Israel Matzav

NY Times op-ed writer paid by Arab countries?

During the night on Monday night, I mentioned an op-ed by Henry Siegman that appeared in Monday's New York Times. The always anti-Israel Siegman argued that there is no peace in the Middle East because Israel irrationally refuses to return to the suicidal 1949 armistice line.

At The American Thinker, Ed Lasky explains that Siegman is a paid shill for certain Arab governments.

What motivates Siegman? How about money?

The New York Sun examined Siegman a few years ago and noted that he is the senior fellow and director, U.S./Middle East Project at the Council of Foreign relations. They noted that all his writings are indistinguishable from Arab propaganda and then looked at who were his benefactors.

[W]hy would the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based American institution, fund this "expert" at the level of $204,151 in salary and benefits, making him, in the most recent year for which tax returns are available, its fourth-highest paid employee? It turns out that much of the funding for the Council's "U.S./Middle East Project" comes from overseas, including the European Commission, the government of Norway, Kuwaiti and Saudi businessmen, a Lebanese politician, and, for one year, an official of the commercial arm of the Palestinian Authority, Munib Masri.

Siegman's writing of an earlier anti-Israel column in the International Herald Tribune prompted the examination by the Sun into his compensation. The Sun queried the editor of the Herald Tribune about Siegman and the source of his pay. The editor (Serge Schmemann) says the paper never asked about, and Siegman, never mentioned where his money was coming from. Bu the Sun informed them that he was basically a paid PR agent and promoter of propganada.


Why is this relevant? Because the Herald Tribune is owned by the New York Times. Did anyone at the Times already know about Siegman's history? Or care?

One more point. Siegman is also a member of J Street, the new anti-Israel lobby posing as a pro-Israel lobby that the newspaper of record has been trying to promote as being moderate and supportive of Israel. The paper neglected to mention this association. J Street is also connected to George Soros, who has a long record of hostility towards Israel. J Street's leadership has admitted that it wants to serve as Obama's blocking back with the Jewish community in America (i.e., to further Obama's agenda).

Seems like the "paper of record" shares those goals. Similar to Siegman's op-ed, it is biased propaganda masquerading as something else.

Given the Times' history, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:42 PM 2 comments

Zbig goes after the Jews

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a foreign policy adviser to the Presidential campaign of Barack Hussein Obama, has attacked the American Jewish leadership for 'McCarthyism' in their treatment of his candidate (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski says that the pro-Israel lobby in the US is too powerful, while the slur of anti-Semitism is too readily used whenever its power is called into question.

Presenting a solution for the Middle East, he listed historical compromises that had to be made by Israelis and Palestinians but accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) -- the largest and most influential lobby group -- of obstructing peace efforts.
...

He said: "AIPAC has consistently opposed a two-state solution and a lot of members of Congress have been intimidated and I don't think that's healthy."

That sounds like something out of Walt and Mearsheimer's book on the 'all-powerful' Israel lobby, doesn't it? Then again, that shouldn't really surprise anyone, because Brzezinski defended Walt and Mearsheimer last year. But this time, Brzezinski went even further, and it will be interesting to see whether it will be enough for Obama to throw him under the bus or whether Obama will claim that Brzezinski has 'no formal role' with the campaign anyway.

"It's not unique to the Jewish community -- but there is a McCarthy-ite tendency among some people in the Jewish community," he said, referring to the Republican senator who led the anti-Communist witch hunt in the 1950s.

"They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising.

They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel."

If a 'compromised peace' were even under discussion, there might be something to talk about. But that's not what's under discussion. The 'Palestinians' have never yielded on anything in any negotiation, while people like Brzezinski and his candidate continue to expect Israel to give up everything and endanger its very existence. Here's Mr. Change on his foreign policy adviser.

Although Mr Brzezinski is not a formal day-to-day adviser to Obama campaign, he said that he talks to Mr Obama.

He wholeheartedly endorses the Illinois senator, lauding him as "head and shoulders" above his opponents. And he says he is the only candidate who understands "what is new and distinctive about our age".

In turn, Mr Obama has praised Mr Brzezinski as "someone I have learned an immense amount from", and "one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers". They share very similar views on the folly of the Iraq war.

Over at American Thinker, Ed Lasky points out that Brzezinski's assertions about AIPAC are factually incorrect.

In fact, AIPAC does indeed support a two state solution. Congressmen Artur Davis (a Democrat) and Eric Cantor ( a Republican) are just two critics who have refuted the allegation that Congress is intimidated or pressured by the "Israel Lobby" .

Lasky also points to an op-ed by Brzezinski in Tuesday's Washington Post in which he suggests treating Iran with all carrots and no sticks.

The seemingly clever combination of the use of "sticks" and "carrots," including the frequent official hints of an American military option "remaining on the table," simply intensifies Iran's desire to have its own nuclear arsenal. Alas, such a heavy-handed "sticks" and "carrots" policy may work with donkeys but not with serious countries. The United States would have a better chance of success if the White House abandoned its threats of military action and its calls for regime change.

But Iran has been as uninterested in the carrots as it has been in the sticks, and time is running out for such a 'nuanced' approach.

At Powerline, Paul Mirengoff points out that Brzezinski does not cite a single example in which an American Jewish leader accused a critic of Israel of anti-Semitism.

Brzezinski does not appear to have cited examples of American Jews accusing Israel's critics of anti-Semitism. In my readings, I find that this charge is typically reserved for critics who actually have attacked the Jewish religion, such as Louis Farrakhan and their admirers, such as Jeremiah Wright. Brzezinski, then, appears to be engaging in the familiar dodge of responding to the charge of being anti-Israel by falsely complaining of being accused of being anti-Jewish. His intellectual dishonesty does not come as a surprise.

...

Normally, it is only the anti-Israel charge that I see leveled (and level myself) against strident critics of Israel such as Brzezinski. Nor is this charge made lightly. More is required than mere criticism of Israel or calls on the Israeli government to make new concessions to its enemies. That "more" is supplied when, for example, Samantha Power blames deference to Israel at least in part for the U.S. invasion of Iraq; calls for the U.S. to send a "mammoth" military force into Israeli held territory for the purpose of imposing a Palestinian state; calls, in addition, for a cut-off in U.S. aid to Israel with the money to be given to the Palestinians; and criticizes the New York Times for not sufficiently emphasizing "Israeli war crimes" in an article that had tried to correct false reports that Israel committed a massacre in Jenin.

It is improper, however, to conflate even this virulent kind of Israel bashing with anti-Semitism. One can view Israel as a very bad actor without disliking Jews. Again, I don't know of instances where the conflation has occurred and Brzezinski does not appear to have pointed to any.

When criticism of Israel is accompanied by criticism of American Jews who strongly support Israel, one arguably enters a gray area. But even harsh criticism of these Jewish Americans should not be viewed as necessarily indicating anti-Jewish animus, as opposed to animus against Jews who strongly support Israel.

The question in my mind is where to draw the line between criticism of Israel and criticism that is so virulent (as in Power's case) that it cannot but be called anti-Semitism. In my mind, when the person making the critical remarks keeps making them over and over again out of context, there's anti-Semitism underlying those remarks and not just criticism of Israel. In that regard, the definition of anti-Semitism given by Eliot Cohen when the Walt and Mearsheimer thesis first came out (also cited by Paul) is instructive:

If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information -- why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.

Does Brzezinski meet that standard? I would argue that he does. He doesn't say, "you're wrong about Obama; he's not anti-Israel. That would be a fair argument and would be supportable if we ignore everything that came before Obama's campaign and all of his foreign policy advisers. But instead, Brzezinski accuses the American Jewish leadership of McCarthyism.

Originally coined to criticize the actions of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, "McCarthyism" later took on a more general meaning, not necessarily referring to the conduct of Joseph McCarthy alone.

During this time many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

In other words, Brzezinski is accusing the American Jewish community of labeling all critics of Israel as anti-Semites based on their associations (with each other?). In that, he's painting with far too broad a brush.

Gateway Pundit finds it curious that the British press broke this story and not the American press. I suspect it's because Brzezinski was in England with his old friend and boss Jimmy Carter over the weekend.

I decided to look at one lefty blog on this story because it was the first time I had seen it mentioned in a while. Unfortunately, the reaction was as disgustingly anti-Semitic as Brzezinski's original remarks without a shred of substance.

Jennifer Rubin hit the bottom line on this one.

But the question remains why Obama has had a retinue of advisors (both formal and not) like Brzezinski, McPeak, and Malley who hold views so antithetical to Obama’s supposedly unassailable record and views on Israel. You can understand how rational voters, Jewish or not, would conclude that something is amiss and wonder why Obama does not disassociate himself entirely from these people. But no, those Jews are just hung up on Obama’s name and the phony emails about Obama’s Muslim upbringing. That must be it.

Obama is swimming in so much sewerage in his campaign, I don't think he could remove it all if he tried.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:38 AM 2 comments

An Obama court Jew smears... Aluf Benn?

The Jerusalem Post publishes an outrageous article from one Marc R. Stanley, the chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, who accuses "the small anti-Obama wing of the Jewish community" (including Haaretz's leftist columnist Aluf Benn) of having 'chutzpah.'

US President Barack Obama and his administration are making an unprecedented effort to reach out to the Jewish community.

The Obumbler has to make an 'unprecedented effort to reach out' because it was the way he fooled 78% of American Jewry into voting for him despite his association with the likes of Jeremiah "Them Jews" Wright, Rashid "Where's the videotape" Khalidi, Edward Said, Samantha "Let's send troops to make a 'Palestinian' state" Power and others whose hostility to Israel was clearer than even Obama's. How successful has that 'outreach' been? Suffice it to say that 94% of Israeli Jews aren't buying it.

The president has made moving the Middle East toward peace a priority and has spoken of the "unbreakable" bond we share with Israel.

Every President has tried to move the Middle East toward peace and every President has spoken of an 'unbreakable bond' with Israel. But no President - not even Jimmy Carter - has placed the entire burden of peace on Israel like this hostile anti-Semite has.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons "futile,"

And that just had Ahmadinejad and Khameni quaking in their boots. Especially when Clinton admitted that the Obumbler is resigned to a nuclear Iran.

and last week Obama had some of his most senior foreign policy figures meet with top Israeli officials - in Israel.

To try to persuade Israel to be the sacrificial lamb to prove that no, Iran really doesn't want to negotiate about its nuclear weapons.

Yet, there are still those who leap at any chance to attack the president, including in an op-ed in last week's The New York Times, "Why Won't Obama Talk to Israel?" by Aluf Benn.

If the Leftist Aluf Benn can't be friends with Obama then no Israeli Jew can. Good grief! Who ever thought I'd be defending Aluf Benn!

First, it is important to bring perspective to the vocal group of individuals in our community who remain unhappy with our president. Despite this group's extraordinary efforts to smear Obama in the Jewish community during last year's campaign, the president received 78% of the Jewish vote.

All that proves is that 78% of American Jewry voted wrongly. And that 70% of American Jewry is psychologically incapable of voting for Republicans. That proves that they are fools. After all, as Obama himself has apparently said, "F**k the Jews, they'll vote for us anyway."

Stanley then goes on to take a swipe at American Thinker (whose Ed Lasky in particular has done a yeoman's job of digging up background on Obama that ought to be important the Jewish and pro-Israel communities) and then he goes back to ripping Aluf Benn! At this rate, we'll never get Aluf Benn - who was trying to help Obama solve his unpopularity in Israel - to write an impartial piece again!

One can't get past the title of Benn's op-ed in the NYTimes without being struck by the question he poses: "Why won't Obama talk to Israel?" Benn asserts that "neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience." He then dramatically writes, "The Arabs got the Cairo speech; we [Israel] got silence."

Beyond the notion that Obama happened to be standing in front of an Arab audience, it is hard to understand how Benn misses the fact that Obama was not only speaking to the people in the room. In this digital world with the power of the Internet and a 24/7 news cycle, the president was addressing all of us - including Israel. This was especially true when the president spoke clearly and powerfully about America's unbreakable bond with Israel in front of that Arab audience. The message to Israelis was clear: You do your part for peace and I'll pressure the Arab states to do the same. Meaning, Obama is not going to rely on the political playbook of platitudes when dealing with Israel and her neighbors.

If Benn did not hear that Obama aimed elements of his Cairo speech at Israelis, he was not listening.

Unfortunately for Obama and Stanley, Israelis were listening when Obama spoke in Cairo. We heard him ignore 3,000 years of Jewish history and claim that the State of Israel's existence is justified only by the Holocaust. We heard him declare a moral equivalence between hundreds of years of pogroms and Jewish suffering and the self-inflicted suffering of the 'Palestinian refugees' (an odious comparison he repeated at Buchenwald a few days later). We heard him call for all three monotheistic religions to 'share' control of Jerusalem, even though with Israel in control, everyone has access to their holy sites, while with anyone else in control, the Jews were kept out. And we heard him state a moral equivalence between 'Palestinian' terrorism and the self-inflicted tragedy of the 'Palestinian refugees.'

Did we miss anything?

NO ONE can credibly claim Obama and his administration are not talking to Israel. The reality is the administration is not only talking with Israelis, it is intensely collaborating and communicating with it- in person. In fact, Obama spoke with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu face-to-face about settlement growth. This administration is talking with Israel about the wide range of policies on which we agree - and those precious few areas on which we disagree.

What Benn was trying to say was that if Obama comes to Israel and uses his rhetorical skills to speak to Israelis (and not just to lecture Binyamin Netanyahu) that it might help his standing here. Benn - who would likely be more than happy to see Israel go back to the 1967 borders - is trying to put Obama in a position where he can convince Israelis that they should take that suicidal risk.

I don't believe Obama coming here would help because I don't believe most Israelis will ever trust Obama again, and frankly I'd rather not have that anti-Semite visit this country. But Stanley - like Obama - is so tone deaf to the nuances of this country that he's attacking someone who is likely his ally.

The long-term security of Israel will only be fully ensured if peace is achieved. Obama has made clear that the road is difficult, but the president is working hard to make that day come. However, there will still be those with the undying chutzpah to attack the president for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel. I urge them to actually listen to what the president is saying and watch what he is doing - they might be surprised.

You know, when 94% of Israeli Jews believe that Obama isn't pro-Israel, maybe it's not the Jews' or the Israelis' problem, and maybe pointing it out cannot be called chutzpah?

I have to go shower. I feel dirty after reading Stanley's article.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:14 AM 9 comments

Barack Obama's Jew-hating friends

At The American Thinker, Ed Lasky spotlights some of the company kept by US Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama (pictured, top left). It's not pretty.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has established ties with Sojourners: a liberal Christian group (with the emphasis on liberal) as a way to burnish his religious credentials and gain political strength. This very same group is supportive of Hamas, a vicious Palestinian terror group responsible for the deaths of many innocent people and a group that indoctrinates its youth to hate. Not to mention dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. What gives, Barack?

Obama spoke at their forum in Washington, D.C. last month ; he also spoke at the Sojourners Pentecost conference last year where he received an award.

The Sojourners, supposedly a Christian organization, are willing to turn the other cheek to Hamas, and blame the US, Israel and the West for the persecution being suffered by Christians in Gaza:

An analyst writing for Sojourners preferred to point the finger elsewhere, at Fatah, and ultimately, at the West, for opposing Hamas.

"During Hamas' military takeover of Gaza in recent weeks, one of their biggest Fatah targets lay just behind a Greek Orthodox school in Gaza City," explained Philip Rizk, an "Egyptian-German Christian" who works in Gaza and blogs at tabulagaza.com. The Associated Press described the school as a Catholic Rosary Sisters school.

According to Rizk, Fatah forces took positions on the roof of a church school building during Hamas attacks on a Fatah headquarters. "Like many buildings that were used as strongholds during the fighting, the doors were blown open with a rocket-propelled grenade to ensure no resistance from inside. As widely reported in the Western media, the chapel and the nuns' living quarters were vandalized, crosses were broken, and equipment was stolen."

Rizk assured Sojourners readers that looters were likely the perpetrators of this vandalism. After all, Hamas "was fighting a war," and is not interested in desecrating churches. He also helpfully explained that during the recent struggles, "many shops and homes were similarly looted."

"I cannot excuse it," Rizk was quick to emphasize about the attacks on churches to his American religious audience. But he preferred to talk about a World Bank report, which describes the economic crisis in Gaza as worse than the U.S. Great Depression. People in Gaza are "desperate." The world is punishing Hamas by punishing Gaza. It's not just Christians who are "living in fear" but the "whole population.

...

But such "religious extremism [i.e. ever more radicalized Islam] is bound to rise up under conditions like those in Gaza," Rizk observed. Suffering people have told him they have nowhere to turn but to "God." He responded: "I hope I could say the same if I ever find myself in a similar situation," though presumably his understanding of God would not include violent attacks on churches.

"None of these actions can be excused," Rizk repeated. But, of course, "the broader context" must be understood. "Is it only the perpetrators that need to be condemned?" he rhetorcially asked.

Admitting that Hamas had forcibly taken over the Gaza, Rizk querulously asked, "How does an elected government perpetrate a coup d’etat?" He blamed the U.S., the West, and Israel for not accepting the Hamas electoral victory and isolatizing Gaza. "The U.S. started funding Fatah to counter Hamas’ strength—a policy that for many Americans should bring to mind the Banana Republics of Latin America," Rizk complained. "This month Hamas responded with force, seeking to disable those security bodies that were receiving outside funds." Now it all makes sense....

Since their military takeover, Hamas has brought "security," Rizk wrote. But the U.S.-led isolation of Hamas, and of Gaza, will only breed further economic collapse, he fretted.

Jim Wallis' Sojourners is not usually very anxious to spotlight the plight of persecuted Christians around the world, tormented by Islamist or communist regimes. But in its few references to problems for Christians, it will evade blaming the actual tormentors and inevitably fault the ultimate culprits: the U.S., Israel, the West, and their allies.

According to Lasky, Obama's spiritual mentor is Jeremiah Wright, who

openly spouts anti-Israel invective, supports divestment actions against Israel, supports Louis Farrakhan (Judaism is a "gutter religion") and travels to Libya to offer support to the arch-foe of Israel and sponsor of terror Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi (recall Lockerbie airplane bombing?)

Here's more on Wright:

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. is the long-time Pastor of Obama's church, and Obama has credited him as being an inspiration and guiding light for him. He is a spiritual mentor to Obama and coined the term the "audacity of hope" that Obama has essentially made a theme of his campaign as well as the title of a book. He also has, in the words of the Chicago Tribune, a militant past.

Moreover, Pastor Wright has beliefs that might disturb some of Obama's supporters. He is a believer in "liberation theology," which makes the liberation of the oppressed a paramount virtue. The language of liberation all too often veers off into anti-Jewish rants. For example, one of the founders of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez, has stated that the infidelities of the Jewish people made the Old Covenant [between the Jews and God] invalid." Pastor Wright is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi, an archenemy of Israel's and America and a firm supporter of terror groups.

Wright has also been a severe critic of Israel. In his own words,

The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.

...

Once this history came to light, Obama started publicly distancing himself from his spiritual mentor, disinviting Wright from various Obama campaign events. Wright rationalized his current persona non grata status by stating that otherwise

"a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell"

Wonder why?

Even Shrillery Clinton sounds better than this guy.

Previously at Israel Matzav:

Trying to figure out Obama.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:52 PM 0 comments

Kerry managed to anger everyone

By butting into the 'cease fire' talks and working against the interests of the United States' traditional allies, US Secretary of State John FN Kerry has managed to anger everyone except the bad guys: Hamas (whom he has apparently saved to fight another day) and its supporters Qatar and Turkey.

David Horovitz has written a devastating piece on the Israeli view of Kerry's shenanigans. He refers to Kerry's actions as the betrayal.

The Netanyahu government has had no shortage of run-ins with Kerry in the mere 18 months he has held office. The prime minister publicly pleaded with him in November not to sign the interim deal with Iran on its rogue nuclear program, and there has been constant friction between the two governments over thwarting Iran’s bid for the bomb. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon in January ridiculed Kerry’s security proposals for a West Bank withdrawal, calling the secretary “messianic” and obsessive” in his quest for an accord with the Palestinians that simply wasn’t there. The collapse of the talks in March-April was accompanied by allegations from Jerusalem that Kerry had botched the process, telling Israel one thing and the Palestinian Authority another, including misrepresenting Israel’s position on Palestinian prisoner releases.

But none of those episodes, though deeply troubling and relating to issues central to Israel’s well-being, provoked the kind of outraged disbelief at Kerry’s performance that has been emanating from the Israeli leadership in the past 48 hours. Leaked comments from unnamed senior government sources to Army Radio, Channel 2 and other Hebrew outlets have described the secretary as amateurish, incompetent, incapable of understanding the material he is dealing with — in short, a blithering fool.

But actually, it’s worse than that. What emerges from Kerry’s self-initiated ceasefire mission — Israel had already accepted the Egyptian ceasefire proposal; and nobody asked him to come out on a trip he prefaced with sneering remarks about Israel’s attempted “pinpoint” strikes on Hamas terror targets — is that Jerusalem now regards him as duplicitous and dangerous.

Contrary to his public claim at his press conference in Cairo that his ceasefire proposal was “built on” the Egyptian initiative, it manifestly is nothing of the kind. As indicated by the unconfirmed text reported by Issacharoff, by other subsequent reports of its content, and by the cabinet’s outraged rejection, it is a proposal that, to quote an unnamed official cited by Channel 2, “tunneled under the Egyptian initiative,” a document, to quote from another of those leaked comments, that reads like it was drawn up for or even by Hamas’s Khaled Mashaal.

And Kerry didn’t let up after unleashing his dreadful proposal. Following Friday’s fiasco, he jetted off to Paris and, quite extraordinarily, convened further consultations dominated by countries that overtly wish to do Israel harm. He met with his counterparts from Turkey, whose Hamas-backing leadership has lately accused Israel of attempting genocide in Gaza and compared Netanyahu to Hitler, and with Qatar, Hamas’s funder in chief, directly accused by president Shimon Peres last week of financing Hamas’s rockets and tunnels. Staggeringly, he did not bring Israel, Egypt, or the PA to his Paris sessions.

As the son of a diplomat posted overseas and as someone who spent many years living abroad (indeed, he attempted but failed to get a deferment to study in Paris during the Vietnam war), he brings to the table a multilateralist view of the world, a penchant to seek international approval for his actions — what he notoriously called the 'global test.' 

Kerry trumpets that he will work with the United Nations and European allies in developing foreign policy. Some have said that he intends to outsource our foreign policy to the likes of France and the UN. Others term this a surrender of American sovereignty. This is not surprising since he has a fetish for the UN. 

When has multilateralsim ever been a positive for the world's Jews? 

...

Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, cease fire, Egypt, Gaza, Hamas, John Kerry, Laurent Fabius, Muslim Brotherhood, Operation Protective Edge, Qatar, terror tunnels, Turkey

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:39 AM 0 comments

Obama trying to force Israel to give up its nukes; UPDATE: 'The most worrisome development'

In yet another blow to Israel, the Obama administration announced on Tuesday that it will attempt to force Israel to give up its policy of 'nuclear ambiguity' - neither admitting nor denying that it has nuclear weapons. That policy has been in effect for more than 40 years.

India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel should join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact meant to limit the spread of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Speaking on the second day of a two-week meeting of the 189 signatories of the pact, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller also defended a U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal, which developing nations have complained rewards New Delhi for staying outside the NPT.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Gottemoeller told the meeting, which hopes to agree on an agenda and plan to overhaul the treaty at a review conference next year.

Speaking to reporters later, she declined to say whether Washington would take any new steps to press Israel to join the treaty and give up any nuclear weapons it has. Israel neither confirms nor denies whether it has what arms control experts assume to be a sizable atomic arsenal.

The administration of President Barack Obama was encouraging all holdouts to join the treaty, she said.

Isn't that just great? To the Obamination that now governs the United States, America's former allies in Jerusalem and New Delhi are morally equivalent to Islamist Pakistan - now coming under the rule of the Taliban - and the North Korean pariah state.

And what about Iran? I'm so glad you asked:

In failing to mention Iran even once in her speech, Gottemoeller broke from a tradition established by the administration of former President George W. Bush, which had used NPT meetings to criticise Iran and North Korea.

Gottemoeller said that Iran came up indirectly in her statement when she spoke of the need for "consequences for those breaking the rules or withdrawing from the treaty."

The American Thinker's Ed Lasky points out the consequences for Israel of giving up on nuclear ambiguity (Hat Tip: Melanie Phillips).

The key to Israel's strategy to avoid another Holocaust has been a policy of ambiguity over the question of whether it has nuclear weapons. Like many high-tech and potent weapons, a nuclear arsenal is best left sheathed. The reluctance of Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NNPT) has allowed it to avoid a raft of intrusive inspections that might blow this policy of ambiguity to smithereens.

As long as Israel was thought to possess nuclear weapons, enemies might be reluctant to try to destroy Israel. During the 1973 War, it was rumored that the mere threat of Israel resorting to nuclear weapons led to a massive resupply effort by America and to the willingness of Israel's enemies to agree to a truce. Surrounded by numerically superior nations -- and an Arab world that can afford to buy the best weapons from around the world -- the rumored possession by Israel of an atomic bomb(s) has probably warded off further warfare and bloodshed.

Every US administration has acquiesced in this policy, seeing it as a sensible of a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust and one that was surrounded by neighbors promising to commit another. There have been winks and nods, even going back to the Kennedy years, about Israel's stance.

Now that policy has finally been threatened -- not by the raft of traditional enemies and international organizations that have always advocated that Israel sign the agreement, but by the Obama administration.

For those who don't get it yet, Lasky points out how this could be used against us:

If this comes to pass and Israel is forced to open itself to inspections and is compelled to admit it has nuclear weapons, this will be used as a cudgel to criticize Israel and will become a rationale for Arab nations (and Iran) to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Obama has opened up a Pandora's Box that should have, in the proper hands, remained closed.

The IAEA's Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief defender of the Iranian and Syria nuclear programs, has been trying to force Israel into the NPT and the inspection regimen for years. So have the Egyptians.

At least Roger Cohen will be pleased with Obama's actions.

Four years seems like an awfully long time, doesn't it? (Let alone eight, God forbid). But America is in good hands. What could go wrong?

UPDATE 8:47 AM

JPost is quoting Dov Weisglass, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's chief strategist, who speaks of this report in an ominous tone:

Former prime minister Ariel Sharon's chief strategist, Dov Weisglass, said Gottemoeller's comments were very alarming.

"If these statements indicate a change in American policy on this issue, I believe this may be the most worrisome development for Israel's security in many years," he told Army Radio.

Indeed.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:09 AM 4 comments

The eminence grise of Obama's foreign policy team

At The American Thinker, Ed Lasky describes the likely influence of Brent Scowcroft on the incoming Obama administration.

The possibility that Brent Scowcroft will become the eminence grise of the Obama Administration may chill some people this winter.

Brent Scowcroft, 83 years old and the head of the Scowcroft Group, is unlikely to play a visible role in the Obama Administration. However, by placing his allies in key places of power, he will be well-positioned to exert influence behind the scenes when it comes to the future foreign policy direction of the Administration. Andrew McCarthy pointed out the risk of this sort of maneuvering: often the levers of power are pulled by the hundreds of lower level staffers who fill positions in the national security and foreign policy apparatus. They are the ones who can craft and implement (or frustrate) policies.

Will Scowcroft be the headhunter for those positions, as well? Or will the ideological allies he has helped place in positions of power do the work for him?

One additional factor should be considered: The Scowcroft Group. This is a Washington, D.C. international business advisory firm with extensive interests in the Middle East. Will Scowcroft peddle his influence in an Obama Administration to further his financial interests in the region? He seems to believe that his op-eds can be used as sales tools, since he posts them on the firm's website: (for example, Getting The Middle East Back on Our Side wherein he writes glowingly of the Iraq Study Group final report -- one that seemed to be biased against Israel and which was drafted under the aegis of Scowcroft's long-time ally, former Secretary of State James Baker). Scowcroft advocates increased engagement with Iran. American businesses have been constrained in doing business with Iran. Will Scowcroft and his acolytes promote ties with Iran to garner lucrative business relationships?

Will he offer to talk or meet with key foreign policy players to please Middle East leaders? Will contracts depend on friendlier relations that Brent Scowcroft believes will follow only if Israel is compelled to follow his and Zbigniew Brzezinski's plans? After all, Middle Eastern potentates have always had a penchant for trading and deal-making. But they are not alone.

The best practitioners are not in the Arab bazaars but in the corridors of power in Washington. The world's largest souk is not in the Middle East; it is in our nation's capital.

And Brent Scowcroft knows well how to prosper in this market.

Lasky is not exaggerating. When I went to search for Scowcroft's picture above, the second suggested Google result (after Scowcroft's name) was "Brent Scowcroft, Obama." Scowcroft is bad news for Israel. And his populating the lower echelons of the State Department with people who think like him could last long after Scowcroft is dead and buried.

Why does Scowcroft hate Israel so much? One reason might be his Mormon faith. Jews and Mormons have a longstanding theological conflict:

Latter-day Saints believe themselves to be either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; Jews are looked upon as a covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The LDS church is consequently very philo-Semitic in its doctrine.

Mormon beliefs regarding their membership in the House of Israel are generally rejected both from a theological and cultural stand point by the Jewish community. This concept of claiming membership in the House of Israel produces various interfaith problems. Though conflicts exist, relationships seldom if ever rise to the level of Anti-Semitism or Anti-Mormonism.

Seldom if ever? Well, if you believe the Wikipedia entry that's true, but given past contentiousness over the large Mormon church here in Jerusalem and recent issues over proxy baptisms, I wonder whether "seldom, if ever" is accurate and whether religion might not be playing a role here.

Read the whole thing.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:34 PM 4 comments

Gates to resign and be replaced by ... Chuck Hagel?

This is more bad news for supporters of Israel.

Power Line reports on a rumor that Defense Secretary Robert Gates - the one holdover in the Obama cabinet from the Bush administration - is on his way out. The problem is Gates' rumored replacement: Chuck Hagel. This is from a New York Sun editorial cited by Ed Lasky of The American Thinker last October.

One indicator came on July 24, 2001, when the Senate voted 96 to 2 to renew the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. The act helps deny Iran and Libya money that they would spend on supporting terror or acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The two senators who opposed the measure? Messrs. Lugar and Hagel.

Another indicator came on November 11, 2003, when the Senate, by a vote of 89 to 4, passed the Syria Accountability Act authorizing sanctions on Syria for its support of terrorism and its occupation of Lebanon. Mr. Hagel - along with Mr. Kerry - didn't vote. Mr. Hagel met in Damascus in 1998 with the terror-sponsoring dictator, Hafez Al-Assad, and returned to tell a reporter about the meeting, "Peace comes through dealing with people. Peace doesn't come at the end of a bayonet or the end of a gun."

Feature, as well, the lineup on April 6, 2001, when 87 members of the Senate sent President Bush a letter saying Yasser Arafat should not be invited to meet with high-level officials in Washington. The letter also faulted the Palestinians for using violence against Israel. Messrs. Lugar and Hagel did not sign the letter. When, on May 22, 1998, the Senate, by a vote of 90 to 4, passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, imposing sanctions on foreigners who help Iran's missile program, Mr. Lugar fetched up among the four senators who voted against the measure.

These columns, in a July 10, 2003, editorial headlined "Ayatollah Lugar," have already reported on how Mr. Lugar watered down the Iran Democracy Act that was introduced by Senators Brownback, Schumer, Kyl, Inouye, and others. On April 18, 2002, when the Senate, by 88 to 10, voted to ban the import to America of Iraqi oil until Iraq stopped compensating the families of Palestinian Arab suicide bombers, Messrs. Lugar and Hagel were among the handful who voted to bring in the oil.

The bottom line is that Messrs. Hagel and Lugar (Hagar, is how their names can be contracted) want a weaker stance than most other senators against the terrorists in Iran and Syria and the West Bank and Gaza and against those who help the terrorists. They are more concerned than most other senators about upsetting our erstwhile allies in Europe - the French and Germans - who do business with the terrorists.

Chuck Hagel (pictured) is bad news. Lasky suggests googling "Chuck Hagel," Israel. I did. This is the top result.

Here is what the Jewish Democrats said about Hagel in March 2007:

As Senator Hagel sits around for six more months and tries to decide whether to launch a futile bid for the White House, he has a lot of questions to answer about his commitment to Israel. Consider this:

# In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

# In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

# In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.

# In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.

# In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

Here's what the National Review wrote about Hagel's stance on Israel in 2002:

"There's nothing Hagel likes less than talking about right and wrong in the context of foreign policy. Pro-Israeli groups view him almost uniformly as a problem. 'He doesn't always cast bad votes, but he always says the wrong thing,' comments an Israel supporter who watches Congress. An April speech is a case in point. 'We will need a wider lens to grasp the complex nature and consequences of terrorism,' said Hagel. He went on to cite a few examples of terrorism: FARC in Colombia, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and the Palestinian suicide bombers. Then he continued, 'Arabs and Palestinians view the civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military occupation as terrorism.' He didn't exactly say he shares this view - but he also failed to reject it."

And here's what the anti-Israel group, CAIR, wrote in praise of Hagel:

"Potential presidential candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to express their support for Israel. The only exception to that rule was Senator Chuck Hagel ?" [Council on American-Islamic Relations, 8/28/06]

What could go wrong?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:09 AM 1 comments

Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, September 7.

1) Platform diving

Ed Lasky writes that President Obama knew that there was no mention of Jerusalem and still approved the publication of the platform like that.

It was only when blowback occurred that could hurt his political prospects that he stepped forward and inserted the language to assuage critics.

Furthermore Lasky writes (in agreement with what Shmuel Rosner wrote) that it was likely Robert Wexler who contributed the language about the Middle East.

Rick Richman showed that the administration has a history with Jerusalem:

Initially approving a platform that omitted the prior provisions, and then demonstrating in the process of restoring one of them that the omissions were not inadvertent, is the culmination of a longer process: (1) administration spokespersons who repeatedly refused to identify the capital of Israel; (2) a formal warning to the Supreme Court against even symbolically recognizing Jerusalem as being in Israel on the passports of Americans born there; (c) doctoring pictures on the White House website regarding Vice President Biden’s 2010 visit to “Jerusalem, Israel” (and similar references in State Department documents); and (4) failing to visit Jerusalem despite requests by liberal Israeli columnists, every Jewish Democrat in Congress, friendly rabbis, and the Israeli prime minister.

Related opinion from memeorandum.

In support, In Context shows that the omission of Jerusalem from the platform is historically unique:

Since 1968, with the sole exception of the rather odd platform (more like a manifesto) adopted in 1988, every Democratic party platform has included language similar to that quoted above from 2008. Note that recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a point to which every Democratic (or Republican) administration has refused to acquiesce once safely in office, was always explicitly acknowledged.

Seth Mandel observes that what we saw at the convention reflects what is going on in the Democratic Party:

In fact, not only is the Democratic Party divided on Israel, but as Ari Fleischer pointed out on CNN right after the debacle, the Democrats are practically split down the middle on this. He cited a Gallup poll from earlier this year showing that only 53 percent of Democrats—versus 78 percent of Republicans—side with Israel in the Middle East conflict.
Which leads to a larger point about the issue and the reason the Democrats went into damage control last night: the Democratic Party’s base is pulling it away from Israel. It’s disturbing that only half of Democrats sympathize with Israel, but as yesterday’s events showed, among the base sympathy for Israel is not nearly that high.

It could be concluded that the Obama administration's disinterest in Israel reflects an unfortunate trend within the Democratic party.

2) Bibi blows his stack

I had originally discounted recent reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu had gotten angry with the American ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro in a meeting. Now a third person who was at the meeting confirmed the story. Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told his version of the meeting on a recent radio show. Jeffrey Goldberg reports on the comments in Intelligence Committee Chair Describes Explosive Confrontation Between Netanyahu and American Ambassador. (via memeorandum)

Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?" Rogers answered: "I can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing before," Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue where there was a very sharp exchange."
Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of sanctions: "Here's the problem. ....I support the sanctions. But if you're going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes, it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop this particular program."
And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing."

There has been a tendency (in the New York Times for example) to portray PM Netanyahu (as well as Defense Minister Barak) as overanxious to attack Iran. While Netanyahu certainly comes off as impatient here or at his "wits' end" it seems it is precisely because he's trying to avoid military action. What seems to be motivating Netanyahu is not aggression, but how best to defend his nation. The lack of a clear commitment form the Obama administration has put Netanyahu in an untenable situation.

David Weinberg observes:

In sum, many private agendas are impacting on the Iran debate and not enough people are taking the Iranian threat seriously. Left-wing Israelis eager to isolate Netanyahu and Barak beg to be reassured by the US. Some American Jews seek to distance themselves from Netanyahu and Barak – for fear of being accused again of dragging the US (or of Israel dragging the US) to war, as was the case with Iraq – so they mock Israeli leadership as nuts. Conservatives seek to portray Obama as a weakling for electoral purposes. Obama seeks to deflect attention from the fact that his ineffective diplomacy let the issue slide for the past four years. His defenders are preparing public opinion for a sell-out deal with the Iranians in 2013 that ignores Israel. As I said, everybody is playing kick the can. Meanwhile, the Iranian centrifuges keep spinning…

3) A Kinsleyesque gaffe in Jordan

A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - Michael Kinsley

Two months ago in Israel is in good shape, Barry Rubin wrote:

Then there are the surviving regimes – notably Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the five Gulf emirates – who know the main threat to them is from Iran and revolutionary Islamists at home, not Israel. In fact, they realize Israel is a kind of protector for them since it is motivated and able to strike against those who also want to put their heads on the chopping block.

The Centre for Jewish and Israeli Affairs recently reported on a meeting its members held with King Abdullah of Jordan (h/t Elder of Ziyon):

King Abdullah engaged in a very open discussion about the challenges in the region – and in particular, those faced by Jordan. He noted that Jordan was carrying the economic brunt of the conflict in Syria. In particular, Jordan has been overwhelmed with almost 200,000 refugees, with an additional 100,000 expected. The cost – housing, food, school and medical care – is enormous and burdens an economy already strapped for cash, energy and water. We were asked to convey the message that Jordan requires immediate and increased foreign aid and investment in order to meet this challenge.
Of particular note was the King’s acknowledgment that Israel – which he views as Jordan’s key regional ally – has been highly responsive to his requests in the context of efforts to bring about a resumption of direct talks between Israel and the PA. King Abdullah further expressed the belief that achieving peace on the Israel-Palestinian front will make immeasurably easier the task of confronting other – even existential – challenges facing the region, including the ability to garner support from other Arab nations in relation to the Iranian nuclear threat.

(emphasis added by Elder of Ziyon)

I'm surprised that King Abdullah would acknowledge this. I guess like his father and unlike his Prime Minister, he likes reading Barry Rubin.

4) There's a reason it's not called the Sisterhood

The New York Times recently published a rather negative account of a woman's place in Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood, Family Life According to the Brotherhood:

Those broader efforts at shaping a conservative religious society, played out over decades by the Brotherhood, were seen as partly responsible for helping elect Mohamed Morsi president in June. At the time, Mr. Morsi, who resigned from the Brotherhood after taking office, gave assurances that he would protect the rights of women and include them in decision making. Less than three months into his presidency, though, Mr. Morsi has not fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman as a vice president. Instead, he named a team of 21 senior aides and advisers last week that included three women.
...
Many analysts and critics of the Brotherhood see that kind of philosophy, one that gives women independence so long as they maintain their traditional obligations, as effectively constraining women to established gender roles.
“There is an absence of a well-defined vision, so they use words like ‘religious restrictions,’ ” said Ibrahim el-Houdaiby, a researcher of Islamic movements and a former member of the Brotherhood. “O.K., sure, so what exactly are those restrictions, so we can know them and figure out how to deal with them? As long as we don’t define what those limits are, then we can expand them to the point where women, practically speaking, cannot work.”

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Campaign 2012, Dan Shapiro, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Jordan, Middle East Media Sampler, Muslim treatment of women, Soccer Dad

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:32 PM 0 comments

Obama on Israel and the Jews: Actions don't match words

On Monday, I did a post in which I compared Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama to Jimmy Carter and suggested that the people chosen by Obama as foreign policy advisers are likely to lead him to take actions that will be to Israel's detriment. As a result, I questioned whether those who support Israel could support his candidacy.

Obama is seriously concerned about the prospect of losing the Jewish vote in the US elections. While the number of Jewish voters in the US is relatively small, Jewish Americans are characterized by a high rate of electoral participation, including both voting and contributing funds to candidates. Their concentration in large population states such as New York, Illinois, California and Florida gives their vote greater weight than would be the case if they were in smaller markets. And Jews generally vote overwhelmingly and unthinkingly Democratic in the general elections. The only thing that might put a stop to that latter trend is if Obama is seen (as I would argue that he is) as someone who is indifferent or hostile to Israel.

Obama has good reason to be concerned about losing the Jewish vote. In Florida on Tuesday, despite the fact that the State's Democrats were stripped of their delegates for holding their primary too early, large numbers of Jews turned out to vote. Those votes went 53% to Hillary Clinton (not exactly a friend of Israel either) while only 26% went for Obama (and 13% for John Edwards). Those numbers concern the Obama campaign.

Obama has attempted to solve his problem in two ways. One is through the liberal Jewish media, both in the US and in Israel. For example, in an editorial yesterday, Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily lambasted Israel's former ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon for daring to speak out against Obama:

Not a year has passed since Danny Ayalon completed his term as Israel's ambassador in Washington, but he has already seen fit to criticize Barack Obama, who may well be the next U.S. president or vice president. In an article published in The Jerusalem Post, Ayalon wrote that during his two meetings with Obama, he got the impression that the Democratic candidate was "not entirely forthright" regarding Israel. Similar and even worse smears can be found in abundance in American blogs and e-mail chain letters.

While Obama was taking advantage of Martin Luther King Day to speak out against anti-Semitism among blacks, Jewish spokesmen were using racist language against him, solely because his father was Muslim. Since it is hard to find so much as a single anti-Jewish statement in Obama's political record, or even support for anti-Israel policies, his defamers base their arguments on the fact that his positions on the Middle East conflict are "leftist" - solely because he rejects the right's positions, which are more acceptable to some Jewish-American leaders.

We'll come back to anti-Jewish statements in Obama's political record in a little bit, but first I want to put the second action Obama took on the table. The second thing Obama did was to hold a telephone conference with representatives of the Jewish media to explain his positions. In the telephone conference, he said all the 'right things' except on Iran.

Obama declared that he objects to a Palestinian right of return into Israel and to negotiations with Islamic group Hamas as long as it clings to its current stance, which rejects Israel's right to exist. He added that he will make sure to guarantee Israel's security should he be elected president.

"I've also repeatedly made clear that I'm committed to ensuring that Israel remains a Jewish state and that's why I've pledged my personal leadership in a process to establish two states living side by side in peace and security," he said.

Turning his attention to the Jerusalem question, Obama said that the contentious issue will be settled through talks between Israel and the Palestinians. However, Obama also noted that he supported dialogue with Iran, while charging that President Bush's Iran policy has failed.

Nearly a year ago, I questioned whether Obama's positions on Israel were deeply-held or whether they were a convenience to get him elected in Illinois. In that post, which included the picture below of Obama and his wife with the late Edward Said, I cited an article by Ed Lasky from the American Thinker and one by Ali Abunimah from the Electronic Intifada. Here's Lasky:

The positive impact of these remarks was diminished somewhat later in his remarks when he spoke well of Rabin's outreach to Israel's enemies (allowing Arafat to establish a terror empire in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) and Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza (that has since become a launching pad for thousands of rockets fired into Israel). These steps were also taken on the road to peace, yet, they have also led to more terror. I found myself wondering: Were these not worthy of being mentioned as being steps towards peace that were not reciprocated by the Palestinians?

...

The Senator may well be testing a new tactic for his campaign, one that may well resonate with supporters of Israel: that the Iraq war has endangered Israel by empowering its major foe, Iran (and Iran's allies-Syria and Hezb'allah).

But he failed to mention that Iran's nuclear program has been going on for many years, and that it has been a supporter of Hezb'allah for years as well. All before George Bush became President.

Senator Obama also neglected to mention that Saddam Hussein had attacked Israel in the past with rockets, threatened to incinerate it, and handsomely paid for suicide attacks on Israel. He failed to note that Sunni powers, alarmed by the rise of Iran, welcomed Israel's actions against Hezb'allah, and that overtures have reportedly been made by Saudi Arabia to Israel.

These were astounding developments and should not be cast aside as inconvenient facts.

...

Yet his solutions about how peace can be achieved with Syria and Iran might give some pause: they consist only of stronger sanctions and negotiations.

Sanctions are fine - the stronger the better. But there are too many loopholes that permit them to be flouted. However, it has taken years for even the weak ones in place to be accepted by the United Nations. How many more years are to be spent in a fruitless quest to ensure the rest of the world deepens these sanctions and chooses to enforces them? (See the oil-for-food scandal for an example of how easily sanctions are evaded).

Negotiations have been tried in the past - by America, by European nations, and by the United Nations. They have often provided cover and time for Iran and Syria to become stronger adversaries. Many people have died during these negotiations; Iran's nuclear centrifuges have not stopped spinning while talks have gone on and on.

...

Although the Senator finds Hezb'allah violence against Israel worthy of being condemned he seems to ignore acts of Palestinian terrorism (merely talking of Palestinian "extremists" instead). He criticized Hezb'allah rocket attacks from Lebanon, but not Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza. He notes the destruction of homes by Hezb'allah but not the destruction of lives from Palestinian suicide bombings. He condemns Holocaust denial by Iran but is silent about Palestinian indoctrination of hatred among its children.

The double standard is chilling and disquieting. The remedy of more "jaw-jaw" and the near futility of sanctions (particularly when Iran is protected by strong commercial relations with various nations) are equally unsettling.

Ali Abunimah gives us a hint of where Obama's real loyalties may lie:

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

And Abunimah suggests that Obama's courting of Israel supporters is insincere and just a matter of electoral convenience:

But Obama's gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene. In 2003, Forward reported on how he had "been courting the pro-Israel constituency." He co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government. Among his early backers was Penny Pritzker -- now his national campaign finance chair -- scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain. (The Hyatt Regency hotel on Mount Scopus was built on land forcibly expropriated from Palestinian owners after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967). He has also appointed several prominent pro-Israel advisors.

Obama has also been close to some prominent Arab Americans, and has received their best advice. His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy. Money and votes, but especially money, channelled through sophisticated and coordinated networks that can "bundle" small donations into million dollar chunks are what buy influence on policy. Currently, advocates of Palestinian rights are very far from having such networks at their disposal. Unless they go out and do the hard work to build them, or to support meaningful campaign finance reform, whispering in the ears of politicians will have little impact. (For what it's worth, I did my part. I recently met with Obama's legislative aide, and wrote to Obama urging a more balanced policy towards Palestine.)

If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

Is Obama pro-Israel or is he looking to get elected? And if he's looking to get elected, will he have to be as pro-Israel on a national scale as he would have to be to stand a chance in the Jewish suburbs of Chicago? Clearly not.

Put together Obama's conversation with Ali Abunimah and his foreign policy advisers, and we have a real recipe for trouble for Israel.

At Commentary's Contentions blog, Eric Trager is also troubled by the combination I have just outlined, but for different reasons. Trager sees Obama overcoming his foreign policy advisers and presents a different standard by which he says that American Jews much judge Obama:

Yet one question remains legitimate: how can voters who care about the U.S.-Israel relationship be reassured that Obama’s staunchly pro-Israel declarations are not mere pandering? After all, Obama is on record as having called for an “even-handed approach” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2000, just as the Palestinians commenced the Second Intifada following Camp David. According to Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah, Obama’s pro-Israel epiphany occurred shortly before his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign—an about-face for which Obama apologized to Abunimah. “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front,” Obama said at the time.

Obama’s apology to Abunimah—a major proponent of the one-state “solution”— indicates an unsophisticated view of American politics, in which success requires whispering sweet Zionist nothings to satisfy the almighty, one-issue Jewish electorate. Obama’s foreign policy advisers have similarly promoted this inflated vision of Jewish power. As my contentions colleague Noah Pollak has assiduously noted, Obama adviser Samantha Power has declared that sound Middle East policy might require “alienating a domestic constituency”—guess which one. His staff further features Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has defended the Walt-Mearsheimer “Israel Lobby” thesis that the U.S.-Israel relationship is the product of Jewish power politics, rather than strategic interest.

This mixture of prior statements and advisory influences suggests little regarding how Obama might act towards Israel if elected. Obama has repudiated Brzezinski’s call for dialogue with Hamas, while Power’s support for ending U.S. foreign military aid to Israel probably represents too radical a departure from historic U.S. policy to be taken seriously.

Rather, Jewish concerns regarding Obama’s candidacy should focus on whether Obama and his posse view American Jewry as a stumbling block in the way of promoting U.S. interests in the Middle East. This is the insidious crux of the “Israel Lobby” thesis, and Obama’s prior statements to Abunimah—as well as the writings of Power and Brzezinski—are hardly reassuring.

I disagree with Trager's dismissal of Brzenzinski and Power. While he may have repudiated the call, I believe that Obama would push Israel to talk to Hamas - and would talk to them himself - especially if, as seems likely, Hamas retains control of Gaza and/or reaches another 'unity government' with Fatah. As to Power, the crux of her point in the article linked above was not cutting off military aid to Israel (and let's face it - that aid could be damaged without being cut off completely). Here's what she said:

I actually think in the Palestine - Israel situation, there's an abundance of information. What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.

Power continues to be a close Obama adviser. I think Trager is being too dismissive of the danger to Israel that Obama poses.

Perhaps what ought to be most troubling to the American Jewish community is something exposed by Debbie Schlussel yesterday: Obama continues to maintain ties to Louis Farrakhan's radical Nation of Islam despite having - again - said all the 'right things.'

Responding to criticism by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, Barack Obama declared his strong opposition to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan:

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan.

Obama also went on to condemn his Church's award to Farrakhan and his minister's tight relationship with him.

But a former Obama insider says that Obama's sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs. I have verified that this person--who agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity--held a key position in the Obama campaign. The insider was so close to Senator Obama that they frequently personally discussed and exchanged direct e-mail messages on campaign and policy matters. This person is not connected with the Clintons and is not a disgruntled employee.

Debbie goes on to give extensive proof of Obama's continuing involvement with the Nation of Islam, and also discusses Obama's sudden 'conversion' to being 'pro-Israel.'

When Obama first ran for the U.S. Senate, he gave militant responses to the Chicago Jewish News about Israel. Obama denounced Israel's fence--which he called a "wall" and "barrier to peace"--to keep out terrorists and favored working with Yasser Arafat. When members of the Chicago Jewish community circulated his responses, Obama said that the answers were not his positions, but the work of a low-level intern. He submitted new answers. But that was a lie, the insider says. In fact, they were the work of Obama's Policy Director, Audra Wilson. Moreover, Obama told the insider that he blamed the Mideast conflict on the Jews:

Barack told me that he felt that Jewish community was too inflexible, and that was why the situation in the Mideast could not be resolved.

This is the man who says in a new campaign ad that Hillary Clinton will say anything but change nothing. Barack Obama will say anything, but change his answers.

Debbie has much more to say on this issue - read the whole thing.

Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Where does he stand on issues that are vital to the American Jewish community and to Israel? If they knew the truth, most American Jews would not like the answers.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:30 AM 3 comments