Middle East

Press Release
April 16, 2015
Contact: Yakira Heller
NGO Monitor
058-668-9603


Statement on BDS Law Decision in the High Court

Jerusalem - The decision of Israel's High Court of Justice (April 15) to uphold the central provisions of the "Anti-Boycott Law" marks an important milestone in the response to political warfare. This complex and carefully reasoned decision highlights and places limitations on activities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that pursue boycott campaigns in Europe and America, using false and distorted legal and factual claims. These discriminatory economic attacks are central to the "Durban Strategy" (adopted in the NGO Forum of 2001 UN Durban Conference) of demonizing and isolating Israel through BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions), lawfare (legal attacks), and other strategies.




As is clear from the court decision and the legislation itself, the anti-boycott law is a response to the central role of political advocacy NGOs in support of boycott campaigns through patently false legal statements and efforts to deny Israelis the basic right to self-defense. NGO Monitor has repeatedly emphasized the importance of informed public debate and full transparency, including the role of funder-enablers, in combating this political warfare.

At the same time, we note that the decision of Israel's highest court is consistent with court decisions and laws in Europe and the United States. Invoking claims of free speech does not legitimate discrimination, defamation, and the exploitation of legal processes to interfere with commercial transactions, artistic performances, academic activities, and other targets of BDS warfare.

NGO Monitor, an independent research institution, was founded in 2002 in the wake of the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa. At this conference, 1,500 NGOs formulated the "Durban Strategy" which aims to isolate Israel through measures such as boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns, lawfare, delegitimization and demonization.

NGO Monitor (www.ngo-monitor.org), is the leading source of expertise on the activities and funding of political advocacy NGOs involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. NGO Monitor provides detailed and fully sourced information and analysis, promotes accountability, and supports discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas.
# # #
mail@ngo-monitor.org
www.ngo-monitor.org

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Israeli Supreme Court and BDS.

The Israel Project sent out an email today on the messaging battle that is going on between the White House and the Senate over the Obama administration dropping its threat to veto the Corker-Menendez bill, legislation that would boost Congressional oversight over any Iran deal.
Spokesman Josh Earnest made the announcement at yesterday's press briefing, just as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was convening for what would be a 19-0 vote in favor of the bill. The declaration reversed months of explicit administration threats to veto legislation that would give Congress an expanded voice in Iran negotiations.

The White House spin was that Corker-Menendez had been substantively hollowed out by a morning compromise between Sens. Corker and Cardin, so that had become acceptable. The bills' supporters countered that the core oversight requirements remained intact, and that the administration caved because it knew a veto would be overridden. Corker on Twitter: "The simple fact is that the White House dropped its veto threat because they weren’t going to have the votes to sustain a veto" [1].

The subsequent news cycle did not reflect the White House's messaging:

• Reuters: In setback, Obama concedes Congress role on Iran deal: "U.S. President Barack Obama conceded on Tuesday that Congress will have the power to review a nuclear deal with Iran, reluctantly giving in to pressure from Republicans and some in his own party after they crafted a rare compromise demanding a say." [2]
  
  
• Daily Beast: Obama Blinks on Iran Nuke Vote: The White House just did a 180 on a controversial bill to let Congress vote on the Iran nuclear deal. It’s a big win for the deal’s critics: "In the standoff with Congress over the Iranian nuclear deal, President Obama just blinked. Faced with the prospect of a backlash from members of Obama’s own party on his signature foreign policy initiative, the White House on Monday said it’d be willing to sign a bill that will prevent the administration from lifting sanctions on Iran while Congress reviews whatever final deal is reached with Tehran over its nuclear program." [3]
  
  
• New York Times: Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal: "The White House relented on Tuesday and said President Obama would sign a compromise bill giving Congress a voice on the proposed nuclear accord... White House officials insisted they extracted crucial last-minute concessions. Republicans - and many Democrats - said the president simply got overrun." [4]
  
  
• Times of Israel: Veto override fear spurred Obama to back oversight bill, groups claim: From Christian Zionists to American Iranians, nobody’s buying that compromise made Iran legislation palatable to White House: "The White House said Tuesday its decision to back a bill increasing Congressional oversight on any nuclear deal with Iran was due to concessions, but many in Washington think the about face is more about adding up veto-busting votes than the subtraction of controversial measures." [5]

Even the New York Times editorial board, which was very unkind to the Senators, read the politics in a way that cut against the White House's messaging: The committee’s action gives momentum to those who have bitterly criticized Mr. Obama for negotiating with Iran... Mr. Obama initially threatened to veto the legislation, but he backed off rather than face a bipartisan override of his veto. [6] The next step on the Senate side is for the bill to be brought to the floor, where there will be an amendment process and then a vote. On the House side, lawmakers will have to craft parallel legislation, but The Hill reported last nigtht that Democrats are already jumping on board so the process is likely to be quick [7].
At issue is how easily the will of Congress can be blocked, based on how the Menendez-Corker bill has been formulated:
As the editors of The Wall Street Journal analyzed it, “The majority could offer a resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered by Democrats and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats could thus vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama’s desk—and 34 could sustain a veto. Mr. Obama could then declare that Congress had its say and ‘approved’ the Iran deal even if a majority in the House and Senate voted to oppose it.”If so, Obama lost nothing by his "concession" to Congress. And he knows it.
----- If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!


Technorati Tag: Iran and Obama and Congress and Menendez-Corker.

The following by David P. Goldman is reposted here with permission of The Middle East Forum:
Why Don't Americans Trust Republicans on Foreign Policy?by David P. Goldman
PJ Media
April 11, 2015http://www.meforum.org/5172/republicans-foreign-policy-voters

Riddle me this, fellow Republicans. An NBC survey April 9 reports that a huge majority (70%) of Americans doubt that Iran will abide by any agreement to limit its nuclear arms–but a majority (54%) still think Obama will do a better job than the Republicans in dealing with Iran!
A majority of Americans – 54 percent – trust Barack Obama to do a better job handling an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, compared to 42 percent who say they trust the Republicans in Congress. But nearly 7 in 10 Americans say that Iran is not likely to abide by the agreement that has been reached.Fifty-three percent think Iranian nukes are a "major threat," and only 37% think they are a "minor threat." Most Americans, in short, think Iran is a major threat to American security and think that Obama's nuclear deal is a joke–but they still want Obama in charge of the negotiations, not us.

Maybe NBC made the numbers up. Maybe a proofreader got the numbers reversed. And maybe pigs will sprout wings.
Most Americans don't trust Republicans on matters of war and peace.There is a much simpler explanation: Most Americans don't trust Republicans on matters of war and peace. Not after the nation-building disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is. Why should they trust us? Our leadership has never admitted it made a mistake. Sen. Ted Cruz, to be sure, had the gumption last fall to say that "we got too involved in nation-building" and that "we should not be trying to turn Iraq into Switzerland"–and was excoriated for his trouble by the Bushies. The Republican mainstream is too busy trying to defend the Bush record to address the distrust of American voters.
One gets weary and grows shrill sounding the same note for a decade. I wish the problem would go away. A couple of weeks ago a friend who served in senior defense positions in the Bush administration remonstrated, "Why do we have to worry about what mistakes were made back then?" The American public doesn't remember a lot, but it does remember the disruption of millions of lives after the deployment of 2.6 million Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan–not to mention 6,000 dead, 52,000 wounded in action, and hundreds of thousands of other injuries.
The Republican mainstream is too busy trying to defend the Bush record to address the distrust of American voters.That's why Obama still has the upper hand, and is likely to succeed in selling out American and allied interests to the mullahs. His trump card is the repeated statement: "The alternative is war." That may or may not be true; over at Asia Times' "Chatham House Rules" blog, several former senior officials of the Reagan administration are debating the merits of a military strike. But an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities surely is an option.
Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak had it exactly right: an airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities isn't war. It's half a night's work, a pinpoint operation comparable to the killing of Osama bin Laden. But our leaders won't say this, because the prospect of military force conjures up fears of a million Americans going back to war.
Republicans need a clear and simple policy about the use of force: We will use force only when we and our close allies are under threat. We will use the kind of force that least exposes Americans to harm. We will not sacrifice the time, let alone the lives, of American soldiers to fix the problems of other countries. I recommend that Republican candidates read Angelo Codevilla's 2014 book To Make and Keep the Peace, and then ask Prof. Codevilla to design a bumper sticker for them.
It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry, or both, and in what order. Here we have the least competent president in American history bungling a decisive foreign policy matter in full view of the public, and bungling so badly that 7 out of 10 Americans think that any agreement we make with Iran will be a piece of garbage–and Americans still want Obama to handle the negotiations! That is not only injurious. It is humiliating.
How much more humiliation at the hands of the public do we need before we straighten out and fly right?
David P. Goldman is Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and Wax Family Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Republicans and Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan.

The New York Times, in reporting an "agreement" implies that whatever is announced will fall short of the original goals going into Lausanne. Instead of having a framework agreement, they'll announce some kind of diplomatic understanding. It will lack the commitments necessary to make it a framework, and the Iranians have refused to allow the parties to call it an agreement.
The Israel Report notes some key things to be on the lookout for as the agreement/framework/understanding is discussed:

• Can the administration regain momentum in DC after Lausanne debacles? - Lausanne may turn out to be pyrrhic progress for the Obama administration. The White House had hoped to use this round to lock down an agreement by March 31, which would build momentum heading into further negotiations. Instead they not only missed the deadline, but they looked bad doing it. Seemingly every morning before March 31 had a scoop about a different enormous concession to Iran. On Wednesday the WSJ revealed that the US had punted on Iranian disclosure, on Thursday the AP revealed the US may let the Iranians spin centrifuges at their underground military bunker at Fordow, and on Monday The New York Times revealed that the Iranians had backtracked on shipping out their enriched uranium - and quoted a US official promising to find alternative solutions acceptable to Tehran. Then after the deadline slipped, there was coverage of FMs expressing wildly different public assessments, Zarif threatening the West that this is their last best chance, the Iranians digging in on new demands, administration press conferences being canceled, etc. The total effect was summed up by a senior Congressional staffer speaking to a reporter on the ground in Lausanne: "people here are wondering what the f___ is going on".
  
  
• How much of the deal will be secret? What did the US have to give the Iranians to make a public commitment? - The overarching dynamic from the last week has actually been very basic: the Americans wanted the Iranians to publicly commit to specific concessions and the Iranians kept refusing. But the P5+1 has made a range of highly publicized and functionally irreversible concessions to Iran across every core area involved in the talks because the Iranians refused to budge: centrifuge dismantlement, zero enrichment, heavy water plutonium-related work, ballistic missile development, disclosure, etc. Then there was the Lausanne flood of concessions. US negotiators couldn't go back to Congress now and say 'the Iranians won't give us anything yet, but they promise to make concessions some time in the future after they get more relief.' So for the last two days, US negotiators struggled to find anything more they could give the Iranians, in exchange for which the Iranians would make a public commitment on something. Question 1: did they succeed in getting the Iranians to make a public concession? Question 2: what did the Americans have to give up to get that public concession?
  
  
• What happened to P5+1 unity? - If the NYT has their scoop right, the joint statement will be from Iran and the EU, not Iran and the P5+1. The arrangement will raise eyebrows. The importance of maintaining P5+1 unity has been the argument - the central argument - that the administration has used to push back against efforts by Congress to impose new sanctions. The claim has been that Iran will walk away if Congress acts, then the P5+1 will blame Washington and fracture, then the sanctions regime will collapse. If there are already divisions inside the P5+1, that argument will get significantly less play - and the administration will be asked to explain why Congress shouldn't have acted earlier. Remember that Russian FM Lavrov and Chinese FM Wang left Lausanne as talks were coming down to the wire.
  
  
• As per the AP report on Thursday, Zarif confirmed the U.S. has completely caved on the Fordow - the underground bunker, built into the side of a mountain, which the Iranians emptied and made into an illicit enrichment facility. President Obama said as late as 2012: "We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful program", and the Iranians said 'no'. In response, the US conceded and said Iran could keep it open as a research facility, but they had to remove all the centrifuges for storage. This was claimed to a sign of Iranian flexibility. Then this week, it emerged that in fact the Iranians would be allowed to keep centrifuges spinning inside the mountain, spinning Germanium or similar non-nuclear elements as opposed to Uranium. The Obama Administration is claiming there will not be any "enrichment" going on at Fordow - a claim that ignores the fact centrifuges spin isotopes into lighter and heavier elements, thereby "enriching" the material. That's what they do.
  
  
This isn't a minor point. The concession has the potential to gut the whole deal:


• Allows N-generation centrifuge R&D beyond the reach of the West- since the process is the exact same process, Iran will have a hardened facility where it will be able to research and develop N-generation centrifuges. Zarif bragged from the stage in Lausanne that Iranian R&D on centrifuges will continue on IR-4s, IR-5s, IR-6s, and IR-8s, and that the pace of research will be tied to Iranian scientific progress. The development of advanced centrifuges would give the Iranians a leg up if they decide to break out, and will put them instantly within a screw's turn of a nuke when the deal expires.
  
  
• Leaves Iranian nuclear infrastructure running beyond the reach of the West - if the Iranians kick out inspectors and dare the world to respond, the West will have zero way to intervene. The Iranians will have a head start on enrichment, and a place to do it beyond the reach of Western weapons. The administration's early pushback has been that the breakout time will still be a year, so they could in theory reimpose sanctions, but it takes more than a year for sanctions to take an economic toll. So: zero options to stop a breakout.

And now you know why Mohammed Zarif is laughing.

Now we know why Mohammed Zarif is laughing. Photo: The Guardian;  Pool/AP
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Iran.

While many in the media will generously report about 'an agreement to keep trying to agree,' -- let's face it: this is where the West and Iran were a year ago.

The past 7 days particularly have not been kind to Obama's attempt at a Middle East legacy, as we have been bombarded with 3 major setbacks to an effective deal with Iran:

• Last Wednesday, the US conceded on PMD's ("Possible Military Dimensions"): the administration is now willing to let Iran put off fully disclosing its nuclear program until after sanctions relief had been granted, a concession which significantly undermines any attempt to verify whether Iran is keeping its agreement this time around.
  
  
• Then on Thursday, the AP revealed that the Obama administration will let Iran continue spinning centrifuges in its underground military enrichment bunker at Fordow, ensuring that Iran continues to maintain nuclear infrastructure completely impervious to Western intervention if they decided to break out.
  
  
• Just yesterday, The New York Times revealed that the Iranians would not agree to ship their enriched uranium to Russia, a scenario Iran had used for months to secure concessions on the number of centrifuges they'd be allowed to run.

Congress is currently out of session and returns on April 13.

Can't wait.

Hat tip: The Israel Project

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Iran and Obama and Nuclar Weapons.

The Wall Street Journal reports on how Iran may prevent verification of any nuclear deal with the West
Talks over Iran’s nuclear program have hit a stumbling block a week before a key deadline because Tehran has failed to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past, say people close to the negotiations.The Israel Project has been following this and other developments very closely. In a series of emails it sent out, TIP explained the huge significance of Iran's refusal.

It's important to remember why "possible military dimensions" (PMDs) matter. The label is a bit misleading: it makes it sound like the IAEA is only investigating weaponization work. That's allowed some people to mischaracterize the issue as 'the West is trying to extract a 'mea culpa' from the Iranians to embarrass them' (the NYT had a typical example a few weeks ago, sourced to a former American negotiator who rhetorically asked "is it worth blowing up a potential agreement in the name of forcing a confession?") But that's not it.

PMD disclosure is about baselining all of Iran's nuclear activities - not just its known civilian parts - as a prerequisite for verifying that those activities have been halted under a nuclear deal. Iran has uranium mines; some are civilian and some are military. It has centrifuges; some are operated by civilians and some by IRGC personnel. It has uranium stockpiles; some are maintained by civilians and some by the military. There's no way for future inspectors to verify that Iran has shuttered its mines, stopped its centrifuges, and shipped off its stockpile - for instance - unless the IAEA knows where all the mines and stockpiles are.

No PMDs mean no verification.

Significantly, the Wall Street Journal reports that in response to Iran's refusal, the US is considering backing off on those demands.

Besides undercutting an effective verification of Iran's nuclear program, backtracking by the West at this point creates other dangers:

• Cripples the deal's monitoring regime by allowing Iran to hide facilities where it conducts nuclear work
• Cripples the deal's gamble on a 1 year breakout time by preventing analysts from knowing how far Iranians ever got to a bomb - and what's still on the shelf.
• Shreds the global nonproliferation regime by kneecapping the IAEA
• Undermines US credibility in the Middle East by abandoning the US's decades-old position that Iran has to come clean
• Boosts Iran's regional drive for hegemony by confirming its narrative that it had been persecuted by the West for no reason

Needless to say, backtracking on the requirement of Iranian disclosures represents a major backtrack in Obama's promise that negotiators would get significant concessions on PMD's and verification.

This year at AIPAC Rice assured those in attendance there would be verification at Iran's nuclear sites
"Any deal must ensure frequent and intrusive inspections at Iran’s nuclear sites, including the uranium mills that produce the material fed into Iran’s enrichment and conversion facilities, to create a multilayered transparency regime that provides the international community with the confidence it demands… Any deal must also address the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. And going forward, we will not accept a deal that fails to provide the access we need to ensure that Iran’s program is peaceful"In a 2013 interview, Obama promised to cooperate with Congress if Iran would not provide PMD assurances:
“If Iran comes back and says, we can’t give you assurances that we’re not going to weaponize, if they’re not willing to address some of their capabilities that we know could end up resulting in them having breakout capacity, it’s not going to be hard for us to turn the dials back, strengthen sanctions even further. I’ll work with members of Congress to put even more pressure on Iran”In 2009, Obama guaranteed Iranian transparency:
“Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1, they are going to have to come clean”March 31 is the deadline for reaching a framework for an agreement with Iran.

That is, assuming that deadlines mean anything anymore.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Obamna.

For Immediate Release:
March 19, 2015Contact: info@humanrightsvoices.org
Follow us on Twitter


Top Violator Of Women's Rights Around The World?
It's Israel Says UN



This article by Anne Bayefsky originally appeared on FoxNews.



Guess who is the number one violator of women's rights in the world today? Israel. Violating the rights of Palestinian women.

At least that is the view of the UN's top women's rights body, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). CSW ends its annual meeting on Friday, March 20 by condemning only one of the 193 UN member states for violating women's rights – Israel.

Not Syria. Where government forces routinely employ rape and other sexual violence and torture against women as a tactic of war. Where in 2014 the Assad regime starved, tortured and killed at least 24,000 civilians, and three million people – mostly women and children – are refugees.


Not Saudi Arabia. Where women are physically punished if not wearing compulsory clothing, are almost entirely excluded from political life, cannot drive, cannot travel without a male relative, receive half the inheritance of their brothers, and where their testimony counts for half that of a man's.

Not Sudan. Where domestic violence is not prohibited. There is no minimum age for "consensual" sex. The legal age of marriage for girls is ten. 88% of women under 50 have undergone female genital mutilation. And women are denied equal rights in marriage, inheritance and divorce.

Not Iran. Where every woman who registered as a presidential candidate in the last election was disqualified. "Adultery" is punishable by death by stoning. Women who fight back against rapists and kill their attackers are executed. The constitution bars female judges. And women must obtain the consent of their husbands to work outside the home.

In fact, not only is there no possibility that the UN Commission on the Status of Women will criticize Iran, Iran is an elected member of CSW. Sudan – whose president has been indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity – is currently a CSW Vice-Chair.

The 2015 CSW resolution on Israel will repeat, as it does every year, that "the Israeli occupation remains the major obstacle for Palestinian women with regard to their advancement, self-reliance and integration in the development of their society..."

Not Palestinian men. Not religious edicts and traditions. Not a culture of violence. Not an educational system steeped in rejection of peaceful coexistence and of tolerance.

Instead, the fault for a UN statistic like this one – an average of 17% of Palestinian women are in the labor force as compared to 70% of Palestinian men – lies with the Jewish scapegoat.

That fact comes from one of only nine official documents produced by the UN for the 2015 annual CSW meeting. Eight were procedural or general in nature, and one was entitled: "Situation of and assistance to Palestinian women."

By comparison, there was no report on Chinese women and girls, half a billion people without elementary civil and political rights, who still face the prospect of forced abortion and sterilization.

There was no report on women in Somalia, where female genital mutilation is ubiquitous, sexual violence is rampant, and women are systematically subordinate to men.

There was no report on women in Yemen, where the penal code goes easy on the killers of women for "immodest" or "defiant" behavior, there is no minimum age for "marriage," and women have no equal rights to property, employment, credit, pay, education, or housing.

And the women's rights scene is not the only liberal sham at the UN.

The UN's top human rights body, the Human Rights Council (HRC), will wrap up a major session next week by adopting a minimum of four times as many resolutions slamming Israel than any other country on earth.

Condemnations of Israel will include a resolution demanding Israel immediately give back the Golan Heights to Syria – the place where Syrians run from their own government for life-saving Israeli medical care.

Tallying all the resolutions and decisions condemning a specific state over the history of the Human Rights Council, one-third has been directed at Israel alone.

Remember Ukraine? In the past year, there have been at least 5,500 confirmed killed – with recent reports from Germany suggesting the total may be as high as 50,000 dead – in addition to a million people displaced. But the score is 67 Council resolutions and decisions attacking Israel and zero on Russia.

So who is calling the shots at the Council? A closer look at its members reveals human rights luminaries like Qatar – that bankrolls the terrorist organization Hamas – along with China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

It is impossible to add this all up and conclude that the UN's treatment of Israel is anything but wildly discriminatory. In the twisted language of UN rights, the means is the verbiage of equality, while the end game is prejudice.

The Obama administration has an answer to this dilemma. Vote against the resolutions, while paying the fees to run the bodies that adopt them. Join and legitimize the institution, while consoling the delegitimized that it feels their pain.

As Secretary Kerry told the Council on March 2, 2015: "President Obama and I support the HRC..." and "the HRC's obsession with Israel actually risks undermining the credibility of the entire organization." "Risks undermining" – as opposed to "has grossly undermined already."

This attitude towards the UN's demonization of Israel foreshadows the administration's Israel policy in the days ahead – a policy unaffected by Israeli election results.

The Palestinians will continue to use the UN and the International Criminal Court to attempt to accomplish with lethal politics what they have never been able to do with lethal force. And President Obama will hold open the door.

Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Follow her@AnneBayefsky.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Women's Rights and United Nations.

The following by Daniel Pipes is reposted here with permission of the Middle East Forum:

Americans Battle the Arab-Israeli Conflict

by Daniel Pipes
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2015 (view PDF)

Texas senator Ted Cruz meets with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel, January 11, 2013. A week after taking office, Cruz traveled to Israel on a congressional delegation trip, led by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.
When, in the midst of the 2014 Hamas-Israel war, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration briefly banned American carriers from flying to Israel, Sen. Ted Cruz (Republican of Texas) accused Barack Obama of using a federal regulatory agency "to launch an economic boycott on Israel, in order to try to force our ally to comply with his foreign policy demands."[1] In so doing, Cruz made an accusation no Israeli leader would dare express.

This is hardly unique: Over the years, other American political figures, both Republican (Dan Burton, Jesse Helms, Condoleezza Rice, Arlen Specter) and Democrat (Charles Schumer), have adopted tougher, and sometimes more Zionist, stances than the Israeli government. This pattern in turn points to a larger phenomenon: The Arab-Israeli conflict tends to generate more intense partisanship among Americans than among Middle Easterners. The latter may die from the conflict but the former experience it with greater passion.

More Anti-Israel than the Arabs

Eulogizing Helen Thomas in 2013, al-Monitor referred to her as a "firm advocate of Palestinian rights." At an Iraqi embassy dinner for the country's foreign minister Tariq Aziz, she accused the regime of cowardice for not retaliating against Israel after the destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. She commented, "Just yellow, I guess."Americans who hate Israel can be more volubly anti-Zionist than Arabs. At a memorable Washington dinner party in November 1984, hosted by the Iraqi embassy for the visiting foreign minister Tariq Aziz, two tipsy American press grandees admonished and even insulted this emissary of Saddam Hussein for being insufficiently anti-Israel. Helen Thomas of United Press International complained that Iraq had not retaliated against Israel after the destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.[2] When Aziz tried brushing off her criticism, she scornfully accused the Iraqi regime of cowardice: "Just yellow, I guess." Later the same evening, Rowland Evans of the syndicated Evans and Novak column, interrupted Aziz when he called the Iran-Iraq war the most important issue in the Middle East, shouting at him to tell Secretary of State Shultz that the Arab-Israeli conflict was his main concern.[3] The late Barry Rubin, who was present, subsequently commented: "Unaccustomed to being attacked for excessive softness on Israel, Aziz looked astonished."[4]

Similarly, in 1981, James E. Akins, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia described as "more pro-Arab than the Arab officials,"[5] chided Sheik Zaki Yamani, the Saudi oil minister, for rejecting the idea of linking Saudi oil production to U.S. policy toward Israel. In 1993, Edward Said of Columbia University castigated Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat for entering into the Oslo negotiating process. Meanwhile, Anthony B. Tirado Chase, an analyst of Said's writings, found that "Said's rejectionism speaks for few in the West Bank or Gaza."[6] In 2003, George Galloway, the British parliamentarian, incited Palestinians against Israel:
The Arabs are a great people. Islam is a great religion. But it has to, and they have to, stand up. … I asked somebody once, when [Ariel] Sharon was massacring the Palestinians in Jenin, why the huge demonstrations in the Arab countries didn't continue? Why did they go away? They answered because a student was killed in Alexandria. I am very sorry for the student and his family, but the Palestinians are losing their children every day, yet it doesn't stop them from coming out the next day. So it can be done. Hizbullah drove the enemy running from their country. Fares Uday, a 14-year-old boy, stood in front of an Israeli tank and attacked it with his hands. And when they killed him, his brother and his neighbors came in his place.[7]In 2009, after a lecture tour of American universities, the Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toamehobserved that
there is more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah. … Listening to some students and professors on these campuses, for a moment, I thought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber. … What struck me more than anything else was the fact that many of the people I met on the campuses supported Hamas and believed that it had the right to "resist the occupation" even if that meant blowing up children and women on a bus in downtown Jerusalem.[8]
During the 2014 Hamas-Israel war, the Arab street remained largely calm.Even more ironically, Abu Toameh found that many of the Arabs and Muslims on American campuses "were much more understanding and even welcomed my 'even-handed analysis' of the Israeli-Arab conflict." Along the same lines, the historian Bernard Lewis notes that "Israelis traveling in the West often find it easier to establish a rapport with Arabs than with Arabophiles."[9]

Conversely, Lewis notes the viciousness of some Westerners residing in the Middle East:
Time and time again, European and American Jews traveling in Arab countries have observed that, despite the torrent of broadcast and published anti-Semitism, the only face-to-face experience of anti-Semitic hostility that they suffered during their travels was from compatriots, many of whom feel free, in what they imagine to be the more congenial atmosphere of the Arab world, to make anti-Semitic … remarks that they would not make at home.[10]One symptom of this: The recent Hamas-Israel war prompted anti-Israel hate demonstrations, some violent, on the streets of many Western cities, while—with the exception of territories under Israeli control—the Arab street remained largely calm.
More Zionist than the Israelis

In 2000, the late Edward Said, a vocal anti-Israel critic, complained that Zionist groups in the United States have views "in some way more extreme than even those of the Israeli Likud."
Similarly, American supporters of Israel tend to stake out more ardently Zionist positions than do Israelis. In 1978, Richard Nixon complained that "the problem with the Israelis in Israel was not nearly as difficult as the Jewish community here."[11] In 1990, Israeli journalist Yossi Melman was surprised to find a Jewish audience in Texas taking a harder line against the Palestinians than he did himself; he responded with alarm when one young man asserted, referring to a fracas with the Israeli police that left nineteen Palestinians dead, "I do not feel sorry for those Palestinians who were killed. The Israeli police should have shot a thousand of them," and no one in the audience took issue with him.

In 2000, Said complained that Zionist groups in the United States have views "in some way more extreme than even those of the Israeli Likud."[12] Also in 2000, when Israel's prime minister offered unprecedented concessions on Jerusalem, Malcolm Hoenlein, vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, criticized his efforts "to take away or compromise Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount and turn it over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations or the Palestinian Authority." Later, he warned, "all of us will have to answer to our children and grandchildren when they ask us why we did not do more to stop the giving away of Har haBayit [the Temple Mount]."[13]

Polling by the American Jewish Committee regularly finds American Jews more skeptical than their Israeli counterparts on the question of the efficacy of diplomacy with the Arabs.[14] At the same time, for an American to be pro-Israel means liking all Israelis; starting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Christians United for Israel, pro-Israel organizations offer unconditional support to Israel. Many American Jews go further: With neither their own lives nor those of their children at risk in the Israel Defense Forces, they do not publicly disagree with Israeli government decisions. By contrast, ranking Israelis repeatedly demand that Washington pressure their own government into taking steps against its wishes. Most famously, in 2007, David Landau, editor of Haaretz newspaper, told then-U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice that Israel was a "failed state" and implored her to intervene on the grounds that Israel needs "to be raped."[15]
ExplanationsThree reasons account for American partisans adopting stronger positions than their Middle Eastern counterparts:

Pure passion: Abu Toameh notes: "Many of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials … sound much more pragmatic than most of the anti-Israel, 'pro-Palestinian' folks on the campuses." That is because they have real-life decisions to make with which they must live. Israelis and Arabs maintain a patchwork of relationships and daily life that softens the harshness of rhetoric. In contrast, pure passion tends to reign in the West. Most Israelis have contact with Arabs, something few American Zionists do. Similarly, a fair number of Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, and other Arabs come into contact with Israelis. For Middle Easterners, the enemy is human; for Americans, the opponent consists of two-dimensional political adversaries.

This even applies to so monstrous a dictatorship as Saddam Hussein's. As Barry Rubin commented about the experience of Tariq Aziz at dinner: "Perhaps it was easier to deal with the inner circles of Saddam's regime, where fear bred discipline, than with these wild, unpredictable Americans."[16] Two examples: Pro-Israel and anti-Israel Americans never need to cooperate on joint water supplies.Ismail Haniya, a prominent leader of the Hamas terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's elimination, has three sisters who emigrated from Gaza to Israel, live as citizens there, and have children who served in the Israel Defense Forces.[17]



Three sisters of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya live in Tel Sheva, the first Bedouin town established in Israel in 1967. Some of their children have even served in the Israel Defense Forces. For Middle Easterners, the enemy is human; for Americans, the opponent consists of two-dimensional political adversaries.
Solidarity: Israelis argue mostly with other Israelis and Arabs with Arabs; but in the United States, pro-Israelis argue with anti-Israelis. Israelis and Arabs in the Middle East feel free to disagree with their own side more than do their U.S. partisans. When a left-wing Israeli criticizes the Netanyahu government's policy, he disagrees with the Likud Party; when a left-wing American Jewish figure does the same, he attacks Israel. The former debates are within the framework of Israeli policymaking, the latter in the arena of American public opinion. Melman noted that "we Israelis have the luxury of expressing ourselves more frankly than many American Jews" and explained this by noting how "American Jews fear that their public criticism [of Israel] might be exploited by professional critics of Israel. Hence, most American Jews prefer to conceal their disagreements about Israel." Mattityahu Peled, a left-wing Israeli gadfly, similarly observed that the pressure on Jews who hold dissenting views in the United States "is far greater than the pressure on us in Israel. … probably we in Israel enjoy a larger degree of tolerance than you here in the Jewish community."[18]

In the United States, the Arab-Israeli conflict is better known than any Middle East issue and dominates the discussion.Best-known policy issue: In the Middle East itself, other issues—civil wars in Syria and Iraq, the Saudi vs. Qatar vs. Iran rivalries, water problems—compete with the Arab-Israeli conflict for attention. But in the United States, the Arab-Israeli conflict is far better known than any other issue and thus dominates the discussion. As a result, the lines of debate are far more clearly etched: When the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) conquered Mosul in June 2014, no one knew what to do. But when Hamas launched rockets against Israel a month later, the facts and arguments were reassuringly familiar.
ConclusionArab-Israeli partisanship fits a broader pattern in which distance turns greys into blacks and whites, increasing political passions. In the case of the Contra war in Nicaragua, the journalist Stephen Schwartz writes that, on the one side, "Sandinistas often commented to me that they were put off to realize that their Democrat supporters in Washington employed a bloodthirsty rhetoric that would never have been heard in the towns of Central America." When asked about this, a Sandinista explained: "We have to face death, and it makes us less willing to speak idly about it; but they enjoy talking about a death they will never risk or inflict on others."[19]

The same reluctance applied on the other side, Schwartz found. A Contra supporter explained: "Our families are split by this conflict, and we do not feel the aggravated sense of rage displayed by foreigners about the war here. In fighting, we may have to kill, or be killed by, a relative with whom we grew up. It is not something that fills us with enthusiasm."

In other wars where combatants live in close proximity to each other but their supporters do not, a similar pattern has emerged: Civil wars in Vietnam, Ireland, and Bosnia come immediately to mind. Commenting on the Spanish civil war, Trotsky observed that the rhetoric in London was far more extreme than the reality in Barcelona.

In conclusion, this pattern runs contrary to the general assumption that the frenzied combatants in a war need cool-headed outsiders to help guide them to resolution and peace—an assumption that sometimes leads to the unfortunate decision to put ignoramuses in charge of diplomacy and policy. In fact, the locals may see the problem more lucidly and realistically than their foreign friends. It is time for foreigners to stop assuming they know how to achieve the region's salvation and instead to listen more to those directly involved.
Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum. DanielPipes.org[1] Ted Cruz, "Did President Obama Just Launch an Economic Boycott of Israel?" Sen. Ted Cruz website, July 23, 2014.
[2] Brent Baker, "Tariq Aziz Too Soft on Israel for Helen Thomas," Media Research Center, Apr. 29, 2001.
[3] Barry Rubin, "America's Friend Saddam, 1988-90," Cauldron of Turmoil, p. 3.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Steven Emerson, The American House of Saud (New York: Franklin Watts, 1985), p. 250.
[6] Anthony B. Tirado Chase, "Edward Said's Anti-Oslo Writings," Middle East Quarterly, Mar. 1997.
[7] Douglas Davis, "In the Service of Saddam," The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 27, 2003.
[8] Khaled Abu Toameh, "On Campus: The Pro-Palestinians' Real Agenda," Hudson Institute, New York, Mar. 24, 2009.
[9] Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1986), p. 257.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Richard Milhaus Nixon, The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978), p. 787.
[12] Edward Said, "American Zionism: The Real Problem (1)," al-Ahram Weekly (Cairo), Sept. 21-27, 2000.
[13] YudelLine, Sept. 29, 2000; Jewish Law Blog, accessed Feb. 17, 2015.
[14] Yale M. Zussman, "How Much Do American Jews Support the Peace Process?" Middle East Quarterly, Dec. 1998, pp. 3-12.
[15] Ezra HaLevi, "Haaretz Editor Asked US Secretary of State to 'Rape' Israel," Israel National News, Dec. 27, 2007.
[16] Rubin, "America's Friend Saddam, 1988-90," Cauldron of Turmoil, p. 3.
[17] The Telegraph (London), June 2, 2006.
[18] Mattityahu Peled, quoted in Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Chicago: Chicago Review Press; 3rd ed., 2003), p. 285; Middle East Policy, June 1992, pp. 136–57.
[19] Letter to the author, Mar. 24, 2009.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Zionism and Arabs.

The substance of Netanyahu's speech:

• Two major concessions have gutted the Iran deal, making it into bad deal: a concession allowing Iran sufficient infrastructure during the deal to permit a breakout (i.e. none or limited dismantlement) and a concession allowing Iran to become a legitimate nuclear power on the brink of breakout after the deal (the sunset clause).
  
  
• Iran should have to meet three conditions, in addition to Iran giving up its nuclear infrastructure, before sanctions are lifted. Iran should be forced to end: aggression against its Arab neighbors, its export of terrorism, its pledge to annihilate Israel. Crucial line: "if Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country."
  
  
• Key line overall: "If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them."

Two key points Netanyahu made:

1. Centrifuges - Bloomberg View's Eli Lake had the scoop. Netanyahu's major concern with the deal was the extent to which the P5+1 global powers have caved on centrifuge restrictions. During the deal - because the limited dismantlement concession - Iran will retain sufficient capacity to cheat their way to a bomb. Your key line for this part is "inspectors document violations; they don't stop them." After the deal - because of the sunset clause concession - Iran will be a screw's turn away from a bomb within a decade.
   
   
2. Israeli-Arab alignment - Netanyahu gestured toward this dimension during his AIPAC speech, but as expected he heavily emphasized the danger that Iran poses to its Arab neighbors (which have coalesced into a single bloc of traditional American allies: Israel plus the so-called Arab pragmatists). Note also this part carefully: the first of the three conditions that Netanyahu gave for lifting restrictions on Iran was that Tehran must cease its aggression against its Arab neighbors. There is little if no daylight between traditional American allies on this issue. Key line: "Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb."

Hat tip: The Israel Project

Here is the video of Netanyahu's Iran speech to Congress




The complete transcript of Netanyahu’s address to Congress (Washington Post)

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you...

(APPLAUSE)

... Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority -- Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet.

(APPLAUSE)

I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.

(LAUGHTER)

My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

[READ: Republicans loved every word of Bibi's address]

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

(APPLAUSE)

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American -- of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Now, some of that is widely known.

(APPLAUSE)

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.

In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.

Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

(APPLAUSE)

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

(APPLAUSE)

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.

My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

(APPLAUSE)

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.


The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots -- religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to "export the revolution throughout the world."

I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

(APPLAUSE)

We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of "Death to America," that same America that it calls the "Great Satan," as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I'll say it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.


Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught -- caught twice, not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, "If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one." Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks -- if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...

(APPLAUSE)

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.


(APPLAUSE)

My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

(APPLAUSE)

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.

My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

(APPLAUSE)

Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country...

(APPLAUSE)

... no country has a greater stake -- no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

(APPLAUSE)

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

(APPLAUSE)

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, "never again."

(APPLAUSE)

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(APPLAUSE)

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

(APPLAUSE)

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors.

(APPLAUSE)

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.


And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), "Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them."

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You're wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu and Iran.

From Arlene Kushner:
February 8, 2015

Hypocrisy Writ Large
Hypocrisy is all around us, but I will focus today on the very significant information that the Israeli NGO Regavim has uncovered regarding the EU:

The Europeans protest long and loud about “illegal Israeli building” in Judea and Samaria. But what it turns out is that they have been supporting illegal Arab building in Area C.  The Oslo Accords assigned full control (civil and military) of Area C to Israel.  This is apparently irrelevant to the EU, in spite of the fact that the EU was a witness to (and according to international lawyer Alan Baker) a guarantor of the Oslo Accords.


The building is being done in Ma’aleh Adumim and near E1 (a region that stretches between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem).  Clearly, this is intended to establish facts on the ground, by way of supporting a Palestinian state.

As the JPost reported last week (emphasis added):
“According to Regavim, European Union support for the Palestinians has in recent years moved from ‘passive diplomatic and financial assistance to a situation of active cooperation in illegal building which the Palestinian Authority has been advancing unilaterally since 2000, as part of its strategic plan to create a Palestinian state de facto, while avoiding the need for negotiations with Israel.’

”This week, prior to the release of its latest report, Regavim took journalists to look at a number of Beduin encampments straddling E1 as well as the Jerusalem-Jericho road. They are not temporary tent encampments as they were in years past, but rather clusters that – in addition to tents and tin shacks – also include modular structures with cement floors bearing the EU logo.

”According to Ari Briggs, Regavim’s international relations director, the EU logo is placed on the structures in the belief that this will prevent Israel from demolishing them. Israel is not likely to take down a building with an EU logo, due to concerns over both public relations damage and the harm it could cause to relations with the EU, he said...

“The EU-funded structures, according to Meir Deutsch, the director of Regavim’s policy and government relations department, are being placed illegally on state land, and in some cases in restricted nature reserves.

“When Regavim appealed to the High Court in 2008 to compel the state to demolish illegal buildings in the area, it ruled that this could not be done until an alternative living arrangement was found for the Bedouin living there. Israel then began planning a city – called Ramat Nueima – north of Jericho for some 12,000 people, a plan now adamantly opposed by the Palestinians and the EU.

“In November, a meeting of EU foreign ministers issued a statement that, in addition to their usual condemnations of land expropriation and settlement construction, also slammed plans to ‘displace Bedouin in the West Bank and the continued demolitions, including of EU and member states funded projects.’”
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-EU-building-hundreds-of-illegal-structures-for-Palestinians-in-Area-C-of-West-Bank-390184

Charges Briggs:

“This is great hypocrisy.  Any time a building goes up for Jews, they raise an outcry, call it illegal and say it endangers peace. They are building illegal houses for Arabs.”
According to Deutsch, from 2012 to 2014, the EU spent millions of euros in putting up more than 499 structures.
~~~~~~~~~~

An excellent story on the Regavim report, complete with a large collection of Regavim photos and maps, has also been put out by the Daily Mail (emphasis added).

“Official EU documentation reveals that the building project is intended to ‘pave the way for development and more authority of the PA over Area C’... “Locally, the villages are known as the ‘EU Settlements’, and can be found in 17 locations around the West Bank.”
Because the Daily Mail is in the UK, it has an emphasis that is different from that of the JPost: Concern is expressed about European tax money being spent on this illegal venture.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874883/EU-funding-illegal-building-West-Bank-says-report.html

Notable among the pictures is one of a man in an EU uniform threatening Israeli soldiers with a rock.

A structure in Area C bearing an EU flag:


Credit: Regavim

And the full Regavim Report here:

http://regavim.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Position-Paper-European-Building-in-Area-C-US.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~

The staff of Regavim has worked hard to produce this scrupulously researched material.  Now, as always, it falls to us to spread this information as broadly as possibly. Truth must be exposed.

~~~~~~~~~~

Already we have seen one positive outcome to this report.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon to move forward with a plan to demolish some 400 Palestinian structures built in the West Bank with European funding, Israeli media reported Friday. “http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-orders-demolition-of-eu-funded-palestinian-settlements-in-west-bank/

~~~~~~~~~~.© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.  

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and European Union and International Law.

Hezbollah's attack on Israel is being treated not as some cross-border spat, but rather as a regional battle. There are a few initial regional angles that are appearing via Naharnet, not known for being either pro-Israel or anti-Hezbollah:


Iran celebrating the attack
Iran's Revolutionary Guard on Shebaa operation: We will stand by the resistance against the Zionists. http://t.co/V6ggLnCs2v
— Naharnet (@Naharnet) January 28, 2015
Lebanese anger over Hezbollah endangering Lebanon on behalf of Iran
Geagea: Hizbullah's role in the Golan Heights does not serve Lebanon or Palestine, but it serves Iran. http://t.co/V6ggLnCs2v
— Naharnet (@Naharnet) January 28, 2015
Hezbollah trying to use the attack to claim regional leadership among Palestinians

Al-Manar: Palestinians welcomed the heroic operation in the Shebaa Farms that demonstrated Hizbullah's credibi... http://t.co/V6ggLnCs2v
— Naharnet (@Naharnet) January 28, 2015
Overall regional implications
Consider that Israel isn't just responding to Hezbollah now. It's making a statement to Iran, ISIS, and any other threat in the neighborhood
— Daniel Nisman (@DannyNis) January 28, 2015
Note that Lebanon has claimed Hezbollah's attack did not violate international law because the attack targeted the Shebba Farms/Har Dov area, which they claim is actually Lebanese territory. In fact, Israel captured the area from Syria in 1967, but Damascus symbolically 'ceded' it to Lebanon during the 2000's after Israel withdrew from Lebanon. This allowed Hezbollah to pretend Israel was occupying Lebanese territory.

The US has mocked the idea. In 2006, during an outreach call to the Arab-American community, Alberto Fernandez -- then the Director of Public Diplomacy at State's NEA Bureau --- mocked the claim that Shebaa Farms belongs to Lebanon:
"Oh come on, the 'Lebanese Resistance', if I may use that term sarcastically, didn't know the Shebaa Farms was occupied until the Syrians told them so. That is just ridiculous"

Hat tip: The Israel Project

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hezbollah

From Arlene Kushner:
January 22, 2015
Seeking Sparks of Light

I’m going to do something different today: Start with good news items.  We need to hear that good news, with all the clouds hanging over us. 

The first is the matter of Israeli-Japanese relations, which have blossomed astonishingly in the past year.  This is true in the areas of diplomatic relations, industrial and scientific technology and trade.  On Sunday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe arrived here for a three-day visit (which ultimately had to be cut short because of an ISIS hostage situation he had to contend with at home).  And it was on Sunday that Prime Minister Netanyahu, referring to the Islamization of Europe, spoke about the need to increase Asian markets. He spoke as well about the “historic opportunity” to join Israeli and Japanese capabilities for mutual benefit.


Abe brought with him 100 Japanese diplomatic and business leaders; he and Netanyahu attended a forum on science and business.


Credit: Marc Israel Sellem/Jpost

And so the essential lesson here is that we are not alone as a nation, and we should not imagine that the world begins and ends with Europe.

~~~~~~~~~~

And then we have the absolutely remarkable speech of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of just weeks ago.  It is possible that you have not heard about this, and I am, quite frankly, remiss for not having shared it sooner.

C
Credit: Reuters/Philippe Wojazer

~~~~~~~~~~

Egypt is an astonishment in any event.  When Mubarak was ousted in June 2012, and the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Morsi became president, it seemed the handwriting was on the wall for Egypt, as the grip of the Brotherhood waxed ever tighter.  But then, in July 2013, the military took over, and a Brotherhood-hating al-Sisi subsequently morphed from general to president, surprising many and turning the tide in a manner that has been significant for Israel.  He has, for example, acted decisively in many spheres against Hamas – a Brotherhood spinoff - in Gaza.

On December 28, 2014, an extraordinarily courageous al-Sisi spoke in Al-Azhar University, in Cairo, to key Islamic clerics and academics.  He differentiated between core Islamic beliefs and an overlay of ideology or “thinking” that has been destructive.  His tone was calm and reasoned, not frenzied.  In part, he said (emphasis added):

“It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (multinational community of Muslim believers) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.  Impossible!

“That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

“Is it possible that 1.6 billion [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible!…

“I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move…because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189700#.VMDybZv9nIU

~~~~~~~~~~

Here you have a MEMRI clip of his talk:




~~~~~~~~~~

I also count as very good news the invitation that has now been extended to Prime Minister Netanyahu by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) to address the joint houses of Congress in February on the issues of Islamic extremism and Iran.  This is an expression of very solid support for Israel within Congress, and marks a readiness by America’s elected representatives to take seriously what our prime minister has to say about these issues.


Credit: USA Today

Netanyahu promptly accepted. 

~~~~~~~~~~

Obama’s nose was seriously out of joint because of this invitation.  It was a breach of protocol, intoned White House press secretary Josh Earnst.  Protocol, he said, would require Israel to inform the president of potential plans to visit the country before proceeding with an acceptance. 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-invite-to-netanyahu-a-breach-of-protocol/

But the key source of irritation, I would imagine, was the failure of Boehner to consult the president before proceeding with the invitation.  Obama was, quite simply, out of the loop.  It is, of course, very much to the point that this invitation followed on the heels of Obama’s State of the Union Address, which left many in Congress severely disgruntled.  And that Obama knows he will not be pleased with what Netanyahu will say.

~~~~~~~~~~

Binyamin Netanyahu has consistently promoted a position of strong sanctions against Iran, to use as leverage in negotiations.  This is a position that he will undoubtedly reiterate in Washington. 

It runs directly counter to Obama’s position – stated once again in his State of the Union address this week - that he would veto any sanctions bill advanced by Congress because of the splendid progress he is making in negotiations.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/01/20/obama-pledges-to-veto-iran-sanctions-bill-in-state-of-the-union-address/

I hope to return to this deplorable situation for a closer examination.

But today, a report surfaced in Bloomberg News claiming that the Mossad disagrees with Netanyahu.  It indicated that Mossad officials advised US senators who were visiting Israel recently to hold off on further Iran sanctions, because they would hamper efforts to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program.

The appearance of this report – presumably authoritative – shortly before Netanyahu is scheduled to address Congress had the immediate effect of undercutting him.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now the head of the Mossad has taken the unusual action of issuing a public denial of this report (emphasis added):

“Mossad Head Tamir Pardo met on January 19, 2015, with a delegation of US senators.  The meeting was held at the request of the senators and with the prime minister’s approval. At the meeting, the Head of the Mossad stressed the extraordinary effectiveness of the sanctions that have been placed on Iran for several years in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.

“The Head of the Mossad noted that in negotiating with Iran, a policy of ‘carrots and sticks’ must be adopted, and there are not enough ‘sticks’ nowadsays.”
Additionally, according to the Mossad statement, Pardo “said specifically that the agreement that is being formed with Iran is bad and could lead to a regional arms race.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/190349#.VMEZ5Zv9nIU

~~~~~~~~~~

And so what is going on here? The Obama administration – furious about the invitation to Netanyahu and concerned about his message – was playing dirty.  Out-and-out lying, actually.  Presumably not anticipating that the Mossad would come forward and directly counter what was “leaked.”

~~~~~~~~~~

More apparent disinformation on another matter:

After the attack on the convoy in the Golan, which took out high level Hezbollah and Iranian personnel, Reuters came out with a story that a security source in Israel said the military had no idea that an Iranian general was being targeted -  that it was simply thought that some guerrillas were in the convoy. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/20/us-mideast-crisis-israel-syria-idUSKBN0KT1HQ20150120

I, of course, do not know who the “source” was, but this seemed blatantly an attempt on someone’s part to partially defuse a volatile situation, or to downplay Israel’s accomplishment.  Whatever the case, this “report” was carried broadly. 

Now here I cite from Al-Arabiya, as reported in IMRA (emphasis added):

”[The attack] is also one of the biggest losses inflicted on Hezbollah by Israel in recent years...
“Analysts, speaking to Al-Arabiya News, said the attack represented a major breach to Hezbollah’s security and a tactical misjudgment on the part of the Iranian-backed militant group.

“’This was a colossal failure … because they [Hezbollah] put this number of senior figures in one spot and at the same observation point and at the same time,” Wehbe Katicha, a former Lebanese army general, told Al Arabiya News.

“’You rarely see armies committing such a mistake,’ he said.

“This is represents a weak point of Hezbollah because of this behavior,” he added.

“While not describing it as a failure, Dr. Hilal Khashan, a political science professor at the American University of Beirut, said the incident was a ‘major security breach’ to Hezbollah’s security apparatus.

“’Hezbollah moves secretly and a number of ranking officials are even tighter. The fact is Israel had information from within,’ he said.”
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=66152

~~~~~~~~~~

I started with the good news, and must end with bad:  There was a terror attack in Tel Aviv yesterday morning, when an Arab from Tulkarem, in Samaria, boarded a bus and attacked passengers and the driver with a knife, seriously injuring four.  We are grateful that no one was killed.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Three-stabbed-on-Tel-Aviv-bus-388417

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution. 

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Japan and Congress and Shinzo Abe.

The following by Phyllis Chesler is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

Model Awareness: Cosmo UK's Bold Honor Killing Cover
by Phyllis Chesler
Breitbart
January 20, 2015http://www.meforum.org/4987/cosmo-honor-killings
Originally published under the title, "Cosmopolitan UK Mock-up Cover Depicts Suffocating Victim of Honor Killing."

Though it will not hit news stands, a mock-up cover released by Cosmo UK is raising awareness about honor killings.The cover is shocking, gruesome, and bold. It features the face of a woman encased in plastic, being smothered to death. A video shows the plastic wrapping being ripped open, "signifying the release of women from violence."Cosmopolitan magazine in the UK has released a mock-up cover of their February issue, designed by Leo Burnett Chase,  as part of a campaign to raise awareness about honor killings. The cover is that of a 17-year-old British-Pakistani girl, Shafilea Ahmed, who was suffocated to death by her parents in 2003 for the crime of refusing an arranged marriage.
Cosmo has joined Karma Nirvana and the Henry Jackson Society in organizing an "inaugural Day of Memory for Britain's Lost Women, which will take placeJuly 14—the day of Shafilea Ahmed's birthday."
Will mainstreaming a critique of honor killing reach those most likely to perpetrate so dishonorable a crime? Are this cover and the planned campaign proof that some Europeans are ready to relinquish the failed doctrine of multi-cultural relativism, appeasement, and the "soft" double standard of racism? Is the British legal system finally ready to do whatever it takes to abolish barbaric cultural practices?What happened to Shafilea?Shafilea Ahmed was a young British-Pakistani girl whose only crime was that of becoming too "Western." Her parents allegedly sedated her without her knowledge and packed her off to Pakistan to meet her much older cousin to whom she had been promised in marriage. Shafilea responded by drinking bleach in a failed suicide attempt. She refused the marriage. Her mother, Farzana, was furious that she had "made a scene."


From her parents' point of view, Shafilea's body, virginity, and fertility were resources that belonged to her family.From her parents' point of view, Shafilea's body, virginity, and fertility were resources that belonged to her family, not to Shafilea herself. Shafilea had shamed the family. Her younger siblings would not be able to find spouses.
This may sound "crazy" to a Westerner, but is totally understandable and acceptable to tribal people. A daughter who is slightly disobedient, not to mention disobedient in a significant way (such as refusing an arranged marriage), has shamed her family. This amounts to a capital offense. This is true among Muslims globally, Hindus in India, Sikhs, and Yazidis.
Hindus in India honor kill when young lovers marry someone of the "wrong" caste and/or someone of their own choosing.
Muslims honor kill for a wide variety of reasons, which range from refusing to veil, desiring an advanced education, dressing in a Western fashion, having non-Muslim friends, a non-Muslim boyfriend, refusing an arranged marriage, wanting to divorce a violent husband, etc.
Shafilea endured years of being beaten and threatened, sometimes almost daily; she was sometimes isolated and starved. Shafilea tried to get help. In her own words, found in an application for housing help, she wrote: "Regular incidents… One parent would hold me while the other hit me."

The British judge told Shafilea's parents, "your concern about being shamed in your community was greater than your love of your child."At the time, in multi-culturally correct Britain, there was no "help" for her. According to an editorial at theGuardian, "Her school, the police, and the social services in Warrington were all aware that there were difficulties in the family. She was 11 when sheran away for the first time."
When the beatings and abuse failed, Shafilea's family felt they had to kill her because, clearly, they had failed to control her. Thus, her father, Iftikhar, a 42-year-old a taxi-driver, and her mother, Farzana, a 40-year-old housewife, murdered her in cold blood by smothering her in plastic.They forced all their children to witness the murder—and threatened to kill them if they ever told anyone.
The police found Shafilea's body in the River Kent, in Cumbria, but they had no witnesses. According to the Telegraph:For nine years Shafilea Ahmed's parents thought their surviving children were so terrified of them that they would never break ranks…To ensure there were no lapses, they were given a detailed "script" of what they should and should not say to friends, teachers and the police…about [their] sister's disappearance.Please understand: The family silence is Mafia-like and usually unbreakable.
According to the Daily Mail, authorities knew that there was a suitcase packed in the Ahmed hallway which contained "gold bars and the children's passports… just in case [they] had to leave the country at the drop of a hat."According to the Guardian,Intermittent attempts were made to offer her support, but they were repeatedly compromised by basic mistakes. Her friends and tutors knew of her father's violent temper yet interviews were conducted while he remained in the same room. To avoid answering difficult questions the Ahmed parents claimed they were victims of racism.The break came when Alesha came forward and when Chief Crown Prosecutor Nazir Afzaltook matters into his capable hands.
Some people believe that honor killings are primarily carried out by male relatives. This is not true. Women are perpetrators and collaborators, accomplices and instigators. (I am working on a study about this.) Like men, women have also internalized the honor codes and a mother is even more responsible for a daughter's perceived insubordination than a father is.
Farzana was an active perpetrator both in the murder and the disposal of her daughter's body. Alesha told theDaily Mail that "their mother began the attack with the words 'Just finish it here,' before her father stuffed a plastic bag in Shafilea's mouth, holding it there until she stopped breathing."
When I asked CCP Afzal what Farzana was like, he said this: "She was extremely strong, very charismatic, an established community leader, with a manipulative personality. As an uneducated woman in an arranged marriage, Farzana probably viewed her lifestyle as the only possible option for her daughters." This was true for millennia in Pakistan and is still true today in non-assimilated Muslim enclaves in the West.
According to Afzal, "Alesha arranged to have her own home burgled to get back at mom and dad. We arrested her. Once in police custody, she said that the reason she did this is because '[her] mom and dad killed [her] older sister in front of me. [Her] mum said '[She will] be next.'"
According to the Telegraph, Alesha's testimony "threw the killers' carefully-constructed defence into disarray." In 2012, Farzana and Iftikhar were both convicted and jailed for life.
Shafilea Ahmed was betrayed by her family, then was betrayed again by a British system that did not help her.
This is a tragic story about a girl who was betrayed by her family and cultural customs, who tried to save her own life, but was betrayed again by a British system that did not help her do so.
However, Alesha became a hero when she decided to save her own life and bravely spoke out. CCP Afzal made sure this case was properly handled. Afzal has handled a number of honor killing prosecutions. Please note that both heroes are Muslims.
How does the West change barbaric tribal customs? Is it even possible? Do we rescue those who wish to live assimilated Western lives—and deport everyone else? Who will become "family" to the heroic girls who resist being honor killed and who turn their own parents in? Who is talking to Alesha today?
At a policy level, Western leaders must stop talking to the Muslim Islamist street and immediately turn to anti-Islamist and anti-tribal Muslims who understand the bloody nature of honor codes and who treasure Western law and Enlightenment ideals.
Phyllis Chesler, an emerita professor of psychology and women's studies and the author of fifteen books, is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Honor Killings.

From Arlene Kushner:
January 19, 2015

Without Recourse
It should be, even in our less than perfect world, that international courts were bastions of ethical judgment and impartiality. OK, maybe that’s expecting too much.  Shall we say, just institutions that model some degree of ethical judgment and impartiality. But even this is expecting too much in today’s climate of severely distorted perceptions and values.

The court I have in mind, of course, is the International Criminal Court, which is just one more corrupt – and politically correct – international body.  As today’s JPost editorial has it: the court is unable to “differentiate between good and bad.” Ah, yes.


On Friday, Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced her decision to initiate a “preliminary probe” into alleged war crimes committed by Israel this past summer during the war in Gaza (Operation Protective Edge).  This is to determine whether prosecution is appropriate.

~~~~~~~~~~

In order to do this, she had to stretch credibility in several regards.  First, she had to determine that, for purposes of the Court, the Palestinian Authority was a state.  Never mind that the PA does not meet all the criteria of a state, the General Assembly – another upstanding institution – has accorded the PA status as an observer state. The ICC says that’s enough.

And then, she had to maintain the fiction that Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas – a terrorist organization, is part of that “Palestinian state.” This was necessary, because a state that accepts the ICC’s jurisdiction can only bring charges in crimes committed within its own borders.

Lastly, she had to overlook the fact that the IDF routinely does investigate charges regarding behavior in the field and pursues prosecution when this is deemed necessary.  The IDF – the most moral army in the world - is, in fact, super-scrupulous in this regard.  But the Court, you see, is only supposed to step in if such systems are not in place.

~~~~~~~~~~

International lawyer Alan Baker continues to say this will come to nothing, and that we only serve Abbas’s purposes when we become agitated about this situation.  So we will not be agitated.

Prime Minister Netanyahu called the Court decision “absurd,” which it is.  The Prime Minister’s Office released a statement that said, in part:

"We see here something truly tragic. The lofty goals of the ICC are being turned upside-down. The court was founded to prevent a repeat of history's worst crimes, foremost among them the genocide of six million Jews. Now the Palestinians are cynically manipulating the ICC to deny the Jewish state the right to defend itself against the very war crimes and the very terror that the court was established to prevent."  (Emphasis added)

http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Spokesman/Pages/spokehage170115.aspx

But the Court cannot be “manipulated” without its consent.  Bensouda could have ruled that the PA was not a state.  I see something very perverse in Palestinian Arab involvement with international organizations, which are prepared to voluntarily distort their essence or their mandates in an effort to be politically correct.  The PA is such a very minor player in the scheme of world affairs.  What gives it this power? 

The State Department, I must note, said, "We do not believe that Palestine is a state and therefore we do not believe that it is eligible to join the ICC."

~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, I shouldn’t say, as I did above, that we are “without recourse.”  This is true with regard to the international institutions where we might have expected some modicum of support.  But we certainly have recourse to our own sense of good and bad, and, most importantly, to the judgment of Heaven. 

There are, as well, nations that are with us.  I note in particular Canada – Canadian Foreign Minister Stephen Baird has just been here, lending words of support.

He told Netanyahu: “Canada doesn’t stand behind Israel; we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with it...The great struggle of our generation is terrorism and far too often the State of Israel and the Jewish people around the world are on the front lines of that struggle.” (Emphasis added)

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/canadian-foreign-minister-baird-shoulder-to-shoulder-with-israel/2015/01/19/

Can we clone him?  On his visit to Ramallah on Sunday, Arabs pelted his car with eggs because of his pro-Israel stance.


Credit: Miriam Alster/Flash 90

~~~~~~~~~~

Missiles fired from two helicopters struck at targets in the Syrian Golan yesterday, taking out either five or six members of Hezbollah.  Israel never officially acknowledges involvement in such attacks, but I would say that here we have an instance of our relying on our own resources with excellent judgment. 

Among those killed was Jihad Mughniyeh, son of Imad Mughniyeh, former Hezbollah operations chief whom we dispatched some time ago.  According to western intelligence sources, Jihad was head of a large-scale terrorist cell, with direct links to Iran, that had attacked Israel in the past. 

But there is more: According to various reports, also killed were six members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, including General Mohammad Allahdadi, formerly head of a Revolutionary Guard brigade.  The Iranians and the members of Hezbollah were part of one convoy. 

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-Six-Iranians-killed-in-Israeli-strike-in-Syria-including-Revolutionary-Guards-general-388210

The coming together of so many high level Hezbollah and Iranian fighters at one time, near the Israeli border, strongly suggests that a major operation was imminent. It might have included rockets, infiltrations into Israel, border bombings, anti-tank fire and more.  Just days ago, Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah threatened attacks on Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

The attack that smoothly took out Hezbollah and Iranian high level personnel suggests superb Israeli intelligence and an operation that was pinpoint.

As I see it, this not only eliminated an immediate danger (it was essential, given the intelligence!), it enhanced our deterrence power – always a good thing.  They know we are watching, and that we act in our own best interest with great skill.

There is no doubt about the fact that there was a message here for Iran, as well as for Hezbollah.But the question now is what sort of retaliation we are likely to see.  It is considered unlikely that there will be a major attack that would escalate into war to our north.  But there is certainly a heightened risk of terror attacks – whether we are looking at infiltration into the north of Israel with attempts at kidnapping IDF soldiers, or attacking Israelis elsewhere in the world, as has been done before.

Whatever might be ahead, our forces are on high alert in the north now, with leaves cancelled and an Iron Dome installation moved northward.

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Eyal Ben Reuven, in a press briefing arranged via The Israel Project, outlined the sensitive situation that Israel now faces: Should, for example, an Israeli soldier be killed by Hezbollah, or should rockets be launched against civilians in our north, this would invite retaliation that might generate a significant escalation in fighting.

~~~~~~~~~~

The situation of Hezbollah, operating in the Golan, directly across Israel’s border to the north, is exceedingly complex.  This area is no longer directly controlled by Assad.  Hezbollah, said General Ben Reuven, prefers acting against Israel from this theater rather than from its home base in Lebanon.  The Lebanese are not always happy with Hezbollah because of the violence unleashed on its population in response to Hezbollah actions.  However, Hezbollah still has a primary goal of supporting Assad, and does not want to invite an Israeli attack inside Syria that might result in weakening him.

Right now, with some 200,000 Syrians dead in the civil war, there seems to be a standoff, with neither side achieving victory.

~~~~~~~~~~

I end – for now - with a good news story that is both moving and astounding:

Michael Mittwoch, 92, and his wife Marion, 90, fled the Nazis in Germany.  They came to Israel, where they participated in the founding of Kibbutz Lavi in the north.

Now they have just celebrated the birth of their 100th (this is not a typo) great-grandchild.



Credit: Elad Gershgoren

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4615185,00.html

This is not just  a wonderfully uplifting story, it demonstrates something: We are a people who move past adversity to life, a testament to hope.

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.  

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!


Technorati Tag: Israel and Hezbollah and ICC .

From the Step Up For Israel website:
Anti-Semitism is once again emerging from the shadows on US college campuses, in the guise of anti-Zionism.

Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus reveals the proliferation of anti-Israel activities and anti-Semitic rhetoric on North American university campuses. The line between fair criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism has been crossed, and we are witnessing increased hatred and violence across North American universities – from biased faculty members, eviction notices, and hostile classroom atmospheres, to national campaigns such as Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Crossing the Line 2 educates and empowers students and communities to learn more about current anti-Israel trends and take action.



Below is the abridged 15 minute version of Crossing the Line 2. The full film will be released in winter 2015:



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Antisemitism.