Comments on reads 12/30 II

Hamas official calls for halt on attacks against Israel

A senior Hamas official has ordered the Islamist militant group to cease attacks on Israel, according to senior Fatah officials cited by the Ha'aretz daily newspaper.

Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal issued the order to the group’s military wing last month after reconciliation talks in Cairo with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Fatah party, the officials told Ha'aretz.

Israeli officials say they are unaware of any change in Hamas‘ policy.

However, Hamas already has refrained from firing rockets at Israel from the Gaza Strip in recent months.

A change in Mr. Meshal’s tone has been detectable in recent weeks.

Last week, he said popular protest, separate from armed struggle, has “the power of a tsunami,” citing recent uprisings in the Arab world.

…

The Fatah officials said Hamas will not recognize Israel, will reject any peace deals with the Jewish state and does not intend to stop arming itself.

Still, the new policy marks a divergence from Mr. Meshal’s previous militant rhetoric and signals a shift in strategy that could encourage Israeli consideration.

FP: Did I or did I not not predict that (1) Hamas will do this and that (2) it will be effective?

 

Egypt to return seized equipment and money, U.S. officials say

The Egyptian government has agreed to return equipment and money seized Thursday from Egyptian, American and other nongovernmental groups and to begin formal talks over their disputed participation in Egypt's political system, U.S. State Department officials said Friday.

U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson "sought and received Egyptian leadership assurances that the raids will cease and property will be returned immediately," said a statement by a senior administration official who asked to be identified as such.

Yet officials acknowledged that the groups' activities will remain suspended indefinitely, including their participation in observing the round of parliamentary elections that is scheduled for next week.

Egyptian activists and U.S. officials reacted with outrage when authorities seized laptops, cellphones, other equipment and cash from the Egyptian offices of at least 17 nongovernmental groups. Among them were three U.S.-based groups: the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House, and International Republican Institute.

The 17 groups say their activities are nonpartisan and aimed at helping the Egyptian people organize and learn technical skills involved in democratic government. But the country's military rulers have strongly resisted the organizations' work, in some cases viewing them as foreign meddling in their domestic politics, and have launched an investigation into alleged violations of Egyptian law.

FP: Ain’t the Arab spring grand? More:

Source: Al Qaeda leader sends veteran jihadists to establish presence in Libya

Al Qaeda's leadership has sent experienced jihadists to Libya in an effort to build a fighting force there, according to a Libyan source briefed by Western counter-terrorism officials. The jihadists include one veteran fighter who had been detained in Britain on suspicion of terrorism. The source describes him as committed to al Qaeda's global cause and to attacking U.S. interests.

The source told CNN that the al Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, personally dispatched the former British detainee to Libya earlier this year as the Gadhafi regime lost control of large swathes of the country. The man arrived in Libya in May and has since begun recruiting fighters in the eastern region of the country, near the Egyptian border. He now has some 200 fighters mobilized, the source added. Western intelligence agencies are aware of his activities, according to the source.

Looks like the poor, oppressed Arab masses were indeed liberated.

 

Afghanistan, China sign first contract to develop northwestern oil blocks

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Afghanistan's government signed a deal Wednesday with China's state-owned National Petroleum Corporation, allowing it to become the first foreign company to exploit the country's oil and natural gas reserves.

FP: An excellent example of how a dominant power self-destructs: the US has bankrupted itself and spilled its blood for China and Iran gains. I recently came across a comment by somebody that the US should pray that China not attack Taiwan, or the US would be compelled to borrow more from the Chinese to respond. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

 

A Mission of Amateurs

Just as their mission begins, Arab League observers are already in danger of losing their credibility in Syria. Their comments about the situation in the opposition stronghold of Homs seemed dismissive to the insurgents. And that's not the only mistake already made during the important visit.

The information emerging about the visit of Arab League observers to Syria is alarming -- but not because they plan to pointedly pursue the accusations against the regime of President Bashar Assad. Instead, it's because the first statements made by its leader, Sudanese Lt. Gen. Mustafa al-Dabi, are scandalous.

Speaking in the insurgent stronghold of Homs, he said that some areas looked "a bit of a mess," but otherwise he'd seen "nothing frightening"

While Dabi also said the mission to Syria would require more time, the fatal aspect of his statement is that it sounds dismissive, even if perhaps that's not how it was meant, even if the observers didn't witness a massacre that day, and even if he was trying to acknowledge the regime's promised withdrawal of the military from the area.

His statements set off alarm bells for parts of the Syrian opposition. They fear that Assad will be whitewashed, or that the regime in Damascus will be able to lead the observers only to places where no human rights violations are apparent. It seems inconceivable that the Arab League has praised Dabi for his diplomatic experience. This is exactly the kind of situation where making light of things should be avoided.

FP: Dabi is hardly an amateur, he is the founder of the Sudanese Janjaweed pogromist thug militia. His very assignment by the Arab League to observe another massacring thug tells you all you need to know. These are the Arabs in their natural state.

 

Bruce Kesler: Cal State’s Chutzpah

Spend any time on a university campus, and the official culture will become obvious in short order. Bigotry and prejudice against blacks, gays, or women simply isn’t tolerated. Even a hint of racism or sexism is met with quick and decisive punishment. But anti-Israel rants on California’s public-college campuses seem to be tolerated, politely ignored, or even tacitly condoned by the powers that be.

…

It isn’t hard to imagine what would happen to a professor who used the university’s website to post content opposed, say, to illegal immigration or legal abortion, especially if the subject was outside his academic field. Administrators would demand that the pages disappear, and they’d cite the university’s policies, chapter and verse. We know university administrators would loudly condemn a professor who maintained a website off campus that had a “deleterious effect on the university’s reputation.”

FP: Today only anti-Semitism is the sanctioned racism.

Comments on reads 12/30

IAF kills leader of Salafist-linked terrorist group in Gaza

Israel says Muaman Abu-Daf of the Army of Islam was killed in retaliation for rocket attacks • IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz: Arab Spring has unleashed regional turmoil, new reality in Middle East returns Israel to 1967 situation.

FP: The result of wishful thinking, lack of strategic thinking and appeasement policies (see next).


UK slams 'provocative' J'lem building plans

Britain joins France in saying Israel's approval of construction projects in Gilo, Silwan "counter-productive" to peace efforts.

FP: Appease them some more.

 
Hamas denies it is halting attacks against Israel

Claims organization has abandoned armed struggle “reflect the state of despair that Israeli gov't facing," Hamas official says.

FP: Knowing that the West will disregard this denial.


Israel warns: Next abduction of soldier or citizen will spark war

Forum of Eight senior ministers formulate new policy, unanimously agreeing on harshest response to future abductions of Israelis • Netanyahu: Reality is forcing us to change the rules of the game.

FP: So Israel handles the terrorists the initative and timing of war, which is a result of its own policy of negotiating with terrorists. Smart, very smart.

 
At Kerem Shalom, Gaza and Israel become unlikely trade partners

Business at the Kerem Shalom crossing has increased dramatically over the last year and a half • Some 4,500 truckloads of goods go into Gaza each month • Israel says it is working to boost the flow of construction materials into Gaza.

FP: And there is consistency too.


Egyptian police raid US-backed pro-democracy groups

U.S. expresses concern after heavy raids on offices of International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, and other U.S.-based human rights organizations • Washington hints may it review its $1.3 billion in military aid if raids continue.

FP: Wanna bet? Like the Palestinians, there is nothing the Egyptians can do that will stop funding.


JoshuaPundit: The Latest On US/Taliban Secret Negotiations - Mediated By Radical Muslim Brotherhood Leader

Yesterday's The Hindu has published a detailed report on the secret negotiations beyween the Taliban and the US. And even more interesting is whom the go between is...none other than radical Muslim Brotherhood jihadist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a name I'm sure you're all familiar with.

Qaradiwi is famous for praising Hitler and calling for the extermination of all Jews at the hands of Islam.He's also a huge fan of clitorectomies, wife beating, murdering homosexuals, and of course, the world-wide caliphate.He also praised "martyrdom operations" in Iraq frequently - against our troops.
The Indians are incensed at the American use of Qaradawi as a mediator because of his long standing call for a jihad against India to retake Kashmir:
…
The negotiations themselves have already resulted in Taliban leader Mullah Omar being taken off the American list of most wanted terrorists.Other deal poimts involve the release of all prisoners still held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, the lifting of United Nations sanctions on the Taliban leadership and recognition as a legitimate, non-terrorist political group.In other words, we're supposed to free the jihadists now held at Club Gitmo, legitimize the Taliban and turn a blind eye as they return Afghanistan back to the 7th century hellhole it was before we came.

In exchange, the Taliban will agree to play nice and to sever ties with al-Qaeda...which is headed back to the Middle East anyway now that we're leaving to take advantage of the new opportunities offered by the American retreat and the Arab Spring.By the way, that's exactly why Osama bin-Laden was fingered, because the new al-Qaeda head, Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zarahiri, a former Muslim Brotherhood member, wanted to head back to the Middle East to partake of those new opportunities and bin-Laden refused.

Don't buy the horse manure currently being peddled that the Muslim Brotherhood are 'peaceful' and about political change. They're about change all right, by any means necessary. And they have no problem whatsoever with jihadist violence when it suits them.

Embarrassing that the Obama Administration would turn to a genocidal racist like Qaradawi as a mediator for peace negotiations and add to his clout and prestige. They think they're using the Muslim Brotherhood..but the reality is that the Brotherhood is using them.

FP: Doesn’t that support my early argument that Obama has decided to realign with the Islamists in the delusion that they will become US allies and not destroy whatever is left of US interests and power in the ME? And doesn’t that explain why Obama abandoned Israel and embraced the Palestinians?


PowerLine: Keynes Was Right–About the Jews?

So Paul Krugman phoned in his periodic “Keynes Was Right” column today, arguing that the Obama Porkulus failed only because, like “true” Communism, it wasn’t tried vigorously or faithfully enough.

I wonder if Krugman also credits Keynes’s views on Jews, which British blogger Damian Thompson of The Telegraph brings to our attention.  From Keynes’s diary:

[Jews] have in them deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European, and their presence among us is a living example of the insurmountable difficulties that exist in merging race characteristics, in making cats love dogs …
It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains.

Thompson adds:

If Keynes was an intellectual hero of the Right, rather than the Left, do you think those quotes would be so little known?

Anti-Semitism used to be a property of the Right, yet it’s worth pointing out that today many of the intellectual heroes of the right are Jews, such as Milton Friedman, Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, etc., or that anti-Semitism has become almost wholly the province of the Left today.

Meanwhile, since the Margaret Thatcher biopic is opening (more on this shortly), it is worth directing your attention this this piece from Charles Johnson, which explains how Thatcher was a worthy successor to Winston Churchill is one more respect—her strong support for Jews—another aspect that set both Churchill and Thatcher apart from much of the Tory Party in England.

FP: Johnson has also written that despite her support for the Jews, she still thought that Israel should exchange land for peace and, therefore, believed that the conflict was a nationalistic, not genocidal one. And as long as that is not recognized, the rest is conversation.


Paul Rahe: Unhand Us, Greybeard Loon!

What we have, instead, are a tongue-tied Governor from Texas who knows next to nothing about the national government; a Congresswoman who has never even chaired a committee, who cannot hold onto staff, who commands no support from among her colleagues, and who is apt to descend into demagoguery; a two-term former Senator who lost his seat by a margin of 18% and commands no support from among his former colleagues; a disgraced former Speaker of the House with a taste for adultery, an admiration for the “model” on which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were based, and a penchant for embracing the latest left-liberal fads; and a one-term former Governor with a gift for losing elections who pioneered the program on which Obamacare is modeled and who thinks the individual mandate a policy that conservatives should adopt.
…
I do not mean to endorse Wilsonian internationalism. That doctrine, rooted in a distortion of the thinking of Immanuel Kant, is as mad as the doctrine embraced by the sect of libertarians that I am discussing. It supposes that there can be a war to end all wars and that the world can be made safe once and for all for democracy. The truth is uglier. In the international sphere, order does not spontaneously emerge. It is imposed. It is, moreover, fragile and temporary always, and “rational administration” within the international sphere of the sort envisaged by Wilson and his admirers is no more effective than “rational administration” of the economy. Like the old Marxists, the Wilsonian internationalists and the libertarian isolationists live in an alternative universe. In the universe in which you and I live, however, there is no substitute for prudence. There are fights that are not worth the candle, and there are fights that are well worth fighting. But there will be fights – and on the basis of a sober assessment of our interests, we must choose when, where, and how to fight. In deciding, we must always look to the particulars.

FP: The first paragraph argues what I have argued for quite a while: crisis of leadership. The second brings out a major factor in the decline of dominant powers: failure to properly select and fight wars and the tendency to overreach and overstretch.

As to Rahe’s criticism of Ron Paul, as always, Paul is not the problem; the existence of a segment of the American public that is gullible enough to give him the slightest consideration, or to have voted for him, is. There is hardly better evidence for my argument about the destruction of the educational system, that no longer produces knowledge and ability to reason independently and critically

Elder of Ziyon: Here come the (unofficial) religious police of Egypt

The ultra-conservative Salafi Nour Party is funding a sort of religious police, known as the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Authority, according to the authority’s founders. The party has denied involvement in its formation.

The authority takes after the Saudi model of “mutaween,” a sort of religious police composed of volunteers that enforce Islamic Sharia law. Armed with thin wooden canes, the groups roam the streets enforcing dress codes, separation between the sexes, prayer, and other behavior believed to be commanded by Islam. The Taliban in Afghanistan are also known to have used the system.

 
PowerLine: Annals of Government Medicine

Britain’s National Health Service has taken a lot of heat because patients often wait a year or more for operations, and many die in the meantime. The NHS could have responded to this criticism by making its operations more efficient so that waiting times could be reduced, like a private company would, for fear of losing business to competitors. But in government medicine, such incentives are lacking. So the NHS did the next best thing: it started rotating people out of the hospital prematurely to make room for new patients, thereby reducing the new patients’ waiting time, but increasing the likelihood that the prior round of patients would need to return. The Telegraph reports:

The number of NHS patients who have to undergo emergency readmission to hospital within a month of being discharged has increased by more than three quarters in the last decade….
More than 660,000 people were brought back to hospital last year within 28 days of leaving, statistics show, sparking allegations that patients are being “hurried through the system” so the NHS can meet waiting-list targets. …
The figures show that 620,054 patients had to be readmitted in 2009-10 – compared to just 348,996 a decade before, a 78 percent increase. Over the past five years, there has been a 31 percent rise and a five percent increase on the previous 12 months.

Statistics like these speak for themselves. Obviously, it is not changes in diseases or new developments in medicine that drive such stunning changes. Rather, the cause is a change in bureaucratic priorities. This is life under government medicine–a shell game in which the paramount objective is not treatment of patients, but perpetuation of a bureaucracy.

FP: Another indicator of Western collapse. The governmental system might have had a chance to work if it somehow subsumed the politicians and the wealthy into it—they would have had skin in the game and made it work (although, given their record, chances are that they might have corrupted it in their favor instead). But with them excluded the failure of the system was guaranteed.

 
Tensions rise as both sides of religious divide gather to protest

Ultra-Orthodox demonstration follows widespread media coverage condemning extremist practices of "excluding women" • Police arrest three demonstrators, including one woman • News of arrest sparks secondary riot in Jerusalem.

FP: I was right to predict that extreme religion would turn to be as dangerous as the external dangers if not addressed. This is now the result of negligence by secular Israel, a poor electoral system and expediency by politicians. Turns out that absence of strategic thinking is encompassing both domestic and foreign domains.

Quaintance & Kaussler on primitives with nukes (MUST READ!)

FP: What is scariest is that they don’t have to be for the world, or at least a part of it, to be destroyed. This must read puts the need for a military strike against Iran in its proper context.

 

Are Iran’s Leaders, Well…Crazy?

Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is likely about domestic politics. But with uncertainty over who would really control Iran's nuclear weapons, don’t assume Israel will take a chance.

The most vocal supporters of preventative military strikes against Iran’s nuclear weapons program claim that Iran is developing nukes to use them, rather than to deter the United States and its allies from invasion. This inversion of the Cold War theory of nuclear deterrence assumes that Iran doesn’t have the capacity for rational choice. After all, as the argument goes, if the Iranians are crazy, then the certainty of national suicide won’t stop them from seizing the opportunity to unleash their new nuclear weapons on Israel. A state that believes the end of the world is coming (never mind thinking it has the special responsibility to usher in Armageddon) can’t be considered likely to weigh costs and benefits in any rational, self-preserving way.

How do these assumptions about Iranian decision-making square with what we actually know about the regime?While, it’s true that the anticipation of deliverance and the return of the “Hidden Imam” features prominently in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches, we also should consider other explanations before accepting his political rhetoric at face value.

Since the contested elections of 2009, Ahmadinejad operates within a volatile domestic political space where statements are often designed more for internal power struggles than external audiences. His penchant for millenarian propaganda should rather be seen as a challenge to the authority of the clergy through the manipulation of Shia end time ideology that also conveniently rattles external adversaries. As anxious as the West and Israel may be, most domestic Iranian observers see Ahmadinejad’s cries of “the end is near” as part his challenge to the Iranian political hierarchy, and just one aspect of his seemingly failed campaign to marginalize powerful clerical rivals by undermining the velayat-e faqih (the rule of the jurist consult).

So, would Iran continue to escalate a potential crisis or would calmer heads prevail? It’s evident that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the entire security establishment define foreign policy objectives in conservative rather than revolutionary terms. A nuclear-armed Iran would project its power and continue to act as the anti-status quo power in the region, but is unlikely to seek war.

Many would argue that Iran’s last war of aggression was against Afghanistan in 1856, and by all accounts the national trauma of the Iran-Iraq War casts a pall over discussions of overt military conflict. Even the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate credited the Iranian government’s nuclear decisions as being guided by a rational “cost-benefit approach” rather than adventurism, imperial scheming or ideologically-driven suicide.

While there’s little reason to believe Iran would choose self-annihilation through offensive use of a nuclear weapon, the issue of command and control presents several troubling questions. Who would have the authority to order the use of Iranian nuclear weapons? How could the Iranian regime assure even itself that accidental or unauthorized use wouldn’t be possible?

As the commander in chief, nuclear policy would ostensibly fall under the authority of the Supreme Leader’s Office, though the practical details of managing nuclear weapons would likely fall to the top brass of the Revolutionary Guard. Yet, even though they seem to represent the backbone of regime stability, the Revolutionary Guard is hardly a homogeneous group, ranging from Ahmadinejad cronies to loyalists of the Supreme Leader. The armed forces as a whole have been subject to defection, abduction and assassinations by foreign intelligence, so who could be trusted with nuclear launch authority?

Furthermore, Iran reportedly doesn’t even have a systematic security clearance program for its military personnel. Revolutionary pedigree and contacts to the right spheres of power are no longer sufficient to remain at the top, so existing power struggles and cabals amongst the country’s maze of power centers and factions would only be exacerbated once nuclear weapons entered the mix.

This begs the practical question of how the Iranian regime could assure even itself that accidental or unauthorized use wouldn’t be possible. After all, it took the United States decades to achieve any real degree of the complex technical and organizational requirements that help ensure meaningful nuclear safety.

In addition to complex organizational procedures intended to assure proper chain of command for launch authorization, current U.S. nukes are secured through sophisticated encrypted arming systems that prevent unauthorized or accidental detonation, as well as high-tech tamper-proof casings to prevent the theft of the “physics package” inside a warhead. Yet according to one former U.S. Minuteman missile launch officer, until 1977 the U.S. Air Force so feared that launch codes would fail to reach missile silos in the event of nuclear war, it built in a default code of “OOOOOOOO”, even going as far as to list the code in the launch checklist. Far from an isolated incident, such glaring flaws in authorization systems, as well as potentially catastrophic nuclear accidents, were regular features of the Cold War.

For a nuclear armed country to achieve a stable relationship of mutual vulnerability (often called a stable deterrence relationship) with an enemy also depends on a high degree of confidence that firing nukes first would result in a devastating retaliatory attack – in other words, a credible second-strike capability. This requires not just the political will to engage in nuclear warfare, but also the ability to create multiple weapons with widely distributed, hidden or mobile delivery systems, further complicating the issues of command and control.

Add to this uncertainty questions of potential theft, accidental launch, unintended escalation due to miscommunication, or the logic of “fire if fired upon” standing orders, and the path to any kind of stable deterrence relationship between Iran and Israel is a highly uncertain one strewn with landmines both obvious and unexpected.

In such an environment, even otherwise conventional standoffs such as those between the Revolutionary Guard and the British Royal Navy and U.S. 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf, or the so-called proxy war between Revolutionary Guard commandos and U.S. forces in Iraq,could raise the specter of unintended escalation.

Such organizational uncertainty is likely to rank highly on the list of Israeli fears for a potential threat environment featuring Iranian nuclear weapons. Given the origins of the state of Israel – a nation that was essentially an existential act of refuge from the Holocaust – its geography, and the belief that the will to employ violence underwrites security, Israel seems a poor candidate to walk the treacherous and uncertain path towards a stable nuclear deterrence relationship with Iran.

Furthermore, it’s worth remembering that the development of such a relationship between the United States and Soviet Union was neither automatic nor assured by logic. The early years of the Cold War were dominated by paranoia over when the other side would achieve enough bombs for a “knockout blow,” with many senior voices in the U.S. calling for preventative nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union to prevent such a situation from arising. U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Orvil Anderson’s public comments in 1950 capture the existential nature of the perceived threat in simply allowing the Soviets to possess nuclear weapons: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ – I think I could explain to him that I saved civilization.”

As late as 1954, senior military leaders were publicly arguing (against the direct orders of both Presidents Truman and Eisenhower) that the Soviets were incapable of rational thought or restraint. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Nathan F. Twining expressed a common sentiment among hawkish military leaders when he publicly stated in 1954 that: “The Soviets are proven barbarians with an ideological predisposition for aggression.”

It’s crucial to note that extreme nuclear paranoia existed between countries with no history of mutual antagonism, enormous land masses, highly distributed population centers, and in an era where the only means of delivery were lumbering propeller-driven bombers based thousands of miles from their targets. Israel, on the other hand, sits within 10 minutes’ ballistic missile flight from Iran and is approximately 1/500th the size of the United States. Even one nuclear detonation on Israeli soil would spell national disaster on a relative scale only possible with all-out nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. For a state whose very establishment was premised on the resolution “never again,” these aren’t reassuring features of a potential security environment.

From the Israeli perspective, then, even if Ahmadinejad is playing the role of the madman for domestic political purposes or to intimidate his enemies, how can one tell the difference between someone acting the madman, and an actual madman? It’s likely that Israel is skirting the need to answer that question by avoiding it entirely, instead adopting a purely capabilities-based threat assessment of Iran. In this calculus, the personalities and preferences of leaders don’t matter, as those can change overnight. Capabilities, on the other hand, persist.

Israel is already believed by many to be engaged in a high-stakes covert war against Iran, employing a sustained campaign of sabotage, targeted assassinations of top Iranian nuclear and missile scientists, and possible deploying the most sophisticated cyber-warfare weapon ever used. With the revelation of a major rift at the highest levels of the Israeli national security establishment over the supposedly imminent use of preventative force against the Iranian program, it’s clear that Israel intends to use any and all means to keep itself from facing an existential threat from a sworn enemy.

As deterrence relationships (rather than defensive capabilities) only exist within the minds of those involved, it’s crucial to question whether Iran is capable of assuring the levels of command and control required for “rational” calculations of threat, and whether Israel is prepared to accept such an existential threat. One lesson to bear in mind when contemplating a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is that the history of human conflict is overpopulated with hostilities initiated by pride, fear, miscalculation, unintended escalation, and any number of non-rational forces. To expect that the blooming crisis between Iran and Israel will be any different is an exercise in wishful thinking in a region that offers few reasons for it.

Kimo Quaintance is a professor at the University of the German Federal Armed Forces. Bernd Kaussler is a Professor at James Madison University.

Comments on reads 12/29

IDF warns of 'painful' Gaza incursion if terror continues

Chief of General Staff, commander of Southern Brigade say another Gaza operation could be around the corner • Active duty brigades have already begun carrying out drills in preparation for a possible operation.

FP: If you gotta shoot, shoot, don’t talk.

 

Elliott Abrams: What Would A Hamas-Fatah Agreement Mean?

So, the most one can say is that Hamas is willing to stop committing acts of terror for a while when that seems tactically smart, but ultimately the goal is a violent destruction of the State of Israel.  How could there possibly be a peace negotiation if half of the PA government is committed to the Haniyah view?

In the past, it was sometimes possible to argue that Hamas participation in the PA did not give it a role in the PLO–and it is the PLO with which Israel is in principle negotiating.  But now Hamas is on the verge of joining the PLO as well, and according to the United Nations and the Arab League the PLO is the “sole legitimate voice of the Palestinian people.”  So what happens when that voice is calling for Israel’s destruction?  And when Hamas joins the PLO, how can the United States possibly allow the PLO to maintain its representative office in Washington?

Perhaps these negotiations between Hamas and Fatah will never bear fruit.  Perhaps both sides merely wish to appear to favor “unity” while in fact neither wants it.  Perhaps the elections planned for May will never take place–a reasonable bet, considering that there have been no elections for six years.  Perhaps a new cabinet will be formed in Ramallah and soon collapse, as happened last time.  But peace negotiations cannot occur until we know the answer–until we know the identity and intentions of those who may be governing the West Bank and may sit across the table should talks resume.  So Secretary of Defense Panetta‘s now famous demand “just get to the damn table” looks especially foolish today, when people who want “Palestine- all of Palestine -from the sea to the river” and say they ”will lead Intifada after Intifada until we liberate Palestine – all of Palestine” may be part of both the PA government and of the PLO. 

FP: Even knowledgeable and reasoning people like Abrams don’t get it. First, the only difference between Fatah and Hamas is (and has always been) that Fatah has played the phased-plan and has fooled the world with it longer than Hamas, to get pressure on Israel but mainly for Western aid, most of which ended in the leadership’s pockets. Second, the West does not care about all these issues that Abrams raises: it has already abandoned Israel and is looking for any superficial excuse to force Israel to commit suicide. That Hamas has decided to play this game is only evidence that it has concluded this and the pretense will be easy and very short. Third, we already know who will be ultimately govern the West Bank and what their intentions are—see my previous post of Keyes article. This will be the outcome whether or not there is a unity agreement, a unity government or elections or not.

 

PowerLine: Incentives Work

We criticized Israel’s decision to release more than 1,000 Palestinians terrorists and criminals in exchange for the kidnapped Gilad Schalit. It was, of course, a wrenching decision, and we are sympathetic to the officials who had to make it. But we (and many others) predicted that the inevitable consequence would be to encourage more such terrorist kidnappings. Sure enough:

[A] senior IDF commander said on Wednesday that motivation to kidnap Israeli soldiers has significantly increased since the prisoner swap for Gilad Schalit.

According to Col. Tal Hermoni, commander of the Gaza Division’s Southern Brigade, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip are working to abduct Israeli soldiers and are digging tunnels that could be used in such an attack. …

There were people working in Gaza “on a daily basis” in the tunnel industry, and Israel was investing significant resources to gather intelligence and locate those tunnels to limit the element of surprise if they were to be used in a future attack, he said. …

Hermoni said the abduction of a soldier would have “strategic significance” for Israel, and the IDF was working on several levels to prevent such an attack and to thwart one if it were launched.

The “strategic significance” comes, I take it, from the fact that the Schalit kidnapping was such a rousing success. So now Israel has to deal with the consequences. As always, incentives matter.

FP: How did Israel, from the only country in the world that did not deal with terrorists, become the country that exchanged hundreds of terrorists for single soldiers or corpses? And what does this shift says about who is winning the conflict?

 

Hizballah Fundraising and Operations in the US and Latin America

A Treasury designation, a criminal indictment and a civil lawsuit allege the Lebanese drug dealer Ayman Joumaa is part of a complex cocaine and automobile smuggling enterprise in the United States and West Africa that handles hundreds of millions of dollars each month. Some of those profits are routed to Hizballah through the Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB).

More than $300 million was wired into the United States through Lebanese financial institutions, according to the civil suit. The money laundering scheme allegedly involves at least 30 car dealerships throughout the country. As part of the investigation, federal agents raided a dealership in Tulsa.

“They’re making big time money and it’s going right into weapons acquisition, terrorist training, recruiting, corruption,” DEA official Rusty Payne told Fox News. “Things needed to carry out terrorist attacks around the world. Some of the money is flowing back to the United States, back to these used car companies, to purchase more used cars to ship them to West Africa to sell those at a profit and then mix those used car proceeds in with the drug dollars.”

The growing nexus between Hizballah and Mexican drug cartels allows the Iran-backed extremist group to make use of drug cartel transit routes to gain entry into the United States through its porous border with Mexico. Hizballah, in turn, offers Mexican syndicates expertise on smuggling and explosives as well as access to its drug trafficking networks in the Middle East and South Asia.

Iran-backed Hizballah and Mexican drug syndicates share “the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts,” former DEA operations chief Michael Braun told the Washington Times. “They rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another they’re all connected.”

Braun also alleged that members of Iran’s Quds Force are “commanding and controlling” Hizballah’s criminal operations in Latin America.

FP: Is Iran more dangerous than the USSR was? As far as I know, the latter did not manage to fund and train allies at the US borders or infiltrate US businesses to finance terror worldwide. Neither do I recall the US trying to “engage” the USSR or declaring that military action is out of the question during the cold war. And the USSR was a superpower relative to Iran. What does this tell you about the status of the US as a superpower?

 

PowerLine: Squishes For Romney

My endorsement of Mitt Romney got the predictable response. Many of our readers and others around the internet agreed with me; others denounced me as a hopeless moderate. To which I say, I am in good company–that notorious squish Ann Coulter has also endorsed Romney, on the ground that he is one of only two GOP candidates who is solid on illegal immigration (along with Michele Bachmann), and the one who is most likely to win so as to secure the repeal of Obamacare. Ann’s rationale is thus different from mine; still, to those who accuse me of going soft: I rest my case!

FP: Romney at this point is not a choice anymore. And if, as is most probable, he becomes the candidate, we’re facing four more years of Obama, no longer electorally constrained. On the small chance that Romney is elected, nobody should delude themselves that he’s gonna solve America’s problems and stop its decline. It would be hard to be worse than Obama, but Romney is sure capable of it.

Comments on reads 12/28

Daniel Pipes: L'Institut d'Égypte – In Memoriam

(1) This attack brings to mind a host of prior acts of destruction of historical monuments in Egypt, including the medieval defacement of the Sphinx and the Cairo arson of 1952. Outside Egypt, assaults coming right to mind include the Muslim destruction of Hindu temples in India, the Turkish destruction of churches in northern Cyprus, the Palestinian sacking of the Tomb of Joseph, the Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha, the Iraqi pillaging of museums, libraries, and archives, the Saudi destruction of antiquities in Mecca, and the Malaysia destruction of an historic Hindu temple. This barbarism, in other words, fits into a larger pattern. What is it about Muslims and history? As this listing suggests, too many of them hate not only what is non-Islamic but even their own heritage.

(2) The former minister of state for antiquities affairs, Zahi Hawass, campaigned for the return of the country's treasures. I vote against that. Better they be safe where they are than exposed to the fury of modern-day Egyptians, especially given that Egypt's mufti recently ruled against the private display of statues, a possible first step toward a state-sanctioned destruction of Egyptian antiquities. In addition, observers rightly worry that the incomparable Egyptian Museum may be targeted next.

FP: Ah, Arab spring!

 

Israel Matzav: Our goal remains the destruction of Israel

But even Fatah has not yet given up on its 'phased plan' to get rid of Israel. And it probably never will.

 

 

FP: It’s all about Palestinian nationalism, right? That the West fails to accept reality is not surprising, but why does Israel?

 

David Gerstman: Tom Friedman vs. Israel

Supporters like Rosenblatt portray Friedman as a friend of Israel. However a survey of his extensive writing about the Middle East shows that Friedman is hostile to Israel. The problem isn’t simply his “sometimes sharp criticisms” of Israel, rather it is his ever-shifting standards that always find Israel wanting.

…

In these three cases — the withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the Arab peace plan, and “Fayyadism” — Friedman proclaimed he had the answer to promote peace in the Middle East. When none of these worked out as Friedman envisioned, he still found some way to blame Israel for the failures.

The most generous explanation is that Friedman is unserious and will latch onto any idea that sounds vaguely appealing. But that doesn’t explain why Friedman nearly always finds Israel at fault for the lack of peace in the Middle East. If someone is always looking for a reason to criticize you, he isn’t a friend. Friedman’s record on the Middle East shows that he is not — despite his lame protestations to the contrary — Israel’s friend.

FP: Gerstman is spot on about Friedman’s efforts to be fashionable and tell his readers—the affluent liberal left—what they want to hear and, to that effect, he constantly contradicts himself and shifts his positions. I explained more than once, however, the reason for Friedman systematically blaming Israel: he is an assimilated, successful, nominal Jew and the instinct is to distance oneself from Israel in order to prove oneself a “good” Jew, not associated with what those “bad” Jews in Israel are doing to the poor Arabs. In other words, instead of combating the anti-Semitism underlying the hostility to Israel, nominal Jews like Friedman—Judt was another example—internalize it. Friedman is simply afraid of being suspected of the very thing he has implicitly accused supporters of Israel: dual loyalty. So he blames Israel for everything.

 

Ya'alon: No chance for peace with the Palestinians

Israeli leaders offer gloomy assessments on stalled peace talks • Deputy PM Moshe Ya'alon says, "A society that produces Qassam [rockets] instead of strawberries has no future."

FP: That would have been true in the absence of jizziyah from the West. But with the West funding both their livelihood and the Qassams, it is not.

 

JoshuaPundit: Blood On The Mistletoe: The Unreported Honor Killing In Texas

Some of you may have seen the headlines about 6 people dying in Grapevine, Texas area after being gunned down by someone wearing a Santa suit. Just a little holiday mayhem, right? Wrong.
That 'Santa' was a Muslim, enraged that his daughter was dating a non-Muslim, that his uppity wife had the nerve to leave him. So he killed them, and every one else in the house. And then he shot himself.

…

Yet none of this surfaced in the initial reports on the story as the above local news video shows. And the policeman in it is quoted as saying they're more interested in reconstructing the crime than motive.

Like Major Hassan's one man jihad - aka 'work place violence' at Fort Hood,just another random tragedy, nothing to see here, move along...

FP: That which must not be mentioned. The dhimmification of America. In comparison, remember the media’s reaction to the New York murder of a child by a mentally ill ultra-orthodox Jew?

David Keyes on Israel talking to the wall

FP: Unfortunately, the problem is precisely that none of it is secret and yet the world pretends it is. Israel should have stopped pretending and never signed the Oslo agreement. Netanyahu, if I am not mistaken, was against it.

 

LEAKED: Secret Hamas-Israel talks

SECRET

Reference ID: O2B5A9J1

FM: Israeli Embassy, Turkey

TO: Prime Minister's Office, Jerusalem

Systematic Review: December 28, 2011

SUBJECT: Hamas-Israel Negotiations

SUMMARY: What follows is a transcript of the first-ever direct negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. It appears that some gaps remain between the two parties.

TRANSCRIPT:

Benjamin Netanyahu: “We want to live with you in peace, quiet and good neighborly relations. We want our children and your children to 'know war no more.' We do not want parents and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, to know the sorrow of bereavement. We want our children to dream of a better future for humankind.”[1]

Ismail Haniyeh: “[D]eath for the sake of Allah is our most supreme desire.”[2]
Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!

Netanyahu: “Let us join hands and work together in peace, together with our neighbors. There is no limit to the flourishing growth that we can achieve for both peoples - in the economy, in agriculture, in commerce, tourism, education - but, above all, in the ability to give our younger generation hope to live in a place that's good to live in, a life of creative work, a peaceful life with much of interest, with opportunity and hope.”[3]

Haniyeh: “We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem.”[4]

Netanyahu: “The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People.”[5]

Haniyeh: “[W]e will never recognize, we will never recognize, we will never recognize Israel.”[6]

Netanyahu: “[I]srael will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first.”[7]

Haniyeh: “The occupation has no future on the land of Palestine. When I say ‘the land of Palestine,’ I am not referring [only] to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem. When I say that the occupation has no future on the land of Palestine, I refer to Palestine from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and from Rosh Hanikra to Rafah.”[8] “These principles are absolute and cannot be disputed: Palestine - all of Palestine - is from the sea to the river. We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine. The involvement of Hamas at any stage with the interim objective of liberation of [only] Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem, does not replace its strategic view concerning Palestine and the land of Palestine."[9]

Netanyahu: “If [the Palestinians] truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier and this will help bring peace.”[10]

Haniyeh: “This is a nation of martyrdom and martyrdom-seeking, a nation of jihad for the sake of Allah.”[11]

Netanyahu: “[Israel shared the] joy of the American people [for eliminating Osama bin Laden]. [It was a] resounding victory for justice, freedom, and the values shared by all democratic countries fighting shoulder to shoulder against terror."[12]

Haniyeh: “[W]e, of course, condemn the assassination or killing of a Muslim mujahid and an Arab. We pray for Allah to cover [bin Laden] with His mercy, next to the prophets, the righteous, and the martyrs.”[13]

Netanyahu: “I extend my hand -- the hand of Israel -- in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah –‘The people who walk in darkness will see a great light.’ Let that light be the light of peace.” [14]

Haniyeh: “[D]eath for the sake of Allah is our most supreme desire.”[15]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Bar Ilan University, June 14, 2009

[2] Al-Jazeera TV, September 8, 2010

[3] Bar Ilan University, June 14, 2009

[4] USA Today, December 8, 2006

[5] United Nations, September 24, 2011

[6] Reuters, December 14, 2010

[7] United Nations, September 24, 2011

[8] Al-Jazeera TV, December 15, 2010

[9] Al-Aqsa TV, December 14, 2011

[10] Bar Ilan University, June 14, 2009

[11] Al-Aqsa TV, November 15, 2010

[12] Statement by Israeli Prime Minister, May 2, 2011

[13] Al-Jazeera TV, May 3, 2011

[14] United Nations, September 24, 2011

[15] Al-Jazeera TV, September 8, 2010

The leadership crisis and four more more years of Obama

FP: Why it took so long to realize the Republican disaster? I’ve argued for a long time that those sad jokers cannot dislocate even the worst president ever. What’s even sadder is that the non-candidates the author deems “first tier” are not much better than the ones he’s despairing over. This is what a leadership crisis looks like.

 

Barack Obama Will Still Be President on January 19, 2017

 

That is, unless we jettison this freak show of Republican so-called candidates.

Newt Gingrich? Newt Gingrich????? The guy peaked nearly 20 years ago. Compromised, corrupt, amoral. He has about as much chance of winning the general election as do Calvin Coolidge’s decomposing remains.

Ron F-ing PAUL?????????????? The most charitable thing I can say about him is: Joke candidate. Wrong, wrong, wrong. If he gets the Republican nomination, I would actually stay home on election day, as would most voters forced to choose between a communist and a madman.

Michele Bachmann’s vaccine conspiracies have doomed her as a viable mainstream nominee, unfortunately, even though she is the most likeable of all the candidates and I would have gladly voted for her, “crazy eyes” notwithstanding.

Rick Perry has already made far too many unforced errors, and his extreme social conservative activism has turned off many Constitutionally-minded voters like myself who worry that if he wins he’ll use his power not to shrink government but to meddle in Americans’ private lives. No thank you.

Herman Cain: Toast.

Rick Santorum: If we were all in hell, I’d put my money on the snowball.

Huntsman, Johnson and the rest: Who?

Which leaves us only with Mitt Romney. He’s the sole Republican in the current field who even has a ghost of a chance at beating Obama, but as many have noted, he’s an old-school-checked-pant-double-talking-insider-flip-flopping pseudo-Republican who looks, talks and acts like a phony. I’d still vote for him over Obama, but only out of desperation; I’d rather have a president with magic underwear than an emperor with no clothes. But the growing tide of anti-Mormon bigotry in this country means that I fear few would join me in this protest vote.

And that, to my (and everyone else’s) great chagrin, is it. The pitiable pantheon of declared Republican candidates ends there. I keep reaching around in the bottom of the bag, asking “Any more in there? That can’t be all of you.” But my hand comes back empty. And my heart sinks.

Unless something changes drastically, Obama will beat any of these people handily. Which means, as my title reminded everyone, that he’ll be president for the term between 2012 and 2016 — which actually lasts until January 20, 2017. Think about that: 2017. It’s still 2011, people, and if things keep going as they are, Obama will be in charge until 2017.

2017.

Motivated now?

A complaint yesterday from HotAir commenter “magicbeans” succinctly summarized the national mood:

“I hate this field. What we should have had was Christie, Palin, Ryan, Rubio, West and Jindal. That could have been amazing. Instead we got the second stringers….”

Oh, how true that is. Any one of those candidates would have a good chance at beating Obama, and would be guaranteed to stir up the excitement lacking from the current field.

But we have one big problem: All the exciting potential candidates have already declared that they’re not running. In yesterday’s essay which inspired the comment above, William Kristol subtly suggests, without naming names, that perhaps one or more non-candidates should change their minds and re-enter the race.

But the time for subtlety is over. Let me be blunt:

ALLEN WEST, SAVE US FROM THIS CLOWDER OF CLOWNS.

And Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, please join Allen’s posse.

I know what all six of you are thinking: “We publicly declared that we aren’t running. We can’t break our promise now!”

Well, I’ll let you in on a little secret: Politicians change their minds all the time. In fact, the act of repeatedly “breaking promises” is the very thing that distinguishes politicians from normal people. Sure, a few voters may hold it against you for a week or two, but once you electrify the country and surge into the lead, the grudge will subside. And sure, the Democrats will try to use this broken promise against you in the general campaign, but trust me, that’ll be the least of their attacks.

,,,

I might seem lighthearted about all this, but I am actually deadly serious. A lame-duck Obama will have four years of not worrying about re-election to complete his conscious destruction of American capitalism and constitutionalism. It’s too hideous to even contemplate. And, aside from a long-shot chance by the slightly-better-than-a-crash-test-dummy Romney, none of the current candidates has any chance whatsoever to defeat Obama.

…

Elder of Ziyon on the Palestinian lie

FP: Palestinians lie through their teeth. There is practically nothing in their narrative and claims that is true. It is only ignorance, political correctness and hostility towards Israel that prevents the truth from being sought and internalized in the West.

 

The PLO's US envoy lies in the WaPo

From the Washington Post, an op-ed by US PLO representative Maen Rashid Areikat.

Areikat has said more than once that his organization intends to ethnically cleanse a half million people from their homes.

Here he takes on the idea that "Palestinians" are an invented nation, with a suite of lies:

The issue of Palestinian identity and national history has become a source of controversy, with many Americans making deeply disturbing and alarming statements. As the representative of my people to the United States, I would like to tell you what the Palestinians, as a people, are all about.
We go far back, much further than those doubting our existence can remember. Jericho, my home town, goes as far back as 10,000 B.C., making it the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. .... We lived under the rule of a plethora of empires: the Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, Israelites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans and, finally, the British. This has made our region rich in history, culture and heritage. Indeed, if our olive trees could speak — some are centuries old — they would have a lot to say.
This makes us very proud and appreciative of our special place in this world. That is why we are so attached to our land and to our identity.... Centuries of rule by an eclectic assortment have taught us that empires come and go but legacies and values remain. ... The fact that we outlived these empires is a testament to our resilience and strength.

Areikat is making the claim that today's Palestinian Arabs are descended from the people who lived in the same area thousands of years ago.

Yet in his next paragraph he says:

Yes, as presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said recently, we are also Arabs, the Arabs of the Holy Land. Infused with a mix of attributes from the civilizations that passed by, we are Arabs with black, brown and white skin, dark- and light-colored eyes, and the whole gamut of hair types.

The Arab conquest of Palestine occurred in the seventh century. While there was no doubt some intermixing of the Arab invaders with the existing population, it is contradictory to claim both that Palestinians are descended from the people who lived there for thousands of years - and that they are Arab. If they are Arab, it is impossible to say that they lived under the rule of the Canaanites, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks and so forth. (And if they were there for so long - aren't they Canaanites? Is he saying that they pre-date the Canaanites?

Anyway you look at this, Areikat is being a-historical.

Beyond that, there is plenty of evidence that a significant number of "Palestinians" came from elsewhere. The Nashashibis, who were prominent residents of Jerusalem for centuries, arrived in Palestine in 1469. The Al Nammaris came after the expulsion of Muslims from Spain. The Dajani family came from Arabia. These were considered among the most prominent Arab clans in the Jerusalem area.
Furthermore, a significant number of Palestinian Arabs have surnames that indicate they came from elsewhere: Hejazi from Arabia, Mughrabi from Morocco, Masri from Egypt, Haurani from Syria, Turki and Dogmush from Turkey, Yamani from Yemen, Jaziri from Algeria, Hindi from India, Kurdi from Kurdistan, Halabi from Aleppo, and many more.

No Arabs have the surname Filisteeni.

Moreover, all the major tribes that lived near Jerusalem in the 19th century came from Arabia. And the Yamani and the Qais tribes in Palestine, who engaged in a famous centuries-old feud, came from Yemen and southern Arabia, respectively.

I am not an expert, but I have yet to see a Palestinian Arab family that was able to trace their ancestry beyond the Crusades. Perhaps some of the rapidly disappearing Palestinian Christians can, but the number is diminishingly small.

Beyond that, there was a significant immigration of Arabs to Palestine that mirrored the growth of Zionism, as tens of thousands of Arabs from Syria, Transjordan and Egypt came to seek their fortunes in the 1920s and early 1930s. All of them are considered "Palestinian" today. Certainly Areikat does not think of them as any less Palestinian even though they came from other areas.

In short, very few Palestinian Arabs have been there longer than a thousand years, and I would guess that most have not been there longer than 200 years. Areikat is spinning a large lie.

Like Americans, we are a hybrid of peoples defined by one overarching identity.

As I have recently shown, that identity simply did not exist until the middle of the 20th century.
Historian Benny Morris concurs, when he wrote a few years ago that "the birth of Palestinian Arab nationalism [occurred] in the 1920s (and the start of general Arab nationalism only a few years before). But for years thereafter, Palestinian Arab nationalism remained the purview of middle- and upper-class families. Most peasants, and perhaps many among the urban poor as well--together, some 80 percent of the Palestine Arabs--lacked political consciousness or a 'national' ideology."

In other words, they identified as Arabs, as clans, as members of a village, as tribes - but never as "Palestinians."

Before World War II, Palestinians and Jews living in Palestine enjoyed times of great harmony. My grandfather shared a bakery shop with a Jewish partner, Aaron, in Jerusalem’s Bak’a Tahta neighborhood. My mother told me stories of the period of peace and tranquillity they enjoyed with Jews during this time. That period ended in 1948, however, and a conflict began.

One only has to look at the history of Palestinian Arabs attacking Jews before 1948 to see how transparent this lie is. The 1886 attack on Petah Tikva, attacks on Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall in 1911, murders of Jews in 1912, the deadly riots in 1920, 1921 and 1929, the years of terror from 1936-9. As Christian pilgrims noted, in the 19th century the biggest insult an Arab could give was to call another a "Jew."

Areikat is lying.

We agreed to confine our right to self-determination and statehood on only 22 percent of what used to be our historic homeland, and we did so for the sake of peace and with a sober realization that seeking “absolute justice” is a fool’s errand.

"22 percent of what used to be our historic homeland" is another lie. Historic Palestine was not congruent with British Mandate Palestine; it included parts of Jordan and possibly Lebanon - even by the loose Arab definition of Palestine…

Which begs the question - why don't Palestinian Arabs claim eastern Jordan as their "historic homeland"? (And why is the Negev. never considered a part of historic Palestine, included in their definition?)

The answer, as I have noted, is that their goal has always been to destroy a state, not to build one.
And to say that the PLO is accepting a state in the territories only is also a gross misrepresentation of the official PLO position. They are not only demanding their state on every inch of territories they never controlled, but they are also demanding the right to flood Israel with Arabs. The obvious goal is to turn Israel into another Palestinian Arab state. This is why they are dead-set against "two states for two peoples"  and against recognizing that Israel is a Jewish state.

So while Areikat is charging that people are ignorant of his made-up history of "Palestinians," his own PLO is on the record as saying that the Jewish people does not exist. Talk about historic revisionism!
Beyond that, the PLO and the PA erases Israel from every single one of their maps.

Comments on reads 12/27

Giulio Meotti: Prepare for darker Mideast

Like Adolf Hitler, Qutb was a dark man, humorless, intense and rigid. Like Hitler, Qutb suffered from illnesses and he poured his energies into intellectual and spiritual pursuit. Like Hitler, Qutb turned his sexual frustration into a fanatic virtue. Like Hitler’s Aryanism, Qutb heralded the notion that Islam is superior. Like Hitler, Qutb saw the existence of the Hebrew people as the measure of the world’s moral bankruptcy.

After six decades of Arab kleptocracy and secularism, the Middle East is going to be engineered according to Qutb’s ideology. It will be a paradise for Muslim men, but a hell for women, atheists, Christians and Jews.

FP: Islamism is a paradise for nobody, which is precisely why control over women is so critical for Muslim men and why they prefer islamism, having no control over anything else. This explains their eagerness to kill themselves in the name of Islam and do what they want, including uninhibited sex.

 

Anthony Cordesman: The Real Outcome of the Iraq War: US and Iranian Strategic Competition in Iraq

The events of the last few days have made it all too clear that the US celebrated the end of the Iraq War without any realism as to the impact of the war and US occupation or the fact that the real result has been to create a new theater of competition between the US and Iran. These realities are analyzed in depth in a new report entitled The Real Outcome of the Iraq War:  US and Iranian Strategic Competition in Iraq

FP: With the US army out, who would you say would win in the competition?

 

Jonathan Halevy: Are Egypt's Islamic Parties Planning to Nullify the Peace Treaty with Israel?

• The prevailing optimism in media reports concerning the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist party's readiness to adhere to the peace treaty with Israel is based on general statements made by senior officials in both parties. These statements maintain that Egypt must honor the international treaties that it signed.
• Yet a more rigorous examination of the two parties' stances identifies a markedly different tendency. Both seek a way to cast off the Camp David agreement in a manner that will incur minimal diplomatic and economic damage to Egypt, and restore Egypt to its leading role in the circle of states confronting Israel.
• The Muslim Brotherhood has set a number of criteria for examining international agreements, including the Camp David agreement: the considerations of Islamic canon law (Sharia), the position of the Egyptian people, and the degree of Israel's compliance with the agreement from Egypt's perspective.
• The strategic objective of the Egyptian Islamic movements is to transform Egypt into a prime regional force that will lead the diplomatic and military battle against Israel. This means re-examining the Camp David agreement and submitting it to the decision of the new parliament that will be controlled by the Islamic parties or to a referendum - thereby alleviating the responsibility of any future Egyptian government for cancelling the peace treaty.
• These developments can be averted if the U.S. and its allies take a firm position against any initiative to undermine the Treaty of Peace between Israel and Egypt, and all echelons of the Egyptian establishment are made to understand the implications of any such action.

FP: That’s what you get when you rely on peace treaties with Arabs. The US and the West will not take firm position against this initiative. As Barry Rubin has argued in my earlier post, Obama will teach Egypt that preserving the treaty is in its real interest, but otherwise will acquiesce in whatever the Islamists will do. And the US will pump funds into Egypt, deluding itself that this will stop the Islamists from doing what they believe is in their own interest: leading the Jihad.

 

MK Yochanan Plessner: Integrate the ultra-Orthodox

As long as we don't bring the ultra-Orthodox community into the nation's service sector and workforce, their radicalization is likely to continue.

FP: Good luck with that.

 

Fearing Turkey, Knesset avoids recognizing Armenian genocide

Knesset members and historians urge public not to deny the genocide • Foreign Ministry exerts pressure, and members of the Education Committee decide against holding a vote • Knesset speaker: It is our obligation to remember.

FP: Continue to signal weakness and see what you get. Not to mention the inconsistency of pushing only for condemning Jewish Holocaust, but not others.

Shoshana Bryen on the reality that the West refuses to accept

FP: It’s not just Panetta and Friedman, it’s the entire West that refuses to accept the reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because it is unable and unwilling to cope with the implications of that reality.  That goes for a large segment of Israel too. Deniers of reality don’t survive.

 

Panetta, Friedman and "The Damn Table"

Criticism of Leon Panetta's demand that Israel "return to the damn table," and Tom Friedman's lament that Prime Minister Netanyahu's ovation before Congress "was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby" has been broad and deep. Writers from right to center (forget the left, who applauded both) denounced them, parsed them and tried to put them "in context." It is the context that is worrisome rather than their less-than-lovely language. The context is that if Israel and the Palestinians would both negotiate seriously, they would get to the "Two State Solution" beloved of the US and the Quartet.

Grant Panetta and Friedman the "damn table" and see what happens:

IF Israel sat at the table; IF Netanyahu agreed to a permanent settlement freeze; IF the Palestinians returned to the table; IF the Palestinians came under the "moderate" mandate of Fatah rather than "extremist" mandate of Hamas; IF they started with the 1949 Armistice Lines (the so-called 67 borders); IF they talked themselves blue in the face, they STILL would not get where Panetta, Friedman, et. al. want them to go.

Israelis and Palestinians have incompatible bottom lines that cannot be satisfied with a split and hostile rump State of Palestine (and a split, rump state would be hostile) wedged between the Mediterranean Sea, a nervous Israel and a more-nervous Jordan. No "peace process" can negotiate away the actual interests of the parties. No matter how much outsiders (Friedman and Panetta are just the tip of the iceberg) try to redefine those interests as something else, or demand that they be something else, or insist that they are, in fact, something else, the two stupid parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians, simply do not realize it -- hence the need for the ever-so-much-smarter Panetta and Freidman to pontificate.

For Israel, there are three issues:

• Recognition of the the State of Israel as a permanent and legitimate part of the region and the community of nations (known as "end of conflict, end of claims");
• "Secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" -- the promise of U.N. Resolution 242; and
• The capital of Israel in a united Jerusalem.

For the Palestinians, there are also three issues:

• International recognition of an independent Palestinian State without recognizing borders for the Third Jewish Commonwealth (no "end of claims);
• Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state; and
• The right of refugees of 1948/49 and their descendants to live in places from which they -- or their antecedents -- claim to have originated inside the boundaries of pre-'67 Israel.

Israel's interest in a united Jerusalem is practical as much as anything else. The 1947 Partition Agreement that left the U.N. in control of the city promised Jews access to Jewish holy places. But the U.N. not only failed to deliver access, it failed to prevent the wholesale destruction of synagogues, houses of Jewish learning and other holy sites including the Mount of Olives cemetery on the eastern side after the Arab expulsion of the Jewish community. Israel is unlikely to substitute future promises of access for its current ability to operate an open, accessible city for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

On the Palestinian side, Mahmoud Abbas has no authority to concede the so-called "right of return" of Palestinians to Israeli territory, or to agree that Jews can live east of the Armistice line. He is beholden to his most radical elements and remains in power only because the IDF provides security in the West Bank. He has no authority at all in Gaza, which ousted his Fatah in a short, brutal civil war in 2007. Recent Palestinian unification talks are trending more toward Abbas coming under the Hamas banner than the other way around.

This is no way implies that there shouldn't ever be a Palestinian state, or that Israel must resign itself to permanent occupation. It only recognizes that "peace" is not a negotiable proposition; "peace" can only emerge – if it emerges at all – after a resolution of the issues that separate the parties. There is, after all, a just peace, a secure peace, a cold peace, and the peace of the dead. There is peace that contains the seeds of the next war, such as the Versailles Treaty, and peace that leads to long-term amity and prosperity, such as the Allied occupation of Germany and Japan.

How Palestinians and Israelis manage their interests should be of far more concern to friends of either or both than the off-target posturing of Panetta and Friedman.

Comments on reads 12/26

Hamas not ruling out running in PA presidential election

Zahar predicts that Hamas will score landslide victory in upcoming parliamentary election which is expected at same time; Abbas holds talks in Ramallah with Hamas leaders to discuss ways of achieving "national unity."

FP: Arafat’s phased plan almost achieved.


David Goldman: Civil War as the Second-Best Option

The best has been the enemy of the good throughout. Pursuing the fantasy of a “best” option — stable and democratic Muslim states — has cost us too much blood and treasure, and above all, far too much in terms of the morale of the American public. It does not seem to me wise to make too big an issue of who lost Iraq. Certainly Obama’s pullout of American troops from Iraq was unfortunate, ill-advised and ill-timed — we should have insisted on some forces in reinforced fire-bases especially in proximity to the Iranian border — but by and large Obama continued what Bush began.
…
Americans are not cold enough to initiate a Richelovian campaign of destabilization. But whether we like it or not, a general destabilization has overwhelmed North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia. We did not seek it. We did our best to prevent it. Our hands are clean. Unlike the Reagan administration, which did its best to prolong the Iran-Iraq War with its million casualties, the Bush administration tried to avoid such conflicts. Now that we are stuck with humanitarian catastrophes of biblical proportions, we had better make the best use of them. Never let a crisis go to waste, as somebody said during his 15 minutes of fame.
…
The analogies to be drawn between America’s strategic situation today and the Peloponnesian War are few; those with the Thirty Years War, much closer to our own times, are strong. It is dreary stuff; there is no-one to root for, no white hats or black hats, just a mass of misdeeds that killed off about two-fifths of the people of Central Europe between 1618 and 1648.
American conservative intellectuals should put aside their Thucydides and study the Thirty Years War instead. … Like it or not, circumstances will force us to think this way. Might as well get a head start.

FP: I have advocated this approach earlier. It won’t be followed. Instead, watch how the West will pump funds into Islamist regimes. The worst their record becomes, the more funds will flow in desperate attempt to reverse that record which will only make it worse. The ignorance, inability to reason, lack of strategic thinking, bankruptcy and a leadership crisis are all indicators of the self-inflicted decline that all dominant powers undergo at some stage.


Israel Matzav: Don't fool yourself Boogie

Deputy Prime Minister Moshe "Boogie" Yaalon told a group of Likud Anglos on Sunday night that the government has managed to persuade the Obama administration that our conflict with the 'Palestinians' should be managed rather than resolved.

"We convinced the American administration that there is no way to solve the conflict in one or two years," Ya'alon told a packed audience at the Orthodox Union's Israel Center. "The US is trying to manage the conflict now, rather than solve it."
This was the first time a high-ranking Netanyahu administration official has indicated that the US had shifted from conflict resolution to management. But there has been no public indication that the Americans have given up their hope of solving the conflict, and the US helped draft the Quartet position that aims to solve the conflict by the end of 2012.
Ya'alon mocked the international community for what he called its "solutionism" and "nowism" in its attempt to solve a conflict that cannot currently be solved. He said the world that has gotten used to getting food in an instant was impatiently insisting on instant peace.
"They say we reached the moon, so why can't we solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" Ya'alon said. "Do we have a solution for everything? In medicine we don't, not even in mathematics. God has solutions. We as human beings should be more modest."

I happen to believe that the conflict should be managed, not resolved. But someone please tell me that Yaalon doesn't really believe that Obama actually believes this, or Yaalon will be on for a rude awakening on November 7, 2012.

FP: The Israeli elite can’t help itself, it keeps thinking wishfully. Which is why there is little strategic thinking by Israeli government.



Defense department agrees to allow Muslim cadets to wear hijabs

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced today that the Department of Defense will begin allowing Muslim and Sikh students who wear an Islamic head scarf (hijab) or a turban to participate in the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC).

“We welcome the fact that Muslim and Sikh students nationwide will now be able to participate fully in JROTC leadership activities while maintaining their religious beliefs and practices,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

In October, the Washington-based Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization wrote to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta after a 14-year-old Muslim student at Ravenwood High School in Brentwood, Tenn., was forced to transfer out of a JROTC class when her commanding officers told her she could not wear hijab while marching in the September homecoming parade.
CAIR requested constitutionally-protected religious accommodations for the girl and for future Muslim JROTC participants.

FP: Do you feel comfortable with a US army consisting of these cadets? Once they start on that path, watch for further demands.


Knesset debates whether or not to recognize Armenian genocide

The Knesset Education Committee discusses Armenian genocide in open forum for the first time • MKs on Left and Right cite Israel's moral obligation to recognize the massacres, while government balks at potential crisis with Turkey.

FP: Yuckh.


In Beit Shemesh, fear and loathing

Acts of segregation and violence toward women in Beit Shemesh turn the city into a focus of controversy • Police, called in to remove signs segregating streets, attacked by ultra-Orthodox rioters.

FP: The Jewish Islamists.

Liron Pulitzer: We're in this boat together
We must learn to understand each other to create a society in which different groups can live together with acceptance.

FP: Good luck with that. Here’s an attempt:

Livnat defends comments on 'voluntary segregation'

After suggesting ultra-Orthodox communities should be allowed to maintain segregated lifestyle, Livnat deflects criticism, citing her "20-year-record" on women's rights and attacks opposition for exploiting issue.

FP: Not exactly consistent, is it?

 
Israel decries Christmas Day terror attacks in Nigeria

Series of coordinated bombings by radical Muslim sect targets Christians during Christmas Day prayers • Nearly 40 dead, with another 52 wounded • Islamic terror group called Boko Haram takes credit for bombings.

FP: The shape of the PostWest.

Barry Rubin on Obama’s ignorance and stupidity and its consequences

FP: This is how steep decline looks like.

 

When Obama Preaches; Anti-American Dictators First Sneer At Him, Then Spit at Us

I don’t think one could come up with a more teachable moment regarding international affairs—and including Middle East politics--than a little incident that just happened between President Barack Obama and Venezuela. First, the facts.

Obama gave an interview with a Venezuelan newspaper in which he articulated some of his administration’s most basic themes. Obama said:

“Venezuela is a proud, sovereign nation....The United States has no intention of intervening in Venezuela's foreign relations, However, I think the government's ties with Iran and Cuba have not benefited the interests of Venezuela and its people.

"Sooner or later, Venezuela's people will have to decide what possible advantage there is in having relations with a country that violates fundamental human rights and is isolated from most of the world. The Iranian government has consistently supported international terrorism."

Now, this is precisely the same approach that Obama has taken toward Iran. He said, and this has been a common talking point for administration officials, that Iran would not benefit from having nuclear weapons. He continued:

“Iran understands that they have a choice: They can break that isolation by acting responsibly and foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power, like every other country that’s a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world.”

Obama has rejected America’s leadership role. He feels that the United States has been too much of a bully historically, so he doesn’t stress what U.S. interests require but politely asks other—hostile—countries to behave differently. He tells them that to do so is in their interest because their current behavior doesn’t benefit them.

Foreign leaders can only react with astonishment and—if they are hostile—laughter. If they are pro-American they react with horror.

First, you are signaling weakness and fear, practically putting a “kick me” sign on your back. 
Second, telling some else what their “true” interests are is just as patronizing as telling them what your own interests are and demanding that they be respected. When you ask an aggressive dictator “pretty please” you are asking for some spit in the face.

And that’s just what Obama has received from Venezuela, Iran, and others. Here’s how the Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, responded:

"Obama, mind you own business, man. Focus on governing your country, which has become a disaster. Now you're going looking for votes by attacking Venezuela….
“Obama, you're a phony....Go and ask the black community in your country what you are to them: the biggest frustration in I don't know how many years. Go and ask the many people in Africa who may have believed in you because of the color of your skin, because your father was from Africa. You're a descendent of Africa, but you are the shame of all those people."

In other words, your enemy reacts with disdain. You may not criticize him but he’ll criticize you. You may not do things he doesn’t like but he’ll do things you don’t like.

And each time Obama ignores these insults--and incidentally isn't this the kind of statement that if made by a non-leftist, Westerner would be quickly labelled as "racist" and the media would launch a hate campaign against the persson?--ignores the violations of U.S. interests, ignores the threats and attacks on U.S. allies.

Incidentally, that’s also why Obama can disrespect U.S. allies, because they can only rarely if ever answer back as Chavez or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do. Obama may sizzle over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s slap-down in a brilliant oration to a joint session of Congress, but his websites bulge with statements of praise wrung from Israeli leaders heard through their gnashing of teeth.

But there’s something else going on here that shows your ignorance and signals your ineffectiveness. Your enemies know perfectly well where their interests lie. Of course, the Venezuelan regime benefits by building alliances with fellow radicals and anti-Americans.

Similarly, Iran’s regime benefits in many ways by seeking nuclear weapons. Turkey’s regime benefits by forming alliances with Iran, Hizballah, Hamas, and other fellow revolutionary Islamists. The Palestinian Authority rulers benefit by not negotiating or compromising with Israel.  The Muslim Brotherhood benefits by seeking to seize state power and transform their states into Islamist ones. And so on.
Obama thinks that he can persuade radicals to be moderate. Back in the administration of President Jimmy Carter, that U.S. government thought it could persuade the new Islamist regime in Iran to be moderate. President Bill Clinton thought that a spell in power would turn Yasir Arafat into a moderate. It was just a matter of these revolutionaries seeing where their true interest was. In Marxist terms, America’s enemies were suffering from “false consciousness.”

In another recent example of this syndrome, Vice-President Joe Biden says that U.S. policy toward the radical, anti-American Afghan group, the Taliban, is to:

“Try to get the Taliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, through reconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al Qaeda or any other organization that they would harbor to do damage to us and our allies....”

Recently, a Third World diplomat whose democratic country has faced threats from radical regimes asked me: “Why don’t these people understand that the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical group?” My answer was: “Because they don’t understand the role of ideology.”

Part of this handicap is cultural; part due to ideological blindness on Obama’s own part. Yet the Obama Administration is also ensuring it won’t learn by covering its eyes and ears, pretending that a revolutionary Islamist ideology doesn’t even exist.

Here’s what’s equally incredible. I have seen numerous attempts by the Obama Administration, and its apologists—including Jews--to pretend that its policy is really good for Israel. Over and over again such people and their writings always ignore the regional strategic aspect of the damage that it is doing.
So what if the U.S. government gives Israel military aid, which mostly consists of maintaining old programs? The Obama Administration is building up the threat Israel faces to unprecedented levels. “I love Israel” statements don’t solve this huge strategic problem.