The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

« Older Entries

Like it or not, Bibi keeps outsmarting everyone

By Lazar Berman

May 14, 2012, 5:12 pm

Benjamin Netanyahu continues to confound opponents, surprise experts, and consolidate political power. Through a series of unconventional moves since 2009, Bibi has gone from struggling to form a supposedly weak coalition to heading one of the largest parliamentary majorities in Israel’s history. His bold move this week, cancelling early elections in favor of a unity deal with opposition leader Shaul Mofaz, is only the latest in a series of maneuvers that attest to his political acumen:

•    Netanyahu created Israel’s largest government, with 30 ministers and eight deputy ministers out of 120 Knesset members. Despite his criticism of predecessor Ehud Olmert’s 27 ministers as wasteful, his massive government ensured him the loyalty of 38 MKs, more than quarter of the Knesset.

•    In his first six months in office, he focused on consolidating coalition discipline, some say by controversial methods. Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai submitted a complaint that Bibi’s advisers burst into his office while Vilnai sat absent from a vote on the Knesset floor that would have failed without Vilnai present to vote.

•    Bibi strengthened the power and influence of advisory bodies within the Prime Minister’s Office. The National Economic Council, created in 2006, was a largely irrelevant body under Olmert. But with Bibi’s 2009 appointment of Eugene Kandel as head of the NEC, it grew quickly in importance, influencing policy on management of natural gas revenues, taxes, and Israel’s macroeconomic policy. The influence of the National Security Council has grown as well under Netanyahu, assuming responsibilities previously handled by the military adviser, a Defense Ministry official. Knesset members regularly complain that the Prime Minister’s Office has taken power from them, including the Knesset Speaker. As MK Daniel Ben-Simon put it on the Knesset floor: “We are closer to the Chinese model… the (Prime Minister’s) Office decides everything. There are no checks and balances.”

•    Netanyahu consolidated power within his Likud party, taking the unprecedented step of running for party chairman as sitting Prime Minister. He won the election easily, giving himself control over the party’s slate for the next election. This move angered Likud’s right wing, who wanted to stack the list with their activists. Likud’s right wing still has not forgiven him.

•    Bibi keeps outlasting his political opponents. After refusing to join Netanyahu’s government, former Kadima head Tzipi Livni gained no traction as opposition leader, and found herself voted out of her party’s leadership. He almost succeeded in breaking Kadima in two by passing the “Mofaz Law,” allowing eight MKs to jump ship to another party. He split the Labor party in two, keeping Ehud Barak and his new Independence Party in his government. The rump Labor Party would have done quite well if the early elections were held, but they will have to wait another year and a half. Popular journalist Yair Lapid, who jumped into politics recently with a new political party, also stood to do well in the scheduled September elections, but by October 2013, he will likely not be a factor at all.

Netanyahu’s latest surprise allows him to progress on major legislation, as no party can topple the government, and no coalitions can form against him. Religious parties will hold little sway in the coalition, allowing the secular Likud, Independence, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Kadima members to pass a new law requiring ultra-Orthodox to serve in the army and the labor force. This might cost the coalition the votes of 16 MKs, but it can easily handle that. There has also been a growing effort to reform Israel’s unstable electoral system, with more power centralized in the Prime Minister’s Office. Expect the new coalition to pass legislation, drastically reforming politics in Israel.

Still, significant hurdles remain for Netanyahu’s government. The Supreme Court gave the government two months to evacuate the Givat HaUlpana neighborhood in the West Bank,  and right wing MKs have threatened to leave the coalition if the evacuation goes ahead. The budget, which must pass this fall, is extremely controversial, as there is simply not enough money available to fulfill promises made in response to the social protests last summer.

This move has implications for America, too. Obama, clearly no Bibi fan, will have to deal with a strengthened PM, and will find it even more difficult to intimidate him. Netanyahu has more political backing for his Iran policy, but Mofaz has been more moderate rhetorically than Netanyahu or Barak. And if the Palestinians are really interested in making progress on peace negotiations, this is exactly the kind of broad coalition, armed with stability and national security credibility, that can hammer out a game changing deal with the Palestinians.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags: ,

Obama’s gay marriage solution? Evolution

By Lazar Berman

May 9, 2012, 10:03 am

Same-sex marriage is not an issue about which many people are apathetic. Supporters see it as a fundamental civil rights issue, and those in opposition feel that it would be an assault on the foundation of civilized society, marriage and the family.

Yet President Obama is still ‘evolving’ on this issue. So, the position to which he won’t commit is going to change at some point anyway?

Contrary to the narrative his office is floating, Obama’s evolution has not been in one direction:

In 1996, Illinois State Senate candidate Obama stated clearly that he favored “legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

Then, by 2007, he had (ahem) ‘evolved’ to a new position:

“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, he was still pretty clear on his position in a conversation with Rick Warren:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix…. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.”

Once he was elected, his principled stance, rooted ever so deeply in his Christian faith, began to list back in the other direction. In a 2010 interview with liberal bloggers, the president equivocated:

“I am a strong supporter of civil unions. As you say, I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.

But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents.”

And before he was president, as a law professor in Chicago and in the Senate, he didn’t have gay friends in committed, monogamous relationships, raising children as wonderful parents?

Come on. President Obama must not give the American public much credit if he believes they don’t recognize how baldly political his position is on an issue of great ethical and religious importance to millions of voters.

Obama likes to call his shifting non-position an ‘evolution.’ Perhaps ‘adaptation’, defined by Merriam Webster as,  “modification of an organism … that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment,” is the more accurate description for Obama’s shameless posturing for political gain.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Society and Culture, U.S. Politics   |   Tags: ,

Religious freedom, rebellion, and indoor prostitution: Why Rhode Island’s independence day matters

By Lazar Berman

May 7, 2012, 9:55 am

On May 4, 1776, Rhode Island renounced its allegiance to the British Crown, the first American colony to do so. This was not the first time the state, which celebrated its independence day on Friday, set an example for the rest of the nation.

The original colony, Providence Plantations, was founded on what would become a bedrock American principle—freedom of religion. But at the time, this radical proposition got Roger Williams banished by the Massachusetts General Court for spreading “new, and dangerous opinions.”

Williams, a minister who fell out with the Puritan church, argued publicly for separation of Church and State, and championed the rights of local tribes. When Massachusetts Bay Colony finally banished him in 1636, Williams walked 105 miles in the snow to find refuge with his Wampanoag Indian friends. The settlement he founded, Providence, was the first in the New World with complete religious liberty. Others persecuted for their religious beliefs followed, including Quakers, Jews, and Anne Hutchinson’s Anabaptists. The legacy of religious toleration persisted in the state. The oldest standing synagogue in America, Newport’s Touro Synagogue, has a letter on its wall to the congregation from George Washington, promising that the United States would give “to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

Rhode Islanders’ independent spirit played an essential role in the lead up to the American revolution. Before Lexington, Concord, or even the Boston Tea Party, Rhode Islanders were resisting British laws violently. They fired cannons at HMS St John in 1764, boarded and burned HMS Liberty in 1769, and torched the grounded HMS Gaspee in 1772. Fittingly, Rhode Island was the last state to ratify the Constitution in 1790, considering the possibility of maintaining independence as a sovereign nation. They only signed once they were promised that the new Constitution would include a Bill of Rights.

Throughout its history, the state was a pioneer. The 1st Rhode Island Regiment was the first American all-Black unit during the forgotten Battle of Rhode Island, an engagement that brought together George Washington, Nathanael Greene, marquis de Lafayette, and Lord Richard Howe. America’s Industrial Revolution began at Slater Mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. It was the first state to send troops to the Union Army after President Lincoln’s call for volunteers at the beginning of the Civil War.

Despite its powerful unions and influential Democratic establishment, it has kept its quirky individualism through the centuries. The state never ratified the federal prohibition on alcohol, legalized prostitution (only indoors), and recently voted to preserve the longest American state name, The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. It remains the only majority Catholic state in the country.

So let’s take a moment to remember the important contributions our smallest state has made to our nation’s history.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (2)
Categories:  Society and Culture   |   Tags:

‘I hate Jews … (no, it’s cool, I’m a philanthropist)’

By Lazar Berman

May 1, 2012, 2:58 pm

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

So reads the inscription on the glittering white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984.

In 2008, controversial Italian cartoonist Vauro Senesi published a drawing of Jewish Italian politician Fiamma Nirenstein as the Frankenstein monster, with a Star of David, hook nose, and fascist symbols.

Italian journalist Giuseppe Caldarola responded by calling Senesi an anti-Semite in an article. Senesi sued Caldarola for defamation of character. But Judge Emanuela Attura ruled that since Senesi did work with an NGO that sends medical aid to Afghnistan and Pakistan, he could not possibly be an anti-Semite.

Again—According to the Italian court, Senesi’s humanitarian work with Pakistanis and Afghans means he could not possibly hate Jews. Following that impeccable logic, since Henry Ford established the Ford Foundation, he couldn’t possibly be criticized for publishing The International Jew; The World’s Problem. And since Mel Gibson donates millions to children’s hospitals, he is above reproach for, well, his array of racist/sexist outbursts and comments.

In Italy, then, speaking out about an anti-Semitic cartoon is punished with a fine of $30,000, but publishing the cartoon is perfectly fine, as long as the author is nice to some other group of people.

John Galtung, the Norwegian sociologist known as the “father of peace studies”, founded Oslo’s International Peace Research Institute. This honorable old man of peace wondered in comments to the Norwegian press about Jewish and Israeli links to the Anders Breivik massacre last summer. Professor Galtung pointed out that “six Jewish companies control 96% of the media,” and that it is impossible to read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion without thinking of investment bank Goldman Sachs. Though it came out recently, Galtung had been making anti-Semitic remarks in lectures at the University of Oslo, and regularly referred to white supremacist articles as sources.

So the preeminent peace scholar in Europe is a firm believer in classical anti-Semitic conspiracies, and in Italy it’s okay to be an anti-Semite as long as you’re a generous spirit.

But hey, if Ignorance is Strength, Italy and Norway are superpowers.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Society and Culture   |   Tags:

When Romney saved a dog’s life

By Lazar Berman

April 26, 2012, 3:33 pm

Obama supporters have tried to make an issue of Mitt Romney’s 1983 family vacation, during which he tied his terrified dog’s cage to the roof of the family car. The Romney campaign blunted the attack by seizing on a line in Obama’s memoir about eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia.

But Romney’s campaign can do much better. In a 2003 episode that the Romney campaign never brings up for some reason, the governor and his sons actually saved the life of a Scottish Terrier, McKenzie, and six members of his owner’s family.

From the Boston Herald:

The rescuing Romneys also managed to snatch the family dog, McKenzie, from a watery grave — grabbing the Scottish terrier first because it was the only passenger without a lifejacket.

“It looked like it wasn’t going to last much longer,” said Josh, who held the waterlogged pooch on the ride back to shore.

With Josh and Craig hovering nearby, the three men treaded water until the governor returned and made two more trips to ferry them back.

The two campaigns can continue taking cheap shots at each other. But the Obama folks should keep in mind that stirring up the waters of Romney’s past too much might bring more tales of his character to the surface. Best, after all, to let sleeping dogs lie.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (12)
Categories:  U.S. Politics   |   Tags:

Think happy thoughts and Iran will play nice

By Lazar Berman

April 25, 2012, 1:41 pm

The conventional wisdom holds that Hezbollah will attack if Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear program. “I nonetheless believe that Hezbollah will strike Israel if the latter attacks Iran,” writes Andrew Exum. “[T]he financial, political and ideological ties between the two sides’ senior leadership will likely trump any constraints imposed by Hezbollah’s war-weary constituency.”

And until recently, the terrorist group itself gave strong hints it would indeed hit Israel. “Gone are the days when Israel decides to strike, and the people are silent,” Hezbollah deputy Sheikh Naim Qassem threatened. “Israel could start a war … but it does not know the scale of the consequences and it is incapable of controlling them.”

Suddenly, the message is quite different, with the Hezbollah leadership scrambling to make clear that it would not necessarily fire at all. In February, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah stressed that Iran could not issues orders to strike Israel: “There is speculation about what would happen if Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. I tell you that the Iranian leadership will not ask Hezbollah to do anything. On that day, we will sit, think and decide what we will do.” Not exactly his most threatening language.

Moreover, Lebanese President Michael Suleiman promised this week, “Should Israel strike Iran, it will not be attacked with missiles from Lebanon … No one has the right to act without the Lebanese government’s authorization.” Suleiman has many reasons to try to allay Israeli fears of a Hezbollah missile strike, but the timing and stridency of his words are noteworthy.

Hamas, too, is promising to sit out any fight between Israel and Iran. “If Israel attacks us we will respond. If they don’t, we will not get involved in any other regional conflict,” senior Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar said last month. Don’t exaggerate our power. We are still suffering from the occupation, the siege and two wars in recent years.”

The deterrent against Israel that Iran had worked so hard to build up over the years will likely be worth next to nothing if the time ever comes to use it. Instead, the Hezbollah and Hamas statements show how strong Israeli deterrence remains after the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead. It is also a testament to Iran’s weakening sway in the region, as its and Hezbollah’s support for the Assad regime damage their credibility badly.

Still, present and former administration officials seem determined to damage the credibility of the military option in Iran’s eyes. In March, an unnamed senior administration official revealed that he believed Azerbaijan and Israel had reached an agreement for Israel to use Azeri airbases. Then former national security adviser General James Jones said that a nuclear Iran would actually be possible to contain, so even if the sanctions don’t work, no need to worry. In fact, according to Jones, forget the covert campaign to sabotage the program and Israel’s campaign of diplomacy and deterrence—with a little positive thinking, the problem will go away: “maybe one of these days, it will work out, so let’s think good thoughts.”

“Flying is easy,” said Peter Pan. “Just think happy thoughts.” Problem is, no one made Peter Pan national security adviser.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East, War on Terror   |   Tags: , ,

Livni’s demise shakes up Israeli political landscape

By Lazar Berman

March 30, 2012, 2:17 pm

As her time as opposition leader ends with a thud, at least we can say Tzipi Livni always stuck to her guns.

• In September 2008, when PM Ehud Olmert submitted his resignation letter, President Shimon Peres looked to Livni, newly elected as leader of the Kadima Party, to form a coalition. She refused the demands of right-wing parties Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu, and did not want to bring Likud into her government. Her failure to build a coalition led to early elections.

• Livni’s Kadima Party won the most seats in the February 2009 elections, but her unwillingness to make the compromises necessary to bring Shas and Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu onboard led President Peres to ask Benjamin Netanyahu to form a government.

• Netanyahu offered Livni a spot in his government, but again she refused, choosing instead to lead the opposition. She never managed to mount a coherent opposition to Bibi’s government.

Livni enjoyed a meteoric rise, especially on the international stage, but her unwillingness to dirty her hands in the business of Israeli politics left her helpless in the face of Shaul Mofaz’s Kadima primary challenge. As party leader, she never found a way to discipline Kadima MKs who voted against her wishes, and let rivalries simmer with other party officials. As long as the polls stayed high, her position remained strong, but when they began to drop, she found herself without the internal party organization that Mofaz had built.

So what does this mean for the Israeli political landscape, especially as Netanyahu will likely call early elections?

Kadima, built by Ariel Sharon as a centrist party attracting both Likud and Labor members, will likely lose MKs back to Labor, but Mofaz might be able to pull in some ambitious Likud MKs looking to move up on a party list. Still, he won’t be able to defeat Bibi in a general election, and it is certainly possible that Mofaz will decide to join a secular unity government with Likud, Ehud Barak’s Atzmaut party, and possibly Yisrael Beiteinu. Leaving the settler and ultra-Orthodox parties out of the government will have particular appeal in the contemporary political climate, especially as the debate over ultra-Orthodox men serving in the army and living off government largess heats up.

Last summer’s massive social protests will loom large in the next election. To try to capitalize on the public mood, Mofaz talks primarily about social issues, belying his past as IDF chief of staff and defense minister. Labor’s new leader, Shelly Yacimovich, is also positioning herself as the social movement’s candidate, railing against excessive privatization and the domination of the Israeli economy by tycoons.

The wild card is Yair Lapid, the popular journalist and author who recently announced he was forming his own centrist political party. Early polls showed that Lapid’s party would garner enough votes to place second in national elections. Livni would find a natural home as the number two in Lapid’s party, but she has stated that she is leaving politics, and Lapid has made a point of stressing that his party will feature new faces and new ideas.

Still, perhaps Livni’s political career is not over. As Shimon Peres has demonstrated repeatedly, in Israeli politics, anyone can make a comeback.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags: ,

It’s not too late to get Halabja right

By Lazar Berman

March 20, 2012, 12:08 pm

Only days before Kurds kick off their celebrations of Newroz, the Persian/Central Asian new year holiday, they paused to remember the March 16, 1988 Halabja massacre. As the Iran-Iraq war wound down, Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi military unleashed a chemical attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja, killing thousands of Kurdish civilians immediately and condemning many thousands more to a painful, drawn out death from burnt lungs and cancer.

Source: Wikimedia

Americans would do well to revisit our reaction, or lack thereof, to this attack. American newspapers failed to give the story front page coverage. The Washington Post first mentioned the attack on March 18, but buried the story on page A19. The Los Angeles Times put their article on the killings on page 2, but it contained only 93 words. What were our newspapers running on their front pages instead? There was ample coverage of the Iran-Contra affair and Reagan’s deployment of troops to Honduras, but plenty of fluff as well. On March 18, The New York Times had articles on New Jerseyans dumping trash illegally and Japanese buying real estate in Hawaii. The same day, WaPo’s front page featured the important news of 4 new theaters being planned for downtown DC. And all the coverage that did emerge talked about Halabja in the context of the Iran-Iraq war, not as a chemical attack on civilians in its own right.

Equally galling were the DIA, CIA, and Army War College conclusions that Iran, not Iraq, was responsible for the attack. This position only changed once Saddam became an enemy of the United States after he invaded Kuwait. The far left and the far right rallied to Saddam’s defense. Ron Paul said on the floor of the House, “Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed . . . which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran than Iraq?” Edward Said wrote in the London Review of Books, the “claim that Iraq gassed its own citizens has often been repeated. At best, this is uncertain.”

A quarter century later, would we fail a similar test? America’s intelligence community still has not solved the problem of politicized, inaccurate intelligence. We have brought Arab dictators’ crimes against their own citizens to our foreign policy debate only recently, and our reaction has been inconsistent, even incoherent at times. The best way to honor the victims of Halabja and similar offenses is to continue working for the overthrow of Middle Eastern despots, ensuring that Assad and Khamenei share the fate of Hussein and Qaddafi.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags: , ,

The weakest argument against striking Iran

By Lazar Berman

March 7, 2012, 1:04 pm

A lot of smart people in the foreign policy world write uncharacteristically shoddy things when it comes to Israel. David Rothkopf’s latest Foreign Policy post, arguing that the United States and Israel face more pressing threats than Iran’s nuclear program, is one of those pieces:

By focusing on Iran, indeed by having some among Israel’s top leaders seemingly obsessed about it, Israel is ignoring … the real existential threats on and within its own borders.

Quite a claim. Israel continues to prepare for conflicts with Hizbullah and Hamas. Netanyahu’s government has pushed back hard against religious and right-wing extremism. In fact, Bibi’s efforts have been so energetic that a Knesset member representing settlers said, “Netanyahu’s government is doing more than any other to injure the rights of settlers in Judea and Samaria.” Israeli courts have struck down the law exempting the ultra-Orthodox from military service. Though these are serious issues, none of them come close to the threat a nuclear Iran does.

Iran is hardly the first of Israel’s enemies to seek or even possess nuclear weapons … Iraq and Syria, of course, sought nuclear weapons capabilities.

 True… and Israel struck Iraq and Syria and stopped their nuclear weapons programs, with almost no negative consequences.

Israel’s demographic clock is ticking, and its future as a Jewish state is threatened by the growing size of the Palestinian population on and within its borders.

The demographic threat is usually used to claim that Israel needs to make a deal with the Palestinians or else. Using it to argue against a strike on Iran is truly a stretch. Another problem: there is no demographic threat. The Palestinians do not and will never vote in Israeli elections, so they cannot endanger the Jewish character of the state. Palestinian population figures are inflated in any event, as the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics may have double-counted and guessed its way to a figure that overestimates the Palestinian population by 1 million.

And, birthrates for Israeli Arabs are falling as their living standard rises. In 2001, Israel saw 95,000 Jewish births and 41,000 Arab births. By 2008, there were 117,000 Jewish births and less than 40,000 Arab births. The Arab population of Israel hovers around 20%, and this includes Christians, Druze, and Bedouin, many of whom serve in the IDF and do not identify with Palestinians or even Arabs.

Meanwhile, the countries whose presence in the Middle East is growing as they become greater and greater consumers of the region’s oil—China and India—simply do not have the same historical, cultural, or other strategic ties to Israel.

Israel has strong, and growing, relationships with both of these countries.

Defense sales to China declined sharply after the United States pressured Israel to keep advanced military hardware out of Chinese hands. Though they remain on opposite sides of many diplomatic issues, trade has expanded in recent years, shooting up 95% in 2010. Israel plays a leading role in China’s water technology, and last month, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz signed a billion-shekel deal with China ($262 million) to develop water sanitization projects in the country.

Though they don’t see eye to eye on the Palestinian issue, India and Israel have grown close in many ways since 1992. In those 20 years, annual civilian trade has grown from $180 million to $5 billion. What’s more, leaders from both countries have stated their intention to sign a free trade agreement by the end of the year. Though defense has dominated the relationship—with $9 billion of business since 1999—there is intimate cooperation in agriculture, space exploration, and science.

And, let’s be honest , the United States isn’t turning its back on the Middle East or Israel any time soon.

Indeed, one mistake the Israelis have made in seeking to mobilize action against Iran has been not to emphasize this larger threat [proliferation, arms race] more.

Actually, a central thrust of Israeli diplomacy has been to internationalize the issue. A “senior state department official” speaking to the Jerusalem Post “praised Israel for being ‘extremely active’ in making the case for the threat a nuclear-armed Iran posed to the world, and internationalizing the issue so it wasn’t seen as merely U.S.-Iranian animosity. ‘That’s been extremely helpful,’ he said.”

Consequently, for Israel, the urgent business at hand is neither Iran nor even haggling over the specifics of its borders with a potential Palestinian state—it is the recognition that the state already exists and that Israel’s future depends heavily on both Palestine’s economic viability and the degree to which it evolves as a productive economic partner of Israel’s.

Israel should recognize a Palestinian state? How exactly would this help with the Iran threat? And which Palestinian state—the one run by the PA or the one run by Hamas? Israel’s economy is humming along just fine without a Palestinian partnership, and though the economies are closely linked, recognizing a Palestinian state would not help change much for the Israeli economy.

David Rothkopf doesn’t want Israel to strike Iran. Fine. The military option presents huge risks. But pretending that Israel has bigger problems is one of the more unconvincing arguments against a strike. The Palestinians are in a very weak position right now, Israel’s economy is booming, huge deposits of natural gas have been found, and Israel’s diplomatic corps continues to find new allies. A nuclear Iran is the major threat to its current prosperity, and the region’s security, and Netanyahu is right to focus his attention on it.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags: ,

During Iran talks, both Bibi and Obama thinking reelection

By Lazar Berman

March 3, 2012, 7:39 am

With talk of an Israeli strike on Iran in the air, Bibi’s March 5th meeting with President Obama at the White House is garnering intense scrutiny. And let’s not kid ourselves—this meeting will not focus on the non-existent peace process or settlement construction. It will be Iran, Iran, Iran.

Netanyahu is well positioned to come away with some real achievements in this meeting. With an election coming up,  Obama is not eager to come across as wishy-washy on Iran or apathetic about Israel’s safety. With a speech in front of AIPAC scheduled this weekend, Obama will be talking tough on Iran and underscoring his support for Israel. Remember this line from candidate Obama’s 2008 speech to AIPAC? – “Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, (applause) with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

And, interestingly, in that same speech Obama defended Israel’s military strike on Syria’s nuclear reactor: “And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was entirely justified to end that threat.”

Expect the president to continue this week’s tough rhetoric on Iran—today’s interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg reveals, “as president of the United States … I don’t bluff.” In the upcoming high-stakes game of diplomatic poker, Obama is sure to repeatedly defend that “all options are on the table.”

But Obama is not the only one with elections on his mind. As prime minister, Netanyahu can call elections anytime he wants until October 22, 2013, when the current Knesset’s term expires. With his surprisingly stable coalition, Bibi’s government has a very good chance of lasting through its entire term, a rarity in Israeli politics. But he has reason to call for early elections. Obama in campaign mode is much less likely to pick a fight with the prime minister—and complicate Bibi’s reelection bid—than Obama in 2013, flush with victory, beginning his second term.

Perhaps to check the right wing of his party, perhaps to unite the country before conflict with Iran, Netanyahu is trying to get moderates into the Likud leadership. There are rumors, and subsequent denials, about Netanyahu looking to bring Defense Minister Ehud Barak into his party as the Likud number two, keep him as defense minister, and incorporate Barak’s Independence Party list into Likud’s. This move would tip the scales against the well-organized right wing of the Likud party. This faction is to the right of the Likud electorate, and has tried to flex its muscle with the party of late.

Bibi plans another maneuver to consolidate moderate control of the party. He announced that he will run to be the first PM to simultaneously hold the presidency of the Likud Convention, giving him, instead of the right wing party membership, significant power in choosing the party list, and possibly in bringing in Barak.

Bibi may well be entering his time of plenty—a supportive President Obama, promising reelection prospects, and a moderate Likud party that will be better able to coordinate Israel’s efforts against Iran with the United States.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense   |   Tags: ,

Mitt Romney, man of action?

By Lazar Berman

February 1, 2012, 12:53 pm

Mitt Romney “lacks the common touch,” pundits regularly say. He’s been called the “Tin Man,” the robot without a heart. Indeed, searching for “Mitt Romney robot” on Google brings up 2,470,000 results.

You’d think his campaign would have found a way by now to humanize the former governor. They might want to start with one of the two times he and his sons rescued boaters in peril on Lake Winnipesaukee, where Romney spends his summers.

From the Boston Herald, July 6, 2003:

Roughly 300 yards out onto the lake, six adult family members and their dog were floundering in the water, after their boat suddenly sprung a huge leak — sinking in less than 90 seconds, Josh said.

While water temperatures were a balmy 75 degrees, the deepening darkness obscured other boaters’ vision — prompting the victims’ terrified howls as they were buzzed by other vessels cruising in the entrance to Wolfeboro Bay.

Chasing fleeting glimpses of “bobbling heads” in the water, the Romney trio arrived on their two Jet Skis to find three women and three men wearing lifejackets they hadn’t even had time to buckle.

The governor pulled the two younger women aboard his three-seater Jet Ski and zoomed back to shore, while his sons helped the mother of the family onto their vehicle.

In the middle of the rescue, the governor actually took a dunking himself — thrown off the Jet Ski as one anxious boater scrambled aboard and tipped the craft off-balance.

The rescuing Romneys also managed to snatch the family dog, McKenzie, from a watery grave — grabbing the Scottish terrier first because it was the only passenger without a lifejacket.

“It looked like it wasn’t going to last much longer,” said Josh, who held the waterlogged pooch on the ride back to shore.

With Josh and Craig hovering nearby, the three men treaded water until the governor returned and made two more trips to ferry them back…

The weekend incident actually marked the Romney clan’s second heroic rescue on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Several years ago, the elder Romney — who was then heading up the Olympics — and the boys had to rush out in a boat and scoop up a batch of kayakers who were being battered and run onto rocks by fierce winds.

Winnipesaukee can be a dangerous lake, and boaters die in its waters every year. Granted, the story does remind the reader of Romney’s privileged life, with a summer house and multiple Jet Skis, but the image of the governor rushing out to aid distressed neighbors would be a good start in creating an image of a sympathetic man with a strong desire to do the right thing. It is hard to understand why they haven’t been talking about these episodes.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  U.S. Politics   |   Tags: ,

President Obama’s 7 best foreign policy decisions

By Lazar Berman

December 20, 2011, 10:03 am

Though his foreign policy has been hampered by excessive faith in the power of dialogue, lack of consistency, and an inability to find his stride early in a crisis, President Obama has made some good decisions that should be recognized and lauded. Here are his 7 best:

 7. Operation Odyssey Dawn: Yes, we led from behind, took a long time to tip the scales in Libya, and are not entirely sure that the next government will be especially friendly to the United States. But Obama’s decision likely saved thousands of civilians, toppled a dictator responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, and did not cost the United States a single casualty. Would he have saved more lives if he had allowed the United States to help more? Probably.

6. The Afghanistan Surge: In December 2009, President Obama ordered 33,000 additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan, reminiscent of the risky but successful 2007 Iraq surge. In Afghanistan, too, the surge shifted the initiative back to the allies. They drove the Taliban from Kandahar and Helmand strongholds. The new troops also accelerated the training of Afghan security forces and helped local Afghan governments improve their work.

Unfortunately, Obama undercut his own strategy by announcing an arbitrary withdrawal timeline. This  emboldened the Taliban, encouraged Pakistan to maintain support for the Taliban, caused tribal leaders to hedge their cooperation with the United States, and weakened the coalition as NATO countries also began to withdraw.

5. Military aid to Israel: The Obama administration has been quietly maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge. In 2009, the United States supplied Israel with bunker buster bombs, sending a deterrent message to Iran and Hezbollah.

The Obama administration also initiated the allocation of $205 million from Congress to fund Israel’s procurement of Iron Dome batteries. Israel developed the short-range rocket defense system to counter threats from Hamas and Hizbullah using its own money, but the American funding allows Israel to purchase much-needed batteries to protect its borders.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised the military cooperation, noting “this administration is excelling in this. And it could not have happened without the immediate direct support of the president.”

4. Starting to confront China: In July 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waded into the growing tensions in the South China Sea, stating that a peaceful resolution of territorial disputes between China and her neighbors was in the U.S. “national interest.”

This was not the only sign that the Obama administration is getting serious about the challenges posed by China. Last month, America announced its intention to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement with eight other Pacific nations—but not China. Days later, Obama revealed that he would  station 2,500 Marines in northern Australia, a clear message of the importance with which the United States sees the region. Not surprisingly, the Chinese were not thrilled. “China has always opposed any move to complicate the disputes with involvement of external forces,” reacted China’s state news agency Xinhua.

President Obama’s team talks about a “pivot” to Asia, assumedly away from the Middle East, but, as Dan Blumenthal argues, that is not a helpful way to think about this policy. It is hopefully the genesis of a consistent steadfastness against Chinese designs in the region, not an excuse to wash our hands of the Middle East.

3. Drone strikes in Yemen & Pakistan: The drone campaign has been remarkably effective. It rid the world of AQAP cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, and Pakistani AQ commander Ilyas Kashmiri, among many others. According to the New America Foundation, drones strikes have risen from 33 in 2008, 53 in 2009, to a high of 118 in 2010.

Drone strikes are not a panacea, and alone will not tip the scales in our favor. But they have made important contributions to our struggle against terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

2. Opposing Palestinian statehood bid at the UN: When Mahmoud Abbas  decided to forgo efforts for a negotiated settlement with Israel and push for recognition of statehood at the UN, President Obama stood firm in his opposition: “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations … There is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.”

Despite all the talk of the inevitable anger at the United States from the Arab and Muslim world, there were no tangible consequences from the American stance. Most governments don’t actually care enough about the Palestinians to risk harming their interests with the United States over something like this.

1. Operation Geronimo: No surprise here. There was some second-guessing about killing Bin Laden vs. capturing him, the burial at sea, and the size of the SEAL team. But the bottom line is that President Obama approved a risky mission that resulted in the killing of the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the 1998 embassy attacks, and the USS Cole bombing. American forces were also able to grab a huge trove of intelligence on al Qaeda. Though President George W. Bush built many of the military and intelligence capabilities that made the operation a success, President Obama oversaw and ordered the mission, and rightly deserves the credit.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense   |   Tags:

A day that can still live in infamy

By Lazar Berman

December 8, 2011, 9:52 am

To young Americans, Pearl Harbor is distant history, the stuff of black and white newsreel and textbooks. But it is still possible, though not for much longer, to keep alive the reality, the shock, and the national pain caused by the surprise attack. Taking the ferry out to the USS Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor and hearing from a veteran who lived through that day snaps the event into focus. Stand over the rusting hulk of the battleship, observe the slicks of oil that still leak from the hull of the Arizona, and the impact on the visitor is no less moving. Veterans say that the Arizona will stop weeping for her sailors when the last Pearl Harbor survivor passes away and rejoins his crewmates once again. While the Arizona sheds the last of her black tears, we are still fortunate enough to be able hear the story of the attack 70 years ago from the few left among us who lived through that day—if we seek out those who can tell it.

Photo by Erica Rangel Hilbert

As the Greatest Generation leaves us, events like Pearl Harbor that once shaped the worldview of a generation slip into the frozen, dispassionate pages of history. As hard as it is to believe, the attacks of September 11 will recede too as this generation ages and new episodes capture the minds of America’s youth. The challenge for us, as it was for those who lived through Pearl Harbor, is to convey the pain and the confusion as well as the remarkable national response to that attack for generations to come.

Photo by Erica Rangel Hilbert

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Society and Culture   |   Tags: ,

Hating the Jews … in America

By Lazar Berman

December 2, 2011, 4:07 pm

Everyone is talking about one thing in the suburban, heavily Jewish New Jersey town of Highland Park—late Tuesday night, a 52-year-old man shattered the windows of five Jewish-owned businesses in town.

The vandalism followed a spate of episodes this week targeting Jews. On Saturday night, the Rutgers University Hillel House and the New Brunswick Chabad House were vandalized. On Tuesday, Highland Park residents told me, a man in the town’s Kosher Dunkin Donut’s shouted about a second Kristallnacht—the night in November 1938 that across Germany, Jewish homes, shops, and synagogues were destroyed—and got into an altercation with a visibly Jewish college student in the store.

 

Photos: Mason Resnick

Why should anyone get overly worried up over this? It was of course a heinous act, but aren’t these events rare, dealt with properly by police, and condemned by all?

Actually, no. Antisemitic attacks like this aren’t rare in America. The majority of religion-based attacks in the United States are against Jews, according to the FBI. In 2010, for example, 65.4 percent of such attacks were directed at Jews, compared to 13.2 percent against Muslims, the second-most targeted religious group. And the numbers are going up: According to a recent Anti-Defamation League survey, “Antisemitic propensities have increased since 2009”, and 15 percent of the U.S. population, or 45 million Americans, holds views that place them in the “most antisemitic group” based on the ADL’s 11 question index. Still, the perception remains that anti-Semitism is not an American problem.

So why is this happening?

Throughout history, economic malaise turns the angry masses against Jews. Interwar Germany and the rise of Hitler is one example among many. A 2009 poll found that 31 percent of Europeans blame Jews for the financial crisis, and 40 percent of respondents agreed with the classic anti-Semitic view that “Jews have too much power in the business world.” Nor is that classic anti-Semitic trope restricted to Europe: A 2009 Boston Review study found that nearly a quarter of Americans blamed Jews a moderate amount or more for the financial crisis, and 38.4 percent of Americans blamed Jews to some extent for the economic situation.

Among the study’s findings that will surprise those that haven’t been watching some of the more disgraceful elements of the Occupy Wall Street protests: “Democrats were especially prone to blaming Jews: while 32 percent of Democrats accorded at least moderate blame, only 18.4 percent of Republicans did so (a statistically significant difference).”

Perhaps it’s time to stop being embarrassed to talk about anti-Semitism in America. And even more so, time to ask the Left exactly why it has become the more hospitable environment for those who love to hate the Jews.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (8)
Categories:  Society and Culture   |   Tags:

Iran NIE Redux

By Lazar Berman

November 17, 2011, 2:04 pm

With the release of the November 8 IAEA report and revelations about the Iranian assassination plot in Washington, D.C., let’s take a look back to the excited reactions to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from prominent liberal commentators and politicians, some of whom have since entered the White House. The 2007 NIE, though it contains explicitly political recommendations, a bizarrely narrow definition of a “nuclear weapons program,” and no recognition of the crucial role that civilian enrichment plays in developing nuclear weapons capability, argued with “high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

The NIE itself and reaction to it, particularly in light of ample contemporary and subsequent evidence to the contrary, underscore the desire to downplay the Iranian threat, to cherry pick intelligence to support a political agenda, and to incentivize the intelligence community to politicize its findings to embarrass an inconvenient president.

So without further ado, here’s a list of liberal reactions to the 2007 NIE:

Keith Olbermann: “A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized … that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience. Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush.”

Chris Matthews: “I have to tell you I rarely get up in the morning and look at all the papers and I’m happy. To me, it was like Christmas morning. It was much better even than Chavez losing that election the other day. My God, I thought we were heading toward war in Iran, and now it looks like we‘re going to be able to avoid it for at least—at least 10 years.”

Chris Matthews: “Senator Biden, I know you’ve been the foreign affairs expert for the Democratic Party. Were you snowed? Were you shocked to hear we do not face a weapons system under production in Iran?”

Senator Joseph Biden: “No. I never believed we were. And I said it. I’ve been trying to engage Iran way back five years ago with Dick Lugar and others, trying to engage them.”

…

Senator Joseph Biden: “With all due respect with anybody who thinks that pressure brought this [Iran giving up their nuclear weapons program] about, let’s get this straight. In 2003, they stopped their program. You cannot trust this president. He is not trustworthy.”

Senator Barack Obama: “It is absolutely clear that this administration and President Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. They need, now, to aggressively move on the diplomatic front. They should have stopped the rattling—should never have started it.”

Senator Harry Reid: “In light of yesterday’s remarkable new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, I urge the president at his press conference today to announce a top-to-bottom review of his Iran policy and a diplomatic surge to advance U.S. interests with regard to Iran. He should announce that his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are prepared to meet anytime, anywhere with their Iranian counterparts to conduct vigorous diplomacy to advance U.S. interests and address the challenges of Iran.”

And last but not least, Center for American Progress, the brain trust of the Obama administration:

But even with Cheney’s meddling, this NIE makes it clear that there is no imminent danger from Iran’s nuclear program.

Well, at least they can say that Iran didn’t get a bomb on Bush’s watch. Obama should be so lucky.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East, Politics and Public Opinion   |   Tags:

AEI Debate Prep: Breaking the peace process paradigm

By Lazar Berman

November 4, 2011, 9:58 am

This post is part of an ongoing series preparing for the AEI/CNN/Heritage National Security & Foreign Policy GOP presidential debate on November 22. See the rest of the posts here.

Despite coming to office with very different worldviews, recent American presidents eventually fall into surprisingly similar sets of assumptions regarding Middle East peace once the campaign ends and governing begins.

This paradigm rests on several core beliefs:

1)  American involvement in Israeli-Palestinian talks is helpful and will bring results.

2)  Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a significant impediment to the peace process.

3)  Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would harm American interests in the region.

4)  Land-for-peace is a realistic formula for creating a lasting agreement.

5)  Solving the Israeli-Palestinian question will make it easier for America to achieve other aims in the Middle East.

The dominant American paradigm has not brought actual peace much closer. Instead, successive U.S. administrations have dis-incentivized concessions by the Palestinian Authority (PA) by moving the starting point for negotiations closer to the Palestinian position over time. Without the Palestinians conceding anything on refugees, recognizing Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state, or allowing Israeli control (or even Jewish presence) beyond the 1949 armistice lines, negotiations have moved from a discussion over some form of Palestinian autonomy, to U.S. support of Palestinian statehood, to areas of Jerusalem itself being described as settlements. Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank without a comprehensive peace agreement is the worst possible outcome and recipe for years of bloodshed—but as long as U.S. administrations keep moving the goalposts, why wouldn’t the Palestinians conclude that this scenario becomes more likely the longer they wait?

“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus”—Okay, we get it. The Republican candidates must move beyond repeating that mantra. If they intend to take American policy in a new direction, what exactly will that look like—will they push for Israel-PA negotiations? Do they consider the construction of new homes within the borders of Israeli communities in the West Bank illegitimate? Is Jerusalem Israel’s capital, and if so, why is America’s embassy on the Tel Aviv shore? If a Palestinian state does come into being, how do they intend to ensure that it is not susceptible to religious extremism, anti-American policies, and Iranian influence?

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags: , ,

Winners and Losers in the Shalit Deal

By Lazar Berman

October 11, 2011, 6:32 pm

Though it comes as a surprise to many, Hamas and Israel are both announcing that they have finally reached a deal to free Gilad Shalit in exchange for the release of 1,000 Palestinian and Israeli Arab prisoners from Israeli jails.  If the deal goes through, Shalit will be the first kidnapped IDF soldier to return home alive. Other kidnapped IDF soldiers were either killed in captivity, never returned, or died during the rescue attempt.

For PM Bibi Netanyahu, today’s deal likely strengthens him politically, but there is potential for long-term damage. He has presided over a surprisingly stable coalition, and has seen his popularity rise since his speech at the UN General Assembly. Of course, this achievement could very well change into a liability if the 1,000 released prisoners set off another violent uprising against Israel. The big question that remains is the names on the list of released prisoners, and how many of them have Israeli blood on their hands. Though there will be great excitement in Israel at Shalit’s return, popular opinion has been mixed over a potential deal. A June Haaretz poll reported that 63% of Israelis favored a deal to free Shalit, but many Israelis still see the families of terror victims being ignored as the killers of their loved ones are set free. Right-wing Knesset ministers from the Land of Israel Lobby opposed the deal, saying, “we can already see before us the future victims of these terrorists.”

As I have written before, Egypt’s security interests vis-à-vis Israel have not changed significantly since the fall of the Mubarak regime, though public opinion must now be taken into account. This deal further emphasizes that there is stability in the security cooperation between Egypt and Israel. These interests include mediating between Israel and Hamas, cooperating with Israel on containing Hamas in Gaza, and maintaining control over the Bedouin tribes of the Sinai.

Hamas could be the big winner in this episode. They can make the argument that their tactics have delivered the tangible results of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the release of prisoners, while the PA’s UN strategy and security cooperation with the U.S. and Israel has produced very little. There will be a theoretical incentive to kidnap more soldiers, but after Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, Hamas is not looking to pick another fight with Israel. And Israel will be less restrained toward Hamas without an Israeli soldier at Hamas’s mercy. Still, after a period of waning popularity, this might be just what they are looking for.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags: ,

A State Free of Jews—Why Does This Sound Familiar?

By Lazar Berman

September 15, 2011, 9:27 am

In the hullabaloo around Palestinian efforts to gain UN recognition as a state, there is almost no discussion about what kind of country Palestine will be.

A country free of Jews, if the Palestinians have their way.

In a meeting with reporters, PLO Ambassador to the United States Maen Areikat said, in response to a question about the rights of minorities in a future Palestine, “After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated.”

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Egypt—to name a few—have almost entirely cleansed themselves of their ancient Jewish communities. It seems a Palestinian state would be no different than its neighbors—dangerous for non-Muslim, non-Arab minorities, vulnerable to violent Islamist groups, and susceptible to the influence of America’s adversaries.

Then again, perhaps this should not surprise us. After all, Palestinian Authority TV has long called Jews “apes and pigs” and broadcast official PA sermons with messages like, “The Jews … are the enemies of Allah and His messenger, the enemies of humanity in general, and of the Palestinians in particular.”

And these are the moderates.

This is not to say that the Palestinians should not have their own state when they meet the minimum standards of responsible behavior as a polity. But the United States and European nations must make it clear that if Palestinians are serious about building Palestine and not about destroying Israel, the only path is through negotiation and reconciliation, not using a state as a means of perpetuating violent attacks and anti-Semitism against their Jewish neighbors.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags:

After Stunning Performance, an Example of Class and Humility

By Lazar Berman

September 14, 2011, 9:09 am

After Tom Brady’s historic performance this week against the Dolphins on Monday Night Football, he reminded us why he is an exception in a professional sports world that focuses too often on individual performance and inflated egos. Brady threw for a team-record 517 yards—fifth most in NFL history—and four touchdowns en route to a 38-24 victory. But in the post-game interview with the on-field ESPN reporter, Brady refused to mention his own performance, and only talked about winning as a team:

Reporter: This was a performance for the ages. You got to feel pretty good. What does it feel like to come out here, in Miami, a tough place to play and do this?

Brady: I always feel great winning. I mean, that’s what we set out to do, and I think this team has been very short term focused all of training camp. I think we worry about the practice each day, and then the preseason games, and then this week was all about coming down here and winning the game.

When asked about Wes Welker’s 99-yard touchdown catch, Brady even stopped himself from calling the Patriots “my team,” even though he has been its undisputed leader for a decade.

Brady: Wes is an incredible player, and I’ve been lucky to have on—to have him play for us… He’s a huge reason why this offense is successful.

Whatever team you root for, athletes like Tom Brady set an important example for our young athletes and schoolchildren, demonstrating that professional success, even dominance, comes from a sense of purpose and dedication to one’s craft, not from self-promotion.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  General, Society and Culture   |   Tags:

Terrorist Attacks a Wake-Up Call for Egypt and Israel

By Lazar Berman

August 18, 2011, 12:43 pm

At noon today in Israel, terrorists infiltrated from Sinai and initiated a series of attacks in the desert near Eilat. The Israeli press reports that terrorists in a private vehicle initiated the first attack. Dressed in blue jumpsuits, they hopped out of their vehicle and fired on a bus making its way to Eilat. Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers rushing to the scene were injured by explosive devices planted near the attack site. Soon thereafter, another terrorist squad fired mortars into Israel from Egypt. Finally, at 1:10 pm, anti-tank missiles were fired at two private cars, killing six and wounding seven. The latest report from Israeli newspapers is seven dead and dozens injured.

The attacks come after an operation by Egypt earlier this week to reestablish control over the northern Sinai, an area rife with Bedouin smuggling gangs and al Qaeda-inspired militants. One thousand soldiers and policemen, in tanks and APCs, participated in “Operation Eagle.” Since the peace treaty with Israel contains strict guidelines for deployment in the Sinai, the operation was conducted with Israeli knowledge and assent. Egyptian soldiers killed an Islamist militant in El-Arish, and arrested almost 20 others.

Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt and Israel cooperated closely to combat terrorism in the Sinai and Gaza. Now that he has fallen from power, Sinai has become increasingly lawless, with regular attacks on the gas pipeline from Egypt to Israel.

Much has been written about the possibility that Israeli-Egyptian relations will deteriorate dramatically as a result of the Arab Spring, with some fearing initially that Egypt might even pull out of the peace treaty entirely.

But this ignores the fact that Egypt and Israel have real mutual security interests. Neither country has any desire to see Hamas members passing unhindered from Gaza to Sinai. Al Qaeda-linked terrorists and Hezbollah operatives using the Sinai as a base threaten both Egypt and Israel. A continuation of attacks on Israel from the Sinai will make it harder for the new Egyptian rulers to make the case that they can be trusted with billions of dollars of American military aid. Hosting the Gilad Schalit negotiations, Egypt continues to serve an important role in Israeli-Palestinian relations. And both Israel and Egypt oppose increased Iranian/Hezbollah presence in the area.

For Israel, the attacks mean that it will have to speed construction of the security fence and observation technology on the Egyptian border, and will likely increase troop presence there. Discussions about slashing the Israeli defense budget to meet the demands of the ongoing social justice protests will come to an end with this attack.

Today’s attacks are a wake-up call to both Israel and Egypt. Israel will have to assume that the Egyptians are unable to guarantee a secure border for the time being, and Egypt will have to invest much more attention and resources to securing the Sinai peninsula.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East, War on Terror   |   Tags:

Where They Still Celebrate the Victory Over Japan

By Lazar Berman

August 8, 2011, 6:53 pm

Rhode Islanders are staying home today, marking a holiday that only they observe. Victory Day, or Victory over Japan (V-J) Day, celebrates the  Japanese surrender that ended World War II. Though the initial surrender announcement came on August 14, 1945, and the surrender document was signed on September 2, Rhode Islanders have been observing the second Monday of August as Victory Day since 1948. Other states that had recognized the holiday repealed it in the following decades, and when Arkansas abolished the holiday in 1975, Rhode Island was the only state left still observing it.

Why does Rhode Island, of all states, still mark V-J Day, and has the time come for it to follow the lead of the other 49 states?

I suspect that the answer to the first question is rather prosaic. The strength of Rhode Island’s public sector unions makes it difficult to abolish a paid public holiday. But should it cease its observance? After all, there are very few World War II veterans left, and many in Rhode Island treat the day as any other summer holiday.

V-J Day keeps alive the magnitude of the event, and even those who use the day to sail in Narragansett Bay or visit the beaches in Newport have more awareness of the event it marks than they would if it were abolished. It is easy to forget how difficult and bloody the Pacific war was up until the very end, and the million Allied casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of the home islands. It was a war that opened with humiliating and painful setbacks, but the determination and courage of the U.S. armed forces and citizens slowly but surely turned the tide.

The fact that the 1945 victory is receding into history along with the men who made it possible renders continued observance of V-J Day even more significant. It also highlights how long it has been since America’s last unambiguous and total victory. With the unconditional surrender, America was able to create a prosperous Japan on its own terms, and an American ally in a vital region. But total victory often means total war, and the bombing of Tokyo, siege, and atomic bombs were all major contributors to the Japanese surrender.

Were these means justified? Does America still have what it takes to force unconditional surrender? Will we ever face a war quite like WWII again—a conventional clash of major powers, with clear moral lines and a final, and deeply constructive, military and political resolution? These important questions are open to debate, and observance of V-J day reminds us that these questions, as well as the past sacrifice of our fighting men, remain worthy of our reflection and attention today.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Asia Pacific, Foreign and Defense   |   Tags:

This Time, Israel Wins Long before Confrontation

By Lazar Berman

July 22, 2011, 1:04 pm

“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” – Sun Tzu

On Tuesday, the much-anticipated “Freedom Flotilla 2” finally made contact with the Israeli navy.  Instead of the planned 1,500 activists on 10 ships sailing en masse to challenge the Israeli  naval blockade on Hamas-run Gaza, one small, pathetic boat sputtered across the Mediterranean carrying 16 passengers—ten activists, three crewmembers, and three journalists.

The flotilla organizers lost long before the little yacht Dignite-Al Karama was boarded by Israeli navy seals this week. The flotilla sought to embarrass the IDF and diminish support for the blockade, either by making it to Gaza, provoking the navy into using excessive force, or at the very least, broadcasting Israeli cruelty to the world while their boats are stopped and boarded. They accomplished none of these things. In an overwhelming and complete success, Israel managed, through a mix of diplomacy, legal maneuvering, deterrence, and possibly sabotage, to cause the coalition of activists/provocateurs to crumble before it even left the port. In the end, the overmatched activists looked like naïve amateurs, unable to cope with the whirlwind of challenges Israel and its allies presented.

In their zeal to embarrass Israel, the activists seem not to have considered the costs for countries cooperating with the flotilla, or the benefits of helping Israel keep the flotilla from confronting Israeli forces. They also never expected Turkey to side with Israel. Turkey allowed members of the Islamic charity and Hamas-sympathizing IHH to board the 2010 flotilla ship Mavi Marmara, and lost nine citizens after they attacked Israeli commandoes boarding the ship. Turkey was much more cooperative this time around. In April, the IHH announced it was pulling out of the flotilla until after the June 12 elections in Turkey. After the elections, the IHH withdrew entirely, citing technical problems on the ship as a pretext. The Turkish government, in all likelihood, pressured the IHH to stay home. Erdogan’s government, already seen as increasingly problematic in much of the West, was not eager to be affiliated with a Hamas-supporting flotilla just as the UN report on the 2010 flotilla came out. That report confirms that the blockade is legal, and that while Israel used excessive force in 2010, its investigation was fair and impartial, while Turkey’s was anything but.

Continue reading →

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags:

Rubbish from Ibish

By Lazar Berman

July 15, 2011, 9:17 am

On Foreign Policy’s website, Hussein Ibish, senior research fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, weighs in on the Israeli “boycott bill”:

Perhaps the greatest irony is that the Knesset members who passed the “Boycott Bill” and their supporters do not seem to understand that boycotts, divestment, and sanctions that are carefully targeted against the occupation and the settlements but scrupulously avoid targeting Israel legitimize rather than delegitimize the Israeli state. They say, in effect: We do not want to buy or sell the products of the illegitimate settlement program, but we are happy to buy or sell Israeli goods because Israel is a legitimate state. By carefully targeting the occupation and the settlements, such boycotts implicitly recognize the legitimacy of Israel itself.

Jeffrey Goldberg, usually quite thoughtful, seems to quote Ibish approvingly on his Atlantic blog (while expressing ambivalence at best about boycotts of Jews in the West Bank).

What Ibish either does not realize or chooses not to mention, is that many, if not most, boycotts of Israel do not “scrupulously avoid targeting Israel,” and openly call for boycotts against all Israeli products, academics, and cultural institutions. Even campaigns with the pretense of focusing exclusively on settlements make unrealistic demands on pre-1967 Israel. They pledge to continue their activism until descendants of Palestinians who left or were expelled during the 1948 war are allowed to settle within Israel, thus eliminating the only Jewish state in the world. Hardly selective targeting of “the occupation and the settlements,” in Ibish’s words.

If only the major boycotts against Israel focused on the settlements, as Ibish imagines they do. Let’s see how carefully boycott campaigns carefully target settlements, and not pre-1967 Israel:

Continue reading →

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East   |   Tags:

Otto von Habsburg, RIP — Enemy of the Nazis and Soviets, Friend of a Free Europe

By Lazar Berman

July 7, 2011, 11:36 am

With all the dolts, villains, and incompetents the European royal families produced over the centuries, it is easy to forget the dignified and inspiring figures these houses had the potential to produce.

Otto von Habsburg, head of the House of Habsburg, was one of those people. His extraordinary life came to a peaceful end this week. (Click here for his impressive list of titles—”King of Jerusalem” is one.) At the age of 98, Habsburg—who marched in the funeral of Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary, struggled against the Nazis, and organized a protest that helped bring down the Soviets—died in his home in Poecking, Germany.

He lived through, and participated in, many of the seminal events of the 20th century. The definitive book about Habsburg’s life—Uncrowned Emperor: Life and Times of Otto von Habsburg, by Gordon Brook-Shepherd—recounts his first memory in the crowd of guests at old Franz Joseph’s funeral, “walking among the skyscrapers,” a four-year-old boy dressed in resplendent white in the sea of black clad royals.

After Austria lost World War I, Habsburg had to flee his country with the rest of his family, entering a life of exile in several European countries. At the age of nine, little Otto became head of the House of Habsburg after the death of his father, Charles I.

Habsburg’s first substantive fight came during Hitler’s rise to power, as the Fuhrer made clear his designs on Austria. Though barred from entering the country, Habsburg sought to become Chancellor of Austria in 1938 to lead the fight against the Nazi invasion. His refusal to bow to Hitler’s demands infuriated the German, who retaliated by naming the Anschluss plan “Operation Otto.” Though he was not in step with the feelings of Austrians at the time, who turned out in enthusiastic droves to greet Hitler, Habsburg used his connections to arrange for the escape of many thousands of Austrians, including 15,000 Jews.

His efforts to fight tyranny in Europe continued after the war. During the Hungarian uprising in 1956, Habsburg appealed to Western governments to support the brave protesters. He continued to fight for his beloved Hungary after the rebellion was crushed, and served as a great inspiration to exiled Hungarians.

Habsburg persisted in his campaign against Communism. He helped organize the pan-European picnic demonstration, the first rips in the Iron Curtain. As a result of the demonstration, the Austro-Hungarian border was opened for several hours in 1989, allowing 600 East Germans to escape to the West months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Helmut Kohl described the event as the place where “the first stone was knocked out of the Wall.”

As a member of the European Parliament in the Bavarian Christian Social Union, and president of the Pan-European League, Habsburg fought for the formerly Communist states of eastern Europe to be allowed into the EU. Fluent in seven languages, he had an intimate personal connection to many of these countries. As a faithful Catholic, Otto von Habsburg was not afraid to protect the Church’s reputation with bodily force. When the notoriously anti-Catholic MEP from Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley, called John Paul II an “anti-Christ” as the Pope addressed the Strasbourg Parliament, Habsburg was among the ministers who grabbed Paisley and shoved him unceremoniously out of the chamber.

Like most royals, Habsburg was not free from controversy. When fascist Spanish dictator Francisco Franco offered Habsburg the Spanish throne in 1961, Habsburg declined, but praised him as a benevolent “dictator of the south American type . . . not totalitarian like Hitler or Stalin.” He also angered some when he claimed in 2008 that Austrians were victims of (Austrian-born) Hitler, rather than complicit allies.

But overall, Otto von Habsburg embodied the royal ideal, and was a noble in every sense of the word. In his veins coursed the blood of European kings. He understood the importance his family held to the proud peoples of the old Austro-Hungarian empire. At his father’s inauguration as King of Hungary, he witnessed for the first time the gravity and emotional attachment with which the country viewed its sovereign, whose very person embodied the triumphs and defeats of Magyar history.

Though often derided as expensive anachronisms in an age of democracy, royal houses of Europe still have a role to play. As heads of state, they are not sullied by the often dirty machinations of politics. The recent royal weddings—Prince William of the United Kingdom to Kate Middleton, Prince Albert II of Monaco to Charlene Wittstock—are reminders of the power and purpose that these monarchies can still inspire. Figures like Queen Elizabeth II and Otto von Habsburg embody what royals can be at their best—patriotic, principled, and dignified symbols around which peoples can rally, and in whom nations’ history can live on.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Europe and Russia, Politics and Public Opinion, Society and Culture   |   Tags:

Attack on Jew in Arab Neighborhood Gets Little Press

By Lazar Berman

June 28, 2011, 11:46 am

On Sunday, an Israeli Arab, on his way back from work, relied on his GPS to guide him through a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem on a shortcut home.

A Jewish child in the neighborhood spotted the man, a 28-year-old worker in a moving company, and began yelling “Arab! Arab!” In seconds, Jewish children came running from all sides, and began pelting the man with stones. Bloodied and afraid for his life, the Arab man pleaded with the children to stop, but the onslaught continued.

Finally, an old man from the neighborhood pulled the man out of his car and into his house, where they called the hospital.

A heinous, racist assault, right? What kind of society can pretend they seek peace when the first instinct of their children is to assault Arab drivers? Clearly, these children are being taught to hate.

You haven’t heard about this story because only the Israeli press covered it, and because it actually happened the other way around.

Nir Nachshon followed his GPS into the Jerusalem Arab neighborhood of Issawiya, where children of all ages attacked him with stones, sticks, kicks, and punches. Only the brave actions of one of the village elders and his sons saved his life.

The implications of this incident are truly chilling. These are children, living in the heart of Jerusalem next to Hebrew University, and their immediate reaction to a Jew driving through their neighborhood is to beat him mercilessly. When he begged for them to stop, said Nachshon, “I looked especially at the small children, expecting to find a little sympathy there,” but found none.

It’s not hard to imagine the reaction from the press, the United Nations, and a myriad of NGOs if it were Jewish children attacking an Arab driver. But when it’s a Jewish Israeli clubbed almost to death, they show about as much compassion as the children of Issawiya.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (5)
Categories:  Foreign and Defense, Middle East, Society and Culture   |   Tags:

« Older Entries

The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI