehemence. I'm told Shas is with the residents of Migron. And Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says this is a red line for his party, Yisrael Beitenu, which will leave the coalition if Migron comes down.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, then, is between a rock and a hard place politically, and realizes that if a satisfactory solution is not found for Migron his government is at risk.

Thus, there is an attempt to strike an agreement with Migron residents that would provide an out for the government, which would not have to demolish the community.

~~~~~~~~~~

But even this is a complicated and infuriating matter.

Not long ago, legislation was introduced that to prevent communities in Judea and Samaria from being destroyed unless the Arab(s) claiming ownership produced documentation of that ownership -- and if documentation were produced beyond a certain number of years, there would be monetary compensation instead.

This legislation would protect Migron. But it is frozen in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation at the request of Netanyahu. He, in turn, has done this at the behest of Minister Benny Begin (Likud). If I live to be 100 I will not understand what is driving Begin at this point. He is heading negotiations that the government is holding with the representatives of Migron, regarding a so-called compromise. He doesn't want to see them protected by this legislation; he wants them to feel that they have no choice but to accept what he offers. In light of what I had previously understood to be his political orientation, the fact that he wants this confuses me totally.

The compromise, which is being urged on Migron by Netanyahu, would move the community to the bottom of the hill on to land that is universally acknowledged to be state land. It is better, the residents are being told, than having their community simply demolished.

~~~~~~~~~~

But the community is not buying this. You may have read in recent news reports that a deal was reached. I was told today, however, that there is no deal.

The position of the Migron residents is that they have a right to be where they are, that they are not located on Arab land. If they move to the bottom of the hill, they say, it denies their purpose in having been put (by the government) on the hill for security reasons in the first place, and it ignores the involvement of multiple government ministries in helping them to be established there.

~~~~~~~~~~

The question, then, is whether, when push comes to shove, the prime minister will actually allow the destruction of Migron, as this may bring down his government.

Apparently there are at least a couple of avenues he can take to remedy the situation. He can permit the release of the legislation from committee. Or, I was told by the legal forum, the government can return to the High Court and say that in the light of new evidence it withdraws its commitment to take down the community.

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to see as many of my readers as possible give a boost to the residents of Migron, as they wait to see if the prime minister blinks.

Please! write to Netanyahu.

Tell him that you are convinced that the residents of Migron are in their current location by right, that they were helped by the government as they were established, that they serve a legitimate security purpose, and that there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are on Arab land.

Tell him that you are watching his government closely in this regard, and that you expect him to do what is honorable and principled, and not what is convenient politically.

Say you expect him to return to the High Court and, based on new information, reverse the commitment to take down Migron. And that you further expect the legislation that is currently frozen in committee regarding the demolishment of communities to be released for vote in the Knesset.

Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)

E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses

~~~~~~~~~~

Then, please, write to the following Likud ministers and urge them to push the prime minister to take action to remedy the situation in Migron properly. Ask them to remind Netanyahu that the government may fall if he fails to do this.

Keep it simple for yourself. Compose a short message that says "Dear Minister," followed by text, click on each minister's e-mail address in turn, paste in the message and send. Do NOT send a group message; each should be separate.

Minister of Public Diplomacy Yuli Edelstein

yedelstein@knesset.gov.il

Minister of Improvement of Government Services

meitan@knesset.gov.il

Minister of Environmental Protection Gilad Erdan

gerdan@knesset.gov.il

Minister of Welfare Moshe Kahlon

mcachlon@knesset.gov.il

Minister of Transportation Yisrael Katz

yiskatz@knesset.gov.il

Minister of Culture Limor Livnat

llivant@knesset.gov.il

Minister Yosi Peled

ypeled@knesset.gov.il

Minister of Education Gideon Saar

gsaar@knesset.gov.il

Minister of the Development of the Negev Silvan Shalom

sshalom@knesset.gov.il

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz

ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il

Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon

myaalon@knesset.gov.il

~~~~~~~~~~

See my website at Arlene From Israel Contact Arlene atakushner@netvision.net.il

This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

The Middle East Media Sampler 1/24/12: Palestinian Diplomatic War Against Israel

2012-01-24T13:10:00.002-05:00

From DG:

1) What the Diehl?

Lately Jackson Diehl has been one of the better analysts of the Middle East. His most recent, Turkey's government is the new normal in the Middle East, unfortunately, was disappointing. Diehl started off by blasting former Republican presidential candidate, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.

Perry responded: “Well, obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists . . .”

Islamic terrorists? This, mind you, is about a government that has just stationed an advanced radar on its territory that could be used to track and shoot down missiles from Iran; that joined the NATO operation against Moammar Gaddafi in Libya; that has become the host of the opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad; and that, having repeatedly won free democratic elections, amended Turkey’s constitution to expand rights for women, ethnic minorities and unions.
...

The reality is that, like it or not, “Islamist-oriented” governments are about to become the new normal in a region dominated for decades by secular autocrats and pro-American generals. So the crude bias about Muslim movements that is baked into the worldview of many U.S. conservatives — that they are inevitably fundamentalist, anti-democratic, anti-Israel and anti-American, if not explicitly “terrorist” — has become a serious liability. If heeded, it will make it impossible for this administration and future ones to navigate the region’s new politics and preserve crucial alliances.
Left out, of course, is that Turkey aided the IHH, an international terrorist organization with the Mavi Marmara, which led to a clash with Israel. Here's how the The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center describes the relationship between the government of Turkey and the IHH. (.pdf)

1) In the political-strategic realm, the Erdogan regime collaborates closely with IHH.Their collaboration is based on a common Islamic worldview, the concept that IHH can be used as a tool to implement Turkish foreign policy and IHH's readiness to serve the current government's strategy of turning Turkey into an influential regional power, including at the expense of its relations with Israel. That strategy was manifested by the political and practical support received by Hamas (the transfer of funds and other aid to Hamas, support for convoys and flotillas, and hosting Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood activities on Turkish soil.

2) In the realm of internal Turkish politics, IHH is a socio-political powerbase for the AKP, Turkey's ruling party and, according to several reports, helped it get elected. Their close relations have led to the AKP's appointing senior members of IHH to government positions, (about a quarter of the IHH senior leadership holds or held positions or were candidates for AKP positions!). The AKP gave the flotilla propaganda and moral support and the Turkish media also reported that AKP parliament members intended to board the Mavi Marmara. However their participation was canceled at the last minute.

3) On the personal level, IHH leader Bülent Yildirim maintains close relations with the heads of the Turkish regime and is warmly supported by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. According to statements from passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara, corroborated by ITIC information, the flotilla set out with Erdogan's full knowledge and agreement, despite the fact that it was clear Israel would not allow the flotilla to reach the Gaza Strip.
Perhaps Perry overstated the case a bit, but he wasn't far off. The problem is that just because Islamists are the "new normal" doesn't make that development a good thing. It's one thing saying that the government needs to deal with a new reality; it's another to do as President Obama did and embrace that reality as a positive development.

Yesterday Robert Satloff and Eric Trager outlined How the U.S. Should Handle the Islamist Rise in Egypt.

Yet Washington has assets to preserve its equities in Egypt. At $1.2 billion, U.S. military assistance is essentially the procurement budget for the Egyptian armed forces. While the Islamists may want the military out of politics, they also don't want to be accused of materially weakening the country. Direct U.S. economic support is much smaller, at $250 million, but America has a substantial voice in international financial institutions to which Egypt almost surely will turn for help. In the coming period, when Egypt's Islamist politicians will test just how far the U.S. will bend to accommodate a new political reality, the U.S. should be willing to use both these tools to advance its interests.

Washington's message to Cairo's emerging leaders should be that U.S. support -- both direct and indirect -- is conditional on their cooperation in maintaining peace with Israel and preserving political pluralism and religious and minority rights. America should determine its relationship based on what Egypt's new rulers actually do on these issues, not the cooing sounds that their English-language spokesmen offer visiting American journalists, diplomats and politicians.
It isn't clear that this will work, but Satloff and Trager tell the administration to take a skeptical approach to the Islamists. That's a far cry from what Obama has done as he (if Turkey is any guide) embraced them uncritically.

2) The continuing Palestinian diplomatic war against Israel

In his op-ed in the New York Times last year, The long overdue Palestinian state, Mahmoud Abbas clearly expressed his intent for dealing with Israel.

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.
Abbas's attempt to get support for statehood from the UN fizzled. However his effort to use the UN to wage diplomatic war against Israel is continuing. Jonathan Schanzer and David Barnett write in The Palestinian Campaign to Delegitimize Israel:

Specifically, Abbas is threatening to form a political union with rival faction Hamas, the terrorist group that controls the Gaza Strip. Palestinians view unity as a necessary step toward independence, so his rhetoric has been very popular on the "Palestinian street." But the likelihood of a merger is unlikely. Rather, the PLO is using the prospect of a government partially constituted by unrepentant terrorists to pressure Israel into making concessions.

The message is simple: If the Israelis don't give the PLO what it wants, it could join hands with Hamas, which repeatedly refuses to renounce "armed resistance," making it virtually impossible for Israel to achieve the peace that it craves.
...
With all of these moving parts, it's easy to lose sight of the big picture: Palestinian leaders seem to have no interest in talking to Israel this year. Instead, they may be gearing up for a full-scale diplomatic campaign to delegitimize it.
What's astonishing is that Abbas is carrying out a campaign - that he publicly outlined in a prestigious American newspaper - to avoid negotiations with Israel and it has elicited no outrage. Netanyahu is still the obstacle to peace and to the Secretary of Defense, both sides won't come to the "damn table."

Abbas's refusal to negotiate is exacerbated by his embrace of Hamas, which is a rejection of the PLO's disavowal of terror, a premise of the very peace negotiations that are now "stalled." Peace won't come to the Middle East as long as Abbas's obstructionism is tolerated and encouraged.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas and Media Bias and Turkey.

Video: On The 10th Anniversary Of The Abduction Of Daniel Pearl

2012-01-23T20:14:00.000-05:00

From the YouTube page:

Danny's parents, Judea and Ruth Pearl, reflect on his life and last words in this webcam video shot 1/18/2007 in the kitchen of their Encino, CA home.

Daniel, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, was murdered in Karachi, Pakistan on February 1, 2002.

In a widely-circulated video, Danny proudly affirmed his identity as a Jew and Zionist, last words that have inspired books, movies and music.

Maybe they'll inspire you.

For more information, visit the Daniel Pearl Foundation,

Video by Dennis Wilen for JewishJournal.com

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.

Here is the video:

Technorati Tag: Daniel Pearl and Islamists and Terrorism.

Why Is Hamas The Cuddly Moderate And Netanyahu The Extremist

2012-01-23T17:57:00.000-05:00

Ever notice that we are constantly being told that Hamas is moderating?

From the time that Hamas won the election back in 2006 (a year before the bloody coup where Hamas kicked out Fatah), we have been lectured on how Hamas would moderate, is moderating, wants to moderate, is split over moderating...

...all in spite of what Hamas actually says, namely that Hamas will "never give up its armed struggle against the Zionist enemy".

It's almost as if the _more_ Hamas terrorists say they want to destroy Israel, the _more_ the apologists say that Hamas is becoming more moderate.

But by the same token the opposite seems to apply to Netanyahu. The more Netanyahu says he is in favor of a 2 state solution and wants to sit down with Abbas and talk peace, the more the same people say that Netanayhu is a right wing extremist.

I can understand the self-delusion behind wanting to believe that the Hamas terrorists will stop firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

Unfortunately, the Israel-hatred behind the blind condemnation of Israel and everything it does is becoming clear too.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu and Hamas.

What Do You Get When You Cross The BBC With Russian News?

2012-01-23T16:30:00.001-05:00

Scary thought, huh?
Well, here is a page from the Russian BBC website telling people about Gaza

In Gaza, one of the most densely populated strips of land in the world, is home to 1 million 178 thousand Palestinians. 33% of the population of the Gaza live in refugee camps, financed by the UN. In addition, in the Gaza Strip live 6900 Israeli settlers.

Zones under the control of Israel and Jewish settlements occupy approximately 40% of Gaza. Israel controls all border sectors, checkpoints and main roads in Gaza.
(translation by Google Translate)

Gaza may very well be densely populated--but only after Tel Aviv, Hong Kong, Singapore, London, Moscow, Tokyo/Yokahama, and Warsaw.

Of course, the page here is talking about before the disengagement when Israel withdrew from Gaza--any semblance between the description here and the current reality is because of actions taken by Israel in response to the rockets and mortars regularly fired out of Gaza at Israeli civilians.

But the question is whether the webmaster has merely been slow to correct the site, or whether based on the information coming out of the Russian media--and the BBC--no one really is informed enough to tell the difference?

Hat tip: Ilya Fainshtein

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza.

Barry Rubin: The Unvarnished Reality of Contemporary U.S.-Israel Relations

2012-01-23T15:11:00.002-05:00

The following by Barry Rubin is reposted here with permission

The Unvarnished Reality of Contemporary U.S.-Israel Relations

The following article was published in Maariv newspaper in Hebrew.

By Barry Rubin

Do not speak of it in public. Do not expect any Israeli official to admit it. But Israel is facing an issue unlike anything it has had to deal with during the past 50 years: It cannot depend on the United States.

True, the relationship in terms of weapons’ supply remains good. Old programs continue to provide advanced arms to Israel. Nor is the problem the one most people think of first: on Israel-Palestinian, “peace process” issues.

President Barack Obama’s Administration has seen that no real progress is possible on that front. It tends to blame Israel in public and Obama intensely dislikes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but those problems have little material effect. If that were the only issue Israel could muddle through as it has with other presidents.

The difficulty with Obama is that his entire strategy in the Middle East is contrary to Israeli interests, except for putting some sanction’ pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear weapons’ program. The greatest threat to Israel today is the rise of radical Islamist regimes. Here is how Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh puts it:

"The Palestinian cause is winning. With the Muslim Brotherhood part of the government [in Egypt], they [the Egyptians] will not besiege Gaza. They will not arrest Palestinians. They will not give cover to Israel to launch a war....Israel is disturbed by this. It knows the strategic environment is changing. Iran is an enemy. Relations are deteriorating with Turkey. With Egypt, they are really cold. Israel is in a security situation they have never been in before."

Even though Israel has faced worst strategic situations and the Islamists are badly divided, Haniyeh has put his finger on the central strategic factor today. Radical Islamists who want to open a new round of battle against Israel now rule or are likely to do so very soon in Egypt, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey.

Here is where the problem with the United States comes in. Obama does not really view this trend as a threat. He spent the first half of his term engaging with Iran and its ally Syria. Obama and his administration regards the Islamists as people who are either already moderate or are likely to become so by governing.

This is, of course, the opposite of the Israeli assessment. In Syria, the U.S. government even helped organize and supports an external opposition leadership in which Islamists form the majority even though it is doubtful that this reflects their level of support within the country.

To put it bluntly, the U.S. government does not even recognize the existence of the number-one threat to Israel.

And to make matters worse, the government that Obama looks to for advice, guidance, and interpretation of the region is not Israel but the Islamist regime in Turkey. That government’s sharp turn to a highly emotional anti-Israel policy has not cost it anything at all in terms of its relations with the White House, something that would have been unthinkable under any previous president.

That is why Israel, as well as the Middle East generally, is going to be an important issue in this year’s presidential election. To preserve relations with the United States, Israeli leaders will neither do nor say anything about that contest. Yet nothing could be more obvious than that Obama’s reelection would be extremely damaging for Israel’ security.

Huge Victory: Finally--What Muslim Fanatics Say In Arabic Is Not Ignored

2012-01-23T13:03:00.000-05:00

This is a huge victory against fanatical Muslim statements that have regularly been ignored because they were said in Arabic.

In this case, the Jerusalem Mufti--hand-picked by Abbas--called for the murder of Jews

Palestine Media Watch notes that PMW report shows that Mufti did apply call to kill Jews to current conflict

Apparently the Jerusalem Mufti, Muhammad Hussein, is not used to being called on his Arabic statements which till now have been made with impunity.

Wow, finally what a Muslim fanatic says in Arabic is made public instead of being ignored--not only by the Israeli government, which usually stays diplomatically silent, but also from those who reserve their condemnations for Israel--

See:

Challah Hu Akbar, now posting on IsraellyCool, notes that this Jerusalem Mufti, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, was hand-picked to replace the last Mufti--fired by Abbas in 2006:

Criticizing Israel cost me my job, fired Jerusalem mufti complains:

The mufti of Jerusalem, fired last week by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, said over the weekend that he had been punished for criticizing Israel and opposing Abbas's policies. Abbas's decision to dismiss the mufti, Sheikh Ikremah Sabri, came shortly after the latter said in a newspaper interview that "Israel did not want peace." Moreover, the decision came after Sabri criticized the international sanctions imposed on the Hamas government and attempts by some Palestinians to bring down the Hamas government. Abbas was also reportedly angered by Sabri's participation in a rally organized in the Galilee two weeks ago by Sheikh Raed Salah's Islamic Movement. At the rally attended by thousands of supporters of the Islamic Movement, Sabri criticized Abbas's decision to hold a referendum on a controversial document drafted by a number of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Abbas decided to appoint Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, director of the Aksa Mosque, as the new mufti. Sheikh Hussein is a less controversial figure than Sabri and is closely associated with Abbas's Fatah party.

...A source in Abbas's office confirmed that Sabri had been sacked "because of his statements against the peace process." According to the source, Sabri appeared to support the Hamas government in its power struggle with Abbas and his Fatah party. "The mufti is appointed by the president, not the government. Therefore, he must represent the president alone," the source explained.

Clearly, the dismissal of the last Mufti had as much to do with his support for Hamas as any inconvenient criticism of Israel. After all, considering Abbas's penchant for paying salaries for terrorists in Israel prisons as well as honoring terrorist attacks--it's clear that mere criticism of Israel is not what galvanized Abbas into action.

But the bottom line is that we have finally heard criticism and condemnation of what Muslim fanatics say in Arabic--an area where they feel free to say things directly opposite to their statements in English.

Keep in mind, this video of the Jerusalem Mufti calling for murder of Jews caused YouTube to freeze PMW's account. A few days later, YouTube did unfreeze PMW's account.

The fact that Palestine Media Watch's coverage of the Jerusalem Mufti is directly responsible for the condemnation of what he said exemplifies why it is so important for YouTube to allow the hate-filled language of Islamists to be available on YouTube so that it can be publicized, condemned and ultimately curbed.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Abbas.

Barry Rubin: Egypt's Parliament 75 percent Islamist; Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement is Dead Even if Treaty Still Exists

2012-01-23T11:57:00.000-05:00

Egypt's Parliament 75 percent Islamist; Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement is Dead Even if Treaty Still Exists

By Barry Rubin

We’re starting to get a good picture of what the lower house of Egypt’s parliament will be like, though it will take another month to be certain. Close to 50 percent of the seats will be held by the Muslim Brotherhood. Another 25 percent will be held by the al-Nour party of Salafists. With 75 percent the two Islamist parties will be able to do as they please.

But, they—or at least the Brotherhood—are determined to be cautious. Note that there is a big difference between actually being moderate and simply being patient, advancing step by step toward radical goals. The Western media will report that the Brotherhood is indeed moderate. Actually, as I review coverage over the last year it is almost impossible to find even a single article in the mass media that reports any such evidence, much less analysis, despite the massive documentation available to the contrary .

The non-Islamist seats will be held by the Wafd, nine percent, and the Free Egyptians Party, another nine percent, with the rest spread among a dozen different parties, mainly liberal with a small number of leftists. The Wafd will be willing to make deals with the Islamists in order to obtain a share of power for itself. Only the Free Egyptians will oppose them with determination.

There is no reason to believe the “moderates” will be able to work together; the Islamist parties also won’t unite. There is, however, an important difference. While the Wafd's cooperation with the Brotherhood will undermine the ability of anti-Islamist forces doing anything at all, the Salafists will pull the Brotherhood toward a more militant stance.

Continue reading Egypt's Parliament 75 percent Islamist; Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement is Dead Even if Treaty Still Exists

Mideast Media Sampler 1/23/12: Al Jazeera Hearts Hatzolah, HRW Hearts Arab Spring and Brzezinski Hearts Tom Friedman

2012-01-23T10:41:00.001-05:00

From DG:

1) If they aren't a terrorist organization, what are they?

The conclusion of a New York Times op-ed, 3 weeks ago by Jean Herskovits, In Nigeria, Boko Haram Is Not the Problem:

The United States should not allow itself to be drawn into this quicksand by focusing on Boko Haram alone. Washington is already seen by many northern Muslims — including a large number of longtime admirers of America — as biased toward a Christian president from the south. The United States must work to avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy that makes us into their enemy. Placing Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would cement such views and make more Nigerians fear and distrust America.
This weekend's news Death toll in Nigeria terror onslaught tops 170
(via The Volokh Conspiracy) :

The death toll from terror attacks on Friday in the Nigerian city of Kano has climbed to at least 150 as estimated by the Red Cross, amid conflicting reports on casualty figures. The victims died in bombings and shootings aimed at eight government buildings across the city.

"We have 178 people killed in the two main hospitals. There could be more, because some bodies have not yet come in and others were collected early," the senior doctor in Kano's Murtala Mohammed hospital told Reuters on Sunday, citing records from his own and the other main hospital of Nasarawa.
...
The radical Islamist terror group Boko Haram, believed to have carried out over 500 terror attacks last year, has already claimed responsibility for the violence in Kano. The group, whose name can be translated as “Western education is a sin,” said that the onslaught was a protest against the government’s refusal to release its members from prison.
2) Praise for Israeli paramedic service. Where?!?!

Someone told me about this, but I had forgotten until I saw Elder of Ziyon. Algemeiner Journal has more background:

Throughout this week, the Al Jazeera news network is running a short film about the Jewish Paramedic Service ‘United Hatzolah’. Entitled Jerusalem SOS, the film follows Jewish and Arab volunteer paramedics as they cross the “psychological divides” between their communities of East and West Jerusalem.

Al Jazeera, though a secular news service, has become the mouthpiece for Islamic Fundamentalism in recent years, most noticeably in airing the video messages of Osama Bin Laden, and their usual scathing denigration of Israel. The coverage of this film and the positive light it lends the Jewish state is intriguingly out of character for the Al Jazeera network.
How the film will be received in the Arab world is yet to be seen, but Head of United Hatzolah, Eli Beer, signaled this as a “learning experience for the Al Jazeera network and the Arab world,” noting that they are beginning to understand “all blood is the same.”
3) Zbig does the full Tommy

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.
Thomas Friedman, Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir - The New York Times, December 13, 2011

A longtime foe of Israel’s partisans in the United States, he says the Obama team “fumbled by getting outmaneuvered by the Israelis.” Then he gets blunter: “Domestic politics interceded: The Israelis have a lot of influence with Congress, and in some cases they are able to buy influence.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski in Zbig: Israelis “bought influence” and outmaneuvered Obama - Salon, January 20, 2012 (via memeorandum)

No doubt, next week Brzezinski will tell Gary Rosenblatt that he meant to say "engineer influence," not "buy influence."

4) The Islamists won, but don't fear all will be well
The Guardian reports Egypt election results show firm win for Islamists (via memeorandum):

The Muslim Brotherhood, which was banned under Mubarak's regime, won the biggest share of parliamentary seats (38%), according to the High Elections Committee. Its Freedom and Justice party (FJP) has named Saad al-Katatni, a leading Brotherhood official who sat in the old parliament as an independent, as speaker of the assembly.

The hardline Islamist Al-Nour party came second with 29% of the seats. The liberal New Wafd and Egyptian Bloc coalition came third and fourth respectively.

The result means that Islamists will wield major influence over a new constitution, which is set to be drafted by a the country's first freely elected parliament.
Ken Roth of Human Right Watch tells us not to worry. (h/t Israel Matzav)

HRW executive director Kenneth Roth said in the group's annual report that the past year's Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings across the region have shown it is vital for the West to end its policy of backing "an array of Arab autocrats" in exchange for supporting Western interests.

The West should also be more consistent in supporting pro-democracy forces in the Arab world and elsewhere, he said in HRW's 690-page report on human rights abuses worldwide.
"The international community must ... come to terms with political Islam when it represents a majority preference," he said. "Islamist parties are genuinely popular in much of the Arab world, in part because many Arabs have come to see political Islam as the antithesis of autocratic rule."
HRW doesn't applaud all elections in the Arab world, for example it has harsh words for Iraq.

“Iraq is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director for the New York-based group. “Despite U.S. government assurances that it helped create a stable democracy (in Iraq), the reality is that it left behind a budding police state.”
Iraqi officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

Protests against Iraq’s U.S.-backed and democratically elected government erupted around the country in February 2011, partly inspired by demonstrations elsewhere in the Arab world.

Clearly things are not proceeding as hoped in Iraq and the criticism is justified. But is there a reason to criticize Iraq but does that justify turning a blind eye to the Islamist victories across the Middle East? Or is this just another rebuke of the war to defeat Saddam?

5) A few more notes about CJR

On Friday I critiqued an article by Neil Lewis at the Columbia Journalism Review about the New York Times' coverage of Israel. Honest Reporting noted that the print edition had an offensive cartoon included. David Bernstein was less critical of the article than I was, but he observes that Lewis neglected to mention that Chris Hedges headed the New York Times Middle East Bureau at the time Deborah Sontag was reporting. Finally, CJR identified Lewis as being a 2010 Shorenstein fellow at Harvard. According to the Center's website Lewis was a fellow in the Spring of 2011. That's a nitpick, but a publication devoted to journalism ought to be able to get easily verifiable details correct.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East and Zbigniew Brzezinski and Nigeria.

Arlene Kushner On Newt Gingrich's Win And Obama's Failed Mideast Policies

2012-01-22T21:03:00.001-05:00

From Arlene Kushner:

January 22, 2012

"All Right!"

Newt Gingrich, surprising a whole lot of people, ran away with the Republican primary election in S. Carolina yesterday. He has garnered at least 23 of S. Carolina's 25 delegates to the Republican convention.

Source: Huffington Post

Analysts attribute this win to Gingrich's feisty delivery at the two S. Carolina debates -- in Myrtle Beach and Charleston. He's focused, articulate, and unafraid of confronting facts that are politically incorrect.

During his speech to supporters last night, he declared:

"The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky [the founder of modern techniques in community organizing, who wrote 'Rules for Radicals'].

"If Barack Obama can get re-elected after this disaster, just think how radical he would be in a second term...

"President Obama is a president so weak that he makes Jimmy Carter look strong."

~~~~~~~~~~

With regard to energy independence, he said:

"I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to the Saudi king."

Remember that? No one in America should forget.

With regard to Obama's decision on Keystone [which involved his rejecting an offer made by Canada to bring an oil line into the US, after which China expressed an interest], he observed:

"An American president who can create a Chinese-Canadian partnership is truly a danger to this country."
~~~~~~~~~~

You can view his entire S. Carolina primary victory speech here:

~~~~~~~~~~

The NY Sun put out an editorial today about Gingrich's S. Carolina win -- "Gingrich's Synthesis" -- that is worth reading:

"Newt Gingrich is on his game, to judge not only by his victory in South Carolina but the remarkable speech he delivered when the vote was in. It seemed as if he’d waited for months to get the whole country’s attention, and when he had it last night he laid out a full vision...

"...What struck us as so shrewd in Mr. Gingrich’s display last night was not his ability to divide but to synthesize [drawing on ideas of others and giving credit]..."

What he has done with this approach, says the Sun, "is a mark of leadership."

"It certainly puts Mr. Gingrich in a good position going in to Florida. We say that not as an endorsement, rather as merely an observation...The synthesis of ideas Mr. Gingrich unfurled in the Palmetto State suggests we are in for one of the great nominating contests of our time."

(And thanks to Chana G. for calling my attention to this.)

~~~~~~~~~~

I have made no secret of the fact that I favor Gingrich as the Republican candidate because (whatever others perceive) I see him as having an excellent chance to not only beat Obama -- the first order of business -- but also to be a very fine president: He is exceedingly sharp and has a solid command of the issues; I was excited some long while ago when he made statements about Islamists and terrorism that told me he really knows what's what. He has a solid record behind him. And he's a fighter (in the positive sense) with staying power.

However this campaign may ultimately resolve itself, today I find that I am energized and more hopeful. The next hurdle is the Florida primary on January 31.

~~~~~~~~~~

I will, however, also sustain my AABO (almost anyone but Obama) position, which means that -- whatever my personal preference -- I will gladly and without qualification support Santorum or Romney should one of them get the Republican nod. Obama is such a nightmare that defeating him must take precedence over a great many other considerations. He is on his way to fighting a dirty campaign -- seriously misrepresenting his devotion to Israel. And I will shortly return to this important theme to consider it in greater detail.

~~~~~~~~~~

Here, I want to note simply that Obama continues to insist that he is a huge supporter of Israeli security. Let's pass, just for the moment, on issues such as his wanting to push Israel to the '67 line (with perhaps 2% adjustment), when this is clearly not in Israel's best interest from a security perspective...

Last night I heard journalist/commentator Caroline Glick speak here in Jerusalem. The point she made was that with regard to Obama's Middle East policy, everything he has done has been wrong and has weakened the US. It has been my position, consistently, that a weakened US also weakens Israel's security -- and I will continue to maintain this argument in countering his claims. But it goes beyond this to a weakening of Western interests.

Some of Glick's comments on Obama:

With new anti-American forces that have emerged with the so-called "Arab Spring," the US national interests have been hurt in a fundamental way.

"Everything the US is doing is inimical to its own interests and empowers its enemies." Examples:

The US has intervened on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since 2009: When Obama addressed the "Muslim world," in his speech at Cairo University (a Brotherhood stronghold), he was embracing the Muslim Brotherhood vision of a pan-Arab world [i.e, united by Islam -- via a caliphate]. This was a rejection of Arab nationalism and constituted a direct hit on Mubarak's national legitimacy. Subsequently, Obama played a primary role in transferring power in Egypt from an ally (Mubarak) to an enemy (the Muslim Brotherhood).

The US has how embraced Turkey, which is moving into the Islamist camp, as its most solid ally in the Middle East.

Obama refused to support the Green Movement in Iran, which was seeking to overthrow the Islamist regime, even as they begged for assistance.

Obama, however, embraced the Gadaffi opposition, even though Gadaffi was not a significant threat and the opposition was strongly influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Obama has made clear that if you are confrontational to the US, he will support you, while if you show a pro-US tendency, he will betray you."

Under Obama, the US is actively supporting forces that want to destroy the US -- is, for example, negotiating with the Taliban.

~~~~~~~~~~

Is the picture beginning to emerge for you?

~~~~~~~~~~

A power outage today slowed me down significantly. All else will wait for another day...

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced onlywith proper attribution.

See my website at Arlene From Israel Contact Arlene atakushner@netvision.net.il

This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Newt Gingrich and Obama.

If Netanyahu Is Really Such A Right Winger Extremist...

2012-01-22T14:28:00.000-05:00

The following is from an email describing a meeting with some friends who

immediately came out swinging that Bibi is a Right Winger and Lieberman pushes him even more right, blah, blah, blah.

I guess they weren't expecting this, because I then simply asked them if Netanyahu voted for Disengagement (yes), which other Prime Minister froze as much Settlement expansion (no one) for as long as Bibi did (no one), who has destroyed as many Outpost homes as he has as had his unquestionably Left-wing partner Ehud Barak destroy (no one), and do they remember Bibi declaring he supports a two-state solution (oops).

So do they really still want to maintain their anachronistic caricature of Bibi being an inflexible Right-wing extremist?

Well, yes they did, but they immediately changed the subject to what we really came to talk about, but at the end of the meeting at least conceded that maybe things are more complex than they look from 6000 miles away.

Just maybe.
But then again: rhetoric trumps facts every time.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu.