Nuggets from an intriguing piece on the United Against Nuclear Iran NGO, which is being shielded by the U.S. Department of Justice

"The Obama administration has gone to court to protect the files of an influential anti-Iran advocacy group, saying they likely contain information the government does not want disclosed."

..........

"Lawyers for Victor Restis, who filed the defamation suit, have accused the group of being funded by unidentified foreign interests and are trying to force the testimony of Israeli’s former intelligence chief and a prominent Israeli businessman."

..........

"If the group has information belonging to the American government, it is not clear how it obtained it. American intelligence agencies are prohibited from secretly working with organizations to influence American public opinion and media. If the information does not belong to the government, it is not clear what makes it so sensitive."

........

"Founded in 2008, United Against Nuclear Iran is run and advised by a long list of former government officials. Its advisers include Joseph I. Lieberman, the former Democratic senator from Connecticut; Frances Townsend, the former homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush; Dennis B. Ross, a former Middle East adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents; and former intelligence chiefs from Israel, Germany and Britain."

..........

"Mr. Restis said he was approached by an Israeli businessman, Rami Ungar, with no direct connection to United Against Nuclear Iran.

"According to court documents filed by Mr. Restis’s lawyers, Mr. Ungar knew details about the case and said he was “authorized to try to resolve the issues” on behalf of the group’s supporters.

"It was not clear who those supporters were. Like many nonprofit groups, its donor list is secret. Mr. Restis’s lawyers said in a letter to the judge in April that they had uncovered information that United Against Nuclear Iran “is being funded by foreign interests.”"

"....He is also seeking testimony from Meir Dagan, the former Israeli intelligence chief and an adviser to United Against Nuclear Iran, who Mr. Restis believes served as a conduit between the source and the group.

..........

"If the Justice Department formally asserts the law-enforcement privilege this week, Judge Ramos has said he will have “a great number of questions” about how and why.

"“I am particularly concerned,” he said in April, “that the defendants are able to utilize certain information in its public statements, and then not have to answer to their actions on the basis of a privilege.”"

Apartheid Israel Feeling the Chill from Washington

U.S. decision to deal with the PA government raises hackles in Israel.  Good.

The notion that Israel-coddling produces diplomatic flexibility has been disproved repeatedly, not least by former diplomat and diplomatic strike-out king Dennis Ross (and here).  Ross bent over backwards in a recent NYT Op-Ed to find ways that Israel might do just a teeny bit of withdrawals from the West Bank to eliminate the threat that the PA would seek redress for Israel's illegal colonization of the West Bank with the International Criminal Court.

Here are two worthy contributions, both antidotes to coddle school:  The first by Alain Gresh, is aptly titled "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable."  The second is by Emile Nakhleh, who argues that the two-state option is dead.

[Added: This joint statement in April 2014 by five respected and wise men and woman remains relevant, notwithstanding the failure of John Kerry's effort to broker an Israel-Palestine deal.]

[Added: Israel flaunts international opprobrium and announces 1,460 more housing units in illegal settlements.]

Obama’s Moment to Make the Case for Middle East Peace

Boston Study Group on Middle East Peace*

If it were easy to do, an American president would have long ago shepherded Israelis and Palestinians into the negotiated two-state peace agreement that both peoples and their neighbors so clearly need — a peace that would greatly enhance U.S. interests.

There are many reasons why it will be hard for President Obama to achieve, in his second term, the Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that has eluded him and his predecessors for so long. The rise of radical one-state nationalists and ideologically driven settlers in Israeli politics, the debilitating split in the Palestinian camp between Hamas and Fatah, the power struggles and sectarian enmities roiling the region — these are all factors adding to the difficulty of forging the two-state peace agreement that alone can end the agony of occupation for Palestinians and bring Israel a sounder more durable form of security.

IDF lt. colonel responds to peaceful protest

[Added: more information on the incident and other videos]

Israeli government continues to block the sale of Boeing AWACS to Turkey

The sale is part of a $1.6 billion Boeing contract with Turkey.  

You really should watch this segment by John Oliver. His powerful humor lands body blows on proponents of cutting off funding to UNESCO

As you will remember, in October 2011 UNESCO voted 107-14 with 52 abstentions to admit Palestine to membership.  This triggered a legally-required U.S. cutoff of funding for the organization, and thereby curtailed or ended a number of worthwhile projects around the world.  As noted here in an earlier post, the U.S. action was defended by a variety of Israel advocates.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The second part is here.

Publisher of Atlanta Jewish Times resigns January 24, 2012, eleven days after his editorial advocating Mossad assassinate Barack Obama

Andrew Adler suggested three options available to Israel: launch a pre-emptive war against Hamas and Hezbollah, attack Iran's nuclear facilities or "order a hit on the president in order to preserve Israel's existence."  (Adler's despicable column was discovered by Gawker.)

Of course, Adler has been condemned by the leaders of many prominent Jewish lobby and advocacy organizations.  He is also said to be under investigation by the Secret Service.  Nonetheless, this story has remained below the radar screen in much of the so-called mainstream media.  The NYTimes referred to the incident on January 24, 2012.

Adler offered a televised apology, which prompted one editorialist to note that it was a little sad to see a grown man cry.  Considering that Adler urged the assassination of the President of the United States, the only thing that we should be sad about is that Adler is still at-large.  He is lucky not to be a Muslim, wouldn't you say?

Important reportage on Benyamin Netanyahu's divisive political game in the U.S.

The author is the journalist Max Blumenthal.

"The Bibi Connection"
Excerpt:

"Netanyahu’s shadow campaign is intended to be a factor in defeating Obama and electing a Republican in his place. He opposed Obama’s early demand to freeze settlements on the West Bank as a precondition for reviving the peace process, a process since the Oslo Accord that Netanyahu has attempted to stall or sabotage, despite his signing of the Wye Agreement under pressure from President Clinton. Since his adamant stand against the settlement freeze, Netanyahu has undermined every effort to engage the peace process. He appears dead set on consolidating Greater Israel, or what many Israelis call “Judea and Samaria,” and has signaled a strong desire to attack Iran."

Romney: "I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally."

Veto?

The so-called "peace process" had ground to a halt.  The White House was diverted by other issues, for instance the sputtering U.S. economy, Libya, Afghanistan to name a few. The principal US officials still involved processing peace, not least the affable but ineffectual Dennis Ross, were occasionally trying to bunt their way to first base, but they typically struck out.

Now the Palestinian initiative at the UN has jarred the US into action, but what is the Obama White House doing other than corroborating its diplomatic isolation with Israel?  The prospect of the US casting a veto to thwart a step that will likely increase pressure on Israel to negotiate responsibly is a stunning paradox, especially at the time when Israel is led by a government that has demonstrated little, if any commitment to a feasible two-state solution.  The US is using its sharp diplomatic elbows to deter support for the Palestine initiative, but there is no evidence that the US is doing much poking in Israel.

Of course, there is an attempt to deter Mahmoud Abbas with a statement by the Quartet, but that statement, at least as presently drafted, it is deeply flawed and it is unlikely to win Palestinian assent.  

US and Israeli interests are not identical, and it is worrying that that simple reality is contentious in Washington.  Given the wider US interests in the Middle East, especially considering the momentous political upheavals in the Middle East, it will be very damaging for the U.S. to cast a veto, which is why Obama and Co. are trying to kill the issue before it gets to the UNSC. What the US should be working to attain is a context in which the issue of Palestinian membership in the UN is met by a US abstention rather than a veto.  

Henry Siegman is an articulate advocate of a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine. His nuanced knowledge of the issues, including the finer points of U.S. diplomacy is unrivalled. In this piece he addresses Elliott Abrams dismissal of a joint letter addressed to the President that advocates a two-state solution, a more assertive U.S. role and the articulation by the U.S. of a framework for settlement.

Text of the January 24 letter referred to in the article, and a link to the Abrams article that Seigman eviscerates.  Readers will recall that Abrams served in the George W. Bush NSC as a senior Middle East staffer, and informally as self-appointed protector and advocate for Israel.

Israel, where the average (non-Arab) citizen lives the good life at the level of a modern EU citizen, is coming hat in hand looking for an addtional $20 billion from a not so flush Daddy Warbucks.

If not now, when?

Download the PDF format book here.  Available from Amazon.

Available on Kindle.

Gaza

Sara Roy offers a pithy commentary on Gaza, popular pressure for Palestinian reunification and the prospects for breaking the U.S.-Israeli siege.

Earlier pieces:

Gaza war of 2008-9.

Hamas and the PA.

Netanyahu the peacemaker: The self-delusional game

"The old, wishful habit of waiting for Netanyahu is an abdication of American influence and interests."


David Remnick nails it in this important commentary, in which he argues that the time is now for an Obama .  He also pins the tail on the right incrementalist by singling out repeat offender Dennis Ross, who has been more intent on reassuring rightwing Israeli governments than pursuing an attainable agreement.

Turkish report on Mavi Marmara incident

What are Israeli strategists thinking? One example.

The setting for these remarks was the Herzliya National Security Conference, in early February.  They are reported in Defense News, Feb. 14, 2011, pp. 1 and 8.

Retired U.S. Marine Gen. James Jones, who up until last October served as Obama’s national securi­ty adviser, dismissed claims of Washington’s decline.

“I reject the idea that the United States is in decline or even in rela­tive decline,” Jones told conference participants here. “To be sure, there is much to be done to ensure we are as successful in the 21st century as we were in the 20th ... and Egypt is just a small sign of the potential for change.” Alongside efforts to prevent a nu­clear-armed Iran and to fortify a coalition of the moderates com­prised of pro-Western Arab states respectful of the universal rights of its people, Jones cited the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as “a mat­ter of urgent necessity.” Jones said the lack of a peace deal jeopardizes regional stability by un­dermining moderates, provoking the young and hopeless classes, and empowering Iran.

Time is not on Israel’s side, Jones warned: “The growing isolation of Israel is a very real concern. The number of countries that recognize a Palestinian state can outrank the number of countries that recognize Israel.” Jones urged Israel’s leaders to restart peace negotiations.

“Failure to act could ignite a rep­etition of Egypt on streets in neigh­boring countries,” he said. “Will ex­tremists win the hearts and minds of the young Arab street? Or will moderate voices prevail for a two­state solution? This could be the most important national security question of our time, and if we fail, history will not forgive us.” Amos Gilead, director for politi­cal-military affairs at Israel’s Min­istry of Defense, was brutally direct in rejecting Jones’ premise.

“Even if we sign an agreement to­morrow with the [Palestinian Au­thority], they won’t honor it,” Gilead said. “Look around the Middle East: If there is a democratic process here, it will bring, for sure, hell.” In tactless and borderline racist remarks here, Gilead insisted that democracy and stability cannot co­exist in the Arab Middle East.

“In the Middle East and the Arab world, there is no place for democ­racy,” he said.

Gilead said free elections in the region would breed either a Gaza­like “Hamastan,” or Lebanon, which he described as a so-called democracy.

“In Lebanon, there is a constitu­tion without a state. They have an elected president, prime minister, speaker, but the country is losing it­self when it allows entities more powerful than Lebanon to drive the agenda,” Gilead said, alluding to Hezbollah.

“The only place in the region with a real chance of democracy is Iran,” a non-Arab nation, he said. “But what was the reaction to Iranian democratic forces? Indifference. And so dissenters in Iran got the message and we lost the opportuni­ty to change Iran.”

Israel's colonization of occupied territory: You say illegal, I say illegitimate, let's call the whole thing off

http://pfcmc.com/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10178.doc.htm
Headline USA Today: "Clinton says Israeli settlements are illegitimate, not illegal*"
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, February 18, 2011:

"I think it is absolutely clear to say, number one, that it's been American policy for many years that settlements were illegitimate** and it is the continuing goal and highest priority of the Obama administration to keep working toward a two-state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians."

Amb. Susan Rice, February 20, 2011: 

"Yes, for over four decades it has been U.S.  policy to oppose settlement activity.  We view it as illegitimate and corrosive to the peace process.  I made that point clearly in our statement after the vote."

 According to Merriam-Webster:

*Illegal: "not according to or authorized by law"
**Illegitimate: "not sanctioned by law"


[How should the U.S. respond to its impudent clients, namely Israel and the PA?  In the case, of the PA, despite the personal request of the U.S. President, Mahmoud 'Abbas insisted on going forward with the doomed resolution.  As for Israel, it merrily continued it illegal colonization of occupied territory.  Michael Lame suggests punishing both parties by chopping financial aid.]

US vetoes UNSC resolution describing Israel's illegal settlements as illegal while accusing Israel of violating "international commitments"

Ambassador Susan Rice:

"Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace."

An abstention would have sent a far stronger and far more appropriate message to Israel. Rice's statement will cause some indigestion, but the resolution would have facilitated additional sanctions.

[Added: text of the vetoed resolution.]

Among U.S. political and media elites the pressing question for the past two weeks has been will freedom for Egyptians be bad for Israel?

This concern particularly extends to the notion that the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other group that is critical of Israel be permitted to share power in Israel.  This concern misses the point that many, but by no means all Egyptians, are deeply critical of Israel.  Even Egyptians well distant from the Ikhwan are often prone to underline that Egyptian cooperation with Israel probably reduced Israel's incentives to pursue a resolution of the conflict that would end the occupation.  Whether the Ikhwan is in or out of government, Egyptians' distaste for Israel's policies is likely to remain.

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's rhetoric is illustrative of a tendency to imagine that is only groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood that condemn Israel for its actions.  

"We must also urge the unequivocal rejection of any involvement by the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremists who may seek to exploit and hijack these events to gain power, oppress the Egyptian people, and do great harm to Egypt’s relationship with the United States, Israel, and other free nations."  Read more: 

The influential congresswoman's concerns illustrate what a strange planet is when it comes to Middle East matters.

Closer to earth, there is an interesting moment approaching in the Security Council:

On Feb. 18, 2011, it is likely that the Security Council will vote on the resolution that will underline the illegality of Israeli's colonization of the West Bank with settlements.  The Obama administration is being lobbied very hard by some of Israel's friends in Congress.  It would very impolitic for the U.S. to cast a veto, as it has so often [not "rarely" as David Sanger oddly claims]; bad timing doesn't begin to capture how counterproductive that would be.  Instead, the U.S. is trying to get by with a statement by the President of the Security Council, one that underlines the consensus that the settlements are "illegitimate". That was the formulation that Obama used in his 2009 Cairo speech. The resolution already has 14 of 15 votes, incidentally.  Of course, a mere statement would have little diplomatic heft, whereas the resolution would increase the pressure on European governments to act, and further undermine Israel's specious claims that it has the right to build in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to deny the applicabilityy of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, yet again demonstrates her penchant for challenged logic.  She argues that condemning the illegal settlements would be “a major concession to enemies of the Jewish state and other free democracies.”]

This will be a real gut-check for President Obama.  Let's hope he makes the right call, one that speaks loudly to the need to bring the ocucpation to an end.