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

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘wmd’

Iran: It’s Not Munich, 1938–It’s Cuba, 1962

Friday, September 10th, 2010
fidel castro

Fidel sees danger of nuclear war between Israel-U.S. and Iran (Reuters/Desmond Boylan)

Bibi Netanyahu is fond of saying, regarding Iran, that it’s Munich and the year is 1938: what the west does now will determine whether Iran will get nuclear weapons and whether Israel’s existence will be endangered as a result.  Capitulate and we will have another Holocaust.  Resist Iran’s nuclear ambitions and we will stop the next Hitlerian nation from threatening world domination and conquest.  So goes his thinking.

But it’s not Munich and it’s not 1938.  Rather, it’s Cuba and it’s 1962.

I was 11 years old then and I remember the panic, fear and hysteria that we faced in the run-up to a possible nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the U.S. over Cuba.  I remember the, in retrospect, laughable duck and cover drills in which we dropped under our desks, as if that would protect from Soviet nuclear fallout.  And what I’ve read since then indicates we were even closer to such a potential conflagration than we knew at the time.  All I can say is thank God Khrushchev blinked.

Jeffrey Goldberg just interviewed Fidel, who told the former a few things he may not have wanted to hear.  One of them in particular fascinated me.  Castro, it appears, is deeply frightened of a Middle East war between Israel and Iran.  And he’s frightened precisely because of his own personal experience during the Cuban missile crisis, in which he strongly advocated that the Russians protect their nuclear missiles with a counter-assault should the U.S. attack his island.  Such an act would’ve undoubtedly involved, or led to the use of nuclear weapons:

Castro ha[s] become preoccupied with the threat of a military confrontation in the Middle East between Iran and the U.S. (and Israel, the country he calls its Middle East “gendarme”). Since emerging from his medically induced, four-year purdah early this summer…Castro has spoken mainly about the catastrophic threat of what he sees as an inevitable war.

I was curious to know why he saw conflict as unavoidable, and I wondered…if personal experience – the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 that nearly caused the annihilation of most of humanity – informed his belief that a conflict between America and Iran would escalate into nuclear war.

Somewhat incredibly, Castro in retrospect thinks he was a fool (though he didn’t use that term precisely) to have allowed things to get that far.  That immediately made me think, even before I read Goldberg’s piece, of the crisis that both Bibi and Barack face in contemplating their own Iran Waterloos.  Do we face a prospect in 50 years time, in which leaders of Israel and Iran will look back on this period and say what fools they were that they came this close to war over this?  Or will they look back, having gone to war, and regard with horror the carnage that resulted from the massive miscalculations that led to bloodshed?

Here’s how Castro, in his twilight years, both analyzes the current conflict and his own behavior during the missile crisis. It’s eye-opening stuff:

Castro went on to analyze the conflict between Israel and Iran. He said he understood Iranian fears of Israeli-American aggression and he added that, in his view, American sanctions and Israeli threats will not dissuade the Iranian leadership from pursuing nuclear weapons. “This problem is not going to get resolved, because the Iranians are not going to back down in the face of threats. That’s my opinion,” he said. He then noted that, unlike Cuba, Iran is a “profoundly religious country,” and he said that religious leaders are less apt to compromise. He noted that even secular Cuba has resisted various American demands over the past 50 years.

We returned repeatedly…to Castro’s fear that a confrontation between the West and Iran could escalate into a nuclear conflict. “The Iranian capacity to inflict damage is not appreciated,” he said. “Men think they can control themselves but Obama could overreact and a gradual escalation could become a nuclear war.” I asked him if this fear was informed by his own experiences during the 1962 missile crisis, when the Soviet Union and the U.S. nearly went to war other over the presence of nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba (missiles installed at the invitation, of course, of Fidel Castro). I mentioned to Castro the letter he wrote to Khruschev, the Soviet premier, at the height of the crisis, in which he recommended that the Soviets consider launching a nuclear strike against the U.S. if the Americans attack Cuba. “That would be the time to think about liquidating such a danger forever through a legal right of self-defense,” Castro wrote at the time.

I asked him, “At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the U.S. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?” He answered: “After I’ve seen what I’ve seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn’t worth it all.”

“It wasn’t worth it all.” Telling words. I hope someone’s whispering them into Barack Obama’s ears as I write this. I have less confidence that either Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu understand what Castro is saying. They, like him in 1962, are absorbed in the moment and not contemplating the impact of decisions they make today or tomorrow on history. That’s why Fidel’s words are so important. This is a man who lived through it all. In fact, with the death of Robert Macnamara, Fidel may be the last active participant in the crisis left living. He now can look back with historical perspective on what he did and said then, and say in retrospect, it was rubbish.  This is an incredibly valuable perspective.  I only wish Obama could hear those words directly from Castro himself.  If our own stupid policy towards his country was reformed, he might be able to do so.

Mossad Recruiting U.S. Muslims, CIA Poll Ranks Israeli Intelligence Most Aggressive Within U.S.

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

Jonathan Pollard

While Pollard was Israel's biggest spy coup, now they're recruiting American Muslims

Jeff Stein, writing about intelligence matters at the Washington Post, notes a recent poll of CIA personnel ranking U.S. allies from best to worst in terms of the nature of their coöperation and relationship with our spy agency.  Here’s the result:

“Israel came in dead last,” a recently retired CIA official told me the other day.

Not only that, he added, throwing up his hands and rising from his chair, “the Israelis are number three, with China number one and Russia number two,” in terms of how aggressive they are in their operations on U.S. soil.

But not only are they the snoopiest, most intrusive and among the most duplicitous in their operations here, now they’re attempting to recruit American Muslims as intelligence assets.  Hard to believe they could have that much chutzpah to operate here in this fashion.  But nothing surprises me on this score.

Stein quotes an article by Phil Giraldi, himself a retired former CIA officer on these efforts:

One of Israel’s major interests, of course, is keeping track of Muslims who might be allied with Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, or Iran-backed Hezbollah, based in Lebanon.

As tensions with Iran escalate, according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, “Israeli agents have become more aggressive in targeting Muslims living in the United States as well as in operating against critics.”

“There have been a number of cases reported to the FBI about Mossad officers who have approached leaders in Arab-American communities and have falsely represented themselves as ‘U.S. intelligence,’ ” Giraldi wrote recently in American Conservative magazine.

“Because few Muslims would assist an Israeli, this is done to increase the likelihood that the target will cooperate. It’s referred to as a ‘false flag’ operation.”

Giraldi’s piece continued, “Mossad officers sought to recruit Arab-Americans as sources willing to inform on their associates and neighbors. The approaches, which took place in New York and New Jersey, were reportedly handled clumsily, making the targets of the operation suspicious.”

“These Arab-Americans turned down the requests for cooperation,” Giraldi added,”and some of the contacts were eventually reported to the FBI, which has determined that at least two of the Mossad officers are, ironically, Israeli Arabs operating out of Israel’s mission to the United Nations in New York under cover as consular assistants.”

“Oh, sure, they do that,” the other former CIA official said, waving a dismissing hand, when I asked about Giraldi’s story. “They’re all over the place.”

One of a number of extraordinary things about this activity is that the Mossad has recruited Israeli Palestinians to become agents.  I have to wonder what would motivate such a person to enlist in Israeli intelligence especially given the history of relations between Israel and its Palestinian citizens.

Stein also quotes an FBI counterintelligence officer on the subject of Israel’s penetration of the U.S.:

…A retired senior FBI counterintelligence official told SpyTalk, “They have always been extremely aggressive, and seem to feel they can operate whenever and wherever they want, in spite of being called on the carpet more than any other country by probably a factor of three times as often.”

Those of you who have been reading this blog for the past year or so will note that I have covered a number of stories involving Israeli activities in the U.S. which seek to influence domestic opinion in favor of war with Iran.  In the business, it’s called a perception management campaign to exploit media, political leaders and other influential figures to favor aggressive action against Iran.  The influence is exerted in ways overt and covert, transparent and oblique, straightforward and duplicitous.

As part of this operation, members of Congress were rated for the unfriendliness to Israeli interests, those deemed hostile were scrutinized closely by local Jewish community leaders who reported on the member’s activities that might be of interest to the embassy.  Articles planted in local newspapers hostile to Iran were written by embassy personnel but fronted by local Jewish community leaders.  Locally, the Israeli consulate utilized the cover of the local Aipac chapter and Jewish federation to organize an anti-Iran dog and pony show that featured a Jerusalem Post reporter, an Aipac flack and the Israeli consul general warning the Jewish community of the existential danger posed by Iran to Israel and the world.

An Israeli-American like Max Singer, living in Israel and a citizen of that country, publishes advocacy through the Hudson Institute which explicitly seeks to undermine a sitting U.S. president. Retired IDF generals openly and publicly wish for the defeat of the Democrats in the November elections.  There is seemingly no red line Israel isn’t willing to cross in boosting its perceived interests.  What’s more nefarious though is the argument that the policies advocated (belligerency towards Iran, for example) are good for the U.S., when in reality the policies are advocated because they are good for Israel (at least in the eyes of these war hawks).

And this is the more or less above-board activities in which they’ve engaged–not the deep cover activities of which I have no direct knowledge.  So you imagine to yourself what that might entail.

You’ll also remember that the Mossad exploited Israeli-owned U.S. finance companies with close ties to the Israeli military intelligence community to finance the Dubai assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabouh.  I’ve been waiting for months for the other shoe to drop on this one.  But it appears, at least so far, that the FBI isn’t prepared to make a stir over this though it should.  I suppose Obama thinks he has bigger fish to fry in bringing home an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.  Of course, the danger is he may not get the agreement AND he may never uncover the abuse of the U.S. financial system to fund Israeli terror (something we claim to be in favor of exposing when it involves Arab terror).

We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that for Israel, the U.S. is the mother lode.  We are the world’s superpower.  We hold Israel’s fate in the balance, or at least we could if it were attacked.  From the Mossad’s point of view, they MUST have a robust presence here.  The problem is how they manifest that presence.  By importing to this country the traditions of opacity, duplicity and surreptitiousness for which Israeli intelligence is known in Israel, they risk degrading our own standards and values, especially if our own Justice Department and president allow them to behave with impunity.

Israeli Intelligence Leaks Syrian-Hezbollah War Defense Plans to Arab Media

Monday, August 30th, 2010

The Kuwaiti newspaper, al Rai, reports that Syria and Hezbollah have agreed to a wide ranging intelligence sharing operation which also includes a joint operations center staffed by Hezbollah and Syrian military officers in the event of a war with Israel:

Hizbullah concluded “field understandings” with the Syrian army, [in] which both sides will cooperate at the military level, including “combat cooperation” in the event of an outbreak of a war with Israel. The understandings include intelligence cooperation. Both sides agreed to exchange data on the “bank of Israeli targets” and dividing responsibility to bomb these targets between Hizbullah and Syria.

The two sides agreed to establish a joint “operation room” which will be occupied by Hizbullah and Syria officers.  This room is intended to fill all the intelligence gaps that can emerge in the battlefield, the report said.

The newspaper added that via this cooperation, the Syrian army makes available all the intelligence its units gather regarding the Israeli air force and its flights. The idea is that Hizbullah will be bombing…the Israeli airports before the flights. According to the report, the most important thing in this cooperation…is to damage the Israeli Air Force and reduce its capabilities.

There is very little that is unexpected in this news since Hezbollah is essentially a Syrian proxy on the Lebanese battlefield.  But what is interesting is that a confidential source has revealed that this little news nugget was supplied by none other than Israeli intelligence.  It wanted both the Syrians and Hezbollah to know that it knew about their war plans.

It seems part of an elaborate game of psychological warfare and intimidation that the Israelis are playing with Iran and the other potential war parties.  Israel’s spooks want the enemy to know that Israel knows of their plans the moment the enemy decides upon them.  There is nothing they can do Israel won’t know about, etc.

All this strikes me as a little like boys pretending to be spies and soldiers and playing mock battles, with each child hissing and pawing at the ground to frighten his opponent.  With the difference that neither Israel nor its enemies are children, but rather nations playing games that will end with death and mayhem potentially for thousands, if not tens of thousands.  Can we afford to let these boys play their games at the expense of the peoples of the Middle East who will suffer if the game goes awry and becomes real?

I have written before about the unstoppable momentum for war that happened in the run-up to the 1967 war in which Nasser and Israel’s leaders exchanged ever more bellicose threats which eventually convinced Golda Meir that she had to pre-empt an Egyptian strike by hitting first.  Thus political rhetoric and grandstanding led to fateful military decisions leading inexorably to war.  The question for today is: are we in the run-up to the next major Israeli-Arab war?  Is that where we want to go?  Where we want to let Israel go?  Because from my vantage point Israel is hellbent to get there.

Who can stop it?  Obama?  Will he?  Can he?  American liberals have to put the president on notice that if there is a war, we will blame him as the figure who could have stopped it and didn’t.  In other words to paraphrase Harry Truman, the rap stops here.

New ‘Moral Politics’ Video on Iran War Game Scenario

Thursday, April 1st, 2010


Watch Israeli War Game Predicts Disaster for Iran Strike in News

Recently, I wrote a post about a Nahum Barnea story which described a war game scenario produced by Begin-Sadat Center researcher, Moshe Vered.  It described an Israeli attack on Iran and the consequences for both nations, the region and the world.  The results were ugly.  A protracted war in which Iran was prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands to avenge Israeli aggression.  Multiple rocket attacks all over Israel turning the country into a virtual national shelter and ghost town.  A united front by Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and Hamas against Israel and aimed at redeeming its pound of flesh.

Vered also suggested that Iran would apply diplomatic pressure on Israel on the international front and demand that the U.S. sanction Israel for its attack.  Israel would face potential isolation, even greater than it already experiences, for its role.

Moral Politics program host Bill Alford asked me to do another show about the war game and U.S. relations with both Iran and Israel.  The result is this video which ranges far afield and discusses the power of the Israel lobby, the lessening deterrent that is the IDF in the face of a determined Arab enemy.

I should also note that Kenneth Pollack of the Saban Center (Haim Saban is one of Aipac’s most powerful donors) also hosted a war game which was described by David Sanger in the N.Y. Times.  I was tempted to write a post about the project and its suspect assumptions, but thought better of it.  This passage toward the end of the article should tell you everything you need to know about how pat the enterprise was and how divorced from actual reality it would be:

The game ends eight days after the initial Israeli strike. But it is clear the United States was leaning toward destroying all Iranian air, ground and sea targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran’s forces were about to suffer a significant defeat.

Imagine that an Aipac-friendly think tank comes up with a script in which the U.S. destroys anything of value to the Iranian military and the latter “suffers a significant defeat” as if wishing made it so.  You hear almost nothing of the price Israel will pay in such an eventuality. There is no contemplation whatsoever of the terrible cost the U.S. would pay both in lives and international credibility if it joined in an Israeli assault on Iran.  No mention at all of the destruction of any–or what little–trust the U.S. might have earned in the Arab world.

I will say though that even if an actual Israel-Iran war is half as bad as Vered portrays or twice as bad as Pollak portrays, Israel is in for some very rough and unanticipated sledding.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Poll: Iranians Willing to Forego Nuclear Weapons in Return for Normalizing Relations

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

Thanks to Steve Walt for noting an important University of Maryland poll of Iranian attitudes toward its elected government and the nuclear impasse (full report). Contrary to the claims of neocons and their fellow travelers in the media, academia and the halls of the Israel lobby, Iranians appear generally to support the current government and its approach to nuclear enrichment and research. While some of the findings disappointed me, given the amount of actual polling that was done inside Iran and other measures taken to ensure accuracy, I reluctantly grant a good deal of credibility to the survey.

Perhaps the most hopeful result was this:

Some analysts have suggested that if the opposition were to gain power this would lead to fundamental changes in the Iranian posture toward the US. Focusing on those respondents who said they voted for Mousavi, as an approximation of the opposition,
PIPA found that a majority were ready to negotiate with the US on a number of issues, while the Iranian public as a whole was more divided. However, Mousavi supporters, like the general public, were quite negative in their views of the US government and were strongly committed to Iran’s nuclear program.

A majority of Mousavi supporters did favor diplomatic relations with the US, and were ready to make a deal whereby Iran would preclude developing nuclear weapons through intrusive international inspections in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, this was equally true of the majority of all Iranians.

As Walt noted in his blog post, this provides an opening for resolving the current impasse: if the U.S. proposes full normalization of relations and removal of sanctions in return for an Iranian guarantee that it will not develop nuclear weapons–this should be a proposal the west could endorse.

So instead of the stupidity about sanctions and regime change, we need more reason and moderation in the form of this attitude expressed by the majority of Iranians according to this survey.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Moral Politics TV Interview on Iran, the Holocaust and Modern Zionism

Sunday, January 24th, 2010


Bill Alford, host of the Seattle community-access show, Moral Politics, invited me for my second session. We did a follow-up show on the Iran-Israel conference I organized here in Seattle last month. The themes were the danger of military attack by Israel or the U.S. against Iran; the nature of contemporary Zionism and the impact of Jacobtinsky; the impact of the Holocaust on Israel’s approach to conflicts with its Arab neighbors. We covered the Times of London story claiming Iran was developing a nuclear trigger and the report that the alleged Iranian document on which the report was based was a forgery (just as the Niger yellow cake report was proven to be fake).

I’m pretty self-critical generally, but I was really happy with how this interview came out and hope you’ll be able to spend a half-hour watching. I’d also appreciate your spreading the word about this video so that others will watch it as well.

My next show with Bill will deal with the Naveed Haq murder trial here in Seattle and the guilty verdict which will send him to prison for life.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Iran Conference Video Available Online

Friday, December 25th, 2009

I’d like to thank Ed Mays of Pirate TV, who arranged for videotaping the Iran conference I organized last week: Iran-Israel, U.S.: Resolving the Nuclear Impasse.  The presentations by Muhammad Sahimi, Ian Lustick and Keith Weissman are now available online (video stream).

TV Interview on Resolving Iran Nuclear Crisis

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009


Watch Stopping War with Iran in News  |  View More Free Videos Veoh.com

A few weeks ago, Bill Alford interviewed me about Iran for his Seattle community access cable interview show, Moral Politics. Our half hour show ranged over many topics including last month’s hawkish presentation on Iran hosted by the Seattle Jewish federation. I also critiqued Israel’s bellicose approach to Iran and the failure of U.S. policy toward Iran thus far. I advocated negotiation and engagement as the only true path to resolving the differences Israel and the U.S. have with Iran.

This is a good introduction to what we’ll be covering at next month’s Town Hall conference: Iran, Israel, U.S.: Resolving the Nuclear Impasse.