Nigeria's Boko Haram 'uses child soldiers'
Human Rights Watch has accused Nigerian armed group Boko Haram of abducting scores of women and girls and of using children as young as 12 in its combat operations.
In a statement published on its website on Friday, the New York-based group also accused the Nigerian government of failing to account for hundreds of men and boys rounded up during the armed group's four-year insurgency.
The report comes weeks after the government extended the state of emergency it imposed in May in the northeastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe to try to crush the rebellion.
Citing its Africa director, Daniel Bekele, Human Rights Watch said: "For a group that claims to be religious, Boko Haram’s tactics are the most profane acts we can imagine."
"The killing and mutilation of ordinary Nigerians, the abduction and rape of women and girls, and the use of children for fighting are horrifying human rights violations," the rights group added.
Boko Haram, which translates as "Western education is sinful", intensified its attacks in 2009 in the country's mainly Muslim north and is also blamed for deadly assaults at UN installations in Abuja, the capital.
The group’s deadliest attack this year happened in September in the town of Benisheikh, 74km west of Maiduguri, killing at least 142 people. It was the most lethal incident in Borno State since 2010, according to the rights group.
Human Rights Watch said its findings were based on interviews it conducted with more than 60 victims and witnesses during a nine-day trip to the cities of Kano and Maiduguri.
Other interviewees included medical personnel, members of local rights groups, Civilian Joint Task Force commanders and government officials. The Civilian Joint Task Force is allied with Nigerian security forces and is helping in the fight against Boko Haram.
Human Rights Watch, which last year documented Boko Haram attacks and abuses by government security forces against civilians, said the rise of the Civilian Joint Task Force had added a "worrisome new dimension to the violence".
It said civilian task force members inform security forces about presumed local Boko Haram activity and the group's fighters then retaliate against both the neighbourhood vigilante group and the broader community.
Commanders of the Civilian Joint Task Force said that they had rescued 26 abducted women and girls from a Boko Haram stronghold in Maiduguri and later in Sambisa Forest, the rights group said.
"Some of the women and girls were pregnant; others had babies. The commanders told Human Rights Watch that a number of the girls had been abducted while hawking wares on the street or working on farms in remote villages," the statement said.
"Many girls who were rescued or had escaped were sent off by their families to distant cities like Abuja and Lagos to avoid the stigma of rape or pregnancy outside of marriage."
Several witnesses said they had seen children in the ranks of Boko Haram during attacks. In Maiduguri, Human Rights Watch researchers saw a video recording of the interrogation by security forces of a 14-year-old boy, who described the role he played in Boko Haram operations.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Yeah Robert Tait, write your sob story for these rabid animals and hope you never run into me you fucking prostitute for Islamic terror.
The garbage of a story comes from The Telegraph who put this slop on their site.
Human tragedy unfolds as Gaza runs on empty
By Robert Tait, Gaza City
6:37PM GMT 29 Nov 2013
The horrific scars disfigure Mona Abu Mraleel’s otherwise strikingly beautiful face. Swathes of bandages cover the injuries the 17-year-old sustained to her arms and legs in a blaze from which she narrowly escaped with her life.
Still racked by pain from burns to 40 per cent of her body, she goes to hospital on a daily basis to have her dressings changed. Specialist doctors are preparing to carry out a delicate skin graft operation in the coming days.
Yet the hospital on which her recovery depends is woefully ill-fitted to the task – riddled by equipment failures, power cuts and shortages in a mounting crisis that doctors fear is leading to a “health catastrophe”.
Mona lives in Gaza, the impoverished Palestinian coastal enclave where chronic fuel shortages have led to electricity cuts of up to 18 hours a day and reduced ordinary life and public services to a standstill.
She is just one of many Gazans suffering in a rapidly worsening economic climate that this week prompted the British Foreign Office minister, Hugh Robertson, to demand urgent action to restore an adequate fuel supply to the territory.
Gaza’s long-running shortages – which had already inflicted long-term eight-hour daily blackouts on residents – worsened dramatically at the beginning of this month when the territory’s main power station closed, following a row over prices between the two biggest Palestinian factions.
Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs Gaza, said it could no longer afford to buy fuel after the Fatah-dominated and Western-backed Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, withdrew the tax exemptions it once provided.
That intensified already severe shortages first caused by an Israeli blockade imposed in 2007 and then compounded by the Egyptian military’s closure of tunnels previously used as supply routes following last summer’s ousting of Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s Islamist former president and a Hamas ally.
The result has been blackouts of between 12 and 16 hours a day. Sometimes the daily power supply is cut to as little as six hours.
The impact on Gaza’s health service has been disastrous. Hospitals, running out of fuel to keep generators going, are at breaking point amid the threat of multiple equipment failures.
At the European hospital in Khan Younis radiographers say the patchy electricity supply from generators produces flawed images from the MRI scanner – the only such facility in Gaza – making diagnoses difficult. They will be forced to stop using the machine entirely unless nearly-exhausted Helium gas supplies are not restocked from Israel to prevent it overheating.
Two incubators and four monitors have broken down in the special care baby unit, where sporadic power interruptions force doctors to administer oxygen manually to premature infants.
With the hospital forced to ration its fuel supply, only half the usual number of daily non-emergency operations are taking place.
A shortage of medical supplies is further complicating matters. At Shifa hospital’s renal unit – where five of the 40 kidney dialysis machines are out of service after being damaged by power cuts – many patients have anaemia due to a lack of essential hormone medication.
“This is the worst time I have known in the 18 years I have been in service,” said Dr Mohammed Al-Kashif, international cooperation director at Gaza’s health ministry. “It’s a disaster. We have stopped many elective operations in hospitals to cut down on the expenditure of drugs and disposable equipment.”
The crisis has spread beyond the health sector. Main thoroughfares are in pitch darkness at night as streets lights are left switched off. Traffic lights at main junctions have ceased to work.
Many shops conduct their trade in semi-gloom while some have stopped trading entirely. Al-Aloet, one of Gaza City’s biggest bakeries, has shut two production lines – even as demand for bread rises amid the enforced closure of smaller businesses.
With just a few days’ fuel left, Tarik Shehada, the manager, said he feared would be forced to shut a business his family have run for 30 years.
Meanwhile, the breakdown of public services has led to dire warnings of a disease epidemic.
This week Gaza authorities deployed donkeys to cart away refuse throughout the territory after being forced to withdraw 50 garbage lorries from service.
That came after nearly 8,000 gallons of raw sewage washed into several homes after flooding the streets of Gaza City’s impoverished East Zeitoun district, where around 3,000 people live. The accident happened after a lack of fuel caused the breakdown of backup generators at a nearby pumping station.
Standing amid the rancid stench, Rami Naffar, 40, said the power cuts meant there was insufficient water to bathe his children, several of whom had fallen ill from the effects of successive sewage spills.
For the hospitals, an added worry is coping with the after-effects of fires started by malfunctioning domestic generators – similar to that which caused Mona’s injuries after sparks from a plug set her bed alight.
Sixteen people – including four children – have died from the effects of burns alone in the last year, human rights activists say, while others have perished from carbon monoxide poisoning or electrocution.
We have dealt with many cases caused directly or indirectly by the electricity shortages,” said Dr Nafiz Abu Shaban, head of plastic surgery at Shifa Hospital’s under-resourced burns unit, where Mona goes every day for treatment “Many children have come in with electric burns from generators and many have had to have fingers or limbs amputated.”
For Mona, the danger that Gaza’s crumbling health services will deprive her of the rehabilitation she needs and turn her plight into a lifelong tragedy has prompted her desperate family to appeal for help from abroad.
“We’re ready to take help from anywhere because the treatment and technology isn’t available here to repair the effects of the burns,” said her father, Abed Rahman Mraleel. “Her beauty has been damaged and it could make her less attractive to marry. In our culture, not being able to marry is a big problem for her.”
Jurors in the murder trial of slain British soldier Lee Rigby have been shown CCTV footage of the moment he was mowed down by a car near a primary school, before the killers got out of the car to attack him with a meat cleaver and knives.
Unfortunately, the courts did not release the entire footage, stopping short at the moment of impact, but clearly the drivers (killers) made him a target by swerving.
Unfortunately, the courts did not release the entire footage, stopping short at the moment of impact, but clearly the drivers (killers) made him a target by swerving.
Friday, November 29, 2013
The story comes from Times of India.
39 dead in scenes recalling Iraq's sectarian bloodshed
BAGHDAD: Authorities found the bodies on Friday of 28 people, most of them kidnapped by men in army uniforms, and attacks killed 11 more, in scenes harking back to Iraq's sectarian war.
The killings come amid a surge in violence that has seen victims snatched from their homes, only for their corpses to be found later, fuelling fears Iraq is slipping back into the worst of the bloodshed that plagued it from 2005 to 2007.
More than 6,000 people have been killed this year, forcing Baghdad to appeal for international help in battling militancy just months before a general election, as official concern focuses on a resurgent al-Qaida emboldened by the war in neighbouring Syria.
Early Friday, authorities discovered the bodies of 18 men, including two tribal chiefs, four policemen and an army major, dumped in farmland near the Sunni Arab town of Tarmiyah, just north of Baghdad.
All of them had been shot in the head and chest, police and a medical source said.
The kidnappers, wearing military uniform and travelling in what appeared to be army vehicles, abducted the men early Friday, telling their families the men were suspects in various cases and were being taken for questioning.
Their bodies were found hours later, the sources said. There was another such incident in Salaheddin province, north of Baghdad. Seven men -- all maintenance workers and labourers at a local football field -- were found dead, their throats cut.
A police officer told AFP he had felt physically sick upon seeing the mutilated corpses.
Three more corpses, all women, were also found in east Baghdad, their bodies bearing signs of torture. They were all shot in the head earlier on Friday, officials said.
The brutal killings come just days after authorities discovered the bodies of 19 people shot dead in various parts of Baghdad, including eight found blindfolded and six whose corpses were left in a canal.
At the peak of sectarian fighting in the wake of the 2003 US-led invasion, Sunni and Shiite militias regularly carried out tit-for-tat kidnappings and assassinations and left scores of corpses littering the streets.
At the time, many of the bodies were blindfolded and showed signs of torture.
Elsewhere in Iraq on Friday, attacks in and around Baghdad, and the predominantly Sunni cities of Mosul, Baquba and Kirkuk killed 11 people and wounded 19, officials said.
The capital and Sunni Arab parts of northern and western Iraq have borne the brunt of the upswing in bloodshed.
The violence worsened sharply after security forces stormed a Sunni protest camp in northern Iraq in April, sparking clashes in which dozens of people died.
The authorities have made some concessions aimed at placating the protesters and Sunnis in general, including freeing prisoners and raising the salaries of anti-al-Qaida Sahwa fighters.
At the same time, the security forces have trumpeted operations targeting militants.
But daily attacks have shown no sign of abating. Friday's killings capped a week in which more than 200 people have died nationwide, with the overall death toll for the year topping 6,000, according to an AFP tally based on reports from security and medical officials.
Diplomats, analysts and rights groups say the government is not doing enough to address Sunni disquiet over what they see as mistreatment at the hands of the Shiite-led authorities.
On Wednesday, the UN Security Council condemned the violence and voiced support for government efforts to tackle the bloodshed.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki used a recent trip to Washington to push for greater intelligence sharing and the timely delivery of new weapons systems in a bid to combat militants.
The story comes from DAWN.
Three suspected militants killed in North Waziristan drone attack
MIRAMASHAH: At least three suspected militants were reported killed and several others injured when two missiles were fired by a US drone on a compound in Angar Kalli area near Miramshah Tehsil in North Waziristan Agency on Thursday night, intelligence and local sources told Dawn.com.
The identity of the militants could not be ascertained as the drone strike was carried out at 12 am.
The sources said that drones had been hovering over the area for hours.
Earlier on Nov 21, a US drone strike in the Tal area of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Hangu district had killed at least six people, including a senior member of the Taliban-linked Haqqani network, and injured another.
The attack had come a day after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Adviser on Foreign Affairs and National Security Sartaj Aziz said the US had assured Pakistan of not conducting drone strikes targeting the leaders of TTP if dialogue began between them and the Pakistani government.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
A Thank You To Our Troops, Past and Present
Posted on May 26, 2012 by Melissa Fach | 1 comment
The views of contributors are their own, and not necessarily those of SEJ.
I think it is important for all of us to think about the fact that without the soldiers that serve the United States, to protect us, we would not have the lives we have. Every time you take your child to the park or the beach or even an amusement park you have the freedom to do so because soldiers and their families sacrifice daily.
Your ability to sleep safely at night, Tweet, go to the movies and even go to the grocery store where you can buy all the food you want comes at a cost. Without our soldier’s sacrifices you wouldn’t have freedom, I wouldn’t have freedom and our children wouldn’t have freedom either. Our lives would be completely different.
It is a holiday weekend and one typically enjoyed by families, but I encourage you think about our soldiers past and present. Thank you to our troops!
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Family Security Matters.
Lying Liberal Liars
by DANIEL GREENFIELD
Every morning the media paws through a dictionary looking for the most innocuous ways to describe Obama's big health care lie.
According to the New York Times, Obama "misspoke" when he said over and over again that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. But unlike the times that the smartest man to ever put up his feet on the table in the Oval Office thought that Austrian was a language or that the United States had 57 states, he wasn't misspeaking.
44, as Politico likes to call him, was doing what 1 wouldn't do after he chopped down a cherry tree. And to call a lie, misspeaking, is itself a lie.
Rob Ford didn't misspeak when he claimed not to be on crack, despite being on crack. Barack Obama didn't misspeak when he promised to let you keep your health plan, when he had no intention of letting you do any such thing. And the New York Times didn't misspeak when it tried to pass that lie off as a mere slip of the tongue.
The New York Times, which never hesitated to call George W. Bush a liar, switched up its euphemisms and began calling Obama's lie an "incorrect promise". NBC News called it a "promise they couldn't keep." The Associated Press called it an "inflated promise."
A few of their more honestly dishonest colleagues in the media argued that Obama did the right thing because he could never have pried the health plans of Americans out of their grubby little hands if he hadn't promised them that his government takeover of healthcare would affect everyone else but them. Some of the pundits making that argument included those on Obama's regular reading list.
The excuse that Obama lied blatantly about the impact of a law he wanted to pass in order to pass it will no doubt be a great comfort to those gun owners who were willing to trust that his crusade against gun rights would stop where he told them it would and those Republican supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens who believed that he really would secure the borders once he got his millions of newly minted Democratic Party voters
If Obama lied to pass one law, what sensible argument can any of his supporters make for believing him the next time he promises, "If you like your guns, you can keep your guns" or "If you like your borders, you can keep your borders"?
Obama wasn't the first politician to lie. He won't be the last. But most politicians who lie don't have an army of reporters swarming around them to explain that they didn't lie, but just inflated their misspeaking. One man did not get up in front of the microphones and cameras and lie over and over again. The entire liberal establishment lied. And it's still lying.
The media's lies and excuses, even more than the original Obama lie, reveal why liberals can never be trusted.
If Obama had only lied about being on crack or with an intern, that might be an impeachable act, but an understandable human failing. But he wasn't lying to cover up something shameful that he did. He lied because he didn't think Americans deserved to keep their health plans... or the truth.
Obama lied because he is a liberal.
That Obama would lie was an inevitable as the sun rising in the morning and the taxman coming in the spring. The lie was baked into the nature of the progressive movement that he identified with and its social experiments with human lives for the greater good that he participated in.
Lying isn't incidental to a liberal. Liberal is another word for liar. Someone who believes, as Obama and his media cronies do, that Americans are too stupid and ignorant to be trusted to choose their own health care, isn't about to trust them with the truth.
Telling someone the truth shows that we respect them as people. We give them the information and then trust that they will make the right decision. Trust and respect are the key words here.
Liars don't trust and respect people. Neither do liberals.
Liberals don't believe that the people they lie to are their equals. If they did, not only wouldn't they lie to them, but they wouldn't subscribe to a skewed leftist take on liberalism that compels them to take away choices from people for their own good.
You don't take away someone's right to choose unless you think that they are inferior to you. The policies of liberalism can only be justified by assuming that the people whose lives they run into the ground are their ethical and intellectual inferiors.
If you think that the next person over can run his life just as well as you run yours, then there's no reason to take over his life and to lie to him about it. But if you think that he's probably a racist moron who worships the flag and clings to his gun and bible and can't be trusted to buy a car, raise his kids, drink a large soda and see a doctor; then you're probably a liberal.
And a liar.
That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives respect people's choices. Liberals don't. And if you don't respect someone's choices, you don't respect them.
If you think that the average person is a moron, then the only answer is to set up to some ideal republic of liberal philosopher kings who will nudge the marching morons into the death panels for their own greater good while lying to them that the death panelists are really the judges for the next hot talent competition.
If ordinary people don't deserve the basic decency of being allowed to make decisions about their own health care, then they also don't deserve the basic decency of not being lied to their faces about those decisions being taken away from them.
If Obama had trusted and respected Americans, he wouldn't have lied to them about ObamaCare. But if he had really trusted and respected them, then he wouldn't have engaged in a massive government hijacking of their health care options, mandated their participation in health plans at virtual gunpoint and then rewritten the regulations to destroy as many of their grandfathered health plans as possible.
And so if Obama had really trusted and respected Americans, he wouldn't have inflicted ObamaCare on them.
The existence of ObamaCare made it inevitable that Obama would lie about it in the same way that a burglar smashing the window of a jewelery store won't hesitate to lie to the owner about what he's doing. A man who is willing to rob a store or a nation will easily and casually lie about his crime.
Obama's crime isn't the lie. The lie is the cover-up of the crime. The crime is that Obama packaged a tax, a welfare program and a government takeover of health care together and called it reform. That was the bigger lie and there was no misspeaking involved.
The media has shown that Obama's lie was no isolated incident by lying about the lie for the same reason that he told the lie. The health plan lie wasn't the lie of one politician protecting his reputation; it was the big lie of a liberal establishment protecting its agenda.
The liberal media manipulates its readers, listeners and viewers the same way that liberal governments manipulate their citizens. And they both do it because they don't believe that the ordinary person has the right to the truth or the right to his life.
The liberal media manipulates its readers, listeners and viewers the same way that liberal governments manipulate their citizens. Unlike Clinton's lie, Obama's lie was not one man's mistake, but a movement's arrogance. And not only hasn't Obama stopped lying about his lie, but the media and the rest of his movement haven't stopped lying about his lie.
Obama's big health care lie shows why liberals can't be trusted. Any movement that believes its members are superior to ordinary people cannot be trusted to represent them or to tell them the truth.
The story comes from The Clarion Project.
Islamists to Join NYC Thanksgiving Day Parade
The Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist organization bent on implementing sharia law, plans to join NYC parade.
The New York City Thanksgiving Day Parade will feature marchers demonstrating against the Egyptian government’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, according to a U.S.-based group linked to the Islamist movement.
On November 25, the Facebook page of Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights posted an announcement about “R4abia in Thanksgiving Parade” at 5:00 AM at 56th St. and 6th.
The announcement includes a photo of a large inflatable turkey with the “R4abia” sign on it.
The “R4abia” sign is an expression of solidarity with pro-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators that clashed with the Egyptian security forces on August 14 near Cairo’s Rabia al-Adawiya mosque.
The Facebook announcement has been shared over 600 times and “liked” over 1,000 times. The organization’s page is full of pictures, videos and statements supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood and former Egyptian President Morsi.
The President of Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights (EADHR) is Hany Saqr. An Egyptian newspaper recently identified him as a Muslim Brotherhood operative in America.
A 1992 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood phonebook identified Saqr as a member of its Executive Office. A secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood strategy memo written the previous year said its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”
The EADHR website does not list its leadership, but another reported leader and co-founder is Shaker Elsayed, the imam of the radical Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia. He has spoken at EADHR events as a representative. He was taped preaching armed jihad at a Virginia high school in January.
In August, EADHR held a pro-Brotherhood rally in Washington D.C., where chants like “Morsi is my president” were repeatedly heard. An official from the Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing in Egypt, the Freedom and Justice Party, spoke at the event. The party featured the event on its YouTube channel.
The receptionist at the event’s press conference was secretly recorded explicitly saying, “This is a Muslim Brotherhood meeting.” The conference featured Mahdi Bray, another Islamist with a resume filled with Brotherhood affiliations.
Another co-founder of EADHR is Akram Elzend. The event was organized with help from the Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors say was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Elzend is an official for the Muslim American Society’s branch in Washington D.C.
Khaled Lamada is another co-founder. He was also identified as a Brotherhood operative by the aforementioned Egyptian newspaper. He endorsed the Egyptian presidential campaign of Mohammed Morsi in June 2012.
Lamada who is also Vice Chairman of the board of directors for Islamic Relief USA and was the co-chairman of the annual conference of the Islamic Circle of North America and MAS. He also was a board member of the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge and outreach director for the New Brunswick Islamic Center.
Lamada is also Vice Chairman of the board of directors for Islamic Relief USA and was the co-chairman of the annual conference of the Islamic Circle of North America and MAS. He also was a board member of the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge and outreach director for the New Brunswick Islamic Center.
Most Americans watch the Thanksgiving Day parade to celebrate the country’s history. This year, they’ll also be given a dose of Islamist propaganda from Muslim Brotherhood supporters.
Anti-Nuke Activists In India, Who Protest Potential Nuclear Accidents, Accidentally Set Off Bomb That Almost Blows Up Nuclear Reactor
Indian nuclear plants = 0 dead
Anti-Nuke activists = 6 dead
The story comes from DAWN.
Blast near Indian nuclear plant kills six
NEW DELHI: A crude bomb has exploded near a nuclear plant in southern India, killing six people and seriously injuring three others, including an anti-nuclear activist whom police say is a suspect.
Police say the Russian-built Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu state is unaffected and operating as normal.
Local residents have protested for years against the plant over fears an accident could create a health hazard.
Police say the bomb that exploded Tuesday night likely went off accidentally as suspected activists were making several crude explosive devices in a house about 15 kilometers from the plant.
Superintendent Vijayendra Bidari says police recovered two unexploded bombs, but have yet to question the injured suspect who is receiving treatment for serious injuries.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The story comes from The Express Tribune via The Religion of Peace.
‘56 women killed in 2013 for giving birth to girls’
Fifty-six women have been killed in Pakistan this year for giving birth to a girl rather than a boy, human rights activist IA Rehman said at a symposium here on Monday.
“A country where mothers are killed for giving birth to baby girls can’t be called an ethical society,” Rehman said at the symposium, titled ‘Youth emerging as a force for positive change’, meant to mark the International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Women. The event was arranged by the All Pakistan Women’s Association (APWA).
From January 2012 to September 2013, there were also 90 acid attacks on women, 72 cases of burning caused by other means, 491 cases of domestic violence, 344 cases of gang rape and 835 cases of violence, he said. “Young girls are being raped in Pakistan and all we do is shout rather that do anything practical,” he said.
Rehman said that giving girls and boys equal access to education and introducing a uniform education system for the rich and the poor would bring about positive changes in Pakistan. “It has taken us 62 years to say that education is a basic right,” he said.
Supreme Court Advocate Shamsa Ali said a third of seats in local government should be reserved for women. This would make local bodies a nursery for young female politicians, she said.
She added that there should be a zero tolerance policy towards violence against women. She said that Pakistan had ratified the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, but had not fully implemented it.
MPA Hina Pervez Butt, who was one of the chief guests, said that the Punjab Assembly would soon pass the Punjab Protection of Family Members from Violence Bill. “The bill is a welcome indication of the Government of Punjab’s commitment to supporting women in distress and to addressing issues of violence,” she said.
Butt said that the PML N leadership had encouraged young people like her to come forward and work for the betterment of society.
Minister for Population and Family Welfare Begum Zakia Shahnawaz said that the high population growth rate was also one of the causes of violence against women.
APWA Chairwoman Ruhi Sayid said that the association had taken many initiatives to help victims of violence.
For those of you on the left in America ... do you enjoy being the butt of jokes by a bunch of pedophile, young boy buggering mongrels in Iran? Oh yeah, I forgot...you do.
The story comes from Family Security Matters.
The story comes from Family Security Matters.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Claims Victory for Nuclear Program
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claimed victory over the United States Sunday shortly after a historic nuclear agreement was reached in Geneva between the Islamic Republic and the 5+1 world powers.
Under the agreement, Iran, in return for sanctions relief, will keep much of its nuclear infrastructure, is limited to enriching uranium to the five percent level for six months, will convert its highly enriched uranium of 20 percent to harmless oxide and will allow more intrusive inspections of its nuclear plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will be limited to only agreed-on facilities.
Fars News Agency, the media outlet of the Revolutionary Guards, reported that Khamenei in a statement thanked President Hassan Rouhani and his negotiating team for their achievement in Geneva.
"I thank God that... the new government... was able to legitimize the Iranian nation's nuclear program on the international stage and take the initial step in a way that the nuclear rights and the enrichment rights of the Iranian nation are acknowledged by world powers where before they had tried to deny them, and (the agreement will) open the way for future big strides in technical and economic progress," Khamenei said.
Rouhani, speaking at an event for families of "martyred" Iranian nuclear scientists, said Iran will continue its nuclear progress. "No matter whether the world wants it or not, this path (to nuclear capability) will, God willing, continue to the peak," he said.
As reported exclusively in the Daily Caller in February 2012, sources inside Iran said President Barack Obama appeared to enter into an informal agreement with Iran that he believed would defuse the nuclear weapons crisis and keep Israel from attacking the Islamic regime. The agreement called for the United States to acknowledge that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and for Iran to hand over its highly enriched uranium, which is necessary for nuclear weaponization.
Those sources revealed then that Khamenei, in a secret meeting with his top officials and military commanders, had issued a directive to push for a step-by-step Russian proposal to defuse the crisis in which Iran would only hand over its 20 percent enrichment stock while keeping all low-enriched uranium stock (enough for six nuclear bombs) and cooperate more with the IAEA (all the while continuing its enrichment activity). In exchange, the West would ease up on the sanctions as each step was taken.
Iran has always believed that America has no choice but to accept its nuclear program. In an article in April 2012, titled "The Lessons from the Past for the Negotiations in April," Mohammad Mohammadi, an Iranian international affairs and nuclear expert, wrote, "Looking back at the past decade, all the red lines by America and the West over Iran's nuclear issue have now been transformed into acceptance. America has always adopted radical actions at first that have changed to symbolic measures later. Iran has always known that America and the West needed a way to solve the nuclear issue with some honor, and today it is quite visible that with the defeat of America's policies toward Iran, the talk about a need to solve the Iranian nuclear issue diplomatically is a way to obtain that honor."
The United States initially demanded that Iran suspend all its nuclear activities, Mohammadi said: "Today, though, the Americans have given up on that, and what Obama is asking is the halt of the enrichment to the 20 percent level with a full acceptance of Iran's enrichment rights to the 5 percent level." Enriching uranium to the 20 percent level is a critical step in achieving nuclear weaponization.
"The Americans have also changed their language," Mohammadi said. "Where at first they claimed that they had evidence that Iran was working to make the nuclear bomb, now, though, they state openly that Iran has not yet decided to make a bomb. This change in their demands and in their language can only mean one thing - that they are incapable of stopping Iran's nuclear program."
Iran has negotiated its nuclear program with the U.S. and the world powers for over a decade, during which time it has successfully increased the number of centrifuges enriching uranium from 150 to over 19,000 today. It now has over 10 tons of low-enriched uranium - enough for several bombs - and has over a thousand ballistic missiles and, in collaboration with North Korea, is working on intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Family Security Matters.
Iran's Thugs Smile, We Lose
John Kerry's interim disaster augurs catastrophe....
Sunday morning's interim nuclear deal that six Western powers made with Iran's rulers is a disaster in search of catastrophe--the latter in the form of the planned final deal six months hence.
On Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace began his report on the deal having been reached with "While many were sleeping"; it would have been more accurate for him to have said "While our negotiators were sleeping."
President Obama's first official statement about the deal included this:
While today's announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal. For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, and key parts of the program will be rolled back. Iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stockpiles. Iran cannot use its next-generation centrifuges, which are used for enriching uranium. Iran cannot install or start up new centrifuges, and its production of centrifuges will be limited. Iran will halt work at its plutonium reactor. And new inspections will provide extensive access to Iran's nuclear facilities and allow the international community to verify whether Iran is keeping its commitments.
The canary in the diplomatic coal mine, however, is this report, that the US had been secretly negotiating since March 2013 with Iran--(a) without telling its mortally-endangered ally, Israel until two months ago (seven months into the talks); and (b) negotiating (for one of the five meetings) with Rouhani's predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
These sanctions have had a substantial impact on the Iranian economy, and with the election of a new Iranian President earlier this year, an opening for diplomacy emerged. I spoke personally with President Rouhani of Iran earlier this fall. Secretary Kerry has met multiple times with Iran's Foreign Minister. And we have pursued intensive diplomacy -- bilaterally with the Iranians, and together with our P5-plus-1 partners -- the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union. (Emphasis added.)
Put simply, the president at minimum misled us when he cited Rouhani's "reformer" status (in reality, simply wrong, on all available evidence--Rouhani lied about Iran's nuclear program after it was outed in August 2002, when he headed the regime's 2003-2005 nuclear negotiations--as the reason we could negotiate. He had already secretly negotiated with Israel's openly genocidal adversary, without informing Israel. (Emphasis added.)
The White House fact sheet on the deal looks superficially plausible, except that there is no practical way to either verify compliance nor has the president left the military force option credibly on the table--hence Obama's assertion that diplomacy is the sole way to resolve the problems posed by Iran's nuclear program.
The president, near the end of his statement, made this contradictory and delusional remark:
Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush towards conflict. Today, we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement, and I believe we must test it. (Emphasis added.)
Only diplomacy? Decisive military action could destroy Iran's nuclear assets. Better by far still, positive regime regime, replacing Iran's genocidal Islamist regime with a moderate one--the very possibility Pres. Obama scorned during the June 2009 popular uprising against the rigged re-election of A-jad--could have ended Iran's military nuclear program.
Here is Iran's version of the full accord text, as published by Iran's Fars News Agency. Israeli PM Netanyahu's first statement on the deal predictably stood in sharp contrast to the president's:
What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake. Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has made a significant step in the direction of achieving the most dangerous weapon in the world. For the first time the leading nations in the world agreed to the enrichment of uranium in Iran by ignoring the decisions of the Security Council that they themselves led. Sanctions that took years to put into place and held within them the best possible opportunity for a solution by the way of peace were lifted for cosmetic Iranian compromises that can be canceled in weeks. This agreement and its significance there of threatens many countries and of course Israel among them. Israel is not obliged to the agreement. The regime in Iran is dedicated to destroying Israel and Israel has the right and obligation to defend itself with it's own forces against every threat. I want to make clear as the Prime minister of Israel, Israel will not let Iran develop a nuclear military capability.
The New York Times report on the deal notes that at most--if Ian honors the accord, which would be a first in its nuclear dealings with the West--it delays Iran's march to a bomb by one month. Iran's declared amount of seven tons of low-enriched uranium (commercial grade 3.5% enriched) would be allowed first to rise to eight tons, then is to fall back to seven tons by the six-month mark.
The Gray Lady's report includes this gem as to verification:
To guard against cheating, international monitors would be allowed to visit the Natanz enrichment facility and the underground nuclear enrichment plant at Fordo on a daily basis to check the film from cameras installed there.
But Iran did not agree to all of the intrusive inspection regime that the International Atomic Energy Agency had said was needed to ensure that the Iranian program is peaceful. (Emphasis added.)
Another Gray Lady piece encapsulates how successful Iran has been in advancing its nuclear program during the Obama years:
At the beginning of Mr. Obama's presidency, Iran had roughly 2,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, barely enough for a bomb. It now has about 9,000 kilograms, by the estimates of the International Atomic Energy Agency. A few thousand centrifuges were spinning in 2009; today there are 18,000, including new models that are far more efficient and can produce bomb-grade uranium faster. A new heavy water reactor outside the city of Arak promises a new pathway to a bomb, using plutonium, if it goes online next year as Iran says it will. (Emphasis added.)
The same article offers this on possible hidden facilities and possible rollback of elements not covered by the deal:
True rollback would mean dismantling many of those centrifuges, shipping much of the fuel out of the country or converting it into a state that could not be easily adapted to bomb use, and allowing inspections of many underground sites where the C.I.A., Europe and Israel believe hidden enrichment facilities may exist. There is no evidence of those facilities now, but, as a former senior Obama administration official said recently, speaking anonymously to discuss intelligence, "there has never been a time in the past 15 years or so when Iran didn't have a hidden facility in construction."
There is also the problem of forcing Iran to reveal what kind of progress it has made toward designing a weapon. For years, its leaders have refused to answer questions about documents, slipped out of the country by a renegade scientist nearly eight years ago, that strongly suggest work on a nuclear warhead. Inspectors have never been able to interview Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the academic believed to be in charge of a series of weapons development projects. (Emphasis added.)
SecState John Kerry says that "Israel is in fact safer than it was yesterday"; but Iran's foreign minister warns that Iran will not accept any tighter sanctions, and further asserts that the deal preserves Iran's "right to enrich" uranium.
Iran's asserted "right to enrich" is fictive, but it serves the regime's purpose to assert it, as it transforms a legal prohibition against Iran enriching uranium to an arcane diplomatic legal dispute that is hence inconclusive. Put simply, the Nonproliferation Treaty confers no explicit right to enrich uranium; given the NPT's objectives, an implied right to do same is not reasonably inferred from the text. Permanent United Nations sanctions (oil & economic) were imposed in 2006, to last until Iran's suspends its uranium enrichment program. Instead, in the interim accord Iran won a limited "right to enrich" and obtained a lightening of UN sanctions.
One Iranian general--the day before the deal was struck--warned that Iran would make war against the US:
According to Fars News Agency, the regime's outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, said "America's interests and all of Israel are within the range of the Islamic Republic and there is not the slightest doubt among Iran's armed forces to confront the American government and the Zionists (Israel)."
Jazayeri said Israel is pulling the strings of Washington and "the American government is one of the most hated and evil governments in the world."
The general mocked President Obama's position that the military option remains on the table over Iran's nuclear development. "If America had the ability and the will for war, it would allow no doubt in attacking Syria. America will soon find out that Iran's power cannot be ignored."
Most chilling, too, was the March 2013 report that Iran has built a massive new underground site for its enrichment program (8,000 centrifuges--which would add to the 18,000 already known to exist), long-range missiles, etc. the "Quds" (Arabic for Jerusalem) enrichment facility is buried 375 feet down, more than 50 percent deeper than al-Fordo (Iran's previous deepest facility) and five times deeper than Natanz (Iran's main enrichment facility). The report indicates also that Iran has converted some uranium into metal, a crucial step for a bomb not used in nuclear reactors; and that Iran is working on specialized components used to detonate nuclear bombs. Also, Iran is working on neutron technology to create an EMP weapon--used to knock out electric power grids via a high-altitude detonation that emits serial pulses of destructive electromagnetic energy.
Surprised? Then try this on for size: an Iranian state-TV video (4:39) simulating a counter-strike on Israel. Or this: Iran accused Israel of killing JFK because JFK tried to halt Israel's nuclear bomb program.
Finally, a read of Winston Churchill's Nov. 5, 1938 address to the House of Commons is instructive, especially these choice paragraphs:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer [Sir John Simon] said it was the first time Herr Hitler had been made to retract - I think that was the word - in any degree. We really must not waste time after all this long Debate upon the difference between the positions reached at Berchtesgaden, at Godesberg and at Munich. They can be very simply epitomised, if the House will permit me to vary the metaphor. £1 was demanded at the pistol's point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol's point. Finally, the dictator consented to take £1 17s. 6d. and the rest in promises of goodwill for the future.
Those are the features which I stand here to expose and which marked an improvident stewardship for which Great Britain and France have dearly to pay. We have been reduced in those five years from a position of security so overwhelming and so unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it. We have been reduced from a position where the very word "war" was considered one which could be used only by persons qualifying for a lunatic asylum. We have been reduced from a position of safety and power - power to do good, power to be generous to a beaten foe, power to make terms with Germany, power to give her proper redress for her grievances, power to stop her arming if we chose, power to take any step in strength or mercy or justice which we thought right - reduced in five years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now....
And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
Munich bought Europe s one-year respite from a shooting war. How long the Iran respite lasts is anyone's guess, but the interim accord does little concrete that might--if implemented--improve our security, and much to impair same. War--nuclear war--could very well come later.
Bottom Line. Appeasement of a hostile power with revolutionary aspiration will work no better in the 21st century than it did in the 20th.
And that is why Iran's Islamist rulers are smiling today.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
The Jerusalem Post.
Iran deal: Same world, opposite risk assessments
Judging from their reactions to the deal that world powers signed with Iran in Geneva early Sunday morning, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama live in different worlds.
Diplomacy, Obama declared in a message to the nation announcing the accord, “opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure.”
Netanyahu begged to differ, telling the cabinet Sunday that “today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.”
Same world, yet diametrically opposed risk assessments by two very close allies.
Beyond the nuclear element, one of Jerusalem’s main concerns is that Iran – once the lynchpin of another US president’s “axis of evil” – is suddenly cleansed, receiving a stamp of approval as a legitimate member of the international community in good standing. Iran under President Hassan Rouhani has – in the six months since his election – undergone a revolutionary rebranding, a rebranding Israel could only dream of, from pariah state to “constructive” actor.
Or, as Obama enthused, if Iran “seizes this opportunity” to prove to the world that its nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes, then “the Iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community, and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. This would provide Iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect.”
Really? How about Iran’s part in Syrian President Bashar Assad’s massacre of tens of thousands of people? How about its continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads that were not even mentioned in the Geneva agreement? How about its role in exporting terrorism around the globe? How about its stoning of women accused of adultery, hanging of homosexuals and gruesome rate of executions? How about the anti- Semitic ranting of its leaders? Does all of the above really render the world a safer place, as Obama said? This agreement shows that Iran can indeed do all of the above, yet still get to be a member of the international community.
Israel’s concern about a nuclear Iran has never only – or even primarily – been that the Iranians will use a nuclear bomb on Israel, but rather that even having the weapon or the weapons capability will magnify its power in the region and embolden it and its proxies.
There is a deep concern that the Geneva agreement will indeed bolster Iran in the region.
Iran is already a nuclear threshold state, as is any state that can enrich uranium to 5%, has 18,000 centrifuges (nuclear-armed Pakistan has only 6,000) at its disposal and can “break out” with a bomb in five weeks.
But if before Saturday night Iran was a nuclear threshold state with leper status in the world, now it is a nuclear threshold state with international legitimacy.
UN Security Council resolutions on Iran called for it explicitly to suspend its enrichment; this agreement says go ahead and enrich, just not beyond 5%.
The agreement gives Iran considerable regional leverage.
Will the US or other Western countries push Iran on the Syrian issue, knowing that if they push too hard, Iran may walk away from the nuclear agreement? After investing so much time and energy into forging an agreement, none of those involved will want to do anything that could lead to its falling apart.
Two weeks ago, US Secretary of State John Kerry, following an inconclusive round of talks in Geneva, was asked in a BBC interview whether Hezbollah or the conflict in Syria came up in his talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
“I think we spent 30 seconds on Syria,” Kerry said tellingly.
And the regional ramifications do not only touch on Syria (notice that Damascus praised the agreement to the moon), but will also have ramifications on the diplomatic process with the Palestinians.
Firstly Iran – suddenly let off the ropes – will once again be free to do what it can to torpedo any possible Israeli-Palestinian accommodation, as any pressure on Iran to demonstrate “good behavior” in order not to scuttle a potential deal with the West is now off. Expect, therefore, a sudden upsurge again in Iranian support for Hamas, a group looking for a new patron following their split with Damascus and the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi in Egypt.
The agreement will also have ramifications on the Israel-Palestinian front for a couple of other reasons. First of all, Israel will feel no compulsion now to repay a tough US or international stance on Iran with concessions to the Palestinians, since from Netanyahu’s point of view there was no strong stance on Iran.
The linkage discussed so often in the past, “Bushehr for Yitzhar” – the US stops a nuclear Iran symbolized by the nuclear reactor in Bushehr, and in return Israel gives up settlements symbolized by Yitzhar – has lost currency, for from Israel’s perspective the world is letting Iran keep Bushehr.
Also, any agreement with the Palestinians will necessitate Israel taking calculated risks. But Israel now will be much more risk averse, with Iran suddenly emboldened and enjoying new-found international legitimacy.
In addition, any possible future agreement with the Palestinians would undoubtedly necessitate ironclad security guarantees from the US. Considering the way Washington handled the Iranian file since Rouhani’s election in June, does anyone really think Netanyahu is going to place Israel’s security in the hands of US guarantees? A safer world? Maybe seen from Washington, a long way from Iran and the Middle East.
But from Jerusalem, close to Iran, and in the eye of the storm? Hardly.
Explosions in N. Waziristan, Kurram kill five, injure six
NORTH WAZIRISTAN: Two soldiers were killed and five others injured Sunday when a roadside bomb was detonated near a security forces' convoy in North Waziristan’s Mir Ali area, DawnNews reported.
According to sources, a remote-controlled bomb, planted along the road near Karamkot in Mirali Tehsil, was detonated when the security forces' convoy was travelling from Miramshah to Mirali. Subsequently, two soldiers were killed on the spot whereas five others were injured.
The injured persons were taken to Miramshah Hospital and later shifted to Bannu.
Following the attack, security forces’ personnel cordoned off the area and a search operation went underway.
North Waziristan is one of the seven regions in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) governed by tribal laws. An extremist insurgency led by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) plagues the region and the area is known to be infested with militants, including those from Al Qaeda and other armed extremist organisations.
The region also comes under attacks from US drones frequently which target militant hideouts in the area.
Explosions in Upper Kurram Agency kill three, injure one
At least three people, including two students, were killed and one other injured today in two separate explosions that took place in Upper Kurram Agency, DawnNews reported.
According to the political administration of the area, a roadside bomb was detonated near a car in the Shablan area of Upper Kurram Agency. Subsequently, two people were killed whereas one person sustained injuries.
The second explosion occurred in the Dal area of Upper Kurram Agency, killing one person.
Following the explosions, the political administration cordoned off the area and a probe into the incident went underway.
Kurram Agency, which is close to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, is one of the seven regions in FATA, governed by tribal laws.
Separately, a police official was killed when unknown motorcylists opened fire on him within the remit of the Bannu Township police station.
Meanwhile, a roadside-bomb was defused near Karam Kot on the Miramshah-Mirali road.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama and the leaders of Europe have told the Mullahs of Iran: Kill the Jews. The P5+1 leaders have caved in to all of Iran's demands and will lift the sanctions. (Although they claim that they will reinstate them again.)
Representatives of Iran and Western powers reached an interim deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program early Sunday morning, after a weekend of intensive talks in Geneva.My sources tell me that Iran got everything they wanted. The right to enrich uranium, their nuclear program intact, the relaxation of sanctions. Israel on the other hand have been shafted up the ass. Iran doesn't have a peaceful nuclear program. They have made that clear over the last decade.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, “Yes, we have a deal,” as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days. Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said “Yes” and gave a thumbs up sign.
Diplomats refused to spell out details of the talks, but a senior Obama administration official said that the West had not conceded an Iranian right to produce nuclear fuel through uranium enrichment, a key sticking point in previous negotiations.
The official said the deal included an agreement that Iran would halt progress on its nuclear program, including a plutonium reactor at the Arak facility. The deal also calls on Iran to neutralize its 20-percent-enriched uranium stockpiles. Tehran has also agreed to intrusive inspections under the terms of the deal.
According to a Western diplomat quoted by Reuters, the deal would grant Iran access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange.
In a statement Sunday morning, US President Barack Obama said the deal opened up a “real opportunity to achieve a peaceful settlement.”
“It won’t be easy,” he said, “and huge challenge remain ahead, but through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States will do our part” to deny Iran nuclear weapons. Obama acknowledged that the deal may be hard to stomach for some of Washington’s allies in the Middle East, saying, Israel and the Gulf countries, “have good reasons to be skeptical.”
The West has been seeking a six-month agreement to partially freeze Iran’s nuclear program while offering Iran incentives through limited sanctions relief. If the interim deal holds, the parties would negotiate final-stage deals to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.
The agreement built on the momentum of the historic dialogue opened during September’s annual UN gathering, which included a 15-minute phone conversation between Obama and Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, after three decades of US-Iranian estrangement.
“The Iranian people’s vote for moderation and constructive engagement, plus tireless efforts by negotiating teams are to open new horizons,” Rouhani said in a statement Sunday morning.
“Agreement in Geneva: first step makes world safer. More work now,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a comment tweeted by the State Department Sunday morning. The statement was retweeted by Rouhani’s account.
Kerry and his counterparts from Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany headed for Geneva Friday after diplomats said Zarif and EU representative Catherine Ashton had made significant progress.
A previous round of talks between Iran and the six world powers ended November 10 with no deal, even after Kerry, Lavrov, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and a Chinese deputy foreign minister flew in and attempted to bridge differences.
The United States and its negotiating partners had signaled they were ready to ease some sanctions in return for a first-step deal that starts to put limits on Iran’s nuclear program.
They wanted Iran to stop enriching to a level higher than its main stockpile and only a technical step away from weapons-grade uranium as part of such a deal. They also sought to limit overall enrichment, as well as a formulation that would reduce the proliferation danger from the Arak reactor, which, if completed, would produce enough plutonium for up to two weapons.
But they insist that the most severe penalties — on Tehran’s oil exports and banking sector — will remain until the two sides reach a comprehensive agreement to minimize Iran’s nuclear arms-making capacity.
No details on relief offered have been made public. And the US administration has not commented on reports from congressional officials that Obama’s team estimates Iran could get $6-10 billion in benefits over six months for rolling back its nuclear program.
Several US senators — both Democrat and Republican — have voiced displeasure with the parameters of the potential agreement, arguing that the US and its partners are offering too much for something short of a full freeze on uranium enrichment.
On September 30, 1938 then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain disembarked a plane from Germany, waved a piece of paper and stated clearly:
We have achieved peace in our time.
Click here if the video fails to load.
A year later Europe erupted in war. For Chamberlain also believed that this was the first step and he could negotiate a lasting peace.
History is repeating itself in spades.
We haven't become safer by this treaty, but it is only a matter of time before a Regional War will break out. A war that will become a World War.
Family Security Matters.
How the American Left Turned Against Israel
In his book The Israel Test, scholar and technologist George Gilder measures the character of political actors by their views toward Israeli democracy and its dynamic economy, which produces advanced agriculture, bio-medical technology, communications systems, cyber security and missile defense capabilities, and efficient energy production, among many modern human achievements.
Two decades of intense American confrontation with radical Islam have put a spotlight on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, revealing that traditional bi-partisan support for Israel has collapsed as leftism has turned harshly against the Jewish state.
The Transition From Cold War to Gulf Wars
The dominant global political issue for two generations after World War II was the Cold War, which often elicited non-partisan statesmanship. U.S. presidents from each party consistently named members of the opposition party to important posts in the Defense Department. Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg established that “partisan politics stops at the water’s edge” and he supported the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Democrat Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson similarly worked across the aisle on national defense issues over many years, including his Jackson-Vanik Amendment which conditioned U.S.-Soviet trade relations on Russian Jewish emigration and broader human rights policies.
However, Americans exhibited frequent political disunity during this period over the threat of communism within the United States in the 1950’s, the anti-Vietnam War campus protests in the 1960‘s, the Democrat Congressional Church Commission reforms of the 1970‘s, and “peacenik” objections to President Reagan’s confrontation with “the evil empire” in the 1980‘s (the nuclear freeze movement opposed the placement of Pershing Missiles into Europe and leftists opposed anti-communist freedom fighters in Latin America). The leading congressional Democrat, Senator Edward Kennedy, was revealed by memos discovered in the archives of the former USSR to have plotted to aid General Secretary Andropov against President Reagan.
Anti-communism, and the anti-anti-communism of the New Left, dominated America’s foreign policy debates for several generations. But even as radical politics grew, negative opinions about Jews and Israel on the left were not yet dominant. American labor, for example, had built a sustained relationship with the Israeli Histadrut labor movement that lasted for decades. And civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., at a private dinner in Cambridge, on October 27, 1967, strongly responded to criticism of Jewish national rights by a black Harvard University student:
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”
Enemies of America and Israel, of course, were not passive as the U.S. and the USSR engaged in their long twilight struggle. In an already tumultuous year, 1968, Jerusalem-born Christian-Arab Sirhan Sirhan murdered U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy because of the Democrat Senator’s pro-Israel views. In 1972, Palestinian Black September terrorists murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. And in 1973, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat ordered the murder of U.S. diplomats in Khartoum, Sudan.
President Carter’s response to the rise of Arab terror was weak, and his foreign policy blunders helped to usher in the Iranian Islamic Revolution, with his UN Ambassador asserting that the “Ayatollah Khomeini would eventually be hailed as a saint.” Iranian Shiite terrorists attacked the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days until the day of President Reagan’s inauguration.
Iranian-backed Hezbollah claimed responsibility for the murder of 241 Marines in their Beirut barracks in 1983, and conducted the kidnap, torture and murder of legendary CIA agent William Buckley in 1984-1985. That same year, Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists boarded the cruise ship Achille Lauro and shot wheelchair-bound U.S. tourist Leon Klinghoffer, throwing his body overboard. After a series of Libyan and Iranian attacks on Western airports and American assets, the U.S. initiated military operations in both the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, and began to fight back against state sponsors of terrorism.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union, in 1989, the Cold War abruptly ended, and new opportunities and challenges appeared for the West. In Europe, Germans successfully accomplished reunification, while the Balkans split apart into tribal warfare and ethnic hatred. Americans turned their foreign policy debates toward the Middle East, whose regional crises and confrontations with the United States were quickly mounting. President Bush (41) may have hoped for a new world order, but America’s consecutive wars against Japanese Imperialism, German Fascism, and Soviet Totalitarianism were now being succeeded by the Gulf Wars and the counter-terrorism battle with radical Islamism.
On August 2, 1990, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein launched an invasion, annexation and occupation of Kuwait. The decision of President Bush, in consultation with British Prime Minister Thatcher, to build a “coalition of the willing” to oust Iraq from Kuwait was met with fierce criticism by those who protested “no blood for oil.”
The U.S.-sponsored Middle East Peace Process, including the 1993 (Rabin-Arafat) handshake ceremony on the White House Lawn, raised unrealistic expectations of a final status peace accord between Israel and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Seeking victory through stages, Arafat’s deceitful promises (Taqiyya) spoken in English, were negated by his Arabic call for a temporary cease fire (Hudna) meant to bank territory, followed by violent actions (Intifada, suicide bombings) to achieve the final (Jihadi) liberation of all of Palestine. Arab legal documents such as the un-repealed 1964 PLO Charter and the 1988 Hamas Covenant, pedagogical programs (schoolbooks, camps), media (TV & radio broadcasts, and newspaper editorial cartoons), and public positions (refusal to negotiate with or recognize Israel, and Palestinian Authority government financial rewards given to terrorist “martyrs”) were all acts not of peace, but continuing war.
Between 1993 and 2001, the PLO and the PA signed six agreements with Israel. Each Israeli concession and withdrawal from territory was met with Palestinian non-compliance and escalating violence, failure to honor commitments to denounce and eliminate terrorism, and increased aggression, leading to repeated, formalized guerrilla war from both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Al Qaeda terrorism, which dramatically raised the stakes in an era of fear about weapons of mass destruction proliferation, included the well known assaults on the World Trade Center, (1993), on U.S.-operated facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, (1995), on U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, (1998), and on the USS Cole in Yemen, (2000), as well, of course, as the attacks of September 11, 2001. All of this led to U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Operation Enduring Freedom (2001) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003).
Western military and ideological battles against Islamism attracted the negative focus of an increasingly confident foreign policy, religious, and cultural left which transferred its reflexive anti-Americanism toward America’s close ally, Israel, and which began to leverage new adherents and benefit by new technologies as well.
The Collapse of Bi-partisan Support for Israel
At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the political world witnessed a rare, unscripted, chaotic, and revealing moment when at least half of the delegates in the hall loudly booed when ex-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa unilaterally asserted, after 3 failed resolution voice votes, that the ayes had achieved a 2/3rds majority to reinstate language in the party platform asserting that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.
Prominent Democrats no longer deny the evidence of hostility for Israel in left-wing circles. In the heat of national elections, however, aware that the national Jewish vote has risen from 10% GOP in 1992 to 30% GOP in 2012, and that voters who prioritize national security are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, Democrat advocates publicly protest that calling attention to the growing partisan divide on Israel “politicizes” an issue they would rather not have to debate.
Longtime liberal Democrat Professor Alan Dershowitz urged Jews to vote for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. He endorses a left-wing domestic agenda and wants Jewish voters to retain a role in Democrat politics. Yet, to his credit, even he felt the need to write a full brief, The Case for Israel, a book rebutting, point by point, 32 of the charges against Israel that now increasingly influence liberal foreign policy discussion.
Polling evidence catalogued by Dr. Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum over a decade reveals a consistent and deepening ideological divide toward Israel’s regional security and its “special alliance” with the United States. Republicans and conservatives are far more sympathetic to Israel than Democrats and liberals in advocating that the U.S. move its embassy to Jerusalem, Israel’s capital; in feeling that Israeli responses to Hezbollah terrorism were justified in 2006; in backing Israeli military action in the 2008 war with Hamas in Gaza; in promoting “defensible borders” for Israel: in supporting the Israeli naval quarantine during the “Free Gaza Flotilla” crisis of 2010; and in promoting resolute U.S. support for Israel rather than a “balanced” approach to the Israeli--Palestinian conflict.
This relatively new and clear divergence challenges the broadly supported thesis that the U.S.-Israel relationship stands uncontroversially on four non-partisan and long-developed pillars; spiritual connection, shared democratic values, military to military strategic alliance, and growing commercial and trade ties.
Long prior to the 1948 re-birth of Jewish sovereignty in the modern state of Israel, the Holy Land was a matter of deep religious affinity, with American Puritans believing they were establishing God’s New Israel. Early Americans used biblical names for their children and their new towns. Future President James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution, took a post-graduate course in Hebrew at Princeton University in 1771. American founders Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson proposed in 1776 that the original Great Seal of the United States of America reference Moses leading the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, or wandering in the desert wilderness, from bondage to the Promised Land. Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams both expressed hope for the return of the Jews to Judea “as an Independent Nation.”
On Thanksgiving Day, 1799, the prominent Reverend Abiel Abbot sermonized:
“Our American Israel is a term frequently used; and common consent allows it apt and proper.”
19th century Christian Zionists promoted restorationism, praying for the safe return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland. Biblical scholar Professor George Bush, a Christian Hebraist at NYU, (and an early American critic of Islam), advocated in his popular Valley of the Vision (1844) the actual, practical return of the Jews to “their paternal soil”, the “the land of their fathers." Professor Bush’s brother was an ancestor of two future American presidents.
President Abraham Lincoln, expressed to many the “noble dream” of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, and was reported by several scholars to have expressed to his wife his last words before assassination, on April 14, 1865:
"We will visit the Holy Land and see those places hallowed by the footsteps of the Savior. There is no place I so much desire to see as Jerusalem."
In 1891, concerned at the pogroms of Czar Alexander III against the Jewish population of Russia, 413 prominent Americans, including the Speaker of the House and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, petitioned President Benjamin Harrison to organize the first international conference
"...to consider the Israelite claim to Palestine as their ancient home, and to promote in any other just and proper way the alleviation of their suffering condition.”
In the early 20th century, President Woodrow Wilson endorsed the British Balfour Declaration (1917) stating:
"I did it, because to think that the son of Presbyterian ministers would have the honor of restoring the Jews to their holy land."
After World War II, in the context of rising Arab-Jewish tension in the 1940’s, President Harry S. Truman faced strong objection from some of the U.S. foreign policy establishment to recognition of a new Jewish state. Some State Department officials were concerned about Arab oil embargoes, while others were advocative of relationships established in the various U.S. embassies and consulates throughout Araby.
The Truman Administration yet lobbied for the land partition resolution, the UN compromise accepted by the Jews and rejected by all the Arab states. When Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948 the U.S. was the first nation to recognize the new Jewish State—11 minutes after the proclamation.
"I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now," President Harry Truman said on May 26, 1952. "I believe it has a glorious future before it—not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.”
All U.S. presidents since Truman have asserted the moral, humanitarian, and strategic value of Israel to the U.S., often in eloquent terms rooted in both religious convictions and the importance of a bi-lateral security alliance.
The long history of friendship between the United States and Israel cannot be explained by Jewish influence on American foreign policy. At the time of the American founding, there were only 2,500 Jews in the United States. The 2013 Jewish population in the United States is estimated at only 6 million out of well over 300 million citizens. While anti-Israelism at the United Nations, and in Western Europe, is severe, polls consistently show strong American support for Israel, which ranks in the top tier of admired nations alongside Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, France, and India. No other Middle East nation enjoys broad American sympathy.
Reciprocity of alliance and friendship is evident in public opinion polls of Israeli Jews who follow American news and culture avidly and who express consistent admiration for the U.S.A. The Jewish state has built memorials dedicated to 9/11, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as two replicas of the Liberty Bell.
Israel competes for the top spot with Palau and Micronesia in the annual rankings of vote alignment with the U.S. at the UN, and the Israel Defence Forces works intensely to share regional military intelligence, planning, and technology with the U.S. Department of Defense. Israelis warmly welcome American sailors in the port of Haifa. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2011, spoke with effusive praise and gratitude to a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress. Members across the aisle rose for 29 standing ovations. Much more than courtesy, this was a heartfelt expression of historic and continuing mutual brotherhood.
Professor Benzion Netanyahu was the father of Benjamin Netanyahu, and also of Lt. Col. Yonatan “Yoni” Netanyahu, the commander of the elite Israeli army unit who was killed during the July 4th, 1976 Operation Entebbe in Uganda, the daring rescue of Israeli tourists hijacked by Palestinian terrorists. In the early 1940‘s, Benzion Netanyahu met several times with prominent U.S. politicians, lobbying for a Jewish homeland. Netanyahu convinced the GOP to make support for a Jewish state part of its 1944 national party platform. Both political parties have maintained this pro-Israel stance ever since. Professor Netanyahu lived to see a free and prosperous Jewish nation, served with great distinction by his sons. He passed away at the age of 102, in 2012. At the DNC convention, any assumption that Israel was still equally admired and supported throughout America passed away that year as well.
The Ideology of the Left
Leftist hostility to traditional American foreign policy applies with great intensity to U.S. support for Israel, in part because Israel has become the U.S. ally most admired by conservatives, most supported by religious Christians, and most closely identified with the United States. For the leftist who has come to oppose American identity and exceptionalism, Israel is a perfect target. The Islamist chant, “America is the Great Satan, Israel is the Little Satan,” has a left-wing American echo: “America is a big, corrupt, religious, capitalistic, imperialistic, bullying, unjust, colonial empire. Israel is America’s evil little brother.”
The negative judgement against one’s own homeland, a matter of self-negation and self-loathing, expresses itself with various hostility to consensus cultural beliefs such as nationalism, patriotism, or religious identity, and therefore prevents moral objectivity. The leftist does not assert, like the conservative, that human rights are far more abused by totalitarians than by the Judeo-Christian West, necessitating support for American strength and allied defense against despots. Conservatives believe that democracies tend not to go to war with each other, and that anti-Democratic regimes are the incubators of terrorism, and the sources of international instability, military expansionism, human poverty and despair, religious radicalism, and worrisome nuclear proliferation.
Instead, Israel is demonized by leftists as a powerful and expansionist colonial power, not as a vulnerable nation of 8 million citizens in a region of some 400 million Arabs and millions more non-Arab Muslims. The Israeli military is seen as aggressive, even while defending 8 borders (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Gaza, the West Bank, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean coastline). Having been jointly attacked by multiple regional enemies on several occasions, Israel continues to struggle to maintain a qualitative military edge against potential enemy coalitions featuring large land armies and a growing arsenal of short, medium, and long-range missiles.
Israel, seeking to maintain its religious civilization and national character as a Jewish state, flourishing as a capitalist economy, and resolutely committed to its military defense, is the poster child for the enmity of radicalized souls who detest such principles. Leftist hostility to Israel in recent years has grown even as Israel has never experienced a period of undemocratic governance in a region of mass human rights abuse, autocracy, and tyranny, and even while Israel has been under constant threat of war and economic and diplomatic assault.
Israel’s military withdrawals from portions of the West Bank, (1990s), from its security zone in Southern Lebanon, (2000), and entirely from the Gaza Strip via unilateral disengagement, (2005), were all based on unmet hopes for Arab reciprocity and peace-making. Yet rarely has the left applauded or celebrated Israeli strategic and diplomatic sacrifices, or public marches, rallies, and songs for peace. Advanced in the Middle East in ensuring the civil rights of women, gays, and minorities, Israelis promote their liberal causes with great vigor in courts and have welcomed millions of poor immigrants, never easy for any economy, even rescuing starving Ethiopians from Africa, a rare moment in history of transporting black Africans to freedom, not to slavery. Israel’s free press is highly critical of government, and frequent elections and a flourishing civil society all underscore its liberal democracy. None of this overcomes the deep antipathy of the left.
The closeness of the U.S. to Israel, the rightness of Israel’s cause, the impressiveness of Israeli democracy, and the achievements of Israeli economy, irritates, rather than impresses the left. The alienated anti-American has transferred his antipathy of the United States to Israel, a fellow democratic, capitalist society.
The peace movement dreams a dream of universalism, sung to the lyrics “all we are saying, is give peace a chance” and “everybody on the peace train”. Its anthem is Imagine:
“Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace...”
When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waved a piece of paper signed by the Germans, declaring “peace for our time” on September 30, 1938, the day before Germans invaded the Sudetenland, he defined appeasement. But this lesson was not learned by idealists who naively reject the idea that mere promises of peace may incentivize the bully and bring war.
The utopian imperative envisions the world not as it is, but as one imagines it to be. Nihilism, the rejection of wisdom, results in the purposeful ignoring of true danger and evil. The campaigners for American withdrawal from Vietnam cared not for the millions of human beings left to be butchered by the Khmer Rouge. Feelings, not consequences, move the left. Campus majors in peace studies, the U.S. Institute for Peace, advocates for the “peace process” in the Middle East, aging peaceniks -- all are deeply undereducated in disciplined knowledge of international or military affairs. Their campaigns for Western unilateral disarmament, nuclear freeze, and “global nuclear zero,” and, always, for dramatic cuts to U.S. military defense spending, all ignore the lessons of history.
What characterizes the left is moral solipsism, a belief that human beings are flawed, and so, since no one is perfect, there can be no judgement that anything is better than anything else. It is often said that “the best is the enemy of the better.” The left makes marginal progress and incremental human advancement a lesser value than utopian revolution. Perfect justice must be built here on earth, and this cause is urgent, necessary, and cannot wait either for the judgement of a God that most secular leftists do not believe in, or for the practical, prudential steps of statesmen who are not revolutionary. The ironically named non-governmental Israeli / U.S. Jewish organization Peace Now was founded in 1978 -- urgency remains but permanent peace awaits.
Moral relativism and equivalency excuses, overlooks, and denies attention to dishonorable regimes, tribes, groups, cultures, and attitudes in the Third World. Instead, proudly non-judgmental leftists express an intense judgement against the smallest and only truly democratic state in the Middle East, Israel, whose very nationalism, economic success and spiritual survival must be somehow be explained by its own nefarious purpose and behavior. Scholar Dr. Yoram Hazony has written on the modern left's agenda to promote a post-nationalist paradigm: a thriving Jewish state, like a thriving American nation, violates the order imagined by European and post-American promoters of global governance and utopian union of all mankind.
The Foreign Policy Left and Israel
The international community has not been kind to modern day Israel.
Israel hosts one-tenth of 1% of the world population, and the land of Israel constitutes less than one-half of 1% of the Middle East. Yet annually 25% of the resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly by roll call vote are negatively directed against Israel, supported by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Division for Palestinian Rights in the UN Secretariat, and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People.
The growing “non-aligned movement,” for years under consistent communist Cuban urging, has unrelentingly demonized Israel, going so far as to secure a Russian-led 101-8 vote in the General Assembly proclaiming “Zionism is Racism,” (1975), and determining “that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." In 1991, as a result of American post-Cold War diplomatic strength, and after the allied coalition success in Gulf War 1, the U.S. rallied a 111-25 vote to repeal the measure.
In recent years, however, the UN Durban Conferences have displayed a continuation of severe anti-Israel activity, featuring lectures by the likes of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who attacked Israel as "totally racist" and accused the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians. None of this is lost on the Palestinians, who have succeeded over the years in securing their own refugee organization (UNRWA), observer entity status for the PLO terror organization (in 1974), the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, an annual General Assembly Debate on the Question of Palestine, and, in 2012, by a majority vote of 138-9 (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), non-Member Observer State status in the UN.
Palestinian leaders run what can only be called a dictatorship. Abbas has extended his rule far beyond his elected term. Sufian Abu Zaida, a Palestinian nationalist, has stated:
"Honestly, no one ever dreamt we would reach this situation of concentration of authorities and senior positions in the hands of one person....The President today is the President of everything that has to do with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause. He is the president of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the State of Palestine and the Palestinian Authority. He is the president of the Fatah movement and general leader of the Security Forces. And as the legislative council is now suspended, he issues laws and has practically replaced the council."
The Palestinians have chosen to seek not genuine regional peace but international politics at the UN, an organization that former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once denounced as “a dangerous place.”
The case against Israel has also intensified in the Arab world through new editions of Mein Kampf and reproductions of the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, reviving ancient “blood libels” and characterizations of Jews as conspiratorial and predatory. Demonization of Jews appears in such titles as The Jewish Role in the 9/11 Destruction of the World Trade Center, and The End of Israel, and in televised documentaries and publications aimed at the masses which depict Jewish stereotypes as bloodthirsty, brutal, corrupt, cruel, deadly, demonic, evil, and as poisonous inoculators of AIDS and contaminators of Palestinian water.
The founding of Israel is considered a crime and a catastrophe, (“al nakba”), and eliminationist rhetoric appears in both the Hamas Charter and the continuing statements of Iranian leaders who have called to “wipe Israel off the map.” Israeli leaders are routinely accused of ethnic cleansing and apartheid, are burned in effigy, and are labeled “terrorists” and “war criminals.” The longstanding Arab economic boycott of Israel continues, and Islamic funding of wars and terrorism against Israel and Jews globally has intensified.
All of this, of course, is a purposeful distraction from Islamic crimes against humanity, female genital mutilation, genocide, slavery, terrorism, and tyranny. Islamic fundamentalism and violent Jihad, and Arab poverty, lack of civil society, and denial of individual freedom, should most alert those concerned about human dignity. Instead, the European left has doubled down on its historic anti-Semitism with today’s vicious anti-Zionism. France, for example, does not support the U.S. in defending Israel in the international arena. The celebrated French philosophe Voltaire once serially wrote about the Jews in his letters:
“You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews.”
“You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.”
“I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.”
“They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth."
Violent assaults on Jews in France reached the point in recent years that the Chief Rabbi publicly warned against wearing Jewish religious symbols. Inspired by Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London, and other left-wing politicians, traditional British hostility to Jewry has also morphed into the open hostility of the growing UK-led academic, cultural, and economic boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The European Union has published a guideline for all 28 member states forbidding any funding, cooperation, awarding of scholarships, research funds, or prizes to anyone residing in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a move even left-wing Israelis condemn as likely to inspire PA President Mahmoud Abbas from making substantive peace concessions with Israel. European bullying of Israelis is intensifying, with further proposals to label and deny the import of goods produced in Israeli communities and to require visas for Israeli “settlers” wishing to travel to the EU.
In response to all of this, the American political left has had a choice: denounce the double and triple standards applied to Israel at the UN, within Islamic society, and in Western Europe, or pile on. The mentoring, nominating, electing and continuing support of Barack Obama has made their choice clear.
Born Barry Sotero, he renamed himself Barack Hussein Obama, dreaming particular sympathy for Muslims and communist radicals in Kenya, birthplace of his anti-American and anti-Colonialist father. He was fed radical ideas as a youth in Hawaii at the feet of Frank Marshall Davis, the communist writer. Obama studied Middle East issues in college and in Chicago through the lens of Professor Edward Said, an intensely anti-Israel scholar, and Rashid Khalidi, longtime advocate for the PLO. Mr. Obama served on the Woods Foundation board which funded Khalidi’s Arab American Action Network. Obama also befriended Ali Abunimah, founder and editor of the Electronic Intifada, a strongly anti-Israel website. Abunimah wrote that running for office, Barack Obama stated to him:
“Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my (Abunimah) activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”
For some 20 years, Barack Obama was also close to and personally funded Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose writings, speeches, and sermons are extremely hostile to Israel and America.
As an Illinois state politician and then U.S. Senator, Obama differentiated himself from other Democrats in his party by his opposition to the 2003 Iraq War and the “surge” of 2007. His appeal to Democrats, who had moved sharply left via MoveOn.org and Code Pink and other anti-war politics, was his foreign policy leftism. On domestic issues, Obama went round after round with Senator Hillary Clinton, with experts finding little daylight between the two on domestic issues. It was Mr. Obama’s anti-war bona fides which set him apart with Democrat voters who, for example, had rallied national support to defeat pro-defense liberal Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman in his 2006 Democrat primary battle with an anti-war candidate.
Running for President in 2008, Barack Obama declared to 200,000 Germans in Berlin that he was a “citizen of the world.” He promised a foreign policy that would reject the policies of George W. Bush, who was widely seen as sympathetic to Israel, once criticizing the highly effective security fence built by Israel to prevent terror attacks:
‘The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this (Bush) administration in brokering peace.”
The new Obama Administration promoted early nominee Ambassador Charles (Chas) Freeman, Jr. to chair the National Intelligence Council, a nomination withdrawn after criticism of the nominee as a promoter of Saudi interests, and defender of Chinese oppression at Tiananmen Square, and for his repeated assertions that U.S. policy contributed to 9/11 Arab terrorism. Mr. Freeman blamed Israel for ethnic cleansing and terrorism, and his repeated rants about “the Israel Lobby” and confident assertions that he knew better than Israel how to defend itself in the Middle East were early forecasts of the controversy generated by the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel, Obama’s second term U.S. Defense Secretary. Hagel attacked State Department officials as “an adjunct to the Israeli Foreign Minister’s office” and has stated that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up in Congress.” Senator Hagel opposed sanctions against Iran and called for direct negotiations with the Iranian regime. He has also advocated for direct talks with terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. Democrats were unanimous in confirming Hagel’s 2013 nomination, while he received only four Senate GOP votes.
Mr. Obama’s foreign policy advisors express deep irritation with Israeli decisions. Vice President Joe Biden long ago slammed his fist on a table in rage at former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, a sentiment repeated years later when he aggressively criticized the building of second story apartments in Jerusalem neighborhoods (Ramat Shlomo) that even the Palestinians don’t claim would be part of any final peace agreement. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined in the lambasting of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and also opposed Israel by supporting a 2010 UN Security Council statement condemning the "acts" that had cost the lives of the “activists” aboard the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ship seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza.
The list of Obama’s advisors hostile to Israel includes Middle East policy advisor Robert Malley, who secretly met with Hamas and who blamed Israel for Arafat’s rejection of the 2000 peace plan, a position President Clinton rebuked. UN Ambassador Samantha Powers once recommended that the U.S. impose troops into Israel to end the conflict. Placing Israel’s democratically elected and pro-American leadership on par with Yasser Arafat, Powers called for military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, in defiance of Israel, by shifting U.S. aid to Israeli security into a protection force for a Palestinian state.
As President, Barack Obama himself demeaned an early delegation of U.S. Jewish leaders, advising them to put “daylight between America and Israel,” and appealed instead to the Arab world, promoting the false idea that Muslims were integral to the founding of the U.S. His statement that the framers of the Constitution read the Koran ignored the reasons that Presidents Adams and Jefferson studied the late 18th century Muslim Barbary pirates who terrorized and assaulted American trade ships, demanding tribute until the formation and victory of the U.S. Navy.
In his June, 2009 speech in Cairo, Obama further adopted the Arab narrative regarding the Middle East, calling the conflict a “stalemate” and suggesting that Israeli rights to their homeland were not ancient but merely a result of post-Holocaust justice for Jewish suffering, which he then equated with Palestinian suffering. The signals sent to friends and foes alike by President Obama have included repeated offense to the Prime Minister of Israel and his Likud party, which only encouraged Palestinian hard-liners.
Mr. Obama is wrong, of course, in his analysis and antipathy to the Israeli Likud Party. It is Likud that withdrew from the Sinai Desert to secure peace with Egypt, and from Gaza, and which could have the credibility within Israel to negotiate with Palestinians. By asserting his antipathy (“I have to deal with Bibi every day,” “there needs to be space between the U.S. and Israel,” and “one does not have to be pro-Likud to be pro-Israel”) Obama purposely chose a path of confrontation that is cheered at the UN, in Europe, and in other quarters hostile to the Jewish state. Washington Post columnist and Middle East expert Jackson Diehl once wrote that "Netanyahu is being treated by Obama as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator."
President Obama avoided visiting Israel in his first term, and his early second term visit avoided a speech to the Israeli Knesset, a meeting with Israeli officials who might not agree with his policies. Instead of respecting the Israeli elected government, Obama chose instead to speak to select Israeli students, assumedly fellow liberals.
Knesset leader Danny Danon summarized serious Israeli concerns as follows:
“The state of Israel will not capitulate before Obama. His electoral victory brings home the fact that the state of Israel must take care of its own interests. We cannot rely on anyone but ourselves”.
Mr. Obama has expressed himself (to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg) with clear views about the Arab-Israeli dispute:
“What I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.”
Secretary of Defense Hagel has expressed similar views:
“The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to address this root cause will allow Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorists to continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support -- a dynamic that continues to undermine America’s standing in the region and the Governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others, whose support is critical for any Middle East resolution.”
“It is this conflict, practically alone, that prompts the rise of terrorists, weakens friendly governments, and makes it impossible for the United States to win Arabs and Muslims over to the good cause.”
General James Jones, Obama’s former national security advisor, stated:
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the core problem in the Middle East, and solving it will go a long way toward securing regional and even global peace.”
Speaking at the 2013 Herzliya Conference, Jones rejected the idea that the tumult in Egypt disproved his analysis:
“I’m of the belief that had God appeared in front of President Obama in 2009 and said if he could do one thing on the face of the planet, and one thing only, to make the world a better place and give people more hope and opportunity for the future, I would venture that it would have something to do with finding the two-state solution to the Middle East.”
This interpretation, known as “linkage,” frames the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as key to understanding and preventing anti-American and anti-Israel terrorism. Never mind that violent actors in the Middle East oppose Israel unreservedly, and do not support the peacemaking that Obama and Hagel and Jones propose.
Middle East violence exists completely independently of the tiny nation of Israel. Arabs and Muslims have produced tyranny, chaos, and civil war quite on their own: Syrian butchery and tribal warfare, failed states in Yemen and Somalia and Lebanon, military rule and Muslim Brotherhood mis-rule in Egypt, decades of dictatorship and now instability in Libya, Iranian revolutionary theocracy and nuclear proliferation, oppression and Arab Spring violence in Tunisia, instability in Jordan, Shiite vs. Sunni religious conflict, Salafi and Wahhabi extremism, Al Qaeda terrorism. the list goes on and on.
But “linkage” is not the only leftist analysis of the Middle East. It leads to another path -- that the U.S. should be a “neutral broker” between “morally equivalent” sides in the conflict. Once you believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is on par with decades of Islamic autocracy and widespread lack of democratic values and civil society, it isn’t a far step to equate the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves as co-equal parties who share responsibility and trustworthiness as peace “partners.”
On May 19, 2011, hours before the arrival to Washington of Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama sought preemptively to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state, even though neither Hamas nor Fatah have ever formally acknowledged Israel’s right to exist. In his Arab Spring speech to the State Department, Mr. Obama himself failed to demand this precondition of the Arab side, yet urged Israel to understand that it would never be able to achieve genuine peace if it persisted in seeking "permanent occupation."
Mr. Obama further asserted that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Calling for the territory of Palestine to be contiguous also meant that Israel’s borders will have to be substantially reduced. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that a Palestinian state based on the borders of the pre-1967 War would leave the Jewish state "indefensible:"
"The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence.”
Another major source of intense Obama administration disagreement and dispute with Israel has been Iranian nuclear proliferation. President Obama’s policy toward Iran has been to pursue engagement, diplomacy, negotiations, and sanctions, which he believes will alter or deter Iran. But Mr. Obama has not established himself as credible in enforcing red lines, and his dithering on Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and Syria likely has not impressed the Iranians, who have repeatedly deceived the West.
In the face of repeated revelations that the Iranian regime has developed, strengthened, and multiplied its centrifuges, uranium enrichment facilities, plutonium capabilities, delivery systems, and underground bunkers, with Tehran defying Western pressure to halt its atomic production, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey stated he did not want to be "complicit" if Israel chose to strike Iran's nuclear program. Assumedly Gen. Dempsey believes that the credible threat of military force is necessary to achieve a diplomatic resolution, yet he still chose publicly to disassociate himself from the Israeli position, which rejects a policy of unending “containment” of Iran. At a minimum, this public U.S. position deviates from Israel’s time clock, perhaps confident in American capabilities to act “just in time” before Iranian nuclear “breakout”. But publicizing the wedge between Israeli and American views diminishes Israeli hopes for allied unity, and makes it more likely that Israel will conclude the U.S. will not deter Iran in time. Israel must therefore prepare itself to execute a military operation to set back Iranian weaponization or prevent the hand-off of nuclear technology to proxies.
In 2012, Foreign Policy magazine reported that "several high-level sources" in the Obama administration revealed Israel's secret relationship with Azerbaijan, where Israeli planes might refuel on their way to or from an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The Obama sources allegedly revealed this information because the administration feared "the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran" which they have opposed. As Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell asserted:
"This leak was one of the historic and unconscionable betrayals of an ally whose very existence is threatened."
The Religious Left and Israel
Evangelical Christian support for Israel is rooted in Scripture:
“I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.” Genesis 12:3
“I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will enter into judgement with them there for my people, my heritage Israel.” Joel 3:2
The community of Christians who stand by Israel at peril continues to grow. There are over 1 million members of Christians United for Israel, and public nights to celebrate and support Israel as a threatened ally and spiritual brother are common at churches throughout the U.S. But there is now a growing community of Christian voices who oppose the Jewish state and have adopted the Palestinian narrative of suffering, promoted by the Jerusalem-based Sabeel and the Bethlehem-based Christ at the Checkpoint organizations, among others. Both replacement theology and liberation theology are at work here.
Replacement theology holds that the Church of Christ has replaced the Jews as God’s chosen people, a philosophy which resulted in a long history of vicious anti-Jewish persecution. Today, some leftist Christians are rejecting American evangelical support for Jewish claims to Israel, and replacing them with the assertion that Palestinian Christians are the rightful heirs of the Holy Land. Famously, the godfather of Palestinian terrorism, Yasser Arafat, campaigned to de-Judaize Jerusalem, and claimed that Jesus was a Palestinian. Some modern anti-Israel Christians again oppose the Jewish people whom they believe rejected their Savior Jesus.
Liberation theology is the philosophy of victimhood. Defining the Palestinians as the underdog empowers believers to advocate against the “oppressor” and for the “oppressed.” Left-wing Christians seek to delegitimize the State of Israel as a colonial empire assaulting powerless Palestinians. They have applauded Sabeel leader Dr. Naim Ateek who asserted in his Easter message of 2001:
‘It seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him.’
Christian politics in the U.S. has long included the “peace churches” such as Quakers and other pacifists who do not have a record of supporting the defense of freedom. The World Council of Churches, founded, like Israel, in 1948, aligned itself not with the Jewish state but with anti-American and anti-colonialist countries which have long opposed Israeli existence. In recent years, some leaders of “mainline” Protestant churches have inspired increasing anti-Israel agitation among Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and the United Church of Christ. These mainline churches have adopted a range of resolutions hostile to Israel, including calls for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Some churches supported the Kairos Palestine Document of 2009 and others publish their own extremely anti-Israel educational materials, often the only literature about Israel their members will read. The Methodists produced a study guide authored by an former Jewish pastor who admitted to hating Judaism. It featured illustrations of Israeli soldiers meant to appear like Nazi guards at a concentration camp.
The suffering of Christians around the world at the hands of Muslims includes the mass murder of Sudanese Christians, and consistent violence against Muslim apostates, Egyptian Coptic Christians, Indonesians supporting Independence for East Timor, and Pakistani, Lebanese, and Nigerian Christians, as well as organized oppression of Chaldo-Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians in Saudi Arabia.
Persecution of Christians in China, Sri Lanka, North Korea, and throughout Asia has been well documented as well. Unfortunately, all of this oppression of Christians has not attracted quite the notoriety or activism in liberal human rights circles that one would hope.
Instead, the focus of the American Christian left on alleged Israeli human rights abuses, while Christians are free today to pray and practice their religion in Israel, and to enjoy their ancient holy sites, can only be explained by ignorance, anti-Jewish bias, or mis-directed passion for human suffering. Palestinian authorities have brutalized the Palestinian people, stolen their wealth, and conducted vicious assaults on those opposed to their anti-democratic rule. Yet rarely a word is heard from the pro-Palestinian U.S. Christian community about decades of Palestinian political corruption and human rights abuse of their own people, much less their unrelenting, irredentist terror war against the Jewish state.
The range of Christian voices includes leftist Black Reverends Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, and Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who all built pulpit careers and political operations promoting anti-Semitism and antipathy to Israel. Further, among the fastest growing Christian communities in the U.S. are Hispanics. Many are rooted in traditional, Catholic, anti-Jewish sentiments throughout Latin America Both The Israel Project and the Anti-Defamation League have conducted polls that indicate foreign-born Hispanics have stronger anti-Jewish views than Hispanics born and raised in the U.S. Fortunately, the new Pope Francis, from Argentina, has repeatedly condemned anti-Semitism and expressed warm friendship to the Jewish community, stating that "a true Christian cannot be anti-Semitic".
In 1947, American publisher and businessman Hank Greenspun helped the nascent Jewish state build its small military, shipping machine guns and airplane parts to the Haganah organization, which later became the core of the Israel Defence Forces. This was a violation of the U.S. Neutrality Acts, a crime for which Greenspun was convicted and fined, but later pardoned by President Kennedy. Upon Greenspun's death in 1989, former Prime Minister and longtime Israeli President Shimon Peres called Greenspun "a hero of our country and a fighter for freedom."
Jewish philanthropists have been donating to Israeli educational, health and welfare, environmental, and other causes for decades. Generations of American Jewish children grew up putting nickels in Tzedaka (charity) boxes to plant trees in the growing Jewish state, and American Jewish support for Israel remains strong, decades after the 6 Day War of 1967, often cited as a searing and formative experience for American Jewry. Overcoming existential risk to achieve a strong victory over multiple Arab armies, Israelis inspired American Jewish pride and self-confidence. The modern Jewish story had moved from Holocaust death camps to IDF bravery, and appeared as nothing less than a miraculous blessing and deeply moving redemption after 2,000 years of exile. For hundreds of thousands of American Jewish youth, this bond to their religious homeland continues to strengthen through Jewish educational trips, such as Birthright Israel.
But Jews traditionally do not agree on much (two Jews, three opinions) and support for Israel was never universal. The Reform Movement’s Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 revealed that leading American Jews were unsupportive of the very idea of a Jewish state, rejecting a national component to Jewish identity. By 1937, the Reform rabbinate had moved from a hostile to a neutral stance. After World War II, anti-Zionism was replaced with increasing support for Israel in the Reform movement, the largest denomination of American Jewry.
Jewish liberalism has remained dominant, with the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center taking left-wing stances on both domestic and foreign policy issues. This liberalism was bound to apply to Israel too, as the spirit of ’67 and Jewish pride in and belief in Israel as a refuge after the trauma of the Holocaust began to fade and even appear parochial, religious, and nationalistic. These are not the organizing principles of the left. The most popular expression in modern Jewish life is “Tikkun Olam,” the notion that there is a Jewish moral imperative “to repair the world.” Here, though, liberals kidnap Jewish tradition and twist it to fit modern politics. The actual textual term is "l'taken olam b'malchut shaddai," (“to perfect the world under the Sovereignty of God”), a standard that historically led to conservative, not liberal, public policy results.
In prioritizing coalition with the strengthening American political left, the Jewish left adopts and even leads in criticism of Israel. Breira, New Jewish Agenda, Peace Now, Tikkun Magazine, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, A Jewish Voice for Peace, are among many Jewish organizations which have all sought to make “kosher” leftist anti-Israelism. Of course, there is nothing new about Jewish radicals, who previously sided with communists in Spain, and even with the murderous Joseph Stalin. Jewish radicalism is a cliche, the long list includes WIlliam Kuntsler, Herbert Marcuse, Saul Alinsky, Abbie Hoffman, and Howard Zinn -- just a few of those whom author Ari Ben-Tzvi describes as exhibiting “Savage Ingratitude” to America and Israel.
Psychological explanations for Jewish leftism have included Freud’s theory of repetitive compulsion, the unconscious search for a “replay” of victimization, with the hope to overcome and change the outcome “this time.” Scholars Dr. Kenneth Levin (The Oslo Syndrome) and Ruth Wisse (Jews and Power) have discussed the victim mentality, a consequences of a history of oppression, resulting in the deep discomfort of many Jews with any exercise of military strength. Indeed, Jewish urbanism and effeteness is well known. The average liberal Jewish woman in New York City who detests the National Rifle Association as a band of “yahoos” is not exactly rooted in gun culture. Imagine her shock to learn that many young ladies in Israel learn to carry and shoot a military rifle and spend two years in IDF military service. Israel’s admired military bravery, and the televised courage of its citizens suffering for years under terrorist assault and rocket barrage, has put many pacifist Jews on the spot. Choosing to hide, assimilate or deny their Jewish identity, and, instead, to criticize Israeli defense as “disproportionate,” is a common left-wing response.
Some secular American Jews, already uneasy with the determined and victorious Israel of 1948 and 1967, also found an easy excuse to disaffiliate from Israel with the election in 1977 of conservative Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and they have continued their distancing during the occasional Who is a Jew debates revolving around the power of the Orthodox religious authorities in Israel to rule on the “personal status” issues of birth, death, marriage, and divorce, and the rights of women to pray at the Western Wall.
More challenging for left-wing American Jews, three decades of Labor Party rule has been followed by three decades of center-right Israeli politics, as even many secular Israeli voters soured on the failed theories of “land for peace.” Author Peter Beinert has argued in The Crises of Zionism that liberal Jewish sensibilities cause distancing from Israel. His claim is not that liberals Jews should be modest in telling Israelis how to live and defend their nation. Instead, he asserts that when Israel doesn’t meet the test of elite ideas, it should not expect Jewish support. Prominent conservative thinker Norman Podhoretz explains in his book, Why Are Jews Liberals, that many Jews have replaced God, tradition, peoplehood, and love of Israel with the “Torah of Liberalism,” the religion of secularism and left-wing politics that dominates U.S. Jewish life. Beinert is correct about some Jewish liberals distancing themselves from Israel, (although the decline in youthful American Jewish closeness to Israel is not merely political but partly due to rising rates of Jewish assimilation and intermarriage), but his book transparently affirms the liberals vs. Israel crisis.
The most important funder of global left-wing politics is George Soros. Born Gyorgy Schwartz in 1930 pre-war Hungary, Soros asserted that “I grew up in a Jewish, anti-Semite, home.” In his youth he served as a collaborator to the Nazis, working as a courier for the Jewish Council, which assisted in the extermination of the Jewish community. In his autobiography he explained his distance from Israel:
“When you look at the ways Jews react to persecution, you’ll find that they tend to follow one of two main escape routes. Either they transcend their problem by turning to something universal, or they identify with their oppressors and try to become like them. I came from an assimilationist family and I have chosen the first route. The other alternative is Zionism, the founding of a nation where Jews are in the majority.”
Among Soros’ many projects is J Street, a non-profit in Washington, D.C. that seeks to move American foreign policy vis a vis Israel to the far left. J Street deceitfully denied Soros‘ funding, later proven, and has also wrongly argued that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby, is conservative, which says more about J Street than AIPAC, which maintains a strict, non-partisan posture, and in fact has always had more Jewish Democrats than Republicans in its membership.
During the first Obama Administration, AIPAC’s lay President was liberal Democrat Lee “Rosie” Rosenberg from Chicago, a close Obama ally. Though Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel was a vocal critic of AIPAC and the pro-Israel community, AIPAC not only did not rally opposition to him, it did not signal to left-wing Jewish Democrat Senators like Charles Schumer of New York its displeasure with the appointment. AIPAC may have had its reasons, such as maintaining access to the Obama Administration, but, in any event, in the face of widespread public concern about Hagel’s inexperience, inarticulateness, and anti-Israel bias, Schumer applauded the nomination and his former Senate colleagues confirmed Hagel easily.
American Thinker columnist Richard Baehr and Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby have suggested that the era of bi-partisan support for Israel has collapsed as liberal politicians prioritize their “team” and political ideology. They don’t really want to be on the same side as Christian Zionists, or Republicans, with whom they disagree on so many domestic issues. Their trick then is to vote for foreign aid to Israel, the key test for many pro-Israel donors. Once that is done, they are then free to pursue leftist politics without much price paid from their liberal Jewish political base. Schumer chose Obama over the U.S.-Israel relationship, because the Jewish political community generally approves of Obama.
J Street has offended, and been dismissed by, many Jewish organizations and political personalities, from the Israeli Foreign Ministry to liberal congressman Gary Ackerman, for a range of statements hostile to the Israeli government and friendly to the terror group Hamas. J Street has not succeeded in becoming mainstream, but this is not its intention, as it has grown more confident in being true to its left-wing mission. Where J Street has most succeeded in promoting its agenda on Israel, far beyond its predecessors, is in giving cover in recent years to anti-Israel politicians predisposed to vote against Israel in Congress. By giving financial rewards to numerous Democrats who seek funding from J Street PAC, its political fund-raising arm, J Street has emboldened Democrats more confidently to vote for resolutions such as:
--2009, when 60 House Democrats and not a single Republican wrote the secretary of state to "respectfully request that the State Department release emergency funds to UNRWA for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance" in Gaza.
--2010, when 54 Democrats and not a single Republican signed a letter to President Obama asking him to "advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas" and then listed ten ways to help Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization.
--2010, when in the aftermath of the Jerusalem Housing Crisis, 333 members of the House signed a letter to the secretary of state reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. Of the 102 members who did not sign, 94 were Democrats. 76 Senators signed a similar letter; the 24 who did not sign included 20 Democrats.
The rapid rise of Islam in the United States in the past three decades coincided with the shift in American attention from the Cold War to the Middle East, and was facilitated by Congressional legislation which ended many immigration quotas.
Traditionally, restrictions existed on immigrants from various parts of the world deemed antithetical to the nation’s values. Early waves of immigrants to the U.S. came from England and Northern European nations. They were followed by those from Germany, Italy, and Eastern Europe as workers for American industrialization. Asians were not particularly welcome and Arab Muslims were even less so. This began to change with the Hart-Celler Act, signed into law by President Johnson in the wake of the 1960‘s Civil Rights Acts, which ended many immigration quotas.
Paul L. Williams writes in “Crescent Moon Rising: The Islamic Transformation of America:
“Muslims continue to pour into the country (to) occupy positions (vacated by aging Americans) as physicians, engineers, and scientists. Others arrived to perform tasks that American workers are unwilling to perform in food-processing plants, agricultural facilities, and telecommunications. In addition to the Muslims who come here with employment visas, thousands more arrive with student visas to enroll in colleges throughout the country. Still others with ‘diversity’ visas to enrich America’s racial composition.”
“In 1992, nearly fifty thousand Muslims arrived in the United States and received permanent residency status. In 2009, that number soared to 115,000. In truth, no one knows for certain how many Muslim immigrants are presently living in the country.”
“In addition to the legal and illegal Muslim immigrants, eighty thousand refugees enter this country under resettlement programs. Nearly seventy-five thousand from Islamic countries.”
“Islam, at present, is the most rapidly growing religion in the country, with outreach programs on college campuses, in prisons, and within the military.”
As with other faiths, Muslims are economically and culturally diverse, ranging from fundamentalist to secular in their religious practice. They represent ethnic and racial groups from Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East, Indonesia, and the Balkan states. Europeans are well aware of how their large urban centers have been transformed by the large numbers of Muslims who are not well assimilated. The Muslim population of America is now estimated at between 3-6 million, due to immigration, high birth rates, and religious conversion. Hundreds of schools, and Islamic centers have been built throughout the U.S., and there are well known Islamic communities in Northern Virginia, Dearborn Michigan, Minnesota, and California. The number of Mosques in the U.S. has risen to well over 2,000.
Muslims moving to the West are affecting the cultural, religious and political landscape. A hospital in Detroit offers Muslim patients copies of the Qur'an; Denver International Airport includes a chapel for Muslim prayers; the U.S. Congress invites Muslim clerics to open sessions in prayer and there are Muslim prayer services and forums for Congressional staffers; the military hires Muslim chaplains; the White House sends greetings on EId al-Fitr, the feast that ends Ramadan. Two Muslims, both Democrats, have been elected and serve in the U.S. Congress and the Muslim community has registered over 70% support for the Democrat party.
On May 19, 2013, a flag raising ceremony was held in Paterson, New Jersey, known as “Little Ramallah,” to honor Palestinian-American Day. Cheers of “Long Live Palestine” were accompanied by the Palestinian national anthem. “Little Arabia” is an ethnic enclave in Orange County, California, sometimes referred to as "Little Gaza.”
The important questions are whether or not there are radicalized elements within the American Muslim community, affecting homeland security policy, and how the rise of Islamic voices connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, and the Gulen Movement, among other Islamic sects, affect U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Spurred on by Al Jazeera America, the U.S. media arm of the growing Qatar-based television empire, many Americans now receive information about the politics of Israel and its neighbors from an Arab perspective. Al Jazeera programming is aimed at hundreds of millions of Muslims and so, unsurprisingly, its editorial viewpoint is deeply critical of the historic U.S.-Israel relationship and Israeli policies and security concerns.
The Islamic Socieity of North America, the American Society of Muslims, the successor organization to the Nation of Islam, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council all advocate for pro-Muslim perspectives as well.
Perhaps the most anti-Zionist views arise, not unexpectedly, from the campus-based Muslim Students’ Association, known for far-leftist politics regarding the Middle East. MSA groups host speakers such as Oakland, California-based Muslim cleric Amir Abdel Malik Ali, and promote aggressively anti-Israel ideas through such events as “Israel Apartheid Week” and well-publicized rallies and events. Muslim student groups have pushed hard for student government votes to “divest” from Israel, intimidated Jewish students, and continued the tradition of radical politics at many universities. Words thrown around regularly on U.S. campuses include Israeli “genocide” and “apartheid,” and anti-Semitic graffiti includes such phrases as “Anti-Zion/Nuke Israel," "God Hates Jews," and "Burn the Torah.
The New Atheists
Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century detested what they considered religious barbarism, including Jewish civilization. Communism and socialism also shared deep anti-Semitic roots. Some modern left wing criticism of Israel on church-state (synagogue-state) grounds ignore israeli commitments, expressed in its Declaration of Independence, that Israel is a Jewish state, but would respect believers and non-believers alike:
“...Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. “
“...in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.”
By comparative standards of the Middle East, of course, Israel is a multi-party, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious society. By some estimates, over 50% of Israelis consider themselves secularists. Noted atheist Christopher Hitchens suggested that Jews carry an atheist gene. Indeed, Judaism has long featured analytical and skeptical thinking regarding God, and Israel is an intensely pro-science society.
To his credit, scholar Sam Harris, an elegant thinker, challenges his fellow atheists to criticize Islamic fundamentalism without fear. So has Mark Humphrys, an Irish atheist who stands by Israel in the midst of particularly hostile anti-Zionist secularism. If Europe is an example, though, modern secularization portends poorly for liberal support of the Jewish state.
The Cultural Left and Israel
Liberals in America receive intense messages about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and about American foreign policy in the Middle East, from three main sources: Academe, Media, and Hollywood. What they do with these messages follows classic patterns. Some comply, seeking the approval of the left, with whom they agree on so much else. Some identify, wanting to associate with leftist chic (wearing a Che T-shirt). And some internalize, embodying the values of the left, building sympathy and agreement with its analysis and ideology.
Academia & New Media
Jewish academic leftists have not only opposed the centrist pro-Israel lobby, and funded anti-Israel politicians, they have revived anti-Zionism which assaults Israel and Jews generally. Moving past debates over Israeli policy or American support for Israel, they have focused on demonizing and criminalizing Israel, questioning its very legitimacy and right to exist, according to Alvin Rosenfeld, author of Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism.
Jaqueline Rose, author of The Question of Zion, claimed that “the soul of the nation was forfeit from the day of its creation” and that Israel “endanger(s) the safety of Diaspora Jewry” by provoking a new anti-Semitism. Israel, she writes, is “bad for the Jewish people.” Mimicking the hostility of the enemies of the Jews over centuries, she writes that “we take Zionism to be a form of collective insanity.”
Michael Neumann, author of What’s Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche, accuses Israel of genocide, of committing Zionist atrocities and of waging a race war against the Palestinians. He castigates all Jews for the “sins” of Israel, and asserts that concern over anti-Semitism is itself racism.
Tony Judt, an English historian who lived in New York, built a following with his articles in the Nation and the New York Review of Books, which called for the replacement of Israel (“bad for the Jews”) with a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs.
Tony Kushner edited Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Seth Farber edited Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with the Jewish Critics of Israel. The themes in these collections emphasize Zionism’s betrayal of the universalist Jew, who is borderless, and Israel’s betrayal of true Judaism, which is stateless and pacifist, as well as Zionism’s racial crimes against Palestinians. Contributor Sara Roy compares Israeli actions with Nazi occupation policies. Professor Joel Kovel, who rages against Jewish particularism, exceptionalism, ethnicity, and chosenness, promotes the term “Apartheid Wall” for Israel’s security fence, compares the lives of Palestinians on the other side of it to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, and calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state.
As the drumbeat of Jewish anti-Zionist rhetoric grows, it moves from obscurity to mainstream. A school textbook published by Greenhaven Press, Israel: Opposing Viewpoints features chapters such as Kovel’s Israel Should Not Remain a Jewish State.
Four other academics merit mention for their contributions to anti-Israelism. Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer wrote The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a widely panned but best-selling book with a simple thesis: Pro-Israel groups have been unusually successful in moving American foreign policy decisions away from the true national interest. The Lobby shapes U.S. policy in the Middle East, so that:
"Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying.”
The authors largely ignore Palestinian terrorism, argue that Israel pushed the U.S. into the war with Iraq, and dismiss the democratic choices of the American people over decades to ally with Israel for both strategic and moral reasons.
Professor Richard Falk was appointed in 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights Council as Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories.” He also serves on the Advisory Board of Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace-USA, a group that describes itself as:
"working for an end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and just peace.” It calls for "international sanctions" against Israel and states that "academics should think carefully before developing research links and exchanges with Israelis by ascertaining whether they are part of the military machine or work to sustain the occupation.”
Falk, a student of Marx and Marcuse, has stated that suicide bombings were a valid method of “struggle.” He has charged Israel in his annual reports with “genocidal tendencies,” and “apartheid,” accused Israel of trying to achieve security through “state terrorism,” and called attacks on Gaza terror strongholds “war crimes.” In recent years, he has pushed for International Court of Justice prosecution of Israelis and called for sanctions on U.S. companies doing business with Israel.
Professor Norman Finkelstein is a self proclaimed communist who asserts opposition to all nationalism and militarism, and who was influenced by the pacifism of his mother, who met her fellow Holocaust survivor husband in a displaced persons camp after World War II. Projecting, Professor Finkelstein suggests that the “Holocaust Industry” exploits the memory of the Holocaust to further Israeli and financial interests. A student of Noam Chomsky, he stated in a 2009 interview with Today’s Zaman:
“I think Israel, as a number of commentators pointed out, is becoming an insane state. And we have to be honest about that. While the rest of the world wants peace, Europe wants peace, the US wants peace, but this state wants war, war and war. In the first week of the massacres, there were reports in the Israeli press that Israel did not want to put all its ground forces in Gaza because it was preparing attacks on Iran. Then there were reports it was planning attacks on Lebanon. It is a lunatic state.
It has been a long time since I felt any emotional connection with the state of Israel, which relentlessly and brutally and inhumanly keeps these vicious, murderous wars. It is a vandal state...Sometimes I feel that Israel has come out of the boils of the hell, a satanic state.”
Finkelstein, who has promoted the terror group Hezbollah, is the author of a 2012 book Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End, which asserts that Israel’s illiberalism offends American Jewish youth.
The Center for American Progress, Think Progress, and Media Matters are just a few organizations that have featured anti-Israel progressives, such as Eli Clifton, Ali Gharib, Matt Duss, and M.J. Rosenberg, whose claim to fame is that he used to work for AIPAC, but in recent years has frequently smeared pro-Israel politicians as “Israel Firsters.” However, in the rough and tumble of the internet, at least leftists who sign their name reveal themselves open to criticism and the give and take of political discourse. Not so with the countless anonymous comments in the blogosphere where anti-Israel voices are prolific.
The academic and intellectual assault on Israel and its supporters is unrelenting, resulting in a wide-ranging online campaign against Israel. The consequences of leftist aggression toward Israel are catalogued in Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld’s Demonizing Israel and the Jews, who argues that support for Israel is deteriorating quickly in the West. The sources of this anti-Israelism are well traced in the deeply informed research of Dr. Robert S. Wistrich, whose scholarship in From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews, and Israel traces the biases, stereotypes and delusions throughout leftist political history which have now burst forth in the age of the internet to spearhead today’s anti-Israel global movement.
The Entertainment Industry in California was founded and developed in the early 20th century by American Jewish immigrants who adored their new country. While there were early radicals in Hollywood, during World War II movies such as Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) and This is the Army (1943) supported the 16 million uniformed Americans who served in the war effort. Israel’s dramatic founding in 1948 also inspired artists to celebrate the narrative of Jewish re-birth and redemption. Exodus, (1960), Raid on Entebbe (1976), and The House on Garibaldi Street, (1979) were positive productions about the founding of modern Israel, its rescue of hijack victims, and the Mossad’s hunting down of Nazis.
By the 1960’s some in the “New Hollywood’” had turned away from mainstream patriotism A young “Hanoi Jane” Fonda betrayed her country at war with her infamous visit on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. Oliver Stone and Sean Penn have celebrated dictators from Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega to Hugo Chavez. Both made trips to Iran, publicly defending that dictatorship. Leftism in Hollywood is strong, and in recent years has shifted its focus to Israel.
Frank Sinatra was a longtime donor to humanitarian causes in Israel. He appeared at the “Rally For Israel’s Survival” on June 11, 1967, organized during the crisis of the 6-Day War. The rally’s speakers included California Governor Ronald Reagan and the celebrities in attendance included Barbara Streisand, Peter Sellers, Carl Reiner, Nehemiah Persoff, and Agnes Morehead. Today, Jon Voight is the most vocal Hollywood figure for Israel, a frequent visitor to and public advocate for the security and honor of the Jewish state. There are pro-Israel sympathies, but there aren’t too many other prominent Hollywood figures, Jewish or not, (like Voight), who step out so publicly for Israel. Almost all of the Jewish celebrities are liberals who prefer not to challenge President Obama or stand up for Israel’s cause. Several prominent Jews have lent their names to causes “critical” of Israel, including Richard Dreyfuss, Ed Asner, and Dustin Hoffman.
Films suggesting neutrality or “tough love” toward Israel, such as Munich, and Waltz with Bashir, have now given way to a new generation of movies produced by left-wing Israelis and by “Pollywood” (pro-Palestinian artists). These films portray Israel not as righteous underdog, but as a powerful, militarist, morally challenged nation.
And anti-Israel voices in the entertainment media are growing. Seven-time Oscar nominee Mike Leigh and two-time Oscar winner Emma Thompson and dozens of actors and directors boycotted Israel's national theater, Habima, a participant in the Shakespeare festival in England.
"Habima has a shameful record of involvement with illegal Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory," says their letter, published in the Guardian newspaper.
Some 150 American celebrities, including actresses Julianne Moore, Vanessa Redgrave and Cynthia Nixon, promoted a boycott of Ariel’s cultural center in Samaria (West Bank). Danny Glover and Jane Fonda, boycotted the Toronto International Film Festival to protest screenings of Israeli films marking the Tel Aviv centennial, a protest which did generate a public ad signed by many in Hollywood denouncing the new blacklisting of Israel. Danish director Lars von Trier told an audience at the Cannes film festival that he thought Israel was "a pain in the ass." Oscar winner Jean-Luc Godard has called Israel "a cancer on the map of the Middle East" and "a paradoxical form of Nazism." Nary a word of complaint from the allegedly powerful Jewish-controlled Hollywood. In fact, a Palestinian film "Paradise Now", won the Golden Globes Award for best foreign film. Philo - Terrorism has become the new cool.
Leni Riefenstahl’s (1935) depiction of Hitler’s Nuremberg rally, "Triumph of the Will," was one of the most important political propaganda films ever made. But U.S. actresses Marlene Dietrich, born in Germany, and Hedy Lamarr, an Austrian born beauty, among other Hollywood patriots, contributed to the Allies cause in World War II, using their positions to make a difference for the West. There are few visionaries and voices in the entertainment community today forcefully opposing Islamism and assaults against Americans, and celebrating one of the greatest stories ever under-told, Israel.
Israel is made of survivors of the Holocaust, wounded veterans of difficult, existential wars, parents of children murdered by terrorists, and average citizens whose dreams of peace have long been shattered by Arab irredentism. Having overcome many enemies, the Jews of Israel continue to maintain their spirit and offer gifts to the world. Israeli super-model Bar Refaeli tweeted her opposition to the boycott of Israel promoted by aging rocker Roger Waters, of Pink Floyd fame. The striking Jewish beauty took the lead in tweaking a legendary cultural icon for his ill-liberalism and bias against a tiny nation which continues to battle for legitimacy against a fierce new wave of enemies, the modern political, religious, academic, and cultural left.