Obama's Mid East Moments of Truth

By Barry Rubin

1. Syria: A Tragedy

By far the best source of news on the Syrian revolution is Syria Revolution Digest by the heroically tireless Ammar Abdulhamid. Every day he puts in a little summary of the situation. Here is what he wrote for October 11:

“As [the dictatorship of the] Assads take back Syria, one neighborhood and one town at a time, opposition groups continue to wrangle over seats in a stillborn [leadership] council, as the world considers options that have no bearing on reality.”

Several thousand people have been murdered yet despite all the fine words, there has been little serious international action as the violence has continued for months.

“As [the] Assads take back Syria, one neighborhood and one town at a time, opposition groups continue to wrangle over seats in a stillborn council, as the world considers options that have no bearing on reality.”

And on October 13 he wrote that there are two opposition movements now, one dedicated to non-violence and the other to armed struggle:

“Despite the fact that pro-Assad troops are busy taking back Syria one rebellious community at a time, battling defectors and suppressing protests through targeted and mass detentions and killings, advocates of nonviolence seem to labor under the belief that an Assad victory…will pave the way for a return to nonviolent struggle. What they fail to see is that a defeat will more likely crush the spirit of the re-conquered communities, and could empower the Assads to snuff out the spirit of rebellion.”

“So many observers and opposition figures have been saying that Syria cannot go back to the way things were, but they are wrong. As things stand at this stage, this is the most likely outcome.”

2. Obama Administration Seeks Political Arrangement with Anti-American Terrorists

Meanwhile, the indispensible AfPak Channel newsletter reports that the Obama Administration is now ready to negotiate with Taliban and even al-Qaida linked terrorist groups (the Haqqani network) to participate in governing the country. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, anyone who wants to participate in talks can do so. The Afghan government is not thrilled with this policy, being carried out against its will since these are the people trying to kill it. The Haqqani network murdered the president’s brother last month. And NATO officials continue to produce misleadingly optimistic reports about how the war is going, including claims that the Taliban is on the run. This is patently untrue.

3. The Iran-Mexico Affair

Vice-President Joe Biden threatens that Iran would be held accountable and the U.S. government is seeking to mobilize “world opinion” (oh, brother! headline showing how effective that is: “Despite sanctions, German exports to Tehran have increased“) for its response. The administration should be given time to act but will it do something serious or not? If not, it should be held accountable. And if it has made a potentially huge international crisis out of a misreading of evidence it should also be held accountable.

But we live in bizarre times. I never expected to see a headline like–I made this up but it reflects the situation–”President and Vice-President Endorse Demonstrations Demanding Destruction of Capitalism.”

4. Remember the Iranian Opposition?

Here’s an excellent discussion on the Iranian opposition by Genevieve Abdo. She points out the startling fact that the two main leaders of the Green Movement–Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi–have been under arrest held in small apartments since February, that’s eight months ago! The world has said nothing; the Western media little. This is shocking and disgusting. In general, only anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israel forces get honored by the West, taught about in Western universities, have demonstrations in their support by students, and are lionized by Western intellectuals.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

DNCC Chair, Rep. Israel Adds Occupy Wall Street to the List of Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic Causes He Supports

Occupy LA Protester

The Chairman of The DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) Steve Israel, who is supposed to be representing NY's 2nd Congressional District, never met a Progressive anti-Semitic or anti-Israel group that he did not embrace.  The Long Island Congressman's latest "love affair" is with Occupy Wall Street whose members have displayed a hatred of both the Jews and the Jewish State.

The DCCC run by Israel features a petition supporting Occupy Wall Street which is looking for 100,000 signatures in support of Occupy Wall Street

Its hard to believe that Congressman Israel hasn't seen any of the news reports of hatred coming out of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

For example this New York Protester who claims that one small minority controls the banks, the judiciary, American Politics, and represent over 50% of all billionaires in the country. (if you cannot see video below please click here)

"The Jews who represent only 2% of the population...have pooled their money together an now control all the the finances of America"

When Michael Moore was covered by MSNBC as he spoke from an Occupy Wall Street protest, he was joined by anti-Israel protesters.

Michael Moore From Occupy Wall Street

This little clip came from the Los Angeles version of the protests Steve Israel is supporting. Meet Patricia McAllister who is not only an Occupy Wall Street protester, but she also works for the LA Schools:

“I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government… they need to be run out of this country.”

As reported by Carl in Jerusalem in his blog Israel Matzav one of Occupy Wall Street's organizers, Kalle Lasn, has a history of anti-Jewish writing.

Back in 2004, he wrote a highly controversial Adbusters article entitled “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” which peddled some of the more feverish theories about American Jews, neoconservatism, and the Bush administration

 If Carl could find that out from thousands of miles away in Jerusalem, its hard to believe that Steve Israel couldn't find that out living 40 miles away from the NYC rally.

Poster From Occupy LA

In  Chicago, the Steve Israel supported Occupy Wall Street protest joined up with a Destroy Israel march.  As reported by Rebelpundit:

Hatem Abudayyeh, a local pro-Palestinian agitator, rose to stage to address the crowd regarding Israel and American imperialism. He referred to Benjamin Netanyahu as a “fool” for his recent address to the U.N. General Assembly, and cheered the effectiveness of the global boycott and divestment in Israel, which he said was successfully putting a “dent in Israel’s indemnity over Palestine and the Arab world.” During the speech, members of the radical left-wing Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization on which noted socialist Noam Chomsky happens to sit on the board, passed out flyers that read at the top, “Be a Passivist (sic), be a Nonviolent Activist, Refuse to Pay Taxes, Destroy Israel!”

This is not the first anti-Israel/anti-Semitic cause backed by Steve Israel, who represents a district with a large liberal Jewish population. When President Obama was trying to push the anti-Israel group J-Street down the throats of the pro-Israel community, the Long Island Congressman lent his name to the Organization. He didn't care that the group wanted President Obama to begin talks with the terrorist group Hamas and ease up the Iranian sanctions. Later on when J-Street tried to convince the US Congress to accept the Goldstone Report, a one sided UN Report with trumped up charges of Israeli War Crimes during the Gaza war, Congressman Israel was silent about the group for which he lent his support.

Sign From Occupy NY

As President Obama began to implement his anti-Israel foreign policy, Steve Israel who never before had been reluctant to speak out in support of Israel, was strangely silent. Even as Republicans began to stand up to support the Jewish State, Congressman Israel said nothing. His silence is the result of his inability to have a thought independent of the Administration. This past May when President Obama made his one sided anti-Israel Middle East there was plenty of criticism regarding Obama's call to begin negotiations with Israel ceding the disputed territories, but none of it was from DNCC Chair Steve Israel.

And lets not forget the fact Congressman Israel accepts campaign funds from a man convicted for smuggling weapons to Iran, a country threatening to destroy the Jewish State.

I do not believe that Congressman Israel believes in the Antisemitic/anti-Israel Stance of Occupy Wall Street, nor does he agree with the stances of J-Street or the Iranians his donor was convicted of arming.  In fact there is no evidence that he agrees with the President's anti-Israel policies which he remains silent about.  No, the DNCC Chairman is much worse than that. Steve Israel is a political hack, who abandons the Jewish State and the Jewish people, not because of an actual belief but because he wants to get ahead in the Democratic Party political organization.

Sadly here in New York's Second 2nd Congressional District, we do not have a Congressman who represents this slice of Long Island, instead Steve Israel believes his role is to represent the national Democratic Party as well as everything this President says and does.

Sbarro Bombing Victim's Mother: Do Not Free My Daughter's Murderer (In Gilad Shalit Deal)

When the deal to release Gilad Shalit was announced, I spoke of the gut wrenching pain that was felt by people who were in favor as well as those not in favor of the deal. No one feels more pain from upcoming release of terrorists then Arnold and Frimet Roth whose 15-year-old daughter Malka Chana Roth, was murdered at the Sbarro bombing in Jerusalem, a little more than ten years ago.

One of the terrorists to be released in the Shalit deal, Ahlam Tamimi, was a key player in the murder of her Malka Chana Roth.

As Malka's dad, Arnold explains, while Tamimi is described in the MSM as simply the person who drove the terrorist to Sbarros she was a very involved key player in the terrorist attack.  On the day of the massacre (9th August 2001), she personally transported the bomb (10 kg) from a West Bank town into Jerusalem, concealed inside a guitar case. Taxi cabs brought her and an accomplice by the name of Al Masri, a young, newly-religious fanatic, to an Israeli security checkpoint and from there into Jerusalem.

To reduce suspicion, they dressed as Israelis and the bomb was not detected. Tamimi, who inspired, planned and engineered the Sbarro attack, personally led her "weapon" - Al Masri - to the target she had carefully selected at Jerusalem's busiest intersection. The target was a pizza restaurant, selected because it was located in the heart of Jerusalem and on a hot summer vacation afternoon it would be teeming with women and children. Tamimi instructed Al Masri to wait fifteen minutes before detonating the explosives to give her sufficient time to flee the scene safely. He followed her orders.

As to this being (as some journalists have implied) an act of momentary madness or lack of sound thinking, take into account that a short time prior to Sbarro attack, Tamimi carried out a 'dry run', placing an explosive inside a downtown Jerusalem supermarket (Hamashbir Lazarchan) which exploded causing damage but resulting in no injuries. According to a journalist I met who had interviewed her some years ago, she is a charismatic and influential woman who played a central role in Neve Tirza, until now the prison for Palestinian Arab female security prisoners. And, he told me, a monster.

Malka's Mom, Frimet Roth wrote this in Haaretz today:

I am writing these words moments after belatedly watching a recorded video that went to air on Israel’s Channel 2 News on Friday night.

It shows the Hamas terrorist, Ahlam Tamimi, being asked: “Do you feel sorry for what you did?”

She answers her interviewer without a trace of hesitation:. “No. Why should I feel sorry?”

The interviewer persists: “Would you do it again if you had the chance?” Her unwavering response: “Yes.”

Tamimi was reaffirming the declaration she made originally in 2006: “I do not regret what I did”, is the way she put it then.

One summer vacation day in August, 2001, Tamimi murdered my fifteen year old, daughter along with 14 other innocent men, women and children who were having lunch at the Jerusalem Sbarro pizza restaurant.

I wonder whether PM Netanyahu has heard Tamimi’s statements. Could he possibly have agreed to free an unrepentant, cold-blooded murderer, sentenced to 16 life terms after she publicly committed to murder again? Perhaps he simply hasn’t seen the interview.

Or perhaps the Prime Minister did see it and wasn’t moved. After all, several months ago my husband and I sent him a letter detailing the crimes of which Tamimi was convicted and pleading with him to refuse to release her.

In that letter, we reminded him that she is generally described mistakenly as the “driver” or “helper”. We noted that she was actually the planner and engineer of the attack. She personally transported the 10 kg bomb concealed in a guitar case in a taxi from Ramallah to Jerusalem, met up with Al Masri, the suicide bomber, and handed him the case.

The two then walked together, disguised as tourists, to the center of the city. They stopped at the target Tamimi had selected. She instructed Al Masri to wait fifteen minutes before detonating the explosives. She wanted him to give her enough time to escape the scene safely, she explained later.

Prime Minister Netanyahu never responded to our written plea. He did not attempt to explain to us why he decided to include Tamimi in this horrific deal despite her uniquely demonic credentials: a mass murderer who has served nine years and has publicly proclaimed her lack of remorse and intention to murder again.

Now the day nears when we fear Tamimi will board the bus to a free life in Jordan, when her own prediction of 2006 - “I will be free again” - is realized.

We feel desperate.
We beg Mr Netanyahu to grant us a few minutes of his time and hear us out. In any sane country with a fair judicial system, even paroled murderers are not released without granting the victims’ loved ones a chance to address the parole board.

I thought Israel is such a state. I pray that I was not wrong.

Frimet Roth

 Whether he is willing to change his mind regarding the release of this terrorist or not, it seems to me that Bibi Netanyau should meet with the Roths. Either to convince them of the correctness of his decisions, or to change his mind based on their logic. Whichever way, the incomprehensible pain of the pain of these parents has been increased by this murderers release as part of the Shalit deal, the Prime Minister should be doing what he can to try and comfort the Roth family.

May the memory of Malka Chana Roth always be for a blessing.

The Roth's have set up a petition asking that Tamimi be removed from the list of terrorists to be release. I am number 4564. If you want to join me in signing the petition please click here.

The Middle East Today: Ha, Ha, Ha! Stop! It’s Too Funny! I Can’t Take It Any More!

By Barry Rubin

There’s a saying that goes something like this: When things are bad, a Jew cries. When they get even worse, a Jew cries more. And when they even get worse, a Jew laughs. As indelicate as this may seem, the current situation makes me want to laugh.

That’s so because things are more ridiculous than they are scary. As the advice and claims of others get increasingly absurd, you have no desire to listen to them. You just have to do what you know is right and stop having any doubts about it precisely because the arguments on the other side are just so historically inaccurate, factually false,.and illogical.

For those joining the story late–a group that seems to include Western politicians, media and academic “experts”–here’s a little background. In 1993, Israel made an agreement with the PLO to try to achieve peace. It turned over the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank to a Palestinian government. Israel accepted the establishment of large security forces, the supply of guns, and the transfer of billions of dollars of aid.

Israel made major offers of territory and concessions to Syria and the Palestinian Authority in 2000, after almost a decade of negotiation. The other side rejected those compromise solutions. The Palestinian leadership instead launched a five-year-long war of terrorism. They lost. Then Israel was attacked by Hizballah. The world intervened and made promises to Israel. These were broken. Then Israel was attacked by Hamas. It defended itself. Again it won, but the world rushed in to save Hamas and to condemn Israel.

Of course, you can say that Israel did mean things and didn’t keep every commitment it made. Yet any balanced and honest assessment has to acknowledge the basic accuracy of the preceding summary. And any that doesn’t is basically worthless as a guide to policy or education.

Now, what are the latest developments? Well, let’s see:

–Turkey’s government has gone beserk (in fact, a product of its Islamism and a celebration of breaking the armed forces that posed the last barrier to their total control of the country) and has started acting as if it is at war with Israel. There is a real possibility that Turkish naval vessels will escort ships organized by terrorist groups to violate a legal blockade to strengthen a regime in the Gaza Strip that openly talks about killing all of the world’s Jews. That government, behaving as if it is at war with Israel, is simultaneously being used by the U.S. government to help direct Syria’s future and lead its main new counterterrorism project.

Feel the chuckles coming on yet?

–The Palestinian Authority, allied with the aforementioned antisemitic, genocidal Hamas, violates all of the agreements it made during the last 18 years—after refusing to negotiate for 2 years—by seeking unilateral independence in the UN. This would mean it will never have to negotiate with Israel or compromise in any way. Thus, this stratagem will kill any chance of negotiations.

Nevertheless, countries are lining up to vote in favor of this proposal. It’s the ultimate embodiment of “social justice” and endless entitlements. The Palestinians “deserve” a state and don’t have to do anything at all to obtain one except to demand it.

–Egypt’s revolution is baying for Israel’s blood. Palestinian-Egyptian terrorists cross Israel’s border and kill Israeli civilians; a mob attacks the Israeli embassy as the authorities stand by and do nothing. Hysteria returns to the country as if the Camp David peace agreement never happened. The Muslim Brotherhood—which we were told is weak and not Islamist—is now heading toward either a takeover or at least becoming the country’s most powerful force.

–What is the reaction in much of the Media, Universities, and Governments? Let’s use the appropriate acronym for this trio—MUG. Guess who is getting mugged?

Let me limit myself to one example of the genre. The former failed and minor Jewish organizational politician Seymour Reich writes in the NewYork Times:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gained nothing—except placating his right-wing coalition — by rebuffing President Obama’s proposal in May for negotiating Israeli-Palestinian borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, although some reports indicated that he may have later softened his stand.”

This is an amazing paragraph, if only for the fact that Reich attacks Netanyahu for taking a position that Reich admits he didn’t actually take! And after many occasions on which Netanyahu did precisely what Reich wants failed. Of course, there’s no mention about years of Palestinian intransigence or of the previous risks and concessions made by Israel and even by Netanyahu.

I do not mean this as a direct reference to Mr. Reich but as an observation to the current institutional set-up. In Biblical times, one sold out for a bowl of stew (“mess of pottage”) while today one does so for a New York Times op ed piece, or perhaps a tenured professorship, or admiring media coverage of oneself. Christians speak of “the wages of sin.” Well, those salaries are at all-time highs, with great fringe benefits, and extremely low unemployment.

Reich continues. “Mr. Netanyahu must step back from the brink. He should cast aside his far-right coalition members, form a government with moderate parties and add a freeze on settlement construction to an offer to negotiate without preconditions. This would demonstrate seriousness.”

Why does Israel or Netanyahu need to show at this date that they are serious? Doesn’t the virtually daily efforts of Netanyahu to restart negotiations show seriousness? The nine-month-long settlement freeze? The quick acceptance of Obama’s proposal for a summit conference at the end of 2009?

I will pay no more attention to these people. They are not serious. They are deaf to what we say and blind to what we do. They are not dealing with reality. As our next-door neighbors say: Let them go drink the Nile!

They only have one note: It’s all Israel’ fault! If it only had offered more and accepted a Palestinian state everything would be fine. If it gave everything and demanded nothing—since the PA is unwilling to make any concession—then everything would be fine.

As to everything else in the region from Palestinian intransigence to the alliance with Hamas to events in Egypt and Turkey, there only response is to say that it’s not really happening! The Muslim Brotherhood was real sorry about the attack on the embassy (then how come it endorsed the assault?) The moderate secularists will win everywhere. Turkey is just miffed that Israel didn’t capitulate totally.

Israel is isolated! So rather than be isolated it should make every concession demanded of it? And then everyone will love it and give up the war against it.

The fact that this is what we have been told repeatedly and it hasn’t happened means nothing! Oh, no. This time, once Israel goes back to the pre-1967 borders, recognizes the Fatah-Hamas regime, and doesn’t make trouble over little things like the Palestinians refusing to end the conflict even under those conditions; the military build-up in Palestine; and the demand that a few million Palestinians can come live in Israel then everything will really be great!

Are we supposed to take this seriously? Starting to understand why I’m laughing?

Let me take one example out of hundreds to show the absurdity of the situation. The sufferings of which Palestinians so upsets and animates Egyptians, Turks, and the Western left? Those in the Gaza Strip. What is the strategy of the Gaza Strip’s government? Kill the Jews. It is more openly radical than the policy of the PLO in the 1960s and1970s. How many Israeli soldiers and settlements are in the Gaza Strip? Zero. How many rockets from the Gaza Strip are in Israel? Thousands! So this is why I’m laughing.

First, the claims, arguments, and demands being made against Israel are ridiculous.

Second, they have become so ridiculous that maybe people should start to notice.

Third, since there is no alternative in the face of this nonsense, we know that our course is a correct one. We know that more risks, concessions, and apologies will have no positive effect for Israel’s interests or security. We know that courting death and disaster will not even win applause or sympathy.

Please listen very carefully and I will put the following conclusions in boldface:

The Palestinians and Arab regimes have given us no reason to believe that more concessions and risks will bring us any closer to a stable and secure peace. They have given us every reason to believe that they will quickly forget what Israel has done and go back to their default goal of wiping Israel off the map.

The Western democracies have given us no reason to believe that more concessions and risks will bring us greater support and more help from them if and when those actions backfire against Israel. They have given us every reason to believe that they will quickly forget what Israel has done and go back to their default position that it is all Israel’s fault

Today, Israel gives up south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and most of the West Bank as well as offering all of the Golan Heights to Syria. Tomorrow they will say that Israel has done nothing. The radicals claim that Israel does not want peace; the relative moderates that Israel hasn’t shown that it wants peace.
Consequently, with full good conscience, we can justify our laughter on pragmatic realpolitik or on spiritual terms. Regarding the former, an idiotic analysis fails; the truth comes out; those who follow foolish policies fall.

And for those of you who are spiritually inclined: “The wicked plot against the righteous, and threatens him with his teeth. The Lord doth laugh at him; for He sees that his day is coming.” –Psalm 37

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

Specifics Released About the Gilad Shalit Deal

Last night Israel's Cabinet approved the deal with Hamas for the release of Gilad Shalit by a vote of 26-3. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered some hints about  why a deal was finally made.

“With everything that is happening in Egypt and the region, I don’t know if the future would have allowed us to get a better deal -- or any deal at all for that matter,” Netanyahu said on Israeli television. "The window appeared following fears that collapsing Mideast regimes and the rise of extremist forces would make Gilad Shalit's return impossible."

My friend and teacher Barry Rubin has provided me with more specific information about the deal to release kidnapped Israeli Gilad Shalit.

• The number 1000 is impressive but most will be chosen by Israel, meaning they will be prisoners with the lightest sentences an crimes, in other words, people who would have been released anyway during the next year or two.

• Israel rejected Hamas’s demand to release those being called “arch-terrorists” who were major organizers of attacks or responsible for a larger loss of life.

• Of the most serious terrorist prisoners only a bit over 96 will be released into the West Bank and 14 to east Jerusalem where they could cause direct trouble for Israel The rest will be sent to the Gaza Strip or deported altogether. Those with lighter sentences who live in the West Bank would have been sent there anyway when their sentences were finished.

• Hamas did a politically clever thing by demanding that half of the named prisoners be non-Hamas people. The goal is to make Hamas more popular among Fatah supporters and on the West Bank.

The plan is as follows:

• After a 72 hour wait following the issuing of a list of those to be released–to let families of victims to file petitions against it–the minister of justice will signal readiness to carry out the deal Gilad Shalit will arrive in Cairo. At that point, Israel will release about 450 terrorists under heavy sentence.

Of these 450 prisoners:

• 131 Gaza Strip residents will go there.

• 163 West Bank residents will be expelled from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip.

• 40 will be expelled overseas

• 96 will return to their homes in the West Bank 

• 14 will return to their homes in east Jerusalem 

• 6 Israeli Arabs will be released to their homes.

• At this point Shalit will be released in Cairo and can return to Israel. After Shalit arrives. 550 prisoners with lighter sentences, chosen by Israel, will be released.

Based on the description it does not seem that either Marwan Barghouti or his cousin who combined are responsible for 50+ deaths are included  in the deal. 

There seems to be  divide between Jews in the diaspora and Israelis regarding this deal.  As predicted yesterday, many Jews outside of Israel are complaining that Israel gave up too much, but the vast majority of Israelis are supporting the deal.  While most Israelis agree that it is a high price, they believe there is a moral imperative to bring Gilad Shalit home.

Breaking News! Gilad Shalit Coming Home

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has confirmed that a deal with Hamas, brokered by Egypt has been reach that will free Gilad Shalit.   Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas five years ago, and the terrorist group has refused to allow the Red Cross to visit him so no one can be sure of his condition. There was a short video of Shalit released by Hamas in Oct. 2009 but nothing since.



Information is still coming in but the outline of the deal includes the release of 1000 Palestinian prisoners by Israel, 300 of them are serving life sentences for terrorist attacks.

Also, according to sources one of those 300 convicted of murder to be released is Marwan Barghouti, who was sentenced in 2004 to five life sentences for planning and carrying out the murder of five Israelis, and involvement in the murders of another 33.

Among the terror attacks that Barghouti planned and participated in were a June 2001 attack in Maale Adumim in which a Greek monk was murdered as his beard made him look Jewish as he drove by the terrorists, a January 2002 terror attack on a gas station in Givat Zeev, a March 2002 attack at Tel Aviv's Seafood Market restaurant, in which three people were murdered, and a car bomb attack in Jerusalem.

Barghouti is also seen as a political rival to PA President Abbas.

Speaking to Reporters Netanyahu said

"In the coming days we will return Gilad to the bosom of his parents, Aviva and Noam, to his brother Yoel, his sister Hadas, his grandfather Tzvi and the entire people of Israel," Netanyahu said.

"Two and a half years ago, with the forming of [my] government, I took it upon myself as my most significant task to return Gilad to his people and his family and return him alive and well," the premier said, adding: "Gilad has spend five years in the most horrible of captivities, without us knowing what was his condition."

"I do not know if the near future would have allowed us to achieve a better deal, or a deal at all, since it is very likely that this window of opportunity created in these circumstances would have finally closed, and we wouldn't have freed Gilad at all," he added.

'Those circumstances which Netanyahu speaks is the radicalization of Israel's neighbors, certainly Egypt, for example, will not be as willing to mediate a deal, once the Muslim Brotherhood takes over.

There will be those who will rant about how horrible this deal is, especially the release of Barghouti and people who are responsible for even more deaths than him.

Allow me to respond in advance to those rants. For those of us living outside of Israel, it is none of our business. Until you live on the front lines of the war against Palestinian terror you have no right to complain when Israel makes a prisoner exchange. It is their child being released, and it is their arses on the line should any of these released prisoners return to terrorism.

While I haven't spoken to my Israeli friends since the deal was announced, I guarantee you that for Israelis this deal is a gut wrenching experience after five years a young man with a boyish face returns home, and at the same time they may be condemning others to death by these terrorists hands.  One could argue both ways, but the real difference between Israel and the terrorists is that they value each human life, and each one of their soldiers is like their child. Unlike the terrorists no life, on either side is expendable. The deal is gut wrenching, but as Israelis and as Jews there was no other choice.

UPDATE Carl In Jerusalem is reporting 

Israel Radio is reporting that Marwan Barghouti, Abdullah Barghouti and Hassam Salameh - all leaders of the intifadeh - will not be freed (The New York Times says Marwan Barghouti will be freed). But Amana Mona and Ahlam Tamimi will be freed. Israel Radio also reports that Hamas supporters in Gaza are disappointed that Hamas didn't get more.

Here and There in the Middle East: Fleeing Christians, “Moderate” Imam, Mad Turkish Leader, Syrian Revolution

By Barry Rubin

1. Fleeing Christians

Christians are fleeing the Middle East and Western Christians are indifferent. More than half of Iraqi Christians, threatened with death and terrorism are out of that country, though many are in neighboring Syria. Virtually all Christians have fled the Islamist Gaza Strip and Syrian Christians generally (though not all) support the regime there, fearing an Islamist takeover.

But Egypt is home to millions of Christians that dwarf these numbers. In fact, the number of Christians in Egypt exceeds the populations of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia.

Copts have emigrated in the past, but they have been so rooted in Egypt as to tend to remain there. Now the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organizations reports that 95,000 Christians have emigrated since March 2011. If Egypt continues to look as if it is going down an Islamist road, or at least if the government and military appear ready to tolerate such assaults, one can easily imagine one million or so Copts heading for the exits in the next few years. How would Europe like to receive these people who—in contrast to many other immigrants—would be legitimate asylum seekers with a genuine fear for their lives?

2. Mad Turkish Prime Minister

It’s rather clear that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist regime hates Israel. What’s less apparent to many people is that Erdogan has gone off the deep end into antisemitic insanity. If you didn’t know who was speaking you’d think Erdogan was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While Turkey, like other countries, isn’t perfect, in modern times the Turkish Republic has been a rather sane and development-oriented countries. It’s quite a change to have a Turkish leader literally foaming at the mouth, to the point where the opposition leader asked a few months if Erdogan was planning to go to war against Israel. Now that the regime—with no international opposition or criticism—has crushed the armed forces, there’s nothing to hold Erdogan back.

On a CNN interview, Erdogan ridiculed the idea that Israelis need fear massive rocket and mortar barrages from the Gaza Strip because few Israelis were killed, while in contrast Israel had killed—according to the CNN translation “hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.” The Turkish government responded that he had not said that figure but merely “tens of thousands.”

It’s nice to know that Israel is just being accused of being a mass murder on a smaller scale. Eogan also says that the world is a slave to the UN Security Council (a precise copy of Ahmadinejad’s long-standing theme) and demands sanctions against Israel. He also copies Ahmadinejad in asking why Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran not have them. (Aside from Iran’s threats of genocide, one reason is that Iran’s program breaks an international agreement signed by that country.) At times, Erdogan has talked about war against Israel, his main complaint being the blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has been ruled legal under international law and, anyway, is made pretty irrelevant by the opening of the Egypt-Gaza border.

Israel cannot be trusted, Erdogan says; it is the villain that has prevented peace. It’s just plain evil. One almost expects Erdogan to break out in German. Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, famously said that his country’s foreign policy was one of “peace at home, peace abroad.” Erdogan sounds more like: Today Gaza, tomorrow the world!

The idea that such a huge and powerful country as Turkey is led by a guy acting like a madman who throws temper tantrums (his performance at the Davos conference is a case in point) has not prevented the Obama Administration from doing nothing and, indeed, increasing hi power. After all, Turkey is now co-chair of the new U.S. counterterrorism organization and the designated mediator for the future of Syria. And the same applies to the escalating repression and crushing of democracy within Turkey.

3. Syria’s New Stage: Civil War

–Can Assad hold on?
The simple answer is that nobody knows. One thing is for certain: looking at other dictator having been hung, put on trial, or fleeing into exile, the family of President Bashar al-Asad and his allies will not go quietly. Only if they are forced out of power at gunpoint will they be displaced.

The wider problem is that the government does have a strong base of support among the Alawite minority, Christians, and some Sunni Muslims. These people are worried about being targeted by a revolution, even with the possibility of massacres against the first two groups, which comprise roughly one-quarter of the population.

In other words, the battle will continue for months, will probably become more violent, and the outcome is not certain.

–What are the prospects for civil war?

I think we are now entering the civil war phase.

–Is there a signifcant danger of Islamists wielding great power like in Egypt?

There is a very real chance of an Islamist takeover but it is lower than in Egypt. The Syrian are more urbanized, more secular, and most important of all far more diverse. Remember that in Egypt 90 percent are Sunni Muslim Arabs while in Syria that figure is about 60 percent. The Syrian Brotherhood has never been as strong as its Egyptian counterpart.

The best assessment, then, is that the danger is less. But what is very worrisome–even insane–is the Obama Administration’s insistence on using Islamist Turkey as mediator, a mediator that favor the Islamists!

–Would a post-Assad Syrian govt likely be friendlier to the US?

There is some real anti-Americanism in the opposition. The Obama Administration has put the Untied States into the position of being regarded by many Syrians as protector of the Asad regime. It’s one thing to have that happen in Egypt–a government that was allied with America–but why in Syria, the most anti-Ameriican of all Arab regimes?

If a non-Islamist regime emerges it would be less hostile to the United States but whether that’s by a small or significant margin is open to question.

4. “Moderate Imam”

In a June 23, 2011 article, Ahmad al-Tayeb, the head of al-Azhar, took a quite moderate line in interpreting Islam and showing openness toward Christianity and Judaism. A MEMRI articledoes a good job of describing what he wrote. For

example, he said:

“A Muslim cannot imagine all of mankind sharing a single creed or turning to a single religion – even if this religion is Islam. As long as this remains the case, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims [must be] one of mutual recognition.

But why did he write it? I suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood has made it clear that al-Tayeb is not welcome to continue in his job under the new order. It wants to put in one of its own people, both as head of al-Azhar and as Egypt’s qadi (leading Islamic official). The Brotherhood wants to use these positions to revolutionize Islam in Egypt and turn it into a radical Islamist institution.

Remember that even if the Brotherhood doesn’t take over the government or control the presidency it is likely to make deals with other parties: We will support what you want in exchange for your giving us control over religious institutions.

And why, just a little later did he launch a virulent attack against Shia Muslims? Because he is defining his position as being hostile to Iran and Hizballah as Egypt’s enemies. This anti-Shia position is more congenial to the Brotherhood which shares this hotility.

So Tayeb is carving out for himself the position of moderate Muslim who backs Egyptian national interests in order to build a support base against the Islamists. This aligns him not only with reformists but also with nationalists. The political battle in Egypt may be mirrored by a struggle over the control of Islam in that country.

A third plank in the al-Azhar platform was put forward by one of Tayeb’s deputies a few days later in a virulently antisemitic tirade that hints at genocide against the Jews, reminding us that Middle East “moderation,” after all, almost always has its limits.

5. Egypt’s Election: Party Maneuvers

The Wafd Party has ended its electoral alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party because it thinks it can do better on its own. The Wafd wasn’t satisfied with the number of seats the Brotherhood offered in the deal.

Note that this has nothing to do with differences between a liberal democratic add an Islamist party. The problem is merely how much the Brotherhood would pay. As the Wafd spokesman explained:

“We withdrew from the electoral alliance because we had a lot of candidates and the available places in the list weren’t enough,”

There are now three blocs led by the Muslim-Brotherhood and Wafd—with members of their now-defunct alliance choosing sides—and a 14-party group called the Egyptian Bloc, led by the left-leaning liberal Justice party. Note how the “liberal” parties are splitting their vote while the Islamists have united.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

How Do We Know Definitively That Israel’s Critics Are Wrong? Because of What They Say

Note: You might well want to read this in conjunction with my article, “It Isn’t Israel in Danger of Disappearing, It’s The People Who Think That Way.”

By Barry Rubin

People frequently ask me to respond to the latest article of You Know Who, Complete Ignoramus, or even the World’s Most Pompous Columnist, and various others of that ilk. I almost always respond that I’ve done that kind of thing already, or at this point one should only ignore such people, or it is better to spend one’s time writing constructively to explain reality than to waste time combatting endlessly recycled lies and nonsense.

But then I realized that there was a totally different and far more revealing way of approaching this issue, a way of using this kind of criticism to show precisely how wrong it is.

The basic line of criticism being used is that Israel doesn’t know what’s good for itself. Here it has this wonderful opportunity to have an independent Palestinian state next door, thus the conflict would be over, Arabs and Muslims would all accept Israel, and there would be no more war, no more bloodshed. The West would also love Israel.

All of the country’s problems would be over! Why are Israelis so blind to elect such a government when they should elect one that is willing to go back to the 1967 borders, accept a Palestinian state with minimal conditions, and stop making any demands of its own? Don’t worry, be happy!

Or to put it into song, specifically Ed McCurdy’s “Last Night I had the Strangest Dream”:


“I dreamed I saw a mighty room…

And the paper they were signing said

They’d never fight again….



“And the people in the streets below

Were dancing ’round and ’round

While swords and guns and uniforms

Were scattered on the ground.”

Well, it is a wonderful dream, may it come true speedily in our times.

But the Middle East version might go like this:

And while people in the streets below

Were dancing ’round and ’round,

The other side took up swords and guns and

Put the well-intentioned fools in the ground.

Or, to put it another way, where you have governments like those in Iran, Syria, the Gaza Strip (Hamas), Lebanon (dominated by Hizballah), and movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists who daily preach death to Israel and kill the Jews, the McCurdy vision should curdle your blood.

But you know that already. Here’s what’s new: What should You Know Who, the Complete Ignoramus, the World’s Most Pompous Columnist, and various others of that ilk be writing? In other words, if you want to challenge Israel’s stance how should you do it?

The answer is by taking the exact opposite position. Here it is:

Acknowledgment of experience:

Israel and Israelis have good reasons for being mistrustful based on what they have lived through during recent decades.

1. Acknowledgement of responsibility:

We know that the West has let Israel down by naiveté toward its enemies, failure to provide sufficient support, excess and unfair criticism.

2. Awareness of Israel’s legitimate needs

We understand that Israel needs secure borders, strong security guarantees, limits on Palestine’s armaments, an iron-clad commitment that a peace agreement ends the conflict, and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine.

3. Understanding of the dangers of a Palestine state and what’s needed to produce a stable, lasting peace

We know that a Palestinian state could continue cross-border attacks, incitement to murder Israelis, and a military build-up that would threaten Israel, viewing the new situation as not one of peace but of a second stage in the battle. We must take steps to stop this from destroying a peace agreement.

4. The regional scene

We understand that we failed to live up to our commitment to Israel in the 2006 Lebanon ceasefire agreement—letting Hizballah return to the south—and that the current regional scene is very dangerous. Consequently, we understand that absolute clarity is needed on revolutionary Islamism’s threat, combatting Iranian influence, helping moderate democratic movements but doing all possible against radical ones (even if camouflaged as moderate), comprehending Turkey’s transformation by an Islamist regime and opposing it. We will work with Israel and other moderate forces against the revolutionaries and those who want to wipe it off the map.

5. The conclusion

Therefore on the basis of this absolute clarity of the threat to Israel and of our need to fight against it—especially since these are also anti-Western forces–we are working for a just, stable, and lasting two-state solution. Let us together devise methods of making this work.

Now, that would be a lot more persuasive. Or to put it graphically:

Current critique of Israel’s policies:

You will now jump off the cliff for your own good! Nothing can possibly go wrong! There is no yawning chasm, no precipitous drop, no pointy rocks below! Your claiming otherwise is purely a mirage, if not a deliberate lie. How dare you not jump when we tell you to do so! You’re so stupid! Maybe you really are evil!

Persuasive critique of Israel’s policies:

Here is the finest possible bungee cord. I have done comparison shopping and this is the best there is. Let’s run some tests and set up the jump as close as possible to your specifications. We will stake our lives on making sure your enemies don’t cut the rope. We will search them thoroughly to make sure they don’t have knives and can’t come close enough to fiddle with the equipment. Oh, and we will make sure they jump also from their cliff and not just stand by while you take all the risks.

Nothing can be more conducive to knowing you are right than seeing how bad are your foes’ arguments. It’s one thing for people to disagree with you and even criticize you, but quite another when you examine their arguments closely and find that they are simply out of touch with reality, biased, and illogical as well. We really read what they say and write very carefully; they ignore what we say and write (except occasionally in the hope of finding something misworded that can be turned into a “gotcha!” claim).

At the same time, though, I’m not going to risk my life, the lives of my family, country, and people on the demonstrable ignorance of those who give advice so bad that it doesn’t even pretend to take into account those risks.

And it is the very nature of these criticisms—naïvely based on wishful thinking and ignoring threats rather than based on a since and sophisticated understanding and response to them—that is the most persuasive proof of all that they are wrong.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

It Isn’t Israel in Danger of Disappearing, It’s The People Who Threaten Her In Danger

"…never send to know for whom the bell tolls

It tolls for thee."

--John Dunne

By Barry Rubin

Rome, Italy

I’m standing on the edge of the Roman Forum, by the Arch of Titus. This is the marble structure built by the Empire to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple about 1941 years ago. Legionnaires are shown carrying off the Menorah and other items from the sanctuary. The inhabitants are sold into slavery, The Jews are finished.

Well, not really. Today, the great empire has long vanished and Israel is not just a living country but by every social, economic, and security standard a successful country.

In the late 1960s, more than 40 years ago, the Palestinian and Arab leaders were certain that Israel would not survive. The fact that they were completely wrong has not prevented a whole new rash of contemporary speculations.


The PLO view, shared by virtually all Arabs at the time, was very clearly defined. The two main points boil down to the following. First, Israel would not survive because there was no real basis for such a state and people. Second, the Arabs would destroy it using various strategies.


Here is the ultimate quote from Yasir Arafat in1968—that’s 43 years ago--on why this would work:

Terrorism would “create and maintain an atmosphere of strain and anxiety that will force the Zionists to realize that it is impossible for them to live in Israel….The Israelis have one great fear, the fear of casualties….”

The PLO's attacks would "prevent immigration and encourage emigration....to destroy tourism, to prevent immigrants becoming attached to the land, to weaken the Israeli economy and to divert the greater part of it to security requirements.” This would "inevitably" prevent Israel's consolidation and bring its disintegration. The final step would be “a quick blow by the regular armies at the right moment" to finish Israel off.

All of these things failed. More immigrants came than expected and were successfully integrated. People weren’t frightened into fleeing. Casualties were absorbed and limited. The country became economically successful and militarily victorious. Thus, today Israel is stronger—far stronger—than ever.

And who were the biggest losers in this conflict? Naturally, Israel has lost a great deal, especially in lives. But the biggest losers have been the Arabs who wasted resources, lost more lives, faced repeated humiliations, and ended up with dictatorship and stagnant societies. And they will be the biggest losers if they spend the next 60 years playing the same game.

And if Arab states that were relatively united and had a superpower sponsor couldn’t destroy Israel in 60 years how are they going to do so today? With Israel outpacing its neighbors on every index of social and economic development, with so much oil money spent without really advancing Arab societies, who has the advantage today?

Remember what happened in 1948. True, all the Arab states invaded the new state of Israel But they didn’t coordinate with each other and all wanted to grab territory for themselves. With Iran and Turkey all jostling for power and leadership today, the conflict and disorder is intensified.

Yet now there is a revival of the claim—sometimes among ill-informed well-wishers, more often among antagonistic haters—that Israel might not survive. This is based partly on wishful thinking, partly on ignorance. Underlying these factors, however, is a basic disbelief that Jews are a people and can be a state.

And that reflects a lack of knowledge—often among Western Jews themselves—about Jewish history as well as a naïve acceptance of anti-Israel propaganda, claims that have proven to be false for decades.

Actually, then, the shoe is on the other foot entirely from what is being claimed. It is not Israel’s existence that is threatened but that of its adversaries and in some ways of Western Europe, too.

Its enemy neighbors and near-neighbors are about to embark on a decades’-long horrifying series of civil wars: Islamists against Arab nationalists; Sunni against Shia Muslims; economic collapse; and much more. Syria is on the verge of an inter-communal bloodbath; Egypt faces not some bright new economic dawn but a terrible reckoning. At some point the oil will run out with much of that wealth squandered. Recent discoveries even suggest that Israel itself will be a rising exporter of petroleum and natural gas.

Periodically, some radical Muslim writes that if only each Muslim would kill one Jew then Israel would vanish. High hopes are held for nuclear weapons that Iran still doesn’t have. But such schemes never get off the ground. Indeed, it is Arab nationalism that is endangered with extinction under a wave of revolutionary Islamism. By leaving the path of pragmatism for that of doctrinaire Islamism, Turkey is likely to lose the success it enjoyed for so many decades.

There is not one regime in a Muslim-majority country that should feel confident about its future; not one such state whose continued existence can be taken for granted.

In contrast, there are only two ways Israel might perhaps disappear. First, it might happen if Arabs and Muslims dropped radicalism, ideology, and bickering to concentrate on technological and economic progress for 50 years, only then turning on Israel. That would require, for example, the Palestinians quickly dropping all of their rejectionism and demands to make a compromise agreement with Israel that they had no intention of keeping.

Yet quite the opposite is happening now. It is radicalism, not pragmatic development strategies that is in control. Besides, the problem is that a focus on material development and moderate democracy would erode Arab and Muslim tempers to the point that they would no longer want to engage in such a foolish and futile life-and-death struggle, which is why the Islamists reject that approach.

The other way Israel might be wiped off the map is if its leaders heeded the advice they are getting from the West. That’s the irony of the situation. Those stubborn, stiff-necked people are not going to doom themselves by implementing the mistaken ideas told to them by Western media, experts, intellectuals, and governments who claim such policies are the road to safety.

Part of the problem here is that all too many Western intellectuals no longer believe in fighting—or even sacrificing--for your country; patriotic pride or nationalism or religion; or even the nation-state itself. Consequently, while many Arabs and Muslims don’t believe Israel can exist because of contempt for Jews and belief in the superiority of their nations and religion, many Westerners now believe in the wickedness of their countries and religion and the unviability of the national model.

In thinking about Israel, both these opposite arguments amount to the same thing. Yet they tell more about those having these ideas than about Israel.

When a European cabinet minister says his country has no distinct culture and another urges the locals to be nice to Muslims so they will reciprocate after they take over; when a European country’s counterintelligence chief .tells me his country has no future, and a quartet of professors from another remark to me over cocktails that they believe their country is finished, is it Israel that is in danger of collapse?

Who’s really facing the abyss? That doesn’t mean destruction will come to Europe’s existing states and societies but it does mean they are more likely to go than Israel is. You want to talk about demographic threats? In Europe, the majority is often having children at half the rate needed for mere replacement of the existing native population.

Yet all of this also shows why Israel is the key to understanding today’s world. Israel’s survival shows that democratic societies can fight and defeat dictators and totalitarian ideologies, Western religions do have a continuing place in Western societies and nation-states are still a viable—perhaps the most viable—way to organize many political structures.

That’s precisely why so many are working so hard to demonize and discredit Israel. If people in the West understand what Israel is and what it is doing, they will comprehend the value of those approaches and values. And if they understand how Israel is lied about and mistreated they will comprehend much wider problems with the people, ideas, and institutions governing their own lives today.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

The New York Times Only 93.3% Biased Against Israel

The New York Times is a weird bird. Owned by a family whose heritage is Jewish, it has always done what-ever it can to work against the interests of the Jewish people.  For example the progressive paper of record buried reports about the Holocaust while it was happening. Maybe the NY Times doesn't believe that Jews can suffer, or maybe they just didn't want to appear too Jewish.

Throughout the past 44 years, the Times has specialized in criticizing Israel never, as Newspapers are supposed to do, trying to be balanced.  A prime example is the month we just finished, September 2011. Daniel Goldstein of the Gloria Center kept track of all of the Op-Eds run by the paper, 15 discussed Israel, only 1 was positive, that makes the NY Times 93.3% anti-Israel for the month. 


Below is the fruit of Mr. Goldstein's research:

1) Turkey, Israel and the Flotilla - Editorial – September 2, 2011

Israel accepted the findings by the United Nations and said that it hoped to mend ties with Turkey, but it reiterated that it would not apologize. Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to apologize to Turkey. American officials are going to have to keep trying with both sides. We don’t blame Israel for wondering if Turkey is keeping this conflict going to burnish its standing in the Arab world. Turkey is risking a lot, including billions in trade with Israel and its reputation as a responsible international player. Israel certainly doesn’t need to be any more isolated than it is. Israel should apologize for the deaths. And Turkey should stop upping the ante.

I’m surprised here. Yes I’m a little put off by the need to tweak Israel on the apology. But overall I’d have to say that this editorial substantially takes the Israeli side. Running Total:  Anti-Israel 0 / Pro-Israel 1
2) Israel Isolates Itself - Roger Cohen – September 6, 2011

Senior Turkish officials told me Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had raised Dogan’s fate with President Obama. But of course no U.S. president, and certainly no first-term U.S. president, would say what Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said: “The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable.” Even if there’s an American citizen killed, raising such questions about Israel is a political no-no. So it goes in the taboo-littered cul-de-sac of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, a foreign policy that is in large measure a domestic policy. The Palmer report, leaked to The New York Times last week, is a split-the-difference document, with the Israeli and Turkish members of the panel including notes of dissent. My rough translation of its conclusion would be this message to Israel: You had the right to do it but what you did was way over the top and just plain dumb.

Cohen doesn’t note the way Turkey “raised the ante” and makes a not so subtle suggestion of inordinate Jewish influence in the political process. Running total: Anti-Israel 1 / Pro-Israel 1
3) An Israeli Case for a Palestinian State - Yossi Alpher – September 11, 2011

No Israeli leader will acquiesce in these Palestinian positions, and no bridging formula has proven workable. These negotiating gaps are, as Abbas himself acknowledged in 2009, “too wide.”Thus Abbas has turned to the United Nations not only because the Palestinian state-building enterprise in the West Bank has proved successful, but also because it is clear that Oslo-based final-status negotiations, even if they reconvene, cannot succeed in ending all claims. In this sense, it is Abbas’ intransigence on a full final status package, no less than Netanyahu’s, that has brought us to the United Nations. Yet here the two part company: Abbas appears genuinely to want progress toward a viable two-state solution, while Netanyahu’s ideology and the composition of his coalition signal intransigence.

In the run up to the Palestinian gambit at the UN, the Times ran a number of op-eds and editorial criticizing Israel for forcing the Palestinians to turn to the UN or endorsing the Palestinian move or both. It is dishonest to claim that Abbas “genuinely” wants progress. Even the recent “speed dial” story, which portrayed Abbas sympathetically, noted that the expected President Obama to get results by pressuring Netanyahu. He wants progress as long as others do the work for him. Running Total: Anti-Israel 2 / Pro-Israel 1
4) About these proposals - David Makovsky – September 11, 2011

The settlers in these areas and others outlined in Maps 1-3 will most likely have to be evacuated completely, as the alternative of remaining under Palestinian rule is both problematic and unlikely. Theoretically, the parties could pursue an alternative scenario in which non-bloc settlers were not displaced at all, but rather remained where they were under Palestinian sovereignty. On paper, this approach has surface appeal because it would eliminate the need for coercive dislocation. However, there are several reasons to be skeptical. First, virtually all of the 300,000 settlers in the West Bank moved there intending to live under Israeli, not Palestinian, sovereignty. Second, for the small number who chose to remain in a Palestinian-run West Bank, it is unclear whether they could live there harmoniously. Specifically, once Israel withdraws its military forces from non-annexed portions of the West Bank, Hamas elements and other extremists may decide to take advantage of the emergence of the fledgling state to settle longstanding scores with remaining settlers. Some have even speculated that the most ideological settlers could initiate a confrontation, which could force the Israeli military to return in order to defend them. For these and other reasons, allowing non-bloc settlers to remain in the West Bank might complicate the implementation of any peace agreement.

This is mostly informational as Makovsky looks at 3 maps of possible final settlements. There are aspects of it that I don’t like. Most notably in this third paragraph he doesn’t even mention that the Palestinians wouldn’t allow Jews in their state. Did I ever mention that in 1984 I heard Makovsky speak in Kiryat Arba? Despite my misgivings I will grade this as neutral. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 2 / Pro-Israel – 1
5) Veto a state; lose an ally - Turki al-Faisal – September 11, 2011

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region. Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.

Ten years after hijackers – 15 of 19 of them Saudi nationals – attacked America killing nearly 3000 innocents, a member of the Saudi royal family reminds of us of what good friends Saudis have been – by threatening to break with the United States over the issue of Palestinian statehood. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 3 / Pro-Israel – 1
6) Palestinian Statehood - Editorial – September 11, 2011

Last week, the United States made a listless effort to get Palestinians to forgo the vote in favor of new peace talks. The pitch was unpersuasive. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said the Americans made no concrete proposal. “To be frank with you, they came too late,” he said. His frustration is understandable. Since President Obama took office, the only direct negotiations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mr. Abbas lasted a mere two weeks in September 2010. Both sides share the blame with Mr. Obama and Arab leaders (we put the greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu, who has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts). But the best path to statehood remains negotiations.

Later I’ll deal with last week’s Thomas Friedman column. Friedman correctly notes that Netanyahu agreed to a freeze and Abbas barely agreed to talks before walking out. Then he blamed Netanyahu for not giving Abbas another chance. Friedman’s column, even if illogical, had the advantage of being accurate. This editorial can’t even claim to be accurate. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 4 / Pro-Israel – 1
7) After the UN vote on Palestine - Jimmy Carter – September 13, 2011

The U.S. has basically withdrawn from active participation in the peace process. The Palestinians and other Arabs have interpreted U.S. policy as acquiescing on the occupation and biased against them. Declaring that they are left with no alternative, Palestinians plan to request recognition of a Palestinian state later this month in the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly. In Egypt, militants have overrun the Israeli embassy and forced the evacuation of the ambassador. With the reasonable assumptions that Palestinian statehood is widely recognized despite a U.S. veto in the Security Council, what are the options for the future?

Thus Carter recommends an international effort – led by Europe – to fulfill all the conditions that “everyone knows” will bring peace but have been rejected by Yasser Arafat in 2000 and Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Of course it doesn’t bother him in the slightest that “militants” attacked the Israeli embassy in Egypt violating international norms. So if the Palestinians don’t like the agreement he proposes they can attack Israel with impunity, until the terms change to their liking? Running Total: Anti-Israel – 6 / Pro-Israel – 1
9) Israel and New York’s Ninth District - Editorial – September

Some analysts — and eager Republican critics — are also claiming it was a repudiation of President Obama’s policies toward Israel. On Wednesday, an article on the Web site of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that “in politics it is the perception that counts,” and that the Democratic loss “will be portrayed, as the outspoken former Mayor Ed Koch put it, ‘as a message to President Obama that he cannot throw Israel under a bus with impunity.’ ” Mr. Obama has done nothing of the sort; his support for Israel has never wavered. But we fear that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will read the election as yet another reason to ignore the president’s advice and refuse to make any compromises with the Palestinians, no matter how essential for Israel’s own security.

As noted above the editorial board of the New York Times doesn’t remember that Netanyahu imposed a construction freeze. Despite that freeze that didn’t serve to get meaningful negotiations started despite political risks, President Obama continued to treat Netanyahu as the main obstacle to peace. If Netanyahu learned anything from that incident it was that he had to look out for his country first, not for empty promises or assurances.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 7 / Pro-Israel – 1
10) Ten Reasons for a European ‘Yes’ by Martti Ahtisaari and Javier Solana – September 16, 2011

The second reason for a European “yes” is that the Europeans have already invested hugely in the two-state solution that is under scrutiny, including the annual €1 billion aid to help build a functioning Palestinian state. Again, a “yes” is a reaffirmation that the project is worthwhile and can succeed. The third reason for a “yes” is simply to respond positively to Mahmoud Abbas’ state-building achievements. Failing to vote “yes” would be to respond to demands for state-building by refusing to formally acknowledge where they have got to. The fourth reason is about the Arab Spring. Anything other than a “yes” would expose Europeans to charges of double standards from both post-revolutionary governments and conservative Arab regimes (for different reasons) for failing to support rights for Palestinians while advocating them elsewhere.

I won’t subject you to the other 7. Yes there has been state-building or at least institution-building on the part of the PA. Though it is usually, Salam Fayyad, not Abbas who is credited for it. But the PA still has little functioning economy outside of foreign aid. (The hated American and Israelis, according to Jonathan Schanzer, provide nearly three quarters of the PA’s budget.) Finally as it becomes clearer that Abbas is no different from Mubarak, except perhaps in the scale of his corruption, it’s false to claim that empowering Abbas is the same thing as empowering Palestinians generally. Running Total – Anti-Israel – 8 / Pro-Israel – 1
11) Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone - Thomas L. Friedman – September 17, 2011

On Turkey, the Obama team and Mr. Netanyahu’s lawyers worked tirelessly these last two months to resolve the crisis stemming from the killing by Israeli commandos of Turkish civilians in the May 2010 Turkish aid flotilla that recklessly tried to land in Gaza. Turkey was demanding an apology. According to an exhaustive article about the talks by the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, the two sides agreed that Israel would apologize only for “operational mistakes” and the Turks would agree to not raise legal claims. Bibi then undercut his own lawyers and rejected the deal, out of national pride and fear that Mr. Lieberman would use it against him. So Turkey threw out the Israeli ambassador.

Reader Lynn pointed out that Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reported:

The Israeli official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Turks kept adding conditions for a reconciliation, raising uncertainty in Mr. Netanyahu’s government over whether they were sincere and whether they would consider the case closed even if a deal were reached.

Apparently if necessary for condemning Israel, Friedman won’t read his own newspaper. If the other party keeps adding conditions it isn’t “national pride” that would motivate Israel not to make a deal, but common sense.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 9 / Pro-Israel – 1
12) Peace Now or Never - Ehud Olmert – September 21, 2011

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds. Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence. These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.

This must be a first: calling on a disgraced leader to lecture his successor. The problem, as we’ll see with Thomas Friedman’s upcoming column is that Olmert claims that all Netanyahu needs to do is to offer Abbas what Abbas has already rejected. If Abbas knows that there’s no penalty for bad faith, why would he ever agree to terms with Israel? Running Total: Anti-Israel – 10 / Pro-Israel – 1
13) Ready for Statehood - Jonas Gahr Store – September 22, 2011

So the answer to my initial question — whether the Palestinians can actually run a state — is yes. By building robust and well-functioning institutions, the Palestinians and the donor community have taken a bottom-up approach to the peace process. The final status issues — borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem — can only be settled through negotiations, which is an example of a top-down approach. In an ideal world, these two approaches should have converged. Regretfully, they haven’t. This is the core of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse.

There is no acknowledgment that it is the Palestinians who refuse negotiations. I also believe that Store is overselling Palestinian accomplishments in state building. If I were feeling generous, I might have graded this one as neutral, but I’m not. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 11 / Pro-Israel 1
14) The Palestinians’ Bid - Editorial – September 22, 2011

There is plenty of blame to go around. The main responsibility right now belongs to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel who refuses to make any serious compromises for peace. He appears far more concerned about his own political survival than his country’s increasing isolation or the threat of renewed violence in the West Bank and all around Israel’s borders.

Likud currently is the most popular party in Israel. If elections were held today, he likely would return as head of government. In other words, his political survival is not a major concern right now. Israel’s increased isolation is a function of issues having nothing to do with the Palestinians. And, of course, it is Abbas who refuses to negotiate. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 12 / Pro-Israel 1
15) Tangled Relationship in Jerusalem - Arthur Brisbane – September 24, 2011

The article by Max Blumenthal on Sept. 14 set off a chain of follow-up pieces by others and by Mr. Blumenthal himself, hammering away at the allegation that Ethan Bronner, the Times bureau chief, was compromised by his relationship with a public relations firm that arranged paid speaking engagements for him. A close examination of the facts leads me to conclude that the case for an actual conflict of interest is slender. But the appearance of a conflict clearly exists, and that is a problem in and of itself. The Times’s “Ethical Journalism” guidelines state that staff members “may not accept anything that could be construed as a payment for favorable coverage or as an inducement to alter or forgo unfavorable coverage.” Mr. Bronner has now severed his ties to the public relations firm. “In my view, it is all about appearances,” he told me. “I am not denying they matter. There is nothing of an actual conflict.”

Given how little care Brisbane – the public editor of the New York Times – shows for getting facts from the Middle East correct, it’s outrageous that he’s making an issue out of “appearances.” His predecessor, Clark Hoyt, accepted the charges of Ali Abuminah against Bronner uncritically; and now Brisbane has showed the same courtesy to Blumenthal. Both Abuminah and Blumenthal are anti-Israel activists whose activism should compromise their credibility. Clay Waters observes, “If Bronner truly harbors Zionist sympathies, he keeps it out of his reporting quite effectively.” Israel Matzav debunks the notion that the speakers bureau with which Bronner was affiliated was “right wing” and shows that Blumenthals time line is false. Brisbane has followed up with letters about his column, Conflicts and Appearances. All but one are unsympathetic to Bronner. (Two cover the topic in the abstract, but it is clear that they support Blumenthal.) If the New York Times removes Bronner, it will show that the New York Times has no backbone when faced with extreme anti-Israel activists.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 13 / Pro-Israel 1 16) 2 for 2, or 2 for 1? - Thomas Friedman – September 27, 2011

Given these stakes, here is what a farsighted Israeli government would say to itself: “We have so much more to lose than the Palestinians if all this collapses. So let’s go the extra mile. Abbas says he will not come to peace talks without a freeze on settlement-building. We think that is bogus. We gave him a 10-month partial freeze and he did nothing with it. But you know what? There is so much at stake here, let’s test him again. Let’s offer him a six-month total freeze on settlement-building. What is six months in the history of 5,000-year-old people? We already have 300,000 settlers in place. It is a win-win strategy that in no way imperils our security. If the Palestinians still balk, they will be the ones isolated, not us. And, if they come, who knows? Maybe we cut a deal.”

Unlike the editorial cited above, at least Friedman has the honesty to acknowledge Netanyahu’s settlement freeze. Like Ehud Olmert, Friedman believes that if the Palestinians refuse, it’s Israel’s obligation to keep the offer on the table until they say, “yes.” This is not farsightedness, but a stupid negotiating tactic. Final monthly tally: Anti-Israel – 14 / Pro-Israel 1

Methodology: I searched the archives for the New York Times for op-eds and unsigned editorials from the New York Times from September 1 – 30, 2011. I did not include letters to the editor or articles that were not mainly about Israel or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Rep Keith Ellison’s Support the Palestinian State and Carlo Strenger’s Netanyahu’s allies, Democracy’s enemies were not returned in the search so they were not included. The impetus for doing this index was previous public editor, Clark Hoyt’s The Danger of the one sided debate. Hoyt defended the paper’s decision to publish an op-ed by a spokesman for Hamas by arguing:

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.

This is specious. Giving space to a member of terrorist organization is arguably providing material support. But as these indexes demonstrate, there is no paucity of anti-Israel voices published on the opinion pages of the New York Times. Indeed it seems that criticism of Israel is the one side of the debate that the New York Times is dedicated to presenting.

Some may argue that maybe the NY Times only received submissions that were anti-Israel.  That is doubtful, the Times receives hundreds of submissions every day and cherry-picks through the ones they want.  Remember in 2008 when they ran an Op Ed by Barack Obama and refused to print the rebuttal by McCain? That is the NY Times, sometimes they editorialize not by what they run but by they refuse to run, and in this case for every 14 negative Op Eds they run about Israel, they run one positive one.