Former US congressman Robert Wexler is a man worth listening to. Wexler served as then-senator Barack Obama’s chief booster in the American Jewish community during the 2008 presidential campaign. He appeared everywhere and said anything to convince the American Jewish community that the same man who sat in the church pews listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Semitic vitriol for two decades, and listed among his closest friends and associates a host of Israel-haters as well as former terrorists, was the greatest friend Israel could ever have.

Once Obama was elected, Wexler continued to serve as his Jewish shill. Wexler traveled to Israel multiple times in the early months of Obama’s presidency, to pressure Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to submit to Obama’s demand and embrace the cause of Palestinian statehood. After Netanyahu finally announced his support for Palestinian statehood at his speech at Bar-Ilan University in September 2009, Wexler returned with a new demand – that Netanyahu enact a moratorium on Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post at the time, Wexler promised that Israel would be richly rewarded if it took the unprecedented step of denying Jews the right to their property in Judea and Samaria simply because they were Jewish. Even if the moratorium were temporary, Obama would view the discriminatory measure as proof of Israel’s good intentions.

Moreover, Obama would expect the Palestinians and the wider Arab world to respond to Israel’s move by taking steps to normalize their relations with Israel.

For instance, Wexler claimed that Obama had demanded that the Arabs respond to an Israeli moratorium on Jewish property rights by among other things opening trade offices and direct economic ties; conducting cultural and economic exchanges; and permitting Israeli airplanes to overfly their territory.

And in the event that the Arabs refused to rise to the occasion, Wexler proclaimed, “You can rightly say that all bets are off.”

Wexler continued, “I want to call their bluff. I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position.”

In the event, Netanyahu bowed to Obama’s demand and enacted a temporary ban on the exercise of Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria. And in the aftermath of his stunning move, the Arab world did nothing.

Amazingly, far from calling their bluff, Obama doubled down on his pressure on Israel.

Among other things, since squeezing the first temporary ban on Jewish property rights out of Netanyahu, Obama has demanded that the moratorium be made permanent and be extended to Jerusalem.

As for his vision of the “peace process,” Obama has demanded that Israel accept the 1949 armistice lines as the basis for negotiations.

He has used the US veto at the UN Security Council as a means of pressuring Israel to make further unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.

And the “pro-Israel” US president has demanded no similar concessions from the Palestinians.

THIS WEEK, Wexler, now the head of the far-left S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, was back in town. Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, he said that Israel should consider extending the ban on Jewish property rights to within the 1949 armistice lines. Wexler based his claim on then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 peace offer to Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Olmert’s offer, which Abbas rejected, involved a “land swap,” in which in the framework of a comprehensive peace deal, Israel would give the Palestinians land from within its 1949 boundaries in exchange for land in Judea and Samaria that Israel would permanently retain. According to media reports, Olmert offered Abbas 4.5 percent of Israeli territory in exchange for a similar amount of land in Judea and Samaria.

While Wexler appeared at the Herzliya Conference as the president of a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, his continued intimate relationship with Obama is well known. Last fall, Commentary’s Omri Ceren documented that Zvika Krieger, Wexler’s vice president at the Daniel Abraham Center, authored documents for Obama’s reelection campaign. Among other things, those documents cited articles authored by Krieger and Wexler in which they championed Obama’s record on Israel from their nonpartisan perch at the Daniel Abraham Center.

Given Wexler’s close ties to Obama, it is reasonable to assume that his suggestion that Israel cease exerting its national sovereignty over its sovereign territory in the interests of the peace process is not simply his personal view.

There is much to criticize about Wexler’s suggestion. But more important than its arrogant, insulting absurdity, and more disconcerting than Wexler’s own hypocrisy, is what his suggestion tells us about the dangers inherent in Netanyahu’s current negotiations with the Palestinians.

To understand the connection we need to recall the nature of Olmert’s offer to Abbas.

Olmert’s negotiations with Abbas were based upon the proposition – repeated ad nauseam to the Israeli public – that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”

The idea was clear. True, on the one hand, the prime minister was conducting negotiations far from the spotlight, and refusing to tell the public what was on offer. But on the other hand, we could rest assured that that nothing he offered would have any significance whatsoever unless the Palestinians agreed to a final-peace deal with Israel. If they rejected peace, then everything Olmert said would become null and void, and be tossed down the memory hole.

In accordance with this basic proposition, when Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer, and made no counteroffer, it was naturally assumed that Olmert’s proposal was rendered null and void.

Yet four years later, here is Wexler, Obama’s surrogate, advocating a policy of unilateral abrogation of Israeli sovereignty over 4.5% of its national territory in order to enable the eventual implementation of an offer that was predicated on the notion that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to” and as such is null and void.

THIS BRINGS us to the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. For the past month, under the aegis of the Middle East Quartet, Netanyahu’s representative attorney Yitzhak Molcho has been conducting negotiations with Abbas’s representatives in Amman, Jordan. Last week, Molcho reportedly outlined the government’s general positions on lands it is willing to cede to the Palestinians.

Without presenting any maps, Molcho reportedly said that a permanent agreement would involve most of the Israelis living in Judea and Samaria remaining in Israeli territory. The media interpreted this to mean that like Olmert, Netanyahu expects for Israel to retain perpetual control over large blocks of Israeli communities that take up less than 10% of the overall landmass in Judea and Samaria.

For his part, Netanyahu this week reiterated his position that Israel must maintain a long-term military presence in the Jordan Valley. This has been interpreted to mean that Netanyahu is willing to cede sovereign rights to the area to the Palestinians.

Taken together, what Molcho’s statement and Netanyahu’s statement indicate is that at a minimum, in exchange for peace, the Netanyahu government is willing to expel some portion of the 350,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria from their homes and to transfer sovereignty over a significant portion of the territory to a Palestinian state.

From the vagueness of what has been reported, it is apparent that Netanyahu has been far less specific about the scope of the territorial concessions he is willing to undertake than his predecessor was. But then again, Olmert made his offer after conducting negotiations with Abbas for over a year. Netanyahu only entered these talks a month ago.

And while no one in or out of government believes that these negotiations have any chance of leading to a peace deal, the fact is that Netanyahu is feverishly working to ensure that the talks continue. He spent a good part of his day on Wednesday speaking on the phone to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and meeting with Quartet envoy Tony Blair and UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon, begging the foreign leaders to convince the Palestinians not to abandon the negotiations.

As he put it in his joint press conference with Ban, “You cannot complete the peace process unless you begin it. If you begin it, you have to be consistent and stick to it.”

For his part, Abbas is doing everything in his power to make clear that he does not wish to negotiate, and that even if negotiations continue, he will never cut a deal with Israel. To underscore his bad faith, next week Abbas will travel to Egypt to meet with Hamas terror chief Khaled Mashaal. The two men are set to discuss the means of implementing the unity government deal they signed last May.

Netanyahu is obviously under great pressure to continue with these talks. A day doesn’t go by without some US official or European leader talking about the need for talks, or a leftist politician or political activist at home blaming Netanyahu for the absence of peace. But none of this pressure can justify the damage that is done to Israel’s position by continuing to engage in these negotiations.

As Netanyahu’s own experience with Obama (and Wexler) shows, concessions never bring a respite from the US leader’s pressure. They only form the baseline for demands for further concessions.

Beyond the narrow confines of Obama’s personal hostility towards Israel, Netanyahu’s current engagement in negotiations with the Palestinians is devastating to Israel’s position in two ways.

First, it makes it impossible for Israel to extricate itself from the lie of PLO moderation and to start telling the truth about its Palestinian “partner.”

Quite simply, as Abbas’s continued courtship of Hamas and his open embrace and glorification of mass murderers such as the murderers of the Fogel family make clear, the PLO has returned to its roots as a terrorist organization. It is no longer credible to claim that the PLO has abandoned terror in favor of peace.

By engaging in peace talks with the PLO, Netanyahu renders it impossible to make this critical claim. Consequently, he damns Israel to a situation in which we continue to empower and politically legitimize a terrorist organization committed to our destruction.

The second way continued negotiations devastates Israel’s position is by eroding our ability to claim our rights to Judea and Samaria and so extricate ourselves from this fake peace process with terrorists. As Wexler made clear, from the international community’s perspective, everything that Israel offers at the negotiating table is catalogued. Regardless of Palestinian bad faith, irrespective of actual prospects for peace, every theoretical Israeli concession becomes the new baseline for further negotiations.

American “friends” like Wexler and Obama play Israel for a fool again and again.

In truth, we should thank Wexler for coming here this week and reminding us of his bad faith, and the bad faith of the president he serves. But it is up to Netanyahu to draw the appropriate lessons.

By MARTIN SHERMAN, JPOST

Is embracing the Islamists the only way Abdullah can preserve his rule? Is preserving Abdullah the only way Islamists can prevent ‘Jordan’ becoming ‘Palestine?’

Jordan Muslim Brotherhood supporters By Reuters/Muhammad Hamed
We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are perpetual and eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow
– Lord Palmerston, British foreign secretary, 1848

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (The more things change, the more they stay the same) – Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, 1849

The Lone Ranger, to his hitherto trustworthy American-Indian comrade, Tonto, on realizing they are surrounded by hostile Apaches: It looks like we’re in a lot of trouble, old friend!
Tonto: What do you mean ‘we,’ Paleface? – an old joke

The eternal potential for perfidy – or at least the impermanence of loyalties – in pursuit of interests, personal or national, is being illustrated by the events unfolding in Jordan today.

Crumbling of conventional wisdom?

It has long been a pillar of conventional wisdom in the Middle East that the Hashemite kingdom is a bastion of moderate pro-Western stability. Accordingly, it has been held that the relationship between the monarchy and radical elements in the Arab world in general, and among the Palestinian in particular, will inevitably be adversarial. Consequently, the assumption has been that, by their very nature and the nature of their goals, these elements necessarily are an existential threat to the regime in Amman.

Furthermore, with the eruption of the Arab Spring, the dominant view has been that the popular waves of support for resurgent Islam are a grave menace to the rule of incumbent autocrats, monarchical or military.

After all, Islamic regimes have risen in the wake of deposed dictatorships in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, while other are under siege in Syria and Yemen. The same scenario was presumed valid in Jordan.

However, here it seems the Palestinian question might be disrupting – even reversing – this pattern, at least for the time being.

For as the recent visit by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to Amman (his first official one since his 1999 expulsion) shows, a surprising, even counter-intuitive, truth seems to be emerging.

Rather than radical Palestinian Islamic elements threatening to overthrow the monarchy, they appear to be articulating a rationale for sustaining it. At least in the medium term and at least as far as appearances are concerned. This may have dangerously deceptive consequences for Israel.

Sinister solidarity?

As some analysts have noted, the public protests in Jordan have been subtly but qualitatively different from those in, say, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria.

Rather than being focused on revolution, they have centered on reform; rather than clamoring for forced removal of the autocrat and his regime, they have centered more on consensual transformation of the regime and the transfer of some powers of royalty to other institutions of government.

This anomalous moderation in the tenor of public protest is intriguing and significant, particularly in light of Mashaal’s statement made during the meeting with the king, in which he affirmed Hamas’s concern “for Jordan’s security and stability.”

As The Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh observes, the message was clearly “aimed at reassuring King Abdullah that Hamas does not challenge his monarchy.”

Another interesting point of note was that Mashaal was accompanied on his visit by Musa Abu Marzouk, a prominent figure in the Muslim Brotherhood and slated to be Mashaal’s successor.

The professed concern for Abdullah by the Hamas leadership was far from expected – and in assessing it several important facts should be borne in mind.

Neither of the Hamas men has reason for any sense of affinity with the monarchy. Indeed, not only was Hamas banned in 1999, after being accused of misusing Jordanian soil for illegal activities, but in the same year, both men – together with several other Hamas leaders – were arrested by Abdullah on charges of being members of an outlawed organization, illegal possession of weapons, fraud and illegal fund-raising.

Mashaal was expelled from Jordan, and has operated since then mainly out Damascus, something which is becoming increasingly difficult given the current conduct of the Assad regime.

The riddle of radical restraint

Just how remarkable this apparent largesse on the part of erstwhile archenemies is, is underscored by contrasting it with sentiments conveyed at the start of the Arab Spring by Hammam Saeed, head of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood and a close ally of Mashaal.

During a rally held at the Egyptian Embassy in Amman barely a year ago, he declared: “Egypt’s unrest will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.”

Although he avoided any direct reference to Abdullah, it is no secret that Jordan under Hashemite rule has long maintained one of the closest relationships with the US in the Arab world. Indeed. Adm. Michael Mullen, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited in early 2011 to reassure the jittery kingdom that “the US has its back.”

Pundits cautioned that Islamic elements were well poised to unseat Abdullah, but this has not happened. Rather – as noted above – protests have focused more on reform of the regime than on its removal.

The restraint on the part of Hamas and its Jordanian allies cannot be explained by weakness.

Much has changed in Jordan’s political power structure since 1970’s Black September, when King Hussein unleashed the Jordanian military on the PLO, killing thousands of Palestinians. The chill winds of change ushered in by the turmoil in the Arab world have put the monarchy on the defensive. Islamic elements are clearly in ascendance, buoyed by widespread popular support.

Mashaal is the object of much admiration among the millions of Palestinians in the country. The opinion of one woman, interviewed recently by The New York Times’ Stephen Farrell, seems representative of far wider sentiments: “Everybody loves him, he’s very dear to us… He’s a distinguished figure, he has stature.”

Pervasive popularity

Islamist political muscle is not limited to Mashaal’s personal stature.

The Jordanian Brotherhood has its own political party, the Islamic Action Front, unequivocally the most coherent and capable force in Jordan’s political landscape – despite the fact that it has had its parliamentary representation slashed by contrived electoral legislation designed specifically for that purpose.

The current situation – in which Islamic Action Front has just over 5% of the seats in parliament – portrays a deceptive picture of its real political clout. As Jonathan Schanzer observes in The Wall Street Journal: “If… Abdullah reinstates Jordan’s old elections laws, the Islamists will enjoy new parliamentary power.”

Moreover, although Hamas still remains officially banned in Jordan, it enjoys tremendous popularity among the people. There are signs that changes might be in the offing on this issue as well. Jordanian Prime Minister Awn al-Khasawneh, appointed by Abdullah in October, after he dismissed two predecessors in deference to popular dissent, has repeatedly said that expelling Mashaal was a “legal and constitutional mistake which must be corrected.”

Cairo and Amman: Pre-Spring parallels

In gauging the potential of Islamic factions in Jordan, it seems logical to compare public perceptions there, before the Arab Spring uprisings, with those that prevailed in pre-Tahrir Egypt, the rationale being that if initial conditions were largely similar, it is plausible expect that the end results – i.e. Islamic dominance, will also be similar.

A poll conducted by Pew Research Center, and published in December 2010, on the cusp of uprisings in North Africa, provides edifying – and disconcerting – findings.

For example, support for radical terrorist groups in Jordan outstripped that in Egypt.

In Jordan, support for Hezbollah was 55 percent (higher than Lebanon’s 52%), while in Egypt it was only 30%; for Hamas it was 60%, compared to 49% in Egypt, and for al-Qaida, 34%, far more than the 20% in Egypt.

In both countries, massive majorities (typically 70-85%) endorsed death for apostasy (leaving Islam), stoning for adultery and amputation for theft. In both counties there were overwhelming majorities for the view that “the influence of Islam on politics is positive” – in Egypt 85% and in Jordan 76% – well above Pakistan’s 69% and Turkey’s 38%.

Clearly these findings bode ill for the longevity of the Hashemite regime – at least in its current form – and add to the perplexing conundrum of why Islamic opposition in Jordan – with all its manifest potential for seizing power – has not been more militant.

Compliance or cunning?

After all, why the king needs to tread carefully with Hamas and the Islamist opposition is clear. For in the wake of the anti-incumbent forces unlocked by Arab Spring, the precedents of Tahrir, Tunis and Tripoli have grave implications for him.

As Al Jazeera reported, “Abdullah has realized the important role Islamists groups are playing in [the Arab] revolutions and since he has faced protests at home… he has decided to reach out to Hamas.”

But far more intriguing is why Hamas and the Islamist opposition need the king. This puzzle is a matter of crucial consequence for Israel – and the answer to it seems to lie in the question of “Palestine.”

For to keep alive their claim for a Palestinian state west of the Jordan, they cannot permit the establishment of manifestly “Palestinian” state east of the river – which would be the case if the Hashemite monarchy was deposed and the Palestinian majority populace took control of the country. If a new political entity emerged, geographically situated on almost 80% of what was the original Mandatory Palestine, that has a Palestinian majority as the source of popular sovereignty, it would be increasingly difficult deny that this was a “Palestinian state.”

Such a development might severely undermine the claim that the Palestinians are “stateless.”

Hamas appears keenly aware of this “ominous” possibility! Indeed, Al Jazeera’s report on Mashaal’s reference to the matter is hugely significant: “Mashaal also responded to calls from some in Israel for the establishment of a Palestinian homeland in Jordan as a substitute for the Palestinian refugees’ right to return. ‘The Hamas movement categorically rejects all alternative homeland projects in Jordan and we insist on restoring all our rights fully so that Palestine is Palestine and Jordan is Jordan.’”

‘Therein lies the rub?’

That is precisely the point. To preserve their demand for a cis-Jordan River state, the Islamists must preserve the illusion that the trans-Jordan River state is non-Palestinian – by propping up non-Palestinian monarch.

In a recent blog, Barry Rubin commented that “Radical Islamists who want to open a new round of battle against Israel now rule or are likely to do so very soon in Egypt, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia and Turkey.”

For some reason he did not mention Jordan. This is a regrettable omission – one that those charged with Israel’s strategic planning can ill-afford.

Indeed, they must come to terms with the prospect that although Jordan may well have long been an important – albeit covert – ally, this can no longer be assumed. Rather than being a force for protecting Western interests, it may well be on the way to becoming a façade for promoting Islamic ones.

The end of the Hashemite era may thus arrive well before the formal removal of the monarchy. One might make a persuasive case that the process of transforming the Jordanian potentate into a Palestinian puppet has already begun.

Israel will be gravely remiss if it does not heed Palmerston’s words of warning – that it has no permanent allies, only permanent interests – and plan accordingly.

www.martinsherman.net

Today, there is a new crop of neo-fascist enablers by the names of Walt and Mearsheimer. These Neo-Lindberghs espouse an analogous -Big Lie- that Israel is a strategic liability to the US, the cause of Middle East wars, and, that Israel needs to be dumped, and there are also neo-isolationists like Ron Paul who says “the US would be better off without Israel.”

I will now graphically show you in 3 simple steps that these “Professors” and these neo-Ostriches are, in fact, Neo-Lindberghs.

Step One, if you would look at the 8½ x11 colored “Katyusha Rocket” graphic of Israel, www.marklangfan.com/Postcard2.html, in any “West Bank” Palestinian “Demilitarized” state, Hamas will smuggle in thousands of chemical-warheaded Katyushas into the “Demilitarized” West Bank which they will launch, en masse, into the Tel Aviv. Imagine, if to placate Muslim “anger,” some US president ceded Brooklyn to al Qaeda, and al Qaeda-Brooklyn had thousands of chemical Katyushas aimed at Manhattan. Manhattan would be toast. And if there is ever a Palestinian State, Hamas with thousands of chemical katyushas backed by Iranian long-range missiles will toast the Tel Aviv coastal corridor holding 5 million Jews.

Step Two, if you would turn to the large “Eastern Theater” colored graphic, www.marklangfan.com/easterntheater1.html, after Israel’s destruction, without Israel protecting him, the Hashemite-King Abdullah of Jordan is also toast. You’ve then got an Egypt with 80 million hungry people, the strongest army in the Middle East, and military control of the Suez Canal now having a direct contiguous land border with the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is also happens to be a historical rival of Egypt. Is this “stability” for USCENTCOM? Is this lower gas prices in Salina, Kansas? But no, we’re not done yet.

Step Three, if you would turn over the “Western Theater” colored graphic, www.marklangfan.com/westerntheater3.html, I’ve done the same analysis for the Eastern Med. Christian Greek Cyprus has a total population of 800,000 people, and there is about a quarter trillion dollars worth, or more, of gas between Cyprus and Israel. If Israel were to be destroyed, surrounded by 150 Million Muslims, and a Turkish standing army of 400,000 soldiers coveting the whole of Cyprus, how long will Greek Cyprus last? In September 2011, Turkish PM Erdogan stated: Turkey and Egypt would “form a force of 150 million strong” and “We are substantially surrounding a Mediterranean.” And, “I recommend the international community take the necessary lessons from the Preveza victory.”

The “Preveza victory” to which Erdogan is referring is the Turkish decisive naval victory over a pan-Christian “Holy League” Papal alliance in September 1538.

Without Israel as the bulwark against the waxing Islamic tsunami to the East, there will be a direct Islamic military threat to the very doorstep of Europe. Without Israel, how many trillions–trillions–of dollars will the US have to spend to defend Greece, and NATO from such “clear and present” danger to Western civilization? Or, as the Visa commercial would say of Israel’s present-day strategic value to the US: Priceless.

You can find the video of the speech on Mark Langfan’s website by going to: www.marklangfan.com/videos.htmlTo view the speech video from you Ipod, Iphone, or Flash, go to: And if you have any questions, he will be happy to answer if you email him at mapmun@aol.com, or call 212-832-0200 or visit my website, www.marklangfan.com.

Click to see the graphics because Mark Langfan’s remarks upon acceptance of the Justice Louis B. Brandeis ZOA Award this fall are an important learning experience. The maps are the fruit of painstaking research and have been shown in Congress.

We have a president who has a problem with Israel. According to a New York Times column, “Don’t Do It, Bibi,” Obama called Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, in mid-January to demand a promise that Israel would not bomb Iran in the next few months. Obama doesn’t want a spike in oil prices before our presidential election. The threat of unhappy voters is more important to Obama than a nuclear Iran. He is more concerned about his re-election than he is about a dirty bomb in the hands of a terrorist that could waste one of our cities, a destabilized Middle East, or a nuclear attack on Israel.

Obama’s indifference to Israel’s safety is a moral problem, but it is more than that. It poses a grave threat to our national security.

Israel’s blessings don’t stop with the gifts of individual Jews advancing high tech and medical care. Israeli inventiveness in those fields is of the greatest military importance to us. As a country, Israel does more than any other country in the world to keep the U.S. safe — literally. This would be part of the foreign policy equation of our White House and State Department, if they didn’t suffer from Arabism.

What has Israel done for us? The two most important areas of 21st-century warfare are electronics and cyberspace. Israel is the world leader in both those areas. Because we are mutual allies, Israel shares its knowledge and equipment with us. We would not be as far ahead in military technology, security, intelligence, or counter-terrorism without this crucial strategic alliance.

Compare the benefits of our alliance with Israel to the things we get from our allies in Europe. Europe has chosen to take advantage of us, depending on our taxpayers to protect theirs. They use us for a free ride. Britain supports us, but has no great military budget anymore. Their modern weapons systems depend on us. There is no broad two-way street.

Our alliance with Israel is not only broad and mutual, but it is essential.

Drones? Israel is the world leader in the development of unmanned aerial systems, including drones (invented by an Israeli) for intelligence collection and combat, and has shared with the U.S. military technology, doctrine, and vital experience.

Think of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We use an Israeli-produced tactical radar system to enhance force protection. Israel is “a global pacesetter in active measures for armored vehicle protection,” which we use to save our soldiers’ lives. Israel invented the short-range rocket defense we use in both wars. Israel has shared its advanced military robotics with us. The lifesaving armor installed in thousands of MRAP armored vehicles used in Iraq and Afghanistan is known as the “Israeli bandage.” Groundbreaking innovations including sensors, unmanned aerial vehicle technology, surveillance equipment, and detection devices to seek out IEDs — all from Israel. American and Israeli companies are working together to jointly produce the world’s first combat-proven counter-rocket system.

State-of-the-art missile defense? Israel is America’s “most sophisticated and experienced partner in missile defense,” helping us from invention to deployment to joint training exercises. The U.S. has deployed an advanced X-band radar system in Israel with more than 100 American military personnel stationed there, as part of our missile defense architecture to protect U.S. forces and our allies in Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Persian Gulf.

Our Navy and Air Force? Israel provides us with a revolutionary helmet-mounted sight that is standard in nearly all frontline Air Force and Navy fighter aircraft. Israel provides us with a gun system for close-in defense of naval vessels against terrorist dinghies and small-boat swarms. Israel provides a port of call for the Sixth Fleet. Israel provides the targeting pods we use on hundreds of Air Force, Navy, and Marine strike aircraft.

Nuclear threats? It was very helpful that Israel prevented Iraq from developing nuclear capability by bombing Osirik in 1981. In 2007, Israel prevented Syria from developing nuclear capability by bombing Syria’s secret nuclear facility at al-Kibar. Washington didn’t know about the North Korean-built reactor “until Meir Dagan, then the head of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, visited President George W. Bush’s national security adviser” and told us. And we’re evidently relying on Israel to stop Iran from going nuclear — a difficult and dangerous job we need done but aren’t willing to do ourselves.

The war on terror? Israel provides homeland security training for U.S. airport security and police departments across the country. They’ve worked to help us with national resilience planning to save lives and preserve national security during natural disasters and terror attacks. Israel helps us with counter-terrorism intelligence and cooperation in defeating the terrorist operations of Hamas, Hezb’allah, and al-Qaeda. We have joint Special Forces training and exercises, collaboration on shared targets, and close cooperation among the relevant U.S. and Israeli security for preventive actions and deterrence. We rely on Israeli advances to enhance our capabilities to defend our cyberspace from sabotage. Israeli advances protect our banking, communications, utilities, transportation, and internet infrastructure.

Israel is not a charity case. U.S. presidents are sworn to protect and defend America, not Israel. Sixty years of close cooperation has been maintained because it is to our benefit. It was President Eisenhower who first recognized that Israel was a key strategic asset in the Cold War, a policy Kissinger and Nixon implemented. Post-9/11, this is truer than ever with regards to the new threats facing our citizens.

The U.S.-Israeli relationship makes it easier for our military to do their job. In superficial ways, it makes it harder for the State to do their job. Our State Department is unwilling to confront Arab lies about Israel being the cause of Islamic violence. There is no actual cost to our alliance with Israel, and immeasurable benefits. Unfortunately, our State Department has few Kissingers who can see past Arab propaganda to the realities of national interest.

Israel is a highly effective ally in our fight to defend and protect America. The Israelis do more than any other country in the world to oppose the imposition of the jihadi vision. Europe is succumbing. Obama would follow. The rest of us know that our alliance with Israel helps keep us safe.

Read more:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, in a bid to reconcile with the Teheran regime, has blocked legislation that would hold Iran accountable for the Hizbullah bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1983.

A survivors group has asserted that the administration is pressuring Democrats in Congress not to support a bill that would enforce massive judgements against Iran by the families of the Marines. In 2007, a U.S. federal district court judge found Iran liable for the Beirut bombing and ordered Teheran to pay $2.65 billion in damages.

A U.S. Marine searches the rubble on Oct. 31, 1983, after an Oct. 23 attack on the headquarters of the U.S. troops of the multinational force in Beirut, Lebanon. In twin attacks on U.S. and French military installations, suicide bombers driving trucks killed 299 French and Americans, including 241 U.S. service members.

“This administration talks a lot about sanctions, but we know Iran is watching this case closely and, astonishingly, Obama’s people are taking Iran’s side,” Lynn Smith Derbyshire, a lobbyist for the legislation, said.

Ms. Derbyshire, whose brother Marine Capt. Vincent Smith was killed in the 1983 bombing, said survivors and their families were urging Congress to support amendments to the Iran Sanctions Bill, scheduled for mark-up in the Senate Banking Committee on Feb. 2.

But they said committee members were being pressed by the White House not to vote for amendments that would hold Teheran responsible for the 1983 attack and transfer the $2.65 billion awarded in 2007. The Iran Sanctions Bill would enable U.S. sanctions on foreign companies that purchase or ship oil through the Iranian government or sell telecommunications equipment to Teheran.

“We have petitioned Congress to prevent the government of the Islamic republic of Iran from avoiding its obligations to pay judgments awarded to past and future victims and survivors of Iranian terrorism,” Ms. Derbyshire said on Jan. 30. “We’ve spoken with many sympathetic members of Congress but they won’t act while this administration is blocking what we and the American people know is right.”

Over the last decade, the families of Iranian-sponsored attacks have won billions of dollars in suits against the Teheran regime. But the federal government, particularly the State Department, has blocked access to Iranian assets or funds in the United States.

Ms. Derbyshire said she represents more than 1,000 families across the
United States in the campaign to target Teheran and its finances. The group has also lobbied Congress to strengthen the U.S. law that bans Iran from laundering money in the United States to finance Hizbullah and other insurgency proxies.

“We can show that international banks have moved billions of dollars of funds from Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank, through banks in the U.S.,” Ms. Derbyshire said. “So far that money has been untouchable. We believe that is wrong. We are confident that most Americans would agree. Yet, the Obama administration is thwarting our efforts.”

Given the ideological bedlam often seen even within individual Jewish organizations, just imagine trying to get an entire community of Jewish organizations together to sign a several-paragraphs-long statement reflecting a single position — and to do that within a matter of weeks.

That miracle almost happened recently, when the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia gathered practically every Jewish organization in the Philadelphia community to send a message of strong disapproval to an anti-Israel coalition known as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is holding a three-day conference at the University of Pennsylvania on February 3-5. But the “almost” is necessary because one significant local group refused to join in. Understanding who, and why, reveals important lessons that must be taken to heart.

Penn BDS was thrown together by a single undergraduate student with the goal of luring the BDS conference to the University of Pennsylvania campus. BDS is a global, largely unsuccessful but widely publicized menace with the ultimate goal of demonizing, demoralizing, and destroying the state of Israel. BDS proponents claim that their methods constitute a tool to achieve justice for those oppressed by Israel; they take their cue from the effort to overthrow the racist South African government during the 1980s. But BDS is, in fact, merely a thin mask over enmity against any effective haven for the Jewish people.

Last month, when the Penn Hillel leadership learned that the BDS conference was to take place on their campus, the Philadelphia Jewish leadership was alerted, as was the Israeli Consulate. A broad spectrum of at least nominally pro-Israel local organizations was quickly called together with the goal of creating a strong communal response.

Mainstream local groups such as the Jewish Federation, the Anti-Defamation League, and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East — as well as those on the far left of the spectrum, such as the New Israel Fund and J Street, and those on the right end, such as Z STREET and the Zionist Organization of America — were included in this call to action. Several decisions were reached: there would be a communal statement of solidarity condemning the BDS conference; there would be an event showcasing communal support for Israel just prior to the conference; and, to counter the campaign of boycotting Israeli goods, there would be a concerted effort to encourage people to purchase Israeli products.

The crafting of the communal statement took two rounds of drafts and delicate negotiations with each organization involved. It fell to David Cohen, the senior associate for Israel and Middle East Affairs at the Philadelphia Federation, to ferret out each group’s rock-bottom red lines, then artfully craft changes to avoid crossing any of those lines, and finally to come up with a document that avoided all the pitfalls but still clearly condemned the strategy of BDS generally, and the holding of the BDS conference at Penn specifically.

I was present at and participated in the meetings as the Z STREET representative. In response to the first draft, I told Cohen that Z STREET objected to an emphasis on the ubiquitous “two state” mantra. We think the one clear goal of the peace process should be peace for Israel. Z STREET believes that the pro-Israel community disserves that goal by adding an additional goal which may not — and in our view, clearly does not — ensure that such peace will be attained. While disappointed to see the “two states” language as part of the final version of the community statement, we decided that a show of community-wide solidarity is important. More than two dozen other organizations felt the same, with each no doubt making its own ideological compromises so that the Jewish community could say something with one voice.

But there was a conspicuous absence from the Philadelphia Community Statement’s list of signatures. Although its representative was present at the community-wide meeting and was included in the community phone calls, J Street refused to be a part of the community and would not sign the joint statement of condemnation. Instead, J Street Philly issued a separate statement — one very different from the community’s in title, in tone, and in apportionment of blame. As the local representative stated clearly, J Street wanted to “maintain the integrity of our values” and their “unique position on this issue.”

Whereas the Philadelphia Community Statement is officially one of solidarity with Israel and of condemnation of the BDS Conference, J Street’s is neither.

The Philadelphia Community Statement unequivocally condemns boycotting Israel, disinvesting from its companies, or sanctioning it. J Street’s statement criticizes the BDS tactics but explicitly recognizes, validates, and agrees with the underlying sentiments expressed by those advocating BDS, which include “the ongoing occupation and diplomatic stagnation” and the “legitimate and warranted” and shared “concern about the present and future of the Palestinian people.”

Of particular concern to J Street was a broad condemnation of BDS — one that lacked “nuance,” such as making exceptions for boycotting goods made in Judea and Samaria. Also, J Street refused to criticize Penn, even subtly, for allowing the conference to be held there. J Street was unwilling to include its voice in stating that “the outrageous claims of BDS campaigns do not stand up to the rigors of academic inquiry and as such, go against the sophisticated civil discourse that is a core element of the University of Pennsylvania.”

Worse, J Street seems to have issued even its own tepid statement with not even enough enthusiasm as to post it; the J Street statement does not appear on the J Street Philadelphia website. J Street also refused to be one of the more than thirty co-sponsors of the “We Are One With Israel” event with Alan Dershowitz.

Much has been written about why and whether J Street is allowed in the “big tent” of Jewish communal organizations. The argument in favor, of course, is the desire to expand the marketplace of ideas, to be as inclusive as possible, and simply to give a respectful hearing even to those with whom one disagrees. But we now know what happened when J Street was unquestioningly welcomed into the Philadelphia community tent. When given the first opportunity to stand as one with the community and speak with one voice from one tent, J Street snuck out the back and pitched its own tent instead.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus is president of Z STREET and chair of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs executive committee.

Page Printed from: at February 03, 2012 – 06:01:54 AM CST

You can switch to English by holding cursor over video at the botton and you will see ho0w.

IDF Intelligence head Aviv Kochavi gave a chilling presentation Thursday morning at the Herzliya Conference on Israeli policy, telling listeners that Israel’s enemies had 200,000 rockets and missiles pointed at the country, and could reach all parts of Israel – even the ostensibly safe “center” of Tel Aviv and its suburbs.

Most of the missiles have a range of about 40 kilometers – the range of Qassam and most Katyusha rockets – but thousands of missiles have ranges of hundreds of kilometers, making every location in Israel within their reach. Not only that – but the missiles are more lethal now than ever before. “The warheads on these missiles contain hundreds of kilograms of explosives, not dozens, as in the past. And their firing precision and ability to hit specific targets is also greater,” Kochavi said. The rockets are largely located in Lebanon and Syria, with a smaller amount in Gaza – and in Iran, as well, which has thousands of missiles that could reach Israel. “Every tenth house in Lebanon is now a weapons depot,” Kochavi said.

Besides conventional weapons, Israel is also facing a nuclear threat. According to Kochavi, Israel has lost the battle to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; Tehran already has enough uranium for four atomic bombs, with over 100 kilos enriched to a level of 20% – more than enough for the one bomb Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he would need to “rid the world of the Zionist entity.”

Whether or not Iran actually builds these bombs is not a question of technical capability, Kochavi said, but a question of political will. The ability to build the bombs is there, and whether or not they will actually be assembled is a decision that top Iranian officials, especially Supreme Leader Ali Khameini, has yet to make. “From the moment the order is given, it will take about a year to assemble the bombs,” Kochavi said. “Developing them into warheads will take a little longer.”

He added that the sanctions against Iran have not yet persuaded Tehran to change its nuclear development policy one way or the other, but that could change if the government feels it is losing control. Still, sanctions are preferable to the other alternatives, at least at this time, he said. “Only concerted international effort can persuade Tehran to halt their pursuit of the project,” he added.

Despite the fact that so far it appears that Islamists have been the big winners of the “Arab Spring,” it is not they that led the revolutions in Arab world, but the desperation of youths and young adults who face a future of unemployment and hopelessness. If the new regimes do not work quickly to raise hope for the masses, he said, the current unrest could continue for many years.

However, one aspect of the weakening of traditional Arab dictatorships in the region has negatively affected Israel; with less authority has come more porous borders, and Iran has been taking advantage of this fact to move more weapons into neighboring Arab countries. As a result, more terror attacks with Iran’s backing can be expected. Kochavi said that the attack last August on the southern Negev was orchestrated by Iran, and thanks to the large amount of weapons in the region – with the Middle East now “the world’s largest weapons warehouse” – similar attacks in the future are all but inevitable.

Dr Daniel Navon argues the EU is and has been an obstacle to peace.

UNWRA is thus a major obstacle to peace. Had UNHCR been in charge of Palestinian refugees (UNHCR handles all the world refugees except Palestinian refugees), the issue would have been solved a while ago.

First, were Palestinian refugees defined as such according to UNHCR criteria, about 100,000 Palestinian refugees would still be around today, most of them elderly.

Second, UNWRA collaborates with the discriminatory policies of countries such as Lebanon and Jordan, who deny them citizenship and jobs, by subsidizing the confinement of Palestinian refugees in camps instead of integrating them into countries with which they have no language, ethnic, and religious differences.

Dismantling UNWRA and transferring the fate of the remaining actual Palestinian refugees to UNHCR would thus remove a major obstacle to peace.

The EU has just decided to do the very opposite by granting UNWRA a €72 million donation. This decision is not only an affront to the Palestinian refugees themselves, since it contributes to the perpetuation of their status of segregated and pauperized minorities among their Arab brothers. It is also an affront to the cause of peace. The EU, in effect, has just signed a big check that will fund a major obstacle to peace.

While the EU did somewhat realize the Kantian vision of democratic peace within its borders (although with a little help from the United States, whose army protected Europe from the Soviet Union during the Cold War), Europe’s contribution to peace outside of the Old Continent’s borders has been dismal. From Rwanda to the former Yugoslavia, the EU has been powerless at best and part of the problem at worst. T

he EU (formerly EEC) promoted the PLO in the 1970s and did not welcome the Camp David Agreements of 1979. Although the Oslo Agreements were technically not made in the EU (Norway is not a EU member), the European recipe for peace in the Middle East has failed miserably and tragically.

The EU’s recent decision to fund UNWRA belongs to a long history of counter-productive efforts. But, mostly, it confirms the fact that the EU is an obstacle to peace in the Middle-East.