Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Juan Cole’s Map of Lies


by Steven Plaut

Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History. He claims to be a Middle East historian and expert. He has served as the president of the “Middle East Studies Association.” At least one scholar has accused him of being personally responsible for the intellectual bankruptcy plaguing Middle East studies. Cole is an anti-Israel and anti-American extremist, and his extremism prevented him from getting a job offer from Yale a few years back. He is probably best known for his professing beliefs in grand Jewish conspiracies. He tosses around the term “Zionofascists” when he means “Jews.” He led the pro-Saddam lobby and is a Hamas apologist. He loves to spread anti-Jewish blood libels. He is bosom buddies with Neo-Nazi anti-Semitic conspiracist nuts, like Justin Raimondo (who claims the Jews and not al-Qaeda were behind the 9-11 attacks on the US).

For those who think that the fascist method of The Big Lie must be restricted to slogans or phrases, you should never underestimate the value of a false map. Perhaps the world title for telling a Big Lie by means of a map, or rather a pseudo-map, now belongs to the pseudo-academic Cole, regarding “Palestinian lands.” He has decided that lands owned by the British imperial mandatory governing in control of “Palestine” between the world wars were “Palestinian land.” Those are the “Palestinian lands” he claims were stolen by Israel. Now, as it turns out, those were “Palestinian lands” only in the sense that they were state land owned by the British “Palestine” mandatory government. They were by and large not lands owned by “Palestinian” Arabs. And they were by and large completely empty.

Those were the lands taken over by Israel when it became independent that Cole maps as “Palestinian lands.” Today Juan Cole is the daddy of the world’s most absurd propaganda pseudo-map, which purports to tell the history of “Palestine.” The map can be viewed here and is entitled “Palestinian Loss of Land 1946 to 2000.” It consists of four frames.

The first frame is labeled “Palestinian and Jewish Land 1946.” It shows “Palestinian land” in green comprising more than 90% of “Palestine” (defined as the area later forming Israel, the West Bank and Gaza). Most of this “Palestinian” land was “Palestinian” only in the sense that it was public land owned by the British mandatory government of “Palestine.”

The second frame shows the UN partition plan 1947, under which roughly equal slices of land in Mandatory Palestine were assigned to a proposed Jewish state and a proposed Palestinian Arab state. Unwittingly, the map prepared by Cole makes the Israeli case. Readers might want to ask of Cole and his friends embarrassing questions, such as why that Arab Palestinian state never arose. After all, the Jews accepted the compromise proposal. The answer that Cole does not want you to know is that the Arab states invaded the territory militarily and gobbled up most of the what had been earmarked for a Palestinian state. Readers might also wonder how come half the segment of Western Palestine that had been reserved for the Jews after Transjordan had been truncated from Palestine was being offered to the Arabs.

In the same map, what are shown in Cole’s second frame as “Palestinian lands” were also by and large public lands controlled by the British Mandatory government and not lands owned by “Palestinian” Arabs. The third frame shows Israel’s borders after Independence and the last frame shows Israel’s borders today together, again with lands in the West Bank and Gaza defined by Cole as “Palestinian lands.”

The Big Lie is most visibly and viciously concentrated in Cole’s first frame. After World War I, all of Western Palestine was governed by Britain under a Mandate granted to it by the League of Nations. Its mandate was to develop the area as a Jewish homeland. The eastern part of Palestine was truncated and illegally turned by Britain into the independent Arab kingdom of Transjordan. The rump segment of Palestine was reserved for the Jews. None of this was earmarked for creation of yet another Arab state. The bulk of land within the Palestinian Mandate was state-owned land, governed by the British Mandatory government. It had also been state-owned land previously under the Ottoman imperial government, before Britain liberated “Palestine” from the Turks. [Before World War I, land in Palestine was owned by the Ottoman state and a feudalistic class of absentee landlords. The few “Palestinian” Arabs who lived in the country at the time seldom owned any land. They farmed it as sharecroppers.]

The Cole map of “Palestinian lands” gives the impression that before Israel’s creation 90% of the land of Palestinian was owned by “Palestinian” Arabs. In reality, almost none of it was. It was mainly land owned by feudal aristocrats and by the imperial government. Most of it was empty. When the Zionist migrations began, the Jews started buying up lands from their feudal landlords, who were happy to turn a quick profit. Almost no “Palestinian” Arabs were forced off those lands as the ownership changed and the Jewish immigrants arrived. The anti-Israel Lobby, which loves to accuse the Zionists of “colonialism,” is invited to find any other case in human history in which the “colonialists” came and paid in full at (and often well above) market prices for the lands they were “colonizing.”

As Jewish capital flowed into the country, bringing with it rising wages, health and educational standards, Arabs from neighboring countries, mainly from Lebanon and Syria, flowed in to “Palestine” to take advantage of the progress. Those Arabs never saw themselves as “Palestinians” until the fabrication of a mythical “Palestinian people” became the Arab propaganda line after 1967. The “Palestinians” were then assigned the same role of the German Sudetens in the late 1930s, pretending to be oppressed “victims” whose liberation required annihilation of their democratic “oppressors,” or so their genocidal totalitarian patrons insisted.

The large increase in Jewish land ownership between the late 1800s and 1948 was due to this process of land acquisition by means of Zionist purchases. Swaths of lands were also purchased by Jews in Syria and Transjordan. They were later stolen by the respective Arab governments, a little matter about which the “anti-apartheid” poseurs and Hillary Clinton have never had much to say. The bulk of the land in Western “Palestine,” including almost the entire Negev in Israel’s south, was state-owned during the British mandatory period. If Cole and Sullivan had an ounce of integrity, they would have identified public lands as precisely that.

Then to make matters worse, the pseudo-map and its sponsors paint all of Israel and large swaths of the West Bank and Gaza as “Jewish lands.” Even when they are owned by Arabs.

Let us note that what Cole and Sullivan call “Jewish lands” or “Israeli lands” include not only private lands owned by Arabs but also public lands serving Israeli Jews and Arabs in common. Are highways and parks used by all Israelis “Jewish lands?” Evidently Cole thinks so. Are lands upon which Arab schools, mosques, libraries and sports stadiums sit “Israeli lands?” Maybe Cole has never met an Arab who uses a park.

In addition, the bulk of land in Israel is publicly owned even today. As an economist I oppose this anachronistic “socialist ownership.” These holdings include public lands that are used by all Israelis, Arabs and Jews. Of privately-owned land, Israeli Arabs own more of it than their share in the Israeli population!

Then we have parts of the Gaza Strip being shown on the Cole map as “Israeli land.” Never mind that there is not a single Israeli anywhere in the Gaza Strip, ever since Israel – somewhat foolishly – turned the entire area over to the Hamas years ago. In the West Bank, Cole shows large swaths of “Palestinian land.” What he means of course is land on which Arabs live today. There are also swaths of land there on which Jews live. If the very fact of Arabs living on those lands turns them into “Palestinian lands,” then most of the American Southwest is Mexico.

Let me put this a little differently. If we apply Cole’s “logic,” then we need to note that a hundred years ago there were no properties at all owned by Juan Cole in Ann Arbor. In contrast, today there are no properties in Ann Arbor owned by me. Therefore, Cole’s house there must belong to me!

Cole actually took the pseudo-map – as is – from a Bash-the-Jews web site operating out of Leeds, English. This “borrowing” shows the reliability of Cole’s academic sources and scholarship. A student of mine who did the same would be brought up on disciplinary charges. The “Leeds Palestine Solidarity Campaign” is a pro-jihad pro-terrorist tiny group promoting boycotts of Israel. It reprints the usual Islamofascist propaganda and it links itself to Aljazeera, Osama bin Laden’s favorite news outlet. In its statement of purpose it lists battling the “Zionist nature” of Israel as one of its goals. It is not clear who prepared the map for the Leeds bigots, but it was obviously not anyone with any interest in facts. This is evidently why it appealed to Juan Cole.

Cole took the map from the Leeds jihadists and ran it with no editing at all on his own web site here. It was posted as part of a broader Bash-Israel posting. That posting is so filled with pseudo-scholarship and disinformation that, in and of itself, it raises enormous doubts about Cole’s qualifications to serve on the faculty of any bona fide institution of higher learning. Among other things, Cole writes there:

“Israelis claim a ‘birthright’ to do things like colonize Palestinian territory, based on romantic-nationalist reworkings of biblical narratives. But Canaan was populated for millenia before some Canaanite tribes adopted the new religion of Judaism, and it was also ruled, as Palestine, for centuries by Romans and Greeks, and for 1400 years by Muslims. The Palestinian Jews converted to Christianity and then to Islam, so they are cousins of the European Jews (who appear to have gone to Europe voluntarily as male merchants around 800 CE,, where they took local wives). European Jews are about half European by parentage and all European by cultural heritage, and it is no more natural that they be in geographical Palestine than that they be in Europe (where nearly two-thirds of their mothers were from and about a third of their fathers). From a Middle Eastern point of view, European Jews planted in British Mandate Palestine by the British Empire were no different from the million colons or European colonists brought to Algeria while it was under French rule from 1830-1962.“

Cole’s attempt to claim that “Palestinian Arabs” have roots among Canaanite tribes is laughable charlatanism. His pseudo-history of Jews resembles those to be found on many Neo-Nazi web sites. Palestinian Jews did not become Christians and Moslems. Those who did go to Europe did not do so “voluntarily” but to escape persecution, in contrast with the Syrian and Lebanese Arabs who migrated into “Palestine” in the late 19th and early 20th century to morph into up-and-coming “Palestinians.” Jews were hardly “planted” in Palestine by the British Empire. Jews lived there thousands of years before London was established. If anything, the British Empire did its best to mollycoddle Arab fascism during the 1920s and 1930s by preventing Jewish refugees escaping growing persecution in Europe and immigrating to “Palestine.”

Cole’s publication of the “maps” of “Palestinian Lands” was quickly picked up by Andrew Sullivan, writing in the Atlantic. While in the past Sullivan was capable of expressing the occasional approving sentiment about Israel and Jews, he suddenly became a vicious Israel basher during Israel’s “Cast Lead” military campaign against Hamas terrorism in the Gaza Strip. Israel had patiently sat back during years of being bombarded by thousands of Palestinian rockets, mortars, and sniper attacks. When it at long last retaliated, Sullivan went on a series of rage rants. In several of these he ran Cole’s pseudo-map.

Sullivan was called to task on that by Leon Wieseltier, writing in the New Republic: ‘Sullivan is hunting for motives, not reasons; for conspiracies, which is the surest sign of a mind’s bankruptcy.. These days the self-congratulatory motto above his blog is “Of No Party or Clique,” but in fact Sullivan belongs to the party of Mearsheimer and the clique of Walt (whom he cites frequently and deferentially), to the herd of fearless dissidents who proclaim in all seriousness, without in any way being haunted by the history of such an idea, that Jews control Washington.’ More than one blogger saw the exchange between Sullivan and Wieseltier as the bubbling out of Sullivan’s latent anti-Semitism.

When Sullivan ran the Cole pseudo-map, he accompanied it with the caption: ‘Joe Biden was kicked in the balls as he came to Israel with a simultaneous “f**k you” by the Israeli government announcing new settlements – 1600 houses – in East Jerusalem.” Why Israel’s building housing in its capital is an obscenity, while the United States building housing in Washington, DC is not – is just one more mystery unexplained by Sullivan.

The Cole pseudo-map would not die, and continues to metastasize. Jeffrey Goldberg made a valiant attempt at debunking it in the Atlantic, but missed the most important points. Sullivan then defended his use of it, out-Cole-ing even Juan Cole.

Since the Cole-Sullivan tag team started promoting the map as reflecting some sort of historic record, it has been picked up by countless anti-Semitic and anti-Israel web sites, blogs and magazines around the world. I found reprints in thousands of web pages. It has also been debunked by others, such as this web site. But it is now indelibly part of the anti-Israel canon of the Bash-Israel Left and the Islamofascists, both beloved by the pseudo-academic, Juan Cole.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/23/juan-cole%E2%80%99s-map-of-lies/

Steven Plaut

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

Why Israelis Hate the Left


by P. David Hornik

At last Haaretz—Israel’s left-wing daily that I’ve criticized on more than one occasion (here, here, or here, for instance)—has an editorial that I like. Appearing this week, it marks the retirement of left-wing Knesset member Haim Oron and describes the “entire Israeli left” as being at an “unprecedented nadir” and “in desperate need of a new path forward….”

Pleasant words, those.

Trying to account for what it calls the Israeli left’s “helplessness and hopelessness,” Haaretz adduces “the failure of Oron and Meretz [his party] to voice a clear-cut alternative” to what Haaretz calls “the murky right-wing wave that threatens to flood the country.” As for that “wave,” Haaretz describes it in terms of “the nationalistic, racist and anti-democratic legislation that [the right] is proposing almost unhindered in the Knesset.”

In other words—as usual—Haaretz portrays Israel in terms not distant from those used by the Israel Apartheid Week crowd. That habitual Israel-bashing led Marty Peretz—no friend of the Israel right—to assert regarding Haaretz last week that

many of its columnists are intellectual psychopaths…. If you want one reason for why the international press is so hostile to Israel, it is because the only paper foreign journalists read is Haaretz in English. It is an exemplar of Jewish self-hate, full of ridicule, righteousness, and loathing. Its circulation is going down, down, down.

Oh yes, Haaretz’s circulation—one thing the paper forgot to mention while lamenting the state of the Israeli left in general. The mournful editorial, that is, skips the fact that if the Israeli left as a whole is a sinking ship, Haaretz is going right down with it.

As for why that should be so, Haaretz, of course, doesn’t have a clue. In addition to the left’s supposed failure to “voice a clear-cut alternative” to the right, the editorial lamely attributes the left’s decline to “the fact that Oron focused in his work mainly on economic and social issues” while “the fight against the occupation was secondary….”

“The occupation” refers, of course, to Israel’s presence in the West Bank—something most Israelis hardly want to “fight against,” especially now that Israel’s removal of “the occupation” of Gaza has resulted in six straight years of rocket and mortar fire on Israeli communities.

But if Haaretz really wanted to cast around for reasons for the left’s unpopularity, it could consider, for instance, a recent Israeli news item about Amos Oz and Marwan Barghouti. Oz is a septuagenarian, Israel Prize-winning, Nobel-candidate Israeli writer. Barghouti was one of the major leaders of the genocidal Palestinian onslaught known as the Second Intifada, now serving a life term on five counts of murder.

But what is strange—or maybe not so strange, considering that he’s a lifelong leftist—is that Oz now wants to send Barghouti something close to a love letter. Oz’s acclaimed autobiography, A Tale of Love and Darkness, has been translated into Arabic. Oz has asked another Israeli leftist to bring Barghouti a copy of the book in prison, bearing this personal dedication:

This story is our story. I hope you read it and understand us better, as we attempt to understand you. Hoping to meet soon in peace and freedom.

Earth to Haaretz: Israelis, as they scamper with their children into shelters while the rocket-alarms sound, don’t like this kind of thing. We don’t like writers who feel a kinship with terrorists and long to see them free, nor the left-wing culture that spawns such bizarre and sinister sentiments.

And as for that other leftist, the one Oz requested to bring his present to Barghouti for him…it’s none other than Haim Oron, the pol whose imminent retirement prompted Haaretz’s editorial. Oron is, in fact, a regular visitor of Barghouti and a constant advocate of his release, bloody hands and all.

Blaming the ongoing aggression on “the occupation”—that is, on Israel. Vilifying Israel while lionizing terrorists. Providing an endless stream of Israel-bashing fodder to ignorant and malevolent foreign media. These are not some of Israelis’ favorite things.

Until the Israeli left starts to understand that—and whether it can understand it is doubtful, since understanding it would entail abrogating its identity—it will continue to sink.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/23/why-israelis-hate-the-left/

P. David Hornik

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

Obama: Rewarding Obstructionists, Shafting Allies - Again


by Anna Mahjar-Barducci

U.S. President Barack Obama is trying to play "Nothing To See Here" in foreign policy. Just after declaring that the White House organized a coalition to start a military action in Libya, he was landing with his family - wife, Michelle, daughters, Sasha and Malia, and mother-in-law, Marian Robinson - in Brazil, one of the five nations that abstained in the vote of a UN resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya – and thereby bestowing a reward for behavior that was "unhelpful," to say the least.

Obama went for a five-day Latin American Tour that will be bringing him to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador, at a time when the Middle East is burning, Further, Libya is massacring facing a massacre; a civil war might start in the Ivory Coast, and an earthquake, a tsunami and collapsing nuclear reactors have hit Japan, leaving the country at risk of a radioactive meltdown. The trip to Latin America, however, was planned to strengthen economic and political relations, and also as a way to confront the anti-American propaganda that mainly the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba are trying to spread over the continent.

Obama tried to charge his first visit to Latin America with symbolism; it marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of the 1961 Kennedy administration's "Alliance for Progress," aimed at establishing economic cooperation between South America and the U.S. The program was seen as a failure already in the '70s, based especially on the worsening of socio-economic indicators throughout the 60s. Policies set by the Alliance for Progress were in fact a total fiasco. The region's annual economic growth went from 1% to between 0.6 to 1%, well below the goal set by the Alliance[1].

However, even though Obama seems keen to exhume the Alliance for Progress, in his first trip to the region, the US President did not include in his agenda a visit to Washington's main ally in Latin America: Colombia, a country with which the United States has effectively worked in the fight against drug trafficking activities and terrorism. Colombia, which borders with Venezuela, keeps being threatened by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's support to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - known by its Spanish abbreviation, FARC – a Marxist-Leninist group that carries out extortion, kidnappings and drug trafficking.

The reason behind President Obama's avoiding a visit to Colombia is no surprise. Five years ago, the United States negotiated free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, another top White House ally. In the last two State of the Union addresses, Obama said that his administration will pursue the free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, but did not set any timetable to have the pact ratified. The Washington Times reports that at a hearing on Capitol Hill, "senators from both parties practically begged the White House to submit the trade accords - but U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk hemmed and hawed about how they weren't quite ready just yet."[2] However, Montana's U.S. Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat, seems to do not agree with the Obama Administration and said: "The time is here. The time is now. In fact, the time has passed to ratify the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It has long passed. We are losing market share hand over fist"[3].

This unjustified delay is not only undermining relations with US top allies in Latin America, but also has a direct impact on the US economy: As explained by Sen. Baucus, since Obama has not yet submitted the agreement to Congress for approval, Montana farmers and businesses have difficulty competing with businesses from other countries that have free trade agreements with Colombia. Specifically, Canada has passed an FTA with Colombia, set to enter into force in the next few months. If the U.S. still has not approved its agreement when that happens, America is likely to lose the entire Colombian wheat market.[4]

In the meantime, while Obama was in Brazil, French jets were deployed over Libya. The US President, who is also the US Commander in Chief, was absent also at the Paris talks, where military options against Libya were decided, while he was heading to Latin America. His absence left a void -- and the impression of a weakness of the US -- in its foreign policy. White House and Pentagon officials said the President's trip could not have been cancelled. "It is imperative that the United States not disengage from these regions [Latin America]," Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, told reporters. "When we disengage, our ability to advance partnerships that serve our interest suffers."

The interests of the US seem to suffer anyway, thanks to the Obama administration. The international community perceives that the US left the mantle of the Free World leadership to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is now leading the battle against Gaddafi's dictatorship. Gaddafi himself seems to consider Obama as a dwarf in foreign policy by sending him an eccentric letter, in which he addresses the US President as his "son," hence putting him underneath him: "To our son, his Excellency, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, God forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed."

[1] http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Calkins/Escobar.pdf
[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/fearful-obama-hides-from-american-allies/
[3] http://baucus.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=392
[4] Ibid.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1982/obama-rewarding-obstructionists-shafting-allies

Anna Mahjar-Barducci


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

Why France Was So Keen to Attack Libya


by Soeren Kern

Even before allied forces unleashed a "shock and awe" barrage of cruise missile attacks against Libya on March 19, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was quick to take the credit, saying France had "decided to assume its role, its role before history" in stopping strongman Muammar Gaddafi's "killing spree" against people whose only crime was to seek to "liberate themselves from servitude."

Sarkozy's newfound concern for Libyan democracy contrasts sharply from only three years ago, when Sarkozy welcomed Gaddafi with open arms during an extravagant five-day state visit to France. On that occasion in December 2007, Gaddafi breezed into Paris in his Bedouin robes, accompanied by an entourage of 400 servants, five airplanes, a camel and 30 female virgin bodyguards, and then proceeded to pitch his heated tent on the grounds of the palatial Hôtel de Marigny, just across the street from the Elysée Palace.

At the time, Sarkozy ridiculed critics of Gaddafi's visit by saying: "It is rather beautiful the principle that consists in not getting yourself wet, not taking risks, being so certain of everything you think while you're having your latte on the Boulevard Saint-Germain." He also asked: "If we don't welcome countries that are starting to take the path of respectability, what can we say to those that leave that path?" Meanwhile, Sarkozy's chief diplomatic advisor, Jean-David Levitte, insisted that Libya had a "right to redemption."

Nor did Sarkozy express much support for the recent uprisings in the Arab world, which deposed long-time friends of Paris, including Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

In the case of Tunisia, Sarkozy reluctantly fired his loyal foreign minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, after it emerged that she borrowed a private jet from a Tunisian businessman linked to Ben Ali in order to work on her suntan in the Tunisian seaside town of Tabarka during the height of the political upheaval in Tunisia. According to the French newspaper Le Canard Enchaîné, Alliot-Marie also offered Ben Ali the "know how" of France's security forces to help him quash the fighting in Tunisia just three days before he was removed from office.

In Egypt, it emerged that French Prime Minister François Fillon and his family had accepted a free holiday from Mubarak, complete with a private plane and Nile River boat, just weeks before the Egyptian president was removed from office. Facing accusations that France cozies up to dictators, Sarkozy said that in the future, his government ministers should take their holidays in France.

So what explains Sarkozy's about-face vis-à-vis Libya? His sudden support for the anti-Gaddafi rebels can be attributed to two main factors: opinion polls and the closely related issue of Muslim immigration.

Sarkozy's sudden zeal for the cause of democracy in Libya comes as his popularity is at record lows just thirteen months before the first round of the 2012 presidential election. With polls showing that Sarkozy is the least popular president since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958, he is betting that French voters will appreciate his efforts in Libya to place France at the center of the world stage and reinforce what Charles de Gaulle once famously called "a certain idea of France" as a nation of exceptional destiny.

Further, Sarkozy's main rival is not Gaddafi, but rather Marine Le Pen, the charismatic new leader of the far-right National Front party in France. A new opinion poll published by Le Parisien newspaper on March 8 has Le Pen, who took over from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in January, winning the first round of next year's presidential election.

The survey gives Le Pen 23%, two percentage points ahead of both Sarkozy and Socialist leader Martine Aubry. On the basis of this opinion poll, Le Pen would automatically qualify for the second round run-off with one or other of the two mainstream party leaders.

Le Pen, who appeals to middle class voters, is riding high on voter dissatisfaction with the failure of the mainstream parties to address the problem of Muslim immigration. Since taking her post three months ago, Le Pen has single-handedly catapulted the twin issues of Muslim immigration and French national identity to the top of the French political agenda. In recent weeks, Le Pen has been a permanent fixture on prime-time television to discuss the threat to France of a wave of immigrants from Libya.

Gaddafi has already pledged that Europe will be "invaded" by an army of African immigrants: "You will have immigration. Thousands of people from Libya will invade Europe. There will be no-one to stop them any more," he warned on March 6 in an interview with the French newspaper Journal du Dimanche.

During a visit to Italy in August 2010, Gaddafi demanded €5 billion a year from the European Union to stop illegal immigration which "threatens to turn Europe black." At the time, Gaddafi asked: "What will be the reaction of the white Christian Europeans to this mass of hungry, uneducated Africans? We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and cohesive continent or if it will be destroyed by this barbarian invasion. We have to imagine that this could happen, but before it does we need to work together."

Furious Europeans have compared Gaddafi's demands for cash to stop illegal immigration to a "Mafia extortion racket." But since the revolt in Tunisia in January, nearly 15,000 boat people (more than the total for all of 2010) have arrived on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, a 20-square-kilometer island that traditionally has been a major gateway for illegal immigration into the European Union.

On March 14, Le Pen upstaged Sarkozy by visiting Lampedusa and telling undocumented migrants on the island that they were not welcome in Europe. "I have a lot of compassion for you, but Europe cannot welcome you," Le Pen said. "We do not have the financial means."

On March 2, the French minister for European affairs, Laurent Wauquiez, warned that up to 300,000 illegal immigrants could arrive in the European Union from North Africa during 2011. The influx of immigrants from Libya is a "real risk for Europe that must not be underestimated," he said.

Threatened by Le Pen's rising popularity, and in urgent need of a political boost, Sarkozy is now using the Libya intervention both to play the role of the respected statesman on the international stage and to address French concerns over mass immigration from North Africa.

During a March 21 interview with France 24, however, Le Pen dismissed Sarkozy as "a French president who is no longer running anything, who is governing on impulse or emotion, depending on the circumstances."

As an angry Gaddafi threatens to turn the "entire Mediterranean into a battlefield," it remains to be seen whether Sarkozy's gamble in Libya will pay off. With the French economy stalled, and unemployment stuck at 9.6%, any political bounce for Sarkozy is likely to ebb the longer the military campaign against Gaddafi lasts.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1983/france-libya-attack

Soeren Kern

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

State Department Legitimizes Terror


by Eli. E. Hertz

To whom did the Obama administration grant permission to fly the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] flag in Washington D.C.?

The answer: Palestinian Arabs - A society whose overwhelming majority nurtures a blind hatred of Israel, and has created a cultural milieu of vengeance, violence and death. This organization, which has been directly responsible for the murders of American civilian and security personnel, now has its recognition and flag waving in our capitol.

Here is just a subset of articles from the PLO Charter that the American administration has no shame to honor:

*Article 7: [Individual] must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.

*Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

* Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.

* Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

*Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

And if their charter was not convincing enough, the United States Congress, on numerous occasions, has reaffirmed the PLO's status as a terrorist organization. Although past presidents have attempted to circumvent this law, its conclusions are concise and unequivocal:

"Therefore, the Congress determines that the PLO and its affiliates are a terrorist organization and a threat to the interests of the United States, its allies, and to international law and should not benefit from operating in the United States.


The violent and disturbing history of the PLO is one that has dreadfully affected the lives of countless Israelis, Americans, and many others. The PLO is so transparent in its criminal and malicious ways, whether it be via their charter, public statements, or incitement, that one must question what the State Department was thinking when it upgraded the status of their mission from representative office to general delegation.

Original URL: www.mythsandfacts.org

Eli. E. Hertz

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

The Pinnacle of Incompetence


by Efraim Karsh

It is commonplace for the views of people in power to receive widespread exposure. Having presumably won their stripes in an arduous climb to the top, they are believed to know best what's going on.

This presumption, however, is not only wrong, but is often the inverse of the truth. Given bureaucracy's predilection for conformity, it is rarely the best and brightest who reach the top, but rather the yes-men sycophants – whether by rising to their level of incompetence, as the Peter Principle famously asserts, or by stumbling upward through successive failures, or by simply "being there" long enough.

Thus we have England's national soccer team manager, Sven Goran Eriksson, putting Wayne Rooney on a par with soccer's best-ever player, the legendary Pele. Yet rather than have his professional judgment questioned, the overpaid manager was allowed to lead his under performing team for three more trophy-less years.

Or take US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's astounding description of the Muslim Brotherhood as a "largely secular" organization.

Shouldn't he know what countless newspaper readers know full well – the Brotherhood is probably the world's foremost Islamist organization, committed to the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. How else is one to interpret its motto – "Allah is our objective. The prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope"? Now Baroness Eliza Manningham- Buller, former director of MI5 (Britain's FBI equivalent), has joined the march of folly. In her first television interview since leaving her job four years ago, she argued that the "war on terror" is unwinnable, and urged the British government to "reach out" to al-Qaida. "It's always better to talk to the people who are attacking you than attacking them, if you can," she explained.

This gives the idea of appeasement a whole new meaning. Even the most notorious incident – the Anglo- French surrender of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the 1938 Munich agreement – took place prior to any German military aggression. Once the Nazis invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, London and Paris attempted no further talks, but declared war on Germany.

In contrast, by the time Manningham-Buller made her startling suggestion, al-Qaida had massacred tens of thousands in the name of Islam – from the 9/11 attacks, to the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, to bombings in Yemen, Bali, Sharm e-Sheikh and Madrid. Yet neither these atrocities, nor the July 2005 London bombing, which took place under her watch, seem to have shaken the former director's belief that outreach to the Islamist group would curb its murderous zeal: "If we can get to a state where there are fewer attacks, less lethal attacks..., fewer young people being drawn into this, less causes – resolution of the Palestinian question, less impetus for this activity, I think we can get to a stage where the threat is thus reduced."

THIS JUDGMENT of al-Qaida's worldview is as delusional as Clapper's take on the Muslim Brotherhood. It is true that during the 1970s Western Europeans bought partial immunity from Palestinian terrorism by indulging the PLO. But then, the PLO's goal has always been limited to the "liberation of Palestine" (that is the destruction of Israel), while al-Qaida seeks nothing short of worldwide triumph. As such, the idea that Israeli-Palestinian peace will take away one of Islam's primary gripes against the West totally misreads history and present-day politics.

It is not out of concern for a Palestinian right to self determination, but as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of part of the "House of Islam" that Islamists inveigh against Israel. In the words of the covenant of Hamas, the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood: "The land of Palestine has been an Islamic trust [wakf] throughout the generations, and until the day of resurrection... When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims."

In this respect, there is no difference between Palestine and other parts of the world conquered by Islam throughout history. To this day, for example, many Muslims unabashedly pine for the restoration of Spain, and look upon their expulsion in 1492 as a grave historical injustice, as if they were Spain's rightful owners. Small wonder that Osama bin Laden evoked "the tragedy of Andalusia" after the 9/11 attacks, and the perpetrators of the March 2004 Madrid bombings, in which hundreds of people were murdered, mentioned revenge for the loss of Spain as one of the atrocity's "root causes."

Indeed, even countries that have never been under Islamic rule have become legitimate targets of Islamist fervor. Since the late 1980s, various Islamist movements have looked on the growing number of French Muslims as a sign that France, too, has become a potential part of dar Islam, the house of Islam.

In Britain, even the more moderate elements of the Muslim community are candid about their aims. As the late Zaki Badawi, a doyen of interfaith dialogue, put it, "Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community."

This goal need not necessarily be pursued by the sword; it can be achieved through demographic growth and steady conversion to Islam. But should peaceful means prove insufficient, physical force can be brought to bear.

Nor is this vision confined to an extremist fringe. This has been starkly demonstrated by the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Islamic world, in the admiring evocations of bin Laden's murderous acts during the 2006 crisis over the Danish cartoons, and in the poll indicating significant sympathy among British Muslims for the "feelings and motives" of the London suicide bombers.

To deny this reality is the height of folly, and to imagine that it can be appeased or deflected is to play into the Islamists' hands.

Original URL: http://www.meforum.org/2856/pinnacle-of-incompetence

Efraim Karsh is professor of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at King's College London, editor of Middle East Quarterly and author of Islamic Imperialism: A History.

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

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Israel UN Envoy Slams Falk over Accusation of 'Ethnic Cleansing'


by Shlomo Shamir and AP

Israel's United Nations Envoy Aharon Leshno Yaar called Richard Falk an "embarrassment to the United Nations," after the academic charged Israel with ethnic cleansing on Monday.

Falk, who is also an investigator for the UN, said earlier in the day that Israel's expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem and eviction of Palestinians from their homes is a form of ethnic cleansing.

Speaking to Haaretz, Leshno Yaar said Falk is the man who "claims that it is unclear who stands behind the terror attacks of 9/11 and calls IDF soldiers Nazis."

Falk has been admonished in the past by UN Secretary General Ben Ki-moon for comments that he made about the 9/11 terror attacks.

"Israel doesn’t participate with Falk," Leshno Yaar said, adding that he leaves the room when he speaks.

Falk made the comments while speaking to the UN Human Rights Council as it prepared to pass resolutions condemning settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The "continued pattern of settlement expansion in East Jerusalem combined with the forcible eviction of long-residing Palestinians are creating an intolerable situation" in the part of the city previously controlled by Jordan, he said.

This situation "can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing," Falk declared.

In his speech, Falk said he would like the Human Rights Council to ask the International Court of Justice to look at Israeli behavior in the occupied territories.

This should focus on whether the prolonged occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem had elements of "colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing inconsistent with international humanitarian law," the investigator declared.

Original URL: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-un-envoy-slams-falk-over-accusation-of-ethnic-cleansing-1.350981

Shlomo Shamir and AP

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

Palestinians Use R2P to Call on International Community to Clamp Down in Israel


by Ed Lasky


I have been warning the last few days that Barack Obama's endorsement of the trendy Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P) was opening a Pandora's Box and could be used by groups to attack Israel. Yesterday we had Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister calling on the world to bomb Israel to protect Palestinian civilians (since the UN, the Arab League, and Barack Obama have validated this approach to protect civilians in Libya). Today, R2P is now being used by the Palestinians to pressure Israel.

Surprised?

From the Los Angeles Times:

The Palestinian Authority asked for international protection Monday citing a sharp rise in Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank...

Ghassan Khatib, director of the Palestinian Authority media center, issued a statement holding the Israeli government responsible for what he called "serious and systematic escalation" in settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, which Israel seized in the 1967 Middle East War.

Khatib called for "urgent international protection to prevent further crimes against the civilians."

Abbas said "there are daily crimes committed by Israeli settlers" against Palestinian civilians, yet no one seems to be talking about them. "Our villages are being attacked on a daily basis, and so our mosques and our homes and our olive trees are cut down," he said. "Israel and the international community should take note of that."

While the Palestinians do not use the exact phrase "Responsibility to Protect" they are using the exact same idea behind that phrase - the international community has a responsibility to protect civilians. Since terrorists use civilians to hide behind, and plant themselves and their weapons in civilian areas, R2P can be used as one more manifestation of lawfare to prevent Israel from defending its citizens.

Obama ignored Congress when launching attacks on Libya (and was hypocritical in doing so , as pointed out in today's Boston Globe editorial ) and seemingly outsourced our foreign and defense policy to the Arab League and the United Nations. When he justified the attacks based on the R2P concept that had been floating around the diplomatic world for a few years (a concept supported by George Soros and Samantha Power whose antipathy towards Israel and adoration of the United Nations is well-known), he empowered anti-Israel advocates to use one more ploy to attack Israel.

Carried to its logical conclusion, that the International Community must protect civilians, it is only a matter of time before R2P is used to attack American actions in Iraq, Afghanistan..and perhaps, ironically, in Libya itself.

Obama has wittingly or unwittingly opened a Pandora's Box.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/palestinians_use_r2p_to_call_o.html

Ed Lasky

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

The Unraveling Middle East, Part III


by David Walsh

[FrontPage Editor's note: the following is the last installment of a three-part series. Click the following to read Part I and Part II.]


It is the near future. The Middle East has been shaken by violent upheaval. A bloody stalemate takes hold in Libya. A power struggle has developed in Egypt between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, which has increased pressure in Jordan. The same is true in Yemen. Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait and Oman have also seen growing unrest, with violent clashes. Egypt’s chaos has led to Hamas effectively controlling the Sinai, deploying guerrillas and rockets on Israel’s vulnerable Negev border. Tensions are high in Korea, while socialist Venezuela, faced with serious domestic troubles and buoyed by its alliance with Iran, is taking an aggressive stand against the U.S. These developments have had a debilitating effect on global markets. Oil is over $100 a barrel, while commodity prices have soared in the Middle East, stoking the upheaval.

For Iran, this growing crisis provides both danger and opportunity. The danger comes from growing unrest within, as the pro-democracy movement increasingly challenges the Mullahocracy. The opportunity comes from the developing global situation. Israel is effectively surrounded, with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank forming a unity government with Hamas and Jordan unstable. With interests in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America under threat amidst growing economic turmoil, the U.S. global position is highly vulnerable. By contrast, Iran’s position has strengthened. With a naval base on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, unopposed transit for its warships through the Suez Canal and establishment of a missile base in Venezuela, Teheran has increased its military reach considerably.

The decision is thus taken to initiate hostilities in the Middle East. The flash point is Israel. The first day of war sees Iranian and Syrian ballistic missiles hit Israeli military targets (air and naval bases, missile sites, nuclear facilities), with others fired at cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa. This is followed up by Hezbollah forces, under cover of rocket bombardment, which invade Israel from Lebanon and, using surprise, capture large areas of Galilee. This throws Israeli forces onto the defensive and secures rear areas in Lebanon and Syria. From Gaza, Hamas and PIJ forces, also covered by a rocket barrage, launch attacks on Israeli border posts, while terrorist attacks are mounted from the West Bank and inside Israel through deep-cover cells. Attacks from Sinai further tie down Israeli forces, while a “Day of Rage” among Israeli Arabs causes additional disruption.

Syria provides air and artillery support for Hezbollah, then launches an assault on the Golan Heights, meaning Israel’s forces—exposed to the rear by Hezbollah—face an all-out conventional battle.

At this time, 2-3 days into the war, the main phase of Iran’s operation comes into effect.

Iranian forces make an air and amphibious assault on northwestern Oman, at the tip of the Strait of Hormuz. Using mines and fast attack craft supported by air units and missile batteries on islands just inside the Gulf, the Iranians effectively seal off this vital waterway. At the same time, Iranian midget subs and merchant ships mine the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb, off Yemen, and the Saudi ports on the Red Sea, closing this vital waterway. At the same time, IRGC forces launch deep-penetration raids into Afghanistan and Pakistan, coordinating with an Iranian-sponsored guerrilla and terror offensive. Finally, supported by radical Shia forces in Iraq, large Iranian forces invade the south of that country, seizing oilfields and cities like Basra. Similar Shia actions in Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia wreak havoc with oil production and ease the way for direct Iranian military action.

Outside the Middle East, war also erupts. After weeks of violent border clashes, North Korea invades the South, using ballistic missiles to strike Japan. Venezuela alerts its forces and, together with Bolivia, institutes an economic embargo on the U.S., sending oil, silver and tin prices skyrocketing. Islamist terrorists, who have attacked oil facilities in Mexico and Nigeria, now move to launch mass attacks in North America, Western Europe and Australasia.

Thus, within the space of a week, the U.S. and its allies face a nightmare scenario. Israel is fighting for its life, while Iran is effectively securing the Persian Gulf. A second Korean war has broken out, and Venezuela is now moving to threaten Colombia and the sea lanes through the Caribbean. The world economy is in turmoil. Oil is now over $220 a barrel, and all commodity prices have soared. The disruption of global maritime traffic leads to shortages of foodstuffs and raw materials, with particularly devastating effects in developing countries.

Militarily, the U.S. is faced with having to wage two full-scale regional wars while having to face the possibility of conflict in Latin America. If Iranian missiles are deployed in Venezuela, U.S. naval and air forces would have to be diverted to eliminate this threat. With the limited power projection capabilities of its allies, the U.S. would be hard-pressed to deal with other contingencies (Somali pirates, for example), as well as intensified existing conflicts (Afghanistan). At home, the threat of mass terror attacks would strain law enforcement, intelligence and military efforts. Mass casualties, panic and disorder would combine with economic upheaval to seriously disrupt the social fabric of Western nations. The outcome of such a conflict for the West could be very much in doubt.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/22/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-iii/

David Walsh has a Ph.D from the London School of Economics and is the author of book, The Military Balance in the Cold War: US Perceptions and Policy, 1976-85.

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

The Myth Of International Consensus on Libya


by Joseph Klein

Talking heads such as Andrea Mitchell of NBC News have praised President Obama for his “remarkable” achievement in obtaining international consensus to go to war against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The New York Times editors today called the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizing member states to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya “an extraordinary moment in recent history.”

Now it’s all well and good that the United Nations has given President Obama authority to take military action against Libya, but the Constitution contemplates that such authority should come first from Congress irrespective of what the UN might say. Indeed, candidate Obama said as much back in 2007:

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

That would be an imminent threat to this nation, not Libya.

Moreover, the international consensus that President Obama declared from Brazil was so strong is nothing but. Aside from the fact that his Brazilian host decided to abstain, rather than support, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, the international “consensus” is beginning to crumble.

Wasn’t it the supposed support of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference, for example, that ultimately tilted Obama in favor of intervention? If so, will he now get out in light of criticism of the action coming out of the Arab and Muslim world?

Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, condemned the U.S.-led air assault on Libya just a day after it began and called an emergency session in Cairo. Then yesterday Moussa dialed back his criticism somewhat and said the Arab League had “no conflict” with the UN resolution. Protesters in the streets of Cairo had a different idea, however, as they mobbed United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in protest during his press conference outside of the emergency session and forced him to retreat back into the Arab League headquarters building.

Even if the Arab League decides to back the military action rhetorically for a time, when will its members put their own military resources where their mouths are? To date, only Qatar has committed fighter jets.

The Organization of Islamic Conference, which supported UN Security Council Resolution 1973, has now called for

the adoption of a new resolution by the Security Council to annul the provisions of Resolution 1973 as soon as the motives standing behind its adoption have disappeared.

The problem is that the “motives” of various member states supporting Resolution 1973 differ, depending on whom you talk to.

Egypt has decided to steer clear of joining the military action against Libya.

Turkey blocked a bid to have NATO take over command of the operation, called Odyssey Dawn.

Although the African countries Gabon, Nigeria and South Africa voted in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, including its authorization of military force against Libya to save civilian lives, the African Union has since criticized the launching of military operations by U.S. and European countries against the Libyan regime to enforce this very resolution. The African Union’s panel on Libya Sunday demanded an “immediate stop” to all attacks.

China and Russia, which abstained from the UN Security Council vote approving military action in Libya, have publicly criticized the ongoing coalition air strikes in the country. Indeed, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin gave great talking points to radical Islamists seeking to use the intervention for propaganda and recruiting purposes when he said yesterday:

The [UN] resolution is defective and flawed. It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration does not appear to have its own act together. In fact, not even President Obama seems to know what he wants and how to make it happen. First, Obama himself had said days before the military action commenced that Qaddafi must go. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated that position. And Obama repeated that the United States wants Qaddafi out at a press conference in Chile yesterday, but at the same time said that Qaddafi’s removal was not part of the current military mission.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that attempting to get rid of Qaddafi would not be a good idea, going even further than Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen who said on “Meet The Press” on Sunday that the mission he is overseeing is narrowly focused on ensuring humanitarian support for the civilians and could be achieved even if Qaddafi stayed in power.

Adding even further confusion, Secretary of Defense Gates also said that splitting Libya in two “would be a formula for instability.” But how can we leave Qaddafi in place, protect the rebels from being eliminated and, at the same time, avoid a de facto split in the country patrolled indefinitely in the air by the U.S. and its coalition partners?

President Obama unwisely decided to wait for an illusory “international consensus” to emerge without clear American leadership. He deferred to France, rather than grab hold of the issue and drive the result. If the United States had instead taken the lead in attacking Qaddafi’s air defenses, communications facilities and military bases with very targeted drone and cyberattacks while the rebels had the momentum against Qaddafi, the despot would most likely have been gone by now and we wouldn’t be in the middle of a third war in a Muslim country with no clear endgame.

Original URL: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/22/the-myth-of-international-consensus-on-libya/

Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam

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