Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Facebook Linkedin RSS Twitter

How Israel is Covered in the Iranian Media

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Overview

1. Iranian media and spokesmen continue to demonize Israel, accusing it of complicity with the West in plotting against Iran. The so-called plots pertain both to Iran ‘s internal affairs (such as the recent post-election protests) and to its regional relations (the encirclement of Iran ). To support that propaganda line, Iran ‘s media uses false, fabricated information-for example, accusing Israel of encouraging Jews to emigrate to Iraqi Kurdistan as part of its goal to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. At the same time, Iranian spokesmen and media kept encouraging the Palestinians to destroy Israel (“the Zionist regime”) and to continue carrying out terrorist activities against it (“resistance”), saying that the Palestinian people had nothing to gain from the peace process.

2. In June and early July, despite the vigorous efforts to suppress the wave of protest over the parliament election, Iran paid considerable attention to Israel and various developments pertaining to it. Among the main issues addressed by Iranian media and spokesmen: accusations of the West and Israel of meddling in Iran’s internal affairs; the threat posed by Israel to Iran’s national security; the effect of the “Zionist lobby” in the US on shaping President Obama’s policy towards Iran; threats concerning a possible Israeli assault on Iran (an issue brought up by the US vice president); Iran’s continuing commitment to help the Palestinians and lead those who oppose the plans and schemes “concocted” against them by the West and pro-Western Arab countries.

3. Iranian media portrayed Israel as one of the countries which fanned the protests that broke out in Iran following the election. Iran claimed that, alongside Britain, US, and the West, Israel was involved in sparking and encouraging the protests in Iran, extensively covering statements made by the regime’s critics, and Mir-Hossein Moussavi in particular. In an effort to disparage the protest movement, Iran ‘s chief of staff said that weapons manufactured by Israel, the US, and Britain were used by the protesters.

4. Following President Obama’s outspoken remarks over the Iranian protest wave, sentiments that Obama continues the previous administration’s policy under the pressure of the “Zionist Jewish lobby” are becoming increasingly heard in Iran. Iranian spokesmen called Obama to come back to his original policy so that his presidential term does not end on such a disgraceful note as that of his predecessor’s. A statement made by the US vice president about a possible Israeli attack on Iran was answered by the supreme leader’s advisor on international strategic affairs, Ali Akbar Velayati, who said that the idea of an Israeli attack on Iran was ridiculous while also issuing a threat: “No one will be safe in the Middle East if Iran is attacked”.

5. The Israeli president’s visit to Azerbaijan, a neighboring country viewed by Iran as its back yard, was cause for deep concern with the Iranian regime. Iran recalled its ambassador to Azerbaijan in an act of protest and the media associated with the conservative bloc noted that Israel was increasing its influence in Central Asia in an attempt to contain Iran and actually “turned Azerbaijan into a war theater against Iran “. However, the Iranians remained conspicuously silent when, according to Azeri reports, a Hezbollah terrorist cell operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards was exposed in Baku.

6. With regard to the Palestinian issue, Iran continues to position itself as a leader of the struggle for the realization of Palestinian rights, based on supporting the “resistance” (terrorism) and ruling out the peace process. Iran ‘s president said that in his second tenure he would take more decisive action on the regional and international scene, while Ali Akbar Velayati stressed that ” Iran will always have the last say on Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq “.

Details of Iranian references to Israel on various issues

Accusing the West and Israel of encouraging the reformist bloc

7. The Iranian regime claimed that foreign parties meddled in Iran ‘s internal affairs during the pre-election period in order to strengthen the reformist bloc. The use of that claim increased as protests broke out when the election’s results became known. To defame Ahmadinejad’s opponents, the president’s supporters repeatedly accused Western and “Zionist” media of fanning violence, coordinating the protests from control rooms supposedly established in Mir-Hossein Moussavi’s election headquarters, and even of murdering Neda Agha Soltani, a young woman who became the symbol of the struggle. Following are some examples of such Iranian propaganda:

1.. Claiming that the Israeli Foreign Ministry enthusiastically welcomes “Moussavi’s inciting behavior”: IRNA, Iran ‘s official news agency, cited an article written by Menashe Amir, which was published on the official website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which allegedly enthusiastically welcomes Mir-Hossein Moussavi’s inciting and inflammatory measures in the post-election period. 2

2.. The Israeli Foreign Ministry quoting a cleric who opposes the regime: the Iranian newspaper Javan referred its readers to the headline of the Israeli Foreign Ministry website, citing Ayatollah Sane’i’s criticism of the Iranian regime. Javan is an ultra-conservative newspaper associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The publication is meant to defame Sane’i in Iran, portraying him as being associated with Israel and a collaborator with an attempt to spark a “velvet revolution” following the elections. 3

3.. Claiming that Israel is waging psychological warfare with Saudi assistance: the political editor of the Ghods newspaper claims that the “Zionist regime”, assisted by Saudi Arabia, is waging psychological warfare against Iran. Iran accused Saudi media, such as the Al-Arabiyya channel, of presenting a false image of the post-election events in Iran. 4

Claiming that the US policy is influenced by the “Zionist lobby”

8. Ever since Obama became president of the US, he is carefully examined by Iranian spokesmen and media in Iran. Recently, following Obama’s outspoken remarks over the wave of protest and Vice President Biden’s statement about a possible Israeli attack, sentiments that Obama continues the previous administration’s policy under the pressure of the “Zionist Jewish lobby” are becoming increasingly heard in Iran.

9. Following are some statements made by Iranian leaders and articles on Iranian media about the influence of the “Zionist lobby” on the US policy, also calling on the US president to return to a course of dialogue:

1.. “The Zionist lobby and the Congress have exerted pressure”: Ali Akbar Velayati, Iran ‘s former foreign minister and now the Iranian supreme leader’s advisor on international affairs, addressed the issue of the so-called Israeli influence on the US as it pertained to the Iranian elections on a TV show called “Round Table” aired in Iran on July 8. He said that President Obama attempted to keep a low profile on the elections, but that the Zionist lobby and the US Congress put pressure on him to make (strong anti-Iranian) statements. 5

2.. Calling the US to resume negotiations or be ostracized by the region’s peoples: Mojtaba Samareh-Hashemi, Ahmadinejad’s election campaign manager, 6 said that President Obama had first taken a lenient approach with regard to the election results, but that he was then forced by the Zionists and the neo-conservatives to issue harsh statements against Iran. He called Obama to reevaluate his position, thus paving the way for a dialogue between Iran and the US and stepping away from the policy he inherited from President Bush, whose actions caused the peoples of the region to ostracize the US. 7

3.. “[President] Obama between slogans and actions”: an editorial in Jomhuri-ye Eslami titled “Obama’s contradictory policy between actions and slogans” refers to statements made by President Obama and his vice president. According to the article, those statements expose the new administration’s true, hostile face towards Iran, which it made sure to conceal shortly after he was elected. The newspaper argues that a change in the US administration does not necessarily mean a change in the foreign policy, be it concerning Iran or any other issue. The newspaper urges the US to resume “the logical policy which is accepted by the international community instead of submitting to the demands of the Jewish lobby in Washington, if he doesn’t want to leave the White House in shame, like his predecessor”. 8

10. A statement made by US Vice President Joe Biden concerning a possible Israeli attack on Iran was met with threatening messages from Iran:

1.. Regarding a possible Israeli attack, Velayati said in an interview aired on Iranian TV (July 8) as part of a show called “Round Table” that the talk about an Israeli attack in Iran was just propaganda. “The idea of an Israeli attack against Iran is ridiculous,” he said, “no one will be safe in the entire Middle East if Iran is attacked. If one missile is fired at Iran, it will not sit idly by. Attacking Iran is like playing with fire”.

2.. Iran will retaliate “with full force, decisively, and resolutely”: Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the Iranian Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Policy and National Security, responded to the US vice president during a visit to Japan. He said that Iran would respond firmly to any Israeli attempt to invade it, “with full force, decisively, and resolutely. I believe that the US and Israel are well aware of the potential consequences of such an error in judgment”. 9

Israel ‘s President Peres’s visit to Azerbaijan increases Iran ‘s feeling of encirclement

11. The historical visit of Israel ‘s President Peres to Azerbaijan (June 28-29) aroused a great deal of interest in Iran, at a time where the regime was busy trying to contain the wave of protest following the publication of the election results. Iran is concerned about the West gaining a greater foothold along its northern border, and therefore President Peres’s visit increased Iran ‘s feeling of encirclement. The visit was portrayed by the Iranians as an attempt made by the Azeri government, with the assistance of Israel and the West, to incite Iran ‘s Azeri minority against the regime.

12. Iranian MPs called the government of Azerbaijan to cancel the visit. On the eve of Shimon Peres’s arrival, a demonstration organized by the Iranian regime was held in front of the Azeri consulate in Tehran. Signs carried by the demonstrators read: “We ask the government of Azerbaijan to prevent the coming of Shimon Peres in order to maintain a relationship of peace and brotherhood [with Iran ]”; ” Israel should be erased from the pages of history”. Twenty Iranian MPs, most of them members of the Azeri minority, called on Foreign Minister Mottaki to protest against Peres’s visit to the government of Azerbaijan, claiming that it was opposed to the interests of the Muslim world. 10 Mohammad Baqer Bahrami, Iran ‘s new ambassador in Baku, was recalled to Tehran for consultations in protest against Israel ‘s President Shimon Peres’s visit to Azerbaijan and his “threats” against Iran ; however, he has since returned to Baku. 11

13. TABNAK, a website associated with Mohsen Rezai, the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards and one of the four candidates in Iran ‘s presidential elections, claimed that, despite its best efforts, the Iranian lobby in Azerbaijan failed in its attempt to prevent Shimon Peres’s visit. According to TABNAK, Israel attempts to contain Iranian influence in Central Asia, find substitutes for its oil needs, and new markets for its military industry through non-Arab countries. The website concludes by saying that Azerbaijan has turned into one of Israel ‘s battlefronts against Iran. 12

14. In an article titled “Erdogan would not be enthusiastic about it”, the conservative website ALEF writes that President Peres’s visit to Azerbaijan should not be viewed as an ordinary diplomatic trip. The far reaching defense-related and economic agreements signed in the visit are testimony to the existence of “high-level” bilateral political relations. The website’s political commentator argues that in order to better understand the purposes of the visit, Israel ‘s relations with Azerbaijan should be examined alongside its relations with Turkey. The article claims that Turkey is no longer Israel ‘s strategic ally, as was once believed. The reason for that, according to the article, is “the Zionist regime’s activity to return the Kurdish Jews to [Iraqi] Kurdistan”, which threatens Turkey ‘s national security. Conversely, Azerbaijan, which has enjoyed Turkey ‘s attention in the past several years, has chosen to be an ally of the US and Israel, drifting farther away from Turkey. At any rate, the article argues that the changes taking place throughout regional alliances “are (ultimately) good news for the Iranian foreign policy”. 13

Exposure of a Hezbollah terrorist cell in Azerbaijan – Iran is conspicuously silent

15. About one month before President Peres’s visit to Azerbaijan, a Hezbollah terrorist cell was exposed there. Assisted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, it was planning a terrorist attack on the Israeli Embassy in Baku, in retaliation for the killing of Imad Mughniyah. Widely covered on Azeri media, the affair was hardly mentioned on Iranian media, since Iran preferred not to address the cell’s exposure in public (which may reflect the Iranians’ embarrassment over the exposure of their involvement in terrorism). The legal proceedings against the terrorist cell started on July 8 and may once again bring the affair to public attention.

16. According to media reports, the terrorist cell which operated in Baku had 6 terrorists, two of them Lebanese (with Iranian passports) and four Azeri. The Azeri media reported that the cell was planning to attack the Israeli Embassy using several car bombs, and was also planning to attack a Russian radar station. The cell was operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, which is in charge of operations outside of Iran in cooperation with the Lebanese Hezbollah. 14

17. On May 31, the popular Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that during the arrest, Azerbaijan ‘s security forces had seized explosives, goggles, cameras, guns with silencers, and photographs. The newspaper quoted Western elements involved in the investigation who said that the security forces intercepted telephone calls between local terrorist elements and two Hezbollah operatives: Ali al-Karaki, a senior figure in Hezbollah’s foreign terrorist attacks unit, and Ali Najm al-Din, an expert on explosives. The assessment is that the two terrorists, who traveled between Baku, Iran and Lebanon in early 2008, used Iranian passports and constituted the cell responsible for preparing the terrorist attack. Investigation also showed that two Revolutionary Guards leaders were involved in planning the attack.

False information on Kurdish Israeli Jews emigrating to Iraqi Kurdistan

18. As part of the Iranian regime’s false propaganda against Israel, the conservative newspaper Jomhuri-ye Eslami published an editorial titled “Balfour 2”, which warns about Jewish Israelis of Kurdish ancestry emigrating to Iraqi Kurdistan with the support of the US (based on an extensive four-part “investigative article” on that issue recently published in the newspaper). The newspaper calls Iraq to take that Israeli intention seriously and warns that the continued American presence in Iraq, “under the Zionists’ pressure”, is meant to promote Israel ‘s plan to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. Jomhuri-ye Eslami argues that the Jews’ emigration to Iraq also poses a threat to Iran, since the implication of that is that Zionists are moving towards its borders, and calls on the governments of Iraq and Iran to find a “reasonable solution” to that phenomenon. 15

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: encouraging the Palestinians to continue terrorism, opposition to the peace process, and calling to destroy Israel

19. Iran, which continues to position itself as the leader of those who oppose any political arrangement, accuses the pragmatic and pro-Western Arab countries of ganging up on the Palestinians with Israel and the US. Iran promises that it will continue to support the Palestinians and encourages them to oppose the peace process and continue the “resistance” (i.e., terrorism) against Israel. Prominent examples follow.

1.. Calling on the Palestinians to oppose the peace process and “settle for no less than the destruction of the Zionist regime”: Jomhuri-ye Eslami criticizes the American-Egyptian efforts to establish a Palestinian state, arguing that such a state would be a “Zionist puppet”. It calls on the Palestinians to “settle for no less than the destruction of the Zionist regime”. A Jomhuri-ye Eslami editorial argues that the Palestinian state envisioned by the US and Egypt will have no identity, will, and desire to protect itself, and will never enjoy security, compared to the Zionist regime whose army is equipped with the most advanced weaponry in the world. Jomhuri-ye Eslami claims that the common goal of Hosni Mubarak and Benjamin Netanyahu is to solve the issue of Palestine by establishing a puppet country for the Zionists to control, which is why the Palestinians rejected the initiative. The newspaper calls on the Palestinians to settle for no less than the destruction of the Zionist regime. 16

2.. Claiming that “Palestinians and Arabs have nothing to gain” from the peace process. In an article published on the IRAN DIPLOMACY website, Iran ‘s former ambassador to Jordan, Mohammad Irani, wonders whether Netanyahu has given up his positions. Mohammad Irani believes that while Netanyahu’s latest speech at Bar-Ilan University may at first seem like a withdrawal compared to his past views, it is in practice a step forward. His new position is meant to serve as an escape route from the pressure exerted by the US and Obama. With that initiative, “the head of the Zionist administration has further narrowed the playing field, keeping the Arabs busy formulating a response”. He also said that, as always, Palestinians and Arabs would get nothing. 17

20. Other statements about Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict voiced by top Iranian officials:

1.. Iran will have the last say on Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq: Ali Akbar Velayati, the supreme leader’s advisor on international affairs, said as follows: “Some countries in the Middle East mistakenly believe themselves to be better than Iran [referring to the pragmatic Arab camp which supports a political solution in the conflict with Israel], but they must face the fact that Iran will always have the last say on Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq”. 18

2.. Protecting Palestine and other “oppressed nations” is part of the Iranian-Islamic identity: Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said during a visit to Qatar that “protecting oppressed nations, such as Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, is part of the Iranian-Islamic identity. We are proud of the defense we provide to Palestine. Iran does not accept plans put forward by some countries which mock Palestinian rights. Those rights are non-negotiable”. 19

Ahmadinejad continues the Holocaust denial policy

21. “The crumbling of the myth of the Holocaust” in Ahmadinejad’s view: the Presidential Office’s Study and Documentation Institute has recently issued a new book called “The Crumbling of the Myth of the Holocaust”. The book contains Ahmadinejad’s ideas and statements on Palestine, Israel, and the Holocaust. It has eight chapters, including: the purpose behind the establishment of the State of Israel; Iran ‘s duty to protect the Palestinians; and the Zionist struggle in Lebanon and Gaza. 20 It should be mentioned that Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial policy has turned into one of the most controversial issues in the turbulent election campaign held in Iran.

Iranian delegations abandoned conferences and competitions because of Israel ‘s participation

22. A delegation of clerics left an inter-religious conference in Kazakhstan: an Iranian delegation which took place in a world religion leaders’ conference in Kazakhstan left the conference following the arrival of Israeli President Shimon Peres. The delegation was headed by Mostafavi, the Iranian president’s advisor and chairman of the Islamic Culture and Relations organization. In an interview granted to the Fars website, Mostafavi’s advisor denied reports by a “Zionist newspaper” saying that Mostafavi had granted an interview to a Zionist newspaper, claiming that the only interviews he had granted during the visit were to local television. 21

23. The robotics team left an international competition in Austria: the Iranian robotics team came to Austria to take part in an international robotics competition. However, when it was paired against the Israeli team in the first round, the Iranian team decided to forfeit and returned to Iran. 22

——————————————————————–

1 This new monthly bulletin aims to analyze the way Israel is perceived by Iranian media and key figures.

2 http://www.irna.ir/View/FullStory/?NewsId=584007

3 Javan, July 7.

4 Ghods, July 7.

5 Iranian TV, July 8.

6 He has recently been appointed the president’s senior advisor as part of personnel change in Iran following the presidential election.

7 PRESS TV, June 30.

8 Jomhuri-ye Eslami, July 8.

9 http://www.isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1366730&Lang=E

10 Mehr News Agency, June 23.

11 http://www.today.az/news/politics/53639.html ; PRESS TV, June 29; http://tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=53531

12 http://tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=55167

13 http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/48975/

14 A similar Iranian involvement in Hezbollah’s terrorist activities was exposed in the Jewish community bombing in Buenos Aires, on July 18, 1994. Following the bombing, the Argentinean security service exposed the existence of an extensive Iranian-operated terrorist network in Argentina.

15 http://is.gd/1w2Xd

16 http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/48111/

17 http://is.gd/1w4P3

18 Iranian TV, July 8.

19 Mehr News Agency, July 6.

20 http://www.irna.ir/View/FullStory/?NewsId=575191

21 http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/48762/

22 http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/49036/

PA street naming in honor of terrorist murders challenges world conscience – yet elicits no reaction

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The decision announced this week by the Palestinian Authority to honor the top Palestinian terrorist murderers now serving time in Israeli prisons by naming streets after them has received almost no attention either here or abroad.

And that’s a pity.

For the Palestinians.

Because the lack of reaction reflects a view that the Palestinian leadership is a bunch of immoral savages who cannot be expected to be held up to any reasonable standard of behavior. Its one thing for the Palestinians to argue that when a final agreement is reached with Israel that, within the framework of reconciliation there is a wholesale release of prisoners – including the monsters – but far another to praise the monsters and name streets after them.

And while that may be a useful image if you are issuing demands as you hold hostages on a jet, its hardly what the Palestinians need today if they want to sell the story that they are peace loving folks who want to live in peace and tranquility in a Palestinian state side by side with Israel.

So here’s the question: Is anyone going to say anything?

President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and the various and sundry American officials who have no problem slamming Israel at the drop of the hat can show that they don’t actually think the Palestinians are monsters by demanding that the street naming outrage be halted.

The folks at J-Street, American Friends of Peace Now – and for that matter their Israeli radical left counterparts should do the same. Not only to help put the Palestinians on track, but also to show that they themselves aren’t suffering from a partial blindness that prevents them from seeing anything but Israeli warts.

Even Arab “moderates” should join the chorus to help set the tone for a responsible moderate Palestinian leadership.

Will it happen?

Unfortunately, the odds are that it won’t.

And this should serve as a warning to Israel at a time that all of the above gang up to turn the screws on the Jewish State. A warning that, rhetoric notwithstanding, the world will give a free pass to the Palestinians if we are naïve enough to rely on international guarantees to facilitate the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state

HISTORY RECURS: THE PRESIDENT, THE JEWS AND THE ARABS

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

I read the report that quoted an American official who described President Obama’s meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. It was evident from the report that despite the president’s amazing powers of persuasion, this time they failed to do the trick.

The Saudi king refused to show any flexibility and to give the president even a smidgen that he could cite as Arab flexibility.

He furthermore refused to make any gesture that might promote the president’s efforts to bring the parties to the negotiating table.

The US administration was left with just a single type of ammunition: pressure on Israel to stop all construction in the settlements, and now, in Jerusalem as well.

This is at a time that the Arabs, headed by Saudi Arabia, haven’t budged from their positions and are not prepared to make any confidence-building measures.

I recalled a similar scene from the past and turned to the history books. In February 1945, following an international conference that was attended by Stalin, who stood at the head of the Soviet communist empire, and British Prime Minister Churchill, US President Roosevelt, who had just been elected to his fourth term in office, flew to hold talks with Ibn Saud.

Ibn Saud was the father of the current king, and he was perceived at the time by the Americans as being a leading Arab figure in the region. President Roosevelt was at the peak of his popularity after having saved the American economy from the crisis that erupted at the end of the 1920s and after having led his people and the world to war against the members of the axis of evil.

He also knew that the United States would soon have a nuclear bomb that would tip the scales.

(He did not know at the time that Joseph Stalin was also privy to the nuclear secret thanks to information that was provided by a spy who operated in the United States).

The meeting was held in a Hollywood-like manner-on board an American destroyer that was anchored in the Suez Canal, Egyptian territory that was under British control for all intents and purposes.

The president was deliberating at the time as to what would be the correct solution for the issue of “Palestine.” To wit, how to bridge the gap between the promise that had been given to the Jews that they would receive a state of their own in the Land of Israel, on the one hand, and the United States’ vital interests in the Arab world both insofar as pertained to prosecuting the war (which hadn’t ended yet) and meeting the United States’ energy needs (the oil deposits are principally located in Saudi Arabia).

Roosevelt, who was known for his ability to win over the hearts of his audience, based most of his policy on that gift of his, and he was confident that his charisma would work on the Saudi king as well. But he met with utter failure.

The king was not prepared to concede a single speck of anything on any issue and refused the president completely. Roosevelt said subsequently that he had learned more in a five minute conversation with the king about the problems of the region than he had from all of the letters he’d received on the matter in Washington, alluding to the letters that had been written by Zionist leaders and the Jewish sympathizers in the United States, and perhaps also to the letters that were written by dozens of US Senate members who supported the idea of the Jewish state.

That comment was unbecoming of the president, and cast him in a bad light not only for the Jews, but also for other senior officials in the US administration. It is interesting that even though he came to the region and met also with the king of Egypt, he never found the time to meet either here or in Washington with the most senior Jewish representative, the chairman of the Jewish Agency, David Ben Gurion. Even though more than 64 years have passed, it is now apparent that thing have barely changed in Washington either.

Back then too US Jewry was divided, the president’s supporters refused to see the naked truth, the State Department was in favor of the Arabs and against the Jews, oil was the most important thing to everyone, and Congress was more attentive to the needs of the Jews in Israel than the president’s administration.

We will never know how things might have developed because the president, to the world’s regret, died in April, and the decisions were made after his demise when his vice president, Harry Truman, became president with the executive powers.

But if you thought that there was something new under the sun, you were mistaken. I hope and pray that the young American president has a healthy and full life, but he would do well were he to read the history of that great and popular Democratic president to realize that what used to be is now what is.

And I would suggest to we Israelis that we not become too excited every time there is an “unprecedented event” or an “unprecedented call.” Those are headlines that stem from the lack of historical knowledge.

Guest Editorial on July 23, 2009 in Ysirael Hayom, a daily Israeli newspaper

AMERICAN THINK TANK: REMOVE JERUSALEM FROM ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2009/06/jerusalem.html

The Status of Jerusalem

June 3, 2009, 1:00pm – 2:30pm

About This Event

“Without resolution of Jerusalem, peace could not be achieved,” said Michael Bell regarding the city’s importance to any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Wednesday at the Center for American Progress.

Bell served as the Canadian Ambassador to Jordan, Egypt, and Israel and was part of the event’s panel on the status of Jerusalem. The panel was moderated by Daniel C. Kurtzer, the S. Daniel Abraham professor in Middle East policy studies at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School and former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, and also included Marshall Breger, a professor at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law. The two panelists discussed the obstacles to reaching a lasting resolution on Jerusalem. Rudy deLeon, CAP’s Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy, gave introductory remarks. He pointed out the timeliness of the event.

“It’s fitting that we should be here discussing Jerusalem at the same time President Obama is visiting Riyadh and Cairo as part of his effort to bring a new urgency to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and to begin a new chapter on U.S. relations with the Muslim world,” said DeLeon.

Jerusalem “encompasses all aspects of the conflict,” according to Bell. The old city is home to less than 40,000 Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and is a microcosm of the larger problems in the region. Its competing ethnic, religious, and cultural claims are central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and those claims are the reason why the city is essential to any workable peace plan.

The Temple Mount’s Western Wall is the most sacred place of Jewish worship, and the al-Haram al-Sharif, where Muslims believe that Mohammad ascended into the heavens, is the third holiest site in Islam. Breger dismissed the claims of those who challenge Islam’s connection to the site.

“I think the argument that [Jerusalem] is not holy to Islam is a silly one,” he said. “You have to accept a religion’s definition of what is holy.”

The panelists discussed ways to work within both religions’ connection to the site rather than debating the merits of those claims. Three “issues of holiness” need to be resolved for any peace plan to work, according to Breger. They include ownership of the territory and holy sites, exclusive access to the sites, and sovereignty.

The panelists agreed that more needs to be done to solve those three issues, and Bell was concerned by the lack of progress on a workable plan for the city.

“For all that is written about Jerusalem, and all the detail and its history, and claims and counterclaims, there really was precious little-in fact nothing-done on how to resolve the issue in a way that would meet the requirements of all parties,” Bell said.

Bell is co-director of the Jerusalem Old City Initiative, which published a study last year on what would be required to reach a resolution for the city to which all parties could agree. The study concluded that as part of a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the capital of both states, Israel and the future Palestinian state could establish a “special regime” that would charge a third-party international administrator with managing the Old City.

According to Bell, the regime would not be responsible for resolving competing claims to sovereignty over Jerusalem or its holy sites. Instead, it would be charged by both sides with administering the space. Critically, it would be charged with securing visitation of Jerusalem’s holy sites by locals, tourists, and pilgrims.

Joint visitation and use of the city is not unprecedented, according to Breger. “Historically, there are many examples of Muslims and Jews sharing holy sites,” he said.

Kurtzer added that there are many barriers when it comes to the Old City, and that broaching some of them, for instance discussing the extension of a settlement freeze to Jerusalem, would make it easier to have serious negotiations.

No one knows when an agreement for sharing the city and its holy sites might be reached, but Wednesday’s panel helped to answer the overarching question that Kurtzer posed.

“To what extent will Jerusalem be an impediment to even the beginning of talks?” he asked the panelists.

The consensus of the panelists was that it would be a significant challenge. They both agreed that the city is too important to leave as an afterthought, and that therefore providing possible approaches that might appeal to both sides could make resolution of the conflict easier.

Introduction:

Rudy deLeon, Senior Vice President, National Security and International Policy

Featured Discussants:

Ambassador Michael Bell, co-director of the Jerusalem Old City Initiative at the University of Windsor, and former Canadian ambassador to Jordan, Egypt and Israel
Marshall Breger, professor of law at the Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America, co-author of Jerusalem’s Holy Places and the Peace Process and consultant to the Jerusalem Old City Initiative

Discussion Moderated by:

Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer, S. Daniel Abraham Professor in Middle Eastern Policy Studies at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School and former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt

Location

Center for American Progress
1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

Middle East Progress highlights practical approaches to make Americans safer by improving U.S., Israeli and regional security and strengthening America’s global standing. Middle East Progress publishes the Middle East Bulletin, promotes public-private partnerships and encourages new ideas and strategies by bringing together, from around the world and across the country, those who can most effectively shape the policy dynamic on security and economic issues, by hosting meetings, panels and conferences, to discuss ideas, create new approaches and strategize on how best to implement them within and across borders.

Saudi Initiative – based on flooding Israel with Arab refugees from 1948 – along with their descendents

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Saudi Initiative – based on flooding Israel with Arab refugees from 1948 – along with their descendents

This week, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu praised the nation of Bahrain for endorsing the Saudi Peace Initiative, also known as the Arab League’s Peace Initiative, which the Israel Prime Minister characterized as a step to peace and reconciliation with the state and people of Israel.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE, WRITTEN ONE WEEK AFTER THE SAUDI INITIATIVE WAS SPAWNED, CLARIFIES THAT THE SAUDI INITIATIVE IS BASED ON FLOODING ISRAEL WITH 4 MILLION ARAB REFUGEES AND THEIR DESCENDENTS

The question is: Does PM Netanyahu not know this?

In this article published in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz,[1] Professor Itamar Rabinovich – president of Tel-Aviv University, former Israeli ambassador to the United States (1993-96), chief Israeli negotiator with Syria during the premiership of Yitzhak Rabin, a prominent figure of the Israeli peace camp, and renown expert on the history of the Middle East – explains the advantages and drawbacks of the Saudi initiative. Following are excerpts from the article:

“The Beirut Summit” Vs. The Arab Summit Resolutions

“The events of the past few days have given rise to a strange and embarrassing situation. In theory, the Arab world has adopted the peace plan put forward by Saudi Arabia, and has presented an attractive formula for the final resolution of the conflict, while Israel has not responded concretely and continues to be caught up in the cycle of violence.”

“In fact, things are more complex. For example, the relatively flexible formula on the right of return issue that was in the statement read out by Arab League secretary-general, Amr Moussa, was neutralized by the explicit demand for the right of return that appeared in a parallel announcement, the ‘Beirut Statement,’ read out by the foreign minister of Lebanon.” “From a point of departure holding that the present confrontation does not have a military solution and that the only way out is a political settlement, it is important to understand how the Saudi initiative evolved into what is now officially known as the ‘Arab peace initiative’ and to understand the advantages and drawbacks of this development.”

“When the Saudi initiative was first made public, it had two clear advantages. It bore a positive character (for the first time a country like Saudi Arabia adopted the idea of normalization with Israel) and it was clear and simple – full normalization in return for full withdrawal. At the same time, some serious questions arose. How was a simplistic formula to be turned into a political plan? Would the plan obtain an Arab consensus? And if so, how could the new political and diplomatic horizon be used to break out of the cycle of violence?”

The Syrian Interpretation: No True Normalization

“A hint of things to come appeared in Syria’s reaction, which closed ranks with Lebanon and came out against the Saudi initiative. Immediately afterward, President Bashar Assad was invited to visit Saudi Arabia, and at the conclusion of his visit we were told Syria had adopted the Saudi peace initiative after being assured that the Israeli withdrawal to the borders of 1967 would be interpreted according to Damascus’s conception.”

“However, the communique issued by Syria showed that it also had another condition – implementing the [Palestinian] ‘right of return.’ This exemplified the internal contradiction that was built into the continuation of the Saudi move.”

“In order to obtain the support of the rest of the Arab world, the simplistic formula had to be waived and restrictive conditions added. The introduction of the ‘right of return’ as a limiting condition on behalf of Syria deprived the Saudi initiative of the revolutionary innovation that it may have contained and adapted it to the Arab world’s traditional line: no solution bearing a ‘final’ character should be agreed to, rather an opening must always be left in order to prevent true normalization.”

“This duality was inserted into the resolutions of the Beirut summit. In a joint press conference with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, Amr Moussa read out the text of ‘the Saudi peace initiative, which is henceforth known as the Arab peace initiative.’ The Council of the Arab League adds two demands to the Saudi proposal that the Arab states will establish normal relations with Israel in return for full withdrawal to the 1967 borders and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Those two demands are withdrawal from lands that Israel ‘still occupies in South Lebanon,’ and a just and agreed solution to the refugee problem on the basis of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948. If Israel agrees to these terms, the Arab states will consider this to be the end of the conflict and will establish normal relations with Israel.”

The Arabs Add More Conditions

“However, along with this statement, the summit conference published a concluding statement that emphasized, among other points, that Israel must allow the Palestinians to achieve all their rights, including the guarantee for the [Palestinian] ‘right of return’ of the Palestinian refugees on the basis of legitimate international resolutions and on the basis of principles of international law including General Assembly Resolution 194. The Arab leaders also emphasized their support for Lebanon to use all legitimate means in regard to the liberation of its territory from Israeli occupation up to the recognized international border, and they asserted that peace and security in the region mandate that Israel affiliate itself with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and open its nuclear facilities to international supervision.”

“If Moussa’s statement is amenable to interpretation as showing a certain flexibility in relation to the ‘right of return,’ this was eliminated by the traditional formula on the ‘right of return’ that was included in the summit’s concluding statement.”

“The demand for nuclear disarmament and for Israel to be subjected to international supervision is a well-known Egyptian and Syrian position, which in 1995 was used by Egypt to stop the normalization process. The position taken by the Arab summit on the Lebanon issue effectively permits the border to be heated up by Hezbollah.”

“In other words, if the Arab summit brandished normalization and the ‘end of the conflict’ with one hand, the other hand held up the familiar formulations, which enable the struggle to continue even after an agreement is obtained…”

[1] Ha’aretz, April 7, 2002.

A New Way for Orthodox Jewish Men and Women to Meet – “ShidduchVision”

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

In a move designed to help promote marriages in the Orthodox Jewish community, a Baltimore-based group has organized a meeting service that will allow young men and women at a distance to initially meet one another utilizing video conference technology, after which they can determine whether they wish to meet in person.

“Shidduchim,” or introductions traditionally arranged with the help of others (family, friends, and/or professionals), provide the primary route for many Orthodox men and women to get to know one another with the goal of establishing a relationship leading to marriage. As there are many Orthodox singles who are finding it a challenge to meet the right person, arranging introductions has become a laudable goal of many in the community.

These arrangements, however, often require expensive and time-consuming visits to other cities, which discourages some from undertaking to meet a proposed match and leads others who have made such efforts to become frustrated when the trip proves unsuccessful – only further increasing the likelihood that future suggestions involving will be shunned.

To help address that problem, The Simcha Foundation, a 501( c ) 3 non-profit in Baltimore, MD, conceived by local entrepreneur Jeff Cohn, has created ShidduchVision, a system that allows a man and woman in different cities to sit comfortably in front of professional video-conferencing equipment in a secluded room in a local private home and meet one another in a personal and pleasant setting. Up to three such low-cost meetings can be arranged before the couple decides whether a trip and a meeting in person constitute the right next move.

The project was designed in consultation with rabbinical authorities – and has since gained the approbation of many prominent rabbis around the world, who see it as a proper harnessing of modern technology in the spirit of Torah to help achieve a traditional Jewish goal and benefit the community at large.

ATOMIC DOME; Inside the Iranian Nuclear Preparations

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Vienna — Inspectors belonging to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna fear that Iran is trying to conceal forbidden construction in the nuclear reactor being built in Arak.

This was said by a source in the IAEA to Yediot Ahronot.

The assessments are based on intelligence received recently by the IAEA from several Western intelligence agencies. The fact that Iran is barring the inspectors from entering the reactor site, and is building high, opaque roofs there, also heightens suspicions. It would appear that the Iranians are trying to prevent spy satellites from photographing the reactor from space.

The nuclear reactor at Arak, 320 kilometers south of Tehran, is the second reactor being built today in Iran, after the reactor that Russia is building in Bushehr, in a German building put up in the 1970s. Unlike the reactor in Bushehr, which is a light water reactor in which a nuclear bomb cannot be manufactured, the reactor in Arak is a heavy water reactor, and the fission process carried out there creates plutonium in sufficient amounts to make a bomb.

Three years ago, Iran opened a heavy water plant near the reactor site in Arak, for supplying coolant to the reactor. Satellite footage shows that the plant is working at full pace, and worse-the construction of the reactor at Arak is advancing at great speed.

In photographs from 2007, it is possible to clearly see the reactor building and the buildings intended for the fuel rods (“hot cells”). Around the site, Iran has set up a series of anti-aircraft missile batteries. It is believed that if the construction of the reactor should continue as planned, Iran will be able to reach its first plutonium-based nuclear bomb by the middle of the next decade. Iran says that the reactor’s sole purpose is to produce electricity, and for a certain period even placed it under the supervision of the IAEA, which sent inspectors to verify that Iran was not breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it had signed. But for several months, UN inspectors have not entered the site.

Recently, high roofs were built over the entire area of the site, blocking the view of spy satellites attempting to photograph what is happening inside. It is feared that construction is taking place there, perhaps construction that will later be concealed, when they permit the inspectors to enter. Such construction could demonstrate, if exposed to Western eyes, that the Arak reactor is indeed not intended to manufacture electricity, but rather to manufacture fissionable material that will serve to build a nuclear bomb.

Chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Calls on Abbas to Accept Netanyahu Proposal for Unconditional Peace Talks

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

PRESS CONTACT
Lynne Weil at (202) 225-5021

Berman Calls on Abbas to Accept Netanyahu Proposal for Unconditional Peace Talks

Press statement from the office of Rep. Howard L. Berman, D- CA

Washington, DC – Howard L. Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today issued this statement regarding proposed unconditional peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian authorities:

“I am deeply disappointed that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has consistently rejected Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s call for unconditional talks on the Palestinian issue.

“As everyone familiar with Israeli politics knows, Netanyahu has taken a politically courageous and substantively important step in endorsing the idea of ‘two states for two peoples,’ and he has also taken significant steps to ease travel and access in the West Bank by dismantling numerous checkpoints and roadblocks. Nevertheless, Abbas is demanding that Netanyahu establish a settlement freeze as a condition for a meeting. This is a condition Abbas never required of Netanyahu’s predecessor Ehud Olmert. Moreover, in the context of bilateral talks, Abbas could raise his settlement concerns directly with Netanyahu – concerns which, Abbas knows, are being discussed intensively between U.S. and Israeli officials.

“For the sake of re-establishing an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and helping to create an environment of peace, I call on President Abbas immediately to accept Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposal for unconditional talks on peace.”

Weekly Commentary: Time to stop giving Abbas a pass in Israel’s information campaign

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

“… of course we do appreciate General Dayton’s work to build capacity over there. But of course much more, a lot more, substantially a lot more can be done by the Palestinians to dismantle the infrastructure – that is to collect illegal arms, to disband and outlaw all the terror organizations.

Nothing has been done in this area, not to mention of course, the incitement, the curriculum and all that. These things are still standing. These are not just demands and expectations that we have. I mean these are commitments that the Palestinians have taken upon themselves.”

Transcript of briefing by Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon: Mr. Daniel Ayalon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs 8 July 2009

OK.

So it isn’t the image of a girl in a bikini.

Or homosexuals partying in Tel Aviv.

So it doesn’t fit into the “Israel Label” marketing strategy.

But it is important information.

Information that should be out there front and center.

And it isn’t.

In point of fact, Ayalon didn’t even mention the issue in his prepared remarks.

If not for a question from David Bedein in the Q&A portion of the briefing he would never have shared this vital information with the media. And that’s par for the course.

Day in and out the PA leadership and their supporters and Jewish apologists slam Israel and we treat the PA with kid gloves.

“Moderate” Mahmoud Abbas makes no bones that the reason he doesn’t think his troops should be murdering Jews today is that it would be counterproductive – and doesn’t rule out the possibility that should the situation change that they will do just that in the future.

And as far as he is concerned, if Israel captured a terrorist this evening after he murdered twenty Israeli babies in a maternity ward that “freedom fighter” should be among the terrorists he insists Israel should release ASAP. That’s release – not transfer to Palestinian prison.

Go look for this in the official Israeli information campaigns.

Right. It isn’t there.

And don’t think for a moment that anyone is giving us credit for being soft on the PA.

At most they think we are naïve.

Bearing witness to the UN in Geneva

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

On July 6, I traveled to Geneva to testify before the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Participating in the delegation were Ashkelon Mayor Benny Vaknin, Dr Alan Marcus, director of the strategic planning branch in Ashkelon, Ophir Shinhar of Sapir College and Dr. Mirelda Sidrer, who was wounded during a rocket attack on a medical facility at the Ashkelon mall.

The delegation also included Noam Schalit, who spoke impassionately on behalf of his son, Gilad, who was abducted three years ago by terrorists and has since been held by Hamas.

The government officially refused to cooperate with the UN mission, since the investigation had already formulated conclusions asserting that Israel had committed war crimes during the December-January war.

At the same time, however, the head of the UN fact-finding mission, South African Judge Richard Goldstone, told the Israeli media that he would like to hear both sides. “The aim of the public hearings was to let the face of human suffering be seen and to let the voices of the victims be heard.”

In preparation for the Geneva hearing, the UN mission invited the Sderot Media Center to prepare material, footage and information regarding the impact of bombardment from Gaza of the civilian population in the Negev during the war.

Before the hearing, the delegation received a briefing from Hillel Neuer, head of the NGO UN Watch. He provided background on the fact-finding mission and the agenda of each judge on the investigating board.

DURING THE DAYS leading up to the testimony, it was not easy to sleep – as the only resident of Sderot and the Western Negev in this delegation – knowing that there would be only 30 minutes to convey how aerial terror has devastatingly impacted the civilian population. At the same time, the UN afforded an opportunity for the Sderot Media Center, which specializes in communicating the human story of Sderot and life under continuous rocket terror, to finally reach the UN.

While the delegation got ready to testify, it was less than sobering to know that the UN judges included Prof. Christine Chinkin from London. In a Sunday Times article published on January 11, she supported the allegation that “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defense, it’s a war crime.”

Israeli reporters in Geneva asked hard questions: Why testify before a such a “neutral” judge who claims that Israel does not have the right to defend her citizens and whose actions “amount to aggression violating international law and human rights law?” Why testify when the government itself has boycotted the investigation which already formulated it allegations against Israel before the investigation commenced? However, the presence of a UN invited delegation from Israel created a precedent.

Neuer noted that never in the 16 years of operating in Geneva had there been a time when the UN invited and even sponsored a delegation from Israel to give testimony – until now.

This time, the UN provided an opportunity for ordinary people from Israel to make their voices heard across the world. It was an honor as a resident of Sderot to participate in such an event.

YET THE long road to peace and justice for Sderot and Negev residents does not end before a panel of UN judges or a commissioned report. Residents are obligated to speak up and convey the experience of what it is like to live under sustained rocket attacks, a terror act and crime against humanity.

After screening two short videos in front of the panel, which depicted the 15 seconds that Sderot residents and their children have to run for their lives when the rocket alarm is activated, I concluded my presentation with the following thoughts and questions.

“I do not have enough fingers to count on my hands the amount of times rockets exploded just a few meters from a kindergarten. Would any other Western democracy tolerate even one rocket being fired toward its territory? Why is it that we must wait until a kindergarten or classroom packed with children is struck directly by a rocket in order for Israel to gain international support, to protect and do what is right for our own people?”

US President Barack Obama put it best when he visited a devastated home in Sderot during the 2008 campaign: “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.”

There were no questions or reactions from the UN judges. We will all have to wait, along with all the residents of the South, to peruse the Geneva verdict on the war when the UN mission report is released in September.

The writer is director of the Sderot Media Center

Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443820104&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

1...802803804...1,171Page 803 of 1,171

Column from the Director

David Bedein
David Bedein
2467 POSTS6 COMMENTS
Michael Kuttner
Michael Kuttner
405 POSTS0 COMMENTS
Rochel Grosz
Rochel Grosz
1 POSTS1 COMMENTS
© A WEBstationONE.com production, partially funded by the Internet Development Fund and the IDF Link technology.

© 2003-2020 All rights reserved. Articles and Special Reports on IsraelBehindTheNews.com are copyrighted. Every reader is welcome to reprint any and all articles, and with citation.