Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Archive for the ‘Politics & Society’ Category

N.Y. City Council Votes to Add Muslim Holidays to School Calendar

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

Quick, someone get Daniel Pipes, the Islamists are restless.  It appears they’re about to take over the NYC school system and perhaps even the City Council.  How else to explain that the Council voted with only one nay to add the two most important Muslim holidays to the school calendar.

The only city official standing in the way of the adoption of the measure is the mayor, who remains to be convinced that a religious group comprising 12% of the school population deserves to have its own holiday recognized by the city.  If Mayor Bloomberg is smart he’ll get those trusty Islamist-busters, Pipes and Stop the Madrasa on the case.  In short order, they make a total mess out of the situation and have Jews and Muslims at each others throats.  Which is just as it should be, right?

What puzzles me is that Bloomberg, who is up for re-election, doesn’t seem to be able to do the math: there are 600,000 Muslim voters in N.Y.  To diss them doesn’t seem like an optimal election strategy.  Furthermore, this comment isn’t going to help things:

The mayor told reporters before the vote that not all religions could be accommodated on the holiday schedule, only those with “a very large number of kids who practice.”

“If you close the schools for every single holiday, there won’t be any school,” he said.

Of course, Bloomberg is also thinking about the flack he’ll catch from the Muslim-haters among the 2-million Jewish voters.  So I guess Mike’s solution is to ignore the Muslims and hope they’ll just go away.  That oughta work.

Barak Meets Mitchell, Result–’Bupkis’ (Nothing)

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009
Smiles belie disagreements between Israel and U.S. (AP)

Smiles belie disagreements between Israel and U.S. (AP)

Last week, Bibi Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with George Mitchell in Paris. Shimon Shiffer of Yediot Achronot reported that Mitchell cancelled and told the Israelis to come back when they had something real to put on the table. The result was Ehud Barak’s half-baked settlement freeze “compromise,” which had the legs cut out from under it by half the members of the senior ministerial committee that considered it, before Barak even presented it to the Americans.  Such is the fragmented, dysfunctional nature of the current Israeli government.

Anyway, Israel’s Mr. Smith went to Washington and met with Mitchell today and the result was…bupkis–nothing.  But what’s really interesting is to see how two Israeli reporters report the same event.  Let’s start with the more credible version from Maariv’s Meirav David (in Hebrew):

According to Barak, the meeting was positive.  But by its conclusion there was no resolution of the disagreement between Israel and the U.S.  Barak tried to persuade Mitchell to open a more comprehensive regional peace process [rather than dealing with settlements].

Those in Barak’s party agreed that in the longer-term it will be necessary for Israel to agree to a formulation which will stop settlement construction.  But in the course of the meeting neither Mitchell nor Barak succeeded in finding a satisfactory formulation.

Now note how Haaretz’s Barak Ravid reports the same meeting:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and U.S. special Mideast envoy George Mitchell agreed during their talks in New York this week that Israel must take action toward easing access for Palestinians in the West Bank and halting settlement activity.

Their four-hour discussion brought Israel and the United States closer to ending its dispute over settlement construction, a source close to Barak said.

Mitchell did not explicitly tell Barak that Israel must impose a complete freeze on settlements – as the U.S. has been demanding – but rather emphasized that Jerusalem must take “action” on the matter, according to a Defense Ministry statement following the talks.

Asked whether Israel would declare a temporary settlement building freeze, Barak told reporters following the meeting: “I think that it’s a little bit too early to predict.

While significant progress was made in the talks, said the source close to Barak, differences remain over a number of subjects.

“There is still disagreement, but the direction is positive and there is a good dialogue,” a source close to the defense minister said.

First, Ravid has told you that Barak’s “freeze-lite” proposal either wasn’t even floated at the meeting or wasn’t taken seriously when it was.  Second, Ravid has spun the meeting with some positive flim-flam that has absolutely no basis in fact.  You read his article and find me one concrete factual development that accords with the positive spin he’s given to the story.  Then, keep in mind that the Maariv reporter more accurately noted there essentially was no agreement on anything of substance.  The only thing they agreed on was that Mitchell would be back in the Middle East in two weeks.  Big deal.

Third, the notion that Mitchell didn’t tell Barak that Israel had to impose a total settlement freeze is preposterous on its face.  After all, this IS declared U.S. government policy.  To believe that Mitchell would not have reiterated the stated policy of his own government is to say that Mitchell is an incompetent envoy.  And believe me, Mitchell is NOT incompetent.

So as far as Ravid’s report is concerned, it’s simply not credible.  Among close observers of the Israeli media Ravid is a reporter known for having extremely cozy relationships with his establishment govenrment sources.  In such an environment, reporters and sources scratch each others’ backs and the former tailor reporting to make their sources look as good as possible.  It appears that Meirav David doesn’t feel the need to do this, bless him.

H/t Sol Salbe.  Comment is Free today published my take on the meeting, Settlement Freeze Fraud, which was written yesterday before it had taken place.  As usual the comment thread with a few exceptions has been monopolized by pro-Israel rightists and a bit of reason and light from those with a different perspective would be helpful.

Israel’s Freeze Fraud

Monday, June 29th, 2009

Ethan Bronner writes in today’s NYT that senior Israeli officials say Ehud Barak will come to Washington Tuesday and offer what I’m calling “freeze-lite.” That is, a partial, temporary (as in, the blink of an eye) settlement freeze which Israel is naturally calling, according to Bronner’s formulation, “a complete freeze.” The problem? It isn’t complete. Not by a long-shot. Just note this sentence from Bronner’s second paragraph:

The freeze would not affect construction that was already under way, nor include East Jerusalem.

Well, that’s a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through. A settlement freeze that omits East Jerusalem is like Peter Stuyvesant purchasing Manhattan from the Indians, excluding Central Park.

Bronner is clearly a “believer” in this offer, as he characterizes it thus:

While such an offer falls short of President Obama’s demand that Israel halt all settlement building now, it is the most forthcoming response that senior Israeli officials have given to date and suggests that American pressure is having some effect.

Again, the phrase “some effect” is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Unless Israel agrees to a full settlement freeze that includes all portions of the Territories including East Jerusalem, then American pressure is not having enough of an effect. The same holds true of freezing all current construction.

In the report, the Israelis tell Bronner that 2,000 housing units are under construction and would be completed. That’s not a drop in the bucket. And it’s likely many of those units are in Maale Adumim, a prime area of contention, whose ‘thickening’ by Israeli builders and planner is a primary impediment to a territorially-contiguous Palestinian state.

I realize that Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem poses particular political problems for an Israeli government since, if it did agree to a freeze in East Jerusalem, it would be tacitly conceding that East Jerusalem is the same as the rest of the Territories. But this is Israel’s problem and not ours. It annexed East Jerusalem against the explicit wishes of the U.S. and most of the rest of the world. So now it will have to eat that crow if it wishes to get on board with the Obama administration.

Barak himself is always good for sheer chutzpah and effrontery and doesn’t disappoint here:

“Many Israelis fear that what Palestinians want is not two states but two stages,” meaning an end to Israel in phases. He also said that by focusing solely on settlement building and not on what the Arab countries should also be doing for peace, Israel felt that it was being driven to its knees and delivered to the other side rather than asked to join a shared effort.

He’ll have to pardon our collective jaws dropping at that whopper.  Israel “being driven to its knees?”  By a settlement freeze?  Puh-leeze.  Barak conveniently forgets that the Arab League has already offered simultaneous mutual recognition to Israel if it withdraws to 67 borders.  But what has Israel offered that anyone can take seriously?  Gorsnisht.

I don’t even know whether Bronner realizes that in this passage, discussing Israel’s conquest of the Territories in the 1967 war, he reveals himself as a Revisionist:

…Taking the West Bank, previously held by Jordan, fired the collective imagination in Israel because so much of it — including the cities of Hebron, Nablus and Jericho — was part of the biblical Jewish homeland that Zionism sought to reclaim.

Parse that carefully:  Zionism sought to reclaim the “biblical Jewish homeland.”  That’s pure Jabotinsky.  In truth, David Ben Gurion accepted Partition, which meant precisely the opposite of what Bronner is claiming.  Not to mention that aside from the Revisionists, mainstream Zionism never felt it needed the entirety of the “biblical Jewish homeland” in order to establish the State of Israel.  I suppose one could argue that Bronner phrased this awkwardly and didn’t mean to say that Zionism wanted to reclaim the “biblical Jewish homeland,” at least not necessarily in its entirety.  But when you write about a subject as freighted as this, you must be careful and nuanced.  If not, you leave yourself open to all sorts of mischief, which is what this journalist does regularly in his reports.

And lest anyone claim that Bronner is not an apologist for Israeli policy, read this passage:

Israel says the real problem is Arab rejection of its existence in any borders at all…

Excuse me?  The 2002 Saudi offer explicitly offered Israel Arab recognition.  Syria is practically clamoring to recognize Israel if it returns the Golan.  The PLO has for several decades recognized Israel.  So what is Bronner “on” about??  Once again I ask in vain–if Bronner doesn’t want to write more carefully about these delicate issues isn’t there an editor in the house to do so for him?

Ever the cheeky one, Barak has more.  Here he touts Israel’s ‘generosity’ toward the Palestinians:

It has formed a ministerial committee headed by Mr. Netanyahu aimed at starting economic projects in the West Bank.  It has also given the Palestinian security forces greater freedom of action in the past couple of weeks.

Mr. Barak presented such steps as examples of concessions Israel had already made that deserved recognition from Washington and Arab leaders.

Wow, you set up a government committee and hand over a few IDF roadblocks to PA security forces and all of a sudden you’re ready to make peace with the Palestinians.  Israel has zero credibility on these issues and so will have to do much better before the Arab states will risk being burned by offering anything to Israel in response to such alleged “good faith.”

Mark Sanford’s King David Complex

Saturday, June 27th, 2009
Mark and Maria: but wholl play them in the movie?

Mark and Maria: but who'll play them in the movie?

One of the purposes of this blog is to expose those who abuse the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for cheap political gain. To that, I’d now like to add a new campaign against those who exploit the Hebrew Bible for the purpose of making moronic analogies to their own personal peccadilloes and predilections.

Sanford then compared himself to the Bible’s David, who slept with another man’s wife, had him killed and then married the woman.

“He fell mighily. He fell in very significant ways but was able to pick up the pieces,” Sanford said.

About the only thing you can say on behalf of Sanford is that his inamorata was already divorced, so luckily there was no competing husband for him to kill off. Imagine if there were??!

But does this King David analogy mean that after Sanford resigns, we can expect to see him reborn and newly remarried to his Argentine Spitfire and living somewhere out on the Pampas? Maybe he can earn his living organizing Argentine trade missions for U.S. state governments. Though I think he should eliminate the R&R portion of those junkets.

McCain, Graham Clamor for Punishing Iran Sanctions

Thursday, June 25th, 2009


The shame of the neocons continues.  Now it’s Iran.

Democracy Now broadcast a terrific news segment today with Hamid Dabashi, an Iranian academic, who has an op ed in today’s Times, Looking for Their Martin Luther King.

Amy Goodman includes in her report two horrifying quotations from John McCain and Lindsay Graham:

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Why don’t we take a UN resolution, lead it, author it, condemn this regime for the way they treated their people and the way they foster terrorism, take it to the Security Council of the United Nations, and ask for a vote? Why don’t we call for tougher sanctions on this regime, because it will help the people down the road? Even though it may hurt now, it will help them later. We can do what we can—I can’t promise you an outcome, but I can promise you this, that as the leader of the free world, the President of United States, when he speaks, people listen. And we need to not only speak more forcefully, we need to act more forcefully.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: We should marshal the world’s opinion and forces and maybe enact sanctions or other measures that need to be taken. Let’s hope and pray that this tyrannical government will draw back some. You know, there are defining moments, Larry. And what happened to this brave young woman Neda, as we—millions of us have seen her death on the street in Tehran, is—I think may be a defining moment and may signal, in the view of historians, the real end of this tyrannical regime.

There are a few important points to be derived from these statements.  First, the neocons are coming perilously close to advocating actual intervention in Iran.  Note McCain’s use of the term “or other measures.”  Beyond sanctions, what other measures can there be but intervention?  In fact, McCain calls for the end of “this tyrannical regime.”  How would he bring that about if not through intervention?  He appears to believe that the death of Neda will signal the end.  But he can’t possibly believe that the death of one person, no matter how powerful a symbol she might become, will bring the end of the regime.  No, that will require some Cheney-like interventionist machination on our part.

In my opinion, the Republicans have taken overdoses of testosterone when it comes to Iran.  They’re subject to this “mine is bigger than yours” syndrome in regards to Obama’s carefully nuanced Iran policy.  It’s a game of oneupsmanship as far as they’re concerned.  The goal is to change the terms of the debate so Obama has to engage on their terms rather than his own.  I hope to God they fail and Obama doesn’t sink to that.  If he does, he’ll be down in the mud with them and not representing either America’s or Iran’s reformers’ best interests.

Here is the voice of a real Iranian patriot, Prof. Dabashi.  Compare his wisdom with McCain-Graham bellicosity:

…It’s very hypocritical of the US Congress. The night before the presidential election in Iran on June 12th, they called for increased sanction against Iran…The day of election, that translates into “Vote for Ahmadinejad.” That translates into economic hardship for already those demonstrators that now they pretend they want to support. Any support for these demonstrators, for this green movement, on part of official American officials is a kiss of death.

What this movement needs—anything is—from the United States is, because I see it as a civil rights movement, is the support of civil rights icons. Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Al Sharpton, these are the people who should come to its support, not official Americans. And as a result, President Obama’s position has been very pitch perfect, very calibrated. That is, he endorses the civil liberties of these demonstrators, without taking sides, and consistently insisting that this is a domestic Iranian affair, because the fact is he may have to deal with Ahmadinejad.

And I repeat what I wrote in Comment is Free today: the interventionists don’t give a shit about Neda or the “brave Iranian youth attempting to topple the tyrannical regime.”  The former need to score points against Obama and this is just as good a way as any.  Go the way of McCain-Graham and you’ll kill the Iranian reform movement.  In fact, I believe the Republicans would be just as happy if thousands of them would be killed in the streets of Teheran.  That would only prove their point better and draw the world that much closer to armed conflict with Iran and regime change.

All this is music to Israel’s ears.  Bibi too wants regime change because that is how he sees ending the Iranian nuclear threat.  It’s no coincidence that the talk of punishing sanctions against Iran comes from sources like the Israeli foreign ministry, Aipac, Dennis Ross and now McCain-Graham.  They’re like birds singing in the choir.  You might be forgiven for asking why Republicans are singing from Israel’s songbook.  I naively thought that Israel and the U.S. ought to have separate interests concerning matters like this.  Little did I know…

Mitchell Cancels Paris Meeting With Bibi

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

There are some progressives like Tony Judt (and others) who continue to doubt that Obama has what it takes to bring Bibi Netanyahu to heel for the sake of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Here’s yet another piece of evidence they are wrong. Israel News Today reports on Shimon Shiffer’s lead story in Yediot Achronot (English translation here thanks to Ori Nir):

The main headline, which reads “US to Netanyahu: There’s Nothing to Talk About,” reminds the Israeli readership that tensions between United States and Israel are still running high. According to Shimon Shiffer’s report, the US decided to cancel a meeting that was scheduled to have been held in Paris between special envoy George Mitchell and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu because of Israeli insistence to continue at least some construction in the settlements. An Israeli political source told Yedioth Ahronoth that Netanyahu received the following “stern” message from the White House: “Once you’ve finished the homework we gave you on stopping construction in the settlements, let us know. Until then, there’s no point in having Mitchell fly to Paris to meet you.” In hope of forestalling the development of a more severe crisis, Defense Minister Ehud Barak has been asked to fly to Washington early next week in an attempt to reach a working compromise with the Americans on Israeli West Bank construction.

Bibi, not wishing to appear shamed in the eyes of the Israeli and world media, has released his own version (Hebrew): Mitchell didn’t cancel the meeting, I did.  Why?

Israel was the one that cancelled the meeting.  The reason was in order to prepare additional data and present it to him [Mitchell] is a more organized fashion.  There is not a shred of truth in the claim that the Americans cancelled the meeting because of a disagreement.

The story continues by quoting a “senior Israeli official” who says in so many words: “I swear it was us, if you don’t believe me ask the French who were preparing for the meeting.  They’ll confirm our story.”  This is pathetic.  Bibi is pathetic.  He got taken to the woodshed (yet again) and doesn’t want to have to admit it so he concocts this ridiculous story that convinces no one.

H/t Rupa Shah.

Israel and Neocons: Selling Regime Change Again (This Time, Iran)

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Comment is Free published a shortened version of the following piece today.  The comment thread is interesting so it might be worth a visit to check out what the right and left are saying:

Those guys who brought you regime change in Iraq, fake WMD, the fake Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, 4,000 dead GIs, and a trillion dollar war–they’re selling snake oil again.

This time it’s Iran.  Not content to allow Iranians to fight their own battles for democracy, the neocon war party is beating the drum for U.S. intervention.  Recently Paul Wolfowitz and Charles Krauthammer weighed in on the subject.  Their views aren’t unexpected.  You’d just have thought they’d allow a decent interval to lapse after Iran’s streets flowed with young blood before they’d inveigle us with their fraudulent vision of events there.

The neocon meme goes like this—the brave Iranians we see on our TV screens and computer monitors aren’t demonstrating about a stolen election.  They’ve gone whole hog and become counter-revolutionaries.  They want to dump the corrupt, tyrannical system, turn their backs on “radical” Islam, and install a Bush-era Middle East secular democracy.  Bush redeemed.

This is from Krauthammer:

…This incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The…provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren’t dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy….

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What’s at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime — and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen…or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

…Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

In a more sophisticated fashion, Marc Reuel Gerecht makes the suspect claim that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.  He’s even given the protests a new name none of its supporters would ever choose, the ”June 12th Revolution:”

…In Iran in the aftermath of this month’s fraudulent elections…we are witnessing…the unraveling of the religious idea that has shaped the growth of modern Islamic fundamentalism since the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928.

The Islamic revolution in Iran encompassed two incompatible ideas: that God’s law — as interpreted by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — would rule, and that the people of Iran had the right to elect representatives who would advance and protect their interests.

…Yet in the current demonstrations we are witnessing not just the end of the first stage of the Iranian democratic experiment, but the collapse of the structural underpinnings of the entire Islamic approach to modern political self-rule.

…Westerners would do well to understand the magnitude of what is transpiring in the Islamic Republic. Iran’s revolution shook the Islamic world. It was the first attempt by militant Muslims to prove that “Islam has all the answers”…But the experiment has failed.

…Whether he intended it or not, Mr. Moussavi — and indirectly Ayatollah Khamenei because of his crude determination to keep the former prime minister from power — has probably begun the final countdown on the Islamic Republic.

The only Iranians who want what the neocons claim the former want (a secular anti-clerical revolution) are the discredited  Mujahadeen Khalq.   This is what real Iranians want (from the NIAC Iranian-American blog):

Dear friend, if you have any contacts within the American Administration, please send them this message on behalf of us, ordinary Iranians in Iran. Tell your contacts in the Administration that their point of view regarding Iran is by far the best position that an American Government has ever taken. We appreciate this and thank the President.

During the last two or three decades not one American president had “understood” Iran. All of them got caught in the traps of the mollahs…but this time the intelligent president has decided not to join in their game, bravo.

It is normal that he is criticized vividly…by most Republicans: [for some] time they have been asking…that America attack Iran and change the regime…without wanting to know what today’s young Iranian wants here and now.

Stephen Kinzer, in Comment is Free earlier this week penned the most persuasive attack on the neocon position:

The US sowed the seeds of repression in Iran by deposing Mossadeq in 1953, and then helped bathe Iran in blood by giving Saddam Hussein generous military aid during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Militants in Washington who now want the US to intervene on behalf of Iranian protesters…delude themselves into thinking that Iranians have forgotten it. Some of them [militants], in fact, are the same people who were demanding just last year that the US bomb Iran – an act which would have killed many of the brave young protesters they now hold up as heroes.

America’s moral authority in Iran is all but non-existent. To the idea that the US should jump into the Tehran fray and help bring democracy to Iran, many Iranians would roll their eyes and say: “We had a democracy here until you came in and crushed it!”

To which we should add, that American interference in Iranian affairs will be used quite effectively by the very repressive forces we claim to oppose in attacking the Iranian reformers.

As we know from our eight years of Bush smearmongering, when a nation is in danger it is only too easy to sully the reputation of political opponents.  You question their judgment, their patriotism, you associate them with foreign enemies, you put them on the defensive.  They are marginalized.  If we truly wish to see Iran open to the world and Iranians living freer lives, why would we want to do this to those who can bring this about?

I think the answer is that many neocon partisans care little about the actual people of Iran.  They are merely pawns in a geo-strategic chess game between Islam and the west.  The Iranian regime must fall.  Whoever helps in that goal is useful, but not terribly important.  That is why the Israelis and neocons, during the election, disparaged Moussavi as warmed-over Ahmadinejad.  These rightist ideologues do not want a reformed Iran, as Moussavi does.  They want an Iran shorn of Islam, or at least political Islam.  That is something almost no Iranian wants.  But again, that matters very little to the Krauthammers and Wolfowitzes of the punditocracy.  They would be just as happy seeing democracy “imposed” on Iran as they were to see it imposed on Iraq.  And it would work just as “well” as it has in Iraq.  Matt Duss at Think Progress has written convincingly on some of these questions.

Israel works hand-in-glove with the neocon effort.  Its leaders too wish to see the Iranian regime overthrown.  That is why we see Bibi Netanyahu on our TV screens here, interviewed for Meet the Press. During his appearance, in terms reeking of motherhood and apple pie, he praised the Iranian demonstrators for unmasking the true terrorist nature of the Iranian regime and yearning for freedom.  In doing so, he conflated two issues which no Iranian ever would.  He attempted to transform Iran’s reformers into counter-revolutionaries who would turn their back on Iran’s foreign commitments supporting Israel’s enemies in Gaza and Lebanon.  In effect, he has co-opted the demonstrators and turned them into Israel’s ally.  If anyone in Iran were to believe Bibi, the opposition would be dead.

But for Bibi it makes little difference.  If the opposition wins, he wins since it may change Iran’s policy.  And if the opposition loses, Bibi still wins because the more bloodshed in Teheran, the more favorably the world will view Israel’s case for regime change (or at least a massive bombing campaign against nuclear facilities).  In fact, as far as the Israeli right is concerned, if the opposition loses it will be better for them.  That’s why they care very little how much damage they do to its cause with such ill-advised statements.

The American mass media can sometimes become unintended co-conspirators in the campaign to smear Iran and advance Israel’s interests.  Take a CNN interview in which a purported Iranian student called the American Morning show and provided an entirely suspect summary of the goals of the opposition.  The host, John Roberts first asks him:

Roberts: Mohammad, Are the students seeking regime change? Are they looking to bring down the Ayatollah and completely change the form of government there in Iran? Or are you looking for – as has been suggested – more civil rights, more freedoms within the context of the existing regime?

Mohammad: Yes. Let me tell you something. For about three decades our nation has been humiliated and insulted by this regime. Now Iranians are united again one more time after 1979 Revolution. We are a peaceful nation. We don’t hate anybody. We want to be an active member of the international community. We don’t want to be isolated…We don’t deny the Holocaust. We do accept Israel’s rights. And actually, we want — we want severe reform on this structure. This structure is not going to be tolerated by the majority of Iranians. We need severe reform…

…Americans, European Union, international community, this…is definitely not elected by the majority of Iranians. So it’s illegal. Do not recognize it. Stop trading with them. Impose much more sanctions against them. My message…to the international community, especially I’m addressing President Obama directly – how can a government that doesn’t recognize its people’s rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace. Will a wise man give a sharp dagger to an insane person? We need your help international community. Don’t leave us alone.

Actually, this regime is really dependent on importing gasoline. More than 85% of Iran’s gasoline is imported from foreign countries. I think international communities must sanction exporting gasoline to Iran and that might shut down the government.

This statement reflects Israel’s talking points on this subject so precisely that I frankly have strong suspicions that “Mohammed” is not who he claimed to be.  I am trying to verify what sort of due diligence, if any, the show’s producers did to authenticate the man’s claim to be an Iranian student. It is certainly within the realm of possibility for Israeli intelligence to engage in this sort of media manipulation to advance its interests within this country.

As if to reinforce this notion, Aipac released a statement pointing to this interview in order to remind the American public about its own lobbying push for draconian sanctions against Iran.  The pro-Israel community here is worried that the unrest in Iran has derailed their ongoing political campaign against Iran’s nuclear program.  A statement like this is a shot in the arm.  Can I prove Mohammed is a fraud?  No.  But there are only two sets of interests which could benefit from the type of malarkey Mohammed is peddling: Israel and the mullahs.  And I doubt the mullahs are thinking much about using CNN to smear the reformers (though I could be wrong).

Oy, You Can Stick a Stake Through Ross’ Heart, But He Won’t Die

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Dennis Ross appears to have nine lives–at least. He leaves the State Department where he had been hung out to dry by Hillary Clinton and her powerful envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell. He moves over to the White House for a vague and unspecified assignment. His buddies David Makovsky and the Wall Street Journal talk him up as if he’s going to be given the keys to the kingdom. And then by God, it happens, sort of. Yes, it’s sad but (perhaps) true:

The Cable has learned that deputy national security advisor Thomas Donilon, among others, is positioning Ross to assume an uber-senior NSC position overseeing Iran, Iraq, and the Middle East. The Iraq portfolio formerly assigned to holdover war czar Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute will be shifted to Ross, leaving Lute to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Puneet Talwar, the NSC’s senior director for the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Iran, will report to Ross, as will Daniel Shapiro, the NSC’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa.

…[A] group said to be concerned by Ross’s perceived takeover of Middle East turf is the team of Middle East Peace special envoy George Mitchell, which now has to contend not only with resistance from all quarters of the region, but also a rival power center in the NSC that hasn’t tended to see Middle East peace issues the same way.

The Washington Post reports the development as more of a done deal though it also inserts some well-deserved zingers against Ross for his past failures:

It’s been rumored that Ross is headed to the White House National Security Council, but now the picture of his duties seems to be getting much clearer. It does indeed appear to be a big job — a very big job. His duties will include not only Iran but also Iraq and the Middle East peace process — a move that has gotten lots of folks at the NSC very upset, not to mention special Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell.

The most controversial aspect is that Ross will take over the Iraq portfolio from Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, a three-star general who was overseeing both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now Lute will just do Afghanistan — where he’ll be working closely with envoy Richard Holbrooke — while Iraq will be part of Ross’s duties.

Interestingly, Ross has about as much experience with Iraq (virtually zero) as the new U.S. ambassador there, Christopher R. Hill. And both were key players in some of the greatest diplomatic flops of the last 20 years. Hill was point man for North Korea nuke negotiations during the Bush administration. And Ross, an early and ardent Obama backer, has lots of experience in Mideast peace efforts, having been a key player in the Clinton administration’s failed effort to broker a deal.

For the humorless or overly literal among my readers, the title of this post refers to sticking a stake in Dennis Ross’ political career, not his physical person.

Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!