Israel: An Ugly Start to the New Year

Determined to dash what little hope exists for Obama's peace talks, Hamas ushered in the Jewish New Year with Qassam rockets and mortar attacks aimed at Israeli civilian targets. In one instance, a disaster was narrowly averted:

"Thursday's rocket attacks comes after a mortar shell landed near several children's school buildings on Wednesday in a Sha'ar Hanegev regional council kibbutz, some 30 minutes prior to the students' scheduled arrival."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=187641

The world's response? Silence. Meanwhile, new flotillas are being planned to break the arms embargo on Gaza (http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/main/showNews/id/9514).

In tandem and emboldened by Obama, the closet racists of the left continue to test the receptiveness of the U.S. electorate to anti-Semitism with new excesses. Recently The New York Times again unashamedly published anti-Semitic readers' comments (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/charles-blows-obama-and-jews-part-2.html), while its editorial board smeared Netanyahu as a "master manipulator" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/anonymous-anti-semitism-from-editorial.html). As such, it came as no surprise when The New York Times editorial board declared, "We have long been skeptical that Mr. Netanyahu really wants a [peace] deal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/opinion/04sat2.html?hp).

Now Time Magazine is joining the miscreant chorus.

In its September 13 edition, Time Magazine's cover consisted of a large Jewish star consisting of daisies, and in its center the title of the lead story, "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace." An online, abbreviated version of this story by Karl Vick, Time Magazine's new Jerusalem Bureau Chief(http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2015602,00.html) shows Israelis smoking a hookah at the beach, and emphasizes how la dolce vita Israelis are preoccupied with making money instead of seeking peace with their neighbors.

Vick seeks to prove his thesis with the following observation:

"Asked in a March poll to name the 'most urgent problem' facing Israel, just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty. Israeli Arabs placed peace first, but among Jews here, the issue that President Obama calls 'critical for the world' just doesn't seem — critical."

Strange. I always thought that "national security" and the "conflict with the Palestinians" were largely tantamount, and the two categories combined would probably top the list, but obviously Vick had a particular storyline in mind and could not be bothered with such trivialities.

Needless to say, Vick never spoke with me. Like most who have served in combat units in the IDF and have seen the horrors of war, I dream every night of peace, but wake each morning to the barbarism of Ahmadinejad, Assad, Qaddafi, Nasrallah, Mashal and their cohorts.

Like Obama, Vick lacks the maturity to comprehend that not every problem is susceptible to an instantaneous solution. Europe suffered hundreds of years of wars that killed tens of millions of people, and we can only hope that Europeans have now come to their senses. Similarly, the Middle East may not be ready for an overall peace solution, particularly given Iranian aspirations for hegemony over the region, and as such, we can only make the best of a bad situation, keep the spirit of peace alive, and try to survive.

On his CNN television program "Reliable Sources", host Howard Kurtz asked Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel about this inflammatory cover picture featuring the Star of David and the accompanying story:

KURTZ: Let's talk about your magazine, "TIME," of course, published by CNN's parent company, Time Warner.

You have moved from more classic news magazine, Henry Luce-style approach to the news, to what you call reported analysis. A cover story in the new issue? Here it is, "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace."

Is that example of reported analysis?

STENGEL: Yes. I mean, look, in so many way, Howie, as you know, the news, the information itself, has become a commodity. What we offer is insight, analysis, putting the news -- putting what you already know in perspective.

So, to take the example of this week's cover story about Israel, you know, what we did is we sent our correspondent there, and he basically went around and he said, you know, people in Israel don't care about peace. They're happy. The society is prosperous. GDP is growing. They don't regard the Palestinians as a threat.

To me, this is giving people a kind of look around the bend. It's a kind of conceptual scoop which I think we can provide that a lot of news outlets can't provide. So that's the idea.

KURTZ: But the headline is a bit of a marketing gimmick, because it suggests that Israel doesn't want to participate in the peace process, despite the meetings that started this week in Washington. And when you read the story it's as you described. So, obviously, you're trying to draw people in with a provocative headline?

STENGEL: Yes, it's provocative headline, it's provocative thesis. I mean, there are plenty of people who argue, as you know, Howie, that, in fact, Netanyahu is just giving the appearance that he actually wants peace, and to negotiate, because really he wants the U.S. to help him with Iran. And that may in fact be true.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/05/rs.01.html

"It may be true"? Are we to understand that Time Magazine is no longer in the business of reporting news, but rather engaged in titillating its readership with obscene theories to which "plenty of people", i.e. radical leftists, adhere? Today, apparently there is no longer a need for journalistic ethics given Time Magazine's pursuit of "conceptual scoops".

In my view, anti-Semitism for once-respected publications has become a form of pornography intended to tickle the fancy of their readerships. However, is the motivation of the publishers of The New York Times and Time Magazine strictly pecuniary? Do they believe that by fueling hatred, they will maintain their circulation and avoid bankruptcy? Or does the pathological anti-Semitism that is penetrating their pages also flow deeply in their veins, and do their editors now feel freer than ever to infect others with the disease?

Thomas Friedman's "Saudi Time": A Sure-Fire Peace Proposal! . . . Not

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "Saudi Time" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08friedman.html?hp), Thomas Friedman calls upon King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to take the lead role in bringing about Middle East peace. Friedman writes:

"Some eight years ago, in February 2002, I interviewed then-Crown Prince-now-King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at his horse farm outside Riyadh. I shared with him a column I had written — suggesting that the Arab League put forth a peace plan offering Israel full peace for full withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem for a Palestinian state — when he feigned surprise and said: 'Have you broken into my desk?' The Saudi leader said he was preparing the exact same plan and offered it up — 'full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations.'”

Friedman concludes:

"King Abdullah should invite Mr. Netanyahu to Riyadh and present [his peace plan] to him personally."

Personally, I would take the Abdullah-Friedman Plan a few steps further . . .

After Netanyahu arrives in Riyadh, signs off on Abdullah's peace plan, and is given a tour of Mecca, we should expect Hamas, Iran's proxy in Gaza, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis), to stop firing mortar shells, rockets and missiles (some 11,000 since 2001) into Israel.

And when a "rogue" Hamas operative fires a shoulder-held missile at a 747 landing at Ben Gurion Airport (some five miles from Israel's border with the Palestinian Authority -- Israel is only 9 miles wide at its waist) and sends the jet crashing to the ground, Israel will simply accept the provocation as one of the risks it took for peace.

And Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, will turn its arsenal of 50,000 rockets and missiles aimed at Israel, over to the Lebanese government.

And Saudi Arabia's own war with Shiite rebels, backed by Iran, in Yemen's northwest Saada province, which has left 175,000 people homeless, will end overnight.

And Saudi Arabia will stop lashing and handing out prison sentences to women who have been gang raped.

And Libya will no longer celebrate the release from prison of Lockerbie bombers.

And the killing of Black Africans (some 400,000 murdered) by Sudan's Arabs will suddenly end.

And 35 million Kurds, living in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, will be granted statehood, thus putting an end to years of pillage and atrocities directed against them.

And Iran will stop imprisoning and executing its peaceful Baha'i minority, grant homosexuals the basic human rights to which they are entitled, and stop stoning to death women for alleged adultery.

And throughout the Muslim Middle East, there will be an end to "honor killings" against women, and those guilty of murdering their wives, daughters and sisters will be punished.

Quickly, Bibi! I'll drop by your house later today, and let's make those flight reservations to Riyadh!

CGEN-15001, Predictive Discovery and the Choice Facing Big Pharma

In recent months, Israeli drug discovery company Compugen has issued two press releases concerning a new therapeutic drug candidate, CGEN-15001, targeting multiple sclerosis ("MS") and other autoimmune diseases. As stated by Compugen in its July press release:

"[A]dministration of CGEN-15001 in an animal model of multiple sclerosis (MS) has been shown to completely abolish spontaneous relapses. In addition, administration of this novel molecule prior to disease onset demonstrated a pronounced delay of disease onset and a significant decrease in disease symptoms. These results, together with complementary results from earlier studies, strongly support a significant potential therapeutic utility for CGEN-15001 in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, inflammatory bowel disease, and type 1 diabetes."

http://www.cgen.com/Content.aspx?Page=press_releases&NewsId=498

Although there can be no assurances whether these very early stage, preclinical results will ultimately translate into a new drug destined to alleviate the symptoms and suffering associated with MS and other autoimmune diseases, Compugen, in my opinion, has nevertheless achieved something quite remarkable:

• Compugen predicted and verified the existence of CGEN-15001T, a heretofore unknown member of the B7/CD28 protein family, which has been intensively picked over in the search for immune regulation candidates.
• CGEN-15001T in and of itself constitutes a promising antibody therapeutics target for cancer.
• The discovery of CGEN-15001T promptly led to the identification by Compugen of CGEN-15001, a soluble recombinant fusion protein comprised of the extracellular region of CGEN-15001T, which, as reported in the above Compugen press release, underwent testing in an animal model of MS.

As commonly known, autoimmune diseases entail the body attacking its own cells, and treatment usually consists of drugs intended to weaken the body's immune response with all the attendant dangers. Compugen, however, has stated that CGEN-15001 is expected to be devoid of general immunosuppressive effects and therefore have a decreased risk of opportunistic infections. How is this possible?

CGEN-15001 is thought to act as a "negative costimulator", and like other negative costimulators, it is thought to target tolerance breakdown, i.e. eliminate activated autoreactive cells and directly block the deleterious effects of self-reactive immune cell function in autoimmune diseases. This anticipated specificity, which does not target the B7/CD28 pathway, is expected to eliminate general immunosuppressive effects.

Equally remarkable, as reported in Compugen's July press release, Professor Stephen Miller of Northwestern University has stated with respect to CGEN-15001:

"These studies have also demonstrated that CGEN-15001 has the unique ability to inhibit proliferation, differentiation, and cytokine production of pro-inflammatory Th1 and Th17 responses while at the same time sparing or actually promoting regulatory Th2-derived cytokines. As far as I am aware, this potentially very beneficial pattern of inhibiting Th1/Th17 while promoting Th2 responses is unique among the reagents targeting the B7 family of co-stimulatory molecules that have been published to date.”

Shifting from a Th1 to a Th2 immune response would clearly prove beneficial in MS and other autoimmune diseases, since Th2 cells limit the proliferation of Th1/Th17 autoreactive pro-inflammatory cells and thereby protect the central nervous system.

But what about the bigger picture? Quite apart from their modes of action, the discoveries of CGEN-15001T and CGEN-15001 amount to powerful validation of the coming of age of predictive discovery. How is Big Pharma to react?

Obviously, there will be those R&D departments that feel threatened by this new science, capable of rendering their methodology, built over the course of decades at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, anachronistic. These departments will rejoice at any perceived failure or shortcoming involving the new science.

Other R&D departments, however, will embrace predictive discovery and seek out new modes of collaboration, particularly involving their cutting-edge testing capabilities.

In my opinion it's ultimately going to come down to a matter of accepting the inevitable, and those organizations willing to adapt to the rigors of predictive discovery are most likely destined to succeed.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in mid-September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Compugen.]

The Obama Middle East Peace Initiative: Destined to Fail

There were some glorious photo ops in Washington last week with Obama, Netanyahu, Abbas, Mubarak and King Abdullah II striding down long carpeted corridors wearing serious faces. Hillary, seated between Netanyahu and Abbas, smiled like the Cheshire cat. Tony Blair, flown into town as the representative of the Quartet, added his imprimatur to the festivities. But the necessary groundwork had not been laid by the bungling Obama administration, and all, unfortunately, is destined to come to naught.

The Palestinian Authority, i.e. Fatah, does not want an agreement, at least not now, and until they are ready, it simply isn't going to happen, no matter what goodies Washington offers them. Why? Because if you want peace in the Middle East, you need to be willing to die for peace. Anwar Sadat died for peace. King Hussein of Jordan proclaimed his readiness to die as a martyr for peace. Abbas, on the other hand, is planning to die peacefully in his bed, many years hence.

Examine the contradictory confused responses coming from Fatah in the aftermath of the Washington hafla (Arabic for party or celebration). Already being branded a traitor, Abbas is searching under the carpet for an excuse to abandon the talks. On Monday, Palestinian newspaper Al Quds reported that Abbas has now stated that if pressured on borders and refugees, he "will take his bags and leave," and Netanyahu was forced to call Abbas to coax him back to the negotiating table (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=187294&R=R1).

Meanwhile, Abbas's cronies also can't decide on which side of the fence they should be standing:

"Following last week’s ceremony in Washington, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, gave a series of interviews to various media outlets.

In one interview, he was quoted as saying that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was not serious about reaching peace with the Palestinians and that his only goal was to waste time. Erekat later issued a denial, saying his words had been taken out of context.

* * * *

Making statements and denying them, often within hours, has become almost a daily event in the politics of the PA. The latest example was that of Fatah’s Muhammad Dahlan, who, in an interview with an Arab newspaper on Sunday, denounced Netanyahu as a 'swindler.'

After his remarks were published in Israel, the former security commander rushed to issue a denial, claiming that his words had been taken out of context."

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=187357

Iran and Syria, via their proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, will be fighting tooth and nail against any potential peace arrangement, and it is no accident that a Qassam rocket fell on the southern Israeli town of Sderot this morning.

Syria has historically opposed any Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement, which comes, in their belief, at the expense of a Syrian-Israeli arrangement, which, again in their belief, takes precedence.

But the bigger picture involves Iranian, i.e. Shiite, nuclear aspirations and the opposition of the Sunni Arab bloc to any attempt by Tehran to achieve hegemony in the region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are all callous to Palestinian interests, and Abbas for them is no more than an expendable pawn.

Obama specializes in photo ops, and wonderful photographs were taken of the American president pretending to play diplomat extraordinaire. However, expectations on the Palestinian street have now been created, and when the talks ultimately fail, we will be hearing in the suks of Ramallah, Hebron and Nablus, "I told you so."

Will we then see a resurgence of Hamas? A new intifada? I hope not.

"Another Start for Peace Talks": The New York Times Again Reveals Its Bias and Folly

The New York Times appears desperate to create an Obama diplomatic success.

Having earlier labeled Netanyahu a "master manipulator", today, in an op-ed entitled "Another Start for Peace Talks" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/opinion/04sat2.html?hp) The New York Times editorial board informs us, "We have long been skeptical that Mr. Netanyahu really wants a deal." Again, The New York Times misses the bigger picture and reveals its bias and folly.

The New York Times editorial board ignores Abbas's recent declaration:

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html

The New York Times is only skeptical whether Netanyahu "really wants a deal"?

Apparently unaware of the current, de facto cooperation that exists between Israel and Fatah, which has resulted in security collaboration, the elimination of check points, and rapidly expanding West Bank economic growth (anticipated 8% growth in GDP in 2010), the New York Times editorial marvels that Netanyahu and Abbas so easily shook hands. However, it is easy to strike the "right tone" at festive dinners in Washington, which do not demand discussion of core issues.

Almost every Israeli, including Netanyahu, wants a negotiated peace with the Palestinians, but there are a host of issues demanding resolution, e.g., Jerusalem, refugees, borders, Israeli settlements, demilitarization of the West Bank, the binding effect of any potential agreement upon Gaza, and basic recognition of Israel's right to exist.

Ultimately, any agreement depends upon Netanyahu's ability to demonstrate to the Israeli electorate that Israel's security is safeguarded by the deal, and Abbas's belief that such agreement will not be deemed a "sell-out" by the Palestinian and Arab streets and result in his assassination.

Also ignored by The New York Times are the 50,000 rockets and missiles supplied by Iran and Syria to Hezbollah, now located under schools, mosques, hospitals and homes throughout Lebanon. The likelihood of a war initiated against Israel pursuant to Iran's instructions, involving Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, is high, and any such conflict will delay negotiations between Israel and Fatah, pending its resolution.

The Ground Zero Mosque: Let's Perform a Stress Test

In an editorial in today's New York Times entitled "Mistrust and the Mosque", dissatisfaction is expressed with the findings of a poll which has determined that "New York City sadly harbors a robust disapproval of the proposal to build a mosque near ground zero" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03fri1.html?hp). My response to my friends at The Times:

Economists often examine the risk of various situations by performing what is called a "stress test": they introduce extreme variables and determine how the system will react.

Suppose we perform a "stress test" in this situation and postulate that Osama bin Laden is funding the mosque and community center. Would The New York Times editorial board still support this construction project? Answer: No.

Ridiculous? Sure, Osama bin Laden is almost certainly not funding the construction. Fine, so tell me who are the mysterious donors providing $100 million - funds which could be better used for Pakistani flood victims - for this 15-story building?

Without the names of the donors, I believe the opposition of an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers is entirely rational.

The editorial board of The New York Times refuses to recognize that there might be an inkling of reason underlying majority opposition to the construction at this location, and it is no wonder that the Grey Lady, bled white by readers who have canceled their subscriptions, already has one foot in the grave.

Obama Lays Ambush for Netanyahu in Washington

In an August 31, 2010 New York Times op-ed entitled "A Peace Plan Within Our Grasp", Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, called for the positioning of an international force in the West Bank to provide Israel with its requisite security needs:

"I recognize that Israel has legitimate security needs, needs that can be reconciled with the Palestinians’ just demand for a complete withdrawal from occupied territory. Egypt believes that the presence of an international force in the West Bank, to be stationed for a period to be agreed upon by the parties, could give both sides the confidence and security they seek."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/opinion/01mubarak.html

These seemingly moderate words, carefully drafted for Mubarak, are minatory and fraught with danger for Israel, as amply evidenced by the recent incident on the Israeli-Lebanese border, when the removal of a tree on the Israeli side of the border, coordinated in advance with UNIFIL, resulted in the assassination of an Israeli lieutenant colonel by the Lebanese army.

The proposal is also naive, as demonstrated by the brutal murder of four Israeli civilians, including a pregnant woman, on Tuesday evening, and the subsequent shooting attack on Wednesday, resulting in the wounding of two Israeli civilians, one critically; Hamas has taken "credit" for both of these incidents. Would a force such as UNIFIL be able to frustrate such attacks or ultimately apprehend the perpetrators? As a matter of well-reasoned principle, Israel cannot allow anyone else to assume responsibility for its security.

From where did Mubarak's fatuous solution, published by The New York Times, arise? What is being orchestrated here? You would have to be daft to believe that Obama brought together all of these notables for an amorphous discussion lacking an endgame result.

Consider how The New York Times has become the semi-official organ of the Obama administration, ready to publish the president's op-eds, and prepared to buttress the president when his foreign policy has come under fire, for example, by the Washington Post (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamas-new-york-times-op-ed-lingering.html).

Consider also how U.S. National Security Adviser General James Jones, known for his hostility to Israel, has long advocated an international presence in the West Bank:

"General James Jones, whom U.S. President-elect Barack Obama is widely expected to tap as his national security adviser, supports the deployment of an international force in the West Bank instead of the Israel Defense Forces. He also opposes Israel's demand to retain extensive security control over the territories even after a Palestinian state is established."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/candidate-for-u-s-security-adviser-wants-nato-force-in-west-bank-1.257968

An ambush was indeed awaiting Netanyahu in Washington, whose blow would have been softened by the award of military hardware and promises involving future regional contingencies. But all has now come to naught, given that Netanyahu, following the West Bank murders, cannot possibly bring home any such proposal to the Israeli electorate.

"The best laid schemes of mice and men go oft awry . . ."

Better hope Obama is ready with a less ambitious plan "B", because when plan "A" unravels, the resultant disappointment on the Palestinian street will discredit Abbas's Fatah and strengthen Hamas, which, with Iranian approval (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-to-stage-anti-israel-rallies-amid-peace-talks-in-washington-1.311718), has done its utmost to undermine these talks in word and horrifying deed.