The following article is published in PajamasMedia. The full text is provided here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
The military junta ruling Egypt has announced that parliamentary elections will be held in September. Rather than spending the next five months complaining, those who aren't supporting the Muslim Brotherhood better get started actually working and organizing. I'll analyze this a lot more in the coming months but briefly the blocs are as follows: Islamists: Muslim Brotherhood says it is aiming at getting 30 percent of the seats. I think they'll succeed. A smaller, moderate Islamist party--whose members split from the Brotherhood because they say it is too extremists--would be lucky to get any seats.
Left: There are several neo-Marxist parties but no clue whether they will work together or run separately. In either case they are unlikely to get many seats, and none at all if they compete for the limited votes that might be obtained. Probably no more than 5 percent.
Conservatives: The ex-regime's politicians including leaders of the ruling National Democratic Party. This group could do better than outsiders expect. If they unite and put forward coherent positions, they could take as much as 20 percent.
Nationalists: If Amr Moussa organizes his own radical nationalist party and does a good job, it might get up to 40 percent, especially if he brings in a lot of the former supporters of the Mubarak regime. This is the only group I think that could have a larger bloc than the Islamists.
Centrist pro-democracy forces: This would be the party of Muhammad ElBaradei, Ayman Nour, and the Facebook kids. I doubt it would get more than 15 percent, almost all in Cairo and Alexandria.
Obviously, these are tentative figures that will have to be revised as we see whether these groups do get organized and are able to remain united. The Brotherhood will definitely not "take over" Egypt this year--especially since Amr Moussa is the most likely president and the Brotherhood won't run a candidate. But it will have lots of influence and a key role in writing the new constitution.
Presumably, the Brotherhood will make deals to get religious and social clauses it wants in exchange for compromises on things it doesn't care about very much. Egypt, then, will take a big step closer to Islamism and an even bigger step toward being hostile to the United States and Israel, while moving into a virtual alliance with Hamas.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
New al-Qaida Magazine Lauds Arab Revolutions
IPT News
March 30, 2011
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2726/new-al-qaida-magazine-lauds-arab-revolutions
Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula released its fifth issue of Inspire Magazine, with a clear explanation of its views about upheaval in the Middle East and what that means for the organization's aim to retake the Holy Land. While uprisings in Bahrain, Egypt and elsewhere in the region have been peaceful, several articles in the issue stake the claim that such popular actions somehow validate al-Qaida's violent ethos.
"The cover of this issue is about the Tsunami of change that is sweeping the Arab world. With the removal of the despots, the ummah [nation] will speak its voice, and when it does, it will chant: Here we start and in al-Aqsa [Jerusalem] we'll meet," says Yahya Ibrahim in the introductory article. "The biggest barrier between the mujahidin and freeing al-Aqsa were the tyrant rulers. Now that the friends of America and Israel are being mopped out one after the other, our aspirations are great that the path between us and al-Aqsa is clearing up."
"The West also believes that the revolts are bad for al-Qaida. This is not the case," the article clarifies. The overthrow of Arab regimes is being taken as a new wind in the sails of the terrorist movement, empowering it to take bolder strikes at the West and Israel.
"Another line that is being pushed by Western leaders is that because the protests in Egypt and Tunisia were peaceful, they proved al-Qaida – which calls for armed struggle – to be wrong. That is another fallacy. Al-Qaida is not against regime changes through protests but is against the idea that the change should be only through peaceful means to the exclusion of the use of force."
"It is our opinion that the revolutions that are shaking the thrones of dictators are good for the Muslims, good for the mujahidin and bad for the Imperialists of the West and their henchmen in the Muslim world."
American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki called for Muslims to realize the significance of the revolutions to the international jihad movement. "The first and probably most important change that this monumental event brought is a mental one. It brought a change to the collective mind of the ummah. The revolution broke the barriers of fear in the hearts and minds that the tyrants couldn't be removed."
"We do not know yet what the outcome [of the revolutions] would be, and we do not have to… Regardless of the outcome, whether it is an Islamic government or the likes of al-Baradi [al-Baradai], Amr Mousa or another military figure; whatever this outcome is, our mujahidin brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation."
Newfound freedoms in the Arab world would also mean unrestricted movement and communications for the ideologues of terror. "If one would trace back the roots of today's jihad movement, one would see clearly the strong influence of the Egyptian Islamic movement," Awlaki said. "It was Sayyid Qutb and then the Egyptian Jihad that represented the ideological basis for today's jihad work. For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahidin."
Sayyid Qutb was a primary a major scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a driving force behind the current jihad movement. Although the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida are often seen as competitive movements, the magazine makes reference to Qutb, who is popular with both groups for advocating an end to reliance on the West and jihad. It even makes a veiled reference to modern MB ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi, in a positive way, stating, "Now that Hosni [Mubarak] is gone, we heard the Imam of the Friday prayers praying: 'O Allah we ask you to allow us to meet in al-Aqsa,' and the millions in Tahrir square roared with one voice: Amin."
The magazine also illustrates al-Qaida's changing attitude on issues like mobilizing the masses and communicating their message to Western audiences. "If this Egyptian revolution has taught us anything, it has taught us that sitting and waiting for tyrants to fall is not practical; mobilization of the people is necessary for the tyrants to give in," writer Abu Suhail notes in "The Way Forward." And it gives practical advice that the next to be overthrown by the masses will be Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, saying, "Hey Ali, Mubarak just fell… Guess who's joining the party next?"
"This is what your brothers in the al-Qaida Organization and other jihadi organizations have been working for: inspiring the people all over the world to rise up for the Islamic cause of eliminating tyrants so that we have a clear shot at Israel."
"It is a collective effort that requires the ummah to be on the same page. The fat donkey sitting on the pathway however is America. With a weakened America, it will allow us to stride about the lands in honor, with the permission of Allah."
The magazine also takes the time to address readers' questions about the group's philosophy, including those who reject the organization. Moderate Muslim Imran Khan, in a letter to the magazine, challenges the notions that America and the West are at war.
"If you're implying that since Muslims in America are living peacefully and are not being mass slaughtered by Obama, then we say to you: Obama doesn't have to kill all the Muslims in America or even a single one for you to say that he's against Islam," the magazine responds to Khan. "Rather, Obama can say things like, 'the terrorists want shari'ah law,' 'they want a global caliphate,' 'they don't practice the true Islam; they are not Muslims,' and so on, and that would by default put him at war with Islam because he wants a type of Islam that Allah didn't choose for us to follow."
"For us to say that Obama is waging war against Islam, this doesn't fall under the news category; it is our worldview, which is actually shared by millions of Muslims across the globe who are not associated with al Qaeda or any jihadi groups."
The magazine also reinforces AQAP's consistent message of "Open Source Jihad" directed at the West, with articles ranging from cleaning an AK-47 to advice about carrying out attacks in the West.
The letters section redirects an aspiring jihadi to conduct his war on America instead of making the perilous journey overseas. "Your situation describes the same position that many other brothers in the West are going through," the article says. "They are ready to march forth but don't have the concrete steps to meet their mujahidin brothers. What we recommend is that you focus on planning out attacks in the West."
"The foreign brothers that join the mujahidin, many amongst them, conclude that it would have been better for them to return to the West and launch operations. This is because killing 10 soldiers in America for example, is much more effective than killing 100 apostates in the Yemeni military."
"With that said, based on your ability, you choose the target. Your pool of targets are large, so make sure to think of all of the available options. An example of something local, easy and effective is attacking an army recruiting center, nightclub, highway or busy shopping mall. Targets of greater difficulty, like the stock market, well-guarded individuals or intelligence agencies, will naturally require you to scout the enemy and area of attack thoroughly such as his movements, the cameras, security guards, secondary exits and so on," it continues. "One of the most effective things to do is to study past operations that failed and were done by individuals and small groups."
The group also takes pride in how its magazine has been received, quoting from Western media. "They're not looking to outdo the readership of the Economist or Time magazine. They only need to inspire one or two people to blow something up in the right place and they'll make back their start-up costs," it states, paraphrasing an article in the Los Angeles Times.
The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part I: Understanding the Threat
John Guandolo
It is now March of 2011. That jihadi attack on the United States is over nine years behind us. The declaration of a global jihad from Iran in 1979 is over 30 years in our rear view mirror. The national security apparatus of the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to “make America safer,” yet we still have not defined our enemy – or even tried. There is no place in the national security structure which has objectively evaluated the threat doctrine of our enemy, and then created a strategic plan for victory for the United States – per U.S. warfighting doctrine. This lack of strategic understanding of the nature of the threat we face is not only costing us lives on the battlefield in wars with no realistically stated objectives, but so long as we drift aimlessly, we cannot win and we allow the enemy to move our boat as he sees fit. That, is the enemy’s strategy. And he is executing with great success.
Does anyone wonder how it is the U.S. military is crushing the enemy on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) daily, yet not winning the strategic war? The United States continues to view the wars (the establishment sees this as several conflicts, not as one global conflict) as kinetic engagements where guns, air power, drones, bombs, and other weapon of war are brought to bear on “Al Qaeda terrorists” and others with whom we are engaged on the many battlefields around the world. At the FBI, the focus is on preventing the next attack. While this is important, “attacks” are not the main focus of effort for this enemy. Local and State Police are also focused on preventing attacks, the physical security of office buildings, critical infrastructure, and the safety of important public figures. When the subject of an investigation is found NOT to be involved in a plot to cause “violence” that case is closed and the investigator goes on to the next one in the stack. This is where we are losing the war. While preventing a school bus bombing or the take-over of a bank by Jihadis should be taken seriously by our law enforcement officers, from the enemy’s perspective, these are tactical engagements, not strategic.
Every brand new intelligence officer in the United States military knows that when the United States evaluates a threat, our doctrine drives us to begin our process with WHO the enemy says he is and with WHAT the enemy says are HIS reasons for acting. That is where the U.S. analytical process begins – per our own doctrine. If we had done this after 9/11, we would not have so much confusion about the enemy we are engaging.
One hundred percent of the enemy we are fighting states he is fighting “Jihad” in the “Cause of Allah” in order to implement Islamic Law (Shariah). Therefore, U.S. analysts must begin here. Does Islamic Law exist? If so, what does it say about “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad? In fact, authoritative Islamic Law does exist. There are not “a thousand interpretations” as the Muslim Brotherhood advisors tell our leadership. Islamic Law does define “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad. Islamic Law as defined by those using it to kill us and overthrow our government necessarily becomes the “Stated Enemy Threat Doctrine.” As a 4-star general told me a few months ago when I asked him what he thought about the fact that when Al Qaeda quotes Islamic Law they are always accurately quoting Islamic Law: “Well, if that’s true, it completely changes the nature of the way we are fighting this war.” Exactly.
Our entire national security apparatus is focused (fixed) on the threat of the violent Jihadis – Al Qaeda and the hundreds of other jihadi groups throughout the world engaging U.S and allied troops on the ground around the world.
Our enemy has no intention of defeating us on the battlefield. The kinetic war being waged by organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the many other jihadi groups is meant to bleed us, fix us in place, and create a strategic distraction while the real war they are fighting is won in the information battlespace. While AQ fixes us in place, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) presses the U.S. – and the West at large – into a corner with a stated foreign policy mirroring that of Al Qaeda. Who is the OIC? The OIC is the umbrella organization for every Muslim nation in the world – 57 states (they count Palestine as a state). At the Head of State and King level the OIC seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law. They have a 10-Year Plan in English on their website that may begin shedding light on who they are and what they intend for the West. In 1993, the OIC served an official treaty to the United Nations called the “Cairo Declaration” stating the OIC defines “Human Rights” as Shariah (Islamic Law) – this is significantly different from the International Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, the reason the International Muslim Brotherhood is calling for the death of Qaddafi is because he is “killing Muslims without right,” a capital crime under Islamic Law, and an act defined as “terrorism” by the OIC – that means the Head of State and King of every Muslim nation in the world has a parallel foreign policy from the one they are discussing with our State Department, and our State Department does not have clue one about it.
The International Muslim Brotherhood, the “vanguard” of the global Islamic Movement, is the leading edge of the enemy’s assault on the United States and the West. The Muslim Brotherhood, like the OIC and Al Qaeda, seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law (Shariah). You do not need a SCIF or a “secure space” to pull this information up on a classified government system. All of the enemy doctrine can be found on the worldwide web, in books, in speeches, in their training curricula, and coming out of their mouths on a daily basis. We just need to listen. The Muslim Brotherhood’s creed includes the the phrase “…Jihad is our Way, and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.” The MB assassinated the Egyptian Prime Minister in 1948, and the Egyptian security service killed MB founder Hassan al Banna on the streets of Cairo in 1949. Violence is inherent to MB operations, manifested in the “Special Section.” The “Special work” of the MB is “Military work” – violence and warfare. Hamas was created out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood as the result of international MB meetings. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. Recordings obtained by the FBI of MB meetings in the U.S. reveal they have had weapons training camps here as early as the mid-1980’s. When the MB says they have “renounced violence” they are – hold onto your hats – lying.
From several major terrorism trials in the United States, and other information, we now know nearly every major Muslim organization in North America is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or a derivative group. We know many are support entities for Hamas, and all of the Islamic organizations working with the U.S. government are controlled by the MB. These include: the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Hamas support entity; the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas organization; the Muslim Students Associations (MSA); the Muslim American Society (MAS); the Interntional Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Hamas support entity; and many other. We also know that the objectives of the MB mirror those of Al Qaeda.
The MB’s doctrine is crystal clear on their objectives. The means for achieving these objectives is to wage a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” – a “grand jihad” – to destroy us from within. They seek to co-opt our leadership in all areas of our society – political, military, intelligence/law enforcement, media, religious. Civilization jihad by our hands. When we see that the Islamic advisor to President Clinton was a Muslim Brother and an Al Qaeda operative currently in federal prison, or that the MB runs the Shariah Compliant Financial programs for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or that senior policy advisors to Secretary Napolitano are Muslim Brothers, or that the Assistant Director for the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate is an Iranian-born
Muslim, we see that there are catastrophic security issues within the U.S. government and that - just maybe – the MB means what they say.
During this series, we will go into painful detail to identify and describe the primary Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States, especially those working with U.S. law enforcement, intelligence, and national security organizations. We will also detail some of the individual within the U.S. system who are aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least unwittingly assisting them. The utter and complete catastrophic failure of the very agencies charged with protecting us will be detailed over the next several weeks. If facts are upsetting to you, please don’t read.
Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a former active duty Infantry/Reconnaissance Officer in the United States Marine Corps, and a former Special Agent of the FBI in Washington, D.C. for over 12 years. He currently advises the government on a variety of issues.
MUSLIM POLITICIAN CAUSES STIR IN FRANCE BY SUGGESTING MUSLIMS WEAR A FIVE POINTED STAR…….
KGS
They are shameless. Utterly. The OIC denies Islamic anti-Semitism while shamelessly exploiting the Holocaust of the Jews. KGS H/T Kumitonttu
COMMENT from Daled Amos: “I suppose Dahmane does not appreciate the irony that it was the Muslims themselves who imposed distinctive clothing on Jews and other non-Muslims for centuries–and served as the inspiration for the Nazi’s yellow Jewish star.”
“A lay Muslim politician caused a stir this week by suggesting Muslims wear a five-pointed green star to protest against what he called persecution recalling that of wartime Jews forced by the Nazis to wear a yellow Star of David.”
Weighing in on an issue that is tearing apart President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party, the Conference of French Religious Leaders said the discussion about respect for France’s secular system could only spread confusion at a turbulent time.
The UMP plans to hold a public forum on secularism next week that critics decry as veiled Muslim-bashing to win back voters who defected to the far-right National Front at local polls last week and could thwart Sarkozy’s reelection hopes in 2012.
Sarkozy’s allies are split over the populist strategy, with moderates such as Prime Minister Francois Fillon publicly opposing what they see as the UMP’s drift to the far right.
Stressing that faith should foster social harmony, the religous leaders said the debate could “cloud this perspective and incite confusion that can only be prejudicial.”
[...]
“This fascist climate evokes the sombre history of the Occupation in France, which sent thousands of Jews by train to the death camps,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.
Richard Prasquier, head of the Jewish umbrella group CRIF, called the green star idea “totally grotesque.”
Abderrahmane Dahmane, who was fired as Sarkozy’s advisor for diversity issues this month after criticising the UMP debate, also criticised Cope for suggesting Muslims should no longer pray in Arabic — the language of the Koran — in their mosques
The Known Unknowns of Libya
Daniel Greenfield
The Libyan war may be dumbest war we have ever stumbled into. It is a war where the Secretary of Defense has admitted we have no national interest, a war where we don't know on whose behalf we're fighting or why we're even there. A war that the White House did not bother to run by either congress or the American people, except after the fact. A war that appears to be fought at the behest England, France, their oil companies, and a motley collection of Libyan rebels ranging from former regime thugs to Al Qaeda. A week after launching it, the administration still can't get its own story straight as to why we're fighting it at all. According to Obama, he went in because he refused to wait for images of mass graves. Other things he refused to wait for were basic intelligence, stated objectives and congressional approval. It took us ten years to decide to remove Saddam, it didn't even take Obama ten days.
Was there any indication that there would be the implied genocide that comes with mass graves? Hardly. On Feb 22nd, Libyan diplomats began claiming in broken English that Gaddafi was committing 'genocide'. Since they had trouble with the language, it's an open question if they even knew what genocide was. And since Libya is an Arab-Muslim country and the civil war is fought between Arab Muslims, who exactly would Gaddafi be committing genocide against? The Tuaregs are the closest thing Libya has to a minority-- and they're fighting on his side. If there's a possible genocide here, it would be of the Tuareg people by the rebels if they win.
But if Obama was too afraid that there might someday emerge pictures of mass graves, why then did he oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein? Mass graves in Iraq are not hypothetical. And photos of them are available. Yet Obama who campaigned on his opposition to a war in which there were mass graves and in which every option had been exhausted after a decade-- now leaps into a war to avoid the possibility that he might ever have to look at photos of mass graves.
This isn't about Obama being too queasy to look at mass graves. If that were the case we would be invading North Korea, Sudan and the cartel run parts of Mexico. Gaddafi is not doing anything that half the Middle East isn't doing, and unlike our close ally Turkey, he's doing it without employing chemical weapons. We aren't in Libya because it's an extraordinary human rights situation, but because our decision making process has become a thorough and complete mess.
What kind of war is it, when a week after it begins, the NATO commander admits that he's examining the possibility that maybe we're actually fighting for Al-Qaeda. Our main enemy in that other war, which we're neglecting in order to begin a war on yet another front. The very minimal condition for any war should be to make sure that we aren't fighting on the same side as our enemies. The only condition lower than that would be to make sure we aren't pointing the guns at ourselves. A war where we can't do that is a very bad war indeed.
But don't worry. While we may not be sure who the rebels are yet, Obama has already proposed arming them. Or rather he's not ruling it out. Which is to say all options are on the table, except the reasoned and lawful ones.
Bad is the operating word in the UK, where RAF instructors are being rushed off to the front lines because of a shortage of Typhoon pilots, and with no aircraft carrier to deploy them from because it's been cut up for scrap, while the Royal Navy flagship is being put up for sale on the military version of eBay. If you're going to start a war, as Prime Minister Cameron has, you should be prepared for it.
But Libya isn't the kind of war you prepare for, it's the kind of war you stumble into. One bad idea mushrooming into another one. An error in judgement by world leaders escalating into a bombing campaign. The only thing missing is Peter Sellers trying to strangle himself. This is how liberals think all war happens, and so that's the kind of war they foisted on us.
European governments with Libyan oil contracts prematurely celebrating a rebel victory, only to see the rebel advance turn into a retreat, scrambling to save the situation by making sure that the rebels win. Before really figuring out who the rebels are. We are bombing Libya, not because of the specter of mass graves, but because key European leaders made a wrong guess about the outcome of a civil war and their political futures and energy supply hangs in the balance.
Despite our No Fly Zone, Gaddafi is still winning. Which means that now we have to get even deeper, to justify our original course of action. Now we may supply the rebels with arms and begin hitting Libyan armor. Then we'll have to start bombing armed camps. And if the rebels still can't pull it off, how many more steps will it take before we start sending the troops in?
The credibility of Obama and key European allies is on the line. The Arab League has already made sure to stake out positions on both sides of the fence. Russia is against it, except when they're sort of for it. China expects to benefit no matter what happens. It's probably the safest bet of any player in the game. Obama and Sarkozy have elections coming up, and they need a win. But their only possible Victory Condition is either Gaddafi getting on a plane or going in the ground. And the latter is clearly more likely to happen than the former.
It's not that Gaddafi is worth saving. He isn't. He isn't even worth the cost of a cruise missile. But it's doubtful that his replacements, most of whom either worked for him or think the Taliban didn't go far enough, will be any better. And what's worse is that we haven't done the due diligence to decide that one way or another. Our military people are just guessing. And they know that it doesn't matter. The politicians have committed themselves, which means that even if tomorrow Libya's rebel council were to appoint Osama bin Laden as its chief, some way would be found to rationalize and normalize the whole thing.
That's how the dominoes of stupidity work. Sarkozy and Cameron fall on Obama, he fingers his chin and tugs on his earlobes while pondering the NCAA draft picks. Samantha Power shows up eager for an opportunity to put her interventionist ideas to the test, with the promise of international support. Obama checks his calendar and decides that they can get it done while he's vacationing with his family in Rio. Imagine Will Smith filling in for Peter Sellers, and you get some idea of how ridiculous and poorly thought out this whole farce really is.
Libya isn't just an optional war, it's a war we began fighting before we even knew we were fighting it. It's a war that's being renamed even as it's being escalated. Odyssey Dawn sounds like an exotic perfume. What about Kinetic Military Action, it sounds like a feature for the latest video game. Anything but an honest admission that this is an undeclared war on behalf of the losing side in a civil war. The side we decided to choose before we even knew what that side was.
And that's the real crime here. The revelation of how little thought and concern went into this war. How the major players, stumbled into this thinking only of themselves. Sarkozy and Cameron dreaming of oil contracts, Samantha Power of forcing her interventionist vision on the world, and Obama, hoping a few billion spent on bombing Libya will help him in the polls. The criminal thoughtlessness behind Obama's decision to go to war-- mirrors the criminal thoughtlessness of his party in turning him into a viable candidate after a few months in the Senate.
The confused leaders of the ad hoc coalition all expect Gaddafi to do the reasonable thing, but that's how they got into trouble to begin with, when they assumed that Libya would be just like Egypt which would be just like Tunisia. But Gaddafi isn't Mubarak, he isn't even Saddam Hussein. What he is, is authentically crazy. Not the usual crazy that's so commonplace in the Arab world. This isn't Baghdad Minister of Information crazy, or GPS Shark crazy or any of the usual melange of conspiracy theories, cunning ploys and contradictory beliefs that are commonplace among regional leaders. No, this is actual insanity. That means it may be possible that Gaddafi will get on a plane tomorrow and fly to Malta and announce that he is resigning to build an entry portal to paradise. Or more likely he will just hang on to the bitter end, spending his fortune on arms and mercenaries. And we will spend ours firing cruise missiles at pickup trucks.
Which means this war may turn into Grenada or Iraq-- or anything in between. It may be resolved tomorrow or three years from now. There really is no way to know, because of how much we don't know. The tactical maxim that 'no plan of operations survives first contact with the enemy' is more relevant here than ever, because of the sheer ignorance and lack of planning that went into this war. Liberals mocked Rumsfeld's 'Known Unknowns' and 'Unknown Unknowns', and here they find themselves in a war filled with 'Unknown Unknowns', things that they didn't even know they needed to know. Like how wars really work.
The UN Charter Cannot Support GA Resolution 377
Eli. E. Hertz
The Jerusalem Post published on March 25, 2011: Israel "only just found out" about Resolution 377. This "just found topic" has been covered by me in various publications since 2004. The responsibility to act on it was and still is the business of the Government of Israel and its UN representatives.
ICJ - Bypassing the UN Security Council
In an odd conclusion, the ICJ 'found' in this case [Advisory Opinion] a "failure of the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities" [E.H., without any reference to law] then in defiance of the limited powers delegated to it by the UN Charter, by-passed the Security Council's powers and responsibilities. Bypassing the Security Council is part of a broader campaign that should alarm all members of the Security Council, and the United States in particular. Nabil Elaraby, the Egyptian member of the ICJ Bench, openly advocated two main vehicles for institutionalizing it:
"The United Nations membership should, in my view, address ways and means to render the Security Council (a) accountable to the General Assembly, and (b) subject to the possibility, however remote, of a judicial review process." And according to Gregory Khalil, the PLO legal advisor in the security barrier case, the ICJ consciously sought to engage the United States in a "Tango of mutual deterrence" and "chart a path for the international community to counter the United States "veto power." The significance of the ruling cannot be overstated, he underscores: It challenges the power of the veto and the Security Council's management of "threats to world peace," using the International Court of Justice's interpretations of the rule of international law in matters of 'threats to world peace' coupled with claims that the international community is obliged to support its rulings and calling for sanctions - decisions that under Chapter VII of the UN Charter is the sole prerogative of the Security Council. Khalil calls this strategy "vetoing the veto."
The "Advisory Opinion" signed by the Court's president, Shi Jiuyong from China, constitutes a profound corruption of its mission and one with seismic implications for the future of international law. It threatens the security of America and its allies on three levels: first, in its groundbreaking attack on the 'right to self-defence,' proscribing an almost blanket prohibition of use of lawful force. Second, it erroneously adopts the exclusive powers granted to the Security Council by the United Nations Charter, a move that will render the Security Council ineffective, and third, in the willingness of the Bench to allow its chambers to become a political instrument and to abandon all semblance of fairness or professionalism, all for political gain.
The threats to the free and democratic states consequently demand a far more serious, systematic and frank response, including a willingness to challenge the competence of this Court. Attempts to shield the International Court of Justice from this disgrace out of concern for its perceived reputation and effectiveness are short-sighted. At all too many junctures it appears that the ICJ's conclusions are based solely on 'gut feelings' and unsubstantiated assumptions - almost taking a leap of faith based on a mixture of personal and collective prejudice and popular opinion.
The Legal effect of UNGA Resolution 377
Article 10 of the United Nations Charter States:
"The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters."
The UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the authority to enact or amend international law. The General Assembly actually lacks the competence to enact general international law. One may easily reach the conclusion that UN member states act on the basis of political concerns, not on fair or legal ground.
Professor, Judge Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice stated:
"The General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, issue 'recommendation' which are not of a binding character, according to Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations."
Schwebel also cited Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the International Court, who stated:
"The paramount rule of the Charter is that the General Assembly has no legal power to legislate or bind its members by way of recommendation"
Yet another former ICJ judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, was as resolved in rejecting the "illusion" that a General Assembly resolution can have "legislative effect." Referencing Professor Arangio-Ruiz's work: "The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations," Professor Julius Stone called it "perhaps the most comprehensive and up-to-date treatise on this matter" ... he [Professor Arangio-Ruiz] is led to conclude that the General Assembly lacks legal authority either to "enact" or to "declare" or "determine" or "interpret" international law so as legally to bind states by such acts, whether these states be members of the United Nations or not, and whether these states voted for or against or abstained from the relevant vote or did not take part in it.
Article 12 of the United Charter states:
"While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.
"The Secretary-General, with the consent of the Security Council, shall notify the General Assembly at each session of any matters relative to the maintenance of international peace and security which are being dealt with by the Security Council and shall similarly notify the General Assembly, or the Members of the United Nations if the General Assembly is not in session, immediately the Security Council ceases to deal with such matters."
The free and democratic world needs to 'rein in' the appetite of the General Assembly and to demand of the International Court of Justice to step beyond its mandate, and respect and obey international laws as set forth in the United Nations Charter.
The Jerusalem Post published on March 25, 2011: Israel "only just found out" about Resolution 377. This "just found topic" has been covered by me in various publications since 2004. The responsibility to act on it was and still is the business of the Government of Israel and its UN representatives.
ICJ - Bypassing the UN Security Council
In an odd conclusion, the ICJ 'found' in this case [Advisory Opinion] a "failure of the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities" [E.H., without any reference to law] then in defiance of the limited powers delegated to it by the UN Charter, by-passed the Security Council's powers and responsibilities. Bypassing the Security Council is part of a broader campaign that should alarm all members of the Security Council, and the United States in particular. Nabil Elaraby, the Egyptian member of the ICJ Bench, openly advocated two main vehicles for institutionalizing it:
"The United Nations membership should, in my view, address ways and means to render the Security Council (a) accountable to the General Assembly, and (b) subject to the possibility, however remote, of a judicial review process." And according to Gregory Khalil, the PLO legal advisor in the security barrier case, the ICJ consciously sought to engage the United States in a "Tango of mutual deterrence" and "chart a path for the international community to counter the United States "veto power." The significance of the ruling cannot be overstated, he underscores: It challenges the power of the veto and the Security Council's management of "threats to world peace," using the International Court of Justice's interpretations of the rule of international law in matters of 'threats to world peace' coupled with claims that the international community is obliged to support its rulings and calling for sanctions - decisions that under Chapter VII of the UN Charter is the sole prerogative of the Security Council. Khalil calls this strategy "vetoing the veto."
The "Advisory Opinion" signed by the Court's president, Shi Jiuyong from China, constitutes a profound corruption of its mission and one with seismic implications for the future of international law. It threatens the security of America and its allies on three levels: first, in its groundbreaking attack on the 'right to self-defence,' proscribing an almost blanket prohibition of use of lawful force. Second, it erroneously adopts the exclusive powers granted to the Security Council by the United Nations Charter, a move that will render the Security Council ineffective, and third, in the willingness of the Bench to allow its chambers to become a political instrument and to abandon all semblance of fairness or professionalism, all for political gain.
The threats to the free and democratic states consequently demand a far more serious, systematic and frank response, including a willingness to challenge the competence of this Court. Attempts to shield the International Court of Justice from this disgrace out of concern for its perceived reputation and effectiveness are short-sighted. At all too many junctures it appears that the ICJ's conclusions are based solely on 'gut feelings' and unsubstantiated assumptions - almost taking a leap of faith based on a mixture of personal and collective prejudice and popular opinion.
The Legal effect of UNGA Resolution 377
Article 10 of the United Nations Charter States:
"The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters."
The UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the authority to enact or amend international law. The General Assembly actually lacks the competence to enact general international law. One may easily reach the conclusion that UN member states act on the basis of political concerns, not on fair or legal ground.
Professor, Judge Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice stated:
"The General Assembly of the United Nations can only, in principle, issue 'recommendation' which are not of a binding character, according to Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations."
Schwebel also cited Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, a former member judge of the International Court, who stated:
"The paramount rule of the Charter is that the General Assembly has no legal power to legislate or bind its members by way of recommendation"
Yet another former ICJ judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, was as resolved in rejecting the "illusion" that a General Assembly resolution can have "legislative effect." Referencing Professor Arangio-Ruiz's work: "The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations," Professor Julius Stone called it "perhaps the most comprehensive and up-to-date treatise on this matter" ... he [Professor Arangio-Ruiz] is led to conclude that the General Assembly lacks legal authority either to "enact" or to "declare" or "determine" or "interpret" international law so as legally to bind states by such acts, whether these states be members of the United Nations or not, and whether these states voted for or against or abstained from the relevant vote or did not take part in it.
Article 12 of the United Charter states:
"While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.
"The Secretary-General, with the consent of the Security Council, shall notify the General Assembly at each session of any matters relative to the maintenance of international peace and security which are being dealt with by the Security Council and shall similarly notify the General Assembly, or the Members of the United Nations if the General Assembly is not in session, immediately the Security Council ceases to deal with such matters."
The free and democratic world needs to 'rein in' the appetite of the General Assembly and to demand of the International Court of Justice to step beyond its mandate, and respect and obey international laws as set forth in the United Nations Charter.
The Proper Response to Israel’s Gaza Critics
Evan Pokroy
Once more residents of Southern Israel have come under fire from the Gaza strip. In the past few weeks, scores of mortars and rockets have been fired into Israel. Some longer-range rockets have even hit major population centers like Be’er Sheva and Ashkelon, causing schools to be closed.
The government has responded with limited air strikes and then once more moving into the fortress mentality by starting to deploy the Iron Dome anti-missile system. With that in mind a bit of moral clarity is needed. There had been relative quiet on the Gaza border since the end of the Cast Lead operation; while there have been a few minor incidents, both sides have been keeping an uneasy ceasefire.Then a sudden wave of terror struck Israel. Starting with smaller rockets fired into the communities bordering the Strip, working up to larger Grad missiles hitting Ashkelon. After that was the barbaric attack that left five members of the Fogel family slaughtered in their home in Itamar. More missile attacks followed, culminating in two Grad rockets hitting Be’er Sheva, one falling in a residential district. Then the peace of Jerusalem was shattered with the explosive device set off near the Central Bus Station, killing one and sending scores to the hospital. Earlier that same day a man was killed outside the community of Revava. The day ended with another barrage of mortars fired from Gaza
Looking for some moral clarity, it showed up in the most surprising of places: Al-Jazeera television. About a year and a half ago, the head of the Arabic Communication Desk for the IDF, Capt. Avichai Edraee was interviewed on the Qatar news station by an obviously hostile host in reference to a recent Israeli retaliatory strike on Gaza. Capt. Edraee is absolutely unapologetic on who is to blame for Israel’s bombing, even those that result in the loss of civilian life. It comes down to this, calm is paid back with calm; attacks are paid back with counter-attacks. There is no middle ground, now it is not time for, as Margaret Thatcher once quipped, to go wobbly. The world should be informed and the Palestinians should be made aware that if they attack Israel then the response will be swift, violent and overwhelming.
Here’s the video, with subtitles. There will be plenty of blaming Israel—Matt Yglesias of ThinkProgress tweeted: “Guessing US won’t declare no-fly zone to help rebel forces in Gaza”—and there will be enough misinformation to go around—Hussein Ibish wrote at ForeignPolicy.com that rockets hadn’t fallen from Gaza in “many months.” So Edraee’s response is instructive (thanks to Act for Israel for pointing out the video):
The fallacy of the "Holy Civilian" Doctrine justification for war
Kurly's Kommentary
“War does not determine who is right - only who is left”
~Bertrand Russell~
Lake Worth – Earlier this week, President Obama presented the case for the imposition of a no fly zone to the American people in a speech given at the National Defense University in Washington.
The President justified US intervention in the Libyan civil war around the safeguarding of the lives and human rights of the “civilian” population there. He stated that use of military force by Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi against Libyan rebels, which included the use of fighter aircraft, validated the intervention.
In his speech, Obama defined the rational for the use of American war machine in Libya in liberal internationalist terms, cloaking the action as a grave responsibility within the American value system and our historical precedents. “To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action," said Obama.
The President argued that the action to establish the no-fly zone prevented a “looming genocide” in Benghazi, a rebel stronghold and Libya’s second largest city. It also avoided a massive refuge problem that would have greatly impacted the stability of newly formed Arab Spring governments in Egypt and Tunisia. Obama acknowledged that American security was not threatened by events in Libya and talked about the wish for ultimate regime change in Libya.
All wars, big or small, have always involved both targeted and incidental civilian casualties. Like it or not, innocent people die in wars. That’s never going to change. The annihilation of civilian populations has always been a basic and important tenet of war itself.
In recent times, genocide conducted in wars around the world has magnified American’s consciousness of the severity of war against civilians. As a result, an almost "holy" military doctrine for protecting civilians at all costs from collateral damage and targeted murder has evolved in Western democracies in the planning, weaponry, and prosecution of war.
A big problem with this “Holy Civilian” doctrine is how “civilians” are actually defined. The Libyan civil war (and Iraq and Afghanistan) is to a major extent a primeval conflict between tribes. If a civilian clan member in Benghazi actively supports the war efforts of tribal leaders, can they be considered combatants themselves?
Another big problem in regard to “civilians”-less altruistic nations and terrorists have molded their war strategies to use their populations as shields in battle, taking advantage of these moralistic self imposed limitations to win battles and limit the effectiveness of their enemies.
At what point does the protection of these civilians outweigh protecting US troops and a strategy for winning a war? Our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan have been characterized by this admirable “Holy Civilian” doctrine to protect civilians at all costs. The result: this doctrine has impeded both our political strategies and the proper and justified use of force necessary to win our objectives in these theaters of war. Most importantly, it has cost American soldiers their lives.
Now, President Obama has broadened the breath of the “Holy Civilian” Doctrine from a major consideration in war strategy to a moral justification to start a killing war itself, particularly in fights that don’t involve important US interests.
America should never turn its back on great humanitarian issues in the world and continue to be a moral, democratic example to be emulated. However, like any nation, we have limits in how much we can help others in the world. More importantly, no matter how hard we pontificate or try, we cannot realistically protect civilians in every civil war from becoming victims of genocide-particularly when they are truly combatants in the fight.
In these times when a number of autocratic nations (many of which the US bolsters for economic and military reasons) around the globe are experiencing historical upheaval, our government needs to frame going to war in truthful strategic, military and economic terms. We don’t need to engage in anymore civil wars between clans and religious sects in the Arab world, even if they are falsely presented by CNN and the Obama Administration strictly as popular “civilian” uprisings.
The use of the ‘Holy Civilian’ doctrine by President Obama as justification to fight a war where we have no issue (except maybe continuing the flow of high grade oil) is disingenuous and misguided. It cheapens the altruistic goals of preserving innocent life, ruins our credibility, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future conduct of war by American forces.
Kurly
“War does not determine who is right - only who is left”
~Bertrand Russell~
Lake Worth – Earlier this week, President Obama presented the case for the imposition of a no fly zone to the American people in a speech given at the National Defense University in Washington.
The President justified US intervention in the Libyan civil war around the safeguarding of the lives and human rights of the “civilian” population there. He stated that use of military force by Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi against Libyan rebels, which included the use of fighter aircraft, validated the intervention.
In his speech, Obama defined the rational for the use of American war machine in Libya in liberal internationalist terms, cloaking the action as a grave responsibility within the American value system and our historical precedents. “To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action," said Obama.
The President argued that the action to establish the no-fly zone prevented a “looming genocide” in Benghazi, a rebel stronghold and Libya’s second largest city. It also avoided a massive refuge problem that would have greatly impacted the stability of newly formed Arab Spring governments in Egypt and Tunisia. Obama acknowledged that American security was not threatened by events in Libya and talked about the wish for ultimate regime change in Libya.
All wars, big or small, have always involved both targeted and incidental civilian casualties. Like it or not, innocent people die in wars. That’s never going to change. The annihilation of civilian populations has always been a basic and important tenet of war itself.
In recent times, genocide conducted in wars around the world has magnified American’s consciousness of the severity of war against civilians. As a result, an almost "holy" military doctrine for protecting civilians at all costs from collateral damage and targeted murder has evolved in Western democracies in the planning, weaponry, and prosecution of war.
A big problem with this “Holy Civilian” doctrine is how “civilians” are actually defined. The Libyan civil war (and Iraq and Afghanistan) is to a major extent a primeval conflict between tribes. If a civilian clan member in Benghazi actively supports the war efforts of tribal leaders, can they be considered combatants themselves?
Another big problem in regard to “civilians”-less altruistic nations and terrorists have molded their war strategies to use their populations as shields in battle, taking advantage of these moralistic self imposed limitations to win battles and limit the effectiveness of their enemies.
At what point does the protection of these civilians outweigh protecting US troops and a strategy for winning a war? Our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan have been characterized by this admirable “Holy Civilian” doctrine to protect civilians at all costs. The result: this doctrine has impeded both our political strategies and the proper and justified use of force necessary to win our objectives in these theaters of war. Most importantly, it has cost American soldiers their lives.
Now, President Obama has broadened the breath of the “Holy Civilian” Doctrine from a major consideration in war strategy to a moral justification to start a killing war itself, particularly in fights that don’t involve important US interests.
America should never turn its back on great humanitarian issues in the world and continue to be a moral, democratic example to be emulated. However, like any nation, we have limits in how much we can help others in the world. More importantly, no matter how hard we pontificate or try, we cannot realistically protect civilians in every civil war from becoming victims of genocide-particularly when they are truly combatants in the fight.
In these times when a number of autocratic nations (many of which the US bolsters for economic and military reasons) around the globe are experiencing historical upheaval, our government needs to frame going to war in truthful strategic, military and economic terms. We don’t need to engage in anymore civil wars between clans and religious sects in the Arab world, even if they are falsely presented by CNN and the Obama Administration strictly as popular “civilian” uprisings.
The use of the ‘Holy Civilian’ doctrine by President Obama as justification to fight a war where we have no issue (except maybe continuing the flow of high grade oil) is disingenuous and misguided. It cheapens the altruistic goals of preserving innocent life, ruins our credibility, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future conduct of war by American forces.
Kurly
How Palestinians will use the GA to advance statehood
DAVID HOROVITZ
Editor's Notes: Israel’s complacent assumption has been that even an overwhelming vote to establish ‘Palestine’ at the GA in September would have merely ‘declaratory’ impact. Wrong. Jerusalem had forgotten about UNGA Resolution 377.
Early in the Korean War, frustrated that the Soviet Union’s repeated use of its UN Security Council veto was thwarting council action to protect South Korea, the United States initiated what became known as the UN General Assembly’s “Uniting for Peace” resolution. Adopted in November 1950, UNGA Resolution 377 provides that, should the five permanent members of the Security Council find themselves at odds, rendering the council incapable of exercising its “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,” the General Assembly can step into the breach. If the Security Council’s permanent members cannot reach unanimity, it elaborates, and “there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression,” the General Assembly can fill the vacuum by issuing its own “appropriate recommendations” for “collective measures” to be taken by individual states – right up to and including “the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The “Uniting for Peace” Resolution is no dead letter. It was employed, most notably, in 1981, to outflank the Security Council and recommend both sanctions against South Africa for preventing Namibian independence, and assistance, including military assistance, for those seeking Namibian independence.
It should be stressed: The GA’s authority under the resolution is not binding, but it can certainly press supportive countries to take action, and in 1981 it did just that. It called upon member states “to render increased and sustained support and material, financial, military and other assistance to the South West Africa People’s Organization to enable it to intensify its struggle for the liberation of Namibia.” And it urged member states to immediately cease “all dealings with South Africa in order totally to isolate it politically, economically, militarily and culturally.”
The passage of that resolution, says Richard Schifter, a former US assistant secretary of state for human rights who spent years representing the US in various UN forums, “was a significant step in the process of imposing sanctions on apartheid South Africa and delegitimizing the country.”
Which is where, as you’ve doubtless figured out by now, Israel and the Palestinians come in.
AS ISRAEL’S most recent ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, explained to me this week, the existence of UNGA Resolution 377, and the precedents for its use, mean that “those who believe that the UN General Assembly’s deliberations are of a solely declarative importance are mistaken.”
The GA, under “Uniting for Peace,” has teeth.
Furthermore, Shalev acknowledged, Israel only “just found out about this” – thanks, she said, to research done by Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi’s The Israel Project.
But the Palestinians have plainly been reading the UN’s small print rather better for rather longer. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat even referred to the possible use of the “Uniting for Peace” resolution in comments to the Ma’an news agency late last year.
In Shalev’s estimation, and in that of several other experts with whom I spoke this week, including veteran American diplomat Schifter, the Palestinian leadership is moving serenely toward invoking precisely this resolution in September.
The Palestinian leadership, that is, anticipating that the US will veto its unilateral bid for statehood at the Security Council, will take the matter to the General Assembly. There it will push for the necessary two-thirds GA support for recognizing “Palestine,” presumably along the pre-1967 lines and with a “right of return” for refugees, under a “Uniting for Peace” resolution to ensure global action.
And in the unanimous assessment of those with whom I spoke, the consequences for Israel should this approach succeed – international pressure to accept the GA resolution, backed by potential sanctions and boycott action, and who knows what else – could be profoundly damaging.
MAHMOUD ABBAS’S Palestinian Authority has made no secret of its intention to secure UN support for the establishment of Palestine by September.
Veteran negotiator Erekat reiterated only this week – in comments that were noticed and circulated to all Israeli legations by the Foreign Ministry on Tuesday – that “the Palestinian leadership institutions (the PLO and Fatah) have decided to submit a request to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem.” The matter was now in the hands of Abbas, Erekat said, but added that “Palestine” needed to submit its request for full membership to the Security Council “as soon as possible.” Then the council, in turn, would “ask the member states of the UN General Assembly to recognize the State of Palestine.”
Such recognition, according to Erekat, would mean that “Palestine” would no longer be a matter of “disputed lands,” but rather a state under occupation. Since “Palestine” had “a permanent population, defined territory (even if that does not involve permanent borders), an effective government and the ability to establish international relations,” in Erekat’s assessment, it would meet the standards defined for a state under the terms of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 on the rights and duties of states.
“The current peace process as it has been conducted so far is over,” the PA’s Foreign Minister Riad Malki elaborated candidly on Tuesday, in a talk at Tel Aviv University sponsored by the Peres Center for Peace. And Malki proceeded to set out a strategy that all but specified Resolution 377.
If the kind of state the Palestinians seek were not attained through negotiation by September, he stated, “then the international community will take this issue to the United Nations… What I’m trying to say is, it won’t be us, it will be the international community that will say it is overdue that we come to recognize a Palestinian state.”
THE PALESTINIANS’ unilateral push for statehood is set to begin with a resolution at the Security Council – possibly toward the fall, possibly much earlier.
Israel was anticipating that the resolution would fail there, that a similar resolution would gain widespread but non-binding support at the GA in September, that Israel’s international legitimacy would be knocked down another notch or two, but that the unilateral approach would then reach a dead end, with the US and the rest of the key international players pressing the sides to come back to the negotiating table to resolve their differences. The possibility of the “Uniting for Peace” resolution providing practical backing for UNGA recognition of Palestine is now, extremely belatedly, starting to shock some of the relevant players in Israel, though not all, out of their complacency.
Prof. Shalev, now back at Ono Academic College, where she is president of the Higher Academic Council, told me she has no ongoing connection with her former employers at the Foreign Ministry. But she assured me they were now well aware of the diplomatic danger, and was confident that incoming UN ambassador Ron Prosor – “a wonderful appointment,” she sensibly observed – would move to grapple with the challenge.
Other insiders with whom I spoke this week were rather less confident that Jerusalem had got the message, with one of them anonymously urging Israel to “get its head out of the sand,” and another suggesting dryly that, for all the traditional derision, “I’d be happy if Israel started to engage in the ‘Umm Shmum’ aspect.”
Some Israeli diplomatic sources with whom I spoke this week asserted, indeed, that it was “debatable” whether the Palestinians would even go the GA route, since “their gains might be far less significant than the problems it would cause them… because it would free us [to take unilateral action].”
ALL IS far from lost, but it could be if Israel does not muster an effective response to the Palestinian strategy. And the first key forum is the Security Council.
Would-be nations gain their membership in the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, pointed out Schifter, who now chairs the board of directors of the American Jewish International Relations Institute. And it is a safe bet that the Palestinian strategists, in drafting their resolution calling for the Security Council to recognize Palestine, will do their linguistic best to make it hard for the 15 Security Council members to say no.
It is assumed they will invoke relevant UN resolutions. They will employ comments and statements made by world leaders in support of Palestine. Says Shalev: “They’ll use words that [US Ambassador to the UN Susan] Rice, [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton, [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel and others have used in support of the Palestinians.”
The Palestinians will have taken great pleasure in witnessing the difficulty the United States had in bringing itself to use its veto to block last month’s anti-settlement resolution – which was essentially a trial run for the statehood bid.
And they will feel that they are heading toward a win-win situation. Either the necessary nine or more of the 15 Security Council members will vote for “Palestine,” in which case their diplomatic operation will have been a spectacular success. Or the US will be forced to utilize its veto, and they will then move on to the General Assembly, with that “Uniting for Peace” resolution in their armory.
The best way for Israel to prevent any of that happening would be to achieve what is currently viewed as almost a mission impossible: to persuade at least seven of the 15 Security Council members to vote no, to abstain, or to absent themselves. That way, the statehood resolution would fail, the US would not have to employ its veto, and there would be no possibility for the Palestinians to claim Security Council deadlock and thus invoke “Uniting for Peace” in the General Assembly.
Why almost mission impossible? Because Israel has very few solid friends in the international diplomatic community these days, and even fewer among the 15 current Security Council nations.
Most Israelis may well believe that the failure to make progress in negotiations with the Palestinians stems from the other side’s refusal to take positions that would guarantee Israel’s physical and demographic security alongside the proposed Palestine. Most Israelis may well believe that the Palestinian leadership has neither encouraged its people to accept the Jewish right to statehood, nor accepted this right itself, and has maintained an environment in which terrorists who target Israelis are regarded as role models.
But the sad fact is that most of the international diplomatic community simply doesn’t accept this narrative, and tends increasingly to blame strong, sovereign Israel for failing to grant independence to the weak, stateless Palestinians. Rocket attacks from Gaza, bombings at bus stops in Jerusalem, even horrific murders of fathers, mothers, children and babies in their homes, are evaluated in that context.
So there is certainly no automatic, or even readily attainable, blocking vote in the Security Council for the Palestinians’ demand for statehood, even if the establishment of that “state” is being sought while the core issues of dispute with neighboring Israel remain unresolved.
ISRAEL MAY be troubled by aspects of our relationship with the Obama administration, but as far as I can ascertain, of the 15 countries that will be asked to vote on the issue of “Palestine” sometime in the very near future, the only country that Jerusalem is confident will take our side is America. Says Shalev frankly, “We’ve never stopped trying, but I’m not sure we can get the votes we need to oppose a Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood.” Without wishing to be quoted, current Israeli diplomatic sources sound still more pessimistic.
Who else might, nonetheless, deprive the Palestinians of the nine “yes” votes they need? Based on voting records and other impressions, China, Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa are evidently considered beyond all hope.
Colombia is deemed a possible ally. But the vital countries with the capacity to sway others, say Schifter and others, are Germany, France and the UK. Might Germany be prepared to say “no” to unilateral UN establishment of Palestine? Maybe, say some, if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu can persuade Merkel that he is truly prepared to put flesh on his skeletal talk of a two-state solution.
If Germany joins the US, say several people with whom I spoke, the UK and France might reasonably do the same. Bosnia might then conceivably follow. Schifter speculates that if the French really want to help, they might bring over Gabon. Then there’s Portugal, which has privately been sounding noncommittal but might be wooable, or, just perhaps, the Russians. Either of those two, and the job would be done. The final member of the 15, Nigeria, some suggest, may not be beyond reach either.
Lots of ifs.
One key to the success of this diplomatic battle, chorus all those with whom I’ve talked, is how hard the US works to bring others on board. It has several interests in doing so. Foremost among them, its own longstanding, oft-stated conviction that the path to Palestine runs via bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, not international diplomatic dictate. And second, its deep reluctance to have to resort to a veto again; last month marked the first time in four years that a veto had been used at the Security Council, and the Obama administration plainly loathed finding itself in a 1-14 mismatch. In fact, I’ve been told that Washington came “very, very close” to not vetoing the anti-settlement resolution.
A minority of those with whom I spoke speculated that the US might not now veto a Palestine-statehood resolution. Shalev, for one, said “We might lose in the Security Council. I’m not sure the US will use its veto.”
But most insiders were adamant that Washington certainly would use its veto if necessary. Equally, though, Washington would much rather not have to veto, and that means depriving the Palestinians of the nine “yes” votes they need.
Often, in recent months, administration sources have complained to me that Israel underestimates the amount of work it does away from the headlines to prevent Israel getting more heavily trashed in diplomatic forums. Those activities were relevant, for instance, in keeping the Goldstone Commission report away from the Security Council, although central, too, in this regard, was the work of members of a House Task Force on Israel at the UN.
Is the administration working hard today?
One source, who has been in frequent recent contact with the State Department, was adamant that the answer is no. American diplomats, according to this source, can be heard complaining that Israel is relying too heavily on them to do the background work, and suggesting, instead, that Israel should be making its own energetic case to the Western Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese.
Another source, however, referred to all kinds of contacts between various prominent senators and congressmen and the leaders of some of the countries whose positions will determine the Security Council vote. “Countries can be swayed,” this source said, “and the US Congress will certainly be making an effort.”
But Israel needs to do a lot more itself, too, this source added, “and that starts with Netanyahu trying hard to win over Merkel.”
A third source added that if the Americans went to work on this, there was a chance of stopping the push for unilateral statehood in the Security Council. The US administration is crucial, this source said. Broadly speaking, the source added, if the US pulls back, others move to fill the vacuum. If the US is persuaded of the imperative to step forward, other countries may well take their cue from Washington.
HOWEVER, IF Israel, with whatever US support, fails to muster seven “no” votes, abstentions or absences, and the US is forced to veto a UN Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood, the battle will shift to the General Assembly.
There, too, a two-thirds majority is needed for a resolution to pass. But unlike the Security Council, it’s a case of a two-thirds majority not among the entire 192-strong membership, but among those of the 192 members that are “present and voting.” So there, too, Israel is in deep trouble.
According to The Israel Project’s Senior Research Director Alan Elsner, pro-Palestinian resolutions routinely muster the support of more than 110 member nations. Getting a two-thirds majority among members who are present will thus likely be well within the Palestinians’ reach. Shalev shares the assessment. And she warns that if the Palestinians can gain General Assembly recognition for statehood under a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, “it would be a real obstacle… not just a public relations setback. This would seek to impose on us some kind of Palestinian state.”
The degree of momentum would depend, however, at least to some extent, on just how many General Assembly votes the Palestinians get for statehood. “If a resolution passes, as it likely would,” says Schifter, “there is a difference in the impact between one adopted by 150 votes, which is the goal the Palestinians have set themselves, or, say, 110.”
Scope there, too, therefore, for energetic Israeli diplomacy.
Some of the sources with whom I spoke predicted a post- UNGA-vote rush by many countries to open embassies in “Palestine.” They predicted a significant upsurge in boycott and sanctions efforts. “I don’t want to sound apocalyptic,” said one, “but there could be demands on Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, backed up by all kinds of attempts to pressure Israel to advance those demands, even though none of the core issues had been resolved.”
Elsner said he, too, envisaged heightened sanctions and boycotts. He thought the Palestinian strategy was designed to ratchet up economic pressure on Israel, “demonstrate Israel’s isolation, and get Israel back to the negotiating table on better terms for the Palestinians. Their aim is for a deal based on the 1949 armistice lines, including the ‘right of return,’ and preventing [Israeli demands such as] the ongoing deployment of Israeli forces on the Jordan River.”
Laszlo Mizrahi said that Abbas’s current bid to achieve a semblance of unity with Hamas was designed to offset objections from countries which might argue that the Palestinians could hardly be granted statehood when they were led by two conflicting governments. The “push for unity,” she said, “is all connected with the GA in September.”
So, too, said Elsner, the successful PA effort to win endorsement of Palestinian statehood from Latin America and the ongoing effort to do the same in Europe. “They worked below the radar for six months on Latin America without the Israeli Foreign Ministry picking up on the degree of inroads made; then they reeled off country after country.”
The Palestinians have a strong delegation at the UN, Elsner added. “They are very wellversed in its intricacies.”
And Israel? Well, Israel hasn’t had a permanent ambassador to the UN for the six months since Shalev stepped down last fall, as she had announced long ahead that she would be doing. Prosor is still on ambassadorial duty in the UK – a highly important post which he can hardly up and leave overnight – and is not set to take over for another two months or so.
SOME IN Israel, it is plain, are acutely aware of the danger. Indeed, several sources suggested to me, one of the motivations for the purportedly imminent new Netanyahu diplomatic initiative is to take the wind out of the Palestinian sails – to underline Israeli willingness to make real progress, and thus undercut Palestinian claims that they have no option, given ostensible Israeli intransigence and given ongoing Israeli settlement building, but to take the unilateral route.
The idea is to win over both international players, and the Palestinians themselves – to convince them that the bilateral route is the better route.
Noting that over 110 nations have already announced their support for a Palestinian state, Defense Minister Ehud Barak last week told the Institute for National Security Studies that Israel was facing “a diplomatic tsunami that the majority of the public is unaware of.”
He urged Netanyahu to “put the core issues on the table. Israel must say it is willing to discuss security borders, refugees and Jerusalem.” As things stood, he warned, Israel was being pushed “into a corner from which the old South Africa’s deterioration began.”
Added Barak: “Israel’s delegitimization is in sight.”
Presumably, he has internalized the finer details of the Palestinians’ UN strategy.
“The way things are now,” Schifter summed up, “I have no doubt that a resolution will be brought to the GA in September, bypassing the Security Council, using the 1950 ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution to recommend a state of Palestine within the 1949 armistice lines and presumably upholding UNGA Resolution 194 on the ‘right of return’ for refugees.”
Let no one say we’ve not been warned.
Editor's Notes: Israel’s complacent assumption has been that even an overwhelming vote to establish ‘Palestine’ at the GA in September would have merely ‘declaratory’ impact. Wrong. Jerusalem had forgotten about UNGA Resolution 377.
Early in the Korean War, frustrated that the Soviet Union’s repeated use of its UN Security Council veto was thwarting council action to protect South Korea, the United States initiated what became known as the UN General Assembly’s “Uniting for Peace” resolution. Adopted in November 1950, UNGA Resolution 377 provides that, should the five permanent members of the Security Council find themselves at odds, rendering the council incapable of exercising its “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,” the General Assembly can step into the breach. If the Security Council’s permanent members cannot reach unanimity, it elaborates, and “there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression,” the General Assembly can fill the vacuum by issuing its own “appropriate recommendations” for “collective measures” to be taken by individual states – right up to and including “the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The “Uniting for Peace” Resolution is no dead letter. It was employed, most notably, in 1981, to outflank the Security Council and recommend both sanctions against South Africa for preventing Namibian independence, and assistance, including military assistance, for those seeking Namibian independence.
It should be stressed: The GA’s authority under the resolution is not binding, but it can certainly press supportive countries to take action, and in 1981 it did just that. It called upon member states “to render increased and sustained support and material, financial, military and other assistance to the South West Africa People’s Organization to enable it to intensify its struggle for the liberation of Namibia.” And it urged member states to immediately cease “all dealings with South Africa in order totally to isolate it politically, economically, militarily and culturally.”
The passage of that resolution, says Richard Schifter, a former US assistant secretary of state for human rights who spent years representing the US in various UN forums, “was a significant step in the process of imposing sanctions on apartheid South Africa and delegitimizing the country.”
Which is where, as you’ve doubtless figured out by now, Israel and the Palestinians come in.
AS ISRAEL’S most recent ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, explained to me this week, the existence of UNGA Resolution 377, and the precedents for its use, mean that “those who believe that the UN General Assembly’s deliberations are of a solely declarative importance are mistaken.”
The GA, under “Uniting for Peace,” has teeth.
Furthermore, Shalev acknowledged, Israel only “just found out about this” – thanks, she said, to research done by Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi’s The Israel Project.
But the Palestinians have plainly been reading the UN’s small print rather better for rather longer. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat even referred to the possible use of the “Uniting for Peace” resolution in comments to the Ma’an news agency late last year.
In Shalev’s estimation, and in that of several other experts with whom I spoke this week, including veteran American diplomat Schifter, the Palestinian leadership is moving serenely toward invoking precisely this resolution in September.
The Palestinian leadership, that is, anticipating that the US will veto its unilateral bid for statehood at the Security Council, will take the matter to the General Assembly. There it will push for the necessary two-thirds GA support for recognizing “Palestine,” presumably along the pre-1967 lines and with a “right of return” for refugees, under a “Uniting for Peace” resolution to ensure global action.
And in the unanimous assessment of those with whom I spoke, the consequences for Israel should this approach succeed – international pressure to accept the GA resolution, backed by potential sanctions and boycott action, and who knows what else – could be profoundly damaging.
MAHMOUD ABBAS’S Palestinian Authority has made no secret of its intention to secure UN support for the establishment of Palestine by September.
Veteran negotiator Erekat reiterated only this week – in comments that were noticed and circulated to all Israeli legations by the Foreign Ministry on Tuesday – that “the Palestinian leadership institutions (the PLO and Fatah) have decided to submit a request to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem.” The matter was now in the hands of Abbas, Erekat said, but added that “Palestine” needed to submit its request for full membership to the Security Council “as soon as possible.” Then the council, in turn, would “ask the member states of the UN General Assembly to recognize the State of Palestine.”
Such recognition, according to Erekat, would mean that “Palestine” would no longer be a matter of “disputed lands,” but rather a state under occupation. Since “Palestine” had “a permanent population, defined territory (even if that does not involve permanent borders), an effective government and the ability to establish international relations,” in Erekat’s assessment, it would meet the standards defined for a state under the terms of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 on the rights and duties of states.
“The current peace process as it has been conducted so far is over,” the PA’s Foreign Minister Riad Malki elaborated candidly on Tuesday, in a talk at Tel Aviv University sponsored by the Peres Center for Peace. And Malki proceeded to set out a strategy that all but specified Resolution 377.
If the kind of state the Palestinians seek were not attained through negotiation by September, he stated, “then the international community will take this issue to the United Nations… What I’m trying to say is, it won’t be us, it will be the international community that will say it is overdue that we come to recognize a Palestinian state.”
THE PALESTINIANS’ unilateral push for statehood is set to begin with a resolution at the Security Council – possibly toward the fall, possibly much earlier.
Israel was anticipating that the resolution would fail there, that a similar resolution would gain widespread but non-binding support at the GA in September, that Israel’s international legitimacy would be knocked down another notch or two, but that the unilateral approach would then reach a dead end, with the US and the rest of the key international players pressing the sides to come back to the negotiating table to resolve their differences. The possibility of the “Uniting for Peace” resolution providing practical backing for UNGA recognition of Palestine is now, extremely belatedly, starting to shock some of the relevant players in Israel, though not all, out of their complacency.
Prof. Shalev, now back at Ono Academic College, where she is president of the Higher Academic Council, told me she has no ongoing connection with her former employers at the Foreign Ministry. But she assured me they were now well aware of the diplomatic danger, and was confident that incoming UN ambassador Ron Prosor – “a wonderful appointment,” she sensibly observed – would move to grapple with the challenge.
Other insiders with whom I spoke this week were rather less confident that Jerusalem had got the message, with one of them anonymously urging Israel to “get its head out of the sand,” and another suggesting dryly that, for all the traditional derision, “I’d be happy if Israel started to engage in the ‘Umm Shmum’ aspect.”
Some Israeli diplomatic sources with whom I spoke this week asserted, indeed, that it was “debatable” whether the Palestinians would even go the GA route, since “their gains might be far less significant than the problems it would cause them… because it would free us [to take unilateral action].”
ALL IS far from lost, but it could be if Israel does not muster an effective response to the Palestinian strategy. And the first key forum is the Security Council.
Would-be nations gain their membership in the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, pointed out Schifter, who now chairs the board of directors of the American Jewish International Relations Institute. And it is a safe bet that the Palestinian strategists, in drafting their resolution calling for the Security Council to recognize Palestine, will do their linguistic best to make it hard for the 15 Security Council members to say no.
It is assumed they will invoke relevant UN resolutions. They will employ comments and statements made by world leaders in support of Palestine. Says Shalev: “They’ll use words that [US Ambassador to the UN Susan] Rice, [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton, [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel and others have used in support of the Palestinians.”
The Palestinians will have taken great pleasure in witnessing the difficulty the United States had in bringing itself to use its veto to block last month’s anti-settlement resolution – which was essentially a trial run for the statehood bid.
And they will feel that they are heading toward a win-win situation. Either the necessary nine or more of the 15 Security Council members will vote for “Palestine,” in which case their diplomatic operation will have been a spectacular success. Or the US will be forced to utilize its veto, and they will then move on to the General Assembly, with that “Uniting for Peace” resolution in their armory.
The best way for Israel to prevent any of that happening would be to achieve what is currently viewed as almost a mission impossible: to persuade at least seven of the 15 Security Council members to vote no, to abstain, or to absent themselves. That way, the statehood resolution would fail, the US would not have to employ its veto, and there would be no possibility for the Palestinians to claim Security Council deadlock and thus invoke “Uniting for Peace” in the General Assembly.
Why almost mission impossible? Because Israel has very few solid friends in the international diplomatic community these days, and even fewer among the 15 current Security Council nations.
Most Israelis may well believe that the failure to make progress in negotiations with the Palestinians stems from the other side’s refusal to take positions that would guarantee Israel’s physical and demographic security alongside the proposed Palestine. Most Israelis may well believe that the Palestinian leadership has neither encouraged its people to accept the Jewish right to statehood, nor accepted this right itself, and has maintained an environment in which terrorists who target Israelis are regarded as role models.
But the sad fact is that most of the international diplomatic community simply doesn’t accept this narrative, and tends increasingly to blame strong, sovereign Israel for failing to grant independence to the weak, stateless Palestinians. Rocket attacks from Gaza, bombings at bus stops in Jerusalem, even horrific murders of fathers, mothers, children and babies in their homes, are evaluated in that context.
So there is certainly no automatic, or even readily attainable, blocking vote in the Security Council for the Palestinians’ demand for statehood, even if the establishment of that “state” is being sought while the core issues of dispute with neighboring Israel remain unresolved.
ISRAEL MAY be troubled by aspects of our relationship with the Obama administration, but as far as I can ascertain, of the 15 countries that will be asked to vote on the issue of “Palestine” sometime in the very near future, the only country that Jerusalem is confident will take our side is America. Says Shalev frankly, “We’ve never stopped trying, but I’m not sure we can get the votes we need to oppose a Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood.” Without wishing to be quoted, current Israeli diplomatic sources sound still more pessimistic.
Who else might, nonetheless, deprive the Palestinians of the nine “yes” votes they need? Based on voting records and other impressions, China, Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa are evidently considered beyond all hope.
Colombia is deemed a possible ally. But the vital countries with the capacity to sway others, say Schifter and others, are Germany, France and the UK. Might Germany be prepared to say “no” to unilateral UN establishment of Palestine? Maybe, say some, if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu can persuade Merkel that he is truly prepared to put flesh on his skeletal talk of a two-state solution.
If Germany joins the US, say several people with whom I spoke, the UK and France might reasonably do the same. Bosnia might then conceivably follow. Schifter speculates that if the French really want to help, they might bring over Gabon. Then there’s Portugal, which has privately been sounding noncommittal but might be wooable, or, just perhaps, the Russians. Either of those two, and the job would be done. The final member of the 15, Nigeria, some suggest, may not be beyond reach either.
Lots of ifs.
One key to the success of this diplomatic battle, chorus all those with whom I’ve talked, is how hard the US works to bring others on board. It has several interests in doing so. Foremost among them, its own longstanding, oft-stated conviction that the path to Palestine runs via bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, not international diplomatic dictate. And second, its deep reluctance to have to resort to a veto again; last month marked the first time in four years that a veto had been used at the Security Council, and the Obama administration plainly loathed finding itself in a 1-14 mismatch. In fact, I’ve been told that Washington came “very, very close” to not vetoing the anti-settlement resolution.
A minority of those with whom I spoke speculated that the US might not now veto a Palestine-statehood resolution. Shalev, for one, said “We might lose in the Security Council. I’m not sure the US will use its veto.”
But most insiders were adamant that Washington certainly would use its veto if necessary. Equally, though, Washington would much rather not have to veto, and that means depriving the Palestinians of the nine “yes” votes they need.
Often, in recent months, administration sources have complained to me that Israel underestimates the amount of work it does away from the headlines to prevent Israel getting more heavily trashed in diplomatic forums. Those activities were relevant, for instance, in keeping the Goldstone Commission report away from the Security Council, although central, too, in this regard, was the work of members of a House Task Force on Israel at the UN.
Is the administration working hard today?
One source, who has been in frequent recent contact with the State Department, was adamant that the answer is no. American diplomats, according to this source, can be heard complaining that Israel is relying too heavily on them to do the background work, and suggesting, instead, that Israel should be making its own energetic case to the Western Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese.
Another source, however, referred to all kinds of contacts between various prominent senators and congressmen and the leaders of some of the countries whose positions will determine the Security Council vote. “Countries can be swayed,” this source said, “and the US Congress will certainly be making an effort.”
But Israel needs to do a lot more itself, too, this source added, “and that starts with Netanyahu trying hard to win over Merkel.”
A third source added that if the Americans went to work on this, there was a chance of stopping the push for unilateral statehood in the Security Council. The US administration is crucial, this source said. Broadly speaking, the source added, if the US pulls back, others move to fill the vacuum. If the US is persuaded of the imperative to step forward, other countries may well take their cue from Washington.
HOWEVER, IF Israel, with whatever US support, fails to muster seven “no” votes, abstentions or absences, and the US is forced to veto a UN Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood, the battle will shift to the General Assembly.
There, too, a two-thirds majority is needed for a resolution to pass. But unlike the Security Council, it’s a case of a two-thirds majority not among the entire 192-strong membership, but among those of the 192 members that are “present and voting.” So there, too, Israel is in deep trouble.
According to The Israel Project’s Senior Research Director Alan Elsner, pro-Palestinian resolutions routinely muster the support of more than 110 member nations. Getting a two-thirds majority among members who are present will thus likely be well within the Palestinians’ reach. Shalev shares the assessment. And she warns that if the Palestinians can gain General Assembly recognition for statehood under a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, “it would be a real obstacle… not just a public relations setback. This would seek to impose on us some kind of Palestinian state.”
The degree of momentum would depend, however, at least to some extent, on just how many General Assembly votes the Palestinians get for statehood. “If a resolution passes, as it likely would,” says Schifter, “there is a difference in the impact between one adopted by 150 votes, which is the goal the Palestinians have set themselves, or, say, 110.”
Scope there, too, therefore, for energetic Israeli diplomacy.
Some of the sources with whom I spoke predicted a post- UNGA-vote rush by many countries to open embassies in “Palestine.” They predicted a significant upsurge in boycott and sanctions efforts. “I don’t want to sound apocalyptic,” said one, “but there could be demands on Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, backed up by all kinds of attempts to pressure Israel to advance those demands, even though none of the core issues had been resolved.”
Elsner said he, too, envisaged heightened sanctions and boycotts. He thought the Palestinian strategy was designed to ratchet up economic pressure on Israel, “demonstrate Israel’s isolation, and get Israel back to the negotiating table on better terms for the Palestinians. Their aim is for a deal based on the 1949 armistice lines, including the ‘right of return,’ and preventing [Israeli demands such as] the ongoing deployment of Israeli forces on the Jordan River.”
Laszlo Mizrahi said that Abbas’s current bid to achieve a semblance of unity with Hamas was designed to offset objections from countries which might argue that the Palestinians could hardly be granted statehood when they were led by two conflicting governments. The “push for unity,” she said, “is all connected with the GA in September.”
So, too, said Elsner, the successful PA effort to win endorsement of Palestinian statehood from Latin America and the ongoing effort to do the same in Europe. “They worked below the radar for six months on Latin America without the Israeli Foreign Ministry picking up on the degree of inroads made; then they reeled off country after country.”
The Palestinians have a strong delegation at the UN, Elsner added. “They are very wellversed in its intricacies.”
And Israel? Well, Israel hasn’t had a permanent ambassador to the UN for the six months since Shalev stepped down last fall, as she had announced long ahead that she would be doing. Prosor is still on ambassadorial duty in the UK – a highly important post which he can hardly up and leave overnight – and is not set to take over for another two months or so.
SOME IN Israel, it is plain, are acutely aware of the danger. Indeed, several sources suggested to me, one of the motivations for the purportedly imminent new Netanyahu diplomatic initiative is to take the wind out of the Palestinian sails – to underline Israeli willingness to make real progress, and thus undercut Palestinian claims that they have no option, given ostensible Israeli intransigence and given ongoing Israeli settlement building, but to take the unilateral route.
The idea is to win over both international players, and the Palestinians themselves – to convince them that the bilateral route is the better route.
Noting that over 110 nations have already announced their support for a Palestinian state, Defense Minister Ehud Barak last week told the Institute for National Security Studies that Israel was facing “a diplomatic tsunami that the majority of the public is unaware of.”
He urged Netanyahu to “put the core issues on the table. Israel must say it is willing to discuss security borders, refugees and Jerusalem.” As things stood, he warned, Israel was being pushed “into a corner from which the old South Africa’s deterioration began.”
Added Barak: “Israel’s delegitimization is in sight.”
Presumably, he has internalized the finer details of the Palestinians’ UN strategy.
“The way things are now,” Schifter summed up, “I have no doubt that a resolution will be brought to the GA in September, bypassing the Security Council, using the 1950 ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution to recommend a state of Palestine within the 1949 armistice lines and presumably upholding UNGA Resolution 194 on the ‘right of return’ for refugees.”
Let no one say we’ve not been warned.
Israel considering annexing West Bank settlements
JERUSALEM – An Israeli official says Israel is considering annexing major West Bank settlement blocs if the Palestinians unilaterally seek world recognition of a state.
The official said Tuesday that Israel can respond to unilateral Palestinian action with one-sided acts of its own.
Annexation of settlements is one option. He says others could include restricting water supplies beyond agreed-upon amounts and restricting Palestinian use of Israeli ports for business purposes.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity on Tuesday because no final decisions have been made. With the peace process going nowhere, Palestinian leaders plan on seeking international recognition of a state, with or without an agreement with Israel, at the United Nations in September.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
JERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli official says the government will decide next month whether to give final approval for 1,500 new housing units in Jewish enclaves in disputed east Jerusalem.
Roi Lachmanovich's announcement Tuesday draws new spotlight on the controversial issue. An approval would further distance prospects for restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Israeli construction in east Jerusalem is contentious because Palestinians want the area for their future capital. Israel annexed the territory after capturing it in 1967.
Israel says east Jerusalem developments are merely neighborhoods of the city, but the international community considers them illegal settlements.
Lachmanovich, a spokesman for Interior Minister Eli Yishai, says the new housing is to be built in two existing enclaves.
***
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Amy Teibel, Associated Press – Tue Mar 29, 3:39 pm ET
JERUSALEM – Israel is considering annexing major West Bank settlement blocs if the Palestinians unilaterally seek world recognition of a state, an Israeli official said Tuesday — moves that would deal a grave blow to prospects for negotiating a peace deal between the two sides.
Israel has refrained from taking such a diplomatically explosive step for four decades. The fact that it is considering doing so reflects how seriously it is concerned by the Palestinian campaign to win international recognition of a state in the absence of peacemaking.
The Palestinians launched that campaign after peace talks foundered over Israeli construction in West Bank settlements. On Tuesday, the Israeli Interior Ministry said it would decide next month whether to give final approval to build 1,500 apartments in two Jewish enclaves in east Jerusalem. Israel captured both east Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan in 1967.
Israel annexed east Jerusalem, home to shrines sacred to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, immediately after seizing it. But it carefully avoided annexing the West Bank, where 300,000 settlers now live among 2.5 million Palestinians.
Although it is widely assumed that under any peace deal, Israel would hold onto major settlements it has built in the past 44 years, any decision to formally annex West Bank territory would be a precedent-setting move that could increase Israel's already considerable international isolation. The Palestinians claim all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, in addition to the Gaza Strip, for a future state.
The government official who disclosed the possible annexation said he did not know how seriously authorities were considering the option. He said that "adopting unilateral measures is not a one-way street" and added that other options were also being considered.
These could include limiting water supplies beyond agreed-upon amounts and restricting Palestinian use of Israeli ports for business purposes, he said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was aware of the moves being discussed, he added, speaking on condition of anonymity because no final decisions have been made.
Netanyahu's office had no comment. Nimr Hamad, an aide to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, said "these threats are not new. ... But we are continuing (our campaign) and are convinced our position is right."
In a related development, the Israeli Transportation Ministry is working on a plan to build an island off the coast of Gaza, where an Palestinian-run airport and seaport would be located. Ministry spokesman Ilan Leizerovich said this would allow Israel to cut all ties with Hamas-ruled Gaza.
At present most goods and people enter and exit Gaza through Israeli land crossings.
Leizerovich said the island would be built about three miles (4.5 kilometers) off the Gaza coast and would be connected by a bridge. He said it would take about six years and cost more than $5 billion to build. The grandiose scheme would need additional government approval, Palestinian acceptance and funding.
Although peace negotiations have taken place since Netanyahu came to power two years ago, they have been sporadic and largely mediated by the U.S. Three weeks of direct talks broke down in September over Palestinian objections to continued Israeli settlement construction.
Palestinians say they won't talk peace with Israel unless Israel freezes all construction in both the West Bank and east Jerusalem, lands they claim along with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip for their hoped-for state. Israeli officials fault Palestinians for the peacemaking impasse, saying a construction moratorium should not be a condition for peacemaking, because it never was in the past.
Israeli building in east Jerusalem is especially contentious because the Palestinians want to create their future capital there. Because of the annexation, Israel does not consider the Jewish enclaves housing 200,000 Jews there to be settlements, but the rest of the international community does.
Roi Lachmanovich, a spokesman for Interior Minister Eli Yishai, said officials would decide the fate of the 1,500 new apartments on April 14. The homes would be built in two existing Jewish enclaves in east Jerusalem.
Major Western powers have not given up on the concept of a negotiated solution. But with talks deadlocked, Palestinian leaders plan on seeking international recognition of a state, with or without an agreement with Israel, at the United Nations in September.
Their campaign has received a boost from Latin American countries that have lined up in recent months to offer recognition. It hasn't received crucial U.S. or Western European support.
Although international recognition wouldn't immediately change the situation on the ground, it would isolate Israel and put additional pressure on it to withdraw from occupied territories.
The official said Tuesday that Israel can respond to unilateral Palestinian action with one-sided acts of its own.
Annexation of settlements is one option. He says others could include restricting water supplies beyond agreed-upon amounts and restricting Palestinian use of Israeli ports for business purposes.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity on Tuesday because no final decisions have been made. With the peace process going nowhere, Palestinian leaders plan on seeking international recognition of a state, with or without an agreement with Israel, at the United Nations in September.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
JERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli official says the government will decide next month whether to give final approval for 1,500 new housing units in Jewish enclaves in disputed east Jerusalem.
Roi Lachmanovich's announcement Tuesday draws new spotlight on the controversial issue. An approval would further distance prospects for restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Israeli construction in east Jerusalem is contentious because Palestinians want the area for their future capital. Israel annexed the territory after capturing it in 1967.
Israel says east Jerusalem developments are merely neighborhoods of the city, but the international community considers them illegal settlements.
Lachmanovich, a spokesman for Interior Minister Eli Yishai, says the new housing is to be built in two existing enclaves.
***
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Amy Teibel, Associated Press – Tue Mar 29, 3:39 pm ET
JERUSALEM – Israel is considering annexing major West Bank settlement blocs if the Palestinians unilaterally seek world recognition of a state, an Israeli official said Tuesday — moves that would deal a grave blow to prospects for negotiating a peace deal between the two sides.
Israel has refrained from taking such a diplomatically explosive step for four decades. The fact that it is considering doing so reflects how seriously it is concerned by the Palestinian campaign to win international recognition of a state in the absence of peacemaking.
The Palestinians launched that campaign after peace talks foundered over Israeli construction in West Bank settlements. On Tuesday, the Israeli Interior Ministry said it would decide next month whether to give final approval to build 1,500 apartments in two Jewish enclaves in east Jerusalem. Israel captured both east Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan in 1967.
Israel annexed east Jerusalem, home to shrines sacred to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, immediately after seizing it. But it carefully avoided annexing the West Bank, where 300,000 settlers now live among 2.5 million Palestinians.
Although it is widely assumed that under any peace deal, Israel would hold onto major settlements it has built in the past 44 years, any decision to formally annex West Bank territory would be a precedent-setting move that could increase Israel's already considerable international isolation. The Palestinians claim all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, in addition to the Gaza Strip, for a future state.
The government official who disclosed the possible annexation said he did not know how seriously authorities were considering the option. He said that "adopting unilateral measures is not a one-way street" and added that other options were also being considered.
These could include limiting water supplies beyond agreed-upon amounts and restricting Palestinian use of Israeli ports for business purposes, he said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was aware of the moves being discussed, he added, speaking on condition of anonymity because no final decisions have been made.
Netanyahu's office had no comment. Nimr Hamad, an aide to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, said "these threats are not new. ... But we are continuing (our campaign) and are convinced our position is right."
In a related development, the Israeli Transportation Ministry is working on a plan to build an island off the coast of Gaza, where an Palestinian-run airport and seaport would be located. Ministry spokesman Ilan Leizerovich said this would allow Israel to cut all ties with Hamas-ruled Gaza.
At present most goods and people enter and exit Gaza through Israeli land crossings.
Leizerovich said the island would be built about three miles (4.5 kilometers) off the Gaza coast and would be connected by a bridge. He said it would take about six years and cost more than $5 billion to build. The grandiose scheme would need additional government approval, Palestinian acceptance and funding.
Although peace negotiations have taken place since Netanyahu came to power two years ago, they have been sporadic and largely mediated by the U.S. Three weeks of direct talks broke down in September over Palestinian objections to continued Israeli settlement construction.
Palestinians say they won't talk peace with Israel unless Israel freezes all construction in both the West Bank and east Jerusalem, lands they claim along with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip for their hoped-for state. Israeli officials fault Palestinians for the peacemaking impasse, saying a construction moratorium should not be a condition for peacemaking, because it never was in the past.
Israeli building in east Jerusalem is especially contentious because the Palestinians want to create their future capital there. Because of the annexation, Israel does not consider the Jewish enclaves housing 200,000 Jews there to be settlements, but the rest of the international community does.
Roi Lachmanovich, a spokesman for Interior Minister Eli Yishai, said officials would decide the fate of the 1,500 new apartments on April 14. The homes would be built in two existing Jewish enclaves in east Jerusalem.
Major Western powers have not given up on the concept of a negotiated solution. But with talks deadlocked, Palestinian leaders plan on seeking international recognition of a state, with or without an agreement with Israel, at the United Nations in September.
Their campaign has received a boost from Latin American countries that have lined up in recent months to offer recognition. It hasn't received crucial U.S. or Western European support.
Although international recognition wouldn't immediately change the situation on the ground, it would isolate Israel and put additional pressure on it to withdraw from occupied territories.
Toward an 'Islam de France'
Nidra Poller
Muslim prayers in the streets of Paris? Row upon row of worshippers under the eyes of uniformed French policemen? Hundreds of men chanting "Allahu akbar" in open-air mosques? A series of videos posted online over the past two years, depicting all of the above, by a journalist using the pseudonym "Maxime Lépante" have provoked a mixture of shock and disbelief. For at least 15 years, local officials have been collaborating with the police department to tacitly authorize the obstruction of a few narrow streets in Paris's 18th arrondissement—Rues Myrha, Léon, Polonceau, Poissoniers—to accommodate overflowing crowds for midday prayers on Fridays. Similar "tolerance" is exhibited by several other French towns and cities. Illegal street prayers became a national political issue last December when Marine Le Pen—who in January replaced her father, Jean-Marie, as president of the National Front party—denounced them as an "occupation without tanks or soldiers." Since then, the question has broadened to a critical examination of Islam's role in French society, becoming a major issue going into the 2012 presidential campaign. Ms. Le Pen's rising poll numbers place her neck and neck with President Nicolas Sarkozy and likely Socialist candidate Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and the weak performance of Mr. Sarkozy's UMP party in this weekend's local elections have laid further ground for a shake-up at next year's polls.
That is why Mr. Sarkozy has worked intently not to let the National Front monopolize the issue. He announced last December that the UMP would hold a debate to clarify the rights and responsibilities of Islam in a republic based on the principle of laïcité , or secularism, to culminate in a convention scheduled for next week. Pointedly rejecting the prevailing notion of "Islam en France"—of Islam as an alien body within the state—the president called instead for an "Islam de France"—a Frenchified Islam, respectful of French values and mores.
The Socialist opposition has reacted with its own declarations in defense of laïcité while nonetheless rejecting the debate as a divisive measure that stigmatizes Muslims. Socialist Party spokesman Benoît Hamon has called the obstruction of streets unacceptable, as has Daniel Vaillant, the Socialist mayor of the 18th arrondissement—the same man who had facilitated such street prayers for 15 years. Elaborating on the hardships endured by his Muslim citizens, the mayor has promised that the problem would soon be resolved by the construction of a spacious mosque. Poking one more loophole in the 1905 law that prohibits public funding of religious edifices, the city council has already approved funding for a multimillion-dollar Islamic cultural center in the 18th arrondissement.
Benoît Apparu, the Sarkozy government's undersecretary for housing, goes one step further, suggesting that the 1905 law could be modified to facilitate an ambitious program of mosque construction that would solve the problem of street prayers. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Apparu's proposal will be viewed favorably or rejected as a transgression of the principle of laïcité at the very center of the debate.
Tolerance for illegal street prayers is but one example of a general failure to clarify the relationship between mosque and state in France. The UMP debate has led to a nationwide re-evaluation of this crucial problem, one that has been barricaded behind a wall of taboos. Previously, every attempt at restating and clarifying national values had been rejected as an attack on Muslims. But since December, the public discourse on these issues has been reanimated. UMP General Secretary Jean-François Copé promises a forthright discussion at next week's convention, with concrete measures to be enacted to prevent political Islam from contravening the laws of the Republic.
Critics, meanwhile, have cut across party lines in their opposition to even raising questions about the relationship between Islam and the République . Earlier this month Abderrahmane Dahmane, the president's special advisor on diversity, urged Muslim members of the UMP not to renew their party membership should the debate go forward as planned. In a sign of the Sarkozy government's determination to take a strong stand on the issue, Mr. Dahmane was summarily dismissed. Socialist Party chief Martine Aubry had been a signatory to an anti-debate petition until last week, when she withdrew her name after it emerged that Tariq Ramadan, the controversial Swiss scholar, had also signed it.
Former journalist Anne Sinclair, whose comments are closely watched for what they might suggest about the views of her husband, Mr. Strauss-Kahn, has accused the UMP and National Front of using the issue to foment fear and distrust ahead of next year's election. In a post on her blog last month, she lashed out at those who "play with fire" by calling for a debate on Islam's role in a secular society at a time when the Arab world is at last standing upright to shed autocratic rule.
This objection in particular seems to miss the point. What is to be feared from clarifying the founding principles of the République ? If the Arab uprisings are a contest for democracy and self-governance, then an open debate about the way in which a population wishes to govern itself would only honor the demonstrators. The alternative would be a great shame for the citizens of France.
Mrs. Poller is an American author living in Paris.
Nidra Poller
nidrapol@gmail.com
Muslim prayers in the streets of Paris? Row upon row of worshippers under the eyes of uniformed French policemen? Hundreds of men chanting "Allahu akbar" in open-air mosques? A series of videos posted online over the past two years, depicting all of the above, by a journalist using the pseudonym "Maxime Lépante" have provoked a mixture of shock and disbelief. For at least 15 years, local officials have been collaborating with the police department to tacitly authorize the obstruction of a few narrow streets in Paris's 18th arrondissement—Rues Myrha, Léon, Polonceau, Poissoniers—to accommodate overflowing crowds for midday prayers on Fridays. Similar "tolerance" is exhibited by several other French towns and cities. Illegal street prayers became a national political issue last December when Marine Le Pen—who in January replaced her father, Jean-Marie, as president of the National Front party—denounced them as an "occupation without tanks or soldiers." Since then, the question has broadened to a critical examination of Islam's role in French society, becoming a major issue going into the 2012 presidential campaign. Ms. Le Pen's rising poll numbers place her neck and neck with President Nicolas Sarkozy and likely Socialist candidate Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and the weak performance of Mr. Sarkozy's UMP party in this weekend's local elections have laid further ground for a shake-up at next year's polls.
That is why Mr. Sarkozy has worked intently not to let the National Front monopolize the issue. He announced last December that the UMP would hold a debate to clarify the rights and responsibilities of Islam in a republic based on the principle of laïcité , or secularism, to culminate in a convention scheduled for next week. Pointedly rejecting the prevailing notion of "Islam en France"—of Islam as an alien body within the state—the president called instead for an "Islam de France"—a Frenchified Islam, respectful of French values and mores.
The Socialist opposition has reacted with its own declarations in defense of laïcité while nonetheless rejecting the debate as a divisive measure that stigmatizes Muslims. Socialist Party spokesman Benoît Hamon has called the obstruction of streets unacceptable, as has Daniel Vaillant, the Socialist mayor of the 18th arrondissement—the same man who had facilitated such street prayers for 15 years. Elaborating on the hardships endured by his Muslim citizens, the mayor has promised that the problem would soon be resolved by the construction of a spacious mosque. Poking one more loophole in the 1905 law that prohibits public funding of religious edifices, the city council has already approved funding for a multimillion-dollar Islamic cultural center in the 18th arrondissement.
Benoît Apparu, the Sarkozy government's undersecretary for housing, goes one step further, suggesting that the 1905 law could be modified to facilitate an ambitious program of mosque construction that would solve the problem of street prayers. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Apparu's proposal will be viewed favorably or rejected as a transgression of the principle of laïcité at the very center of the debate.
Tolerance for illegal street prayers is but one example of a general failure to clarify the relationship between mosque and state in France. The UMP debate has led to a nationwide re-evaluation of this crucial problem, one that has been barricaded behind a wall of taboos. Previously, every attempt at restating and clarifying national values had been rejected as an attack on Muslims. But since December, the public discourse on these issues has been reanimated. UMP General Secretary Jean-François Copé promises a forthright discussion at next week's convention, with concrete measures to be enacted to prevent political Islam from contravening the laws of the Republic.
Critics, meanwhile, have cut across party lines in their opposition to even raising questions about the relationship between Islam and the République . Earlier this month Abderrahmane Dahmane, the president's special advisor on diversity, urged Muslim members of the UMP not to renew their party membership should the debate go forward as planned. In a sign of the Sarkozy government's determination to take a strong stand on the issue, Mr. Dahmane was summarily dismissed. Socialist Party chief Martine Aubry had been a signatory to an anti-debate petition until last week, when she withdrew her name after it emerged that Tariq Ramadan, the controversial Swiss scholar, had also signed it.
Former journalist Anne Sinclair, whose comments are closely watched for what they might suggest about the views of her husband, Mr. Strauss-Kahn, has accused the UMP and National Front of using the issue to foment fear and distrust ahead of next year's election. In a post on her blog last month, she lashed out at those who "play with fire" by calling for a debate on Islam's role in a secular society at a time when the Arab world is at last standing upright to shed autocratic rule.
This objection in particular seems to miss the point. What is to be feared from clarifying the founding principles of the République ? If the Arab uprisings are a contest for democracy and self-governance, then an open debate about the way in which a population wishes to govern itself would only honor the demonstrators. The alternative would be a great shame for the citizens of France.
Mrs. Poller is an American author living in Paris.
Nidra Poller
nidrapol@gmail.com
“Hamas: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow-No Partner For Peace”
Dr. Harold Brackman
THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER
March, 2011
OUTLINE
Hamas’ “Protocols of Terror” In Its Own Words Introduction: Behind the New Flare Up in the Holy Land—Hamas’ Ambitions Deep History: Hamas Before There Was a Hamas Hamas’ Own “Protocols”: The 1988 Charter Hamas and Suicide Bombing I—The Terror Strategy Hamas and Suicide Bombing II: The Cult of Death Hamas as Global-Local (Glocal) Hybrid Conclusion: Why “Moderating” Hamas Won’t Work APPENDIX: Hamas’ Suicide Terror Attacks, 1993-2010 NOTES
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
1
HAMAS’ “PROTOCOLS OF TERROR” IN ITS OWN WORDS
THE CHARTER OR “SACRED COVENANT” (AL-MITHAQ) (1988) :
PREAMBLE: “‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it’. (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory). . . . Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. . . . The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized.”
ARTICLE 7: “‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree . . . would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews’.” [citing “al-Bukhari and Moslem”] ARTICLE 8: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”
ARTICLE 15: “‘I swear by the holder of Mohammed’s soul that I would like to invade and be killed for the sake of Allah, then invade and be killed, and then invade again and be killed.’.” [quote from “the Emigration,” verse 13]
ARTICLE 17: “[Y]ou you find them [the Jews] giving . . . constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.”
ARTICLE 22: “They [the Jews] strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realization of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press,
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
2
HAMAS’ “PROTOCOLS OF TERROR” IN ITS OWN WORDS
publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. . . .With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there. You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, . . . They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them.There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.”
ARTICLE 28: “The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion. . . Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. ‘May the cowards never sleep’.”
ARTICLE 31: “The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. “For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday.”
ARTICLE 32: “The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. . . .Their plan is embodied in the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying. . . .The Islamic Resistance Movement considers itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road.”
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
3
HAMAS’ BATTLE CRIES:
“‘I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite all their fingers and toes.You have killed them not, but Allah killed them’.”
“Truly, the destruction of the state of Israel is a Quranic inevitability.”
“The language of bullets and bombs is the only language that the Jews understand.”
“We tell them [the Israelis]: in as much as you love life—the Muslims love death and martyrdom.”
“Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!”
“Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”
“The Jews are a cancer that is spreading and is threatening the entire Islamic world.”
“[Jews are] brothers of the apes, assassins of the prophets, bloodsuckers, and war mongers. . . . Only Islam can break the Jews and destroy their dream.”
“They [the Zionists’] established a state to protect the Jews from death and murder. If death and murder chase them in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netanya . . . then they will say: I want to flee and go back to Europe and America.”
“The Islamic Movement gives it condolences to the hero of the attack [at Beit Lid in January 1995], which led to the killing of twenty pigs and injuring of sixty monkeys.”
“The war is open until Israel ceases to exist and until the last Jew in the world is eliminated.”
“You [America] will face the mirror of your history for a long time to come. . . . [With the 9/11 attacks] Allah has answered our prayers.”
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
4
HAMAS’ BATTLE CRIES:
“We are in love with the color of blood.”
“Palestine is a green tree whose thirst can only be quenched with the blood of martyrs.”
“Our words remain dead until we die in their cause.” “Hamas has won the election on the Israeli body county ticket.” “When the blood of martyrs irrigates the land, roses appear.” “The children are the holy martyrs of tomorrow.”
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
5
Introduction: Behind the New Flare Up in the Holy Land—Hamas’ Ambitions
There is a rabbinic dictum that—after the last biblical Prophet—only fools prophesize. It would be sheer folly to try to predict where the dominos will ultimately fall in the Arab World. Still, one core assumption has been swept away by today’s seismic upheavals: the time-worn mantra that “the Palestinian-Israeli conflict” is at the core of the Middle East’s problems. From Tunisia, to Libya, to Egypt and now Syria and beyond to the Islamic State of Iran, it’s the regimes’ corruption and crimes, not the Holy Land, that brought millions to the streets to brave arrest, torture, or a bullet.
Yet nobody should be surprised that the enemies of peace and democracy, whatever their terrorist faction, are exploiting in the Holy Land the combustible regional situation by targeting deep into Israel’s cities and Ashdod and Bersheeba with deadly accurate Grad missiles and blowing up a Jerusalem bus station, killing 1 and injuring 39.
What about the “Palestinian Street”? Demonstrations in the West Bank and abortive demonstrations in Gaza have protested failed policies and demanded reconciliation between the Mahmoud Abbas-led PA and Hamas. Despite death threats, President Abbas has even offered to travel to Gaza to break the current impasse. Initially, he was rebuffed by a newly emboldened Hamas that may have lost support in Gaza but is gaining it in the West Bank, while rebuilding and upgrading its military capabilities—with help from Iran. But now Abbas has met with top Hamas officials in the West Bank City of Ramallah because “There would be no peace achieving the aspirations of our people without ending the split.”
Hamas is also buoyed by the growing clout of its founder—Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Poised to play an ever-growing role in the post-Mubarak era, it wants Egypt to open up its Gaza border to open transfer of hi-tech arm shipments. There are already indications that the U.S. and Europe may view the changing landscape in the Arab world as an opportunity to begin dialogue with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, and even Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Will Hamas be next?
In Gaza City, Hamas must feel that time is now on its side.
Could a rapprochement between Hamas and the PA-Fatah enhance the prospects for Mideast peace? Don’t count on it. In Gaza, Hamas finds it easier to launch missiles against Israel than new “human bombs,” but the cult of the suicide bomber is still alive-and-well. The late Dr. Aziz Rantisi, trained as a pediatrician, called becoming a suicide martyr “among the highest, if not the highest, honor.” Hamas still shouts, “The blood of our martyrs will not be wasted on the negotiating table.” Schools venerate those who blow themselves up, even as Hamas threatens UNWRA for daring to suggest teaching about the Nazi Holocaust. Mariam Farahat, three of whose six sons died as suicide bombers, won election on Hamas’ slate as Umm Nidal: “Mother
6
of the Struggle.” She says: “Those who say we have changed our methods, we will never change.” The experience of Gaza’s Christian community provides an idea of what would happen on the West Bank and East Jerusalem if Hamas ever took over those areas. Announcing “the end of secularism and heresy in the Gaza Strip,” Hamas immediately targeted the Strip’s handful of Greek Orthodox.20
A Palestinian government including Hamas would mean no “two state solution,” no freedoms, and no peace for years and maybe decades. There is no nuancing Hamas’ genocidal, “Protocols of Zion”-spouting founding Charter. When it comes to “Zionists,” there is zero daylight between their civil society and military wing. Hamas’ military infrastructure is as interwoven with hate for Israel, as its civilian infrastructure is embedded with missiles aimed at the Jewish State’s heartland.
Previous attempts at Hamas-Fatah rapprochement actually led to escalating violence and outright civil war in Gaza in June 2007. Back in September 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected an American-mediated peace deal. Launching the Second Intifada, Arafat (in the words of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu) bestowed “embraces and kisses” on Hamas, even copying its suicide bombing campaign. Arafat came to rue his decision, as did his successor Abbas who in 2007 declared: “It is Hamas that is shielding Al Qaeda, and through its bloody conduct, Hamas has become very close to Al Qaeda [in Gaza].”21
The world should think long and hard before agreeing to drink the ‘let’s engage Hamas’ moderates Kool-aid. Let’s remember it’s been concocted by the same academic and foreign policy elites who were wrong about Khomeini in 1979 and who have been as clueless as everybody else about the Arab world’s new ongoing tsunamis.
Peace in the Holy Land will not come via appeasement of Hamas and demonization of Israel. Want democracy and freedom for Palestinians and security for Israelis? Then, stick to the goal of two democratic states—one Arab, one Jewish—with transparency on both sides. Anything less remains a prescription for disaster.
This Report details Hamas history as well as its present ambitions. It documents the rise (in Netanyahu’s words) of “Hamastan . . . [as] a proxy of Iran in the image of the Taliban.” It avoids media spin—especially the anti-Israel bias of so much mainstream media coverage.22
Because “past is prologue,” we need to do all we can to prevent a Palestinian-Israel future under the dark shadow of Hamas.
Click here to read entire article
THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER
March, 2011
OUTLINE
Hamas’ “Protocols of Terror” In Its Own Words Introduction: Behind the New Flare Up in the Holy Land—Hamas’ Ambitions Deep History: Hamas Before There Was a Hamas Hamas’ Own “Protocols”: The 1988 Charter Hamas and Suicide Bombing I—The Terror Strategy Hamas and Suicide Bombing II: The Cult of Death Hamas as Global-Local (Glocal) Hybrid Conclusion: Why “Moderating” Hamas Won’t Work APPENDIX: Hamas’ Suicide Terror Attacks, 1993-2010 NOTES
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
1
HAMAS’ “PROTOCOLS OF TERROR” IN ITS OWN WORDS
THE CHARTER OR “SACRED COVENANT” (AL-MITHAQ) (1988) :
PREAMBLE: “‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it’. (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory). . . . Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. . . . The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized.”
ARTICLE 7: “‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree . . . would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews’.” [citing “al-Bukhari and Moslem”] ARTICLE 8: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”
ARTICLE 15: “‘I swear by the holder of Mohammed’s soul that I would like to invade and be killed for the sake of Allah, then invade and be killed, and then invade again and be killed.’.” [quote from “the Emigration,” verse 13]
ARTICLE 17: “[Y]ou you find them [the Jews] giving . . . constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.”
ARTICLE 22: “They [the Jews] strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realization of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press,
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
2
HAMAS’ “PROTOCOLS OF TERROR” IN ITS OWN WORDS
publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. . . .With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there. You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, . . . They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them.There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.”
ARTICLE 28: “The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion. . . Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. ‘May the cowards never sleep’.”
ARTICLE 31: “The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. “For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday.”
ARTICLE 32: “The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. . . .Their plan is embodied in the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying. . . .The Islamic Resistance Movement considers itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road.”
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
3
HAMAS’ BATTLE CRIES:
“‘I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite all their fingers and toes.You have killed them not, but Allah killed them’.”
“Truly, the destruction of the state of Israel is a Quranic inevitability.”
“The language of bullets and bombs is the only language that the Jews understand.”
“We tell them [the Israelis]: in as much as you love life—the Muslims love death and martyrdom.”
“Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!”
“Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”
“The Jews are a cancer that is spreading and is threatening the entire Islamic world.”
“[Jews are] brothers of the apes, assassins of the prophets, bloodsuckers, and war mongers. . . . Only Islam can break the Jews and destroy their dream.”
“They [the Zionists’] established a state to protect the Jews from death and murder. If death and murder chase them in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netanya . . . then they will say: I want to flee and go back to Europe and America.”
“The Islamic Movement gives it condolences to the hero of the attack [at Beit Lid in January 1995], which led to the killing of twenty pigs and injuring of sixty monkeys.”
“The war is open until Israel ceases to exist and until the last Jew in the world is eliminated.”
“You [America] will face the mirror of your history for a long time to come. . . . [With the 9/11 attacks] Allah has answered our prayers.”
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
4
HAMAS’ BATTLE CRIES:
“We are in love with the color of blood.”
“Palestine is a green tree whose thirst can only be quenched with the blood of martyrs.”
“Our words remain dead until we die in their cause.” “Hamas has won the election on the Israeli body county ticket.” “When the blood of martyrs irrigates the land, roses appear.” “The children are the holy martyrs of tomorrow.”
HAMAS: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow— NO PARTNER FOR PEACE
5
Introduction: Behind the New Flare Up in the Holy Land—Hamas’ Ambitions
There is a rabbinic dictum that—after the last biblical Prophet—only fools prophesize. It would be sheer folly to try to predict where the dominos will ultimately fall in the Arab World. Still, one core assumption has been swept away by today’s seismic upheavals: the time-worn mantra that “the Palestinian-Israeli conflict” is at the core of the Middle East’s problems. From Tunisia, to Libya, to Egypt and now Syria and beyond to the Islamic State of Iran, it’s the regimes’ corruption and crimes, not the Holy Land, that brought millions to the streets to brave arrest, torture, or a bullet.
Yet nobody should be surprised that the enemies of peace and democracy, whatever their terrorist faction, are exploiting in the Holy Land the combustible regional situation by targeting deep into Israel’s cities and Ashdod and Bersheeba with deadly accurate Grad missiles and blowing up a Jerusalem bus station, killing 1 and injuring 39.
What about the “Palestinian Street”? Demonstrations in the West Bank and abortive demonstrations in Gaza have protested failed policies and demanded reconciliation between the Mahmoud Abbas-led PA and Hamas. Despite death threats, President Abbas has even offered to travel to Gaza to break the current impasse. Initially, he was rebuffed by a newly emboldened Hamas that may have lost support in Gaza but is gaining it in the West Bank, while rebuilding and upgrading its military capabilities—with help from Iran. But now Abbas has met with top Hamas officials in the West Bank City of Ramallah because “There would be no peace achieving the aspirations of our people without ending the split.”
Hamas is also buoyed by the growing clout of its founder—Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Poised to play an ever-growing role in the post-Mubarak era, it wants Egypt to open up its Gaza border to open transfer of hi-tech arm shipments. There are already indications that the U.S. and Europe may view the changing landscape in the Arab world as an opportunity to begin dialogue with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, and even Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Will Hamas be next?
In Gaza City, Hamas must feel that time is now on its side.
Could a rapprochement between Hamas and the PA-Fatah enhance the prospects for Mideast peace? Don’t count on it. In Gaza, Hamas finds it easier to launch missiles against Israel than new “human bombs,” but the cult of the suicide bomber is still alive-and-well. The late Dr. Aziz Rantisi, trained as a pediatrician, called becoming a suicide martyr “among the highest, if not the highest, honor.” Hamas still shouts, “The blood of our martyrs will not be wasted on the negotiating table.” Schools venerate those who blow themselves up, even as Hamas threatens UNWRA for daring to suggest teaching about the Nazi Holocaust. Mariam Farahat, three of whose six sons died as suicide bombers, won election on Hamas’ slate as Umm Nidal: “Mother
6
of the Struggle.” She says: “Those who say we have changed our methods, we will never change.” The experience of Gaza’s Christian community provides an idea of what would happen on the West Bank and East Jerusalem if Hamas ever took over those areas. Announcing “the end of secularism and heresy in the Gaza Strip,” Hamas immediately targeted the Strip’s handful of Greek Orthodox.20
A Palestinian government including Hamas would mean no “two state solution,” no freedoms, and no peace for years and maybe decades. There is no nuancing Hamas’ genocidal, “Protocols of Zion”-spouting founding Charter. When it comes to “Zionists,” there is zero daylight between their civil society and military wing. Hamas’ military infrastructure is as interwoven with hate for Israel, as its civilian infrastructure is embedded with missiles aimed at the Jewish State’s heartland.
Previous attempts at Hamas-Fatah rapprochement actually led to escalating violence and outright civil war in Gaza in June 2007. Back in September 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected an American-mediated peace deal. Launching the Second Intifada, Arafat (in the words of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu) bestowed “embraces and kisses” on Hamas, even copying its suicide bombing campaign. Arafat came to rue his decision, as did his successor Abbas who in 2007 declared: “It is Hamas that is shielding Al Qaeda, and through its bloody conduct, Hamas has become very close to Al Qaeda [in Gaza].”21
The world should think long and hard before agreeing to drink the ‘let’s engage Hamas’ moderates Kool-aid. Let’s remember it’s been concocted by the same academic and foreign policy elites who were wrong about Khomeini in 1979 and who have been as clueless as everybody else about the Arab world’s new ongoing tsunamis.
Peace in the Holy Land will not come via appeasement of Hamas and demonization of Israel. Want democracy and freedom for Palestinians and security for Israelis? Then, stick to the goal of two democratic states—one Arab, one Jewish—with transparency on both sides. Anything less remains a prescription for disaster.
This Report details Hamas history as well as its present ambitions. It documents the rise (in Netanyahu’s words) of “Hamastan . . . [as] a proxy of Iran in the image of the Taliban.” It avoids media spin—especially the anti-Israel bias of so much mainstream media coverage.22
Because “past is prologue,” we need to do all we can to prevent a Palestinian-Israel future under the dark shadow of Hamas.
Click here to read entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)