Shorts: what’s coming, the nakba, Obama’s worried about Jews

June 10th, 2011

What’s coming (and why the US is making it worse)

This is the best short summary of what Israel and the US are facing. Everyone should read this:

The Coming Crisis in the Middle East, by Barry Rubin

***

The nakba

My local newspaper published an AP article last week in which they mentioned the “millions of Palestinians that fled” Israel’s War of Independence. They didn’t see fit to publish my letter in which I pointed out that the actual number was more like 600,000. But many people, even Zionists, don’t know the true circumstances of said flight. Were they ethnically cleansed at gunpoint the way the Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem were?

Not exactly. Efraim Karsh writes (in Ha’aretz of all places!):

In the largest and best-known example of Arab-instigated exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa (on April 21-22 ) on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, the effective “government” of the Palestinian Arabs [controlled by the Nazi Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini — ed.]. Only days earlier, Tiberias’ 6,000-strong Arab community had been similarly forced out by its own leaders, against local Jewish wishes (a fortnight after the exodus, Sir Alan Cunningham, the last British high commissioner of Palestine, reported that the Tiberias Jews “would welcome [the] Arabs back”). In Jaffa, Palestine’s largest Arab city, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea; in Jerusalem, the AHC ordered the transfer of women and children, and local gang leaders pushed out residents of several neighborhoods, while in Beisan [Beit Shean] the women and children were ordered out as Transjordan’s Arab Legion dug in.

Were there cases in which Jewish troops forced Arab residents from their homes? Yes, particularly the fortified villages along the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem road, which prevented the passage of food and supplies to Jerusalem. Was it the exception rather than the rule? Almost certainly.

***

Jews deserting Obama?

Are Jews likely to vote Republican next November as a result of his Israel policy? More importantly, will Jewish money stop flowing into the Democratic Party? Ron Kampeas writes in JTA:

Where the Jews stand on Obama matters not just because of the Jewish vote, which is significant in key swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, but also because of Jewish money. The 2012 presidential election will be the first since a Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited corporate giving to candidates. The Obama campaign has said it will need more money than ever because big business tends to lean Republican.

Obama captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, and estimates over the years have reckoned that Jewish donors provide between one-third and two-thirds of the party’s money.

“Every two or four years Republicans say, ‘This is the year Jewish voters, or donors, or activists, are going to trend Republican,’ ” said Steve Rabinowitz, a strategist who advises Democrats and Jewish groups. “Every November it turns out not to be true.”

There are some Jews who simply cannot overcome their distaste for Republican domestic policy. Obama would have to grow a Hitler mustache and wear a kefiya to work in order for these people to vote against him. And of course there is the hard core of left-wing Jews who represent the Jewish opposition to Israel — they like it when Obama pressures Israel.

But what about the majority of American Jews who are pro-Israel, as the recent Luntz poll showed? I don’t think the Democratic spin that the position implied by his May 19th speech is no different from that of previous administrations is convincing at all (and I’m a Democrat). I think that many Jewish Democrats are very uneasy about the president and his advisers on this issue.

It might not be enough to make them vote Republican. But it might keep them — and their money — at home.

***

Shabbat shalom!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Mainstream Jewish groups infiltrated by anti-Israel J Street

June 9th, 2011

Item: the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of Greater Boston, in a controversial vote on May 25, decided to keep J Street as a member. The JCRC of Hartford, Connecticut is co-sponsoring an event with J Street on June 13th, despite community opposition.

Item: the University of Pennsylvania Hillel allowed J Street to hold the kickoff event in February for its new local network in its space; the Harvard Hillel cooperated with J Street U (downloadable video) to host Breaking the Silence in March; and the Columbia-Barnard Hillel hosted a “Bagel Brunch” with J Street of NYC this month.

Item: the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) has nominated, and despite protests will probably confirm, J Street and New Israel Fund activist Rabbi Richard Jacobs as its new president.

In all of these cases the argument was made that J Street represents a legitimately pro-Israel point of view — dovish, left-wing, perhaps, but nevertheless pro-Israel. A point of view that might be taken by someone who wants Israel to survive and thrive, but disagrees with the policies of the present government because they are too ‘hard-line’ toward the Palestinians. A point of view that belongs ‘in the big tent’ with other shades of Jewish opinion. A ‘loyal opposition’, so to speak. After all, there are plenty of Israelis that disagree with their government, too.

In the 30 posts that I’ve written about J Street I’ve argued that this is not the case. I’ve argued that there is direct evidence — J Street’s official positions and their lobbying activities — that show that J Street acts against the interests of the Jewish state. Lobbying for a security council resolution condemning Israel, in favor of the Goldstone report, against sanctions on Iran, even against a congressional letter denouncing the continuing Palestinian incitement to hatred at the time of the vicious murder of the Fogel family, cannot possibly be construed as ‘pro-Israel’.

There is also indirect evidence that J Street is actually an anti-Israel organization: the fact that it has received funds from individuals and groups that are anything but pro-Israel, like the former president of the Arab-American institute and anti-Zionist George Soros (about which they lied for at least a year). Further evidence is the fact that J Street invited anti-Zionists and supporters of boycott-divestment-sanctions to speak at their convention, where they received enthusiastic applause — including the vicious Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy.

I will go as far as to say this: the J Street leadership is consciously aligned with Israel’s enemies, even if some of its uninformed supporters still think of themselves as merely pro-Israel peaceniks. Its true goal is not to make Israel ‘better’, but to help replace it with an Arab state.

The Boston JCRC is already learning what it means to invite J Street ‘into the tent’:

In a January 2011 meeting, the group’s representative successfully pushed through a motion diluting the language in a statement calling for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The same person also pushed through a motion opposing Israel’s insistence on direct negotiations with the Palestinians. Yet another vote almost succeeded in calling for division of Jerusalem. — Andrea Levin, “Jewry with the fringe on top: Boston JCRC boosts J Street,” Boston Jewish Advocate

A recent poll shows that the great majority of American Jews do not agree with J Street’s point of view. Nevertheless, the strategy of infiltrating mainstream Jewish organizations like JCRCs and campus Hillels is proving to be a highly effective way to amplify a fringe ideology — indeed, an ideology which is exactly the opposite of what it claims to be.

The nomination of Rabbi Jacobs to head the URJ represents the opening of an entirely new chapter in the saga, because there are more Reform Jews in America than any other denomination. Several Reform rabbis that I talked to indicated that they were blindsided by the vehemence of the opposition to Rabbi Jacobs from pro-Israel Reform Jews. It may sound odd, but apparently many of them, concerned about financial and management issues in the movement, did not think to ask whether Jacobs’ position on Israel might become a problem!

This may be so, but I’m certain that there is a well-organized group that was very conscious of ideology regarding Israel, and committed to getting their kind of candidate selected. The takeover of the URJ is perhaps the greatest triumph yet — Jacobs is certain to be confirmed — for the strategy of infiltration.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Yet another bad idea

June 8th, 2011

Yesterday I called the Obama Administration “the most anti-Israel … ever.”

I can’t guess how much is caused by incompetence and how much by animosity toward Israel, but the screwups continue. Barry Rubin summed them up this morning in a remarkable 200 words (more or less):

1. Obama demands freeze on all Israeli construction in existing settlements, undoing 16 years of U.S. and Palestinian Authority (PA) acceptance of that policy. PA makes that its basic demand and won’t talk. No sanctions by Obama against PA. No talks.

2. Israel calls bluff and freezes; PA won’t talk. Obama demands freeze extended to Jerusalem. Israel complies. PA still won’t talk. Freeze expires and PA won’t talk unless new freeze. No sanctions by Obama against PA. No talks

3. Obama calls for 1967 borders with swaps. His plan: Israel turns over the entire West Bank, then they talk about the swaps! PA makes that their basic demand and won’t talk. (You can fill in the next two sentences).

4. PA makes merger deal with Hamas, antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist group that advocates genocide; expels Christians from the Gaza Strip; teaches children to be suicide bombers; rejects the peace process; and is client of Iran, Syria, and Muslim Brotherhood. (You can fill in the next two sentences).

5. PA forces Obama to veto unilateral independence demand at the UN making US “more unpopular” in Arab and Muslim world, destroying what has been just about his highest foreign policy priority. (You can fill in the next two sentences).

But there’s even more:

The Obama Administration may soon present the Turkish government with a proposition to stop the upcoming flotilla to Gaza and restore relations between Ankara and Jerusalem, the Turkish daily Today’s Zaman reported on Friday.

The offer, first reported by Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, would involve Ankara hosting peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, according to the report. The White House is expected to soon officially make the offer to Turkey. — Jerusalem Post

If this is correct, it’s an awful idea. Turkish PM ErdoÄŸan has ramped up anti-Israel and antisemitic feelings in Turkey since he came to power, with quantum leaps on the occasion of the Gaza war and the Mavi Marmara affair — whose fatal turn was clearly premeditated at the highest levels of the Turkish government. ErdoÄŸan has moved his country out of the American orbit and into the Iran-Syria-Hamas axis. Giving Turkey influence over negotiations involving Israel’s security is like asking the wolf to mediate between the fox and the hens.

Turkish general elections are scheduled for next week. This proposal, whether or not it is serious, will certainly give ErdoÄŸan’s AK party a boost. Even Obama sees Turkey as a major regional player, they can trumpet, thanks to our brilliant Prime Minister.

There’s no doubt that Turkey would have conditions for restoring relations with Jerusalem as well — ErdoÄŸan has mentioned an apology and compensation paid to Turkey for the dead terrorists of the Mavi Marmara before — and he would almost certainly demand that Israel recognize a Palestinian government containing Hamas and lift the sea blockade of Gaza.

ErdoÄŸan is also anti-American — but since when was that a reason to not ‘engage’? An AKP victory weakens America in the Middle East. Why is Obama helping them?

So we have the Obama administration a) helping Israel’s enemies win elections, b) proposing that said enemies influence critical decisions about Israel’s security, c) helping them press their absurd claims against Israel and last but not least, d) strengthening the Islamist bloc in the Middle East to our own disadvantage.

There is little chance that Israel would agree to meet the Palestinians in ErdoÄŸan’s Turkey. How does this proposal advance the cause of peace?

Let me repeat one of my favorite lines:

Stupid or evil? You decide.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

The most anti-Israel administration ever

June 7th, 2011

From Ha’aretz:

White House trying to restart Mideast peace talks based on Obama guidelines

Israeli and Palestinian representatives have been holding separate talks in Washington, as part of an American effort to restart direct negotiations and thereby forestall a Palestinian bid to obtain unilateral UN recognition as a state in September, according to a source at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem.

Why am I suspicious when they suggest that it’s necessary to hurt Israel in order to save it?

The ‘1967 plus agreed swaps first’ plan would likely be as bad or worse than a unilateral declaration of independence by the Palestinians:

  1. It drops UNSC resolution 242’s idea of defensible borders in favor of cleaving as closely as possible to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.
  2. It introduces the new idea that there is fixed amount of land due to the Palestinian Arabs, equivalent to the area of Judea/Samaria, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem.
  3. In practice, it precludes Israel from retaining the Jordan Valley, necessary for its security.
  4. It takes away all leverage for Israel on the issues of Jerusalem and Arab refugees, supposedly to be discussed after the withdrawal.
  5. It does not include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
  6. It does not include the release of Gilad Shalit.

The main difference that I can see between this and a unilateral declaration is that Israel would be agreeing to it beforehand! It would not bring about a true “two-state solution” because it does not guarantee an end to Arab claims on Israel (refugee ‘rights’) and on its capital, Jerusalem. If these issues are deferred until after Israel has surrendered the territories, what motivation do the Arabs have to give Israel anything on them?

This is supposed to ‘forestall’ unilateral actions by the Arabs, but all the US has to do to prevent ‘Palestine’ from being admitted to the UN is use its veto in the Security Council. I doubt that it is even possible to prevent a (non-binding) resolution in the General Assembly if the Arabs want one, no matter what the US does or what concessions Israel agrees to.

This is nothing more but an escalation of the pressure that has been on Israel since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970’s to get out of the territories. The difference is that the Obama Administration has given up trying to credibly pretend that it cares about what ultimately happens to Israel.

I have an idea: why not take as a starting point a proposal in keeping with international law and prior resolutions, which would include:

  1. Defensible borders.
  2. Recognition as a Jewish state.
  3. The release of Gilad Shalit (and not in return for a bunch of murderers).
  4. An agreement on Jerusalem that leaves holy places under Israeli control.
  5. An end of all Arab claims on Israel, including refugees.
  6. An end to terrorism against Israel.

Such a proposal is not unreasonable, in light of the legal history of the territories starting with the League of Nations Mandate which called for ‘close Jewish settlement on the land’, and including the relevant Security Council resolutions and the real principles of international law (not the ones invented by the Arabs and friends).

Polls show, over and over, that the American people overwhelmingly support the Jewish state. US policy was never as wholeheartedly supportive of Israel as that, mostly because of the pro-Arab tendencies of the State Department, and the influence of Saudi Arabia via oil interests and pre-bribed public officials.

But now this administration, in accordance with the ideology of the President and his chosen advisers, has decided to shift policy even more, to what is essentially an anti-Israel position. And it is trying to force it down Israel’s throat.

What’s worse, it’s doing it at a time of unparalleled danger for the Jewish state.

Update [1610 PDT]: And now the Palestinians have adopted the Obama formulation as a precondition, just like the settlement freeze! Gee thanks, Barack.

Technorati Tags: ,

Oren: the devil Israel knows is worse than the one it doesn’t

June 6th, 2011

President Obama said in his May 19 speech, that

President Assad now has a choice:  He can lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way.

Since then, security forces have murdered even more Syrians, including the well-documented case of a 13-year old boy who was brutally tortured to death.

Yesterday, Syrian buses transported rioters to the Israeli border in the Golan. They were paid to be there and to throw themselves at the border, with promises to pay even more to the families of any who were killed. Syrian TV reported that 19 (some reports say 23) were killed by Israeli soldiers, and the US media dutifully repeated this. But all we know for certain is that some rioters were killed when their Molotov cocktails ignited a brush fire which caused old, unstable Syrian mines to detonate.

Assad is trying to use the old trick of  deflecting opposition to his regime by creating anger against Israel. But it isn’t working. Anti-Assad dissidents know who is killing, raping and torturing them, and it isn’t Israel.

Here is a video of Syrian security men planting weapons and ammunition on the bodies of protesters that they’d just killed. I won’t embed it, but if you have a strong stomach you can see it here.

So you would think that by now the Obama Administration would be calling for Bashar al-Assad to be thrown out and prosecuted as the mass murderer that he is. Not quite. Here is the statement by Secretary of State Clinton on Thursday (remember, last month she famously referred to Assad as a ‘reformer’):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday the international community needs to be more united in pressuring the Syrian government to end its lethal crackdown on demonstrators. Clinton says the legitimacy of President Bashar al-Assad’s government has “nearly run out.”

Clinton says a Human Rights Watch report this week, framing Syrian actions against protestors as crimes against humanity, is in line with the State Department’s own reporting on the events.

She is lamenting the lack of an international consensus for stronger steps against the Assad government, including a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Damascus…

“If he cannot end the violence against his own people, take meaningful steps to start a process of reform, then he needs to get out of the way. And every day that he stays in office and the violence continues, he’s basically making that choice by default,” she said.

One gets the feeling that someone else is perpetrating the violence! How many chances are we going to give this butcher?

But suggestions abound that the US is going easy on Assad to … get ready … help Israel, which supposedly wants Assad to stay in power! The Zionist conspiracy, apparently, is pulling strings at the friendly State Department, as well as influencing friendly Russia and China to oppose sanctions in the Security Council. Sure.

The administration is hanging on to Assad for its own mysterious reasons, and it’s not Israel’s fault. Here is a letter published today in the Wall St. Journal:

For the second time, a recent Journal article (“Syrian Violence Tests U.S.,” page one, June 3) asserts that Israel has expressed fears of instability in Syria if leader Bashar al-Assad is overthrown. I emphatically denied this the first time (“U.S. Seeks to Raise Heat on Syria,” page one, April 25) and categorically deny it again. Israel has expressed no such concerns. Allied with Iran, Mr. Assad has helped supply 55,000 rockets to Hezbollah and 10,000 to Hamas, very likely established a clandestine nuclear arms program and profoundly destabilized the region. The violence he has unleashed on his own people demonstrating for freedoms confirms Israel’s fears that the devil we know in Syria is worse than the devil we don’t.

Ambassador Michael Oren
Israeli Embassy
Washington

Technorati Tags: , ,