From JPost, 8 Mar 2012, by Martin Sherman:
...After the first three years of his presidency, political exigencies, domestic and foreign, have forced Barack Obama to try to reinvent himself with regard to his attitude toward Israel.
The initial hallmark of his administration’s foreign policy was his outreach to the Muslim world and blatant – some might say brutal – belligerence toward Israel. It is important to remember this in assessing just how much store Israel – and pro-Israeli Americans – should place on the president’s charm offensive at the recent AIPAC conference.
For while it is true that much water has flown in the Potomac (and the Nile) since Obama’s initial outreach address to the Muslim world in Cairo (June 2009) shortly after he took office, the significance of the sentiments conveyed in that speech should not be underestimated.
Because it was delivered when he was still unencumbered by domestic constraints and foreign frustrations, it reflected most accurately the political instincts he brought to the Oval Office.
Although Obama did chide the Muslim world for the lack of political freedom, gender equality and religious tolerance, the overall tenor of the address was one of glowing accolades for Islamic achievement and imaginative apologetics for its failures – based on questionable, at times fanciful, interpretations of history...
... despite his AIPAC-compliant commitment, would Obama really see a nuclear Iran as an unacceptable violation of US interests? And if so, at what stage? Or would he – especially in a post-election context – prefer the counsel of those such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who “do not believe a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel.”
To be fair, Obama’s record has not been one of unadulterated anti-Israel enmity. Thus, although admitting that “mistakes” were made in Obama’s Israel policy, which at times was “wrongheaded,” Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman has pointed out that the administration has acted frequently and forcefully to preserve Israeli interests on a number of critical issues.
Such measures have included enhancing military aid for Israel, exercising a US veto to block a one-sided Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, and strongly supporting Israel at the UN to block the Palestinian unilateral bid for statehood.
These and other decisions beneficial to Israel undertaken by the Obama administration are far from trivial. They should not be denied or disregarded.
The more circumspect – or cynical – might suggest that this pro-Israel largesse (and the assurances conveyed at the AIPAC conference) should not be ascribed to any favorable change in sentiment toward Israel. Rather, it should be seen as a result of growing concern over the consequences of a Jewish voter backlash, fueled by what many considered a grossly biased approach toward Israel.
For example, it is in no way implausible to attribute – at least partially – Obama’s robust rebuttal of the Palestinians’ UN statehood bid to the shock defeat of the Democrats by a Republican – for the first time in almost a century – in the 2010 elections in New York’s 9th Congressional District. With its large Jewish population, the administration’s treatment of Israel had been a central issue in the elections, and the results were widely interpreted was a wake-up call on this matter.
Likewise, as numerous pundits have pointed out, the generous military aid is merely the continuation of levels agreed upon by the previous administration – and which in some cases has been reduced.
Thus, despite being able to point to significant pro-Israel components in its overall policy, much doubt still remains as to how the Obama regime would behave “once the chips were down” – or even if it would concede that they were in fact “down.”
The trust deficit?
This is matter of crucial import. For in Jerusalem and in Washington, the Iranian drum beats to a different rhythm. As Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin recently pointed out, the “windows of opportunity” available to the two allies have very different time frames. If Israel defers to the US request for restraint, it may lose its ability to inflict significant damage on Tehran’s nuclear installations.
Israel would thus be entirely dependent on a US decision to neutralize an existential threat to the Jewish state.
Obamaphiles have done little to enhance confidence that the president would act in a timely and resolute manner in this regard.
If not for the potential for disaster, some recent assessments by advocates of Obama’s policy of restraint would be almost comical. In an article titled “Mr. Obama must take a stand against Israel over Iran,” our trusty Mearsheimer and Walt inform us that “US intelligence is... confident Tehran has not yet decided to build nuclear weapons.”
Really? One might be excused for wondering whether the Obama administration would accept anything short of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv as proof of Iranian intentions. In the face of such dramatic demonstrations of partisan denial, who can blame Binyamin Netanyahu for his evident exasperation in Washington when he declared with bitter sarcasm: “Amazingly, some people refuse to acknowledge that Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons. You see, Iran claims that it’s enriching uranium to develop medical isotopes. Yeah, that’s right, a country that builds underground nuclear facilities, that develops intercontinental ballistic missiles, that manufactures thousands of centrifuges, and that absorbs crippling sanctions, is doing all that in order to advance medical science. So... when that Iranian ICBM is flying through the air to a location near you, you’ve got nothing to worry about – it’s only carrying medical isotopes.”
When one sees France adopting positions that are more robust and more skeptical than America regarding Iranian intentions, something must be seriously out of kilter.
Gauging responses
How then are we to gauge the probability of American resolve under an Obama-led administration to protect Israel in a timely and effective manner – in post-election conditions?
Perhaps a good way to do so would be to separate administration actions/decisions that could be ascribed to the dictates of political survival/reelection calculations from those that were clearly the result of its unhindered volition.
Under the first category, we could clearly include nearly all the pro-Israel measures undertaken in the past year or so, including the thwarting of Palestinian endeavors at the UN.
Under the latter category, we could perhaps include the behavior patterns that characterized the beginning of the president’s term, and which were undertaken before any reelection considerations kicked in. It is highly plausible that these reflect most accurately his true political sentiments and inclinations – and hence may well be expected to reassert themselves in second term, when the constraints of elections are no longer relevant.
In this regard: Obama did not have to bow to the king of Saudi Arabia and to belittle the prime minister of Israel. He chose to do so.
He did not have to humiliate Netanyahu at the White House in early 2010. He chose to.
He did not have demand an unprecedented building freeze in Judea and Samaria – he chose to do so. He did not have to orchestrate a contrived crisis over a routine bureaucratic approval relating to construction of a Jerusalem suburb not included in the building-freeze agreement. He chose to do so.
The accumulated effect of these and other actions prompted the usually impeccably reserved Michael Oren, Israel ambassador to Washington, to characterize bilateral relations thusly: “Israel’s ties with the US are in the most serious crisis since 1975.... The crisis [is] very serious and we are facing a very difficult period in relations.”
So while political constraints might have induced Obama to undertake some important pro-Israel measures, he has also freely adopted an array of anti- Israel postures unprecedented in any administration in recent decades.
The real question
But it is not only the brusqueness that Obama has manifested toward Israel that is a cause for concern. It is also the lack of vigor he has manifested toward the Iranian regime.
Obama has had three years to implement the kind of “crippling” sanctions he is now asking Israel to give a chance – but has insisted on dragging his heels in instituting them. The question is why? One hardly knows which is more disturbing.
Is it because – despite all his knowledge of the Muslim world – he misjudged the nature of the regime in Tehran? Or is it because he did not? Does he really believe – despite the fact that years of severe sanctions did not bring Saddam Hussein to his knees – that similar sanctions against Iran can work before Israel’s window of opportunity closes? Or is he confident that they will not? These are the troubling issues facing American Jewry in the upcoming elections. It is not a question of Democrats vs Republicans as some such as Tom Friedman have tried to portray it.
It is solely a question of Barack Obama and how he is likely to behave as a second- term president. The prospect of a White House incumbent with an inherent affinity for Israel’s adversaries and unshackled by considerations of reelection is one that must be considered with the utmost seriousness....
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Plight of Mideast Christians
From WSJ, 9 March 2012, by MICHAEL OREN:
Just as Jews were once expelled from Arab lands, Christians are now being forced from countries they have long inhabited.
...[The Christians'] share of the [Middle East] population has plunged from 20% a century ago to less than 5% today and falling.
In Egypt, 200,000 Coptic Christians fled their homes last year after beatings and massacres by Muslim extremist mobs. Since 2003, 70 Iraqi churches have been burned and nearly a thousand Christians killed in Baghdad alone, causing more than half of this million-member community to flee. Conversion to Christianity is a capital offense in Iran, where last month Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani was sentenced to death. Saudi Arabia outlaws private Christian prayer.
As 800,000 Jews were once expelled from Arab countries, so are Christians being forced from lands they've inhabited for centuries.
The only place in the Middle East where Christians aren't endangered but flourishing is Israel. Since Israel's founding in 1948, its Christian communities (including Russian and Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Armenians and Protestants) have expanded more than 1,000%.
Christians are prominent in all aspects of Israeli life, serving in the Knesset, the Foreign Ministry and on the Supreme Court. They are exempt from military service, but thousands have volunteered and been sworn in on special New Testaments printed in Hebrew. Israeli Arab Christians are on average more affluent than Israeli Jews and better-educated, even scoring higher on their SATs.
...in contrast to elsewhere in the Middle East where hatred of Christians is ignored or encouraged, Israel remains committed to its Declaration of Independence pledge to "ensure the complete equality of all its citizens irrespective of religion." It guarantees free access to all Christian holy places, which are under the exclusive aegis of Christian clergy. When Muslims tried to erect a mosque near the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth, the Israeli government interceded to preserve the sanctity of the shrine.
Israel abounds with such sites (Capernaum, the Hill of the Beatitudes, the birth place of St. John the Baptist) but the state constitutes only part of the Holy Land. The rest, according to Jewish and Christian tradition, is in Gaza and the West Bank. Christians in those areas suffer the same plight as their co-religionists throughout the region.
Since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007, half the Christian community has fled. Christmas decorations and public displays of crucifixes are forbidden. In a December 2010 broadcast, Hamas officials exhorted Muslims to slaughter their Christian neighbors. Rami Ayad, owner of Gaza's only Christian bookstore, was murdered, his store reduced to ash. This is the same Hamas with which the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank recently signed a unity pact.
Little wonder, then, that the West Bank is also hemorrhaging Christians. Once 15% of the population, they now make up less than 2%. Some have attributed the flight to Israeli policies that allegedly deny Christians economic opportunities, stunt demographic growth, and impede access to the holy sites of Jerusalem. In fact, most West Bank Christians live in cities such as Nablus, Jericho and Ramallah, which are under Palestinian Authority control. All those cities have experienced marked economic growth and sharp population increase—among Muslims.
Israel, in spite of its need to safeguard its borders from terrorists, allows holiday access to Jerusalem's churches to Christians from both the West Bank and Gaza. In Jerusalem, the number of Arabs—among them Christians—has tripled since the city's reunification by Israel in 1967.
There must be another reason, then, for the West Bank's Christian exodus. The answer lies in Bethlehem. Under Israeli auspices, the city's Christian population grew by 57%. But under the Palestinian Authority since 1995, those numbers have plummeted. Palestinian gunmen seized Christian homes—compelling Israel to build a protective barrier between them and Jewish neighborhoods—and then occupied the Church of the Nativity, looting it and using it as a latrine. Today, Christians comprise a mere one-fifth of their holy city's population.
The extinction of the Middle East's Christian communities is an injustice of historic magnitude. Yet Israel provides an example of how this trend can not only be prevented but reversed. With the respect and appreciation that they receive in the Jewish state, the Christians of Muslim countries could not only survive but thrive.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Obama at AIPAC -- Truth in Advertising?
From American Spectator, 8 March 2012, by Daniel Mandel:
President Barack Obama's address this week to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was a remarkable performance of salesmanship. But was there truth in advertising?
Striking all the right notes for his audience, President Obama talked up his record of supporting Israel materially, intoning about Israel's security being non-negotiable, preserving Israel's qualitative military edge "with more advanced technology -- the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies," and deploying the Iron Dome missile defense system to protect Israel from incoming missiles from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Obama also talked up his record supporting Israel diplomatically -- "When the [UN-commissioned] Goldstone report [into the 2010 Gaza flotilla clash] unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it.… When the [UN-commissioned anti-Semitic] Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it.… When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them."
And Obama also reassured his audience about Iran's nuclear weapons program, affirming that neither Israel nor the U.S. can accept Tehran possessing nuclear bombs, that consequently all avenues for preventing this outcome, including military ones, are "on the table," and that Israel has a "sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs."
All of which emboldened the President to conclude, "I have Israel's back" and "as you examine my commitment, you don't just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds."
Let's do so.
Iran:
In April 2009, Vice-President Joseph Biden strongly warned Israel of the Administration's opposition to any Israeli military action against Iran. The same month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that American support in countering the Iranian nuclear threat was conditional on Israel making concessions to the Palestinians. Last December, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, explicitly opposed an Israeli strike. And if reports are true, Obama is privately warning Israel of penalties for striking Iran if he wins reelection. Nothing here about Israel's "sovereign right to make it own decisions."
For a year, Obama prohibited any new U.S. sanctions to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. Nor has he laid down any red lines beyond which the U.S. will not permit Iran to advance in its quest for nuclear weapons. Worse, since Israel has fewer military capabilities than the U.S., it also has a smaller window of opportunity to deal with Iran's nuclear program than the U.S -- yet Obama is now asking it to waiting several more months for sanction to have an impact. Whatever else may be on "the table" at that point, Israel's capacity to act might not be among them.
In his AIPAC speech, President Obama took credit for imposing sanctions on Iran's Central Bank. In fact, as of last week, he has not implemented these sanctions, whose passage through the Congress he tried to slow and whose strength he sought to dilute. Numerous Democrats and Republicans from both the Senate and the House have called for him to actually start enforcing the sanctions they passed and which, at the moment, will not even take effect until June.
Diplomatic support:
Obama said at AIPAC that "the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations" and back Israel diplomatically. And his Administration has -- on the occasions cited above. But such support was scarcely evident when Obama supported the so-called Arab Peace Initiative, which demands not only an Israeli withdrawal to the vulnerable and serpentine 1949 armistice lines and a Palestinian state throughout the West Bank, but also the return of all Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants to Israel in return for "normalization" (not "peace") -- and only after Israel does all this.
Nor was it evident in 2010 when, unlike Bill Clinton in 2000 and George W. Bush in 2005, Obama permitted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference statement singling out Israel and insisting it joint the NPT.
Nor was it evident when Obama agreed to a UN June 2010 Security Council statement he could have easily vetoed which "condemned" the "acts" that led to loss of life on the Gaza flotilla, or when he called on CNN's Larry King show for an investigation into the deaths of "innocent" victims -- actually, Hamas supporters who premeditatedly assaulted the Israeli boarding party enforcing the lawful inspection of ships bound for Gaza.
Nor was it evident in February 2011, when Obama sought to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council for the "illegitimacy" of Jewish communities in the West Bank. Only when the Arab states refused to oblige and demanded that they be condemned as "illegal" -- a legally baseless assertion -- was Obama compelled to veto.
And it was still less evident this February, when, having cut US funding to UNESCO in accordance with US law for it admitting the PA as a sovereign state, Obama sought to continue and in fact increase funding to UNESCO. Indeed, by doing so, he encouraged the PA to press ahead with its policy -- unpenalized by Obama -- of circumventing negotiations by seeking sovereign recognition by international organizations.
Israeli security needs:
Obama said at AIPAC that Israel's security must be "sacrosanct." But this was no-where in evidence when, in October 2010, Obama offered Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority (PA) that, if it would only remain in talks with Israel after the expiry of Israel's unilateral 10-month freeze on Jewish construction in the West Bank, he would endorse the Palestinian/Arab Peace Initiative demand that Israel withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines and establish a Palestinian state.
Nor was it apparent when, in May 2011, after the PA had ignored Obama's offer and broke off negotiations for half a year, Obama went ahead anyway by calling for precisely such an Israeli withdrawal with "agreed swaps" -- a caveat that actually gives the Palestinians an automatic veto over Israel retaining anything beyond the 1949 lines.
And it became less apparent still when that call included something never publicly supported by any previous president -- Israeli relinquishment of the Jordan Valley, whose retention successive Israeli governments have regarded as vital to Israeli defense. (The late Yitzhak Rabin said as much in his last speech to the Knesset in October 1995.)
Palestinian terrorism & incitement:
Obama has said more than once that he will hold Palestinians accountable for their words and deeds, including incitement to hatred and violence against Israel. But nothing of the sort happened in August 2009, when Abbas' Fatah, which controls the PA, held a conference in Bethlehem, which reaffirmed its refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state, glorified terrorists living and dead by name, insisted on the so-called 'right of return,' and rejected an end of claims in any future peace agreement with Israel.
Nor did anything of the sort occur when Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) subsequently urged Clinton to take up the issue with Abbas. Instead, she issued a flat-earth denial, saying that the Fatah Conference showed "a broad consensus supporting negotiations with Israel, and the two-state solution" and that contrary statements by unnamed "individuals" at the conference "did not represent Fatah's official positions."
Nor did anything of the sort happen in January 2010 when terrorists from Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a recognized terrorist group, murdered an Israeli, Rabbi Meir Chai, in a drive-by shooting and Abbas himself sent condolences to the families of the three terrorists subsequently killed by Israeli forces. Obama said nothing, even when specifically informed of these events by the Israeli government.
Nor did anything of the sort happen when, in March 2010, the PA named a public square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, the leader of the 1978 coastal road bus hijacking, in which 37 Israelis, including 12 children, were slaughtered. (The Administration did, however, condemn Israel for announcing a program of building Jewish homes in eastern Jerusalem the day before.)
Nor did anything of the sort happen when, several days later, Clinton provided the Administration's belated criticism of the obscene glorification of Mughrabi. Quite the contrary, she whitewashed and protected Abbas and the PA by falsely stating it was "a Hamas-controlled municipality" that had initiated the event.
Nor did anything of the sort occur in March 2011, five members of the Fogel family, including three children, were murdered in their beds, their throats slit, by Palestinian terrorists. Nor did anything of the sort happen the next day when the PA held a ceremony to name another public square after the terrorist Mughrabi. Quite the contrary: it took four days before a minor State Department official condemned the event and urged PA officials to "address it" -- but didn't condemn Abbas or his ruling Fatah party, under whose auspices the ceremony took place.
Then there are the intangibles, matters of tone and emphasis when disagreements arise. The Obama Administration has used the terms "condemn," an "insult" and an "affront" when expressing disagreement with Israel's March 2010 mere announcement of a program of housing construction in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem – a project which violated no agreement with America. "Condemn," "insult" and "affront" are harsh and ugly terms that America and Obama have never used in reference to an ally's actions. To the contrary, when Turkey did not vote along with the U.S. for further sanctions on Iran, the Administration was merely "disappointed." When Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai spoke publicly of considering joining forces with the Taliban, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it "respected" him.
Compare that to Gates criticizing Israel last September for giving nothing in return for U.S. military and intelligence support in terms of peace talks and calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "ungrateful." Or his successor Leon Panetta criticizing Israel the next month for not being more pliable, or again, last December rudely urging Israel -- which has been open to negotiations with the PA all along -- to "get to the damn table."
So what is really left of Obama's claims of having Israel's back? A strong -- and mutually beneficial -- defense cooperation actually inaugurated and funded by George W. Bush, which would require Congressional approval to reverse; supplying Iron Dome missile defense systems to Israel for which he has recently trimmed funding; affirming Israel's right to act against Iran that his own senior officials have continuously and publicly opposed; saving Israeli diplomats in Cairo from a mob enabled by his having helped push Hosni Mubarak from power weeks before; and some UN speeches seeking to limit the damage of noxious Arab initiatives he previously encouraged.
The words of the prophet Daniel apply -- "You are weighed in the balance, and are found wanting."
President Barack Obama's address this week to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was a remarkable performance of salesmanship. But was there truth in advertising?
Striking all the right notes for his audience, President Obama talked up his record of supporting Israel materially, intoning about Israel's security being non-negotiable, preserving Israel's qualitative military edge "with more advanced technology -- the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies," and deploying the Iron Dome missile defense system to protect Israel from incoming missiles from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Obama also talked up his record supporting Israel diplomatically -- "When the [UN-commissioned] Goldstone report [into the 2010 Gaza flotilla clash] unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it.… When the [UN-commissioned anti-Semitic] Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it.… When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them."
And Obama also reassured his audience about Iran's nuclear weapons program, affirming that neither Israel nor the U.S. can accept Tehran possessing nuclear bombs, that consequently all avenues for preventing this outcome, including military ones, are "on the table," and that Israel has a "sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs."
All of which emboldened the President to conclude, "I have Israel's back" and "as you examine my commitment, you don't just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds."
Let's do so.
Iran:
In April 2009, Vice-President Joseph Biden strongly warned Israel of the Administration's opposition to any Israeli military action against Iran. The same month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that American support in countering the Iranian nuclear threat was conditional on Israel making concessions to the Palestinians. Last December, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, explicitly opposed an Israeli strike. And if reports are true, Obama is privately warning Israel of penalties for striking Iran if he wins reelection. Nothing here about Israel's "sovereign right to make it own decisions."
For a year, Obama prohibited any new U.S. sanctions to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. Nor has he laid down any red lines beyond which the U.S. will not permit Iran to advance in its quest for nuclear weapons. Worse, since Israel has fewer military capabilities than the U.S., it also has a smaller window of opportunity to deal with Iran's nuclear program than the U.S -- yet Obama is now asking it to waiting several more months for sanction to have an impact. Whatever else may be on "the table" at that point, Israel's capacity to act might not be among them.
In his AIPAC speech, President Obama took credit for imposing sanctions on Iran's Central Bank. In fact, as of last week, he has not implemented these sanctions, whose passage through the Congress he tried to slow and whose strength he sought to dilute. Numerous Democrats and Republicans from both the Senate and the House have called for him to actually start enforcing the sanctions they passed and which, at the moment, will not even take effect until June.
Diplomatic support:
Obama said at AIPAC that "the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations" and back Israel diplomatically. And his Administration has -- on the occasions cited above. But such support was scarcely evident when Obama supported the so-called Arab Peace Initiative, which demands not only an Israeli withdrawal to the vulnerable and serpentine 1949 armistice lines and a Palestinian state throughout the West Bank, but also the return of all Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants to Israel in return for "normalization" (not "peace") -- and only after Israel does all this.
Nor was it evident in 2010 when, unlike Bill Clinton in 2000 and George W. Bush in 2005, Obama permitted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference statement singling out Israel and insisting it joint the NPT.
Nor was it evident when Obama agreed to a UN June 2010 Security Council statement he could have easily vetoed which "condemned" the "acts" that led to loss of life on the Gaza flotilla, or when he called on CNN's Larry King show for an investigation into the deaths of "innocent" victims -- actually, Hamas supporters who premeditatedly assaulted the Israeli boarding party enforcing the lawful inspection of ships bound for Gaza.
Nor was it evident in February 2011, when Obama sought to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council for the "illegitimacy" of Jewish communities in the West Bank. Only when the Arab states refused to oblige and demanded that they be condemned as "illegal" -- a legally baseless assertion -- was Obama compelled to veto.
And it was still less evident this February, when, having cut US funding to UNESCO in accordance with US law for it admitting the PA as a sovereign state, Obama sought to continue and in fact increase funding to UNESCO. Indeed, by doing so, he encouraged the PA to press ahead with its policy -- unpenalized by Obama -- of circumventing negotiations by seeking sovereign recognition by international organizations.
Israeli security needs:
Obama said at AIPAC that Israel's security must be "sacrosanct." But this was no-where in evidence when, in October 2010, Obama offered Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority (PA) that, if it would only remain in talks with Israel after the expiry of Israel's unilateral 10-month freeze on Jewish construction in the West Bank, he would endorse the Palestinian/Arab Peace Initiative demand that Israel withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines and establish a Palestinian state.
Nor was it apparent when, in May 2011, after the PA had ignored Obama's offer and broke off negotiations for half a year, Obama went ahead anyway by calling for precisely such an Israeli withdrawal with "agreed swaps" -- a caveat that actually gives the Palestinians an automatic veto over Israel retaining anything beyond the 1949 lines.
And it became less apparent still when that call included something never publicly supported by any previous president -- Israeli relinquishment of the Jordan Valley, whose retention successive Israeli governments have regarded as vital to Israeli defense. (The late Yitzhak Rabin said as much in his last speech to the Knesset in October 1995.)
Palestinian terrorism & incitement:
Obama has said more than once that he will hold Palestinians accountable for their words and deeds, including incitement to hatred and violence against Israel. But nothing of the sort happened in August 2009, when Abbas' Fatah, which controls the PA, held a conference in Bethlehem, which reaffirmed its refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state, glorified terrorists living and dead by name, insisted on the so-called 'right of return,' and rejected an end of claims in any future peace agreement with Israel.
Nor did anything of the sort occur when Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) subsequently urged Clinton to take up the issue with Abbas. Instead, she issued a flat-earth denial, saying that the Fatah Conference showed "a broad consensus supporting negotiations with Israel, and the two-state solution" and that contrary statements by unnamed "individuals" at the conference "did not represent Fatah's official positions."
Nor did anything of the sort happen in January 2010 when terrorists from Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a recognized terrorist group, murdered an Israeli, Rabbi Meir Chai, in a drive-by shooting and Abbas himself sent condolences to the families of the three terrorists subsequently killed by Israeli forces. Obama said nothing, even when specifically informed of these events by the Israeli government.
Nor did anything of the sort happen when, in March 2010, the PA named a public square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, the leader of the 1978 coastal road bus hijacking, in which 37 Israelis, including 12 children, were slaughtered. (The Administration did, however, condemn Israel for announcing a program of building Jewish homes in eastern Jerusalem the day before.)
Nor did anything of the sort happen when, several days later, Clinton provided the Administration's belated criticism of the obscene glorification of Mughrabi. Quite the contrary, she whitewashed and protected Abbas and the PA by falsely stating it was "a Hamas-controlled municipality" that had initiated the event.
Nor did anything of the sort occur in March 2011, five members of the Fogel family, including three children, were murdered in their beds, their throats slit, by Palestinian terrorists. Nor did anything of the sort happen the next day when the PA held a ceremony to name another public square after the terrorist Mughrabi. Quite the contrary: it took four days before a minor State Department official condemned the event and urged PA officials to "address it" -- but didn't condemn Abbas or his ruling Fatah party, under whose auspices the ceremony took place.
Then there are the intangibles, matters of tone and emphasis when disagreements arise. The Obama Administration has used the terms "condemn," an "insult" and an "affront" when expressing disagreement with Israel's March 2010 mere announcement of a program of housing construction in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem – a project which violated no agreement with America. "Condemn," "insult" and "affront" are harsh and ugly terms that America and Obama have never used in reference to an ally's actions. To the contrary, when Turkey did not vote along with the U.S. for further sanctions on Iran, the Administration was merely "disappointed." When Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai spoke publicly of considering joining forces with the Taliban, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it "respected" him.
Compare that to Gates criticizing Israel last September for giving nothing in return for U.S. military and intelligence support in terms of peace talks and calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "ungrateful." Or his successor Leon Panetta criticizing Israel the next month for not being more pliable, or again, last December rudely urging Israel -- which has been open to negotiations with the PA all along -- to "get to the damn table."
So what is really left of Obama's claims of having Israel's back? A strong -- and mutually beneficial -- defense cooperation actually inaugurated and funded by George W. Bush, which would require Congressional approval to reverse; supplying Iron Dome missile defense systems to Israel for which he has recently trimmed funding; affirming Israel's right to act against Iran that his own senior officials have continuously and publicly opposed; saving Israeli diplomats in Cairo from a mob enabled by his having helped push Hosni Mubarak from power weeks before; and some UN speeches seeking to limit the damage of noxious Arab initiatives he previously encouraged.
The words of the prophet Daniel apply -- "You are weighed in the balance, and are found wanting."
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
If it looks, feels and smells like a bomb....
From Reuters VIENNA, Mon Mar 5, 2012, by Fredrik Dahl:
Iran has tripled its monthly production of higher-grade enriched uranium and the U.N. nuclear watchdog has "serious concerns" about possible military dimensions to Tehran's atomic activities, the agency's chief said on Monday.
...[International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya] Amano told a news conference at the IAEA in Vienna there were indications of unspecified "activities" at an Iranian military site which his inspectors want to visit as part of a probe into fears Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons capability.
comments made by IAEA diplomats to Reuters last week when one said: "we have heard about possible sanitation" of the Parchin site that he called "very concerning," suggesting Iran may be delaying access while it removed evidence of suspect activities.
The United States and its Western allies are seeking Russian and Chinese backing to rebuke Iran at the week-long IAEA board meeting, that began on Monday, over its failure to address the agency's growing concerns.
...[Iran's] refusal to curb sensitive atomic work that can have both civilian and military applications has drawn increasingly tough U.N. and Western sanctions against the major oil producer.
SOONER IS BETTER
During visits by IAEA inspectors to Tehran in January and February, Iranian officials stonewalled requests for access to Parchin, seen as central to its investigation.
"We have some indication that activities are ongoing at the Parchin site. It makes us believe that going there sooner is better than later," Amano told reporters, giving no details.
An IAEA report last year presented a trove of intelligence pointing to research activities in Iran relevant for developing the means and technologies needed to assemble nuclear weapons, should it decide to do so.
One key finding was information that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin, southeast of Tehran, in which to conduct high-explosives tests that the IAEA says are "strong indicators" of possible weapons development.
...Since the IAEA's previous report in November, Amano said Iran had tripled monthly production of uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20 percent - well above the level usually needed to fuel nuclear power plants.
It was the first time Amano spoke in public about this rapid increase in Iran's enrichment activities which has stoked Western and Israeli suspicions about Tehran's nuclear agenda.
...20 percent enrichment, experts say, also represents most of the technical effort needed to attain the 90 percent threshold required for nuclear explosions.
Much of this work is carried out deep inside a mountain at Iran's underground Fordow facility to better shield it against military strikes, and further expansion there is planned...Amano told Monday's closed-door board meeting, according to a copy of his speech.
Iran has tripled its monthly production of higher-grade enriched uranium and the U.N. nuclear watchdog has "serious concerns" about possible military dimensions to Tehran's atomic activities, the agency's chief said on Monday.
...[International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya] Amano told a news conference at the IAEA in Vienna there were indications of unspecified "activities" at an Iranian military site which his inspectors want to visit as part of a probe into fears Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons capability.
comments made by IAEA diplomats to Reuters last week when one said: "we have heard about possible sanitation" of the Parchin site that he called "very concerning," suggesting Iran may be delaying access while it removed evidence of suspect activities.
The United States and its Western allies are seeking Russian and Chinese backing to rebuke Iran at the week-long IAEA board meeting, that began on Monday, over its failure to address the agency's growing concerns.
...[Iran's] refusal to curb sensitive atomic work that can have both civilian and military applications has drawn increasingly tough U.N. and Western sanctions against the major oil producer.
SOONER IS BETTER
During visits by IAEA inspectors to Tehran in January and February, Iranian officials stonewalled requests for access to Parchin, seen as central to its investigation.
"We have some indication that activities are ongoing at the Parchin site. It makes us believe that going there sooner is better than later," Amano told reporters, giving no details.
An IAEA report last year presented a trove of intelligence pointing to research activities in Iran relevant for developing the means and technologies needed to assemble nuclear weapons, should it decide to do so.
One key finding was information that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin, southeast of Tehran, in which to conduct high-explosives tests that the IAEA says are "strong indicators" of possible weapons development.
"The agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program,"
...Since the IAEA's previous report in November, Amano said Iran had tripled monthly production of uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20 percent - well above the level usually needed to fuel nuclear power plants.
It was the first time Amano spoke in public about this rapid increase in Iran's enrichment activities which has stoked Western and Israeli suspicions about Tehran's nuclear agenda.
...20 percent enrichment, experts say, also represents most of the technical effort needed to attain the 90 percent threshold required for nuclear explosions.
Much of this work is carried out deep inside a mountain at Iran's underground Fordow facility to better shield it against military strikes, and further expansion there is planned...Amano told Monday's closed-door board meeting, according to a copy of his speech.
Monday, March 05, 2012
On Iran: "We need actions, not words"
From YouTube, 4 March 2012:
Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff reacts to Obama's speech on Fox News:
"Obama is speaking strongly, but carrying a small stick".
"We need actions, not words".
SHARE to protect Israel! (Use the buttons below)
Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff reacts to Obama's speech on Fox News:
"Obama is speaking strongly, but carrying a small stick".
"We need actions, not words".
SHARE to protect Israel! (Use the buttons below)
Sunday, March 04, 2012
The Psychology of Jews Who Embrace Their Enemies
From Israel, Jews and Judaism, Sunday, March 4, 2012:
Psychiatrist-author Kenneth Levin:
In The Oslo Syndrome, Levin explains the attitude of Israeli self-haters:
Psychiatrist-author Kenneth Levin:
"Those of the Jewish community who live and work in environments hostile to Israel, commonly embrace the anti-Israel bias around them. And they often insist they are being virtuous by doing so."Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist, historian and author of several books, among which is The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege. He is a clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
...“This phenomenon reveals great similarity, at the level of human psychology, to the response of children subjected to chronic abuse. Such children tend to blame themselves for their suffering. In their helpless condition, they have two alternatives. They can either acknowledge they are being unfairly victimized and reconcile themselves to being powerless, or they can blame themselves for their predicament. The attraction of the latter - ‘I suffer because I am bad’ - is that it serves the desire of being in control, fantasies that by becoming ‘good’ will elicit a more benign response from their tormentors. Both children and adults invariably seek to avoid hopelessness.”
In The Oslo Syndrome, Levin explains the attitude of Israeli self-haters:
[There is] “a wish to believe Israel is in control of profoundly stressful circumstances over which, unfortunately, it has no real control. Genuine peace will come to the Middle East when the Arab world, by far the dominant party in the region, perceives such a peace as in its interest. Israeli policies have in fact, very little impact on Arab perceptions in this regard, much less than the dynamics of domestic politics in the Arab states and of inter-Arab rivalries.”
“Popular hatred for Israel, which is fanned by Arab governments, education systems, media and Muslim clerics, runs deep in Arab opinion. This is not a totally isolated phenomenon, but fits into a much broader framework. Since the earliest days of the existence of the Arab-Muslim world, there has been widespread animosity against both religious and ethnic minorities in the region. It would be a mistake to attribute, for instance, the pressure on Christian minorities exclusively to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Popular Muslim-Arab hostility has also led to pressures on non-Arab Muslims such as the Berber populations in North Africa.
“While those Jews and Israelis who embrace anti-Jewish arguments typically do so in the hope of ingratiating themselves with the Jews’ enemies, they will rarely acknowledge this motive. Rather, they typically claim that their position reflects a higher moral or ethical position.
“In the past and present, a common claim by anti-Semites has been that Jews are interested exclusively in their own well-being. This has led many Jews to focus their energies on broader social causes, even as the Jewish community suffered unique disabilities. Jews who take this course typically do not admit they are doing so to avoid being accused of Jewish parochialism. Rather, they claim to be righteously transcending narrow concerns to address more universal needs.
“During World War II, particularly after the Nazi extermination program was revealed in late 1942, many American Jewish leaders sought to raise public awareness of the plight of Europe’s Jews and promote rescue efforts. Yet they also limited their campaign out of fear of arousing public anger over Jewish concern with a Jewish issue, and they often rationalized their doing so as reflecting devotion to the greater patriotic task of winning the war. It was largely non-Jewish voices which insisted the Nazi extermination program was not only a crime against the Jews but a crime against civilization and all of humanity and therefore should be of concern to everyone.”
“In the last sixty years, the American Jewish community at large has energetically embraced support for Israel. This has been made much easier by the fact that the wider American public has traditionally been sympathetic toward the Jewish state.Levin observes:Levin adds now:
“On the other hand, Israel has come under much criticism in certain American media, on many American campuses and in several mainstream liberal churches. Those segments of the Jewish community who live and work in environments hostile to Israel, commonly embrace the anti-Israel bias around them. And they often insist they are being virtuous by doing so.
“The psychological dynamics of communities under attack explain why, both abroad and in Israel, the virtual siege placed upon the Jewish state will continue to lead segments of Jewish communities to support the besiegers and to urge Jewish self-reform as the path to winning relief. Yet the path they advocate is no less delusional than that of abused children who blame themselves for the abuse they experience. All too often such children doom themselves psychologically to lives of self-abnegation and misery. In the case of Jews indicting Israel for the hatred directed against it, the misery they cultivate goes far beyond themselves and ultimately, undermines Israel’s very survival.”
Obama: Commander-in-Chief gone AWOL
From PJ Media, 2 March 2012, by Anne Bayefsky*:
On the eve of a meeting between President Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ...[a] most revealing interview ...is proof-positive of [Obama's] dangerous animus towards the Jewish state and its elected leaders.
...During the interview the president claimed to “have Israel’s back” at the United Nations, among other places. The administration’s actions at the UN allegedly corroborate that his “relationship [with Israel] is very functional ...The president specified:
Actually, the truth is that President Obama has done more to legitimize the delegitimizers of Israel than any other president in the history of the Jewish state.
For instance, one of his opening foreign policy moves was to join — for the first time — the UN Human Rights Council, allowing the full weight of American membership to boost the credibility of this viciously anti-Israel body.
When the president decided to join the Council he knew full well that the body organized every regular session around a permanent agenda of ten items, one directed only to Israel-bashing and another to the remaining (unspecified) 192 UN member states. But the administration claimed that it joined the Council to reform it from the inside during a five-year deadline imposed by the General Assembly. The reform scheme went down in flames last June, and the agenda remained unchanged.
What was the president’s response to the ritualized Jew-bating that carries on unabated in a global forum in the name of human rights? He is now actively seeking a second term on the Council for the United States.
Not once did President Obama make the equal treatment of the Jewish state a condition for remaining on this “human rights” body — notwithstanding that the whole foundation of the UN Charter is the “equal rights of nations large and small.”
At the General Assembly, the president’s speech of 2010 specifically planted in the minds of every listener and fueled a September 2011 date for a “state of Palestine” becoming “a new member of the United Nations.” Moreover, President Obama devoted more than a third of his entire General Assembly statement focusing on what Israel should and should not do, knowing full well that the deadly Arab narrative is that the failure to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict on their terms is the root cause of Islamic fanaticism and violence. In other words, it was the president himself who used his speech in the UN forum as a pressure tactic against the state of Israel.
On the flotilla of Turkish-backed extremists who attempted to violate Israel’s lawful blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama administration extraordinarily permitted the Security Council to adopt a presidential statement within 24 hours of the event. The statement cast the flotilla participants as humanitarians, was silent on Israel’s legitimate concerns about arms-smuggling, and made no mention of Hamas at all. Without taking any time to ensure the facts were at hand, the Council unanimously agreed to a UN investigation of the Israel Defense Forces which the United States would never have legitimized for American armed forces in similar — or in fact any — circumstances.
And as for Iran, President Obama’s use of the United Nations has moved the country in only one direction — inexorably closer to obtaining nuclear weapons. President Obama was the first U.S. president to preside over a meeting of the UN Security Council in September 2009, and he personally took the opportunity of controlling the Council agenda to tie nuclear non-proliferation together with nuclear disarmament. His move had the predictable effect of setting back non-proliferation efforts by giving Iran one more excuse to delay, while disarming America moved to center stage. The sanctions regime belatedly adopted by the Council has been an incontrovertible failure.
At rock bottom, the president’s interview makes one claim more poisonous to Israel’s welfare than all others. He argues that if Israel uses military force against Iranian nuclear sites, then the timeline for any negative consequences will start with Israel — not Iran.
Obama urges Netanyahu to think about “the profound costs of any military action,” places the focus on “potential unintended consequences” of Israel’s actions, and describes the move as libel to be a “distraction in which Iran suddenly can portray itself as the victim.”
This is not the statement of an ally at a turning point in world history, with the most dangerous country on Earth on the verge of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon. Israel’s actions would be taken in self-defense. They would not be the starting point. Israel and the civilized world, in the crosshairs of this leading state sponsor of terrorism and its genocidal ambitions, are the real victims and any claim to the contrary would be a lie — not a distraction. To suggest that Israel will be responsible for the economic costs of seriously slowing or ending Iran’s race towards nuclear weapons places the shoe exactly on the wrong foot, and diminishes the much higher cost of Iranian victory.
The president’s miscalculation on Iran is of epic proportion. He even describes the Iranian leadership to Goldberg this way: “they’re sensitive to the opinions of the people.” The freedom-loving people of Iran who are rotting in Iranian torture chambers are undoubtedly as mortified by this claim as are the people of Israel and its supporters across America.
The very unfortunate reality is that Israel may be forced to save America and the civilized world because this commander-in-Chief is AWOL. Israel has America’s back, not the other way around.
In his interview, President Obama worried that Republicans are trying to “drive a wedge … between Barack Obama and a Jewish American vote.” They don’t have to, Mr. President. You can take credit for the mile-wide gulf all yourself.
*Anne Bayefsky is director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at Touro College. She is the author or editor of 12 books and numerous articles in the field of human rights, and a frequent contributor to newspapers in the U.S., Europe, Israel and Canada.
On the eve of a meeting between President Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ...[a] most revealing interview ...is proof-positive of [Obama's] dangerous animus towards the Jewish state and its elected leaders.
Actually, the truth is that President Obama has done more to legitimize the delegitimizers of Israel than any other president in the history of the Jewish state.
When you look at what I’ve done with respect to … fighting back against delegitimization of Israel, whether at the [UN] Human Rights Council, or in front of the General Assembly, or during the Goldstone Report, or after the flare-up involving the flotilla — the truth of the matter is that the relationship has functioned very well.
For instance, one of his opening foreign policy moves was to join — for the first time — the UN Human Rights Council, allowing the full weight of American membership to boost the credibility of this viciously anti-Israel body.
When the president decided to join the Council he knew full well that the body organized every regular session around a permanent agenda of ten items, one directed only to Israel-bashing and another to the remaining (unspecified) 192 UN member states. But the administration claimed that it joined the Council to reform it from the inside during a five-year deadline imposed by the General Assembly. The reform scheme went down in flames last June, and the agenda remained unchanged.
What was the president’s response to the ritualized Jew-bating that carries on unabated in a global forum in the name of human rights? He is now actively seeking a second term on the Council for the United States.
Not once did President Obama make the equal treatment of the Jewish state a condition for remaining on this “human rights” body — notwithstanding that the whole foundation of the UN Charter is the “equal rights of nations large and small.”
At the General Assembly, the president’s speech of 2010 specifically planted in the minds of every listener and fueled a September 2011 date for a “state of Palestine” becoming “a new member of the United Nations.” Moreover, President Obama devoted more than a third of his entire General Assembly statement focusing on what Israel should and should not do, knowing full well that the deadly Arab narrative is that the failure to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict on their terms is the root cause of Islamic fanaticism and violence. In other words, it was the president himself who used his speech in the UN forum as a pressure tactic against the state of Israel.
On the flotilla of Turkish-backed extremists who attempted to violate Israel’s lawful blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama administration extraordinarily permitted the Security Council to adopt a presidential statement within 24 hours of the event. The statement cast the flotilla participants as humanitarians, was silent on Israel’s legitimate concerns about arms-smuggling, and made no mention of Hamas at all. Without taking any time to ensure the facts were at hand, the Council unanimously agreed to a UN investigation of the Israel Defense Forces which the United States would never have legitimized for American armed forces in similar — or in fact any — circumstances.
And as for Iran, President Obama’s use of the United Nations has moved the country in only one direction — inexorably closer to obtaining nuclear weapons. President Obama was the first U.S. president to preside over a meeting of the UN Security Council in September 2009, and he personally took the opportunity of controlling the Council agenda to tie nuclear non-proliferation together with nuclear disarmament. His move had the predictable effect of setting back non-proliferation efforts by giving Iran one more excuse to delay, while disarming America moved to center stage. The sanctions regime belatedly adopted by the Council has been an incontrovertible failure.
At rock bottom, the president’s interview makes one claim more poisonous to Israel’s welfare than all others. He argues that if Israel uses military force against Iranian nuclear sites, then the timeline for any negative consequences will start with Israel — not Iran.
Obama urges Netanyahu to think about “the profound costs of any military action,” places the focus on “potential unintended consequences” of Israel’s actions, and describes the move as libel to be a “distraction in which Iran suddenly can portray itself as the victim.”
This is not the statement of an ally at a turning point in world history, with the most dangerous country on Earth on the verge of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon. Israel’s actions would be taken in self-defense. They would not be the starting point. Israel and the civilized world, in the crosshairs of this leading state sponsor of terrorism and its genocidal ambitions, are the real victims and any claim to the contrary would be a lie — not a distraction. To suggest that Israel will be responsible for the economic costs of seriously slowing or ending Iran’s race towards nuclear weapons places the shoe exactly on the wrong foot, and diminishes the much higher cost of Iranian victory.
The president’s miscalculation on Iran is of epic proportion. He even describes the Iranian leadership to Goldberg this way: “they’re sensitive to the opinions of the people.” The freedom-loving people of Iran who are rotting in Iranian torture chambers are undoubtedly as mortified by this claim as are the people of Israel and its supporters across America.
The very unfortunate reality is that Israel may be forced to save America and the civilized world because this commander-in-Chief is AWOL. Israel has America’s back, not the other way around.
In his interview, President Obama worried that Republicans are trying to “drive a wedge … between Barack Obama and a Jewish American vote.” They don’t have to, Mr. President. You can take credit for the mile-wide gulf all yourself.
*Anne Bayefsky is director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at Touro College. She is the author or editor of 12 books and numerous articles in the field of human rights, and a frequent contributor to newspapers in the U.S., Europe, Israel and Canada.
"Daylight" between Obama and Israel
From the Emergency Committee for Israel, Mar 3, 2012:
Barack Obama ran for president as a pro-Israel candidate -- but his record tells a different story.
Barack Obama ran for president as a pro-Israel candidate -- but his record tells a different story.
Monday, February 27, 2012
U.S. Bulks Up Iran Defenses
From WSJ, 25 Feb 2012:
The Pentagon is beefing up U.S. sea- and land-based defenses in the Persian Gulf to counter any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The U.S. military has notified Congress of plans to preposition new mine-detection and clearing equipment and expand surveillance capabilities in and around the strait, according to defense officials briefed on the requests, including one submitted earlier this month.
The military also wants to quickly modify weapons systems on ships so they could be used against Iranian fast-attack boats, as well as shore-launched cruise missiles, the defense officials said.
The readiness push is spearheaded by the military's Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the Gulf region, these officials said. It shows the extent to which war planners are taking tangible steps to prepare for a possible conflict with Iran, even as top White House and defense leaders try to tamp down talk of war and emphasize other options.
The changes put a spotlight on what officials have singled out as potential U.S. shortcomings in the event of conflict with Iran. The head of Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, asked for the equipment upgrades after reviews by war planners last spring and fall exposed "gaps" in U.S. defense capabilities and military preparedness should Tehran close the Strait of Hormuz, officials said.
The Central Command reviews, in particular, have fueled concerns about the U.S. military's ability to respond swiftly should Iran mine the strait, through which nearly 20% of the world's traded oil passes.
"When the enemy shows more signs of capability, we ask what we can do to checkmate it," a U.S. military officer said. "They ought to know we take steps to make sure we are ready."
Tensions with Iran have soared as the U.S. and its allies have tightened sanctions against the country over its nuclear program. Tehran has responded by threatening to close the strait. Israel has accused Iran of being behind a recent series of botched bombing plots targeting Israeli diplomats, a charge Iran denies. Iranian officials, in turn, accuse Israel and the U.S. of conducting a secret campaign to assassinate scientists working on Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. has denied the accusation, while Israel has declined to comment
New suspicions over Iran's nuclear ambitions emerged Friday. In a report, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, said Iran has increased its stockpile of uranium that is enriched beyond the purity level needed for civilian power reactors, and begun producing it under a mountain of rock and soil that some U.S. and Israeli officials say could be immune from attack.
Iran denies it is trying to build atomic weapons. It refused this week to allow U.N. inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, adding doubts to prospects for negotiations.
The U.S. is concerned that Israel—which believes that Tehran will soon be able to assemble a weapon, and that time is running short to stop the bid—may choose to strike Iran by this autumn to stymie such a program. That, defense officials worry, could provoke retaliation that could prompt U.S. military action to defend its troops and key allies, and to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
The U.S. moves outline the potential shape of a conflict between Iran and the West: Iran could rapidly mine the strait and use heavily armed speedboats to attack or ram Western ships trying to clear the waterway. A successful Iranian attack on a U.S. warship could drag America into a larger conflict.
Central Command officials have told lawmakers they want the new mine-detection systems fielded before this fall, according to defense officials, underlining the urgency of preparedness.
In addition, U.S. special-operations teams stationed in the United Arab Emirates would take part in any military action in the strait should Iran attempt to close it, defense officials said. A military official said these forces have been working to train elite local forces in Gulf nations including the U.A.E., Bahrain and Kuwait, but added: "They would be used in the event of active operations."
According to defense officials, the Pentagon submitted a request to Congress on Feb. 7 on behalf of Central Command seeking to reallocate $100 million in defense funding to "bridge near-term capability gaps" in the Persian Gulf.
The request has yet to be made public because it is still being studied by lawmakers, defense officials said. The money will be used to upgrade patrol craft and unmanned drones, as well as to add small arms on surface ships, the officials said.
Congress was told the money was urgently needed, according to an official briefed on the plan. "You can buy it and deploy it rapidly," the official said.
The new money comes on top of changes made last summer that provided Central Command with about $200 million for additional upgrades, some of which could be used in areas outside the Persian Gulf, defense officials said. The earlier request, which included money for a torpedo defense system, airborne antimine weapons and new cyber-weapons, was made by defense officials and backed without fanfare by Congress.
That request also included additional deployments of the SeaFox underwater drone, which is launched from a helicopter and uses a warhead to destroy mines. The system was deemed "an urgent operational need" by the U.S. Fifth Fleet, according to Navy officials.
The Pentagon and other U.S. agencies generally submit such reprogramming requests when they can't wait until the next fiscal year. The Pentagon started making some adjustments as early as a year ago, but those didn't require reprogramming.
The Pentagon told Congress that some of the new money would be used to modify existing weapons systems to be used against seaborne threats in the Persian Gulf and, specifically, the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard deploys some of the fastest naval vessels in the Persian Gulf. These craft may be small—only 17 meters, or 56 feet, long in some cases—but they can carry machine guns, torpedoes and the Iranian-made "Kowsar" antiship cruise missile. Some can reach speeds of 60 to 70 knots, according to U.S. military intelligence analysts.
Antitank weapons are being reconfigured for use against swarms of these boats that could threaten U.S. warships, the Pentagon told Congress. Similarly, rapid-fire machine guns designed to shoot down missiles are being tested for use against small boats.
Pentagon war planners believe the addition of smaller-caliber guns would quickly make U.S. destroyers, which were designed mainly to fight other large ships, more effective against the Iranian craft.
"We are using capabilities we already have in a different way," a senior defense official said.
The additional money for equipment upgrades is on top of the nearly $82 million the Pentagon sought in January to improve its largest conventional bunker-buster bomb, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
The bomb, officials said, was designed to take out bunkers like those used by Iran to protect its most sensitive nuclear development work.
Western intelligence agencies had long suspected that the Iranian navy had between 2,000 and 3,000 mines, largely of Soviet or Chinese origin. But new intelligence suggests Iran may have as many as 5,000, including newer types that may be more powerful and harder to detect.
U.S. forces would also need to contend with Iran's coastal air-defense system, shore-based artillery, Kilo-class and midget submarines, remote-controlled boats and unmanned kamikaze aerial vehicles, according to current and former U.S. officials.
The U.S. Navy has 14 minesweepers, three of which are stationed in Bahrain. Mackenzie Eaglen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said U.S. minesweeping capabilities have slipped because the military has deferred critical maintenance, a shortcoming it is "working overtime" to address.
The Pentagon is beefing up U.S. sea- and land-based defenses in the Persian Gulf to counter any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The U.S. military has notified Congress of plans to preposition new mine-detection and clearing equipment and expand surveillance capabilities in and around the strait, according to defense officials briefed on the requests, including one submitted earlier this month.
The military also wants to quickly modify weapons systems on ships so they could be used against Iranian fast-attack boats, as well as shore-launched cruise missiles, the defense officials said.
The readiness push is spearheaded by the military's Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the Gulf region, these officials said. It shows the extent to which war planners are taking tangible steps to prepare for a possible conflict with Iran, even as top White House and defense leaders try to tamp down talk of war and emphasize other options.
The changes put a spotlight on what officials have singled out as potential U.S. shortcomings in the event of conflict with Iran. The head of Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, asked for the equipment upgrades after reviews by war planners last spring and fall exposed "gaps" in U.S. defense capabilities and military preparedness should Tehran close the Strait of Hormuz, officials said.
The Central Command reviews, in particular, have fueled concerns about the U.S. military's ability to respond swiftly should Iran mine the strait, through which nearly 20% of the world's traded oil passes.
"When the enemy shows more signs of capability, we ask what we can do to checkmate it," a U.S. military officer said. "They ought to know we take steps to make sure we are ready."
Tensions with Iran have soared as the U.S. and its allies have tightened sanctions against the country over its nuclear program. Tehran has responded by threatening to close the strait. Israel has accused Iran of being behind a recent series of botched bombing plots targeting Israeli diplomats, a charge Iran denies. Iranian officials, in turn, accuse Israel and the U.S. of conducting a secret campaign to assassinate scientists working on Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. has denied the accusation, while Israel has declined to comment
New suspicions over Iran's nuclear ambitions emerged Friday. In a report, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, said Iran has increased its stockpile of uranium that is enriched beyond the purity level needed for civilian power reactors, and begun producing it under a mountain of rock and soil that some U.S. and Israeli officials say could be immune from attack.
Iran denies it is trying to build atomic weapons. It refused this week to allow U.N. inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, adding doubts to prospects for negotiations.
The U.S. is concerned that Israel—which believes that Tehran will soon be able to assemble a weapon, and that time is running short to stop the bid—may choose to strike Iran by this autumn to stymie such a program. That, defense officials worry, could provoke retaliation that could prompt U.S. military action to defend its troops and key allies, and to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
The U.S. moves outline the potential shape of a conflict between Iran and the West: Iran could rapidly mine the strait and use heavily armed speedboats to attack or ram Western ships trying to clear the waterway. A successful Iranian attack on a U.S. warship could drag America into a larger conflict.
Central Command officials have told lawmakers they want the new mine-detection systems fielded before this fall, according to defense officials, underlining the urgency of preparedness.
In addition, U.S. special-operations teams stationed in the United Arab Emirates would take part in any military action in the strait should Iran attempt to close it, defense officials said. A military official said these forces have been working to train elite local forces in Gulf nations including the U.A.E., Bahrain and Kuwait, but added: "They would be used in the event of active operations."
According to defense officials, the Pentagon submitted a request to Congress on Feb. 7 on behalf of Central Command seeking to reallocate $100 million in defense funding to "bridge near-term capability gaps" in the Persian Gulf.
The request has yet to be made public because it is still being studied by lawmakers, defense officials said. The money will be used to upgrade patrol craft and unmanned drones, as well as to add small arms on surface ships, the officials said.
Congress was told the money was urgently needed, according to an official briefed on the plan. "You can buy it and deploy it rapidly," the official said.
The new money comes on top of changes made last summer that provided Central Command with about $200 million for additional upgrades, some of which could be used in areas outside the Persian Gulf, defense officials said. The earlier request, which included money for a torpedo defense system, airborne antimine weapons and new cyber-weapons, was made by defense officials and backed without fanfare by Congress.
That request also included additional deployments of the SeaFox underwater drone, which is launched from a helicopter and uses a warhead to destroy mines. The system was deemed "an urgent operational need" by the U.S. Fifth Fleet, according to Navy officials.
The Pentagon and other U.S. agencies generally submit such reprogramming requests when they can't wait until the next fiscal year. The Pentagon started making some adjustments as early as a year ago, but those didn't require reprogramming.
The Pentagon told Congress that some of the new money would be used to modify existing weapons systems to be used against seaborne threats in the Persian Gulf and, specifically, the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard deploys some of the fastest naval vessels in the Persian Gulf. These craft may be small—only 17 meters, or 56 feet, long in some cases—but they can carry machine guns, torpedoes and the Iranian-made "Kowsar" antiship cruise missile. Some can reach speeds of 60 to 70 knots, according to U.S. military intelligence analysts.
Antitank weapons are being reconfigured for use against swarms of these boats that could threaten U.S. warships, the Pentagon told Congress. Similarly, rapid-fire machine guns designed to shoot down missiles are being tested for use against small boats.
Pentagon war planners believe the addition of smaller-caliber guns would quickly make U.S. destroyers, which were designed mainly to fight other large ships, more effective against the Iranian craft.
"We are using capabilities we already have in a different way," a senior defense official said.
The additional money for equipment upgrades is on top of the nearly $82 million the Pentagon sought in January to improve its largest conventional bunker-buster bomb, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
The bomb, officials said, was designed to take out bunkers like those used by Iran to protect its most sensitive nuclear development work.
Western intelligence agencies had long suspected that the Iranian navy had between 2,000 and 3,000 mines, largely of Soviet or Chinese origin. But new intelligence suggests Iran may have as many as 5,000, including newer types that may be more powerful and harder to detect.
U.S. forces would also need to contend with Iran's coastal air-defense system, shore-based artillery, Kilo-class and midget submarines, remote-controlled boats and unmanned kamikaze aerial vehicles, according to current and former U.S. officials.
The U.S. Navy has 14 minesweepers, three of which are stationed in Bahrain. Mackenzie Eaglen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said U.S. minesweeping capabilities have slipped because the military has deferred critical maintenance, a shortcoming it is "working overtime" to address.
All the Israeli concessions have proven to be worse than useless
From JPost, 23 Feb 2012, by Martin Sherman:
None so blind
Askhenazi is not the only senior Israeli leader to articulate an appallingly inaccurate assessment of Israel’s adversaries, but in many ways his is a particularly interesting and instructive example. After all, before his appointment as chief of staff, much of his 40-year military career was spent in the IDF’s Northern Command, including as its commander. One must, therefore, presume that a large portion of his time was devoted to evaluating the Syrian threat, and to familiarizing himself with nature of the Syrian military dictatorship.
It is alarming to learn that despite the opportunity he had to gauge the true characteristics of the Syrian leader, his appraisal was so erroneous. The fact that Bashar Assad has a “Western education” – two years of medical specialization in the UK — and “is not a religious man” was somehow taken to indicate that he “can still join a moderate grouping” is at best disturbingly shallow.
As mentioned, Ashkenazi is not alone is espousing this sort of unsubstantiated nonsense.
Ever since Assad Jr. inherited the reins of power from his tyrannical father in 2000, every Israeli government has, in one form or another, explored the possibility of surrendering the Golan to the “Western educated” despot in Damascus — studiously ignoring the abundance of evidence attesting to the ruthless brutality of the regime, readily available to anyone willing to see it.
Typical of the moronic myopia displayed by many in the Israeli leadership was a pronouncement, made barely a year before revolt erupted across Syria, by Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who held the position of minister of defense in the Sharon government.
While serving as minister of trade and industry in the current Netanyahu government, Ben-Eliezer declared: “Syria is the key to regional change for us. If I was prime minister, I would put all my hopes on Syria.”
No kidding! This from the former defense minister who, one would have hoped, would have had a more informed and sober view of reality.
There but for the grace of God
Fortunately for the nation, the Israeli leadership has not been able to act on any misplaced optimism – as it did on other fronts – regarding the possibility of reaching a settlement with the Syrian regime in exchange of the total evacuation of the Golan Heights – the sine qua non for any such agreement.
One can only imagine what consternation would reign today, had such a deal been struck. For even under the highly implausible assumption that adequate security arrangements and demilitarization deep into Syrian territory had been agreed upon with Damascus, the events raging today would have clearly imperiled any such understandings. After all, in the likely event that, sooner or later, the Assad regime is toppled, it is more than plausible that any successor would not see itself bound by such an agreement.
Indeed, it is difficult to keep a straight face while reading some of the suggestions put forward by prominent Israelis regarding the nature of the relations between the countries.
Take, for example, the proposal by the Israel-Syria Peace Society, founded and chaired by the former director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Alon Liel, and whose website claims that its board includes “senior academicians, ex-diplomats, former security officials and prominent Israeli business people.” (Try as I might, I couldn’t access the list by clicking on the “Members” button.) In its “Nirvana-Now” formula for an Israeli-Syrian peace, the “star-studded” organization envisions that “the two countries will sign a peace agreement [and] a Peace Park will be established on the Golan Heights for the use of both sides. Israelis will be able to enter the park, for tourism or work purposes, without visas.”
Wow! Imagine! A Peace Park! How could any tyrannical butcher possibly resist that? Isn’t it comforting to know that those who have been charged with the design of the nation’s diplomacy have such a firm grasp on reality and can come up with such innovative ideas to ensure lasting peace?
An ongoing malaise
In many respects, the savagery in Syria should serve as a much needed wake-up call for the Israeli establishment that will dispel any delusions about setting up “normal” relations with Damascus. Given the merciless manner in which Assad has broken the social contract with his own citizens, one can only imagine how little compunction he would have in violating any other contract he might have concluded with the hated Zionists.
With the true “nature of the beast” so dramatically exposed, it is becoming painfully obvious how preposterous any idea of establishing “normal” relations with the Assad regime was.
However, given the precedents, there is scant hope that this timely warning will be heeded by Israeli decision-makers.
Time and time again they have led the nation down perilous paths, despite clear signs that the chances of success were slim and the cost of failure great. Time and time again they have fallen prey to the illusion that that they could bend the nature of our enemies to fit the chummy make-believe image conjured up by the fertile imaginations of influential intellectuals – if only Israel would acquiesce to our enemies’ demands.
One of the best examples of how detached from reality such assessments have been was provided by celebrated author Amos Oz, the guru of the bon-ton Left.
His pronouncements on matters political are eagerly received by the mainstream media, which always gives them great prominence, and invariably portrays his prescriptions of how Israel should conduct itself in dealing with its Arab foes as the epitome of “sagacious sanity.”
The wise wizard Oz?
Several months before the unilateral retreat from Lebanon in 2000, Haaretz’s Ari Shavit conducted an interview with Oz on the importance of “emotional sensitivity in politics.”
In the interview, bizarrely entitled “Try a little tenderness,” Oz was introduced by Shavit as “a concerned Israeli author who worries that he may be seeing something that others, blinded by office, do not see; that he may be hearing things on a frequency that others, deafened by the noise of government, do not hear. For that reason he cannot remain silent, and seeks to make his voice heard on the eve of fateful decisions.
He asks for the right to speak.”
And what did Oz’s finely tuned ear discern that others could not? The message conveyed on the rare frequencies to which Oz allegedly had exclusive access was reassuringly unequivocal. He informed Haaretz readers with total confidence that “The minute we leave South Lebanon we will have to erase the word Hezbollah from our vocabulary, because the whole idea of the State of Israel versus Hezbollah was sheer folly from the outset. It most certainly no longer will be relevant when Israel returns to its internationally recognized northern border.”
It is difficult to conceive of a prognosis that proved much more fallacious than this, as events – including the Second Lebanon War of 2006 – later proved.
However, this massive error in judgment has done nothing to undermine the status of the man or to diminish the influence of the kind of message he conveys.
The failure of foresight
Ever since the late 1970s – but particularly since the 1990s – Israeli strategic decision-making has been disastrously misguided.
Spectacular tactical and technological successes cannot mask huge strategic failures.
It makes no difference whether one looks at the 1993 “peace process” with the Palestinians, the 2000 retreat from Lebanon, the 2005 “disengagement” from Gaza or even the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt that now appears to be hanging by a thread, with its abrogation – in one form or another – appearing more likely than not.
All of the assumptions on which Israeli policies were founded have proved groundless.
All the concessions and withdrawal have proved useless – worse, detrimental.
There is not a single mainstream institution or major think-tank across the nation that can say in good faith, “We told you so. We foretold the debacle. We warned not to concede, to withdraw, to retreat.”
To varying degrees, they were all complicit, either fully endorsing government policy or voicing only faint-hearted, partial reservations.
But none – not one – voiced full-blooded and persistent opposition. None dared to challenge the basic tenet that by relinquishing land Israel could buy lasting peace. None warned that concessions would not satiate Arab appetites but merely whet them.
Something to worry about
There were, of course, more sober dissenting voices, but they were dismissed and disregarded.
They were excluded from the mainstream discourse, from the universities, from major conferences. They were passed over for appointments and deprived of resources.
No matter how accurate their assessment proved, no matter how unequivocally they were vindicated, their counsel was not sought, their advice not heeded, their warnings sidelined.
It is difficult to overstate the damage that this has wrought. The reasons are clear. By adopting unrealistic assessments of the enemies ranged against the country, policy-makers have precluded any possibility of convincingly conveying to the world Israel’s security concerns and of gaining any understanding for measures needed to address them.
After all, it matter hugely if you are facing “a Western educated” ruler capable of “joining a moderate grouping,” or a homicidal despot who has no qualms about butchering his own citizens.
It matters hugely if once Israel withdraws to some internationally agreed upon line, its enemies will be placated; or whether they will merely use any withdrawal as a platform to continue to relentlessly harass it when the opportunity arises.
Every Israeli must ask: Can our leaders really be so out of touch with reality regarding the nature of our enemies? Or are they merely hobbled by the dictates of political correctness that prohibit them from articulating, and acting on, an accurate assessment of Israel’s Arab adversaries? And in the final analysis, are they more concerned about incurring international disapproval than about adopting measures that endanger the lives and limbs of Israeli citizens? That is something to worry about.Seen against the backdrop of the carnage being perpetrated across Syria by the Assad regime, the magnitude of the misjudgment made by Gabi Ashkenazi, then the IDF’s chief of staff, is enough to make any self-respecting Israeli cringe with embarrassment.
Syria is not lost. Assad is Western educated and is not a religious man. He can still join a moderate grouping - Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, Haaretz, November 13, 2009
I fear that the appalling brutality we are witnessing in Homs, with heavy weapons firing into civilian neighborhoods, is a grim harbinger of things to come – UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, February 9, 2012
None so blind
Askhenazi is not the only senior Israeli leader to articulate an appallingly inaccurate assessment of Israel’s adversaries, but in many ways his is a particularly interesting and instructive example. After all, before his appointment as chief of staff, much of his 40-year military career was spent in the IDF’s Northern Command, including as its commander. One must, therefore, presume that a large portion of his time was devoted to evaluating the Syrian threat, and to familiarizing himself with nature of the Syrian military dictatorship.
It is alarming to learn that despite the opportunity he had to gauge the true characteristics of the Syrian leader, his appraisal was so erroneous. The fact that Bashar Assad has a “Western education” – two years of medical specialization in the UK — and “is not a religious man” was somehow taken to indicate that he “can still join a moderate grouping” is at best disturbingly shallow.
As mentioned, Ashkenazi is not alone is espousing this sort of unsubstantiated nonsense.
Ever since Assad Jr. inherited the reins of power from his tyrannical father in 2000, every Israeli government has, in one form or another, explored the possibility of surrendering the Golan to the “Western educated” despot in Damascus — studiously ignoring the abundance of evidence attesting to the ruthless brutality of the regime, readily available to anyone willing to see it.
Typical of the moronic myopia displayed by many in the Israeli leadership was a pronouncement, made barely a year before revolt erupted across Syria, by Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who held the position of minister of defense in the Sharon government.
While serving as minister of trade and industry in the current Netanyahu government, Ben-Eliezer declared: “Syria is the key to regional change for us. If I was prime minister, I would put all my hopes on Syria.”
No kidding! This from the former defense minister who, one would have hoped, would have had a more informed and sober view of reality.
There but for the grace of God
Fortunately for the nation, the Israeli leadership has not been able to act on any misplaced optimism – as it did on other fronts – regarding the possibility of reaching a settlement with the Syrian regime in exchange of the total evacuation of the Golan Heights – the sine qua non for any such agreement.
One can only imagine what consternation would reign today, had such a deal been struck. For even under the highly implausible assumption that adequate security arrangements and demilitarization deep into Syrian territory had been agreed upon with Damascus, the events raging today would have clearly imperiled any such understandings. After all, in the likely event that, sooner or later, the Assad regime is toppled, it is more than plausible that any successor would not see itself bound by such an agreement.
Indeed, it is difficult to keep a straight face while reading some of the suggestions put forward by prominent Israelis regarding the nature of the relations between the countries.
Take, for example, the proposal by the Israel-Syria Peace Society, founded and chaired by the former director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Alon Liel, and whose website claims that its board includes “senior academicians, ex-diplomats, former security officials and prominent Israeli business people.” (Try as I might, I couldn’t access the list by clicking on the “Members” button.) In its “Nirvana-Now” formula for an Israeli-Syrian peace, the “star-studded” organization envisions that “the two countries will sign a peace agreement [and] a Peace Park will be established on the Golan Heights for the use of both sides. Israelis will be able to enter the park, for tourism or work purposes, without visas.”
Wow! Imagine! A Peace Park! How could any tyrannical butcher possibly resist that? Isn’t it comforting to know that those who have been charged with the design of the nation’s diplomacy have such a firm grasp on reality and can come up with such innovative ideas to ensure lasting peace?
An ongoing malaise
In many respects, the savagery in Syria should serve as a much needed wake-up call for the Israeli establishment that will dispel any delusions about setting up “normal” relations with Damascus. Given the merciless manner in which Assad has broken the social contract with his own citizens, one can only imagine how little compunction he would have in violating any other contract he might have concluded with the hated Zionists.
With the true “nature of the beast” so dramatically exposed, it is becoming painfully obvious how preposterous any idea of establishing “normal” relations with the Assad regime was.
However, given the precedents, there is scant hope that this timely warning will be heeded by Israeli decision-makers.
Time and time again they have led the nation down perilous paths, despite clear signs that the chances of success were slim and the cost of failure great. Time and time again they have fallen prey to the illusion that that they could bend the nature of our enemies to fit the chummy make-believe image conjured up by the fertile imaginations of influential intellectuals – if only Israel would acquiesce to our enemies’ demands.
One of the best examples of how detached from reality such assessments have been was provided by celebrated author Amos Oz, the guru of the bon-ton Left.
His pronouncements on matters political are eagerly received by the mainstream media, which always gives them great prominence, and invariably portrays his prescriptions of how Israel should conduct itself in dealing with its Arab foes as the epitome of “sagacious sanity.”
The wise wizard Oz?
Several months before the unilateral retreat from Lebanon in 2000, Haaretz’s Ari Shavit conducted an interview with Oz on the importance of “emotional sensitivity in politics.”
In the interview, bizarrely entitled “Try a little tenderness,” Oz was introduced by Shavit as “a concerned Israeli author who worries that he may be seeing something that others, blinded by office, do not see; that he may be hearing things on a frequency that others, deafened by the noise of government, do not hear. For that reason he cannot remain silent, and seeks to make his voice heard on the eve of fateful decisions.
He asks for the right to speak.”
And what did Oz’s finely tuned ear discern that others could not? The message conveyed on the rare frequencies to which Oz allegedly had exclusive access was reassuringly unequivocal. He informed Haaretz readers with total confidence that “The minute we leave South Lebanon we will have to erase the word Hezbollah from our vocabulary, because the whole idea of the State of Israel versus Hezbollah was sheer folly from the outset. It most certainly no longer will be relevant when Israel returns to its internationally recognized northern border.”
It is difficult to conceive of a prognosis that proved much more fallacious than this, as events – including the Second Lebanon War of 2006 – later proved.
However, this massive error in judgment has done nothing to undermine the status of the man or to diminish the influence of the kind of message he conveys.
The failure of foresight
Ever since the late 1970s – but particularly since the 1990s – Israeli strategic decision-making has been disastrously misguided.
Spectacular tactical and technological successes cannot mask huge strategic failures.
It makes no difference whether one looks at the 1993 “peace process” with the Palestinians, the 2000 retreat from Lebanon, the 2005 “disengagement” from Gaza or even the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt that now appears to be hanging by a thread, with its abrogation – in one form or another – appearing more likely than not.
All of the assumptions on which Israeli policies were founded have proved groundless.
All the concessions and withdrawal have proved useless – worse, detrimental.
- Hezbollah effectively controls Lebanon.
- Hamas rules Gaza and now, united with Fatah in the “West Bank,” is well poised to take power there as well.
- Sinai is descending into a pit of anarchy and unspeakable cruelty and has become a cauldron of crime and terrorism that cannot but spill over into southern Israel.
- The noble dreams of regional peace and prosperity, of mutual understanding and good neighborliness lie in ruins.
There is not a single mainstream institution or major think-tank across the nation that can say in good faith, “We told you so. We foretold the debacle. We warned not to concede, to withdraw, to retreat.”
To varying degrees, they were all complicit, either fully endorsing government policy or voicing only faint-hearted, partial reservations.
But none – not one – voiced full-blooded and persistent opposition. None dared to challenge the basic tenet that by relinquishing land Israel could buy lasting peace. None warned that concessions would not satiate Arab appetites but merely whet them.
Something to worry about
There were, of course, more sober dissenting voices, but they were dismissed and disregarded.
They were excluded from the mainstream discourse, from the universities, from major conferences. They were passed over for appointments and deprived of resources.
No matter how accurate their assessment proved, no matter how unequivocally they were vindicated, their counsel was not sought, their advice not heeded, their warnings sidelined.
It is difficult to overstate the damage that this has wrought. The reasons are clear. By adopting unrealistic assessments of the enemies ranged against the country, policy-makers have precluded any possibility of convincingly conveying to the world Israel’s security concerns and of gaining any understanding for measures needed to address them.
After all, it matter hugely if you are facing “a Western educated” ruler capable of “joining a moderate grouping,” or a homicidal despot who has no qualms about butchering his own citizens.
It matters hugely if once Israel withdraws to some internationally agreed upon line, its enemies will be placated; or whether they will merely use any withdrawal as a platform to continue to relentlessly harass it when the opportunity arises.
Every Israeli must ask: Can our leaders really be so out of touch with reality regarding the nature of our enemies? Or are they merely hobbled by the dictates of political correctness that prohibit them from articulating, and acting on, an accurate assessment of Israel’s Arab adversaries? And in the final analysis, are they more concerned about incurring international disapproval than about adopting measures that endanger the lives and limbs of Israeli citizens? That is something to worry about.Seen against the backdrop of the carnage being perpetrated across Syria by the Assad regime, the magnitude of the misjudgment made by Gabi Ashkenazi, then the IDF’s chief of staff, is enough to make any self-respecting Israeli cringe with embarrassment.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
"Eventually, All Humans Will Be Palestine Refugees"
From The Washington Times, February 21, 2012, by Daniel Pipes:
Of all the issues that drive the Arab-Israeli conflict, none is more central, malign, primal, enduring, emotional, and complex than the status of those persons known as Palestine refugees.
The origins of this unique case, notes Nitza Nachmias of Tel Aviv University, goes back to Count Folke Bernadotte, the United Nations Security Council's mediator. Referring to those Arabs who fled the British mandate of Palestine, he argued in 1948 that the UN had a "responsibility for their relief" because it was a UN decision, the establishment of Israel, that had made them refugees. However inaccurate his view, it still remains alive and potent and helps explain why the UN devotes unique attention to Palestine refugees pending their own state.
True to Bernadotte's legacy, the UN set up a range of special institutions exclusively for Palestine refugees. Of these, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, founded in 1949, stands out as the most important. It is both the only refugee organization to deal with a specific people (the United Nations High Commission for Refugees takes care of all non-Palestinian refugees) and the largest UN organization (in terms of staff).
UNRWA seemingly defines its wards with great specificity: "Palestine refugees are people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." The ranks of these refugees (who initially included some Jews) have, of course, much diminished over the past 64 years. Accepting UNRWA's (exaggerated) number of 750,000 original Palestine refugees, only a fraction of that number, about 150,000 persons, remain alive.
UNRWA's staff has taken three major steps over the years to expand the definition of Palestine refugees. First, and contrary to universal practice, it continued the refugee status of those who became citizens of an Arab state (Jordan in particular). Second, it made a little-noticed decision in 1965 that extended the definition of "Palestine refugee" to the descendants of those refugees who are male, a shift that permits Palestine refugees uniquely to pass their refugee status on to subsequent generations. The U.S. government, the agency's largest donor, only mildly protested this momentous change. The UN General Assembly endorsed it in 1982, so that now the definition of a Palestine refugee officially includes "descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children." Third, UNRWA in 1967 added refugees from the Six-Day War to its rolls; today they constitute about a fifth of the Palestine refugee total.
These changes had dramatic results. In contrast to all other refugee populations, which diminish in number as people settle down or die, the Palestine refugee population has grown over time. UNRWA acknowledges this bizarre phenomenon: "When the Agency started working in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services." Further, according to James G. Lindsay, a former UNRWA general counsel, under UNRWA's definition, that 5 million figure represents only half of those potentially eligible for Palestine refugee status.
In other words, rather than diminish 5-fold over six decades, UNRWA has the population of refugees increase almost 7-fold. That number could grow faster yet due to the growing sentiment that female refugees should also pass on their refugee status. Even when, in about 40 years, the last actual refugee from mandatory Palestine dies, pseudo-refugees will continue to proliferate. Thus is the "Palestine refugee" status set to swell indefinitely. Put differently, as Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum notes, "given UNRWA's standards, eventually all humans will be Palestine refugees."
All other refugees from the World War II era (including my own parents) have been long settled; the Palestine refugee status has already endured too long and needs to be narrowed down to actual refugees before it does further damage.
Of all the issues that drive the Arab-Israeli conflict, none is more central, malign, primal, enduring, emotional, and complex than the status of those persons known as Palestine refugees.
The origins of this unique case, notes Nitza Nachmias of Tel Aviv University, goes back to Count Folke Bernadotte, the United Nations Security Council's mediator. Referring to those Arabs who fled the British mandate of Palestine, he argued in 1948 that the UN had a "responsibility for their relief" because it was a UN decision, the establishment of Israel, that had made them refugees. However inaccurate his view, it still remains alive and potent and helps explain why the UN devotes unique attention to Palestine refugees pending their own state.
Folke Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg (1895-1948), whose legacy still guides United Nations policy vis-Ã -vis Palestinians.
True to Bernadotte's legacy, the UN set up a range of special institutions exclusively for Palestine refugees. Of these, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, founded in 1949, stands out as the most important. It is both the only refugee organization to deal with a specific people (the United Nations High Commission for Refugees takes care of all non-Palestinian refugees) and the largest UN organization (in terms of staff).
UNRWA seemingly defines its wards with great specificity: "Palestine refugees are people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." The ranks of these refugees (who initially included some Jews) have, of course, much diminished over the past 64 years. Accepting UNRWA's (exaggerated) number of 750,000 original Palestine refugees, only a fraction of that number, about 150,000 persons, remain alive.
UNRWA's staff has taken three major steps over the years to expand the definition of Palestine refugees. First, and contrary to universal practice, it continued the refugee status of those who became citizens of an Arab state (Jordan in particular). Second, it made a little-noticed decision in 1965 that extended the definition of "Palestine refugee" to the descendants of those refugees who are male, a shift that permits Palestine refugees uniquely to pass their refugee status on to subsequent generations. The U.S. government, the agency's largest donor, only mildly protested this momentous change. The UN General Assembly endorsed it in 1982, so that now the definition of a Palestine refugee officially includes "descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children." Third, UNRWA in 1967 added refugees from the Six-Day War to its rolls; today they constitute about a fifth of the Palestine refugee total.
These changes had dramatic results. In contrast to all other refugee populations, which diminish in number as people settle down or die, the Palestine refugee population has grown over time. UNRWA acknowledges this bizarre phenomenon: "When the Agency started working in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services." Further, according to James G. Lindsay, a former UNRWA general counsel, under UNRWA's definition, that 5 million figure represents only half of those potentially eligible for Palestine refugee status.
In other words, rather than diminish 5-fold over six decades, UNRWA has the population of refugees increase almost 7-fold. That number could grow faster yet due to the growing sentiment that female refugees should also pass on their refugee status. Even when, in about 40 years, the last actual refugee from mandatory Palestine dies, pseudo-refugees will continue to proliferate. Thus is the "Palestine refugee" status set to swell indefinitely. Put differently, as Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum notes, "given UNRWA's standards, eventually all humans will be Palestine refugees."
Were the Palestine refugee status a healthy one, this infinite expansion would hardly matter. But the status has destructive implications for two parties: Israel, which suffers from the depredations of a category of persons whose lives are truncated and distorted by an impossible dream of return to their great-grandparents' houses; and the "refugees" themselves, whose status implies a culture of dependency, grievance, rage, and futility.
A giant key (said to be the world's largest) sits atop the entrance to the Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem, reminding residents to insist on their "right of return."
*Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. This article is based on a recent MEF seminar in Jerusalem on UNRWA.© 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
The watchdogs
photo by Mohamad Torokman / Reuters
If Israel is bashed, if anti-Zionism rages, if anti-Semitism is allowed to run rampant without response, we have only ourselves to blame.
The audience that had gathered for a special showing of the new documentary by Gloria Greenfield, Unmasked: Judeophobia, at Jerusalem’s Cinematheque on Thursday, February 16, was quite upset. The scenes that had been shown from campuses, media reports, pockets of progressive politics and centers of Islamic extremism as well as the delegitimization campaigns and the testimonies from many experts had a very depressing effect.
After the lights came back on, the panel discussion participants found themselves, with ever increasing intensity, responding to questions and complaints. These were not so much related to the real threat from anti-Semitism as documented by the film, but rather about the fact that Israel’s governments have done very little in counteracting it.The panel included Yisrael Ne’eman, of the University of Haifa’s International School, Manfred Gerstenfeld, of Jerusalem’s Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, Robert Wistrich, director of the Hebrew University- based Vidal Sassoon International Center for Study of Antisemitism, Andrea Levin, head of CAMERA, Daniel Diker, Secretary-General of the WorldJewish Congress and Ma’ariv columnist Ben-Dror Yemini. All, in one form or another, had to agree that Israel’s governmentshad, for all they attempted to accomplish, a sorry record in the face of the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns, and to a great extent underestimated their influence on the resurgent anti-Semitism.
The audience’s secondary target was the role of the media, and especially Israel’s own media, in facilitating and pushing the BDS and delegitimization efforts. Our media was even perceived as lending support, intentionally or through lack of professionalism, to enemies of the Jewish people and Israel. Too many media outlets, here and abroad, have become forums for the discourse of narratives rather than for the reporting of facts.
One of the many sponsors of the film as well as a host of the screening was CAMERA, a media monitor with a 30-year record. Present also were representatives from Honest Reporting, Comment-is-Free at The Guardian Watch as well as Israel’s Media Watch. The past 25 years have seen an unprecedented growth of Jewish media review organizations seeking to counteract bias, demand accountability and assure that the mainstream media will not unjustifiably defame Israel and the Jewish people.
Although the Israeli governments and their bureaucracies have been on the sidelines, many individuals have decided to “do something.”
On the other side of the globe, Australian Jewry has created AIJAC, the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, “to highlight and counteract instances of anti-Israel bias and misinformation in the Australian media and the wider public debate.” AIJAC’s executive director Dr. Colin Rubinstein is one of the leaders in this struggle to keep the record straight.
Anti-Israel bias in the European media has been researched recently by Elad Segev and Regula Miesch from Tel Aviv University. In their paper, published in the International Journal of Communications, they find that “news reports are largely critical and negative toward Israel, with British news being the most critical, Italian news the most sensational, and German, French and Swiss news relatively more neutral. Opinions featured in the news are not in line with public opinion as presented in annual surveys of each country.”
The anti-Israel biases of the BBC are today well documented. The pioneer of BBC review is Trevor Asserson and his BBC Watch reports, which first appeared in the year 2000. His work led in part to the BBC’s commissioning the “Balen report” to investigate accusations of bias in its Middle East reporting. The BBC to this day has refused to make the 2004 report public, and the UK Supreme Court, adjudicating a complaint by the late Steven Sugar, has now unfortunately concurred.
Honest Reporting is another well-known media review organization. It monitors the news for bias, inaccuracy, or other breaches of journalistic standards in coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The organization mobilizes the public to take issue with false reporting, as for example in the June 2011 report by the BBC alleging that a rabbinical court in Jerusalem sentenced a dog to be stoned to death. Public protest led to a BBC retraction of the false story and an apology, in which it stated specifically “We failed to make the right checks.”
German Media Watch and Honestly Concerned are two organizations formed at the turn of the 21st century to combat anti-Israel media bias in German- speaking countries. GMW describes itself as replacing the question “Why didn’t you do anything?” in response to Nazism with the question “What can we do today?”
Eye on the Post is a media review organization which has taken upon itself the job of assuring accuracy and fairness in The Washington Post’s coverage of Middle East events. An original method of combat is the “Bad News Movement.”
Bad News blogs exist in 10 countries. For example, Bad News from the Netherlands, which was prompted by Manfred Gerstenfeld, describes itself as setting out “to demonstrate that media coverage can degrade a country’s image by using selective news without context... It is a reaction to the frequent misrepresentations of Israel in many ways in major media..., including those of the Netherlands.” And, of course, there was the late David Bar-Illan and his hard-hitting Jerusalem Post“Eye of the Media” column, focusing on the foreign journalists working from Israel.
Dr. Yehuda David is a prime example of a concerned citizen who could not accept the worldwide Israel bashing induced by the false Muhammed al- Dura story as had others like Phillip Karsenty and Nahum Shahaf. Dr. David exposed the lies that the father Jammal’s scars were IDF-caused, winning his French court case last week. David devoted time, finances and probably health to defend Israel. On Sunday, he will be given a special citation by Israel’s Media Watch for his effort.
Should the government be doing more to defend Israel’s name? Certainly. But a government cannot do it all. Its responses will always be considered propaganda. Private, non-political organizations such as the few of many mentioned in this article are at least as effective, and have led the battle to clear Israel’s name. Perhaps the true question which should be answered is why is our government, our philanthropists and the public at large not doing more to provide the necessary funding for such organizations to do their good work? Why do we find an Israel Prize in Chemistry and even Media but none for media review? If Israel is bashed, if anti-Zionism rages, if anti-Semitism is allowed to run rampant without response, we have only ourselves to blame.
*The authors are, respectively, vice chairman and chairman of Israel’s Media Watch, www.imw.org.il
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
New Israel Fund: End the secrecy!!
by GERALD M. STEINBERG, 20 Feb 2012:
NGO Monitor brought to NIF's attention that one of their major grantees was scheduled to speak at this year's "Apartheid Week"
‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” This adage might have occurred to the officials, donors and supporters of the New Israel Fund (NIF) when they learned that an official from Adalah – one of their major grantees – was scheduled to speak at this year’s “Apartheid Week” at an event sponsored by BDS Geneva.
Suhad Bishara, the director of Adalah’s Land and Planning Rights Unit, was featured prominently in the publicity for the event. After NGO Monitor brought this to NIF’s attention, Bishara’s name and affiliation were removed from some of the advertising, and was replaced by a statement reading, “For security reasons, we do not mention [the speaker’s] name on the site.”
NIF officials should not have been surprised by Adalah’s ongoing role in promoting BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) and other forms of political warfare. The organization has made no secret of its agenda, including the participation in the infamous NGO Forum of the 2001 UN Durban Conference.
The NGO Forum’s “Final Declaration,” which is still posted on Adalah’s website, calls for the “complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state.”
Expanding on this theme, Adalah’s so-called “Democratic Constitution” (2007) called for replacing the Jewish state with a “democratic, bilingual and multicultural” framework and for a redefinition of the “symbols of the state.” Jewish immigration would be restricted solely for “humanitarian reasons.”
And following the publication of the Goldstone Report, Adalah joined Palestinian NGOs in urging governments to “re-evaluate their relationship with Israel.”
Such activities are in direct contradiction of NIF’s recently adopted funding guidelines and principles, which explicitly exclude groups that “work to deny the right of the Jewish people to sovereign self-determination within Israel” and other forms of anti-Israel demonization. But for some reason, the NIF funding for Adalah – $475,950 authorized in 2010 – has continued.
For many years, the organization has had trouble implementing “red lines,” and in a number of cases, has been embarrassed and forced to backpedal before taking action. In 2004, the NIF awarded a fellowship to Shamai Leibowitz, who went to the US and promoted BDS, among other activities inconsistent with NIF’s declared objectives. (Last week, a current NIF fellow, Moriel Rothman, noted in an op-ed, “I have become deeply frustrated by the political manipulation of the Holocaust to distract from Israel’s crimes against Palestinians.”) NIF also provided seed funding for a radical NGO known as ICAHD, which violates nearly all of NIF’s guidelines and principles, only ending funding after the damage had been done.
More recently, it took two years for NIF to finally end support for the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP), which is centrally involved in the BDS campaigns. Another group – Mada al-Carmel – which is also a major source of delegitimization and advocates for a “one-state” solution, was still listed in NIF’s latest published budget (for 2010), although incoming president Brian Lurie has stated that the funding has now ended. In each of these cases, NIF did not make any public statement warning others not to repeat the mistakes, and seems to have learned no lessons, which is apparent in the case of funding for Adalah.
Although, or perhaps because, NIF is an extremely powerful political institution, with an annual budget of over $30 million, whose policies and activities affect the lives of all Israelis, its leaders are out of touch and very slow to react. The organization’s inability to properly monitor its grantees’ activities creates an environment ripe for major mistakes, which have been very costly for Israel.
When the contrast between NIF’s promotional claims and the reality of its political activities and funding is noted, they lash out angrily. For an organization claiming a “liberal and progressive” agenda, the NIF is particularly hostile to any form of criticism. When caught, as in each of the examples cited above, NIF’s public relations team resorts to vicious personal attacks against whistle-blowers for “speaking truth to power.”
This was also the case with Adalah’s scheduled role in the Apartheid Week event in Switzerland. When NGO Monitor sent a letter to NIF officials to bring this to their attention, the response was a public attack accusing NGO Monitor of “smearing” the organization and attempting to deflect attention from Adalah’s false “apartheid” and “racism” rhetoric.
The “fool me” adage stops after the second occurrence, but NIF is now well beyond this. And the personal, vindictive attacks are unconstructive, to understate the case, creating a contentious relationship.
Instead of lashing out, NIF has the opportunity to demonstrate that its guidelines are serious.
Given the extensive public evidence of Adalah’s true agenda, if NIF chooses to not sever ties with the NGO, one would have to assume that NIF is knowingly being fooled and is happy to go along for the ride.
The writer is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution dedicated to promoting universal human rights and to encouraging civil discussion on the reports and activities of non-governmental organizations, particularly in the Middle East.
NGO Monitor brought to NIF's attention that one of their major grantees was scheduled to speak at this year's "Apartheid Week"
‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” This adage might have occurred to the officials, donors and supporters of the New Israel Fund (NIF) when they learned that an official from Adalah – one of their major grantees – was scheduled to speak at this year’s “Apartheid Week” at an event sponsored by BDS Geneva.
Suhad Bishara, the director of Adalah’s Land and Planning Rights Unit, was featured prominently in the publicity for the event. After NGO Monitor brought this to NIF’s attention, Bishara’s name and affiliation were removed from some of the advertising, and was replaced by a statement reading, “For security reasons, we do not mention [the speaker’s] name on the site.”
NIF officials should not have been surprised by Adalah’s ongoing role in promoting BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) and other forms of political warfare. The organization has made no secret of its agenda, including the participation in the infamous NGO Forum of the 2001 UN Durban Conference.
The NGO Forum’s “Final Declaration,” which is still posted on Adalah’s website, calls for the “complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state.”
Expanding on this theme, Adalah’s so-called “Democratic Constitution” (2007) called for replacing the Jewish state with a “democratic, bilingual and multicultural” framework and for a redefinition of the “symbols of the state.” Jewish immigration would be restricted solely for “humanitarian reasons.”
And following the publication of the Goldstone Report, Adalah joined Palestinian NGOs in urging governments to “re-evaluate their relationship with Israel.”
Such activities are in direct contradiction of NIF’s recently adopted funding guidelines and principles, which explicitly exclude groups that “work to deny the right of the Jewish people to sovereign self-determination within Israel” and other forms of anti-Israel demonization. But for some reason, the NIF funding for Adalah – $475,950 authorized in 2010 – has continued.
For many years, the organization has had trouble implementing “red lines,” and in a number of cases, has been embarrassed and forced to backpedal before taking action. In 2004, the NIF awarded a fellowship to Shamai Leibowitz, who went to the US and promoted BDS, among other activities inconsistent with NIF’s declared objectives. (Last week, a current NIF fellow, Moriel Rothman, noted in an op-ed, “I have become deeply frustrated by the political manipulation of the Holocaust to distract from Israel’s crimes against Palestinians.”) NIF also provided seed funding for a radical NGO known as ICAHD, which violates nearly all of NIF’s guidelines and principles, only ending funding after the damage had been done.
More recently, it took two years for NIF to finally end support for the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP), which is centrally involved in the BDS campaigns. Another group – Mada al-Carmel – which is also a major source of delegitimization and advocates for a “one-state” solution, was still listed in NIF’s latest published budget (for 2010), although incoming president Brian Lurie has stated that the funding has now ended. In each of these cases, NIF did not make any public statement warning others not to repeat the mistakes, and seems to have learned no lessons, which is apparent in the case of funding for Adalah.
Although, or perhaps because, NIF is an extremely powerful political institution, with an annual budget of over $30 million, whose policies and activities affect the lives of all Israelis, its leaders are out of touch and very slow to react. The organization’s inability to properly monitor its grantees’ activities creates an environment ripe for major mistakes, which have been very costly for Israel.
When the contrast between NIF’s promotional claims and the reality of its political activities and funding is noted, they lash out angrily. For an organization claiming a “liberal and progressive” agenda, the NIF is particularly hostile to any form of criticism. When caught, as in each of the examples cited above, NIF’s public relations team resorts to vicious personal attacks against whistle-blowers for “speaking truth to power.”
This was also the case with Adalah’s scheduled role in the Apartheid Week event in Switzerland. When NGO Monitor sent a letter to NIF officials to bring this to their attention, the response was a public attack accusing NGO Monitor of “smearing” the organization and attempting to deflect attention from Adalah’s false “apartheid” and “racism” rhetoric.
The “fool me” adage stops after the second occurrence, but NIF is now well beyond this. And the personal, vindictive attacks are unconstructive, to understate the case, creating a contentious relationship.
Instead of lashing out, NIF has the opportunity to demonstrate that its guidelines are serious.
Given the extensive public evidence of Adalah’s true agenda, if NIF chooses to not sever ties with the NGO, one would have to assume that NIF is knowingly being fooled and is happy to go along for the ride.
The writer is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution dedicated to promoting universal human rights and to encouraging civil discussion on the reports and activities of non-governmental organizations, particularly in the Middle East.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Reliable first-hand report from Syria
Dr. Jonathan Spyer, GLORIA Center senior fellow, has just returned from Syria where he met with oppositionists, members of the Free Syrian Army, and local inhabitants. Here’s his first interview on his experiences and observations.
Barry Rubin: Dr. Spyer, please tell us about your visit to Syria, what you saw and your impressions.
Jonathan Spyer: Well, I spent a week in Idleb province, traveling between a number of different towns. The most striking aspect was the extent of de facto control that the opposition and Free Syrian Army (FSA) have in this area. A number of towns are now entirely under their control, with FSA roadblocks at the entrance and the rebel flag flying everywhere. At the same time, it’s of course clear that the government still has intelligence networks inside the “liberated” towns, and will reconquer them if possible at a later date.
Barry Rubin: Many observers claim that the Bashar al-Assad regime will fall soon. What do the opposition activists think and what is your view?
Jonathan Spyer: The many opposition activists and fighters that I spoke to seem to be rather torn in their attitude. On the one hand, I heard none of the facile optimism that one heard among some analysts in the first months of the uprising, describing Bashar’s fall as imminent. The opposition activists understand that with the support of Iran, Russia, China and Hizballah, the regime can continue for some time to come, even if it is bleeding resources and losing manpower to the rebel army. The opposition is acutely aware of its own international isolation compared to the regime, and repeat endlessly the call for a buffer zone, and for the beginnings of Western support for arming the FSA.
At the same time, looking more broadly, the oppositionists are optimistic that they will ultimately prevail, but a number of them told me that without international assistance to their side to balance and offset the international coalition behind Assad, the situation could drag on for months or even years.
Barry Rubin: How important are revolutionary Islamists in the opposition? Can you explain about the larger — perhaps largest — group, traditional Sunnis?
Jonathan Spyer: In Idleb province, where I was, there was an undoubted presence of Salafi Islamists among the FSA fighters. But they were not a majority, and I certainly had no indication at all of the presence of foreign Islamist fighters. These were clearly local men. The regime, of course, has been keen to say that the opposition to it consists of al-Qaida. I would advise skepticism toward any claims made by the Assad regime.
However, Idleb province is a very traditional, religious Sunni area. There is undoubtedly a strong sectarian element to the fury and hatred that people have toward the Assad regime. People stress that this does not extend to ordinary Alawi or Shia Syrians, but I would counsel caution regarding this. So I don’t think Salafi Islamism is dominating the revolt, even in very traditional and religious places like Idleb. But at the same time, there is a strong religious and sectarian motivation among the rebels. You won’t be surprised to learn that the number of secular humanists in Idleb province is rather small.
Barry Rubin: What were your observations about the Free Syrian Army?
Jonathan Spyer: The FSA is really a name for what is in fact a large number of independent militias organized around local strongmen. No one seems to regard the notional FSA leadership in Antakya, Turkey, as the actual center of the organization. Rather, the militias operate according to their own interests and vary in numbers and qualities from town to town. In Sarmeen, where I was, for example, the FSA is commanded by a 25-year-old former lieutenant in Assad’s airborne forces, and gives the impression of being a serious force. In Bini’ish, a neighboring town, the impression is one of a more thrown-together, improvised force.
In terms of weaponry, they have rifles, heavy machine guns, RPG-7s and mortars. These weapons would have great difficulty standing up to a frontal assault from Assad’s advanced Russian armor. Many FSA men that I spoke to understand that they would be unable to defend the “free zones” if these were attacked in force, and they talk more in terms of a long-term strategy of guerrilla warfare to wear down the regime.
Barry Rubin: Why is there a debate in the opposition about whether or not to engage in armed struggle?
Jonathan Spyer: There are voices in the opposition who from the beginning had been concerned that armed struggle was an arena in which the rebels couldn’t win, and it would enable Assad to portray them as terrorists, al-Qaida, and so on. But such voices are heard less and less. Most people understand that whatever the merits of such an argument, it is too late. The people in insurgent areas regard the FSA as their protectors, and have a very clear and evident emotional loyalty to the Jaish al-Hurr (Free Army) which they don’t feel toward the political opposition, which is more or less irrelevant.
Regarding armed struggle, then, this issue is now a done deal. The armed opposition to Assad is in many ways the most significant element of the uprising. In terms of power on the ground, when the government forces leave an area, the people who get to make decisions are the ones who control the armed element, for obvious reasons. It’s worth remembering that this is Syria. The way the current regime came into existence in the first place is because many years ago the military element in the Syrian Baath Party started to wonder why it was taking orders from the civilian political element and decided to stop doing so. Hence the Alawi officers Salah Jadid and then Hafez al-Assad came to run the country. I am not trying at all to say that the FSA is emerging as a contender for power, but merely that the militias on the ground fighting Assad are a fact, and there is no question of them ceasing activities voluntarily while Assad remains in power.
Barry Rubin: Please explain why the opposition is asking for international help to create a “safe haven” and how this might work.
Jonathan Spyer: The opposition is asking for a buffer zone where refugees can flee and from where the FSA can organize. Precedents would include northern Iraq in the 1990s and Libya recently. Such a zone would be almost certain to involve the deployment of Western air power, again as in Libya, as well as a program of Western support to the FSA to turn it from a collection of militias into a serious force.
Of course, it is unimaginable that the UN would approve such an initiative, since Assad’s ally Russia would prevent this. At present, there stands a de facto international coalition behind Assad, including Iran, Russia, China and Hizballah. The question now is whether this coalition will ensure that Assad will maintain his grip on power, or whether a Western-led counter-coalition will offer support tor the FSA and help create a buffer zone, thus making the dictator’s fall more likely. The future of Syria may well depend on the answer to this question.
Barry Rubin: Dr. Spyer, please tell us about your visit to Syria, what you saw and your impressions.
Jonathan Spyer: Well, I spent a week in Idleb province, traveling between a number of different towns. The most striking aspect was the extent of de facto control that the opposition and Free Syrian Army (FSA) have in this area. A number of towns are now entirely under their control, with FSA roadblocks at the entrance and the rebel flag flying everywhere. At the same time, it’s of course clear that the government still has intelligence networks inside the “liberated” towns, and will reconquer them if possible at a later date.
Barry Rubin: Many observers claim that the Bashar al-Assad regime will fall soon. What do the opposition activists think and what is your view?
Jonathan Spyer: The many opposition activists and fighters that I spoke to seem to be rather torn in their attitude. On the one hand, I heard none of the facile optimism that one heard among some analysts in the first months of the uprising, describing Bashar’s fall as imminent. The opposition activists understand that with the support of Iran, Russia, China and Hizballah, the regime can continue for some time to come, even if it is bleeding resources and losing manpower to the rebel army. The opposition is acutely aware of its own international isolation compared to the regime, and repeat endlessly the call for a buffer zone, and for the beginnings of Western support for arming the FSA.
At the same time, looking more broadly, the oppositionists are optimistic that they will ultimately prevail, but a number of them told me that without international assistance to their side to balance and offset the international coalition behind Assad, the situation could drag on for months or even years.
Barry Rubin: How important are revolutionary Islamists in the opposition? Can you explain about the larger — perhaps largest — group, traditional Sunnis?
Jonathan Spyer: In Idleb province, where I was, there was an undoubted presence of Salafi Islamists among the FSA fighters. But they were not a majority, and I certainly had no indication at all of the presence of foreign Islamist fighters. These were clearly local men. The regime, of course, has been keen to say that the opposition to it consists of al-Qaida. I would advise skepticism toward any claims made by the Assad regime.
However, Idleb province is a very traditional, religious Sunni area. There is undoubtedly a strong sectarian element to the fury and hatred that people have toward the Assad regime. People stress that this does not extend to ordinary Alawi or Shia Syrians, but I would counsel caution regarding this. So I don’t think Salafi Islamism is dominating the revolt, even in very traditional and religious places like Idleb. But at the same time, there is a strong religious and sectarian motivation among the rebels. You won’t be surprised to learn that the number of secular humanists in Idleb province is rather small.
Barry Rubin: What were your observations about the Free Syrian Army?
Jonathan Spyer: The FSA is really a name for what is in fact a large number of independent militias organized around local strongmen. No one seems to regard the notional FSA leadership in Antakya, Turkey, as the actual center of the organization. Rather, the militias operate according to their own interests and vary in numbers and qualities from town to town. In Sarmeen, where I was, for example, the FSA is commanded by a 25-year-old former lieutenant in Assad’s airborne forces, and gives the impression of being a serious force. In Bini’ish, a neighboring town, the impression is one of a more thrown-together, improvised force.
In terms of weaponry, they have rifles, heavy machine guns, RPG-7s and mortars. These weapons would have great difficulty standing up to a frontal assault from Assad’s advanced Russian armor. Many FSA men that I spoke to understand that they would be unable to defend the “free zones” if these were attacked in force, and they talk more in terms of a long-term strategy of guerrilla warfare to wear down the regime.
Barry Rubin: Why is there a debate in the opposition about whether or not to engage in armed struggle?
Jonathan Spyer: There are voices in the opposition who from the beginning had been concerned that armed struggle was an arena in which the rebels couldn’t win, and it would enable Assad to portray them as terrorists, al-Qaida, and so on. But such voices are heard less and less. Most people understand that whatever the merits of such an argument, it is too late. The people in insurgent areas regard the FSA as their protectors, and have a very clear and evident emotional loyalty to the Jaish al-Hurr (Free Army) which they don’t feel toward the political opposition, which is more or less irrelevant.
Regarding armed struggle, then, this issue is now a done deal. The armed opposition to Assad is in many ways the most significant element of the uprising. In terms of power on the ground, when the government forces leave an area, the people who get to make decisions are the ones who control the armed element, for obvious reasons. It’s worth remembering that this is Syria. The way the current regime came into existence in the first place is because many years ago the military element in the Syrian Baath Party started to wonder why it was taking orders from the civilian political element and decided to stop doing so. Hence the Alawi officers Salah Jadid and then Hafez al-Assad came to run the country. I am not trying at all to say that the FSA is emerging as a contender for power, but merely that the militias on the ground fighting Assad are a fact, and there is no question of them ceasing activities voluntarily while Assad remains in power.
Barry Rubin: Please explain why the opposition is asking for international help to create a “safe haven” and how this might work.
Jonathan Spyer: The opposition is asking for a buffer zone where refugees can flee and from where the FSA can organize. Precedents would include northern Iraq in the 1990s and Libya recently. Such a zone would be almost certain to involve the deployment of Western air power, again as in Libya, as well as a program of Western support to the FSA to turn it from a collection of militias into a serious force.
Of course, it is unimaginable that the UN would approve such an initiative, since Assad’s ally Russia would prevent this. At present, there stands a de facto international coalition behind Assad, including Iran, Russia, China and Hizballah. The question now is whether this coalition will ensure that Assad will maintain his grip on power, or whether a Western-led counter-coalition will offer support tor the FSA and help create a buffer zone, thus making the dictator’s fall more likely. The future of Syria may well depend on the answer to this question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)