Points to Consider About the Resumption of Negotiations

There have been many articles published about the announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry that - after five years of refusal - the Palestinian Authority has supposedly agreed to resume final status negotiations with Israel. The following points are worth considering, whether or not any negotiations ever resume.

• The articles are ambiguous and conflicting regarding whether either side made any "concessions" to get the talks restarted. However, the facts that the Palestinian Arabs have been resisting talks (the major result of which, if successful, would be the establishment of another state for them and the content of which would primarily be the extent of Israeli concessions) and the conditions they have been demanding (more on those among the other points) are very telling about the differences between the parties (Israel, for whom peace is the major goal, and the Palestinian Arabs, for whom peace is a bitter pill).
• Mahmoud Abbas is the leader not only of the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), but of the Fatah and PLO terror groups, both of which continue to call for the elimination of Israel in their charters. (Despite all the hoopla in 1996, the PLO charter was never actually changed.) His term as "president" of the Palestinian Authority actually ended in January, 2009, as he was elected to a four-year term on January 9, 2005.
• Abbas has shown no interest in negotiating a peace agreement. He failed to even respond to an Israeli offer in 2008 to give him the equivalent of all the disputed territory, including parts of Jerusalem, and since then has refused to negotiate at all. (Technically, there was a three week period a few years ago during which he pretended to negotiate but announced even before he started that he'd end the negotiations after three weeks.)
• Abbas has no ability to implement an agreement, even if he had the interest in negotiating one. He has no authority over Gaza and limited power even in the West Bank.
• Regardless of whether Israel is making any concessions relating to the release of prisoners, the Arab demands for their release shows a lack of interest in peace. Those prisoners were not Boy Scouts; they are all terrorists, many of whom are mass murderers of innocent civilians. Someone who wanted to live in peace would also want them to remain where they belong - incarcerated; instead, the Palestinian Authority glorifies and honors those terrorists. (Much information about that glorification may be found on the Palestinian Media Watch website <http://www.palwatch.org.>)
• Every time Israel releases prisoners, some of them return to terrorism and try to murder innocent Israelis. The fact that Israel would even consider releasing prisoners just to get the Palestinian Arabs to the bargaining table is a testament to how much they desire peace; they have repeated released prisoners knowing it would lead to the death of Israelis in the hope - so far baseless - that it might bring the possibility of peace closer.
• The seminal United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calls for "secure and recognized boundaries," something the armistice lines in effect in 1967 could never be. The armistice agreements in 1949 also specifically stated those armistice lines were to have no political significance. Hence, any insistence on turning those armistice lines into borders constitutes and insistence on the violation of the armistice agreements and the Security Council resolution.
• References to those armistice lines as "borders" is simply incorrect.
• The areas that would have been allocated to an Arab state in Palestine had the Arabs joined the Zionists in accepting the United Nations Partition Plan did not include any parts of Jerusalem. During the period Jordan occupied portions of Jerusalem (1948-1967), Jews were barred from their holy sites in the Old City. Since then, there has been relatively free access for all, with the primary exception of Jews being barred from praying on the Temple Mount and largely prevented from even entering the Temple Mount since the late 1980s.
• Some have suggested implementation in Jerusalem of the principle of giving the primarily Arab areas to the Arabs and the primarily Jewish areas to Israel. This would make Jerusalem ungovernable and a security nightmare. It would also probably be opposed by the Arabs living in Jerusalem, if they felt free to vote without fear of reprisal, since so many of them are afraid of coming under the fist of the Palestinian Authority. However, that principle would make sense in the disputed territories. Rather than "land swaps," which are in principle violations of the armistice agreements and the Security Council resolutions, if the Arabs really were interested in a peaceful resolution they would agree to the primarily Jewish areas of the disputed territories staying with Israel while they would get the primarily Arab areas and dividing up the remainder of the disputed territory in a manner that would make the border reasonable.
• Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly insisted he would make no concessions on any of the core issues. ("I can't allow myself to make even one concession." September 7, 2010) He has also acknowledged that there would have been a peace agreement long ago had he been willing to be reasonable. ("If we showed flexibility on these issues the peace agreement would have been signed a long time ago." October 15, 2010)

– Alan Stein

Irresponsible Narratives and the Lives they Impact

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

I find it interesting how people determine narratives around issues, people, situations and circumstances. Everyone does it; many create their positions driven by highly motivated agendas. Others create their narratives based upon minimal information and still others assume the publicly shared position shared by a psychologically important person in their lives. Many people simply adopt the most convenient and non-threatening narrative available-you see even this allows one to believe he/she is being socially responsible. 

Ah, but there are flaws with each of these approaches and what goes wanting is the truth, authentic justice and courage of one’s own convictions. Multiply this by a population and one can better understand why a society and/or a culture collapse over time.

Let us examine the concept of narrative development. Common to all of the preceding descriptions are that words alone are used to create narratives. Furthermore, the selected words are derived from a person’s personal choice of the words available to each one of us-it is a conscious and deliberate choice, well at least for those who are “paying attention” and not simply “going along with the crowd”. Now, this gets us back to the idea of motivation does it not? By this I mean to suggest that one identifies the words available to describe any situation and chooses only those words that support one’s intentional narrative-has this not been your experience? If no, the remainder of this piece will not make any sense and you might be better off to stop reading now-no offense neither taken nor implied!

Let us only focus on narrative development and not co-op the discussion but confusing it with narrative promotion or narrative adoption.  These are two additional concepts to possibly be developed later.

The concept of narrative development is really quite simple. Identify the words available to describe any situation and then use only those that support your version of the story you will tell, i.e., narrative. We were taught this way back when, let us use elementary or junior high school as one scenario. Did you know anyone who began a “story” about the new oddball kid that was derogatory, mean-spirited and factually inaccurate? Later you found out that this “kid’ was a genius simply possessing social behaviors and physical mannerisms “different” from yours. Yet, the narrative persisted for many years even when it was known to those perpetuating the narrative that this “kid” was not the weirdo the narrative proclaimed. Yet, even with this truth known, the narrative persisted! 

Many tell me that this is “old news”, they know this and obviously practice it daily-all sides of situations do this, the logic that seems to be implied is then it is ok to do it also-still scratching my head each time I state this point.

You see what has become socially acceptable in today’s world is “anything or most anything” is permitted in narrative development particularly if one’s intentions are noble, fall on the side of those who are disadvantaged/oppressed and operate out of good feelings for those having less than you. Yes, if one has “good intentions” and appeals directly to the feelings of others when presenting one’s narrative than it is OK/permissible/right/correct/morally acceptable (pick a descriptor or make up one of your own) to with hold the known complete situation descriptors. Said any other way, it is possible to manipulate the narrative away from the truth, that even when the facts are presented, those who have consumed and assumed the narrative must discount the information. 

 Why?  Simple, self-preservation with regards to one’s publicly shared position. It takes a person of immense character, one who is willing to step back from an assumed narrative, seek complete information and ask what is my intention with regards to continued use of a tarnished position? Every step of the way it is useful to understand that we, as humans, have a choice to make with respect to the words we adopt, the words we believe and it is our free will that drives our selections and choices-including ignoring other details and facts that are indeed contrary to one’s existing narrative.

It is based upon this conclusion that I find it disconcerting what is going on in the USA today particularly within the circle of politics and social situations and circumstances. It is not that I am stunned by the “creative” narratives coming from all sides, I am not naïve nor unfamiliar with the political process. I am disappointed with people who accept the narratives as truth, as gospel, even in the face of credible information that clearly disputes and disrupts the narrative in play.

The recent classic case is the Zimmerman trial and outcome. You see, the moment I even dare mention this people have “hunkered down” in their staid positions. Let us examine the fall out after the verdict was presented. Through-out this entire ordeal the News Media offered their narrative-notice the choice in the words used and those same words appeared on FB, Twitter and other social media sites: “a police “wannabee”, racially profiled, vigilante, gun-toting, carrying skittles, unarmed teenager/child, wearing a hoodie, and so many more descriptors of the person killed by a gun carried by a man. Clearly one side attempted to create a narrative based upon the perceived emotional state of its constituency. The victim was presented as a young teen, even heard older child used, who was on his way to buy Skittles-well you know the story, I need not repeat it all. This description was used to tug at people’s heartstrings, as well as to demonize the shooter. Of course until late in the trial you did not hear about the other descriptors such as drug user, school suspension, truancy, alleged involvement in a minor robbery-nor did you hear about the shooter’s brush with the law. 

To this writer it seems that appealing to the most basic of human’s motivation system, his/her feelings and using it as not only the “hook” but the ongoing tool to control other peoples’ thoughts and beliefs has reached a pinnacle today. We all know about feelings, they can and do fluctuate across time. The power of feelings has been well documented. We have all been the recipient of decisions made and/or actions taken based solely on our “feelings state”. Did you ever opt for the hot fudge sundae (you felt compelled to eat one) only later in the evening to suffer gastric distress? Have you known someone who “needed to have” that car even though he/she could not afford it but rationalized the purchase because it satisfied a feeling? How about the high school student who felt like writing insulting and hurtful words about another person on Face book for all to read? Today we call this bullying but the writer was only operating on his/her feelings!

We all understand my point regarding feelings and their power in managing our own as well as other’s behavior. For one side to only use feeling statements to create what I call feelings based narratives is immature at best, certainly it can be hurtful, incorrect, and misleading beyond the pale at worst. 

It does not speak well of where our society and/or culture is today in America when political groups, leaders and individuals who know better are part of an ongoing strategy to only create feelings-based narratives for purposes of intentionally distorting the facts about any one, any situation, circumstance or event. Furthermore, I am more than disappointed with people I know who otherwise operate their lives with integrity find themselves echoing this narrative form. It is especially disheartening when I know that they know better but choose to sustain their social status by refusing to critical think. This my friends is how a society crumbles.

Leading Critic of French al-Dura Coverage Convicted for Revealing the Fraud

This item was sent to PRIMER by Jerry Gordon.

Phillipe Karsenty was convicted of defamation by what passes for a Court in France for having the effrontery of revealing the fraud of the Al Dura affair and attacking the lies of the producer of the infamous child killing fraudulent video Charles Enderlin and the state owned France 2 TV News channel. This is Kafkesque. Doubtless this travesty of justice will be appealed. The stain of this court ruling is on the honor of France for this calumny. But then think of the Dreyfus affair. After three trials it was left for the President of France to 'pardon' Capt. Henri Dreyfus for the sin of being Jewish and set up by an anti-Semitic French General Staff. The irony in the Karsenty case is that both he and Enderlin are Jewish.

Phillipe Karsenty

In our NER video interview with Nidra Poller on the Al Dura affair, we asked about the peculiarities of the French system of justice (?). She responded:

Gordon: Because the Al-Dura affair has persisted, it has involved a series of legal matters in the French courts. One of the principle accusers of the fraud is Philippe Karsenty . He who appears to be a minor hero for taking on this myth that Mr. Enderlin and others including the Palestinian camera man have perpetuated in this regard. What can you tell us about that and more importantly how peculiar is the French juridical system?

Poller: I attended on almost every hearing in this case. I know Philippe. I have known him since he started working on the case. I covered the whole trial. In the first trial I was sitting very close to Maitre Amblard who is the lawyer for France2 and Enderlin.  I write about her head of thick, white hair and all of her gestures. I especially wrote about a pile of folders and documents that she had. I was thinking my goodness, she must have all of this evidence and here I am stupid and thinking I'm a journalist and writing about this. When the trial started, I don't know what was in the stack of files. They didn't have anything and all of the years they've never have produced a bit of evidence. They don't cross-examine. What happens in the court resembles nothing you could imagine in an American court where people are put on the spot.  So there was not any kind of cross-examination and over the years, I have seen Philippe improve his presentation and his manner of dealing with this situation. He presented three dimensional mock-ups of the Netzarim Junction. At first when Amblard presented to three judge panel, they were saying what is this excited guy doing .  At the latest appeal I watched them start out very hostile to Karsenty . They seem to express the view that we are the judges and we get this evidence .  Talking as a writer ,not a journalist, I think they were saying, oh my goodness, how are we going to convict this guy? It is a fake so they have put off their verdict twice. They can't settle this issue in court. You can't settle this issue if you only stay on the Al-Dura affair ... .

In mid-June I had this email response from Esther Schapira, noted German investigative journalist who has produced several powerful investigative reports on the Al Dura fraudulent for Hessiche Rundfunk:

Two weeks ago, when I was in Israel, our film was shown on Israeli TV again and the case is still being discussed there. Unfortunately I guess we'll never know the whole truth and even if we did it wouldn't change most people's perception. However it is worth fighting for the truth nevertheless as we don't have another option. I do keep my finger's crossed for Phillippe. He had to pay a much higher price for his "mission" and I still find it unbelievable that a tv station tries to silence a critical voice by putting it on trial. We as journalists have to be open to criticism more than anyone else. We have to justify our work and deal with every kind of criticism, no matter how hard or even unfair it may seen. And he has done nothing else but gathering material and drawing his own conclusion and asking questions that France 2 has failed to answer until today.

An article about the French court's disgraceful action may also be read on the Times of Israel website.

New York Times (As Usual) Ignores Reality

This was originally sent as a letter to The New York Times, which had been the epitome of what a newspaper should be when I was growing up.

The May 28 editorial, "Shuttle Diplomacy, Kerry Style," questions Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "commitment to a two-state solution," but surprisingly does not question West Bank chieftain Mahmoud Abbas' commitment to anything resembling peace.

For his part, Abbas not only refused to even respond to Olmert's offer back in 2008 to give him his Palestinian state in the equivalent of all the disputed territories, but has spurned negotiations ever since and has adamantly insisted he will never compromise one iota on any of the core issues.

Abbas' government blatantly violates almost all its solemn commitments under the failed Oslo agreements, indoctrinates schoolchildren with hatred, glorifies terrorism while honoring dead terrorists and paying salaries to live terrorists responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians.

He makes their release from prison yet another precondition to negotiations while asserting he will never recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

In sharp contrast, Netanyahu has worked assiduously and relatively successfully to improve the lives of the Arabs living in the areas administered by the Palestinian Authority while continually trying to entice Abbas to return to the negotiating table.

In the absence of meaningful negotiations, nobody can know precisely how much Netanyahu would ultimately compromise, but both his words and his deeds provide evidence that he greatly desires peace with all of Israel's Arab neighbors, including the Palestinian Arabs.

On the other hand, Mahmoud Abbas' words and actions strongly suggest he has no interest in living in peace with Israel, at least under any circumstances which would not set the stage for the ultimate elimination of the only true democracy in the Middle East.

Obama Urged Israel To Do What It Has Already Done Many Times

Published in the Connecticut Post March 28, 2013 under the title "Israel has made many concessions" and in the Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate on April 2, 2013 under the title "Israel has compromised."

To the editor:

Re: the article "Obama urges Israel to compromise" published March 22:

Israel has already made enormous, painful compromises and is clearly ready to make more if it will bring about peace.

Even before the reestablishment of Israel, the Zionists acquiesced when Great Britain severed the East Bank of Palestine, comprising nearly 80 percent of Palestine, to create what is now Jordan, and then agreed to every further partition proposed, including the United Nations Partition Plan, even as each was rejected by the Arabs.

After it captured the currently disputed territories in 1967 after being attacked by Jordan, Israel made clear its readiness to return it all to Jordan and Egypt if those countries would agree to peace, only to be met with the infamous "Three Nos" of the Arab League: no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no peace with Israel.

At least twice it has offered virtually all the disputed territory to the Palestinian Arabs, despite the fact that Israel's historical, legal and moral claim to that land is at least as great as that of the Arabs.

The first time, Yasser Arafat responded to Israel's offer with a wave of terror. The second time, Mahmoud Abbas responded by refusing to negotiate and has publicly insisted, "I can't allow myself to make even one concession."

Peace requires compromise. The Israelis remain ready. The Palestinian Arabs clearly aren't.

Alan Stein

The writer is president emeritus of PRIMER-Connecticut (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting).

Policies and the Law

This letter was published in The Jerusalem Post Magazine, March 29, 2013. A copy was also sent to President Obama.

As an American who resides part-time in Israel, I have long been astounded by the counterproductive strategies of the executive branch of the US government.

The explanations given by Efraim Cohen ("undiplomatic severance," Letters, March 15), former cultural attache at the only American embassy in the world which is not located in the host country's capital, omit crucial facts which show the policies Cohen describes are in contravention of American law.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed overwhelmingly by Congress, states "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city," that it "should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel" and that the US Embassy in Israel should be "established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999," while giving the president the authority to delay the relocation.

All the more absurd is Cohen's explanation that the consulate in Jerusalem represents the US vis-a-vis the Palestinians. This is akin to Great Britain having a consulate in Washington for the Cubans while locating its embassy in New York.

Moreover, statements by American officials regarding negotiations over the status of Jerusalem, including a possible division, clearly conflict with the official American policy signed into law by President Clinton nearly two decades ago. The actions of the executive branch are also counterproductive to any peace process, since they encourage Arab intransigence that is the heart of the conflict.

One of the most productive actions President Obama could take would be to finally move the US embassy to where it belongs, in Jerusalem, and move the consulateto Ramallah.

Alan H. Stein
Netanya

BDS and Abraham's Tent

(This was sent by Maurice Ostroff.  You can find his group at https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/maurice-ostroff.)

This year in Cape Town, opponents of BDS decided to show another side to the coin. Although totally outmatched by the well-financed and professionally organized BDS movement, these Capetonians adopted a proactive, imaginative approach with an “Israel Peace Week.”

At the center is an enormous “Abraham’s Tent” on the main plaza of the University of Cape Town campus. There, visitors will enjoy the patriarch’s hospitality – falafel, pita, Israeli salad, coffee and juices.

To support the Capetonians a new voluntary organization in Israel known as TRUTH BE TOLD (TBT) in cooperation with the IDC Herzliya and the SA Zioniist Federation in SA organized to send five Ethiopian students to South Africa to appear on campuses and  among non Jewish and Jewish groups. 

It was really heartwarming to meet these students at a briefing with TBT before they left. They are charming, sincere and intelligent. They are proud of their African Jewish heritage and proud to be Israelis.  All have either served in the IDF or completed meaningful national service.

And this is the reaction from one of the Capetonians who hosted the students

"Your five superb Israeli/Jewish/Ethiopian IDC students arrived in CT last week.

We could not have had any better emissaries to dispel the Israel Apartheid analogy and present a very different Israel to the one depicted in South Africa. 

As an Israeli and as a member of the Jewish/Zionist community I was so proud of them.

They spent 2 days with our Jewish youth in our Jewish day schools interacting with the kids and enabling them to see beyond what they read or hear in the media.

They have gone onto campus interacted with the students, addressed church service and spoke to 'man in the street', the bouncer at the club etc etc and dispelled many preconceived ideas about Jews and Israel

So,  thank you

Tamar "

Click here for more http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=306089

Regards
Maurice

PS. Diarize the evening of May 13 for a panel discussion organized by TBT on the information war to be  moderated by IBA personality Leah Zinder.  In addition to the panel discussion, one of the students will report back briefly on the events in Cape Town.

Between the Lines: More of Mahmoud's Mendacity

The Thursday, February 28 Jerusalem Post contained a totally factual article by Khaled Abu Toameh entitled "Abbas Reiterates opposition to E1 plan to British delegation." The article may be viewed in full on the Jerusalem Post website at <http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=304749>. Mahmoud was at his mendacious best.

Here are some excerpts, along with some comments.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated his opposition on Wednesday to Israel’s plan to build in the area known as E1 between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim.
...
Abbas’s remarks came during a meeting he held in his office in Ramallah with Nigel Kim Darroch, the National Security Adviser for the British government.
...
Abbas told the British diplomats that the E1 plan would divide the West Bank into two parts and prevent geographical continuity between Palestinian territories.

Comment: One can be fairly certain Abbas is familiar enough with the geography of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") to know this is absolutely false. While it might require some Palestinian Arabs to alter their routes when traveling between portions of Judea and Samaria, their detours would actually be far less than the distance I have to detour to avoid Palestinian Authority controlled areas when traveling between Netanya and Jerusalem.

Abbas said that the plan would also isolate east Jerusalem from its “Palestinian surroundings.”

Comment: More nonsense.

Reiterating his commitment to the two-state solution, Abbas said that the PA remained committed to a just and comprehensive peace with Israel.

Comment: Abbas has a rather strange way of acting on that alleged commitment, given that he has assiduously avoided negotiations with Israel since ignoring an incredibly one-sided (in the PA's favor) offer way back in 2008 from the Israeli government that would have given the Palestinian Arabs the equivalent of all the disputed territory.

Abbas complained that the continued imprisonment of Palestinians and settlement construction “jeopardized efforts to break the current statement (sic) in the peace process.”

Comment: One litmus test Abbas repeatedly fails: Insisting on the release of terrorists is not the position of someone interested in living in peace. Insisting on making Judea and Samaria judenrein is also not the position of someone living in peace; rather it is the position of someone who wants to create a state that is worse than an apartheid state.

The stalemate in the so-called peace process is almost totally Abbas' doing. Efforts by third parties, or even Israel, to break the stalemate will continue to be useless unless and until Abbas makes the fundamental decision to work for, rather than against, peace.

Meanwhile, Abbas Zaki, a senior Fatah official, called on Palestinians to take to the streets in the thousands to block highways used by settlers in the West Bank.

Comment: Hardly a clarion call for peaceful coexistence.

Zaki said that the Palestinians can no longer remain idle as “our sons are being executed in Israeli prisons.”

Comment: No Palestinian Arabs have ever been executed in Israeli prisons. The only prisoner ever executed by Israel since its reestablishment was Adolf Eichmann. But why should Zaki be any less mendacious than Abbas?

He said, however, that Fatah was opposed to an armed struggle against Israel at this stage because of the divisions among the Palestinians and the preoccupation of the Arab countries with the Arab Spring.

Comment: In other words, it's not that Fatah has anything against murdering innocent Israelis. Indeed, the Palestinian Authority repeatedly lionizes brutal murderers and Article 19 of the Fatah Charter insists "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated."

It's just that, at this moment, there are tactical reasons for not using too much violence - especially since it can count on its cohorts to keep trying to kill Israelis while maintaining implausible deniability.

In fact, even Fatah can continue "armed struggle" without anyone paying attention. Just the other day, it was Fatah which launched a missile from Gaza which landed in Ashkelon. And Fatah, like the PA and PLO, is led by none other than the mendacious Mahmoud Abbas.

It doesn't take much reading between the lines, even of this one, relatively short article, to understand there's virtually no chance of an Arab-Israeli peace until there's a sea change in the mindset of the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs.

Explanation in Pictures: Why There's No Arab-Israeli Peace

This is what the Palestinian Arabs chose to build
when it snowed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

This is a typical expression of Israeli desires,
on the beach in Netanya.

They just live in two different worlds: one wants peace, the other just hates.

Sleeping Through the Revolution

By Dr. Charles Asher Small

This may be found in the Connecticut Jewish Ledger and at http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/07/Sleeping-Through-the-Revolution.

Historically, antisemitism has provided the perfect diversionary ploy for dictators and demagogues. Today is no different.  From Tehran to Timbuktu, radical political Islamism (not to be confused with Islam the religion), and the governments and institutions they control are employing antisemitism as a highly effective means of distracting the masses. Demonize Jews and Israel as you transform your society into an intolerant theocracy.

Yet little is heard from the Obama Administration in protest – or from the mainstream media, or the self-proclaimed human rights progressives from Western academia. The inconvenient truth is that global antisemitism is alive and well – openly throughout the Muslim world, and, under the cloak of so-called political correctness, in the West.

Case in point: Egypt has just adopted a Sharia-based constitution that dooms millions to second-class status, including women, religious minorities, gays and lesbians and, of course, Jews. Its Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government and president, Mohamed Morsi, cynically promote antisemitic venom such as denial of the Holocaust and the vicious canard of a Jewish conspiracy behind 9/11.  And they remain ideologically adamant in their overarching goals: the implementation of Sharia to redefine society at all levels, and Israel’s elimination.

In the face of this, the Obama Administration and the mainstream media have been largely silent. In fact, eager to appease their supposed new friends in Cairo and elsewhere, they are now busily promoting for U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a former senator who has a problematic history with Jews and Israel.

The situation has reached a point where the political and academic elites actually believe that speaking out against present-day antisemitism somehow equates to opposing the valid aspirations of millions of Muslims. They resist applying any honest analysis to political reality on the ground, continuing instead to cling to failed notions like the Arab Spring. They refuse to acknowledge the ascendance of a hate-filled, anti-democratic revolutionary wave that is inflicting incalculable harm on people throughout the Muslim world.

Interesting how those same elites rarely miss an opportunity to denounce Israel’s political leaders and the policies they must uphold to ensure their nation’s survival in a violent unstable region that refuses to recognize the Jewish state’s basic right to exist. 

The time has come for President Obama to act. The world must not witness a repeat of 2009 when pro-democracy Iranians were slaughtered in the streets of Teheran by agents of the regime – while the President did nothing.

Sadly, history seems to be repeating itself in Egypt, as Washington continues to soft peddle the base nature of the Brotherhood and its ascent to power in the region’s most important country. It’s a disturbing trend that began with the President’s 2009 Cairo speech, when he invested the Muslim Brotherhood with undeserved prestige by insisting on their attendance, as he embarked on his policy of engagement with the Islamic world. If Obama does not act to change course soon, that speech will become his Neville Chamberlin moment.

Incitement to genocide against the Jewish people is a basic tenet of radical political Islamism. President Obama and his Administration must confront it head on. Surely he knows the core lesson of the civil rights movement: that blaming the victim only emboldens those who hate. To be blunt, the President can take a principled stand in support of human rights and against antisemitism. Or he can allow the forces of intolerance to aggregate even more power. 

How can the U.S. turn a blind eye to a doctrine of antisemitism that literally incites to mass slaughter? When the elites make excuses for extremists in the name of mutual understanding and engagement then, one fears, we have lost our way. To borrow the words of Martin Luther King Jr., we must not sleep through this revolution.

Dr. Charles Asher Small is Director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), and Distinguished Scholar at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.