Could the Mideast Use Some ‘Trumpification’?

Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, recently spoke out against what he called the “Trumpification” of the Middle East.

“The recent massive arms deals President Trump made with the Gulf monarchies exacerbate the risk of a new arms race … I am very concerned by the dramatic escalation of the situation and the consequences for the whole region,” Minister Gabriel said.

He was referring to the White House siding with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against Qatar for its evident support of Iran and jihadist terror via the Muslim Brotherhood. This has built into quite the standoff and the resulting blockade has had ripples throughout the region. The Qatari riyal has taken a beating and they are seeing compensation for the blockade. In addition to the Saudis and UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Maldives and Yemen have all cut ties with Qatar.

It's a mess all right, but with due respect to the Germans and other critics, Trumpification may not be such a bad thing. In taking a hard line against Doha, the President is continuing the Bush doctrine, that the U.S. "should make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account." Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is within his purview to try to negotiate a solution to this standoff, after the proper lesson has been learned, but despite his evident misgivings and indignation about the key role played by Trump son-in-law and key advisor Jared Kushner, he should support his boss on this.

Trump reportedly doubled down on his position in a call with Gulf region leaders. According to the White House, as reported by Reuters, “"He reiterated the importance of stopping terrorist financing and discrediting extremist ideology. The president also underscored that unity in the region is critical to accomplishing the Riyadh Summit's goals of defeating terrorism and promoting regional stability," the White House said.

"President Trump, nevertheless, believes that the overriding objective of his initiative is the cessation of funding for terrorism," it said.

In addition to its links with the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar has also nurtured ties with Israel’s most fierce enemy, Hamas, under the claim that it is trying to promote more engagement and moderation. (That claim was bolstered by a recent Hamas statement that seems to accept a two-state solution, albeit one that does not formally recognize Israel.)

Yes, it was disappointing that the president has shelved his campaign promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

But he certainly made a solid statement about Jerusalem as the first sitting president to visit the Western Wall. And there’s much else to like about the emerging Trump Middle East policy. Unlike his predecessor, he acted quickly when Syria crossed the imaginary 'red line' by gassing civilians, launching a quick and punishing airstrike.

He also seems to take the more realistic view of the region and what our goals there should be.

Writing in Politico, Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations noted that Trump’s policy “reflects a sound understanding of what the United States can achieve in the region and, importantly, what it cannot.”

Noting that Western efforts to promote democracy that led to the Arab Spring produced more fractured societies but no real change agents, Cook adds “The Trump administration seems to understand this and has pragmatically shifted American policy to achievable goals like rolling back the Islamic State and challenging Iran’s efforts to extend its influence around the region.”

Those who believe Trump, a businessman and political amateur is not a serious president with real policy goals may dismiss his Mideast stance.

But it suggests a practical view of the fight against ISIS recognizing that, other than democratic Israel, there are no other perfect allies in the Middle East.

The 9-11 hijackers were Saudi and the country has a troubling history of terror support. However, Iran is worse in that their leaders continue to make threatening statements against Israel and the US while almost surely planning to resume their nuclear arms quest as soon as they can get away with it. While he’s keeping the John Kerry-brokered nuclear deal in place for now, President Trump is avowedly pessimistic about it.

The Saudis on the other hand have growing, low-key ties with Israel based on strategic interests and common enemies.

Given the disastrous Middle East policy of Barack Obama, which entailed alienating Israel while cozying up to and placing misguided trust in Iran, and chasing pipe dreams about the spread of democracy if we just talk nicely to people and avoid saying “Islamic terror,” 

Trumpification seems to me to be potentially one of the best processes to come along in years.

Originally Published: IsraelNationalNews.com 

'Public Health Leaders' Must Condemn Terror

As the world recoils from yet another atrocity, offering platitudes of “standing with Manchester” while actually doing very little to challenge terrorism, the City University of New York’s School of Public Health is getting ready to send the wrong message to its graduates.

Linda Sarsour

Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour, who has a history of inflammatory behavior toward Israel and its supporters and supports the violent intifada, will be a keynote speaker at that school’s commencement. She’ll share the stage with New York’s first lady, Chirlane McCray, and Mary Bassett, Commissioner of the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as “public health and social justice leaders.” This honor is ostensibly in recognition of her role in organizing the massive women’s march on Washington protesting against Donald Trump, in which potential cuts to health services were decried.

The irony is stark: It’s hard to conceive of a bigger public health threat than terrorism -- The weaponization of disaffected young people around the world via online channels, recruited to commit despicable acts in places like Jerusalem, San Bernardino, Orlando, Paris, Istanbul ....the list goes on.

Sarsour, who has forged alliances with many liberal Jewish leaders, condemned the 5/22 attack on the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, calling it in a Facebook post “a whole different level of evil” for targeting children, and “sickening.”

But such statements are inconsistent with her stated support for the Palestinian intifada and the boycott-divest-sanction movement against Israel. BDS is a form of soft terrorism, as it is focused on one side of the conflict with the intention of forcing Israel into territorial concessions that are against its interests. Given Israel’s precarious geography, those concessions could ultimately cost lives on a scale bigger than any one suicide bomb.

Activists gathered outside CUNY headquarters on May 25 to demand the invitation be revoked, but that’s unlikely, given the fallout from a similar controversy in 2011, when Jewish Israel critic Tony Kushner had his honorary degree yanked under pressure.  Pro-Kushner forces prevailed and the school did a 180.

Chancellor James Milliken released a statement in April saying “the fact that Ms. Sarsour might hold views that are controversial cannot be the basis for withdrawing an invitation to speak,” while noting that the university itself “sees BDS as anathema to the values of higher education.”

But where are those values when Sarsour declares that “you can’t be a Zionist and a feminist.” Is she kidding? Where in the Middle East are women’s rights protected better than in Israel, which had a female prime minister in 1969. Maybe she would prefer the feminism of Saudi Arabia, where women can’t drive, much less run for office, or of Jordan, where they need a husband’s permission to travel.

Israel’s leaders continuously cast aside politics in the name of humanity, allowing relatives of Hamas leaders who want to destroy them to be treated in Jewish hospitals, and sending aid around the world in times of need. Arab citizens have full rights in Israel and serve in the Knesset. And yet Linda Sarsour calls Zionism “creepy.”

CUNY isn’t the only public institution sending mixed signals about terrorism and the Middle East conflict.

A Public Broadcasting System curriculum is drawing fire from conservative critics for its effort to create understanding about the motivations of suicide bombers (who should more properly be called homicide bombers.)

The lesson plan “Dying to be a Martyr,” is 10 years old and likely came to light now because the fight over federal funding for public broadcasting, which is on President Trump’s budget chopping block. But that fact should not take away from serious discussion about the content.

High-school teachers are encouraged to show their students interviews with would-be Palestinian bombers. The lesson teaches students to empathize with violent Palestinian terrorists who are willing to murder Jews in Israel and beyond.

Perhaps there is a shred of a noble intention in this program’s origins, but it is at best naive, bordering on biased. There are many peoples in the world who collectively feel aggrieved and don’t resort to terrorism and violence, and they are better off as a result.

Page Fortna, an associate political science professor at Columbia University wrote in a recent paper, highlighted in The Atlantic following the Manchester bombing, that “The disadvantages of terrorism generally outweigh its advantages.” She concluded from a detailed study of 104 recent global conflicts that terror historically hurts rather than helps a cause. “None of those that deliberately killed large numbers of civilians through terrorist attacks won its fight outright,” Fortna said.

So it’s surely in no one’s interest to promote a mindset that terrorism is an inevitable (or effective) product of an uprising against a more powerful enemy.

In defending the programming, PBS in a statement said “In no way does it condone the heinous actions of individuals who would target innocent civilians. PBS would strongly condemn any assertion that terrorism is ever appropriate.”

But just watch the video, which features a sympathetic kid who ultimately decided that God told him not to carry out an attack in an Israeli town. Everything we know about these bombers, much of it from the videos they leave behind, is that they believe God wants the exact opposite. So it’s not as much frustration with lack of a peace diplomacy but rather a twisted religious fervor (denounced by mainstream Islam) that guides these acts.

PBS’s ombudsman, Michael Getler noted in a column that “Dying to be a Martyr” contains “what I consider to be some legitimate questions about the content, or more precisely as I read it, a lack of more contextual content, within this lesson plan.” He concurs that what is missing from the curriculum is instructions for teachers to denounce suicide bombing and radical Islamic views in general,” something we might assume to be a given. Some teachers, however, might be too afraid of offending people to do that.

There’s nothing healthy about either supporting terrorism outright or trying to understand it rationally, and the sooner institutions like CUNY and PBS realize that, the better off we’ll all be.

Originally Published by The Algemeiner

Brooklyn College Must Stand Firm Against Terror Supporters

By: Eli Verschleiser

What is it about Brooklyn College that makes it such a hotbed of anti-Zionism and flashpoint in the political war against Israel?

This “middle-class Ivy League” school in Midwood, where my parents and wife Dr. Shani Verschleiser attended, is part of the City University of New York system and has high populations of Jews and Muslims, but so do other schools. We don’t seem to hear nearly as much about the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine and other groups devoted to the destruction of Israel as we know it at big city public or private colleges as much as we do at Brooklyn. In the New York area, it particularly stands out.

Per the conservative Los Angeles-based David Horowitz Freedom Center, which tracks campus anti-Israel activity, Brooklyn College is one of the top 10 schools in the nation for anti-Israel activity, alongside such peers as San Diego State, University of California at Irvine, Vassar College and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

According to the center’s website, stopthejewhatredoncampus.org, Brooklyn College “is home to one of the most active and extreme SJP chapters in the nation. Brooklyn College SJP has posted articles and videos online defending terrorism including an advertisement titled “The Third Intifada” on its Facebook page.” Antics have included a “die-in” to dramatize Palestinian victims, trampling on Israeli flags and mock-up military checkpoints to illustrated West Bank life for Arabs.

The campus is a battleground for the insidious Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. According to Amcha Initiative, another group that rose from outrage over the demonization of Israel on our college campuses, last year, more than 300 incidents of anti-Semitism occurred at 109 schools in 28 states.

SJP and other anti-Zionist student groups are a major source of anti-Semitic rhetoric and behavior at many schools.” The Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC) counted 649 anti-Israel events at colleges in the U.S.

This shows how we are losing the battle of social media which allows today's youth to be educated with lies and deception. Israel and Jewish organizations are doing a lot to provide Jewish students with balanced information, including free Birthright Israel trips. They must continue their efforts and do more to show Israel’s hard work to make peace, its contributions to the world and the stubbornness of the Palestinians in resisting productive talks.

Several high-profile Israel-bashing events, some coordinated with faculty, have been held at the campus. And four Jewish students recently fought a long battle for justice after they were inexplicably thrown out of a SJP event in February 2013, simply for holding pro-Israel fact sheets they had yet to distribute. It took just over a year and the assistance of the The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law before President Karen Gould apologized to the students, acknowledging that a college official violated the students’ civil rights by ejecting them. The college then added insult to injury by incorrectly telling the press the students had been disruptive to defend his actions.

But things haven’t improved much in the interim. In February of this year, a group of rowdy protestors stormed into a Faculty Council meeting and started chanting anti-Zionist nonsense at the professors. The meeting had to be adjourned, and The Jewish Week reported that some felt threatened by the incident.

This is not to say that students shouldn’t be free to voice criticism of Israel under their First Amendment rights. No country is perfect, and people are entitled to opinions even if they are misinformed or biased.

But increasingly anti-Zionist protestors all over North America have tried to silence and intimidate the other side, disrupting events, shouting down speakers, targeting students in their dorms with “eviction notices” and striving to make it difficult to express pride in the Jewish state (which, last time I checked, was also protected by the Constitution.)

A recent survey by the Cohen Center at Brandeis University found one quarter of North American Jewish students "describe hostility toward Israel on campus by their peers as a 'fairly' or 'very big' problem".

The Zionist Organization of America and the Brandeis Center for Human Rights have been advising Jewish students about their rights and how to protect them from infringement, whether it’s from peers or misguided or overzealous college administrators, faculty or security guards.

This atmosphere of bias and intimidation is especially poignant at a time when colleges are increasingly going on about trigger warnings, safe spaces and open bathrooms to ensure that no one’s feelings are hurt, and that counseling is available if they are.

Aren’t Israel supporters entitled to the same protection and concern?

There may be no easy answer as to why Brooklyn College has become such a battleground. Maybe the situation just builds on itself.

Fortunately, the college has a top-notch Hillel organization with ample facilities just off campus for pro-Israel students to safely and comfortably hold their events. There is no shortage of pro-Israel organizations and activities run by proud and tough Jews, including a sizable share of Israelis, who aren’t going anywhere and aren’t about to hide their blue and white flags for anyone.

The Hillel director, Nadya Drucker, her staff and board work closely with the administration to share concerns. Hopefully the new president, Michelle J. Anderson, understands the need for open dialogue and exchange of ideas, without intimidation, between students.

But bad decisions like the one in 2013, taking sides against the Israel supporters at an event, can have a lasting negative impact, suggesting to SJP and others that they have free reign and friends in high places.

In keeping with its role as an academic haven for thousands of Jewish students and other Israel supporters, the administration must disabuse them of this notion. Just as it’s crucial to stand firm against terrorists, so must we do the same with their supporters.

If They Gave Medals for Olympic Snubs

By: Eli Verschleiser

It’s a timeless image. A young Israeli literally extending his hand to Islam, only to be rebuffed.

The image was seen around the world, and with the help of Israel supporters, will likely be seen for years to come. Because the snub by Islam El Shehaby at the Rio Olympics of Or Sasson, the Israeli athlete who bested him in judo wasn’t just the bad sportsmanship of a sore loser.

Egypt’s Islam Elshehaby (blue) refuses to shake hands after
 defeat by Israel’s Or Sasson in their men’s +100kg judo 
contest match of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de 
Janeiro  on August 12, 2016. (AFP/Toshifumi Kitamura)

To many, it was emblematic of the attitudes, petty and baseless in nature but massively consequential, that Israel faces as it struggles to coexist with its Arab neighbors in a manner that approaches mutual respect.

The look on his face might have suggested scorn of his rival, but let’s face it, El Shehaby may well have been afraid to treat the Israeli like a peer. That handshake would also have become a viral image, but one of hopefulness and optimism. Can’t have that. His life might very well have been endangered in a world in which Charlie Hebdo staff were gunned down because of a cartoon.

According to an account on social media -- widely picked up by pro-Israel blogs -- from Hindel Swerdlov, who sat next to Sasson and his coach, Oren Smagda on their return flight to Israel, Smagda saw the snub coming even before the match began.

The coach reportedly recalled that “all the Egyptian mates and coaches were pounding their chests and saying alla hu akhbar!” More disturbingly, Smagda said Sasson received Facebook messages threatening his life if he touched the Egyptian. But you don’t get very far threatening an Israeli, particularly not one who excels at judo.

The International Olympic Committee formally reprimanded El Shehaby, saying his conduct was “contrary to the rules of fair play and against the spirit of friendship embodied in Olympic values,” according to the Associated Press.

But if they gave out medals for hatred of Israel, El Shehaby would be just a contender, not necessarily a champion (just like in his judo career).

It was widely reported that on the opening night the Lebanese delegation of athletes tried to keep Israeli peers off their bus, with one of them actually physically blocking the door. For security reasons, I was surprised the Israeli delegation didn’t have its own bus from the get-go. But a separate bus was found to appease the misbehavers. Let’s give these folks a bronze medal for hate.

Perhaps the silver medal should go to the Saudi judoka, Joud Fahmy, who forfeited her first round match rather than face the possibility of advancing to the second round – in which she might have to face Israeli Gili Cohen. Joud earns her medal for strategic snobbery, rather than just spontaneous nastiness.

El Shehaby deserves the gold not just because his snub was so public, but because it’s so senseless. Okay, Israel did invade Lebanon, twice, so you could understand if not justify the grudge. And Israel and Saudi Arabia have no formal ties (even if they have some mutual strategic interests these days in facing Islamic State and the eventual nuclear Iran.)

But Israel and Egypt have a formal peace treaty that has endured for 36 years, and the two countries work closely together on security at the Gaza and Sinai borders. El Shehaby is too young to have faced Israel on the battlefield, but perhaps his relatives have. If so, he should remind himself who attacked whom in 1967 and 1973. Also, Egypt lost, but still got its land back, an extremely rare historical occurrence. You can be a sore loser at judo, but why be a sore winner in politics?

The fact that the match between Israel and Egypt took place at all was supposed to be a sign of progress and in the true spirit of the Olympics. The dream, after all, is for rival countries to face each other in non-violent competition, for pride and bragging rights without hostility. For his part, Sasson went home with a bronze medal, but also with a much more valuable prize of being able to hold his head high as a sportsman and a credit to his country.

I will not be the first commentator to point out the global symbolism of the snub. Brett Stephens of the Wall Street Journal framed it as part of the deep, pervasive anti-Semitism in Arab countries that practically have no Jews, who use them to scapegoat.

He correctly noted that Arab hatred of and violence against Jews and Zionist pioneers long predates the state of Israel, and by far precedes the captured of the West Bank and Gaza in the Six-Day War. He notes that it persists even as Israel increases its regional cooperation with its neighbors and tries to get back to the negotiating table with an obstinate Palestinian Authority led by the naysayer Mahmoud Abbas.

Of course, those talks can tend to have the opposite effect. Waves of terror attacks followed the commencement of the Oslo peace accords signed by Yitzchak Rabin and Yasser Arafat in 1993.

But even Arafat, an infamous terrorist leader if ever there was one, was willing to shake the hand of an Israeli.

Originally Posted: The American Thinker

BDS- Boycott Double Standards

By: Eli Verschleiser

As a horrifying wave of stabbing and shooting attacks against Israelis producing an almost daily body count, the United Methodist Church has decided to take decisive action.

A boycott aimed at Israel.

The church has announced that it will not allow its $20 billion pension fund to invest in five Israeli banks that have financed construction of housing in the West Bank.

In the wake of UN leader Ban Ki-Moon’s suggestion that violent Palestinian frustration is only a result of “human nature” and the Obama administration’s consistent policy that building apartments is as bad as or worse than terrorism, this particular approach to the problem should not surprise.

Other churches have flirted or grappled with similar boycotts, including the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Mennonites, the Church of England and the World Council of Churches. Academic and student groups, and even a grocery co-op in Brooklyn have put resolutions past their members, and some musical performers, notably Roger Waters, have declared they won’t appear before Israeli fans on either side of the Green Line.

There are many double standards at play here. Let’s take stock of them.

First, when it comes to so-called moral voices trying to impose peace, the onus always falls squarely on Israel, because the more powerful side is always assumed to be the one at fault. As mentioned before, it’s hard to place any economic pressure on the Palestinians, given their trade status. But what if the UN and EU, as a precondition to development funding, took a serious stand to push them to, at minimum, come to peace talks without preconditions? Maybe they could also crack down on violent incitement of youth who, no longer able to smuggle explosives past the security barrier, are now resorting to stabbing attacks.

Second, there are no such boycott, divestment and sanctions movements against countries that oppress their own people or others that match the scope and intensity of the boycott push against Israel.

Third, these moralists would like to pick and choose what they boycott. If you’re in, go all in. Don’t just boycott Israeli universities and banks and food products made on the West Bank.

Boycott the research pouring out of those universities every day that stand to greatly alleviate or cure diseases, from cancer and diabetes to malaria.

Boycott pharmaceuticals patented by Israeli companies like Rafa or Teva that greatly control symptoms and improve quality of life for the sick or injured. Boycott the Pentium chips, Motorola phone systems and Microsoft OS technology developed in partnership with those companies by Israelis.

And if you’re in California, stay thirsty rather than drink the water from the San Diego desalination plant Israelis are building to help alleviate the drought there.

Does it not seem disingenuous to denounce a country as belligerent and in great need of moral rectitude while availing yourself of all the wonders resulting from Jews unencumbered by fear of being chased out of their jobs, universities, homes and countries? That scenario happened to their parents or grandparents, and there are even those who experienced it personally, either in Europe or Arab countries.

Perhaps the Palestinian boycott organizers would also like to declare that they won’t use Israeli hospitals, like Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, which recently helped save the life of a 17-year-old suffering from a rare endocrine condition. Not likely. Even stick-in-the-mud Hamas will look the other way when it comes to quality Jewish medicine in the Middle East. Relatives of top Hamas officials have sought, and received treatment for serious diseases.

Israel’s government sees the BDS movement as nothing short of an effort to destroy the country as it exists today in favor of an untenable two-state solution that would leave the Jewish half within impossible borders. There may be some well-meaning activists who naively believe something positive can be accomplished by applying economic pressure on one side of the equation (the less violent half.)

But on the whole it seems plain that the pro-boycott movement isn’t after a just outcome in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, as much as a reversal of fortune for the Jews and an end to their contemporary self-determination.


If those folks really want to make a difference in the world, they should start by cleaning up their own house. Because when people are being stabbed to death in the streets, or on the receiving end of rocket attacks, and your only reaction is to pull money out of their banks, something’s not quite right with your moral center.

Originally Published: The Huffington Post

Israel’s Iron Dome Supporters Deserve Our Thanks

gettyimages -  Israel Iron Dome

By: Eli Verschleiser

Congress understands that stopping anti-Israel rocket attacks saves lives on both sides of the conflict.

Imagine going to bed worried that an alert will go off in the middle of the night and you’ll have to gather up your family and scramble to a shelter.

Imagine sending your kids off to school worrying about their safety from airborne threats on the way, and when they get there. Imagine living through air raid alerts on a regular basis, huddled in your sealed room, wondering if, should destruction rain down from the skies, your shelter will be strong enough to protect you from harm.

Imagine shopping for a home or apartment and, in addition to price and location, needing to ask about a panic room.

Millions of Israelis don’t have to imagine this scenario. Whether Jewish, Arab or Christian – rockets can’t discriminate- this is their reality day to day: In the south, rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza; In the North, from Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the center of Israel, a country no bigger than New Jersey, safety is relative as rockets with increasing sophistication and power project terror at longer and longer ranges.

So far in 2015, there have been 23 rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, most recently on Oct. 21, when a projectile landed in Sh’ar Hanegev. Last year, which included the summer conflict that started Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, the number was 4,005, resulting in 8 deaths, 60 injuries and 1,663 Palestinians killed in counterstrikes.

Striking back at the launch sites doesn’t solve the problem. Had Gazans applied the same devotion to productive endeavors like agriculture and tourism as they do toward bloodthirsty rocketry, the area would be thriving today, rather than the blockaded ruin.

The situation would be far worse for both sides if not for the technology of Iron Dome, shared by Israelis and the United States. The ability to track rockets as they launch, calculate their trajectory and eliminate the most dangerous projectiles saves lives, likely many thousands of them. When rockets do not reach their intended targets, Israelis are the obvious beneficiaries, but innocent Palestinians are spared the threat of collateral damage from a counter strike that would be tactically necessary after any lethal attack.

Members of the United States Congress understand this and since 2009 have consistently voted to increase funding for this technology. It should be a political no-brainer. No matter where you stand on Israel’s politics and policies, decent people and particularly leaders should agree that everyone has a right not to blown up by a rocket.

Moreover, it serves the higher purpose of the Israeli Palestinian peace process (such as it is) to decrease the incentive and effectiveness of this senseless violence. Whether Hamas and Hezbollah will one day realize the futility of this strategy is anyone’s guess, but it’s our sacred obligation to send that message.

That is why I am proud to be a part of the Congressional Tribute honoring standout members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who have supported Iron Dome – with up to $371.2 million in this year’s Defense Authorization bill. The honorees are Ed Royce (R-CA) , Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa; Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces; Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee; Ted Deutch (D-FL), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa; Hal Rogers (R-KY), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; Peter Roskam (R-IL), Co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus; Eliot Engel (D-NY) Ranking Member of Foreign Affairs Committee; Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Investment in Iron Dome has never been more important, given our lack of leadership in the Middle East that has created a dangerous void easily filled by Isis on one side and the Russians on the other. With billions of post-sanction dollars flowing into Iran courtesy of the nuclear deal, Iran may well increase their own investment in Hezbollah in the form of upgraded weapons.

Those same weapons could easily make their way south to Gaza. With anti-Jewish bloodlust on the rise in Israel, missiles may, God forbid, soon become the new knives. And how long before they get their hands on biological or radioactive payloads?

All the more reason to keep close tabs on your representatives and senators. Thank them if they have already boosted Iron Dome. If not, ask them to close their eyes and picture themselves dashing to one of those sealed rooms in the middle of the night as a piercing siren sounds.

Originally Published: The Observer

Israel and its Sunni Partners - Should Israel and its Arab neighbors form an alliance ?

By: Eli Verschleiser

Could a nuclear deal with Iran accomplish more than decades of diplomacy in the Middle East and, rather ironically, create new alliances between Israel and Arab neighbors?

That’s a key question as we gear up for the battle on Capitol Hill over President Barack Obama’s controversial pact with Tehran to limit uranium enrichment in return for lifting of sanctions. Critics say the agreement paves the way for a double reward of Tehran— a huge influx of cash and an eventual, unfettered path toward nuclear arms.

Neither the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, nor the United Arab Emirates or for that matter any of the other Persian Gulf states are too excited about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The role of Iran in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, and the rise of Islamic State terror and the Muslim Brotherhood, have become a much bigger problem for Arab leaders than the tired conflict with Israel. Those countries have a Sunni majority, while Persian Iran is led by rival Shia Muslims.

Iran, of course, is also a major oil rival for the Gulf States and became more powerful following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The Saudis have been publicly moderate on the deal but said to be privately angry over it. Epitomizing the old Middle East adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Saudis were reported to have offered Israel the ability to use their airspace to strike at Iran. This is a crucial step in keeping a military option on the table as it would save time and fuel if such a strike were necessary. “The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” a European official was quoted as saying in an Israeli TV report.

Clearly momentum for alignment with Israel in some form is building.

“To all those who think the Persian state, and the regime of the Rule of the Imprudent… the dictatorial fascist Persian regime which controls it, is a friendly country, whereas Israel is an enemy country, I say that a prudent enemy is better than an imprudent one.”

Those words were written by Abdallah Al-Hadlaq in the official newspaper of Kuwait, Al-Watan.

It is not the first time the author has expressed support for ties with Israel. As far back as 2009 he called on his government and other Gulf states to put aside their differences with Jerusalem and forge an alliance against Iran.

But the fact that his column was published in a government daily in a country without full press freedom speaks volumes.

“The state of Israel and its various governments have waged more than five wars with the Arabs, yet never in the course of these wars did Israel think to use its nuclear weapons against its Arab enemies,” Al-Hadlaq wrote. “Conversely, if the Persian state, with its stupid, rash and fascist regime that hides behind a religious guise, ever develops nuclear weapons, it will not hesitate to use nuclear bombs against the Arab Gulf states in the first conflict that arises.”

Were the Saudis to show leadership in rallying other Sunni-led states against Iran it could have a significant impact on a new order in the Middle East.

Furthermore the new coalition could collectively work wonders to get rid of ISIS, as Jordan’s King Abdullah recently declared in a CNN interview that the war against ISIS ‘is our war’. The Iranian nuclear threat and the ISIS threat can top the agenda in this new coalition.

“Iran does have enough politico-military and economic potential to counter-balance Saudi led “Sunni” states in the Middle East and beyond,” wrote Salman Rafi Sheikh in an essay for the magazine Eastern Outlook last March. “It is precisely for this very reason that Saudi Arabia’s anxiety about an agreement has fueled a flurry of intense diplomacy in recent days to bolster unity among “Sunni” states in the Middle East in the face of “shared threats”, especially those emanating from Iran.”

Rafi Sheikh, a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, noted that “this deal is most likely to send political jolts across the entire Middle Eastern political landscape, with Saudi Arabia and Israel standing as the most sensitive areas to bear its shocks; and as such, are most likely to clutch their hands into an alliance against Iran, and by default, against the US ambitions as well.”

There is great potential for Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to rally Gulf states as well as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan to stand up to an Iran that will only become more emboldened with the huge influx of post-sanctions billions and new political bona-fides that will make Tehran bolder.

Increased security cooperation as Iran bides its time for an eventual bomb --after the agreement period, or in the worst-case scenario, in violation of the agreement -- may eventually lead to more nuclear proliferation in the region.

Will that mean a nuclear pact between Israel and its former enemies? That will be a fascinating development that could never have been imagined even a decade ago.

And it will truly be a sad irony if, after nearly 70 years of a solid relationship between the United States and Israel, the Jewish state had to turn to despotic regimes with little or no human rights to solidify its security position, feeling far less than confident that Washington has its back than it has in the past.

However this may simply be the beginning of an Arabic Israeli accord where both groups can begin to understand and accept each other.

Originally Published: The Hill

Bibi On Capitol Hill - The Politics of Survival

By: Eli Verschleiser

It’s surprising that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in trying to undermine the credibility of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would bring up the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry said at a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing late last month. “We all know what happened with that decision.”



Wait. Wasn’t his proclamation in 2004 that “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [for war in Iraq and Afghanistan] before I voted against it," the flip-flop that heavily damaged his presidential bid that year? “Did he really want to bring that up?

But no-holds are barred in the current tussle between the U.S. and Israel over nuclear talks with Iran, as Netanyahu’s address to Congress was unwelcome by the White House.

Netanyahu has many reasons to be suspicious, not the least of which is apparent weakening of resolve by the U.S. on this matter. In June, 2013, United Nations envoy Samantha Power told a gathering of U.S. Jewish leaders that when it comes to thwarting Iran’s nuclear program “No deal is better than a bad deal. We will not accept a bad deal.”

Just days later the negotiating parties emerged from meetings in Geneva with the framework of an understanding, and a month later Iran agreed to roll back parts of its program, limiting its uranium production to below weapons grade (for now), in exchange for relief from sanctions. The latest version of the deal would kick the can down the road for 10 years, allowing the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism to ramp up its nuclear production over time.

At that point, of course, it will be too late to get tough. For Netanyahu and a large share of his electorate, it’s a zero sum game. No amount of nuclear power can be entrusted to a country led by fanatics who support global terror and regularly telegraph their hatred of Israel. Who would make sure Iran behaves? Why, international monitors, of course.

A group of former Israeli generals said Sunday they fear the dust-up over the address to Congress, tinted as it is with U.S. and Israeli politics, will signal so much disarray in the process that it will embolden the Iranians to take a hard line in the talks.

But the U.S. and Israel have faced bumps in the road before. Remember when Secretary of State James Baker in 1990, frustrated by lack of peace-talks progress, read the number of the White House and told then-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to call when he is serious about peace?

The current mess seems worse because President Barack Obama on the face of it does not like Netanyahu, and the feeling is may be mutual, not so much because of personalities or politics but because Obama has consistently fallen into the trap of equating apartments built by Israelis with rockets launched by Hamas. That’s no way to show that you fully understand the existential threat felt by Israelis, which got Netanyahu elected. Obama likely worries that Netanyahu’s address will only bolster the right wing in Israel and make it more difficult to pursue any progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks before he leaves office in 2017.

It is a legitimate worry that the spectacle of Netanyahu speech to Congress at the invitation of Obama arch-rival John Boehner, the Republican House speaker, will eclipse the more appropriate and pressing issue of whether opposition to a deal that might one day allow Iran to hand over a nuke to Hezbollah should be blocked by Congress, in its role as a check against the power of the executive branch.

“Congress has every right to invite, even over the president’s strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program,” former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote in The Jerusalem Post.

But as a result of the White House face-off with both Netanyahu and the Republicans, the address will be seen as the kind of partisan fracas that leads to perennial gridlock on The Hill, rather than a key matter of international security.

This should not have become an international political spectacle; it should have been an important speech (to those who thought it was) by the one democratic country in the world that has been threatened to be annihilated by Iran its neighbor dozens of times. It is an embarrassment that U.S. and Israel politics – the president says he must keep arms’ distance from a foreign leader in the weeks before an election -- have not only crept into the process but dominated the issue.

Of course, Netanyahu is a savvy politician who will use the spotlight he gains here to score points in his bid to stay in power. But keep in mind that, perhaps more than any other country, Israel has the most to lose by picking the wrong leader.

That includes one who places too much faith in the protection of allies and international monitors, who have far less to lose.

In the end we can all at least agree on one thing, Bibi is a powerful and brilliant speaker.

Originally Published: The Times of Israel

Why Jews Shouldn’t Necessarily Flee to Israel

The site of a Paris terror attack against a kosher market. Photo: JJ Georges via Wikimedia Commons.

By: Eli Verschleiser

For a people who wandered the globe for centuries in exile, the question of what constitutes a safe haven or just a temporary reprieve from persecution has been one with life or death consequences.

In recent history, the open arms of Germany turned into the deadliest of fists, and the Shah’s hospitable Iran became a hellish prison after the revolution. France betrayed its Jews once, collaborating too willingly with the Nazis to deport Jews, but for the most part it has historically been a place of thriving and growth.

Until now. Attacks against Jews, mostly in Paris and its suburbs, have risen sharply with the rise of Muslim immigrants, mostly from North Africa, who have set back relations with Muslims of longer standing in France that were largely positive. The French government has left no stone unturned in denouncing anti-Semitism, and cracking down on violent thugs and terrorists, with Prime Minister Manuel Valls saying “France without Jews is not France.” But an unpopular government’s power to protect 500,000 Jews is limited, caught between right-wingers who want to end immigration and left wingers who sympathize with Israel’s enemies.

Recent support for a Palestinian state and a greater role for the Palestinians in the United Nations – with attacks against Israelis on the rise, no progress toward peace, and persistent refusal to accept Israel’s legitimacy – send a mixed message.

That’s surely one reason aliyah to Israel is on the rise, with as many as 10,000 immigrants expected this year, up from 7,000 last year, which was double the 2013 number (economic factors such as France’s record unemployment surely also figure into it.)

I too would pick up my entire family and move. Having local police and soldiers on the ground for protection after terrorist attacks, while voting for a terrorist Hamas government to become a legitimate country, does not say much about the government’s sanity and surely does not bode well for the future.

We have seen disturbing videos of street clashes between Muslim and Jewish youths, and images of vandalized Jewish shops and shuls. While it’s important for the Christian-led government to denounce such acts, it’s even more crucial for the French Muslim community (hopefully the majority) not influenced by the radicals – who I still believe simply use Islam as their false claim to a religion – to stand up and show themselves and defend the Jewish people there.

But nevertheless, Islamic extremism is on the rise in France. It doesn’t help when the White House publicly shows ambiguity about the true nature of ISIS, downplaying the Islamic nature of the movement, depicting the savage attack on a kosher grocery store in Paris as not related to anti-Semitic and anti-Israel ideology.

While it is certainly self-evident that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is equally clear that nearly all the most dangerous terrorists today are Muslims. Not just France, but much of Western Europe has become a battleground, to the point that 70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, some observers believe it’s easier to be a Jew in Poland than in Paris.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wasted no time reinforcing Israel’s place as a safe haven for all Jews, but particularly the French. After the deadly Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attacks, he told Paris Jews last month “The State of Israel is not just the place to which you turn in prayer. The state of Israel is also your home.” He sent a special delegation of ministers to help facilitate more immigrants.

Some, at least, are not ready to pack their bags just yet. After Netanyahu’s address at a Paris synagogue, they rose and sang the French national anthem.

Good for them. While staying in France or saying au revoir may one day be a life or death decision, we are not there yet. Bailing out en masse would inevitably means leaving the most vulnerable – the poor, the sick, the elderly – behind, almost powerless, as the Muslim population continues to rise in both numbers and influence.

Besides – we didn’t spend centuries wandering stateless in the diaspora and prevailing over numerous forms of adversity only to let bullies in 2015 tell us where to live.

Israel should be strengthened by Aliyah and an ingathering of the exiles. But on our terms, not theirs.

Originally Published: The Algemeiner 

An act of Desperation: John Kerry

By: Eli Verschleiser

John Kerry

It is unfortunate that Secretary of State John Kerry put himself in the middle of the superficial, gossip-laden, "he said, he said" death spiral of the latest nine-month peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. By now, his "apartheid" remark, warning of the consequences for Israel if the Palestinians don't get their own state, has gone viral and pandemic. He's even apologized publicly, rightly so. More troubling than his use of a very sensitive term, is what it suggests about his disposition. 

The bigger point here is that Kerry maybe acting out of desperation. He has invested tremendous effort and political capital toward getting the Israeli and Palestinian sides to agree on basic terms for security and borders, leading to a Palestinian state. For the duration, that process was dominated by public claims that one party or the other was undermining trust and acting unilaterally. Kerry kept plowing forward, even as Ukraine, Egypt and Syria blazed. 

Kerry's commitment to this effort whether you believe in his ability or not have been nothing less than admirable. This is part of what makes his comment so regrettable.

Kerry however, acted out of desperation. Only in a fantasy world would Kerry not know that his use of the word would automatically reach the press, infuriate Israelis and American Jews, and cloud out all other considerations. 

Israel is a big boy, and can handle whatever anyone throws at it, whether it's Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert each warning of an apartheid future on their own, or Kerry himself. But by invoking apartheid, Kerry shows just how far he is willing to go, if not further. What is his fallback, or did he just lash himself to the mast to ride out the storm of the century, known as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? 

We at The American Jewish Congress have worked to promote joint economic efforts between Jews and Palestinians, regardless of where the peace process happens to be in any given moment. These kinds of projects build trust and lay the foundations for an eventual final status agreement. Resorting to drama and reckless initiative undermines such an outcome.

On a global scale, we should also be worried that a Secretary of State who's ready to sacrifice all just for the sake of a chance at progress in one arena will find himself distracted from other, less containable crises in the Middle East and beyond. With Iran, specifically, how much will Kerry or the White House be willing to risk -- in ways that expose Israel as well as the United States -- to secure some long-term agreement with Iran? 

Desperation is not an isolated trait, and it's one that too often leads right back to despair. We have enough of that as it is.

Originally Published: The Jerusalem Post

Putin's Jewish Card

By: Eli Verschleiser:

The Kremlin's questionable claim of widespread anti-Semitism, which was used as partial justification for the annexation of Crimea, should not obscure the fact that President Vladimir Putin has genuinely championed the cause of Russian Jewry. This includes recognition and active support for a thriving Jewish community at home and close ties to Israel's top politicians, especially within the current ruling coalition.

More than 1 million Russians are now living in the Jewish state, giving Putin plenty of reasons to care about what happens there. If he is willing to throw caution to the wind and risk Western opprobrium on the presumption of threats to Jews and ethnic Russians, there are additional ways Putin can safeguard these strategic priorities.

As such, Putin should move against Iranian-backed terror networks around the world, and prepare a contingency for neutralizing Iran's nuclear facilities, in the event the P5+1 negotiations fail. Iran presents a strategic threat to Israel, and its terrorist clients target Jews in Israel and across the globe. These actions could even be coordinated with Washington in a way that helps re-establish Moscow's leadership credentials.

In addition, Putin should facilitate the orderly transition to a stable government in Syria. The world's largest humanitarian disaster is unfolding on Israel's doorstep. Unless Moscow intervenes, it is likely that any future Syrian regime will be hostage to unchecked terrorist forces eager to attack Israel's population centers. Putin is in a unique position to pressure or incentivize Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down and then help push Syria down the path toward peace and stability.

Putin can ensure that if Israel follows Russia's example by launching its own attack on Iran or taking unilateral actions to defend Jewish — and Russian — citizens in the West Bank or anywhere in Israel, it can offer support in the United Nations Security Council. Using Putin's own playbook, Israel should be within its rights to undertake serious but necessary measures that will not win it many friends in the global arena. The wisdom of such decisions will have to be weighed by Israeli leaders as the need or opportunity arises.

During this period of Russian-Ukrainian tension, Putin should make every effort to avoid singling out Ukraine's Jewish industrialists and community leaders. There should be no need to pit Russian Jews against Ukrainian Jews, or to paint Ukrainian Jewish leaders as anti-Russian. This will not lead to positive outcomes for Jews anywhere, including within Russia.

The best way for Putin to lock in his status as the best friend of the Jewish people would be to remove the Jewish card from the table. He should continue asserting Russia's national interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, which he should do regardless of international reactions. Invoking Jewish concerns, whether worthy or not, does not do Jews any favors and will not win any world leaders to its side. But the real danger is that it may stigmatize Jews as his puppets.

Moscow will act in its country's best interests, regardless of what the West says or does. But there may be ways to do so while reducing the negative fallout — for Russia, Jewish people and others worldwide.

Originally published by The Moscow Times