Daniel Lubetzky

It is something everyone in the corridors of Arab power tends to acknowledge: that the current Iranian regime is a destabilizing apocalyptic messianic cult whose acquisition of nuclear weapons would be an overwhelming threat to the region.  But it is never publicly discussed or shared with the masses. Till now.  The leaks of diplomatic memos between the US and its foreign allies is a stark affirmation of the danger that Arab – and Israeli – leaders perceive from Iran. 

Here is just one summary:

Graphic: Fears of a Nuclear Iran

Middle East leaders speak about their powerful neighbor with a directness seldom, if ever, heard in public.

[Read more →]

Dennis Ross, the Special Assistant to the President and friend of OneVoice, addressed AIPAC at their Florida Summit this week.  In his remarks, Mr. Ross spoke about the dangers of Iran and the effect that the Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act has had on Iran’s relationship with the world.  Mr. Ross concluded his speech by reiterating the need for peace, and the specific importance of moderates remaining engaged in a proactive peace process.

[Read more →]

Anyone who has been following the news today about the Gaza flotilla debacle and the tragic course of events, including the loss of lives, of hopes, and of peaceful respectful relations would not be faulted for being gloomy and depressed and for throwing in the towel, thinking that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just not going to be resolved and war is going to doom that region for eternity.

Perhaps it’s the contrarian in me, but I’ve heard this tune and just when things start getting as ugly as they seem to be getting now in the Middle East, an opportunity starts arising to awaken people into their power for positive change – in this case based on a two state solution that recognizes the rights of both peoples.

Behind the scenes, OneVoice has been preparing a campaign to inspire Palestinians and Israelis to visualize a two state solution: Imagine 2018.  I shared this campaign with Sir Paul McCartney earlier today and he recognized its potential to shake people out of their complacency or fatalism and into action.

You could argue this is not the time to launch such a campaign – that it is the time to solemnly mourn.  And to recognize that there are major impediments, not the least of which is Hamas control of Gaza (a proxy of Iran) and ideological settlers taking Israel and its government hostage.

But maybe this IS the time to take action.  For otherwise we will be victims to follies and extremism and partisanship forever. 

Maybe the time has come to break those shackles of absolutism and rancor, and to start saying, let’s stop making excuses about why peace is never going to come about, and let’s start building the foundations – in our visions, in our minds, and on the ground – to just make it happen.  Two states for two proud peoples.  It may not happen overnight. And it may not happen across the entire land at the same time.  But you have to start somewhere.

by Adeena Schlussel on behalf of Daniel Lubetzky

Tom Friedman wrote an interesting article about a period that he sees as a turning point in Islamism.  He tells the story of Islamic Fundamentalism but strikes a hopeful tone.

[Read more →]

Afshin Ellian wrote an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal.  He concludes it with:

The emergence of a democratic Iran is therefore not only a moral imperative but should be the foreign policy priority of every cold-hearted realist as well as multicultural engager. That’s why it is so incomprehensible that the Obama Administration still prefers dialogue with the apocalyptic ayatollahs over uncompromising support for the people crying out for freedom.

If the protesters shake off the yoke of theocracy and savagery, their success could herald the failure of political Islam way beyond Iran. At this turning point in history the West has no logical alternative but to unequivocally support the Green Revolution. The fate of this movement far outweighs the useless nuclear talks that will only buy the regime time and undeserved international legitimacy. The demonstrators in Iran on Dec. 7 rightfully exclaimed: "Obama, are you with them [the regime] or with us?" History will not judge him lightly if he chooses the wrong side.

For years I have wondered how so many diplomats (including many who are esteemed friends that I admire) delude themselves into believing they can actually get the Iranian regime to drop their quest for nuclear weapons.  Never mind that the regime has invested its entire reputation into asserting that the nuclear option is its G’d-given right.  And never mind that their entire geo-strategic existence relies on nuclear hegemony, not to mention the scary messianic imperatives they seem to want to accelerate with nuclear holocaust, as Ahmadinejad himself explicitly avowed.  If history teaches us anything is that we should take people in power at their word when they proclaim threatening visions in the public fora.

Several years ago, pundits dismissed "regime change" as naive and advocated nuclear containment with Iran instead.  I remember thinking they all had it upside down.  Nuclear containment is unlikely with the present regime.  Admittedly it may also be difficult with a future Iranian leadership.  But at least we won’t have apocalyptic messianics holding on to the red button.  Now that a viable grassroots opposition has risen in Iran demanding freedom and democracy, it will be devastating if they are not given all forms of global support, moral AND otherwise.

[Read more →]

Interesting article about a pious ayatollah who challenges the “Islamic” claim of the Iranian regime.

Good summary by IPF of Iranian efforts to arm Hezbollah and Hamas, and the stunning Israeli interception of 320 tons of weapons.  The world community needs to do more to prevent the Iranian regime from sabotaging peace efforts.

[Read more →]

Last night I listened to Anderson Cooper on CNN as he analyzed the Netanyahu speech at the UN.  He asked if Netanyahu had naively bitten Ahmadinejad’s bait, and he introduces an excerpt where Netanyahu appears to angrily overreach by attacking every member of the UN for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, saying:

I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame?  Have you no decency?

My immediate reaction as I listened to this edited piece was, man, this is dumb.  Netanyahu should not attack all members of the UN.  After all, the body at the UN is designed for ALL nations – even those ruled by oppressive regimes – to have a forum to speak (as David Gergen explained, pointing to Netanyahu’s moral clarity but criticizing him for not recognizing this).  And how dare Netanyahu say he represents all the Jewish people? I don’t think he represents me – certainly not on how to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But something felt wrong.  I may disagree with him on many policy issues but Netanyahu is a smart man with strong diplomatic and public speaking skills.  Was this the real story?

So today I read the entire transcript of Netanyahu’s speech.  And I was shocked at how bad CNN/Anderson Cooper had framed the issue! I’ve written about how FOX over-does the spin in the right-wing direction.  But CNN and Cooper should be embarrassed about how they handled this.  And one of my favorite commentators and real statesmen – David Gergen (perhaps the only excellent one left among dozens of mini-opinionators) probably did not even listen to the speech in full, and certainly did not frame things clearly.  The other commentator (Reza Ezlan?) was way way off.

Here is a quote within context from Netanyahu’s speech:

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium.  To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you.  You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.
But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame?  Have you no decency?  A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace!  What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Now, of course that in the age of twitter, you need to keep things brief.  But Cooper/CNN could have easily introduced the segment of Netanyahu by explaining that he criticized not the entire UN audience, but those who stayed to listen to Ahmadinejad.  Denying even monsters like Ahmadinejad the podium is not an option at the UN.  But every nation has a right to get up and walk out – to exercise its right not to be subjected to his vitriolic hate-mongering, and this was a valid position for Netanyahu to take.

With this post I do not mean to endorse all of Netanyahu’s foreign policy positions – quite the opposite, in some areas I feel he harms Israeli and Palestinian interests alike. But as a student of the media, following on my prior post about editorial spin, I am yet again alarmed at how dangerous unchecked news sources can be.  Indeed, a big part of why the Middle East and the world are in the shape they are is because partisan media feeds each audience what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear, and they don’t constructively engage audiences to better understand each other.

For students of oratory and for students of history, Netanyahu’s speech is actually constructed extremely well, and will probably become a historical piece that others will study for decades.  The transcript is provided below in full for those who want to examine it for themselves:

[Read more →]

To get a sense of how radically an editor of a newsletter can spin a story, take a look at the two different ways that an identical story is summarized by two different newsletters:

From OpinionSource, which is pretty mainstream, maybe slightly progressive but reliable reporting:

Israel’s Gaza Indication
By Jackson Diehl
Washington Post, 9/21/2009
Most of Washington’s predictions regarding the adverse outcome of Israel’s invasion of the Gaza strip (locally known as Operation Cast Lead) were correct. Yet Israeli leaders consider the attack a success. Why they do so bears consideration as Israel prepares to weigh Washington’s opinion regarding an attack on Iran. Israel points to Operation Cast Lead as bringing a respite from Gaza’s attacks on Israel, which had been nearly continuous since April 2001. Yet this view of victory does not take into account the loss of life, Palestinian suffering, and the subsequent offense to UN leaders. Nor does Israel recognize that Hamas is stronger since Operation Cast Lead. As Israeli leaders debate whether to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, they may well decide, as with Gaza, that temporary respite trumps long-term repercussions.
Diehl is deputy editorial page editor of The Post. He is an editorial writer specializing in foreign affairs.
Link to full text in primary source.

 

And now look at the way it’s redacted in the "Daily Alert" which is put out "for" the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization BY the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a right-wing outfit managed by Dore Gold:

Israel’s Gaza Vindication – Jackson Diehl (Washington Post)

• When it was launched last December, Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip looked to most people in Washington to be risky, counterproductive and doomed to futility. But today, the three-week operation is generally regarded by the country’s military and political elite as a success.
• Between April 2001 and the end of 2008, 4,246 rockets and 4,180 mortar shells were fired into Israel from Gaza, killing 14 Israelis, wounding more than 400 and making life in southern Israel intolerable. During what was supposed to be a cease-fire during the last half of 2008, 362 rockets and shells landed. Since April there have been just over two dozen rocket and mortar strikes. No one has been seriously injured, and life in the Israeli town of Sderot and the area around it has returned almost to normal.
• Hamas remains in power and unmoved in its refusal to recognize Israel. It is still holding an Israeli soldier who was abducted in 2006. It is still smuggling material for weapons through tunnels under the Egyptian border and, if it chose to, could resume rocket attacks on Israel at any time.
• However, Israel has bought itself a stretch of relative peace with Hamas, just as its 2006 invasion of Lebanon has produced three years of quiet on that front. "They will never change their ideology of destroying Israel," a senior government official told me last week. "But you can deter them if they are convinced you are not afraid of fighting a war."
• As for the Goldstone report, the heat it briefly produced last week will quickly dissipate; the panel was discredited from the outset because of its appointment by the grotesquely politicized UN Human Rights Council.

You can draw a conclusion from the above:

• briefs and summaries are useful time-savers, but always view them with even more skepticism than their original sources, which you should also be wary of, as everything regrettably seems to have some spin and pure fair objectivity is hard to come by, or non-existent;

The above is not the most extreme example of spin.  I have noticed over time that the Daily Alert is  a partisan effort to scare people off with paranoia. It is very professionally written and redacted – far better than most newsletters put out by mainstream, center, center-left and far-left newsletters I get or review; but regrettably it is full of spin and not objective.  Too bad because it loses much of its legitimacy that way.

Btw, here is the original story the two sources above aimed to summarize:

[Read more →]

The New York Times reports about (OneVoice/PeaceWorks Foundation Board member) Dennis Ross’s move from the State Department to the White House.  It offers a lot of theories for the move, many of them probably on target. But it fails to mention one of the most important likely factors: the interplay between all these Mideast conflicts, and the need for an integrated broad approach and appreciation when tackling them. 

It does not mean that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will fix the Middle East! (Ross would plainly disagree with that, as the article points out).  But it does mean that Iran’s arming of Hezbollah and Hamas deeply handicaps efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace, and that lack of Israeli-Palestinian progress hampers US national interests – as well as Israeli and Palestinian and Arab progress itself.

[Read more →]