David Sanger and Eric Schmitt,"U.S. Cyberweapons, Used Against Iran and North Korea, Are a Disappointment Against ISIS": The New York Times Exposes Israel's Cyber Hack

Tweet

In a New York Times article entitled "U.S. Cyberweapons, Used Against Iran and North Korea, Are a Disappointment Against ISIS," David Sanger and Eric Schmitt write:

"Even one of the rare successes against the Islamic State belongs at least in part to Israel, which was America’s partner in the attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Top Israeli cyberoperators penetrated a small cell of extremist bombmakers in Syria months ago, the officials said. That was how the United States learned that the terrorist group was working to make explosives that fooled airport X-ray machines and other screening by looking exactly like batteries for laptop computers.

The intelligence was so exquisite that it enabled the United States to understand how the weapons could be detonated, according to two American officials familiar with the operation. The information helped prompt a ban in March on large electronic devices in carry-on luggage on flights from 10 airports in eight Muslim-majority countries to the United States and Britain."

This was the intel that was leaked by Donald Trump to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the US during an Oval Office meeting last month. Israel tried to mitigate the damage by claiming that the intel was HUMINT and that the agent's life had been endangered, but ISIS now knows for certain that the intel was SIGINT, i.e. a cyber hack.

Has an important window into ISIS terror operations been hermetically shut? Have innocent lives been compromised as a consequence? I don't know the answer. I suggest you ask Donald Trump, the Times, or better still, the "officials" who leaked this info to Sanger and Schmitt.

New York Times Editorial, "A Syrian Plan Worth a Look": Who Cares If Iranian Forces Are Placed on the Border With Israel

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "A Syrian Plan Worth a Look," The New York Times declares that "the Trump administration would be derelict if it did not give serious consideration to a plan for a cease-fire and safe zones [in Syria] brokered by Russia, with the backing of Turkey and Iran." The editorial goes on to say:

"The plan would allow displaced or embattled Syrians to relocate to the designated safe areas, still held by rebels unaffiliated with the Islamic State, and enable aid deliveries to some 4.5 million people at risk. It also calls for all parties to fight jihadists like the Islamic State and the Qaeda-linked group once known as the Nusra Front."

Nowhere in this editorial is there any mention of Israel, but why should there be? After all, the plan provides for Iranian troops on the Syrian border with Israel in the Golan Heights.

Excuse me, but isn't it Iran that regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel?

And how wonderful that the plan "also calls for all parties to fight jihadists," but is the Assad regime, which continues to drop sarin gas on its own people, any better than these other monsters?

Who writes this drivel for the Times?

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.

Larry Derfner, "Israel’s Next War Is Always ‘Inevitable’": Hezbollah and Syria Are Not Crazy?

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel’s Next War Is Always ‘Inevitable’," Larry Derfner observes:

"Hezbollah and Syria are well and truly deterred, and if Israel were to simply let them be, they would have to be crazy to strike first."

Got it: Hezbollah and Syria (that is to say, what is left of Syria) are not crazy. It obviously doesn't matter to Derfner that Syria's Assad is a mass murderer and a war criminal willing to gas his own people, as per those hotbeds of right wing thinking, New Republic and The New Yorker.

It also doesn't matter if Hezbollah's head, Nasrallah, has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel in his rabidly anti-Semitic diatribes. After all, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me. (Now if only you could tell that to the Jews in Europe who refused to believe what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf.) Moreover, a rational Nasrallah would of course never launch his 100,000+ missiles at Israel's ammonia plant in Haifa and its nuclear facility in Dimona, notwithstanding his threats to the contrary. And even if instructed to do so by his masters in Tehran, who are also sane, notwithstanding their savage persecution of Kurds, Sunni Muslims, Baha'is, Christians and homosexuals and calls to annihilate Israel, Nasrallah would refuse, notwithstanding the fact that he sent his fighters to be slaughtered in Syria's civil war at Iran's behest.

Yeah, right.

Larry Derfner? At the bottom of the Times op-ed we learn that "Larry Derfner, a journalist, is the author of the forthcoming memoir 'No Country for Jewish Liberals.'" No mention by the Times that Derfner was fired by The Jerusalem Post after writing in his blog in August 2011, following a terrorist attack outside of Eilat (my emphasis in red):

"But if, on the other hand, we were to say very forthrightly what many of us believe and the rest of us suspect – that the Palestinians, like every nation living under hostile rule, have the right to fight back, that their terrorism, especially in the face of a rejectionist Israeli government, is justified – what effect would that have? A powerful one, I think, because the truth is powerful. If those who oppose the occupation acknowledged publicly that it justifies Palestinian terrorism, then those who support the occupation would have to explain why it doesn’t. And that’s not easy for a nation that sanctifies the right to self-defense; a nation that elected Irgun leader Menachem Begin and Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir as prime minister.

But while I think the Palestinians have the right to use terrorism against us, I don’t want them to use it, I don’t want to see Israelis killed, and as an Israeli, I would do whatever was necessary to stop a Palestinian, oppressed or not, from killing one of my countrymen. (I also think Palestinian terrorism backfires, it turns people away from them and generates sympathy for Israel and the occupation, so I’m against terrorism on a practical level, too, but that’s besides the point.) The possibility that Israel’s enemies could use my or anybody else’s justification of terror for their campaign is a daunting one; I wouldn’t like to see this column quoted on a pro-Hamas website, and I realize it could happen."

Derfner subsequently removed the post and apologized, saying in part:

"My intention was to shock people into recognition, but I ended up shocking many of them into revulsion, and twisting what I wanted to say into something I didn’t and don’t mean at all."

All of which raises the question what it takes to get a guest opinion piece published by The New York Times. If you are Jewish, or better still Israeli, and write something horrible about Israel, does this increase your chances exponentially? As pointed out by Israeli ambassador to the US Ron Dermer and by others, it sure seems this way.

New York Times Editorial, "Israel Says Dissenters Are Unwelcome": More Israel Bashing

Tweet

I sent the following email to Liz Spayd, the public editor of The New York Times, today. Let's see if she responds.


Dear Ms. Spayd,

Editorial Headline: "Israel Says Dissenters Are Unwelcome"
Date Published: March 9, 2017

My Concern: This editorial already needed to be corrected on March 10 ("An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated the United States’ position on settlement building in the occupied territories. It has been highly critical of the activity, but has not consistent [sic] held it to be illegal."), which in and of itself is indicative of the Times's bias and further evidences the Times's preoccupation with and hostility to Israel.

More to the point, the editorial states:

"No doubt there are haters of Israel among B.D.S. supporters. But there are also many strong supporters of the Israeli state, including many American Jews, who ardently oppose the occupation of the West Bank and who boycott products of the Israeli settlements in occupied territories."

"Many strong supporters of the Israeli state" among B.D.S. supporters? Excuse me, but where are the facts to back up this claim?

And if there are haters of Israel among B.D.S. supporters, shouldn't the Times provide data explaining whether these "haters" compromise the majority or even an overwhelming majority of B.D.S. supporters/leaders?

And shouldn't the Times examine whether the B.D.S. movement has been known to publish falsehoods and disseminate grotesque anti-Semitic remarks?

And shouldn't the Times have noted that there has not been a new Israeli settlement in almost 20 years, and that whereas existing settlements have grown, territorial swaps involving existing settlements have been a principle underlying all negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel?

As reported by The Jerusalem Post on December 7, 2016:

"[Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union] likened BDS to the National Socialists who boycotted Jews in the 1930s. BDS dresses up antisemitism in the 'new clothes of the 21st century' as anti-Zionism, the party said.

'The German CDU declares with this motion its disapproval and rejection of every form of BDS activity and condemns these activities as antisemitic. The CDU will decisively oppose every hostile action that Israel faces. The CDU professes its deep friendship toward Israel and continues to work toward a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,' the resolution read."

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter, but first, as a favor, I would be extremely grateful if you might be willing to read the following article that I recently published, "New York Times Editorial, "Donald Trump’s Answer to Anti-Semitism? You Don’t Want to Know": Look Who's Talking!"

Regards,
Jeffrey

David Ignatius, "What does Israel want from America?": What Ignatius Isn't Telling Us

Tweet

You will recall that in a March 31, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece  entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit," David Ignatius wrote:

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

When I sent emails to Ignatius and provided evidence that he was wrong, he wrote back to me and declared:

"You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers."

Well, as we were informed last month by Majid Rafizadeh in a Gatestone Institute article entitled "Iran to Trump: Death to America Will Live On":

"Ideologically speaking, Iran's hardliners, primarily Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who enjoy the final say in Iran's domestic and foreign policies, have made it clear that Iran will not change the core pillars of its religious and revolutionary establishment: Anti-Americanism and hatred towards the 'Great Satan' and the 'Little Satan', Israel.

Supporters of Ayatollah Khamenei and the IRGC enthusiastically shouted 'Death to America' in response to a recent speech that Khamenei gave, applauding the 1979 hostage-taking and takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran.

Iran's major state newspapers carried anti-American headlines this week, quoting the Supreme Leader. In his latest public speech to thousands of people, which was televised via Iran's state TV, Khamenei made it clear that Trump's presidency will cause 'no difference' to Iran-US relationships. Khamenei pointed out that, 'We have no judgment on this election because America is the same America'. In his speech, Khamenei attacked President-elect Donald Trump and the American people. The Ayatollah called the US election 'a spectacle for exposing their crimes and debacles.'"

I missed Ignatius's point entirely? Yeah, right.

In any event, Ignatius is back again today with more rubbish in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "What does Israel want from America?" Ignatius would now have us know:

"President Trump’s embrace of Israel poses an unlikely dilemma for leaders of the Jewish state: They have to decide what they want from America, and on that question, there’s sharp disagreement.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to seize the Trump moment Tuesday by announcing that Israel plans to construct 2,500 housing units in West Bank settlements. Just two days before, he and Trump had what the new president called a 'very nice' phone conversation. 'We’re building — and will continue to build,' an emboldened Netanyahu proclaimed Tuesday."

But what isn't Ignatius telling us? As reported today in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Israel Announces Plans to Build 2,500 New West Bank Housing Units" by Herb Keinon:

"Most of the new units will be inside the major settlement blocs, with [Israeli Defense Minsiter Avigdor] Liberman saying that only 106 are outside the blocs.

. . . .

Liberman said that, in parallel to these moves, he will bring for the security cabinet’s approval plans to establish a Palestinian industrial zone near Tarkumiya, south of Hebron. According to the statement, this will be one of the largest industrial areas in the territories."

Or stated otherwise, the overwhelming majority of the new units are inside existing settlement blocs that will remain with Israel in any deal involving land swaps.

And then there is that small matter of a new Palestinian industrial zone, which Ignatius fails to mention.

Yes, I know, these are inconvenient truths, and I am hardly surprised that they don't find expression in Ignatius's op-ed.

Brent Scowcroft and Thomas Pickering, "Speaking truth to our ally Israel": What About Speaking Truth to Pickering?

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Speaking truth to our ally Israel," 91-year-old Brent Scowcroft and Thomas Pickering appear to take issue with last week's WaPo editorial entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started," which excoriated America's lame duck president and John Kerry (see my prior blog item, "Rashid Khalidi, John Kerry and Israel: 'Too Little and Too Late': More Israel Bashing From The New York Times"). Scowcroft and Pickering write in their op-ed:

"In recent days, the Obama administration has undertaken two significant actions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It refrained from vetoing a resolution at the U.N. Security Council that, among other things, detailed the devastating impact that Israeli settlement expansion is having on the prospects for a two-state peace agreement. And in a landmark speech, Secretary of State John F. Kerry warned that the trend toward a one-state reality is becoming increasingly entrenched, and he set out principles for a lasting peace based on a two-state solution."

"Devastating impact"? Needless to say, no mention by Scowcroft and Pickering of the fact acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank. However, there is something else missing from Scowcroft and Pickering's opinion piece, and I have just dashed off the following email to Fred Hiatt, WaPo's editorial page editor:

Dear Mr. Hiatt,

At the bottom of The Washington Post opinion piece by Brent Scowcroft and Thomas R. Pickering, entitled "Speaking truth to our ally Israel," The Washington Post describes Pickering as follows:

"Thomas R. Pickering is a retired United States ambassador. Among his many diplomatic appointments, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992."

The Washington Post's description fails to mention that Pickering today is prominently listed ("top billing") by the National Iranian American Council, which is anything but friendly to Israel, as a member of its Advisory Board.

I kindly ask that The Washington Post's description of Pickering be corrected to reflect his membership on the Advisory Board of the National Iranian American Council, which is highly relevant to the substance of this opinion piece.

It is also worth noting that both Scowcroft and Pickering actively urged approval of the P5+1's nuclear deal with Iran.

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

It's worth reading The Daily Beast article entitled "Boeing’s Man Pushed for the Iran Nuclear Deal—and Now the Company Is Selling $25 Billion Worth of Planes to Tehran," which informs us (my emphasis in red:

"Boeing is grabbing headlines for its first-of-its-kind, $25 billion deal with Iran Air, Tehran’s state-owned airline.

But the American aerospace giant isn’t exactly publicizing the fact that it paid a lobbying firm to “monitor” the nuclear agreement that made its $25 billion sale to Tehran possible. Or that Boeing has on its payroll a former top Clinton administration official who used his clout to garner support in the corridors of powers for the Iran deal.

Thomas Pickering, one of the country’s most respected diplomats and a and former ambassador to Israel and the United Nations, has been quietly taking money from Boeing while vocally supporting the Iran nuclear deal—testifying before Congress, writing letters to high-level officials, and penning op-eds for outlets like The Washington Post."

Let's see if Mr. Hiatt gets back to me.

Rashid Khalidi, "John Kerry and Israel: Too Little and Too Late": More Israel Bashing From The New York Times

Tweet

Do you remember the controversy surrounding Obama and Rashid Khalidi?  The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release the video of Obama speaking at a 2003 going-away party honoring Khalidi, at which virulent anti-Semitism was expressed by other speakers. Well, it should come as no surprise that today, in the aftermath of John Kerry's speech earlier this week attacking Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Khalidi is being given space on The New York Times op-ed page to vent his spleen at Israel. Described by the Times as "a professor of Arab studies at Columbia who was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993" (no mention, of course, by the Times of the relationship between Obama and Khalidi or the video stashed away in a Los Angeles Times safe), Khalidi bashes Israel in his Times guest op-ed entitled "John Kerry and Israel: Too Little and Too Late":

"During Mr. Obama’s eight years in office, the illegal Israeli settler population has swelled by 100,000, to well over 600,000. Simultaneously, for eight years Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has directed a barrage of calculated slights, insults and acts of disrespect at the president of the United States. The Obama administration has finally reacted with Mr. Kerry’s speech and by allowing Resolution 2334, which condemns Israeli settlement expansion, to pass in the United Nations Security Council. By doing so, the United States simply acted in accordance with international law and the global consensus of nearly 50 years.

Meanwhile, a third generation of Palestinian children is growing up under a brutal occupation and Gaza has been under siege for a decade. Palestinians are obliged to seek the permission of the Israeli military for the most basic of needs, such as medical treatment, or to travel abroad or even just to Jerusalem."

Fascinating. Khalidi would have us believe that there are no hospitals in the West Bank or Gaza. In fact, there are some 60 hospitals and medical centers in the West Bank and Gaza, and although I am not claiming that Palestinian medical facilities are on a par with Israeli facilities, it is worth noting that average life expectancy in the West Bank is 75.91, compared with 75.69 in Hungary, 75.41 in China, 75.05 in Saudi Arabia, 74.57 in Turkey, 74.35 in Jordan, 73.70 in Egypt, and 71.15 in Iran.

Khalidi describes Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank as "brutal"? Consider what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, now in his twelfth year of his four-year term in office, declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (my emphasis in red):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

This statement was made after Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. 

As for Khalidi's claim that "During Mr. Obama’s eight years in office, the illegal Israeli settler population has swelled by 100,000, to well over 600,000." An answer to this rubbish is to be found in an editorial in today's Washington Post entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started," which informs us (my emphasis in red):

"THE OBAMA administration is ending eight years of failed Middle East diplomacy exactly where it began in 2009 — with an exaggerated and misguided focus on Israeli settlement construction. As he railed at the continuing growth of West Bank Jewish housing on Wednesday with a prolixity that Fidel Castro would have admired, Secretary of State John F. Kerry sounded a lot like President Obama during the early months of his first term, when he insisted that the Israeli government freeze all construction as a starting point for negotiations on a Palestinian state.

. . . .

Mr. Kerry’s speech was, above all, a vivid demonstration of the administration’s inability to learn from its mistakes or adjust the ideological tenets that Mr. Obama brought to office.

. . . .

In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Perhaps the WaPo editorial should have also observed what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484).


Bottom line: Khalidi's Israel bashing op-ed amounts to just one more effort by The New York Times to discredit Israel during the waning days of the Obama administration. Despicable.

[I sent this blog item to Andrew Rosenthal, former editorial page editor of The New York Times:

Dear Andrew,

I thought you might be interested.

Jeffrey

Rosenthal's response:

I'm not sure why. But thanks.

Andy

Why am I not surprised?]

David Sanger, "John Kerry, in a Final, Pointed Plea, Will Outline a Vision of Mideast Peace": Blind Man's Bluff

Tweet

In a myopic New York Times article entitled "John Kerry, in a Final, Pointed Plea, Will Outline a Vision of Mideast Peace," David Sanger writes of John Kerry's speech today, which is intended "to shape the outlines of a Middle East peace deal":

"The decision to go ahead with his speech in the waning days of the administration is characteristic of Mr. Kerry, a serial negotiator who over the past four years traveled the world on three major missions: an Israeli-Palestinian accord, the Iranian nuclear accord, and a cease-fire and political accord for Syria. He will leave office on Jan. 20 having achieved the nuclear deal, but having tried and failed on the other two."

Kerry's nuclear deal with Iran was an achievement? Oh really. As reported by Jenna Lifhits in a December 25, 2016 Weekly Standard article entitled "U.N. Agency Publishes Secret Iran Deal Docs On Exemptions Obama Admin Dismissed":

"Iran was given secret exemptions allowing the country to exceed restrictions set out by the landmark nuclear deal inked last year, some of which were made public this week by the United Nations nuclear watchdog and others that are likely still being withheld, according to diplomatic sources and a top nuclear expert who spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Friday posted documents revealing that Iran had been given exemptions in January that permit the country to stockpile uranium in excess of the 300 kilogram limit set by the nuclear deal, experts said. The agreements had been kept secret for almost a year, but recent reports indicated that the Trump administration intended to make them public."

In fact Kerry's unsigned Swiss cheese arrangement with Iran, negotiated in Geneva and shot through with holes, was anything but an achievement.

Sanger goes on to say concerning last week's Security Council resolution denouncing Israeli West Bank settlements:

"'We did not discuss the substance of the resolution at any time with the United States,' Gerard van Bohemen, New Zealand’s ambassador to the United Nations, said later, disputing Mr. Netanyahu’s account that the vote was orchestrated in Washington. 'We did not know how the United States would vote.'

The surprise was palpable. Román Oyarzun Marchesi of Spain, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council, asked for a show of hands in support of the resolution: 14 hands went up. He asked for a show of hands against: zero hands went up. A gasp was heard in the Council chamber. It meant that the United States, which can unilaterally veto a resolution as a permanent member of the Security Council, had not done so."

The surprise was "palpable"? Yeah, right. As reported today in a Times of Israel article entitled "Israel: US pressured Ukraine to support anti-settlement resolution":

"An Israeli official said Wednesday that highest-level US administration officials phoned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko directly to pressure him to support the United Nations Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements.

'Either Obama or Biden spoke to Poroshenko about the matter,' a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel, elaborating on Israel’s claims that the US worked behind the scenes to bolster the resolution and to ensure that it was supported by all the other countries on the council.

According to one highly placed Israeli official who spoke to Tablet Magazine, it was Biden who personally intervened to ensure that Ukraine would support the resolution. 'Did Biden put pressure on the Ukrainians? Categorically yes,' said a source within the Israeli government. 'That Biden told them to do it is 1000% true,' he said."

Nauseating. Enough said.

Peter Baker and Somini Sengupta, "Trump Pressures Obama Over U.N. Resoution on Israeli Settlements": Yes, There Is a Santa Claus

Tweet

In a New York Times article entitled "Trump Pressures Obama Over U.N. Resolution on Israeli Settlements," Peter Baker and Somini Sengupta write:

"President-elect Donald J. Trump thrust himself into one of the world’s most polarizing debates on Thursday by pressuring President Obama to veto a United Nations resolution critical of Israel, the newly elected leader’s most direct intervention in foreign policy during his transition to power.

Mr. Trump spoke out after Israeli officials contacted his team for help in blocking the draft resolution condemning settlement construction even as they lobbied its sponsor, Egypt. Within a couple of hours, Egypt withdrew the resolution, at least temporarily, and its president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, called Mr. Trump to discuss how 'to establish true peace in the Middle East,' according to an aide to the president-elect.

. . . .

Frustrated by two failed efforts to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians during his tenure, Mr. Obama has been considering an effort to lay out an American framework during his final days in office. Palestinian leaders and their allies had hoped he would allow the anti-settlement resolution at the United Nations to pass as an expression of frustration at Israeli policies."

Sorry, Obama, but the Egyptians are unwilling to anger an unsuppressed unpredictable president-elect, and as Mark Moyar concluded in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The World Fears Trump’s America. That’s a Good Thing.":

"As the world’s most powerful country, and the only one whose leadership can safeguard the world order, the United States must care more about whether it commands international respect than whether it is loved by international elites. The incoming administration appears poised to return the United States to this precept after an eight-year drought. Americans and America’s allies should be relieved. America’s enemies are right to be afraid."

Or as Niccolo Machiavelli wrote some 500 years ago:

"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."

At least as regards the Middle East, Machiavelli was right.

Richard Cohen, "Trump’s choice for Israeli ambassador is a danger to American lives": Echoing the New York Times's Hysteria

Tweet

In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Trump’s choice for Israeli ambassador is a danger to American lives," Richard Cohen echoes the hysteria of The New York Times re Trump's nomination of David Friedman as America's next ambassador to Israel:

"The Senate will get a crack at Friedman. This is a nomination that must be rejected. He is a danger to peace in the Middle East, to American lives, to moderation and to civil discourse."

"Civil discourse" in the Middle East? A day doesn't go by without calls from Iran for the eradication of Israel. And then there is the Hamas covenant calling for the murder of all Jews.

Friedman poses a threat to American lives? Oh really? Just yesterday the Russian ambassador to Turkey was assassinated, and a semi-trailer plowed into a Berlin Christmas market in a terror attack that killed 12 and injured 48 persons. On Sunday, 10 people were killed and 34 wounded in a terror attack in Karak, Jordan. In fact, the entire Middle East is a tinderbox, having little to do with tiny Israel and having everything to do with conflicting Shiite/Sunni efforts to restore regional historic primacy.

"Moderation" means refusing to acknowledge that West Jerusalem, Israel's capital, has not been an integral part of that country since 1948? The time hasn't come to recognize that reality?

Spare me the bullshit, Dick.

New York Times Editorial, "A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador to Israel": Friedman's Appointment More Dangerous Than Obama's Neglect of Aleppo?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador to Israel," The New York Times begins (my emphasis in red):

"In appointing David Friedman as the next ambassador to Israel, Donald Trump voiced a desire to 'strive for peace in the Middle East.' Unfortunately, his chosen representative would be far more likely to provoke conflict in Israel and the occupied territories, heighten regional tensions and undermine American leadership."

Ah yes, David Friedman's appointment could undermine American leadership of the kind exhibited with respect to Aleppo. See the Times's whitewash of Obama's "benign" neglect of this horrific Syrian tragedy in its editorial on Wednesday.

Today's editorial continues (my emphasis in red):

"Mr. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has represented the president-elect in matters involving Atlantic City casinos, has no diplomatic experience, unlike nearly every American ambassador who has served in this most sensitive of posts. That might not be quite so alarming if he didn’t also hold extremist views that are radically at odds with American policy and with the views of most Americans."

Okay, Friedman has no diplomatic experience, as did Thomas Pickering, ambassador to Israel from 1985 to 1988, who is now prominently listed by the National Iranian American Council as a member of its advisory board. Maybe it's to Friedman's credit that he has no prior diplomatic experience.

Friedman's extremist views? The Times writes (my emphasis in red):

"In a further sign of Mr. Friedman’s apparent zeal for confrontation rather than diplomatic finesse, he has announced that he expects to have his office in Jerusalem, rather than Tel Aviv, where the American Embassy has been for 68 years, along with the embassies of most other countries. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem, which has sites that are sacred to Muslims, Christians and Jews, as their capital. Like the crucial questions of borders, Israeli security and the fate of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, the contested status of Jerusalem should be resolved by negotiation, not by American fiat."

Excuse me, but the Palestinians are making no claims whatsoever on Western Jerusalem, except, of course, those calling for Israel's eradication. Why shouldn't America's embassy be located in Israel's capital, as in any other country? It is high time for the United States to acknowledge Israel's capital and right to exist as a sovereign nation. Sorry, but this is not something to be "resolved by negotiation" by the P5+1. Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since it declared independence in 1948, notwithstanding ingrained US State Department hostility.

More to the point, America should again take the lead on the international stage. This role was abnegated by Obama with tragic consequences, and his dereliction of responsibility will forever stain in blood whatever remains of this president's "legacy."

Thomas Friedman, "Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the State of Israel-Palestine": A "Dark Hour"?

Tweet

Troubled by Bibi Netanyahu's dismissal of Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, Thomas Friedman concludes his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the State of Israel-Palestine" by observing:

"So Netanyahu, who only acts the way the wind blows, purged Yaalon. With that move, said the Hebrew University religious philosopher Moshe Halbertal, we are witnessing 'Israel’s ruling party being transformed from a hawkish nationalist party that used to have a humanitarian and democratic base, into an ultranationalist party that is now defined by turning against the ‘enemies’ from within — the courts, the NGOs, the education system, the Arab minority and now, the army — anyone who stands in the way of their project of permanent occupation of the West Bank. Having failed to deliver a solution for the enemies on the outside, so now Likud is focused on the enemies inside. This is a major transformation in Israel and should be looked upon with great concern.' The army’s leadership, added Halbertal, 'is trying to transcend this war of all against all and impose moral order on chaos rather than inflame it for narrow political gains.'

Netanyahu does just the opposite. For those of us who care about Israel’s future, this is a dark hour."

Yesterday, I voiced my dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's decision. On the other hand, it need be noted that Israel is not Turkey. There will be elections, and I will be very surprised if Netanyahu, currently embroiled in a scandal, will remain Israel's prime minister.

Heck, Tom, a "dark hour"? Spare me! I am more concerned by the American electorate having to choose between Hillary and Donald.

New York Times Editorial, "Mr. Netanyahu’s Lost Opportunities": A Photo-Op?

Tweet

Informing us in an editorial entitled "Mr. Netanyahu’s Lost Opportunities" that Netanyahu cancelled a meeting with Obama in Washington later this week, The New York Times goes on to say:

"It’s unfortunate that this strange squabble is overshadowing two pressing issues. One involves the new 10-year defense agreement the two governments are negotiating, an anchor of their alliance. The existing agreement, which expires in 2018, provides $3.1 billion a year to Israel, , [sic] making it the top recipient of American aid. The even larger issue involves the slow but inexorable death of the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians.

. . . .

Military aid alone will never guarantee Israel’s security. For that, there needs to be progress toward a Middle East peace deal."

Remarkably, the Times editorial makes no mention of the fact that The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps last week test-fired two additional ballistic missiles in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, and that one missile had a message written on it in Hebrew: "Israel should be wiped off the Earth." Obama's response? Nada, unless anyone took Samantha Power seriously when she declared at the UN that the test-firing "merits a [Security] Council response." After all, Obama wouldn't want to do anything that might jeopardize his unsigned, legacy-building, nuclear deal with Khamenei.

Bottom line: No opportunity - other than a photo-op - was lost by the cancellation of this meeting with a president, who has dedicated his two terms in office to creating daylight between Israel and America.

Obama's successor? The editorial concludes:

"With less than a year left in office and many other international crises to manage, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama will make another push for negotiations. But his successor must look for new ways help Israel and the Palestinians make peace happen."

However, as reported in a Times of Israel article entitled "Abbas reportedly turns down visiting Biden’s peace plan" by Sue Surkes:

"Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reportedly turned down a peace initiative put forward by US Vice President Joe Biden in Ramallah on Wednesday.

The deal offered a settlement construction freeze and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem in exchange for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the relinquishment of Palestinian rights to return to live in Israel, Palestinian newspaper Al Quds reported."

Unbeknownst to the editorial board of the Times, it is difficult to reach a reach a peace agreement when one side categorically rejects such a fair-minded proposal.

More concerning the relationship between Obama's successor and Israel? In a Times op-ed entitled "Can Israel Handle a President Trump?," Shmuel Rosner writes:

"Israel’s government hoped a new president would restore a more traditional definition of friendship — one based on mutual trust and support. But if the choice comes down to Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump, that’s unlikely. From a President Clinton, Israel’s hawkish government would come under more of the same pressure it received from the Obama administration. From a President Trump … anything is possible."

Indeed, both Hillary and Donald would be disastrous for Israel. We can only hope that Hillary's candidacy will be derailed by an FBI recommendation favoring indictment, and that Trump will be beaten by a nose by Kasich in Ohio. Stay tuned.

Ban Ki-moon, "Don’t Shoot the Messenger, Israel": Ignorance Is Bliss for This Messenger

Tweet

In a guest op-ed entitled "Don’t Shoot the Messenger, Israel," Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon begins by asserting, "History proves that people will always resist occupation." But if that's the case, why isn't Ban Ki-moon raising his voice against China, which has occupied Tibet for the past 65 years? Needless to say, unlike the Palestinians who overwhelmingly reject Israel's right to exist, Tibetans have never denied China's right to exist. But I digress.

Ban Ki-moon declares in his opinion piece:

"Israeli settlements keep expanding. The government has approved plans for over 150 new homes in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Last month, 370 acres in the West Bank were declared 'state land,' a status that typically leads to exclusive Israeli settler use."

My goodness, 150 new homes! However, Ban Ki-moon forgets to mention that Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has acknowledged, as was reported in a Haaretz article entitled "Erekat: Olmert Offered Palestinians Territorial Equivalent of West Bank" by Jack Khoury, that Israeli settlements have been built on only "approximately 1.1% of the West Bank." In addition, Khoury wrote that former "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered a final peace settlement that would include territorial concession equivalent to the entire West Bank, the return of thousands of Palestinian refugees into the West Bank, and the division of Jerusalem." Palestinian Authority President Abbas, now in the twelfth year of a four-year term of office, rejected Olmert's proposal. Can you imagine? The chutzpah of those nasty Israelis!

Moreover, every peace proposal considered by the Israelis and the Palestinians has included land swaps, but Ban Ki-moon fails to indicate whether those 150 homes will be built on land that the Palestinians have agreed will be passed over to Israel as part of a future land swap.

I have often expressed my desire to see a prosperous, democratic Palestine living side-by-side with Israel in peace. On the other hand, there can also be no ignoring the refusal of Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist. It is also hard to ignore that 24 percent of Palestinians support the Islamic State - more than anyplace else in the world. Where does that ultimately lead?

Ban Ki-moon concludes, "The status quo is untenable." However, as observed by Palestinian Authority President Abbas in a 2009 interview with Jackson Diehl:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

This statement was made after Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer. So who is responsible for the perpetuation of the status quo? Ban Ki-moon has yet to figure it out.

Marc Thiessen "Where Obama won’t be going on his global farewell tour": You Forgot Israel

Tweet

Observing in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Where Obama won’t be going on his global farewell tour" that "public confidence in [Obama's] national security leadership has collapsed," Marc Thiessen writes:

"As you assess Obama’s record, ask yourself some simple questions: Are you safer now than you were seven years ago? Are the forces of Islamist radicalism weaker than they were seven years ago? Is the danger to our homeland smaller than it was seven years ago? Is the United States more feared by our enemies and respected by our friends than it was seven years ago?"

Thiessen names various places that Obama will not be visiting on a final world tour, which exemplify his foreign policy errors:

• Ghouta, Syria
• Bodrum, Turkey
• Moscow
• Crimea
• Eastern Ukraine
• Latakia, Syria
• Benghazi
• Yemen
• Mosul, Iraq
• Kandahar, Afghanistan

Remarkably, Thiessen fails to mention Israel, which is more friendly to the US than almost any other nation, but which was thrown under the bus as part of Obama's unsigned legacy-creating nuclear deal with Iran. Given how the nuclear deal appears to be breaking down with each passing day, my guess is that Obama might never again show his face in Tel Aviv.

Colbert King, "When ‘Black Lives Matter’ is linked with ‘Palestinian Lives Matter’": Israel Responsible for Wright's Wrongs?

Tweet

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office."

- Jeremiah Wright, June 10, 2009 interview at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "When ‘Black Lives Matter’ is linked with ‘Palestinian Lives Matter’," Colbert King links a speech by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at an October 10, 2015 event commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Million Man March to African American attitudes toward Israel. Mr. King writes:

"Whether Wright’s speech hit the mark with those in attendance is open to speculation. There was, however, no mistaking his aim: to equate and link the plight of Palestinians in the Middle East with the quest of blacks for full equality in the United States.

“The youth in Ferguson and the youth in Palestine have united together to remind us that the dots need to be connected,” Wright told the crowd, according to media reports.

Citing what he called the “three-headed demon” of “racism, militarism and capitalism,” Wright implored the gathering to “stand beside our Palestinian brothers and sisters, who have been done one of the most egregious injustices in the 20th and 21st centuries.”

“Apartheid is going on in Palestine,” Wright said. “As we sit here, there is an apartheid wall being built twice the size of the Berlin Wall in height, keeping Palestinians off of illegally occupied territories, where the Europeans” — presumably Israelis — “have claimed that land as their own.”

Drawing on the black chant, Wright observed, “Palestinians are saying ‘Palestinian lives matter,’ ” and added, “We stand with you, we support you, we say God bless you.”

As a longtime supporter of Israel, and a believer — as Obama is — that Palestinians have a right to be a free people on their land, I don’t think Israel gained attention in a good way that day."

Regrettably, with regard to Wright's allegation of "one of the most egregious injustices in the 20th and 21st centuries," Mr. King doesn't mention what Palestinian Authority President Abbas  told  The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl in 2009:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

Nor does King mention Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 offer of an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem.

An "apartheid wall"? A pity that King does not mention that the separation barrier, erected to prevent suicide bombings that took the lives of about 1,000 Israelis, is some 90 percent fence, i.e. only 10 percent "wall."

"'Where the Europeans' — presumably Israelis — 'have claimed that land as their own'"? This was the place where King might have mentioned that the majority of Israeli Jews are Sephardic, whose families arrived in Israel after being forced to leave their homes in the Muslim Middle East. King might also have observed that Ethiopian Jews comprise 1.75 percent of Israel's population and that there have been seven Ethiopian members of the Israeli Knesset (parliament), but he didn't.

Bottom line: Israel is not responsible for Wright's incendiary remarks, nor is Israel responsible for Susan Rice's reprehensible comment, also cited by King, "that the Israeli leader did everything but “use ‘the N-word’ in describing the president.” I am no fan of Netanyahu, but I also know that he is not capable of making such a racist remark.

Obama believes that "Palestinians have a right to be a free people on their land"? I would also like to see a prosperous, democratic Palestine living side-by-side with Israel in peace. But that is not going to happen if Palestinian Authority President Abbas continues to declare as he did on September 16, 2015:

"We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every martyr will reach paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is ours, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is ours, and [the Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."

Or stated again, Israel is not responsible for Wright's wrongs.

Question for Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion: What Makes for a "Legitimate Partner" in the Middle East?

Tweet

Canada is preparing to throw Israel to the wolves. In an interview on Wednesday, Canada's new Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion stated:

"Israel is a friend, it is an ally but for us to be an effective ally we need also to strengthen our relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region. For example, we need to strengthen our relationship with Lebanon and this will help Lebanon but also Israel. To be helpful, you need to strengthen your relationship with the other legitimate partners and that is what we will do."

Dion's declaration follows on the heels of a conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Canada's recently elected prime minister, Justin Trudeau, in which Trudeau informed Netanyahu that there would be a "shift in tone" involving the two countries' relationship.

Questions for Mr. Dion:

• What makes for a "legitimate partner" in the Middle East?
• Must such a legitimate partner embrace democracy?
• Must such a legitimate partner ensure the rights of minorities, e.g., Kurds, Copts, Baha'is and Christians?
• Must such a legitimate partner cease condoning "honor killings" perpetrated against women?
• Must such a "legitimate partner" provide equal rights and protection to gay people?
• Must such a country act to prevent funding from being sent to the Islamic State?
• And must such a "legitimate partner" refuse to provide a warm home to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah (yes, I am of course referring to Lebanon)?

Care to answer, Stéphane?

David Ignatius, "How the Syrian conflict could get even bigger and bloodier": Missing the Elephant in the Room

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How the Syrian conflict could get even bigger and bloodier," David Ignatius points to the danger that the conflict in Syria could spin even further out of control. Ignatius suggests steps needed to be taken in order to avoid this possibility:

"Studying Syria from north to south, it’s clear where 'deconfliction,' as the military puts it, is needed to avoid unintended disaster.

On the northern front, the United States needs to deepen its consultations with Turkey as it escalates support for Syrian Kurdish forces and their Arab allies. President Obama is sending fewer than 50 Special Operations forces to Syria, but make no mistake, this is a significant commitment. The U.S. troops will need air support — not just to bomb the Islamic State, but for resupply, rescue if they get in trouble, and perhaps to enable the cycle of intelligence-driven 'night raids' that was so devastating in Iraq.

. . . .

On Syria’s southern border with Jordan, the United States has quietly helped train a rebel coalition known as the Southern Front,which claims 35,000 fighters in 54 brigades. Last week, Russian warplanes attacked some of those U.S.-backed forces at Al-Harra in southwest Syria, the site of a former Russian signals-intelligence station captured by the rebels. This is crazy. Moscow and Washington should look to de-escalate the situation, rather than torch it more."

Missing from Ignatius's analysis is any mention of the cat and mouse game now being played by Russian and Israeli fighter planes over Syria. Israel will not permit the transfer of advanced weaponry from Syria to Lebanon as again evidenced on Friday, when a shipment of long-range Scud missiles was bombed en route to Hezbollah. Should Russian and Israeli jets engage in a future dogfight over Syria, there is no knowing where this could lead.

Malin Fezehai, "Israel’s Chilly Reception for African Asylum Seekers": The New York Times's War Against Israel Continues

Tweet

Did you know that Israel, which is the size of New Jersey, is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, even more so if you take into account that the largely uninhabitable Negev Desert comprises 60 percent of Israel's land mass, but is home to only 8 percent its population?

Did you know that 92,000 Ethiopians, including Jews and Falash Muras, have immigrated to Israel, many with the help of the Israeli Mossad?

Well, in a New York Times guest op-ed entitled "Israel’s Chilly Reception for African Asylum Seekers," Malin Fezehai informs us:

"As the continuing refugee crisis in Europe demonstrates, Israel is not alone in trying to deter refugees. But according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, it has the distinction of having one of the lowest asylum acceptance rates in the Western world. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once warned that the arrival of African people poses a demographic risk to Israel: 'If we don’t stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state.'"

According to the Haaretz article entitled "By the Numbers: Israel Recognizes Less Than 1% of Asylum Seekers" by Alona Ferber, which is cited by Fezehai:

"Israel has only recognized some 200 refugees since signing the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees – making it one of the least welcoming countries in the Western world when it comes to granting asylum.

. . . .

That said, the situation in Israel is complicated, and there's more to the picture than the numbers alone show. In addition, along with asylum granted under the Convention, Israel has accepted groups of refugees on an individual basis, including around 100 Bosnian Muslims in the '90s; a few hundred Vietnamese, known as 'boat people,' in the '70s; and nearly 6,000 members of the South Lebanese Army and their families after Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. In 2007, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave exceptional temporary residence to around 500 Darfurian asylum seekers."

"The situation in Israel is complicated"? Indeed, and it is worth observing that the Haaretz article makes no reference to the 92,000 Ethiopians who immigrated to Israel, or the some one million immigrants to Israel from the former Soviet Union, or the some 600,000 Jews from the Muslim Middle East who fled their homes and made their way to Israel. These were not "asylum seekers," or maybe they shouldn't be considered as such because most of them were Jewish?

With all the death and destruction in the world, the op-ed page of The New York Times again focuses its attention on would-be transgressions of tiny Israel. Yes, Andrew Rosenthal, this is disgusting.