Are You Serious, Mr. President?

by Tariq Alhomayed


 Over the course of two separate interviews, the US President responded to criticisms that America has failed to intervene in the Syrian crisis in the appropriate manner over the past two years. He said that he is still working hard to assess whether military intervention in Syria will help to resolve the bloody conflict or whether it will only serve to make things worse!


Of course, this is not what was stunning in Obama’s statements, for every country—even a superpower—has the right to assess their interests. Rather what was shocking and frightening was Obama asking, in an interview with New Republic magazine, “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?” This is not all; in another interview with 60 Minutes on CBS television, Obama angrily added, “We do nobody a service when we leap before we look, when we . . . take on things without having thought through all of the consequences.”

As we said, the issue is not the US President’s right to take his nation’s interests into account or not, for we are all aware that the US is not a charity. Rather, the issue is this logic of justification, for with all due respect to the Congo and its people: Is this country like Syria? In assessing the age of the Syrian revolution, and the death of 60,000 people, does this represent “leaping without looking?” This is truly puzzling.

For what Obama is not aware of is that the humanitarian crisis in Syria will lead to security, political, and sectarian crises that are far more complex than expected. It is clear that the US president’s problem, as shown by these statements, lies in his basic understanding of the region. What Obama is not aware of is that ignoring what is happening in Syria at present will necessitate his country spending the next 30 years confronting the crisis there. This will be far worse than what is happening in Afghanistan, which the US ignored since the 1980s, forcing it to confront the crisis that subsequently arose there today.

The other problem is that the US president does not understand the danger represented by the Bashar al-Assad regime, and that its downfall will remove the greatest obstacle to regional peace and stability. In addition to this, Assad’s departure would also represent a strategic blow against Iran, which may even ensure that Washington need not carry out future military strikes against Tehran against the backdrop of the nuclear file. Therefore Assad’s fall will also have an impact on Tehran, particularly as the collapse of his regime would mean the end of Iran’s regional expansionist project. It is also enough to consider the implications of the collapse of the Assad regime on Hezbollah, the extremist groups in Iraq, and the Palestinian militant groups.

Therefore, one can only say: Are you serious, Mr. President? Obama’s logic is frightening, and his understanding of the region terrifying and in doubt, particularly as he is the man who saw a revolution in Bahrain and pushed Mubarak to step down while today he is saying that he is working hard to assess the situation in Syria! Even more frustrating: Where are the region’s intellectuals and statesmen? Where is the diplomatic effort in Washington? Obama’s statements indicate that he has either not heard serious assessments regarding the Syrian crisis, or that he does not want to hear them; either is dangerous.



Tariq Alhomayed

Source: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=32731

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

Classic Hagel

by Caroline Glick

 

I think it is pretty amazing that AIPAC is keeping mum on the fact that Obama has nominated a Jew hater and Israel basher to serve as the next Defense Secretary. As I've said before, Hagel's appointment is a far greater threat to the US military than it is to Israel. But still, it is pretty obscene that Obama is getting away with appointing this character to serve as the Pentagon chief. 

Today, the estimable Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon reported another classic Hagelian anti-Israel slur and libel. Back in 2003 he gave an interview to his hometown paper saying that Israel "keep[s] the Palestinians caged up like animals."

And of course, this is only one of countless examples of Hagel's animus towards the Jewish state and its Jewish supporters in the US. But AIPAC is silent.

As I wrote before, I understand that AIPAC doesn't want to fight a fight it can't win. But what fights will it be able to win with a president so hostile to Israel that he appointed the most outspoken anti-Israel senator since Chuck Percy to serve as Defense Secretary? What do they think they will be able to get? A cut-off in aid to the PLO? A cut-off in F-16 and M1A1 Abrams tanks transfers to Egypt? Further ineffective sanctions against Iran? More military assistance to the IDF?

Israel is better off expanding its own defense industries than depending on Hagel for spare parts.

As to the US military, as David Horowitz wrote back in 1992, the movement to assign women to frontline combat unit is not about advancing women. It is about destroying the US military. The fact that Obama didn't even need for Hagel to enter office before taking his first swipe at the military shows just how grandiose his plans for gutting US military capabilities in his second term are. 

To be clear, as a woman who served as an officer in the IDF for 5 and a half years, and worked as an embedded reporter with an all male US infantry unit in Iraq, I have to say that I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with women serving in combat. But the purpose of last week's decision wasn't about permitting women to fight on the battlefield. They already do. It was about social engineering and weakening the esprit d'corps of the US military. As Saul Alinsky taught his followers the goal is never what you say it is. The goal is always the revolution.

Delegitimizing and weakening Israel is only one part of the "revolution." Israel will survive Obama and Hagel and Kerry and Brennan. 

But that doesn't mean we and our supporters in the US should keep silent about their hostility just because we know we can't block their appointments. By pointing out their radicalism, we are at a minimum sending out the necessary warning about what their future plans will likely involve. And that is important, because the more they are criticized the weaker they will feel. 

Caroline Glick

Source: http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2013/01/classic-hagel.php

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

Iran’s Underground Nuke Site Struck?

by Ryan Mauro


The biggest blow in the covert campaign against Iran’s nuclear program may have just been delivered. It is reported that a mysterious explosion was set off inside the underground enrichment site at Fordo on Monday. The Iranian regime predictably denies the report. Anonymous Israeli officials have confirmed that an explosion took place, but the White House says it doesn’t believe the report is credible. 

The original report was written by “Reza Kahlili,” a former CIA spy inside the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who is now in the U.S. and active in the Iranian opposition. His source is Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former Iranian intelligence officer who defected in 2001. Zakeri claims to have worked in Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Intelligence Office and his information helped convince Judge George Daniels to rule in December 2011 that Iran and Hezbollah hold responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

The Fordo site is about 300 feet under a mountain in order to protect it from aerial attack. It can hold about 3,000 centrifuges, which is far from what is needed for a domestic nuclear program but adequate for nuclear weapons. This is the site drawing the most concern of those that have been publicly disclosed because it is also where Iran is storing the uranium it has enriched to 20 percent. Nuclear expert David Albright says that 20% enriched uranium can be brought to bomb-grade level in as little as six months using 500 to 1,000 centrifuges.

The explosion reportedly took place at about 11:30 in the morning inside the third centrifuge chamber that lies above the stock of enriched uranium. The blast disabled two elevators, leaving no way to rescue the 240 personnel stuck inside. The report says that traffic was blocked off for 15 miles and the Tehran-Qom highway was temporarily closed off. There was no evacuation of nearby residents.

The Iranian regime denies that any explosion took place. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “We have no information to confirm the allegations in the report and we do not believe the report is credible.” Anonymous Israeli intelligence officials, on the other hand, confirmed that an explosion took place and said that the damage is still being assessed.

It is difficult to determine the impact of the alleged explosion on Iran’s nuclear ambitions because the program’s full extent is unknown. “Kahlili” has identified three other secret nuclear sites and a biological weapons site. His sources report that the regime is making progress in warhead production, uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing at these sites. He recently provided a briefing on these activities in a RadicalIslam.org webinar on Iran’s nuclear program.

The explosion would be just the latest in a series of likely covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program. In January 2012, the number of killed nuclear scientists rose to five. In December 2011, there was an explosion at a steel plant in Yazd. In November 2011, an underground facility next to the Isfahan uranium conversion site was destroyed. That same month, a Revolutionary Guards missile base blew up, killing the top missile engineer. The previous month, an ammunitions stockpile at another Revolutionary Guards missile base at Khorramabad exploded. And of course, there is the famous “Stuxnet” cyber attack on the Natanz centrifuge site.

The reported explosion comes as Mohammad Reza Heydari, a former Iranian consul in Norway that defected in 2010, warns that Iran is trying to build two or three nuclear weapons as “insurance” but would use them against Israel or another enemy country. He also said that Venezuela is sending uranium to Iran and that our fears about the regime’s beliefs are warranted.

“They are busying themselves with ideological preparations for the arrival of the Hidden Imam and are preparing the ground for that in a practical way, for this purpose, they are willing to spill much blood and destroy many countries,” he said.

A successful covert strike on Iran’s nuclear program is vital in order to demonstrate strength in the wake of the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Iran expert Kenneth Timmerman reports that “the Iranian regime loves Chuck Hagel” and that its state-controlled press is interpreting his nomination as a sign that the U.S. is eager for a “grand bargain.”

The Hagel nomination undermines the credibility of the U.S. pledge to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if it means military action. In 2006, Hagel said a military strike “is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” The Iranian regime certainly knows of his record, which even includes opposing the designation of the Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

The Iranian regime will also doubt that the U.S. would support Israeli action. In 2006, Hagel criticized Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah, decrying the “systematic destruction of an American friend [Lebanon]” and declaring, “this madness must stop.” If Hagel wouldn’t support an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah, then there’s little reason for the Iranian regime to believe he’d support an Israeli military offensive against its nuclear program.

We should hope that the report of an explosion inside the Fordo site is accurate. Only strong action will convince the Iranian regime that its enemies are capable and—most importantly–willing to stop it.


Ryan Mauro

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/

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

Report: Israeli jets hit target in Lebanon-Syria border area

by Shlomo Cesana, Lilach Shoval and Yoni Hersh

Israeli forces attacked a target on Syrian-Lebanese border overnight, western diplomat and a security source told Reuters on Wednesday • Israel concerned Syrian chemical weapons could fall to Hezbollah • Israel Post: not enough gas masks for all Israelis.

Israeli F-16s [Illustrative] Photo credit: AFP

According to Lebanese media, IAF jets flew over Rashaya in the western Bekaa Valley | Photo credit: Google Earth

Israeli forces have attacked a target on the Syrian-Lebanese border overnight, a western diplomat and a security source told Reuters on Wednesday, at a time of growing concern in the Jewish state over the fate of Syrian chemical and conventional weapons.

The sources, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, had no further information about what might have been hit or where precisely the attack happened.

Earlier, the Lebanese army reported a heavy presence of Israeli jets over its territory throughout the night.

There was definitely a hit in the border area," the source said.

Vice premier Silvan Shalom said on Sunday that any sign that Syria's grip on its chemical weapons was slipping, as President Bashar al-Assad fights rebels trying to overthrow him, could trigger Israeli intervention.

Israeli sources said on Tuesday that Syria's advanced conventional weapons would represent as much of a threat to Israel as its chemical arms should they fall into the hands of Syrian rebel forces or Hezbollah guerrillas based in Lebanon.

In Jerusalem, the Israeli military declined any comment.

"We do not comment on reports of this kind," an Israeli Defence Force spokeswoman said.

Israel Defense Forces intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi is traveling to Washington for consultations with American officials, defense sources told Al-Monitor.

Israeli officials declined to confirm the focus of his visit, but it comes amid signs of heightened Israeli concern about Syria, Al-Monitor reported.

Israel Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel expressed his worries on Tuesday about the fate of the Syrian chemical arsenal. "There have been tectonic movements in Syria shifting it toward collapse." Eshel said at the Israeli Air Force Center in Herziliya. "There is a massive weapons arsenal in Syria, some of which is very advanced and some that is unconventional. All that [weaponry] could find its way to our borders."

"Governments are falling apart and that's bringing a resurgence of terrorist activity on our borders the likes of which we haven't seen for decades. We need to deal with a very wide scope of threats, as of today we are faced with both the conventional and unconventional, from the knife to the nuclear weapon, both near and far," he said.

With Syria's arsenal potentially falling to rebel hands, Eshel warned that Israel could face a much broader threat. "We could be faced with a much wider arsenal, advanced Western weaponry, with weapons from the east and locally produced arms." 

Israel fears that should such weapons fall into the hands of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon, this could dent the Jewish state's superiority in any future confrontation.

During a 2006 war with Hezbollah, Israel had complete air dominance during bombing runs over southern Lebanon, though it was surprised when one of its ships off the Lebanese coast was hit by a Hezbollah cruise missile, killing four servicemen.

Eshel said that while "in the past we may have seen these threats as residing on our borders, today it is entirely different," noting that terrorists today could use weapons "that can reach deep into Israel, be it in the form of ground to ground missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned drones and unconventional arms," Eshel said.

In his speech, Eshel did not address mounting speculation that Israel could launch preventive strikes in Syria, though other military brass has said such an option was feasible.

But Eshel said the air force was involved in what he termed "a campaign between wars," working with Israeli intelligence agencies in often covert missions. He did not elaborate other than to blame arch-adversary Iran for the lion's share of weapons supplies to Israel's regional enemies.

Sudan, a conduit for arms to the Palestinian Gaza Strip via Egypt, blamed Israel for an attack last October on a weapons factory in Khartoum. Israel also operates regularly in the skies over Lebanon.

"This campaign is 24/7, 365 days a year," Eshel said. "We are taking action to reduce the immediate threats, to create better conditions in which we will be able to win the wars, when they happen." 

Meanwhile, Russia said it will take control of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile if Israel promises not to attack Syria, "until it gets a green light from Moscow and Washington", according to a report by Saudi news outlet Al-Watan.

If the reports are true, it would not be far fetched to connect it to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent dispatch of his National Security Council Chief Yaakov Amidror to Moscow. The report claims its information is based on a "senior Israeli official."

According to Al-Watan, as part of the deal, the U.S. won't insist on Assad's removal and NATO as well as the Arab League will refrain from attacking Syria. The report was not confirmed by Israeli sources.

Netanyahu reiterated his concern over Syria recently, adding that the situation does not only effect Israel, but is a matter of concern for the U.S. and the international community as a whole. Last week Russia deployed a sizable fleet off the coast of Syria, a move seen as unusual.

Israel and NATO countries say Syria has stocks of various chemical warfare agents at four sites. Syria is cagey about whether it has such arms but insists that, if it had, it would keep them secure and use them only to fend off foreign attack.

Syria is widely believed to have built up the arsenal to offset Israel's reputed nuclear weapons, among other reasons. Some Israeli experts fear the logic of mutual deterrence would not hold for subnational Islamist militant groups involved in the rebellion in Syria.

The United States and other world powers have also warned of the danger posed by Syria's chemical weapons.

Not enough gas masks

"The past few days have seen a rise in the demand for gas masks, following the reports of Syria's chemical weapons slipping into the hands of terrorist groups," Israel Postal Company Deputy Operations Manager Haim Mizaki told Army Radio on Wednesday. According to Mizaki, "every security related debate adds to the demand for gas masks."

Mizaki said currently there are not enough gas masks to cover the entire population, and that so far only 4,700,000 have been distributed. "We are working in accordance with the Homefront Defense Ministry ... by their protocols, we are only allowed to hand out 50,000 kits each month, 600,000 a year," he said.

The are two ways Israelis can get gas masks, one is at designated distribution centers spread throughout the country. The other is to call the telephone hotline 171 and arrange a delivery to the person's home, at the cost of delivery alone. According to Mizaki, the hotline verifies that each person ordering is eligible to receive a mask. "We check in our listings whether the person had returned their previous gas mask, or if they lost it and need to pay 70 shekels [$19] to be able to receive another."

Those who are tasked with delivering the masks go through a certification program, and upon arrival at the citizen's home, they perform mask fittings and replace faulty kits as required.

Shlomo Cesana, Lilach Shoval and Yoni Hersh

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=7233

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

The Shameful Attack on Israel from Amnesty International

by Seth Mandel


One of the hallmarks of Israel’s international critics is their tendency to blame Israel for all the bad things that happen when the Jewish state’s enemies try–and fail–to destroy it. Yet it is rarely so perfectly distilled with such righteous indignation as the statement offered by the NGO Amnesty International today. Amnesty International should be thanked for its honesty, but its behavior represents yet another new low for the human rights community. Reacting to the news that Israel would not participate in the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of all member states’ human rights records, Amnesty released a statement that began:

If the Israeli government is not careful, it will ruin an important global human rights process for everybody.

Yes, you read that right. The Israel-obsessed behavior of a corrupt UN body that exists solely to scapegoat the Jewish state while having counted as members Qatar, China, Russia, Libya, and Cuba is not ruining an important human rights process. What is ruining the process is Israel’s unwillingness to participate in its own rigged show trial. But all that is nothing compared to the way Amnesty closes its statement:

If Israel fails to fully engage in its examination under the Universal Periodic Review during 2013 as required, will the victims of human rights violations, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, thank the Israeli government?

Amnesty wants Israel to take its beating or it will not-so-subtly suggest to the victims of the Taliban that they can blame the Jewish state. It would certainly be convenient for Amnesty to do so, since the organization could simply stop putting researchers at risk in dangerous countries and just consolidate its branches in its office in Tel Aviv, where its staffers can unironically fault Israel for every human rights violation unharassed by the democratically-elected Israeli government it is scapegoating.

Israel’s review was supposed to take place this afternoon, and be conducted by three nations–one of them Venezuela. As if it’s unclear why a country would opt-out of such a sham, the United States was apparently engaged in a last-minute push to convince Israel to take its medicine. The Times of Israel reports:

“Tough talks” were held on the matter between senior State Department officials and the head of the Foreign Ministry’s department for foreign organizations, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, the paper reported Sunday. The US officials also said that even though Israel’s boycott might be justified, it would eventually harm Israel’s reputation in the international arena.

“We have encouraged the Israelis to come to the council and to tell their story and to present their own narrative of their own human rights situation,” Eileen Donahoe, Washington’s ambassador to the UNHRC, told reporters in Geneva last week. “The United States is absolutely, fully behind the Universal Periodic Review and we do not want to see the mechanism in any way harmed.”

Israel is also expected to not cooperate with a probe into the country’s reported use of drones against Palestinian targets, launched last week, Haaretz reported. Israel does not admit to using drones in aerial strikes. The US and Britain are expected to work with the investigation, which does not have official backing from the UNHCR, but was prompted by requests from China, Russia and Pakistan.

I don’t know exactly what the story means when it says the U.S. plans to “work with” the drone investigation, but I’ll give the White House and Foggy Bottom three guesses as to which country is likely to be the next subject of a drone investigation initiated by Pakistan.

Just as Amnesty vowed retribution for Israel’s intransigence, the UN Human Rights Council warned that “appropriate action would be taken.” For its part, the Israeli government made no attempt to hide its contempt for being lectured by the “dictator protection racket,” as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly dubbed the UN:

“It’s hard to understand how the countries that initiated this investigation have any moral right to review or to opine on human rights records of other countries,” an anonymous Israeli official said. “Such countries that have long records jailing and/or assassinating their political opponents are in no position to lecture anyone on human rights.”

That gets it about right. The UN, of course, has every right to ask Israel to participate in the review and drone investigation and take offense when they are rebuffed. But there is no excuse for the shameful comments from Amnesty, an organization that ought to be above making it official policy to blame Israel for human rights violations made by terrorists and dictators simply because the Israelis won’t lend credibility to their perennial accusers.


Seth Mandel

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/01/29/the-shameful-attack-on-israel-from-amnesty-international/

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

Hagel and a Nuclear Iran -- Perfect Together

by Edward Olshaker

Sounding indistinguishable from Noam Chomsky or Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former Sen. Chuck Hagel agreed in an Al Jazeera interview that the United States is "the world's bully" and has depicted Israel as a cruel oppressor, yet appears to have little similar concern about the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. 

To the contrary, Hagel has gone so far as to argue that any government (even an openly genocidal jihadist regime) possessing such a weapon would naturally respond to the gravity of their new responsibility with common sense, prudence, and sanity.

Hagel's depiction of the U.S. and Israel as the world's chief troublemakers and jihadists as benign eerily echoes the worldview of Michael Moore, who has declared "Americans kill people," Israelis "know they are wrong," and "There is no [Islamic] terror threat." It comes as no surprise that Moore, the Iranian regime, Time magazine's Joe Klein, David Duke, Oliver Stone, and others in the progressive-Islamist-neo-Nazi alliance endorse Obama's "bipartisan" choice for defense secretary. Leading Democratic senators are on board, along with the online activists of the "white nationalist" Stormfront, where one member cited Hagel's "Let the Jews pay for it" quote, and wrote, "I love this guy!" You can't say Obama hasn't brought people together.

Hagel's numerous troubling votes and statements as a senator are ultimately overshadowed by something astoundingly naïve and chilling he wrote in his book:
The genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does. In this imperfect world, sovereign nation-states possessing nuclear weapons capability ...will often respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior...

The mother of Newtown mass murderer Adam Lanza appeared to hold a similar view, believing that placing deadly weapons in her son's hands and training him in their use would instill responsibility and bring stability to his life.

With the gun-control issue overshadowing all else these days, opponents of the Hagel nomination would be wise to cast his alarmingly irrational view in terms of the one aspect of the gun issue everyone agrees on: Guns -- and infinitely deadlier weapons -- must be kept out of the hands of the criminally insane. And no informed person can be unaware that the Iranian regime's open goal of murder-suicide in an apocalyptic final war differs from the Lanza massacre only in degree.

Incredibly for a potential Secretary of Defense, Hagel's prediction of the likely conduct of "sovereign nation-states possessing nuclear weapons capability" does not distinguish between jihadist and non-jihadist governments or acknowledge the reality of Iran's martyrdom culture. When President Ahmadinejad called the desire to commit suicide "one of the best ways of life," he was not only praising suicide bombers but also reiterating the goal of national murder-suicide announced by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1981: "I say let Iran go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Similarly, in a speech urging the Muslim world to destroy Israel, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani sadistically explained the nuclear math: "application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." He further assured the world that Iran could handle the cost of "thirty or forty million martyrs."

As Mitt Romney emphasized, the Soviet Union "was never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime that celebrates martyrdom." The critical distinction noted by Romney is a distinction Hagel has a history of willfully ignoring.

Imagine what a gracious and reassuring gesture it would have been if Obama had expressed his alleged bipartisanship by nominating Romney (or any mainstream Republican) as defense secretary. Ironically, after smearing Romney and the Republicans as bigots, Obama has gone out of his way to nominate an actual, rare Republican bigot, whose prejudice matches the fringe anti-Israel bias instilled in him by his radical mentors. And, coming 4 years after Obama's remarkably similar nominations of Chas Freeman and Van Jones, it is clear he chose Hagel because of, not in spite of, his hostility to Jews and their legitimate interests. (Had Obama similarly punished any other minority so steadfastly loyal to him, they -- and America in general -- would never have tolerated it.)

As troubling as this is, it's also an opportunity for Republicans opposed to Hagel to really shine by countering this shrewd, divisive "bipartisan" nomination with a true bipartisan response. Because there are qualified Democrats, even including some archliberals, who staunchly support Israel's security, Republicans who vote no on Hagel could jointly announce their support for one of them as an alternative.

The choice of Hagel is a reminder of what's in Obama's heart, and has already succeeded in its intended purpose. This nomination has punished his loyal Jewish supporters, delighted the rulers of Iran, brought new reason for despair to Israel, and needlessly pitted Americans against each other. In this sense, it's already "mission accomplished" for the great uniter, regardless of the outcome of this week's confirmation hearings.

Yet, even in this battle they're unlikely to win, it is essential that Republicans stand on principle and vigorously oppose Obama's legitimization and empowerment of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, soft-on-terror views. There is a direct line connecting Farrakhan's disparagement of Jews and gays when Obama helped organize his historic march, and similar statements by Hagel. If the opposition party does not expose this administration's radicalism, its policies that treat Netanyahu as a foe and the genocide-espousing Muslim Brotherhood as a friend, who will? The media? Remaining silent was a losing strategy for Romney, while bold, principled opposition (by members of both parties) stopped the attempted appointments of Chas Freeman and Van Jones. Even in this season of defeat and discouragement, the fight against hate and extremism must not stop. 

Edward Olshaker

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/hagel_and_a_nuclear_iran_--_perfect_together.html

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

Is Winning the Argument Enough?

by Peter Wilson

I attended the National Review Institute conference in Washington this weekend and came home rejuvenated and satiated by an abundant intellectual feast -- 16 hours of speeches and panel discussions on Saturday alone, with one 45 minute break for cocktails. The All Star cast included Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Jim DeMint, Scott Walker, Tom Cotton, Bob McDonnell, Peter Thiel, Grover Norquist, Andy McCarthy, Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Barone, Larry Kudlow, and on and on. A conservative Woodstock. 

As Republicans sift through the post-election wreckage, two camps have emerged: the
"winning the argument" conservative intellectuals and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operatives. Both strategies of course are necessary, so it's a question of emphasis, not exclusion, but it was clear that a majority of the speakers at the conference emphasized messaging over GOTV tactics. Margaret Thatcher was quoted several times: "First win the argument, then win the election," and a majority of speakers addressed the question of how to win the votes of people who ought to be Republicans, but haven't yet seen the light. Arthur Brooks spoke eloquently about the morality of free markets. Artur Davis gave a tour de force about families at their "Sunday supper" tables, worried about their economic futures and fearful of taking their chances without government help. Hugh Hewitt spoke less convincingly about winning Hispanic votes by passing an immigration bill granting "normalization" to illegal immigrants (which may happen sooner than we thought). Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, numerous others, spoke about communicating our message and variations on the theme of "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."

On two occasions during the conference, however, someone mentioned a PDF called "Inside the Cave: An In-Depth Look at the Digital, Technology, and Analytics Operations of Obama for America."

As an aside, I mentioned this to a liberal friend and she said, is that title racist? Why? I asked, utterly confused. "Because he's a black man," she responded. So I guess "cave" is another new racist codeword.

"Inside the Cave" was not released by Republican racists but by Engage DC, a "well respected new media consulting firm." It's a scary and depressing document, which opens with a photo of a windowless office described with this caption: "The Cave in Obama for America's Chicago headquarters housed the campaign's Analytics team. Behind closed doors, more than 50 data analysts used Big Data to predict the individual behavior of tens of millions of American voters." These analysts are brilliant, young, and were willing to leave top firms to work for peanuts to re-elect Obama: "[Obama] went directly to Silicon Valley and to data analysts in the Fortune 500 and academia. One used to work at Pixar. Another was a high-energy particle physicist."

Romney spent millions on television ads, robocalls and the disastrous Orca, a "traditional corporate IT project gone bad," while Obama for America microtargeted voters through Facebook (34 million friends), Twitter, email (16 million on their email list compared to Romney's 2-3 million). OFA constantly tested new strategies -- "drunk donating," a "Quick Donate" app that processed donations through Amazon, and "upselling" donations (would you like to supersize that order?)
The report lists the following "Tools Built by the Technology Division":

• Narwhal: Synchronized data from multiple sources to build complete profiles of supporters
• Dashboard: Enabled supporters to connect with supporters near them and take action from home
• Call Tool: Allowed supporters in nonbattleground states to use their home phones to call voters in battleground states
• Stork: Transferred data from vendors to databases for querying

End result: Despite Obama's indefensible record, Republicans got creamed.

As I sat in the Omni Shoreham ballroom, I was also thinking about two events from last fall's campaign:

One cold morning in October I found myself behind enemy lines, holding a Scott Brown sign on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge. Five other volunteers from the Cambridge Republican City Committee were positioned around the intersection when a handful of people with Elizabeth Warren signs showed up. Then another handful. Then a wave of a hundred people washed over us, bearing gigantic campaign signs that they hoisted in front of our signs, blocking them from passing traffic. It turned out that Professor Warren had scheduled a press conference and had emptied her nearby call center.Most of the call center workers smoked cigarettes and were missing teeth. The class contrast with the Harvard Law faculty organizers was striking.

Secondly, on Election Day, according to a friend who worked at the polls, Elizabeth Warren's team emptied the SRO rooms at the Cambridge YMCA and sent them to vote across the street, with perhaps a pack of cigarettes or a five-dollar bill in their pockets. Another wave inundated Scott Brown's chances.

This is what we're facing. Brilliant and creepy data analysis, a Chicago-machine GOTV ground game, a president unabashed in his demagoguery and a corrupt, biased media.

The weekend's optimism and positive message was entirely thrilling. It's appropriate for a gathering of conservatives to take the high road and talk about big ideas. It's uplifting to hear brilliant people speak in passionate paragraphs -- without a single "um" or "ah" -- about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, arguing that American free market democracy has lifted more people out of poverty than any system in history. Arthur Brooks and Artur Davis moved me to tears.

Sixteen hours of dynamic microtargeting strategies, in contrast, would be a punishment I wouldn't wish on my enemies.

But when we look ahead, I'm not sure that winning the argument is enough. The Tea Party showed the power of our founding principles, but ultimately it wasn't enough on Election Day. Can we reach those workers getting paid minimum wage by Elizabeth Warren with arguments about fiscal responsibility? Can we fight donation-upselling by quoting the Constitution to young people who have been indoctrinated their whole lives and believe that the Founders were evil slaveowners? I don't think so, but it makes me mad. I'd love nothing more than to win elections by convincing voters that the ideas I heard this weekend are true and just, but I'm afraid the battle is going to be much harder, more boring, more calculated and more soulless.

The 2014 campaign for the House is already underway. We'd better get our Cave up and running. 

Peter Wilson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/is_winning_the_argument_enough.html

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

Brooklyn College Political Science Department Denies Equal Free Speech and Academic Freedom to Pro-Israel Students and Faculty

by Alan M. Dershowitz


The international campaign to delegitimize Israel by subjecting the Jewish state—and the Jewish State alone—to boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) has now come to the most unlikely of places: Brooklyn College. The political science department of that college has voted to co-sponsor a campaign event at which only pro-BDS speakers will advocate a policy that is so extreme that even the Palestinian Authority rejects it.

The poster for the BDS event specifically says that the event is being "endorsed by…the political science department at BC." The BDS campaign accuses Israel of "Apartheid" and advocates the blacklisting of Jewish Israeli academics, which is probably illegal and certainly immoral. The two speakers at the event deny Israel's right to exist, compare Israel to the Nazis and praise terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

The president of Brooklyn College claims that this co-sponsorship does not constitute an endorsement by the college and that this is an issue of freedom of speech and academic freedom. But when a department of a university officially co-sponsors and endorses an event advocating BDS against Israel, and refuses to co-sponsor and endorse an event opposing such BDS, that does constitute an official endorsement. Freedom of speech, and academic freedom require equal access to both sides of a controversy, not official sponsorship and endorsement of one side over the other. The heavy thumb of an academic department should not be placed on the scale, if the marketplace of ideas is to remain equally accessible to all sides of a controversy.

I have no problem with a BDS campaign being conducted by radical students at Brooklyn College or anywhere else. Students have a right to promote immoral causes on college campuses. Nor do I have a problem with such an event being sponsored by the usual hard left, anti-Israel and anti-American groups, such as some of those that are co-sponsoring this event. My sole objection is to the official sponsorship and endorsement of BDS by an official department of a public (or for that matter private) college.

I was once a student at Brooklyn College, majoring in political science. Back in the day, departments did not take official positions on controversial political issues. They certainly didn't sponsor or endorse the kind of hate speech that can be expected at this event, if the history of the speakers is any guide. The president of the university says this is a matter of academic freedom. But who's academic freedom? Do "departments"—as distinguished from individual faculty members—really have the right of academic freedom? Does the political science department at Brooklyn College represent only its hard left faculty? What about the academic freedom of faculty members who do not support the official position of the department? One Brooklyn College faculty member has correctly observed that:

[B]oycotting academics is the opposite of free speech. It symbolizes the silencing on people based on their race and religion.

Does the political science department not also represent the students who major in or take courses in that subject? I know that as a student I would not want to be associated with a department that officially supported boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. My academic freedom would be compromised by such an association. Also, I would worry that a department that was so anti-Israel would grade me down or refuse me recommendations if I were perceived to be pro-Israel, or even neutral. I would not feel comfortable expressing my academic freedom in such a department. I'm sure there are many students at Brooklyn College who feel the same. What can they do to express their academic freedom? Should they fight fire with fire by advocating boycott, divestment and sanctions against the political science department or against Brooklyn College? Would that too be an exercise of academic freedom?

If I were a Brooklyn College student today and an opponent of BDS against Israel, I would not major in political science. I would worry that my chances of getting into a good law school or graduate program would be put at risk. I would pick a department—or a school—that was less politicized and more academically unbiased.

Academic freedom does not include the power of department or faculty members to proselytize and propagandize captive students whose grades and future depend on faculty evaluations. That's why academic departments should not take political positions that threaten the academic freedom of dissenting students or faculty.

I can understand the department of political science sponsoring a genuine debate over boycott, divestment and sanctions in which all sides were equally represented. That might be an educational experience worthy of departmental sponsorship. But the event in question is pure propaganda and one-sided political advocacy. There is nothing academic about it. Would the political science department of Brooklyn College sponsor and endorse an anti-divestment evening? Would they sponsor and endorse me, a graduate of that department, to present my perspective to their students? Would they sponsor a radical, pro-settlement, Israeli extremist to propagandize their students? Who gave the department the authority to decide, as a department, which side to support in this highly contentious debate? What are the implications of such departmental support? Could the political science department now vote to offer courses advocating BDS against Israel and grading students based on their support for the department's position? Should other departments now be lobbied to support BDS against China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, the Palestinian Authority or other perennial violators of human rights?

Based on my knowledge of the Brooklyn College political science department, they would never vote to sponsor and endorse an anti-BDS campaign, or a BDS campaign against left wing, Islamic, anti-Israel or anti-American countries that are genuine violators of human rights. Universities, and some departments in particular, are quickly becoming more political than academic. This trend threatens the academic freedom of dissenting students and faculty. It also threatens the academic quality of such institutions.

The Brooklyn College political science department should get out of the business of sponsoring and endorsing one-sided political propaganda and should stop trying to exercise undue influence over the free marketplace of ideas. That is the real violation of academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Shame on the Brooklyn College political science department for falsely invoking academic freedom and freedom of speech to deny equal freedoms to those who disagree with its extremist politics.


Alan M. Dershowitz

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3565/brooklyn-college-political-science

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

Arab Rage, Unrest and Anti-Americanism Is Nothing New

by Jeff Ludwig


 

The delivery of tanks and F-16s to Egypt, originally promised to the Mubarak regime, but now forwarded to Morsi and the Brotherhood, is the latest phase of U.S. engagement with a Middle East in turmoil. Though all kinds of nasty and brutal individuals are still in charge, and though the thrust of the Arab world remains anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-American, the official line of our prescient government is that all this is an extension of the “Arab Spring” and, despite setbacks, is tending towards greater democracy in the Arab world.

We are, under Obama, supposedly the good guys because we generally support “democracy.”  What appears to be developments that are cancerous and threaten world peace, should be seen as just another Excedrin headache for our sincere, hardworking, compassionate, and all-knowing leaders.  After all, our President has an intuitive sense of the Muslim mind.  He can reconcile us with those who appear to be irreconcilable.

Stories are written as though the events in the Middle East, the turmoil and barbaric upheavals, were something new.   When the dust settles, we shall presumably see a more benign and tractable community of interests in the Arab world.  If anti-Americanism and anti-infidel expressions are reflected in Algeria, Libya, Syria, Mali, or Egypt, they are reflective of a new more harmonious relationship with us reflective of the influence of our balanced and giving President.

In fact, we see a deep-seated anti-American and anti-Western “rage” going back to Gamal Abdel Nasser with the closing of the Suez Canal and alignment with the Communist bloc.  Following Nasser, the assassination of his successor, President Sadat of Egypt, was clearly a rejection of the American-brokered Camp David Accords that led to the Egyptian recognition of the State of Israel.  There is a direct line from the deposing of Pres. Mubarak to that long-ago assassination. Therefore, Mubarak’s deposing was not pro-democratic, but anti-American at its heart.

If one believes that the history of thirty years ago cannot motivate Egyptians today, he or she would be very wrong. Incredibly, until today, many Egyptians and Arabs “on the street”  will tell you a bitter story of wrongdoing by the Crusaders who came in the late 11^th and early 12^th centuries.  Christianity and the West are blamed and condemned for those events of one thousand years ago.  The reader should understand that the “Arab street” really knows what it means to hold a grudge.

Further, if there is any doubt about deep-seated Arab animus towards the West and towards the U.S. in particular, we need only look at history to dispel that doubt.  Way back in the early 19^th century, the Barbary pirates routinely attacked American vessels until President Jefferson sent in Stephen Decatur and the Marines to crush the piracy. Almost 150 years later, we find that the Muslim Brotherhood allied itself with the Nazis in their fight against the Allies in North Africa.

By the 1950s, under the rubric of Pan-Arabism, Nasser tried to pressure Lebanon, where a civil war was waging between Maronite Christians and Muslims, to join the United Arab Republic, which would thereby align Lebanon with the Soviet bloc.  Eisenhower, defending Western alignment, sent in 14,000 troops to force a compromise which kept Lebanon within the Western fold.  Then, in 1983, approximately 25 years later, the Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed killing 241 Americans during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Then, as a small-scale reprise of the Marine barracks bombing, we must recall the repeated hijacking of American passenger flights in the 1980s, and of the terrorized cruise ship the Achille Lauro in 1985.  During the terrorist takeover of that vessel, Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair bound American senior citizen, was thrown overboard by hijackers when he fearlessly repudiated their activities to their faces.  These egregious events of the 1980s only stopped when, in 1986, President Reagan bombed Libya.

Closer to our own time, we must think of Ramzi Yousef, now serving a life sentence in Colorado in a federal maximum security prison, with the likes of the Unabomber and a mafia hit man on the same cell bloc. He led a team that blew up the World Trade Center in 1993, as a precursor of the 9/11 destruction to come.  While on the run from the FBI, he was hidden safely by many friends in  the Arab world, and had unsuccessfully planned a mission to blow up more than a dozen planes that were scheduled for departure from Aquino International Airport in Manila, Philippines. He represents the action-spearhead, the maniacal avant-garde, of the same mindset we see manifested on the streets and in the universities today protesting against the USA.

Lastly, we drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and ostensibly smashed Al Queda.  Yet, the Taliban is still fighting us, and the government of Karzai (presumed to be democratically elected) is under armed siege month after month and year after year.  Does this not show the failure of both the “democratic” or nation-building solution and the military solution?

To think that cordiality between America and these unstable and anti-American countries can be achieved by supporting one side (the democratic) over another side (the despotic) in a part of the world where violent power struggles have been the norm for centuries and anti-Americanism has existed for decades, or longer, is just bad thinking.

We are being “played” by the Islamo-fascists, who have used the magic word “democracy” to persuade our own self-serving, ideological President that their interests and ours really are compatible.


Jeff Ludwig

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jeff-ludwig/arab-rage-unrest-and-anti-americanism-is-nothing-new/

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

Obama's Soft Threat to Democracy and Britain

by Peter Martino

These reactions are indicative of the contempt the political elites have for the concept of democratic accountability.

In a high-stakes gamble, British Prime Minister David Cameron said last week, in his long anticipated speech about the European Union, that he would like the EU to be an open, internal market based on nation states rather than the centralizing and protectionist supranational European superstate currently in the making. To achieve this vision, the EU treaty, which explicitly calls for "an ever closer union," needs to be revised. Cameron promised the British public that he would renegotiate the treaty to allow Britain to opt out of centralizing EU policies. He also committed to holding a referendum on Britain's EU membership after the renegotiation, or by 2017 at the latest.

Cameron says he is confident that he will be able to persuade his EU colleagues of his views. If he fails, however, it will leave the British Conservative Party with no other option than leading Britain out of the EU. The odds, moreover, are against Cameron.

His speech was not well received on the continent: Cameron was accused of pandering to the British electorate. Guido Westerwelle, Germany's Foreign Minister sniffed that Cameron wants to "cherry pick" which aspects of EU membership to take or leave. Bernard Cazeneuve, France's minister for the EU, said that the EU is not "an a la carte package." Spain and Italy were equally critical, while EU President Herman Van Rompuy cast doubt on whether a major revision of the treaty – essential to Cameron's strategy – would take place.

These reactions are indicative of the contempt the political elites have for the concept of democratic accountability. Cameron was right to insist that democratic accountability is currently lacking in the EU, while this should be one of the basic principles on which it is built. As The Wall Street Journal noted: "It says something about the mentality of too many European officials today that they are shocked that a British Prime Minister would put British interests and values at the core of his concerns."

The reason why so many European politicians seem prepared to sacrifice prosperity and democratic representation on the altar of centralization is that their political cultures lack the democratic tradition of Britain. It is no coincidence that Switzerland, the most democratic country in Europe and also the one with the longest democratic tradition, categorically refuses to join the EU.

Apart from Switzerland, the strongest democratic traditions are found in the countries belonging to the so-called Anglosphere. Cameron began his speech by referring to the British character, "independent, forthright, passionate in defense of our sovereignty." He added that "in Europe's darkest hour, we helped keep the flame of liberty alight. Across the continent, in silent cemeteries, lie the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who gave their lives for Europe's freedom." Indeed, and the same applies to Americans, Canadians and Australians – the other nations of the so-called Anglosphere, the set of English-speaking nations of European stock with a Western cultural heritage.

In his 2004 book, The Anglosphere Challenge, American author James C. Bennett argued that the cultural and legal traditions of English-speaking nations make them particularly sensitive to anti-democratic tendencies. Historian Andrew Roberts points out that the Anglosphere was central in defeating Nazism and Communism in Europe. He says that it will also be crucial for the defeat of Islamism. Bat Ye'or argues in her book Eurabia, that the EU is one of the vehicles of Islamization in Europe today. By undermining the national identities of its member-states, which are seen as incompatible with the aim of building a pan-European superstate, the EU is also depriving the European peoples of the identity which they badly need if they are to assimilate the masses of Muslim immigrants who have settled in Europe during the past decades.

Judging from the American reaction to David Cameron's speech, however, it seems that Britain can expect little support from the Anglosphere in its opposition to the centralizing EU tendencies. Prior to his speech, Washington warned Cameron not to be too critical of the EU and not to allow a referendum on the EU.

Philip Gordon, the US assistant secretary for European Affairs, was sent to London to tell the British government that "referendums have often turned countries inwards." It is unclear what that assessment is based on: countries that allow referendums are usually the most democratic in the world and democracy is characterized by openness to the outside world. A Downing Street spokesman reacted to the American intervention with the remark: "The US wants an outward looking EU with Britain in it, and so do we."

"We benefit when the EU is unified, speaking with a single voice. That is in the American interest," Gordon said. The British newspaper The Guardian remarked that the American intervention "appeared to be a clear message to the [British] government that the 'special relationship' [between the UK and US] would be devalued in the eyes of the Obama administration if Britain left the EU, or got bogged down in drawn-out negotiations on the details of its membership." If anything, the American intervention, in the form of a soft threat, indicating its refusal to back Britain, shows that the "special relationship" is already over. That is, if it was not already over four years ago, based on Obama's first act on his first day in office: the unsolicited return of a bust of Winston Churchill, on loan to the US from to from Britain. (What would have been wrong with a closet?)

The White House also warned Britain that its significance to the world and to the US would be weakened by leaving the EU. Persuading Britain to stay in the EU would be "in America's national interest," according to a senior US official. William Legge, the Earl of Dartmouth, reacted by pointing out that the position of the Obama administration is not in line with America's traditional view: "There have been times in history when the US had been very pleased that Britain has remained independent of the continent, and we expect that to continue," he said. "It is not the job of the UK to make the work of US diplomats easier. It is our job to secure our own interests."

Dartmouth is a member of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). This party advocates withdrawal of Britain from the EU. It did very well in recent by-elections, and currently polls almost 14%. UKIP is also very critical of Islamization.

Clive Crook, senior editor of The Atlantic, criticized the Obama administration by comparing Obama's attitude towards Britain and the EU with that of the US and NAFTA: "I think Britain should call on the US to start recasting NAFTA as a full monetary and political union. Be visionary, for heaven's sake. Put the Federal Reserve in Mexico City as a measure of good faith. Europe would benefit if North America were unified, speaking with a single voice."

John Redwood, a Conservative British MP and a former cabinet minister, wrote on his blog: "It is a crowning irony that the Obama administration now thinks the UK should be subservient to [EU] rule in many areas, just so the US has a more acceptable lobbyist at the EU court. We wish to be self governing. We have no wish to be told that we should lose our democracy in the cause of advancing America's."

But, of course, what is at stake is not advancing America's democracy at the expense of Britain's. America's democracy cannot be incompatible with Britain's. What we are witnessing is the Obama administration actively interfering in European politics to advance European centralization. This is a threat to democracy and freedom in Europe. History will show that it will be a threat to democracy and freedom in America as well.


Peter Martino

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3559/obama-eu-britain

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