Obama's Charm Offensive Masks Israel Policy Change
Leo Rennert
The two contrasting faces of President Obama in his relations with Israel and American Jews were on full display this week.
On Thursday, Obama hosted some 250 Jewish luminaries and high-achievers at an elaborate White House reception to mark Jewish Heritage Month. The administration pulled out all the stops to make this a memorable, first-ever event. It gave Obama another chance to pump up his charm offensive to persuade Jews who voted overwhelmingly for him to remain lined up behind him. The President spoke about the "unbreakable Israeli-U.S." alliance and pulled out his oratorical skills to dispel any concern that his administration might be going wobbly on Israel.
But even as Jewish leaders basked in the glow of the White House, the president's diplomatic team was busy in New York cutting a nuclear deal at the UN with Egypt and other Arab states that stabs Israel in the back.
With U.S. support and endorsement, representatives of 189 nations adopted a nuclear non-proliferation declaration that calls for expedited action on a nuclear-free Mideast zone, with an international conference in 2012 to get this project moving to fruition. But even before 2012, the declaration already calls on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and invite UN inspectors' full access to lay bare its nuclear activities.
Israel immediately rejected the NPT declaration as a "duplicitous" move against the Jewish state. Prime Minister Netanyahu's office denounced it for singling out Israel, while ignoring Iran. As an NPT non-signer, Israel did not participate in the New York conference. A Netanyahu spokesman said the prime minister intends to bring up Israel's objections when he meets with Obama at the White House on Tuesday.
No other nation -- not Iran, which is moving to join the nuclear club and thumbs its nose at UN inspections; not North Korea, the No. 1 nuclear proliferator in the world -- is singled out in the NPT declaration. Only Israel, in a step widely and rightly regarded as signaling a direct threat to the Jewish state's ultimate deterrent -- is supposed to open its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Israel always has followed a policy of nuclear ambiguity -- its version of nuclear "don't ask, don't tell." Israel doesn't confirm or deny that it has nukes and, until this week, enjoyed full U.S. support in maintaining this guessing game.
No longer. In backstage deal-making negotiations with the U.S. delegation, Arab states cooked up an NPT declaration designed to strip away Israel's nuclear veil of secrecy and deprive it of a nuclear deterrent against the likes of a nuclear Iran, which in the words of its own rulers, is determined to "wipe Israel off the map."
Since NPT conferences can reach decisions only by consensus, every delegation in New York had to acquiesce. Each delegation had a veto. A single "no" would have killed the conference's declaration.
Obama, however, went along, even going so far as to call the declaration "balanced" on wider non-proliferation and disarmament issues.
But to protect his Jewish flank, he quickly put out a defensive statement that "we strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel's national security."
Not to put too fine a point on it, this was a totally disingenuous ploy -- after the damage was done -- to remain in the good graces of Jewish voters and supporters. Because this clearly was a conference action that directly jeopardizes Israel's national security -- and Obama let it happen. If he didn't want Israel singled out, he could have prevented it and instructed his delegation to insist on removing any reference to Israel as the price of U.S. concurrence.
Moving into full damage-control, Obama added that before there can be a nuclear-free Mideast region, there first has to be a "comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms-control and non-proliferation obligations."
But this again was a U.S. afterthought that leaves intact the U.S.-backed declaration. For its part, Israel also happens to favor a nuclear-free Middle East once all countries in the region live happily and peacefully forevermore. The new U.S.-backed NPT declaration, however, attaches no such pre-conditions to its demands that Israel be required to sign on to the treaty whatever its own security implications might be in the meantime.
Echoing his boss, National Security Adviser James Jones voiced "serious reservations" about the declaration's singular focus on Israel. U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher said the NPT declaration, which the U.S. had just approved, "might seriously jeopardize U.S. efforts to get Israel to attend the 2012 talks."
Of course, Jones and Tauscher could have spared themselves any worries or the need to distance themselves from a document they had rubber-stamped if Obama had stood fast and insisted that the NPT conference treat every country alike -- i.e. not singling out anyone -- instead of putting Israel, and Israel alone, behind the eight ball.
So we end up with a tale of two Obama personas -- the one that charms Jews at a gala White House event and the other that kicks them in the rear as they leave the premises.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/obamas_charm_offensive_masks_i.html at May 30, 2010 - 10:23:04 PM CDT
Monday, May 31, 2010
Iranian Guards general assassinated in Damascus - French sources
Debka
The death of Khalil Sultan, a high-ranking general of the IRGC's al Qods external terror branch, in the exclusive Damascus district of Al Mezzeh Sunday, May 16 is now revealed by French intelligence and Syrian exile sources in Paris to have been assassination by an unknown hand. Syrian and Iranian government circles are deeply shocked. Working under deep cover, Khalil ran IRGC covert operations in Damascus and Beirut. The death of Khalil Sultan, a high-ranking general of the IRGC's al Qods external terror branch, at his home in the exclusive Damascus district of Al Mezzeh Sunday, May 16 is now revealed by French intelligence and Syrian exile sources in Paris to have been assassination by an unknown hand.
The authorities in Damascus said at the time that the general, whom they described as a rich Syrian businessman, sales agent for the Iranian Kordo automobile manufacturers, was killed in the course of a robbery.
In fact, according to debkafile's intelligence sources, Sultan ran Iranian Revolutionary Guards' covert operations in Damascus and Beirut under deep cover. The gang which burst into his luxury villa and gunned him down with automatic rifles removed only documents and laptops, but did not touch valuables, cash or gold.
As Tehran's top operative for disposing of anti-Iranian elements in Syria and Lebanon, he worked in conjunction with Bashar Assad's intelligence branches. Their most recent joint project was the roundup of Iranian-Arab exiles from Ahwaz who live in Syria.
Western sources disclose that his death caused deep shock in top Syrian and Iranian government and security circles. His assassins' success in reaching this top secret agent in the most closely-guarded neighborhood of the capital, seat of Syrian government institutions and domicile of senior officials, has caused Syrian intelligence and the regime as a whole deep embarrassment - particularly after a long series of hits against high-profile Hizballah and Hamas operatives in the Syrian capital's most secure districts - like the case of Hizballah commander Imad Mughniyeh.
The victim was close to the al Qods Brigades chief Gen. Qassem Suleimeni, who is entrusted with the Islamic Republic's most hush-hush clandestine operations. French sources stress, on the other hand, that he was also a personal friend of the Iranian general who recently defected to the West. They name him as Gen. Reza Baba Hossein, the first time, debkafile's sources note, that this Iranian general has been publicly revealed to be a defector to the West.
that an Iranian general has been publicly named as a defector to the West.
Sultan's duties and diverse connections suggest three possible parties may have wanted him dead:
1. More than one foreign element had an interest in sabotaging Iran's covert activities in Syria and Lebanon and the intelligence partnership between Tehran and Damascus.
2. Syrian opposition exiles in Paris point the finger at their Sunni compatriots who are involved in activities for weakening Iranian and Shiite influence in their country.
3. Sultan's friendship with the defecting general may have aroused Tehran's suspicion that he abetted his friend's escape - or even had contacts in Western intelligence himself - in which case, Iranian intelligence would have no qualms about signing his death warrant.
Update: Gaza flotilla changes course
YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF
05/31/2010 03:55
Ships prefer confrontation with Israeli navy take place in daylight.
The Gaza protest flotilla changed course to gain distance from the Israeli navy boats which had hailed them, demanded they identify themselves and warned them they would not be allowed to reach Gaza, an Al-Jazeera reporter with the flotilla said just past midnight on Monday. According to the report, the flotilla organizers wish any confrontation to occur during daylight hours rather than in the dark. Passengers on the ships were instructed to don life vests as organizers warned of potential Israeli violence.
Israel Radio quoted the flotilla’s organizers as saying they did not expect the navy to meet them so far out at sea.
International activists promised to send more aid ships to the besieged Gaza Strip late Sunday night, as the Israel Navy moved to intercept a flotilla of international vessels that were attempting to break the blockade of the Strip.
Israeli Navy ships set sail earlier Sunday night for what was expected to be a dramatic showdown out at sea as they try to prevent a flotilla of international aid ships from breaking the blockade on the Gaza Strip.
The nighttime standoff occurred after the six-ship flotilla’s departure was delayed for several days by diplomatic and mechanical difficulties. The boats finally set sail on Sunday afternoon with the aim of arriving at 2 p.m. on Monday.
Mary Hughes, one of the founders of the Free Gaza Movement, told The Jerusalem Post from Cyprus that the group was determined to reach Gaza.
“They [the Israel Navy] have stopped us before in various ways and we do not intend be intimated,” Hughes said. “We have so many people who want to go to Gaza so it doesn’t matter what the Israelis do to us. As long as people want to go and to send boats it will continue.”
The three cargo ships and three passenger ships are carrying materials that Israel bars from reaching Gaza on a regular basis, like cement and other building materials, because they can be used by Hamas to build bunkers. The activists said they also were carrying hundreds of electric-powered wheelchairs, prefabricated homes and water purifiers.
The navy plans to stop the ships and sail them to the Ashdod Port where their cargo will be unloaded, inspected and then transferred, via land crossings, to the Gaza Strip. The passengers are to be deported. Those who refuse to leave the country would be arrested.
Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists are on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Máiread Corrigan-Maguire, European legislators and a Holocaust survivor.
The mission has experienced repeated delays, both due to mechanical problems and a decision by Cyprus to bar any boat from sailing from its shore to Gaza. The ban forced a group of European lawmakers to depart from the Turkish Cypriot northern part of the island late on Saturday.
Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade on Gaza after Hamas seized control of the territory in June 2007.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon responded to what he called “anti-Semitic chants” that came from the ship’s passengers and were broadcast on Israel Radio.
Some of the passengers on the ships were recorded shouting chants to remember Haifa since the army of Muhammad will soon return.
“Israel condemns the anti-Semitic chants that were publicized this morning,” Ayalon said. “The fact that participants on the flotilla would chant such things shows the true nature of some of the participants and its real motivation. This amply demonstrates that many are not against a particular policy of the Israeli government, but have very real and dangerous hatred for Jews and the Jewish state.”
AP contributed to this report
Comment: The media circus continues-with each "delay" they get more face time and print-the delays are planned as they keep their "story" as a news item. They put on life jackets enabling them to make statements about actions that never happened and would not happen if they obeyed the law. Of course, this is all lost on the MSM. Still don't get that this is a media event rather than a"humanitarian action"?
05/31/2010 03:55
Ships prefer confrontation with Israeli navy take place in daylight.
The Gaza protest flotilla changed course to gain distance from the Israeli navy boats which had hailed them, demanded they identify themselves and warned them they would not be allowed to reach Gaza, an Al-Jazeera reporter with the flotilla said just past midnight on Monday. According to the report, the flotilla organizers wish any confrontation to occur during daylight hours rather than in the dark. Passengers on the ships were instructed to don life vests as organizers warned of potential Israeli violence.
Israel Radio quoted the flotilla’s organizers as saying they did not expect the navy to meet them so far out at sea.
International activists promised to send more aid ships to the besieged Gaza Strip late Sunday night, as the Israel Navy moved to intercept a flotilla of international vessels that were attempting to break the blockade of the Strip.
Israeli Navy ships set sail earlier Sunday night for what was expected to be a dramatic showdown out at sea as they try to prevent a flotilla of international aid ships from breaking the blockade on the Gaza Strip.
The nighttime standoff occurred after the six-ship flotilla’s departure was delayed for several days by diplomatic and mechanical difficulties. The boats finally set sail on Sunday afternoon with the aim of arriving at 2 p.m. on Monday.
Mary Hughes, one of the founders of the Free Gaza Movement, told The Jerusalem Post from Cyprus that the group was determined to reach Gaza.
“They [the Israel Navy] have stopped us before in various ways and we do not intend be intimated,” Hughes said. “We have so many people who want to go to Gaza so it doesn’t matter what the Israelis do to us. As long as people want to go and to send boats it will continue.”
The three cargo ships and three passenger ships are carrying materials that Israel bars from reaching Gaza on a regular basis, like cement and other building materials, because they can be used by Hamas to build bunkers. The activists said they also were carrying hundreds of electric-powered wheelchairs, prefabricated homes and water purifiers.
The navy plans to stop the ships and sail them to the Ashdod Port where their cargo will be unloaded, inspected and then transferred, via land crossings, to the Gaza Strip. The passengers are to be deported. Those who refuse to leave the country would be arrested.
Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists are on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Máiread Corrigan-Maguire, European legislators and a Holocaust survivor.
The mission has experienced repeated delays, both due to mechanical problems and a decision by Cyprus to bar any boat from sailing from its shore to Gaza. The ban forced a group of European lawmakers to depart from the Turkish Cypriot northern part of the island late on Saturday.
Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade on Gaza after Hamas seized control of the territory in June 2007.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon responded to what he called “anti-Semitic chants” that came from the ship’s passengers and were broadcast on Israel Radio.
Some of the passengers on the ships were recorded shouting chants to remember Haifa since the army of Muhammad will soon return.
“Israel condemns the anti-Semitic chants that were publicized this morning,” Ayalon said. “The fact that participants on the flotilla would chant such things shows the true nature of some of the participants and its real motivation. This amply demonstrates that many are not against a particular policy of the Israeli government, but have very real and dangerous hatred for Jews and the Jewish state.”
AP contributed to this report
Comment: The media circus continues-with each "delay" they get more face time and print-the delays are planned as they keep their "story" as a news item. They put on life jackets enabling them to make statements about actions that never happened and would not happen if they obeyed the law. Of course, this is all lost on the MSM. Still don't get that this is a media event rather than a"humanitarian action"?
From Terrorists to Role Models: The Palestinian Authority's Institutionalization of Incitement
The PA's policy of naming schools, summer camps,
sporting events, streets and ceremonies after terrorists
fundamentally undermines the chance for peace
by Itamar Marcus, Nan Jacques Zilberdik, Barbara Crook
and PMW staff
"For this report, PMW chose 100 examples of places and events named after 46 different terrorists in order to show the scope of the phenomenon. Twenty six of the examples have been reported in the Palestinian media in 2010." The report documents that: "Terror glorification is highly visible in Palestinian society. A Palestinian child can walk to school along a street named after the terrorist Abu Jihad, who planned a bus hijacking that killed 37, spend the day learning in a school named after Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin, in the afternoon play football in a tournament named after suicide terrorist Abd Al-Baset Odeh who killed 31, and end his day at a youth center named after terrorist Abu Iyad, responsible for the killing of the 11 Olympic athletes in Munich. A young woman can join a university women's club named Sisters of Dalal, after Dalal Mughrabi, attend a week at Al-Quds University honoring suicide bomb builder Yahya Ayyash, and participate in university rallies named after numerous terrorists. Honoring terrorists envelops and plays a significant part in defining the Palestinian world."
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said at the press conference:
"I thank PMW for this research. We will study it and give our response. I welcome the activities of this organization, which exposes Palestinian society and the Palestinian Authority as they present themselves, not to the world but to themselves."
[www.mfa.gov.il accessed May 3, 2010]
The Deputy Minister further stated that:
"True peace must be built on a foundation of trust between the parties. The continuation of incitement on the part of the Palestinians will not help build trust and understanding between us. Therefore, before the start of the talks, the PA must decide if it is a partner for true peace and stop the ongoing incitement and boycotts against Israel."
[www.mfa.gov.il accessed May 3, 2010]
Click here to see the full PMW report on the PA's glorification of terrorists in PDF.
The following is the executive summary of the report:
Executive Summary
The Palestinian Authority has named numerous locations and events after Palestinian terrorists responsible for killing Israeli civilians. In this special report, Palestinian Media Watch investigates the breadth of this phenomenon and to what extent it continues in 2010. Furthermore, PMW will assess whether this represents activities of a fringe group within society, or represents Palestinian Authority policy.
Findings
The Palestinian Authority's recent naming of a square in Ramallah after the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led a terror attack that killed 37 civilians, was not an isolated incident. It is one example among many of how the PA has institutionalized incitement by systematically turning terrorists into role models.
In this report, Palestinian Media Watch documents the ongoing Palestinian Authority policy of glorifying terrorists through the naming of places and events after them, especially after those responsible for the most murderous attacks. Dalal Mughrabi, whose bus hijacking killed more Israelis than any other Palestinian terror attack, has been immortalized through the naming of numerous places and events, including: Two elementary schools, a kindergarten, a computer center, summer camps, football tournaments, a community center, a sports team, a public square, a street, an election course, an adult education course, a university club, a dance troupe, a military unit, a dormitory in a youth center, a TV series, a TV quiz team and a graduation ceremony. And Mughrabi is just one example among many.
For this report, PMW has chosen 100 examples of places and events named after 46 different terrorists in order to show the scope of the phenomenon. Twenty six of the examples have been reported in the Palestinian media in 2010.
Terror glorification is highly visible in Palestinian society. A Palestinian child can walk to school along a street named after the terrorist Abu Jihad, who planned a bus hijacking that killed 37, spend the day learning in a school named after Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin, in the afternoon play football in a tournament named after suicide terrorist Abd Al-Baset Odeh who killed 31, and end his day at a youth center named after terrorist Abu Iyad, responsible for killing the 11 Olympic athletes in Munich. A young woman can join a university women's club named Sisters of Dalal, after Dalal Mughrabi, attend a week at Al-Quds University honoring suicide bomb builder Yahya Ayyash, and participate in university rallies named after numerous terrorists. Honoring terrorists envelops and plays a significant part in defining the Palestinian world.
Two types of incitement: Direct calls to kill vs. honoring terrorists who killed
The PA practice of honoring terrorists is a very dangerous form of incitement, because it praises the killer and the act of killing after the actual murder has taken place. When an Imam on PA TV calls to kill Jews, the murder is at that point a possibility. No one has yet been killed. Honoring a suicide terrorist does not refer to a possibility, but glorifies an actual murder.
When PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas funded a computer center named after Mughrabi, he was telling Palestinian society that killing Rebecca Hochman and her sons, 6-year-old Roi and 3-year-old Ilan, along with 34 other civilians in a bus hijacking, was not merely acceptable, but an act worthy of honor. When the PA Ministry of Education held a football tournament named after suicide terrorist Odeh who killed 31, it was saying that the act of murder is what turns Palestinians into heroes. The PA's message that terrorists are role models is as damaging to peace as it is disturbing. Honoring a murderer is incitement to murder.
PA leaders honor terrorists
The terror veneration that this report documents is not of a fringe group but is policy of the PA, the Fatah party and the Palestinian leaders. PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in April 2010 sponsored a sports event named after Abu Jihad, who orchestrated Dalal Mughrabi's bus hijacking and many other terror attacks. And Abbas, in addition to funding the computer center named after Dalal Mughrabi in 2009, also publicly supported the naming of the square in her name in 2010.
Palestinian Authority defends policy of honoring terrorists
In response to PMW's exposing the plans to name a square near Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, the Palestinian Authority defended this practice at the highest levels, acknowledging that this terror veneration is part of PA policy:
Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman, on naming square after Mughrabi:
"Of course I did not go myself, but I do not deny [the naming]. Of course we want to name a square after her." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 17, 2010]
Siham Barghouti, PA Minister of Culture, on naming square after Mughrabi:
"Honoring them in this way [by naming public places after them] is the least we can give them, and this is our right." [Al-Ayyam, Jan. 11, 2010]
Mahmoud Al-Aloul, member of Fatah Central Committee, defending immortalizing terrorists:
"It is important to continue commemorating the memory of the Shahids (Martyrs) and the Palestinian acts of heroism, and most importantly the anniversary of the Martyrdom of Dalal Mughrabi, heroine of the Coastal Road operation [attack that killed 37], which falls on March 11th... Al-Aloul said that Fatah has acted and continues to act to immortalize its Shahids (Martyrs) and heroes... He added: 'It is our right and our duty to take pride in all of the Shahids (Martyrs), and it is our duty to convey this message in the most direct manner to the generations to come.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 25, 2010]
Speaking on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas, about street named after Abu Jihad:
"In his speech on behalf of the President [Abbas], Tayeb Al-Rahim said: 'Today we are celebrating the inauguration of a street named after the leader Abu Jihad, Prince of the Shahids... He had the honor of introducing the idea of the armed Palestinian struggle... We say that the entire [Palestinian] nation has become Abu Jihad, and that our people are proud of him. His name has been given to hospitals and schools and centers and streets. Abu Jihad did not die; he lives on in our midst. Abu Jihad is the engineer of the revolution; the first bullet." [Emphasis added]
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 21, 2010]
Defining a terrorist for this report
In this report, a terrorist is defined as a person who carried out, planned, organized or assisted in attacks that deliberately targeted civilians for the strategic goal of killing civilians and/or terrorizing a civilian population. It does not include as a terrorist act the attacking of military or terrorist targets for the purpose of eliminating a real or perceived threat, even though civilians may have been killed. The strategic purpose is critical in the definition of terror. Attacks intentionally directed at civilian targets are terror. Attacks targeting military targets are not terror, even if civilians were also killed.
Furthermore, this report does not include individuals who participated in terror activities but later turned to political activity. The many places and events named after Yasser Arafat are not included, even though he planned numerous terror attacks whose sole purpose was the killing of civilians, because he later received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Non-Palestinians included in this report
It is not only Palestinians involved in violence who are honored in this way by the PA. Iraqi insurgent Ali Al-Naamani committed the first suicide bombing attack in Iraq, killing four American soldiers. The Palestinians named a square in the center of Jenin after him. Likewise, Saddam Hussein has a Palestinian school and a road named after him. While these two do not fit the strict definition of terrorists, they have been included in the report because they are important for showing the range of people involved in violence who have been honored within the PA.
Methodology - general terrorist glorification not included in this report
This report is documenting only the naming of places and events in honor of terrorists that have been cited in the PA media. PMW has not investigated all the PA schools or all street names and therefore the full extent of the phenomenon is certainly greater. In addition this report does not include the PA practice of glorifying terrorists directly through events in their honor, such as, assemblies, rallies, or TV specials on anniversaries of terror attacks. For example, on the annual anniversary of Dalal Mughrabi's bus hijacking, PA TV has broadcast many special reports, interviews and programs about her and the attack. While all this greatly compounds the problem, it is beyond the scope of this report.
Conclusion
The explicit and unmitigated rejection of terror on moral grounds is a basic condition for a sincere and lasting peace. Whereas the PA leadership has publicly committed to fight violence, this message can only be seen as insincere by their own people, when numerous terrorists who murdered Israelis are repeatedly glorified by the PA leadership even in 2010.
Indeed, there is no more fundamental statement of support for violence and terror than when the single act of intentionally targeting and killing Israeli civilians is enough to immortalize the name of the killer.
If there is to be any chance for peace, the Palestinian leadership must convince their own people that terror is rejected -- not merely because it is damaging to Palestinian interests in 2010, but because it is immoral and wrong at all times. For peace to have a chance, terrorists must be ostracized as immoral outcasts, not immortalized as heroes and role models.
sporting events, streets and ceremonies after terrorists
fundamentally undermines the chance for peace
by Itamar Marcus, Nan Jacques Zilberdik, Barbara Crook
and PMW staff
"For this report, PMW chose 100 examples of places and events named after 46 different terrorists in order to show the scope of the phenomenon. Twenty six of the examples have been reported in the Palestinian media in 2010." The report documents that: "Terror glorification is highly visible in Palestinian society. A Palestinian child can walk to school along a street named after the terrorist Abu Jihad, who planned a bus hijacking that killed 37, spend the day learning in a school named after Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin, in the afternoon play football in a tournament named after suicide terrorist Abd Al-Baset Odeh who killed 31, and end his day at a youth center named after terrorist Abu Iyad, responsible for the killing of the 11 Olympic athletes in Munich. A young woman can join a university women's club named Sisters of Dalal, after Dalal Mughrabi, attend a week at Al-Quds University honoring suicide bomb builder Yahya Ayyash, and participate in university rallies named after numerous terrorists. Honoring terrorists envelops and plays a significant part in defining the Palestinian world."
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said at the press conference:
"I thank PMW for this research. We will study it and give our response. I welcome the activities of this organization, which exposes Palestinian society and the Palestinian Authority as they present themselves, not to the world but to themselves."
[www.mfa.gov.il accessed May 3, 2010]
The Deputy Minister further stated that:
"True peace must be built on a foundation of trust between the parties. The continuation of incitement on the part of the Palestinians will not help build trust and understanding between us. Therefore, before the start of the talks, the PA must decide if it is a partner for true peace and stop the ongoing incitement and boycotts against Israel."
[www.mfa.gov.il accessed May 3, 2010]
Click here to see the full PMW report on the PA's glorification of terrorists in PDF.
The following is the executive summary of the report:
Executive Summary
The Palestinian Authority has named numerous locations and events after Palestinian terrorists responsible for killing Israeli civilians. In this special report, Palestinian Media Watch investigates the breadth of this phenomenon and to what extent it continues in 2010. Furthermore, PMW will assess whether this represents activities of a fringe group within society, or represents Palestinian Authority policy.
Findings
The Palestinian Authority's recent naming of a square in Ramallah after the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led a terror attack that killed 37 civilians, was not an isolated incident. It is one example among many of how the PA has institutionalized incitement by systematically turning terrorists into role models.
In this report, Palestinian Media Watch documents the ongoing Palestinian Authority policy of glorifying terrorists through the naming of places and events after them, especially after those responsible for the most murderous attacks. Dalal Mughrabi, whose bus hijacking killed more Israelis than any other Palestinian terror attack, has been immortalized through the naming of numerous places and events, including: Two elementary schools, a kindergarten, a computer center, summer camps, football tournaments, a community center, a sports team, a public square, a street, an election course, an adult education course, a university club, a dance troupe, a military unit, a dormitory in a youth center, a TV series, a TV quiz team and a graduation ceremony. And Mughrabi is just one example among many.
For this report, PMW has chosen 100 examples of places and events named after 46 different terrorists in order to show the scope of the phenomenon. Twenty six of the examples have been reported in the Palestinian media in 2010.
Terror glorification is highly visible in Palestinian society. A Palestinian child can walk to school along a street named after the terrorist Abu Jihad, who planned a bus hijacking that killed 37, spend the day learning in a school named after Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin, in the afternoon play football in a tournament named after suicide terrorist Abd Al-Baset Odeh who killed 31, and end his day at a youth center named after terrorist Abu Iyad, responsible for killing the 11 Olympic athletes in Munich. A young woman can join a university women's club named Sisters of Dalal, after Dalal Mughrabi, attend a week at Al-Quds University honoring suicide bomb builder Yahya Ayyash, and participate in university rallies named after numerous terrorists. Honoring terrorists envelops and plays a significant part in defining the Palestinian world.
Two types of incitement: Direct calls to kill vs. honoring terrorists who killed
The PA practice of honoring terrorists is a very dangerous form of incitement, because it praises the killer and the act of killing after the actual murder has taken place. When an Imam on PA TV calls to kill Jews, the murder is at that point a possibility. No one has yet been killed. Honoring a suicide terrorist does not refer to a possibility, but glorifies an actual murder.
When PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas funded a computer center named after Mughrabi, he was telling Palestinian society that killing Rebecca Hochman and her sons, 6-year-old Roi and 3-year-old Ilan, along with 34 other civilians in a bus hijacking, was not merely acceptable, but an act worthy of honor. When the PA Ministry of Education held a football tournament named after suicide terrorist Odeh who killed 31, it was saying that the act of murder is what turns Palestinians into heroes. The PA's message that terrorists are role models is as damaging to peace as it is disturbing. Honoring a murderer is incitement to murder.
PA leaders honor terrorists
The terror veneration that this report documents is not of a fringe group but is policy of the PA, the Fatah party and the Palestinian leaders. PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in April 2010 sponsored a sports event named after Abu Jihad, who orchestrated Dalal Mughrabi's bus hijacking and many other terror attacks. And Abbas, in addition to funding the computer center named after Dalal Mughrabi in 2009, also publicly supported the naming of the square in her name in 2010.
Palestinian Authority defends policy of honoring terrorists
In response to PMW's exposing the plans to name a square near Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, the Palestinian Authority defended this practice at the highest levels, acknowledging that this terror veneration is part of PA policy:
Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman, on naming square after Mughrabi:
"Of course I did not go myself, but I do not deny [the naming]. Of course we want to name a square after her." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 17, 2010]
Siham Barghouti, PA Minister of Culture, on naming square after Mughrabi:
"Honoring them in this way [by naming public places after them] is the least we can give them, and this is our right." [Al-Ayyam, Jan. 11, 2010]
Mahmoud Al-Aloul, member of Fatah Central Committee, defending immortalizing terrorists:
"It is important to continue commemorating the memory of the Shahids (Martyrs) and the Palestinian acts of heroism, and most importantly the anniversary of the Martyrdom of Dalal Mughrabi, heroine of the Coastal Road operation [attack that killed 37], which falls on March 11th... Al-Aloul said that Fatah has acted and continues to act to immortalize its Shahids (Martyrs) and heroes... He added: 'It is our right and our duty to take pride in all of the Shahids (Martyrs), and it is our duty to convey this message in the most direct manner to the generations to come.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 25, 2010]
Speaking on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas, about street named after Abu Jihad:
"In his speech on behalf of the President [Abbas], Tayeb Al-Rahim said: 'Today we are celebrating the inauguration of a street named after the leader Abu Jihad, Prince of the Shahids... He had the honor of introducing the idea of the armed Palestinian struggle... We say that the entire [Palestinian] nation has become Abu Jihad, and that our people are proud of him. His name has been given to hospitals and schools and centers and streets. Abu Jihad did not die; he lives on in our midst. Abu Jihad is the engineer of the revolution; the first bullet." [Emphasis added]
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 21, 2010]
Defining a terrorist for this report
In this report, a terrorist is defined as a person who carried out, planned, organized or assisted in attacks that deliberately targeted civilians for the strategic goal of killing civilians and/or terrorizing a civilian population. It does not include as a terrorist act the attacking of military or terrorist targets for the purpose of eliminating a real or perceived threat, even though civilians may have been killed. The strategic purpose is critical in the definition of terror. Attacks intentionally directed at civilian targets are terror. Attacks targeting military targets are not terror, even if civilians were also killed.
Furthermore, this report does not include individuals who participated in terror activities but later turned to political activity. The many places and events named after Yasser Arafat are not included, even though he planned numerous terror attacks whose sole purpose was the killing of civilians, because he later received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Non-Palestinians included in this report
It is not only Palestinians involved in violence who are honored in this way by the PA. Iraqi insurgent Ali Al-Naamani committed the first suicide bombing attack in Iraq, killing four American soldiers. The Palestinians named a square in the center of Jenin after him. Likewise, Saddam Hussein has a Palestinian school and a road named after him. While these two do not fit the strict definition of terrorists, they have been included in the report because they are important for showing the range of people involved in violence who have been honored within the PA.
Methodology - general terrorist glorification not included in this report
This report is documenting only the naming of places and events in honor of terrorists that have been cited in the PA media. PMW has not investigated all the PA schools or all street names and therefore the full extent of the phenomenon is certainly greater. In addition this report does not include the PA practice of glorifying terrorists directly through events in their honor, such as, assemblies, rallies, or TV specials on anniversaries of terror attacks. For example, on the annual anniversary of Dalal Mughrabi's bus hijacking, PA TV has broadcast many special reports, interviews and programs about her and the attack. While all this greatly compounds the problem, it is beyond the scope of this report.
Conclusion
The explicit and unmitigated rejection of terror on moral grounds is a basic condition for a sincere and lasting peace. Whereas the PA leadership has publicly committed to fight violence, this message can only be seen as insincere by their own people, when numerous terrorists who murdered Israelis are repeatedly glorified by the PA leadership even in 2010.
Indeed, there is no more fundamental statement of support for violence and terror than when the single act of intentionally targeting and killing Israeli civilians is enough to immortalize the name of the killer.
If there is to be any chance for peace, the Palestinian leadership must convince their own people that terror is rejected -- not merely because it is damaging to Palestinian interests in 2010, but because it is immoral and wrong at all times. For peace to have a chance, terrorists must be ostracized as immoral outcasts, not immortalized as heroes and role models.
The Show continues
Flotilla passengers don life vests
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176945
By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF
Navy tells ships to come in peacefully to Ashdod harbor or be boarded.
The Gaza protest flotilla ships were about 150 miles from Gaza late on Sunday night, they had been sighted by the Israeli navy and were in contact with them. Flotilla passengers had put on life vests and were on high alert, they reported via their live feed.
They were told by the navy they had two options: Either be boarded or follow the navy in to Ashdod harbor to be processed there. An Al-Jazeera reporter aboard the flotilla said they had not expected to be intercepted by the Israeli navy so early, while still in international waters, and they were taken by surprise when hailed by the navy.
Israeli Navy ships set sail earlier Sunday night for what was expected to be a dramatic showdown out at sea as they try to prevent a flotilla of international aid ships from breaking the blockade on the Gaza Strip.
After several days of delays due to diplomatic and mechanical difficulties, six ships set sail for the Gaza Strip on Sunday afternoon with the aim of arriving at the Palestinian port at 2 pm Monday.
Mary Hughes, one of the founders of the Free Gaza Movement, told The Jerusalem Post from Cyprus that the group was determined to reach Gaza.
“They [the Israel Navy Y.K.] has stopped us before in various ways and we do not intend to be intimated,” Hughes said. “We have so many people who want to go to Gaza so it doesn’t matter what the Israelis do to us. As long as people want to go and to send boats it will continue.”
The flotilla, which includes three cargo ships and three passenger ships, is carrying materials that Israel bars from reaching Gaza on a regular basis, like cement and other building materials. The activists said they also were carrying hundreds of electrical-powered wheelchairs, prefabricated homes and water purifiers.
After the ships are stopped, the Navy will sail them to the Ashdod Port where the cargo will be unloaded, inspected and then transferred, via land crossings, to the Gaza Strip. The passengers will be deported. Those who refuse to willingly leave the country will be arrested.
Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists are on the boats, including 1976 Nobel peace laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, European legislators and an elderly Holocaust survivor.
The mission has experienced repeated delays, both due to mechanical problems and a decision by Cyprus to bar any boat from sailing from its shore to Gaza. The ban forced a group of European lawmakers to depart from the breakaway Turkish Cypriot northern part of the island late Saturday.
Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade on Gaza after Hamas militants violently seized control of the seaside territory in June 2007.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon responded to what he called “anti-Semitic chants” that came from the ship’s passengers and were broadcast on Israel Radio.
According to a radio report, some of the passengers on the flotilla were recorded shouting chants to remember Haifa since the army of Mohammed will soon return.
"Israel condemns the anti-Semitic chants that were publicized this morning," Ayalon said. "The fact that participants on the flotilla would chant such things shows the true nature of some of the participants and its real motivation. This amply demonstrates that many are not against a particular policy of the Israeli government, but have very real and dangerous hatred for Jews and the Jewish State."
AP contributed to the report.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176945
By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF
Navy tells ships to come in peacefully to Ashdod harbor or be boarded.
The Gaza protest flotilla ships were about 150 miles from Gaza late on Sunday night, they had been sighted by the Israeli navy and were in contact with them. Flotilla passengers had put on life vests and were on high alert, they reported via their live feed.
They were told by the navy they had two options: Either be boarded or follow the navy in to Ashdod harbor to be processed there. An Al-Jazeera reporter aboard the flotilla said they had not expected to be intercepted by the Israeli navy so early, while still in international waters, and they were taken by surprise when hailed by the navy.
Israeli Navy ships set sail earlier Sunday night for what was expected to be a dramatic showdown out at sea as they try to prevent a flotilla of international aid ships from breaking the blockade on the Gaza Strip.
After several days of delays due to diplomatic and mechanical difficulties, six ships set sail for the Gaza Strip on Sunday afternoon with the aim of arriving at the Palestinian port at 2 pm Monday.
Mary Hughes, one of the founders of the Free Gaza Movement, told The Jerusalem Post from Cyprus that the group was determined to reach Gaza.
“They [the Israel Navy Y.K.] has stopped us before in various ways and we do not intend to be intimated,” Hughes said. “We have so many people who want to go to Gaza so it doesn’t matter what the Israelis do to us. As long as people want to go and to send boats it will continue.”
The flotilla, which includes three cargo ships and three passenger ships, is carrying materials that Israel bars from reaching Gaza on a regular basis, like cement and other building materials. The activists said they also were carrying hundreds of electrical-powered wheelchairs, prefabricated homes and water purifiers.
After the ships are stopped, the Navy will sail them to the Ashdod Port where the cargo will be unloaded, inspected and then transferred, via land crossings, to the Gaza Strip. The passengers will be deported. Those who refuse to willingly leave the country will be arrested.
Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists are on the boats, including 1976 Nobel peace laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, European legislators and an elderly Holocaust survivor.
The mission has experienced repeated delays, both due to mechanical problems and a decision by Cyprus to bar any boat from sailing from its shore to Gaza. The ban forced a group of European lawmakers to depart from the breakaway Turkish Cypriot northern part of the island late Saturday.
Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade on Gaza after Hamas militants violently seized control of the seaside territory in June 2007.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon responded to what he called “anti-Semitic chants” that came from the ship’s passengers and were broadcast on Israel Radio.
According to a radio report, some of the passengers on the flotilla were recorded shouting chants to remember Haifa since the army of Mohammed will soon return.
"Israel condemns the anti-Semitic chants that were publicized this morning," Ayalon said. "The fact that participants on the flotilla would chant such things shows the true nature of some of the participants and its real motivation. This amply demonstrates that many are not against a particular policy of the Israeli government, but have very real and dangerous hatred for Jews and the Jewish State."
AP contributed to the report.
Prominent Israeli Arab Leader Faces Unprecedented Charges Of Treason
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/05/28/news/world/doc4bff616ad6048986620688.txt
By DAVID BEDEIN, Middle East Correspondent
Jerusalem — In a move that is bound to send shivers through the Jewish community in the United Sates and in the European Union, Israel Arab community leader Ameer Makhoul was formally indicted this week by Israel's State’s Attorney's office on charges of treason.
Mr. Makhoul, in custody for the past three weeks, has admitted that he provided the Hezbollah terrorist organization with vital security data about Israeli Army bases and with information about facilities belonging to Israel’s General Security Services and Israeli defense industries throughout Israel.
Mr. Makhoul is also being charged with giving Hezbollah information about locations of rockets that fell in Haifa in the course of the Second Lebanon War during the summer of 2006.
All this is stated in an indictment handed down on Thursday in the district court in the city of Haifa, located in northern Israel.
According to this unprecedented indictment, Mr. Makhoul acknowledged that he met in Denmark with a Hezbollah agent and expressed his consent to serve as a secret source of information for the organization.
The reason why American Jewish organizations are concerned is that Mr. Makhoul was the Israeli Arab leader who oversaw allocations of American Jewish philanthropic funds to tens of Israeli Arab organizations, mainly through the aegis of a Washington-based organization known as the New Israel Fund. In addition, Mr. Makoul’s Israeli Arab community organization also received grants from the European Union.
Israel’s first Prime Minister and Defense Minister, David Ben Gurion, who served in these positions between 1948 and 1963, held the Israeli Arab community under military rule, in order to prevent situations like this from occurring.
David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us.
By DAVID BEDEIN, Middle East Correspondent
Jerusalem — In a move that is bound to send shivers through the Jewish community in the United Sates and in the European Union, Israel Arab community leader Ameer Makhoul was formally indicted this week by Israel's State’s Attorney's office on charges of treason.
Mr. Makhoul, in custody for the past three weeks, has admitted that he provided the Hezbollah terrorist organization with vital security data about Israeli Army bases and with information about facilities belonging to Israel’s General Security Services and Israeli defense industries throughout Israel.
Mr. Makhoul is also being charged with giving Hezbollah information about locations of rockets that fell in Haifa in the course of the Second Lebanon War during the summer of 2006.
All this is stated in an indictment handed down on Thursday in the district court in the city of Haifa, located in northern Israel.
According to this unprecedented indictment, Mr. Makhoul acknowledged that he met in Denmark with a Hezbollah agent and expressed his consent to serve as a secret source of information for the organization.
The reason why American Jewish organizations are concerned is that Mr. Makhoul was the Israeli Arab leader who oversaw allocations of American Jewish philanthropic funds to tens of Israeli Arab organizations, mainly through the aegis of a Washington-based organization known as the New Israel Fund. In addition, Mr. Makoul’s Israeli Arab community organization also received grants from the European Union.
Israel’s first Prime Minister and Defense Minister, David Ben Gurion, who served in these positions between 1948 and 1963, held the Israeli Arab community under military rule, in order to prevent situations like this from occurring.
David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
"Give Us a Break!"
Arlene Kushner
Netanyahu (who is in Toronto, where he participated in a pro-Israel rally) is going to the White House this week: It's a command performance -- commanded by the president, that is. The prime minister couldn't easily say, "Sorry, I choose not to come." It wouldn't be realistic to expect that of him -- he does not have that sort of resolute stamina. Though I not only wish he would, but think he should. Expectations are that the president will be all "kissy-kissy" as he endeavors to show how he loves Israel and the Jewish people.
After all, he held a White House reception last Thursday for Jewish American Heritage Month. What could be bad? Hall of Fame baseball pitcher Sandy Koufax was his guest. Doesn't that fix things?
Delegations from various Jewish federations across the country came to Washington in the last few days as well to meet with administration officials and receive assurances of how strong US-Israel ties are.
I find it all rather unbearable.
~~~~~~~~~~
Theories abound as to why he's doing this: because he's concerned about Democratic success in the November congressional elections, because there's been too much pressure on him for how he's treated Israel, or because he thinks he'll get more concessions from us with regard to the "peace process," and thereby be able to flaunt his success.
It may be one of the above, or all -- I am not going to belabor this now. You may want to see Caroline Glick's take on the situation, in her article, "Netanyahu, Obama's newest prop":
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/05/netanyahu-obamas-newest-prop.php
Her point, basically, is that this is for show -- for whatever reason, and that Obama has not essentially changed his policy towards us one iota.
Not only do I concur, I offer disturbing evidence here of the underlying hostility the president bears us. He is exhibiting enormous willingness to undermine our security -- and behave deceptively -- even as he opens his arms to embrace Netanyahu. If I were the prime minister, I'd watch my back.
~~~~~~~~~~
As many of you are aware, Obama was tremendously supportive of, and even promoted, the international non-proliferation treaty review conference, which has just finished meeting at UN headquarters in New York. On Friday, the review conference passed a resolution, with 189 signatories, that calls for a conference in 2012 to push for a nuclear free Middle East, and speaks of appointing a special coordinator to visit the region and prepare for such a conference.
The resolution singles out Israel -- the only country mentioned by name -- calling upon her to sign the NPT and open herself to international inspection. But it does not mention Iran, which is a signatory of the treaty and in violation as it seeks to develop nuclear weapons.
~~~~~~~~~~
To no avail in recent weeks, Netanyahu implored Obama not to pursue this path: At the conference on Friday, the US delegation voted for the resolution.
Then, after the fact, Obama had the unmitigated gall to declare the resolution unfair to Israel. Yes, he said, he is for a nuclear-free Middle East, but first the nations of the region must recognize Israel's right to exist, sign peace agreements, enter into security arrangements, limit arsenals of weaponry, etc.
There is no one, but no one, who imagines that all of this will happen by 2012. So, then, if these are necessary precursors to a nuclear-free Middle East, why sanction a conference in two years?
This time he cannot play it both ways at the same time: his actions are too public and too blatant. What he has done is to betray Israel. As Yossi Melman put it in Haaretz: Obama sacrificed Israel for the success of the conference.
~~~~~~~~~~
The official response put out by the Israeli government said:
"This resolution is deeply flawed and hypocritical: It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world.
"It singles out Israel, the Middle East’s only true democracy and the only country threatened with annihilation. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and which openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is not even mentioned in the resolution.
"The real problem with Weapons Of Mass Destruction in the Middle East does not relate to Israel but to those countries that have signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and brazenly violated it – Iraq under Sadaam, Libya, Syria and Iran.
"That is why the resolution adopted by the NPT Review Conference not only fails to advance regional security but actually sets it back.
"As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel.
"Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation."
~~~~~~~~~~
The statement also says that the prime minister will discuss this with the president when they meet on Tuesday. Unfortunately, it additionally notes "the important clarifications that have been made by the United States regarding its policy."
That is, we've closed our eyes, at least publicly, to the duplicity of Obama, nodding in his direction with a note of appreciation for his objections after the fact.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so, let's go my friends.
In the US, please, contact President Obama and tell him you are not fooled by Jewish receptions in the White House. With the US support for the NPT review conference resolution, he has gone further in undermining Israel's security than any US president ever has. There is no way that objections after the fact mitigate what he has done: He has betrayed Israel. Let him know that you are watching him closely and will spread the word everywhere you can.
Numbers, my friends! Numbers count, so get this out to undermine Obama's complacency.
Fax: 202-456-2461 White House Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
~~~~~~~~~~
These are only disparate hints, and yet...
First, last week there was a report in the NYTimes indicating that last September General Petraeus signed a directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order:
"The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President Obama ever authorizes a strike.
“'The Defense Department can’t be caught flat-footed,' said one Pentagon official with knowledge of General Petraeus’s order."
No promise of anything, but nice to know. Means it's true, at some level, that nothing is off the table.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then, a report in today's JPost alludes to an article -- "Can a Nuclear Armed Iran be Deterred?" -- that appears in the current issue of Military Review. It is by Amitai Etzioni, American-Israeli professor at George Washington University. Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities might be very difficult, he says, because they are so well hidden and protected, in addition to which, some are in heavily populated areas. However, there is a "different military option": "The basic approach seeks not to degrade Iran's nuclear capacities...but to compel the regime to change its behavior by causing ever-higher levels of pain."
What Etzioni is suggesting is bombing of military bases, airports, bridges, railway stations and other infrastructure.
Notes the Post: "Neither Israel nor the United States has ever publicly spoken about the targets that they would bomb if they decide to attack Iran."
All very interesting.
~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, today, the Sunday Times (London) reported that Israel is planning to permanently station at least one submarine carrying nuclear cruise missiles (we have three) in the Persian Gulf, within striking distance of Iran.
Well...news from London is not authoritative. But this too provides a spark of hope. Maybe we won't be sitting ducks after all. It occurs to me that simply knowing the sub was there might have deterrence value sufficient to give Iran pause on certain matters such as unleashing Hezbollah on us with unconventional weapons.
If this story is true...
~~~~~~~~~~
You may have seen a May 24th article in The Guardian (UK), or references to it, claiming that in 1975, then defense minister Shimon Peres offered to sell nuclear weapons to the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Since I've been asked about this, I would like to offer my conclusion that there is nothing to this charge. The office of president Peres put out an unequivocal denial in response to the article:
"There exists no basis in reality for the claims published this morning by The Guardian that in 1975 Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, The Guardian elected to write its piece based on the selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts.
"Israel has never negotiated the exchange of nuclear weapons with South Africa. There exists no Israeli document or Israeli signature on a document that such negotiations took place.
"The Office of the President regrets The Guardian’s decision to publish such an article without requesting comment from any Israeli officials."
~~~~~~~~~~
Elsewhere, as well, I've seen material that refutes this claim. My impression is two-fold: First that this charge is being made in part out of an attempt to link Israel, as an "apartheid" state, with the state that was apartheid. And two, I believe the South Africans may well have sought nuclear weapons from us -- there is talk of "South African documents" -- but that they did not receive a positive response from us.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Khaled Abu Toameh, over the weekend PA president Mahmoud Abbas declared that the PA considers the US and not Israel to be its negotiating partner.
According to Abbas Zaki, member of the Fatah Central Committee, Abbas told US envoy George Mitchell that the PA does not believe that the government of Netanyahu is a real peace partner.
Well, we knew this because of the dynamics that are clear for all to see. But here it is explicitly said.
What nonsense. The PA cannot make "peace" with Israel by negotiating with the US, even though this is what it clearly hopes to do.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Flotilla is apparently on its way. Stories vary with regard to how many ships actually departed; they apparently left Cyprus yesterday and traveled a way and then stopped -- either because of malfunctions or some convoluted plans in terms of how to proceed. Arrival is projected for tomorrow.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Netanyahu (who is in Toronto, where he participated in a pro-Israel rally) is going to the White House this week: It's a command performance -- commanded by the president, that is. The prime minister couldn't easily say, "Sorry, I choose not to come." It wouldn't be realistic to expect that of him -- he does not have that sort of resolute stamina. Though I not only wish he would, but think he should. Expectations are that the president will be all "kissy-kissy" as he endeavors to show how he loves Israel and the Jewish people.
After all, he held a White House reception last Thursday for Jewish American Heritage Month. What could be bad? Hall of Fame baseball pitcher Sandy Koufax was his guest. Doesn't that fix things?
Delegations from various Jewish federations across the country came to Washington in the last few days as well to meet with administration officials and receive assurances of how strong US-Israel ties are.
I find it all rather unbearable.
~~~~~~~~~~
Theories abound as to why he's doing this: because he's concerned about Democratic success in the November congressional elections, because there's been too much pressure on him for how he's treated Israel, or because he thinks he'll get more concessions from us with regard to the "peace process," and thereby be able to flaunt his success.
It may be one of the above, or all -- I am not going to belabor this now. You may want to see Caroline Glick's take on the situation, in her article, "Netanyahu, Obama's newest prop":
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/05/netanyahu-obamas-newest-prop.php
Her point, basically, is that this is for show -- for whatever reason, and that Obama has not essentially changed his policy towards us one iota.
Not only do I concur, I offer disturbing evidence here of the underlying hostility the president bears us. He is exhibiting enormous willingness to undermine our security -- and behave deceptively -- even as he opens his arms to embrace Netanyahu. If I were the prime minister, I'd watch my back.
~~~~~~~~~~
As many of you are aware, Obama was tremendously supportive of, and even promoted, the international non-proliferation treaty review conference, which has just finished meeting at UN headquarters in New York. On Friday, the review conference passed a resolution, with 189 signatories, that calls for a conference in 2012 to push for a nuclear free Middle East, and speaks of appointing a special coordinator to visit the region and prepare for such a conference.
The resolution singles out Israel -- the only country mentioned by name -- calling upon her to sign the NPT and open herself to international inspection. But it does not mention Iran, which is a signatory of the treaty and in violation as it seeks to develop nuclear weapons.
~~~~~~~~~~
To no avail in recent weeks, Netanyahu implored Obama not to pursue this path: At the conference on Friday, the US delegation voted for the resolution.
Then, after the fact, Obama had the unmitigated gall to declare the resolution unfair to Israel. Yes, he said, he is for a nuclear-free Middle East, but first the nations of the region must recognize Israel's right to exist, sign peace agreements, enter into security arrangements, limit arsenals of weaponry, etc.
There is no one, but no one, who imagines that all of this will happen by 2012. So, then, if these are necessary precursors to a nuclear-free Middle East, why sanction a conference in two years?
This time he cannot play it both ways at the same time: his actions are too public and too blatant. What he has done is to betray Israel. As Yossi Melman put it in Haaretz: Obama sacrificed Israel for the success of the conference.
~~~~~~~~~~
The official response put out by the Israeli government said:
"This resolution is deeply flawed and hypocritical: It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world.
"It singles out Israel, the Middle East’s only true democracy and the only country threatened with annihilation. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and which openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is not even mentioned in the resolution.
"The real problem with Weapons Of Mass Destruction in the Middle East does not relate to Israel but to those countries that have signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and brazenly violated it – Iraq under Sadaam, Libya, Syria and Iran.
"That is why the resolution adopted by the NPT Review Conference not only fails to advance regional security but actually sets it back.
"As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel.
"Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation."
~~~~~~~~~~
The statement also says that the prime minister will discuss this with the president when they meet on Tuesday. Unfortunately, it additionally notes "the important clarifications that have been made by the United States regarding its policy."
That is, we've closed our eyes, at least publicly, to the duplicity of Obama, nodding in his direction with a note of appreciation for his objections after the fact.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so, let's go my friends.
In the US, please, contact President Obama and tell him you are not fooled by Jewish receptions in the White House. With the US support for the NPT review conference resolution, he has gone further in undermining Israel's security than any US president ever has. There is no way that objections after the fact mitigate what he has done: He has betrayed Israel. Let him know that you are watching him closely and will spread the word everywhere you can.
Numbers, my friends! Numbers count, so get this out to undermine Obama's complacency.
Fax: 202-456-2461 White House Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
~~~~~~~~~~
These are only disparate hints, and yet...
First, last week there was a report in the NYTimes indicating that last September General Petraeus signed a directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order:
"The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President Obama ever authorizes a strike.
“'The Defense Department can’t be caught flat-footed,' said one Pentagon official with knowledge of General Petraeus’s order."
No promise of anything, but nice to know. Means it's true, at some level, that nothing is off the table.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then, a report in today's JPost alludes to an article -- "Can a Nuclear Armed Iran be Deterred?" -- that appears in the current issue of Military Review. It is by Amitai Etzioni, American-Israeli professor at George Washington University. Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities might be very difficult, he says, because they are so well hidden and protected, in addition to which, some are in heavily populated areas. However, there is a "different military option": "The basic approach seeks not to degrade Iran's nuclear capacities...but to compel the regime to change its behavior by causing ever-higher levels of pain."
What Etzioni is suggesting is bombing of military bases, airports, bridges, railway stations and other infrastructure.
Notes the Post: "Neither Israel nor the United States has ever publicly spoken about the targets that they would bomb if they decide to attack Iran."
All very interesting.
~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, today, the Sunday Times (London) reported that Israel is planning to permanently station at least one submarine carrying nuclear cruise missiles (we have three) in the Persian Gulf, within striking distance of Iran.
Well...news from London is not authoritative. But this too provides a spark of hope. Maybe we won't be sitting ducks after all. It occurs to me that simply knowing the sub was there might have deterrence value sufficient to give Iran pause on certain matters such as unleashing Hezbollah on us with unconventional weapons.
If this story is true...
~~~~~~~~~~
You may have seen a May 24th article in The Guardian (UK), or references to it, claiming that in 1975, then defense minister Shimon Peres offered to sell nuclear weapons to the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Since I've been asked about this, I would like to offer my conclusion that there is nothing to this charge. The office of president Peres put out an unequivocal denial in response to the article:
"There exists no basis in reality for the claims published this morning by The Guardian that in 1975 Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, The Guardian elected to write its piece based on the selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts.
"Israel has never negotiated the exchange of nuclear weapons with South Africa. There exists no Israeli document or Israeli signature on a document that such negotiations took place.
"The Office of the President regrets The Guardian’s decision to publish such an article without requesting comment from any Israeli officials."
~~~~~~~~~~
Elsewhere, as well, I've seen material that refutes this claim. My impression is two-fold: First that this charge is being made in part out of an attempt to link Israel, as an "apartheid" state, with the state that was apartheid. And two, I believe the South Africans may well have sought nuclear weapons from us -- there is talk of "South African documents" -- but that they did not receive a positive response from us.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Khaled Abu Toameh, over the weekend PA president Mahmoud Abbas declared that the PA considers the US and not Israel to be its negotiating partner.
According to Abbas Zaki, member of the Fatah Central Committee, Abbas told US envoy George Mitchell that the PA does not believe that the government of Netanyahu is a real peace partner.
Well, we knew this because of the dynamics that are clear for all to see. But here it is explicitly said.
What nonsense. The PA cannot make "peace" with Israel by negotiating with the US, even though this is what it clearly hopes to do.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Flotilla is apparently on its way. Stories vary with regard to how many ships actually departed; they apparently left Cyprus yesterday and traveled a way and then stopped -- either because of malfunctions or some convoluted plans in terms of how to proceed. Arrival is projected for tomorrow.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Flotilla delayed by glitches again
YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF
05/30/2010 18:51
Ships said to be in Cypriot waters; activist: We're unarmed.
Technical problems delayed the Gaza protest flotilla for ten minutes on Sunday evening as it continued to make its way to Israeli waters, but the organizers aboard the ships claimed it had resumed its voyage.
The Israeli Navy, monitoring the ships, reported there was "hardly any movement" among the group.
An activist of the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), which is involved in the campaign, said in an interview with Army Radio that the ships were on the open sea, still within the territorial waters of Cyprus. The activist said the purpose of the flotilla was only to deliver humanitarian aid. “We have no weapons on board and do not intend to offer resistance [to Israeli forces] in cases where self-defense is not necessary,” he said, adding that "if Jews were being blockaded anywhere in the world, Israel would respond exactly as we have."
The IHH was previously blamed for channeling funds to a global Jihadist organization, a matter the activist refused to comment on.
RELATED:
Flotilla bound for Gaza delayed, loses key members
Haniyeh: Gaza flotilla a triumph
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon criticized the effort on Sunday, saying anti-Semitic chants voiced by the activists on board earlier in the day showed the "real motivation" for the campaign, which he termed an "armada of hate."
Activists reportedly chant slogans that threaten Jews
According to a Foreign Ministry press release, participants on the flotilla were recorded shouting "Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad saya'ud," which means 'Jews, remember Khyabar, the army of Mohammed is returning.' This cry relates to an event in the seventh century when Muslims massacred and expelled Jews from the town of Khaybar, in modern-day Saudi Arabia.
"Israel condemns the anti-Semitic chants that were publicized this morning," Ayalon said. "This amply demonstrates that many are not against a particular policy of the Israeli government, but have very real and dangerous hatred for Jews and the Jewish State."
He further noted that "the main organizer of the flotilla is an extremist Islamic organization with ties to Hamas and global Jihad and it is unfortunate that there are those who are duped into thinking that this exercise has anything to do with humanitarianism or human rights."
The organizers of the protest flotilla said the ships were set to arrive in Israeli waters on Monday. The flotilla was originally slated to arrive in Gaza on Saturday but faced several delays because of technical difficulties.
While eight ships were initially scheduled to sail to Gaza, in the end a total of five ships were reported to be on their way after three suffered technical malfunctions.
Danon demands MK Zoabi's arrest upon arrival
One of the highest profile figures on the ships is Balad MK Haneen Zoabi, who said she was proud to do her part to end what she called a siege on Gaza. Right-wing MKs called for Zoabi’s arrest and ouster from the Knesset.
“Zoabi is working together with Israel’s enemies to encourage terrorism and harm Israel’s image internationally, and these acts constitute treason,” Likud MK Danny Danon wrote to Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein in his request for him to order Zoabi’s arrest upon her arrival in Israel.
The navy is prepared to stop the ships before they reach Gaza and has put most of its forces on operational standby since Friday. The ships will receive a number of warnings as they begin to approach the Gaza Strip, starting from a distance of about 65 kilometers. If the ships are commandeered, they will be sailed to the Ashdod Port, where the government has set up tents to hold the activists.
The activists will be taken to the tents for identification and medical attention, and asked to leave the country voluntarily. If they refuse, they will be arrested and transferred to the custody of the Prisons Service and the Interior Ministry.
Gil Hoffman and AP contributed to this report
Comment: Regardless of your political party, can you honestly believe this is humanitarian in nature? When was the last humanitarian venture when they chanted anti-semitic comments, threats and curses while enroute to deliver "aide"-you don't think this is not being streamed to all the Arab countries? You do not understand this is strictly a photo op, waiting for their "15 seconds" to frame a photo or video clip "demonstrating Israeli brutality"-after all, they are unarmed. Ethically and morally, are you willing to abandon all of your belief in order to support this group?
Everything You Wanted to Know About Obama's National Security Doctrine But Were Afraid to Hear
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
Yes, children, there is an Obama Doctrine. The administration has now produced a National Security Strategy.
I’m tempted to say that in this document the Obama Administration does a Dr. Kevorkian on U.S. power. The White House wants to prove most of all that it isn’t the George W. Bush Administration but in doing so it also proves it isn’t the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush I, or even Clinton administration, too.Yes, the worldview looks good on paper, at least to those who put it together and the groupthink they represent. The main theme is that America is not a superpower. It is limited, and this circumscribed power requires bringing in lots of partners. Yet is this an accurate description of the situation or a unilateral dismantlement of American power and prestige? A throwing away of its ability to punish as well as reward, to deter enemies through intimidation?
Of course, every power has very distinct limits as to what it can do. The Vietnam and Iraq wars show that. But that has nothing to do with the need to show leadership. And leadership means putting forward a clear position that combines what a situation requires along with what it is possible to get others to support. To obtain the support of others sometimes requires pressure as well as empathy, flattery, and persuasion.
In a sense, the Obama Administration's strategy for getting sanctions against Iran did follow that pattern. But it also used too little pressure (look at how Turkey and Brazil behaved), too little speed, and a reluctance to move out in front and bid others to follow.
Oh, and a good strategy also involves acting as if you are stronger than you are sometimes. If you keep running yourself down your friends and enemies might believe you.
By understating what the United States can and should do--arguably in an equal and opposite way to how the Bush Administration overstated it--is, to put it bluntly, like placing a big "kick me!" sign on America's derriere. In relative terms, Reagan got it right for his time, Clinton came relatively close. Obama is getting it wrong at a time when doing so is very dangerous.
“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” Mr. Obama writes in the introduction to the strategy document. “Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”
Yet that point is missed. If you don't want all the burdens to fall on your own shoulders, you have to press others to do their job and pressure them when they don't do so. By giving up your power to push them, by just asking them politely for help and giving up too much of the initiative, you assure that they do less, not more.
Equally, you don’t overextend precisely so you can concentrate on what’s important, say, pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq to focus on containing Iran in a serious way. You don’t reduce commitments in order to abandon the remaining ones.
A lot of this Obama era world view is intended to counter all the things that the Obamites hate about George W. Bush. Yet while one can certainly argue Bush did not wisely use the resources of American power that doesn’t mean American power itself isn’t there. The remedy for excessive unilateralism isn’t excessive multilateralism, or of going from drawing friend/enemy lines too sharply to seeing them vanish entirely.
While there might be times or situations where such a response did little harm, the present day—with threats from revolutionary Islamism, an aggressive Iran-led alliance, anti-American leftists, and resurgent Russian and Chinese ambitious powers—makes the Obama Doctrine a very dangerous course indeed.
How can one not think of the historical precedent. World War One was bloody and horrible. So Britain and France wanted to avoid another conflict, thus appeasing Germany and ensuring that another world war happened.
Americans were horrified by the Vietnam War and thus became allergic to having a policy that was tough enough, thus leading to paralysis about dealing with the Iranian revolution and ensuing hostage crisis along with other problems.
What's needed is a smart and balanced policy, not more swings of the pendulum!
Obama argues that America faces no real military competitor at present and global power is increasingly diffuse. Yet these are likely to be temporary conditions. If there’s going to be a vacuum, there are a number of candidates eager to fill it. And his policy makes the emergence of such competitors more, rather than less, likely.
Moreover, Obama’s doctrine calling for bringing in potential competitors (and countries that are either enemies or troublesome) as partners is a case of hiring the foxes to guard the chicken coops. China and Russia, Iran and Syria, Brazil, Venezuela, and Turkey, among others, are naively seen as good buddies. Or, in the words of Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes: “We are deeply committed to broadening the circle of responsible actors.”
Think of that sentence. The United States cannot make these countries “responsible actors.” There’s a reason why responsible actors include countries like Britain, France, and Germany. And the fruit of this mistaken policy is the kind of thing we just saw with the Brazilian-Turkish stab in the back over Iran.
We’re going to be seeing a lot more of this.
Moreover, it isn't just a matter of being "responsible" but of analyzing the nature of regimes, their aims, and their self-perceived interests, too.
But reading this doctrine has allowed me to understand something I never fully grasped before. Why does the Obama Administration focus on engaging enemies? Because it is precisely, according to the Obama world view, the “bad boy” powers which must be appeased. After all, since the United States is conceived as weak and overextended, the ones threatening to disrupt everything are too strong to oppose, they must be coopted.
That is why "appeasement" is a correct word here, more than I ever realized before. These countries are being offered partnership from a standpoint of weakness, a situation in which even if their price is very high they must be paid off because there is no alternative. What saves the United States and perhaps the world here is that the real enemies (and neither China nor Russia belong in that category) are so confident and extremist that--as we have seen in Iran's case--they will inevitably set the price too high for even the Obama Administration to meet.
Imagine a Western town full of outlaws and with a weak sheriff. The sheriff can deputize the criminals in the belief that this would make them “responsible actors.” Of course, as you probably guess, they would use their badges to rob, rape, and murder even more effectively. Some of them--like China and Russia--will be more restrained. Others--like Iran and Syria--won't.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, following orders and perhaps biting her lip, explained the doctrine this way: “We are shifting from mostly direct application and exercise of American power to one of indirection, that requires patience and partners, and gets results more slowly….In a world like this, American leadership isn’t needed less, it is needed more. And the simple fact is that no global problem can be solved without us.”
Hillary, judging from the opposition to Iran nuclear weapons’ project, slowly seems to be never or, at best, much too late. How much will you pay your enemies to pretend to be partners? And suppose certain countries don’t want to solve global problems but merely to take advantage of them? Do they still need the United States?
That's why it is so important to study the words being spoken so closely. Just listen to that sentence again: "No global problem can be solved without us." Yet isn't this like saying, to pick an example, a British prime minister in 1938 saying: Peace in Europe cannot be preserved without us. The huge assumption here is that the other side shares your goals.
If Obama and his colleagues feel the United States is overextended, it is partly because they misidentify the threats and reject the best ways of dealing with them. Thus, the Doctrine says that nuclear weapons are the main threat to America, followed by climate change, dependence on fossil fuels, and cyber warfare.
This is dangerous claptrap. Without denying a threat posed by any of these, one could point out that there is no big threat from nuclear weapons (especially compared to the 1950-1990 period); that climate change as a threat is not yet proven nor is the ability of countries to do anything about it given the realistic options they have; that a combination of drilling and technology can deal with the energy problem; and that cyber warfare is still a very speculative threat.
Compare that with Iran taking over much of the Middle East; Russia rebuilding its empire, terrorism spreading in scope and intensity; and China gaining hegemony over large parts of Asia. I’m not saying those things are going to happen but they are greater threats than Obama’s list.
In a move that fully qualifies him for the Nobel Prize for Chutzpah, Obama warns that the high budget deficit is a major threat to U.S. strategic power. Since his policies have been so responsible for creating this problem and his administration shows no real sign of changing those policies one can only gasp at the audacity of this statement.
There’s a lot more of interest. The paper says:
“While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction.”
Sounds great. But how about the use of power politics, threats, leverage, sticks? Well, once you assert America is weak and overextended, how are you going to convince anyone that they better do what you want? Obama’s posture makes the idea of containing Iran, for example, unthinkable. Once you announce you have no teeth, your enemies will naturally conclude that your bark is worse than your bite.
“Indeed," Obama writes, "our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”
Yes, but those adversaries are equally happy to see you voluntarily throw away America's strength by denying it and hiring them to run the nursing home for what you see as a pitiful, helpless giant.
One day there might be another president who is neither a Bush nor an Obama, who will stand up straight, get rid of the wheelchair and canes, and say--to paraphrase Mark Twain--reports of America's demise are greatly exaggerated.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood.
Barry Rubin
Yes, children, there is an Obama Doctrine. The administration has now produced a National Security Strategy.
I’m tempted to say that in this document the Obama Administration does a Dr. Kevorkian on U.S. power. The White House wants to prove most of all that it isn’t the George W. Bush Administration but in doing so it also proves it isn’t the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush I, or even Clinton administration, too.Yes, the worldview looks good on paper, at least to those who put it together and the groupthink they represent. The main theme is that America is not a superpower. It is limited, and this circumscribed power requires bringing in lots of partners. Yet is this an accurate description of the situation or a unilateral dismantlement of American power and prestige? A throwing away of its ability to punish as well as reward, to deter enemies through intimidation?
Of course, every power has very distinct limits as to what it can do. The Vietnam and Iraq wars show that. But that has nothing to do with the need to show leadership. And leadership means putting forward a clear position that combines what a situation requires along with what it is possible to get others to support. To obtain the support of others sometimes requires pressure as well as empathy, flattery, and persuasion.
In a sense, the Obama Administration's strategy for getting sanctions against Iran did follow that pattern. But it also used too little pressure (look at how Turkey and Brazil behaved), too little speed, and a reluctance to move out in front and bid others to follow.
Oh, and a good strategy also involves acting as if you are stronger than you are sometimes. If you keep running yourself down your friends and enemies might believe you.
By understating what the United States can and should do--arguably in an equal and opposite way to how the Bush Administration overstated it--is, to put it bluntly, like placing a big "kick me!" sign on America's derriere. In relative terms, Reagan got it right for his time, Clinton came relatively close. Obama is getting it wrong at a time when doing so is very dangerous.
“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” Mr. Obama writes in the introduction to the strategy document. “Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”
Yet that point is missed. If you don't want all the burdens to fall on your own shoulders, you have to press others to do their job and pressure them when they don't do so. By giving up your power to push them, by just asking them politely for help and giving up too much of the initiative, you assure that they do less, not more.
Equally, you don’t overextend precisely so you can concentrate on what’s important, say, pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq to focus on containing Iran in a serious way. You don’t reduce commitments in order to abandon the remaining ones.
A lot of this Obama era world view is intended to counter all the things that the Obamites hate about George W. Bush. Yet while one can certainly argue Bush did not wisely use the resources of American power that doesn’t mean American power itself isn’t there. The remedy for excessive unilateralism isn’t excessive multilateralism, or of going from drawing friend/enemy lines too sharply to seeing them vanish entirely.
While there might be times or situations where such a response did little harm, the present day—with threats from revolutionary Islamism, an aggressive Iran-led alliance, anti-American leftists, and resurgent Russian and Chinese ambitious powers—makes the Obama Doctrine a very dangerous course indeed.
How can one not think of the historical precedent. World War One was bloody and horrible. So Britain and France wanted to avoid another conflict, thus appeasing Germany and ensuring that another world war happened.
Americans were horrified by the Vietnam War and thus became allergic to having a policy that was tough enough, thus leading to paralysis about dealing with the Iranian revolution and ensuing hostage crisis along with other problems.
What's needed is a smart and balanced policy, not more swings of the pendulum!
Obama argues that America faces no real military competitor at present and global power is increasingly diffuse. Yet these are likely to be temporary conditions. If there’s going to be a vacuum, there are a number of candidates eager to fill it. And his policy makes the emergence of such competitors more, rather than less, likely.
Moreover, Obama’s doctrine calling for bringing in potential competitors (and countries that are either enemies or troublesome) as partners is a case of hiring the foxes to guard the chicken coops. China and Russia, Iran and Syria, Brazil, Venezuela, and Turkey, among others, are naively seen as good buddies. Or, in the words of Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes: “We are deeply committed to broadening the circle of responsible actors.”
Think of that sentence. The United States cannot make these countries “responsible actors.” There’s a reason why responsible actors include countries like Britain, France, and Germany. And the fruit of this mistaken policy is the kind of thing we just saw with the Brazilian-Turkish stab in the back over Iran.
We’re going to be seeing a lot more of this.
Moreover, it isn't just a matter of being "responsible" but of analyzing the nature of regimes, their aims, and their self-perceived interests, too.
But reading this doctrine has allowed me to understand something I never fully grasped before. Why does the Obama Administration focus on engaging enemies? Because it is precisely, according to the Obama world view, the “bad boy” powers which must be appeased. After all, since the United States is conceived as weak and overextended, the ones threatening to disrupt everything are too strong to oppose, they must be coopted.
That is why "appeasement" is a correct word here, more than I ever realized before. These countries are being offered partnership from a standpoint of weakness, a situation in which even if their price is very high they must be paid off because there is no alternative. What saves the United States and perhaps the world here is that the real enemies (and neither China nor Russia belong in that category) are so confident and extremist that--as we have seen in Iran's case--they will inevitably set the price too high for even the Obama Administration to meet.
Imagine a Western town full of outlaws and with a weak sheriff. The sheriff can deputize the criminals in the belief that this would make them “responsible actors.” Of course, as you probably guess, they would use their badges to rob, rape, and murder even more effectively. Some of them--like China and Russia--will be more restrained. Others--like Iran and Syria--won't.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, following orders and perhaps biting her lip, explained the doctrine this way: “We are shifting from mostly direct application and exercise of American power to one of indirection, that requires patience and partners, and gets results more slowly….In a world like this, American leadership isn’t needed less, it is needed more. And the simple fact is that no global problem can be solved without us.”
Hillary, judging from the opposition to Iran nuclear weapons’ project, slowly seems to be never or, at best, much too late. How much will you pay your enemies to pretend to be partners? And suppose certain countries don’t want to solve global problems but merely to take advantage of them? Do they still need the United States?
That's why it is so important to study the words being spoken so closely. Just listen to that sentence again: "No global problem can be solved without us." Yet isn't this like saying, to pick an example, a British prime minister in 1938 saying: Peace in Europe cannot be preserved without us. The huge assumption here is that the other side shares your goals.
If Obama and his colleagues feel the United States is overextended, it is partly because they misidentify the threats and reject the best ways of dealing with them. Thus, the Doctrine says that nuclear weapons are the main threat to America, followed by climate change, dependence on fossil fuels, and cyber warfare.
This is dangerous claptrap. Without denying a threat posed by any of these, one could point out that there is no big threat from nuclear weapons (especially compared to the 1950-1990 period); that climate change as a threat is not yet proven nor is the ability of countries to do anything about it given the realistic options they have; that a combination of drilling and technology can deal with the energy problem; and that cyber warfare is still a very speculative threat.
Compare that with Iran taking over much of the Middle East; Russia rebuilding its empire, terrorism spreading in scope and intensity; and China gaining hegemony over large parts of Asia. I’m not saying those things are going to happen but they are greater threats than Obama’s list.
In a move that fully qualifies him for the Nobel Prize for Chutzpah, Obama warns that the high budget deficit is a major threat to U.S. strategic power. Since his policies have been so responsible for creating this problem and his administration shows no real sign of changing those policies one can only gasp at the audacity of this statement.
There’s a lot more of interest. The paper says:
“While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction.”
Sounds great. But how about the use of power politics, threats, leverage, sticks? Well, once you assert America is weak and overextended, how are you going to convince anyone that they better do what you want? Obama’s posture makes the idea of containing Iran, for example, unthinkable. Once you announce you have no teeth, your enemies will naturally conclude that your bark is worse than your bite.
“Indeed," Obama writes, "our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”
Yes, but those adversaries are equally happy to see you voluntarily throw away America's strength by denying it and hiring them to run the nursing home for what you see as a pitiful, helpless giant.
One day there might be another president who is neither a Bush nor an Obama, who will stand up straight, get rid of the wheelchair and canes, and say--to paraphrase Mark Twain--reports of America's demise are greatly exaggerated.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood.
The Storm Ahead
Daniel Gordis
THE JERUSALEM POST
In October 1994, several days after kidnapped IDF soldier Nachshon Wachsman was killed in a failed attempt to save him from his terrorist captors, I was scheduled to teach my weekly graduate seminar at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles. But given the horror of what had just transpired, I couldn’t even imagine simply teaching as planned. I no longer recall what had been scheduled for that day. But what I do remember is that I decided to scrap the usual fare and that I taught a text in memory of Wachsman.
As the seminar drew to a close, it was obviously quiet in the room. But just as the students were preparing to disperse, one looked at me and asked, “What does any of this have to do with us?” More than 15 years later, I can still picture that moment, frozen in time. I remember exactly where she was sitting. I recall the looks of discomfort on the faces of some of the other students, but the nods of agreement with her question from others. And I remember that I had no idea what to say.
And I remember feeling unbearably lonely and wholly out of place. Lonely because it was clear that she was not the only one wondering why in the world we were thinking about Nachshon Wachsman, when my own heart was breaking, and out of place because I had no idea how to engage those students in a conversation about why he mattered to me. I didn’t know where to begin.
What I didn’t know then, of course, was that a question that seemed to me an aberration would soon become the norm.
BUT IT has. Among young American Jews today, the public discourse has been captured by the intellectual and emotional heirs of that graduate student. Today’s is a generation of young American intellectuals and communal leaders without the instinctive bond to Israel that my generation possesses, even when Israel infuriates or embarrasses us. This is a generation of people like the talented writer Jay Michaelson, who wrote in The Forward, “I no longer want to feel entangled by [Israelis’] decisions and implicated in their consequences… count me out.”
Even in the moments of our greatest frustration with Israel, the people that I grew up with could never utter the words “count me out.”
Michaelson is but part of a massive wave. Prof. Jack Wertheimer, in presenting some preliminary findings from his newest study of American Jews (the specific figures are still being processed), noted a few weeks ago that most young American Jewish leaders (yes, leaders) “do not see Israel as central to Jewish identity and peoplehood.”
The evidence is virtually limitless. We’re witness to a tectonic shift in American Jewish life, but many people would rather ignore it than face the serious work that lies ahead. Thus, when I pointed out (“If this is our future,” Jerusalem Post, May 7) that following Brandeis University’s invitation to Ambassador Michael Oren to be its commencement speaker, the public discourse was captured by those opposed to his invitation, some people responded by pointing out the (obvious) fact that many Brandeis students (and probably the majority) supported the invitation. A petition in favor, signed by 5,000 people, was also reported. And a small number of articles in the Brandeis paper, opined one faculty person in a response to the Post, ought not be taken out of context. “Imagine someone telling you it’s pouring rain outside and you stick your head out the window and see there are just a couple of clouds in the sky,” he wrote.
But what we’re facing would be “just a couple of clouds in the sky” if the story that mattered was about Brandeis, which it obviously is not. Everyone knows that Jewish life on campus doesn’t get better than Jewish life at Brandeis. So why pretend that Brandeis is the issue? What is significant is that even at Brandeis, one of the crown jewels of American Jewish academe, as of the publication of my previous column, there had been four pieces in the student newspaper about the Oren invitation. The Justice’s official editorial and the head of the campus J Street chapter weighed in opposed. So, too, did a member of the computer science faculty. And a student representative to the Board of Trustees aimed to defend the invite by suggesting that Oren was being asked to campus not as a representative of the State of Israel, but as an academic.
WHY DOES any of this matter? Because in not one of these pieces did any of the four writers have a single positive thing to say about Israel. That, not Brandeis, is the story.
So instead of circling our wagons, seeking to convince ourselves that it’s not really raining and that there are only a few clouds in the sky, I propose that we ask ourselves a few basic questions: (1) Do we believe that the future of the Jewish people depends on what happens to Israel? (2) Do we believe that Israel can survive without strong and consistent support from the American Jewish community? (3) Given today’s younger generation, does a serious problem loom? (4) If we are facing a challenge, how did it arise? (5) And perhaps most importantly, what should be done?
To me it seems patently obvious that the secure, confident and creative Diaspora community that many American Jews now take for granted is directly dependent on a vital and flourishing State of Israel. Today’s young American Jewish leaders can neither recall nor imagine the days in which Jews hesitated to march on Capitol Hill, or the days in which one could not get a job on Wall Street wearing a kippa. That confidence is the product of Israel, and of the formative experiences that many American Jewish leaders have had in the Jewish state. The image of the Jew, no longer one of victim, but of utter confidence, was born in June 1967. In Israel.
Though many will disagree, it seems equally clear to me that were the State of Israel to be vanquished, the vibrant American Jewish life that we now too easily take for granted would wither away within a generation. And if that were to happen, the two great centers of world Jewry – Israel and America – would each essentially be gone.
And I believe that Israel’s military might, cultural flourishing, strength of spirit and more, important though they all are, are not sufficient to sustain the country. America’s support – financial, military and in the increasingly hostile court of international public opinion – is critical. Yet that support would be much endangered without an American Jewish leadership that instinctively feels deeply connected to Israel, that doesn’t ask, “What does any of this have to do with us?”
Today, we have that leadership. But the future is not as secure as many would like to believe. Nor is that future very far away.
SO HOW did this come to be? To be sure, Israel is partly at fault. It is notoriously horrendous at telling its own story, and has allowed those sworn on its destruction to capture world opinion. Nor has Israel been blameless in the interminable conflict with the Palestinians, of course. Israel alienates American Jewry with an anti-intellectual and often intolerant religious establishment. And the government still refuses to see the gradual distancing of young American Jews as a serious existential challenge, which it could become, if it isn’t one already.
But the responsibility for this widening fissure in world Jewish life cannot be attributed solely to Israel. Too many young American Jews have not been taught what they need to know to evaluate the conflict fairly. They know that they are opposed to the occupation, but they are much less clear on how the occupation began or what Israel has done in the past 43 years to seek to end it. Largely illiterate in Jewish texts or language, they are increasingly unaware of the cultural renaissance that Israel has made possible for Jews the world over.
Yet the problem is actually far more complex. At its core, the issue isn’t really Israel, or even American Jewish education. The real issue is the larger world in which today’s younger American (and Israeli) Jews live. Responding to Wertheimer’s study and the concerns it raised, Noam Pianko, a professor of Jewish history at the University of Washington, denied that there is a problem. As Gary Rosenblatt of the Jewish Week recently wrote, Pianko insisted that “boundaries don’t match the moment” of 21st-century America. His America, Pianko says, is “‘post-ethnic,’ symbolized by President Barack Obama, who he said represents racial fusion rather than division.”
Obama did not create this worldview; this Weltanschauung elected him. But Obama is perhaps the most eloquent spokesperson for this orientation, insisting, as he did in Cairo, that we ought not be “defined by our differences.”
Even if we set aside the obvious fact that it is precisely by pointing to differences that we define most things, Obama reflects the worldview that is shaping both young Americans and increasingly, young Israelis: Difference is not an ideal, but an unfortunate reality, best transcended whenever possible.
In such a world, it is no surprise that a successful young nation-state, which breathes new life into an ancient language, which fosters Jewish ingathering from across the globe and which enables a cultural regeneration unlike anything humanity has ever witnessed – a state which, in other words, celebrates difference – would be uncomfortable for many, and reviled by some.
All of which makes the challenge even greater. Because engendering the instinctive passion for Israel that many of us feel, and miss, requires swimming against the current of an intellectual culture now pervasive in America and much of the Western world. But Jewish history in general and Zionism in particular are proofs that the trends of Western civilization can be withstood, and even altered at times. The question facing us now is whether we plan to capitulate, or whether we’re willing to lace up our boots and enter the battle.
This will be no simple battle. But as Joshua said to the angel (Joshua 5:13), you are either with us or against us. Left versus Right, or Orthodox versus Reform are now secondary issues. What matters now is whether or not each individual, organization, movement, etc. sees defense of Israel’s absolute right to exist as a Jewish state as its foremost responsibility. Let all our differences abide. But let both leftists and hard-liners understand that today, they are not opponents, but rather partners, assuming that both are committed to Israel’s survival and to making the case for that survival day in and day out. The rest we can deal with down the road. For the moment, especially when any substantive chance for a peace deal seems remote, changing the Jewish conversation about Israel, and then the international conversation, is what matters most.
That will not be easy, but first we have to decide that that’s what we want to do. So let’s begin with honesty. We delude ourselves if we pretend that there are but a few clouds in the sky. The Jewish people will survive, and thrive, not by pretending that everything will magically work out, but rather by acknowledging the challenges that lie ahead, and by then bonding together and resolving to meet them head-on.
THE JERUSALEM POST
In October 1994, several days after kidnapped IDF soldier Nachshon Wachsman was killed in a failed attempt to save him from his terrorist captors, I was scheduled to teach my weekly graduate seminar at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles. But given the horror of what had just transpired, I couldn’t even imagine simply teaching as planned. I no longer recall what had been scheduled for that day. But what I do remember is that I decided to scrap the usual fare and that I taught a text in memory of Wachsman.
As the seminar drew to a close, it was obviously quiet in the room. But just as the students were preparing to disperse, one looked at me and asked, “What does any of this have to do with us?” More than 15 years later, I can still picture that moment, frozen in time. I remember exactly where she was sitting. I recall the looks of discomfort on the faces of some of the other students, but the nods of agreement with her question from others. And I remember that I had no idea what to say.
And I remember feeling unbearably lonely and wholly out of place. Lonely because it was clear that she was not the only one wondering why in the world we were thinking about Nachshon Wachsman, when my own heart was breaking, and out of place because I had no idea how to engage those students in a conversation about why he mattered to me. I didn’t know where to begin.
What I didn’t know then, of course, was that a question that seemed to me an aberration would soon become the norm.
BUT IT has. Among young American Jews today, the public discourse has been captured by the intellectual and emotional heirs of that graduate student. Today’s is a generation of young American intellectuals and communal leaders without the instinctive bond to Israel that my generation possesses, even when Israel infuriates or embarrasses us. This is a generation of people like the talented writer Jay Michaelson, who wrote in The Forward, “I no longer want to feel entangled by [Israelis’] decisions and implicated in their consequences… count me out.”
Even in the moments of our greatest frustration with Israel, the people that I grew up with could never utter the words “count me out.”
Michaelson is but part of a massive wave. Prof. Jack Wertheimer, in presenting some preliminary findings from his newest study of American Jews (the specific figures are still being processed), noted a few weeks ago that most young American Jewish leaders (yes, leaders) “do not see Israel as central to Jewish identity and peoplehood.”
The evidence is virtually limitless. We’re witness to a tectonic shift in American Jewish life, but many people would rather ignore it than face the serious work that lies ahead. Thus, when I pointed out (“If this is our future,” Jerusalem Post, May 7) that following Brandeis University’s invitation to Ambassador Michael Oren to be its commencement speaker, the public discourse was captured by those opposed to his invitation, some people responded by pointing out the (obvious) fact that many Brandeis students (and probably the majority) supported the invitation. A petition in favor, signed by 5,000 people, was also reported. And a small number of articles in the Brandeis paper, opined one faculty person in a response to the Post, ought not be taken out of context. “Imagine someone telling you it’s pouring rain outside and you stick your head out the window and see there are just a couple of clouds in the sky,” he wrote.
But what we’re facing would be “just a couple of clouds in the sky” if the story that mattered was about Brandeis, which it obviously is not. Everyone knows that Jewish life on campus doesn’t get better than Jewish life at Brandeis. So why pretend that Brandeis is the issue? What is significant is that even at Brandeis, one of the crown jewels of American Jewish academe, as of the publication of my previous column, there had been four pieces in the student newspaper about the Oren invitation. The Justice’s official editorial and the head of the campus J Street chapter weighed in opposed. So, too, did a member of the computer science faculty. And a student representative to the Board of Trustees aimed to defend the invite by suggesting that Oren was being asked to campus not as a representative of the State of Israel, but as an academic.
WHY DOES any of this matter? Because in not one of these pieces did any of the four writers have a single positive thing to say about Israel. That, not Brandeis, is the story.
So instead of circling our wagons, seeking to convince ourselves that it’s not really raining and that there are only a few clouds in the sky, I propose that we ask ourselves a few basic questions: (1) Do we believe that the future of the Jewish people depends on what happens to Israel? (2) Do we believe that Israel can survive without strong and consistent support from the American Jewish community? (3) Given today’s younger generation, does a serious problem loom? (4) If we are facing a challenge, how did it arise? (5) And perhaps most importantly, what should be done?
To me it seems patently obvious that the secure, confident and creative Diaspora community that many American Jews now take for granted is directly dependent on a vital and flourishing State of Israel. Today’s young American Jewish leaders can neither recall nor imagine the days in which Jews hesitated to march on Capitol Hill, or the days in which one could not get a job on Wall Street wearing a kippa. That confidence is the product of Israel, and of the formative experiences that many American Jewish leaders have had in the Jewish state. The image of the Jew, no longer one of victim, but of utter confidence, was born in June 1967. In Israel.
Though many will disagree, it seems equally clear to me that were the State of Israel to be vanquished, the vibrant American Jewish life that we now too easily take for granted would wither away within a generation. And if that were to happen, the two great centers of world Jewry – Israel and America – would each essentially be gone.
And I believe that Israel’s military might, cultural flourishing, strength of spirit and more, important though they all are, are not sufficient to sustain the country. America’s support – financial, military and in the increasingly hostile court of international public opinion – is critical. Yet that support would be much endangered without an American Jewish leadership that instinctively feels deeply connected to Israel, that doesn’t ask, “What does any of this have to do with us?”
Today, we have that leadership. But the future is not as secure as many would like to believe. Nor is that future very far away.
SO HOW did this come to be? To be sure, Israel is partly at fault. It is notoriously horrendous at telling its own story, and has allowed those sworn on its destruction to capture world opinion. Nor has Israel been blameless in the interminable conflict with the Palestinians, of course. Israel alienates American Jewry with an anti-intellectual and often intolerant religious establishment. And the government still refuses to see the gradual distancing of young American Jews as a serious existential challenge, which it could become, if it isn’t one already.
But the responsibility for this widening fissure in world Jewish life cannot be attributed solely to Israel. Too many young American Jews have not been taught what they need to know to evaluate the conflict fairly. They know that they are opposed to the occupation, but they are much less clear on how the occupation began or what Israel has done in the past 43 years to seek to end it. Largely illiterate in Jewish texts or language, they are increasingly unaware of the cultural renaissance that Israel has made possible for Jews the world over.
Yet the problem is actually far more complex. At its core, the issue isn’t really Israel, or even American Jewish education. The real issue is the larger world in which today’s younger American (and Israeli) Jews live. Responding to Wertheimer’s study and the concerns it raised, Noam Pianko, a professor of Jewish history at the University of Washington, denied that there is a problem. As Gary Rosenblatt of the Jewish Week recently wrote, Pianko insisted that “boundaries don’t match the moment” of 21st-century America. His America, Pianko says, is “‘post-ethnic,’ symbolized by President Barack Obama, who he said represents racial fusion rather than division.”
Obama did not create this worldview; this Weltanschauung elected him. But Obama is perhaps the most eloquent spokesperson for this orientation, insisting, as he did in Cairo, that we ought not be “defined by our differences.”
Even if we set aside the obvious fact that it is precisely by pointing to differences that we define most things, Obama reflects the worldview that is shaping both young Americans and increasingly, young Israelis: Difference is not an ideal, but an unfortunate reality, best transcended whenever possible.
In such a world, it is no surprise that a successful young nation-state, which breathes new life into an ancient language, which fosters Jewish ingathering from across the globe and which enables a cultural regeneration unlike anything humanity has ever witnessed – a state which, in other words, celebrates difference – would be uncomfortable for many, and reviled by some.
All of which makes the challenge even greater. Because engendering the instinctive passion for Israel that many of us feel, and miss, requires swimming against the current of an intellectual culture now pervasive in America and much of the Western world. But Jewish history in general and Zionism in particular are proofs that the trends of Western civilization can be withstood, and even altered at times. The question facing us now is whether we plan to capitulate, or whether we’re willing to lace up our boots and enter the battle.
This will be no simple battle. But as Joshua said to the angel (Joshua 5:13), you are either with us or against us. Left versus Right, or Orthodox versus Reform are now secondary issues. What matters now is whether or not each individual, organization, movement, etc. sees defense of Israel’s absolute right to exist as a Jewish state as its foremost responsibility. Let all our differences abide. But let both leftists and hard-liners understand that today, they are not opponents, but rather partners, assuming that both are committed to Israel’s survival and to making the case for that survival day in and day out. The rest we can deal with down the road. For the moment, especially when any substantive chance for a peace deal seems remote, changing the Jewish conversation about Israel, and then the international conversation, is what matters most.
That will not be easy, but first we have to decide that that’s what we want to do. So let’s begin with honesty. We delude ourselves if we pretend that there are but a few clouds in the sky. The Jewish people will survive, and thrive, not by pretending that everything will magically work out, but rather by acknowledging the challenges that lie ahead, and by then bonding together and resolving to meet them head-on.
‘Perfect Timing’ for Netanyahu in Toronto ‘Walk for Israel’
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu joins Toronto’s Walk for Israel Sunday in what his spokesman said is "perfect timing" for the first Israeli prime ministerial visit to Ottawa in 16 years. The last Israeli prime minister to visit Canada was Yitzchak Rabin in 1994.
The timing is perfect," said Amir Gissin, Israel's consul general in Toronto. "Today Canada is a very close friend of Israel, with both a friendly government and opposition; we just had the premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, in Israel." McGuinty's visit focused on increasing trade with Israel but also included a meeting with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
The enthusiastic welcome expected in Canada will give Prime Minister Netanyahu a positive send-off for his quick visit to U.S. President Barack Obama later in the week and in the wake of the American president’s departure from a 40-year U.S. policy not to pressure Israel to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s planned participation in the march has thrilled the country’s Jewish community, and B’nai Brith Canada is publishing full-page national advertisements thanking Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his support for Israel. The ads also call on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to ensure that Jerusalem remains the eternal undivided capital of the Jewish State.
Frank Dimant, B’nai Brith Canada’s Executive Vice President, noted “the pressure being applied by the Obama Administration on Prime Minister Netanyahu to make concessions to the divided and uncompromising Palestinian factions….The Israeli Prime Minister will be heading to a meeting with President Obama right after his trip to Canada, so it is important that he understands that his position for a united Jerusalem is supported by Jews around the world.”
Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of the Canada-Israel Committee, stated, "Iran represents the most pressing threat to global security today. The international community cannot allow itself to be distracted from addressing the threat Iran represents, not just to Israel or to regional stability - but in a very real sense to Canada and Canadians both at home and abroad.”
The Canadian Conservative government has been a staunch supporter of Israel since taking office in 2006. "I welcome the opportunity to spend time with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a leader of vision and conviction and a great friend of Israel and a champion of peace," Prime Minister Netanyahu said before arriving Friday for a four-day visit. "The friendship between Israel and Canada is exceptionally warm. We are sister democracies that seek peace with security, progress and prosperity."
"What Netanyahu is trying to do is cement the base," said Dr, David Bercuson, the director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and author of Canada and the Birth of Israel. The Al Jazeera satellite network quoted him as saying, "The Israeli diplomatic position is deteriorating and he's trying to keep the stalwarts in place."
Canada was the first country in the world to boycott the de facto Hamas government in Gaza in 2006 when it forced out the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in a militia coup. "Not a red cent to Hamas," said then-Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay.
Canada also stood four-square behind Israel’s retaliatory actions in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. "I think Israel's response under the circumstances has been measured," Prime Minister Harper said at the time. He called Hizbullah and Hamas “genocidal.”
Portrait of IHH
Col.(Ret.)Jonathan Fighel2
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
1. Prominent among the coalition organizations participating in the aid flotilla scheduled to arrive in the Gaza Strip in the coming days is the Turkish IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi, IHH, “humanitarian relief fund”). It is a radical Islamic organization which was established in 1992 and formally registered in Istanbul in 1995. 2. Already back in 1996,the organization was identified by the CIA as a radical Islamic humanitarian organization bearing the name of INTERNATIONAL HUMANITAIRE HILFSORGANIZATION (IHH) A.K.A International Humanitarian Relief Organization, whose main offices were located in Zagreb and Sarajevo, its Headquarters in Germany, established by a member of the Turkish Refah Party. The CIA report mentioned that the organization was at that time in connections with Extremist groups in Iran and Algeria.
3. The January 1996 CIA report" “International Islamic NGOs” and links to terrorism" was declassified by the USA government after September 2001 Al Qaeda attacks in the USA as part of the government trails against captured Al Qaeda members facing trails in the US. The report portrays a large number of identified Islamic organizations linked to radical Islamic groups.
4. The CIA report deals with the charities and their involvement in terrorism in the context of the conflict situation at that time in Bosnia, where aiding Muslims in distress was an Islamic religious duty. Islamic activists dominate the leadership of the largest charities, and prominent members of some smaller organizations have been identified as extremists. The main objectives of these organizations include proselytizing, helping the needy, and defending Muslim communities from enemies. Where Muslims are engaged in armed conflict, some Islamic organizations provide military aid as part of a "humanitarian" package.
5. The entire major and most of the minor Islamic charities were significant players in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in aiding Bosnian Muslims. Their contributions represent a significant proportion of humanitarian aid in Bosnia. According to the US embassy in Riyadh, Saudi nationals alone gave $150 million through Islamic NGOs for aid to Bosnia in 1994. Most of the offices of NGOs active in Bosnia are located in Zagreb, Sarajevo, Zenica, and Tuzla. Their field operations appear to be confined to the Muslim areas of Northeastern and Central Bosnia.
6. The CIA report identified INTERNATIONAL HUMANITAIRE HILFSORGANIZATION (IHH) as part of 15 organizations that employed members or otherwise facilitate the activities of terrorist groups operating in Bosnia. Some Islamic NGOs, not included in the list, have terrorist connections outside of the Balkans.
7. It should be noted that a small [art of the charities mentioned in the report were designated by the USA after the 1998 embassies bombings in Africa and the majority of them were designated only after 9/11.
8. Strangely enough, the IHH is not designated by the USA and was designated by Israel only in 2008 due to its connections with Hamas and its fronts within the Union of Good umbrella organization which was outlawed including its 36 affiliated associations.
1 Follow-up to ITIC Bulletin : "IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation. Besides its legitimate philanthropic activities, it supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas, and at least in the past, even global jihad elements" (May 26, 2010).
2 Col.(Ret.) Jonathan Fighel is a Senior Researcher in the International Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), IDC
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
1. Prominent among the coalition organizations participating in the aid flotilla scheduled to arrive in the Gaza Strip in the coming days is the Turkish IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi, IHH, “humanitarian relief fund”). It is a radical Islamic organization which was established in 1992 and formally registered in Istanbul in 1995. 2. Already back in 1996,the organization was identified by the CIA as a radical Islamic humanitarian organization bearing the name of INTERNATIONAL HUMANITAIRE HILFSORGANIZATION (IHH) A.K.A International Humanitarian Relief Organization, whose main offices were located in Zagreb and Sarajevo, its Headquarters in Germany, established by a member of the Turkish Refah Party. The CIA report mentioned that the organization was at that time in connections with Extremist groups in Iran and Algeria.
3. The January 1996 CIA report" “International Islamic NGOs” and links to terrorism" was declassified by the USA government after September 2001 Al Qaeda attacks in the USA as part of the government trails against captured Al Qaeda members facing trails in the US. The report portrays a large number of identified Islamic organizations linked to radical Islamic groups.
4. The CIA report deals with the charities and their involvement in terrorism in the context of the conflict situation at that time in Bosnia, where aiding Muslims in distress was an Islamic religious duty. Islamic activists dominate the leadership of the largest charities, and prominent members of some smaller organizations have been identified as extremists. The main objectives of these organizations include proselytizing, helping the needy, and defending Muslim communities from enemies. Where Muslims are engaged in armed conflict, some Islamic organizations provide military aid as part of a "humanitarian" package.
5. The entire major and most of the minor Islamic charities were significant players in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in aiding Bosnian Muslims. Their contributions represent a significant proportion of humanitarian aid in Bosnia. According to the US embassy in Riyadh, Saudi nationals alone gave $150 million through Islamic NGOs for aid to Bosnia in 1994. Most of the offices of NGOs active in Bosnia are located in Zagreb, Sarajevo, Zenica, and Tuzla. Their field operations appear to be confined to the Muslim areas of Northeastern and Central Bosnia.
6. The CIA report identified INTERNATIONAL HUMANITAIRE HILFSORGANIZATION (IHH) as part of 15 organizations that employed members or otherwise facilitate the activities of terrorist groups operating in Bosnia. Some Islamic NGOs, not included in the list, have terrorist connections outside of the Balkans.
7. It should be noted that a small [art of the charities mentioned in the report were designated by the USA after the 1998 embassies bombings in Africa and the majority of them were designated only after 9/11.
8. Strangely enough, the IHH is not designated by the USA and was designated by Israel only in 2008 due to its connections with Hamas and its fronts within the Union of Good umbrella organization which was outlawed including its 36 affiliated associations.
1 Follow-up to ITIC Bulletin : "IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation. Besides its legitimate philanthropic activities, it supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas, and at least in the past, even global jihad elements" (May 26, 2010).
2 Col.(Ret.) Jonathan Fighel is a Senior Researcher in the International Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), IDC
Gates’ Billion Dollar Leftism, Part Three: Tax Shelter or Philanthropy?
Michelle Horstman
On Rush Limbaugh’s show of May 28th, he spent a great deal of time talking about how the progressive elite use foundations. He was responding to Hillary Clinton’s call for the wealthy to pay more in taxes and be more like Brazil (apparently, our new role model.) Rush suggested that Hillary did not have to worry about paying these taxes herself, as they have a lot of money tucked away in their foundations where they will not be taxed. This is just another problem with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to consider, along with all the other mega foundations, and it’s a pretty big one. Although it would be unfair to accuse them of forming a foundation for financial reasons only, it sure doesn’t hurt. By doing this, you are in essence withholding taxes and seeing that it is spent in the way you want it spent. That sounds like a better gig than the Federal Reserve even has!
My focus in writing this series is to consider the progressive and perhaps even irresponsible areas where huge amounts of foundation money are going, rather than being taxed, and the effects it can have on everyone. Of course, eliminating tax deductions across the board and going with a flat tax would wreak havoc on this scheme, which may be a big reason why you never see any action on a flat or fair tax structure.
I think most would agree that the big foundations are both tax shelters and philanthropic. You have to consider, though, whether you want to continue to allow the progressive elite to divert millions of tax free dollars into their pet causes and candidates, especially in these tough economic times. As we lose more and more control, those in power will gain more and more through increased taxes on the average Joe and control of foundation money. They don’t necessarily have to be elected to run your life.
In Part Four, we’ll take a look at the Gates support for the huge, worldwide microloan scheme.
On Rush Limbaugh’s show of May 28th, he spent a great deal of time talking about how the progressive elite use foundations. He was responding to Hillary Clinton’s call for the wealthy to pay more in taxes and be more like Brazil (apparently, our new role model.) Rush suggested that Hillary did not have to worry about paying these taxes herself, as they have a lot of money tucked away in their foundations where they will not be taxed. This is just another problem with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to consider, along with all the other mega foundations, and it’s a pretty big one. Although it would be unfair to accuse them of forming a foundation for financial reasons only, it sure doesn’t hurt. By doing this, you are in essence withholding taxes and seeing that it is spent in the way you want it spent. That sounds like a better gig than the Federal Reserve even has!
My focus in writing this series is to consider the progressive and perhaps even irresponsible areas where huge amounts of foundation money are going, rather than being taxed, and the effects it can have on everyone. Of course, eliminating tax deductions across the board and going with a flat tax would wreak havoc on this scheme, which may be a big reason why you never see any action on a flat or fair tax structure.
I think most would agree that the big foundations are both tax shelters and philanthropic. You have to consider, though, whether you want to continue to allow the progressive elite to divert millions of tax free dollars into their pet causes and candidates, especially in these tough economic times. As we lose more and more control, those in power will gain more and more through increased taxes on the average Joe and control of foundation money. They don’t necessarily have to be elected to run your life.
In Part Four, we’ll take a look at the Gates support for the huge, worldwide microloan scheme.
An Open Marketplace of Ideas?
Daniel Greenfield
Last week, just in time for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, Apple decided to ban iSlam Muhammad, an app that featured some rather revealing passages in the Koran. Meanwhile Apple chose to leave in place BibleThumper, an app that attacked the bible. Of course those very same Koranic quotes can be found in the numerous Koran apps created by Muslims. But the double standard doesn't stop there. Before that Apple had decided to ban a campaign App by California congressional candidate Ari David, which criticized his opponent, Congressman Henry Waxman, for being "defamatory". But naturally you can find Robert Gibbs' latest "defamatory" statements on the White House App.
This shouldn't be particularly surprising as Apple does have Al Gore as one of its board members. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is a Democratic donor who has contributed to Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi. Apple fields one of the largest lobbying efforts among computer companies, spending 1.5 million over the last few years. Not only is Apple not politically neutral, it's decidedly left of central. And it controls one of the largest mobile platforms. Its ability to censor a political App from Ari David, but not from Barack Obama is a thing that has decided implications for the future of an open marketplace of ideas.
Apple's Developer License Agreement gives it the power to censor "offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind" or any "other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod Touch users." Apple has been known to disable or "Brick" the iPhones of users who attempt to bypass its control. And now that Apple is aggressively getting into the book and magazine business with its new iPad, the troubling idea that Rahm Emanuel's donor and Al Gore will be deciding what people can or can't read takes on new meaning.
So when Apple decided that the following statement in Ari David's app, "(Waxman) Supported Cap & Trade legislation that would have brought us $7 a gallon gas and as President Obama has stated would make electricity rates “necessarily sky rocket” was defamatory, it was passing judgment on political speech. And determining what political content would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. Robert Gibbs' regular put downs will apparently pass. Ari David's policy oriented criticism of Waxman won't. Similarly anti-war radical Adam Kokesh's App was allowed through, even though he's running as a sham Republican. Or perhaps because of that.
The problem is not limited to just Apple. Facebook responding to the boycotts and death threats coming out of Pakistan, by pulling the Facebook page for Everybody Draw Mohammed, proving that while it may be a useful organizing tool, it is also highly vulnerable to being censored. The same goes for YouTube which has taken down many videos, including Michelle Malkin's and videos questioning Islamic violence. There are numerous similar examples of political censorship, whether out of fear or bias, no one but those on the inside can even begin to say. The larger problem is that the censorship does indeed exist.
Many of these same companies very badly want the government to step in and protect their business model with Net Neutrality, yet while they believe that the government should compel cable and other broadband providers to give them open access to their customers and data sources, they don't have any intention of returning that same favor to their users. This inconsistency between actions and demands also makes it impossible to trust them.
If Apple cannot tolerate a campaign App which criticizes a congressman for wanting to make vitamins, over the counter only, what sort of political speech can it tolerate? With something like 30 million iPhone users out there, the question is both timely and troubling. The technology we use today has empowered a New Media, but if large companies such as Apple insist on turning their platforms into gated communities, then the same old struggle has to begin again.
Ayatollahs and Mullahs don't need to cross out the Bill of Rights and draw the Sharia code of Islamic law over it, if Facebook and YouTube will willingly do it for them. Selective censorship of political speech means that the censors, both the actual censors and those who demand that they do the censoring, control the nature of the speech, closing the door on an open marketplace of ideas, and turning back the clock on the same top down media environment in which we have the right to listen or hit the OFF button.
Yet these same companies which have benefited from an open environment, both that of ideas and free enterprise, might wish to reconsider going down the same dead road that their media predecessors followed. Censorship lock those who censor into an inflexible mode, as by shutting down contradictory ideas, they also kill their own ability to react, adapt and change in response to new information. In essence they destroy the very elements that allowed them to be creative and succeed in the first place.
Update: Apple has conceded and has approved Ari David's app. But the questions raised here still remain.
Last week, just in time for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, Apple decided to ban iSlam Muhammad, an app that featured some rather revealing passages in the Koran. Meanwhile Apple chose to leave in place BibleThumper, an app that attacked the bible. Of course those very same Koranic quotes can be found in the numerous Koran apps created by Muslims. But the double standard doesn't stop there. Before that Apple had decided to ban a campaign App by California congressional candidate Ari David, which criticized his opponent, Congressman Henry Waxman, for being "defamatory". But naturally you can find Robert Gibbs' latest "defamatory" statements on the White House App.
This shouldn't be particularly surprising as Apple does have Al Gore as one of its board members. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is a Democratic donor who has contributed to Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi. Apple fields one of the largest lobbying efforts among computer companies, spending 1.5 million over the last few years. Not only is Apple not politically neutral, it's decidedly left of central. And it controls one of the largest mobile platforms. Its ability to censor a political App from Ari David, but not from Barack Obama is a thing that has decided implications for the future of an open marketplace of ideas.
Apple's Developer License Agreement gives it the power to censor "offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind" or any "other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod Touch users." Apple has been known to disable or "Brick" the iPhones of users who attempt to bypass its control. And now that Apple is aggressively getting into the book and magazine business with its new iPad, the troubling idea that Rahm Emanuel's donor and Al Gore will be deciding what people can or can't read takes on new meaning.
So when Apple decided that the following statement in Ari David's app, "(Waxman) Supported Cap & Trade legislation that would have brought us $7 a gallon gas and as President Obama has stated would make electricity rates “necessarily sky rocket” was defamatory, it was passing judgment on political speech. And determining what political content would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. Robert Gibbs' regular put downs will apparently pass. Ari David's policy oriented criticism of Waxman won't. Similarly anti-war radical Adam Kokesh's App was allowed through, even though he's running as a sham Republican. Or perhaps because of that.
The problem is not limited to just Apple. Facebook responding to the boycotts and death threats coming out of Pakistan, by pulling the Facebook page for Everybody Draw Mohammed, proving that while it may be a useful organizing tool, it is also highly vulnerable to being censored. The same goes for YouTube which has taken down many videos, including Michelle Malkin's and videos questioning Islamic violence. There are numerous similar examples of political censorship, whether out of fear or bias, no one but those on the inside can even begin to say. The larger problem is that the censorship does indeed exist.
Many of these same companies very badly want the government to step in and protect their business model with Net Neutrality, yet while they believe that the government should compel cable and other broadband providers to give them open access to their customers and data sources, they don't have any intention of returning that same favor to their users. This inconsistency between actions and demands also makes it impossible to trust them.
If Apple cannot tolerate a campaign App which criticizes a congressman for wanting to make vitamins, over the counter only, what sort of political speech can it tolerate? With something like 30 million iPhone users out there, the question is both timely and troubling. The technology we use today has empowered a New Media, but if large companies such as Apple insist on turning their platforms into gated communities, then the same old struggle has to begin again.
Ayatollahs and Mullahs don't need to cross out the Bill of Rights and draw the Sharia code of Islamic law over it, if Facebook and YouTube will willingly do it for them. Selective censorship of political speech means that the censors, both the actual censors and those who demand that they do the censoring, control the nature of the speech, closing the door on an open marketplace of ideas, and turning back the clock on the same top down media environment in which we have the right to listen or hit the OFF button.
Yet these same companies which have benefited from an open environment, both that of ideas and free enterprise, might wish to reconsider going down the same dead road that their media predecessors followed. Censorship lock those who censor into an inflexible mode, as by shutting down contradictory ideas, they also kill their own ability to react, adapt and change in response to new information. In essence they destroy the very elements that allowed them to be creative and succeed in the first place.
Update: Apple has conceded and has approved Ari David's app. But the questions raised here still remain.
South Lebanon Will Be Liberated from Hezb'allah
Charbel Barakat
Last Sunday was the tenth anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from what was used to be known as the "security zone." That day, following the instructions of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack, all Israeli units operating north of the borders inside Lebanese territories were pulled back inside Israeli territories. According to Barack, it was in implementation of the UNSCR 425, issued in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon in response to PLO attacks across the borders then. So in the year 2000, 23 years after it entered the country to fight its enemies, Israel's government decided to pull its troops back from Lebanon abruptly. Barack at the time said he was complying with U.N. resolutions and that he expected that no threat will come from Lebanon anymore. That was the Israeli version of the Labor Government then. But as IDF forces were pulling back, Iranian-backed Hezb'allah militias were entering every single village and town evacuated by the Israelis. According to Hassan Nasrallah, the commander of Hezb'allah, Israel withdrew because of the strikes by the so-called "resistance," which in fact was the Iranian-backed militia. The Hezb'allah story is that southern Lebanon was occupied by the Israelis, who had a proxy militia known as South Lebanon Army. And that Hezb'allah struggled to liberate the land from its Zionist occupiers.
However, there is a third version. It rejects the first two, and it claims it represents the struggle of the people of southern Lebanon, who struggled against Terror and were removed from their ancestral lands -- because of Ehud Barack's policies on the one hand and the abandonment of the West of Lebanon last resisting free people against the hordes of Hezb'allah and their Iranian and Syrian backers on the other. Unfortunately, the third story has no tellers these days. Barack has Israel's media at his service so that he can boast about his betrayal of southern Lebanon and his own Israeli people, and Nasrallah has his Iranian-funded media to claim his victories against the populations who resisted him in southern Lebanon.
A decade after the betrayal of the people of south Lebanon, the truth is going to be blanched. It will take time for the witnesses of that drama to share the facts with the world opinion, but it will happen no matter what.
The population of the so-called "security zone" are Lebanese citizens who had suffered at the hands of Palestinian terror groups since the 1970s and at the hands of Hezb'allah since the 1980s. They are the sons and daughters of the land for centuries. The forces of the PLO then and the Iranian Revolutionary guards are foreign occupation. Israel entered Lebanon twice, first in 1978 and again in 1982, to strike back against Terror forces shelling its territories from inside Lebanon's territories. The Lebanese citizens living in the border towns wanted the Lebanese Army only -- not the Israelis, and certainly the Terror forces. But Lebanon's government had collapsed in 1975, and as of 1990, it was controlled by Syria. The populations of the south had no choice, not one, except to accept aid and support from Israel's occupation forces. To be clear, between the Terrorists and barbarians, who were slaughtering civilians and aiming at establishing a jihadi regime, and the forces of the state of Israel, an ally to the United States and at Peace with Egypt and Jordan, the choice was made against Hezb'allah and the Syrian-Iranian axis.
The South Lebanon Army under control by Israel was far better than ending up in the detention camps of the Iranian Pasdaran or in the torture centers of Hezb'allah and Syria. Hence, a large segment of the population of south Lebanon -- Christian, Druse, Shia, and Sunnis -- adhered to the SLA and stood by Israel's forces as a common front against the Terrorists. Israel's successive governments stood in solidarity with the people of south Lebanon. A brotherhood between the IDF and the SLA was the cornerstone of the common defense against Hezb'allah and Syria.
South Lebanon's civil society would have preferred to be under the direct protection of the UNIFIL, a U.N. force dispatched to protect the peace and the local population as of 1978. But UNIFIL's bureaucrats refused to take the southern Lebanese under their auspices, leaving them to strive for themselves. The SLA and the local populations did the right thing to defend themselves, and they did so under international law, which grants them the right to fight for survival, hoping that when the Israelis wanted to leave, they would allow them to defend themselves and seek U.N. protection.
In 2000, then-Israeli Prime Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barack betrayed an Israeli tradition of solidarity with the SLA and an Israeli natural friendship with the southern Lebanese. He ordered not only the abrupt withdrawal of IDF from the security zone, but also a dismantlement of the SLA. All the southern Lebanese population wanted as villagers living on their ancestral lands was to defend it until they are free or die trying. Barack took away their most sacred right: the right to resist. He ordered his forces to shut off the borders as south Lebanon's border populations were disarmed and about to be overwhelmed by the jihadi barbarians. We know that a majority of the Israeli people was frustrated by that move, and we know that many in the IDF resented Barack's stab in the back of the only population in the Middle East that actually stood by the Jewish people of Israel.
The southern Lebanese were forced to march during the night in a dishonorable exodus into Israel. In one night, Barack and his political allies in government and abroad killed the last free enclave in Lebanon. In one night, he invited Hezb'allah to the international borders. In one night, he terminated the only fighting force that was shedding blood shoulder to shoulder with the IDF in defending that part of the Middle East against the jihadi Terrorists. He took out the only friendship that could have told the world that Israel itself should not be betrayed or abandoned because it has not betrayed its own allies.
Unfortunately, Barack's reckless stab in the back of Israel's only allies in the Middle East opened the path for the jihadist forces to surround Israel further from the north and from the south. Few months later, the Aqsa intifada was shattering the myth of invincibility in Israel, and from there on, Israel is alone in a region filled with hatred. Barack took away the southern Lebanese's own ability to testify that Israel was doing good in the region -- it was protecting its small and weak neighbors in southern Lebanon.
Today, when Israel's image is assaulted by the lethal propaganda machine of the Iranian petrodollars worldwide and in the United States, and anti-Semitism is running high in Western capitals, the only underdogs who would have testified to the world that Israel was defending Christians, Druse, Shia, and Sunni in that free enclave of Lebanon -- these underdogs uprooted from their homes and lands because of the arrogance of a few politicians who thought they had it figured out -- cannot testify to save the honor of their former allies. Blame former Prime Minister Barack and his elitist friends in Israel and the United States for that.
That had to be said, and it will be repeated as long as needed until some courageous leaders in Israel and the United States apologize to the population of southern Lebanon for what was done to them. History is unique in the ways it sends its messages. Three months after abandoning the people of south Lebanon in May 2000, Israel was hit by a jihadi war that has not stopped since, neither across the Lebanese borders nor across the frontiers of Gaza. And one year after that, America was hit by the beast of terror on 9/11. Abandoning the small villages of southern Lebanon to the jihadists didn't appease them. To the contrary, it emboldened them. We hope the free world learned the lesson.
However, we do know that the majority of Israelis does not believe in Barack's pragmatic miscalculations, and they do want a friendship with their neighbors from the north. Naturally, it would have been better to have an SLA fending off the Iranian waves of assault than having the enemy roaming on the borders. Now they have to deal with Hassan Nasrallah's forty thousand missiles to the north, Assad's chemical forces, Hamas terror from the south, and Ahmadinejad's forthcoming nukes. Had Israel not dismantled the southern Lebanese resistance against terror, Hezb'allah would have been opposed by a stubborn indigenous force locally to reckon with. Let's see if Israel's basic instincts will correct the mistakes of its own leaders.
Meanwhile, we the people of southern Lebanon haven't lost hope. We continue to struggle politically around the world for the liberation of Lebanon. We are now part of a vast diaspora that stands firmly with the United States and the international community (including Europe, Russia, and the Arab moderates) in a campaign to defeat the terror forces. Our commitment to freeing Lebanon persists from generation to generation. We are still committed not only to peace with Israel, but also to a friendship with the Jewish people in the Holy Land. Despite the betrayal by some of its politicians, Israel has a full right to exist in the region, and all nations have the right to freedom and democracy. We hope that the democratic forces among Arabs and other nations of the Middle East will soon rise against dictatorship and fascism, and that we will return to our occupied land and live in peace.
May 23, 2000 was a hard benchmark in our history, but it is certainly not the end of it. We will return, and we will live all in peace.
Ret. Col. Charbel Barakat is a historian and a former civil society leader in south Lebanon. He is now a counterterrorism expert in Canada
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/south_lebanon_will_be_liberate.html at May 30, 2010 - 02:35:12 AM CDT
Last Sunday was the tenth anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from what was used to be known as the "security zone." That day, following the instructions of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack, all Israeli units operating north of the borders inside Lebanese territories were pulled back inside Israeli territories. According to Barack, it was in implementation of the UNSCR 425, issued in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon in response to PLO attacks across the borders then. So in the year 2000, 23 years after it entered the country to fight its enemies, Israel's government decided to pull its troops back from Lebanon abruptly. Barack at the time said he was complying with U.N. resolutions and that he expected that no threat will come from Lebanon anymore. That was the Israeli version of the Labor Government then. But as IDF forces were pulling back, Iranian-backed Hezb'allah militias were entering every single village and town evacuated by the Israelis. According to Hassan Nasrallah, the commander of Hezb'allah, Israel withdrew because of the strikes by the so-called "resistance," which in fact was the Iranian-backed militia. The Hezb'allah story is that southern Lebanon was occupied by the Israelis, who had a proxy militia known as South Lebanon Army. And that Hezb'allah struggled to liberate the land from its Zionist occupiers.
However, there is a third version. It rejects the first two, and it claims it represents the struggle of the people of southern Lebanon, who struggled against Terror and were removed from their ancestral lands -- because of Ehud Barack's policies on the one hand and the abandonment of the West of Lebanon last resisting free people against the hordes of Hezb'allah and their Iranian and Syrian backers on the other. Unfortunately, the third story has no tellers these days. Barack has Israel's media at his service so that he can boast about his betrayal of southern Lebanon and his own Israeli people, and Nasrallah has his Iranian-funded media to claim his victories against the populations who resisted him in southern Lebanon.
A decade after the betrayal of the people of south Lebanon, the truth is going to be blanched. It will take time for the witnesses of that drama to share the facts with the world opinion, but it will happen no matter what.
The population of the so-called "security zone" are Lebanese citizens who had suffered at the hands of Palestinian terror groups since the 1970s and at the hands of Hezb'allah since the 1980s. They are the sons and daughters of the land for centuries. The forces of the PLO then and the Iranian Revolutionary guards are foreign occupation. Israel entered Lebanon twice, first in 1978 and again in 1982, to strike back against Terror forces shelling its territories from inside Lebanon's territories. The Lebanese citizens living in the border towns wanted the Lebanese Army only -- not the Israelis, and certainly the Terror forces. But Lebanon's government had collapsed in 1975, and as of 1990, it was controlled by Syria. The populations of the south had no choice, not one, except to accept aid and support from Israel's occupation forces. To be clear, between the Terrorists and barbarians, who were slaughtering civilians and aiming at establishing a jihadi regime, and the forces of the state of Israel, an ally to the United States and at Peace with Egypt and Jordan, the choice was made against Hezb'allah and the Syrian-Iranian axis.
The South Lebanon Army under control by Israel was far better than ending up in the detention camps of the Iranian Pasdaran or in the torture centers of Hezb'allah and Syria. Hence, a large segment of the population of south Lebanon -- Christian, Druse, Shia, and Sunnis -- adhered to the SLA and stood by Israel's forces as a common front against the Terrorists. Israel's successive governments stood in solidarity with the people of south Lebanon. A brotherhood between the IDF and the SLA was the cornerstone of the common defense against Hezb'allah and Syria.
South Lebanon's civil society would have preferred to be under the direct protection of the UNIFIL, a U.N. force dispatched to protect the peace and the local population as of 1978. But UNIFIL's bureaucrats refused to take the southern Lebanese under their auspices, leaving them to strive for themselves. The SLA and the local populations did the right thing to defend themselves, and they did so under international law, which grants them the right to fight for survival, hoping that when the Israelis wanted to leave, they would allow them to defend themselves and seek U.N. protection.
In 2000, then-Israeli Prime Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barack betrayed an Israeli tradition of solidarity with the SLA and an Israeli natural friendship with the southern Lebanese. He ordered not only the abrupt withdrawal of IDF from the security zone, but also a dismantlement of the SLA. All the southern Lebanese population wanted as villagers living on their ancestral lands was to defend it until they are free or die trying. Barack took away their most sacred right: the right to resist. He ordered his forces to shut off the borders as south Lebanon's border populations were disarmed and about to be overwhelmed by the jihadi barbarians. We know that a majority of the Israeli people was frustrated by that move, and we know that many in the IDF resented Barack's stab in the back of the only population in the Middle East that actually stood by the Jewish people of Israel.
The southern Lebanese were forced to march during the night in a dishonorable exodus into Israel. In one night, Barack and his political allies in government and abroad killed the last free enclave in Lebanon. In one night, he invited Hezb'allah to the international borders. In one night, he terminated the only fighting force that was shedding blood shoulder to shoulder with the IDF in defending that part of the Middle East against the jihadi Terrorists. He took out the only friendship that could have told the world that Israel itself should not be betrayed or abandoned because it has not betrayed its own allies.
Unfortunately, Barack's reckless stab in the back of Israel's only allies in the Middle East opened the path for the jihadist forces to surround Israel further from the north and from the south. Few months later, the Aqsa intifada was shattering the myth of invincibility in Israel, and from there on, Israel is alone in a region filled with hatred. Barack took away the southern Lebanese's own ability to testify that Israel was doing good in the region -- it was protecting its small and weak neighbors in southern Lebanon.
Today, when Israel's image is assaulted by the lethal propaganda machine of the Iranian petrodollars worldwide and in the United States, and anti-Semitism is running high in Western capitals, the only underdogs who would have testified to the world that Israel was defending Christians, Druse, Shia, and Sunni in that free enclave of Lebanon -- these underdogs uprooted from their homes and lands because of the arrogance of a few politicians who thought they had it figured out -- cannot testify to save the honor of their former allies. Blame former Prime Minister Barack and his elitist friends in Israel and the United States for that.
That had to be said, and it will be repeated as long as needed until some courageous leaders in Israel and the United States apologize to the population of southern Lebanon for what was done to them. History is unique in the ways it sends its messages. Three months after abandoning the people of south Lebanon in May 2000, Israel was hit by a jihadi war that has not stopped since, neither across the Lebanese borders nor across the frontiers of Gaza. And one year after that, America was hit by the beast of terror on 9/11. Abandoning the small villages of southern Lebanon to the jihadists didn't appease them. To the contrary, it emboldened them. We hope the free world learned the lesson.
However, we do know that the majority of Israelis does not believe in Barack's pragmatic miscalculations, and they do want a friendship with their neighbors from the north. Naturally, it would have been better to have an SLA fending off the Iranian waves of assault than having the enemy roaming on the borders. Now they have to deal with Hassan Nasrallah's forty thousand missiles to the north, Assad's chemical forces, Hamas terror from the south, and Ahmadinejad's forthcoming nukes. Had Israel not dismantled the southern Lebanese resistance against terror, Hezb'allah would have been opposed by a stubborn indigenous force locally to reckon with. Let's see if Israel's basic instincts will correct the mistakes of its own leaders.
Meanwhile, we the people of southern Lebanon haven't lost hope. We continue to struggle politically around the world for the liberation of Lebanon. We are now part of a vast diaspora that stands firmly with the United States and the international community (including Europe, Russia, and the Arab moderates) in a campaign to defeat the terror forces. Our commitment to freeing Lebanon persists from generation to generation. We are still committed not only to peace with Israel, but also to a friendship with the Jewish people in the Holy Land. Despite the betrayal by some of its politicians, Israel has a full right to exist in the region, and all nations have the right to freedom and democracy. We hope that the democratic forces among Arabs and other nations of the Middle East will soon rise against dictatorship and fascism, and that we will return to our occupied land and live in peace.
May 23, 2000 was a hard benchmark in our history, but it is certainly not the end of it. We will return, and we will live all in peace.
Ret. Col. Charbel Barakat is a historian and a former civil society leader in south Lebanon. He is now a counterterrorism expert in Canada
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/south_lebanon_will_be_liberate.html at May 30, 2010 - 02:35:12 AM CDT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)