The United Nations and the mainstream media have exhibited a hypocritical, self-righteous sense of moral superiority that is only matched in its contempt…by a public that is willing to allow the UN and the media to define the issues of the day. Enough is enough.
Arab militias are rampaging across Africa, slaughtering hundreds of thousands and making million homeless, and the UN human rights commission can only muster a condemnation of Israel (for defending itself). The global press, on the other hand, not only doesn't accentuate the fact that the horror in Dafur is a religious war waged by Muslim extremists, but prefers to sell ads to "savedafur.org" rather than put this modern day holocaust on the front page until the public understands the consequences of "doing nothing".
Now the Palestinians in Gaza are fighting among themselves, using massive quantities of weaponry that have poured into Gaza (illegally) since Israel's withdrawal 18 months ago. According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 31 Palestinian children have been killed in the past 11 months because of internal "security chaos" which includes clan violence as well as inter-factional fighting. Children are in the line of fire, and not a word of condemnation from the UN - which only finds the nerve to raise its voice when it sees an opportunity to condemn Israel for defensive actions against Palestinian terrorists.
The UN and the global press appears satisfied to consider Palestinian on Palestinian anarchy an minor internal Palestinian matter not worthy of discussion, because they don't want to connect the dots: A two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is unattainable under the present circumstances. A reasonable person could not realistically expect the Palestinian people to make peace with ANYONE – much less Israel, when you factor in the unrelenting incitement to violence that has defined Palestinian society for decades. If the psychological detachment to acts of violence caused by cradle to grave incitement within Palestinian society is to be reversed, it will unquestionably take decades. Talk of a two state solution under these circumstances is totally unrealistic.
My three wishes for the New Year? That the UN/press take a hard stand on Islamic extremists in Africa, that the UN/press scrap the two state solution by declaring Jordan the Palestinian state (and moving the Arabs in the West bank and Gaza to Jordan), and the USA decides that – if the war is worth winning – that the best military plan in Iraq is to devote enough resources to go ahead and "win the war" and then "end the war".
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Time to change the "Rules of War".
The 11/28/06 speech in Memphis by Israel's Consul General of Israel to the Southeastern US, Ambassador Reda Mansour, was interesting in the sense that he was young, articulate, intelligent and entertaining - as are many of Israel's ambassadors. The core of Ambassador Mansour's presentation was to explain the difficulties that the Israeli army had in fighting the war with Hezbollah over the summer of 2006. The main explanation was the asymmetrical battle plan Israel implemented against an enemy that was trained at a higher level than expected, was better armed than expected, didn't wear uniforms, launched missiles from populated civilian areas, and then rushed to blend in with the local civilian population. Hindsight is 20/20, and I am sure everyone appreciated his candid explanation, however his commentary that a basic tenet of the Israeli military doctrine, as well as the nation itself – is that it holds itself to the highest "moral standards" in the way it conducts war, left a question unanswered; How can Israel, or the USA in Iraq for that matter - develop a successful tactical military strategy to fight this hybrid guerilla/army model when our tacticians are handcuffed by chains of "moral superiority" against an enemy who has no morals? How can we successfully win a war playing by the rules of the Geneva Conventions while our enemy exploits those very conventions to their tactical advantage?
I would suggest that as the first of many changes to military doctrine is that in light of the new tactics being used by Islamic extremists, the very definition of a civilian in a war zone be redefined. In the vast majority of cases (and especially in the recent war in Lebanon) the Lebanese civilians in the South were forewarned and had an option to depart. To suggest that they couldn't leave because Hezbollah blocked their exit should reflect negatively on Hezbollah, not on casualties that may result from an ensuing Israeli air strike. If civilians in a war zone refuse to vacate, then they should be considered enemy sympathizers/combatants. The "new rules of war" must clearly articulate the local government's responsibility in evacuating the young, crippled and elderly from a war zone.
A recent incident in the Palestinian Gaza strip clearly illustrates the absurdity of the abuse of the term "civilian", when armed terrorists were chased into a Mosque by the Israeli Defense Forces, and hundreds of Arab women and children surrounded them as human shields - knowing from past experience that the Israeli army would not harm them. Eventually, the terrorists donned head to toe burkas and fled the scene by blending into the departing crowd. This Rambo/Gandhi war tactic is only exceeded in it's absurdity by the fact that a government can allow war to be waged from it's territory, yet refuses to take responsibility for the safety of it's citizens in the path of war - and then claim their citizens are violated when caught in the crossfire.
Had the West been handcuffed with the chains of "moral superiority" during WW2, we would never have defeated the Nazis. The Allies bombed Dresden into a pile of rubble no higher than 2 feet tall. Not a building in Berlin escaped the wrath of our bombers and field artillery. There were, without a doubt, thousands of German victims of the Allied push to defeat the Nazis, but it was understood that their lives were not more important than our soldiers on the ground, and that the greater good of humanity had a priority over the plight of the individual in the path of war. We need to come to terms with the fact that the lives of our soldiers are more important than our enemies, and that the reason for waging war is worth what it takes to win.
I would suggest that as the first of many changes to military doctrine is that in light of the new tactics being used by Islamic extremists, the very definition of a civilian in a war zone be redefined. In the vast majority of cases (and especially in the recent war in Lebanon) the Lebanese civilians in the South were forewarned and had an option to depart. To suggest that they couldn't leave because Hezbollah blocked their exit should reflect negatively on Hezbollah, not on casualties that may result from an ensuing Israeli air strike. If civilians in a war zone refuse to vacate, then they should be considered enemy sympathizers/combatants. The "new rules of war" must clearly articulate the local government's responsibility in evacuating the young, crippled and elderly from a war zone.
A recent incident in the Palestinian Gaza strip clearly illustrates the absurdity of the abuse of the term "civilian", when armed terrorists were chased into a Mosque by the Israeli Defense Forces, and hundreds of Arab women and children surrounded them as human shields - knowing from past experience that the Israeli army would not harm them. Eventually, the terrorists donned head to toe burkas and fled the scene by blending into the departing crowd. This Rambo/Gandhi war tactic is only exceeded in it's absurdity by the fact that a government can allow war to be waged from it's territory, yet refuses to take responsibility for the safety of it's citizens in the path of war - and then claim their citizens are violated when caught in the crossfire.
Had the West been handcuffed with the chains of "moral superiority" during WW2, we would never have defeated the Nazis. The Allies bombed Dresden into a pile of rubble no higher than 2 feet tall. Not a building in Berlin escaped the wrath of our bombers and field artillery. There were, without a doubt, thousands of German victims of the Allied push to defeat the Nazis, but it was understood that their lives were not more important than our soldiers on the ground, and that the greater good of humanity had a priority over the plight of the individual in the path of war. We need to come to terms with the fact that the lives of our soldiers are more important than our enemies, and that the reason for waging war is worth what it takes to win.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Will surrendering Israel bring peace to the Mideast?
The "Spotlight: Islam analysis" supplied by the AP (CA Page A6 11/21/06) entitled "Regimes wary of Shiite power", brings into question whether the author (whomever it was) has made any effort to familiarize themselves with Mideast history before coming up with the faulted belief that peace in Iraq begins with Israeli peace (surrender?) with the Palestinians.
As the AP sees it, the enemies of Israel, the US, Britain and the entire Free World will suddenly become reliable friends of the West if only Israel is left at the tender mercy of the Arabs/Muslims – and in return, peace will reign over the Sunni/Shiite sectarian violence that is a result of the US invasion of Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary, the absence of Israel would actually exacerbate tensions in the Mideast by encouraging Arab military adventurism that is currently held in check by Israel's overwhelming conventional military superiority.
Shiite Islam evolved into a religious formulation with the martyrdom of Husayn in 680. At this point, the division between the Shiite and what came to be known as the Sunni was set, and thousands of years of bloody conflict between the two feuding factions of Islam ensued – during the original biblical state of Israel, well before the modern state of Israel, and well before the US invasion of Iraq. Muslims may agree that they hate Jews/Israelis, but there is more than enough evidence that they hate each other even more.
Surrendering Israel to pacify Iran and Syria may allow the US and Britain to surrender Iraq with their heads held high, but it will do nothing to stop the Muslim sectarian violence. The only tangible outcome is that the global Jihadists will view the retreat as their greatest victory, and it will only serve to encourage them to continue assaulting the ever retreating boundaries of the democratic, non-Muslim West.
As the AP sees it, the enemies of Israel, the US, Britain and the entire Free World will suddenly become reliable friends of the West if only Israel is left at the tender mercy of the Arabs/Muslims – and in return, peace will reign over the Sunni/Shiite sectarian violence that is a result of the US invasion of Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary, the absence of Israel would actually exacerbate tensions in the Mideast by encouraging Arab military adventurism that is currently held in check by Israel's overwhelming conventional military superiority.
Shiite Islam evolved into a religious formulation with the martyrdom of Husayn in 680. At this point, the division between the Shiite and what came to be known as the Sunni was set, and thousands of years of bloody conflict between the two feuding factions of Islam ensued – during the original biblical state of Israel, well before the modern state of Israel, and well before the US invasion of Iraq. Muslims may agree that they hate Jews/Israelis, but there is more than enough evidence that they hate each other even more.
Surrendering Israel to pacify Iran and Syria may allow the US and Britain to surrender Iraq with their heads held high, but it will do nothing to stop the Muslim sectarian violence. The only tangible outcome is that the global Jihadists will view the retreat as their greatest victory, and it will only serve to encourage them to continue assaulting the ever retreating boundaries of the democratic, non-Muslim West.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand lies
Israel and the United States have been routinely criticized in the Muslim world - and the greater global press for the deaths attributed to the wars in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the criticism is a product of a robust Muslim led PR strategy that depends on misused slogans like "dis-proportional force, apartheid, occupation, holocaust"etc., that have been repeated so often that the terms have become an accepted part of the narrative of this complicated long-term conflict. On a separate track, the Muslim PR campaign also heavily depends on the press to repeatedly display pictures of the dead and wounded in order to gain sympathy. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a picture taken out of context – or even diabolically staged - is worth a thousand lies.
The absurdity of this highly successful Muslim PR campaign is that Muslims commit atrocities against fellow Muslims and the press doesn't seem to even want to connect the dots to add context. According to the United Nations Population Fund, the worldwide total of just Muslim honor killing victims may be as high as 5, 000 women a year. Try putting that into context against a war where Israel is defending its civilian population – and many of the 1670 Lebanese dead were Hezbollah fighters or civilians that Hezbollah put in the line of fire.
In Iraq alone, tens of thousands are being killed in a frenzy of Muslim on Muslim sectarian violence, and those who criticize Israel (especially the far left) for defending itself find themselves deaf, dumb and blind. Evidently It's OK for Muslims to slaughter other Muslims for the smallest of perceived grievances (honor killings, religion), but g-d forbid if a Jew kills a Muslim in self-defense.
Death during war is bad, but it's even worse when the war stops and the violence that is defining Muslim societies continues to grow unabated. The global press should be ashamed at the abusive way in which it contributes to the mis-information campaign of the Muslim extremists, and in turn helps to re-inforce anti-Semitism in certain parts of the world that has reached levels reminiscent of the Nazi era.
The absurdity of this highly successful Muslim PR campaign is that Muslims commit atrocities against fellow Muslims and the press doesn't seem to even want to connect the dots to add context. According to the United Nations Population Fund, the worldwide total of just Muslim honor killing victims may be as high as 5, 000 women a year. Try putting that into context against a war where Israel is defending its civilian population – and many of the 1670 Lebanese dead were Hezbollah fighters or civilians that Hezbollah put in the line of fire.
In Iraq alone, tens of thousands are being killed in a frenzy of Muslim on Muslim sectarian violence, and those who criticize Israel (especially the far left) for defending itself find themselves deaf, dumb and blind. Evidently It's OK for Muslims to slaughter other Muslims for the smallest of perceived grievances (honor killings, religion), but g-d forbid if a Jew kills a Muslim in self-defense.
Death during war is bad, but it's even worse when the war stops and the violence that is defining Muslim societies continues to grow unabated. The global press should be ashamed at the abusive way in which it contributes to the mis-information campaign of the Muslim extremists, and in turn helps to re-inforce anti-Semitism in certain parts of the world that has reached levels reminiscent of the Nazi era.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Lessons from the Israeli/Hezbollah war (Summer 2006).
There are a number of lessons that one should note regarding the Israeli/Hezbollah war. First of all, the notion among many that the American pro-Israel lobby has too much influence over US foreign policy should be put to bed permanently. While Israel didn't need much prodding by the US to go after Hezbollah, it is without a doubt that the US was the calling the shots. Israel had been prodded by US pressure over the last 6 years to not attack Hezbollah for its egregious violations of UN resolution 1559. Only when the US saw unleashing Israel on Hezbollah as a way to bloody the nose of Hezbollah (and in turn their Iranian benefactor), did the US government give Israel the green light. Even more disturbing was the pressure that US diplomats put on Israel to accept a ceasefire at the very moment that they were on the verge of a clear victory (same thing happened in 1967 and 1973).
The other lesson? That Iran and Syria have nothing to fear from their overt state sponsorship of terrorism. The "plausible deniability" defense that they depend on when using proxy terrorist forces is their "winning strategy" that they will surely use again and again (and that the West is only too willing to ignore).
Now that the USA has knelt down at the foot of Iran and Syria, they will surely teach us other "lessons" in the not-too-distant future.
The other lesson? That Iran and Syria have nothing to fear from their overt state sponsorship of terrorism. The "plausible deniability" defense that they depend on when using proxy terrorist forces is their "winning strategy" that they will surely use again and again (and that the West is only too willing to ignore).
Now that the USA has knelt down at the foot of Iran and Syria, they will surely teach us other "lessons" in the not-too-distant future.
Friday, August 04, 2006
The UN: Irredeemably Irrelevant and insignificant?
The current conflict between the Lebanon based Hezbollah terrorist group and the State of Israel is a by-product of a corrupt United Nations. The UN has failed over the past 6 years to demand that the Lebanese government fulfill it's obligations under UN resolution 1559, which called for the Lebanese army to deploy its forces in Southern Lebanon. The UN Unifil forces in Southern Lebanon- numbering 6,000 at its height and only 2,000 today - have clearly observed Hezbollah's illegal buildup of arms and construction of hardened border defenses, some within yards of the UN compounds. The Unifil forces in Lebanon also watched helplessly while Hezbollah terrorists crossed into Israel in order to instigate cross border skirmishes that ended up culminating in the current conflict.
On Wednesday, August 26th, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, which is in direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations, specifically (but not limited to) article 4/1: " Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." The UN's response to Iran's open threats of a fellow member of the UN, as well as Iran's complicity in the Hezbollah/Israel conflict is to ignore Iran and focus on Israel's use of force to defend itself. It's one thing to have a border dispute or even a military altercation with a fellow UN member. It's altogether another story when a member of the UN calls for the annihilation of another member state.
Those who espouse extremist Islamic fascism make no bones about their jihadist goal of creating a global Islamic Caliphate to rule the world, much like Hitler's dreams of a purely Aryan world with Germany at the helm. These Islamic threats, however, are falling on deaf ears, despite the mountains of evidence literally strewn across New York, Bali, Madrid, Moscow, Beirut, Tel Aviv, London - and dozens of other places where Islamic fascists have committed terrorist atrocities. The only explanation being that it is human nature to ignore threats as long as one isn't directly affected, then to appease when affected - but unwilling to defend one's rights, and eventually capitulate when one finds that appeasement is not sufficient.
The UN has a constructive role to play on the world stage, but in its present form, it is not only worthless, it is dangerous and/or deadly to those who hold stock in its ability to protect those who view UN resolutions as vehicles to promote stability and change in areas of conflict. What can the UN do to put it on the road to legitimacy? First of all, the Security Council (and possibly the General Assembly) should give Iran a short deadline to rescind its death threat against Israel, or be expelled as a member of the UN. Secondly, it should demand, under the threat of UN force, that Iran not only stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah, but should also immediately suspend Iranian nuclear activities with verifiable audits of compliance. If the UN refuses to take a stand at such a critical time in its short life, then one can only presume that the UN will continue to be an institution drowning in it's own irrelevance and insignificance.
On Wednesday, August 26th, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, which is in direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations, specifically (but not limited to) article 4/1: " Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." The UN's response to Iran's open threats of a fellow member of the UN, as well as Iran's complicity in the Hezbollah/Israel conflict is to ignore Iran and focus on Israel's use of force to defend itself. It's one thing to have a border dispute or even a military altercation with a fellow UN member. It's altogether another story when a member of the UN calls for the annihilation of another member state.
Those who espouse extremist Islamic fascism make no bones about their jihadist goal of creating a global Islamic Caliphate to rule the world, much like Hitler's dreams of a purely Aryan world with Germany at the helm. These Islamic threats, however, are falling on deaf ears, despite the mountains of evidence literally strewn across New York, Bali, Madrid, Moscow, Beirut, Tel Aviv, London - and dozens of other places where Islamic fascists have committed terrorist atrocities. The only explanation being that it is human nature to ignore threats as long as one isn't directly affected, then to appease when affected - but unwilling to defend one's rights, and eventually capitulate when one finds that appeasement is not sufficient.
The UN has a constructive role to play on the world stage, but in its present form, it is not only worthless, it is dangerous and/or deadly to those who hold stock in its ability to protect those who view UN resolutions as vehicles to promote stability and change in areas of conflict. What can the UN do to put it on the road to legitimacy? First of all, the Security Council (and possibly the General Assembly) should give Iran a short deadline to rescind its death threat against Israel, or be expelled as a member of the UN. Secondly, it should demand, under the threat of UN force, that Iran not only stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah, but should also immediately suspend Iranian nuclear activities with verifiable audits of compliance. If the UN refuses to take a stand at such a critical time in its short life, then one can only presume that the UN will continue to be an institution drowning in it's own irrelevance and insignificance.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Thoughts on "getting old"
Do you realize that the only time in our lives when we like to get old is when we're kids? If you're less than 10 years old, you're so excited about aging that you think in fractions.
"How old are you?" "I'm four and a half!" You're never thirty-six and
a half. You're four and a half, going on five! That's the key
You get into your teens, now they can't hold you back. You jump to the next number, or even a few ahead.
"How old are you?" "I'm gonna be 16!" You u could be 13, but hey, you're gonna be 16! And then the greatest day of your life . . . you become 21. Even the words sound like a ceremony. YOU BECOME 21. YESSSS!!!
But then you turn 30. Oooohh, what happened there? Makes you sound like bad milk! He TURNED; we had to throw him out. There's no fun now, you're Just a sour-dumpling. What's wrong? What's changed?
You BECOME 21, you TURN 30, then you're PUSHING 40. Whoa! Put on the
brakes, it's all slipping away. Before you know it, you REACH 50 and your dreams are gone.
But wait!!! You MAKE it to 60. You didn't think you would!
So you BECOME 21, TURN 30, PUSH 40, REACH 50 and MAKE it to 60.
You've built up so much speed that you HIT 70! After that it's a day-by-day thing; you HIT Wednesday!
You get into your 80s and every day is a complete cycle; you HIT lunch; you TURN 4:30; you REACH bedtime And it doesn't end there. Into the 90s, you start going backwards; "I Was JUST 92."
Then a strange thing happens. If you make it over 100, you become a little kid again. "I'm 100 and a half!"
May you all make it to a healthy 100 and a half!!
HOW TO STAY YOUNG
1. Throw out nonessential numbers. This includes age, weight and height. Let the doctors worry about them. That is why you pay "them."
2. Keep only cheerful friends. The grouches pull you down.
3. Keep learning. Learn more about the computer, crafts, gardening, whatever. Never let the brain idle. "An idle mind is the devil's workshop." And the devil's name is Alzheimer's.
4. Enjoy the simple things.
5. Laugh often, long and loud. Laugh until you gasp for breath.
6. The tears happen. Endure, grieve, and move on. The only person, who is with us our entire life, is ourselves. Be ALIVE while you are alive.
7. Surround yourself with what you love, whether it's family, pets, keepsakes, music, plants, hobbies, whatever. Your home is your refuge.
8. Cherish your health h: If it is good, preserve it. If it is unstable, improve it. If it is beyond what you can improve, get help.
9 Don't take guilt trips. Take a trip to the mall, even to the next county; to a foreign country but NOT to where the guilt is.
10. Tell the people you love that you love them, at every opportunity.
AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
"How old are you?" "I'm four and a half!" You're never thirty-six and
a half. You're four and a half, going on five! That's the key
You get into your teens, now they can't hold you back. You jump to the next number, or even a few ahead.
"How old are you?" "I'm gonna be 16!" You u could be 13, but hey, you're gonna be 16! And then the greatest day of your life . . . you become 21. Even the words sound like a ceremony. YOU BECOME 21. YESSSS!!!
But then you turn 30. Oooohh, what happened there? Makes you sound like bad milk! He TURNED; we had to throw him out. There's no fun now, you're Just a sour-dumpling. What's wrong? What's changed?
You BECOME 21, you TURN 30, then you're PUSHING 40. Whoa! Put on the
brakes, it's all slipping away. Before you know it, you REACH 50 and your dreams are gone.
But wait!!! You MAKE it to 60. You didn't think you would!
So you BECOME 21, TURN 30, PUSH 40, REACH 50 and MAKE it to 60.
You've built up so much speed that you HIT 70! After that it's a day-by-day thing; you HIT Wednesday!
You get into your 80s and every day is a complete cycle; you HIT lunch; you TURN 4:30; you REACH bedtime And it doesn't end there. Into the 90s, you start going backwards; "I Was JUST 92."
Then a strange thing happens. If you make it over 100, you become a little kid again. "I'm 100 and a half!"
May you all make it to a healthy 100 and a half!!
HOW TO STAY YOUNG
1. Throw out nonessential numbers. This includes age, weight and height. Let the doctors worry about them. That is why you pay "them."
2. Keep only cheerful friends. The grouches pull you down.
3. Keep learning. Learn more about the computer, crafts, gardening, whatever. Never let the brain idle. "An idle mind is the devil's workshop." And the devil's name is Alzheimer's.
4. Enjoy the simple things.
5. Laugh often, long and loud. Laugh until you gasp for breath.
6. The tears happen. Endure, grieve, and move on. The only person, who is with us our entire life, is ourselves. Be ALIVE while you are alive.
7. Surround yourself with what you love, whether it's family, pets, keepsakes, music, plants, hobbies, whatever. Your home is your refuge.
8. Cherish your health h: If it is good, preserve it. If it is unstable, improve it. If it is beyond what you can improve, get help.
9 Don't take guilt trips. Take a trip to the mall, even to the next county; to a foreign country but NOT to where the guilt is.
10. Tell the people you love that you love them, at every opportunity.
AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Should Israel respond to Hezbollah attacks proportionately?
There is little debate among the international community that Israel has a sovereign right to defend its citizens and border from aggression that emanates from Lebanese soil via the Hezbollah terrorist group. The only argument against the Israeli response that seems to find any traction is the argument of proportionality – that Israel is fighting back too hard, and in the process is destroying the Lebanese infrastructure, and killing too many innocent Lebanese civilians.
Paramount in this discussion is the fact that Israel only wants peace with its Arab neighbors, and regrets having to cause harm to a country that is the playground for the devious military mis-adventures of Iran and Syria. The Hezbollah paymasters sit comfortably in Damascus and Tehran while they watch a fight they instigated take place on Lebanese soil. Maybe the world community should consider aiming its criticism at the source of the conflict, Iran and Syria. No country, especially a tiny country like Israel, would tolerate hundreds of suicide bombings and thousands of deadly missiles raining down on its citizens, much less have its troops killed and/or kidnapped. A harsh response is to be expected. Would it make the global community happier - if more Israelis died in order to make the deaths more proportional? How cynical.
More importantly, the Israelis have always anticipated a heavy Hezbollah bombardment of the Northern border areas, and have prepared bunkers and early warning systems to protect their citizens. If Lebanon is going to "allow" a terrorist militia to fire rockets into Israel, then they should invest in protecting their citizens from Israel's logical response. Their failure to do so is a main reason for the Lebanese civilians' death toll.
With that said, the deliberate destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure by the Israeli military serves two purposes: First of all, destroying bridges, electrical grids and airports has strategic military value. It prevents their enemy from fleeing and/or re-arming. Secondly, it sends a message to the Lebanese, the Syrians, Iranians and everyone else who considers themselves the "enemy" of Israel that the price of terrorist /military adventures against Israel is "priceless".
The death toll of Lebanese civilians is regrettable, but their lives are not worth more than an Israeli life, and the Lebanese people have allowed Hezbollah to become part of their government and wage war on Israel from their soil. Hezbollah's strategy of using civilians as human shields, and storing weapons caches in civilian homes is clearly the reason why there are more civilian casualties than the usual civilian "collateral damage".
The world calls for Israeli proportionality? There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and only 12 million Jews. It would not come as a surprise to anyone that at least 10% of the Muslim world (or 150 million Muslims) would love to martyr themselves if it meant that Israel would be destroyed. In the case for proportionality, it would only take 6 million Muslims to wipe out the 6 million Israelis…and the Muslim volunteers would line-up faster than you can say "72 virgins".
Those calling for proportionality are discounting the value that Israelis put on life vs. the twisted psychology behind Muslim extremists who decapitate and mutilate fellow Muslims with so much enthusiasm that it is hard to believe the atrocities that they are committing, much less what atrocities they would commit if they ever had a chance to rampage through Tel Aviv.
Some Muslims are fighting for what they believe is a right to their homeland, other Muslims are fighting to realize the pan-Arab dream of a Mideast that is 100% Muslim, others are fighting just because they hate and want to kill Israelis/Jews. To the Israelis it doesn't matter why the Arabs/Muslim want to kill them. As an Israeli father told me the other day, "they shoot a few missiles at us, we shoot a lot of missiles at them, they kill a few of us, and we kill a lot of them. We are fighting for our existence".
The entire Israeli/Hezbollah war that is dominating the global press is a result of the failure of the United Nations to enforce UN resolution 1559, in which the government of Lebanon agreed to remove Hezbollah from the border. For the past 6 years, the UN's UNIFIL force of 6,000 was reduced to 2,000 – and they sat and watched while Hezbollah not only re-armed, but hardened their defenses on the border. It is ludicrous to expect Israel to even entertain the whims of the EU or UN when it comes to exerting its sovereign rights to protect its citizens. The result of an Israeli proportional response is that it would be death by a thousand cuts. The Muslim world would easily (gladly) absorb 100,000 dead soldiers over a 2 year period, if it meant Israel would lose 100,000 too. The idea that Israel should fight a war for survival "proportionately" is absolutely ridiculous. The concept of proportionality allows the aggressor to dictate their opponent's response. That is a recipe for an endless cycle of violence. Wars are fought - and like a fire, they will burn out when one side wins.
Paramount in this discussion is the fact that Israel only wants peace with its Arab neighbors, and regrets having to cause harm to a country that is the playground for the devious military mis-adventures of Iran and Syria. The Hezbollah paymasters sit comfortably in Damascus and Tehran while they watch a fight they instigated take place on Lebanese soil. Maybe the world community should consider aiming its criticism at the source of the conflict, Iran and Syria. No country, especially a tiny country like Israel, would tolerate hundreds of suicide bombings and thousands of deadly missiles raining down on its citizens, much less have its troops killed and/or kidnapped. A harsh response is to be expected. Would it make the global community happier - if more Israelis died in order to make the deaths more proportional? How cynical.
More importantly, the Israelis have always anticipated a heavy Hezbollah bombardment of the Northern border areas, and have prepared bunkers and early warning systems to protect their citizens. If Lebanon is going to "allow" a terrorist militia to fire rockets into Israel, then they should invest in protecting their citizens from Israel's logical response. Their failure to do so is a main reason for the Lebanese civilians' death toll.
With that said, the deliberate destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure by the Israeli military serves two purposes: First of all, destroying bridges, electrical grids and airports has strategic military value. It prevents their enemy from fleeing and/or re-arming. Secondly, it sends a message to the Lebanese, the Syrians, Iranians and everyone else who considers themselves the "enemy" of Israel that the price of terrorist /military adventures against Israel is "priceless".
The death toll of Lebanese civilians is regrettable, but their lives are not worth more than an Israeli life, and the Lebanese people have allowed Hezbollah to become part of their government and wage war on Israel from their soil. Hezbollah's strategy of using civilians as human shields, and storing weapons caches in civilian homes is clearly the reason why there are more civilian casualties than the usual civilian "collateral damage".
The world calls for Israeli proportionality? There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and only 12 million Jews. It would not come as a surprise to anyone that at least 10% of the Muslim world (or 150 million Muslims) would love to martyr themselves if it meant that Israel would be destroyed. In the case for proportionality, it would only take 6 million Muslims to wipe out the 6 million Israelis…and the Muslim volunteers would line-up faster than you can say "72 virgins".
Those calling for proportionality are discounting the value that Israelis put on life vs. the twisted psychology behind Muslim extremists who decapitate and mutilate fellow Muslims with so much enthusiasm that it is hard to believe the atrocities that they are committing, much less what atrocities they would commit if they ever had a chance to rampage through Tel Aviv.
Some Muslims are fighting for what they believe is a right to their homeland, other Muslims are fighting to realize the pan-Arab dream of a Mideast that is 100% Muslim, others are fighting just because they hate and want to kill Israelis/Jews. To the Israelis it doesn't matter why the Arabs/Muslim want to kill them. As an Israeli father told me the other day, "they shoot a few missiles at us, we shoot a lot of missiles at them, they kill a few of us, and we kill a lot of them. We are fighting for our existence".
The entire Israeli/Hezbollah war that is dominating the global press is a result of the failure of the United Nations to enforce UN resolution 1559, in which the government of Lebanon agreed to remove Hezbollah from the border. For the past 6 years, the UN's UNIFIL force of 6,000 was reduced to 2,000 – and they sat and watched while Hezbollah not only re-armed, but hardened their defenses on the border. It is ludicrous to expect Israel to even entertain the whims of the EU or UN when it comes to exerting its sovereign rights to protect its citizens. The result of an Israeli proportional response is that it would be death by a thousand cuts. The Muslim world would easily (gladly) absorb 100,000 dead soldiers over a 2 year period, if it meant Israel would lose 100,000 too. The idea that Israel should fight a war for survival "proportionately" is absolutely ridiculous. The concept of proportionality allows the aggressor to dictate their opponent's response. That is a recipe for an endless cycle of violence. Wars are fought - and like a fire, they will burn out when one side wins.
Friday, July 14, 2006
58 years of lessons learned in the Mideast
They say that hindsight is 20/20. If that is the case, then the apparent re-writing of the rules of engagement by the Israeli military vis-Ã -vis their Arab/Muslim enemies - whether they are in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran is clearly a lesson learned the hard way.
Lesson #1: Land for peace is a dead issue going forward.
The Israeli pullout from Gaza - and the Israeli pullout from Lebanon years ago, only served to demonstrate that the Israeli efforts to give up "land" in exchange for "peace" has produced just the opposite – an Arab/Muslim perception of Israeli weakness. If terrorism produces Israeli concessions, isn't it logical that more terrorism would produce more Israeli concessions? If anything, Israel may have to takeover a large swath of land in both Lebanon and Gaza in order to put Arab missiles out of range.
Lesson #2: Don't trust the UN.
The Israeli pullout from Lebanon was brokered by the UN with the understanding that the Lebanese border would become de-militarized, and that the Lebanese government would re-establish control over its southern border. In addition, the UN stationed UN troops on the Israeli/Lebanese border in order to verify compliance with the peace agreement. A decade later, Hezbollah has established a significant up-graded military capability on the border, right under the noses of the UN "peacekeepers". In the most recent border incident, the UN troops were nowhere to be found (The same weak kneed UN troops did the same on the Egyptian border right before the 1973 war).
Lesson #3: Peace agreements are worthless if the facts on the ground don't back up the rhetoric.
Signing peace agreements (Oslo, Taba, and Roadmap, just to name a few) before the two parties are really ready for peace is a recipe for failure and disappointment. As long as the incitement against Israel in the Arab world continues, there can be no real peace. Given the systemic anti-Israel incitement that Palestinian society has been exposed to for the past 60 years, it will be another 25 years before they are ready for peace, presuming they were to reverse course tomorrow.
Lesson #4: The Palestinian argument against Israel – and for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West bank must no longer be accepted as a fiat accompli.
As part of re-writing the rules, popular Palestinian catch phases like "occupation, collective punishment, etc" are mythical mantras that have no roots in reality, now that Israel has vacated Gaza and the Palestinians have endorsed a terrorist entity to govern them. The concept of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank connected by a road or train that bisects Israel, is an unworkable, unacceptable solution to the conflict. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was the supreme litmus test for the Palestinians to demonstrate their willingness to govern themselves peacefully – a test which they failed miserably. It must also be acknowledged that a bi-national state is also an unworkable solution, given the long-term animosity between the 2 parties. Therefore, alternative solutions to the conflict - until now considered "off the table", must be put on the table for consideration, i.e.; the West Bank and Gaza reverting back to Jordanian and Egyptian control, or moving the entire Palestinian population to Jordan (and renaming it Palestine).
Lesson #5: The next peace plan, many years from now, is going to require the Palestinians to take a leap of faith, not the Israelis.
A few lessons that are yet to be learned:
Lesson #6: Iran and Syria are the real culprits (and Lebanon their victim), and they shouldn't expect their strategy of plausible deniability to make them exempt from retaliation.
The Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups could not function at such a high threat level if it wasn't for certain state sponsors - primarily Iran and Syria, who provide financial, logistical, and military support. Punishing only their surrogates – Hamas and Hezbollah, is like blaming the tail of the dog for sitting on the living room sofa.
Lesson #7: The arrogance of moral superiority that handcuff both the US and Israeli military from accomplishing their task is the secret arrow in the quiver of Islamic extremists.
While the US and Israeli military are correct in trying to minimize civilian casualties, it must be remembered that WW2 would not have come to a successful conclusion had we not blanket bombed Dresden and Berlin. The Palestinian people elected a terrorist government, and the Lebanese people have allowed Hezbollah to use their soil. Both are complicate in allowing aggression to emanate from their territory, and if they suffer collateral damage, it is a result of their own inaction. International pressure for Israel to use measured responses for the past 6 years has only enabled and encouraged more violence from their Arab neighbors.
Lesson #1: Land for peace is a dead issue going forward.
The Israeli pullout from Gaza - and the Israeli pullout from Lebanon years ago, only served to demonstrate that the Israeli efforts to give up "land" in exchange for "peace" has produced just the opposite – an Arab/Muslim perception of Israeli weakness. If terrorism produces Israeli concessions, isn't it logical that more terrorism would produce more Israeli concessions? If anything, Israel may have to takeover a large swath of land in both Lebanon and Gaza in order to put Arab missiles out of range.
Lesson #2: Don't trust the UN.
The Israeli pullout from Lebanon was brokered by the UN with the understanding that the Lebanese border would become de-militarized, and that the Lebanese government would re-establish control over its southern border. In addition, the UN stationed UN troops on the Israeli/Lebanese border in order to verify compliance with the peace agreement. A decade later, Hezbollah has established a significant up-graded military capability on the border, right under the noses of the UN "peacekeepers". In the most recent border incident, the UN troops were nowhere to be found (The same weak kneed UN troops did the same on the Egyptian border right before the 1973 war).
Lesson #3: Peace agreements are worthless if the facts on the ground don't back up the rhetoric.
Signing peace agreements (Oslo, Taba, and Roadmap, just to name a few) before the two parties are really ready for peace is a recipe for failure and disappointment. As long as the incitement against Israel in the Arab world continues, there can be no real peace. Given the systemic anti-Israel incitement that Palestinian society has been exposed to for the past 60 years, it will be another 25 years before they are ready for peace, presuming they were to reverse course tomorrow.
Lesson #4: The Palestinian argument against Israel – and for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West bank must no longer be accepted as a fiat accompli.
As part of re-writing the rules, popular Palestinian catch phases like "occupation, collective punishment, etc" are mythical mantras that have no roots in reality, now that Israel has vacated Gaza and the Palestinians have endorsed a terrorist entity to govern them. The concept of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank connected by a road or train that bisects Israel, is an unworkable, unacceptable solution to the conflict. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was the supreme litmus test for the Palestinians to demonstrate their willingness to govern themselves peacefully – a test which they failed miserably. It must also be acknowledged that a bi-national state is also an unworkable solution, given the long-term animosity between the 2 parties. Therefore, alternative solutions to the conflict - until now considered "off the table", must be put on the table for consideration, i.e.; the West Bank and Gaza reverting back to Jordanian and Egyptian control, or moving the entire Palestinian population to Jordan (and renaming it Palestine).
Lesson #5: The next peace plan, many years from now, is going to require the Palestinians to take a leap of faith, not the Israelis.
A few lessons that are yet to be learned:
Lesson #6: Iran and Syria are the real culprits (and Lebanon their victim), and they shouldn't expect their strategy of plausible deniability to make them exempt from retaliation.
The Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups could not function at such a high threat level if it wasn't for certain state sponsors - primarily Iran and Syria, who provide financial, logistical, and military support. Punishing only their surrogates – Hamas and Hezbollah, is like blaming the tail of the dog for sitting on the living room sofa.
Lesson #7: The arrogance of moral superiority that handcuff both the US and Israeli military from accomplishing their task is the secret arrow in the quiver of Islamic extremists.
While the US and Israeli military are correct in trying to minimize civilian casualties, it must be remembered that WW2 would not have come to a successful conclusion had we not blanket bombed Dresden and Berlin. The Palestinian people elected a terrorist government, and the Lebanese people have allowed Hezbollah to use their soil. Both are complicate in allowing aggression to emanate from their territory, and if they suffer collateral damage, it is a result of their own inaction. International pressure for Israel to use measured responses for the past 6 years has only enabled and encouraged more violence from their Arab neighbors.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Muslim criticism of Israeli democracy: Just tryng to change the subject?
The Arab and anti-Israel press has made a concerted effort to misrepresent the recent landmark Israeli Supreme court ruling barring Palestinians from marrying Israeli Arabs and being allowed to move into Israel. They liberally use such catch phrases as "racist, Nazi, apartheid, anti-democratic and anti-family" to describe the intent and motive of the Israeli Supreme Court. Not withstanding the natural bias of Muslims and Arabs against Israel, and their desperate attempt to score PR points - their argument condemning the quality of Israel's democracy demonstrates an inability to understand the complexity of the different variations of democracy that exist around the world.
The recently passed Israeli Supreme Court Law specifically bars Palestinians residing outside of Israel from living in Israel with Israeli spouses and children, and was based on security concerns, not an undemocratic attempt to disenfranchise resident Israeli Arabs. The landmark Israeli supreme court ruling said that "security concerns for the greater good outweighed harm to those affected by the decision'. More specifically, there have been numerous instances of sham marriages between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian terrorists who have been caught red-handed in numerous plots to commit large scale attacks against Israeli civilian targets. In a few instances, they succeeded in killing dozens - including American citizens.
Democracies have always placed various legal limitations on their citizens, specifically limits on anti-democratic speech, attempts to undermine human rights, and on the promotion or justification of terrorism. During the cold war, the United States had such restrictions on the Communists. Now they are more commonly applied to Islamist organizations perceived as promoting terrorism, as well as some racist groups.
The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, allowing free speech for those advocating mass murder undermines the right to life and security. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend, to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process. If relatively small numbers of people are excluded from such freedoms for these reasons, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy.
With that said, these very Muslim/Arab critics from outside Israel don't speak for Israeli Arabs, who have the highest standard of living in the Mideast – both economically and socially. Is life in Israel perfect? No. Is life anywhere perfect? No. If there is a shameful crime that exists in the Mideast today, it is in the fact that Palestinian refugees have been denied permanent resettlement in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the other Arab nations that have perpetuated this conflict by devious design.
At the end of the day, Muslim/Arab attempts to complain about the quality of Israel's democracy is nothing more than an attempt to "change the subject". The Palestinians have democratically elected a terrorist organization to lead them, and in doing so, they have endorsed terrorism. Now they have to live with the consequences of their actions, and "changing the subject" just doesn't work anymore.
The recently passed Israeli Supreme Court Law specifically bars Palestinians residing outside of Israel from living in Israel with Israeli spouses and children, and was based on security concerns, not an undemocratic attempt to disenfranchise resident Israeli Arabs. The landmark Israeli supreme court ruling said that "security concerns for the greater good outweighed harm to those affected by the decision'. More specifically, there have been numerous instances of sham marriages between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian terrorists who have been caught red-handed in numerous plots to commit large scale attacks against Israeli civilian targets. In a few instances, they succeeded in killing dozens - including American citizens.
Democracies have always placed various legal limitations on their citizens, specifically limits on anti-democratic speech, attempts to undermine human rights, and on the promotion or justification of terrorism. During the cold war, the United States had such restrictions on the Communists. Now they are more commonly applied to Islamist organizations perceived as promoting terrorism, as well as some racist groups.
The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, allowing free speech for those advocating mass murder undermines the right to life and security. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend, to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process. If relatively small numbers of people are excluded from such freedoms for these reasons, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy.
With that said, these very Muslim/Arab critics from outside Israel don't speak for Israeli Arabs, who have the highest standard of living in the Mideast – both economically and socially. Is life in Israel perfect? No. Is life anywhere perfect? No. If there is a shameful crime that exists in the Mideast today, it is in the fact that Palestinian refugees have been denied permanent resettlement in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the other Arab nations that have perpetuated this conflict by devious design.
At the end of the day, Muslim/Arab attempts to complain about the quality of Israel's democracy is nothing more than an attempt to "change the subject". The Palestinians have democratically elected a terrorist organization to lead them, and in doing so, they have endorsed terrorism. Now they have to live with the consequences of their actions, and "changing the subject" just doesn't work anymore.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Where is the American Indian Liberation Organization?
In the ill-fated Munich Pact signed with Hitler in 1938, Britain's Chamberlain surrendered to Germany's demand to annex the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, inhabited by Germans for centuries. The Nazis soon occupied the whole country, and then invaded Poland.
Liberated by the Allies in 1945, the Czechs regained the Sudetenland, expelling 2.5 million of its ethnic Germans to Germany as authorized at the Potsdam Conference.
There is a parallel between the German Sudets and the Palestinian refugees - except that the latter refuse to accept the universal code that aggressors must pay for their acts.
A final agreement between the Germans and the Czechs was signed in December 1946, recognizing that the German Sudets were expelled on the understanding that they were pro-Nazi and, as such, enemies of the Czechs. Both sides agreed that the German Sudets would receive neither compensation nor apology. During the ensuing Cold War, the descendants of these Germans demanded to return to their "ancestral homeland" - but in vain.
Had the Palestinians accepted the 1948 UN partition resolution instead of waging an aggressive war, there would have been no refugees.... The initial refugee problem of 1948 was exacerbated when Egypt and Syria launched their failed Six Day War against Israel in 1967.... Never before in history have those who lost wars of aggression been deemed equal partners in the negotiation, and for good reason - aggressors should not have incentives for perpetrating acts of aggression.
The Palestinian refugees are victims, but not of Israel. Rather, they are the victims of wars launched - ostensibly for them - by the Arab states, but for which they pay the price. They are the victims, effectively, of Arab aggression against Israel.
The Palestinian refugee problem is allowed - even forced - to continue and to grow. Of the approximately 135 million refugees created over the last century, only the Palestinians have retained this dismal, nationless status. Every other major refugee group has been resettled within a generation.
Whether the Palestinian refugees have been denied resettlement by tragic oversight, or devious design, the Arab world should take responsibility by resettling them, and paying substantial restitution for the damages inflicted on them over the past by 54 years.
With the Palestinian conflict out of the way, the world should be able to, presumably, focus on other issues without the Palestinian issue dominating – and providing an excuse for – much of the violence coming from that part of the world.
Liberated by the Allies in 1945, the Czechs regained the Sudetenland, expelling 2.5 million of its ethnic Germans to Germany as authorized at the Potsdam Conference.
There is a parallel between the German Sudets and the Palestinian refugees - except that the latter refuse to accept the universal code that aggressors must pay for their acts.
A final agreement between the Germans and the Czechs was signed in December 1946, recognizing that the German Sudets were expelled on the understanding that they were pro-Nazi and, as such, enemies of the Czechs. Both sides agreed that the German Sudets would receive neither compensation nor apology. During the ensuing Cold War, the descendants of these Germans demanded to return to their "ancestral homeland" - but in vain.
Had the Palestinians accepted the 1948 UN partition resolution instead of waging an aggressive war, there would have been no refugees.... The initial refugee problem of 1948 was exacerbated when Egypt and Syria launched their failed Six Day War against Israel in 1967.... Never before in history have those who lost wars of aggression been deemed equal partners in the negotiation, and for good reason - aggressors should not have incentives for perpetrating acts of aggression.
The Palestinian refugees are victims, but not of Israel. Rather, they are the victims of wars launched - ostensibly for them - by the Arab states, but for which they pay the price. They are the victims, effectively, of Arab aggression against Israel.
The Palestinian refugee problem is allowed - even forced - to continue and to grow. Of the approximately 135 million refugees created over the last century, only the Palestinians have retained this dismal, nationless status. Every other major refugee group has been resettled within a generation.
Whether the Palestinian refugees have been denied resettlement by tragic oversight, or devious design, the Arab world should take responsibility by resettling them, and paying substantial restitution for the damages inflicted on them over the past by 54 years.
With the Palestinian conflict out of the way, the world should be able to, presumably, focus on other issues without the Palestinian issue dominating – and providing an excuse for – much of the violence coming from that part of the world.
Monday, April 17, 2006
American Jews: Loyalty under fire?
According to a recent Anti-Defamation League poll, one out of three Americans thinks that Jews in this country put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s. With the upcoming trial of two ex-staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) accused of leaking classified information to Israeli diplomats, and the anti-Jewish Harvard/University of Chicago report* entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", the question of dual loyalty is, once again, raising it's ugly head. As crazy as it may sound, the mere act of caring about Israel and exercising our rights as American citizens to petition members of Congress – in order to express our views, could be seriously hampered if we do not publicly defend this inalienable right.
At the core of the “American Jewish loyalty” argument lies the following: 1) The case of Jonathon Pollard 2) The quality of American democracy in America 3) attempts to deligitimize American Jews by questioning their loyalty.
In the case of Jonathon Pollard, which is extremely complex, we have a classic case of bad decisions on the part of both Pollard and the Israeli government. For years, the Pollard incident created a glass ceiling for American Jews seeking to partake in the highest levels of our government – a setback that I think most will agree we have just begun to recover. The March 28th, 2006 death of Casper Weinberger dovetails nicely with the issue of American Jewish loyalty because of his intervention in the Pollard case. Weinberger sent a top-secret memo to the Pollard trial judge - a memo that is suspected to blame Pollard for “outing” eleven US spies who were killed in Russia, and was the reason why the US government reneged on Pollard’s plea bargain agreement. It was later learned that Richard Ames, a CIA agent, was the one responsible for the deaths in Russia. The Pollard case, to this day, remains the central argument to those who wish to question American Jewish loyalty – even though the damages to US security was non-existent when compared to just about anyone charged with a similar violation. At the end of the day, the entire Pollard affair - in hindsight - might have been avoided had the American Jewish lobby been more effective during that period. Ironically, former AIPAC officials have been indicted for openly gathering intelligence offered up by US officials. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As much as I disagree with just about everything written by Harvard Professor Walt and U. of Chicago Professor Mearsheimer in their paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", I will defend their right to exercise their freedom of speech - but question their willingness to allow other US citizens (and groups of US citizens) the same right. Given their flawed analysis, one gets the impression that the Israeli lobby is illegally/covertly imposing its agenda upon a US population that is unaware and unsupportive of their efforts. To the contrary, over 60% of US citizens approve of US support for Israel, which is a higher percentage than put President Bush into office in 2000. The American Israeli Political Action Committee conducts its mission in full compliance with all US laws and regulations covering such lobbying ventures. Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer's statements that recent news stories surrounding AIPAC make their point regarding "treasonous activity" on the part of AIPAC appears to be premature, wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
US foreign policy has often been influenced by special interest groups, be they nationalistically driven (Greeks, Irish) or economically driven (agricultural, manufacturing, NAFTA). If one was to concede the point that US aid to Israel may be disproportionate to overall US aid, it is undisputable that the US gets more than it's money's worth in a politically reliable ally, and a superbly equipped and manned forward base of operation for both political and military activities. But, it is not a point to be conceded so quickly. The cost of US troops in South Korea, Japan and in Western Europe, while not redlined as foreign aid - far exceeds any amount of aid received by Israel from the USA - and many could debate as to whether those assets are well spent.
Attempts to "deligitimize" American Jewish supporters of Israel often reach for hypothetical scenarios to prove their point; what would American Jews do if the USA were to abandon Israel? Where would their loyalty lie? The best answer is to say that because of Israel's existence, American Jews are here by choice. We aren't fleeing political or religious persecution (except in the Muslim world) anymore. We also aren't known to blowup subways, blowup buildings, or stab people when our religious or political sensitivities are offended. We work "within the legal system" to make our voice heard, we write "letters to the editor" to influence public opinion, and we exercise our "inalienable rights" as citizens of the United States of America. Do we have a bigger influence on US foreign policy than our numbers would indicate? Maybe, but there is no reason to apologize or be ashamed for being effective at lobbying.
*The fact that Harvard and the University of Chicago have officially distanced themselves from this report after it was already published is too little, too late.
At the core of the “American Jewish loyalty” argument lies the following: 1) The case of Jonathon Pollard 2) The quality of American democracy in America 3) attempts to deligitimize American Jews by questioning their loyalty.
In the case of Jonathon Pollard, which is extremely complex, we have a classic case of bad decisions on the part of both Pollard and the Israeli government. For years, the Pollard incident created a glass ceiling for American Jews seeking to partake in the highest levels of our government – a setback that I think most will agree we have just begun to recover. The March 28th, 2006 death of Casper Weinberger dovetails nicely with the issue of American Jewish loyalty because of his intervention in the Pollard case. Weinberger sent a top-secret memo to the Pollard trial judge - a memo that is suspected to blame Pollard for “outing” eleven US spies who were killed in Russia, and was the reason why the US government reneged on Pollard’s plea bargain agreement. It was later learned that Richard Ames, a CIA agent, was the one responsible for the deaths in Russia. The Pollard case, to this day, remains the central argument to those who wish to question American Jewish loyalty – even though the damages to US security was non-existent when compared to just about anyone charged with a similar violation. At the end of the day, the entire Pollard affair - in hindsight - might have been avoided had the American Jewish lobby been more effective during that period. Ironically, former AIPAC officials have been indicted for openly gathering intelligence offered up by US officials. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As much as I disagree with just about everything written by Harvard Professor Walt and U. of Chicago Professor Mearsheimer in their paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", I will defend their right to exercise their freedom of speech - but question their willingness to allow other US citizens (and groups of US citizens) the same right. Given their flawed analysis, one gets the impression that the Israeli lobby is illegally/covertly imposing its agenda upon a US population that is unaware and unsupportive of their efforts. To the contrary, over 60% of US citizens approve of US support for Israel, which is a higher percentage than put President Bush into office in 2000. The American Israeli Political Action Committee conducts its mission in full compliance with all US laws and regulations covering such lobbying ventures. Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer's statements that recent news stories surrounding AIPAC make their point regarding "treasonous activity" on the part of AIPAC appears to be premature, wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
US foreign policy has often been influenced by special interest groups, be they nationalistically driven (Greeks, Irish) or economically driven (agricultural, manufacturing, NAFTA). If one was to concede the point that US aid to Israel may be disproportionate to overall US aid, it is undisputable that the US gets more than it's money's worth in a politically reliable ally, and a superbly equipped and manned forward base of operation for both political and military activities. But, it is not a point to be conceded so quickly. The cost of US troops in South Korea, Japan and in Western Europe, while not redlined as foreign aid - far exceeds any amount of aid received by Israel from the USA - and many could debate as to whether those assets are well spent.
Attempts to "deligitimize" American Jewish supporters of Israel often reach for hypothetical scenarios to prove their point; what would American Jews do if the USA were to abandon Israel? Where would their loyalty lie? The best answer is to say that because of Israel's existence, American Jews are here by choice. We aren't fleeing political or religious persecution (except in the Muslim world) anymore. We also aren't known to blowup subways, blowup buildings, or stab people when our religious or political sensitivities are offended. We work "within the legal system" to make our voice heard, we write "letters to the editor" to influence public opinion, and we exercise our "inalienable rights" as citizens of the United States of America. Do we have a bigger influence on US foreign policy than our numbers would indicate? Maybe, but there is no reason to apologize or be ashamed for being effective at lobbying.
*The fact that Harvard and the University of Chicago have officially distanced themselves from this report after it was already published is too little, too late.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Fixing American Foreign Policy in the Middle East
The bombing today (04/11/06) that killed 40 and injured dozens in Karachi, Pakistan – and the daily sectarian Muslim on Muslim bombings against fellow Iraqi civilians illustrates a number of points that seem to be beyond the grasp of both the Muslim world, and many in the West:
While the chanting mobs on the Arab street protest the existence of Israel for just protecting itself, they seem to be in total denial regarding the barbarity that the Muslim world has inflicted on itself in the name of Islam. The level of violence that the world is witnessing in Dafur, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan – not to mention the USA, Russia, Bali, Spain, England, France, etc. - is just beyond comprehension. The current state of affairs brings into question whether the Muslim world wouldn't be better off being ruled by strong, brutal dictators who know how to keep the peace. In other words, maybe it's time to punt the democracy theme. Good idea, didn't work.
Secondly, the West's inability to comprehend the mindset of the "angry young Muslim" is only exceeded by the limitless nature of Muslim violence. It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision a nuclear Shiite Iran blowing up Mecca, Tel Aviv, London – or a number of other countries that they perceive as having "offended" their sensibilities. We are at the proverbial 11th hour when it comes to doing "something" about Iran's potential to become a nuclear power.
The Arab world has already plainly demonstrated that the only self-imposed limits of their violence are the limits of the weapons they have on hand. Letting them have nuclear capability is beyond my comprehension.
While the chanting mobs on the Arab street protest the existence of Israel for just protecting itself, they seem to be in total denial regarding the barbarity that the Muslim world has inflicted on itself in the name of Islam. The level of violence that the world is witnessing in Dafur, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan – not to mention the USA, Russia, Bali, Spain, England, France, etc. - is just beyond comprehension. The current state of affairs brings into question whether the Muslim world wouldn't be better off being ruled by strong, brutal dictators who know how to keep the peace. In other words, maybe it's time to punt the democracy theme. Good idea, didn't work.
Secondly, the West's inability to comprehend the mindset of the "angry young Muslim" is only exceeded by the limitless nature of Muslim violence. It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision a nuclear Shiite Iran blowing up Mecca, Tel Aviv, London – or a number of other countries that they perceive as having "offended" their sensibilities. We are at the proverbial 11th hour when it comes to doing "something" about Iran's potential to become a nuclear power.
The Arab world has already plainly demonstrated that the only self-imposed limits of their violence are the limits of the weapons they have on hand. Letting them have nuclear capability is beyond my comprehension.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Violence and humanitarian appeals don’t mix
Too often, the violence that has defined the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is defined as a “cycle of violence” – the insinuation being that both sides are equally guilty in this never-ending conflict. The latest incident at the Gaza Erez checkpoint illustrates my point. The Erez checkpoint is the main crossing for thousands of Palestinian workers with jobs in Israel. Israel routinely closes the crossing after violent incidents, leaving the workers idle. Today, 3 Palestinians threw grenades at the Israeli soldiers and opened fire with machine guns. All three were shot dead by Israeli return fire.
The press will simply report that Israel killed 3 Palestinians. The context, of course, is missing. The Israelis don’t “need” inexpensive Palestinian laborers - they allow them to work in Israel for humanitarian reasons. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have used these border crossings – time, after time, after time – to attack Israelis guards.
As a result, the Israelis are “disengaging” from the Palestinians by shutting off the crossings and building border barriers to deter illegal workers - and terrorists - from entry into Israel. Will this pose a humanitarian crisis among the Palestinians? Without a doubt. Is it Israel’s responsibility to ease their suffering? No. Now that Israel no longer “occupies” the Gaza strip, the welfare of the Palestinians is no longer an Israeli concern under international law. Now that the Palestinians people have done away with their attempt to portray themselves as political “moderates” by electing the Hamas terrorist organization, the Israelis no longer have to be concerned with the humanitarian issues either.
The Palestinian people have spoken – now they have to accept responsibility for their decision. With oil at $65 a barrel, the Arab nations that have been provoking this conflict for half a century should pick up the tab – that is if they care about the Palestinians as much as they claim.
The press will simply report that Israel killed 3 Palestinians. The context, of course, is missing. The Israelis don’t “need” inexpensive Palestinian laborers - they allow them to work in Israel for humanitarian reasons. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have used these border crossings – time, after time, after time – to attack Israelis guards.
As a result, the Israelis are “disengaging” from the Palestinians by shutting off the crossings and building border barriers to deter illegal workers - and terrorists - from entry into Israel. Will this pose a humanitarian crisis among the Palestinians? Without a doubt. Is it Israel’s responsibility to ease their suffering? No. Now that Israel no longer “occupies” the Gaza strip, the welfare of the Palestinians is no longer an Israeli concern under international law. Now that the Palestinians people have done away with their attempt to portray themselves as political “moderates” by electing the Hamas terrorist organization, the Israelis no longer have to be concerned with the humanitarian issues either.
The Palestinian people have spoken – now they have to accept responsibility for their decision. With oil at $65 a barrel, the Arab nations that have been provoking this conflict for half a century should pick up the tab – that is if they care about the Palestinians as much as they claim.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Re: Angry Muslims and Danish Cartoons
The 02/06/06 AP article published on the front page of the CA entitled “Was rage over cartoons stoked by leaders to get back at the West”, by Bassem Mroue, is a prime example of the liberal press grasping at straws in order to put a “spin” on the news that excuses the Muslims violent behavior surrounding the Danish cartoon incident. Mr. Mroue, citing “pent-up anger” over the war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the European publication of the cartoons , wants to lay blame at the foot of “Arab leaders”, rather than acknowledge that a different set of values and sensibilities exists in the Muslim world. These “differences” are the essence of why we are experiencing a “clash of civilizations” between the Western world and the Muslim world.
Being an advocate for Israel, it is imporant to mention that the Israelis completely withdrew from Gaza, and are preparing to withdraw from parts of the West bank, so I don’t buy the “Arab anger over Israel” argument, unless they are angry that Israel even exists - of which I have no doubt.
I also don’t buy the Iraq war as a reason for Arab anger, because Saddam was a butcher who not only slaughtered his own people, but invaded his neighbors and generally caused havoc in the region during his reign.
Lastly, Mr. Mroue’s explanation that a Danish newspaper publishing some unsavory cartoons was the “spark that lit the fuse” is a window into the mind of Muslim “sensibilities”. Forget for a moment that the Arab press constantly publishes the most horrid cartoons and other forms of incitement against Jews, Christians, Buddhists and any other non-Muslim. In Saudi Arabia (as well as other Muslim countries) they burn bibles at their borders, and generally make life difficult for "non-believers". In the past 600 years, the Western world have developed a set of rules and supporting institutions to allow grievances to be addressed, in order to avoid violence. This is called civilization. I will be the first to admit that our “civilization” has it’s faults, but it is better than the alternative - rioting in the streets.
The Muslim world has either supported Islamic terrorism against the West, turned a blind eye, or acted as an apologist for too long. The absurdity of it all is the fact that it seems every Muslim grievance has to be dealt with by using indiscriminate violence against innocent victims - which is my definition of terrorism.
If anything, the Muslim world is being divided into the fascist Islamists, and the god fearing, peace loving Muslims - and it appears that the Islamists are winning and backing the entire Muslim world into a corner. The good Muslims has better stand up and get control of their loose cannons, because if the Islamists continue along the Iranian/Syrian/Palestinian path, this conflict could send them from the 10th century into the 5th.
Being an advocate for Israel, it is imporant to mention that the Israelis completely withdrew from Gaza, and are preparing to withdraw from parts of the West bank, so I don’t buy the “Arab anger over Israel” argument, unless they are angry that Israel even exists - of which I have no doubt.
I also don’t buy the Iraq war as a reason for Arab anger, because Saddam was a butcher who not only slaughtered his own people, but invaded his neighbors and generally caused havoc in the region during his reign.
Lastly, Mr. Mroue’s explanation that a Danish newspaper publishing some unsavory cartoons was the “spark that lit the fuse” is a window into the mind of Muslim “sensibilities”. Forget for a moment that the Arab press constantly publishes the most horrid cartoons and other forms of incitement against Jews, Christians, Buddhists and any other non-Muslim. In Saudi Arabia (as well as other Muslim countries) they burn bibles at their borders, and generally make life difficult for "non-believers". In the past 600 years, the Western world have developed a set of rules and supporting institutions to allow grievances to be addressed, in order to avoid violence. This is called civilization. I will be the first to admit that our “civilization” has it’s faults, but it is better than the alternative - rioting in the streets.
The Muslim world has either supported Islamic terrorism against the West, turned a blind eye, or acted as an apologist for too long. The absurdity of it all is the fact that it seems every Muslim grievance has to be dealt with by using indiscriminate violence against innocent victims - which is my definition of terrorism.
If anything, the Muslim world is being divided into the fascist Islamists, and the god fearing, peace loving Muslims - and it appears that the Islamists are winning and backing the entire Muslim world into a corner. The good Muslims has better stand up and get control of their loose cannons, because if the Islamists continue along the Iranian/Syrian/Palestinian path, this conflict could send them from the 10th century into the 5th.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Are we on the verge of losing the war against Islamic terrorism?
The moment of truth has come, and it looks like we blinked. If the war on terror was a poker hand, our actions gave away our hand. Unless there is a miracle, the Islamic Jihad that we have been fighting on and off since 1991 is close to the tipping point – and we could end up on the losing side. There are those who are for the war, and those against, but now is the time for us to focus on what the world – and our own lives – could look like if we don’t reformulate a response to Islamic extremism.
If you are wondering why I am suggesting such a pessimistic proclamation, I have a one-word answer – Hamas (and the limp wrested global response). The world seems to be in denial that the election of Hamas is something other than what it is…the choice of the Palestinian people to openly display their desire to destroy Israel AND elect an Islamist group to govern them. Our response? To debate the REAL MEANING of the election; they had no other choices, the Abbas regime didn’t improve their lives, they are the only responsible party that looks after the welfare of the Palestinians, etc. If anything, this is grasping at straws. They voted in a terrorist organization. Period. Hitler came into power democratically, and Hitler’s apologists at the time used the same lame excuses to not confront a man who was obviously hell bent on causing a world of trouble. Now, the world is debating whether to continue funding the Palestinian authority with Hamas as the helm! The reasoning behind those who want to continue funding:
1) They don’t want to punish the Palestinian people for the sins of Hamas.
A: Why not cut off funding? After all, they DID elect Hamas
B: We don’t fund North Korea and the North Koreans didn’t even elect their leader Kim Jong Il.
C: Obviously, the billions that the world has given the Palestinians ever since 1948 has only served to enable them to continue along their self-destructive path – and now we are going to fund them while they admit they want to destroy Israel?
2) They don’t want to “drive” Hamas into the hands of Iran.
A: Hamas (and Hezbollah) are ALREADY in bed with Hamas
How about looking for reasons NOT to fund Hamas?
1) They are terrorists. If we are fighting a war on terror, funding Hamas doesn’t make sense.
2) They have openly (and honestly) admitted that they want to destroy a United Nations member state. Theoretically, that should get any country kicked out of the UN.
3) Even though they were elected democratically, we need to motivate the average Palestinian to moderate their political views. Funding them sends the wrong message.
4) Just as the Palestinians made their choice, the rest of the world has a choice too. There is no moral or legal obligation for the Western world to fund the Palestinians.
5) There is no guarantee that the funds will be any better managed than before. To the contrary, there is likelihood that Western aid will be used against Israel.
6) There are no assurances that aid will help anyone BUT Hamas.
Democracy is not a destination - it’s a journey, and the Palestinians have a long way to go before their version of democracy has the characteristics that will allow them to join the rest of the civilized world. If we allow the legitimization of the Hamas government, then we deserve whatever comes our way.
If you are wondering why I am suggesting such a pessimistic proclamation, I have a one-word answer – Hamas (and the limp wrested global response). The world seems to be in denial that the election of Hamas is something other than what it is…the choice of the Palestinian people to openly display their desire to destroy Israel AND elect an Islamist group to govern them. Our response? To debate the REAL MEANING of the election; they had no other choices, the Abbas regime didn’t improve their lives, they are the only responsible party that looks after the welfare of the Palestinians, etc. If anything, this is grasping at straws. They voted in a terrorist organization. Period. Hitler came into power democratically, and Hitler’s apologists at the time used the same lame excuses to not confront a man who was obviously hell bent on causing a world of trouble. Now, the world is debating whether to continue funding the Palestinian authority with Hamas as the helm! The reasoning behind those who want to continue funding:
1) They don’t want to punish the Palestinian people for the sins of Hamas.
A: Why not cut off funding? After all, they DID elect Hamas
B: We don’t fund North Korea and the North Koreans didn’t even elect their leader Kim Jong Il.
C: Obviously, the billions that the world has given the Palestinians ever since 1948 has only served to enable them to continue along their self-destructive path – and now we are going to fund them while they admit they want to destroy Israel?
2) They don’t want to “drive” Hamas into the hands of Iran.
A: Hamas (and Hezbollah) are ALREADY in bed with Hamas
How about looking for reasons NOT to fund Hamas?
1) They are terrorists. If we are fighting a war on terror, funding Hamas doesn’t make sense.
2) They have openly (and honestly) admitted that they want to destroy a United Nations member state. Theoretically, that should get any country kicked out of the UN.
3) Even though they were elected democratically, we need to motivate the average Palestinian to moderate their political views. Funding them sends the wrong message.
4) Just as the Palestinians made their choice, the rest of the world has a choice too. There is no moral or legal obligation for the Western world to fund the Palestinians.
5) There is no guarantee that the funds will be any better managed than before. To the contrary, there is likelihood that Western aid will be used against Israel.
6) There are no assurances that aid will help anyone BUT Hamas.
Democracy is not a destination - it’s a journey, and the Palestinians have a long way to go before their version of democracy has the characteristics that will allow them to join the rest of the civilized world. If we allow the legitimization of the Hamas government, then we deserve whatever comes our way.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
The Hamas Victory Has A Silver Lining
The knee jerk reaction in the Western press to the Hamas victory in the January 2006 Palestinian elections was one of shock, disappointment, and fear for the future in that region. On first blush, one could easily say that President Bush’s strategy of depending on Democratic elections to pacify the Middle East has backfired and allowed Islamists a way to “take control”. Suddenly, the discussion has turned to whether the USA and Israel should “recognize” a Palestinian government that is controlled by a terrorist organization whose first official statement was that “negotiating with Israel and recognition are not on our agenda. The armed struggle will continue”. Hamas’s political platform was based on their manifesto, which calls for armed struggle and the eventual destruction of Israel, so their first statement came as no surprise.
What was a surprise is that now with Hamas in charge, they have to improve the lot of the Palestinians while trying to maintain the appearance of an armed struggle against Israel. That is going to be a difficult task, given the fact that the Israelis virtually control the electricity, gas and water in the Gaza and West Bank AND have a demonstrated military superiority that they will use if needed.
Another surprise delivered to the desk of the new Hamas Palestinian President is the fact that the “pretense” that a roadmap peace process was still alive is DOHA – dead on Hamas’s arrival. The diplomatic duplicity that was the hallmark of the old guard Palestinian regime of both Arafat and Abbas has, thankfully, come to an end. The days of the Palestinian politicians saying that they want peace, while allowing supposedly “renegade freedom fighters” to terrorize Israelis - is over. The world was well aware that this “good cop/bad cop” ploy existed, but as long as there was a feeble attempt to portray it otherwise, they were willing to play along. With Hamas at the helm, that game is over.
The EU and US have indicated that they will not financially support a Hamas led Palestinian government. That will have no affect with oil at $67 a barrel, and Iranian and Saudi financial support - and so be it. This is a period on consolidation within the Palestinian sphere, and Hamas’s success or failure will depend on their ability to create order out of the chaos and inaction that has existed for too long.
From an Israeli perspective, they are now “enabled” to act against any act of violence originating from the Palestinian sphere without the burden of playing the game of diplomatic duplicity. If a missile is fired at Israel, they now have a convienent address to deliver a pinpoint response. If Hamas stops the violence against Israelis - while still beating their chest and spewing inciteful rhetoric, then I am sure that Israel can live with a bad neighbor - after all that is why they built the security fence.
Democracy is a work in progress, not a single act. If Hamas doesn’t deliver the goods - whatever that is in the minds of the Palestinians people, then they will end up on the losing side of a future election and maybe then a peaceful Palestinian government will emerge, if not – then so be it.
What was a surprise is that now with Hamas in charge, they have to improve the lot of the Palestinians while trying to maintain the appearance of an armed struggle against Israel. That is going to be a difficult task, given the fact that the Israelis virtually control the electricity, gas and water in the Gaza and West Bank AND have a demonstrated military superiority that they will use if needed.
Another surprise delivered to the desk of the new Hamas Palestinian President is the fact that the “pretense” that a roadmap peace process was still alive is DOHA – dead on Hamas’s arrival. The diplomatic duplicity that was the hallmark of the old guard Palestinian regime of both Arafat and Abbas has, thankfully, come to an end. The days of the Palestinian politicians saying that they want peace, while allowing supposedly “renegade freedom fighters” to terrorize Israelis - is over. The world was well aware that this “good cop/bad cop” ploy existed, but as long as there was a feeble attempt to portray it otherwise, they were willing to play along. With Hamas at the helm, that game is over.
The EU and US have indicated that they will not financially support a Hamas led Palestinian government. That will have no affect with oil at $67 a barrel, and Iranian and Saudi financial support - and so be it. This is a period on consolidation within the Palestinian sphere, and Hamas’s success or failure will depend on their ability to create order out of the chaos and inaction that has existed for too long.
From an Israeli perspective, they are now “enabled” to act against any act of violence originating from the Palestinian sphere without the burden of playing the game of diplomatic duplicity. If a missile is fired at Israel, they now have a convienent address to deliver a pinpoint response. If Hamas stops the violence against Israelis - while still beating their chest and spewing inciteful rhetoric, then I am sure that Israel can live with a bad neighbor - after all that is why they built the security fence.
Democracy is a work in progress, not a single act. If Hamas doesn’t deliver the goods - whatever that is in the minds of the Palestinians people, then they will end up on the losing side of a future election and maybe then a peaceful Palestinian government will emerge, if not – then so be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)