FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

The notorious team of Mearsheimer and Walt, whose slanderous article and book on the “Israel Lobby” has attracted so much attention, are presently speaking in Israel, invited by the left-wing “Gush Shalom” [Peace Bloc] group.

Here is one Israeli’s response to them:

An open letter to Professors Mearsheimer and Walt

From Maurice Ostroff
June 12, 2008

Dear Professors Mearsheimer and Walt,

Welcome to Israel. I sincerely hope you will enjoy your stay and gain a broader perspective of our tiny troubled country.

You may recall that we have been in correspondence before. In my open letter in May 2006, I raised a few questions arising from your original article on the Israel Lobby in the London Review of Books. You replied that you were preparing a lengthy “response to critics” in which you would address many of the issues I had raised and in December you kindly sent me a copy of your unpublished 81-page paper “Setting the record straight”.

While you did address some minor criticisms, you have not yet responded to almost all the points I had raised and I would be delighted if you would please address them now while in Israel. For example:

1. The Iraq war
As you claimed that were it not for the Jewish lobby, the US would not have gone to war against Iraq in 2003, I asked why you continue to ignore reliable reports that then Prime Minister Sharon and Israeli officials had warned the Bush administration against invading Iraq.

I expected that you must have been aware that Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, was reported as saying the Israeli government “…were telling us Iraq is not the enemy, Iran is the enemy. If you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy”.

And although you stated that you relied on Jewish newspapers like the Forward, you seem to have missed a report in that paper confirming that PM Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq and that AIPAC officials told visiting Arab intellectuals they would rather the US deal militarily with Iran than with Iraq.

2. Sponsors of Terror.
You claim that US policy towards Israel contributes to America’s terrorism problem, but you failed to respond to my reference to Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., who stated that Riyadh, flush with oil money, became the paymaster of most of the militant Islamic movements, which advocated terror. Even the most violent of Islamic groups, like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, receives Saudi largesse. Official Saudi sources indicate that between 1975 and 1987, Riyadh’s overseas development aid averaged $4 billion per year, of which at least $50 billion over two-and-a-half decades financed Islamic activities exclusively. The SAAR Foundation alone, which has been closed down since 9/11, received $1.7 billion in donations in 1998.

Nor did you respond to my statement that anti-American agendas dominate the majority of Muslim Student Associations at U.S. colleges.

3. Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer.
You referred to then PM Ehud Baraks’ purportedly generous offer at Camp David, and I suggested that the loaded word “purportedly” was inappropriate. Rather, you owed it to your readers to present the facts and allow them to form their own opinions as to whether the offer was generous or “purportedly” generous?

4. Campus Watch
You wrote about Campus Watch, “Pipes does not deny that his organization, Campus Watch, was created in order to monitor what academics say, write and teach, so as to discourage them from engaging in open discourse about the Middle East”. (The emphasis is mine)

As Campus Watch is known to encourage open discourse, I asked you to please explain your allegation that it attempts to discourage academics from doing just that. I also asked you to substantiate your claim that Pipes admitted that he discouraged open discourse.

5. Apparent bias
You have not responded to my suspicion of the bias evident from your writing about relations between “Tel Aviv” and Washington, rather than Jerusalem (Israel’s seat of government), and Washington.

6. Lobbies in context and the Arab Lobby
You did not respond to my contention that your concentrated focus on the Israel Lobby creates the completely misleading impression that it is the only influence on Congress, whereas in reality, the Israel Lobby is one of many dozens of interest groups that spend billions to convince politicians to pass or oppose particular laws.

Of course any serious study of the Jewish Lobby cannot avoid comparison with Arab influence on Washington. I cannot understand how, in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary, you conclude in your unpublished paper “setting the record straight” that there is no well-organized and politically potent Arab Lobby and little evidence that US politicians ever feel much pressure from pro-Arab groups. (The emphasis is mine)

You did not address, for example, my comments about Prince Bandar Bin Sultan who is reported to have participated in backstage intrigues, clandestine negotiations, and billion-dollar deals, all having to do with US interests in the Middle East and who was rated by Axis Information And Analysis (Aia), as almost the most influential foreigner in the USA.

I also mentioned that Aia refers to U.S.A.-Engage as one of the largest lobbying groups, uniting 640 giants of the American economy, a tenth of the leading banks, as well as associations of industrialists and farmers. The most prominent and influential members of U.S.A.-Engage work almost permanently in the Congress and have great influence over the mass media (partly because of their advertising expenditure).

On your own turfs in academia, Harvard and Georgetown each received gifts of $20 million from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. It is also common knowledge that the Carter Center has received large donations from Arab sources including the late King Fahd and his nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal.

In Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud” Unger tells of Saudis investing as much as $800 billion into American equities, not only in blue chip companies but also in companies not doing so well, but linked to powerful politicians.

He also speaks of at least $1 million donated to each presidential library, emphasizing that the Saudis give to Democrats and Republicans alike. Prince Bandar has been quite frank. “If we give to our friends after you get out of office, the people in office will get the message”.

In an interview with Sentient Times, Unger said that over the last 30 years, the Saudis spent $70 billion on propaganda, the biggest propaganda campaign in the history of the world. The Israel Lobby’s influence is less than puny by contrast.

Nor can the stranglehold of OPEC be ignored. This blatantly monopolistic cartel threatens not only the US, but also the world economy. With oil soaring around $150, it is mind-boggling to consider that production costs average only about $6 per barrel for non-OPEC producers; and $1.50 per barrel for OPEC producers according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists May/June 2005.

Surely, in light of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you cannot be comfortable continuing to claim that there is no well-organized, politically potent Arab Lobby.

7. Conclusion
I wholeheartedly support your call for a civilized discussion about the role of lobbies in American foreign policy, but I ask you to recognize that by focusing only on Israel, you are diverting attention from the serious threat of fundamentalist extremism as opposed to the moderate Muslim religion that needs recognition and encouragement.

May I hope that in your public appearances in Israel you will address all or at least some of the queries I have raised.

Sincerely
Maurice Ostroff

The article originally appeared here and is reprinted with permission.

Technorati Tags: Mearsheimer and Walt, Maurice Ostroff, Israel

Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, joins the chorus of those who think that the US should not threaten Iran over nuclear weapons:

Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix criticized the United States on Thursday for keeping open the possibility of military action to force changes in Iran’s nuclear program…

“The military threat may well be counterproductive,” Blix said at a news conference. “It is more likely to strengthen the ranks in Iran.” — YNet

Not only should Iran not have to worry about military action against her illegal program, but she should be rewarded if she ‘suspends’ it:

“The rewards are more important, the carrots rather than the sticks,” he said. He said the United States and Europe should offer incentives – including support for Iran joining the World Trade Organization, improved economic relations and guarantees against outside attacks and attempts to topple the Iranian regime…

“So we’ve got to continue to work together to make it clear, abundantly clear, to them, that it’s their choice to make: They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with all of us if they verifiably suspend their enrichment program,” he said.

It’s important to realize that Iran’s foreign policy goals — the political, economic, and religious domination of the region, the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, the destruction of Israel and the end of the US as a world power — do not require the use, or even possession of atomic weapons. As Ami Isseroff pointed out, Iran recently cemented its control over Lebanon without bombing anybody, even conventionally.

Our policy needs to counteract the expansion of Iranian power, not just prevent their acquisition of WMD (although obviously this is important as well).

Helping the present regime stay in power, which is exactly what Blix is suggesting, is the wrong approach. The real problem here is not the means, but rather the ends. And apparently Blix is unmoved by the prospect of an Iranian Middle East, no Israel, and the US as a minor power, because this situation is what Ahmadinejad is trying to bring about.

Hans Blix in Iran (courtesy Cox and Forkum)

Technorati Tags: Hans Blix, Iran

We should lay off Iran’s nuclear weapons program, says a “human rights” advocate, because Iran is using it as a reason to increase repression of internal reformers:

Rights advocates say dozens of activists have been prosecuted and condemned to prison sentences, some with lashes. They say arrests, detention and judicial harassment are common practice. They say journalists, lawyers, students and trade unionists are particularly targeted.

Spokesman of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Hadi Ghaemi, says Iran has taken advantage of the International Community’s fixation on the country’s nuclear issue to increase repression in the country.

“As the military threat against Iran increases, indeed, the government uses that to solidify the current situation and increase its repression. And, human rights defenders inside Iran are very much opposed to the continuing threat made against Iran,” he said. “It has made life very difficult for them. And, if there is any kind of military action against Iran, be it a very limited one, it will give a license to the government to completely uproot any semblance of civil society in the country.” — VOA News (6/2008) [my emphasis]

This is truly breathtaking in its stupidity. Iran is developing nuclear weapons in order to facilitate its goal of exporting revolutionary, fundamentalist Shiite Islam. Of course the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad want to repress reform at home; it’s part and parcel of the same project.

Repression has increased greatly since Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, and the authorities are making good use of everything that the US does and says, not only our silly ‘fixation’, to justify it. For example, for the past several years the US has been funding radio broadcasts, websites, international human rights organizations concerned with conditions in Iran, etc.

Since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice unveiled the program [in 2006], a wide array of activists — teachers, women’s rights campaigners, labor organizers, students, journalists and intellectuals — have faced interrogations, detentions, imprisonment and passport confiscation over suspected links to the new U.S. funding, activists and human rights groups say. Iranian officials have charged that Washington is supporting the kind of soft revolution that transformed Eastern Europe. — Washington Post (4/2007)

Indeed, the same Hadi Ghaemi, who is an analyst for Human Rights Watch, was quoted in the Post article:

Dozens of Iranian activists are paying a price since the announcement of the $75 million, and practically everyone who has been detained over the past year has been interrogated about receiving this money…

US officials on their part have emphasized that no funding is given directly to Iranian reformers. Of course, that doesn’t stop the security forces from using it as an issue. Does anyone really think that the crackdown would stop if the US backed off? Would they lack questions to ask dissidents?

Ghaemi is correct in decrying the violations of human rights committed by the Iranian regime. But his advice for the US appears to be that we should take no action of any kind — not against the nuclear program and not even to indirectly help those Iranians who oppose the fundamentalist program of Ahmadinejad’s regime.

In other words, Iran should be allowed to achieve her goals of regional domination, the elimination of Israel, and — ultimately — the end of the US as a world power.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Hadi Ghaemi, human rights

News item:

Fear of a weak cease-fire agreement which would work to the advantage of Hamas led a majority of ministers to express their support on Tuesday for escalated measures to end the threat of rocket attacks to southern Israel, with many of them calling for the launch of a wide-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip…

Meanwhile, defense officials said Monday night that during a security meeting following the cabinet meeting, Defense Minister Ehud Barak would push for a “medium-level military operation” in Gaza before agreeing to an Egyptian-brokered truce with Hamas…

According to the sources, Barak plans to ask Olmert to approve an operation that would make Hamas “pay a price,” and only afterwards agree to a cease-fire.

Here is the scenario I expect:

1. The IDF mounts a limited operation into Gaza, suffers some casualties overcoming Hamas fortifications.
2. Hamas screams bloody murder, claims huge civilian casualties. They are already preparing the ground for this with the US and other players.
3. The US forces Israel to withdraw before even the limited operation meets its goals.
4. Israel agrees to cease-fire with only slightly damaged Hamas. No effective guarantee against arms smuggling is implemented (because the only effective one is Israeli control of Egyptian border).
5. Hamas claims victory, continues to arm, Israel is limited in possible responses by terms of cease-fire.

There are even worse scenarios, including international involvement in the terms of the cease-fire, which could make them even worse for Israel. Certainly Hamas will insist on opening crossings, prisoner releases, etc.

There is only one solution to Hamas, and that is a large operation that will destroy it as a functioning organism. Yes it will be hard, yes it will have unpleasant consequences, yes Israel will also have to worry about Hezbollah, etc.

There is a fallacy I recall from a basic logic course, called argumentum ad consequentiam. It means arguing that “If P is true, then that will be very bad. So P is false”. Baldly stated it looks foolish, but how many times have you heard “the negotiations must succeed — there’s no alternative”?

Or, in this case, “We can live with Hamas, because the alternative is war”. But can Israel live with Hamas?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas, IDF, cease-fire

Recently there’s been talk about a lame-duck Bush administration bombing Iran. And yesterday Shaul Mofaz threatened that Israel would do so (my local newspaper headlined the AP story “Israeli threatens to bomb Iran”, which caused me to do a double take when I read it as “Israel threatens…”).

But the real danger may not be only from actual bombs in Iranian hands. In “The real danger from Iran“, Ami Isseroff argued,

The prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons is frightening because of what the Iranian government – the Islamic Republic of Iran – stands for, and because of the goals that it announces day and night, and its apparent readiness to achieve them by all means possible: a world without Zionism and America, an international Islamic caliphate, a Middle East dominated by Iranian radical Shi’ism.

…Iran is not just, or primarily, dangerous because it might develop nuclear weapons. Iran is dangerous because it is trying to undermine the United States and the west, and allies of the United States, including but not limited to Israel. The nature of the Iranian program was dramatically illustrated only a few weeks ago in the Hezbollah takeover of Lebanon, quietly blessed by the Doha agreement. While most of the Arab world and the west looked on with benign unconcern, some Arab clerics voiced their deep concerns. Iran’s supreme leader has again insisted that Iran is not seeking to make nuclear weapons, and that just might well be true. So what? [The late] Imad Moughnieh and Hassan Nassrallah and their activities represent the real danger from Iran…

…what if Iran “only” attains the nuclear fuel cycle and renounces nuclear weapons? What if they strike a deal with the west – no nuclear weapons, in return for economic support? Will Iran become a benign country? Picture Iran with no nuclear weapons, but as rich as Germany or France, and still committed to overthrowing the influence of moderate Islam, the west and Israel. Picture a world in which Iran controls the price of oil and decides who gets it, and installs radical Shi’a regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries. Yet they haven’t dropped a single atom bomb on anybody and they do not [yet] have any bombs. That scenario is far more realistic and probable than a nuclear attack on Israel, and it represents a devastating threat. Iran already controls Syria and Lebanon, and they bid fair to control the Palestinian authority. Who is next? [my emphasis]

Isseroff does not suggest a solution. He concludes,

The first step in solving the problem is to understand the real danger. By offering to “trade” other concessions for a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons, and by focusing only on this issue, the west is playing into the hands of Iran.

The conclusion that we must draw from his analysis is that there is no solution to the problem of Iran short of regime change. Yes, it is necessary to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but this won’t be sufficient to prevent her from reaching her goals as proclaimed by Ahmadinejad.

And this is why Barack Obama’s announced policy of “aggressive, principled diplomacy” is unlikely to work. Obama said,

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives – including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

The only part of this that is concrete and (maybe) verifiable is stopping the nuclear program. Do we really think Ahmadinejad would stop supporting Hezbollah? Do we really think that the West would insist on the rest if he would agree to put his nuclear ambition on hold? Do we really think that he would give up what has been the primary goal of Iranian policy since 1979, the replacement of US and Saudi influence with a Shiite hegemony in the Middle East?

Technorati Tags: Iran