Why the Obama administration has it backwards on Iran

DON'T BLAME ISRAEL

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ


May 9, 2009 --

"The task of forming an international coalition to thwart Iran's nuclear program will be made easier if progress is made in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said, according to sources in Washington. Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians." - Jerusalem Post, May 4

Rahm Emanuel is a good man and a good friend of Israel, but in a highly publicized recent statement he linked American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli efforts toward establishing a Palestinian state. This is dangerous.

I have long favored the two-state solution, as do most Israelis and American supporters of Israel. I have also long opposed civilian settlements deep into the West Bank. I hope that Israel does make efforts, as it has in the past, to establish a Palestinian state as part of an overall peace between the Jewish state and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.

Israel in 2000-2001 offered the Palestinians a state in the entire Gaza Strip and more than 95% of the West Bank, with its capital in Jerusalem and a $35 billion compensation package for the refugees. Yassir Arafat rejected the offer and instead began the second intifada in which nearly 5,000 people were killed. I hope that Israel once again offers the Palestinians a contiguous, economically-viable, politically independent state, in exchange for a real peace, with security, without terrorism and without any claim to "return" 4 million alleged refugees as a way of destroying Israel by demography rather than violence.

But the threat from a nuclear Iran is existential and immediate for Israel. It also poses dangers to the entire region, as well as to the US - not only from the possibility that a nation directed by suicidal leaders would order a nuclear attack on Israel or its allies, but from the likelihood that nuclear material could end up in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas or even Al Qaeda. Recall what Hashemi Rifsanjani said to an American journalist:

[Rifsanjani] "boast[ed] that an Iranian [nuclear] attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small 'sacrifice' from among the billion Muslims in the world."

Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to take this threat seriously and to consider it as a first priority. It will be far easier for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians if it did not have to worry about the threat of a nuclear attack or a dirty bomb. It will also be easier for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank if Iran were not arming and inciting Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of Israel to terrorize Israel with rockets and suicide bombers.

In this respect, Emanuel has it exactly backwards: if there is any linkage, it goes the other way - defanging Iran will promote the end of the occupation and the two-state solution. Threatening not to help Israel in relation to Iran unless it moves toward a two-state solution first is likely to backfire.

After all, Israel is a democracy and in the end the people decide. A recent poll published in Haaretz concluded that 66% of Israelis favored a preemptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, with 75% of those saying they would still favor such a strike even if the US were opposed.

Israel's new government will accept a two-state solution if they are persuaded that it will really be a solution - that it will assure peace and an end to terrorist and nuclear threats to Israeli citizens. I have known Prime Minister Netanyhu for 35 years and I recently had occasion to spend some time with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. I am convinced that despite their occasional tough talk, both want to see an end to this conflict.

Israelis have been scarred by what happened in Gaza. Israel ended the occupation, removed all of the settlers, and left behind millions of dollars worth of agricultural and other facilities designed to make the Gaza into an economically-viable democracy. Land for peace is what they sought. Instead they got land for rocket attacks against their children, their women and their elderly. No one wants to see a repeat of this trade-off.

Emanuel's statements were viewed with alarm in Israel because most Israelis, though they want to like President Obama, are nervous about his policies toward Israel. They are prepared to accept pressure regarding the settlements, but they worry that the Obama Administration may be ready to compromise, or at least threaten to compromise, Israel's security, if its newly elected government does not submit to pressure on the settlements.

Making peace with the Palestinians will be extremely complicated. It will take time. It may or may not succeed in the end, depending on whether the Palestinians will continue to want their own state less than they want to see the end of the Jewish state. Israel should not be held hostage to the Iranian nuclear threat by the difficulty of making peace with the Palestinians. Israel may be rebuffed again, especially if Palestinian radicals believe that such a rebuff will soften American action against Iran. In the meantime, Iran will continue in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

That cannot be allowed to happen, regardless of progress on the ground toward peace with the Palestinians. These two issues must be delinked if either is to succeed. There are other ways of encouraging Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Nuclear blackmail is not one of them.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the author of "The Case Against Israel's Enemies" (Wiley).

Islamic Radicals Blame Jews for Swine Flu
(Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center)

For Hamas, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and Arab cartoonists, the spread of swine flu and the panic it caused was an opportunity to associate the disease with Jews and Zionists in order to incite hatred against the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
On May 6, the Hamas organ Felesteen charged "that Zionists began spreading the disease."
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood published an anti-Semitic video on April 30 titled "Swine Flu or Jew Flu," in an attempt to associate swine flu with the Jews.

Benny Morris: Secular Palestine, the myth

"The phrase ... "a secular, democratic Palestine" ...serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab-dominated polity to replace Israel." -- Benny Morris

The myth of a secular Palestine

Benny Morris, National Post Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Palestinian national movement started life with a vision and goal of a Palestinian Muslim Arab-majority state in all of Palestine -- a one-state "solution" -- and continues to espouse and aim to establish such a state down to the present day. Moreover, and as a corollary, al-Husseini, the Palestinian national leader during the 1930s and 1940s; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which led the national movement from the 1960s to Yasser Arafat's death in November, 2004; and Hamas today --all sought and seek to vastly reduce the number of Jewish inhabitants in the country, in other words, to ethnically cleanse Palestine. Al-Husseini and the PLO explicitly declared the aim of limiting Palestinian citizenship to those Jews who had lived in Palestine permanently before 1917 (or, in another version, to limit it to those 50,000-odd Jews and their descendants). This goal was spelled out clearly in the Palestinian National Charter and in other documents. Hamas has been publicly more reserved on this issue, but its intentions are clear.

The Palestinian vision was never -- as described by various Palestinian spokesmen in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to Western journalists -- of a "secular, democratic Palestine" (though it certainly sounded more palatable than, say, the "destruction of Israel," which was the goal it was meant to paper over or camouflage). Indeed, "a secular democratic Palestine" had never been the goal of Fatah or the so-called moderate groups that dominated the PLO between the 1960s and the 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power.

Middle East historian Rashid Khalidi has written that "in 1969 [the PLO] amended [its previous goal and henceforward advocated] the establishment of a secular democratic state in Palestine for Muslims, Christians and Jews, replacing Israel." And Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah has written, in his recent book, One Country: "The PLO did ultimately adopt [in the late 1960s or 1970s] the goal of a secular, democratic state in all Palestine as its official stance."

This is hogwash. The Palestine National Council (PNC) never amended the Palestine National Charter to the effect that the goal of the PLO was "a secular democratic state in Palestine." The words and notion never figured in the charter or in any PNC or PLO Central Committee or Fatah Executive Committee resolutions, at any time. It is a spin invented for gullible Westerners and was never part of Palestinian main-stream ideology. The Palestinian leadership has never, at any time, endorsed a "secular, democratic Palestine."

The PNC did amend the charter, in 1968 (not 1969). But the thrust of the emendation was to limit non-Arab citizenship in a future Arab-liberated Palestine to "Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion" -- that is, 1917. True, the amended charter also guaranteed, in the future State of Palestine, "freedom of worship and of visit" to holy sites to all, "without discrimination of race, colour, language or religion." And, no doubt, this was music to liberal West-ern ears. But it had no connection to the reality or history of contemporary Muslim Arab societies. What Muslim Arab society in the modern age has treated Christians, Jews, pagans, Buddhists and Hindus with tolerance and as equals? Why should anyone believe that Palestinian Muslim Arabs would behave any differently?

Western liberals like, or pretend, to view Palestinian Arabs, indeed all Arabs, as Scandinavians, and refuse to recognize that peoples, for good historical, cultural and social reasons, are different and behave differently in similar or identical sets of circumstances.

So where did the slogan of "a secular, democratic Palestine" originate? That goal was first explicitly proposed in 1969 by the small Marxist splinter group the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). According to Khalidi, "It was [then] discreetly but effectively backed by the leaders of the mainstream, dominant Fatah movement ... The democratic secular state model eventually became the official position of the PLO." As I have said, this is pure invention. The PNC, PLO and Fatah turned down the DFLP proposal, and it was never adopted or enunciated by any important Palestinian leader or body -- though the Western media during the 1970s were forever attributing it to the Palestinians. As a result, however, the myth has taken hold that this was the PLO's official goal through the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

And today, again, and for the same reasons -- the phrase retains its good, multicultural, liberal ring -- "a secular, democratic Palestine" is bandied about by Palestinian one-state supporters. And a few one-statists, indeed, may sincerely believe in and desire such a denouement. But given the realities of Palestinian politics and behaviour, the phrase objectively serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab-dominated polity to replace Israel. And, as in the past, the goal of "a secular democratic Palestine" is not the platform or policy of any major Palestinian political institution or party.

Indeed, the idea of a "secular democratic Palestine" is as much a nonstarter today as it was three decades ago. It is a nonstarter primarily because the Palestinian Arabs, like the world's other Muslim Arab communities, are deeply religious and have no respect for democratic values and no tradition of democratic governance.

And matters have only gotten worse since the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. For anyone who has missed the significance of Hamas's electoral victory in 2006 and the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, a mere glance at the West Bank and Gaza today (and, indeed, at Israel's Arab minority villages and towns) reveals a landscape dominated by rapidly multiplying mosque minarets, the air filled with the calls to prayer of the muezzins and alleyways filled with hijab-ed women. Only fools and children were persuaded in 2006-07 that Hamas beat Fatah merely because they had an uncorrupt image or dispensed aid to the poor. The main reasons for the Hamas victory were religious and political: the growing religiosity of the Palestinian mass-es and their "recognition" that Hamas embodies the "truth" and, with Allah's help, will lead them to final victory over the infidels, much as Hamas achieved, through armed struggle, the withdrawal of the infidels from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

-Excerpted from One State, Two States by Benny Morris. Published by Yale University Press. © 2009 by Benny Morris. Reprinted by permission of Yale University Press.

Americans: diplomatic efforts can't stop Iranian nuclear quest

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that Most Americans think that

Iran is developing nuclear weapons,

that it cannot be stopped by diplomatic efforts,

that this situation is so dangerous
that Israel is justified in attacking the Iranian regime’s installations, and

if that were to happen,
the United States should either help Israel or do nothing to punish or oppose it.
----------
From:
American Public Opinion, Iran, and Iraq: The People, Yes! By Barry Rubin. Monday, May 11, 2009

US 'deadline' for concluding talks with Iran?

Negotiating Negotiations
Shmuel Rosner - 05.10.2009

I don’t know whether this report is accurate but I doubt it is. It reads that “The United States has set October as its target for completing the first round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program, according to confidential reports sent to Jerusalem” — but is based on “classified notice reporting on a meeting between a senior European official and the special U.S. envoy on Iran, Dennis Ross.” That’s second or third hand reporting. Contradicting it, just a week ago, an American official spoke on the record with reporters:

White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told foreign journalists Wednesday that “it’s not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables, but rather seeing how the engagement can move forward.”

Contrary to what critics on the left tend to argue, Israel isn’t the only one thinking that a deadline is necessary. Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, and today a Harvard Professor, had more Iran-related negotiating hours in recent years than anyone, and he seems to think that prolonging the talks will not produce for better results:

“We’ve got to negotiate from a position of strength. We can’t go hat in hand to these negotiations and think by just talking we are going to make progress,” Burns said. Any negotiations with Tehran must have a strict timetable and include a previous agreement with both Russia and China for harsh sanctions if the talks fail, Burns said. And they should be backed up by the possibility of military action, he added.

Assuming that the U.S.-Iran dialogue will start in earnest only after Iran’s June election, October seems like a sensible date to Israel:

“It is important that the dialogue with Iran be limited, and if after three months it will become clear that the Iranians stalling and are not shelving their nuclear program, the international community will be required to take practical measures against them,” Lieberman said in a meeting with Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Tuesday.

Whether or not there’s some truth to the fresher report from Jerusalem, “deadline” talk will be at the center of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s talk with President Obama next week. According to many reports, Obama realizes that the Iranians might be playing for time, and the Senate report, confirming Israel’s claims that “Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb in six months,” gives Netanyahu some additional ammunition for this meeting. The danger one might detect in the different, sometimes conflicting reports on “deadline yes or no” — is that time can’t only lapse in negotiations with Iran — it can also pass in negotiation over the right deadline for negotiation.

Jasser: Pious Muslims are needed to defeat Islamists

Pious Muslims are needed to defeat Islamists
Posted by M. ZUHDI JASSER April 30, 2009 6:10 PM

In his first three months in office, President Barack Obama has focused on creating a relationship of "mutual interest and mutual respect" with what he has described as the "Muslim world."

His inaugural address, his interview on Al-Arabiya and his most recent visit to Turkey were all long on platitudes and apologetics toward the religion of Islam and Muslims, and short on specifics. Most recently, the new administration was even discussing making overtures with the "moderate" version of the Taliban in order to achieve a quick solution to the violence in Afghanistan, at the expense of long-term violations of human rights and Western ideals.

While the president's public relations initiative may yield some immediate benefit globally as measured in the public opinion polls of Muslims abroad, this is hardly the kind of real needed "change" that will last generations. Our security is not threatened by the tactic of terrorism, but rather by those individuals who are driven by the political ideology that feeds the mind-set of radical Islamism.



Islamists seek to put into place Islamic states and the associated system of laws best described as governmental sharia. Islamism is to this global conflict of the 21st century what communism was to the Cold War and Nazism was to World War II.

It seems the Obama administration is choosing the same old path of the cold war of appeasing the power brokers, which got us into the mess we are in. Siding with the lesser of two evils is not an option that will ever allow liberty-minded Muslims an opportunity to win a war of ideas against any of the autocrats already in power.

Whether it be the so-called "peaceful Taliban" or the deceptive Muslim Brotherhood, or even the Iranian Islamists who have chosen thus far to keep their fists clenched, they will tell Obama whatever he wants to hear in order to gain legitimacy and ascend to power. Once in power, Islamists will turn around and put into place their signature draconian systems. Obama squandered a rare opportunity in Ankara to reboot the contest of ideas between political Islam and the West.

Militant Islamists are simply more extreme, violent and intolerant than the nonmilitant Islamists. All have the same goal of eventually establishing a theocratic Islamic state. Simply describing their world as the Muslim world feeds into their false collectivization and division of the world by faiths.

Moderation among Muslims today is not gauged by their willingness to denounce wanton violence and the targeting of noncombatants, but rather by a Muslim's willingness to take on the ideology of political Islam in all of its forms from within the Muslim community. We should only empower those Muslims who are willing and able to take on this battle within the House of Islam.

While we are all distracted by valid immediate concerns over the economy, just one terror incident could quickly plunge us even further into defense against a spreading ideology with many metastases. The real threat of Islamist terror did not go away with 9/11. We have seen more than 30 attacks against Americans thwarted since 9/11.

The only ones who can marginalize and defeat the ideas of political Islam are pious Muslims who believe in their spiritual faith, but insist on separating religion and government. It is time to find ways to support an intellectual offensive promoting liberalism, freedom, equality and secularism over Islamism. This should be fueled by a public-private partnership of all faiths and led by Muslims from within the faith.

Government personnel oddly have been asked to strike from their lexicon terms like Islamism, jihad or Wahhabism. This is surrender in the war of ideas. If the language of our enemies is ignored, the needed civil war within Islam will never occur.

As long as this administration ignores ideology and focuses only on superficial public relations, the Islamists will continue to advance the ideas of political Islam while we sleep. It is time for a comprehensive, public domestic and foreign strategy against Islamism. It is time for Muslims to lead this effort with real American support and not just lip service.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in Phoenix, Ariz. He spoke April 29 at the Rotary Club of Birmingham.

Rabbi Kaufman: An Impression of AIPAC 2009

An Impression of AIPAC 2009

 

Commentary by Rabbi David Kaufman   

 whose commentary may be found at http://rabbikaufman@blogspot.com

 

Shalom All,

 

There is a false perception that AIPAC is somehow an organization of the political right. Anti-Israel groups have worked hard to give people that false impression. Many in the Jewish community, see AIPAC also WRONGLY as an advocate for the Israeli political right. In many ways, Jewish peace groups are responsible for that falsity. One need only look at the depth and breadth of the AIPAC Policy Conference to see the dramatic error in those false conceptions of AIPAC.

 

AIPAC is a BI-PARTISAN organization seeking to maintain and strengthen the bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel. It DOES NOT advocate for or against specific policies of the nation of Israel. AIPAC's lobbying agenda this year included three things, all of which were sponsored by leading Senators and Representatives from BOTH parties.

 

First, efforts need to be strengthened to increase the diplomatic pressure put upon Iran to cease its development of nuclear weaponry and to allow its nuclear efforts, regardless of whether they are intended for peaceful purposes as Iran contends or for military purposes as others contend, to be monitored far more closely by the IAEA. Failing this effort, should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, the Middle East will become a new home for nuclear proliferation as other nations will follow in their footsteps. Additionally, as a grossly destabilizing force in the Middle East, Iran's power and influence would be strengthened, something that bodes ill for the future of the region. To have the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world in possession of nuclear weaponry will enhance the threat that all terrorist organizations backed by Iran pose to Iran's enemies, which includes at the top of the list, Israel and the United States. Furthermore, to have Iran, which has threatened Israel's demise, in possession of the means to execute that plan is simply unconscionable. Thus, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is being introduced in the House and Senate by leading members of BOTH parties in the hope of achieving an end to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions short of military action by strengthening sanctions against Iran.

 

Second, as there is a new administration and new Congress in Washington, there is a desire to reiterate the basic points essential to maintaining a positive working relationship between the United States and Israel regarding the peace process. To that end, a letter was written to President Obama, again with Bi-Partisan origin, asking that the fundamental principles of the peace process be maintained, namely that the US must continue to insist that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, that they renounce terror, and that they abide by previous resolutions. This is particularly important considering efforts to form a unity government including Hamas, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, promotes and practices terror, and refuses to abide by previous resolutions. Additionally, the administration is asked to promote a bi-lateral solution to the crisis between the Israelis and Palestinians with the understanding that imposed solutions have failed to achieve positive results. The parties must negotiate face to face with each other.

 

Third, maintaining the Security Assistance to Israel and passing the entire Foreign Aid bill is essential. The assistance is vital to Israel's security and since 75% of the money given in aid is spent in the US, Foreign Aid also provides a stimulus to our economy.

 

These three issues have overwhelming BI-PARTISAN support.

 

As I listened to the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, once vilified in Israel for his dovish attitudes by its political right and who spent almost his entire speech talking about Israel's pursuit of peace, being shouted down by American Jewish peace protestors chanting "Free Gaza," as if this Nobel Prize winning peace maker wanted something other than freedom for the people of Gaza , I felt strengthened. Peres' voice of peace, honored by AIPAC, was far more powerful than the "peace protesters" voices in support of ignorant hatred. I wanted to call out to those souls blinded by hatred of their fellow Jews, "Free them from Hamas! Free them from hatred!" But, to have interrupted Shimon Peres again would have been to insult the desire for peace, because that desire was the central theme of his speech that day and that desire has been the central theme of his life. Three misguided protestors brought that point home all the stronger.

 

The first protestor shouted without listening as he said, "It is clear in our eyes that peace may require painful compromises, difficult concessions.. Compromises require two conditions. First, peace must be real, lasting, mutually respected. We have to guarantee that our children -- actually, all children -- will be free from war, will breathe the fresh air of peace -- all children, from all nations, from all parties. And then, secondly, peace
should enable Israel to protect its people, to realize the fundamental responsibility of a free
government, namely to defend its people from harm, to enable them to meet opportunities."

The second jeered without caring as he said, "The same is true for the future of the Palestinian people as well. I say it loudly, because I believe in it more fondly. The Palestinian people have the right to govern themselves. We don't want to be their masters. They have the right to invest their resources, to direct aid to civil high tech, not military rocket -- to books, not bombs -- to their people, so their people can be both free and prosperous, free from fear, free from hunger."

 

The third stood and blotted out his memory when he remembered, "I can still see with my eyes and feel with my heart when President Sadat landed from Egypt. We thought he came from the moon. If Anwar Sadat had not courageously taken the one-hour flight between Cairo and Jerusalem, I doubt peace would be achieved. We were ready. He showed his readiness."

 

And at the conclusion of his speech, he might as well have been speaking to those protestors when he said:

 

Ladies and gentlemen, to know the future you have to remember our history. Calling history is actually remembering the past. But as you know, we are pragmatic people. So when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he turned to his people and called them. "People, listen, Israel. Shema Yisrael." He asked them -- he asked us to listen, so we shall be able to hear the prophetic message, the mountainous music of peace and justice to this very day. But as you know, we are pragmatists. So the people replied, "We shall do and listen. Naaseh Venishma."

 

AIPAC is an organization that includes large numbers of Christian supporters of Israel from every ethnicity in America, of every economic level, and of walk of political life. It is an organization for all of those who support Israel's security and advocate for its peaceful future. It's membership does not by any means all agree on the ways to go about achieving those goals, but that membership understands that the friendship between the United States and Israel is essential to them and mutually beneficial. If only more of us listened, perhaps more of us would do the right things. Naaseh v'nishma!

 

Od yavo shalom aleinu v'al kol Yisrael v'al kol amim.

Someday peace will come for us, for all of the people of Israel, and for all peoples.

 

David Kaufman
Rabbi
Temple B'nai Jeshurun
Des Moines, Iowa