"We (Egypt) are a party (to the treaty) and we will be harmed so it is our right to review the matter," Essam el-Erian, a senior Brotherhood leader, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"The aid was one of the commitments of the parties that signed the peace agreement so if there is a breach from one side it gives the right of review to the parties," added Erian, the deputy leader of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the biggest group in the newly elected parliament.
His remarks are likely to increase pressure on all sides to resolve one of the worst crises in US-Egyptian ties since the treaty was signed. In similar comments, FJP leader Mohamed Mursi said in a statement that US talk of halting the aid was "misplaced," adding that the peace agreement "could stumble."
He said: "We want the march of peace to continue in a way that serves the interest of the Egyptian people."
The good news is that at least some of the Brotherhood's clerics understand that going to war with Israel is not a good idea.
A cleric seen as close to the Brotherhood said in an interview published on Wednesday that Egypt could not risk any military confrontation with Israel, adding that the country's main concern must be its economic problems.
"Egypt cannot enter a struggle in the military sense and leave the affairs of building on the internal front," Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian who lives in Qatar, told Shorouk newspaper. "Now the citizen cannot remain without work."
Some people may not like my saying this, but if that's what keeps the peace between us and Egypt, may their economic problems continue for many years to come. On the other hand, if they were willing to warm up the peace, I'm sure that there are things we could do to help them resolve their economic issues. After all, this is a country that made the desert bloom.
But in the meantime, it should be pointed out that Egypt can do a lot of harm without actually abrogating the treaty - for example through lax security in Sinai and by allowing Hamas to smuggle more weapons. The reality is quite complex.
It's a pity that the Egyptians still insist on regarding us as an enemy, more than 30 years after we signed a treaty and gave them back every inch of the Sinai.
Former National Security Advisor Robert C. “Bud” McFarlane, who served under President Ronald Reagan from 1983-1985, recently wrote to President Obama and asked that he commute Jonathan Pollard’s sentence to time served. In his correspondence to the President, McFarlane calls former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger’s affidavit in the Pollard case part of the “manifestation” of Weinberger’s “recurrent episodes of strong criticisms and unbalanced reasoning when decisions involving Israel were being made.” Similar criticism of Weinberger had been made by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, who stated that Pollard’s life sentence was due to Weinberger’s “visceral hatred of Israel.”
In his letter to President Obama, McFarlane cited Weinberger’s inaccurate affidavit as the primary cause for Pollard’s disproportionate sentence. McFarlane noted to the President that Weinberger’s well-known bias toward Israel undoubtedly led him to file the damaging affidavit that essentially sealed Pollard’s fate.
“In this case, the resultant imprisonment of Mr. Pollard for more than 26 years is more than excessive and well beyond what any court would award for the same action today,” wrote McFarlane. “Mr. Weinberger’s unduly harsh and unwarranted severity was disgraceful and mean-spirited. It has resulted in a great injustice that I encourage you to mitigate by awarding clemency and commuting Jonathan Pollard’s sentence to time served.”
While rumors of the role that Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s anti-Israel sentiments played in the Pollard case have been debated for years, McFarlane, who as National Security Advisor dealt closely with Weinberger on matters of national intelligence, unequivocally confirms that Weinberger had an anti-Israel agenda in mind when he weighed in on the Pollard case.
McFarlane’s call for clemency for Jonathan Pollard is especially significant in that he was the National Security Advisor at the time when Pollard was investigated and ultimately charged with disclosing classified information to an ally without intent to harm the United States.
McFarlane’s letter is also extremely noteworthy in that it conveys to the President that the major decision makers who were intimately involved in the Pollard case and who were most informed on the impact of Pollard’s actions have all issued public calls for Pollard’s release, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator David Durenberger, who served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of Pollard’s conviction, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who served as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time of Jonathan Pollard’s sentencing, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, and former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane.
If the poll numbers are close, Pollard will be released by Obama around October 30. Mark your calendars. If not, Pollard will have to wait for a Republican to be elected.
“I was a little surprised. I was aware of the level of scrutiny surrounding this position and the level of intensity of the debate on the issues,” she told The Jerusalem Post by phone from New York. “Yesterday someone tweeted that the New York Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief shouldn’t tweet. I hope that’s not true.”
Well, lets say I'd be more discrete. You know, like not talking too much about the family in public. On top of the blogs and Twitter and Facebook (all of which Israelis use extensively), we also have a very active (if mostly biased) mainstream media here. And people here feel more strongly about their issues here than they usually do in Kansas.
“There are people who are very upset about the tweets, and others have defended my right to talk to certain sources,” she said. “The notion that reaching out to Ali Abunimah is some big sin – I think people have moved on since then.”
Rudoren said she had heard of Abunimah and Philip Weiss – founders of the Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss websites, respectively – before reaching out to them on Twitter, but was not aware of the specifics of their work.
“I knew some things about them, but not everything. I’ve reached out to many many people of different stripes,” she said.
“One of the people I followed before reaching out to Abunimah was David Ha’ivri,” she added, referring to the Israeli settler activist. “I don’t want to have people keeping score – I’m trying to find a balanced Twitter diet.”
Abunimah is a non-factor here... because he's not here. I doubt most Israelis have heard of him (I first heard of him in 2007 because of his close connection to President Obama). Mondoweiss is mainly known in the blogosphere. I could suggest much more important contacts in Israel that Rudoren ought to make if she is going to be reporting from here. Yes, even on the Left.
By the way, HaIvri is an important contact on the Right. He's the liaison for the Samaria regional council and he's been quoted several times on this blog (and often sends me things hoping I will post them. An email to HaIvri seeking comment for this post has thus far gone unanswered.
Speaking to the Post, the veteran journalist conceded she has little to no experience covering the Middle East: “I’ve never reported from the region. I’ve written plenty of stories about religion, particularly about Jewish and Muslims Americans. After 9/11 I wrote quite a bit about Muslims in Detroit. I’ve written various things about Jews in my career, but not about the conflict.”
Still, Rudoren insisted there should be no doubt she is qualified for her new position. “I’ve been a reporter since I was 13, and professionally for 20 years. I’ve covered politics, religion, immigration, breaking news,” she said. “I’ve done stories on more and less controversial subjects; I’ve been an editor for the last five years; I’ve run small and large departments, I’ve been an innovator in Web and print – it’s a surprising question to me.
“Are you asking if only people with a lot of expertise in the region should cover the Middle East? Some people have that opinion, but I don’t, and its not how the New York Times works. Broadly speaking it’s a paper that believes in generalism, and bringing in fresh eyes and insights,” she said.
She added that her predecessor Ethan Bronner “is not the same – it was his third tour as a Jerusalem correspondent – but the paper doesn’t always make its decisions the same way. Having a mix is a good thing.
“Am I qualified? Absolutely,” she said. “I wasn’t even aware people were asking that question.”
She's got a lot to learn. This is the Middle East....
UPDATE 10:37 AM
David HaIvri comments:
"The criticism on Judi Rudoren is a little premature and blown out of proportion in my opinion. I expect a good journalist not to bee affiliated with ether side Zionist or Anti-Israel. But, to report events in a clear an objective mater. In order to do that a resourceful journalists should develop relationships with strong sources on ether side. With that being said reaching out to a Chicago based professional provocateur was a tactical mistake on her behalf. He is far from local or a source of real information. My hope for the readers of the NYT is that she succeeds in quickly learning the ins and outs of how to project a true picture of what is going on in this beautiful country we live in. I will give her a chance.
In a side note I would have appreciated it if the Jpost had included my Twitter user @haivri in an article mentioning people following me on Twitter.
I agree with David and yes, I follow him on Twitter.
This year's ratings for Canada (96%), Australia (93%), Germany (86%), Japan (83%), and India (75%) are all record highs for those countries in Gallup trends that stretch back at least a decade. Additionally, the survey finds Great Britain (90%), France (75%), and Israel (71%) rated near their all-time highs.
The seven countries listed are the only ones with higher ratings than Israel.
The 'Palestinians' have a positive rating of 19%, ahead of Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran.
In this video we will try and answer the question that many of us are asking. Is Israel an Apartheid state? Do they discriminate against their own citizens?
Krauthammer: 'Israeli strike on Iran will not cause a world war'
Charles Krauthammer went on Fox on Wednesday to argue that an Israeli strike on Iran will not cause a world war.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W).
I agree with him. I don't see Russia or China intervening militarily in favor of Iran, although given some of the Russian threats regarding Syria over the last few weeks, I'm a lot less certain about that than I was a month ago. Still, so long as we're attacking the nuclear program and not trying to bring about regime change, I don't think the Russians will interfere. If someone does try to bring about regime change, the Russians may protest, but I doubt they will interfere militarily.
Here's a brand new music video from Yaakov Shwekey called Cry No More.
It's the official music video from the title song of Yaakov Shwekey's new album. A Mendy Pellin Film. Full credits and information at http://shwekey.com
“Iran today has the technical, scientific and industrial capability to eventually produce nuclear weapons,” Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the US Armed Services Committee. “While international pressure on Iran has increased, including through sanctions, we assess that Tehran is not close to agreeing to abandon its nuclear program.”
He also said that Iran had the capability to close “at least temporarily” the Straits of Hormuz, a major passageway for global oil shipments, and could launch missile strikes and terror attacks against the US and its allies in retaliation for any attack on its nuclear facilities.
“However,” he said, “The agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict.”
Huh? They're not close to abandoning the program, they could close the Strait of Hormuz, but you assess they're unlikely to do it? Based on what? And what if they 'only' give Hezbullah a dirty bomb and maintain 'plausible deniability'? That's okay?
And then there's this from the guy who calls the Muslim Brotherhood 'secular.'
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who testified alongside Burgess Thursday, assessed that to date Iran has not yet decided whether to build a nuclear weapon, though it was acquiring some of the means to do so.
“We believe that the decision would be made by the Supreme Leader himself and he would base that decision on a cost-benefit analysis,” he said. “I don’t think he’d want a nuclear weapon at any price, so that I think plays to the value of sanctions.”
...
Clapper also said that while he agreed with the assessment of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that Iran could construct a nuclear bomb within one year, it would likely take longer.
Again, based on what?
Oh - and Clapper isn't worried about Israel striking Iran either. He claims that Panetta's assessment that Israel would strike in April, May or June was based on the weather. Really.
Prime Minister Netanyahu said on Thursday what no one else in a position of power has been willing to say: Sanctions aren't working.
“If anybody needed a reminder that the sanctions have not stopped the nuclear program, it was the guided tour by the Iran’s president in the centrifuge hall yesterday," he said. “I hope they work, but so far they have not."
Netanyahu characterized Iran as a regime that “breaks all the rules." A regime that was formed through the taking of the US embassy in Tehran, Iran -- Netanyahu said -- has ever since continued to show no respect for international rules. The most recent example, he said, was attacking foreign diplomats and their wives.
“They send children into mine fields, they have suicide bombers, they send tens of thousands of rockets into our cites and towns," Netanyahu said. “Such a regime should obviously not have an atomic bomb, and I believe that the international community is becoming aware by the day of what it means for Iran” to have nuclear potential, he said.
Asked about whether the US should fear an Israeli attack on Iran, Netanyahu said that Israel, the US and the rest of the world should be concerned about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
But is he willing to actually do something about it? What could go wrong?
What does he think we've been doing for the last three years?
This is nothing short of amazing. The New York Times publishes a piece by former Obama (and Clinton and Bush) adviser Dennis Ross entitled, alternatively, "Iran is ready to talk" or "Give diplomacy a chance." Just what does he think we've been doing for the last three years?
The Obama administration has now created a situation in which diplomacy has a chance to succeed. It remains an open question whether it will.
Israel worries that it could lose its military option, and it may be reluctant to wait for diplomacy to bear fruit. That said, Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have consistently called for “crippling sanctions,” reflecting a belief that Iran’s behavior could be changed with sufficient pressure. The fact that crippling sanctions have finally been applied means that Israel is more likely to give these sanctions and the related diplomatic offensive a chance to work. And it should.
Still, it is unclear whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose regime depends so heavily on hostility to America, is willing to make a deal on the nuclear issue. Nonetheless, Iran is now signaling that it is interested in diplomacy. Its foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, has declared that Iran will resume talks with the five permanent members of the Security Council and the Germans. He recently said that Iran would discuss Russia’s step-by-step proposal to defuse the nuclear standoff, which Iran refused to entertain when a variation of it was first broached last year.
Now, with Iran feeling the pressure, its leaders suddenly seem prepared to talk. Of course, Iran’s government might try to draw out talks while pursuing their nuclear program. But if that is their strategy, they will face even more onerous pressures, when a planned European boycott of their oil begins on July 1.
Moreover, given Mr. Obama’s stated determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Iran’s leaders may actually be making the use of force against their nuclear facilities more likely by playing for time.
Iran can have civilian nuclear power, but it must not have nuclear weapons. Ultimately, Ayatollah Khamenei will have to decide what poses a greater threat to his rule: ending his quest for nuclear weapons or stubbornly pursuing them as crippling economic pressures mount.
With Iran reeling from sanctions, the proper environment now exists for diplomacy to work. The next few months will determine whether it succeeds.
If the Obama administration - whose policies Ross had a major role in shaping - really wanted to give diplomacy a chance to succeed, they would (a) let all parties know that if Iran even gets near the point of no return on nuclear weapons, the United States of America is absolutely committed to stopping Iran militarily, and (b) drop the 'right' of Iran to have 'civilian nuclear power.' A rogue state deserves to lose that 'right' (if it ever existed) altogether.
But of course, the Obama administration does not have the courage to stand up to Iran, and cannot expect Israel to be the fall guy for its inept policymaking.
Hamas 'Prime Minister' Ismail Haniyeh visited Tehran this week, and I have a video highlight tour for you (although, curiously, this clip does not include Haniyeh calling Israel a 'cancer').
Let's go to the videotape.
Aren't you glad Hamas turned to the PLO so that now you are paying Uncle Ismail's travel expenses? What could go wrong?
Surprise: Obama wants to fund UNESCO despite admission of 'Palestine'
You will recall that the Obama administration originally said that they would not fund UNESCO after it admitted the imaginary state of 'Palestine' to membership. Now, Barack Hussein Obama would like to change that. He wants Congress to give him a waiver so that he can fund UNESCO despite its inclusion of 'Palestine.'
In a deviation from the charm offensive he has been aiming at American Jews in the last several months, President Obama has asked Congress to grant him a waiver that will allow the administration to continue funding the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) despite its recognition of Palestinian statehood. U.S. law forbids the funding of any international organization that grants admission to the Palestinians as a separate, independent state prior to its signing a peace treaty with Israel. However, JTA reports that Obama, who is a dedicated admirer of the UN and its member agencies, hopes he can persuade Congress to let him keep sending taxpayer dollars to the group in spite of the law.
Republican opposition to the waiver is assured, meaning the chances of Obama’s wish being granted are virtually nonexistent. But given how anxious the president has been to show Jewish voters and donors that he is, as he claims, Israel’s best friend ever in the White House, the decision to try to flout the law in order to bolster a controversial UN agency gives us some real insight into the administration’s thinking and its plans in a possible second term for Obama.
...
What the pro-Israel community needs to remember is it was largely the threat of a U.S. aid cutoff that ensured the UN and its other agencies would not follow UNESCO’s lead on the Palestinians. If UNESCO goes unpunished it will be an incentive for other such groups to grant the Palestinians their wish. Doing so, especially now that the PA is about to become a joint venture between Fatah and Hamas, would be a defeat for U.S. policy and further diminish the already dim chances of peace.
Though Democrats will spend the rest of 2012 attempting to sell Jewish voters the idea that Obama is Israel’s best friend, the UNESCO waiver request is evidence not only of the falseness of this claim but of what may come in a second term for the president.
Read the whole thing. It's also a reminder of something else: Obama is a liar. No promise that he makes regarding Israel can be trusted.
'Palestinians' use children's deaths for political purposes
You all probably didn't realize this, but I went to Tel Aviv on Thursday afternoon (unfortunately, not for anything good). On the way home, I was listening to Israel Radio's 5:00 news digest, and even the leftist-dominated station was amazed at the blatant lying that the 'Palestinians' were using regarding a tragedy that happened on Thursday morning.
On Thursday morning, the 'Palestinian' village of Anata decided to send its Kindergarten children on a school trip, despite the rainy, windy, slippery conditions. Outside the Jewish town of Adam, on one of the most bizarre traffic circles I have ever seen, an Israeli truck (driven by an Israeli Arab) crashed into the bus, knocking the bus over into a ditch, where it flipped over and caught fire. While there is a lot of confusion as to exact numbers, it appears that there was one teacher killed and between 5 and 10 children killed. Just about every child on the bus was injured, many of them seriously. You can find summaries of what happened here and here.
It's important to note that the location where the accident took place is just a couple of hundred meters inside Area C - the area that is completely under Israeli control.
As you can see from the picture above, emergency responders from both the Jewish and Arab communities came out to help evacuate the wounded. But - as you can probably guess - the facilities at Israeli hospitals are much better than the facilities at 'Palestinian' hospitals, as often happens when you have a robust economy and slightly less corruption. Israel agreed to take every 'Palestinian' child to an Israeli hospital. But the 'Palestinian' Red Crescent (which did not need to adopt a bizarre new symbol to be admitted to the International Red Cross) insisted on taking several seriously injured children to hospitals in Ramallah. By the time these kids were transferred to Israeli hospitals, their conditions had deteriorated, and their lives are now in danger.
On Thursday afternoon, the 'Palestinian Health Minister' started complaining that they weren't allowed to treat people from Area C, and that Israel did not take the kids to Israeli hospitals right away. A little disingenuous, but quite typical of the way that the 'Palestinian Authority' (which is backing up the 'Health Minister') manipulates facts to make things seem like what they are not.
I haven't been giving you all the details (I haven't been following them that closely), but there are a lot of war preparations going on in this country. The good news is that - unlike 1967 - we don't hear stories about body bags being prepared. But the bad news is that a war will clearly be quite disruptive or worse. Giulio Meotti has some of the details.
If Israel strikes Iranian nuclear facilities, Tehran has three major targets: the atomic reactor at Dimona, Haifa’s port and refineries, and the area of Zakariya, where Israel stored its missile arsenal. Eyal Eisenberg, head of the Home Front Command, recently declared, “Haifa will be flooded with 12.000 missiles.” Israel’s army estimates that Hamas and Hezbollah have 1,600 rockets capable of hitting targets with high precision. In the words of former Minister Matan Vilnai, in the event of such a war, Israel’s Defense Ministry building “will not remain standing.”
But Israel is no stranger to missile fire. Since 1948, the year of the founding of the state, more than 60,000 rockets have fallen on Israel. In 2006 during the second Lebanon war when Hezbollah rained missiles down on the north of the country, one million Israelis were forced to live in shelters for more than a month. There are estimated to be 200,000 missiles pointed at the country today. The situation is such that, according to a survey conducted by Tel Aviv University, 30 percent of those Israelis with a foreign passport are willing to leave the country. A few days ago, Yediot Ahronot, Israel’s largest circulation newspaper, published a list of “cities of refuge” where it is better to live “in case of emergency.”
Tel Aviv, where 60 percent of Israel’s population reside, is now facing Iran’s “judgment day.” Many security drills are termed “NBC:” nuclear, biological and chemical threats.
Syria is the “most advanced Arab country in the production of chemical weapons,” according to a report by the Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University. Though Syria’s government is preoccupied with the rebellion against the Assad regime, it is still an ally of Iran and might decide that joining in an attack on Israel would be a good way to divert public anger against the massacres of dissidents. Syria has produced hundreds of tons of chemical weapons and bombs filled with sarin and another lethal gas, VX. The idea is that botulinum, anthrax and other lethal pathogens can be used in conjunction with explosives. Just 100 grams of mustard gas would be enough to kill 500 Israelis.
With this sort of threat in view, Israel is preparing its bomb shelters. This week, the Foreign Ministry gave the embassies a list of bunkers available for the diplomats. Only Tel Aviv has as many as 240 bunkers. The Jerusalem railway station is able to accommodate 5,000 people. Even theaters, like Habima in Tel Aviv, will host thousands of people. In Safed, the first hospital-bunker for children is being prepared. Evacuation plans are ready for Ramat Gan, the populous suburb of Tel Aviv hit by Saddam Hussein’s rockets in 1991.
While many Israelis may take shelter in the Negev, up to half a million could take refuge in the Jewish settlements of Samaria. The commander of the Home Front, General Yair Golan, declared that “cities can be transformed into a battlefield” and that masses of people will be forced to flee to a “national refuge” in Samaria in the West Bank. The hospitals have emergency plans. The most important industries, such as the banks and the Bezeq phone company, are preparing alternative technologies in case of national collapse.
But note that this seemingly assumes that any war will take place before Iran goes nuclear. What could go wrong?
For now, several top Israeli officials are skeptical. That is where Mr. Panetta and Mr. Obama should be making an effort. Rather than publicly arguing with Israel, they should be more clearly spelling out U.S. willingness to take military action if Iran is discovered taking steps toward bomb-making, such as enriching its uranium beyond present levels or expelling U.N. inspectors. Saying “all options are on the table” is not enough; the Obama administration should be explicit about Iranian actions that will violate its red lines — and what the consequences will be.
The first was what I wrote to Ali Abuminah [the editor of Electronic Intifada]. I meant to write him a Direct Message and I instead hit reply. That isn’t an excuse -- I don’t mind that people saw it -- but it wasn’t intended to be for the public, it was intended to be for him. But yes, of course I will talk to him. And I will talk to extremists on both sides. And I will talk to moderates. I will talk to lots and lots of people from all sides of this conflict... I will not apologize for reaching out to Ali Abuminah; he seems to be an important person to me. Anyone who thinks that I shouldn’t talk to him doesn’t understand how we do our jobs.
Hypothetically, then, if she were reporting on politics in Louisiana in the 1990's it would have been her responsibility to reach out to David Duke outside of her regular reporting? (I don't buy the Direct Message excuse. Messaging is a different mode from a reply.)
Of course she has to say that she'll talk to extremists on both sides. But who does she think is an extremist? Does she believe - as she implies - that Abunimah is an extemist?
Jodi Rudoren, the Times editor just chosen to replace Ethan Bronner in as Jerusalem bureau chief (Bronner's four-year tour is up), finds herself in a pickle because of a series of tweets she issued yesterday. She shmoozed-up Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian activist who argues for Israel's destruction; she also praised Peter Beinart's upcoming book as, "terrific: provocative, readable, full of reporting and reflection." She also linked without comment to an article in a pro-Hezbollah Lebanese newspaper. All of this is fine, of course, if she wasn't stepping into the most sensitive job in journalism. Reaching out to Abunimah is normal, of course: He's a player in extremist circles, and someone she might wind-up covering. But it would have been better if she had twinned this reach-out with one to a Kahanist or some sort of radical settler rabbi, for balance. Praising Peter's book is fine, if she weren't meant to be an objective reporter (I haven't read Peter's book, just a propagandistic missive about it, and for all I know I might like it). Imagine how the Left would feel if the new New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief called one of Benjamin Netanyahu's books "a terrific and provocative read, full of reporting and reflection." It's all excusable as beat-sweetening, I suppose, but still queasy-making.
Forget about Netanyahu though. What if she had linked to an article at Israel21c about an Israeli advance in fighting cancer? Many of the same people who'd have jumped on her for promoting Netanyahu, would have branded her pro-Israel for something as innocuous as mentioning Israel's contribution to medical technology. (The reliably unreliable Richard Silverstein even described her as "Known for Pro-Israel Reporting." On what basis I have no idea.)
Shuel Rosner made some good points too, though I don't agree with everything.
Forget about your political view or the view of the writer/speaker. Is their description of reality accurate? Does it take the facts into account and provide evidence? Does it ignore or conceal evidence that undermines their thesis? Is the argument persuasive? Does it successfully answer criticisms of the claims being made? If so, then that person is right. You may then proceed to draw some conclusion about the proper response.
The question isn't whether Jodi Rudoren is pro- or anti-Israel, it is whether she will be accurate or not.
I'll disagree with the sympathy expressed by Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner for Rudoren. Getting the job of Jerusalem bureau chief is a huge professional accomplishment. The reporters who hold that job for American newspapers become superstars. Thomas Friedman whose cliche riddled columns and pronouncements pass for wisdom among the elite is the most prominent example. Serving as Jerusalem bureau chief is often followed by a book deal or a promotion to the editorial board. Don't cry for Jodi Rudoren.
The question is why this is such a plum assignment. My impression is that reporters see Israel as a canvas and their ability to find the shades of grey (usually criticisms of Israel) is their chance at literary greatness.
In the first phase, the early decades, Israel was depicted in the newspaper often as a struggling nation trying to thrive while surrounded by implacably hostile Arab neighbors. This reflected a picture of Israel that was probably prevalent in America, one that could be called the "Exodus'' view, after the novel by Leon Uris and film starring Paul Newman and Eva Marie-Saint in which the post-Holocaust Jews of the nascent state were heroes and the Arabs were treacherous, dangerous characters. But, over various points beginning in the late 1960's through the next dozen years, the narrative began to change to a second, more equivocal phase. The template of the small nation as a David battling a Goliath composed of its enemies no longer fit after Israel prevailed handily in the 1967 War. And gradually, the situation of the Palestinian refugees began to emerge.
It's interesting how the narrative about Israel has changed that begs for a reassessment, but that the Palestinian rejection of peace in 2000 called for an explanation as to why Israel didn't do enough for peace.
That's besides the point. Jodi Rudoren's public tweets have shown that she is interested in finding that nuance; those shades of grey in the Middle East and not accuracy.
Fake 'martyr's father loses libel lawsuit in France
In 2007, I reported on a story that claimed that the scars that Jamal al-Dura - fake martyr Mohamed's father - claims that he received during the same incident in which Mohamed was killed - were in fact the results of an attack by a gang of 'Palestinians' in 1992 and subsequent surgery from 1994 which grafted a tendon from his foot into his right arm. The story included an interview with the Israeli surgeon who treated al-Dura in 1994, and who says that there is no way those scars game from gunshots.
According to the Metula release (link in French), Jamal al Dura declared on medical records in 1992 that Palestinian militia had attacked him with axes. Doctors at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital* were able to save his life but he lost the use of his right hand because they could not repair a ruptured tendon in the forearm. Palestinian doctors referred Jamal to Tal Hashomer [should be Tel Hashomer. CiJ] hospital in Tel Aviv in March 1994. Dr. Yehuda performed reconstructive surgery, grafting a tendon taken from the foot, and restoring almost normal use of the hand. The medical record of that operation also refers to the removal of “foreign bodies,” suggesting that other instruments besides axes were used in the 1992 attack.
Alerted by the Ména [Metula News Agency] to the film of Jamal’s wounds produced in 2004 by Talal Abu Rahma at the demand of France 2 news director Arlette Chabot, to silence investigators, Dr. Yehuda and his colleagues declare that the scars shown in that film were incurred in 1992 and result from axe blade wounds and definitely not from gunshot. They are ready and willing to testify to this in any court.
The Metula release promises further revelations in the near future.
You will note in the picture above that Jamal is cradling his son with his right hand - the same one restored by Israeli surgeons. Probably free of charge.
A French appeals court yesterday overturned the libel conviction of an Israeli physician who was sued by the father of Mohammed al-Dura, the boy whose shooting death in September 2000 became a powerful symbol of the second intifada.
Jamal al-Dura had displayed to international media outlets scars on his body he claimed were caused by bullets fired by Israel Defense Forces soldiers.
In a 2008 interview with a French Jewish weekly an Israeli orthopedic surgeon, Dr. David Yehuda disputed the elder Dura's claim. Yehuda said the scars were not related to the incident in which Mohammed al-Dura, who was 12 years old, died.
Rather, Yehuda said, they were the result of an assault on Dura by Hamas militants who accused him of collaborating with Israel, as well as subsequent surgery performed by Yehuda himself in 1994.
Yehuda, together with the reporter and editor of the French publication, were convicted of libel by a French court in April and ordered to pay thousands of euros in compensation.
Yesterday's ruling was the result of Yehuda's appeal of his conviction.
After being taken to task by Jeffrey Goldberg and Shmuel Rosner - and presumably by her bosses at the Times - newly named New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Rudoren has toned down her Twitter account. There were a total of five tweets yesterday, four of which had no obvious connection to the Middle East. The other one thanked people for their advice and reading suggestions.
Rudoren also went for an interview with Politico's Dylan Byers.
What is your response to the suggestion that you’re showing anti-Zionist bias?
It’s wildly premature to assess my biases. I have written nothing, other than a few tweets. It is certainly possible, as some have suggested, that I was not careful enough in what I wrote in some tweets, and what exactly I tweeted. But I hardly think that the half-a-dozen or dozen tweets that I’ve sent out in the last 24 hours add up to anything. This is a fleeting medium, in which you react to what you see. So some of the retweets that I’ve done happened to be what I was reading at that moment. It was not a comprehensive review.
Let’s take the two things that people have criticized most in succession:
The first was what I wrote to Ali Abuminah [the editor of Electronic Intifada]. I meant to write him a Direct Message and I instead hit reply. That isn’t an excuse -- I don’t mind that people saw it -- but it wasn’t intended to be for the public, it was intended to be for him.
But yes, of course I will talk to him. And I will talk to extremists on both sides. And I will talk to moderates. I will talk to lots and lots of people from all sides of this conflict... I will not apologize for reaching out to Ali Abuminah; he seems to be an important person to me. Anyone who thinks that I shouldn’t talk to him doesn’t understand how we do our jobs.
But anyone who thinks I shouldn’t talk to him -- I want to talk to them, too. Adam Kredo [a reporter at Washington Free Beacon] said I didn’t respond to him, but I never heard from Adam. So I emailed him back, but I haven’t heard from him. But I would be eager to talk to him about anything.
In terms of Peter Beinart’s book, I will absolutely not apologize for thinking that this is a good book. Peter is someone I’ve known for 20 years, he’s a journalist, he’s written a really interesting book. I don’t agree with everything in the book, I don’t even have an opinion about the arguments in the book, but it’s really well written, it’s really provocative, there’s tons of reporting in it with things people don’t know. I think people should read it. I think hard-right Zionists should read it and Palestinian activists should read it. And young American Jews, who are really the audience for the book, should read it.
Yesterday, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote and tweeted about Rudoren’s mistake. She has to stop acting as if she were a J Street official, he wrote, but later tweeted that she “can un-tag herself as a J Street-proxy pretty quickly by doing a good job reporting”.
No, she can’t.
She can write from Jerusalem of course, as I expect she might still do. She can write fine stories from Jerusalem, she can have sources and can gain more knowledge and can even break some news. What she will not be able to do is to pretend to be unbiased. What she will not be able to do is to have good sources at the very top – at the offices of government in which people are already quite suspicious of the Times and will now be even more suspicious. Wouldn’t you be? With these people she’s probably toast, and without them she can’t be as good as a NYT Jerusalem reporter could be.
So here’s what’s going to happen: Rudoren will be told by her superiors to lay low and restart her period of Israel education. The decision to send her to Israel will not be reversed – a matter of journalistic independence and pride. The watchdogs of such matters will be alerted, they will constantly heckle her, every word interpreted, every nuance parsed. Letters to the editor will be sent. Complaints will be filed. No one will ever give her any benefit of the doubt. If her stories are critical of Israel, it will be a sign that she really is biased. If her stories are more positive, people will start whispering that she’s pandering to win back the confidence of official Israel.
All this is probably unfair to Rudoren. She doesn’t seem like the archenemy of all things Israel, she doesn’t seem like someone deserving of all the animosity and the acrimony and resentment. She made one foolish mistake, and can’t take it back since people already know what she really thinks, how she really feels. And she will not be easily forgiven for being honest about it.
If she were to ask my advice (which I do not expect to happen even if she ever reads this post) I wouldn’t know what to tell her. Not to go? To go and do her best under these miserable circumstances? Once in a while a writer would like to be proven wrong – and this is one such case for me. I wish I could write again about Rudoren a year from now, and I hope I’d be able to apologize and take back my prediction about her.
I think a lot of us feel that way. I know that I do.
Kuwait's Al-Jarida newspaper reported Thursday that Israel was able to prevent an assassination attempt on Defense Minister Ehud Barak, during his visit to Singapore this week.
According to the report, the Mossad – collaborating with local authorities – was able to stop the assassins, who planned on targeting Barak during his visit to the Singapore Air Show.
The newspaper based its report on "high ranking Israeli defense officials."
Al-Jarida went on to quote the sources as saying that prior to Barak's visit, the Israeli intelligence agency contacts Singapore authorities and gave them "highly classified information suggesting a cell comprising of Iranian and Hezbollah operatives were planning to assassinate the Israeli defense minister."
A covert operation based on the information resulted in the arrest of three suspects.
The assassination was to take place in Barak's hotel room. Hmmm.
“I call on the international community, especially States with close relations with Israel, to urge the Israeli Government to fulfil its responsibilities under international law, most urgently with regard to Mr. Adnan,” the human rights expert said. Mr. Adnan, whose life is reportedly in jeopardy, has maintained a hunger strike for 60 days in response to the humiliating circumstances of his imprisonment without charges by the Government of Israel.
“In view of the emergency of his situation, the Government of Israel must take immediate and effective action to safeguard Mr. Adnan’s life, while upholding his rights,” stressed the Special Rapporteur, who is currently undertaking a fact-finding mission to the region.
Mr. Falk also called on the Government of Israel to respect its legal obligations pertaining to the several thousand Palestinians it has imprisoned. “The improper treatment of thousands of Palestinian prisoners by the Government of Israel should be of great concern to the international community, and it is a problem that I am paying close attention to in the context of my ongoing visit to the region.”
OMG: Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein admits that BDS'ers want to destroy Israel
Yes, really. Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein admits that the BDS'ers (boycott, divest, sanctions) want to eliminate Israel. And no, that doesn't mean that he doesn't support BDS.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W). A transcript follows (sorry - I would have run this last night, but I could not stay awake long enough to watch it).
I've earned my right to speak my mind, and I'm not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of leftist posturing.
I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuous. They don't want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result?
You know and I know what the result is. There's no Israel! And if you don't want the same framework then stop talking about the law and stop trying to be so clever. Because you're only so clever in your cult. The moment you step out you have to deal with Israeli propaganda. And here they have a case.
They say no they're not really talking about rights. They're talking about they want to destroy Israel. And in act I think they're right I think that's true. I'm not going to lie. But this kind of duplicity and disingenuous, "oh we're agnostic about Israel." No you're not agnostic! You don't want it! Then just say it! But they know full well: If you say it you don't have a prayer reaching a broad public. Because that's where the public is right now.
I support the BDS. But I said it will never reach a broad public until and unless they're explicit in their goal. And their goal has to include the recognition of Israel or it's a nonstarter. It won't reach the public because the moment you go out there Israel will start to say what about we and they won't recognize our right and in fact that's correct. You can't answer the Israelis on that because they're making a statement that's factually correct. It's not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that
It's not like they're "oh we forgot to mention it." They won't mention it because they know it will split the movement. Cause there's a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel.
You talk about BDS they make all these claims about their victories. All their claims. You know what? You use these ten fingers? These more than suffice to count all their victories. There are superfluous fingers here to count all their victories. It's a cult! Where the guru says we have all these victories and everyone nods their head and no one sits down to do the arithmetic on their own.
Yes it's had some victories no question about it. But the way people promote it as if it's proven itself and we're on the verge of a victory of some sort. It's just sheer nonsense. Its a cult. And I personally am tired of it.
There's no Israel. That's what it's really about. And you think you're fooling anybody. You think you're so clever that people can't figure that out for themselves? No they understand the arithmetic perfectly well. Are you going to reach a broad public which is going to hear the Israeli side 'they want to destroy us?' No you're not. And frankly you know what you shouldn't. You shouldn't read a broad public because you're dishonest. And I wouldn't trust those people if I had to live in this state. I wouldn't. It's dishonesty.
This video - which currently has only 258 hits! - should go viral.
Doug Ross has discovered the 'Obama truth team's spiffy new logo. No, that's not it at the top of this post. Click through to see it (Hat Tip: Jack W).
In an interview on Israel Radio on Thursday morning, Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, was dismissive of the progress that Iran is making toward acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to Barak, Iran has not reached the point of no return. There is still time to stop them.
The US also downplayed Iran's latest announcement of nuclear progress, saying Tehran's reported advances were "not terribly new and not terribly impressive."
"We frankly don't see a lot new here. This is not big news. In fact it seems to have been hyped," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters.
"The Iranians have for many months been putting out calendars of accomplishments, and based on their own calendars, they are many, many months behind," she said.
And apparently Iran agrees too. They are seeking new talks, which, with the Iranians, is always a stall for time.
Meanwhile, Iran has told world powers it is ready to resume talks as soon as possible over its disputed nuclear program, according to a letter obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, an offer that could reflect its difficulty in coping with tough US and European sanctions, or amount to another delaying tactic as it moves ahead with activities that could bring it closer to developing an atomic bomb.
The letter from chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili was sent Tuesday, just a day before Iran claimed two major advances in producing nuclear fuel and indicated it was on the verge of imposing an oil embargo on European countries to retaliate for sanctions. The Obama administration dismissed the announcements as unimpressive and said Tehran's erratic behavior was indicative of the squeeze it is feeling as a result of hard-hitting economic measures against it.
"We voice our readiness for dialogue on a spectrum of various issues which can provide ground for constructive and forward looking cooperation," Jalili wrote in the letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, the point of contact for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, who are demanding that Iran freeze all uranium enrichment.
Ashton had written Jalili in October, offering Iran a new round of talks toward an agreement that "restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."
Jalili welcomed Ashton's statement of respect for Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy use and said that "by committing to this approach, our talks for cooperation based on step-by-step principles and reciprocity on Iran's nuclear issue could be commenced," according to a translated copy of the letter.
A "constructive and positive attitude towards Islamic Republic of Iran's new initiatives in this round of talks could open (a) positive perspective for our negotiation," Jalili wrote. "Therefore, within this context, I propose to resume our talks in order to take fundamental steps for sustainable cooperation in the earliest possibility, in a mutually agreed venue and time."
Asked about Jalili's letter to Ashton, Nuland said the US was speaking with its partners about it. Hinting at the contents of the Iranian response, however, she said: "It may be that they felt the need to bluster on their nuclear side even as they make clear that they do want to come back to the table for talks."
Let's not fool ourselves. Everyone here is on a different page.
The Obama administration is seeking to forestall Israeli action until after the elections so that the Israelis don't mess up Obama's party, and so that Obama has a much heavier stick to wield over Israel's head than he has with a reelection campaign staring him in the face.
The Iranians might even be willing to stop or slow down their 'progress' for a short while, because even they realize that even if they make no 'progress' toward a nuclear weapon for the next nine months, until November 6 they are making progress just by holding Israel off.
And the Israelis are looking nervously at the calendar and realizing that whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon or not, unless a Republican manages to unseat Obama, time is running out for us. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta may have put a damper on an Israeli strike in the spring by saying that Israel would strike in April, May or June, but there's really no need to wait that long. It can certainly be done once the rains end - which typically happens in the last ten days of March. It could even happen as soon as March 7, 8 or 9, the days associated with the Jewish holiday of Purim, which celebrates a defeat of the Persians, although it's raining heavily today and is supposed to rain and snow through Saturday night (yes, we may get snow in Jerusalem on Saturday afternoon and evening). Will it happen in March? I can't say. But I can say this: Unless there are clear polls indicating that Obama is going to lose the US elections, there will be an Israeli strike on Iran before November 6. We probably made a mistake by not striking in the last days of the Bush administration. That mistake won't be repeated. Bet on it.
I don't know how many of you have been following the controversy of the use of a film about Islam in New York Police Department but here's a video that sums it up.
The public supports tough measures – including the possible use of military force – to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Just 30% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means that country develops nuclear weapons. These opinions are little changed from October 2009.
There have been reports in recent weeks that Israel may soon attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. About half of Americans (51%) say the United States should remain neutral if Israel takes action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but far more say the U.S. should support (39%) than oppose (5%) an Israeli attack.
...
There are large demographic differences in views about what the U.S. should do if Israel attacks Iran. A majority of women (55%) say the U.S. should stay neutral. Men are more divided over whether the U.S. should stay neutral (47%) or support Israel (45%). Young people also are far more likely than older Americans to say the U.S. should stay neutral.
Fully 64% of white evangelical Protestants say that the U.S. should support Israel if it attacks Iran in an effort to stop their nuclear weapon program. That compares with 42% of white mainline Protestants and 41% of white Catholics.
There is a wide divide among Republicans on the issue of Iran. Fully 71% of conservative Republicans think the U.S. should support Israel’s military action if they attack Iran, compared with 43% of moderate and liberal Republicans. A majority of independents and Democrats (including both liberal and more moderate Democrats) think the U.S. should stay neutral.
...
Despite the recent push for tougher economic sanctions against Iran by the U.S. and its allies, 64% of the public thinks that tougher economic sanctions will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program. Just 21% think they will work. In October 2009, 56% thought tougher economic sanctions would not work in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
There is wide consensus across party lines that tougher economic sanctions on Iran will be ineffective. Most Republicans (72%) and independents (67%), as well as 56% of Democrats, say that Iran will not give up its nuclear program even with tougher economic sanctions.
...
An overwhelming majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party (84%) say that the U.S. should prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. That compares with a smaller majority (64%) of Republicans who disagree with or have no opinion of the Tea Party.
The gap among Republicans is even larger on what the U.S. should do if Israel attacks Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program. Fully 81% of Tea Party Republicans say the U.S. should support Israel’s military action, compared with just 43% of non-Tea Party Republicans.
All of this is an argument why Israel must attack Iran before the US elections, while public opinion still matters to Obama. There is no choice.
Netanyahu’s trip shows the degree to which relations with Cyprus, which until four years ago was considered among the most hostile countries to Israel in Europe, have dramatically improved.
Now, one diplomatic official said, Cyprus is seen as an important regional partner for Israel, and together with Greece, Romania and Bulgaria, it is viewed as a part of a regional alliance serving to counterbalance Turkey. As was the case with Greece, Israel’s ties with Cyprus began to blossom as Jerusalem’s relationship with Turkey deteriorated over the last four years.
Jerusalem sees Cyprus – geographically the closest European country to Israel – as a possible bridge to Europe, especially in regard to energy issues.
Energy, and possible cooperation on developing natural gas deposits in each country’s exclusive economic zones in the eastern Mediterranean, is expected to be among Netanyahu’s main topics of discussion during his visit.
There will be some seething Muslims in Ankara on Thursday. Heh.
An Israeli soldier at a checkpoint had asked a Palestinian, in Hebrew, to show some identification. An observer from the Temporary International Presence in Hebron was standing nearby, along with a local Palestinian translator, as the observer speaks neither Hebrew nor Arabic. The translator duly explained, in English, that the soldier had asked the Palestinian for his ID – then added the soldier had threatened to beat him up if he didn’t produce it.
The TIPH observer had no way of knowing this “threat” was the product of the translator’s imagination rather than the truth; he was utterly dependent on his translator. Nor would it have made much difference had my friend’s son disputed the translator’s account (which he couldn’t due to army regulations aimed at avoiding confrontations with the observers): In a classic “he said, she said” situation, the overseas visitor would naturally believe his regular translator rather than an unknown Israeli soldier. So the nonexistent threat will doubtless be duly included in the observer’s report, one more in a string of lies promulgated over the years by foreigners who may be genuinely well-meaning, but are irretrievably hampered by their own ignorance.
Nor is linguistic ignorance the only problem: Historical ignorance is equally problematic. This is evident in numerous standard media tropes about Israel –like the claim the current impasse in Israeli-Palestinian talks stems from Israel’s refusal to freeze settlement construction, or that the crisis in Israeli-Turkish relations stems from Israel’s May 2010 raid on a Turkish-sponsored flotilla to Gaza. Of course, the Palestinians also refused to talk during the 10 months when Israel did freeze settlement construction, and Turkey turned against Israel long before the flotilla raid, even barring it from NATO drills in which it had participated for years. But all that happened years ago, and given the frequent rotations in media and diplomatic personnel, many genuinely don’t know. So when fed the standard line by Palestinians or Turks, they don’t even know what questions they should be asking.
And you thought that Israel was the only country that sends clueless envoys on overseas assignments.
Ahmadinejad celebrated his country's breakthrough. "The president loaded 20 percent enriched rods into the Tehran Reactor... it is a sign of Iranian scientists' achievements," said state TV, which broadcast the ceremony live.
The country is also set to unveil a new generation of its domestically made uranium enrichment centrifuges. "The fourth generation of domestically made centrifuges have higher speed and production capacity... it will be unveiled on Wednesday," state TV said.
The moves appeared designed to show that increased sanctions are failing to halt Iran's technical progress and to strengthen its hand in any renewed negotiations with the major powers.
Diplomats believe Iran has in the past overstated its nuclear achievements to gain leverage in its standoff with Western powers, which suspect Iran is seeking to develop the means to make atom bombs, a charge the country denies.
There are two ways to get uranium for a nuclear weapon: Enriching uranium to 90% or using spent fuel from a research reactor. The West is far more concerned about the enriching route. And at this point, we here in Israel are more concerned with how quickly Iran is able to take its nuclear operations underground to a point where they cannot be reached by fighter jets. Today's events have no effect on that.
The sources said Ankara's intentions became clear after a high level delegation travelled to Riyadh over the weekend and decided against requesting additional supplies from top oil exporter Saudi Arabia, the only producer in the world that has spare volumes to offer to replace Iranian barrels. The development will help Iran avoid extra pain from reduced sales of crude as the European Union seeks to ban Iranian oil imports from July 1 and major Asian customers are signalling they might cut purchases under pressure from Washington.
EU and US sanctions against Iran over its nuclear plans are already hitting oil production in the Islamic Republic and a fall in its output and exports is likely to accelerate if more customers walk away from its oil. This could squeeze the budget and increase internal tensions ahead of parliamentary elections next month.
A Saudi oil ministry official said Turkish energy officials had not ask for additional oil when visiting Riyadh last week. "Turkey did not ask for more oil, and has no plans to ban imports from Iran," he said.
An Ankara-based energy official said: "Turkey will continue to buy from Iran unless the United Nations supports/endorses the EU and US oil embargo".
A UN embargo against Iran now seems very unlikely after Russia and China, the biggest buyer of Iranian crude, blocked UN sanctions against Syria. Turkey's long campaign for EU entry may now be less likely to influence its stance - its relations with the bloc are at their lowest point in years and negotiations on membership, which began in 2005, are stalled with no immediate prospect of resumption.
And as long as Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States, no one will attempt to punish Turkey's actions. What could go wrong?
US and European officials, who insisted on anonymity when discussing a highly sensitive subject, said their governments' experts agreed that the Iranians had succeeded in disabling Stuxnet and getting it out of their machinery.
The officials declined to provide any details on how their governments verified that the Iranians had ultimately defeated the virus. It was not clear when it occurred but secrecy on the subject has been so tight that news is only now emerging.
Some officials said they believe that the Iranians were helped in their efforts by Western cyber security experts, whose detailed technical analyses of Stuxnet's computer code have circulated widely on the Internet.
...
Private experts say that however well-crafted the original Stuxnet was, whoever created it probably would have to be even more clever if they want to try to supplant it with new cyber-weapons directed at Iran's nuclear program.
"Aspects of Stuxnet could be re-used, but it is important to understand that its success depended not only on 'clever coding' but also required a great deal of specific intelligence and testing. It was the first known highly-targeted cyber-weapon, as opposed to more usual cyber weapons which are more diffuse in their targeting," Sommer said.
David Albright, a former United Nations weapons inspector who has extensively investigated Iran's nuclear program for the private Institute for Science and International Security, which he leads, said that spy agencies would have to go back to the drawing board if they're intent on continuing to try to hobble Iran's nuclear program via cyber-warfare.
Unfortunately, cutesy solutions like Stuxnet aren't likely to carry the day anymore anyway. We need another approach.
New Times J'lem bureau chief continues to cozy up to terrorists
Okay, I admit it. I've had the Twitter feed of Jodi (Wilgoren) Rudoren open since her appointment as New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief was announced last night. And with all of the caveats about following and retweeting not being an endorsement - which is something that all of us who use Twitter try to bear in mind - some of the tweets I have seen there are deeply disturbing. Adam Kredo has some of the ... highlights.
Already, Rudoren is beaming out cutesy[4]missives[5] to prominent, self-described anti-Zionist players such as Ali Abunimah[6], co-founder of Electronic Intifada[7], a website that contains a treasure trove of writings highly antagonistic[8] toward the Jewish state.
Early yesterday afternoon, Rudoren Tweeted a friendly dispatch to Abunimah, who has referred to Zionism as “one of the worst forms of anti-Semitism in existence today.”
Abunimah initially had criticized Rudoren for moving to the Time’s Jerusalem office building, which Abunimah described as “stolen” from the Palestinians.
“Hey there. Would love to chat sometime. About things other than the house. My friend Kareem Fahim says good things,” Rudoren responded, referencing her Timescolleague[12] who covers Syria.
A few minutes later, Rudoren responded to a tweet from Mondoweiss. The message included a link to an article[13] the website had published discussing Rudoren’s upcoming move to Israel.
“FYI,” she tweeted back, “one reason ur not familiar w my name is most of my reporting career was under different byline.”
...
“Obviously a New York Times reporter is expected to talk to everyone in the context of reporting a story, perhaps even terrorists at times. But it’s concerning to see the tone of these exchanges,” said Josh Block, a Middle East analyst and former top official at a pro-Israel group. “These are not people you engage like this, especially your first day as Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the paper of record. You really don’t even want to be seen in public with them—it’s just a mistake.”
Noah Pollak, executive director of the pro-Israel Emergency Committee for Israel, added that this serves as “a window into the disturbing workplace culture at the New York Times that a reporter, Kareem Fahim, would recommend a well-known bigot to help another reporter prepare for an assignment.”
He added that “it’s too early to draw any conclusions—maybe Rudoren has no idea who Abunimah is—but one hopes that she’ll approach her new assignment with a little more rigor than what’s been demonstrated today.”
Well, yeah. But wouldn't you expect to see those kinds of tweets in both directions? The only tweets that I've seen on that feed that lean right are a retweet of the Forward's account of Judea Pearl's speech in Los Angeles on Monday night (which I blogged here) and a tweet to Lenny Ben David asking for suggestions for Gan Hova (the local equivalent of pre-1A in the US).
Maybe Rudoren is just bending over backwards to be seen as impartial and not as an ardent Zionist. Or maybe not. I'll reserve judgment for now, but I found the 'playing footsie' with likes of Abunimah and Mondoweiss quite discomforting.
The system, known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift, oversees the network used by most of the world's largest banks to conduct financial wire transfers. American lawmakers have charged in recent weeks that Iranian companies and banks blacklisted by the U.S. and EU have been using Swift to evade international sanctions.
Both houses of the U.S. Congress have drafted legislation threatening to penalize Swift's board of directors and owners if they didn't ban the suspect Iranian entities from using its network.
A formal ruling by EU financial regulators on Swift is expected by late February or early March, according to European and U.S. officials. Swift's board is expected to comply, according to these officials.
"Yes, [it's a] done deal," said a European official. "[It] should be explicitly confirmed by the end of February, early March."
...
According to Swift's public records, many of Iran's largest banks, which have been sanctioned by the U.S. and EU, have continued to use the Swift system in recent months. These include: Banks Sepah, Saderat, and Mellat.
Congressional officials said they're not certain if the new EU regulations will also ban Iran's central bank from using Swift. Banning Bank Markazi would almost completely freeze Iran out of the global banking system, they said.
What took so long? Two years ago, this sanction might have had a chance of stopping Iran.
In an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman in Brussels last week, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen added his voice to the growing regional controversy over the nascent missile defense system, telling Iranians that they have no reason to be worried unless they are planning to attack a NATO territory and making clear that deterioration in Turkey's ties with NATO's regional partner, Israel -- no matter how undesirable -- will have no effect on Ankara's place within the 28-member alliance.
“I have followed these statements,” Rasmussen said at his office when asked about the Iranian threats against Turkey. “They are completely unfounded, because NATO's missile defense system is a defensive system. It is not directed against any specific state; it is directed against a threat, a missile threat,” he added, adding that there are now more than 30 countries in the world that either have missile capabilities or are in the process of acquiring them. “Some of them have a range that can hit a NATO territory. This is the reason we have decided to establish the NATO system: to defend, not to attack,” he said.
“So, actually, to speak quite bluntly about it, you can only consider our missile defense system a threat if you have an intention or an idea that you want to attack a NATO territory. If you don't have that intention, then our system is really, purely a defensive system with an aim to protect our populations against any missile threat, wherever it might come from,” said the chief NATO official.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 7 to 28 years and four grandchildren. Our eldest daughter and eldest son are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
The Muslim Brotherhood has effectively demanded an annual bribe in the form of US aid by saying that it will 'review' Egypt's treaty with Israel if the United States cuts aid. 
