That Netanyahu’s speech – third opinion

No, I haven’t bothered to see it all, the transcript has done quite well for me. Anyway, it was good to sleep on it before venturing forth with an opinion, which will be argued against no matter what I say. So, first of all, a small collection of responses. To start with, a statement of the obvious (Haaretz):

Netanyahu backs demilitarized Palestinian state

Now to one extreme (Hamas):

Hamas: Netanyahu speech ‘racist’ bid to deny Palestinian rights

And to the other (Akiva Eldar, Haaretz):

Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a patriarchal, colonialist address in the best neoconservative tradition…

Let’s not forget the third (yes, it is so, believe it or not) extreme end of the stick:

MK Aryeh Eldad (NU) said that “by using the term ‘demilitarized Palestinian state’ Netanyahu is attempting to eat a kosher-slaughtered pig.

How about the bride (I mean the Palestinian Authority):

PA: Speech dealt deadly blow to peace process

Now to the one for whom Bibi toils:

Obama: Netanyahu’s speech ‘an important step forward’

OK, so what about some highbrow analysis? Here it comes:

Netanyahu speech aimed solely for Obama’s ears

(Does Haaretz lately take the cake for stating the obvious or does it take that cake?)

Now, the list will be incomplete without Ami Isseroff:

What Benjamin Netanyahu did not say could fill a book. … The purpose of this speech was to give Barack Obama one of the concessions he demanded: Israeli support for a Palestinian state. Mission accomplished.

So what about me (I am sure that by now you are pining for my own opinion, dontcha?):

Yesterday one of the TV gurus said that Bibi called Joe Biden an hour before giving the speech, allegedly to update the administration on the contents. Tell you what: it’s an obvious crapola. Bibi urgently needed Biden’s advice on matching his tie to the background. It looks like (being men) they went for the obvious and simple solution. Whatever works… anyway, this is my opinion on the whole shebang. As I am quite sure, Middle East isn’t going to change overnight, nor is Bibi.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Israel, Politics | Comments Off on That Netanyahu’s speech – third opinion

The evolution of an AP headline

One story. Three updates. Four headlines.

1:51 p.m.: The first AP report on Netanyahu’s speech. Note the bias of the headline—Netanyahu called for a Palestinian state, and the AP describes it as “limited.”

Netanyahu accepts limited Palestinian state
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Sunday called for creation of a limited Palestinian state for the first time, saying it would have to be disarmed.

Netanyahu made the call during a major policy speech about his Mideast peacemaking intentions.

“In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel,” he said.

Next, the full story at 3:21 p.m.: The caveat is removed from the headline, and so is the word “state.” Note that this is obviously the headline writer, as the lead clearly denotes the call for a state—although the AP then applies the Palestinian spin that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means giving up the return of Palestinian refugees. In point of fact, there was never going to be a mass influx of refugees, and everyone knows that, including the AP editor.

Netanyahu endorses Palestinian independence
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed an independent Palestinian state beside Israel for the first time on Sunday, dramatically reversing himself in the face of U.S. pressure but attaching conditions the Palestinians swiftly rejected.

A week after President Barack Obama’s address to the Muslim world, Netanyahu said the Palestinian state would have to be unarmed and recognize Israel as the Jewish state – a condition amounting to Palestinian refugees giving up the goal of returning to Israel.

Here’s the second part of the lead from that update. Note the compliment, of sorts, to Netanyahu. Especially because it’s going to move from the fifth paragraph in the 3:21 story to the eighth, where it will drop out of your local newspaper’s “World” section. First draft:

Netanyahu, in an address seen as his reponse to Obama, refused to heed the U.S. call for an immediate freeze of construction on lands Palestinians claim for their future state. He also said the holy city of Jerusalem must remain under Israeli sovereignty.

Senior Palestinian officials Saeb Erekat said the plan “closed the door” to negotiations.

Still, it was a dramatic transformation for a man raised on a fiercely nationalistic ideology and who has spent a two-decade political career criticizing peace efforts.

Another huge, but subtle change from the 3:21 to the 6:26 update is the removal of the word “independent” from this graf:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed a Palestinian state beside Israel for the first time on Sunday, reversing himself under U.S. pressure but attaching conditions such as having no army that the Palestinians swiftly rejected.

I haven’t found any major differences in the latest update. But the evolution of an AP Israel story is always something that needs to be deconstructed.

As for the speech itself—you know, it almost doesn’t matter what Netanyahu said. The Palestinians reject everything but utter submission to their demands, and the Arab world backs them up on this. Watch for the Obama administration to do the same.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Israel, Media Bias | Comments Off on The evolution of an AP headline

The Netanyahu speech

Bibi said the words that needed to be said. He called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. I haven’t yet found an English transcript of the speech, and would like very much to read it all before commenting thoroughly—but here are a few snippets.

This is the part getting the most flak from the left:

“Our right to form our sovereign state here in the land of Israel stems from one simple fact. The Land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people.”

That’s the part that Obama forgot in his Cairo speech, where he said:

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Netanyahu’s version of history is the right one. The modern state of Israel may have happened in part due to the Holocaust, but that isn’t why the modern state of Israel was formed, and it isn’t when the modern state was proposed. Obama’s speech neglected the birth of Zionism and the waves of Jewish immigration to Israel starting in the nineteenth century. But then, recognizing Jews’ historical claim to Israel doesn’t fit the narrative.

The Palestinians, of course, have immediately rejected everything that Netanyahu said. Nothing will suffice, according to their spokespeople, than to allow millions of Palestinian refugees to flood Israel and overwhelm the Jewish state.

He said what I expected him to say, for the most part. Now I’d like to see both the details, and the response of the Obama administration.

Posted in Israel | 2 Comments

Shaping Obama

There are two points about the recent Washington Post report, Obama’s aides, friends shaped his views on settlements:

The first is the omission of any mention of President Obama’s friendship with Rashid Khalidi or Ali Abuminah. This allows the reporters to emphasize misleadingly that he is only opposed to the Likud, not necessarily anti-Israel.

Early evidence of that view was captured on tape during a private gathering in Cleveland in 2008. Obama challenged Jewish groups to allow for greater debate on Israeli actions and not demand what he called a “pro-Likud approach,” referring to Netanyahu’s party.

“This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I’m not out of school here,” he said in a transcript published by JTA, a news service on Jewish issues. “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel. . . . If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”

In a sense Netanyahu is the perfect prime minister for President Obama. He could have had this argument with Tzipi Livni too, but then he wouldn’t have been able to hide behind his anti-Likud posture.

The other important aspect of the article is this:

One of the president’s close friends in Chicago, the late Rabbi Arnold Wolf, wrote last year of his disappointment that Obama had often publicly softened his private positions.

“For my part, I’ve sometimes found Obama too cautious on Israel,” said Wolf, who in 1973 co-founded an organization that advocated creating a Palestinian state. “He, like all our politicians, knows he mustn’t stray too far from the conventional line, and that can be disappointing. But unlike anyone else on the stump, Obama has also made it clear that he’ll broaden the dialogue.”

President Obama (as he reportedly confided to Ali Abuminah) understood how pro-Israel the American electorate is and played down his views of Israel. Now that he’s in power he’s showing how he really feels. And his policies regarding the Middle East are and will be anti-Israel, not just anti-Likud.

UPDATE: I would also emphasize, though the Post article does not, that someone who supported a Palestinian state in 1973 was way out of the mainstream of Jewish politics. So the Post may emphasize President Obama’s Jewish connections as if to say, well he has Jews who approve of his views, but that hardly means that they are or were part of the Jewish mainstream. And given the general American support for Israel, they were way out of the mainstream of the American political consensus on Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome | Tagged | 2 Comments

Bar Mitzvah Boy

Sarah and Larry’s eldest son had his bar mitzvah yesterday, which is one reason why it’s been extremely quiet on this blog this weekend. He did a wonderful job. After the service, he and I were discussing how he did, and I asked how he’d grade himself. “Eight out of ten,” he said, which comes out to about an A-minus. I agreed with him then, but a little later I thought he was wrong, and that he deserves an A. Nine out of ten. I think he did an excellent job.

Sarah used Yossi, the man who catered my bat mitzvah, and who did a wonderful job with the food. There was bourekas, of course, and all kinds of good things to eat. I got to meet Sarah and Larry’s family and friends, who are all very nice people. And I was talked into one game of Laser Tag at the evening party. It’s fun, but boy, it’s tiring. I was sitting at the table afterward talking with a couple of the girls and explaining to them that I didn’t do as well as I used to because I’m old and tired, and the bright little pre-teen said, “Well, yeah!”

Sigh.

Then again, I think I made a friend for life in another girl, who was reading a book of horror stories and who told me she really liked vampires. “Have you seen Buffy?” I asked. She said yes, but not much. I offered her my DVD collection, so she and her brother and mom came over to my house (all of three minutes from Laser Tag) to pick them up. I gave them the nickel tour, and Hannah was absolutely overwhelmed by my DVDs, choice of reading material, and finally, the fact that I have a comic book collection in my guest room.

I received the ultimate compliment from a twelve-year-old: “If you have kids, they will NOT be embarrassed about you.”

Heh. Yeah, I’m the cool aunt. I’ve known that for a while now. But it’s nice to get credit for it now and again.

That was my third bar or bat mitzvah in the last month. They were coming about two weeks apart, and now I get a break until my next class starts having their b’nai mitzvot. Which will be this fall.

I think I’ll offer my services as a substitute at the Reform synagogue down the road from me. I really do miss being around kids every week.

Posted in Life | 2 Comments

The Best of The Jewish/Israeli Blogosphere

It has been a busy week filled with all sorts of news and not all of it good. Every week the Jewish/Israeli blogosphere produces a blog carnival in which you can find their thoughts about numerous topics.

If you want to get a sense of what the Jblogosphere thinks about President Obama’s speech, the shooting at the Holocaust museum and more go read Haveil Havalim #221  The News and Politics Edition.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on The Best of The Jewish/Israeli Blogosphere

Jimmy Carter: Not even hiding his hate for Israel any more

Sorry, but when someone says the Palestinians have been suffering ever since 1948, they’re as good as saying Israel has no right to exist. And Carter went far beyond that in a speech to the Palestinians today:

“I have been in love with the Palestinian people for many years,” he said Saturday, adding that this is a feeling shared by members of his family.

“I have two great-grandsons that are rapidly learning about the people here and the anguish and suffering and deprivation of human rights that you have experienced ever since 1948,” he said.

Referring to President Barack Obama’s call for an Israeli settlement freeze, Carter said that “in the future, I am sure, he will call for the dismantling of the settlements that exist.”

But he noted that Obama also called for an end to violence against Israelis and for Arab acceptance of Israelis’ right to their own nation. Carter said such acceptance is painful for displaced Palestinians, but that “there has to be an accommodation in the political world.”

Understand that he’s telling Palestinians that he knows it is “painful” that they have to accept the fact of Israel’s existence. Not that Israel has a right to exist. But that “there has to be an accomodation.” I think that’s CarterSpeak for not being able to beat the Israelis in 1948.

Unbelievable. And they call this man an honest broker? For whom? The terrorists?

Posted in Anti-Semitism, palestinian politics | 4 Comments

It’s Mad Mahmoud by a whisker

Or so the Iranian state news agency says.

Iran’s state news agency reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election Friday, but his main reformist challenger also confidently claimed victory at a news conference moments earlier.

The rival claims came even before the close of polls, which authorities permitted to stay open an extra six hours, until midnight, to allow long lines of voters to cast ballots. Official results were not expected until Saturday.

The fix, she is in. Don’t expect the “reformist” candidate to take away the win. In a close race, the man the Mad Mullahs want gets the job.

I’m wondering how much this so-called competition was staged. Aside from the maneuvering for power between one mullah and another, there’s no real difference between the candidates. All of them were thoroughly vetted by the mullahs. No one gets to run that Khameini didn’t approve. So maybe he wanted Mad Mahmoud to sweat a little.

I was reading something somewhere by someone saying that this would lead to a president-for-life thing with Ahmadinejad. Here’s a clue for that person: Iran is ruled by someone whose title is Supreme Leader, and who doesn’t run for re-election once he’s fought his way to that position. Anyone who calls Iran any kind of democracy is a dreamer or a liar. When every candidate is vetted by the mullahs, there is no true democracy. Here in America, all you need is the requisite number of signatures on the petition, the right age and residency requirements, and you can run for anything. No one can disapprove your candidacy. That is democracy. Not Iran.

Posted in Iran | Tagged | Comments Off on It’s Mad Mahmoud by a whisker

UN wants to fine Israel, Israel should bill UN

The leader of the organization that helps supply Hamas with funding for the missiles that rain down on Israel (see: UNRWA and related organizations that help pay Hamas members’ salaries) wants to fine Israel for responding to the missiles.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday it was “critical” that Israel halt all settlement activity. He added that he was considering fining the state $11 million for damage it did to UN facilities during the Gaza war.

Ban says the fine was recommended by a committee elected to investigate damage done by the IDF to UN structures during Operation Cast Lead.

I think it’s critical that Israel send the bill for what it cost to send in the IDF, as well as the damages of years of kassams and mortars into Israel, to the UN.

Say, Ban, good luck collecting on that fine. I’m thinking Israel is going to just ignore it as just another anti-Israel action from the anti-Israel echo chamber that is the UN.

Posted in Israel, United Nations | Tagged , , | Comments Off on UN wants to fine Israel, Israel should bill UN

The campaign’s the thing

During the campaign last year, we kept on hearing stories about how supportive President Obama would be of Israel. Those of us who looked at his associations and wondered how someone with his background would be pro-Israel were mocked for our failure to accept “hope and change” and charged with being uninformed, if not prejudiced. But it appears that Ali Abuminah’s boast was accurate.

Well it seems that whatever positions President Obama took during the campaign regarding Israel were mostly for show. Pro-Palestinian groups are very encouraged by the administration’s approach so far. The Forward reports:

Activists for the Palestinian cause, who are now describing President Obama’s outreach speech to the Muslim world as “brilliant” and “brave,” are feeling emboldened by a new sense of openness within the administration. Some even have the satisfaction of having had input in the process of preparing the speech itself. A pro-Palestinian organization was among those invited to take part in a group meeting with White House staff to prepare the June 4 speech. Other activists spoke of their feeling that Washington is taking a real interest in them for the first time in years.

So if the Cairo speech seemed somewhat one sided regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict generally and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically, well it wasn’t exactly an accident.

Obama’s Cairo speech, in which he spoke emphatically about the Palestinian right for statehood, as well as his insistence on an Israeli settlement freeze, has made pro-Palestinian activists believe that change is in the air.

Yet, surprisingly, the sudden success in getting the Palestinian message through has many in the pro-Palestinian advocacy community concerned.

“The Palestinians should not sour U.S.-Israeli relations. That will not help anyone,” said Ghaith Al-Omari, advocacy director for the American Task Force on Palestine, a group now seen as the leading pro-Palestinian voice in Washington. He warned against Arab groups “gloating,” and expressed concern that one-sided pressure could lead to an “adversarial approach.” Al-Omari, a former Palestinian peace negotiator, recently participated in White House discussions in preparation of the Cairo speech.

I do find that last approach somewhat unexpected. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a minority opinion.

And if Palestinian advocates are encouraged by the approach of the Obama administration, a companion article at the Forward shows one reason that pro-Israel advocates were disappointed with the President’s speech.

As the Obama administration deepens its outreach to the Muslim and Arab world, it faces the difficult task of countering Holocaust denial without reinforcing an increasingly popular anti-Zionist narrative that ties the legitimacy of the State of Israel to Jewish suffering in Europe.

And as discussion of the Holocaust becomes more widespread, so does the argument heard from Tehran to Gaza that while Europeans were responsible for atrocities against Jews, it is the Palestinians who are paying the price.

“Discussing the Holocaust and learning its lessons have become an integral part of global culture, and therefore, to a certain extent, the Arabs feel they are on the defensive,” said Esther Webman, research fellow of the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, at Tel Aviv University. “That’s why we see in recent years an increase in Arab rhetoric tying the Holocaust to the Palestinian hardship.”

Unfortunately the article emphasizes that it’s a “right wing” concern rather than a universal one.

Activists on the right also point frequently to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as one of those responsible for spreading Holocaust denial in the Arab world. Abbas, in a 1984 research paper written at the Moscow Oriental College, questioned the existence of gas chambers and suggested that the number of Jews murdered was not more than 1 million. After Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization engaged in negotiations, however, Abbas said, “Today I would not have made such remarks.” In a 2003 interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz, he added, “The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it.”

It wasn’t just a research paper, it was his PhD thesis. Does he repudiate his PhD? And why doesn’t this bother activists on the Left? If he were European – instead of a “peace partner – the thesis would have rendered him beyond the pale.

But of course the Palestinian don’t just deny the Holocaust (and contradictorily use it for their own purposes) they deny two thousand years of Jewish history.

Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

This is a tenet of Palestinian nationalism. That even “moderates” such as Abbas or Fayyad refuse to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, testifies to the degree that this belief is still accepted.

Unfortunately when President Obama spoke in Cairo his main focus of “honest” talk was about settlements. And when he made the case for Israel’s legitimacy, he failed to emphasize the historical case, instead making the case that it was the result of the Holocaust. Given his audience that was problematic. But it also reflected the advice he received and, I think, where his sympathies lie.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, palestinian politics | Tagged | 1 Comment

Vote for Ahmadinejad—please.

I want Ahmadinejad to win today.

Yes, really. Because his replacement will be worse.

Why worse? Because he pretends that he doesn’t have the same goals as Ahmadinejad. Because the world media will call him a “moderate.” Because he will have the veneer of civility when underneath, he is just another tool of the Mad Mullahs, chosen by the Mad Mullahs, to move forward the Mad Mullah agenda—which is Iranian domination of their region, and ultimately the world, as part of the fabled Caliphate that will control the world when we are all submissive to only their god.

Note the AP label for the “reformist” who actually started Iran’s illegal nuclear program:

Iranians packed polling stations from boutique-lined streets in north Tehran to conservative bastions to choose Friday between keeping hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power or replacing him with a reformist who favors greater freedoms and improved ties with the United States.

And notice that even as the AP says there will be no great change, they push the reformist angle:

The outcome will not sharply alter Iran’s main policies or sway high-level decisions – such as possible talks with Washington. Those crucial policies are all directly controlled by the ruling clerics headed by the unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But Mousavi has offered hopes of more freedoms at home. If elected, he could try to end crackdowns on liberal media and bloggers and push for Iran to embrace President Barack Obama’s offer of dialogue after a nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze. He favors talks with world powers over Iran’s nuclear program, which the United States and others fear is aimed at making weapons. Iran says it only seeks reactors for electricity.

Of course he favors talks with world powers. Talks have achieved what the Iranians want: Time to complete nuclear enrichment, pretend actions towards stopping the nuclear march, all the while enlarging the program and getting enough material for a nuclear weapon. And in spite of what you read in the papers, the Iranian presidency is a puppet presidency. He does what the Supreme Leader commands him to do. And “reformists”—well, they don’t really matter.

For all the reforms made during the Khatami era, real power in Iran never left the hands of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The supreme leader’s conservative allies retained control over the security forces, as well as the judiciary and the media, and simply circumvented the rule of law when their stranglehold on the country was challenged.

The author of the above was one of the founders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. That didn’t stop them from torturing him when he got on the Mullahs’ bad side. And this is why.

On June 4, Iran will mark the twentieth anniversary of Ali Khamenei’s appointment as the leader of Iran. While international attention is focused on the June 12 presidential elections, the winner of that contest will remain subordinate to Khamenei in power and importance, despite the latter’s low profile. Lacking the charisma and religious credentials of his predecessor, Khamenei has managed to attain his powerful position by taking control of key government agencies and building a robust bureaucracy under his direction. Understanding Khamenei’s role in Iran’s complicated governmental system and how he wields his understated power will be key for the United States as it undertakes a new strategy for dealing with Tehran.

[…] By bringing in a new generation of politicians and gradually marginalizing the veteran Islamic Republic officials who were not willing to work for him, Khamenei concentrated power under his authority. He became head of all three branches of the government and the state media, as well as the commander-in-chief of all armed forces, including the police, the army, and the IRGC. In the process, he has transformed the clerical establishment from a traditional religious institution into an ideological apparatus and government proxy. As leader, he also controls the country’s most lucrative institutions, such as the Imam Reza Shrine and the Oppressed Foundation. He has used the funds they generate to advance a political agenda both inside Iran and abroad, building dozens of centers, foundations, and Islamic banks with political, cultural, social, and economic missions.

Iran will not change. The only difference, if Mousavi wins, is that he will be more politic in what he says to the world, while advancing the same goals as his predecessor. He has criticized Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial not because it’s wrong, but because it brings bad publicity for Iran. He has stated that he will not stop Iran’s nuclear program, either. He has criticized Ahmadinejad’s economic policies, but so what? That doesn’t affect Iran’s attitudes towards Israel (which will remain unchanged if Mousavi is elected).

I want Ahmadinejad to pull out this election. Because if he loses, the world will give Mousavi ovations and flowers, all the while ignoring that he will be doing exactly what his predecessor was doing—only with more outward finesse.

The media have already accepted this narrative:

The United States said in April it would join five powers — Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain — in nuclear talks with Iran. Ahmadinejad last week ruled out any such discussions and rejected a Western proposal for Iran to freeze expansion of its nuclear work in return for a freeze on any new sanctions.

In contrast, moderate candidate Mirhossein Mousavi said if he wins, Iran would pursue talks with big powers to assure them its nuclear activity was peaceful, although the work would go on. Iran says it aims to generate electricity, not make bombs.

So yes, I hope Ahmadinejad wins. Better the open enemy than the secret one.

Posted in Iran | Tagged | Comments Off on Vote for Ahmadinejad—please.

Pre-election Iran, pot calling kettle, pink glasses etc

The fake drama developing in Tehran these days is sort of ironic.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad further fueled the unprecedented drama in Iranian politics ahead of Friday’s national elections, giving a fiery response Wednesday to harsh criticism from one of the country’s top politicians and other critics.

Of course, anyone can easily see where Mahmoud the Mad is personifying the pure evil as we all came to know and love it lately. Although, to be frank, after studying a bit the realities and the intricate political structure of the Islamic Republic, I still strongly suspect that Mahmoud is what I always thought him to be: a deranged motormouth puppet of the real powers that benevolently watch his antics. Up to a point, and it looks like Mahmoud has already reached that point.

Of more interest is a related question: who exactly is leading the charge against Mahmoud? Lo and behold – it is none other than the former President, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani:

Responding to the president’s verbal attacks during a presidential debate last week, Rafsanjani said Ahmadinejad’s “baseless and irresponsible” statements brought back “bitter memories” of anti-revolutionary groups in the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

In the debate with his chief rival Mir Hossein Moussavi, Ahmadinejad accused Rafsanjani and another former president, Mohammad Khatami, of mismanagement, corruption and masterminding a plot against him.

There is more about the tiff between these luminaries in the CNN article linked above. However, seeing the name Rafsanjani I feel that it’s necessary to remind you all who this creep really is. That same Mr Rafsanjani who is wanted by Argentina on charges of murder, who has expressed his “love” for Jews so unequivocally, who is a moderate murderer (in this last link there is some info on Iranian political structure that could be useful to those who still harbor some hope).

As for the pretender to Mahmoud’s job, one Mir Hossein Mousavi, here it goes:

International Atomic Energy Agency documents revealed that Iran began a secret nuclear program during the tenure of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition leader running against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

There is more in that link, a worth reading.

As for that CNN statement:


– sorry, folks, it is just crapola. No matter who occupies this chair, he wouldn’t really matter, just as Mahmoud the Mad didn’t. No ramifications whatsoever, folks, don’t hold you breath.

The whole drama is no more than a show, organized for the naive Westerners’ consumption and to facilitate the work of various fellow travelers predicting the advent of democracy in Iran every few months or so.

Democracy is not coming to Iran anytime soon. You can take it to the bank, ladies and gentlemen.

Too bad, though…

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Israel | 1 Comment

The Obama administration’s contribution to the election in Lebanon

I expressed some skepticism towards the claim that President Obama’s Cairo speech helped boost the prospects of the March 14 coalition. I also offered my own suggestion that perhaps the speech scared Christians into voting for the coaltion.

Max Boot writes that the speech was largely inconsequential as a factor in the election. Boot argues (echoing a sentiment expressed by Robert Satloff):

Kudos to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden for visiting Beirut and reaffirming their support for Lebanese independence. The Obama administration, as Michael Totten noted, has made clear that it will not sell out Lebanon to reach a deal with Syria or Hezbollah. The Obama administration deserves credit for that stance, which is a continuation of the previous Bush policy which made possible the 2005 Cedar Revolution that forced Syrian troops out of the country.

American support perhaps emboldened some Christian voters to vote for anti-Syrian, anti-Hezbollah candidates.

If the administration deserves credit, there’s no reason to ignore that it got Lebanon right. Michael Totten in his must-read analysis of the election writes:

I was slightly worried myself about other potential aspects of the president’s Lebanon policy before it developed, but he deserves support here from conservatives as well as from Democrats who understand that the United States can’t support a terrorist army that says, “Death to America is a policy, a strategy, and a vision.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Lebanon | Tagged | Comments Off on The Obama administration’s contribution to the election in Lebanon

CAIR doesn’t really care

The AP laps up everything that CAIR gives them, even when CAIR lies about caring about anti-Semitism.

Added to the lead of the AP news article on the Holocaust Museum shooting are these words:

The assailant was hospitalized in critical condition, leaving behind a sprawling investigation by federal and local law enforcement and expressions of shock from the Israeli government and a prominent Muslim organization.

A quick trip to CAIR’s website finds this:

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/10/09) – A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today condemned a shooting incident at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., during which a security guard and the alleged gunman were reportedly wounded.

The AP takes the quote word for word out of CAIR’s press release, and puts it right after the quote from the Israeli government. Please note the placement, because it is done deliberately to evoke a narrative: Muslims condemn this anti-Semitic attack. And note that in the full quote, CAIR can’t simply condemn anti-Semitism. They don’t stand simply with the Jewish community over this attack on Jews. They make it about themselves.

In a statement from Israel’s government, Information and Diaspora Minister Yuli Edelstein said the shooting was “further proof that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial have not passed from the world.”

And the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a prominent American Muslim organization, said in a statement, “We condemn this apparent bias-motivated attack and stand with the Jewish community and with Americans of all faiths in repudiating the kind of hatred and intolerance that can lead to such disturbing incidents.”

Funny, but you don’t see CAIR condemning Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust conferences, or regular calls to destroy Israel. You do find CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, however. That trial ended in conviction, as well as extremely long sentences for the defendants.

As for the reason CAIR’s condemnations are never exactly quite right, well, take a look at the video at this link. CAIR was founded by Muslims with links to terrorist organizations.

And last, the AP still hasn’t bothered to fact-check the “prominence” of CAIR:

According to tax documents obtained by The Times, the number of reported members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006, a loss of membership that caused the Muslim rights group’s annual income from dues to drop from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen individual donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR’s budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year.

CAIR, of course, will not divulge the names of their donors. Gee. I wonder why.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, AP Media Bias, Religion | Comments Off on CAIR doesn’t really care

Israel helping Gazans, world doesn’t notice

This isn’t getting any play at all in the anti-Israel media.

Israel began construction of an underground pipeline on Tuesday that will deliver diesel fuel and cooking oil to the southern Gaza Strip.

The decision to build the pipeline followed the suggestion of the political echelon, the IDF said.

Israeli and Palestinian construction crews will both work on the project, the army added.

“The IDF will continue to work to improve the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,” a statement released on Tuesday said.

Meanwhile on Monday, Kaddum, a Palestinian village adjacent to Kalkilya, was connected to the Israeli national power grid.

But—but—just last week, President Obama said that the situation in Gaza was in crisis!

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Crisis, I tell you! Crisis!

The Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, which oversaw the work, said the new arrangement would lead to “significant change in the lives of 4,000 villagers, who can now frequently use electricity, and who had suffered from cuts due to a past reliance on generators.”

The civil administration worked with local Palestinian authorities to construct the link to the power grid, the statement said.

“This step joins a series of steps taken recently… that can significantly increase the quality of life for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria,” the civil administration said.

Funny how the Obama administration didn’t notice that Israel is already working to enable the progress of Palestinians in Gaza. It’s almost like nobody pays attention to anything but the Hamas side of things. It’s like Hamas is faking the crisis, or stealing aid and goods from workers to distribute to their own people or something. Or stealing ambulances to convert them to military vehicles.

But hey, there’s a humanitarian crisis going on. Didn’t you hear the president?

Posted in Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time, The One | Comments Off on Israel helping Gazans, world doesn’t notice