Goldstone, Rwanda, Hamas, Iran and incitement to genocide

I can prove the phoniness of  Judge Goldstone's claim in The Jerusalem Post that had the Government of Israel submitted its case to his Commission, the latter could have been encouraged to move in a new direction, "beneficial to Israeli interests." The implication of Goldstone's statement is that Israel, not the Commission, is responsible for the latter's errors of omission and commission.

I personally submitted a nine-page, annotated and referenced brief to the Commission last July. Goldstone's claim that the Commission was driven by the evidence is refuted by the fact that the Mission ignored my brief and its attached evidence. Subsequently, I have published additional evidence showing that the high male-female ratio of fatalities among Palestinians in Gaza argues for the combatant status of many whom human rights organizations classified as non-combatants, and supports other investigations making the same point.

The punch lines of my brief were:

Between June 1, 2008, and Jan 29, 2009, the UN's executive organs, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, remained silent in the face of  [Hamas' and Iran's] incitement, [to genocide], ignoring their responsibilities under the UN Genocide Convention. This silence persisted despite the precedents from previous genocides, notably Rwanda, that such hate language is a warning sign, predictor, and catalyst of genocide....

If the Commission fails to call for criminal prosecution of the known facts concerning the cruel and inhuman mis-treatment of Gilad Schalit, the Hamas rocket and terror attacks directed against civilians, and the incitement and hate language by Hamas and Iran, it will recycle the culture of impunity for such violations of human rights to life, respect for life and human dignity. By failing to pursue these actions, it will itself have become a complicit bystander to these crimes...."

In support of the above points, I submitted Elena Bonner's eloquent statement on behalf of Gilad Schalit, data on Israel  providing ever more medical permits to Gazans during a period of increasing rocket attacks, and  documentation of Hamas' and Iran's incitement to genocide using the dehumanizing metaphors of Mein-Kampf type hate language. Iran, as is well known, is a supplier, enabler, instructor and enabler of Hamas, and its government is now the world's epicenter for incitement to genocide.

The Goldstone Commission ignored all the above. In short, the Commission was not driven by  the evidence, but by its preset agenda and rigged mandate.

America's contribution to a Middle East nuclear arms race

President Obama's long-promised plan for peace in the Middle East is due in October. The only question is: how is pursuing the mirage of a distant and unlikely peace between Israel and the Palestinians more pressing than the Iran's nuclear program, and the likelihood of a Middle East nuclear arms race should the Islamic Republic get the bomb? 
 
In an article appearing in the 25 August online edition of the Guardian, "Barack Obama on brink of deal for Middle East peace talks", a single sentence goes to the heart of the Obama administration's policy:

Key to bringing Israel on board [to talking with Abbas] is a promise by the US to adopt a much tougher line with Iran... "

As if Iran was only Israel's problem, and Israel was driving US policy.

What of the "existential threat" to American interests in the Gulf, the need to protect the Sunni Arab oil producers threatened by Iran, or those US forces based in Iraq and Afghanistan that the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen said would be vulnerable should the US attack Iran?

It appears that US policy, from Bush to Obama, is: If an attack has to be, let Israel do it - and let Israel suffer the consequences. But if Israel doesn't bite; if the US is forced to accept responsibility and take action, then make Israel the excuse for that action, and for whatever follows.

This would not be the first time US presidents have attempted to shift the blame to Israel for an American adventure gone awry. The Reagan administration tried to make the world believe Israel was somehow responsible for the "Irangate" debacle (in fact, Reagan requested that Israel, the Saudis and the Gulf Emirates assist that US misadventure). And when the war in Iraq began to appear endless, White House aides tried to shift blame to Israel - even though Israel had in fact warned Bush not to invade.
 
And what is the president offering in the current confrontation with Iran? "Sanctions able to 'cripple' the Iranian economy."

In other words, Obama is falling back on that tried and failed Bush policy: tough talk backed up by... tough talk.

Obama, far-sighted peacemaker or naive meddler?

One day the US threatens Israel with sanctions for threatening to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. One week later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that "it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons." Adding muscle to the threat, Defense Secretary Gates arrives in Israel to discuss military options. What's real and what's not in reporting regarding the US-Israel relationship? When Israel threatens to attack Iran, is the threat substantive and imminent or theatre; the Israeli bad cop playing to Obama's good cop? When Clinton demands a complete halt to settlement construction across the Green Line, is that really US policy or is it just a bone to the Arab street? And when news media warn of a crisis in Israel-US relations, is the whispered information feeding those reports accurate or slanted to create an impression serving a hidden diplomatic purpose?

Israel and the growing failure of Zionism

The Kulturkampf, so long feared, has stealthily come and gone, coalition politics increasingly hostage to a radical haredi fringe pursuing their own selfish anti-Zionist agenda.

One hundred fifty years ago, in the wake of Napoleonic conquest, western Jewry was emancipated from centuries of serfdom, promised freedom and equality throughout the newly-proclaimed secular states of the West. In less than 100 years the Holocaust proved to all and forever that not only had secularization failed to end discrimination against Jews, but that the secular inheritor states of Christendom's 'Jewish Problem' had morphed from religion-inspired random acts of terror into annihilative antisemitism.

An Israeli attack on Iran should serve Israeli security, not US timetable

Regardless of the motive, it is former US president George W. Bush who overthrew Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime and replaced it with one led by the Shi'ites, a regime under the influence of Iran. It was Bush, not Obama, who opened the way for an Iranian military presence and threat along the Saudi and Kuwaiti borders. It was Bush who, facing a never-ending quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam finally turned to his main opponent in Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and asked it to control the Iraqi militias and allow the US to withdraw "with dignity."

Bush, in turn, rewarded Ahmadinejad with diplomatic recognition, a first-ever US interest section in Teheran. Iran, emboldened by Bush's weakness and dependency, challenged US interests in other areas of the region, missionizing in the Saudi Peninsula, in Egypt, and even far-off Morocco. Through its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza Iran took on the IDF in Israel's north and south. If Bush did not directly create the Iranian juggernaut, then he certainly contributed to the emerging confidence Iran displays today in defying American interests in the world and in suppressing its own citizenry.

How Obama can help the Iranian people

US Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, serves on the Finance, Judiciary and Budget Committees and is a past member of the Armed Services Committee. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee's Immigration, Refugees and Border Security subcommittee.

Last week's elections in Iran gave us a window into how the Iranian people view their own government, and showed us the brutal determination with which Teheran intends to maintain power. The elections showed millions of Iranians voting for new leadership, demanding greater freedom, and calling for an end to the policies that have isolated them from the world. These birth pangs of freedom renewed hope that a better future for the Iranian people was in the making.

American appeasement and the Iranian bomb

Saudi King Abdullah took the US president sternly to task over his emerging policy on Iran, Syria and Iraq, accusing him of giving the Islamic Republic free rein for its nuclear, expansionist and terrorism-sponsoring Middle East policies. (Source: http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6012)

In 2003 President Bush invaded Iraq and completely upset the balance of power in the Middle East. Iraq under Saddam's Sunni regime was enemy and deterrent to Iranian hegemonic ambitions. By replacing Iraq's Sunni regime with one under Shi'ite control, Bush removed the single strategic threat, deterrent to Iranian ambitions. With the removal of Saddam, for all practical purposes the Persian threat to the Arabian Peninsula jumped from the Iraqi to the Saudi border.

And, having upset the balance between Sunni and Sh'ia inside Iraq, Bush set the stage for continuing sectarian strife in that country. Under these conditions the US grew increasingly dependent on Iran to control their Shi'ite militias. In the end Bush needed Iran to provide the fig leaf of an apparently successful "surge" which allowed the US to exit the quagmire with at least the appearance of dignity. For services rendered Bush compensated the Iranian president with the long-sought prize of US recognition of Islamic Republic legitimacy: Bush opened a State Department interest section in Teheran bringing to an end America's thirty year policy of containing the threat of the Iranian revolution.

What Peres really told the Iranian people

Presidents Barack Obama and Shimon Peres both addressed the Iranian people this week in broadcast messages in honor of the Iranian new year, Nowruz. Obama sent a video message that was widely received and spoke in a respectful, conciliatory tone of a "new beginning." Peres' message was broadcast to a narrow audience on Israel Radio's Farsi Service and was less optimistic - calling on the Iranian people to choose a better leadership. The Israeli president's message was different from Obama's, and reflected the gloomy mood in the Jewish state. The differences in the messages reflects the wide gap between an American administration willing to give diplomacy with Iran a serious push and an Israeli leader's apprehension of a coming disaster.

Is McCain good for the Jews?

Over the years Israel has tended to favor Republican over Democrat presidents. This is not the place to analyze this phenomenon and I raise it only as backdrop to the present question: which, if either of the two candidates for the US presidency, is more likely to benefit Israel over the next four to eight years? Each was clearly addressing Jewish voters in proclaiming, when refering to the nuclear Iran issue, that he would never allow another Holocaust. But rhetoric aside, how can we assess how each might be expected to exercise the levers of power available to the president should a crisis, such as dealing with a more critical Iranian threat, arise?

Don't worry, Be Israeli

Shalom from Tel Aviv, people - at the time this article was written, our prime minister is (still) under investigation, Ahmadinejad is (again) giving hateful speeches in respected forums, and the price of falafel just went up a shekel. In other words, another week in the Middle East. What else can go wrong?

Ahhh....but that's just it. Allow me to answer that question with a cultural lesson. Without further ado, I'd like to introduce our national slogan. Two words greater than the sum of their parts, guaranteed to elicit no reaction at all (or to possibly make you laugh or cringe for reasons to be explained later.) Add this pair to the great duos throughout history: Batman and Robin, Simon and Garfunkel, and hummus and pita. Without further ado, I give you: Yiyeh and b'seder.