RUTHFULLY YOURS

THIS COLUMN IS WORTH REVISITING. HOWARD JACOBSON’S NEW BOOK IS ENTITLED “J”…AND IT IS EXCELLENT.
It’s official: thanks to Stephen Hawking’s Israel boycott, anti-Semitism is no more.

Why is Israel alone of all offending countries to be boycotted? Perhaps because it’s that offending country which also just happens to be Jewish?

Gather round, everybody. I bear important news. Anti-Semitism no longer exists! Ring out, ye bells, the longest hatred has ceased to be. It’s kaput, kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, joined the bleedin’ choir invisible. It’s a stiff, ladies and gentlemen. An EX-PREJUDICE!

I first heard the news in a motion passed by the University and College Union declaring that criticism of Israel can “never” be anti-Semitic which, if “never” means “never”, is a guarantee that Jew-hating is over, because … Well, because it’s impossible to believe that an active anti-Semite wouldn’t – if only opportunistically – seek out somewhere to nestle in the manifold pleats of Israel-bashing, whether in generally diffuse anti-Zionism, or in more specific Boycott and Divestment Campaigns, Israeli Apartheid Weeks, End the Occupation movements and the like. Of course, you don’t have to hate Jews to hate Israel, but tell me that not a single Jew-hater finds the activity congenial, that criticising Israel can “never” be an expression of Jew-hating, not even when it takes the form of accusing Israeli soldiers of harvesting organs, then it follows that there’s no Jew-hating left.

Speaking from the White House President Obama announced:

“Today, the United States — together with our allies and partners — has reached a historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

There was only “an understanding” – not even a piece of paper initialled by representatives of all the parties to the long and complex negotiations – that President Obama could wave to the waiting media setting out what that “understanding” was.

It did not take long to discover the reason explaining the absence of such an initialled document.

It turns out there are in fact two pieces of paper – one prepared by each side – but neither signed or agreed to by the other:

1. Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program

2. Iranian Fact Sheet on the Nuclear Negotiations which was only published in Farsi – but has been subsequently translated into English – for which there does not appear to be an official Iranian Government translation.

The first and simplest question one needs to ask is – in what language will the final authorised version of the agreement be actually framed?

A president with not much to show for his years in power, other than an album of photo ops, feels the need to remind history of his greatness. So why not strike a deal with Iran and spin surrender as triumph? But, hey, it’s Barack’s World and the rest of just live in it. At least for now.

Iran and the US are the best of friends now, with President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry upbeat about this alleged triumph of diplomacy, which they are trying hard to sell around the globe, starting with their own, quite unconvinced Congress. Many on Capitol Hill see it, correctly, as a dangerous agreement struck by a weakling with an outlaw state infamous for its deceit, terrorism and ceaseless, opportunistic aggression. In his narcissist’s drive to revel in the world’s admiration, an inept president has endangered us all.

To grasp the depth of Obama’s determined pursuit of folly – the charitable interpretation of what motivates him — let us recall US impotence during the Carter years, when the Tehran regime shredded every tenet of international law, attacked the US Embassy and took its diplomats hostage. The captives were released on the same day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated – a historical footnote which might have reminded Obama and Kerry that the mullahs put discretion above valour when confronted by resolve. They also seem to have overlooked that no apology, restitution, or contrition was ever made, offered or uttered.

““If that starts being questioned, that’s going to be a problem for our friends and that’s going to embolden our enemies. And it would be a foolish approach to take, and, you know, perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.”

President Obama grinned in an NPR interview when asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request that Iran recognize the state of Israel in a final nuclear deal.

“Well, let me say this. It’s not that the idea of Iran recognizing Israel is unreasonable. It’s completely reasonable and that’s U.S. policy. And I’ve been very forceful in saying that our differences with Iran don’t change if we make sure that they don’t have a nuclear weapon. They’re still going to be financing Hezbollah. They’re still supporting Assad dropping barrel bombs on children. They are still sending arms to the Houthis in Yemen that have helped destabilize the country,” Obama said.

“There are obvious differences in how we are approaching fighting ISIL in Iraq, despite the fact that there’s a common enemy there. So there’s still going to be a whole host of differences between us and Iran, and one of the most profound ones is the vile, anti- Semitic statements that have often come out of the highest levels of the Iranian regime,” he continued.

As a deputy in the Russian parliament, Ilya Ponomarev cast last year’s sole vote against the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea. For this and other thought crimes, his face was plastered on a Moscow billboard labeling him a “national traitor” and his bank accounts were frozen. For most of the last year he has been living abroad.

But in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, a bucket of political revenge is never enough. So this week the parliament voted to strip Mr. Ponomarev of his parliamentary immunity. This effectively forces him into exile, since his immunity was the only thing that had been standing in the way of being hit with trumped up criminal charges of taking illicit payments. The tactic is a Kremlin favorite, which it has used against former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky and dissident blogger Alexei Navalny.

Mixing shrewd diplomacy with defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has turned the negotiation on its head.

The announced framework for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has the potential to generate a seminal national debate. Advocates exult over the nuclear constraints it would impose on Iran. Critics question the verifiability of these constraints and their longer-term impact on regional and world stability. The historic significance of the agreement and indeed its sustainability depend on whether these emotions, valid by themselves, can be reconciled.

Debate regarding technical details of the deal has thus far inhibited the soul-searching necessary regarding its deeper implications. For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests—and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years.

He throws money and platitudes at the VA to cover up its deadly scandals.

Eight months ago, President Obama put on a grand show for the troops. Surrounded by new secretary of veterans affairs Bob McDonald, assorted politicians, military leaders, and a bevy of TV cameras, the commander-in-chief signed the “Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act.” He’s good at inking things. Obama condemned the “inexcusable conduct” at VA hospitals across the country (and under his own watch). He vowed to “do right by all who served under our proud flag.” He promised America’s veterans new “reform,” “resources,” “timely care,” and an end to the disgraceful disability backlog.

The bill he signed, in case you’d forgotten, included $10 billion in emergency funding to pay for veterans to go outside the chronically dysfunctional VA system if they are facing long wait times or live 40 miles or more from a VA facility, plus another $6.3 billion to set up 27 new clinics and hire doctors, nurses, and other medical staff. So, how’s it all working out? About as well as every other “success story” Obama has signed his name to: abysmally, ineffectually, and incompetently. Take Obama’s hyped plan to expand health-care access to those who live far from a VA facility.

Its bogus UVA rape story ignored the most basic rules of journalism. Rolling Stone screwed up. In most media scandals, it’s unfair to paint with such a broad brush. When Stephen Glass concocted his fables at The New Republic, he went to antiheroic lengths to conceal his deceptions from his colleagues. Janet Cooke, who famously won a Pulitzer for her Washington Post series about an eight-year-old heroin addict, “Jimmy’s World,” lied to her editors.

That’s not the case with Rolling Stone’s publication of “A Rape on Campus,” the story of the brutal gang rape of a student named “Jackie” at the University of Virginia that turned out to be false. Its failure was a group effort, from editor-in-chief Jann Wenner on down.
The best thing you can say about this fiasco is that there was little deliberate lying involved. According to an exhaustive report by the Columbia Journalism School, the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and her editors didn’t purposefully publish falsehoods. Of course, this is faint praise.

It’s simple: Warm relations with adversaries, and cool them with friends. James Jeffrey, Barack Obama’s former ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Iraq, has this to say about the administration’s current record in the Middle East: “We’re in a goddamn free fall.” Count the mistakes: Helping overthrow Moammar Qaddafi in Libya, leading to anarchy and civil war. Pressuring Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to resign, then backing the Muslim Brotherhood, leading now-president Sisi to turn toward Moscow. Alienating Washington’s most stalwart ally in the region, the government of Israel.

Dismissing ISIS as “junior varsity” just before it seized major cities. Hailing Yemen as a counterterrorism success just before its government was overthrown. Alarming the Saudi authorities to the point that they put together a military alliance against Iran. Coddling Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, encouraging his dictatorial tendencies. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely, dooming the vast American investment in those two countries.

A few thousand interceptors at home and abroad would significantly strengthen deterrence, not undermine it.

In short, the U.S. was being condemned for defending itself.

This statement by Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, came on top of serial Russian threats, over the past six years, repeatedly threatening the use of nuclear weapons against U.S. allies and NATO, as well as a new threat on April 2, if the U.S. armed Ukraine or protected the Baltic states.

The Russian ambassador to Denmark recently threatened to aim Russian nuclear warheads at Danish warships if they deployed missile defense radars.

Such dangers will only be magnified if the number of nuclear powers multiplies, such as if Iran and many Sunni states develop nuclear weapons. Iran’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has already said that Iran plans to sell “enriched uranium” on the international market, and “will hopefully be making some money from it.”