Arlene from Israel

Before I discuss those tough times, I want to recommend that you read my Front Page Magazine article critiquing Abbas’s speech at the UN. Just about everything he says is a distortion or outright misrepresentation; calling him on his positions is important. So, after you’ve read it, please share the URL widely. This is no time for reticence; people must be provided with facts:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/abbas-at-the-un-decoding-the-babble/

~~~~~~~~~~

And then, please, prayers for little Zakkai, the almost three year old who has had multiple surgeries on his spine because of a recurring (benign but very aggressive) tumor.

Very recently he had a less invasive technique applied for freezing a tumor nodule that had been discovered. It is not yet known if this technique was fully successful — more will be known when a scan is done. But what is known is that three other small nodules were discovered — that have not been treated yet. (It never seems done, which is the horror of this situation!). What is more, his spine is so damaged by all of the efforts to eradicate the tumors that he’s probably facing spine surgery in a matter of months.

Rephael Zakkai Avraham ben Yakira Avigael

~~~~~~~~~~

Now, as to those tough times…

Toughest of all the problems we face is the very real threat presented by Iran, which is a huge promoter of terrorism, and on the verge of going nuclear.

Iranian president Hasan Rouhani is currently engaged in a new technique – popularly known as the “charm offensive” – for forestalling interference with his nation’s goals.

That offensive rose to a new level on Friday, when, for the first time since 1979, the leaders of the US and Iran spoke with each other by phone (via interpreters). As I am reading it, some feelers were put out by Iran, but the phone call was actually placed by the US. The Iranians are saying the call was strictly the initiative of the US.

Whatever the case, the call is being hailed at the White House as an historic diplomatic breakthrough, with Obama enthusing, after the call, that “I believe we can reach a comprehensive agreement.”

Credit: scmp

But the president is best advised to hold his horses and not yet speak about the “deeper relations” with Iran if a nuclear breakthrough can be achieved. For the cold, hard reality is that while Rouhani is behaving ever so graciously — and ever so differently from his predecessor — there is absolutely no indication of a change in Iranian policy with regard to nuclear development.

~~~~~~~~~~

Enter Prime Minister Netanyahu, who left for the US last night.

Credit: Irishexaminer

Convinced that the Iranian outreach is a “fraud,” he’s coming with a message that Obama is not going to want to hear; he will be delivering it to the president tomorrow, and then to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

On his departure he said:

“I will represent the citizens of Israel, our national interests, our rights as a people, our determination to defend ourselves and our hope for peace.

“I will tell the truth in the face of sweet-talk and the onslaught of smiles.

“One must talk facts and one must tell the truth. Telling the truth is vital for the security and peace of the world and of course for the security of Israel.”

~~~~~~~~~~

To put it simply, my friends, what he is doing takes integrity and guts. He is not going to be well received in New York or Washington, and he knows it. But he’s acting as he believes he must.

Obama is not likely to be very appreciative of someone who is attempting to block his easy way out with Iran (no matter the cost to the world). But one Israeli official commented that Netanyahu is used to playing the role of “spoil-sport”: as he did when he gave warnings about the “Arab Spring.”

According to the Sunday Times (London), Netanyahu plans to tell the General Assembly that Iran already has 219 kilograms (482 pounds) of enriched uranium, which is enough to produce a nuclear weapon. What is more, that “Iran has made significant progress in its nuclear program since the new president Hassan Rouhani was elected.”

The Times further said that Netanyahu is carrying an intelligence dossier for Obama, providing evidence that Iran is stepping up its nuclear program.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/172274

~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, to be a fly on the wall, during the closed door session between Netanyahu and Obama.

Netanyahu has instructed all Israeli ministers and representatives to refrain from speaking on the subject of Iran, as he moves into his difficult diplomatic situation.

His position, about which we will hear more in the next couple of days, is that four criteria must be met by Iran in order for the world to know that it has genuinely abandoned its nuclear development:

Halting all uranium enrichment; removing all enriched uranium from the country; closing the Fordo underground uranium enrichment facility near Qom; and stopping the plutonium track.

~~~~~~~~~~

Last week, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Jarad Zarif met with P5 + 1 (Britain, France, Russia, China, and the US, plus Germany), and then Zarif met separately with his counterpart, John Kerry. There was a whole lot of talk about the encouraging change of tone and the work to be done. But statements made at this meeting give us a clue as to where all of this is heading:

Kerry, in a statement to CBS, spoke about the possibility of Iran demonstrating good faith by opening Fordo for inspection. But wait! that’s a long way from closing down the plant.

While, after the meeting, Zarif addressed Iran’s need for speedy relief from sanctions:

“Of course as we move forward, there has to be removal of sanctions and in the end game there has to be a total lifting of all sanctions and both bilateral sanctions, unilateral sanctions as well as multilateral sanctions and U.N. sanctions and we hope to be able to move in that direction within a short span of time.”

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=12211

What would be the minimum Iran would have to do before Obama would be motivated to begin prematurely reducing American sanctions?

~~~~~~~~~~

Evidence of US gullibility (or, perhaps, readiness to be “had”) abounds. There is, for example, this report by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute):

September 29, 2013 Special Dispatch No.5461

The Success Of The New Iranian Strategy (I) – The U.S. Administration Swallows The Lie About Khamenei’s ‘Fatwa’ Against Nuclear Arms

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7432.htm

“In his address to the U.N. General Assembly (September 24, 2013), U.S. President Barack Obama stated: ‘The Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa [religious ruling] against the development of nuclear weapons.’ In fact, such a fatwa was never issued by Supreme Leader Khamenei and does not exist; neither the Iranian regime nor anybody else can present it.

“The deception regarding ‘Khamenei’s fatwa’ has been promoted by the Iranian regime and its spokesmen for several years. Each time it was mentioned, the ‘fatwa’ was given a different year of issue – for example, 2005, 2007, or 2012 – but the text of the ‘fatwa’ was never presented.

“MEMRI has conducted in-depth research with regard to this ‘fatwa’ and has published reports demonstrating that it is a fiction. The Iranian regime apparently believe that their frequent repetition of the ‘fatwa’ lie will make it accepted as truth. To date, the Europeans refuse to accept it. According to unofficial sources, the legal advisors of the EU3 made an official request to the Iranian regime in 2005 to provide a copy of the ‘fatwa,’ but in vain.

~~~~~~~~~~

What hangs over all of us, here, is the question of whether Israel will in the end act unilaterally against Iran. Time is truly running out.

YNet now reports that:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will tell Washington that Iran’s nuclear program must be dismantled and not merely supervised when he visits the White House on Monday, Israeli media reported.

“According to the diplomatic correspondent of Israel’s Channel One television network, Netanyahu will tell US President Barack Obama that Israel will abandon the diplomatic path on Iran’s nuclear program [i.e., take unilateral military action] if it is not completely dismantled.” (Emphasis added)

Genuine intent, or empty threat?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4434596,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~

The second biggest headache we face is the nonsense regarding “negotiations” with the PA. The negotiations that are farcical in light of the behavior of the Palestinian Arabs, and, even more significantly, in light of Israeli rights — too rarely enunciated — to the land.

The first encouraging news in this regard I’ve seen comes via a report from Maariv, cited by Israel National News:

“Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have arrived at an impasse, according to an evaluation by a senior foreign diplomat who is aiding in the brokering of an agreement between the two, as reported this morning (Sunday) by the Israeli daily, Maariv.

“According to the report, the subject of borders was first raised during the seventh round of talks, which were held before the Jewish holidays. During the discussions, Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s representative, Yitzhak Molcho, refused to consider the exchange of territory in exchange for keeping existing Israeli settlements in their places. Molcho also is reported to have made it very clear to the PA that Israel intends to maintain her territories and communities therein…” (emphasis added)

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/277115

If this is true (have no clue who the “senior foreign diplomat” is), then it is very good news, and negates a host of rumors regarding all that Israel was said to be surrendering. Although I will confess that some of those “rumors” have come from pretty reliable sources.

But in any event the news is hardly all good. Is it ever?

The unnamed official commented that, “Until either the U.S. intervenes, or Netanyahu meets with Abbas – negotiations are futile.”

I’m uncertain what would change if the two met — assuming that their representatives are speaking in their names — and far more uncertain that they would be willing to do so.

What rings bells is the suggestion of US intervention.

~~~~~~~~~~

What I want to do here is consider the possibilities of what we may be looking at down the road with regard to this situation.

Caroline Glick, in her most recent column, addresses the issue of a president of the US who is overtly hostile and pressures Netanyahu unremittingly. She says that both the ten-month freeze on building that Netanyahu instituted and his Bar Ilan speech embracing a “two state solution” came as a result of Obama’s pressure (which includes such threats as a readiness to refuse to veto Security Council resolutions hostile to Israel).

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=327188

I’m not sure if this is good news or bad news. On the one hand, it suggests that – contrary to the belief of many – it appears that Netanyahu is not really ideologically committed to a “Palestinian state.”

But on the other hand, it also suggests that Netanyahu does not have the capacity to buck Obama’s demands.

Glick says Israel cannot always refuse what the Obama wants, and that sometimes it’s wise to give in to him. But, she says, Obama has limits to his power because the American people are solidly pro-American. Israel, she maintains, has to make her case with the American people:

“Netanyahu can set out the international legal basis for Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and explain why Israel’s rights are stronger than the Palestinians’.

“The government can expose the fact that the demographic doomsday scenario that forms the basis of support for the two-state formula is grounded on falsified data concocted by the PLO.

“Demography, like international law, is actually one of Israel’s strategic assets.”

Well, it’s now or never, it seems to me. And there is more to Israel’s case than even the factors she mentions here. We cannot and must not cave to “US intervention” aimed at pushing us out of the land that is ours.

~~~~~~~~~~

I’ve been engaged in dialogue with associates these past few days on the issues raised by Glick – primarily the issue of how much latitude Israel has to say “no.” I’ve never know Caroline Glick to be a shrinking violet and yet she believes that sometimes our prime minister is caught.

It’s important for us to recognize how much goes on behind the scenes and what extraordinary pressure is placed upon Netanyahu – no one should imagine that he makes his decisions lightly.

But it’s equally important for us to have the expectation that our prime minister is there to refuse the American president when he makes demands that are not in our best interest – and for us to communicate that to Netanyahu strongly now: Bravo on your strength in telling the truth on Iran. Now please, also tell the world the whole truth about Israel’s ancient and historical rights in Judea and Samaria and the impossibility of considering the PA a “negotiating partner.”

Glick herself comments on the way in which Menachem Begin, as prime minister, bucked the whole world when attacking the Iraqi nuclear reactor. There are multiple similar examples.

See http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1689 for examples provided by Yoram Ettinger. “Just say NO” is one of Ettinger’s recurring themes.

~~~~~~~~~~

Netanyahu is likely to touch on the subject of “negotiations” in his UN talk. More significantly, he is giving a second Bar Ilan talk in a week, at which he will be announcing new policy.

Rumor has it that he will be saying that a final deal is impossible now and that he will opt for an “interim” Palestinian state without final borders set. That would be very bad news — and I’m aware of persons in the government already alarmed by this possibility. (Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon spoke out against this at a Likud meeting – saying anyone who was for an interim state did not belong in Likud – and was subsequently chastised by the prime minister.)

An “interim” state would create the legality of a Palestinian state, with the leverage that sovereignty would imply for the Palestinian Arabs, without also including “end of conflict” and giving us any assurance about issues of borders or settlements or Jerusalem having been resolved. How could they sign on “end of conflict” when they would not know what their final borders would be? And so, we would have given them a legal reality while we would still be confronting “resistance” of the not so peaceful sort, as well as increased diplomatic pressure. On top of all of this, I would assume that there would be a core region within that “interim” sovereignty that would be off-base for the IDF, and thus permit a breeding ground for terrorism.

We don’t want to see anything of the sort offered, but I do note here that Abbas has categorically said he will not accept such a deal. It is my opinion that he could not go back to his people with this and survive, not when so many are radicalized and disapprove of any negotiations with Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

And then, I end here with one very tentative, but potentially positive, thought: In essence, Netanyahu is saying “no” to Obama now, by refusing to sign on to the charm offensive. He refuses to do this because he sees it as the primary existential issue for Israel – his back has apparently been stiffened by this reality (although the true and final test comes with his readiness to act militarily).

It could yet be – and in truth we do not yet know – that at the end of the day, our prime minister will find he has the courage to refuse a Palestinian state, as well, because of the deprivation of rights and security threat it would represent for Israel. A thought that does not, I confess readily enough, negate the niggling unease I feel. But it is a thought to be considered. And worked for.

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Even before CNN falsely claimed that Iranian President Rouhani had denounced the Holocaust by name during his interview with Christiane Amanpour, Fareed Zakaria was peddling the notion that the Ayatollah of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was an intellectual. In reality, the evidence suggests he is a Russian agent trained by the KGB whose ultimate goal is to get United Nations help in disarming Israel.

Amanpour, CNN’s chief international correspondent, interviewed Rouhani during his trip to the U.N., and portrayed his comments as moderate and groundbreaking.

But the real power in Iran is Ali Khamenei, “the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution” and the designated successor to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Before Rouhani’s visit, in an August 24 commentary, “How to understand Iran’s supreme leader,” Zakaria portrayed Ali Khamenei as “a clever, sophisticated, learned man, who does not seem prone to rash decisions or impulsive actions.”

Zakaria, host of CNN’s flagship international affairs program, “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” was basing his observations on an article by Akbar Ganji in Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. Ganji is an Iranian journalist who was imprisoned and later released by the regime.

“Ganji’s essay, entitled ‘Who is Ali Khamenei?’ provides fascinating insights into the most powerful man in Iran,” Zakaria said. It purports to explain his “worldview.”

What the article leaves out is the fact that Ali Khamenei was “educated” at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, along with the international terrorist “Carlos,” a convert to Islam and to the cause of al-Qaeda. It is now called the People’s Friendship University.

The book, The World was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World, by Christopher M. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, notes, “The University’s first vice-rector and a number of its staff were KGB officers who used the student body as a recruiting ground for Third World agents.” KGB Major Vasili Mitrokhin was a KGB archivist who defected to the West.

In his article titled, “Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei: A secret Russian life?,” scholar Ali Alfoneh of the American Enterprise Institute noted that the Iranian leader’s attendance at this “university” was disclosed by Moscow-funded Russia Today television in a report on the school’s 50th anniversary. Khamenei is mentioned among the university’s “most notable graduates.” Another Russian source, the November 25, 2003 issue of Kommersant, had also presented Khamenei as a People’s Friendship University graduate.

Smith Hempstone, a journalist who became United States ambassador to Kenya, wrote about this in a June 11, 1989 column. He had then predicted that Iran under Khamenei would “look to the Soviet Union” for an opening to the outside world. He wrote that Khamenei was not only a graduate of Patrice Lumumba University, but maintained “close ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization and has a record of supporting Iranian cooperation with the Soviet bloc and radical Third World states against the West.”

The new book, Disinformation, notes evidence that PLO chief Yasser Arafat was a KGB agent, and that the Russians have played a key role in sponsoring Islamic terrorism over the course of decades. The same book, written by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa and Prof. Ronald J. Rychlak, also identifies then-Senator John Kerry, now Obama’s Secretary of State, as a dupe of KGB disinformation operations.

Interestingly, a good source on “Carlos” and his time at Patrice Lumumba University is the book, International Terrorism: Challenge and Response, edited by Benjamin Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister of Israel. Netanyahu will speak to the U.N. on Tuesday and promises to tell the truth about the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

But CNN, which has increasingly emerged as an international “news” agency serving as a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime, can be expected to take issue with Netanyahu.

In order to portray Rouhani as a moderate, CNN had claimed that the Iranian president had condemned by name the “Holocaust.” But he in fact never used the term during the interview with Amanpour.

CNN’s transcript shows him saying:

“I have said before that I am not a historian personally and that when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust as such, it is the historians that should reflect on it.”

He actually said:

“I have said before that I am not a historian and when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of historical events, historians should explain and discuss it.”

CNN claimed its translation was correct, but other sources, such as Politico, consulted a translator who said the term “Holocaust” was not in Rouhani’s remarks.

Curiously, Politico called this omission “minor,” when in fact the difference is that the term “Holocaust” suggests acceptance of the fact of Hitler’s genocide of the Jews. Instead, Rouhani treated the matter as something to be discussed and debated by historians, an effort to minimize it.

In her own follow-up article, “Why Rouhani may be different,” Amanpour blamed former President Bush for the anti-Americanism of the preceding Iranian president, saying, “I can certainly never forget President George W. Bush’s infamous Axis of Evil speech, which ushered in the harsh period and policies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

This is apparently the new version of “blame America first” media coverage. Bush is to blame for the Iranian regime’s anti-Semitism.

In that speech, Bush had said, “Iran aggressively pursues these weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian peoples’ hope for freedom.”

CNN also ran a piece titled, “Why Rouhani deserves praise,” perpetuating the false notion that Rouhani had condemned the Holocaust and faulting Israel for not accepting this Iranian leader as new and different from the rest.

Recognizing reality, at least for a moment, Zakaria concluded that “it remains unclear whether he [Rouhani] has the authority to act on behalf of his government.” He explained, “One has to wonder: If Rouhani does not have the freedom to shake Obama’s hand, does he have the freedom to negotiate a nuclear deal?” This was a reference to Iran turning down a personal meeting between the two leaders.

The failure to shake hands, widely reported as a snub of Obama, was followed by a telephone call from Obama to Rouhani, laughably labeled by Politico as “something solid to celebrate on the foreign policy front” for Obama. Ignoring the fact that Khamenei calls the shots, the publication claimed, “Obama became the first American president in 34 years to speak directly with his Iranian counterpart…”

This is the kind of coverage we are likely to see more of in the weeks and months ahead as Obama and Iran pursue a deal for a “nuclear-free zone” in the Middle East that will put Israel on the defensive.

In fact, this is what Rouhani proposed in his second speech to the U.N. last week to the so-called High Level Meeting of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament. He said, “Almost four decades of international efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East have regrettably failed. Urgent practical steps towards the establishment of such a zone are necessary. Israel, the only non-party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in this region, should join thereto without any further delay. Accordingly, all nuclear activities in the region should be subject to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] comprehensive safeguards.”

As this plan is developing, the price of a nuclear deal with Iran seems to be shaping up as the nuclear disarmament of Israel, a development that would leave the Jewish state more vulnerable to attack.

Whether Khamenei is a Russian agent or not, we can easily see how Russian methods of disinformation and propaganda are already paying dividends for the Iranian regime.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].