Tuesday, May 26, 2015
By: Yaakov Lappin| 5/25/2015| 15:33
Diplomats involved in efforts to set up a regional dialogue over weapons of mass destruction helped it avoid a bad outcome during a UN conference last week, arms control expert Emily Landau said on Monday.
In recent day, the US vetoed an Egyptian-led drive for a Middle East nuclear weapons ban at a UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in Manhattan.
Landau, head of the Arms Control and Regional Security Program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, told The Jerusalem Post, “Much of the media commentary is focusing on the fact that the US did this for Israel, and [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has thanked [Secretary of State John] Kerry.
Thanks to the US are certainly in order as it stood by Israel and its principles in a very noteworthy manner. But in addition, I would highlight that US support this time was made easier because of the cooperative approach that Israel had adopted over the past few years.”
Israel, which is not a signatory to the NPT, has nevertheless spent the past two years cooperating with UN attempts, led by the Finnish diplomat Jaakko Laajava, to establish a regional dialogue on weapons of mass destruction, using the opportunity to share its concerns during a series of meetings, and through the submission of a paper.
“Had Israel remained unwilling to cooperate with Laajava’s efforts, it would have been more difficult to defend. But US officials over the past year had praised Israel’s cooperation regarding the informal meetings, and this most likely strengthened their ability to argue against the new resolution that was changing the terms mid-course,” Landau said.
“At the end of the day, by overplaying its hand, Egypt lost out,” she added.
Cairo’s failure to push through a resolution that would have called on Israel to join the NPT mean that the “conference is at least temporarily suspended, and with it the progress that had been made. There are no terms in the framework of the NPT for continuing at this point. For Israel this is certainly good news – substantively, and in terms of the expression of US support,” Landau said.
A draft proposal submitted for final vote at the NPT Review Conference “was much better than the Arab [Egyptian] proposal submitted in the first days of the conference, but it still had problematic elements,” Landau said.
Those elements included a commitment to holding a weapons of mass destruction free zone conference by March 2016, and placing all of the authority in the hands of the UN secretary-general, rather than conveners such as the US and Britain.
Had it been passed, the draft resolution “would have basically fired Jaakko Laajava, which it seems was one of Egypt’s objectives. It mandated the secretary- general to appoint a new facilitator. Why do that when Laajava had spent so much time and energy learning the issues and carving out a path with the regional parties?” Landau asked.
“It seems that all of these elements were directed toward convening a conference by March whether Israel likes it or not,” she added. “What incentive would the Arab states have had to work seriously with Israel when they would have had the guarantee that a conference would be convened by next March, no matter what?” Earlier in May, Landau reported that the international arms control community has come to the defense of contacts between Israel and UN diplomats, who are engaged in talks aimed at including Jerusalem in a forum on weapons of mass destruction.
Friday, May 22, 2015
BY: JEFFREY BARKEN| MAY 21, 2015 10:40 AM| The Algemeiner|
JNS.org – Recent ordeals for Jews on college campuses include being probedon their religious identity in student government hearings, seeingswastikas sprayed on fraternity houses, and the presence of astudent-initiated course accused of anti-Semitism. Pro-Israel voices are fighting back, but who is winning this war of ideas? An episode at Columbia University, a historic hotbed of anti-Zionism, illustrates the complex dynamics at play.
Last month, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), America’s largest pro-Israel organization with more than 2 million members, planned a lecture at Columbia concerning the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., and his support for Israel. CUFI says that the school administration meddled with the event in a way that unfairly singled out the pro-Israel group. The university imposed an “unprecedented level of bureaucratic scrutiny in an effort to intimidate,” says David Walker, CUFI’s national campus coordinator.
Walker tells JNS.org that the university moved the lecture to a much smaller venue at the last minute, demanded to know the names of all off-campus individuals expected to attend, and denied the general public entry as evidence of “bureaucratic bullying.” Some organizations partnering with CUFI on the event proceeded to withdraw their support in the aftermath of the administration’s actions.
Despite the obstacles, CUFI’s diversity outreach coordinator, Pastor Dumisani Washington, was permitted to speak at Columbia during the April 30 event. He began by refuting a statement issued by the Columbia Black Students Organization (BSO) in which the group condemned Aryeh, a pro-Israel student organization at Columbia, for using “the image and words” of Martin Luther King to promote Zionist views and co-opting “the black liberation struggle for the purposes of genocide and oppression.”
“When I see black students saying these things I know there is a great deal of confusion,” Washington says. His lecture offered a history of the civil rights movement in the U.S., demonstrating how King and his closest followers were always aligned with Israel, both spiritually and politically. By citing the shared experience of slavery as epochs uniting Jews and blacks, recalling songs about Moses, and highlighting excerpts from New Testament and Old Testament psalms that figure prominently in King’s speeches, Washington defended Christian Zionism and King’s legacy as a pro-Israel voice.
In his presentation, Washington also included a short video that illustrates BSO’s “confusion.” The video recalls the 1975 United Nations General Assembly resolution that declared Zionism as racism. Noting the maxim “follow the money,” the video connects the dots of a complicated political strategy devised by the former Soviet Union. At the height of the Cold War, the USSR sought to manipulate and intimidate poorer member states (mostly African) into passing anti-Israel resolutions. The real target of this strategy was not Israel, but rather America, the Soviets’ chief rival. Since the U.S. and Israel are close allies, the Soviets reasoned, any discrediting of Israel’s reputation as a humane democracy reflected negatively on the U.S., creating ideological conflicts of interest.
With CUFI’s event going on planned, the pro-Israel side at Columbia University managed to have its voice and narrative heard—at least for that day. Columbia, as it turns out, sits atop a recently published list of 10 American college campuses where anti-Semitism is most rampant. The list was compiled by JewHatredOnCampus.org, an initiative launched earlier this year whose mission is to engage directly with students at institutions of higher learning where pro-Palestinian student groups are using school funding to launch aggressive anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda campaigns. The new website publishes a regular newsletter and provides a portal for reporting anti-Semitic incidents.
“Fifty-four percent of Jewish students on college campuses feel they’ve witnessed anti-Semitism,” says well-known conservative writer David Horowitz, the founder of JewHatredOnCampus.org. “The problem is that Jews aren’t fighting back.”
But how should they fight back? A 2010 incident involving Horowitz sheds light on the activist’s strategy of choice. In a post-lecture Q&A session hosted by the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Horowitz asked a UCSD Muslim student, Jumanah Imad Albahri, to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as genocidal terrorist organizations. Albarhi’s answer shocked the audience, and the video of their heated exchange quickly went viral.
In the video, Albarhi asks Horowitz “to explain the purported connection” between UCSD’s Muslim Student Association chapter and “jihadist terrorist networks.” Horowitz doesn’t answer directly. Instead, he counters by pressing Albarhi to refute the documented statement by the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, expressing his desire for Jews to gather in Israel so that “it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” Albarhi appears rattled. She worries that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will label her a terrorist if she sides with Hezbollah, but denies that pro-Palestinian organizations are aligned with doctrines of hate.
“For it or against it?” Horowitz persists, demanding an answer regarding Albarhi’s opinion on Hezbollah’s rhetoric. Finally, Albarhi leans toward the microphone and says decisively, “For it.” (Though Albarhi later denied supporting Nasrallah’s comments.)
Indeed, similar YouTube clips and social media debates reveal the intensity of student opinions regarding Israel, as well as the animosity directed at Jewish students and professors. Horowitz believes that one common Israeli public relations strategy—the spotlighting of “all the wonderful things Israel has accomplished, from medical inventions and agricultural advances to being tolerant of gays”—falls short as a proper defense of the Jewish state’s policies. From his perspective, history is what provides a legitimate justification for Israel to exist under its present borders. He cites the original Palestinian Liberation Organization slogan declaring a fundamental intention to “push [the Jews] into the sea” as clear-cut evidence that Israel does not have a partner for peace.
“You have to call it what it is,” Horowitz tells JNS.org. “You cannot make peace with people who want to kill you. These are literally Nazis… planning another Holocaust openly.”
Against the backdrop of that sense of urgency, Horowitz advocates a robust and unapologetic public relations campaign on the part of pro-Israel advocates as the only way to repair the damage done to Israel’s image by its enemies. The press release that launched hisJewHatredOnCampus.org initiative lists anti-Jewish acts such as “Israeli Apartheid Week” (the annual anti-Israel showcase on campuses around the world), the interruption of university activities by staging mock “checkpoints” on campus, the hosting of speakers on campus that call for the destruction of the Jewish state, and harassment and violence against Jewish and pro-Israel students.
Horowitz’s efforts to counter anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric has sparked many contentious debates at the more than 400 college campus visits he says he has made. CUFI speakers are similarly accustomed to meeting fiery opposition. On the same day as the recent Columbia event, CUFI Outreach Coordinator Kasim Hafeez—a British Muslim of Pakistani origin and a jihadist-turned-Zionist—had Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) activists walk out on a speech he gave at the University of Toledo.
Horowitz concedes that the current debate over Israel on campus is a shallow shouting match to which he contributes his own propaganda. He expresses his desire for an “informed scholarly debate,” but says of pro-Palestinian advocates, “I don’t believe there is an honest way for them to argue their cause… [when their] side wants to annihilate the other.”
Thursday, May 21, 2015
BY AFP May 21, 2015, 3:08 pm | The Times of Israel|
The destruction of the UNESCO World Heritage site of Palmyra would be an “enormous loss to humanity,” the head of the organization warned Thursday, after Islamic State fighters seized the ancient Syrian city and archaeological site.
“Palmyra is an extraordinary World Heritage site in the desert and any destruction to Palmyra (would be) not just a war crime but … an enormous loss to humanity,” said Irina Bokova in a video published by the Paris-based group.
She added that she was “extremely worried” about recent events there and reiterated an appeal for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of military forces.
“At the end of the day, it’s the birthplace of human civilization. It belongs to the whole of humanity and I think everyone today should be worried about what is happening,” added the UNESCO chief.
Earlier Thursday, Islamic State group jihadists seized full control of the city, putting the world heritage site and its priceless artifacts at risk of destruction.
In the Bible, King Solomon is credited with fortifying the city, and it’s mentioned in other Jewish texts. But it was during the Roman Empire that the ‘pearl of the desert’ rose to prominence
The jihadists, notorious for demolishing archaeological treasures since declaring a “caliphate” last year straddling Iraq and Syria, fought their way into Palmyra on foot after breaking through in the city’s north.
Bokova urged the international community, including the UN Security Council and religious leaders, to launch an appeal to stop the violence.
Before Syria’s crisis began in March 2011, more than 150,000 tourists visited Palmyra every year, admiring its beautiful statues, over 1,000 columns, and formidable necropolis of over 500 tombs.
Palmyra’s richest residents had constructed and sumptuously decorated these monuments to the dead, some of which have been recently looted.
According to the governor of Homs province, the inner city is home to about 35,000 people, including those displaced by fighting nearby. Another 35,000 live in the city’s suburbs.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group counts 100,000 people living in Palmyra and its outskirts.
Hundreds of statues and artifacts from Palmyra’s museum were transferred out of the city before it fell to Islamic State, according to Syria’s antiquities chief Mamoun Abdulkarim.
But many others — including massive tombs — could not be moved.
Palmyra, which means City of Palms, is mentioned in the Bible as Tadmor, the name it goes by in Syria and Israel, and likely a reference to dates.
Its name first appeared on a tablet in the 19th century BCE as a stopping point for caravans traveling on the Silk Road and between the Gulf and the Mediterranean.
In the Bible, King Solomon is credited with fortifying the city, and it’s later mentioned in other Jewish texts as well.
But it was during the Roman Empire — beginning in the first century BCE and lasting another 400 years — that Palmyra, called the “pearl of the desert,” rose to prominence.
Though surrounded by desert dunes, Palmyra developed into a luxurious metropolis thanks to the trade of spices, perfumes, silk and ivory from the east, and statues and glasswork from Phoenicia.
In the year 129 CE, Roman emperor Hadrian declared Palmyra a “free city” within his empire. During the rest of the century, its famous temples — including the Agora and the temple honoring Bel (Baal) — were built.
Before the arrival of Christianity in the second century, Palmyra worshiped the trinity of the Babylonian god Bel, as well Yarhibol (the sun) and Aglibol (the moon).
As the Roman Empire faced internal political instability in the third century, Palmyra took the opportunity to declare its independence.
Palmyrans beat back the Romans in the west and Persian forces in the east in a revolt led by Zenobia, who then became queen.
By 270, Zenobia had conquered all of Syria and parts of Egypt, and had arrived at Asia Minor’s doorstep.
But when Roman emperor Aurelian retook the city, the powerful queen was taken back to Rome and Palmyra began to decline in prominence.
Today, Palmyra bears the scars of Syria’s ongoing war: clashes between armed rebels and government forces in 2013 left collapsed columns and statues in their wake, a harbinger of what Islamic State jihadists might do.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Supreme leader says he won’t allow Iranian scientists to be ‘interrogated’ by foreigners
, AP AND TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF May 20, 2015, 1:47 pm | The Times of Israel|
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday ruled out allowing nuclear inspectors to visit military sites or to question scientists, state media reported.
“We have already said that we will not allow any inspections of military sites by foreigners,” the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying.
“They also say that we must allow interviews with nuclear scientists. This is interrogation. I will not allow foreigners to come and talk to scientists who have advanced the science to this level,” Khamenei said.
Other Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed that inspectors would not be given freedom of access to nuclear facilities — directly contradicting US officials who tout comprehensive inspections as being a key element of a final deal.
Khamenei’s statements came as experts from Iran and six world powers prepared to launch a new round of negotiations focused on reaching a deal that curbs Iran’s nuclear program.
Diplomats said ahead of Wednesday’s meeting that progress is being made but significant gaps remain on a main document and technical annexes ahead of an end-of-June deadline.
Iran’s team is led by Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. EU official Helga Schmidt is heading the other side. Senior officials from the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany may join in later.
The deal aims for strict limits on Iranian nuclear capabilities that could be used to make weapons. Tehran denies any interest in such arms but is negotiating for a lifting of sanctions.
The diplomats demanded anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the talks.
A framework agreement — reached at the beginning of April and set to be finalized by June 30 — called for a scaling back of Iran’s uranium enrichment program along with comprehensive inspections of its nuclear facilities to ensure it is not developing atomic weapons. In return, Iran demanded that global sanctions that have crippled its economy be lifted.
A fact sheet on the framework accord issued by the State Department at the time said Iran would be required to grant the UN nuclear agency access to any “suspicious sites.”
Iran has questioned that and other language in the fact sheet, notably that sanctions would only be lifted after the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified Tehran’s compliance. Iran’s leaders have said the sanctions should be lifted on the first day of the implementation of the accord.
Less than a week after the framework agreement was reached, Iranian Defense minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehgan made it clear thatinternational inspectors would not be granted access to the state’s military sites under the terms of the deal.
No such agreement has been reached and basically, visiting military centers are among the red lines and no visit to these centers will be allowed,” Dehgan said, according to Iranian media reports quoting a Defense Ministry statement.
Later that month Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard also said that inspectors would be barred from military sites under any nuclear agreement and that allowing such check ups would be tantamount to “selling out.”
Those opposing the deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials, have criticized the terms of the framework agreement for not completely removing Iran’s ability to enrich uranium or to work towards producing a nuclear weapon
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
By JPOST.COM STAFF \05/19/2015 13:59| The Jerusalem Post|
The 34th Government of Israel convened at the Presidential Residence in Jerusalem for the presidential reception and to take the official ceremonial photograph.
Standing at the podium alongside President Reuven Rivlin, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he will make every effort to bring about an agreement with the Palestinians that will maintain Israeli security.
He said that the first task of the new government will be to protect the country against threats from Israel's enemies in the region. Netanyahu also said that lowering the cost of living is a top priority.
Last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 20-minister government was sworn in following a slew of problems with Likud cabinet appointments. The Knesset approved the government 61-59 just after 11 p.m.
Netanyahu’s No. 2 in the Likud, MK Gilad Erdan, refused to enter the cabinet, declining the prime minister’s offer to serve as public security minister. He had demanded the Foreign Minister position, which Netanyahu has kept for himself in case he will be able to expand his coalition later on. But Erdan later showed up at the Knesset and voted in favor of the new government, enabling it to be approved.
"The swearing-in of a Likud government is a happy occasion but I am sad personally about the developments with me," Erdan said.
Initially, several ministers also declined Netanyahu’s offers, including new Interior Minister Silvan Shalom, Culture and Sport Minister, Miri Regev, Pensioner Affairs Minister Gila Gamliel and coalition chairman and Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Tzachi Hanegbi – but they all later relented.
To accept the challenging job of heading a coalition with just 61 MKs, Netanyahu had to promise Hanegbi that after a year he would join the cabinet in place of Ophir Akunis, who is a minister-without-portfolio. Netanyahu wanted Akunis to serve under him in the Communications Ministry, but Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein ruled that two ministers cannot serve in one ministry.
Gill Hoffman contributed to this report
Monday, May 18, 2015
Israelis ‘not the only ones’ who oppose accord, PM says, urging world powers to seek ‘a better deal’
AND TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF May 17, 2015, 10:23 pm | The Times of Israel|
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday there was still time to stop an Iranian agreement with world powers that, he said, would give Tehran nuclear arms.
“It is still not too late to retract the plan” being negotiated between Iran and the world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program, he stated at a ceremony marking Israel’s capture of East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War.
The United States as well as Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany are in the midst of negotiations with Tehran to finalize a deal by June 30 that they say would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, in exchange for an easing of crippling economic sanctions.
Iran cannot be trusted to honor the nascent deal, Netanyahu has argued.
“Only last night, after vigorous action by the US against the terrorism of the Islamic State, the leader of Iran, [Ali] Khamenei, attacked the US and said: ‘It is the United States,’ so said the man who is heading the negotiations between Iran and the major powers, ‘that is causing and supports terrorism.’ These words were said when Iran still does not have nuclear weapons and it is still not too late to retract the plan to give Iran a deal that would pave for it a certain path to nuclear weapons,” he continued.
“We oppose this deal and we are not the only ones,” Netanyahu went on. “It is both necessary and possible to achieve a better deal because extremists cannot be allowed to achieve their aims, not in Iran, not in Yemen and not in Jerusalem.”
Arab and largely Sunni Muslim states of the Gulf fear a nuclear deal could be a harbinger of closer US ties with their Shiite arch-foe Iran, a country they also see as fueling conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq.
US President Barack Obama tried to reassure America’s Gulf allies at a Camp David summit Thursday that engaging with Iran would not come at their expense.
Iran has long asserted its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, and that international concern about it seeking a nuclear bomb is misplaced.
Friday, May 15, 2015
UN sanctions compliance panel says Tehran tried to purchase compressors from US corporation using fake documentation
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF May 15, 2015, 10:44 am| The Times of Israel|
The Iranian government attempted to purchase technology that can be used in its nuclear program using false documentation in an attempt to bypass international sanctions, Reuters reported.
The attempted purchase was uncovered by Czech officials who managed to prevent the sale, according to the latest annual report of the UN Security Council’s Iran sanctions committee.
The incident is likely to bolster concerns that the Iranian regime may not adhere to a major nuclear deal Tehran is negotiating with world powers.
The report details Iran’s attempt to purchase compressors manufactured by the Prague-based American-owned company Howden CKD Compressors using a “false end user.”
“The procurer and transport company involved in the deal had provided false documentation in order to hide the origins, movement and destination of the consignment with the intention of bypassing export controls and sanctions,” the report said, according to Reuters.
Compressors of certain types — the exact type of compressor being purchased has not been reported — are useful in the uranium enrichment process required to produce both nuclear energy, and at higher levels of enrichment, also nuclear weapons.
The contract was valued at some $61 million. The parties attempting to make the purchase said the compressors were “needed for a compressor station, such as the kind used to transport natural gas from one relay station to another,” Reuters reports, citing a Czech official.
According to the UN panel, the Czech incident wasn’t the only piece of evidence Tehran is actively seeking to circumvent sanctions. Britain, the report said, had tracked another nuclear procurement network for Tehran.
Under an interim deal struck between world powers and Iran, the Islamic Republic agreed to scale back its nuclear activities, including stopping higher levels of enrichment, in exchange for a negotiated relief to international sanctions.
Israel and several Arab states have criticized the emerging deal. The US and other negotiating powers have said Iran has complied with the conditions set by the interim deal. A final nuclear deal is scheduled to be concluded at the end of June.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Riyadh and other Gulf capitals reportedly will insist they will have ‘whatever the Iranians have,’ as Camp David summit gets underway
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF AND AP May 14, 2015, 12:26 pm| The Times of Israel|
SAudi Arabian officials are warning that they will seek to match Iran’s nuclear arsenal, a US newspaper reported Thursday, as US President Barack Obama and leaders from six Gulf nations — including Riyadh — convened outside Washington to work through tensions sparked by the US bid for a nuclear deal with Tehran, a pursuit that has put regional partners on edge.
Along with Saudi Arabia, smaller Arab countries also say they also plan to pursue a nuclear weapons program to offset Iran’s, portending a much-feared nuclear arms race in the Middle East, according to the New York Times.
“We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” one Arab leader attending the Camp David summit told theNew York Times.
The official, who was unnamed, said he and others will also make their case to Obama at the meeting Thursday.
Obama is seeking to reassure the Gulf leaders gathering at Camp David that US overtures to Iran will not come at the expense of commitments to their security. He is expected to offer them more military assistance, including increased joint exercises and coordination on ballistic missile systems.
Obama and the leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain opened their talks with a private dinner Wednesday night at the White House. Just two heads of state are among those meeting Obama, with other nations sending lower-level but still influential representatives.
Arab and Israeli officials have lobbied against the deal, though Gulf states have kept their criticism more discreet. Yet leaders around the region have warned that Iranian nuclear development will lead them to also pursue nuclear programs of their own, a worrying idea in a part of the world already riven by violent conflicts.
“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” former Saudi intelligence head Prince Turki bin Faisal said last month at a special session of the Asan Plenum, a conference held by the South Korean-based Asan Institute for Policy Studies, according to the New York Times.
Faisal also warned that the Iranian nuclear deal “opens the door to nuclear proliferation, not closes it, as was the initial intention.”
When Thursday’s meetings at the presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains conclude, it’s unlikely Obama will have fully assuaged the Gulf’s deep-seated fear of Iranian meddling in the region.
“My guess is that the summit is going to leave everybody feeling a little bit unsatisfied,” said Jon Alterman, the Middle East director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The most notable absence from the meeting is Saudi King Salman. On Sunday, Saudi Arabia announced that the king was skipping the summit, just two days after the White House said he was coming.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman were representing Saudi Arabia instead. They held a separate meeting with Obama before the other leaders arrived.
The president made no mention of Saudi skepticism of the Iran talks as he opened the meeting, but acknowledged the region is in the midst of a “very challenging time.”
The White House and Saudi officials insist the king is not snubbing Obama. But Salman’s conspicuous absence comes amid indisputable signs of strain in the long relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, driven not only by Obama’s Iran overtures, but also the rise of Islamic State militants and a lessening US dependency on Saudi oil.
“There have been disagreements under this administration and under the previous administration about certain policies and development in the Middle East, but I think on a set of core interests, we continue to have a common view about what we aim to achieve,” said Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser.
The Gulf summit comes as the US and five other nations work to reach an agreement with Iran by the end of June to curb its nuclear ambitions in exchange for relief from international economic sanctions. The Gulf nations fear that an influx of cash will only facilitate what they see as Iran’s aggression.
The White House says a nuclear accord could clear the way for more productive discussions with Iran about its reputed terror links. The US has criticized Iran’s support for Hezbollah, as well as terror attacks carried out by Iran’s Quds Force.
In 2011, the Obama administration accused Iran of plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States in Washington.
The Saudis are also particularly concerned about the situation in Yemen, where Houthi rebels with ties with Iran have ousted the US- and Saudi-backed leader.
For more than a month, a Saudi-led coalition has tried to push back the Houthis with a relentless bombing campaign. On Tuesday, a five-day humanitarian ceasefire went into effect, though the pause in fighting was already at risk. A jet fighter from the Saudi coalition on Wednesday struck a military convoy belonging to Shiite rebels and their allies in southern Yemen.
Saudi officials cited the ceasefire as one of the reasons why King Salman needed to stay in Riyadh and not make the trip to the United States.
The Saudi king isn’t the only head of state sending a lower-level representative to the summit. The heads of the United Arab Emirates and Oman have had health problems and were not making the trip.
Bahrain’s royal court announced Wednesday that rather than travel to Washington, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa would be attending a horse show and meeting with Queen Elizabeth II.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
By SAM SOKOL \ 05/12/2015 20:55| The Jerusalem Post|
The international community should criminalize anti-Semitism and establish a multilateral body to monitor it, former Ministry of Foreign Affairs legal adviser Amb. Alan Baker asserted on Monday in the text of a draft international convention being promoted by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
In 2013 Baker, who heads the think tank’s Institute for Contemporary Affairs, drafted a similar document banning inciting terrorism, which was promoted at the United Nations by former Israeli UN envoy Dore Gold but which does not seem to have gained much traction.
“The international community has never considered criminalizing anti-Semitism as an international crime, in a manner similar to the criminalization of genocide, racism, piracy, hostage-taking, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and terror,” Baker wrote in the introduction to the document, adding that one might have expected it do so in light of the recent wave of anti-Semitism that has swept Europe.
The lack of coordinated action on this matter is “clearly a vast international injustice,” he wrote, stating that his draft accord is intended to “universally criminalize anti-Semitism within the world community.”
According to Baker, any manifestation of anti-Semitism that results in violence or is meant to incite violence should be considered a crime under international law. He defined anti-Semitism as consisting of several phenomena, including Holocaust denial; expressions of hostility or demonstrations of violence toward Jews individually or as a religious, ethnic or racial collective; the use of “sinister stereotypes” and conspiracy theories “charging Jews with conspiring to harm humanity” and justifying the killing or harming of Jews.
The application of double standards against Israel “requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and the vilification of Israeli leaders through comparisons to the Nazis are likewise manifestations of anti-Semitism, Baker averred.
He also took issue with those who use developments in the Middle East to justify attacks on Jews abroad, an apparent reaction to people like a German judge who recently ruled that an arson attack on a synagogue in Wuppertal by two Arabs was not anti-Semitic but rather motivated by a desire to bring “attention to the Gaza conflict.”
Aside from obligating signatories to promote educational programs for combating anti-Semitism and remembering the Holocaust, the draft convention would also establish an International anti-Semitism Monitoring Forum which would serve as a clearinghouse for national anti-Semitism statistics and would assist member states in preparing legislation banning anti-Semitism.
Both Europe and the United States have come under fire for their allegedly insufficient monitoring mechanisms.
Speaking with the Jerusalem Post last year, Anti-Defamation League national chairman Abe Foxman said that “there is no serious monitoring by continental entities” and that governments are “not doing their job, they’re not monitoring.”
Anti-Semitic violence rose by nearly 40 percent in 2014 over the previous year, according to a report by the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University released last month.
A total of 766 violent incidents were recorded worldwide, a "sharp increase" over the 554 tallied in 2013, according to the European Jewish Congress, which contributed to the report.
According to Baker, combating anti-Semitism requires its own treaty and structures unrelated to the general work of tackling racism because “by its very nature, with anti-Semitism’s long, bitter, and never-ending history, and its propensity to constantly re-appear in modern forms and contexts, it cannot and should not be equated with, linked to, or treated as any other form of racial discrimination.”
He condemned efforts within the international community to equate anti-Semitism with Islamophobia, calling hatred of Jews “a unique, sui generis phenomenon that must be dealt with independently.”
Earlier this year Jewish organizations worldwide expressed shock and dismay following the announcement that the European Commission is planning on holding a conference that implies an equivalence between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
By SAM SOKOL \05/11/2015 03:40| The Jerusalem Post|
Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman says Europeans “have to change the way they are managing and monitoring everyday society,” like Americans did after 9/11.
The future of Jewish life in Europe will be in large part dependent on the way in which national leaders there respond to attacks on their freedom and liberty, Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
According to Foxman, who is in Jerusalem for the biennial Global Forum on anti-Semitism, Europeans need to begin examining the balance between freedom and security as Americans did following the September 11 attacks fourteen years ago.
After 9/11 Americans “were willing to make sacrifices in some of our basic freedoms,” ushering in the use of mass surveillance, profiling and other controversial measures whose propriety and legitimacy are still being debated today. While the exact balance between security and freedom is an open question, he said, in America “we are willing to pay a price to protect our traditions” and the question is if Europe is willing to do the same.
Europeans, Foxman said, “have to change the way they are managing and monitoring everyday society.” The Jewish community, he continued, is watching how their governments respond to see if their societies are “willing to fight for their freedom and liberty.”
Asked about critics of Europe such as Hebrew University anti-Semitism scholar Dr. Robert Wistrich, who have charged that Europeans are unwilling to recognize the role played by Islamic immigrants in the rising tide of Jew hatred, Foxman said that while it is certainly a problem, things are not as dire as may be thought.
“If you are not willing to recognize your enemy for who they are and name them” it will be hard to combat threats, he said. “So when [French President Francois] Hollande said after [January’s massacre at the Paris offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine that] this crime had nothing to do with Islam, who did it have to do with?” Despite the myopia and oversensitivity exhibited by some, however, the governments in Belgium and France are “addressing the underlying cause but are just unwilling to say so,” Foxman added.
“One should take a look at arrests [during the] last couple of months, they are from that community because that’s where threats come from. They are not comfortable publicly declaring we are ‘surveilling mosques,’” he explained.
According to Foxman, Jews in Europe are now, for the first time since the end of the Holocaust, confronted by three choices: assimilating so as not to be recognizably Jewish, defiantly remaining Jews and bearing the consequences or emigrating.
While a mass exodus of European Jews is unlikely in the short term and Jews worldwide must be concerned for the bulk of those who remain there, he said, it is important to “asses where exit strategies are more likely to happen sooner rather than later.”
Asked if he believed that the Europeans have done enough to protect their Jewish minorities, he said that from the point of view of those in danger it’s almost never enough but that he believes that local leaders have come a long way from a decade ago when there was widespread denial regarding the rise of anti-Semitism.
Now there is a more vocal response, a recognition of the issue and the deployment of security forces to protect Jewish institutions, he said, praising the progress that has been made.
Pointing to France, which recently announced that it will allocate significant funding to tolerance education, Foxman said that such moves are part of a “long-term process but has to begin somewhere.”
That being said he cautioned, legislation on issues of hate is not in short supply across Europe, but rather the “political will” to implement it is.