Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, April 07, 2015

04/07 Links P2: BDS not just anti-Semitic, it's racist; Wounded Syrians try matza in Israel; Latma Ep9

From Ian:

BDS is not just anti-Semitic, it is racist

In a recent interview with the Jewish Media Agency (JMA), David Feldman, the director of the London-based Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism, denied that the boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) movement is anti-Semitic.
“I think the BDS movement is a broad church. It attracts support from some people who would like to see a one-state solution, but I think many people are attracted to BDS because they strongly oppose Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories,” he told JMA, before adding: “I haven’t seen the evidence to suggest that movement as a whole should be characterised as anti-Semitic.”
Now Feldman is either in denial or he has not experienced BDS at close quarters. Does he realise that in July and August 2014, shops, banks, universities, theatres and entire towns in Britain were targeted by a contingent of BDS activists comprising jihadi Islamists, anarchists, local gangsters and Socialist Worker Party members?
For example, in Manchester, which is home to Europe’s fastest-growing Jewish community, an Anglo-Israeli cosmetic shops was subject to a daily boycott that lasted for six weeks. I lost count of the times that I heard comments such as “Jews killed Jesus” and “You have blood on your hands.” A number of BDS activists were captured on camera expressing their admiration for Hitler or making Nazi salutes. Jews (including elderly men and women) were threatened and intimidated. Anti-Semitic leaflets were handed out to members of the public.

World soccer chief head opposes Palestinian bid to bar Israel

FIFA president Sepp Blatter on Tuesday expressed his opposition to a Palestinian bid to bar Israel from international competition, saying such a move would harm soccer’s governing body itself.
Blatter is due to meet Palestinian Football Association (PFA) chief Jibril Rajoub in Cairo later Tuesday to discuss PFA calls for Israel to be suspended by FIFA for its “racist behavior against Arabs.”
When asked by AFP at a press conference to comment on the PFA request, Blatter said that “such a situation shall not occur at the FIFA congress because suspension of a federation for any reason is always something which harms the whole organization.”
“I will meet Mr Jibril Rajoub, president of Palestine Football federation, later this afternoon. I can’t give you more details,” said the outgoing FIFA president who is seeking a fifth term in office at an election next month. (h/t Bob Knot)

Latma: We'll be the Judge, episode 9

The ninth episode of the Israeli satire program "We'll be the Judge," from the creators of Latma's Tribal Update, Israel Channel 1, April 1, 2015.

Clashes in Jenin between PA and armed groups and more

Armed groups in Jenin clashed with Palestinian Authority forces after they had arrested a resident of the camp.

There was heavy fighting reported going late into the night.

Meanwhile, over in Hamastan, a bomb exploded near a mosque in Sheikh Radwan. It was one of those "mysterious explosions" that happen every so often in Gaza.

And Hamas arrested a Salafist preacher, saying he was a member of ISIS which Hamas denies exists in Gaza.

The “Modern Judas Maccabaeus” Remembered (Daphne Anson)

I am pleased to welcome the newest EoZ columnist, Daphne Anson.

He was Australia’s commander-in-chief during the First World War, its most famous soldier and one of the country’s most celebrated national heroes. Field-Marshal Montgomery, Britain’s military commander during the Second World War, described him as one of the ablest generals of the earlier conflict. In 1931, one-third of Australia’s population of 900,000 lined the route of his funeral: “If the King had died he could not have been shown more respect,” to quote one biographer. While his body lay in state in Parliament House, Melbourne,

“Hour after hour a steady stream shuffled in and around the bier… City businessmen. Clerks and assistants. The squatter and the farmer. The wife of the rich. The wife of the poor. Many folk of the Jewish race. Returned soldiers. Police constables. Members of the Salvation Army. Schoolboys and schoolgirls. Parents and little children.”

His state funeral, broadcast to the nation, was

“[T]he most impressive and largely attended Australia had known …. Never, perhaps, had Melbourne seen so many flags, at half-mast but stiff in the breeze…. The cortège [was] followed by hundreds of cars and thousands walking, determined to follow all the nine miles to [the] cemetery …. The crowd remained deep; blinds on the route were drawn ….”

As early as 1927, and more frequently during the Great Depression as the country plunged into conflict between capital and labour, there were calls by right-wing paramilitary bodies and groups of conservative businessmen for him to take control of Australia as a Mussolini-like dictator. “There is only one man who can save Australia,” declared a letter to the Sydney Bulletin, prompting intensification of that sentiment. (“I have no ambition to embark on High Treason” was the subject’s irritated response to one such call: “What would you say if a similar proposal were made by the communists and socialists to seize political power?”)

Melbourne’s second university is named for him, and his image is on Australia’s $100 bill.

He was Sir John Monash, one of only two senior military commanders of any country in the twentieth century who was not a professional soldier (the other was Canada’s commander-in-chief during the First World War, Arthur Currie, a lawyer and estate agent).

The son of German Jewish immigrants to Melbourne, where he was born in 1865, Monash was a brilliant student who academically topped his class at school and went on to become a civil engineer. He applied civil engineering techniques to fighting, and unlike other First World War generals attempted to preserve the lives of his troops. He came to prominence in 1915 at Gallipoli, a peninsula in Turkey which the Allies tried to take in order to conquer Constantinople. The attempt, poorly led by British commanding officers, and under-resourced, failed. But the ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand) troops performed well despite impossible odds, resulting in Gallipoli becoming a legendary event in the formation of Australia’s national identity: its centenary is this month. Despite the defeat, what happened there became renowned in Australian history and folk memory, just as the Dunkirk evacuation (1940) did in the British.

There has always been a theory that if the First World War had lasted through 1919 Monash would have become commander-in-chief of the Allied forces.

Highly literate, with a large personal library and varied interests, Monash was nephew-by-marriage to the great historian Heinrich Graetz – a fact in which he took pride. He was a loyal Jew, albeit not a very religious one – he joked that on Yom Kippur he fasted “from lunch to dinner”. During the years of his fame and veneration he belonged to two of Melbourne’s three synagogues, declining to participate in the foundation in 1930 of its fourth (a Liberal one which would have probably suited his ideas and inclinations) on the grounds that he was unwilling to offend the Orthodox and that he was too old for the enterprise. He is on record as recalling that during the First World War he told himself: “Remember you are a Jew and if you muck it up our people will be blamed for it”.

In Britain during and after the war he was lionised by Jew and non-Jew alike, just as he was in Australia. The London Jewish Chronicle termed him “our modern Judas Maccabaeus”. Israel Zangwill believed him to be “designed by Providence to be the first governor of Palestine”. The British press made similar predictions. Zionists were crestfallen when, under the influence of certain Anglo-Jewish communal figures worried that the Balfour Declaration undermined the status of Jewish citizens of western lands and that the Zionist cause implied dual loyalties, Monash aligned himself with their League of British Jews. But in the 1920s he emerged as a supporter of Zionism, thanks in no small part to his mistress, Lizzie Bentwitch [sic], an Australian who was related to those gung-ho British Zionists Herbert Bentwich and his son (Professor Sir) Norman Bentwich, Attorney-General of Mandate Palestine. Thus in 1927 Monash agreed to become national president of the newly formed Australian Zionist Federation.

Monash “is neither tall nor physically impressive” remarked the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald (3 May 1924) shortly after meeting him.

“He is a Jew at first glance, and typical in face and feature. A short, thickset man, he does not carry any of the advantages which one associates with fine soldierly bearing…. He was masterful … a man of genius … eloquent of mind and imagination …. Australian problems on the largest scale have at least one man capable of solving them …”

Observed author Colin McInnes:

‘Monash, by the simple fact of his presence and prestige, made anti-Semitism as a “respectable” attitude, impossible in Australia’.

For men who had fought in the war spoke of Monash

“with reverence… And worshipping him as they did they could never publicly deny the hero they themselves had followed: nor could they deny his people” (Quoted in Geoffrey Serle, John Monash, Melbourne, 1982, p. 491; for another excellent biography see Roland Perry, Monash: The Outsider Who Won a War, North Sydney, 2007, and see also P. A. Pedersen, Monash as Military Commander, Melbourne, 1988.)

Daphne Anson is an Australian who under her real name has authored and co-authored several books and many articles on historical topics including Jewish ones. She blogs under an alias in order to separate her professional identity from her blogging one..

04/07 Links Pt1: A New Age of Middle East Insecurity; John Kerry's Messianic Complex

From Ian:

A New Age of Middle East Insecurity

Back in 2010, I interviewed Gerard Araud, who is now the French ambassador in Washington, DC, while he was still serving as France’s envoy to the United Nations in New York. We talked at length about Iran, and this was the first thing he told me: “The Iranian nuclear program has no civilian explanation whatsoever. You don’t start a civilian nuclear program by enriching uranium. It’s like if you buy the gas before the car.”
On April 2, Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) world powers, announced that a framework deal on Iran’s nuclear program has been reached. In the days prior, as I watched the Iran nuclear negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne slide past an agreed deadline of midnight on March 31 into, appropriately, April Fools’ Day, it struck me that nothing had changed since Araud—who remains a trenchant critic of American concessions to Iran—uttered those words five years ago. The Iranian nuclear program was never about the civilian use of nuclear energy. It was, and remains, geared towards the production of a nuclear weapon—hence all the lies and deceit practiced by the Iranian regime over more than a decade, and hence the succession of UN Security Council resolutions and anxious International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports underlining how Iran’s nuclear activities do not comport with those associated with a civilian program.
In fact, the glaring unresolved issues that held up the negotiations in Lausanne reflect this fundamental state of affairs, reinforcing the perception that the Obama administration will concede on almost anything in order to secure a deal. Iran hasn’t disclosed the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of its program, and will have even less incentive to do so if sanctions relief is offered regardless. At the same time, Iran has been told that it can continue operating centrifuges at its underground Fordow facility—a secret installation that was outed with great fanfare in 2009 by the Americans, the British, and the French—thus enabling it to further master the enrichment process. And as for their stockpile of enriched uranium, which the Iranians were supposed to be shipping to their Russian allies for safeguarding, well, apparently they won’t be doing that either.

Elliott Abrams: 'Messing' with Israel

In his lengthy interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, President Obama makes many statements about Israel's security and how the proposed deal with Iran enhances it.
"It has been personally difficult for me to hear ... expressions that somehow ... this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel's interest -- and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that's not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face."
"Respect the debate?" "Personally difficult?" This is the White House whose high officials called the prime minister of Israel a "chickens---" and a "coward," in interviews meant to be published -- not off the record. And the officials who said those things remain in place; no effort was ever made to identify and discipline them.
But the deeper problem is that the reassurances the president is offering to Israel ... are simply not reassuring. Iran is already, right now, while under sanctions that are badly hurting its economy, spending vast amounts of money and effort to "mess with Israel." This administration's reaction has been to seek a nuclear deal that will give Iran more economic resources to dedicate to its hatred and violence against Israel, but will in no way whatsoever limit Iran's conventional weapons and its support for terrorism.
Several times in this interview the president went out of his way to suggest that he fully understands Israel's security problems, but the full text suggests that he does not -- because he believes that his statements that "if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there" and would "stand by them" actually solve any of those problems. Time alone undermines the value of those statements, because he will not be president in 22 months. The words he used are sufficiently vague to undermine their value as well. It is hard to believe that many Israelis will be reassured by the interview, especially if they read the Iranian press and see what, in their own interviews, Iranian officials are claiming they got out of the new nuclear agreement.

Top Democrat backs bill okaying Congress to sink Iran deal

Senior Democratic senator Chuck Schumer indicated Monday he would back legislation allowing Congress to vet and approve a deal with Iran over its nuclear program — a bill strongly opposed by the White House.
Schumer endorsed a bill sponsored by Sen. Bob Corker (Rep.) and Bob Menendez (NJ) which would give Capitol Hill the authority to reject a White House-brokered accord with Tehran, signalling a potential standoff between President Barack Obama and senior lawmakers in his own Democratic Party over the deal.
“This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur,” Schumer told Politico Monday.
The move will enable other Democrat senators to support the bill and still save face despite vehement opposition from the White House, analysts say, meaning the legislation will garner Congress’s support from both sides of the partisan divide.

Muslims relentlessly hound Jews touring Temple Mount

On Sunday:

Usually the crowds of screaming Muslim women have been concentrated around the southern part of the Temple Mount, near the Al Aqsa mosque. This time they followed and hounded the Jews, including children, all around the perimeter.

The screams and chants have a secondary effect: they ensure that the Jewish tour guides cannot be heard as they describe the majesty and importance of the sacred spot to the respectful visitors. Perhaps they should bring tablets that they can hold up with the highlights they want to note.

Also on Sunday the Waqf decided to try a new tack to increase the number of Muslims visiting the Jewish holy site: shopping.

Vendors in the adjacent Cotton Market (which has a gate that enters the Temple Mount) held sales to attract Muslim shoppers who would then visit the holy site while clutching their bargains.

Muslim leaders have been alarmed at rhe increased number of Jews visiting the Mount on Passover, and have called for even more Muslims to come to "defend" the "mosque" - with a specific call for tomorrow.

Further incitement came from MP Ahmed Abu Halabiyeh who warned that Israel plans to evacuate all Muslims from the area and build an altar for sacrifices.

It's Passover, so it's blood libel time in Arab media

I'm surprised it took this long.

Lebanon's Slab News has an article by Imad Jabbour saying that he never believed that Jews killed Christians and Muslims to mix their blood in the dough of matzoh until he read about the famous Damascus blood libel of 1840.

For more proof, he only had to look at Haaretz, which published reports of a ridiculous paper written by Israeli professor Ariel Toaff where he seemed to claim, and then retracted, that Jews slaughtered Christians for their blood in medieval times. Toaff is now claiming without any evidence that Jews might have used dried human blood in mystical ceremonies.

Jabbour concludes that when he watches ISIS killing Christians and Muslims, but no Jews, that they must be doing it to provide blood for Jews to eat.

The article is illustrated with a photo of a Jewish circumcision ceremony.

Jabbour's original Facebook post of this article has hundreds of "Likes."

(h/t Shawarma News)

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah granted an interview with Syria's al-Ekhbariya channel, where he gave his opinions on everything from Syria to Yemen.

One of the things he said is that "Our problem is with the Zionists and not with the Jews because the Zionists killed and displaced Palestinian people and committed massacres against the Arab and Islamic people."

Of course Nasrallah has no problems with Jews. In fact, he wants to be killed by Jews!

As he said in 2005:

Each of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah. The most honorable death is to be killed, as the Leader Imam Al-Khamenei said when 'Abbas [Musawi] was martyred. He said: 'Congratulations to 'Abbas, congratulations to 'Abbas.' The most honorable death is death by killing, and the most honorable killing and the most glorious martyrdom is when a man is killed for the sake of Allah, by the enemies of Allah, the murderers of the prophets [i.e. the Jews]."

Maybe it is time fro him to get his wish.

And when he says that Jews are the descendants of monkeys and pigs, he is only referring to Zionist Jews:

We reaffirm the slogan of the struggle against the Great Satan and call, like last year: 'Death to America. To the murderers of the prophets, the grandsons of apes and pigs,' we say: ... 'Death to Israel...'"

You see, somehow the Zionists are the only Jews who have apes and pigs for ancestors.

Unfortunately, Hezbollah's TV channel, Al Manar, which wouldn't do anything without Nasrallah's implicit approval, says:

Hollywood is a Jewish invention that changed the way Americans view America, and created dreams, rather than reality. They managed to make the Americans live the dream, divorced from reality. Undoubtedly, the goal was to take over the greatest superpower in the world, to control all aspects of its daily life, and to harness it in the service of Jewish goals worldwide.

And:

Racism is deeply rooted in the souls of the followers of the Jewish religion – especially since their exile to Iraq, or Babylon, in 586 BCE. There they wrote a new Torah, completely different from the Torah received by Moses. Into this Torah they inserted the spirit of racism, which spread like a virus in the mind of every Jew ever since.

Nah, no Jew-hatred there.

04/06 Links Pt2: The West's Romance with Iran and Islamists; Passover in Jerusalem – 1913

From Ian:

The West's Romance with Iran and Islamists

The West seems to have lost the will to criticize political Islam. Not speaking out or taking action against Islamists is a sickness not only of the current U.S. government; many intellectuals also seem to suffer from it. In the West, there are goodhearted intellectuals who also apparently wish to deny what an all-enveloping role religion -- and particularly Islam -- plays in shaping and influencing how people think and act.
The Marxist view holds that religion is just a placebo in the face of economic oppression. So, the thinking goes, if there is a problem in a Muslim society, it must mainly stem from poverty, inequality and class conflicts, as well as "Western imperialism." Many people influenced by this view therefore tend to believe that after the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, the "oppressed" will cast off religion, to which they cling merely for consolation and the hope of a better future in an afterlife. Those who maintain this view remain silent on viciously repressive governments such as Hamas, Iran and North Korea, even as they claim to fight "imperialism" alongside regimes that hate Jews, Christians and women, and, in their effort to expand, are often themselves "imperialist."
In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once "capitalism," "American imperialism" and "Zionist occupation" were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism, and that a sunny new era of peace would begin. So, their view seems to go, if you criticize Islamism, you are an intolerant, hard-hearted "racist" or "bigot," and your remarks are obviously "hate speech."
It seems painful for many intellectuals in the West to understand or accept that a religious ideology which permits enslaving girls, beating "disobedient" wives or chopping off the heads of infidels can exist. They come up with supposed explanations for these acts, including poverty, "American imperialism," or mental illness.

Douglas Murray: Why Are These Christians Dying?

Although the world may once again have briefly turned its attention to Kenya, it is turning its back on the victims of this violence. In the same way that the President of the United States does not want to admit the religious impetus that leads to "random folks" being shot dead in a kosher supermarket in Paris, the entire Western world is reluctant to admit the reason why Christians are at the front line of this global conflict. When Boko Haram kidnapped 300 schoolgirls in Northern Nigeria last year, almost none of the world's press -- and none of the Western world's leaders -- identified the simple fact that these schoolgirls were kidnapped because they were Christian.
Likewise, when ISIS paraded 21 men along the shoreline of Libya in February and cut off their heads, allowing their blood to stain the Mediterranean Sea, most of the world's press and almost all of the world's leaders -- including the leader of the free world -- referred to the victims as "Egyptian." But what singled these men out, and singled them out in the eyes of ISIS, was not that they were Egyptian, but that they were "Copts" --- that they were Christians. What would the President of the United States say if the blacks lynched in America's old South were referred to as "random folks" or "Americans"?
It is unlikely that the world will hear this emphasised in the wake of the latest Kenya massacre. Al-Shabaab of course has no problem emphasising the fact. This week, its spokesman boasted clearly about the religious motivations of the Garissa attack, even while the atrocity was still ongoing, "There are many dead bodies of Christians inside the building," he said. "We are also holding many Christians alive."

Ben-Dror Yemini: From liberty to slavery

As the Arab world battles jihadism, the free world - with Europe at its forefront - has found itself paralyzed in the face of Islamic extremism on its soil.
The free world is now in midst of a struggle for freedom. It might ignore it, it might be blind, it might be in denial. But the battle is underway.
The problem is that the West is unable to protect its own values. Its submission is also characterized by its attitudes to the Muslim radicals in Europe. Saudi-style Islamism has taken over the mosques and educational institutions, but that's okay. After all, it is all about a "variety of cultures and understanding the other."
Only months ago, thousands marched in Europe under the banner "Je suis Charlie." It was a protest by the free world against terror and tyranny and for human rights and freedom of expression. Wallstrom's story shows clearly that the aroma of freedom and liberty itself was short-lived. The darkness is winning.
The people of Israel are about to celebrate the exodus from slavery to liberation. The free world is now experiencing the opposite - from liberation to slavery.

Vote in the World Zionist Congress elections

Israel's elections may be over, but another election is coming up - one where any Jew who is over 18 and who subscribes to basic Zionist principles can vote.

Here is a good description:

The WZC vote is not an Israeli election. The vote does not effect Knesset or internal Israeli political affairs.

Think of it as World Jewish elections. All Jewish issues are addressed. This is the only democratic congress of all Jews. Additionally, the WZC and Jewish Agency are the legally recognized representative of World Jewry.

Do you support Israel? Donate money? Where do you think it goes? This is your chance to get a say in where the money goes. The Congress of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) sets the agenda and gives orders to the Jewish Agency, its executive branch.

Your vote will influence how many delegates are assigned to the party you choose, thereby giving it more influence in choosing the Congress’ resolutions.

Resolutions are of three varieties: financial (how much money should go in particular directions), political/social (i.e. policies) and operational (how the WZO and Jewish Agency should operate and who should be elected to governing boards).

What Difference Will My One Vote Make?

Five-hundred delegates are elected to the WZC. In 2015, Israel will send about 200 delegates, (38%) and U.S. will send 145 (29%), as the largest Diaspora community out of 40; those 145 will be divided among 10 different parties.

Fewer than 90,000 Americans voted in either 2002 and 2006 for the 34th and 35th Congresses. That means that it takes less than 600 people’s votes to be elected a delegate.

Who Is Running?

Zionist Spring: Restoring Vision to World Zionism (platform, slate)

Mercaz USA: The Zionist Arm of the Conservative Movement (platform, slate)

Alliance for New Zionist Vision (platform,slate)

American Forum for Israel. Affiliated with the American Forum of Russian Speaking Jewry (platform, slate)

World Sephardic Zionist Organization – Ohavei Zion (platform,slate)

ARZA: Representing Reform Judaism (platform, slate)

Herut North America – The Jabotinsky Movement (platform,slate)

Hatikvah – The Progressive Zionist Voice (platform, slate)

Green Israel: Aytzim/Green Zionist Alliance/Jewcology (platform, slate)

Religious Zionists: Vote Torah for the Soul of Israel (platform, slate)

Zionist Organization of America/ZOA: Defend Jews & Israeli Rights (platform,slate)

How Do I Vote?

Visit the election website.

Complete the registration form.

Pay the registration fee by personal check, credit card or PayPal. (The fee is $5 for people from 18 to 30 years old and $10 for people over 30.)

Vote for the party of your choice.

The deadline is April 30.

Anti-BDS / pro-Israel activist and writer, Jon Haber of the Divestthis! blog, and I had an ongoing discussion for a number of months that I wish to briefly revisit. Our conversation faltered and then stopped on the taboo question of Obama's support for the Muslim Brotherhood and, therefore, his support for political Islam, more generally.

At this point, I find it rather difficult to imagine how anyone paying attention could possibly still refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not a matter of abstract conjecture, nor is it dependent upon whatever may, or may not, have been going on in Obama's mind.

The only things that matter in determining the question of Obama administration support for the Brotherhood is whether or not the Obama administration turned over funds, weaponry, and political support to the Brotherhood before or during its time in power in Egypt.

If the Obama administration did turn over funds, weaponry, and lent political support to the Brotherhood, which it did, then - pretty much by definition - Barack Obama should be said to have supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

In his retort to my latest piece in this conversation, Haber says this:

I continue to take issue with the core assertion that drives much of Mike’s argument (one he claims I agree with in his last piece) that the current President supports (or “supported”) the Muslim Brotherhood, if by “support” he means (1) agrees with the goals of that organization and (2) wishes it to succeed.

That is, actually, not at all what I mean. The reason that Obama should be said to support the Muslim Brotherhood is because he did, in fact, support the Muslim Brotherhood.

A = A.

Haber claims that Obama gave "endless slack to Islamist foes," yet he denies that he supported those Islamist foes.

Excuse me, but at what point does giving "endless slack" not begin to constitute support? Certainly giving "endless slack" is not an act of neutrality. Nor, of course, is it an act of opposition. This being the case, perhaps I can be forgiven for misinterpreting Haber's claim that Obama gave "endless slack to Islamist foes" as representing "support."

Of course, if that behavior is not oppositional and if it is not neutral, than just what is left?

Supportive seems to come to mind.

Furthermore, Obama's friendliness toward the anti-Semitic, genocidally-malignant Muslim Brotherhood is not dependent upon an ideological alignment between himself and them. The Brotherhood, as a radical Islamist organization, wants to see the world live under al-Sharia (which, needless to say, means dhimmitude or death to all non-Muslims) and called directly for war against Israel and for the conquest of Jerusalem. Barack Obama, as President of the United States presumably does not share such goals, but then one begins to wonder what kind of benefit accrues to the American people through promoting the Brotherhood or enabling an Iranian nuclear bomb?

Haber characterizes my argument, as follows:

Premise 1: The Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian organization with goals at odds with the US and the West, which is also the wellspring of Jihadi violence in the Middle East.

Premise 2: President Obama and his administration have made decisions and statements (especially when the Muslim Brotherhood was in power in Egypt) that involved helping and praising that Brotherhood regime.

Premise 3: Only someone who supports the Muslim Brotherhood would help and praise the Muslim Brotherhood regime when it ruled Egypt.

Conclusion: President Obama supports a totalitarian organization with goals at odds with the US and the West, which is also the wellspring of Jihadi violence in the Middle East.

Haber agrees that premises one and two are valid. He writes:

But for purposes of this conversation Premise 1 is perfectly acceptable in its present form. And I think anyone who has followed US foreign policy over the last 5-6 years would agree that Premise 2 is on safe historic ground.

This leaves only premise 3 which is, for all intents and purposes, the same as the conclusion.

Haber wants to argue that support is not necessarily support if the supporter was in the wrong frame of mind. He writes:

But a reasonable person can come up with a variety of alternatives to Premise 3. For example, someone might make crappy decisions (like the ones we’ve seen the Obama administration make) because they suck at diplomacy/realpolitique due to incompetence, arrogance or a combination of both. Or perhaps the President’s ideology blinds him to seeing forces (even Muslim Fundamentalist forces) fighting against an oppressive regime as new totalitarians in waiting (vs. successors to the civil rights heroes of old).

The funny thing is, I have actually argued both of those things in my discussions on just why Obama supports political Islam and, therefore, supports the Muslim Brotherhood. But whatever the reason why Obama supports the Brotherhood, it is hard to argue that he has not done so and Haber does not bother to try.

So, yes, when an American president offers "help and praise (to) the Muslim Brotherhood" then it supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

When an American president offers help and praise to anyone or anything then he supports that anyone or anything.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood and it is important for those of us who care about the well-being of Israel to wrap our brains around this fact. Barack Obama supported an organization that exists to promote Sharia and, therefore, promote the dhimmitude and "racist" persecution of all non-Muslims. Barack Obama supported an organization that called for the conquest of Jerusalem, which is essentially the same as calling for the genocide of the Jews.

I backed off of this conversation for the simple reason that Haber said he wanted to wrap it up.

However, the reason that he wanted to wrap it up is because "our attempts to find major disagreements could devolve into a Narcissism of Small Difference destined to deliver a diminishing return on investment."

But this is not a small difference.

The fact that Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrates that he supports political Islam.

The fact that American Left-leaning Jews support Barack Obama demonstrates that they support an American president that supports political Islam.

The only questions are, why does he do it and why can't we face it?

If one wishes to understand Barack Obama's special relationship with Islamist regimes, like the Brotherhood or Iran, one must first acknowledge that which is directly before our eyes.

It is only then that we can begin to answer the question why and I would suggest that if you want to know the answer to that question, look to his ideologically-academic and religious mentors.

Look to people like Rashid Khalidi, the late Edward Said, and a certain minister in Chicago who shall remain nameless.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

04/06 Links Pt1: 10 key questions about ‘irresponsible, dangerous’ Iran deal

From Ian:

Israeli document poses 10 key questions about ‘irresponsible, dangerous’ Iran deal

Israel on Monday posed 10 questions to the US-led negotiators with Iran that it said underlined “the extent of the irresponsible concessions given to Iran” in the framework agreement reached last Thursday, and made clear “how dangerous the framework is for Israel, the region and the world.”
The questions were listed in a document distributed by Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, a Likud party member and confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The document (see accompanying PDF here) reiterated Netanyahu’s assertion that “a better deal” can and must be reached. It protested that the framework agreement reached in Lausanne, Switzerland, and hailed by President Barack Obama as “historic,” “ignores the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program to Israel.” By contrast, it charged, “great consideration” was given to Iran, “an enemy of the Unites States, whose regime, even during the negotiations, continued to conduct aggression in the region and to call for the destruction of Israel.”
It charged that “the framework deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb. By removing the sanctions and lifting the main restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in about a decade, this framework paves Iran’s path to a bomb.”
Echoing criticisms leveled by Netanyahu since the deal was reached, the document further protested that “not a single nuclear facility will be shut down. Iran will be permitted to continue its advanced centrifuge R&D, and [the issue of] its intercontinental ballistic missile program remains unaddressed.”

Michael Oren: The Iran Deal and How Not To Buy a Middle Eastern Carpet

Want to purchase a carpet in the Middle East? If so, the first question the merchant will ask you is, “How much do you want to spend?” Seasoned buyers never answer. They know that whatever amount they cite will become the baseline for the negotiation. They understand that the merchant’s smiles, the many cups of tea he serves, his invitations to stroll along the riverbank, are all part of his selling tactic. So, too, are his protests — in response to any offer — of wounded pride. Veterans of Middle East carpet markets expect the give-and-take to be lengthy, even exhausting, but are always willing to leave the shop.
The parameters agreement for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran is an ideal example of how not to buy a Middle Eastern carpet. In 2012, President Barack Obama declared that, “The deal we’ll accept is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the UN resolutions” demanding that Iran cease all uranium enrichment and dismantle its nuclear plants. The Security Council’s five permanent members plus Germany could have offered the lowest possible price as their final bid — take it or leave it. Iran would have had little choice but to sell the carpet.
Yet, in reaching the parameters agreement, international negotiators were worn down by the protracted talks. They were persuaded by Iran’s displays of warmth and earnestness, and accepted its claim that the nuclear program was a matter of national pride similar to America’s moon landing. Most damagingly, when asked by the Iranians “how much do you want to spend?” the P5+1 replied by recognizing the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich and to maintain its nuclear facilities. This became the new baseline and the only remaining questions were: How much enrichment and how many facilities? The haggling had scarcely begun and already the merchant profited.

Missing Peace: Israel: Nuclear Deal Is Capitulation To Iranian Dictates

The compromise was the brainchild of Robert Einhorn from Brookings – a top State nonproliferation official stretching back to the Clinton era – and there was a lot of talk of Iranian flexibility when they accepted it. Then this week, it emerged that, in fact, the Iranians would be allowed to keep centrifuges spinning inside the mountain.
But instead of spinning uranium, the centrifuges would be spinning germanium or similar non-nuclear elements. That’s the administration’s talking point: that there will not be any “enrichment” going on at Fordow. The claim is – bluntly – false. Centrifuges spin isotopes into lighter and heavier elements, thereby “enriching” the material. That’s what they do. In fact, that’s all they do.
This isn’t a minor point. The concession has the potential to gut the whole deal for two reasons:
1. The deal allows N-generation centrifuge R&D beyond the reach of the West- since the process is the same process, Iran will have a hardened facility where it will be able to research and develop N-generation centrifuges. Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif bragged from the stage in Lausanne that Iranian R&D on centrifuges will continue on IR-4s, IR-5s, IR-6s, and IR-8s centrifuges–and that the pace of research will be tied to Iranian scientific progress. The development of advanced centrifuges would give the Iranians a leg up if they decide to break out, and it will put them instantly within a screw’s turn of a nuke when the deal expires.
2. The deal leaves Iranian nuclear infrastructure running beyond the reach of the West. If the Iranians kick out inspectors and dare the world to respond, the West will have zero way to intervene. The Iranians will have a head start on enrichment–and a place to do it beyond the reach of Western weapons. The administration’s early pushback has been that the breakout time will still be a year, so they could, in theory, reimpose sanctions–but it takes more than a year for sanctions to take an economic toll. So, there are zero options to stop a breakout.

The talking points fact sheet upon the agreement for framework for a nuclear deal with Iran includes the White House's latest soundbite meant to assuage fears that the sanctions cannot be quickly re-imposed if Iran violates the agreement:

U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.

The architecture of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be retained for much of the duration of the deal and allow for snap-back of sanctions in the event of significant non-performance.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated the phrase:

If they don't live up to the agreement, sanctions would "snap" back into place, he said.

President Obama has been using the "snap back" term a lot as well, as he told the NYT, the United States would “preserve the ability to snap back those sanctions if there is a violation.”

What exactly does "snap back" mean?

In a word: nothing.

The phrase is not defined anywhere as far as I can tell. It is something left for the later negotiations.

While it sounds instant, there is no detail given to this meaningless term. Re-imposing the same level of sanctions cannot possibly be done on a moment's notice. Or even within months.

Not to mention that it took years of sanctions to even bring Iran to the negotiating table. Even if sanctions could be re-imposed instantly, Iran could weather them for the time it takes to build a bomb.

The entire reason that the phrase was coined was not to force Iran into a better deal, but to convince Americans that the deal is better than it really is.

This seems to indicate that the White House spent more time on deciding how to spin the deal than they did on actually ensuring that the deal would be as good as possible.

One thing is certain: "snap-back" sanctions will not be imposed in a snap. We deserve to know exactly what this soundbite means.

(h/t EBoZ)