How the Obama administration paid J Street to push the Iranian nuclear sellout
The Obama administration through its National Security Council passed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Ploughshares Fund, an NGO that favors allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. And the Ploughshares Fund paid J Street over $500,000 to push its agenda last summer. That's what came out over this past weekend.
A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in
selling the Iran nuclear deal gave liberal Jewish lobbying organization J
street $576,500 to advocate for the deal.
...
J-Street, a liberal Jewish political action
group, undertook a comprehensive campaign last year to support the
nuclear deal, amid lobbying by Jerusalem and other pro-Israel groups to
convince Congress to block the landmark pact.
Ahead of a crucial congressional vote to either ratify or block the deal, J Street in July 2015 took out a full page advertisement in The New York Times supporting urging Congress to refrain from “sabotaging” the Iranian nuclear agreement.
J Street also created TV ads and built a wesbite to stump for the accord.
The group said called the New York Times ad
was “the latest phase of [our] multimillion dollar campaign to ensure
that the US Congress does not sabotage the nuclear deal.”
The Ploughshares Fund’s mission is to “build a
safe, secure world by developing and investing in initiatives to reduce
and ultimately eliminate the world’s nuclear stockpiles,” one that
dovetails with President Barack Obama’s arms control efforts. But its
behind-the-scenes role advocating for the Iran agreement got more
attention this month after a candid profile of Ben Rhodes, one of the
president’s top foreign policy aides.
Waiting to hear regrets from Senate Democrats over their votes in favor of letting Iran become a nuclear power.
Here are some more Ploughshares donees.
The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the
Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500.
They received money for Iran-related analysis, briefings and media
outreach, and non-Iran nuclear work.
Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants.
More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.
Princeton University got $70,000 to support
former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein
Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the
range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s
nuclear program.”
The Ploughshares grant to NPR supported
“national security reporting that emphasizes the themes of US nuclear
weapons policy and budgets, Iran’s nuclear program, international
nuclear security topics and US policy toward nuclear security,”
according to Ploughshares’ 2015 annual report, recently published
online.
Oh yeah, and NPR got $100,000 too. Because government funding isn't enough.
J Street didn’t deny receiving the funds and
said it “acted in order to advance the nuclear deal with Iran out of
faith that it was an important deal, that it had a great contribution
also to the security of Israel.”
“(This) faith is shared by us as well as many
sources, both in the American government and in the Israeli security
establishment, as well as among the Jewish public in the US, most of
whom supported the nuclear deal,” the group said in a press release on
Sunday.
“The nuclear deal with Iran has blocked Iran’s
pathways to a nuclear weapon for the coming years,”said J Street,
adding “we are proud of the activities of the organization to advance
the nuclear deal between the world powers and Iran, a deal that we
believe is of the utmost importance for the security of the state of
Israel.”
Among those J Street cites as Israeli supporters of the deal is pathological liar Ami Ayalon. The endorsements of the deal have already been proven false.
One day, this will all be part of Obama's legacy - along with his infesting American politics with sleaze.
Marie Harf and the Washington Post lie about Israeli support for Iran deal
Some of you may have seen this tweet by former State Department spokescritter Marie Harf, and the underlying article from the Washington Post, last week.
.@JohnKerry now: How the Iran deal is good for Israel, according to Israelis who know what they’re talking about: https://t.co/y8YrN3kuoM
Tharoor first mentions Ami Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet, Israel's internal security service, and links to a Daily Beast piece entitled "Ex-Intel Chief: Iran Deal Good for Israel."
Unfortunately for Tharoor (and
for Daily Beast commentator Jonathan Alter), Ayalon, who begrudgingly
supports the deal because it is "the best plan currently on the table"
and because he believes there are no available alternatives, nonetheless
has said in no uncertain terms, "I think the deal is bad. It's not good."
Tharoor then cites former intelligence chief Efraim Halevy, but strangely links to an Op-Ed Halevy wrote after a framework agreement was finalized in Lausanne last April but before the details of this final deal were agreed upon in Vienna this month. In a more recent (and thus relevant) Op-Ed,
Halevy described what he sees as several strong points in the agreement
and concludes that it is "important to hold a profound debate in Israel
on whether no agreement is preferable to an agreement which includes
components that are crucial for Israel's security."
He didn't explicitly state which side of the debate he favors,
although there is a sense that leans toward the idea that Israel must
get behind the deal. But like Ayalon, his tepid defense of the deal, if
it is even that, seems to hinge on the idea that this agreement makes
the emergence of any other, better deals unrealistic. "There will be no
other agreement and no other negotiations," Halevy says in his recent
Op-Ed.
What he does not say is that the deal signed in Vienna is, as a whole, "good." In an interview with Israel's Channel 2, he repeats his call for national debate, and paints a much more equivocal picture: "This is not an agreement that is entirely bad,"
Halevy said. "There are positive elements in it." Later, he added
that "this agreement has a number of very good elements for Israel, and
there are elements that are not as good." That quote, with its shades of
gray, might not make for as dramatic a headline as the one chosen by
the Washington Post.
But if equivocation is what the newspaper
has to work with, then equivocation is what it should be capturing in
its headlines—even if that means the piece can't be used by State
Department officials.
Next, Tharoor mentions Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel's
Military Intelligence branch. It is not clear why: Yadlin, who has
cautioned against panic and excesses on the part of Israel's government,
nonetheless believes, as explained in an interview with Israel's Ynet, "This is not a good deal. This a problematic deal. You also could call it a bad deal."
Tharoor's article intially gave no hint of Yadlin's criticism of the
deal, but sometime later the author snuck in a throw-away
statement noting that Yadlin is "not a fan of the deal." (The stealth
correction appears to violate the newspaper's correction policy.)
Finally, the Washington Post blogger mentions Meir Dagan, another former Mossad chief. It appears, though, that Dagan has not gone on record
one way or another about the nuclear deal finalized in Vienna. (We
looked for any recent statements by him in Hebrew or English, and came
up with nothing. We will of course add an update if we find any relevant
commentary by Dagan from before Tharoor wrote his article.)
Harvard students told Arafat's grave to be moved to Jerusalem
In an earlier post, I reported on a pilgrimage by Harvard University students to Yasser Arafat's grave, which was financed by the Boston Combined Jewish Philanthropies. A couple of the students have posted blogs about the trip, which make clear some of the things the students 'learned' in Ramallah. Here's the first one (both blogs came from Truth Revolt).
The Israel-Palestine conflict is urgent for my green-sweatered friend in
Ramallah whose house had been destroyed twice. Ambassador Dore Gold and
Col. (res) Dr. Eran Lerman spoke to us about security at the Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs. One map after another filled the screen in
front of us as our speakers turned geographic boundaries into calculated
threats, like the range of rockets, or the time needed to mobilize
troops from A to B. For them, Israel’s fight is urgent. The man who
spoke to us at Yasser Arafat’s grave emphasized the grave’s temporary
location, to be moved to Jerusalem when (not if) Palestine
reclaims the city. The conflict, for him, is urgent.
The amazing organizers of this trek are all Israelis. Five of them are
Jewish and one of the is Arab Israeli. Was it easy for them to see the
grave of Arafat, who is responsible of the death of so many Israeli
civilians, their beloved ones specifically? But does that dispute the
fact that the same person is also the founder of the PLO, hero of so
many Palestinians symbolizing their fight for independence?
It is not at all easy to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That is exactly why we listened to speeches at Harvard by Ari Shavit,
the author of the book ‘The Triumph and Tragedy of My Promised Land’ and
Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet, Israeli National Security
Agency, who was appointed to the position right after the assassination
of the Prime Minister Ytzhak Rabin. Then, during our tour in Israel, we
were lucky enough to hear from Jodi Rudoren, the editor in chief of New
York Times Jerusalem, Danny Siedemann, an attorney very much involved
with the negotiations process, Dore Gold, foreign policy advisor to the
Prime Minister Netanyahu, Nadav Tamir, senior policy advisor to the
President of Israel Simon Peres, Eran Lerman, Deputy National Security
Advisor for Foreign Policy and International Affairs, Dr. Rachel
Korazim, a Holocaust educator, a Rabbi from Jewish settlements in West
Bank and an Israel Defense Force officer along with those two
Palestinian leaders.
Actually, out of the named speakers, there are a lot more people of the Left than of the Right. I've added some links that explain why.
Was there an agenda here? Did the pilgrimage to Arafat's mausoleum fit in with that agenda? I leave that to the reader to decide.
Haifa U decides against doctorate for Nobel Prize winner whose politics they don't like
Haifa University considered and decided against granting an honorary doctorate to game theoretician and Nobel Prize winner Professor Yisrael Aumann according to a report in the Hebrew Haaretz on Friday. The reason: They don't like his Right-wing politics.
At a hearing to discuss the candidacy last week, the director, Ami
Ayalon, agreed with other board members not to award the title, citing
concerns that "the Professor's politics are not in line with the University's values."
Among the board's concerns were remarks by Aumann in 2010 stating
that "the most sensible solution" to the Israeli-Arab conflict is "a
Jewish state and an Arab state, where the Jewish state is settled by
Jews and the Arab state is settled by Arabs."
Aumann also insisted on other religious-Zionist principles, including
that "Jerusalem needs to remain Jewish" and citing the importance of
religiosity in maintaining a Jewish state. Aumann has reiterated these
principles several times before, stressing the importance of maintaining Israel's Jewish heritage.
Adi Arbel, a colleague of the Professor and Projects Manager of the
Institute for Zionist Strategies, responded to the move with force.
"There is no doubt that for the Nobel Laureate, Professor Israel Aumann,
this does not make any difference," he noted.
However, he emphasized that "the illegitimate phenomenon raises
questions about how decisions in the past, present and future will be
made" and notes that the current board "will be subject to less respect"
as a result.
The University of Haifa, for its part, claims that the decision is not yet final.
Last night, at a campaign rally for his candidacy for the Labor party
leadership, Ami Ayalon, who was appointed chief of the General Security
Service after Rabin was assassinated, made what would be a shocking admissionin any other Western country: He admitted that Margalit Har Shefi was falsely charged and falsely convicted. And that the GSS knew it all along:
Former
chief of intelligence (Shabak) Ami Ayalon, now a Knesset Member,
revealed Thursday night that Margalit Har-Shefi did not realize that
Yigal Amir intended to assassinate Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin. She
was convicted in 1998 of failing to prevent the murder. In 2001, she
began a serving a nine-month prison term, which was terminated by
President Moshe Katzav after six months.
Ayalon made the
disclosure at a meeting with Labor party supporters in Ashkelon, but he
did not explain why he kept silent until now. "Har-Shefi did not
know that Yigal Amir wanted to murder the Prime Minister," MK Ayalon
said. "I know this from intelligence and was head of the intelligence
agency.
"She was part of the crazy reality [at that time]."
How's that for an excuse? 'Part of the crazy reality.'
I don't know which is (ought to be) a greater embarrassment to Haifa: The academic dishonesty of denying a degree to Professor Aumann (who obviously doesn't care about it) or the dishonesty of having its Board of Trustees headed by a perjurer. In any event, the University of Haifa ought to be ashamed, and you should not donate a red (the only type they will accept) cent to them.
“In no
other democracy in the world would six heads of the security services line up,
lend themselves to be quoted and blame their government,” Arad said of the
documentary, which features six former directors of the Shin Bet (Israel
Security Agency) in a film highly critical of Israel’s policies in the
territories.
In an interview on the sidelines of the Herzliya Conference,
which opened on Monday, Arad said he could not imagine six former heads of the
FBI or MI5 lining up to bash their countries’ policies.
“This is hefkerut
[anarchy],” he said, “a lack of respect. It shows a lack of
professionalism. The head of the secret service has to know to keep his
mouth shut, both during and after his service. If he cannot, he is no
professional and has betrayed his profession.”
Arad added that the
“prevailing feeling” the documentary left within the ranks of Israel’s
intelligence community was “one of betrayal and contempt.”
The
willingness of the six – Ami Ayalon, Avi Dichter, Yuval Diskin, Carmi Gillon,
Yaakov Peri and Avraham Shalom – to take part in the documentary “shows a very
low sensitivity to democratic norms,” Arad said, rejecting the idea that the men
felt it was imperative for them to go public with their criticism.
Indeed. The same can be said about former Mossad director Meir Dagan. And no, I cannot think of a whole lot of other democracies in the world where doing something that ought to be considered treason makes you a hero.
Before you give credibility to the Gatekeepers, consider this
There is a reason why the Gatekeepers, the Israeli 'documentary' that thankfully did not win an Oscar, is far more popular abroad than in Israel. We Israelis know better about who these 'heroes' really are. Consider this.
All of the of the leaders of the Shabak who appear in the film “The
Gatekeepers” were in charge during this critical period [1988-2005]. All opposed
building Jewish communities over the “Green Line,” and all backed
unilateral withdrawal. No wonder they failed in their mission, not only
to prevent terrorist attacks, but to block the establishment of a
terrorist infrastructure that was linked to a terrorist state.
One
of these “experts” was so incompetent that he allowed PM Rabin to be assassinated; others were clueless as Israeli buses were being blown up.
All were actively complicit with characterizing religious Zionists as
responsible for Rabin’s assassination and those that lived in
settlements as “obstacles to peace.”
Carmi Gillon’s incompetence was so extraordinary that some have suggested that he was involved in a conspiracy to kill PM Rabin.
His
successor was not much better. He sent a hit team to assassinate the
head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, in Jordan, by placing poison in his ear.
They succeeded in their task, but someone noted the unusual license
plate of their getaway car: it was from the Israeli embassy! This fiasco
included reviving Mashaal with an antidote, and the arrest of the
Shabak agents who were eventually exchanged for Hamas terrorists.
Ami
Ayalon and Avi Dichter who headed the Shabak in 2000 knew or should
have known that Arafat had planned and ordered the Second Intifada.
Their failure to plan for the wave of terrorist attacks is a bloody
testament to their failure.
Meanwhile, a special unit of the
Shabak was focused on “Jewish terrorists” and make-believe conspiracies
intended to discredit religious Zionists and especially settlers. That
unit is still notoriously active and even engages in provocations, like
dressing up as Arabs to confront Jews, arresting Jews and ordering long
periods of administrative detention and house arrest with little or no
evidence of a crime.
As an astute observer of the Israeli scene
commented, “The story of the Gatekeepers is the story of the Shin Bet
shadow state that would like to replace Israeli democracy with its own
oligarchy and return it to the 1950s. Menachem Begin said it should have
been abolished. The Shin Bet and its leaders are personally responsible
for an untold number of crimes and the fact that this film makes them
heroes for peace is just another example of the moral failing and idiocy
of this country. “
Oscar nominates a 'documentary' that's pure fiction
Some of you might think we Israelis would be proud of having an Oscar-nominated film for Best Documentary. But most Israelis are not flocking to see The Gatekeepers, a film that spliced together interviews with the last six heads of Israel's General Security Service (roughly the equivalent of the FBI and the Secret Service rolled into one in the US). Jodi Rudoren reported on complaints about that in the New York Times last week.
“Most Israelis are not listening,” Mr. Ayalon, who ran the Shin Bet from
1996 to 2000, said in an interview. “When it is too tough, the easiest
way to deal with it is to close our eyes and to close our ears.”
The big question is whether the 97-minute, $1.5 million “Gatekeepers” will change that. It has already captured the attention of the world:
at least 10 American film critics, including two from The New York
Times, put it in their best-of-2012 lists, and Israel’s Foreign Ministry
gets inquiries almost daily from its embassies about how to handle the
reaction in countries where “The Gatekeepers” will soon be screened. (After an Oscar-qualifying run last year the movie opens in New York and Los Angeles on Friday.)
Here in Israel the film has received positive reviews and praise by
newspaper columnists since its festival premiere last summer and opening
on Jan. 1 but has not exactly started a revolution. The issues it
raises were not, for example, a factor in the elections
on Tuesday. By last Sunday about 22,000 people here had seen the film —
a lot for an Israeli documentary but still a tiny fraction of the
population of nearly eight million.
...
While public opinion polls show most Israeli Jews still support the
creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, increasing numbers
have lost faith that it could happen in their lifetimes.
“The question is whether those people who believe there is no one to
talk with, nothing to talk about, and we are condemned to go on fighting
and killing for the next 10 generations — and they are supported and
empowered by our political community — whether they will be open to see
the different view,” Mr. Ayalon said. “Probably it is too difficult.”
Mr. Ayalon is a confessed liar, whose word cannot be trusted about anything. He belongs in jail for abuse of power during his term at the GSS.
But perhaps there are other reasons that Israelis aren't flocking to put their money on the table to see this film. Rick Richman reports that the film's claims to be the first to ever interview previous GSS chiefs are bogus. There were similar interviews in 2003. Richman reports on what happened as a result of those interviews.
On November 13, 2003, Israel's largest-circulation newspaper published a two-hour joint interview
with all four ex-Shin Bet chiefs, with a front-page banner headline
reading: “Four directors of [Shin Bet] warn: Israel in grave danger.” The New York Times reported the interview the next day; so did the Washington Post, on its own front page.
In Britain, the Guardian's story was headlined “Israel on road to ruin, warn Shin Bet chiefs.” CNN, ABC, Fox and almost all the important press in the world carried extensive coverage of the interview. The ex-Shin Bet chiefs urged Israel to start dismantling settlements even before reaching a peace agreement.
At the time of the 2003 interview, Israel was insisting that before
negotiating a Palestinian state, the Palestinians had to stop their
terror war against Israel. The war had commenced in September 2000,
after Yasser Arafat was offered a state at Camp David – and walked away.
In December 2000, the Clinton Parameters were presented to both sides:
they were accepted by Israel and rejected by Arafat.
In April 2003, the Palestinians agreed to the “Performance-Based Roadmap,”
which required dismantlement of their terrorist groups in Phase I
before final status talks in Phase III. By November, 2003, they still
had not done so. Prime Minister Sharon’s position remained that security
must precede a Palestinian state — and that any shortcuts in the
process would fail.
The bombshell 2003 interview was intended to force a change of course
on Mr. Sharon, who had campaigned in 2001 on a promise to keep the Gaza
settlements for Israeli security (because “the fate of Netzarim will be
the fate of Tel Aviv”). A former president, Ezer Weizman, called the ex-Shin Bet leaders the “four musketeers” and castigated them for undermining the government. Mr. Sharon was deeply offended by the interview, but felt forced to change course.
Five weeks later Mr. Sharon shocked the Israeli public (and the United States) by announcing his disengagement plan. As it was developed over the next year, the plan
involved the removal of every settlement and soldier from Gaza and
dismantlement of four more settlements in Samaria (to show the policy
would be “Gaza first, not Gaza last”). In Haaretz, Aluf Benn reported why Mr. Sharon adopted the plan:
[T]he fateful decision was made between November 10th and 17th, 2003.
… The main topic was a joint interview in Yedioth Ahronot by four
former chiefs of the Shin Bet … in which they warned that Sharon was
leading the country to the abyss … [T]he former Shin Bet chiefs managed
to shake Sharon’s self-confidence; he broke and agreed to unilateral
withdrawal.
The rest is history: Israel withdrew from Gaza, and Gaza turned into Hamastan within a week. A new rocket war against Israel commenced from Judenrein
Gaza, and Hamas took over the whole area in 2007 in a coup. Israel had
to take military action to stop the rockets in 2008 and again in 2012.
There is no realistic possibility of negotiating a Palestinian state
while half of it remains in the hands of a terrorist group (and the
other half in the hands of a Palestinian “president” currently in the
ninth year of his four-year term).
In other words, the current film may be an attempt to force Prime Minister Netanyahu's hand much as Sharon's hand was forced in 2003. We've been there and done that and don't want to do it again. Perhaps that's a sign of maturity.
Another reason Israelis may not be flocking to see the film is that we know that at least one of the six, Yuval Diskin, holds a grudge against Netanyahu for not appointing him the head of the Mossad.
By the way, one Israeli who has no intention of seeing the movie is Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is Rudoren again.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the prime
minister had not seen “The Gatekeepers” and had no plans to. Mr. Moreh,
whose dream “is to go to the White House and show the film to Obama,”
said Mr. Netanyahu had also not sent a message of congratulations about
the Oscar nomination.
And if he wins?
“I’m not expecting him to call me,” Mr. Moreh said. “I would ask him to
go and see the film and to think over what is said in the film from the
people who are most responsible for the security of the state of
Israel.”
The only people who will go to see this film in Israel are the Leftist true believers. For them - and for the unthinking Jews on the Upper West Side of Manhattan - this film is a dream come true. I'll bet it wins an Oscar. It fits their agenda.
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-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children 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
