TETSTTETSTTETST

TETST
TETSTTETSTTETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST

TETSTTETSTTETST

Kristof is Right . . . But his Argument Must be Placed in the Right Hands

Nicholas Kristof wrote a very insightful column in the today's New York Times. In it, he calls for a more open debate, a conversation, amongst the current presidential candidates and within US politics in general, regarding the US role in mediating the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

For those of you who did not read the column, or don't have access to it, Kristof states the following:

• "There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. And that silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself."
• "Within Israel, you hear vitriolic debates in politics and the news media about the use of force and the occupation of Palestinian territories. Yet no major American candidate is willing today to be half as critical of hard-line Israeli government policies as, say, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper."
• American politicians have learned to "muzzle themselves" in criticizing Israel, for fear of backlash from Jewish voters, donors and other pro-Israel groups.
• "American politicians just don’t get it", with the "it" being that in the Arab and Muslim world, "the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else."
• "For more than half a century, the U.S. was an honest broker in the Middle East. Presidents Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were warmer to Israel and Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush a bit cooler, but all sought a balance. George W. Bush has abandoned that tradition of balance."
• "Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country’s long-term security by adding vulnerable settlements, radicalizing young Palestinians, empowering Hamas and Hezbollah, isolating Israel in the world and nurturing another generation of terrorists in Lebanon. The Israeli right’s aggressive approach has only hurt Israeli security, just as President Bush’s invasion of Iraq ended up harming U.S. interests."

I agree with many of his points, and actually found it quite refreshing to read this. I say this as a devoted Zionist, a long time AIPAC supporter and a staunch defender of Israel's security. I belive that there can be no crack in the US support for Israel, and there can be no sacrifice of Israeli security. Nor should Kristof's points empower the Holocaust deniers, Israel haters or other conspiracy theorists out there in there desire to destroy Israel.

Rather Kristof's points should hopefully alter the manner in which the administration gauges the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Kristof is correct in his assessment that he current administration is inept in its handling of the situation. Many Israel supporters point out President Bush's strident support for Israel, his backing in the Lebanon War, and his refusal to deal with Hamas, among many actions, as reasons why Bush could be hailed as the best president ever for Israel. I applaud Bush for these actions.

But this support for Israel would be most strategic if alongside it the administration would have made efforts to bring the parties to the table, to solve the crisis. The US is the only remaining power who may have a some chance of doing so. I know Hamas is no partner, and the Iraq War has diverted much needed resources, but the Bush administration has failed miserably in trying to find peace between the Israelis and Palestinians - its absence led in part to Hamas' election, catching Bush and Condi Rice by surprise. It has supported Israel, but it has not found a way to support the peace process. It is great that Bush backs Israel now, but what we need is a region that can support itself in the future.

It's Good for Sushi . . . and Energy Independance

As many of you likely know, the dependence of Western nations (including Israel) on the oil found under the Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim nations provides a contradictory spin on the political and diplomatic situation. (The West pays Muslim states for their oil, the money from which goes to fund terrorist and anti-Israel and US activity).

Once the West, and Israel and the US in particular, can break free of this cycle, the dynamics in the region will dramatically change. Reliance on two faced nations like Saudi Arabia may no longer be as strong. Nations like Iran, currently flush with oil money, will have to think twice about thumbing their nose to the US and calling for the destruction for Israel and pay more attention to their balance sheets.

An Israeli firm may be bringing us closer to this day of energy independence, using seaweed. As reported in Haaretz today, the Israeli firm Seambiotic Ltd. apparently has created technology to produce commercial quantities of fuel from seaweed.

Seambiotic's technology allows the industrial cultivation of seaweed through the use of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Instead of allowing the polluting gas to escape into the atmosphere and perpetuate global warming, the gas passes through a filtration process and enters a pool, where it feeds microscopic seaweed. The seaweed is used to produce fuel. It is apparently possible to produce a liter of fuel for every five kilograms of seaweed.

I am not only proud of an Israeli company coming up with this groundbreaking technology, but it can also mean that the West can break free from the reigns of the Muslim nations, and also contribute to the fighting global warming.

King Abdullah, You Almost Got it Right . . .

Yesterday, King Abdullah II of Jordan addressed a joint session of Congress saying that the United States must take the lead in creating conditions for a permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Abdullah said that history has shown no progress in Middle East peacemaking is possible without American leadership.

"We look to you to play a historic role," he said, adding that results are needed "not in one year or five years but this year."

I agree that the Bush administration's leadership in solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue has been lacking and that a sincere, lasting American effort will result in progress and ultimately peace.

But the king missed the mark when he tied essentially all of the Middle East's problems to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. As Representative Steve Israel, a Long Island Democrat, said in a statement, “While he appropriately asked for a resumption of the peace process in the Middle East, he was very imbalanced in identifying the obstacles to that peace process. I expected to hear a speech about Iraq; instead, I was troubled to hear the suggestion that the fact that Sunni and Shia are murdering each other is somehow the fault of the Israelis.”

Your Majesty, once again, the solution to the Middle East's (and the whole world's) problems are not contingent on Israel acquiescing to Hamas. The Arab world cannot continue to blame everything on Israel. I agree that the US needs to inject itself into the Peace Process (I'd go even further and say that Israel needs to assist the Palestinian moderates even more). But please, King, do not come to America and blame the whole region's ills on Israel.

Edwards: Israel is the World's Greatest Threat

Okay, so I parsed what presidential candidiate John Edwards really said. As reported by the National Review Online, Edwards commented that "Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities."

As Jim Geraghty commented, "Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?"

I enjoy Edwards' populist platform, and I think he's honestly a good guy. A few years back, when he was a first year senator, I saw him speak to an intimate crowd at the AIPAC convention in Washington DC, and he praised Israel for its open democracy and lamented that the Palestinians were no parter for peace.

But, unfortunately, now we have to monitor him. Did he meet lately with Jimmy Carter? Is he trying to court the ANSWER wing? C'mon, John, did you really mean that?

The Jewishness of the Jewish State

As recently reported, some Arab Israeli citizens have called for Israel to not be defined as a Jewish state but rather as a "consensual democracy for both Arabs and Jews."

The movement stems from the feelings of some Israeli Arab citizens who claim that Israel discriminates against its non Jewish citizens, from the nations symbols to disbursement of public services to overall opportunities.

I can sympathize with the Israeli Arabs. On the one hand, many live lives much better than there Palestinian brethren. Their quality of life on the whole is much better than most Arabs in the Middle East. Many more opportunities (jobs, education, exposure to the West) are afforded to Israeli Arabs than other Arabs.

That being said, Israeli Arabs often do feel as either being left out of the mainstream Israeli culture or, to a greater extreme, even as second class citizens, suffering from discrimination. Israel must rectify this.

But the basic premise of the "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel", that the Jewish nature of Israel should be replaced with a model "akin to the Belgian model for Flemish- and French-speakers, involving proportional representation and power-sharing in a central government" is not the answer.

The Jewishness of Israel must be kept in perpetuity. Jewish critics have argued that this model "negates Israel's legitimacy and raison d'être as the realization of Jewish self-determination."

The Israeli Declaration of Independence promises full equality in social and political rights to all inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex, and Israel's Arab citizens participate in the country's democratic process. It is through these existing documents that Israel must more fully integrate Israel's Arab citizens. She need not follow a new document that threatens Israel's Jewish character.

There's the Door, Chirac

On Monday, in front of reporters from The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, French President Jacques Chirac claimed that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a serious danger because the launching of such a weapon would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.

Mr. Chirac said it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country.

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?” Mr. Chirac asked. “It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

This statement flew in the face of official French, Western and UN policy (and general common sense) which has passed a resolution calling for sanctions on Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

Chirac immediately called the reporters back to his office in order to withdraw the comments.

What could be truly scary about this episode is the notion, running in some diplomatic circles, that with three months left in his term, Chirac is concerned about his legacy. I will waste no time in giving Chirac credit for opposing the Iraq War (even though he was largely concerned with protecting French trade interests). However, it would be sad to think that he will take unilateral actions that brazenly contradicts the international community, just so he can protect his position in history.

Another Sign of Weak Leadership

Former justice minister Haim Ramon was convicted yesterday for indecent behavior at Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court, for having kissed a young female soldier against her will. Ramon vowed to appeal.

I'm not going to debate the merits of the case or who is right and who is wrong. Rather, what concerns me most is the direction Israel is heading. Their have always been scandals in Israeli politics, from the PM on down. However, a good portion of the Israeli public was often able to look past the scandal because they believed in the individual politician at the helm, like in the case of Sharon.

I don't see that with the current administration. With Iran blustering to the East, with Gaza falling apart to the West, with Lebanon still an open wound to the North and a recent suicide bombing in Eilat in the South, Israel is more than ever surrounded by threats. And either by scandal or ineptitude, Israel's leadership has not earned the confience of the Israeli public, or the pro-Israeli community worldwide. Olmert, Halutz, Peretz, Ramon . . . when will it end? When will Israel right herself?

Israel needs all her strength when facing external enemies. A weak leadership, making self defeating mistakes, only hurts her cause.

Iranians Protest Ahmadinejad "Holocaust Conference"

As another sign that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration is losing popular support, a sizable amount of Iranian activists published today a statement condemning Ahmadinejad's two-day "Holocaust Conference" in December, which brought together well-known Holocaust deniers and others who have said the Nazi genocide has been blown out of proportion.

Here is a blurb from what went out on the wires:

Activists Condemn Iran Holocaust Meeting

Friday, January 19, 2007

NEW YORK — In a statement to be published next week, more than 100 Iranian activists outside that country have condemned its recent conference questioning the Holocaust.

The activists signed the statement blasting the Iranian government and paying homage to victims of the Nazi regime. The activists expressed frustration over the relative silence on the subject from the Iranian diaspora.

The statement notes that the activists signed notwithstanding their "diverse views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The signers include Azar Nafisi, who wrote the best-seller "Reading Lolita in Tehran."

"I thought it was inappropriate to use the Holocaust as a political issue," Nafisi said. "I thought that Iranians, especially non-Jewish Iranians, had a responsibility to say, 'Not in my name.'"

Some Iranians outside Iran have avoided publicly condemning the conference because they were concerned about being viewed as pro-Israeli - one reason the statement avoids taking sides on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said Ladan Boroumand, a historian who began circulating the statement.

"This is a matter that's above political dissent," she said.

Do We See Some Daylight in Iran?

Today’s New York Times reports that their may be a slight rift between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

As you may know, Ahmadinejad was voted President over a year ago on a populist platform, vowing to redistribute wealth for the Iranian people, among other things. He has since caused alarm in the world by accelerating Iran’s nuclear program (in defiance of UN resolutions) calling for the destruction of Israel and perpetuating the denial of the Holocaust.

However, it is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is the true power in Iran. As much as the President may announce and declare, it is Khamenei and his counsel that dictate policy. And the general impression has been that Khamenei had endorsed Ahmadinejad’s action, simply by allowing Ahmadinejad to continue.

That may be coming to an end. As the New York Times reports, Ahmadinejad may be coming under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end its nuclear program, or at least modify its aggressiveness and be more flexible with the West. Two newspapers, one owned by Khamenei, have stated for the President to remove himself from all nuclear matters. It seems that strong business entities and diplomatic forces have appealed to the highest Iranian powers to stem Ahmadinejad from continuing what they feel are harmful actions to Iran.

What needs to be seen is whether this is a true shift in Iranian policy, or whether this is just a play by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei to appear to soften its stance to the West and buy more time to develop their nuclear weapons.

Olmert and Peretz Must Go

In the wake of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz’s resignation, many voices within Israel have begun to call for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz to leave their positions. I join in this chorus.

We can focus on the failures of the latest Lebanon war. We can point to the endemic corruption within Israel. But what is most striking to me is the comments coming not from within Israel, but from its enemies.

Senior Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri said that Halutz's resignation and an imminent investigation against Olmert "prove the Zionist government is weak," and should spur Palestinians "to continue resistance and jihad."

Israeli Army Radio quoted Hezbollah as saying that the army chief's departure proved the Iranian-backed group's victory over Israel in second Lebanon war last year.

Israel needs to ensure that it does not lose its edge against its enemies. The Lebanon war this past summer was just a warm up for the bigger war, involving Iran, Syria and possibly others. The silver lining may read that it was a much needed wake up call, allowing Israel to prepare for the bigger military battles that await her. Israel cannot afford to labor through a tired, corrupt government that does not bolster the confidence of the nation. Israel needs to grow stronger, not more tired. Olmert and Peretz must go.

Israel Must Last Forever

Why write such a title? Why must we even consider such a thought as Israel no longer existing?

What would the world be like without Israel? Would all of the problems of the Middle East at once be solved? Will the Arabs and Middle East Muslims, amidst the rubble of Israel, finally find pluralism, democracy, human rights, reform . . . . ? I find that unlikely - without an Israel, the Middle East bullies will search for some other scapegoat, someone else to paper over the fact that te Arab nations, Iran and the extreme Islamic movements do little for their people in terms of education and economic development.

I bring this up after reading an interesting piece in Ha'Artez by Bradley Burston. Do Palestinians really feel that they can just wait and wait and wait and wait for one day, one day when Israel will no longer exist, when Iranian President Ahmadinehad will actually make good on his words, when Hamas will fulfill their charter, when the Arab world will finally redeem itself after having been defeated by the Jewish State? Should I expect this conflict to outlive me, my children, my grandchildren . . .

Israel's Free Press Shackled by Reporters Without Borders

Even when Israel does well, its praise is stunted.

Take for example the latest assessement by Reporters Without Borders. For its 2006 Annual Report on Israel, RWB initially praised Israel in the first line and a half, saying "The Israeli media were once again in 2005 the only ones in the region that had genuine freedom to speak out." Wow! . . . not many international organizations, private or governmental, go on record with such praise for the Jewish State.

But when you read the next 21 lines, you see that after getting the initial good feelings out of the way, RWB proceeds to bash Israel for its apparent treatment of reporters in the Palestinian territories. RWB states how Awad Rajoub, a Palestinian journalist, was arrested in November 2006 by Israel. Israel claims that Rajoub, a cousin of Palestinian Authority (PA) official Jibril Rajoub, possessed particular information that the security services required.

RWB also cites how (i) Nabil al-Mazzawi, an Al-Jazeera cameraman on the West Bank, was beaten on by Israeli soldiers after he filmed a demonstration against the wall separating Israel and the Palestinian territories; (ii) Majdi al-Arabid, cameraman for the Israeli Channel 10 TV station, was woundedby gunfire as he filmed Israeli troops entering Beit Hanoun, north of Gaza and (iii) French journalist Houda Ibrahim, of the radio station RMC Moyen-Orient, who had been sent by the French government to train Palestinian journalists, was refused entry to the West Bank from Jordan on 3 July.

I am in no position to determine whether Israel was right or wrong in these situations, whether it was Israeli army (or Palestinian terrorist) bullets that hit al-Arabid, whether there were security concerns around Rajoub's situation or whether Ibrahim was rightfully refused entry. RWB does not expand on this either.

What I will say is that I wished RWB, instead of parsing out blame for these four seperate instances, rather focused on the open and free press within Israel. Please tell us more about the "genuine freedom" of press in Israel. What form did it take, what were some of the daring exposes written, what scandals and abuses of power were unearthed?

When the rest of the reports concerning Middle East countries include descriptions such as "the media is totally controlled by the regime" (Lybia), "the country is one the world’s harshest towards press freedom" (Saudi Arabia) or "violence against journalists increased in 2005" (Palestinian territories), it would be nice to see RWB focus on how Israel positively affects the world's open press.

One line of niceties is not enough.