Doc's Talk: "Naming the Enemy"

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

"Naming the Enemy"

Arlene Kushner

I think it was anti-terrorist Steve Emerson who said this (and possibly Daniel Pipes as well): You cannot defeat the enemy if you cannot even name him.

This was with reference to Obama policies, which have just taken a turn for the worse with regard to naming the enemy. All religious terms such as "jihad" and "Islamic extremism" will now be removed from a central US document outlining America's national security strategy. That document, which was established during the Bush years, currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." It will be rewritten so that Muslim nations know that the US does not view them within the context of terrorism. How the strategy for establishing security will be described without reference to the ideology of radical Islam beats me.

An inability to recognize and confront the ideology of the leaders of such nations as Iran, an unwillingness to grasp the fact that they are serious about world domination and a new Islamic caliphate, puts the US at a severe disadvantage.

I want to say, "Heaven help the US." But in truth, because what the US does impacts internationally, it's "Heaven help all of us."

~~~~~~~~~~

And Heaven help us for another reason, as well.

According to David Ignatius, writing in the Washington Post, Obama is "'seriously considering' proposing an American peace plan to resolve the Palestinian conflict, according to two top administration officials."

According to one of the senior officials, "an American plan, if launched, would build upon past progress on such issues as borders, the 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem. The second senior official said that '90 percent of the map would look the same' as what has been agreed in previous bargaining."

This is the first place where there is a serious problem. Obama and company are assuming that we have to pick up where previous negotiations left off. But we do not and we must not.

Does no one comprehend that the offers made previously by Israeli governments were turned down, every single time? There is no obligation to keep offering what wasn't wanted. And there is no commitment to what we haven't signed on to, in writing.

The tenor of the times is different, as the Israeli population has woken up to the fallacy of the "land for peace" concept. Most people understand quite clearly that what would be received in return for the land that is our heritage would be violence. It is broadly recognized that the Palestinian Arabs don't want a state, they want us gone.

~~~~~~~~~~

But it gets worse. Much worse:

"The American peace plan would be linked with the issue of confronting Iran, which is Israel's top priority, explained the second senior official. He described the issues as two halves of a single strategic problem: 'We want to get the debate away from settlements and East Jerusalem and take it to a 30,000-feet level that can involve Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region,' as well as the Israelis and Palestinians.

"'Incrementalism hasn't worked,' continued the second official, explaining that the United States cannot allow the Palestinian problem to keep festering -- providing fodder for Iran and other extremists. 'As a global power with global responsibilities, we have to do something.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040602663.html

That canard again?? Linking "peace with the Palestinians" to the "issue of confronting Iran." There is no link, except in certain American heads. If the Palestinians were (G-d forbid) to get their state, do the officials quoted here imagine that it would encourage the Iranians to abandon that aspiration for a new caliphate (the aspiration that does exist even though Americans are not supposed to talk about it)? Or that they'd stop trying to go nuclear?

I choke when I read, "As a global power with global responsibilities, we have to do something." Obama has renounced his genuine global responsibilities where it truly matters: with regard to stopping Iran.

~~~~~~~~~~

What I see is an arrogant Obama, flush from his victory on health care. He sees here the possibility of another "victory," and there is no doubt but that, were he to advance a proposal, he would indulge in strong-arm tactics the likes of which we haven't seen yet. He would be determined to see it through, no matter the cost to us, acting with a conviction that he can make what he wants to happen become a reality

Dear friends in the US, now is the time to let your elected representatives in Congress know that you are absolutely opposed to imposition of a "peace plan" by Obama. Let them know that the two parties must work things out themselves.

For your Congresspersons:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

For your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

~~~~~~~~~~

Now is a good time for Netanyahu and his coalition to practice saying "NO!"

Once again, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has shown that he understands this. In a radio interview he said the following:

"The pressure is growing. Because pressure always grows, whenever they feel our weakness...Over the last year, we have made many concessions - actually acts of good will - to create a more favorable atmosphere...

"On the other hand, the Palestinian authorities are only intensifying their pressure by creating a designated anti-Israel boycott fund in the West Bank, organizing various anti-Israeli actions in the Human Rights Council in Geneva and in the United Nations, and so on. So we only feel growing pressure instead of any positive signs from the world
community, and that's all because of our weakness. That's why we have to make it clear: 'No more acts of good will.' It's time for the Palestinians to perform acts of good will...

"...I believe that we have to make our position crystal clear. We cannot agree to freeze construction in Jerusalem, either west or east. In the context of our sovereignty, this simply means a waiver of independence. There is no other country in the world which would stop construction in its own capital."

~~~~~~~~~~

In the interests of professional clarity, I would like to return just briefly to two items I dealt with yesterday:

[] I had alluded to how distressing it has been to read descriptions of the way in which Obama walked out on Netanyahu and his advisors in order to go have dinner with his family.

Subsequently reader Doris M. sent me a clip, citing the White House, which explained that this clearly had not happened, as Michelle Obama and the girls were in New York City at the time.

OK. This, however, does not give Obama a free pass. Nowhere, to the best of my knowledge, has there been a denial of the fact that the president walked out on our prime minister. And I believe that indeed he did. My information came from Israelis -- and included very solid sources, who presumably were in touch with members of the Netanyahu contingent. My guess is that Obama said he was going out to have dinner, and somewhere along the line the assumption was made that this meant dinner with family even if he didn't actually say so.

Without wishing to belabor this, I ask only that if you, as well, see a report that says the president was falsely accused because his family was away: keep the larger context in mind.

[] Then there is the matter of those roses from supportive Christians, who were eager to make a gesture to counter the rudeness Netanyahu suffered at the hands of Obama. Yesterday I lamented the fact that the prime minister was not going to receive them, so as not to offend Obama.

Lo and behold! Today the news carried a report that said certainly the roses could be sent, and they would be distributed to hospitals.

I double-checked sources after reading this. My original information -- that the flowers were going to be refused -- was not wrong, except possibly in one particular: the decision was likely made in the prime minister's office and not by Netanyahu himself. Clearly, I was hardly the only one lamenting what had been decided, and so there was an "uh oh" moment, and then a reversal in an attempt to contain damage.

Fair enough. And I think it perhaps important for caring Christians to know they were not being rebuffed by the prime minister.

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

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