Archive for October 29, 2014

Political correctness and Islam

October 29, 2014

Political correctness and Islam.

With no end in sight to Islamist violence, perhaps the time has finally come to muster up the courage and take a long, hard look at why it is afflicting dozens of countries around the world.

For much of the past 13 years, ever since al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the West has found itself confronting an increasingly dangerous foe in the form of jihadist terror.

From New York to London to Madrid, Islamic extremists have carried out brazen attacks, targeting airplanes, public transportation and, of course, innocent civilians.

They have left a trail of tragedy and bloodshed and it would appear that the struggle to defeat them is far from over.

But despite the passage of so much time, and the gallons of ink that have been spilled in reporting on their actions and analyzing their motives, there is one critical question that has been largely ignored by the mainstream press.

It is a sensitive issue, the kind that makes people shift uncomfortably in their seats and anxiously clear their throats, but it is one that must, nonetheless, finally be addressed.

Simply put: If Islam is a religion of peace, then why are so many of its followers in so many countries killing so many people with such brutality? And, no less important, why are Western leaders so insistent on telling us after each attack that Muslim terrorists are distorting Islam? Each month, literally hundreds of people, if not more, are being killed by Muslims in the name of Islam in a multiplicity of conflicts around the world.

From the streets of Baghdad to the markets of Mogadishu, and from Benghazi to Bangladesh, the frequency and ferocity of such attacks is staggering.

Consider the following: On October 23, a man armed with an axe attacked four New York city police officers, wounding two of them, before he was shot dead. The perpetrator was a Muslim radical.

The previous day, on October 22, a gunman shot and killed a Canadian soldier guarding the National War Memorial in Ottawa and then proceeded to shoot up Canada’s parliament before being killed. In this case, too, the perpetrator was a Muslim extremist.

Meanwhile, in the city of Maguindanao in the southern Philippines that same day, two soldiers were shot and killed at a hospital. The attack was carried out by four Muslim militants.

And then, of course, there was the terror attack in Jerusalem, where a Palestinian driver intentionally rammed his vehicle into a group of innocent Israelis at a light-rail station, killing three-month old Chaya Zissel Braun and 22-year old Karen Yemima Mosquera.

And the list goes on and on and on, with terror striking in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Mali and elsewhere. Muslims targeting other Muslims. Muslims targeting Christians. And Muslims targeting Jews.

Also on October 22, an Islamist suicide attacker crashed his bomb-laden car into a security checkpoint east of Benghazi, Libya, killing one person and injuring four.

On October 21, four Christians were killed, two churches were destroyed and 50 homes razed to the ground by a Muslim terrorist organization in the Nigerian village of Pelachiroma.

I think you get the point.

Despite this startling and ongoing record of violence and terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, condemnations of it by Islamic scholars are notably few and far between.

If my faith were being used in such a manner, to target and kill innocent people around the world on a daily basis, I would expect my spiritual leaders to shout from every rooftop and condemn the wrongdoers.

Why aren’t Muslims everywhere doing the same? After all, much of the violence is being carried out by extremist Islamic organizations, groups of jihadists whose inhumanity has captured the attention of the world.

In Syria and Iraq, Islamic State (IS) has set a new standard in barbarity, crucifying individuals, beheading others and selling young girls as sex slaves.

In Nigeria, the Boko Haram Islamist terrorist organization has carried out suicide attacks, bus bombings, forced conversions and kidnappings of children to further its aims.

Other Islamic groups, such as al-Shabab in Somalia, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hamas in Gaza, and the al-Mourabitoun in Mali, all employ violence and terror as well.

If their actions run counter to the spirit and law of Islam, then imams, sheikhs and ayatollahs the world over should be denouncing them at every opportunity and distancing themselves and their faith from those who kill the innocent.

But that is clearly not happening.

Moreover, each attack is followed by the same assurances from Western leaders, who go out of their way to stress that the terrorists are misrepresenting Islam and perverting its teachings.

I would love to believe that, I really would. How comforting it would be to know that the extremists are just a misguided band of butchers rooted in criminality rather than theology.

And to be sure, there are plenty of Muslims who do not engage in violence, do not support it and simply wish to live their lives and raise their children in peace.

But as the daily Islamist-inspired violence continues, wreaking havoc on various parts of the globe, isn’t it time for a frank and open discussion about the issue rather than just sloganeering? The media has shown itself to be fearless when it wants to be, taking down sacred cows and challenging accepted norms. But when it comes to exploring jihadist terror – one of the preeminent issues of our times! – the debate regarding its roots suddenly falls silent.

Obviously, we live in societies that are dominated by political correctness, which often sacrifices free speech and free inquiry for the sake of not “offending” anyone.

But the price of such an approach is that it frequently prevents people from coming to grips with the clear and unvarnished truth, inhibiting efforts to truly understand the challenges and problems that societies face.

With no end in sight to Islamist violence, perhaps the time has finally come to muster up the necessary courage and take a long, hard look at why it is afflicting dozens of countries around the world.

The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here – The Atlantic

October 29, 2014

The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here – The Atlantic.

( Goldberg’s main point seems to be that once the midterm elections are over, Obama will be free to put into effect his anti-Israel bias at the UN. One can only hope that the administration’s belief that it’s “too late” for Israel to unilaterally deal with the Iranian threat is mistaken. – JW )

The Obama administration’s anger is “red-hot” over Israel’s settlement policies, and the Netanyahu government openly expresses contempt for Obama’s understanding of the Middle East. Profound changes in the relationship may be coming.

Not friends at all (Reuters )

The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.

This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors, and is yet another sign that relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis.

The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively “unbreakable” bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it’s ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.

The fault for this breakdown in relations can be assigned in good part to the junior partner in the relationship, Netanyahu, and in particular, to the behavior of his cabinet. Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached.

For their part, Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a “red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the West Bank, and building policies in Jerusalem, that they believe have fatally undermined Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process.

Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list.)  But I had not previously heard Netanyahu described as a “chickenshit.”

I thought I appreciated the implication of this description, but it turns out I didn’t have a full understanding. From time to time, current and former administration officials have described Netanyahu as a national leader who acts as though he is mayor of Jerusalem, which is to say, a no-vision small-timer who worries mainly about pleasing the hardest core of his political constituency. (President Obama, in interviews with me, has alluded to Netanyahu’s lack of political courage.)

“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”

I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

This assessment represents a momentous shift in the way the Obama administration sees Netanyahu. In 2010, and again in 2012, administration officials were convinced that Netanyahu and his then-defense minister, the cowboyish ex-commando Ehud Barak, were readying a strike on Iran. To be sure, the Obama administration used the threat of an Israeli strike in a calculated way to convince its allies (and some of its adversaries) to line up behind what turned out to be an effective sanctions regime.

But the fear inside the White House of a preemptive attack (or preventative attack, to put it more accurately) was real and palpable—as was the fear of dissenters inside Netanyahu’s Cabinet, and at Israel Defense Forces headquarters. At U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, analysts kept careful track of weather patterns and of the waxing and waning moon over Iran, trying to predict the exact night of the coming Israeli attack.

Today, there are few such fears. “The feeling now is that Bibi’s bluffing,” this second official said. “He’s not Begin at Osirak,” the official added, referring to the successful 1981 Israeli Air Force raid ordered by the ex-prime minister on Iraq’s nuclear reactor.

The belief that Netanyahu’s threat to strike is now an empty one has given U.S. officials room to breathe in their ongoing negotiations with Iran. You might think that this new understanding of Netanyahu as a hyper-cautious leader would make the administration somewhat grateful. Sober-minded Middle East leaders are not so easy to come by these days, after all. But on a number of other issues, Netanyahu does not seem sufficiently sober-minded.

Another manifestation of his chicken-shittedness, in the view of Obama administration officials, is his near-pathological desire for career-preservation. Netanyahu’s government has in recent days gone out of its way to a) let the world know that it will quicken the pace of apartment-building in disputed areas of East Jerusalem; and b) let everyone know of its contempt for the Obama administration and its understanding of the Middle East.

Settlement expansion, and the insertion of right-wing Jewish settlers into Arab areas of East Jerusalem, are clear signals by Netanyahu to his political base, in advance of possible elections next year, that he is still with them, despite his rhetorical commitment to a two-state solution. The public criticism of Obama policies is simultaneously heartfelt, and also designed to mobilize the base.

Just yesterday, Netanyahu criticized those who condemn Israeli expansion plans in East Jerusalem as “disconnected from reality.” This statement was clearly directed at the State Department, whose spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, had earlier said that, “if Israel wants to live in a peaceful society, they need to take steps that will reduce tensions. Moving forward with this sort of action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace.”

It is the Netanyahu government that appears to be disconnected from reality. Jerusalem is on the verge of exploding into a third Palestinian uprising. It is true that Jews have a moral right to live anywhere they want in Jerusalem, their holiest city. It is also true that a mature government understands that not all rights have to be exercised simultaneously. Palestinians believe, not without reason, that the goal of planting Jewish residents in all-Arab neighborhoods is not integration, but domination—to make it as difficult as possible for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem to ever emerge.

Unlike the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, I don’t have any hope for the immediate creation of a Palestinian state (it could be dangerous, at this chaotic moment in Middle East history, when the Arab-state system is in partial collapse, to create an Arab state on the West Bank that could easily succumb to extremism), but I would also like to see Israel foster conditions on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem that would allow for the eventual birth of such a state. This is what the Obama administration wants (and also what Europe wants, and also, by the way, what many Israelis and American Jews want), and this issue sits at the core of the disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem.

Israel and the U.S., like all close allies, have disagreed from time to time on important issues. But I don’t remember such a period of sustained and mutual contempt.

Much of the anger felt by Obama administration officials is rooted in the Netanyahu government’s periodic explosions of anti-American condescension. The Israeli defense minister, Moshe Ya’alon, in particular, has publicly castigated the Obama administration as naive, or worse, on matters related to U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Last week, senior officials including Kerry (who was labeled as “obsessive” and “messianic” by Ya’alon) and Susan Rice, the national security advisor, refused to meet with Ya’alon on his trip to Washington, and it’s hard to blame them. (Kerry, the U.S. official most often targeted for criticism by right-wing Israeli politicians, is the only remaining figure of importance in the Obama administration who still believes that Netanyahu is capable of making bold compromises, which might explain why he’s been targeted.)

One of the more notable aspects of the current tension between Israel and the U.S. is the unease felt by mainstream American Jewish leaders about recent Israeli government behavior. “The Israelis do not show sufficient appreciation for America’s role in backing Israel, economically, militarily and politically,” Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, told me. (UPDATE: Foxman just e-mailed me this statement: “The quote is accurate, but the context is wrong. I was referring to what troubles this administration about Israel, not what troubles leaders in the American Jewish community.”)

What does all this unhappiness mean for the near future? For one thing, it means that Netanyahu—who has preemptively “written off” the Obama administration—will almost certainly have a harder time than usual making his case against a potentially weak Iran nuclear deal, once he realizes that writing off the administration was an unwise thing to do.

This also means that the post-November White House will be much less interested in defending Israel from hostile resolutions at the United Nations, where Israel is regularly scapegoated. The Obama administration may be looking to make Israel pay direct costs for its settlement policies.

Next year, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, will quite possibly seek full UN recognition for Palestine. I imagine that the U.S. will still try to block such a move in the Security Council, but it might do so by helping to craft a stridently anti-settlement resolution in its place. Such a resolution would isolate Israel from the international community.

It would also be unsurprising, post-November, to see the Obama administration take a step Netanyahu is loath to see it take: a public, full lay-down of the administration’s vision for a two-state solution, including maps delineating Israel’s borders. These borders, to Netanyahu’s horror, would be based on 1967 lines, with significant West Bank settlement blocs attached to Israel in exchange for swapped land elsewhere. Such a lay-down would make explicit to Israel what the U.S. expects of it.

Netanyahu, and the even more hawkish ministers around him, seem to have decided that their short-term political futures rest on a platform that can be boiled down to this formula: “The whole world is against us. Only we can protect Israel from what’s coming.” For an Israeli public traumatized by Hamas violence and anti-Semitism, and by fear that the chaos and brutality of the Arab world will one day sweep over them, this formula has its charms.

But for Israel’s future as an ally of the United States, this formula is a disaster.

An Iran deal in which both sides can claim victory

October 29, 2014

An Iran deal in which both sides can claim victory | The Times of Israel.

( It seems clear to me that the administration’s vicious attack on Netanyahu is their attempt to de-legitimize his opposition to this planed “sell out.” – JW )

Recent comments by the US nuclear negotiator suggest an agreement could be close at hand

  October 29, 2014, 6:41 am

US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman; Britain's Director General, Political, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Offic Simon Gass; Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov; German representative in the Iran nuclear talks Hans-Dieter Lucas; French Foreign Ministry Political Director Nicolas DeRiviere; and Chinese Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Wang Min, attend a E3+3 meeting on Iran's nuclear program at the United Nations in New York on September 19, 2014. (photo credit: AFP/TIMOTHY A. CLARY)

US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman; Britain’s Director General, Political, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Offic Simon Gass; Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov; German representative in the Iran nuclear talks Hans-Dieter Lucas; French Foreign Ministry Political Director Nicolas DeRiviere; and Chinese Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Wang Min, attend a E3+3 meeting on Iran’s nuclear program at the United Nations in New York on September 19, 2014. (photo credit: AFP/TIMOTHY A. CLARY)

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Is the Obama administration preparing the ground for an Iran nuclear deal — one in which both sides can claim victory?

Wendy Sherman, the top US negotiator, in an unusually detailed and optimistic speech on October 23, for the first time suggested that the pieces of a deal were in place and all that was needed was Iranian willingness to wrap it up by the November 24 deadline.

“I can tell you that all the components of a plan that should be acceptable to both sides are on the table,” Sherman, an undersecretary of state, said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies symposium here on the talks. “We have made impressive progress on issues that originally seemed intractable. We have cleared up misunderstandings and held exhaustive discussions on every element of a possible text.”

The United States and other major powers have said that a deal would have to include a tough inspections regime, disabling a plutonium reactor at the Arak nuclear facility and a sharp reduction in Iran’s enrichment capability. Sherman named the capability condition as the sticking point of “this painstaking and difficult negotiation.”

Alireza Nader, an Iran analyst at the Rand Corp., a think tank that has advised the Pentagon, said that Sherman was referring to a “red line” laid down over the summer by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini, when he said Iran would not dismantle any of its more than 19,000 centrifuges. Of those centrifuges, more than 9,000 are believed to be operational.

The United States reportedly wants that reduced to 4,500 centrifuges, which it believes will keep Iran from reaching weapons breakout ability.

“I’m not sure Iran is going to stick with that maximalist position,” said Nader, who said that in the wake of Sherman’s speech, he would not rule out a deal by November 24.

Mark Dubowitz, the director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank who has helped shape congressional sanctions on Iran and been a skeptic of the talks, said there could be creative workarounds in which both sides could claim victory on the centrifuges issue.

For instance, Dubowitz said, the pipes connecting the majority of the centrifuges could be removed and placed under supervision or destroyed. Under this plan, the Iranians could claim that all 19,000 centrifuges remained in place, while the major powers would be able to say that only a limited number are operational.

“I think President Obama clearly wants a deal, and has instructed the negotiators to get a deal, and has floated a number of creative proposals to accommodate the supreme leader’s red lines,” Dubowitz said.

Notably, Israel and its US advocates appear to have gently backed away from a previous insistence that Iran not be allowed any enrichment capacity.

Yuval Steinitz, the intelligence minister who has been Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s point man in making Israel’s case abroad on Iran, no longer explicitly calls for an end to enrichment in his advocating for a deal that would keep Iran from breakout capacity.

In an October 19 Op-Ed in The New York Times, Steinitz instead insisted that any deal should provide “clarity” on “the quantity and quality of Iran’s remaining operational centrifuges” and “the final destiny of its remaining centrifuges and their infrastructure.”

Notably, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in its latest talking points memo on Iran also backed away from explicit calls for an end to enrichment.

“Will Iran dismantle its centrifuge infrastructure so that it has no uranium path to a nuclear weapon?” AIPAC asked in outlining the conditions for an acceptable Iran deal — language that could conceivably allow for an enrichment capability, as long as it falls short of a “path to a nuclear weapon.”

Israel’s hard line on enrichment made sense, Dubowitz said.

“It’s actually helpful for the administration for the Israelis to talk about enrichment,” he said. “It helps to make the case that the enrichment has to be very, very small.”

A Foreign Ministry official in Germany, one of the six powers in talks with Iran, told JTA that a deal would “probably allow Iran more centrifuges, more enrichment than Israel would like.”

However, Tobias Tunkel, the deputy head of the division of the German Foreign Ministry that deals with Israel, said that the major powers “will make sure it is watertight that allows no breakout.”

Sherman in her speech said that if the talks fail, “responsibility will be seen by all to rest with Iran.”

Trita Parsi, the director of the National Iranian American Council, a group that has strongly backed the talks, said that positioning Iran to take the blame should the talks fail was a key message for Sherman, but added that the reverse held as well: Should Congress, spurred by pro-Israel groups, scuttle a deal, it would be blamed.

“If there is a deal and the entire world is ready for it,” he said, “it’s going to be very costly for the Congress to push against it.”

Netanyahu ‘will continue to stand for Israeli interests’

October 29, 2014

Netanyahu ‘will continue to stand for Israeli interests’ | The Times of Israel.

( If Netanyahu is “chickenshit,” what does that make Obama? – JW )

Premier’s office rejects bitter US criticism in The Atlantic, where one official called him ‘chickenshit,’ amid reports of a ‘full-blown crisis’

October 29, 2014, 4:37 am Updated: October 29, 2014, 6:20 am 24

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on October 22, 2014. (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/Flash90)Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on October 22, 2014. (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/Flash90)

The Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday rebuffed a report in The Atlantic of withering US criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where one senior US official was quoted as calling the Israeli leader “a chickenshit.”

Sources in the office told Israel Radio Netanyahu “will continue to stand for Israeli interests, and no pressure will change this.”

On Tuesday night Economy Minister Naftali Bennett responded strongly to the harsh statements by unnamed officials, calling them an affront to Jews throughout the world and urging Washington to renounce them.

A piece in The Atlantic on Tuesday said US anger at the Netanyahu government was “red hot” and that the relationship between Jerusalem and Washington was now in a “full-blown crisis,” with one senior US official calling the Israeli leader “a chickenshit” over his perceived reluctance to risk political clout for diplomatic headway with the Palestinians and moderate Arab states.

Bennett wrote on his Facebook page: “If what was written [in The Atlantic] is true, then it appears the current administration plans to throw Israel under the bus.”

“Not the leader of Syria who has massacred 150,000 of his citizens, nor the leader of Saudi Arabia who stones women and homosexuals, nor the leader of Iran who murdered demonstrators for freedom were called ‘chickenshit,’” Bennett opined.

“The prime minister is not a private person but the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world. Such severe insults towards the prime minister of Israel are hurtful to millions of Israeli citizens and Jews all over the world,” he wrote.

“Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East and has been fighting for its existence for 66 years. Israel is the forward bastion of the free world in the face of the Islamic terrorism of Islamic State, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran,” he added. “Instead of attacking Israel and forcing it to accept suicidal terms, it should be strengthened. I call on the US administration to renounce these coarse comments and to reject them outright.”

According to the report in The Atlantic, US officials increasingly see the Israeli leader as acting out of a “near-pathological desire for career-preservation” and not much more.

Writer Jeffrey Goldberg observed that the relationship between Obama, Netanyahu and their respective cabinets was “the worst it’s ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections.”

Diplomatic rhetoric has heated up in recent days as the US used strong terms to condemn Netanyahu’s Monday approval for a thousand new homes in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Israel’s continued building across the Green Line was “incompatible with their stated desire to live in a peaceful society.”

But Netanyahu rebuffed the criticism from American, European and Palestinian leaders.

“We have built in Jerusalem, we are building in Jerusalem and we will continue to build in Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said. “I have heard a claim that our construction in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem makes peace more distant. It is the criticism which is making peace more distant.”