Doc's Talk: Implications for Israel in the US Global Retreat

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Implications for Israel in the US Global Retreat

Isi Leibler
June 12, 2013
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4685

4685

The appointment of Samantha Power as America’s UN ambassador combined with recent US foreign policy statements, reinforce concerns that the US administration is accelerating its policies of global withdrawal, engaging rather than confronting rogue states, and appeasing Islamic extremism.

Ms. Power is on record for dismissing concerns about the Iranian nuclear threat. In addition, whilst favoring greater US assertiveness in relation to human rights issues, she seems to have a somewhat jaundiced moral relativist approach, jointly bracketing Israelis and Palestinian “crimes”. On one occasion she even called for the US to intervene militarily on behalf of the Palestinians against the Jewish state.

Indeed, in an article published 10 years ago entitled “Why do they hate us?” Powers perversely compared US behavior to that of the Nazis. While describing as “ennobling and cathartic for Germany”, Chancellor Willy Brandt kneeling in the Warsaw ghetto to demonstrate atonement for the crimes of the Nazis as “ennobling and cathartic for Germany”, she implied that the United States should make a similar apology for its global policies.

In view of her exceedingly harsh former condemnations of Israel, the enthusiastic endorsement of her appointment by pro-Israel stalwarts such as former Senator Joe Lieberman, ADL head Abe Foxman, and Alan Dershowitz were somewhat perplexing. We hope that their confident predictions that she will confront the ongoing anti-Israeli onslaughts at the UN will be realized. But having regard to her previous statements on the subject, one would have expected of them at least to suspend judgment.

President Barack Obama was always upfront concerning his intention to reduce America’s global interventionist role and “engage” rather than confront rogue states. His recent choice of personnel reflects this.

Secretary of State John Kerry, a friend of Israel, has a checkered and messy foreign policy track record including a disastrous effort, immediately before the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, to rehabilitate Assad whom he regarded as a reasonable open-minded leader. His naïve efforts to promote the peace process are respectfully tolerated by the Israelis and responded to with outright contempt by the Palestinians who mocked the $4 billion private investment project he recently unveiled. Last month, Kerry quietly waived the US requirements of Egypt to “implement policies to ensure freedom of expression, association and religion”, and approved a $1.3 billion arms grant to them. A few weeks later, the Egyptians displayed their appreciation by sentencing 43 NGO workers, including 16 Americans, to five year prison terms for having funded pro-democracy groups.

Obama’s Minister of Defense Chuck Hagel was an isolationist who harbored anti-Israel views and John Brennan, who heads the CIA, is the principal architect of the policy to appease Islam.

The so-called “Arab Spring”, enthusiastically welcomed by the Obama administration, substituted authoritarian dictators – some pro-Western – with more extreme Moslem Brotherhood fanatics and other radical Islamists who, despite reliance on American financial support, display utter contempt for US concerns.

The absence of international pressure from the US as a superpower in the catastrophic civil war in Syria has strengthened the extremists on both sides with the now probable outcome being an Iranian Hezbollah dominated Assad regime or rule by Moslem Brotherhood extremists buttressed by Al Qaeda.

US appeasement of Islamic extremism now also demands the exclusion of criticism of Islamic terrorism from the lexicon of Administration spokesmen. Thus, it is prohibited to bracket the role of Islamic fundamentalism with acts of terror orchestrated by jihadist elements. Despite the fact that 95% of global terror originates from Islamic extremist sources, one is continuously bombarded by meaningless clichés such as “Islam is a religion of peace” designed to understate and cover up the Islamic extremist element. To top it off, the administration has now initiated a campaign of “outreach” to US Moslem Brotherhood groups, even including elements under investigation for charges of supporting terrorism. This of course undermines the standing and influence of moderate Moslems.

These developments have severe ramifications for Israel. The United States is one of the very few countries where the public remains strongly supportive on a bi-partisan level towards Israel. Obama’s demonstrative display of warmth towards Israel early in his second term, as evidenced during his visit to the Jewish State, was undoubtedly largely influenced by the feelings of rank-and-file Americans.

The US global decline is deeply disconcerting for Israel. It is paralleled by the increasing power of China which has few shared values with us and maintains a purely pragmatic relationship, heavily influenced by the economic and political power of the Arab bloc. The Russian leaders, unlike their former Soviet counterparts, are not anti-Semitic but retain a strong alliance with Syria and even Iran.

Israel’s greatest concern is whether, with the likely failure of sanctions, the United States will fulfill its reiterated undertakings to resort to military action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The repeated articulation of “engaging” rogue states is regarded by many observers as a prelude to the US substituting its policy of preventing Iran from obtaining the bomb, with a wishy-washy containment approach which paves the way for Iranian regional hegemony or obliges other Arab states to seek to obtain nuclear facilities.

Yet, notwithstanding its global decline, the US remains the world’s greatest superpower and its relationship with Israel remains crucial for us.

It is thus incumbent on us to recognize and work towards two goals. The first is to remain aware that in this regional scorpion’s den, there is no mercy for the weak and we must rely solely on our own resources and strength to deter those states – Shiite and Sunni alike - which retain an obsession to destroy us.

That the IDF is today more powerful than it has ever been is the greatest reassurance for the nation. We can never rely on third parties and the current chaos with UNDORF on the Golan Heights, with the Russians offering to substitute for the Austrian withdrawal, underlines the imperative of self-sufficiency in defending ourselves.

The second goal must be to maintain and strengthen our relationship with the American people and Congress. If they continue backing our efforts to resist the barbarians at our gates, the Administration is likely to continue providing us with the needed military and technological support.

To achieve these goals we must impose greater discipline on our politicians and on ourselves. We must speak with one voice, especially in these times of intransigent Palestinian leadership when, for the foreseeable future, genuine progress in the peace process is virtually inconceivable. It is the height of irresponsibility for a deputy minister of defense to proclaim that a two state solution is off the table or to call for the annexation of all the territories. Such outbursts simply provide grist for those seeking to distance the US from Israel.

The government must continue its nuanced policy of strengthening the relationship with the US without conceding on issues that abet the strategy of our adversaries to undermine the State in stages and embolden Islamic extremists.

We would hope that our Jewish supporters and friends in the United States will continue encouraging the administration at all levels to support Israel in its struggle against its Islamic jihadist adversaries.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Some of my recent articles:
Religious Tolerance and Mutual Respect rather than Polarization (June 6, 2013)
Claims Conference gets deeper in the Mire (June 2, 2013)
Peres, Abbas, and Kerry: Fantasies and Realities (May 31, 2013)
A Global Tsunami of Anti-Semitism (May 28, 2013)

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