Doc's Talk: White House Statement: Sailing into Trouble?

Saturday, June 05, 2010

White House Statement: Sailing into Trouble?

RubinReports
Barry Rubin

The U.S. government has proposed a solution to the Gaza issue but what if its bluff is called?

The White House, through its National Security Council, has just issued a statement that is typical of what's wrong with the Western approach to these issues. First, it assumes that Hamas and its supporters want a rational, fair, compromise solution (uh, oh!) then hints at bigger concessions if it refuses that proposal (huh?). This might well boomerang in a few hours.

The statement says:

"The Government of Israel has stated its desire to avoid a confrontation and a repeat of Monday's tragic events on the Mavi Marmara. It remains a U.S. priority to provide assistance to the people of Gaza. "In the interest of the safety of all involved, and the safe transmission ofassistance to the people of Gaza, we strongly encourage those on board the Rachel Corrie and other vessels to sail to Ashdod to deliver their materials to Gaza. We are working urgently with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, andother international partners to develop new procedures for delivering more goods and assistance to Gaza, while also increasing opportunity for the people of Gaza and preventing the importation of weapons.

"The current arrangements are unsustainable and must be changed. For now, we call on all parties to join us in encouraging responsible decisions by all sides to avoid any unnecessary confrontations and to ensure the safety of all involved."

In other words, the United States is proposing that the ship land its cargo, everything can be inspected by Israel, and then shipped into the Gaza Strip that isn't clearly of military use. On the surface, this is intended to look like giving a victory to the "humanitarians" who want to help the people of Gaza. Actually, though, it is the basic Israeli position, as offered to the previous six ships and rejected by them.

What if the Rachel Corrie's directors say "no" as they have already announced previously? If they refuse and sail directly for the Gaza Strip, will the U.S. government than support Israel in stopping them? With an ordinary U.S. government one would think the answer would be "yes" but with this one, nothing can be taken for granted.

The last paragraph of the statement is intended to appease the "Free Gaza" (actually Consign Gaza to Permanent Hamas Slavery) movement by implying that the United States might surrender and give them everything they want by ending the blockade. Yet while the Palestinian Authority is listed as being involved in discussions--you can bet it won't endorse anything short of the blockade's end--Hamas isn't.

Hamas doesn't want a compromise. Hamas wants an unconditional end to the blockade and to weaken the United States by making it look as bad as possible.

This is a typical U.S. foreign policy mismatch. The American government says: let's find a win-win solution, thinking that if the other side is offered enough they will of course accept it and everyone will live happily ever after. But the other side doesn't want a win-win outcome. It wants an outcome where it wins and the other side is obliterated. "

It wants a situation in which militants fight the boarding Israeli soldiers and nine of the former are killed. After all, Western governments and international coverage turns that into a massive victory. So why settle for less? They want to "prove" that current policy is "unsustainable" You see, that's how the U.S. government and the West and the news media has set up the situation: the more trouble you cause, the more intransigent you are, the more you get.

By playing this game with the favorable rules until the end, refusing any compromise they will once again--they hope--make Israel look bad and the West retreat, make America look foolish and advance the radical cause. Or, at a minimum, force still another unilateral compromise from their enemy. Hamas stays in power, continues terrorism and the goal of wiping Israel off the map AND gets all the supplies it wants. Who's the fool here?

In a real sense, then, the U.S. government is putting itself in a position where it will have to take a stand or back down again. Let's watch and see.

Gaza Flotilla’s Leader Explains: It was a Jihadist Attack not a “Humanitarian” Operation

Posted: 05 Jun 2010 12:22 AM PDT
Please be subscriber 16,398. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Bülent Yildirim, the main organizer of the Gaza Flotilla, explained at a Hamas rally in Gaza that the operation was no humanitarian effort but part of a global Jihad to overthrow governments and install Islamist dictatorships. He made no secret of that fact, as shown in the MEMRI translation and video.

Keep in mind as you read this that his group originated the project and was the main funder, that his followers controlled the biggest ship, and that they were most of those who attacked the Israeli soldiers. Thus, more than any other individual, Yildirim represents the thinking behind the operation, its direction, and the creation of a militarized group on board that started the violence in order to achieve the intended result. Notice, too, that he--and thus the organizers of the operation and those who created the violence--are totally indifferent to the loss of life they cause.

"My brothers,” he begins, “I have brought you the blessings of Saladin and Sultan Abd Al-Hamid. There are 70 million Sultan Abd Al-Hamids in Turkey, and they all support you. We congratulate you on your victory.”

Saladin, of course, defeated the Crusaders and destroyed their kingdoms, an analogy often used by Jihadists to describe what they are going to do to Israel by Jihadists. Sultan Abd al-Hamid was the last of the Ottoman Empire’s Islamic-oriented rulers. He thus represents what Yildirim sees as an Islamist Turkish state. He was also a caliph, that is, the leader of the Muslim world as successor to Muhammad. Many Islamists want to reestablish the caliphate, a single Muslim ruler over the whole Muslim-majority world (or even the whole world, period). The Turkish Islamists hate the Turkish Republic because it ended the caliphate.

Their goal, therefore, is not to succor the people of Gaza but to wipe out Israel and kill the Jews as “rightful” (his idea, not mine) successors to Muhammad who will fulfill his mandate. Again, I'm not saying this is what Islam is but that is the view of the revolutionary Islamists:

"Three to four years ago, some claimed that Hamas was a terrorist organization. When the Jews would kill our women and children, they would say: 'Muhammad died and left only daughters.' We are here, in Turkey, in Egypt, Syria, and everywhere, and our daughters and our boys can also defeat you."

Yildirim continues: "Allah Akbar. Allah be praised. Allah Akbar. Allah be praised. Allah Akbar. Allah be praised. They have bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, but we have our hearts, we have our courage, and we are not afraid of anyone but Allah."

This is the typical Islamist trope: they are stronger but we court martyrdom and we have the deity on our side. Of course, it is always better if the other side is never allowed to use its weapons in self-defense because that is deemed illegitimate and your Jihad is interpreted as a peaceful humanitarian effort by those who don’t listen to what you are actually saying.

Incidentally, the Arabic Translator says: "They have used their nuclear and chemical weapons, and all their weapons, but all we have, after Allah, are our courageous hearts and our men."

Note the difference. Yildrim only says they have the weapons, but Hamas—in its decidedly non-moderate way—says these weapons have been used. I hesitate to say it but we may soon be seeing claims that the Israeli soldiers used chemical weapons on the ship. Oh, yes, that claim has already surfaced in non-Muslim Portugal.

Yildirim adds: "Let me tell you that if it were not for the ceasefire, Istanbul, Ankara, Diyarbakir, and all of Turkey would be in Gaza."

The ceasefire is that between Hamas and Israel. In other words, if the fighting renews, all Turks would go and fight for Hamas. This is not realistic, of course, but is a sign that Yildirim views the issue as a war of extermination against Israel. And, by the way, if he is advocating war this shows he puts Jihad and battle over the humanitarian well-being of Gazans. How many Gazans would be killed in that war? And what would those casualties be in terms of suffering compared to the delivery of outdated medicines and various other goods in the ships?

Yildirim continues by saying that if Allah so wills there will be no more embargo. This would mean, of course, that Hamas could get all the arms and military equipment it wants. Notice he doesn’t call for an easing of the embargo just to let in humanitarian needs and consumer goods. But wait! If Hamas spends the money on arms then that will reduce the living standards of Gazans!

So Yildirim, like Hamas, tells the people of Gaza: Don't moderate! Don't make peace with your neighbors! Fight the Jihad and be a martyr! Raise your children to be suicide bombers! And if the embargo is reduced and Western countries cozy up to Hamas there is good news and bad news.

The good news is that Gazans may get more consumer goods.

The bad news is that for the rest of their lives they will be forced to fight an endless war, suffer huge casualties, undergo material deprivations, lose their children to either mindless extremism or death, and live under an oppressive regime that will repress any freedom and turn women into chattel.

How humanitarian is that?

Then Yildirim threatens to overthrow any government that doesn’t support Hamas. Think of how the Egyptians, Saudis, and other governments feel about that:

Bülent Yildirim: "From here, I call upon all the leaders of the Islamic world, and upon all the peoples… Anyone who does not stand alongside Palestine – his throne will be toppled."

Yildirim does not see the Western outpouring of criticism against Israel as increasing humanitarian sentiments but as a step toward Islamist revolution and the takeover of more countries:

Bülent Yildirim: "Last night, everything in the world has changed, and everything is progressing towards Islam. All the peoples of the Islamic world would want a leader like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan."

Here is a direct pledge of allegiance to Turkey’s prime minister, the man behind the operation. So if Yildirim is a revolutionary Islamist who wants to destroy Israel, favors Jihad, and threatens moderate Arab regimes does that mean Erdogan, that model of a “moderate” Muslim “democrat” agree? Would he dissociate himself from Yildrim’s remarks?

Of course not.

Bülent Yildirim: "In conclusion, let me tell you, oh my Palestinian brothers, who are guarded by Allah and the angels – I wish we could take you away from here to Istanbul, and bring Istanbul here to be hit by the bombs instead of you."

I wonder how the people of Istanbul generally feel about that wish? But if Erdogan continues with his adventurist, pro-Jihadist policies of alliance with Iran and Syria, who knows how much violence, instability, and suffering it will bring to the Turkish people? And that's not a threat, it is a genuine fear for the well-being of a Turkish nation in the grip of such mad men and their patrons.

And if you have any doubt left about the nature of these "peace activists" and "humanitarians" just watch this in which the ship's radio operators tell Israelis: A. go back to Auschwitz; B. We're doing this against the United States and remember September 11. [Note: These are extracts from one hour of exchanges over the radio.]

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. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood

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