Doc's Talk: Bush's rhetoric, Bush's policies

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Bush's rhetoric, Bush's policies

Caroline Glick
THE JERUSALEM POST

In an interview Sunday with Britain's Observer, US President George W. Bush made an important observation. The president argued that the common wisdom about the Middle East, which argues that Palestinian statelessness is the root of regional instability and jihadism, is incorrect. It is Iranian aggression rather than the lack of Palestinian sovereignty that lies at the root of the war.

As Bush put it, "When you go to the Middle East and you sit in my seat and listen, yes, there's concern about the Palestinian state. But the dialogue has shifted dramatically from 'solve the Palestinian state and you've solved the problems in the Middle East,' to, now, 'solve the Iranian issue and you solve the problems in the Middle East.' " In acknowledging this basic reality, the president finally accepted the self-evident truth that people like US scholar Michael Ledeen, the author of The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots' Quest for Destruction, have been pointing out for years. It is Iran which is fueling the war in Iraq. It is Iran that has used its proxy in Lebanon to attack Israel and assert control over the country. It is Iran that stands behind the resurgence of the Palestinian jihad against Israel. And it is Iran that is developing nuclear weapons both to destroy Israel and to assert its control over global petroleum markets.

Given the continuously escalating nature of the Iranian threat to global security, Bush's remark was significant. And since Britain has led the campaign to convince the US that it is the absence of Palestinian sovereignty that stands at the root of the war, the fact that Bush made this statement of strategic lucidity to a British newspaper on the eve of his trip to Britain made it doubly significant.

So it is especially troubling and disappointing that in spite of the president's clear recognition of the nature of the Iranian challenge, he is refusing to confront Iran in any practical way.

As he moved through European capitals, Bush asserted repeatedly that he is completely committed to Europe's policy of diplomatically engaging Iran on its nuclear weapons program. He never once brought up the option of forcibly preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Rather, he sufficed with calling for the three, toothless UN Security Council sanctions resolutions against Iran to be enforced.

BUSH'S STATEMENTS came against the backdrop of Iran's latest rejection of the West's latest offer to buy it off in exchange for a mere "suspension" of its uranium enrichment activities. That is, he embraced "negotiations" after Iran essentially said, again, that its nuclear weapons program is non-negotiable.

Bush tried to place a wedge between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people by arguing - correctly - that the Iranian people are suffering under the mullahocracy's jackboot. But he has also taken toppling the Iranian regime off the table. So the oppressed Iranian people have no reason to believe that were they to risk their lives in an attempt to free themselves of their leaders, the US would support them.

According to the US media, there was some talk a while back about a US strike against terror training camps in Iran that are used to train insurgents who are killing coalition forces and Iraqi citizens in Iraq. According to international law, such an attack would be permissible. But the Pentagon reportedly nixed the idea, arguing that while the US may start such a confrontation, it would have no control over how events would unfold.

This unfortunately, is a wild distortion of reality. The reality is that Iran has been actively engaged in confronting the US and its allies since 1979. And in every theater of action, it is Iran that has been calling all of the shots. A US strike against the terror training facilities in Iran would mark the first time that the US has ever seized the initiative in Iran's war against it and against the rest of the free world. So opposing such a strike is not an argument against confrontation, but an argument against acknowledging the existence of Iran's ongoing war against the US.

LEBANON IS one of Iran's key battlegrounds for regional dominance. Through its Hizbullah proxy, last month Iran consolidated its control over Lebanon. Hizbullah's bloody takeover of the country was capped off with the signing of the Doha agreement. In Qatar, Lebanon's defeated pro-democracy forces from the March 14 movement officially accepted Hizbullah control of the country by acquiescing to Hizbullah's demand for control over the Lebanese government.

Rather than accept that at Doha the Lebanese government became an open tool of Hizbullah, the Bush administration has decided to pretend - along with Europe - that nothing has happened. As far as the Bush administration and Europe are concerned, a pro-Western, democratically elected government still runs Lebanon's government.

Sadly, there is nothing new about this policy of denial. After the March 14 democracy movement successfully forced Syrian forces to withdraw from Lebanon in 2005, Hizbullah stepped in to protect Syrian and Iranian interests in the country by joining Fuad Siniora's supposedly pro-Western government. Like Europe, the US refused to acknowledge the fact that Hizbullah's partnership with Siniora rendered the Lebanese government - and with it the March 14 movement - proxies of Hizbullah and Iran. And so, prodded by France, throughout the 2006 Israel-Hizbullah war, the US ignored the fact that the Siniora government was nothing more than Hizbullah's diplomatic cover.

In 2006 the US and Europe justified their studied denial of Lebanon's political realities by arguing that Hizbullah was only a minority member of Siniora's coalition. This argument was never persuasive given that Hizbullah's Iranian-trained, financed and armed military force is more powerful than the Lebanese army. But it was a convenient excuse for inaction for leaders unwilling to acknowledge that Iran is the source of regional instability. Today, with Hizbullah in control of the Siniora government, this dubious argument has been wholly discredited. And yet the West's policy of denial has only escalated.

Immediately after the Doha agreement was concluded, the US announced its desire to expand its support for the Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese military. And Monday, Al Hayat reported that during his visit with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Bush agreed to reward Hizbullah for its aggression directly.

Al Hayat reported that during his visit with Sarkozy, Bush agreed to accept Hizbullah's demand that Israel surrender its control over Mt. Dov - or what it refers to as the Shebaa Farms - to Lebanon. Israel's control over Mt. Dov has served as Iran's justification for its proxy's continued aggression against Israel since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000.

ISRAEL SEIZED control of Mt. Dov from Syria during the 1967 Six Day War. It was never considered Lebanese territory. In 2006, Lebanese Druse leader Walid Jumblatt stated outright that Hizbullah's claim to the vast, strategically critical area which separates the Syrian-controlled Golan Heights from the Upper Galilee was a complete fabrication. Yet, acting as Hizbullah's mouthpiece, in 2006 the Siniora government demanded that Israel surrender the area to Lebanon. Refusing to acknowledge that Siniora was controlled by Hizbullah, in August 2006 the US placed this groundless demand before the UN for consideration in the UN Security Council's Resolution 1701 which set the terms of the ceasefire.

And now, with Hizbullah - that is Iran - the undisputed ruler of Lebanon, Bush has reportedly accepted Hizbullah's unjustifiable demand for control over the area.

Then of course there is the Palestinian war against Israel, which Bush himself acknowledges is a consequence of Iranian aggression rather than its source. And yet, rather than embrace the policy which logically stems from this correct assessment - namely that the Palestinians' role as an Iranian proxy means that it makes no sense to support them - the Bush administration has made pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians the core of its Middle East policy. And in so doing, the administration has contributed to the solidification of Iran's rule in Gaza through Hamas and the expansion of Hamas's Iranian-controlled power in Judea and Samaria.

As is the case with the Hizbullah-controlled Siniora government, so with the Palestinians, the US refuses to acknowledge that the Fatah terror group is indistinguishable from and acts as diplomatic cover for the Hamas terror group. And so it forces Israel to make concessions to Fatah that directly endanger Israel and strengthen Hamas and Iran. As IDF commanders warned during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's latest trip here this week, the thousands of US-trained Palestinian security forces that Rice forced Israel to permit to deploy in Jenin and Nablus last month have overseen the expansion of terror attacks against Israel and enabled Hamas to expand its influence. The same is the case in Ramallah.

Then too, IDF commanders warn that if Rice succeeds in forcing the weak and incompetent Israeli government to take down yet more roadblocks in Judea and Samaria, Israelis can expect for the Palestinians to begin shooting rockets and mortars at Jerusalem and central Israel from Judea and Samaria. That is, by purposely undermining Israel's military control over Judea and Samaria in favor of Fatah - which is Hamas's proxy - the Bush administration is actively promoting the expansion of Iran's control over Judea and Samaria.

Sunday it was reported that Pakistan may have sold designs for advanced nuclear warheads capable of being launched from Iran's Shihab-3 ballistic missiles to Iran. These reports came as Pakistan's new "democratic" government has signed agreements transferring control over border areas with Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaida. That is, the report of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activities came to light as Pakistan openly supports the war against NATO and Afghan national forces in Afghanistan.

For years, the US has been very careful not to attack Pakistani territory in spite of the fact that it is used as a sanctuary for the Taliban and al-Qaida because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. In other words, the US's inability to contest the actions of a nuclear proliferating, terror supporting state is the consequence of its refusal to take action to prevent Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons in 1998. And of course, compared with Iran, Pakistan is "moderate."

Throughout much of his presidency, and especially since 2006, what has been most notable about Bush's rhetoric is that it has been completely disconnected from his policies. As he considers the legacy he is about to leave behind, it will hopefully occur to the president that the only way to leave the world more secure is to match his policies towards Iran to his rhetoric.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659747177&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk