Sunday, July 15, 2012

Rethinking Libya


by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

Pace the expectations of numerous commentators, including my own, Islamist factions have not emerged to dominate the Libyan election results. Instead, the National Forces Alliance (NFA) -- a coalition led by the former interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril -- has outmaneuvered the Muslim Brotherhood and the al-Watan party led by Abdelhakim Belhadj, who once headed the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group that was affiliated with al Qaeda.

The Islamist factions are hoping to dominate the political process through the remaining 120 seats in the Libyan congress open to candidates who are at least nominally independent, but tally results so far suggest that even in areas where Islamists are thought to have stronger influence than in the rest of the country (e.g. the eastern city of Darna), the Muslim Brotherhood's Justice and Construction Party performed poorly against the NFA.

For a fuller overview of results, see an online report by the Libya Herald, which illustrates that the defeat was even more crushing for the al-Watan party.

All this indicates my assessment last October that "it is becoming increasingly apparent that Islamism will be the dominant political force in the country" has turned out to be incorrect.

It was not unreasonable to express concerns regarding the influence the likes of Belhadj initially held during the interim period under the National Transitional Council (NTC), but where did I get Libya wrong?

Islamists and foreign influence: It appears that I underestimated the stigma associated with ties to foreign powers for Islamists. I noted this point in an article I wrote on the interim cabinet appointments by the NTC that excluded Islamists, a move that was at least partly intended as a rebuke for Qatar, which has been repeatedly accused by Libyan officials of backing Islamist militants and circumventing the NTC in provision of aid.

This chiding of perceived excessive interference by Qatar clearly resonated with popular sentiment in Libya, and the failure on the part of Belhadj and his ilk to distance themselves from ties to Qatar has come at a great cost.

The same applies for the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya: The support lent by Qatar to the Brotherhood in Egypt, with al-Jazeera's sycophantic coverage of the Islamist organization and its presidential candidate Mohammed Morsi the most obvious sign, would have been all too apparent to Libyan voters.

The evidence here vindicates my point last year about Qatar's pro-Sunni Islamist agenda in the Arab Spring, for which I was derided by Michael Hughes as a "neoconservative" in the Huffington Post, who drew attention to Qatari media coverage of Saudi Arabia in 2002 (a complete red herring).

In hindsight, I should have foreseen the impact of the stigma of being seen as agents of foreign powers by comparison with developments in Iraqi politics since 2005, where the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) -- a Shi'ite political faction -- lost much support in the 2009 provincial elections in the face of the nationalist platform of Nouri al-Maliki.

ISCI, previously known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, felt compelled to change its name amid widespread suspicions of being an agent for Iranian interests.

In any case, it should also be noted that the Brotherhood in particular is tainted by an image of having not participated in the uprising against Gaddafi. Having reached some sort of reconciliation with the dictator from 2003 onwards, the Islamist group boycotted an opposition conference in London in 2005 that called for the overthrow of Gaddafi.

False polarizing dichotomies: In earlier articles I wrote on Libya, I think it is fair to say that I was too focused on an apparent Islamist-Liberal dichotomy. For example, I once drew on a Wall Street Journal piece to draw a sharp contrast between supposedly secular and liberal Berbers and an Islamist-inclined Arab population. Later, however, I realized that such a picture was not quite accurate, and is often the result of an impression given by Berber activists who address Western audiences.

During the Libyan elections, it has become commonplace to see Jibril's NFA described as a "liberal" bloc. Yet Jibril himself has insisted that the NFA espouses neither secularism nor liberalism, and views Islamic law as a main source for legislation, which parallels the words of Mustafa Abdul Jalil -- the head of the NTC -- last year.

Again, analogy with Iraqi politics is useful here, where one often finds that the Iraqi National Movement (INM) bloc led by Ayad Allawi is described as "secular." In truth, INM is a very broad and loose coalition of parties -- just as Jibril's bloc reportedly comprises around 60 parties -- encompassing some secular-minded Sunni and Shi'a in Baghdad, together with Sunni Islamists.

In a recent interview, Jibril stressed that he would be willing to form a coalition government with the Muslim Brotherhood, pointing to the need for "national unity." While Brotherhood members in Libya have now accused Jibril of engaging in unfair electoral tactics, there is little they can do but try to form a coalition agreement with Jibril's bloc.

The emerging picture is therefore as follows: As in Iraq, Islamic religious norms will certainly remain a part of daily life in Libya and Islamists -- in areas where they wield influence -- may organize their own local militias to enforce aspects of Shari'a, but it is unlikely that there will be implementation of a full-blown Islamist agenda on a national level by the government, which will probably be open to engagement by the West.

More generally, an important lesson to draw here is to avoid sensationalism in analyzing developments in Libya, which is yet another parallel with the situation in Iraq and media coverage of events there.

The problem of clashes between competing local militias and tribes is unlikely to be fully reined in for quite some time, while torture and lack of respect for the rule of law will probably remain commonplace.

However, larger-scale reprisals against perceived supporters of Gaddafi's regime (e.g. the Tuareg, who have consequently fled south into Mali) were already carried out and completed quite some time ago.

Further, one should avoid making too much out of the autonomist movement in eastern Libya, which has welcomed Jibril's success in the elections and is hoping for a "constructive dialogue" with him on the issue of autonomy, condemning the anti-electoral violence committed by some protesters in the run-up to the elections. The question of autonomy will either be resolved or remain in limbo, and it is unlikely to lead to secession from Libya on the part of Cyrenaica.

What many reports have termed a "localism" trend in the country since the downfall of Gaddafi's regime should be taken into consideration, yet as in Iraq, the need to preserve an infrastructure for the vital oil industry will prevent a fragmentation of the nation into mini-states along the lines of Dark Age Greece (i.e. the period between the Bronze Age collapse and the appearance of the Homeric epics).

To sum up: Libya is doing much better than I expected. The academic and pundit Hussein Ibish, who on reading my piece "Libya Heading Towards Islamism" suggested that I might be overestimating the strength of the Islamists, got it right. I got it wrong.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3284/rethinking-libya

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

Paul Ryan: Obama's Policies Creating Nation of 'Dependency'


by Greg McDonald

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says Americans are becoming more complacent and dependent on government under President Barack Obama and the only way to reverse course is to elect Mitt Romney and a Republican-controlled Congress.
“We can turn this stuff around and fix it before it gets too late, before we become a nation of net takers vs.makers, before we have a [growing] debt crisis,” Ryan said Wednesday, noting that the country is now facing the highest poverty rate on record and the worst economic growth and job creation in two years.
Speaking to Fox News’ Sean Hannity, the Wisconsin Republican said he sees two “tipping points” that could lead to disaster without a course correction.

The first he described as a “European-like” economic situation “where we have a managed decline” and “a stagnant, lost decade” of growing debt burden that the nation’s lawmakers refuse to address. The second, he said, is “a crisis of more and more people seeing the government as a provider of their livelihood instead of themselves.”
“We want an upwardly mobile society,” Ryan continued. “We want to have a safety net, not a hammock of . . . dependency and complacency. “We are worried that the president’s taking us down the wrong path.”
Ryan stressed if the nation’s leaders continue to ignore the growing debt crisis, even those who have become more dependent on entitlement programs — such as seniors and the poor — will soon be faced with a wake up call.
“We will have a debt crisis and we’ll have to respond rapidly to appease the debt markets, the bond markets, so we can avoid a catastrophe,” Ryan said. “That means cutting benefits to current seniors, raising taxes that slows down the economy, which is exactly what Europe is doing.
“Economic growth and spending control, and entitlement reforms, are the key recipe of what we are trying to do to prevent this debt crisis from happening,” Ryan added. “And we think the next president and the next Congress will basically decide how this all goes.”
Ryan said he believes one of the main reasons Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to pass a budget in three years is to avoid putting vulnerable Democratic incumbents on the spot.
“I think they basically made the calculation, it’s better that we just do nothing and take the heat for that than show the country all the tax increases that are required to fulfill the spending vision that we have,” Ryan said.
The congressman also blasted Reid for refusing to hold a vote on whether to repeal the healthcare reform law. The House again voted on Wednesday to kill Obamacare.
But, Ryan said, the Democratic-controlled Senate is unlikely to revisit the issue for the same reasons Reid has refused to produce a budget — because a debate on it would reveal its “broke promises.”
Noting the Supreme Court decision, that the mandate penalty for failing to have insurance coverage under Obamacare is as a tax, Ryan said the law should be repealed because “it was sold on misleading grounds.”
“We really believe that if these facts were known then when it passed [in 2010], it would not have passed,” he said.

Greg McDonald

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/obama-policies-dependency-ryan/2012/07/12/id/445108

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

Inside Iran: War By Other Means


by Jonathan Spyer

Iran announced this week that it is set to transfer responsibility for part of its oil sales to three newly established private consortiums. This move is intended to counter an EU ban on importation, shipping and purchase of Iranian oil, which went into effect on July 1.

The ban is the latest element in the sanctions program intended to force Iran to abandon its push for a nuclear weapons capability. It looks set to cost Tehran a decline in revenue from oil exports of billions of dollars per month. The EU move came together with tightened US penalties on countries that do business with Iran’s Central Bank.

The announcement by Iranian Oil Exporters’ head Hassan Khosrojerdi regarding the establishment of private consortiums to circumvent the sanctions, meanwhile, is the newest example of the creative campaign being waged by Iran to reduce the impact of international moves.

This campaign is being coordinated by the increasingly powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which controls the commanding heights of the Iranian energy industry.

The energy sector is Iran’s richest source of revenue, accounting for around 80 percent of the country’s exports. As of last April, Iran’s oil minister is Rostam Ghasemi, a senior member of the Revolutionary Guard. The energy minister, another Revolutionary Guardsman, is Majid Namju. The IRGC is the largest single contractor in the Iranian oil and gas sectors today.

Thanks to its growing political power, the economic and development wing of the IRGC, known as Khatam al-Anbia (Seal of the Prophets), has in recent years obtained a series of multi-billion dollar contracts in the energy sector in Iran.

These include, for example, a $2.5 billion contract for the development of phases 15 and 16 of the massive South Pars gas field, which straddles Iran and Qatar. The Guard is also set to build a 900-kilometer gas pipeline for transportingnatural gas within Iran – a project worth $1.3b.

Through its control of the relevant ministries, the IRGC in effect awards these projects to itself. No process of competitive tender takes place.

In addition to its political and economic activities and its conventional military capabilities, the IRGC is also the primary Iranian agency for the conducting of clandestine warfare. It is this part of its skills which is being demonstrated in its efforts to circumvent sanctions.

The Revolutionary Guard maintains a complex and constantly shifting network of front groups. These are being employed in sanctions-busting. Khatam al-Anbia, according to one report, has 812 affiliate companies. Iran has proved adept at the swift creation of new shell companies in order to outrun the watchful eye of US sanctions enforcers. The advantage of the network maintained by the Revolutionary Guard is that companies working with it often have no formal, organizational connection to it, or to the Iranian state. Rather, genuine private companies established by trusted IRGC veterans work in close cooperation with the Guard, with few traceable or visible links.

Another element in Iran’s attempt to circumvent or reduce the impact of sanctions is the flourishing economic relationship with China. Again, this is largely administered by companies and semi-governmental bodies maintained by the IRGC. Chinese trade with Iran accounts for nearly 18% of Iran’s commerce.

Beijing has slowed investments to avoid inclusion in US sanctions legislation. But the Chinese relationship with Iran’s economy remains huge, particularly in the areas of import of Iranian crude oil and export of finished petroleum products to Iran.

Because of restrictions on Iran’s financial sector and the plummeting value of its currency, barter is playing an increasingly important role in Iran’s transactions. China already “pays” part of its oil debt to Iran through bartered goods. Iran has sought to trade oil for wheat with both Pakistan and Russia. India, the second largest purchaser of Iranian exports, pays up to 45% of its oil bill in rupees into a special account set up for Iran at a state-owned Indian bank.

Such unorthodox transactions play havoc with the Iranian economy and are an obvious impossibility for regular, private firms. For semi-public entities such as the Revolutionary Guard, however, arrangements of this kind work very well.

Conveniently for the IRGC, it also controls the smuggling industry into Iran. According to a recent report by the Iran Energy Project, smuggling enables Iran to secure much of the technology and equipment needed to service its energy sector. The report notes that Dubai is a central site for the transshipment of goods to the Islamic Republic.

The growing importance of smuggling means that while the IRGC seeks to restrict the affect of sanctions, it also benefits from the desire of middle class Iranians hit by the restrictions to buy goods on Iran’s black market. The IRGC, which takes a cut on all smuggling activities, profits from the demand by middle class Iranians for goods only available illegally.

Sanctions are hitting the Iranian economy hard. Yet there are no signs that they are causing the regime to think again regarding its nuclear program, or regarding its interference in political processes across the Middle East.

One explanation for this is that ideological regimes such as that of the mullahs simply perform their cost-benefit analysis in a way different from that of more pragmatic governments. The nuclear program and the push for regional hegemony are cardinal strategic goals. Hence they will be pursued even in the face of impoverishment and critical damage to the economy.

However, an additional element should be added to this picture. While the sanctions are having a generally detrimental effect on Iran, they are paradoxically benefiting certain sectors closely associated with the regime.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is waging a war-by-other-means to offset the affect of the sanctions. The damage to the Iranian economy and the fight against the sanctions are serving to increase both the wealth of the IRGC, and its growing centrality and importance in the power structure of the Iranian regime.

This article was also published in the Jerusalem Post.

Jonathan Spyer

Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/07/inside-iran-war-by-other-means/

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

Don’t Meddle in Afghanistan’s Election


by Michael Rubin

A few days ago, Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon took to the pages of The Washington Post to argue that the United States should actively interfere in the next Afghan election to pick a winner. O’Hanlon writes:

Some may wish to avoid interfering in the elections of a sovereign nation, but Afghan reformers are calling out for help. When I visited Afghanistan in May, several suggested to me that the United States pick a winner so they could rally around him. Also, the international presence in Afghanistan will have enormous influence whether we acknowledge it or not. Supporting the Karzai government is actually a form of political intervention, as it gives the incumbent great resources, such as control of state-run media, to try to choose his successor. Moreover, with U.S. officials making decisions about how much money and how many troops to devote to Afghanistan’s long-term assistance, we have a right to say that the level of our support will be strongly influenced by the choices Afghans make — even if we will not (and should not) try to pick a winner… U.S. diplomats, ideally backed by other foreign missions in Kabul, including such key Muslim states as Turkey, Indonesia and Tanzania (which have impressive track records in fighting corruption and improving governance in recent years), should also be willing to say, publicly if necessary, which candidates would be unacceptable as president.

O’Hanlon is a serious scholar and a formidable strategic thinker. He is not an instant expert chasing after headlines; his ideas deserve to be taken seriously. In this case, however, he is not only wrong, but if the Obama administration and U.S. military followed his advice, the results would be counterproductive to the extreme.

Let’s put aside that Tanzania doesn’t have an embassy in Afghanistan, and few Afghans care what Turkey thinks. We should also open to question the comments of those with whom O’Hanlon spoke during his recent trip to Afghanistan: The U.S. military’s horse-and-pony shows are much like grand juries: the bubble is controlled and so is the outcome, simply by controlling where the jurors can go and with which witnesses they can interact.

For very simple reasons, the idea of mucking about in the elections would backfire and benefit only Karzai, whom O’Hanlon is right to castigate as a malign influence. He proposes Ashraf Ghani and Hanif Atmar, as suitable candidates deserving of U.S. backing. Both are talented people but very much unelectable. Picking either would be about as wise as betting on Jon Huntsman to get the nod at the Republican National Convention.

The problem is also in the principle. If the United States interferes in elections, it will affirm the worst beliefs of Afghans who interpreted the overbearing attitudes of the late Richard Holbrooke and Peter Galbraith as direct interference. Not only did their actions create a backlash among ordinary Afghans, but they also convinced Karzai and his supporters to do anything possible to rig the polls.

O’Hanlon is correct that Karzai is a disaster. We have seen this picture before, however, because whenever American policymakers concentrate more on supporting an individual than in building a system, the results are the same: The individual grows corrupt and power-hungry, cutting off rivals at the knees. Generals and diplomats, worried more about short-term metrics than long-term stability, fear anything that undercuts their partner, playing into the partners’ hands as he consolidates power.

What should the United States do? Frankly, anything may be too late. Our original sin was imposing a system on Afghanistan with so much power vested in the president. Not only was that system unnatural in Afghan affairs, but also throughout Afghan history, there is a direct correlation between insurgency and the speed of reform. More important, is President Obama’s timeline. No matter what the merits of an electoral plan, so long as an artificial timeline to withdraw hangs over Afghanistan, then American influence rests on quicksand. It’s not even clear that Afghanistan has the resources to hold elections, nor that donors are willing to pony up the several hundred million dollars to make it possible. Elections challenge security, but rather than surge troops into Afghanistan during elections, Obama plans to withdraw them.

If O’Hanlon wants to rally international partners—and avoiding the malign influence of both Iran and Pakistan will be difficult under such circumstances—then the pressure must be for an empowerment of the parliament and local officials at the expense of the president.

Michael Rubin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/15/dont-meddle-in-afghanistans-election-karzai/

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

World Silent as Hamas Demolishes Houses


by Michael Rubin

The indefatigable Tom Gross highlights this story compiled from the Palestinian press:

Ma’an and other Palestinian news agencies report that the Hamas government in Gaza has renewed its policy of demolishing the homes of Palestinian families in order to seize land for government use. 120 families are to lose their homes in the latest round of demolitions – a far greater number than the number of illegally built Palestinian homes Israel has demolished in recent years – and unlike Israeli authorities, Hamas doesn’t even claim these homes were built illegally or with dangerous structures. Yet western media and human rights groups have been virtually silent about these destructions of Palestinian homes by Hamas.

As Gross points out, this past February, Hamas undertook another wave of demolitions in Gaza City’s Hamami neighborhood. Maybe Hamas leaders need land to build more luxury villas like their PLO predecessors did. Perhaps it’s time for Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others to show they really stand on principle, and aren’t simply using the Israel-Palestinian conflict to score cheap political points or, in the case of Human Rights Watch, advance their prospects for fundraising in Saudi Arabia.

Michael Rubin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/15/world-silent-as-hamas-demolishes-houses/#more-799723

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

Rocky Egypt-Saudi Relationship Strengthens


by Rick Moran


In his first foreign trip since being elected last month, Egypt’s President Mohammed Mursi paid a visit to King Abudullah and Saudi Arabia on Thursday, seeking to repair relations with the Kingdom following several months of diplomatic conflict. The trip also sent a signal to Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) that the new president would respect the traditional alliance between the military and the Saudis who have given strong political and economic support to the generals in the past. This is important as Mursi continues his climb down from his ill-advised confrontation with SCAF and the nation’s courts over the recall of Parliament — dissolved by SCAF following a court decision that invalidated a third of the outcomes in the election last year.

Mursi now says he wants “consultations” with all those concerned and has specifically said that he will obey the court’s decision on Tuesday that invalidated his decree re-opening parliament. While in Jeddah for talks with the king, Saudi officials offered to mediate the constitutional dispute between Mursi and the generals if the Egyptians request it.

Another purpose of the trip was to assure Gulf states that any outreach by Egypt to Iran would not threaten the Saudis. Egypt is one of only three states — Israel and the US are the other two — who do not have relations with Tehran. Mursi needs Saudi Arabia far more than he need the Iranians and the president is returning home with promises of more economic aid to bolster Egypt’s sagging economy. While there have been tentative feelers to Iran put out by the Egyptian government, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has invited Mursi to Tehran, the president’s Saudi trip sends a clear signal that the Islamists will likely not be receptive.

Without much fanfare, the Saudis have poured more than $3 billion into Egypt in the last few months, mostly in the form of loans and loan guarantees. On June 2, the Saudis put $1 billion into Egypt’s foreign exchange reserves and bought $500 million in Egyptian government bonds a few days later. And on June 8, the Saudis announced that Egypt could use a $750 million credit line to import desperately needed fuel products. The Saudis also arranged a $1 billion pledge of assistance from the Islamic Development Bank.

What is remarkable is that this assistance was occurring against a backdrop that included a temporary recall of the Saudi ambassador and consular officers from two consulates. The recall occurred following violent protests in front of the Saudi embassy in Cairo over the detention of a human rights lawyer. Prior to that, there had been friction over the delay in getting some Egyptian pilgrims to Mecca home in time for the Eid, one of Sunni Islam’s holiest holidays.

But the biggest obstacle to resuming normal relations between the two countries was the Saudis’ strong support for former President Hosni Mubarak during the protests that eventually toppled him. The Saudis are wary of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties in Egypt, due to the Kingdom’s paranoia about opposition religious parties and the Brotherhood’s desire to establish a new caliphate.

Saudi analyst Jamal Khashoggi of Al-Arab news channel in Great Britain believes Mursi is showing his practical side in making Saudi Arabia his first foreign visit. “There are many signs that the Egyptians are prioritizing their relations with the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, over their relations with Iran,” Mr. Khashoggi noted. “Egypt is now focusing on alliances with Turkey and Saudi,” both Sunni Muslim countries with significant economic potential, he said.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a rocky history. The Saudis rejected Nasser’s brand of pan-Arabism in the 1950s and when President Sadat signed the Camp David Accords in 1979, the Kingdom broke off relations with Egypt and didn’t re-establish contact until 1987. The two countries were on opposite sides during much of the cold war, as Egypt sided with the Soviets, receiving modern military equipment as a result, while the Saudis sided with the US and was generally seen as being under America’s protection. After the peace treaty was signed between Israel and Egypt, the US eased the pain of separation from other Arab states for Cairo by making the country America’s second largest aid recipient behind Israel.

But President Mubarak, who succeeded Sadat following his assassination, forged strong diplomatic and military ties with the Saudis in the 1990s and that’s where matters stood until the Brotherhood overthrew him. The most recent tension was defused when several Islamist members of parliament traveled to Saudi Arabia and apparently satisfied the Kingdom that they would control the street and keep demonstrators from the embassy.

Smoothing over differences with their neighbor also pleases the Egyptian military and is helping to defuse the constitutional crisis brought about by Mursi’s recall of parliament. The Kingdom has backed Egypt’s military for decades and has been a strong diplomatic supporter of Egypt in the past. Saudi Arabia is now offering to use its good offices to mediate the constitutional dispute between the civilian government and SCAF. “If the problems continue, Saudi Arabia might play a role in negotiations between the president and the military,” one Saudi official said. It is a role the Saudis are used to playing, having mediated in Lebanon between Hezb’allah and the Sunni prime minister at the time, Rafiq Hariri, and in Yemen where they attempted to bring a peaceful conclusion to the power struggle there between President Saleh and the “Arab Spring” opposition.

As far as what Egypt can do for the Saudis, security tops the list. Egypt has the Arab world’s largest army and the Saudis have counted on Cairo to protect it from larger, more aggressive neighbors like Iraq and Iran. “Egypt is a very important pillar in Saudi Arabian security,” said Abdel Raouf El Reedy, a former Egyptian ambassador to the U.S. “We used to say that there was a golden triangle between Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Now without Syria, Egypt is in an even more important place.” The Saudis are backing the Syrian rebels while the Islamists in Egypt have made no overt moves of support, only saying they want the bloodshed to stop.

A page has been turned in Egyptian-Saudi relations, but immense problems remain. Saudi financial assistance to Egypt has been considerable, but Cairo needs an estimated $11 billion before the end of the year in order to shore up its foreign exchange accounts and prevent a collapse. No one nation can make that kind of commitment, and the West may not be prepared to prop up an Islamist government until it can be assured that it won’t suddenly make a strategic alliance with Iran or impose sharia law. Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet with Mursi over the weekend where it is believed she will give moral support to his efforts but will offer no additional aid.

Mursi may have made a good start in reaching out to Saudi Arabia, but tangible results of his diplomacy will depend on his willingness to show a streak of pragmatism in foreign affairs that the Muslim Brotherhood and their Islamist allies have yet to show in domestic matters.

Rick Moran

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/rick-moran/rocky-egypt-saudi-relationship-strengthens/

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

Obama’s Green Jobs Bust


by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin


FrontPage Editor’s note: The following article was originally published at the Daily Caller.

Last week’s underwhelming jobs report prompted the Obama administration to caution that one should “not read too much” into such numbers. One can sympathize with the administration’s statistical agnosticism. After all, with a record that includes 41 straight months of 8 percent or worse unemployment, Obama can’t credibly claim to have done much to spur job growth. Nowhere is that failure more resounding than with his signature job-creation program — so-called “green jobs.”

After touting green jobs as the wave of the future, the president and his Congressional allies made sure that the $800 billion stimulus package set aside $70 billion for green-energy projects. Now the results are in, and Obama’s green jobs bet has been a bust. Estimates from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, an adjunct of the Department of Energy, show that of the nearly $9 billion that has so far been spent on green jobs, the government created just 910 new, long-term jobs. For those keeping count, that works out to a cost to taxpayers of $9.8 million per job. So dismal is the return on this investment that the Obama administration has taken to reclassifying jobs only tenuously associated with green projects — everything from construction jobs used to install infrastructure for wind and solar operations to janitors who clean those facilities — as “green jobs.”

As if Obama’s record on domestic job creation wasn’t sufficiently damning, much of the funding allocated for green jobs has gone abroad. American University’s Investigative Reporting Workshop points out that of the first $2 billion spent on renewable energy projects like wind energy companies, as much as 80 percent flowed overseas to places like China. By far the largest payment went to a bankrupt Australian company that used Japanese-made turbines to build a wind farm in Texas. The government spent yet another $20 million to “help clean energy projects in Africa get started.” Obama’s campaign likes to mock Mitt Romney as an “outsourcer-in-chief,” but its green jobs scheme seems to be primarily effective in transferring American money into foreign projects. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer — hardly an anti-Obama partisan — aptly sums up the administration’s dubious achievement: “Very few jobs here, lots of jobs in China.”

Considering the abject and expensive failure of green jobs, one might well wonder how this pet cause of the environmental left became national policy. As we show in our new book, The New Leviathan, it is certainly not because the economic arguments for green jobs are so compelling. Despite the promise attributed to green jobs by Obama, they have a mythic basis, namely that government can “create” jobs using regulatory fiat by subsidizing innovations — in this case non-fossil-fuel energy and energy-efficient technologies — for which there is not yet sufficient demand in the free market. The paucity of demand can be explained by the fact that green energy sources remain far less efficient and far more expensive than fossil fuels.

Green jobs are also economically counterproductive, destroying jobs in the private sector. This is because in order to make the green energy industry competitive, government must subsidize it and tax consumers and businesses to do so — just as it did with the economic stimulus. But in favoring green industries, government diverts labor, capital, and materials from economically efficient and productive industries. The experience of European countries with green jobs is instructive. Spain’s subsidies of renewable energy have led to the destruction of two private-sector jobs for every “green job” the government creates. In Italy, green jobs were so expensive that for every green job created, five to seven were lost in the general economy. America’s experiment with green jobs is turning out to be similarly disappointing.

The government’s support for green jobs thus has less to do with the rationale behind these programs than with the political influence of the groups that support them. As we point out in The New Leviathan, despite being inefficient and economically damaging, the green jobs campaign has found a powerful constituency in the United States: an alliance of environmental groups and government labor unions. While they may not seem like obvious allies, green jobs provide a powerful common cause. Environmental groups hope to win government funding for the green causes they have long championed, while unions know that a massive new government-subsidized green industry would open the door to more government unionization. Allied through mutual convenience, these groups have formed influential coalitions to push green jobs into the political arena.

One such coalition is the Blue Green Alliance. Launched in 2006 by the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club, the 14 million-member coalition includes leading environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation, and 10 of the country’s largest government unions, among them the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Communications Workers of America, the American Federation of Teachers, the United Auto Workers, the United Food and Commercial Workers, and the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association. In 2009 the Blue Green Alliance spent $1.5 million lobbying for agendas like green jobs, a figure that surged to almost $2.5 million in 2010. Thanks to such lobbying efforts, what might have remained a marginal cause was thrust into the mainstream.

The advocacy campaign for green jobs resonated with the Obama administration thanks to another group that linked the green jobs agenda of the environmental movement with the Obama White House. In 2007, environmental activist and self-described communist Anthony “Van” Jones founded the Oakland, California-based Green for All. Supported by mega-rich funders like the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Family Fund, and by environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the group lobbied to “build an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty” by “creating millions of quality jobs and careers.”

For Democrats at least, that sales pitch proved seductive. Green for All’s lobbying efforts had a decisive impact on environmental policy as soon as the Democratic Party achieved control of the U.S. Senate and House in the elections of 2006. The following year, Green for All helped to pass the Green Jobs Act, which authorized $125 million annually to train workers for employment in a variety of so-called green industries. The group’s next major coup came in March 2009, when President Obama brought Van Jones into the White House and made him his “green jobs czar.”

Because of his extreme views, which he was careful to cloak, Van Jones’s tenure at the White House proved controversial and short-lived. But he left a permanent mark on the U.S. economy when the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats muscled through the stimulus bill, and with it the $70 billion taxpayer subsidies to create the green economy and green jobs whose virtues Van Jones had preached. Unfortunately, as the latest jobs numbers attest, the payoff for that ideology-driven investment remains as elusive as ever.

David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-horowitz-and-jacob-laksin/obamas-green-jobs-bust/

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

Jews and American Conservatism


by Dov Fischer

Last year, when voters in the Queens-Brooklyn Ninth Congressional District of New York elected Bob Turner, a solid Republican conservative, to the seat abandoned by disgraced Anthony Weiner, it marked a watershed moment in American Jewish history, as Orthodox Jews finally flexed some muscle alongside Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union. That seat had not left the Democrats since 1923, and it seems that Jewish voters have been liberal Democrat as long, if not longer.

Alongside African-Americans, Jewish Americans traditionally have been the Democrats' most reliable voting bloc. In that way, rather than advancing legitimate interests, Jews effectively throw away their voting influence, year after year, as do African-Americans. Democrats know that African-American votes mostly are in the bag, as are Jewish votes, so Democrats need not vie seriously for support. Contrary to increasing their influence by such group voting, they dilute by signaling to one party that they will be there no-matter-what, while signaling to the other party that virtually nothing will influence their voting.

Ironically, however, the political party that stands strongest behind Israel, her military security, her right to populate Jews in the liberated lands of Judea and Samaria, her right to build Jewish communities in East Jerusalem and her right to declare united Jerusalem as her national capital, and her right to refuse pressure to capitulate to demonstrable terrorists and to quasi-terrorists-in-suits who now run the "Palestinian Authority" is the Republican Party. Republicans support Israel not because that position will help garner Jewish votes, but because Republicans know that support is morally right, ethically right, and most importantly advances the national and strategic interests of the United States. Towards that support, the impassioned and overwhelming support of American Christians for Israel has been extraordinary.

So why do so many American Jews not get it?

First of all, as Bob Turner's election in 2011 evidenced, the Democrat fever is breaking. While Jews voted for Obama in numbers estimated around 85% in the last election, polls now show slippage to support in the 60% range. His support has dropped among Jews by some 25 percent, and that's not shabby. It is a start, perhaps the sign of an awakening. Voting pattern transformations take years, exactly as it took more than a century to wean White Southern Christians off the Democrats, and it is important to understand why these paradigm shifts do not happen overnight. In a way, it takes an Obama -- a "transformational figure in history" -- to help transform traditional Democrat voting blocs towards Republican conservatism.

More than 90% of American Jews descend from grandparents and great-grandparents who arrived in the United States from Eastern Europe between 1881-1914. In 1881, there were approximately 250,000 Jews in America; by 1914, there were more than three and a half million. Centuries of anti-Semitism bred in many Jews a desperate need to find ways to escape the hate -- or just to escape their Jewishness. The kind of irrational hate that sees a person targeted from the moment of birth, no matter what he does or believes the rest of his life, leads to many reasonable and many other strange strategies aiming at just being left alone. One painful approach that gained sway among children of the American Jewish immigrants a century ago was to assimilate into America's "melting pot," to move away from authentic Jewish teaching and practice, the ways of Torah life, and to try hiding among the greater population. Cut one's overt ties to Jewishness. Hide the religion and the identity. Unlearn the languages of Yiddish and Hebrew. Pray in English. Eat non-kosher. Treat Saturday the way everyone else does. Melt into the melting pot. Dissolve if possible. And change the name.

Names were changed from Emmanuel Goldenberg to Edward G. Robinson, Leo Jacob to Lee J. Cobb, Bernie Schwartz to Tony Curtis, Betty Perske to Lauren Bacall, Jacob Julius Garfinkle to John Garfield. They were changed from Judith Tuvim to Judy Holliday, Benjamin Kubelsky to Jack Benny, Joseph Abraham Gottlieb to Joey Bishop, Jacob Cohen to Rodney Dangerfield, Arthur Leonard Rosenberg to Tony Randall. Even among the more recent, Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz became Jon Stewart, Andrew Silverstein became Andrew Dice Clay, and Jerome Silberman became Gene Wilder. Early Jewish immigrants flooded to the United States from Eastern Europe between 1881, when Tsar Alexander II's assassination set off anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia that spread throughout the region, through 1914 when America closed its borders to all immigrants at the outset of World War I. As the naïve immigrants flooded into New York Harbor and Ellis Island, unschooled in Western ways of democracy and untutored in English, the New York Democrat political machine was there to greet them and sign them up, much as they did in New York, Boston, and other cities with the ethnic Catholic immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Poland. They smelled votes.

The move to liberalism and Democrat politics among Jews intensified between the 1920s-1950s, as a subtle but distinct anti-Semitism in America kept Jews out of exclusive country clubs, excellent universities, and white-shoe law firms that were perceived as synonymous with "Republican types." Jews could not spend a night in many decent American hotels, could not rent apartments even in parts of Manhattan, were barred from Ivy League schools each year after the universities filled their respective annual Jewish admissions quotas, were barred from practicing medicine in many of America's best hospitals, and even were kept out of prominent American law firms or relegated solely to practicing then-disfavored bankruptcy law. Republicans were not identified with giving Jews a break, while Democrats did open some doors. Woodrow Wilson named Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, the first Jewish jurist ever so named, met by a torrent of anti-Jewish opposition. Franklin Roosevelt brought Jews into his cabinet, albeit the kinds of Jews who "knew their place" and (but for one exception, Henry Morgenthau) would not bother the President with such mundane parochial Jewish concerns as saving victims being slaughtered during the Holocaust or advancing a burgeoning Jewish national enterprise in the Holy Land.

Through a quirk of modern history, American Jews mistakenly misinterpreted an historical coincidence as reflecting that Roosevelt was their friend. Because Adolph Hitler was elected Germany's Chancellor in March 1933, only months after Roosevelt led a liberal sweep of the White House when he won his first term in November 1932, a false coincidental perception arose among the large body of uninformed American Jewish immigrants that the liberal FDR was a freedom fighter courageously leading the war against the Jew-hater Hitler. In reality, FDR was nothing of the sort. However, he just-so-happened to be President on December 7, 1941 when Japan hit Pearl Harbor nine years after his first election, and he consequently was left with no choice but to defend America militarily against the Japan-Mussolini-Hitler axis. So a quirk of history convinced the unsophisticated that liberals are the bulwarks against tyrannical Jew-haters. The old guard of Jew-haters like the Tsars of Russia were associated with the Right, and the new anti-Semites of fascism like Hitler, who happened to rise while Franklin Roosevelt was President, were perceived as manifestations of a newer Right (although Jonah Goldberg has shown that Hitler Nazism actually was an extreme of the Left). FDR was no friend of Jews, actively preventing Jewish refugees from entering America during the Nazi years, even authorizing a naval blockade to bar a Jewish refugee ship, "The St. Louis," from debarking in Florida after its prior port of call at Havana, Cuba had refused to allow entry to the nearly thousand refugees from Hitler aboard that "voyage of the damned." In the end, the ship had to sail back to Europe.

Once liberalism had set in among American Jews, they naively passed their liberalism down to their kids, much as a century of Southern Democrats passed their Party affiliation to their kids. Initially, Southern Democrats had voted Democrat because Lincoln, the first Republican President, was their arch-foe when they tried seceding from the Union. So the Republicans, a liberal anti-slavery party based in the north, were their enemy. The Democrats were the slave-owners, the racists, the Ku Klux Klan. Even into the modern era, the worst anti-Black hatred and most intense political segregationism came out of the Democrat Party and their leading racial separatists like Alabama Governor George Wallace and Georgia Governor Lester Maddox. Somehow, even as the national Democrat Party had shifted leftward through the 1930s and beyond, Southern conservatives continued blindly voting for Democrats, voting against interest and belief for decades and decades, not breaking their trance until George McGovern carried the Democrats' standard into the 1972 Presidential elections. Even afterwards, for yet another forty years, Southern conservatives continued electing primarily Democrats to their local state offices throughout the South. As with Christians in the American South, the same irrational voting patterns continue among Jews.

So it is about process and the quirks of the voting system, voting for the party that your parents and grandparents backed, aligning with that party and therefore committing your political aspirations to that party, even as that party no longer represents anything that it stood for a century earlier and today stands for values inimical to your own. Consider: As a core value, Democrats advocate raising taxes on businesses, while Republicans advocate reducing tax pressure on corporations. The Hollywood community is a haven for Obama fundraising, and he and the Secret Service repeatedly mess up rush-hour traffic in the Greater Los Angeles region as he continues helicoptering in for soirees with the glitz set. Those Beautiful People back Obama's vision of increasing taxes on business, on the rich, on the "One Percent" -- on them. But they are not really as selfless as they may seem. The movie industry has been fleeing Hollywood and now makes more films than ever before outside California, in order to avoid the taxes.

It took Ronald Reagan time to determine that, rather than leaving the Democrats, it was the Democrat Party that had left him. So, too, the American South. Once Southerners had aligned with the Democrats during the Lincoln years, they put their hopes in that party, joined that party, and regularly voted for that party. A century later, when they truly were conservative Republicans in spirit, they still were joining the Democrat Party, people like Rick Perry in Texas, because that was where political opportunity for advancement and a career in government lay. Similarly, in liberal northeastern cities, it became so hopeless for a conservative to seek office as a Republicans that it became commonplace instead to see election campaigns pitting the "mainstream Democrat" against the "conservative Democrat." Because the local state Republican parties could not get their acts together in such a climate, national elections would see "Democrats for Nixon" or "Democrats for Reagan" as the major Republican organizing models in one northeastern city after another. In the same way, rock-solid conservatives, such as Orthodox Jewish New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who has represented his rock-solid conservative, Orthodox Jewish district in Brooklyn for 30 years since 1983, still run on the Democrat line. If Hikind had tried running as a Republican in 1983, he knew he would not have been elected, much as conservatives in the South could not get elected on the Republican line until the most recent era, finally terminating the paradox with the 2010 watershed nationwide shellacking of Democrats. The Republican Party owes a great deal to George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama.

As the 2010 watershed shellacking elections evidenced, Obama has been transformational, opening new vistas for Republicans. That transformation slowly is reaching the Jewish electorate, reflected by Orthodox Jews electing non-Jewish Republican conservative Bob Turner, even as America's most prominent conservative analysts today include deeply conservative voices like Mark Levin and Michael Savage, as well as mainstream conservative thinkers like Ben Stein, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby, and Rabbis like Daniel Lapin and Aryeh Spero. They continue in a tradition going back to American Jewish conservatives and libertarians like Norman Podhoretz, Milton Friedman and even Ayn Rand (renamed from Alisa Rosenbaum). Newly emerging Jewish voices in conservative America include Eric Cantor and Josh Mandel, who is seeking the U.S. Senate seat in Ohio now held by Sherrod Brown, as well as Ben Shapiro, Steven Plaut, and the late Andrew Beitbart, who was raised Jewish by his adoptive parents. There are many more in the blogosphere. Major Jewish support for Republican conservative candidates has been coming from a geometrically expanding base of donors best typified by Nevada casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, now offsetting those on the left. Obama has been transformational.

Centuries of irrational hatred eventually bred in many Jews irrational responses. If you have not faced it, you cannot imagine it. Some of the responses border on outright crazy. Virtually the entire political science department at Israel's Ben Gurion University in Beersheba is internationally famous as a world center of virulently anti-Israel advocacy. An Israeli Ph.D. candidate, doing a doctoral thesis aimed at proving that Israelis are racists, focused on data evidencing that soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces do not perpetrate rapes. The insane thesis: since most armies include soldiers who rape civilians, therefore it must be that Israel's armed forces do not rape civilians because they are racist. (Nazi German officers never raped women in groups that the Nazis hated?)

At the head of virtually every anti-Israel organization in the world, we find Jews. Flotillas aimed at supporting Hamas terrorists in Gaza include Jews. When there is a full-page newspaper advertisement attacking Israel, it is challenging to find non-Jewish names, as they are crowded out by Jewish liberals desperately trying to prove their universalism. Whether groups like Breira in the 1970s or the George Soros-funded "J Street" in Washington, punctuated by the strangest Jews in academia, whether Noam Chomsky the linguist or Norman Finkelstein the child of Holocaust Survivors, these troubled outliers continue a tradition that traces back to a tragic psycho-social phenomenon in past centuries among small numbers of Jews animated by values antithetical to Judaism. Yet, ironically, it is Barack Obama, darling of ogling Jewish liberals in Hollywood and other predictable Democrat redoubts, who now has opened doors unimaginably for Jewish Americans to see the perils of continuing in alliances that make no sense. Like the deeply conservative American White Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the American South who continued voting into 1972 for Democrats as President, and until 2010 for Democrats to dominate local state offices, we now are seeing the century's first maturing of the American Jewish voter, as Obama now polls worse among Jews than has any other Democrat since Jimmy Carter. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

The Christians of the American South did it. We are getting there, too.

Dov Fischer, adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School, is a columnist for several online magazines and is rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County. He blogs at rabbidov.com.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/jews_and_american_conservatism.html

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

With Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Unresolved, Washington Post Blames Obama and Bibi, not Abbas


by Leo Rennert

The Washington Post runs an extraordinarily lengthy Sunday article -- top of the front page and three full inside pages -- that attempts to explain President Obama's failure to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after more than three years of intensive diplomacy ("Evolution of a President - Where Obama failed on Middle East - Despite leader's attempt at new approach, Israelis and Palestinians found no peace" by Scott Wilson, July 15).

As a former Jerusalem correspondent who injected his dispatches with pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel bias, Wilson proceeds in similar vein in sketching the history of multiple peacemaking efforts since Obama assumed power. He doesn't spare Obama and he certainly doesn't spare Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but he lowers the bar to the point of exoneration in dealing with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians.

Wilson's point of departure is that only the Palestinians are an aggrieved party and thus the only ones whose demands are justified and whose shortcomings are excused.

The conflict, he writes, is "haunted by the perceived injustice of a Palestinian land lost in war" - his take on Israel's War of Independence in 1948. His formulation falsely suggests that, pre-1948, the land already belonged to the Palestinians -- a gross historical fabrication. Legally, the land was allocated for a Jewish national home by the League of Nations and then by the United Nations in a partition plan that Israel embraced and the Arabs rejected.

When Israel leads a counter-terrorism offensive in Gaza in the winter of 2008-9, it's aimed against "armed Palestinian groups" -- an exculpatory euphemism for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. Wilson, however, is less genteel in his use of terminology when he alludes to the Irgun, a Jewish underground group which battled British authorities pre-1948, as a "paramilitary movement classified as a terrorist group."

In Wilson's view, there are no Palestinian terrorists, only Jewish ones.

When it comes to the West Bank, Wilson predictably jettisons neutral terminology for toxic anti-Israel semantics -- referring to Jewish settlements "in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem." Or again as "land occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war."

Of course, East Jerusalem and lands in the West Bank are not "occupied" -- a term that falsely suggests they belong to someone else. Objectively, they are "disputed" land awaiting determinations of sovereignty in an eventual peace settlement. The last sovereign ruler of East Jerusalem and the West Bank was the Ottoman Empire, which vanished at the end of World War I. There is no basis in history or law for Wilson to pre-judge and allocate these lands to the Palestinians.

In dealing with Netanyahu, Wilson gives no quarter. When Bibi breaks precedent and endorses an independent Palestinian state, Wilson immediately brushes it aside because "it contained so many caveats that Palestinians dismissed it as an empty gesture."

Ditto when Bibi, under Obama pressure, takes an unprecedented step of imposing a 10-month settlement construction freeze in the West Bank to lure Abbas to the negotiating table, he gets no kudos from Wilson, who faults the Israeli leader for not extending the freeze to East Jerusalem, "prompting Abbas to call the freeze meaningless."

Bibi can do no right; Abbas can do no wrong.

The settlement freeze expires "and with it the direct talks." As if Abbas is always entitled to more and more unilateral sweeteners to come to the negotiating table. Never does Wilson entertain the thought that perhaps both parties should resume talks without pre-conditions on either side.

In Washington journalese parlance, there are plenty of tick-tock vignettes about Obama's missteps in pressing for one-sided Israeli concessions and the often sharp conflicts between his top advisers, George Mitchell and Dennis Ross.

There are even some nuggets that can provide ammunition to the Romney camp when Wilson documents Obama's animus against Bibi's Likud Party and, with costly hubris, thinks he can succeed where his predecessors failed when it comes to ending the conflict by putting daylight between himself and Israel so as to gain credibility in the Arab world. A strategy that alienated many Israelis and for which Obama never got any credit in the Muslim world.

In sum, some interesting behind-the-scenes insights, but all colored with gobs of sympathy for the Palestinians, holding only Bibi and Obama accountable.

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/with_israeli-palestinian_conflict_unresolved_washington_post_blames_obama_and_bibi_not_abbas.html

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

Will Egypt's New President End the Gaza blockade?


by Rick Moran

President Mursi has had very little time to deal with anything except his own delicate position and the power sharing he must work out with the military.

But Hamas seems fairly confident that eventually, Mursi will lift the blockade that has prevented most arms from flowing into Gaza.

J-Post:

The Gazan Islamists long complained that his predecessor Hosni Mubarak, ousted from power last year in a popular revolt, sided not just with Israel, but also with their political rival -- Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

So far, Hamas has seen little sign of a policy shift since Mursi took office and diplomats said the Egyptian leader had so many domestic problems that he could ill-afford to dedicate much time to re-tooling Cairo's relations with the Palestinians.

However, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas's Gaza government, told worshipers in a mosque that change was coming.

"We are confident that Egypt, the revolution led by Mursi, will never provide cover for any new aggression or war on Gaza," he said. "We are confident that Egypt, the revolution led by Mursi, will not take any part in blocking Gaza," he added.

Israel launched a military offensive against Gaza in late 2008 in an effort to end repeated rocket attacks from Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. Some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the three-week war.

Low level violence continues and Israel still imposes a rigid trade blockade on Gaza, arguing that it is needed to prevent weapons of arms-making materials into the enclave.

Politicians in Israel have expressed alarm in private over the election of Mursi and fear that their country's historical peace treaty with Egypt could be eroded over time.

It would be disastrous for Israel if the Egyptians were to allow the free flow of traffic through its border with Gaza. It would also be the beginning of the end of the peace treaty. So far, Mursi has moved slowly in domestic affairs and one would expect that caution to continue in foreign affairs as well. This means he may not move to open the border immediately, nor will he seek to destroy the treaty with Israel anytime soon.

But both eventualities will probably come true within the next year.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/will_egypts_new_president_end_the_gaza_blockade.html

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