Daniel Lubetzky

Kenneth Pollack offers a compelling perspective on the effects an oil boom in the Middle East.

[Read more →]

I got the following email from Ziad Abdelnour, President of the US Committee for a Free Lebanon.  Ziad was born in Lebanon, and he does not parse any words.  While sometimes he is rough and undiplomatic, his clarity is necessary at times of politically correct ambiguity, as we’ve witnessed when addressing Iran and its quest to acquire nuclear weapons. 

Anyone who truly thinks the West can actually "negotiate" to get the Iranian regime to relinquish its quest is deluding themselves and has not been listening to what the Iranian Ayatollahs have been telling their people.  They play the West like a violin with embarassing protracted games designed to buy time, which is in their favor. 

The observation that you can pursue regime change or nuclear containment, but not both, is probably true.  But what is uncomfortable to face is the reality that the later is unlikely to yield any results.  Below is Ziad’s letter:

With or Without Nukes, Iran and its proxies Syria and Hizballah are a Mortal Threat

As President Bush’s term is coming to a close, Lebanon’s survival as a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational state is more than ever at stake.

Iran and Syria are quickly changing the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean, while the West and moderate Arab states appear almost paralyzed and the Lebanese State is nowhere to behave like a sovereign country but a province of Syria and Iran.  All what the Lebanese are concerned about nowadays is how much fun and how many tourists they will host this summer rather than ruthlessly dealing with the total political and economic chaos the country is facing; threatening its very existence.

BUT…. this is not about Lebanon, but about the U.S. presence in the Middle East, its diplomacy, and its allies.

Ever since taking the U.S. embassy staff hostage in 1979, the Islamist regime in Teheran has led an international spree of bombings, hijackings, and other terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners. Now politicians and diplomats, who put up with Iranian aggression for years, are loudly promising to block Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

On the campaign trail, for instance, our Presidential candidates debate how (i.e., with or without preconditions) they’d negotiate to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuke–on the idea that without such a weapon in Iranian hands, everything will be hunky-dory.

A rational assessment of Iran would have to recognize that the mullahs in Teheran have been conducting a proxy war against America for at least a few decades. The inspiration for this war is Iran’s jihadist goal of imposing Islamic totalitarianism globally. Iran is a leading sponsor of jihadists and the self-identified role model for exporting its Islamic revolution to other countries. It is the sworn enemy of the West. We should take seriously its call to bring "Death to America!"–because it has already done so.

BUT….also in here, too many American diplomats and commentators refuse to judge Iran. Instead, they regard its past hostility as a string of disconnected crises, unrelated to Iran’s ideological agenda. They avoid naming the nature of the regime and behave as if its acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be the decisive event. But that particular weapon–despite its power–cannot be the whole story, since we don’t worry about other countries, such as France and Britain, having nukes. The rarely admitted difference is that the regime in Iran would eagerly press the launch button.

This fear-the-weapon-not-the-killer mentality refuses to understand the threat posed by Iran right now. This view holds that only the concrete facts about Iran’s arsenal have any practical significance, while its abstract, ideological goals and character can be disregarded with impunity. But whether Iran uses one nuke, or attacks with more conventional weapons, its victims are still dead.

Our leaders’ narrow concern with Iran’s nuclear capability cannot make the regime’s longstanding hostility to America go away. Americans should face the real character and conduct of the Iranian regime, before it is too late.

The United States must recognize that America does still have allies in the Middle East, especially when it comes to containing Iran. Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Arab Gulf states, as well as our European allies all understand what is at stake. Yet, to pursue a policy of Iran containment, the United States must make it clear that it will stand by its allies.

Washington therefore should immediately:

·     Design and implement a comprehensive policy that includes military, covert, economic, diplomatic, and public diplomacy components to decisively and quickly weaken and roll back Iran and Syria. They have assets and interests that can be frozen or confiscated. They also have officials and businessmen who travel throughout the world and should not be welcome anywhere as long as their policies remain disruptive in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, and elsewhere. Any Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian officials or entity involved in financing, training, supplying, and facilitating terrorism, and specifically Hezbollah, should be placed on the visa boycott list starting with Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

· Work with the European allies so that they declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization, put it on the EU terrorism list, and freeze their economic activities, fundraising, and financial assets throughout Europe, the Middle East, and around the world. Adding Hezbollah to the EU terrorism list would also be an important step toward disarming its militia and restoring the rule of law in Lebanon. Hezbollah enjoys Iranian subsidies and Syrian arms supply. However, Hezbollah is allowed to operate openly, including fundraising and profitable businesses in Europe. This must stop immediately. The State Department and anti-terror arms of the United States and Arab states need to work with the Europeans to ban Hezbollah’s activities on the continent.

· Halt whatever it takes arms shipments and spare part supplies to Hezbollah’s TV and radio channels, telecommunications, businesses, and vehicles. These supplies originate in Europe, the U.S., Japan, and other Far Eastern locations, and are shipped through Beirut and the Gulf. The U.S. should initiate a drastic and concerted effort to stop military re-supply of Hezbollah. The United Nations should be urged to do a better job implementing Resolution 1701, which envisages disarmament of all Lebanese militias, including Hezbollah, and halts the arms supply to it, especially by Iran and Syria. The U.S. should also work with allies in the Middle East and Europe to halt non-military supplies to Hezbollah’s businesses and telecommunications operations.

Time to act is of the essence. Time to dismantle Iran and its proxies is a must…no matter what. This circus has got to stop right now….Enough is enough.

Your support towards this critical cause is always greatly appreciated

Respectfully,

Ziad K. Abdelnour

President

US Committee for a Free Lebanon

Hamas continues to institute more draconian and totalitarian impositions on Palestinians living in Gaza, including heavy monitoring and filtering of internet and telephone communications.

Mainstream media is not reporting about this.

In contrast to my blog entry criticizing the negotiations Israel carried out with Hezbollah to release the bodies of two slain Israeli soldiers in exchange for releasing several terrorists, here are some alternative perspectives from friends I respect:

From an Israeli jurist who asked to remain anonymous:

The problem you raise has no one answer.

Israel did the same transaction before.

Every soldier who goes to take part in war activities has to know that the Israeli government will do the utmost efforts to save him from prison or bring his body back to Israel. For a soldier it is a big relief to have this information.

One can say as you argue that the enemy will not hesitate to kill prisoners of war and yet get in exchange live terrorists. to this terrible dilemma I have no answer.

please remember that Jews in the Golla paid money to release Jews from prison, There is a lot of writing how much to pay in order to release. there were Jews in prison who refused to be liberated saying you are members of poor community or that if the Jewish people will release them this will cause in the future more blackmail.

From Jake Hayman, a British social entrepreneur and OneVoice London executive member:

I understand that it may not be politically the wisest thing to do in the short term, but I think it is noble beyond belief, to an extent that makes Israel actually come out looking stronger.

Hizbullah can ask how Israel can possibly defend itself when even the bodies of the dead mean so much to it, but they will also be lost as to how they can hope to defeat a place so magnaminous. Its about operating a higher moral standard that makes you ostensibly more vulnerable but shows a unity and strength that no one else can even come close to.

I’m not sure i can really articulate it, but I’d like to think I’d do the same and think it may be the best thing in the long run although it obviously sets a scary precedent in the short run and if they can’t live up to the standards they set now it causes a problem, but they set these standards a long time ago and have stuck by them since.

A third, more jaded view:

Nobody can stand to condemn this.  It would be political suicide.  Widows cannot get remarried under Jewish law if their fallen husbands’ bodies are not recuperated.  No one will dare deny them this, even for sound strategic reasons.

The Israeli Government has just announced its agreement to procure the "release" Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the two Israeli soldiers abducted by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, in exchange for releasing several Lebanese prisoners including Samir Kuntar, the man who in 1979 murdered 3 Israelis in their home, including a 4-year old, and who caused the hiding mother to suffocate her 2-year-old daughter as she tried to quiet her crying.

What is the problem?

• Sheikh Nasrallah ordered the attacks and incursions that brought about the Hezbollah-Israel war in 2006 with the stated goal of releasing Kuntar; Nasrallah outlined how he would capture Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips to bring about the release of Kuntar; now, 2 years after such devastating war and a month after having turned his guns on Lebanese people that supported the Lebanese government, he is being rewarded;
• Goldwasser and Regev are apparently dead, so the Israeli government is inviting terrorists not just to try to capture Israeli soldiers, but to kill them if they so please, as Israel will be willing to exchange their bodies anyway, for precisely the objectives that terrorists wish to attain.

I feel horrible for the families that lost Ehud and Eldad. But besides the perverse and ominous incentives this deal creates, it is also going to turn Hezbollah’s Nasrallah from a formidable hero into a mythic legend in the eyes of many in the Arab world.

The timing is particularly regrettable because for the first time in 20+ years, Nasrallah had lost a little of his luster when he showed his color and attacked fellow Lebanese civilians.  This will restore his stature and more.

Unless there is a secret grand bargain in the making that, with Lebanese/Shaba farms, Syrian, and Palestinian negotiations will settle the Israeli-Arab conflict and distance Israel’s neighbors from Iran, today is as tragic a day for civil society as it is a cause for celebration for those who espouse violence as a tool for political leverage.

Below is the text of the Israeli government’s outline for the agreement on releasing the abducted soldiers in Lebanon:

[Read more →]

This article from the Christian Science Monitor summarizes pretty well the political developments that have for now kept the current Israeli parliamentary coalition afloat.

Instead of recriminations and fights for personal political advancement, for once these considerations were borne in mind:

…it’s not as if we don’t have a few other things to keep us busy… …Israel’s shaky truce with Hamas, which is just six days old and already being tested by militants who fired rockets into Israel Tuesday; possible negotiations with Hezbollah over Israel’s captured soldiers; indirect talks with Syria; and nuclear tensions with Iran.

…not to mention the little detail about Olmert’s commitment to achieve a framework agreement with Abbas within 2008.

[Read more →]

Tony Blair Meets With OneVoice Palestinian and Israeli Youth Leaders in Jerusalem

[Read more →]

– As we gear towards the general election, a word of caution for US Presidential candidates about an important constituency that will not vote for them –

According to conventional wisdom, Presidential candidates can take campaign stances that will curry favor with particular constituencies of voters, only to be forgiven for adjusting campaign positions once they face the realities of the highest office.

The truth is that a campaign defines how the electorate will see their President – and this all the more true when shaping the President’s image in the eyes of the largest constituency that will actually not vote for them: the international community.

While domestically the President may be able to somewhat reshape his/her image through defining moments and actions, this is far less feasible internationally.

Only Americans vote for their President, but foreigners care almost as much – and sometimes more – about who will lead the most powerful nation in the world.

International impressions about a candidate are forged quite early, and they are far harder to change. Longer distances yield local media coverage that tends to be more one-dimensional and absolute, less nuanced, and more sporadic. Foreign coverage will also tend to be defined more narrowly from the prism of a particular nation’s foreign affairs agenda, as opposed to a plethora of domestic issues.

President Bush caused particular suspicion abroad during his 2000 campaign mocking Al Gore, and then again John Kerry in 2004, for their ‘multilateralism.’ He made it a pillar of his campaign to emphasize he would only pursue narrowly-defined American interests. He rejected the Kyoto protocols not only on their substance but on what they implied – that American policy would be harmonized with – or subservient to – global agendas for climate control.

Perhaps this stance helped him win over nativist constituencies. And he had little to fear about alienating foreigners who by definition could not vote. But global karma caught up with him and has as much to do with his Administration’s ultimate ineffectiveness as any other factor.

Foreign Heads of State in rare uniform fashion viewed him apprehensively, and large swaths of people reviled him across the globe. They could not vote him out. But they could vote with their policies and their currencies. Not only did Bush struggle to build his coalition in Iraq, but the ‘America’ brand was tarnished, American goods disfavored, and the dollar weakened.

America’s perceived weakness today is directly connected to displeasure with Bush’s unilateralist policies, whose perceptions were cemented during his campaign pronouncements even more than through his Administration’s work.

Even when Bush did positive international work, his image (and that of his Administration) had been unalterably shaped. He funded the fight against AIDS and pressed against poverty through far greater foreign aid than his predecessors. But he got no credit for it. Once international personas are shaped, it is close to impossible to alter them.

The same is true with foreign leaders from other nations – Putin vs. Gorbachev, Chirac vs. Sarkozy, Sharon vs. Peres – they are a brand unto themselves and will be hard-pressed to change it abroad no matter what different policies they may enact.

Starting with this general election, future candidates for the US presidency will hopefully bear in mind that the world is watching, and their statements will not be forgotten after the dust settles.

Both Obama and McCain seem to be more in tune to the foreign-policy-shaping impact of their campaign statements than President Bush was. Their visions for foreign policy could not be in greater contrast. McCain projects unwavering strength against militant absolutism and nihilism. Obama urges soft power and diplomatic engagement in tandem with military might. Neither perspective can be dismissed as unfounded or demagogic. Not even history will help us judge such a poignant question to such complex and dire circumstances.

But both will do well to remember that their campaign pronouncements will shape their international personas and will thus have almost as much impact on their ability to advance American (and possibly global) interests as the policies they enact thereafter if elected.

Full Transcript here.  Some excerpts:

Q151 Hugh Bayley: I agree, from my visits to the region, that a majority on both sides want peace, and the only prospect for that is to have a two-state solution, but the majority who want peace are marginalised time and again by acts of violence, whether it is a missile being fired over the border into Israel or the use of violence by the Israeli security forces. You can take the parallels with Northern Ireland too far, but it was undoubtedly the case in Northern Ireland that community groups on both sides – the Falls Road and the Shankhill – started saying, "We want peace", and they reduced the political space within which the terrorists operated. You have talked about a series of high-level talks you are involved with, but I think there is a need to nurture and strengthen community organisations of moderate Palestinians and moderate Israelis to try and nurture that space for discussing a future of co-existence. To what extent would you like to see DFID and other donors working in this area and what should they be doing?

Mr Blair: I think it is a very worthwhile exercise for them to work on. If you take an organisation, for example, like One Voice, which is for the young people, who are lovely young people, if that is the future on both sides it would be bright. I think it is very important to encourage a sort of civil society exchange at the same time, and I think that those are things that are easy to do and very worthwhile.

IDF To Remove West Bank Roadblocks as ‘Reward’ for Efforts to Clamp Down on Militants

[Read more →]