This Week's Haveil Havalim

Edition #244 of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim is up at A Mother in Israel.

Liberal Jews Harmful to Jewish Interests

The anti-Defamation League has rendered itself irrelevant. Why with everything Jews have to be concerned about, is Abraham Foxman going after conservative talk radio? I am ashamed and disgusted with the liberal American Jewish community. They have made their choice to stand by hussein obama over Israel. There has to be something deeply psychologically wrong with liberal Jews that they would shun Christian conservative friends in favor of leftists who work to see their people and the Jewish homeland obliterated. Who needs hamas, hezbollah et al when you have NYU and Berkeley Hillel and folks like Yoav Shamir and Rabbi Yehuda Sarna? Conservative Jews need to get organized, form groups, become more vocal and visible in order to counter the liberal Jewish groups. I'm tired of these liberal Jewish groups and individuals presenting themselves as the face of American Jewry. They do not represent all of us.

Whither American Jewry?

By Caroline B. Glick



http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | During a recent speaking tour in Canada, MK Nahman Shai, (Kadima) shocked some of his hosts when he said that his primary goal in politics today is to bring down the Netanyahu government. Although indelicate, Shai's comment was not surprising. Kadima is in the opposition. And like all opposition parties in all parliamentary democracies, the primary goal of its members is to bring down the government so that they can take power.

Given that this is the case, it is unsurprising that until this week, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni tried to blame Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for US President Barack Obama's hostility towards Israel. Far more newsworthy than her criticism of Netanyahu was her public rebuke of Obama this week for his attempt to strong-arm Israel into barring Jewish construction in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood.

Wednesday Livni said, "Gilo is part of the Israeli consensus...and it is important to understand this for all discussions of borders in any future agreement."

Indeed. There is an Israeli consensus. The Israeli consensus regarding Jerusalem is based among other things on the understanding that no nation can give up its capital city and survive.

Livni wants to be Israel's Prime Minister one day. For that to happen, Israel must survive until she wins an election. And Israel will not long survive if it surrenders its right to its capital.

One might have thought that American Jews could be counted on to stand by Israel on this issue. But then, one would be wrong.

Continue reading

Women's Health Care to be Rationed Under Obamacare

Now there are new guidelines for cervical cancer tests. Is there still doubt that obama hates women as much as he hates America, Christians and Jews? Does this contempt for women and seeing them as second class citizens come from his muslim background? I'm betting it does. Women are just seen as less important and even less than human in muslim culture. What else could be the reason that women are the first to be targeted for rationing of medical services under obamacare? And the majority of women voted for this bum. We must fight like hell against this health care bill.

Free Speech on Campus Muzzled

Nonie Darwish's scheduled speaking engagements at Columbia and Princeton were canceled due to pressure from islamic supremacists. I expect liberals to be intimidated when it comes to islam. But when conservatives have even become too timid to stand up to muslim bullying and defend free speech, then we are doomed. Shame on the campus Republicans and the ironically named Tigers for Israel who failed to stand up for Darwish.

In our time, a speaker must face a gauntlet of hostility and a menacing crowd if she wishes to speak in favor of Israel or to tell the truth about Islam.

That’s if she’s lucky. Most such speakers never get invited or when they do, their invitations are canceled.

Nonie Darwish, the author of Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law and Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror, has faced on-campus hostility and disruption before. Over the years, I have interviewed her about this a number of times. Like many of us, she has also sometimes been forced to have security guards with her when she speaks.


Phyllis Chesler and Nonie Darwish

This time, Nonie, who is the founder of Arabs for Israel, was invited to speak at both Columbia and Princeton. The official invitation at Columbia came from the very distinguished CAMERA, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), and from a new student organization there: Campus Media Watch, a group which is not yet quite up and running. Darwish flew from the West Coast, and was already all dressed up and ready to travel to Columbia when she got word that she’d been canceled.

“How humiliating is that? To come all this way, to be almost out the door, only to be told that they had to cancel my speech because campus security felt they could not protect me. Everyone is trying to blame someone else. Even the campus Republicans were afraid to sponsor me. SPME kept trying to fix it, but in the end, they could not.”

True, in 2006, President Ahmadinejad of Iran was not able to speak at Columbia because the notice given was too short. However, in 2007, Columbia University was able to provide security for him. And yet they could not provide it for Darwish. In 2006, Holocaust-denier Norman Finkelstein spoke at Columbia and in 2009, anti-Zionist, Israeli journalist Amira Hass spoke at Columbia–both without incident. Neither speaker was canceled. Next week, Noam Chomsky is speaking there. In Darwish’s view, “I doubt Chomsky will even need any security.”

Continue reading

Sarah Supports the Right of Jews to Live in Israel

Sarah Palin has expressed criticism over Obama's demand for the expulsion of Jews from parts of their homeland. Naturally the pro-jihadi kapos of J Street condemned her for it, claiming falsely that she is pandering to her right wing base and that her position comes at the expense of Israel's security. As if J Street actually gives a damn about Israel's security. But why should it be Jews who are punished and their communities abolished because of the threat to Israel's security by arab-muslim terrorists? It is the arabs who need to go, not be given a 22nd state, the second one in palestine which will bring them closer to Israeli population centers and invite more terrorism. What makes anyone think that if the Jewish communities were removed that would lesson terrorism against Israelis? When Jewish communities were removed from Gaza it led to hamas using the newly acquired land as just another launching pad for firing rockets at Israel, and at closer range.

I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.

J Street responded by releasing a lengthy statement which condemned Palin's comments and accused her of pandering and ignorance. An excerpt:

J Street rejects Sarah Palin’s comments attacking President Obama’s sensible policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank yesterday during an ABC News interview with Barbara Walters.

Palin’s pandering to her right-wing base comes at the expense of the security of the State of Israel, the lives of those actually living the conflict, and the fundamental American interest in achieving a two-state solution in the near term. Her words reveal a glaring ignorance of damaging facts and a callous disregard of past and present U.S. policy.

Obama Displays Contempt for Jews

Suddenly this massive spending president is concerned about saving money. So he has decided to cut back on the White House Hanuka celebration. There was no such scaling back on the ramadan celebration however.

The White House's forthcoming state dinner with the Prime Minister of India is expected to be larger than those of President Barack Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. But another upcoming White House event will be smaller than in years past: The White House's annual Hanukkah party.

The guest list is expected to be shrunk by more than half, according to the Jerusalem Post. "Though several Jewish leaders expressed understanding for the economic and other reasons behind the cut, they acknowledged that it would likely help feed feelings in some quarters of the American Jewish community that the White House is giving them the cold shoulder."

The move comes on the heels of Obama's cancellation of an appearance before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations last week.

The White House's decision is likely a response to tough economic times and a desire to keep the holiday festivities reasonable.

Israel Will Continue to Build in Jerusalem

The sanctity of Jerusalem for muslims is one big hoax. Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the koran. Though it is the holiest city in Judaism. References by the media and world leaders to eastern Jerusalem as "occupied" and having been "conquered" by Israel are outrageous not only for the fact that Israel liberated it in a war of self-defense against Arab aggression, after Jordan itself had illegally occupied eastern Jerusalem, but also since Jerusalem was never the capital of any arab-muslim state and the "palestinians" never existed as a nationality. There was never any sovereign state known as palestine. So who's territory is being "occupied"? Jerusalem, ALL of it, has always belonged to the Jews. So these aren't "settlements". Neither for that matter are Judea and Samaria occupied nor are those Jewish communities "settlements" for the same reason as stated regarding Jerusalem. I'm so glad that at least Bibi is defying Obama about building in Jerusalem.

Gov't sources: Israel won't accept restrictions in Jerusalem
Nov. 17, 2009
HERB KEINON, HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, jpost.com staff and ap , THE JERUSALEM POST
Israel's latest move to build some 900 units in the capital's southeastern Gilo neighborhood complicates administration efforts to relaunch peace talks and embitters the Palestinians, US President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

Obama told Fox News in an interview that additional settlement building does not make Israel safer. He said such moves make it harder to achieve peace in the region, and embitters the Palestinians in a way that he said could be very dangerous.

On Tuesday night, senior government sources said that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is willing to show "restraint" in construction in the West Bank, but will not accept any restriction on building in Jerusalem, following the Jerusalem Municipal Planning Committee's approval of the Gilo plan.

Army Radio reported overnight Tuesday that Netanyahu had instructed his government to refrain from making any statements in response to US criticism of the municipal committee's decision.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon joined Western countries in condemning Israel's decision, Army Radio reported Tuesday overnight.

He referred to the sprawling south Jerusalem neighborhood as a "settlement" built on land Israel "conquered from the Palestinians in 1967."

Continue reading

NYT Sides with muslims Over Temple Mount

Isabel Kershner is yet another kapo supporting the genocidal muslims against her own people. In a NY Times article she questions Jewish claims to the Temple Mount despite reams of archeological evidence of the existence of Jewish Temples.

NYT derisive over Jewish claims to Temple Mount
Leo Rennert
In its Nov. 15 edition, the New York Times features a lengthy article by Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner about publication of a book by Israeli and Palestinian scholars of Jewish and Muslim claims to Temple Mount. Kershner notes that this is the site that "Jews revere as the location of their two ancient temples, and that now houses the Al Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam."

What interests me about the article is not so much the contents of the book, which I have yet to read, as Kershner's own derisive and dismissive view of Jewish claims to Temple Mount, coupled with a more deferential attitude to the Muslim side.

Putting aside the various views expressed in the book, here's Kershner's -- and the New York Times' -- own verdict on which side appears to have the stronger claims:

"The lack of archaeological evidence of the ancient temples has led many Palestinians to deny any real Jewish attachment or claim to the plateau," Kershner writes.

Nothing in Kershner's article about archaeological finds that point the other way, especially about the Second Temple, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 of the current era.

Nothing in Kershner's article about evidence of the Second Temple in the writing of the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus.

Nothing in Kershner's article about the frieze on the Arch of Titus in Rome showing the triumphant return of Roman soldiers carrying the Menorah from the Second Temple.

Nothing in Kershner's article about Jesus's presence in and around the Temple.

Nothing in Kershner's article about specific refrerences in the Koran to both Jewish temples. Yes, in the Koran!

As far as Kershner is concerned, Jews may revere Temple Mount because they believe the temples existed, but her own spin is that there's no empirical evidence to substantiate such a belief.

As for the current status of the Temple Mount amid sporadic tensions and clashes, Kershner is much harder on Jewish behavior on Temple Mount than on Muslim outrages which she glosses over or totally ignores.

"Radical Jews," she reports, are "defying a long-standing rabbinical council prohibition on entering the Temple Mount." To illustrate the point, she visits Temple Mount herself and singles out "a small knot of Orthodox Israelis with skullcaps, the fringes of their ritual undergarments hanging from their waists." What an affront to civilized couture!

Continue reading

Obama to Women: Drop Dead

During the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign, there were attack ads against Chris Christie to turn women against him for siding with insurance companies to drop state mandated coverage of mammograms. Now the hypocritical demorats are going to put in place a national health care system which will deny women mammograms. And what's also ironic is that for so long liberals have been complaining that our medical system places profits over the lives of people and now this overhauled government run system is going to place saving money over saving lives.

Brit Media Agitates Against Israel

Here we go again. Britain's Channel 4 attempts to stir up anger against Jews and Israel by broadcasting a documentary on that supposedly almighty and sinister Israel lobby. With islamic terrorism as well as cultural jihad threatening Britain and the rest of the west, why does the British media see fit to agitate against Jews and Israel rather than dealing with the country's real problem?

And if this supposed Israel lobby is so potent a force, why are the Middle East policies of the British government so anti-Israel?

And finally I believe channel 4 would be better off looking into the vast arab and muslim lobby which certainly is an extremely powerful force in Britain. But why deal with that when it's much safer to go after the world's perennial scapegoats and take the attention away from those who really present a threat to England, the islamic jihadis which the anti-Semitic left sympathizes with? This is their attempt to redirect the British public's anger over the islamization of their country and instead have it focused on the Jews.

Oborne's Opening Shots at the Israel Lobby


Peter Oborne, the Channel 4 journalist responsible for tonight's documentary, Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, explains his work in today's print edition of The Guardian:

During an investigation lasting several months, we have been able to reach several important conclusions. We maintain there is indeed a pro-Israel lobby in Britain. It is extremely well-connected and well-funded, and works through all the main political parties.

Some thoughts off the top of my head:

First of all, I blogged yesterday that HonestReporting was also contacted by Dispatches just days ago. For an investigation "several months" in the making, it's very fishy that Channel 4 waited till the very last minute to contact HonestReporting and other Jewish organizations.

I don't know anything about openDemocracy, which Oborne links to in the above snippet, but they're already offering "The Pro-Israel Lobby In Britain pamphlet." It's safe to assume that openDemocracy was intimately involved with C4's investigation -- its logo on the cover sits right beside the Channel 4 logo. You can even order a copy before tonight's broadcast, or save the money and read the pamphlet (pdf format) in full at Channel 4's web site for free.

My antennae are also twitching at openDemocracy's introduction, which was written by one Antony Lerman. If you look at Lerman's archives at The Guardian, you'll understand why.

The headaches created by Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have come full circle. Walt and Mearsheimer wrote about a Jewish lobby in the US, but it was a British publication, the London Review of Books, that was first to give a soapbox to their views. Will UK Jewry respond to Oborne the way American critics addressed Walt and Mearsheimer?

Continue

Does Moderate islam Exist?

I absolutely agree with Melanie Phillips. The litmus test to determine who truly is a moderate muslim is determined by their attitude towards Jews and Israel, its right to exist and defend itself. This of course means there are scant few true moderate muslims, which further means there really isn't any such thing as moderate islam.

How to identify friend from foe

Jewish Chronicle, 13 November 2009

As I understand it, auto-immune diseases are caused when the immune system which protects the body turns upon itself, mistaking friendly organisms for foes and vice versa.

One might say that just such an affliction now assails the British and American intelligentsia — with some British Jews themselves amongst the worst affected.

The latest example of this general disorder was the reaction to the jihadi attack in Fort Hood, Texas, last week when a Muslim army psychiatrist screaming ‘Allahu akhbar’ gunned down and murdered at least 13 people, leaving dozens more injured.

Despite evidence over many months that this man had been consumed by Islamist fanaticism, the US and British media (not to mention President Obama) spent several days playing down or seeking to deny that this was an Islamist religious atrocity.

There are several reasons for this near pathological state of denial: multicultural ideology, extreme ignorance, funk. But another is the anxiety not to tar all Muslims with the same extremist brush.

This is a very proper instinct. Many Muslims in Britain and America have fully signed up to democracy and human rights; indeed, they are themselves potential victims of the Islamists and the sharia law they aim to impose upon the ‘infidel’ world.

So it is very important to separate moderate Muslims from Islamists. But how can you tell a genuine moderate from the dissimulators?

I myself have stumbled in this area. Having believed that the government-funded ‘anti-Islamist’ campaigner Ed Husain was as advertised, I and many others were rudely disabused of that notion recently when he sprang to the defence of the Muslim Council of Britain’s spokesman Inayat Bunglawala, who openly declares he wants Britain to become an Islamic state and who has refused to condemn the Islamic practice of stoning to death.

Among the many jibes Ed Husain threw my way when I criticised Bunglawala was that I supposedly deemed any Muslim who did not support Israeli Likud policy to be an Islamist.

Interestingly, this absurd caricature was not dissimilar to a charge once made to my face by the Hamas-promoting Dr Azzam Tamimi, who declared disgustedly that I would only consider a Muslim to be a moderate if he supported Israel.

While Ed Husain was wrong, for once Tamimi was spot on. I do indeed think that the issue that defines true Muslim moderation is the absence of hostility towards Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people.

There are some Muslims who have zero prejudice towards Israel and the Jews. I have met a few of them — and there are indeed only a very few. They are excessively brave people.

They have to be — because even among Muslims who would never have any truck with sharia law or Islamist violence, theologically-based prejudice against Israel and the Jews runs very deep indeed.

Those who are free of such bigotry have the integrity to reject that theology. They are true moderates because, in supporting Israel’s defence against those who want to extinguish it as a Jewish state, they are on the side of truth against lies, justice against injustice and freedom against murderous tyranny.

Those who don’t support Israel’s self-defence — such as Ed Husain — are on the wrong side of the fight to defend civilisation. No-one — whether Muslim, Christian, atheist or anything else — can be considered to be a ‘moderate’ person if he or she is bigoted towards Israel or the Jewish people. You cannot be a moderate bigot.

Jewish community leaders who are engaged in outreach to the Muslim community are making a heroic attempt to build bridges. But unless they make their friendship conditional upon rationality towards Israel and the Jews, such initiatives are likely to be as conducive to communal health as an auto-immune deficiency to the body’s natural defences.

Obama Approves of Unilateral Declaration of Statehood

Hussein Obama and the UN are prepared to support an arab-muslim land grab of Jewish territory for the creation of an islamic terror state. I'm guessing that the UN will enforce this "palestinian" declaration of statehood with troops and attempt to remove Jewish residents from their homes. Israel must preemptively annex the territories and remove the Arab occupiers from Judea and Samaria.

Obama green-lights Arab land grab
But Israel threatens retaliation if U.N. approves Palestinian state
Posted: November 15, 2009
8:00 pm Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


TEL AVIV – A top Palestinian Authority official told WND that the PA reached an understanding with the Obama administration regarding a Palestinian threat to unilaterally ask the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state outside of negotiations with Israel.

Ahmed Qurei, former PA prime minister and member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization executive committee, said in an interview that the PA "reached an understanding with important elements within the administration" to possibly bring to the U.N. Security Council a resolution to unilaterally create a Palestinian state.

Asked to which "elements" he was referring, Qurei would only say they were from the Obama administration.

A top PA negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity, named the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, and National Security Council member Samantha Power as among the Obama administration officials who were involved with the Palestinians' U.N. threat.

Despite widespread assumptions the U.S. would veto any such U.N. Security Council resolution, the PA negotiator said that in initial discussions, the Obama administration did not threaten to veto their conceptual unilateral resolution.

"The U.S. told us that they prefer a negotiated settlement with Israel, but if we (Palestinians) insist on a resolution, the Americans will not necessarily reject it," the PA negotiator said.

"The U.S. has a history of never before vetoing any U.N. move to create a new state," the negotiator pointed out.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said yesterday the Palestinians had decided to turn to the U.N. Security Council to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.

Separately, the negotiator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the Obama administration is "totally on board" with a plan by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to create a state on the pre-1967 borders within two years.

Continue reading

Obama is Dangerous for Women

Again this is off-topic but important. This reversal regarding mammograms and even self-examination means that already rationing is underway. This is what the policy will be if the government takes over health care. In other words they don't even want women to exam themselves because they might find a lump and therefore have to get a biopsy and if cancer is found, then treated. Obama would just prefer women die in order to save money. And there are many women who get breast cancer in their 30's and 40's and they WILL just die before they even know they have it. Obama wants to kill women. Of course nancy the bitch pelosi won't have to worry about herself and other women in her family who will of course be cared for along with other elites. But to hell with the average woman. America has the highest breast cancer survival rate in the world but that will change with a government takeover of the health care system. There will be many premature deaths. We must stop the push towards socialized medicine in its tracks.

A Dangerous View of Iran

Hillary Mann Leverett is absolutely repugnant. Iran's holocaust denial rhetoric and its threats to wipe Israel off the map are the result of Iran's fears about Israeli aggression according to her. This is the kind of dangerous and sick moral inversion which permeates Foggy Bottom. It's frightening that this is the worldview of those who are entrusted with safeguarding America. It doesn't occur to Hillary Mann Leverett that Iran's threats and holocaust denial has anything to do with Jew-hatred being an integral part of islamic doctrine. Apparently she also hasn't been apprised of the shiite belief in the hidden imam which can only return after the world is destroyed and that perhaps this madman in Tehran has the desire to facilitate this outcome. She also apparently never heard the "moderate" hashami rafsanjani state a few years back that one nuclear bomb would destroy Israel while a retaliatory strike would only damage the muslim world. I would say that statement is pretty much a call for launching a first strike against Israel. She's afraid of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities but not on Iran itself having nuclear weapons. She believes we ought to take a softer approach towards Iran (as if we have ever been tough with them anyway) and a more hardline approach towards Israel. She's more focused on dismantling Israel's nuclear weapons than preventing Iran from acquiring nukes. There is no danger from an Israel which is nuclear armed since Israel is a responsible, free and democratic nation while Iran is an islamist, genocidal dictatorship. Not to mention that Israel, being the tiny nation that it is and surrounded by much larger enemies, it's nuclear weapons arsenal is what keeps the balance of power. Furthermore as far as Israel ignoring the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Israel is not a signatory to it. She also claims to be concerned about the threat to American interests should Israel strike Iran's nuclear facilities. I'd like to know how it would be in America's interest for Iran to get nukes? Doesn't she consider they can be used against us, most likely supplied to terrorists who would sneak in and detonate them? Or perhaps and EMP attack. The article claims she isn't anti-Israel but I fail to see how her views can be seen as anything but anti-Israel. I hate to say it but some of Israel's worst enemies are liberal Jews.

The U.S. Jew whose Iran views rile Israel intelligence officials

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Israel New, Iran Nuclear




WASHINGTON, D.C. - Hillary Mann Leverett and her partner and husband, Flynt Leverett, make the Iran desk staffers in the Israeli intelligence community see red. For the past two years the Leveretts, both of whom are former U.S. National Security Council and State Department officials, have preached relentlessly against using sanctions and threats against Iran.

In late September, a harsh op-ed they wrote condemning the Obama administration appeared in The New York Times. In it they argued that the lofty talk of "openness" and the promise of "dialogue" with the Iranians are just empty rhetoric. On their Internet site, in lectures, in interviews and in their journal articles, they present assessments and proposals for action that are different from, and sometimes nearly the opposite of, those that politicians and experts in the West and in Israel present the public. They are critical of the U.S. support of Israel's nuclear ambiguity and are horrified by the possibility of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear installations.

Mann Leverett, today the CEO of the Stratega political-risk consulting firm, was a panelist in a discussion on Iran at the J Street conference in Washington two weeks ago. Before a full house of a mostly Jewish audience, she analyzed the Iranian strategy without bias or emotion: For years now, more sanctions, more boycotts and more threats have not budged Iran from its nuclear program, and they will not budge it in the future. The time has come to try to talk the Iranians in a different language, a language of respect and cooperation.


According to her, since the invasion of Iraq, Iran's regional influence has increased to the point that, without it, no progress can be made on such critical issues as the Palestinians, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and energy.

In a conversation with Haaretz, Mann Leverett, 41, said that up until seven or eight years ago, relations with Iran were "in the category of 'nice to have' for U.S. foreign policy. Today, rapprochement with Iran is in the 'must-have' category: The United States cannot achieve any of its high-profile objectives in the Middle East without a more productive relationship with the Islamic Republic, as it is constituted rather than as some wish it to be."

Mann Leverett's critics find it hard to dismiss her by labeling her as an "Israel hater." She grew up in a Jewish household, attended Brandeis University, worked as an intern at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which was born in the offices of AIPAC. She served in the U.S. Embassy in Cairo under Dan Kurtzer (and also in the embassies in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar). When she returned to the United States she joined a team headed by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Richard Holbrooke, which participated in talks with Iran over Afghanistan.

Her acquaintance with the Iranians deepened after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when she worked at the National Security Council in the unit that advises the president on Iran, Afghanistan and the Gulf states. She speaks of impressive cooperation with the Iranians, leading to the capture and expulsion of 200 Al-Qaida members from their country. According to Mann Leverett, a directive from Tehran ordering the Iranian militias in Afghanistan to join a local force established by the United States spared the Americans the kind of trouble and losses being inflicted by the militias Iran is now funding and training in Iraq.

"I was deeply impressed," she said, "by the quality of my Iranian interlocutors and the sophisticated manner in which they thought about their country's national interests."

Continue reading
This woman is dangerously naive.