Barry Rubin: Israel - The Impudence Accompanying Betrayal

by Barry Rubin

I’ve always been amazed that anyone thought the United States would ever act against the Iranian nuclear threat. There was never any chance that such a thing would happen. The United States would never go to war with tens of millions of people.

 

Moreover, there was never any chance the United States would let Israel “attack” Iran.

 

In a Huffington Post article by Steven Strauss, the author quotes Netanyahu:

 

“‘I believe that we can now say that Israel has reached childhood’s end, that it has matured enough to begin approaching a state of self-reliance… We are going to achieve economic independence [from the United States].’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a Joint Session of the United States Congress – Washington D.C., July 10, 1996 (Source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs).”

 

Unfortunately, today, almost 20 years later, this is not a fair statement to quote. Strauss continues: “In 1997, Israel received $3.1 billion in aid from the U.S. In 2012, Israel was still receiving $3.1 billion annually in U.S. aid.”

 

This, however, is not an appropriate comparison today. Let us look at the current situation: Egypt will receive $2 billion in U.S. aid; Saudi Arabia will receive military aid as well as the anti-Asad Syrian rebels; Turkey will receive billions of dollars and probably military equipment. Moreover, the United States and Europe will also reach out to Iran, and Hizballah and Syria will receive aid from Iran. In addition, the Palestinians have not made the least bit of commitment on a two-state solution. In other words, only Israel would lose. And this is the childhood’s end?

 

Strauss further notes, “Israel has become an affluent and developed country that can afford to pay for its own defense.” But the point is that other hostile countries will be receiving more while Israel will get the same amount.

 

He continues, “… Israel has a well developed economy in other ways.” But again, Israel will be placed at much more of a disadvantage.

 

The article’s claim, “Other countries/programs could better use this aid money,” does not state the reality.

 

“Even domestically, the aid that goes to Israel could be useful. Detroit is bankrupt, and our Congress is cutting back on food stamps, and making other painful budget cuts.” Again, the United States does not face an immediate threat from its neighbors, while Israel does. Moreover, this is shockingly implying that Israel is stealing money from poor people in the United States.

 

In other words, this is not equivalent.

 

“Israel and the United States have increasingly different visions about the future of the Middle East.” But again, so what? This is absolutely irrelevant.

 

“A major (bipartisan) goal of the United States has been the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Once again, this is a policy that is impossible, but the United States is going to try to force it on Israel anyway.

 

Note that the less security the United States and the West provide to Israel, the more difficult it makes it to secure or promote a desirable two-state solution. Strauss adds, “However, the current Israeli government is clearly not committed to the U.S. vision, and has done everything possible to sabotage American efforts.”

 

The problem with this last point is that the Palestinians have always tried to sabotage this. If this concept hasn’t gotten across in a quarter century, I can’t imagine when it will get across.

The current Israeli government has tried for many years to achieve a two-state solution and has made many concessions. And if Kerry can’t take Israel’s side on this issue, then I can’t imagine how decades of U.S. policy has been carried out. To say that the Israeli government is not committed is a fully hostile statement. 

 

This claims Israeli settlement and not Palestinian intransigence has blocked the peace process.

 

Note that the author of this article has “distinguished” credentials: “Steven Strauss is an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.”

 

Yet if this is what the U.S. government understands, it will end badly. Moreover, the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons is not the important point; rather, it is the transformation of the U.S. Middle East position that is significant. I do not believe there is any chance Iran will use nuclear weapons. The problem is that this is reversal of the U.S. policy. In other words, it is like going back to 1948 and opposing partition.

 

Finally, what this is all about is money and greed. Many European countries are drooling about the money to be made. For example, Vittorio Da Rold writes (Il Sole 24 ore), “Italian SMEs are hoping for a rapid agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue in order to return as soon as possible to trade without limits with Tehran and the rich Iranian market in hopes of finding new markets in a time when the European market flirts with deflation.”

 

Barry Rubin

Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/11/israel-the-impudence-accompanying-betrayal/

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

The West’s Hubris: Is the Price of the Iraq War a Nuclear Iran?

by Dr. Jonathan Rynhold

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 220

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 2003 Iraq War significantly reduced the West’s willingness to confront Iran with the credible military threat required to halt its nuclear weapons program. Critics of the Iraq War were correct to point out that the West had no major strategic interest at stake in Iraq, and that the belief that the US could transform that country into a stable democracy quickly and easily was hubris. However, unlike in the Iraqi case, allowing Iran to become a threshold nuclear power does represent a major strategic threat to the West. To believe that Iran can be dissuaded from its course without the credible threat of military strikes, or that a Middle East with a nuclear Iran can be easily be managed, represents an even greater show of hubris.

Right now there is an unprecedented crisis between the United States and its Middle Eastern allies – not only Israel – over a potential interim nuclear deal with Iran. The allies fear that the P5+1 will grant Iran a lessening of sanctions in return for limited concessions that will not prevent Iran’s continued advance towards the bomb during ongoing negotiations. In other words, Iran will become a nuclear threshold state that can produce nuclear weapons in a matter of months. Only the French seem to be holding out against such a deal.

Given the near-universal agreement in the West that a nuclear Iran is “a very bad thing,” why have matters reached such a perilous state? The answer is that despite being many times more powerful than Iran, the West has been unwilling to truly threaten the regime by projecting a credible threat of military action.

Whatever the outcome of the current negotiations, the only way Iran will ultimately accept a deal that genuinely sets back its nuclear program in the long run is if it believes that the alternative is the further ratcheting up of sanctions to a degree that threatens the survival of the regime, combined with the credible threat of military force.

This does not require the invasion of Iran. The US almost certainly has the means to conduct airstrikes that can significantly set back the Iranian program. Even more importantly, it has the operational capability to repeat these strikes if and when required, thereby sending the message to the Iranians that if they attempt to reconstitute the program – a very expensive proposition – the US will strike again. Israel also appears to have a military option, but its capabilities are far more modest and its operational and diplomatic ability to repeat a strike as and when necessary are very limited.

So why then has the threat of credible force by the US been so sorely lacking? The usual answer is to blame President Barack Obama, with the particular focus on his failure to act on the red line he set in Syria as Exhibit A. But the focus on this liberal president is too narrow, and may yet – one hopes – be misplaced. After all, in Britain a conservative prime minister yielded to Parliament rather than sanction the use of force in Syria.

The deeper problem goes back to the Iraq War. Following the defeat of Saddam in 1991, Israel was mainly concerned with the potential threat of a nuclear Iran; Iraq was a secondary issue. In contrast, the West focused on Iraq, which was diplomatically isolated and militarily weak. It was relatively easy to target Saddam precisely because he did not constitute such a threat to Middle East security. This was as true of the policy of Clinton administration as of the George W. Bush administration. Tellingly, in 2003 the Israeli defense establishment did not hand out gas masks to the public as it was convinced there was virtually no chance that they would be needed, unlike in 1991.

Immediately following 9/11, there was extraordinary public support in the West for the extensive use of force against terrorist threats, but Iraq was rightly not perceived by many in the West as such a major threat, hence the great opposition to that war. When no WMDs were found, and when the cost of the war in terms of blood and treasure spiraled without any sign of democratization in Iraq, support for the extensive use of force plummeted.

As a result, in the US the more robust strategic approach of centrist Democrats who supported the war became significantly weakened within the party, while the more dovish approach of those who opposed the war became increasingly dominant. Still, a narrow majority of the American public is prepared to use force to stop Iran going nuclear. In Western Europe, the situation is reversed. Political elites burned by Iranian malfeasance over a potential nuclear deal in 2005, have been more willing to confront Iran, but they lack the ability to act militarily. In any case, their publics are far more dovish than the American public. Furthermore, on both sides of the Atlantic the reluctance to commit to major military operations was reinforced by the economic crisis that began in late 2008.

Even in the 2011 operation in Libya the decision to act was determined primarily by the perception that it was a relatively easy mission, rather than one of strategic significance.

In 2003, President George W. Bush should have spent the extensive political capital then at his disposal on preventing Iran from going nuclear, rather than on bringing down Saddam and trying to democratize Iraq, which was almost certainly doomed before it began. Rumors have circulated that in 2003 the Iranians, awed by the US power in neighboring Afghanistan were willing to cut a nuclear deal with the US. Either way, the marshaling of diplomatic pressure combined with a credible threat of air strikes – well short of the ground invasion carried out in Iraq – could have contained the Iranian program before they even began to enrich uranium. Today, even according the toughest deal imaginable, Iran will continue to enrich some uranium.

It turns out that critics of the Iraq War were right about that conflict, but the lesson they derive from that failure, namely that major military operations should not be conducted in the Middle East, is wrong. The real issue is not the use of force verses diplomacy per se, but rather how the two should be combined and when the threat or use of force should take precedence. It was hubris – an arrogant, exaggerated self-confidence and over-estimation of self-competence – to believe that one could invade Iraq, stabilize it quickly and cheaply, and then democratize it. But it is also hubris to believe that diplomacy alone can prevent Iran going nuclear or that a nuclear Iran can easily be contained and that this can be done without cascading proliferation. Iraq 2003 was hubris, but so was Munich 1938.

The core issue behind the morass over Western policy to Iran is this: policy priorities should not be primarily determined by what is desirable (a democratic Iraq), what is easy (the removal of Gaddafi), or by a preference for a specific methodology (diplomacy or force). Rather, it should be determined by the degree of strategic importance of the issue at hand and the opportunity cost of inaction.

The West had no vital interests at stake in the Iraq War, and the political cost of that war has been the diminution of resolve to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, which does constitute a threat to the vital interests of the West. Iraq was not an issue that warranted annoying Arab publics and dividing the Western alliance. Iran, however, is worth confronting even if the price is substantially higher; namely, a major conflagration between Hizballah, Hamas, and Israel in which missiles are fired at Tel Aviv.

If Iran becomes a threshold nuclear state, Saudi Arabia will immediately take delivery of the nuclear weapons that sit waiting for it in Pakistan. Egypt and Turkey will follow suit. An American nuclear umbrella did not stop Britain and France from developing an independent deterrent and it did not stop Japan becoming a nuclear threshold state, so it is highly unlikely that America’s Middle Eastern allies will be more compliant.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons in an already unstable region means the chances of a crisis leading to the actual use of these weapons is much greater than during the Cold War. Furthermore, in some of these countries there is a chance that radical groups, unconstrained by the pragmatic calculations of governments’ that wish to remain alive and in power, may get hold of these weapons and use them. The idea that the US or Europe can dismiss such eventualities because they will happen in “far-away countries about whom we know little” is hubris. Other than causing unprecedented disruption to the world economy which depends on oil flowing out of the Gulf, it will not take the Iranians and others long to develop long-range missiles – indeed the Saudis already have such missiles and, given the events of the “Arab Spring,” who knows how stable that regime is and what might replace it?
To prevent this nightmare scenario, the West must resist the temptation to reach a deal with Iran than allows it to become a threshold nuclear state. But more than that, the West must also make absolutely clear that the failure by Iran to accept a deal that genuinely sets back their nuclear program in a verifiable way will result in a military strike that will be repeated – as and when necessary – until Iran desists.

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)


Dr. Jonathan Rynhold, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies,,, is a senior lecturer of political studies and director of the Argov Center for the Study of Israel and the Jewish People at Bar-Ilan University.

Source: http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/wests-hubris-price-iraq-war-nuclear-iran/

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

Iran, France, and Memories of 1967

by Evelyn Gordon


Like Jonathan, I breathed a sigh of gratitude to France this weekend for thwarting–at least for now–a horrendous deal that would have granted Iran significant and probably irreversible sanctions relief while letting it continue making rapid progress toward a nuclear bomb. But contrary to the snide Western diplomat who accused Laurent Fabius of making trouble just to achieve “relevance,” I can think of two substantive reasons for the French foreign minister’s strong stance. One is that France has consistently taken a tougher line against Iran’s nuclear program than the Obama administration has. But another may stem from historical memory–and the clue is Fabius’s statement that “The security concerns of Israel and all the countries of the region have to be taken into account.”

At first glance, this is astounding. If any party to the talks were going to spare a thought for Israel’s concerns, one would expect it to be the U.S., or even Germany: Both are closer Israeli allies than France, which usually leads the anti-Israel camp. But France attaches great importance to averting Israeli military action against Iran; that’s precisely why it pushed for a European oil embargo on Iran (“We must do everything possible to avoid an Israeli attack on Iran, even if it means a rise in the price of oil and gasoline”). And France has a very specific historical reason for doubting the widespread view that Israel wouldn’t dare attack Iran in defiance of its major patron: It’s called the Six-Day War.

Though few people remember nowadays, in 1967, Paris occupied much the same position that Washington occupies now with respect to Israel: Not only was France Israel’s chief arms supplier and Security Council patron, but it was the only country willing to supply Israel with essential equipment such as fighter jets. Israel’s air force fought the Six-Day War with French Mirages; only the following year, in 1968, did America for the first time agree to sell it Phantom jets.

Consequently, Charles de Gaulle had every reason to think that when he spoke, Israel would listen. And the French president’s message in 1967 was unequivocal: Under no circumstances must Israel launch a preemptive strike; if it did, it could kiss French patronage goodbye. Israel heard the message loud and clear–and preempted anyway. Facing what it deemed an existential threat, it decided that even the loss of its sole military supplier was the lesser evil.

France knows that today, Israel deems Iran’s nuclear program an existential threat. France also knows that Israel would probably risk less by defying the Obama administration than it did by defying France in 1967: De Gaulle severed the military relationship completely, refusing even to deliver planes and gunboats Israel had already paid for, at a time when Israel had no assurance that Washington would fill the gap; today, given Israel’s strong support in Congress, a similarly total American arms embargo seems unlikely. As a result, France may understand what Washington seems not to: that utterly disregarding Israel’s concerns about Iran could push it to preempt despite its patron’s objections, just as it did in 1967.

This also explains why France was particularly opposed to a provision allowing Iran to continue building its heavy-water reactor in Arak. Once the reactor is finished and ready to go online, Iran could turn the switch before an attack could be mounted, so Israel is unlikely to wait until it gets to that point. Thus if the goal is to prevent an Israeli attack, halting progress at Arak is critical.

So by all means, heartfelt thanks are due the French. But a nod may also be due to the deterrent Israel has created by its proven willingness to defend itself by itself.


Evelyn Gordon

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/11/iran-france-and-memories-of-1967/

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

No Illusions Concerning the Obama Administration

by Isi Leibler

Israel is heading for what could be its most severe confrontation with the United States, despite reassuring words from the Obama administration to the contrary.

President Obama’s policies have led to a US retreat at all levels in the global arena, particularly in the Middle East where his disastrous policy of “engaging” with rogue states coincided with alienating, even abandoning, traditional US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His administration has also totally failed to mitigate the rampant bloodshed with hundreds of civilians being killed daily in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world.

However, despite all evidence to the contrary, the administration persists in its mantra that the principal problem in the Middle East is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and displays a determination to impose a settlement on Israelis and Palestinians. It does so– even setting aside the problem of Hamas – despite the fact that the undemocratic PA President Abbas whose term expired years ago, is neither willing nor has the authority to make any meaningful concessions to Israel.

The US chooses to disregard to the extreme intransigency of the Palestinians and the massive ongoing incitement by the Palestinian Authority against Israel and continues to pressure the Israelis, their only regional democratic ally, to make additional unilateral concessions, many of which have long-term negative security implications for the future viability of the Jewish state.

US Secretary of State, John Kerry, presents himself as a “friend” of Israel. Yet his offensive off the cuff remarks not only depict him as somewhat of a buffoon, but demonstrates that he now openly sides against Israel in the confrontation with the Palestinians.

He utterly failed to act as an honest broker in his November 6 joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2 News and PA TV, when he targeted Israel for criticism and failed to even relate to Palestinian intransigency. He provocatively asked “whether it [Israel] wanted a third intifada” which he declared would eventuate if the talks failed. He warned that the Palestinians would “wind up with a leadership committed to violence”. Following a meeting in Bethlehem with President Abbas, brushing aside the venomous incitement to hatred manifested daily by the PA, Kerry stated unequivocally that “President Abbas is 100% committed to these talks”.

He reiterated that the US considers construction in settlements, including Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem to be “illegitimate”, and went so far as to state that Israel was sending “a message that perhaps you are not really serious.”

He never even referred to the PA demand that Palestinian refugees and their 5 million descendants be given the right of return to Israel. He refused to confront the Palestinian leadership over their refusal to reconcile themselves with the reality of Israel as sovereign Jewish entity.

There have been hints, subsequently denied, that if progress was not achieved by 2014, the US would propose bridging proposals – an ominous signal to Israel. Kerry also threatened that if Israel could not find an accommodation, the US would not be able to deter the rest of the world from imposing real sanctions against Israel. Such remarks, effectively guarantee Palestinian intransigence by declaring that after the talks collapse, the world will in any event seek to impose a solution on Israel and shall not blame the Palestinians for once again reverting to terrorism. And this is following Israel’s capitulation to intense American pressure resulting in the outrageous release of Palestinian mass murderers who were subsequently glorified by the Palestinians as heroes.

These statements by Kerry parallel other negative vibes from the US: Obama’s failure to condemn Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s provocative anti-Semitic remarks and the repudiation of his commitment to set aside the confrontation with Israel after Netanyahu had been pressured to apologize to him; the US effort to divert attention from its cyber-attacks on the French government’s communications network by hinting that the Israeli Mossad were to blame; and, most damaging of all, despite deliberate Israeli silence over the issue, the formal US announcement that Israel was responsible for bombing the Syrian military base in which missiles en route to Hezbollah were located. That is not how one treats an ally.

Over the past few months, there has been immense pressure directed at Israel and American Jews to ease up on Iran. Although accused of seeking to sabotage American diplomacy with the “moderate” President Hassan Rouhani, Netanyahu has never challenged the role of diplomacy. He merely reminded the Americans of the proven duplicity of the Iranians and Rouhani himself as he engages in protracted negotiations whilst proceeding to advance their nuclear status.

On the basis of Obama’s recent track record, Israelis were increasingly skeptical as to the fulfillment of his repeated commitment to employ military force if necessary to prevent the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power.

These concerns were confirmed when, despite repeated assurances by Kerry that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, the US and the Europeans (other than France) demonstrated a willingness despite all evidence to the contrary to ease the sanctions on the Iranians without receiving anything tangible in return. Clearly, the US Administration lied when it promised to brief Israelis in advance of any deal, not to surprise them and gave repeated reassurances that short of an agreement by the Iranians to end their nuclear objectives, no partial deal was contemplated.

A shocked and distraught Netanyahu publicly admonished Kerry for making a “monumental mistake”, accusing him of providing the Iranians with “the deal of the century” and “in no way reducing their nuclear enrichment capability. Netanyahu stated that under such circumstances, Israel did not consider itself bound by any agreement between Teheran and the six world powers and “will do everything it considers necessary to defend itself and the security of its people”. There is of course the outside possibility that by the time the talks resume next week, Netanyahu’s warnings are heeded and a Munich like capitulation is averted. But we should be under no illusions.

The next three months will be seriously challenging for Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu will need to marshal all his resources and seek to salvage what he can of the likely capitulation to the Iranian mullahs in a deal which in no way guarantees that that the centrifuges will not soon again resume spinning.

In addition, Israel must resist American pressures to make further concessions to the Palestinians which may well have devastating repercussions our future security.

To confront these threats, it is imperative that the Prime Minister devises a strategic plan, engaging the broadest possible coalition providing a united front and work closely with the American Jewish community and other pro-Israel groups to orchestrate a major campaign to enlighten the American public and seek congressional support to rein in the appeasers.

For American Jews, this will be a real test of their commitment to the security of the Jewish state. There have been conflicting reports that leading Jewish organizations and representatives of the administration had agreed to defer for two months efforts to intensify sanctions on Iran, but this was adamantly denied by AIPAC and AJC spokesmen.

Regrettably, American Jews committed to the security of the Jewish state appear to be heading towards a direct confrontation with an administration willing to diplomatically abandon Israel and appease the most lethal global terrorist state. ADL head Abe Foxman predicted that Kerry’s “outrageous behavior” and his “chutzpa” of lecturing Israel about peace would unite the American Jewish community. The question is will they display the courage to stand up and be counted?

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.

He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom


Isi Leibler

Source: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4882

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

Germany’s Sharia No-Go Zones

by Andrew Harrod


 

“To mark No Go Areas, that is to say law-free areas with high danger potential, is nothing unusual,” Rüdiger Franz of Bonn, Germany’s General Anzeiger (GA) newspaper wrote, as travel guide entries for cities such as Detroit, Istanbul, Johannesburg, or Mogadishu show.  Considerable controversy, however, ensued after a language school posted an Internet No Go Area map of Bonn and environs, drawing ongoing, often unwelcome attention to the problems Germany’s once serene former capital faces from newly arrived Muslim immigrants.

The No Go map at the website of the Steinke Institut (SI) language school’s Bonn branch first drew significant public interest at the conservative German website Politically Incorrect (PI) with a July 18, 2013, entry. Attention only grew in the following weeks with an “unexpectedly large echo” of about 50 Bonn residents contacting SI with approval, queries, and criticism, as an SI Internet statement at the beginning of September noted.

SI explained therein the school’s emphasis on teaching German as a foreign language to students “from the entire world.”  The No Go map resulted “exclusively” from some 250 such students reporting in the last six years “extremely negative experiences”  in various Bonn neighborhoods, with over 80% of the reports agreeing upon the map’s red-marked problem zones.  SI elaborated that these “negative experiences” entailed harassment of women, theft, robbery, break-ins, assaults, and insults.

In contrast to the suspicions of “some concerned callers” at SI, these experiences had no “Neo-Nazi context.”  Rather, “above all” East Asian and East European students “had made pertinent experiences with adolescents, who almost exclusively seem to have an immigration background.”  A landlord from Bonn’s Bad Godesberg (BadGo) suburb confirmed in an October 23, 2013, GA article that many of her young renters suffered harassment from immigrants, particularly women, for “supposedly too short skirts and the wearing of shorts.” SI teaching personnel, many of whom “themselves live in these same city areas and are very often themselves connected with a partner with an immigrant background,” likewise agreed with the students, SI noted.  On the other hand, the “overwhelming majority of the language students had a thoroughly positive impression of the German and/or as German perceived citizens of Bonn and confirm therefore the image of Bonn as a tolerant and cosmopolitan city.”

For each red zone on SI’s map, SI sought confirmation in the media and linked many of these articles to the statement.  A subsequent PI entry criticized that SI “did not trust itself to name clearly what special kind of immigrants are responsible” for a “negative Germany image” among “peaceful and diligent foreign German learners.” Yet the linked “gruesome news reports” allowed an “unbiased observer” to surmise that the criticisms “all somehow had something to do with the I-word,” namely Islam.

An April 16, 2013, GA article, for example, noted in general that Bonn area “investigators and judges no longer conceal” that “more than 90% of all youth criminality is perpetrated by youth with an immigration background.” An earlier August 30, 2007, article in a regional boulevard paper, meanwhile, discussed the “Bad Go” gang in BadGo comprised of young adolescents “mostly from Arab families.” During a television report about the gang, one of the youths had discussed Hezbollah and how “you only come into paradise when the Israelis fight against you…and you then kill them…holy war, so to speak.”

A subsequent October 27, 2009, article in Germany’s conservative Die Welt newspaper elaborated BadGo’s development from a “pretty city area” to “tough streets” as one of the “crass consequences” of the capital’s move from Bonn to Berlin.  Although Die Welt rejected equivalency with the Bronx, Berlin’s Neukölln, or notorious Paris suburbs, nonetheless “‘BadGo’ had become for many a ‘NoGo.’”  Die Welt described a “new conflict” in BadGo in which “immigrant children, who see themselves as disadvantaged losers, take up position against elite offspring from well-to-do homes.” One anonymous 17-year-old college preparatory student, for example, discussed avoiding BadGo where “Kanaken” (a German derogatory term for South Europeans, Turks, and other majority-Muslim peoples) lie in wait to mug.

In particular, Ingrid Müller-Münch, the author of a 2009 book on BadGo discussed by Die Welt, described at the book’s homepage a gang assault upon a preparatory school summer pre-graduation party.  Gang members suddenly emerged from cars and assaulted celebrating seniors in a public park with baseball bats, knives, and crowbars, taking cellphones and money while leaving behind bruises.  Rather than an “isolated incident,” this attack is one of several in which “pre-graduation parties are downright stormed and messed up.” Graduating seniors accordingly fear publicly announcing their parties.

In this environment, Die Welt reported, “immigrant youth gangs, whose tone is determined by Gangsta Rap and Kanaken-German and who proudly name themselves ‘foreigners,’ want to profile themselves with violence.” “What is mostly treated as a taboo is clearly spoken here” among the individuals interviewed by Die Welt:  “Youth with an ‘immigrant background’ are—in their own estimate—more violence prone than Germans.  The German hierarchy of law and values is not recognized.” As one 19-year-old of Syrian-Kurdish background stated, “I do not say that the Germans are weak, but they are not confident like the foreigners to punch away … They only go to their parents and say, that guy hit me.”

The “city picture portrays the chasm,” as retired diplomats and ministerial officials, along with other individuals of means, continue to live in BadGo.  “The wife of an ex-diplomat shares the pedestrian zone with a veiled Muslim or a Moroccan in traditional caftan.  Not far from Gründerzeit villas there are shops like from the Orient, döner, and trash.”

Individual emails and phone calls to SI only further confirmed the media reports.  By October 26, 2013, SI had recorded ten positive phone calls in response to the No Go map, opposed to 11 negative calls, but 129 positive emails to 6 negative.  SI posted online email extracts with permission of their authors and their initials.

One G.G. condemned the “absolute scandal”  that “certain population groups” rejected the “rules of a peaceful communal life.”  F.O. likewise referenced the “same group of persons” and F.K. wrote of “Germans and foreigners fearing (certain) foreigners.”  G.G. distinctly contrasted these immigrants living in “parallel societies” and enjoying “evidently the particular protection of the multi-culti faction in Bonn” with the “curiosity and politeness” of SI’s foreign students.

Reflecting comments by G.G., F.W. criticized that “critical consideration of ‘problems’ with ‘foreigners’ is politically avoided as much as possible” due to accusations of “rightwing thinking” and “populism.” C.H. likewise complained of such a taboo with respect to a “certain group of persons” that “always causes more and disproportionately many problems.” Yet D.W. condemned as “treason against one’s own people” and “extremely criminal” that “in Germany it may no longer be warned against dangers if these come from certain cultural circles.”

Foreigners such as T.C. confirmed that Bonn’s No Go areas concerned not just Germans.  T.C. wrote of his two nieces visiting from the home country suffering sexual harassment during a walk through BadGo.  The BadGo landlord N.R. similarly wrote of a “very nice” and “super integrated” Turkish married couple that simply could not accept their neighborhood environment after a half-year of renting.  N.R.’s only prospective purchaser for a BadGo dwelling was also an “investor from the Orient” who demanded a 20% price rebate.

Not everyone, though, approved of SI’s map.  BadGo’s district mayor, Annette Schwolen-Flümann, for example, considered the map in an October 22, 2013, letter “not constructive for objectively and sensitively informing foreign guests about the circumstances in our city.” “In Bonn you can go everywhere,” police spokesperson Daniela Lindemann concurred while noting a Bonn decrease in crime since 2012, “generalization does not do justice to reality.” More ominously, an anonymous caller who claimed to be an influential city official threatened to remove SI from the city list of immigrant integration course contractors, although SI had abandoned these courses in 2009.

Himself an immigrant of unspecified origins, SI director David Schah responded to these criticisms in an October 28, 2013, press release.  Schah rejected Stamp’s demand for the map removal given support from the “overwhelming majority” of Bonn citizen responses that often described the map as a “symbol for the discrepancy between public and officially published opinion concerning the security situation in Bonn.” With respect to aiding “rightwing…populists,” the press release noted that ignorance of an “evidently widespread insecurity feeling” among citizens would lead to “their revenge at the ballot box.”

Schah in short advocated an unhindered discussion of immigration’s many, sometimes problematical facets in Bonn.  As Bonn and the rest of Europe show, such discussions are desperately needed.  Rather than experiencing a trouble-free post-Cold War “End of History” in a united global village of peace and prosperity, Germany’s former capital indicates the various culture clashes to come as peoples of differing means and mores come closer together.


Andrew Harrod

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/andrew-harrod/germanys-sharia-no-go-zones/

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

The Right Response to an Iranian Nuclear Freeze

by Max Boot


It is widely rumored that French objections prevented agreement on what would have been a bad deal with Iran at the Geneva talks this weekend. If so, I join my colleagues who have already written on the subject in a heart-felt Vive la France!

But the negotiations, while interrupted, have not ended. They are due to resume November 20. The question is what offer the P5+1 (i.e., the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany) will put on the table next time.

This time around, the U.S. was apparently dangling the carrot of giving the mullahs access to tens of billions of dollars in Iranian funds frozen in Western banks and lifting some existing sanctions. Iran, its economy rapidly deteriorating, desperately needs access to those reserves. In return, however, Iran was apparently not willing to give up its supposed “right” to enrich uranium–i.e., its ability to maintain breakout capacity to make a nuclear weapon on short notice. Nor, if the leaks are to be believed, was Iran willing to stop construction on a new plutonium heavy-water reactor at Arak, which gives it another path to the bomb.

The fact that Iran was not willing to take what the French foreign minister called a “sucker’s deal” shows just how committed it is to the nuclear program and how hard it will be to achieve meaningful results in these talks.

The debate now in Washington is what to do about further sanctions. Many voices in and out of Congress argue for enacting even tougher sanctions on Iranian finances that would effectively collapse the value of Iran’s currency. That certainly makes more sense than prematurely lifting existing sanctions. But Washington doesn’t have to do either.

If Iran is serious about a nuclear freeze, then the appropriate response is not a dismantlement of sanctions–that should only occur if Iran renounces its “right” of enrichment and begins to dismantle its nuclear program. The appropriate response to Iran verifiably stopping work on building a nuclear weapon should be the U.S. and its allies stopping to work on enacting further sanctions.

The threat of more sanctions being enacted by Congress should serve as an effective cudgel to win minimal concessions from the Iranians, assuming they are serious about getting a deal. And delaying the enactment of these additional sanctions costs little–whereas giving Iran access to frozen assets and partially lifting existing sanctions is a gift of inestimable valuable to the Islamic Republic. Such a concession, which would be hard to reverse, should be traded only for something more substantial than a temporary pause in the Iranian nuclear program.


Max Boot

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/11/the-right-response-to-an-iranian-nuclear-freeze/

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

Don't Say it can't be Done

by Amos Regev

There is only one way to avoid a nuclear Iran: to attack it • Any deal, bad or somewhat bad, won't change that • The IDF has already proved it can do the impossible; it can also do the unthinkable • Ultimately, we cannot trust anyone but ourselves.

A deal with Iran, be it bad or just somewhat bad, cannot change the fact that the only way to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is to attack it -- as a last resort. 

An attack is doable. 

The United States and the West do not want to attack.

"This nation is sick and tired of war," U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sept. 10, when he addressed the nation on the situation in Syria. He was quoting a veteran of the U.S. armed forces. He hoped that by harping on this sentiment he could explain his sudden decision to seek congressional approval for a limited attack on Syria.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and other senior officers have leaked to the press that an attack on Iran would be dangerous and problematic and would not get the job done. At most, they warn, it would delay Iran's nuclear program by a few years. This, they warned, was not worth the cost. 

Israel has an entire gang of Dempseys of its own, including former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, former IDF Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and their chorus of supporters in the press and in the halls of the Knesset. It cannot be done, they say. Israel cannot handle a mission of such magnitude all by itself, they warn. And besides, this is the world's problem, have trust in the Americans, they plead. 

Well, it appears that the U.S. cannot be trusted, and that there is no such thing as "it cannot be done." 

The 1982 Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands -- which wrested control of the disputed territory from the U.K. in a mere few hours -- had British officials deliberate among themselves what could be done to liberate the islands. After holding several sessions to discuss the unfolding situation, the U.S. Navy concluded that a British campaign 8,000 miles (13,000 kilometers) from home "would not be militarily feasible." Even the U.K.'s defense secretary, the high command and the Royal Air Force were convinced that there was no viable military option. But then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was determined; she dispatched the Royal Navy to the southern hemisphere and it did the "impossible." 

No two historical contexts are exactly the same. But human beings have acted and behaved in very similar ways throughout history. 

On June 5, 1967, the Israel Air Force launched Operation Moked, essentially neutralizing the threat posed by Arab air forces. It didn't destroy everything and the Arabs still had some airplanes, but the mission's goals -- achieving air supremacy and removing the threat on Israel's population centers -- were accomplished.

History teaches us that bombing campaigns have both benefits and drawbacks. During World War II, the Allies bombed Nazi Germany for several straight years. Heroism abounded. But studies conducted after the war raised questions as to the air raids' true efficacy. That said, there was one statistic that could not be refuted: The decision to focus the bombing on the German petroleum industry toward the end of the war proved to be decisive and precipitated Germany's collapse on the battlefield. The Allied Powers conducted their raids with slow-moving, vulnerable aircraft manned by brave crews that flew directly into the anti-aircraft inferno. Among the famous sayings of that era was "on a wing and a prayer" -- an eternal homage to those brave crewmen. 

Today's air forces have so much from which to pick and choose. Jets usually fire their munitions in "standoff," meaning, they are safely out of the reach of the surface-to-air missile batteries. The precision-guided munitions, despite being fired from afar, can hit their intended target with an accuracy of a few meters, if not better than that. The aircraft have decoy flares, jamming devices, and stealth technology; they can fly in almost complete silence. PGMs are much more effective than iron bombs (the so-called dumb bombs). Sometimes, though, aircraft must carry a heavy payload. 

Massive, penetrating bombs were developed as early as World War II. When such "earthquake bombs" hit the vicinity of a target -- such as an underground facility used for the production or launch of missiles -- it would often suffice. The intended building would suffer cracks in its walls and just crumble because of the shock waves. The Americans have such bombs, and their sophistication and precision has improved exponentially since the 1940s. Their numbers are not great; they lie in storage. They get dropped from Hercules transport aircraft or other cargo planes; it is difficult, but not impossible. 

The Iranian nuclear program is not limited to a single installation. It is all over; some of it is concealed underground. This does not necessarily mean that all the facilities would have to be targeted. Just like the Allies focused on German fuel, the firepower should be directed primarily at the most crucial sites. A direct hit is also not a must. The centrifuges, for example, are extremely delicate. If the nearby bombs create fissures and send shock waves, wouldn't they be rendered obsolete? And I haven't even begun to talk about cyberwarfare capabilities, which add an entirely new dimension. 

An attack would not end with a single sortie. Anyone who strikes Iran would have to commit to a protracted campaign. And of course, the attackers would have to counter Iran's capacity to launch long-range surface-to-surface missiles. According to various estimates, it has hundreds of such projectiles. 

They can be destroyed on the ground but also through Israel's Arrow Weapon System -- an anti-missile interceptor. Israel's homefront may be hit -- but the damage would be of the same scale as that inflicted by Iraq's Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. It would be unpleasant, surely, but in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't be that bad. 

What could be achieved through such an attack? A lot. Many things. 

It took Iran almost 30 years to become a nuclear threshold state. Throughout most of this period it faced no sanctions and could import anything it desired. A meaningful attack on Iran's nuclear program would reverse many years' worth of progress. 

What would the regional implications be? What would the Israel-U.S. relationship look like? It won't be the apocalypse. Quite a few Arab states would breathe a sigh of relief at the sight of Iran losing its most prized bargaining chip. 

The Iranian street would rally behind the regime, outraged over the attack; going back to the lessons of World War II -- it is worth recalling that the bombing campaigns, however brutal, failed to shake the confidence of the people in their leaders, on both sides. 

As for the Americans, it all depends on the ramifications. If the price of oil skyrockets and then nosedives, that won't be too bad. If the world sees an economic meltdown, it won't be pleasant, and many accusatory fingers would be pointed at us. But even Obama has stated time and again that "Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

If we are left with no choice, we will defend ourselves. True, it is much more convenient being an armchair strategist. It is also much simpler to take the easy way out by stating that "the mission is impossible," or by trying to accuse Israel's leaders of pointing an "unloaded gun." The U.S. has awesome power that could be used for an air campaign. But it has not shown any willingness to tap its resources. The U.S.'s order of battle dwarfs that of Israel; but the quality of Israel's forces matches or even exceeds that of Uncle Sam's. 

The capabilities exist; they have been drilled. It is just a matter of willingness, determination, leadership and above all -- a deep conviction that the butcher's knife is at our throats. We cannot trust anyone but ourselves.

Amos Regev is editor-in-chief of Israel Hayom.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=13245

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

Arafat's Death and Palestinian Incitement Against Israel

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Palestinians renewed their allegations that Israel was responsible for the "assassination" of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. But a thorough reading of the Swiss scientists' report shows that their findings are inconclusive. Russian scientists who also examined the remains have said there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that Arafat may have died in 2004 by polonium poisoning.
Many Palestinians are saying that Israel could not have "killed" Arafat without help from the people who were very close to him. According to this theory, the same Palestinian officials who have been pointing a finger at Israel may themselves have been involved in the death of Arafat. "I am sure it is someone in his close circle, " Arafat's widow, Suha, Arafat told Reuters last week. "It must have been someone close to him."

While U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was busy in the Middle East last week trying to prevent the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Palestinians renewed their allegation that Israel was responsible for the "assassination" of the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat.

The nine-year-old Palestinian allegation -- that Israel had poisoned Arafat -- was this time based on the findings of Swiss scientists who conducted tests on his remains and soil taken from his grave.

But a thorough reading of the Swiss scientists' report shows that their findings are inconclusive. Still, the Palestinian Authority [PA] is not willing to let the facts stand in its way.

The scientists wrote that "taking into account the analytical limitations, mostly time lapse since the death and the nature and quality of the specimens, the results moderately support the proposition that the death was the consequence of poisoning with polonium-201."

However, Russian scientists who also examined Arafat's remains have said that there was insufficient evidence to support the the claim that Arafat may have died in 2004 by polonium poisoning.

The Swiss and Russian scientists did not conduct a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding Arafat's death. All that they did last November was take samples from Arafat's body in a bid to determine the cause of death.

But for the PA leadership, the inconclusive findings of the Swiss scientists was sufficient enough to once again hold Israel responsible for the "assassination of martyr Yasser Arafat."

Since the 108-page Swiss report was published by the Al-Jazeera news channel last week, PA officials have been waging a campaign of incitement against Israel.

The PA's campaign has created the false impression among Palestinians that the Swiss scientists were the ones who pointed a finger at Israel. The PA has also created the false impression that the findings of the scientists were conclusive and uncontroversial.

A Palestinian Authority honor guard at attention over Yasser Arafat's tombstone in Ramallah, 2008. (Image source: Tristam Sparks)

The Palestinian allegations against Israel took place while U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas and top Palestinian officials in Bethlehem on Wednesday, to discuss ways of moving forward with the U.S.-sponsored peace talks with Israel. The charges escalated even as Kerry and Abbas met for the second time in Jordan the following day.

On Friday, shortly after Kerry left the region, Palestinian officials took the case a step further by calling a press conference in Ramallah where they declared that Israel was the "only accused" in the mysterious death of Arafat.

"Israel is the first, only and major accused in the assassination of President Yasser Arafat," Tawfik Tirawi, head of a Palestinian committee entrusted with investigating Arafat's death, announced at the start of the press conference.

The Palestinian charges against Israel regarding the death of Arafat are not new. These charges, which have never been verified, surfaced almost on the first day when Arafat fell ill in his presidential compound in Ramallah.

Palestinian officials have since used annual rallies to commemorate the anniversary of Arafat's death to repeat charges that Israel had poisoned their leader.

These allegations should be seen in the context of the Palestinian Authority's ongoing efforts to delegitimize Israel and pave the way for filing "war crimes" charges against Israelis in various international forums, especially the International Criminal Court [ICC].

In the past few days, a number of Palestinian officials said in wake of the findings of the Swiss report that it was time to take Israel to the ICC for its ostensible role in the death of Arafat.

This is the same Palestinian Authority that has been telling its people that Jews release wild pigs in the West Bank to destroy agricultural fields and rats in the Old City of Jerusalem to drive Arab residents out of their homes.

More recently, Palestinian media outlets also reported that the IDF had been seen releasing snakes in certain areas of Bethlehem to intimidate Palestinians and drive them out of their homes. They also reported that Jews have been poisoning Palestinian water wells in Hebron.

So while Abbas was reaffirming his commitment to peace during the recent meetings with Kerry, PA officials and media outlets were telling their people that the Israelis must be punished for "poisoning" Arafat and perpetrating various "crimes" against Palestinians.

This is the kind of talk that drives young Palestinians to take to the streets with the intention of killing the first Jew they meet. The renewed incitement may be responsible for last week's two separate attacks on IDF soldiers in the West Bank. In both cases, the two Palestinian attackers were shot and killed by IDF soldiers.

The anti-Israel incitement causes huge damage to Kerry's continued efforts to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The incitement radicalizes Palestinians to a point where many are starting to talk about the need for revenge, and not peace.

The Palestinian Authority is also shooting itself in the foot by repeatedly accusing Israel of being behind the "assassination" of Arafat. Many Palestinians are saying that Israel could not have "killed" Arafat without help from the people who were very close to him.

According to this theory, the same Palestinian officials who have been pointing a finger at Israel may themselves have been involved in the death of Arafat. So the charges against Israel are coming back to haunt Abbas and several senior Palestinian officials.

"I'm sure it's someone in his close circle," Arafat's widow, Suha, told Reuters last week. "The expert said that the poison was put in his tea, or coffee or water. It must have been someone close to him."


Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4049/arafat-polonium-poisoning

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