Hypocrisy and Double Standards

by Ruthie Blum

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, when U.S. President Barack Obama learned that his National Security Agency had been tapping the phones of 35 world leaders, including that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the White House ordered a stop to it.

At a summit of European leaders in Brussels last week, during which allegations of American surveillance of tens of thousands of French phones were raised as well, Merkel referred to Obama's alleged apology for the incident. 

"Obviously, words will not be sufficient," she said. "True change is necessary."

Merkel is right, though she should be aware that information-gathering, even among friends, is and always has been accepted procedure in the intelligence community. It is only the advance in technology that has made this practice so easy for and accessible to spies and whistle-blowers, like fugitive CIA employee Edward Snowden. 

As a result, she and her counterparts would have done well to take certain precautions that come with the job. As British Ambassador to Lebanon Tom Fletcher tweeted last week, "I work on assumption that 6+ countries tap my phone. Increasingly rare that diplomats say anything sensitive on calls."

Then, last Friday, another classified document leaked by Snowden emerged. This one dealt with an attempt in May 2012 to hack into the communications network of the Élysée Palace, during the final weeks of Nicolas Sarkozy's presidency. What it revealed is that France had suspected the United States of being behind the cyberattack. More strikingly, it showed that the National Security Agency had denied any involvement in the incident by hinting that the Israeli Mossad was the likely culprit. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is probably pleased as punch with this particular leak, as it comes on the heels of a Washington Post article claiming that Turkey supplied Iran with the names of several Iranians cooperating with the Mossad. It is likely that these were the same "Israeli spies" whose executions were reported last April by Iran's state media.

That Turkey is no longer Israel's ally is a given. Providing damning information to Iran, then, is in keeping with its hostility to the Jewish state in particular and the West in general.

But, for the United States to cast aspersions on Israel's covert operations is not only a travesty; it brings to mind another case of the U.S. and France ironing out their political differences by using Israel as a scapegoat. Interestingly, it was also made public due to technological gadgets.

Two years ago, almost to the date, during the Group of 20 summit in Cannes, Obama and Sarkozy engaged in a tête-à-tête. Three minutes of what was supposed to be a private chat was caught by the simultaneous translation device provided to reporters located in a different room. The exchange was enlightening, and not only because it showed how stupid politicians can be, even with microphones attached to the lapels of their jackets.

Sarkozy told Obama that he could no longer stand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was a "liar." Obama more than sympathized. "You are fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you do."

The context of this mutual Bibi-bashing was Obama's displeasure with Sarkozy for not having warned him that France was going to vote in favor of Palestinian membership in UNESCO. Sarkozy had promised Obama to help in the effort to achieve Palestinian statehood through negotiations with Israel -- not by gaining U.N. status beforehand. By calling Netanyahu a liar, then, Sarkozy was deflecting his own deceit. A tiff with Obama was successfully avoided.

This is in stark contrast to what it takes Israel to appease the White House. No matter what abominations it endures from its Muslim enemies, it is told to exercise restraint. Nor is it given credit for any of its goodwill gestures towards these enemies. Instead, it is reprimanded every time a whiff of construction on existing settlements is in the air. 

Netanyahu's apology to Erdogan for the deaths of pro-Hamas Turkish activists on the Mavi Marmara in 2010 was rebuffed by Ankara with no consequence from Washington. His entering into "peace talks" with the Palestinians for a two-state solution has been met with contempt on the part of the Palestinians, who continue to insist on impossible conditions, while inciting to violence against Jews. His current release of Palestinian terrorists is also being taken for granted. He can't even get Obama to pardon Jonathan Pollard.

Pollard received a life sentence in 1987 for passing on classified intelligence to Israel. It is rumored that this information is what led to Israel's 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor. Though it was illegal for Pollard to have betrayed his country -- and shortsighted on Israel's part to use a Jew for this purpose -- Pollard was spying on behalf of a U.S. ally. In addition, he pleaded guilty, something which usually buys a defendant a degree of leniency. Furthermore, he has spent much of the 26 years he has served so far in solitary confinement, in spite of suffering serious illnesses.

Pollard is eligible for parole in November 2015 -- 30 years into his sentence. It was foolish for anyone to imagine that he would be released before then. Vice President Joe Biden has been adamant about it. In September 2011, he told a group of rabbis that though Obama was considering clemency for Pollard, "I told him, 'Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time. If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life.'" 

This attitude towards Israel gives hypocrisy a bad name. 

The reason that Obama is now embroiled in an espionage scandal is that his security services have been spying on everybody, at home and abroad, and that this practice was leaked by insiders. Snowden, a former CIA employee, is one such figure. Chelsea (previously known as Bradley) Manning is another. 

Snowden is hiding in Russia, yet to be apprehended by U.S. authorities. 

Manning, however, was caught and convicted. The transsexual U.S. Army intelligence analyst had leaked the greatest number of classified documents in American history. In August, she was sentenced to 35 years in jail, with the possibility (and likelihood) of parole in eight. Meanwhile, her sexual identity disorder is being taken into account in prison, where she is likely to be granted hormone therapy to help her become more physically female.

Such a blatant imbalance of justice epitomizes the phrase "double standard." 

Israel is used to being held to a higher standard, even by the U.S. What it has not yet adjusted to is a world in which the moral compass at the White House is broken.

Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring.'"

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6171

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

The Release of Palestinian Prisoners Will Not Bring Peace

by Michael Curtis

Prime ministers in democratic countries frequently have the occupational hazard of having to make difficult and unpleasant decisions.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for over a year been confronted by the dilemma of making such decisions and concessions to the Palestinians in order to revive peace talks, brokered by the United States, between the two peoples.


The concessions were made in July of last year, when the Israeli government agreed to release 104 Palestinian prisoners in four stages.  The government decision was upheld and approved by the Israeli Supreme Court in October 2013 after an organization of the bereaved Israeli families had challenged the government decision.


The first 26 prisoners were released in August 2012; the second 26 were released on October 30, 2013.  All of the latter 26, 21 of whom come from the West Bank and 5 from the Gaza Strip, have been convicted of murder or attempted murder.  All the offenses, many of which were brutal attacks on Israelis, were committed before the 1993 Oslo Accords, and the prisoners have served between 19 and 28 years in prison.  The prisoner serving the longest time is an individual who murdered 2 Israeli university students while they were hiking south of Jerusalem in 1984.


One can understand that the release of the second batch of prisoners is another goodwill gesture by Netanyahu to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and one partly due to pressure by the Obama administration.  It is also understandable, and commendable in an abstract way, that Netanyahu insists on honoring government decisions and commitments he made.


The Israeli government has the power to decide to release the prisoners, and the decision does not require parliamentary approval.  The decision, in addition to causing anguish and anger for the bereaved Israeli families, has also divided political leaders inside and outside the government coalition.  Naftali Bennett, Chairman of the Jewish Home Party and Minister for the Economy and Trade, has opposed the decision, while Tzipi Liv ni, Justice Minister, and her Hatnauh Party support it.  One can understand that the decision is part of complex international politics in which Israel is involved.  Yet in view of the political division in the country, it is difficult to accept the position that the decision is part of a long-term strategy, as Netanyahu has claimed, that will be successful.


A number of issues can be raised. First is that the release of the prisoners is a gratuitous insult to the victims and their families, who still suffer from the murders of their loved ones by terrorists.  What is noticeable is the absence of any statement by President Abbas or any other Palestinian leader, whether a potential participant in negotiations or not, of regret or apology for the behavior of the murderers.


Certainly this is not to be expected from the leaders of Hamas.  It seems improbable that those prisoners are likely to be punished in any way for their murders.  It is much more likely they will be treated as heroes and greeted with welcoming ceremonies.  It is equally likely that the five going back to Hama and the Gaza Strip will return to violence and engage in more terrorist activities.


Clearly the released terrorists have not renounced their past, nor made any promise not to commit future terrorist acts.  Israel has already been made aware of this problem.  In December 2011 it released 1,027 prisoners in return for the release of Gilad Shalit, the IDF soldier who had been kidnapped by Hamas.  It is known that some of those released had resumed terrorist activity.


It is improbable that releasing the prisoners will help forward the peace process or have any connection with it.  One may ask which other country has released terrorists to appease terrorist countries or groups.  In spite of the professed desire of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to close it down, the Guantánamo Bay camp remains as the place of detention of terrorists or suspected terrorists.  None of the more than 250 detainees have been released.  It was always a fantasy to think, as Holder believed, that real benefits would flow from the closure of the Guantánamo facility.


Most important is the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to enter into peace talks without concessions by Israel and the setting of preconditions.  It cannot be sufficiently stated that the stumbling block for any peace settlement is the refusal by the Palestinians, and still some of the Arab states, to accept the existence and legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel.  The release of the prisoners is not in consonance with a forthright declaration of this kind.  No peace is possible without such a declaration.  The release of the prisoners is not a crime, but it is a political blunder.



Michael Curtis is the author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/the_release_of_palestinian_prisoners_will_not_bring_peace.html

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

ObamaCare: Illegal Voter Mine for the Democratic Party?

by Arnold Ahlert

 

 

While many Americans remain focused on the ominous implications of ObamaCare with regard to health insurance or the faulty website, a far more serious issue remains under the radar. On Wednesday, two national election watchdog groups alleged that ObamaCare is really a massive voter registration vehicle masquerading as a healthcare bill. Gregg Phillips, the founder of the election integrity group Voters Trust takes it one step further. “I think [it] is the biggest voter registration fraud scheme in the history of the world,” he told Breitbart News.

Phillips, along with Catherine Engelbrecht of True The Vote, cited a report published by Demos, an organization founded by left-wing activist billionaire George Soros. “Building a Healthy Democracy: Registering 68 Million People to Vote Through Health Benefit Exchanges,” couches this effort in noble terms, contending that “the freedom to vote must be fiercely protected for all citizens, regardless of class or privilege.” Yet the report focuses on the problems encountered by lower-income Americans who register and vote in far lower percentages than those earning more than $100,000 per year. Report author Lisa J. Danetz notes that of the approximately 68 million individuals she envisions being registered by the law, most of them will be low-income individuals “who will eventually enroll in subsidized health care under the law.”

Democrats enjoy a huge political advantage with regard to low-income, largely uninsured Americans. A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll taken last summer reveals that uninsured Americans favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a margin of 62 to 27 percent. Among insured Americans, Obama’s edge was only eight points. Part of the political divide is explained by the fact that Hispanics and black Americans comprise half the nation’s uninsured citizens. Thus, any surge in voter registration facilitated by ObamaCare will undoubtedly favor Democrats.

The ability to use the healthcare bill to register voters comes courtesy of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), aka the “Motor Voter” law, passed in 1993. The NVRA requires programs offering public assistance benefits to offer individuals voter registration opportunities. The healthcare exchanges qualify in that regard, according to the administration.

What raises suspicions about the voter registration effort is the location of the question within the online form for ObamaCare registration. It appears on page 59 of the 61-page application, following numerous questions about an individual’s identity and healthcare qualifications. Critics contend the set-up may lead some people to conclude that registering to vote is required to receive healthcare insurance. Their argument is buttressed by introduction contained in the form. “This document (the “questionnaire”) represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations,” it states.

Last March, House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius contending her agency had overstepped its bounds. ”The draft documents wander into areas outside the department’s purview and links applications for health insurance subsidies to voter registration,” he wrote. “The position of the question could lead some to think voter registration is somehow tied to subsidy eligibility,” he added.

Boustany’s chief concerns revolved around what the HHS planned to do with the information it receives from each applicant, and whether ObamaCare “navigators,” many of whom are drawn from left-wing groups such as ACORN, Planned Parenthood, the National Urban League, United Labor Unions, Organizing For America (OFA) and the Virginia Poverty Law Center will steer their clients to the Democrat party.

Engelbrecht and Phillips share those concerns, believing the data collected by HHS will be used by those activist groups to conduct what amounts to a taxpayer subsidized, get-out-the-vote effort for the Democrat Party. Phillips further contends a similar effort was conducted during the early years of the Clinton administration. Engelbrecht agrees, noting that the Motor Voter law “was among the first bills signed by Bill Clinton.” Both believe ObamaCare is little more than a healthcare bill masquerading as a giant voter registration scheme.

“That’s why the exchanges seem now to be so ill-conceived; they weren’t meant to be the focus,” said Engelbrecht. ”The administration put their time and energy and effort into developing pipes into 50 states so that they could funnel through Medicaid enrollees and voter registrations. That’s what this is about. That’s the game. As part of that strategy, we’ll have millions of new voters by virtue of the new Medicaid patients that are flooding in.”

Medicaid patients are apparently the key. Phillips agrees they are coming into the healthcare system in huge numbers. “You’ve got every state all over the country seeing these cases,” he notes, further explaining that income verification is not required for submissions. Income verification for ObamaCare applicants was ostensibly the only concession won by the Republicans during the government shut down. But the Washington Post reveals the ultimate version of that concession was watered down to the point of meaninglessness when Obama signed off on the deal that re-opened the federal government.

Thus the possibility of fraud is very real, as many Americans will likely under-report their income in in exchange for greater insurance subsidies.

Unfortunately, that may be the lesser of two evils. The healthcare bill specifies that when low-income enrollees enter an exchange and qualify for insurance subsidies, they are automatically registered to vote, especially if they qualify for the Medicaid part of the program. Like Rep. Boustany, Engelbrecht believes the automatic opt-in, which marks a change from the method employed by the Motor Voter law, is a ploy and that very few applicants would resist ”upsetting the apple cart” by opting out. “Most people will just do what they think the government wants them to do,” she contends. “What they want is free healthcare.”

And since the NVRA requires any agency registering people to vote to provide help to those people if they want it, the aforementioned leftist-dominated ObamaCare navigators can visit people’s homes to help them sign up for insurance and register to vote.

Automatic voter registration is a critical component of this effort. Unless applicants specify they would like to opt-out of voter registration, states will likely be inundated with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of computer-generated applications. As a result of this deluge, the approval standards for those applications will likely become far less stringent than they should be. Once a state approves an application, it automatically mails out a voter registration card. Whoever receives it can simply sign it, mail it back to authorities, and be registered to vote–absent any face-to-face interaction with any state official.

Yet the NVRA requires “Face to Face” Initial Applications. So how is the Obama administration getting around that requirement? According to Phillips, the administration is contending that a visit to the healthcare.gov website is tantamount to a physical appearance at a government office! Phillips notes the absurdity of such a contention. “The very idea that I get to open up my website and call that my office, does that mean al Qaeda on their 5,000 websites, that those are their offices? Of course not. It’s ridiculous,” he explains.

In other words, it would appear the rule of law is being kicked to the curb. As of now, the administration is getting away with it.

Their triumph might be short-lived. Conservative legal scholars argue that the exchanges operate as private insurance marketplaces. Thus, they don’t fall under the NVRA’s definition of social service providers, and shouldn’t be linked to voter registration. Furthermore, the exchanges differ from state to state, with some operating as nonprofits, while other emanate from a state’s health or human services agency. And in most states the federal government runs the exchanges. ”It’s going to depend on how much it looks like traditional public assistance,” said Daniel Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University. “It’s quite likely that it will play out in court, and quite frankly it should.”

Until it does, the administration is moving forward, and voter rights activists will continue to insist this is not a partisan-based effort. ”Those new voters could be up for grabs by all parties,” said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office. “I think it’s very unreasonable to assume someone voting for the first time is necessarily going to be voting one way or the other.”

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argues otherwise. “Remember when we first learned who was getting money to set up exchanges in California?” Limbaugh asked his listeners. “The SEIU covered California; it was a bunch of left-wing activists. And the NAACP. And from that universe of people, the navigators are hired. What do you think is really going on? Voter registration. In addition to you going to get your healthcare, there is obviously massive Democrat voter registration going on at these exchanges.”

Who’s right? Americans should ask themselves if the Obama administration would be gung-ho about registering low-income voters using navigators for whom there are no federal background checks, if they thought there was even the remotest chance that “new voters could be up for grabs by all parties.”


Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamacare-illegal-voter-mine-for-the-democratic-party/

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

Palestinians: The War between Mahmoud and Mohamed

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Dahlan was quoted as saying that Abbas and his team were not negotiating with Israel about the restoration of Palestinian rights, but in order to win American and Israeli backing.
Abbas's aides are accusing Dahlan of being part of a "conspiracy" to topple the Palestinian Authority President.
A weak and divided Fatah could further boost Hamas's popularity among Palestinians.

After a prolonged lull, the ongoing war between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and ousted Fatah operative Mohamed Dahlan erupted once again over the past few days.

The two men are now accusing each other of treason, corruption and conspiracy, prompting some Palestinians to wonder whether the time has come for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to make an effort to hold "peace talks" between Abbas and Dahlan.

The Abbas-Dahlan rivalry reflects growing tensions in the ruling Fatah faction, which dominates the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

But the war is not only between two figures. Rather, it is between two camps in Fatah representing the old guard and new guard.

Mohamed Dahlan (left) and PA President Mahmoud Abbas (right). [Image source: World Economic Forum]

There were days when Abbas and Dahlan were considered close allies and friends. When Abbas served as prime minister under Yasser Arafat, in 2003, he appointed Dahlan as Minister of Security.

Back then, Abbas and Dahlan were forced to work together to face Arafat's autocratic regime, which sought to undermine the power of the two men.

However, tensions between Abbas and Dahlan first surfaced after Hamas seized control over the Gaza Strip and drove the Palestinian Authority out of the area in the summer of 2007.

Abbas and his loyalists then held Dahlan and his forces responsible for the Hamas "coup," saying they had not done enough to prevent the defeat of the Palestinian Authority. Dahlan was a former commander of the Palestinian Preventive Security Force in the Gaza Strip.

The tensions between the two reached their peak four years ago when Abbas learned that Dahlan had been bad-mouthing the president's sons, Yasser and Tareq Abbas.

In response, Abbas ordered the Palestinian Authority security forces to raid Dahlan's residence in Ramallah and confiscate documents and various types of equipment. Some of Dahlan's friends and aides were arrested during the raid.

Dahlan was forced to flee Ramallah and has since found refuge in the United Arab Emirates.
Abbas escalated his campaign against Dahlan by persuading Fatah's Central Committee to expel him from the faction.

Abbas aides have since accused Dahlan of involvement in various crimes, including the "poisoning" of Arafat, who died in November 2004, the assassination of a number of Fatah officials in the Gaza Strip, and embezzlement of public funds.

In recent weeks, the United Arab Emirates and other Arab countries have been trying to negotiate an end to the war between Abbas and Dahlan, but to no avail.

Palestinian sources claimed that the Arab mediators had even asked the 78-year-old Abbas to appoint Dahlan, 53, as his deputy. Abbas, according to the sources, turned down the proposal, saying he would never forgive Dahlan for betraying him and Fatah.

The failure of the mediation efforts prompted Dahlan last week to launch a scathing attack on Abbas and his close aides in Ramallah, reigniting the war between the two men.

Dahlan was quoted as saying that Abbas and his team were not negotiating with Israel about the restoration of Palestinian rights, but in order to win American and Israeli backing. "The leadership of the Palestinian Authority is so weak that it can't turn down any Israeli request," Dahlan was quoted as saying.

Dahlan was also quoted as accusing unnamed Palestinian Authority officials of providing logistical aid to construction work in Jewish settlements.

Dahlan's statements have drawn strong condemnations from Abbas and his top aides. They are now referring to the ousted Fatah operative as "Lieberman Dahlan" – a reference to Israeli right-wing politician and former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is a strong critic of the Palestinian Authority and its leaders.

Abbas's aides are also accusing Dahlan of being part of a "conspiracy" to topple the Palestinian Authority president. They claim that Dahlan is wanted by the Palestinian Authority for his role in the assassination of Fatah activists and financial corruption.

Dahlan does not seem to be standing alone in his battle against Abbas. Several Fatah-affiliated groups and figures in the Gaza Strip and Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon have come out in support of Dahlan, deepening divisions inside Fatah.

The war between Dahlan and Abbas has seriously undermined Fatah's credibility among Palestinians. Fatah has already lost much of its credibility as a result of its failure to reform and come up with new leaders.

This war, a weak and divided Fatah, plays into the hands of Hamas and could further boost its popularity among Palestinians. Before pursuing its efforts to achieve peace with Israel, Fatah needs to solve its internal problems. A weak and divided Fatah would never be able to sell any peace agreement with Israel to its people.


Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4043/abbas-dahlan

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

5 IDF Soldiers Wounded, 4 Palestinians Killed in Gaza Clashes

by Israel Hayom Staff and News Agencies

IDF soldiers ambushed while detonating Hamas tunnel near border • Senior Hamas terrorist killed in ensuing battle • IDF: Hamas has violated the understandings reached after Operation Pillar of Defense.

IDF soldiers near the Gaza border on Thursday

Five Israel Defense Forces soldiers were wounded late Thursday night in an explosion near the Gaza border in the Khan Yunis area. According to the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, one of the soldiers was in serious condition, another was moderately hurt and the rest sustained light injuries. 

In response, an Israeli airstrike killed three militants in Gaza on Friday, the Islamist terror group Hamas said, after an overnight clash left a fourth Palestinian gunman dead.

It was the worst violence between Israeli and Palestinian forces in the coastal enclave since a cease-fire was struck last November at the end of an eight-day conflagration.

Quoting an unnamed source in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Maan news agency named the three dead Palestinians as Mohammad al-Qassas, Mohammad Dawoud, and Khalid Abu Bakra. The three were commanders of Hamas' military wing, the report said according to Palestinian officials.

Ambulances managed to retrieve their bodies once Israeli forces withdrew, about an hour and a half after the airstrike, according to the Palestinian report. 

Overnight, the IDF detonated a part of a tunnel used by the Palestinians to facilitate attacks on Israelis, discovered in southern Gaza last month. During the course of the operation, a Palestinian explosive device was used to ambush Israeli forces, wounding five. One Hamas militant was reportedly killed in the ensuring exchange of fire.

The operation was a joint Golani Brigade and Engineering Corps effort. The Israeli forces were operating about 100 meters inside Palestinian territory, near the Kissufim border crossing and Kibbutz Ein Hashlosha. 

The five wounded soldiers all belong to the IDF Engineering Corps. Of the five, one is a lieutenant colonel and another is a major. 

After the soldiers were wounded, an observation team identified a terrorist cell at a nearby location, apparently linked to the incident. 

The soldiers were evacuated by helicopter to Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba for treatment. 

"With its actions, Hamas has violated the understandings reached after Operation Pillar of Defense," said an IDF statement Friday. "They engaged in offensive operations within Israeli territory and built offensive tunnels. Hamas is the sovereign in the Gaza Strip and it is their responsibility to prevent terror of any kind. The IDF will continue to take action to remove all threats facing the citizens of the State of Israel and our defense forces."

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri "blessed" the latest attacks saying his group "gave a painful lesson" to Israel. "Gaza will be the land of hell" for Israel, he said on Friday.

At Soroka hospital on Friday, doctors were fighting to save the eyesight of the soldier who sustained the worst injuries among the Israelis involved in the incident. Speaking to Israeli news outlets, a military source said that the soldier was sedated and breathing via a respirator. 

Doctors reported that all five soldiers had sustained injuries to their faces and limbs as well as burns, but insisted that none were in life-threatening conditions. 

The Israel-Gaza frontier had been mostly quiet for the past year following the Egyptian-brokered cease-fire.

On Monday, however, Gaza militants fired two rockets into southern Israel and Israel bombed what it said were two concealed rocket launchers in northern Gaza. There were no casualties in those incidents.

Israel Hayom Staff and News Agencies

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=13015

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

Mordechai Kedar: Blood Flows in the Rivers of the Garden of Eden

by Mordechai Kedar

Read the article in the original עברית
Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)
Read the article en Español (translated by Shula Hamilton)

Two of the four rivers of the Garden of Eden - according to the Book of Genesis - are located in Iraq. The Tigris and Euphrates flow from the mountains of Turkey, through Syria and into Iraq, they join in Shatt al-Arab and whatever remains of its waters then flows into the Gulf. Many canals, or arteries - (in Arabic, "artery" is "al-Iraq") - have been dug between the rivers, to provide irrigation for agriculture in the hot, dry desert. Without the rivers and the canals between them, Iraq would be a dry, arid desert. Anyone who wants to survive in the burning Iraqi desert must live as part of a cohesive armed and violent group, ready to do battle in order to defend his water source and his livelihood.

Over the generations, many groups have settled in Iraq, and today they constitute the population of the state. There are four ethnic groups: Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and Persians, who are divided into more than seventy tribal groups, eight religions (Muslims, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians,  Sabeans, Mandeans, Yazidis and Baha'is) and innumerable sects (the Muslims are divided into Sunnis, Shi'ites, Salafis, Sufis and others, and the Christians are divided into Catholic sects: Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian, Roman and Byzantine; Orthodox sects: Aramean, Armenian, Ancient Oriental, Assyrian, Byzantine, Coptic (Egyptian refugees); Protestant sects: Assyrian National, in addition to Seventh Day Adventists and Subbotniks.

For our purposes it is important to note that many Muslim Iraqis regard members of other religions as believers in false religions, and the punishment for this is either having to live as a "protected people" ("ahl dhimma"), considered an appropriate solution for Jews and Christians, or having to choose between converting to Islam or being slaughtered as infidels.

The meager living conditions in the desert have resulted in a proliferation of tribal, sectarian ethnic groups, resulting in a split and polarized population, quarrelsome and violent, with a generations-long tradition of battles and blood feuds. This is the source of all of Iraq's misfortunes.

The British, who held the mandate for Iraq, crowned Faisal as king of Iraq in 1921, and his brother Abdullah as Emir of the Emirate of Transjordan, to give the sons of Sharif Hussein from the Hijaz "jobs", as a reward for his support in the First World War against the Ottoman Empire. The fact that Faisal spoke with a Saudi accent and the people of Arabic Iraq speak with an Iraqi accent did not matter the British. The Iraqis never accepted the royal house that the British had imposed on them, or the way that Britain determined the borders of the state according to British interests - principally concerning oil - and not according to the needs of its population.

Throughout the history of Iraq, there have been battles between its Arab government and the Kurdish region, and there has been continual tension between the Sunni minority and the Shi'ite majority. This was the inevitable outcome of Iraq's demographics. And this is why this country has been dominated by dictatorial groups these past nine years, each one harshly and cruelly oppressing anyone who did not belong to the group in power.

Due to the parochial nature of government, some sectors of the population remained loyal to their traditional group, because this granted its members a sort of defense against the government's fury, since consolidated traditional collectives are better able to defend themselves and negotiate with the central regime regarding the division of power.

To avoid being in continual conflict with the various groups, the central government found ways to appease the heads of the groups by means of economic franchises and government positions. By Western standards, such conduct is considered corrupt, while in the Middle East it is necessary, and is considered natural.

The two rulers who shaped Iraqi history in the second half of the twentieth century were Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr (1968-1979) and Saddam Hussein (1979-2003). Ideologically and organizationally, they both based their rule on Baathist ideas and on the party that was established to implement them, but in reality, their rule was based on a system of balances between harsh oppression and appeasement of potential adversaries, while creating rivalries in order to prevent the formation of coalitions against the central government.

An illegitimate state ruled by an illegitimate government must have an external enemy to unify the opposition to the government and bring them under its umbrella. Iraq found this enemy in Iran, and over the years conducted bloody wars against it: The first, in the years 1974-1975, and the second between 1980 and 1988. The first was against the Shah and the second was against the rule of the Ayatollahs.

With the aim of increasing Iraq's economic and political strengths at the expense of its neighbors, Saddam conquered and occupied Kuwait in 1990. Although he expected the world to condemn the invasion, he believed that it would ultimately be accepted as a fait accompli, but he was mistaken. In the five-week war that was waged in January-February of 1991, he was forced to withdraw from Kuwait because of the tremendous damage that was done to the army and civil infrastructure of the state. But the war and the regimen of sanctions that were imposed on Iraq did not bring about the fall of Saddam, because dictators know how to direct hardships onto their populations, while remaining unharmed for the most part themselves.

In the year 2003, an international coalition was formed headed by the United States, to attack Iraq. Saddam disappeared, and in 2004 was arrested and tried, and was hanged in 2006. But the tragedy of Iraq is that despite the country's population having been freed from dictatorial rule, civil and political mechanisms based on thought patterns, behaviors and conduct other than the traditional loyalty to the tribe, ethnic group, religious group and sect were not developed.


On the surface, there are political parties, elections are held, there seems to be an operational parliament and a functional government, but when one examines in depth how these modern mechanisms work, one discovers that all of them, in one way or another, present the usual frameworks and conduct the usual battles, but by means of the modern tools that liberation from Saddam have provided. But the worst thing is that the system - mainly since the withdrawal of American forces at the end of 2011 - does not have one single balancing power that can impose its agenda on all the conflicting forces. And the result is that the government is non-functional, parts of the country - principally the Kurdish part - behave as independent states, Sunni jihad organizations blow up car bombs in Shi'ite neighborhoods, and in response, Shi'ite jihad gangs blow up truck bombs in the markets of Sunni cities.

The social disorder, political chaos and power vacuum make Iraq vulnerable to the influence of foreign powers and two of Iraq's neighbors are up to their necks in the bloody affairs in the Land of the Two Rivers: Saudi Arabia finances, arms and trains the Sunni militias, while Iran is the money, weapons and training behind the Shi'ite militias. In the wide canals of the Tigris and Euphrates, two of the rivers that irrigated the Garden of Eden with their waters, Iraqi blood flows today, making it seem, ironically, more like Hell.

In every single month of 2013, several hundred people have been killed in terror attacks in Iraq. The security forces are infiltrated with agents of organizations that are enemies of the state and therefore they have limited ability to fight effectively against the bombing attacks and the terrorists. Many politicians' hands are stained with the blood of their rivals, but their violent dedication to their group is what got them elected in the first place, "democratically", of course. And since the Shi'ites are a majority in Iraq, a Shi'ite coalition rules there, under Iranian auspices, while marginalizing the Sunni minority politically, economically and socially.

Sunni political activists are arrested and disappear into torture dungeons no less horrifying than Saddam Hussein's, but inside these dungeons the tables have been turned: then, Saddam's Sunni jailers tortured Shi'ites, and today it's the Shi'ite jailers of Nuri al-Malaki, the Shi'ite prime minister, who are torturing the Sunnis. Several Sunni leaders who were identified in the past with the Ba'ath party and who are today in prison, might yet be executed by hanging.

Meanwhile, Syria, Iraq's neighbor to the west, has joined the list of states involved in the "Arab turmoil" that began in Tunisia in December of 2010, and Tunisia is also becoming embroiled in the bloodbath. Sunni, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia supports the Salafi Sunni jihadist organizations operating in Iraq against the Shi'ite regime with funds, arms and fighters, and in Syria against the Alawite dictator under the influence of al-Qaeda, even if they do not have the name of that specific group on their lips.

The Americans watch what is going on in Iraq astonished and helpless. On one hand, Obama brags that he took the American army out of Iraq, but on the other hand he sees how Iraqi "democracy" is turning into torture dungeons with blood in the streets and ever increasing Iranian influence, and he has no desire to strengthen such an Iraqi regime.

On the other hand, if the regime in Iraq is weak, then militias such as al-Qaeda and The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria might take over parts of the state, especially the region of al-Anbar in the west, which is settled by Sunni tribes, and turn this area into a new Afghanistan, along with with the Dir a-Zur region in eastern Syria after the state has disintegrated.

It is against this background that Nuri al-Malaki, prime minister of Iraq, is visiting Washington. He is coming to tell Obama about the things that Iraqi governments - and especially his - have achieved in recent years: an improvement in oil production and resulting rise in income; a decline in poverty and unemployment rates; resettling the refugees who had fled from the state during the past decade; better quality of nutrition for children and adults together with a decline in infant mortality; an improvement in the quality of drinking water; more children enrolled in organized education;  an improvement in the status of women and allowing women the opportunity to be elected to parliament; almost total eradication of malaria; holding democratic elections for parliament and local government.

In order to maintain these achievements and progress onward to additional achievements, al-Malaki needs American weapons that will enable him to fight effectively against the forces threatening to turn Iraq into a Sunni Jihadistan under Saudi Arabia's influence. The problem is that if American weapons are transferred to a Shi'ite government, it might help the Shi'ites turn Iraq into a Shi'ite Jihadistan, operating under Iranian influence.

Al-Malaki is principally interested in Predator drones that will enable the regime to attack Sunni jihad operatives without endangering pilots. These drones have proven themselves in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But what would happen if al-Malaki allows his friends in Iran to examine these drones so that they can develop weapons to counter them? How would the Americans be able to use these weapons against Iran if and when they decide to do so in the future? And what would happen if the Iranians share these secrets with their friends, the Russians and the Chinese?

The strategic cooperation agreement that was signed between Iraq and the United States just before the American withdrawal provides the background for these discussions, because the United States is obligated to provide for the stability of the regime in Iraq even if its behavior is not perfect and it doesn't reflect the democratic values of the United States and its regional interests. Al-Malaki will need to exercise all of his persuasive powers to get an agreement from the United States - which is tired of wars and involvement in the crises of the Middle East - to take meaningful steps that might again lead to United States into involvement in the Iraqi swamp.

The crisis in Syria will also be part of the dialogue with Obama. Al-Malaki represents the Iranian position, and his presence in the Second Geneva Conference, if it is held, might tip the scales in favor of Asad. On one hand, Obama is not enthusiastic about the participation of the Iraqi-Iranian duo in the conference, because he sees Iran as the dominant part of the problem, but not necessarily part of the the solution. On the other hand, everyone knows that there is no point to the resolutions that will be taken in the conference if this pair of states does not honor them and acts against them.

The underlying question about the events in Iraq is whether the blood will stop flowing in the Tigris and the Euphrates, in Syria and in Iraq, and if the waters of the two rivers will again nourish the Garden of Eden as they once did?

===============

Dr. Kedar is available for lectures

Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by SallyZahav with permission from the author.

Additional articles by Dr. Kedar

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

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

Washington’s Will Is Done: Bloody Terrorists Freed

by P. David Hornik

 

Just after midnight on Wednesday, Israel Hayom reports, 26 Palestinian security prisoners were set free by Israel. Twenty-one were sent to the West Bank, five to Gaza.

All of these prisoners were convicted either of murder or attempted murder. They constitute the second of four groups of 26 prisoners who are being released periodically during the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. For Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, freeing them was an iron-clad condition for entering the talks at all. Israel acceded to it under heavy U.S. pressure, spearheaded by Secretary of State John Kerry.

“…Palestinians in Ramallah and Gaza,” Israel Hayom informs us,

celebrated the release of the prisoners. The 21 prisoners returning to the West Bank attended an official reception at the Mukataa in Ramallah, where…Abbas greeted them personally.
“We welcome our brothers the heroes coming from behind the bars to a world of freedom and liberty,” Abbas was quoted as saying.

None of the American diplomatic personnel in Israel attended this reception. That may not seem worth pointing out. Wouldn’t it be a diplomatic slap to Israel? And wouldn’t it contradict American values to attend a celebratory reception for terrorist killers?

Indeed, it would. But why, then, did it not unacceptably contradict American values to pressure Israel to free them in the first place?

Indeed, these 26 are a nasty lot. Here are just a few examples from a partial list compiled by Israel National News:

Awad Masalkha took part in the murder of Yigal Vaknin…and also murdered another Jew, David Reuven…, an Iraqi-born father of three who ran a mini-market…. In 1991, Awad and other terrorists entered the mini-market, attacked Reuven, tied him up and beat him to death. He was 59….
Ahmed Damuni murdered reservist soldier Amnon Pomerantz…in 1990. Pomerantz was on his way to reserve service in Gaza when he entered the Al Burej neighborhood by mistake. He was pummeled with rocks, murdered, and his body was burned inside his car. He was 46. He was survived by his wife and three children.

Haza Yusef and Abdullah Bani-Hassan murdered Yosef Eliyahu and Leah Elmakayes…, two teachers, in 1985. The teachers were preparing a field trip for their pupils in the Gilboa area, when they were accosted by the terrorists. Eliyahu, 35, married and a father of five, was shot at close range, and Elmakayis, 19, was strangled to death. She had been a National Service volunteer. She left behind her parents and three siblings.

The peace talks, by the way, are reportedly going nowhere. The ordinary, humble, logical person might remark—that’s not surprising, is it, considering that one side regards such people as heroes?

And not only that, but well-compensated heroes. “Palestinian media,” Israel Hayom adds,

reported Tuesday that every prisoner who was released will receive a special grant from the PA, according to the length of his prison sentence. The grants—some of which are expected to amount to tens of thousands of dollars—will join a monthly stipend the PA plans to allot the prisoners, ranging between 2,500 and 4,500 shekels ($710-$1,280) a month.

Whether Israel should be giving in to the Palestinian-U.S. advocacy for these terrorists is bitterly debated in Israel. On Monday Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said:

Ordering the Palestinian prisoners’ release has been one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to make as prime minister…. I am sure that any prime minister who has ever had to make a similar decision in the past has agonized over it as well, given the injustice of seeing these heinous murderers freed before they have finished serving their sentences in full….
My heart goes out to the bereaved families. This decision was a necessary evil, dictated by the reality we live in. We must navigate a complex international arena that presents us with multiple challenges. It mandates that we consider various factors and do what is best for the State of Israel.

A translation might be:

It is very difficult getting along with the current U.S. administration, but nevertheless we remain dependent on America. At present the main issue facing the State of Israel is the Iranian nuclear threat. I have had to play along with the Palestinian game in the hope of achieving maximum understanding with Washington on a matter that poses a far more strategic, indeed an existential danger.

Just how difficult it has been to get along with the Obama administration on the Iranian issue was evident this week in Kerry’s thinly veiled reference to Netanyahu’s “fear tactics.”

It may seem like “fear tactics” to those who split their time between Washington and Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket. To Israelis, the “fear” induced by batches of freed terrorists and Iranian genocidal threats is quite real. At some points in Israeli history deferring to America has turned out to be more dangerous and costly than not doing so. This may be one of them.


P. David Hornik

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/davidhornik/washingtons-will-is-done-bloody-terrorists-freed/

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