Australia announces more Iran sanctions
ABC News, July 29, 2010
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/29/2968002.htm

The Federal Government has announced more sanctions against Iran as part of international effort to dissuade the country from pursuing its nuclear ambitions.

The sanctions target energy resources which could be used to support Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says the move follows similar sanctions imposed by the European Union early this week.

"We are fully implementing Security Council Resolution 1929, imposing additional autonomous sanctions for the first time, sanctions against companies involved in Iran's oil and gas sector and a range of other measures," he said.

On Tuesday the European Union announced sanctions that target the core of Iran's economy.

The sanctions have been described as the toughest ever, with complete bans on new investment, equipment and technology in Iran's oil and gas industry.

The country has huge oil and gas reserves but thanks to decades of sanctions it cannot refine enough to supply its own domestic demand.

Canada has also backed the move with its own set of sanctions also targeting the energy sector.

Close article

Whatever happens, Israel can always count on U.S. evangelicals
Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz, July 22, 2010
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s-a/focus-u-s-a-whatever-happens-israel-can-always-count-on-u-s-evangelicals-1.303452

Thousands of Christians from across the United States descended on Capitol Hill on Thursday in order to lobby Washington lawmakers on behalf of Israel.

Organizers of the event, called Christians United for Israel, showed their strength by lobbying over 85 percent U.S. Congress offices.

Attendees of this year's gathering are visibly different from those in the past: about one in five of the 5,000 participants was from a Hispanic Church.

“Last year we had about 300 Hispanics, but this year we started specific outreach to the Hispanic churches where Spanish is a language of worship”, says David Brog, the executive director of CUFI. “We have started an outreach to African-Americans. It was always our goal to broaden our base ethnically, geographically and theologically”.

Yet despite the attempt to reach out to traditionally left-leaning minority groups, Democrats are few and far between at the conference.

“We are determined to be bipartisan, we always invite Democrats but typically we get better answers from the Republicans”, says Brog.

Democrats' reluctance might have something to do with CUFI's relations with activists on the right wing of Israeli politics.

In May, CUFI leader Pastor John Hagee wrote in an op-ed in The Forward newspaper that “we will never, never oppose Israeli efforts to advance peace".

Yet Hagee has courted controversy with by offering financial backing to some settler organizations.

“Pastor Hagee gives away a lot of money each year," says Brog. "Last year he gave away approximately 10 million dollars and over 95 percent of it went to charities within the green line. About 5 percent went to humanitarian projects over the green line. Almost all of it went to the areas that will be within the Israeli state following the agreement. With limited exceptions he hasn’t been a really big supporter of settlements. It has not been a focus of his giving and it certainly hasn’t been the focus of his advocacy."

“CUFI stands for supporting an Israeli democratically elected government,” he said. “I noted from the audience that a large majority at the Capitol Hill supports a two-state solution. There is no need to get into an argument about it, that’s not our point."

Another controversial issue has involved CUFI's support for the Im Tirtzu group, which has launched high-profile attacks on the New Israel Fund, another charity that backs a range of organizations on the liberal-left, including Breaking the Silence and B'Tselem.

“Pastor Hagee has a panel advising him whom to fund, which consists of three Jewish friends of his. If you want to blame anyone for Im Tirtzu, blame us,” said Brog. “Pastor John Hagee had never heard of Im Tirtzu. I met the Im Tirtzu guys and they told us how they are trying to teach Zionism in college campuses. We were impressed and they got some funding. The decision has not been made yet about this year, but the entire issue will be revisited in light of their emphasis last year”.

But whatever the case, CUFI remains capable of provoking anger among its opponents.

Outside the conference hall, a small group of protesters gathered outside the conference center, some of them from the pacifistic anti-settlement group "Code Pink" and some with posters calling Israel “Satan” and Pastor Hagee a “Zionist murderer”.

One conference participant grew visibly upset, approaching several protesters and hitting their posters with his bag

"I was not even talking to him, I was giving an interview to a journalist, and this guy was coming by and swung his bag at me and then he comes to other participants and swung it at them as well," said a protester with the "Code Pink" group, Medea Benjamin, who intends to complain to the police about the incident.

The delegate who assaulted the protesters was quickly taken inside, where Pastor Hagee used his speech to slam left-wing critics of Israel, such as former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who he said "should be ashamed".

“I don’t know who this gentleman is. Like any conference, we haven’t screened people, we don’t know them," Brog said of the incident. "I don’t know if this man was Jewish or Christian, but obviously it’s not a very Christian response."

The scuffle was just another more sign - if any were neede that one Christian response Israel can always count on is backing from U.S. Evangelicals.

“Harry Truman, who recognized Israel 11 minutes after its creation, was a member of the evangelical group American Christians for Israel, " Israel's ambassador, Michael Oren, told delegates.

Sixty-two years on, it seems Israeli governments on both sides of the poltical divide have done nothing to diminish that support.

Close article

Un-Christian Responses to the Middle East
Amy-Jill Levine, ABC Religion and Ethics, July 21, 2010
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/07/21/2959928.htm

Those who would justify as morally appropriate any action Israel takes, from permitting the seizure of Palestinian lands by settlers to permitting the daily abuse of Palestinians at checkpoints, are just as much in error as those would justify Hamas's goal of wiping Israel off the map or who find the blowing up of Israeli pizza restaurants to be permissible resistance.

Such polarization of views is not limited to political or religious fundamentalists. Alas, polarizing language coupled with cries for polarizing action now permeates large portions of the liberal left, and especially church-based peace activists. With their one-sided condemnation of Israel, their cacophonous calls for BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) and their inability to distinguish legitimate critique of Israeli policy from old-fashioned anti-semitism, Christian peace movements, no matter how well intended, too often fail at both moral witness and political strategy.

The failure in moral witness can be seen in the Kairos document, "A Moment of Truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering." Composed and signed by several Palestinian Christian clergy and laypeople and endorsed by numerous Christian assemblies across the globe, the document not only expresses its respect and high esteem for "all those who have given their life for our nation" (one thinks immediately of suicide bombers, after whom schools and playgrounds are named and whose deaths Palestinian children are taught to celebrate, if not emulate), but also in slippery language that eliminates Israel's legitimacy.

The Kairos document insists that "true Christian theology is a theology of love and solidarity with the oppressed," unless, it appears, the oppressed are Jewish communities in the Middle East, attacked by Arabs even before 1948, expelled from Arab countries after the establishment of Israel, and under constant threat if not assault from the invasion in 1948 to the rockets raining today on Israeli towns.

"A Moment of Truth" speaks of the establishment of Israel as a colonialist enterprise, in which "The West sought to make amends for what Jews had endured in the countries of Europe, but it made amends on our account and in our land." But the land was also the land of the Jews, who have lived there consistently from before the time of Jesus.

And so, when "A Moment of Truth" insists that the "Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God" and condemns the "clear apartheid" faced by the Palestinian people "for more than six decades" - that is, since 1948 - it denies Israel both theological and political legitimacy.

Apparently, Palestinian national hopes are theologically justified; Jewish ones, in existence for two millennia, are merely manifestations of colonialist hegemony and European guilt.

A second unhelpful move is the condemnation of Zionism, whether by comparing it to "racism" or to Nazism. Zionism is the national aspiration of the Jewish people to a homeland. But according to some of these Christian activities: Jews who seek a state in a land they have inhabited for millennia, a land that is and always has been a part of Judaism's sacred scripture and liturgy, are racists. If Palestinians, or any other group, seek a state, they are legitimate claimants. The double standard is staggering.

Related is a third failure, the frequently heard identification of Israeli civil society with South African apartheid, a view found not only in the Kairos document, but also throughout the Christian left, from US President Jimmy Carter's book, Peace, Not Apartheid, to Ben White's Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide.

Comparisons of political systems invariably fail the test of accuracy; while Israel - like Australia, the US and all other countries - is by no means free of discrimination, Israeli Arabs are full citizens with Knesset representation, access to all Israeli social services, freedom of speech, and so on.

It would be far more constructive to let the specific abuses regarding settlers' illegally seizing Palestinian lands, the hardships created by the wall and the blockade, and so on, be explicitly named.

When Christian activists then use religious rhetoric, matters go from bad to worse. Despite the fact that I write as a supporter of Americans for Peace Now (APN), a US group affiliated with the Israeli group Shalom Achshav, I have a hard time finding any sense of solidarity with Christian groups such as Sabeel, the Palestinian Jerusalem-based centre for liberation theology.

I find distressing their comparisons of Palestinians to Jesus and the Israelis to, well, Christ-killers; surely that old canard can be put to rest. I find appalling their claims that Jesus's "commitment to the poor ... ministry of healing ... justice and liberation of the oppressed ... constituted a paradigm shift." There is no paradigm shift. To say so is to erase all of the Scripture Jesus himself held as sacred.

The end, a Palestinian state, does not justify the means, anti-Semitic comments by commission and omission.

In terms of failed political strategy, there is the popularity of the move toward BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions), in the hopes that the Israeli government will change its policy on settlements, or that the settlements will vanish. This move appeared most recently with the British Methodist Church, but it also has global traction among liberal Christians.

BDS is no more helpful than Israel's own attempt to cripple the Hamas government by border closings and blockades. In each case, the insiders become not more open in their policies, but more rigid in their ideologies.

What may help, instead of inaccurate, inflammatory rhetoric and symbolic economic moves that lead nowhere, is creative collaboration between Christian peace activists and Israeli and Jewish peace advocates.

On 7 June 2010, more than 10,000 Israelis attended a peace rally in Tel Aviv (of course, news of this rally did not receive coverage by those Christian peace activists that find it more helpful to view all Israeli Jews as fascists): it's time for the Christian activists to activate such alliances.

Were Christians and Jews, both committed to a two-state solution, to unite, less polarizing rhetoric and more political advantage can be gained.

For example, rather than divestment, Christians might consider creative reinvestment: in companies that bring together Israelis and Palestinians, in the peace movement within Israel, in building up homes for Palestinians in the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

Rather than sanctions against Israel, the better policy is to keep up the pressure, through governmental channels, on all power-brokers. The "Heads of Churches Statement on Palestine and Israel" (signed in Canberra on 4 June 2008) is a good start.

Israel needs to stop permitting settlements; Palestinians need to stop sending rockets into Israeli territory; Israel needs to open the Gaza blockade and help the Palestinians develop their own economy; Hamas needs to change its charter and goal.

The present stand-off cannot continue: it is already draining Israel's moral and economic resources from the inside, and it is prolonging the suffering and increasing the militancy of the Palestinian population.

I wonder what a peace rally would look like if flags of both Israel and Palestine were flown - for that would be the image of a two-state resolution. I wonder what it would be like if "Friends of Palestine" and other such groups could also be "Friends of Israel": the two need not be mutually exclusive.

Shalom Achshav has been widely excoriated in Israel for appearing at rallies where the Palestinian flag was also on display. And in Sheikh Jallah in East Jerusalem on 7 March 2010, when Shalom Achshav members came to support Palestinians in their struggle against the settlers, Palestinian participants demanded that those flags not be displayed.

I wonder what it would look like to have both Jewish Israelis - those who recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, a land in which Jews have lived and which has been inextricably connected to Judaism since before the time of Jesus - and Christian and Muslim Palestinians, who trace their own presence on the land back through the generations, working together. That would be the true unity of the children of Abraham.

I wonder what the Middle East would be like if the fundamentalists in all three of the Abrahamic traditions, and of any political persuasion, would focus their energies less on real estate than on love of G-d, of neighbour, and of stranger, as all are commanded to do in their respective traditions.

For example, and here I speak as a Jew looking at my own Scripture, Abraham and Lot managed to share land (Genesis 13.8-12), and Ezekiel 47.22-23 counsels apportioning the land.

Yes, the images are idealistic. But surely Jews and Christians are better working together than hurling invective, or rocks, or rockets against each other. One can be Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Israel, and Pro-Peace.

Amy-Jill Levine is E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, Graduate Department of Religion, and Program in Jewish Studies. Her most recent book is "The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus" (HarperOne).

Close article

A nice new shopping mall opened today in Gaza: Will the media report on it?
Author, MidEast Dispatch, July 17, 2010
www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001127.html

Please scroll down below for photos of the new shopping mall that opened today in Gaza. I have also attached new photos and film of Gaza’s hotels, beauty spas, swimming pools, beaches and street markets - images the BBC, New York Times and others refuse to show you.

Meanwhile, Hamas are deliberately leaving some Gazans in plastic tents, in order to fool gullible Western journalists and politicians who are brought to Gaza to witness a staged “humanitarian crisis.”

Two days ago the EU pledged tens of millions of EU taxpayers’ euros to add to the hundreds of millions already donated to Gaza this year, much of which has been misused to procure arms.

UPDATE, Sunday July 18, 2010:

Some journalists who subscribe to this list have asked me for a quote. You are welcome to use the following.

Political and media commentator Tom Gross said:

“On a day when (because EU Foreign Policy Chief Baroness Ashton is in Gaza) the BBC and other media have featured extensive reports all day long on what they term the dire economic situation in Gaza, why are they not mentioning the new shopping mall that opened there yesterday?

“When leading news outlets mention the so-called humanitarian flotillas from Turkey, why do they omit the fact that life expectancy and literacy rates are higher, and infant mortality rates are lower in Gaza than corresponding rates in Turkey? Have they considered that perhaps the humanitarian flotillas ought to be going in the other direction, towards Turkey?”

WHAT HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE?

Last year, this website revealed to a Western audience pictures of the bustling, crowded food markets of Gaza that the Western media refuse to show you. Earlier this year, I reported the new Olympic-size swimming pool of Gaza (no shortage of building materials or water here) and the luxury restaurants, where you can “dine on steak au poivre and chicken cordon bleu”. (Over 300,000 people have viewed photos on that webpage since May, according to my website monitor.)

Now I want to draw attention to the fact that this morning, on the day that the EU again criticized Israel (but not Egypt) for supposedly oppressing Gazans, on a day when the BBC TV world news headlines again lead with a report about how “devastated the economy in Gaza is,” an impressive new shopping mall opened in Gaza (photos below, followed by a selection of other photos from Gaza).

Will those Western journalists who write stories about “starvation” in Gaza and compare it to a “concentration camp” report this?

Instead of reporting on the mall opening, the British-based international satellite broadcaster Sky News reported today “The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire.”

For all photos related to this article, please click here, to go to the MidEast Dispatch website. MidEast dispatch also sends out regular e-mails on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which are a valuable source of information.

Close article

U.S. Policy on Hizballah: The Question of Engagement
Ash Jain, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, July 14, 2010
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3226

Four years ago this week, Israel launched a military campaign in Lebanon in retaliation for a brazen Hizballah attack on its soldiers. The goal, according to an Israeli official, was "to put Hizballah out of business." But neither war nor subsequent U.S. diplomatic efforts aimed at weakening the group have succeeded, and some in the Obama administration now appear to view direct engagement as an option worth exploring. Reaching out to Hizballah, however, at a time when it is politically and military emboldened, would be an exercise in futility that could prove counterproductive.

Current Efforts

Since the end of the 2006 war, the United States has sought to counter Hizballah by advancing three main policy goals: an end to arms transfers, disarmament, and full Lebanese government control over its territory (i.e., an end to Hizballah's "state within a state"). Washington's approach to achieving these goals has remained largely consistent through both the Bush and Obama administrations.

First, the United States has maintained its support for the March 14 political coalition, which has opposed Hizballah's status as an armed militia. Second, Washington has spent considerable sums to strengthen the Lebanese government's capacity, committing more than $600 million in security assistance and an additional $500 million for civilian assistance programs since 2006. Third, the United States has strengthened efforts to stigmatize the group and constrain its financial activities by expanding the list of Hizballah associates designated under Executive Order 13224. Finally, Washington has sought to minimize popular support for Hizballah by pressing, to varying degrees, for the resolution of outstanding grievances, including Israeli overflights and control over Ghajar and Shebaa Farms.

These efforts appeared to bear fruit in June 2009, when Hizballah's political alliance failed to capture a majority of seats during parliamentary elections. Yet the group's electoral defeat did not translate into diminishing political power. To the contrary, after attaining an effective blocking minority in the cabinet, Hizballah has consolidated its influence and strengthened its legitimacy as an armed resistance movement. March 14 has all but fractured, and Hizballah now stands as the region's most powerful substate actor -- with a larger and more sophisticated military arsenal and greater political influence than at any time since its inception.

Limits of Engagement

Recognizing the limits of current U.S. policy, advocates of engagement contend that now is the time to pursue an alternative approach. In May, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan suggested that outreach to certain elements of Hizballah could lead to the group's ideological moderation. According to media reports, a recently leaked U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) "red team" assessment sets forth a similar line of thinking. Although neither Brennan's comments (which have since been walked back) nor the CENTCOM paper appear to reflect a formal reconsideration of U.S. policy, they indicate that interest in this option is growing.

Such arguments, however, rely on two fundamentally misguided premises. First, Hizballah's willingness to participate in the political process is often cited as evidence of a move away from its violent underpinnings. In fact, the group remains as committed as ever to its role as an armed resistance movement. In its updated manifesto, released in 2009 and seen by some observers as a sign of moderation, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah reaffirmed his rejection of Israel ("we categorically reject any compromise with Israel or recognizing its legitimacy") and proclaimed the resistance to be a continuing "national necessity."

Terrorism, violence, and intimidation remain key strategic assets for Hizballah, not just against Israel, but against the state of Lebanon itself. The group's May 2008 takeover of Beirut shattered the myth that it would never use arms against the Lebanese people. Moreover, if the Special Tribunal on Lebanon's reported suspicions of Hizballah involvement in the murder of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri are validated, it would make clear that Hizballah has no qualms in turning its well-honed skills of lethal assassination against its domestic political opponents. The organization also seeks to co-opt the Lebanese Armed Forces into serving as an arm of the resistance and seems determined to use any means necessary to expand its control over the state.

The second mistaken premise is that Hizballah has moved away from its historic animosity toward the United States. Although the group has been careful in recent years to avoid any direct provocation, it remains committed to challenging the United States and its interests in the region. Its 2009 manifesto reemphasized the movement's anti-American foundations first outlined in 1985, expanding the rationale for resistance as a response to U.S. "terror" and plans for "dominating the nations [of the Arab and Islamic world] politically, economically, culturally and through all aspects."

There is little evidence that Nasrallah or anyone around him seeks to alter Hizballah's strategic orientation or loosen its close alliance with Iran and Syria. U.S. engagement would only validate the organization's increasing capabilities and boost its domestic and international legitimacy. It would also further weaken what is left of the democratically elected pro-Western government in Beirut. More broadly, such a fundamental shift in policy would signal Washington's diminishing resolve to confront terrorism and undermine its long-held stance against rewarding terrorist groups for their actions.

A More Robust Approach

Rather than pursuing engagement, U.S. officials should instead look to intensify efforts aimed at constraining Hizballah's activities and limiting its destabilizing influence. Although increased pressure on Hizballah could provoke a violent backlash, the organization will only increase in strength and move closer toward its long-term aims unless concerted action is taken against it. A more robust approach would involve the following measures:

Increasing pressure on Syria and Iran. To raise the costs of support for Hizballah, the United States should mount a campaign to impose UN sanctions on Syria for clear violations of Security Council Resolution 1701, which prohibits arms transfers to Hizballah. Likewise, it should press for sanctions against Iran for violating Resolution 1747's prohibition on arms transfers. (Three violations have been referred to a UN sanctions committee, but with no follow-up action.) Such a campaign would also help legitimize potential airstrikes against Syrian facilities along the Lebanon border should transfers of Scud missiles or other sophisticated weapons continue.

Conditioning Hizballah's role in government. U.S. officials should begin discussions with allies in Lebanon and the region regarding conditions for Hizballah's continuing participation in a national unity government, similar to the Quartet principles imposed on Hamas. Such conditions could include a renunciation of violence, concrete steps toward disarmament, and recognition of the Lebanese government's authority. Although initiating such discussions may not have any immediate impact, it could help reset expectations regarding Hizballah's future role in government and lead to reconsideration of the issue at the next politically opportune moment (e.g., if the special tribunal issues indictments against Hizballah operatives).

Empowering independent Shiites. Weakening Hizballah will require breaking the monopoly that both it and its allies have over the Shiite community in Lebanon. The Obama administration should build on its predecessor's efforts to reach out to independent Shiite activists and strengthen their ability to forge an alternative political movement. For example, Washington could facilitate access to funding and encourage stronger links between moderate Shiites in Lebanon, Iraq, and other communities across the region.

Enhancing coordination with allies. With tensions between Israel and Hizballah rising, the United States should initiate consultations with Israel -- and, separately, with Arab allies that share its concerns, such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia -- to lay the groundwork for a common diplomatic approach in the event that conflict breaks out. Washington should make clear that it will stand by Israel if the latter is forced to act against Hizballah's military capabilities, but will also seek to limit actions that could undermine the government or pro-Western forces in Lebanon.

Conclusion

While testifying before Congress last month, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman emphasized that the United States "will not deal with or have any contact with" Hizballah. Given the futility of such outreach, this is a sound position to maintain. Engagement could merit consideration at some point in the future, when the group has been weakened and appears willing to accept a meaningful accommodation. But, until then, a more comprehensive and vigorous approach to counter Hizballah's expanding influence would better serve Washington's interests.

Ash Jain, a former member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, is a visiting fellow at The Washington Institute.

Close article