Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Israel Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 27, 2013 15 Comments

It's hard being a principled member of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement. With Israel being a leader in computer, medical and other technologies, one would have to enter a time machine back to the 1950s to truly boycott Israeli products. The Cornell Students For Justice...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 25, 2013 38 Comments
I don't think it's overstatement to say that Obama successfully has isolated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by bringing the major world powers plus Germany into an Iran nuclear agreement publicly opposed by Netanyahu (and quietly by many Arab countries). The perennial thorn in Obama's Mideast side stands almost alone in publicly opposing the deal.  The agreement helps keep the Mullahs in power through removal of sanctions while normalizing Iranian uranium enrichment.  More than that, the statements accompanying the deal announcement treat Iran as the regional power to resolve a host of issues, including Syria. In exchange, Iran agrees to slight compromises that push back the "breakout" period to produce a nuclear weapon by a few weeks or months at most. Jeffrey Goldberg assesses Israel's isolation, In Iran, Obama Achieves 50 Percent of His Goals:
U.S. President Barack Obama has had two overarching goals in the Iran crisis. The first was to stop the Iranian regime from gaining possession of a nuclear weapon. The second was to prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. This weekend, the president achieved one of these goals. He boxed-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so comprehensively that it's unimaginable Israel will strike Iran in the foreseeable future. Netanyahu had his best chance to attack in 2010 and 2011, and he missed it. He came close but was swayed by Obama’s demand that he keep his planes parked. It would be a foolhardy act -- one that could turn Israel into a true pariah state, and bring about the collapse of sanctions and possible war in the Middle East -- if Israel were to attack Iran now, in the middle of negotiations.
I think it's much broader than forestalling an Israeli attack.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 24, 2013 17 Comments
The nuclear agreement with Iran is being touted by the Obama administration as a significant step in keeping Iran from moving towards nuclear weapons. In reality, the agreement is confirmation of Iran's uranium enrichment program at a relatively high level, although some of the highest level enrichment is supposed to be suspended. The fact is that in return for a weakening of sanctions that were putting great pressure on Iran, the centrifuges keep spinning, the facilities are maintained, and at best the length of time for an Iranian nuclear "breakout" has been lengthened for a short period. Eli Lake at The Daily Beast notes the significance:
Under the interim agreement Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium at low levels. Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif said the deal recognized his country's nuclear program. This is a major victory for Iran whose leaders have insisted for nearly a decade that it has the right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Officially, the Obama administration has not recognized that any country has this right under the treaty. It has argued that Iran has to adhere to the terms of prior U.N. Security Council resolutions that prohibit Iran from enrichment.
It is smoke and mirrors, allowing the Obama administration to declare diplomatic victory, change the subject, and create the straw man argument that anyone opposed to the agreement wants war. https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/404624480837722112 https://twitter.com/dansenor/status/404626184865996800

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 23, 2013 5 Comments

We have written so many times about the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement. The BDS movement is particularly strong on campuses in part because of the support from anti-Israel faculty and outside groups that target campuses: Brown U. divestment committee faculty member signed 2009 letter calling...

Posted by David Gerstman on November 22, 2013 3 Comments
On Wednesday, The Israel Project hosted a conference call with Dr. Emily Landau of Israel's Institute for National Security Studies. Dr. Landau is a non-proliferation expert and spoke about the problems with the agreement apparently being negotiated between the P5+1 (United States, China, France, Great Britain, Russia and Germany) and Iran. Landau focused on four elements of the agreement, as reported that are problematic. She evaluated these terms by the stated standard of an interim by President Obama that "goal of this short term deal is to be absolutely certain that while we’re talking to the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing their program."
  1. According to reports, P5+1 are willing to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium to 3.5%. At this point Dr. Landau said that there is "no plausible civilian explanation" for Iran to need more low enriched uranium, given "its vast stockpile of 3.5% enriched uranium." Given the number of centrifuges Iran has, even at this level, allowing enrichment allows Iran to advance its nuclear program.
  2. A second point that Dr. Landau focused on was Iran's recently installed next generation centrifuges. These centrifuges can enrich uranium at four to five times the speed of Iran's currently operating centrifuges. The agreement will apparently will allow Iran to test these centrifuges. Since this is an interim deal, why allow Iran to get these centrifuges ready to operate? If the P5+1 isn't able to close a permanent deal with Iran in 6 months, then these centrifuges will be ready to enrich then. Again this marks an advancement in Iran's nuclear program.
  3. The third element of the dealt that concerns Landau is that it won't stop the construction at the Arak heavy water reactor. This is the point that French foreign minister objected to. So hopefully this will be addressed.
  4. The final element that is problematic is that apparently an inspections regime has been spelled out for various sites in Iran, but not for Parchin. Parchin is where the IAEA detected a containment chamber that could be used for testing nuclear trigger devices. Although Iran has been detected cleaning the site, it is hoped that inspectors could find some residual evidence of what was going on there.
The third and fourth points are especially important as both of them indicate that Iran's nuclear program is military not civilian. (One does build a reactor of the type at Arak unless one wishes to produce weapons grade plutonium; a trigger is a necessary component of a nuclear bomb.)

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2013 20 Comments
Almost exactly one year ago reports surfaced that Valerie Jarrett was engaged in "secret" negotiations with Iran as Obama's personal emissary. The reports originated with Iranian bloggers, and was reported also by The New York Times. The Obama administration categorically denied the reports. Now Israeli television is reporting similar involvement, via the Times of Israel, ‘Geneva talks a facade, US-Iran worked secretly on deal for past year’:
The Geneva negotiations between the so-called P5+1 powers and Iran are a mere “facade,” because the terms of a deal on Iran’s nuclear program have been negotiated in talks between a top adviser to President Barack Obama and a leading Iranian nuclear official that have continued in secret for more than a year, Israeli television reported Sunday....

White House spokesman Bernadette Meehan was quoted by Haaretz as saying that the report was “absolutely, 100 percent false.”

The report, which relied on unnamed senior Israeli officials, said the US team to the secret talks was led by Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. Her primary interlocutor, the report said, was the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi. The talks have been taking place in various Gulf states.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 15, 2013 13 Comments

Not sure I agree with the linkage of Obama's broken promise that you can keep your insurance plan and his promise that Iran will not get nukes. One he knew was false at the time he made the promise, the other was, um, ...

Posted by David Gerstman on November 14, 2013 4 Comments
Let's review some of the administration's diplomatic activity over the past week. Lee Smith:
Haaretz reports that the administration misled Israel regarding the terms of the proposed interim agreement with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. One senior Israeli official explained that on Wednesday Israel had seen an outline that the Israelis “didn't love but could live with.” Thursday morning French and British officials, and not the White House, told the Israelis that the terms had changed and were much more favorable than what they’d been shown previously. “Suddenly it changed to something much worse that included a much more significant lifting of sanctions,” said the Israeli official. “The feeling was that the Americans are much more eager to reach an agreement than the Iranians.”
Natan B. Sachs lays out some of the particulars.
On substance, the Israelis, like the French, appear very concerned about the provisions of the interim deal that: (a) permitted Tehran to continue some uranium enrichment; (b) allowed Iran to continue building the heavy water reactor in Arak (with only an Iranian commitment not to activate it), which would preserve the Iranian short-cut to nuclear capabilities via a plutonium — rather than uranium — track; and, most notably, (c) provided Tehran with incentives that the Israelis see as the beginning of the dismantling of the sanctions regime. Israel’s concern is that the proposed sanctions relief will not, in practice, be reversible, while the Iranian commitments could be easily reversed (and in the case of Arak will not even be halted).
The French objections to the deal led the P5+1 countries to demand more of Iran, so the Iranian team left without a deal to return for consultations.

Posted by 0387erp on November 13, 2013 9 Comments

I received the call in the late afternoon, “do you want to go to BDS 101 at The University of Washington tonight?”

BDS stands for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction of Israel and represents a radical movement bent on the destruction of the Jewish State. The D in BDS should stand for demographic destruction as the core demand of the BDS movement is the flooding of Israel with over five million hostile Arabs. Such an influx would mark the end of a Jewish majority in Israel and thus the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The Anti Defamation League, the American Jewish community’s central human rights and advocacy organization has identified BDS as an anti-Semitic movement .

The  BDS 101 program was held in a lecture hall filled with a mix of Muslim and Progressive students and a small handful of pro-Israel students and community members. The program  featured a four member panel anchored by Stefanie Fox of the anti-Israel group, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and included Cindy Corrie, mother of the infamous Rachel Corrie. Two co-ed hosts from the sponsoring group (SUPER-UW) opened the event by declaring their solidarity with all of the other righteous struggles on the planet “we condemn all injustice” they said.

BDS Poster U Washington

The panel members each on cue took their turn at demonizing Israel. The perky Ms. Fox educated the students that Israel is a rogue apartheid state run by war criminal olive tree killers that must be penalized until in compliance with basic civilized norms.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 10, 2013 8 Comments

NGO Monitor keeps watch on anti-Israeli non-governmental organizations, and provides valuable research contesting many of the outlandish claims made by these mostly left-wing groups financed by European governments. The NGOs, some of which are staffed by Israeli leftists, subject Israel to a microscope no society could...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 09, 2013 38 Comments
With a fevered and frantic breathless pace, Obama via John Kerry has been pushing to sign a sell-out deal with Iran that would ease sanctions without shutting down Iran's nuke program. Benjamin Netanyahu was furious when he found out that Kerry had misrepresented what the proposed agreement would be, not to mention Kerry running at the mouth to bash Israel on the talks with the Palestinians. Netanyahu was not alone.  France was uncomfortable with the deal Kerry wanted to sign, even as Kerry huddled with the Iranians trying to get 'er done. Thank you France for at least buying us some time to prevent the historic sell out of Israel that was in the offing as recently as early today. Via NY Times, Talks with Iran Fail to Produce a Nuclear Pact:
In the end, though, it was not only divisions between Iran and the major powers that prevented a deal, but fissures within the negotiating group. Earlier in the day, France objected strenuously that a proposed deal would do too little to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment or to stop the development of a nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium.

“The Geneva meeting allowed us to advance, but we were not able to conclude because there are still some questions to be addressed,” the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told reporters.

The Times of Israel reports:

Posted by David Gerstman on November 08, 2013 10 Comments

Mideast Media Sampler 11/08/2013 -- Yasser, that's a conspiracy theory....

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 08, 2013 35 Comments

We are on the cusp of the most historic sell-out of Israel by any United States administration. We told you all along that in his second term Obama would impose a settlement on Israel according to what he viewed as reasonable: Obama will force his vision of a...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 07, 2013 37 Comments
John Kerry's public warning to Israel that it will face a 3rd Intifada and international delegitimization unless it relinquishes "illegitimate" settlements and a final peace deal does not leave a single Israeli solder in the West Bank, was a clear threat. The threat took place in an interview with Israeli and Palestinian television, as reported by The Times of Israel, Kerry slams Israel’s West Bank policies, warns of 3rd Intifada (emphasis added):
US Secretary of State John Kerry launched an unusually bitter public attack on Israeli policies in the West Bank Thursday, warning that if current peace talks fail, Israel could see a third intifada and growing international isolation, and that calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions would increase. Kerry made the comments during a joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2 and the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.

“The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos,” Kerry said. “I mean does Israel want a third Intifada?” he asked. “Israel says, ‘Oh we feel safe today, we have the wall. We’re not in a day to day conflict’,” said Kerry. “I’ve got news for you. Today’s status quo will not be tomorrow’s…” Israel’s neighbors, he warned, will “begin to push in a different way.”

The secretary went on: “If we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis, if we do not find a way to find peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel, there will be an increasing campaign of delegitimization of Israel that’s been taking place on an international basis.”

Turning to settlements and Israel’s presence in the West Bank, he added: “If we do not resolve the question of settlements, and the question of who lives where and how and what rights they have; if we don’t end the presence of Israeli soldiers perpetually within the West Bank, then there will be an increasing feeling that if we cannot get peace with a leadership that is committed to non-violence, you may wind up with leadership that is committed to violence.”

The highlighted words have a lot of meaning in the context of the dispute, particularly with regard to BDS and delegitimization.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 05, 2013 14 Comments
Our examination of the shout-down of Ray Kelly at Brown University has moved from the events that day to examining reaction of faculty, including from Political Science Professor Marion Orr who apologized for inviting Kelly, and Biology Professor Ken Miller who issued a forceful denunciation of the shout-down. Something interesting happened along the way, as more faculty went on record supporting the protests, if not the shout down. Post doctoral fellow and instructor Linda Quiquivix, who spoke on a panel discussion in favor of the protests, turned out to be a zealous critic of Israel, to put it very mildly.  In light of Quiquivix's background, I suggested that there may be a connection between supporters of the tactics used against Israel on campuses and those used against Kelly. It turns out that another faculty member who supported the shout-down also has a background in the Israel divestment movement.  More than that, she sits on the University advisory committee on social investing, which has taken up the Israel boycott issue at the behest of Brown's Students for Justice in Palestine. Naoko Shibusawa is a professor of history, specializing in "U.S. cultural history." [caption id="attachment_69998" align="alignnone" width="436"]Naoko Shibusawa Syria Forum 3 (Naoko Shibusawa)[/caption] In the wake of the Kelly shout-down, Shibusawa wrote a Letter to the Editor of The Brown Daily Herald on November 1, fully supporting the events that took place (emphasis added):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 04, 2013 3 Comments

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a valuable resource on which we frequently rely for news tips and information regarding the Middle East.  I'm not sure how I ended up on CAMERA's email update list, and I'm not even sure...

Accessibility by WAH