Beware of Jews in High Office

Provocative title? It's not what you think.

Jewish Americans are often proud to see other Jewish Americans in high office -- be it in politics, business, or other noble pursuits. It makes us -- a mere 2 percent of the American population -- feel that we're contributing positively to the American experience. Others may have additional reasons why we gloat over such a thing.

But it also so happens that when some Jewish Americans achieve such heights, they disown their Judaism out of a sense of shame and to avoid being seen as different. Israeli Middle East commentator Isi Leiber brilliantly uses the experience of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to illustrate the point much better. This is a must-read, especially for anyone who automatically thinks that any Jewish American in high office is always a good thing.

Jordan Cozies Up to the Bully

Israeli Middle East analyst Barry Rubin has a good piece out today on Iran and its regional influence.

Rubin observes that, as Iran continues to advance along its road to nuclear weapons capability, its neighbors are sensing they had better make nice to Iran because no one will protect them once Iran goes nuclear. It is an ominous sign of the progress Iran is making and the fear taking hold among America's closest allies in the region.

Question Air Travelers

Yesterday, the Middle East Contrarian took a detour from discussing Middle East policy to vent about airport screening procedures. In a letter-to-the-editor of the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle, I suggested that questioning of passengers at airports would enhance security while sparing most travelers new, intrusive screening techniques such as full-body patdowns.

It is pretty ridiculous that passengers stand idle unapproached in security lines and then security officials stare at a photo ID but do not ask a single question of travelers that might expose malintent. A wasted opportunity to protect the air-traveling public.

Inconvenient Truths Are Helpful Reminders

Inconvenient truths. By now, it's an overused phrase, most attributed to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and his book and movie about global warming and the failures of U.S. environmental policy.

But Inconvenient Truths also is very relevant to the Middle East time and again. The most glaring example is news about autocratic Arab leaders and their largely disfunctional, disappointing governments -- "inconvenient" to hear because many in the West prefer the stability of such leadership to the uncertainty that could follow their demise.

As the Middle East Contrarian, I'm all about sharing inconvenient truths -- facts that people would prefer not to hear but, indeed, need to hear for there to be any progress toward a solution to the problems that pervade the Middle East. And what better time to once again stand true to this guiding principle than on one's birthday.

Today, I'd like to share the contents of two editorials from today's newspapers in Israel. The first reminds us of the futility of diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program. While some people cross their fingers hoping -- or worse, thinking -- that such efforts will succeed, us realists know already this is unlikely and wait patiently for the others to come around. The problem is waiting affords Iran additional time to develop nuclear weapons and further delays real, preventative action.

Israel's daily Ma'ariv considers recent US statements that have downplayed the possible need for military action against Iran in light of what the leaked cables have said regarding Arab countries' warnings and fears over Iran's nuclear project: 'The clear conclusion is that the chance that the US will attack – or support an attack on – Iran is close to nil, and this assumption must cause us all to lose sleep. Israeli decision-makers must internalize this picture of the situation, make decisions based on realistic options and rely less on hopes that America will take part in any solution vis-à-vis Iran.'

Today's Turkey is a huge disappointment. Liberals look to Turkey as a beacon of hope among the Muslim world, as a bastion of relative moderation. The "inconvenient truth," however, is that Turkey sadly no longer merits such distinction, and we ought to come to terms with that and act accordingly with policies that might convince the Turks to change course. The second editorial, from Israeli daily Yediot Achronot, addresses this issue:

The WikiLeaks documents have only confirmed US and European fears over the dangerous regime that has taken power in Turkey.... Turkey, under its current Islamist government, has been drawing ever closer to 'the global axis of evil' and the US and Europe [ought] to treat it accordingly. '[Turkish Prime Minister] Erdogan himself misses no opportunity to wildly incite against Israel. Europe has already changed its attitude toward his regime, and today, it has no chance of being accepted into the EU. The time has come for the US Congress to treat the growing Turkish threat with utmost gravity.'

Hanan Ashrawi: The Master Manipulator

Ms. Ashrawi is a gifted orator, but she is also a master manipulator of the facts in order to place all the blame on Israel. This further delays peace by saving the Palestinians from having to make difficult decisions.

In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Ashrawi makes several statements which simply are wrong. I'll address only a few here.

First, Ashrawi says "power politics" have always "played against the Palestinians." This is untrue. The UN 1947 Partition Resolution, negotiated by the world powers, offered Palestinians their state. They rejected it. In 1991, the U.S., Russia, and others came together to finally give the Palestinians a voice at the negotiating table. The U.S, Russia, and others did so again by endorsing the Oslo Process. The Palestinians squandered both opportunities. World powers have also given Palestinians billions in aid. World powers have given the Palestinians opportunities to improve their situation. Instead, Palestinian leaders have wasted them.

Ashrawi says that the "path" of bilateral negotiations with Israel has gotten Palestinians "nowhere." This is not true. Negotiations with Israel have given the Palestinians more than they have gotten from anyone, especially their Arab bretheren. Israel has given them legitimacy, elections, arms, and not least, tangible land in the West Bank and Gaza to call their own. Instead, they cannot get their act together, unify, renounce violence once and for all, and establish lasting peace with Israel. Palestinian failures are pathetic and saddening.

Finally, Ashrawi says Obama "has never really put pressure on the Israeli government." This also is not the case. Obama has pressured Israel more than any other U.S. president in recent times and, ironically, to the detriment of Palestinian interests. Early on, Obama raised the settlement issue and put pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Obama has been unrelenting in demanding that Israel -- not the Palestinians -- demonstrate goodwill in order to restart peace talks. Anyone who remotely follows Middle East events knows of the pressure Obama has put on Israel. This statement alone by Ashrawi exposes her as consistently disregarding the facts in order to smear Israel and avoid pressure on the Palestinians.

Obama's pressure on Israel regarding settlements is not in the Palestinians' long-term best interests. By pushing hard on settlements, Obama is actually hurting Palestinians because he is allowing them to avoid having to do anything themselves to move the peace process forward. Why is this bad? Because it further delays the achievement of their goal of statehood. The Palestinians can just sit back and wait, stalling the process, while Israel and Obama bicker over the settlement issue. This actually hurts the Palestinian masses the most, as opposed to their leaders. Their leaders benefit because they are not ready/willing to make difficult decisions anyways, and Obama is saving them from having to.

Ashrawi is a has-been who has served only to help perpetuate the conflict rather than encourage her people to compromise. She should retire to Paris with Suha.

J Street Priorities Need Adjusting

J Street, the relatively new DC-based organization which says it's pro-Israel but takes positions contrary to Israel's best interests because it misunderstands the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict, is advertising an event in DC in November.

J Street will host two speakers from UNRWA in Gaza, the United Nations agency charged with caring for Palestinians and their descendants dislocated as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

The speakers will address the "the impact of unremitting conflict on the people of Gaza."

What about the impact on the people of Israel? If the context is the conflict, then J Street's priority, as a "pro-Israel" organization, should be with Israel.

Only if the context is Hamas's failed leadership in Gaza, which has served only to perpetuate the conflict with Israel and the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, then the focus should be on the "impact of the people of Gaza." This would expose Hamas as the root of the problem and increase pressure on the group.

The fact that J Street is more concerned about the impact of Gaza-Israel cross-border hostilities on Palestinians than Israelis is further evidence that this purportedly pro-Israel organization's priorities are misaligned with Israel's best interests. J Street should work to help defeat Hamas in Gaza and free Palestinians there from Hamas repression and terrorism. Seeking to blame Israel for the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza lets Hamas off the hook and only further delays the peace that J Street and the rest of us so much desire. This is why the policies of J Street hurt, not help, Israel and why J Street is not "pro-Israel" at all.

USIP Event Announcement Distorts the Facts

The United States Institute of Peace, based in Washington, DC, has announced an event on October 20 to discuss developments relating to the U.S., Israel, and Iran. But the announcement itself is misleading in at least two respects.

First, the USIP says that Iranian leaders have gone "as far as" to question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

In fact, Iran has gone much farther. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said Israel "must be wiped off the map." In other words, he has not just said, well, Israel maybe shouldn't exist. Ahmadinejad has actually advocated Israel's destruction, albeit leaving it unclear who should be responsible for destroying it.

While left-wing defenders of Iran have sought to excuse Ahmadinejad's remarks, saying either he didn't really mean it or his words were improperly translated, Ahmadinejad himself has defended his statement as "just" and reflecting the sentiments of all Iranians.

Second, the USIP annoucement attempts to depict the U.S. and Israel as at odds over Iran when, in fact, the two allies are much more in sync than in disagreement. The USIP says, "Israel's leaders have signaled their displeasure with any sustained U.S. bid to engage Iran."

While some Israeli leaders may have, on occasion, questioned U.S. attempts to engage Iran diplomatically, Israel's prime minister constantly speaks in support of the U.S. Administration's ongoing and more pronounced effort to target Iran with economic sanctions.

At a press conference with U.S. Vice President Biden on September 3, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "I very much appreciate the efforts of President Obama and the American Government to lead the international community to place tough sanctions on Iran.... I think the leading countries of the international community have to join the American effort and Israel has been helping out with key countries and will continue to do so."

Rather than attempt to highlight differences between the U.S. and Israel over Iran, the USIP could have, and should have, highlighted that the two countries are in agreement about continuing to try to change Iranian behavior through economic sanctions. That, after all, is the primary focus of U.S. efforts at the moment -- not, rather, to "engage" Iran. As is, the USIP statement is unfair to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship by understating the Iranian threat and mischaracterizing Israel's position on U.S. efforts to contain it.