The Kerry Plan – Can Israel Say No?

Yoram Ettinger“Israel Hayom”, January 31, 2014, http://bit.ly/1bd2z8q, January 31, 2014

The assumption that Israel must accept the Kerry Plan as a basis for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority – lest it risk a rift with the US – should be assessed in light of the full context of US-Israel strategic cooperation, the imploding Arab Street, the unique foundations and nature of US-Israel ties, the US political system, the ineffectiveness of prior US plans and Israel’s own security requirements.

US-Israel strategic cooperation transcends the Palestinian issue.  Thus, despite the 66-year-old disagreement, between the two Administrations, about the ways and means to resolve the Palestinian issue, strategic cooperation has catapulted to unprecedented heights.

Notwithstanding Arab talk – but based on the Arab walk - the Palestinian issue does not preoccupy the attention of Arab policy-makers, does not significantly impact vital US interests, and does not play a key role in destabilizing the Middle East, as reaffirmed by the tectonic Arab Tsunami, which is unrelated to Israel or the Palestinian issue. 

Therefore, the Palestinian issue has been superseded by regional and global mutual threats, interests and benefits, shaping the increasingly two-way-street mutually-beneficial US-Israel agenda: the US supply of critical military systems to Israel; the Israeli battle-tested laboratory, which enhances the performance of US military systems and the US defense industries; the joint development of ballistic, space, UAV, cyber and other critical technologies; Israeli innovations upgrade the competitive edge of US high tech industries; Israel provides intelligence of Iran’s nuclear threat and Islamic terrorism on the US mainland and beyond; Israel trains US elite units in countering-terrorism and urban warfare, and shares battle lessons, shaping US battle tactics; Israel’s power-projection deters rogue regimes, which threaten pro-US Arab regimes such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia; etc..

Israel’s role as the most consistent, capable and willing ally of the US gains in importance, as the Arab Street becomes increasingly anti-US, Islamist, unstable and unpredictably violent.  While the US cuts its defense budget and withdraws its military from the Middle East, Russia and China deepen their presence in the region and West Europe is preoccupied with domestic challenges.

The disagreement over the Palestinian issue is, also, superseded by shared US-Israel Judeo-Christian values, which have strongly influenced US morality, legal and political systems.  This dates back to the early Pilgrims in the 17^th century, the Liberty Bell’s inscription from Leviticus, the Founding Fathers, the Biblically-driven Anti-Slavery Movement and the current statues of Moses in the US House of Representatives and the US Supreme Court.  

American constituents – which are the axis of the Federal system – through most of the Congress – a co-equal, co-determining branch of government on external and domestic matters – have established a unique bottom-up, systematic, positive attitude towards the Jewish state. They disassociate themselves from the Executive’s moral equivalence towards Israel – the role model of counter terrorism and unconditional alliance with the US – as opposed to the Palestinian leadership – a role model of international terrorism and an ally of Nazi Germany, the Communist Bloc, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.

In 1948, the charismatic US Secretary of State, George Marshall pressured Israel to accept his plan of a UN Mandate for Palestine as a substitute for independence.  Marshall considered the Jewish state a liability and the Arabs an asset.  He assumed that Israel would join the Communist Bloc and would be unable to defend itself against the invading Arabs, thus triggering a second Jewish Holocaust in less than ten years. Prime Minister Ben Gurion refused to negotiate Marshall’s proposal.

When threatened by UN Security Council sanctions, which dictated a withdrawal from the “occupied Negev,” Ben Gurion stated: “What Israel has won on the battlefield, it is determined not to yield at the [UN Security] Council table.” Ben Gurion’s principle-driven defiance and steadfastness produced short-term pressure, but long-term strategic respect, transforming Israel into the most reliable, stable, capable, democratic and unconditional ally of the US in the Middle East and beyond.

In 1957, President Eisenhower pressured Israel to evacuate the Sinai Peninsula.  Senate and House leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, threatened Eisenhower with legislative paralysis, and convinced Eisenhower to reduce his pressure.  However, Israel pulled the rug from under their feet by accepting the Eisenhower plan.

In December, 1969 and June, 1970, Secretary of State, William Rogers, introduced the Rogers Plan, calling for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines, providing for a return of Arab refugees to Israel and shared Israel-Jordan rule in Jerusalem. Prime Minister Golda Meir rejected the plan, initializing the construction of three large new neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem, home of over 100,00 persons. Rogers tolerated Egypt’s advancing surface-to-air missiles in violation of commitments, which facilitated the deterioration to the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

In 1977, President Carter pressured Israel to participate in an international conference, highlighting the Palestinian issue and a full Israeli withdrawal.  Prime Minister Begin dismissed the idea and initiated the dialogue with Egyptian President Sadat, which led to a peace accord.

In September, 1982, President Reagan announced his plan, calling for full Israeli withdrawal and an immediate settlement freeze. Prime Minister Begin rejected the plan, expanded settlements, and laid the foundation for the November, 1983 upgrade of US-Israel strategic cooperation.

Accepting the Kerry Plan would revert Israel to the pre-1967 9-15 mile sliver along the Mediterranean, dominated by the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which would be controlled by the Palestinian Authority, a systematic violator of agreements, perpetuator of hate education and generator of terror.  The irreplaceability of Judea and Samaria mountain ridges for Israel’s national security has been reinforced by the Arab Tsunami.  It has made the Middle East – the most conflict-ridden region in the world - more violently intolerant, unpredictable, unreliable, unstable and treacherous.

Accepting the Kerry Plan requires the subordination of long-term vision and security to short-term convenience, and the subjugation of realism to wishful-thinking, thus jeopardizing the very survival of the Jewish State, transforming Israel from a unique asset to a burden. Rejecting the Kerry Plan, might create short-term tension, but no long-term rift.  On a rainy day, the US prefers a defiant, rather than a submissive, ally.  

‘The Monuments Men’ Shows How America Saved Paintings While Letting Jews Die

Audiences may not feel quite so good about the new George Clooney film once they learn the full story behind WWII art rescue efforts

By Rafael Medoff|January 29, 2014|

The story behind the creation of the “monuments men” team, depicted in George Clooney’s new feature film by the same name, begins in the spring of 1943, after the Allies had confirmed that Hitler was carrying out what they called “his oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe”—while looting priceless works of art from their victims. Jewish leaders and members of Congress asked Allied leaders to take steps to aid the refugees. Roosevelt Administration officials replied that they could not divert military resources for nonmilitary purposes; the only way to rescue the Jews, they claimed, was to win the war. But to head off growing calls for rescue, the U.S. and British governments announced they would hold a conference in Bermuda to discuss the refugee problem. The talks had been “shunted off to an inaccessible corner so that the world would not be able to listen in,” American Zionist leader Abba Hillel Silver charged.

Assembling the American delegation to Bermuda proved to be no simple task. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first two choices to chair the U.S. delegation, veteran diplomat Myron Taylor and Yale President Charles Seymour, turned him down.

So did Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, who said “the business of the court is in such shape” that he could not spare the time for the refugee conference. FDR expressed disappointment that Roberts would not be able to enjoy the lush beauty of the island, “especially at the time of the Easter lillies!” In any event, the president joshed, “You can tell the Chief Justice that while I yield this time, I will issue a subpoena for you the very next time you are needed!” And as it turned out, that next time was coming soon.

The conference was doomed before it started—because, as Synagogue Council of America President Dr. Israel Goldstein pointed out, its real purpose was “not to rescue victims of Nazi terror, but rescue our State Department and the British foreign office from possible embarrassment.” The American delegates (led by last-minute choice Harold W. Dodds, president of Princeton University) arrived with strict instructions: no focus on Jews as the primary victims of the Nazis; no increase in the number of refugees admitted to the United States, even though immigration quotas were not even close to full; and no use of American ships to transport refugees—not even troop supply ships that were returning from Europe empty.

The conferees also rejected the idea of food shipments to starving European Jews. That would violate the Allied blockade of Axis Europe, and no exceptions could be made, they declared. (Just a year earlier, however, the Allied leaders had yielded to public pressure and made an exception for the starving population of Nazi-occupied Greece.) Closing off the last remaining options, the British delegates at Bermuda refused to discuss opening Palestine to refugees and scotched the idea of negotiating with the Nazis for the release of Jews. The release of large numbers of Jews “would be relieving Hitler of an obligation to take care of these useless people,” one British official asserted.

When the Bermuda conference ended, the two governments kept the proceedings secret rather than acknowledge how little had been accomplished. But the meager results were obvious. As Congressman Andrew Somers (D-NY) put it in a radio broadcast, Bermuda proved that “the Jews have not only faced the unbelievable cruelty of the distorted minds bent upon annihilating them, but they have to face the betrayal of those whom they called ‘friends’.”

It was becoming painfully obvious that when it came to saving European Jews, nobody had much interest. When it came to saving European paintings, however, the response was very different. Which is where the story behind Clooney’s The Monuments Men came in.

***

Shortly after the Bermuda meetings ended, the New York Times published an editorialtitled “Europe’s Imperiled Art.” The newspaper, which showed little interest in the fate of Europe’s imperiled Jews, urged strong government action to rescue “cultural treasures” from the battle zones. The White House agreed: Here was something that did merit the diversion of American military resources. In June 1943, the Roosevelt Administration announced the establishment of a U.S. government commission “for the protection and salvage of artistic and historic monuments in Europe.”

Finding a chairman for the new rescue agency was not too difficult: FDR turned to Justice Roberts, who may not have had time for the task of rescuing Jews but quickly found the time to chair a commission to rescue paintings and statues. The Roberts Commission set to work planning the mission that was to be carried out by the team that would come to be known as the Monuments Men.

Some refugee advocates openly questioned the administration’s priorities. In full-page advertisements in the New York Times and elsewhere, the activists known as the Bergson Group said the establishment of the monuments group was “commendable. … It shows the deep concern of the [Allies] toward the problems of culture and civilization. But should [they] not at least show equal concern for an old and ancient people who gave to the world the fundamentals of its Christian civilization, the Magna Carta of Justice—the Bible—and to every generation some of its most outstanding thinkers, writers, scholars and artists? A governmental agency with the task of … saving the Jewish people of Europe is the least the [Allies] can do.”

In the autumn of 1943, the Bergson Group’s allies in Congress introduced a resolution urging the president to create a commission to rescue Jews. At a hearing on the resolution, New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia pointed to the creation of the monuments commission: “This very important problem … is not like the destruction of buildings or monuments, as terrible as that may be, because, after all, they may be rebuilt or even reproduced; but when a life is snuffed out, it is gone; it is gone forever.”

The Roosevelt Administration dispatched Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long to Capitol Hill to testify against Bergson’s rescue resolution. Long declared that the United States was deeply concerned about the Jewish refugees, but after all, “you cannot send a regiment in there to pull people out.” Paintings presented no such difficulties, apparently.

Historians have noted that the work of the Monuments Men was not the only instance in which the Roosevelt Administration diverted military resources, or altered military plans, because of nonmilitary considerations. A U.S. Air Force plan to bomb the Japanese city of Kyoto was blocked by Secretary of War Henry Stimson because of the city’s artistic treasures. Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy intervened to divert U.S. bombers from striking the German city of Rothenburg because he feared for the safety of its famous medieval architecture: That was the same McCloy who rebuffed requests to bomb Auschwitz, on the grounds that such air strikes would require “diverting” planes from battle zones. In fact, throughout mid- and late 1944, U.S. bombers—including one piloted by future U.S. Sen. George McGovern—repeatedly struck German oil factories adjacent to Auschwitz, some of them less than five miles from the gas chambers.

No doubt part of the problem was human psychology. When tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions of people are murdered, they become a kind of faceless blur, a numbing statistic in the public’s mind. By contrast, the specific images of famous Rembrandt or Picasso paintings were personally familiar to many Americans—and that familiarity engendered the sympathy needed to bring about intervention.

Perhaps there is also something to be learned from the mass outpouring of sympathy for endangered animals. In a biting essay at the peak of the Darfur genocide, New York Timescolumnist Nicholas Kristof complained that Americans would care more about Darfur if the victims were puppies. He recalled that the public contributed $45,000 to rescue a terrier stranded on a burned-out oil tanker in the Pacific in 2002. And the eviction of a red-tailed hawk from its nest atop a Manhattan apartment building in 2004 sparked an international outcry, with actress Mary Tyler Moore and others rising up in passionate defense of the bird’s rights. “A single homeless hawk aroused more indignation than 2 million homeless Sudanese,” Kristof commented.

During the 1940s, some refugee advocates noted the same phenomenon. Meeting with a U.S. senator in 1943, Rabbi Meyer Berlin (namesake of the future Bar-Ilan University) remarked: “If horses were being slaughtered as are the Jews of Poland, there would by now be a loud demand for organized action against such cruelty to animals. Somehow, when it concerns Jews, everybody remains silent, including the intellectuals and humanitarians of free and enlightened America.” Two years later, in a sad fulfillment of Rabbi Berlin’s dire prediction, U.S. Gen. George Patton diverted U.S. troops to rescue 150 prized Lipizzaner dancing horses, which were caught between Allied and Axis forces along the German-Czech border.

None of this detracts from what the Monuments Men accomplished, of course. Their rescue of precious artwork and other historical treasures is deserving of praise. “The story of the Monuments Men is one that has to be told,” Texas Congresswoman Kay Granger said recently, explaining her proposal to give the surviving Monuments Men a Congressional Gold Medal. But it’s also story that has to be told within its historical context: the failure of the Roosevelt Administration to accord the rescue of human beings the same level of concern it accorded the rescue of cultural treasures.

As an outspoken advocate of international intervention against the genocide in Darfur, George Clooney should understand this equation better than most people: He even got himself arrested two years ago by chaining himself to the front of the Sudanese embassy in Washington. Now imagine for a moment that the U.S. had sent military personnel into Darfur to rescue ancient African cultural heirlooms while refusing to lift a finger to aid victims of mass murder. Would Clooney make a movie about that rescue effort? Or would he be among the first to bemoan the U.S. government’s misplaced priorities? The contrast between America’s rescue of paintings from the Nazis and the American refusal to rescue Jews from the Nazis deserves the same consideration.

Pollard, American Jewish Leaders and Anti-Semitism

Posted By Isi Leibler On January 29, 2014 @ 6:28 am

American Jews are experiencing a nightmare. They are finally accepting the reality that the draconian treatment of Jonathan Pollard emanates from anti-Semitic strains in the US Intelligence hierarchy. Some had believed this to be the case for some time, but with additional convincing evidence, the realization is rapidly gaining ground.

American former naval intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard is no hero. He is a convicted spy. He may have provided valuable intelligence to Israel relevant to the Gulf War, but was remunerated for his actions.

One can appreciate the outrage of American intelligence authorities against an American Jew spying for Israel. However, Pollard’s punishment grossly exceeds his crime.

Pollard entered a plea bargain agreement which would have effectively limited his sentence to a maximum of ten years but this was effectively reneged by the judge. Pollard is now serving his 29th year in prison – seven of which were in solitary confinement.

Israel is an ally, not an enemy of the US. There is no precedent for any other spy in the US undergoing such harsh treatment in the post-World War ll era. Those convicted of espionage on behalf of US allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Philippines served two to four year prison terms.

The moral outrage US intelligence spokesmen express about Pollard spying on allies rings hollow, particularly following recent exposures that the US itself has the most consistent track record of espionage against allies of any Western country, including Israel.

In recent months, American political leaders, including retired Intelligence heads, have created a groundswell of wide-ranging, bipartisan political support for commuting Pollard’s sentence. This has been to no avail.

In response to calls to free Pollard, the New York Times this month prominently published an emotional and jaundiced op-ed by M. E. Bowman, a former FBI deputy counsel who had coordinated the investigation against Pollard, urging that he remain incarcerated. Aside from numerous falsehoods and distortions, Bowman failed to distinguish between Pollard’s espionage against an ally and that of American traitors like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen who received life sentences for conveying information to the Soviet Union which led to the execution of numerous American intelligence agents.

To bolster his case, Bowman made an unsubstantiated allegation that Pollard was also responsible for the deaths of American agents. He based this on a fantasy that Israel conveyed information obtained from Pollard to the Soviet Union in order to gain concessions towards easing Jewish emigration restrictions. This disgusting potpourri of concocted rumors and lies is surely indicative of the determination of those within the American intelligence community who wish to make an example of Pollard in order to intimidate the Jewish community. Nor is it coincidental that the “liberal” New York Times saw fit to publish such an illiberal, bigoted and unsubstantiated article at this time.

In response to the op-ed, Tablet, a respected American online magazine dealing with Jewish life, published an editorial that breaks new ground on the Pollard debate. It explicitly accuses the U.S government of anti- Semitism and discrimination against the Jewish community.

The editorial accused the national security establishment of using the Pollard case to challenge the loyalty of Jews in order to cover up their own “incredibly damaging mistakes and failures”. It asserts: “Pollard’s continued incarceration appears, at this point in time, to be intended as a statement that dual loyalty on the part of American Jews is a real threat to America – and a warning to the American Jewish community as a whole.”

Tablet called on Jewish leaders to stand up against this “real injustice, whose perpetuation is clearly intended to suggest that all American Jews are, inherently, potential traitors to their country”.  It insists that “allowing the American national security establishment to play on classic anti-Semitic stereotypes in order to keep a man in prison as a ’lesson’ to other members of his groups or race is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution – and would surely and rightly never be tolerated by Muslims, gays, blacks, Chinese-Americans, or any other group.”

Furthermore the editorial accuses the American Jewish establishment of having failed to aggressively confront this issue because of its reluctance to be associated with a convicted traitor. This “metastasized into a real threat to the promise of legal and social equality that American Jews now take for granted.”

Tablet insisted that by confining the Pollard case to a strictly humanitarian issue and merely appealing for a commutation of the sentence, Jewish leaders had “given an unwitting stamp of communal acquiescence to the message of suspicion that Pollard’s punishment is intended to convey… The business as usual attitude of the American Jewish leaders has legitimized a noxious brand of political anti-Semitism which is being adopted by parts of the US political establishment – as well as by journalists, [and] academics… The injustice that is being done to Pollard pales next to this very deliberate injustice being done to American Jews by high-ranking US government officials in Pollard’s name”. In other words the Pollard issue should be based on demands for justice rather than compassionate or humanitarian appeals.

There is no disputing that successive Israeli governments have grossly mishandled the issue, initially denying that it was their problem and falsely describing Pollard’s actions as a “rogue” operation. Now there are disturbing allegations that US Secretary of State John Kerry has hinted that Pollard’s release could be expedited if Israel makes additional unilateral concessions to the Palestinians.

The obscene implications of this are magnified, given the extraordinary pressure which Kerry exerted on Israel to release 104 mass murderers to induce the Palestinians to even agree to conduct negotiations. Hopefully Israeli leaders will adamantly distance themselves from enabling the Americans to exploit Pollard as a pawn in the extortion game with the Palestinians.

For the first time, Jewish leaders are now being called upon to confront the painful anti-Semitic motivations of those engaged in the ongoing incarceration of Pollard. Admittedly, the pressures confronting the American Jewish establishment are intensifying. Presenting the case for Israel and opposing the nuclearization of Iran has already created major tensions with the Obama administration.

But the Pollard issue can no longer be set aside, for it shakes American Jews’ core beliefs that the American Diaspora is unique and that the US is the only country in the world, other than Israel, in which Jews can genuinely feel “at home” and are always treated as equal citizens.

As the insinuations of dual loyalty become ever shriller, Jewish leaders need to review the situation and develop a strategy which will be consistent with justice and retaining their Jewish way of life in conformity with the multi-pluralism of American society.

The Pollard case goes far beyond the issue of commuting an excessive sentence meted against a Jewish spy. Its outcome will impact on the essence of the relationship between the American-Jewish community and broader American society.

• 
  
   On Jonathan Pollard …We were wrong and his release is long overdue              Ltc Howard · · MIlirary Officer 
• 
  
•             I have had no connection ever with Jonathan Pollard or with his prosecution. I was not a close follower of the case in the media. My original reaction was “he is a traitor, lock him up and throw away the key.” Also, I was extremely upset at Israeli for utilizing a Jewish agent which gives the anti-Semites in State, CIA, etc. (who are plentiful) the ability to voice the mantra of “dual loyalty”. (Examples:Zionist Spies Against America - Rense Ukrainian Revisionism - Jewish spies against America: a long tradition . 

Pentagon: We thought engineer was Israeli spy because he's a Jew  Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals } After 25 years, the CIA has declassified documents that show that the multitude of public" leaks" and Weinberger's accusations against Pollard were all false----Jonathan Pollard never spied on the U.S. for Israel" . The 1987 CIA report reveals that Israel never requested information from Pollard concerning “US military activities, plans, capabilities or equipment.” and that Pollard did not procure secrets about the United States. . Pollard did not compromise agents. He did not compromise means and sources . He did not compromise any information relating to US forces. All the information he transmitted to his Israeli handlers consisted of the information that the United States had acquired relating to Arab equipment, capabilities, etc. IN OTHER WORDS, VERY SIMPLY, HE COMPROMISED “DEFENSE INFORMATION” BUT DID NOT SPY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. The actions of the prosecution were criminal and are a threat to the foundations of America's criminal justice system. *Basic questions relating to the Pollard case are: What was Pollard actually indicted for? What was he actually guilty of?….. In a recent article appearing on-line, Prof. Angelo Codevilla, a staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time Jonathan Pollard was arrested is quoted:“Having been intimately acquainted with the materials that Pollard passed and with the sources and methods by which they were gathered, I would be willing to give expert testimony that Pollard is guilty of neither more nor less than what the indictment alleges. *Judge Aubrey Eugene Robinson Jr. illegally conducted back channel communications with the prosecution who inflamed Judge Robinson by telling him (falsely) that Pollard had provided security information to South Africa.  * Judge Robinson sentenced Jonathan Pollard to life in prison in 1987, claiming that information provided by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger showed that Pollard's spying on behalf of Israel had caused significant damage to American security interests. { U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (long regarded by Israel as antagonistic toward the Jewish state),initimated to the court that Pollard gave information to the Soviets. The assumption was that "means and sources "information was being transmitted to the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union fell we found out that our assumptions that the Soviet Union had penetrated Israeli intelligence and that US intelligence going to Israel was in fact ending up in the Soviet Union were FALSE.--Later, we came to learn that this was the doing of Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames.} *Pollard's Defense (regardless of the level of their security clearances ) were never given access to these charges nor afforded an opportunity to rebut them. As individual accusations leaked out they have been all successfully rebutted.  WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE AND COMPARABLE PUNISHMENT FOR POLLARD'S ACTUAL TRANSGRESSIONS? During the same time period a spy caught working for Saudi Arabia (a Navy officer named Schwarz-not Jewish- where the intelligence did in fact go to an enemy power-and was very harmful to US military interests) received a dishonorable discharge and nothing further as punishment  One of the major reasons for incarcerating Pollard-and thus holding him as hostage-was the widespread belief (spread by Aldrich Ames to cover his own tracks) that there was a 2nd Israeli mole inside the CIA. U.S. officials repeatedly, publicly claimed that Pollard was not working alone when he spied for Israel and the United States therefore should make Pollard's release conditional on Israel acknowledging this"BASELESS." claim.  *What adds to this outrage is that the current administration knows full well the facts and has elected explicitly to continue Jonathan Pollard's imprisonment in order to keep him as Dennis Ross described as a “bargaining chip”. ---------------- I was involved in the Kadish case for the DOD and DOJ. They assumed that every document Kadish ever read was compromised. Thus I reviewed the 200+ documents that he had requisitioned. Nearly all were at the "Official Use Only" level. All dealt with logistical support details. None were sensitive. The only documents on "nuclear materials” dealt with the physical mating of the missiles with the aircraft systems (which wire was attached to which wire and which hose was attached to which hose.) Any connection to Pollard was far-fetched. Kadish pled guilty in a deal that permitted him to keep all his retirement benefits and involved no jail time or other civil penalties. At that time I wrote an article which was published on this case (This sensational (not correct) article was typical: "Ex-U.S. ARMY engineer Kadish pleads guilty to spying for israel… Kadish charged with slipping classified documents about nuclear weapons to Israeli consulate employee in 1980s…. by the associated press Dec. 30, 2008 ) I am also familiar with the AIPAC/Larry Franklin case. Franklin (not Jewish) was accused of providing “top secret policy materials” to AIPAC (and presumably to Israel). As there was no US policy at that time---we were all circulating drafts attempting to influence US policy--nothing was classified. In fact, I receive  d drafts containing much more “defense materials” from Robert Gates and from Zbigniew Brzezinski . The judge eventually dismissed all charges against Stephen Rosen and Keith Weissman. The judge lashed into the persecution for their underhanded and unethical behavior.  Legal experts said the government was wrong in the first place for trying to criminalize the kind of information horse-trading that long has occurred in Washington.  I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION: IS THERE A PATTERN OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION?

The Brookings Institution Newsletter

Foreign Policy at Brookings Highlights

A Presidential Briefing Book

U.S. Leadership: IRAN

Nightmares are events that could prove likely and particularly troublesome for U.S. interests and the global order. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twaD8Stv1t0

Ex-Obama adviser: Interim deal is a sham BY JENNIFER RUBIN January 27 ,2014

Former Obama adviser Dennis Ross wrote a curiously incomplete and unsatisfying piece for Politico, expressing concern that the Iranians won’t do what we want them to — dismantle their nuclear weapons program to such a degree that the country ceases to be a “threshold” nuclear power. Hmm. How did things go wrong? What happened here?

President Barack Obama talks with members of his first term Middle East Policy team, including from right, George Mitchell, special envoy for Middle East Peace; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Dennis Ross, senior director for the Central Region; and Dan Shapiro, senior director for the Middle East, in the Oval Office, Sept. 1, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Then I received in my inbox a report excoriating the interim deal. The report came from a task force put together byJINSA, an international pro-Israel organization, and was co-authored by respected conservative foreign policy guru Eric Edelman and, yup, Dennis Ross. How curious that Ross wouldn’t share the full extent of his concerns with Politico readers nor give them an appreciation for how we got to this point and how entirely misguided is the administration’s current approach.

The task force’s executive summary explains the depth of the concern about the interim deal (the “JPA” or the Joint Plan of Action):

We believe the JPA is deeply flawed because the combination of interim and final concessions it contains undermine[s] the effort to prevent a nuclear Iran.

Our previous report, issued in the run-up to Geneva, spelled out six principles to which any deal must conform to protect U.S. national security interests. To be acceptable, we argued any deal must require Iran to resolve outstanding international concerns, adhere to international legal requirements and roll back its nuclear program. It would also need to put in place a strict inspections regime and clear deadlines for Iran to uphold its commitments. Finally, we made the case that, to obtain such a deal, the United States would have to negotiate and enforce it from a position of strength, to make it unmistakably plain to Tehran that it has the most to lose from the failure of diplomacy.

The rest of the report explains the ways in which the interim deal is a setback.

The task force was divided on whether the complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear program is needed. It nevertheless argues, “All task force members agree an acceptable final deal must require Iran to meet all of its international legal obligations, come clean about its past nuclear weapons research and work, and accept a much more intrusive inspections regime.”

The most serious problem is the one Congress has already identified: “The JPA will cause U.S. leverage against Iran to diminish while a comprehensive settlement is negotiated and implemented. This is because the deal has begun unlacing the international sanctions regime that initially helped force Iran to the negotiating table. In addition, the deal has been interpreted by both the Rouhani and Obama administrations as obliging the United States not to legislate further sanctions – or even to pass legislation that threatens to implement further sanctions in the event Iran fails to fulfill its obligations.” We therefore have been put on the road to capitulation.

Contrary to the administration’s representations, it does not alter Iran’s timeline, the authors report, because Western negotiators “needed to secure a final settlement with a clear short-term timeframe for Iran to uphold its commitments. Instead, the JPA is a longer-term, multi-stage agreement with moveable deadlines and ultimately no permanent limits on Iran’s ability to pursue nuclear weapons. By doing nothing to prevent a nuclear Iran, this lax timeline could encourage further regional instability, including a stronger Israeli sense of urgency to launch a preventive military strike.”

In essence, we give up a good deal of leverage in exchange for a deal that “does not place strict enough limits on Iran’s enrichment program to deny it nuclear weapons capability. It does not begin rolling back Iran’s enrichment progress before the mid-2014 deadline. Instead it caps certain enrichment levels, stockpiles, centrifuges and the plutonium track while a comprehensive agreement is worked out. It also allows Iran to build up its nuclear program to temporarily build down its enrichment levels and stockpiles. It does not cover work on weaponization or delivery systems. Iran could thus continue approaching nuclear weapons capability during this time, all the more so if the interim deal is renewed. Afterward, the JPA does not place permanent limits on Iran’s enrichment. This would do little to nothing to prevent a nuclear Iran over the long term.” In fact, it recognizes enrichment will be subject to mutual agreement, which Iran (or any reader) would assume preserves its claimed “right to enrich.”

The task force recommends some steps to try to improve the deal: “to pressure Iran to return to the negotiating table.” (Given the president we have, I find that possibility to be remote.) The task force argues for the opposite of what the president is doing — increase sanctions and make the military threat more credible: “emphasizing advanced U.S. military capabilities (namely the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker buster for neutralizing the buried Fordow facility) and playing up, not down, the viability of military action in official statements. The United States must also begin military deployments to convey concretely its readiness to execute a preventive strike. It should also undertake all such actions in concert with regional allies.”

If we have essentially given up on dismantling Iran’s entire nuclear program, the task force argues that, at the very least, we must reach a final deal in six months that allows no enrichment above 5 percent, a full inspection regime, strict limits on the number of centrifuges and the dismantling of Fordow. In addition, “The United States must use all leverage available to insist any endgame agreement be permanent, with no expiration clause. Under the JPA, a timeframe is to be mutually agreed by the P5+1 and Iran, and thus there is no certain limit to how long the deal can remain in effect. This would be in keeping with previous U.S. arms control agreements.”

This is from the president’s first-term adviser on Iran, mind you. We would hope Congress pays close attention. But even this report leaves me with some questions for Mr. Ross, specifically:

• Does the president think we can disable the threat of a Iran as a “threshold nuclear power”? (In his Politico piece, he hints he had doubts about this all along.)
• If not, how did he remain in the administration and how did he not alert the country?
• If he does still believe that is possible, why is he pursuing a course of action that will make that goal harder to reach (e.g. poor advisers, his own world view)?

In short, the JINSA report is invaluable in telling us what is wrong with the JPA, but Mr. Ross should tell us what is wrong with the president. He knows him, and he began this policy that has led to ruin. The administration has done exactly the opposite of what is required and hampered our ability to attain a goal that the country thought it shared. If out of design or ignorance the president is moving us to an alternative of containment or a nuclear-capable Iran, we need to know about it.

That is really the key to determining what the administration’s real policy is here and how and when Congress needs to act. At issue here is a nuclear-capable Iran. This is no time for Mr. Ross to hide the ball.

Secretary Kerry, It's Not the Demography!

Yoram Ettinger“Israel Hayom,” http://bit.ly/M8HdQU, January 24, 2014

Is Secretary of State, John Kerry correct, or incorrect, when exhorting “the demographic time bomb” to scare Israel into a retreat from geography (Judea and Samaria), in order to, supposedly, secure demography?  According to Kerry,“There is an existential threat to Israel…. I am referring to the demographic dynamic that makes it impossible for Israel to preserve its future as a democratic, Jewish state without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a two-state solution.”

Are Jews doomed to become a minority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and the pre-1967 Israel?

According to the 2013 CIA World Factbook,  Judea and Samaria Arabs  experienced a dramatic decline in fertility rate (the average number of births per woman): from five births in 2000 to 2.91 in 2013.  On the other hand, in 2014, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics documents a 3.04 Jewish fertility rate and 3.42 when both Jewish spouses are Israeli-born.

“A new Palestinian generation opts for fewer children” is the title of an article by Rasha Abou Jalal, a Gaza journalist:  “While Islam calls for believers to bear many children and prohibits the use of birth control, new Palestinian generations are defying tradition and leaning toward limiting the number of children they have…. The new generation takes into consideration various economic and cultural factors before deciding to have children.  The idea of limiting childbearing has, therefore, garnered more supporters than before…. The more Palestinians become aware and rational, the less they will procreate, as they pursue a level of education and knowledge that suits them and increases their chances of having a better life….   

The Westernization of Muslim demographic trends, from Iran (1.8 births per woman), through Saudi Arabia (2.3), Syria and Egypt (2.9) and North Africa (1.8) has also characterized Muslim women in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and pre-1967 Israel. The unprecedented decline in Muslim fertility has been driven by modernity: accelerated women’s rights, urbanization, education, career mentality and family planning (72% of 15-49 year old married Palestinian women prefer to avoid pregnancy).  Thus, contemporary young Muslim women are reluctant to get married at the age of fifteen and start reproducing at the age of sixteen.  They tend to postpone marriage until after the age of 20 and prefer limited reproduction.  

On the other hand, in 2014, the Israeli Jewish fertility rate (three births per woman and trending upwards) is higher than in any Arab country, other than Yemen, Iraq and Jordan.  Jewish demography has been enhanced by a high level of optimism, patriotism, communal responsibility and attachment to roots among religious and secular, hawks and doves, conservative and liberal Israelis, bolstered by economic progress. While the annual number of Arab births – west of the Jordan River – has stabilized since 1995, the annual number of Jewish births has surged from 80,000 in 1995 to about 132,000 in 2013 – a 65% increase!  This dramatic leap occurred despite declining fertility among ultra-orthodox Jews, but due to the substantial rise of secular Jewish fertility.  In 1995 there were 2.3 Jewish births per one Arab birth in Israel; in 2014 – 3.3 births.  In 1995, the number of Jewish births constituted 69% of total Israeli births; in 2014 – 77% and rising.

In 2014, there is a robust 66% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel - compared with a 9% and 39% in 1900 and 1947 - benefitting from a tailwind of fertility and net-immigration.  This contrasts with declining Arab fertility and annual Arab net-emigration (in 2014, 20,000 from Judea and Samaria).  In 2014, Israel’s Jewish population has reached 6.5 million people, next to 1.7 million Israeli Arabs and 1.7 million Judean and Samarian Arabs – one million less than the number claimed by the Palestinian Authority.  The misrepresentation was conceived in the late 1990s, in response to the arrival of one million Soviet Jews to Israel.  It consists of overseas residents, overseas births, by double-counting Jerusalem Arabs as Israeli Arabs (by Israel) and West Bankers (by the Palestinian Authority), etc..  

According to a March 17, 2006 Gallup Poll survey, preferred family size has a strong bearing on actual fertility rates: Israeli Jews aspired to 3.7 births per woman, while Palestinians aspired to 4.7 births.  Although, 2014 indicates compatibility with Jewish preference, Palestinian fertility is decreasing much faster than expected by Gallup.

All doomsday demographic projections have failed due to their reliance on past demographic data, underestimating Jewish fertility, overestimating Arab fertility and discarding the feasibility of significant waves of Aliyah (Jewish immigration). Since 1898 and 1944, the demographic establishment has issued multiple projections on the ostensible inevitability of an Arab majority in the Land of Israel, attempting to scare Zionist leaders into inaction and retreat.  In 1967, Prime Minister Eshkol was urged to evacuate Judea and Samaria, lest there be an Arab majority by 1987.  On July 6, 1987, Prof. Arnon Sofer contended that an Arab majority was expected by 2000. Together with Prof. Sergio DellaPergolla, they dismissed any prospect of Jewish immigration from the USSR.  In fact, one million Jews arrived! A pro-active Aliyah policy could produce 500,000 Olim in the next ten years, catapulting the Jewish majority in Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel to 80% by 2035.

The demography of doom distorts reality, instills pessimism, subordinates long-term strategic vision to baseless fatalism, rationalizes a policy of submission to pressure and self-destructive retreat, intensifies global pressure and radicalizes Arab demands, thus promoting violence and undermining peace.

Will Secretary Kerry embrace demographic reality, which highlights a robust Jewish tailwind and not an Arab demographic time bomb?!

After 28 years, Pollard deserves facts, not fiction

After 28 years, Pollard deserves facts, not fiction

By ELIOT LAUER AND JACQUES SEMMELMAN

1-19-14

As pro bono attorneys for Jonathan Pollard since 2000, we never cease to be amazed at how those who are hostile to Pollard feel compelled to make up facts.

Evidently, these adversaries recognize that the actual facts are not sufficient to justify keeping Pollard in prison any longer, as he has already served over 28 years for delivering classified information to the State of Israel.

The most recent manifestation of this phenomenon appears in an opinion piece in the online edition of The New York Times by M.E. Bowman, titled “Don’t trust this spy.”

Bowman makes a series of false and inflammatory allegations that are contradicted by the public court record. Since Bowman would be committing a crime were he to reveal anything contained in the non-public, classified portion of the court record, it is fair to presume that he is not doing so. Since his assertions are nowhere to be found in (and indeed, are contradicted by) the public court record, the only possible conclusion is that his allegations are false.

For example, Bowman now claims that Pollard supposedly “sold the daily report from the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet Ocean Surveillance Facility in Rota, Spain.”

That allegation is nowhere to be found in the public court record.

Moreover, it is contradicted by the 1987 CIA report which concluded that Israel never even requested information from Pollard concerning “US military activities, plans, capabilities or equipment.” Twenty-eight years after the fact, Bowman has now invented this allegation, evidently for the purpose of trying to impede the powerful wave of support for Pollard’s release.

Bowman’s statement is also incompatible with the Victim Impact Statement submitted by the prosecution to the sentencing judge in 1987. The Victim Impact Statement – the pre-sentencing court document in which the victim of a crime (in this case, the United States itself) describes the damage it has suffered – sets forth the actual damage to the US as follows: “Mr. Pollard’s unauthorized disclosures have threatened the US [sic] relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard’s disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard’s co-conspirators, the US has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard’s largesse is that US bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any further intelligence exchanges has been undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard’s activities have adversely affected US relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the government of Israel.”

The Victim Impact Statement reflects – at worst – short-term friction between the US and unnamed Arab countries, and temporary reduction in bargaining leverage by the US, rather than the severe damage now described by Bowman.

While it would require many pages to catalog each of the falsehoods in Bowman’s article, a few examples will suffice. He claims that Pollard pleaded guilty to a charge that could have resulted in the death penalty. That is categorically false. He never pleaded guilty to any such charge, nor was he accused of a capital offense.

Bowman also suggests that Pollard pleaded guilty to a statute which criminalizes disclosure that might result in the death of an agent. But Bowman chooses not to mention that the public record contains an undisputed statement that no agents lost their lives as a result of anything Pollard did.

Bowman accuses Pollard of “treason,” when he surely knows that treason involves aiding an enemy of the US. Pollard was not charged with, and could not have been charged with, treason, because his espionage was for an ally, not an enemy. And Bowman opts not to mention that Pollard was not charged with intending to harm the US, even though such a charge can be brought if the facts support it.

Bowman is hardly the only person who has knowledge of Pollard’s case. He mentions former CIA director R. James Woolsey, Jr., and former assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb, both distinguished former government officials who have spoken out in favor of releasing Pollard. Bowman omits to mention that these two are but the tip of a very large and impressive iceberg, as many former high-ranking government officials have called for Pollard’s release.

They include George Shultz, who served as secretary of state at the time of the case; Robert “Bud” McFarlane, who served as national security adviser at the time of the case; former attorney-general Michael Mukasey; former secretary of state Henry Kissinger; former vice president Dan Quayle; four former chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and dozens of senators and members of Congress.

Bowman also neglects to mention that secretary of defense Caspar W. Weinberger (whose affidavit Bowman cites as proof of his position) admitted years later in an interview with prominent journalist Edwin Black that the Pollard case was “a very minor matter, but made very important... It was made far bigger than its actual importance.” Those words cannot be reconciled with Bowman’s inflammatory statements.

In the face of this groundswell of support for a very belated measure of justice for Pollard, Bowman apparently feels the need to make his opposing view heard. Bowman is entitled to his opinion. But he is not entitled to invent facts in order to support it.

As a matter of simple justice, the actual facts compel Jonathan Pollard’s release after over 28 years behind bars.

The writers have served as pro bono attorneys for Jonathan Pollard since 2000.

U.S. Presidential Expectations and Mideast Peace

By: Louis Rene Beres

Published: January 17th, 2014 

Latest update: January 16th, 2014

President Obama’s core argument in his unwavering "instructions" to Israel on a Middle East peace process is still founded upon flagrantly incorrect assumptions. These erroneous premises are strategicand jurisprudential – that is, they are about both war and law. Intellectually, they are hopelessly insubstantial.

The key sticking point for peaceful settlement with the Palestinians is not, as the president continues to think, Israel’s alleged unwillingness to compromise on “settlements” or any such diversion. To be sure, the problem is not that Israel is somehow hesitant to make increasingly painful sacrifices for peace. It is, rather, the persistently asymmetrical commitment to cooperation that endures between the fractionated Palestinian side, and the Israeli side.

From the beginning, the only Israeli compromise that could have ever satisfied Fatah and Hamas would have involved an Israeli commitment to national self-destruction. Should such an option really be the basis for negotiations? Is Israel actually expected to become complicit in its own genocide?

Why, at this late date, hasn’t President Obama taken the trouble to consider the unvarnished and incontestable historical record? The Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1964; three years before there were any "occupied territories." Just what, at that time, was the PLO actually trying to "liberate"?

Even before its formal grant of statehood in May 1948, Israel had sought to negotiate with many unheroic and unreasonable enemies. Always, in these efforts, Jerusalem had preferred peace to war. Always, Israel's one-sided effort was met with yet another war or still another intifada.

Diplomacy has insistently failed Israel. Even the most visible example of any alleged diplomatic “success,” the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979, could still fail calamitously in the next several years.

Israel’s principal enemies in "Palestine" remain candid. Conspicuously, on some primal issues, they do not lie. On their unhidden intention to annihilate the “Zionist entity” they remain gleefully sworn to "truth."

Several Israeli prime ministers have now gone through the self-defeating practice of releasing Palestinian terrorists as a "good will gesture." Unsurprisingly, a substantial fraction of the freed murderers promptly returned to a disciplined regimen of anti-Israel terror. In the seventeenth-century, Hugo Grotius, the founder of modern international law, remarked: "A just war is fought to defend the innocent." In Israel, however, Prime Minister Netanyahu, by releasing Arab terrorists, has declared war against his own most fragile citizens.

An ancient Latin principle of law instructs: jus ex injuria, non oritur – rights do not arise from wrongs. Oddly, it is a maxim that has yet to be understood in Jerusalem. For some reason, Israeli leaders cannot fathom the perils of re-exposing the country’s noncombatants to the tender mercies of sworn murderers.

Some points should be utterly obvious. There is an irremediable inequality of objectives between Israel and its enemies. For Palestinian insurgents, conflict with Israel is always “zero-sum.” It is always an all or nothing proposition. It is nonsense to believe that any such terrorist could gratefully acquiesce to Israeli expectations, in exchange for their own release from Israeli prisons.

For Israel, endlessly hopeful, a negotiated peace with its Arab "neighbors” persists as a more-or-less plausible objective. This delusional optimism remains adamant, even though any wished-for prospect of Islamic reciprocity is plainly preposterous and historically inconceivable.

A fundamental inequality is evident in all expressions of the Middle East peace process. On the Palestinian side, Oslo and “Road Map” expectations have never been anything more than a commendably cost-effective method of dismantling Israel. On the Israeli side, these expectations have generally been taken as a presumptively indispensable way of averting future war and terror.

In the final analysis, the core problem of Israel's life or death vulnerability lies in the Jewish state's ongoing assumptions on war and peace. While certain of Israel's regional enemies, state and nonstate, believe that any power gains for Israel represent a reciprocal power loss for them – that is, that they coexist with Israel in a condition of pure conflict – Israel assumes something else entirely. For Netanyahu as well as his several immediate predecessors, relations with the Palestinian Authority/Hamas are not taken as pure zero-sum but rather as a mutual-dependence connection. Here, conflict is always believed to be mixed with cooperation.

Israel may still believe that some of its Arab enemies reject zero-sum assumptions about the strategy of conflict. Israel's Palestinian enemies, however, do not make any such erroneous judgments about conformance with Israeli calculations. These enemies well know that Israel is wrong in its belief that certain Arab states and the Palestinians also reject the zero-sum assumption, but they pretend otherwise. Why shouldn’t they?

Israel's strategy of conflict has, at least in part, been founded on multiple theoretical miscalculations, and upon an ironic indifference to certain primary and flagrant enemy manipulations. The exterminatory policies of Israel's enemies, on the other hand, remain founded on (a) correct calculations and assumptions and (b) an astute awareness of Israel's strategic naiveté. More than anything else, this means that Israel’s prime minister should now make far-reaching changes in the way that Israel actually conceptualizes the critically determinative continuum of cooperation and conflict.

Obama’s advice notwithstanding, a “new Israel,” ridding itself of injurious and disingenuous wishful thinking, should finally acknowledge the zero-sum calculations of its enemies, thus accepting that a constant struggle must still be fought at the conflict end of the spectrum. Earlier this meant, especially in the case of Iran, a primary attention to then still-realistic preemption imperatives. Now, however, suchimperatives are more apt to be fulfilled, in steady increments, inter alia, via selected forms of cyber-warfare and targeted killings, than through more traditional expressions of military force.

Netanyahu should not become the best ally Israel’s Arab enemies and Iran could ever hope to have. Rather, he should seek to serve Israel’s long-term survival with real wisdom, supplanting the patently false assumptions that stem from persistently misguided hopes, with meaningfully correct premises, ones that are based upon sound reasoning.

In the end, Israel’s existential choices are really all about logic.

In the language of formal logic, invalid forms of argument are called fallacies. The basic problem with Israel's continuous search for "peace" through negotiated surrenders (land for nothing) has been its unhesitating commission of fallacies. Significantly, it is precisely such error that is called for by Obama.

These particular arguments for unending Israeli forfeitures are insidious because they could involve a devastating policy outcome. Distinguishable from singular mistakes, such deviations from correct thinking ensure that all subsequent calculations will also result in error. It is, therefore, in the very process of strategic thinking, and not in the assessment of particular facts and issues, that Israeli policy changes are now most sorely needed.

Obama’s vision for the Middle East offers Israel only a lethal cartography. Before he can offer Mr. Netanyahu anything more suitable, he will first need to understand that the Palestinians don’t calculate their gains and losses the same way the Israelis do. For Fatah or Hamas – it doesn’t really make any difference – any presumed concession to Israel must represent an automatic loss for them.

For the Palestinians, the struggle with Israel is not about land, but about God. In such always-“sacred” conflicts, there can never be any room for mutual accommodation or compromise.