News media often report that U.S.-led negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its purported nuclear program were initiated by Tehran following increased international economic sanctions. Both journalists and President Obama himself—who announced on July 14, 2015 that talks concluded “after two years of negotiations”—have asserted or implied that negotiations began in 2013 after the election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani is a regime-insider often misleadingly labeled a “moderate” despite his supervisory role in terrorist attacks in Argentina and political assassinations in Europe, as CAMERA has previously noted (“Iran Becoming Responsible Player,” July 8, 2015).

Yet, several high-level Iranian officials made assertions that—if true—would indicate that the often cited chronology of nuclear talks with Iran is mistaken. They claim the Obama administration secretly initiated contacts in 2011 through the government of Oman, following a letter from then-U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) recognizing Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium. This would mean that talks began not with Rouhani’s administration but with the government of Holocaust denier and anti-Western extremist, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

According to a recent report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivered a June 23, 2015 speech proclaiming:

“This issue of negotiating with the Americans is related to the term of the previous [Ahmadinejad] government, and to the dispatching of a mediator to Tehran to request talks. At the time, a respected regional figure came to me as a mediator [referring to Omani Sultan Qaboos] and explicitly said that the U.S. President [Obama] had asked him to come to Tehran and present an American request for negotiations. The Americans told this mediator: ‘We want to solve that nuclear issue and lift sanctions within six months, while recognizing Iran as a nuclear power.’”

Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to Majils [the Iranian Parliament] Speaker Ali Larijani echoed the ayatollah’s version.

Larijani told Tasnim news agency on July 7 that Kerry had given a letter to Iran recognizing its right to enrich uranium. “We came to the [secret] negotiations [with the United States] after Kerry wrote a letter and sent it to us via Oman, stating that America officially recognizes Iran’s rights regarding the [nuclear fuel] enrichment cycle.”

“Sultan Qaboos was dispatched by Obama to Khamenei with Kerry’s letter…..On this basis the negotiations began, and not on the basis of sanctions, as they [the Americans] claim in their propaganda.”

More recently Iranian Vice President and head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi, who served as foreign minister from 2010-2013, agreed with these accounts. Salehi stated that after entreaties through Omani officials, he put forward the precondition that the United States must recognize the right of Iran to enrich uranium—a demand which “received a positive response.” The former foreign minister claimed that Kerry “had already been appointed by Obama to handle the nuclear dossier [vis-à-vis Iran]” when he was acting as “head of the Senate Foreign Relations committee.”

MEMRI also notes that the ‘Nuclear Iran’ web site, affiliated with Iran’s former nuclear negotiation team, reported on Apr. 20, 2014: “Before the 2013 presidential elections, three rounds of talks took place in Oman, and at these talks the Americans officially recognized Iran’s [right] to enrich [uranium].” MEMRI reported that a relative of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmad Khorshidi, told the website Entekhab in 2014 that three rounds of talks took place prior to President Rouhani taking office.

The full report by MEMRI on Iranian officials contradicting U.S. media and public officials can be found here.—Sean Durns

The Baltimore Sun published an evasive opinion piece by a conspiracy theorist in favor of the nuclear weapons deal reached by negotiators for the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany with Iran. It did not publish CAMERA’s rebuttal letter, so here it is:

“Commentary writer Ray McGovern (“No more ‘military option,’” July 21, 2015) omits essential details regarding a prepared U.S. intelligence report on Iran and its purported nuclear program. By failing to note documented problems with the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the program and omitting geopolitical context, the author misleads readers on an important issue.

“McGovern—who routinely expounds conspiracy theories regarding the Iraq War and the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (some of which appear at a “9/11 truth” Web site)—claims the 2007 NIE “concluded in November 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and had not resumed that work.” Yet, he fails to note an important factor that may have influenced this alleged Iranian decision. By the end of 2003 large U.S. military forces had overthrown regimes in two countries that border Iran—Afghanistan and Iraq—and remained in place.

“Nor does McGovern reveal that even now the U.S. cannot be certain that Iran did in fact stop its program in 2003. That’s because the recent agreement reached between the Islamic Republic and the United States and its partners fails to commit Tehran to fully disclosing the history of its nuclear effort.

“McGovern, a former intelligence official turned fringe activist, also omits problems that can be found within the pages of the NIE itself. One big one: A footnote to the line proclaiming “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” clarifies that the estimate defines “nuclear weapons program” to exclude “Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.” Knowledge gained in such activity can be transferred, at least in part, to weapons development.

“Sun readers deserve more than a superficial gloss like McGovern’s when it comes to Iran’s alleged nuclear program.

Sincerely,
Sean Durns
Media Assistant
CAMERA
Washington, D.C.”

When Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank described McGovern as a “liberal activist,” CAMERA noted (“Washington Post-Watch: Post Trips When Bibi Meets Obama,” July 8, 2010) that McGovern is “a former CIA official who helped found VIPS — Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — [and] he’s long blamed ‘O.I.L.,’ oil, Israel, and logistics, which he defines as the desire for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, for dragging the United States into war against Saddam Hussein. He signed a petition claiming the U.S. government knew about the 9/11 plot; he blasted Obama for ‘caving into Israel’ in 2009 for not sustaining the pro-Saudi, pro-Chinese, anti-Israeli Chas. Freeman’s nomination to chair the National Intelligence Council; he insists Israel intentionally attacked the U.S.S. Liberty spy ship during the 1967 Six-Day War although U.S. and Israeli investigations determined the assault was accidental. ” The Baltimore Sun could benefit from a little more due diligence when vetting freelance Op-Eds.

The Washington Post reminded readers that the brutal Islamic State movement and Saudi Arabia’s U.S-supported monarchy “espouse similar conservative views of Sunni Islam” (“Suicide blast hits Saudi mosque; Islamic State claims attack near Yemeni border, threatens more,” Aug. 7, 2015). A suicide bombing claimed by the Islamic State on August 6 in Asir, Saudi Arabia reportedly killed more than a dozen people.

The dead included at least 10 Saudi security personal and three workers. The bomber struck a Sunni mosque near the border with Yemen in an apparent attempt both to hurt the Saudi monarchy, which opposes the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS or the Islamic State), and generate more tension along the border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. While Saudi Arabia’s influential Wahhabi clerics as well as ISIS deem “Shiites as apostates… Saudi officials permit Shiite worship and rites.”

Although both the Saudi government and the Islamic State adhere to puritanical schools of Sunni Islam, the Islamic State has claimed responsibility for numerous recent suicide bombings in the kingdom, The Post reported.

In Yemen, the Saudis are leading a military intervention by several Sunni-dominated Arab countries against Houthi rebels believed to be supported by Shiite Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government. “Suicide blast hits Saudi mosque” was a useful reminder that, among other things, in intra-Arab and intra-Muslim conflicts, pro-Western doesn’t necessarily mean moderate.–Rosie Lenoff, Intern

Author and former AP reporter and editor Matti Friedman has previously, like CAMERA, drawn attention to the inaccuracies in media coverage of Israel. Now, in a sharp and funny book review in The Wall Street Journal, Friedman turns his gaze to “non-fiction” inaccuracies. In a review of Padraig O’Malley’s “The Two-State Delusion,” Friedman points out:

More work should have gone into ensuring accuracy. The author asserts, for example, that Israel’s military victory in 1967 resulted from “massive U.S. assistance,” when there wasn’t massive U.S. military assistance before 1967. (France was then the main arms supplier; the planes that won the war were Mirages and Mystères.) We learn that Ariel Sharon was an agriculture minister in 1971 and that this has something to do with the genesis of the settlements; he wasn’t, and it doesn’t. The author describes Israeli soldiers carrying their Uzis “nonchalantly,” which is a nice touch. But no Israeli soldiers carry the Uzi, which was deemed obsolete after the 1973 war and removed from frontline service after that. The word “homeland” is quoted pointedly from the Balfour Declaration of 1917, where that word doesn’t appear. Would it have been too much trouble to check the text? It’s a single sentence.

The sub-headline of the review is “The idea that a collective memory of the Holocaust renders Jewish judgment defective is somehow acceptable these days,” a point Friedman illuminates with this passage:

The “bonding, primal element” of the Jewish psyche, we learn, is the Holocaust. Israelis are in thrall to weapons because of the Holocaust; they are obtuse to the suffering of others because of the Holocaust; and in general they are sort of crazy because of the Holocaust. Actually, half of the Jewish population in Israel has roots in the Islamic world. Their families were displaced by Muslims, not Nazis. Israelis think many of their neighbors are out to destroy Israel not because of the Holocaust, but because many of their neighbors say they are out to destroy Israel. Israel’s actions in the Middle East, in other words, have to do with its experience in the Middle East. The country’s objective success against long odds would have to indicate that at least some of its decisions have been reality-based, if not quite reasonable.

The idea that a collective memory renders Jewish judgment defective seems to be something acceptable to say aloud these days in connection with Israel, which is why I’ve dwelled on it. It’s important to point out not only that this observation is wrong, but that it is a patronizing ethnic smear. I don’t like the careless generalizations in Mr. O’Malley’s book or his shaky grasp of the facts. But I don’t think they have anything to do with the potato famine.

The entire review, unlike the book apparently, is worth reading.

USA Today’s “For Israeli kids, a trigger for trauma” (June 4, 2015), noted the emotional toll on children living under constant threat of terrorist rocket attacks. And not just children; reporter Michele Chabin showed the effect even civil defense drills can have on adults in Israel.

However, the otherwise informative dispatch ends by observing that “in Gaza, the children don’t even have” access to bomb shelters like most Israeli youngsters do.

It doesn’t tell readers that in the Gaza Strip—ruled by U.S.-designated terror group Hamas—the leaders spend billions of dollars on rockets and cross-boundary tunnels to strike at Israelis while they expect their own civilians to serve and sometimes die as “human shields.” Why no civilian shelters in Gaza? They’re not a Hamas priority.

(The above item is a slightly-expanded version of a CAMERA letter to USA Today that was not published.) — by Sean Durns

University of Maryland Prof. Jeffrey Herf is the author of acclaimed works on the Holocaust, modern European history and antisemitism. These include Reactionary Modernism, The Jewish Enemy, and Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World among others. His July 2 essay for The Times of Israel, “Taking the Ideas of Others Seriously: A Lesson From German History and the Iran Nuclear Issue,” is based on Herf’s May 3, 2015 address to CAMERA’s annual board luncheon in New York City. The essay relates to the current debate over the agreement reached between the United States, Germany, France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and the Islamic Republic of Iran over the latter’s purported nuclear program—and what Herf insists is the concurrent need to heed Iranian rhetoric that is a “mix of Nazi propaganda, Islamist ideology, and a peculiarly Iranian vision of world domination.”

“The Iran debate has never been about Right and Left in any conventional sense of those terms,” Herf observes, “It has been about whether the leaders of the United States government actually believe that the Iranian leaders believe what they say again and again.”

Herf warns that the Islamic Republic—which regularly calls for “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”—should be taken at its word.

The professor notes that “the problem of underestimating the role of ideology in politics remains very much with us.” It’s a problem evidenced in Adolf Hitler’s rise and simultaneous inability of “intellectuals and policymakers” to take the German dictator’s Jew-hatred seriously.

“On numerous occasions beginning in 1939,” the CAMERA speaker noted, “Hitler publicly announced that he intended to ‘exterminate the Jewish race in Europe.’…Contrary to some conventional wisdom, he did not keep his policies about the Jews a secret, nor did he speak in euphemisms. He spoke bluntly and often about his intention to exterminate the Jews.” In a Jan. 30, 1941 speech the dictator proclaimed that “the role of Jews in Europe would be finished.”

Herf notes that in an editorial the next day, The New York Times brushed off Hitler’s proclamation, calling the dictators words “worthless.” Why did it do so? Why—he wonders—did so many feel that Hilter could be appeased and his threats were meaningless?

In Herf’s estimation this dismissiveness stemmed from a “Western tradition” in which “sophistication or ‘realism’ about the ways of the world means the refusal to take the ideas of others seriously as guides to their actions. It means,” Herf says, “viewing the ideas of others as tools, instruments, techniques, and methods in the service of other unstated but actually far more fundamental purposes. For the realist and the sophisticate, in this sense, to take the ideas of others seriously, especially when these ideas offend our understanding of common sense, is a sign of naivety and gullibility.”

Put bluntly, it’s a “rationalist bias” which allows self-styled “realists” to dismiss antisemitic conspiracy theories and threats of violence against Jews as being ridiculous on grounds that those issuing such threats and espousing those theories can’t “possibly believe such rubbish.”

Yet, Herf notes that the antisemitic beliefs of Hitler are alive and well today—including among the leaders of an Iran purportedly seeking nuclear weapons. “At its core,” he says, “the debate about Iran is one about how we interpret the core beliefs of the Iranian regime and whether we take these ideas seriously as policy.”

The noted Holocaust historian warns:

“Hilter was exceptional in many ways but he was not unusual in history in acting on the basis of firmly held beliefs. Previous generations found it hard to take those absurdities with the seriousness they deserve. We have no excuse for repeating their blunders or for reassuring ourselves optimistically that things will turn out for the best.”

The full text of Prof. Herf’s article derived from his speech to CAMERA can be found here. —Sean Durns

A poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by a D.C.-based think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has findings that may be new to those who’ve followed the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Washington Institute fellow David Pollock characterized as a “surprise” a response that most Palestinian Arabs in both the Gaza Strip and West Bank (Judea and Samaria) want economic cooperation with Israel. He notes that “a majority (55 percent) in the West Bank, and nearly as many in Gaza (48 percent), also say they would ‘like to see Israeli companies offer more jobs inside’ those areas.”

This desire for jobs corresponds with what residents in areas polled stated to be their priorities: family and money. Only 14 percent of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and 24 percent of Gazans polled said that “working to establish a Palestinian state” was their top priority. In contrast, “making enough money to live” and “having a good family life” polled much higher in both areas.

The Palestinian emphasis on increased economic cooperation contrasts with the stated objectives of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, advocated by groups like the Jewish Voice for Peace and others who support the economic ghettoization of Israel. BDS was founded by Palestinian “civil society groups”—including U.S.-listed terror groups Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade of Fatah, and Syrian extremist groups. The latter of these groups have the stated objective of destroying Israel; the BDS movement seeks to wage economic warfare against the Jewish state. Although such a goal appears to be in conflict with many Palestinian Arabs—as this data illustrates.

The poll also showed a sharp difference in the opinions of West Bank Arabs and those in the Strip regarding “responsibility for the slow pace of reconstruction in Gaza.” Forty percent of the former put most of the blame on Israel. Conversely, a plurality (40 percent) of those actually living in Gaza blamed Hamas—which has ruled the region since the first and only elections in 2006—more than they blamed Israel (29 percent).

By a large majority, Gazans (88 percent) said the Palestinian Authority (PA)—which through the corrupt Fatah organization currently rules the West Bank and was ousted from Gaza by a violent Hamas-led coup in 2007—“should take over the administration” there.

When it comes to peace with Israel, 58 percent of West Bankers and 65 percent of Gazans polled said that even if a “two-state solution” is negotiated, “the struggle is not over and resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine [Israel] is liberated.” In other words, Palestinian Arabs in both areas want to see Israel destroyed. 56 percent of the respondents in the West Bank and 84 percent in Gaza support the use of violent attacks to achieve this end. Despite this pronounced support for violence, 74 percent of West Bankers and 83 percent of Gazans say “Hamas should maintain a ceasefire with Israel.”

The survey firm, based in Beit Sahour in the West Bank, conducted its poll from June 7-19, interviewing representative samples of 513 Palestinians in the West Bank and 408 in Gaza, with an estimated margin of error of about 4.9 percent. The rest of the findings of the poll can be found here.— Sean Durns

Secretary of State John Kerry gave a lengthy interview to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in which he tries to make the case for Congress to support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran Deal.

Perhaps deal supporters should ask Kerry to stop trying to sell the deal.

In the interview, he says that Congressional rejection of the deal would be “the ultimate screwing” of Iran. To the majority of Americans, that may sound like a good thing.

Kerry claims the Iran deal is good for Israel:

Kerry: Look, I’ve gone through this backwards and forwards a hundred times and I’m telling you, this deal is as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets. And I believe that just saying no to this is, in fact, reckless.

Goldberg: So why do you think you can’t convince the majority of Israelis, or the majority of the organized Jewish community, of this?

Kerry: Because there’s a huge level of fear and mistrust and, frankly, there’s an inherent sense that, given Iran’s gains and avoidance in the past, that somehow they’re going to avoid something again. It’s a visceral feeling, it’s very emotional and visceral and I’m very in tune with that and very sensitive to that.

In other words, Israeli leaders across the political spectrum, Israeli military experts and the vast majority of the Israeli people are just hysterical. In fact, he seems to think Israelis make too much of constant Iranian threats to destroy the Jewish state:

Goldberg: Do you believe that Iranian leaders sincerely seek the elimination of the Jewish state?

Kerry: I think they have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that translates into active steps to, quote, “Wipe it,” you know…

Goldberg: Wipe it off the map.

Kerry: I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen anything that says to me—they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.

Kerry “doesn’t know” if Iran is serious about eliminating Israel and that considering that issue is “a waste of time.” That may be true for Kerry and the rest of the Obama administration, but for Israelis, it’s hard to imagine what would be a better use of time.

The European Maccabi Games—a Jewish sporting event held every four years and also open to non-Jews—took place this July in Berlin, Germany. Jewish athletes were faced with threats and intimidation that went widely unreported in most major media outlets.

According to The Jerusalem Post (“Euro Maccabi games marred by anti-Semitism in Berlin,” July 1), Berlin police noted that two “youths” hurled antisemitic insults at six Jewish men while tossing “an object” at the group, before fleeing. The incident occurred in the city’s Neukolln district, which has a large Muslim population. It was not the only case of violence and harassment apparently connected to the Maccabi Games.

“A man with an Arab background” was arrested for yelling antisemitic slurs at two security guards at the hotel housing more than 2,000 athletes and others associated with the games. The Jerusalem Post notesd that hotel is only “900 meters from the Al-Nur Mosque, a hotbed of radical Islam.”

Jewish athletes were warned about traveling in large groups in Neukolln and told not to wear “visibly Jewish items,” such as Stars of David and kippahs. It was also recommended that Jews travel in taxis and avoid “sensitive areas of Berlin”; those with high Muslim populations often hostile to Jewish people.

Many athletes—mindful of the Olympics hosted by Hitler’s Germany in 1936 Berlin—harbored high hopes for the games, The New York Times noted in its pre-event coverage (“At Maccabi Games, Jewish Athletes Vie for Medals While Mindful of Past,” July 27). As The Times noted, descendants of Jewish athletes barred from the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin were invited to “honor the past while sending a clear message about the survival of Jewish life into the present.”

Yet, while The Times covered the expectations of the games, it did not report the attacks against Jewish athletes. Many other major media outlets similarly failed to provide coverage. The Los Angeles Times alone—in a 96-word Times Wire Report item—mentioned that a “well-known” Berlin landmark was “defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti”(“World Briefing; Germany; Anti-Semitic slogan mars Wall,” Aug. 2). That landmark was a painting on a remnant of the Berlin Wall showing the Star of David in the middle of a German flag.

More detailed coverage of the targeted attacks against Jews in a city and country defaced with its own history of murderous antisemitism was largely absent from U.S. papers.

In his coverage of the attacks for ,The Jerusalem Post, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Fellow Benjamin Weinthal noted 2014 witnessed “192 criminal acts of anti-Semitism in Berlin…..The American Jewish Committee’s Berlin office told The Post that there were additional 15 acts of violence and 70 incidents of anti-Semitic outbreaks.”

This corresponds to a 2015 study by Tel Aviv University’s Kantor Center, which found a marked increase in antisemetic violence, as CAMERA has noted (“Violent antisemetic attacks up 40 percent—Where’s the Coverage,” April 21).

Violent attacks on Jews in Germany’s capital during a sporting event meant to transcend the Nazi ban on Jewish competitors in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Where’s the coverage?—Sean Durns

USA Today has reported on a new Quinnipiac University poll:

American voters oppose the Iran nuclear agreement by a two-to-one margin, with 57% in opposition and just 28% in support, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll released today.

A similar margin, 58%, said the pact will make the world less safe.

[…]

“There’s not a lot of love for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. Only a bare majority of Democrats support the pact,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

The detailed release on the poll shows that an overwhelming majority of both men and women disapprove of the deal and believe it will make the world less safe: