Yourish.com

1) More on AIPAC

In addition to explaining how the two organizers put together the AIPAC conference, Tablet has a symposium, Do we still need a pro-Israel lobby? Though there are some good responses, the presence of Rebecca Vilkomerson and Alan Elsner as respondents is disappointing. Vilkomerson is the executive director as Jewish Voices for Peace, a well known anti-Israel group. Elsner works for J-Street. While Elsner is at least somewhat deferential towards AIPAC, his group exists as a counterpoint to AIPAC. In his contribution to the symposium, Noah Pollak explained the problem with J-Street and groups like the NJDC:

But the bad news is that beneath the surface, especially among the activists, the ground is shifting. Over the past two decades, as poll after poll shows, the right has grown friendlier toward the Jewish state and the left has grown more hostile; the right has pushed its anti-Israel figures to the margins, while the left has often embraced and promoted theirs.

The response of pro-Israel liberals? Too often it has been to pick a fight with pro-Israel conservatives and groups like mine, the Emergency Committee for Israel, by claiming we are “politicizing” support for Israel or using it as a “wedge issue.”

They have it backwards. It is the self-styled progressives who have “politicized” support for Israel by seeking to move liberal opinion and Democratic Party policy in a hostile direction. Supporters of the alliance have struck back against these attacks, and pro-Israel liberals, caught in the crossfire, have largely but not exclusively sided with the progressives—not by defending them, but by attacking critics of progressives as themselves the danger to the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Confirming Pollak’s analysis a recent poll shows that President’s support for Israel found wanting by many voters:

According to the latest Hill Poll, just 13 percent of respondents say the president’s policy toward Israel is too supportive. A full 39 percent said Obama is not supportive enough, the highest percentage The Hill Poll has seen.

…

In a poll for The Hill conducted in May 2011, 27 percent of voters said Obama was too supportive toward Israel, while 31 percent said he was not supportive enough.

In September 2011, the proportion of voters who said Obama was too supportive of Israel went down, and those insisting he was not supportive enough increased slightly.

Unfortunately we still see that there are those who fault AIPAC getting their say from positions of prominence. Steven Walt recently addressed the State Department. And an anti-Israel activist, Josh Ruebner was given a column at The Hill to write ‘Israel lobby’ to push for aid despite sequestration cuts (h/t Meryl Yourish):

Yet, as thousands of “Israel-first” citizen lobbyists descend on Capitol Hill tomorrow as part of the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — the largest and most influential of the many groups comprising the “Israel lobby” — concern for these millions of Americans will not be on its legislative agenda. ??Instead, AIPAC will be lobbying to avert the impact of sequestration on record-breaking levels of U.S. military aid to Israel. It will also be pushing for legislation to boost the U.S.-Israel “strategic alliance” and green light an Israeli attack on Iran, measures which will both inevitably entail demands for additional U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel.

Israel stands to lose approximately $250 million of its $3.1 billion military aid package from the United States under the terms of the sequestration. The Jewish Week calls AIPAC’s gambit to exempt these cuts a “very risky strategy at a time when millions of Americans will be feeling the bite of the sequestration debacle,” which “could easily backfire and damage Israel far more than any cuts in its very generous grant aid program.”

Indeed, why should AIPAC seek to “single out Israel” and “hold it to a different standard” — unfounded charges, ironically enough, leveled by the “Israel lobby” at those who seek to hold Israel accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law — by lobbying for greater levels of U.S. taxpayer aid for Israel at this time?

Ruebner doesn’t even try to hide his feelings, using the term “Israel-first” to describe American supporters of Israel. In response to the likes of Ruebner, Steven Rosen writes why the pro-Israel lobby is needed:

Against all this, you ask, is a pro-Israel lobby needed? Is medicine needed against communicable disease?

2) Kerry of Arabia

Secretary of State John Kerry visited Saudi Arabia. The AP’s Matt Lee reported U.S., Saudi, present united front on Syria, Iran (via memeorandum):

After a series of meetings in the Riyadh, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told reporters at a joint news conference that Assad must understand that recent scud missile attacks on regime foes in the city of Aleppo would not be tolerated by the international community and that he had lost all claim to be Syria’s legitimate leader.

…

That meeting ended in an agreement for further expert-level discussions between the sides and both Saud and Kerry said it was critical for Iran to accept offers made by the so-called “P5+1” group quickly. Kerry reminded the Iranians that President Barack Obama has vowed not to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon and that he has kept all options, including military options, on the table to prevent that from happening.

The WINDOW of opportunity for a diplomatic solution “cannot by definition remain open indefinitely,” Kerry said. “There is time to resolve this issue providing the Iranians are prepared to engage seriously on the P5+1 proposal. But talks will not go on for the sake of talks and talks cannot become an instrument for delay that will make the situation more dangerous,” he said.

The Washington Post however played up the differences, reporting U.S. Saudis paper over differences on Syria and Iran during Kerry visit:

Saudi Arabia is believed to be sending small arms and perhaps other weapons to Syrian rebel fighters. Saud’s brother, former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal, called in January for sending heavy arms such as antitank and antiaircraft weapons.
The Obama administration and the European Union have refused to provide weapons, but they agreed last week to begin sending some direct battlefield support to the rebels, who are fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
The United States will provide only food and medicine for now, arguing that weapons could too easily be diverted to Islamist militants working alongside what Kerry on Monday called the “moderate, legitimate opposition.”

3) Why we need drones to fight 

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Kenneth Anderson has an extensive post on the drone support the United States is providing to France in Mali. Anderson also deals with the issue of increasingly automated weapons – including drones. While the science fiction aspect of the discussion is fun, here’s the reason Anderson writes about it:

But here’s the basic problem for conducting operations in Mali. The territory is vast, and much of it desert or difficult mountains. There are many places for militants of Al Queda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to hide and that’s exactly what they are doing. France has neither the forces nor the political will to engage this territory from the ground over the long term; what it can supply is air power and coordination with ground forces from Mali (and other places). But to know where to strike in a terrain a vast as this can only be done with an elaborate intelligence operation, both from the ground and in the air. Whether the French or the Mali government can create the on-ground intelligence is hard to say, but it can be said that without drones, the air surveillance part of it is staggeringly difficult.
The use of drones at this point is part of the tactical conflict; US drones identify targets and French jets strike. But as an experienced observer of the Libyan conflict told me, just as there was a reason why NATO’s commander made an urgent appeal to the US for surveillance drones there, there is also a reason why, over time, those surveillance drones turn into attack drones. First, in a tactical battlefield setting, as in Libya, the time gap (between surveillance drones identifying a target and manned aircraft reaching it) is often too great. The target might well have moved, in a very short amount of time. Second, attack aircraft are very often not as precise and not capable of being as precise as a drone in terms of collateral damage. The drone is able to pick its moment to fire far more carefully, with greater loiter time and ability to track the target; the limited time frame for manned aircraft does not allow for this. Surveillance drones in Mali ought to turn into weapons-firing drones, for exactly these reasons. It is often more effective than trying to coordinate drone surveillance and manned airstrikes, and it is also generally more precise in the use of force.

New York Times Op-Ed Index for February 2013 


1) Israel’s Mr. Normal – Roger Cohen – February 2, 2013

To get beyond nothingness, Lapid has at the very least to declare that he opposes settlement building outside the blocks that Israel wants to incorporate through land swaps in any peace deal. He should set this as a coalition deal breaker. He must insist that the continued undermining of the Palestinian Authority — through soldier or settler violence, military intrusions into Palestinian-run areas, scattered settlement expansion — benefit only Hamas. Otherwise the peace talks Lapid says he wants are the talks Netanyahu has wanted: the kind that go nowhere.

Lapid “must?” Given that there’s been little or no settlement building outside of the blocs Israel is likely to keep, how does he differ from the current government? But then Abbas insists that there not even be building within those blocs. Today I saw that Hamas withdrew from unity talks with Fatah. Abbas refuses to negotiate with Netanyahu but can talk with an unreformed terrorist organization. How is it that it that it is Israel and Netanyahu that somehow is failing to move the peace process forward?

Current score: Anti-Israel – 1 / Pro-Israel 0

Litmus tests for Israel – Editorial – February 4, 2013

The sad truth is that there is more honest discussion about American-Israeli policy in Israel than in this country. Too often in the United States, supporting Israel has come to mean meeting narrow ideological litmus tests. J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group that was formed as a counterpoint to conservative groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has argued for vibrant debate and said “criticism of Israeli policy does not threaten the health of the state of Israel.” In fact, it is essential.

Oh please. I’ve been following the New York Times opinion pages for over a year and half now and there is plenty of debate about Israel. Well actually, some months there is no debate where there are absolutely no articles that could be construed as pro-Israel. And yes, there’s plenty of debate in the United States. But the BDS movement is beyond the pale; something that a more intellectually honest paper in New York recently recognized. The problem is that the New York Times can’t distinguish between criticism and condemnation and can’t distinguish bias from debate.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 2 / Pro-Israel 0

3) Don’t let Iran stall for time – Michael Singh – February 4, 2013

In fact, the regime may feel that time is on its side. American and Israeli red lines for military action depend on the pace of Iran’s nuclear activities, meaning that Iran can delay conflict simply by slowing those activities, as it recently has done. Meanwhile, Iran’s leaders may be hoping that black-market workarounds and a pickup in global oil demand will allow their country to expand its exports.

Singh’s op-ed isn’t mostly about Israel. However he makes the point that Israel’s and America’s interests regarding Iran are – or ought to be – the same. Given the prevalence of op-eds and editorials that insist that PM Netanyahu is a hysterical war monger who is advocating a war that will be to American’s detriment, this reasonably argued op-ed a welcome antidote.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 2 / Pro-Israel 1

4) More than a land grab – Raja Shehadeh – February 6, 2013

Israel’s record of pursuing crimes by its own army and the settlers is, in fact, dismal. For example, last year, of 240 allegations of I.D.F. soldiers abusing Palestinians, there were 78 probes and zero indictments.

Allegations do not equal convictions. I have no idea if his figures are even correct.  But this is typical for Shehadeh. He makes a charge and then extrapolates, whether or not he has any evidence. There is absolutely no editorial oversight for Shehadeh.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 3 / Pro-Israel 1


5) Reading Hagel in Tehran – Alireza Nader – February 6, 2013

On the other, the Iranian regime continued to believe that its lifelong rivalry with the United States is the result of flatly irreconcilable differences: what it sees as Washington’s unshakable opposition to the Iranian revolution, unqualified and limitless support for Israel, and insistence on competing with Iran for influence over the Middle East.

An article written from the point of view of the Iranian regime. This is the norm, not Michael Singh’s op-ed.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 4 / Pro-Israel 1


6) Academic Freedom vindicated in Brooklyn – Stanley Fish – February 11, 2013

Among the cultural institutions a boycott might target are those Israeli universities that are judged to be either actively in league with the government’s policies toward the Palestinians, or complicit with those policies by virtue of remaining silent while they are being implemented. To the charge that a boycott of academic institutions is a violation of academic freedom, B.D.S. supporters reply that because the state of Israel abrogates the academic freedom of Palestinian professors and students (by denying them funding, access and mobility), it is an affirmation, not a derogation, of academic freedom to refrain from engaging in intellectual commerce with Israeli universities. You can’t invoke academic freedom, they say, when you’re denying it to others. So the lines of battle are set with both sides claiming to be academic freedom’s champion, and it is easy to see why a college might be thought to be an appropriate venue for a discussion of the matter.

As noted above the BDS movement is not some scholarly endeavor, but an activist group with an extreme agenda. Would Fish consider it appropriate for Brooklyn College to have the KKK invited to Brooklyn College for its view on racial relation in the name of “academic freedom?”

Current score: Anti-Israel – 5 / Pro-Israel 1


7) To kick a ball down the field – Shmuel Rosner – February 12, 2013

These are welcome reactions. Not only is Beitar waging a battle against its bad image, but many Israelis seem determined to no longer turn a complacent ear to what they once dismissed as the predictable racist clamor of rowdy sports fans. At last, Israel — itself a country built by refugees fleeing discrimination — is banning, investigating and legislating against racism in sports.

The hiring of two Muslims to play for Beitar Jerusalem was controversial among its fans. Rosner took a controversy and found something positive about Israeli society from it. This is not the standard operating procedure at the New York Times.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 5 / Pro-Israel 2


8) Rising from Ruins – Raja Shehadeh – February 13, 2013

The Oslo Accords list Sebastia among the archeological sites of importance to Israel, yet Israel is not taking care of the place, arguably one of the most important set of ruins in the West Bank. Nor is it allowing the Palestinian Authority to do so. And even though USAID-supported renovation work is taking place in the village, supposedly to improve the ailing Palestinian economy by encouraging tourism in the West Bank, the international community has done nothing to oppose Israeli actions that impede tourism (and are contrary to international law).

I know nothing about Sebastia, but my instincts tell me that Shehadeh is not telling the whole story. I’m assuming he wrote to counteract the news of Israel’s Herod exhibit. In general Israel’s Antiquities Authority is pretty good about preserving archeological sites. If the Temple Mount is any indication, the Palestinian Authority is not at all good at preserving the past.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 6 / Pro-Israel 2


9) The Success that failed – Roger Cohen – February 14, 2013

“People say Netanyahu remains in power for the sake of power,” Shlomo Avineri, a prominent Israeli political scientist, told me. “I don’t agree. He has a core agenda. He is not going to give up one inch of Eretz Israel. He stays in power for that. The speech about two states was a tactic that gained three years of peace and quiet. He said it and did nothing about it.” Eretz Israel is a biblical term widely used to refer to the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, encompassing all of the West Bank.

In explaining the plight of the Palestinian Prime Minister who has no constituency among his own people. Cohen interviews Avineri. I’m very disappointed in the latter. If Netanayhu is about not giving up an inch of Eretz Israel, how is that he withdrew Israel from most of Hebron in 1997?

Current score: Anti-Israel – 7 / Pro-Israel 2

10) More fun with the fillibuster – Andrew Rosenthal – February 14, 2013

Mr. Graham was followed by Senator James Inhofe, who said he was going to block Mr. Hagel until he proved that he supports Israel. Since Mr. Hagel, like every other member of Congress I can think of, actually supports Israel, I don’t know what he can do to satisfy Mr. Inhofe besides swear unquestioning fealty to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s settlement policies and his saber rattling on Iran.

A number of op-eds have had similar language and I haven’t included them, because they weren’t substantially about Israel. “[U]nquestioning fealty to … Netanyahu?” This is ugly.  In late 1990, Rosenthal’s father blasted Pat Buchanan for comparable language. But such usage doesn’t bother the younger Rosenthal.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 8 / Pro-Israel 2

11) Deconstructing Herod – Shmuel Rosner – February 19, 2013

International interest in the exhibition has predictably focused on the boring issue of whether Herodium, which is in the West Bank, belongs to Israel or to the Palestinians. A much more interesting question is how Herod went from being a villain to a hero in the Israeli imagination.

Herod was viewed ambiguously in the Talmud. Overall Rosner’s purpose it to dismiss the “international interest” in the exhibit and focus on the Israeli view.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 8 / Pro-Israel 3
12) Tunnel Vision – Issandr el Amrani – February 20, 2013

Opening Gaza’s border with Egypt could be part of that solution, but Israel would also have to allow trade between the Palestinian territories that are now separated. Then, the tunnels that fulfill much of Gaza’s basic humanitarian and consumer needs would no longer be necessary. And Egypt could focus on stemming weapons smuggling, as the international community demands of it, while securing its eastern border.

The article is written from the point of view of Gaza, though, not explicitly that of Hamas. The author avoids inflammatory language when writing about Israel. I’ll rank this one neutral.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 8 / Pro-Israel 3


13) Academic Freedom in Brooklyn: Part Two – Stanley Fish – February 25, 2013

There remains the matter of the four students who were taken out of the room by Brooklyn College security officers as Judith Butler was speaking. Exactly what happened is in dispute. It has been claimed, and denied, that the four were disrupting Butler’s remarks. It has been asserted, but not verified, that the students, and at least one newspaper person, were targeted because they “looked Jewish.” It is not clear what role, if any, members of the college administration played. What is clear is that Brooklyn College President Karen Gould and CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein are taking the matter very seriously and have initiated an investigation to determine whether the students were prevented from expressing their views “without cause.” If that turns out to be the case, said a college spokesperson, “the college will issue a formal apology.”

Fish writes that his support of the BDS event doesn’t necessarily indicate his support of a boycott of Israel. This is disingenuous. First of all he cited the arguments of BDS without disqualifying them. Second of all here he only demands an apology if it turns out that students’ free speech rights were denied. This is also dishonest. If they were thrown out for because they “looked Jewish” then the pretense that the event was about academic freedom is a sham. Furthermore, Fish didn’t even seem to bother to consider the evidence himself.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 9 / Pro-Israel 3


14) Why the Middle East needs America – Allen S. Weiner – February 28, 2013

In the Palestinian view, one shouldn’t have to negotiate a peace with the burglar who has stolen your possessions. In the Israeli view, one shouldn’t be expected to negotiate a property boundary with a neighbor committed to destroying you. It is implausible to expect the parties to engage in bargaining involving an exchange of interests when they start from such fundamentally different points of view.

There’s something comforting about the evenhandedness here. On the other hand Weiner equates the Palestinian grievance based on a misreading of international law and magnified by relentless propaganda with Israel’s experience that concessions have led to terror more than to peace.

Current score: Anti-Israel – 10 / Pro-Israel 3


15) Zero Dark Zero – Roger Cohen – February 28, 2013

I said Israel’s situation is sustainable. It is in physical terms. It is not in ethical terms. This is a state whose Declaration of Independence in 1948 says it will “be founded on the principles of freedom, justice and peace in the spirit of the visions of the Prophets of Israel; will implement equality of complete social and national rights for all her citizens without distinction between religion, race and gender; will promise freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.” The West Bank dominion over 2.6 million humiliated Palestinians runs counter to every word of this.

Israel does not have “dominion” over 2.6 million Palestinians and hasn’t since late 1995. Cohen poses as a liberal Zionist, but even as he criticizes the Palestinians for demanding a right of return, he doesn’t see that it is the Palestinians who refuse to come to terms with Israel. Whatever his ideology, Cohen is, most of all, ignorant.

Final tally: Anti-Israel – 11 / Pro-Israel – 3 / Neutral – 1

Note about methodology: I searched the New York Times archives for all opinion articles mentioning “Israel” that appeared on the website between February 1, 2013 and February 28, 2013. I surveyed those articles that were substantially about Israel and determined if an article was favorable towards Israel or not.

1) Taking the lede in blaming Israel

A number of bloggers have commented on the anti-Israel remarks made by Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan last week. Fortunatly, Secretary of State, John Kerry and others rebuked Turkey.

Here’s how the New York Times’ anti-Israel blogger Robert Mackey provided context for the remarks:

The Turkish prime minister has expressed his anger with Israeli policies in blunt terms at international forums in the past, most notably at Davos in 2009. He stormed off the stage at the end of a heated discussion of Israel’s Gaza offensive, after telling President Shimon Peres, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.”
Relations between the countries suffered another blow in 2010, when Israeli commandos killed nine Turks during a bloody raid on the ship leading an effort to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza organized by a Turkish aid organization.

Mackey makes no mention of Erdogan’s Islamism, which is the ideology that has led him to demonize Israel. He provided no context for Cast Lead. He provided no context for the Mavi Marmara raid – not even that the soldiers who raided the ship were acting in self-defense.

Of course, too, Mackey’s description of the IHH as a “Turkish aid organization” ignores the organizations extensive documented ties to terrorist organizations.

Mackey’s goals here are to justify Erdogan’s remarks and minimize the fact that Erdogan radicalized his country.

Mackey doesn’t like being characterized as anti-Israel, but his sorry record speaks for itself.

2) The long arm of Hezbollah

Articles last week in the New York Times

During a cross-examination, the operative, Hossam Taleb Yaacoub, described himself as “an active member of Hezbollah” with the code name Wael, and said he had received a salary of $600 a month since 2010. Asked why he had a code name, he answered through an interpreter: “In general, the party is based on secrecy between members. We don’t know the real names of our fellow members.”
Mr. Yaacoub said that his handler, a shadowy figure known only as Ayman, told him to track the landing times for an Arkia Israel Airlines flight between Tel Aviv and Larnaca, Cyprus. Ayman also asked him to look into the rental prices of warehouses, he said.

and the Washington Post

Now, seven months after that attack, new details emerging in Yaakoub’s case are providing chilling insights into what investigators describe as a far broader effort by the Lebanon-based militant group to lay the groundwork for killing Israeli citizens and perhaps others in multiple countries.
Some details have come from Yaakoub himself, who made his first public appearance last week during his trial in Cyprus. But a much fuller account comes from legal documents summarizing the Swedish man’s statements to police during weeks of questioning last summer and obtained by The Washington Post.
The evidence echoes discoveries by investigators in Bulgaria and prosecutors in Thailand, India, Azerbaijan, Kenya and other countries hit by a wave of attempted assassinations and bombings linked to Hezbollah or its chief sponsor, Iran. U.S. officials characterize the plots as part of a shadow war directed by Iran in part to retaliate for Western efforts to derail Iran’s nuclear program. Evidence uncovered by investigators portrays a professional, well-funded effort by Hezbollah to recruit, train and position European-based operatives for what U.S. analysts describe as preparations for future terrorist operations.

describe how Hezbollah’s international operations target Jews worldwide.

Tony Badran shows how Hezbollah (especially in its operations in Lebanon) acts as an agent of Iran:

In the fact sheet explaining its designation of Shateri (Khoshnevis) for his role as the director of the Iranian Committee for the Reconstruction of Lebanon, the Treasury clarified that the designation exposed “Iran’s use of its state apparatus and State-run social service organizations to support terrorism under the guise of providing reconstruction and economic development assistance or social services.”
Ironically, the provision of social services to Lebanese Shiites is precisely why many analysts have said we shouldn’t regard Hezbollah as an Iranian asset. However, the prominent and all-pervasive roles that the IRGC-QF continues to play in running Hezbollah operations only highlight how it has a direct say not just in Hezbollah’s military affairs, but also in its command structure as well as its finances. This should dispel any notion that Hezbollah is an autonomous organization. Rather, the Party of God itself is but an Iranian state-run organization.

Matthew Levitt recently argued:

In short, an EU designation is critical, not only to send Hezbollah a clear message that it can no longer muddy the waters between politics and terrorism, but also because it would empower EU member states to open terrorism-specific investigations into the group’s activities – something many cannot or will not do today despite the resumption of attacks in Europe. The Bulgarian announcement was just the first shoe to fall; next comes the Cyprus verdict. The EU must show Hezbollah that there are consequences for executing terrorist operations, raising funds, procuring arms, and recruiting operatives on European soil. Inaction or half-measures would only embolden the group to continue operating there as if it were business as usual.

Still despite the efforts of some officials, the European Union hesitates to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Jeff Jacoby writes in Yes, Europe, Hezbollah is a terror group:

So what can explain the European reluctance to blacklist Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and shut down its fundraising and logistical operations? As in Churchill’s day, cowardice and dishonor might have something to do with it.
“There’s the overall fear if we’re too noisy about this, Hezbollah might strike again,” Sylke Tempel, the editor-in-chief of the German foreign affairs magazine Internationale Politik told the Times last month, as the Bulgarian government was preparing its report on the Burgas bus bombing. “And it might not be Israeli tourists this time.”
The moral stench of that rationalization is almost as repellent as its stupidity. Yes, Hezbollah’s foremost targets are Jews and the Jewish state — it has always proclaimed the destruction of Israel as its goal — but have Europeans still not figure out that while Nazis and the Nazi-like start by killing Jews, they rarely end with them? After 30 years of Hezbollah butchery around the world, can Europe still imagine that pretending Hezbollah is mostly “benign” will keep them safe? That if they feed the crocodile enough, it won’t eat them just yet?

An op-ed in the New York Times recently asked Why is Argentina’s President cozying up to Iran?

But bizarrely, Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, abruptly switched course last month and reached an agreement with the Iranian government that would set up a “truth commission” of international legal experts to analyze evidence from the bombings. The agreement, which the Congress approved early Thursday, would allow Argentine officials to travel to Tehran and interview Iranians suspected of involvement in the attack. The problem is that any recommendations by the commission would be nonbinding; moreover, some of the suspects in the attack are now high-ranking Iranian officials — including the sitting defense minister, Gen. Ahmad Vahidi — and therefore untouchable. Indeed, Iran has repeatedly refused to cooperate with Argentine investigators and ignored international warrants for the arrest of senior Iranian officials believed to have taken part in planning the bombing. Mrs. Kirchner’s decision to abandon Argentina’s longstanding grievances against Iran is particularly galling because it comes just weeks after Bulgaria, another country victimized by Iranian-sponsored terrorism, accused Hezbollah of staging a suicide attack on Israeli tourists in the Bulgarian town of Burgas last year. That attack, like the 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires, was part of a shadow war against Jewish civilians across the world. Bulgaria’s government, unlike Argentina’s current administration, decided to stand up to Hezbollah and forthrightly accuse it of the crime.

Even as more and more evidence emerges about the deadly nature of Hezbollah and its role as Iran’s proxy, there are those who refuse to acknowledge its true nature. Is it because it focuses its energy on Israel and therefore many see its efforts as being justified? Or it just laziness or fear?

Unfortunately, too, Hezbollah is not alone in escaping scrutiny and condemnation despite its terror.

There’s another more serious point implied by all of this. In a number of quarters (notably the editorial pages – and even the news pages – of the New York Times,) Prime Minister Netanyahu was mocked as an alarmist and a war monger for focusing on the threat of a potential Iranian nuclear weapon. What’s getting harder to deny is that Iran is engaged in a war – not only of words and even without nuclear weapons – against Israel and Jews all around the world. This war is accompanied by the genocidal rhetoric of Iran’s leaders. What will it take for the world to take the Iranian threat seriously?

3) The mission of AIPAC

Last week, I linked to a couple of articles that criticized AIPAC for not fighting the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Barry Rubin explains in Why, As President, Obama is a Disaster and Why, As a Country, Israel Should Applaud Obama:

By the same token, it is equally foolish for some to criticize, for example, President Shimon Peres for giving Obama a medal or Israeli leaders for lauding Obama on every possible opportunity. And the same applies to AIPAC not objecting to Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, never criticizing Obama, and inviting him to speak at its annual meetings. Whoever is president or secretary of defense, AIPAC and Israel will have to work with him.
All of these people, then, are doing their jobs properly by avoiding entanglements in such internal American issues.
Israel needs good relations with the United States. Obama is the president of the United States twice elected by the American people and he will be president for the next four years. It is not the task of Israel’s government to interfere with America’s internally made choices. It is the job of Israel’s government to live as best as possible with those rulers, minimize the advantage, and wait out this period by agreeing, smiling, giving in on small things, and doing everything possible to protect the nation’s security.

The American version of the Chareidi weekly, Mishpacha, presented a positive article about AIPAC, focusing on a Georgia politician and lawyer, Ashley Bell. While this article is not online another recent article, which mentions Mr. Bell, explains AIPAC’s role nicely.

The speakers explained how they came to be activists for the pro-Israel community, each with a different motivating story.
County Commissioner Bell’s story was especially enlightening and affirming. During his visit to Israel with the African American Leaders Mission, they met with leaders of the PLO. In a candid conversation without AIPAC staff in the room, Bell asked one of the PLO leaders, “Do you think Israel has a right to exist?” When the PLO leader answered “No,” Bell realized that all other statements were suspect and there was no further reason to continue the conversation.
Attendees heard that while the Jewish state is facing a rapidly deteriorating security situation on all of its borders, what makes this moment in time different is the growing support for Israel across the diverse American spectrum. Hard work from not just the Jewish community, but through the work of the African American and Christian friends of Israel is making a difference. Many of the most important decisions affecting Israel’s basic security are being made in Washington, not Jerusalem. The relationship, which will need to be stronger in the future, is strong now for several reasons: supporters of Israel as a community are willing to stand up and be counted; as a community, supporters are willing to engage elected officials in exactly the way the Constitution prescribes, and because of that, supporters of Israel as a community have a real voice in Washington.

Cultivating broad-based support for a cause is not always consistent with taking stands on specific issues.

1) Water, water everywhere

At the Times of Israel, editor David Horovitz writes about how Israel’s dealt with its water crisis.
(h/t Yaacov Lozowick)

“How did we beat the water shortage? Because we said we would. We decided we would,” says Kushnir, a big man with a warm smile and a robust Russian accent. “And once you’ve made that decision, you build the tools to reduce your dependence. We’re on the edge of the desert in an area where water has always been short. The quantity of natural water per capita in Israel is the lowest for the whole region. But we decided early on that we were developing a modern state. So we were required to supply water for agriculture, and water for industry, and then water for hi-tech, and water to sustain an appropriate quality of life.”

The National Water Carrier — which takes water from the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret) south through the whole country to Beersheba and beyond — exemplified Israel’s ambition. Contemplated even before the modern state was founded, its planning and initial construction were “a dominant feature of the first Ben-Gurion government — an unprecedented investment,” Kushnir notes. “It stressed our desire to achieve a different reality.”

Carrying almost 2 million cubic meters a day nationwide, that supply line, together with water from underground aquifers, kept Israel watered through the 70s. By the 1980s, though “we had a bigger population, bigger needs and the natural resources were overstretched. So we experimented with a small desalination plant in Eilat. And we began recycling purified sewage, and bringing industry into purifying water.”

The details are fascinating and well worth a read.

Since part of Israel’s water program involve re-use, a joint team of Israeli and Palestinian scientists is looking for possible dangers:

While people – and even their farm animals – continue to consume more and more medicines and chemicals, the effect of these substances once they have passed through the body and into the country’s water system are unknown, Tal explained. No one in Israel, or the Palestinian Authority, is currently looking for the presence of these chemicals or their effects “in a systematic way,” he added.

…

Tal has received a three-year, $560,000- grant from the USAID’s Middle East Regional Cooperation (MERC) Program to conduct the project. Many of his own students from Sde Boker will conduct the lion’s share of the laboratory testing in Health Ministry labs.

In the Palestinian contingent is water engineer Nader al-Khateeb, who also serves as Palestinian director of Friends of the Earth Middle East; Dr. Alfred Abed Rabbo, an assistant professor at Bethlehem University’s Water and Soil Research Unit; Dr. Shai Armon; and a group of Palestinian students, Tal explained.

One point that these two articles underscore is that if the Arab world would put aside its boycott of Israel on account of the Palestinians, it probably could benefit its own citizens by using Israeli technologies.

2) Is AIPAC obsolete?

In Tablet Lee Smith explains How AIPAC is losing, as evidenced by its non-response to the Hagel nomination:

Yet AIPAC has remained totally mum. The group says it focuses its energies on matters of policy rather than personnel. If it campaigned against Hagel, where would it stop? The organization would potentially have to take a position on every Cabinet nominee. Meantime, in the absence of AIPAC, other pro-Israel organizations have come out publicly against Hagel, like the Emergency Committee for Israel. For taking the lead on this issue, they have been labeled partisans, while AIPAC has preserved its bipartisan status.

But it’s not clear how much that label matters when a very influential segment of the Democratic party has made it plain that supporting Israel isn’t a top priority. I’m not just referring to the delegates who booed pro-Israel changes to the party platform on the floor of the convention in Charlotte last summer. I’m talking about the White House.

Pro-Israel Obama supporters on the Hill and in the press keep trying to make the case that in spite of how it might look on the surface, the administration cares deeply about the U.S.-Israel relationship. They point to the success of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile defense batteries as evidence that the security and military cooperation between the United States and Israel has reached unprecedented highs under Obama’s stewardship. But politics is mostly about how things look. And if the administration really cared that much about Israel, it wouldn’t nominate a secretary of defense who referred to defenders of the U.S.-Israel relationship as “the Jewish lobby.”

AIPAC is a lobby built to cultivate a pro-Israel bi-partisan consensus. AIPAC probably figured that Senators like Schumer and Cardin will be around after Obama’s second term ends and the bitterness of a contested nomination wasn’t worth alienating them. Still Smith persists:

The Iranian negotiating team meeting with its Western counterparts in Kazakhstan this week has earned the right to its smugness. The Iranians are installing equipment that will allow it to accelerate the production of nuclear fuel. And then there was North Korea’s nuclear test two weeks ago. At the very least, it signaled to the Iranians that in the end, despite all of the tough talk coming from the White House, the Americans are not going to stop the Iranians from acquiring the bomb.

Tehran has the upper hand in negotiations because it recognizes that all the White House wants is some sort of deal it can sell as a victory. And the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby has no choice but to swallow it and smile.

In other words, generally, it’s worth it for AIPAC to preserve its bipartisan appeal, but this issue was important enough to take sides on.

The New York Sun has a related editorial criticizing numerous Jewish and pro-Israel organizations for staying silent.

That was the Zionist Organization of America, which is the oldest pro-Israel organization in America, having been founded in 1897, the same year in which Theodor Herzl convened at Basel, Switzerland, the First Zionist Congress. It opposed the Hagel nomination early, forthrightly, and unapologetically. The result, according to the ZOA’s president, Morton Klein, is that it received objections from several leaders worried about the consequences for the Jewish community of such a public position.

Mr. Klein believes the Hagel nomination would not have been confirmed had the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Committee taken a formal public position against Mr. Hagel. All three agencies have had many heroic moments. But they stood down on Mr. Hagel. Said Mr. Klein: “Several senators — and important ones — said to me: ‘If Aipac, ADL and AJCommittee — especially Aipac — had come out and lobbied against Hagel, he would have been stopped.”

What such public opposition would have done, Mr. Klein argues, is that it “would have given a number of Democrats, who thought Hagel was awful, cover to vote against him.” Instead, the response leaders of the Jewish community received was, “If he’s so awful how come we’re not hearing anything against him from other Jewish groups.” Mr. Klein says he heard such a message from both sides of the aisle in the Senate.

Would it have made a difference? Morton Klein (and apparently the New York Sun) believe it would have. I am less certain.