Israel Matzav

Targeting Israel

Israel is being targeted all over the world. Soccer Dad has a summary.

1) Targeting Israel in Syria

First the sequence:

a) Israeli Airstrike in Syria Targets Arms Convoy, U.S. Says by Isabel Kershner and Michael Gordon - January 30, 2013

Israeli warplanes carried out a strike deep inside Syrian territory on Wednesday, American officials reported, saying they believed the target was a convoy carrying sophisticated antiaircraft weaponry on the outskirts of Damascus that was intended for the Hezbollah Shiite militia in Lebanon. The American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Israel had notified the United States about the attack, which the Syrian government condemned as an act of “arrogance and aggression.” Israel’s move demonstrated its determination to ensure that Hezbollah — its arch foe in the north — is unable to take advantage of the chaos in Syria to bolster its arsenal significantly.

b) Israel Bombs Syria as the U.S. Considers Its Own Military Options by Michael Gordon, Eric Schmitt and David Sanger - May 3, 2013

Israel aircraft bombed a target in Syria overnight Thursday, an Obama administration official said Friday night, as United States officials said they were considering military options, including carrying out their own airstrikes.

U.S. apologized for leaking details of Israel. US officials told that they review the matter.The leak forced assad to react harshly.
— chico menashe (@chicomenashe) May 19, 2013

c) Israel Airstrike Targeted Advanced Missiles That Russia Sold to Syria, U.S. Says by Michael Gordon - July 13, 2013

Israel carried out an air attack in Syria this month that targeted advanced antiship cruise missiles sold to the Syria government by Russia, American officials said Saturday. The officials, who declined to be identified because they were discussing intelligence reports, said the attack occurred July 5 near Latakia, Syria’s principal port city. The target was a type of missile called the Yakhont, they said.

d) Some Syria Missiles Eluded Israeli Strike, Officials Say by Michael Gordon - July 31, 2013

American intelligence analysts have concluded that a recent Israeli airstrike on a warehouse in Syria did not succeed in destroying all of the Russian-made antiship cruise missiles that were its target, American officials said on Wednesday, and that further Israeli strikes are likely. ... The officials who described the new assessment declined to be identified because they were discussing classified information.

On four separate occasions this year, administration officials talking to Michael Gordon (and other reporters) of the New York Times revealed information about Israeli striking Syria. In three of the cases it's acknowledged explicitly that official speaking to the Gordon would not identify him or her self. Yet only once did the United States apologize. Still, in three separate instances the administration deprived Israel of deniability about the strike. The most recent case, suggested that Israel would strike Syria again. The suggestion hardly something that helps Israel. Last year in the wake of reports of the Stuxnet virus damaging Iran's nuclear facilities, a report in the New York Times had the administration boasting of its efforts to create the virus. However there were some reported problems with the virus. Then the administration blamed Israel.

An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users. “We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.” Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.”

It's unclear who leaked this story to the New York Times, but recently the Justice Department has been investigating Gen. James Cartright for leaking the information about Stuxnet. There is no reporting suggesting that the leakers about the Israeli attacks on Syria are being investigate. It's curious why Cartright and not others are being investigated. It's also curious why administration leaks seem to make Israel look bad.  

2) Targeting Israel in Egypt

A few days ago the New York Times published a news analysis U.S. Balancing Act With Egypt Grows Trickier by Mark Landler.

For the Obama administration, the problem is not simply its relationship with the Egyptian military but also with Israel, whose security interests are weighing particularly heavily on administration officials as they try to nurture a new round of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel depends on Egyptian troops to root out Islamic extremists in the Sinai Peninsula, and Israeli officials have publicly and privately urged the United States not to cut off the aid, which underpins the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Israeli concerns are presented as a reason holding the administration back from doing the "right thing" in Egypt. Later on the article emphasizes this point by hypothesizing what might happen if aid to Egypt were cut off and Egypt then failed to take control of the Sinai.

Were that to happen, analysts said, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would face enormous domestic pressure not to make any concessions to the Palestinians, especially on security issues. He probably could not even continue talking to them.

If the theme that Israel prizes its security at the expense of Egypt's freedom sounds familiar its because it was a common refrain in Thomas Friedman's columns at the beginning of the "Arab Spring." In particular, Friedman wrote in Postcard from Cairo II:

Rather than even listening to what the democracy youth in Tahrir Square were saying and then trying to digest what it meant, this Israeli government took two approaches during the last three weeks: Frantically calling the White House and telling the president he must not abandon Pharaoh – to the point where the White House was thoroughly disgusted with its Israeli interlocutors – and using the opportunity to score propaganda points: “Look at us! Look at us! We told you so! We are the only stable country in the region, because we are the only democracy.’’

I have no idea what the Israeli officials really said, only how Friedman interpreted - and, if he is to be trusted, how certain administration officials interpreted - their comments. Israeli was probably rightfully guarded in its appraisal of the protests and it bother Friedman and perhaps some in the administration, that Israel wasn't more enthusiastic. The success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt validated the Israeli approach. (Friedman is arguing that Israel wasn't really secure since it was depending on undependable strongmen for peace. Of course 2003, that is precisely the advice Friedman gave Israel in advocating that Arab peace initiative.) Landler is the White House correspondent for the New York Times and from what I've seen a cheerleader for the administration. It's possible that he framed the analysis based on his own understandings and prejudices. It's also possible that he was faithfully recording the message the administration wanted to send.  

3) Targeting Israel in the Peace Talks

David Ignatius wrote one of the more disturbing op-eds I could imagine, Kerry’s big-bang Mideast diplomacy:

What Kerry has done, in effect, is get the two sides to grab hold of a stick of dynamite. If they can’t defuse it within nine months through an agreement, it’s going to blow up: The moderate Palestinian government in the West Bank would collapse; militant Palestinians would take statehood to the United Nations, probably this time with broad European support; an angry Arab League would withdraw its peace initiative. It would be a big mess for everyone. Tzipi Livni, the chief Israeli negotiator, recalled at a State Department ceremony Tuesday that when she first talked with Kerry about a new round of peace talks five months ago, he told her that “failure is not an option.” By pushing the two sides into an actual negotiation, Kerry has put some teeth into that bromide. If they fail this time, it will cost the parties dearly, probably Israel most of all. That provides harsh leverage for Washington. Kerry’s second advantage is that he’s ready to be an active broker in this deal rather than a passive listener or mediator. When the two sides reach impasses or get bogged down on side issues, Kerry will seek to break the logjam with U.S. proposals. By putting a nine-month fuse on his dynamite stick, Kerry limits stalling tactics of the sort adopted in the past by both sides.

What's important to remember about Ignatius is that he's very well connected. If someone want to look good in Washington he becomes a source for Ignatius who will write him or her up favorably. Presumably Kerry or someone in the State Department went to Ignatius for this op-ed. If Kerry (or a subordinate) was boasting of this agenda, then Secretary of State is a poor job title for Kerry. Master of disaster would be more appropriate. In 2000, Prime Minister Barak cut made an end of conflict offer to Yasser Arafat. Arafat refused it. And then he started the so-called "Aqsa intifada." What makes Ignatius or Kerry certain that Abbas won't refuse Netanyahu as Arafat refused Barak or Abbas refused Olmert in 2008? It isn't the negotiating that will bring peace, it has to be the sense that only negotiations will help Abbas get what he says he needs. Abbas has calculated that he will do much better bringing international pressure to bear on than he will from bilateral negotiations. No one, not the Kerry, not the EU, not the UN has told him otherwise. But think about underlying premise of this approach apparently adopted by Kerry and advocated by Ignatius. The United States is telling an ally: give the other guy everything he wants or you will regret it. Apparently someone in the State Department wants Israel to get this message and got Ignatius to deliver it.  

4) Will Hamas suck up to Iran to save itself?

In The New Republic, Ehud Yaari explains some of the reasons Hamas is in trouble. Its Muslim Brotherhood patrons in Egypt fell from power after it alienated Iran for stopping its support of Bashar Assad. These changes have precipitated a leadership split in Hamas.

For example, in contrast to Mashal's Egypt focus, Gaza prime minister Ismail Haniyeh has emphasized the need to defend Hamas control over the strip. Although he accepted the position of deputy Executive Committee chief after failing to win the top Hamas post in April, he no longer heeds orders from Mashal. Other leaders have urged speedy reconciliation with Iran, emphasizing that Hamas cannot afford to divorce itself from the "resistance axis". The most adamant proponent of this view is Imad al-Alami, the group's former permanent envoy in Tehran and head of the "Intifada Committee," now returned from Damascus to Gaza. He is supported by military figures such as Muhammad Deif and Marwan Issa, and by politicians such as Mahmoud al-Zahar. In contrast, Mashal received heavy criticism for attending a much-publicized May sermon in Qatar in which Qaradawi railed against Iran and its partners. His response was that he did not have prior knowledge of what Qaradawi would say. In recent weeks, Hamas has sent delegations to Beirut and Tehran in order to reach new understandings with Iran and Hezbollah. Although both parties replied that they will keep their doors open to Hamas, they also noted that they cannot normalize relations until the group modifies its position on Syria's war and Iranian/Hezbollah involvement there.

Making matters worse for Hamas is that the new Egyptian government's blockade of Gaza has severely limited Gaza's supply of fuel.

“There are very few cars on the road and people line up for hours to get just a few liters of gas,” Omar Shaaban, an economist in Gaza told The Media Line. “There is only about 25 percent of the quantity that is needed.” The shortage is also affecting municipal services such as sewage treatment plants which also run on fuel. Municipal officials in Gaza say they’ve began dumping untreated sewage into the Mediterranean Sea since they don’t have fuel to run the generators. Egypt is sealing off the tunnels as part of its campaign against gunmen in the Sinai peninsula. Last August, insurgents in Sinai killed 16 Egyptian policemen. Egypt worries the Sinai gunmen could receive weapons through the tunnels and could even escape to Gaza.

Although it is reported that Gazans are angry with Egypt over the blockade, the gas shortage will likely hurt Hamas's popularity too. While Iran may be open to restoring ties with Hamas, currently it is working against the terrorist group that controls Gaza. The New York Times reports that Iran is sending aid to Gaza through a different terrorist group, Palestinians Islamic Jihad.

The food boxes bore the logo of Islamic Jihad and the Iranian flag alongside the Palestinian one. Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed extremist militant group, often challenges the larger Hamas. Organizers at the packaging center said that the Imam Khomeini Relief Foundation, a Beirut-based Iranian charity, was financing the $2 million food aid project. Islamic Jihad has been granted the honors of distributing the 40,000 parcels, giving it a boost at a delicate time when Hamas is struggling to cope with a shifting regional landscape. In recent months, Iran has suspended millions of dollars in monthly aid to Hamas because the group did not stand by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, its former patron, in his struggle against rebel forces. Unlike Hamas, Islamic Jihad did not leave its base in Damascus and has kept up relations with the government of Mr. Assad, a longtime Iranian ally.

Labels: Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, Egypt, Ehud Barak, Hamas, Hezbullah, IAF, Iran, John Kerry, Middle East Media Sampler, Middle East peace process, Soccer Dad, Syria, Yakhont land to sea missile, Yasser Arafat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:19 PM 0 comments

The only certainties about the 'peace process'

In the peace process nothing can be said to be certain, except Israeli confidence measures and blaming Israel for failure

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, July 24 with more.

I agree with one aspect of Jeffrey Goldberg's, Kerry's Mideast Fool's Errand Ignores Reality. The title. Much of the rest of it is out of date, or simply wrong. Goldberg writes:

But as I've written before, I think Kerry is on a fool's errand, and I think the collapse of these talks, which is almost inevitable, could have dangerous consequences. Remember what followed the collapse of the Camp David peace process in 2000: years of violence, including horrific bus-bombing campaigns.

This is true. Possibly, but not likely. A lot has changed since 2000 for Israel. We are not talking about Gaza, because I can't imagine Hamas getting involved in a war to bail out Fatah. But also, Israel degraded many of the terrorist groups operating in Judea and Samaria and built a security fence. It's important to remember, that the so called "Aqsa intifada" wasn't a spontaneous outbreak of violence but a war started by Arafat. Abbas may not be committed to peace, but I don't think he's capable or willing to go to such lengths.

The first is that Hamas exists and is in control of the Gaza Strip, whether we like it or not. Abbas's Palestinian Authority, which will be bargaining with Israel, will represent at best half of Palestine. How do you negotiate a state into existence that is divided between two warring factions? It isn't even clear if the Palestinian Authority is fully in control of those parts of the West Bank that Israel deigns to let it control. (I will save for another time the deeper discussion of whether the maximum an Israeli government could offer the Palestinians represents the minimum the Palestinians could plausibly accept.)

Goldberg's correct here on both counts, but then he writes:

You also have to blind yourself to the reality that the Jewish settlement movement on the West Bank is now the most powerful political force in Israel. This is a movement whose leaders and Knesset representatives and cabinet ministers will subvert any peace process that would lead to the dismantling of even a single settlement, including any of the dozens of well-populated ones far beyond Israel's West Bank security barrier.

Is he talking about the "settlement movement" that stopped the withdrawals from Judea and Samaria in 1995 and from Hebron in 1997? Or is he referring to those who stopped the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005? Goldberg ascribes political powers to the settlers that they just don't have. They make a convenient bogeyman, but when have settlers stopped Israeli withdrawals in the past? So what does Goldberg suggest?

With the Israelis, Kerry (and his boss) should talk about the demographic, security and moral challenges of governing a population that doesn't want to be governed by Israel. He would be pushing on a bit of an open door -- the increasingly centrist Netanyahu (who is becoming more and more alienated from his robustly right-wing Likud party), seems to understand now that continued occupation (an occupation that exists at this point mainly to support the settlers) is undermining Israel's international legitimacy and its future as a Jewish-majority democracy. Kerry is understood in Israel as a true friend; his lobbying could be effective. If the Israelis would take small, unilateral steps on settlements, they could change the Palestinian calculus and improve Israel's reputation (which has become a genuine national-security concern).

This is condescending beyond belief. He just noticed that Netanyahu's a centrist? After Netanyahu agreed to the Hebron Accords, Charles Krauthammer observed:

The Hebron agreement was historic for Israel. It was the first time that Likud agreed to give up a piece of Eretz Yisrael -- the land of Israel. Netanyahu not only signed on to Hebron. He got a majority of his rightist coalition to sign on as well. And he brought the majority of Parliament along with him. Remember: Netanyahu may have campaigned personally as one who would retain Oslo while making it more reciprocal, but this was not the unanimous view of Likud. There are many in Likud and, more generally, on the Israeli right who view Oslo as so fundamentally flawed that it needs to be rejected at whatever cost. Netanyahu recognized that the cost of this approach would have been far more than Israel could bear. He then proceeded to bring his half of Israel into the peace process. Signing Hebron meant retroactively signing Oslo, and Netanyahu got his "national camp" cabinet to sign, 11-7. In the Knesset, he got his own Likud party to vote more than 2-1 in favor. When Menachem Begin brought Camp David back to the Israeli parliament in September 1978, almost half the Knesset members of Begin's own Herut party failed to support him.

With the Hebron Accords and the withdrawal from most of Hebron, Netanyahu did more to advance the peace process than anyone from Peace Now or J-Street. He did more for the peace process than Thomas Friedman or Jeffrey Goldberg did. And he certainly did more than either Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas ever did. The problem with the peace process now, isn't Israeli ideology, but Israeli practicality. Israelis know that when they withdrew from territory, they strengthened their enemies and paid significant prices for those withdrawals. But there is no occupation now. Israel doesn't rule over the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. The only question - and this has been the case since the end of 1995 - is what the formal borders will be. Goldberg conflates Palestinian demands with reality and assumes that only if all Palestinian demands are met does Israel deserve peace and to be declared occupation free. Why should Israel's reputation be a concern? Israel played by the rules made the concessions and was rewarded with terror. When Israel fought back, Israel was condemned; not Fatah who violated its word that it given up terror, not Hezbollah even though Israel was fully withdrawn from Lebanon and not Hamas even though Israel no longer occupied Gaza. Really, is Kerry really going to convince Israel: just make a few more concessions and the world will stop believing Arab propaganda? The world didn't credit the past 20 years of Israeli concessions, will it start doing so now?

On the other side, Kerry might want to try a bit more aggressively to help the Palestinian Authority become a viable governing body with a functioning economy and a bureaucracy that is reasonably free of corruption. Strengthening the Palestinian Authority (and working to weaken Hamas) while cajoling the Israelis to wean themselves from their addiction to settlements are two steps Kerry could take to advance negotiations.

Earlier this year, Abbas had two prime ministers quit on him. What makes Goldberg think that the PA under Abbas want to "become a viable governing body?" Note that unlike Israel, the Palestinian Authority has no "moral challenge" in front of it. Does the Palestinian Authority lionize terrorists? Of course it does. Is Abbas increasingly authoritarian? Of course he is. Goldberg by insisting on moral imperatives for Israel but not the Palestinians, shows the fundamental imbalance that he applies to the peace process. Israel must make concessions for its own moral health, but not the Palestinians. This gives the PA veto power over Israel's legitimacy. By this calculus, as long as the PA isn't happy, Israel isn't legitimate. Thus Israel has every reason to comply and the PA has none. Finally we get to:

It's true that Kerry has gotten the Israelis to agree to release some Palestinian prisoners. And he may convince the Palestinians to cease, for a while, their campaign to delegitimize Israel in the international arena. But these developments, by themselves, won't advance the larger cause.

That campaign to "delegitimize Israel in the international arena" is a violation of the premise of peace process, which called for the PLO to eschew terror and engage in bilateral negotiations. It was based on these premises that the PLO was declared to no longer be a terrorist organization. It has not done either. (If the PLO or Fatah is no longer a terrorist organization it has less to with its having reformed itself than with Israel having defeated, at great cost, the terrorist elements within Fatah.) But let's say that Israel's release of murderers does get Abbas to deign to talk with Israel again. And let's say that Israel and the PA come to an agreement. Would everything be great? The Middle East would have peace. Israel would be legitimate. Kerry would have his first Nobel Prize and Obama his second. What a wonderful world! Wait. What did the PA's minister of religion say?

On the eve of the renewed peace talks with Israel, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash said in his Friday sermon that when PA leaders signed agreements with Israel, they knew how to walk "the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah." Al-Habbash's sermon was delivered in the presence of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and was broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV. The Hudaybiyyah peace treaty was a 10-year truce that Muhammad, Islam's Prophet, made with the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. However, two years into the truce, Muhammad attacked and conquered Mecca. The PA Minister of Religious Affairs stressed in his Friday sermon that Muhammad’s agreeing to the Hudaybiyyah treaty was not "disobedience" to Allah, but was "politics" and "crisis management." The minister emphasized that in spite of the peace treaty, two years later Muhammad "conquered Mecca." He ended his comparison by expressing the view that the Hudaybiyyah agreement is not just past history, but that "this is the example and this is the model." Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, there have been senior PA officials who have presented the peace process with Israel as a deceptive tactic that both facilitated the PA's five-year terror campaign against Israel (the Intifada), and which will weaken Israel through territorial compromise that will eventually lead to Israel's destruction.

These declarations go back to the beginning of the peace process when, Yasser Arafat, made the claim in a South African mosque in 1994.

In the latest taped excerpt, which rekindled the dispute today, the P.L.O. leader compares his agreement with the Israelis to a 10-year peace arrangement in the seventh century between the Prophet Mohammed and the Quraish tribe. That accord was broken two years later. Muslims say the violation was commited by the Quraish, not Mohammed, who went on to capture Mecca. Many Israelis interpreted the ancient reference by Mr. Arafat as a signal that he had no intention of accepting his agreement with Israel as binding.

"Many Israelis?" How about "any sentient being?" Well the interpretation of "many Israelis" was correct as Arafat violated the Oslo Accords on a regular basis. The problem isn't Netanyahu. It's not the settlers. It's the Palestinian mindset that they won't accept Israel until they achieve all of their demands. And if leaders of the Palestinian Authority are to be believed, maybe not even then. If Jeffrey Goldberg wants to give useful advice, maybe he should recommend giving one of those "morality" lectures to the Palestinian Authority. About the imperative of negotiating in good faith and sticking to its commitments.

Labels: Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, Fatah, Hamas, intifadeh, Middle East Media Sampler, Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorism, Soccer Dad, Wye Accords, Yasser Arafat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:29 AM 0 comments

Europe v. Hezbullah

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, July 23.

Europe vs. Hezbollah

Yesterday, the European Union's foreign minsters voted unanimously to designate Hezbollah's "military wing" a terrorist organization. This will give European nations the authority to disrupt the organization's finances.

The vote required unanimity and it was a long time in coming.

Last August, an article written by Nicholas Kulish of the New York Times, Despite Alarm by U.S., Europe Lets Hezbollah Operate Openly, told how freely Hezbollah operated in Germany.

While the group is believed to operate all over the Continent, Germany is a center of activity, with 950 members and supporters last year, up from 900 in 2010, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency said in its annual threat report. On Saturday, Hezbollah supporters and others will march here for the annual Jerusalem Day event, a protest against Israeli control of that city. Organizers told the Berlin police that the event would attract 1,000 marchers, and that two counterdemonstrations were also likely.
Hezbollah has maintained a low profile in Europe since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, quietly holding meetings and raising money that goes to Lebanon, where officials use it for an array of activities — building schools and clinics, delivering social services and, Western intelligence agencies say, carrying out terrorist attacks.
European security services keep tabs on the group’s political supporters, but experts say they are ineffective when it comes to tracking the sleeper cells that pose the most danger. “They have real, trained operatives in Europe that have not been used in a long time, but if they wanted them to become active, they could,” said Alexander Ritzmann, a policy adviser at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels, who has testified before Congress on Hezbollah.

However at that time:

The European Union’s unwillingness to place the group on its list of terrorist organizations is also complicating the West’s efforts to deal with the Bulgarian bus bombing and the Syrian conflict. The week after the attack in Bulgaria, Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, traveled to Brussels for a regular meeting with European officials, where he called for the European Union to include Hezbollah on the list. But his pleas fell on deaf ears.
“There is no consensus among the E.U. member states for putting Hezbollah in the terrorist-related list of the organizations,” Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, the foreign minister of Cyprus, which holds the European Union’s rotating presidency, said at the time. “Should there be tangible evidence of Hezbollah engaging in acts of terrorism, the E.U. would consider listing the organization.”

However, in February of this year, when Bulgaria Implicated Hezbollah in July Attack on Israelis, the mood in Europe began to change.

The announcement could force the European Union to reconsider designating the Lebanon-based group as a terrorist organization and cracking down on its fund-raising. That would upend Europe’s policy of quiet tolerance of the group, which, in addition to operating schools and social services, is an influential force in Middle East politics, considers Israel an enemy and has extensive links with Iran. ...
The United States, too, urged the European Union to condemn Hezbollah. John O. Brennan, President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser and his nominee to run the C.I.A., responded in a statement Tuesday: “We call on our European partners as well as her members of the international community to take proactive action to uncover Hezbollah’s infrastructure and disrupt the group’s financing schemes and operational networks in order to prevent future attacks.”
But countries including France and Germany have been wary of taking that step, which could force confrontations with large numbers of Hezbollah supporters living within their borders.

By May of this year, 3 in Europe Now Oppose Hezbollah, now including previously reluctant France and Germany.

The shift in stance by Germany, the most populous country in the European Union and its largest economy, signals a significant change in momentum. “The German position is based on an increasingly clearer picture of the facts and on the progress achieved by Cypriot authorities in analyzing terrorist activities,” the statement said. “Minister Westerwelle hopes that the necessary consultations within the E.U. can be concluded rapidly.” ...
In the past, France and some other countries, like Sweden, have opposed putting Hezbollah on the terrorist blacklist, fearing it could destabilize the Lebanese government. The Palestinian group Hamas is on the list, and a number of European countries now believe that listing Hamas was a mistake because of the important political role it plays in Gaza and in the Palestinian political world. European officials are banned from talking openly to Hamas officials, for example.
Mr. Fabius explained the changed French position by emphasizing Syria, not Bulgaria. “Given the decisions taken by Hezbollah and the fact that it has fought very hard against the Syrian population, I confirm that France will propose to inscribe the military wing of Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations” of the European Union, he said, according to Agence France-Presse.

In June, at a meeting of EU security specialists, a vote to designate Hezbollah's military wing, did not achieve unanimity.

Diplomatic sources said Austria and the Czech republic led opposition at a meeting of EU countries' counter-terrorism specialists in Brussels on Wednesday (19 June).
Ireland, Italy and Poland also voiced concerns.
Objections centre around shaky evidence that Hezbollah bombed a bus containing Israeli tourists in Bulgaria last year.

At that point, it didn't look like another vote was going to come up on the topic until later this year.

But by the beginning of the month, momentum started to change.

Britain has argued that the militant Shi'ite Muslim group should face European sanctions because of evidence that it was behind a bus bombing in Bulgaria last July that killed five Israelis and their driver. Hezbollah denies any involvement.
Diplomats say a majority of the 28 EU member states, including EU heavyweights France and Germany, back the British proposal. But unanimity is needed and Austria, the Czech Republic and Italy have been among EU governments that have voiced reservations.
The British proposal has gained urgency - and some support - in Europe in recent weeks because of Iranian-backed Hezbollah's deeper involvement in the Syrian civil war.

Yesterday, the EU's foreign ministers voted unanimously to ban Hezbollah's "military wing," even though Hezbollah acknowledges that it has a unified leadership. 

What changed in recent weeks? 

The New York Times recently suggested that it was part of a "carrot-and-stick approach" that Europe was employing towards Israel. According to the article, Europe wants to show Israel that it is concerned for its security even as it issues new guidelines regarding settlements, which, of course, are for Israel's own good. 

The problem is that the reporting for the article don't support that thesis.

But the official said he was “not aware of any connection” made between the two issues either by Mr. Netanyahu or his counterparts. ...
While Israel is deeply concerned about the Union’s declaring Hezbollah a terrorist group, Europe generally views Hezbollah as part of its issue with Syria, not Israel. And because the Europeans — in contrast to outraged Israelis — view the new guidelines as a minor step reflecting longstanding policy, they do not see themselves as “owing Israel one.”

One possibility, as mentioned above, is that Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian civil war on the side of the Assad regimes has hurt its image significantly in Europe. Another is that in the last week, Bulgaria announced new evidence linking Hezbollah to the Burgas bombing. Also last week the Gulf Cooperation Council announced that it would blacklist Hezbollah as a terrorist group. While it's true that Hezbollah claims that Israel is its main enemy, it is not its exclusive target. 

After giving a summary of the Hezbollah's activities in Europe, Matthew Levitt explains how the new designation could hurt Hezbollah:

Despite the formal focus on asset freezing, the most significant impact of the EU ban will be felt on other fronts. First, it will enable EU governments to initiate preemptive intelligence investigations into activities that can be tied in any way to Hezbollah's military wing. Germany and a handful of other European countries have already conducted such investigations, but the designation will spur many others to do so. This alone is a tremendous change that should make Europe a far less attractive place for Hezbollah operatives.
Second, the ban is a strong means of communicating to Hezbollah that its current activities are beyond the pale, and that continuing them will exact a high cost. Previously, the group had been permitted to mix its political and social welfare activities with its terrorist and criminal activities, giving it an effective way to raise and launder money along with a measure of immunity for its militant activities. Today's designation makes clear to Hezbollah that international terrorism, organized crime, and militia operations will endanger its legitimacy as a political and social actor.
As for the financial angle, seizing significant amounts of Hezbollah funds is unlikely because the group's accounts are presumably registered under its nonmilitary names. But the ban will probably still curtail Hezbollah fundraising. Some of the group's members may be barred from traveling to Europe as governments become bolder in opening new investigations, and Hezbollah leaders may curtail certain activities on the continent as they assess the ban's full impact.

Recently it was reported that Hezbollah uses a network of German mosques to raise funds for its activities. Time will tell if the new designation will disrupt this effort. 

Hezbollah has reacted predictably. With threats.

Hezbollah member of Parliament Walid Sukkarieh told reporters: “Hezbollah isn’t a terrorist group with plans to commit acts of terror in Europe – that is religiously forbidden. Our resistance is different.” “Europe, by taking this decision, puts itself into confrontation with a segment of people – with Hezbollah and its supporters and even all the forces of confrontation in the region,” Sukkarieh continued.

Hezbollah threatens through its "FM" Adnan Mansour: "states contributing to UNIFIL, more than others, should review its calculations." (1)
— Tony Badran (@AcrossTheBay) July 22, 2013

More Hezbollah threats via Mansour to al-Manar: "there are local factions that played a negative role in [the EU decision]." (2)
— Tony Badran (@AcrossTheBay) July 22, 2013

Labels: Bulgaria, European Union, financing terror, Germany, Hezbullah, Middle East Media Sampler, Soccer Dad

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:34 AM 1 comments

Iran demands justice while Kerry ignores history

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Monday, July 22. I have a comment at the end.

1) The Executioners Demand Justice

Perhaps one of the oddest stories appearing yesterday was Iran's Mullahs Demand Justice for Trayvon. According to the semi-official Iranian website Press TV:

“The acquittal of the murderer of the teenage African American once again clearly demonstrated the unwritten, but systematic racial discrimination against racial, religious and ethnic minorities in the US society,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyed Abbas Araqchi said. He noted that the court ruling has also seriously put under question the fairness of the judicial process in the United States. “Several months on since a probe was launched (into the murder), the public opinion in the US and across the world expect transparency, an accurate and fair judicial investigation into the case, with due regard to human rights principles for American citizens and a ban on discrimination against minorities in the country,” Araqchi added.

(Araqchi, by the way, was appointed just two months ago and has been quite vocal and aggressive since his appointment.) As Adam Kredo writes, though, it's more than a little ironic that Iran is pronouncing judgment on the American justice system.

Iran’s calls for justice came as a surprise to U.S. observers, who pointed out that the Iranian regime is notorious for beating opposition members, arresting journalists, stoning women to death, and publicly executing homosexual teenagers.

Theater of the Absurd: Iran’s Mullahs Demand Justice for Trayvon, slam USA. http://t.co/TYhMhZ1PMr via @sharethis
— Ron M. (@Jewtastic) July 20, 2013

According to a group called Iran Human Rights, executions in Iran have been spiking since the June 14 presidential election. The group bases its count on the regimes' announced executions and observes:

One possibility might be that during elections the authorities have to give more space to the public in order to encourage people’s participation in the elections. Additionally, during elections international journalists visit Iran one week before and after elections. However, in the weeks prior to and after the elections the number of executions reaches a peak.

A few years ago it was reported that the regime would ensure that young women were "married" before they were executed. Of course, Iran is also known to have targeted civilians in other countries without the benefit of any minimal amount of due process. The idea of the Iranians passing judgment on the American system is perverse. 

2) "You used to ride on your chrome horse with your diplomat" 

The New York Times has been tracking John Kerry's efforts to restart Palestinian/Israeli negotiation. First the paper reported in Kerry Achieves Deal to Revive Mideast Talks:

“The representatives of two proud peoples today have decided that the difficult road ahead is worth traveling and that the daunting challenges that we face are worth tackling,” Mr. Kerry said in Amman, the Jordanian capital, on Friday night before flying back to Washington. “They have courageously recognized that in order for Israelis and Palestinians to live together side by side in peace and security, they must begin by sitting at the table together in direct talks.” There was no indication that either the Israelis or the Palestinians had compromised on core issues — such as ending Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank or conceding the right of return of Palestinian refugees — that have sunk previous negotiations. Rather, this round of diplomacy was focused on getting distrusting adversaries to sit in the same room. But after years of stalemate in which the prospects of creating side-by-side Israeli and Palestinian states seemed to fade, even as a goal of American and regional diplomacy, the resumption of a process of talks counts as progress, some analysts said.

Whether or not this is how Secretary of State Kerry framed the issue, the New York Times picks two issues that would put the onus on Israel. Other issues such as Hamas ruled Gaza, the refusal of Abbas to negotiate and the ongoing Palestinian incitement against Israel are all non-factors in this reporting.

Netanyahu pledges referendum following Kerry breakthrough on talks: Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Net... http://t.co/2cpHlZkNMq BICOM
— Jewish Community (@JComm_NewsFeeds) July 22, 2013

The next day the New York Times reported Palestinian Prisoner Release Is Critical Hurdle in Resuming Peace Talks:

One of three main Palestinian demands for resuming talks has been the release of about a hundred Palestinians who have been jailed since before the signing of the Oslo peace accords in 1993. The other demands are using the 1967 prewar borders as the basis for negotiations, and freezing Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. The Americans had been working on ways to resolve the border and settlement issues with a formula in which they would make a declaration about the 1967 border and about Israel being a Jewish state. A Western official said Saturday, “There are no terms of reference or any other agreements that the ’67 lines will be the basis for negotiation.” Frustrated by the lack of a guarantee regarding the 1967 borders, the Palestinians on Friday pushed further on prisoners, an issue with profound emotional resonance on both sides. Palestinians consider the men in Israel’s jails, particularly those serving since before Oslo, prisoners of war. Israelis call them terrorists. Some have been convicted of multiple murders, and the families of their victims have already made passionate public appeals against the release.

Again, even though it is Abbas who refuses to negotiate, the reporting blames Israel for its hesitance to make concessions ahead of negotiations. Of course releasing convicted terrorists is a risky move, often leading to more terror. The release of a thousand terrorists to secure the freedom of Gilad Shalit nearly two years ago was no exception. The risk of releasing prisoners with "blood on their hands," is compounded by the fact that the Palestinian Authority, rather than criticizing the terrorists, praises them instead and absolves them of any wrongdoing. Why should the Palestinians be "frustrated" by not knowing the outcome of negotiations? Isn't that what the point of negotiations is? The Palestinians don't want negotiations, they want guarantees delivered by the international community. But if Mahmoud Abbas can't even keep a Prime Minister to govern by his side, how can he be expected to rule an entire country? How can be expected to keep his commitments?

The main ambition of Martin Indyk in life is to prove that Dennis Ross has been always wrong.
— Aharon Meytahl (@ameytahl) July 22, 2013

So Kerry did it. By George he did it! Negotiations will resume forthwith. Now watch the naysayers declare there'll never be an agreement.
— Martin Indyk (@Martin_Indyk) July 19, 2013

The latest, that the New York Times reports, is Seasoned Hand in Mideast May Shepherd Peace Talks:

But with the negotiations due to start in the next week or so, and Mr. Kerry intent on assuming his broader responsibilities as secretary of state, he has begun to assemble a team that would manage what one senior State Department official said is expected to be “a rocky and up-and-down process.” Channel 2 News in Israel reported that Mr. Kerry had told the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, that Mr. Indyk was his choice; the channel said both leaders expressed approval. ... Mr. Indyk was sent again to Israel as ambassador in 2000, to work with Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister, on an ambitious bid for a peace deal, but that effort failed, and the second Palestinian intifada erupted.

With a recalcitrant Palestinian President being dragged into peace talks with Israel, whose experience does Kerry seek? The same person who helped "shepherd" the parties to the 2000 Camp David summit. Kerry has apparently not learned from history. He isn't really where it's at.

Given that the US allows its justice system to be judged by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, and a host of other human rights violators as part of the Universal Periodic Review process at the United Nations 'human rights council,' is it really in a position to complain when Iran judges its record solo? It's the US subjecting itself to the UPR that gives Iran the credibility to make any comments.

Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Dennis Ross, Iran, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East Media Sampler, Middle East peace process, Soccer Dad, United Nations Human Rights Council, universal periodic review

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:18 AM 0 comments

No peace, no justice and no unbiased media

There's no peace and no justice in the release of 'Palestinian' terrorists, and there's no unbiased media when Helen Thomas is lionized.

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, July 21.

1) No peace, No justice

A decade ago Ahmed Jubarah walked out of jail a free man. Twenty eight years after he killed 13 people and wounded dozens more detonating an explosive laden refrigerator on a crowded Jerusalem street, Israel released Jubarah and others in order to restart peace talks with the Palestinians in 2003. The New York Times reported, Palestinian Bomber, Freed After 28 Years, Talks of Peace:

"We are not murderers. We are not criminals. We are people who seek peace and freedom," Mr. Jubarah, 68, the longest-serving Palestinian prisoner, said. He was freed as an Israeli good-will gesture on the eve of a summit meeting in neighboring Jordan that will include Israeli and Palestinian leaders, as well as President Bush. ...

Israel freed nearly 100 prisoners today and has been slightly easing punitive measures imposed on the Palestinians. The other detainees released today were arrested in the period since the fighting began in September 2000, and most had been held without charges, according to Israeli officials.

Notice the way this is framed. Israeli efforts to defend its citizens is termed "punitive" not "defensive." Worse than that Jubarah's first mention of peace is included with a lie about his causing death and destruction nearly thirty years earlier. Of course he was a criminal and murderer. Denying it doesn't make him any less culpable. But to have his use of the "peace" in this context characterized as "[t]alk[ing] of peace" denudes the word "peace" of any meaning.

(A few weeks later, the New York Times profiled Jubarah again, with a nearly identically titled, Arab Bomber, Freed After 27 Years, Longs for Peace but Has No Regrets. One theme that's common in both articles is a sense that the reporters consider it more significant that Jubarah was a "prisoner," than that he was a mass murderer.) If reporters showed an implicit, grudging respect to Jubarah, after he died early last week, others, notably Mahmoud Abbas, were quite explicit in their praise for the deceased terrorist.

The presidential eulogy stated: 'His pure soul passed on to the kingdom of Heaven during these blessed days in this honored month [Ramadan] after a journey of struggle full of exceptional giving and devoted activity for Palestine and for the freedom and honor of our people.' The President said in the eulogy: 'With the death of this fighter, Palestine and its people have lost a righteous son and loyal fighter, devoted wholeheartedly to protecting our people's rights. He dedicated most of his life to this people's independence and paid with many years of his life in the occupation's prisons so that the dawn of freedom will break over the pure land of Palestine.'

Even as Secretary of State John Kerry has been working furiously to restart the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians - in part by calling for a prisoner release - the honor accorded Ahmed Jubarah shows that prisoner releases do more to excuse terror than they do to promote peace.

2) Helen Thomas

A New York Times recalled with an obituary titled, 50 Years of Tough Questions and ‘Thank You, Mr. President’. The obituary begins with:

Helen Thomas, whose keen curiosity, unquenchable drive and celebrated constancy made her a trailblazing White House correspondent in a press corps dominated by men and who was later regarded as the dean of the White House briefing room, died on Saturday at her home in Washington. She was 92.

The end of the obituary, however, observes:

Ms. Thomas bitterly opposed the war in Iraq and made no effort to appear neutral at White House news conferences, where some of her questions bordered on the prosecutorial. In “Watchdogs of Democracy?,” she wrote that most White House and Pentagon reporters had been too willing to accept the Bush administration’s rationale for going to war.

If Ms. Thomas harbored such strong opinions and didn't hide them, how did she become the "dean" of White House reporters? Aren't reporters supposed to be objective? In nearly any other milieu Helen Thomas would have been considered an eccentric or, as James Taranto often put it, "American journalism's crazy old aunt in the attic."

That she was regarded as "dean" by many of her colleagues reflects poorly on the state of American journalism today. As Israel Matzav points out, though, the New York Times obituary of Helen Thomas, softpedals her downfall.

But 16 months later, Ms. Thomas abruptly announced her retirement from Hearst amid an uproar over her assertion that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go back where they belonged, perhaps Germany or Poland. Her remarks, made almost offhandedly days earlier at a White House event, set off a storm when a videotape was posted. In her retirement announcement, Ms. Thomas, whose parents immigrated to the United States from what is now Lebanon, said that she deeply regretted her remarks and that they did not reflect her “heartfelt belief” that peace would come to the Middle East only when all parties embraced “mutual respect and tolerance.” “May that day come soon,” she said.

Actually there's a difference between offhand and unguarded comments. Helen Thomas's statements were unguarded. When she was exposed for telling Jews to get out of "Palestine" and go back to "Poland" or "Germany." The very fact that she used the term "Palestine" instead of "Israel" shows that this wasn't simply a careless slip of the tongue, but the declaration of a deeply held belief.

Furthermore, as The Lid recounts, she wasn't the least bit apologetic about her comments. Later, when she spoke at a dinner of the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Thomas said:

"I paid the price for that," said Thomas, a longtime White House correspondent. "But it was worth it, to speak the truth. The Zionists have to understand that's their country, too. Palestinians were there long before any European Zionists." ... "You can not say anything (critical) about Israel in this country.

If she were really a well informed journalist who regularly perused the opinion pages of the New York Times, she'd know that wasn't true. But Thomas was agenda driven; not the least concerned with facts. Not everyone put up with her shenanigans.

The late Tony Snow, who for too short a time was President George W. Bush's press secretary, once chided her for "... providing Hezbollah's view." No doubt the media will continue to lionize Helen Thomas, but her record is one of shameful bias not one of journalistic courage or integrity.

Labels: anti-Semitism, Helen Thomas, Middle East Media Sampler, Palestinian terrorists, Soccer Dad

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:11 AM 0 comments

The Union strikes back

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, July 17.

1) The Union Strikes Back

The European Union (EU) has just released new regulations governing certain dealings with Israel. Starting in 2014, the EU (as a unit, individual states are not governed by these guidelines) will prohibit any dealings with private Israeli entities that liver or operate in Judea and Samaria, what is otherwise known as the West Bank. The idea is to make a distinction to show Europe's seriousness about considering Israel's "occupation" to be in violation of international law.

(image courtesy of Elder of Ziyon) The Washington Post reported:

The Europeans seem ready to give Israel a little shove, which could either bring Israel back to the table or backfire. Many Israeli officials say the blame for the impasse on negotiations lies not with them but with a dysfunctional, fractured Palestinian leadership that refuses even to talk without preconditions.

This is typical reporter-speak, using a qualification to obscure a truth. Yes, "many Israeli officials say," but what they're saying is the truth, as documented by the Washington Post's own Jackson Diehl. The New York Times gives more space to the pro-EU voices, but quotes an anonymous Israeli, who, as we show later on, is exactly correct.:

But a senior Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding Mr. Kerry’s diplomatic initiative, said Tuesday night that the Europeans were “intentionally or inadvertently undermining” the active American engagement in the peace process that they had been calling for for years.

“Why would any Palestinian leader agree to re-engage if they can get what they want without negotiating?” the official said. “Why enter the give and take of negotiations when you can just take what is offered by international bodies?”

Israel Matzav quotes the ADL, which makes an excellent point.

Commenting on the directives target, ADL stated settlements should not be considered an obstacle to peace. "Successive Israeli governments from the start of the peace process, including the current one, have maintained that construction beyond the 'Green Line'does not contradict the Israeli commitment to a negotiated resolution of all the core issues," ADL stated in the letter to the EU foreign policy chief.

Even people who claim that "everyone knows" what shape an eventual agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will take acknowledge that Efrat, for example, will remain part of Israel. Elder of Ziyon observes:

Israel is partially at fault for not having a clear, consistent, legal-based message to world diplomats on issues like Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Beyond the legalities, though, is the reality that the poster above means to show: the world is targeting Jews, and only Jews. See this great post by Yaacov Lozowick on Beit Safafa for examples of Arab Israelis who moved to the other side of the Green Line and are never considered "settlers". Israel is doing a poor job at explaining its side of the story, and EU documents like this - even if only an incremental step - are the result. Nothing Israel is doing points to moving the discourse in any other direction. So things like the verbiage "borders," instead of causing a firestorm, are roundly believed to be accurate.

As noted above, however, the EU is also showing that even as a member of the Quartet, it has no interest in adhering to the premises of the so-called peace process. Back in late 1995, the LA Times reported:

In the last seven weeks Israel has handed over six West Bank towns and more than 400 villages to the Palestinian Authority. The authority now controls about 90% of the West Bank's more than 1 million Arabs, and about one-third of the land in the Delaware-size territory.

For nearly 20 years, the occupation has been over. Subsequent to Israel's relinquishing political control of most Palestinians the Palestinians have twice refused to make final deals with Israel. (In 2000-1 it was Yasser Arafat who wouldn't make a deal with Israeli PM Ehud Barak and in 2008 it was Mahmoud Abbas who wouldn't response to Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's offer.) In 2000 Arafat launched a terror war against Israel in contravention of the very premises of the peace process and the PLO's supposed rehabilitation from being a terrorist organization. Yet the Palestinian refusal to deal in good faith prompted no comparable action by the EU. Why not? In fact the European guidelines play into the hands of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who wrote two years ago in the New York Times:

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.

That was a clear declaration that he had no interest in negotiating with Israel, preferring instead, to rely on international organization to pressure Israel into giving him all he wants. Abbas showed his contempt for the peace process, and Europe has just provided support for his strategy. The timing of this announcement is also beyond bizarre. The guidelines state:

These guidelines do not cover EU support in the form of grants, prizes or financial instruments awarded to Palestinian entities or to their activities in the territories referred to in point 2, nor any eligibility conditions set up for this purpose. In particular, they do not cover any agreements between the EU, on the one hand, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority, on the other hand.

But who benefits from such funding? A few weeks ago a senior official of the Palestinian Authority wrote an op-ed published at several Palestinian websites criticizing the PA's President Mahmoud Abbas. Part of Sufian Abu Zayda's complaint was summarized by Khaled Abu Toameh:

Abu Zayda and other Palestinian officials say that Abbas's autocratic regime reminds them of the days when Yasser Arafat ran the Palestinian Authority as his private fiefdom. No one dreamed that we would reach a situation where all the powers and top positions would be concentrated in the hands of one man, said Abu Zayda. Today, Abbas even has more powers than Arafat. Abbas, according to Abu Zayda, has also appointed himself as the chief judge and prosecutor, making a mockery of the Palestinian judicial system.

Yesterday, in Those Boring Palestinians, Bret Stephens added (or access the complete article via a Google Search):

Two days after the publication of Mr. Abu Zaida's op-ed, WAFA, the official Palestinian news agency, carried a rebuttal signed only by "The Security Establishment." It denounced Mr. Abu Zaida for serving "a foreign agenda" and being a tool of "enemy media." Then it sang Mr. Abbas's praises in a style worthy of Egyptian state media under Hosni Mubarak. It was a characteristically thuggish performance, which unwittingly proved Mr. Abu Zaida's point. If Palestinians want to be interesting again, and worthy of decent respect, they could start by not playing to tin-pot type.

The European Union should not be credited with a good faith effort to restart negotiations. It is using the peace process as a cover for supporting an increasingly authoritarian Mahmoud Abbas, whose main concern is his own wealth and power, as it becomes gradually more hostile to Israel. Stephen Leavitt suggests a number of ways Israel could strike back against the EU, including hitting it where it hurts: the pocketbook:

The third step is financial. The EU invested close to 1 billion dollars in research grants and investments, some of which could now be lost. Israel should approach private, patriotic wealthy Jews — Sheldon Adelson, who put his money where his mouth was this past U.S. election, comes to mind — to pick up the slack. In return, those who invest in Israeli research will reap the benefits in royalties, shared patent ownership and so on. They could stand to make a lot of money.

2) It makes them feel good but who will they hurt? 

Sodastream, an Israeli company with factories in the West Bank, could be impacted by these regulations. Will the EU regret it if the hundreds of Palestinians and Arabs working alongside Jews lose their jobs because of their new rules? Given the history of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activism, self-congratulations seems to be the goal, not actually accomplishing any good.

Labels: BDS, European anti-Semitism, European Union, Middle East Media Sampler, Soccer Dad

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:42 AM 0 comments

Hezbullah's American arms

Hezbullah in Lebanon has American weapons. Where did they come from? They surely didn't come from Fast and Furious in Mexico. And since the US has not yet given arms (or did they?) to the Syrian rebels, they didn't come from there either. So what's the source?

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, July 11.

1) Where did Hezbollah get American arms

Last month Lee Smith attempted to clarify if the administration had sent army to the Syrian rebels as it said it would, or not. All he (or anyone) got was studied ambiguity:

In fact, it’s still not clear what the White House is doing. In a June 13 conference call with reporters ostensibly rolling out the new policy, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes failed to provide any details. Reporters asked several times what kind of aid the administration had in mind, and whether Obama was actually going to arm the rebels. “We’re just not going to be able to lay out an inventory of what exactly falls under the scope of that assistance,” said Rhodes. Last week, Obama himself addressed the Syria issue, without providing any more clarity than his point man for strategic communications. In an appearance on the Charlie Rose show, the commander in chief told his host, “I’ve said I’m ramping up support for both the political and military opposition. I’ve not specified exactly what we’re doing, and I won’t do so on this show.” Maybe someone in the White House is advising Obama that obfuscation and ambiguity make a president look presidential. His administration is stealthy and indirect—instead of communicating with the public through press conferences, it prefers leaking to the media via unnamed officials. Accordingly, it was through several press reports that the “inventory,” as Rhodes repeatedly called it, was laid out. The White House will send the rebels small arms and ammunition—lethal aid, to be sure, but hardly game-changing, or even likely to tilt the balance of power on the ground in Syria.

Citing expert, Phillip Smyth, USA Today reported, though, that Hezbollah has been boasting of somehow acquiring American arms:

U.S. and Western weapons have been reaching Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting to keep Bashar Assad's forces in power in Syria. Analysts say it's unclear if the weapons were captured, stolen or bought on the black market in Syria, Turkey, Iraq or Libya. Propaganda photographs from Shiite militias posted on dozens of websites and Facebook pages show the weapons were acquired in new condition, said Phillip Smyth, an analyst for Jihadology.net, a site affiliated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the weapons are things the militias "shouldn't really have their hands on," Smyth said. Iranians love to show "they have weapons and systems that are very close to the Americans."

The article cites Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who fears that in the future similar weapons were captured from rebels. Does that mean that United States has been arming the Syrian rebels? Not necessarily. Another expert, Nic Jenzen-Jones, says that a likely source of these American weapons is Lebanon. Given the degree to which Hezbollah has co-opted the Lebanese army this would not be a surprising result.  

2) Who's isolated now?

A few years ago a mantra among Israel's critics was that Israeli by fighting terrorists on the Mavi Marmara and building apartments in Jerusalem had isolated itself internationally. Israel had needlessly alienated moderate Islamist Erdogan in Turkey and moderate autocrat Abbas in Ramallah. Worse Netanyahu had alienated Israel's best friend, President Obama in Washington. It's useful to remember this background when reading Thomas Friedman's Morsi's Moment from last November.

It is impossible not to be tantalized by how much leverage Morsi could wield in the peace process, if he ever chose to engage Israel. Precisely because he represents the Muslim Brotherhood, the vanguard of Arab Islam, and precisely because he was democratically elected, if Morsi threw his weight behind an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, it would be so much more valuable to Israel than the cold peace that Sadat delivered and Hosni Mubarak maintained. Sadat offered Israelis peace with the Egyptian state. Morsi could offer Israel peace with the Egyptian people and, through them, with the Muslim world beyond. Ironically, though, all of this would depend on Morsi not becoming a dictator like Mubarak, but on him remaining a legitimately elected president, truly representing the Egyptian people. That is now in doubt given Morsi’s very troubling power grab last week and the violent response from the Egyptian street. President Obama has to be careful not to sell out Egyptian democracy for quiet between Israel and Egypt and Hamas. We tried that under Mubarak. It didn’t end well. ... So, as you can see, the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of Egyptian democracy and the U.S.-Israel-Arab struggle with Iran and Syria are now all intertwined. Smart, courageous leadership today could defuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advance Egyptian democracy and isolate the Iranian, Syrian and Hamas regimes. Weak or reckless leadership will empower all three. This is a big moment.

Friedman makes some assumptions here. He presumed that Morsi could be swayed to democracy and ignored the authoritarian nature of the Muslim Brotherhood. He presumed that the Palestinians want an agreement with Israel, which they don't. And most of all he presumed that Israeli leader would act as he wanted them to act ("smart, courageous"). In subsequent months, Iran and its proxies have continued to alienate themselves from the Sunni world. The Muslim Brotherhood, at least in Egypt, managed to do the same. Erdogan after briefly flirting politically with Assad, then turned against him. And his much vaunted moderation was shown to be a sham once he turned his troops violently against protesters. Abbas can't keep a functioning government together. Smart Israeli leadership waited this events out and didn't proceed recklessly as Friedman advised. Barry Rubin provides an overview of recent events in the Middle East and how they enhanced Israel's posture. A couple of them are:

Hamas: With Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood thrown out of office, Hamas poses much less of a threat. Instead of having Egypt as a patron, Egypt is now a greater enemy than it was under Mubarak. That then breaks up the issue of a Brotherhood Egypt, Hamas, and Syria. Egypt: And speaking of Egypt, the transformation for Israel’s strategy almost approaches the victory of the 1967 war except this is not a victory over Egypt but a tremendous enhancement of cooperation. The threat of the dissolution of the peace treaty and a potential new war has been replaced by a prospect of deeper peace and more strategic help. The draining of terrorist resources and energies. Syria is now a target, as well as Iraq, for Sunni terrorists; and now Egypt is, too.

Would Israel have been better off it had made deal that would have passed muster with the now deposed Morsi? (Assuming that one was possible.) Should Israel have given in to the extremist, Erdogan's demands? Once again Israel is considering making a confidence building gesture to bring Mahmoud Abbas back to negotiations. Given Abbas's record and rhetoric, it's hard to believe that he will respond positively. Friedman's reading of the Middle East is seen solely through his rose colored glasses of Arab moderation. Events of the past months have proven him wrong.  

3) Ozymandias in the Gulf?

Martin Kramer comments on Qatar's latest grandiose plans:

Well, Deloitte reports that Qatar is spending $200bn—yes, that’s billion—for infrastructure to host the FIFA World Cup in 2022, including six stadiums (http://usat.ly/1atXzNV). In the distant (or not-so-distant) future, Doha will make a splendid ruin. It will draw tourists for millennia.

Labels: Abu Mazen, Free Syrian Army, gestures, Hezbullah weapons, Lebanese Armed Forces, Mavi Marmara, Middle East Media Sampler, Nusra Front, Qatar, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising, World Cup

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:21 AM 3 comments

Karsenty, accountablility lose

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, June 27.

Karsenty, Accountability lose

A few weeks ago Israel's government released a critique of the Al Dura case. During the so-called "Aqsa intifada," Mohammed al-Dura was allegedly killed by the IDF during a shootout at the Netzarim Junction in Gaza. Or so it was reported by France's Channel 2 and its reporter Charles Enderlin. Al-Dura became a cause in the Arab world. His image was put on postage stamps to inflame the "Arab street" against Israel. The Palestinian Authority released a video starring "Al-Dura" encouraging other children to become martyrs.

When the report was released, the Jerusalem Post's diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon wondered:

But still. Israel, by releasing this report 13 years on, has put this picture back into people’s minds, and it is not entirely clear whose interests are served by resurrecting this potent image.

Richard Landes responded:

What I’m afraid Keinon and the many others like him might be saying here is, in addition to our enemies, who will never drop that bone as long as there’s the most remote trace of the taste of blood on it – al Durah as symbol of Israeli evil – they also fear that the should-be rational people in the West, the liberals who should care about the truth, the journalists whose job it is to care about the truth – who won’t listen either.
But it’s these folks who are our target audience. They are the people – especially the journalists – who need to learn, when they see that image, that it is a symbol not of Israeli desire to kill children as Osama bin Laden and other blood libelers interpreted it, but a symbol of the incompetence of the media and the devastating impact of that incompetence, fortified with a stubborn, honor-shame reflex to deny any fault. Because we – and here I speak on behalf of democracies around the world, indeed all peoples who wish to live in peace and tolerance of the “other,” – we cannot afford the destructive impact of lethal journalism. We cannot afford to have our public sphere become the sewage dump of toxic, hate- and war-mongering lies, especially those of our enemies.

I agree. It wasn't simply about setting the record straight, but about holding the media accountable. Israel's decision to take a look at the case was a sign that Israel wasn't going to let the media get away with broadcasting straight propaganda anymore.

Yesterday, however, a French court disagreed. In 2008 media critic, Philippe Karsenty was vindicated of the charge that he had libeled Enderlin and France 2. Apparently a major factor in that verdict, was the Enderline was ordered to release the all the footage of the incident, but refused. But the case was appealed and yesterday Karsenty was found guilty of defamation. The AP reports:

In a report issued in 2004, Philippe Karsenty said the footage was orchestrated and there was no proof that the boy had been killed.
France-2 sued for defamation, and after a long legal battle, a Paris court fined Karsenty 7,000 euros Wednesday. He called the verdict “outrageous.”
Over the past decade Karsenty has amassed hours of video about the day of the shooting. At the heart of his claim is the fact that, according to the reporting by France-2, father and son received a total of 15 high-velocity bullets but in the video, neither appears to be bleeding. He says the firefight is real, but the shooting of the man and boy was staged for the camera.

At the end of the article, the AP gets reactions. Here's one:

Gaza’s militant Hamas rulers said the ruling confirmed that Israel and their supporters lied about the military’s practices in the coastal territory.
“They deceive and cover their crimes in front of the media and the world,” said spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.

A spokesman for Hamas?!?!!?

Hamas is a terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction and that's who the AP gets a reaction from! Jonathan Tobin addressed statements like this that is encouraged all too often in the media:

The al-Dura myth is significant not so much because it annoys Israelis and their friends but because it reinforces the way Palestinians think of themselves and gives them carte blanche to commit any outrage. Debunking it is not pointless. It is the starting point for any effort to answer the lies about Israel that have become the foundation for efforts to isolate and boycott the Jewish state. Friends of Israel ignore it at their peril.

There is no libel against Israel that is too outrageous not to be published uncritically.

Perhaps the best debunking of the report comes from James Fallows who wrote Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? in the Atlantic ten years ago.

The footage of the shooting is unforgettable, and it illustrates the way in which television transforms reality. I have seen it replayed at least a hundred times now, and on each repetition I can't help hoping that this time the boy will get himself down low enough, this time the shots will miss. Through the compression involved in editing the footage for a news report, the scene acquired a clear story line by the time European, American, and Middle Eastern audiences saw it on television: Palestinians throw rocks. Israeli soldiers, from the slits in their outpost, shoot back. A little boy is murdered.
What is known about the rest of the day is fragmentary and additionally confusing. A report from a nearby hospital says that a dead boy was admitted on September 30, with two gun wounds to the left side of his torso. But according to the photocopy I saw, the report also says that the boy was admitted at 1:00 P.M.; the tape shows that Mohammed was shot later in the afternoon. The doctor's report also notes, without further explanation, that the dead boy had a cut down his belly about eight inches long. A boy's body, wrapped in a Palestinian flag but with his face exposed, was later carried through the streets to a burial site (the exact timing is in dispute). The face looks very much like Mohammed's in the video footage. Thousands of mourners lined the route. A BBC TV report on the funeral began, "A Palestinian boy has been martyred." Many of the major U.S. news organizations reported that the funeral was held on the evening of September 30, a few hours after the shooting. Oddly, on film the procession appears to take place in full sunlight, with shadows indicative of midday.

Fallows critique is important. He is not, in any way pro-Israel. He also refuses to believe that Mohammed al-Dura is alive. Still he carefully reviewed all the available evidence and concluded that Enderlin didn't tell the correct story.

That is what any reasonable critic should have concluded. Unfortunately many in the media simply don't care.
They would rather see their preconceived narratives confirmed rather than examining their prejudices, premises or procedsses. Yeterday's verdict was a victory for continued media malpractice.

The Algemeiner carried a brief interview with Karsenty yesterday.

Labels: France 2, Middle East Media Sampler, Mohamed al-Dura, Pallywood, Phillippe Karsenty, Soccer Dad

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:58 PM 1 comments

John FN Kerry due in Israel

With US Secretary of State John FN Kerry due in Israel on Thursday, Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler takes a look at Kerry's chances of success.

1) Kerry to make his mark?

Michael Gordon profiles the new Secretary of State, in Following a Star, Kerry applies a Personal touch

Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Moscow early last month, determined to involve Russia in a new push to try to end the carnage in Syria. After a two-and-a-half-hour meeting with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, and a private stroll with Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, the two sides announced they would convene a conference in Geneva to bring representatives of the Syrian government together with the opposition, possibly by the end of May. The idea of a conference was a bold move — and so far, at least, an unsuccessful one. More than six weeks later, the Syrian opposition has suffered a stinging setback in Qusayr, the Obama administration has decided for the first time to arm the rebels, relations between the United States and Russia have taken a turn for the worse, and it is possible the Geneva meeting may never take place. ... While his predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was a global celebrity and possibly a future president, Mr. Kerry is striving to carve out a legacy as one of the most influential secretaries of state in recent years by taking on some of the world’s most intractable problems.

It's interesting to contrast Kerry with Hillary Clinton. But while she may be viewed by some as a "star," was she a successful Secretary of State. (Aside from the record setting travel, did she accomplish anything?) But if the point of the article is to boost Kerry's reputation, why does it start off with a failure? Was the idea of the conference a good one? Or merely a product of wishful thinking? (This isn't the first odd profile of Kerry in the New York Times. During the 2004 campaign an article that seemed like an effort to portray Kerry as a regular guy who eats peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, couldn't get past the fact that Kerry had a staff member who made the sandwiches for him.) Is there anything in Kerry's background that makes it likely that he will solve problems that others before him have failed to do? In any case, prior to that admiring profile of the Secretary, an article provided a reason why he might not succeed in bringing peace to the Middle East, Trying to Revive Mideast Peace Talks, Kerry Finds a Conflicted Israel.

Despite Mr. Kerry’s push, the Palestinian conflict has faded from view here as Israelis worry more about threats from Syria and Iran, as well as domestic social and economic issues. A poll by the Peace Index project of the Israel Democracy Institute in April showed the Palestinian issue ranked fifth among seven top concerns for Israelis, with fewer than half of the respondents supporting negotiations or believing that they will bear fruit. Several analysts noted that while Israel’s Jan. 22 elections resulted in a less conservative Parliament than the previous one, the coalition Mr. Netanyahu assembled in mid-March tilts further to the right, particularly on the Palestinian question. David Horovitz, the founding editor of The Times of Israel, said that the most telling thing was not what Mr. Danon said but that Mr. Netanyahu had given him and the others who disagree with the prime minister’s stated support for two states prominent positions in the cabinet.

Note the bias of this story. It is only Israeli hesitation that is cited as a reason for the expected difficulty in Kerry's efforts. But while Danon's comments were controversial, he did give an important qualification that the reporter ignored.

Speaking to The Times of Israel in his Knesset office, Danon said that there is currently zero debate about the two-state solution within the Likud because there is no “viable partner” on the Palestinian side and it seems unlikely that peace talks would resume any time soon. In recent weeks, US Secretary of State John Kerry has engaged in shuttle diplomacy in a serious bid to get the two sides to return to the negotiating table — so far to no avail. If Kerry were to succeed, however, and Netanyahu and the Palestinians agreed on the implementation of a two-state solution, “then you have a conflict” within the government, Danon said. “But today there is no partner, no negotiations, so it’s a discussion. It’s more of an academic discussion.”

True Danon is saying that he expects that any peace agreement to be blocked. But he's also saying that the Palestinian Authority is not capable of making an agreement. The fact that the PA doesn't seem capable of governing with an independent prime minister or that one of its senior officials openly calls Haifa part of Palestine suggests that Danon is right about the lack of a "viable partner." Then there is the record of Israeli withdrawal since the beginning of the Oslo Accords. The major withdrawals from the West Bank in 1995 were followed by terror attacks in early 1995; Israel's retreat from southern Lebanon in 2000, led to escalating violence culminating in the 2006 war with Hezbollah; and the 2005 disengagement from Gaza has been followed by two military campaigns to stop the rain of rockets upon residents of southern Israel. Given that these withdrawals were supposed to remove a grievance and bring peace closer, is it any wonder that Israelis are skeptical of the effectiveness of the peace process?  

2) Kerry's right hand man

Recent reports say that the new Secretary of State is set to appoint Robert Malley to an advisory role and possibly as an assistant secretary in the State Department. Malley had been kicked off of President Obama's campaign in 2008, when it was revealed that he had been talking to Hamas. Hamas is still designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. Perhaps Malley's most famous distinction is that he was the sole member of President Clinton's team at Camp David in 2000 who defended Yasser Arafat's rejection of a peace offer from then-Prime Minister Ehud Barack. In the subsequent years, there was a campaign to reduce Arafat's culpability for torpedoing the peace process and Malley produced op-eds and was quoted extensively by those who wanted to rewrite history. Lee Smith in profile of Malley in 2010, put it very well.

The importance of Malley’s articles was not that they suggested that both Barak and Clinton were liars, but that they created a viable interpretative framework for continuing to blame both sides for the collapse of the peace process even after the outbreak of the second intifada. If both sides were at fault, then it would be possible to resume negotiations once things calmed down. If, on the other hand, the sticking point was actually about existential issues—the refusal to accept a Jewish state—and the inability, or unwillingness, of the Palestinians to give up the right of Arab refugees to return to their pre-1948 places of residence, then Washington would have been compelled to abandon the peace process after Clinton left office. Malley’s articles were a necessary version of history that allowed policymakers to move forward without forsaking the diplomatic and ideological currency that Washington has invested in the concept of creating an independent Palestinian state through a negotiated peace with Israel.

If it was accepted history that Yasser Arafat rejected a viable peace offer and then launched a terror war against Israel, wise foreign policy experts would have to adjust their assumptions about the peace process. However, Malley's narrative, finding both sides at fault for the failure at Camp David, allowed future peace processors to avoid learning from the past and maintain their mistaken premises. The new Secretary of State intends to restart the peace process with no diplomatic successes to his credit and, possibly, an adviser who rewrites history. What are his chances of success?

Labels: John Kerry, Middle East Media Sampler, Middle East peace process, Soccer Dad

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:17 AM 0 comments