Doc's Talk: The ISIS threat Without allies against ISIS, US finds itself in the same camp as Iran, its sworn enemy

Sunday, June 29, 2014

The ISIS threat Without allies against ISIS, US finds itself in the same camp as Iran, its sworn enemy

ZVI MAZEL

LAST UPDATED: 06/29/2014

An extremist Islamic state is coming into being in the heart of the Mideast. It will become a bastion of terrorism unleashing its attacks against neighbors and sending its faithful on operations in Europe and the US.

From the start of the so called Arab spring, America has time and time again initiated moves which set it at odds with its traditional allies in the Middle East, to the extent that today it can only watch impotently developments in the region.
Iraq is a case in point. ISIS – the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – is a jihadist terrorist organization that has already taken large areas in Syria and made significant gains in Iraq. It is now in the process of setting up a hard-core Islamic state in the heart of the Middle East.

Washington, apparently taken completely by surprise, finds itself in the same camp as Iran, its sworn enemy. Obviously it is to be deplored that Arab countries in the region are unequal to the task of overcoming an organization numbering no more than a few thousand terrorists. On the other hand, since the end of the WWII these countries have squandered their efforts and their resources in internecine warfare and in the conflict with Israel, secure in the knowledge that the US or the Soviet Union would come to the rescue if needed.
The greatest world power thus finds itself not only without a viable course of action in Iraq, but without the allies that might have made such a course possible.

Washington seems to have grasped the extent of its predicament. Secretary of State John Kerry has been making the rounds of Arab states to see whether he can cobble together a coalition to act in Syria and Iraq. He came to Cairo bearing gifts, and pledged to unfreeze speedily the dispatch of Apache helicopters badly needed by Egypt to fight jihadist terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula.
That freeze, together with most of America’s military aid, had been intended to “punish” the Egyptian people and the army that had dared to topple a “democratically elected president.”

Washington has yet to understand that truly democratic elections in the Middle East – except in Israel – will entail a profound cultural evolution enshrining the rights of the individual, gender equality, and tolerance towards minorities.
No amount of pressure will change the reality in Egypt. Kerry promised to unfreeze the supply of all military aid, though he hinted that Cairo should progress toward greater democracy. It will not help to bridge the gap between the two countries, since the leaders of Egypt as well as most Egyptians are deeply offended by what they see as an undeserved snub.
Having gotten rid of the Muslim Brotherhood they thought that America would applaud and offer them help. There are signs that Washington has grasped at last the importance of Egypt as a stabilizing factor in the region.
Unfortunately, it was not the only miscalculation of America’s foreign policy. Washington had offended long-time allies, such as Saudi Arabia, a staunch friend since 1940. Riyadh is still bitter at what it perceives as American treachery in entering secret negotiations with Tehran on Iran’s nuclear program.
In Syria, America could not decide on a course of action. Not only it did not contribute to the fall of Assad, it did not back the moderate Sunni elements that were fighting the dictator, and thus indirectly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
Washington also lost influence in Libya, after leading from behind the European efforts to topple Muammar Gaddafi and is now watching helplessly as the country is plunged into chaos. Granted, Arab states are no poster for democracy and their people generally dislike the West and the United States, but a great power must act according to its own interests and cannot afford to be sanctimonious.
Washington also cannot afford a direct intervention in Iraq. This would entail a considerable war effort stretching from Syria to Iraq and guerrilla operations for which the Americans have no stomach. The human and material price would be too high, and there is no way that a compromise could be achieved between Sunnis and Shi’ites.
There might be a temporary respite for the Shiite government – leading to an increased Sunni hostility to the US, but there can’t be any hope of restoring unity to Iraq. During his recent visit, Kerry repeated that Washington was urging the ruler of Baghdad to form a national unity government with the Sunnis. Something akin to treating a terminal disease with placebos.
Unfortunately, America’s ill-advised policy after conquering Baghdad in 2003 is at the root of today’s problem. The Iraqi Army was disbanded, the civil service dissolved, and the power – held for so long by the Sunni minority – handed over to the Shi’ites, who promptly initiated discriminatory measures against the Sunni minority while moving closer to Shia Iran, the enemy of the West.
Disgruntled Sunnis took to terrorism – first against American troops and then against the Shi’ite population, while some joined the ranks of al-Qaida. The world can only look on while both factions are locked in mortal combat with no issue in sight.
Obama has withdrawn American soldiers from Iraq; had they stayed they would have given ISIS a real fight. On the other hand, he was only fulfilling a pledge made by former president George W. Bush.
Besides, who would have thought that a regular army with hundreds of thousands of soldiers trained by American experts would disintegrate when faced by a few thousands terrorists, however well organized? Though Nouri al-Maliki, head of the Iraqi government, is primarily to blame for having gone too far against the Sunni population, the Americans planted the seeds in 2003.
ISIS is not operating in a vacuum. It is being reinforced by embittered Sunnis and by Beduin tribes recruited in the past by the Americans to combat al-Qaida, something they did with notable success. It is true that not all the population – Sunni and Shia – is engaged in the fighting. There is no civil war yet, but the country is divided de facto. ISIS has taken over the main Sunni centers in the North and the Center and will undoubtedly meet with stiff resistance if and when it tries to progress in the Shia concentrations to the south.
However, it is hard to see Maliki being able to dislodge ISIS from its newly conquered territories. A brutal, extremist militant Islamic state is coming into being in the heart of the Middle East. It will become a bastion of terrorism unleashing its attacks against neighboring countries and sending its faithful on operations in Europe and the United States.
The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire after World War I led to the arbitrary creation of artificial entities; boundaries were drawn with no ethnic or tribal considerations with bitter enemies condemned to live together. These countries are today paying the price of constant squabbling and lack of economic progress.
From Libya to Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen (with Lebanon not far behind) Muslim states can no longer ensure personal security and basic services to their peoples – who often resort to flight, leading to an unprecedented number of refugees.
Can something still be done to reverse that relentless trend? It is highly doubtful.
America, having painted itself into a corner, will watch helplessly as chaos spreads and threatens the West.
The writer, a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a former ambassador to Romania, Egypt, and Sweden.

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