Since his nomination as Secretary of Defense and even in anticipation of it, the right-wing media has been accusing Chuck Hagel of being anti-Israel with the help of GOP grandstanding from senators such as Lindsay Graham of South Carolina.
“Hagel, if confirmed to be secretary of defense, would be the most [...]]]>
Since his nomination as Secretary of Defense and even in anticipation of it, the right-wing media has been accusing Chuck Hagel of being anti-Israel with the help of GOP grandstanding from senators such as Lindsay Graham of South Carolina.
“Hagel, if confirmed to be secretary of defense, would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense towards the state of Israel in our nation’s history,” Graham told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union.
Israelis don’t necessarily agree.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was widely perceived as taking sides in the U.S. presidential election in November, has apparently learned his lesson. “I do not interfere in the political appointments of the U.S. president. It is his prerogative,” Netanyahu told Israel’s Army Radio. “Congress decides and confirms, and we will work with whoever is chosen.”
Naftali Bennett, whose right-wing religious-nationalist party Jewish Home (HaBayit HaYehudi) is expected to do well in the upcoming parliamentary election on January 22, opined, “It’s none of our business, it’s America’s prerogative.” The son of two American emigrants to Israel who is particularly popular with younger voters said, “Israel and America’s bond goes way beyond certain relationships between individuals.”
Many Israelis in lesser political positions, and in the military and defense establishments, are irked by support for Israel being invoked for partisan purposes against a nominee whose appointment they have no valid grounds for contesting.
Retired Rear Admiral Ze’ev Almog criticized the efforts of pro-Israel supporters to dissuade U.S. senators from confirming Hagel. “From my contacts with him, in Washington and in Israel, I can testify that Hagel was always attentive and friendly toward Israel,” Almog declared. He noted that he and Hagel became friends and still stay in touch, adding that he had never heard Hagel say anything anti-Israel.
The first president of Friends of USO in Israel, Almog contradicted accusations made by the Washington Free Beacon and other U.S. right-wing media outlets that Hagel had attempted to close the Haifa USO and made disparaging remarks about Jews when he headed the USO between 1987-89. On the contrary, Almog recalled, Hagel opposed shuttering the USO center, even though budget cuts necessitated cutting funds for USO facilities elsewhere that resulted in their closing. The Haifa facility finally closed a decade after Hagel left his position at the USO. Almog added that when Hagel became a senator, he supported a $50 million grant to upgrade Haifa’s port facilities in and around Haifa’s port and an air force technical school’s runway used to ferry supplies to the Sixth Fleet.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, a prominent member of Israel’s Likud party who cultivates close ties with the Christian evangelical community, told a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations on Thursday, “I know Hagel personally. When I was ambassador in Washington, we had many meetings. I cannot say that we agreed on everything, but he was a decent and fair interlocutor and you can reason with him. I think he believes in the relationship, in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States.” Ayalon called Hagel “a true American patriot” who understood that “the support that America gives Israel is in America’s interest.”
Yaakov Peri, a former director of the Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security service) said he shared Hagel’s critique of the Israel-Palestine issue and support fo a two-state solution. “I rely on the president of the United States that Chuck Hagel is a responsible and capable guy to do his job and I share the view that the US and Israeli bond and relationship and cooperation will remain, and hopefully strengthen,” Peri told the Christian Science Monitor.
A report titled Hagel and Israel by Avner Inbar and Assaf Sharon is a well-researched examination of Hagel’s voting record and the positions he has articulated in speeches and articles. Published by the progressive Israeli think tank Molad, the report refutes claims by right-wing pundits (and erstwhile Republican Senate colleagues) that Hagel is hostile to Israel and his foreign policy views are contrary to Israel’s interests:
Hagel has shown that he is able to see Israel’s regional complexity, take an accounting of its dynamism, and act courageously to put forward a moderate multilateralist vision. After examining his record on Israel, his credibility on national security, and his understanding of the region, we believe that those who have Israel’s real interest at heart should applaud his nomination for U.S. Secretary of Defense. Only those who cherish the status quo and conflate Israel’s real interests with the reckless ideology of its current government should be concerned. Hagel’s rational, multilateral, and interests-based approach might be precisely what is needed to reignite and reshape the administration’s engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Molad was founded by former Knesset member and Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg, an Israel Defense Forces paratrooper turned peace activist who served as Executive Chairman of the Jewish Agency.
It looks like U.S. right wing-media know a lot less about Israeli views of Hagel than they claim.
Photo: Chuck Hagel/Asia Society Flickr.
]]>The two main problems with Ayalon’s analysis is that he seems not to have actually read the WikiLeaks cables—which offer ample evidence confirming the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the minds of Arab leaders—or bothered to understand how promoters of linkage define the concept.
(Matt Duss has an excellent post up on the Wonk Room that covers many of the same problems with Ayalon’s rather selective (when not downright misleading) interpretation of WikiLeaks and linkage.)
Linkage, as defined by Gen. David Petraeus last March, is [my emphasis]:
The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.
Rather conveniently, Ayalon’s definition of linkage misinterprets the concept and fails to address the concerns raised by Petraeus and members of the Obama administration who have endorsed the idea. Matt Duss accurately describes Ayalon’s description as “an obvious strawman.”
While right-wing blogs, political pundits, and columnists quickly embraced the talking point that WikiLeaks showed an Arab world that is deathly afraid of Iran’s nuclear program — but didn’t have much to say about the Arab-Israeli conflict — an actual reading of the cables suggests a very different message.
Here are a set of excerpts from WikiLeaks that show Arab leaders endorsing the concept of linkage (the Petraeus definition, not the Ayalon one) in the most blunt way possible.
The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan, in a December 9, 2009 meeting with the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman:
Emphasized the strategic importance of creating a Palestinian State (i.e., resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict) as the way to create genuine Middle Eastern unity on the question of Iran’s nuclear program and regional ambitions.
A cable from the U.S. embassy in Amman, written shortly after the end of the Gaza War in January 2009, reads:
Speaking to PolOffs [political officers] in early February 2009, immediately after the Gaza War, Director of the Jordanian Prime Minister’s Political Office Khaled Al-Qadi noted that the Gaza crisis had allowed Iranian interference in inter-Arab relations to reach unprecedented levels.
An April 2, 2009 cable from Amman repeated the Jordanian position:
Jordanian leaders have argued that the only way to pull the rug out from under Hizballah – and by extension their Iranian patrons – would be for Israel to hand over the disputed Sheba’a Farms to Lebanon.
It went on:
With Hizballah lacking the ‘resistance to occupation’ rationale for continued confrontation with Israel, it would lose its raison d’etre and probably domestic support.
And a February 22, 2010, cable describes UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nayan as he warns a Congressional delegation against a military attack on Iran, led by Nita Lowey:
The cable remarks that bin Zayed:
Concluded the meeting with a soliloquy on the importance of a successful peace process between Israel and its neighbors as perhaps the best way of reducing Iran’s regional influence.
During a February 14, 2010, meeting with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Qatar Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al-thani suggested one reason that Israel might be hyping the threat of a nuclear Iran.
The cable summarizes bin Khalifa as saying:
[The Israelis] are using Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons as a diversion from settling matters with the Palestinians.
Ayalon twisting the definition of linkage and misstating the messages contained in the WikiLeaks cables is indicative of the increasing desperation that the Israeli right-wing must be experiencing as authoritarian Middle Eastern governments, that have helped Israel maintain the status quo, are under increasing pressure to make democratic reforms. There’s no guarantee that the governments in Middle Eastern capitals will be as cooperative in helping Israel maintain its occupation of the West Bank or its siege on Gaza in the future. The time for Israeli hardliners to face their nation’s political realities and make difficult but necessary concessions may be drawing closer. Danny Ayalon is choosing to ignore the shifting political winds.
]]>The charges against my reporting are groundless. Indeed, I’d challenge Mellin to point to [...]]]>
The charges against my reporting are groundless. Indeed, I’d challenge Mellin to point to any inaccuracies in what my colleagues or I have published. However, Mellin’s comment is in itself instructive — he is himself yet another connection in the extensive web that ties the Clarion Fund to Aish HaTorah, an ultra-orthodox organization based in Israel — and further bears out my reporting on the subject.
Mellin writes:
Eli Clifton is in no way an unbiased journalist reporting on this issue, but has undermined his own credibility by mixing in non-biased reports with reports on his anti-Clarion agenda. [...]
He has publicly acknowledged this bias in a report published on this very website April 19th, 2010. http://www.lobelog.com/clarions-latest-film-unveiled/
“As highlighted in the ‘Rebutting Obsession’ project (which, in full disclosure, I contributed to)…”
Eli Clifton may have his opinions on the films, but they are just that: opinions. He should in no way be considered a neutral authority on this topic.
The JewsOnFirst project looks at the supposed “facts” presented in Obsession and points out the distortion of historical events and misrepresentations of Islam and Muslims in the film. This was not a negative review of the film — think “two thumbs down” — but an objective, well-sourced effort to fact-check the Clarion Fund’s documentary.
But who, exactly, is “Nate Mellin” and why does he care about a blog post which highlights the far-right leanings of Clarion’s entire advisory board?
Using an e-mail address recorded by our comment system, it appears Mellin is associated with a company called JI Website Design and Development. That URL is part of JewishIdeas.com, “an Orthodox Web-Directory and Search.” The company JI, according to its portfolio, designed the websites for Jerusalem Online University and Imagination Productions, among others.
All of these share common links to Aish HaTorah, the Israeli orthodox Jewish group which has denied having any formal links to the Clarion Fund. But Aish and Clarion once shared an address in New York; Clarion’s executive director, Raphael Shore, has worked as a full-time employee of Aish HaTorah and sits on the board of Imagination Productions; Rabbi Henry Harris and Rebecca Kabat incorporated the Clarion Fund, along with Raphael Shore, and served as employees of Aish HaTorah; Shore’s twin brother, Ephraim Shore was the executive director of Aish HaTorah in Miami and Toronto; and Clarion’s spokesperson, Gregory Ross, was an Aish HaTorah fundraiser.
Now we can add Nate Mellin, or “Nathan Meloul” as he is listed on his LinkedIn profile and his domain name registration, to the list of people whose activities appear to blur the line between Clarion and Aish HaTorah.
In his LinkedIn profile, he describes his current jobs as “Sr. Web Developer at Imagination Productions.” Imagination Productions produces JerusalemOnlineU.com, formerly known as AishCafe.com. The blog Failed Messiah looked into this and concluded: “Aish HaTorah changed the name of a missionary program, masked its connection to Aish, and uses it – and cash payments – to lure unsuspecting college students to Orthodoxy.”
Which brings us back to Mellin/Meloul. Why is he defending the Clarion Fund if he works for Imagination Productions?
The answer might lay in the Clarion Fund’s most recent 990, which lists $190,000 going to Imagination Productions to “help Imaginations further their mission of promoting Jewish Education.”
To summarize, Imagination Productions–whose board of directors includes Anne Ayalalon, the wife of Danny Ayalon, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister and former Ambassador to the U.S.–shares employees with Clarion and Aish HaTorah. Clarion helps fund Imagination. It should comes as no surprise that Imagination’s web-developer is defending the Clarion Fund’s documentaries. And all these institutional affiliations lead back to Aish HaTorah.
(We contacted Mellin/Melloul, Clarion, Jewish Ideas Website Design, Jerusalem Online U, and Imagination Productions for comment. As of press time, none had responded. We’ll update if we get anything.)
*UPDATE*
A Clarion Fund spokesperson confirmed to LobeLog that Nathan Melloul is a web designer for Imagination Productions. Melloul does not work for Clarion or RadicalIslam.org said the spokesperson.
When asked to explain the purpose of the $190,000 grant from Clarion to Imagination, the spokesperson responded that he doesn’t work with Clarion’s finances and, as a result, doesn’t know why the transfer took place.
He confirmed that Raphael Shore makes films with both Imagination and Clarion.
The “About Clarion Fund” page on the RadicalIslam.org website has added the following statement:
]]>Clarion Fund was founded by Raphael Shore in 2006. Shore is also the founder of Imagination Productions, a distributor of films relating to Jewish education; and JerusalemOnlineUniversity, a portal for online education. Previously, Shore served in senior posts at Aish HaTorah.