Monday, September 10, 2007
About those "Neo-Nazis" the Israeli Media are Upset about:
Chicago Sun-Times,
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/546130,CST-EDT-hunt07.article
Unfair charge vs. Israeli lobby
September 7, 2007
STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley@suntimes.com
It's no secret that the Israeli lobby has a record of success. A number of 
strongly motivated organizations advocate for Israel, a cause that enjoys 
the favorable sentiment as well as financial support of American Jews and 
others. The Israel lobby functions no differently from NARAL, AARP or 
countless other lobbying groups that exercise the First Amendment 
guarantee of the right to petition government.
Yet, no other interest group is so frequently singled out for harsh 
scrutiny, as if somehow laboring on Israel's behalf turns out to be 
working against America's best interests. The latest manifestation of this 
attitude comes in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. 
Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard, 
that is an elaboration on an essay published in the London Review of Books 
last year.
Mearsheimer and Walt concede Israel may have been a strategic asset during 
the Cold War but argue that our continued support is detrimental to U.S. 
standing in the Middle East and helps "inspire a generation of 
anti-American extremists." That's their world view. Forget the dynamics of 
radical Islamism, Arab resentment of the West and other complexities of 
international affairs. Just change U.S. policy toward Israel and the world 
will be a happier place for America. Two intellectuals at two of our best 
universities have reduced international relations to that.
(For the record, their book describes the Sun-Times as one of the 
prominent newspapers in America that "regularly runs editorials that read 
as if they were written by the Israeli prime minister's office." I wrote 
most of the editorials on Israeli-Palestinian issues.)
The two go to lengths to try to rebut any suggestion of anti-Semitism in 
their criticism of the American Israeli Political Action Committee and 
other pro-Israel groups. But you can't read The Israel Lobby without 
realizing that whenever two interpretations exist for some action by 
Israel or its supporters, Mearsheimer and Walt automatically default to 
the darker view.
For instance, a section of their book titled "Camp David Myths" cites 
numerous secondhand sources to disparage the Israeli peace initiative in 
2000 while dismissing the account of Dennis Ross, President Bill Clinton's 
chief Middle East peace negotiator, who was at the center of the Camp 
David effort and wrote the highly praised The Missing Peace: The Inside 
Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace.
But discrediting Camp David is central to advancing Israelphobia. The 
record is clear that in a breath-taking gamble, Israel was willing to push 
the envelope in offering the Palestinians the best deal they're ever 
likely to get, but Yasser Arafat couldn't abandon terrorism for a 
Palestinian state. That was a historically pivotal event that demonstrated 
to any reasonable person the clear peace aspirations of Israel.
Reading this book reminded me of something that happened in the months 
leading up to the Iraq war. In 2003 Mearsheimer was one of nearly 1,000 
American academics signing a letter suggesting Israel would exploit the 
U.S. invasion to expel millions of Palestinians from the West Bank and 
Gaza Strip -- and maybe also Arab Israelis from Israel itself!
It was a preposterous notion then and looks even more ridiculous today. 
Granted, the letter was adapted from one issued by some Israeli academics 
-- proof of the adage about the ivory tower being out of touch with 
society. But the view embraced by Mearsheimer displayed a profound 
misunderstanding and ignorance not only of Israeli society but also of the 
moral culture of American Jews. The notion that 5 million Jews in Israel 
would carry out ethnic cleansing of more than 4 million Palestinians from 
the West Bank, Gaza and Israel, and that Americans Jews would sanction it 
staggers the imagination.
To believe that requires a bias against Israel so deep seated that it 
defies reality. Whether it spills over into anti-Semitism, I'll leave for 
you to judge.
2.   Unmasking the Israeli Left:
http://www.think-israel.org/klein.leftunmasked.html
3.  All of the Israeli mainstream media is hysterical this week about a 
tiny group of so-called "Neo-Nazis," non-Jews who had immigrated from the 
old Soviet Union, in Petah Tikva.  I strongly suspect that they are less 
neo-Nazis than they are street punks and guttersnipes, sort of some other 
Israeli adolescent slimeballs who kill cats and call themselves the "Cult 
of Satan."   In other words, they are obnoxious teenagers badly in need of 
a spanking.  See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3447377,00.html
But be that as it may, why the sudden concern for Neo-Nazis supposedly 
running about Israel, but not a word about the Neo-Nazi tenured traitors 
and post-Zionist academic extremists at Israeli universities, who are at 
least as anti-Semitic as these street urchins.
4.  New List of the Jews for a Second Holocaust can be found here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article2409811.ece
Note how it includes some rabbi impersonators.
5.
September 10, 2007
COMMENTARY
 	'You Have Liberated a People'
By FOUAD AJAMI
September 10, 2007; Page A15
Iraq
"We liberated the Anbar, we defeated al Qaeda by denying it religious 
cover," Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Reisha said with a touch of pride and 
impatience. This is the dashing tribal leader who has emerged as the face 
of the new Sunni accommodation with American power. I had not been ready 
for his youth (born in 1971), nor for his flamboyance. Sir David Lean, the 
legendary director of "Lawrence of Arabia," would have savored 
encountering this man. There is style, and an awareness of it, in Abu 
Reisha: his brown abaya bordered with gold thread, a neat white dishdasha, 
and a matching head-dress. "Our American friends had not understood us 
when they came, they were proud, stubborn people and so were we. They 
worked with the opportunists, now they have turned to the tribes, and this 
is as it should be. The tribes hate religious parties and religious 
fakers."
We were in Baghdad, and the sheikh gave me his narrative. There was both 
candor and evasion in the story he told. Al Qaeda and its Arab jihadists 
had found sanctuary and support in the Anbar; they had recruited the 
"criminal elements" and the "lowly," they had brought zeal and bigotry 
unknown to the Iraqis. Initially welcomed, they began to impose their own 
tyranny. They declared haram (impermissible) the normal range of social 
life. They banned cigarettes, they married the daughters of decent 
families without the permission of their elders. They violated the great 
code of decent society by "shedding the blood of travelers on routine 
voyages." The prayer leaders of mosques were bullied, then murdered.
Abu Reisha and a small group of like-minded men, he said, came together to 
challenge al Qaeda. "We fought with our own weapons. I myself fought al 
Qaeda with my own funds. The Americans were slow to understand our sahwa, 
our awakening. But they have come around of late. The Americans are 
innocent; they don't know Iraq. But all this is in the past, and now the 
Americans have a wise and able military commander on the scene, and the 
people of the Anbar have found their way. In the Anbar, they now know that 
the menace comes from Iran, not from the Americans."
Abu Reisha spoke of the guile of the Iranians: They have schemes over the 
holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, he said. He said the Anbar was in need 
of money, that its infrastructure was shattered. He welcomed a grant of 
$70 million given the Anbar by the government, and was sure that more was 
on the way.
An Iraqi in the know, unsentimental about his country's ways, sought to 
play down the cult of Abu Reisha. American soldiers, he said, won the war 
for the Anbar, but it was better to put an Iraq kafiyyah than an American 
helmet on the victory. He dismissed Abu Reisha. He was useful, he said, 
but should not be romanticized. "No doubt he was shooting at Americans not 
so long ago, but the tide has turned, and Abu Reisha knew how to reach an 
accommodation with the real order of power. The truth is that the Sunnis 
launched this war four years ago, and have been defeated. The tribes never 
win wars, they only join the winners."
Four months ago, I had seen the Sunni despondency, their recognition of 
the tragedy that had befallen them in Baghdad. That despondency had 
deepened in the intervening period. No Arab cavalry had ridden to their 
rescue, no brigades had turned up from the Arabian Peninsula or from 
Jordan, and the Egyptians were far away. Reality in Iraq had not waited on 
the Arabs. The Sunnis of Iraq must now fully grasp that they are on their 
own. They had relied on the dictatorship, and on the Baath, and these are 
now gone; there had, of course, been that brief bet on al Qaeda and on the 
Arab regimes, and it had come to naught.
The one Baghdad politician with the authority, and the place in the 
pecking order, who could pull the Sunnis back from the precipice is Vice 
President Tariq Hashemi. There is a parlor game in the Green Zone, and 
back in Washington, that focuses on Mr. Hashemi. He is at once in the 
circle of power, and outside of it, simultaneously a man of authority and 
of the opposition to this new order. He is a leader of the Islamic Party, 
and a former colonel in the armed forces. He flirts with the government, 
promising to stand by it, then steps back form it. His caution is 
understandable: Three of his siblings have been lost to the terror. He is 
a man of great polish, his English impeccable. There is an aristocratic 
bearing to him.
He would not call the government sectarian, "I am a man of this 
government," he said, when I called on him in a villa that reflected the 
elegance of the man himself. He questioned the government's "performance" 
and its skill. He pointed to the isolation of the government in the region 
as evidence of its inability to rule. "I don't question the right of this 
government to rule. I know I am in the minority in Parliament, I know that 
they have the largest bloc in our legislature. But ability is an 
altogether different matter. A more able government would reach an 
accommodation with Syria, with the other Arab governments and with Turkey. 
The Syrians may harbor fantasies about the return of the Baathists to 
power in Baghdad, but they are eager for the benefits of trade and 
commerce, and their enmity could be eased."
It is late in the hour for the Sunni Arabs, but the age of the 
supremacists among them has passed. There is realism in Mr. Hashemi, and a 
knowledge of the ways of the world. Baghdad's Sunnis need him, if only 
because their crisis is deeper than that of the Sunnis of the Anbar.
The loss of Iraq to the Persians is a scarecrow. A great, historic 
question has been raised by Iraq: Can the Shiite Arabs govern, or are they 
born and eternal oppositionists? For a man at the center of this great 
dispute, for the storm swirling around him and the endless predictions of 
his imminent ouster from power, there is an unhurried quality about Nouri 
al-Maliki. There is poise and deliberateness in him. The long years in 
exile must account for the patience. He had waited long for the 
deliverance of his people; the time in Syrian exile must have been dreary. 
The Daawa Party had been the quintessential movement of the underground, 
it had suffered grievously, and sons and brothers of "martyrs" fill its 
ranks. The men arrayed around Mr. Maliki are resigned to their isolation 
in the Arab constellation of power. They had been forged by a history of 
disinheritance. Mr. Maliki is not "America's man in Iraq." He had not been 
part of the American-sponsored opposition groups prior to the war of 
liberation. He is a man of the Shiite heartland; his peers in the Shiite 
political class are men of Baghdad, familiar with Western languages and 
ways. He is through and through a man of his culture, his Arabic exquisite 
and melodic. He takes in stride the sorts of things said about him by 
American officials and legislators. He is keenly aware of the debt owed 
America by his country -- and by his own community, to be exact.
"We may differ with our American friends about tactics, I might not see 
eye to eye with them on all matters. But my message to them is one of 
appreciation and gratitude," he said. " To them I say, you have liberated 
a people, brought them into the modern world. They used to live in fear 
and now they live in liberty. Iraqis were cut off from the modern world, 
and thanks to American intervention we now belong to the world around us. 
We used to be decimated and killed like locusts in Saddam's endless wars, 
and we have now come into the light. A teacher used to work for $2 a 
month, now there is a living wage, and indeed in some sectors of our 
economy, we are suffering from labor shortages."
Though Mr. Maliki had come to power with the support of Moqtada al-Sadr's 
bloc of deputies in the parliament, he has given a green light for major 
operations against the Mahdi Army. He walks a fine, thin line between the 
American military and civilian authorities, and the broad Shiite coalition 
that sustains him. There is stoicism in him about the dysfunctional 
cabinet over which he presides; its membership was dictated by the 
political parties that had picked the ministers. Three groups of ministers 
had suspended their participation in the work of the government. He would 
not be bullied, he said, he had lists of highly qualified technocrats 
eager to take part in a new cabinet; he would stick it out.
"I don't believe that there is a military solution for our conflicts; we 
have to rehabilitate the troublemakers. We don't arrest Baathists solely 
because they are Baathists, and the same must hold for those who belong to 
the Mahdi Army," Mr. Maliki said.
He had courted the notables of the Anbar, he didn't say, but I had been 
told that heavy subsidies had been made by his government to the Anbar 
tribal leaders; he had gone to the Anbar with substantial sums that had 
been paid to the sheikhs. But he looks with a jaundiced eye on arming 
Sunni "volunteers." He dreads this, and says that this would be a 
disaster: "We will have come out of a hole only to descend into a deep 
well." National reconciliation -- the sword of Damocles held over his head 
by his American detractors -- is not easy in a country "without a history 
of dialogue and give-and-take. This may require two or three years. Grant 
us time, and you will be proud of what you have helped bring forth here."
The historical dilemma of his country was there for everyone to see: "For 
the Kurds, this is the time of taking, for the Shiite, this is the time of 
restitution, for the Sunnis this is the time of loss. But ours is one 
country, and it will have to be shared."
Mr. Maliki recoils from the charge that his is a sectarian government; he 
notes with satisfaction that Gen. David Petraeus had exonerated the 
government of that charge. The Mahdi Army had won the war for Baghdad. 
This has had the paradoxical and beneficial outcome of making that militia 
unneeded and parasitical. It has given this government a measure of 
independence from the Sadrists.
"Historically we are winning." The words were those of Vice President Adel 
Abdul Mahdi. This is a scion of Baghdad Shiite aristocracy, at ease with 
French and English, a man whose odyssey had taken him from Marxism to the 
Baath, then finally to the Islamism of the Supreme Islamic Council. "We 
came from under the ashes, and now the new order, this new Iraq, is taking 
hold. If we were losing, why would the insurgents be joining us?" He had 
nothing but praise for the effort that had secured the peace of Baghdad: 
"Petraeus can defend the surge," he said. "He can show the 'red zones' of 
conflict receding, and the spread of the 'blue zones' of peace. Six months 
ago, you could not venture into the Anbar, now you can walk its streets in 
peace. There is a Sunni problem in the country which requires a Shiite 
initiative. The Sunni problem is power, plain and simple. Sunni society 
grew addicted to power, and now it has to make this painful adjustment."
Mr. Mahdi was not apologetic about what Iraq offers the United States by 
way of justification for the blood and treasure and the sacrifice: "Little 
more than two decades ago, in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution and 
the Lebanon War of 1982, the American position in this region was exposed 
and endangered. Look around you today: Everyone seeks American protection 
and patronage. The line was held in Iraq; perhaps America was overly 
sanguine about the course of things in Iraq. But that initial optimism now 
behind us, the war has been an American victory. All in the region are 
romancing the Americans, even Syria and Iran in their own way."
For the Sunni-ruled states in the region, he counseled an acceptance of 
the new Iraq. He looked with pride on his country, and on his city. He saw 
beyond Baghdad's daily grief. "Baghdad is the heart of the Arab world, 
this was the hothouse of Arab philosophy and science and literature."
Peace has not come to Iraq, the feuds have not fully burned out, but the 
center holds. The best of Iraq's technocrats, deputy prime minister Barham 
Saleh, spoke of the new economic vitality of the provinces, of the 
recovery of regions once lost to darkness and terror. I brought back with 
me from Iraq a reminder that life renews in that land.
I attended the judicial tribunal that is investigating the crimes of 
Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, better know as Chemical Ali, 
and 14 other defendants being tried for deeds they committed back in 1991, 
in the aftermath of the first American war against Saddam Hussein. 
Chemical Ali had been one of the most dreaded "roosters" of the regime, a 
haughty killer. His attire was either Western suits or military uniforms. 
On the afternoon I went to watch his trial, he had shuffled in, leaning on 
a cane, all dressed in the traditional Arab way. The courtroom setting was 
one of immense decorum: a five-member panel of judges in their robes, the 
defense team on one side, the prosecutors on the other.
A lone witness, his face hidden from view behind a simple curtain, told of 
the cruelty he had seen a generation ago. He told of Chemical Ali 
executing people point-blank, after three Baathist women singled them out; 
he told of the burial of the victims on the grounds of a vocational 
school. He stood firm, the simple witness, when Chemical Ali tried to 
bully and ridicule him. He had no doubt about the memory of that day. He 
recalled Chemical Ali, he said, in his olive military uniform, and he 
correctly identified the rank of Chemical Ali. A policeman distributed 
bottled water to the defendants who once literally owned and disposed of 
the fate of this country. They were now being given the justice denied 
their victims.
In our fashion, we have our very American "metrics" and "benchmarks" with 
which we judge this war and the order in Iraq we had midwifed. For the 
war's critics, there can be no redemption of this war, and no faith that 
Iraq's soil could bring forth anything decent or humane. Today two men of 
extraordinary talent and devotion, our military commander and our 
ambassador, will tell of the country they know so well. Doubtless, they 
will tell of accomplishments and heartbreak. We should grant them -- and 
that distant country -- the hearing they deserve.
Mr. Ajami teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He is author of "The 
Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq," and 
is the recipient of the Bradley Prize.
  	URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118938716117822176.html
5.  The seditious New Israel Fund gets some new megabucks from teh Ford 
Foundation to help undermine Israel's existence:
Ford Foundation gives NIF $20 million
mail E-mail News Brief
mail Tell the Editors
Published: 09/07/2007
The Ford Foundation gave its second $20 million grant to the New Israel 
Fund.
Ford announced the grant to the Israeli civil rights group on Thursday. 
The New Israel Fund has spent some $200 million dollars over the past 28 
years to fund organizations that promote democracy and human equality in 
Israel. Its primary causes in recent years have been rights for Israeli 
Arabs, women and the poor.
This Ford Foundation gave another $20 million grant to the Fund in 2003, 
creating the Ford Israel Fund. The Ford fund has three stated goals, 
according to the NIF Web site: Promoting civil and human rights in Israel, 
promoting equality for the Palestinian minority in Israel and promoting a 
peacful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has financed 40 
organizations.
.The New Israel Fund is intensely gratified by the renewal of our 
partnership with the Ford Foundation,. said Peter Edelman, the NIF 
chairman. .Our combined expertise and shared commitment to the values of 
social justice has had a tremendous impact on Israeli civil society..
(One can only imagine how many millions it will take to undo the NIF's 
damage!)
6.  It's all Israel's fault of course......UK MP: Israel to Blame for 
Global Warming
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2007/09/uk-mp-israel-to.html
7.  The Global Warming Hustle
by Jonathan Rosenblum
Yated Ne'eman
August 29, 2007
This item is available on the Jewish Media Resources website, at
http://www.jewishmediaresources.org/article/1123
8.  This clown is a regular on all the "anarchist" web sites.  Wanna give 
him a hand?
http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=6411437
9. The ZOA's Middle East report is at
http://wustradio.francelink.com:8080/ramgen/wust/wed_phi1201.ra