DIPLOMACY AND TERROR - SYRIAN-STYLE.

 

by Jonathan Spyer

  
PART 1. SUBTLY AND DETERMINEDLY, SYRIA IS TAKING OVER LEBANON

 

Lebanese President Michel Suleiman is to visit Syria next week, to discuss the opening of diplomatic relations between the countries, a Lebanese official told reporters this week.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy last month hailed President Bashar Assad's expression of willingness in principle to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon as "historic progress."

The establishment of a first-ever Syrian Embassy in Beirut is probably not imminent, for various reasons. Nevertheless, the signs of normalization in relations between Syria and Lebanon are significant. They are the latest indication of Syria's growing confidence, and far from being a harbinger of more peaceful times in the neighborhood, they offer clues as to the shape of possible further strife.

The formation of the new Lebanese government after the Beirut clashes in May represented a very significant gain for the pro-Syria element in Lebanese politics. Hizbullah now controls a blocking 11 of the 30 cabinet seats. With a Lebanese government of this type, there is no reason for Syria to be in dispute there. The short period when Damascus felt the need to express its will in Lebanon solely in a clandestine way is drawing to a close.

Still, Western hopes for the rapid establishment of formal relations between the two countries are probably exaggerated. Damascus is in no hurry. Syria's return to Lebanon is a work in progress. Assad has listed the preconditions for the establishment of diplomatic relations to become a real possibility. These include the passing of an election law, and the holding of the scheduled May 2009 general election.
 

BEHIND ASSAD'S HONEYED WORDS, ONE MAY GLIMPSE THE CONTOURS OF SYRIAN STRATEGY in the next stage. The election of May 2009 will be conducted under the shadow of Hizbullah's independent and now untouchable military capability.

Intimidation will go hand in hand with the real kudos gained by the movement and its allies because of recent events ursued by Syria, whereby its clients — for example Hizbullah — including the prisoner swap with Israel, and the Doha agreement that followed the fighting in May. The result, the Syrians hope, will be the establishment of a government more fully dominated by Hizbullah and its allies, in which the pro-Western element will have been marginalized.

Such a government would mark the effective final reversal of the events of the spring of 2005, when the Cedar Revolution compelled the Syrian army to leave Lebanon. Damascus would then go on to conduct friendly and fraternal relations with the new order in Beirut. Mission accomplished.

If this strategy plays out, however, it will represent not the normalization of Syrian-Lebanese relations, but rather the enveloping of Lebanon into the regional alliance led by Iran, of which Syria is a senior member.

On the ground in Lebanon, this regional alliance is still engaged in consolidating its gains. The lines separating the official Lebanese state from the para-state established by Hizbullah continue to blur. The new government's draft policy statement, which is still to be discussed by the parliament, supports the "right of Lebanon's people, the army and the Resistance to liberate all its territories."

This statement thus nominally affords the Resistance. i.e. Hizbullah, equal status with the Lebanese Armed Forces, and appears to consider it an organ of official government policy.

The new organ of government policy, meanwhile, is building its strength. Ostensibly for the mission of "liberating" 20 square kilometers of border farmland, Hizbullah has built a capability of 40,000 missiles and rockets, is frenziedly recruiting and training new fighters, and is expanding and developing its command and logistics center in the Bekaa.

The latest talk is of Iranian-Syrian plans to supply Hizbullah with an advanced anti-aircraft capacity that would provide aerial defense to the investment in rockets and missiles. Such a move would represent a grave altering of the balance of power. Serious moves towards it could well prove the spark for the next confrontation.

In all its moves, the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbullah alliance has known how to combine brutal military tactics on the ground with subtle and determined diplomacy. Its willingness to throw away the rule book governing the normal relations between states has been perhaps its greatest advantage. While the West sees states as fixed entities possessing certain basic rights, Iran and Syria see only processes of rising and falling power. They see themselves as the force on the rise, and the niceties of internationally fixed borders as a trifle unworthy of consideration.
 

THE REGION HAS KNOWN THE RISE OF SIMILAR SYSTEMS OF POWER AND IDEOLOGY in the past. Experience shows that such states and alliances have become amenable to change and compromise — if at all — only after experiencing defeat, setback and frustration.

The Syrians and their allies, of course, are far weaker in measurable military and societal terms than their rhetoric would suggest. Western (including Israeli) actions over the last years have tended to blur this fact. The general acceptance of the transformation of Lebanon into a platform for this alliance — and the lauding of it as 'historical progress' is the latest example of this. The reacquaintance of rhetoric with reality on all sides is long overdue.
 

PART 2. WE'LL TAKE THE DOWRY — YOU KEEP THE BRIDE

A fourth round of indirect talks between Syrian and Israeli representatives was concluded in Istanbul this week and as the Turkish mediators kept themselves in shape conveying messages between the hotel rooms of the two countries' delegations, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was keen to stress the urgency of the hour.

The time was approaching, the prime minister said, when gestures would no longer be enough. Rather, it would soon be time for the Syrians to make their choice between the "Iranian grip" and their partnership in the "axis of evil," and rejoining the "family of nations" in pursuit of peace and "economic development."

Actions and statements from Syria and its allies, however, convey a distinctly less pressing sense of the negotiations. More indirect contacts have been tentatively scheduled for later this month, but for the Syrians, the already considerable benefits derived from the very act of talking are more important than the talks themselves. Damascus's allies in Iran have also given no sign of real concern that their most important Arab allies are about to jump ship.
 

DAMASCUS'S MAIN AIM IN ENTERING THE TALKS WAS TO USE THEM AS A MEANS TO REBUILD RELATIONS WITH THE US AND OTHER WESTERN POWERS, in particular France. These reached a nadir in recent years, most importantly because of Syrian subversion in Lebanon, and suspicions of Damascus's involvement in the murder of former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri and a string of subsequent political murders in that country. Syria is determined to prevent the functioning of the international tribunal into the Hariri murder.

The talks with Israel are intended to demonstrate Syria's willingness to conform with Western hopes for a peace breakthrough in the region. They are part of a sort of "carrot and stick" strategy pursued by Syria, whereby its clients — for example Hizbullah — make tangible gains through the brute employment of political violence. Once it has been established that Syria and its friends cannot be ignored, Damascus then sets out to reap diplomatic gains by offering a cautious hand of reconciliation.

But this hand of reconciliation is intended to add a layer to the gains achieved through violence — not to bargain them away. This strategy has served Syria well in the past. It has been likened to an arsonist who offers his service to the fire brigade.

With regard to Syria's contact with Israel, the terms have been clear from the outset. Damascus is in no hurry. Syrian officials, speaking in Arabic, have made clear that they believe the negotiations would likely take between one and three years for completion, and that no summit meeting would be likely in the foreseeable future.
 

THE SYRIANS HAVE ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT DAMASCUS'S LONG-STANDING ALLIANCE WITH IRAN IS NOT A SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION in the talks, which are concerned with regaining the Golan Heights by Syria only. As Samir Taqi, the Syrian "independent researcher" who handled the initial contacts preceding the negotiations put it, "It would be naive to think Syria will neglect or abandon its strategic alliances that do not stem from the Arab-Israeli conflict."

So far, the strategy seems to be paying dividends. For the cost of the flight tickets and hotel rooms in Istanbul, Assad has ended Syria's isolation. He and his wife found themselves feted in Paris in early July where Syria was welcomed into French President Sarkozy's new Mediterranean Forum. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem beamed after his meetings with French officials that the Hariri tribunal had not even been mentioned.

The reception in Washington has been more cautious, of course. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welsh made it clear that he was not prepared to meet with Syrian official Riad Daoudi as part of talks with an "unofficial" Syrian delegation in the US last week.

But here, given Syria's projected time frame for negotiations with Israel, it is evident that Damascus is looking beyond its foes in the Bush Administration. Assad evidently expects a more friendly face in the White House by early 2009, and this offers a further reason for Syria's lack of haste.

With all this rapprochement going on, the alliance with Iran seems safe and sound. Muallem was in Teheran this week, and met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The two reconfirmed what Ahmedinejad called their "regional cooperation," and the Iranian president lauded the foiling of "the Zionist regime" and America's plans in Lebanon and Syria.

Thus, the act of talking in Istanbul seems a worthy investment. But it is the side benefits of the conversation which interests Damascus.

This was perhaps most eloquently summed up yesterday on the Web site of the official Syrian newspaper Tishreen. While the regional newspaper Sharq al-Awsat devoted two editorials this week to dissecting the negotiations, on the same day that the talks resumed, Tishreen's homepage failed even to acknowledge that they were taking place. Instead, the lead story on its Web site informed readers that his excellency President Bashar Assad met with a delegation of American churchmen. In the meeting, we are told, his excellency stressed the importance of dialogue between nations.

There could be few more eloquent demonstrations of Syrian intentions. When it comes to negotiating with Israel, Assad is keen to take the dowry, while showing little enthusiasm for embracing the bride.

 
Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel.

 

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

 

NO, MR. KOUCHNER, MIDEAST REALITY IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK.

 

by Salomon Benzimra

 

1^st part of 2

During the visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Israel last June, his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bernard Kouchner, was interviewed by Guysen News International, a francophone online network based in Jerusalem. On the issue of the Middle East peace process, Mr. Kouchner's observations can be summarized as follows:

Everyone knows that a viable Palestinian state must be created side by side with Israel, and it must be done urgently. To this effect, Israel must put an end to the colonization; remove a few tens of thousands of settlers; compensate them to return to Israel; and hand over their homes to the Palestinians, without destroying them, as was the case in Gaza. Of course, Hamas continues to fire rockets, but Israel must stop the confrontation that feeds extremism. Later, the return of the refugees and the issue of Jerusalem must also be discussed. (Note 1)

THIS HODGE-PODGE OF WORN OUT IDEAS, DOGMATIC PRONOUNCEMENTS AND MENDACIOUS TERMINOLOGY must first be confronted with factual truths.

First, the destruction of Jewish owned houses in Gaza was not only coordinated but encouraged at the highest levels of the Palestinian Authority (PA). On May 5, 2005, Mr. Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator, declared in an interview to Voice of Peace: "I will tell the Israelis to demolish all [the houses] and even take all the rubble with you, because this is our firm position - to demolish these houses because we do not want to live in them." This decision was later confirmed on May 26, 2005, by Mr. Mohamed Shtayyeh, the Palestinian Minister of Public Works: "If Israel does not destroy the settlers' homes, we will destroy them" (Note 2). Destruction was not limited to buildings and housing units. Most greenhouses, highly efficient productive centers, were vandalized by the Palestinians in spite of a $14 million private fund raised by James Wolfensohn, the former president of the World Bank.

Second, Hamas is not the only group to fire rockets from the Gaza Strip. Ignoring the recent cease-fire agreement, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the latest round of rockets. Let us not forget that these Brigades are part of Fatah and under the authority of President Mahmoud Abbas with whom, according to Mr. Kouchner, negotiations are possible.

But beyond these "details", Mr. Kouchner's position must be challenged on more fundamental grounds. While everyone is entitled to his opinion on the "Palestinian cause", no one should be allowed to distort the facts. It is high time that this "urgent necessity to create a viable Palestinian state" (in Judea & Samaria, of all places, and after uprooting all its Jewish communities) be assessed rationally.
 

NEITHER INTERNATIONAL LAW, NOR HISTORICAL FACTS, NOR GEO-STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS COULD SUPPORT THE CREATION of a new Arab state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Even though Mr. Kouchner tells us that "everyone knows...", here is what everyone should really know.
 

On legal grounds:

The 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Note 3) recognized the region known as "Palestine" as the historic, national and exclusive heritage of the Jewish people. This key document of international law –– which has never been abrogated, and the spirit of which was entrenched in Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations –– should be the basis of any resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict. When this document was approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922, Palestine had already been carved out of its eastern region (Transjordan [now called Jordan]), as shown in Article 25. This partition resulted in "postponing or withholding" all Jewish settlements east of the Jordan River and, to this day, there are no Jews living in that area.

How many times must Palestine be partitioned? Was it not a violation of the provisions of the Mandate (Article 5) to envisage a further partition of Palestine, as recommended by the Peel Commission in 1937 (Note 4) or by UN Resolution 181 in 1947 (Note 5)? Even though Israeli jurists Meir Shamgar and Theodor Meron, in the wake of the Six Day War of 1967, wrongly advised their government to view Judea & Samaria (the "West Bank") as "territories regulated by the Geneva Conventions", the validity of the provisions of the Mandate remains intact. So, how many more transgressions of international law are Mr. Kouchner and his western colleagues prepared to suggest, even to support, in order to appease the real transgressors whose final objective is the destruction of Israel?

The Mandate is also very clear with regard to the establishment of Jewish communities in Palestine. Article 6 encourages the development of these communities in all the lands located west of the Jordan River, which makes their status perfectly legal. When Mr. Kouchner refers to these communities as colonies and urges Israel to put an end to the colonization –– a most derogatory term –– he shows his ignorance of the facts. Dismantling these Jewish communities would be tantamount to condoning the ethnic cleansing that Arabs have practiced in the region up to 1967.

End part 1

Salomon Benzimra

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

 

NO, MR. KOUCHNER, MIDEAST REALITY IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK.

 

by Salomon Benzimra

 

2^nd part of 2

On historical grounds:

There is no doubt about which territories Israel should purportedly abandon in order to create a Palestinian state. They include mainly the "West Bank" –– a misnomer widely used by all those who favour a new partition, to actually designate Judea and Samaria. It just happens that Judea and Samaria hold over 90% of the historic patrimony of the Jewish people [It is much of Biblical Israel]. Withdrawing from these territories would not only be a national suicide but an invitation to any number of further territorial demands made by the Arabs (Galilee, coastal zone, etc.), where Jews could not possibly claim as strong historical links as in Judea & Samaria. And let us not even mention the partition of Jerusalem, and its supposed holiness to Islam, so recently touted!

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, contemporary history never ceases to remind us of a reality that the world persists to ignore. For reasons that escape reason, the armistice line of 1949 (the "Green Line") has acquired the status of an "internationally recognized boundary." Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who seldom misses an opportunity to distort the reality of the Middle East, repeats this nonsense in an article published in USA Today in May, 2006 (Note 6). In 1967, the Green Line vanished but the error persists. It is useful to recall the parallel between the War of Independence of 1948 and the Six Day War of 1967. In both events,

• the goals of the Arabs were the same: the destruction of the State of Israel, through military aggression.
• the calls to violence broadcast by the Mufti in 1948 and by Nasser in 1967, were eerily similar: the eradication of the "Zionist entity." In fact, Nasser was convinced that the aggression of 1967 was the natural pursuit of the 1948 war.
• the methods used by the Arabs breached international law: the UN Charter (Art. 2) in 1948 and the closing of the Straits of Tiran in 1967 (casus belli).
• the outcome of both wars was the same: the loss, by the aggressors, of territories populated mainly by Arabs: Western Galilee in 1948, and Judea & Samaria in 1967.

One may then wonder why the outcomes of these two wars should be treated differently. On the one hand, no one questions the legality of the acquisition of territories by Israel in 1948-49 and, on the other hand, diplomats around the world consider that the "West Bank" and "East-Jerusalem" are occupied territories. Actually, these territories are as "occupied" as Western Galilee, Beersheba and Ashdod, which were all part of the Arab state proposed by the Partition Plan of Palestine in 1947 (UN Resolution 181 which, let us not forget, violated the provisions of the Mandate). The notion of "occupied Palestinian territories" is a monumental sham, all the more so when one compares the original version of the PLO Charter of 1964 –– where there is no mention of a "Palestinian people" and where the "West Bank" is excluded from the lands to be "librated" –– to its second version of 1968, in which the "Palestinian people" suddenly appears to "liberate Palestine ... in all the territory of the British Mandate" (Note 7).

How is it that the whole world could be duped by this Arab-forged Palestinian mythology, while Colonel Qaddafi of Libya, in an unusual outburst of common sense, exposed it openly to his mesmerized colleagues of the Arab League? (Note 8).

Nevertheless, Israel has pursued the so-called "peace process", by withdrawing from several territories. Following the Oslo Accords, Palestinian terrorism increased dramatically. The disengagement from the Gaza Strip was rewarded by thousands of Kassam rockets targeting towns in the western Negev. And after the withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, a month long war was triggered by Hezbollah's aggression six years later, in spite of UN guarantees. In view of these empirical correlations, perhaps Mr. Kouchner could explain how a further withdrawal would put an end to Arab violence.
 

On geo-strategic grounds:

It is hard to imagine a viable Palestinian state contained in the 6,000 square kilometres of Judea & Samaria, especially when allowing for the "right of return" of some 4 million "refugees." It is inconceivable to contemplate uprooting a quarter million Israeli Jews who live there, in order to meet the grievances of the Palestinian Arabs who, ironically, condemn the "Israeli apartheid." Therefore, if Israel were to keep a significant portion of those territories –– where most Jewish urban centers are located –– the putative Palestinian state would be even less viable. Why, then, hold on to this fantasy of "viability", as Mr. Kouchner insists? Moreover, if the Gaza Strip, "liberated" since 2005, were to be linked to the "West Bank" by a safe passage corridor, would there be anyone concerned with the viability of Israel? Why this obstinate effort in obfuscating reality?

Given that the "peace process" has been around for the past 15 years, there is only one word that comes to mind: madness. Or, to put it more mildly, an assault on reason under diplomatic cover.

Since 1967, all military strategists, Israelis as well as American, have been adamantly opposed to any Israeli withdrawal from the heights of Judea and Samaria. No country would expose its most densely populated area to the constant threats of a potential enemy, by reducing its width to 15 km. The Lod airport –– the only international airport in Israel –– would be even more exposed. These strategic issues were dramatically brought to the fore during the missile attack by Hezbollah in 2006.
 

WHAT IS URGENT IS NEITHER THE CREATION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE, NOR THE PURSUIT OF A MINDLESS PACIFISM where justice and truth are often ignored.

What is really urgent is to have the courage to face reality.

And a good place to start is in semantics.

As long as misnomers such as "colonization", "illegal occupation", "Palestinian territories", "right of return of refugees", will be endlessly repeated, peace will remain out of reach, as Albert Camus aptly observed: "Misnaming things compounds the troubles of the world."

As long as cause (extremism) and effect (confrontation) are inverted, à la Kouchner, the conflict will not be understood and surely not resolved. A cursory reading of the founding documents of the PLO, Fatah and Hamas would quickly dispel many long held misconceptions (Notes 7, 9, 10).

As long as the international community stubbornly seeks to resolve a complex problem without sorting out its various components, the process will lead to failure. Deal first with the legal aspect of territorial sovereignty, before addressing the status of the resident population.

Insofar as diplomacy and rational thought are not entirely divorced, it is apparent that one cannot be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian (Note 11). It behooves all of us to take a stand and to cast aside the many fantasies that perpetuate the conflict.
 

Notes:

1. Interview (in French) of Mr. Bernard Kouchner by Ms. Caroll Azoulay, Guysen News International, June 26, 2008:
Video: http://www.guysen.com/tv/index_flash.php?vida=2395
Transcript: http://www.guysen.com/articles.php?sid=7447

2. Statements made by Messrs Erekat and Shtayyeh in May 2005, as reported by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace Process Guide

3. Official text of the Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922, prefaced by Attorney Howard Grief, a Jerusalem based lawyer focused on international law.
http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/infocenter/Heb/MandateforPalestine.html

4. The report of the Peel Commission, submitted to the British Parliament in July, 1937, contrasts the extraordinary economic development achieved by the Zionists with the situation of the Arab population, and dismisses any possibility of "fusion or assimilation between Jewish and Arab cultures" in spite of the substantial demographic growth and the improvements in living conditions of the Arab population since 1920. However, the report concludes on the necessity of a second partition of Mandatory Palestine, contrary to Britain's commitments made 15 years earlier:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel1.html

5. Anticipating the termination of the British Mandate, Resolution 181 was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 29, 1947, with a majority of 33 votes for, 13 against and 10 abstentions. This resolution of the General Assembly was only a "recommendation" and is not binding on the parties. Besides its incompatibility with the spirit and the letter of the Mandate, Resolution 181 proved itself ineffective in stopping the armed aggression against Israel in May, 1948, even though it clearly allowed the Security Council, under Chapter VII of the Charter, to intervene in the event of "threats to peace".
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

6. Article penned by former President Jimmy Carter in USA Today, May 15, 2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-15-carter-israel-edit_x.htm For a rebuttal to Jimmy Carter, see:
http://www.newyorkmonthlyherald.com/political_commentary.htm

7. The two versions of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):
1964: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/cove1.html
1968: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm
For a comparative analysis of these two documents and a historical overview of the region, please refer to the excellent report of Professor Francisco Gil-White (April 30, 2006):
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov2.htm

8. Colonel Muammar Qaddfi addresses the members of the Arab League at their plenary session of March, 2008, in Syria. The Al-Jazeera network aired Qaddafi's speech on March 29, 2008. MEMRI included English subtitles.
Video: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1731.htm
Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1731.htm

9. The Constitution of Fatah (the party of Mr. Mahmoud Abbas) was written in 1964, three years before any "occupation of Palestinian territories." Of special interest are Articles 8, 12, 19 and 22. You decide whether Fatah can be labelled "moderate."
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/middle-east/the-fatah-constitution.php

10. The Hamas Charter was produced in August, 1988. Articles 7, 14, 28 and 32 are particularly revealing. This document is nothing but an open call to genocide:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

11. The world at large now seems to "define" Palestinians as those Arabs who live in the "West Bank", Gaza, the scattered refugee camps, maybe even those living abroad, and on occasion Arabs living in Israel proper are included. But the Palestinians living in Jordan (>70% of the population) are excluded from this definition, as they are considered "Jordanians" I raise this doubt about the definition of the word "Palestinian" because there is really a large cloud on their actual identity. And it is precisely the widely accepted definition of "Palestinians" (those Arabs in the West Bank especially) that makes it impossible to be, at the same time pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, because that would entail truncating Israel to a non viable size, once the "Palestinian state" is carved out.

 
Salomon Benzimra, P.Eng., lives in Toronto, Canada.

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

 

Iran, Livni and the price of political stability.

 

By Caroline Glick

 

On Sunday, Israeli military intelligence commanders sounded the alarm bells on Iran. Speaking at the weekly cabinet meeting, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, who commands the assessment division of the IDF's Military Intelligence Directorate, said that Iran is "sprinting towards a nuclear bomb."

Baidatz explained that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency's handling of Iran's nuclear program "is not bringing results." He further warned that the international community's efforts to isolate Iran and place sanctions on it are failing.

Baidatz warned the Kadima-Labor-Shas government that, based on what the IAEA has already discovered, it's clear Iran currently possesses a third of the quantity of enriched uranium necessary to make an atomic bomb. What he did not note is that Iran has multiple nuclear installations that it has not disclosed to the IAEA. Moreover, now that Iran has gotten a handle on the uranium enrichment process, it will not take the ayatollahs nearly as long to enrich the last two-thirds of the uranium needed for a bomb as it took them to enrich the first third.

From Baidatz's briefing, and from what we already have learned about the international community's failure to unify around the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it's apparent that the only way to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power is to bomb its nuclear installations. Only a military strike can prevent Iran from getting the bomb. And the only countries that can possibly be expected to perform such a service to humanity are Israel and the U.S.

Unfortunately, it is fairly clear today that President Bush, in his waning months in the Oval Office, will take not military action against Iran. Since Bush in May 2007gave Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice full control over U.S. policy toward Iran, Rice has made appeasing Tehran rather than confronting it the goal of American policy. It is all but impossible to foresee this policy changing - despite its self-evident failure - before Bush leaves office in January.

That leaves Israel. But Israel has no coherent government at the moment. Sunday evening Prime Minister Ehud Olmert officially submitted his resignation to President Shimon Peres. Olmert now heads a transition government that will remain in power either until Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni forms a government or until elections are held and the winners form a government.

The central question, then, is what serves Israel's interests better: a coalition led by Livni that spares Israel months of political instability, or months of political instability ahead of general elections that will bring to power a new government with a fresh mandate from the Israeli public?

Livni, her allies in Kadima, many Labor Party members, and the non-Zionist Meretz and Shas parties claim that the best thing for Israel is political stability and the worst is political instability. They argue that chances for peace with the Palestinians and Syria may slip away if there is no continuity in government. They also say that in light of "the great threats" (meaning Iran) that Israel faces, now is no time for political distractions like elections.

Opposing Livni and her allies is Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues that Israel needs elections now despite the instability that such elections would necessarily entail. Netanyahu points out that Livni -- who was elected last week by less than 20,000 Kadima voters to replace Olmert as Kadima's leader in a primary election riddled by accusations of vote fraud whose results are now being contested in the courts - has no legitimate claim to the premiership. She represents no one, was elected by no one, and may not even be the legitimate leader of Kadima.

Beyond that, Netanyahu claims, Livni's demonstrated incompetence in the foreign ministry makes her unfit to lead Israel in a dangerous time. Moreover, Netanyahu and his allies argue that there is no chance whatsoever of making peace with either the Palestinians or the Syrians today and the government's embrace of the PLO and Syrian dictator and Iranian proxy Bashar Assad harms Israel's national security.

Sitting on the fence waiting to see who offers them the best deal are Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz and his supporters in Kadima. Rather than accept Livni's authority after losing the primary to her by a mere 431 votes, Mofaz announced he was taking a break from politics. Mofaz's supporters allege that Livni used fraud to win her narrow victory and have contested the results. These Kadima members could leave the party and rejoin Likud in exchange for safe seats on Likud's Knesset list.

Also sitting on the fence is Labor Party Chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak sees no advantage to accepting Livni's authority. Doing so will simply increase her chances of defeating him in general elections. Moreover, Livni's dubious electioneering maneuvers against Mofaz have tarnished her image as the Mrs. Clean of Israeli politics and likely harmed her prospects in general elections if she fails to form a coalition and is forced to stand for election. On the other hand, Barak's fellow Labor Party members and cabinet ministers wish to join forces with Livni to prevent elections.

It is impossible to foretell how this drama will unfold. But it can only be hoped that Netanyahu gets his wish and elections are called. Since Olmert, Livni and then-defense minister Amir Peretz led Israel to its first military defeat in the war with Hizbullah two years ago, Kadima and Labor have continuously claimed that in spite of their failures, what Israel needs most is political stability and so they must not be forced to seek a mandate from the public for their continuation in office. And with the support of their backbenchers in the Knesset, they have over and over again blocked the public's right to choose.

But far from securing Israel, the "stability" they have provided has simply moved the country from failure to failure. Their failure in the war with Iran's Lebanese proxy army was followed by their failure to prevent Hamas - Iran's Palestinian proxy - from taking over Gaza. They've also failed to stop Iran from arming Hamas to the teeth and so transforming Gaza into the new Lebanon. And they failed to prevent Iran's postwar takeover of Lebanon through Hizbullah this past May.

Rather than confront Iran's proxies, they have compounded the dangers by legitimizing Iran's Syrian proxy by initiating negotiations towards the surrender of the Golan Heights with Iran's man in Damascus, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. And they compounded the dangers of Hamas's takeover of Gaza by negotiating the surrender of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria with Fatah, and so showed Iran and its proxies that no matter what they do to Israel, Israel will continue to cough up land to them.

As for Iran itself, Olmert, Livni and their colleagues have failed to garner any significant international support for confronting Tehran. Indeed, it is they who have overseen Israel's relations with the U.S. as Washington has effectively abandoned the cause of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This is not the team Israel needs to lead it. And though it's true Israel will go through a period of increased volatility as its neighbors take advantage of the power vacuum in Jerusalem, that mustn't deter it from moving toward elections. As Iran sprints toward a nuclear bomb, the only way Israel can stop the mullahs from securing the means to destroy the Jewish state is by electing leaders who will have the courage to attack Iran.

 

Caroline Glick

 

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

 

JORDAN'S LEGAL JIHAD.

 

By Stephen Brown

 

In a brazen attempt to stifle free speech in the West, a Jordanian court recently summoned twelve European citizens to answer criminal charges of blasphemy and inciting hatred.

 

Among those sought by the court is Geert Wilders, the Dutch liberal politician who made the anti-Islamist film, Fitna. Released last March, the Dutch MP's production caused an uproar in Islamic countries, since it equated Islam with violence. Now a Middle Eastern court would like to prosecute Wilders for the "crime." (Ironically, a Dutch court dropped charges against him for inciting hatred against Muslims with his film the day before the Jordanian court issued its subpoena.)

 

The Jordanian court's move is only the most ambitious attempt to silence debate about Islam. Until now, the preferred strategy has been to file civil lawsuits in western courts to intimidate critics. The latest version of what may be called the legal jihad is even more disturbing.

 

In one subpoena, issued in early June, the Jordanian court ordered ten Danish newspaper editors to travel to Jordan for the "crime" of having republished the "Mohammad cartoons" last February. The cartoons, first published in 2005, were also greeted with disturbances in Muslim lands. Seventeen Danish newspapers republished the controversial cartoons as a response to the discovery of an Islamist plot to murder Kurt Westergaard. Westergaard, a caricaturist, drew the most famous of those cartoons in the form of Mohammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, for which he is also included in the summons.
 

THIS NEW CAMPAIGN OF INTIMIDATION AGAINST THE WEST IS BEING MOUNTED BY A JORDANIAN ORGANIZATION calling itself "Messenger of Allah Unite Us", which is made up of "... media outlets, professional associations, parliamentarians and thousands of volunteers." This organization, according to one account, arose as a "civilized response" to the Mohammad cartoons' republication in 17 Danish papers last winter, after which it took the matter to a Jordanian court and successfully had charges pressed against the Danes, and later against Wilders.

The subpoenas will be sent to the twelve Europeans through their embassies in Jordan. If they do not appear within 15 days, the Messenger of Allah group says it will seek international arrest warrants through Interpol.

 

But while Denmark and Holland will not forcibly send innocent citizens to Jordan, this new, "legal jihad" tactic of criminalizing those believed to have insulted Islam constitutes a threat on an unprecedented level against freedom.

 

Citizens of western countries who criticize Islam, and are even willing to face lawsuits in civil courts their own countries for doing so, may now exercise restraint if they risk facing criminal charges in a Muslim country. Especially if the charge is blasphemy and it is being tried by a sharia court, which can impose a death sentence (The Danes and Wilders, a Jordanian lawyer said, are facing a maximum of three years in jail).

 

As well, critics of Islam who have outstanding warrants against them from courts in Muslim countries will have their freedom of movement restricted, since travel abroad will now be problematic. Wilders expressed this sentiment, saying he will be careful when he travels now. Such targeted individuals, like Wilders, will obviously have reservations travelling to a third country where Jordan could file an extradition application or may already have an extradition treaty in place.
 

BUT WHAT IS MOST DISTURBING IS THAT AN ISLAMIC COUNTRY WOULD DARE SUBPOENA CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE for an action not committed within its borders but in a land where no laws were broken. Besides being meant as a weapon of intimidation, this tactic also represents a frightening extension of Islamic law into the heart of western countries.

 

But perhaps most ominously, this incredibly brazen measure shows that even a small Islamic country like Jordan has no fear of Europe. And, indeed, no retaliatory response met the Jordanian court's action against European citizens.

 

Europe's appeasement is also evident in the second part of Messenger For Allah group's anti-blasphemy campaign. This part calls for a commercial boycott of all Danish and Dutch products in Jordan and of anything associated with the two countries, such as airlines and shipping companies. The boycott campaign actually began late last February but was suspended due to the losses Jordanian importers were incurring that had large stocks of unsold Danish and Dutch products.

 

The boycott, however, was resumed June 10. One million posters containing the logos of banned Dutch and Danish products will eventually hang in Jordanian businesses under the title "Living Without It." The boycott will also be spread by television and radio ads, t-shirts, and bumper stickers.

 

Dutch and Danish companies were instructed they could get their products off the boycott list if they, essentially, betrayed their nations' values and their countrymen. The affected companies, according to The Jordan Times, were told to denounce the Dutch film and the Danish cartoons in the media both in Jordan and in at least one publication in their own country, support the Jordanian legal action taken against Wilders and the Danish newspaper people as well as the creation of an international anti-blasphemy law.

Several companies have already complied. When informed of the stipulation that requires a denunciation be published in a Dutch newspaper, a spokesman for a Dutch food company that exports to Jordan said his company "...would print it if needed."

But such groveling will only buy these companies a little time, as another Dutch company discovered. It had immediately distanced itself from Wilders and Fitna after the film's release last March but still had products placed on the boycott posters.

 

The Dutch government did not fare much better in its appeasement efforts. One Dutch embassy official in Jordan said he was surprised his country was included in the boycott in the first place since his government had already printed statements in the Jordanian press distancing itself from Wilders' film.
 

AND, NATURALLY, THE JORDANIAN BLACKMAILERS' DEMANDS HAVE NOT STOPPED. Only last week, Dutch and Danish companies were told to put the boycott posters up in their own countries if they did not want their products blacklisted.

Perhaps to further intimidate Holland's and Denmark's populations, the Jordanians are also claiming their boycott campaign is causing these countries huge financial losses of over four billion Euros in four months. A Danish official, however, says that is ridiculous since his country only exported about $50 million worth of goods to Jordan in 2007.

 

The overall goal of the Messenger of Allah group's legal and commercial campaign against the two European states, it says, is the enactment of "a universal law that prohibits the defamation of any prophet or religion", especially of the Prophet Mohammad. Islamic countries are already pushing for such a law at the United Nations.

 

"The boycott is a means but not an end," said Zakaria Sheikh, a spokesperson for Messenger of Allah Unite Us. "We are not aiming at collective punishment, but when the Danish and Dutch people put pressure on their governments to support the creation of an international law, we are achieving our goal."

 

Well, there you have it. The Muslim organization wants Denmark and Holland not just to muzzle themselves but to help it muzzle the rest of the world as well.

But just the opposite should occur. All western countries should help put a muzzle on Jordan's ridiculous campaign to squelch free speech, meddle in the internal affairs of two sovereign, western states and intimidate their citizens. In terms of financial measures, Denmark, showing its usual mettle, has already led the way when it told the Sudan it would have to repay a $500 million debt the Scandinavian country was considering cancelling, if it joined the boycott.

 

It should also be pointed out in the West that Jordan, which is demanding respect for its religion, does not respect other religions equally. While the practice of other faiths is not forbidden in the Middle Eastern country, none are allowed to proselytize, and converts from Islam to other religions are prosecuted by Jordanian sharia courts.

 

Moreover, the Jordanians should be told that if they want to extradite inciters of hatred to their courts, then citizens of their country, and of other Islamic countries for that matter, who have advocated killing Jews and other the infidels will be extradited to face western courts. In the end, if legal jihad is not recognized as the danger to the West that it is, and vigorously opposed, it will wind up punishing more than just two small European countries.

 

Stephen Brown is a contributing editor at Frontpagemag.com. He has a graduate degree in Russian and Eastern European history.

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

 

AL QAEDA'S OPPORTUNISTIC STRATEGY.

 

by Olivier Guitta

    
PART 1 : Al-Qaeda Sets Its Sights On Israel

 

Israeli transport minister and potential future prime minister Shaul Mofaz, addressing a Washington crowd on August 1, 2008, left no doubt about Israel's intentions regarding Iran's nuclear program. Israel won't let it go through. Since negotiations with Iran have gone nowhere in the past six years, military confrontation looks almost inevitable. While the international community fears the implications of such an outcome, one player can't wait for the first shots to be fired: Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda has been expecting and waiting for a US-Iran war over the nuclear issue. It is in fact one of the major tenets of Al Qaeda's master plan. According to the late Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the very likely collision between the United States and Iran over the nuclear issue is going to help Al Qaeda's advance its plan. Indeed since Iran is going to be less focused on exerting its control on Syria and Lebanon, Al Qaeda will be able to easier penetrate these two countries.

Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein in his 2005 book Al Zarqawi: Al Qaeda's second Generation delved extensively into that issue. Thanks to his personal connection to Zarqawi — many years ago, they spent time together in prison — Hussein was able to interview him along with other major Al Qaeda leaders, including Seif al Adl, the Egyptian terrorist allegedly behind the attacks against the two American embassies in West Africa in 1998. Unsurprisingly, Hussein explains that Al Qaeda's final goal is to establish an Islamic Caliphate in twenty years through seven phases. The first phase called 'the Awakening' really started on September 11, 2001 when Al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington DC. These attacks supposedly awakened the Muslim nation (the 'Ummah') that was before in hibernation. This phase ended in 2003 when coalition troops entered Iraq.

The second phase called 'Opening eyes' lasted from 2003 to 2006 and was supposed to recruit armies of young men for the cause, especially in Iraq.

The third phase, that we are currently in is called 'Arising and standing up'. It is supposed to have started in 2007 and will last until 2010. Al Qaeda's focus will be on Syria and Turkey but also on Israel. In fact, while Al Qaeda was really shunning the issue of the Palestinians until 2001, it has now become one of the central issues of the terror network. It is a clear tactical decision in order to gather support recently lost in the Muslim world. Also this third phase advocates heavy attacks against Israel because it will then force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major power, and negotiate with it.

The strategy followed to best attack Israel has been to penetrate all the neighboring countries of the Hebrew state. It started with Egypt that was targeted by Al Qaeda as early as October 2004 when a triple attack targeted Israeli tourists in the Sinai. Then the terror attacks of Sharm el Sheikh in April and July of 2005 confirmed Al Qaeda's presence in Egypt. After being aggressively pursued by Egyptian authorities and coinciding with Israel's disengagement from Gaza over the 2005 summer, Al Qaeda operatives settled mostly in Gaza. (more on this in Part 2). Al Qaeda's presence in the region was also felt in Jordan when a series of coordinated terror attacks on three hotels in Amman was carried out by Al Qaeda in November 2005. Al Qaeda is also trying to penetrate and control Al Sham (Syria and Lebanon). For proof of its success in Lebanon, the emergence of the terror group Fatah Al Islam who fought tooth and nail the Lebanese army in 2007 in the Palestinian camp of Nahr El Bared.

Interestingly, Fatah al Islam's birth coincided with Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's number 2, calling for the mujahedeen 'to carry the jihad at the borders of Palestine'. To confirm their focus on Israel, one of Fatah al Islam leaders, Abu Muayed, declared: 'We are here to liberate Jerusalem.' Other Salafist extremists groups are gaining power in Lebanon and especially in the town of Tripoli. They are loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda but plan on a closer relationship in the next few months. Interestingly, Omar Bakri, the extremist preacher and alleged al-Qaeda's mouthpiece who was kicked out of England after the July 7, 2005 bombings, now residing in Tripoli, confirms the emergence of al-Qaeda in Lebanon. (more on this in Part 3)

So, Al Qaeda's strategy to infiltrate the countries surrounding Israel is implemented and in the future Al Qaeda could potentially have different bases to attack the Jewish state.

After September 11, we learned the hardest way that Al Qaeda needed to be taken seriously. That is why this 'third phase' is not at all far-fetched in light of the recent infiltration in Jordan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Also Al Qaeda's plan to attack Israel would only add to the fire. In fact, this could have major geopolitical implications including the destabilization of a whole region. And that is exactly what Al Qaeda's has planned for the fourth phase'
 

PART 2: Al-Qaeda Sets Its Sites Around Israel

Part of al-Qaida's master plan, (described above), includes a tactic to encircle Israel by penetrating the neighboring territories. And Gaza is a perfect example.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, recognized al-Qaida's presence in Gaza and the West Bank in 2006. He also warned of the "destruction of the whole region," because of the terrorist entity. This tends to confirm that al-Qaida is expanding in the neighborhood.

Signs of al-Qaida's infiltration in the Palestinian territories have been increasing in past years. In fact, Ely Karmon, the noted senior research scholar at The Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), confirmed that al-Qaida members who remained in the peninsula after the Sharm el-Sheikh terror attacks of July 2005 started then to move toward Gaza and the West Bank. The timing is telling since it coincides with Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Also Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar acknowledged al-Qaida's presence in a September 2005 interview to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

One of the alleged al-Qaida linked terror groups is the 400-man strong Army of Islam (AI). AI emerged for the first time in June 2006 with the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, in conjunction with Hamas. AI then claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of BBC journalist Alan Johnston in Gaza. While the organization denies being a part of al-Qaida, it acknowledges that it is influenced by al-Qaida, but does not have direct links to it.

Another of these jihadist groups that have recently surfaced, the Army of Believers, is holding the same speech: "We have no organic links with al-Qaida, but we share its ideology. Our goal is not only to liberate Palestine, but to spread Islam everywhere." It is obviously difficult to know how far the connection goes with al-Qaida, but what is sure is that there is a breeding ground in Gaza for such groups. In fact, according to Samir Zoquout, from the Human rights group al-Mezan: "One cannot say if al-Qaida is really present here, but more and more groups are adopting its radical ideology, sometimes as a cover for criminal activities."

But there is a worrisome trend: these jihadist groups are gaining strength. The jihadists feed on the decision of Hamas to become a party in government, in a territory where the Sharia (Islamic law) is not applied. Also some are very unhappy about the recent truce concluded with Israel.

Therefore, Hamas has lost members of its armed wing to the Brigades of Allah or the Islamic Army of Jerusalem that killed a Palestinian Christian and attacked an American school, which was holding a show featuring a coed crowd of boys and girls aged six to 12. In this attack, one bodyguard was killed and seven people were injured including three children after the terrorists started shooting.

But that is not all: the French daily Le Figaro recently revealed that a few dozen foreigners, including half a dozen Frenchmen, entered from Egypt in January 2008, during the 11 days when the border with Gaza was forced open. They have since joined these jihadist groups and vow to fight Israel. Their presence has been confirmed not only by Hamas but by Western intelligence services including French authorities. In fact, weakened in Iraq, al-Qaeda seeks an exit door, and on jihadist forums is calling to "defend the sacred mosque of al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem" and is clearly sending recruits to Gaza.

Interestingly Hamas is trying to profit politically from this al-Qaida's emergence in Gaza. For example, Khaled Meshaal, the head of the political bureau of Hamas warns: "If you do not talk with us, you will soon have al-Qaeda as a neighbor." Isn't it ironic that the extremist Hamas is now presenting itself as a moderate'

If the cocktail was not explosive enough with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, now these additional al-Qaida-inspired groups are not boding well for the security of Israel and peace in the region.

 
Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).