New York Times Editorial, "Israel Sees Critics as Enemies": More Obsessive Israel Bashing

Tweet

In an April 28, 2017 editorial entitled "Israel Sees Critics as Enemies," The New York Times begins by observing:

"The refusal of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to receive the German foreign minister because of a meeting the German held with a veterans’ peace group is not in itself a major incident in Israeli-German relations. Germany’s history alone ensures it will remain Israel’s staunch supporter. What is troubling, rather, is Mr. Netanyahu’s increasingly illiberal pattern of treating critics of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands — domestic and foreign — as enemies.

The flash point in this case was a meeting Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, held with some nongovernmental groups while on a visit to Israel. One of these groups, called Breaking the Silence, is particularly reviled among right-wing Israelis because it gathers anonymous testimonies from Israeli soldiers about their service in occupied territories, often highlighting hardships imposed on the Palestinians. So Mr. Netanyahu canceled his meeting with Mr. Gabriel, proclaiming that he would not welcome diplomats who met with organizations that, he said, 'slander' Israeli soldiers."

Got it: Breaking the Silence is an Israeli "veterans' peace group." After all, according to the Times editorial, "Breaking the Silence has support from former high-ranking Israeli military officers." Unfortunately, it's not so simple...

As reported by Israel Hayom in a January 17, 2017 newsletter entitled "Breaking the Silence: Shooting soldiers is not terrorism":

"According to a Channel 20 report, [Breaking the Silence's] public relations coordinator, Nadav Weiman, told activists, 'If you shoot at soldiers, you are trying to kill soldiers. You are not a terrorist.'

Weiman made the statements to two activists for right-wing organization Ad Kan who were posing as radical leftists to penetrate Breaking the Silence.

'If there is another country that is conquering your country, the area where you live, you are allowed to use violent means to fight the conquering entity, only ... against soldiers and police officers, but if you stab a soldier at a checkpoint, that is not a terrorist attack,' Weiman said."

As reported by The Algemeiner in a June 15, 2016 article entitled "Newly Released Footage Reveals Controversial Whistle-Blower Breaking the Silence Telling Tourists That Israeli Settlers Poisoned Palestinian Wells":

"A newly released video reveals a co-founder of the NGO Breaking the Silence (BtS) telling tourists that Israeli settlers poisoned Palestinian wells, the Hebrew news site nrg reported on Tuesday.

According to the report, the clip was filmed by an undercover member of the right-wing 'Ad Kan' group, which seeks to expose activities of left-wing Israeli organizations which receive foreign funding.

In the video, which was filmed less than two years ago, Yehuda Shaul can be heard addressing a group of foreign visitors to the southern Hebron Hills in Judea (the West Bank). Speaking in English, he tells the visitors that residents of the Palestinian village of Susiya had only recently returned to their homes after being forced to leave several years earlier, when settlers poisoned their drinking water supply system."

Poisoned wells? Yeah, right.

And also as reported by The Algemeiner in a January 1, 2016 article entitled "How Breaking the Silence Lost Israel’s Trust":

"Breaking the Silence (BtS), which has been controversial for more than 10 years, gained real notoriety following the 2009 Gaza War. BtS — knowingly or unknowingly — questioned Israel’s inherent right to self-defense, and supported efforts to prosecute Israeli officials and soldiers (because allegations published by BtS resonated internationally and were used as ammunition by those siding against Israel). It also emerged at the time that several BtS funders conditioned their donations on obtaining minimum numbers of incriminating “testimonies” against the Israeli army from former soldiers. For instance, a document obtained by NGO Monitor from the Israeli Registrar of Non-Profits shows similar demands from the British Embassy in Tel Aviv, the Dutch church-based aid organization ICCO (primarily funded by the Dutch government), and Oxfam Great Britain (funded by the British government).

Israelis quickly recognized that these so-called testimonies were serving a political objective, one that increasingly was seen as helping defame and demonize Israeli soldiers. In the left-wing daily Haaretz, Amos Harel wrote: “Breaking the Silence…has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classified as a ‘human rights organization.’”"

Claiming that Breaking the Silence is "is particularly reviled among right-wing Israelis," the Times editorial concludes:

"Israel’s vibrant democracy has always been one of its great strengths, and it is in open and democratic debate — and not in a threatening “with us or against us” posture — that issues as critical to Israel’s future as the occupation must be discussed."

However, as observed by Yair Lapid, chairman of the centrist Israeli political party Yesh Atid in December 2015:

"Criticism is constructive for our society, but there is a significant difference between criticism and defaming IDF officers and soldiers abroad. That is not criticism; that is undermining the foundations of the state. Organizations like Breaking the Silence have crossed the red line between criticism and subversion."

Bottom line: This is just one more obsessive attack upon Israel, lacking any objectivity, coming from The New York Times.

Siemens Signs $3.5 Billion Deal With Iran as Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Conducts New Ballistic Missile Tests Threatening Israel

Tweet

As reported by Iran's Fars News Agency in an article entitled "Iran Fires 2 Ballistic Missiles at Targets 1400km in Distance," the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps today test-fired two additional ballistic missiles in violation of UN Security Council resolutions (my emphasis in red):

"The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) on Wednesday fired 2 home-made 'Qadr H' ballistic missiles from the Eastern Alborz Mountains at a target in Iran's Southeastern Makran seashore some 1400km away.

The missiles were fired on the sidelines of the main stage of the ongoing IRGC drills in Central Iran and various parts of the country.

One missile had a message written on it that said in Hebrew: "Israel should be wiped off the Earth".

Qadr is a 2000km-range, liquid-fuel and ballistic missile which can reach territories as far as Israel.

The missile can carry different types of ‘Blast’ and ‘MRV’ (Multiple Reentry Vehicle) payloads to destroy a range of targets. The new version of Qadr H can be launched from mobile platforms or silos in different positions and can escape missile defense shields due to their radar-evading capability.

A Multiple Reentry Vehicle payload for a ballistic missile deploys multiple warheads in a pattern against a single target. (As opposed to Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, which deploys multiple warheads against multiple targets.) The advantage of an MRV over a single warhead is that the damage produced in the center of the pattern is far greater than the damage possible from any single warhead in the MRV cluster, this makes for an efficient area attack weapon. Also, the sheer number of Warheads make interception by Anti-ballistic missiles unlikely.

Improved warhead designs allow smaller warheads for a given yield, while better electronics and guidance systems allowed greater accuracy. As a result MIRV technology has proven more attractive than MRV for advanced nations. Because of the larger amount of nuclear material consumed by MRVs and MIRVs, single warhead missiles are more attractive for nations with less advanced technology. The United States deployed an MRV payload on the Polaris A-3. The Soviet Union deployed MRVs on the SS-9 Mod 4 ICBM.

The IRGC began the main stage of its ballistic missile exercises on Tuesday."

And Obama responding by declaring . . . ?

On the other hand, Joe Biden, who is currently visiting Israel and reconsidering a run for the presidency after Hillary's embarrassing loss to Bernie in the Michigan primary, stated, "I want to reiterate, as I know people still doubt, if in fact they break the [nuclear] deal, we will act." Yup, seeing is believing.

Meanwhile, as reported in a separate Fars news item, "The Iranian industrial group MAPNA and the German equipment manufacturer, Siemens, signed a contract worth $3.5bln, a trade official announced on Wednesday." Siemens, of course, made extensive use of Jewish slave labor during World War II, but that was ages ago, and why should ongoing Iranian threats to eradicate Israel now trouble the consciences of Siemen's top management? Disgusting.

Ross Douthat, "Germany on the Brink": Was Gaddafi Right?

Tweet

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquest — will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

- Muammar Gadaffi, speech, April 10, 2006

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Germany on the Brink," Ross Douthat does not mince his words concerning the influx of Muslim immigrants into Germany. Pointing his finger at violent acts perpetrated against women on New Year's Eve in Cologne and noting that with regard to Germany "71 percent of all asylum applicants in 2015 were men," Douthat goes on to say regarding this influx of newcomers upon German demographics and culture:

"[I]f you add a million (or millions) of people, most of them young men, in one short period, you get a very different kind of shift.

In the German case the important number here isn’t the country’s total population, currently 82 million. It’s the twentysomething population, which was less than 10 million in 2013 (and of course already included many immigrants). In that cohort and every cohort afterward, the current influx could have a transformative effect.

. . . .

If you believe that an aging, secularized, heretofore-mostly-homogeneous society is likely to peacefully absorb a migration of that size and scale of cultural difference, then you have a bright future as a spokesman for the current German government.

You’re also a fool. Such a transformation promises increasing polarization among natives and new arrivals alike. It threatens not just a spike in terrorism but a rebirth of 1930s-style political violence."

Douthat's politically incorrect conclusion: "Angela Merkel must go."

So, will the swelling Muslim population of Europe contribute to the continent's science and industry and adopt its culture and democracy, or will Europe be contending with higher unemployment, swollen welfare rolls, gang violence and honor killings?

My belief is that Gaddafi was right and that Europe has signed its own death warrant. Germany? Will it return to the early Conan the Barbarian era, wedged between the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods? Stay tuned . . .

Gail Collins, "Wanted: Straight Shooters": Is Bill Clinton a Sexual Predator?

Tweet

Observing in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Wanted: Straight Shooters" that "The current presidential campaign, as you may have noticed, is all about fear and terror," Gail Collins would have us know:

"If every gun owner had to demonstrate the ability to handle a weapon, it wouldn’t necessarily stop anyone from eventually acquiring a gun. But it would take some time and trouble, which would cut down on casual sales. Paranoid maniacs aren’t likely to have the patience."

Fascinating. From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 there were 2,986 shooting victims in Chicago. Does Gail honestly believe that those responsible for the vast majority of these shootings were licensed to carry a firearm? Does she honestly believe that those responsible for the vast majority of these shootings would honor legislation requiring firearms training?

Don't get me wrong: Firearms training is a good thing, and Lord knows I have spent hundreds of hours honing my skills. But is it going to stop the bad guys from obtaining (illegally) and using guns? Not a chance. How about some straight shooting, Ms. Collins?

But as long as we're on the topic of straight shooting, what if I ask you, Gail, a couple of questions? The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus recently had the courage to acknowledge that "Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said." Do you agree with this statement, Gail? And if so, why is Hillary still "married" to that man? Why is she allowing that man to campaign for her? And if elected, will that man accompany her to the White House?

In a January 6, 2016 Tweet, Juanita Broaddrick wrote:

"I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away."

Broaddrick's Tweet followed Hillary Clinton's November 22, 2015 Tweet:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

As long as we're on the issue of violence against women, Gail, perhaps you would like to comment on the assault on numerous women in Cologne on New Year's Eve by 1,000 men, who, according to Cologne's police chief, appeared to be of "Arab or North African origin." The response of Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker:

"The women and young girls have to be more protected in the future so these things don’t happen again. This means, they should go out and have fun, but they need to be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up. For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves."

Ah yes, Cologne's women should read the guidelines to prepare themselves. Everything they need to know will be found in the manual.

Or, perhaps, when facing imminent gang rape, they would be better off having undergone intensive training at a shooting range . . .

German Foreign Minister Steinmeier Calls for "Courage" in Talks With Iran: Sowing the Seeds of a Second Holocaust

Tweet


According to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Iran now depends upon the participants' "courage." Given Germany's history, it requires "courage" for Germany to allow Iran, which threatens Israel with annihilation every week, to build a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (much less time if Iran cheats - which it will)? "Courage" is not the word I would use.

Meanwhile, Russia is preparing to sell Iran a "wide range of naval equipment."

This comes after a US trade delegation visited Tehran in April as did a German trade delegation that same month. Another US trade delegation visited Iran in May and a Chinese delegation arrived in June.

In addition, as reported by The Times of Israel, "Around 100 French companies are reportedly planning to participate in a delegation to Tehran in September to review business opportunities in the Islamic republic."

Who cares about a second Holocaust? After all, it's all about the $50 billion signing bonus that Obama has promised Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and who will benefit from this windfall.

And this from a Reuters article entitled "Iran nuclear talks: Brothels, bike rides and Groundhog Day" by Fedja Grulovic, Louis Charbonneau and John Irish:

"Anyone who says it's all work and no play for the hordes of diplomats, officials, security agents, analysts and reporters who have descended on Vienna for what should be the finale of almost two years of Iran nuclear talks is dead wrong. As the manager of a local brothel said, when the Iran talks are in town, 'business is booming'.

He declined to say who were his most frequent customers, but made clear that, as far as he was concerned, the longer the negotiations between Iran and six world powers drag on, the better."

What a surprise . . .

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier: The Israeli Government Should "Look More Closely at the Agreement"

Concerning this week's so-called "understanding" between the P5+1 and Iran, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated on Friday, "We ask the Israeli government to look more closely at the agreement."

You would think that the 59-year-old Steinmeier, whose country not so many years ago murdered 70 percent of European Jewry, would know better than to advise Israel how to assess a purported nuclear "understanding" - not an agreement - with a nation whose Supreme Leader is calling for the Jewish nation's annihilation.

Believe me, Steinmeier, we in Israel know an existential threat when we see one, and it is you who should reconsider the implications of providing a barbaric regime, pledged to Israel's destruction, with a nuclear weapons arsenal in 15 years at most.

More specifically, Steinmeier should begin by reading yesterday's Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals," which states:

"THE 'KEY parameters' for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be 'reduced' but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that 'the deal we’ll accept' with Iran 'is that they end their nuclear program' and 'abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.' Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years."

Steinmeier should also consider the conclusions of R. Scott Kemp, Assistant Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, regarding the "understanding" (my emphasis in red):

"A breakout time of three months is technically possible under the current text of the deal. This arises because of a lack of specificity about the non-uranium enrichment capabilities allowed at Fordow. The text of the JCPOA says that no uranium enrichment will occur at Fordow, and that approximately two-thirds of the current 2976 centrifuges installed there will be removed. This leaves the possibility of about 1000 centrifuges at Fordow, enriching elements other than uranium. If 1000 IR-8 centrifuges were installed there, a possibility allowed under the text of JCPOA, then the enrichment capability at Fordow would be equivalent to about 20,000 IR-1 centrifuges or three times that allowed at Natanz."

I would only observe that Professor Kemp is mistaken when he alludes to the "U.S. drafted Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" as the text of the deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif is already denying the accuracy of this "fact sheet":

"The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using 'fact sheets' so early on."

And then there is also the "conventional" threat against Israel posed by Iran's proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, which will receive increased support from Tehran as the sanctions regime is removed. As stated by Charles Krauthammer:

"If Iran is pursuing destabilization and supporting its proxies in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and now in Yemen under conditions of tremendous economic strain and diplomatic isolation, the idea that when we lift the sanctions, we allow billions of dollars to flow into the treasury so it’ll be unconstrained, it will double and triple the amount of support it is giving to the Assad regime in Syria, to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in Gaza, and Yemen, and it will also be able to invest all the money — in the maintenance and the advance of the nuclear infrastructure which everybody agrees remains intact. And the idea that it will without isolation decrease its activities when it is on the threshold of being the hegemonic power in the region is completely contrary to all the evidence on the ground."

Hezbollah possesses some 70,000 missiles in Lebanon, all pointed at Israel, and Iran is now upgrading their warheads with guidance systems.

Shame on Steinmeier! Shame on Merkel! Shame on Germany!

Michael Gerson, "A half-baked missive from the GOP": The US Must Negotiate With Iran in "Good Faith"? Yeah, Right!

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A half-baked missive from the GOP," Michael Gerson, who is on record as predicting that Obama's negotiations with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei could result in a "bad deal," is now upbraiding Senate Republicans for signing Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran. Gerson writes:

"A final objection to the Cotton letter concerns not institutional positioning but grand strategy. The alternative to a bad nuclear deal is not war; it is strong sanctions and covert actions to limit Iranian capacities until the regime falls (as it came close to doing in 2009) or demonstrates behavior change in a variety of areas. But this approach depends on the tightening of sanctions in cooperation with Europe, as well as Russia and China. And this effort can be held together only by the impression that the United States has negotiated with Iran in good faith. So negotiations are actually an important part of any attempt to isolate Iran. The key is where we draw our 'red lines.'"

"The alternative to a bad nuclear deal is not war"? Correct. However, Obama is seeking willy-nilly to reach such a deal, and the likelihood of strong sanctions ever being reinstated is close to nil. German companies are champing at the bit to sell goods and service to Iran. Russia is already holding joint naval exercises with Iran, and China is also pursuing a naval alliance with Tehran. In short, the horse is already out of the barn.

"[T]his effort can be held together only by the impression that the United States has negotiated with Iran in good faith"? Be real, Michael! Do you really believe that Putin, busy swallowing Crimea and the eastern part of the Ukraine, and Xi Jinping, who is in a territorial dispute with Japan over the South China Sea, give a damn about "good faith"?

"The key is where we draw our 'red lines'"? Spare me. There are no more red lines. Obama saw to it when he retreated from the red line he drew involving Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Is Obama negotiating a "bad deal"? No, he is negotiating a "disastrous deal," which will give the mullahs a nuclear arsenal and ICBMs in less than a decade. Scold Republicans for signing Cotton's letter? I don't think so.

Paul Krugman, "Those Depressing Germans": Should Germany Suffer Like the Rest of Us?

I have never been comfortable visiting Germany owing to the Holocaust, and their recent agreement to boost cultural ties with Iran (see: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920726000340), at a time when Tehran threatens Tel Aviv with annihilation, stones women to death, hangs homosexuals and oppresses Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis and Christians, makes my skin creep. However, it would be difficult not to acknowledge Germany's successful economy, which, at a time of world economic decline, has led to job growth (unemployment of only 5.5%) and a decline in its national debt.

Why is Germany prospering while much of the rest of Europe is on the skids? According to a recent DW article entitled "The secrets of Germany's economic success" (http://www.dw.de/the-secrets-of-germanys-economic-success/a-17169035):

"'An important part of that was the creation of a low-wage sector, the deregulation and flexibilization of the job markets,' said Uli Brückner of Stanford University. 'That created more jobs on the one hand, but it also created a lot of badly paid jobs.'

. . . .

While the political gears still creak occasionally, real engineering in Germany is first rate. Around 100,000 new engineers and scientists arrive on the job market every year - young men and women who have just received a top class education at one of the 200 engineering schools, or in the technical faculty of a university.

But also uneducated, still well-qualified workers also contribute to the country's high productivity. This is the result of the dual education system, whose roots lie in the medieval crafts and trades teaching system, whereby young people acquire practical abilities and basic knowledge in a vocational school. 'If I'm working in the logistics industry, then I learn languages, book-keeping, and how markets work, and that becomes the framework within which I operate as a logistics expert,' Brückner said.

Family businesses

This provides the German economy with a reliable stream of skilled workers, from which mid-sized companies benefit the most. These, defined as companies that employ no more than 500 people - the so-called 'Mittelstand' - are the backbone of the German economy. They stand for 99 percent of the approximately three million companies in Germany, most of them family-owned.

. . . .

One guarantee for the success of the 'Germany Model' is advanced technologies. Germany is practically forced to innovate, because it doesn't have any real natural resources. As many as 11 percent of German workers are employed in high-tech industries - far more than the EU average.

Every year, around 70 billion euros ($96 billion) is spent on research - more than in any other European country."

Hmm. Deregulation of the jobs market, an abundance of engineers and scientists, an apprenticeship system, prospering family businesses, and large expenditures on research. Perhaps there is something to learn from Germany's model, but of course Paul Krugman doesn't think so.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Those Depressing Germans" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/opinion/krugman-those-depressing-germans.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman criticizes Germany for its trade surplus:

"Remember the China syndrome, in which Asia’s largest economy kept running enormous trade surpluses thanks to an undervalued currency? Well, China is still running surpluses, but they have declined. Meanwhile, Germany has taken China’s place: Last year Germany, not China, ran the world’s biggest current account surplus. And measured as a share of G.D.P., Germany’s surplus was more than twice as large as China’s."

But unlike China, Germany's currency is the Euro, which Krugman cannot claim to have been manipulated by Bonn. Krugman's response:

"Furthermore, as it happens, Germany isn’t blameless. It shares a currency with its neighbors, greatly benefiting German exporters, who get to price their goods in a weak euro instead of what would surely have been a soaring Deutsche mark. Yet Germany has failed to deliver on its side of the bargain: To avoid a European depression, it needed to spend more as its neighbors were forced to spend less, and it hasn’t done that."

Ah yes, spend, spend, spend. But would German spending have pulled Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain out of their crises, unless much of that spending had been directed toward the purchase of olive oil and the promotion of tourism?

Krugman concludes by demanding that Germany reduce its trade deficit:

"Germany’s trade surplus is damaging for the same reason cutting food stamps and unemployment benefits in America destroys jobs — and Republican politicians are about as receptive as German officials to anyone who tries to point out their error. In the sixth year of a global economic crisis whose essence is that there isn’t enough spending, many policy makers still don’t get it. And it looks as if they never will."

Instead of examining Germany's work ethic, engineering capabilities, apprenticeship programs and R&D expenditures, all of which have spawned that surplus, Krugman would demand that the German economy flounder like those of its European neighbors.

I suppose this "egalitarian" line of thinking - everyone must suffer alike - is what makes for Nobel Prizes in economics . . .

New York Times "Talking Truth to NATO": More Hypocrisy from Obama

In an editorial entitled "Talking Truth to NATO" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11sat1.html), The New York Times commends outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates for publicly criticizing America's allies which have not done their fair share in the struggle against Qaddafi. The editorial states:

"Fewer than half of NATO’s 28 members are taking part in the military mission. Fewer than a third are participating in the all-important airstrikes. British and French aircraft carry the main burden. Canada, Belgium, Norway and Denmark, despite limited resources, have made outsized contributions. Turkey, with the alliance’s second-largest military, has remained largely on the sidelines. Germany, NATO’s biggest historic beneficiary, has done nothing at all."

Well, this didn't stop President Obama from hosting German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a gala Rose Garden dinner on Tuesday and presenting Merkel with the Presidential Medal of Freedom before more than 200 VIP guests.

I suppose freedom doesn't apply to Libya.

But Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, and what has he achieved?

Then, too, Obama presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson in 2009, despite her meetings with Hamas, her historic antagonism to the U.S., and her involvement in the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, which degenerated into an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate fest.

Roger Cohen Again Demonizes Israel: No Slip of the Pen

A few thoughts about Roger Cohen's latest New York Times op-ed re Germany, "The Miracles of Dullness". His penultimate paragraph:

"The demon [italics added] of instability, German-prodded, moved to the Middle East, where another modern nation state, Israel, in turn upended the order of things. Perhaps after 74 years (1871-1945), we will see glimmerings of a new, more peaceful regional order there. Hope is almost as stubborn as facts."

First, is this right or wrong? Answer: This is absurd. There have been innumerable wars and insurrections since the establishment of the State of Israel involving the various Arab countries and Iran that did not involve Israel in any way whatsoever. Moreover, these wars resulted in an exponentially larger number of civilian and non-civilian casualties than all of the Arab/Israeli wars combined:

1. The Syrian invasion of Jordan in 1970 in support of the Palestinian attempt to overthrow the Jordanian government.
2. Black September. The PLO sought to overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which constitutes 77% of the original Palestine mandate.
3. The Lebanese Civil War from 1975 to 1990, which resulted from ethnic tensions and changing demographics favoring Lebanon's Shiites.
4. Iraq-Kuwait clashes in 1973, 1976 and 1990. Iraq claimed Kuwait as part of Iraq.
5. The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted for eight years and resulted in the deaths of at least half a million combatants and non-combatants.
6. The Dhofar Rebellion, 1962-1975.
7. The 1963 Sand War between Morocco and Algeria.
8. The 1973 Libya-Chad War.
9. The 1977 Libya-Egypt War.
10. The Western Sahara conflict involving Morocco and Algeria in the 1970s.
11. The ongoing Somali Civil War.
12. The First and Second Sudanese Civil Wars.
13. The genocide in Darfur.
14. The North Yemen Civil War.
15. The 1994 Civil War in Yemen.
16. The 2004-2007 Sa'dah Conflict.

And let's not forget the Kurdish uprisings against Iraq and Iran, the barbarities perpetrated against Iran's Baha'is, and the Syrian army's 1982 bombardment of Hama to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood, which resulted in the deaths of up to 40,000 people.

Of course, Cohen is free to write whatever he pleases, correct or incorrect, and much of what he wrote about Iran has been widely discredited. In this vein, I would only add that although I was promised by the Public Editor's office of The New York Times that I would receive an answer whether Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" was in keeping with New York Times' standards of journalistic ethics, they have since refused to honor their commitment. Jill Abramson also has refused to touch this issue.

Far more serious is Cohen's latest link between Israel and Nazi Germany, albeit indirect, in an op-ed having nothing to do with Israel. This is much in keeping with the anti-Semitic connotations involving the title of Cohen's earlier op-ed, "Obama in Netanyahu's Web".

The New York Times wishes to publish this? It's The Times' prerogative, but I think The Times need also consider the resulting enmity and anti-Semitism, which in no way contribute to understanding or peace.

Cohen would have us believe that Israel is also a "demon of instability". After his farcical series of op-eds on Iran which went unchecked by The Times, we can only wonder about the demons floating around Cohen's head.