Mordechai Kedar: The Systemic Collapse of Egypt

by Mordechai Kedar

Read the article in the original עברית
Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

The Egyptian flag is red, white and black  with an eagle in the center.  Until quite recently, this flag has been a symbol of national consensus symbolizing that all citizens of Egypt, without regard to their political orientation, are sheltered together beneath the wings of the eagle. But this consensus may be starting to crack, and because of the complex nature of the crisis - constitutional, governmental and economic - a growing number of citizens in Egypt believe that the continued existence of the state as one political unit is doubtful. It seems that Egyptian society has been undergoing a corrosive process , ever since the beginning of the "Arab Spring" two years ago, which is undermining the sense of unity and  shared destiny in the Land of the Nile.

This process began to be apparent after the unprecedented step taken by the Egyptian court, when it sentenced to death 21 people in Port Said, a port city near the Northern opening of the Suez Canal, because of their involvement in the deaths of 74 people during a soccer game that was held in the city in February of 2012. When they heard about the sentence, the enraged residents of the city burst into the streets in stormy demonstrations in which more than forty people were killed. It must be noted that some of the fatalities were caused by a barrage of heavy gunfire at the mass funeral of 31 people that had been killed in previous demonstrations. Disregarding any political consideration, the death toll in Egypt testifies to the fact that the value of life in this densely populated country has been depreciated indeed. Ninety million men, women and children are crowded into the length of the Nile Valley and its delta, with a few concentrations along the canal and the coasts. About one half of them live below the poverty line, which is low to begin with, and about one third of them live in "unplanned neighborhoods", some in wooden crates, without running water, sewage, electricity or telephone, without employment, without hope and without a future, but crime, violence, drugs and alcohol abound. In demonstrations in Port Said, there are demands to secede from the state of Egypt. In a graphic illustration of these demands, the demonstrators waved flags where they had changed the color of the upper part from red to green, with a clear Islamist reference, and instead of the eagle, the name of the city "Port Said" was in the center. The curfew that was imposed on the city did not help quiet stormy spirits either, and the masses burst into the streets despite the curfew. The police used tear gas against them but to no avail. The army took up a position near the government offices in order to defend them from the raging mob. Military officers claim that they did not open fire and they have no idea how forty people were killed. The Egyptian in the street, who knows the truth, doesn't buy this story because he understands the matter well: if forty people were killed despite the fact that the army "didn't shoot", they wonder how many would have been killed if the army had actually had opened fire ...

A local group calling itself "The Port Said Youth Bloc" issued a call stating: "We, the people of Port Said, declare the cancellation of Mursi's legal status; he is no longer the president of Egypt. We call for masses of the Egyptian people to express their solidarity and join the people of Port Said who are being murdered in the streets by the armored Egyptian police before the very eyes of the Egyptian government. The people of Port Said will continue to stand strong even if, as a result of these demonstrations, "all of its sons will fall". This expression, "the people of Port Said", which is repeated a number of times in the manifesto, is an expression of the mood of the the residents of the city.

The demand of the people of Port Said to secede from Egypt horrifies the heads of the Egyptian government, because if indeed they do actually separate the area of the Canal from the state of Egypt , the state will lose its main source of income - fees of passage paid by ships that traverse the Canal. If this should happen, considering the recent loss of tourism and foreign investments, Egypt will go bankrupt immediately.

There have been street riots in the city of Suez as well, in which four of the five police stations in the city were set on fire by the raging masses. And in Ismailia, 18 people were wounded in the riots. 

In an attempt to calm the mood, Mursi declared a state of emergency upon three areas of the canal - Port Said, Ismailia and Suez - and imposed a curfew from 9:00 in the evening until 6:00 in the morning, for the duration of one month.

But the problem with this state of emergency is that the Egyptian public associates it with the Mubarak regime, which regularly imposed a state of emergency. Therefore the man in the street asks: What is the difference between Mubarak and Mursi? As a result of public pressure and the danger that the situation may deteriorate further, Mursi announced that he is willing to reassess the need for the state of emergency, which indicates a lack of decisiveness on the part of the president. But in Egypt's current situation, they must have a decisive president in order to rescue the state from the multi-system mess that it has deteriorated into.

Evidence of the weakening of the Egyptian public system is apparent in the new phenomenon that began appearing in the streets recently, which is called in English a "black bloc", where groups of youth wrap their faces in black, with some of them intensifying the effect by drawing frightening images on their face coverings. These groups of youth damage police vehicles, police stations and buildings of governmental institutions,  with the intention of bringing down the regime of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the Egyptian public sphere, various strange  rumors are circulating about the political agenda of these groups. For instance, that they represent the remnants of the Mubarak regime, or that they are criminal gangs that are taking advantage of the confusion; and there are even those who spread the rumor that they are agents of the Israeli Mossad, whose goal is to bring the Arab world to a state of total chaos.

In the political sphere, the "National Salvation Front " has been operating against Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood. This group is composed of a number of opposition parties  and is led by Muhammad elBaradei and Hamdeen Sabahi . Because of the deterioration in recent days, President Mursi has been attempting to speak with them in order to establish a generally accepted national position, but the heads of the opposition parties refuse to meet with him. Their refusal is seen as an expression of "no confidence" in him and in the process that resulted in his election. Their demands are to establish a government that will include all of the public sectors, even the seculars, to change the Islamist-leaning constitution which grants too much authority to the president and to dismiss the attorney general.

They demand that "Mursi will take responsibility for the Egyptian blood that is spilled in the streets, that he will rein in the Muslim Brotherhood and make them subject to the laws of the land."

Somber Thoughts Regarding the Revolution

Last week, in the extremely embarrassing condition that it currently finds itself, Egypt marked the two-year anniversary of the start of the revolution. During Mubarak's time, the Egyptian people suffered from oppression and corruption, many lived wretched lives, but people were not killed in the streets in great numbers. There were some cases of police abuse which resulted in deaths, but this was rare. Today, after the "democratic" revolution brought down Mubarak and his gang, the life of the Egyptian is far more miserable. Millions who, in the days of Mubarak, made a living from tourism are unemployed today, and foreign investments, which enabled many in the past to work and earn a living, have disappeared, resulting in even more people who today are unemployed.

The International Bank has conditioned its loans on subsidy cuts, principally for bread, but Mursi is afraid to raise the price of bread because of the street riots that will break out and because the people will accuse him of not being able to bring to their children even the most basic of foods. On the other hand, if he doesn't cancel or at least decrease the subsidies, Egypt will go bankrupt; it will not be able to underwrite the subsidies, the price of food will rise and people will riot in the streets.

Last August, following the attack in Rafah in which 16 Egyptian soldiers were killed, Mursi dismissed the minister of defense, Tantawi, and a long list of senior military officers. The question was then raised: why did Tantawi and the officers agree to be dismissed without objection? The answer was clear back then, and it is even clearer today: Since they knew what the actual economic situation in Egypt was, they were glad to hand the country over to Mursi, so that he would be associated with the collapse and not them. They felt like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

From this honorable platform, we express the hope that the Egyptian people will find a way out of the complex crisis in which it finds itself, and that a group of leaders will emerge who will lead the rickety Egyptian ship to safe shores.

  ===============

Dr. Kedar is available for lectures

Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with permission from the author.

Additional articles by Dr. Kedar

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the author.

The Game Changer

by Aharon Lapidot

Unlike Syria, which has accused Israel of targeting one of its defense-related facilities on Wednesday, the foreign media has reported that Israel actually hit a convoy carrying "game-changing" weapon systems to Hezbollah on the Syrian-Lebanese border (near the Bekaa Valley). 

If that latter report is true, what kind of arms could qualify as "game-changing?" 

The media has been all abuzz about the possibility that the alleged convoy was carrying SA-17 systems. The SA-17, dubbed "Grizzly" by Western armies, includes Russian-made surface to air missiles, and is considered the successor to the SA-6 (which debuted in our part of the world in the 1970s). 

The SA-17's mobility and flexible modus operandi make it highly dangerous. It can be fired from a vehicle and can be easily concealed. It can down aircraft that fly at high altitudes (over 40,000 feet), as well as at low altitudes, and engage several targets simultaneously. Moreover, because the SA-17 has an effective range of about 30 km (18.6 miles), Israeli pilots were forced to adapt their training routines. 

The truth is that the Syrian military also has the Pantsir-S1 system, which is more advanced than the SA-17 and has better precision. In fact, it is one of the most modern air defense system of its kind. According to various reports, that system was used to down a Turkish Phantom jet near the Syrian border last summer. If Hezbollah were to lay its hands on this armored rocket system, Israel Air Force activity in Lebanese and Israeli airspace would be severely compromised. 

As for the arms in the so-called "scientific research facility" that Israel allegedly targeted on Wednesday, it is important to keep in mind that Syria has in its arsenal upgraded SCUD-C and SCUD-D missiles. These high-precision surface-to-surface missiles, whose warheads could weigh half a ton or more, can inflict substantial damage. 

With a range of hundreds of kilometers, they can strike the greater Tel Aviv area and targets that lie even farther south. So long as the David's Sling interceptor is not fully operational, Israel will have a problem countering the threat posed by medium-range missiles. Should Hezbollah lay its hands on such systems, even a handful of them, it will have upset the current balance of power.

Aharon Lapidot

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3351

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Benghazi Footnote

by Elise Cooper

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony before Congress regarding Benghazi suggests a revised version of Harry Truman's great slogan: "The Buck Stops Here," (Kind of.) It appears that this administration and their supporters have turned the Benghazi issue into a footnote that has no solutions or answers. 

Fred Rustmann Jr., a former CIA official, a writer for the online intelligence briefings magazine, Lignet.com, and author of The Case Officer, wishes "people would get stirred up about this. We must keep reporting on it. Watergate was a cover-up and nobody died. This was a cover-up and people died. That is why this is a big deal and the American people have to realize this by becoming informed."

Yet, in listening to Clinton's opening statement, Americans would get the impression that she is the carrier of the torch in the fight against terrorism. She duped people by claiming that she moved "quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis and further protect our people and posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world." Really?

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla), former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and current chair of the subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, felt that Clinton's testimony was "not credible in the true sense of the word. It was unbelievable."

The American people should be outraged and demand answers after the secretary of state's testimony. Instead, it appears that but for a few, no one cares anymore and have shrugged away the issue. As she brilliantly fudged, dodged, and avoided taking responsibility, the Democrats on the panel uniformly treated her as a celebrity superhero who could compete with Lynda Carter for the role of "Wonder Woman." The congresswoman's reaction as she sat there listening to the Democrats: "Wow, they fawned over her. They appear to be drinking too much of the Kool-Aid. Maybe a little bit of probing on their part would have resulted in more answers so this would never happen again. Their attitude of move along, move along was pretty pathetic."

In dissecting some of Clinton's statements and answers it appears that this administration has been able to turn the page and get away with incompetence through a complete obfuscation of the facts. Hillary asked, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" going on to say that there is, in fact, no difference between a terrorist attack, or "some guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans." How could someone who is America's face to the world be so callous, ridiculous, and thoughtless?

Then there were the statements she made about Charlene Lamb, the former State Department security official, basically throwing her under the bus. Clinton admitted fault, but did not take responsibility. She claimed that she was not aware of any real time video, which directly contradicts what Lamb testified. Furthermore, Clinton continued to blame the Congressional Republicans for not providing adequate funding even though Lamb testified that there were no budgetary restraints. The congresswoman is angry: "Ambassador Stevens made requests for high level security and that should have been granted immediately. But Secretary Clinton tried to deflect by placing the blame on Congress' refusal to provide funding. It was never a question of funding. Let them release all those cables. Then we will be able to find out who was really to blame. If the Secretary of Stare was not reading them, then who was? But they hide behind the 'classified documents' argument. Yet, when its convenient for them they leak like a sieve."

Clinton appears to have a case of amnesia from her concussion. She claimed in her testimony, "And I stood with President Obama as he spoke of "an act of terror." She conveniently forgot that from September 12 -18th this administration maintained that the attacks were likely a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film. Or when she stood by the caskets of the four Americans killed in Libya she directly blamed an ""awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with." Afterward, she reportedly told the father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL who was killed in the attack, "We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted."

Rustmann Jr. believes the administration narrative, the latest being Clinton's testimony, is due to their eagerness to pat themselves on the back after getting Bin Laden, and wanting the American people to believe that Al Qaeda was decimated. He is angry that they chose to ignore the multiple requests for more security and that no one has been captured for this horrific event. Clinton testified that there was one person being held in Tunisia. Yet, this administration has not requested an extradition. Once again it falls back to the fact that no actionable intelligence is gained without interrogations; thus, no leads and no names of the terrorists responsible.

Furthermore, the congresswoman told American Thinker, that the Accountability Review Board never interviewed Clinton even though she cited it numerous times in her testimony. "How can the head of an organization not be interviewed when there is an investigation of an operation where she was in charge. The ARB did not find her relevant. If she is not relevant then I do not know who could be. No one has been held accountable."

Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen is hopeful that the American people will demand accountability by this administration and force them to find those responsible. Unfortunately, as Clinton showed during her Congressional testimony, this administration appears to be getting away with murder. The bottom line is that Benghazi represented gross negligence, a lack of leadership within the State Department, and the denial of available resources. Why? Because they chose to tout their narrative that terrorism is under control, misleading the American people who have pivoted from this incident.

Elise Cooper writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/benghazi_footnote.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Egypt, 2012: The Year In Fatwas

by Raymond Ibrahim

 

In previous decades in Egypt, the fatwas, or legal decrees issued by learned Muslims and based on Sharia law, revolved around questions like proper prayer, when and where women should wear the hijab, and if smoking was forbidden or permissible.

That was then.

The fatwas issued in the year 2012—the year when Islamists, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, assumed formal power—are, as one would expect, markedly different, that is, much less restrained.  The popular Egyptian Arabic website El-Watan News recently compiled a list of 2012’s most “notable” (a euphemism) fatwas.  I translate a summary of their findings below, augmented with additional observations:

Destruction of the Pyramids and Sphinx
In November, Sheikh Murjan Salem al-Jawhari, a Salafi leader, called for the destruction of all idols, relics, and statues in Egypt, specifically mentioning the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids.  He called on Muslims to destroy such “idols” just as they destroyed the Buddha statues in Afghanistan.  Of course, several months earlier, in July, I reported how several prominent Islamic clerics were calling on President Morsi to “destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin al-As [the first Muslim invader of Egypt] could not.” Then and now, the MSM scoffed at the very idea, portraying it as a “hoax.” To date, reports from Egypt confirm that “some of the statues have already been destroyed by those belonging to the political Islamist parties.”


Marrying Minors (i.e., Pedophilia)
Dr. Yassir al-Burhami, Vice President of the Salafi Da‘wa movement, and thus an authoritative figure among Egypt’s Salafis, who are playing a prominent role in Egypt’s new parliament, opposed setting a minimum age in the new constitution concerning the marriage of minor girls, saying “they can get married at any time,” while insisting that Sharia law is clear on this matter.  Indeed, earlier, another cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, after saying that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle,” explained the fundamental criterion of when they can copulate: whenever “they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men,” which has less to do with age and more to do with individual capacity.


Permitting Lies and Hypocrisy
Dr. Yassir al-Burhami also permitted wives to “lie to their husbands”  about their whereabouts—if they were going to go and vote “yes”  on the Sharia-heavy constitution in Egypt, and if their husbands would otherwise have disapproved. The ever-expedient Salafi leader also permitted Egypt to borrow money from the IMF, rationalizing the “forbidden” interest rate away as “administrative charges.”  (Islam forbids the participation in monetary loans that charge interest, as does the IMF.)

Scrapping Camp David Accords

Sheikh Hashem Islam, member of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, said that the peace treaty with Israel contradicts the teachings of Sharia and should be annulled, quoting the Koran: “So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds” (47:35).  He added that “Jews cannot be trusted.” The Islamic logic he and others use is that peace treaties with infidels are legitimate only when Muslims are weak and in need, whereas now that Egypt is under proper Muslim leadership, Allah will help it to defeat Israel.

Killing Anyone Protesting Islamization of Egypt
Sheikh Hashem Islam also permitted the killing of anti-Islamization protesters, portraying them as traitors committing “high treason.” The Sheikh also exempted the murderers from having to pay the restitution required by Sharia to a Muslim victim’s family.  Sheikh Wagdi Ghoneim issued a similar fatwa, proclaiming any Muslim who rejects the Sharia-heavy constitution of being an apostate who must be fought and killed.

Obeying President Morsi
Sheikh Ahmed Mahlawi, the leader of an Alexandrian mosque, denounced all Muslims opposed to President Morsi, pointing out that the Koran declares it to be forbidden to disobey those in authority: “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger [Muhammad] and those in authority among you” (4:59). He added that Morsi should be obeyed whether he was elected or not—as long as he enforces the laws of Allah. Indeed, according to Sharia, the Islamic ruler must always be obeyed—except whenever he fails to enforce Sharia law.


Banning Greeting Christians
The Committee for Rights and Reform issued a Fatwa against congratulating Christian Copts on their religious holidays, notably Christmas and Easter, since Muslims do not share the beliefs specific to those holidays.  As for the ever-reliable Salafi Sheikh Burhami, he further forbade Muslim cab and bus drivers from transporting Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”

Banning Saluting the Egyptian Flag
Abd al-Akhir Hamad, the mufti of the notorious Gama’a Islamiya (Islamic Group), denounced and forbade the saluting of the flag and the Egyptian national anthem, saying that doing so glorifies that which is other than Allah—not to mention music is simply “haram,” that is, forbidden.  Dar Al-Ifta’ issued a counter-fatwa to allow for saluting the flag and standing up for the national anthem.

Banning TV Shows Mocking Political Islamists
A fatwa banning TV viewers from watching the very popular shows of Bassem Yusif, who routinely mocks Egypt’s Islamists and their fatwas, appeared and was originally attributed to Dar Al-Ifta’, though it later denied issuing it.

Banning Marriage to Mubarak-Regime “Remnants”
Sheik Omar Stouhi, Secretary General of the Supreme Committee for Islamic Da‘wa at Al-Azhar, forbade all Muslim women from marrying any of the sons of the “remnants” of the old regimes, portraying them as non-pious Muslims.

Banning Joining the Dustor Political Party
 Sheikh Muhammad Nazmi issued a ban on people from joining Egypt’s “Dustor” political party, headed by Dr. Muhammad al-Baradei, saying that the latter is a secularist and opposed to the implementation of Allah’s laws.


Raymond Ibrahim

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/egypt-2012-the-year-in-fatwas/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Syria Crosses Israel’s WMD Red Line

by Daniel Greenfield


On Sunday, Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told Army Radio that the country’s top security officials had held a special meeting and warned that the transfer of Syrian chemical weapons to Hezbollah would be crossing a line that would mean action.

It was not the first time that Israel had warned Assad not to follow in the footsteps of his former ally, Saddam Hussein, but it was the sharpest warning to date. The warning was clearly meant to head off a specific course of action by Syria. But true to form, Bashar Assad did not listen.

Yesterday, it was reported that Israeli jets struck a convoy headed from Syria to Lebanon. The convoy reportedly contained SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles as well as some of the SSRC’s special toxic brew.

Syria’s extended occupation of Lebanon has come to an end, but the Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, has taken its place. Hezbollah fighters have gone to Syria to fight for Assad and it was widely speculated that Assad might transfer some of his WMD stockpiles to his Lebanese allies.

For Israel, the transfer of WMDs to terrorists is the ultimate red line that endangers its survival and existence. Israel’s enemies have long used neighboring terrorist groups as proxy armies for waging war against it by conventional means. Transferring WMDs to terrorists would allow those same countries to indirectly carry out a WMD attack that might kill hundreds of thousands of Israelis while minimizing concerns about retaliation.

The Arab Spring and the Islamist Winter have led to civil wars within the Muslim world in which Israel is not a player, but a pawn. In Egypt, Bahrain and Libya, both sides have accused each other of working for the Zionists. In Egypt, Mohammed Morsi won international support by using his Hamas cousins to stage a conflict with Israel which he could then resolve to prove his credentials as a force for stability and peace. In Syria, Assad has hoped to use the threat of war with Israel as a bargaining chip with the West.

Syria is in no state for a war with Israel. And a new war with Hezbollah is a card that Iran is reserving for its own use against the threat of an Israeli strike on its nuclear program. That leaves Syria with few options. Its only real card is its WMD program. Syria can’t use chemical weapons on a large scale against its rebels without crossing NATO’s red line. And it’s afraid that if it doesn’t turn those weapons into an asset, it may lose them.

Putting WMDs in Hezbollah’s hands not only takes them out of the reach of the Sunni rebels, but allows Assad to indirectly threaten Israel. And while NATO may intervene in Syria in response to WMD use by the regime, it isn’t likely to try and intervene in Lebanon if Hezbollah makes use of them; not when the EU still refuses to put Hezbollah on its terrorist list. With WMDs in Hezbollah’s arsenal, Assad could try to duplicate Morsi’s farce with Hamas, by setting himself up as the only man who can prevent a truly catastrophic regional conflict.

Israel however has no interest in being used as a pawn in the Syrian Civil War with the lives of hundreds of thousands of its citizens on the line. American and European leaders have doubtlessly warned the Jewish State not to attack Assad, regardless of the provocation, to avoid undermining the Sunni rebels and the credibility of the regional anti-Assad coalition. A similar warning during the Gulf War prevented Israel from responding to Saddam’s Scud missile attacks, but Israel had its own red line in Syria, and with the weapons transfer, Assad had crossed that line.

As far back as 2010, Brigadier General (Res.) Nitzan Nuriel, director of Israel’s National Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Bureau, had warned at the Tenth Annual World Summit on Counter-Terrorism that if Syria transfers WMDs to Hamas or Hezbollah, the SSRC, Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center, which runs Syria’s WMD program, should be targeted and demolished by the international community.

The international community failed to act and so Israel took action instead. Syria has now reported that Israel had carried out an air strike against a military research facility near Damascus. It is quite likely that this was a reference to the SSRC.

The Syrian military spokesman claimed that a building had been destroyed and large scale material damage had resulted from the attack. This does not mean that Syria’s WMD program is toast; both attacks were more likely meant as a warning that Israel will not hang around waiting for Obama to act when its safety is in jeopardy.

While information is still being put together and there is much about the attack that we don’t know, the very act has wider implications beyond Syria.

Israel’s biggest red line is still Iran’s nuclear program and while the general consensus in the international community is that despite Netanyahu’s talk of a red line, it will not act, the Syrian strikes are a reminder that Israel always reserves the military option and that when it does act, the results are shocking and unexpected.

The message out of Syria is that Israel reserves the right to defend itself against weapons of mass destruction and that it reserves the right to do so even in the face of opposition from Obama and the international community.

With its dense population centers and small territorial size, Israel cannot afford any complacency when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. In the aftermath of its election and the rise of left-wing social justice parties, some observers might have assumed that Israel would be too busy lowering the price of yogurt and urban apartments or wrangling over social benefits to pay attention to the bigger issues. The Israeli Air Force delivered a powerful reminder that the only free state in the region has not forgotten about the threat and it has not forgotten how to act.


Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/syria-crosses-israels-wmd-red-line/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Anti-Semitism in Europe

by Guy Millière

Jews who can do so, leave Europe. Those who do not have the means to leave know they must be extremely careful: it is dangerous again to be a Jew in Europe. It is even more dangerous to be a Jew who supports Israel.

In 2012, the number of anti-Semitic crimes in France sharply increased. The six-month period that followed the March killings in a Jewish school in Toulouse were particularly harsh. The killer , Mohammed Merah, became a hero in many suburbs, his name on many graffiti. For some people, apparently, shooting children in the head just because they are Jewish is inspiring.

Although acts such as as the killing in Toulouse had no equivalent elsewhere, France is not an exception: statistics show that insults, assaults, and cries of hatred against Jews multiply throughout Europe. Jewish schools, synagogues and Jewish cultural centers are everywhere threatened and urgently require more stringent security measures.

Political leaders say they are aware of the problem and are determined to act. In November, French President François Hollande said that "the struggle against anti-Semitism is a top priority." Angela Merkel used the same words a few weeks later in Germany. In the beginning of December, after a spike in verbal and physical anti-Semitic incidents in Britain, David Cameron said that he wanted to "tackle Antisemitism head on."

Words such as that were uttered many times in recent decades, but clearly had no effect. They did not reverse the trend.

When European political leaders and commentators speak of anti-Semitism, they are vague and almost never give more detailed explanations. They never say why anti-Semitism is despicable and dangerous. They perform a sort of abstract ritual that seems more and more detached from reality.

On the other hand, when European political leaders and commentators are more precise, they generally refer only to a certain type of anti-Semitism: fascist anti-Semitism. Even if fascist anti-Semitism has not disappeared, it is not the most virulent anti-Semitism in Europe now, and no longer involved in much anti-Semitic crime. It is as if they are fighting a sickness by designating only one aspect of the sickness and sparing its most important dimensions.

European political leaders and commentators almost never speak of the most virulent strain of anti-Semitism in Europe today: Islamic anti-Semitism. They are afraid to combine the two words "Islamic" and "anti-Semitism." They know that if they do, they will be immediately accused of being "racist" and "Islamophobic." They know that Muslim organizations will start to say in the mainstream media that Muslims are being unfairly "stigmatized." They also know that the Muslim population in Europe is increasing quickly, and that some of its members may react with violence.

There is no fight against Islamic anti-Semitism in Europe today. If a non-Muslim bookseller wanted to sell The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Paris, Berlin or Brussels, the police would intervene immediately, and he would be arrested and prosecuted. If a Muslim bookseller wants to do the same thing, he can, without risking anything. If a French or a German television station decided to broadcast anti-Semitic programs, it would be shut down, and it would cause a scandal. Islamic TV channels broadcast anti-Semitic programs that attract a wide audience in Europe, and nobody dares talk about it.

A further cause of anti-Semitism never evoked in Europe is the spread of "anti-Zionism." The "Palestinian cause" and the "suffering of the Palestinian People" have become the main concern of a growing number of Europeans who, strangely, are not interested in the suffering of any other people -- Syrians for example. Israel has become the country that it is fashionable to hate. Widespread hatred of successive Israeli governments in Israel has led to hatred toward the Israeli population, and hatred toward the Jews in general, especially if they support Israel.

European political leaders and commentators do not fight "anti-Zionism" except when it becomes extreme and when its anti-Semitic dimension becomes impossible to hide. Many seem to have anti-Israel prejudices and consciously or unconsciously contribute to the spread of this hatred.

Anti-Semitism in Europe today is like a complex dark nebula. It includes remnants of fascist anti-Semitism and increasing levels of Islamic anti-Semitism, with "Anti-Zionism" added to the mix. Fascist anti-Semites, to hide their anti-Semitism, often join "anti-Zionist" movements, where they work hand in hand with Islamic anti-Semites to organize protests against Israel. Islamic anti-Semites use elements of fascist propaganda and disseminate them without any barrier.

European political leaders and commentators pretend to fight anti-Semitism; some of them might think they really are fighting anti-Semitism. But as long as they will not take into account the whole nebula, and as long as they will not speak clearly of all its components, what they say and what they do will be useless.

Jews who can do so, leave Europe. Those who do not have the means to leave know they must be extremely careful: it is dangerous again to be a Jew in Europe. It is even more dangerous to be a Jew who supports Israel.

Jews who publicly despise Israel, or who say that the Jewish people does not exist, are widely praised. What Theodor Lessing called "Jüdische Selbsthass" (Jewish self-hatred), in a book published in Germany in 1930, impregnates the atmosphere again.

Calling to mind the darkest period of the history of Europe may seem pessimistic. And those who say that history does not repeat itself are probably right, but certain forms of malevolence seem particularly able to find new clothing to survive and thrive again.

In an interview in a French magazine a few years ago, a man who survived the death camp in Auschwitz said: "In the 1930s, the pessimists found ways to survive; it was the optimists who died."


Guy Millière

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3556/anti-semitism-europe

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Czech Republic and the Arab World

by Michael Curtis

Czechoslovakia was the only democratic country in Central Europe in the 1930's, as Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East today. By its vote in United Nations, the Czechs have made it clear that the Arab world should not be appeased; that the appalling Western mistake in 1938 – of trying to appease Hitler by giving him the Sudetentland, must not be repeated by giving Israel [to] the Arabs.

A vote in the United Nations General Assembly is often the consequence of a complicated assessment of national interests and a response to international pressures, rather than of actual convictions on a particular issue. The Czech Republic was the only country in the European Union to vote against the resolution that Palestine be granted the status of a non-member observer state at the United Nations on November 29, 2012. Fourteen members of the EU, including France, voted for the resolution, and 12, including Germany, abstained.

The Czech vote at the UNGA reflects both a fresh assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, as well as a bond based on historical and personal factors. The Czech Republic does support the creation of a Palestinian state in a two state solution, but insists that it can only be established as a result of an Israeli-Palestinian negotiated process, as agreed to by both the Palestinians and the Israelis -- not only in both UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, and 1850, but also in countless bilateral agreements -- in particular the Oslo II agreements of September 28, 1995, Article 31, that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the final status negotiations. The Czech Republic seems to have regarded the Palestinian request to attain non-member status not only as a unilateral act that is detrimental to the peace process, but as a totally illegal one under the UN's own system of jurisprudence.

For Czechs, the memory of their betrayal by the appeasement policy of the Western powers in the 1930s remains potent. At the Munich Conference on September 30, 1938, Britain and France, wishing to avoid confrontation with Germany, allowed Adolf Hitler to control the Czech Sudetenland. The following year, Nazi Germany took control over the whole country. As a result of this Western failure to control Nazi aggression, "appeasement" has become a synonym for weakness and cowardice.

Although the vote on the November 2102 UNGA Resolution in opposition to the Palestinian position cannot of course be regarded as an exact parallel with the Western abandonment of Czechoslovakia in 1938, a similar situation exists: Czechoslovakia was the only democratic country on Central Europe in the 1930's, as Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East today. By its vote in the UNGA, the Czechs have made clear that the appalling Western mistake in 1938 -- of trying to appease Hitler by giving him the Sudetenland -- must not be repeated by giving Israel to the Arabs.

This Czech emphasis on the necessity of direct negotiations between the Middle East parties may be an echo of the successful negotiations in 1993, when the federal state of Czechoslovakia was divided between the contending parties, and the two separate states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia were established.

Czech attitudes towards Israel have varied over the years. Czechoslovakia was one of the 33 countries voting for the UNGA November 1947 Resolution which led to the establishment of the State of Israel, and on May 18, 1948, Czechoslovakia recognized the Israel, four days after its creation. It was also a main supplier to Israel of military aircraft and weapons in July of 1948, after other countries had imposed a boycott on the new state. Czechoslovakia even trained some of Israel's pilots who belonged to the Haganah, the Israeli defense organization that preceded the Israel Defense Forces before Israel's independence. The formal diplomatic relationship, broken by the Communist regime after the Six Day War of 1967, was restored with the Velvet Revolution of 1989, which ended the Communists' rule.

Since then, the Czech Republic has constantly fathomed the problems Israel faces. It agreed in 2006 that Israel had a right to defend itself against the attacks from Lebanon by Hezbollah; and in 2008-9 refused to condemn Israel's response to rocket attacks from Gaza by Hamas, which the Czechs have labeled a terrorist organization. Although the Czechs acknowledged that the conditional opening of crossings of goods and people into Gaza -- to prevent the smuggling of weapons and materiel into Gaza -- was a problem, they admitted that it was not the main problem. More important was that Gaza was ruled by a terrorist organization.

The Czech Republic also supported Israel's legal military operation in May 2010 in the Mediterranean Sea to prevent six ships, a flotilla sailing from Turkey, from breaking a legal blockade so that weapons would not be smuggled into Gaza via a sea-route.

In January 2009, when the Czech Republic served as president of the European Council of the European Union, it proposed that EU relations with Israel be upgraded. The proposal was not approved.

Historical and personal factors also played a role in the Czech attitude to Jews and to the State of Israel. The legendary hero Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, the founder and first President of the State of Czechoslovakia in 1918, was a supporter of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and is remembered by a square in Tel Aviv named after him, and by a kibbutz near Haifa. In 1927, he was the first head of state to visit the Jewish village in the area of that was then the British Mandate. He spoke out against superstitious, "witch trial" claims of the Hilsner Affair, a case in Bohemia in 1899, in which a young Jewish boy was libelously accused of killing a Christian girl for her blood. Later, Vaclav Havel, as President, opposed the sale of weapons to Syria because of its hostility to Israel, and constantly spoke out against anti-Semitism.

The Czechs have apparently understood the realities of Middle East politics. 


Michael Curtis  is author of Should Israel Exist? A Sovereign Nation under Attack by the International Community.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3551/czech-republic-israel-arab-world

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Chuck Hagel's Contempt for the Senate

by Frank Gaffney, Jr.


In the run-up to the Senate Armed Services Committee's hearing this Thursday on Chuck Hagel's fitness to become the next Secretary of Defense, its members have been treated to the spectacle of the nominee spinning at the RPM of a prima ballerina.

Evidently, the former Nebraska senator has very low regard for those now serving in the Senate.  He seems confident that they will either not see through - or at least not object to - his concerted efforts to: disavow his well-documented public record; obscure his serial, faulty judgments; and ignore the harm both suggest he is prepared to do, if confirmed, to the national security.

The question is:  Will Mr. Hagel's cynical and contemptuous gambit be rewarded by the Senate?  Or will it be properly repudiated?

For example, will the Armed Services Committee membership really accept Mr. Hagel's current insistence that he is a strong supporter of Israel when the evidence to the contrary is manifest from his plethora of votes, resolutions, letters, and public statements? Will Senators on and off that committee trust him to execute Obama administration policy towards Iran's nuclear threat - which their colleague, Sen. John Kerry, last week insisted was "prevention, not containment" - given his longstanding opposition to both meaningful economic sanctions and military action?

Can legislators who are alarmed at the hollowing-out of the U.S. military now becoming ever more palpable really take at face value Sen. Hagel's current assurances about his commitment to a strong U.S. military? After all, prior to his nomination by President Obama and his attendant "confirmation conversions," Mr. Hagel insisted that the Pentagon budget is bloated and can safely be "pared."

Now, Hillary Clinton might ask, "What's the difference?"  Unfortunately, the difference could be a Secretary of Defense who will actively encourage, rather than steadfastly oppose, the devastation arising from: the elimination, or dramatic slowing, of virtually all Pentagon modernization programs; the reduction in maintenance of worn-out weapon systems and other equipment; the dissipation of much of what is left of the defense industrial base; the evisceration of training and other benefits, etc.

Then there is Senator Hagel's stance on nuclear disarmament.  Last May, the would-be Defense Secretary affirmed his sympathy for arms control schemes that amount to prescriptions for unilateral reductions in our deterrent forces by co-authoring a plan for achieving them sponsored by the Global Zero initiative.  In so doing, as Heritage Foundation fellow Rebecca Heinrich's has noted in the Daily Caller, he signed onto the fatuous idea that "security is mainly a state of mind, not a physical condition."  He recommended that the United States eliminate two out of three "legs" of its strategic Triad. And he called for steep cuts in the short-range nuclear weapons that are the backbone of the "nuclear umbrella" our allies have long relied upon for extended deterrence.  The effect would be to undermine global stability and exacerbate proliferation.

So, are Senators supposed to accept the line currently being touted by Chuck Hagel in one-on-one meetings with them and by his defenders in public to the effect that "he firmly believes in a strong nuclear deterrent as long as we face nuclear threats"?  Should they actually accept that, for example, the nominee's "belief in a strong nuclear deterrent" is so firmly held that he will actually oppose President Obama's further efforts in a second term - in which he has "more flexibility" - to denuclearize the world starting with our arsenal?  I have a bridge to sell any such credulous legislators.

How about a Secretary Hagel on what Hillary Clinton astonishingly described in her otherwise appallingly uninformative swan-song appearance on Capitol Hill last week: the menace posed to us and our allies by "the global jihadist threat." Never mind that Mrs. Clinton has done little, if anything, to evince such concern over the past four years - or, for that matter, during the preceding decade-plus she spent in the Senate and White House.  In fact, along with President Obama's pick for the next CIA Director, John Brennan, and his new White House Chief of Staff, Dennis McDonough, she has been one of the prime-movers behind the administration's efforts to deny jihad's plain meaning, namely holy war, and to submit to at least its stealthy, subversive and pre-violent version as practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

No amount of spinning by Senator Hagel in anticipation of Thursday's hearing must be allowed to obscure his own, decades-long insistence that we must engage with the Islamists who are in the vanguard of that global jihadist threat.  If this threat is real - and it is - Senators cannot responsibly turn over the Pentagon to someone so indifferent to it.  This is a constitutional duty each and every member has, a duty that cannot be dispensed with, simply because Senator Chuck Schumer has predictably made his peace with the nominee.

In short, it will not be enough for the Armed Services Committee's members to expose the truth about Chuck Hagel's disposition on matters that speak to his competency as the senior civilian defense advisor to President Obama.  They must also evaluate the implications of entrusting so sensitive a position to a man who holds them in such contempt at the very moment that Mr. Obama's international chickens are coming home to roost.


Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p19188.xml

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

UN Human Rights Council and NGO Allies Produce Another Politicized Report

by NGO Monitor



On January 31, 2013, the UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements published a report accusing Israel of gross “violations of human rights law.” The publication includes a scenario in which the Palestinians would ratify the Rome Statute and bring Israel to the International Criminal Court over settlement building.  A number of European government-funded NGOs, including Al Haq and Badil, played central roles in creating the framework for this publication and accompanying campaign.

NGO Monitor submitted a report to the mission, urging it to adhere to international fact-finding standards. However, instead of complying with these standards and as with the discredited and biased Goldstone Report, claims made by a number of Israeli, Palestinian and international NGOs serve as the primary sources for the latest UN “fact-finding” report. Of 133 footnotes, 31 cite NGOs, and an additional 12 cite the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which generally also relies on NGOs for its claims. Many of these NGOs are funded by European governments and the New Israel Fund (NIF).

The document also cites to a single media source, Ha’aretz, which in turn often quotes NGOs. The reference to an opinion article from the paper’s editors, also demonstrates the lack of substantive research. Many other references are to other UNHRC documents, which are also heavily reliant on NGOs and newspaper articles.

In these respects, the latest UNHRC Fact-Finding report again blatantly violated best practices in human rights investigations, such as the Lund-London guidelines that mandate reports be “clearly objective and properly sourced.” See Best Practices for Human Rights and Humanitarian NGO Fact-Finding.

NGO citations and funders (number of citations in parentheses):

B’Tselem (14): Funders include NIF; the EU; Netherlands, Norway, and UK (£135,000 in 2010-11); church groups Christian Aid (UK), DanChurchAid, Diakonia (Sweden) and others; and Ford Foundation.
Peace Now – (8)
Yesh Din (2): NIF, Open Society Institute, European Union, Norway, Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, UK, and NGO Development Center (joint funding of Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands).
Adalah (2): NIF, European Union, Switzerland, Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute, Oxfam Novib, Christian Aid, ACSUR, NGO Development Center (joint funding of Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands), and UN Development Programme.
Amnesty (2):  Claims that it does not accept donations from governments or political parties. In 2008, Amnesty received a 4-year grant from the UK Department for International Development (DFID), totaling £3,149,000. Its branches have also received funding from the European Commission, the Netherlands, the United States, and Norway.
Human Rights Watch (1)
Applied Research Institute Jerusalem - ARIJ (1): Funded by Australia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, UK, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC).
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions - ICAHD (1): Spain; NGO Development Center (joint funding of Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands), Trocaire (Ireland), Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), and UN Development Programme. Previously received EU funding.  
 


NGO Monitor

Source: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/un_human_rights_council_and_ngo_allies_produce_another_politicized_report

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Caroline Glick: About the Next Government

by Caroline Glick

It is still difficult to assess how Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will govern in his next government. The public has little interest in begging the Palestinians to return to negotiations. But then the Israeli public has rarely had much interest in pursuing fruitless deals with unreformed Palestinian terrorists. The only reason we continue to chase deals with them is because the US is obsessed with supporting Palestinian anti-Israel demands in the name of peace. 

To a significant, if not necessarily determinative degree, whether the Palestinians will continue to be a salient issue in the coming years will be a function of events in the wider Arab world. The collapse of the Egyptian state, Syria's civil war, and the potential collapse of the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan will all limit President Barack Obama's ability to press Israel to give away land to the Palestinians. 

At the same time, Netanyahu's assault on his own political camp, starting with Likud and moving to Naftali Bennett and the Bayit Yehudi indicate that at a minimum, Netanyahu will do nothing to advance Israel's position vis-à-vis the Palestinians. He is unlikely to permit significant new construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria or significant Jewish building in Jerusalem. He is unlikely to undertake any democratic reforms in the Justice Ministry or the court system. He is unlikely to take any steps to boost Israel's rights in Judea and Samaria or to undermine the terrorist-led Palestinian Authority.

Where the next government is likely to move ahead are in two other significant, if under-discussed areas: economic reform, and religious reform. 

This weekend Israel reportedly conducted its first successful test pumping of natural gas from the offshore Leviathan natural gas field. In the next four years, Israel will become a major natural gas exporter and will make great strides in developing its recently discovered shale oil deposits. Israel's emergence as an energy exporter will have a transformational impact on Israel's economic independence and long-term viability. 

Moreover, as the surrounding Arab world becomes more unstable, violent and fanatical, Israel's economic independence and vitality will emerge as our most important diplomatic asset and a hugely important domestic trump card. Under the economic leadership of Netanyahu, Lapid and Bennett, as Israel stands at the cusp of this economic breakthrough, it will be led by its most powerful, and - at least in the cases of Netanyahu and Bennett - ideologically committed champions of free market economics. 

Lapid's emergence as the leader of the second largest party will lead to one of two possibilities - Shas, the Sephardic ultra-Orthodox party will join the coalition and have no power, or it will be kept outside the coalition and have no power. Either way, both in terms of Israel's ability to capitalize on its economic opportunities, and in terms of its ability to transform the country's religious institutions, Shas's demotion from political kingmaker to political deadweight is a major and possibly transformative development. 

As far as religious reform is concerned, one of the sources of social friction that has weakened Israeli society over the past few decades is perception shared by most Israelis that  the ultra-Orthodox community is comprised of freeloaders. The fact that most ultra-Orthodox men do not serve in the IDF, while receiving government handouts to study in state-funded yeshivot is one source of social friction. Another source of friction is that while its members do not participate in either the common burden of national defense or in the economic life of the country, due to Israel's proportional electoral system, the ultra-Orthodox minority has managed to maintain control over the state religious institutions and so dictate the (sour) relationship between religion and society in Israel

. 

Both Bennett and Lapid ran on platforms of universal male conscription or national service and ending the ultra-Orthodox community's monopoly on control over the state rabbinate. A Netanyahu-Lapid-Bennett government could enact major reforms in the religious establishment that would lead to a national-religious takeover of the rabbinic courts and the chief rabbinate of the country. Such a government could also require the ultra-Orthodox to serve in the IDF, and enable the community's members to integrate into the economic life of the country. 

All of these steps would have a salutary, indeed, revolutionary impact on the religious life of the country. National religious rabbis would do what the ultra-Orthodox rabbis have failed to do, or stubbornly refused to do. They would make Judaism part of the life blood of the country in a way that is relevant to the lives of the vast majority of Israelis and pave the way for Israel's further emergence as the spiritual center of world Jewry. The ripple effects of such a reform would extend to nearly every corner of Israel, and indeed, to nearly every corner of the Jewish world. 

We will learn a great deal about Netanyahu's plans to contend with Iran's nuclear project, the hostile Obama administration, the rapidly expanding and metastasizing campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state in the West, and the rise of genocidal anti-Semitic regimes in neighboring countries through his choice of Defense Minister. After the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister will be the most important member of the government, on nearly every level and every sphere of national endeavor. He has two outstanding candidates for the position inside Likud -- Moshe Ya'alon, and Yuval Steinitz. If he chooses either of these men, then we can be relatively confident that Israel will rise to the challenges we face. If he chooses anyone else, then the country's capacity to contend successfully with these threats will be more dubious.

But here too, external events may be more important than the identity of Israel's national leaders. The gravitational impact of the Islamic wave engulfing the Arab world and Israel's emergence as an independent economic force will limit the ability of any one person to determine the course of events based on his own political preferences.

We are still at the earliest stages of the formation of the next governing coalition. The reports just this week about Israeli Air Force strikes on convoys of anti-aircraft missiles being transferred from Syria to Hezbollah and fears that Syria's chemical weapons will imminently be controlled by al Qaeda or Hezbollah; the still unconfirmed reports about an Israeli attack on Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Fordo; and the mass riots in Egypt particularly in the strategically vital cities of Port Said and Suez all make clear that regardless of the plans of the next government, and the intentions of the Obama administration, many of the actions of the next government will be dictated by forces beyond the control of the Israeli electorate and the preferences of our leaders. 

Caroline Glick

Source: http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2013/01/about-the-next-government.php

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Are You Serious, Mr. President?

by Tariq Alhomayed


 Over the course of two separate interviews, the US President responded to criticisms that America has failed to intervene in the Syrian crisis in the appropriate manner over the past two years. He said that he is still working hard to assess whether military intervention in Syria will help to resolve the bloody conflict or whether it will only serve to make things worse!


Of course, this is not what was stunning in Obama’s statements, for every country—even a superpower—has the right to assess their interests. Rather what was shocking and frightening was Obama asking, in an interview with New Republic magazine, “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?” This is not all; in another interview with 60 Minutes on CBS television, Obama angrily added, “We do nobody a service when we leap before we look, when we . . . take on things without having thought through all of the consequences.”

As we said, the issue is not the US President’s right to take his nation’s interests into account or not, for we are all aware that the US is not a charity. Rather, the issue is this logic of justification, for with all due respect to the Congo and its people: Is this country like Syria? In assessing the age of the Syrian revolution, and the death of 60,000 people, does this represent “leaping without looking?” This is truly puzzling.

For what Obama is not aware of is that the humanitarian crisis in Syria will lead to security, political, and sectarian crises that are far more complex than expected. It is clear that the US president’s problem, as shown by these statements, lies in his basic understanding of the region. What Obama is not aware of is that ignoring what is happening in Syria at present will necessitate his country spending the next 30 years confronting the crisis there. This will be far worse than what is happening in Afghanistan, which the US ignored since the 1980s, forcing it to confront the crisis that subsequently arose there today.

The other problem is that the US president does not understand the danger represented by the Bashar al-Assad regime, and that its downfall will remove the greatest obstacle to regional peace and stability. In addition to this, Assad’s departure would also represent a strategic blow against Iran, which may even ensure that Washington need not carry out future military strikes against Tehran against the backdrop of the nuclear file. Therefore Assad’s fall will also have an impact on Tehran, particularly as the collapse of his regime would mean the end of Iran’s regional expansionist project. It is also enough to consider the implications of the collapse of the Assad regime on Hezbollah, the extremist groups in Iraq, and the Palestinian militant groups.

Therefore, one can only say: Are you serious, Mr. President? Obama’s logic is frightening, and his understanding of the region terrifying and in doubt, particularly as he is the man who saw a revolution in Bahrain and pushed Mubarak to step down while today he is saying that he is working hard to assess the situation in Syria! Even more frustrating: Where are the region’s intellectuals and statesmen? Where is the diplomatic effort in Washington? Obama’s statements indicate that he has either not heard serious assessments regarding the Syrian crisis, or that he does not want to hear them; either is dangerous.



Tariq Alhomayed

Source: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=32731

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Classic Hagel

by Caroline Glick

 

I think it is pretty amazing that AIPAC is keeping mum on the fact that Obama has nominated a Jew hater and Israel basher to serve as the next Defense Secretary. As I've said before, Hagel's appointment is a far greater threat to the US military than it is to Israel. But still, it is pretty obscene that Obama is getting away with appointing this character to serve as the Pentagon chief. 

Today, the estimable Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon reported another classic Hagelian anti-Israel slur and libel. Back in 2003 he gave an interview to his hometown paper saying that Israel "keep[s] the Palestinians caged up like animals."

And of course, this is only one of countless examples of Hagel's animus towards the Jewish state and its Jewish supporters in the US. But AIPAC is silent.

As I wrote before, I understand that AIPAC doesn't want to fight a fight it can't win. But what fights will it be able to win with a president so hostile to Israel that he appointed the most outspoken anti-Israel senator since Chuck Percy to serve as Defense Secretary? What do they think they will be able to get? A cut-off in aid to the PLO? A cut-off in F-16 and M1A1 Abrams tanks transfers to Egypt? Further ineffective sanctions against Iran? More military assistance to the IDF?

Israel is better off expanding its own defense industries than depending on Hagel for spare parts.

As to the US military, as David Horowitz wrote back in 1992, the movement to assign women to frontline combat unit is not about advancing women. It is about destroying the US military. The fact that Obama didn't even need for Hagel to enter office before taking his first swipe at the military shows just how grandiose his plans for gutting US military capabilities in his second term are. 

To be clear, as a woman who served as an officer in the IDF for 5 and a half years, and worked as an embedded reporter with an all male US infantry unit in Iraq, I have to say that I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with women serving in combat. But the purpose of last week's decision wasn't about permitting women to fight on the battlefield. They already do. It was about social engineering and weakening the esprit d'corps of the US military. As Saul Alinsky taught his followers the goal is never what you say it is. The goal is always the revolution.

Delegitimizing and weakening Israel is only one part of the "revolution." Israel will survive Obama and Hagel and Kerry and Brennan. 

But that doesn't mean we and our supporters in the US should keep silent about their hostility just because we know we can't block their appointments. By pointing out their radicalism, we are at a minimum sending out the necessary warning about what their future plans will likely involve. And that is important, because the more they are criticized the weaker they will feel. 

Caroline Glick

Source: http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2013/01/classic-hagel.php

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.