Kerry, Stay Home

by Prof. Efraim Inbar

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 219

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: US Secretary of State John Kerry warned of a return to Palestinian violence and Israel’s isolation should peace talks fail. This is yet another reflection of the Obama administration’s inability to properly understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has strong international backing and will not be isolated as Kerry indicates. The Palestinians know that a return to violence will only be met by a strong Israeli response.

US Secretary of State John Kerry warned of a return to Palestinian violence and Israel’s isolation if the faltering peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians ultimately fail. This is a typical leftist Pavlovian response to the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that is now over a decade old. Such thinking primarily reflects the frustration that the optimistic evaluations that the conflict can be ended quickly remain unfulfilled. Unfortunately, Kerry’s remarks tell the Palestinians to hold on to their maximalist positions. This reflects an inability to grasp the intricacies of protracted intractable ethnic conflict and a misguided American policy.

There is definitely a possibility that the Palestinians, in particular the radical forces, will recur to violence. In reality these forces try to kill Israelis all the time, and a dearth of terrorist attacks in recent years can only be attributed to the work of the Israeli security forces. Yet the likelihood of massive organized violence by the Palestinian Authority (PA) is small. Rocking the boat endangers too many vested interests of the Palestinian ruling class. The PA leadership has probably registered the heavy price paid by the Palestinians during their terrorist campaign at the beginning of the twenty-first century, as a result of Israeli countermeasures.

Moreover, even if the Palestinians miscalculate once again and go for a “third Intifada,” Israel’s capability to contain terrorism and other modes of civilian struggle is high. The Israeli army can be trusted to meet all challenges successfully. Most important, a large majority of Israelis believe that the Palestinian demands, such as Jerusalem and the “Right of Return,” are the real obstacles to peace. This large consensus about Palestinian intransigence allows for significant social mobilization and resilience in protracted conflict. Israelis will go once more to war with a feeling of “Ein Breira” (no choice) and are likely to win that engagement as well.

Large parts of the hypocritical world may indeed see Israel as the culprit for the failure of the negotiations and for a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence. But such negative attitudes do not necessarily lead to international isolation. Public statements and the voting record of states at the UN – an ineffective, morally bankrupt organization – are not indicative of the true nature of interstate relations.

National interests dictate state actions, and in most cases bilateral relations with Israel are hardly affected by the ups and downs in the peace talks with the Palestinians. For example, the rising powers India and China have expanded their bilateral ties with Jerusalem because it is in their interest to engage a successful state such as Israel. Nowadays, when the Iranian threat dominates the region, Arab Sunni states such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, who are exasperated with American behavior, are in the same strategic boat as Israel. Generally, the Middle East – especially today, while in the throes of a colossal political, social, and economic crisis – is hardly paying attention to the Palestinian issue. In the Caucasus and in Central Asia, Muslim Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan are friendly to Israel.

Moreover, isolation of Israel is unlikely because of the large existing reservoirs of support for Israel in many quarters. Canada and Australia are ruled by governments most responsive to Israeli concerns. Even in Western Europe, concerns about Muslim immigration and foreign aid place the Palestinians in a problematic spot. Above all, two-thirds of Americans have consistently favored Israel over the past two decades, which translates into Congressional support. The US is Israel’s most important ally and even the Obama administration has maintained the strong support and cooperation in the military sphere.

But the prism of the Obama administration on the Middle East and global affairs is fundamentally flawed. An American foreign policy that supports the Muslim Brotherhood, estranges its traditional Arab allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, allows Iran to get closer to the bomb, sees in Turkey’s Erdoğan a great friend of the West, and insists that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be ended in nine months is dangerous and does more damage that good. Similar complaints about poor US political judgment are abundantly voiced by America’s friends in Asian and Eastern European capitals.

It is the enemies of the US who rejoice in President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, and who relish in America’s perceived decline in world affairs.

Ironically, at this historic juncture, even an isolationist America would be a better alternative for those that want the good guys to win. Therefore, dear President Obama, please do us a favor: save some money and keep Kerry at home.

Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Click here for a PDF version of this article

(Photo Credit: Twitter/US State Department)

Prof. Efraim Inbar

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3663/kerry-palestinian-violence

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

Après Obama le Deluge

by Dan Margalit

Four days ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon were surprised to learn, during U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's visit, that the West was planning to unfreeze some $3 billion held in American banks to give to Iran. On Friday, it emerged that the Americans were willing to make even bigger concessions -- they are ready to gradually lift various economic sanctions. 

Netanyahu warned of a "bad deal," even a terrible one. France shares his view, and possibly the American Congress as well. Britain understands the problem, but the British government has already suffered embarrassment -- on the Syrian issue -- so Prime Minister David Cameron is now careful to adhere to U.S. President Barack Obama's point of view. 

Fortunately, the famous Hebrew proverb "grasp all -- lose all" hasn't been translated into Persian. The Iranians demanded that the West lift the sanctions on the oil industry and there was some friction. In the meantime, the West began listening to the voices coming from Israel, the American Congress and the French Foreign Ministry. On Saturday, the powers continued to negotiate with the Iranians in Geneva, but the pens are not poised to sign anything yet. 

So how much weight does Israel's opposition to this budding deal with Iran, which in essence refuses to slow down its nuclear momentum, actually carry? 

During the term of the previous Israeli government, Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and most of the members of the forum of eight top ministers, played their cards close to the chest. They gave the impression that Israel could launch a military attack on Iran's nuclear program at any minute. As long as this was a credible possibility, the West was terrified and agreed to impose real sanctions on Iran as long as the Israel Defense Forces refrain from taking action. In this, Israel was gloriously successful. 

This veiled threat, simulating a game of diplomatic poker, is no longer in effect. Speaking on public television on Friday, Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit pointed to reckless remarks by President Shimon Peres, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, former Shin Bet security service director Yuval Diskin and former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi as a factor in the gradual decline of the power of the Israeli threat to launch an independent military attack. What a shame. 

After all, it is entirely obvious that the Western business world is turning a blind eye and wishing for renewed trade with Iran, and that every country is ready to compete with its neighbors. Finance ministers across the globe have told Israel's Finance Minister Yair Lapid as much. Everyone understands that it would be dangerous to crack the dam, unless there are countries in the enlightened world that don't care whether Iran becomes a nuclear power. 

Obama is a short-term president. His bonds will be cashed in within three years. If Iran refrains from developing nuclear weapons in that time frame, then he will have done his job and he can say: "après moi le deluge" (the flood will come after I'm gone). But the world is worried about Washington's short-sightedness. It is not just the West that is concerned, but all of the U.S.'s allies in the Middle East as well. 

The deal is "very bad" because it brings the Iranian ayatollahs closer to their nuclear goal. It is a terrible deal, because it leaves the U.S. allies in the Middle East -- Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Egypt -- vulnerable and horror-struck.

Dan Margalit

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6273

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

Pollard’s Fate

by JPost Editorial

Former CIA director James Woolsey says he would tell US President Obama to forget that Pollard is a Jew and just release him. Indeed.

Jonathan Pollard red, white and blue Photo: Courtesy

Recent revelations of unbridled American espionage against its Western allies have exposed the hypocrisy and injustice that have kept Jonathan Pollard in prison for nearly three decades.

Washington has always presented Pollard’s unprecedented life sentence, including seven years in solitary confinement, as a reasonable response to Israel’s unmitigated gall for running a spy in the US. Successive American administrations have consistently maintained a morally superior posture, posing as the injured party, insisting on perpetuating the excessive punishment of Israel’s agent.

Although Israeli officials have been aware of American agents operating in Israel for decades, they have never openly confronted the US.

Israel’s inexplicable cooperation notwithstanding, recent revelations of the US’s massive spy operations against 35 friendly nations (including Israel) have blown America’s cover and brought to light an egregious double standard and a stunning example of American hypocrisy. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more blatant than in America’s treatment of Jonathan Pollard. This has prompted many who have never done so before to begin calling for his release.

Next week, Pollard begins his 29th year in prison for the crime of spying in the United States for the benefit of Israel.

He never passed a single secret about America to Israel – only information about Israel’s enemies and their plans to destroy the Jewish state.

Although the US judiciary is presumed to be independent of the political echelon, in reality it is not that simple.

Pollard long ago used up all of his legal remedies pursuing justice, but the American justice system failed to provide any relief. This is incomprehensible, since the conduct of the case blatantly violated every concept of justice America holds dear. This includes:
• A grossly disproportionate sentence,
• A broken plea agreement,
• The use of secret evidence,
• A false charge of treason,
• Ineffective assistance of counsel,
• Ex parte communication between prosecutors and judge,
• A lack of due process, and
• A sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies.

Cal Thomas, whose column is syndicated in 550 American newspapers and whose voice is heard on more than 300 American talk shows, wrote in USA Today last week: “President Obama should order the release of Jonathan Pollard, who is serving a life sentence for spying in the US on behalf of Israel."

“If everyone who spied on us and we on them went to prison, no one would have any spies left,” he wrote.

Thomas’s argument seems to suggest that two wrongs can make a right: The US did wrong. Pollard did wrong. If the US can be forgiven, then Pollard must be forgiven.

Normally this kind of logic does not apply, but this time it must. Pollard’s life sentence is the longest, harshest sentence in the history of the United States for the one count of passing classified information to an ally with which he was charged. The usual sentence is two to four years.

The US government’s own damage assessments, now declassified, put the lie to allegations of damage against Pollard. Even Caspar Weinberger, the former US defense secretary who drove Pollard’s life sentence, recanted before he died, admitting that the case against Pollard was greatly exaggerated.

Nevertheless, Pollard has not been able to receive justice in the United States for nearly three decades. All indications are that he never will. Nor has any humane consideration ever been extended to him because of his failing health.

Perhaps righteous indignation will be effective where justice and humanity have failed. If enough of a ruckus to free Pollard is raised now by all those who, like Cal Thomas, find the American administration’s hypocrisy hard to stomach, then indeed, there may be enough momentum created to motivate Pollard’s release.

Pollard’s petition for executive clemency – his final hope – has been sitting on Obama’s desk since October 2010. All it requires is a stroke of the president’s pen.

Speaking at a security conference in New York last week, former CIA director James Woolsey renewed his long-standing call for Pollard’s release. Asked if he had a message to send to Obama, Woolsey responded that he would tell the president to forget that Pollard is a Jew and just release him. Indeed. 



JPost Editorial

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Pollards-fate-331098

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

Plight of Europe’s Jews Revealed in New Survey

by Tom Wilson

Without a sea change on the part of European political and intellectual elites, it appears as if Europe is about to become a dark continent of anti-Jewish persecution once again

Europe's Jews and what they face

Europe’s Agency for Fundamental Rights has just released a major new survey, perhaps the most extensive of its kind, documenting the realities of anti-Semitism across Europe. The picture is bleak. The findings of this survey reveal a continent in which racism against Jews is widespread, on the rise, practiced openly, underreported and seemingly unrelenting in scope.

The survey, which covers eight European countries; Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Hungary and Latvia features the responses of 5,847 Jewish individuals. It includes an incredibly wide ranging amount of information about anti-Semitic activity in Europe, who is perpetrating it, where it is taking place and what effects its having.

Not surprisingly, the survey also establishes quite definitively the link between incitement against Israel and attacks on Jews living in European countries.

There is no longer any hiding for those who have endlessly demonised the Jewish State in the most vicious ways while attempting to claim, that they personally, feel nothing but good will towards Jews generally. That claim always sounded unconvincing and now this study shows how the fruits of the campaign against Israel have been borne out in the form of incitement and bigotry directed at all Jews, Zionist or not.

Also worthy of note is the fact that this survey further exposes just how much of Europe’s anti-Semitism emanates from both the Left and hardline Islamic elements.

This will hardly come as news to anyone who has been following this issue honestly or closely in recent years. Yet, it demonstrates as false the ongoing belief that the Conservatives and the Right are the enemies of Jews, and the survey further shows how, despite claims to the contrary, the Church is simply not the primary perpetuator of Jew hatred anymore.

The first thing that jumps out from the findings here is the sheer amount of anti-Semitism that now takes place across Europe.

Of those surveyed, 66% say anti-Semitism is a problem in their country, 76% say that in the past five years anti-Semitism has worsened. And the anti-Semitism being experienced is wide ranging with 59% having experienced it in the media and 75% on the internet. Additionally, 27% of respondents had witnessed a verbal or physical attack on a Jewish person in the past twelve months. That figure stands at 21% in the United Kingdom.

When it came to having experienced general anti-Semitic harassment in the last five years, 36% of Jews in Germany have been victim to this, 35% of French Jews and 33% of those in Sweden. In Britain the situation is only marginally better where 29% of those Jews surveyed said they had witnessed anti-Semitic harassment over that same period. These are the stark facts of Jewish life in the enlightened and liberal societies of modern Europe, with all the lofty and civilizing influence of the European Union.

Yet, the results of this study show how it is the greatest supporters of the European Union and Multiculturalism, the Leftwing champions of "tolerance", who are at the forefront of this upsurge in anti-Jewish racism.

Of those who had experienced anti-Semitism, overall 53% had observed it from someone on the Left. In Britain 57% of those who had witnessed anti-Semitism said it came from someone on the Left. In Italy 62% of this group registered hearing anti-Semitism from the Left and in France that figure stands at 67%. By contrast, in Britain, for example, only 33% of those reporting anti-Semitism said it came from the political Right.

The Left have of course made themselves Fellow Travellers of, and apologists for, extremist elements within the Muslim community. In turn it has been these same groups who have been the greatest beneficiaries of the Left’s Multiculturalist policies.

It is worthy of note then that in Britain 56% of those who had encountered anti-Semitism said they had seen it come from a Muslim extremists. Just 14% said it had come from Christians. In Sweden 51% of those experiencing anti-Semitism associated it with having come from Muslims and in France a shocking 73% did.

What this survey further demonstrates is that those who fan the flames of hatred against Israel also do so against Jews in general. The most common anti-Semitic slur reported by Jews in this survey concerned equivalences being made between Israelis and Nazis, with 82% saying they had heard such an accusation.

Indeed, 79% said that they had felt held to account or blamed for events in Israel, simply because they were themselves Jewish. The way in which events in the Middle East are used as an excuse for unleashing attacks against Jews in Europe was further attested to by the fact that 68% of respondents said that the Arab-Israeli conflict impacted upon their own sense of safety either a great deal or to a fair amount.

Unsurprisingly, the upshot of this wave of animosity has been an extremely negative effect upon Europe’s Jews, 68% whom say they have avoided appearing identifiably Jewish in public because of fears of anti-Semitism. Almost half of those who have been victims of anti-Semitism, 49%, say they now avoid certain areas for fear of further attack; 21% of those who have not yet been attacked do so anyway.

And while the Jewish population of many European countries has been dwindling over the years, it appears that hatred against Jews could be contributing to this, with many saying they are considering emigration to escape hostility against them in Europe. Overall, 29% of European Jews say they are considering emigration to escape persecution in the European Union and in countries such as France that figure goes up to 49%.

Despite this study revealing just how much anti-Jewish hostility takes place Europe, it also exposed just how little of this gets reported. Of those who had experienced harassment 76% failed to report this to the authorities and of those who have been physically attacked 64% had not done so either.

Many said they did not report these crimes because they did not expect the police to take any action. Another group, 27%, said these things happen all the time and too often to always be reported, and 9% said they don’t report anti-Semitism as they don’t expect to be believed or taken seriously.

Such statements are, if nothing else, simply depressing. Will this be enough to alert Europe’s political leaders to the rising danger of repeating the worst mistakes of Europe’s past? Most likely, European politicians will express concern, some of it genuine. But most of them are far too wedded to the very ‘progressive’ ideology that allowed for this situation to arise in the first place.

They are not about to condemn their own constituencies on the Left, nor are they about to admit that the Islamic community, an ethnic minority and therefore by definition a righteous victim group, must face up to its own serious anti-Semitism problem.

It also seems unlikely that European leaders are about to display much moral clarity on the Israel issue and declare unequivocally the right of Israel, as an embattled democracy, to defend itself and the right of the Jews to have self-determination like any other people.

Instead, they will no doubt push ahead with their growing support for boycotts of Israeli products which sit unpleasantly alongside the mounting prospect of seeing kosher and circumcision banned in many EU countries.

Without a sea change on the part of European political and intellectual elites, it appears as if Europe is about to become a dark continent of anti-Jewish persecution once again.


Tom Wilson lives in New York where he is a political analyst and writer


Source: http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4341/plight_of_europe_s_jews_revealed_in_new_survey

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

Purging and Transforming Our Military

by Matthew Vadum

 

President Obama hasn’t just been hollowing out the military since taking office, he’s been gutting it, purging it of ideologically hostile personnel, and fundamentally transforming it into something other than a war-fighting force, military experts say.

Although few with military ties are willing to say it openly, it seems the administration is leading an orchestrated effort to seriously undermine the readiness of the military. Some reports indicate that Obama has purged 197 senior military officers since moving into the White House and that many of the retired officers have been harassed at their new civilian jobs for criticizing the president’s policies. The effects of these purges will be felt long after Obama leaves office.

This is, of course, the same through-the-looking-glass administration that goes out of its way not to label actual Islamic terrorists as terrorists, that calls terrorist attacks “man-caused disasters,” and refers to the Global War on Terror as the “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

A retired senior military officer and combat veteran who remains involved in national security affairs, told FrontPage in an interview that President Obama is involved in social engineering of the United States military.

“Having women in combat is bad,” he said. “It is changing the social complexion of the infantry and we now have this epidemic of sexual assaults.”

Soldiers are told not to be mean to gays, he said. “Do you really think the individuals who are joining the all-volunteer force will be joining to pull triggers or to get sensitivity training?”

The former officer said that President Obama is getting rid of experienced war fighters for no apparent reason.

The “poster child” for such firings is James Mattis, a real soldier’s soldier and four-star general in the Marine Corps who retired unexpectedly this past May at age 63. As a brigadier general Mattis led a brigade into Kandahar in fall of 2001 and a Marines division into Iraq during the invasion in 2003.

“Mattis should have been the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff but mysteriously he gets retired,” the officer said. Mattis had been asking questions about Obama’s policy toward, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, that the powers that be didn’t want asked, he said.

In early 2009 Obama cashiered David McKiernan, the general in charge of the Afghanistan war. He was replaced by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whom he also fired. Obama canned his intelligence chief, Gen. David Petraeus. Gen. John Allen, another key figure in the Afghanistan war, resigned unexpectedly, according to an analysis by the “Vernuccio/Allison Report,” a radio show carried by WVOX 1460 AM in New Rochelle, N.Y.

Gen. Carter Ham fell on his sword soon after the White House denied permission for a rescue mission to save officials trapped at the besieged U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. Admiral David Gaurette, who oversaw an aircraft carrier group in the Middle East, also had retirement thrust upon him, as did Marine Gen. James Cartwright.

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina and Major Gen. Michael Carey, military commanders involved with the nation’s nuclear defenses, have also been shown the door by the president.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady told WND that President Obama has forced out so many military leaders who have doubts about his policies that the nation’s armed forces no longer feel prepared to fight or to try to win armed conflicts.

“There is no doubt he is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” said Brady, a recipient of the military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another top retired officer told WND.

“Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions,” the media outlet reports.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin said four-star generals are being retired at an alarming rate under Obama. “Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.”

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

Retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North weighed in on the issue on Mark Levin’s radio show last night.

Although “there’s a lot of dead wood wearing flags and stars … [who] wouldn’t know how to fight their way out of a paper bag,” a suspicious number of flag officers have been given walking papers by the Obama administration, he said. He continued:

There’s a group of people, and I don’t think it’s anything close to a hundred, but there’s probably several dozen who tried to do the right thing and they weren’t promoted by this administration because it was contrary to their policy whether it was the administration’s stated narrative that we’ve ended al-Qaeda, therefore we’re safe in the world, or whether it’s the stated narrative that we’re doing a pivot toward Asia which is total baloney because there’s no money to do it with, or it’s the people who want to defend America with a real serious ballistic missile defense and they were fired because they said, “hey gosh, we’re not doing what we need to do to protect the American people.”

Generals and admirals who “feel strongly that something has gone wrong and something isn’t being done right, you have a moral obligation to know, first of all, your career is probably over anyway, so have the courage to stand up at a podium, take off your stars, throw ‘em down [on] the podium, and tell the truth to the American people on your way out the door.”

This “has not happened yet and it should have happened a long time ago,” North said, adding:

The military is being turned into a laboratory for radical social engineering experiments. They’re wrecking the finest military force the world has ever known — brighter, better educated, trained, led, and now the most combat-experienced military force in the history of the world. And they’re not standing up and saying, “stop wrecking it.” This administration is intent on wrecking it.

The president has also taken some steps that seem aimed only at harming morale. Obama plans to force Marines of both sexes to don unisex headwear that critics mock as “girly hats.”

According to former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie, ranking SEAL commanders have banned their subordinates from wearing the Navy’s traditional “don’t tread on me” insignia. The patch depicting a coiled rattlesnake ready to strike is typically worn by SEALs and is a variation of the Gadsden flag, a Revolutionary era vexillological device that has been used by the U.S. Marines and Navy since 1775. In 2002 the secretary of the Navy ordered that a variation of the flag, the Navy Jack, be flown on all U.S. Navy ships for the duration of the Global War on Terror.

The Left abhors the Gadsden because it is carried at Tea Party rallies and has been used as a symbol of resistance to Obama’s authoritarianism.

Leftist influencer and all-purpose crackpot Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Gadsden flag as a symbol of hate that in “contemporary society [is] the flag of the militia movement.” The flag says “Don’t mess with us,” and implies, “Don’t mess with us at the point of a gun,” says Potok.

Since taking office in 2009, the Obama administration has been on a relentless drive to stigmatize and delegitimize opposing points of view. The administration has instructed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials to treat conservatives and libertarians as potential terrorists. Obama’s IRS targets conservative and Tea Party groups for harassment and special investigations.

Americans ought to be alarmed that the administration is now using the same heavy-handed, un-American tactics to turn members of the nation’s armed forces against its domestic political adversaries.

We know, for example, that a January 2013 Department of Defense (DoD) diversity training center “student guide” entitled “Extremism” instructs soldiers that conservative organizations are “hate groups” and Tea Party supporters are potentially dangerous extremists.

The DoD materials not only take aim at modern conservative groups but label America’s Founding Fathers as extremists who would be unfit to serve in today’s military. The teaching guide advises that instead of “dressing in sheets,” radicals today “will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” American patriots who fought for Independence from the United Kingdom in the 1700s are identified as adhering to “extremist ideologies.”

“In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements,” the document states. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

The materials advise soldiers to rely on the Alabama-based neo-Marxist Southern Poverty Law Center as a resource in identifying hate groups. A 2006 report from the SPLC, essentially an anti-conservative attack machine funded by George Soros, claimed improbably that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

This is what happens when you make a radical left-wing community organizer Commander-in-Chief of America’s armed forces.


Matthew Vadum

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/purging-and-transforming-our-military/

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

Iran Starts Production of new Anti-Aircraft Missile

by Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan says Sayyad 2 missiles will be used to defend Iran against air raids, are capable of destroying helicopters and drones • Military experts often cast doubt on Iran's claims of weapons advances.

"Sayyad 2" missiles at an undisclosed location in Iran | Photo credit: Reuters

Iran launched production of the 'Sayyad 2' missile on Saturday, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

Attending the launch ceremony, Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan said the missile would be used to defend the country against possible air raids, and was capable of destroying helicopters and drones, according to Fars.

The Sayyad 2 is an updated version of the Sayyad 1 surface-to-air missile, Fars reported, capable of reaching higher altitudes and striking with greater precision.

Iran has test-fired several missiles in recent years, including the launch of Iranian Shahab missiles in July 2012 during the "Great Prophet 7" military exercises.

Iran's official English-language Press TV said the Shahab 3 missile with a range of 1,300 kilometers (800 miles) -- able to reach Israel -- was tested at the time, along with the shorter-range Shahab 1 and 2.

However, military experts have often cast doubt on Iran's claims of weapons advances, especially assertions about its missile program, saying Tehran often exaggerates its capabilities.

Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=13209

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

Anti-Zionism: the "Big" Ideology

by Steve Apfel

Communism explained history in terms of a struggle between classes for political and economic power. Nazism explained history as a struggle between races for world domination. What claim does anti-Zionism make (that you haven't heard before) ?

Hannah Arendt knew what ideology meant

Zionism = apartheid = racism. The once reviled and then revoked UN resolution was archived and mothballed when some quick-witted people nicked the concept, hid the birth certificate, gave it a pseudo-humanitarian suit of clothes, then held aloft a rollicking rallying cry. Israel the apartheid practitioner!  

Did it work? Did it just! Apartheid experts and legal minds, try as they might, were like straws in the wind. Richard Goldstone fired every argument in the armory to prove that apartheid was a libel. Did it make a jot of difference? If anything, picketers wielded their banners more flamboyantly.

What does that tell us about anti-Zionists? Were they called forth by a real situation? Whosoever reflects on the word ‘ideology’ connects the dots. As a modern-day ‘ism’ anti-Zionism is probably second only to humanitarianism or human rights. Indeed the two could well be Siamese twins. One lives off the other. Separate the human rights half and the anti-Zionist twin would have little to say.

Are we looking at a new world-wide ideology? Yes, when we look at the essential elements, anti-Zionism takes the cake all right.

Turn up a lexicon and we learn that ideology is a body of beliefs that have the power to stir up and mobilize people. Now turn up a political philosopher such as Hannah Arendt.  

Ideology, Arendt says, must claim a total explanation through an historical force. Communism explained history in terms of a struggle between classes for political and economic power. Nazism explained history as a struggle between races for world domination.

We’re told by Arendt that ideology must provide (a) a total explanation of the past; (b) a total knowledge of the present, and (c) a reliable prediction of the future. But even then the job is not done. All current happenings must be explained and interpreted through the ideology’s body of beliefs.

These may seem tough shoes to fit. Yet, anti-Zionism fits them to perfection. Only sit at the feet of the faithful and listen. Consider the teachings of the BDS -- the boycott franchise, and be wise.

Anti-Zionism explains history in terms of the struggle of Jews to control the world. The chosen weapon is not force but conspiratorial games. Jews are clever ‘Elders of Zion’ type manipulators. They rely not on their own physical power but on that of others: political powers and the media do their bidding.

Zionists twist those powers to get special treatment for Israel. They get what they want by pushing the right knobs, manipulating the right leaders, hijacking  American foreign policy; playing the Holocaust card for all its worth. Their behaviour is “beyond chutzpah” in the words of Norman Finkelstein, a member of the anti-Zionist priestly caste.

So far so good; but that is by no means all Arendt can teach. Ideology, says the great political scientist, has no link to real experience. Believers are incapable of learning anything new, not even from something that lately came to pass. Belief is not only divorced from reality, it insists on a truer version of events. And here the role of teaching comes into play. The truer version is provided by indoctrination.

Nothing new here: anti-Zionism’s political soldiers are trained up at school and university. The Palestinian Authority puts indoctrination in the school syllabus. Pupils are taught to that Israel has no right to exist; to rely on maps with Palestine where Israel ought to be. Nor in the developed world are places of education far behind.

They fulfill the same purpose as the old Soviet Comintern. Graduates leave hallowed halls with the idea of Israel as a rogue among nations. Zionists = Nazis; Israel = Apartheid.

Because ideology has no power to transform reality, it emancipates followers by making certain premises axiomatic. Arendt is particularly clear on this point. Facts are created that don’t exist in the realm of reality.

Anti-Zionism’s axiomatic premise is that done to death word, ‘Occupation.’ Occupation suffuses every claim, colours every accusation made against Israel. Even professor-of-law anti-Zionists rely on the axiom that Israel occupies Palestinian territory.

Neither history nor law holds back the likes of John Dugard or Richard Falk.

But anti-Zionism, to be an ideology, must explain the past…Which it does, with a simple yet emotive narrative. In the past Jewish Europeans came over and stole the land from "indigenous" Palestinians. Israelis are colonial usurpers. Hence even erecting a family house, or drawing water becomes an act of theft.

How would anti-Zionist belief explain the present? Israel is a powerful aggressor and the Palestinians helpless bystanders. Case closed, members of the jury.

What kind of future does anti-Zionism predict, and how does it work towards that future? It predicts one state – one more Muslim state, and works to see that happen.

Muslims will govern a Jewish minority. At this point the anti-Zionist may take a back seat and wait for the natural course and pattern of history to mete out the Jewish fate. Ethnic cleansing will solve the problem. The Jews won’t last long in Palestine, no siree. In quick time Jews will revert to their ordained status of homeless wanderers, poor sojourners.

Strip away the veneer of anti-Zionists – Jewish, Muslim, Christian and secular, and what are we left with? A body of belief, a hand-rubbing, mouth-watering vision of the future.


Steve Apfel is director of the School of Management Accounting, Johannesburg. He is the author of the book,'Hadrian's Echo: The whys and wherefores of Israel's critics' (2012) and a contributor to, "War by other means." (Israel Affairs, 2012). His articles and blogs are published in several foreign journals and his new work, 'How the West was won' is due out next year

Source: http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4328/anti_zionism_the_big_ideology

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

Exploiting Christian Persecution to Demonize Israel

by Raymond Ibrahim


What's worse than the silence of Western Christians concerning the Muslim persecution of their coreligionists in the Islamic world?  Answer: Cynically exploiting that persecution for a political agenda -- in the case of a recent Daily Beast article, to excoriate the state of Israel and its supporters.


Titled "Why Won't the West Defend Middle Eastern Christians?" and written by Diarmaid MacCulloch, a fellow of St. Cross College, the article touches on the persecution of Christians, but primarily as a springboard to attack American Christian support for Israel.  Consider the following excerpt:

... one of the silences which I find most frustrating is precisely the lack of noise from Western Christians about the fate of ancient Christianities in the Middle East. At the heart of the problems in the Middle East is seven decades of unresolved conflict between Israel and Palestine[.]

Yes, Western silence vis-à-vis the plight of Mideast Christians is as real as it is frustrating, but exactly how is MacCulloch able to jump to the conclusion that the Arab-Israeli conflict is "the heart" of the problem?


What about the well-documented Islamic doctrines that codify the suppression and persecution of Christians and other non-Muslims? 


What about the documented fact that Christians under Islam had been persecuted for more than 1,300 years before the existence of the state of Israel, in complete accordance with said doctrines? 


What about the fact that Christians are currently being persecuted in every corner of the Islamic world, as documented in my monthly "Muslim Persecution of Christians" series -- including diverse countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, and every corner of Africa -- and not just the Middle East? 


Surely this -- and not the tiny and relatively new state of Israel -- is the true "heart of the problem."


Of course, to thinkers like MacCulloch, all the above points concerning Islamic hostility to Christians are not open to consideration, for they portray Islam in a negative light and so must be false (see Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians for abundant documentation otherwise). 


Instead, MacCulloch offers politically correct boilerplate statements, such as "Christians are scapegoated for their faith by an extremist militant minority of Muslims, who betray their own religion by intolerance, and who make other Muslims ashamed of what is happening."


Indeed, it is MacCulloch who betrays himself by characterizing Islam as a "tolerant" faith when any moderately objective reading of doctrine and history -- made manifest in daily headlines -- invariably proves the reverse. 


Likewise, instead of delving into and exposing the true "heart of the problem," MacCulloch critiques Protestant eschatology and U.S. support for Israel, the consequences of which "have been particularly dire for the traditional Christianities of the Middle East."


It would have been more useful and sincere if he had addressed more glaring questions.  For example:

• When the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters in Egypt torched some 80 Christian churches and murdered Christians, including children -- not to mention all the other anti-Christian atrocities they had committed before and have committed since -- was that because of Israel or something more personal?
• When Islamic rebels in Syria terrorize Christians, behead their priests and pastors, break Christian crosses, and smash icons -- all while shouting Islamic slogans -- is that because of Israel or something more innate?
• When Muslims in Indonesia illegally close off churches, forcing Christians to celebrate Christmas in the streets -- only to have cow dung and urine hurled at them -- is that because of Israel, or something more ingrained?
• When the Nigerian Islamic group Boko Haram destroys hundreds of churches and slaughters thousands of Christians, and when, on the other side of Africa, the Somali Islamic group Al-Shabaab terrorizes and beheads converts to Christianity -- is that because of Israel or something more doctrinal?
• Indeed, when Christian minorities in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip are abducted and forced to convert to Islam, is that because of Israel or the elephant in the room?

MacCulloch is correct about one thing: many Muslims do hate Israel.  But that hate, far from prompting the persecution of Christians, is actually a byproduct of the same hostility Islamic supremacism engenders for all non-Muslims.  The reason it is much more viral for Israel is because the Jewish state is in a unique position of authority over Muslims, as opposed to vulnerable Christian minorities (as fully explained in this article).


The theme of silence permeates MacCulloch's Daily Beast article -- specifically, that Western Christians are silent concerning the plight of their persecuted brethren.  This silence is true and troubling -- and many mainstream American Protestant denominations are certainly guilty of it.


However, instead of exploiting the sufferings of Christian minorities simply to scapegoat Israel -- ironically a nation that is in an existential struggle against the very same ideology and forces that persecute Christians -- it may have been better for MacCulloch himself to be silent.


Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians.

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

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

Oman Oil Minister Slams Gulf Culture of Energy Subsidies

by Asharq Al-Awsat

'We are wasting too much energy in the region and the barrels that we are consuming are becoming a threat now,' says Oman's oil and gas minister, Mohammed bin Hamad Al Rumhy

 

 

Omani Oil Minister Mohamed bin Hamad Al Rumhy (far right) poses for a group photo with colleagues at a meeting of Gulf Arab oil ministers in Riyadh September 24, 2013

Abu Dhabi, Reuters—Subsidized petrol and electricity programs are causing a huge waste of energy across the Gulf and threatening economies, Oman’s oil and gas minister said on Sunday, in a rare official warning over surging demand in the region.

Energy prices are heavily subsidized in the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), giving little incentive for their fast-growing populations to moderate use of big gas-guzzling cars or around-the-clock air conditioning.

As a result, top crude oil exporter Saudi Arabia is the world’s sixth biggest consumer of oil, despite being only the 20th largest economy, and GCC members are all among the least energy-efficient countries globally. The United Arab Emirates and Oman have already seen their gas exports constrained by ballooning domestic demand.

“We are wasting too much energy in the region and the barrels that we are consuming are becoming a threat now, for our region particularly… I think we have a serious problem,” Oman’s oil and gas minister Mohammed bin Hamad Al Rumhy told the ADIPEC energy conference in Abu Dhabi.

“What is really destroying us right now is subsidies… We simply need to raise the price of petrol and electricity. In some countries in our region, electricity is free and you leave your air conditioning for the whole summer when you go on holiday. That is really a crime,” he said.

“Our cars are getting bigger, our consumption is getting bigger and the price is almost free. So you need to send a signal to the pockets of the public.”

It was not clear whether Rumhy’s remarks indicated any fresh change to Oman’s domestic energy pricing policies, which would be politically sensitive. His comments were unusually strong for a Gulf minister—officials in the region generally tend to avoid public criticism of long-established policies.

In a rare reform, Oman announced plans in early 2013 to double its industrial gas price to USD 3 per million British thermal units, still cheap by international standards, by 2015.

Oman is under more immediate pressure to reform than its wealthy Gulf neighbors as its energy resources are less ample. The International Monetary Fund has warned that Oman’s state finances could slide into deficit in coming years because of recent public spending rises.

In 2010, the UAE government hiked its domestic gasoline price to AED 1.72 (USD 0.47) per liter to cut the burden of subsidies on public finances and promote efficiency. But after the Arab Spring uprisings began in the following year, plans for further price rises were put on hold to avoid stoking public discontent.

Omani diesel is still so cheap that trucks from the UAE drive over the border to fill up on it.
Population growth and artificially low energy prices in the GCC member countries—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE—mean the countries that the world has long relied upon for oil and gas need to spend heavily over the next decade just to meet their own energy needs.

According to a study published by consultants IHS on Sunday, over USD 1 trillion of investment is needed over the next 17 years to meet demand for gas and electricity in the Middle East and North Africa.

IHS estimates that demand for natural gas in the GCC is likely to rise more than 50 percent, from 256 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2011 to 400 bcm in 2030. Oil demand will also grow more than 50 percent in the next 17 years, from around 4 million barrels per day (bpd) to over 6.2 million bpd, IHS said.


Asharq Al-Awsat is the world’s premier pan-Arab daily newspaper, printed simultaneously each day on four continents in 14 cities. Launched in London in 1978, Asharq Al-Awsat has established itself as the decisive publication on pan-Arab and international affairs

Source: http://www.aawsat.net/2013/11/article55321960

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

Thank Heaven for the French?

by Jonathan S. Tobin

Had Secretary of State John Kerry not been absolutely certain that a deal with Iran was about to be signed there’s no way he would have showed up in Geneva to take credit for what he thought would be a foreign-policy coup. Indeed, as reports tell us, he was not alone in that opinion as the Iranians, European Union foreign-policy chief, and just about everyone else there were just as sure the latest meeting of the P5+1 negotiating club would end in a celebration. But to their surprise—and to the relief of those in the United States, Israel, and moderate Arab states that were looking on in horror at an agreement that eased international sanctions on Iran in exchange for little if nothing from Tehran—the party was spoiled by an unlikely voice of reason: French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. As Britain’s Guardian notes today, Fabius’s “torpedoing” of the talks by his insistence on more concessions on both the Islamist state’s enrichment of uranium and their construction of a plutonium plant enraged the Iranians and frustrated Kerry and some of the other negotiators. While there is a lively debate about the French motive for their tough stance, those who care about stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon can only say thank heaven for the French.

Fabius’s unexpected decision to take a strong stand on details that Kerry had assumed would be swept under the rug the West was being sold by Iran exposed the flimsy nature of the consensus in favor of the proposed deal. Critics of the deal were worried that the Iranian agreement to freeze enrichment would be easily evaded and that the West’s move to start to ease sanctions would start a process that would lead inevitably to the collapse of sanctions regardless of what Iran did. In response, supporters of the accord seemed less interested in the actual terms of the accord than they were in the idea of finally getting the Iranians to sign on to anything. For them the act of diplomacy was the thing they cared most about since any deal would make the use of force—by the U.S. or Israel—unthinkable and lock the international community into a process where Iran would become their partner rather than an outlaw to be curbed.

While Kerry is trying to act as if there was no failure but merely a delay, the failure of the talks leaves open the question as to whether the next meeting will enable Kerry to get his photo-op. Yet by standing up to the Obama administration, Fabius may have created a dynamic that will not allow the U.S. to look weaker than the French.


Why did the French disrupt Kerry’s plans? It’s hard to say. The Iranians claimed Fabius was “acting as a servant of the Zionist regime.” Some might put it down to the French impulse to oppose anything the U.S. wants, even if it forced them to take a tougher stand while they normally prefer softer approaches to confronting Iran and other Islamist forces. But whatever Fabius’s motives might have been, what he has done is to draw attention to the fact that Kerry and Co. were rushing to make a deal without nailing down the details about what the Iranians are expected to do.

Kerry has defended this process and pretended that what he was about to sign was a good deal. He believes that by taking halfway measures he is advancing the cause of stopping the Iranians. He thinks talking to the Iranians has a value in itself and worth the price of chipping away at sanctions. Those who support this process claim that those who call for a complete shutdown of the Iranian nuclear program are unrealistic. But the real lack of realism stems from those who ignore the Iranian history of cheating on the nuclear issue and who think this time will finally be different.

The point here is that contrary to Kerry’s rhetoric, this is not a labor negotiation in which both sides must be allowed to walk away with something and a solution always lies in splitting the difference between the two sides. Any Iranian deal that doesn’t definitively end their chance of building a weapon, whether via uranium or plutonium, is a scam, not a diplomatic triumph. Insistence on this point doesn’t make the deal’s critics warmongers. It makes them realists.

It can only be hoped that the pause between this weekend and the next P5+1 meeting will stiffen the spines of the Western negotiators rather than making them more eager to give away the store. For that opportunity, we should be grateful to Fabius. Indeed, with most of the focus in recent weeks on whether to strengthen rather than weaken sanctions, the rush to a deal in the days leading up to the Geneva meeting happened without a full debate about its terms. It’s not just that the administration can’t justify being weaker on Iran than France. Kerry’s deal cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/10/thank-heaven-for-the-french-iran-kerry/

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