Emanuele Ottolenghi is the executive director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic
Institute, an organization founded by the American Jewish Committee (the erstwhile publisher
of Commentary magazine, the flagship journal of neoconservatism whose editors have included Norman
Podhoretz and Irving Kristol). Ottolenghi
and the Transatlantic Institute, which is devoted to strengthening ties between Europe and the United
States, have been largely supportive of the Bush administration's "war on terror" and aggressive
in their efforts to promote stronger action against Mideast states targeted as part of the "war."
Trained as a political scientist and a former teacher of Israel Studies at the Middle East Center
of St. Antony's College (Oxford University), Ottolenghi is
a frequent contributor to a number of right-wing and neoconservative journals, including Commentary's
blog "Contentions" and the National Review Online. On the Contentions blog, whose
other contributors include John Podhoretz and Joshua
Muravchik, Ottolenghi frequently criticizes European leaders and writers for their often less-than-supportive
take on U.S. and Israeli policies. In a May 2007 entry, Ottolenghi lambasted Britain's National Union
of Journalists for supporting a boycott on Israeli goods because of the summer 2006 Israeli offensive
against Hezbollah in Lebanon. He wrote: "The boycotts have failed, so far, to accomplish any of
the stated goals of the groups initiating them. And it's tempting to dismiss them as a persistent but
ineffectual fringe phenomenon in the acrimonious public debate over Israel. But such dismissal is becoming
harder and harder. The National Union of Journalists is no fringe political organization; it's an institution
of long standing and high visibility in British life. Now that it has come clean about its stance on
this issue, and in so doing has compromised gravely the journalistic integrity of its members, we can
only ask who will be next. The BBC, perhaps?" (May 4, 2007).
In October 2007, Ottolenghi targeted Mohammad ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), for criticizing Israel's bombing of facilities in Syria that were suspected of
having a connection to a nuclear program. He wrote: "ElBaradei called the raid 'very distressful.'
It is not clear whether his distress stems from the raid's success or from the complete lack of IAEA
knowledge about the site prior to Israel's attack. Officially, what bothers ElBaradei is the fact that
Israel bombed the site rather than reporting its existence to ElBaradei himself: 'To bomb first and
then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution.' Given
his track record on Iran's nuclear ambitions and repeated violations of UN resolutions on the subject,
one is hard-pressed to understand why reporting it is better than destroying it. Perhaps so that ElBaradei
can engage in years of meaningless negotiations while the Syrians advance their program? No doubt,
diplomacy has its merits. But if the IAEA actually is interested in countering proliferation, ElBaradei
should be applauding Israel's action—at least quietly" (Contentions, October 29, 2007).
In a letter to the editor of the Claremont Review of Books, a publication of the rightist Claremont
Institute in California, Ottolenghi pointed to failings in the Bush administration democracy
agenda and argued that the 9/11 terror attacks were the result of policies promoted by so-called
realists. He wrote: "It is not just Iraq that has soured the neoconservative agenda. Freedom's
foray into the Middle East has gone amiss. Lebanon's fledgling democracy is under sustained assault.
And in Palestine, elections briefly gave power to Islamists, before they dragged their society into
the brutal abyss of civil war. Few in the West wish to remember it now, but this was Algeria's condition,
too, 15 years ago. In that country, not to mention elsewhere in the region, a strongman's repression
seemed the only bulwark against savage anarchy. Western calls for a return to these old Middle East
ways are the kind of political expediency that passes for realism these days, especially when someone
else suffers for the sake of our political tranquility. Sadly, today's self-proclaimed realists forget
that 9/11 was a side effect of their strategy."
On Iran, Ottolenghi chides Europeans for not taking a stronger stance on Tehran's nuclear programs
and aggressive posture. In an October 2007 article in Lib Magazine entitled "Iran: The
Looming Threat," Ottolenghi pushed Europe to use its economic strength to pressure Iran, arguing
that Europeans "are doing something wrong, for our desire to make a profit with Iran in the short
term will leave us at a loss in the long term." He wrote: "Europe can use its mighty economic,
financial, and commercial clout to squeeze Iran. Iran's industry would come to a standstill if Europe
stopped selling spare parts. Iran's economy would freeze if Europe stopped providing refined oil products—Iran
has to import 40% of its gasoline despite being an exporter of crude. There is equally no need for
Europe to promote economic ties. Yet, bilateral chambers of commerce based in Tehran do just that.
European companies attend the annual fairs in the Iranian free trade zone in the island of Kish. And
so far, when Iranian dignitaries come to Europe on a visit, nobody objects to the numerous Iranian
business delegations they bring along. All this must change if Iran's regime is to be persuaded to
change course without the recourse to force" (Transatlantic Institute, October 30, 2007).
A July 2007 article titled "Sanctions? Business!" co-authored by Ottolenghi and Daniel Rackowski,
a fellow at the Transatlantic Institute, argued that Europe's "credibility" and "core
values" depend on a singular achievement: "If Europe were to fail to prevent Iran's ambition
to build a nuclear bomb, the world—Europe first and foremost—would be a more dangerous place. The United
States, having backed Europe's multilateral diplomacy, would see this approach as a failure. The possibility
of unilateralism, coalitions of the willing, and pre-emptive strikes, would regain credence, after
the Iraq crisis cast a shadow on their viability." The authors highlighted Germany's dual roles
as the 2007 holder of the EU presidency and a high-level trading partner with Iran, arguing: "As
the current holder of the EU presidency and therefore the lead EU country on the international scene,
Germany is a case in point: its volume of trade has increased very profitably precisely during the
time when the EU-3—having unmasked Iran's nuclear ambitions—was trying to persuade Iran to back down
from its bellicose intents" (Die Welt, September 4, 2007).
|
Affiliations
Transatlantic Institute: Executive Director
American Jewish Committee: Speaker
National Review: Online Contributor
Commentary: Online Contributor
Middle East Center of St. Antony's College (Oxford University): Former Teacher
Education
Hebrew University, Jerusalem: PhD
University of Bologna: Undergraduate Degree
|
