FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

The organized American Jewish community seems to operate on a time delay. It is about 20 years behind reality.

For example, the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) operates a program called the “Israel Action Network,” which is intended to “counter assaults made on Israel’s legitimacy.” In its latest newsletter (July 29, 2013),  we find this fulsome statement:

“The American Jewish community has long sought a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, one which can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. We are pleased by the announcement that senior Israeli and Palestinian officials will return to the table for direct final status talks this week in Washington,” said JFNA Board of Trustees Chair Michael Siegal. “The Jewish Federations are especially grateful for the relentless efforts of the U.S. leadership, and specifically Secretary of State John Kerry for continuing on his mission to create this historic opportunity, in the face of skepticism. Prime Minister Netanyahu will no doubt have to continue to make difficult – and often controversial – decisions and sacrifices in the coming weeks and months, but we have no doubt that as he does, he will remain committed – as we are – to the security of the Jewish state. We both praise and respect him for this, and encourage President Abbas to show the same level of leadership going forward.” …

Added JCPA [Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a subsidiary of JFNA] President Rabbi Steve Gutow, “This is a great achievement for Secretary of State Kerry who invested so much time and diplomatic effort in finally bringing Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Two states for two peoples cannot be achieved without strong U.S. leadership, and we are thankful to Secretary Kerry and President Obama for their leadership. But the hard work is just beginning. As we move forward, we urge all who want peace to support these negotiations and to encourage reconciliation, not division.”

I think that we would be hard pressed to find more than a few percent of Israelis that believe that there is the slightest chance of a real peace agreement with the PLO, whose demands on the issues of borders, refugees, Jerusalem, etc. are as far or farther from Israel’s bottom lines as ever.

Much has happened since 1993, including at least 1,400 Israelis murdered by Palestinian terrorists. One of the most disquieting phenomena has been the continued anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement in the Palestinian media — in particular those outlets controlled by the PLO and Hamas. Today, some 62% of the population of the Palestinian Authority say that suicide bombings against civilians are often (37%) or sometimes justified. Only 16% reject this tactic entirely!

It has also become clear that the PLO, a corrupt and criminal enterprise, is not capable of creating a viable state, even if it were capable of defending itself against Hamas, something that it depends on the IDF to do for it.

Today, the PLO continues to create obstacles to the negotiations and leak them to the media, because it is not interested in any deal that Israel would agree to. It would prefer that the talks fall apart and Israel be blamed. For its part, Israel’s government has agreed to play by US rules, because it wants US support on other issues, like Iran. But it has no illusions.

Let me put it another way: like most ordinary Israelis, most government officials do not believe that the ‘peace process’ is anything other than a dead end and a tool to force them to make concessions to the Palestinians. But they feel that they have no choice but to participate at this very dangerous time.

The US administration and the State Department keep selling this rancid product long past its expiration date because of promises made to the Arab nations after the 1973 oil boycott. They must understand the impossibility of ‘success’, if this means a peaceful state alongside Israel. Either they are like the dog that chases cars without a plan of what to do if he should catch one, or they are lying about their concern for Israel.

It is much clearer today than it was in 1993 that this path to peace is a mirage. Israelis noticed, but JFNA hasn’t. Possibly one of the reasons is Rabbi Steve Gutow, who, in addition to being President and CEO of JFNA’s JCPA (which calls itself “the representative voice of the organized American Jewish community,” although how it determines what its constituents think isn’t clear), was the “founding executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC),” whose mission is to increase Jewish support for Democratic candidates and policies.

Rabbi Gutow thus unsurprisingly supports the administration’s Mideast policy, but presenting it as the opinion of the Jewish community is a stretch — and his position is a huge political conflict of interest.

It also appears that JFNA has a policy of not supporting projects across the Green Line, although some funds may reach the communities there indirectly (I was once told by a JFNA employee that “not one dollar” of contributions is spent in the territories).

Most ordinary Israelis know that settlements are not the cause of the conflict nor the reason it continues. They remember that Palestinian terrorism predated ‘occupation’, and that the worst terrorism followed concessions to the PLO. They know that Israel is not building new settlements, or even expanding the boundaries of old ones. They know that Israel has abandoned settlements for ‘peace’ in Gaza and Sinai and would do it again if it believed there would be peace.

They know that the real obstacle to peace is Arab hatred for Jews and rejection of Jewish sovereignty.

The Israeli Left and a bunch of European-paid anti-state NGOs make a lot of noise here, far out of proportion to the degree to which they represent opinion in Israel (hardly at all). I suggest that US leaders of supposedly pro-Israel organizations ignore them and pay attention to what ordinary Israelis say out loud (and officials say quietly in private).

Technorati Tags: JFNA, Israel, 2 state solution

Yes, he said this.

The question is — was it a metaphor, or was it intended literally?

Here it is, from a Buzzfeed article which suggests that he should be taken very seriously as a politician:

Paul also finds plenty to dislike in his own party’s approach to beating the war drum — particularly the theological overtones of the Bush years. In a strikingly candid speech last year at the Value Voters Summit, Paul, a Presbyterian, cited his religious beliefs while declaring, “I’m not a pacifist. But I do think it unacceptable not to hate war.”

He elaborated to BuzzFeed: “I think some within the Christian community are such great defenders of the promised land and the chosen people that they think war is always the answer, maybe even preemptive war. And I think it’s hard to square the idea of a preemptive war and, to me, that overeagerness [to go to] war, with Christianity.”

I’m hoping for a clarification.

Easy fast, everyone!

Technorati Tags: Rand Paul

Who would have thought that the twelfth anniversary of 9/11, when America was attacked by the barbarians of the Middle East, would mark our full-scale retreat from that region?

We certainly haven’t done very well for ourselves or our friends there since then.

Thanks to a dysfunctional political system, we ended up with two of the worst presidents in American history, one incompetent and the other — how else can I put it? — anti-American.

It took us almost ten years to kill the seventh-century fanatic that murdered 3000 Americans. We engaged in an extended, expensive and mostly unnecessary conflict in Iraq, while Iran was allowed to develop nuclear weapons. We sent our troops to risk their lives for undefined objectives. We helped our enemies like ErdoÄŸan, the Muslim Brotherhood and the PLO, and hurt our allies, like Israel. We totally misread the so-called “Arab Spring.”

We did not support the Iranian opposition when young people were shot down in the streets in 2009-10. We took the side of Turkey in the Mavi Marmara incident of 2010, forcing Israel to end its economic warfare against Hamas. We helped depose Mubarak and then supported the radical Muslim Brotherhood as his replacement. We have forced Israel into a destructive ‘peace process’ and encouraged the PLO’s unrealistic demands.

But for sheer bumbling, nothing matches our response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons. President Obama threatened to take action, explained in excruciating detail the “unbelievably small” attack that he planned, which would nevertheless not be a “pinprick,” delayed for several weeks while waiting for Congress to advise him (although as of yesterday he “hadn’t decided” if he would take its advice).  Finally, he handed off the initiative to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, probably guaranteeing that Assad will stay in power.

“Big deal,” you say. “Syria will continue to be a mess and we won’t get stuck in it.” Not exactly. Actions have consequences. Putin now understands that the US will not interfere with anything he wants to do in the Middle East, including build an alliance with our greatest enemies:

Russia will supply Iran with a modified version of the vaunted S-300 anti-aircraft system as well as build a new nuclear reactor for the Ayatollah’s regime, the Russian daily Kommersant business newspaper reported Wednesday.

The report comes hot on the heels of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles under international supervision and thus avoid a U.S. strike on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces. Kommersant reported that the deal between Moscow and Tehran was formulated as part of Russia and Iran’s “commonality of views on the situation in Syria.”

The S-300 is considered a game-changer, which will make any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities much more difficult. Israel and the US had pressured Putin to hold off on delivering the system. Now he is sending Iran a system that will be “even better than the ones Iran originally bought.” The only bright side of this is that it may accelerate the timetable of an Israeli strike — we certainly can’t expect Obama to do it!

We can also assume that Obama’s weakness will encourage Iran. I have argued before that nothing less than a credible threat of force could induce Iran to abandon its nuclear program. But if Obama is not prepared to take a much less serious action against the far less dangerous Assad regime, what can we expect toward Iran?

Iran will not give up “one iota” of its nuclear rights, Iranian President Hasan Rouhani said in a speech to clerics, the Iranian Mehr news agency reported on Tuesday.

Rouhani’s comments were made as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton prepared to meet in New York later this month to discuss Tehran’s nuclear program. …

While the West considers Rouhani to be moderate, his recent statements on Iran’s nuclear program have caused concern, as the rhetoric is similar to that of his predecessor in office, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The US is steaming full speed out of the Middle East. The Syria debacle will likely be noted by future historians as the point at which the US decided that it would no longer try to influence matters there, and when the Russians seized the opportunity to take the reins.

Technorati Tags: Middle East, Syria, Iran

Russian PM Vladimir Putin holds a tranquilizer gun in 2008, when he (supposedly) helped wildlife authorities tag a tiger. Yesterday he tranquilized President Obama on Syria.

Thanks to the quick work of Vladimir Putin, there will almost certainly be no US attack on Syria.

Putin, as you have probably heard, picked up on an off-the-cuff remark made by Secretary of State Kerry that Assad could avoid an attack by placing his chemical weapons under international control, and Assad happily agreed.

So now any military action will be considered premature because a diplomatic solution is allegedly in the works. Putin and the Assad regime are putting together a ‘plan’, and Obama, along with European allies, has agreed to discuss it at the UN Security Council.

In one fell swoop, control of the affair has been taken out of Obama’s hands and placed in Putin’s. The US Senate has delayed its debate, and the chance that Congress will approve a military option — small to begin with — is now close to zero. Which is just as well, since military action without a concrete objective is usually disastrous.

This is a great victory for Putin, who is playing the role of world leader to the hilt, and for Assad, who will now be permitted to stay in power and continue his war against the various rebel groups. It remains to be seen to what degree the negotiations that will follow will legitimize the Butcher of Damascus and limit possible Western help to the rebels. But he isn’t going to give up his weapons (or even pretend to) for nothing.

Obama can relax that he is no longer required to make a decision and take responsibility for the consequences. He no longer needs to worry about losing a vote in Congress, even if in his heart of hearts he would prefer to do so. Members of Congress who favored intervention can relax in that they don’t have to take an unpopular position.

Obama will now pretend that his ‘courageous’ action forced a peaceful solution, but nobody will be fooled. His own and US credibility and posture of deterrence were severely damaged by his delay, vacillation and lack of focus — as well as the unprecedented leakage of the parameters of the planned strike.

The actual control or destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons will be complicated and difficult, and it is not at all certain that it can be accomplished. So the ‘solution’ may not be a solution after all, except that it will save Assad’s murderous ass.

From the Israeli point of view, the development is mixed. On the one hand, the possibility of a US strike developing into a regional war has been reduced (although most analysts thought that Israel’s warning of a strong response would have been an effective deterrent by itself). On the other hand, it isn’t clear what the effect of an international presence in Syria will be on the transfer of advanced weapons to Hizballah, something which Israel is absolutely committed to prevent.

One beneficiary will be Iran, which will keep its Syrian connection to Hizballah open, and whose busy little nuclear bees will continue to work while attention is diverted to the Syrian situation.

But the biggest winner of all is Vladimir Putin, now the go-to man in the Middle East.

Technorati Tags: Syria, Putin, Obama

It appears that Israel’s Prime Minister is supporting President Obama’s attempt to get congressional approval for an attack on Syria.

If nothing else, this explains the surprising decision of AIPAC to lobby for the President on this issue.

I have to admit that I don’t get it.

It is impossible for me to believe that an attack as carefully calibrated as this one is to not actually affect the situation on the ground, which has been publicly detailed weeks in advance, and which has already made the US and its leadership the butt of jokes the world over, will have a positive outcome.

There is no doubt that if the attack does occur, there will be severe consequences for US interests in the Middle East and other places, even terrorism in the US carried out by the worldwide terror network of Hizballah. Why not? They’ve had weeks to prepare. And the US and its leadership are perceived as weak, without the will to follow through if pushed.

A former Iranian official has threatened as much, including a direct threat to Obama’s family in the most vulgar terms (hint to Obama: you have drones. Use them. Take it from me, everyone in the Middle East will understand completely).

Obama probably knows this, and this is why he decided to offload the responsibility to Congress (although it presently is anything but certain that Congress will go along).

Obama has apparently exploited whatever hold he has over Israel’s PM — the same hold that enabled him to force Israel to release more than a hundred terrorists, including convicted mass murderers, for absolutely nothing in return from the Palestinians, or to veto a planned raid on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012 — to get Israeli support, and therefore the support of pro-Israel American Jewish organizations like AIPAC.

We can assume that the quid pro quo has something to do with Iran, although I certainly hope that Israeli officials are not depending on Obama to take action before it’s too late.

In any event, Obama’s usual sources of support like his own “Organizing for Action” group are remaining quiet on this issue. You would think that the Arab-American community, most of whom are anything but fans of Assad might be behind him, but no. Nor are left-leaning MoveOn.org or J Street.

No, the stage is being set to blame Israel, whatever the outcome. As Richard Baehr explains,

… if he wins the vote, he will get credit and leftist anti-war advocates can blame AIPAC and the Israel lobby for once again sending the U.S. to war. On the other hand, if the resolution does not pass, AIPAC looks weak, and its ability to achieve results on issues that actually matter to the community, and to both countries, such as Iran’s nuclear program, will be diminished.

Of course if the worst happens — if Obama actually makes his gesture and it does not turn out as uncomplicated as hoped — then there is a perfect scapegoat available: he did it for Israel, urged on by the Israel Lobby.

Former AIPAC employee Steven Rosen — who has the distinction of having been set up by the FBI and indicted for espionage in 2005 and then cleared — understands all of the above, but thinks that AIPAC (and Israel) had no choice:

[If] the red lines that have been declared by President Obama were to be wiped out by an isolationist Congress (much as British Prime Minister David Cameron was repudiated by Parliament), it could begin a wider U.S. retreat in the Middle East. It would certainly undermine the campaign to prevent Iran from completing its nuclear weapons program. Already, the Syrian regime and Hezbollah are boasting about a “historic American retreat,” and extremist elements from al Qaeda to North Korea must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Without a strong United States, the world of our children will descend into a very dark void, because after America there is no one else waiting in line to assume leadership except these forces of evil and chaos.If AIPAC sits on its hands, Obama might well lose this historic vote on Capitol Hill. If so, the Rand Paul/isolationist right and the antiwar left may celebrate, and conservative critics can blame it on Obama’s feckless leadership. But it will be a disaster for the Middle East and the world, and it may be impossible to contain the damage.

This argument gets the problem exactly backwards. The Assad regime and its enemies are presently stalemated. A decisive victory for either side would probably be bad, from both a strategic and a humanitarian point of view, but that appears unlikely now. Obama Administration credibility and respect has already been shredded, and any action now will not restore it. Keep in mind that the planned operation has no clear and attainable military objective, a recipe for disaster. Resources — including diplomatic and political energy as well as Tomahawk missiles — should not be wasted on an action which can only make a bad situation worse.

The real danger comes from Iran, which is on the verge of being in position to assemble deliverable nuclear weapons in a period of time too short to allow interdiction. There is simply no greater threat to both US interests in the Middle East, and to Israel, than a nuclear Iran. Either from sheer geopolitical considerations or from the standpoint of US credibility — how many times has the President promised that it will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon? — Iran is of overriding importance.

I doubt that Russia would practically oppose a decision to take action on Iran. Even Putin does not want to see a radical Islamic nuclear power next door.

What the US should do now is let Syria stew and in the meantime present a non-negotiable ultimatum to Iran: either dismantle your nuclear program or force will be used to dismantle it for you.

Go ahead, Obama, for once do the right and courageous thing. As the T-Shirt says, Israel will stand behind you.

Technorati Tags: Syria, Iran, Obama Administration