Doc's Talk: U.S. Middle-East Policy in Disarray

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

U.S. Middle-East Policy in Disarray

Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker

Apparently Washington, D.C. has only recently come to realize that U.S.-Middle East policy is in tatters. The degree of disarray still seems to be hidden from those charged with administering such a policy: the State Department. Neither the State Department nor any of our intelligence agencies seem to have had any inkling of an idea that the forces of revolt and revolution would break out in Arab North Africa and the Middle East. Each successive revolt caught our government by surprise: first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, and finally in Libya. After these revolutions, we again were taken by surprise at revolts in Yemen, Bahrain, and now Syria. All of these revolts follow some eighteen months after the smothered youth revolt in Iran, where our government did almost nothing to aid the young Iranians attempting to remove the tyrannical clerical rule of the Islamic extremist regime. When it came to the revolt in Egypt, after some waffling, President Obama decided to pressure 82-year-old Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak into stepping down. Obama looked aside when the Egyptian military staged a coup "to restore order." That the Muslim Brotherhood stands to reap the benefits of the current Egyptian "democracy movement" seems not to concern our administration. Long-term planning and careful analysis of Egyptian politics based on strong intelligence procurement apparently is far beyond the capabilities of the bureaucrats of Foggy Bottom and Langley, Virginia. Whoops! We've repeated our mistakes of Tehran 1979 -- maybe we will get it right when dealing with Libya. We all hate Muammar Gaddafi so much that any move to oust him has got to be worth supporting, especially when we see him killing people in his own country.

Has anyone bothered to see who is leading the revolt against Gaddafi -- who is financing the revolt and who is furnishing the rebels with arms? Has anyone checked to see if these "freedom fighters" have any ties to al-Qaeda or the Islamic Republic of Iran and its IRGC Qods Force? Has anyone checked to see if the rebels include jihadists that have fought against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and/or Iraq? Whoops! We missed that one, too! Maybe we will get it right in dealing with Yemen.

So are we pro-Saleh or anti-Saleh, and if we are anti-Saleh (who has been pro-U.S. but a dictator like every other Arab ruler), have we bothered to check out his opposition? What? Has anyone checked to see whether General Ali Muhsin Al-Ahmar still maintains ties with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula? Do we care?

And what do we think about the fate of the regime of Bashar el-Assad of Syria? Are we still convinced that if we find the right-sized carrot, we can pry him away from his ties to Tehran? Do we care that he may be replaced by the Ikhwan, or do we think that those Syrian university students will all turn out to be peace-loving secular democrats? Does President Obama think that a couple of somber declarations supporting democracy will outgun the 10,000 Iranian Pasdaran sent to bolster Assad's regime? Do we have any deep-cover agents informing us about events in news blacked-out Syria? And do we have intelligence on the political leanings of the Syrian opposition inside that country?

And what is going on with our ties to our "ally" Iraq? Is anyone paying attention to the fact that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki just ordered an attack on Camp Ashraf, home to 3,500 Iranian dissidents for the past twenty-six years -- a group that has been under U.S. Army protection since May 2003, having signed a formal treaty with our government at that time? Have our State and Defense Departments done anything to prevent the murder of 34 Iranian dissidents, the kidnapping of six more, and the injury of yet another 350 last weekend despite having received warnings of the pending attack for a full week ahead of the attack (which commenced on Friday morning, April 8)? Is President Obama concerned about innocent, unarmed Iranians being murdered in cold blood in Iraq, or is it only Libyan rebel blood that tugs at his heartstrings? Are the Iranians disposable because Obama still harbors hopes to engage the mullahs in dialogue?

And what are we to think about the administration's hopes for a peace treaty between the Palestinians and Israel? Does the State Department pay any attention to the fact that Palestinian Authority President Abbas has done nothing to end incitement against Israel, that the Fatah Covenant has the same text about the destruction of Israel as does the Hamas Covenant, despite the late Yassir Arafat's promise to change and remove the offensive text, and that indeed, the Palestinian Authority speaks for only the West Bank while the Gaza Strip is governed by an entirely different entity -- Hamas -- which refuses to recognize Israel and continues to attack Israel with rockets and mortar shells?

The revolts throughout the Arab world have shown that Israel is not the central problem, and yet our president and his State Department seem to follow the old line that the Palestine question is the root of all the Middle East's woes. One would think that the lessons of the last four months had shown Foggy Bottom that in fact, human and civil rights as well as economics are the keys to improving the lives of the masses in the Middle East. But the fog is not to be found only along the banks of the Potomac; unfortunately, it's located in the minds of those charged with crafting our foreign policy.

Only when we realize that Islamic fundamentalism in any and all of its forms is a major threat to this country and the Western culture upon which this nation is founded will we begin to forge a policy that defends our allies and fights our foes. Political correctness and multiculturalism may be popular in liberal circles, but they do little to defend our nation and culture from a very hostile sharia-adhering foe. The sooner Washington comes to realize this fact, the better it will be for all of us who treasure individual liberties, freedom, and democracy -- i.e., conditions that exist in only one country in the Middle East: the Jewish State of Israel.

Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching of the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism. He may be contacted at contact@ADME.ws.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/us_middleeast_policy_in_disarr.html at April 19, 2011 - 05:58:14 PM CDT

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