Video: Fox News' Chris Wallace goes ballistic over Netanyahu visit
Fox News' Chris Wallace is not very happy that Prime Minister Netanyahu plans to 'sneak' into Washington to speak to Congress about a subject that's an existential threat to Israel.
Let's go to the videotape.
Meanwhile, with all of this week's events, the poll numbers moved slightly (putting Likud and Labor in a tie for the lead), with the Right still leading the Left overall. The only Israeli politician who seems upset over Netanyahu's move is the insufferable Tzipi Livni.
Sorry. There's a lot I don't like about Netanyahu, but he's 100% right about this. As
Jennifer Rubin wrote on Friday:
The entire episode suggests unseemly cooperation between the White
House and Senate opponents of Menendez-Kirk sanctions legislation. “The
idea that the Mossad would stake out a position against the prime
minister is hard to fathom. The Mossad is actually an arm of the prime
minister’s office. That’s why the entire episode strained credulity,”
says Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“But even if it were true, leaking an off-the-record statement from a
foreign intelligence official strikes me as both dangerous and
underhanded.” Especially suspicious is the speed with which the phony
Mossad story leaped from a Senate briefing to Secretary of State John
Kerry, who actively worked to fan the story. It seems the administration
and weak-kneed senators have a common interest in seeking to submarine
critical sanctions legislation that commanded a large bipartisan
majority just a year ago.
Given this contretemps, it is laughable
then that the White House will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits
in March so as not to interfere with the Israeli elections. Snubbing the
prime minister and trying to manipulate his own intelligence service
into undercutting Israel’s elected government are far more politically
inappropriate than a routine visit between two allies’ leaders. In a bit
of sarcastic commentary, the conservative Emergency Committee for
Israel sent out a release on Thursday announcing, “In order to do our
part to make the Israeli Prime Minister feel welcome in Washington, ECI
will host a reception in the Prime Minister’s honor to make clear, in
case there’s any doubt, that whatever the president does or says,
Americans value our friendship with our ally Israel.”
Senator Menendez (D-NJ) was right when he said last week that the Obama administration is peddling talking points from Iran. Netanyahu is coming to Washington to tell the truth. The timing and who invited him are irrelevant.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Fox News, Iran sanctions regime, Jennifer Rubin, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
Media Matters organized email campaign against Jennifer Rubin
Professor Jacobson reports on an organized campaign to
get Jennifer Rubin fired from the Washington Post.
Former WaPo Ombudsman Patrick Pexton wrote an “Open Letter” to Jeff Bezos upon buying WaPo.
The letter is getting attention because Politico picked up on one piece of advice from Pexton to Bezos, Fire Jennifer Rubin:
“She doesn’t travel within a hundred miles of Post
standards [LOL - my add],” Pexton argues. “She parrots and peddles every
silly right-wing theory to come down the pike in transparent attempts
to get Web hits. Her analysis of the conservative movement, which is a
worthwhile and important beat that the Post should treat more seriously
on its national pages, is shallow and predictable. Her columns, at best,
are political pornography; they get a quick but sure rise out of the
right, but you feel bad afterward.” …
“[S]he is often wrong, and rarely acknowledges it,” Pexton writes
“She was oh-so-wrong about Mitt Romney, week after week writing
embarrassing flattery about his 2012 campaign, calling almost every move
he made brilliant, and guaranteeing that he would trounce Barack Obama.
When he lost, the next day she savaged him and his campaign with
treachery, saying he was the worst candidate with the worst staff, ever.
She was wrong about the Norway shootings being acts of al-Qaida. She
was wrong about Chuck Hagel being an anti-Semite. And does she
apologize? Nope.”
...
But the next portion of Pexton’s “advice” caught my eye and I think is more significant (emphasis mine):
“Rubin was the No. 1 source of complaint mail about any single Post staffer while I was ombudsman, and I’m leaving out the organized email campaigns against her by leftie groups like Media Matters,”
the former ombudsman concludes. “Thinking conservatives didn’t like
her, thinking moderates didn’t like her, government workers who knew her
arguments to be unfair didn’t like her. Dump her like a dull tome on
the Amazon Bargain Books page.”
That’s interesting. Media Matters and other leftie groups have organized email campaigns against Rubin?
Jennifer Rubin is one of the strongest pro-Israel voices in the mainstream media. The fact that the Left hates her so much shows that she's doing her job. Hopefully, Jeff Bezos has enough integrity to keep her.
Labels: Jennifer Rubin, Media Matters
Condemning one of its own
It's probably just as well that I don't write for the
Washington Post. Looking at how they have publicly attacked fellow blogger Jennifer Rubin, who writes for them, for retweeting a
blog post written by 'Bad Rachel' Abrams (whom I have had the privilege of meeting), you have to wonder what the thought process is over at WaPo. This is their ombudsman commenting on Jennifer's retweet.
But in this case Rubin told me that she did agree with Abrams. Rubin said that she admires Abrams, has quoted her a lot, thinks she’s an excellent writer and endorsed the sentiment behind the Abrams blog post. Rubin said, however, that she did not see it as a call to genocide against all Palestinians: “The post expressed an understandable desire for righteous vengeance against the kidnappers and human rights abusers of Gilad Shalit. It is a sentiment I share. If I were writing on The Washington Post Web site, I would not have used that language. . . but the sentiment underlying it — that the captors deserve the final penalty -- is one that I share.”
Abrams’s post is so full of dashes it’s hard to follow, but the subject of her run-on sentence does appear to be “captors” not Palestinians in general. The language is so over the top, though —“child-sacrificing savages,” “devil’s spawn,” “pimped out by their mothers,” “unmanned animals” — it’s easy to how some people might see it as an endorsement of genocide. Furthermore, other posts on Abrams’s blog also refer to Palestinians with a broad brush.
Rubin suggested that the letters I received denouncing her retweet were part of an “orchestrated campaign to get The Washington Post to fire a pro-Israel blogger.”
It is true that a lot of the letters did call for Rubin’s firing. I’ve received lots of letters objecting to her conservative views since I came here in March. Many of them call for her firing. Regular readers of the ombudsman will know that I defended Rubin back in July. I think The Post needs conservative voices to balance its many liberal ones.
It is also true that two groups did seem to be driving some of the reader reaction to the retweet. One was a Al-Akhbar English, a Middle East-focused Web site, where Max Blumenthal (son of journalist and Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal) denounced the Abrams blog post and Rubin’s retweet and encouraged people to contact me. The other was J Street, a liberal American Jewish group frequently at odds with the conservative Emergency Committee for Israel. J Street denounced Abrams’s blog post as an “unhinged rant filled with incitement and hate speech.”
Sorry, but I hope that the IDF and the Mossad will hunt down and kill everyone who was involved with Shalit's kidnapping. Just like they did after the Munich Olympic massacre. And I see nothing wrong with saying so. (And yes, that's how I understood Rachel's post). Is the Post suggesting that we ought to forgive terrorists? South African minister Desmond Tutu - a notorious Israel hater - suggested this week that we ought to
forgive the Nazis (may their name be obliterated). Does the Post agree with that sentiment too?
Philip Klein also wonders
what's going on at the Post (Hat Tip:
Instapundit).
To most people, wishing for the death of terrorists is pretty non-controversial stuff. But then again, those people don't live in the bizarro world of the Washington Post's ombudsman.
Well, maybe. But what worries me about this is that the Post ombudsman admitted that he caved in to an orchestrated letter writing campaign by Leftist extremists Max Blumenthal and J Street - and he identified this as an orchestrated letter writing campaign. It's not a big step from publicly condemning Rubin to firing her, leaving the largest circulation newspaper in America's capital without a conservative voice.
Labels: Bad Rachel, Gilad Shalit, Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post
ADL puts its tail between its legs over Obama comments
Jennifer Rubin reports that the ADL was embarrassed by President Obama's comments about Prime Minister Netanyahu at the G20, which came to light on Tuesday.
Obama’s comment put liberal Jews once again in a tight spot. It seems like only last month that the Anti-Defamation League was clucking at citizens to take Israel off the table as a subject of discussion in the 2012 election. But yesterday the ADL trudged back to the topic, obviously glum that Obama had once again revealed himself to be less than a sympathetic friend to Netanyahu and to Israel. A statement read: We are deeply disappointed and saddened by this decidedly un-Presidential exchange between Presidents Sarkozy and Obama.
President Obama’s response to Mr. Sarkozy implies that he agrees with the French leader. In light of the revelations here, we hope that the Obama Administration will do everything it can to reassure Israel that the relationship remains on a sure footing and to reinvigorate the trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which clearly is not what it should be.
What is sad is that we now have to worry to what extent these private views inform foreign policy decisions of the U.S. and France — two singularly important players in the peace process.
Perhaps if the ADL spent less time hushing Americans it wouldn’t be surprised when Obama acts like Obama.
But hey - don't think that will stop them from supporting Obama. What's more important: A few million living Jews or the unfettered right to murder more unborn ones?
Labels: ADL, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jennifer Rubin, Nicolas Sarkozy
Eric Erickson charges Jennifer Rubin with dual loyalty, then backtracks
On Wednesday, Red State's Erick Erickson made a not-so-veiled charge of
dual loyalty against Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin (Hat Tip:
American Power).
Jenn Rubin, when not pushing out Romney talking points is in favor of freeing traitors, claims to be a conservative covering the conservative movement, though she has nothing in common with conservatives other than hating terrorists. A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it. (Please be sure to read this update regarding this reference)
The update to which he refers took 16 hours to get there, and includes
this:
I nor the friend of mine who offered that up are anti-Semitic, but it has apparently hit a nerve that I did not intend to hit and I feel I do need to apologize for that. A friend of mine explains to me that a Jewish-American might find it insulting because it suggests they put Israel ahead of the United States.
I had not thought of that when writing it and was not my intention. Where I finally had enough of Jenn Rubin was her position on Jonathan Pollard that I cannot in any way, shape, or form comprehend as being the right position. It was that position of hers and her positions on national security, terrorism, and Israel (all three of which she and I see eye to eye on) that didn’t make me think twice about using the Likud comparison. Apparently I should have. Likud as a party is tough as nails on terrorism and security issues, but is liberal to left (by American standards) on fiscal and social policy, and that’s what I intended by the comparison, not a suggestion of misplaced loyalty. And certainly not anti-semitism.
I would not call the Likud 'liberal to left' on fiscal policy - the forces arrayed against the free market in this country are far different than in the US, and there is a very different balance of power here. But that's not the point of this post.
What I want to get to is Erickson's labeling of anyone who advocates for Jonathan Pollard's release as having dual loyalties (yes, that still comes through in his apology) and of automatically not being a conservative. Over the last year,
Lawrence Korb (formerly Caspar Weinberger's number 2 at the Defense Department), former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former US Secretary of State
George Schultz, and Harvard Professor
Charles Ogletree have all come out in favor of releasing Pollard. Of those, to the best of my knowledge, only Mukasey is Jewish and only DeConcini and Ogletree are not Republicans.
Additionally, some
500 American Jewish and Christian leaders called for Pollard's release in a letter to President Obama in January. That letter cites all of the following (some of whom are already listed above) as favoring Pollard's release:
Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Senators Charles Schumer and Arlen Specter, Harvard Law Professors Charles Ogletree and Alan Dershowitz, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame, Benjamin Hooks of the NAACP, former federal Judge George Leighton, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, Pastor John Hagee, and Gary Bauer.
And 39 members of Congress.
Would Erickson accuse all of them of dual loyalty? Are none of them Republican or conservative enough for Erickson? Surely Hagee and Bauer (at least) ought to be. And if that's the case, why is Erickson going after Jennifer with a charge like this and not after any of them?
Pollard committed a crime and he's paid for that crime disproportionately. It's long past time to let him go. Unfortunately, much of the American Jewish community cannot find its voice on this issue precisely because it is intimidated by the type of dual loyalty charges made by Erickson against Jennifer Rubin. But the American Jewish community ought to find its voice.
Jonathan Pollard continues to sit in jail today precisely
because he spied for Israel and not for Russia or China or Cuba. Jonathan Pollard continues to sit in jail today because of Caspar Weinberger's antipathy for Israel and Jews. Here's what
Lawrence Korb had to say about that when he came out for releasing Pollard.
"Based on the knowledge that I have first hand, I can confidently say that the punishment was so severe because of lack of sympathy for Israel by the U.S. Secretary of Defense at the time, my boss, Caspar Weinberger," the letter stated.
According to Korb, Weinberg made great efforts to convince the judge to punish Pollard severely. "Although Pollard pleaded guilty, cooperated with the government and asked for clemency - he received disproportionate punishment," wrote Korb. "In the end Weinberg himself did not put the Pollard story in his biography. Weinberger said that the reason for this is because the affair had been exaggerated beyond minor importance - that is, he finally understood and admitted that the story had been blown beyond proportions. "
Korb emphasized that the average penalty for the offense Pollard committed is two to four years, and even today when the law changed - the average sentence is 10 years. "So if he was sentenced today he could not sit 25 years in prison. Justice will be done if the sentence is shortened to what has already been run to date," Korb's letter concluded.
Mr. Erickson should stop bullying people who disagree with him.
Labels: Conservatives, dual loyalty, Erick Erickson, Jennifer Rubin, Jonathan Pollard, Republicans
Ron Kampeas invades Jennifer Rubin's privacy
Poor Jennifer Rubin is being picked apart by the media for writing a post two weeks ago that made what seemed like a reasonable assumption at the time - namely that the Norwegian terror attacks had been carried out by Islamists - and then leaving that post untouched until after the Sabbath ended. Ron Kampeas was
particularly nasty.
In any case, the Post's ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, clears her in part because she does not work on the Sabbath: ...What compounded Rubin’s error is that she let her 5 p.m. Friday post remain uncorrected for more than 24 hours. She wrote four other unrelated blog posts that night, through about 9 p.m. Police officials in Norway at 8:33 p.m. Washington time had made their first statement that the suspect had no connection to international terrorism or Muslims. Rubin should have rechecked the facts before signing off, and Post editors should have thought about editing her post more that night.Rubin has a good defense. She is Jewish. She generally observes the Sabbath from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday; she doesn’t blog, doesn’t tweet, doesn’t respond to reader e-mails.
When she went online at 8 p.m. Saturday, her mea culpa post on Norway was the first thing she posted, although its tone also hurt her, particularly this sentence, which struck many readers as borderline racist: “There are many more jihadists than blond Norwegians out to kill Americans, and we should keep our eye on the systemic and far more potent threats that stem from an ideological war with the West.”
Rubin has a good defense. She is Jewish. She generally observes the Sabbath from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday; she doesn’t blog, doesn’t tweet, doesn’t respond to reader e-mails.
The problem with this “good defense” is that it’s anything but. This has nothing to do with Shabbat. Pexton says as much -- Rubin filed four additional posts over the next four hours, so she had time to check the facts and update her Norway post before signing off; and The Washington Post always had the ability to update the post even after she called it a night. The issue isn’t when Shabbat started, but what Rubin did before sundown that Friday night and what the Post did afterward.
Hey Ron - did you ever hear of scheduling posts? I do it all the time.
It is entirely plausible - indeed likely - that Rubin posted those other three items within half an hour or an hour of her original post on Utoya, and then shut off her computer well before the Sabbath started, having queued the other three posts to go live on Friday night.
While I personally do not queue posts to go live after the Sabbath starts where I am located, or before the Sabbath ends where I am located, there is no prohibition of which I am aware under Jewish law from doing so.
I know that this post has nothing to do with Israel, but Jennifer Rubin is one of Israel's strongest advocates and deserves to be defended by the pro-Israel community, especially when it comes to matters of Sabbath observance.
Dan l'kaf zchut (judge another person favorably), Ron. Elul is just around the corner.
Labels: Jennifer Rubin, Ron Kampeas, Sabbath observance
Rubio calls for aid cutoff to 'Palestinian Authority'
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl) has called on the Obama administration to
cut off aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' in light of the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement.
“The announced agreement, if it becomes reality, would be a major setback for peace efforts in the Middle East and is not in the best interest of the Palestinian people. Participation in a Palestinian government of any organization, such as Hamas, that fails to renounce their calls for the destruction of Israel and the use of violence should prompt the withdrawal of our assistance. No American taxpayer money should fund a government that includes a terrorist organization dedicated to the murder of innocent civilians.”
Jennifer Rubin reports that the Obama administration has
very little wiggle room, and may not only have to cut off aid to the 'Palestinian Authority,' but also, if Hamas joins the PLO (as they have declared their intention to do), the US may be required to expel the recently upgraded PLO representation from the US.
Since fiscal year 2005, annual foreign operations appropriations bills have included a prohibition on funding Hamas and the PLO, the relevant language being: PROHIBITION TO HAMAS AND THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION.— (1) None of the funds appropriated in titles III through VI of this Act may be obligated for salaries of personnel of the Palestinian Authority located in Gaza or may be obligated or expended for assistance to Hamas or any entity effectively controlled by Hamas or any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member.
An expert on sanctions tells me the exception to this ban is limited: “In terms of U.S. aid, assistance may only be provided to a power-sharing government if the president certifies that such government, including all of its ministers or such equivalent, has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist; and committed itself and is adhering to all previous agreements and understandings with the United States Government, with the Government of Israel, and with the international community, including agreements and understandings pursuant to the Roadmap.” (The president alternatively can make a limited national security certification if it is in our national interest to provide assistance to the PA president’s security and administration, to help enforce border security and to assist the PA’s judiciary.)
Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told me in a phone interview this morning, “There is precedent for this.” Schanzer explained that in April 2006 the United States cut off all aid to the PA after Hamas won elections. Only when Hamas staged a coup and Mahmoud Abbas set up a separate governing entity for the West Bank did we resume aid.
In the case of the current Fatah-Hamas merger, Schanzer argues that there is an immediate problem for the PA. Press reports suggest that Hamas is melding its operation into the PLO, the entity that does business and has offices in the United States. (In fact the Obama administration recently forked over more funds to upgrade these in anticipation of a peace agreement.) If this is correct, the offices would have to be closed and its representatives ejected from the country.
My question: If Hamas becomes part of the 'Palestinian Authority,' is the US required to allow Hamas representatives to be in the United States as part of the 'Palestinian Authority' observer mission? I would think not - as far as I know, the UN treaty only requires the US to admit representatives of 'states' (which is why Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi have been allowed to travel to the UN) and not representatives of terror organizations. And if the UN declares a state of 'Palestine'? I would argue that for the time being, at least, even if the UN declares it, a state of 'Palestine' would not have the required indicia under the
Montevideo Convention.
Labels: Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Jennifer Rubin, Marco Rubio
America needs Israel more than ever
Robert Satloff calls it
brief, Jennifer Rubin calls it
lengthy, but both agree that Michael Oren's passionate defense of the US - Israel relationship is
timely and a must-read. (Incredibly, at this writing, not yet picked up by
Memeorandum). Here are some highlights:
Israel has always sided with the United States on major global issues. At the United Nations and in other international institutions, the two countries' voting patterns are virtually identical, as are their policies on human rights and international law. Beginning with the Korean conflict and throughout the Cold War, Israel backed America's military engagements, and it has maintained that support in the struggle with radical Islam. In times of danger, especially, Israel has responded to America's needs. Acceding to Richard M. Nixon's request to intervene to save Jordan from Syrian invasion in 1970, Israel mobilized its army, and in 1991, in spite of missile attacks from Iraq, Israel honored George H.W. Bush's request not to retaliate.
Israel is not, of course, situated in some geographical backwater, but at the junction of paramount American interests. Its prominence on the eastern Mediterranean littoral, at the nexus of North Africa and Southwest Asia, has enabled the United States to minimize its military deployments in the area. In the Persian Gulf, by contrast, the absence of a dependable and sturdy ally like Israel has impelled the United States to commit hundreds of thousands of troops and trillions of dollars. Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig's observation 30 years ago still resonates today: "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security."
The strategic synergy between the United States and Israel melds into tactical realities. U.S. troops train with their Israel Defense Forces (IDF) counterparts in aerial combat and special operations. U.S. Navy ships routinely dock in Haifa, Air Force planes refuel at Israeli bases, and the Marines will soon use an Israeli laser to pinpoint targets. In addition to pre-positioning $800 million of arms and medical equipment in Israel, the United States guarantees by law its commitment to preserving Israel's "qualitative military edge," enabling the Jewish state to defend itself, by itself, against Middle Eastern adversaries. As Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro put it, "Israel is a vital ally and a cornerstone of our regional security commitments," and, accordingly, the two countries have developed the world's most advanced anti-ballistic missiles. Together with the X-band radar station in the Negev -- manned by the first American troops deployed permanently on Israeli soil -- these systems can protect friendly nations from Iranian rockets.
In the intelligence field, in particular, the cooperation between Israel and the United States is vast. According to Maj. Gen. George J. Keegan Jr., former head of U.S. Air Force intelligence, America's military defense capability "owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence," the worth of which input, he estimated, exceeds "five CIAs." Israeli and American intelligence agencies continuously exchange information, analyses, and operational experience in counterterrorism and counterproliferation. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its Israeli counterpart also share technical know-how in defending ports and terminals from terrorist attacks, countering unconventional weapons and cyberthreats, and combating the drug trade. On the battlefield, Israeli armament protects Bradley and Stryker units from rocket-propelled grenades, while Israeli-made drones and reconnaissance devices surveil hostile territory. U.S. fighter aircraft and helicopters incorporate Israeli concepts and components, as do modern-class U.S. warships. The IDF has furnished U.S. forces with its expertise in the detection and neutralization of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the largest cause of American casualties.
...
In return for its aid to Israel, the United States receives not only an armed but an innovative ally, enhancing America's military edge. That contribution is real and requires no lobbyists to fabricate it. While organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) press Israel's case in government and in popular forums, they represent American citizens who view the alliance with Israel as a national American interest. By contrast, the lobbyists for the Arab states and their domestic oil industries represent foreign interests. The hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on lobbying and public relations campaigns and donations to influential universities such as Harvard and Georgetown have vastly exceeded the budgets of Israel's advocates in Washington.
...
The official U.S. documents released by WikiLeaks show that Arab rulers are not preoccupied with Israel but with the perils posed by Iran. One report recounted Saudi King Abdullah urging the United States to "cut off the head of the snake" -- Iran -- and to attack the country's nuclear facilities at once. Bahrain's king warned that "the danger of letting [the Iranian nuclear program] go on is greater than the danger of stopping it." The word "Israel" does not appear.
Middle Eastern populations, meanwhile, have shown that they, too, are less concerned with Israel than with urgent issues at home. When able to express themselves freely, they have preferred to focus on political rights and economic opportunity. Conspicuously absent from the protests that swept the region in 2011 were burning Israeli -- or American -- flags or any reference to the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Although emerging Arab governments might in the future -- as in the past -- seek to gain legitimacy by harnessing anti-Israeli sentiment, the claim that American support for the Jewish state axiomatically translates into anti-Americanism in the Middle East is no longer sustainable.
...
WHO ARE AMERICA'S ALLIES in the world today? Which countries are both capable and willing to advance American interests? A truly realist assessment would strive to answer these questions and fairly weigh Israel's worth.
In the Middle East, every Arab or non-Arab Muslim country has at times vacillated in its support of the United States or adopted anti-American positions. Some regimes have also placed oil embargoes on Americans and bankrolled their enemies. Although democratic governments may yet emerge in some Middle Eastern states, autocracy, monarchy, and dictatorship remain the region's norm. And even elected representatives can be profoundly hostile to the United States, as in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza.
Elsewhere in the world, new powers are arising, but few are likely to act as American allies in the realist sense. Others will be robust competitors. America's European allies, meanwhile, are further restricting the conditions under which their forces fight and drastically slashing defense budgets. British military sources estimate that troop numbers will soon be reduced to 80,000, leaving Britain with its smallest army since the 1820s. With similar cuts expected in Germany, Italy, and France, the United States will become harder-pressed to rely on European support during crises."[W]e won't be able to defend the security on which our democratic societies … depend," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has warned. "We risk a Europe increasingly adrift from the United States."
Israel is the only Middle Eastern state never to oppose America on major international issues. Its fundamental interests, like its values, are America's. For the price of annual military aid equaling roughly half the cost of one Zumwalt-class destroyer, the United States helps maintain the military might of one of the few nations actively contributing to America's defense. It reinforces the only country capable of deterring Hamas and Hezbollah and impeding the spread of Iranian hegemony. According to published sources, the Israel Defense Forces is larger than the French and British armies combined. The IDF is superbly trained and, when summoned, capable of mobilizing within hours.
These benefits of the U.S.-Israel relationship are of incalculable value to the United States, far outweighing any price. Americans know that Israelis have always stood by them, ready to share technology, intelligence, and innovation -- ready to aid them in conflict and to make the painful sacrifices for peace. Israel may be one of a handful of countries that fully fits the definition of ally, but its willingness to support the United States unwaveringly makes it the partner par excellence, America's ultimate ally.
Read the whole thing. And make sure to read the
brief and
lengthy comments about it too. Jennifer's comments on the Obama administration's hostility to Israel (something Oren the diplomat would never say) are particularly prescient.
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jennifer Rubin, Michael Oren, Robert Satloff, US-Israel relationship
Lebanon is more important than Iraq
Jennifer Rubin publishes a two-part interview with Michael Totten about his new book,
The Road to Fatima Gate. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall during that conversation! Part 1 of the interview is
here and part 2 is
here. Here are some highlights from Part 1:
But Totten also learned an important lesson when he left Beirut. “I went to Hezbollah-controlled parts of the country because what I was seeing in Beirut was not the entire story.” He is blunt: “I’ve never seen such bloodthirsty, warmongering propaganda in my life.” In fact, there was “no indication you were in Lebanon.” There were Hezbollah and Iranian flags, and vicious anti-Israeli propaganda and posters of the Ayatollah were omnipresent. “They were mobilized for total war.” In some respects the oppression and Islamic extremism are worse there than in Iran. “The difference,” he says, “is that in Iran Iranians hate the government. That’s obvious now.” But in the Hezbollah parts of Lebanon, he relates, “There is no opposition to Iran.” The result, and the predicament for the West, he says, is that in southern Lebanon, “Hezbollah rules with the consent of the governed.”
...
“Public opinion was 90 percent against the conduct of the [Second Lebanon] war,” Totten recalls. The stalemate and the political fallout from an unsuccessful war rocked Israel. Unless Israel was willing to fight a long ground war (akin to what Gen. David Petraeus would wage in Iraq), Totten thinks the air force should have hit another target – Syria or Iran. He says bluntly, “Assad in Syria is the kind of guy who can have an attitude adjustment rather easily. He told Joe Klein during the Iraq war, ‘Please send this message: I am not Saddam Hussein.’”
Totten continues, “Assad is incredibly vulnerable.” Two days of bombing Syria could well have been more effective than a month of bombing Hezbollah, he contends. Hezbollah can’t be supplied and can’t sustain itself “if Assad is no longer going to be the logistics hub” for the terror group.
And here are some highlights from Part 2.
By 2008 the Beirut spring (the “Cedar Revolution”) was a distant memory, and Hezbollah would make strides in its domination of Lebanon. Totten says simply, “In 2008 Hezbollah proved it could do what it wants by invading and occupying the capital city. After that, all it has to say is ‘boo.’ If it wants to collapse the government, it can. It can kill you, even if you are you a member of parliament.”
...
Now even the pretense of an independent Lebanon is gone. “Hezbollah,” Totten says “is the biggest threat the Israelis have in the world. Hamas is not even a bat boy in the league Hezbollah plays in.”
Hezbollah has a better-equipped fighting force than many countries. Totten says, “Hezbollah has rockets that can reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. You’ve been to Tel Aviv?” I nod. “Those glass skyscrapers would have missiles crashing through them” in a Hezbollah attack. And Totten emphasizes, “Hezbollah is the Mediterranean branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.”
Totten returns to the key point: An Iranian surrogate is on Israel’s border and “Israel failed to stop it.” But Totten doesn’t believe there was an easy military solution. He recalls, “The Israelis fought a counter-insurgency war against Hezbollah from 1982-2000, which shouldn’t be surprising since we’ve been fighting the Taliban for 10 years. Counter-insurgency is really hard.” So absent that sort of bloody effort, the options were few. The United Nations, Totten explains, “could have authorized force to block off the Lebanon and Syrian border. But that would have turned into a small Iraq.”
Totten suggests it’s folly to chase after Hezbollah. He says, “Hezbollah is a terrorist guerilla army. Iran has an address and governs people who hate it. Israel is more likely to succeed by going after Iran, but I’m not saying it should do it today. Israel is hoping the Iranians can overthrow their government.” If Israel did go after Iran militarily, “Israel would get hit really hard.” I ask if this is endangering the Zionist vision, which is to provide Jews with a haven. Totten says cautiously, “There is no getting around it; Jews are safer here than in Israel.” But he recalls, “In 1973 thousands of people were killed in a couple of days. Israel thought the Egyptian and Syrian armies might wipe out the whole country, so I wouldn’t say this current situation is worse than that.”
...
In the near term, Totten says, “Regime change [is Syria] is unlikely. Assad will fight as hard as Gaddafi.” Moreover, a military option could very well “start a regional war. What could we do non-militarily? There are not really many good options. But we should not describe him [Assad] as a reformer, we should not have an ambassador in Damascus and we should not engage him except to tell him what to do.”
The underlying problem in the region is not Hezbollah or Syria, certainly. Iran is the fundamental threat to Israel and the West more generally. The threat that it will acquire a nuclear weapons capability has receded from the headlines but has not diminished. As for military action, Totten says, “I think there is a will in Israel for it, but not in the U.S. in either party.” And once Iran acquires such weapons, our already minimal ability to deter Iranian aggression will diminish even further. “We’re not going to do anything, just like we didn’t risk a nuke confrontation with Soviet Union in 1956” in Hungary, Totten contends.
Read
both parts.
I can't wait for my copy of the book (it's on the way!).
Labels: Jennifer Rubin, Michael Totten, The Road to Fatima Gate
Deja vu all over again: Obama stringing Israel along
Jennifer Rubin is seriously concerned at the games that the Obama administration is
playing with Israel.
Beginning last Thursday I started questioning the State Department. Could its spokesman confirm that the U.S. would oppose a proposal for a ’67 border settlement, given Israel’s categorical statements that such borders would not be defensible? Could the administration confirm it would oppose and seek to block moves by the U.N. or Quartet to recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally (i.e., not as a product of bilateral negotiations)? These are not hard questions, and the fact that the administration would face questioning is an indication of how strained the U.S.-Israeli relationship has become.
After much back and forth, the only statement I could receive from a State Department spokesman was this non-answer: “Our goal remains to get both parties back to the negotiating table — that is, we believe, the best way to reach a comprehensive solution. We continue to engage with the parties to make that happen, and within the Quartet to see how it can best support that process.” After further prodding the spokesman offered, “We do not support any unilateral declaration of statehood.”
I was then referred to another State Department spokesman. Edgar Vasquez in Near East Affairs was equally circumspect. Is the U.S. supporting or encouraging a Quarter proposal for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders? All he would say is “U.S. policy hasn’t changed.” The spokesman indicated the “preference” was for the parties to return to the bargaining table. “We are in discussions with the Quartet to support the [direct negotiation] process.” What about a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state? “We do not think this is the way to go.”
Administration equivocation has also rankled key members of the House and Senate, where support for Israel is strong and widespread. A senior Senate aide was chagrined at the State Department’s waffling. “This sounds like a bad episode of State Department Gone Wild. The Administration should not abandon America’s long standing policy on Israel’s right to defensible borders. We need to hear in no uncertain terms that this Administration will not allow any Quartet statement that endorses a Palestinian state based on ’67 borders.”
Likewise on the House side, members of both parties are nervous that the administration is playing this too cute by half. A congressional aide to a key Democrat on Israel???? tells me, “The administration ought to remember where Congress is on this issue. The fact that they insist on continuing to go out of their way to upset many of their key supporters in Congress is baffling.” He noted this wasn't the first instance in which Israel has been strung along. He recalled, “As with the U.S. veto at the U.N. in February, the administration seems to be interested in repeating virtually every political and diplomatic mistake that led up to that vote. I assume they’re going to do the right thing, but it would be nice if they didn’t make us hold our breath for so long.”
The administration's treatment of Israel reflects a genuine ambivalence. Obama really would like to abandon Israel and so would most of his advisers. But they can't do that now - not with a re-election bid dead ahead on the road. So they play cute just hinting at what they would really like to do.
If God forbid Obama is re-elected, watch out.
Labels: Barack Obama, Jennifer Rubin, Middle East peace process, secure borders, two-state solution
Who will keep their commitments?
To hear Jennifer Rubin tell it,
Dore Gold was a fascinating speaker at an on-the-record luncheon on Tuesday.
The real issue is whether the United States, its Quartet partners, the United Nations and Russia will live up to the commitment made in U.N. Resolution 242 ( which provided for “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” ) and by presidents of both parties to ensure that Israel has defensible borders. The U.N. commitment to secure borders was reiterated by the Clinton administration in a January 1997 letter from then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher to the Israeli prime minister: Mr. Prime Minister, you can be assured that the United States’ commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad and constitutes the fundamental cornerstone of our special relationship. The key element in our approach to peace, including the negotiations and implementation of agreements between Israel and its Arab partners, has always been a recognition of Israel’s security requirements. Moreover, a hallmark of U.S. policy remains our commitment to work cooperatively to seek to meet the security needs that Israel identifies. Finally, I would like to reiterate our position that Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders, which should be directly negotiated and agreed with its neighbors.
That promise was repeated in an April 14, 2004, letter from President George W. Bush to the Israeli prime minister [which you can find in full with commentary here. CiJ]:
...
These commitments were made as part of the U.S. inducement to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to put forth the Gaza disengagement plan and to agree to withdraw some military installations and settlements in the West Bank. It was a commitment by the U.S. government that was in keeping with bipartisan U.S. policy. Moreover, Gold pointed out that this arrangement was endorsed by both houses of Congress. The House voted 407-9. In the Senate the vote was 95-3. Voting to back the April 14 letter were, among others, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). The Obama administration has repeatedly refused to indicate whether it is repudiating or standing by that commitment. One additional note: a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would also violate the Oslo II Interim agreement signed by the PA and Israel and witnessed by the U.S., the EU, Norway, Egypt and Jordan. (This would be pretty much the same set of characters now pressuring Israel to recognize a Palestinian state.) Article XXXI contains these provisions:Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.
Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or preempt the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the DOP. Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.
...
Gold did not want to comment on the role Congress might play. However, it seems that the House Foreign Affairs Committee does have a role to play. It should consider why we are continuing to fund the Palestinian Authority while it is in breach of its obligations to negotiate with Israel and to abide by the rest of the Oslo II interim agreement (for example, “Israel and the Council shall seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance and shall accordingly abstain from incitement, including hostile propaganda, against each other and, without derogating from the principle of freedom of expression, shall take legal measures to prevent such incitement by any organizations, groups or individuals within their jurisdiction.”) The House controls the purse strings and can certainly put that leverage to good use. Moreover, Congress can pass a resolution reminding the Obama administration of its obligations to adhere to the Christopher and Bush letters and reaffirming that a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state violates international agreements and U.S. commitments. And finally, some probing oversight can take place. The United States is a member of the Quartet, so why aren’t we using our power to block a unilateral declaration of recognition?
Read the whole thing. The real issue here is if the US, the UN and the 'Palestinians' are not going to live up to their commitments (which seems readily apparent based on past experience), why should Israel degrade its position based on those commitments? And if, as seems obvious, Israel should not degrade its position based on those commitments, then why is it doing so?
By the way, the luncheon that Jennifer attended was a lead-up to Gold's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. You can find the full text of Gold's statement to the Committee
here.
Labels: Bush letter, Christopher letter, Dore Gold, Jennifer Rubin, Oslo II agreements
Obama votes 'present' on Jerusalem terror attack
The President of the United States is in the cone of silence and has effectively
voted 'present' on Wednesday's terror attack in Jerusalem. This is from Jennifer Rubin.
No U.S. official has made a statement as of 11:00 a.m., two hours after the attack. The State Department’s spokesman says that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may speak at a 2:00 p.m. press availability with the Moroccan foreign minister make a statement. Has anyone from the State Department spoken to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu? “Not yet,” e-mails the spokesman. The national security adviser’s spokesman did not return my request for similar information about the White House’s statements and contacts.
...
Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, residents tell me that there’s extensive live coverage in the Israeli media. An American in Jersualem e-mails me, “The city is glued to Army radio and TV. I just walked in the door, back from King David hotel — traffic is gridlocked and the entrance to the city is blocked.”
And the U.S. administration has nothing to say for now.
I suppose it could have been worse. This is what
J Street had to say.
We are in Jerusalem today, a mile from the bombing, for a debate in Israel’s Knesset, at which we reiterated that the security of Israel depends on ending the conflict with the Palestinian people through a two-state solution.
Never let a good
crisis terror attack go to waste.
UPDATE 7:02 PMIsrael Radio just reported that
Obama, Robert Gates and French Foreign Minister Alain Guppe have all condemned the terror attack.
Labels: Barack Obama, J Street, Jennifer Rubin, Palestinian terrorism
Jennifer Rubin spends a day in Samaria
Jennifer Rubin - who knows a hell of a lot more about Israel than most Americans - spent a day in Samaria last week, and was surprised by what she saw.
Even well-informed consumers of international media imagine that the West Bank is crowded, dangerous and replete with roadblocks and officious Israeli security forces. So when one leaves Jerusalem, crosses the Green Line -- a cement wall and a checkpoint (not unlike the set-up for an agent at a U.S. border) -- and travels up and down the highways of Samaria (the portion of the West Bank extending north), you realize how little non-Israelis know about the Jews who live in territory that is the focal point of so much international attention.
The media terminology doesn't comport with one's direct observations. "Settlements" are not hovels tended by goat herders. Settlers are not uniformly religious. The Palestinians who demand the right of return are generally the descendants of those who left Israel proper in 1948; the region is still sparsely populated and was even more so in 1967. And while negotiators have shuffled back and forth trying to reach a peace deal, there are at least signs of peaceful coexistence between some Palestinians and Israelis who shop and work together.
On a Wednesday afternoon Naftali Bennett met me in Jerusalem. He drove up in an unassuming, white compact car. He was dressed in jeans and a plaid shirt and wore a small knitted kippah not unlike conservative and modern Orthodox Jews in the United States. His parents made aliyah from the U.S., so his English is impeccable. It was not until we were well on our way that I learned he was Bibi Netanyahu's chief of staff during the years in opposition and also the founder of a high-tech company, Cyote, that makes 70 percent of the software used to detect bank fraud. In 2005 Bennett sold the company. After a stint with another high-tech company, his life took a dramatic turn.
He told me that he realized during the second war in Lebanon that Israel's survival was not assured. "I grew up in the 1970s," he said. "But I never thought all this talk about Israel facing an existential threat was real." Then his best friend (who served in the same elite unit as Yoni Netanyahu) was killed. The realization set in that Israel's survival was not a given. For reasons that became apparent as the day unfolded, he is convinced that his three children will not grow up in a vibrant and safe Israel unless the West Bank remains part of the Jewish state.
Jennifer's post has two parts and I suggest that you read the whole thing. The first part is
here and the second part is
here.
And Bennett's former company is named Cyota (with an
a at the end), and the website of the company that bought it in December 2005 is
here.
Labels: Jennifer Rubin, Judea and Samaria, Naftali Bennett
Jennifer Rubin tells Israel to get some self-confidence
Jennifer Rubin has an interesting take on the Hezliya conference which I read as her telling Israel to
stop apologizing for our existence and get some self-confidence.
One gets the feeling that for 11 years the same people, spouting the same positions, have been coming to Herzliya to describe how the rest of the world regards Israel and what an arduous task Israel faces in getting back into the world's good graces. You have to wonder why the Israelis bother. It seems to perpetuate the view that Israel is about strife and bad PR. There is that, but there is also a rich national experience that is crowded out of view.
Here's a suggestion: Invite Europeans and Americans to a conference entirely about Israel -- its economy, its technology, its archaeological findings and its absorption of refugees from other countries. That might at least teach the outside world about the real Israel, as opposed to the media creation that turns Israel into nothing more than a player at odds with the Palestinians, the Muslim countries, the Europeans, etc. Really, can you imagine Russia hosting an annual conference where the world comes to tell Russia about the occupation of Georgia, its testy relationship with other former Soviet states and the danger posed by Islamic radicals? I can't either.
She has a good point.
Labels: Herzliya Conference, Jennifer Rubin
Leftist Think Progress attacks Jennifer Rubin for being pro-Israel
The Leftist blog Think Progress has attacked Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin for being
pro-Israel (Hat Tip:
Andrew Breitbart via Twitter).
Rubin, a prolific blogger, has published 415 posts since she started at The Washington Post at the end of November. Her blog categorizes her posts by topic and shows that: 29 were about “Israel;” 11 were about “American Jews,” and 16 were about “Iran.” In just the past few weeks, she attacked the signatories of a letter calling for the Obama administration to support a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction in the Occupied Territory. Rubin also attacked HSBC for an advertisement which the bank was running to call attention to the high number of female filmmakers in Iran.
Now, her hard work on behalf of the Israel right has earned her a free trip. “In the interest of full disclosure,” she revealed yesterday, her trip to Israel’s Herzliya Conference, an Israeli strategic confab, will be paid for by the Bill Kristol front group, The Emergency Committee For Israel (ECI).
...
The Washington Post’s claim that she is representative of the conservative movement is deeply misleading. Her close relationship with ECI, her gleeful promotion of the “military option” against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and her proclivity towards smearing her opponents as “Israel-bashing” show that Rubin represents the interests and ideology of the hawkish, pro-Israel right-wing. While the Post claims that her blog is representative of conservative politics and policy, her posts have shown a very different focus.
You have to wonder which bothers Think Progress more - that Rubin is conservative or that she's pro-Israel. These days, the two are almost synonymous, which is unfortunately not the case with being a liberal.
But if Jennifer is going to be at Herzliya (as are Jonah Goldberg and Danielle Pletka according to tweets I saw on Friday, and probably Noah Pollak of ECI too), that's a real incentive to try to get a ticket and show up. Hmmm.
Labels: Herzliya Conference, Jennifer Rubin, Think Progress
What Obama should say in the State of the Union address
Jennifer Rubin has some great ideas for things President Obama should say in his
State of the Union message.
On Iran, Obama has a chance to reaffirm the policy of two presidents -- George W. Bush and himself -- that Iran can never obtain nuclear weapons. We may have bought some time, but reports emphasize that Iran continues to make progress on nuclear enrichment. As Iran has becomes more recalcitrant, Obama should become more direct: The United States will use military force if needed to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, and, more important, we stand with the people of Iran who seek a democratic government that respects human rights and wants a normal relationship with the outside world.
Then there is the rest of the Middle East. As we know from documents released over the weekend, Israel has been generous in its offers of Palestinian statehood and the Palestinians have been more than willing to concede nearly all of East Jerusalem. The problem is not, and has never been, Israel's settlements. This would be a grand opportunity for Obama to step away from the disastrous obsession with settlements, make clear that the U.S. will stand with Israel at the United Nations (in vetoing resolutions on settlements and unilateral declarations of Palestinian statehood) and give a boost to the Fayyed plan that seeks economic and political progress on the West Bank.
More suggestions
here.
Labels: Barack Obama, Iran, Jennifer Rubin, Middle East peace process, Politics, US Politics, World Politics
Return to realism
Jennifer Rubin reports that former peace processor Aaron David Miller has
returned to realism.
Now, thankfully, Miller is back to his earlier brand of realism, stating that "it should be clear to all but the interminably obtuse" (and the intentionally obtuse, I would add) that a breakthrough in peace talks isn't possible in the forseeable future. He asserts that "the cooler heads in the Obama administration know this. Particularly the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the new national security adviser, Tom Donilon." Now they just need to convince the president.
Miller urges Obama to focus on attainable items, not a Middle East peace breakthrough. So Miller advises: First, stay out of the United Nations. Don't encourage the Palestinians to believe that the United States will vote for, or even abstain on, resolutions that criticize the Israelis on settlements. Or support efforts to recognize Palestinian statehood. It's a key to an empty room. That will come only through negotiations and U.S. mediation in the region -- not in New York.
Second, support Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's institution building on the West Bank, especially in the economic and security areas;
Third, use the absence of direct talks -- which have rarely produced sustained breakthroughs in any case -- to press both sides separately, at a high level, on where they are on the core issues. Do this for three months -- and see where the gaps are and what the chances are for bridging them;
Fourth, probe for signs of life on the Israeli-Syrian talks.
I'd stop at No. 2. On the list of farcical exercises, the search for an Israeli-Syrian breakthrough ranks high. But Miller's return to realism should be applauded. We can only hope that the "interminably obtuse" don't include the president.
Indeed.
Labels: Aaron David Miller, Barack Obama, Jennifer Rubin, Mahmoud Abbas
Defining pro-Israel
Ben Smith discusses the notion of defining pro-Israel and gets it all wrong until
Josh Block comes to the rescue.
The New America Foundation's Steve Clemons wrangled some regular Israel critics and some, like Peter Beinart, who come from a somewhat different place, into an open letter from senior ex-diplomats and writers that called for the U.S. to support a U.N. resolution condemning Israel's settlement in the territories, while affirming "our strong commitment to Israel's security."
This drew dismissive reference by the Washington Post's very hawkish new blogger, Jennifer Rubin, to "the usual crowd of Israel bashers" -- which is of course what Clemons had sought to avoid seeming. [Having Walt and Mearsheimer sign on certainly supports the notion that these are just Israel bashers. CiJ]
And he writes a bit plaintively today: I would like to know from Jennifer Rubin and from her editor -- and from the Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post -- what I have ever said, what I have ever written, what I have ever organized that deserves the characterization I received from Jennifer Rubin today at the Washington Post. What does she consider makes me an Israel-basher? I believe that she and I have a serious disagreement about what Israel's interests are -- and I believe that the Netanyahu wing of the Israeli political establishment regularly places short term interests over long to mid-term interests. But I don't call those who support Netanyahu Israel-bashers even though I believe that as patriotic as they may be as Israelis or as pro-Israel as they may be as Americans they are harming Israel's interests. That could be a constructive debate -- something where both sides could learn something, perhaps.
Calling someone as Israel-basher is akin to calling them an anti-Semite or a bigot, and that can't go without response....
There are two fights underway at the moment: One is defining the politically acceptable space in Washington for debating Israel policy; the other is the push by Bill Kristol and his allies to identify support for Israel explicitly with the Republican Party. That latter effort, ironically, has some of the same goals of the former, which would like to see the Democratic Party soften its hard line.
UPDATE: Former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block emails: Steve is a friend and a very smart guy, so he probably knows this already, and while I have no dog in this particular hunt, having read neither his post nor Ms. Rubin's, just yours, given his "plaintive" question, perhaps it is worth pointing out the obvious.
Working to isolate Israel in the United Nations, and calling on the United States to abandon our policy of opposing unbalanced, anti-Israel Security Counsel resolutions, is the DEFINITION of anti-Israel activism, as is bragging or promoting in widely circulated emails one's letter being signed by the likes of Walt/Measheimer, Chas Freeman and a like crowd of mostly anti-Israel actors and critics. [Emphasis mine. CiJ]
It's good that Josh Block came to the rescue.
Labels: Ben Smith, Jennifer Rubin, Josh Block, pro-Israel, Steve Clemons
Interview with Michael Oren
Jennifer Rubin publishes a two-part interview with Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren. The first part is
here and the second part is
here. Here's a brief excerpt from the first part.
In a year characterized by public spats and private pressure largely centering on Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Oren prefers to focus on the "multi-faceted" nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship -- on trade, intelligence sharing and development of an anti-ballistic missile system.
Moreover, he stresses the unique benefits that Israel brings to the alliance, being the sole nation in the region able to quickly field an immense military that is loyal to a democratic government, and which is unequivocally pro-American. "That's the alliance," he said emphatically. He then digressed, "I have to wonder, when the 'realists' attack. Who is the U.S. supposed to have this type of alliance with -- Yemen? Who do they have in mind to replace us?" He added, "All alliances come with costs."
The so-called peace process ended recently, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton essentially conceded that what the administration has been doing didn't work. What happened, and what's the lesson to be learned? Oren said carefully: "The administration came into office with a great emphasis on mediation and a focus on settlements. Mr. Netanyahu made an unprecedented gesture in freezing settlements for ten months." But as soon as the settlement freeze ended, the Palestinians "left," he said bluntly. "They are reluctant to negotiate if they can get what they want outside of the negotiations, if Latin American countries, for example, will recognize them." But, he cautioned, "There is no alternative to face-to-face negotiations." (I couldn't help but notice that his language, not coincidentally, matched Clinton's comments last Friday.)
And here's a brief excerpt from the second part.
The most visible platform on the international stage for defamation of Israel is the UN Human Rights Council. Oren observed: "Israel has been more frequently condemned by the Human Rights Council than all of the other countries combined. The council is the only UN entity which in its charter -- article 7 -- is specifically committed to condemning and investigating Israel." He cited some of the recent anti-Israel actions of the UNHRC, including the Goldstone Report and the flotilla investigation, as evidence of the body's distorted mission. Should the U.S. leave? Oren declined to offer the U.S. advice, saying only, that "while the [Obama] administration has made robust effort to defend Israel, there has been no change in the Human Rights Council itself."
We then to turned to the subject of non-governmental organizations with shadowy funding that challenge the legitimacy of Israel. A bill in the Israeli Knesset to require that groups operating in the country disclose their funding set off a firestorm of protest from Israel-bashing groups and some European governments, which have been shown to provide funding (directly or indirectly) to groups seeking to undermine Israel's legitimacy. Oren said, "The question is whether they are operating as foreign agents. We have freedom of expression. Members of the Knesset can be anti-Zionist. Professors can say these things. Public employees can say these things." He contended, however, that it is legitimate for Israel to determine if groups that are acting in ways "inimical not to the politics but to the polity of Israel are being funded by foreign governments."
...
The real worry, he said, is "the insinuation into journalistic discourse of themes that would have been deemed unacceptable or racist only a few years ago." He said that he used to be asked if the "Israel Lobby" existed. Now, "I'm asked what the Israel lobby thinks. And they're not talking about AIPAC. They are talking about some shadowy group of bankers and people who control the media." He continued, "I'm not a Middle East media watch person," but there were "one or two cases where reputable journals crossed that line" and he felt compelled to pick up the phone to call the outlets. Can Israel put the genie back in the bottle? He sighed and paused. "I don't know," he said quietly.
Both parts of the interview are worth reading in full. Links above.
Labels: Jennifer Rubin, Michael Oren
A positive pattern?
Jennifer Rubin chats with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Ct), who sees a '
positive pattern' in a couple of recent moves by the Obama administration.
This past week, the Obama administration finally gave up its effort to induce Israel to offer up a 90-day settlement freeze. Lieberman said he has no particular insight into why the administration finally woke up. He simply said, "There are smart people in this administration and they realized they were in a bad position." He observed that when you are in a hole, the first thing is "to stop digging." His was blunt in his criticism of the administration's Middle East policy. He said that focusing on a settlement freeze "was a mistake," putting both Israelis and the Palestinians in a position in which they could not give in. He recalled that past administrations never demanded a settlement freeze while they conducted far-reaching talks. The entire endeavor -- giving up so much for a 90-day freeze and putting the Israeli prime minister in the position to give up items on "unrelated matters" to his coalition partners (an apparent reference to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's support for the so-called loyalty oath) convinced Lieberman "this was going nowhere good."
In the administration's shift from pure "engagement" to a tough sanctions policy, and in giving up on its flawed settlement freeze strategy, Lieberman sees a positive pattern. "When they try something that doesn't work, then [they realize] it's time to try something else."
Well, yeah, but....
One might hope, however, that the Obama team would learn at a more rapid pace.
My thoughts exactly.
Labels: Barack Obama, Iranian nuclear program, Jennifer Rubin, Joe Lieberman, Middle East peace process
