Shackled Warrior

Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com
7/1/2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Caroline B. Glick, the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She is the author of the new book, Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad.

FP: Caroline B. Glick, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Glick: Great to be here.

FP: What are the key threats facing Israel and the West today?

Glick: There are several key threats, some are military, some are economic and some are cultural. All complement each other in ways that compound the dangers to the free world – with Israel as its frontline outpost.

There are four basic threats facing the world today. The first is Iran’s quest for regional dominance and global prominence which it advances primarily through the support of Islamist insurgencies regionally and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Second is the totalitarian jihadist ideology which is ascendant throughout the Islamic world. Third is the West’s inability to break its dependence on Arab oil. And fourth is the West’s cultural insecurity and malaise and increasingly, its self-hatred.

The first two threats are physical and ideological challenges to the West’s survival. The third – the West’s economic dependence on Arab oil – has brought about the perverse situation where the free world is bankrolling its enemies’ war efforts. And the fourth, Western cultural malaise which is approaching collapse in Europe and among the American and Israeli intellectual and cultural elites makes it impossible for nations to defend themselves against the physical threats, to consider ways to actively replace oil as the primary energy source for our economies, or to present a coherent and attractive alternative to Islamic totalitarianism for Muslim societies and minorities in the West.

FP: What can – and what should – the U.S. and Israel do about Iran?

Glick: Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and others have said repeatedly for the past several years, the US has two options for dealing with Iran. It can work to overthrow the regime or it can attack Iran militarily with the aim of setting back its nuclear weapons program for several years. Israel has less capacity to incite a popular insurrection against the regime, although it certainly could stir a bit of chaos in the country by arming some of the disaffected groups there.

The second option is to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations and kill its nuclear scientists. Bombing the installations will set Iran’s program back long enough to actually take concerted steps to bring down the regime. Killing Iran’s nuclear scientists will make it impossible for Iran to rebuild its nuclear weapons program for the foreseeable future.

While pushing for regime change seemed like a viable path to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons four years ago, today it may be too late. Iran is already so close to nuclear capabilities. There simply isn’t enough time.

That this is the fact is the fault of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who decided to follow Europe’s lead in on the one hand offering Iran generous payoffs to suspend its uranium enrichment program, and on the other hand, attempting to persuade the Russians and Chinese to pass sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. This policy has given Iran four years of unimpeded freedom to pursue its nuclear weapons program. And the Mossad now projects that it could be within months of acquiring the bomb.

Far from working to curb the mullahs’ enthusiasm for acquiring the means of genocide, the US and European soft-shoe approach to Iran’s nuclear program has emboldened them to move forward with their program while increasing their terrorist aggression in Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. enrichment and begging Russia and China to go along with weak, ineffective sanctions resolutions in the UN Security Council has failed. If anything, Iran has been emboldened by this weak Western response to its aggressive behavior.

FP: Is there any hope in terms of the West’s cultural insecurity, malaise and self-hatred? The central problem is that the Left controls the boundaries of discourse. What can ultimately be done -- if anything?

Glick: I see reasons for hope every day both here in Israel and around the world. It is true that the Left controls the boundaries of discourse but then, that discourse has become so absurd, so farcical that it cannot long sustain itself.

When university campuses are concerning themselves with transgender studies and teaching students that the 1968 campus riots were among the most triumphant events in US history, when here in Israel we have faculty saying that they will not reschedule exams for their students who are called to reserve duty during exam period because they do not make excuses for war criminals, and Israeli schoolchildren graduating from 12th grade knowing almost nothing about Jewish history, the people will simply abandon this discourse. Israelis are already forming new institutions to make up for the failings of the traditional ones controlled by the Left.

In the US, we see this with the blossoming of the Internet blogosphere, talk radio and other new institutions. The assumptions of the founding fathers in the US and of the Zionist revolutionaries in the early 20th century were correct. People are capable of making the right choices about their lives. And they are only going to put up with the powers that be for so long before they find their way to getting around them. So ultimately, the institutions that tell us who we are – the courts, schools, media, entertainment sectors, have to be transformed either from within or from without. And this is already happening.

FP: Why is Islamic fundamentalism such a threat?

Glick: You know, at first glance, it seems ridiculous to think that Islamic fundamentalism could be a threat and this is so for two reasons. First, it is so unappealing and unaesthetic to Westerners that it is hard to imagine that anyone could take it seriously. We cannot imagine for instance, women accepting a situation where they are treated worse than livestock in the 21st century. Who would wish to live like this? Who would wish this sort of misery on their daughters or mothers? It seems impossible to believe that a culture that enslaves half its members from the getgo and treats its religious minorities so horribly and has been responsible for so much poverty and suffering could possibly be of interest to anyone.

Moreover, there is the fact that Islamic totalitarianism professes itself to be a religion. In the largely post-religious or at least religiously tolerant West, it is hard to believe that a religious group consciously uses religion and proselytizing as a way to build cadres, Communist style to undermine Western civilization. We lack the cognitive tools – and the legal and policy tools – for contending with such a situation.

For these two reasons, we in the West have a very hard time understanding that Islamic totalitarianism exists, let alone that it is a threat.

The main reason that Islamic totalitarianism is a threat is because it is a supremacist movement that due to oil revenues and the absence of a Western cultural challenge of any significance has the ability to grow and attract adherents. With Persian Gulf petro-dollars behind it, it can overwhelm all voices preaching non-totalitarian and non-confrontational forms of Islam.

I think that were it not for the massive wealth accruing to the likes of the Saudi Arabians, the attraction of totalitarian Islam would be much smaller. Certainly the ability of Islamic totalitarians from Iran to Pakistan to London to Saudi Arabia to threaten Western civilization and Israel would be vastly decreased if they were forced to support themselves. But in the absence of Western willingness to embrace imperfect alternatives like methanol, coal, nuclear energy and domestic drilling, it seems that in the foreseeable future, the physical threat to the West and to Israel presented by Islamic totalitarianism will likely grow.

FP: Can you talk a bit about how certain forces in the West and in Israel practice self-deception in the face of the enemy?

Glick: One of the ways both Israelis and Westerners deceive themselves is by judging Islamic totalitarians by their words and not by their deeds. Whether it is Iran agreeing to meet with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana for another worthless round of talks about the Iranian nuclear weapons program, CAIR’s assertion that it is a civil rights movement, Israeli Arab parliamentarians who on the one hand commit treason by working actively for Israel’s enemies and on the other hand defend their criminal acts as “free speech” or actions to defend against “racism,” the Palestinian Fatah organization which claims it supports peace with Israel but then actively carries out terror attacks against Israel and colludes openly with Hamas and Islamic Jihad to bring about Israel’s demise, or Hizbullah claiming that they are a Lebanese political movement when in fact they are Iran’s foreign legion working to facilitate Iranian and Syrian control over Lebanon, we insist on believing their words and ignoring their deeds.

If you look at the level of public discourse in Israel and throughout the West regarding the strategic challenges our countries face as it has unfolded over the past eight years, you will see a studied refusal to acknowledge or recognize the significance of the actions of jihadists. Instead, you end up with reportage where statements by Western leaders are contrasted with statements by jihadists and treated as if they are of equal weight. Hence we get terms like “cycle of violence” when what we are really talking about is jihadist aggression.

Aside from that of course, there is the tendency to demonize those who do look at actions of the enemy and insist, indeed beg their governments in Israel and the West to take action to defend their countries and their interests. In the US, those who recognize the dangers are referred to as “neocons,” or “chickenhawks.” In Europe, they are referred to as Zionists or Americans. And in Israel they are pilloried as anti-peace. Then too, in the US and Europe and to a lesser degree in Israel, the cultural elites frighten the “hawks” who are really just realists into silence by threatening to call them racists. Finally, in Europe, voices calling for an acknowledgment of the Islamic totalitarian threat are silenced by jihadist intimidation and death threats, or in Theo Van Gogh’s case, with murder.

FP: What are some of the strategies Israel and the West need to pursue to win the war against global jihad?

Glick: On a macroeconomic level, as people like R. James Woolsey, Gal Luft, Robert Zubrin, Frank Gaffney, Anne Korin and others have explained convincingly over the past several years, the West needs to end its addiction to foreign oil as quickly as possible. Energy security is a paramount issue. In Israel we have entrepreneurs working on changing Israel’s small transportation market into one based on battery operating cars. This is an interesting concept and it will hopefully be successful. But overall, the West simply has to get its act together. For seven years under the Bush administration, the US has done essentially nothing as gasoline prices have gone from $20-$130 per gallon.

The culture wars in the West are also a key aspect of a winning strategy. We see many societies simply sinking into nothingness – places like Sweden and Norway come to mind most readily. And Britain for its part, seems to be on an inexorable decline towards collapse. When we do not understand who we are, we also cannot understand why who we are is worth defending. When we cannot assert our cultural and national identities, we cannot explain to either ourselves or Islamic totalitarians, why freedom is preferable to slavery.

Finally, we have to realize that people who call for global domination in the name of Islam and carry out acts of violence, and develop nuclear weapons are our enemies and that they are irreconcilable. They are fighting a war to the death against us and we need to fight back. We need to develop strategies aimed at defeating our irreconcilable foes and first and foremost among them is Iran. We have the means to win this war. We just have to understand why it is necessary to fight it.

FP: In your view, what is the best course for the West to take to break its dependence on Arab oil?

Glick: The best course is to seek other means of fuelling cars, trains and airplanes. The key to everything as far as I can see is for all cars to have the capacity to run on fuels other than gasoline – what are called “flex fuel cars” and to have the capacity to run on electricity – what are called “plug-in cars.” What is needed is not so much one solution – but the ability to use many other fuels at once.

Once cars are able to run on methanol and ethanol and electricity as well as gasoline, then you have a lot of options for action. It makes sense to increase the supply of oil as much as possible by drilling in as many places as possible and increasing refining capacities. It also makes sense to start developing massive quantities of methanol that you can produce from just about anything. It makes sense to develop clean coal, increase nuclear energy supplies.

It makes sense to put a floor on the price of imported oil at $60/barrel to ensure that alternative energy sources that are now being developed can be competitive. It would prevent the Arabs from prolonging our dependence on them by flooding the US with cheap oil and pushing all alternatives off the market.

Finally, it makes sense to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Every time that Israeli leaders say something about attacking Iran, or most recently, when the Israeli Air Force flew 100 fighter jets 1500 km across the Mediterranean to simulate the flight length to Iran and home, the oil futures markets went bananas. Oil prices spiked. Consequently, a lot of people are warning that if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, the price of fuel could rise to $8/gallon.

I think that this misses a key point in international affairs. It is Iran’s nuclear brinkmanship, and the world’s apparent fear of stopping it from acquiring nuclear weapons that gives the mullahs so much influence over oil traders. When the West – whether it’s Israel or the US – asserts itself in a forceful way, the Iranian capacity to intimidate is decreased and hence their ability to cause spikes in oil prices decreases. After all, Iran has to export oil and gas regardless of the market price. Their economy is completely dependent on oil and gas revenues. That makes them price takers no less than anyone else at the end of the day.

FP: Are you optimistic or pessimistic in terms of the West’s and Israel’s conflict with the jihadist enemy?

Glick: I am both. Right now, there are reasons to be deeply worried. The Olmert government in Israel is the weakest and worst government Israel has ever had. The only thing it seems adept at doing is surrendering to Israel’s enemies and demoralizing the Israeli public. In the US, the public’s love affair with Senator Barack Obama, who refuses to acknowledge that there is a jihad going on at all and seems to think that the best way to assert US global leadership is to run around the world apologizing about the US’s assertion of its power to anti-American dictators is also deeply troubling. And our willingness to be led by fabulists comes as our enemies behave more and more aggressively.

But looking into the medium and long term, at least in the US’s case, there is no doubt that the war will end in a US victory. For the US then it is not victory but the cost of victory that hangs in the balance.

In Israel’s case, prospects are less clear. If Israel doesn’t move to elections and responsible leaders do not take over soon, the road to the medium and long term could be rather deadly.

In short, democracies are always slow to act. But once we do, our enemies are no match for us. The trick today is that our actions mustn’t come too slowly.

FP: Caroline B. Glick, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Glick: Thanks so much for inviting me. Always a pleasure.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com. .

Which Has More Islamist Terrorism, Europe or America?

Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
7/1/2008

"Since 9/11, there have been over 2,300 arrests connected to Islamist terrorism in Europe in contrast to about 60 in the United States." Thus writes Marc Sageman in his influential new book, Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century (University of Pennsylvania Press).

This one statistical comparison inspires Sageman, in a chapter he calls "The Atlantic Divide," to draw sweeping conclusions about the superior circumstances of American Muslims. "The rate of arrests on terrorism charges per capita among Muslims is six times higher in Europe than in the United States." The reason for this discrepancy, he argues, "lies in the differences in the extent to which these respective Muslim communities are radicalized." He praises "American cultural exceptionalism," admonishes European governments "to avoid committing mistakes that risk the loss of good will in the Muslim community," and urges Europeans to learn from Americans.. Sageman's argument rehashes what Spencer Ackerman wrote in a New Republic cover story of late 2005, when he found that "Europe's growing Muslim culture of alienation, marginalization, and jihad isn't taking root" in the United States.

Marc Sageman, Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century (University of Pennsylvania Press).
But Sageman's entire case is premised on the figures of 2,300 and 60 arrests. Aside from possible other causal explanations for these differences, such as the European legal system permitting more latitude to make terrorism-related arrests, are those figures even correct? He supports them with only a brief, vague footnote: "Updating Eggen and Tate, 2005; Lustick 2006: 151-52 agrees with this estimate." Here, "Eggen and Tate, 2005" refers to a two-part newspaper article and "Lustick 2006" sources a discredited extremist screed.

In fact, Sageman's numbers are scandalously inaccurate.

European arrests: His European number is inflated. The European Police Office (Europol) issued statistics showing that in 2007, 201 Islamists were detained in the European Union (other than the United Kingdom) on terror-related charges, compared to 257 in 2006. Earlier Europol statistics are less clear, but a close review of the evidence conducted for me by Jonathan Gelbart of Stanford University shows 234 arrests made in 2005, 124 in 2004. and 137 in 2003. In all, the total West European terrorism-related arrests appear to number less than 1,400.

U.S. arrests: According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Sageman's American figure is too low by a factor of almost ten. Department spokesman Sean Boyd indicated, according to a Fox News report, that "527 defendants have been charged in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations primarily conducted after Sept. 11. Those cases have resulted in 319 convictions, with an additional 176 cases pending in court." Plus, as I documented at "Denying [Islamist] Terrorism" and its follow-up blog), politicians, law enforcement personnel, and the media are loathe to acknowledge terrorist incidents, so the real number of terrorism-related arrests is substantially higher.

Given that the Muslim population in the United States is about 1/7th size of its West European counterpart (3 million vs. 21 million), using the figures of 527 arrests for the United States and 1,400 for Europe suggests that the Muslim per-capita arrest rate on terrorism-related charges in the United States is 2.5 times higher than in Europe, not, as Sageman asserts, 6 times lower. In fact, Sageman (who was offered a chance to reply to this article but declined) is off by a factor of about 15.

His error has major implications. If the United States, despite the much better socio-economic standing of its Muslims, suffers from 2.5 times more terrorism per capita than does Europe, socio-economic improvements are unlikely to solve Europe's problems.

This conclusion fits into a larger argument that Islamism has little to do with economic or other stresses. Put differently, ideas matter more than personal circumstances. As I put it in 2002, "The factors that cause militant Islam to decline or flourish appear to have more to do with issues of identity than with economics." Whoever accepts the Islamist (or communist or fascist) worldview, whether rich or poor, young or old, male or female, also accepts the ideological infrastructure that potentially leads to violence, including terrorism.

In policy terms, Americans have no reason to be smug. Yes, Europeans should indeed learn from the United States how better to integrate their Muslim population, but they should not expect that doing so will also diminish their terrorism problem. It could, indeed, even worsen.
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org), director of the Middle East Forum, is the Taube/Diller Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University during the spring semester..

'This is Not the Same Hizbullah of a Year Ago'

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

Dr. Guy Bechor, a professor of Arabic Studies at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, analyzes the state of the Hizbullah terror group and the future of the region. Because of the internal dynamics of Lebanon, in which Hizbullah is now playing a larger role, Dr. Bechor told Arutz Sheva, Hizbullah feels pressure to justify its behavior in causing chaos in the country. "Even in the Hizbullah media," Bechor said, "[the latest ransom agreement with Israel] is not as celebrated as we may think it will be." In Dr. Bechor's view, there is a new attitude in Hizbullah stemming from their new position of responsibility as part of the ruling regime. This new position of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah was essentially a weaker one when it came to negotiating a deal with Israel over the kidnapped soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, according to Bechor. One factor was what Bechor sees as a failure of Hizbullah in a nationwide skirmish it opened up against the Lebanese regime two months ago.

The Israeli hostages, Dr. Bechor said, "became a burden" for Hizbullah. It became "an interest for Hizbullah to get rid of them." Had Israel declared the soldiers dead, the professor added, Hizbullah would have agreed to a lesser ransom.

On the Iranian front, Dr. Bechor said that the working assumption of the Iranian leadership is that an American or Israeli attack can take place at any moment. "They are very much afraid," he said, "I must tell you frankly, this understanding can strengthen the diplomatic efforts against Iran." .

Iran: Ex-Muslim converts to Christianity arrested, told "The next time there may also be an apostasy charge, if you don’t stop with your Jesus"

CONVERT COUPLE ARRESTED, TORTURED, THREATENED
Officers seize Christians from their home, leaving ill 4-year-old girl unattended.

LOS ANGELES, June 25 (Compass Direct News) – Security police officials in Tehran this month tortured a newly converted couple and threatened to put their 4-year-old daughter in an institution after arresting them for holding Bible studies and attending a house church. A Christian source in Iran said that 28-year-old Tina Rad was charged with “activities against the holy religion of Islam” for reading the Bible with Muslims in her home in east Tehran and trying to convert them. Officials charged her husband, 31-year-old Makan Arya, with “activities against national security” after seizing the couple from their home on June 3, forcing them to leave their 4-year-old daughter ill and unattended. Authorities kept them in an unknown jail for four days, which left them badly bruised from beatings, said the source. Rad was released on bail of US$30,000 bail, and her husband was freed on payment of US$20,000. “The next time there may also be an apostasy charge, if you don’t stop with your Jesus,” a female security police officer told Rad during interrogation, according to the source. Under Iran’s strict Islamic laws, Muslims who convert from Islam to another religion can be executed..

"Moderate" Fatah ordering rocket attacks against Israel to derail truce with Hamas

This would be a win-win situation for Fatah: The truce would fail, making Hamas look incompetent, and both of Fatah's enemies would inflict casualties on each other. Now that they've been caught, will that change the PA's relationship with Western powers in any meaningful way, or will it be swept under the rug in order to continue to uphold Mahmoud Abbas as a "pragmatic" partner for peace?

Taped confessions claim Gaza peace double-crossed
'Moderates' attempting to sabotage truce while Hamas holds fire

By Aaron Klein
World Net Daily JAFFA, Israel – A Hamas investigation replete with video confessions has discovered that militants from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization received instructions to disrupt a cease-fire that Israel agreed to last week with the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip.

WND last week exclusively quoted sources in Fatah's declared military wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group, stating they received "understandings" from Abbas' office they are to fire rockets into Israel to sabotage the truce.

U.S. and Israeli policy considers Abbas to be "moderate."

Hamas has been abiding by the truce while Fatah's Brigades took responsibility for firing at least three rockets from Gaza last week.

Now Hamas officials told WND yesterday an investigation concluded that Abbas' officials instructed the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to launch rockets into Israel.

The Hamas officials said they obtained videotaped confessions from Brigades members allegedly admitting to receiving attack instructions from Fatah. Hamas said it may release the videos on the group's Al Aqsa Television Network later this week.


A senior source in Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades told WND last week his group received "understandings" from Abbas' officials that Fatah wants to see the cease-fire "collapse."

The senior Brigades source hinted a top Abbas official gave the Brigades specific instructions to launch Gaza-based attacks against Israel to precipitate an Israeli military response that would initiate a cycle of Hamas reprisal attacks that would, in turn, scuttle the cease-fire.

The Brigades source refused to say which Abbas official may have given his group instructions, but WND understood from informed sources it was Tayir Abdul Al-Rahim, the secretary-general of Abbas' office, who communicated specific instructions to the Brigades to shoot rockets at Israeli population centers.

This past Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces confirmed three Qassam rockets were launched from Gaza into southern Israel. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades took responsibility for the attacks.

This weekend, at least four mortars were fired from Gaza, according to the IDF.

Earlier this week, WND quoted a top PA official complaining the truce between Hamas and Israel enhances the position of Hamas and amounts to the Jewish state's tacit recognition of the terrorist group's control of the Gaza Strip.

Officially, the PA, headed by its president, Mahmoud Abbas, endorsed the Gaza truce agreement, which went into effect 11 days ago, hours after Hamas and other local Palestinian groups took responsibility for firing nearly 30 mortars and rockets from Gaza into nearby Jewish communities.

But unofficially, the PA has been expressing to Israeli and American diplomats its strong opposition to the truce, explaining the cease-fire puts Hamas in a more powerful position.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "sold us out," said the top PA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"It is not possible that Israel agreed to the truce with Hamas without U.S. approval," he said. "Israel has now negotiated indirectly with Hamas and is doing business with them. Hamas is the dealmaker and power broker."

The PA official's main complaint was not that Israel was negotiating with a terror group but that the Jewish state, he argued, was enhancing Hamas at the expense of the PA.

The official said the PA took particular offense at talk of eventually expanding the truce to the West Bank, which until now has been considered the territory of Abbas' Fatah organization.

He said if Hamas was seen as the main power broker in the West Bank, it would be a "disaster" for Fatah and the PA.

The official described the mood at Abbas' headquarters following the truce as "one of mourning."

"It's our Tisha B'Av," he said.

Tisha B'Av is the Jewish fast day known as the "saddest day" in the Jewish calendar. It commemorates tragedies that befell the Jewish people, including the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the First and Second Jewish Temples.

Hamas has controlled the Gaza Strip since last summer, when it expelled the U.S.-backed Fatah organization from the territory.

The Gaza cease-fire officially went into effect last week. Israel has said it will hold off all military operations in Gaza in exchange for a complete cessation of Palestinian rocket attacks and violence.

Hamas, for its part, reportedly instructed its members to refrain from carrying out any attacks.

In spite of the attacks launched from the Gaza Strip, Israel yesterday eased its blockade of Gaza by reopening some border crossings and by allowing a larger number of shipments to enter and may open border crossings closed in recent months.

Israeli security officials have warned in briefings to the Knesset that Hamas would use the truce to rearm itself and strengthen its forces against an ultimate Israeli military incursion into Gaza. The officials said more Israeli troops would likely die fighting in Gaza, because of the off-time Hamas is likely to use to prepare itself for battle.

In a briefing to the Knesset earlier this month, Yuval Diskin, director of Israel's Shin Bet Security Services, identified a recent surge in terrorist activity and arms smuggling in the Gaza Strip. He also said Hamas stepped up the pace of training its gunmen and attempted several major attacks in recent days that were foiled by Israel.

Cease-fire 'victory for resistance'

Last week, WND quoted Gaza-based terrorist leaders calling the cease-fire a "victory" for Palestinian "resistance." The terrorist announced the truce will be used by local terrorist groups to re-arm and prepare for battle against the Jewish state.

"We are humiliating the Israelis. They kept threatening to make a huge operation in Gaza, but they were the ones who begged us to go into the cease-fire," said Muhammad Abdel-Al, a leader and spokesman for the Hamas-allied, Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees terror group.

Along with Hamas, the Committees took responsibility for firing a massive onslaught of rockets and mortars just before the truce was agreed upon.

"[The rocket attacks] prove we are not going into this cease-fire from a weak point but from a point of force and power," Abdel-Al said.

Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' so-called military wing, told WND his group will use the truce to rearm itself.

"The hudna (temporary truce) will be used for more training, arming. ... We don't have any intention to stop from bringing in weapons from the Sinai into Gaza," said Abdullah.

He called the cease-fire "one more sign of the collapse of the Israeli army, that this big Israeli army with the so-called best air force in the world didn't succeed to stop the rockets, and they accepted the truce."

The term "hudna," dates back to Islam's founding in the 7th century, when Muhammad declared a 10-year hudna with the tribe that controlled Mecca. Later, after re-arming, Muhammad attacked the tribe, claiming it had broken the truce. In 1994, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat invoked Muhammad's hudna when he justified the launch of the second intifada during the Oslo peace process.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted in 2003 that Hamas had agreed to 10 cease-fires in the previous decade and returned freshly armed after each one.

"It is important to note," the institute said, "that all cease-fire offers have been presented at a time when Hamas needed a moment to step back and regroup after an organizationally exhausting confrontation with a more powerful foe (either Israel or the PA)."

Unfortunately you have just guaranteed more soldier kidnappings

Palestinian jihadists encouraged in use of violence, kidnappings by Israeli prisoner swap plan, but miffed that Hizballah struck a deal without them

It is unclear what concrete gains the Olmert government expects to secure by returning a live jihadist convicted of murder as part of an exchange for two Israeli soldiers who are now presumed dead. It may seek some sense of political closure on the 2006 war in order to move forward in its dealings with Syria and Lebanon, regardless of how fruitful those may or may not be. Or, perhaps they may hold onto the hope, official positions notwithstanding, that Goldwasser and Regev are still alive. But the willingness to swap Samir Kuntar for their remains will be interpreted by Israel's enemies as a sign of weakness; indeed, obtaining Kuntar's freedom constitutes a net gain for Hizballah's kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers and the ensuing war. It is a clear signal to jihadist groups that kidnappings are effective, and, worse yet, it may encourage Hamas to increase its demands in exchange for the release of Gilad Schalit. "Palestinians disappointed PA prisoners won't be included in swap for Regev, Goldwasser," by Khaled Abu Toameh for the Jerusalem Post, June 30:

Palestinians on Sunday reacted with mixed feelings to the news about the Israel-Hizbullah prisoner exchange agreement.

While many Palestinians expressed joy over the decision to release Lebanese prisoner Samir Kuntar, they also voiced disappointment because the deal did not include Palestinian inmates.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum hailed the agreement as a "victory" for Hizbullah. "This is an achievement for the will and steadfastness of the Lebanese resistance," he said. "This also proves that rights can only be restored by force." However, Fatah and Hamas representatives criticized Hizbullah for failing to demand the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. They said Hizbullah could have easily secured the release of several hundred Palestinians in return for IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.

"This is a very bad deal as far as the Palestinians are concerned," said a top Fatah operative in Ramallah. "Hassan Nasrallah has betrayed the Palestinians by signing a separate deal with Israel." A senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip also expressed disappointment with Nasrallah, saying the majority of the Palestinians couldn't understand why he "turned his back on us." He said that following the kidnapping of the two soldiers, many Palestinian factions and families sent Hizbullah lists with the names of Palestinian prisoners whom they wished to be included in a future prisoner swap with Israel.

"Nasrallah has shown that he does not really care about the Palestinians," the Hamas official said. "There is no doubt he could have got much more from Israel in return for the two soldiers. But we don't understand why he chose to act in this way." The Palestinians have long referred to Kuntar as a "hero." According to Palestinian Media Watch, the Palestinian Authority regarded Kuntar as an "ideal" prisoner.

"On the one hand, Kuntar embodies what the PA considers the 'heroism' of terrorists fighting Israel," the group said. "On the other hand, he's the ultimate symbol of all terrorist prisoners who have murdered Israelis and will eventually be freed as a result of future kidnappings or through some other means." PA Television, controlled by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, recently broadcast a picture honoring Kuntar, who is depicted beside a map of Israel completely covered by the Palestinian flag.

In Beirut, Hizbullah said the Israeli approval of the deal was a reflection of the Islamist group's strength.

Dutch prosecutor: Wilders will not be charged over Fitna

"A statement Monday by the prosecutor said Wilders made his anti-Muslim remarks in the context of a legitimate debate."

A victory for free speech and common sense. But there remains the Jordanian effort to use Interpol to secure his arrest and extradition. "No charge in Dutch Muslim incitement," from the Associated Press, June 30: AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — The public prosecutor's office says it will not charge right-wing legislator Geert Wilders with inciting hatred for his film denouncing the Quran.

The prosecutor says the film and statements Wilders wrote in Dutch newspapers were hurtful and insulting but not criminal.

A statement Monday by the prosecutor said Wilders made his anti-Muslim remarks in the context of a legitimate debate, and he could not be charged for incitement or discrimination.

Wilders told The Associated Press he was not surprised by the decision because he had stayed within the boundaries of the law.

Wilders' film, titled "Fitna," appeared on the Internet in March. It aroused protests around the Muslim world.
Thanks Jihad Watch

UK: Convert and misunderstander of Islam left fake nailbomb on bus

"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. God is great, god is great, god is great. Britain must be punished." Another convert to Islam doesn't get the memo about how Islam is really a Religion of Peace.

"Muslim convert left fake nailbomb on bus, court told," from the Yorkshire Post, June 30 (thanks to Twostellas): A WHITE Muslim convert planted a hoax bomb on a bus full of people with a note saying that 'Britain must be punished', a court was told today.

Nicholas Roddis, 22, is thought to have disguised himself with a long black beard before planting the fake home-made nailbomb on a crowded bus in Rotherham, in May last year.

Leeds Crown Court was told Roddis, of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, had recently learnt the teachings of Islam in a move to convert over to the religion and had even recorded the preachings of disgraced cleric Abu Hamza.

Prosecutor Edward Brown QC told Leeds Crown Court Roddis's conversion had been noted by work colleagues and he had alienated a childhood friend by talking about bomb-making.

On May 8 last year, a man disguised with a long black beard boarded a bus with two carrier bags, he told the jury.

Not long after he disembarked, leaving one bag behind. A passenger checked inside and saw three packages with nails, wire, a working clock and a note with foreign writing on it.

"Obviously this man was convinced he was looking straight at a bomb and shouted to the driver and the police were called," Mr Brown said.

Fifty homes were evacuated and a 100 metre cordon was thrown up around the bus, while the bomb was detonated in a controlled explosion and found to be a hoax.

"That was to be no consolation to the passengers at the time, to those on the bus looking at what they thought was a bomb," he added.

The writing on the piece of paper was in Arabic and read "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. God is great, god is great, god is great. Britain must be punished." It was signed Al Qaeda Organisation of Iraq....
Thanks Jihad Watch

Judge: "Jihad" message on Volkswagen van is protected speech

Robert Spencer

As the right to free speech is threatened as never before, here comes this decision: this fellow is free to make a political statement by scaring the daylights out of passersby -- at least, unless his Volkswagen van looks too ludicrous to scare anyone, which is likely. I am glad in these dark days to see any ruling in favor of the freedom of speech, however nutty this fellow may be, but consider a thought experiment: what if this Volkswagen van had been painted with proclamations of hostility to jihad? What if it announced that Muslim immigration should be stopped (which it patently should, given the impossibility of distinguishing actual or potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims)? What if it announced that Islamic groups in the U.S. are carrying out a stealth jihad to subvert American institutions and Constitutional government (which they patently are, as per the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that came to light at the trial of the Holy Land Foundation last summer, the Islamic supremacist statements made by CAIR leaders and others, the initiatives to force American businesses and public institutions to make special accommodation for Muslim practices, etc.)? What if it even quoted statements such as the one by CAIR's Omar Ahmad: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth"?

Then that there is no telling how this ruling may have come out. Then it would be "hate speech." And even if the court decision had been the same, CAIR would be issuing "Action Alerts" and "Incitement Watch" pieces about "hatred of Muslims," and the mainstream media would fall into line behind them. But say you're a jihadist with a WMD? Fine, fine, be on your way!

"Ninth Circuit Holds Van’s Message of ‘Jihad’ Protected Speech," by Sherri K. Okamoto for the Metropolitan News-Enterprise (Los Angeles), June 30 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

A Grass Valley man’s proclamation via block letters on his 1970 Volkswagen van that he was a terrorist carrying a weapon of mass destruction was political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

A three judge panel concluded that police officers violated Matthew Fogel’s constitutional rights by arresting him and impounding the van upon which he had painted the message, as well as other slogans and paintings, but declined to impose liability against the officers, holding that a reasonable officer could have concluded the message was not protected under existing precedent.

Fogel painted block letters on the back of his van indicating he was a suicide bomber, and declaring “jihad” on the First Amendment and invoking Allah to praise the Patriot Act. The rest of the vehicle was decorated with slogans and paintings added by Fogel and his friends that had no political or threatening character.

When a citizen in the town located between Sacramento and Reno complained about the van, a police officer responded, but told his supervisor that the writing was merely satire. The supervisor disagreed, however, and ordered the officer to treat the situation like a bomb threat.

Mild-Mannered

Officers testified that, upon being questioned about the van’s messages, Fogel said he wanted to “scare people into thinking.” The interviewing officer stated in a deposition that he found Fogel mild-mannered, and that he did not take the writing as a threat.

The officers did not follow standard bomb threat procedures at the scene or during a subsequent search of the van, but impounded the vehicle and arrested Fogel, who spent one night in jail before being released when the district attorney declined to press charges. The police department released Fogel’s van once he removed the writing.

[...]

Fletcher also pointed out that the officers who saw the van and its message did not behave as if they believed the speech was a true threat and there was no evidence that Fogel subjectively intended the speech as a true threat of serious harm, leading Fletcher to conclude that Fogel’s message was “exactly the kind of ‘unpleasantly sharp attack’” on the government that the First Amendment “welcomes and protects.”...

Pentagon charges mastermind of USS Cole mass murder

The perpetrator of a pre-9/11 jihad attack is charged. "Alleged USS Cole Mastermind Charged: Pentagon Says Guantanamo Detainee Met With Bin Laden, Purchased Boat and Explosives," by Luis Martinez and Theresa Cook for ABC News, June 30 (thanks to JMB): The Pentagon has charged a Guantanamo Bay detainee with planning and participating in the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

The Pentagon has charged Saudi 'Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri with planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen. Al-Nashiri is in custody at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The U.S. military claims that Saudi 'Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri masterminded the plot in which two men appearing to be civilians piloted their small boat toward the Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen, and detonated explosives hidden inside the vessel.

The attack killed 17 sailors, wounded another 47 and left a 40-foot hole in the side of the ship.

The charges say al-Nashiri met with Osama bin Laden to reorganize and plot the Cole attack after a similar plot against the USS the Sullivans failed in January 2000....

Enough of political perfidy

Isi Leibler
July 1, 2008

It was only when recently addressing a Jewish gathering abroad that the extent of the shame of the immoral and indecent behavior of our elected leaders fully impacted on me. It all came together like a bad dream as I tried to put a positive gloss on our dismal reality.

Labor and Shas have now again reneged on their undertaking to force our failed and dysfunctional prime minister to go home. Together with Ehud Olmert's ruling party Kadima, they have once more betrayed their national obligations. By extending the prime minister's political lease of life by at least another six months after having repeatedly proclaimed that he is incapable of leading the nation, Labor leader Ehud Barak demonstrated that he and Olmert are birds of a feather. Whereas formerly, even failed leaders were motivated by what they considered to be the national interest, today the pathetic spin merchants are obsessed with the need to retain power and shamelessly promote their personal agendas. They display contempt for the people and remain unconcerned by the long-term damage they inflict.

In the past, Israel was renowned as a nation of courage, determination and sophistication. Deterrence was the hallmark of our defense and our adversaries were highly conscious that they would face swift retribution if they shed innocent Jewish blood. Today, our enemies are aware that empty threats are the order of the day. The impotence of our government was highlighted when it abandoned citizens in the south, transforming many of them into refugees in their own land.

Today, despite having the most powerful army in the region, both Olmert and Barak violated their repeated mantra that "there will be no truce with terrorists" and the numerous pledges extended to the cabinet and to the Schalit family, that no Gaza agreement with Hamas would be consummated without securing Gilad's freedom. They entered into a truce with a terrorist militia which openly proclaimed that it had no intention of enforcing compliance on other groups. Hamas also made abundantly clear their intention to exploit the lull in order to regroup, obtain more lethal weapons from Iran and renew their attacks on us at a time of their choosing.

After having canvassed the world to reject any relationship with Hamas, we have now provided all countries with a green light to recognize and deal directly with them. That a terrorist militia could impose a military stalemate on us amounts to an even greater national disgrace than our debacle with Hizbullah in Lebanon. The "truce" also contradicts our repeated insistence that appeasing terrorists is a guaranteed prescription for disaster that will embolden jihadists worldwide

Appeasement and unilateral concessions are also underway on the broader diplomatic front. Our prime minister is engaged in secret negotiations behind closed doors in frenetic efforts to reach an accord with his impotent Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas before the end of the year. This is especially bizarre in view of the virtual certainty that the PA will ultimately merge or be taken over by Hamas, who will then reap the benefits of our largesse. What is even more incredible is that the concessions Olmert has offered the Palestinians relating to Jerusalem and other vital national assets have still not been revealed to the cabinet or Knesset.

There are the negotiations with Syria, also initiated by the prime minister without prior Cabinet approval, signaling the Syrians of a willingness to relinquish the Golan. Olmert did so realizing that an accommodation with the Syrians, who are deeply entrenched with the Iranians, is currently virtually impossible. In doing so, we outraged the Americans and rehabilitated Assad, who until now was regarded as an international pariah. The UN representative to Lebanon, Terje Roed Larsen - no friend of Israel - condemned our government for "giving Syria a huge gift without thus far getting anything in return." To top it off, we are also signaling the reluctant Lebanese that we are willing to cede the Sheba Farms to them despite the fact that hitherto the UN itself rejected Lebanese territorial claims to this highly strategic piece of land, on the grounds that it belonged to Syria.

The prime minister and his spin merchants utterly mishandled the cruel negotiations relating to our missing soldiers. They issued contradictory statements every day, inflicted unbearable pain on the families, undermined the morale of the nation, and provided grist for the propaganda mills of Hizbullah and our enemies.

In parallel to this chaos we have the ongoing flow of irresponsible outbursts by self-promoting ministers. Haim Ramon, a deputy prime minister, wails that the truce is a defeat for Israel. Shaul Mofaz, another deputy prime minister, proclaims that Israel will bomb Iran. Both the foreign affairs minister and the defense minister, directly or implicitly, call on the prime minister to resign because of his immoral behavior. Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i tells Sderot citizens to stop moaning about missiles being launched against them. Interior Minister Avi Dichter condemns the government for not taking military action against Hamas. Justice Minister Daniel Freedman describes the truce with Hamas as an act of insanity. This list could be substantially extended and an entire section devoted to the political perfidy and twists and turns of Defense Minister Ehud Barak

And to top it all, our prime minister, under investigation for suspected corruption, refuses to suspend himself and continues making life and death decisions which most people are convinced are products of a mind totally distracted by personal woes. Although Olmert's days are certainly numbered, one can only shudder at what diplomatic fire sales or other initiatives he may be contemplating in his terminal phase, in order to save himself or create a contrived historical legacy.

Yet the coalition parties and cabinet ministers, most of whom publicly condemn him, lack the courage even to demand accountability and act as though cabinet responsibility had been annulled. They remain glued to their seats, refusing to act, in fear of facing the people's day of judgment.

The core of the problem rests with Kadima itself, which, from day one - with a few notable exceptions - comprised a mélange of frustrated politicians with diverse viewpoints, united only in seeking to promote their personal interests. They embraced a pseudo secular messianic belief that Ariel Sharon would somehow achieve miracles. But the personality cult disintegrated when Sharon's questionable private activities were exposed, and the repercussions of the disastrous Gaza unilateral disengagement which set the scene for the current malaise could no longer be concealed.

Kadima will be remembered for having eroded the core values of Zionism. It initiated spurious policies of unilateral concessions, appeasement and a reluctance to exercise deterrence and military strength. History will record the Kadima era as comparable to that of Neville Chamberlain's policies of appeasement, which led to the lights going out all over Europe.

The ongoing failure of all the coalition parties to impel Olmert to go is monstrous. They will go down in history as disgraced opportunists willing to sacrifice the welfare of the nation for their own selfish pursuits.

The people are enraged and frustrated. The massive demonstrations organized after the Lebanon War calling on the government, especially the prime minister, to stand down were contemptuously ignored. Most now believe that protesting will achieve nothing.

Throughout this entire unhappy period, our nation has displayed courage and resilience. Under a new leadership, they will again rise to the occasion. The IDF is in good hands and has been dramatically upgraded. When authorized by a new government to employ genuine deterrence, it could transform the entire situation overnight.

So would an electoral system that could put an end once and for all to the horse trading which has become the hallmark of our present degraded Knesset.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726165080&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel's Forgotten MIAs

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

Yona Baumel, father of missing Staff Sgt. Zecharya Baumel, spoke to Israel National News about the latest ransom agreement Israel reached with Lebanon's Hizbullah terrorist organization. Unlike more recent kidnapping victims, Baumel feels his family has been abandoned. . Zacharya was one of five soldiers captured by elements of the PLO and Syrian forces in Southern Lebanon in June of 1982. Two soldiers were subsequently released in a prisoner exchange with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine's General Command, while Zecharya, Staff Sgt. Zvi Feldman and Staff Sgt. Yehuda Katz have been missing ever since. According to the Foreign Ministry, there have been indications that one or more of the soldiers are still alive and under Syrian control.

Yona Baumel told Arutz Sheva that Israel's current inactivity in relation to finding and returning his son, Feldman and Katz from their captivity is due to the length of time that has passed since the events. "The people in the army dealing with it must have been 10 years old when it happened," he said, "and it's left pretty much to the parents to fend for themselves in looking for information."

Baumel said that up until three years ago, the families had information that Zacharya was still being held by the Syrians. However, the lack of more current word of his son's fate, Baumel added, "is very worrisome."

Asked about the impact of exchanging terrorist prisoners for kidnapped Israelis, Baumel said, "I very definitely feel that it will encourage further kidnappings." He added that Israel has essentially agreed to play according to Hamas and Hizbullah rules, rather than demanding that Red Cross representatives be allowed to see the hostages before there is any discussion of a ransom.

He has always been against the exchange of live terrorist prisoners for the bodies of murdered Israelis, Baumel said, even if such a deal would include his son's remains. .

Labor MK Quits Knesset

Hillel Fendel

Danny Yatom is the second Labor MK to resign from the Knesset in the past five weeks. Yatom announced his resignation at a party faction meeting in the Knesset on Monday afternoon. The reason? He no longer wants to be part of what he calls the "deteriorating political culture."

At the end of May, MK Ephraim Sneh resigned from the Knesset, citing his dissatisfaction with the way Labor has been run of late. Sneh has started a new party, called Yisrael Chazakah, Strong Israel.Yatom will be replaced in the Knesset by Leon Letinsky, a former member of the One Nation party headed by former Defense Minister and ex-Histadrut Labor Union Chief Amir Peretz.

Yatom, who has already submitted his resignation letter to the Knesset secretariat, said he is quitting politics because of what he called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's "ethical failures." He threatened last week to leave the legislature if Labor were to agree to continue in the coalition - which it did.

Outgoing-MK Yatom said the government has turned the concept of "personal survival" into an objective. "I feel that I am part of this deteriorating political culture every time I vote in favor of the government," he said.

Yatom, 63 and father of five, served in the IDF as O.C. Central Command, and was Military Secretary to the Prime and Defense Ministers. This was his second term as MK - thus that he resigned before meriting the pension and other benefits due to two-term MKs.

Yatom's brother Ehud Yatom, a former GSS Deputy Chief, was a Knesset Member with the Likud from 2003-2006. He was among those who objected to the Disengagement from Gush Katif and northern Shomron.

Kadima to Determine Primaries
In other political news, the Kadima party has ratified the agreement it signed with Labor last week, according to which it will hold primaries for party leader in September. Labor agreed, in turn, not to work to topple the government.

Ehud Olmert, whose replacement is the reason why Labor demanded primaries, has not yet said whether he will run in the primaries. He has said that after his lawyers cross-examine Moshe Talansky - the American philanthropist who testified that he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to Olmert - the public pressure to replace him will diminish.

Olmert left today's Kadima meeting before the primaries were discussed..

Bill Mandating Referendum on Land Concessions Passes First Vote

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

The Knesset approved on Monday the first reading of a bill that would mandate a national referendum on any future Israeli territorial concessions. The Knesset's Golan Lobby sees the vote as a tremendous success, with 65 Knesset Members supporting the bill and only 18 opposed. According to the bill, a Knesset vote and a nationwide referendum would be required for any agreement to cede
MKs opposing the bill included the far-left Meretz party, a Communist party spin-off (Hadash), and the Arab parties.
territory currently under Israeli jurisdiction. The referendum, to be held 90 days after the Knesset vote, would include the wording of the relevant government decision and would offer voters the chance to approve or reject the proposed concession.

In the event that 80 MKs or more approve the government decision, however, no referendum would be required. An additional caveat is that if national elections are to be held within 180 days of the Knesset vote on the proposed concession, the election results would be considered equivalent to a referendum.

The large support for the proposed law was a result, in part, of the coalition parties allowing their Knesset representatives the freedom to vote their consciences, rather than imposing party discipline. The bill still has to pass through committee and face two more parliamentary votes before it becomes law.

"The Knesset has given a message to the Prime Minister and to President Assad that Israel will not withdraw from the Golan Heights," said MK Yisrael Katz (Likud). "The Golan Lobby, which I head, will take action towards a speedy conclusion of the legislation process for this bill, as soon as during the term of the current Knesset."

MKs opposing the bill included the far-left Meretz party, a Communist party spin-off (Hadash), and the Arab parties Ra'am-Ta'al and the National Democratic Assembly. MK Zehava Gal'on (Meretz) said that the law would "change the rules of the game." She believes that a national referendum would "lessen the status of the Knesset" by "transferring the decision from the Knesset to the people."

A National Referendum 'Will Most Certainly Be Honored'
Ahead of the vote, during a meeting of the MKs in the Golan Lobby, opposition head Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) said, "The most fateful decision a state can make about its future is a decision regarding... the ceding of territory. In many countries in the world, it is a very rare thing, which entails all sorts of complicated and impossible legal maneuvers. In our case, people can make such decisions with the wave of a hand - as in the case of the Golan Heights, about which there is a broad national consensus [against withdrawal]."

Asked by Israel National News why no referendum was held ahead of the uprooting of Jewish communities in Gaza and northern Samaria under the Sharon administration - the Disengagement - Netanyahu replied: "At the time, we called for a referendum and our demand was rejected. There was a referendum among Likud members and for some reason, we were ignored. A referendum such as the one we are legislating, however, will most certainly be honored."

MK David Tal (Kadima) said that the law, if passed in its second and third round, will "encourage the residents of the Golan Heights and prevent dangerous concessions."

Israeli and Syrian representatives have already met in discussions over an agreement that would allegedly include Israeli concessions on the Golan Heights. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed the desire to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in coming weeks; however, Assad rejected the offer.

Fraud Unit to Investigate Membership Rolls of Olmert's Party

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel has succeeded in convincing the police department to investigate allegations that many Israeli citizens were unwittingly registered as Kadima party members. The National Fraud Unit chief wrote to Movement directors on Monday that his department will be looking into the claims. The Kadima party comptroller will also initiate an independent investigation. The allegations, first broadcast on Israel TV's Channel 10 on Friday, come at the end of an intensive Kadima membership drive and just ahead of party primaries. Later this month, the Kadima leadership is slated to select a date for primaries.

In response to the Channel 10 report, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told a meeting of Kadima's Knesset representatives, "The party's integrity has to be important to everyone here." She called for the party to initiate its own investigation into the claims aired by Channel 10.

In its letter to the Attorney General, the State Comptroller, the Party Registrar and Kadima officials, the Movement for Quality Government demanded that Kadima be prevented from using its membership lists for any purpose until the results of the investigation are known, "even at the cost of postponing the primaries." Failing to do so, the Movement said, would risk doing damage to the democratic process as a whole.

The Channel 10 report purported to show that Kadima membership registration forms were forged, including the registration of people with no connection to the party whatsoever, as well as other irregularities. In conversations with registered Kadima members, Channel 10 correspondents found that dozens of people were not even aware that they appear on the party rolls, while others had membership dues paid on their behalf without their consent. In some cases, there had been mass registration of employee union members, especially in those large unions under the authority of the Transportation Ministry, which is headed by Minister Sha'ul Mofaz. Mofaz is one of the leading contenders for the Kadima party chairmanship.

On June 22, the Movement for Quality Government wrote a letter to the Attorney General demanding a criminal investigation of Minister Mofaz over the allegations. According to the June 22 letter, Mofaz used the influence of his position as Transportation Minister for personal political gain.

The latest report regarding forged Kadima membership rolls "is another link in a series of recent revelations concerning allegedly problematic behavior that may even constitute a violation of... the Parties Law and... the Elections in State Companies Law," the Movement for Quality Government said in a statement. The seriousness of the allegations, according to the Movement, stems from the fact that Kadima members "will have the power to determine not only who will head the Kadima party, but who will head the government. In such a situation, if the allegations turn out to be correct, it will be devastatingly destructive to the democratic process and to the principle of [political] representation in the State of Israel."

FYI: CABINET RESOLVES TO BRING CAPTIVES HOME

Israeli Government

1. Our responsibility to our servicemen is a supreme value in Israel. It stems from the moral foundations of the State of Israel and the Jewish faith. This is Israel's true strength.

2. The Cabinet endorsed the prisoner exchange to send a message to IDF soldiers and their families – that Israel will always do everything in its power to bring its sons and daughters home. This, despite misgivings over the need to release a cold-blooded murderer, Samir Kuntar, whose brutality is celebrated by Arab extremists.
. 3. Israel aspired to reach a deal quickly and on the most favorable terms possible. Rejecting the current deal could have meant a lengthy delay and a more painful price tag.

4. The agreement will return Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev to Israel, together with the additional remains of soldiers who fell during the Second Lebanon War and a report on the fate of Ron Arad. Israel will return Kuntar, four other Lebanese terrorists and the bodies of dozens of infiltrators and terrorists (including eight Hizbullah members) to Lebanon. Israel will also give the UN Secretary-General information on four missing Iranian diplomats and, after the exchange, release Palestinian prisoners – whose identity and number will be at Israel's exclusive discretion.

5. The Government of Israel remains steadfast in its commitment to obtain reliable information on the fate of Ron Arad and to continue working for the release of Gilad Shalit. No effort will be spared to find them and the other MIAs and to bring them home.

6. Israel's response to the abduction of Goldwasser and Regev was unprecedented – Hizbullah suffered a severe blow to its infrastructure, arsenals and operatives. Its leaders are still in hiding. Israel will respond with full force to any future attempts to abduct its soldiers and citizens.

7. Hizbullah, Hamas, and their fellow Iran-backed terrorists are responsible for the suffering of Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese. They are the obstacle to peace between Israel and its neighbors.

8. Israel expects the international community to take decisive action against extremists and to support Israel's efforts to defend its citizens while it negotiates peace with pragmatic counterparts.

מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
29.06.2008

.

New law stipulates: Territorial withdrawal only by referendum

Shahar Ilan and Eli Ashkenazi, Haaretz Correspondents

The Knesset approved on Monday the referendum law, which mandates a national referendum or a two thirds Knesset majority prior to a withdrawal from any territory under Israeli territory. The law was approved in its first reading by a majority of 65 MKs to 18. . The vote came as indirect peace talks were underway between Israel and Syria, revolving around the Syrian demand that Israel return the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War, in return for peace. A third round of talks was to begin this week.

Earlier Monday, the "Golan Lobby" convened at the Knesset ahead of the vote. The meeting was attended by Deputy Prime Minister and Trade Minister Eli Yishai (Shas), who said that the law is a positive and important measure, though his party generally opposes holding referendums.

"I think that talk about [pulling out of the Golan] Heights cause great damage to the residents," Yishai said. "Anything we can do to help is a blessing and is required and therefore we will support the law."

An existing law already mandates a referendum before ceding any territory under Israeli sovereignty, but it also states that this requirement will not apply until a Basic Law detailing the procedures for holding a referendum is passed. The current law eliminated the need to enact a Basic Law. Instead, it requires that territorial concessions be approved by a national referendum or general elections or a majority of 80 Knesset members.

Golan Lobby Chairman MK Yisrael Katz said that it was extremely important that the law was approved, in order to make it clear that attempts to hand over the Golan will be followed by the tedious procedure of a referendum. "There is an important message here, especially while negotiations are underway," Katz said.

Opposition Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu said the "in Western countries, giving up land is impossibly difficult, and in tiny little Israel, governments can relinquish land with unbearable ease. This is something that must be rectified, and the law can do that."

MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said that negotiations over the Golan Heights were a crime. "Giving up the Golan would be a national disaster that the Zionist endeavor will not recover from," he said.

Deputy Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein (Likud) said "the Knesset needs to learn from its own history? this law sends a clear message that the decision will be approved by the people, without outside considerations, tricks or political bribes."

MK David Tal (Kadima), the chairman of the special committee that prepared the law, said Sunday that "if the referendum law is approved by less than 65 MKs, I will view it as a personal failure."

/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=997608

The Meaning of the DC Gun Case Decision

Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com
6/30/2008

The Supreme Court’s decision striking down Washington, D.C.’s restrictive gun ban represented an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, affirming each American’s right to keep and bear arms (with some restrictions)—as opposed to a collectivist militia-based interpretation. However, in the media buzz (and conservative rejoicing) over the opinion, it should be not overlooked that many questions remain unanswered.. Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the recent landmark Second Amendment gun case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is a major contribution to American constitutional law.

It is at once a rich exposition of the Second Amendment’s historical context, a textbook demonstration of Originalist analysis of an important constitutional amendment, a surgical dissection of virtually every word of the amendment, and a point-by-point refutation of the dissents of Justice Stevens (for himself and Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) and Justice Breyer (for himself and Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg). (Apparently Justice Scalia is too much of a gentleman to have reminded the dissenters that they, too, employed an Originalist-type methodology, but doubtless only as a matter of convenience to justify their losing “militia” argument.)

Scalia’s opinion is also a ringing endorsement of the individual rights view of the Constitution and, in its rejection of the dissenters “militia” and “balancing” arguments, a repudiation of the collectivist approach to the enumerated and unenumerated rights of the first nine amendments. In this regard Scalia wrote that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In other words, when the founders wrote, and the states approved, the Second Amendment (as with the entire Bill of Rights), they removed from the other two branches all power to prevent American citizens from using firearms to defend their homes.

Also very important is that Scalia’s opinion makes clear that subsidiary questions about the scope of the Second Amendment right enunciated by the Court in Heller will in the future be decided by Originalist principles, not, as Justice Breyer’s dissent argued, on the basis of a cultural/social balancing act, with the justices holding the scale.

Because Heller dealt with one of the most sensitive constitutional/cultural issues in America today, for the past several days the print, broadcast, and internet media have understandably been saturated with news and commentary about the decision.

Unfortunately, much of it has been over the top, like the statement by the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation: “This ruling also makes it abundantly clear that laws which ban the possession of firearms, or make it simply impossible through regulation for citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional and cannot stand.”

According to him, then, under the Heller decision paroled armed robbers can own machine guns.

Despite the hyperbole, SAF’s founder really knows what Heller actually decided, but many others—among them most laypersons and even many lawyers—do not. The reason is that like other federal and state appellate courts the Supreme Court of the United States can decide only the specific issue before it, and in Heller that was very limited.

To make the point, here’s an extreme example: In a case presenting the question of whether it’s cruel and unusual punishment to deny vegetarians special food in prison, the Court could not properly rule on the constitutionality of capital punishment.

In many appellate court opinions, however, one often finds rambling discourses about all sorts of things that have little or nothing to do with the facts and law of the case at hand, let alone the actual issue to be decided: irrelevant facts, extraneous history, faulty reasoning, inapplicable precedents.

Sometimes, an appellate opinion will even purport to make a ruling despite it lacking any basis in the facts of the case and not resolving the actual issue before that court.

Lawyers often refer to these discourses and rulings as obiter dicta (from the Latin, meaning “a remark in passing; a casual observation”; or in law, “something said by the judge while giving judgment, that is not essential to the decision”).

Thus, in the vegetarian prisoner example, if Justice Souter’s opinion drifted into a discussion about the evils of Seventeenth Century English prisons, and then roamed into Fifteenth Century capital punishment, and then segued into how the Eighth Amendment probably barred capital punishment, all of that discourse would be (among other things!) dicta.

It’s important to understand this phenomenon of dicta because it underscores the necessity of focusing narrowly on exactly what appellate courts are being asked to decide.

The first thing Justice Scalia did in his opinion was to lay out what the case was all about. He explained what the District of Columbia law prohibited, what the aggrieved citizen (Mr. Heller) was seeking, what decision the trial court made, and how the Court of Appeals viewed the case and what it ruled. (My comments are bracketed.)

The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited...Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods...

District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns [e.g., rifles], “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. * * *

. . . Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing [1] the bar on the registration of handguns, [2] the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and [3] the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.”..

The District Court dismissed [Heller’s] complaint . . . .

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, [narrowly] construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense [my emphasis] reversed . . . . It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. (My emphasis.)

Based on the D.C. law’s prohibitions, Heller’s application to register a handgun, the trial court’s decision, and the Court of Appeals’ construction of what the issue was and its resolution, the first sentence of Justice Scalia’s opinion was: “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.” (My emphasis.)

Well, not exactly.

A mere two paragraphs later, Scalia would write that the Court of Appeals had held that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.” (My emphasis.) So, why was his first sentence limited to “usable handguns”?

In our search for the issue actually before the Heller Court, and to understand what that case actually decided, we have to look to the penultimate paragraph of Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court, some sixty-three pages later: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” (My emphasis.)

This, and only this, is what the Supreme Court majority decided in District of Columbia v. Heller: the handgun ban and the inoperative requirement for home possession.

Because Heller is hedged by those four elements—“home,” “lawful,” “immediate,” “self-defense”—and, as I show below, because other important questions remain unanswered, judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment rather than ending with Heller has just begun.

For example, Part III of Justice Scalia’s opinion states that:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues...Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [An earlier Supreme Court case] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time [1791].” * * * We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” (My emphasis.)

Thus we are reminded that “like most rights” the gun “right” acknowledged by the Heller majority can be regulated, even restricted. It is regulation and restriction—and definitions of “home,” “lawful,” “immediate,” and “self-defense”—which will give rise to the many Second Amendment cases yet to come, concerning who can possess firearms, what kind of weapons they can be, where guns can be carried, when they can be sold and to whom, whether outdoors they must be in plain view, and more.

As important as are these questions, and the many others implied in them, there are two more that are even more so.

One is what “standard of review” the court to apply to, say, a New York law, requiring all handguns carried outdoors to be concealed lest the public be scared by being exposed to all that hardware.

Although “standard of review” is a technical question for judges and constitutional lawyers, its answer could determine just how much of a gun right really exists. If the courts’ “standard of review” of gun laws is very deferential, such a New York law would probably be upheld because the state had a good reason to enact it, and the regulation/restriction did not bite too deep into the Heller-established right. If on the other hand, the courts’ “standard of review” is much stricter and the Heller-established right is really a solid, virtually untouchable right, such a New York law would be considered too regulatory/restrictive and held unconstitutional.

As important as is this standard of review question, an even more vital Second Amendment issue is buried in footnote 23 of Justice Scalia’s opinion. It raises the “incorporation” issue (see www.henrymarkholzer.com at “50 of the Worst S/Ct Decs” in the Table of Contents under the case of Gitlow v. New York, for a discussion of the Incorporation Doctrine).

In footnote 23 Justice Scalia’s majority opinion expressly left open “a question not presented by this case”—one, when answered, will be at least as important as the Heller decision itself: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states by “incorporation” through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Given the virtually wholesale incorporation of the entire Bill of Rights to the states already through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—e.g., speech, press, religion, counsel, search and seizure, self-incrimination—it is likely that the answer to the Second Amendment “incorporation” question will be affirmative. If so, given the many unanswered questions raised by Heller, and all the state anti-gun legislation already on the books, Second Amendment litigation could well become a growth industry for constitutional lawyers.

Henry Mark Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, is a constitutional lawyer and author most recently of The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas, 1991-2006, A Conservative’s Perspective.

AS-SABIQUN

Discoverthenetwork

* Seeks to recreate "the system of governance known as Khilafah, or the Caliphate, patterned after the leadership exemplified by [the] Prophet Muhammad"
* Works to "enable Islam to take complete control of our lives, and ultimately, the lives of all human beings on Earth"
* Aims to "direct the society toward Islamic revolution (or evolution)."
* Supporter of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, the terrorist group Hezbollah, and cop-killer Jamil Al-Alim



Founded in the early 1990s by Imam Abdul Alim Musa, As-Sabiqun (whose name means “The Vanguard” in Arabic) is a Sunni endeavor that seeks, through “an organized Islamic movement,” to establish Islam “as a complete way of life in America” -- “in total, complete, and uncompromised service of Allah.”

On July 4, 1994, As-Sabiqun enumerated its major organizational objectives in a document that stated, most notably: * "We resolve to work with other communities (movements) … toward the end of harnessing the power of Muslims and their resources for the purpose of reestablishing the system of governance known as Khilafah, or the Caliphate, patterned after the leadership exemplified by Prophet Muhammad."
* "We resolve to utilize all the tools of Islam to develop an analysis and plan of action to totally and completely obliterate the hold of jahiliyyah [spiritual ignorance] and enable Islam to take complete control of our lives, and ultimately, the lives of all human beings on Earth."
* "We resolve to shape the ideas, beliefs, and moral viewpoints of the people into an Islamic mold. Toward this end we will … develop the comprehensive educational system that is necessary to inform, inspire, and direct the society toward Islamic revolution (or evolution)."
* "We resolve to make Islam a living force by challenging and breaking the hold of social and political forces seeking to suppress and destroy Islam."

Believing that “Islam is fully capable of producing a working and just social, political, economic order,” As-Sabiqun “does not advocate participation in the American political process as an ideal method for advancing Islamic issues in the U.S.” Instead, it calls for “a strong and active outreach to the people of the U.S.” -- an effort aimed at persuading Americans to embrace Islamic beliefs, customs, and institutions. The movement endorses “cooperation on domestic social issues with like-minded non-Muslim groups,” but only “as long as Islamic ethics and morality are not compromised.”

As-Sabiqun’s major ideological influences include the writings and crusades of Malcolm X, Maulana Mawdudi, Shaikh ‘Uthman dan Fodio, Sayyid Qutb, Kalim Siddiqui, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna.

Though As-Sabiqun is a Sunni entity, it has publicly voiced support for such Shi’a movements and organizations as the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah. According to Abdul Alim Musa, Muslims today ought not engage in the "counter-productive" habit of focusing on the differences between Sunni and Shi’a Islam; rather, they should aim to unite in their struggle against non-Muslims.

As a roadmap for the achievement of its goals, As-Sabiqun has outlined a plan of action that includes the following:

* "Establis[h] a masjid (mosque) as a place to worship Allah in congregation and as a center of spiritual and moral training."
* "Cal[l] the general society to Islam (da’wah)."
* "Establis[h] a full-time school that raises children with a strong Islamic identity so they can, as future Islamic leaders, effectively meet and deal with the challenges of growing up in the West." (Toward this end, As-Sabiqun has set up a fund for the financing of Islamic schools that will help Muslim children "be the ones to mold society instead of having society mold them.")
* "Establis[h] businesses which could make the movement financially stable and independent." (Says As-Sabiqun: "So crucial is the development of an economic base for our community, that we take as a major goal our development as one of the main suppliers of Islamic books, media, fragrances, and other products in the United States.")
* "Establis[h] geographical integrity by encouraging Muslims of the community to live in close proximity to the masjid."
* "Establis[h] social welfare institutions to respond to the need for spiritual and material assistance within the community as well as the general society."
* "Make Islam a living force by challenging and breaking the grasp of social and political forces seeking to suppress and destroy the Deen [Islamic way of life]."
* "Obliterate the hold of jahiliyyah [spiritual ignorance] through moral and spiritual development."
* "Establish Islamic homes and build model communities where Islam is lived."

As-Sabiqun mosques across the U.S. offer daily Islamic studies classes on a variety of topics, including basic Muslim beliefs and practices, the meanings of Koranic verses and their practical significance, principles of Islamic jurisprudence, and analysis of contemporary political events. New members of the group are encouraged not only to attend these classes, but also “to familiarize themselves with the works of Islamic thinkers such as Maulana Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Kalim Siddiqui, Shaikh ‘Uthman dan Fodio, and others.”

One of As-Sabiqun’s major ongoing projects is its effort to win the freedom of Jamil Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown. Al-Amin was a Minister of Justice for the Black Panther Party in the 1960s, and is currently serving a life sentence for the March 16, 2000 murder of a police officer.

As-Sabiqun is headquartered in Washington, DC, and has additional branches in Philadelphia (where Abdul Alim Musa first established it), Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento.

Livni the leader, or Livni the lamb?

Jun. 30, 2008
Caroline Glick
THE JERUSALEM POST

What is one to make of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni? Is she the next Golda Meir? Is she a woman of steel who can stand before world leaders and demand that they treat Israel with respect? Can she win a war? Can she - as Golda did in the Yom Kippur War - keep her head when all about her are losing theirs and blaming it on her? . On Sunday, Livni dutifully followed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in voting to approve the terrorists-for-dead-hostages deal with Hizbullah. Despite the government's best efforts to put a brave face on the decision, the deal with Hizbullah is arguably the most humiliating step ever taken by a government of Israel.

In exchange for the bodies of two dead soldiers - Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser - Israel has succumbed to all of Hizbullah's demands. It will release six murderers from prison and send them to Lebanon for a hero's welcome. It will give Hizbullah the bodies of 200 terrorists and so empty Israel's Potters Field for terrorists. Moreover, it has pledged to close Israel's graveyard for terrorists and so has committed future governments to never keeping terrorists' bodies as bargaining cards for future swaps of Israeli hostages. Israel has agreed to provide Hizbullah with information on four missing Iranian "diplomats." And it has agreed to release an unknown number of Palestinian terrorists from prison.

This deal will cement Iran's control of Lebanon through Hizbullah. It also all but guarantees that any future Israeli soldiers taken hostage by Hizbullah will be killed on the spot. Why care for hostages when you can murder them and expect to receive the same payoff you would get if you kept them alive?

Livni voted for this deal along with 21 of her fellow ministers. Unlike her colleagues, who hide behind their surrogates and spokesmen, Livni is out in front - lying to the public about the nature of her action.

Obviously cognizant of just how humiliating and strategically disastrous this deal is for Israel, Livni is spinning her move in a naked attempt to shirk her responsibility for having voted as she did.

After the government's vote, Livni told reporters that she will not support implementing her own decision if the Palestinians Israel releases are "central terrorist operatives." She will only agree to release terrorists who are small-time operators. And if she is called upon to release senior terrorists, she will not support moving ahead.

LIVNI'S STATEMENT is disturbing on many levels. First, it raises the disconcerting prospect that the government never discussed the identity - or number - of Palestinian terrorists it just agreed to release. Are we to believe that Livni sat through a five-hour cabinet meeting and never once asked who she was voting to release? Is it possible that Israel's Foreign Minister never took it upon herself to be informed of the substance of her decisions? Beyond that, how could she have voted to approve a deal that she doesn't understand?

More than anything, Livni's statement is depressing for what it says about her character - or lack thereof. By making this statement, Livni was attempting to evade responsibility for her own actions. And these actions go beyond her vote in favor of this execrable, morally atrocious and strategically disastrous deal with Hizbullah. They consist of all her moves as foreign minister since Regev and Goldwasser were abducted from their position at the border with Lebanon on July 12, 2006.

From the earliest stages of Israel's war with Hizbullah two years ago, Livni preached defeatism. Livni began calling for a negotiated cease-fire that would leave Hizbullah in charge of South Lebanon just hours after Hizbullah attacked Goldwasser's and Regev's unit and began bombing northern Israel with rockets. She exhorted her colleagues that Israel had no prospects for military victory. Livni did this even as it was clear that the only good option Israel had was to fight for a military victory.

Had Israel defeated Iran's foreign legion in Lebanon on the battlefield, it would have secured northern Israel and enabled the March 14 democracy movement to fulfill its promise of transforming Lebanon into a multi-ethnic democracy. Already on July 12, 2006, it was clear that an Israeli defeat would pave the way for Hizbullah's takeover of the country.

Yet in the face of this known reality, Livni called for Israel to capitulate. The policy she advocated involved Israel throwing itself at the mercy of the UN and begging the Security Council to deploy forces to the border to protect Israel. And in the end, Livni's defeatism was embraced by Olmert and her fellow ministers and so Israel lost its first war.

On the ground, the international forces whose deployment along the border was the centerpiece of Livni's policy are a joke. As was foreseen by her critics both within the government and in the public discourse at the time, UNIFIL is wholly ineffective because it has absolutely no interest in fighting Hizbullah. As expected, it has done nothing to prevent Hizbullah's rearmament. It has done nothing to protect the pro-democratic forces in Lebanon from Hizbullah. Indeed, in Hizbullah's putsch last month, UNIFIL forces behaved as if nothing was going on. Far from protecting Israel's border, UNIFIL forces have acted as a buffer to enable Hizbullah to reassert its control over the border unchallenged.

LIVNI OF course, has never acknowledged her own mistakes or share of responsibility for this dismal state of affairs. And now, after voting to cement Hizbullah's victory over Israel, far from accepting responsibility for the situation she has been instrumental in fomenting, Livni makes self-serving and patently false statements to reporters in an obvious attempt to hide her own basic defeatism.

Livni's character and behavior are worth considering because the media has all but anointed her Israel's next prime minister. Every article about businessmen making cash payments to Olmert is accompanied by a fawning profile of Livni. She is down to earth. She looks good in tailored pants suits. She is hard working. She isn't a thief. And she plays the drums.

The media would have us believe that the mere fact that Livni is not under police investigation renders her competent to lead the country. Obviously this is ridiculous. The real question is not whether Livni is a crook, but whether she is a leader. Is she?

OVER THE past three years, Livni has introduced and implemented a new doctrine for Israeli foreign policy. Its central theme is Jewish powerlessness. Livni has expressed this basic guiding notion in every major foreign policy address she has given since late 2005. Most recently, she repeated her view at a speech at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies on June 22.

There Livni explained that Israel's legitimacy as the Jewish state is conditional. The Jewish people's right to sovereignty is completely dependent on Israel's acceptance by the international community. And in her mind, that acceptance is completely contingent on the push to establish a Palestinian state.

As she put it, "Today, the existence of Israel is being delegitimized, not just its physical survival, but also its existence as the national home for the Jewish people... Only the fact that a profound international argument is being waged because of the Palestinians' demand for their own national state leads the world to perceive Israel's demand to be recognized as a national home for the Jewish people as legitimate... That means that [the Palestinians‚] demand solidifies and reinforces the perception of the existence of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people."

In other words, as Livni sees things, if Israel is not perceived as wholly committed to Palestinian statehood - by the Arabs and the West alike - then the world will never accept Israel and therefore, in her view, Israel's right to exist will disintegrate.

Livni's doctrine is unacceptable for two basic reasons. First, it is inherently bigoted against Jews. Livni's world view is built on the assertion that unlike every other nation on earth, the Jewish nation has no inherent, natural right to self-determination.

Moreover, from her perspective, Israel itself is completely powerless to change the situation. It cannot defend itself in international arenas. It can only bow to the prevailing winds and hope for the best. So in Livni's view, the fact that Israel has already existed as the sovereign Jewish state for 60 years has in no way changed the Jewish people's status. We are just as vulnerable to the political machinations of others today as we were for 2000 years of stateless exile, and we are fated to always be powerless. By her lights, our hard-won sovereignty is an empty shell that can never be filled.

LIVNI'S DOCTRINE does not merely make clear that she is a deeply limited thinker. It also exposes her as a follower. British Field Marshal Bernhard Montgomery once said, "My definition of leadership is this: The capacity and the will to rally men and women to a common purpose and the character which inspires confidence." The essence of leadership is the ability to present people a vision of a goal and then rally them to work with you towards achieving it.

Livni's world view is completely antithetical to this basic central notion of leadership. Far from rallying the people to a common purpose, she tells us that there is no goal we can achieve. As far as she's concerned, our state is nothing at all. Our power is nothing. Our collective will to persevere is counter-productive. Our heritage has value only if outsiders recognize it. Our rights are only as great as others' willingness to accept them.

Livni is not the first empty shell to be proclaimed by Israel's media as the next great white hope. Others, such as former IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and former Labor party leader Amram Mitzna, have also enjoyed that distinction. After years of media build-up, both men were quickly exposed as followers once they were actually challenged to lead.

It can only be hoped that Livni will be similarly challenged and so exposed before she is propelled to Israel's top spot. The nation can scarcely afford to be led by another weak-kneed sheep.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726165063&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull