China's New International Mindset? - Francesco Sisci

by Francesco Sisci

China seems to have realized the extreme difficulty of simply barging into a world already shaped by centuries of traditions alien to it.
On this political side, this change of heart underscores, internally, Xi's new clout in politics. He managed to shelve critics with different views on foreign policy.
It is a change, it may have many implications; at least for now it is in a positive direction.

China's political mindset about international politics is at a turning point, one that could mark the beginning of a new role for China in global affairs.

On December 27, 2014, the Chinese press reported a speech by Vice Premier Wang Yang, entitled, "The United States is the guide of the world; China is willing to join this system." In the text, Wang Yang reportedly said, "China and United States are global economic partners, but America is the guide of the world. America already has the leading system and its rules; China is willing to join the system and respect those rules and hopes to play a constructive role."

These statements mark a stark contrast from the times when China seemed extremely suspicious of America's hegemonic role in the world. Implicitly, China now appears to admit that America has the leading role in the world and to be willing to work with it. It is a change, it may have many implications; at least for now it is in a positive direction.

The speech does not give any explanation for the dramatic change of heart by the Chinese leadership; it is not clear, in fact, what brought it about. However, it is clear that, after the recent successful meeting between presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping at the APEC summit in Beijing, this is the next step. At the APEC meeting, the two sides agreed on a number of issues that had been pretty irksome in previous years. In many ways, after many years of strong distrust, the meeting between might have succeeded in turning a new leaf in bilateral relations.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping pose together at the APEC meeting in Beijing, November 10, 2014. (Image source: RT YouTube video screenshot)

This change goes beyond the idea floated some years ago of a "G2" (a US-China special relationship). The G2 idea was based on faulty thinking: of U.S.-Chinese ties as isolated from the rest of the world. This time, the concept is more comprehensive, and in many ways reassuring, because it accepts US leadership for both the U.S. and for the many countries that feared being left out of the new strong bond between Washington and Beijing.

As for the reasons the change occurred, we can only infer them. There are possibly a number of historical and political reasons that brought about the Chinese change of heart. There could, possibly, have been a new historical analysis — the way the Chinese love to think about problems: that there is a sense of history which changes according to civilizations; the Chinese have their own, Indians have their own, and so on — that helped form this new mindset.

The United States inherited a leading role in the world from the British Empire, which took it on from the French, and before them the Dutch in the late 17th century, who took it on from the Spanish, who first started the globalization process with the discovery of America in the late 15th century.

America, in other words, inherited a world shaped by values and rules conceived of by Western countries for over 500 years. Before the discovery of America, the world worked in different major areas: Europe, India, China, for instance, but with only loose connections between one another. The discovery of America for the first time made an effort in connecting all sides. These values and rules are largely alien to China's historical tradition, yet they are widely accepted not only by Western countries, but also by the world at large. China seems to have realized the extreme difficulty of simply barging into a world already shaped by centuries of traditions alien to it. Moreover, since the fall of the Qing Empire about a century ago, these Western traditions had already partially entered Chinese political discourse. Since then, the foundation of the People's Republic has been organized according to Western Marxist values.

With a mindset shaped by economic calculations, the Chinese may have realized that challenging this present system, toppling it, and replacing it with something more "Chinese" could be an extremely risky and costly proposition. China may have concluded that, in the process, it might well be defeated or suffer great losses; that it would be much more effective and economical just to join the system and play a constructive role while slowly and steadily introducing Chinese tenets For thousands of years they have thrived without many ties with the West, why should they now accept all the Western values into their system?

Political concerns also possibly helped shape the new thinking. The Chinese, along with everyone else, saw the U.S. completely defeat the USSR in the Cold War, even though the USSR was much stronger scientifically and politically than China is now. The USSR had been at the center of a vast web of allied states; it had an appealing ideology that made inroads among many intellectuals and working people of the Western world, and it had "converted" many of them to "Soviet beliefs." China has no allies, no system of values or any ideology making inroads in the West; it is pretty isolated. So, politically, if it were to engage in a head-on confrontation with the Western world, the outcome could be even worse than that with the USSR.

As further proof, one could look at the extreme difficulties of Russia now as it tries to confront America. Despite the fact that Washington is coming out of 14 years of setbacks and poor political management in the Middle East and Central Asia, it still has quite easily managed to put Moscow on the defensive over Ukraine. Russia's invasion may not be over, but Putin has been put on the defensive. This is already a result visible to China, and may well have been enough to lead it to a new way of thinking.

The final element is the massive rebound in 2014 of the American economy, officially recording growth of about 5% at the end of 2014. The Chinese are still wondering what made America grow so much in one year. What is clear is that the development of new technologies and the ability to innovate and blaze new trails in economic growth is playing a huge role. The new technologies for extracting oil and gas through fracking, to store and save energy -- such as batteries for Tesla cars, which look as if they could revolutionize the auto industry -- have impressed a whole new dynamic into America's economic system and geopolitics. The Middle East, which, thanks to its oil reserves, was so crucial to the global economy until a couple of years ago, has largely been sidelined. In addition, the present plunge in oil prices seems to beckon a new season of cheap energy, which could spur unforetold developments in many areas.

This expansion, plus possible investments in rebuilding America's poor infrastructure, could boost growth in the future. Those potential improvements are all signs that America's decline might not be inevitable, as many pundits worldwide recently predicted, and may well have led China to underscore the necessity of treading carefully and not underestimating Washington's capabilities.

On the political side, this change of heart underscores, internally, President Xi's new clout in politics. He managed to shelve critics with different views on foreign policy. These differing views, and the difficulty in finding a unified voice, have been plaguing Chinese foreign policy for virtually two decades.

The new position of Wang Yang can, in fact, be seen as a result of internal party cleansing. According to a report by Xinhua News Agency on December 29, the Politburo of the Communist Party announced that, "within the party there will be absolutely no tolerance for factionalism and gangs; no way to use the party to pursue individual benefits or to form gangs and cliques."

Furthermore, Xi's new stance -- admitting the influence and role of the U.S. in the world -- in a way could be a late response to Obama's policies toward China in 2009. Immediately after his election, Obama seemed to offer China a sweeping opportunity for cooperation. This offer was received in a lukewarm fashion by Beijing, then plagued by deep rifts on crucial political choices. Now, of course, times and conditions are different, but Xi, in more than one way, seems to be trying to set the clock back -- and forward.

It is still too early to see how these statements will play out. The U.S. now may be less ready to welcome a Chinese opening, and the world largely seems far more confused than just six years ago. Moreover, no one is yet clear, possibly not even the Chinese, what the meaning to the existing world order of the "constructive contributions," mentioned by Wang Yang, will be.


Francesco Sisci

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5004/china-us-leadership

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

Arab MK waves Palestinian flag during Temple Mount parade - Israel Hayom Staff

by Israel Hayom Staff

Ra'am-Ta'al party chairman explains that he wanted to symbolize the Palestinians' right to an independent state with capital in east Jerusalem • Legal Forum for Israel asks Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein to open criminal investigation against Tibi.

MK Ahmad Tibi holds up a Palestinian flag on the Temple Mount | Photo credit: AFP

Israeli Arab MK Ahmad Tibi (Ra'am-Ta'al) waved a Palestinian flag during a parade Arab MKs held this weekend to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad. 

"I wanted to symbolize the Palestinians' right to an independent state with a capital in east Jerusalem," Tibi explained. 

After the incident, attorney Yossi Fuchs, chairman of the Legal Forum for Israel, appealed to Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein and requested that the latter order a criminal investigation against Tibi. 

The Jerusalem District Police reported that Tibi had not given any advance notice that he would participate in the parade. 

"The police take any actions that could cause disturbances on the Temple Mount very seriously," the police said.

Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=22561

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

Al Sharpton's corporate shakedown operation - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

Sharpton's front group, the National Action Network, has been under investigation several times for, among other things, failing to pay payroll taxes and messy, shady bookeeping. It's apparent that Sharpton uses the charity to funnel cash into his and his crony's pockets.

Which is more disgusting? Companies paying Al Sharpton so that he won't call them racists, or Sharpton himself who has developed a routine corporate shakedown operation - the most professional among all the racialists making a buck off their outrage?

New York Post:

Want to influence a casino bid? Polish your corporate image? Not be labeled a racist?
Then you need to pay Al Sharpton.
For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence.
Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal met with the activist preacher after leaked e-mails showed her making racially charged comments about President Obama. Pascal was under siege after a suspected North Korean cyber attack pressured the studio to cancel its release of “The Interview,” which depicts the assassination of dictator Kim Jong-un.
Pascal and her team were said to be “shaking in their boots” and “afraid of the Rev,” The Post reported.
No payments to NAN have been announced, but Sharpton and Pascal agreed to form a “working group” to focus on racial bias in Hollywood.
Sharpton notably did not publicly assert his support for Pascal after the meeting — what observers say seems like a typical Sharpton “shakedown” in the making. Pay him in cash or power, critics say, and you buy his support or silence.
“Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him. Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group that has produced a book on Sharpton.

The Pascal incident is small potatoes. Sharpton's shakedown operation has taken in an astonishing amount of money over the years:

In 2008, Plainfield Asset Management, a Greenwich, Conn.-based hedge fund, made a $500,000 contribution to New York nonprofit Education Reform Now. That money was immediately funneled to the National Action Network.
The donation raised eyebrows. Although the money was ostensibly to support NAN’s efforts to bring “educational equality,” it also came at a time that Plainfield was trying to get a lucrative gambling deal in New York.
Plainfield had a $250 million stake in Capital Play, a group trying to secure a license to run the coming racino at Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens. Capital Play employed a lobbyist named Charlie King, who also was the acting executive director of NAN.
Sharpton has said that most of the Plainfield contribution went to pay King’s salary.
King’s company, the Movement Group, was paid $243,586 by NAN in 2008, tax records show.
Harold Levy, a former New York City schools chancellor who was a managing director at Plainfield at the time, has denied the contribution was made to curry favor with Sharpton or anyone else. But a year later, as the battle for the racino license heated up, NAN raked in another $100,000 from representatives of the AEG consortium, which was the successor company to Capital Play.

Sharpton's front group, the National Action Network, has been under investigation several times for, among other things, failing to pay payroll taxes and messy, shady bookeeping. It's apparent that Sharpton uses the charity to funnel cash into his and his crony's pockets.

Sharpton has a knack for skirting the law but not going too far over the line when he does transgress. Besides, in New York, he is virtually untouchable and at the federal level - well, Eric Holder and his successor are not lining up to investigate his dealings.


Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/al_sharptons_corporate_shakedown_operation.html

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

The ‘Good War’ Obama Surrendered - Arnold Ahlert

by Arnold Ahlert

American troops decisively won the war in Iraq. And just as decisively, Obama threw that victory away.

On Christmas Day at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, followed by a White House press release on Dec. 28, President Obama announced the end of the war in Afghanistan. “We’ve been in continuous war now for almost thirteen years—over 13 years,” he said, “and next week we will be ending our combat mission in Afghanistan. Obviously, because of the extraordinary service of the men and women in the American armed forces, Afghanistan has a chance to rebuild its own country. We are safer. It’s not going to be a source of terrorist attacks again,” he added.

If that message sounds familiar, it’s because virtually the same message was delivered on Dec. 14, 2011 at Fort Bragg, NC. That’s when Obama announced that “America’s war in Iraq will be over” and that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant” nation. That would be the same Iraq where, swiftly after Obama’s precipitous military withdrawal, Islamic militants embarked on a barbaric campaign of terror, seizing large swaths of Iraqi territory and wiping out much of the security gains achieved through the loss of thousands of American lives in that country.

American troops decisively won the war in Iraq. And just as decisively, Obama threw that victory away.

Our enemies in Afghanistan have taken the lesson of Iraq to heart. A day after Obama’s formal announcement on the 28th, the Taliban declared the U.S. and its allies had been defeated. “ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] rolled up its flag in an atmosphere of failure and disappointment without having achieved anything substantial or tangible,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement emailed Monday. With regard to the president’s assurance that Afghan forces are ready to “take the lead for their own security,” Mujahid vowed,

The demoralized American-built forces will constantly be dealt defeats just like their masters. Tens of thousands of soldiers were killed and wounded, billions of dollars wasted, their nations were exhausted, their countries faced economic turmoil and even recession, their generals failed one after the other and they lost their stature and prestige internationally. Our courageous nation shall continue its Jihad and struggle so long as a single foreigner remains in Afghanistan in a military uniform.

Thus, Obama’s assertion that Afghanistan will never again be a “source” for terrorist attacks rings exceedingly hollow. Moreover, Obama, the Democratic Party and the American left in general would like the nation to forget that, in their mission to discredit President George W. Bush’s efforts in Iraq — what they thought was the surest route to the Oval Office in 2004 — they were constantly casting the conflict in Afghanistan as the “good war,” the “war that has to be won,” as Obama once said. Afghanistan was deemed by Obama, Hillary Clinton and others as the “central front in the war on terror,” which the US had “diverted our attention from” due to the Bush administration’s alleged “war for oil.”

As with the Islamic radicals sweeping Iraq, in Afghanistan, too, the Taliban will ultimately return, bringing with it the same brutal treatment of women, the same totalitarian version of Sharia, and the same determination to provide a haven to Al Qaeda and others that defined its rule of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001— and provided the impetus for the worst domestic attack America has ever endured. For his part, President Obama is not merely resigned to the enemy’s triumphant return, but appears to be actively facilitating it as well. It was the Obama administration that delivered five top commanders back to the Taliban in exchange for the token Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter whose own commanders deemed not worth the cost of retrieval. The Obama administration has also indicated that it will ignore Taliban activity on the ground while U.S. forces remain in the country. As Admiral John Kirby told reporters in December, “we’re not going to target…simply by virtue of the fact that they’re Taliban.”

Is there anything that makes more of a mockery of the 2,216 Americans killed and 19,950 Americans wounded during Operation Enduring Freedom than the notion that we will now be presiding over the resurgence of the enemy? And even as this unconscionable surrender is taking place, the same Democrats who championed our involvement there remain silent. When the same mass executions and beheadings of innocents perpetrated by ISIS in Iraq are meted out by the equally bloodthirsty Taliban in Afghanistan, Democrats will be silent then as well, as they bury the history of their fervent support for the good Afghanistan war in time for the next election.

Indeed, the bloodletting has already begun in Afghanistan. The New York Times obtained official Afghan data revealing that 2014 was the deadliest year for Afghan police, soldiers and civilians since the war began in 2001. More than 5,000 police officers and soldiers were killed, and the civilian death toll will top 10,000. Those totals are substantially higher than 3,500 coalition deaths killed over the course of the entire war. The reason for the ramped up intensity is painfully obvious. “One of the differences is that this year, the American forces, and their close air support, have been almost completely absent from the field,” the Times explains. “And though the Afghan forces are holding on, for the most part, they are taking punishingly heavy losses.”

In a tacit acknowledgement of the ill wisdom of withdrawal and the falsity of claims of stability in Afghanistan, the Obama administration is deviating from its objective of vacating the country in 2015. Despite promising that our “combat mission” is over, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released Dec. 2, states that the United States “plans to keep 9,800 U.S. forces in Afghanistan during 2015 mostly as advisers and trainers.” They will be joined by an additional “3,000 partner forces from various NATO and other countries.”

However, other sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, put the overall total of troops at 18,000, of which 10,600 will be American. The discrepancy in the two totals is explained by a Nov. 21, 2014 report by the New York Times revealing that Obama authorized a “more expansive” military mission for 2015 than originally anticipated, characterizing it as “a move that ensures American troops will have a direct role in fighting in the war-ravaged country for at least another year.”

Part of the reason for this unanticipated increase in troop commitment is revealed elsewhere in the Dec. 2 CRS report, which states that the Obama Defense Department “has expressed concerns that Al Qaeda could regroup in Afghanistan if the security situation there becomes unstable.” It is probable that the DOD has more than mere concerns about Al Qaeda’s resurgence. After all, if the far more advanced and organized nation of Iraq has been brought to the brink of disintegration by Islamic terrorists, how likely is it that Afghanistan will fare any better?

The answer to this question was powerfully reflected in the ceremony marking the status of forces change, during which ISAF Commander Gen. John Campbell switched out the green-and-white ISAF flag with the flag of the new mission and which took place quietly at a basketball court inside ISAF’s headquarters in the Afghan capital city of Kabul. The public was kept away, and the WSJ explains why. “Fearing Taliban attacks, the base was on high alert,” it states. “Nonresident staff was told to stay home, and facilities like shops and coffee bars were closed for the day.”

The explosive situation on the ground bodes poorly for hopes of success. And lest anyone get the impression that Obama’s decision to commit to greater residual forces is being done out of a sense of responsibility, the New York Times reveals the real reason for the sudden change. The paper cites the collapse of Iraqi defense forces and the lingering mistrust between the president and his military advisors with regard to the 2009 troop surge into Afghanistan. “Some of the president’s civilian advisers say that decision was made only because of excessive Pentagon pressure, and some military officials say it was half-baked and made with an eye to domestic politics,” the paper explains.

With regard to domestic politics, there is little doubt Obama is attempting to trumpet his “success” in ending another war, even if it ultimately echoes the Iraqi debacle. The “no boots on the ground” mantra in that nation was scrapped last August when 1,500 American troops were sent back to “advise” the collapsing Iraqi army. Obama authorized an additional 1,500 troops in November, and if a report by Kurdish source Shafaq News is accurate, some of those American “advisors” have engaged in direct combat with ISIS. By the time a similar disintegration scenario unfolds in Afghanistan, Obama will likely be out of office.

In the meantime, the real message the president has delivered to the perpetrators of global terror is clear: America no longer has the will or the staying power to pursue victory. Like so much of the leftist agenda, all that matters is the narrative, and in this case Obama has simply declared combat operations in Afghanistan to be over, irrespective of events on the ground. He assures Americans that Afghanistan will never be a haven for terror again, even as Taliban terrorists who killed and wounded American troops will now be given a free pass. And if it all goes horribly wrong, Obama and his fellow travelers will feign surprise and completely avoid responsibility for the bloodbath that ensues.

Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/the-good-war-obama-surrendered/

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

Back in Iraq: What Happened to AfPak? - Shoshana Bryen

by Shoshana Bryen

Pakistan may be no more democratic or developed than it was before, but the Taliban on both sides of the AfPak border have been emboldened by the American withdrawal from one and neglect of the other.  With increased viciousness, they are back

The horrific attack on a school in Pakistan by Taliban gunmen that killed 132 people, mainly children, returned that unhappy country to the news headlines for a few days.  But only a few – it’s gone again.

It wasn't supposed to be like that.  In President Obama's defining 2009 Afghanistan "surge" speech, presented against the backdrop of 4,000 cadets at West Point, Pakistan was an important theme:

As Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. ... I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is the epicenter of violent extremism. ... We have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan... both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. ... Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan... Our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan...cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan.  That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

There is a reason the theater was called AfPak, and there were those who believed that stabilizing and securing Pakistan – unstable, nuclear-armed, hostile to democratic India, and plagued by terrorism – was the American endgame.  In 2009, the president was in full nation-building mode:

We are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries ... [and provide] substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting[.] ... [T]he Pakistani people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent.

But, announcing the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan last month before a much smaller audience at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, the president took a much more narrow view.

We’ll continue to have a limited military presence (in Afghanistan) because we’ve got to keep training and equipping Afghan forces, and we’ve got to conduct counterterrorism missions... we want to preserve the gains... We want a stable and secure Afghanistan. And we want to make sure that country is never again used to launch attacks against the United States of America.

What happened to Pakistan?

In fact, although the United States spent almost $18 billion in Pakistan between 2001 and 2012, our "partnership" was largely defined by the political and military damage done by vastly increased U.S. drone strikes.  There are only estimated statistics, but it appears that the U.S. conducted 381 strikes in Pakistan from 2004 to 2013 (51 in the Bush years, 331 in the Obama administration), killing somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,800 people – the balance between civilians and militants unclear, but certainly there were civilian casualties.  The 2014 numbers are 22 strikes, with 104 known dead.

Pakistan may be no more democratic or developed than it was before, but the Taliban on both sides of the AfPak border have been emboldened by the American withdrawal from one and neglect of the other.  With increased viciousness, they are back – the school attack may take prize for mind-bendingly vile, but don’t miss Pamela Constable's frightening essay on her most recent visit to Kabul and the evidence of an ugly and repressive Taliban resurgence. 

The president, however, appears to have moved on, or back.  Having quietly decided on the tripling of the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq from 1,000 to 3,000 in November, he told the troops at McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst:

[In Iraq] we are hammering [ISIL] terrorists, taking out their fighters, their commanders, hundreds of vehicles and tanks, nearly 200 oil and gas facilities, the infrastructure that funds their terror. More than a thousand fighting positions, checkpoints, buildings, barracks – we’re taking them out. We’re cutting their command and control and supply lines, and making it harder for them to maneuver ... local forces have held the line in some places and pushed back ISIL in other places. In Syria, our airstrikes are inflicting heavy losses on ISIL fighters and leaders. Because of you, we have blunted their momentum and we have put them on the defensive.

Having withdrawn our forces from Iraq in 2011 and left the field to Iran and ISIS/IL, he has returned them under far less auspicious circumstances.  U.S. troops remain, for the moment, off the actual battlefield, but the fighting is getting closer, making an Afghanistan-style fight and support mission that includes American casualties more likely.

The potential fall of Pakistan to jihadists is far more consequential than the (almost inevitable) fall of Afghanistan to the Afghan Taliban, if for no other reason than the presence of nuclear weapons and other modern military infrastructure.  It is necessary to ask what circumstances may emerge that threaten American interests or require a refocus on AfPak – and at what cost – before we find ourselves there again.

Shoshana Bryen

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/back_in_iraq_what_happened_to_afpak.html

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

Israel Seeks only to be Allowed to Exist in Peace as a Jewish State, Hardly an Excessive Demand - Eli E. Hertz

by Eli E. Hertz

The weight of the evidence of so many scholars, observers, pollsters and monitors make it almost impossible to mitigate, not to mention ignore the enormity of finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict [or better described as Arab-Israeli war].

When one grasps the duration of the conflict and its roots, when one fully faces the depth of animosity towards Israel and the anti-Semitism that permeates the Arab world from the political, religious and intellectual elites down to the grass roots, the sheer magnitude of the challenge for peacemakers becomes painfully apparent.

When one admits the implications of Palestinian society’s behavior – the repetitive pattern of nearly 100 years of rejectionism on the diplomatic front and a penchant for terrorism against civilians, the “readiness” of Arabs for co-existence and the chances of a breakthrough assume their true proportions.

The unwillingness to accept Israel as a legitimate non-Muslim political entity is epitomized by the Palestinians asymmetrical demands for the Right of Return of all Palestinian refugees to the Jewish state coupled with a demand that the 'West Bank' and Gaza be cleansed of all Jews.

One cannot artificially narrow the scope of the conflict. One cannot duck the tough issues – whether in the Palestinian camp or the Arab world as a whole. Western leadership that is “Staying above the conflict” out of fear that demanding Arabs to ‘walk the talk’ will jeopardize one’s status as an honest broker has not and will not bring peace.

There has never been “a cycle of violence.” Resorting to such neutral terminology requires the U.S. and Europe to acquiesce to, and perpetuate a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Putting Israel and its neighbors on the same footing totally ignores the asymmetry of the history of the conflict and something as fundamental as “cause and effect.”

The truth is – one side has been the aggressor time-after-time. The Arabs have been the initiators of more than five major wars resulting in the death of more than 22,000 Israeli soldiers and civilians. Arabs continuously call for political and economic boycotts and unbridled incitement. The Palestinian Arabs have launched wave-after-wave of terrorism against Israelis and other Jews and made hate the fuel that directs and runs their society.

All this began before there was a State of Israel, before there was an “occupation” and it continues unabated to this day.

In response to these onslaughts, Israel has not demanded reparations for the horrific causalities it has sustained in its fight for survival against repeated Arab aggression.

It did not ask the Arab countries forrestitution on behalf of 899,000 Jews that fled “All Moslem Lands” [NY Times , May 16, 1948]. It has only asked that it be allowed to live in peace with recognized and defendable borders as suggested in UN Security Council Resolution 242, and to develop according to its own Jewish ethos, and this is hardly an excessive demand.


Eli E. Hertz

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16248#.VKmVnXuzchQ

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

The Brandeis University Debacle - Jerold S. Auerbach

by Jerold S. Auerbach

No Brandeis faculty member or student leader publicly defended Mael. Instead, he was excoriated for violating Lynch’s “privacy,” although it was she who had chosen to go public with her Facebook rant. Lynch absurdly accused Mael of “slander” for publicizing her public posting.

“Truth Even Unto Its Innermost Parts” has been the inspirational motto of Brandeis University ever since its founding in 1948. A self-described non-sectarian secular Jewish university, it was named in honor of the great liberal jurist Louis D. Brandeis. The university has displayed the tortured convolutions of liberalism ever since.

Herbert Marcuse, the philosopher-guru of the New Left, taught there between 1958-65. Among the students who imbibed the ideas developed in his oxymoronic essay “Repressive Tolerance” were Angela Davis and Abbie Hoffman. Marcuse, Davis recalled, “taught me that it was possible to be an academic, an activist, a scholar, and a revolutionary." The flamboyant Hoffman, a leader of the counterculture youth rebellion, also learned revolutionary theory from his mentor.

Several years after Marcuse’s departure, seventy African American students occupied Ford Hall for eleven days, renaming Brandeis the Malcolm X University. Then an attempt was made to set fire to the building that housed the political science and history departments, regarded by campus New Leftists as reactionary beyond the pale of legitimacy.

Brandeis remained true to its emerging credo of liberal intolerance -– increasingly toward Israel. In 1973 a chapter of Breira, the antecedent of J-Street, emerged to demand territorial concessions for a Palestinian state in the biblical homeland of the Jewish people. Among its student leaders was a young man named Thomas Friedman, who would subsequently develop his ideas as Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the New York Times. Two years ago the Brandeis chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine launched its first Israel Apartheid Week.

Last February the university proudly announced the forthcoming award of an honorary degree to Ayann Hirsi Ali for her courageous campaign against female genital mutilation, honor killing, and the radical Islamists who embraced this horrific agenda. But after the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) protested, Brandeis president Frederick Lawrence rescinded the award, claiming “We cannot overlook certain of her past statements.” A respected scholar of freedom of speech had spoken.

That was only a warmup exercise for the most recent fiasco at Brandeis. In late December, following the unprovoked murder of two New York City police officers, Brandeis student Khadijah Lynch tweeted on Facebook: “I have no sympathy for the nypd officers who were murdered today.” Repeating herself the following day, she added: “I hate this racist fucking country.” Lynch had already made a dismal name for herself months earlier when she was quoted in the student newspaper (ironically named The Justice): “American police forces of today descend from a legacy of slave captives and overseers whose job was to protect the property (enslaved black bodies) of rich, slave owning capitalists.” To be sure, the slain police officers were Latin and Asian.

Lynch, of course, is entitled to freedom of speech. So, too, are her critics. Prominent among them was Daniel Mael, a courageous Brandeis senior and journalist for TruthRevolt.com, who had vigorously protested the president’s cave-in over the withdrawn degree offer to Hirsi Ali. He quoted Lynch’s words in an article he published later that day. Mael was pilloried by students who rallied to Lynch’s defense, one of whom preposterously claimed that his news site is largely followed by “white supremacist(s).”

No Brandeis faculty member or student leader publicly defended Mael. Instead, he was excoriated for violating Lynch’s “privacy,” although it was she who had chosen to go public with her Facebook rant. Lynch absurdly accused Mael of “slander” for publicizing her public posting. She further exercised her own free-speech rights during a radio interview when she read from her poem: “surely the wretched are those rich white rapists, yes, those capitalists, those Zionists, those colonists, the ones we celebrate for their hatred....”

As in the Hirsi Ali contretemps, Brandeis President Lawrence entered the fray belatedly and vapidly. Defending the “free expression rights of all students” (while prudently asserting that “the views of one student do not represent the views of this University”), he advocated “a climate of mutual respect and civility” -– which Lynch and her coterie of supporters had blatantly disregarded.

Jewish Press correspondent Lori Lowenthal Marcus aptly labeled the Brandeis row “a battle for the soul of an institution” (12/28). Political scientist Abraham H. Miller described Brandeis’s “latest moment of shame” (JNS.org, 12/29) as President Lawrence once again capitulated to campus leftists. Having taught the history of freedom of speech at Brandeis (1965-71), I fondly remember when students were encouraged to respect the words of Justice Brandeis: “Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of free speech to free men from bondage of irrational fears...” (Whitney v. California [1927]. But that was before political correctness replaced “Truth Even Unto Its Innermost Parts.”


Jerold S. Auerbach, author of eleven books, is Professor Emeritus of History at Wellesley College

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_brandeis_university_debacle.html

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

The Palestinians’ Failed Attack on Israel at the UN - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Malaysia is replacing South Korea, which abstained, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the next two years.  Malaysia is expected to vote yes in support of the Palestinian initiative.

The United Nations Security Council was called into a special session on December 30, 2014 at the behest of the Palestinian Authority and its Arab Group supporters. The intent was for the Security Council to approve a resolution, submitted by the non-permanent Council member Jordan, imposing deadlines for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on Palestinian terms, including full Israeli withdrawal from all “occupied” territories within three years. The Palestinians thought they had the necessary nine-vote majority to pass the resolution, which would have forced the United States to use its veto power to defeat it. As it turned out, the Palestinians missed their target by one vote. The Security Council rejected the Palestinian bid to end-run direct negotiations with Israel by a vote of 8 members in favor of passage, 2 against and 5 abstentions.

The 8 countries voting in favor of the resolution were the Permanent Members France, China, and Russia, and the non-permanent members Jordan, Argentina, Chad, Chile, and Luxembourg. The United States and Australia voted against the resolution. The 5 abstaining countries were Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, South Korea and Rwanda.

France’s UN Ambassador Francois Delatorre explained France’s shameful yes vote as motivated by “the urgent need to act, by the profound necessity to change our methods, by the responsibility incumbent upon each member of the Security Council” France acceded to the Palestinians’ formula for a two-state solution, to be established through UN’s mechanisms and timetables rather than good faith direct negotiations between the parties to the conflict.

The French ambassador declared that only the Security Council can provide the “indisputable foundation in order for the negotiations to be credible. It is up to us to determine internationally recognized parameters to resolve the conflict, and negotiations that lead to the satisfaction of the various claims.” To that end, France went along with the deadline imposed by the draft resolution for completion of all negotiations and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the “occupied” territories.  It gave up on its own more temperate compromise draft.

The defeated draft Palestinian resolution included the following language, which attempted to set the parameters for final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the Palestinians’ terms:

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfils the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;
2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:
• borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;
• security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces, which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region;
• a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);

• a just resolution of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;
• the just settlement of all other outstanding issues, including water and prisoners;

The key elements that the Palestinians were seeking to enshrine by the clever wording in their draft resolution were (1) internationally recognized borders between an independent state of Palestine and Israel based essentially on the June 4, 1967 lines, (2) Security Council affirmation of the Palestinians’ assertion of their refugees’ so-called right of return to their so-called homes within pre-June 1967 Israeli borders; and (3) international recognition of the Palestinians’ claim to East Jerusalem (including the Old City with its holy sites) as their capital.

The draft resolution also called for, without any concrete conditions to protect the security of Israeli citizens, “a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods.” Despite Israel’s unilateral complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and Hamas’s governance of Gaza since 2007, using it as a launching pad for rockets aimed at Israeli population centers, the draft resolution sought to perpetuate the fiction that Gaza still remained part of the “occupied” Palestinian territory.

In an effort to make the draft resolution more palatable to wavering members of the Security Council, the drafters made reference to the need for ensuring “the security of both Israel and Palestine” and “preventing the resurgence of terrorism.” However, the drafters do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, but rather noble “resistance fighters.”

Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel and whose charter calls for the killing of Jews anywhere they can be found, was foiled by Israeli security forces late last year before it was able to carry out its plot to conduct widespread terrorist attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This was but another in a long line of Hamas-initiated terrorist plots and actions to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. Yet, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party associates have chosen to embrace Hamas as a partner in a so-called “unity” Palestinian government. That plan apparently fell apart last month when Hamas announced that the “unity” government had ended, at least for the time being.

Now that the Palestinians failed to get their draft resolution passed and the United States did not even have to exercise its veto power to ensure defeat of the resolution, where will they go from here?

The Palestinians are virtually certain to try again this year to get their draft resolution passed by the Security Council. They will probably succeed this time in getting the nine necessary votes, which would then require the U.S. to exercise its veto and risk wide-spread condemnation in the so-called “international community.” Malaysia is replacing South Korea, which abstained, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the next two years.  Malaysia is expected to vote yes in support of the Palestinian initiative.

In addition, Abbas moved ahead to sign the documents necessary to allow the so-called Palestinian state to join the International Criminal Court (ICC). Abbas intends to use the ICC to prosecute Israeli leaders for committing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. While no doubt causing potential trouble for Israel and subjecting its leaders to possible arrest if the ICC chooses to go forward with prosecution and issues arrest warrants, Abbas’s move could backfire.  If he claims to be representing a single unified Palestinian state, irrespective of the current limbo status of the reconciliation agreement with Hamas, Abbas cannot simply disavow Hamas’s own attacks against Israeli civilians.  His Palestinian Authority may be forced to deal with a case brought against Palestinian leaders for engaging in or supporting the commitment of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by Hamas and other Palestinian jihadists.

Moreover, there could well be severe economic repercussions that the Palestinians will have brought upon themselves by going ahead and joining the ICC.  Israel is virtually certain to impose severe economic sanctions and other measures that will hurt the Palestinian economy.  Although Israel is scheduled to hold parliamentary elections on March 17, it is unlikely that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would face much political backlash in taking a tough stance in response to Abbas’s ICC gambit.

The U.S. State Department has already condemned Abbas’s decision. And, especially with both the Senate and the House of Representatives under Republican control, a Congressional initiative to cut off funding to the Palestinians on account of their decision to join the ICC is a virtual certainty. Such legislation could well pass with enough votes to override a veto by President Obama if he were so foolish to do so.

All of these diplomatic maneuvers may be overshadowed this year by renewed widespread outbreaks of violence or moves by Hamas to force Abbas and his more secular Fatah party out of power and replace them with jihadists who reject even the pretense of any peace with Israel. The Israeli elections could also affect the course of events in the region.  No doubt, with the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions also still very much alive, 2015 will be a very challenging year for the Jewish state.

Joseph Klein

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/joseph-klein/the-palestinians-failed-attack-on-israel-at-the-un/

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

Palestinians Can Thank the U.S. For Their International Stature - Avi Davis

by Avi Davis

And doomed though it was, the fact that the Palestinians had the temerity to take such action-- is an indication of how woefully removed is the world from any sort of balanced perspective on the Middle East conflict.

A kleptocratic, corrupt, racist, terrorist-sponsoring political organization led by liars and thieves feels sufficiently emboldened to demand of the U.N. Security Council recognition of its sovereignty – and almost succeeds.

How did we get here?

The Palestinian leadership submission of a resolution to the U.N. Security Council on December 30th to recognize the State of Palestine was an act of hubris that makes Vladmir Putin’s interference in the Ukraine look like small potatoes. And doomed though it was, the fact that the Palestinians had the temerity to take such action, in violation of international commitments they have made, in abdication of their responsibility to negotiate all final matters of the disposition of the West Bank territories in good faith with the State of Israel, is an indication of how woefully removed is the world from any sort of balanced perspective on the Middle East conflict. 

Blame for this atrocious mess can be meted out to many, but let’s start with the United States itself.

It is true that the U.S. worked tirelessly to defeat the U.N resolution and was able to bring both Nigeria (which has traditionally voted against Israel on the Security Council) and Rwanda into abstention on the vote, ultimately defeating the measure on December 31st.   But that does not excuse its own conduct over the past 25 years in paying the PLO and its political embodiment, the Palestinian Authority, the virtual recognition of a sovereign state – a designation it has not earned and whose continued stature as a respected political institution only gives it more leverage to destroy what is left of the peace process.

It should never be forgotten that the Palestinian Authority was a creature of the Oslo Peace Process; it was formed from the bones of  the PLO – a terrorist organization – to provide a trustworthy face of Palestinian intentions to the world – one in which its leader, Yasser Arafat, a life long terrorist, would be transformed into a statesman. The idea was that if Arafat were given this badge of respectability he would take his statesmanship role seriously and would forswear violence for the sake of negotiation.  If it worked in Ireland, then why not in the Middle East?

It was the first mistake. Arafat never lived up to any of his commitments and then turned a blind eye to terrorism from within his own ranks.  Then in the year 2000, when he walked out of the Camp David peace talks between himself and Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, he decided to renounce statesmanship altogether in a return to terrorism.  For four years he led a hopeless insurrection against the Israelis, which ended with thousands of Palestinians either dead or injured and with himself a virtual prisoner in his Ramallah compound.   All the while he insisted that he had no control over the insurrection that he had masterminded and ruthlessly directed.

Almost all of this was known to the presidents, secretaries of state and associated political leaders in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.  Yet Clinton entertained Arafat as his guest at the White House for seven years a record 18 times, according him the status of a Head of State. Arafat took the dignity that this lent him to the bank – winning the open arms and financial support of the Europeans and many African and Asian nations.

George W. Bush, succeeding to office in 2001, wisely determined that nothing good could come from dealing with Arafat and refused to even meet with him – in the White House or anywhere else.

However, following Arafat’s death in November 2004, the new Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas became a regular visitor to the White House.  Bush now referred to him in official communications as “President” instead of “Chairman,” as was done with Arafat.  Abbas visited the White House while receiving the honor of a head of state on six different occasions.

But Bush went further in his second term. He allowed his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, to begin extensive discussions with Abbas, as the Administration developed an increasingly impatient attitude with the Israelis and an increasingly acquiescent one with the Palestinians. Nothing was done to condemn Abbas’ continued violations of the PLO’s commitment under the Oslo Accords.

The Obama Administration has outdone both of the previous administrations in its obsequious coddling of Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian mafia.  Its heavy-handed approach to Israel, while requiring nothing of the Palestinians in terms of compromise or fulfillment of prior obligations, has been a mark of shame for the administration. Repeated condemnations of Israeli building policy while failing to recognize that Abbas will not even concede a very basic proposition upon which successful negotiations hang  – the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state – has led to an entirely lopsided Middle East policy that has leaned heavily on Israel and left the Palestinians alone to do as they wished.  This, once again, only served to undeservedly enhance the stature of the Palestinians and has emboldened them to take measures and advance policies that are entirely at odds with American positions.

The Palestinians' second drive for U.N. recognition has failed but that does not mean that the Palestinians are likely to be drawn back into the orbit of the United States. To the contrary, the day on which the resolution failed, the Palestinians announced that they had signed the International Criminal Court's founding document, the first step in joining it - which would bring the Palestinians within the court’s jurisdiction and open up Israeli political and military leaders to possible indictment under international law.  Once again the Obama Administration will need to use its leverage to defeat this outrageous violation of previous Palestinian commitments.
But will it apply any real muscle?

The State Department on Wednesday condemned the Palestinian Authority for signing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, claiming that it was “deeply troubled” and that the Palestinian move was “counterproductive” and that it “badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace.”

When is that ‘deeply troubled ‘sentiment going to translate into real consequences for the Palestinians?  When is the Obama Administration going to realize that the United States has raised a wayward child which has now turned against its parent and that funding it and providing it diplomatic cover is tantamount to enablement?  It should be recognized that Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority is no different in character from Arafat’s version of the same entity and has transformed into just another rogue regime, opposed to the United States and U.S. national interests.

Mahmoud Abbas has led the U.S. in a clever dance for a decade, feigning interest in an accommodation with Israel while refusing to engage in serious negotiations.  It is time for the U.S. to make the Palestinians recognize that there is a price to be paid for defying their benefactors. Close the PLO offices in Washington D.C.; make future diplomatic recognition of the Palestinian Authority dependent on compliance with its internationally sanctioned agreements; tie all future funding to a proper accounting of Palestinian Authority finances and stop receiving Mahmoud Abbas in Washington D.C. as if he is a head of State, rather than the thieving, tin pot autocrat we know him to be.

These measures will give the Palestinian leaders the jolt they deserve and go some way to bringing them into line with U.S. policy and U.S. national interests.


Avi Davis is the President of the American Freedom Alliance and the editor of the Intermediate Zone

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