A Glorious Defeat - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

The upside of the Iran nuke deal.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

Sometimes you have to fight battles you cannot win because fighting – regardless of the outcome – advances a larger cause.
Israel’s fight against the nuclear deal the major powers, led by US President Barack Obama concluded with Iran was such a battle.
The battle’s futility became clear on July 20, just six days after it was concluded in Vienna.
On July 20, the US administration anchored the deal – which paves the way for Iran to become a nuclear power and enriches the terrorism-sponsoring ayatollahs to the tune of $150 billion – in a binding UN Security Council resolution. Once the resolution passed, the deal became unstoppable.
Most of the frozen funds that comprise the $150b. would have been released regardless of congressional action. And the nonproliferation regime the US developed over the past 70 years was upended the moment the deal was concluded in Vienna.
The fight in Congress itself probably couldn’t have succeeded even if the administration hadn’t made an end run around the lawmakers at the Security Council.
After Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, passed the law obligating Obama to secure the support of a mere third of the members of either House to implement his nuclear deal, its implementation was a foregone conclusion. The US Constitution gives sole power to approve international treaties to the Senate and requires a minimum of two-thirds approval for passage. Corker turned the Constitution on its head when he went forward with his bill. Far from curbing Obama’s executive overreach, Corker gave Obama unprecedented power to enact his radical, reckless nuclear agenda.
So if the fight against the deal was doomed to fail, why did the Israeli government decide to fight it for all it was worth? And why is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still fighting it even though there is no longer any way to stop Obama from enabling Iran to sprint across the nuclear finish line? By fighting Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel seeks to advance two larger efforts. First, it uses the battle to expand its capacity to act without the US to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, it is shaping its relations with the US both for the duration of Obama’s presidency and for the day after he leaves office.
As far as Iran’s nuclear program is concerned, Obama’s deal has not impacted Israel’s options for preventing the mullahs from getting the bomb.
Even before the US betrayed Israel, its Arab allies and its own national security interests and closed a deal that will transform Iran into a nuclear power and a regional hegemon, there was no chance that the Americans would take action to prevent Iran from developing atomic warheads.
That prospect was taken off the table in November 2007. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program published that month falsely – and scandalously – asserted that Tehran abandoned its nuclear weapons program at the end of 2003.
The NIE was a bureaucratic coup. CIA analysts, notorious since the 1970s for their biased and politicized analyses, used the falsified NIE to block then-president George W. Bush from dealing with Iran. After losing the public’s support for the war in Iraq, and after failing to find Saddam’s WMD (which magically fell into the hands of Islamic State 11 years after the US invasion), Bush was powerless to oppose an official assessment of the intelligence community that claimed Iran was not a nuclear proliferator.
As for Obama, in early 2008, even before he secured the Democratic presidential nomination, he announced that he wanted to negotiate with then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
At no time since was there any evidence supporting the notion that Obama would lift a finger to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
In other words, for the past eight years it has been apparent to everyone willing to see that Israel has but option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
By fighting so strenuously against Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel improved its ability to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations in two ways.
First, it removed the most serious domestic obstacle to carrying out such a strike.
Last week’s publication of audio recordings of former defense minister Ehud Barak discussing of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that for the past several years, Israel’s military and intelligence brass have blocked operations against Iran’s nuclear installations three times. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the IDF chief of General Staff and senior generals supported by hesitant cabinet members refused to carry out instructions they received from Netanyahu and Barak to prepare to carry out such a strike.
There is no doubt that one of the main reasons they opposed lawful instructions was their faith in Obama’s security pledges.
For their part, the Americans did their best to subvert the authority of Israel’s elected leadership.
Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran. It is now obvious that this “unprecedented cooperation” was never aimed at strengthening Israel against Iran. Rather, its aim has been to erode the government’s power to make independent decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear installations.
Had Netanyahu kept his criticism of Obama’s decision to give Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons quiet, the generals might have shrugged their shoulders and expressed gratitude for the shiny new weapons Obama will throw at them to “compensate” for giving nukes to a regime sworn to annihilate the country.
By making his opposition public, Netanyahu alerted the nation to the dangers. The top commanders can no longer pretend that US security guarantees are credible. Now they will be forced to kick their psychological addiction to worthless American security guarantees, accept reality and act accordingly.
Better eight years late than never.
The Americans weren’t the only ones paying attention to Israel’s fight. Israel’s Arab neighbors also saw how Netanyahu and Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer left no stone unturned in their efforts to convince Democratic lawmakers to oppose it. And the regional implications are already becoming clear.
As the Saudis’ willingness to stand with Israel in public to oppose this deal has shown, our neighbors have been deeply impressed by the diplomatic courage Israel has shown. If and when Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear installations, our willingness to openly oppose the administration will weigh in our favor. It will impact our neighbors’ willingness to cooperate in action aimed at removing Iran’s nuclear sword from their necks and ours.
By fighting the deal, Israel has also worked to shape our relations with the US in a favorable way both in the short and long term.
Obama has another year and four months in office. (503 days, but who’s counting?) Even before the fight over his nuclear deal began in earnest, Obama made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the US-Israel alliance and to weaken Israel internationally.
In the first instance, his Democratic and progressive surrogates’ anti-Semitic assaults against New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and the Justice Department’s coincidental indictment of pro-Israel New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez communicated a clear message to Democratic lawmakers: Any Democrat who supports Israel against Obama will be targeted.
By acting in this way, Obama has communicated the clear goal of transforming support for Israel into the foreign policy equivalent of opposing abortion: a Republicans-only position.
Internationally, there can be little doubt that until Obama leaves office, he will seek to harm Israel and the UN. He may as well seek to harm our economy by quietly instituting administrative trade barriers with the US and Europe.
Israel’s fight against Obama’s nuclear deal has diminished Obama’s ability to use his full power to harm it while preparing the ground for relations to be repaired under his successor.
Until Netanyahu spoke before the joint houses of Congress in March, Obama’s nuclear deal was largely outside the American discourse. The fierce public debate began only after Netanyahu’s address. True, on Wednesday Obama got the support of his 34th Democratic senator and so blocked Israel’s efforts to convince Congress to vote down the deal. But his victory will be Pyrrhic.
Obama’s success will backfire first and foremost because thanks to Netanyahu’s move to spearhead the public debate in the US, today two-thirds of Americans oppose the deal. Since Iran will waste no time proving just how devastating a mistake Obama and his fellow Democrats have just made, Obama’s success makes him far less free to enact further steps against Israel than he was before the deal was concluded. The public no longer will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Moreover, since the deal is as bad as its opponents say it is, and given that most Americans oppose it, Obama’s successor will face no impediments in canceling the deal and adopting a new policy towards Israel and Iran.
Then there are Obama’s Democratic followers in Congress.
Today some commentators argue that Obama’s victory over opponents of his nuclear deal – first and foremost AIPAC – spells the demise of the pro-Israel lobby in the US.
Thankfully, they are mistaken.
Just as it failed to prevent then-president Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, so AIPAC had no chance of preventing Obama from moving ahead with his Iran deal.
AIPAC has never had the power to defeat a president intent on advancing an anti-Israel policy.
We will only be able to measure AIPAC’s power after the 2016 elections.
Given that the nuclear pact will fail, there will be plenty of Democrats challengers who will be eager to use their Democratic incumbent opponents’ support for Obama’s nuclear madness against them. AIPAC’s public fight against the deal has set the conditions for it to extract a political price from its supporters who preferred Obama to US national security.
If AIPAC extracts a price from key Democratic lawmakers who played crucial roles in approving the nuclear deal with Iran, it will prevent Obama from turning support for Israel into a partisan issue and emerge strengthened from the fight.
On Wednesday, after Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal, PBS’s senior anchorwoman Gwen Ifill tweeted, “Take that, Bibi.”
Obama’s win is Bibi’s loss. Bibi failed to convince 12 Democratic senators and 44 Democratic congressmen to vote against the head of their party. But by fighting against this deal, Netanyahu removed the main obstacle that kept Israel from taking action that will prevent Iran from going nuclear. He reduced Obama’s power to harm Israel.
The fight strengthened American and American- Jewish opposition to the nuclear deal, paving the way for a Democratic renewal after Obama leaves office. And finally, Israel’s public battle against Obama’s deal paved the way its abrogation by his successor.
All in all, a rather glorious defeat.


Caroline Glick

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260028/glorious-defeat-caroline-glick

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

Who is to Blame for the Drowning of Alan Kurdi? - Tarek Fatah

by Tarek Fatah

Instead of targeting the real villains in this drama, Canada's Liberals have gone after their political opponents.

 

Alan Kurdi, 3, drowned in a failed attempt to sail from Turkey to the Greek island of Kos.

A single photograph of a three-year old boy named Alan Kurdi, lying dead on a Turkish beach, has rocked the conscience of the world.

The picture will remain seared in our collective memory forever, just as the image of a nine-year-old girl running naked on a road after being severely burned on her back in a napalm bomb attack shook us up on June 8, 1972. That was Phan Thi Kim Phuc, who later settled down in Canada.

Despite what was initially reported by Canadian media, Alan Kurdi was never headed to Canada.

His aunt in Vancouver, Tima Kurdi, tried to sponsor Alan's uncle and family under what is known as a "G5 privately sponsored application for asylum." Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander personally took up her application after receiving it from Fin Donnelly, the MP for Port Moody-Coquitlam.

However, because the UN in its wisdom wouldn't register the Kurdi family as refugees, and because the Turkish government wouldn't grant them exit visas (as they didn't have passports), the application for asylum in Canada couldn't proceed any further.

Instead of targeting the real villains in this drama, Canada's Liberals have gone after their political opponents.

With no legal options, the family did what tens of thousands of refugees in Turkey have done — they took a risky boat ride from Bodrum in a flotilla of dinghies headed for the Greek island of Kos. The boat capsized about 30 minutes after it set off. Alan, his brother Ghalib, 5, their mother Rehan, and many others drowned.

It's a tragedy that should have brought out the best in all of us.

Unfortunately, the New Democrats and Liberals tried to use it to attack Chris Alexander and the Conservatives and depict them as heartless and cruel, in the most unethical and immoral manner.

To understand the calamity unfolding in the Mediterranean, illustrated by the photograph of Kurdi, we need to step back a century, but even a year is helpful.

Canadian Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander

In essence, it's the story of a Kurdish family that fled an Arab country after an Islamist attack and took refuge across the border in Turkey, a country known for its hostility towards its own Kurdish population. In the words of the boy's aunt in Vancouver, the treatment of her family in Turkey was "horrible."

Instead of targeting the most visible and apparent villains in this drama — the Assad regime in Syria, the Turks, ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — the Liberals and the NDP sharpened their knives and went after Alexander, the very man who has been quietly helping people escape tyranny and settle down in Canada.

We cannot lose sight of the Syrian Revolution that began as protests in the early spring of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring. Instead of paying heed to his people, President Bashar al-Assad unleashed his military forces in violent crackdowns that forced 3.2 million people to flee the country and internally displaced 6.5 million others. Alan was just the latest victim.

Hadi Elis, spokesman for the Kurdish Community Centre of Toronto, told me he was shocked how Trudeau and an NDP MP from British Columbia used Alan's tragic death to attack Alexander.

"Minister Alexander has been one of the strongest allies of the Kurdish community and stood by the Syrian Kurds in their darkest hour in Kobani from where the boy and his family fled in the face of attacks on them by Islamist ISIS and their Turkish allies," Elis wrote in an e-mail.

"It is despicable for Liberal and NDP politicians to use the dead boy as a political tool to score partisan political points. Shame on them. They want Canada to stop attacking ISIS, and then shed crocodile tears when a victim of ISIS drowns on a Turkish beach," he continued.

"If there is anyone who is guilty of this crime, it is Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UN, all those who have refused to embrace hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing war, not Minister Chris Alexander who needs no lectures on compassion by politicians who are catering to the Islamists inside Canada."

Neither the NDP nor the Liberals dare say a single word against Turkey, Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan for fear of losing the imagined Muslim vote in Canada's large riding-rich cities. Instead, by depicting the Conservatives and Alexander as anti-refugee and anti-Muslim, they hope to harvest a supposed rich crop of pro-Islamist voters.

Refugees fleeing war zones in the Arab World could easily be accommodated in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

It's possible they might even succeed in this venture given the way many mainstream media outlets have formed a lynch mob targeting the Conservatives with disdain and shameless partisanship.

Canadian voters, on the other hand, must recognize the stories they're reading or watching also reflect an illiteracy and ignorance among Canada's chattering heads on matters of the Middle East and South Asia — ignorance they cover up by ensuring no one with a background in the area is given the opportunity to challenge what wrongly passes for objective and balanced discourse.

The fact is all these refugees fleeing war zones in the Arab World could very easily be accommodated in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Instead, while Turkey wants to dump them in the sea and hope bleeding-heart, guilt-ridden liberal Europeans embrace them and pay for their resettlement, the Saudis have an even simpler solution: Shut down the border and seal it so not a single Alan Kurdi dare walk across from Iraq or the new "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" into its territory. Period.

Strictly from a management perspective and common sense, Saudi Arabia has the land, the resources and lies in the vicinity of the crisis. The refugees and the Saudis speak the same language and settlement and integration could happen sooner and at a fraction of the cost.

But it's far easier to call for the head of Chris Alexander than to be honest and admit the villain in the drama is Saudi Arabia and criticising the Saudis might upset the Islamist vote bank both the Liberals and the NDP covet.


Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/5470/alan-kurdi

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

Iran Deal: Barbarity Wins - Guy Millière

by Guy Millière

• When Israeli Jews are murdered, often barbarically, nearly all European and American media blame Israel and find excuses for the killers.
• Forgotten is that the "Palestinian people" and the "Palestinian cause" are a mythic narrative invented by the KGB and Nasser's secret service propaganda machine in the 1960s.
• Hamas has an even more genocidal goal: the destruction of Israel and all Jews. For many journalists, that is also a detail not worth mentioning.
• The Iranian regime claims non-stop that its main objective is the elimination of Israel and Israeli Jews. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has just published a book, Palestine, detailing his plans to destroy Israel. For most commentators, the book is of no relevance. It does not matter. Leaders of Western countries adopt the same view.
• What is at stake in enriching Iran and arming it with nuclear capability is more than the fate of Israel and Israeli Jews: it is also the fate of America -- even if it does not wish to realize that goal yet --as well as values of Western civilization.
• As migrants continue to pour over the borders of Italy and Hungary, and from there to spread out into the rest of Europe, the continent is becoming increasingly and irreversibly Muslim. Europe is lost to Islam.

In recent weeks, the Middle East section of most European and American newspapers and magazines included many articles on Muhammad Allan, a hunger striker imprisoned in Israel. Apparently that Muhammad Allan is in jail because he belongs to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad seemed irrelevant. That the Israeli intelligence services know he was preparing terrorist attacks also did not seem to matter . That the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel additionally did not seem to matter.

Muhammad Allan was described as a victim. If he had died on a hunger strike, Israel would be blamed. As he did not die, but suffered brain damage due to self-inflicted starvation, Israel was blamed anyway.

When a member of a Palestinian jihadist organization that has killed Jews and that wants to kill more Jews puts his life in danger, most mainstream media in Europe and in America depict him as a "resister." Negative comments are usually directed against Israel.

When a Palestinian Arab terrorist is killed by an Israeli soldier, most members of the mainstream media in Europe and America blame the Israeli army, even if the person killed was known to have murdered or injured Israeli Jews.

A few weeks ago, when a Palestinian Arab house was set on fire and a baby died in the flames, the perpetrators were assumed to be Israeli Jews. Even though the Israeli government immediately denounced the crime, almost all the reports published in European and American media accused Israel.

When Israeli Jews are murdered, often barbarically, nearly all European and American media blame Israel and find excuses for the killers.

If the murdered Jews lived in the West Bank, they are automatically featured as people occupying someone else's land, and to blame for what happened to them. Such accusations even fall on murdered young children, including babies.

Immediately after the massacre of the Fogel family in Itamar in 2011, many newspapers reported that "five settlers" were killed. Some "pro-Palestinian" websites in Europe went even farther; one reported, "Five terrorist Zionists eliminated."

If the murdered Jews lived outside the West Bank, it was harder to belittle them directly, but it did not stop those who said that the murdered had good reasons to kill. Some journalists cite "Palestinian" organizations' press releases claiming the bloodshed was in response to "crimes" committed by the Israeli army. Others, suggesting that the killers were guided by "despair," included the criminals among the victims.

After the November 2014 massacre at a synagogue in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof, the French daily, Le Monde, published an article entitled, "Six Killed in Jerusalem." In the article, the murderers shot dead by police were included in the victims' body-count.

CBC News in Canada did worse. The headline of the report on the attack read, "Jerusalem police fatally shoot 2 after apparent synagogue attack."

Despite the massive atrocities committed by the Islamic State in Iraq and in Syria, despite the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria, despite the existence of atrocious dictatorships, this disproportionate pile-on against Israel has a name: the hatred and demonization by racists of an entire country and an entire people.

Demonization works because it uses all sorts of political stereotypes. All the false and collective allegations used to demonize Jews in Europe for centuries are used again. Israel is described as an "imperialist," "colonialist" and "militarist" power, and Israeli Jews are portrayed as ruthless agents of this power. The "Palestinian" killers of Israeli Jews, including civilians and babies, are presented as "freedom fighters" and heroic members of an "oppressed people."

Forgotten is that the "Palestinian people" and the "Palestinian cause" are a mythic narrative invented by the KGB and Nasser's secret service propaganda machine in the 1960s.

Jews in Europe have long been accused of every conceivable evil; now Israel and Israeli Jews are accused of blood libels, the gratuitous murder of innocents. Killers of Jews in Europe were often glorified and described as killers of people who were strangers to the land they lived in. Crimes committed by Jews were used to incriminate all Jews. When Jews were slaughtered, they were often designated as deserving the blame for their fate.

Historians of anti-Semitism explain that in Europe, frequently the hatred of Jews was so common that it made the unacceptable acceptable.

The historian Leon Poliakov noted that, "Without the incessant incitement to hatred of Jews throughout Europe, without the trivialization of the hatred, the attempted extermination of an entire people would not have been possible."[1]

The late scholar Robert Wistrich said that demonization of Israel and Israeli Jews leads to the same kind of hatred. He added that a trivialization of hatred is accepted all the more if it is based on an old hatred: "What did happen could happen again."[2]

Ideas of extermination proliferate in the Middle East; most people do not pay attention.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and Israeli Jews. For many journalists, that is a detail not worth mentioning. Hamas has an even more genocidal goal, the destruction of Israel and all Jews. "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones , and each tree an stone will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." For many journalists; that is also a detail not worth mentioning.

Official Palestinian Authority television constantly calls for the destruction of Israel. It also glorifies killers of Jews as role models; most commentators just look the other way.

The Iranian regime claims non-stop that its main objective is the elimination of Israel and Israeli Jews. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has just published a book, Palestine, detailing his plans to destroy Israel. For most commentators, the book is apparently of no relevance; it does not matter.

Leaders of Western countries have the same view. They fund the Palestinian Authority (PA), and therefore finance official PA Television. They know that much of the money given is used to pay and train killers of Jews, but evidently they do not care.

They just signed an agreement with the Iranian regime that will allow Iran soon to have nuclear weapons and to receive billions of dollars to finance and arm terrorist groups dedicated to the full destruction of Israel, and Israeli Christians, Muslims and Jews. But evidently leaders of Western countries do not care about that, either.

They are, in effect, acquiescing to genocide; but so long as business can be done with Iran, apparently that is fine with them. If genocide occurred, they would be ready to cheer from the sidelines.

Some journalists and columnists see what is happening and are sounding an alarm. But they are a minority, especially in Europe, where courage seems to have vanished along with a number of Jews.

Some political leaders still have ethical values and ​​shout their indignation. None of them is European. Nearly all of them are American. They understand that silence means consent and that at certain moments in history, it is imperative to take a stand.

What is at stake in enriching Iran and arming it with nuclear capability is more than the fate of Israel and Israeli Jews: it is also the fate of America, even if it does not wish to realize that yet. It is also the fate of Western civilization.

As migrants continue to pour over the borders of Hungary, Italy and Greece, and from there to spread out into the rest of Europe, the continent is becoming increasingly and irreversibly Muslim. Europe is lost to Islam.

Seven decades after Auschwitz, barbarity is fast gaining ground again.

In September, the U.S. Congress may vote -- or try to weasel out of a vote -- to approve or disapprove of the agreement with Iran. Either way, U.S. President Barack Obama has vowed to push the deal through. His decision will have consequences far beyond what we see now. One thing is certain: they will not be good.

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei (center), is shown meeting in May 2014 with Iran's military chief of staff and the commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. (Image source: IRNA)

---

[1] Leon Poliakov, Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the Destruction of the Jews of Europe, Schocken Books, 1979.
[2] Robert Wistrich, From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews, and Israel, University of Nebraska Press, 2012.

Guy Millière

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6451/iran-deal-barbarity-wins

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

Why Did Oil-Rich Arab Countries Abandon Muslim Refugees? - Nonie Darwish

by Nonie Darwish

And where is the Arab action to rescue fellow Muslims and Arabs from the claws of ISIS?

Western media is reporting on the Muslim refugee crisis as a humanitarian problem that the West must deal with. But where are the media’s questions about the huge financial and land resources available to oil rich Arab and Muslim countries? Where are the Islamic solutions in this equation?
The world is often lectured to about the urgency of respecting Arab and Islamic brotherly love, but where is the Arab action to rescue fellow Muslims and Arabs from the claws of ISIS?

Where are Arab feminists, especially those who demonstrated against France for banning the hijab? They are silent and doing nothing to rescue thousands of women that are victims of Islamic jihadist rape and enslavement. The only compassionate women helping women in the Middle East are the Christian mother Teresas and Kayla Muellers of the western world.  

Where are the mighty Arab armies who waged dozens of wars against Israel? Why aren’t they fighting ISIS and building tent cities in the vast deserts of Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the wealthy Gulf States? They are all claiming they are “moderate” Muslims and that they are against ISIS. But is one substantive thing they have done?

Where are the thousands of Islamic human rights groups operating in the West, the likes of CAIR and ISNA, who are dedicating their energy and millions of dollars to stop discrimination against Muslims and “Islamophobia” in the West? This is the same West that their refugees are escaping to.

Where is the wealthy Arab League to coordinate safe cities on Arab land that extends from Morocco to Iraq and from Northern Syria to Sudan? 

It is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments have not prepared or planned for the consequences of Islamic turmoil all over the Middle East. The refugee crisis should have been expected and a disaster was waiting to happen ever since the Arab Spring failed to produce an Islamic State in Egypt and ISIS emerged in Syria. But Islamic countries have ignored the humanitarian crisis resulting from the barbaric behavior of the Islamic State.

Below are some of the reasons why Muslim countries rarely prepare for disaster to save lives of other Muslims and heavily rely on the West to rescue victims of Islamic jihad:

Muslim countries know that the West will take care of their mistakes so they don’t have to avoid the negative consequences of their actions.

Western countries quickly come to the rescue, open their wallets and land to prove to the world that they are not Islamophobes.

Arab countries lack compassion and action to rescue each other despite the rhetoric of Arab/Islamic unity. Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations never open their borders to poor Muslims in distress. Even Egypt rejected the Darfur refugees who were later forced to go to Israel, which took them.

Oil rich Arab countries make it very difficult for other Arabs to visit except for haj. They are very tribal and refuse to dilute their culture with influx of foreigners. Third world country workers are treated inhumanely and are rarely given permanent residency, citizenship or equal rights as citizens.

* Muslim countries know that the West will take care of their mistakes so they don’t have to avoid the negative consequences of their actions.
* Western countries quickly come to the rescue, open their wallets and land to prove to the world that they are not Islamophobes.
* Arab countries lack compassion and action to rescue each other despite the rhetoric of Arab/Islamic unity. Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations never open their borders to poor Muslims in distress. Even Egypt rejected the Darfur refugees who were later forced to go to Israel, which took them.
* Oil rich Arab countries make it very difficult for other Arabs to visit except for haj. They are very tribal and refuse to dilute their culture with influx of foreigners. Third world country workers are treated inhumanely and are rarely given permanent residency, citizenship or equal rights as citizens.
* Arabs would rather spend their petrodollars on expanding their influence in the West rather than making life better for their own citizens or supporting other Muslim nations who are financially less fortunate.
* Islamic groups believe that refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan will spread Sharia in Europe, which is the main goal of jihad.
* By clearing the area from the opposition and citizens who are not contributing to the empowerment of ISIS, clears the way for ISIS to expand beyond Syria and Iraq. Europe and America are absorbing the opposition to ISIS, so why stand in the way?
* Life and saving lives and avoiding human tragedy are not more important than jihad in Arab culture.

I hope the West will think twice before accepting the thousands of Muslim refugees from the Middle East.


Nonie Darwish is the author of “The Devil We Don’t Know; the Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East.”

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260025/why-did-oil-rich-arab-countries-abandon-muslim-nonie-darwish

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

The next US president can walk away from the Iran deal - Boaz Bismuth

by Boaz Bismuth

Two weeks before a fateful vote on the Iranian nuclear agreement, Senator Tom Cotton is giving 100% of himself to prevent the deal from passing • The youngest senator in office, in Israel this week, believes that Tehran still aims to build a nuclear bomb.

 

U.S. Senator Tom Cotton | Photo credit: GettyImages

"The next American president can certainly walk away from the Iran nuclear agreement, if Iran doesn't walk away from it or breach it first," Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton told Israel Hayom during a visit to Israel this week. "There is no doubt that the next president will have the constitutional and legal means to walk away from this deal, and I would counsel the next president not to continue with this deal as if it were written in stone, or as if it advances our interests as a country or in the region."

Cotton, only 38 years old, is currently the youngest senator in the U.S. Congress. Until September 17, when Congress will cast a fateful vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, Cotton is devoting 100% of his time to the issue. It was Cotton who was behind the famous senators' letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This letter, signed by 47 Republican senators, warned Tehran that the next American president would not be bound by the nuclear agreement the Iranian struck with U.S. President Barack Obama in July. 

The sentiment penned by Cotton in March, now sounds more relevant than ever. On Wednesday, Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski announced she would back the Iran agreement, granting Obama the crucial 34th vote -- a guarantee that he can use his veto power to overturn a Congress vote against the deal. A day earlier, two of Mikulski's fellow Democrats, Senators Bob Casey and Chris Coons announced that they too would vote in favor of the agreement. 

Incidentally, despite his declared support, Coons had plenty of criticism for the agreement. "I am troubled that the parties to this agreement -- particularly Iran -- have differing interpretations of key terms, and I remain deeply concerned about our ability to hold Iran to the terms of this agreement as we understand them," Coons said Tuesday.

"This agreement -- at best -- freezes Iran's nuclear enrichment program. It does not dismantle or destroy it as I hoped it would," he said.

Q: Senator Cotton, you are visiting Israel during a dramatic time for us. What tidings do you bring from Washington? 

"Sadly, because the president pursued a very narrow and divisive strategy, now a broad bipartisan majority in both the Senate and the House oppose the deal, as does a broad majority of the American people. The question becomes whether he can hang on to a slim narrow partisan minority in either chamber to sustain his expected veto of our bill that would block the deal.

"I am going to keep working against what I view as a very dangerous deal for the United States, for Israel and for world peace."

Q: Every intelligent person reading the deal, at least the part of the deal that is accessible, will see that it is a bad deal. How do you explain the fact that Congress has been unable to recruit a two-thirds majority to overcome the expected veto? 

"I agree that any objective person should see that this is a very bad deal. The president has insisted throughout the last six or seven weeks that it is this deal or war. I strongly disagree with that proposition, as do many of the generals and admirals who have testified before Congress, as do Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez, two senior Democratic senators who oppose the deal. But in their public statements, many of the minority Democratic senators who support the deal say they believe that there are no viable alternatives. I strongly disagree. One simple alternative would be not to give Iran billions of dollars at a time they are still sponsoring terrorism all around the world."

Q: I live in Israel, and Iran poses a direct threat to me. But it also poses a threat to Americans in Arkansas, Mississippi, Oregon and Washington. How is Iran viewed in the States?

"Iran is a mortal, unrepentant enemy that has been killing Americans for 36 years. It killed hundreds of American troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan. One of the very first actions of the Islamic Revolution in Iran was to invade sovereign U.S. territory, our embassy in Tehran, and hold Americans hostage for more than a year. That is why a strong majority of the American people are opposed to this deal. They know nothing good will come from the ayatollahs getting their hands on nuclear weapons capability."

Q: There is currently a disparity between what the administration is doing in Washington and what the American public wants. Aren't the Democrats afraid of a reaction within public opinion? 

"Regrettably, the president has done this time after time on many other matters, whether it is immigration or Obamacare or climate change regulations or internet regulations. He has disregarded the clear majority of the American people and pushed forward with unilateral action. The bad news is that because of our separation of powers we don't have an effective way to stop him in the meantime. The good news is that because so many of these actions are taken just on the president's own accord, the next president, and this and any future Congress, can undo those decision. In fact, the next president will, depending on the circumstances on the ground, as it relates to this Iran nuclear deal." 

Trying to douse a fire with gasoline

Q: Do you agree that throughout the negotiations, the Iranians believed that the U.S. would not exercise the military option?

"From their behavior and their rhetoric, especially since July 14, you have to conclude that they didn't believe that there was a credible threat of military force. If anything it has become worse since this deal was signed. Their open contempt and their continued efforts to destabilize the region would suggest that the leaders in Tehran never believed that the threat of military force was credible." 

Q: If the deal is approved, will attacking Iran become a mission impossible? 

"For the U.S.?" 

Q: For any country.

"The U.S. obviously has unique capabilities and will be the unique enforcer of this deal among the West. That is far from making military action impossible. The enforcement of this deal actually depends on military action. If the ayatollahs believe that they can break their obligations without facing serious consequences -- and I would call the threat of snapback sanctions an unserious consequence -- they will break their obligations with impunity. So far from removing the threat of military force from the table, if it goes forward, this deal will actually increase the importance of the threat of military action. Because in the end, that may be the only thing that stops the ayatollahs from racing forward toward nuclear weapons." 

Q: If I understand correctly, thanks to the nuclear agreement, in a few months' time Iran could become an unofficial ally of the United States in the war against the Islamic State group.

"Iran will never be an ally of the United States as long as it is governed by crazed ayatollahs who want to foment Islamic revolutions throughout the region and around the world. The Iranian people, no doubt, could be a natural ally of the United States, but not the ayatollahs. In fact, expecting Iran to help with a problem like Islamic State is like trying to douse a fire with gasoline." 

Q: So you don't think Iran has undergone any change since the agreement was completed? 

"No. Absolutely not. If anything they've gotten worse. Just two weeks ago they turned heavy guns from one of their ships on an American helicopter. Just last week, they were complicit in firing missiles into northern Israel. Just look at the statements made by their own leaders -- they continue to chant 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' and continue to say that this deal with do nothing to stop their drive for regional dominance."

Q: Do you believe they are still trying to obtain nuclear weapons? 

"Iran has no need for a civilian nuclear power program. In fact, despite their lack of need, they have been given the option to help develop it, and they've always opposed and rejected that support. The only conclusion to draw from both their actions and their public statements is that they want to develop a nuclear bomb."

Q: And the White House doesn't see that? 

"It is mystifying to me. I don't think the president, or many supporters of this deal, take seriously the supreme leader's, or the president of Iran's or the head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps' own words. I think when people tell us that they are going to try to kill us, we should take them at their word." 

Q: Everyone talks about Obama seeking a legacy. Some even say that is why he was so eager to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. But isn't the president afraid that precisely because of this deal, his legacy will be an Iranian atomic bomb? 

"I don't think so. If that comes to pass, I don't think that he or anyone who supported this deal will regret their support. They'll simply blame it on whoever happens to be president at the moment, Democrat or Republican. That is exactly what happened with President [Bill] Clinton and all those who supported the 1994 framework with North Korea. They didn't recant their support for a deeply flawed deal in 1994, they simply blamed the Bush administration."

Q: Let's say the president vetoes Congress' opposition to the deal and a two-thirds majority cannot be achieved to overturn the veto. What then? 

"The deal will move forward, but American sanctions will remain on the books. What will happen, from a technical, legal standpoint, is that the president will give a waiver on those sanctions to the government of Iran. That is why it will be so easy for the next president to reverse course, because he or she simply will rescind those waivers and the sanctions that are still on the books in America will immediately come back into place."

Q: What about imposing new sanctions on Iran for its involvement in terrorism? Is that something that is being considered? 

"I would support that kind of effort. In fact, at the very least, the Iran sanctions act expires next year and Congress will need to reauthorize it in the coming months."

Q: Everyone knows that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the agreement. Even back in 1995, when he was in the opposition, he spoke about the Iranian threat as the biggest threat to Israel since its establishment. Some say that his zeal to prevent the deal hurts Israel's image and Israel's relations with the U.S. So you share that view? 

"No. The alliance between the United States and Israel is, and will always remain strong because it is not based on any particular president or prime minister, it is based on the American people and the Israeli people and that is an unshakable foundation." 

Q: Should Israel be concerned about new alliances between the U.S. and other players in the region? 

"No. The American people will continue to stand with the people of Israel and that is the foundation of our relationship."

Q: In 2009, the Iranians took to the streets to protest the re-election of then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The White House didn't lift a finger to help the Iranian people then. Do you think that was a mistake? 

"I believe it was a bad mistake not to stand with the people of Iran when they rose up and protested against a stolen election and demanded not just democratic government but also respect for their individual freedoms. It contrasts starkly with the way we treated, say, Hosni Mubarak, our longtime ally in Egypt and a critical ally of Israel as well. That is part of what feeds mistrust of the U.S. throughout the broader Middle East -- the fickleness with which we've acted over the last six years."

Q: Do you think that in 2009, the U.S. administration already believed that intervening in support of the Iranian protesters would later interfere with the prospects of a nuclear agreement? 

"I suspect so, because the president had said even in his first campaign that he wanted to make some kind of agreement with Iran. That goes back before 2009, in 2007."

Cotton's fighting spirit isn't only evident in his words. In 2005, he volunteered to join the U.S. Army, where he completed its Officer Candidate School. In May 2006, Cotton deployed to Baghdad as a platoon leader with the 101st Airborne Division. In October 2008, Cotton deployed to eastern Afghanistan where he served as a logistics officer. 

Q: We see that Americans are very proud of their flag, their democracy and their military. But then we see Obama and his anti-war approach. Is America entering a new era? Is the president's conduct a deviation from the American norm or is America undergoing a fundamental change, shifting away from the values it once held dear? 

"I believe that Americans remain firmly committed to maintaining America's position as the world's superpower and the ultimate defender and guarantor of order and stability throughout the world because that is in America's best interest. Our security interest and our economic interest. I believe that the next president, whoever he or she may be of either party, will be committed to that bipartisan foreign policy that has defined America's relationship with the world since World War II." 

Q: Do you support any of the candidates in the 2016 election? 

"I have many friends in the race and some allies with whom I work on various issues. I respect and admire all their service and their willingness to run, but I have not endorsed anyone nor do I intend at this time to endorse anyone. We have another six months before we vote in Arkansas, and another five months before we vote anywhere so that's a long time to watch and observe." 

Q: Are you surprised by Donald Trump's popularity in the polls? 

"I'm not. No. We're still a long way out so we don't know where things will stand in the end. I will actually extend beyond Mr. Trump and say that if you look at the three main candidates who have never held elected office, you have Mr. Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, and add up their recent standing in the polls you get a near majority of voters in the Republican primary, and I think that is telling. A lot of Republicans are sending a signal to the party that they want a change that is more than just business as usual in Washington, D.C. Any one of the candidates can seize that mantle but they need to explain to Republican voters how they plan to do so."

Q: You are currently the youngest senator in office. You will probably be pleased if a Republican wins the 2016 election. But if a Democrat wins, you may feel the need to run yourself in 2020. If you win, you will be a very young president. What do you prefer?
"I am still focused right now 100% on this Iran deal and then, more broadly, serving the people who elected me to the Senate last year. We have an entire presidential election ahead of us, and I am confident that a Republican is going to win that election."

Boaz Bismuth

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=28073

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

Saudi Arabia: The Region's New Superpower - Con Coughlin

by Con Coughlin

• The Saudis are planning to establish themselves as the Arab world's undisputed military superpower.... At this rate, Saudi Arabia will soon replace Egypt as the Arab world's most significant military power.
• The Saudi royal family is determined to secure the overthrow of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, one of Iran's most important regional allies, and any attempt by Riyadh to deepen its involvement in the Syrian conflict is likely to result in direct military confrontation with Iran.
• The tragedy of all this for the Obama administration is that, had it not been for its obsession with doing a deal with Iran, Washington could have formed a useful strategic alliance with Riyadh to defeat common foes, such as Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

President Barack Obama may have hailed his deal with Iran as an historic breakthrough, but this is not how it is being viewed in Saudi Arabia, where the kingdom has responded to Washington's attempted rapprochement with Tehran by embarking on a massive military build up.

Saudi Arabia is Iran's fiercest regional rival, with enmity between the two countries dating back at least to Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the Saudi royal family has voiced deep scepticism about the Obama administration's foreign policy tilt towards Iran. Mr Obama will hear these views most forcefully expressed himself with King Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, the Saudi monarch visits Washington this weekend.

In the past, the late Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, consistently spoke out against the dangers of a U.S.-Iran deal, while other senior Saudi security officials have warned that the kingdom would strike out on its own if its interests were threatened by an unsatisfactory nuclear agreement. The most public demonstration of the Saudis' displeasure came in May when King Salman declined to attend a Camp David summit at which Mr. Obama hoped to reassure Gulf leaders that the Iran protected their interests.

So no one should be surprised that, now that Mr. Obama has signed off his deal with the ayatollahs, the Saudis have embarked on a massive arms build up, one that promises dramatic changes to the military balance of power in the region.

Institutional concerns in Riyadh's defence establishment over the threat posed by Iran have already resulted in Saudi Arabia having the world's fourth largest defence budget. A recent study by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank conservatively estimated Riyadh's defence spend for 2014 at $59.6 billion, although other assessments have suggested it rose by 17 percent to $80.8 billion. Either way this places Saudi spending above that of Britain, at $57 billion and France's £52.4 billion (nearly $80 billion).

Now the Saudis are planning to establish themselves as the Arab world's undisputed military superpower by embarking on a $150 billion defence spending spree that will see the country's Armed Forces double in size over the course of the next five years.

The new Saudi defence doctrine drawn up by senior military officers in Riyadh proposes a doubling in the size of the air force from its current strength of around 250 combat warplanes to 500. Increases of a similar scale are envisaged for the kingdom's other armed forces, with the Navy set to see the size of its surface fleet more than double, as well as acquiring its first submarine fleet. Saudi Arabia also wants to acquire a range of sophisticated ballistic missile systems, air defence systems and battle tanks, while the total number of combat ready personnel will rise above the 500,000 mark.

At this rate, Saudi Arabia will soon replace Egypt as the Arab world's most significant military power.

Nor is Saudi Arabia's huge arms build up confined to conventional weaponry. In a recent interview with the Daily Telegraph in London, Prince Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to Britain, warned that Riyadh would not rule out acquiring nuclear weapons if Washington failed to provide proper safeguards about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"We hope we receive the assurances that guarantee Iran will not pursue this kind of weapon," explained Prince Mohammed "But if this does not happen, then all options will be on the table for Saudi Arabia." Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi defence expert and visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center, said: "Saudi Arabia is preparing itself in case Iran develops nuclear weapons."

Saudi Arabia is known to have close links with Pakistan, where Dr A.Q. Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal, is believed to have received Saudi funding for his research into building an atom bomb. Senior U.S. officials have warned Saudi Arabia has recently taken a "strategic decision" to acquire "off-the-shelf" nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia's new arms build-up is being undertaken as a direct response to what many Saudis believe is the Obama administration's capitulation to Tehran over its nuclear program. The defence doctrine identifies a nuclear-armed Iran as one of the three main threats the kingdom is likely to face in the future, together with terrorism and regional instability.

The new doctrine threatens to change dramatically the military balance of power in the Arab world, a change that is likely to be viewed with deep concern by Israel. Shortly before Mr. Obama announced the nuclear deal with Tehran, the Saudis announced they had concluded a $12 billion arms deal with France, including helicopters and naval patrol vessels.

More weapons, please... King Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia bids farewell to President Barack Obama in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 27, 2015. (Image source: White House)

Saudi Arabia's new policy of military assertiveness was recently demonstrated in the Yemen conflict, where the Saudi military played a decisive role in recapturing the strategically important port of Aden after it was overrun by Iranian-back Houthi rebels. As a result, exiled Yemeni Prime Minister Khaled Balah has been able to return to his home country.

After their success in Yemen, the Saudis now intend to focus on Syria, where they are again likely to find themselves in direct conflict with Iranian-backed forces. The Saudi royal family is determined to secure the overthrow of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, one of Iran's most important regional allies, and any attempt by Riyadh to deepen its involvement in the Syrian conflict is likely to result in direct military confrontation with Iran.

The tragedy of all this for the Obama administration is that, had it not been for its obsession with doing a deal with Iran, Washington could have formed a useful strategic alliance with Riyadh to defeat common foes, such as Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL) in Syria and Iraq.

But after the Iran deal, the Saudis now appear determined to go it alone, which means they are likely to pursue aggressive policies in the region that will not necessarily be to Washington's liking, and over which the Obama administration will be able to exercise precious little influence.
 

 

Con Coughlin is Defence Editor of London's Daily Telegraph and author of Khomeini's Ghost: Iran since 1979 (Macmillan)​

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6458/saudi-arabia-the-region-new-superpower

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

Hillary's server wipe has done incalculable damage to US counter-intelligence - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

No matter what she says, this action has done irreparable damage to US national security.

Hillary Clinton’s decision to wipe clean her email server has already done enormous damage to US intelligence efforts. The logic is so clear and compelling that it is amazing to me that only now, and only via an email to the blog Powerline, has the extent of her reckless (at best) action become clear. Scott Johnson passes along this, from  reader he terms “knowledgable”:

I saw your note on Clinton emails. You and everyone else are missing the real problem and scandal. It is not the emails she saved and turned over to the State Department. It is the erased server, but not for the reasons most people are talking about.
A Secretary of State has broad SCI clearances which means she has access to sources and methods. We know now that HC had classified information on her email server because of what she turned over. What we don’t know is what she didn’t turn over. This creates a massive Counter-Intelligence (CI) problem.
The CI community knows she managed to jump the “air gap” on some information but because she erased the server they do not know the full extent of the jump. If she had turned over the server to the proper authorities the CI community could calibrate the extent of the potential damage. Now, barring a recovery of server data, they cannot. This means that CI has to treat all sources and methods to which the Secretary of State (and others potentially) was exposed as compromised.
Its even worse. By not turning over the server she prevented a forensic examine from determining if she was hacked and by what methods. She undermined any ability to exploit that knowledge to limit damage to US national security or to undermine and prevent a future use of similar hacking tools.
No matter what she says, this action has done irreparable damage to US national security. By not turning over the server she deserves at a minimum to lose her security clearance. Anyone with the level of clearance she had would be attached to a polygraph and debriefed by CI.
The Secretary chose to protect her political viability over the security of the country. Let’s hope for the country’s sake that the FBI can reconstruct her server.

Because Hillary wiped the server clean -- including even the emails she herself said were government business -- our intelligence agencies will be unable to find out which emails were hacked and by which foreign country or terrorist group.

That means that our intelligence services must assume that everything was hacked and that none of our secrets are secret any more. It means that our enemies all know just how we obtain evidence. Including what our satellites can see, who our spies are, and what we’re able to learn by electronic eavesdropping.

In other words we now have to rebuild from scratch everything. Because we can’t learn what’s been learned by our enemies and must assume the worst. All thanks to Hillary Clinton.

It’s a catastrophe.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/_hillarys_server_wipe_has_done_incalculable_damage_to_us_counterintelligence.html

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

Netanyahu, Kerry want to restart PA-Israel talks, but why? - Ted Belman

by Ted Belman

There is only one way any progress can be made, but the other side will never accept it.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently declared he was ready to resume direct talks with the Palestinians.

“I believe there is a chance and I think it is imperative we have not lost sight of that issue,” Kerry said Wednesday in an interview with MSNBC.
What are we to make of this?

There is only one two-state solution envisaged by Kerry and the world, including AIPAC, and that is the one based on ’67 lines plus swaps and the division of Jerusalem. Nothing else in on the table or in the back rooms.

When Netanyahu and his negotiator Silvan Shalom invite talks, they understand exactly what any deal would entail. Therefore they simply focus on our security requirements and on recognition as a Jewish state. They have thrown in the towel on keeping more land and they accept the “land for peace” formula. This is one of the reasons that the prime minister doesn’t embrace the Levy Report.

Netanyahu knows that the right in Israel rejects this formula so he keeps pandering to them in words but not deeds. It is easier for him to capitulate to such a deal when he heads a right wing coalition, as history has shown, so he forms right wing coalitions.

Now that the Iran Deal looks certain, there is no way that the PA will even accept such a deal. Both Iran and the PA are dedicated to replacing all of Israel with Palestine. Surely Kerry knows this, but continues with the process. The one good thing with “playing the game” ie envisioning a peace agreement, is that it forestalls other actions by the PA or the UN.

In the absence of bold moves by Israel to change the situation, it will continue. Israel insists on playing defense. Without an offense she cannot win.

Evelyn Gordon wrote about the stalemate recently and argued that “ Israel should instead seek to negotiate over smaller issues on which agreement is reachable.”.  Netanyahu, Bennett and Lieberman, among others, are similarly on record. So perhaps, is the US.

The one hope, albeit a slim one, is to cut a deal with the next administration for a different deal.  Such a deal would have to be unilaterally imposed as the Muslims/Arabs would never agree to it.  For instance, if the US would agree to getting Jordan and others to absorb 2 million Palestinians now in the territories, Israel could annex all the territories and that would be the end of the “occupation” and the “resistance”.  At the same time the US should get rid of UNRWA.

Where there is life, there is hope.


Ted Belman

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17490#.VeuQcpdup-9

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