Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

by John Bolton, Washington Post, July 2, 2009

With Iran’s hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel’s decision of whether to use military force against Tehran’s nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.

Iran’s nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.

Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.

He still wants “engagement” (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran’s current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about “getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has.” This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks. (Continue Reading this Article)

By Leslie Susser, JTA· June 29, 2009

JERUSALEM (JTA) — Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, the historian Ben Zion Netanyahu, once said that his son’s biggest failure as a leader was his inability to pick the right people to advise him.

Now prime minister for a second time and facing major decisions on Iran, the Palestinians and the Arab world — not to mention ties with the United States — Netanyahu has picked what looks like a strong but possibly too like-minded team.

These are the more influential members of the inner circle Netanyahu has put together in the weeks since taking office.
(Read more…)

Can a tango of a murderer and a suicide be considered “The Clash of Civilizations”?

By Alexander Maistrovoy, a journalist with the Russian-language Israeli newspaper Novosty nedely.

It is difficult to say the clash of which civilizations Samuel Huntington meant. Those who think he wrote about Islamic civilization on the one part and the West on the other part, make a mistake. There is no such conflict, it is inherently impossible. The events of the latest decades show that the civilizations in question are far from clashing. On the contrary, they co-operate and complement one another.

Any conflict assumes that both parties have ideological oppositions, pride, courage, and desire to fight. If one of the parties has neither principles, nor will to resist, or at least aspirations to survive, the conflict does not exist. There is a simple absorption of one civilization by another, a kind of submission or assault. The situation becomes even more hopeless if one of the parties not only obediently submits to an aggressor and tyrant, but meets the conquerer with readiness and enthusiasm.
(Read more…)

Jerry Gordon comment: I had been told last weekend by friends in Boston that this Dershowitz Wall Street Journal op ed was coming and would reflect some ‘concerns’ by him about what the Obama Administration is doing regarding pressures on Israel about settlements and shelving military options to deter Iran’s nuclear threat to the Jewish state. I scoffed at the representations of my friends who are good Zionists. The leopard doesn’t change his spots I told them. Back in December, 2006, Dershowitz, Frank Luntz and I were part of a hasbarah training program for Israeli regional consular press officers, with a sprinkling of both FMO and IDF spokespersons. I was presenting on the power of blogs. At one point in Dersh’s presentation I heard him say that if he made aliyah to Israel he would join Brit T’zedek and reform it from within. Dersh is an unalloyed left wing Democrat who campaigned for Obama who finds it excruciatingly painful to distance himself from him. Thus, the meretricious quality of this op ed from Dersh in today’s Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, the only Mainstream Jewish leader who has gotten it big time is Malcolm Hoenlein, of the Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. At that, Hoenlein’s own COPMAJO President has distanced himself from Hoenlein’s charges. Liberal Jews are now caught in a bind of their own making after voting in droves for someone they thought they knew, but didn’t, when it came to US support of ally Israel. Dersh is abetting this dumbing down of American Jews by not speaking the truth about Obama. Hoenlein on the other hand is but getting no support from his alleged colleagues. Pity!

by Alan Dershowitz, Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009

Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch. Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama over John McCain in part because the Obama campaign went to great lengths to assure these voters that a President Obama would be supportive of Israel. This despite his friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and historian Rashid Khalidi.

At the suggestion of Mr. Obama’s Jewish supporters — including me — the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot, which had borne the brunt of thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas. Standing in front of the rocket shells, Mr. Obama declared: “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.” This heartfelt statement sealed the deal for many supporters of Israel.

Now, some of them apparently have voters’ remorse. According to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, “President Obama’s strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes.” I hear the same thing from rank-and-file supporters of Israel who voted for Mr. Obama.

Are these fears justified? Rhetorically, the Obama team has definitely taken a harsher approach toward Israel compared to its tone during the campaign. But has there been a change in substance about Israel’s security? In answering this question, it is essential to distinguish between several aspects of American policy. (Continue Reading this Article)

by Jerry Gordon, The Iconoclast, July 2, 2009

Mike Levine of FoxNews has a story, “Somali-Americans Accused of Al Qaeda Ties Indicted on Terror Charges, Sources Say” about possible indictments against Somalis in Minneapolis who were under Federal investigation for recruiting American Somali youths to join Al Shabaab, the al Qaeda affiliate. At the center of the FBI and grandjury investigations is the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center in St. Paul. This is a story we spotlighted a June NER article, “Foot Soldiers of Islam” presented at the recent Nashville Symposium and in earlier posts on The Iconoclast. We had also urged Senator Lieberman’s Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to reopen hearings on recruitment for Al Shabaab in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area given the murder in Mogadishu of 18 year old Burhan Hassan.

Here are some of the emerging details in the FoxNews report. (Continue Reading this Story)

By Ted Belman

The Arabs know what they want, and that is the end of Israel.

The Jews are divided as to what they want. The left wants to get the hell out of the West Bank. The center, including Kadima and Labour, want to keep the settlement blocks containing most of the settlers but are prepared to uproot as many as 70,000 Jews, perhaps even 100,000. The right does not want to allow a Palestinian state to emerge, even if demilitarized.

All are united in requiring an end of conflict and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Netanyahu is a centrist, though he campaigned on the right. In his response to Obama’s Cairo speech, he demanded recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and was prepared to accept a demilitarized Palestinian state. He also demanded that Jerusalem be part of Israel and that Israel have defensible borders.
(Read more…)

‘Anti-Israel’ adviser to be ambassador to Syria?
Long identified as one of Jewish state’s greatest foes in Washington

by Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily, July 2, 2009

JERUSALEM – President Obama is strongly considering appointing his former Middle East adviser, Daniel Kurtzer, as U.S. ambassador to Syria, according to Syrian diplomatic sources speaking to WND.

Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, long has been seen in Jerusalem as one of the Jewish state’s greatest foes in Washington. He has been identified by Jewish and Israeli leaders, including prime ministers speaking on the record, as biased against Israel, and is notorious for urging extreme concessions from the Jewish state.
(Read more…)

By Ted Belman

As time goes on the Obama team continues to be challenged on its stand that there was no agreement permitting construction the settlements. Elliot Abrams who was there utterly rejected such denial.

Now Dov Weissglass who was also there adds his voice in his article, Agreements must be honored

On May 1 and 16, 2003, during discussions of Israel’s reservations in respect to the Road Map initiative, it was agreed that there will be no construction at Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, with the exception of existing communities. These words were uttered, agreed upon, and documented in the records of the talks kept at the Prime Minister’s Office. I’m sure that an efficient search will reveal the parallel American records. [..]
(Read more…)

by Jerry Gordon, New English Review (July, 2009)

Zakat (Alms in Arabic) is one of the five pillars of Islam and an obligation on all Muslims under Shariah Law. In President Obama’s June 4th “New Beginnings” speech in Cairo, he spoke of the obligation of American Muslims to perform Zakat in the context of Religious Freedom:

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Immediately following the President’s Cairo speech, US Attorney General Eric Holder issued this statement in furtherance of President Obama’s Cairo remarks:
(Read more…)

Obama thaw on Israeli settlement construction follows Iran setback, Saudi brush-off

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

The Obama administration signalled a new mood of compromise on settlement construction just ahead of the key talks in New York between Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak and prime minister’s adviser Yitzhak Molcho and US envoy George Mitchell Tuesday, June 30.

While the Israeli delegation was still airborne, the US state department spokesman Ian Kelly said: “We’ve been working with all the parties to try and come up with… an environment conducive to the resumption of negotiations. I’m not going to prejudge what happens tomorrow.”
(Read more…)

By Ted Belman

The argument against the settlement freeze that we can’t do it because of the demands of natural growth is a plea for mercy. We should have taken the position that settlements are legal and we have every right to build there. Never mind promises made by previous administrations. We build because that is our right. Until such time as we make an agreement to give the Arabs land, we should continue building.

Moshe Arens in Obama sweet-talks dictators, yet strong-arms Israel, agrees.

Netanyahu made a serious error of judgment in trying to parry Obama’s opening serve by explaining the need for additional settlement construction due to the “natural growth” of the Jewish population there.

(Read more…)

The Washington Post is often a spokesperson for the Obama administration so these comments are important. Netanyahu should hang tougher and let Obama be hoisted on his own petard.

By Jackson Diehl, Washington Post

President Obama began with a broad strategy of simultaneously pressing Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states to take concrete steps toward peace. By the time Iranians took to the streets, it had allowed that broad front to be narrowed to a single point: a standoff with the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu over whether “natural growth” would be allowed in Jewish settlements outside Israel’s 1967 borders.

Pressuring Israel made sense, at first. The administration correctly understood that Netanyahu, a right-winger who took office with the clear intention of indefinitely postponing any Israeli-Palestinian settlement, needed to feel some public heat from Washington to change his position — and that the show of muscle would add credibility to the administration’s demands that Arab leaders offer their own gestures. But, starting with a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in May, the administration made the mistake of insisting that an Israeli settlement “freeze” — a term the past three administrations agreed to define loosely — must mean a total stop to all construction in the West Bank and even East Jerusalem.
(Read more…)

According to this report, Netanyahu has sided with Barak in favouring a temporary settlement freeze. Yaalon and Begin are hanging tough. Also of some note it is reported that the US wants to climb down from its harsh demands

By HERB KEINON, REBECCA ANNA STOIL AND HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST

MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) lashed out Monday against the US demand for a settlement freeze, labeling it “extortion” and warning it could set back Israeli readiness for peace.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Schneller assailed Obama administration officials as holding beliefs shaped by “far-Left opinions outside of the Israeli consensus.”
(Read more…)

by Jerry Gordon, The Iconoclast, June 30, 2009

Given the controversy surrounding US Department of Justice (DOJ) representation at the annual convention in Washington of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Patrick Poole unveils in today’s Pajamas Media links by this Muslim advocacy group to terrorism finance, racism, and Holocaust denial . His investigative report, “ A Closer look at Obama’s Islamic Partners,” chronicles two decades of extremist activities, terror support and leadership in this Muslim Brotherhood front. The ISNA was listed by Federal prosecutors among several unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Trial. It had filed motions endeavoring to expunge its name from the Federal prosecutor evidence at the HLF rial.

Jennifer Rubin in an earlier Pajamas media article had exposed the efforts by the DOJ to recruit personnel to man its booth at this year’s annual convention. We had posted on an Indianapolis NBC TV affiliate , WHTR investigative series into the ISNA, headquartered in the area, and IPT news revelation about dissension within the DOJ regarding representation at this ISNA convention. IPT reported a meeting between the FBI and an officer of the ISNA as a furtherance of Obama’s Muslim outreach initiative, the centerpiece of his Cairo speech. (Continue Reading this Article)

by Jerry Gordon, The Iconoclast, June 29, 2009

Joe Kaufman, Chairman of Americans Against Hate is one courageous guy. I had the privilege of standing beside him during an Anti-Terror Coalition press conference organized to protest Muslim Day on the west steps of the Florida State Capitol building in Tallahassee in March. At the time the frivolous case brought against him in Texas by the Muslim American Society (MAS), an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, was still unresolved. His defense, although costly, was an important First Amendment matter that finally was dismissed by the Texas court, last week.

Intrepid Dr. Paul Williams discusses the MAS-Kaufman case in this article, “Allah in Agony,” on his blog, The Last Crusade. Williams rightly calls Kaufman “one of the heroes in the fight against Radical Islam.” Others who have been similarly sued by Radical Islamics that Williams cites are Rachel Ehrenfeld, our colleague Bruce “Beowulf” Tefft, Mark Steyn, and Williams himself. To that group I would add Andy Whitehead, who forced CAIR to drop its lawsuit against him, as well as those in the American for Peace and Tolerance organization, Dr. Charles Jacobs, Prof. Dennis Hale, Sheik Ahmed Mansour and others, who caused the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) to withdraw their defamation case in 2007. The connection between Kaufman’s Texas case brought by the MAS and the ISB matter is made clear by the fact that one of the founders of the MAS, Jamal Badawi is also a trustee of the ISB Cultural Center formally opened last weekend in the Roxbury section of Boston.

Here is the account, by Williams, of this important victory for Kaufman and for all those rightly made anxious by those pushing the Stealth Jihad. (Continue Reading this Article)

by Jerry Gordon, The Iconoclast, June 29, 2009

Today’s New York Post had this disquieting revelation by columnist Jacob Gershman: Columbia University has granted tenure to notorious Israel and gay bashing, Professor Joseph Massad. Massad was a central figure in the David project documentary, “Columbia Unbecoming” that roiled the Morningside Heights campus in 2005 and 2006. The film portrayed allegations by Columbia students about anti-Semitism and anti-Israel statements by faculty in the Middle East Arts Language and Culture (MEALAC) program . In the film a former IDF soldier and Columbia Student relates how he was rebuked by Massad and questioned, “ how many Palestinians did he kill.?”

Massad’s appointment is not the first Columbia University tenure controversy. Last year we had another event, the tenure of Nadia Abu el Haj of the anthropology faculty at Barnard College. Abu El Haj had published a controversial book denying the ancient Jewish heritage and provenance of Israel. That was preceded by the appointment in 2005 of Rashid Khalidi to the Edward Said Chair of Middle East History endowed with significant Saudi money. Khalidi was a colleague of President Obama in his days as a junior Illinois Senator, when they were both on the faculty at the University of Chicago.

Massad, as the Gershman New York Post column points out, has bizarre views on Israel and gays. (Continue Reading this Article)

Jerry Gordon comment: My chavera, Lori Lowenthal Marcus sent this note along with the Medad opinion piece in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times:

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT JEWS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE WHEREVER THEY CHOOSE (I.E. YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN APARTHEID WHEN APPLIED TO JEWS), THEN PLEASE GO TO THE LA TIMES WEBSITE AND REGISTER YOUR NO VOTE IN THE POLL THEY ARE RUNNING NEXT TO THE OPINION PIECE BELOW. NOTE ESPECIALLY. THAT NOW JEWS LIVING IN THE GOLAN HEIGHTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE “WEST BANK” OF PLACES MOST OF THE WORLD IS PREPARED TO FORBID JEWS FROM LIVING. ASK YOURSELF - WOULD THE WORLD TELL ARABS TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES? IF ANYONE DID, IMAGINE THE RIOTS THAT WOULD ENSUE.

Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in Israel.

by Yisrael Medad, Los Angeles Times, June 28, 2009

No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That’s one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh, a so-called settlement less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem.

After Shiloh was founded in 1978, then-President Carter demanded of Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the village of eight families be removed. Carter, from his first meeting with Begin, pressed him to “freeze” the activity of Jews rebuilding a presence in their historic home. As his former information aide, Shmuel Katz, related, Begin said: “You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh and Hebron, and you haven’t the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to reside wherever he pleases.”

We now fast-forward to President Obama, who declared on June 15 in remarks at a news conference with Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, that Jewish communities beyond the Green Line “in past agreements have been categorized as illegal.”

I believe the president has been misled. There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born. To suggest that residency be permitted or prohibited based on race, religion or ethnic background is dangerously close to employing racist terminology.

Suppose someone suggested that Palestinian villages and towns in pre-1967 Israel were to be called “settlements” and that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs should be removed from their homes. Of course, separation or transfer of Arabs is intolerable, but why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area? Do not Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in the state of Israel? (Continue Reading this Article)

by Jerry Gordon, The Iconoclast, June 28, 2009

CAIR issued a news release launching a new initiative in its 2010 Strategic plan: distribution of 100,000 Qurans to US state and local officials. In the news release CAIR said it was prompted to conduct Da’wa (preaching) by President Obama’s Cairo speech:

“In the multi-year initiative, American Muslims will sponsor Qurans for distribution to governors, state attorneys general, educators, law enforcement officials, state and national legislators, local elected and public officials, media professionals and other local or national leaders who shape public opinion or determine policy,” the statement said.
According to the press release from CAIR, the “Share the Quran” educational campaign “was prompted by President Obama’s recent address to Muslims worldwide in which he quoted from that holy text.”

CAIR Chairman and North Carolina Democratic State senator, Larry Shaw noted:

“Through this ground-breaking outreach initiative, we hope not only to educate policy-makers and opinion leaders about Islam, but also to provide an opportunity for American Muslims to reach out to their fellow citizens of other faiths.”
The “Share the Quran” initiative, according to the CAIR statement, is part of the celebration of the council’s 15th anniversary.

In an interpretation of a verse from the Quran used by Obama in his Cairo speech , WorldNetDaily noted:

During his speech “to the Muslim world” from Cairo on June 4, Obama referred to the Quran as “holy” four times and quoted several verses from the Islamic text. He also used Muslim terminology, such as the Quranic obligation of “zakat” or charity.
As the Holy Quran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth,’” Obama said. “That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.”
Obama was reading from chapter 9 verse 119 of the Quran, which scholars pointed out to WND carries two interpretations: the primary exegesis, or tafsir, which deals with speaking the truth, and a second, underlying tafsir urging Muslims to follow Muhammad in waging jihad against nonbelievers. [This is based on context].

In an NER article, “Is CAIR’s 2010 Plan a Fiasco?” we noted prior efforts to spread Da’wa (preaching) among Americans. (Continue Reading this Article)

by Avika Eldar, Ha’aretz, June 28, 2009

The American government and the European Union are making efforts to include Hamas in a broader diplomatic effort that would include a long-term cease-fire with Israel, reconciliation among Palestinian factions and support for renewed negotiations with Israel on the basis of the Arab peace initiative.

A deal is reportedly being formulated for the transfer of abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to Egypt, under the assumption that this would encourage Israel to agree to a deal with Hamas that would include the release of Palestinian prisoners and opening border crossings. A European diplomatic source told Haaretz yesterday that talks about manifesting the deal were held secretly until late last week, and only four persons were privy to the details of the talks. Israel was not a party to the effort.

Last week Israeli sources denied knowledge of any developments or plans to transfer Shalit to Egypt, a matter that Arab, and particularly Palestinian sources, gave much attention to in their reports. Israel has downplayed reports of a pending breakthrough in the Shalit case, and Israeli officials urged caution and noted that Shalit’s release has been undermined in the past by too many public statements.

According to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al-Hayat reporting from Damascus, a U.S. official visiting Syria two weeks ago said that “the Hamas leadership has recently made important and interesting statements.” The official added that the U.S. is following the Hamas stance and hopes that the group will alter its views and adopt a two-state solution.

Meanwhile, four senior Republican and Democratic figures, including former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker, called on President Barack Obama to initiate a dialogue with Hamas without delay. Speaking during interviews organized by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Baker said that just like the U.S. found a way to begin dialogue with the PLO, it must do so with Hamas. Baker noted that it is impossible to make peace with people if you are unwilling to talk with them. (Continue Reading this Article)

by Jerry Gordon, The Iconoclast, June 28, 2009

This coming week, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) will hold its annual convention in Washington, DC. The Obama Administration has done a literal two step. As reported by IPTNews,” FBI Replaces Brotherhood-Tainted Liaison with Brotherhood-Tainted Liaison”, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI have simply exchanged one Muslim Brotherhood Front, CAIR, for another, the ISNA. This is in furtherance of outreach to the American Muslim community following the President’s Cairo U. speech. In a controversial move the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that it will send representatives to attend the ISNA convention. IPT News report noted that there is serious dissension in the DOJ and FBI over this ISNA issue. There is good reason for these internal DOJ and FBI concerns given the recent convictions in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial. The federal prosecutors had named CAIR, ISNA and several other Muslim Brotherhood front groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. This trial resulted in May convictions of five officials of the Muslim charity on charges of funneling over $12 million in funds to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two of the HLF officials fled the US in 2004 for Syria when the indictment in the original trial was handed down, as we have posted. The ISNA has admitted ties to Hamas.

The Investigative Project alerted us to an Indianapolis NBC affiliate WTHR investigation of the ISNA, which has its national headquarters in that area. The report, “Images in Conflict,” was done back in 2004 but is still relevant. You can watch the WTHR report on YouTube, here and here.

In the transcript of the WTHR investigation of ISNA were these revelations. (Continue Reading this Article)