Monday, August 6, 2012

Gatestone Update :: Peter Martino: Olympic Silence: The Anti-Semitic Past of the IOC, and more


Gatestone Institute
In this mailing:

Olympic Silence: The Anti-Semitic Past of the IOC

by Peter Martino
August 6, 2012 at 5:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
The official OIC biography does not make a reference to Count Baillet-Latour as an organizer of the Nazi games. The OIC honors him as one of the great figures of the Olympic Movement. In 1936, after the games, the Count became an honorary member of "Freude und Arbeit," the Nazi sports organization of propaganda minister Goebbels. The Count's wife congratulated Hitler when he annexed the Sudetenland, and in 1940, when Germany invaded her home country, thanked him "for bringing Nazi ideology to Belgium".
During the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, Count Jacques Rogge, the Belgian who is the President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), refused to hold a minute of silence for the eleven Israeli Olympic athletes murdered forty years ago at Munich. Instead, a week before the official opening of the Games, the Belgian aristocrat held a minute of silence during a minor ceremony in the Olympic village.
Count Rogge has announced that he will also attend a ceremony in London today, Monday August 6, organized by the Israeli embassy and the London Jewish community, and that he will speak at a ceremony in Munich on September 5. Critics of Rogge claim that the Count was afraid to mention the murdered Israelis in the opening ceremony of the London Games because he feared that this would upset member states of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). Fear of the OIC made the IOC cower.
Normally, when an athlete dies, as in the case of a Georgian athlete two years ago during the Winter Olympics, the IOC President expresses his condolences during his official speech, while the Olympic flags are flown at half-staff.
The families of the 11 murdered Israeli sportsmen declared that they were "very hurt" by Rogge's decision. Ilana Romano, widow of weightlifter Yossef Romano, said that the Count had let "terror win." Ankie Rekhess, widow of fencing coach Andre Spitzer, said that Rogge was using the upcoming Munich ceremony as an excuse not to hold the minute of silence and questioned his motives for attending the Munich event. "If they cannot do the right thing at home, in the Olympic ceremony, why come?"
Rekhess and Romano recently met the IOC President. "My hands are tied," Rogge told Rekhess. She was not impressed: "Your hands are not tied," she said. "My husband's hands were tied, so were his feet, when he was murdered. That is having your hands tied."
Meanwhile, Joods Actueel, a Jewish monthly magazine in Antwerp, Belgium, published details of the shameful anti-Semitic past of the International Olympic Committee and its former president, Count Henri de Baillet-Latour – like Rogge, a Belgian aristocrat.
Baillet-Latour was IOC president from 1925 until his death in 1942. Joods Actueel delved into the Count's past. Journalists Geert Versyck and Guido Joris discovered that the Count and his wife were Nazi sympathizers. To keep this truth hidden, the IOC is trying to rewrite its own history, presenting Baillet-Latour as a critic of the Nazis rather than a supporter.
Baillet-Latour was IOC President in 1931, when the decision was made to hold the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. In 1933, when Hitler came to power in Germany, the Nazis began to turn the Games into a propaganda tool to demonstrate to the world the superiority of the Aryan race. In 1933, Jews were barred from civil service in Germany and Jewish athletes were excluded from sports clubs. Even Gretel Bergmann, the high-jumper who held the German record, was banned -- because she was a Jew -- from participating in the Olympics.
Although this was a boorish violation of the fundamental Olympic principles, it did not appear to disturb Baillet-Latour. In 1935 Ernest L. Jahncke, the American member of the IOC, wrote a letter to Baillet-Latour urging the IOC to cancel the Berlin Olympics in protest against "the contempt of the Nazis for fair play and their sordid exploitation of the Games." In response, Jahncke was the only person ever to be expelled from the OIC.
Jahncke was replaced, however, by an American with fewer qualms about anti-Semitism: Avery Brundage. "Jews usually start screaming before they have a serious reason to do so," Baillet-Latour wrote to Brundage in connection with calls for a possible boycott of the Games.
At the opening of the Berlin Olympic Games, Hitler was flanked by Baillet-Latour. There are pictures showing the Count as he gives the Nazi salute. He is standing near the American athlete Jesse Owens, who does a regular salute with the hand to the temple, while the IOC President extends his arm. After the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Hitler sent Baillet-Latour a letter thanking him for his "generous cooperation" during the Games. That same year, the Count became an honorary member of "Freude und Arbeit," the Nazi sports organization of propaganda minister Goebbels.
The Count's wife, Countess Elisabeth de Clary, was a devoted Nazi. In 1938, she congratulated Hitler when he annexed the Sudetenland. In 1940, when Germany invaded her home country, she even thanked him "for bringing Nazi ideology to Belgium."
Count Baillet-Latour died in Brussels in 1942. Leading Nazis attended his funeral while German soldiers stood guard at the coffin. On the coffin was a wreath embellished with a swastika, which had been sent by Hitler. The Nazi Karl von Halt, an IOC executive who led the Sports Office of the Third Reich, and was president of the German National Olympic Committee until 1961, held a speech at the funeral on behalf of both Hitler and the IOC.
After the war, the IOC did little to make amends for its collaboration with the Nazis. Even Ernest L. Jahncke never received apologies from the IOC for having been expelled, while his successor, Avery Brundage, later moved on to become IOC President himself. Brundage was in office during the 1972 Munich Olympics where, after the massacre of the Israeli athletes, he declared that the "the Games must go on."
The official IOC biography does not make a reference to Count Baillet-Latour's role as organizer of the Nazi Games. The IOC honors him as one of the great figures of the Olympic Movement. The Count is buried in the small village of Latour, Belgium. In the presence of IOC President Jacques Rogge his tomb was recently given a new slab, displaying the Olympic rings.
Opposite the Latour cemetery is a museum devoted to the former IOC President. It was recently extended at a cost of €100,000 by the InBev Baillet-Latour Fund "as a tribute to this pioneer of the Olympic movement … who despite pressure from the Nazis managed to take a stand against the ideological plans of Hitler." There is a picture in the museum of Hitler with the Count. The text under the picture reads: "President Baillet-Latour warned Hitler before the official opening that the IOC would strictly enforce the Olympic protocol." Though this sentence is followed by a copyright symbol "© IOC" it is a blatant lie. Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that an organization that refuses to face its anti-Semitic past refuses to honor the murdered Israeli athletes.
Related Topics:  Peter Martino

Anti-Palestinian Discrimination in Jordan
Now It's Official

by Khaled Abu Toameh
August 6, 2012 at 4:30 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
But all indications are that King Abdullah still has not realized the approaching tornado. Instead of embarking on real and meaningful reforms and combating rampant rampant financial and administrative corruption, he has directed his energies against Jordanians of Palestinian origin. The king is already being threatened by the powerful and popular Muslim Brotherhood; he may soon have to face an even bigger threat.
In a daring and unprecedented move, Jordanian politicians, academics, political activists and media figures have sent a letter to King Abdullah urging him to end discrimination against Jordanians of Palestinian origin.
The letter serves as a warning to the monarch that the Palestinian majority in the kingdom would one day revolt against continued oppression and discrimination.
The last time Palestinians challenged the Hashemite royal family was in the late 1960s. Then, the late King Hussein sent his army to crush the revolt, killing thousands of Palestinians in what has since become to be known as Black September.
Although King Abdullah's wife, Queen Rania, is a Palestinian from the West Bank, his attitude towards Palestinians living in his kingdom has not been much different from that of other Arab countries.
In the early 1990s, more than 400,000 Palestinians were expelled from the Gulf in retaliation for the PLO's support of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. When Kuwait was liberated, many Palestinians who remained in the sheikdom were killed or tortured by angry Kuwaitis.
In Lebanon, thousands of Palestinians have been massacred by Lebanese and Syrians over the past four decades. In addition, the 500,000 Palestinians living in Lebanon have long been subjected to state-sponsored apartheid laws that deny them access to work, education and health services.
Following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, many Iraqis also turned against Palestinians, accusing them of siding with the former dictator. Thousands of Palestinians were forced out of Iraq while others were killed or had their homes torched and ransacked.
Palestinians carrying Jordanian passports say that unlike his father, King Abdullah has been doing his utmost to "marginalize" them through a series of laws, royal decrees and security measures.
The king is obviously afraid of the "demographic threat" that the Palestinian population poses. He is also wary of talk about turning Jordan into a Palestinian state -- a move that would, of course, end the royal family's rule of the Hashemite kingdom.
In recent months, demands for reform and democracy in Jordan have been on the rise. Some Jordanians say that the "Arab Spring" has been knocking on the kingdom's door for some time now and that unless King Abdullah wakes up things could get out of control.
But all indications are that the the monarch has still not realized the approaching tornado. Instead of embarking on real and meaningful reforms and combating rampant financial and administrative corruption, King Abdullah has chosen to direct his energies against Jordanians of Palestinian origin.
The letter that was sent to him notes that the Jordanian authorities have been revoking the [Jordanian] citizenship of many Palestinians.
The letter reveals that Jordanians of Palestinian origin suffer from discrimination in many walks of life, including when they are held in prison. Discrimination is also employed against Palestinians when they seek to enroll in Jordanian universities, where priority is given to Jordanians with no Palestinian roots.
The letter also expressed concern over King Abdullah's ongoing effort to limit the number of Palestinians in parliament, adding that such a move would be in violation of the constitution.
"How can public opinion expect fair and just elections when partners [Palestinians] are being dismissed and marginalized?" the authors of the letter wrote to King Abdullah. "The presence of Jordanians of Palestinian origin in some institutions and all universities has become a rare phenomenon."
The king is already being challenged by the powerful and popular Muslim Brotherhood. Unless he improves relations with his Palestinian constituents, King Abdullah will soon have to face an even bigger threat from millions of disgruntled second-class citizens.
Related Topics:  Khaled Abu Toameh

Will Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Orient to Saudi Arabia or Iran?

by David P. Goldman  •  Aug 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Depending on whom you believe, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood will ally with Saudi Arabia (according to Fouad Ajami) or Iran (according to former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar. These are mutually exclusive scenarios given the extreme enmity between Riyadh and Tehran, intensified by Syria's civil war. I don't believe either scenario, but both of them are worth reading as gauges of the complexity of the Middle East's descent into chaos. >First, Ajami, the tireless cheerleader of the Arab Spring and true believer in Arab democracy (in Tablet last week):
It should have come as no surprise that Egypt's new president, Mohamed Morsi, made his first official foreign visit to Saudi Arabia. Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood man, went to Arabia last month for both religious and political reasons: He prayed in Mecca, and then there was a formal summit in Jeddah with the Saudi monarch and his crown prince. There was nothing concealed—the summiteers announced that theirs would be an alliance of "moderate Sunni Islam." There was no need to mention Iran and its tributaries, the embattled Syrian regime, and Hezbollah in Beirut: For Saudi Arabia, this is the most natural of alliances, a return to the time of Hosni Mubarak when the Saudi-Egyptian axis held sway.
Nowhere does Prof. Ajami mention what the casual reader of any newspaper knows, namely that the Saudis hate and fear the Muslim Brotherhood as much as they hate and fear Iran, because the Muslim Brotherhood is the only force with the potential to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. This remarkable lapse identifies the article as prescriptive rather than descriptive, that is to say, more of Ajami's wishful thinking. He adds:
In Egypt they would find a natural partner. Egypt had taken time out from the game of nations: It had a revolution to settle, a fight for the makeup of a new order. With the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in the presidential election, the Egyptians were ready to return to the regional contest. Egypt is in desperate need of Saudi money, employment opportunities for its vast population, and tourist revenues. The struggle against Iran is to be anchored in the needs of both countries. There is Sunni solidarity at work, but more important, cold reasons of statecraft. American influence in the Persian Gulf and the Fertile Crescent is at a low point, a sectarian Sunni-Shia war has wrecked the peace of the region. The Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo and the Saudi rulers know how to bury their differences in order to fight a Shiite enemy.
The Saudis are cautious about feeding the mouth that bites their hand, however. And after Prof. Ajami's panegyrics to the Arab Spring, his audience in Riyadh is limited to the staff of the American Embassy. M.K. Bhadrakumar, formerly India's ambassador to Turkey among other countries, explains why in a blog post last week:
This is a development that holds the potential to shake up Middle Eastern politics — Iranian vice-president visiting Cairo. The two countries pulled down the shutters following the Iranian revolution in 1979 and a dark period continued right till the end of the Hosni Mubarak era. The revolution on Tahrir Square one year ago heralded a thaw, the first sign of which was the permission granted to an Iranian warship to cross the Suez Canal to visit Syria. Meanwhile, the military junta permitted a second Iranian warship to cross the Suez Canal, disregarding the stern rebuke by the United States and Israel (and the annoyance of Saudi Arabia). On its part, evidently with the acquiescence of Cairo, Tehran began inviting a series of Egyptian goodwill delegations from the civil society in a sustained effort to reach out to the various sections — especially the Islamist forces — of Egyptian society. The stakes are indeed very high.
Therefore, Saudi Arabia invited the newly-elected Mohammed Morsi of the Brotherhood to visit Riyadh last month. The Saudis hoped that Morsi would play footsie on the Sunni-Sh'ite front and get Egypt to play its due role in the Syrian crisis. Critical reportage is continuing in the Saudi establishment press, even pitting the Brothers against Egypt's Al-Azhar in a clever ploy to divide the islamist camp in Egypt. {Al-AZhar is Egypt's religious establishment.) The point is, Riyadh has the utmost to fear from the Brothers — the spectre of the Brothers spearheading a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia at some point haunts the Saudi rulers. The equations between the Saudis and the Brothers have been a troubled and often-violent one with the former Crown Prince Nayef using brutal methods to smash up the activities of the Brothers on Saudi soil. This is where an Egyptian-Iranian rapprochement at this point becomes a major setback for the Saudi regime. If the Iranian news report carried by Fars is to be believed, Iranian vice-president Hamid Baqayee may visit Cairo to personally hand over the letter of invitation from President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Morsi to attend the forthcoming NAM summit meeting in Tehran.
Bhadrakumar's report contains invaluable background, but it leaves out something obvious: Once in power, the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi cannot afford to antagonize Saudi Arabia, because Egypt is living hand-to-mouth on Saudi subsidies. With a $36 billion annual trade deficit, soaring food prices (Egypt imports half its food), and just $7 billion in liquid foreign exchange reserves, Egypt is at the brink of economic disaster. Droplets of Saudi money are keeping it just this side of the brink. By the same toke, Ajami's suggestion that Saudi help could get Egypt out of its economic mess is whimsical. The kingdom simply isn't going to fork over tens of billions of dollars a year to support a government that might turn out to be its worst enemy in the future.
What will happen for the time being is ambiguous. Morsi will maintain contact with all the enemies of the Saudi Monarchy but do nothing dramatic to offend the Saudis; the Saudis will continue to back the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and look for opportunities to clip Morsi's wings; Egypt will continue to suffer crippling shortages of fuel and spot shortages of food as its economic position deteriorates; and Iran will make overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood and look for opportunities to help it subvert the Saudi monarchy. The most probable outcome is that Egypt's military will assert control with Saudi financial backing and suppress the Muslim Brotherhood. and the Egyptian-Saudi alliance will be restored on the basis of the SCAF. Saudi Arabia will pay the bus fare of Muslim Brotherhood fighters to fight Basher Assad's regulars in the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Eastern Front, and the Syrian meatgrinder will grind up the Brotherhood's fighting capacity. The Turks will help because they depend on Saudi finance, too.
For more background see my July 10 essay in Asia Times Online, "The Economics of Confrontation in Egypt."
Related Topics:  David P. Goldman

The Call -- Hey, Israel Might Actually Strike Iran!

by David Samuels  •  Aug 5, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Be the first of your friends to like this.
With this week's episode of The Call, we welcome our fifth and last regular participant, Amos Harel, the distinguished military reporter and defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Amos led off our discussion by summarizing some of his recent reporting about a possible Israeli military strike on Iran.
The panelists concluded that the combination of increasingly aggressive and uniform rhetoric issuing from Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak combined with the public alarms being sounded by high-ranking members of the Israeli security establishment indicate that something has changed quite recently in Israel's evaluation of the plausibility and potential benefits and drawbacks of a strike. Among the possible reasons for this change cited by the panelists are:
1. The American Presidential campaign, which some of the panelists and some Israelis see as offering an ideal moment to pressure Obama without fear of retaliation.
2. The degrading of Syrian military capabilities and the increasingly embattled position of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
3. An important -- but as yet unnamed -- shift in the Israeli attack plan that has altered the calculus of the country's leaders.
The five regular participants on The Call are:
Pepe Escobar -- author of the "Roving Eye" feature for the Asia Times.
David Goldman -- aka "Spengler" of the Asia Times.
Amos Harel -- Military correspondent and defense analyst for Ha'aretz.
David Samuels - Contributing Editor of Harper's Magazine
Rotem Sella -- foreign affairs editor of Ma'ariv
"THE CALL"
Amos Harel: Even by the Israeli media's standards, the recent coverage of the possible attack on Iran probably sets some kind of record. Since Thursday we've heard one ex-chief of Mossad and two ex-chiefs of the Military Intelligence warning that an Israeli strike might occur in the next 12 weeks – and coming out publicly against it.
How much of this represents actual knowledge of Netanyahu's not-so-secret intentions and how much is sophisticated psychological warfare against the Iranians? (Or maybe the Americans?). I've met with two of the three recently, and talked to them by phone yesterday. I assume they're not part of any intentional spin. They are genuinely worried about the possibility of a decision being made soon – and the outcome of such a strike. Barak is a more difficult case to decipher.
This guy does not say what he means and I doubt if he ever means what he says -- a real case of a riddle wrapped in an enigma. I think his (and Netanyahu's) main concern at the moment is maintaining a credible military threat. As long as Israel seems serious about this, the international community will have a hard time avoiding the growing pressure on Iran.
But will Netanyahu risk an Israeli strike before the presidential elections? I think David Samuels [http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3243/netanyahu-plays-the-romney-card] did a good job of describing the Israeli visit on Romney's assault-the-world tour last week. But I suspect David is also slightly underestimating the importance of the Panetta visit. Netanyahu and Barak will have to work against two major factors: the Obama Administration's objection – and the doubts raised by both current chiefs of the IDF and Mossad who apparently fear a direct conflict with the Americans. Benny Gantz is crucial here. It will be extremely complicated to persuade the ministers to vote for a strike, when the IDF's chief of staff tells them he thinks this is not the right time.
Caveat Emptor: One far-fetched scenario that should nevertheless be considered. Is it possible that Obama actually decided, for his reasons, that an Israeli strike is inevitable at this time and is only
concerned of surprising the Iranians and avoiding accusations of being an accomplice to Israel's plans?
David Goldman: Welcome, all. I think the floor goes to David S. to respond to Amos.
David Samuels: What we can all see right now is that Netanyahu and Barak have ratcheted up the rhetoric over the past few months and have stopped their prior bad cop-good cop routine at least in public. Also, this shift in rhetoric has been greeted with alarm by members of the Israeli security establishment who are not known for crying wolf. So the possibilities that occur to me are:
1. The Israelis are precisely taking advantage of the American election year to exert maximum pressure to create the appearance of a credible threat.
2. Something has changed in Israeli strategic thinking.
3. This is all part of a clever plan to create distance between Israel and America for a strike that Obama has already ok-ed.
Amos Harel: I think both 1 and 2 are correct. There is a change in favor of a strike. It still doesn't mean they'll actually go for it. I'd put #3 as a 10% chance, max. One more advantage for Bibi: nobody speaks about the Palestinians (what Palestinians?) any more.
Rotem Sella: I agree with Amos on number 3. I would suspect the Israel and the United States aren't coordinated, and that we aren't ok-ed. Also back to what Amos wrote in the opening remarks - The voices we are hearing against the strike are NOT part of a psychological warfare. They create a lot of pressure on Netanyahu and try to tilt the public opinion against a strike.
David Samuels: The technical shift has to be something about the way an attack is configured since the targeting stuff was settled a while ago. I think Netanyahu and Barak are former commandos and there is a new plan that captured both their imaginations -- which has to be something that uses technology in an unexpected way to produce less risk, a higher chance of success and some element of surprise.
David Goldman: There is the issue of the degree of success of the attack and the issue of retaliation.
The success part can be measured in time. How many months or years can the Israelis hold off an Iranian program, given that a large number of centrifuges are in "isolation" (this assumes that no-one has found a way to toss dirty bomb down a tunnel).
The retaliation part depends on Iran itself, Syria and Hezbollah. How does the present situation in Syria affect Iran's capacity to respond via proxies? Hezbollah has a lot of missiles but can they be resupplied? With the Syrian army busy elsewhere do the Israelis have a free hand to mop up in a way that was not true in 2006?
Technical issues might include 1) non-aerial attacks by commando teams on the ground, 2) additional capacity to interdict missiles from Iran and Lebanon, 3) others?
Pepe: My question to Amos: So we have Benny Gantz, Ya'akov Ayash. Tamir Pardo, Aviv Kochavi, Mossad department heads, the head of the Israeli Air Force Amir Eshel and at least four of Bibi's 8-man "kitchen cabinet" currently against an attack. How could Bibi possibly order an attack when the best informed minds in Israel know that would inflict a 6-month delay max on Iran's nuclear program (the Americans have already calculated it); and that a strike would definitely lead Tehran to abandon its current "latency period" and go for weaponization in no time?
Moreover, only Alice in Wonderland characters believe Israel would attack without a full Obama administration OK.
David Goldman: Pepe, Israel never got a full administration OK for any major attack. That goes for 1956, 1967, Osirak, and so on.
Amos Harel: According to Barak, an attack will achieve a one to two year delay. Hezbollah would join Iran. That's what they're paid for. Assad would be otherwise occupied, if he's still there.
Pepe, remember Diskin blaming the duo (Bibi-Barak) for being "messianic"? Here is your answer.
David Samuels: So Amos, you think the technical shift is the disintegration of Assad's army?
David Goldman: How degraded are Syria's capacities now? In general, what would IDF operations in southern Lebanon look like today vs. 2006, in a scenario where Israel attacks Iran and Hezbollah retaliates with missiles?
David Samuels: Hezbollah has lost a lot of public support in Lebanon, and Suleiman, the Lebanese President, is now making noises about staying out of war and sectarian militias not being acceptable. The Syrian Army appears to be otherwise occupied these days.
Amos Harel: Assad's problems might benefit Israel regarding Iran. But at least Farkash is worried that Assad might be tempted to join the Iranians, seeing this by mistake as a possible way out. Syria's capacities are terrible, conventionally speaking, but their missile and chemical capabilities are troubling. Lebanon next time: we won't hesitate for 30 days about sending in the ground forces and the air force would be much more aggressive.
Rotem Sella: What I'm hearing is that, with Syria in its present state, Hezbollah and Hamas are not the big-questions. The big question is can we lunch a successful operation in Iran and are the media and the veterans over-stating the danger to the home front.
The question considering the strike is also what will be seen by the Israeli public as a success - it's very political. Israeli Mk's and ministers from the right sees a strike before the US elections as something that can help Obama win the elections by making him a War President.
David Samuels: Assuming Lebanon and Syria unleash missiles immediately, where do Israeli planes land after an attack? You don't have to hit planes with missiles. You only have to hit their landing strips.
David Goldman: It would frighten and surprise me if Lebanon and Syria together had enough missiles to knock out every F-15 capable landing strip in Israel.
Amos Harel: David, the air force maintains that they would still be able to land and then fly more sorties. I think that some of our capabilities would be damaged.
David Samuels: What base is physically out of range of the missiles or protected?
Amos Harel: None are absolutely out of range. Those in the south are better protected
David Samuels: There is a trade-off then in protecting the bases and protecting the cities that becomes political, yes?
Amos Harel: Sure. There's an ongoing debate about where to place Iron Dome batteries during a war. The generals will probably win this. The air bases will be better defended.
David Samuels: I was also interested in what Rotem Sella said earlier about right-wing MKs in Israel believing that a pre-election strike will re-elect Obama.
Rotem Sella: They think that Obama will have to support a strike that is very popular in the US. And will become by default a war president. So if the strike is successful he wins – and if it fails he also wins.
David Samuels: Except when shopping centers start blowing up in America. And the price of gas doubles.
David Goldman: Precisely. The administration is more worried about the economy than anything else, and the economy is probably 10 times as important as foreign policy right now. The only constituencies who care about foreign policy are Jews and evangelical Christians, and if this happens, the Jews will have given their money to Romney, and the evangelicals won't vote for Obama anyway.
Romney would support a strike because he is ideologically and religiously joined at the hip to Israel. Mormons are the ultimate Judeophiles, Christian Zionists and American exceptionalists -- they make the evangelicals look like pansies.
Amos Harel: Too much of a gamble from his point of view. My guess: he will remain against it. And this is probably why Romney would support an Israeli strike now, won't he?
Rotem Sella: Obama for another four years in the White House also might be considered by Bibi as a threat to Israel.
David Samuels: Obama makes a big point of announcing that he isn't a member of the Likud party in his speeches and conversations with American Jews. So maybe Netanyahu will repay the favor by announcing that he isn't a member of the Democratic Party in America – an announcement accompanied by a big boom in Iran.
David Goldman: There is an issue of timing. We are talking about an Iranian bomb a year from now, not three months from now. If Netanyahu attacks Iran before the election, Obama can't punish Israel too badly (although he would wait until after the elections and then really screw Israel). Netanyahu doesn't gain a lot in terms of the US relationship by hitting before November. But if Romney is elected, the US will be in full support of Israeli action starting in late January. That makes a good case for waiting.
Read Marty Peretz' interview in the WSJ on Saturday -- Peretz was the Zionist who gave Obama the hechsher in 2008, and now he hates Obama with a passion. That's true of a lot of big Democratic Jewish donors.
Amos Harel: Guys. I'll have to sign off now. I can hear the planes overhead here... Just kidding. Previous obligations. Regarding president Romney: Barak assumes he won't be able to discuss anything before next May.
Rotem Sella: David, If Israel strikes Iran before the elections can Obama take the credit for a successful operation, and claim in the case of blow-up's in the US/surging oil price, "I'm not a Likudnik."
David Samuels: No, he can't. The very fact that Israel mounted a successful operation will make him look weak. No one thinks he is a secret supporter of Bibi Netanyahu or of Israeli military action against Iran, even if logic dictates that he could be, or even should be. And if Israel flops then he looks weak and not in control and the global economy probably goes haywire right before the election – none of which seems like a big plus for him.
David Goldman: Any last thoughts?
David Samuels: Pepe, I would love to read one of your far-out imaginings of Mitt and Bibi going out for drinks together one night in Boston in the 1970s, back when they were both young bankers at the Boston Consulting Group.
Pepe: I WILL think about a screenplay soon!
Related Topics:  David Samuels

How Liberal Democrats who Support Israel Might Think about the Election

by Alan M. Dershowitz
August 5, 2012 at 3:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Let me begin by categorically stating that no president has ever completely satisfied me with regard to his policies toward Israel. Every single president, Republican and Democrat alike, has refused to do the right thing when it comes to recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. There may be room for disagreement about some parts of Jerusalem that were captured by Israel during its defensive war with Jordan, but there is no room for disagreement about the status of West Jerusalem, where the Knesset, the Israeli Supreme Court, the Prime Minister's office, and the President's residence have always been located. I have been and will remain critical of any president who wrongly believes that recognizing West Jerusalem as Israel's capital and placing our embassy there will make it more difficult to achieve peace.
I have also disagreed with presidents, both Republican and Democrat, who have suggested that Israel's settlement policy is the major barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The major barrier has always been, and remains, the Palestinians' unwillingness to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, to renounce their absurd claim to a so-called "right of return," and to accept reasonable offers from Israel regarding the borders of the West Bank. Though I have long been opposed to Israel's settlement policy on humanitarian and democratic grounds, I insist that the continuing occupation is largely the result of Palestinian refusal to accept the reasonable compromises offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert. If the Palestinians had been prepared to accept such reasonable compromises, the occupation would end, as would the concerns over humanitarian and democratic issues. The same might be true if the Palestinians were now prepared to negotiate a two-state solution with no preconditions. At bottom, therefore, this dispute is more about land than it is about human rights, because the Palestinians can secure their human rights by being willing to compromise over land, as the Jews did both in 1938, when they accepted the Peel Commission Report, and in 1948 when they accepted the UN Partition Plan.
There have been better and worse presidents when it comes to Israel; some of the best have been Republicans, as have some of the worst. Some of the best have been Democrats, as have been some of the worst. No president has been perfect, and no president has been perfectly bad. (Though Eisenhower may have come close.)
Most presidents have had mixed records, generally supportive of Israel's security. President Reagan, for example, who is often put forward as the model of a pro-Israel president, voted to condemn Israel for its entirely proper decision to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And President Carter, who is put forward as the model of an anti-Israel president, helped bring about a cold peace with Egypt.
The glory of American politics, with regard to support for Israel's security, is that over the years it has been largely bipartisan. It remains so under President Obama.
It is imperative that this election not be turned into a referendum over Israel's security in which a vote for the Republican candidate is seen as a vote in favor of Israel's security, while a vote for the Democratic candidate is seen as a vote against Israel's security. Such a perception could prove disastrous for Israel since it is very possible—indeed in my view likely—that President Obama will be reelected, and that his reelection will not turn on differences between him and Romney over Israel's security. That is why I am so concerned about the approach taken by those who argue that every Jew who supports Israel must vote for Mitt Romney, because President Obama's record on Israel is far from perfect.
When I decide who to vote for in a presidential election, I do not look for perfection. If I did, I would have to stay home. I look for the better candidate based on a wide variety of factors. For example, as a civil libertarian, I was distressed by President Clinton's regressive policies with regard to criminal justice. I strongly opposed his "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I criticized his inaction in Rwanda, and the lateness of his involvement in the former Yugoslavia. But I voted for him enthusiastically because he was so much better than the two candidates against whom he ran.
I remain critical of some of President Obama's policies, as I was of some of Governor Romney's policies when he led my state of Massachusetts. But only when it comes to Israel and President Obama does perfection seem to be the test. This test of perfection is put forward largely by Republicans who would never vote for President Obama, regardless of his views on Israel. There are, to be sure, some Democrats, and even some who voted for Obama the first time, who are now prepared to shift allegiances because of their disapproval of Obama's Israel policies. That is their prerogative in a democracy. But those of us who have a different view should not be labeled as anti-Israel or insufficiently supportive of Jewish values.
I approve of President Obama's policies on the rights of women, gays and racial and religious minorities. I support his health care bill, his approach to immigration and to taxes, and his appointments to the Supreme Court. If I believed that his foreign policies endangered Israel's security, that would weigh heavily on my decision how to vote. But instead I believe that there would be no major differences between a President Obama and a President Romney when it comes to Israel's security.
I will continue to be critical of policies with which I disagree and supportive of policies with which I agree, without regard to the political affiliation of the president. I will vote for the presidential candidate who I believe is best for America and for the world, and in making that calculation I will consider their policies toward Israel because I believe that strong support for Israel's security is good for America and for the world. And I will try my best to see that support for Israel's security remains a bipartisan issue, despite the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some to make such support a wedge issue and the election a referendum that Israel could lose.
This is at least how I, as a liberal Democrat, think about the coming election for President of the United States.
Related Topics:  Israel  |  Alan M. Dershowitz
You are subscribed to this list as vicky13@rogers.com.
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posted by solsticewitch13 at 10:24 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)