Responses to NY Times Mag Article on Iran

Gary Sick, a veteran foreign policy analyst currently associated with Columbia University, has written a sharp rebuttal on his blog, which begs a number of questions: Is Prof. Sick correct that international nuclear monitors maintain an ongoing presence in Iran? If so, do we know that this presence includes all of their nuclear facilities or are there some beyond their reach?  Finally, is Prof. Sick's contention contradicted by the news report that Iran’s foreign ministry has offered to extend a three-day visit of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors?

Robert Wright has written his highly skeptical response at The Atlantic website.

Prof. Stephen Walt advises in his commentary at Foreign Policy's website: 

Palestine-Israel Journal issue on 'Arab Spring'

This is a message from the British-Jewish Mideast analyst and activist, Tony Klug:

I thought you might like to know that an extraordinary compendium of articles on the Arab uprisings -- more than 20 altogether -- specially commissioned by the Palestine-Israel Journal, has just been published in its latest volume under the rubric 'Arab Spring'.  The Israeli, Palestinian and international authors -- comprising public figures, prominent academics and veteran writers -- examine from diverse viewpoints just about every aspect of the recent turmoil in the Arab world, its causes, significance and future implications, including the place and role of Israel in the emerging regional order.

Most of the articles are available online at http://www.pij.org/current.php. My contribution, 'Have the Arab Uprisings lost their Spring?', may be accessed direct at http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=1409. Over the next few days I plan to read every single article. I am sure it will be fascinating. You are welcome to join me!

And here is the letter from the editors:

Israel vs. Iran: Who is threatening whom?

Cover story, Jan. 29, 2012.

As you should know by now, I'm very much against an Israeli attack on Iran to forestall its nuclear development; and I agree with Prof. Shibley Telhami that moving toward regional nuclear disarmament may facilitate a solution.  But I take Iran's nuclear program seriously as a security threat to the region. I fervently hope that a diplomatic resolution is found, but (speaking only for myself), I support cyber warfare and covert sabotage as alternatives to an all-out attack. 

Iran has courted this crisis, which would be considerably alleviated if it formally proclaimed its recognition of Israel's legitimacy, rather than not even mentioning Israel by name -- generally referring to the "Zionist regime."  (I'd similarly favor Israel and the US stating their peaceful intentions toward the Islamic Republic.) 

Aside from inviting a catastrophic war, an Israeli attack would not deter Iran.  Part of the problem is the hardened and dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear facilities; another part is Israel's limited capacity as a military power.  Back in August 2006, I blogged about the myth that Israel is a military superpower, beginning as follows:

Storm over Obama 'hit' idea & Iran

In his column a few days ago, the owner-publiser of the Atlanta Jewish Times, a Jewish weekly newspaper independent of the local Jewish community federation, spun out the "option" (one of three posed) of Mossad agents killing Pres. Obama to get Vice Pres. Biden in office as a replacement more inclined to move militarily to forestall an Iranian nuclear bomb. He laid out this as a possibility:

Third, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies. Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

This became a national story in the media, with a mandatory Secret Servicer investigation and a prompt apology & retraction by the publisher, Andrew Adler.  This story has also been predictably distorted by hate-mongerers in the blogosphere, such as this site which claims:

The Atlanta Jewish Times, a newspaper representing the Jewish people in the Atlanta area, is taking donations for a fund to finance the murder of President Barak Obama on behalf of the Israeli government.

The Jewish community responded quickly, with indignant condemnations of Mr. Adler, including such stalwart defenders of Israel as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.  The Jerusalem Post blog by David Harris, the executive director of the American

Jewish labor leader chastises Netanyahu

Stuart Appelbaum, JLC pres.

The Jewish Labor Committee is an organization in which a number of our activists have played a leading role for many years. While being known as liberal and dovish, the JLC has until now tended to focus its attention on Israel-Arab issues by mostly defending Israel against one-sided condemnations and the international boycott movement.

This dovish pro-Israel perspective has not changed, but the JLC's rhetoric did, last Thursday night, at its annual Human Rights Award dinner.   A NY Jewish Week news article by Doug Chandler tells the tale, focusing upon the speech by JLC president Stuart Appelbaum (a member of the J St. and Ameinu boards) chastising Prime Minister Netanyahu, and prompting a walk-out by Israel's deputy consul-general:

E. Jerusalem national park is a 'farce'

"According to many planners and urban development experts there is no special ecological interest in these areas, which are located in the middle of two Palestinian villages. Indeed, according to a [Meretz] member of Jerusalem’s city council, Meir Margalit, “This national park is a farce. There’s nothing there but rocks and thorns, certainly nothing to justify a national park. The only reason for such a plan is to seize lands and hold them as a reserve for a future settlement, while suffocating the Palestinian neighborhoods.”

Read this post at the +972 Blog: 
‘National Parks’ in East Jerusalem: New tool in occupation...

"The establishment of national parks in East Jerusalem may sound like a nice idea that fosters the preservation of natural reserves – but in reality, it is a crafty method the Israeli government and its institutions have found to keep East Jerusalem under Israeli control and prohibit Palestinian territorial contiguity, rights and independence. ..."

Holocaust scholar interviewed on Al-Jazeera

Yehuda Bauer (photo at Wikipedia.org)

I was made aware of this television discussion with Yehuda Bauer, a distinguished Israeli Holocaust historian, by our friend in Canada, Prof. Stephen Scheinberg (also a historian).  Bauer is a veteran member of the Meretz party and its socialist-Zionist predecessor, Mapam; he was interviewed by Al-Jazeera television for 25 minutes.  He did a good job of providing a progressive Zionist perspective, but the historian could have made some additional points. 

For one thing, he could have made a stronger critique of Prof. Shlomo Sand, when his work disputing the existence of a historic Jewish people was brought up.  Sand is polemical and tendentious more than scholarly (if you enter Sand's name in this blog's search window, you'll find a number of posts on his work).  Although Bauer is correct that he's not entirely wrong, there are areas where he's stretching for ideological reasons; for example, there's no significant basis for Sand's contention that Ashkenazi Jews are largely of Khazar-Turkic origin.

And when asked about the connection between Israel and the Holocaust, Dr. Bauer says (correctly) that it's a "negative" one, because the Holocaust murdered many people who might have become Israelis, and might have wiped out the Jewish people entirely if the Nazis had won the war or been able to keep on killing for a few more years.  But he neglects to indicate that Zionism was a response to antisemitism that predates the Holocaust; he also might have made the point that American and other Diaspora Jewish communities were won over to Zionism or to being pro-Zionist by the Holocaust, because most Jews came to believe that a Jewish state was necessary to defend Jewish lives and rights.  Yet I don't blame him for not thinking of everything under the pressure of a television conversation with an interviewer who--although polite and respectful--was neither particularly knowledgeable of, nor sympathetic to, Israel and Zionism.

What remains of Israel's months of protest?

Faces of Daphni Leef & Stav Shafrir, protest leaders, held aloft

Allow me to review what I've learned in recent months about Israel's new movement for social justice, and project forward. As of this moment, street protests continue, including a clash in recent days with police over the removal of protest tents; but these current activists are in the hundreds rather than the tens and hundreds of thousands who rallied peaceably during the summer. Still, the structure I reported on for In These Times magazine, continues to operate, with the movement attempting "to carry itself beyond the streets.":

.... Alongside "general assembly" meetings in parks, neighborhood committees have been formed around the country, as well as advisory committees comprised of prominent personalities from Israel's diverse ethnic and religious communities.

By any estimation, Israel's summer of protest was an impressive display of progressive social activism, rallying nearly half a million protesters (out of Israel's seven million population) into the streets at its high-water mark on September 3rd. More than one hundred tent encampments for social justice dotted the entire country. It united (rhetorically at least) Arabs in Jaffa with traditional working class Likud and Shas supporters in the Tel Aviv neighborhood of Hatikva. (See the great liberal Orthodox activist, Leah Shakdiel, speaking with this unifying theme at the Yerucham protest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVbW3ARsHLk.)

The following is from a Dec. 25 news article in the Jerusalem Post:

Urgent Zionist Need to Break Ultra-Orthodox Power

The article I am recommending below, came to me via the father & father-in-law of the couple who wrote it,  Ariel and Erin Beery, who moved to Israel last year.  They are expecting a daughter.  Asked what I thought of it, this is what I wrote: 

I agree with its sentiments 100%, however, I've always been ambivalent about Diaspora Jewry's right to influence Israeli politics in spite of the fact they have been called upon to make contributions to Israeli social and health institutions, at the very least, if not more.  I think Ariel and Erin are so right on.  The fact that this piece has been published in Tablet is absolutely necessary.  This is a leading edge magazine for young Jews, who, according to the most recent polls, are less involved in Israel.  I think an article like this might activate them.

Lilly Rivlin
www.gracepaleythefilm.com 
Distributor: www.jewishfilm.org
 
The following is the central passage of this article, which can be read in its entirety online:

My response to liberal-Zionist critic of J St.

Speaking only for myself, I e-mailed someone I know who is progressive and a Zionist but concerned that J Street is not adequately addressing Israel's needs.  The following is a somewhat  modified version of how I responded to his concerns:

I understand your distrust of J St., but I have decided to be active within it.  First of all, I think their position on Iran is not well understood; according to this statement online, it favors sanctions against Iran and diplomacy, but not an attack.  I share this view, although I'm not sure that stating in advance that military action is completely "off the table" is the way to go; I would also favor a secret campaign of sabotage against their nuclear program, such as is probably now being pursued by Israel and/or the US.

But J St. is correct that an overt and massive attack would be hugely destabilizing and dangerous for Israel and the US -- only to be contemplated as a last resort.  And I don't believe that Israel alone is capable of launching an effective attack. I'd also suggest that the US reassure the Iranians that it is not seeking regime change, but only measures which guarantee that its nuclear development is for peaceful purposes.

This is part of J St.'s position on settlements, which I fully endorse:

Frightening Video of 'Hilltop Youth'

The following is from Stephen Scheinberg, a veteran leader of Canadian Friends of Peace Now: 

An enlightening video of the militant settler youth. Recall, as you watch, how many times we are told that "they (the Palestinians) teach their children to hate." Who are the parents and supporters of these Israeli children?

Click below:
WATCH Hilltop youth: “Burn down Al-Aqsa Mosque? Of course!”

H. Schenker: 'Don't...shut down discussion'

Hillel Schenker

Sadly, the lack of progress toward a two-state solution is creating a backlash among some Palestinians who are now turning against dialogue and cooperation with dovish Israelis.  An article in Haaretz by our Israeli colleague, Hillel Schenker, "Don't let them shut down discussion,"published on Dec. 30, tells the tale; here are highlights:

.... Last week the Palestine-Israel Journal, the quarterly I co-edit, was obliged to postpone a public conference we were organizing at an East Jerusalem hotel about the impact of the so-called Arab Spring on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, due to pressure on Palestinian speakers and threats against the hotel owner. ...
A news item ... earlier in the week stated that the Fatah leadership had decided to halt all unofficial Palestinian-Israeli meetings due to ... Prime Minister's Netanyahu's insistence on continuing settlement expansion. Unnamed Palestinian officials were quoted claiming that Israel exploits such meetings in order to tell the world that a dialogue is taking place between the two peoples, and that it is only the Palestinian Authority that refuses to sit down at the negotiating table.
This seems like a parallel to the familiar criticism of such meetings by right-wing Israelis, who accuse Israeli participants of being concerned only about Palestinian