Saturday, April 28, 2012

Peter Beinart attracts the dersion of almost every senior figure in the American foreign policy world

From AIJAC, 27 April 2012, by Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz:
Peter Beinart...has been a figure of much controversy lately due to his new book The Crisis of Zionism -- an extension of his 2009 essay 'The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment' in the New York Review of Books -- in which he makes the case that the Jewish community in America is taking an incorrect line on Israel and provides his own perspective on how the Israeli/Palestinian conflict ought to be addressed.
The book provoked a litany of responses from across the political spectrum, with almost every senior figure in the American foreign policy world deriding or distancing themselves from his contribution.
As a result, there is a very substantial body of work from which to draw in order to evaluate every point that he makes. In general, most experts agree that Beinart is ...hopelessly naive and heavily encumbered by a lack of serious research on the topic. ...a sheltered American ...who has never had much expertise in foreign policy -- deciding all of a sudden to jump head-first into one of the most controversial debates on the planet and go toe-to-toe with far more credible analysts.
The most salient criticism of Beinart is his entirely Israel-centric view on the conflict. He has taken a stance denying Palestinians of any agency or accountability, relegating them to bit-players in an Israeli production. To him, solving the conflict is entirely Israel's prerogative -- the Palestinians are passive victims with no say in the process. He does acknowledge that Palestinians have walked away from peace in the past and does condemn the continuing attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas, however he maintains that Israel is accountable for Palestinian decisions and punishing Israel could alter the way that Palestinians act....

From The Daily Beast, 19 March 2012, by David Frum:
...Peter Beinart urges a global economic boycott of Israel.
Peter draws a distinction between a boycott of "Israel" and "the occupied territories," but as his new associates in the anti-Israel boycott movement understand better than he does, such a distinction is unworkable in fact and unsustainable psychologically.
...The solution Peter offers
... punish Israelis in order to change the Palestinians. It's not a very good plan.
If the Israeli-Palestinian dispute were a dispute over borders, it would have been settled long ago. The dispute never has been about borders, and it is not about borders now. The spread of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not a cause of Palestinian rejectionism. It is a consequence of Palestinian rejectionism.
It's tiresome to repeat the history. Peter knows it as well as I do.
Has there been a moment since 1936 when a majority of Jewish opinion would have rejected a peace based on partition and mutual recognition by a Jewish and Arab state? Has there has been a moment since 1936 when the Palestinian political community would have accepted such a peace?....

From a book review (‘The Crisis of Zionism,’ by Peter Beinart) in the NYT, 13 April 2012, by Jonathan Rosen, editorial director of Nextbook:
...Beinart, a former editor of The New Republic who now runs a blog called Open Zion...has written “The Crisis of Zionism,” in which he sets out to save the country by labeling many of its leaders racist, denouncing many of its American supporters as ­Holocaust-obsessed enablers and advocating a boycott of people and products from beyond Israel’s 1967 eastern border.
While saving Israel, Beinart hopes with evangelical zeal to save America from a handful of Jewish organizations that in his view have not only hijacked American liberalism but also stolen the spine of the president of the United States, who, despite having received 78 percent of the Jewish vote, is powerless to pursue his own agenda.
... because he minimizes the cataclysmic impact of the second Intifada; describes Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza not as a gut-wrenching act of desperation but as a cynical ploy to continue the occupation by other means; belittles those who harp on a Hamas charter that calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews the world over; and plays down the magnitude of the Palestinian demand for a right of return — not to a future Palestine but to Israel itself, which would destroy the Jewish state — he liberates his book from the practicalities of politics.
How you condense a thorny complexity into a short book says a great deal about your relationship to history — and to language. Beinart is especially good at invoking facts as a way of dismissing them. Thus Israel’s offer to withdraw from conquered land in 1967, and the Arab States’ declaration — “No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it” — becomes literally a parenthetical aside in which the Arabs’ “apparent refusal” made Israeli settlement “easier.”
Jews, Beinart insists, are failing what he calls “the test of Jewish power.” He does not mean by this that after millenniums of statelessness, Jews are slow to acknowledge the exigencies of force but something quite the opposite, which allows him to employ several formulations favored by anti-Semites, from the notion of a White House-­crushing Israel lobby, and the observation that “privately, American Jews revel in Jewish power,” to the grotesque idea that “in the 1970s, American Jewish organizations began hoarding the Holocaust.” His statement that occupation “requires racism” indicts Israel as racist (even as Beinart notes elsewhere the libelous United Nations resolution in 1975 declaring that “Zionism is a form of racism”).
In Beinart’s world, anti-Semitism seems little more than a form of Jewish self-deception. The Anti-Defamation League fights “alleged” anti-Semitism against Israel, he tells us. To worry about existential threats to a country the size of New Jersey, with fewer than eight million people living in a suicide-bombing nuclear age, is to surrender to “Jewish victimhood.” Surely it is possible for a country to be both powerful and precarious? Surely “vulnerability” would be a better word than “victimhood”? But Beinart’s feints toward nuance repeatedly give way to stark dualisms: “Liberalism was out, tribalism was in.”
Though allowing that “there is some truth” to the argument that Palestinians have turned their back on past offers of a two-state solution, Beinart’s formula — “were Israel to permit the creation of a Palestinian state” — waves that away, establishing, through purely rhetorical means, that peace is Israel’s to bestow, and incidentally robbing Palestinians of any role in their own destiny. But then Beinart has little to say about Palestinians in any case. While there is a chapter called “The Crisis in Israel” and a chapter called “The Crisis in America,” there is no chapter called “The Crisis in Palestinian Society” or “The Crisis in Islam,” though Islam has played an enormous role in Palestinian nationalism. Beinart may of course believe there is no crisis in these quarters, but he is essentially silent on the matter, just as he pays scant attention to the larger Arab world, finding it easier to recast a Mideast struggle as an American-Israeli drama.
...Beinart has a missionary impulse toward Israel. His faith resides in “liberal ­ideals,” which he often makes synonymous with Judaism itself, or what Judaism ought to be. Thus we are told that Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t trust Barack Obama because “Obama reminds Netanyahu of what Netanyahu doesn’t like about Jews,” by which he means a sense of moral obligation. In a neat trick of replacement theology, Obama, referred to as “the Jewish president,” becomes the real Jew on whom election has fallen figuratively as well as ­literally.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, languishes in an old and brutal dispensation, indulging in “the glorification of the ferocious Jews of antiquity.” This Old Testament fury causes Obama to retreat from mentioning the division of Jerusalem: “The response from Netanyahu, the Republicans and the American Jewish organizations would be too ferocious to bear.” What this unbearable ferocity would consist of Beinart does not say. But it must be awful if it can cow the most powerful man in the free world.
This is of a piece with the sins of American Jews, who “rarely talk about what Joseph did to the Egyptians when Pharaoh put him in charge of the nation’s grain.” Turning away from such ugliness, Beinart declares that we need “a new American Jewish story.”
The wish for a new testament is old in Judaism, though some would say that Beinart’s attempt to separate Judaism’s sinful body from its liberal soul — the better to save it — is an antiquated act. Others might say that Israel is itself a new testament, or to borrow Theodor Herzl’s phrase, an old-new testament. Herzl, a hero of Beinart’s, didn’t think Israel would need an army. In 1902, this fantasy was still possible.
Beinart cites approvingly Israel’s declaration of statehood, read aloud by David Ben-Gurion in 1948. It promised “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” Yet Ben-Gurion also decided to eliminate from that document any reference to Israel’s borders, because the Arabs were preparing to attack and he wasn’t fighting to defend rejected borders but to save his state. The written as well as the unwritten words form a kind of text and commentary that Israel still struggles to balance amid all the brute realities of an unforgiving region. Sometimes it does this well and sometimes badly, but the struggle itself is the hallmark of a civilization far beyond Peter Beinart’s Manichaean ­simplicities.

Record birth rate in Israel over past year

From Israel Hayom Newsletter, April 25, 2012, by Zeev Klein:

As Israel turns 64, it takes the command to "be fruitful and multiply" to heart • Population reaches 7.8 million, an almost tenfold increase since the state's establishment in 1948, when it was home to 806,000 people.

Baby boom: Israel's population is almost 10 times larger than on its first Independence Day in 1948.
Photo credit: Yehoshua Yosef

Baby boom: Israel's population is almost 10 times larger than on its first Independence Day in 1948.
Photo credit: Yehoshua Yosef

The West must match Russia’s strategic clarity in Syria

From NOWLebanon, April 26, 2012, by Tony Badran, research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:
A picture of the Syrian president splattered with fake blood next to a Russian flag ahead of an anti-Assad protest in Beirut. Russia wants Assad’s Alawite-led regime to continue as its only foothold in the region. (AFP photo)
Russian foreign policy scored another victory last week with the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2043, which established a supervision mission in Syria for an initial 90-day period. In other words, Russia bought three more months for the Assad regime to go on killing with impunity.
...Moscow has been steadily pursuing a clear objective in Syria: preserving the core Alawite rule and its current strategic alignment. The Kremlin’s policy, then, is the reflection of something that’s been sorely lacking in the White House: strategic clarity.
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, summarized Moscow’s rationale in an interview last month with Kommersant FM:
 “The struggle is going on in the entire region, and if the current regime in Syria were to fall, there will be a strong desire, and massive pressure, on the part of some countries in the region to establish a Sunni regime in Syria. I have no doubt about that.”
...  Russia wants Assad’s Alawite-led regime to continue as its only foothold in the region.
... as far as the Saudis and the Turks were concerned, Russia’s support for Assad meant protecting the pro-Iranian regional axis to which they are opposed.
Naturally, these allies and clients of the US look to Washington to counterbalance the Russian push, especially since the breaking of the Iranian axis is an obvious shared interest. However, to their dismay, what they’ve seen is the opposite of what they expected. The Obama administration’s policy has been to not only widen the Russian margin of maneuver, but also to effectively empower the Kremlin’s position.
What should be the US objective in Syria?
In strategic terms, the answer always was obvious – to deal a crippling blow to the Iranian network in the region by hastening a transfer of power away from Assad and his Alawite clique to a government that empowers the Sunni majority. That’s certainly how Washington’s allies view it. It’s certainly what the Russians know, and are actively seeking to thwart.
...The Obama administration has been reassuring its regional allies that it will contain Iranian influence. However, Washington’s credibility has taken a serious blow in Syria. When presented with the opportunity to roll back Iran’s reach in the Levant, the White House is balking. Worse still, by working in concert with Russia and endorsing its preferred initiatives, it is effectively, if unwittingly, shielding Iran’s assets.
...Russia and Iran see in continued Alawite rule a continuity of policy and alignments. The US, therefore, must ensure the end of this rule and the establishment of an order that empowers Syria’s Sunnis. It must pursue this aim as assertively and as explicitly as Russia (and Iran) pursues its diametrically opposed objective.

Iran is only months from becoming a nuclear power.

...Western talks with Iran over its disputed nuclear program... [began] on April 13 Istanbul, Turkey. The Western side [is] represented by the P5+1 - the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the US, Russia, Britain, China, and France) and Germany.
The previous talks between Iran and the P5+1 that were held in Istanbul in early 2011 ended with no agreement between the parties. Iran had demanded the removal of sanctions against Iran as a precondition for talks, while at the same time it indicated that it would not even discuss the suspension of its uranium enrichment program, as called for in past UN Security Council Resolutions.
...The clock is ticking on the Iranian nuclear program. Last December, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared on the CBS news program, "60 Minutes", and declared that Iran could have a bomb within twelve months. He added that the time frame might be shorter if the Iranians have "a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel." If Panetta's assessments are correct, then Iran's best diplomatic strategy for 2012 is just to let the clock run out. The West will have to carefully develop a counter-strategy to neutralise Iran's likely course of action...
...The Priority of Halting All Uranium Enrichment and the Removal of All Current Stockpiles
As background to the debate over the Iranian nuclear program, it is important to know some basic essentials. Uranium is normally found in two forms or isotopes: U-238 and the lighter isotope, U-235. It is only the lighter isotope, U-235, that can undergo nuclear fission and release the energy needed for a nuclear reactor or an atomic bomb.
But natural uranium is only 0.7% U-235 and 99.3% U-238. Iran has converted its uranium ore into a gas, at a facility in Isfahan, and then injected the uranium gas into centrifuges that spin at high speeds to increase the amount of U-235, at its Natanz enrichment plant. A civilian reactor needs only 3.5% U-235, which is called low-enriched uranium (LEU), while for nuclear weapons, high-enriched uranium (HEU), which is based on at least 90% U-235, is necessary. Iran has been enriching its uranium up to 5% U-235 since 2007.
While the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty guarantees the right of signatories, like Iran, to use nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes", that did not include a right to enrich uranium in order to produce indigenous nuclear fuels that could also be employed for nuclear weapons....
...Iran chose to establish its own uranium enrichment infrastructure at Natanz and suspiciously kept it totally secret from the world until 2002, when it was revealed by the Iranian opposition. A second secret enrichment facility, known as the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant which was located near Qom, was disclosed in 2009.
It must be stressed that uranium enrichment facilities are extremely expensive. Given the fact that Iran has only one nuclear-power plant at Bushehr, the fuel for which is supplied by Russia, it is reasonable for the West to ask whether the purpose of Iran's vast enrichment infrastructure is for civilian energy purposes as Teheran declares, or is for hidden military purposes.
Iran's suspicious behavior with its enrichment facilities led the UN Security Council to adopt six resolutions to halt all enrichment activity - UN Security Council Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1929 (2010).
Nonetheless, according to the last IAEA report issued on February 24, 2012, Iran has managed to produce a total of 5,451 kilograms of 5% enriched uranium ...[which] could be used for the eventual manufacture of four to five atomic bombs.
The Special Problem of 20% Enriched Uranium
The problem with Iran's enrichment facilities has become more acute in recent years. When the West refused to supply 20%-enriched uranium for the small Teheran Research Reactor, where the Iranians produce medical isotopes, Iranian nuclear experts went ahead in June 2010 and fed their 5% enriched uranium into the centrifuges to produce 20% enriched uranium, by themselves. With a stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, the Iranians would cut by more than half the time they needed to take the next enrichment step to weapons-grade uranium.
The total production of 20% enriched uranium according to the IAEA was about 95 kilograms this past February. It is projected by the Wisconsin Project that 120 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium is necessary in order to manufacture enough weapons grade uranium for one atomic bomb. Fereydoun Abbassi-Divani, the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, announced in June 2011 that Teheran was planning to triple its capacity to produce 20% enriched uranium. There was no pressing civilian need, since the Iranians had more than their domestic requirements of 20% enriched uranium for their Teheran Research Reactor. The excess quantities that would come from tripled production would likely go to Iran's military program.
Unquestionably, in upcoming negotiations, the West must get Iran to halt enrichment. At this point, it appears that Washington is particularly focused on Iran's production of 20% enriched uranium, which it views as an "urgent priority" for the upcoming talks. It is expected that the administration will seek to obtain a halt in production and to get Iran to give up its current 20% stockpile and perhaps send it out of the country. But it would be a cardinal error for Western diplomacy to focus only on the 20% stockpile while leaving the 5% stockpile intact and permitting this lower level of enrichment.
For Iran could race to weapons-grade uranium with its low enriched uranium as well. There are two factors which would allow Iran to make a break-through to weapons-grade uranium, even if they use only 5% enriched uranium as a feedstock for their centrifuges. First, the critical factor is the number of centrifuges Iran would utilise. By increasing the number of centrifuges, Iran can shorten the time it would take to reach high-enriched uranium.
The second factor is the speed of the centrifuges to be employed. The standard centrifuge that Iran used was known as the IR-1. The new generation of Iranian centrifuges, known by professionals as the IR-2m and IR-4, by some estimates would be able to increase the output of each machine by 600%. A more conservative estimate is that the output of the new centrifuges is 4 to 5 times greater than the older machines. By August 2011, Iran had already installed 136 IR-2m centrifuges and 27 IR-4 centrifuges at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) at Natanz.
Limiting the Time for Negotiations
Clearly, the talks with Iran that began on April 13, 2012 are not the first diplomatic encounter between the West and the Islamic Republic on the nuclear issue. There were negotiations during the previous decade between Iran and the EU-3 and later between Iran and the P5+1. Certain features of Iranian diplomatic strategy can be discerned from these previous encounters which must be taken into account at present as the West develops its diplomatic strategy.
At the end of the Iranian negotiations with the EU-3 in 2005, Iranian negotiators actually disclosed their approach to their talks with the West. For example, the head negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, revealed that Iran had managed to exploit its negotiations with the West to complete its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, which produced the feedstock for the centrifuges in Natanz:

"The day we started the [negotiating] project there was no such thing as the Isfahan project."

His deputy, Hossein Musavian, was even more blunt on Iranian Channel 2 television:

"Thanks to negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed [the uranium conversion facility] in Isfahan."

This was a classical case of diplomatic deception - or taqiya - in which the Iranians claimed that they were sincerely interested in reaching an agreement with the West, but in reality, all they were doing is playing for time.

...Today, Iran has a strong interest to utilise the time it will be provided with by the negotiations in order to advance with many aspects of its nuclear program and head for the finishing line by producing a nuclear weapon. It will further enlarge its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Iran may seek to install faster centrifuges in both of its main enrichment facilities. Finally, it has an interest in shifting the most sensitive elements of its uranium enrichment - like its production of 20% uranium to the Fordow plant.
By insisting that Iran freeze all enrichment as a pre-condition for the talks, the P5+1 can counter the Iranian strategy of exploiting the talks of letting the clock run out as it produces enough materials in order to manufacture a nuclear bomb. This is not an outlandish demand. According to six legally binding UN Security Council resolutions, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Iran is supposed to suspend all enrichment-related activities. These resolutions were supported by Russia and China, as well. Only by achieving a suspension can the West prevent Iran from moving its nuclear program further along under the cover of negotiations.
Closing the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant
The Iranians kept their Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, near the holy city of Qom, a secret, in violation of their Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, until they informed the IAEA of its existence in September 2009. They explained that they intended to install 3,000 centrifuges in the facility. But what made Fordow a particular concern was the fact that it was built under a mountain and is between 200 and 275 feet underground.
The Iranians wanted to engage in prohibited activities at Fordow and keep that activity hidden away from IAEA inspectors. It could be surmised that it was also built for the completion of military-related activities and for that reason, Iran wanted a facility that was bomb-proof. The Natanz Fuel Enrichment facility is only buried 25 to 30 feet underground.
Moreover, Iran declared that it was its intent to engage in enrichment of 20% uranium at Fordow - its most militarily significant enrichment program. In an article in the Guardian, dated July 11, 2011, British Foreign Secretary William Hague disclosed that Iran intended to transfer the production of 20% enrichment from its above ground facility at Natanz, known as the Pilot Enrichment Plant, to Fordow.
The sensitivity of Fordow in the strategic calculations of the West was attested to by Matthew Kroenig, who was a special adviser in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, and was responsible for defence strategy and policy on Iran. Kroenig wrote in the January/February 2012 edition of Foreign Affairs the developments that would warrant an immediate American military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. These included the installation of advanced centrifuges in Fordow and Iran undertaking the final step of enrichment to weapons-grade uranium. Fordow would be the ideal facility for such a final step. Closing the facility down would make it far more difficult for the Iranians to pursue this sort of policy.
Don't Forget Plutonium
When the Iranian opposition disclosed Iran's unreported nuclear facilities in 2002, their report included a Heavy Water nuclear reactor at Arak and a production plant for Heavy Water. According to the Iranians, the Arak heavy water reactor will be complete by the end of 2013. The main disturbing feature of this reactor is that it will be able to produce plutonium, the material which North Korea used to manufacture its atomic bombs. Under UN Security Council resolutions, Iran is supposed to suspend all heavy water related projects.
According to the David Ignatius of the Washington Post, US President Barack Obama is offering Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a basic bargain: the US will accept an Iranian civilian nuclear program if Khamenei can back up his his claim that Iran will never pursue nuclear weapons. What are the elements of this offer? Does Obama intend to accept that Iran has a right to enrich its uranium domestically? The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend enrichment. Moreover, the NPT does not recognise such a right. And will Khamenei allow inspections of Iran's most sensitive military sites? This will be a very difficult negotiation.
The main problem with the proposed negotiations is that they are coming too late. If Leon Panetta's assessments about Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities are correct, then these talks are being held when Iran is only months away from becoming a nuclear power. Given the broad gaps between the parties, the prospects of bridging their difference are not very great, at this late date. Moreover, on the basis of past practice, the Iranian leadership will be greatly tempted to engage in its traditional practice of diplomatic deception, by which it will offer new concessions, from which it will withdraw, in order to advance its real goal of completing its nuclear weapons program.