Opponents of the Iraq war are either predicting we will lose, or are advocating that we depart prematurely - which will make defeat a fact. Many of them use the analogy of the US withdrawal from Viet Nam or Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut as the basis for their argument.
But there is an equal argument that the US pullout from Beirut was the first of many strategic military mistakes made by the US that has contributed to the horrible situation in the Mideast today. The US pullout from Lebanon emboldened Iran and their Lebanese surrogate, Hezbollah. Since then, Iran has become the epicenter of state sponsored Islamic extremism in the Middle East, and Hezbollah has transformed from a minor terrorist group into a large scale army whose existence is devoted to provoking instability in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Gaza, as well as in Iraq.
The critics of the Iraq war cry "pull out", as if there are zero consequences. When we pulled out of Viet Nam in 1975, it led to horrors that engulfed the region. The Khmer Rouge killed 1-2 million fellow Cambodians in a genocidal rampage. In Viet Nam, up to a million died in re-education camps and millions fled, mostly by boat. The defeat of the US in Viet Nam emboldened Brezhnev and the Soviets went on a geo-political offensive in the third world for over 10 years. While I am glad we left Viet Nam, there were consequences that we didn't anticipate. I say this as a former anti-Viet Nam war activist.
The pretenses that led the US war in Iraq, whether you think they were morally right or wrong - are totally irrelevant to the discussion of "what do we do now". There is no doubt that Iraq is a mess, but the reality is that the coalition forces are making slow progress that, even today, far exceeds the doomsday pre-war predictions. Do we want our troops out of harms way in Iraq? Of course. Do we want to leave open the possibility that millions could die as a result of a premature withdrawal? No. Do we want to see the US further vilified in the global community for letting Iraq and her neighbors convulse in a spasm of violence that may last decades? No. Do we want to embolden the global jihadist Muslim extremists? No. Do we want to send the wrong signal to our allies that we aren't to be trusted? No.
Rather than opposition to the war in Iraq based on partisan opportunism, maybe the discussion of ending the war in Iraq should center on pressing our military leaders to develop more potent techniques and strategies in order to win the war. Winning a war has always taken longer than losing.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Silver Lining to the Hamas coup in Gaza
The violent coup in Gaza by the Islamic extremist terrorist group Hamas this past week is a tragic turn of events for the Palestinians and for the prospects for peace in the region. There are, however, useful lessons that the West can learn from this tragedy.
First and foremost, Western pressure to impose democracy doesn't necessarily work the way we expect: The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, a group whose goal is the total destruction of Israel. We also have learned this lesson in Iraq.
Secondly, giving legitimacy to puppet "heads of state" doesn't work: Facts on the ground should trump our desire for peace. The West wasted substantial diplomatic currency and valuable time by giving former Palestinian PM Abbas undeserved international legitimacy - when he was obviously powerless and not endorsed by the Palestinian people.
Lastly, diplomacy has its limitations: Papering over a conflict with a worthless peace agreement is more damaging than doing nothing.
The Israeli government has clearly stated that it is not pleased with the consolidation of the Gaza strip under Hamas. This takes the likelihood of peaceful two state solution as envisioned by the quartet off the map, and forces all the parties to examine how this deterioration happened (even after the Israelis pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago) – and where the parties go from here.
Of course, the prime suspects in this deterioration are Egypt and Iran. In an effort to give Islamic extremists a place to vent their violent tendencies outside of Egyptian territory, Egypt allowed the large scale smuggling of Islamic fighters from across the Arab world, and allowed the smuggling of massive quantities of arms into Gaza. Iran, on the other hand, trained the fighters and supplied the explosives that were being smuggled into Gaza.
The silver lining to this event is that the pretenses that have allowed this deterioration to develop are gone. Now the conflict may actually reach a climatic end where it is allowed to "burn itself out' - and the possibility of peace could once again emerge.
First and foremost, Western pressure to impose democracy doesn't necessarily work the way we expect: The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, a group whose goal is the total destruction of Israel. We also have learned this lesson in Iraq.
Secondly, giving legitimacy to puppet "heads of state" doesn't work: Facts on the ground should trump our desire for peace. The West wasted substantial diplomatic currency and valuable time by giving former Palestinian PM Abbas undeserved international legitimacy - when he was obviously powerless and not endorsed by the Palestinian people.
Lastly, diplomacy has its limitations: Papering over a conflict with a worthless peace agreement is more damaging than doing nothing.
The Israeli government has clearly stated that it is not pleased with the consolidation of the Gaza strip under Hamas. This takes the likelihood of peaceful two state solution as envisioned by the quartet off the map, and forces all the parties to examine how this deterioration happened (even after the Israelis pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago) – and where the parties go from here.
Of course, the prime suspects in this deterioration are Egypt and Iran. In an effort to give Islamic extremists a place to vent their violent tendencies outside of Egyptian territory, Egypt allowed the large scale smuggling of Islamic fighters from across the Arab world, and allowed the smuggling of massive quantities of arms into Gaza. Iran, on the other hand, trained the fighters and supplied the explosives that were being smuggled into Gaza.
The silver lining to this event is that the pretenses that have allowed this deterioration to develop are gone. Now the conflict may actually reach a climatic end where it is allowed to "burn itself out' - and the possibility of peace could once again emerge.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Resurrect the idea of expelling the Palestinians
As distasteful as the idea of "expelling" a people from one area, and re-settling them in another may be – especially in the current climate of political correctness, the need for Mideast peace and the lack of viable options necessitates legitimizing this idea, if only for the sake of discussion.
No one bats an eye when the press or Iraqi politicians mention moving Sunnis to one district, Shiites to another. The world gave a Nobel peace prize to those who moved Cypriots and Greeks to different sides of Cyprus in order to achieve what negotiations couldn't.
At the end of the day, all the wasted breath on who did what to whom is just an endless cycle of regurgitated propaganda. Israel is a full fledged country, just as legitimate as Australia or the United States. No one is demanding that America give the USA back to the Indians, and I don't see the Australians beating themselves up because they crowded out the Aborigines. At his stage of the world, facts on the ground trump Arab/Muslim sensitivities that can never be satisfied.
If the world's political leaders want the Mideast conflict settled, then they should look for better solutions than what they have put forward to date. A good place to start is for "Palestinian expulsion" to be accepted in the marketplace of ideas. At the very least, just legitimizing the conversation might make the Palestinians realize that the world – and Israel – has a limited amount of patience, and that they will pay a price for their folly. Enough of this catering to the Palestinian's love affair with victimhood.
As for where these expelled Palestinians are to go? That is likely to be a far easier solution than settling the current conflict. It's an Arab problem with an Arab solution. There is no shortage of arable vacant land in the Arab world, and there is no shortage of Arab/Muslim petro-dollars to make the transition easier.
No one bats an eye when the press or Iraqi politicians mention moving Sunnis to one district, Shiites to another. The world gave a Nobel peace prize to those who moved Cypriots and Greeks to different sides of Cyprus in order to achieve what negotiations couldn't.
At the end of the day, all the wasted breath on who did what to whom is just an endless cycle of regurgitated propaganda. Israel is a full fledged country, just as legitimate as Australia or the United States. No one is demanding that America give the USA back to the Indians, and I don't see the Australians beating themselves up because they crowded out the Aborigines. At his stage of the world, facts on the ground trump Arab/Muslim sensitivities that can never be satisfied.
If the world's political leaders want the Mideast conflict settled, then they should look for better solutions than what they have put forward to date. A good place to start is for "Palestinian expulsion" to be accepted in the marketplace of ideas. At the very least, just legitimizing the conversation might make the Palestinians realize that the world – and Israel – has a limited amount of patience, and that they will pay a price for their folly. Enough of this catering to the Palestinian's love affair with victimhood.
As for where these expelled Palestinians are to go? That is likely to be a far easier solution than settling the current conflict. It's an Arab problem with an Arab solution. There is no shortage of arable vacant land in the Arab world, and there is no shortage of Arab/Muslim petro-dollars to make the transition easier.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". (Sir Edmund Burke)
In the USA during the 1850s, not all Americans were slave owners, but all slave owners were Americans. The American civil war was the model for good people to come together and act, in order to prevent evil from prevailing. Over 1 million white Northern young men put on the uniform of the Federal government and marched past the Mason Dixon line in order to put an end to slavery in the United States. Over 390,000 Federal troops died and over 275,000 were wounded in action. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the North did what it had to do.
During the civil rights era (1955-1968), a wide assortment of Americans - Northerners, Southerners, black and white, Jewish and Christian – conducted boycotts, organized sit-ins, mass marches and freedom rides in order to make sure that all Americans shared equally in the freedoms guaranteed under the US constitution. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the American public rose to the challenge.
Not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were Germans. When WW2 was over, Nazi soldiers claimed they were only following orders. German civilians claimed they were innocent victims of Hitler and his Nazi thugs. The reality, of course, is that German civilians did not sufficiently raise their voice in opposition to the Nazi party BEFORE Hitler came to power, didn't march into the streets in opposition to the Nazi party DURING its formulative years, and couldn't do anything about it once Germany had morphed into a full fledged Nazi state. The German people bore total responsibility for the catastrophe that their government perpetrated on the world. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and the Germans did nothing.
Islamic scholars have said that the modern day phenomenon of Islamic extremism can be traced back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Arab terrorism is not necessarily the same as Muslim extremist terrorism, and the distinction is important if one wants to understand how such a violent form of Islam could develop. Arab nationalists have long viewed the very existence of Israel as an insult to the Arab world, and for decades the Muslim/Arab capitals of the Mideast have sanctioned "acts of terrorism" against Israel as legitimate expressions of "resistance". Now, the homegrown "resistance fighters" whom the Arab world groomed in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Israel over the last past 50 years have – for lack of legitimate alternatives in their home countries – adopted a Jihadist version of Islam to justify continuing the mayhem. The world, unfortunately, turned a blind eye to terrorism as long as it was aimed only at Israel. THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE "GOOD TERRORISM". Aided by western technology and endless amounts of oil money, Islamic extremism has reached a tipping point and gone global – and is now aiming it's sights on fellow Muslims as well - which proves the point that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are regular people like you and me, and want nothing to do with Islamic extremists or Jihadists. Unfortunately, most of the terrorism around the globe is being committed in the name of Islam. Many people see the rise of Islamic extremism in the same light as the rise of Nazi fascism in 1938, and we have a moral responsibility to speak out and awaken the public. In this day and age of "political correctness", our message is sometimes intentionally mis-construed as promoting "Islamiphobia" by Islamists who are determined to control the public debate. In Europe, Islamic apologists have risen in righteous indignation – and sometimes in spasms of widespread violence - over ANY criticism of Muslim extremists, despite the bloody body of evidence strewn across the globe (Bali, London, New York, Moscow, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Dafur, Turkey, Thailand etc.).
Many Islamic apologists prefer to express their revulsion with Islamic extremism by claiming that their "peaceful religion" is being hijacked by a small minority. My response to them is that if Islam has been hijacked, then moderate Muslims have a moral responsibility to end the hijacking and reclaim their faith. The US war against Islamic extremism is not winnable in the classical sense. There are no clear fields of battle, no capitals to conquer, and no leaders to surrender. Our military can keep Islamic extremist "on their heels" for as long as our country gives them support - but an American public that is "unaware" of the magnitude of this threat runs the risk of losing its resolve. Extremists aren't attacking us for territory, or material wealth. They are attacking our way of life. One only has to look at Britain or France to see what complacence and appeasement will produce in response to Muslim extremism. They are threatening the very core of the Western Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded – democracy, freedom and the rule of law. If we underestimate this threat, if we don't understand this threat, then we run the risk of letting this menace strengthen beyond our capacity to contain it.
If there is any legitimate criticism of the way we are currently waging the war on Islamic extremism today - and there is much to criticize, it is the fact that the average American citizen isn't "engaged" in this war on ANY level. During WW2, everyone on the home front was "chipping in" and doing their part for "the cause". That's why we are here today. The Memphis Branch of HonestReporting wants to educate and mobilize the Mid-South community to support our government, to support our troops, support our allies, and give individuals a tangible way to be a part of the struggle to defeat this enemy. There are sign up sheets in the back of the room if you would like to join our organization.
If it's true that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", then we want to make sure evil fails.
Thank you very much.
During the civil rights era (1955-1968), a wide assortment of Americans - Northerners, Southerners, black and white, Jewish and Christian – conducted boycotts, organized sit-ins, mass marches and freedom rides in order to make sure that all Americans shared equally in the freedoms guaranteed under the US constitution. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the American public rose to the challenge.
Not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were Germans. When WW2 was over, Nazi soldiers claimed they were only following orders. German civilians claimed they were innocent victims of Hitler and his Nazi thugs. The reality, of course, is that German civilians did not sufficiently raise their voice in opposition to the Nazi party BEFORE Hitler came to power, didn't march into the streets in opposition to the Nazi party DURING its formulative years, and couldn't do anything about it once Germany had morphed into a full fledged Nazi state. The German people bore total responsibility for the catastrophe that their government perpetrated on the world. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and the Germans did nothing.
Islamic scholars have said that the modern day phenomenon of Islamic extremism can be traced back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Arab terrorism is not necessarily the same as Muslim extremist terrorism, and the distinction is important if one wants to understand how such a violent form of Islam could develop. Arab nationalists have long viewed the very existence of Israel as an insult to the Arab world, and for decades the Muslim/Arab capitals of the Mideast have sanctioned "acts of terrorism" against Israel as legitimate expressions of "resistance". Now, the homegrown "resistance fighters" whom the Arab world groomed in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Israel over the last past 50 years have – for lack of legitimate alternatives in their home countries – adopted a Jihadist version of Islam to justify continuing the mayhem. The world, unfortunately, turned a blind eye to terrorism as long as it was aimed only at Israel. THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE "GOOD TERRORISM". Aided by western technology and endless amounts of oil money, Islamic extremism has reached a tipping point and gone global – and is now aiming it's sights on fellow Muslims as well - which proves the point that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are regular people like you and me, and want nothing to do with Islamic extremists or Jihadists. Unfortunately, most of the terrorism around the globe is being committed in the name of Islam. Many people see the rise of Islamic extremism in the same light as the rise of Nazi fascism in 1938, and we have a moral responsibility to speak out and awaken the public. In this day and age of "political correctness", our message is sometimes intentionally mis-construed as promoting "Islamiphobia" by Islamists who are determined to control the public debate. In Europe, Islamic apologists have risen in righteous indignation – and sometimes in spasms of widespread violence - over ANY criticism of Muslim extremists, despite the bloody body of evidence strewn across the globe (Bali, London, New York, Moscow, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Dafur, Turkey, Thailand etc.).
Many Islamic apologists prefer to express their revulsion with Islamic extremism by claiming that their "peaceful religion" is being hijacked by a small minority. My response to them is that if Islam has been hijacked, then moderate Muslims have a moral responsibility to end the hijacking and reclaim their faith. The US war against Islamic extremism is not winnable in the classical sense. There are no clear fields of battle, no capitals to conquer, and no leaders to surrender. Our military can keep Islamic extremist "on their heels" for as long as our country gives them support - but an American public that is "unaware" of the magnitude of this threat runs the risk of losing its resolve. Extremists aren't attacking us for territory, or material wealth. They are attacking our way of life. One only has to look at Britain or France to see what complacence and appeasement will produce in response to Muslim extremism. They are threatening the very core of the Western Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded – democracy, freedom and the rule of law. If we underestimate this threat, if we don't understand this threat, then we run the risk of letting this menace strengthen beyond our capacity to contain it.
If there is any legitimate criticism of the way we are currently waging the war on Islamic extremism today - and there is much to criticize, it is the fact that the average American citizen isn't "engaged" in this war on ANY level. During WW2, everyone on the home front was "chipping in" and doing their part for "the cause". That's why we are here today. The Memphis Branch of HonestReporting wants to educate and mobilize the Mid-South community to support our government, to support our troops, support our allies, and give individuals a tangible way to be a part of the struggle to defeat this enemy. There are sign up sheets in the back of the room if you would like to join our organization.
If it's true that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", then we want to make sure evil fails.
Thank you very much.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Muslim claims that the USA media and police are biased against Muslims/Arabs
It is deceitful of Muslim commentators to claim that the media should have called the Virginia Tech shooter (32 dead) a “terrorist” instead of a “mass murderer, insinuating a media/law enforcement bias against Muslims. The dictionary calls terrorism an “act of violence with the intent of intimidation, and is often part of a larger terror campaign meant to advance a religious or political point of view”.
July 4th, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian, opened fire at Los Angeles International Airport while standing in line at the ticket counter of Israel's El Al Airlines killing two and wounding four others before an airline security officer shot him dead. Federal, law enforcement and city officials said it appeared the shooting was an isolated incident, with nothing to suggest otherwise. “There is no indication of any terrorism connection in this matter”, said FBI spokesman Matt McLaughlin.
May 23rd, 2002: A Pensacola, Florida, man opened fire at a ticket counter at the main airport in New Orleans, killing one person and wounding another. Authorities said Patrick Gott, a Muslim man, told them he opened fire because people had made fun of his turban at a restaurant... Officials said the shooting did not appear to be related to terrorism and that Gott acted alone.
These are two examples of Muslims committing similar acts of violence. I would contend that the 7/4/02 incident – the Egyptian who attacked the Israeli Air Line ticket counter -was a terrorist act because of the Israeli victims, as well as testimony that came forward regarding his radicalized Muslim religious disposition. In the 5/23/02 incident, the victims were completely random, the perpetrator’s background indicated mental problems, and therefore there was no ulterior motive other than insane rage over some comments about his turban.
Contrary to Muslim commentators asserting media/law enforcement bias, I would contend that the Federal government has clearly gone out of its way to be politically correct in these incidents – opting to call them both “random acts of violence” - despite the glaring distinction between the two.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/04/la.airport.shooting/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/23/national/main509955.shtml
July 4th, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian, opened fire at Los Angeles International Airport while standing in line at the ticket counter of Israel's El Al Airlines killing two and wounding four others before an airline security officer shot him dead. Federal, law enforcement and city officials said it appeared the shooting was an isolated incident, with nothing to suggest otherwise. “There is no indication of any terrorism connection in this matter”, said FBI spokesman Matt McLaughlin.
May 23rd, 2002: A Pensacola, Florida, man opened fire at a ticket counter at the main airport in New Orleans, killing one person and wounding another. Authorities said Patrick Gott, a Muslim man, told them he opened fire because people had made fun of his turban at a restaurant... Officials said the shooting did not appear to be related to terrorism and that Gott acted alone.
These are two examples of Muslims committing similar acts of violence. I would contend that the 7/4/02 incident – the Egyptian who attacked the Israeli Air Line ticket counter -was a terrorist act because of the Israeli victims, as well as testimony that came forward regarding his radicalized Muslim religious disposition. In the 5/23/02 incident, the victims were completely random, the perpetrator’s background indicated mental problems, and therefore there was no ulterior motive other than insane rage over some comments about his turban.
Contrary to Muslim commentators asserting media/law enforcement bias, I would contend that the Federal government has clearly gone out of its way to be politically correct in these incidents – opting to call them both “random acts of violence” - despite the glaring distinction between the two.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/04/la.airport.shooting/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/23/national/main509955.shtml
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
IRAN making a mockery of the United Nations…again…and again…and again
On April 9, 2007 there was a United Nations "believe-it-or-not" moment that was fit for the comic books. At the same time that Iran's President Ahmadinejad declared his country was now capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment AND had kidnapped and imprisoned a dozen British sailors, the U.N. re-elected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. The very U.N. body charged with promoting nuclear nonproliferation installed in a senior position the state that the Security Council recently declared violated its nonproliferation resolutions.
In Iran, Ahmadinejad gloated at the Natanz nuclear facility: "With great pride, I announce as of today our dear country is among the countries of the world that produces nuclear fuel on an industrial scale" (in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty- NPT). At the same time, the Iranian vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission, Seyed Mohammad Ali Robatjazi, railed against "noncompliance with the NPT by the United States" and "the Zionist lobby."
It took the U.N. a mere five days to consider Iran "rehabilitated" after the British kidnap victims made it home alive. Just the night before on April 8, Faye Turney, the only female victim, revealed her Iranian abductors stripped her to her underwear, caged her in a tiny, freezing cell, and subjected her to mental torture such as leading her to believe that her death was imminent.
This is not simply a very bad joke. The U.N. is considered by many as the go-to address for international progress in the world today. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, declared at a hearing on U.N. reform in February that "the U.N. provides vital support to core U.S. foreign-policy initiatives" including on Iran and the way forward is to "ratchet up" our level of diplomacy there."
Looks like the only "ratcheting up" is the hostility aimed squarely at the USA and Israel. Congressman Lantos and his close friend, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have long been drinking from the same well. The "reformed" Human Rights Council was Annan's creation. Lantos is the leading advocate of the United States joining the Human Rights Council - where presumably we could jump up and down while exercising one vote out of 47. Annan, of his own volition, went to Tehran last September and urged the world not to isolate Iran immediately after the Iranian president had ignored a Security Council deadline to suspend its nuclear activities. Lantos confessed to the House Committee at the end of February that he has been begging for a visa to go to Iran for the past ten years and "will be among the first ones to do so once this visa is granted."
Lantos was pleased with his recent trip, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Syria. Obviously, the U.N. shares his view that one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism ought to be a welcome player on the world stage. Following the election on Monday, April 9th, of Iran as vice chairman, the U.N. Disarmament Commission elected Syria as its rapporteur to investigate the issue of nuclear nonproliferation non-compliance and report back to the commission.
The line between U.N. diplomacy and farce has been crossed. As long as the UN is held hostage to the rantings of third world dictatorships and banana republics who use the UN as an anti-US platform, we should chart our own course - with our true allies - by strengthening and expanding NATO.
In Iran, Ahmadinejad gloated at the Natanz nuclear facility: "With great pride, I announce as of today our dear country is among the countries of the world that produces nuclear fuel on an industrial scale" (in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty- NPT). At the same time, the Iranian vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission, Seyed Mohammad Ali Robatjazi, railed against "noncompliance with the NPT by the United States" and "the Zionist lobby."
It took the U.N. a mere five days to consider Iran "rehabilitated" after the British kidnap victims made it home alive. Just the night before on April 8, Faye Turney, the only female victim, revealed her Iranian abductors stripped her to her underwear, caged her in a tiny, freezing cell, and subjected her to mental torture such as leading her to believe that her death was imminent.
This is not simply a very bad joke. The U.N. is considered by many as the go-to address for international progress in the world today. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, declared at a hearing on U.N. reform in February that "the U.N. provides vital support to core U.S. foreign-policy initiatives" including on Iran and the way forward is to "ratchet up" our level of diplomacy there."
Looks like the only "ratcheting up" is the hostility aimed squarely at the USA and Israel. Congressman Lantos and his close friend, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have long been drinking from the same well. The "reformed" Human Rights Council was Annan's creation. Lantos is the leading advocate of the United States joining the Human Rights Council - where presumably we could jump up and down while exercising one vote out of 47. Annan, of his own volition, went to Tehran last September and urged the world not to isolate Iran immediately after the Iranian president had ignored a Security Council deadline to suspend its nuclear activities. Lantos confessed to the House Committee at the end of February that he has been begging for a visa to go to Iran for the past ten years and "will be among the first ones to do so once this visa is granted."
Lantos was pleased with his recent trip, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Syria. Obviously, the U.N. shares his view that one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism ought to be a welcome player on the world stage. Following the election on Monday, April 9th, of Iran as vice chairman, the U.N. Disarmament Commission elected Syria as its rapporteur to investigate the issue of nuclear nonproliferation non-compliance and report back to the commission.
The line between U.N. diplomacy and farce has been crossed. As long as the UN is held hostage to the rantings of third world dictatorships and banana republics who use the UN as an anti-US platform, we should chart our own course - with our true allies - by strengthening and expanding NATO.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Take-it-or-leave-it “peace process.”
It is disappointing that the end result of the Arab summit of 2007, which ended Thursday, March 29, was the collapse of the so-called “moderate Arab front” on which the USA administration and the Israeli government had banked on so heavily. The line emerging from the conference was strongly anti-American and anti-Israel, and ended the isolation of the two Middle East governments backing anti-US fighting elements in Iraq – Syria and Iran.
“Moderate” Saudi ruler King Abdullah publicly buried the hatchet with Syrian president Bashar Assad and announced to general acclaim that the next Arab League summit would be held in Damascus. Syria’s misdeeds with regard to Lebanon, Iran's capture of 15 British sailors, and the anarchy in the Palestinian Gaza strip were totally glossed over.
The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, demanded that Israel accept the resurrected Saudi “peace plan” as it is, or risk war. No room was left for an active Israeli role, in the take-it-or-leave-it “peace process.”
I don't see how President Bush, after the Saudi's public declaration of solidarity with Iran, Syria, the anti-American insurgents in Iraq, Hezbollah, AND the Palestinian Hamas government, can continue the charade that there is a significant "moderate camp" in the Arab/Muslim world with which the USA can negotiate a Mideast peace agreement. It appears that at this point in time, the Muslim world has chosen to dictate their terms and conditions – which are basically for the USA and Israel to surrender. I'm curious to see if our State Department tries to slap some lipstick on this ugly Arab declaration, and attempts to sell it to us as "progress".
“Moderate” Saudi ruler King Abdullah publicly buried the hatchet with Syrian president Bashar Assad and announced to general acclaim that the next Arab League summit would be held in Damascus. Syria’s misdeeds with regard to Lebanon, Iran's capture of 15 British sailors, and the anarchy in the Palestinian Gaza strip were totally glossed over.
The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, demanded that Israel accept the resurrected Saudi “peace plan” as it is, or risk war. No room was left for an active Israeli role, in the take-it-or-leave-it “peace process.”
I don't see how President Bush, after the Saudi's public declaration of solidarity with Iran, Syria, the anti-American insurgents in Iraq, Hezbollah, AND the Palestinian Hamas government, can continue the charade that there is a significant "moderate camp" in the Arab/Muslim world with which the USA can negotiate a Mideast peace agreement. It appears that at this point in time, the Muslim world has chosen to dictate their terms and conditions – which are basically for the USA and Israel to surrender. I'm curious to see if our State Department tries to slap some lipstick on this ugly Arab declaration, and attempts to sell it to us as "progress".
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Why Palestinian infighting in Gaza could be good for the prospect of Mideast peace
There are many points of view regarding the current events unfolding in the "unoccupied" Palestinian controlled Gaza strip. The most prevalent point of view from Western "outsiders" is that it's good that Palestinians are killing Palestinians, the logic being that both Fatah and Hamas are both terrorist groups, that this internal conflict is the result of a tribal power grab, and that Palestinian society is incapable of creating a liberal democracy based on the rule of law. A dead Palestinian terrorist is one less terrorist, no matter who puts him 6 feet under.
Another point of view is that the current infighting, if allowed to play itself out, could end up with Hamas winning and consolidating Palestinian forces against Israel. This view also assumes that with a Hamas victory, the extremist Islamic views inherent to Hamas could usher in Islamic Shaira law, which would inflame the situation with Israel, Egypt, and the moderate Palestinians in Gaza. If, on the other hand, Fatah wins the battle with Hamas, it could be that Palestinian President Abbas will continue the same ambiguous diplomacy of duplicity that his predecessor, Yasar Arafat perfected. This course of action is basically do nothing diplomatically or politically, while continuing to support Palestinians terrorism against Israel using proxy Palestinian forces that the PA will claim are renegade and out of their control.
The optimistic point of view, which frankly doesn't have much solid ground on which to stand, is that the growing conflict between Fatah and Hamas is the beginning of a Palestinians civil war, in which Fatah represents that force of moderninity and the secular rule of law, while Hamas represents the dark forces of Islamic extremism and Arab nationalism. Israel went through a similar situation in its history, fortunately the rule of law prevailed, and the central government consolidated the various armed Jewish gangs into what became the IDF. Israelis didn't need UN recognition for what they had accomplished, as establishing a single source of power and instituting the rule of law was the real birth of the Jewish state. Hopefully, the internal fighting between Palestinian factions will result in the birth of a society that is on the path to make a peace agreement that it is willing to keep intact.
Another point of view is that the current infighting, if allowed to play itself out, could end up with Hamas winning and consolidating Palestinian forces against Israel. This view also assumes that with a Hamas victory, the extremist Islamic views inherent to Hamas could usher in Islamic Shaira law, which would inflame the situation with Israel, Egypt, and the moderate Palestinians in Gaza. If, on the other hand, Fatah wins the battle with Hamas, it could be that Palestinian President Abbas will continue the same ambiguous diplomacy of duplicity that his predecessor, Yasar Arafat perfected. This course of action is basically do nothing diplomatically or politically, while continuing to support Palestinians terrorism against Israel using proxy Palestinian forces that the PA will claim are renegade and out of their control.
The optimistic point of view, which frankly doesn't have much solid ground on which to stand, is that the growing conflict between Fatah and Hamas is the beginning of a Palestinians civil war, in which Fatah represents that force of moderninity and the secular rule of law, while Hamas represents the dark forces of Islamic extremism and Arab nationalism. Israel went through a similar situation in its history, fortunately the rule of law prevailed, and the central government consolidated the various armed Jewish gangs into what became the IDF. Israelis didn't need UN recognition for what they had accomplished, as establishing a single source of power and instituting the rule of law was the real birth of the Jewish state. Hopefully, the internal fighting between Palestinian factions will result in the birth of a society that is on the path to make a peace agreement that it is willing to keep intact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)