A Peek into Others' mind » Items by admin

« Expand/Collapse

Items by admin

January 07, 2009
0:49
ISM Volunteer Sharon Lock in Gaza
» ‎ PalCast

Sharon Lock discusses the ongoing Israeli attacks on Gaza.

This program was produced by the BBC.

For more information, visit:
news.bbc.co.uk
palsolidarity.org
January 06, 2009
23:53
Adam Tailor from the International Solidarity Movement on the situation in Gaza
» ‎ PalCast

As the situation in Gaza worsens, the International Solidarity Movement is one of the only international organizations with volunteers on the ground.

This program was produced by Press TV.

For more information, visit:
presstv.com
palsolidarity.org
22:41
Eva Bartlett of the International Solidarity Movement from Gaza on Russia Today
» ‎ PalCast

Eva Bartlett, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, discusses the situation in Gaza.

This program was produced by Russia Today.

For more information, visit:
russiatoday.com
palsolidarity.org

5:09
Nelson Report Says Ross Will Get Iran File
» ‎ LobeLog.com

Very concerning news from the very excellent Nelson Report tonight — that Dennis Ross will become Special Envoy for Iran, reporting directly to SecState-designate Clinton, rather than to the White House. Chris Nelson has great sources everywhere, and, while he is much more an Asia hand than a Mideast expert, I have to take his reports quite seriously. Of course, Ross, who has virtually no independent expertise or experience that I know of regarding Iran, signed on to that September Bipartisan Policy Center report drafted by hard-line neo-cons Michael Rubin and Michael Makovsky, as I reported here in October. Such an appointment should give pause to anyone worried about the lingering possibility of war with Tehran.

Nelson also reports that Richard Haass will be Special Envoy for Israel-Arab affairs, apparently something of a compromise between Ross and Dan Kurtzer. For the direction he is likely to take, particularly regarding the Palestinian and Syrian tracks, see my article on his recent report co-authored with Martin Indyk. They also wrote a version of their policy recommendations in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs.

Nelson reports that Richard Holbrooke will become and Special Envoy for India and Pakistan and Anne Marie Slaughter head of Policy Planning, among many other likely appointments of particular relevance to Asia policy.

4:43
UNICEF: Life in the midst of Gaza conflict, through the eyes of a Palestinian teenager
» ‎ PalCast

Ten days of aerial bombing on Gaza has caused extensive devastation throughout the territory and is threatening the health and welfare of many children. Most of Gaza is without electricity, and the situation is turning into a massive humanitarian crisis.

UNICEF is calling for a permanent and sustainable humanitarian space in Gaza that includes access for supplies and staff, and the ability to distribute aid and make assessments.

The hospitals in Gaza are overwhelmed by casualties and are running low on medicines. More than half the population of Gaza is made up of children.

One boy’s story
Sixteen-year-old Baha has lived with 16 other members of his family in the basement of his Gaza City home since the bombing began.

“I’m trying to stay alive,” he said in a telephone interview with UNICEF Radio. “There’s no electricity, and as a result of that there is no healthy water to drink.”

“Everybody feels scared,” Baha said, as the sound of bombs and rockets echoed in the background. “Everyone is moving from his house because he’s afraid that his house will be hit from the air or from the land or from the sea.”

Schools closed
The military offensive began in the middle of exam period for students in the region, and schools have been closed ever since. Baha was in the middle of an Arabic exam when the Israeli campaign began.

“We won’t have school for at least two weeks,” he said.

Some Gazans are using schools as shelter. Many homes have been destroyed. Except for some health and food distribution centres, UN offices are closed in Gaza because of security concerns.

This program was produced by UNICEF.

For more information, visit:
unicef.org
1:00
C&L: Denying Collective Punishment In Gaza
» ‎ PalCast

One of the key parts of Israel’s well-planned media narrative in Gaza is that they are carefully targeting attacks and that there is no humanitarian crisis there which isn’t attributable to the mis-management of the elected Hamas government. President Shimon Peres repeated the claim this Sunday on ABC News “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”.

John Ging, the head of the UN relief agency in Gaza, described the situation there as “inhuman”.

We have a catastrophe unfolding in Gaza for the civilian population,” he said. “The people of Gaza City and the north now have no water. That comes on top of having no electricity. They’re trapped, they’re traumatised, they’re terrorised by this situation.

They’re in their homes. They’re not safe. They’re being killed and injured in large numbers, and they have no end in sight. The inhumanity of this situation, the lack of action to bring this to an end, is bewildering to them.

The whole infrastructure of the future state of Palestine is being destroyed. Blowing up the parliament building. That’s the parliament of Palestine. That’s not a Hamas building. The president’s compound is for the president of Palestine. Schools, mosques.

This program was produced by Crooks & Liars for January 4, 2009.

For more information, visit:
crooksandliars.com
January 05, 2009
23:31
Lubna Hammad on the Gaza Crisis
» ‎ PalCast

The fighting between Israel and Hamas intensified on Monday. Lubna Hammad, a member of the Coalition for Justice in the Middle East, spoke about the violence on Good Day NY.

This program was produced by Fox 5.

For more information, visit:
myfoxny.com
adalahny.org
21:37
IMEMC: Palestine Today, January 5, 2009
» ‎ PalCast

The Israeli military offensive entered its 10th day in Gaza, with the death toll reaching 534 by Monday.

This program was produced by the International Middle East Media Center.

For more information, visit:
imemc.org
www.un.org/unrwa/
10:32
PalCast is undergoing some changes
» ‎ PalCast

We want to thank everyone who has visited the site and subscribed to our feeds. There has been a 150% increase in traffic to our site over the last week during Israel’s assault on Gaza. In order to more quickly post items to the site, we have switched our podcast management software. In the process, some bugs have appeared with video feeds and we’re going to work on them in the coming days.

Thanks again, and please help keep pressure on Israel to halt it’s disproportionate and illegal offensive on civilians in Gaza.

-PalCast Editors
January 04, 2009
7:43
IMEMC: Interview with Rami Al Meghari in Gaza
» ‎ PalCast

IMEMC’s correspondent in Gaza updates us on the situation in Gaza.

This program was produced by the International Middle East Media Center.

For more information, visit:
imemc.org
1:28
Real News: Israel’s politics spill into Gaza
» ‎ PalCast

Providing a summary of the events of the past week from the West Bank and Israel, Jesse Rosenfeld, freelance journalist based in Ramallah and Tel Aviv speaks to the Gaza attack. He connects the upcoming Israeli election to the motivation behind the bombing of Gaza which in the past week killed 420 and injured over 1300. Rosenfeld says Ehud Barak decided to carry out Operation Cast Lead, the name given to the attack, at this time to boost his votes for the February 10th election. During election years, politicians known to take the most hard-line position against Palestinians tend to gain more seats in the Israeli Knesset. Operation Cast Lead now threatens escalate into a ground invasion as Israel amasses its troops and tanks at the Gaza border.

This program was produced by The Real News.

For more information, visit:
therealnews.com
January 03, 2009
6:44
Real News: Rafah - Report from the ground
» ‎ PalCast

As the fifth day of Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip begins, Rafah and Gaza City, the two main targets, have witnessed hundreds of deaths. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas blames Hamas, the ruling party in Gaza, for inciting Israel’s attack. Hamas, vows to keep shelling Southern Israel with rockets fired from the Gaza Strip. Lia Tarachansky spoke to Fida Qishta in Rafah, located in Southern Gaza. Qishta reports one of the first targets of the Israeli bombardment were the tunnels dug by Palestinians under the wall, which separates Rafah in two, half in Palestine and half in Egypt. These tunnels, says Qishta, have been used since the beginning of the siege to smuggle food, and according to Israel, weapons. Qishta also reports of the wall being breached by Palestinians desperate to escape to Egypt. Though unsuccessful, this is the fifth attempt since the beginning of the second Intifadah to breach it.

This program was produced by The Real News for January 1, 2009.

For more information, visit:
therealnews.com
palsolidarity.org
6:35
The Story: On This Side
» ‎ PalCast

Moussa El-Haddad lives in Gaza with his wife. The bombs have fallen as close as 100 meters from his home. Two nights he was sitting at his desk and the reverberations from a nearby bomb knocked him right out of his chair. He tells Dick Gordon about what life is like for him now that his city is under siege, and about the hope that a new U.S. administration might mean new policies in this troubled region.

Anita Tucker lived in a heavily guarded settlement in Gaza for 29 years. But she has since been moved to the Israeli side and is living in temporary housing with the rest of her family, including her 8 grandchildren. Rockets have fallen very close to her home, but the family has no protection since the housing is temporary. She tells Dick about her hope that she can one day go back to Gaza to live in peace with her former neighbors.

This program was produced by The Story for January 2, 2009.

For more information, visit:
thestory.org

January 02, 2009
4:55
Heilbrunn Reviews Neo-Con Travails
» ‎ LobeLog.com

Jacob Heilbrunn of The National Interest, which is related to the Nixon Center, has written two very interesting articles on the plight of the neo-cons after the Republican debacle in November that are well worth a read.

The first, published on the journal’s blog December 19, addresses the departure of Joshua Muravchik and Marc Reuel Gerecht, as well as that reported earlier of Michael Ledeen, from the foreign-policy ranks of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Like Ledeen, Gerecht has found a new home at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which, so far as I can tell, is basically a front for both Israel’s Likud Party and for the pro-Likud Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). Muravchik, who, like Ledeen, had been associated with AEI for some 20 years, is apparently yet to find a new perch. Heilbrunn suggests that these departures are evidence of an ideological purge against neo-cons led by Danielle Pletka, who came to prominence as a staffer for the ultra-right Jesse Helms, but I find this a little difficult to believe if, for no other reason, than Pletka is as neo-conservative (and Likudist) as anyone I can think of. I understand from mutual friends that Muravchik had been worried about his position at AEI for at least the past year and a half due to withering pressure from above to write and publish more than he had. It is true as Heilbrunn points out, however, that Muravchik has been a bit more nuanced in his approach to the various “evils” that neo-cons have identified over the past two decades than some of his ideological colleagues; for example, Daniel Pipes (with whom Pletka has been close) has attacked him (and Gerecht) for entertaining the notion that the West should be willing to dialogue with and possibly even support non-violent Islamist parties in the Middle East, a notion that is anathema to Pipes. Perhaps AEI’s or Pletka’s aim is guided less by Republican loyalty than by Islamophobia, if indeed ideology — and not personality, as was reportedly more the case with Ledeen — is playing a role in these decisions.

The second article by Heilbrunn, whose book, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons I reviewed last year, is much longer and appears in the latest issue (Jan 12) of The American Conservative. It speculates on the internal splits that the neo-cons are going through as a result of the political campaign and Obama’s victory, and the possibility (I would say probability) that at least one major faction — headed by people like Robert Kagan, David Brooks and even David Frum — will seek to forge an alliance with liberal interventionists, presumably led by Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton (although Susan Rice also fits the bill), in the new administration, much as they succeeded in doing during the Clinton administration with respect to Balkans policy. As I’ve written before, the two movements have similar historical origins (inspired in major part by the “lessons” — “never again” — they drew from Munich and the Holocaust) and tend to see foreign policy in highly moralistic terms in which the U.S. and Israel are “exceptionally” good. While I don’t agree with everything in Heilbrunn’s analysis, it offers a good point of departure for watching the neo-cons as the Age of Obama gets underway.

December 31, 2008
0:37
Flashpoints: Day 3 of the Israeli Attack on Gaza
» ‎ PalCast

Eyewitness reports from Gaza by Palestinians and international human rights workers. Ali Abunimeh joins Nora Barrows-Friedman and Dennis Bernstein.

This program was produced by Flashpoints Radio on Monday, December 29.

For more information, visit:
www.flashpoints.net
electronicintifada.net
December 30, 2008
1:39
FSRN: International Reaction to Gaza Attacks
» ‎ PalCast

Israeli officials say the attacks were provoked by Palestinian rocket fire into southern Israel. Only two deaths have been reported so far as a result of the Palestinian attacks. Humanitarian experts say Israel’s military is a Goliath to the Palestinians’ David. It hits close to home for Allegra Pacheco, Deputy Head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

This program was produced by Free Speech Radio News for Monday, December 29 2008.

For more information, visit:
www.fsrn.org
1:30
FSRN: Attack on Gaza Kills 300
» ‎ PalCast

Humanitarian workers are trying to get much needed supplies to Gazans in the wake of Israeli attacks. The Free Gaza Movement has sent its ship, the Dignity, to the coastal territory. The ship carries physicians, human rights workers and three tons of donated medical supplies. Green Party Presidential candidate and former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney travels with them on this emergency mission.

This program was produced by Free Speech Radio News for Monday, December 29 2008.

For more information, visit:
www.fsrn.org
freegaza.org

December 29, 2008
5:53
And Helena Cobban,
» ‎ LobeLog.com

whose blog on Middle East politics, justworldnews.org, is consistently among the very best, informed as it is by decades of on-the-ground reporting (mostly for the Christian Science Monitor) and analytical expertise. I refer in particular to her analysis Sunday of the intersection of Israeli politics, what is happening in Gaza now, and how difficult it will be to stop in the absence of serious external pressure, including, but not exclusively, from the United States.

I also highly recommend Helena’s book, Re-Engage! America and the World After Bush. It was reviewed by my colleague, Ali Gharib, back in July shortly after its publication. As the title implies, the book’s vision goes far beyond the Middle East.
2:39
Read Daniel Levy on Gaza
» ‎ LobeLog.com

You can find his analysis on why Americans should care about what has been happening in Gaza these last 48 hours here. One hopes Obama might have a look at it, too.

Also well worth reading are the latest by Akiva Eldar in Haaretz. J Street has taken a very courageous position under the circumstances and is circulating a petition for the U.S. to lead diplomatic efforts to reinstate the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas (over Elliott Abram’s dead body, presumably). Americans for Peace Now (APN) has also issued a statement consistent with its Israeli sister organization, Peace Now.

It’s good that the Obama people have at least invited these groups into the room, as reported last week by Politico’s Ben Smith, although Israel Policy Forum’s excellent M.J. Rosenberg took strong and appropriate exception in his weekly column Friday to the presence at the meeting in question of the pro-settler Zionist Organization of America.

December 27, 2008
23:05
VOA: World Leaders React to Israeli Airstrikes on Gaza
» ‎ PalCast

Israel’s deadly airstrikes on Hamas compounds in the Gaza Strip are drawing sharp reactions in the Arab world, and a variety of responses elsewhere. Voice of America’s Kent Klein reports on international reactions.

This program was produced by Voice of America News for December 27, 2008.

For more information, visit:
voanews.com

4:14
Neo-Cons Still Busy on Iran
» ‎ LobeLog.com

While no doubt demoralized, the neo-conservative hawks at American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will be continuing their efforts for a major U.S. confrontation with Iran. They’ve scheduled an all-day briefing on “The Imam Returned: Thirty Years of Revolution in Iran” for January 30, no doubt featuring the recommendations of last September’s Bipartisan Policy Center report (signed by Dennis Ross) that I called a “roadmap to war” in a post in October. The two main authors (and graduates of Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans) of the report, AEI’s Michael Rubin (who has denied it is a “roadmap to war”) and Michael Makovsky will be presenting, although the featured speaker is Jeffrey Gedmin, an AEI alumnus and the head of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty who bore major responsibility for that heavily Likudnik Prague Conference on Democracy and Security in June 2007. Given my persona non grata status at AEI, I will unfortunately not be permitted to attend, but, coming ten days after Obama’s inauguration, I’m sure it will be the first big Iran-bashing event of the Obama era.
3:56
“Ross vs. Kurtzer”
» ‎ LobeLog.com

Scott McLeod at Time sums up the key battle, as I understand it, over who (Dennis Ross vs. Dan Kurtzer) will get the Israel-Palestinian (and possibly -Arab) portfolio in the Obama administration and the case against Ross in his Dec 23 blog post here. (He fails to mention the possible candidacy of Brookings’ Martin Indyk.) I would add that, since he left the Clinton administration, Ross appears to me to have become, if anything, more one-sided in his identification with Israel and his view that Palestinians are not ready for self-determination.

In that regard, Walter Russell Mead, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, published a very important article in the Council’s Foreign Affairs journal this past week, entitled “Change They Can Believe In: To Make Israel Safe, Give Palestinians Their Due,” in which he argues, among other things, that there is a certain “moral equivalence” (my words, not his) between the Israelis and Palestinians — an assertion that no doubt provokes all kinds of contempt and righteous indignation among neo-conservatives whose zeal for “moral clarity” rests on the morally unquestionably “exceptional” nature of both the United States and Israel.

Also worth a look for prospects of promoting the Israeli-Palestinian track is the op-ed that appeared in Friday’s Washington Post by the former head of Saudi intelligence and ambassador to the U.S. from 2005 to 2007, Prince Turki al-Faisal. It re-iterates Saudi Arabia’s commitment to its 2002 peace plan with Israel, now known as the Arab League peace initiative. While key details go unaddressed in the piece, its suggestion that Washington should back Israeli-Syrian peace talks suggests that Riyadh is open to a reconciliation with Damascus and sees that track as critical both to bringing Hamas into a peace accord and in ushering in a new security regime in the region as a whole.

Whether these various straws might add up to a major Obama diplomatic initiative after Jan 20 remains to be seen, of course. If Ross gets the post, I wouldn’t think so. And suggestions in a New York Times report earlier this week that Clinton hopes to assert control over the work of special envoys to the region is particularly worrisome given her senatorial history of pandering to AIPAC and the uncertainty that such a situation would create among their foreign interlocutors regarding the envoys’ access to the White House and Obama himself. But all of this remains speculation given the amazingly few details that have been leaked to the press about the internal deliberations of the president-elect’s foreign-policy team.

December 25, 2008
22:27
Greenbelt: ‘O Little Town of Bethlehem’
» ‎ PalCast

In October, 2008 a group of 21 Greenbelters – volunteers and staff – traveled to the Land called Holy, Israel-Palestine, with Amos Trust to spend time with peacemakers and people living there – especially the Palestinians living behind the ‘Separation Wall’ in the West Bank town of Bethlehem.

This program was produced by Greenbelt for December, 2008.

For more information, visit:
greenbelt.org.uk
December 14, 2008
23:23
Interview with Gilad Atzmon
» ‎ PalCast

KPFK’s Don Bustany speaks with Gilad Atzmon, Israeli musician and anti-occupation activist. They discuss Jewish Identity Politics, the contradiction in speaking tribal and thinking universal, the smearing and labeling that Atzmon has undergone for expressing his ideas, and the role the West plays in covering up the humanitarian crisis Israel has created in Gaza.

This program was produced for KPFK.

For more information, visit:
kpfk.org
palestinethinktank.com

December 12, 2008
22:13
More Neo-Con Wisdom From the Journal
» ‎ LobeLog.com

In a characteristically obtuse, barely coherent and typically self-serving and –centered op-ed published Saturday, former Pentagon policy chief, Douglas Feith calls on Obama to build on Feith’s chairmanship of the U.S.-India Defense Policy Group (DPG) to “intensify strategic cooperation with India” by initiating “a proper strategy to defeat our (common) terrorist enemies.”

Hard-line neo-cons have long seen India as a critical ally in the ongoing “clash of civilizations” which they and Islamist extremists have tried so hard to stoke. What really struck me about Feith’s article, however, was his implicit argument against territorial compromise between India and Pakistan (sound familiar?):

“The more we learned about jihadist ideology – that of al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba and others – the less likely it appeared that India could free itself of terrorist attacks simply through territorial compromise with Pakistan over Kashmir. that a territorial compromise on Kashmir between India and Pakistan would not serve. Jihadist leaders declare that the aim of their holy war is not to alter specific policies of their enemies, but rather to establish a universal Muslim state.”

Now I agree with Feith that the most radical of the groups, including those named by him, do indeed have grander ambitions. But the question is whether they would gain as much support and as many recruits from the Pakistani population – and hence constitute the kind of threat they pose now — if a territorial compromise, mutually agreed by both countries, were in place? Feith and others of his ilk – who oppose all territorial compromise between Israel and its neighbors – ritually ignore or reject the notion that radical Islamists might find it more difficult to enlist the support of fellow Muslims if the latter’s very concrete (in this case, territorial) grievances, were actually addressed.

In another op-ed published Monday, neo-imperialist neo-con Max Boot argues in favor of stronger international action against pirates in Somalia and terrorists in Pakistan, a generally defensible – if questionable in some of its details (use Blackwater and other mercenaries to protect shipping) – position. But there was one paragraph that really jumped out at me:

“…Pakistan was not entirely peaceful when it was under British rule. Nor was Somalia under Italian and British sovereignty. But they were considerably better off than they are today – not only from the standpoint of Western countries but also from the standpoint of their own citizens.”

How does Boot know that these countries were better off “from the standpoint of their own citizens” when they were under European rule? So many neo-cons, in spite of their professed devotion to democracy and Wilsonianism (remember self-determination?), hold fast to the imperial values – and the deep racism that were embedded in them, be it white man’s burden or mission civilasatrice),of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, failing to recognize that the dominant struggle of the second half of the 20th century was not East vs. West, but rather North vs. South as a result of which the latter, to varying degrees of success, achieved decolonization despite heavy resistance from the dominant Western powers. From a western standpoint, that may not have been a good thing both for the West and for the “natives,” but what evidence is there to suggest that the natives want to reverse history and will greet their former oppressors with flowers and sweets?

Of course, Boot’s reasoning is very similar to that of the liberal interventionists with whom neo-cons once again hope to make common cause.
22:10
Obama Foreign Policy: Patience, Patience
» ‎ LobeLog.com

I haven’t blogged much at all about likely foreign-policy trajectory of the Obama administration, because I still believe that, until we know how the sub-cabinet positions are sorted out and the precise role Obama has in mind for the National Security Council vis-à-vis the State Department and the Pentagon, etc. (that is, how much control the White House will exert over the policy-making process and how much time Obama himself will be able to devote to it, given the ongoing financial crisis and his domestic agenda), all of the speculation remains premature. Of course, a growing number of people on the the left, or “Liberals,” as the New York Times put it Tuesday, are expressing great worry about the implications of the appointments so far – focusing on the fact that all of the heavy-duty cabinet appointments, unlike Obama, did not publicly object to the Iraq War and have spoken out in one way or another against a strict timetable for withdrawal, among other things. (For some reason, they exempt Susan Rice from their critique, but, based on her work on Africa under Bill Clinton, I don’t see her as ideologically very different from Hillary, although it’s clear that the two of them are not the best of friends. Rice was one of the few to see a silver lining in Bolton’s appointment to the UN back in 2005!) The same forces have also been somewhat freaked out by the generally positive reviews given the picks by prominent neo-cons; among them, Richard Perle (although Perle’s was awfully nuanced, noting, correctly in my opinion, the likely continuity between Bush’s second term and the incoming administration), Mona Charen, Max Boot, and David Brooks.

A useful perspective was published by the reliably hard-line neo-con columnist of the “Wall Street Journal,” Bret Stephens Tuesday. I think it’s a rather good analysis (entitled “Obama’s Team of Conformists,” and correctly, if unhappily, points out that, at least in the initial phases, the Obama administration will build on Bush II and restore the realist-liberal internationalist consensus that, until 9/11 and with the exception of Reagan’s first term, has dominated U.S. foreign policy since the onset of the Cold War. What is particularly interesting about the column is that it is that it is perhaps the first notable example of a frontal attack by a prominent neo-con on Robert Gates whose influence, I believe, was much more important in bending Bush II in a more realist direction in the last two years than that of Condi Rice, who, until now, has been the favored whipping boy (or girl) of neo-cons like Perle and Bill Kristol’s ‘Weekly Standard’ disgusted by Bush’s many second-term appeasements.

Of course, for neo-cons like Stephens, the big issue is what the incoming administration is going to do about Israel, and particularly the Israeli-Palestinians track, the ripeness of which is the subject of considerable debate within the Obama camp, with one group arguing, a la Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, and Aaron Miller, that there’s no chance of an imminent breakthrough there and that a peace agreement with Syria is far more promising and yields many more strategic benefits vis-à-vis Iran; and the other group, a la Brzezinski and Scowcroft, arguing for an all-out effort on the Israeli-Palestinian front, perhaps within the context of the revived 2002 Arab League Peace Proposal. Just the fact that a serious peace effort along one or both tracks is clearly a top priority gives neo-cons like Stephens the willies, but I found it very interesting that his concerns about Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. Jones, revolves around the contents of his never-released report (said to be harshly critical of Israel) about improving security conditions between Israel and the Palestinians. According to The Forward’s Nathan Guttman, Jones proposed that overall responsibility for security in the West Bank be transferred from Israel to a NATO force in the period between the time an agreement is reached on borders and Palestinian forces were ready to take control – an idea that Scowcroft has been pushing for some five years now. The notion that an international force would guarantee security is anathema to the Israeli right and its neo-con backers here.

As I’ve written before, who gets what is going to be highly indicative. If Dennis Ross (or Indyk) gets a big appointment – as overall Mideast special envoy or as special envoy to Iran – neo-cons, are going to be very, very relieved, and they’re won’t be a great deal to look forward to in that par of the world. If someone more in the Brzezinski/Scowcroft mode, someone who may be willing to exert actual pressure on an Israeli government to make the “tough decisions” its leaders often talk about, that will be something else.

(For a rather cynical and pessimistic view on this question, see Col. Pat Lang’s post on the subject from last week. While I agree in general with his analysis, I think his notion of “Zionists” is a bit broad. Groups like Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum are both Zionist may favor a “one-sided” solution to the conflict, but their notion of a solution – and their explicit appeals for U.S. pressure on Israel – is far more even-handed than those groups that are routinely and mistakenly called “pro-Israel.”)

Of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iran are just a couple of the big, big foreign-policy issues that will confront Obama Jan 20. We’re still more than a month and many, many appointments away.
22:07
Freedom’s Watch Goes Out of Business
» ‎ LobeLog.com

[I wrote this and the following 2 posts 3 days ago while traveling and haven’t had the ability to upload them or provide all the links, something I hope to do in the next few days, as I find the time and technical capacity. Please bear with me.]

Readers of this blog will be interested to learn, if they haven’t already, that Freedom’s Watch, a spin-off of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) funded mainly by casino king Sheldon Adelson, has gone out of business, as reported in Tuesday’s Washington Times. The article is well worth reading, but, among other interesting facts, it discloses that the group spent a mere $30 million – or perhaps $45 million dollars its 2007 ad campaign on behalf of the Surge in Iraq – in this election cycle, far short of the $200 million that it had reportedly planned to raise and disburse.

As has been reported elsewhere, Adelson, who can be expected to be a major funder for the Likud campaign in the February elections, has suffered huge losses over the past year. “Only a year ago, Mr. Adelson, 75, was the third-richest man in America, with a net worth of $28 billion. But since then, Mr. Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands Corp., has lost 95 percent of its stock value,” according to the Times.

The Times also reported, amusingly, that the group, whose public face was former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, was so dependent Adelson’s largess hat “over the summer all staffers were herded in front of a video camera to sing ‘Happy Birthday’ to Mr. Adelson.”

Freedom Watch’s roots clearly lie in the leadership of the RJC which, as can be seen through the “Search” function on “The Forward’s” or the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s websites actively propagated some of the most damaging smears (and lies) about Obama during the campaign but were fortunately challenged every step of the way by the Jewish media and its Democratic counterpart. Thankfully, their efforts proved to be largely ineffective, with Obama winning close to 80 percent of the Jewish vote,, as I expected he would after McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate. As I noted at the time, I thought the choice probably cost the ticket at least ten percent of the Jewish vote.
November 26, 2008
4:49
On Clinton as SecState
» ‎ LobeLog.com

Assuming for the sake of argument that Obama and Clinton are not as far apart on substantive policy issues, such as Iraq and Iran, as both candidates suggested during the primary campaign, I still believe Hillary’s appointment will prove a serious strategic error on Obama’s part, particularly if, as reported, she is given the authority to pick top officials at State, presumably from deputy secretary all the way down to deputy assistant secretary level.

If the appointment does indeed take place, it’s hard to imagine a situation where Obama could fire her without incurring an extremely heavy political cost, including the possibility that she could challenge him in 2012. That state of affairs gives her an extraordinary amount of power and independence. And if she or her subordinates at State — think Richard Holbrooke as deputy secretary, for example — assert that independence by failing to coordinate adequately with the White House, foreign interlocutors could become very confused and feel required to develop all kinds of “back channels” to the various players.

Such a situation would be rendered even more likely if the National Security Council staff — presumably overseen by Gen. Jones as national security adviser — consists primarily of Obama loyalists, while State is dominated by officials who supported Clinton during the campaign. Normal bureaucratic rivalries that afflict the foreign-policy apparatus of virtually every administration (George H.W. Bush’s excepted) would, under those circumstances, likely be compounded by the feelings of political — and even personal — betrayal left over from the primary battles, regardless of the wishes and mutual goodwill of the two principals. And even if there is an attempt integrate the two camps by putting Clinton partisans in the White House and Obama people at senior posts at State, there is no certainty that pre-existing cliques of loyalists on both sides will not try to marginalize the outsiders in the policy-making process despite the exhortations of their masters.

(Take, for example, the case of Susan Rice, a protegee of Madeleine Albright, who was an early Obama supporters and one of his key foreign-policy aides. Since news that Clinton may serve as secretary of state first surfaced, the possibility that Rice would serve in a senior State Department position, possibly deputy secretary of state, seems to have vanished, and now the question is whether she will get an NSC post or be nominated as U.S. ambassador to the UN, a post that normally reports to the secretary of state but has also been made a cabinet position. Which model would Obama choose if he nominates Rice to the post? And how strongly would Clinton insist that Rice report to her?)

Now, it may be that Obama, through Gen. Jones, can impose discipline on the players and the process, and I found it interesting that the Washington Post reported several days ago that “Obama is considering expanding the scope of the (national security adviser) job to give the adviser the kind of authority once wielded by powerful figures such as Henry A. Kissinger.” If true, which I tend to doubt, it raises serious questions about why Clinton would seriously consider the job, unless she believes that, once confirmed in the post, she would indeed enjoy substantial independence whether the White House liked it or not. Jones, on the other hand, would probably have very little patience for the State Department going its own way. So the potential for tension and conflict between the two bureaucracies seems very high to me. (And, incidentally, what will be the role of Joe Biden, whose recognized foreign-policy expertise was purportedly one of the major reasons he was asked to join the ticket, in all of this?)

As noted above, this assumes there are no basic policy differences between Clinton and Obama, and, indeed, the differences that emerged during the campaign were more of degree than of kind when went beyond the sound-bites. That said, I believe that the two still hold very different worldviews. On an ideological spectrum, I see Clinton as more of a liberal interventionist who tends to see the world in (sometimes highly) moralistic terms — and the U.S. as a morally “exceptional” nation — that demands a very activist approach. Obama, on the other hand, appears to me to be more “realist” in orientation, instinctively more critical of the U.S. and its history and more skeptical and cautious about its ability to “transform” other nations and cultures. While boh Clinton and Obama are pragmatic politicians, I am quite confident that these differences — while not nearly as dramatic as those between the hawks and the realists in the Bush administration — will inevitably emerge in internal debates over specific policies.

All that said, however, readers should look at Steve Clemons’ blog, www.thewashingtonnote, for his recent musings about how the various combinations and permutations in the national-security leadership may play out, particularly now that it appears that Gates, a realist, will be asked to stay on. His notion that the entire team may be united on the question of what policies to pursue in the Greater Middle East, including giving priority to the Israel-Arab conflict, is very encouraging, if, perhaps, a bit on the optimistic side.
4:49
On Clinton as SecState
» ‎ LobeLog.com

Assuming for the sake of argument that Obama and Clinton are not as far apart on substantive policy issues, such as Iraq and Iran, as both candidates suggested during the primary campaign, I still believe Hillary’s appointment will prove a serious strategic error on Obama’s part, particularly if, as reported, she is given the authority to pick top officials at State, presumably from deputy secretary all the way down to deputy assistant secretary level.

If the appointment does indeed take place, it’s hard to imagine a situation where Obama could fire her without incurring an extremely heavy political cost, including the possibility that she could challenge him in 2012. That state of affairs gives her an extraordinary amount of power and independence. And if she or her subordinates at State — think Richard Holbrooke as deputy secretary, for example — assert that independence by failing to coordinate adequately with the White House, foreign interlocutors could become very confused and feel required to develop all kinds of “back channels” to the various players.

Such a situation would be rendered even more likely if the National Security Council staff — presumably overseen by Gen. Jones as national security adviser — consists primarily of Obama loyalists, while State is dominated by officials who supported Clinton during the campaign. Normal bureaucratic rivalries that afflict the foreign-policy apparatus of virtually every administration (George H.W. Bush’s excepted) would, under those circumstances, likely be compounded by the feelings of political — and even personal — betrayal left over from the primary battles, regardless of the wishes and mutual goodwill of the two principals. And even if there is an attempt integrate the two camps by putting Clinton partisans in the White House and Obama people at senior posts at State, there is no certainty that pre-existing cliques of loyalists on both sides will not try to marginalize the outsiders in the policy-making process despite the exhortations of their masters.

(Take, for example, the case of Susan Rice, a protegee of Madeleine Albright, who was an early Obama supporters and one of his key foreign-policy aides. Since news that Clinton may serve as secretary of state first surfaced, the possibility that Rice would serve in a senior State Department position, possibly deputy secretary of state, seems to have vanished, and now the question is whether she will get an NSC post or be nominated as U.S. ambassador to the UN, a post that normally reports to the secretary of state but has also been made a cabinet position. Which model would Obama choose if he nominates Rice to the post? And how strongly would Clinton insist that Rice report to her?)

Now, it may be that Obama, through Gen. Jones, can impose discipline on the players and the process, and I found it interesting that the Washington Post reported several days ago that “Obama is considering expanding the scope of the (national security adviser) job to give the adviser the kind of authority once wielded by powerful figures such as Henry A. Kissinger.” If true, which I tend to doubt, it raises serious questions about why Clinton would seriously consider the job, unless she believes that, once confirmed in the post, she would indeed enjoy substantial independence whether the White House liked it or not. Jones, on the other hand, would probably have very little patience for the State Department going its own way. So the potential for tension and conflict between the two bureaucracies seems very high to me. (And, incidentally, what will be the role of Joe Biden, whose recognized foreign-policy expertise was purportedly one of the major reasons he was asked to join the ticket, in all of this?)

As noted above, this assumes there are no basic policy differences between Clinton and Obama, and, indeed, the differences that emerged during the campaign were more of degree than of kind when went beyond the sound-bites. That said, I believe that the two still hold very different worldviews. On an ideological spectrum, I see Clinton as more of a liberal interventionist who tends to see the world in (sometimes highly) moralistic terms — and the U.S. as a morally “exceptional” nation — that demands a very activist approach. Obama, on the other hand, appears to me to be more “realist” in orientation, instinctively more critical of the U.S. and its history and more skeptical and cautious about its ability to “transform” other nations and cultures. While boh Clinton and Obama are pragmatic politicians, I am quite confident that these differences — while not nearly as dramatic as those between the hawks and the realists in the Bush administration — will inevitably emerge in internal debates over specific policies.

All that said, however, readers should look at Steve Clemons’ blog, www.thewashingtonnote, for his recent musings about how the various combinations and permutations in the national-security leadership may play out, particularly now that it appears that Gates, a realist, will be asked to stay on. His notion that the entire team may be united on the question of what policies to pursue in the Greater Middle East, including giving priority to the Israel-Arab conflict, is very encouraging, if, perhaps, a bit on the optimistic side.
November 18, 2008
23:33
On Rahm Emanuel
» ‎ LobeLog.com

There’s been a lot of speculation about the foreign-policy implications of Rep. Rahm Emanuel serving as Barack Obama’s White House chief of staff, much of which, of course, is …speculation. Below are two of the less fevered and somewhat more reassuring analyses of Emanuel and his views on the Middle East — one by Jim Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), the other by Lara Friedman, the policy and government relations director of Americans for Peace Now (APN). Both groups, of course, worked with the Clinton administration on the Oslo process and are strongly committed to a two-state solution, etc. (
(And, of course, both groups want to gain and maintain good access to the Obama White House.) I personally have little doubt that, in his gate-keeping function as chief of staff, Emanuel will, at least indirectly, exert some influence on Obama’s foreign-policy decisions, and I don’t believe he will be shy about expressing his own views to the president, particularly with respect to Israel and its security about which he clearly feels very strongly. But, as the APN file in particular suggests, those views may be considerably more nuanced than what has been suggested in the blogosphere.

In terms of indications of where Obama will take U.S. Middle East policy, I also believe that other appointments, notably in the National Security Council and at the State Department, will be much more revealing. If Richard Holbrooke or Dennis Ross gets a senior appointment — a notion strongly endorsed today by The New Republic’s Martin Peretz — prospects for major progress on the Israel-Palestinian front — or virtually anywhere else in the region, especially Iran — will be seriously diminished.

In any case, here are the two analyses:

AAI’s Zogby - “Lessons That Should Be Learned”

On November 5th, my office sent an email to tens of thousands of our members and contacts congratulating President-elect Barack Obama. In our message, we noted the historic transformation his victory represented and commended the thousands of Arab Americans who participated in this winning campaign.

The initial and near universal response was heartwarming, with many sharing moving anecdotes of their campaign experiences, their reactions to the victory, and their hopes for change.

One day and one announcement later, the tide turned.

With the naming of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, the euphoria of some, not all, turned to despair. The emails and calls to my office were both troubled and troubling because much of the reaction was based on misinformation and because of what the entire episode revealed about the larger political dynamics involved.

First, the facts.

Rahm Emanuel is a brilliant strategist and a practitioner of hard-ball politics who in campaigns, his time in the Clinton White House, and more recently in Congress has demonstrated that he knows how to get a job done. Because there will be critical legislation the President-elect will need to move through Congress, from an economic recovery package and health care reform to a comprehensive approach to alternative energy, Obama has tapped Emanuel for his proven political skills. It is that simple.

This, of course, was neither the content nor the concerns raised by the emails I received. Some charged that Emanuel was an Israeli citizen or a dual U.S.-Israeli national (he is neither, he was born in Chicago in 1959); or, they alleged that he served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and lost his finger confronting a Syrian tank during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon (he did not serve in the IDF, and lost his finger in a freak accident while working as a teenager in an Arby’s restaurant). A few accused Emanuel of skipping U.S. military service to join the IDF in 1991 (also not true - in the midst of the 1991 Gulf War, while U.S. forces were manning Patriot missile batteries in Israel and the Arab Gulf, Emanuel volunteered for a few weeks, as a civilian, doing maintenance on Israeli vehicles). The most recent story alleges that Rahm Emanuel was fired from the White House in 1998 after being implicated by the FBI, together with Monica Lewinsky, in a Mossad plot to spy on then-President Clinton (a total fabrication, compliments of a shady character who claims to have been a U.S. intelligence official and is a purveyor of many bizarre tales).

That stories such as these have been circulating, and have taken hold, is as reprehensible as the “Barack Obama is a secret Muslim/Manchurian candidate” tale, or the anti-Arab anti-Muslim canards to which I and many of my colleagues have been subjected over the years.

Putting aside the fiction or, more accurately, the slanderous myths, the truth is that Emanuel is an effective leader in Congress. He is a strong supporter of Israel. But then, how many members of Congress are not?

Emanuel is Jewish and his father is an Israeli. Arab Americans should be especially sensitive to attacks on anyone based on religion or ethnicity. He has worked closely with and is liked by the Arab American Members of Congress from both parties, and he was the architect of the 1993 White House lawn signing ceremony for the Oslo Accords that brought Arab Americans and American Jews together. When, in 1994, Rahm accepted my invitation to a luncheon with Arab American community leaders, those who met him were impressed by his openness and honesty.

Beyond these facts, however, there are two concerns that must be addressed.

It is deeply troubling how quickly, for some, the excitement of Barack Obama’s victory was eclipsed by cynicism and suspicion, and how receptive some were to wild tales. This could only occur, on one level, because the victory itself was not understood. If it had been, the excitement would have been tempered by an appreciation of political realities.

Obama’s victory, no doubt, demonstrated that change is possible - but incremental change. Pressures remain, from the right and the left as well as the interest groups of all sorts that continue to have influence, limiting political options. The economy is in free-fall and, after eight years of Bush neglect and recklessness, dangers abound in the world. An Obama victory doesn’t alter those realities. And so our excitement was justified, but our euphoria should never have taken us so high as to lose our grounding and understanding of the limits of what is possible.

My concern is that, for some, the need for change became so great as to make them susceptible to wild swings - from unrealistic expectations to unwarranted despair and, therefore, to become prone to believe the worst.

But the fault here should be shared. I am concerned by the slowness of the Obama camp to respond more quickly or effectively to address the situation. Modern political operations have learned the need to confront false stories, to manage perception, and to anticipate problems — and, here, the Obama team had been especially masterful.

During the campaign, for example, they repeatedly demonstrated how tuned-in they were to public perception - and in particular to matters that might have created discomfort in the Jewish community. They knew that these stories needed to be shot down quickly. (American Muslims understood much of this, despite feeling slighted, at times.) But in this most recent instance, the Obama camp displayed both inattentiveness and tone-deafness to Arab misperceptions about who Rahm Emanuel is, and what role he will play. (Aside from the flap over the comments made by Rahm’s father, for which Rahm, himself, has now profoundly apologized.) As a result, the situation festered.

The campaign is now over, and the President-elect is playing on a world stage with more than one audience at stake. And in the Middle East, especially, sensitivities are as great and (perceived) sleights are felt as acutely as they are among any people in the world. With feelings having been rubbed raw by decades of U.S. policy miscues, with U.S. favorability ratings at all-time lows, and with extremists preying off resentment and fear - perceptions matter.

If we are to succeed in making changes in U.S.-Arab relations - and I believe that an Obama Administration can - greater attentiveness and sensitivity is in order.

Bottom line - there are lessons to learn and work to be done. Arabs and Arab Americans need to ground their expectations in political realities and be wary of slanderous attacks smacking of anti-Semitism, and U.S. political leadership must learn to be as attentive to Arab sensitivities as they are to the concerns of others.

APN’s Friedman — “Spotlight on Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)”

In recent days, there has been a great deal of discussion in the Middle East policy and activist communities over the appointment of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as President-elect Obama’s White House Chief of Staff. As many savvy observers have argued, this appointment has nothing to do with the foreign policy views of Congressman Emanuel, and everything to do with President-elect Obama’s apparent determination to move his agenda through Congress. Notwithstanding this observation, Emanuel’s appointment has generated controversy, fueled by those — on both the right and left — who are concerned about Emanuel’s views on Israel.

Apparently simply arguing that Emanuel’s views on Israel are irrelevant — that President-elect Obama would not appoint someone as his Chief of Staff unless he believed that person could be trusted to faithfully serve him and promote the President’s agenda, including in the foreign policy arena, and that the Chief of Staff does not in any case have a role in making foreign policy — will not put this controversy to rest. Likewise, it seems that there is no use in pointing out the absurdity of concluding from this one appointment that, after refusing to pander to pro-Likud forces during the election campaign (and paying a price for this refusal), President-elect Obama has decided only now that it is time to begin pandering.

With so many people determined to view Emanuel’s views on Israel as important, it seems to make sense to actually review Emanuel’s track record in Congress when it comes to Israel and Israel-related issues. This seemed like an especially useful exercise given that both those attacking Emanuel and those defending him apparently haven’t bothered to examine this record, preferring to restrict their arguments and counter-arguments to discussions of his lineage, speculations about his personal feelings, analysis of comments made by his relatives, and impressions of him related by friends and acquaintances. Any or all of which may be interesting. But given that Congressman Emanuel has been in elected office for 5 years, his record in Congress seems like a more serious place to look for real insight about his views.

So, for the benefit of anyone who is determined to take a position for or against the Emanuel appointment based on his views on Israel and the Middle East, what follows here is a quick summary of his record on these issues since he first came to Congress in January 2003. This record paints a consistent picture of a man who is clearly committed to Israel’s security and stability — as we, at Americans for Peace Now are — and who recognizes, as APN does, that peace — and U.S. engagement and leadership to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace — are vital to the national interests of both Israel and the United States.

Point 1: He has stayed off the really bad stuff

Members of Congress are constantly asked to sign letters and sponsor or cosponsor legislation related to Israel and the Middle East. Many of these initiatives are dubious in the extreme, representing efforts to get Members of Congress on the record support extreme positions that undermine any present or future peace efforts.

During his 5 years in Congress, Emanuel has not sponsored or co-sponsored any of the truly gratuitous, marginal, anti-peace legislation that is constantly popping up. In addition, a search of his statements in the Record, including during floor debates, shows that he has consistently taken a pragmatic, constructive line on Israeli-related issues. This includes some tough, and serious, statements with respect to Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Palestinian terrorism. This also includes consistent support for Israel and for Israel’s security — positions that APN and other pro-peace groups would generally share. While Emanuel has joined with the majority of his colleagues in signing on or voting for most of the major AIPAC-supported initiatives opposed by APN and other pro-peace groups (including, for example, the House version of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act), he has not spoken out prominently in support of such measures or engaged in grandstanding during floor debate over them. This includes with respect to Jerusalem.

Point 2: He has supported a number of pro-peace initiatives

During his time in Congress, Emanuel has signed on to a number of pro-peace initiatives, including some where he was one of the only Jewish members to do so.

The Roadmap letter (May 2003)

In May 2003, Emanuel was one of 4 Jewish members of Congress to sign a Dear Colleague to President Bush in support of the President’s Road Map for Middle East peace. This letter was strongly supported by Americans for Peace Now and other pro-peace organizations. The bi-partisan letter was co-sponsored by Reps. Lois Capps (D-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), David Price (D-NC) and Amo Houghton (R-NY). It was signed by a total of 44 members of the House of Representatives. The other Jewish signers were Barney Frank (D-MA), Bob Filner (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The letter was especially significant because it came as a counterpoint to a letter (strongly supported by AIPAC, which Emanuel and many of the 44 also signed) circulated immediately after the publication of the Roadmap, which implied that Congress did not support the Roadmap.

Excerpt from the Capps-Issa-Price-Houghton letter:

“We applaud your recent release of the ‘Roadmap to Peace’ as well as your statements underscoring your personal commitment to ending the violence between the Palestinian and Israeli people. We join you in noting with satisfaction the appointment of a new Palestinian Prime Minister with real authority. We hope that this change in the Palestinian governance structure will enhance the ability of a new Palestinian leadership to deliver lasting reforms…Along with changes on the Palestinian side, we share your belief that the Roadmap must also be implemented by Israel, with the end goal, as you have stated many times, ‘two states living side-by-side’ in peace and security….”

Letter Supporting direct funding for the PA (July 2003)

In July 2003, Emanuel signed a letter to President Bush supporting the Road Map and the decision to provide $20 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority. The letter was co-sponsored by Lois Capps (D-CA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), and Howard Berman (D-CA), and strongly supported by APN and other pro-peace groups. It ultimately obtained 74 signers. The other Jewish members who signed on were: Ackerman (D-NY), Berman (D-CA), Waxman (D-CA), Harman (D-CA), Schiff (D-CA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Filner (D-CA), Davis (D-CA), and Sanders (I-VT).

Excerpt from the Capps-Ackerman-Berman letter:

“We write to express our support for the $20 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority proposed by the Administration. We believe this assistance will strengthen Prime Minister Abbas and, we hope, enhance his ability to both achieve an end to terror while providing the Palestinian people with tangible benefits that will demonstrate the value of embracing reform and unambiguously rejecting extremism. Hopefully, with this support, the Palestinian leadership will begin the important process of dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, as called for in this stage of the roadmap. This assistance will also help the Palestinian people confront their pressing humanitarian needs…American assistance has long demonstrated its importance as a tool to advance our efforts to secure Middle East peace, combat terrorism, and promote U.S. interests in the region. Clearly, the Middle East peace process is now at an important crossroads. The decision to provide this direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority is an important signal of our continued national commitment to achieving peace with security. We stand ready to work with you to achieve our nation’s longstanding goal of finally bringing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Hyde-Capps Letter (December 2005)

In December 2005, Emanuel signed a letter to Secretary Rice supporting efforts to improve the situation on the ground in Gaza. The letter was co-sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Lois Capps (D-CA). This letter was strongly supported by APN and other pro-peace groups. It was eventually signed by 106 members, including 8 other Jewish members: Lantos (D-CA), Frank (D-MA), Schiff (D-CA), Harman (D-CA), Davis (D-CA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Israel (D-NY), and Filner (D-CA).

Excerpt from Hyde-Capps letter:

“We are writing to commend you for achieving an historic agreement between Israel, the Palestinians, Egypt, and the Quartet on the Gaza border crossing. The successful opening of the Gaza crossing on November 25th is a vital step on the path toward Israeli security, economic stability and growth for the Palestinians, political stability in Gaza, and the achievement of Israeli-Palestinian peace…Your role in the achievement of this accord, and the subsequent successful opening of the Gaza crossing point, clearly demonstrate the value of robust, hands-on U.S. diplomatic engagement with Israel and the Palestinians. Indeed, more than three decades of Middle East peace efforts have shown that breakthroughs come only when the U.S. President or Secretary of State is personally involved. Your leadership helps reassure Israel and her people of the United States’ enduring commitment to Israel’s welfare and security, even as Israel takes risks for the sake of peace. At the same time, it helps deliver tangible improvements in the quality of life of the Palestinians — improvements that are fundamental to the efforts of President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people and counter the appeal of extremists. We thus hope that you will continue to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians a personal priority, including seeing through the implementation of this historic agreement.”

Geneva Resolution (November 2003)

In November 2003 Emanuel signed on as a cosponsor to H. Res. 462, “Supporting the vision of Israelis and Palestinians who are working together to conceive pragmatic, serious plans for achieving peace, and for other purposes.” This resolution, introduced in support of the Geneva Initiative and other track II efforts to make progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace, was supported strongly by APN and other pro-peace groups. Emanuel was one of only two Jewish members to cosponsor it; the other was Rep. Filner (D-CA).

H Res. 462:

Whereas ending the violence and terror that have devastated Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza since September 2000, is in the vital interest of Israel, the Palestinians, and the United States;
Whereas ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict strengthens extremists and opponents of peace throughout the region, including those who seek to undermine efforts by the United States to stabilize Iraq and those who wish to see conflict spread to other nations in the region;
Whereas more than 3 years of violence, terror, and escalating military conflict have demonstrated that military means alone will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
Whereas obligations under the peace plan known as the `road map’ have not been met by Israeli and Palestinian leaders and no viable political alternatives have emerged;
Whereas despite mutual mistrust, anger, and pain, courageous and credible Israelis and Palestinians have come together in a private capacity to develop serious model peace initiatives, like the People’s Voice Initiative and the Geneva Initiative;
Whereas those initiatives and other similar private efforts are founded on the determination of Israelis and Palestinians to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict and to live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity, and security, based on a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace;
Whereas those initiatives demonstrate that both Israelis and Palestinians want to end the current vicious stalemate, and that both peoples are prepared to make compromises in order to achieve peace;
Whereas the Geneva Initiative offers a detailed framework that addresses the fundamental requirements of both peoples, including preservation of the Jewish, democratic nature of Israel with secure and defensible borders, and the creation of a viable Palestinian state; and
Whereas such peace initiatives present precious opportunities to end the violence and restart fruitful peace negotiations:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives– (1) applauds the courage and vision of Israelis and Palestinians who are working together to conceive pragmatic, serious plans for achieving peace; (2) calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to capitalize on the opportunities offered by these peace initiatives; and (3) urges the President to embrace and encourage all serious efforts to move away from violent military stalemate toward achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Point 3: He has been explicit about his support for the two-state solution, and his view that the U.S. should play a leadership role

Jerusalem Resolution (June 2007)

On June 5, 2007, Emanuel spoke on the House floor in the context of consideration of H. Con. Res. 152, a resolution marking the 40th Anniversary of the Reunification of Jerusalem. Rather than speaking in worn-out platitudes that implicitly or explicitly reject any Israeli negotiations over Jerusalem, he offered a very personal account of his connection to Israel and his own feelings about the 1967 war, including a discussion of how that war opened the door for land-for-peace, and the importance of U.S. leadership in seeking and making peace in the Middle East.

Excerpt from Emanuel floor statement, June 05, 2007:

“…In fact, one has to look at the 1967 war, that it created possibilities, as did the 1973 war, for peace to occur, and every nation that has decided to make peace with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, has had peace. The war in 1967, because of the changes to the boundaries to the south, to the immediate east and to the north, redefined Israel’s security. Once those nations came to terms with Israel’s status, which is what the 1967 war accomplished, they accomplished and received peace, and land-for-peace has been at the premise of America’s foreign policy, Israel’s foreign policy, and was possible because of the outcome and the results strategically on the ground and in the environment because of 1967. People remember the military accomplishment which was unique and stands out in the 20th century, but it also created an environment that allowed peace to happen, at least with the two countries that have chosen the road of peace with Israel. …The next 40 years needs to be a period of time where America, and this may be a little bit of a criticism here, we were always and always will be the indispensable leader in that region. The moment we walk away from that role the parties lose interest in discussing among themselves. I would hope that immediately the President would again…nominate somebody to be a Middle East envoy, to again create a dialogue between the Israelis and Palestinians, to find what the Jordanians and Egyptians have found with the Israelis, peace, based on the premise of land for peace… Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment our two leaders today, the chairman and the leader on the Republican side, for this resolution, for recognizing an historic moment that in fact without which we would not see the peace between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt…”

Rabin Resolution 12/8/05

On December 8, 2005, Emanuel made a powerful statement on the House floor in the context of House consideration of a resolution honoring the life, legacy, and example of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, on the 10th anniversary of his death. Emanuel also co-sponsored the resolution (which was strongly supported by APN and other pro-peace organizations). In his statement Emanuel noted with pride his involvement in the Olso Accords. Emanuel was one of 44 members who cosponsored this resolution.

Excerpt from his 12/8/05 floor statement:

“I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 535, a resolution honoring the memory of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his assassination. Prime Minister Rabin served the people of Israel for two terms as Prime Minister, as well as previous roles as Ambassador to the United States, Minister of Defense and Member of the Knesset. Among his many accomplishments, it is his role as a visionary peacemaker which has ensured him a place of honor in history…During his tenure as Prime Minister, Mr. Rabin made remarkable progress in the Middle East peace movement. Teaming with former rival Shimon Peres, Mr. Rabin entered peace negotiations with then-Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat in 1993 in Oslo, Norway. Prime Minister Rabin, Mr. Peres and Mr. Arafat all received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. As a member of the Clinton Administration, I had the pleasure of witnessing the signing of these historical accords on the White House lawn. Meeting Prime Minister Rabin was an honor I will never forget, and his example continues to inspire me to this day. Prime Minister Rabin was revered by the Israeli citizens for his unwavering commitment to the peace process. Tragically, the life of this man of peace was cut short by an extremist gunman on November 4, 1995. I would like to express my condolences to the family of Prime Minister Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his death…”
November 10, 2008
21:08
New Evidence Linking Aish HaTorah to Obsession
» ‎ LobeLog.com

A Guest Post by Eli Clifton:

The September and October mass distribution of the anti-Muslim documentary, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, paid for by the mysterious Clarion Fund, has numerous links to the Orthodox Jewish organization Aish HaTorah. In September, Ali Gharib and I wrote:

The Clarion Fund and Aish Hatorah are headed by twin Israeli-Canadian brothers Raphael and Ephraim Shore, respectively. The two groups appear to be connected as Clarion is incorporated in Delaware to the New York offices of Aish Hatorah.

“It seems that the Clarion Fund, from what we can tell, is just a virtual organization that is a front for Aish Hatorah,” Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told IPS. “They don’t have staff, they don’t have a physical address. Nothing.”

Sarah Posner at The Jewish Week also wrote an excellent article which details the links between Aish HaTorah and Obsession.

Adding to the case that the production and distribution of Obsession are managed by Aish HaTorah, is the fact that Obsession’s website, [www.obsessionthemovie.com], appears to be hosted by an Aish HaTorah hosting account.

Obsessionthemovie.com shares an IP address with just one other website, http://www.imaginaishion.com. Imaginaishion.com is a domain name registered and owned by Aish HaTorah.

Why does the Clarion Fund share a mailing address with Aish HaTorah? Why is Obsession’s website hosted by Aish HaTorah? More importantly, this all raises the question of, “why is an Israeli organization with the mission of, ‘providing opportunities for Jews of all backgrounds to discover their heritage,’ participating in the production and distribution (in “swing states”) of anti-Muslim propaganda in the United States, and during an election campaign at that?”
November 03, 2008
19:33
A Rebuttal to “Obsession”
» ‎ LobeLog.com

A Guest Post by Eli Clifton:

We have followed the campaign behind Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West since it first emerged in 2005. IPS has published two articles on its producers and distribution here and here. This new rebuttal by JewsOnFirst is one of the most comprehensive attempts to dismantle the arguments presented in the film.

JewsOnFirst, an organization, “dedicated to the protection of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment,” has published Rebutting Obsession: Historical Facts Topple Film’s Premise that Violent Muslim Fundamentalists are Nazis’ Heirs, Expose its Fear-mongering, a devastating critique of Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. Obsession, a 2005 film that, in the name of exposing violent fundamentalism, casts suspicion on all Muslims, experienced increased exposure this fall, when the mysterious Clarion Fund initiated the unsolicited distribution of millions of DVD inserts inside swing state newspapers.

In support of the rebuttal, JewsOnFirst also offers a web-based slide presentation summarizing the key arguments, as well as profiles of the supposed experts interviewed in the film. (The slide presentation will soon be available for download as a PowerPoint presentation next week.)

Key arguments made in JewsOnFirst’s Rebutting Obsession are:

• Obsession and the “expert” viewpoints presented in it represent the ideology of the far right wing within the Republican Party, which seeks to intervene in the Presidential election with a distraction from the current economic turmoil.

• Obsession ignores the geopolitical environment in which radical Islam was cultured, and makes a baseless argument that such fundamentalism is the ideological descendent of Nazism.

•

A Peek into Others' mind » Items by admin

Feeds

Items by admin