Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Israel Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on March 03, 2015 29 Comments
Earlier today we provided full coverage of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks to Congress, and watched the country react as the man many are now calling the de facto leader of the free world completely and utterly devastated President Obama's plans to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. During the speech, I noted that once things got rolling, the loss of the boycotting Democrats was barely noticed. What was noticed was how proud the membership in the chamber was of Netanyahu, and his resolve in the face of not just enemies in the Middle East, but also opposition from the US, historically one of Israel's closest allies. After the speech, Obama...he didn't give a statement. He pitched a fit:
Later, at the White House, Obama took issue with Netanyahu's comments as well as the invitation that led to his speech. "On the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region, the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives," he said. Asked before a meeting with Defense Secretary Ash Carter about Netanyahu speaking before Congress, Obama said the U.S. has a system of government where "foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels."
Obama's response was bad. Pelosi's was almost worse:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 03, 2015 37 Comments
We've provided extensive coverage of the drama surrounding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress---and now, the day has finally arrived. We'll be providing tweets and commentary below the fold. Where will Obama be while Netanyahu is speaking? Huddled in the situation room:
Obama will hold a video conference at 11:30 a.m. to discuss Ukraine and other foreign policy issues with British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and European Commission President Donald Tusk, according to an updated schedule released this morning.
Feed goes LIVE at 11 am: (Video troubles? You can also watch HERE, via C-SPAN.) Background: Obama Launches Preemptive Interview on Bibi Speech Netanyahu wins narrative at #AIPAC2015 Congressional Choice not Bibi v. Barack – but Western Civilization v. Iranian Mullahs Netanyahu at #AIPAC2015 (Live) Administration Attacks on Bibi Spur Bipartisan Support for Israel

Posted by David Gerstman on March 03, 2015 16 Comments
In an interview with Reuters published yesterday, President Obama launched a pre-emptive strike against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech before a session of Congress. I won't attempt to fisk the whole thing, but a few things stuck out as patently false.
Now keep in mind the prime minister, when we signed up for this interim deal that would essentially freeze Iran’s program, roll back its highly enriched uranium - its 20 percent highly enriched uranium - and so reduce the possibility that Iran might breakout while we were engaged in these negotiations, when we first announced this interim a deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting 50 billion dollars worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true.
I'm not sure that Netanyahu made a claim of $50 billion in sanctions relief. I believe the number was closer to $20 billion and that the actual relief Iran got was closer to the Israeli estimate than the administration's lowball estimate. But I don't have the time right now to research this, but I'm skeptical about this claim.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 02, 2015 7 Comments
Yesterday, I felt like a stranger in an unholy land; embedding yourself inside an anti-Israel (and I would argue anti-Jew, for the most part) rally will do that to you. Today, I feel like a guest welcomed into friendly territory and invited to stand on the front lines of a battle whose narrative has devolved from worldwide security crisis into petty political spat. There are no protesters inside the building today, but the tension in the room couldn't be avoided if the AIPAC conference were held on an otherwise-deserted island. Israel is in danger, and the manifest theme of survival---as opposed to gaining control of a narrative, like we see at conferences like CPAC---is at the forefront of the minds of panelists and attendees (even if they'd much rather it not be.)

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 02, 2015 12 Comments
Bibi will address Congress Tuesday morning to discuss the dangers of a nuclear Iran. At the time this post was published, 34 members of Congress have confirmed they will not be attending the Israeli Prime Minister's speech. To commemorate the occasion, Secure America released this seriously rad video:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 01, 2015 11 Comments
Today, I braved an ice storm to video protests at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington, DC. The nasty weather didn't stop a group of around 60 anti-Israel activists from storming the steps of the Washington Convention Center and blocking at least one entrance to the conference grounds. Code Pink and other anti-Israeli groups went into a frenzy against AIPAC, the "Israel lobby," and what they believe is the "Apartheid" State of Israel. I also saw harassment of men, women, and children who had done nothing to deserve it except make the mistake of revealing their conference badge before they reached the door. Those who were obviously religious Jews (based on their head coverings, clothing, and facial hair) got it worse.  There were shouts of "Go Home" hurled at the attendees. There was also the Hezbollah flag flying overhead, as this video shows.  There were chants that "BDS is the best" (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement), and "The State of Israel's Got to Go."

Posted by David Gerstman on March 01, 2015 28 Comments
The administration continues in its attempt to marginalize Prime Minister Netanyahu ahead of his speech on Iran. And the efforts appear to be backfiring. Jeffrey Goldberg tells some important truths in today's column, Danger Ahead for Obama on Iran:
I’m fairly sure Netanyahu will deliver a powerful speech, in part because he is eloquent in English and forceful in presentation. But there is another reason this speech may be strong: Netanyahu has a credible case to make. Any nuclear agreement that allows Iran to maintain a native uranium-enrichment capability is a dicey proposition; in fact, any agreement at all with an empire-building, Assad-sponsoring, Yemen-conquering, Israel-loathing, theocratic terror regime is a dicey proposition. The deal that seems to be taking shape right now does not fill me—or many others who support a diplomatic solution to this crisis—with confidence. Reports suggest that the prospective agreement will legitimate Iran’s right to enrich uranium (a “right” that doesn’t actually exist in international law); it will allow Iran to maintain many thousands of operating centrifuges; and it will lapse after 10 or 15 years, at which point Iran would theoretically be free to go nuclear. (The matter of the sunset clause worries me, but I’m more worried that the Iranians will find a way to cheat their way out of the agreement even before the sun is scheduled to set.) ... This is a very dangerous moment for Obama and for the world. He has made many promises, and if he fails to keep them—if he inadvertently (or, God forbid, advertently) sets Iran on the path to the nuclear threshold, he will be forever remembered as the president who sparked a nuclear-arms race in the world’s most volatile region, and for breaking a decades-old promise to Israel that the United States would defend its existence and viability as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
And as Goldberg noted, three years ago Obama promised in one of Goldberg's columns, “We’ve got Israel’s back.”

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 23, 2015 29 Comments
In the various speeches I've given since the summer Gaza conflict, I've predicted that the conflict would not move the public opinion needle much, if at all. That, despite snap surveys over the summer which suggested potential weakening of support. I also point out that some college campuses are anti-Israel bubbles, not reflective of the nation as a whole. Left-wing anti-Israel faculty in particular are isolated from the public on Israel, as they are on so many other things. Gallup just released its annual survey of opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Except for a very recent drop in Democrat support, presumably because of the dispute over Bibi Netanyahu's appearance Congress, American support for Israel is as strong as ever. Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably:
Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians. These attitudes, from Gallup's Feb. 8-11 World Affairs survey, are unchanged from a year ago, suggesting that neither the evident friction between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, nor the 50-day conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip last year, greatly affected how each is perceived in the U.S.
Gallup Israel Palestinian Favorability Chart Feb 2015 What's particularly interesting is when forced to choose, American still choose Israel by close to historic proportions:

Posted by David Gerstman on February 22, 2015 13 Comments
An effort last week to marshal Congressional Democrats to urge House Speaker John Boehner to delay Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Congressional speech next month gained the support of only 23 out of 188 House Democrats. There is more than one way to explain this. Here's administration defender Greg Sargent of The Washington Post.
Some House Democrats have circulated a letter calling on House Speaker John Boehner to delay the speech, on the grounds that it represents a partisan effort by Republicans to enlist the help of a foreign leader in scuttling one of the President’s chief foreign policy goals, i.e., reaching a nuclear deal with Iran, which Netanyahu bitterly opposes. ... All in all, the failure of more Democrats to sign this letter suggests many still fear the politics of appearing out of sync with whatever Israel wants. It’s true that a number of Democrats have said they will skip the speech. But many of those have clarified that this isn’t due to any organized boycott, and far more are attending. And, really, all the talk of a “boycott” is misdirection. It shouldn’t be all that difficult for Democrats to call for a mere delay in this speech, while rebuffing efforts to portray such a move as “anti-Israel,” given how egregious the circumstances surrounding this event really are.
(It's important to note that Sargent quotes a poll showing that most Americans are unhappy with the way the invitation was extended - i.e. dissatisfaction with Boehner's actions, other polls show strong American support for Netanyahu speaking.) Not surprisingly Sargent uses his cherry-picked data point to point out the the big bad Israel lobby as the culprit.(In blaming the pro-Israel lobby, Sargent took a page from the playbook of President Obama who, last month, according to The New York Times, effectively accused Sen. Robert Menendez of not loving his country enough, "The president said he understood the pressures that senators face from donors and others, but he urged the lawmakers to take the long view rather than make a move for short-term political gain, according to the senator.")

Posted by David Gerstman on February 17, 2015 7 Comments
Last week, Prof. Jacobson noted that The Washington Post published an editorial criticizing President Obama's handling of the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Prof. Jacobson's mentioned the editorial in the context of arguing that the likely deal is against "the best interests of the American people." But there's something else remarkable about the editorial. It was the fifth one since October in which the Post questioned the concessions being made by the P5+1 nations; and several of the central points of the editorial were buttressed by Sen. Tim Kaine (D - Va.), so they could hardly be called partisan. To quote from the editorial:
A related problem is whether Iran could be prevented from cheating on any arrangement and acquiring a bomb by stealth. Mr. Kaine (D) underlined that an attempt by the United States to negotiate the end of North Korea’s nuclear program failed after the regime covertly expanded its facilities. With Iran, said Mr. Kaine, “a nation that has proven to be very untrustworthy . . . the end result is more likely to be a North Korean situation” if existing infrastructure is not dismantled. The administration at one time portrayed the nuclear negotiations as distinct from the problem of Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, its attempts to establish hegemony over the Arab Middle East and its declared goal of eliminating Israel. Yet while the talks have proceeded, Mr. Obama has offered assurances to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that the two countries have shared interests in the region, and the White House has avoided actions Iran might perceive as hostile — such as supporting military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Posted by David Gerstman on February 08, 2015 8 Comments
Is the Palestinian Authority interested in peace? Although you probably knew the answer, we now have more proof that the PA directly rewards terrorism against Israel, and has developed a process to determine how much to reward terrorists based upon how serious the terror act was. Edwin Black reported Friday that unsealed documents not only show that the Palestinian Authority (PA) paid terrorists, but had a formula for rewarding terrorist acts against Israel.
Thousands of documents, newly obtained by this reporter through a lawsuit to unseal court-protected files, demonstrate that these payouts are not blind automated payments. Rather, senior Palestinian Authority officials as high as President Mahmoud Abbas scrutinize the details of each case, the specific carnage caused, and the personal details of each terrorist act before approving salaries and awarding honorary ranks in either the PA government or the military. Ministry of Prisoners spokesman Amr Nasser has explained, “We are very proud of this program and we have nothing to hide.” Nonetheless, in response to the international furor over the payments, the Palestinian Authority announced last year it would replace the Ministry of Prisoners with an outside PLO commission known as the Higher National Commission for Prisoners and Detainees Affairs.
Black provided an example of this system:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 07, 2015 4 Comments
Going through some old bookmarks I never wrote about, I found Israel’s Fair-Weather Fans, an August 7, 2014, NY Times Op-Ed by Shmuel Rosner. The column is a rebuttal to liberal Jewish American critics worrying about the alienation of liberal American Jews from Israel. It seems relevant today, as some Democrats put Barack Obama's alleged hurt feelings ahead of the legitimate security concerns of our friends, from Israel to the Gulf Arab states, over Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions:
Two prominent black Democrats in the House of Representatives are vowing to skip Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress next month, a move that a White House insider says was put in motion by the Obama administration. John Lewis of Georgia and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina both said Friday that they disapproved when House Speaker John Boehner invited the Israeli leader to address a joint session of Congress on March 3 without consulting President Barack Obama first.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 01, 2015 10 Comments
There's something bizarre about seeing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promoting himself in a lighthearted campaign ad; but the latest spot from the Likud party brings a nice slice of humanity into an otherwise-bitterly contested election, and offers up a laugh or two in the process. Via the Israel National News:
"Look, it's either me or Tzipi [Livni] and Buji [Herzog],” he explains to the bewildered couple. The couple immediately protests that their children would need to babysit Herzog, and not the other way around. In addition, “by the time we return we'd have no house... he'd even hand over the carpets” – a play on the Hebrew words “shtichim” (carpets) and “shtachim” (territories). As for “Tzipi” – the woman says she doubts that she would stay in the same place for two hours, and Netanyahu agrees she would probably have gone over to the neighbors' by the time they returned. This, of course, is a swipe at Livni's frequent migration from one political party to another. At one point in the video, Netanyahu can be seen sitting in the couple's living room, watching Likud's earlier, banned campaign video, which featured Netanyahu as a kindergarten teacher trying to control rowdy children, who played the roles of Livni, Yesh Atid's Yair Lapid, Jewish Home's Naftali Bennett and Yisrael Beytenu's Avigdor Liberman. The video was banned because of the illegal use of child actors, but it seems the new video is a spin-off of sorts. When the couple returns and greets him with the word "Shalom" - hello - but also the word for "peace", Netanyahu responds "but not at any price."
You can watch here:

Posted by David Gerstman on February 01, 2015 3 Comments
I wasn't looking for anything more than a screenshot when I came across Senator Tom Cotton's (R-Ark.) statement last week (embedded below) before the Senate Banking Committee. But when I heard him speak about Iran's "...nasty habit with their proxies of killing Jews all around the world." I made a mental note of the statement and went back later. The statement was part of a larger argument against the nuclear negotiations with Iran, but what Cotton was establishing in stark terms is that Iran is America's enemy. The enmity can be seen not only by its words but by its actions too:
"Iran is a radical Islamist theocracy whose constitution calls for jihad and its leaders have honored that constitution for 35 years, killing Americans in 1983, killing Americans in 1996 ... having a nasty habit with their proxies of killing Jews all around the world, in Argentina, in Bulgaria, in Israel and most recently, controlling or exerting dominant influence over 5 different capitals in the Middle East, Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and now, Sanaa..."
I assume this was a summary of the more extended argument Cotton made Friday in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal (Google link). After referring to Iran as America's "negotiating 'partner'" Cotton wrote:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 31, 2015 13 Comments
David Goldman, aka Spengler, has written extensively about demography. In 2011 we highlighted his argument that Israel is an emerging demographic superpower:
Like the vanishing point in a perspective painting, long-term projections help us order our perceptions of what we see in front of us today. Here’s one to think about, fresh from the just-released update of the United Nations’ population forecasts: At constant fertility, Israel will have more young people by the end of this century than either Turkey or Iran, and more than German, Italy or Spain.
Israel Demographic Chart Spengler Article In The Asia Times, he highlights Iran's demographic death grip of high STD-caused infertility and plummeting birth rates, The Strategic Implications of Iran's STD Epidemic (h/t MidEast Forum):
In the 5th Century BC, the "Persian disease" noted by Hippocrates probably was bubonic plague; in 8th-century Japan, it meant the measles. Today it well might mean chlamydia. Standout levels of infertility among Iranian couples, a major cause of the country's falling birth rate, coincide with epidemic levels of sexually transmitted disease. Both reflect deep-seated social pathologies. Iran has become a country radically different from the vision of its theocratic rulers, with prevailing social pathologies quite at odds with the self-image of radical Islam.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 29, 2015 34 Comments
Claims by anonymous sources that the Obama administration is deeply offended by a "breach of protocol" in the planned appearance by Benjamin Netanyahu at a joint meeting of Congress are increasing. The New York Times quotes an unnamed official as saying the anger goes beyond John Boehner and Netanyahu, to the Israeli Ambassador:
The Obama administration, after days of mounting tension, signaled on Wednesday how angry it is with Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted Republican leaders’ invitation to address Congress on Iran without consulting the White House. The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama’s inner circle became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.
William Kristol argues that Obama views Netanyahu as an impediment to appeasement of Iran, much as Churchill was viewed with regard to the rise of fascism in Germany:
It is Obama's failures that explain his anger—his failures, and his hopes that a breakthrough with Iran could erase the memories of failure and appear to vindicate his foreign policy. Israel stands in the way, he thinks, of this breakthrough. Prime Minister Netanyahu stands in the way. And so Obama lashes out.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 27, 2015 3 Comments
Iranian media outlet Press TV made a major error yesterday when they mistook an Israeli satire article for actual news. I realize that most of us have been fooled at some point by a link on Facebook or Twitter making some sort of ridiculous claim, but Press TV reached a whole new level of gullible with this one: they actually believed that President Obama used social media to diss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. By unfriending him. On Facebook. Via Israelly Cool:
The report was based on this satirical piece by The Israeli Daily, which they even cite!
The icy relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu hit a new low this week, with the American president ‘defriending’ the Israeli Premier on Facebook. Though it’s unclear exactly when Obama made the move to delete his Israeli counterpart as a Facebook friend – most likely around the time Netanyahu accepted Boehner’s controversial invite – Netanyahu only learned of the snub yesterday, according to a source close to the prime minister. “Bibi was looking at [Attorney General] Eric Holder’s page, and he happened to check what friends they had in common,” the source explained. “And he sees [Secretary of State John] Kerry, Bill [Clinton], Hill [ary Clinton], Fabio, but no Obama. So he goes to Obama’s page, and sure enough it says ‘Add Friend.’ We were in complete disbelief.” While the White House had no official comment, a source close to the President said Obama had reached his maximum allowed Friends and wished to add Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif after a pleasant meeting on Iran’s nuclear program. The source said the defriending wasn’t personal, but conceded Obama had gotten sick of seeing Sara Netanyahu on his newsfeed and the Prime Minister’s daily invitations to play Candy Crush.
How they could treat that seriously is anyone’s guess. Now if only Obama treated their nuclear ambitions this seriously.
The outlet finally removed the article and associated social media postings, but fortunately for you and me, Google cache is forever: Press TV Obama Unfriends Netanyahu FB post

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 23, 2015 9 Comments
After several senior Hezbollah military leaders and an Iranian General were killed in the Syrian portion of the Golan Heights, presumably by Israel, there is plenty of speculation as to when and how Hezbollah and Iran will react. An article in The Times of Israel suggests that capturing an Israeli town or sections of northern Israel could be in store, as Hezbollah has threatened to do so in the next conflict:
Nasrallah, [Lt. Col. Dotan Razili] said of the organization’s leader, “wants to conquer a city,” perhaps in the Galilee. The border town at the tip of the Galilee’s panhandle, Metulla, he suggested, “is definitely a possibility.” The army constantly practices perimeter defense and the invasion of enemy strongholds or towns in which the enemy is embedded. It does not, however, drill its infantry soldiers in the practice of taking back an Israeli town seized, in its entirety, by enemy forces. “The main element is to lessen the shock and make sure they’ll act,” Razili said, noting that no Israeli village or town has fallen since Kibbutz Nitzana, in 1948, “and the trauma of that endures till today.”
Longtime readers may recall my trip to Metula in the summer of 2013, where I reported on the vulnerability, Metula and the fake Hezbollah village, including maps and photos showing the geography: [caption id="attachment_60711" align="alignnone" width="505"](Metula, Israel - Map View) (Metula, Israel - Map View)[/caption]
Accessibility by WAH