Prime Minister Netanyahu on Iran

If you haven't seen Prime Minister Netanyahu's interview last Sunday on Meet The Press it really is "Must See TV", to borrow NBC's slogan. (NBC is the network that broadcasts Meet The Press in the U.S.) For those of you who prefer to read the transcript you can find it here.

A few high points:

Obviously, you see a regime that represses its own people and spreads terror far and wide. It is a regime whose real nature has been unmasked, and it's been unmasked by incredible acts of courage by Iran citizens. They go into the streets, they face bullets and, I tell you, as somebody who believes deeply in democracy, that you see the Iranian lack of democracy at work, and I think this better explains and best explains to the entire world what this regime is truly about.

[...]

Andrei Sakharov, the great Russian scientist and humanist, said that a regime that oppresses its own people sooner or later will oppress its neighbors and, certainly, Iran has been doing that. It's been calling for the denial of the Holocaust. It's threatening to wipe Israel off the map; it's pursuing nuclear weapons to that effect; it's sponsoring terror against us but throughout the world. So I think what everybody would like to see is a change of policy, both outside and inside.

[...]

I don't subscribe to the view that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a status symbol. It's not. These are people who are sending thousands and thousands of missiles to their terrorist proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas, with the specific instruction to bomb civilians in Israel. They are supporting terrorists in the world. This is not a status symbol.

To have such a regime acquire nuclear weapons is to risk the fact that they might give it to terrorists or give terrorists a nuclear umbrella - that is a departure in the security of the Middle East and the world, certainly the security of my country. So I wouldn't treat the subject so lightly."

Watch the full interview:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Carter on Settlements: Gush Etzion Will Remain Israeli "Forever"

Yesterday former U.S. President Jimmy Carter visited Neveh Daniel and met with Shaul Goldstien, who leads the Gush Etzion Regional Council, in Goldstien's home. Here are some of President Carter's comments as reported by The Jerusalem Post:

This particular settlement area is not one I ever envision being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory."

He added that the Jewish communities in Gush Etzion are among a number of West Bank settlements "...that I think will be here forever." The former President also thanked the Gush Etzion residents he met with:

I recognize that their suffering is taking place in an area where strife and misunderstanding and animosity exists. I have been fortunate this afternoon in learning the perspective that I did not have. I explained to those listening of my long-time commitment to Israel. The most important element in my life in the last 30 years is to bring peace...

What makes this statement so important is the fact that it came from President Carter, a political leader widely considered to be strongly pro-Palestinian and who has wrongly compared Israeli policies to South African apartheid. I have been harshly critical of Mr. Carter in the past but this time he absolutely gets it right.

President Carter has come to the same realiztion that Presidents Clinton and Bush have reached: the 1949 armistice line, to so-called "pre-1967 borders" were never intended to be borders at all and simply are not defensible. Israel can never return to those "borders" and the intransigent Palestinian position of refusing to budge from the armistice line or engage in land swaps is a real obstacle to any hope of peace in the future.

Even the use of the term "settlements" is often inaccurate and misleading. Here is what I wrote about the history of the Etzion bloc in March, 2006:

Gush Etzion and pretty much the entire Etzion bloc were Jewish property and Jewish towns prior to 1948. Israeli forces had to evacuate the population when the Jordanian army conquered the area during Israel's 1948-49 War of Independence. Why does 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation turn Israeli Jewish towns into colonies? Why was Jordan's occupation deemed somehow legitimate and Israel's subsequent control of the area for the next nearly 39 years somehow illegitimate?

The fact is that all "settlements" are not equal. They do not all have the same history and are not somehow stolen Palestinian land. President Clinton recognized this in regard to the Jewish community in Hebron as well. From the same March, 2006 piece:

...the Jewish community of Hebron lived for many centuries in peace with their Arab neighbors. It was only the violence incited by then Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin al-Husseini, the British appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the subsequent Hebron massacre of 1929, that drove the Jewish community out. The "settlers" in Hebron have simply reclaimed homes and property that was Jewish for centuries and restored a community in a city that is holy to the Jewish people. Hebron is, after all, the site of the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. President Bill Clinton recognized this, proposing at Camp David in 2000 that Palestinians lease the Jewish enclaves in the city to the Jewish inhabitants and/or Israel indefinitely. His idealistic vision was one of Jews and Palestinian Arabs once again living together in peace. Does either the terrorism and slaughter of 1929 or the Jordanian occupation of Hebron from 1948 until 1967 negate the Jewish claims in the city and centuries of continued Jewish presence there?

Sadly it does not appear that President Obama understands this history in his call for a freeze to all settlement activity. If he was calling for no further expropriation of land from the Palestinian Arabs living in Judea and Samaria I'd agree with the President. If he was talking about not expanding settlements geographically I'd agree that such expansion would be damaging to any prospects for a meaningful peace process. That isn't what the President is talking about. He is opposed even to natural growth within Jewish towns and cities on land within those communities. President Obama is critical of Israel at a time when Israeli policies have allowed for negligible settlement growth or, in some cases, actual declines in population and as the Netanyahu government forcibly evacuates illegal outposts.

It is high time President Obama stops trying to determine the outcome of peace talks in advance at a time when the Palestinian leadership seems to have little or no interest in compromise or peace. It is particularly important that the President learns more of the history of the Jewish communities in question and comes to the same realizations that President Clinton, President Bush, and now even President Carter have come to. There are Jewish communities beyond the Green Line that are legal, legitimate, and here to stay.

Iranian Opposition Arrests Are For "Traffic Violations"

I watched part of the press conference today by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad today. I heard his claim that the reporting of what was essentially a stolen election was "slander" by Western journalists. He claimed that the arrests and violence with riot police seen beating protesters was just the normal sort of thing that happens when people "leave a soccer stadium". I listened to him claim that everyone is equal in Iran and that the people arrested were being "fined" by the police for violating traffic laws. He repeatedly claimed that 40 million people voted in Iran and that "safeguards" the elections. He insisted that there is "no partisanship" in Iran as in the West, that everyone remains friends and nobody asks who you voted for in Iran. All of this was to justify his government's claim that President Ahmadenijad was reelected with 63% of the vote despite the fact that they have not released any vote tallies and that all polls and press reports prior to the voting indiciated a likely opposite result.

Despite President Ahmadenijad's claims to the contrary it is clear to all the world that is willing to look at Iran honestly that what exists is a theocratic totalitarian state, not a democracy in any sense of the word. This is, of course, the same President Ahmadenijad who denies the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the map and says so to thunderous applause at the U.N. This is the same President Ahmadenijad who sees his country's quest for both nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology as a "right".

Today The New York Times and The Jerusalem Post are reporting that President Obama is still determined to enter into direct talks with Iran in spite of the stolen election. This makes the previous report that that the U.S. administration is not accepting the election results ring hollow. It is time for President Obama and his administration to end their timid, almost acquiescent, approach to Iran. If the President ever needed a justification to change his policy towards Iran he has it in this stolen election. U.S. policy needs to return to one that recognizes that Iran simply will not engage in any meaninfuly negotiations and is effectively immune to diplomacy. If Iran does enter into any talks with the West in general or the United States in particular it is simply to buy time to allow the nuclear and missile programs to be completed.

Three and a half years ago I used this blog to call for U.S. military action to end the Iranian nuclear program. The point I made then is that the consequences for the U.S. and the world as a whole would be much less severe and fewer lives would be lost if the U.S. rather than Israel took such action. I still believe that is true but I also believe that the Obama administration will never do any such thing. We know that last September Israel was prepared to go ahead with such an attack. It has been widely reported that President Bush effectively vetoed the action and that Prime Minister Olmert decided not to act without American support. Earlier this month we had the spectacle of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman assuring the Russians that Israel will not attack Iran and that this is an international problem, not an Israeli one per se. Never mind that the international community, as demonstrated in April at the U.N. Durban II conference, would be perfectly content to see Israel destroyed and that Iranian leaders have promised to do just that.

The "election" in Iran demonstrates clearly that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is very much in charge and that Iran's President will be whomever Khamenei decides will be President. The people of Iran, whom President Ahmadenijad insists have "total freedom", have no say whatsoever. The aftermath of the election, with internet services blocked, newspapers shut down, and the opposition either arrested or under threat of arrest, signals clearly that nothing is going to change in Iran. Their desire to destroy Israel and to have a leadership that proclaims that openly has not changed.

What needs to change is the timid response by the United States and the equally timid response by Israel at America's behest. Americans need to remember that there is only one nation that the Iranian leadership hates more than Israel: the "Great Satan", the United States. With a theocratic regims that believes that an apocalyptic battle will set the stage for the return of the 12th Imam, the Islamic messiah, it would be foolish to believe that given nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them that Iran would not use them. This sham election should serve as a reminder than nothing short of military action will prevent that. I said it three and a half years ago and I repeat it now.

At the very least President Obama needs to untie the hands of Israel's leadership. Failing that it is time that Prime Minister Netanyahu realizes that he cannot count on the United States to prevent Israel's destruction. Israel must act to safeguard her citizens and her survival with our without U.S. approval.

President Obama Hosting Passover Seder

Barack Obama will become the first American President ever to host a Passover seder at the White House.

While the story has received minimal mainstream media coverage here in the U.S. it was much bigger news in the Jewish and Israeli press. The historical significance was not lost on The Jerusalem Post:

'I'm really happy to hear about it,' said Steve Rabinowitz, who once led a staff Seder in the Clinton White House but didn't know of any White House Seder in which the president had personally taken part before now. 'It's been an extremely open White House to all faith communities, certainly including ours.'

William Daroff, who runs the United Jewish Communities' Washington office, recalled that former president Franklin D. Roosevelt snuck out the back door of the White House in 1943 to avoid seeing rabbis marching out front to demand US action to save European Jews from the Nazis.

'Sixty-six years later the President of the United States is spending Thursday evening with his friends and family celebrating the liberation and survival of the Jewish people,' Daroff noted, calling the event 'a testament to how far we have come as a Jewish people in America.'

In a bit of irony former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) chose today to declare that the Obama administration is "anti-religious". He was referring to the appointment of Harry Knox, a former Methodist minister and an outspoken gay rights advocate to the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives. Apparently Mr. Gingrich believes anything other than right-wing evangelical Christianity isn't worthy of consideration as a religion. There are any number of liberal and tolerant Christian denominations. Reform Judaism is openly supportive of gay rights as are many in the Conservative (Masorti) movement.

I'm often asked why Jews tend to vote Democratic by conservative friends who see liberals as insufficiently supportive of Israel. While many European leaders were issuing warnings and thinly veiled threats to the new Israeli government even before Prime Minister Netanyahu officially took office President Obama chose that day to declare America's "unwavering support" for Israel. Support for Israel among Democratic leaders is not lacking.

Many right-wing Republicans, on the other hand, are very tied to Christian fundamentalism. Mr. Gingrich also accused President Obama of being "intensely secular". As a Jewish woman and a member of a religious minority in this country I am more comfortable with a secular government than an intolerant fundamentalist Christian one. My mainstream Jewish values are very different than those of the American Christian religious right.

I, for one, am grateful to President Obama's support for Israel even if I have some reservations about specific elements of his foreign policy. I think Mr. Gingrich's comments on the day before the President is taking part in a truly historic Jewish religious observance illustrate very well why I can't support his views.

To President Obama, and to all my readers:

Hag Sameach! Happy Passover!

A Breath Of Fresh Air From The Israeli Foreign Ministry

The rather right-wing One Jerusalem website, in an April 2nd article, characterized new Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman as having the right message but of being the wrong messenger. They describe the vilification of Lieberman in the media:

Critics of Lieberman included the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, western public officials, editorial boards, and most anyone else involved in foreign affairs.

In the vast majority of the reports Lieberman is depicted as a 'racist' who hates Arabs. He is also seen as an international outlaw who is challenging the very foundations of Middle Eastern international relations.

The Jerusalem Post covered Lieberman's speech to his new staff at the foreign ministry. Here are a few highlights:

I think that we have seen the cheapening of many concepts, first and foremost of the word 'peace.' The fact that we say the word 'peace' 20 times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We have seen the disengagement and witnessed the Annapolis accord. I read in the newspaper about the far-reaching proposals made by the prime minister to the other side, which I do not think have ever been made, outside of Barak's visit to Camp David.

Israel Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition; Avigdor Lieberman was not the foreign minister. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't have hampered bringing peace. But I do not see that it brought peace. To the contrary. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors - Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly becoming extremist.

We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions, and constantly saying 'I am prepared to concede,' and using the word 'peace' will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. 'Si vis pacem, para bellum' - if you want peace, prepare for war, be strong. We certainly desire and want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility."

Am I the only one who is cheering these words? The Foreign Minister is absolutely correct that Israeli concessions have been interpreted as weakness, both in the Arab world and among Israel's critics in Europe and elsewhere. Withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza didn't bring the opening for peace that Prime Minister Sharon hoped for. It only brought more bloodshed: bloodshed initiated by Hamas. It also brought more international condemnation. It didn't matter that not a single Israeli remained in Gaza. It didn't matter that Egypt also controls a border with Gaza. Somehow Israel was still guilty of "occupation" and "oppression" because it wouldn't allow the free flow of goods, including weapons, and people, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.

Foreign Minister Lieberman is also right to put the onus for peacemaking on the Palestinians. Palestinian President Abbas is boycotting the new Israeli government even as Prime Minister Netanyahu is talking about strengthening the Abbas-led Fatah government and moving ahead with the peace process. To me the speech is a breath of fresh air. It's about time Israel had a Foreign Minister who is not timid and not afraid to speak the truth.

One Jerusalem has its own objections to Foreign Minister Lieberman. He is an outspoken proponent of a two state solution who has said that he would gladly give up his West Bank home for peace. One Jerusalem doesn't support a two state solution.

Usually if you are criticized from both the left and right you are doing something right. Next week I'll look at Foreign Minister Lieberman's record and statements in more detail. While some respectful criticism of and concern about the Foreign Minister is certainly justified much of the media attacks on him are certainly not.

Fatah: "Hamas Are Criminals"

It seems the criticism of Hamas, including blaming Hamas and its supporters for the current death and destruction in Gaza, isn't limited to Israel and its supporters. A Fatah official in Ramallah, speaking on condition on anonymity to the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, said, in part:

"The Iranians and Syrians are using Hamas to undermine the Palestinian Authority and other moderate Arab governments. Victory for Hamas in this war would mean victory for Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. This is something we need to prevent."

So it seems even moderate Palestinians want an Israeli victory in Gaza. The anonymous official also hopes that Hamas leaders Mahmoud Zahar and Ismail Haniyeh would be tried before a Palestinian court as "war criminals." The Hamas leaders, he charged, were responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinians.

"Ever since they came to power, they brought death and destruction to our people."

Funny, if you listen to the U.N. and some media outlets you'd think that Israel was responsible for all the killing and only Israelis could ever be considered war criminals. It seems that objective and honest people, even Palestinians, see things differently.

On the record Abdel Rahman, a senior advisor to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, mocked claims made by Hamas leaders about their successes against Israel. He added:

"The Gaza Strip belongs to the Palestinian people. The Gaza Strip is part of Palestine and not a Hamas-owned estate."

I will repeat my contention that the only hope for peace to ever be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians depends on an Israeli victory in Gaza, not the premature ceasefire the U.N. is pushing for. Hamas must be removed from power and Gaza must be returned to Palestinian Authority control under international supervision.

International Law and the Fighting In Gaza

Earlier today the Global Law Center issued a report titled International Law and the Fighting In Gaza. The report finds that Hamas has repeatedly violated international law and also cites "Israel's exemplary conduct." Here are a few key excerpts:

"Each one of the 6,000 rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian terrorists on civilian targets in Israeli towns is a war crime. Both the terror squads carrying out the attacks, as well as their commanders, bear criminal responsibility."

[...]

"A consortium of Palestinian terrorist groups have held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit incommunicado and out of reach of the International Committee of the Red Cross since 2006. This is a clear violation of international law concerning prisoners of war."

[...]

"The Palestinian attacks must be seen as terrorist attacks under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which makes it a crime to bomb public places (such as city streets) with the intent to kill civilians. Under this Convention, the Palestinian attackers are considered international terrorists and Israel is required to assume criminal jurisdiction over them."

[...]

"The Hamas attacks fall within this definition of genocide. The Covenant of Hamas explicitly advocates a religious holy war aimed at creating a regional Islamic entity encompassing the territory of Israel and the disputed areas."

[...]

"In contrast to the illegal Palestinian attacks from Gaza, Israeli counter-measures have been legal. Indeed, Israel’s responses to Palestinian terrorist attacks and war crimes have been limited to far less than the full measure of actions Israel could legally have undertaken. In fact, Israel’s responses may be properly criticized on the grounds of international law, if at all, for being insufficient rather than excessive.

Many of the legal criticisms of Israel are implicitly based upon misinterpretations of the relevant international law. Moreover, many of the charges are disingenuously based upon misstatements of fact or misuse of legal terminology."

[...]

"Under international law, it is certain that Israel has the right to use force in defending itself against Palestinian attacks from Gaza. If Gaza is an independent sovereignty, and entitled to all the rights of states under jus ad bellum, Israel would be entitled to use force against Gaza by authority of the inherent right to self-defense referenced by Article 51 of the UN Charter. Gaza would have lost its general immunity from attack by repeatedly striking at its neighbor state and Israel’s use of force would therefore be permissible on the grounds of self-defense."

[...]

"At the same time, it is clear that Palestinian actions in conducting military operations from within built-up civilian areas, thereby increasing Palestinian casualties, constitute war crimes. It is important to note that Israel is not required to refrain from attacking Palestinian combatants simply because they have chosen to hide behind civilians. As Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear, the presence of civilians 'may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.' The article also makes Palestinian attempts to use civilian shields unlawful. "

All of the accusations made against Israel to date have come from organizations with a long history of an anti-Israeli bias. These include Arab sources, the United Nations, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The U.N., in particular, stands accused of conducting a diplomatic and political war against Israel in an editorial published in last Thursday's New York Daily News by Anne Bayefsky of Eye On The U.N. Ms. Bayefsky believes that the 63 "Islamic [states] chokehold on the UN" leaves the organization incapable of even defining terrorism. She points to all the various condemnations of Israel and notes that the General Assembly has never found fault with other nations even in clear cases of genocide.

"The same Assembly never managed to hold a single emergency session on the 800,000 people who died in the Rwandan genocide, or the 3 million who are dead or displaced in Sudan."

A former President of the International Committee of the Red Cross once equated the Jewish Star of David with the Nazi swastika. Enough said.

Unfortunately much of the international media seems to share the anti-Israel agenda and serve as willing accomplices in the attempt to strip Israel of any ability to defend itself. Consequently I expect the Global Law Center report will get little or no media coverage. Both the organizations making the war crime changes against Israel and many in the media count on the fact that most people just aren't educated about international law or what it really has to say. We can't have the truth actually get out to people, can we? Rather the media assumes that a lie, repeated enough times, will become the truth.

A Great Example Of Why I Love The United States: Today's Senate Resolution

Today the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution supporting Israel's right to defend itself against the ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza. The resolution was cosponsored by the normally unlikely duo of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

Senator Reid (D-NV) stated that the resolution would :

"..."strengthen our historic bond with the State of Israel by reaffirming Israel's inalienable right to defend against attacks from Gaza, as well as our support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."

Senator McConnell (R-KY) made perhaps the strongest statement about why the United States continues to back the Israeli military action in Gaza, saying that Israel

"...responding exactly the same way [the US] would if rockets were being launched into the United States from Canada or Mexico."

This is a perfect example of why I love the United States. The U.S., like Europe, has strong commercial interests in the Arab world, not to mention U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be expedient to criticize Israel to protect those perhaps larger interests in the Muslim world. The U.S., unlike Europe, rarely if ever does that. There is an understanding of the history involved and a moral clarity that transcends the almighty dollar or partisan politics. There is a certain dishonesty in those who would condemn Israel and yet would demand action much like that taken by Israel if their own nations and families were under fire.

Sadly this resolution by the U.S. Senate today received little or no coverage in the American media. I had to go to the Jerusalem Post to find the story.

UPDATE: The Senate resolution actually passed unanimously, as did an identical resolution in the House of Representatives. Every single U.S. member of Congress, without exception, voted to support Israel.

On Gaza: It's Time The World Sees What American Leaders See So Clearly

Last July President-elect Barack Obama visited Sderot, the Israeli town which has suffered most from Hamas rocket attacks eminating from Gaza. His words then were clear and unequivocal:

If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.

In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries.

President Bush has been equally clear. On Monday he spoke about the current fighting:

The situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas. Instead of caring about the people of Gaza, Hamas decided to use Gaza to launch rockets to kill innocent Israelis. Israel's obviously decided to protect herself and her people.

Democratic leaders in Congress have been almost uniformly taking exactly the same position. This is perhaps the one and only issue in American politics today where there is no partisan divide. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has been a particularly forceful voice:

Israel is acting in clear self-defense in response to heinous rocket attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza. As a sovereign nation, Israel has an unequivocal right to take action to ensure the security and safety of her citizens. Indiscriminate attacks by Hamas are a serious detriment to the peace process in the region.

There are very few, even among Israel's harshest critics, who would deny the fact that the current crisis was started by unprovoked rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas. They, however, ignore this issue, reciting tired old lines about Palestinian grievances against Israel to justify Hamas terrorism and decry "Israeli aggression". The usual suspects on the far left and in the international media highlight Palestinian deaths and show us pictures of crying Palestinian children to tug at the heartstrings and turn public opinion against Israel. Outside the United States and Canada they have largely succeeded.

Maintream American media, thankfully, has been more balanced. CNN's Anderson Cooper showed the same disturbing images from Gaza but followed them with photos of Hamas rockets and destruction in southern Israel. PBS program "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" has, as always, shown both sides of the conflict. This seems to me to be the main reason why American public opinion is so different from that in the rest of the world. Americans have all the facts at their disposal, something those who rely on more biased media simply do not have.

The most interesting reaction has been from the Arab world. Oh, the streets and most media outlets have been denouncing Israel steadily, using extreme language and exaggeration together with graphic images to stoke passions against the Jewish state. This is to be expected. Every Israeli action is a new "genocide" or "holocaust". Those words have been so cheapened in that part of the world that they have almost lost any meaning, a tragedy in and of itself.

The reaction from Arab leaders has been far more muted for good reason. Moderate, mainly Sunni Arab leaders know that Hamas is their enemy as well and a proxy for Iran. Douglas Bloomfield, writing in the Jerusalem Post, calls these leaders "Israel's reluctant allies:"

From this tendency of Arab leaders to speak out of both sides of their mouths, one might get the impression that they suffer from a collective case of schizophrenia, but it's actually fear mixed with hypocrisy.

None of these dictators is a candidate for the next edition of Profiles in Courage. They are scared of the influence of the militant Islamists and the popularity of the Palestinian cause on the Arab street. Iran and its allies have focused on creating animosity to the entrenched and repressive Sunni regimes which, in the age of satellites and the Internet, can no longer turn public emotions on and off like a water tap.

That's why they are praying so hard for an Israeli victory.

Defeating Hamas now will certainly result in a tragic loss of life. Many innocent people, the majority of them Palestinians, will certainly die. However, it is time that the bleeding hearts on the left in both North America and Europe realize that dislodging Hamas now will prevent repeats of this war and bloodshed in the future and might, just maybe, revive some slim hope for peace in the future. In the long run letting Israel finish what it has started will save lives. My biggest fear is that world leaders, including American leaders, will allow images from Gaza and public sentiment to sway them into pressuring Israel to end the conflict prematurely.

I also ask those who only mourn Palestinian casualties to think about President-elect Obama's words. What would you want your government to do if missiles were raining down on your home and your family? Can any of you honestly say that you wouldn't want your government to do anything and everything necessary to stop the rockets and save your family?

Happy Hanukkah!

I just want to wish everyone a very Happy Hanukkah!

To my Christian friends: a very Merry Christmas!

To anyone who celebrates something else or nothing at all: a very happy holiday season.

I haven't forgotten this blog and yes, I have lots to write about.

Gmar Hatima Tov

Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar and the most solemn day in the Jewish year, starts at sundown this evening. (As of this writing it has already started in Israel.) For Jews around the world it is a time of fasting, prayer, and repentance. In Israel everything shuts down for Yom Kippur, from television and radio stations, to public transportation, to all non-emergency government services. Most Israeli Jews, even those who normally consider themselves secular, will be in a synagogue for Kol Nidre services tonight.

For everyone who observes Yom Kippur I wish you an easy fast and a meaningful observance.

Shana Tovah!

Shana Tovah! I hope everyone has a happy, healthy, and sweet new year!

I hope that I'll be able to be actively blogging again after the Rosh Hashana holiday.

Change To Google Earth Requires Corroboration For User Entries

Last week I wrote an article for O'Reilly News and for this blog documenting alleged anti-Israel political bias and the posting of false information at Google Earth. Similar charges had been previously made about Google News. The main point of the article was to question the integrity of the data provided by Google and questioning if, in effect, Google was losing the trust of its wider user community by making decisions which suited a specific political agenda.

While the article appeared on Friday, August 29th it was actually sent to Google for comment more than 24 hours earlier. While I received no directly reply an article in the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, August 31st reported changes at Google Earth:

A new super-layer of geographic information in the popular Google Earth program now requires corroboration before user-generated content can be added to the default map display. The move means that anti-Israel markings placed by a Jenin resident are no longer visible to users when they first open the program.

[...]

Key to the new layer are special algorithms that corroborate information received through one source with the other sources. According to a company statement, this will make "it easier for users to learn about a given place through photos, videos, and annotations contributed by users around the world."

But it will also allow Google Earth to automatically corroborate any information received from users before displaying it on the default layer. Only information appearing in more than a single source will be displayed in this layer.

It appears that Google has made changes which do address the concerns of the company's critics on this issue.

I don't know if this is the result of nearly two years of criticism in the Israeli press and the pro-Israel blogosphere or if my effort to raise the issue in another forum, in the tech community to be specific, made a difference. One thing I am sure of: all of us who wrote to raise this issue deserve some credit. That includes both reporters and bloggers. Google is no longer in the business of delegitimizing Israel because we made our voices heard. Such efforts need to continue, calling into question every bit of misinformation and outright falsehoods that are published about Israel. The change at Google Earth proves that we, as a group, can make a difference and stand up for the truth.

Google Earth Delivers Geographic Data, Satellite Imagery, and Political Bias

NOTE: This piece was written for O'Reilly News in an attempt to reach an audience outside the Israeli, pro-Israel, and Jewish media where the ongoing issue of bias at Google has not been widely reported.



Last Friday Media Backspin, the weblog of HonestReporting.com, reported that Google Earth had removed a notation which falsely claimed that the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Yam was built on the ruins of Ghawarina, an Arab town which supposedly has been destroyed during Israel's 1948-49 War of Independence. Google, which researched the notation made by Dr. Thameen Darby, a Palestinian physician living in Jenin, used maps dating back to 1880 to justify the change. A new notation on Google Earth reads:

The 1880 Palestine Exploration Fund map designates a region by this name east of Acre. This area is populated with Israeli Arabs. The map does not have any towns here.

Translation: Ghawarina was someplace else and Arabs still live there today.

At first glance it looks like Google corrected an error and all is well. Sadly, it took two years and a libel suit by Kiryat Yam to get the error corrected. An Associated Press report on February 11 about the complaint quoted Professor Yossi Ben-Artzi of Haifa University:

That's simply complete nonsense. Kiryat Yam was built on sand dunes, and there wasn't any Palestinian village in the area. The lands were bought in 1939 by the Gav Yam construction company.

This isn't an isolated case. On June 26 Andre Oboler of the Jerusalem Center For Public Affaris published a report titled Google Earth: A New Platform for Anti-Israel Propaganda and Replacement Geography. In the report Dr. Obeler states, in part:

...sites known to be ruins in 1946 are claimed to be villages destroyed in 1948. Arab villages which still exist today are listed as sites of destruction. The Google Earth initiative is not only creating a virtual Palestine, it is creating a falsification of history.

[...]

The inclusion of virtual Palestine, superimposed on Israel in the core layer of Google Earth, is an example of replacement geography advanced by technology. Those wishing to find directions, explore the cities of Israel, or randomly wander across this small piece of land are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest.

What makes Obeler's report compelling is not the fact that users have altered history and geography to suit their political purpose. Rather, it is that Israel, unlike other nations, has had this information included into the default display.

"Generally, Google allows all kinds of organizations or individuals to create overlays with their own information on its map. These overlays are only available to those who specifically request them, but they are not automatically incorporated into the core map of Google Earth that every user entering its website can see. Disturbingly, Google has incorporated the Palestinians' overlays and their accompanying narrative into its core maps of Israel. As Google maintains editorial control over its core layer, it has responsibility for its content, which it clearly has not adequately exercised."

The crux of the issue is Obeler's charge that Google made a deliberate decision to place pro-Israeli content in one user layer which is not displayed by default and pro-Palestinian content in another user layer that is displayed by default overlaying the core layer. Obeler is charging that Google, the company, has made a deliberate and conscious decision to use Google Earth to promote a specific political agenda. This charge of explicit bias by Google can be substantiated today even after the Kiryat Yam correction.

A July 1st Jerusalem Post report actually claims that anti-Israel posting on Google Earth increased in the wake of Obeler's report.

Google's overall response has been less than helpful. From the Jerusalem Post article:

Google spokesperson Jessica Powell said on Tuesday that Google has no plans to restrict the application's content, despite claims that Israel is being uniquely and malevolently targeted.

[...]

"This layer reflects what people contribute, not what Google believes to be true [...] While we recognize that some may find the user-generated content objectionable, we are careful to balance the integrity of an open forum with the legal requirements of local governments," Powell said. "

Obeler, who was interviewed for the Jerusalem Post article, challenged Powell's assertions:

The orange dots posted by Darby can be immediately found on the map, while other pro-Israel and corrected postings have to be downloaded separately. A user has to actively seek for another perspective on the map.

The core layer is what people get when they download and install Google Earth. It is there by default. The problem we have here is that the core layer is being used to promote propaganda, and this is being done openly and without penalty. If we treat Google Earth as the primary geographic information tool in the world, having such propaganda included becomes a problem.

On July 15 the Zionist Organization of America sent a letter to Google executives asking for changes. ZOA President Morton Klein added:

Google markets Google Earth as a reliable resource and teaching tool. It even publishes a Web site for teachers to use in the classroom. The company can't have it both ways. It can't benefit from a reputation as a credible source of information and yet take a hands-off approach when users post information on the map of Israel that is false and hateful. Google exercises editorial control over some of the content on Google Earth, but not when it comes to anti-Israel falsehoods.

The claim of anti-Israel bias at Google also stretches beyond Google Earth. For years right wing and pro-Israel websites and bloggers have claimed that Google News showed the same bias in their editorial selections. HonestReporting.com took Google News to task on the issue back in 2004.

For those of you who share Google's political perspective I ask you to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. What if the West Bank was shown on Google Eath only as Yehuda and Shomron (Hebrew for Judea and Samaria), as integral to Israel, and covered with orange dots which only refer to the Palestinian people as terrorists while describing the area as solely Jewish in history? Would the Palestinians and their supporters be up in arms? Of course they would and rightfully so. Google Earth should only show factual information with user commentary available on demand, not one sided commentary shown by default without fact checking.

There is a wider issue for all of Google's hundreds of millions of users. Google has built a reputation and a successful business based on trust. Google users trust that when they do a search, look at Google Earth, or use any of Google's other services that accurate data is being provided to them. I have no evidence that Google's search engine, for example, is in any way tainted by politics Despite that I find myself double checking the results Google provides with new search engines like Cuil and Mooter and even the venerable Alta Vista. Google has already lost the trust of many Israeli, Jewish, and pro-Israel users. What happens to Google's business if this lack of trust spreads to the wider user community as they become aware of the charges of political bias?

Google is best served by insuring the trust of their user community regardless of politics. Using Google Earth or Google News as a platform for political advocacy is destructive to their business.

Obeler and Klein made a reasonable suggestion which would restore trust while allowing Palestinian users and their supporters largely uncensored access. They propose that Google treat the Virtual Palestine user layer exactly the same way they treat other user layers. Don't display the information by default overlaying the core layer. Make it available for download by request. Google also has a responsibility to investigate complaints about false and malicious content as they did in the Kiryat Yam case. Google's actions last Friday are a model for what needs to be done. It just shouldn't take a lawsuit for them to act.

Technorati Tags: israel google google earth bias google news political bias revisionist history palestine middle east

Barack Obama and Israel, Part 3

In Part 1 and Part 2 I acknowledged that Senator Barack Obama, now the likely Democratic nominee for President, has generally been supportive of Israel and has a solid voting record during his four year tenure in the U.S. Senate. I expressed deep reservations, however, about his choice of foreign policy advisers, specifically Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom are stridently anti-Israel and have a history of blaming all the ills of the Middle East on Israel in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Even more worrisome is Obama campaign co-chair and chief military adviser, General Merrill "Tony" McPeak. Writing about McPeak in the conservative American Spectator Robert Goldberg describes the General's views:

He also has a penchant for bashing Israel or, more particularly, Jews who oppose negotiating with terrorists.

McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for not going back to the 1967 borders as part of any peace agreement with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine questioning Israel's insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank.

In a 2003 interview in The Oregonian newspaper, when asked why efforts at peacemaking between Palestinians and Israel have failed McPeak had the audacity (to borrow Obama's favorite term) to blame it on American Jewry. Asked where the problem lies, McPeak responded:

New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.

McPeak also blames Jewish and Christian Zionists of manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq:

Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq.

While Senator Obama has recently started distancing himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski and has clearly staed that he disagrees with Brzezinski on Israel he has made no similar statements about McPeak. Quite the contrary. In the run up to Tuesday's Oregon primary television commercials with Obama and McPeak together appeared. (McPeak is an Oregon native.) Obama turned to McPeak to boost his credibility as a future Commander-In-Chief.

McPeak clearly doeen't believe that Israeli interests and American interests coincide in the Middle East. If Obama's top military man is McPeak can an Obama administration be trusted to do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Would McPeak simply dismiss any calls to do so as another attempt at manipulation of U.S. foreign policy by Jews and Christian Zionists? Would Obama take his advice? I don't know for certain but I certainly don't want to find out.

Technorati Tags: israel obama barack+obama mcpeak tony mcpeak 2008 elections politics palestine middle east

Barack Obama and Israel, Part 2

In Part 1 I acknowledged that Barack Obama's record supporting Israel during his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate has been excellent. Despite that I am extremely worried about what an Obama administration would mean for Israel because he has surrounded himself with a foreign policy team that is openly hostile towards Israel.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter. The ex-President has famously written a book equating Israeli policy to South African apartheid. As I frequently point out accusing Israel of apartheid is reserved for people who are either totally ignorant both about Israel and what apartheid in South Africa meant or else simply want to spread propaganda with no regard for facts. President Carter certainly isn't ignorant and neither is Brzezinski. In addition to serving as a senior foreign policy to Senator Obama, Brzezinski has made a career of writing scathing attacks on Israel and making the rounds of the talk show circuit eloquently explaining to Americans why Israel is at the root of all evil in the Middle East and probably beyond. I cringe every time I see him on TV.

Brzezinski is the only senior American official, past or present, who has openly supported John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's claim that the "Israel lobby" has shaped American foreign policy to the detriment of the United States. Alan Dershowitz cited Brzezinski's views as damaging to the Obama campaign:

It is a tremendous mistake for Barack Obama to select as a foreign policy adviser the one person in public life who has chosen to support a bigoted book.

More recently, in response to the Annapolis peace conference Brzezinski signed a letter calling on the Bush administration to open a dialogue with Hamas terrorists, the same people who daily fire rockets and mortars into southern Israel, in part to scuttle any chance for peace. Brzezinski also blamed American and Israeli foreign policy rather than Hizbullah for the 2006 Lebanon War.

Brzezinski's quickness to attack any Israeli government as an obstacle to peace was demonstrated in 1996 appearance on PBS's The Newshour With Jim Lehrer when he had signed a letter urging pressure on the then new government of Binyamin Netanyahu. Brzezinski gave this assessment of the Israeli Prime Minister:

In my view, there is the real danger that Netanyahu is pursuing a policy not of peace with security, which is what he was elected to pursue, but of peace with territory, which is what the Likud has stood for, for a long time--peace with territory, which really means security with territory, and peace being sloughed off.

Prime Minister Netanyahu went on to negotiate, sign, and implement the Wye River Agreement and pulled out of most of Hebron in an attempt to push the Oslo peace process forward. We may have already seen some of Brzezinski's antagonism toward Netanyahu expressed by Senator Obama in his statement that supporting Israel doesn't mean supporting Likud.

How damaging is Brzezinski to Obama with supporters of Israel? Just ask Mark Siegel, who served as Jewish liason for President Carter until 1978:

Brzezinski was a major obstacle to bridging the divisions between the president and the Jewish community. I’m very, very surprised that someone would have him directly involved in a presidential campaign.

Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to fail to capture a majority of the Jewish vote. With foreign policy advisers like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley I think it is very likely that Obama will follow in Carter's footsteps. The loss of supporters of Israel, Jewish, Christian, and other, could easily cost Obama a close election is he is the Democratic nominee.

In Part 3 of this four part series I'll introduce one more adviser that's even more worrisome than Brzezinski.

Technorati Tags: israel obama barack+obama brzezinski zbigniew brzezinski 2008 elections politics palestine middle east