Sarah Palin has an excellent column in USA Today in which she calls on Obama to seize the moment and show leadership in stopping Iran.

Palin says we should use the same strategy against Iran that we used during the Cold War. We should use every tool at our disposal to support the opposition and foment unrest from within.

But we also need to encourage a positive vision for Iran. Iran is not condemned to live under the totalitarian inheritance of the Ayatollah Khomeini forever. There is an alternative — an Iran where human rights are respected, where women are not subjugated, where terrorist groups are not supported and neighbors are not threatened. A peaceful, democratic Iran should be everyone’s goal. There are many hopeful signs inside Iran that reveal the Iranian people’s desire for this peaceful, democratic future. We must encourage their voices.

When the brave people of Iran take to the streets in defiance of their unelected dictatorship, they must know that we in the free world stand with them. When the women of Iran rise up to demand their rights, they must know that we women of the free world who enjoy the rights won for us by our suffragist foremothers stand with our sisters there. When Iranians demand freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom to simply live their lives as they choose without persecution, we in the free world must stand with them.

We can start by supporting them with diplomacy and things such as radio broadcasting, just as we did with those who suffered under the former Soviet Empire. Most of all, we should support them with confidence in the rightness of the ideals of liberty and justice.

She rightly points out that based on the Wikileaks cables, the Arab world is with us and against Iran. We now know that behind the scenes Arab leaders are telling us to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nukes.

I agree with Palin on this. The way Obama did nothing while protesters were murdered in the streets of Tehran was a disgrace. We are allegedly a beacon of freedom yet we said nothing while a tyrannical government murdered its own people.

I’m in favor of doing everything short of a ground invasion. We simply do not have the manpower for a large scale invasion. We could do Special Ops teams if necessary, but that’s it. However, I don’t think it would come to that.

We have many tools at our disposal before we get to actual military strikes. CIA needs to go old school and foment unrest by spreading money, arms, and intelligence around. We should fund anti-government groups who can bomb Revolutionary Guard facilities and assassinate key leaders.

It’s time to move past the phony paper pushing at the UN and start causing mayhem and turmoil inside the country.

I realize Barack Obama doesn’t have the balls or the will to do any of this stuff, but I suspect Israel will do what it can until we get a president who will.

I wrote a week or so ago about the recent revelation that the left-wing Jewish group J Street was largely funded by George Soros. That revelation has kicked off a long simmering debate among competing factions within the Jewish community both here and in Israel.

J Street has an unfortunate history of being very anti-Israel. J Street condemned Israel for its Gaza offensive against Hamas calling it a “disproportionate response.” It routinely attacks AIPAC and lobbies the Obama administration to put a stop to Israeli settlements. Their list of offenses goes on and on.

As a conservative and frankly as an American I firmly support Israel. Like most Americans and nearly all conservatives I see Israel as a place that must be defended. Not only is it a place that’s sacred to both Jews and Christians, but like us the Israeli people are under constant threat from radical Islam. The Jewish State is a lone beacon of freedom and democracy in a sea of militant, repressive, barbaric Islam. Also, the Jewish people have a hard working and entrepreneurial spirit just like Americans do.

As of 2010, the tiny state of Israel ranked #2 among foreign countries with the most companies listed on US stock exchanges. That is simply amazing.

In short, we have everything in common with Jewish people and nothing in common with Muslims (regardless of Obama’s rhetoric in Cairo).

So why then is there Jewish support in America for organizations that seem to undermine Israel? Moreover, why in the heck is the Jewish community primarily Democrat?

For the answer to the second question I suggest you read Norman Podhoretz’s book “Why Are Jews Liberal?” As for the first question, I’ll try to aide in answering it here.

I’ve never understood why Jewish Americans who profess to care about Israel would support groups and politicians who clearly don’t care about Israel or are outright hostile to it.

My friend Jeff Pozmantier has written a fascinating piece over at BumpSpot on this very issue. Jeff is a Jewish American who makes regular trips to Israel and knows many of the players in the Israeli government. He’s also a liberal who strongly supports J Street.

Jeff lays out the clearest and most sensible argument I’ve read on this question. He says the battle is between “Loyalists” and “Independents” but considers both factions ultimately pro-Israel.

The Loyalists  looks outward.   They see  virtually any Jewish criticism of  an Israeli policy or action as akin to helping  countries and terrorist groups that aren’t Israel fans make their delegitimization arguments. They see “in the family” criticism making it easier for a democratic Israel to suffer unfair and unbalanced attacks from autocratic countries that severely discriminate against women, restrict freedom of speech and, in some cases, shelter terrorists and develop weapons of mass destruction. Some  Loyalists see  Independent wing members as self-hating or disloyal  or both.  A tinier percentage even view  them as “capo”- like facilitators for Israel’s enemies.

However, if  the Loyalists  were  to become  more self-reflective and turn their gaze inward they would see several problems, not the least of which is generational. With  the majority of American Jews born  well after Israel reached a peace agreement with Egypt and Jordan, the point of reference between  many Pro Israel party members greatly differs. 

Loyalists tend to be older and  frame their concerns and actions against the backdrop of the Holocaust and the various wars and intifadas  many of them have directly or indirectly experienced since Israel’s founding.  (Living in  fear of Israel’s extinction does heighten one’s sensitivities.) They tend  to  view  most of the Palestinian leadership as untrustworthy and (not without some historical justification)  incapable of  organizing effectively enough to actually deliver on any commitments they might make.  The Middle East  is seen as largely a zero sum game.

On the other hand,  many of the Independents  tend to be younger. They  feel less threatened and are, in their minds, safely assimilated in America.  They read in their history books and “on line” about what   many Loyalists have lived through.  Independents  tend to ask more questions and  are far less likely to offer 100% support for every Israeli policy or action.   Many Independents have experienced some portion of the Mideast conflict,  but it has been through a much different, more occluded lens.  The Palestinian narrative has more resonance for  Independents as it carries a human rights appeal that connects with their traditional Jewish  values.  They are less likely to view the Palestinian leadership as monolithic and  more likely to view  Israeli concessions on issues  (such as  settlements) in the context of peace negotiations that they feel are  in Israel’s interest just  as much as they are in the Palestinians’  interest.

So when an organization like J Street  takes a position that criticism and support for Israel are no more mutually exclusive than is criticism and support for America, the argument has great appeal. It also has great, perhaps unrecognized value:  Any hesitation to enthusiastically support Israel is removed as Independents don’t feel constrained by a fear that  a public disagreement over Israel’s tactics will be seen as anti-Israel.

I encourage everyone to click over and read Jeff’s entire piece. Even if you don’t agree with it you’ll better understand where Jewish support for organizations like J Street comes from. I routinely read Jeff’s articles because he tends to bring a point of view to Middle East issues I might not otherwise be exposed to. I recommend putting BumpSpot on your regular reading list.

This article titled “Obama warns Middle East leaders ‘chance may not come again soon’” was written by Chris McGreal in Washington, for The Guardian on Wednesday 1st September 2010 23.33 UTC

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, begin direct talks in Washington today after Barack Obama launched his initiative to forge a Middle East peace agreement within a year, which he described as a “moment of opportunity that may not soon come again”.

The US president said that he recognised the task would be difficult after so many failed efforts, and that passions and mistrust ran deep. But he said that the occupation and accompanying conflict were unsustainable.

“The purpose of the talks is clear. These will be direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. These negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues. The goal is a settlement negotiated between the parties that ends the occupation which began in 1967, and results in the emergence of an independent democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish state of Israel and its other neighbours,” he said. “We are under no illusions. Passions run deep. Each side has legitimate and enduring interests. Years of mistrust will not disappear overnight …

“After all, there’s a reason that the two state solution has eluded previous generations. This is extraordinarily complex and extraordinarily difficult. But we know that the status quo is unsustainable.”

The president said that it was in the national interests of all involved, including the US, that the conflict be brought to a peaceful conclusion. But he warned that the US could not impose a solution or want it more than did the parties themselves. Obama also called on Arab states to back the process, saying that they claimed to want to see an independent Palestine, but did little to support it – his statement implying that the Arab states should move toward recognising Israel.

The talks were overshadowed before opening by the killing of four Jewish settlers in the West Bank on Tuesday. Obama said that “terrorists who want to undermine” the push for peace would not be allowed to weaken negotiations.

Netanyahu said the deaths reinforced Israel’s determination to ensure its security is at the forefront of the negotiations.

Obama held bilateral meetings with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and the Egyptian and Jordanian leaders, before hosting a White House dinner for all four. Tony Blair, the envoy for the quartet of the US, UN, EU and Russia, was also expected to be at the dinner. Direct negotiations between the two sides begin today at the state department with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell.

The White House initiative has been met with wide scepticism in Israel and the occupied territories over whether the other side is ready for peace, particularly given the rejection by hard-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet of compromises such as dismantling settlements. But it has also drawn warnings that the talks may be the last chance to agree a two-state solution before either a new wave of violence or the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories makes such an agreement impossible.

The talks are seen as a test of Israeli and Palestinian claims to be ready to finally forge an agreement. But they are also a measure of Obama’s willingness to take the political risks necessary to keep the negotiations on track. The US administration has angered some of Israel’s supporters by breaking with its predecessors in describing the failure to resolve the conflict as a cause of continued instability in the Middle East and a threat to America’s national security.

Some involved in previous peace negotiations are concerned Obama has failed to distinguish his push from the failed efforts of the past. “People don’t think there’s an Obama-specific approach,” said Daniel Levy, a former adviser to an earlier Israeli prime minister and an architect of the Geneva Initiative peace plan. “There isn’t a way of going about it that this administration has made its own and has wrapped its arms around. You’re seeing a very similar approach to what we’ve seen in the past – an approach that didn’t deliver.”

Levy warned that “the script for now is still being written more by the Netanyahu government than the Obama administration”; the White House would have to be very careful not to be seen as “Israel’s lawyer” (as Aaron David Miller, a former US negotiator in the conflict, once put it) by exerting more pressure on the Palestinians than the Israelis, because it appears Abbas is in the weaker position and more likely to fold and make an agreement possible.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said an agreement was inevitable at some point. The question was whether it could be reached within Obama’s deadline of a year. “[Palestinians and Israelis] know that, if not this year, next year, or in 10 years’ time, it will be a two-state solution on the 1967 lines, Palestine next to the state of Israel. The difference in time here is how many lives of Israelis and Palestinians will be saved,” he said.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Jeff Pozmantier over at Bump Spot has an interesting proposal for Middle East peace that I haven’t heard before. He’s calling for a three state solution.

Let’s give the ultra-Orthodox contingent their own state too.  We wouldn’t be splitting up Jews from other Jews because  many of us and/or our relatives don’t qualify as Jews by their definitions anyway.

And  if we can divide up  a country roughly the size of New Jersey into two why not three?  It’s a natural:  The ultra-orthodox  already  share so many customs, beliefs, clothing preferences and children production practices that forcing them to be part of the largely secular Israeli culture is just unfair.

So give the ultra-Orthodox their own right of return to whatever area of  Israel this side of the Green Line that will financially support their new state   while they conduct their perpetual state supported religious studies. They can also continue to be   like modern Amish on the Sabbath. (Of  course visitors to Israel may miss the secularly rich practice of eating cold food and stopping on every elevator floor.)  And best of all, considering Israel’s security concerns, giving the ultra-Orthodox   their own state  would present far fewer security threats than  Israel has to work through with the Palestinians: They’ll be too busy studying to throw stones at Sabbath violators and too busy trying to figure out how to grow their GDP above 0 to bother their new Palestinian neighboring state.

I encourage everyone to read the entire piece. It’s certainly a provocative idea, but an interesting one as well. The American media only focuses on disagreements between Israelis and Palestinians, but there is a very vocal and fairly militant ultra-Orthodox population in Israel creating problems as well. They don’t like secular Jews any more than they like Palestinians. The ultra-Orthodox have launched terror attacks of their own inside Israel.

Hot Air is reporting that Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia last month promising the Saudis that America would help them develop a nuclear infrastructure, build nuclear reactors, and train nuclear engineers. Basically, everything the Iranians are doing that we want them stop doing.

I really hope there is some kind of context that I’m missing here, because this is the kind of thing that really makes America lose credibility. We can’t expect to be taken seriously when we complain that Iran sits on a lake of oil, and therefore has no need to develop nuclear power. Then at the same time start helping the Saudis to develop nuclear technology when they sit on an even bigger lake of oil.

Via LGF:

The poll adds weight to the vote at a session of the Doha Debates held on March 3 in Doha, where the motion “This house believes that Muslims are failing to combat extremism”, was carried by more than 70% of the audience.

In the YouGov survey, nearly half of all Arabs in the Gulf, Levant and North Africa said they have met someone who holds extreme religious views.

Asked under what conditions violence is permissible, more than 60% cited Western interference in a Muslim country, while 55% said offensive words or behaviour was a trigger.

More than half the respondents also believed that poor religious leadership is to blame for today’s extremism – although seven out of 10 said the size of the problem had been exaggerated.

Eight out of 10 believed it provides an excuse for the West to interfere in Muslim countries.
In the poll, conducted between March 18 and 23, views of 940 people across the Arab world were surveyed.

At least they recognize their utter failure at combating extremism, unfortunately more than half believe words justify violence.

Everyone has punched someone in the face for saying something crappy at one time in their life, but the kind of violence radical Muslims resort to over offensive words is usually mass murder.

-Chris Jones

An explosion targeted a U.S. Embassy vehicle Tuesday in northern Beirut, killing at least three Lebanese and injuring an American bystander and a local embassy employee.

The blast, which damaged the armored SUV and several other vehicles, took place just ahead of a farewell reception for the American ambassador at a hotel in central Beirut.

No Americans were in the car, which was carrying two Lebanese employees of the embassy.

The bombing, which came as President Bush and Rice toured the Mideast, was the first attack on U.S. diplomatic interests in Lebanon since the 1980s, when the country saw some of the deadliest terror attacks against Americans in U.S. history.

President Bush gently reminded Arab allies Sunday of the need to satisfy frustrated desires for democracy in the Mideast, but saved his harshest criticism for Iran, branding it “the world’s leading state-sponsor of terror.”

Speaking in the Persian Gulf country, about 150 miles from the shores of Iran, Bush said Tehran threatens nations everywhere and that the United States was “rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.”

The warning about Iran was much tougher than Bush’s admonition about spreading democracy in the Middle East, which had been billed as the central theme of his speech.

After the speech, President Bush did some site seeing at the desert encampment of Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, Sheik Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The crown prince showed Bush his prize collection of Falcons, allowing the President to hold one.

-Chris Jones

I gave an interview with Scott Fuller on The Scott Fuller Show this evening. The topic was the Israeli/Palestinian peace prospects.

-Chris Jones

Click Here To Listen!

The Bush administration was able to declare victory when Syria, the last Arab world holdout, said Sunday it would attend this week’s high-stakes Mideast peace conference.

League members grudgingly agreed a few days ago to send their foreign ministers to the conference, meant to renew Israeli-Palestinian peace talks after a violent, seven-year lull in negotiations. Most members do not have ties with the Jewish state.

Syria had threatened to skip the three-day meetings in Annapolis, Md., and Washington, if they did not address the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war and later annexed. But with that issue added to the agenda, the deputy foreign minister, Faysal Mekdad, will participate.

Arab states had been reluctant to attend the gathering, which starts Monday in Washington. They feared it would give Israel a public- relations boost while yielding little political benefit for the Palestinians.

But they decided to come to the first large-scale Arab-Israeli gathering since a 1996 meeting in Egypt. That is largely because they wanted to bolster moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and keep him from making damaging concessions to Israel in talks that are to follow the conference.

Abbas has been badly weakened by the Islamic Hamas group’s violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in June, which left him in control of just the West Bank.