Jonathan Tobin, "Iran Sanctions Can Change History, Not a Netanyahu Speech": Wrong Again

As previously stated, it is rare that I disagree with Jonathan Tobin. However, I was not in accord with Jonathan's Commentary opinion piece entitled "Must Netanyahu Give That Speech?," in which he took the position that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should not address Congress at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner. And I also do not agree with Jonathan's follow-up opinion piece, "Iran Sanctions Can Change History, Not a Netanyahu Speech," in which he doubles down on his opposition to Netanyahu's speech. Jonathan now writes:

"I have argued that in accepting House Speaker Boehner’s invitation, Netanyahu has walked into a trap and that the net effect of that decision is to lessen the chances that Congress will pass more sanctions. But his supporters and other opponents of Obama’s policies argue that the extreme nature of the danger presented by Iran and a U.S. policy of appeasement require that Netanyahu speak in spite of the controversy over his appearance. These points, made both by Rick Richman and in numerous comments from readers, deserve an answer.

. . . .

When faced with the horrible prospect of an Iranian bomb, some pro-Israel activists seem to embrace the emotional satisfaction of a direct rhetorical challenge to Obama rather than the hard practical political work of passing a bill that might do more to change history for the better than a speech. The prime minister should be smart enough to pass on this sort of immature and magical thinking. So should his American friends."

Well in this instance, the answer to Jonathan is to be found in a Fars News article of today's date entitled "Iran's Oil Revenues Soaring," which informs us:

"TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's oil revenues considerably increased in the first ten months of the current Iranian year (March 21-January 22) as compared with last year's corresponding period, a senior energy official announced.

'Iran earned over $2.3 billion from sales of oil products in the first ten months as the country is applying innovative methods to sidestep US-led sanctions,' Head of Commercial Department of National Iranian Oil Products Distribution Company (NIOPDC) Mohammad Reza Mazloumi said on Friday.

In July, Iran's Economy Ministry announced that the country’s oil revenues rose by 43 percent during last Iranian calendar year (ended March 20, 2014) in comparison with the previous year.

In December, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said exports of crude is just one of Iran's sources of revenue and the country can live up without oil sales and through exports of its rich mineral resources, modern industries, and talented people.

'We have different methods and scenarios to run the country under different circumstances.'"

Overriding an Obama veto of the Kirk-Menendez Bill, intended to impose additional sanctions on Iran, will prevent Khamenei from obtaining atomic weapons? Not a chance. Khamenei is hell-bent upon obtaining such weapons, and to ignore his intention threatens Israel and the rest of the world. Sorry, Jonathan, this is neither "immature" nor "magical" thinking. The threat is real and imminent.

Netanyahu needs to provide Congress with details of the threat now, before Obama agrees to a disastrous conciliatory deal!

Jonathan Tobin, "Must Netanyahu Give That Speech?": The Answer, Absolutely!

It is rare that I disagree with Jonathan Tobin. However, I am not in accord with Jonathan's Commentary opinion piece entitled "Must Netanyahu Give That Speech?," in which he takes the position that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should not address Congress at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner. Jonathan writes:

"It’s time for Netanyahu to come to grips with the question of what his real goal is here. If it’s to help the Republicans and Democrats who are working hard to pass this bill, he should know it’s time for him to find an excuse to back down and not give the speech. His is a powerful and eloquent voice, but what Congress needs to hear now is the sound of Democrats like Menendez and his colleagues making the case for sanctions, not a foreign leader, albeit from a country that most members of the House and the Senate regard with affection. It is only when he removes himself as a distraction from this debate that sanctions advocates will have a chance to get the focus back on Obama’s indefensible policies rather than Netanyahu’s supposed chutzpah."

As many of those who read this blog already know, I am not a member of the Likud, and by Israeli standards my views are centrist. However, I am of the belief that Netanyahu must give that speech.

Yes, I know: It would be preferable not to do anything that might undermine the chances of the bill sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Robert Menendez, which would impose additional sanctions on Iran if agreement is not reached with the P5+1. But Obama's opposition to this bill is intense, and those same Democrats, whose support of the bill hangs in the balance, will face sledgehammer pressure from the White House regardless of whether or not Netanyahu speaks before Congress. As Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes's declared last year about reaching an agreement with Tehran:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

The stark reality is that Israel at some time in the future will be facing a war with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Assad's forces in Syria - a situation much akin to that faced by Israel in 1967. Israel's survival is at issue, and Iran's repeated calls for Israel's destruction must not be ignored. Yesterday, even as Iranian President Rouhani, a so-called moderate, addressed crowds in Tehran celebrating the 36th anniversary of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution and called for a "constructive interaction" with the world, the crowd chanted "Death to Israel" in response.

Given the controversy surrounding his address and the enormous worldwide attention it will now attract, Netanyahu should travel to Congress and explain in detail how Obama's insistence upon reaching a conciliatory agreement with Iran threatens Israel's existence. Netanyahu should spell out how Obama's willingness to allow 6,500 Iranian centrifuges to continue to spin enriched uranium will permit Khamenei to build his first atomic bomb within months. Netanyahu should shed light upon Tehran's refusal to allow IAEA inspectors to visit Iran's Parchin weapons development complex. If there are Democrats who refuse to listen and are willing to standby and watch as Obama tries to do to Israel in 2015 what Neville Chamberlain did to Czechoslovakia in 1938, so be it.

Czechoslovakia could not oppose Hitler alone. Israel will be forced to fight and win. Never again!

Thomas Friedman, "Arsonists and Firefighters": Tom Spews More Rubbish

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Arsonists and Firefighters" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-who-is-setting-the-sectarian-fires-in-the-middle-east.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), subtitled "Who Is Setting the Sectarian Fires in the Middle East?," Thomas Friedman divides the Middle East into "arsonists" and "firefighters," i.e. "bad guys" and "good guys." Among his "bad guys" are Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad and Israeli cabinet ministers Naftali Bennett and Uri Ariel. Specifically with regard to Uri Ariel, Friedman writes:

"Ariel deliberately announced plans to build 700 new housing units for Jews in Arab East Jerusalem — timed to torpedo Secretary of State John Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy. And they did."

Some 700 new homes in Gilo caused the collapse of Kerry's folly? Oh really? As Jonathan Tobin wrote in a Commentary opinion piece entitled "Why Did Kerry Lie About Israeli Blame" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/08/why-did-kerry-lie-about-israeli-blame-peace-process-palestinians/):

"Kerry knows very well that the negotiations were doomed once the Palestinians refused to sign on to the framework for future talks he suggested even though it centered them on the 1967 lines that they demand as the basis for borders. Why? Because Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas wouldn’t say the two little words —'Jewish state'—that would make it clear he intended to end the conflict. Since the talks began last year after Abbas insisted on the release of terrorist murderers in order to get them back to the table, the Palestinians haven’t budged an inch on a single issue.

Thus, to blame the collapse on the decision to build apartments in Gilo—a 40-year-old Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem that would not change hands even in the event a peace treaty were ever signed and where Israel has never promised to stop building—is, to put it mildly, a mendacious effort to shift blame away from the side that seized the first pretext to flee talks onto the one that has made concessions in order to get the Palestinians to sit at the table."

Among Friedman's "firefighters" is Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Zarif is a "good guy"? In an editorial entitled "Meaningful Progress With Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/meaningful-progress-with-iran.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), The New York Times concluded:

"For all this positive momentum, which includes a reciprocal easing of some Western sanctions, many of Iran’s policies remain indefensible, such as the detention of political prisoners, support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and support for Hezbollah. Mr. Zarif failed to address those issues in an article he wrote on Iranian foreign policy in Foreign Affairs magazine. But he firmly committed Iran to 'prudent moderation' and to fostering peace and security. A durable nuclear agreement is an important first step in fulfilling that promise."

Ah yes, "prudent moderation" from Iran, a country that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, executes poets, and commits atrocities against Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunni Muslims. Apart from failing to distance himself from Bashar al-Assad, has Zarif ever denounced these other abominations?

And then there was Zarif's declaration that pursuant to the six-month nuclear framework deal with the P5+1, Iran "did not agree to dismantle anything" (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/).

In short, would-be Middle-East expert Friedman is again wearing his ignorance on his sleeve.

Gail Collins, "And the Race Is Off": Revisiting "The Wizard of Oz"

Dorothy Gale: How do you talk if you don't have a brain?

Scarecrow: Well, some people without brains do an awful lot of talking don't they?

- "Wizard of Oz" (1939)

Just how daft is Gail Collins?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "And the Race Is Off" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/opinion/collins-and-the-race-is-off.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Gail Collins wonders how much "fun" (her word) it would have been if Kathleen Sebelius has decided to run for senator in Kansas. The rationale underlying her opinion is that incumbent Senator Pat Roberts's "voting address is actually a house on a country club golf course that belongs to two longtime supporters" and that Roberts has joked that he has "full access to the recliner."

This is almost as funny as how Hillary Clinton established residency in order to run for the Senate from New York (see: http://nypost.com/2000/01/05/hillarys-move-in-day-is-just-crate/).

But most remarkable is Collins's declaration (my emphasis in red):

"But about Kathleen Sebelius. Running a hopeless race for the Senate would be better than, say, spending the next year working on a memoir entitled 'It Wasn’t Really My Fault.' And we have to keep stressing that, despite its awful start, the Affordable Care Act is working out fine."

Excuse me but who the hell is this "we"?

Obamacare is "working out fine"? Oh really? Have a look at Michael Gerson's recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obamacare has spawned a misguided debate" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-obamacare-has-spawned-a-misguided-debate/2014/04/07/f51d8528-be82-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html?hpid=z2). Gerson writes:

"[N]ever mind that the actual goal was not 7 million exchange sign-ups; it was health insurance enrollments, which are likely to be significantly fewer. And never mind that the number of the previously uninsured seems a remarkably small portion of these sign-ups — well under half. (Health wonk Bob Laszewski estimates that only about 27 percent of Americans eligible for Obamacare subsidies have enrolled in the system.) And never mind that, even including the Medicaid expansion, the most optimistic estimates of reductions in the number of the uninsured are much less than what the Congressional Budget Office projected before the rollout began. And never mind that all these decreases in the uninsured seem small in comparison to the amount of money spent, displacement caused and political capital expended.

And never mind that the proportion of younger and healthier enrollees to those with preexisting conditions is still being determined and that many analysts expect double-digit insurance premium increases in many state exchanges (particularly those with limited insurance competition). And never mind that health-care cost inflation has suddenly spiked to a 10-year high."

You want some "fun"? Have a gander at the following video featuring Dr. Barbara Bellar:



But the real "fun" has yet to come. As observed by Jonathan Tobin in a Commentary opinion piece entitled "Obama’s Boasts Won’t End OCare Debate" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/17/obamas-boasts-wont-end-obamacare-debate/):

"But the assumption that the government’s successful efforts to pressure or persuade several million people to sign up for ObamaCare means that it is 'working' is completely unwarranted. It’s not just that the figures put forward by the administration are unreliable for a number of reasons. Even if we assumed that there really were eight million ObamaCare policyholders, the real test of this law’s viability and its ability to endure has yet to come. Not until we see just how many of those signed up are young and healthy enough to help pay for the vast number of sick and elderly covered by it will we know if it can pay for itself. And it won’t be until next year when the employer mandate and many other more painful provisions of the law are finally implemented that it will be clear whether the entire scheme can survive and how much damage it will inflict on the economy.

. . . .

Moreover, it won’t be until next year when the politically motivated delays of the implementation of many of the law’s mandates and provisions are put in place that we will know just how serious that damage will be. Nor will we know until then just how massive the cost increases for insurance will be though even the president acknowledged they will go up. With most of the young and healthy uninsured not signing up, rates will skyrocket as companies are forced to pass on the costs of covering those with pre-existing conditions. The president’s claims that the rate of increases are going down won’t convince many who will be paying more in the coming years that the president’s boasts are justified."

Although I favor universal health care, the writing is on the wall: You can't keep your health care plan, you can't keep your doctor, and Obamacare is going to send US national debt spiraling.

And perhaps sometime in 2015, a bewildered Gail Collins will finally acknowledge, as did Dorothy Gale in "The Wizard of Oz" (my emphasis in red):

"I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."

Thomas Friedman, "Not the Same Old, Same Old": When Things Went "Poof,"or Explaining Away Kerry's "Flotz"

What's a "flotz"? We'll get to that in a moment.

Yesterday, I mentioned that my son is getting married (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/david-brooks-long-obedience-my-son.html). My future daughter-in-law? A lovely young woman, whose mother is her father's second wife. "His second wife?" you ask. "What happened to the first wife? Did her father divorce her?" No, he didn't divorce her. In fact, more than 30 thirty years ago, Palestinian terrorists crossed the border into Israel, entered his home while he was away, and murdered his first wife and several of their children. (My future daughter-in-law has a charming sister from the first marriage, who survived because the rifle of one of the terrorists jammed.) Palestinian "terrorists"? Yes, terrorists. Of the murdering kind that Israel was expected to release in order to keep Kerry's hopes for a Nobel Peace Prize alive.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Not the Same Old, Same Old" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/opinion/not-the-same-old-same-old.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Thomas Friedman not surprisingly takes its upon himself to explain away US Secretary of State John Kerry's delusional effort to bring about a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Friedman writes:

"Israel, from its side, has become a more religious society — on Friday nights in Jerusalem now you barely see a car moving on the streets in Jewish neighborhoods, which only used to be the case on Yom Kippur — and the settlers are clearly more brazen. Many West Bank settlers are respectful of the state, but there is now a growing core who are armed zealots, who will fight the I.D.F. if it tries to remove them. You did not go to summer camp with these Jews. You did not meet them at your local Reform synagogue. This is a hard core."

Of course, this is pure nonsense. When Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005, there was violent opposition from the settlers. There was also opposition when Israel evacuated the settlement of Yamit in 1982 in order to achieve peace with Egypt. "Hard core" opposition in 2014? No, the settlers in both instances didn't go to summer camp with Tom, and they also were not members of reform synagogues. In addition, they probably also would not have voted for Obama in 2008, given his 20-year association with an anti-Semitic spiritual mentor. But "hard core"? Please spare the theatrics!

Friedman goes on to write:

"And it is not an accident that Israel’s housing minister, Uri Ariel, who comes from a pro-settler party to the right of the Likud, approved a tender for 700 homes in Jerusalem’s Gilo neighborhood, across the Green Line — just as Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace talks were coming to a head."

Some 700 new homes in Gilo caused the collapse of Kerry's folly? Oh really? As Jonathan Tobin recently wrote in a Commentary opinion piece entitled "Why Did Kerry Lie About Israeli Blame" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/08/why-did-kerry-lie-about-israeli-blame-peace-process-palestinians/):

"Kerry knows very well that the negotiations were doomed once the Palestinians refused to sign on to the framework for future talks he suggested even though it centered them on the 1967 lines that they demand as the basis for borders. Why? Because Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas wouldn’t say the two little words —'Jewish state'—that would make it clear he intended to end the conflict. Since the talks began last year after Abbas insisted on the release of terrorist murderers in order to get them back to the table, the Palestinians haven’t budged an inch on a single issue.

Thus, to blame the collapse on the decision to build apartments in Gilo—a 40-year-old Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem that would not change hands even in the event a peace treaty were ever signed and where Israel has never promised to stop building—is, to put it mildly, a mendacious effort to shift blame away from the side that seized the first pretext to flee talks onto the one that has made concessions in order to get the Palestinians to sit at the table."

Friedman concludes:

"Kerry, in my view, is doing the Lord’s work. But the weight of time and all the changes it has wrought on the ground may just be too heavy for such an act of friendship. If he folds his tent, though, Israelis and Palestinians will deeply regret it, and soon."

Of course, this is pure idiocy. Palestinian Authority President Abbas declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html):

"'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.'"

In fact, nothing has changed for Abbas over the past five years, and this logic, premised upon survival, still guides Abbas, now in the tenth year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority. Or stated otherwise, Abbas is not ready for peace.

Should Israel release additional Palestinian prisoners, i.e. murderers, to ensure that Abbas remains at the negotiating table, notwithstanding the fact that he is unwilling to sign off on a peace agreement? No way. Even if you went to summer camp with Friedman, you wouldn't want such killers roaming freely around your neighborhood.

Which brings us to the meaning of "flotz," as it pertains to things going "poof" for poor John Kerry. "Flotz" is Hebrew for fart, and I am confident that you now know more Hebrew and more about the Middle East than Tom Friedman.

Frank Bruni, "The Oldest Hatred, Forever Young": Have a Look at Your Own Newspaper!

In response to the shootings in Kansas at a Jewish community center and a Jewish retirement home over the weekend, Frank Bruni writes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Oldest Hatred, Forever Young" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/opinion/the-oldest-hatred-forever-young.html?ref=opinion):

"Our country has come so far from the anti-Semitism of decades ago that we tend to overlook the anti-Semitism that endures. We’ve moved on to fresher discussions, newer fears.

Following 9/11, there was enormous concern that all Muslims would be stereotyped and scapegoated, and this heightened sensitivity lingers. It partly explains what just happened at Brandeis University. The school had invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a celebrated advocate for Muslim women, to receive an honorary degree. But when some professors and students complained, citing statements of hers that seemed broadly derisive of Islam, the invitation was withdrawn. Clearly, university officials didn’t want their campus seen as a cradle or theater of Islamophobia.

But other college campuses in recent years have been theaters of anti-Israel discussions that occasionally veer toward, or bleed into, condemnations of Jews. And while we don’t have the anti-Semitism in our politics that some European countries do, there’s still bigotry under the surface. There are still caricatures that won’t die."

I am deeply appreciative of Bruni's honesty, but shouldn't he also be looking at The New York Times?

Read what Jonathan Tobin of Commentary has just written in an opinion piece entitled "Why Smear Israel and Whitewash Iran?" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/13/why-smear-israel-and-whitewash-iran-new-york-times/):

"But those determined to push the dubious theory that the election of Hassan Rouhani in Iran’s faux presidential election last year indicates a shift to moderation are undaunted. The New York Times has been a notable advocate for this position on both its editorial and news pages, but it surpassed itself today with the publication of a remarkable piece by two scholars alleging that not only is the Islamist regime changing but that Iran and Israel are like two ships passing in the night as the Jewish state becomes an extremist theocracy. That its thesis is an absurd libel of Israel and a whitewash of Iran is so obvious it is barely worth the effort to refute it. In short, Israel is a pluralist democracy where the rule of law prevails despite the ongoing war being waged against its existence by most of the Arab and Muslim world. Iran is a theocratic tyranny where free expression and freedom of religion are forbidden and women, gays, and minorities are brutally oppressed. Iran is also the world’s leading state sponsor of terror and its foreign policy is aimed at propping up one of the world’s worst tyrants in Syria’s Bashar Assad as well as Hezbollah and other terrorists seeking to destabilize the Middle East.

So while the argument that the Times featured today is so risible as to merit satire rather than a lengthy response, it is worth asking why the newspaper gives space to such laughable arguments."

Worth asking? Absolutely! And I have an answer. Compare Israel with a country that stones to death women for alleged adultery, hangs homosexuals and executes poets for enmity to God? Insane, but the publication of such garbage on the eve of Passover is in keeping with this newspaper's persistent need to smear the Jewish state and an unremitting tolerance of anti-Semitic declarations from two of its op-ed writers (see, for example: http://jsantisemitism.org/essays/GrossmanJSA210(4).pdf, http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-what-about-us-is-thomas.html).

Anti-Semitism in America? Bruni need look no further than his own newspaper.

The response to the tragedy in Kansas of President Obama, whose spiritual leader for 20 years was the anti-Semitic pastor, Jeremiah Wright:

"While we do not know all of the details surrounding today’s shooting, the initial reports are heartbreaking. I want to offer my condolences to all the families trying to make sense of this difficult situation and pledge the full support from the federal government as we heal and cope during this trying time."

Mr. President, we never know all of the details, but the shooting plainly involved anti-Semitism, and your less than forthright response is inadequate.

John Kerry's "Reality Check": What Happens When a Narcissist in Search of a Legacy Is Appointed Secretary of State

In a New York Times article entitled "U.S. to Reassess Status of Talks on Middle East" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/world/middleeast/kerry-says-middle-east-talks-are-at-an-impasse.html?hp&_r=0), Michael R. Gordon and Mark Landler begin by observing (my emphasis in red):

"With Israel and the Palestinians falling into a familiar cycle of tit-for-tat retribution, and a peace agreement more elusive than ever, Secretary of State John Kerry conceded on Friday that this week had been a 'reality check' for the peace process.

But more than anything, it may be a reality check for Mr. Kerry himself. After eight months of diplomacy, more than a dozen trips to the region and endless late-night negotiating sessions with both sides, Mr. Kerry was forced to acknowledge that he may have hit a wall too high even for someone with his seemingly endless optimism and energy."

Similarly, in a Commentary contentions article entitled "Reality Check? Kerry's Is Long Overdue" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/04/reality-check-kerrys-is-long-overdue-middle-east-peace-process/), Jonathan Tobin writes (my emphasis in red):

"[I]f there is anyone involved with this mess that needs a reality check, it’s Kerry.

The secretary ignored the advice of wiser foreign-policy analysts who cautioned that there was no reason to believe there was a chance of forging a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. He then plunged head first into the process convinced that he could succeed where all others had failed, all the while warning the Israelis that they would face violence and boycotts if they didn’t do as he asked. But while both Kerry and President Obama continued to praise PA leader Mahmoud Abbas as a peacemaker, it was he who always had his eye on the exit sign from the talks."

Or in a nutshell, a narcissistic Kerry, in search of a legacy, refused to read the writing on the wall.

The ironclad guiding principles of Palestinian Authority President Abbas are to be found in a declaration he made to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html):

"'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.'"

In fact, nothing has changed for Abbas over the past five years, and this logic, premised upon survival, still guides Abbas, who is in his tenth year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority.

Kerry believed that he could alter this reality. He was wrong, and now we have passed from would-be negotiations to the "blame game." Of course, America's secretary of state, who monkeyed with a tolerable status quo and made it much worse, cannot possibly share in the blame.

One More Reason Not to Read Haaretz: Peter Beinart

One more reason not to read Haaretz? Yup! I just received the following email:

"One more reason to read Haaretz

Renowned journalist and author Peter Beinart, one of the most dynamic, creative and controversial voices in contemporary U.S. politics and the American Jewish community, has joined Haaretz.

He will be writing a weekly column and other articles on the U.S.-Israel-Diaspora Jewry nexus, exclusively for our readers.

Now more than ever before, if you want to be part of the conversation, you should make your way to Haaretz.com."

Could Beinart save Haaretz? I don't think so. As Jonathan Tobin wrote in a Commentary item entitled "Beinart Book a Collossal Flop" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/03/peter-beinart-book-colossal-flop-sales-zionism/):

"Both conservative and liberal Jewish critics have panned Peter Beinart’s book about the so-called Crisis of Zionism, giving the onetime neo-liberal scribbler a series of spankings that would daunt a less conceited author. But because the disillusioned lover of Zion didn’t let his own abysmal ignorance about both Israel and the Palestinians stop him from writing a book about the topic, there’s no reason to assume he won’t go on annoying audiences with his agonized but all too predictable misgivings about the real life state of Israel (as opposed to the imaginary ideal liberal version of the Jewish state he prefers to the one where the voters reject his ideas) as he continues on a book tour far and wide. All this chatter and buzz may be giving even Beinart’s detractors the idea that he is making some headway with the public, but apparently the book-buying public, like the critics, aren’t buying it.

According to BookScan, the respected service that tabulates point-of-sales purchases of books at stores around the nation, Beinart’s much-hyped effort is a flop. Reliable sources tell us that BookScan, which is believed to capture the figures that represent about 60 percent of the book buying in the nation, has tabulated that as of this week Beinart had only sold 2,845 copies of The Crisis of Zionism. Because books that sell thousands more than that number are considered by publishers to be busts, Beinart’s ballyhooed cri-de-coeur must be considered a colossal flop. And considering that Beinart is believed to have received an advance of several hundred thousand dollars for it, one imagines that the brass at Times Books — the partnership between Henry Holt and the New York Times that published Crisis — are kicking themselves for being duped into believing the market for post-Zionist carping extended beyond the tiny group of people who will buy anything that takes a dim view of Israel.

Crisis’s current Amazon rating is 2,530. That might not be considered embarrassing for a run-of-the-mill non-fiction book. But it’s a terrible ranking for a book whose author has been feted on broadcast and cable networks in the kind of public relations blitz orchestrated by his publisher normally reserved for a blockbuster."

Given the dismal circulation of Haaretz, which is frequently quoted by Thomas Friedman and Roger Cohen, it appears that this Israeli newspaper and Beinart deserve one another.

Thomas Friedman, "Bibi and Barack, the Sequel": Obama Gives Birth to Rosemary's Baby

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bibi and Barack, the Sequel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/friedman-bibi-and-barack-the-sequel.html?hp&rref=opinion), would-be Middle East expert and Obama cheerleader Thomas Friedman informs us:

"While you need some Obama 'cool' to finalize a deal with Iran, to see the potential for something new and to seize it, you also need some Bibi crazy — some of his Dr. Strangelove stuff and the occasional missile test. The dark core of this Iranian regime has not gone away. It’s just out of sight, and it does need to believe that all options really are on the table for negotiations to succeed. So let Bibi be Bibi (up to the point where a good deal becomes possible) and Barack be Barack and we have the best chance of getting a decent outcome. Had Bibi not been Bibi, we never would have gotten Iran to the negotiating table, but without Barack being Barack, we’ll never get a deal."

Well, unbeknownst to Tom Terrific, there is no agreement with Iran. Barack Obama agreed to agree with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, and as every first year law student knows from his course in contracts (but not including Harvard-educated, Constitutional lawyers), an agreement to agree is void and unenforceable.

Why is Obama's deal an agreement to agree? Simple. As reported by The Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo (http://freebeacon.com/deal-or-no-deal/):

"Even as Iran and the P5+1 announced late Saturday night that they had reached a six-month interim deal that curbs Iran’s nuclear program while giving Tehran the ability to continue some uranium enrichment activities, it is now clear that the six-month freeze will not go into effect until the P5+1 negotiators and Iran agree to a final plan to implement the interim agreement.

'Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,' a senior administration official told the Washington Free Beacon on Monday. 'The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.'

Congressional sources confirmed that the freeze would not actually begin until the parties agree to sign a supplemental agreement that puts the framework into effect.

That means the six-month clock referenced by the administration and media has not yet started. Iran can continue its most controversial nuclear activities as negotiators work to finalize the interim deal reached over the weekend."

That's right: There is an unenforceable agreement to agree between Obama and Khamenei.

Worse still, Obama gave away the farm in order to reach this unenforceable agreement. It has now been acknowledged that pursuant to this "deal" Iran can:

• continue to enrich uranium (see: http://www.voanews.com/content/rouhani-iran-will-never-stop-enrichment/1798585.html);
• continue to build its reactor in Arak (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/27/us-iran-nuclear-arak-idUSBRE9AQ0U120131127), intended to produce enough plutonium for two atomic bombs each year;
• continue to build components for the Arak reactor off-site (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-says-work-to-continue-at-arak-nuclear-reactor-site/).

Just as bad, Obama abandoned American hostages held by Iran. As observed by Commentary's Jonathan Tobin (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/03/obamas-iran-deal-left-pastor-behind/):

"It turns out that the Mojtaba Atarodi, an Iranian scientist who was arrested in the U.S. back in 2011 for his work in trying to purchase equipment for the regime’s nuclear program, was set free in April of this year as part of the price paid by the U.S. for the start of the secret back-channel talks that led to the recent agreement. Along with three other Iranians involved in similar activity, Atarodi was sprung. According to the Daily Mail, in return President Obama got the negotiations he wanted as well as the release of two lost American hikers who were imprisoned when they strayed over the country’s border. But three Americans, including [American Pastor Saeed] Abedini and retired FBI agent Robert Levinson and former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, remain in Iranian custody (Levinson disappeared in Iran and is unaccounted for). If the president has chosen to ignore the plight of these Americans who have been wrongfully imprisoned by a tyrannical regime and left them to rot in Iranian jails, then the U.S. embrace of Iran is even more disgraceful than even its most strident critics had thought."

Yes, Obama's negotiations in Oman gave birth to a tragedy, yet Thomas Friedman would still have us know that his beloved president is "cool."

Right about now, I need something to "cool" my furor over the Obama administration's asininity and ineptitude.

New York Times Editorial, "Crisis in Egypt": A Failed Attempt at Democracy, an Obama Foreign Policy Fiasco, and More Flatulence from the Times

Where to even begin?

In a New York Times article entitled "Ambassador Becomes Focus of Egyptians’ Mistrust of U.S." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/middleeast/ambassador-becomes-focus-of-egyptians-mistrust-of-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Mark Landler writes of US ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson:

"Her image has been plastered on banners in Tahrir Square, crossed out with a blood-red X or distorted and smeared with insults. She is too cozy with Egypt's deposed president and the Muslim Brotherhood, the signs say, and should leave the country."

Although she is not to blame, Patterson is in danger, and she should leave the country post-haste. The US Department of State apparently has learned little from Ambassador Stevens's tragic death in Benghazi. But then US Secretary of State John Kerry is preoccupied with meaningless efforts at attempting to restart Palestinian/Israeli negotiations and is blind to the fires that are burning out of control elsewhere in the Middle East.

Okay, Patterson is not to blame. But then who is to blame? Jonathan Tobin provides an accurate assessment in a Commentary item entitled "The End of Obama's Brotherhood Crush" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/07/03/the-end-of-obamas-brotherhood-crush-egypt-morsi/#more-828567):

"It should be specified that events in Egypt could never be controlled from Washington. But the Obama administration bears a heavy share of the blame for a chain of decisions that first undermined an authoritarian ally in Mubarak and then paved the way for the rise of an equally authoritarian and far more hostile government led by Morsi and the Brotherhood. The identification of the United States with the Brotherhood over the last year was an unforced error on the part of Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her successor John Kerry. The willingness of the administration to buy into the myth that regimes like that of the Brotherhood and their increasingly despotic Islamic allies in Turkey are good allies made a mockery of American values as well as hindering its ability to protect U.S. interests."

Obama got too close to Morsi (he has also gotten too close to his dear Islamist friend Erdogan in Turkey), and the US will be paying the price for years to come.

In an editorial entitled "Crisis in Egypt" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/opinion/crisis-in-egypt.html), The New York Times writes:

"Despite his failings, and there were plenty, President Mohamed Morsi was Egypt’s first democratically elected leader, and his overthrow by the military on Wednesday was unquestionably a coup. It would be tragic if Egyptians allowed the 2011 revolution that overthrew the dictator Hosni Mubarak to end with this rejection of democracy."

Indeed, Morsi was the first democratically elected leader, but he did all in his power to impose the Muslim Brotherhood's radical Islamist ideology upon Egypt and brought Egypt to the brink of bankruptcy.

In an excellent USA Today piece entitled "Egypt's ailing economy is at the heart of the unrest" (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/02/egypt-morsi-economy/2482971/), Oren Dorell writes:

"Egypt's economic disaster is a result of Morsi's preoccupation with establishing political control rather then fixing the poor economy, says Marina Ottaway, says Marina Ottaway, a Middle East analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

'Economic issues have not been an issue,' Ottaway says. 'The issue has been who should be in control of the country.'

. . . .

With government debt rising, cash reserves melting away and unemployment and inflation on the rise, the regime's solution has been to seek more loans to cover expenses that include subsidies on food and fuel that help millions of Egyptians.

The government's debt to foreign and domestic debtors has grown from $30 billion before the revolution that ousted Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 to $40 billion now.

Foreign nations have propped up the regime with loans -- at least $3 billion each from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, $1 billion from Turkey, $2 billion from Libya – and the Egyptian public has bought government bonds. But the growing debt has failed to prevent the government from spending its cash reserves, which declined from $34 billion before the revolution to about $16 billion in May.

In a country of 80 million people, the cash crunch puts the government at risk of being unable to import enough food and gas for its populace, and machinery to maintain the electrical grid, [Georgetown Professor Paul] Sullivan says.

Debt payments have grown from $5 billion to $8 billion a year, while inflation is up from 3% before the revolution to 13% to 18% now, depending on the sector. The country, which should be a natural gas exporter, has had fuel shortages made worse by fuel subsidies that artificially drive up demand, while investment in new refining or production capacity has been non-existent."

As further observed by Matt Egan in a FoxBusiness article entitled "Lingering Crisis in Cairo Dims Egypt's Economic Outlook,"concerning the decimation of Egypt's critical tourism industry:

"Meanwhile, the political uncertainty threatens to weigh on Egypt’s crucial tourism sector, which accounts for about 11% of GDP and approximately 2.8 million jobs.

. . . .

According to a March 2013 report by the World Economic Forum, Egypt’s travel and tourism business already ranked behind dangerous countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Chad in terms of security and safety."

"World War Z"? No, I don't believe in zombies; however, Egypt without tourism has indeed become a walking corpse.

Of more interest is whether the military in Turkey will study events in Egypt and also ultimately act to overthrow an increasingly authoritarian regime in Ankara, as was done on more than one occasion in the past (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-turkey-protests-military-analysis-idUSBRE95B0XK20130612).

[Note that in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-that-aid-to-egypt-was-based-on-adherence-to-democratic-procedures/2013/07/03/5568586e-e430-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_blog.html?hpid=z3), Glen Kessler awards three "Pinocchios" to "Obama’s claim that aid to Egypt was based on adherence to ‘democratic procedures’." Keep up the good work, Mr. President . . .]

The Ongoing Zakaria/Hiatt/Washington Post Saga

Here is my response to Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, e-mailed on April 8, regarding Fareed Zakaria's prevarication (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/fred-hiatt-editorial-page-editor-of.html):

Dear Mr. Hiatt,

I have not heard back from you.

I went to the trouble of providing you with an undisputed factual description of the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations in 2008, refuting Zakaria's fabrication that Israel has not "offered" the Palestinians "a state for 40 years." Is it still your contention that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's offer to Abbas of a state, including East Jerusalem, was not an "offer"? Sure, the Palestinians also wanted the Israeli settlements of Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim and were not ready to accept a "swap" of other Israeli territory for these settlements, but an offer was made.

Do you prefer to continue to hide behind the platitude that the "history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is contentious"?

Okay, you don't want to embarrass Zakaria, a plagiarist. But at a minimum, it would be "nice" if someone at your newspaper were to write back and say, "Yes, Jeffrey, you have a point, and we will consider publishing a rebuttal."

But heck, this is 2013, and why should undisputed facts, as acknowledged by both The New York Times and al Jazeera, get in the way of Zakaria's opinions?

And why should you go to the trouble of responding in a meaningful way to an undisputed factual recital of events in 2008 from a Washington Post reader?

Jeffrey

Meanwhile, this abysmal conduct on the part of The Washington Post is described by Jonathan Tobin in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/04/08/no-accountability-for-fareed-zakaria-fiction-israel-palestinians/#more-822160).

Hiatt has yet to respond to my April 8 message.

Rabbis for Obama: Shame on All of You!

Recently there was a minor stir in the US national political arena, after the Democrats publicized a list of some 600 rabbis (http://www.barackobama.com/rabbis/), including those calling for a boycott of Israel, who support Obama. Obama and friends are now flaunting the list as evidence of "The President's strong support of Israel and toughest-ever actions against Iran" (see: http://www.jpost.com/USPresidentialrace/Article.aspx?id=282442).

Jonathan Tobin of Commentary yesterday called for the pro-Obama rabbis to "disavow" the "anti-Zionist" rabbis among them (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/23/rabbis-for-obama-must-disavow-anti-zionist-lynn-gottlieb/ and http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/23/obama-rabbis-must-disavow-anti-zionists-israel-boycott/). Unlike Jonathan, I am saddened by the entire lot of these rabbis, who are willing to allow Obama to use their names to evidence Obama's support of Israel, which is feeble at best, at a time when Iran and its allies are threatening Israel with extinction.

I live in Israel, I'm not religious, I'm not right wing, and I can emphatically tell you that Obama is no friend of Israel. Moreover, unlike these rabbis, I know what I'm talking about.

A few words about myself. Some 30 years ago, I ate the proverbial "bad pizza": An attorney ensconced in one of the world's leading merger and acquisition firms, I overnight decided that I owed the State of Israel a debt for providing safe haven for Jews around the world and decided to volunteer for the Israeli army. Although it had originally been my intention to do my service and return to the US, an Israeli wife and three children anchored me to the ground on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Today, at the age of 58, I remain an active reserve officer in the Israel Defense Forces, and two of my three children have completed mandatory service in elite combat units; my youngest will be enlisting in less than a year.

Make no mistake about it - Israel today is facing an existential threat. Almost a day doesn't go by without Iran labeling Israel a "cancerous tumor" which it will excise, and without Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, threatening to let fly 50,000 rockets and missiles against Israeli population centers. Add to this menace Syria's enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons, the arsenal of missiles assembled by Hamas in Gaza, and recent attacks by jihadists from Sinai against southern Israel. The situation is not pretty.

What assistance has Obama offered to Israel in the face of this threat? As I personally can confirm, there is excellent cooperation with the US army, and the Obama administration has certainly contributed to bolstering Israel's anti-rocket and missile capabilities.

On the other hand, Obama, as president, has refused to visit Israel. Soon after his inauguration, Obama visited Cairo, where he equated the Holocaust with the Palestinian "dislocation." Cairo is only a 30-minute flight from Tel Aviv, but Obama wouldn't step foot in Israel.

Obama, as president, also visited nearby Riyadh, Istanbul and Ankara. Obama tells us that Turkish President Erdogan, who is infamous for jailing opposition journalists and army officers, is one of his best friends. (By the way, since becoming president, Obama has reneged on his promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide by the Turks.) However, Obama again refused to visit Israel.

At a time when Israel is facing threats of extermination, such a visit by the President of the United States, informing the world that he's "got Israel's back," would be of enormous symbolic value, but Obama won't have any part of it.

I would like to ask the 600+ rabbis who appear on Obama's list how many times "Jerusalem" appears in the Old Testament. Answer: 669 times. Yet Obama is not even willing to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/ap-warm-reception-expected-as-romney.html).

Obama still cares for Israel? Sorry, but as acknowledged by Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (see: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/warning_turbulence_ahead), "Barack Obama is no Israel-lover," and "if the president wins a second term, expect a major clash with Benjamin Netanyahu."

More? Ask Obama for permission to see his tribute to Palestinian "activist" Rashid Khalidi, a tape of which is locked away in the offices of The Los Angeles Times (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226104/i-l-times-i-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape/andrew-c-mccarthy). There is a reason why this tape is not being allowed to see the light of day.

Still more? Consider how Samantha Power, one of Obama's closest foreign policy advisers, advocates sending US ground forces to the West Bank to protect Palestinians from Israel. In this instance, the evidence is available for everyone to see (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdt6fjdHQw).

What of President Obama's "tough" economic sanctions against Iran purportedly intended to force Tehran to forgo its nuclear weapons development program? The P5+1 negotiations with Iran have all but collapsed as Iran continues to build its first atomic bomb (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/middleeast/signs-that-iran-is-speeding-up-nuclear-work.html?_r=2&ref=middleeast), and the sanctions have been neutered by waivers issued by the Obama administration, EU indifference, and opposition from Russia and China.

By now it should be plain why Israelis, by a 2:1 ratio, believe that Romney cares more than Obama about Israel (see: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=281579). Israelis are not stupid, and their lives, unlike those of the 600+ American rabbis, are riding on the line.

I don't like it when right wing Israeli rabbis try to influence Israeli politics, given that I believe in the separation of church and state. Similarly, I am disgusted when American "social activist" rabbis, who have never served in the military and know nothing of the intricacies involving the current threat to Israel's existence, would convince American Jews of Obama's friendly posture to Israel.

If these rabbis wish to tell anyone willing to listen that Obama has been a boon to the American economy or that Obamacare is set to cure America's health care problems, this is of course their right. They can also declare their support for Obama's stance on abortion (personally, I am pro-choice and prefer Obama's position to that of Romney). But these rabbis shouldn't go telling American Jews that Obama is a friend of Israel.

He's not.

Will Israel Attack Iran?

“The tumor of Israel, which is in fact cancerous, must be removed from the region, and this will definitely happen.”

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei speaking to worshippers yesterday during prayers at the campus of the University of Tehran.

The above quote reported by Iran's Mehr News Agency (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1524218) cannot possibly be misinterpreted. Although there have been many efforts to mitigate the underlying intent of Iranian president Ahmadinejad's 2005 declaration that "Israel must be wiped off the map," there can be no mistaking what Khamenei has in mind, i.e. a second Holocaust. Moreover, according to Israeli intelligence experts, Iran would be willing to "martyr" half of its population as part of an effort to eradicate Israel.

Even without an atomic bomb in the hands of the mullahs, Israel is currently facing an arsenal of some 200,000 rockets and missiles, amassed by the allies of Iran -- the murderous Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza -- and Iran itself. In many respects this existential threat is grimmer than the stranglehold placed on Israel by Nasser prior to the 1967 Six Day War.

Jonathan Tobin of Commentary wrote yesterday (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/03/obama-leads-behind-israel-iran/#more-782751):

"Most observers have spent the past few months trying desperately to interpret the mixed signals emanating from the Obama administration on Iran."

In fact, such attempts at interpretation are futile given that the Obama administration has never had a strategy for dealing with Iran; there are now only delaying tactics intended to smooth Obama's path to re-election in November.

In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-israel-preparing-to-attack-iran/2012/02/02/gIQANjfTkQ_story.html?hpid=z2), David Ignatius observes:

"[US Defense Secretary] Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

. . . .

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack."

Ignatius further suggests that Israeli Defense Minister Barak "may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack" when Israel cancelled "Austere Challenge," a joint US/Israeli anti-missile exercise scheduled for April.

Obama and Panetta can't fathom that economic sanctions will not alter Khamenei's mindset. This is a man willing to sacrifice millions of lives in order to attain his goal of removing the profane presence of the Zionist intruder from the Muslim Middle East.

In response to Ignatius's question whether Israel is preparing to attack Iran, could Israel possibly not prepare for war in light of Iran's unequivocal goal of annihilating Israel? Given Obama's ambivalence, indecision and overriding concern with re-election, Israel may indeed have to go it alone.

Roger Cohen, "Come Home to Israel": More Unbalanced Self-Hatred

The onslaught against tiny Israel on the op-ed page of The New York Times continues. On November 18, in "The Voice of a Woman" (http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/the-voice-of-a-woman/), Shmuel Rosner highlighted instances where ultra-Orthodox Israei soldiers have walked out of performances when women began to sing. On November 22, Sarah Schulman wrote an inane piece entitled "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Sarah%20Schulman), claiming that Israel was promoting gay rights in order to disguise oppression of Palestinians. Today, Roger Cohen feeds his anti-Israel obsession in "Come Home to Israel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/cohen-come-home-to-israel.html?hp), in which he complains about a short-lived advertising campaign intended to persuade Israelis living in the US to return to Israel. Cohen begins by stating:

"I have several reactions to this little saga. The first is that I know several Israeli expatriates or would-be expatriates and their feelings are consistent. They are troubled by the illiberal drift of Israeli politics, the growth of a harsh nationalism, the increasing influence of the ultrareligious, the endlessness of the 'situation,' and the tension inherent in a status quo that will one day threaten either Israel’s Jewishness or its democracy.

They have left or seek to leave because they don’t want all that and no longer believe there is going to be significant change. The ads play to Israeli patriotism, but it’s not patriotism that expatriates lack. It’s hope that their Israel can be salvaged and a two-state peace achieved."

Cohen knows several Israeli expatriates or would-be expatriates? Fascinating. I know seven million Israelis who would not consider leaving, including many, like myself, who favor a two-state solution, hope that one day there will be a Palestinian entity willing to accept a Jewish state, and oppose any attempts by Israel's ultra-religious minority to limit their freedoms.

Cohen continues:

"My second reaction is that if Netanyahu could show a fraction of the nimbleness evident when American Jews are offended in instances where Turks are offended (by the killing of their citizens in international waters), or where President Barack Obama is offended (by ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank against his express request), or where Egyptians are offended (by Israel’s dismissal of their democratic aspirations), then Israel would be in a better, less isolated place today."

Of course, no mention that the UN's Palmer Commission determined that Israel's interception of the Mavi Marmara in international waters was lawful, although excessive force was said to have been used (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=236380). Regarding ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank which purportedly offended Obama's sensitivities, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat acknowledged, based on aerial photography, that settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/17/settlements-obstacle-to-peace/).

With respect to Israel's "dismissal" of Egypt's "democratic aspirations," the results of Egypt's recent elections, in which the Muslim Brotherhood and extremist Salafis received an overwhelming majority of the ballots cast (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/egypt-stripping-away-democratic-veil.html), speak volumes. In fact, the results of Egypt's elections should come as no surprise, given that more than three-quarters of Egyptian Muslims favor the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim faith (see: http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/). Forgive me, if I, too, dismiss Egypt's "democratic aspirations."

Cohen's op-ed comes at a time when a scandal has arisen involving a speech by Howard Gutman, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, blaming Israel for anti-Semitism (see Jonathan Tobin's excellent analysis in Commentary: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/05/gutman-anti-semtism-obam-administration/), and shortly after US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta blamed Israel, as did Cohen, for its isolation (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/world/middleeast/panetta-says-israel-must-mend-ties-with-arab-neighbors.html?_r=1&hp).

Are there problems in Israel involving racism, discrimination and inequality? Absolutely. However, Israel is a vibrant young democracy in which an independent legal system addresses these and other problems with which I have personally had to contend in Israeli courts.

Is Israel isolating itself? My answer is that no matter what concessions Israel should and ultimately will make in order to achieve peace, if and when there is finally a Palestinian counterparty able to accept Israel's existence, Israel, as a homeland to the Jews in the Middle East, will always be isolated, and there is no concession that Israel can make, other than national disbandment, i.e. suicide, that will satisfy al-Qaeda, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Salafis in Egypt, or the mullahs in Iran.

The New York Times and Israel Bashing: Yes, The New York Times Is Anti-Semitic

Consider the contributor op-eds that have been published by The New York Times in recent weeks concerning Israel. On November 18, there was Shmuel Rosner's "The Voice of a Woman" (http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/the-voice-of-a-woman/), which sought to highlight the unwillingness of some Orthodox Jews serving in the Israeli army to listen to women's voices. As observed by Rosner, "I can’t educate my daughter to serve in a military that would excise women from the public sphere to accommodate the radical demands of the super pious."

Rosner, however, described the rare exception, not the rule. My daughter serves as a medic in an elite combat unit of the Israeli army and has never once encountered a problem of the kind that Rosner depicted. I have also served some 30 years in the Israeli army as a regular soldier and a reservist and have also never encountered such a situation. Sure, what Rosner has written makes for an interesting story, and yes, there are ultra Orthodox Jews, as opposed to Orthodox Jews, who object to women singing. But the bottom line is that women form an integral, critical part of the Israeli armed forces, and their rights are honored and respected.

On November 22, The New York Times published Sarah Schulman's "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/pinkwashing-and-israels-use-of-gays-as-a-messaging-tool.html?hp). The theme of Schulman's opinion piece as described by the Times: "Israel is promoting its gay rights advances internationally to make it seem modern, veiling its violations of Palestinians’ human rights." In response, David Harris made mincemeat of Schulman in his opinion piece in The Jerusalem Post, "“Israel and ‘Pinkwashing’”: What was the New York Times thinking?" (http://blogs.jpost.com/content/%E2%80%9Cisrael-and-%E2%80%98pinkwashing%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D-what-was-new-york-times-thinking):

"Touting 'Israeli gay life' to 'conceal' the 'continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights'? Give me a break.

Does such convoluted thinking also mean that if Israel heralds its tenth citizen to win a Nobel Prize or the latest advances in life-saving medical technology, this is again nothing more than a smokescreen to distract attention from the 'real' issues, in Schulman’s mind, and needs to be blown out of the water?

. . . .

Again, let me be clear. Schulman is not the main issue here, whatever her insidious outlook.

Rather, it’s the decision of a leading newspaper to allocate coveted space to 'Israel and Pinkwashing,' whose author, described only as a professor, doesn’t even believe in Israel’s right to exist, irrespective of how it deals with gay issues. 'Whitewashing the Truth' might have been a more fitting title."

See also my blog entry, "Sarah Schulman, "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'": She Knows a Helluva Lot About Lesbianism but Little About Israel" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/sarah-schulman-israel-and-pinkwashing.html#comment-form), which expressed my surprise that even Andrew Rosenthal and friends would publish Schulman's highly politicized twaddle.

On November 25, The New York Times published Gershom Gorenberg's contributor op-ed, "Israel's Other Occupation" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/israels-other-occupation.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all), which focused on the recent "burning of a mosque in Tuba Zangaria, an Arab community in northern Israel, and the subsequent desecration of Arab graves in Jaffa." But as observed by Jonathan Tobin of Commentary in his "Contentions" piece, "Left's Critique of West Bank Settlers Doesn't Stop at the Green Line" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/27/left-settlers-galilee-jewish-majority/), in response to Gorenberg:

"Anti-Jewish violence in the West Bank is a daily occurrence that liberal journalists either choose to ignore or rationalize as justified, because they see the presence of Israelis in the territories as inherently illegitimate. The same mindset has led the press to treat a regrettable case of arson against a mosque inside Israel as a harbinger of pogroms against Arab citizens. As with the West Bank, far more numerous incidents — especially in the Galilee — in which Israeli Arabs have targeted Jews are treated as either unimportant or just ignored."

I am certainly not claiming that the authors of the above New York Times opinion pieces, which are critical of Israel, are anti-Semitic. In fact, I believe it is important to draw attention to any discrimation against women or violence directed against Israel's Arab minority. Rather, I am stating that we have witnessed an inordinate amount of "ink" spilled by The New York Times on its op-ed page over the past two weeks, using Jews and Israelis to cast Israel in an unfavorable light. How is it possible that tiny Israel merits so much negative attention from the Times? And why have there been no counterbalancing opinion pieces, highlighting, for example, Israel's scientific and cultural achievements?

According to the "working definition of anti-Semitism" of the European Forum on Antisemitism (http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/english/):

"Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

. . . .

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

Query: Which other democratic foreign nation is being subjected by The New York Times to such a barrage of criticism? For example, you will barely see reference to Turkey on the op-ed page of the Times, notwithstanding its imprisonment of journalists and discrimination against women.

The European Forum on Antisemitism states that "the overall context" must be considered when examining the issue of anti-Semitism, and I welcome such an examination. Consider my protracted correspondence with senior editors of The New York Times concerning repeated instances of the vilest expressions of anti-Semitism in online readers' comments in response to op-eds and editorials, which were posted by the "moderators" of the Times (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-brooks-op-ed-spawns-online-new.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html). Sure, after I protested the appearance of this racial abuse, some of the comments were deleted, but the ugly phenomenon continued (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/05/return-of-anti-semitism-to-new-york.html).

Have you ever seen racist online New York Times readers' comments directed against any minority other than the Jews? I haven't. Only the Jews have been deemed fair game by the Times.

In short, there is no mistaking the stench of the new anti-Semitism of the Left, wafting from the opinion pages of the moldering Gray Lady.

Gail Collins, "Mitt and Begonia-gate": More Flatulence from GC

Honestly, I didn't watch the Republican debate in Las Vegas and didn't read a transcript, although I skimmed a synopsis prepared by Jonathan Tobin in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/18/live-blog-the-gop-presidential-debate/). Perry jabbing at Romney does not preoccupy my mind.

Mitt, however, is apparently keeping several New York Times columnists awake at night. First, there was Maureen Dowd's snotty attack upon Romney's Mormon faith yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/10/maureen-dowd-anne-frank-mormon-will.html). Today, in "Mitt and Begonia-gate" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/mitt-and-begonia-gate.html?hp), Gail Collins observes that the landscaping firm that once maintained Romney's garden outside of Boston may have used undocumented workers. Collins acknowledges that Romney stopped using the firm.

Question for Gail: When you eat out, do you first strut into the restaurant's kitchen and demand to see the dishwashers' papers? I don't.

And of course there was Gail's twenty-fourth reference to the Seamus the dog story. I wonder whether Collins also constantly regales (pun intended) her friends with this anecdote at parties, if she is still being invited. Maybe Gail should assign this story a number for ease of reference and to save the verbiage.

So, if Seamus and illegal aliens trimming Romney's lawn don't arouse me, what wakes me up at night? See my next blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/10/idiopathic-pulmonary-fibrosis-and.html). Yes, there is more to our world than just Democrats versus Republicans.