Clean Out the Stables and Prepare for War - Part III

By Moshe Sharon

 

The Shi'ah

To this point we have addressed Islam in general, however it is necessary to pay special attention to Shi'ite Islam against which the State of Israel has just fought and will have to fight under more difficult conditions in the future. Shi'ite Islam is the more messianic branch of Islam. It has built itself up as a religio-political body, concentrating its hopes, beliefs and aspirations around the image of the "Hidden Imám," the Mahdi whose imminent appearance from his hiding place is anticipated at any moment. The Shi'ite messianic concept is unlike the Sunni and Jewish ones. In contrast to these, according to which the identity of the Messiah is not precisely determined, the Mahdi of the Shi'ah is a living Messiah. His personal identity is known, he is a direct descendent of Muhammad; he has a name (also Muhammad), his father and his ancestors are known; he is alive and well in his hiding place in this world and awaiting the opportunity to appear. It will be an impressive appearance with a drawn sword and blood and fire. He will go to war against the whole world (including Sunni Islam). The Mahdi will win; and finally, a descendant of the Prophet will rule over Islam in its entirety – the one, true Amir al-Mu'minin – Commander of the Faithful.

The Shiites have always been, and remain a minority. Throughout their history they have born the mark of Cain on their foreheads for the murder (in 680CE) of the third imam, Imam Hussein. True, they did not murder him; it was the representatives of the Sunni government who did it; however they feel that they were accomplices to the crime, and that, in their eyes, was a terrible sin against God. The sin of standing idly by when Hussein was murdered rests on every Shi'ite wherever he may be and cannot be expiated. It is a bloody stain that cannot be erased. All the Shi'ites can do is to remember the murder every moment of their lives and attempt to feel some of the pain that Hussein felt on the day he died. Therefore, the Shi'ites perform their " 'Ashurá" ceremonies (called ta'ziyah) in public. They cut themselves with knives, daggers and swords, spill each other's blood and even spill the blood of babies in their cradles in an outburst of mass ecstasy, and they aspire to die at that moment as an act of identification with the death of the Prophet's grandson. These horrific acts are displayed publicly in the media in the entire world and no one draws the conclusions concerning the nature of a religion that sanctifies bloodshed even of its own members. This one day, the 10^th of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic year, expresses, perhaps more than anything else, the death wish, the desire for martyrdom and the thirst for suffering, pain and blood.

Throughout their history, the Shi'ites have sought to achieve some sort of legitimacy for themselves in the Sunni world, in whose eyes they are considered "dissenters." Now they believe that they have found the way to accomplish that: The destruction of Israel will provide the desired legitimacy. Over the course of more than 50 years, the Islamic Sunni world – headed by the huge Arab world surrounding Israel like a noose – has been unsuccessful in getting rid of the Jewish state. Now Iran, the only Shi'ite country in the world, is sure that it can do it. Under its leadership the Shi'ites will assume leadership of the jihad, the holy war against the entire world and they will start it from Israel. The aspiration to acquire nuclear weapons is part of the plan. Iran plans to use it and if in the process millions of Muslims die, all the better – paradise has room for all the martyrs. Perhaps that is what the Mahdi is waiting for, that the entire world be drawn into a colossal Armageddon. Surely he cannot remain indifferent when such mega-war takes place. The apocalypse is the appropriate backdrop for his appearance. He will certainly choose to appear surfing on waves of blood, blazing fire, and the billows of smoke of a radioactive world, and bring an end to the humiliation of Islam by the infidels and salvation to the world – a Muslim world free of Jews ruled by the laws of the Mahdi. Ahmadinezhad truly believes that he is destined to hasten his coming.

Great Satan, Little Satan

Hizbullah is a Shi'ite organization whose name means "Party of Allah." This name incorporates a patently Islamic idea – Hizbullah is actually the entire Islamic world, as all Muslims are Allah's party, all Muslims are his nation, all Muslims are his army; and they are obligated, as the Qur'an states explicitly, to fight for him in order to impose his law on the entire world. The Hizbullah of Lebanon is avant-garde, the front-line camp of Allah's army and as such it fulfills the role of fighting against the front line of the Satan – Israel. This explains the demonological imagery that we see and hear on a daily basis in the Arab media outlets: Israel is the devil's son, the "little Satan"; America, England and the Western world in general are the great Satan: that is to say, the ultimate negative force confronting Allah and the entire Muslim nation. The great Satan confronts the Great Hizbullah – the Islamic nation in its entirety. Dealing with the great Satan is an all-Islamic duty, and this is the responsibility of the all-Muslim great fighting organization: al-Qa'ida spreading far its octopus-like arms, and supported as it is by the massive economic wealth of the Muslims. The little Lebanese Hizbullah confronts the little Satan.

All that was written above should have been known to the Israeli governments and its leaders, as it is known to every orientalist who isn't deluding himself and does not allow his political inclinations take precedence over the professional truth. However, the truth is that most of them have deluded themselves, and it is doubtful if, when the facts are thrown in their faces, they will admit it and disavow their previous positions.

 

The End of the "Era of Peace"

Here is the reality as it truly is:

The end of the era of make-believe "peace" has arrived. There never was any such thing. There is only the era of war – past, present and future – and that alone must be dealt with and preparations must be made only for its difficult developments. The Jewish public does not go to war happily. It prefers even a spark of calm over war. It prefers to go to sleep with "A Star Is Born" TV program or similar nonsense, and is willing to fall asleep to the cooing of Shimon Peres's doves of peace. Therefore it is surprised when it is awakened by the sound of the explosions of missiles.

By establishing war as the only existing alternative in this part of the world ("agreements" are also part of it), the public justifiably asks: How long? And the answer is: Until the Muslims lose all hope of liquidating us, and that means forever. The Arabs and Islam in general will never be able to come to terms with the reality expressed in the simple question posed on a daily basis by one or another Muslim leader: How is it possible that a billion and a half Muslims, who control massive resources, cannot wipe out (another) six million Jews ensnared in a fifty-kilometer-wide death trap. This reality offends the honor of the Muslims, angers them, and unceasingly incites feelings of revenge within them.

Anyone unwilling to understand that this is the genuine reality with which we must live and anyone unwilling to deal with it, does not belong in the Middle East – the old, cruel Middle East. It is possible that he doesn't belong in Europe either because it has already surrendered; it has lost.

 

Back to classical wars

We must, therefore, return to classical warfare. Not a "small, smart army," like the one suggested by Ehud Barak, the Prime Minister who brought the Party of God down on our heads, but a big, strong army. We need all the power: A large regular army, emergency warehouses filled to capacity and beyond, a reserve-force trained and skilled to the utmost capability. An end to all the various exemptions and an end to draft-dodging for reasons of conscience or for any other reason. Every healthy young man to the army, to combat units! A fundamental change of values, a reordering of national priorities: Everything for an offensive force, not a defensive one; a well-trained military force standing ready to attack with maximum power and with maximum force. No longer the Israel Defense Force but the Israel Offense Force: A Jewish jihad in our time of need. Our enemy is already standing at our doorstep.

 

The war's objective: Syria must be destroyed

Ceterum censeo Syriam esse delendam ("In addition, I believe that Syria must be destroyed" following Cato the Elder who ended every speech before the Roman Senate: Ceterum censeo Cartaginem esse delendam "In addition, I believe that Carthage must be destroyed.")

In the recent war we were not far from being routed; and to a great extent, in the eyes of the enemy it was in fact a rout. As I write these lines, I hear the Syrian President announce our defeat. He is probably correct as he is still alive and able to speak.

It is not against Lebanon that we should have fought this war, but rather against Syria, Hizbullah's patron and the link connecting Iran and Hizbullah. Syria should have been totally destroyed. No infrastructure, economic or otherwise should exist today – the airports, the fuel storage facilities, the dams on the Euphrates, the army headquarters, the missile systems and the presidential palaces all should have become heaps of ruins and the Israeli army should have been on the outskirts of Damascus. That was the result of the war that the entire enlightened world anticipated. Instead, it was astounded to see the lack of decisiveness, the vacillation over "a limited action" and "a little here a little there" while Hizbullah fire blanketed the country, reaching its center. This fire would have ended eventually and all of the war's objectives would have been achieved the moment that Syria was reduced to rubble. That could have been accomplished if Israel had a bold leadership, which understood precisely the significance of the comprehensive battle for survival against which Israel is standing. Iran, too, would certainly have begun thinking differently.

 

Strategic Depth

And another classical concept of warfare – strategic depth. This is a commodity that Israel requires above all else with its back to the sea. Before 1967, Israel lacked strategic depth and it literally fought from within its capital city. The Six Day War provided it with limited strategic depth, until the Oslo fools came along and relinquished it to our worst enemies; Arafat's gangs, whose declared aim is the destruction of Israel. However, the army retains control of the "killing area" of the Jordan Valley, and backed by the Jewish settlements it can control the mountain region. The withdrawal fools relinquished territories of the highest strategic importance in Gaza and exposed the country to missile terrorism, and other withdrawal fools seek to cede the last remaining strategic depths in Judea and Samaria. If that, God forbid, were to happen, Israel would become a narrow coastal country, like the post-1187 Crusader state, which would eternally tempt its enemies to destroy it. What a disaster it will be if the Palestinian holy warriors acquire even a fraction of the Hizbullah's power. The residents of the north fled to the center of the country. Where will the residents of the Tel Aviv bubble flee when not Katyushas, but merely primitive kassams and mortars are fired upon it from Samaria? Into the sea to fulfill the Arabs' great dream?

A substitute for the strategic depth that we lost in Lebanon has not and will not be found. The result of that loss is the destruction of the Galilee and the helpless stance in the face of the barrage of missiles. When the IDF fled Lebanon in 2000 under orders from the blind Israeli government, the adherents of the flight said that there would be no more fatalities in Lebanon. The price, they said, was steep: 25 dead per year. In the present war, we are mourning our dead – we have paid exorbitant interest in dead, wounded, disabled, and destruction for each of those six years.

 

The Palestinians

And regarding the Palestinians. Here we must sharply and decisively do away with that nonsense called the Palestinian State. Not because of a "messianic" vision as the opponents of Jewish settlement in the mountains say, but rather because a Palestinian State which would be a member of the Arab League and which would control the coastal plain from the mountains, is a surefire recipe for destruction. Therefore, in the framework of reordering the national priorities, the settlement in the mountains should be established as a fundamental component in the new order, right after rehabilitation of the military force. This is also an excellent way to combat terrorism. For every casualty of terrorism, Israel should announce the establishment of a new settlement. There is no doubt that the enemy would quickly understand the implications. Had we acted this way in the past, there would be dense Jewish population in the mountains providing support for the army (just as it did in Gush Katif before it was laid waste) and the various terrorists would have to think hard whether it was worthwhile to kill Jews. The Jewish state needs every inch in the east in order to defend the residents of the bubble and the heart of the state. This is an existential need, not ambitions of occupation, as there is no occupation here. A nation cannot occupy its own country.

Therefore, the nonsense of building a "security fence" should be halted and the billions saved should be earmarked first for the army and for investment in other vital needs. A fighting nation does not hide behind a joke of cement and barbed wire fence. Even the Great Wall of China did not halt invaders.

Is there leadership in the State of Israel capable of facing this truth without fear, a far-sighted leadership, leadership that will develop Israeli might to the extent that its enemies will be forced to postpone the jihad against it indefinitely?

Is there leadership that will begin to establish fundamental values in the state that are based on truth and not on empty fantasies that have humiliated it and placed its very existence in danger?

Perhaps such leadership can be found after the stables are cleaned.

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

 

Ex-US Ambassador to UN John Bolton Speaks with IsraelNationalRadio's Tovia Singer.

by Hillel Fendel

John Bolton, who served as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006, spoke with IsraelNationalRadio's Tovia Singer about the recent Bush Administration intelligence report on Iran's nuclear capabilities.  The controversial diplomat said the report was more political than intelligence-based, and that it was meant only to undercut President Bush's policies on Iran.

Click to hear the John Bolton interview

Singer began by asking Bolton, author of a recent book entitled, Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the UN and Abroad, "How did you manage to maintain your sanity while working in such a hostile environment as the UN?"

Chuckling, Bolton replied, "It was truly a target-rich environment there, and not the most hospitable.  But it was important to have someone stand up for American interests, and make sure that we're not turned into a well-bred doormat there at the UN and that our foreign policy options are not constrained."

Singer: "But it certainly got you in an enormous amount of trouble, for you've always been outspoken, and you're not hostile to the Jewish State, and you believe in the war on terrorism - basically, you drive the left crazy!  Why do you do it?"

Bolton: "I like to think that Sen. Joe Biden actually tipped his hand a little back in 2001 when he opposed my confirmation for my first job in this administration as Undersecretary for Arms Control; he said that his trouble with me was that over the years, I have been 'too competent.'  They were worried that I might actually change things."

Not Quite an "Intelligence" Report
When Singer said he wanted to bring up the recent American intelligence report that downplayed the Iranian nuclear capabilities and brought great joy to Iran and to the left, Bolton said, "I don't think we should call it an intelligence report, but rather a document of the Executive Branch.  It was a highly-politicized document, written by some who are not even intelligence community professionals, but rather from the State Department... In theory, they all work for the President, but they don't like his policies and they think that he's too belligerent towards Iran - though my own personal view is that the President was not tough enough  - and this paper was intended to undercut the Bush position.  This report has put Bush's policy on the bottom of the ocean."

"Let me just take one specific example to show how distorted it was," Bolton said. "The headlines all over the world after the report were that Iran has no nuclear weapons program - but in fact the document refers only to a halt on weaponization - putting a nuclear device on top of a ballistic missile, which is just a sliver of the all-out nuclear program.  It's an important piece, yes, but it's just a small part.  Since 2003 Iran has made steady progress towards all the technology it needs for a nuclear weapon, and it can turn its program back on - if it was ever turned off - in a snap.  This report will be very harmful to the cause of stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

Bolton went on to say that the job of the intelligence community is merely to "provide the facts, and what we do not need from the intelligence people is their view on how to put those facts into a political policy; for that, we have government leadership.  Unfortunately, this report shows that the intelligence community has gone way beyond its legitimate boundaries."

North Korea: A Criminal State
Singer asked why Iran, with its enormous oil reserves, does not just send ten billion dollars over to cash-strapped North Korea and buy a nuclear weapon?

Bolton: "It's possible; North Korea is a criminal state, and would sell anything to anyone for hard cash.  But my judgment is that Iran wants a sustained nuclear capability; they want to master everything so that it doesn't have to be dependent on a place like North Korea."

Israeli Censorship on Attack on Syria is Mistake
"I think we should all be paying more attention to the site that Israel struck in Syria back on September 6.  You know, you in Israel are operating under extraordinary censorship about that, but I think this is a mistake - we need to get the facts out about what was going on there at that site near the Euphrates River.  We need to know more about the nuclear partnership between Syria and North Korea there." 

Singer: "Has this report buried the strategy of imposing sanctions against Iran?"

Bolton: "Yes, certainly for the short term. But I have faith in the Iranians that they will soon do something that will tip their hand again and do something to show that they are working towards nuclear capability.  I don't think the report will stand for very long, but let's face it, it's done a lot of damage."

Message to Israel
Singer: "You are now speaking to many Jews and non-Jews throughout the Land of Israel, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Your message to them?"

Bolton: "I think it's important to keep your focus on national security and not get diverted by political rhetoric and the demands of people who are out trying to build legacies for themselves.  You have to keep the long-term and your national interest in mind and remember who your friends are."

Click to hear the John Bolton interview

Download the John Bolton Interview

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

 

Int'l Jihadist Groups Pledge Support to Hamas, Criticize Abbas

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muhammad Mahdi Akef, and Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri both recently addressed the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its campaign against Israel. Akef pledged 10,000 fighters. Al-Zawahiri called on Hamas to cut ties with the PA's Mahmoud Abbas and to fight for an international jihad movement.

Brotherhood 'Must Support All the Forces of Resistance'
In a November 30 interview with the United Kingdom's Al-Hiwar television, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Akef was asked, "During the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, you said that the Muslim Brotherhood was prepared to arm 10,000 young men, and to send them to Lebanon in order to support the resistance. Does this apply to Palestine too?"

Akef replied, "This applies to any country under occupation. One of the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood is to rid the Arab and Islamic nation of any foreign rule. The Muslim Brotherhood must support all the forces of resistance in the Arab and Islamic world."

As for weapons for the battalion of fighters, Akef said, "The [Egyptian] government must arm these people. When I fought in Palestine, the government knew about it. The government trained and armed us. As you well know, the military commanders worked with the Muslim Brotherhood. When we fought the English in 1951 in the [Suez] Canal, the government knew about it. We would undergo weapons training within [Al-Azhar] University."

Akef also addressed the issue of Al-Qaeda, claiming, "There is no such thing as Al-Qaeda. This is an American invention, so that they will have something to fight for...." Yet, later in the same interview, Akef says that Al-Qaeda "employs methods that do not please Allah. How can I kill a Muslim when this is forbidden?"

Al-Qaeda: 'Liberate Every Inch From Andalusia to Chechnya'
In an audio recording posted to the Internet on December 14, Al-Qaeda's Al-Zawahiri termed the November Annapolis Conference "treason" and called on Hamas to abandon dialogue with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and return to "your pure doctrine." 

According to a MEMRI report, Al-Zawahiri claimed that the "goal of the Annapolis conference... was to make Palestine Jewish." The US Administration, which he dubbed "the Crusader emperor of Washington," wants "to obtain a Security Council resolution which will be imposed on the Islamic ummah [nation] in Palestine...."

Hamas also came in for criticism by the Al-Qaeda leader: "I am amazed... at the [Hamas] politicians who surrendered four-fifths of Palestine.... [referring to] Mahmoud Abbas as 'brother President,' still urging [him] to [resume] talks [with the Hamas leadership], and still continuing to recognize his legitimacy." Al-Zawahiri called on Hamas to declare, "in the clearest possible manner, that you... aspire to implement shari'a [Islamic law], that you reject the rule of the masses and any other rule except that of the Koran and the Sunnah [teachings],  that you strive to establish the Caliphate, that you will fight until the word of Allah [reigns] supreme... that you aspire to liberate every inch of Islamic land from Andalusia [Spain] to Chechnya, and that you will join efforts with the rest of the mujahideen... [in the struggle against] the Crusader-Zionist enemy...."

Making his intentions explicit, Al-Zawahiri concluded his lecture to Hamas by saying, "I call upon you to announce that you are no longer a national resistance movement, but an Islamic jihad movement, which transcends national solidarity and believes in brotherhood rooted in Islam.... I call upon you to extend your hand in friendship... to all the Muslim mujahideen... [and to declare] that the mujahideen everywhere are closer to you, and more loyal and faithful [in your eyes], than Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan...."

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

 

If you wish to be removed from my mailing list, please let me know and I will remove you at once.

 

Our World: From Basra to Bethlehem to Beit El

 

 

Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST
December 18, 2007

Sunday the British military in Iraq transferred security authority over Basra to the Iraqi Army. Although the transfer took place in an orderly fashion, the British leave behind one of the worst security nightmares in that troubled land.

As one senior Iraqi military officer told ABC News, "The British legacy in Basra is criminal gangs, a corrupt and infiltrated police force, and borders open to all." During a visit to Basra on December 9, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hailed the British training of Iraqi police and security services as one of the greatest accomplishments of the British mission in the province. Iraqi military commanders who are now charged with asserting control over these British trained forces are less sanguine. As one senior commander told ABC, "Out of 17,000 policemen in Basra, some 14,000 are beholden to militias and some to the Iranian secret service." The commander added that the British training of an estimated 10,000 policemen in southern Iraq has done little to alter their loyalties.

Post-British Basra is a frightening place. Some 40 women have been brutally murdered over the past year for failing to wear burkas. The city's Christian minority is being targeted for annihilation. Last week, terrorists in police uniform stormed the house of a Christian family, and abducted and brutally murdered a brother and sister. In response to the attack, the Christian community cancelled all Christmas festivities.

During their disastrous stewardship of the city, the British ignored the primary lesson of al-Qaida's development in the post-Soviet withdrawal Afghanistan. The main lesson of al-Qaida's rise from the remnants of the US-supported mujahadeen who fought the Soviets in that country throughout the 1980s is that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. By training and arming the mujahadeen in the 1980s, the US may have fomented the defeat of the Red Army, but it also enabled the mujahadeen to gain a victory over a superpower which they used as a basis for building an international terrorist movement that defines the US and the rest of the West as their new targets for destruction.

ACTUALLY, in their mishandling of Basra, the British did not merely ignore the lessons of Afghanistan's al-Qaida blowback, they took that American strategic failure to understand that the mujahadeen were their enemies a step further.

While the Americans and the Afghan jihadists did have a common foe in the Soviet Union, the British actually had no enemy in common with the Iranian-backed jihadists they trained in Basra.

The only thing the Iraqi jihadists they trained had to recommend them was the fact that they are Iraqis. By training them, the British pretended that they were advancing the cause of Iraqi independence when in fact they were working to ensure that Iraq will have a difficult time emerging from their stewardship as a coherent, peaceful multiethnic state.

BRITAIN'S foolish and dangerous actions in Basra are strikingly similar to the international community's policies regarding the Palestinian Authority generally and the PA's security services specifically. And whereas in Iraq there is some chance that the wreck the British have made of Basra can be fixed by the Iraqi military and the US forces in the country, there is no countervailing force to curb the adverse impacts of the international community's treatment of the corrupt, terror supporting, jihadist Palestinian security forces. This is the case because the Israeli government, which is the only countervailing force that could repair the damage, is exacerbating the problem.

Since the PA and its security forces were formed in 1994, they have never once taken serious action against the terror infrastructure in either Judea and Samaria or Gaza. Indeed, the PA and its security services played a central role in building those infrastructures of terror. Beyond that, since 1996, every single time that the PA's security services have been forced to choose between Israel and the terrorists, they have joined ranks with the terrorists to attack Israel.

In spite of this fact, yesterday representatives of 90 states and organizations convened in Paris and pledged to give the PA $5.6 billion over the next three years. The PA will receive some $1.7 billion next year - $1.2 billion of which will go to funding the PA budget. Most of that money will be spent paying the salaries, arming and training the PA security forces.

As the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh reported last Friday, the commanders of those forces openly acknowledge that in spite of the hundreds of millions of dollars they have already received from the US and the Europeans since the Hamas electoral victory two years ago, and notwithstanding the training and arms they have received from the US, the Europeans and the Russians, the PA's security forces have yet to take the first step towards reforming themselves or combating Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's own Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

They continue to be run by corrupt and criminal commanders. They have failed to abide by their pledge to cut the size of their forces from 70,000 to 35,000. Indeed, despite US prodding and Israel's willingness to allow these forces to deploy in the Palestinian cities and villages of Judea and Samaria, PA forces have taken no action against any terror cells anywhere. As one Palestinian official summed up their operations, "We arrested citizens who stole olive oil three years ago or fired into the air during weddings two years ago."

Of course, PA forces have done more than arrest olive oil thieves. They have also attacked Israeli targets. For instance, last month Palestinian policemen murdered Ido Zoldan. Last summer other US-trained policemen plotted to assassinate Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

A WEEK before Zoldan was murdered by US-funded PA security forces, Olmert approved the shipment of two million bullets for AK-47 assault rifles and 50 advanced Russian armored personnel carriers to those forces in Judea and Samaria. The delivery of the APCs has been delayed because the Palestinians insist that they be deployed with roof mounted machine guns and Israel has refused to accept that demand so far. In the meantime however, the bullets have apparently arrived safe and sound.

In spite of the Olmert government's insistent support for the PA forces, neither the general public nor IDF forces accept their delusions. Immediately after the government decided to approve the shipments, a battalion of reservists from the Alexandroni infantry brigade sent a letter of protest to Olmert. In their letter, signed by the battalion's commanders and 50 soldiers the reservists wrote, "We turn to you at the last minute and call on you to stop the convoy of APCs and the shipments of ammunition to the Palestinians. We have no doubt that the ammunition and the APCs will be used against us, against our comrades and against Israeli civilians just as the arms transferred to the Palestinians in the Oslo process were. It isn't enough that in recent days the government approved the release of hundreds of terrorists from prison. Today you are arming them."

Discussing the letter with Ma'ariv, the battalion commander noted, "The only one making the distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is Israel. They don't make the distinction and so it is obvious that these weapons will fall into the wrong hands. It is clear to me that one day I will fight against the weapons that my country gave them."

IT IS impossible to believe that the Olmert government and indeed to the US and the rest of the international community are unaware of the terrorist nature of the PA security forces they support so generously. So why are all concerned parties maintaining the fiction that these forces are credible? The US and European impetus for bucking up terrorists is clear enough: they want to pretend they are advancing peace and Palestinian statehood. But what explains the Olmert government's behavior? Why did Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni tell the audience at Monday's donors' conference that Israel will enable the Europeans to provide advanced military training to the PA militias?

A strong indication of the logic that stands behind the Olmert government's support for the PA security services is found in the policy it is simultaneously enacting towards the self-defense units which provide security for the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

Over the past two months, while arming the PA security forces, the government has been instructing the IDF to place new draconian limitations on the ability of the Israeli communities to protect themselves from attack. In two weeks, the Defense Ministry will disband the civilian units comprised of residents of the most threatened Israeli communities. Since they were established two years ago, these units have borne the brunt of responsibility for defending their communities. Next month too, new regulations will make it more difficult for Israelis to receive weapons permits to participate in guard duty in their communities.

In taking these steps, Olmert and his colleagues demonstrate the perverse lessons they learned from the withdrawal from Gaza. During the period leading up to the withdrawal, the Sharon government scaled back IDF counter-terror operations. They also curtailed the ability of the Israeli residents of Gaza to defend themselves. In so doing, the Sharon government both enabled an increase in terror and successfully portrayed the Israeli residents - shorn of their defensive capabilities - as a security burden. These twin policies secured the support of Israel's governing leftist elites in the media for Sharon and his colleagues.

In repeating the Sharon government's policies towards the Palestinians and the Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria, the Olmert government is similarly receiving the backing of the media.

As the current situation in Gaza shows, although the Olmert government's policies may strengthen it politically, its consequences for Israel's national security will be devastating. If Basra's current security morass is Afghanistan squared, the consequences of Israel's irresponsible actions in Judea and Samaria will make Gaza - and Basra - look like a walk in the park.

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

Abbas Leads Fatah - to Terrorism.

by Hillel Fendel

 

Though the world views Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas as a "moderate," the terrorist group Al-Agsa Martyrs Brigades declared this past Thursday that it follows his exclusive leadership of Mahmoud Abbas - even as it continues terrorist attacks against Israel.

• Just a month ago, reports Arutz-7's Haggai Huberman, a special Israeli Border Guard force arrested in Jericho a member of an Al-Aqsa terror ring, Mamdouh Fahoud, for his involvement in shooting attacks against IDF soldiers. 
• A week later, the IDF stopped three terrorists who were about to infiltrate Netiv HaAsarah, a Jewish town just north of Gaza.  Two terrorists were killed, and the third escaped; PA sources reported that they were members of Fatah's military wing, the Al-Agsa Martyrs Brigades.
• Three weeks ago, the IDF arrested Nasser Alharaz, the Al-Aqsa spokesman - one of those who was supposed to be pardoned by Israel in exchange for his abandonment of terrorism.  He did not do so.

Fatah terrorists in general have continued to perpetrate terrorism against Israel. Palestinian Authority policemen belonging to Fatah committed the roadside murder of Ido Zoldan a month ago near Kedumim.  Fatah has been behind many other attacks as well.

Despite this, Huberman reports, Israel has been building the PA army anew - just five years after the IDF nearly totally dismantled it during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. 

The government has ordered the army to give the PA increasingly more security responsibility in cities and towns throughout Judea and Samaria.  Just as in the early years of the Oslo Accords, some 20,000 PA security personnel from various organizations - including General Security, General Intelligence, Preventative Intelligence, PA Police, and more - are now active throughout Judea and Samaria.

Uniformed and armed PA police are once again operating openly in nearly all PA-controlled cities: Ramallah, Jenin, Tul Karem, Kalkilye, Bethlehem, Hevron, and Jericho.  The main training base for the PA forces is in Jericho.

At the same time, increasingly more evidence is being amassed that Fatah and Hamas are soon likely to re-merge.  Though Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has threatened that Israel will greet such a move by calling off the talks with the PA, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has not said as much.

Opposition to Palestinian State
The talks in question, jump-started last month in Annapolis, are designed to reach a final-status in which a new Arab state, Palestine, is formed in the Land of Israel.  Opposition to such a state has been steadily rising among American Jewry, according to the American Jewish Committee's just-released 2007 Survey of Jewish Public Opinion.  The most recent findings show that only 46% support creation of a Palestinian state "in the current situation," compared to 54% in 2006 and 56% the year before that.

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

 

Gazans Stand With Hamas, Terrorism

by Ezra HaLevi

"Jews! We have already dug your graves," declared Hamas official Mushir al-Masri at a half-million strong rally of support for Hamas in Gaza's central square Saturday. Al-Masri said that Hamas was eager to combat the IDF in any upcoming conflict. "The enemy's exit from Gaza will be nothing like its entrance," he said. "Gaza will become a graveyard for its soldiers."

A Hamas Executive Force member looks out over the crowd of Hamas supporters in Gaza's central square.
The Hamas official was joined by the terrorist group's top brass, some via teleconference, at a massive show of support for the Islamist movement that unequivocally broadcast a message of support for terrorism and the ongoing war with the Jewish state among Gaza's Arabs.

"Today is the day of Jihad, resistance and uprising," Gaza's Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said. Haniyeh was theoretically replaced by Fatah's Salem Fayad after the Islamist group routed Fatah from Gaza, but maintains complete control of the area vacated by Israel during the 2005 Disengagement.

"The message from you today," Haniyeh said to the huge crowd, "is that Hamas and these masses will not yield before sanctions. Your presence today, brothers and sisters, asserts the choice of resistance…against America and the Zionist occupation."

Israeli flags are torched at the rally in Gaza.
Indeed, a clearer endorsement of Hamas's terrorist tactics than the presence of one-third of Gaza's 1.5 million residents at the rally could not be imagined. The stage was draped with Arabic, French and English banners reading: "We will not recognize what so_called Israel – Hamas [sic]."

Hamas Chief Khaled Mashaal, in a recorded address, said Hamas would never give up its violent tactics. "This is our real choice, our trump card, which causes the enemy to succumb to us," he declared. He went on to say that the destruction of Israel would necessitate more Intifadas.

Two Tracks – But Terrorism Works Better
A recurring theme in the day's speeches was that there are two tracks in the struggle to destroy the Jewish State; but that Hamas's armed attacks are more effective than Fatah's negotiations – as was proven by Israel's retreat from Gaza. Nevertheless, the message was that Hamas is eager to reunite with Fatah and pursue the end of Israel together.

"Those who remain committed to the constant rights of their people, those who make an enemy of America and the Zionist occupation gain popularity," Haniyeh barked. "This is Hamas. We will never cede our land. The choice of resistance and Jihad is the best path to liberate Palestine and return Jerusalem. Not negotiations and meetings, sitting at round tables and exchanging smiles and chuckles with the Jews."

"The fruits of the other track, the track of negotiations, normalization and bargaining… all can see that it is the consolidating of settlements...injustice and oppression…they are bitter fruits," Haniyeh said. "There is no such thing as a 'just solution' to the right of return," Haniyeh said, referring to the demand that all Arabs who lived in pre-1967 Israel and their descendents be allowed to return and dispossess the Jews living there. "It is the right of every refugee…to return to the land."

Hamas official Mahmud al-Zahar addressed the US and other backers of Fatah who aim to weaken Hamas through sanctions: "Our message to the world is that this movement cannot be destroyed. This celebration shows how in 20 years we have grown from a movement of 1,000 people to huge numbers."

Haniyeh called for dialogue with Fatah free from any preconditions. Fatah publicly demands it be allowed to return to Gaza and receive an apology for the takeover.

Quarter or Half Million or More
Estimates ranged from 250,000 to 500,000. The Gulf Times reported "at least 500,000" while others reported "from 300,000-500,000." The New York Times, Associated Press and AFP agreed that the rally was much larger than a Fatah rally held earlier this month, which was reportedly attended by 250,000.

The Real Popularity of "Resistance"
"This is the real referendum on the popularity of resistance, the people converging behind Hamas," 28-year-old Gaza businessman Zayed Herzallah told the Associated Press. "Hamas today, after 20 years and after thousands of martyrs, is graduating the fourth generation [of supporters]."

Another AP interviewee, Layali al-Kher, 27, expressed grassroots support for the terror group and even a forgiving tone toward the hardship of sanctions Hamas's takeover had brought. "This siege was not imposed by Hamas but on them, so why should we criticize them?" she asked. "They've put Hamas in a bottle and they are trying to suffocate it. But they [Hamas] have achieved a lot: the streets are safe, the traffic is controlled. They have adapted quickly and have a strong will."

Jordanian Islamist Group Calls for Renewed Attacks
The Islamic Action Front Party, a branch of Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood, held a protest in Amman Friday, calling on Hamas to renew terror attacks on Israeli civilians in population centers across the Jewish state.

The demonstration took place at the Al-Husseini Mosque following prayers.

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

 

Fatah Promises 'Hundreds of Rockets' in Further Escalation.

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

                                    

A wing of the Fatah organization, headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, stated Thursday that it has begun an escalation in attacks on Israeli towns in the Negev. The terrorist group already claimed it was behind a barrage of rockets from Gaza that struck Sderot and its environs earlier in the day  Fatah, through its Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades arm, said that the Thursday rocket fire was part of an planned series of hundreds of rocket attacks the group has dubbed "Gaza Autumn." In their announcement of the operation, Brigades spokesmen called upon the residents of the city of Sderot to leave their homes and warned that Fatah will continue to bombard Israeli communities in the Negev.

The group said the attacks would be a response to "the evil Balfour declaration," which was issued 90 years ago this Friday. The Balfour Declaration paved the way for the creation of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Spokesmen for Fatah in Gaza boasted that their organization has carried out dozens of attacks on nearby Jewish towns. 

Meanwhile, Hamas, the Islamist terrorist organization running the PA in Gaza, called upon all the competing PA armed factions to prepare for an Israeli incursion into Gaza in the near future. Hamas spokesmen suggested that all the factions declare a state of emergency and set up a joint command center in Gaza. The organization went on to promise victory against Israel in any imminent conflict.

An apparent would-be suicide terrorist attack was thwarted on Thursday near Shechem, despite the presence of women from the left-wing MachsomWatch organizations.  MKs visiting the area were unhurt.

IDF Operations Disrupt Gaza Smuggling
Israeli soldiers and General Security Services (GSS) agents uncovered seven weapons smuggling tunnels in 36 hours, an IDF spokesperson said Thursday. The tunnels were found in the southern city of Dahania during operations to stop rocket and mortar shell attacks from the area. 

The mouths of the tunnels, part of the Hamas' weapons supply mechanism, were located approximately 1.5 meters from the Egyptian border. Officials say the tunnels were used recently by Hamas operatives to smuggle terrorists to and from Egypt.

The forces also discovered three explosive devices, planted and ready for deployment against IDF soldiers. The tunnels and the explosive devices were disposed of in controlled explosions by IDF sappers.

 

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

Five Questions Concerning the Latest NIE.

ByThomas Jocelyn

Worldwidestandard.com, December 3, 2007 06:53 PM

The story dominating the news cycle right now is the public release of "Key Judgments" from an NIE on Iran's nuclear program. In particular, the first sentence of the NIE is drawing the press's intention: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program…" But, as they say, the devil is in the details. Given the poor performance of the U.S. Intelligence Community ("IC") in drafting previous NIE's, we should review the IC's work with a skeptical eye -- no matter what conclusions are drawn. Interestingly, the IC now concedes that it is certain Iran had a nuclear weapons program. But that isn't getting the headlines. And after having read the little that has been made public from this NIE, we are left with substantive questions.

First, what intelligence is this assessment based upon?

Any student, or even casual observer, of the U.S. intelligence community knows that it has done a remarkably poor job of recruiting spies inside unfriendly regimes. For example, we had no meaningful spies inside Saddam's regime. That was at least part of the reason the U.S. intelligence community misjudged Saddam's WMD programs so badly. (Whatever came of Saddam's WMD, U.S. intelligence clearly did not know what was going on since the few sources it had were on the periphery of Saddam's regime.)

Reading the latest NIE does not provide, of course, any clues as to how the IC came to these conclusions. If the IC does have good sources inside the Iranian regime and its putative nuclear program, then quite naturally it would want to protect them. And we wouldn't expect to see any information about sources in a declassified "Key Judgments" such as this.

However, there are good reasons to suspect that the IC does not have good intelligence inside Iran. For example, both of the leading members (one Republican, one Democrat) of the House Intelligence Committee explained back in 2006 that we did not really know then what was going on inside Iran. And the Robb-Silberman Commission, which investigated what the IC knew about WMD programs around the world, found in 2005: "Across the board, the Intelligence Community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors. In some cases, it knows less now than it did five or ten years ago." Understandably, the Commission refrained from discussing the specifics of the intelligence community's infiltration, or lack thereof, of both the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. But it is a safe bet that the statement cited above applied in both cases.

Thus, we should not be confident, at all, that the IC has the type of intelligence that would allow it to make a definitive assessment one way or another. This is true no matter what conclusions the IC publishes. Who or what are the sources cited by IC? How do we know they are telling the truth? If they are members of the Iranian regime, have their so-called bona fides been established? Are they in a position to know what they claim to know? Do they have any motives to lie, or distort the truth? We should be mindful of all of these questions and more.

Second, what has changed since 2005?

As this latest NIE notes, its conclusions are at odds with what the IC believed in 2005. The last page of the declassified Key Judgments notes significant differences between what the IC believed in 2005 and what it is saying now. In 2005, the IC noted: "[We] assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable." Now the IC says, "…we do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." So, in 2005 the IC was sure that Iran was determined to build a nuclear weapon and now it is not sure at all. This is a profound change in opinion and, at a minimum, does not inspire confidence that the IC can get this story right. After all, if the IC's judgments can change so drastically in two years time, why should we believe any of its pronouncements one way or the other?

What is the basis for this flip-flop? What has been learned in the meantime to warrant such an about-face?

Third, how did the IC draw its line between a "civilian" nuclear program and a military one?

In the very first footnote the authors of the NIE explain: "For the purposes of this Estimate, by 'nuclear weapons program' we mean Iran's nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment."

So, is the IC then assuming that Iran's "declared civil work" is necessarily benign? One of the key issues with respect to Iran's "civilian" nuclear program is its capacity, with some tweaking here and there, to be used for military purposes. For example, according to the New York Times in early 2006, the IAEA concluded that there was evidence suggesting "links between Iran's ostensibly peaceful nuclear program and its military work on high explosives and missiles." Indeed, the authors of the NIE explicitly recognize the possibility of the civilian program being diverted for military uses:

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications--some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

So, then, the NIE's conclusions apply strictly to Iran's alleged halt of its military and clandestine programs. As we know, however, uranium enrichment is the most important component of developing the bomb and Iran indisputably has the capacity. (Again, with some tweaking, Iran can use its declared enrichment facilities at some point to make weapons-grade material.) But, this leads us to ask another simple question.

Fourth, how does the IC know that Iran has stopped its clandestine activities with respect to developing nuclear weapons?

Returning to the first footnote of the NIE's Key Judgments, the IC argues that, in 2003, Iran ceased its "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work." How does the IC know that Iran did not continue working on "weapon design and weaponization" covertly? Does it think that its sources are so good that they can rule out that possibility? Remember that Iran carried out much of its work on its nuclear program clandestinely for the better part of two decades. And some of these clandestine activities involved dealings with the AQ Khan network, the scope of which was not fully appreciated until it had already been doing business for years. How can the IC be sure that Iran's clandestine activities ceased in 2003?

Note that the IC argues that Iran supposedly gave up its covert uranium conversion and enrichment work. How does the IC know that? Are we to believe that the IC's penetration of Iran's intelligence services, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other parties controlled by the mullahs is so iron-clad that it can know this with certainty? Furthermore, is it possible that Iran did not need to do said work covertly because it has been openly enriching uranium?

Fifth, how does the IC know what motivated Iran's alleged change in behavior?

The NIE claims that "Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure." How does the IC know what motivated Iran's alleged change in behavior? Did the Iranians tell someone? Is this coming from clandestine sources? Assuming for the moment that Iran really did halt its program, are we to believe that a substantial U.S.-led military presence in Afghanistan and in Iraq (or potential presence in Iraq, depending on when in 2003 this change supposedly occurred), had nothing to do with Iran's supposed decision? That is, are we to believe that U.S. led forces on Iran's eastern and western borders had nothing to do with Tehran's decision-making process?

We are left with a number of important questions. And without knowing the answers to these questions, the IC's opinions are best viewed with a skeptical eye.

Thomas Joscelyn is a terrorism researcher, writer and economist living in New York, and a frequent contributor to the Weekly Standard.

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