"If you think that this is just a misunderstanding of where the green crayon went in 1949, then think again," Bolton said of Obama. Bolton's comments came during a meeting he had with the Post's editorial board.

Bolton, who is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Fox News commentator, said that Obama bought in to what he said was the "European line" that if you make progress between "Israel" and the Palestinians "freedom and light" will break out in the region, and every other problem from Iran to terrorism will be easier to solve.

"I think that is like looking through the wrong end of the telescope," he said.

Bolton, in the country along with former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar and Nobel Peace Prize laureate David Trimble from Northern Ireland as part of a delegation of international dignitaries involved in an organization called Friends of "Israel" Initiative, said he was considering running for the Republican nomination, and would made a decision by Labor Day.

"The problem is that we haven't had an adequate discussion of national security issues for two and a half years," he said, explaining why he was thinking about entering the race.

"It is not a priority for Obama, and I think that is a big mistake for the United States."

Bolton said he conducted extensive "due diligence" about a possible race for the Republican nomination, including talking to fundraisers, pollsters, and campaign people in different states, including Iowa, where he has visited in advance of the Iowa caucuses, the first test in the US election calendar.

Some of Bolton's harshest criticism of Obama had to do with the administration's Iran policy, with Bolton saying he believed the Obama administration's "real Plan B for the Iranian nuclear weapons program is that it can be detained and deterred, much as we detained and deterred the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

"I think that is fundamentally wrong," Bolton said, adding that the only way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons was through military action.

"Diplomacy and sanctions are not going to work," he said unequivocally.

"The Obama administration certainly isn't going to use force against the Iranian program, and "Israel" is obviously very reluctant to do it as well," he said.

"If "Israel" is not prepared to strike, then get ready for an Iran with nuclear weapons, and you can draw your own conclusions. If you think Iran's behavior is bad now, imagine what it will be if it gets nuclear capability. I think we are all sleepwalking past this."

Bolton said the US would have an easier time destroying Iran's control of its nuclear fuel cycle than "Israel" would, but that "Israel" has the capability to do this, and has had it for some time.

"If I had been in charge of the "Israeli" government, I would have attacked in 2008 for several reasons," he said.

"First, it was three years ago, so you are much more likely to have eliminated the key elements of Iran's nuclear weapons program."

Secondly, he said, "in 2008 you had a president sympathetic to "Israel" - so you calculate the next time that is going to occur."

Bolton had equally strong words to say about the Palestinian bid for some type of statehood recognition at the UN in September, something he said should not - as it is in "Israel" and elsewhere - be getting more attention and energy than the Iranian nuclear threat.

"Israel's" proper response to the move, he said, is "not to pay any attention to it, and to care no more about it than the grass you tread beneath your feet."
During his interview with the Jerusalem Post, and without referring directly to "Israeli" War Minister Ehud Barak's comment that "Israel" faced a "diplomatic tsunami" in September, Bolton said "if you make the General Assembly into something more than what it is, then you are giving it authority and legitimacy it doesn't have."

The Zionist daily added that Bolton's comments were made against the backdrop of what is almost certain to be a US veto in the Security Council, the body whose approval is necessary for a state to become a UN member. In that case, the Palestinians are likely to take their bid to the General Assembly, which has no binding authority.

Bolton acknowledged, however, that the move did have political significance, similar to the "Zionism Equals Racism" declaration of the mid-1970s.

Leaning on past experience when he was head of the international organizations department in the State Department from 1989-1993, Bolton said that the only way to get this move stopped in the UN was for the US Congress to pass legislation saying that if the move did go through, Washington would cut off funding to the international body.

Bolton added in his interview with the Jerusalem Post that a threat by former secretary of state and chief of staff James Baker, backed up by the first president George Bush, to cut off funds to the UN if the PLO was accepted into the UN system as a full member is what kept the PLO from gaining acceptance as a state in 1989.

___________________________________________________

Sefi Rachlevsky, Haaretz- Netanyahu is turning "Israel" into Iran

Now violence is being privatized. In typical Netanyahu fashion, individuals on the radical right are given the push, the encouragement and the authority to take the "Operation Price Tag" route, with much more than winking approval.

Benjamin Netanyahu was right when he spoke about the dangers of a messianic, nuclearized Iran, and the difficulty of creating a stable balance of terror with it. That is precisely why the prime minister's actions are so shocking. In our terms, they constitute a serious dereliction of duty. In the terms of the circles he is so fond of whipping up in a demonstration, they constitute treason.

"In the face of a nuclearizing Iran, in addition to international sanctions and covert actions, "Israel" has three main options: a military assault, which is looking increasingly irresponsible; a switch from insufficiently deterrent nuclear ambiguity to a policy of open nuclear deterrence; and reliance on NATO's umbrella of defense".



In his article published in Haaretz "Israeli" daily, Sefi Rachlevsky stated that all three aforementioned options share a single key: a close alliance with the West. According to the article, "Israeli" believes that without it [close western alliance], the thought of a military operation, and especially a day-after scenario, are not even a hallucination. "Without it, there can be no move to effective open deterrence. Without it, there is no huddling under NATO's nuclear defense umbrella."

"This was one of the main causes that led Yitzhak Rabin to choose to move toward a strategic, stabilizing peace before Iran acquired nuclear capabilities. It should have been one of the reasons that would bring "Israel" now to the unequivocal recognition - as a matter of principle - of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines. Not a miserly formula for purposeless negotiations, but rather genuine generosity, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence."

In reference to the Iranian nuclear status, the article said that this is not a simple deal, Itamar in exchange for Bushehr. "But were it not for the 1956 withdrawal from Sinai, there would be no Dimona; if not for the peace with Egypt, there would have been no attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor. An alliance with the West requires proof of intentions and of values. But Netanyahu consciously chooses to go in the opposite direction, thus revealing the depth of his unbridled extremism".

Under normal circumstances, the military establishment is to the right of the political establishment. That is its nature. Only in rare cases is the situation reversed, as in the waning days of the Second Temple Era, and in fascist regimes. In all these cases, the end is similar. "Israel" is now joining these anomalies. Not only is Netanyahu not building an alliance with the world's democracies, he is creating a (so-called) fascist, messianic Iran here. Churchill, whom he claims to admire, distanced himself from Britain's racist Naziphiles. Here, things are approaching the threshold of non-distancing. The article stated, "Netanyahu's coalition is vigorously legislating "red heifer laws," that purify the impure and pollute the pure. Laws that invert the legal and the criminal".

"It is no longer just the government of Rabbi Dov Lior. Now it is simply the "dov" regime - the Hebrew acronym for the suppression of traitors. Dov was the name of an extreme right-wing group that got its start among groups of university students in (al-Quds) Jerusalem. Dov Shilansky often lectured them about the Altalena". These groups would later give rise to Avigdor Lieberman. The Haaretz article further explained that the organization's name is an acronym for its philosophy: dikui bogdanim ["suppression of traitors" in Hebrew].

On another hand Sefi Rachlevsky added that "those who are against the occupation and who refuse to cooperate with the criminality of the settlements will now have to pay huge sums for their unwillingness to cooperate - in addition to paying their taxes, which fund the illegal settlement enterprise".

___________________________________________________

Yitzhak Laor, Haaretz- Israelis, Palestinians must unite to end occupation

"The will of "Israel"" does not derive from civilian, minority-majority norms, nor is it based on a constitution that guarantees minority rights and defines when a minority has the option to rise up against the government. Instead, "the will of "Israel"" derives from an ultra-nationalist version of the Jewish religion.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the political right argues, has a solid parliamentary majority, so not accepting such a majority's decisions is undemocratic. Right-wing advocates use this argument widely. But of course, this argument harms "Israel" because it treats its colonialism as if it were part of its political structure.

"For the sake of argument, let's put aside the conventional wisdom, which holds that democracy is an arena of constant struggle, also between elections, one that involves lobbying and persuasion, demonstrations and donations - even boycotts. Let's put aside the way this government is shortening its rivals' stride and curtailing its rights. And let's ignore the way the mass-media outlets quickly turn into propaganda instruments the moment the government describes any circumstance as "a crisis"."

One can even accept the allegation that on the militant left's margins, the fringe that confronts the police and intones the pathetic chant "p-o-l-i-c-e s-t-a-t-e," as if any of them have ever lived in a police state, there is contempt for democratic institutions. One can even concede that the fascistic signs of "Israel's" governing culture beget a new left marred by conspicuous signs of "red fascism." That is, this leftist fringe has contempt for the democratic process. Let's look beyond all that - none of this relates to the main point.

"The key aspect of claims about democracy by right-wing spokesmen - be they supporters of a negotiation process and peace talks, or activists who unreservedly maneuver to foil the process - is that it rests on a dubious form of democracy, perhaps the lowest imaginable. That form imputes to residents of the occupied territories the results of "our" democratic decisions, decisions they are not privy to at all."
Not only is this "democracy" tainted with racism, not only does it bestow upon its subjects in schools, the army and other dens of learning a completely distorted understanding of the concept of democracy, it also is the cause and explanation of a long list of anti-democratic laws.

""Israeli" democracy, and all its stable and shaky foundations, is not based on the idea of "the will of the people." Its basis is something else, something murky that, as the long years of the occupation progress, increasingly takes on a religious cast. It can even account for the brazen messianic chutzpah of the settlers and their cohorts. "The will of "Israel"" does not derive from civilian, minority-majority norms, nor is it based on a constitution that guarantees minority rights and defines when a minority has the option to rise up against the government. Instead, "the will of "Israel"" derives from an ultra-nationalist version of the Jewish religion. That religion long ago turned into the unofficial constitution that rules our lives. According to this vision, "Israeli" sovereignty derives from the sacred text.

""Israel's" left was never able to say that, regarding the occupation, there was no possibility of forging a real opposition without Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. Because such cooperation is needed to bypass the obstacle of this racist, unwritten constitution. In fact, it was left-wing activists who were drawn to the dubious proposal of conducting a referendum on the "future of the territories"."

This mentality produced a paternalistic leftist-Zionist approach (which fortunately has eroded ): You, the Palestinians, have to do or say this or that. The Zionist left disappeared because it was unable to fashion forms of solidarity with the subjects of the occupation. The solidarity march in Jerusalem on Friday to support Palestinian independence can mark a historic turn of events. Whatever happens in the future, the struggle against the occupation must be binational and conducted by anyone who rejects its legitimacy.

___________________________________________________


Yedioth Ahronoth - American Jews rally against boycott law

Controversial legislation sees Jewish community in US unite in denouncing it as affront to freedom of expression

American Jewish organizations from the Left and Right have come together to fight an unexpected "evil," as they call it: The newly inducted anti-boycott law.
According to a Wednesday report in JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency), the US Jewish community seems remarkably united in deeming the measure an affront to freedom of expression.

"We're disappointed that they passed the law," Rabbi Steve Gutow, director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella body for the Jewish public policy groups, said.
"We don't support boycotts... The law does challenge democracy in a way, and hopefully the Supreme Court will respond."
A prominent figure in the community hedged that "Not since 'Who is a Jew?' has there been a controversy that could seriously strain relations between "Israel" and American Jews. Who needs it?"

The law's passing on Monday evoked harsh criticism by civil rights groups, which were quick to file a High Court petition against it.
Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said he was still studying the legislation, but that in principle the ZOA opposed anti-boycott laws.
"Nobody was more appalled by the boycott of Ariel Theater than me, but to make it illegal? I don't think so," Klein told JTA, referring to calls by some "Israeli" artists to boycott a performing arts center in the West Bank settlement of Ariel.
Supporters of the law in "Israel" say it is a necessary counter measure to boycott efforts.

The Anti-Defamation League, however, suggested in a public statement that the legislation is not the appropriate way to combat boycotts.
"To legally stifle calls to action - however abhorrent and detrimental they might be - is a disservice to "Israeli" society," director Abraham Foxman said.
"We hope "Israel's" Supreme Court will quickly take up a review of this law and resolve the concerns it raises."

Foxman expressed further concern that "Israel's" image suffered a blow - to some degree - by the legislation, and that even if the High Court eventually quashed it, the damage may be irrevocable.
"The people who wanted it will say, `We introduced it, we argued for it, we got it passed,' and the people who think it's contrary to democracy will have their victory in the court," he said. "People are playing politics with an issue that does "Israel" damage."

Joining the ADL in issuing statements condemning the law were various dovish Jewish groups, such as the "New" Israel Fund, J Street and Americans for Peace Now.
"When you start to persecute unpopular opinions, there really is no end point," said Naomi Paiss, a spokeswoman for the New "Israel" Fund.
The "Israeli" Embassy in Washington has reportedly received a torrent of calls seeking clarification on the matter by Jewish groups and individuals.
The embassy was telling those with queries, that "This is a matter of controversy in "Israel", and it would appear that it will have to be heard by the High Court of Justice, as in any democracy."