FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

On Friday, the NY Times — which often speaks for the Obama Administration — published an article about the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. There is a message between the lines, and it is not very well hidden. Here are a few excerpts with added emphasis, in case it isn’t obvious:

With signs that Iran is under more pressure than it has been in years to make a deal, senior Obama administration officials said the United States and five other major powers were prepared to offer a package of inducements to obtain a verifiable agreement to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium closer to weapons grade…

The major powers’ initial goal is to halt the activity that most alarms Israel: the spinning of thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium to 20 percent purity, which is within striking distance of the level needed to fuel a nuclear weapon. That would buy time for negotiations…

For President Obama, the stakes are huge. A successful meeting could prolong the diplomatic dance with Tehran, delaying any possible military confrontation over the nuclear program until after the presidential election. It could also keep a lid on oil prices, which fell again this week in part because of the decrease in tensions. Lower gasoline prices would aid the economic recovery in the United States, and Mr. Obama’s electoral prospects…

On Tuesday, the American ambassador to Israel, Daniel B. Shapiro, sought to reassure an Israeli audience that the United States not only was willing to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but had made preparations to do so…

Analysts said it was hard to gauge what kinds of concessions from the Western nations, Russia and China would draw a positive response from Iran, beyond lifting the oil embargo. European officials have suggested that the European Union could suspend a ban on insuring oil tankers that has had a far swifter effect on Iran’s sales elsewhere in the world than originally intended.

There is lots more, but that is more than enough. Is the message clear? If not, I’ll spell it out:

1. The immediate problem, in the view of the Obama Administration, is that Israel might attack Iran, causing a spike in gas prices in the US and hurting the President’s chances for re-election. The Iranian program itself is a longer-term issue.
2. Anything that can delay a confrontation is ‘good’. Negotiations can be used to stay Israel’s hand, not so much by holding out hope for a solution, but by undercutting support for Israel if she should attack while they are going on.
3. Any kind of agreement with the Iranians, whether or not it is tough enough to be effective, will also isolate Israel if she chooses to attack.
4. The strategy for obtaining agreement, rather than increasing pressure on Iran,  will be to make concessions, even reducing those sanctions which have proven effective. Since Iran and the administration have a common interest in preventing an attack, the administration can be hopeful that they will be ‘successful’.

Although the US has stressed that contingency plans for an American raid exist, the Iranians know that nothing short of a public test of a nuclear device could make it happen before the election (even that is uncertain). In the meantime, Iran hopes to push its program to the point that it will be immune to an Israeli attack. The regime is confident that it can stay behind the American red line after that, while still obtaining a capability to assemble weapons in a very short time frame.

Placing concessions on the table before serious negotiations even begin will be read as a sign of weakness. And the P5+1 (US, Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany) demands are below what Israel considers the minimum to guarantee that Iran will not get a weapon. For example, Israel wants the Fordow enrichment facility dismantled, while the P5+1 only asks for activities there to stop. And this is before the hard bargaining.

These negotiations will not enhance Israel’s security. Rather, they will do the opposite. They represent a strategy of appeasement rather than the use of power. What should happen is that the West should deliver a credible ultimatum to fully dismantle the program or face sharply increased sanctions — or, ultimately, military action. Instead, they have chosen to weaken sanctions and to try to remove the only real military threat!

The fact that the negotiations are being conducted without the presence of the one party that is most threatened has a whiff of Chamberlain’s 1938 about it.

Technorati Tags: Iran, P5+1, Israel, Obama Administration, nuclear negotiations

Saudi checks out classic Rolls that his wives are not allowed to drive. Soon he won't be able to afford it, either.

Israel’s ambassador to to the US, Michael Oren, recently asked “what happened to Israel’s reputation?” He compared the picture of Israel presented by a Life Magazine article in 1973 with that in today’s media, and asked why — given the real sacrifices that Israel has made to buy the ‘peace’ that the Arabs aren’t selling — Israel is consistently vilified.

Oren’s answer was correct, but incomplete:

It began with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat’s 1974 speech to the U.N., when he received a standing ovation for equating Zionism with racism—a view the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the following year. It gained credibility on college campuses through anti-Israel courses and “Israel Apartheid Weeks.” It burgeoned through the boycott of Israeli scholars, artists and athletes, and the embargo of Israeli products. It was perpetuated by journalists who published doctored photos and false Palestinian accounts of Israeli massacres.

Actually, it began in the 1960’s, when the PLO — supposedly under the tutelage of the KGB — recast its message, presenting the vicious terrorist movement as a struggle for national liberation of an oppressed people, the ‘Palestinians’.

Liberals in the US, guilty about the racist mistreatment of black Americans, and Europeans suffering pangs of Holocaust guilt, ate this up. But while the trope was effective, it didn’t spread all by itself. It was nurtured (lubricated?) by one thing over all: Islamic oil.

This was manifest in numerous ways. The “oil weapon” itself was brutally used in 1973, to strike a massive blow at Western economies and influence the West to force Israel to give up the territories conquered in 1967, a theme that has become embedded in US and European policy ever since.  Of course “Israeli intransigence” was blamed for the pain.

A more subtle tactic was the creation of a hostile environment on American university campuses. Surplus Saudi dollars, tens of millions of them, are funding “Middle East Studies” departments at our most prestigious universities, staffed almost 100% by anti-Israel academics. There is also money from the Gulf Emirates and Iranian sources dedicated to this project.

Another use of oil money is for preemptive bribery of government officials, who are given to understand that if they behave properly while in office, they will be richly rewarded when they leave. Jimmy Carter is a well-known example, but there are many more.

Europe has been more addicted to Middle Eastern oil than the US, whose biggest source of imported oil is actually Canada. And their behavior in the face of pressure has been correspondingly more craven.

But this is about to change. And since the despotic regimes that rule the oil-producing countries — especially the Saudis — have done little with their windfall to develop alternate sources of income, they are going to have big problems as their monopoly erodes.

This is happening today. Dore Gold explains that new sources of oil and gas found in the US, Canada and South America are expected to make the Western Hemisphere energy self-sufficient by 2030. Even Israel has new sources of natural gas. And the rest of the world’s energy supply will no longer be hostage to the Mideast-dominated OPEC cartel.

So at long last we can say goodbye to the ‘oil weapon’ and to the use of surplus oil money to buy politicians and academics.

Middle Eastern nations, economies and cultures will have to stand or fall on their own. Which do you think Westerners will favor then — the kingdoms and dictatorships where misogyny, slavery and exploitation flourish, or the one really democratic state in the region?

Technorati Tags: Middle East, oil weapon, Israel

Hamastan

It should be Hamastan. Why not? We are not corrupt. We are serving the poorer classes. We are defending our land. It should be Hamastan! — Mahmoud al-Zahar, 2005

There already is a sovereign Palestinian state.

A sovereign state (or simply state) is classically defined as a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state …

In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one. — Wikipedia

No, it is not the “Palestinian Authority,” which has “supremacy in domestic policy” only in part of the territory it claims (areas A and B), and does not have independence in foreign policy anywhere.

Rather, Palestine exists in the Gaza Strip, sometimes called Hamastan. It is a well-developed Islamist state, with an army, a court system and a real economy. With the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the implosion of the Syrian regime, the Gaza-based Hamas leaders have now taken full control of their state. Jonathan Spyer tells us,

First, the Gaza leaders possess power, a key element that their rivals lack. They hold real political and administrative power and control over the lives of the 1.7 million inhabitants of Gaza and of the 365 square kilometers in which they live. Second: the upheavals in the Arab world — and specifically the civil war in Syria — have served to severely weaken the formerly Damascus-based external leadership, depleting the value of the assets they held in the competition with the internal Gaza leaders.

The nature of the regime created by Hamas in Gaza, and its strength and durability, has received insufficient attention in the West. This may have a political root: Western governments feel the need to keep alive the fiction of the long-dead peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. One of the necessary components of this is pretending that the historic split between nationalists and Islamists among the Palestinians has not really happened, or that it is a temporary glitch that will soon be reconciled. This fiction is necessary for peace process believers, because it enables them to continue to treat the West Bank Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas as the sole representative of the Palestinians.

But fiction it is. An Islamist one-party quasi-state has been built in Gaza over the last half-decade. The prospects for this enclave and its importance in the period ahead have been immeasurably strengthened by the advances made by Hamas’ fellow Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt and elsewhere in the region.

Hamas has created a unique, Sunni Islamist form of authoritarian government in the Gaza Strip. It has successfully crushed all political opposition. It has created a security system in which a movement militia, the Qassam Brigades, exists alongside supposedly non-political security forces which are themselves answerable to Hamas-controlled ministries. It has imposed the will of the Hamas government on the formerly PA-controlled judiciary, and has simultaneously created a parallel system of Islamic courts. [my emphasis]

There will not likely be a unification of the Gaza Strip with the Arabs of Judea/Samaria under the control of the PLO, which is weak, corrupt and generally hated. ‘Unity’, if it happens, will be a Hamas takeover.

So what should Israeli policy be?

First, to treat Hamastan as a hostile neighbor state, not a part of the Oslo-defined Palestinian Authority. It’s probably well past the point that Israel should have stopped supplying water and electricity to an enemy that almost daily fires rockets into its territory. Israel must not take any form of responsibility for Gaza.

Second, to assume that any independent entity in Judea/Samaria is likely to come under Hamas influence and to insist on maintaining control of at least those parts of the areas that are critical to security, such as the Jordan Valley, the high ground overlooking Israel’s coastal plain, etc.

The two-state dreams of the Obama Administration and the Europeans are just that — dreams. Reality, in the form of Hamas, has overtaken Oslo.

Technorati Tags: Hamas, Israel, Gaza

A panel from an Eli Valley cartoon that appeared on the +972 website

Eli Valley is not a suburb of San Francisco.

No, Eli Valley is a vicious Israel- and Jew-hating cartoonist who draws things like the panel above, in which Bibi Netanyahu rapes Barack Obama in outer space, after first eating his arms and legs.

Really.

Apparently, the liberal Jewish Daily Forward, of which Valley is “artist in residence,” didn’t have the balls to publish this particularly emetic example of his work, so it appeared on the extreme anti-Zionist +972 website.

Eli Valley’s message is simple: Israel is an apartheid state, ruled by neo-fascists and fanatical religious fundamentalists. American Jews that support Israel are either dupes, or are cynically exploiting the fear and ignorance of other Jews to rake in the dough. The Jewish establishment in the US pushes the party line of Israel’s “right-wing” government, and viciously clamps down on dissent. Meanwhile, the Likud regime continues to victimize Palestinian Arabs and shun peace while manipulating — with the help of fundamentalist Christian fanatics — the US government, in best Elders of Zion fashion.

Valley’s style is imitative of R. Crumb and of 1950’s horror comics, although he doesn’t have the artistic talent of Crumb or Jack Davis, Will Elder, etc. His politics aren’t original either, being straight out of the Peter Beinart / J Street book. Much of the humor in his work comes from deliberate shock or vulgarity, as in the Bibi and Obama strip.

What distinguishes him, and titillates his Forward audience, is his effective projection of a visceral dislike of Jews, particularly observant Jews. Forget the words — just look at the pictures: for example this one:

Some of Eli Valley's Jews

Someone could try to explain Valley’s animus in terms of his biography: divorced parents, father a rabbi, etc. But who cares? It’s the essential characteristic of his work.

Valley suggests that corrupt mainstream Jewish organizations have conspired to hide the truth about Israel. In “Bucky Shvitz, Sociologist for Hire,” Valley invokes “casino mogul Milt Levy” (presumably Sheldon Adelson), who comes up with a suitcase full of money:

Ironically, in addition to his gig at the Forward, Valley has a day job as a writer and editor for The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life, an organization created by hedge fund billionaire Michael Steinhardt, one of the founders of Birthright Israel. And another major contributor to Birthright ($100 million) is none other than “casino mogul” Sheldon Adelson!

But there’s more. One of the projects of the Steinhardt Foundation is called the Steinhardt Social Research Institute, which engages in exactly the same kind of research as Bucky Shvitz. And Steinhardt-funded research just happens to show that Jewish identity is positively related to support for to Israel. These findings directly contradict the argument of Peter Beinart that young American Jews are repelled by the reality of today’s Jewish state.

In other words, the same organized Jewish community that Valley attacks in his cartoons as corrupt, the very community that does see identification with Israel as the path to preserving Jewish identity, is Valley’s meal ticket!

And Valley’s cartoons not only attack the research funded by his employer, but even suggest that researchers have been bribed to reach pro-Israel conclusions!

This is one confused little anti-Zionist.

Technorati Tags: Eli Valley, Jewish Daily Forward, Steinhardt Foundation, Israel

The UN’s Ban Ki-Moon cares about Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails:

9 May 2012 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today stressed the importance of averting any further deterioration in the condition of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody who are on hunger strike, and urged everyone concerned to reach a solution to their plight without delay.

“The Secretary-General continues to follow with concern the ongoing hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody, in particular those held in what is known as administrative detention,” according to information provided by his spokesperson.

“He stresses the importance of averting any further deterioration in their condition,” the spokesperson added. “He reiterates that those detained must be charged and face trial with judicial guarantees, or released without delay.”

More than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners began an open-ended hunger strike two weeks ago, on 17 April – Palestinian Prisoners Day – to protest against unjust arrest procedures, arbitrary detention and bad prison conditions, according to the UN human rights office (OHCHR).

Here are some things that Moon doesn’t mention:

According to Ofir Gendleman, PM Netanyahu’s Arab media spokesperson, only six of the more than 1500 prisoners who are striking are being held in administrative detention. All of the rest are convicted terrorists (there are a total of about 4,500 Palestinians imprisoned for terror-related activity, and of these around 300 are currently in administrative detention, according to ‘rights groups’).

Arnold and Frimet Roth, whose 15-year old daughter Malki was murdered in 2001 by a bomb built by one of the striking terrorists (Abdullah Barghouti, who has said that he “feels bad that [he] killed only 66 Jews”), provide some more information:

The two who began hunger-striking in March are men called Bilal Diab and Tha’er Halahlah who are administrative detainees, held so far for nine months and 22 months respectively. Their petition came before the High Court of Justice on Monday and was heard and rejected. The court pointed to the ongoing ties of the petitioners to terrorist funding and terrorism and that they are a clear and immediate security risk to Israeli citizens. It added (which is also significant) that the Israel Prison Service is meeting or exceeding the standards required by international law regarding prisoner treatment already.

Diab and Halahlah are in fact leaders in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The angry voices are demanding that we think of them as unjustly shunted off to prison for the equivalent of failing to pay for a television license. The media and the ranks of ‘activist’ NGOs are currently filled with such voices.

Of the other strikers, almost all were charged, tried and convicted for the most serious offenses you can think of. Hundreds are in prison for murder. Quite a number of them are unrepentant multiple murderers.

You will recall that over 1000 prisoners, including some multiple murderers, were released in the ‘exchange’ (I call it a ‘jailbreak’) for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Many of the ones that are left were not part of the deal because they were considered more dangerous or because their crimes were more vicious.

Among the leaders of the strike are these (according to Israeli government sources):

• Abbas a-Sayyid – Senior Hamas activist. He was sentenced to 35 life sentences for his role in the attack at the “Park Hotel” in Netanya on Passover eve in 2002 [30 dead, 140 injured].
• Muhanned Sharrim – Senior Hamas activist. He was sentenced to 29 life sentences for his involvement in the attack at the “Park Hotel”.
• Jamal al-Hur – Hamas activist who was sentenced to five life sentences for his involvement in terrorist attacks and murders. He was responsible for planning the attack at Café Apropo in Tel Aviv (1997) [3 dead, 48 injured].
• Wajdi Joda – Senior activist in the ‘Democratic Front’. He was involved in the suicide attack in Geha interchange (2003) [4 dead, 16 injured].

Just your average ‘political prisoners’, for whom the hearts of numerous ‘human rights’ activists are bleeding.

Finally, I want to discuss the ‘administrative detention’ provision under which 6 of the 1500 strikers are being held, since it is being compared to the Soviet Gulag and worse by the prisoners’ supporters. Administrative detention is used when an individual is deemed to be an immediate threat and where a public charge sheet would have to reveal information about sources or otherwise compromise security. NGO Monitor explains,

Most NGO statements omit the fact that administrative detention is a common procedure used by democratic and rights-respecting states around the world in security-related cases, including the US and the UK. Israel’s detention law meets and often exceeds the due process standards required by criminal procedure and human rights law [Esp. including the 4th Geneva Convention — ed.]

Contrary to the claims of NGOs, it is not true that administrative detention is “without charge.” The administrative detention laws require that the detainee be brought before a judge within a short period of time and any detention must be based upon credible evidence. All detainees have the right to challenge their detention to the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice.

An official statement by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is here.

The release of all Palestinian Arabs imprisoned for terror-related crimes is one of the primary goals of all factions of the Palestinian movement. From an ideological and (in the case of Hamas, etc.) religious point of view, all such prisoners are ‘political’, and there is no legitimate Jewish authority anywhere in Palestine.

The truth is that these prisoners belong where they are. They are entirely responsible for their ‘plight’, and they can end it whenever they choose.

Technorati Tags: Israel, prisoners, hunger strike, administrative detention, Ban Ki-Moon