It’s Abe Foxman’s last day as director of the Anti-Defamation League, and his mind is not at rest. The Iran deal continues to trouble him — here’s why.
In today’s democratic Europe, there is no risk of a new Holocaust. But a new Kristallnacht? That’s another story, Abraham Foxman writes.
The interview with Mousa Abu Marzook raises important questions about who speaks for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, while confirming it cannot be recognized as a legitimate Palestinian interlocutor.
The German writer’s attempt to brand an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities as an attempt to destoy the Iranian people is a grotesque distortion of the facts.
The Egyptian uprising for freedom has appropriately received an enthusiastic response from citizens of democratic countries around the world. Of course, there are still potential pitfalls on Egypt’s path to democracy. Many worry that the military will, in the name of stability, refuse to allow needed political reforms or that the Muslim Brotherhood will hijack democratic processes in order to subvert democracy.
In April, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that one option available to the United States, should Tehran refuse President Obama’s offer of engagement, is to pursue “crippling” sanctions. Although the Obama administration recently agreed to participate in a new round of talks with Iran, along with representatives of Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, the Iranian government has already made clear its refusal to negotiate over its nuclear program. If, as seems likely, the United States is rebuffed by Iran on the nuclear issue, a sanctions plan needs to be ready.
There has been a lot of talk about the need for the Obama administration to engage on Israeli-Palestinian issues early and often, unlike the Bush administration. This can be a productive approach, particularly in light of the split in the Palestinian camp, as long as expectations are not raised too high. The primary purpose of such engagement should be to stabilize the situation and set the stage for an ultimate resolution of the conflict via a two-state solution.
Relations between Israel and American Jews, by now an old and recurring subject for discussion, have come to the surface again, this time on the editorial page of the Forward (“The Third Front,” August 4). Writing about the conflict in Lebanon, the Forward calls for a greater role for American Jews in Israeli decision-making because what Israel does has significant, and often negative, consequences for American Jews.
Shortly after the immediate and strong international reaction to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comment that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” his foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, indicated that this position was nothing new: The Islamic regime had always viewed Israel that way, ever since the Khomeini revolution in
In an opinion article in the February 5 issue of The New York Times, the national editor of the Forward argues that “it is time Jews recognize that the old strategies no longer work…. Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised. Rather, they are seen as a