How Our Muslim Allies Understand the "Crisis" Between the US and Israel

Harold Rhode
Hudson New York
17 March '10

Given the so-called crisis between the US Administration and Israel, it is important to keep in mind the context of how our Muslim friends’ view this. Our Arab friends in the Gulf see us as abandoning our closest ally. From a Muslim point of view, all Muslims are brothers in Islam. They also see the non-Muslims as one (united) group. Israel and America (and for that matter Christian Europe) are therefore seen as one block.

If the US abandons Israel -- such a close friend, ally and in some deep way family to the US -- our Muslim allies reason that the US would surely do the same to them --who are not part of the non-Muslim world, and by definition, "not part of the non-Muslim family/brotherhood." This indicates to them that if our friends in the Gulf cannot trust the US to stand by them, outsiders will not fare better.

This means to our Arab friends and allies in the Gulf that they must look elsewhere for protection - maybe China or Russia - or even try to appease Iran, their hated/mortal enemy, to the fullest extent they can - which does NOT bode well for America.

Probably the best way to explain what the Muslims expect in this situation is to quote, a classic Muslim scholar, ibn Hazmm on the concept of friendship, enmity, and war.

(Read full post)
.

Abbas takes pride in rejecting US request

Itamar Marcus/Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Palestinian Media Watch (PMW)
12 January '10

In recent speeches, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has called on Hamas to sign a reconciliation agreement with Fatah, and has boasted that he did not give in to American pressure. US had asked Abbas not to sign an agreement with Hamas.



Speaking of reconciliation with Hamas, Abbas insisted that the two factions agree on essential issues:

"There is no disagreement between us
[Fatah and Hamas]:
About belief? None!
About policy? None!
About [violent] resistance? None!"

Referring to US pressure to refrain from signing an agreement with Hamas, Abbas said that he had been subjected to "pressure" by the Americans, but that he had resisted that pressure and signed a preliminary agreement.

(Read full bulletin)
.

Boring Press Conference? No, Gold Mine for Understanding U.S. Middle East Policy

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
05 January '10

What could be more boring, you might ask, then a press conference following the meeting between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Qatar Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr al-Thani? Well, a little document like this is a gold mine of interesting stuff that either won’t be covered or won’t be understood in the mass media.

Qatar, though tiny, is a very interesting country. On one hand, it hosts al-Udayd air base which is vital for the U.S. presence in the Gulf. On the other hand, it hosts and owns al-Jazira television which incites anti-Americanism. To make matters worse, Qatar has been the Gulf Arab state closest to Iran, which hosted the anti-American and radical summit led by the Iran-Syria bloc.

So Qatar is hedging its bets rather well. In public, Hillary isn’t going to complain about this stuff. Did she do so in the private meeting? Perhaps, though the jollity of al-Thani, a member of the ruling family, seems to belie any tough words from the secretary of state. But this is going too far:

“Qatar is a friend and an ally of the United States, and the partnership between our two countries is a model of the new beginning based on mutual respect and mutual interest that President Obama called for in Cairo.”

A model? Well, is that signaling countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia that they can be praised as a model partner if they were to bash the United States more and cozy up to Tehran?

One matter the two leaders discussed was Yemen, which has become a headquarters for anti-American jihad, notably the recent plane bombing attempt. Hillary said the United States is working with Qatar, also thanking Qatar or its “efforts to facilitate an end to the crisis in Darfur and to promote security and stability in the broader Middle East as well as Africa.” As Egyptian and other Arab leaders will tell you, they consider Qatar a major contributor to regional instability.

Hillary also praised Qatar for its help in Israel-Palestinian peace (more on this in a moment), Iraq, and Iran. And finally—it’s impressive Clinton could say this with a straight face:

(Read full post)
.

Double Edged

Marc Prowisor
Yesha Views
27 December 09

The US government has asked Israel to detail its operation in which Israeli Special Forces killed three terrorists who were responsible for the Thursday killing of a Jew near the community of Shavei Shomron in the Shomron region. This because the Arabs claim the terrorists killed were unarmed and of course, needless to say, completely innocent.

The fact is that in one of the places 2 M-16s were found and that these guns have been proven to be the weapons involved in the murder, means nothing, after all we are talking about upstanding citizens of the “Palestinian Authority”, and security personnel also, who may have been trained and equipped by the US, you know Dayton’s Boys.

Using a double edge sword in dealing with problems has its advantages and disadvantages. Yes, if used properly, it is a far more efficient weapon, however, if used sloppily and carelessly, it will often hurt and injure the one who is wielding it. The US is “checking Israel’s Tzitzit”, or sticking their nose a bit too far in Israel’s personal business, regarding its protection of its citizens and how Israel deals with not just enemies in words, but enemies in actions. I haven’t heard a US reaction to the murder yet that “blasts” the PLO regarding the involvement of its own arm in this heinous crime.

We read how the “Palestinian” Security or Army arrested over 120 suspects in this murder, much to the praise of the IDF, yet of course released them shortly after. It is quite obvious and understood that the new Arab Army would never arrest one of its own over the mere killing of a Jew. I really do understand this and agree with them, this would cause a major rift and dismay among the Arab population of Judea and Samaria. Imagine it to be considered a crime to kill Jews, this would go against everything they have learned, and are still learning in grammar school.

(Read full post)

Marc served as the Chief Army Security Coordinator for the Shilo Region in Israel from 1996 through 2006.
.

Why Won’t the Arabs Protect Themselves from Iran by Actively Battling Against Tehran Having Nuclear Weapons?

Barry Rubin

The Rubin Report

18 November 09

It isn’t hard to conclude that Iran having nuclear weapons is a direct threat to Arab states, except Syria—Tehran’s ally—which would benefit. Why, then, don’t Arab states and intellectuals public express more concern?

Western observers were shaken up when at a debate in Qatar, the relatively moderate Arab audience split almost down the middle between those cheering and those jeering the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons.

One member of the audience said:

“Why in the first place should Iran seek the trust of anyone? Iran is an independent, sovereign country, and it has every single right to defend itself. If it wants a bomb, definitely it should have one."

The audience cheered.

Another man said:

"There is something called balance of power. As long as there is Israel, we need a nuclear bomb."

A serious analysis would have to include three main points in explaining this seeming suicidal desire of many Arabs that the real worst enemy of the current Arab order become really, really powerful:

First, fear. Iran is strong, aggressive, close, and represents an ideology that appeals to some of their people. To stand up to Iran’s growing strength could incur costly hostility, pressure and subversion now. And once Tehran gets nuclear weapons, it will remember and take revenge on those who have tried to thwart it.

Second, there is the Middle Eastern version of Political Correctness which, unlike its Western version, has very sharp teeth. All good Muslims are supposed to love each other, hate Israel, and hate America. Much the same can be said of all good Arabs, though Iran of course does not benefit directly from that paradigm.

Consequently, if Iran can become a nuclear-armed Muslim state which views America, the West, and Israel as its enemies, then that must be good for Muslims and even Arabs too, right? How proud they all can be that one of them has made good! That will sure show the West that Muslims can have the ultimate weapon. Certainly, many of their people will be enthusiastic and so the rulers—even in dictatorships—rush to get to the head of the crowd lest it turn on them.

Third, their behavior is based on hopeful thinking, a sort of more likely version of wishful thinking. Surely, they wish, the United States or Israel will solve the problem without their having to do anything. Incidentally, this is similar to their position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And, of course, this is a test of U.S. power and will power. After all, if America can’t deal with Iran for them that proves the United States cannot protect them against Tehran. So they are better off keeping their mouths shut now and the option open of appeasing Iran.

(Read full article)

.

Mahmoud Abbas as Peace Partner? Dictators vs. "The Street"

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
15 October 09

The US Administration has resumed its efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. US special Middle East envoy George Mitchell is back in the region in yet another bid to persuade the two parties to revive the peace process.

But the question that needs to be asked these days is: Is there really a strong, credible and reliable partner on the Palestinian side for any deal? Or, in simple terms, can Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian deliver?

The answer obviously is no.

Even if Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Abbas were to sign a peace agreement tomorrow morning, it is highly unlikely that the Palestinian president would be able to sell it to his people.

Abbas’s credibility has been severely damaged as a result of the manner in which he handled a resolution that was supposed to be brought before the UN Human Rights Council regarding the findings of the Richard Goldstone report into Operation Cast Lead.

Palestinians were hoping that the resolution, which accuses both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during the war, would be endorsed by the Council.

Abbas, however, shocked many Palestinians by ordering his representative at the UN, Ibrahim Khraishi, to set aside the resolution.

Abbas has since been facing an unprecedented wave of denunciations and allegations of high treason from many Palestinians and Arabs. Even some of his loyalists are now calling for his resignation on the pretext that he cannot be trusted to negotiate peace with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

The street protests that erupted in the Palestinian territories and Arab capitals following Abbas’s controversial decision serve as a reminder of the wide gap that has always existed between Arab dictators and their constituents.

The protests also serve as a reminder that the Arab masses are more interested in punishing Israel than making peace with the Jewish state.

Abbas is under attack because, in the eyes of many Palestinians and Arabs, he “helped Israel bury its war crimes” in the Gaza Strip. In mosques in different parts of the Arab world, he has been condemned for “exonerating the Jews” and “betraying the blood of the Palestinian martyrs” killed in the war.

Abbas has offered a number of explanations for his decision to set aside the Goldstone report - explanations which have only caused further damage to his credibility.

First his aides and he claimed that the decision was taken under US pressure and threats. Then they argued that the decision was taken at the request of a number of Arab and Islamic countries. When these two explanations did not calm the Palestinian and Arab streets, Abbas ordered the establishment of a three-man commission of inquiry to look into the circumstances that prompted him to set aside the resolution.

This last move - the formation of a commission of inquiry - has been received with laughter by Abbas’s critics. As a Palestinian minister put it, “In the beginning I thought it was a joke when I heard that the president had established a commission of inquiry to investigate himself. How can anyone take him seriously from now on?”

Well, it seems that there are still many who do take Abbas seriously, especially in Washington and some European capitals. Abbas’s more recent decision to revive the debate over the Goldstone report by bringing it back to the UN Human Rights Council is seen as a pathetic attempt to save what’s left of his credibility. So is his decision to send Palestinian policemen in civilian clothes to the streets of West Bank cities to demonstrate in favor of their embattled president.

Abbas cannot be a partner to any deal: his image and credibility have been severely tarnished. Any agreement he reaches with Israel will be received with suspicion by a majority of Palestinians and Arabs.

Hamas, on the other hand, is not a partner because the movement is not going to change its radical ideology, at least not in the foreseeable future.

All that one can do now is to wait until a new, third-way party emerges in the Palestinian territories. Sadly, that option also does not seem to be realistic at this stage -- especially not when both Abbas and Hamas have a common interest in suppressing the emergence of new leaders.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, is a veteran award-winning journalist who has been covering Palestinian affairs for nearly three decades. He studied at Hebrew University and began his career as a reporter by working for a PLO-affiliated newspaper in Jerusalem. Abu Toameh currently works for the international media, serving as the “eyes and ears” of foreign journalists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
.

Hamas Set to Win Election in Palestinian Authority

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
06 October 09

If the U.S. and its allies want to avoid another Hamas victory, they should reconsider their demand that the Palestinians hold another free election. Otherwise they will be repeating the same mistake they made in 2006.

Backed by the U.S., the Egyptians are now pushing the Palestinians toward holding new elections for president and parliament. By doing so, Cairo and Washington are taking a big risk: There is no guarantee that a majority of Palestinians would not vote for Hamas again.

Palestinians went to the polls three times in the past fives years to vote - - Twice they voted for Hamas.

Hamas candidates scored major victories in the municipal and parliamentary elections.

Hamas boycotted the presidential election that was held in January 2005, and which brought Mahmoud Abbas to power. Had Hamas participated in the presidential election, some Palestinians argue that its chances of winning that vote too would have been good.

Prior to the January 2006 parliamentary election, the US, Israel and many Western countries ignored warnings that Hamas was headed toward victory. Hamas won that vote largely because of the Palestinian public’s disenchantment with Fatah's corruption, mismanagement and abuse of power.

Such was the degree of contempt for Fatah and its representatives that even Christians and secular Palestinians cast their ballots for the radical Islamic movement.

Fatah itself was even so aware of its poor performance and blunders that it dispatched some of its representatives to the US in a bid to persuade the Bush Administration to abandon its plan to hold free elections in the Palestinian territories.

Today Fatah is not in a better situation and its chances of winning in the planned elections next year do not appear to be high.

Fatah's dwindling popularity is mainly attributed to the faction's failure to draw conclusions from its defeat to Hamas in the 2006 election - Fatah’s failure to reform itself and get rid of icons of financial corruption and thugs who continue to call the shots in the faction.

The feeling among many Palestinians is that Fatah, the largest faction of the PLO, is continuing to march backward ever since it lost one of its founders and symbols, Yasser Arafat.

In the past few weeks, Fatah's credibility suffered one blow after another.

First, Fatah's Sixth General Assembly, which was held in Bethlehem for the first time in 20 years, failed to inject new and fresh blood into the faction. Instead, Fatah saw the return of most of Arafat's former cronies who were responsible for abuse of human rights, mismanagement and financial corruption.

Second, Fatah's open affiliation and cooperation with Israel and the US is causing tremendous damage to its credibility among Palestinians. This, of course, plays into the hands of Hamas. The next election will be presented as a contest between “collaborators with Israel and America” (Fatah), and Muslim candidates who reject any form of affiliation with the West.

Third, the recent summit in New York, where the US literally forced Abbas to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, has made Fatah appear as if it is incapable of taking independent decisions. For months, Abbas had vowed not to meet with Netanyahu or resume peace talks with Israel unless construction in the settlements was completely halted.

Fourth, Abbas's decision to withdraw a proposal to the UN Human Rights Council regarding the report of Justice Richard Goldstone on the Gaza war has also undermined his credibility among many Palestinians. Abbas and Fatah are now being accused of “helping Israel bury its war crimes.”

Meanwhile, Hamas appears to be increasing its power. A prisoner-exchange agreement with Israel, which would see the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jail in return for IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, will undoubtedly boost Hamas's popularity.

Despite its failure to improve the living conditions of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and its responsibility for the ongoing suffering there, Hamas is still admired by many because of its continued defiance and refusal to bow to US, Israeli and Arab pressure.

Barring last-minute obstacles, Hamas and Fatah are expected to sign a “reconciliation” accord on October 22 in the Egyptian capital of Cairo.

The Egyptian-brokered agreement calls, among other things, for holding presidential and parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories sometime during the first half of 2010.

Under such circumstances, it is easy to see why Hamas could win the next election.
.

Harsanyi: How to lose friends ...

David Harsanyi
Denverpost.com
25 September 09

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists — but we insist Israel do without preconditions.

We will not get entangled in the distasteful internal politics of Iran — but we define Israel's borders.

We will remove missile defense systems in Eastern Europe so we do not needlessly provoke our good friends in Russia — but we have no compunction nudging Israel to hand over territory with nothing in return.

This week, President Barack Obama spoke to the United Nations' General Assembly and insisted that Israel and the Palestinians negotiate "without preconditions." (Well, excluding the effective precondition that Israeli settlements are "illegitimate," according to the administration — so no pre-conditions means feel free to rocket Israel while you talk.)

This tact, Obama hopes, will lead to "two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people."

Hate to break the news to you, but there already exists a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis. This security is attained through a perpetual war against terrorism and Arab aggression.

And the last time Israel withdrew from disputed lands without pre-conditions to allow the potential of the Palestinian people to shine through was in Gaza. The Arabs, hungering for the light of freedom, used the gift to elect Hamas — now an Iranian proxy and always a terror organization — to rain rockets down on the civilians that voted to allow the first democratic Arab entity in history.

If Obama expects Israel to end the "occupation" that began in 1967 he is also demanding Israel abandon parts of Jerusalem. If he really anticipates a Palestinian state will be "contiguous territory," what he expects is that Israel can't be contiguous.

And when he uses the word "occupation" he is negotiating for the Palestinians. None of the lands up for discussion are "occupied" territory. The president, a highly educated man, knows well that there has never been an ultimate agreement on borders, nor has there ever, in history, been a Palestinian state to occupy.

There is an ethical question that the president might want to answer, as well. Why would the United States support an arrangement that scrubs the West Bank of all its Jews? Why is it so unconscionable to imagine that Jews could live among Muslims in the same way millions of Arabs live within Israel proper? Not many international agreements feature ethnic cleansing clauses.

Isn't this, after all, about peace?

Of course, we all know the answer to this question: Jews would be slaughtered, bombed from their homes, rocketed from their schools. This indisputable fact reveals the fundamental reality of these negotiations.

Instead of reaffirming the importance of our relationship with Israel, Obama has renewed our membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council, presided over by exemplars of self-determination and human dignity like Libya, Syria and Angola. The hobbyhorse of this organization is accusing Israel of war crimes, which isn't surprising.

Noted intellectual George Gilder argues in his recent book, "The Israel Test," that where you stand on Israel — not always, but in general — is an indication about how you feel about the ideals of liberty and capitalism. The debate over Israel, he claims, is the manifestation of a deeper moral and ideological war around the globe.

"The real issue," writes Gilder, "is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism, between creative excellence and covetous 'fairness,' between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment."

This nation has no inherent duty to wage endless wars to secure freedom for the world's masses — often against their will. But shouldn't it stand with those nations that already value the basics tenets of a free and peaceful society?

Or, are all people now equally deserving of our friendship simply because they exist?

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
.

Who is Obstructing Middle East Peace?

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
15 September 09

(Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, is a veteran award-winning journalist who has been covering Palestinian affairs for nearly three decades. He studied at Hebrew University and began his career as a reporter by working for a PLO-affiliated newspaper in Jerusalem. Abu Toameh currently works for the international media, serving as the “eyes and ears” of foreign journalists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.)

The US Administration is in the final stages of preparing a new initiative that would, according to recent reports in the media, require Arabs and Muslims to embark on a process of normalization with Israel once the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu freezes construction in West Bank settlements.

However, even if Netanyahu were to announce tomorrow morning that he is suspending all construction in the settlements, it is highly unlikely that the Arab and Islamic countries would rush to normalize relations with Israel.

Many Arab and Islamic countries have already made it crystal-clear that even if Israel would stop the construction, they would not take such a step. In Cairo, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry stated that freezing settlement construction does not mean that the Arabs would offer Israel full normalization.

The Arab and Muslim leaders are using the settlement construction as an excuse to avoid normalization with Israel. The truth is that these dictators are afraid to go against the tide because they know that their constituents would revolt against them if they normalized ties with Israel.

Even the only two Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, have said that they still are not ready for normalization with the Jewish state. Ironically, it is the Egyptians and the Jordanians, along with the Palestinians [whose representatives signed the Oslo Accords with Israel], have long been spearheading the anti-normalization camp in the Arab world. All are vehemently opposed to any form of normalization with Israel and continue to work toward isolating Israel in the international arena.

Moreover, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Palestinians allow “anti-Israel normalization committees” to launch fierce campaigns against any Arab who dares to define the ban on opening up to Israel. Just last week, a group of Jordanian journalists, who committed the crime of visiting Jerusalem, came under strong criticism from their colleagues. The Jordanian Committee for Anti-Normalization called for expelling the journalists from the Jordan Press Association, while others dubbed them traitors and collaborators. Professional Associations representing more than 150,000 Jordanians joined the attack on the journalists’ visit, calling it a type of normalization with Israel.

The Western-backed Palestinian Authority has also been active in combating all forms of normalization with Israel. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki last week warned all Arabs and Muslims against accepting a US offer to normalize relations with Israel. "We should not give a blank check from the current Israeli governments. Some of the Arab states consider steps towards ties normalization with Israel in exchange for only promises," Maliki said. He added that normalization could be made only when Israel withdraws from all and Palestinian territories and recognizes a Palestinian state.

The main reason why the Arab governments are opposed to normalization with Israel is because they know that their constituents are not prepared for such a move. If the issue of settlement construction were the real problem, the Palestinians, Jordanians and Egyptians would not have made peace with Israel: This is because when their leaders signed the peace treaties, Israel was building in the settlements.

Some heads of states and monarchs may be in favor of normalization with Israel, even if the only purpose of appeasing the US Administration. Others don’t want normalization not only with Israel, but with the outside world because they don’t want their constituents to be exposed to democracies and different cultures.

In any case, it’s evident that Arab and Muslim public opinion remains violently opposed to such a “gesture.” The real problem lies in the fact in the Arab and Islamic worlds there are still too many people who have not come to terms with Israel’s existence in this part of the world. They continue to consider Israel an alien body or a caner that needs to be removed for once and for all.

And that’s basically why there still isn’t peace in the Middle East.
.

U.S.-Iran Negotiations: Once you start you must be nice to them, right?

Barry Rubin

The Rubin Report

16 September 09

Before I respond to some points about the U.S. government negotiating with Iran, let me tell a personal story that illustrates the issue.

Some years ago, a colleague wanted to invite me to speak at his think tank in Washington. To his surprise the director of the program absolutely refused to have me as a speaker. He said that I had done something he didn’t like but he just couldn’t remember what it was.

While this seems a rather flimsy excuse—hey, this is Middle East studies so one always expects the worst—I know exactly what happened. It was in Cairo and I was on a delegation of researchers. A couple of mid-level bureaucrats from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry were giving a briefing which was pure junk, a waste of time to listen to, constituting the official line that everything that has ever happened and was going on in the Middle East was Israel’s fault.

My philosophy on these matters is to challenge this kind of performance. There are good reasons for doing so.

First, the way it works in the Arabic-speaking world is that visitors are fed nonsense unless they show that they won’t accept it. When that happens, you get a higher level of information and more respect.

Second, it puts the speakers on notice that they have to be more honest and more realistic if they want to get anywhere.

Remember, I was not an official or a journalist representing any governmental or journalistic institution, but a researcher and analyst. We’re supposed to question things, right?

In fact, my polite demurrals upset others in the delegation to the point that I was immediately disinvited from continuing with the group to Saudi Arabia and, apparently I was banned from speaking at the think tank of one member of the delegation (not the organizing group).

Now, why am I telling you all this? The reason is this: the person in question has just written an article supporting U.S. negotiations with Iran. He gives three reasons why negotiations are a great idea (he doesn’t really engage with the critique very much) but the real problem is revealed by his own behavior.

Briefly the argument is this (for my fuller discussion see here and here):

A. By talking with Iran the United States will better keep together the Western coalition for higher sanctions. I have repeatedly asked: What specifically are you talking about? This argument is never accompanied by examples. Russia and China won’t switch to supporting higher sanctions as a result of these talks; from everything we’ve heard, Britain, France, and Germany are ready to raise sanctions now. So who is Washington trying to convince? Unless you hear something specific, disregard this argument, the main theme of the administration.

B. The United States talks to other dictatorships so why not to Iran? Answer: Some dictatorships do not threaten U.S. interests and so once one disregards human rights there are no big barriers to talking. Libya is given as an example, but the United States engaged Libya only after the Libyans abandoned their nuclear program and gave full information to U.S. policymakers. In contrast, Iran has done nothing and will do nothing. Moreover, the Tehran regime has become far worse but is being rewarded now at the moment it is most repressive and extremist.

C. Iran might help the United States on other issues, Afghanistan being the one specifically mentioned. Ok, but what will have to be given up to gain that help, assuming Tehran would do anything? Obviously, the first thing is acceptance of the Iranian nuclear program. The game is not worth the candle as the saying goes or, more bluntly: the United States would be giving up a lot to get very little in return.

Now back to my point. Once talks begin, the tendency is to become uncritical. Can the United States raise sanctions? But that would jeopardize the talks and their collapse would be America’s fault. Can U.S. leaders be tough in criticizing Iran (they are hardly doing so even now) about things like repression, anti-Americanism, killing American soldiers in Iraq, sponsoring terrorism, having a wanted terrorist as defense minister, and breaking all their promises regarding their nuclear program?

No, because—as the author of the article I have in mind showed in my case—you punish people who raise tough questions and point out the other side’s shortcomings and lies.

Thus, we arrive at a ridiculous but common situation. Iran or Syria, or even Egypt or Saudi Arabia, ridicules U.S. policy and attacks the United States daily—the former through government circles; the latter through state-controlled media—but any American response so upsets the other side that it is forbidden.

After all, it’s impolite and they get angry if you criticize them, right?

.

Dialogue of the Deaf: Obama Sanctions' on Iran Fall Flat on their Face

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
08 September 09

The big, highly advertised meeting of six great powers—China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States--to raise sanctions against Iran seems to have ended without any major breakthrough. According to available sources, China and Russia took such a strong stance against sanctions as to make it clear that unity on this issue--which means effective sanctions--is impossible.

This is a huge failure for a main--perhaps the main--U.S. policy in the Middle East.

It was thus with little credibility that the meeting warned Iran that it must resume talks about its nuclear program by the end of September.

Or else what?

To which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replies:

“We have not heard anyone setting a specific time for talks. Interaction on the basis of respect and justice does not go with setting deadlines. Perhaps some people have made comments but it is obvious that this…is not compatible with today’s needs and Iran nation’s approach.”

Or, in other words, “No.”

So we are set for the next act: more dramatic announcements of relatively small sanctions’ actions followed by months of inaction as Tehran gets around them to some extent.

The Western powers still don’t seem to realize that whatever you can say about the Iranian regime a year or more ago, it is now a super-radical government increasingly in the hands of the most extreme faction. Some countries, including those in the meeting, still view Iran as a great opportunity for good profits.

Here's something you're going to be hearing a lot more in the future, from an article, "Limited options: Deterring North Korea and Iran by Lowell H. Schwartz in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists :

"The question today is no longer whether the U.S. can still prevent the emergence of nuclear-armed regional adversaries, but instead, how to prevent them from being empowered by their nuclear weapons.

"Deterrence of nuclear use through the threat of retaliation--a mainstay of Cold War military strategy--is highly problematic with nuclear-armed regional adversaries. The reason is simple: These leaders may believe their sole chance of surviving is brandishing or using nuclear weapons. Indeed, they might choose to abstain from nuclear use only if they felt that course would enable them and their regimes to survive intact.

"U.S. decision-makers in regional crises should seek to devise policy options that avoid putting the enemy leadership in a position where nuclear use seems to them to be the least bad option available."

But wait a minute! The first two paragraphs I understand, though they leave out a key concept--brandishing nuclear weapons is by no means merely defensive but can also be aggressive. They may brandish in order to make gains. Of course, anyone who looks at the Middle East and at Iran should understand that.

The last paragraph is positively horrifying, though. It suggests that appeasement will be the only policy available. After all, how will the United States ensure that Iran--which is a pretty paranoid regime--not feel threatened? By not asserting its own interests and making sure not to trespass on what Iran's regime defines as its interests. And Iran's regime defines as its interest: hegemony in the Middle East, the spread of radical Islamist regimes, the expulsion of Western influence from the region, and the destruction of Israel.

How can Iran be treated as a purely defense-oriented regime? True, Tehran worries about U.S. encirclement and the fall of the revolutionary government. But that's certainly not the whole story.

For a more comprehensive look at the implications of Iran having nuclear weapons, read this. The probable Western and Arab readiness to surrender to a nuclear Iran is as frightening as Iran having the weapons in the first place.

.

Editorial: Taking Responsibility for Pollard

Hamodia
IMRA
07 September 09

Israel's state comptroller, retired judge Micha Lindenstrauss, last week released a report on the country's handling of the Pollard affair. In a nutshell, the report exonerates Israel's political leadership and blames Jonathan Pollard's continued incarceration on the "fierce and consistent" opposition of U.S. administration and intelligence officials. It also recommends that Israel press the Americans to give Pollard a new trial.

The report is, to put it charitably, a huge disappointment.

For starters, it makes contradictory claims. On one hand it states categorically that since 1996, the governments of Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert acted "continuously and consistently" to obtain the release of Pollard. "The Pollard issue challenged the prime ministers of Israel," it states. "Their actions were continual and consistent, and the issue was brought up in their meetings and conversations with U.S. presidents."

At the same time, Lindenstrauss admits that Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon and Olmert made sure that their discussions with U.S. presidents and senior administration officials on this sensitive issue were never documented. (He calls this failure a "significant transgression," because it makes it impossible to reassess past efforts to get Pollard freed and try to come up with a more successful approach.)

But if Lindenstrauss didn't have any transcripts of these meetings, how could he be so sure that these prime ministers acted "continuously and consistently" on Pollard's behalf?

Without going into all of the details of the Pollard case, the pertinent facts are as follows: Jonathan Pollard is an Israeli citizen (as of 1995); the government of Israel has recognized him as an Israeli agent (as of 1998); and he has spent the past 24 years in prison for providing Israel with information that saved many, many lives.

In this sense, Pollard is like any other Israeli prisoner, be it Ron Arad, the navigator downed over Lebanon in 1986, or Gilad Shalit, the IDF soldier
kidnapped at the border with Gaza three years ago. But there's one crucial difference: While Arad and Shalit are being held in unknown locations by terror organizations, Pollard is in the hands of Israel's closest ally, the United States. And it is inconceivable that Israel leaders acted "continuously and consistently" and still came up empty-handed.

How can it be that 24 years have passed - with U.S. administrations that were Republican and Democrat; more friendly to Israel and less friendly; with prime ministers from Labor and the Likud - and that at no time was it
possible to close a deal that would send Pollard home?

If the efforts of Israeli prime ministers were truly continuous and consistent, if there was the proper sense of hakaras hatov to Pollard for what he did for Israel, then surely there were ample opportunities in the past 24 years - be it at the signing of Oslo or the disengagement or the end of the administration of former president George W. Bush - to gain the release on humanitarian grounds for a man who is sick and who has expressed remorse for his deeds? (The notable exception was then-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who truly tried to engineer a deal upon signing the Wye Plantation agreement on a Chevron withdrawal, only to be bitterly disappointed by Bill Clinton.)

The inescapable conclusion is that if prime ministers raised Pollard's case in all top-level discussions, it was done for the record, latzeis yedei chovah. The prime minister in question raised his name, the president noted
that it had been raised and then they moved on to more "important" matters.

MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima), who chairs the Knesset subcommittee that commissioned the state comptroller's report, refuses to join Lindenstrauss in applauding the work of previous prime ministers. "In the test of the result, the work surrounding Pollard did not succeed," he told The Jerusalem Post. "The fact that Pollard is still in jail is a failure."

To be sure, there is no denying that there are forces in the U.S. administration and among top intelligence officials who have consistently
blocked efforts to gain Pollard's release. It is also crystal clear that he was denied due process, given an excessive prison sentence and deserves an immediate release on humanitarian grounds due to his physical condition.

But the main problem is the way the Israeli government relates to Pollard. All along it was reluctant to assume responsibility for his actions, waiting more than 10 years to acknowledge that he had been acting as its agent.

Of all the prime ministers, Netanyahu is the one who has shown the greatest willingness to accept such responsibility. In 2002, he visited Pollard in prison. In 2007, he said that if he were elected prime minister he would bring about Pollard's release. Now it's time for him to try to keep that promise.

Let us keep Yehonoson ben Malkah constantly in our tefillos, and may Jonathan Pollard be written and inscribed for a good year, one that sees him released to Israel where, at long last, he will have a chance to regain his health and begin life anew.

Jonathan Pollard: 8692 days in prison http://www.jonathanpollard.org/
.