The Netherlands Cuts Funding from Anti-Israel NGOs

by Soeren Kern

The Dutch Foreign Ministry says it will implement "sweeping reforms" to prevent the transfer of millions of taxpayer euros from going to Dutch humanitarian aid organizations that fund anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) activities and non-government organizations (NGOs) that deny Israel's right to exist.

The move comes after Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal discovered that previous governments had allocated at least €10 million ($15 million) to Dutch and Palestinian groups promoting BDS activities against Israel.

Debate over the issue heated up on June 15, when the heads of major Dutch NGOs were asked to testify at a special hearing convened by the Dutch Parliament "to discuss the activity of NGOs in Israel and Palestine."

According to a transcript of the event obtained by the Jerusalem Post, lawmakers heard the managers of leading Dutch NGOs defend BDS activities against Israel, as well as advocacy for a "one-state solution" for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

During questioning, the director of the Hague-based Catholic Organization for Relief and Development Aid (Cordaid), René Grotenhuis, defended BDS as "legitimate" because "it is important that people in Palestine look for ways to resist occupation, and it is a nonviolent way to do so."

The director of the Utrecht-based Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO), Marinus Verweij, said he believes that "the two-state solution is not the basic assumption for peace."

At the hearing, it also emerged that Oxfam Novib, the Dutch affiliate of Oxfam International, provided funds to the Dutch NGO "Stop de Bezeting" (Stop the Occupation). The group's founder, the anti-Israel activist Greta Duisenberg, is famous for her participation in demonstrations calling for Jews to be gassed. She has also accused the Israelis of blood libel and trafficking in human organs.

After the hearing ended, Johan Driesen of the Dutch Freedom Party said: "It was the first time I sat down to talk with the directors of the aid groups and I found what they said not only surprising, but disgusting. And I think the Dutch government should cut funding to organizations promoting this agenda."

The scale of the problem has been documented by the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor in a new report titled "Indirect Dutch Government Funding: ICCO and Cordaid Support for Radical NGOs." The study shows that the Dutch government grants hundreds of millions of euros each year to major Dutch aid organizations such as ICCO and Cordaid, and that these groups then transfer the funds to support some of the most radical NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As a result, Dutch taxpayers are unknowingly funding anti-Zionist groups that promote BDS activities against Israel, including: BADIL, Coalition of Women for Peace, Defence for Children International –Palestine Section (DCI-PS), Holy Land Trust, Sabeel, Stop the Wall, and the Ma'an Development Center.

Several of these groups are currently organizing a pro-Palestinian "consciousness-raising event" (here and here) to be held in Israel in early July. Part of a propaganda effort aimed at delegitimizing the state of Israel, activists from across Europe plan to arrive at the Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv on July 8, and from there move on to Judea and Samaria for a week of solidarity with the Palestinians. They have chosen July 8 because the following day marks the anniversary of the day (July 9, 2004) that the International Court of Justice in The Hague declared the Israel security barrier to be illegal.

According to another NGO Monitor report, Dutch taxpayers are also funding Electronic Intifada (EI), a website that publishes articles that compare Israelis to Nazis and promotes campaigns for anti-Israel BDS activities. EI is being financed by ICCO, the Dutch NGO, which receives 90 percent of its budget from the Dutch government.

As documented by NGO Monitor, EI plays a central role in the Durban strategy of political warfare against Israel, with frequent accusations of "apartheid," "ethnic cleansing" and "slow genocide." Articles on the EI website justify violence against civilians, call Gaza a "concentration camp" and label Palestinian participation in peace talks as "collaboration." EI also has extensive sections (here and here) supporting the BDS movement against Israel.

The ICCO website devotes an entire page to Electronic Intifada, praising its work as "an internationally recognized daily news source" that provides a counterweight to "positive reporting" about Israel. ICCO's website notes its three-year funding pledge for EI. During his testimony to parliament, ICCO director Verweij called EI "an important source of information" and said "in no way is the EI anti-Israel or anti-Semitic."

According to NGO Monitor, groups such as "ICCO and Cordaid do not systematically provide information regarding funding to local NGOs. Full lists of partners and projects are not publically available. There does not appear to be government oversight or evaluation of the indirect Dutch funding for NGOs, or of ICCO's and Cordaid's decision making."

In response to the revelations, Foreign Minister Rosenthal promised to "look into the matter personally. If it appears that the government-subsidized NGO ICCO does fund Electronic Intifada, it will have a serious problem with me."

Rosenthal has also told the Hague-based Center for Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI) that he will intervene to block funding to groups promoting the BDS campaign. "A meticulous reappraisal of subsidy applicants remains necessary. Intervention will occur in cases of organizations acting against Dutch policy," Rosenthal said.

Dutch aid groups are now feeling the heat. The Dutch government has reduced the amount of financial support it provides to Cordaid this year by a whopping 42 percent, forcing the organization to fire one-third if its 400 workers. Oxfam-Novib has seen its budget slashed by one quarter, prompting it to close down its operations in Latin America and Central Asia. ICCO has lost more than one-third of its government subsidies in 2011.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen set out the Dutch government's new plans to strengthen political and economic relations with Israel. In a June 14 speech at the Technion in Haifa, Verhagen also announced the inauguration of the Dutch-Israeli Cooperation Council by January 2012. Invest rather than divest will be the new mantra.

Other moves also signal a sea-change in Dutch-Israeli relations. In April, the Dutch government cracked down on the Dutch affiliate of the Turkish group IHH – the main organizer of a planned flotilla to the Gaza Strip – because of its involvement with Hamas. The Dutch Foreign Ministry "placed IHH Netherlands on the Dutch list of terrorist organizations and froze its assets, because IHH Netherlands regularly transferred funds to IHH Germany. This organization is banned in Germany because it has raised funds for Hamas. Hamas has been on the EU list of terrorist organizations since 2003."

In February, members of the Dutch parliament approved a parliamentary decision in support of Israel as a "democratic Jewish state." The pro-Israel vote resulted in 113 of the 150 parliament members affirming Israel's existence as a Jewish state and urging the European Union not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

Soeren Kern

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2232/netherlands-cuts-funding-anti-israel-ngos

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

Muslim Brotherhood Shadow Candidate Surges in Egypt

by Ryan Mauro

According to an unscientific online poll, a new Islamist candidate is gaining steam in Egypt’s presidential race named Mohammed Selim al-Awa. He presents himself as a democratic “reformist” with no political affiliation, but he has made several concerning statements and is suspected by some experts of being the favored candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Facebook page of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces, which has governed Egypt since the removal of President Hosni Mubarak, has a poll asking respondents who they will vote for in the presidential election. With over 100,000 votes, Mohammed el-Baradei came in first with 35 percent. Mohammed Selim al-Awa came in second. Amr Moussa, considered the strong front-runner, came in fourth. Only one-fifth of the Egyptian population has Internet access, so it is not representative of the population as a whole, but the survey indicates that al-Awa is a force to be reckoned with.

Al-Awa styles himself as a reformer who promotes a moderate, modern version of Islam. He argues that Western democracy is the best representation of the Islamic principle of “shura,” or consultation. He says he promotes critical thinking towards religion, as his father raised him to “question even the interpretation of a Qur’anic verse or a prophetic saying and not to take it for granted. I learned from him to steer away from the dogmatic understanding of religion.”

He opposes the Ground Zero Mosque, arguing “it is not necessary. They can have a center or a mosque anywhere else. It symbolizes nothing. Nobody should want to offend.” Al-Awa rejects the notion that the U.S. is at war with Islam, and has sided with the members of the Muslim Brotherhood who left the organization to form the Wasat Party. He opposes the Iranian-style of governance, and criticizes the Muslim Brotherhood and other political parties because they “indoctrinate blind obedience.”

This does not mean the West should celebrate al-Awa. His father was a follower of Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was inspired to become involved in politics because of his father’s discussion groups with Brotherhood members. One meeting, which al-Awa mentions as a defining moment for him, was with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Nazi Muslim who worked closely with Adolf Hitler.

Al-Awa says that his father left the Muslim Brotherhood after it killed civilians, but he does not reject the group’s goals. When asked about the Brotherhood’s objective of establishing an Islamic state based on Sharia law, he said, “I think their project—as defined by Hassan el-Banna…is the project of Prophethood, not of Brotherhood. I mean, it was the project of Islam itself and no one can object to this vision but when it comes to translating it into actions…”

Al-Awa was arrested in 1965 for being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but he denies ever being a part of the organization. He wants to preserve Article 2 of the Egyptian constitution, which makes Sharia the principal source of legislation. He is also the former secretary-general of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, whose chairman is Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi. Many other Brotherhood members sit on the board of directors. These ties have made some experts believe that he is the Brotherhood’s shadow candidate, as the organization has promised not to field an official candidate.

He has made several other worrisome statements that contradict his credentials as a moderate. In 2006, he praised female suicide bombers targeting Israel. He criticized a fatwa that said women should not become terrorists because their duty is to give birth and raise children. “What if she never gets married?” al-Awa asked. “What is more important: The right of countries to be liberated from the colonialists, or the right of a woman to get married and give birth? If this can be called a right at all, because it may or may not happen…but, Allah be praised, eventually people ignored this fatwa,” he said.

He has also fomented anger and fear toward the Coptic Christian minority and Israel. He said that the Christians are “stocking arms and ammunition in their churches and monasteries,” and alleged that the armed Copts want a civil war in order to divide Egypt. Al-Awa also promotes the idea that Israel is trying to sabotage the Egyptian revolution. Al-Awa has since denied accusing the Copts of stockpiling weapons, and has condemned violence against them.

An al-Awa presidency would also be a major threat to Israel. In discussing the violence between Coptic Christians and Muslims, he said, “I believe very strongly that the ones behind this criminal act are Zionist intelligence agents, whether deceived or deceiving Egyptians, or non-Egyptians.” He proclaimed, “The decline and fall of Israel is closer than people expect since Israel is a cruel and racist entity…we must get ready for the post-demise period.”

It’s appealing for the West to find someone that promotes the idea of compatibility between Islam and Western democracy, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the messenger is a friend. A “moderate” who promotes Sharia-based governance, supports suicide bombings and instigates against Israel and Coptic Christians is no “moderate” at all.

Ryan Mauro

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/30/muslim-brotherhood-shadow-candidate-surges-in-egypt/

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

Don’t Worry, Be Muslim

by Daniel Greenfield

There’s good news on the horizon. According to Trevor Philips, the head of the UK’s ‘Equality and Human Rights Commission’, Muslims “are doing their damnedest” to develop an Islam compatible with liberal democracy. And if you don’t believe him, then just ask Tony Blair, who reads the Koran every day and marvels at how progressive it is.

Forget all the worrying and fussing over Muslim immigration and terrorism. The future looks bright for Britain. We’re probably only days away from the first female Imam and drive through abortion clinics in local mosques. Mecca is going to host its first swimsuit competition on its black rock and Ramadan will unite with Gay Pride Day for a parade that no one will ever be able to forget.

At The Guardian, where left is always right, Musleh Faradhi assures us that Sharia courts are not about to displace English law or flog Prince Charles as an adulterer in front of Buckingham Palace. “Women who come to this country with little or no English and are then discriminated against by their own husbands or relatives has nothing to do with sharia, but rather with traditions and culture,” says Faradhi. “This should not be used as a stick with which to beat sharia councils.”

That sounds fair enough except when you remember that Sharia councils are usually the ones who beat women with sticks, rather than the other way around. For reasons that have nothing to do with the Koran, but with traditions, culture and the equinox. It would be a shame if Sharia’s habit of beating women with sticks were to be used to beat Sharia councils with sticks. When it comes to Muslims, turnabout is never fair play. Even when the sticks are metaphorical ones. And the ones they use are all too real.

According to Tony Blair, the Koran is, “ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance”. This claim would be true only if the Koran had been written in the age of the dinosaurs. And probably not even then. The educated Cro-Magnon would have taken one sniff at the Koran and opted for something more progressive. Like the Daily Mail or Benny Hill.

In the progressive words of the Koran, “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other.” (Koran 4:34). It’s hard to argue with that. At least if you’re a woman and under the authority of a Sharia council. Bring enough Muslim men with sticks together and then good luck arguing with Allah’s Theory of Gender Evolution without getting beheaded. Or at least beaten bloody with sticks.

“Good women are obedient,” says the Koran. “They guard their unseen parts.” Which in the Muslim world often includes their faces, their voices and themselves, until the whole woman becomes one unseen part. “As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.”

The liberal Britain which long since disavowed, “A woman, a dog and a walnut tree; the harder they are beaten, the better they be”, has welcomed it back in as, “A woman, a dog and a palm tree.” It is easy to argue with the practices of beating a domestic walnut tree, but who are we to argue with the cultural tree harvesting methods of an ancient belief system which must be superior to ours on account of it being practiced by the people we once colonized.

And the verse finishes, that having beaten them “Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.” This must be the part that Tony Blair and Western liberal readers find so ahead of its time in its attitude toward women. That once having beaten a woman, if she complies, then you should stop beating her. The nobility and generosity of these words should touch the heart of even a Germaine Greer.

The Koran may tell you to beat women, but it doesn’t tell you to keep beating them once they’re cringing on the floor. This generosity extends not only to women, but to all sorts of beloved infidels. Once he surrenders, and pays Jizya, accepting his role as an inferior– the well-behaved Muslim is not supposed to keep beating him. Women, Dhimmis, slaves and other people whom Allah hath made inferior are not to be beaten so long as they obey you.

You can see why Tony Blair might consider this attitude toward governance ahead of its time. Anyone who has had contact with England’s bureaucracy can well appreciate a form of governance that stops beating you once you’re lying prone on the floor.

“The Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins” says the former Prime Minister. “Rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later.”. The inability of the former Prime Minister to tell the difference between the Anglican Church and a wife-beating manual is a sad testament to many things. Not the least of which is his functional illiteracy.

If Islam was trying to return to the origins of Judaism and Christianity, it took the wrong road around. Mohammed’s GPS may have told him he was headed to Jerusalem, but instead he ended up in Mecca. Which is what happens when you attach a GPS to a flying horse and religious ideas to greedy bandits.

Jewish and Christian scriptures were not possessed with the “fear of disobedience” or the need to compel their wives to cover their faces to avoid being raped on the spot by their own cousins. Which originated the headbags of Muslim modesty. But then Jews and Christians tended to court their wives, rather than abduct them and rape them in front of their husbands.

When your wedding canopy is a knife at her throat, and your “meet-cute” was burning her village, there’s good reason to fear her disobedience. And when your relationship is based on being the first man to grab her as she made a run for it, there is good reason to keep her inside or cover her from head to toe. You may be her first rapist, but your cousins and friends will have no objection to being her second and third. When rape is legal, and every adult male around you is a potential rapist, then purdah and headbags are a natural way for fathers and husbands to protect their investment.

There is nothing spiritual about Muslim modesty. It is, as Blair said, “Practical”. In a society of rapists, women had better remain at home, cover up, or end up like Lara Logan. But you don’t have to be a blonde at a celebration of Egyptian democracy to be assaulted. It happens just as often in the UK now. Take Abul Malik of Trafalgar Road, who raped a female passenger when she couldn’t cover the full fare. And why not. Back in Pakistan, rape is a time honored means of restitution in disputes. And now so it is in the UK too.

We can of course go on pretending that all this ugly and sordid stuff has nothing to do with the high-minded ideals Islam and go on cheering the Sharia councils who “are doing their damnedest” to make Islam compatible with liberal democracy. Except it isn’t Islam that they are making compatible with liberal democracy, rather it is liberal democracy that they are making damnably compatible with Islam.

Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, has explained that equality before the law now means that some people will be governed under the law, and others under Sharia law. Of course there will be no beating of women with sticks. Yet. For now it will have to be the metaphorical sticks of a legal system which is under the impression that women are an inferior form of life.

How much justice can women expect from divorce proceedings that take place under the authority of the Koran which says that, men have authority over women because “they spend their wealth to maintain them.” Which denies that domestic abuse and marital rape are wrong.

Baroness Cox has introduced the “Arbitration and Mediation Services Equality Bill” which puts forward the controversial idea that no mediator can operate on the belief that a woman has fewer rights than a man. That such a bill had to be put forward in 2011, ninety-three years after the triumph of women’s suffrage, is outrageous. But what is even more outrageous is the opposition to it.

The Islamic Sharia Council’s Suhaib Hasan replied that, “It is indeed a crime that Lady Cox has made no attempt to understand the workings of the shariah councils.” Of course that isn’t an actual crime that she can be beaten with sticks for. Yet.

The media’s message is don’t worry. Every day Muslim immigrants are adapting to the new way of life. But who is really doing the adapting? The real message of don’t worry, is don’t worry and be Muslim. And if you can’t, then keep to the floor and hope that they don’t keep beating you once you’re down.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/30/don%E2%80%99t-worry-be-muslim/

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

Gaza Convoy – “Israel cannot and should not let humanitarian ships through”

by Jade-Yasmin Tänzler


The first attempt ended in bloodshed. Now another humanitarian convoy is headed for Gaza with the aim of breaking the Israeli sea blockade. Israel has no choice but to act, says maritime law expert Heintschel von Heinegg.

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg is an international and maritime law expert who teaches at Europa-Universität Viadrina in Frankfurt. He has also served as an adviser to the Turkel Commission that Israel established in the summer of 2010. The commission has been tasked with determining how and why violence erupted on 31 May 2010 between passengers on the Gaza humanitarian convoy and Israeli soldiers.

ZEIT ONLINE: The deployment of Israeli forces in May of last year against a humanitarian convoy headed for Gaza unleashed cries of protest worldwide. Now a second and far larger international convoy is on its way to Gaza – a convoy that aims to break Israeli’s sea blockade of Gaza. Is this blockade even allowable from a legal standpoint?

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg: Well that depends on how you characterize the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. When jurists come together, they often disagree on this matter. But there’s definitely a consensus on one thing – namely that what you have here is an armed conflict. Which means that the laws governing such conflicts apply; and under these laws, sea blockades are allowed.

ZEIT ONLINE: But doesn’t the conflict also have to involve two or more states?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Right. And the problem is that Palestine is not a state – at least not yet – which is why many feel that the conflict is not an international armed conflict. And if you take that view, then blockade laws don’t apply. But if you take an objective look at the relevant legal analyses, it’s readily apparent that the basic admissibility of the Israeli blockade has never been called into question.

ZEIT ONLINE: You yourself have characterized Israel’s action against the convoy in 2010 as being perfectly legitimate. Why is that?

Heintschel von Heinegg: If a blockade is allowable in this conflict, then it’s also allowable to take measures to set up such a blockade. There’s only one principle that characterizes a blockade: the principle of effectiveness. In other words, the blockade has to prevent ships from entering or leaving the blockade zone. If the blockade fails to do this even once, it is ineffective and thus immediately becomes legally ineffective as well.

ZEIT ONLINE: So this means that when it comes to this blockade, Israel is in a catch-22 situation, right?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Right. The Israelis simply can’t afford to let any ship through, if they want to prevent another ship from passing through the blockade zone a few hours later.

ZEIT ONLINE: The operators of the 2010 humanitarian convoy said right from the outset that the ships were headed for Gaza. Didn’t saying this make them subject to criminal prosecution?

Heintschel von Heinegg: The mere fact that they set sail for Gaza does not constitute a criminal act. But: if you come out and say, in a public forum, that you’re heading to Gaza for the express purpose of breaking the blockade, this is clear evidence of a blockade breaking attempt. And when that happens, the state that has imposed the blockade doesn’t need to wait until the ship in question reaches the 20 nautical mile boundary; instead, it’s got the right to intervene beforehand. Because the state that’s imposing the blockade is not only entitled but also duty bound to maintain its blockade.

ZEIT ONLINE: What do you think the people onboard the current humanitarian convoy are going to be facing?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Any ship that actually breaks the blockade simply has to reckon with the fact that that military force is going to be used against them. Plus the state that’s imposing the blockade is under no obligation to wait until someone actually crosses the blockade line. All that has to happen is for there to be clearly discernible intent – in which case measures can be taken long before the blockade line is crossed.

ZEIT ONLINE: What form could or should such measures take?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Normally such measures unfold without any major problems. The state imposing the blockade stops the vessel, orders it to proceed to a specific port, inspects the ship’s cargo, and then turns the matter over to the courts. But if there’s resistance to the measures taken by the state that’s imposing the blockade, then this state needs to quell this opposition. Which means that any attempt to evade the blockade or the forces enforcing it needs to be met with reasonable force.

“The motivation of the blockade breakers is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.”

ZEIT ONLINE: In your view, was Israel’s reaction to the humanitarian convoy in 2010 a smart move given the humaniarian situation in Gaza?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Well this is how it always is when it comes to such legal issues. In such situations, the actors don’t always act logically, or judiciously; nor are such actions necessarily the politically smart thing to do. A state that imposes a blockade is obligated to supply the civilian population in the blockaded zone with the goods they need in order to survive. But the Israelis have always done this. At the time of the humanitarian convoy in 2010, it was the same in that they said: Feel free to sail into the harbor; we guarantee that we’ll hand over your humanitarian cargo. But it was clear from the get-go that certain parties didn’t want that at all, because then they wouldn’t have achieved the same impact on public opinion.

ZEIT ONLINE: What would you advise the Israeli Prime Minister to do if the next humanitarian convoy approaches the boundary of the blockade zone?

Heintschel von Heinegg: If the Prime Minister wants to maintain the blockade, then he’s simply got to enforce it. If he doesn’t enforce it, it’ll be a dead letter; and then he’d have to resort to other measures; and then the legal situation wouldn’t be so simple. Because then he’d have to invoke the right of self -efense, which is often invoked in cases where it’s simply not appropriate to do so. Our [Germany’s] anti-terrorism operations are a prime example of this.

ZEIT ONLINE: Do you think the Israelis are going to react to this second convoy the same way they reacted to the first one?

Heintschel von Heinegg: I think Israel is better prepared this time around. Last time they tried to approach the convoy ships in rubber dinghies and then climb onboard from these dinghies, in order to take control of the ships. And then they used helicopters. I suspect that the Israeli forces were simply unprepared for the resistance they met from some of the passengers on board those ships and were taken completely by surprise.

ZEIT ONLINE: Is the legal situation now more touchy due to the fact that there’s already been a conflict with a convoy?

Heintschel von Heinegg: I think the reverse is the case. I hope that the relevant legal principles won’t be misused again, since the law of armed conflict applies here – not a cockeyed human rights perspective. Also, Israel didn’t act at all capriciously the first time around. It would have been quite difficult for the Israelis to sink those ships without concerning themselves with the fate of the passengers and cargo onboard. Israel only took measures that were prescribed by law – namely preventing the ships from reaching Gaza. This was the most moderate measure available to them.

ZEIT ONLINE: People are suffering in Gaza, even though they have access to the goods they need in order to survive. Isn’t it legitimate for people to want to help the citizens of Gaza?

Heintschel von Heinegg: The motivation of the blockade breakers – regardless of whether they’re acting for virtuous or reprehensible reasons – is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. I, of course, have great respect for human rights activists who give of their time to pursue their goals, but you can’t get around the fact that there are certain legal boundaries. Also, I presume that these humanitarian actions are also publicity stunts aimed at mobilizing public opinion. No one would argue the fact that the citizens of Gaza have it really tough, compared to our own standards. But I don’t really see any pressing humanitarian need here.

ZEIT ONLINE: In your view, is there an alternative to these humanitarian convoys?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Sure there is. There are a few humanitarian organizations out there that have impeccable credentials that no one in their right mind would call into question – the most important one being the International Committee of the German Red Cross. If you really want to help the citizens of Gaza, you go to the Red Cross – an organization that the Israelis accept without hesitation.

ZEIT ONLINE: The border crossing between Gaza and Egypt was recently reopened. Do you think this will have a counterproductive effect on the naval blockade?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Israel has traditionally been able to rely on Egypt, and the border between Gaza and Egypt hasn’t been particularly permeable in the past. But this has changed. The strategic importance of the blockade in terms of protecting Israeli security has definitely declined. But nonetheless, the reliability of Israel’s maritime measures will not be affected in any way by the change in the status of the Gaza-Egypt border.

Jade-Yasmin Tänzler

Source: http://tundratabloids.com/2011/06/zeit-online-israel-cannot-let-aid-ships-into-gaza.html

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

Tahrir Square Reignites

by Gavriel Queenann

Egyptian security forces clashed with hundreds of youths for the second day in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Wednesday, Gulf News reports.

Egyptian security forces firing tear gas clashed with more than 5,000 rock and firebomb-throwing protesters in central Cairo when the battle erupted late Tuesday. Dozens were left injured in the latest unrest to rattle the county, witnesses and medical officials said.

Clouds of tear gas and the wail of police sirens engulfed Tahrir Square as lines of security forces in riot gear battled to regain control of the central plaza from the demonstrators, many of them family members of the more than 850 people killed during the revolution earlier this year.

The families say they are frustrated with what they perceive as the slow prosecution of police officers believed to be responsible for the deaths of some 850 protesters during the 18-day uprising that led to the ouster of president Hosni Mubarak earlier this year.

Destruction
Rocks and shattered glass littered the streets surrounding Tahrir, as protesters chanted: "Down with the military junta."

Injured, bloodied demonstrators lay dazed on the ground before the clashes ended due to Interior Minister Mansour Al Essawy issuing an order before dawn Wednesday for the security services to stand down.

The confrontation began Tuesday, when security forces cleared a sit-in outside the state TV building by the families of the slain protesters, an engineer who gave only his first name, Nourredine, said.

"I was in front of the state TV building this morning when the security forces attacked," he said. "Since then, things have been escalating."

Rumors
The protesters re-grouped Tuesday evening outside the Interior Ministry, where rumors swirled that two demonstrators wounded earlier in the day had been arrested.

It was not immediately clear what sparked the violence, but soon after gathering the protesters were hurling stones and security forces firing volleys of tear gas and blocking off streets around the building.

The clashes then shifted to nearby Tahrir Square, the symbolic epicenter of Egypt's revolution. In a sight reminiscent of the early days of the uprising, lines of security forces in riot gear sealed off the main streets leading into the square, while dozens of security vehicles were parked in side streets.

Shocked
The government response shocked many of the protesters, who compared it to the heavy-handed tactics used by the security forces before Mubarak's fall.

"The security forces' violence is the same," engineer Al Maataz Hassan said. "They accuse the people of being thugs, then crackdown. It's the same mentality as before the revolution."

Tuesday's clashes, perhaps of the most serious between security forces and protesters since the revolution, are an offshoot of the tumultuous transitional period the country is going through under its interim junta.

That transition took a step forward earlier Tuesday with an Egyptian court's ordering the dissolution of more than 1,750 municipal councils, seen as one of the last vestiges of Hosni Mubarak's stranglehold on power.

The administrative court decision, announced by presiding judge Kamal Al Lamai, meets a major demand of the protest movement that drove Mubarak from power.

Gavriel Queenann

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145298

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

Robert Gates' Disastrous Tenure at DoD

by Zbigniew Mazurak

Robert Gates plans to step down as SECDEF tomorrow (June 30) -- and not a moment too soon. This is a good opportunity to sum up his tenure as Pentagon chief.

Gates was nominated for Secretary on November 8, 2006, after Donald Rumsfeld resigned. The Iraq War was going badly, the Taliban were recovering from their losses in Afghanistan, rogue states were pursuing weapons of mass murder, Russia was resurgent, and China was growing in strength. Gates had an opportunity for a fresh start, an opportunity to fix things.

Instead, he doubled down on Rumsfeld's policies. Then, when Barack Obama became president, Gates slavishly obeyed all of Obama's edicts, thus making America much weaker and much less safe.

Gates has insisted on continuing in Iraq, no matter the cost. The result? American troops remain in that country to this day and continue to die there, war costs continue to pile up, and Iraq is no more stable or safer than it was in 2006. Indeed, Iraq is still undergoing a civil war. Violence and civilian casualties are back to their pre-surge levels, and Iraqi Christians (whom Saddam protected against Muslim zealots) face the prospect of extinction for the first time ever.

In Afghanistan, Gates doubled down on his failed policies, insisting on the necessity of "winning" in that country (where no foreign army has ever won, and where ISAF will not win either) for America's national security and for winning future wars -- as if America's security were somehow connected to Pakistan's. Al-Qaeda has already relocated to Yemen. The 9/11 attacks, contrary to the popular myth, were planned and prepared in Germany (by the Hamburg cell), not in Afghanistan. America's interests require getting out of Afghanistan, not staying there indefinitely. Yet Gates has insisted on a "surge" of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and on staying there even after 2014.

Gates, whom the DOD bills as "a Russian affairs scholar," but who needs an interpreter to talk to his Russian counterpart, is the chief proponent of appeasement towards Russia. He has refused to classify Russia as an opponent of or a threat to the U.S., saying that the U.S. has normal relations with Moscow. In 2007, Gates sat and tolerated Vladimir Putin's bashing the U.S. and its allies during the Munich Security Conference. Meanwhile, Moscow continues to back and arm the rogue regimes in Pyongyang, Tehran, Damascus, Caracas, and Havana, and to demand veto rights over American missile defense networks.

Gates has been the chief advocate of the disastrous New START, which obliges the U.S. to make unilateral cuts in its arsenals of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, while Russia, already below treaty limits, is allowed to build. Gates thinks this political gesture will convince North Korea and Iran to cease developing nuclear weapons and will induce other countries to back sanctions against Pyongyang and Tehran. It hasn't and won't. The treaty has only further weakened America's own defense.

Gates is also the leader in appeasing China, America's most dangerous enemy. He has consistently denied that China is a potential foe or a threat, has welcomed China's "peaceful rise" (which is not peaceful), has invited Chinese generals to visit sensitive military installations, and has tolerated Chinese espionage in the DOD. He appeased China egregiously just in order to get an invitation to Beijing in January 2011. According to Gates, a regime that has harassed unarmed American ships in neutral waters, that brought down an unarmed plane in neutral airspace, that blinded an American satellite, and that continues to wage an arms race against the U.S. -- with its weapons clearly designed against the U.S. -- is not America's enemy. Gates considers China a reliable partner.

Coupled with Gates's above-mentioned ludicrous statements about America's potential adversaries are his ridiculous insistence and strong belief that the U.S. will never again fight a conventional war, and his policies that mirror that belief. Gates doesn't think China or Russia would ever perceive the U.S. as an enemy, and he makes light of the threats posed by North Korea's huge conventional army; Venezuela's Flankers, SAMs, and submarines; and Iran's growing conventional capabilities.

Accordingly, Gates has reduced America's conventional units (heavy combat brigades, fighterplane wings, etc.) and cut or closed over fifty conventional weapon programs, most of them necessary to prepare the military for conventional and irregular threats. Among them were the F-22 fighterplane type, the Next Generation Bomber project, the next-gen gunship, the Zumwalt class, the Future Combat Systems, the NLOC, and others, as well as programs very useful against irregular enemies, such as the Combat Search and Rescue helicopter program.

Because conventional weapons have proven very useful and effective against irregular opponents, cuts of such weapons have not only weakened the military, but also reduced its ability to fight insurgents and terrorists. After all, Zarqawi was killed by F-16s, not a UAV. Forty percent of the bombs dropped during the first two months of OEF were delivered by B-1s. B-2s have slammed Afghanistan and Iraq. The USAF's fighters patrol the skies over the U.S. everyday to prevent a repeat of 9/11.

But Gates seems ignorant of all that, and as for future adversaries and wars, he believes that preparing for them is a mental disorder, which he calls "next-war-itis." He has been singularly obsessed with Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, after four and a half years with Gates, the military is still unprepared for future wars, while China, Russia, and others have made significant progress.

And in trying to justify his indefensible cuts, Gates has frequently resorted to rhetoric, such as claims that this or that program was "unneeded" or that his cuts were the results of a holistic analysis of requirements. He further has indulged in rosy predictions about the future environment and future capabilities of America's adversaries. He's been proven wrong time after time about all this, yet he still refuses to admit any error.

The F-22 is a classic example. In 2009, Gates claimed that China wouldn't have any stealthy fighterplanes even by 2020, and only a handful by 2025. But in January, China flew its first such aircraft, and U.S. intel predicts that said craft will be inducted in 2017 -- over three years earlier than Gates claimed. Yet Gates still cleaves to his earlier prediction and claims that more F-22s aren't needed. Now the future of America's entire fighterplane fleet depends on a single, troubled fighterplane program.

Gates has also claimed that all of his cuts were caused by sober analysis, not political directives from Obama and the OMB. There is ample evidence to the contrary. For example, in March 2009, Josh Rogin reported that Gates received orders from the OMB to cancel the next generation bomber program and delay the tanker program. Gates duly obeyed in April 2009, while also obeying the OMB's order for further defense cuts detailed herein.

In sum, Gates is one of America's worst Defense Secretaries ever, if not the single worst. He has implemented disastrous policies and tried to justify them with lies and fantasies. He has driven America deeper into two quagmires. Bluntly put, our soon-to-be ex-Pentagon chief should be ashamed of himself and his policies.

Zbigniew Mazurak

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/robert_gates_disastrous_tenure_at_dod.html

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

Iraq and the Misnamed 'Arab Spring'

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

"Arab Spring" has become the default term for describing the unrest across the Middle East and North Africa. Indeed, the phrase is rooted in the assumption that there is some deeper trend underlying the recent series of protests and uprisings in the region. As Lee Smith points out, there is a widespread belief that there is "something uniquely Arab" tying together all the political upheavals, a notion perfectly illustrated in the Guardian's contention that the unrest is "about forging what both dictators and former colonizers alike have denied the people: a pan-Arab identity." Amir Taheri, writing for the London newspaper The Times, denied the existence of any "sectarian feuds" in the "Arab Spring."

However, a closer examination of the evidence reveals that the term "Arab Spring" -- peddled across the mainstream media -- is a misnomer on several counts. Most notably, nothing suggests a consistent profile that necessarily makes the protestors in the individual nations sympathetic to each other's objectives, let alone a unifying aim of a pan-Arab identity. True, the Egyptians who demonstrated in Tahrir Square found common cause with the Tunisian activists in the desire to mobilize protestors by means of social media like Twitter and Facebook. Yet we find little in common, say, between Mohamed Bouazizi -- the Tunisian vendor whose self-immolation ultimately triggered the overthrow of President Ben Ali -- and the Islamists among the Libyan rebels, some of whom fought American troops in Iraq.

In addition, consider that while the protests in Tunisia and Egypt generally sought an end to the rule of Ben Ali and Mubarak respectively, many demonstrators have not aimed for revolutionary goals. For instance, in Bahrain, the social-democratic al-Waad party and substantial parts of the Shi'i al-Wefaq movement only desire a move towards a constitutional monarchy with the same political rights for all Bahrainis. Meanwhile, in Morocco, large numbers of protestors are happy to leave King Mohammed VI with a degree of power beyond a ceremonial role, and have centered their demands on greater cultural accommodation for the Berber-speaking minority that accounts for around 35% of the country's population. In fact, it was for this reason that in his recent announcement of constitutional reforms, the Moroccan monarch agreed to grant Berber official language status alongside Arabic -- hardly indicative of a nostalgic longing for pan-Arab unity.

Similarly, blanket charges of appalling corruption ignore specific distinctions in the nature of the mainly authoritarian regimes in the region. In particular, Oman, Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia all rank fairly well on Transparency International's latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Coming in at 41^st, 48^th and joint 50^th respectively out of 178 countries, these nations perform significantly better in the realm of transparency than EU members such as Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, and Italy.

More recently, we can view the development of protests in Iraq over time as a case in point of the existence of disunity and factionalism among demonstrators. Two groups that have been part of the weekly protests in Baghdad's Tahrir Square created a joint committee on June 17 and, three days later, held talks with representatives from Nouri al-Maliki's government. The conference is said to have lasted five hours and to have progressed well, according to remarks made by General Qassim Atta, who serves as spokesman on behalf of the Iraqi army's Baghdad Operations Command. This illustrates al-Maliki's carrot-and-stick approach to the protests, for the premier has also confronted demonstrators with his own supporters and a publicity campaign to garner media attention.

In any case, on June 24, the Iraqi newspaper al-Mada reported that several groups, which did not participate in the meeting with government representatives, had formed their own coordinating committee, excluding and branding as traitors the factions that did hold talks with figures in al-Maliki's administration. None of this should come as a surprise when one appreciates the diversity of the protest movement in Baghdad. Among others, the Iraqi Communist Party, university students, and an array of NGOs have all been singled out as apparently prominent members.

Naturally, the grievances that have been raised in these circumstances are highly eclectic. They range from discontent over corruption (in the 2010 CPI, Iraq was ranked 175^th out of 178 countries, only surpassing Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Somalia in transparency) to calls for the immediate withdrawal of American troops still remaining in the country (they are due to leave by the 31 December deadline stipulated by the Status of Forces Agreement). Others demand the release of family members arrested and detained indefinitely by the Iraqi security forces, or protest the poor provision of public services and electricity. Hence, any groups invited to meet with the government would always give rise to a feeling on the part of other factions of being left out, creating jealousy and rivalries among the activists organizing the demonstrations. Of course, this works to Nouri al-Maliki's advantage.

Unfortunately, however, too many commentators are willing to gloss over these divisions and have a tendency to view the unrest across the region through a single, dogmatic paradigm (Wikileaks, Twitter, al-Jazeera, pan-Arabism etc.), at the expense of recognizing shades of difference by country and within the nations of the Middle East and North Africa.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/iraq_and_the_misnamed_arab_spring.html

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

Iran: World Victim of Terrorism

by Joseph Klein

Has the United Nations no shame? Apparently not, as it continues to legitimize some of the world’s worst tyrants and human rights abusers.

The most recent example is the UN leadership’s endorsement of the so-called “World Without Terrorism Conference” hosted by the Iranian regime in Tehran on June 25-26, 2011. The “distinguished” roster of attendees included the indicted international criminal Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, the corrupter-in-chief Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and the hear-no-bin Laden, see-no-bin Laden Pakistani president Asif ‘Ali Zardari.

The conference website set the tone with an anti-Semitic cartoon depicting a hooked-nose Israeli soldier looking like the devil with horns and another cartoon displaying the Statue of Liberty holding a stick of dynamite in her hand.

Kicking off the conference were the Iranian terrorist-sponsoring leaders, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Each of them tried to outdo the other in branding the United States and Israel as the world’s leading terrorist states.

Khamenei, who fancies himself as the 12th Imam’s deputy on Earth, lamented the “satanic world powers which use terrorism in their policies and in their planning to achieve their illegitimate goals.” Of course, he wasn’t talking about his own government or the genocidal Al-Bashir, as he should have been doing. He was referring to the “Zionist regime” and to the U.S., the United Kingdom, and other Western governments that have a “black record of terrorist behaviors.”

Ayatollah Khamenei also pointed to “noble teachings of Islam” as the solution to ending the global terrorist threat. He just happened to leave out the “noble teachings of Islam” which teach about jihad against all unbelievers to establish Islam’s Sharia law worldwide.

After all, it was Mohammed himself who said “I have been ordered to wage war against mankind until they accept that there is no god but Allah and that they believe I am His prophet and accept all revelations spoken through me.”

To make sure that nobody misunderstood his “noble teachings” Mohammed also said: “To battle Kafirs [unbelievers] in jihad for even one day is greater than the entire earth and everything on it.”

Then again, Khamenei does not link the killing of unbelievers and all enemies of Islam to terrorism. Killing every Jew or “Crusader” in his mind is simply fulfilling the Islamist duty of jihad as laid out by Mohammed.

For his part, Ahmadinejad claimed that Iran was one of the chief victims of terrorism. He also revived his 9/11 truther claims:

Some believe that the motive behind the September 11 attacks was to ensure the safety of [the] Zionist regime, to foment insecurity in regional countries, to distract U.S. public opinion from the chaotic economic situation in the country, and to [line] the pockets of uncivilized, belligerent capitalists… Two years after the incident that provided an excuse for the invasion of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) led to the killing, injuring, and displacing of millions… the U.S. government, under pressure from public opinion, tasked a group to investigate the reason behind the attacks. But the real truth has been kept from the Americans and the world[.]

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad wouldn’t let their conference go by without making sure they got together for a tête-à-tête with Sudanese president Al-Bashir. Perhaps Al-Bashir gave them some friendly advice about how to brutally suppress their own people and get away with it. After all, Al-Bashir can speak from long experience that continues right up to the present day. His Islamist Arab regime presses on with its relentless massacre of the defenseless black African population inhabiting central Sudan’s Nuba Mountains located in an area known as South Kordofan.

Did the United Nations condemn the travesty of this supposed conference against terrorism hosted by terrorist-sponsoring Iran and attended by the international criminal Al-Bashir? Did it call for the immediate arrest of the Sudanese president on the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court? Not a chance. To the contrary, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon actually praised Iran for its initiative in hosting the conference.

The news agency FARS reported that in a message delivered to the conference via special envoy, Ban said:

The U.N. has an important role in fighting terrorism and I hope that the Tehran conference can attain [this] great goal.

FARS also quoted Ban Ki-moon as saying that the UN had approved a large number of resolutions against terrorism in recent years and that “holding conferences like the Tehran conference can be considerably helpful in implementing these resolutions.”

Lest anyone think that the UN secretary general’s words got lost in the translation or taken out of context, a UN spokesperson defended Ban Ki-moon’s message to the conference, saying, “The UN believes that it is important for all nations to work together in the fight against terrorism.”

How about we start working together “in the fight against terrorism” by ostracizing the state sponsors of terrorism like Iran itself, which has also flouted a series of UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping its drive for nuclear weapons? One of the best ways to start towards Iran’s self-proclaimed conference goal of a “World Without Terrorism” is to strive for a world without the current terrorist Iranian regime.

Instead, the UN continues to reward Iran for its bad behavior. Just last week, the UN General Assembly elected Iran as one of its vice presidents and Qatar as president, each for a year-long term starting in September. Qatar is no angel either, by the way. Aside from financing the terrorists’ propaganda arm, Al-Jazeera, Qatar protected terrorists, including the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, according to the 9/11 Commission.

Sadly, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon let another opportunity go by without calling out the Iranian government’s evil when he sees it and exposing its blatant hypocrisy. Instead, he allowed the United Nations to legitimize yet another Iranian exercise in anti-Western, anti-Semitic propaganda.

Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/29/iran-world-victim-of-terrorism/

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

Kabul Siege Signals Time to Get Out

by Robert Spencer

Details are still unclear, but it appears that as many as six jihad/martyrdom suicide bombers descended upon the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul Tuesday night. As many as ten people have been murdered, and the Taliban is thumping its chest in victory. The death toll could end up being much higher: a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, exulted: “Our muj [mujahedin, warriors of jihad] entered the hotel, and they’ve gone through several stories of the building and they are breaking into each room and they are targeting the 300 Afghans and foreigners who are staying.”

The Taliban would kill Afghans as well as foreigners because they consider them to be complicit with the U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai. With Barack Obama’s announcement of a drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, they see an opportunity to assert their presence and power. The American troops will go, and their murder and mayhem will increase. Many will see in this an argument to keep the troops there, so as to preserve order – but what order prevails in Afghanistan today, after eight years of an American military presence there?

The Taliban’s continued ability to commit this murder and mayhem in Afghanistan is testimony to the failure of the American adventure there, the loss of thousands of lives of noble and courageous American military personnel who deserved better from those in command, and the wanton waste of billions of dollars. It was not a failure of power: we were not outgunned or outfought. It was a failure of will, stemming from a misdiagnosis of the problem. Two American administrations have spoken about bringing democracy and freedom to Afghanistan, and yet have not been able or willing to face the fact that the foremost obstacle to those goals was Islam, which respects neither.

Speaking about the vaunted “Arab Spring” a few weeks ago, Barack Obama declared: “The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.”

But not Kabul, apparently. The Bush Administration sponsored the implementation in Afghanistan of a Constitution that enshrined Islamic law as the highest law of the land, such that no law could be made that contradicted it. The bitter fruit of that disastrously short-sighted decision began to appear early on: in 2006 the Karzai government put a convert from Islam to Christianity on trial for apostasy, a capital offense under Islamic law. When an aghast State Department protested, pointing out that Afghanistan’s shiny new Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion, Afghan officials patiently explained to them that it guaranteed freedom of religion within the bounds of Sharia.

Within the bounds of Sharia. That meant the institutionalized oppression of women and non-Muslims, the extinguishing of the freedom of speech, and – as was clear from the Abdul Rahman case and other apostasy cases that followed it — the denial of the freedom of conscience. Sanctioned by the Karzai government, not just by the Taliban.

Nonetheless, America continued to pour out her blood and treasure for this repressive state, with no clear objective or mission in view other than a never-defined “victory.” What would victory have looked like? What could it possibly have looked like? Was the Karzai government, or any Afghan government that followed it, ever going to allow women to throw off their burqas and take their place in Afghan society as human beings equal in dignity to men? Was the Karzai government, or any Afghan government that followed it, ever going to guarantee basic human rights to the tiny and ever-dwindling number of non-Muslims unfortunate enough to live within its borders? Absolutely not. The Bush and Obama Administrations, both drunk on the “Religion of Peace” Kool-Aid they have relentlessly peddled to the American people, completely disregarded the nature of Islam as a political system as well as a religion, and hence made no consideration whatsoever of the likelihood that most Afghans would reject the idea of a secular government, free elections, and equality of rights for all people as a blasphemous rejection of the way that a proper Islamic society should be ordered.

And so in Afghanistan today there is no “free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders” – except within the sharply circumscribed limits of Sharia. The Taliban is so strong that even Karzai has made overtures to it, as has Barack Obama; eight years after it was toppled from power, its claim of Islamic authenticity strongly resonates with the Afghan people, and provides an ever-renewable wellspring of material, financial, and moral support for these vicious thugs as they bomb girls’ schools, music stores, and other outcroppings of jahiliyya – the infidels’ society of ignorance.

With the withdrawal of the American troops, there will be many more Taliban actions like the one at the Intercontinental Hotel Tuesday night. That is unfortunate. But it is nothing that we ever could have definitively and finally stamped out anyway. The mind that believes that the supreme lord and master of the universe promises him a place in Paradise if he kills in his service and is killed in the process (cf. Qur’an 9:111) will not be dissuaded from this conviction by a few bags of rations and a clean new school for his daughters. The mind that believes that no non-Muslim has any right to rule in any part of Allah’s earth, and that it is the responsibility of Muslims to fight against Infidel polities in order to spread Sharia around the world will not be dissuaded by vague and high-toned promises of “freedom.”

The foremost lesson of America’s misbegotten Afghan adventure is that our national unwillingness to face the unpleasant truths about Islam, and particularly Islamic supremacism, costs us lives, costs us money, and makes us even more vulnerable to jihad attack than we already were. It’s time not just to bring the troops home from their foredoomed mission, but to begin a searching and encompassing reevaluation of all our national policies regarding Islam and Islamic states.

But under Barack Obama, that is about as likely as the possibility that he will make his next speech from Jerusalem, proclaiming it Israel’s capital and calling upon the Palestinian Arabs to end their jihad.

Robert Spencer

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/29/hotel-terror-in-kabul/

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

Why Obama’s Proposal Is a Suicide Note for Israel

by David Meir-Levi

The video below illustrates graphically what the concept “defensible borders” means in the context of Israel’s need to defend itself against Arab aggression.

It is universally recognized that all countries have the right to defend themselves against aggression. The first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizenry and its territory; so maintaining defensible borders in the face of belligerent neighbors is a basic necessity for the continued existence of any state under threat of aggression. In addition to this common-sense right of self-defense, Israel’s right to such borders was specifically enshrined in the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242, following Israel’s victory in the 1967 war. Due to the refusal of the vanquished Arab states to make peace with Israel after the 6-Day War, and their vociferous commitment to maintaining hostilities until Israel’s utter destruction, the authors of the resolution, and those who voted in its favor, understood clearly that Israel was and would continue to be under threat of Arab aggression well into the future. Thus they wrote into Resolution 242 the language that specifies defensible borders as a sine qua non for Israel in any future peace settlement.

President Obama seems to have forgotten this. He proposes that Israel begin its negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) having already agreed in advance that final borders will approximate the indefensible 1949 Armistice lines, erroneously referred to as the “1967 borders.” It is important to recall that these lines were merely cease-fire lines drawn by the UN in 1949 between the opposing Arab and Israeli forces after the Arab armies conceded defeat. These lines were not borders, were never intended to be borders, and were never recognized as borders by any political entity. They have no political, historical or geographic valence. Thus any reference to them as “borders” is erroneous and misleading. These lines leave Israel a mere 9 miles wide at its most populous area, to be all too easily cut in half by a force invading from the east.

Obama’s proposal is the equivalent of a suicide note for Israel precisely because the 1949 Armistice lines are not defensible, the threat of Arab aggression and invasion is dire, continuous and imminent, and the unabashedly ballyhooed goal of that aggression is the annihilation of Israel and the genocide of its Jews.

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority are still in a declared but inactive state of war against Israel, have added their voices to the call from Iran for Israel’s destruction, and have aided and abetted the terrorist armies that actively engage in terror attacks against Israel. Hamas, Hezb’Allah, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the PFLP-GC, the DFLP, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Ansar al-Islam, el-Qaeda and more than a dozen other Muslim terrorist organizations are actively engaged in collaborative terrorist hostilities against Israel and have as their frequently avowed goal the destruction of the Jewish state and the annihilation of its Jews.

As the “Arab Spring” slouches toward Jerusalem, we are witness to the gradually emerging power of Islamic fundamentalist forces, rather than secular democracies, in the power vacuum created by the revolutions and upheavals throughout the Arab world: Iran at work in Bahrain and Yemen, Hezb’Allah in Lebanon, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Thus not only is Israel under immediate threat of terrorist attacks, but it must also plan for the possibility of a higher intensity conflict in the near future, even with Egypt and Jordan with which Israel currently has peace treaties. Both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezb’Allah have unabashedly declared their intent to resume hostilities with Israel once they are in power.

Hezb’Allah has already stock-piled tens of thousands of missiles and rockets for future deployment against Israel. Iran has made no secret of its intention to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” as soon as it has the nuclear capacity to do so. Tragically, but undeniably, Israel needs to be prepared to defend itself simultaneously against terrorism from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, against armed invasions on four fronts (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt), and against nuclear ICBM attacks from even farther afield.

No other nation in the world today faces such hostility from so many neighbors on so many fronts. No other nation faces the threat of total annihilation, of genocide.

The video demonstrates why Israel, in light of such hostility, must maintain military control over the Jordan valley, the central mountain range (territory now under control of the Palestinian Authority), the area around Jerusalem, and the air space over the central hill country.

The Jordan valley is the world’s best natural tank trap. If the Jordan Valley were not under Israeli military control, a Palestinian Authority government predisposed to an invasion, perhaps launched by coalition forces that could include Jordanian, Iraqi and Syrian troops and armor, could facilitate these invaders’ crossing the Jordan valley and mounting the eastern slopes of the central mountain range.

Understanding this by no means unlikely scenario, the importance of the central mountain range becomes clear. Once established on the mountain tops of this range, a Palestinian army or the invading forces of other Arab states could easily rain terror and destruction upon Israel’s coastal plain, home to 70% of its population, 80% of its industry, and all of its major air and sea ports. Thus not only must Israel retain military control over this area, but the Palestinian Authority must also be demilitarized: possessing weaponry needed for a police force to maintain order and arrest terrorists, but not ordnance capable of high intensity military attack, such as artillery, tanks, heavily armed infantry, or air force.

The vulnerability of Jerusalem too is thus graphically explained. Jerusalem’s capitol is seconds away from rockets launched by terrorists or belligerent forces ensconced in a collaborating Palestinian Authority’s territory. And the same is true of the highways that cross Israel and permit the rapid deployment of Israeli forces.

But perhaps the truly greatest and most terrifying threat is that posed by Iran: Ahmedinejad’s threat of Iran’s nuclear destruction of Israel. It takes only 2 minutes for an enemy aircraft to cross the Jordan valley and have Jerusalem and other major cities in range of its air-to-ground missiles. An ICBM akin to those currently in Iran’s possession needs less than a minute from the time that Israel can detect it to the time of impact. As Iran’s President has gleefully announced, all it will take is one successful nuclear missile to penetrate Israel’s defenses. Because Israel is so small, once that missile has struck its target, the entire country will be so devastated that a follow-up conventional attack cannot but succeed.

In June, 1967, the leaders of the vanquished Arab states proudly proclaimed that they would never make peace with Israel, and would continue hostilities until Israel was destroyed, no matter how long it would take. After all, they crowed, the Arab states are so numerous and populous that they can afford forty defeats, but Israel can afford only one. Israel will win every battle, they promised, except the last one.

Today, almost exactly sixty-four years later, little has changed. In fact, it looks like Israel’s position is even more vulnerable than it was then. Now Israel must be prepared not only to win every battle, but also to stop every missile: an impossible task without defensible borders.

David Meir-Levi

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/29/why-obama%E2%80%99s-proposal-is-a-suicide-note-for-israel/

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