Lies, Bigotry and Silence: Britain’s Permanent Stain

by Melanie Phillips


British Jews who care about this sort of thing have had the disturbing experience of observing not one but three examples of public, home-grown anti-Jewish bigotry over the past few days.

First off the block was the former Labour Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who in an article in the Independent repeated not only his inexplicable belief that his idol, Iran’s President Rouhani, was ushering in a new world order of peace and harmony, but also that the benighted Israelis were buying up Washington in order to frustrate this nirvana (I paraphrase, but you get the general idea).

The idea that there is something sinister about Israel’s desperate attempt to prevent Iran from hoodwinking the west to achieve nuclear breakout is, of course, as perverse as it is offensive. But the suggestion that Israel pays American lawmakers to take their marching orders from Jerusalem repeats the ancient libel of covert and malign Jewish power, expressed by Straw even more clearly last year when he claimed that ‘unlimited Jewish funds’ were being used to ‘control and divert’ US policy in the Middle East.

Now look also at this cartoon in the current Economist, spotted by the Commentator, which represents Obama being prevented from reaching out to Iran by his shackles to a shield depicting the American eagle framed by Stars of David among the stars of the union. The Economist is thus repeating the malicious lie that the Jews control America.

And now look at what Labour MP Grahame Morris tweeted, apparently with reference to an Israeli flag visible at what looks like some kind of demonstration:

 ‘Nazis in my village do you see the flag they fly’

thus corresponding to the European Forum on Anti-Semitism’s Working Definition which states that ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’ is a form of antisemitism.

The real problem here is not the existence of Jew-haters and Israel-bashers. It is the silence of everyone in a prominent position in the face of such vileness. As far as I can see, no politician from any political party slapped Straw down when he first talked about Jewish control of Washington, nor over his Independent article. No figure of authority, no mainstream newspaper has condemned Morris or the Economist – or if they have, it has been so sotto voce as to be inaudible.

Such audible silence suggests an absence of those who think there is anything beyond the pale in claiming sinister Jewish power, or likening Israel to the Nazis. It suggests a terrifying cultural shift: that Jew-hatred and Israel-bashing have now become acceptable and unremarkable contributions to legitimate national debate. It makes a whole society complicit in perpetrating such evil. That is what is so devastating.

This evil is not just the perpetration of outright bigotry by a few grievously misled or prejudiced folk. Examples now seem to occur almost every week in Britain. It is a positively deranged, obsessive, semi-hysterical general discourse about Israel and the Jews which is utterly irrational, indeed impervious to reason and evidence. It is a cultural phenomenon of incendiary incitement, to be ranked accordingly alongside the infamous eruptions of anti-Jewish hysteria down through the centuries.

It is thus a kind of cultural emergency, which in any normally functioning society would prompt decent politicians and other leaders to sound an alarm. They would denounce such a phenomenon in the strongest terms, exposing the outright lies and group libels on which it is based. But from British politicians and others, there is only silence. Silence in the face of home-grown bigotry; and silence in the face of the brazen denial of truth at the core of both the Arab war against Israel and the incitement fanning the flames of violence.

That fundamental truth is that the Jews alone are the rightful inheritors of what the Arabs call ‘Palestine’, since it is the Jewish people alone for whom the land of Israel was ever their national home, taken away from them by colonial invaders but in which nevertheless they never ceased to maintain a presence throughout the centuries of real occupation.

That truth, the intrinsic Jewishness of Israel, was to have been the subject of an exhibition at UNESCO  called ‘People, Book, Land — The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People to the Holy Land,’ due to have opened today. But last week, UNESCO suddenly ditched this exhibition on the remarkable grounds that

‘it could disrupt Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations’.

How could that possibly be the case? Simple: because, contrary to the west’s ludicrous obsession with ‘settlements’, the one and only reason for the war against Israel is the Arab desire to exterminate it. To achieve that, the Arabs must proclaim that they are the rightful inheritors of the land; and to support that, they must suppress altogether the actual historical truth of the unique Jewish presence in that land.

This was let slip by PLO official Riyad al-Maliki, who stated in Asharq al Awsat (h/t Elder of Ziyon) that the most intractable issue was the requirement to accept that Israel is a Jewish state:

‘It would be dangerous to recognize this because this would mean our acceptance of the dissolution of our own history and ties and our historic right to Palestine. This is something that we will never accept under any circumstances.’

In other words, to accept the Jews’ history, the attested, demonstrable fact of their ancient sovereign nationhood in the land, would by definition destroy the Palestinian Arabs’ own ‘history’ – because that is not history at all but a lie, and a lie invented with the sole purpose of destroying the Jews’ acknowledged right to their own country.

If David Cameron, William Hague or any other UK politicians were to state such truths and denounce the falsehoods that are feeding the frenzy of bigotry and incitement against Israel and the Jews, they would start to drain these fetid swamps. But they are silent; the lies, hatred and bigotry consequently increase apace; and that silence will accordingly be for these leaders and for Britain a permanent stain.


Melanie Phillips

Source: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&shva=1#inbox/143b041a79b7d423

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

Escalation will not go Unnoticed

by Yoav Limor

The escalation noted over the past few weeks in southern Israel has been riddled with paradoxes. On Sunday, Israel added one more to the mix, intentionally increasing the use of firepower in the hopes of quelling tensions. 

The conscious decision to carry out a targeted assassination against an Islamic Jihad operative could have agitated the already volatile situation in Gaza Strip even further, but it was actually meant to achieve the opposite. 

The hit was Israel's way of informing Hamas that it is perfectly willing to "go crazy" and initiate an escalation. In other words, Israel has made it clear to Hamas that if the south heads for yet another round of fighting, Jerusalem -- not Gaza -- will call the shots.

For now, it seems Gaza got the message, especially since it was followed by a series of stern warnings that were passed to Hamas by Israel through Egypt -- and also by Egypt itself -- saying that the sharp increase in rocket fire was unacceptable.

Another aspect of the paradoxes seen in Gaza is that the latest bout of rocket fire was executed as part of an internal struggle between Hamas and the Islamic Jihad -- they lock horns and Israel comes under fire. 

And speaking of paradoxes, the escalation in rocket fire coincides with Israel's decision to increase the humanitarian aid transferred to Gaza Strip on a daily basis. With Egypt placing Hamas' rule under siege by cracking down on its Sinai-based smuggling enterprise, Israel has become Gaza's only lifeline -- as well as its punching bag.

Defense officials have expressed concern that even if the current escalation in southern Israel wanes, the overall trend is very disconcerting. 

For now, Hamas is adamantly avoiding confrontation with Israel, mainly over its own strategic distress and ongoing armament efforts. The fact that Hamas' grip on power is slipping does not bode well, as it finds it increasingly difficult to control the smaller Gaza-based terror groups, let alone rein in the Islamic Jihad, which is under growing pressure by Iran to carry out terror attacks.

Israel has no interest in further escalation, not only because it would prefer to avoid the complexities of the Gaza quagmire, but because it fears that a military campaign might actually reinforce Hamas and help it re-establish its relationships with Egypt and the Palestinian Authority. 

To sidestep this quicksand, the military is currently trying to maintain deterrence and ensure that Gaza's rulers understand the potential cost of a serious security escalation -- that is what the weekend strikes on terror cells in Gaza and Sunday's hit were really about.

Yoav Limor

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7079

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

Can the Russians Pull off a Terror-free Olympics?

by Rick Moran


While we fervently hope for the best, it's appearing more and more likely that we will see the worst. A new video released by two terrorists threaten suicide attacks on visitors to Sochi for the Olympics.

ABC News:

"We'll have a surprise package for you," one of the men said in the militants' video. "And those tourists that will come to you, for them, too, we have a surprise. If it happens [the Olympics], we'll have a surprise for you. This is for all the Muslim blood that is shed every day around the world, be it in Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, all around the world. This will be our revenge."
The new video posted online overnight showed news and security camera footage of two suicide bomb blasts late last month at a busy train station and a commuter trolley in the city of Volgograd, which is a major transit hub in Russia.
U.S. officials said they are studying the video.
The video comes one day before the Olympic torch relay is scheduled to go through Volgograd Monday.
U.S. intelligence officials consider the threats from the Islamic terror groups against the Olympics to be very serious, which helped lead to the unusually strong travel advisory issued by the State Department this week for Americans who plan to travel to Sochi for the Olympics.
"I think the threats are real. [Islamist Chechen leader Doku] Umarov basically called for attacks on the Olympics," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, told ABC News' "This Week" today. "I think you're going to see attempts to do that. I think it's more likely that the attacks will happen outside the perimeter, more soft targets, transportation nodes."
A secret contingency operation is underway by the U.S. government to prepare for responding to a terrorist attack in Sochi and evacuating athletes and dignitaries, ABC News intelligence sources said.
U.S. officials continue to say the Russians are not fully cooperating with American security forces, at least as much as the Americans would like.
There will be small armed teams of U.S. security personnel allowed to be in Sochi, but the Russians are very much running their own show, in their own way, and apparently don't see any need to let U.S. security personnel in on every plan or piece of intelligence. U.S. officials said they are concerned that if they complain too much, the Russians could restrict even more the number of armed U.S. personnel allowed to be in the country.

A nightmare, to be sure. I certainly wouldn't attend and I think you'd have to be a fanatic about luge or curling, or some other minor sport to want to. 

I don't trust the Russians to be competent enough to prevent attacks and protect the Olympics. To me, it's not a question of "if" but "when" an attack will happen. People are willing to die to make Putin look bad. That does not bode well for the safety of tourists or athletes at the games.


Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/can_the_russians_pull_off_a_terror-free_olympics.html

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

Benghazi: Judge Jeanine Pirro Utterly Destroys Hillary Clinton

by Frontpagemag.com

The judge nails the coffin shut on Clinton’s duplicity and negligence as Secretary of State:

Frontpagemag.com
 
Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/benghazi-judge-jeanine-pirro-utterly-destroys-hillary-clinton/

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

Elie Wiesel: Stop Iran from Going Nuclear

by Frontpagemag.com


 


FrontPage Editor’s note: Below is the text to a recent New York Times advertisement featuring Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel’s call to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Publication of Wiesel’s statement was sponsored by This World: The Values Network. 

If there is one lesson I hope the world has learned from the past, it is that regimes rooted in brutality must never be trusted. And the words and actions of the leadership of Iran leave no doubt as to their intentions.

Should the civilized nations of the world trust a regime whose supreme leader said yet again last month that Israel is “doomed to annihilation,” and referred to my fellow Jewish Zionists as “rabid dogs?”

Should we who believe in human rights, trust a regime which in the 21st century stones women and hangs homosexuals?

Should we who believe in freedom trust a regime which murdered its own citizens in the streets of Tehran, when the people protested a stolen election in the Green Revolution of Summer, 2009?

Should we who believe in the United States trust a regime whose parliament last month erupted in “Death to America” chants as they commemorated the 34th Anniversary of the storming of our Embassy in Tehran?

Should we who believe in life trust a regime whom our own State Department lists as one of the world’s foremost sponsors of terrorism?

America, too, defines itself by its words and actions. America adopted me, as it did so many others, and gave me a home after my people were exterminated in the camps of Europe. And from the time of the founding fathers, America has always stood up to tyrants. Our nation is morally compromised when it contemplates allowing a country calling for the destruction of the State of Israel to remain within reach of nuclear weapons.

Sanctions have come at a terrible economic cost for the people of Iran. But, unfortunately, sanctions are what have brought the Iranian regime to the negotiating table.

I appeal to President Obama and Congress to demand, as a condition of continued talks, the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the regime’s public and complete repudiation of all genocidal intent against Israel. And I appeal to the leaders of the United States Senate to go forward with their vote to strengthen sanctions against Iran until these conditions have been met.

I once wrote that history has taught us to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends. Our enemies are making serious threats. It is time to take them seriously. It is time for our friends to keep their promises.


Frontpagemag.com

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/elie-wiesel-stop-iran-from-going-nuclear/

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

The Last Christian in the Middle East?

by Ali Salim

The increasing speed with which the Christians of the Middle East are fleeing would suggest that... it is entirely possible that the next time the Pope celebrates Mass in Bethlehem, he will be the last Christian in the Middle East.
The fact, like it or not, is that under the rule of the Jews in Israel, the Christian and Muslim communities live in complete security and have absolute freedom of worship. Churches are not burned. Mosques are not burned.
In some places, such as Myanmar, Muslims are indeed being grievously victimized (by Buddhists), and these abuses should not be tolerated.

The joyous Christmas mass celebrated in Bethlehem did nothing to dispel the tragedy of the Christian community in the Middle East, which, in the shadow of the "Arab Winter", is fighting a desperate battle for personal and economic security, a life of dignity and freedom of worship.

Facing increasing Muslim persecution, the Christians in the Middle East are emigrating as fast as they can, reminiscent of the mid-20^th century exodus of the Jews from the Arab countries, when they fled persecution, murder, rape and the theft of their property at the hands of gangs of militant Muslims.

Qatar's official TV station, Al Jazeera, which encourages Islamist terrorist attacks against Israel, against the Syrian regime and against the Egyptian government, this year decided that holiday cheer required false accusations against Israel for persecuting the Christians in Jerusalem, Nazareth and Bethlehem. Despite the general confusion, chaos and mournful atmosphere of Christmas this year in the "Arab Spring" countries, Qatar TV's plan did not succeed. The reason it did not is that, as Arabs, we can see that Israel is the only place on earth that allows the three main monotheistic faiths complete and unfettered freedom of worship.

The Al-Anba Mousa Church in Minya, Egypt, after being torched by Islamists. (Image source: Screenhot of Human Rights Watch video)

Recently, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK, a British Muslim lobby, announced that "Islamophobia Awareness Month" would be held to combat the growing hatred for Muslim communities in the West. The leaders of the Islamic community in London turned to the media to report that the increasing hatred of Muslims in Europe is unjustified, simply the fruit of a conspiracy backed by "Zionist interests." The campaign includes posters and displays representing Islam as moderate, pluralistic and overflowing with the milk of human kindness, and its leaders as the standard bearers of global inter-religious and interracial coexistence.

In some places, such as Myanmar, Muslims are indeed being grievously victimized (by Buddhists), and these abuses should not be tolerated. And, while most Muslims undoubtedly just wish to be left to live in peace, there seems to be a widening supply, globally, of those who do not. The West has every reason to be afraid: Islamophobia is not a phobia -- an irrational fear -- at all.

Many of the most ardent Islamophobes, are, it would appear, Muslims themselves -- those who would like to speak or write freely, without fear; or not be tortured or hanged for sexual preferences among adults that harm no one else; or like to have a say in when and whom they marry; or leave home without permission of a male guardian, or even drive a car; or who do not wish to be beaten by one's husband, or accused of adultery when raped or submit to female genital mutilation; the list could go on.

The West should be afraid: the leaders of radical Islam seem to be intent on expanding their ideology throughout Europe and beyond, cynically exploiting the freedoms of Western democracy to incite the Islamic communities in Europe against Western values, and constructing and enabling terrorist cells. After two World Trade Center bombings in 1993 and 2001; the London tube bombing in 2005; the Madrid railway station bombing; Chechen attacks in Russia, including the Beslan school and two recent Islamic suicide bombings in Russia; attacks on synagogues in Argentina and Venezuela; the recent massacres of Egypt's Christian Copts, who predated the Muslims there by centuries -- not to mention repeated attacks on the U.S. from 1973 in Lebanon onwards, and including the attack on the Khobar Towers, Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole; repeated aircraft hijackings from the Munich Olympics of 1972 to the TWA takeover; the shoe bomber; the underwear bomber, the Times Square car bomber, the attempted LAX bombing in 1999; the Fort Hood, Texas, murders by the self-described "Soldier of Allah," U.S. Army Major Malik Nidal Hasan; the bombings in Buenos Aires; a bus bombing in 2011 in Bulgaria; the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi; the murder in the Netherlands of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh and the concurrent threats to Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali; the attempted murders of the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and the journalist Lars Hedegaard; the Cartoon riots of 2006, the kidnapping, torturing and murder of Ilan Halimi and the Toulouse shootings in France; the Boston Marathon bombings; the murder in Britain of Drummer Lee Rigby, plus countless episodes of death threats, intimidation, coercion, attempted murders, and malicious lawsuits in both Europe and Canada -- none of which even includes attacks on Israel; Christians in Africa, such as Nigeria and the Sudan, or the Sunni-Shiite wars in which Muslims continue to slaughter each other virtually every week [Iran-Iraq war; Syria; Pakistan; Iraq] -- if you add in the open declarations of Islamic sheikhs of their intention to take over the world and force the "infidels" convert -- what is puzzling is why "Islamophobia" is even being discussed. It would seem there is a lot to be "phobic" about.

If it were only a problem of rhetoric, of boasts and militant Islamic emotionalism, the West could sleep in peace, but it is a problem of the active involvement of high-ranking Islamic community leaders inciting their followers against their Western hosts, with personal involvement in organizing and leading terrorist activities and training jihad fighters for future attacks on institutions and individuals in the West. It was not a matter of chance that the American Edward Snowden leaked the information that the West monitored the Islamic enclaves in European cities and was consequently preparing for the worst possible scenario.

Without a doubt Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist-jihadi organizations have done untold damage to the West, as well as to Muslims like me, who do not want bloodshed and Islamic terrorism, and do not identify with their objectives. Under such circumstances, it is hard to improve the image of the Islamic community, where so many of its members are a party to anti-Western incitement and terrorism.

Spokesmen for the Islamic community are apparently unwilling to grapple with the situation. They do not take responsibility for their own actions and blame everyone except themselves, and especially the Jews. They claim that hatred of Islam began when Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses. They minimize or deny the importance, and even the existence, of the mass-casualty Islamic terrorist attacks planned and carried out from within the main Islamic communities in the cities of Europe, such as the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. and the many terrorist attacks carried out against civilian populations around the world since that time.

At the beginning of November 2013, representatives of Christians in the Middle East met in Beirut to discuss the persecution and murder of Christians by gangs of radical Islamic militant thugs in the so-called "Arab Spring" countries. Their final statements were empty, pathetic and fairly hopeless. They agreed that Christians were persecuted and murdered; their women raped; their property stolen and their churches burned by Muslim Brotherhood operatives. And they agreed that arsonists repeatedly burned the Coptic Virgin Mary Church in Egypt and the authorities repeatedly did nothing to keep it from happening.

But while the interim government in Egypt did outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization -- accusing its operatives of repeated acts of arson against Coptic churches and sites in Egypt, and premeditated attacks on the Coptic community -- the trend towards eradicating the Christian presence in the region continues unabated, and thus the unprecedented, massive emigration of Christians from the Middle East comes as no surprise. Similar Islamist attacks are being carried out against Christians not only in Egypt, but also in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Nigeria, the Sudan, and more subtly in Iran, where an American, Pastor Saeed Abedini, remains housed in a "violent offenders" prison.

The ethnic cleansing of the Christians in the Middle East perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood is rooted in the Islamist concept that Christianity and Judaism, despite both being monotheistic, became irrelevant after Muhammad (saas). Therefore, their existence is temporary, inferior to Islam, and Christians and Jews are dhimmis, or a "tolerated" lower caste who must pay a head tax to Muslims for "protection" [from marauding Muslims], and who will eventually have to convert to Islam.

A similar process is ongoing in the city of Bethlehem in Palestine. A holy city, it had a Christian majority until, in the wake of the Oslo Accords, Israel withdrew, turning it over to the Palestinian Authority. Until then, the city had been 95% Christian, but most Christians were forced to leave their homes and find other places to reside, and Muslims from the surrounding villages took up residence. Currently the population of Bethlehem is 65% Muslim. It is not difficult to imagine what would happen to Christians and Jews if Israel also turned Jerusalem over to the Palestinian Authority.

During the Christmas mass in Bethlehem, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas claimed that Jesus was a Palestinian. It was a pathetic attempt, this time made by the Palestinians, to distort history and the principles of both the Islamic and Christian faiths for the sake of political Palestinian advancement. Senior sheikhs in the Arab-Muslim world and Palestinian religious leaders in Al-Aqsa mosque all obstinately and fervently claim that there never was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem; that it is all a Zionist lie. The claim is not only false; its objective is to dispossess the Jews and rob them of their historical "blessed land," even though it was promised to them by the Holy Qur'an.[1]

If and when the claim that there was no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem becomes acceptable, the Christian narrative of Jesus, who threw the money-lenders out of the Temple, also logically becomes a fairy tale with no basis in fact – all for the sake of justifying Palestinian fantasies and to negate the right of the Jews to their historically capital city.

Sheikh Ra'ed Salah, the leader of the Islamic Movement -- the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Israel -- is also a cog in the defraud-and-deceive machine. Interviewed by Al-Jazeera last month, he claimed that Islam defends the Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem -- and this is from the mouth of the Islamic cleric who for years, in collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has spearheaded the effort to oust the Christians from their religious seats in Jerusalem. The Islamic Movement also tried to construct a mosque at the entrance to the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, an attempt which was foiled by the Jews.

The fact, like it or not, is that under the rule of the Jews in Israel, the Christian and Muslim communities live in complete security and have absolute freedom of worship. Churches are not burned. Mosques are not burned. Neither Christians nor Muslims are attacked when they leave their houses of prayer. The Pope's upcoming visit to Bethlehem is apparently meant to show the Christians in the Middle East that they have not been abandoned by the Holy See -- but as an act of reassurance, it is "too little too late." The Christians in the Western world are organizing to defend themselves, and taking security steps which radical Islamists call "Islamophobia."

The increasing speed with which the Christians of the Middle East are fleeing would suggest that the battle for a regional Christian presence has already been lost. Those standing in the breach are a handful of Christians in Israel who remain an obstacle to the rising tide of political Islam threatening Europe, Africa and the United States. At the rate Christians are leaving the Arab countries, it is entirely possible that the next time the Pope celebrates mass in Bethlehem, he will be the last Christian in the Middle East.

---

[1] "Alard alaty barkna fiha," or "Alard alaty barkna hawluha." Interpreters of the Qur'an say that it is Jerusalem and all that is around Jerusalem. In Sura 7 al-A'raf verse 137 (in some editions, verse 138) the blessed land is inherited to be inherited by the sons of Israel: "And We bequeathed upon the people that were abased [despised] all the east and the west of the land We had blessed. And the fair word of they Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because of their endurance…"


Ali Salim

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4136/last-christian-middle-east

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

Bandar bin Sultan's Botched Syrian Intervention

by Hilal Khashan


In an untypically abrasive speech, Saudi King Abdullah welcomed the ouster of Egypt's president Muhammad Morsi, stating: "Let the entire world know that the people and government of the Saudi kingdom stood and still stand today with our brothers in Egypt against terrorism, extremism, and sedition."[1] However dramatic, this apparent shift from Riyadh's traditional accommodation of perceived enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its regional affiliates, to a more daring foreign policy is too little too late to reverse the decline of its regional power. And nowhere was this weakness more starkly demonstrated than in Riyadh's botched Syrian intervention, led by its most celebrated diplomat—Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

A Broken Tradition of Cooptation

The foundations of Saudi foreign policy were laid under historical circumstances that were completely different from today's political situation. From the 1930s to the early 1950s, Western presence in the Middle East was quite strong with the region enjoying geopolitical homeostasis. The rise of radical regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, coupled with Moscow's growing involvement in the region, did not seem to threaten Riyadh's domestic and international stance, and the intensifying U.S.-Saudi relations, cemented by mutual commitment to combating communism, steered the kingdom through the region's periodic upheavals well into the late 1970s.

Saudi King Abdullah (l) meets with President Obama in Washington, June 29, 2010. Riyadh has been openly critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East and has sent unmistakable signals of its displeasure. Most Saudis worry that a vacillating and unserious commander-in-chief in Washington may leave them twisting in the region's political winds.

This self-assurance played a central role in the Saudi royal family's nonconfrontational approach and its preference for quiet diplomacy.[2] Military weakness, equilibrium, and calming situations were seemingly the three pillars of Riyadh's foreign policy orientation. The royals ruled out asserting the kingdom as a military power and, thanks to oil wealth and religious significance, chose to make it a cornerstone of the regional balance of interests.[3]

The Iranian revolution and subsequent regional developments, notably the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the recent Arab upheavals, undermined this delicate balance of interests and made Riyadh's accommodative policy increasingly untenable. Things came to a head during the 2011 Shiite uprising in Bahrain, which the Saudis feared might spread to their own territory. Having helped to quell the restiveness in the tiny neighboring kingdom, Abdullah enlisted the services of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former veteran ambassador to Washington, to take Saudi foreign policy in a more assertive direction.

The Prince of Sensitive Missions

Son of the late Saudi crown prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (d. 2011), Bandar began his political career in 1978 as King Khaled's personal envoy to Washington bypassing Ambassador Faisal al-Hegelan.[4] He quickly impressed President Jimmy Carter by enlisting the support of Sen. James Abourezk (Democrat, S. Dakota) in the toss-up vote on the Panama Canal treaty, and his subtle diplomacy paved the way for Congress to pass the Saudi F-15 package shortly thereafter.[5] In 1986, Bandar entered the limelight as a result of his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal and, four years later, played an instrumental role in convincing hesitant Saudi royals to invite U.S. troops into the kingdom to cope with the consequences of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Since then, he has served as a vital liaison between Washington and Riyadh. In 2005, upon the completion of Bandar's 22-year stint in Washington, King Abdullah appointed him to lead the country's National Security Council.
Bandar's advice was sought in large part due to the mounting evidence that implicated Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, Riyadh's ally in Beirut. Following the July 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah and the latter's crippling of the Fouad Seniora government, Bandar convinced Abdullah to invest in creating a Sunni militia to operate under the command of Hariri's son Saad. This fateful but ill-studied decision undermined Bandar's credibility when, in 2008, Hezbollah's militiamen stormed west Beirut and effortlessly dismantled Saad's militia in a matter of hours. Bandar had evidently failed to appreciate the strength of Hezbollah or the ineptitude of Hariri's leadership.

The Saudi royal family is seriously concerned about the turn of events in the region and the possibility of demands for political reform such changes might initiate. With more than two-thirds of its tribally and religiously heterogeneous population alien to the austere Wahhabi doctrine,[6] there is very little in common between the Najd-originated ruling Wahhabi dynasty and its Shiite subjects in the oil-rich eastern province or Shafii and Maliki Sunni Muslims in Hijaz. Likewise, the kingdom's southern subjects mostly belong to Yemeni tribes where Shiite Ismailis and Zaydis proliferate.

Nevertheless, this failure did not deter Abdullah from calling on Bandar again in July 2012 to head the Saudi intelligence apparatus. The Saudi king had already become disturbed about the course of events in Syria and Bashar Assad's refusal to leave office. He may have thought that Bandar, who knew how to deal with Saddam Hussein, could work some magic with Bashar. In turn, mindful of Bandar's deep unease with regional Shiite ascendancy, Tehran's state-controlled media dubbed him the "prince of terrorists."[7]

President George W. Bush meets with Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan (r), at the Bush ranch, August 27, 2002, in Crawford, Texas. Many Americans noted at the time the seeming supplicant position of their president. In 2005, King Abdullah appointed Bandar to lead the Saudi national security council.

U.S. Indifference and the Iranian Surge

For years, the Saudis sought to accommodate Iran and Syria to no avail. They even coerced Saad Hariri to swallow his pride and forgo the truth about his father's assassins, forcing him to announce that "he had made a mistake in blaming Syria for his father's killing."[8] Yet Saudi concessions did not placate Tehran and Damascus for long: From the beginning of the Syrian uprising in 2011, the mullahs in Tehran made the decision to prevent Assad's collapse and instructed their Lebanese proxy Hezbollah to commit troops as part of its collective effort to keep the regime in power.

For Riyadh, this behavior amounted to a confrontation that required a response. After more than two years of silence, the Saudis finally decided to take sides in Syria, only to realize that their support of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) would be matched by Tehran's bolstering of Assad's military machine.

Even more dismaying to the Saudis was Washington's response—or lack thereof—to the situation. Given the supposed close relationship between the two countries, the fact that the Saudis did not have a clue about the administration's frame of mind on Syria was shocking though they were not the only ones to take President Obama's early warnings on the Syrian use of chemical weapons at face value. Exasperated by Washington's inaction, foreign minister Saud al-Faisal turned to the international community and implored it "to stop this aggression against the Syrian people."[9]

The Saudis have every reason to feel disheartened, having failed to beat sense into Assad and to engage the Iranians diplomatically. And while Riyadh's defense agreements with Washington have not become completely irrelevant, most Saudis worry that a vacillating and unserious commander-in-chief in Washington may leave them twisting in the wind.

Bandar's Botched Syrian Policy

The Saudis believe that allowing Assad to stay in office will prolong the uprising and endanger their own stability.[10] Given the weakness of the Free Syrian Army, the continuation of the armed conflict only serves to increase the presence of jihadists, notably al-Qaeda-affiliated groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Nusra. As long as such groups remain confined to northern Syria, the Saudis need not be overly concerned, but the prospect of these groups proliferating in southwest Syria close to the Jordanian border has begun to preoccupy them. Such an intrusion might mean that the eventual march of jihadists to the Saudi frontier is a foregone conclusion.

While born of the same Salafist ideology as the kingdom's own Wahhabist brand of Islam, these jihadist groups claim a purity of motive and a deadly modus operandi that endangers the House of Saud. Muhammad ibn Saud adopted Wahhabism in the mid-eighteenth century and sought to extend his rule throughout Arabia. His great-great-great-grandson ibn Saud allied himself with the Ikhwan Wahhabi army in 1911-27 to consolidate his reign in the current boundaries of Saudi Arabia. The Ikhwan's attempts to export its jihad to Iraq and Transjordan compelled ibn Saud to crush them in the battle of Siblah in March 1929. Whereas Saudi monarchs have been content with their territorial domain, today's jihadists in Syria aspire to rejuvenate the Ikhwan's original mission.[11]

To combat the threat, King Abdullah again enlisted Bandar's services. The prince had not hidden his view that Bashar had to go because his inability to detect red lines in politics had made Assad injurious to himself, his country, and his Arab neighbors.[12] As The Wall Street Journal put it, "CIA officials knew that KSA [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia] was serious about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named prince Bandar bin Sultan to lead the effort."[13]

In an effort to convince Russia to drop its support of Assad, Bandar (r) reportedly offered President Vladimir Putin (l) a trade package comprising a $15 billion arms deal and a pledge to refrain from competing with Russia in the European gas market. But the offer also came with threats. Bandar is alleged to have said, "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics … The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us."

In an effort to find a solution to the conflict, Bandar offered Russian president Vladimir Putin what looked like a lucrative trade package comprising a $15 billion arms deal and a pledge by the GCC to refrain from competing with Russia in the European gas market. This might have worked had Bandar dispensed with the stick that accompanied his carrot. Putin, who seems to consider himself Obama's sole rival in international politics, was infuriated when Bandar promised to rein in Chechen insurgents and prevent them from targeting the upcoming 2014 Winter Olympics to be held in Sochi, Russia.[14]

While Bandar has been described "as a pivotal figure in the struggle by America and its allies to tilt the battlefield balance against the regime in Syria,"[15] there is mounting evidence that Washington is not really looking to dislodge Assad. Despite past U.S. pronouncements that Assad "must go," there is a growing realization in Washington that the alternative to the Syrian despot might actually be worse with at least one account reporting that "the Americans informed the Russians that the Syrian regime must be present in any agreement to ensure smooth transition."[16]

Thanks to Bandar's efforts, Riyadh did supply the Free Syrian Army with a few obsolete and ineffective shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles in June and at least fifty Russian-made Konkurs antitank missiles.[17] But this is hardly enough to topple Assad, and there seems to be an inverse relationship between Riyadh's rhetoric and reality on the ground: The more the Saudis talk about arming the FSA, the more obvious it is that the Assad regime is still in control of the situation.[18] In fairness to Bandar, his failure to alter the military balance on the ground in Syria has less to do with his ineptitude than with U.S. restrictions on arms supplies to the FSA: Saudi military aid to the Syrian rebels goes mostly through Jordan, which in turn requires CIA authorization for passing U.S.-made arms into Syria.[19]

Given the course of events in Syria, it is highly unlikely that Bandar will prevail against Assad's regime or Iranian regional maneuverings. Damascus's promised cooperation with U.N. inspectors in dismantling its chemical weapons arsenal has won it rare praise from U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, deflecting previous criticisms and demands and giving the Assad regime a vital respite. An end to the Syrian conflict is not in sight, and the great-power agreement is unlikely to lead to an enhancement of Riyadh's status as a regional power. Bandar has failed in Syria, and the royal family is reportedly "dissatisfied with his performance there."[20]

The Worst Is Yet to Come

Bandar is in desperate need of scoring a victory in Syria to obscure mounting internal problems in Riyadh, including the split over succession and the rise of pro-Muslim Brotherhood advocates in the kingdom such as Awad al-Qani and his as-Sahwa Current.[21] Thus, recent reports of Bandar's meddling in Iraq's sectarian strife,[22] if true, may indicate a desperate ploy to deflect criticism at home from his Syrian failings. But this feint is also doomed to failure as tilting the balance of power against the Assad regime is not contingent upon destabilizing Baghdad. If anything, it is likely to increase Iraqi Shiite involvement in the Syrian armed conflict against the opponents of the regime. No less alarming, the spread of violence in areas close to Saudi Arabia carries the risk of spillover into the desert kingdom.

Saudi influence on U.S. Middle East policy, especially on issues that directly affect the kingdom's interests, is quite limited and incommensurate with the volume of the two countries' bilateral, political, security, and economic interests. Washington perceives Riyadh as a quietist player dependent on U.S. power to ensure the kingdom's safety from external threats. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Saudi requests to shape the formulation of certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy will be disregarded. Riyadh may dislike Iran's predominance in Iraq, but Tehran and Baghdad have found a modus vivendi since Saddam's toppling in 2003, and the Obama administration is unlikely to challenge this arrangement given its expressed goal of military disengagement and its recent opening to Tehran. The administration will simply not allow Riyadh to restrict its political options even when they conflict with the kingdom's own interests.[23]

The Saudi royals at one point, especially since the recent Arab uprisings, thought that they could reassert themselves as a stabilizing regional power. But the truth of the matter is that they are actually part of the Arab strategic vacuum they hoped to be capable of redressing. Given Riyadh's seeming inherent inability to engage in meaningful political reform, promote social liberalization, and tolerate religious plurality, all it can possibly do is sit tight and hope that the regional status quo ante can be restored before too long.

Hilal Khashan is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

[1] Asharq al-Awsat (London), Aug. 19, 2013. [2] Al-Jazeera Studies (Doha), Aug. 24, 2011. [3] Arab News (Jeddah), Oct. 12, 2012. [4] David B. Ottaway, The King's Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America's Tangled Relationship with Saudi Arabia (New York: Walker and Company, 2008), p. 30. [5] William Simpson, The Prince: The Secret Story of the World's Most Intriguing Royal Prince, Bandar bin Sultan (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), p. 54-7. [6] Al-Khabar (Algiers), May 31, 2010. [7] Press TV (Tehran), Sept. 20, 2013. [8] The Daily Star (Beirut), Oct. 7, 2010. [9] Al-Jazeera News (Doha), Sept. 1, 2013. [10] Al-Quds al-Arabi (London), Oct. 17, 2013. [11] Ahmed Mansour, "The Origin of Terrorism in Muslim History," International Quranic Center, Falls Church, Va., accessed Oct. 23, 2013. [12] Sabq (Riyadh), June 19, 2013. [13] The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 25, 2013. [14] Al-Quds (Jerusalem), Aug. 10, 2013. [15] The Independent (London), Aug. 26, 2013. [16] As-Safir (Beirut), Aug. 21, 2013. [17] The Independent, June 17, 2013. [18] Al-Manar TV (Beirut), Aug. 31, 2013. [19] The Guardian (London), Apr. 14, 2013. [20] Al-Akhbar (Cairo), July 10, 2013. [21] Al-Manar TV, Aug. 29, 2013. [22] Al-Sumaria News (Baghdad), Aug. 20, 2013. [23] Al-Hayat (London), June 23, 2013.

Hilal Khashan is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3683/bandar-bin-sultan-syria

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

We won't Dance to the European Flute

by Dr. Haim Shine

In January 1904, just a few months before he died, an infirm Benjamin Ze'ev Herzl traveled to Italy to persuade the Italian king and the pope to support the Zionist cause, highlighting the surging tide of anti-Semitism inundating Europe. The pope had expected Herzl to bend down on one knee and to kiss his extended hand, but Herzl, a proud Jew, refused. 

The pope explained to Herzl that the Holy See would neither accept a Jewish entity in the Holy Land, nor the restoration of Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem. An independent Jewish state with its capital in Jerusalem blatantly contradicted the Christian faith, as it would have refuted Christianity's replacement of Judaism. The Catholic leadership refused to condemn anti-Semitism, and throughout the 20th century, it continued to wage a consistent campaign denouncing Zionism. 

Even today, several European countries are unwilling to reconcile with a strong, independent Israel ruling over Jerusalem. The U.K., France and Italy summoned Israeli ambassadors to protest Israel's decision to build residential units in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. The British will probably never forgive us for the fact that just a handful of resistance fighters managed to bring the British empire down on its knees; the Catholic French will most likely never get over our resounding victory in the Six-Day War, which shattered then-President Charles de Gaulle's religious faith, and the Italians are doing their best to erase former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's legacy -- he was a staunch Israel supporter. 

Protesting construction over the Green Line is kind of like playing pretend. The Europeans do not really care about a few homes in Beit El or Yitzhar. The main source of contention is Jerusalem and development there, but the Europeans have to understand that the overwhelming majority of Israelis would never relinquish even a sliver of territory in Jerusalem, in the same way that the English, French and Italians would never agree to concede an alleyway in London, Paris or Rome, even if most of its residents were Muslim immigrants. 

These European countries could easily win the Nobel Prize for Machiavellian hypocrisy. They bear a message of peace while simultaneously hindering progress in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The European Union has been throwing sticks in the spokes of the American peace carriage. Certain EU members have even been collaborating with Hamas and radical Islamist groups, attempting to thwart the diplomatic process. So even if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas wanted to reach some sort of arrangement, which is highly doubtful, the EU's one-sided stance would cause him to harden his line. He has no reason to concede anything. If the peace process fails to bear fruit, Abbas will get Europe's full backing to crush Israel through international organizations and to paralyze its economy with endless boycotts. 

When former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared in 1948 that "the Jewish nation has risen up in the land of Israel -- with national independence," he was clarifying that the Jewish people would never again dance to the sound of flat music.

Dr. Haim Shine

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7081

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

Why did Asef Mohammad Trespass on a New Jersey WaterTtreatment Plant?

by Ethel C. Fenig

Was Asef Muhammed just going for a walk one night when he decided oh, just for the heck of it, to jump over a barbed wire fence surrounding a water treatment plant near his home in New Jersey (yes, that New Jersey) and then oh, look,  climb into a water holding tank and then, oh, why not? crawl into a pipe where he oh so inconveniently got stuck? Could be. After all, according to the report  from the Asbury Park Press (yes, that Asbury Park)

"There is no reason for anyone whatsoever to climb into a pipe," said Rich Henning, a spokesman for United Water. "It is a facility that pumps water, pumps it out of the ground. This is certainly the first time we have ever seen anything like this."  In 25 years in this business, I have never seen this happen," Henning said.

Well, there is always a first time. And there must be a reason. What could it be?

After someone heard his cries for help, New Jersey public rescue officials freed him in an expensive and time consuming operation after which Mr. Mohammed

was placed under arrest and will be charged with fourth-degree trespassing, an indictable offense that will be presented to a grand jury, Fountain said.

Trespassing. But why was he trespassing at a water treatment plant?  Was he really that thirsty?  Or did he have other plans in mind?  Not to be racist or anything like that; after all, as someone once said, "At this point in time, what difference does it make?"

Ethel C. Fenig

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/why_did_asef_mohammad_trespass_on_a_new_jersey_water_treatment_plant.html

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

Ya'alon to Terrorists: No More 'Free Shots' on Southern Israel

by David Lev


With the recent uptick in rocket attacks on southern Israel, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon has a message for Gaza Arab terrorists: Don't try us.

Speaking on Sunday, Ya'alon said that the IDF would hit hard and fast against terror targets each time Israel was attacked. “The IDF on Sunday morning targeted a terror cell that was responsible for firing rockets at Israel last week, when rockets were fired at Ashkelon,” Ya'alon said.

“We will not accept the targeting by terrorists of Israel, and we will act to cause damage to anyone that threatens the security of our citizens,” he added.

Ya'alon stressed that the days of terrorists taking “free shots” at Israel were over. “We will not permit a return to the days when rocket attacks were a matter of routine. Anyone who tries this will pay the price. I would not recommend anyone in Gaza to try our determination to defend Israelis,” Ya'alon added.

Early Sunday, Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft targeted several terrorist sites in Gaza, hours after a rocket attack on southern Israel. A statement from the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit said that the aircraft targeted two centers of terrorist activity in southern and central Gaza. Direct hits were identified and all Israeli aircraft returned safely to their bases, said the statement. Several hours before the airstrikes, a rocket exploded in an open area between two communities in the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council.

Last Wednesday, Gaza Arab terrorists fired a barrage of rockets at Ashkelon. Five of the rockets were intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-missile system, which shoots down rockets before they hit populated areas. Several other rockets may have exploded in open areas. There were no reports of physical injuries or damages. The “Color Red” rocket siren was sounded prior to the explosions.

Wednesday night’s rocket attack follows several attacks on Monday.


David Lev

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/176477#.UtwulbT8LIU

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