Lies, damn lies, and statistics

I surf the web, as the expression goes, quite a bit. Not that long ago [Oct. 4, 2007, actually], Amitai Etzioni posted an interesting and significant item in The Huffington Post , and it seemed worth sharing with you now.
"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics." A quote from Mark Twain? Perhaps. You could look it up. In any event, the saying is relevant, and is perhaps as good as Etzioni's own headline, "Small lies, big lies, and the Israel lobby." Of course what he is talking about is as much the "anti-Israel lobby" as the Israel lobby. He's talking about the use - that is, the misuse, the abuse - of information in the service of those who are attacking the bogeyman of the "Israel lobby." He's talking about Mearsheimer and Walt.
Amitai's personal history is worth knowing, by the way. Makes me want to read more.
According to the Wikipedia entry on him, "[h]aving fled to Palestine from Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Etzioni studied with Martin Buber at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In 1958 he received his PhD in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley, where he completed his degree in the record time of 18 months. He was a professor of sociology at Columbia University for twenty years, serving as chair of the department for part of his time there. He joined the Brookings Institution as a guest scholar in 1978 and then went on to serve as Senior Advisor to the White House on domestic affairs from 1979-1980. In 1980 he was named the first University Professor at The George Washington University, where he currently serves as the director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies." {Never heard of Communitarianism? See here.] Last introductory thought: after reading the item below, take a look at Etzioni's own blog, especially his two follow-ups to the many comments he's received to the item below.
-- Arieh Lebowitz

There are quite a few who have taken for granted the veracity of claims that the Israel lobby is all-powerful on the grounds that a new book making this case has been written by two highly regarded scholars; John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, respectively. In fact, the quantitative data they cite amount to (at best) a very thin reed on which to hang such a mighty claim. I will donate my house to anyone who can find a half respectable social science publication that would publish what these two present as evidence.
The authors write:

In 1997, Fortune Magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March of 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington 'muscle rankings'.

In fact, the Fortune survey was not made of Congress members and their staffs, but of 2,165 "Washington insiders" (chosen by two panels whose membership has not been disclosed), a group that includes an unknown number of congressional members and staffers, among an unknown number of others. More importantly, in both surveys roughly six out of every seven persons asked, i.e., most of those asked, did not respond . The authors' claim that members of Congress and their staffs ranked the Israel lobby higher than many others is based on 15% of those who were surveyed. No respectable social scientist (and many unrespectable ones) would dare to suggest that they have a sense of what any given group holds on the basis of the responses from such a small minority.
Moreover, social science has numerous procedures to correct for such a deficit of responses. One can return to the same group and elicit more answers, draw another sample, or study the differences between those who did and did not respond--and adjust the conclusions accordingly. None of these methods were employed here.
The number of people who responded is so small that an additional vote or two, or a change of mind by one or two respondents, would have significantly altered the results of the survey. The total number of the National Journal responses -- which did survey only law makers -- is 73. (Congress, the last time I checked, had 535 members and at least 17,000 staff members). The National Federation of Independent Business was ranked first and the National Rifle Association second--with nine and eight votes, respectively! In third place, ranked as the most powerful by seven members, was the US Chamber of Commerce. The AARP and AIPAC were each given the nod by five members. The oil companies and the arms manufacturers were not on the list of those to be ranked. I wonder if any student at GWU could get away with a term paper that held that such small numbers support a generalization about any given population or the ranking of a set of groups.
Some will say that all of this is nothing other than typical social science hair splitting. But, these data go to the heart of the matter. Is the Israel lobby just one among a whole slew of lobbies, each pulling Washington its own way? Is it one of the more effective ones? Or can it trump all the others? What the data show is surprisingly little. The book stands much more on accusatory anecdotes than, as the authors' claim, on evidence.

NY Times: Biased in favor of Israel? Part 2

I’ve decided to respond to Ted via a new posting rather a comment. He has vociferously contested my first entry on this topic, with three comments. I'm sorry that Ted prefers to remain anonymous; he refused my invitation to engage in an e-mail discussion.

The argument that all settlements beyond the Green Line are illegal is a powerful one, which I tend to agree with. But what people like Ted miss is that it is "an argument" (and there are counter-arguments, even if he and I don't buy them).

The application of all law, from the issuing of a ticket for jay walking to applying the 4th Geneva Convention, is subject to political decisions and the discretion of the pertinent legal and law enforcement authorities. International law (especially dealing as it does with sovereign states) is, of necessity, even more subject to politics and discretion than local and national laws.

I certainly don't think it would be wrong for the NY Times to make more references to the 4th Geneva Convention than it does; I wish it made more references to the Geneva Accord/Initiative (and to the Meretz party for that matter), both of which Ted disdains. But to denounce the NY Times for not echoing our exact views is to confuse a general newspaper with a partisan publication.

Re Ted's crack about Meretz, the Geneva Initiative and the settlement blocs: Meretz is not in love with the settlement blocs (where most West Bank settlers reside within a few kilometers of the old 1967 boundaries), but unlike Ted, Meretz is trying to actually end the conflict rather than prove itself to be absolutely right (or "left"). Aside from their illegality and everything else, for Israel to remove all the settlements and all 400,000+ settlers (counting not only those in the West Bank, but the 150,000 or so who inhabit the newer neighborhoods of Jerusalem built in formerly Jordanian territory) would likely be both politically and physically impossible. It took 50,000 IDF soldiers to remove 8,000 settlers in Gaza, along with their 7,000 rowdy supporters. Do the math: Israel does not have the half million to 1.5 million soldiers required to remove them all, nor would it be able to command the soldiers to do so (if it had such numbers) without risking civil war.

But the Palestinian Authority isn't even suggesting that neighborhoods like East Talpiot be abandoned. It is rightfully complaining about plans to expand Har Homa or Maaleh Adumim.

The value of the Geneva Initiative is that it provides a model for a mutual agreement that carefully balances the needs and rights of both sides. It is not about one side dictating terms to the other. It offers hope that the two sides can withdraw from their most hardened positions— enough to permit a new reality to take hold. But it’s not a magic bullet and it won’t be easy. It disturbs me but is not surprising that an absolutist, like Ted, would have difficulty with something like Geneva, which is all about compromise.

Making Hamas look ‘moderate’?

Sad news from Israel is encapsulated in a headline from today’s (Dec. 24) NY Times : "Israel Rejects Hamas Overture, and Presses Housing Construction." Prime Minister Olmert has rebuffed a Hamas proposal for a cease-fire, that had been under consideration and was supported by some in Olmert’s cabinet.

Israel’s military has been on a roll of late, successfully attacking terrorists in Gaza, especially leading elements of Islamic Jihad. This is in line with Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense and a reaction to the ongoing threat of rocket attack; approximately 2,000 have struck Israel in 2007, intending with some success to disrupt everyday life and inflict casualties and property damage on civilians. But a legitimate question is when and how to recognize Israel’s triumph in striking back. Shouldn’t the desired end result be that of Hamas crying "uncle" and for Israel to at least fully investigate the sincerity and practicality of implementing such a cease-fire?

Hope totters somewhere between slim and none in Defense Minister Barak’s reported suggestion that "if Hamas successfully stopped the rocket fire, Israel might reciprocate. Mr. Barak was quoted by the Israeli news media as telling the cabinet, ‘If they stop firing, we won’t be opposed to quiet.’ "

The same article reported an unhelpful response from Hamas that "The Palestinian people have a right to continue resistance."

This Times article also reported that "a Housing and Construction Ministry budget proposal for 2008 included plans to build 500 apartments in Har Homa, a Jewish development in a hotly disputed part of East Jerusalem, and 240 apartments in Maale Adumim, the largest Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. ..."

The government spokesman, Mark Regev, then denied that these were imminent plans, but shouldn’t it be obvious by now that a halt to settlement expansion is essential to pushing forward to a peace agreement? This builds trust for Israel among Palestinians and helps moderate Palestinians politically in mustering support for a negotiated peace with Israel.

The bad news jives with MJ Rosenberg’s latest column from the Israel Policy Forum, bemoaning Israel’s pattern of not seizing every opportunity for peace, along with that of Arab parties (famously stated by Israel’s great orator-diplomat, Abba Eban– at Arab expense only– as "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity").

Yossi Beilin steps down as Meretz leader

With the announcement by Yossi Beilin, Dec. 16, that he will not run for reelection (March 18, 2008) as Meretz party chair, Meretz USA and others are just beginning to digest the news. Readers may link to our Website for a Meretz USA statement of tribute and a letter from Beilin discussing his decision. In the meantime, Daniel Levy, a close associate of Beilin since having worked together on the Geneva Initiative, writes in his blog about his "mentor":

The Return of Yossi Beilin the Statesman?

One of my political mentors, someone I worked with in and out of the government in Israel, and a friend, Yossi Beilin, announced yesterday that he was standing down as leader of the Meretz party and withdrawing from the party leadership election to be held in March. Beilin explained that he would be supporting Haim Oron, known to everyone as Jumas, in the leadership race (against two other Meretz MKs: Ran Cohen and Zehava Gal’on).

"The ideological closeness and friendship with Jumas [Oron] dictated that I not run against him. I have had a principle for many years. I will not run against a comrade in my political path," said Beilin. Most of the commentary has pointed out that Beilin did not look to be in a strong position in the leadership race, had not captured the hearts of his new Meretz party colleagues, and was unlikely to increase the party’s Knesset representation. ...

There was very little time for Beilin, the daring statesman–brilliant, creative, and farsighted. One used to frequently hear the refrain that "What Beilin is planning today, Israel will be doing in 5 to 10 years," for too long that quotation has been gathering dust. In his Foreign Ministry days Beilin led the belated effort to have Israel sever its close relationship with apartheid South Africa and pushed for the establishment of a governmental department to coordinate overseas development assistance.

Beilin is of course remembered for initiating the back-channel dialogue that was later adopted by Itzhak Rabin and became the Oslo Declaration of Principles, and for championing the withdrawal from Lebanon that was eventually embraced by Ehud Barak and implemented in 2000. Other Beilin projects have not yet been realized to the detriment of the Israel he has spent all his life working for, and the region which he understands we need to be a part of. These plans include the Beilin-Abu Mazen Agreement and The Geneva Initiative, both of which I had the honor to work with Yossi on, and are well worth revisiting.

Often forgotten is that Beilin has also intensely involved himself with the subject of Israel’s relationship with the Jewish diaspora and, prolific author that he is, Yossi even wrote a book on this subject, "His Brother’s Keeper." The now well-established Taglit or Birthright program, so beloved to Jewish communities and the establishment, was originally the brainchild of guess who? YB.

Hopefully, the removal of constraints of party leadership will re-release the tireless thinker and unstoppable private statesman in Yossi Beilin. Beilin himself stated in his resignation announcement that "I will now invest more than I have in the last four years in the peace process. I have never hidden the fact that there is nothing more urgent in my eyes than grasping the opportunity for peace. I now feel a particular sense of urgency." In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Beilin pressed the need for a ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip, a move that may have been a harbinger of the kind of efforts Beilin will now pursue. ...

As for Jumas, a colleague from the Geneva Initiative, a wonderful man and someone basically unknown in the US, more on him in a future post. One may read Levy’s entire posting online.

NY Times: Biased in favor of Israel?

On Tuesday, Dec. 11, I attended a debate at the Alwan Middle East (basically Arab) arts center in downtown Manhattan, about how the New York Times covers the Israeli-Arab conflict. Sponsored by the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association, it pitted Howard Friel (the co-author of two books published by Verso, which argues a far left-wing critique of how the NY Times "misrepresents" US foreign policy) against Ethan Bronner, deputy foreign editor for the Times and designated to be its Jerusalem bureau chief in the spring.

Despite the heavily pro-Arab leanings of the audience, Bronner defended the Times quite ably. Basically Friel argued that the Times doesn’t use the only fair objective criteria for covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would be the standard of international law. To Friel, the be all and end all of the issue is that Israel violates international law (specifically, Article 49 [paragraph 6] of the Fourth Geneva Convention) by the building of settlements and other structures (such as the security barrier) on occupied Arab lands in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. Bronner does not dispute this and cited frequent editorials and articles in the Times that criticize Jewish settlement activity in these areas.

But Friel expects a certain ideological purity and political engagement that would not be suitable for a general newspaper. I've always found the NY Times imperfect but fair-minded and well-intended in its coverage, which is why it's subject to such strident and emotional attacks from extremes on both sides.

Friel was arguing the conflict instead of looking at what is proper journalism. Like Bronner and Friel, I too believe that settlements are illegal under international law, but articles become dry repetitive propaganda if they constantly repeat this refrain instead of covering real news as Bronner surveyed from examples of recent NY Times coverage.

Friel also knows nothing about the Israeli government. He evidently has no idea that the weak coalition framework that defines Israel's proportional representation system produces governments in which ministers are free to spout errant nonsense that has nothing to do with actual government policy. Hence Lieberman has views that are generally deplorable, but he has in fact also endorsed a two-state solution, including the incorporation of Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem into a Palestinian state. He may be too fond of the perks of power as a minister to oppose an agreement.

And, contrary to Friel’s assertion (and a further example of his arguing about the conflict instead of journalism), Israel has not rejected the Arab League/Saudi peace plan; that's what's on the table in the negotiations inaugurated at Annapolis. In fact, sources close to us say that a Geneva-style agreement is in the offing, if only Olmert and Abbas would have the political courage to follow through. Click for Part 2.

Anguish in the shadow of Zion

The article below illustrates the anguish of many American Jews whose support of Israel has been based on what the author calls "the unquestioned narrative about Israel's righteousness, its humane practices, and the moral high ground upon which its policies are based," and who are rudely confronted with the reality of the occupation of the West Bank, its impact on Palestinians, as well as on Israelis.

For some, this dichotomy is something new and very alarming. For others -- including most of the people associated with Meretz USA and its predecessor organizations -- our narrative has for decades been more complex, our opposition to and understanding of the ongoing human toll of the continued occupation is nothing new.

I'm sharing this article in the hopes that it will help underscore the importance of a critical Zionism, rather than an unquestioning one, in which the values that we bring to bear on the rest of the world also are brought to bear on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and should shape - not destroy - our commitment to a peaceful, democratic, Jewish state of Israel.

It is perhaps ironic that I "discovered" the article below on the website of Indian Muslims, "Indian Muslim News and Information," based in Jupiter, Florida. It originally was written for and appeared in the Common Ground News Service website, and also on the Network of Spiritual Progressives website. The author sounds like she should become involved with Meretz USA -- but she seems quite busy as it is!

In the shadow of Zion by Rabbi Tirzah Firestone Dec. 13, 2007

This past year I have had to face the underbelly of my love of Zion. Like so many American Jews, I had been raised with the unquestioned narrative about Israel's righteousness, its humane practices, and the moral high ground upon which its policies are based. The painful deconstruction of these beliefs began with a journey through the Occupied Territories, where I encountered the shocking effects of my people's fear.

I saw a land sliced by concrete and barbed wire, a snaking wall 450 miles long. Yes, there has been good reason for fear—genuine security threats that have come through the gates and checkpoints. Nevertheless, I found myself questioning the holding back of women in labor, children in need of emergency blood transfusions. I heard stories, not only from Arabs, but from Israeli soldiers who struggled to "carry out orders" while innocent women and children died before their eyes.

In Judaism, saving and defending life trumps almost all else. But does this only apply to Jewish life? I found myself wondering how this ethic measures up against the negative effects of the wall—the many Arab villages lacking potable water, farmers denied access to their land, the uprooted olive orchards and confiscated fields…Could this possibly be within the moral code of our people?

Most American Jews visit Israel, see the wall, stop and say: Whew, glad that's there! We are told the wall keeps us safe from terrorists. The reality of that safety is unquestionable. But few people ask: What's on the other side? What we Jews see from the super highways is quite lovely in places—decorative panels of wood and brass. But on the other side lies the shadow of Zion: cement and razor wire; graffiti-art (a majestic dove caught in barbed wire, a horned, ghoulish Statue of Liberty, women crying); words that made my eyes stream: "Don't they remember the Warsaw Ghetto?" "We are not all terrorists!" and closer to the settlements, "Death to the Arabs."

This wall was prompted by cumulative terror, by possible explosions at any bus stop or café, by the horror of people like you and me, on their way to work or having dinner with their family, being blown up. Yes, suicide bombings have significantly lessened since this wall was built. Yet it seemed clear, as I went daily from the territories into Israel, that many Israelis know little or nothing of the humiliation, loss of morale, and loss of life that occurs behind the wall. It is understandable that our brothers and sisters in Israel want to get on with normal life, and they need security to do so. But how can this situation really produce long-term security?

Traveling through this territory, seeing these things, I found myself whispering over and over: What is happening to us? How did we get here? Once we were victims, now we are seen in the world as the aggressor, the oppressor who bulldozes orchards, dictates lives, and spells ruin for others. God forbid this be the new image of Jew! God forbid this be our new narrative!
I was brought to the edge of my faith witnessing this formidable challenge to our ethics. While genuine mortal threats must be taken seriously, we must confront another, more insidious enemy that comes from within. It lurks in our blind spot, and for this reason is more dangerous to our security than any outer enemy. That enemy is our fear, and we are in danger of being held hostage by it.

Like our ethics, fear has been inculcated into us Jews. It lives in our cells, full of real trauma and suffering, centuries of expulsions and pogroms, ghettos and methodical extermination.
And to some degree, fear is wise. As Hannah Arendt said, fear is an emotion indispensable to survival.

But when fear threatens the principles upon which our existence is based, when fear for security holds our ethics hostage, then fear becomes the sovereign power in our lives, and justifies any action.

What an incredible metaphor this "security barrier" is for our own lives! We all carry fears and build walls that shape the landscape of our days. But at what price? Walls keep us safe, but lonely; highly functioning, yet disconnected; protected, but also numb. And the same goes for nations as for individuals. The danger of our barriers is a kind of sclerosis of the soul, a deadening of our humanity.

It's risky for Jewish leaders to criticize the wall and Israel's occupation—most submit to consensual silence, another kind of deadly wall. But we must choose: Risking one's reputation or not speaking and risking one's soul?

I pray we be given the courage to break down the walls of cement and silence, that we might reach beyond our fear and return to our simple humanity—therein lies our greatness, therein lies the redemption of the Zionist dream.

Lurie: Har Homa back in the news

The following is most of J. Zel Lurie’s column prepared for the Dec. 18 issue of the Jewish Journal of South Florida:

Har Homa (meaning, "the mountain of the wall") is back in the news after a 10-year hiatus. Har Homa used to be a green-covered hill in the middle of a group of dusty Arab villages between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. It was annexed to Jerusalem in 1967 when Moshe Dayan was delineating the new frontier of Israel. To the south of Har Homa lay the West Bank, which he planned to return to Jordan.

Har Homa was a paradise of trees providing shade. It was the keystone of the green belt around Jerusalem created by Mayor Teddy Kolleck. The green belt remained stuck on the map as most of it was private Arab land and Teddy did not have the money to buy it. But the Palestinian owners could never get building permits, so many built illegally.

Har Homa was owned two thirds by Jews, including the Jewish National Fund, which had bought building plots before the country was partitioned. The southern hillside was owned by residents of the neighboring Arab village and there were a couple of antiquities owned by churches.
About a dozen years ago, an enterprising Jewish developer secured an option on both the Jewish and Arab owned land and hired an architect to make a plan that would preserve many of the trees while building Jewish and Arab neighborhoods and community centers and other amenities.

This sensible environmental-kosher proposal was rejected by the Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Ten years ago, immediately after Netanyahu signed the Hebron agreement with Yasser Arafat, Netanyahu announced that a massive neighborhood of 6,500 homes would replace the trees of Har Homa.

The Clinton government in Washington had hoped that the Hebron agreement would b e followed by other steps towards Israel-Palestinian peace. Instead a protest tent was erected outside Har Homa, which was visited by foreign notables and their cameramen. Arafat went to Washington to complain to President Clinton. Dennis Ross brought a letter from Clinton to Netanyahu. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright ignored the seven-hour time difference and awakened U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk in his Herzliyah home at 5.30 a.m. She instructed him to give Netanyahu a firm message that constructing a new neighborhood at Har Homa "undermines everything we are trying to do."

The UN Security Council was convened. The United States vetoed the resolution on the grounds that it was unbalanced. The protest tent was dismantled and everyone went home.
In 10 years, 4,000 Jews were settled in Har Homa, an isolated enclave surrounded on three sides by Palestinians.

I passed by Har Homa last spring. I saw a forbidding wall on top of which were apartments. I didn’t see any trees.

Today Har Homa is in the news again. Last Tuesday, the day before the first scheduled meeting of Palestinian and Israeli negotiators agreed on at Annapolis, the government of Ehud Olmert trotted out Har Homa. The Minister of Housing issued a tender for the construction of 307 new homes at Har Homa.

Arabs and Jews protested. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator said it sabotaged Annapolis. Americans for Peace Now pointed out that Har Homa is not part of Jerusalem’s urban structure. It is an isolated quarter in the middle of Palestinian villages and it is an obstacle to achieving peace on Jerusalem." said the Peace Now statement.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the first official meeting of Palestinian and Israel officials since 2001, the Palestinians blasted the construction at Har Homa as contrary to the freeze on settlements promised in the Road Map.

The Israelis talked about the continued rocket and mortar firing from Gaza. The Road Map, they said, did not apply to Har Homa since it had been part of Israel since 1967. It was noted, however, that no country has ever recognized the annexation to Jerusalem of Har Homa and 28 West Bank villages in whole or in part.

There won’t be a second meeting until after the Palestinian donors conference in Paris scheduled for December 17. The Palestinians are asking for $1.8 billion, two-thirds for their budget and one-third for business development.

An agreement is still possible but the settler opposition is rich and powerful. Expansion of Har Homa is chicken feed compared to what the settlers will unleash in the coming months.

April Rosenblum: one of ‘Forward 50'

First of all, mazal tov to April Rosenblum for being listed as one of The Forward’s "Forward 50," of American Jews who made their mark in 2007. She is someone I’ve come to know slightly from our involvement in the Facing A Challenge Within conference in Newark in 2006, for left-wing activists concerned about anti-Semitism within the left. I have a copy of her 32-page pamphlet about antisemitism on my PC’s desktop and I may write something of a critique, particularly regarding her harsh, dogmatic opposition to Zionism. But first, let me give April her due by posting The Forward’s blurb on her, from its website:

In recent years, many Jews have been alarmed by an apparently rising tide of antisemitism on the left. April Rosenblum, 27, a Philadelphia-based progressive activist, is also concerned about antisemitism. But she's skeptical of the community's response. While studying at Temple University, she saw fellow Jews responding to antisemitism in ways she thought were ineffective and counterproductive, circling the wagons and alienating potential allies. She spent two years doing research and facilitating focus groups with non-Jewish activists to discuss antisemitism.

This past April, on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Rosenblum published the fruits of her labor: a 32-page illustrated pamphlet titled "The Past Didn't Go Anywhere: Making Resistance to Antisemitism Part of All of Our Movements," which can be downloaded free online (www.thepast.info). Deploying terms like "oppression," "ruling classes" and "liberation" (alongside harsh critiques of American and Israeli policies), the pamphlet is a sustained argument about what antisemitism is and why it should be opposed — all written in a language her target audience of self-identified radicals and progressives understands. Her pamphlet has had a warm reception in left-wing circles; one activist called it "a must-read" and another said it "needs to be studied and the lessons applied."

Next, Rosenblum plans to work with Jewish college students to develop better ways of responding to antisemitism. By day she contributes her energies to Philadelphia's National Museum of American Jewish History, organizing programs for young adults.

More on Iran and the NIE

Just in case you were inclined to rest easy over the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released a few days ago that announces "with high confidence" that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and could not obtain a nuclear weapon at least until 2010-2015, you might take a look at last Thursday’s op-ed in the NY Times. And you can read this from our skeptical friend, Ami Isseroff. I hope that these doubts are ill-placed, but who can say? I mean that question literally, WHO can say— with a really high level of confidence?

It disturbs me that Israel is almost alone against the world in feeling these doubts, but the rest of the world is not the target of hate that Israel is. I hope the NIE is accurate and that somebody explains this to the Israelis in convincing terms. Besides, do the Israelis have a unilateral military option?

In speaking with us yesterday at the Meretz USA board meeting, Meretz MK Avshalom (Abu) Vilan indicated that Iran has 58 nuclear-related facilities. Laying out the scenario without advocating such action, he sees a sustained air campaign of months, necessitating air forces ten times the size of Israel’s for this purpose. Even stormin’ Norman Podhoretz believes that only the US has the military capacity (via air power) to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Conference call(s) with Yossi Beilin

On Monday, Dec. 3, we had 30 people on the line with Meretz party chair and MK, Yossi Beilin, who spoke for about five minutes before we lost our connection. On Thursday, Dec. 6, we succeeded in completing our conversation.

Dr. Beilin judged Prime Minister Olmert's speech at Annapolis as better than those of President Bush and Palestinian Authority President Abbas. In fact, he says it sounded as if he were a member of Meretz. But Beilin pointed out that there is a tremendous gap between his words and his deeds on the ground.

If Olmert were prepared to risk his coalition by agreeing to a substantive outline of what peace would look like, at least on borders, as had originally been intended for Annapolis, this might have been greeted with a real breakthrough by the Arab League in the form of opening a level of diplomatic relations with Israel. As it was, nothing dramatic happened, but basically all the parties got what they wanted by showing up: Bush got his conference with most Arab states in attendance and the US cast in the role of peacemaker. The Palestinians had an eye on a funding conference in Paris, Dec. 17; their attendance should help their appeal for the European Union to fund their 2008 budget, by showing that they are working for peace. Olmert got another year, Beilin said, to put off the "moment of truth" in confronting the "core issues" that Olmert fears would lose him the support of Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party and Shas in the coalition.

At a certain point, he sees Olmert as having to risk losing Lieberman and Shas, although he does not see their loss as automatic. For example, Beilin indicates that Shas (the non-Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox party) may stay in the government due to the judgment of their "rabbi" (Ovadia Yosef) that they have a material interest, such as insuring government subsidies for their yeshivas.

But he sees Olmert as having the potential to survive the exit of both Shas and Lieberman from the coalition by looking at the math: according to Beilin, a Kadima-Labor-Pensioner’s party coalition would retain 55 seats, pick up the support of five Meretz MKs and retain the support of a majority of the 120 seats in the Knesset with the additional backing of as many as 10 Arab party MKs.

A further note of interest was his criticism of Foreign Minister Livni’s effort that the Palestinian negotiators declare their acceptance of Israel’s status as a "Jewish state." He said that he sees this as "part of the package" that everyone agrees to at the end but that it should not become an issue that is an impediment to progress at this point.

In response to a question, he referred to his Washington Post op-ed article of Nov. 23, on the need for Hamas to be included in the process, at least in terms of arranging a cease-fire, but he does not believe that Hamas wants to be involved directly in the peace process. He fears that without a cease-fire in Gaza and southern Israel, some incident, some tragically on-target missile, for example, could cause Israel to again be mired militarily in Gaza. He does not see how Israel would negotiate with the Palestinians on the one hand, while fighting them in Gaza.

Also in responding to a question, Beilin stated that he does not know that Chaim Ramon is speaking for Olmert when he reportedly indicated that Israel would interpret a freeze on expanding settlements as pertaining only to those east of the security barrier/fence/wall; the evidence Beilin offered is that he knows from experience that Ramon is independent minded in his pronouncements. At any rate, he sees such a position as completely unacceptable to the Palestinians.

Of Arms and Iran

Today’s posting is more about questions than answers. I’m linking to Ami Isseroff’s post about the Iranian nuclear issue. While asserting little one way or the other, Ami raises questions about the reliability of the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released the other day, which concluded with "high confidence" that Iran halted its effort to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003— likely in response to aggressive US actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

If the NIE is accurate, this Iranian step back from a nuclear abyss is consistent with the reported overture from Iran for a deal that promised an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambition and even to move toward peaceful relations with Israel in return for the Bush administration’s promise to remove Iran from the "Axis of Evil" and to normalize relations. This would have been similar to the deal the US made soon after with Libya. The Bush administration may have arrogantly dropped the ball at that time by not responding positively.

This was during the tenure of the moderate Iranian president, Khatami, who was replaced a couple of years later by the bombastic and provocative Ahmadinejad. The latter may well be a religious extremist and political crazy man, but we know that the president is not the man in charge in Iran’s theocratic system; instead, it’s the religious "Supreme Leader" Kameni who is believed to regard Ahmadinejad’s dangerous and obnoxious antics with some disdain.

If the new NIE lowers the temperature and draws us back from dueling threats and rumors of war with Iran, this is a good thing. If the NIE is inaccurate or outdated and Iran is feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons with diabolical intent, God help us. My inclination is to hope that it’s correct and that it appreciably lowers tensions and even triggers a diplomatic process with a Libya-like result.

To win peace, restore [Peace] Corps

The following op-ed article in the Baltimore Sun is co-authored by Arthur Obermayer, a prominent founding member of the board of Meretz USA.

The United States can win any war on the battlefield, but we have not learned how to win the peace. We are losing the fight to win over the people we are trying to help. But there is a way to right our course for the future - by looking to our past ....

The one government entity with a positive record in this area is the Peace Corps. But despite the Peace Corps' success since its inception in 1961, its budget has remained small.

President John F. Kennedy wanted 100,000 volunteers overseas within 10 years. Today - although 20 additional nations are seeking Peace Corps help and three times as many volunteers apply as can be accommodated - budgetary limitations have kept the number of volunteers down to 8,000. However, there are 190,000 alumni, represented by the National Peace Corps Association. They yearn for continuing involvement in a mission that has transformed not only their lives and those of people they have helped but also their perspectives on the world.

Among the alumni is Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who served as a volunteer in the Dominican Republic. Based on that experience, he is sponsoring a bill to double the size of the Peace Corps. In the months after 9/11, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and President Bush both advocated major growth of the Peace Corps. Unfortunately, there was little follow-up. Click here for this entire article, published in the Baltimore Sun, Nov. 27.