How Offshore Oil and Gas Production Benefits the Economy and the Environment

December 2, 2009

In a new Heritage Foundation paper, co-founder of environmental non-profit SOS California Bruce Allen argues that offshore oil and gas production can benefit, rather than damage, the economy and the environment.

Conventional wisdom holds that offshore oil and gas production harms the surrounding environment. This blanket ‘wisdom’ ignores the fact that the largest source of marine hydrocarbon pollution is offshore natural oil seepage. It also ignores the fact that offshore oil production has lowered the amount of oil released into the ocean by reducing natural oil seepage, especially in areas with active offshore oil seeps, such as California’s Santa Barbara coast. This Heritage Foundation analysis cites studies, developments, and biological facts that demonstrate often-overlooked benefits of offshore oil and gas production.”

Read full story.


The case for a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan

November 30, 2009

Press release

Washington D.C. – November 30, 2009 – President Obama’s much-anticipated decision about sending additional troops to Afghanistan comes after several months of vigorous public discourse about the appropriate strategy for achieving success in that country. The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) has been active in this debate, releasing a fact sheet, organizing an open letter to the president, and hosting conferences to further the discussion about the way forward in Afghanistan.

During the time that President Obama has been mulling General McChrystal’s request for additional troops, a number of politicians, advisors, and analysts have put forth various arguments against a significant increase in troop strength and a counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan. The arguments, when closely considered, expose a default resistance to completing the mission, not a thoughtful dismantling of the pro “surge” case. FPI’s fact sheet lists the most popular critiques of General Stanley McChrystal’s COIN strategy and resource request, each followed by clear refutations from relevant experts. The fact sheet is available here.

In September 2009, in an open letter to President Obama organized by FPI, a distinguished group of Americans active in the foreign policy debate expressed support for the U.S. effort in Afghanistan and called upon President Obama to continue to provide the necessary resources requested by his commanders on the ground to ensure success. The group of experts offered their appreciation for the president’s decision earlier this year to deploy 21,000 additional U.S. troops to the country and urged him to continue to properly resource the continued war effort. Amidst increasing public concern about the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan, the letter also suggested that the President make it a priority to explain to the American people why it is important to remain committed to winning in Afghanistan, and why such a victory is feasible. The text of the letter is available here.

Afghanistan has also been a prominent topic of FPI’s public events. At the 2009 FPI Forum on “Advancing and Defending Democracy,” two panels discussed the path forward in Afghanistan. One session addressed the military dimensions of the war and the other panel, featuring Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad, Rep. Mark Kirk, and Gen. Mark Kimmitt, focused on the political debate in Washington and around the country.

In August 2009, FPI’s Director for Democracy and Human Rights, Ellen Bork, served as an election monitor in Ghazni Province. She wrote about her experience in an article for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “What I Saw While Afghanistan Voted,” which is available here.

In March 2009, shortly after the President announced his intention to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan FPI hosted a half-day conference, “Afghanistan: Planning for Success,” which featured remarks from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), and then-Rep. John McHugh (R-NY), who has since been nominated by President Obama to serve as Secretary of the Army, as well as Frederick Kagan, John Nagl, and Gen. David Barno. Transcripts, video, and summaries from this conference can be found here.

FPI staff including Executive Director Jamie Fly, Policy Advisor Abe Greenwald, and Director for Democracy and Human Rights Ellen Bork are available to discuss the President’s speech on Tuesday.  Interview requests should be submitted to Rachel Hoff at the contact information listed below.

For more information, contact:
Rachel Hoff: Tel.: + 001 202 296-3322
Director of External Affairs
rhoff@foreignpolicyi.org

***

About FPI

FPI is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to promote an active U.S. foreign policy committed to robust support for democratic allies, human rights, a strong American military equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and global economic competitiveness. The organization is led by Executive Director Jamie Fly. FPI was founded by Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and Dan Senor.


Revitalizing the Transatlantic Security Partnership – An Agenda for Action

November 13, 2009

A Venusberg Group and Rand Corporation Project

Report written by F. Stephen Larrabee and Julian Lindley-French

The election of Barack Obama as the new U.S. president provides an opportunity to overcome many of the divisions that have bedeviled U.S.-European relations in recent years and give the transatlantic partnership new dynamism and vision. In the coming decade, the United States and Europe face a daunting array of challenges. These challenges are so complex and demanding that neither the United States nor Europe can manage them on their own. They require close and sustained collective action.

To manage these challenges successfully, the transatlantic relationship needs a new mindset based on the premise that a multipolar world is emerging—one that will affect foreign policy options and consequently the ability of Americans and Europeans to shape others. To that end, a new transatlantic security partnership must be crafted that reflects both the new global realities and the political realities in Europe and the United States.

Central to such a partnership will be shared interests and values and a mutual commitment to the projection of stability and the anchoring of emerging powers in effective multilateral institutions underpinned by a strong commitment to the international rule of law. Specifically needed is a new architecture founded on a strong U.S. involvement in NATO, NATO-EU relations aimed at promoting and projecting effective civil-military security beyond the Euro-Atlantic area and an EU-U.S. security relationship that assures the protection of the home base.

This report is aimed at furthering that goal. It seeks to define the substance and parameters of a new security partnership between the United States and Europe as well as to outline an Agenda for Action for the new partnership.

Read full story.


4èmes Rencontres de Rueil-Malmaison: Territoire, Évaluation & Dévelopement Durable

November 7, 2009

Vendredi 20 novembre 2009, Rueil-Malmaison

Vendredi 20 novembre 2009, Rueil-Malmaison

Avec le soutien et la participation du CGDD (Commissariat général au développement durable),  de l’AMF (Association des Maires de France), de l’ADF (Assemblée des Départements de France) et de la SFE (Société Française de l’Évaluation)

Problématique

La conjonction de ces 4èmes Rencontres de Rueil-Malmaison avec la tenue de la Conférence de Copenhague sur le climat, induit à concentrer les travaux sur les engagements auxquels les différents pays s’apprêtent à souscrire. On sait que ces engagements devront être conséquents. Souscrits par les gouvernements, ils impliqueront les acteurs des territoires: entreprises, collectivités et simples citoyens.

Parmi les questions qui se posent, il y a celle de savoir si ces engagements seront bien à la hauteur des défis à relever. Il y a aussi celle de savoir si les territoires seront en mesure d’assumer la charge correspondante.

Comment apprécier «a priori» l’efficience des programmes territoriaux de réduction des gaz à effet de serre (GES)? 

La question est d’autant plus importante que les aides publiques devront aller aux programmes les plus pertinents et ne pas se diluer, alors même que, du fait de la crise économique, tous les territoires sont à la recherche d’investissements susceptibles tout à la fois d’aider l’économie à repartir, de limiter les émissions de gaz à effet de serre et de préparer l’avenir.

Sur le plan méthodologique, cette situation rejoint celle des évaluations «ex ante» auxquelles les porteurs de programmes soutenus par des fonds européens commencent à être habitués, puisqu’il s’agit dans ce cadre de faire la démonstration de la pertinence des actions programmées avant même qu’elles ne soient engagées, ce qui nous éloigne beaucoup de la culture française de l’évaluation ex post. En l’occurrence (Copenhague), la difficulté sera cependant plus grande encore, puisqu’il s’agira de pratiquer des «évaluations prospectives» portant sur des programmes ayant une portée de 10 ou 20 ans.

Mais comment évaluer ex ante les impacts attendus à long terme?

En outre, la pertinence de ces programmes de limitation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES), relèvera non seulement de critères techniques mais également de paramètres relatifs à la qualité des actions d’information, de communication, de concertation, de formation et de mobilisation des acteurs des territoires, en un mot de paramètres de «participation».

Les dispositions techniques et réglementaires sont, sans doute, des dimensions importantes du sujet, mais les comportements et la participation en sont d’autres, au moins aussi importantes et qui répondent à des ressorts complexes mal repérés.

On voit se dégager des questions d’ordre méthodologique:

  • Comment évaluer une politique multidimensionnelle ciblée sur un critère dominant (la limitation des émissions de GES), mais faisant place aux critères d’efficacité économique et sociale?
  • Peut-on concevoir des indicateurs synthétiques intégrant les paramètres propres au territoire et à ses acteurs? 

Enfin, on sait que parmi les activités humaines contribuant le plus fortement au réchauffement climatique, le chauffage des bâtiments et les transports se trouvent en bonne position. Les villes sont donc des acteurs de premier rang. Comment les aires urbaines vont-elles pouvoir assumer leur part de l’effort? Comment imaginer des politiques et conduire des programmes efficaces de limitation des gaz à effet de serre associant les collectivités, les entreprises et les citoyens? 

La Ville de Rueil-Malmaison, qui est engagée avec celle de Suresnes dans la construction d’une importante et emblématique Communauté d’agglomération, veut lancer la réflexion et la faire partager à ses habitants afin  d’ouvrir le chantier sans tarder.

Ces Rencontres de Rueil-Malmaison, tout en s’adressant à un public de responsables et d’experts, sont également conçues pour intéresser les citoyens engagés dans la vie locale, par exemple à travers des comités de quartier, qui souhaitent s’impliquer dans les actions mises en œuvre par la collectivité pour lutter contre l’effet de serre.

***

Organisation et modalités pratiques

Lieu: Médiathèque Jacques Baumel

15, boulevard du Maréchal Foch (Mairie) – 92 500 Rueil-Malmaison

Horaires Accueil: à partir de 8h15 à l’auditorium de la Médiathèque

Remise des documents – accueil administratif

Allocutions de lancement à 9h00 dans l’amphithéâtre

Clôture à 16h30

Déjeuner: Buffet bio éthique servi dans la salle des mariages de la Mairie

Participation: 50 euros

Renseignements et inscriptions

Le service du Développement Durable de la Mairie de Rueil-Malmaison est à votre disposition pour tout renseignement:

Par téléphone au 01 41 39 08 96

Par télécopie au 01 47 10 01 29

Par e-mail developpementdurable@mairie-rueilmalmaison.fr


British Army Hero Tells UN Human Rights Council: ‘Israeli Defense Forces Most Moral Army in History of Warfare’

October 16, 2009

Today’s emergency United Nations Human Rights Council debate in Geneva on the Goldstone Report predictably saw a line-up of the world’s worst abusers condemn democratic Israel for human rights violations.

In a heated lynch mob atmosphere, Kuwait slammed Israel for “intentional killing, intentional destruction of civilian objects, intentional scorched-earth policy”, saying Israel “embodied the Agatha Christie novel, ‘Escaped with Murder’. Pakistan said the “horrors of Israeli occupation continue to haunt the international community’s conscience.” The Arab League said, “We must condemn Israel and force Israel to accept international legitimacy.” Ahmadinejad’s Iran said “the atrocities committed against Palestinians during the aggressions on Gaza should be taken seriously” and followed up by the international community “to put an end to absolute impunity and defiance of the law.”

What the world’s assembled representatives did not expect, however, was the speech that followed (see video and text below), organized by UN Watch. The speaker is a man who repeatedly put his life on the line to defend the democratic world from the murderous Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. The moment he began his first sentence, the room simply fell silent. Judge Goldstone, author of the biased report that prompted today’s one-sided condemnation, had refused to hear Colonel Kemp’s testimony during his “fact-finding” hearings.

But UN Watch made sure today that this hero’s voice would be heard – at the United Nations, and around the world.

***

UN Human Rights Council, 12th Special Session
Debate on Goldstone Report – Geneva, October 16, 2009

Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Did More to Safeguard Civilians Than Any Army in History of Warfare

Colonel Richard Kemp served in the British Army from 1977 - 2006.
Colonel Richard Kemp served in the British Army from 1977 – 2006.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.


President Bill Clinton Launches the Clinton Foundation E-Newsletter

September 30, 2009

Dear Friend,

I’ve recorded a short video to introduce our inaugural online newsletter, and tell you a little bit about the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which wrapped up in New York last week.

Please watch the video and check out the first issue below for a peek into our work around the world – none of which would be possible without you.

Bill Clinton


American Jewish Committee’s Letter in NY Times on Goldstone Report

September 18, 2009

newyorktimes

Israel and Gaza: Which Standards Apply?

by Richard Sideman
President, American Jewish Committee
New York, September 18, 2009

To the Editor:
Re “Justice in Gaza” (Op-Ed, Sept. 17):

Richard Goldstone displays the same disregard for Israel and naivety regarding Hamas that permeates the report he wrote for the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Since its inception in 2006, the council has consistently demonized Israel while giving a free pass to some of the world’s worst tyrants, from Sudan to Iran. Mr. Goldstone largely neglects what prompted Israel to act militarily against Hamas.

Let’s be clear for historical accuracy. Israel’s military operation came after eight years of relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli towns and villages. Indeed, thousands of rockets were launched after Israel transferred the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinians four years ago.

While the United Nations made no effort to stop the Palestinian rockets, Israel showed remarkable restraint over the years until it could not hold back anymore.

More disturbing, the Goldstone report has set a new standard for equating the behavior of democratic nations and terrorists.

He makes no moral distinction between Israel, a United Nations member state, and Hamas, a terrorist organization that violently seized control of Gaza two years ago from the Palestinian Authority.

The implications of this moral equivalency go beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, they undermine the United States and other democracies facing asymmetrical warfare from adversaries who care little for international norms of war and international humanitarian law.

In sum, Mr. Goldstone’s conclusions are a disservice to the credibility of the United Nations itself.


UANI Calls on Gotham Hall to Deny President Ahmadinejad a Platform for Propaganda

September 18, 2009
 
  
 
 
Press Release
  
New York, September 18, 2009 – The think tank United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) today called on Gotham Hall to refuse to host President Ahmadinejad and offered Gotham Hall an opportunity to clarify its role as the host of a banquet for the Iranian delegation and as host for a speech by President Ahmadinejad on September 25, 2009 during his stay in New York for the UN General Assembly. 
 
In a letter to Allen Kurtz, Managing Director of Gotham Hall, UANI President, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace wrote “UANI requests Gotham Hall to clarify and reconsider its decision to host the banquet and address and instead decline to provide such a venue for President Ahmadinejad.  As we expressed to area venues in July, UANI denounces any decision to host President Ahmadinejad in New York and calls upon Gotham Hall to join the international community in isolating Iran and condemning its illicit nuclear program.” 
 
“By doing business with the Iranian government Gotham Hall is accepting blood money from a regime that brutally suppresses its own people and that is a danger to global security.  Moreover, by providing a forum for President Ahmadinejad’s speech, Gotham Hall is serving as a bullhorn for the propaganda of the illegitimate leader of a brutal theocratic dictatorship.”
 
To the extent that Gotham Hall persists in its plans to host President Ahmadinejad UANI will call on members of the public to boycott Gotham Hall.
 
Press Contact: Kimmie Lipscomb

Leadership as Practical Ethics

August 8, 2009

A paper Leadership as Practical Ethics written by Dr. Joel Rosenthal, President of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and presented at the US Army War College cosponsored research colloquium, Leadership and National Security Reform, is available at the Carnegie Council webseite.

“What does one need to know to be a leader in the field of public policy? I want to argue for the centrality of ethics as a basic component of leadership training for anyone pursuing a career in public and international affairs.

If you are a student, please take a moment to ask yourself what you have learned about ethics in your time in the classroom. If you are a teacher or administrator, consider what your curriculum covers in this regard. We know that medical students engage medical ethics, law students study legal ethics, business students take on business ethics, military officers study military ethics, and so on. So let’s ask ourselves, what should students and aspiring leaders in public affairs know about ethics to be considered professionals competent to practice?

By ethics, I do not mean simply compliance with law. Compliance is of course an essential part of ethics. But it is only a beginning. Compliance is a floor, a minimum upon which to build. Many actions in government, business, or private life comply with the law but are not optimal from an ethical perspective.

Examples are all around us. British members of parliament may not have broken laws when they used expense accounts to bill tax payers for lifestyle enhancements such as moat cleaning, the upkeep of expensive second homes, or the rental of adult movies. But surely this kind of behavior was wrong. In more serious policy matters, it may well be that most of our major banks and financial institutions were in full compliance with the law when it came to the management of credit default swaps and derivative trading. Yet something went very wrong in the area of risk and responsibility. There are many things we can do and still be in compliance with law—but some of them are wrong. Ethical reasoning helps us make these distinctions.”

Read full story.


U.S. PR Image Improved

July 24, 2009

A new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project finds that global public opinion about the United States of America has improved obviously since President Barack Obama took office.

Still, the poll shows Muslims, particularly in Turkey, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories, remain sceptical of Barack Obama and the United States.

Read full story.


Why Capitalism Works: An Address by Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani

July 24, 2009

Drawing on his experiences as mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani gave a wide-ranging speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on July 22, 2009. He praised the American capitalist system, calling it the best system in the world.

“There is nobody else’s economy that’s better than ours. We are exceptional. No one is allowed to say that anymore, but it’s true,” Rudolph Giuliani said. He argued for a belief in individual freedom, saying that “people make better choices than government.”

Click here to download or listen to audio of the lecture at The American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Special thanks to Veronique Rodman, AEI’s Director of Communications, for recording and streaming the event.


Israel – ein jüdischer Staat

July 11, 2009

DIG VORTRAG


The Debate over Keeping America Safe

May 29, 2009

Cheney

Last week, President Barack Obama and former vice president Dick Cheney presented competing views of how America was kept secure after September 11, 2001 - and how to proceed in the future.

Mr. Cheney, who has rejoined the Board of Trustees of the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) since leaving government in January 2009, gave a widely covered speech at AEI on May 21, 2009, just minutes after President Barack Obama spoke. The president defended his ban on enhanced interrogation techniques and his plans to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Cheney first documented the threats America faced in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and how the Bush administration shaped the nation’s response. The post-9/11 “comprehensive strategy” has “required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden,” he said. “Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive–and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.”

Key to the successful post-9/11 strategy, Mr. Cheney said, was “accurate intelligence” – including that received through enhanced interrogation.

Danielle Pletka, foreign policy insider and former staff member for Near East and South Asia at the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate, commented on the Cheney speech in the pages of USA Today

Read full story.


Beyond the “War on Terror”: Towards a New Transatlantic Framework for Counterterrorism

May 27, 2009

European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) Senior Policy Fellow Anthony Dworkin wrote  a strategic paper entitled Beyond the “War on Terror”: Towards a New Transatlantic Framework for Counterterrorism.

This policy paper shows how divisions with the United States of America over counterterrorism policy have been a major problem for the European Union since September 11, 2001 and how the presidency of Barack Obama offers the possibility of a new approach, based on transatlantic agreement over the core principles for fighting terrorism. The author argues that EU leaders should work with the new US administration to agree a comprehensive declaration on counterterrorism that could be signed under the Spanish EU Presidency in 2010.

To seize the opportunity provided by the new US leadership, the European Union should launch an internal review to clarify its own views about core principles for fighting terrorism as part of the preparation for a joint declaration. EU officials should also restart a dialogue on international law and counterterrorism with the United States. This would give it input into a series of US reviews, and allow Europeans to push for clarification of the US position on key questions of international humanitarian law and human rights. Finally, the author calls on European countries to quickly agree on a joint position on resettling detainees from Guantanamo and consider offering a new home to these prisoners wherever possible.

Comments can be addressed to the author directly at anthony.dworkin@ecfr.eu.

Read full story.


Take Action to Stop the Threat of a Nuclear Iran

May 21, 2009

Participate in our Online Statewide Webinar:

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 – 12:30 – 2:00pm(EST)
STOP NUCLEAR IRAN NOW!
Special Guest: Ambassador R. James Woolsey, former CIA Director & United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) Co-Chair

Moderator: Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, United Against Nuclear Iran, President

Featuring:

William S. Bernstein
Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, President & CEO

Florida State Senator Ted Deutch

Honorable Roger Robinson
Conflict Securities Advisory Group, Inc., President

REGISTRATION IS LIMITED.


Jüdisch-arabischer Fußballverein zu Gast in Berlin

May 20, 2009

Pressemitteilung des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland

Berlin, 20. Mai 2009 – Nächste Woche kommt die Jugendmannschaft des israelischen Fußballvereins FC Hapo”el Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion nach Berlin.

Auf Einladung des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland hält sich die Jugendmannschaft des israelischen Fußballvereins FC Hapoel Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion vom 25.-28. Mai 2009 in Berlin auf. Mit der Einladung würdigt der Zentralrat das Engagement des Vereins für die Koexistenz jüdischer und arabischer Israelis und möchte das von den Spielern und Amtsträgern des Vereins vorgelebte Erfolgsmodell des gutnachbarlichen Zusammenlebens auch in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vorstellen.

FC Hapoel Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion ist der einzige jüdisch-arabische Fußballverein Israels. Selbstverständlich spielen jüdische und arabische Fußballer in vielen anderen israelischen Teams zusammen, doch hat sich FC Hapoel Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion nicht nur sportliche Erfolge, sondern auch die Förderung der Koexistenz beider Volksgruppen ausdrücklich als Ziel gesetzt. Der Verein stellt eine volle und paritätische Partnerschaft zwischen den beiden westlich von Jerusalem gelegenen Ortschaften, dem jüdischen Mevasseret Zion und dem arabischen Abu Gosch dar. Der sechsköpfige Vorstand besteht aus drei Arabern und drei Juden.

Zum Turnier zwischen FC Hapoel Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion, Hertha BSC und der Axel-Springer-Journalistenschule sowie zum Freundschaftsspiel zwischen der israelischen Mannschaft und Makkabi Berlin sind Medienvertreter herzlich willkommen.

Das Turnier findet am 26.05.2009 im Amateurstadion Hertha BSC, Hanns-Braun-Straße, am Olympiastadion statt. Der Anpfiff ist für 17.30 Uhr geplant.

Das Spiel gegen Makkabi Berlin findet am 27.05.2009, Julius-Hirsch-Sportplatz, Harbigstraße 40, Berlin-Charlottenburg statt. Spielbeginn: 18.30 Uhr

Eine Akkreditierung ist nicht erforderlich.

Ansprechpartner vor Ort ist Herr Wladimir Struminski, Tel: 00972-522 576 865.


Joining Hands with the Pope in Nazareth

May 14, 2009

Rabbi David Rosen, American Jewish Committee (AJC) international director of interreligious affairs, joined with Pope Benedict XVI and a group of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Druze religious leaders in Nazareth, Israel, for an oecumenical meeting and to sing a song of peace.

“It illustrated dramatically that religion does not have to be the problem but the solution and that it is up to politicians to engage religious leaders in the search for peace,” Rabbi David Rosen said.


The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, Humiliation, and Hope are Reshaping the World

May 9, 2009

geopolitics of emotion

Dominique Moïsi, a founder of the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI – French Institute of International Affairs), professor at the Institut d’études politiques (Sciences Po Paris) and Harvard University, and one of Europe’s leading geo-strategic thinkers, discusses in his new book how cultures of fear, humiliation, and hope are reshaping global politics.

“Fear, Humiliation, Hope, and the New World Order

Thirteen years ago, Samuel Huntington argued that a “clash of civilizations” was about to dominate world politics, with culture, along with national interests and political ideology, becoming a geopolitical fault line (“The Clash of Civilizations?” Summer 1993). Events since then have proved Huntington’s vision more right than wrong. Yet what has not been recognized sufficiently is that today the world faces what might be called a “clash of emotions” as well. The Western world displays a culture of fear, the Arab and Muslim worlds are trapped in a culture of humiliation, and much of Asia displays a culture of hope.

Instead of being united by their fears, the twin pillars of the West, the United States and Europe, are more often divided by them – or rather, divided by how best to confront or transcend them. The culture of humiliation, in contrast, helps unite the Muslim world around its most radical forces and has led to a culture of hatred. The chief beneficiaries of the deadly encounter between the forces of fear and the forces of humiliation are the bystanders in the culture of hope, who have been able to concentrate on creating a better future for themselves.

These moods, of course, are not universal within each region, and there are some areas, such as Russia and parts of Latin America, that seem to display all of them simultaneously. But their dynamics and interactions will help shape the world for years to come.

THE CULTURE OF FEAR

The United States and Europe are divided by a common culture of fear. On both sides, one encounters, in varying degrees, a fear of the other, a fear of the future, and a fundamental anxiety about the loss of identity in an increasingly complex world.

In the case of Europe, there are layers of fear. There is the fear of being invaded by the poor, primarily from the South – a fear driven by demography and geography. Images of Africans being killed recently as they tried to scale barbed wire to enter a Spanish enclave in Morocco evoked images of another time not so long ago, when East Germans were shot at as they tried to reach freedom in the West. Back then, Germans were killed because they wanted to escape oppression. Today, Africans are being killed because they want to escape absolute poverty.”

Buy your copy now from Amazon.


Israels Ministerpräsident Benjamin Netanyahu: “Wir wollen Frieden mit der arabischen Welt”

May 5, 2009

Israels Ministerpräsident Benjamin Netanyahu hat am 4. Mai 2009 in einer Videobotschaft von Jerusalem aus zur AIPAC-Jahreskonferenz in Washington gesprochen. Dabei unterstrich er den Willen seiner Regierung, zu einem Frieden mit der arabischen Welt und den Palästinensern zu gelangen.

„Heute passiert Bedeutsames im Nahen Osten, und ich kann sagen, dass zum ersten Mal in meinem Leben, ich glaube zum ersten Mal in einem Jahrhundert, Araber und Juden eine gemeinsame Gefahr erkennen. Das war nicht immer der Fall. In den 30er und 40er Jahren unterstützten viele in der arabischen Welt ein anderes Land, im Glauben, dass es ihre Hoffnung darstellte. In den 60er, 70er und 80er Jahren unterstützten sie ein anderes Land, das mit dem jüdischen Staat zerstritten war. Aber das ist nicht länger der Fall.

Es ist eine große Herausforderung im Anmarsch. Aber diese Herausforderung bietet auch große Gelegenheiten. Die gemeinsame Gefahr findet ihren Widerhall bei arabischen Führern im ganzen Nahen Osten; sie findet wiederholt Widerhall in Israel; sie findet Widerhall bei den Europäern, bei vielen verantwortungsbewussten Regierungen auf der Welt. Und wenn ich die Gelegenheit in einem Wort zusammenfassen müsste, wäre es ‚Zusammenarbeit’ – Zusammenarbeit zwischen Israel und der arabischen Welt und Zusammenarbeit zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern.

In der nächsten Woche werde ich Ägypten mit seinem Präsidenten Mubarak besuchen, und ich beabsichtige beide Angelegenheiten mit ihm zu besprechen. Wir suchen erweiterte Beziehungen mit der arabischen Welt. Wir wollen Normalisierung von wirtschaftlichen und diplomatischen Verbindungen. Wir wollen Frieden mit der arabischen Welt. Aber wir wollen auch Frieden mit den Palästinensern. Dieser Frieden ist uns seit mehr als 13 Jahren entschlüpft. Sechs Ministerpräsidenten Israels hintereinander und zwei amerikanischen Präsidenten ist es nicht gelungen, das endgültige Friedensabkommen zu erreichen. Ich glaube, dass es möglich ist, es zu erreichen, aber ich denke, es macht einen frischen Ansatz erforderlich, und der frische Ansatz, den ich vorschlage, verfolgt  einen Frieden zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern auf drei Gleisen – einem politischen Gleis, einem sicherheitspolitischen Gleis und einem wirtschaftlichen Gleis.

Das politische Gleis bedeutet, dass wir bereit sind zur Aufnahme von Friedensverhandlungen ohne Aufschub und ohne jegliche Vorbedingungen – je früher desto besser.

Das sicherheitspolitische Gleis bedeutet, dass wir die Kooperation mit dem von General Dayton geführten Programm fortsetzen wollen, in Zusammenarbeit mit den Jordaniern und mit der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde, um den Sicherheitsapparat der Palästinenser zu stärken. Das ist etwas, woran wir glauben, und etwas, worin wir – so denke ich – mit einer gemeinsamen Anstrengung vorankommen können.

Das wirtschaftliche Gleis bedeutet, dass wir bereit sind, daran mitzuarbeiten, der Förderung der palästinensischen Wirtschaft so viele Hindernisse wie möglich aus dem Weg zu räumen. Wir wollen mit der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde auf diesem Gleis zusammenarbeiten, nicht als Ersatz für politische Verhandlungen, sondern um sie anzukurbeln. Ich möchte palästinensische Jugendliche sehen, die wissen, dass sie eine Zukunft haben. Ich möchte nicht, dass sie einem Kult des Todes, der Verzweiflung und des Hasses verfallen. Ich möchte, dass sie Jobs haben. Ich möchte, dass sie Karrierewege vor sich haben. Ich möchte, dass sie wissen, dass sie für ihre Familien sorgen können. Das heißt, dass wir ihnen eine Zukunft der Hoffnung geben können, eine Zukunft, die Wohlstand für alle bedeutet. Und dies hat sich bei der Schaffung von politischem Frieden in vielen Teilen der Welt als erfolgreich erwiesen.

Ich glaube, dass dieser dreigleisige Weg zum Frieden ein realistischer Weg zum Frieden ist, und ich glaube, dass wir in Zusammenarbeit mit Präsident Obama und Präsident Abbas den Skeptikern die Stirn bieten können. Wir können die Welt überraschen. Aber es gibt zwei Vorbehalte, die – so denke ich – an dieser Stelle genannt werden sollten. Erstens wird Frieden nicht ohne Sicherheit kommen. Wenn wir die Sicherheit preisgeben, werden wir weder Sicherheit noch Frieden haben. Damit dies also klar ist: Wir sollten nie Israels Sicherheit aufs Spiel setzen. Zweitens müssen die Palästinenser, damit ein endgültiges Friedensabkommen erreicht werden kann, Israel als den jüdischen Staat anerkennen. Sie müssen Israel als den Nationalstaat des jüdischen Volkes anerkennen.“

Die vollständige Videobotschaft gibt es unter folgendem Link.


The Myths of U.N. Durban Review Conference

April 10, 2009

hamasunhumanrightscouncil

The Algerian-chaired United Nations committee is seeking to rewrite international human rights law by definining any criticism of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, and is endorsed by Article 30 of the current Durban II draft; see UN Watch speech below.

Click also here for New York Times video documenting racist treatment of two million black African migrants by Libyan government of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, chair of Durban II conference planning committee.

***

Testimony by Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director, before the United Nations Human Rights Council

10th session of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, March 2009)

Thank you, Mr. President.

Racism is evil. How can we truly fight it?

For starters, by clearing up three myths about next month’s conference.

Myth Number One: that the new draft removes all pernicious provisions.

The truth is that many were removed – thanks only to the credible threat of an E.U. walk-out – but red lines continue to be breached:

  • Articles 10, 30 and 132 encourage the Islamic states’ campaign to ban any criticism of religion.
  • Articles 60 to 62 demonize the West, addressing only its sins of slavery, yet saying nothing of the massive Arab trade in African slaves, thereby politicizing that which should never be politicized.
  • Article 1 breaches President Obama’s red line by reaffirming what his government called the quote, “flawed 2001 Durban Declaration”, a text that stigmatized Israel with false accusations.

Myth Number Two: that going to the conference means dialogue.

In truth, we’ve been negotiating non-stop since August 2007. Going to the conference means endorsing a particular text, and risks legitimizing the greatest perpetrators of racism.

Ironically, many who now claim to support dialogue, are Mideast states belonging to the Arab Boycott Office in Damascus, or radical left campaigners who call for equally bigoted boycotts in the West.

Myth Number Three: that Durban 2 will help millions of victims.

But can anyone name a single victim of racism who was helped by the 2001 conference and countless follow-up committees?

Did Durban help a single victim of Sudan’s racist campaign of mass killing, rape and displacement against millions in Darfur?

Did it help the women of Saudi Arabia subjected to systematic discrimination?

Did it help gays executed by Iran, even as President Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran?

Did it help the 2 million black African migrants in Libya, who, as we read in last week’s International Herald Tribune, say they are treated like slaves and animals?

To truly fight racism, we need to hold perpetrators to account. Tragically, Durban 2 does the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. President.


AIPAC Policy Conference 2009

April 10, 2009

MAY 3-5, 2009 • WASHINGTON, D.C.

AIPAC Policy Conference 2009 kicks off with major addresses by top American and Israeli leaders shaping the U.S.-Israel relationship, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Plus, James Woolsey, former CIA director and Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explore the myriad foreign policy challenges facing the United States of America, Israel and the world. 

Click here to register.


Prospects for U.S.-Russian Security Cooperation

April 4, 2009

U.S.-Russian relations seem to be at an impasse. However, given these nations’ power, standing, and nuclear capability, dialogue will be resumed at some point.

An analysis of the prospects for and conditions favoring cooperation is an urgent task – crucial precisely because current relations are so difficult.

A new report edited by Dr. Stephen J. Blank, professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Army War College, offers both a tribute to a vision of political order based upon prior cooperation and a call to revitalize the relationship.

“Russia, despite claims made for and against its importance, remains, by any objective standard, a key player in world affairs. It possesses this standing by virtue of its geographical location, Eurasia, its proximity to multiple centers of international tension and rivalry, its possession of a large conventional and nuclear force, its energy assets, and its seat on the UN Security Council. Beyond those attributes, it is an important barometer of trends in world politics, e.g., the course of democratization in the world. Furthermore, if Russia were so disposed, it could be the abettor and/or supporter of a host of negative trends in the world today. Indeed, some American elites might argue that it already is doing so.”

Read full story.


David Harris Remarks at Gorbachev-Shultz Reunion

March 26, 2009

ajcevent

AJC Executive Director David Harris was invited to give substantive opening remarks at this afternoon’s historic reunion between former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, moderated by Charlie Rose. Below is the text of what Gorbachev publicly praised as an outstanding speech that, he said, helped him to gain a new understanding of the Jewish community’s view of Russian and Soviet Jewish history.

Opening Remarks by David Harris
Executive Director, American Jewish Committee (AJC)

A the reunion between former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz

American Jewish Historical Society
New York, March 26, 2009

I am grateful to the American Jewish Historical Society for organizing today’s historic lunch and for giving me the privilege to speak.

In 1974, I traveled to the USSR for the first time, part of a U.S.-Soviet teacher’s exchange program. I was sent to School No. 185 in Leningrad.

Shortly after arriving, I was walking in the hallway when a young girl passed by and quietly put a piece of paper in my hand. When I was alone, I read the note. It said: “David Harris, I feel you are a Jew. If I’m right, please know that my family are refuseniks. Won’t you come visit us?”

I did. It was one of several such families I eventually met. Why did they want to leave? Her father, an engineer, explained that his children had no future in the Soviet Union. The barriers were too high, anti-Semitism too endemic.

So why were they denied the right to emigrate?

The father told me a joke which was then making the rounds:

Shapiro was called into KGB headquarters and told he would never be allowed to leave. “But why, comrade major? he pleaded. Because you know state secrets. What state secrets, comrade major? In my field, the Americans are at least ten years ahead of us. Well, said the KGB major, that’s the state secret.”

I asked the girl, who was about 14 at the time, why she thought I was Jewish and risked approaching me.

She told me that in the USSR no one in their right mind would give a boy the first name David unless he was Jewish, or else they had cripple him for life. She assumed it was probably the same in other countries.

It’s why she and other students insisted that Abraham Lincoln was the first Jewish president. Nothing I said could convince them otherwise.

The plight of the engineer’s family was but one episode in a difficult history, involving millions and spanning centuries.

It’s hard to know where the story begins.

Perhaps in 1648, when the Ukrainian Cossacks, led by Bogdan Khmelnitsky, went on a murderous rampage and killed as many as 100,000 Jews.

Or in 1791, when Catherine the Great created the Pale of Settlement, forcing Jews to live in this confined space for well over a century.

Or in 1827, when Czar Nicholas I began conscripting Jewish boys into the army for a 25-year tour, during which every effort was made to convert them to Christianity.

Or in 1881, when the assassination of Czar Alexander II triggered a deadly wave of pogroms, which would recur in the ensuing decades, often led by the Black Hundreds, whose slogan was, “Kill the Yids and save Mother Russia!”

Or that same year, when Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, argued that the Jewish problem could be solved only if one third of Russia’s Jews emigrated, one third converted, and one third perished.

Or in 1903, when the czarist secret police fabricated the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which claimed that Jews plotted to control the world.

Or in 1911, when Mendel Beilis was arrested in Kiev and put on trial for the supposed ritual murder of a Christian child’s blood libel.

Or in 1917, when Jews were accorded equal rights, creating the short-lived hope that better times were ahead.

Or in 1918, when that hope was proven illusory, as the Civil War resulted in an estimated 2,000 pogroms and tens of thousands of Jewish deaths.

Or in the 1920s, when emigration was no longer possible, and it became clear that Jewish religious life in the Soviet Union would be proscribed.

Or in the 1930s, the decade of the Great Terror, when many Jews were among the millions purged by Stalin.

Or in the 1940s, when Soviet Jews fought valiantly in the Red Army, losing hundreds of thousands of lives and winning a disproportionate share of medals of valor, only to return home to taunts that they had sat out the war in Tashkent.

Or in 1948, when Solomon Mikhoels, the legendary actor and chair of the wartime Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, was killed on Stalin’s orders in a feigned traffic accident.

Or the same year, when Golda Meir, as Israel’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union, came to Moscow’s only remaining synagogue, alarming the Kremlin when 50,000 Jews took to the streets to welcome her.

Or in 1952, when Mikhoel’s colleagues, having been charged with “treason, bourgeois nationalism, or other crimes against the state,” were executed in the night of the murdered poets.

Or in those years when the first copies of Leon Uris’s Exodus, the story of Israel’s birth, began circulating in Russian in samizdat, or self-publication, awakening kinship with the Jewish state.

Or in 1967, when Israel, faced with extinction by enemies armed with Soviet weaponry, vanquished the threat in just six days, electrifying Soviet Jews.

Or in 1970, when, to dramatize their plight, nine Jews and two non-Jews sought to hijack a plane in Leningrad and leave the country.

Or perhaps, perhaps, there wasn’t a precise date at all, just a sense for many that, despite Jews’ deep roots and love of Russian culture, something wasn’t right here, and time alone wouldn’t make it any better.

Maybe it was the knowledge that the Soviet internal passport, with its pyataya grafa, fifth line nationality” was a lifelong handicap for any Jew.

Maybe it was the recognition that prestigious universities and institutes were too frequently off-limits to Jews.

Maybe it was the awareness that certain jobs were denied to Jews, and that Jews who had jobs had to work harder to prove that they deserved them.

Maybe it was the fear that Jewish children would be subjected to taunts and jeers in school, and that school officials wouldn’t necessarily defend them.

Maybe it was the anguish that, as Yevgeny Yevtushenko, the legendary poet, reminded us when he spoke of Babi Yar, there were no memorials to the countless Jews slain by the Nazis on Soviet territory during the Holocaust.

Maybe it was the reality that Jews could not satisfy their most basic curiosity about being Jewish history, religion, tradition, language without endangering their families.

Maybe it was the relentless demonization of Israel and vilification of Zionism in Soviet officialdom.

Or maybe it was the recognition that Maxim Gorky’s words in Russian Fairy Tales were applicable for all time: “Once upon a time, in some czardom, in some state, there were Jews, simple Jews” for pogroms, for slander, and for other state needs.

Whatever the cause, by 1971, there was a full-fledged Soviet Jewry movement in the USSR and a growing support network around the world.

For the next two decades, history was written.

Soviet Jews cried out in Russian: “Otpusti narod moy.”

They cried out in the Hebrew they were beginning to learn clandestinely, “Shelach et ami.”

And they cried out in English for the world to hear the famous Biblical words, “Let my people go.”

These Soviet Jews, few in number at first, were extraordinarily brave.

They challenged the power of the state not just of any state, but the might of the Soviet Union.

Couldn’t the Kremlin simply crush them, make examples of them? And hadn’t the word emigration been missing from the Soviet lexicon for decades?

Repatriation to Israel, as the first activists demanded, seemed absurd. After 1967, there weren’t even diplomatic ties.

And yet, and yet, they weren’t crushed. Their numbers grew. The word emigration surfaced. And Israel became the overwhelmingly preferred destination for those who began leaving in 1971.

Many paid a heavy price.

Thousands were not fortunate enough to get permission to leave. Either they ended up in limbo, often for many years, as refuseniks. Or they became Prisoners of Zion, jailed for their activism and beliefs.

But nothing deterred them. And they knew they were not alone.

Jews from around the world, unwilling to sit silently while millions were once again targeted, organized, rallied, petitioned, fasted, lobbied, advocated, and traveled.

Governments responded, most notably the United States and Israel, but others as well.

For our country, the plight of Soviet Jews became a central item on our bilateral agenda and for the Congress.

Israel, despite the absence of direct links with the USSR, found many ways to give hope and support to Jews in the Soviet Union.

The Helsinki Final Act, signed in 1975 by 35 nations, including the USSR and all of Europe, gave the Soviet Jewry movement an additional lever by calling for the protection of human rights.

And countless non-Jews responded.

From Martin Luther King, Jr. to Bayard Rustin, from Sister Ann Gillen to Father Robert Drinan, they represented many races, religions and creeds.

They stood up, their voices were heard, and their message was clear, “Let them live freely as Jews in the Soviet Union, or let them go.”

Try as the Soviet Union might, it could not quell the growing storm of protest.

If the Kremlin relaxed its stance on emigration, as it did in 1973 and 1979, more Jews rushed to seek permission to leave.

If it tightened its stance, as it did after the Moscow Olympics in 1980, then the global outcry intensified.

And so we come at last to the Reagan-Gorbachev era. Few could have predicted its auspicious outcome.

Certainly, when we were asked to organize a mass rally in Washington, on the eve of President Gorbachev’s first visit in 1987, little could we have foreseen the extraordinary events of the next four years.

And little could I have imagined, as the chief organizer for that rally, as the son of one of the last emigrants from the Soviet Union in the Stalin era, and as a person who was expelled from the USSR in 1974 because of my contact with Jews, that I would be here today in the presence of Mikhail Gorbachev.

We had about five weeks to organize the rally from scratch. The largest Jewish rally in Washington till then had only drawn 12-14,000 people, which didn’t give us much hope. Plus, it was slated for December, with its notoriously tricky weather. And, not for the first time, it wasn’t easy to get Jewish groups to put aside differences and unite around a shared goal.

But Natan Sharansky, released from the Gulag the previous year, kept pushing our sights higher. We set a goal of 250,000 people, never really believing we’d reach it. In fact, we exceeded it.

People from all walks of life came. They felt they had to be there. They understood that silence or indifference to human suffering is never an answer.

And they were joined by Vice President Bush and a parade of Washington dignitaries.

Not too long afterwards, President Gorbachev opened the gates, and the Jews came streaming out.

Of course, only President Gorbachev knows the degree to which this and other rallies and protests affected the decision-making of the Kremlin.

I do know that, for the mood and morale of Soviet Jews, they were vitally important.

The knowledge that the United States stood with them in their struggle was extraordinarily powerful. And there are few American officials who embody that support more than George Shultz.

No words are sufficient to describe the central role he played, or the message he sent, when, as secretary of state, he hosted a Passover Seder for Soviet Jewish activists at the American Embassy in Moscow in 1987.

At a moment when the world needs symbols of hope and possibility, today’s lunch couldn’t be better timed.

It’s a perfect reminder of the power of individuals to dream dreams and fulfill them, as Soviet Jews did.

And of the capacity of true statesmen to chart a brighter future and achieve it, as our two distinguished guests did so magnificently


France’s NATO Strategy

March 20, 2009

nato

France’s move to rejoin NATO’s integrated military command structure reflects a shift in Paris’ strategic thinking about its allies and its ability to project unilateral power abroad.

In a strategic paper from the German think tank Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (German Institute for International and Security Affairs), Dr. Ronja Kempin reviews the challenges facing France’s military revolution.

Read full story.


The Charles Freeman Affair

March 19, 2009

It turns out that Charles Freeman is just another version of Mearsheimer and Walt, conjuring up demonic images of Israel policymaking and creating fantasy views of an America where no criticism of Israel is allowed, according to Abraham H. Foxman, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director.

by Abraham H. Foxman

So there it was, “perfect proof” of what John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were saying about the Israeli lobby:  the pressure mounted and Charles Freeman, the designated Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, decided to withdraw his name from consideration.

Of course, the incident really has nothing to do with the kind of allegations against the Jewish community that Mearsheimer and Walt and others have been propagating.  Their contention is that the Jews control the discussion and making of Middle East foreign policy in this country and won’t allow for alternative viewpoints to be explored and flourish.

That charge is absurd on its face, particularly when they cite as examples institutions such as the media and campuses.  In both places, there are multitudes of examples of expressions of views critical of Israel.  The notion that there is no diversity of viewpoints is simply false.

How then to view the Freeman saga?  It is undoubtedly true that many in the organized Jewish community were distressed about the pending appointment.  The more his record was revealed — his blaming U.S. support for Israel for the 9/11 attacks; his demonizing of Israel as the responsible party for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — the more concern there was about the central role he might play in intelligence affairs.  Some on the right who were predicting the Obama Administration would be no friend of Israel saw this as evidence of their fears.  For most, however, the Freeman appointment was disturbing on its own terms without generalizing about where U.S.-Israel relations were heading.

It must be said that to suggest there was anything illegitimate about American Jewish concern about Freeman or that it indicated in any way Jewish control of policy is pure fantasy.  Freeman’s views do not fall into the category of alternative perspectives on the conflict; those kinds of things surface all the time whether in criticism of Israeli settlements or judgments on how to deal with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

Rather, his views fall far away from mainstream opinion in America vis-à-vis Israel and the region and enter into that area of demonizing Israel and its supporters in the U.S.  Nothing better illustrates where Freeman is coming from than in his statement explaining his withdrawal.  He articulates, in the guise of a victim, the essential conspiracy view of the Israel supporting community which made his appointment so troubling in the first place.  He sees the exposure of his troubling attitudes toward Israel as proof “that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired.”

“The aim of this lobby,” he says, “is control of the policy process… and the exclusion of any and all options for decisions.”  And Freeman blames it all on “the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling factor in Israel politics.”

These statements are part of a pattern, most notable being a 2006 comment by Freeman blaming the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America’s close relationship with Israel: “We have paid heavily and often in treasure in the past for our unflinching support unstinting subsidies of Israel’s approach to managing relations with the Arabs,” adding that as of September 11, 2001, “we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home.”

So it turns out that Freeman is just another version of Mearsheimer and Walt, conjuring up demonic images of Israel policymaking and creating fantasy views of an America where no criticism of Israel is allowed, where American policy is controlled by Israel and its Jewish allies, where U.S. administration policy never differs from Israeli policy.

The real story here is not one of evidence of Jewish control, but rather that when extremist views surface in mainstream government circles, there still are ways to make sure they don’t become government policy.

As the U.S. enters a critical period with regard to Middle East issues, and as intelligence community findings on a range of issues from Iran to Hamas to Pakistan will become more critical than ever, we should be thankful that good sense has prevailed in the withdrawal of the Freeman appointment at the National Intelligence Center.

Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and author of “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”


American Jewish Committee testifies before U.S. Congress for Iran Sanctions Act

March 13, 2009

ajctestimony

TESTIMONY OF JASON F. ISAACSON
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY AND TRADE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 1327, THE IRAN SANCTIONS ENABLING ACT OF 2009

WASHINGTON D.C., MARCH 12, 2009

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,

I am honored to testify on behalf of the American Jewish Committee in support of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. AJC is grateful to Chairman Frank and to you, Chairman Meeks, and to the other sponsors of this important legislation for developing early in the new Congress this well-crafted tool to address the grave threats posed by Iran’s regime.

My testimony will highlight two key points:

First, stopping Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of the greatest urgency – because Iran is so close to achieving nuclear capability, and because a nuclear Iran would alter the world as we know it in terrible ways.

Second, this legislation – clarifying the authority of state and local governments, and investment companies, to divest from entities that invest heavily in Iran’s energy sector – can significantly assist the overall effort to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran is on the doorstep of nuclear arms capability. It has already crossed a significant threshold – amassing enough enriched uranium to make, with further enrichment, its first nuclear bomb. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed this conclusion last week, and the International Atomic Energy Agency documented it in its February 19 report.

Iran’s installation of thousands of new centrifuges, including next-generation units, increases its ability rapidly to enrich to bomb grade – and thus “break out” of its Non-Proliferation Treaty constraints. Iran could probably conceal its breakout even if IAEA inspectors remain in the country, because Iran routinely refuses to provide critical information and access to inspectors. Once Iran decides to break out, it may be too late for the international community to stop it from producing a bomb. That gives us breathtakingly little time to act. And Iran could marry a nuclear warhead with advanced missiles it already possesses that could strike the Middle East and beyond, including much of Europe.

President Obama and Congress recognize America’s strong interest in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Some observers may see a nuclear Iran primarily as an existential peril to Israel, a country it has repeatedly threatened and has used proxy forces to attack. I do not want to minimize that very real danger – nor the need for bold international action to prevent it. But I want to highlight that a nuclear Iran would pose an even broader threat – throughout the Arab Gulf, to the entire region and, indeed, to global peace and security.

Already, Iran projects its power throughout the Middle East. Nuclear arms would embolden Tehran to pursue its expansionist agenda even more aggressively. And the international community’s options for vigorous response would be constrained, for fear of provoking nuclear retaliation. I will give you a few examples of what may lie ahead:

A nuclear Iran could dominate the world’s most abundant sources of energy – the Gulf and the Caspian Basin. Challenged, Iran could attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz – through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil production passes. Or it might seek to realize its expansionist vision by taking territory from one or more of the smaller Gulf States.

Over the last 15 years, AJC has paid periodic visits to the Gulf, conferring with governments allied with the United States in the struggle against terrorism and extremism, and supportive of efforts to advance regional peace. We regularly hear on these visits the concerns of Gulf leaders about Iran’s assertion of regional power, and its attempts to radicalize their societies. It isn’t only Israel that perceives the perils of a nuclear Iran. From North Africa to the Levant to the Gulf, pragmatic Arab governments and civil society leaders recognize the danger of a further empowered Iran; many look to the United States for assurance that this nightmare can be averted, and that America will safeguard their security. Unless the United States and other powers act boldly and promptly, these governments may feel compelled to accommodate Iran, procure their own nuclear weapons, or both. These developments would assuredly destabilize the region, challenge U.S. power, and imperil the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime.

Iran already has a potent presence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon – through its active support of Hezbollah and Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Jordan, and others – not to mention Israel – are deeply concerned about Iran’s activity. The threat would be magnified, and prospects for regional peace and the protection of human rights severely complicated, were Iran to possess nuclear capability.

The shadow cast by a nuclear-capable Iran, which Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Institute, affiliated with AJC, outlines in his just-published book “Under a Mushroom Cloud,” clearly pales in comparison with the dangers of Iran actually launching a nuclear weapon, or transferring a nuclear device to a terrorist proxy. These prospects cannot be discounted – because the consequences are too dire to discount. A dirty bomb in the center of Chicago, London, or Tel Aviv is, horrifyingly, in the realm of possibility. If Iran’s leaders wished to make good on their oft-repeated promise to wipe Israel off the map, we could not necessarily rely on deterrence to dissuade them – not in a country whose rulers have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice millions of their citizens to achieve their vision.

What can be done to stop Iran’s nuclear drive? The best answer is to offer the regime incentives for ending its defiance of international law – and powerful disincentives to pursue its current course. The United States has played a crucial leadership role in trying to mobilize the world’s economic powers to impose tough sanctions. The urgency of the threat and the severe consequences of failing to end it compel the United States to intensify these efforts.

First, our government should make abundantly clear that we will not allow a nuclear Iran – and that the UN Security Council demand that Iran verifiably suspend enrichment is not negotiable.

Second, we should offer Iran incentives – as EU and U.S. negotiators have previously tabled – for ending its nuclear enrichment and meeting its non-proliferation obligations.

Third, we should make it unbearably costly for Iran’s regime to continue its defiance – even as we make it clear to Iran’s people, against whom we hold no brief, that the choice lies with their regime.

The United States has been a leader in mobilizing international support for addressing the Iranian threat. As Iran closes in on nuclear capability, we must continually ratchet up the price of its defiance.

If our Administration pursues engagement with Iran, simultaneously intensifying sanctions is critical. Only tough sanctions would prevent Iran’s rulers from seeing our overtures as a sign of weakness and motivate them to be forthcoming in negotiations. Firm goalposts and deadlines also are crucial to prevent Iran’s regime from hiding behind negotiations as it completes its quest for nuclear arms.

Congress, as in the past, has a critical role to play in maintaining the necessary focus on this urgent issue, and in providing the Administration – and now, with the legislation before you, providing state and local authorities across the country – the proper tools to address it.

In addition to existing U.S. efforts and repeated UN Security Council sanctions measures, it is imperative that further, targeted U.S. sanctions be implemented – including ones that Congress has passed but that still have not been implemented. Such further sanctions will discourage large new investments and contracts that help maintain Iran’s regime. This is where the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act will make a significant contribution.

Iran’s strained economy is the regime’s Achilles’ heel, and provides our most effective leverage – especially now, with oil prices sharply depressed. Oil and gas exports account for some 80 percent of Iran’s export revenue and about half the government’s budget. The regime relies on foreign companies to develop its energy industry, and even to provide it with gasoline for domestic use – because it doesn’t have refining capacity to meet its own needs. Foreign energy companies essentially sustain Iran’s economy and its regime.

Billions of dollars of U.S. public employee pension funds and other public funds are invested in the foreign corporations that most heavily engage in Iran’s oil sector – accounting for a significant portion of investment in these companies. A movement of concerned citizens is sweeping America to curb investment of public funds in these companies. Ten states have enacted laws – including California, with the largest plans in the country, by far – and others have instituted policies divesting from Iran. Members of the armed forces and first responders – who know first-hand the damage that Iran’s activity inflicts – are among those who have advocated for divestment most strongly.

Taken together, the divestment mandates already on the books at the state and local level affect more than half a trillion dollars in assets – a sum that is growing as grassroots concern spreads. As Senator Deutch knows – in fact, in large part because of Senator Deutch’s efforts – the State of Florida alone already has directed its pension funds to divest nearly $1.3 billion from these companies, unless the companies change their ways.

Divestment, and the attendant negative publicity, impels companies to reassess their investment in Iran – especially because most of the laws give companies an opportunity to avoid divestment by halting such investments. Many companies already have chosen to do just that. Divestment also discourages companies from beginning new business in Iran.

Thus, divestment discourages the heavy international investment in Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure that Iran’s regime desperately needs, and thereby significantly adds to the economic pressure on the regime.

Iran is a highly risky investment environment, for numerous reasons. The volatile government and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard own and control much of the economy, especially the energy sector. Corruption is rife, and the business environment opaque. Credit and credit guarantees have become less available, especially with the designation of large Iranian banks for their involvement in proliferation and/or terrorism. Available credit often costs more or comes from less reputable institutions – or both. Iran’s deep economic crisis heightens the risk of doing business there. Companies investing heavily in Iran’s energy sector also risk U.S., EU, and international sanctions.

For all these reasons, and more, companies that engage heavily in Iran’s energy sector are subject to extraordinary risk. Investing in these companies could subject a pension or other fund to undue risk. State and local governments – or investment fund managers – that choose to divest from these companies are acting with prudence and exercising their legitimate authority to protect the assets under their stewardship.

The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act would protect only divestment from companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. These are the very companies that are subject to U.S. sanctions for their activity in Iran – activity that U.S. companies are forbidden from doing.

The American Jewish Committee strongly supports this legislation, and wishes to express our appreciation for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on this critical matter. I would also be remiss if I did not thank my colleague Debra Feuer for her exceptional work on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Israel’s New Government and the Future of the State

March 13, 2009

bnaibrith

B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL cordially invites you to attend the first

B’nai B’rith World Center – Jerusalem

Post-Pesach Symposium for visiting B’nai B’rith Members

Israel’s New Government and the Future of the State

Programme

10:30 – 11:00 Reception

11:00 – 11:15 Greetings

Graham Weinberg, President, B’nai B’rith Europe

Ralph Hofmann, Senior Vice President, B’nai B’rith Europe

11:15 – 11:30 Introduction to  B’nai B’rith World Center – Jerusalem

Dr. Haim V. Katz, Chairman

Alan Schneider, Director

11:30 – 12:30  Session 1: A View from the Knesset

MK Benny Begin (Likud)

MK Nachman Shai (Kadima)

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – 14:30 Session 2: A View from the Fourth Estate

Ben-Dror Yemini, Op-Ed Editor, Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv

Amnon Lord, Editor-in-Chief, Israeli newspaper Makor Rishon

15:00 – 16:00

Tour Menachem Begin Heritage Museum

Friday, April 17, 2009

Menachem Begin Heritage Center, 6 Nachon St. Jerusalem

Fee per person: $30 US

Please register your participation by return e-mail message to worldcenter@012.net.il by March 26, 2009.

Transportation from Tel Aviv will be arranged per request at cost.