The Jews Down Under–Roundup of Australian Jewish News

Compiled by Gary Fabian

Broken Hill shul plans centenary celebrations
 
SYDNEY, 4 March - The once-thriving Jewish community, which helped to establish the outback mining town of Broken Hill in far north-west NSW, is long gone.  But there is still one remnant; evidence of those former glory days. 

 Off the city’s main street stands a recently restored red-brick synagogue with a storied past. Established in 1910, the shul on Wolfram Street once served as the vibrant communal hub for around 250 Jews who called Broken Hill home in the first half of the 1900s.
 
Though its doors closed in 1962 after Jews steadily moved out of the area, in recent years the local historical society has taken steps to preserve the building. It is now organising centenary celebrations for November as a nod to its past.

 “Broken Hill businesses really owe their beginnings to the Jewish community” said Margaret Price of the Broken Hill Historical Society (BHHS), which is coordinating with Jewish historical societies in both Melbourne and Sydney to help collect photos, letters, diaries and other memorabilia in the lead up to the celebrations.

 The two-day event will include a ceremony in the synagogue, a program of historical talks and first-hand testimonies, a bus tour of places where Jewish families lived and worked, and a civic reception by the mayor. “It will be a great big get-together of the families that used to live here” Price said. “They’ve never had a reunion, and now they will be able to come together and discuss what happened in Broken Hill.” 

 From the settlement’s early beginnings in 1885, Jews have been part of the town’s colourful and sometimes turbulent history. The first headstones in the Jewish section of the Broken Hill Cemetery date back to July 1888 ­ the same year a typhoid epidemic claimed 123 lives in the new town. 

According to Melbourne University professor and former Broken Hill resident Leon Mann, who has done extensive research into the congregation’spast, Jewish religious services were first held in the Masonic Hall from 1900. At the turn of the century, the community numbered about 150. 

A few years later, land was ­purchased to build a synagogue, with the foundation stone laid in November 1910. By the 1920s and 1930s, the community had swelled to about 250 members. But with the outbreak of World War II, Jews began to leave the area in droves, forcing the shul to eventually close down in the early 1960s. It temporarily became a private residence, and was later purchased as a heritage-listed building by BHHS in 1990.

Today, the building has been faithfully restored and converted into a Jewish museum by the society, which has its premises at the rear of the property. Still, many of its old features are intact: the name of the congregation appears above the entrance door in Hebrew, and the ark, bimah, and pews all remain in place. 

“Here is uniquely a historical society, which has maintained it like a synagogue for some 20 years in appreciation as a place of worship and where Jews gathered long after the last Jew of Broken Hill died” said Prof Mann.  “They want us to help them celebrate what it was to be Jewish in Broken Hill. It’s Jews and non-Jews hand in hand coming together again to recognise a place of worship” and the contribution Jews made to the life and community.”

Australian Federal Police investigating Dubai incident
 
CANBERRA, 3 March - Australian police officers are expected to land in Tel Aviv on Tuesday (March 2) to begin investigating allegations that Israel committed passport fraud. 

Following the discovery last week of three Australian passports, which were alleged to have been forged by Israeli security service Mossad, Australian Federal Police officers will continue their investigation on Israeli soil.

The officers, who are conducting the investigation alongside the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Passport Office, will speak to the three dual Australian-Israel citizens caught up in the fraud.  The Dubai police have alleged that forged passports in the names of Nicole McCabe, Joshua Bruce and Adam Korman were discovered and have linked these passports to an elaborate plan, pinned on Mossad, to assassinate Hamas extremist Mahmoud al-Mabhod.
 
An odd related event
 
AUSTRALIAN Federal Police agents are believed to have been involved in a hit-and-run car accident less than 12 hours after arriving in Israel to investigate the use of passports of three Australians in last month’s Dubai assassination. In an extraordinary turn of events, a car screeched out of the car park under the Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv and hit a woman riding a bicycle, who was not seriously injured. But the car did not stop, instead continuing on its high-speed journey.

The Australian Embassy last night confirmed it was investigating the incident but would not confirm that the car that hit the woman contained the three AFP agents.

An embassy spokeswoman said as part of the investigation embassy officials had spoken to the driver of the car. She would not say what he had said had occurred. The driver of the car, when asked by The Australian as he returned to the embassy if he had been involved in an accident with a woman on a bike, continued walking into the embassy and said: “Can you shut the door.”

The woman, Oshra Bar, told one media outlet last night: “I want an apology and a new wheel. I was hit and I kind of bounced.” 

 The AFP had arrived early yesterday to investigate how the passports of three Australians were used in the January 19 assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. The accident occurred as the embassy car was taking the AFP agents from the embassy to their hotel.  The embassy car is a silver Toyota four-wheel drive. The embassy spokeswoman said they had not heard from the woman in the accident and wanted to speak to her as part of their investigation.

The embassy spokeswoman said last night: “It is a very serious issue.  We are currently investigating it. We have not been contacted by anyone who has been knocked off her bike. “I can confirm that that (the car which left the building) is an embassy car. I don’t think at this point that I can comment on who was and was not in the car.”

The spokesman said she did have advice from the driver as to “whether something did or did not occur.” Asked what the driver had said, she replied: “It is not appropriate at this point to comment on our incomplete investigation.”
  
 
New web site will track rabbis pulpit performance

SYDNEY, 4 March - Senior rabbis have expressed concern over the establishment of a new government-sponsored league table, which will see their synagogues ranked according to the quality of their sermons.

Based on the controversial My School website, the My Shul website is due to be launched in May by the Australian Faith Institute (AFI).

Among the factors determining how a synagogue fares is the length of the rabbi’s sermon, the number of references to the week’s parshah and -­ based on a questionnaire provided to congregants -­ just how interesting it is. 

Shuls will also be graded according to the musical ability of their respective chazans, with volume, pitch and choice of tunes all influencing the overall mark. 

Independent assessors are expected to attend synagogues across the country over the Pesach and Shavuot period to collate the relevant data. Initial rankings will be posted shortly after the festivals. 

 A further study later this year, detailing the number of congregants in each community, as well as the quality of their kiddushes, will then be factored in to complete the final league table. 

Jewish adviser to the institute Mordy Felstein said: “As with My School, My Shul will seek to compare like with like, so the socio-economic status of each synagogue will be considered. He added: “If congregants are having to pay membership fees, surely they’re entitled to know they’re getting value for money and what they could get if they shopped around. This will help them to make informed choices, as well as encouraging synagogues to see them as customers or clients who deserve the best.”

However, the proposal has not been welcomed by members of the rabbinate. Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence of Sidney’s The Great Synagogue said: “Our congregants should focus on Shabbat tables rather than league tables. I know my congregants feel comfortable in shul -­ they always wake up feeling refreshed.”

Australian courts show they will act on terrorism threats
 
SYDNEY, 4 March - The recent sentencing of five men convicted on terror charges in Sydney shows that Australia’s judicial system is working effectively in helping keep the country secure, according to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).

The men, aged between 25 and 44 and whose names have been suppressed, were convicted last October after prosecutors alleged they had stockpiled dangerous chemicals, firearms and ammunition, in a plan to wage jihad against the Australian government.

Handing down prison terms of between 23 and 28 years for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, Justice Anthony Whealy of the NSW Supreme Court said the five men were motivated by “intolerant, inflexible religious conviction.”

Some of the material seized from the group praised Osama Bin Laden and depicted graphic images of violence inflicted on hostages.

The jury in the high-security trial, which lasted nearly a year and ended in a month-long deliberation, was presented with information regarding the group’s arrests in 2005 after lengthy surveillance.

Welcoming the outcome of the case, ECAJ president Robert Goot said: “The question of sentencing is a matter for the trial judge, who obviously regarded the offences as very serious. I believe that the conviction and sentence send a strong message to the community about the attitude of the judiciary in respect of planned terror attacks on innocent Australians.”

 Dr Tzvi Fleischer, of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and editor-in-chief of Australia Israel Review, said the judgement “makes clear that the offenders conspired to commit terrorism out of the belief that it was their duty.”

The Australian branch of extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir condemned the sentences, with spokesperson Uthman Badar labelling the decision a “travesty of justice.”

Rejecting the description of the five Muslims as “extreme,” he asked: “ ‘Extreme’ according to whom or what? ‘Extreme’ as judged by what criteria?

Australian UN vote abstention noted
 
CANBERRA, 4 March - While abstaining from a vote is often not perceived as a noteworthy action, last week, two days after launching an investigation into the alleged fraudulent use of Australian passports by the Mossad, Australia was noted as abstaining from a crucial vote regarding Israel in the United Nations (UN).

The vote in the UN’s General Assembly reiterated a call for both the government of Israel and the Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into “the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the [Goldstone Commission’s] Fact-Finding Mission.”

Australia had previously voted against the resolution, but changed its vote this time around, a move that was heavily criticised by Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) president Philip Chester.

When it comes to General Assembly votes, the practice is for Australia to decide its position as close as possible to the actual vote.

However, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith emphasised that the abstention was not “payback” for allegations that Israel forged Australian passports. 

“The reason we abstained was because it doesn’t endorse the so-called Goldstone report, it encourages both Israel and the Palestinian authorities to undertake objective, exhaustive investigations about any of the human rights breaches that occurred in the terrible conflict in the Gaza [Strip]”Smith said.  “We always do these General Assembly resolutions objectively, case by case, on their merits. And if you look at who voted where, a number of the countries that we have been with, in terms of the so-called Goldstone report, also changed their position.”

Other countries that abstained included the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Russia.  Israel, the United States and Canada continued to vote against the resolution.

Australia’s Ambassador to the UN, Gary Quinlan, elaborated further.  “Our vote on today’s resolution” does not change the continuing concerns we hold about the lack of balance in, the scope of, and the recommendations of the Goldstone report, nor our strong preference that the parties be allowed sufficient time to pursue their own investigations.”

The ZFA’s Chester said he noted Australia’s decision to abstain with “concern. “ “In view of Australia having voted against the original UN resolution on the Goldstone report and Ambassador Quinlan’s statement that Australia was still concerned about the flawed nature of the Goldstone report, we do not understand why it seems as though Australia has changed its stance since last November’s UN vote” Chester asked.

But Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Robert Goot said he accepted the reasoning behind the vote change and the explanation that it was not related to the passport affair. The Rudd government has previously changed Australia’s vote three times in the UN on other Israel-related resolutions.

Australia’s loss – America’s gain
 
MELBOURNE – Temple Beth Israel’s (TBI) rabbinic couple, Rabbi Gersh Zylberman and Rabbi Rayna Gevurtz, will be leaving the synagogue later this year to pursue professional opportunities in the United States.

In a letter to TBI congregants, the husband-and-wife duo said they made their decision “after a great deal of consideration and with a mixture of competing feelings, but view it as an important step in our life journey.”

Rabbi Zylberman has served the TBI congregation since returning from rabbinic studies at the Progressive movement’s Hebrew Union College (HUC) in the US and Israel in 2005. US-born Rabbi Gevurtz served as the rabbi of The King David School, before joining TBI’s rabbinic team in 2007.

Rabbi Zylberman said their planned move was initiated by a congregation in California. “We initially came to TBI for a two-year commitment and renewed for a further two and then a further year” he said, describing their involvement with young adults and family programs as highlights of their work.

Rabbi Zylberman qualified as a physician and worked as a resident medical officer at The Alfred hospital, before moving into the rabbinate. Rabbi Gevurtz was raised in Chicago and Portland, and was ordained at HUC in 2001. They have two daughters, Adina and Noa.

TBI president Brian Samuel said a search has begun for a rabbi and a fully invested cantor to take up Rabbis Zylberman and Gevurtz roles when they depart in July. He said the congregation “is very sorry to see them go. But having worked with them in the past five years in a close relationship, I’m sympathetic with their desire to expand their international experience.”

Rabbi Fred Morgan, TBI senior rabbi, said: “We’ve got on very well together, both professionally and personally, and I’m sad to see them go.”

*

Fabian is Australia bureau chief for San Diego Jewish World.

Conundrums, or is it conundra?

By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM–Another round of high level visits and photo opportunities. Defense Minister goes to Washington. Vice President comes to Jerusalem. Special envoy arrives as well, hopefully to declare the onset of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Not direct negotiations, in order to protect Mahmoud Abbas’ reputation, but indirect via American mediators.

Pressure on Israel to avoid something preemptive with respect to Iran? Or high level discussions of what it will take to keep Israel out of that fray?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that 9-11 was engineered by the United States to give it an excuse for invading Afghanistan.

The Chinese are saying that it is not appropriate to impose sanctions on Iran. Diplomacy is the answer. Russia opposes an embargo on (its) arms sales to Iran. Ranking Americans say that sanctions should not be so harsh as to harm Iranian civilians. The US and its western partners are bargaining about which Iranian banks–if any–should be on a black list.

Should Israel go ahead with an operation, likely to bring a rain of missiles on itself from Iran and Lebanon, produce an escalation that shuts down Lebanon and maybe Syria, brings in the United States and produces a grand regional something or other, maybe even let the N-thing out of somebody’s bag? Or let the Holocaust denier, who declares Israel’s imminent demise, and says what he does about 9-11 continue to develop his own weapons of mass destruction?

Somewhat lower on the scale of apocalypse is an upturn in Palestinian protest. For the first time in years Palestinians on the Temple Mount threw stones on Jews praying below at the Western Wall. So the police went onto the Mount to stop them. Then Palestinian religious and political figures accused the Jews of violating their sacred space. A mile or so away, thousands of Palestinians and their Israeli supporters protested court decisions allowing the expulsion of Palestinian squatters from residences owned by Jews.

Should there be no rule of law when Palestinians claim preference? Or is it simply unwise for Jews to provoke unrest by moving into areas heavily settled by Arabs? And unwise for Bibi to put Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs on a list of national monuments? What about the Arab family living in our apartment house?

As long as the United States refrains from imposing serious sanctions on Iran–either unilaterally or as part of a coalition–one can expect that the same coalition partners that pressed Bibi to put Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs on the list of national monuments will press him to refrain from any concessions to the Palestinians. With every stone thrown against Jews in East Jerusalem, that pressure will increase.

Things are connected.

You’ve heard of a conundrum?

There are several of them intertwined.

Suggestions welcome.

*

Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University.

Shaking up an Israel critic’s credibility

By Bruce S. Ticker

 PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania — William Delahunt,who lives in the same city as two early presidents, began the fateful day of Feb. 12 telling a reporter he may leave Congress this year before flying to Israel. There, he verbally dueled with right-wing politicians while hundreds of miles south of home a female professor’s shooting spree would hand him a potential political nightmare.

On Friday, he announced that he will not run for re-election next November after representing Cape Cod and Boston’s southeastern suburbs for the last 14 years. He claimed that the professor’s crime did not prompt his decision as he considered retirement before.

During his Middle East trip, Delahunt’s linkage with two organizations accused of anti-Israel positions led to a snub he shared with Bob Filner of San Diego from deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon, while a triple murder in Alabama exposed a botched investigation of a 1986 fatal shooting in Braintree, Mass., caused by the present-day killer, when Delahunt was the local district attorney. Delahunt’s actual role at this writing remains a mystery, pending an investigation.

This string of coincidences has a biblical or Shakesperean touch to it that suggests irony at best and raises questions of hypocrisy at the worst. The Alabama episode can demolish the credibility of a controversial critic of Israel.

Delahunt’s experience is a downhill work in progress. He left for Israel on Feb. 12 on a trip sponsored by the J Street Education Fund and Churches for Middle East Peace. Some Israel backers bash these groups as habitual Israel-bashers, which may be an unfair characterization. J Street is at best irrelevant because the new lobbying group ardently urges the creation of a Palestinian state without regard for recent history – moderate strides by Israel and sharply increased hostility from the Arabs.

Delahunt, a resident of Quincy, vehemently complained when Ayalon refused to meet with a five-member congressional delegation led by Delahunt. He was uncharacteristically silent that same week amid questions about his role in the investigation of the 1986 shooting.

On Feb. 12, a woman who grew up in Braintree–Amy Bishop, 45, a biology professor–shot to death three of her colleagues and wounded three others at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Possibly her anger at being denied tenure reached the boiling point that day.

In 1986, a 21-year-old Amy Bishop was released from custody by Braintree police after she fatally shot her brother Seth, 16, with a shotgun and afterward held two strangers at gunpoint and demanded a car to get away, according to The Boston Globe and other media sources. Bishop was never charged with a crime as the shooting was ruled an accident. State police and the district attorney’s office said Braintree police never informed them of the events following the shooting. The district attorney’s office could have charged her with these other offenses.

Bishop was released from custody shortly after her mother met with the Braintree police chief, the Globe reported.

Bishop later graduated Harvard with a doctoral degree and became a biology professor at the University of Alabama. She was denied tenure last year, and she shot her six colleagues on Feb. 12.

Delahunt’s schedule in Israel included meeting with top Arab officials, the king and prime minister of Jordan and members of the Knesset, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported. Delahunt was joined by Filner and Lois Capps, also of California; Donald Payne of New Jersey; and Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio.

All five recently signed onto a House resolution calling for Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza. They neglected to mention the ongoing detention of Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped from an Israeli military base on June 25, 2006.

While overseas, Delahunt made no attempt to enlighten anyone as to how Bishop eluded charges. “I haven’t had a real opportunity to get into the details of the case, but I suspect when I return I’ll have an opportunity to become debriefed,” he told the Associated Press.

Back in Massachusetts, Delahunt blamed Braintree police for failing to make its report available, yet this argument was undermined by attorneys who said that a state trooper assigned to Delahunt’s office should have sought this information.

As quoted in the Globe, Delahunt said, “Why did we not receive the information? We operate on the information we have before us.”

Attorney Frank J. McGee, who represents arresting officer Ronald Solimini, retorted, “If you have a shooting and someone is dead, the very first thing you do is get the police reports and, secondly, interview the arresting officer.” John Kivlan, Delahunt’s top aide in 1986, conceded that the state trooper assigned to Delahunt’s office was responsible to ensure he “gets all the information” from local police.

Aside from Delahunt’s official responsibilities, many police officers, townspeople and political insiders likely talked up a storm about the shooting and its aftermath, which means that Delahunt might have heard things through the grapevine that were worth checking out.

Delahunt may well be sincere in an attempt to improve conditions in the Middle East, but he is wasting his time aligning himself with J Street, an organization which outlived its usefulness before it was created. J Street is taking stands on issues that were satisfied by Israel nearly five years ago.

While Delahunt expended time in Israel, he could have been back in Quincy – also the home of presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams – helping law enforcement authorities sort out the facts of a 24-year-old shooting death.

If these details expose serious flaws on Delahunt’s part, one can understand why he was reluctant to leave Israel.

Most importantly, if it turns out that Delahunt exercised poor judgment or acted on political motives, Israel can readily dismiss any criticisms from Delahunt because he has lost all credibility.

*

Bruce S. Ticker is a freelance writer from Philadelphia. He can be reached at bticker@comcast.net.

Pardon me, Obama Administration, but isn’t your policy on fire?

By Barry Rubin

HERZLIYA, Israel–The story of the U.S. engagement with Syria and the sanctions issue regarding Iran’s nuclear program are fascinating. Each day there’s some new development showing how the Obama Administration is acting like a deer standing in the middle of a busy highway admiring the pretty automobile headlights.

Or to put it a different way, it is like watching the monster sneak up behind someone. Even though you know he’s not going to turn around, you can’t help but watch in fascinated horror and yelling out: “Look out!” But he pays no attention.

So I’m not just writing about these two issues in isolation but as very appropriate symbols of everything wrong with Western perceptions of the Middle East (and everywhere else) and the debates over foreign policy (and everything else) nowadays.

On Syria, for the most recent episodes of the story see here and here but, briefly, the Syrian government keeps punching the United States in the face as Washington ignores it.

But now, on March 1, a new record is set. The place: State Department daily press conference; the main character, departmental spokesman Philip J. Crowley. A reporter wants to know how the administration views the fact that the moment the U.S. delegation left after urging Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to move away from Iran and stop supporting Hizballah, Syria’s dictator invited in Iran’s dictator along with Hizballah’s leader and Damascus moved closer to Iran and Hizballah.

In other words, the exact opposite of what the United States requested. Is the government annoyed, does it want to express some anger or threat?

Let’s listen:

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would point it in a slightly different direction. It came several days after an important visit to Damascus by Under Secretary Bill Burns….We want to see Syria play a more constructive role in the region. We also want – to the extent that it has the ability to talk to Iran directly, we want to make sure that Syria’s communicating to Iran its concerns about its role in the region and the direction, the nature of its nuclear ambitions….”

In other words, I’m going to ignore the fact that the first thing that Asad did after Burns’ visit was a love fest with Iran and Hizballah. But even more amazing, what Crowley said is that the U.S. government thinks Syria, Iran’s partner and ally, is upset that Iran is being aggressive and expansionist. And it actually expects the Syrians to urge Iran not to build nuclear weapons!

One Lebanese observer called this approach, “Living in an alternate universe.”

Meanwhile, as the administration congratulates itself on explaining to Syria that it should reduce support for Hizballah, Israeli military intelligence releases an assessment that Syria is giving Hizballah more and better arms than ever before.

Oh wait! Now it’s March 3 so time for someting new. The ófficial Syrian press agency reports that Syria’s government opposed an Arab League proposal to support indirect Palestinian Authority-Israel negotiations. Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem asserted that Syria is “no way part” of the consensus supporting the plan.

But guess what? First, Senator John Kerry opened a meeting of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee by erroneously praising Syria as supporting the plan, giving this as an example of Damascus’s  moderation. The New York Times quoted from the Syrian report, making it sound like Moallem is praising the United States, but left out the paragraphs attacking the U.S.-backed plan! And the State Department circulated the Times article as proof of its success in winning over Syria when in fact Syrian behavior proved the exact opposite!

Oh, and that’s not all! Not only did Syria oppose the plan but it attacked the Arab states that supported the U.S. effort and blasted the Palestinian Authority for not following the path of resistance, that is urged it to carry out terrorist violence against Israel.

Hey, that’s not all either. Syria also issued a statement accusing Israel of “framing” it by dropping uranium particles from the air to make it seem that Syria had been building a nuclear reactor for making nuclear weapons. Not exactly evidence of rational moderation I’d say.

Meanwhile, on the Iran front, it is now March 2010 and still—six months after the first administration deadline and three months after the second deadline—there are no additional sanctions on Iran yet. In fact, the process has barely started.

Even former Democratic presidential candidate and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry has taken a stronger stance than the administration.

He supports the congressional call for tough sanctions to block Iran’s energy industry which easily passed both houses. “I believe that the most biting and important sanctions would be those on the energy side.” But the Obama administration wants far more limited sanctions focused on a small group in the regime elite.

Yet sanctions are getting further away rather than closer. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted at this by pulling back from her early prediction of sanctions by April, now saying it might be “some time in the next several months.”

At the same time, we have endless evidence that the claim the Russians (and Chinese and others) are coming, to support sanctions, is nonsense. Just before meeting with Clinton to discuss the issue, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (or Lula for short) explained, “Peace in the world does not mean isolating someone.” (Quick, invite him to explain this to the anti-Israel forces in Europe and elsewhere).

But it’s outright amusing to see the efforts to spin the Russian and Chinese position. In this regard, the prize for this week should be won by an AP dispatch. The headline is: “Russia moves closer to Iran sanctions over nukes.”

And what is the basis for this claim that there has just been “the strongest sign to date that the Kremlin was prepared to drop traditional opposition to such penalties if Tehran remain obstinate?” This statement from President Dmitry Medvedev:

“We believe that [engagement with Iran is] not over yet, that we can still reach an agreement,” he said. “But if we don’t succeed, Russia is ready — along with our partners…to consider the question of adopting sanctions.”

Get it? When Russia decides that talking with Iran won’t work, then at that point—how long from now would that be?—it will “consider” sanctions. Actually, he said the same thing last August, a statement trumpeted in September by the New York Times as proving Obama’s policy was working.

There is more clarity with the Chinese, sort of, though the pretense is also made that they might do something. But Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang put it this way: “We believe there is still room for diplomatic efforts and the parties concerned should intensify those efforts.” At most, the optimists suggest, in the words of this Reuters dispatch:

“China will resist any proposed sanctions that threaten flows of oil and Chinese investments, but most believe it will accept a more narrowly cast resolution that has more symbolic than practical impact.”

Yes, that’s the kind of thing that already existed four years ago. Some progress.

Is it too much to ask policymakers to pay attention to what’s going on occasionally?

So let’s leave it to Ahmadinejad to sum up how things seem to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and lots of Arabs both pro- and anti-American:

The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image, and power behind in order to escape.…The [American] government has no influence [to stop].…the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties–God willing, Iraq too will join the circle….”

In other words, Obama Administration policy isn’t making the radicals more moderate but rather–by feeding their arrogance and belief in American weakness–making them more aggressive.  
 
*

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.