U.S. Policy on Israeli Settlements

From the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 9/6/09, by Dore Gold*:

• Many observers are surprised to learn that settlement activity was not defined as a violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords or their subsequent implementation agreements. If the U.S. is now seeking to constrain Israeli settlement activity, it is essentially trying to obtain additional Israeli concessions that were not formally required according to Israel's legal obligations under the Oslo Accords.
• President Bush's deputy national security advisor, Elliot Abrams, wrote in the Washington Post on April 8, 2009, that the U.S. and Israel negotiated specific guidelines for settlement activity, whereby "settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity." If the U.S. is concerned that Israel might diminish the territory that the Palestinians will receive in the future, then the Obama team could continue with the quiet guidelines followed by the Bush administration and the Sharon government.
• Given the fact that the amount of territory taken up by the built-up areas of all the settlements in the West Bank is estimated to be 1.7 percent of the territory, the marginal increase in territory that might be affected by natural growth is infinitesimal. Moreover, since Israel unilaterally withdrew 9,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the argument that a settler presence will undermine a future territorial compromise has lost much of its previous force.
• The U.S. and Israel need to reach a new understanding on the settlements question. Legally and diplomatically, settlements do not represent a problem that can possibly justify putting at risk the U.S.-Israel relationship. It might be that the present tension in U.S.-Israeli relations is not over settlements, but rather over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank that the Obama administration envisions.
• Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the April 2004 Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute....

...To view the full article, Click here.

*Dr. Dore Gold, Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

UN Leaders: CROOKS, DESPOTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS

From an EYEontheUN email, June 10, 2009, by Anne Bayefsky:

LIBYA - PRESIDENT OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
[June 10], Libya was elected President of the UN General Assembly. Ali Abdussalam Treky of Libya, Libyan Minister for African Affairs, will assume the role of President in September. The General Assembly is supposed to assist "in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." Here is how Libya has "fulfilled" the General Assembly's mandate:

US State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2008, Libya:
"Citizens did not have the right to change their government. Remaining problems included reported disappearances; torture; arbitrary arrest; lengthy pretrial and sometimes incommunicado detention; official impunity and poor prison conditions...denial of a fair public trial by an independent judiciary, political prisoners and detainees, and the lack of judicial recourse for alleged human rights violations...The government restricted civil liberties and freedoms of speech, press...assembly, and association...freedom of religion; corruption and lack of transparency; societal discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, and foreign workers; trafficking in persons; and restriction of labor rights."

Libya already holds a non-permanent seat on the Security Council - with the job of promoting "peace and security" - until the end of 2009. From this seat, Libya promotes the murder of Israelis or anyone it claims should be "resisted": "My delegation stresses the right of the Palestinian people to resist occupation. That right is recognized under all international norms and laws. My country completely rejects any linkage between resistance to occupation and terrorism." (July 22, 2008)

SUDAN - A VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
[June 10], Sudan was elected a Vice-President of the UN General Assembly. Here is how Sudan has "fulfilled" the General Assembly mandate. Its President is currently evading an international arrest warrant on war crimes and crimes against humanity. And:

US State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2008, Sudan:
"Civilians in Darfur continued to suffer from the effects of genocide. Government forces bombed villages, killed civilians including internally displaced persons (IDPs), and collaborated with janjaweed militias and tribal factions to raze villages and perpetrate violence against women...The government's human rights record...abridgement of citizens' right to change their government; extrajudicial and other unlawful killings by government forces and other government-aligned groups throughout the country; disappearances...torture, beatings, rape, and other cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment by security forces; harsh prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, incommunicado detention of suspected government opponents, and prolonged pretrial detention; executive interference with the judiciary and denial of due process; obstruction of the delivery of humanitarian assistance; restrictions on privacy; restrictions on freedom of speech...on the press...on freedoms of assembly, association, religion, and movement...violence and discrimination against women, including female genital mutilation (FGM); child abuse, including sexual violence and recruitment of child soldiers..."

ALGERIA - CHAIR OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S LEGAL (SIXTH) COMMITTEE
[June 10] Algeria was elected Chairperson of the UN's Legal Committee, known as the Sixth Committee. This body, composed of representatives of all 192 states, is the General Assembly's "primary forum for the consideration of legal questions." Here is how Algeria "fulfills" the Sixth Committee mandate:

US State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2008, Algeria:
"[T]he president exercises supreme judicial authority, and executive branch decrees and influence limited judicial independence...[A]uthorities did not completely respect legal provisions regarding defendants' rights and denied due process. The High Judicial Council is responsible for judicial discipline and the appointment of all judges. President Bouteflika serves as the president of the council...Legal decisions regarding family matters are based on Shari'a (Islamic law) as well as civil law...The judiciary...lacked independence in human rights cases. Family connections and status of the parties involved reportedly influenced decisions."

IRAN - A VICE-CHAIR OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S LEGAL (SIXTH) COMMITTEE
[June 10] Iran was elected a Vice-Chair of the of the UN's Legal Committee, known as the Sixth Committee. This body, composed of representatives of all 192 states, is the General Assembly's "primary forum for the consideration of legal questions." Here is how Iran "fulfills" the Sixth Committee mandate:

US State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2008, Iran:
"[T]he court system was corrupt and subject to government and religious influence...[T]he head of the judiciary shall be a cleric chosen by the supreme leader. The head of the Supreme Court and prosecutor general also must be clerics. Women continued to be barred from serving as certain types of judges...Defendants did not have the right to confront their accusers, and were not granted access to government-held evidence...Revolutionary court judges were chosen in part due to their ideological commitment to the system. Authorities often charged individuals with undefined crimes, such as "antirevolutionary behavior," "moral corruption," and "siding with global arrogance."...Secret or summary trials of only five minutes' duration occurred frequently. Other trials were deliberately designed to publicize a coerced confession..."


THE UN'S IDEA OF AUTHORITY FIGURES: CROOKS, DESPOTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS ...

Ahmadinejad wins second presidential term up to 2013

From DEBKAfile, June 13, 2009:

Ahmadinejad is the winner. Mousavi claims election irregularities

With most of the votes counted, the election committee chairman in Tehran awarded president Mahound Ahmadinejad a 66 percent victory over his main reformist challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi's 33 percent with the remainder divided among the two last contestants in Iran's highly-charged presidential election.

Earlier, Mousavi claimed to have toppled the president with 65 percent of the record-breaking turnout and alleged widespread irregularities. His disappointed supporters clashed with police in Tehran when the apparent results unfolded.

Turnout is estimated to top 80 percent of Iran's 46 million eligible voters. If the official results are confirmed, no run-off will be necessary.

. . . the Islamic Republic's authorities appear to have swung into action to ensure the hard-line president's re-election and try and stop Moussavi, whose promise of change attracted many of the under-30s who make up three-quarters of the electorate.

The apparent freedom of debate permitted in the election campaign was held up in the West as denoting a certain easing in the regime's autocratic rule and a pointer to Mousavi's election which was heavily staked by the US administration, Western and Israeli media. DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report that in Tehran, the winner is preparing to raise the ante for consenting to dialogue with the parties who backed his rival.. . .

Israel and America: Neither Surrender nor Confrontation

From GLORIA, June 11, 2009, by Barry Rubin*:

The United States demands that Israel stop construction on settlements...President Barack Obama ...claims this will bring dramatic progress toward Israel-Palestinian peace.

That’s rubbish. We know that yielding would be followed by Palestinian Authority (PA) demands for more unilateral Israeli concessions. PA leaders openly say their strategy is to let the West force Israel to give them everything they want without any change by them. We know the current PA leadership is both disinterested and incapable of making real peace.

In addition, the U.S. initiative is absurdly one-sided, without hint of reciprocity by the other side. Equally, the administration’s brutal-style rhetoric denies previous U.S. commitments to Israel have been made on this issue. This approach seems almost designed to convince Israelis that further unilateral concessions will continue to be unrewarded and Western commitments continue to be forgotten.

Second, we are promised that if Israel gives in, Arab states will change their policies, becoming more conciliatory toward Israel and more helpful on pressing Iran.

This, too, is rubbish. Arab regimes have their own interests. They need the conflict; they view its solution to be an American problem. They’ve already make it clear that the United States will get nothing from them for pressuring Israel into concessions except demands to press Israel for more concessions.

Third, we’re promised that if Israel stops construction on settlements, the West can act more effectively on Iran. But they’ve already chosen a policy of engagement and concessions to Iran. There’s no will or ability to increase sanctions, not to mention continuing opposition by Russia and China.

So this, equally, is rubbish. Iran will make no deal, is stall for time, and correctly assess Western willpower as low. Of course, Iran wants to be regional hegemon. It sees having nuclear weapons as a plus whose political and economic costs are low.

Most disgusting of all are honeyed claims by American and European officials—be they cynical or foolish—that such concessions are good for Israel, as it will help it make peace and greater security. In truth, they want Israel to make concessions for their own selfish interests. They believe it will make the radical Islamist threat go away at Israel’s expense.

What then is the reality? If Israel ceases construction on settlements it will get nothing. Arab states, the PA, and West won’t change policies. Iran will go merrily on toward nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, there’s still a strong case for Israel making a gesture to the U.S. administration for several reasons:

--To avoid alienating the U.S. government. Failing to resolve this issue means that the administration will blame its inevitable failures and certain lack of progress in the region on Israel for the next three, perhaps next seven, years.

--By saying “no,” Israel would play into the scapegoating game, letting everyone pretend that all would be fine if Israel only altered its behavior. American and European policymakers will claim the only reason they can’t get peace, Arab cooperation, or an end to Iran’s nuclear drive is because of Israel’s behavior.

--The issue is construction, not dismantling settlements or withdrawing from more land. While one might respond that will be the next demand, a partial “yes” now does not inhibit saying “no” on a bigger issue.

--Israel’s first response, offering removal of outposts or roadblocks and asking for adherence to past promises, has failed. Up to a point, stalling is a good tactic. No matter how determined the U.S. government is on this issue at present, months can go by in maneuverings. Crises and distractions will arise; the U.S. administration might learn to understand reality better.

To me the decisive factors are these: A single gesture must be made toward the new U.S. administration as a “gift” to Obama in order to consolidate his personal commitment to Israel. The fact that this step is temporary, reversible and doesn’t endanger Israeli lives makes it preferable to alternative actions.

On issues like east Jerusalem, border modifications, security guarantees regarding any future Palestinian state, no compromise with Hamas, and others, Israelis are willing to stand up and face any consequences of a break with the United States. But this specific issue is simply not worth a confrontation, especially because it is the first request by the Obama administration.

There is also a way to do it on Israel’s terms: a temporary, reversible freeze on construction, not including Jerusalem and in a clear framework of what Israel expects in return, with the results to be judged solely by Israel.

What are these conditions? Two could be continuing Western efforts to isolate Hamas, the end to official PA incitement to kill Israelis and wipe Israel off the map.

Other conditions could be private, like evidence of a stronger Western effort against Iran’s nuclear weapons’ drive.

If these things don’t happen, Israel warns in advance that it would say: “We told you so. This experiment has failed” and return to construction. Such a move would provoke criticism that Israel could far more easily resist at costs lower than at present. It should be stressed that unlike withdrawing from territory or dismantling settlements, a construction freeze would be a reversible step.

Netanyahu knows how far he can go without unraveling his coalition. By conditioning it as suggested here, he could more likely sell a limited concession to his cabinet.

But what he should certainly avoid is alternative concessions to “protect” settlement construction which would be far more dangerous to Israeli lives and interests without solving Israel’s problem with the United States. These could include going too far in loosening restrictions on the flow of goods into the Gaza Strip or dismantling needed roadblocks.
Israel should respond flexibly on the construction issue but only in a way shaped by its own interests and far better appreciation of the situation in the Middle East.

*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

A new Yalta

Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference (February 1945). Will we see the Iranian "Supreme Leader" at such a conference in future?

From The Australian, June 12, 2009, by Emanuele Ottolenghi*:

IN his bid for re-election, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran is a nuclear power, ready (and entitled) to take an active role in running the world. Whether he will be re-elected today remains to be seen, but Iran's nuclear ambitions preceded Ahmadinejad and will undoubtedly continue with his successors.

Assuming Iran succeeds in its goals, what would the world look like under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear arsenal? Does Iran seek nuclear capability merely as an instrument of dissuasion against what it sees as powerful and threatening enemies? Or is the bomb an instrument to fulfil Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East? Can Iran be deterred, much like the Soviet Union was?

To answer, we must grasp the nature of Iran's regime.

Thirty years after its revolution, Iran's regime remains devoted to its founding ideals: not just the establishment of an Islamic order inside Iran, but also its export to the region, in open antagonism with the established Sunni Arab powers, and beyond, in the name of a Shia brand of anti-Western revolutionary zeal.

In the context of Islam, Iran's aim no doubt is to redress what is clearly perceived as a terrible injustice of Islamic history: the dominance of Sunni over Shia Islam.

While traditional Shia Islam sees the origins of this schism - the martyrdom in Karbala of the prophet Mohammed's grandson at the hands of his political adversaries - as a tragedy to mourn, the fiery brand of revolutionary Shiism espoused by Iran's revolutionary clergy viewed it as an injustice to be redressed. This indicated that the era of Sunni dominance could be challenged; under Iran's leadership the Shia would regain its leadership at the expense of the other powers, whose monarchical rule Iran's revolution viewed as the iniquitous outcome of that schism.

Iran's revolutionary world view thus poses a direct challenge to Sunni dominance in the world of Islam and Sunni monarchical rule in the heartland of Islam: Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. But this should not be construed, simplistically, as evidence of Shia hatred for Sunni Muslims or proof of the irreconcilable nature of the Shia-Sunni divide.

Iran's revolution seamlessly blended the subversive and the divine - Shia revivalism alongside Marxist revolutionary doctrines - turning Iran into a power constantly searching for a new regional status quo. This synthesis transcended both Iran and Shiism. Its goal was to put Iran at the helm of a revolutionary front stretching across the barrier of Persian-Arab, Shia-Sunni and East-West divisions, in the name of a common struggle against imperialism, the dominance of Western values and their underlying international economic and political order. It proclaims Iranian leadership in a worldwide front of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist forces and it seeks to limit or nullify the influence of its enemies in the region and beyond.

The new world that Iran seeks to create will be dominated by Tehran. It will be characterised by fierce competition with the US for hegemony over the gulf and by efforts to cement alliances to confront Iran's ideological antagonists: America and Israel.

Challenging the regional status quo and the economic, legal and political foundations of the international order remain today at the heart of Iran's revolution. Iran's quest for nuclear weapons must be understood and explained within this context.

Iran's nuclear ambitions do not necessarily serve the logic of apocalyptic politics, though its shrill rhetoric suggests otherwise.

The fact of the matter is, an Iranian bomb would enable Tehran to fulfil the goals of the revolution without using it. For if there is one purpose for nuclear capability, it is power projection; a nuclear bomb is a force multiplier that, as US President Barack Obama aptly said, constitutes a game changer. Iran's success will forever change the Middle East, and for the worse.

Once obtained, an Iranian bomb will set Iran on a collision course with its regional adversaries and its ideological banes. Terrorists will act with impunity under Iran's nuclear umbrella; and neighbours will seek nuclear capability in response. These are givens. Less understood are the dynamics that will emerge even if Iran chooses not to use the bomb against its enemies. Little does it matter that Tehran may act rationally.

Yes, the Western arsenal and an explicit threat to use it may deter Iran against initiating a nuclear strike. But the possibility of an uneasy peace that a nuclear equilibrium may guarantee tells us next to nothing about the conventional proxy wars nuclear powers wage against one another. During the Cold War, the price of nuclear equilibrium - never settled, always fragile - was the recognition of spheres of influence.

If Iran goes nuclear, the Western world will have to negotiate a Middle East Yalta with Tehran, one that may entail a retreat of US forces from the region, an unpleasant bargain for the smaller principalities on the Gulf's shores and an unacceptable one for Israel and Lebanon's Christians. Middle East crises that are difficult to resolve today will become intractable, much like conflicts in Africa and central America had to wait for the collapse of the Soviet Union in order to be resolved.

And in the end, we may not avoid a conflict, either. Even the Soviet Union and the US teetered on the brink of nuclear war at least once, during the Cuban missile crisis. It happened between two countries who knew each other well, had diplomatic relations, and kept important official and discreet channels of communication open even as they competed for ideological dominance.

Iran and many of its prospective nuclear adversaries do not share such luxury: no Israeli or American embassy in Tehran, no hotline between the supreme leader and the Saudi king. The potential for misreading, misunderstanding and miscalculating is immense, especially as Iran will aggressively pursue its revolutionary aims of changing the region to its own ideological image under the shadow of the bomb.

We can ill afford this risk. That is why Iran must be stopped.

*Emanuele Ottolenghi is the director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Institute and author of Under a Mushroom Cloud: Europe, Iran andthe Bomb (Profile Books, February 2009).

Why Strive for Two States when there are Already Three?

From Middle East and Terrorism Blog, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, by Raphael Israeli, professor of Islamic history at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem:

President Obama’s adamant insistence to establish two states as the panacea for the Middle Eastern mess, is becoming less and less comprehensible, let alone feasible ...How does he, how can he, reduce the reality of Israel, Jordan and the practically independent Gaza Strip , who encompass the majority of the Palestinians, into two countries: Israel and Palestine?... [add the West bank, and you have three and a half entities - SL]

In his admirable and courageous effort to strike the balance between Israeli and Arab claims, by making demands on both of them, in spite of the historical inaccuracies and non-sequiturs involved, he has himself negated many of the assumptions he was trying to make....

...Obama repeated his commitment to the “unbreakable link” between the US and Israel, something which descended like a hammer on the Arabs’ heads. But he rationalized that link by the happenings of the Shoa’h, which though constituting another shock to the Arabs, do not tell the story of the ancient biblical link of Israel and the Jews to their homeland, nor the commonality of values, freedom and democracy between the two countries.

In his effort to build up Islam as a faith of peace, he could not, at the same time, remind his audiences of the sorry history of expansion, conquest and elimination of other cultures and native populations, nor could he dwell on the almost total absence of freedom and democracy in their midst.

...Obama’s quest to waive democracy for the sake of “stability”, will not work, because it cannot work. Many American presidents before him have allied with dictators for the sake of defence partnerships in the era of the Cold War. Came Ronald Reagan, followed by George W. Bush, who perceived that freedom and democracy stood above fake “peace” and fleeting “stability”. They recognized that dictatorships and evil regimes were the engines of terror and oppression in the world, no matter how stable and persistent they were (the Soviets and other Communists, Saddam Hussein, the Islamic revolutions in Iran and other parts of the Islamic world). They fought for breaking that evil stability, with a measure of success, though at the price of temporary instability. Is Obama endeavouring to reverse that situation, by kowtowing to the monarchs and dictators of the Middle East, and exercising pressure on the sole country which still stands for freedom and democracy in the midst of adversity?

Mitchell: US and Israel 'remain close allies and friends'

From THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 9, 2009 by herb keinon, jpost.com staff and AP:

US envoy George Mitchell began a new swing through the Mideast on Tuesday ..."I want to begin by stating again, clearly and emphatically, beyond any doubt, that the United States' commitment to the security of Israel remains unshakable," said Mitchell alongside President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem. ..."We all share an obligation to create the conditions for the prompt resumption and early conclusion of negotiations," Mitchell continued.

He also tried to calm Israeli nerves, saying the policy gaps "are not disagreements among adversaries" and that the two countries "remain close allies and friends."

Peres said that there was "a great opportunity for peace" but pointed out that the emphasis that the US has put on halting all settlement activity, including construction due to population growth, was detrimental to the process.

...In Mitchell's earlier meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the two discussed the question of settlement construction, Barak's office said in a statement. No further details were released.

Mitchell will also meet Tuesday with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

...On Wednesday, Mitchell will travel to Ramallah for meetings with top Palestinian Authority officials, before returning to Jerusalem to meet with opposition leader Tzipi Livni.

The State Department has not released the rest of Mitchell's itinerary, leading to speculation that after leaving Israel he will travel either to Syria, Lebanon or both.

If Mitchell goes to Syria, it would be his first trip there since taking up his job in January, although two other senior administration officials have gone there twice in the last three months.
Mitchell is not only mandated to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also with the whole regional context, and in previous trips has visited Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the Persian Gulf countries.

Obama has made clear that he would like to see the Arab world take steps towards Israel at the beginning of the diplomatic process, something Mitchell is believed to be discussing with the Arab countries.

Although the State Department said that Mitchell plans to set up an office in Jerusalem, he is not expected to do so during this trip.

Mitchell arrived from Oslo, where he took part in a donors' conference for the Palestinian Authority, called the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee.

Reuters quoted Mitchell as saying that the president wanted "immediate" talks to begin between the Palestinians and Israel to forge a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement.

....Mitchell said the purpose of the donors' meeting was to "provide support for the Palestinian Authority" and pave the way for a two-state solution with Israel. "It's important that there is a building of institutions and governmental capacity so that at an early time there can be an independent and viable Palestinian state," Mitchell said.

The Palestinian Authority has said it would not renew talks with Israel until the Netanyahu government stopped settlement construction and formally accepted a two-state solution.

A senior Israeli government source said that Netanyahu had said from his first day in office that he was ready to begin immediate talks with the Palestinians.

It's NOT the Shoah ...stupid

From THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 4, by Dr. Efraim Zuroff, director of the Israel office of the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

As could be expected, President Barack Obama on Thursday identified "the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world," as being "a source of tension." In this respect, he correctly delineated the issue as being much broader than a conflict solely between Palestinians and Jews, a distinction which is very important in terms of working towards a possible solution.

Precisely for this reason, however, his comments regarding Israel and Jewish history were so problematic. First and foremost was his linkage of the establishment of the State of Israel and the Holocaust.

Thus, according to Obama, Americans recognize that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied," an obvious reference not to the destruction of the Second Temple and the exile of the Jewish people from its historic homeland, but rather to the Shoa. The continuation of the speech, in which he refers to his visit today to Buchenwald and attacks Holocaust denial, make this linkage absolutely clear.

But besides being historically inaccurate, this false connection strengthens one of the strongest canards of anti-Israel propaganda in the Muslim world; that Europeans guilty of Holocaust crimes established a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense of the local Arab residents to atone for their World War II atrocities.

By ignoring three thousand years of Jewish history, by neglecting to even mention the unbreakable link, started long before the advent of Islam, between the Jewish people and Eretz Yisrael, Obama totally failed to deliver what should have been one of his most important messages to the Arab world.

The major problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the tensions between Jews and Muslims all over the world is not Holocaust denial. As irritating and disgusting as that phenomenon undoubtedly is, it is merely a symptom of something much deeper, which Obama either failed to understand or refused to publicly identify. And that is the basic refusal of the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Dar-al-Islam, the Islamic expanse.

So to devote most of his comments on the Middle East conflict in yesterday's speech to Holocaust denial was to squander a unique opportunity to convey an absolutely vital message which the Arab world has to hear.

Along the same lines, Obama's failure to focus primarily, in his comments about our region, on the open threats by Iran to destroy Israel, should be cause for serious concern in Jerusalem. Instead of tackling Teheran's genocidal bravado head-on, he chose to equate the possibility of a second Holocaust with "repeating vile stereotypes about Jews," something certainly objectionable but hardly comparable.

It was also hardly comforting to hear Obama try and convince the Arab world to stop Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic stereotypes as, bottom line, they are really not worthwhile because they ultimately make Israelis less inclined to make peace.

In summation, the goal Obama sought to achieve was indeed daunting, but the only hope for success, at least as far as Jews and Arabs are concerned, was not to try and take the easy way out, but rather to address the core issues directly.

In other words, even if the Arabs stop denying the Shoa, it will not bring peace to the Middle East. In fact, it is not even that significant in and of itself. What will bring a true change to our region, and to relations between Jews and Arabs, will be when the latter recognize the history of the Jewish people and their connection to Eretz Yisrael and the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Dar-al-Islam.

That should be the objective of all American governments, since it will mean the end of the religious conflict between Jews and Arabs, which is basically insoluble, and the beginning of steps toward a peace agreement, which hopefully can one day be achieved.

How do you say 'Kumbaya' in Arabic?

From Middle East and Terrorism Blog, Monday, June 8, 2009, by Richard Z. Chesnoff:

A few thoughts after the Cairo Address.

I don't know about you, but I am increasingly weary of our national leader trying to win friends and influence enemies by fancy word-work mixed with apologies for America's past sins - real or imaginary. Yes, the presidential speech in Cairo could have been a lot worse. But in the opinion of this veteran of 40 years of Mideast reporting President Obama really stretched it.

Islam has "always been a part of America's story." That's news to me.

And why beat your breast over American involvement in the 1953 overthrow of Iran's Mossadeq regime. If Mr Obama thought he was reaching out a conciliatory hand to the Mullahs of Tehran, he missed it. The mullahs who seized power in 1979 have tried to use Mossadeq now as a martyr. But they always opposed and despised Mossadeq who was a secular nationalist. Nor was his regime "democratically elected" . At the time Mossadedeq was overthrown with CIA help, he had autocratically suspended elections and ruled Iran by "emergency decree". .

As David Frum, of Newmajority.com put it, "for the United States to apologize to the present Iranian regime for the overthrow of Mossadeq would be a little like President Eisenhower apologizing to Josef Stalin for the murder of Trotsky."

But in my mind, our president erred most unhelpfully in trying to convince the Arab world that "a Jewish homeland" (why not a Jewish "state"?) deserves to exist because of past Jewish suffering in Europe -- most specifically the Holocaust.

No doubt, the monumental horror of last century's mechanized slaughter of Jews helped nudge the world into finally recognizing the justice and need of a Jewish state. But Jewish dreams of reestablishing a nation of their own are not derived from centuries of anti-Semitic suffering in Europe or even the tragedy of the Holocaust - but rather from thousands of years of Judaism itself, a global religion and culture that inexorably links the Jewish faith and people with its ancestral promised land . The two are inseperable. Israel is the land of David and Solomon, the place where the prophets preached, and Jewish wisdom was formed, the land Jews have yearned for and to which they have directed their prayers for more than 2500 years -- long before Islam was even born. Indeed, the Jews are the only people for whom Israel was ever their nation! And their capital city of Jerusalem was a central force in that faith. Jerusalem and Zion are mentioned 622 times in the Bible and in almost every prayer that Jews utter each day. The Holy City is not mentioned by name once in the Koran. And Mr President, thanks to Israel's reunification of the city 42 years ago, it is already a place where the followers of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed can freely pray.

Worse yet, a primary Islamic argument against Israel (one often used by Iran's hateful Ahmad Ahmadinijad) is that Palestinian Arabs should not have to pay for the anti-Semitic sins of European nations. By so firmly linking the Holocaust to Israel's birth, Obama strengthened this false claim - he did not weaken it.

So too does the idea - even vague idea - that somehow the Holocaust, black-African slavery and Palestinian suffering are comparable. I have no doubt that daily life is tough for the Palestinians. But so much of their suffering is of their own doing - or at least that of their leaders. No one has been trying to exterminate them and the fact is it is the Palestinian and Arab world that has prevented the formation of a Palestinian state for more than 60 years. How many statehood offers by the United Nations, by the United States and its allies and by left and right wing Israeli governments have been rejected by the Palestinians since 1947? All offers have been based on Arab acceptance of Israel as an independent Jewish state in the Middle East - something that even the so-called "moderate" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas still says he refuses to accept.

That is the core problem. It was. It is. and it remains so post-Cairo.

Life After the ‘Game-Changer’

From Standpoint.Online, April 2009, by EMANUELE OTTOLENGHI*:

What would the world look like under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear arsenal? Does Iran seek nuclear capability merely as an instrument of dissuasion against what it sees as powerful and threatening enemies? Or is the bomb an instrument to fulfil Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East? Can Iran be deterred much like the Soviet Union was?

To understand Iran's goals, we must grasp the nature of Iran's regime.

Thirty years after its Revolution, the Islamic Republic remains devoted to its founding ideals - not just the establishment of an Islamic order inside Iran, but also its export to the region, in open antagonism with the established Sunni Arab powers, and beyond, in the name of a Shia brand of anti-Western revolutionary zeal. Iran's revolutionary worldview poses a direct challenge to Sunni dominance in the Islamic world and Sunni monarchic rule in the heartland of Islam - Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni monarchies of the Gulf. It proclaims Iranian leadership in a worldwide front of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist forces and it seeks to limit or nullify the influence of its enemies in the region and beyond. The new world that Iran seeks to create will be dominated by Tehran. It will be characterised by fierce competition with the US for hegemony over the Gulf and by efforts to cement alliances to confront Iran's ideological antagonists: America and Israel.

In the context of Islam, Iran's aim is to redress what is clearly perceived as a terrible injustice of Islamic history - the dominance of Sunni over Shia Islam. Traditional Shia Islam sees the origins of this schism - the martyrdom in Karbala of Ali, the Prophet's grandson, at the hands of his political adversaries - as a tragedy to mourn. Iran's fiery brand of revolutionary Shi'ism views the martyrdom of Ali as an injustice to be redressed.

But this should not be construed, simplistically, as evidence of Shia hatred for Sunni Muslims or proof of the irreconcilable nature of the Shia-Sunni divide. The combination of the divine and the subversive is the recipe that makes Iran a country constantly searching for a new regional status quo. Iran's revolution sought a synthesis between Islam and revolutionary Marxist politics that transcended both Iran and Shi'ism. Its goal was to put Iran at the helm of a revolutionary front stretching across the barrier of Persian/Arab, Shia/Sunni and East/West divisions in the name of a common struggle against imperialism, the dominance of Western values and their underlying international economic and political order.

Iran's nuclear ambitions do not necessarily serve the logic of apocalyptic politics, though its rhetoric suggests otherwise. The fact is that an Iranian bomb would enable Tehran to fulfil the goals of the revolution without using it. A nuclear bomb is a force multiplier that, as US President Barack Obama aptly said, constitutes a "game changer". Iran's success will change the Middle East for ever-and for the worse.

Under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, terrorists will be able to act with impunity and its neighbours will enter into a dangerous arms race. Less understood are the dynamics that will emerge even if Iran chooses not to use the bomb against its enemies. It matters little that Tehran may act rationally. The possibility of an uneasy peace that a nuclear equilibrium may guarantee tells us next to nothing about the conventional proxy wars that nuclear powers wage against one another. During the Cold War, the price of equilibrium was the recognition of spheres of influence. If Iran goes nuclear, the Western world will have to negotiate a Middle East Yalta with Tehran - one that may entail a US withdrawal, an unpleasant bargain for the smaller principalities on the Gulf's shores and an unacceptable one for Israel and Lebanon's Christians.

And in the end, we may not avoid a conflict either. Even the Soviet Union and the US teetered on the brink of nuclear war during the Cuba missile crisis. It happened between two countries which knew each other well, had diplomatic relations and kept important official and discreet channels of communication open even as they competed for ideological dominance. Iran and many of its prospective nuclear adversaries do not share such luxuries - there are no Israeli or American embassies in Tehran, no hotline between the Supreme Leader and the Saudi King. The potential for misreading, misunderstanding and miscalculating is immense. We cannot afford this risk. That is why Iran must be stopped.

*Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi is the director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Institute and the author of Under a Mushroom Cloud: Europe, Iran and the Bomb (Profile Books)

He will deliver public lectures in Perth, Western Australia as follows:

Prospects for a Palestinian State
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
6:00pm for 6:30pm start
Woolnough Lecture Theatre, Geography Building, University of Western Australia

Israel confronting a challenging strategic environment
Wednesday 10th June, 2009 at 8:00pm
Jewish Community Centre (Admission: $5.00)

US bullies Israel

The essence [with my emphasis - SL], from an article in the Australian by Abraham Rabinovich, Jerusalem June 09, 2009:

UNCERTAINTY in Israel about how the Obama administration would deal with the Middle East has given way to the realisation that a new era has begun ...after Barack Obama's landmark address to the Muslim world in Cairo last week and comments at the weekend by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticising Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

...Mr Obama ...called for a two-state solution and a freeze on the Jewish settlements.

Mrs Clinton at the weekend rejected Israel's argument that under an agreement with the Bush administration Israel could continue "natural growth" of the settlements as long as it was in the form of infill, rather than expansion on to more Palestinian land.

"That was an understanding entered into, so far as we are told, orally," she said. "That was never made a part of the official record of negotiations as it was passed on to our administration." [Is that a "denial" or a statement that US won't abide by oral agreements? - SL]

...Mr Obama's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, was due to arrive in Israel last night. He is expected to establish an office here from which to monitor Israeli settlement activity and the implementation of its promise to dismantle illegal outposts on the West Bank....

Obama pressure on Israel draws concerns in U.S.

From a Reuters ANALYSIS-Wed Jun 3, 2009 by Susan Cornwell and Steve Holland:

* Some lawmakers urge Obama to use caution
* Democrats, Republicans among Obama critics over Israel
* Lawmakers are protective of strong U.S. ally

WASHINGTON, June 3 (Reuters) - As President Barack Obama courts Muslims in the Middle East, his pressure on Israel to halt Jewish settlement activity in occupied territory is starting to raise some concerns at home.

...Both political parties are raising doubts about Obama's pressure on Israel

...Referring to Obama's demands for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank, Representative Anthony Weiner said, "I think the president went beyond where I think it was appropriate for us to go in dealing with another democracy." ...Weiner and two other Democrats in the House of Representatives, Shelley Berkley and Joseph Crowley, said Obama should not be too tough on Israel. "...I think we have to be careful not to cross the line where it sounds like we are exerting the overwhelming pressure that we have at our disposal on our rather isolated ally," Weiner said in answer to a question about Obama's remarks on Israeli settlements.

...A day earlier, the House Republican Whip Eric Cantor issued a statement lacerating Obama for suggesting that the Middle East peace process and U.S. interests were harmed by the failure of the United States to be "honest" with Israel.

"As Palestinian terror shows no sign of abating, President Obama's insistence that it is in America's best interest to pressure Israel sends the wrong message to the region," declared Cantor, a member of the House Republican leadership.

...Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, who worked in the Clinton White House, said Obama is facing a "tinderbox" by trying to navigate between various Israeli and Arab constituencies.

"You have the Israelis on one hand who don't want any gap between themselves and the United States, you have the moderate Arabs who are scared to death of Iran, but are also publicly committed to the Palestinians, and then you have the radical Arabs who see any sign of dissension as an opportunity to expand their influence and undermine the United States," he said.

Washington has long been Israel's closest ally...

...Representative Berkley said she believed Obama had gone beyond what had been U.S. policy when he indicated "natural growth" of the settlements was not acceptable. "We ought not to be dictating to the Israeli people how many rooms they can have on their house or whether their particular settlement should have an additional school, or an add-on room to the school as well," Berkley said.

Barak, Ya'alon to give major policy speeches before Bibi

From THE JERUSALEM POST , Jun. 8, 2009, by Herb Keinon [i.e. "Israel speaks..." Is anyone listening? - SL]:

...Five days before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is to deliver a major address expected to outline his diplomatic plans, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Vice Premier and Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon are scheduled to deliver significant policy speeches on Tuesday that are expected to foreshadow what Netanyahu will say.

Barak is scheduled to speak Tuesday to the Council for Peace and Security in Ramat Gan. He is expected to discuss settlement construction, relations with the US, the new situation in Lebanon following the elections, and Iran. This speech was announced Monday.

Ya'alon, who is currently in the US, will deliver a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies entitled "Strategic Challenges in a Changing Middle East." Invitations to that speech were sent out in May.

Government officials said there was a great deal of coordination between Netanyahu and Ya'alon and Barak. The officials said the speeches would likely give an indication of where the Netanyahu government was headed, and what to expect from Netanyahu in his address on Sunday.

Pro-Western bloc beats Hezbollah in Lebanon vote

From AFP, by HADEEL AL-SHALCHI*, 9/6/09:

BEIRUT (AP) — Lebanon's Western-backed coalition defeated Hezbollah and its allies, according to official results Monday that dealt a stunning setback to the Iranian-backed militants and set the stage for renewed political deadlock in the volatile nation.

... A win for [Hezbollah] would have boosted the influence of its backers Iran and Syria and risked pushing one of the region's most unsettled countries into international isolation and possibly more conflict with Israel.

...Paul Salem, Beirut-based director of the Carnegie Middle East Center, an arm of the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the overall result of the elections is reassuring for the West. "Certainly it goes in a positive direction in the sense that it doesn't shake the boat. It reassures the Arab countries, Europe, and the U.S. that there will be no dramatic change of policy," he said. "It reinforces a kind of reasonable rather than a radical situation in the region."

...influential Maronite Catholic Church...Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir warned voters on the eve of the election of what he called an attempt to change Lebanon's character and its Arab identity, a clear reference to Hezbollah and its Persian backer, Iran.

The interior minister announced the final results for the 128 parliamentary seats from all 26 districts at a news conference. The tally showed the winning coalition with 68 seats versus 57 for the Hezbollah-led alliance. Three seats went to independents. The allocation was largely unchanged from the outgoing legislature, ensuring that the same disputes will continue to roil the political scene.

Israel, which warned ahead of the elections that a Hezbollah victory could further destabilize the Middle East, welcomed the victory. Officials said they hope that the political clout of Hezbollah had been blunted, though there seemed to be some fear the group might try to stir up trouble on the border in the wake of its defeat.

"There was an election in Lebanon and the moderate camp won. This is definitely a positive sign," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said. "But the real proof will be in the pudding and mainly in the government's ability to enforce order and prevent Hezbollah from continuing military actions in southern Lebanon and throughout Lebanon."...

*Associated Press Writer Ian Deitch in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Hezbollah camp loses Lebanon election

From Reuters, June 7:

BEIRUT - An anti-Syrian coalition, known as "March 14," defeated the "March 8" alliance composed of Hezbollah and its allies in Lebanon's parliamentary election on Sunday, politicians on both sides said.

Following is reaction from Lebanese politicians:

HEZBOLLAH MP, HASSAN FADLALLAH
We consider that Lebanon is ruled by partnership and whatever the results of the elections are, we cannot change the standing delicate balances or repeat the experiences of the past which led to catastrophes on Lebanon and showed the inability of one party monopolizing power. Whoever wants political stability, the preservation of national unity and the resurrection of Lebanon will find no choice but to accept the principle of consensus.

INFORMATION MINISTER TAREQ MITRI, MARCH 14
For March 14, an electoral victory no matter how small the majority or large, means that the basic fundamental principles that have created this movement are still valued by the Lebanese and that this is a vote in favor of Lebanon's independence and that people don't want to see Lebanon continue being a battleground for wars and tensions in the region and the world.

It shows that there was a democratic process, the democratic system in spite of all difficulties we have seen in last few years, the democratic system of Lebanon, is viable and that a large number of Lebanese are committed to democracy.

Lebanon: anti-Syrian coalition expected to win

From Reuters, June 7, by Tom Perry and Ralph Boulton:

BEIRUT- Lebanese Christian politician Samir Geagea said his anti-Syrian coalition would secure a slim victory in Sunday's parliamentary election, defeating a rival alliance that included the Syria- and Iran-backed Hezbollah.

"In my opinion, yes, March 14 ... will return as the majority," Geagea said in an interview with LBC television, adding that the margin might only be slim.

A source in the election campaign of Saad al-Hariri, the Sunni Muslim leader of the coalition, predicted a clear victory for the bloc which he said would win at least 68 seats in the 128-seat assembly.

Hizbullah May Control Lebanon

From IsraelNN.com, Sivan 15, 5769, 07 June 09, by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu:

Polls are giving a coalition of Hizbullah and pro-Syrian parties a 50-50 chance of winning Sunday’s Lebanese parliamentary elections, raising the possibility that Israel will face Iranian influence in the government on its northern border, in addition to Hamas in Gaza.

Hizbullah currently is a minority in the Lebanese Cabinet but has managed to force its way into the government to gain enough Cabinet representation to block major legislation. A victory by the Hizbullah alliance would be a stiff blow to the United States, whose policy of promoting democracy in the Palestinian Authority has already backfired with the Hamas victory in legislative elections four years ago. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will monitor the vote in Lebanon as he did in the PA.

Anti-Syrian political leaders have warned that a pro-Syrian victory will open the door for Iran to use Lebanon as a tool against Israel and would strengthen the Iranian-Syrian-Hamas alliance.

The Obama government has told Lebanese voters that a victory for pro-Syrian forces would endanger American aid, which has amounted to $1 billion since 2006.

Hizbullah is fielding only 11 candidates in the 128-seat legislature, but its influence is far greater, especially in southern Lebanon where it is a de facto state through its social and education support for residents, mostly Shiite Muslims.

Its alliance with Syria has enabled it to stockpile rockets and missiles far beyond the number it possessed before its Second Lebanon War against Israel in 2006.

The pro-Western coalition is headed by Saad Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose father Rafiq, a former prime minister, was assassinated in a bloody suicide bombing four years ago. Syria has been accused of being behind the attack, but a recent United Nations report has fingered Hizbullah as being responsible.

Two of Hariri’s major coalition partners are Walid Jumblatt, head of the Druze sect, and the Phalange party, a right-wing Christian group headed by Amin Gemayel.

Hizbullah’s coalition partners include Michel Aoun, head of the Largest Christian bloc in the legislature, and Nabih Berri, leader of the Shiite Amal faction and the speaker of the parliament.