George Galloway hates Israelis (and his other greatest hits)
Never let it be said that Gorgeous George doesn’t make his prejudices clear:
As reported in Cherwell, published by the students of Oxford University:
Mr Galloway “stormed out” of a debate at Christ Church on Wednesday evening, upon finding out that his opponent, Eylon Aslan-Levy, a third-year PPEist at Brasenose, was an Israeli citizen.
Mr Galloway had spoken for ten minutes in favour of the motion ‘Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank’, before giving way to Aslan-Levy.
Less than three minutes into Aslan-Levy’s speech against the motion, Galloway was made aware that his opponent was an Israeli citizen.
“I have been misled,” were Galloway’s words — “I don’t debate with Israelis. I don’t recognize Israel.” Later that day, Galloway added on twitter:
George Galloway: “An Israeli citizen could not by definition be my constituent.”: twitter.com/georgegalloway….
I wonder whether that includes Arab Israelis or only the six million Jewish Israelis and those in the Diaspora that hold Israeli citizenship. Only Galloway can answer that, though I think I can make a fairly decent guess. (And I’m afraid I could not embed George Galloway’s actual tweet, for he has previously blocked me for asking too many question about dead children in Syria.)
(Source: mostlykosher.blogspot.co.uk)
Hamas’ Lifeblood: Money
by Gary M. Osen, Tablet, November 27, 2012
In the years preceding the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers—up to $25,000 per family—received a great deal of attention. But the fact is that the Saudis, Iranians, and a wide array of Gulf state charities affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood have spent the past decade vying for influence in the Palestinian territories by funding Hamas’ da’wa network and providing substantial payments to the families of “martyrs” killed in the conflict with Israel, former security prisoners like Jabari, and the families of terrorists still held in Israeli prisons.
Much of the money has flowed through Lebanon. The Iranian regime, for example, haschanneled its support through the Lebanese branch of its Martyrs Foundation, while the Muslim Brotherhood has relied upon its own institutions. Historically, both the Iranians and the Saudis have placed an emphasis on making direct payments to beneficiaries in the Palestinian territories through the Palestinian banking system, but Hamas also uses its da’wa network in Gaza and the West Bank to institutionalize payments to the families of so-called martyrs and prisoners. Thus, for example, the father of the suicide bomber responsible for blowing up Sbarro’s pizzeria in Jerusalem in 2001 received a payment from the Saudis for more than $5,300, further payment from Iran’s surrogates of $6,000, and yet another payment of $550 from a Hamas-controlled institution in Jenin.
Hamas has been so successful in taking credit for the financial subsidies it has secured for the families of the “resistance” that the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority, forever struggling to catch up to its rival, has devoted vast sums to reward the families of terrorists imprisoned by Israel. For example, on June 28, 2010, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad approved an updated payment scale for the families of men like Hamas bomb-maker Abdalla Barghuthi who was convicted of murdering 66 people, including six Americans and is serving 67 life sentences. The PA now pays Barghuthi’s family approximately $1,100 a month and that amount will increase to $1,600 a month next year when he logs his tenth year in prison. The PA may be broke, but the Barghuthi family can look forward to receiving each month what the average Palestinian family earns each year.
Israel's Iran and Settlements Switcheroo
by Ben Birnbaum, The New Republic, November 27, 2012
Barak has been the bete-noire of the settlers since his short-lived stint as prime minister from 1999 until 2001. More than any other Israeli leader, he broke taboos on territorial concessions by offering to divide Jerusalem and to establish a Palestinian state on all of Gaza and some 95 percent of the West Bank during the 2000-01 peace talks.
In his capacity as defense minister, Barak was attacked by the right for delaying approval of various West Bank construction projects and for pushing the evacuations of illegal outposts. Barak, unlike Ya’alon, supported Netanyahu’s ten-month settlement freeze and was one of the leading voices urging the prime minister to heed President Obama’s call for a two-month extension.
Cheering Barak’s retirement, Minister of Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein said Monday that “Barak will go down in the history of Israel’s governments as the worst defense minister that the Jewish settlement enterprise ever had.”
Though Ya’alon supported the 1993 Oslo Accords, in recent years he has shifted right on the Palestinian issue. At a 2009 conference, he called the group Peace Now a “virus” and said—regarding U.S. pressure over settlements—that he was “not afraid of the Americans.” “From my perspective,” he was quoted as saying, “Jews can and need to live in all of the Land of Israel for all eternity.”
Debate Night in America: When a Foreign Policy Debate Just Isn’t
Canada. Mexico. Cuba. Brazil. Tunisia. Jordan. Lebanon. Turkey. The Palestinians. The European Union. Kosovo. India. Burma. Japan. Vietnam. Indonesia.
These are the names of various nations (or supranational organisations) critical to the foreign policy interests of the United States that those tuning into last night’s debate did not hear about. Or, at least not in any substantive way.
The reasons for this were essentially two-fold. First, the illusion of a free exchange of ideas pertaining to international affairs lasted around ten minutes, when after a fumbling exchange on Libya, both candidates retreated to zingers and talking points. President Obama started it off, in fact, with this:
Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaida’s a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now.
Romney, later in the debate, cracked open the following canned attack:
Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now down to 285. We’re headed down to the — to the low 200s if we go through with sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me. I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy.
Our Air Force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947. We’ve changed for the first time since FDR. We — since FDR we had the — we’ve always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we’re changing to one conflict.
To which, Obama said this:
Bibi Goes to the UN: His Speech and That Picture
Try as he might, Benjamin Netanyahu address to the United Nations General Assembly will not be remembered his its content, positively or negatively, but rather for this image, which served only to undermine what I assume he intended to be a serious speech:
I’m slightly surprised that given Israel is one the most technologically-advanced nations on Earth, Netanyahu couldn’t find anything better to illustrate his point than a doodle from ClipArt, jazzed up by lines etched on with the Word drawing tool and a couple of text boxes. Couldn’t he have called the guys at Intel or something? They practically have a whole town to themselves in Kiryat Gat they’re so massive. Microsoft have campuses in Haifa and Herzliya. I’m sure they would have made time for the Prime Minister of Israel.
Twitter as usual agrees:
Smart reader emails re Bibi: “Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Will Eisner, and he pulls this nonsense…”
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) September 27, 2012
“We come from the greatest race of comic illustrators in the history of the planet, and he comes up with a fifth grade science fair drawing”
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) September 27, 2012
Smart reader ctnd: “uch, maybe he was still woozy from the fast.”
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) September 27, 2012
Israel Hate Spells Trouble in Tehran
Quds Day in Iran is always marked by speeches noted for their anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric. This year was no exception. In a speech already condemned by Baroness Ashton – lead negotiator in the P5+1 talks on Iranian nuclear proliferation – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad labelled Israel a “malignant cancer” and the state’s endurance “an insult to all humanity”, adding that “the fake Zionist regime would soon fade away from geography and every inch of the occupied territories be returned to Palestinians”.
Ahmadinejad’s particularly vociferous and violent address in Tehran, however, signifies deeper problems on the home front. His aggressive language can be taken as a sign that the sanctions imposed by segments of the international community are working and the regime’s popularity is waning as a consequence.
When their grip on power loosens, leaders both democratic and autocratic often turn towards jingoism to rally the populace against another as a form of distraction. It is not coincidental, for example, that Argentinian leaders from General Galtieri to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner have suddenly remembered their need to regain the Falklands at times when economic conditions are taking a turn for the worse. The same can be said of Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to round up and deport thousands of Romany gypsies in the summer of 2010, when the unemployment rate in France was climbing and his approval rating slipping.
The exploitation of the Palestinian cause has always been a go-to point for Iranian leaders; that Ahmadinejad felt the need to be even more strident and transparent in his remarks this year is a sign that he feels he needs Israel as an enemy more than ever. Given the tenor of his address, never let it be said that his feelings on the existence of the Jewish state are not absolute.
IDF chief of staff-turned-vice premier: 'We are not bluffing'
by Ari Shavit, Ha’aretz, June 14, 2012
But the Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons is an irrational act. Like the Soviets, they will never do that.
“A Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the Iranian leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will Islamize us?’ The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts are different and their considerations are different. They are completely unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea. If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic.”
After Hollande’s Win, What Next for Netanyahu?
François Hollande’s pledge to renegotiate the European Union’s fiscal compact is unlikely to threaten the long-term stability of the Franco-German relationship. For both the new President of France and German Kanzler Angela Merkel, the urgent need to assist the Mediterranean states, whilst hold together the single currency and thus the Union at-large will trump Hollande’s electoral play.
Rather, the fall of Nicolas Sarkozy will be of greater concern to Jerusalem than to Berlin. Franco-Israeli relations have had their tense moments – de Gaulle’s arms embargo after the Six Day War; Chirac’s support for Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein – but under Sarkozy, the two nations maintained a healthy working relationship. Sarkozy’s infamous open-mic slip – “Netanyahu, I can’t stand him. He’s a liar” – seemed to be just that.
During his five years in office, Sarkozy sought to make commitments to Israel’s security by ending the arms embargo and became personally involved in the effort to free Gilad Shalit, whom he called a “son of France”. Whilst opposed to a military strike, on the Iranian dilemma and the threat posed by nuclear escalation in the Gulf Sarkozy was closer to Netanyahu than even the United States, with Tony Karon noting in Time that he had “taken the lead in pressing [for] sanctions that have had a painful impact on the Iranian economy”.
Like Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu has been pushed to the center
by Ari Shavit, Ha’aretz, May 9, 2012
The Likud-Netanyahu government speaks of four goals: Changing the system of government, passing a new law governing Haredi conscription, creating a new social order and initiating a responsible peace process. But its real goal is Iran. For Netanyahu, bringing Mofaz into his government is like Levi Eshkol’s bringing Menachem Begin and Moshe Dayan into his government in 1967. It creates a firm political foundation on which to conduct the strategic sparring with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The national unity government provides domestic and international legitimacy to the anticipated confrontation. Now the Iran decision will not be the decision of the reviled messianic duo from Caesarea and Akirov Towers. Now the Iran decision will be the joint decision of Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mofaz and Vice Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon. Instead of pre-Iran elections, we get pre-Iran unity, which does the same thing. Instead of a two-month window of opportunity (September-October 2012 ), we get a four-month one (July-October 2012 ).
A new and surprising political move brings Netanyahu to exactly the same place he had hoped to reach through an early election. The only difference is that our summer is a goner. The Iranian crisis could erupt any day - or night - between now and November.
In Israel, the Worst of All Possible Governments
The deal which will extend the life of this worst of all possible governments, that of Benjamin Netanyahu, confirms my worst suspicions about Kadima and Shaul Mofaz, all of which I hoped would not turn out to be true. In an article for The Forward, I proposed:
For too long, Kadima has been a gangrenous limb, infected and hanging limply off the body politic. Too hawkish to make the case for peace affirmatively, yet too impotent and incompetent to be effective, this ersatz party has been floundering without purpose or gumption from the moment it fulfilled its initial and only purpose of executing the unilateral disengagement of Gaza in 2005.
So it is that the hawkish Mofaz has brought his sorry excuse for a party into coalition with Netanyahu, essentially for his own ends. Sure, the two leaders spoke of electoral reform and replacing the Tal Law, but for Mofaz, coming to a right-wing government delays the election and prevents Kadima share of seats from being sliced in half in September. Moreover, it confirms my assertion that Kadima as an institution essentially believes in nothing, save the status quo.
And, the new government compounds the very problem I referenced in The Forward article, namely, “the absence of a legitimate opposition force to the current government and their stance on peace” and the Iranian question. With Mofaz as an identifiable member of the defence establishment, the Kadima-Likud coalition surely only lays the groundwork for stasis in negotiations with the Palestinians, and a pre-emptive strike on Iran before talks have had a chance to run their course — all in the name of national unity.
In any good is to come of this coalition, at all, it is that it may just result in the very thing I wished for in my original piece:
Israeli politics would benefit tremendously if the accession of Mofaz resulted in Kadima’s rapid descent into obscurity. In such an instance, its membership would drift naturally back towards their original homes, and with any luck, Labor would assume the role it should have had to begin with (had it not been for its own ineptitude) of Israel’s natural dissident voice, campaigning against those who seek to stymie the peace process or oppose the notion altogether.
I can but hope.
