Iran, Livni and the price of political stability.

 

By Caroline Glick

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Caroline Glick

 

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

 

JORDAN'S LEGAL JIHAD.

 

By Stephen Brown

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

AL QAEDA'S OPPORTUNISTIC STRATEGY.

 

by Olivier Guitta

    
PART 1 : Al-Qaeda Sets Its Sights On Israel

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART 2: Al-Qaeda Sets Its Sites Around Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

PA Bash Jews' 'Imaginary Temple'

 

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

The Palestinian Authority, run by PLO Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas, is again making efforts to popularize Muslim denial of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, especially to the site of the two Jewish Temples. The PA claims fly in the face of the archaeological evidence, as well as the history of Jerusalem as endorsed by the most authoritative Muslim sources.

According to Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of the Palestinian Media Watch organization, Fatah-controlled television broadcasts have been promoting a music video that "denies any historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem." Building on the denial of Jewish rights in Jerusalem and the claim that the Temple Mount is "ours," meaning it is Muslim, PMW explains, that "the lyrics repeat the Palestinian fabrication that Israel is planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and therefore it needs protection."

 

As translated by PMW, the video clip that appeared on PA TV on September 23, 2008, includes the lyrics, "Oh [Sons of] Zion, no matter how much you dig and no matter how much you destroy, your imaginary Temple will not come into being, Al-Aqsa is ours. Al-Aqsa is ours, Oh Muslims, Al-Aqsa is ours." It goes on to call for another Saladin, the Muslim conqueror of Jerusalem in 1187, according to PMW.

Marcus and Crook explain that the clip has appeared on both Fatah and Hamas TV "intermittently during the last 18 months, and it constitutes part of a prolonged hate campaign against Israel. The campaign denies the historical fact of the connection between the Jewish people, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, while infusing hatred and fear by pretending that Islam's holy site, as well as its adherents, are in great danger."

Jerusalem Muslim Council: Temples in Jerusalem 'Beyond Dispute'
In complete opposition to the claims promoted by the PA, as reported by Israel National News earlier this year, a tourist guide published by the Supreme Muslim Council (the Waqf) of Jerusalem in 1925 declares of the Temple Mount, "Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which 'David built there an altar unto the L-rd....' "

In addition, on page 16 the pamphlet makes reference to the underground area in the south-east corner of the Mount, which it refers to as Solomon's Stables. "Little is known for certain of the history of the chamber itself," the guide reads. "It dates probably as far back as the construction of Solomon's Temple. According to Josephus, it was in existence and was used as a place of refuge by the Jews at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 A.D."

Islam's Founder Muhammad: The Temple is in Jerusalem
Throughout the religious, behavioral and doctrinal codebooks Muslims believe were transmitted from Muhammad or his immediate associates, known as Hadith, Jerusalem is primarily called Bayt al-Makdis in Arabic. The term is an Arabic translation of the Hebrew Bait HaMikdash, which means "the Temple" in English.

Jerusalem, however, is not mentioned by name in the primary Islamic scripture, the Koran. However, Muslim apologists often point to a description in the Koran of a mystical journey Muhammad made to "the furthest mosque," which they claim is al-Aqsa mosque currently located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

However, the Hadith that provide more details of the mystical journey also refer to Jerusalem as the location of the Jewish Temple. As the Hadith collection Sahih Muslim states: "[The] Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I was brought al-Buraq who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait al-Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets." To this day, the Muslims refer to the Western Wall as "Al-Buraq Wall".

Archaeological Evidence: The Temples Were in Jerusalem
Archaeological finds in recent years in and around Jerusalem have been providing physical evidence for the history as presented by the earliest Jewish, Christian and Muslim sources. Some examples follow:

* In 2005, following painstaking archaeological work carried out in a dump from an illegal Wakf construction project on the Temple Mount, researchers discovered: a coin from the period of the First Revolt against the Romans, which preceded the destruction of the Second Temple, bearing the phrase "For the Redemption of Zion"; an inscription chiseled on a jar fragment of the First Temple period, with the ancient Hebrew letters heh, ayin and kof; A seal with five-pointed star with ancient Hebrew letters spelling "Jerusalem" spaced between the points; a Hasmonean coin bearing inscription "Yehonathan High Priest, friend of the Jews"; a coin of Alexander Jannaeus; a Scytho-Iranian arrowhead, of the type used by the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar that destroyed the First Temple in 586 BCE; and more.

* In 2005, a Hebrew University archaeologist uncovered a clay seal dated from about 580 BCE bearing the name Yehuchal Ben-Sheleimiya, who is identified as a royal envoy and court minister sent by King Zedekiah to the prophet Jeremiah (in chapters 37 and 38 of the Bible's Book of Jeremiah).

Several years earlier, another circa-580 BCE royal seal was found at the same site. It had the name of Gemaryahu, son of Shafan, who is also mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah as a top official in the court of King Zedekiah's predecessor, King Yehoyachim. Another seal found among dozens of others bears the name of Azaryahu Ben-Hilkiyahu, a member of a priestly family, who served in the Temple before Jerusalem's destruction, according to I Chronicles, 9:10.

* In May 2007 archaeologists revealed a number of seals and signet rings from the time of the Biblical Kings David and Solomon, unearthed in the City of David, below Jerusalem's Old City.

* In July 2007 an expert in ancient Babylon discovered a small clay tablet that records a donation of gold by "the chief eunuch of King Nebuchadnezzar," a man named Nabu-sharrussu-ukin. In Jeremiah 39, the researcher noted, the man's name is listed as one of Nebuchadnezzar's top ministers, who took part in the destruction of the First Holy Temple 2,500 years ago.

* In January 2008 archaeologists discovered a stone seal that includes the name of a family, Temech, whose members were servants during the First Temple, were exiled to Babylonia and then returned to Jerusalem. The seal was found near the Dung Gate walls of the Old City. The Book of Nehemiah (Chapter 7) refers to the Temech family by name.

* In March 2008 a coin from the Second Temple used during the turbulent Second Temple period to pay the Biblical half-shekel head-tax was found in excavations in the City of David.

* In August of 2008 archaeologists unearthed a completely intact seal impression bearing the name of another minister to King Zedekiah, Gedaliahu son of Pashur, a few meters away from the site where a the seal of Yehuchal Ben-Sheleimiya was found three years earlier.

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

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

 

WE ONLY GET ONE STRIKE.

 

by Moshe Sharon

An Israeli attack on Iran seems inevitable. If it succeeds, it will return to Israel its deterrent power and send a clear message to the saber-rattling jihadists that they were too early in beginning the countdown for the disappearance of the Jewish state.

If it fails, or fails to achieve the majority of its objectives, it could amount to an act of national suicide. Fanatical Muslims on every side will be encouraged by the failure and outcome of an Iranian retaliation which would cause heavy damage to the whole center of our country.

Iran would unquestionably be joined by its proxies on our borders, Hizbullah and Syria on the north and Hamas on the south, the PLO jihad brigades under various names, and the Arabs of Israel. The latter have already shown their ability to block major traffic arteries and demonstrated that their loyalties rest with their Arab brethren, not with the Jewish state.

The repeated declarations of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the aim of Iran is to wipe Israel off the world map should not be taken as the empty, fiery words of a fanatical Muslim dictator, but as a plan of action. True, Iran does not need a pretext, but an Israeli attack on any nuclear installation in Iran, or just an invasion of Iranian air space could be used as an excellent reason for mounting an all-out missile attack.

The damage to Iran would be serious, but not devastating. Iran has a very high tolerance level. It proved it in the early 1980s during the war against Iraq, when Teheran and other places came under destructive attacks by Frog and Scud missiles and the Iranian army suffered heavy losses on the battlefield.

Iran can live with one Israeli air raid or two; not with a nuclear attack. As it seems now, Israel does not have the military facilities to deal with the distances involved and with other technical obstacles to carry out a successful attack on Iran. A combined Israeli and American effort, however, could cause irreparable damage to the Iranian nuclear program.

A non-nuclear Israeli attack on Iran would be a "surgical" operation. But an Iranian-Hizbullah-Hamas attack would be indiscriminate and aimed at the major urban centers, causing tremendous harm.
 

IRAN HAS the motivation to destroy Israel, and if it is allowed to gain nuclear weapons it will not need an excuse to do so. That motivation is a double one: messianic Shi'ite and expansionist-imperial.

Since the late ninth century, the Shi'ites have been expecting the emergence of the hidden imam-mahdi, armed with divine power and followed by thousands of martyrdom-seeking warriors. He is expected to conquer the world and establish Shi'ism as its supreme religion and system of rule. His appearance would involve terrible war and unusual bloodshed.

Ahmadinejad, as mayor of Teheran, built a spectacular boulevard through which the mahdi would enter into the capital. There is no question that Ahmadinejad believes he has been chosen to be the herald of the mahdi.

Shi'ite Islam differs from Sunni Islam regarding the identity of the mahdi. The Sunni mahdi is essentially an anonymous figure; the Shi'ite mahdi is a divinely inspired person with a real identity.

However both Shi'ites and Sunnis share one particular detail about "the coming of the hour" and the dawning of messianic times: The Jews must all suffer a violent death, to the last one.

Both Shi'ites and Sunnis quote the famous hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad: The last hour will not come unless the Muslims fight against the Jews, and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and the stone or the tree would say: "Muslim! Servant of Allah! Here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!"

Not one Friday passes without this hadith being quoted in sermons from one side of the Islamic world to the other.

Shi'ism regards the Jews as an embodiment of filth and the contaminating source of ritual impurity — which adds another religious justification to the Muslims to rid themselves of the Jews and their state. Iran threatens that it has the ability to do so with its ballistic missiles and the readily available services of local proxies who would love to join the general effort to kill the Jews.
 

THE OTHER side of Iran's motivation to destroy Israel is the imperial one.

Iran has the same virus inherent in every totalitarian power — to gain imperial dominion. Totalitarian Iran wants to recreate its empire east of the Mediterranean. The leaders of modern Iran, long before the present Islamic regime, toyed with the idea of reviving the empire of Cyrus and Darius.

The present Islamic regime has the same aspirations. Nuclear power is necessary to achieve this desire. As fantastic as it sounds, the destruction of the State of Israel seems necessary for the expansion to the east Mediterranean (which might include the elimination of a few Sunni entities such as Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states).
 

LET US try a scenario in which Israel carries out a successful attack, with or without active American help, on a few key Iranian reactors. Such an operation would not completely destroy Iran's nuclear capability, but it would badly wound its national and Islamic pride.

The Iranian people, including the opposition would, at least in the initial stage, rally around the ruling mullahs. The price of oil would soar, Israel would be blamed for the destruction of the West's economy, and Europe might go so far as to impose sanctions on Israel, with or without a UN decision.

Moreover, being an easy target, Israel would have to brace for the inevitable Iranian retaliation. Iran would attack with the Shihab 3 ballistic missiles that carry a warhead of up to one ton and have an accuracy of 50 meters-100m. Israel has an answer to a limited number of these missiles, of which Iran has probably a few hundred. It has no answer to all the missiles that would be launched against it from three fronts.

Theoretically, Iran can deliver 1,000-1,500 tons of the most modern explosives within a few days. The long-range missiles that have been supplied to Hizbullah via Damascus, and the arsenal that has been massed by Hamas in Gaza, which includes missiles that can reach Beersheba, must also be taken into consideration.

There is no question that these two organizations will move into action together with Iran, and it is not impossible that Hizbullah would attempt the invasion of Israel proper to gain a local victory by occupying a border village, killing inhabitants and kidnapping a few over to Lebanon.

This gruesome situation can happen any time, and not necessarily as a result of an Israeli attack on Iran. Such an attack, however, would surely bring it about.
 

ARE THESE facts not known to the Israeli intelligence agencies? They are, but so were Hitler's intentions known to the British and the French before World War II, and they were known to the Russians before Operation Barbarosa. None of them did anything to stop the German dictator before it was too late.

At the end of the war, Europe was freed. The Germans were defeated and none of the countries of Europe was obliterated from the map. In the case of Israel, there is no recovery from a one-time devastation.

There is no second chance.

 

Moshe Sharon Professor (Emeritus) of Islamic History and Civilization The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

 

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

 

THE MYTH OF STOLEN ARAB LAND.

 

by Israel Kasnett

While the Arab-Israeli conflict today is a diplomatic and military one, it is also composed of a third element — the media. Not being confined, the media debate has spread throughout the internet, online newspapers, online journals and of course, blogs.

Although contributors to online blogs and threads often offer nothing more than rubbish and repartee, there exists a lively and healthy debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict. One of the main points of contention on most blogs and discussions I have seen center around one issue. Pro-Palestinian writers claim that in 1948, Israel appropriated Palestinian lands and villages to create their own cities and agricultural communities. Pro-Israel writers offer good counterpoints but these are often insufficient to properly negate the argument and win the debate.

Debaters from both sides of the argument often use sources gleaned from political, left or right-wing sources and this damages the quality of the argument since the proofs brought are often nothing more than the biased views of extreme groups. When making an argument, it is important to find credible information from sources that cannot be attributed to a specific political slant.

The first part of the argument that Zionists stole Palestinian land can refer to the British Mandate period before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Arab absentee landowners owned most of the land eventually used by the UN to create the State of Israel and their willingness to sell the land to Jews demonstrates evident disinterest in maintaining ownership over it.

Furthermore, Arab governments displaced their own populations in far greater numbers than the Jews displaced Palestinian Arabs up until the 1930's. Jews were careful not to buy land in areas that would cause Arab displacement and instead bought uncultivated land in remote areas. Israeli leaders at the time discouraged Jews from displacing Arabs and placed heavy importance on a continued Arab presence in the land.

In January of 1937, Ben Gurion testified before the Palestine Royal Commission in which he said, "We will work it out together, and we will see to it that not a single Arab cultivator is displaced, but he should not only remain, but his conditions should be improved, and, by intensification, new room should be created for new Jewish settlers."

However, even with this proposed cooperation, Arabs often sold their land to Jews when they decided to move elsewhere or when they needed the money to invest in promising Jewish-owned business projects.
 

THE PEEL COMMISSION OF 1937 FOUND ARAB CLAIMS THAT JEWS STOLE THEIR LAND AS BASELESS. Land shortages were due more in part to massive Arab immigration to Palestine from other Arab countries than to Jewish land purchases. Chapter IX of the Peel Commission states,

"The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought."

Whereas the British resigned much of Palestine to be "uninhabitable," the Jews took this "barren wasteland," drained the swamps and "made the desert bloom." Many of the Jewish-owned citrus groves at the time were situated on sand dunes viewed by the British as "uncultivable."

It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.

As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.

Furthermore, the Peel Commission admitted that Arabs on the whole, benefited from a growing Jewish presence in the land as they brought economic prosperity and stability to Palestine and its inhabitants.

"The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews."

 

UP UNTIL 1948, THE PALESTINIAN ARAB POPULATION GREW APPROXIMATELY 120 PERCENT. This population growth occurred in tandem with Palestinian Jewish population growth and for reasons often overlooked. Jewish immigration and subsequent economic growth in Palestine led to increased Arab immigration from other countries by those seeking economic opportunity. Many Arabs at the time wandered around the Middle East seeking sustenance and a means to support their families.

Arab claims that they were displaced from their homes after living there generation after generation for thousands of years were baseless and fabricated. Most Arabs living in Palestine prior to 1948 had come from Arab lands in search of subsistence and had not been in Palestine for more than a few years.

In addition, the Jews cleared unused land, drained swamps in the Jezreel Valley and surrounding areas and in doing so, helped rid the country of its widespread malaria problem. They established medical clinics, improved water supplies and developed better solutions to deal with sanitation. All this, directly led to better health, higher standard of living, longer life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate.

It is clear that Arab complaints against Jews were, for the most part, politically motivated, and did not reflect the reality in Palestine at the time. In comparison to their lives in Arab countries or the situation in Palestine before massive Jewish immigration, Arabs saw a consistently increased improvement in their standard of living, overall health and improved economic stability — all while cultivating their own land.

 Israel Kasnett lives in Israel and is a pro-Israel advocate and political strategist.

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

 

Appease Iran?

 

By Daniel Pipes

After Hitler, the policy of appeasing dictators – ridiculed by Winston Churchill as feeding a crocodile, hoping it will eat one last – appeared to be permanently discredited. Yet the policy has enjoyed some successes and remains a live temptation today in dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Academics have long challenged the facile vilification of appeasement. Already in 1961, A.J.P. Taylor of Oxford justified Neville Chamberlain's efforts, while Christopher Layne of Texas A&M currently argues that Chamberlain "did the best that he could with the cards he was dealt." Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at UCLA, finds the common presumption against appeasement to be "far too strong," while his University of Florida colleague Ralph B.A. Dimuccio calls it "simplistic."

 In perhaps the most convincing treatment of the pro-appeasement thesis, Paul M. Kennedy, a British historian teaching at Yale University, established that appeasement has a long and credible history. In his 1976 article, "The Tradition of Appeasement in British Foreign Policy, 1865-1939," Kennedy defined appeasement as a method of settling quarrels "by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise," thereby avoiding the horrors of warfare. It is, he noted, an optimistic approach, presuming humans to be reasonable and peaceful.

From the prime ministry of William Gladstone until its discrediting in the late 1930s, appeasement was, in Kennedy's description, a "perfectly respectable" term and even "a particularly British form of diplomacy" well suited to the country's character and circumstances. Kennedy found the policy had four quasi-permanent bases, all of which apply especially well to the United States today:

• Moral: After the Evangelical movement swept England in the early nineteenth century, British foreign policy contained a strong urge to settle disputes fairly and non-violently.
• Economic: As the world's leading trader, the United Kingdom had a vital national interest in avoiding disruptions to commerce, from which it would disproportionately suffer.
• Strategic: Britain's global empire meant it was over-extended (making it, in Joseph Chamberlain's term, a "weary titan"); accordingly, it had to choose its battles sparingly, making compromise an accepted and routine way of dealing with problems.
• Domestic: The extension of the franchise made public opinion a growing factor in decisionmaking, and the public did not care for wars, especially expensive ones.

As a result, for over seven decades, London pursued, with rare exceptions, a foreign policy that was "pragmatic, conciliatory, and reasonable." Again and again, the authorities found that "the peaceful settlement of disputes was much more to Britain's advantage than recourse to war." In particular, appeasement steadily influenced British policy vis-à-vis the United States (in relation to, for example, the Panama Canal, Alaska's borders, Latin America as a U.S. sphere of influence) and Wilhelmine Germany (the "naval holiday" proposal, colonial concessions, restraint in relations with France).

Kennedy judges the policy positively, as serviceably guiding the foreign relations of the world's most powerful state for decades and "encapsulating many of the finer aspects of the British political tradition." If not a brilliant success, appeasement permitted London to accommodate the expanding influence of its non-ideological rivals such as the United States and Imperial Germany, which generally could be counted on to accept concessions without becoming inflamed. It thus slowed the UK's gentle decline.

Post-1917 and the Bolshevik Revolution, however, concessions failed to mollify the new kind of ideologically-driven enemy – Hitler in the 1930s, Brezhnev in the 1970s, Arafat and Kim Jong-Il in the 1990s, and now, Khamene'i and Ahmadinejad. These ideologues exploit concessions and deceitfully offer a quid pro quo that they do not intend to fulfill. Harboring aspirations to global hegemony, they cannot be appeased. Concessions to them truly amount to feeding the crocodile.

However dysfunctional these days, appeasement abidingly appeals to the modern Western psyche, ineluctably arising when democratic states face aggressive ideological enemies. With reference to Iran, for example, George W. Bush may bravely have denounced "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," but Middle East Quarterly editor Michael Rubin rightly discerns in the realities of U.S. policy that "now Bush is appeasing Iran."

Summing up, the policy of appeasement goes back a century and a half, enjoyed some success, and ever remains alive. But with ideological enemies it must consciously be resisted, lest the tragic lessons of the 1930s, 1970s, and 1990s be ignored. And repeated.

 

Mr. Pipes - director of the Middle East Forum, is the Taube Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University during the spring semester.

 

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