Posts
20 hours ago
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Chester Chronicles - Talking ‘Bout Ft. Hood Terrorism on CNN:Pajamas Media vs. Nation Magazine
Chester Chronicles - Talking ‘Bout Ft. Hood Terrorism on CNN:Pajamas Media vs. Nation Magazine
RubinReports: How to Order Military Equipment from Iran, Not a Joke
How to Order Military Equipment from Iran, Not a Joke
[Please subscribe. To my blog, not the Iranian arms sales company]
By Barry Rubin
Want to start an Islamist revolution? Looking for a good weapons' supplier in Iran? Look no further as you can go to their arms' sales site, Really, this isn't a joke. They're advertising their line of arms. "Professionalism is our Career," is the company motto.
Yes, it's Iran's Defense Industries Organization. The site explains:
"WE have more than eight decades of industrial experiences in the field of manufacturing and supply of various types of defense products and employing 20000 specialized personnel. So this organization is a leading and innovative part of country’s industry and has a comprehensive role as an industrial main pole and motive engine for a portion of industrial and software production of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
You can see their promotional video also but I can't get the page on their chemical weapons to work.
I presume, however, you don't get the Hamas/Hiballah/Iraqi insurgent discount. But good news, they do take credit cards.
It looks as if the site hasn't completely escaped the notice of others as part of it has been hacked, by anti-regime Iranians?
At any rate, we can only look forward to the section on Weapons of Mass Destruction coming soon.
By Barry Rubin
Want to start an Islamist revolution? Looking for a good weapons' supplier in Iran? Look no further as you can go to their arms' sales site, Really, this isn't a joke. They're advertising their line of arms. "Professionalism is our Career," is the company motto.
Yes, it's Iran's Defense Industries Organization. The site explains:
"WE have more than eight decades of industrial experiences in the field of manufacturing and supply of various types of defense products and employing 20000 specialized personnel. So this organization is a leading and innovative part of country’s industry and has a comprehensive role as an industrial main pole and motive engine for a portion of industrial and software production of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
You can see their promotional video also but I can't get the page on their chemical weapons to work.
I presume, however, you don't get the Hamas/Hiballah/Iraqi insurgent discount. But good news, they do take credit cards.
It looks as if the site hasn't completely escaped the notice of others as part of it has been hacked, by anti-regime Iranians?
At any rate, we can only look forward to the section on Weapons of Mass Destruction coming soon.
RubinReports: How to Order Military Equipment from Iran, Not a Joke
RubinReports: What’s the Difference between Middle East and Western Politics? The Race to Moderation versus The Race to Militancy
What’s the Difference between Middle East and Western Politics? The Race to Moderation versus The Race to Militancy
[Please subscribe to get good reporting and analysis unavailable elsewhere.]
By Barry Rubin
In a democratic country, where politicians need to gain the majority of votes, to win an election requires convincing voters that you are not too extreme. It’s ok to talk about hope and change and reform, but generally speaking the citizens will support a candidate who convinces them he will create some combination of stability and material benefits.
In Middle Eastern dictatorships, and even if there are elections it is the regime’s power which determines the outcome, things are different. Demagoguery and ideology comes from Arab nationalist (or Islamist in Iran and the Gaza Strip) rulers as well as from Islamist oppositions.
In this narrow spectrum ruled by hardline nationalism and religious passions, you are either a hero or a traitor. Militants are heroes; moderates are traitors. And material benefits just aren't important. The virtues are honor and steadfastness, defending Islam and Arabism, resistance to the forces of evil.
Sure, the regime gives material benefits to its elite cadre of supporters but these governments don't mobilize support by promising a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and better health care. And any way the resistance to the forces of imperialism, Zionism, and the infidel come first. No voice, as the Arab saying goes, can be allowed to rise above the din of battle.
Alas, how Middle East politics works! And so if you do something that can be portrayed as moderate--even as a cynical maneuver to benefit your own side--rivals will use this to portray you as a traitor. Western observers often write as if people are afraid to speak out lest they be killed. In leading circles however, the more immediate fear is to have your reputation ruined and to be cast out of power.
Imagine for the moment that Syria were to make peace with Israel in exchange for all the Golan Heights. Within days, two-thirds of the population would be demanding a peace divident in terms of more freedom and democracy, threatening the regime's survival. And another two-thirds would be denouncing the rulers as traitors who any way aren't proper Muslims who should be overthrown. A lot of people would be doing both at the same time. The dictatorship's survival would be put in question.
Instead, the Syrian regime thunders about resistance and not surrendering one inch. It supports Hizballah and Hamas and the Iraqi insurgency to kill people. Naturally, the economy is in the dumps. But the regime is wildly popular at home.
Naturally, this inhibits moderation and provokes a race in which everyone tries to prove how militant they are.
This common tactic in Arab politics can also be seen in Iran. The opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi says that the Iranian regime is selling out by talking with the Americans. He criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being too soft on the United States because he expressed “readiness for dialogue” and met personally with non-governmental Americans.
Karroubi said:
"If one-tenth of such a meeting happened at the time of all past government, Islamists would have come onto the streets...to protest the government….National interests should be observed. The national interest is not a matter that different governments can change."
And who’s the enemy here? President Barack Obama, the man who has bent over double-backwards to make Tehran want to engage with him. The problem is not who the American president is but the needs of radical dictatorial regimes in the Middle East
So if Karroubi came to power he’d have to build nuclear weapons and follow anti-American policies because he defines these things to be in the national interest of Iran, and certainly in the regime’s interest, and most certainly of all in his own political interest to stave off accusations that he was too moderate.
The same thing applies to Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas. Even after the United States and Israel announce that Israeli construction will be frozen, Abbas must insist that he can’t even talk to Israel unless not a single cinder block is laid atop another one. He also says that he will hold new elections next January but won’t run in them.
First of all, there won’t be new elections because his Fatah movement will never get a deal with Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and maybe also because Fatah’s afraid it won’t win.
Second, Abbas is trying to use this threat as leverage on the United States to get more. Let’s remember the situation: President Barack Obama wants direct Israel-PA talks and Abbas refuses. Obama made a deal with Israel on freezing construction on settlements, Abbas rejects it.
Once again, this is the farce played out in which everyone pretends Abbas is serious, while Washington pretends that it can get some real cooperation from the PA
But what is triggering Abbas’s action most immediately is the cries of betrayal when he agreed with Obama’s request that the PA not take the lead in pushing the Goldstone report in the UN. Everyone knew that it would pass and that all the Arab and Muslim-majority regimes would support it. Yet Washington wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having one of the two parties it is trying to get to the negotiating table call the other one a bestial war criminal that should be lynched.
Abbas went along for about 48 hours but there was an uproar in Fatah. Why? Because everyone was scoring points by proving they were more militant than Abbas. So Abbas did a turnaround. That wasn’t enough so then he helped provoke riots on the Temple Mount and now is doing this resignation farce.
This is one of the main reasons why the region is caught in a vicious circle from which Arab governments and Iran don’t escape.
Equally, that’s why when Obama asks Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt to make some small concession so he can get a construction on settlements freeze from Israel they turned him down flat.
And that’s why no amount of apology, flattery, or concessions from the United States will moderate radicals or make moderates more outspoken and ready to compromise.
Western politicians generally don't want to face this reality. Instead, they even defend their adversaries' behavior (as the alternative would be to have to confront them.)
Thus, Obama claims, with no conceivable justification, that getting a deal on nuclear weapons, "is going to take time, and part of the challenge that we face is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues."
No, the problem is the precise opposite: they have already decided they won't make a deal. One reason for this is that they are all to "settled enough" politically and can ignore any argument that they would be better off if they made a compromise agreement. Another reason is that they want to remain "settled enough" and realize that an agreement to make peace with Israel or dispense with nuclear weapons would leave them worse off.
And when the inexperienced president says things like this, he doesn't understand that he is signalling Iran to stall for an even longer time while it rushes to get nuclear weapons. In other words, Obama is playing right into Iran's hands and sabotaging his own efforts. Sure, he can pretend he's making progress now but what's he going to do in six months?
Or consider Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who is generally more realistic, explaining:
"It is not in Iran's interest to have a nuclear arms race in the Gulf, where they would be less secure than they are today. It is not in Iran's interest, to the Iranian people's interest, to be subjected to very onerous sanctions."
Sure, but it is in Iran's interest if Tehran believes that having nuclear weapons will raise Islamic fervor and Iranian patriotism at home while intimidating Arab and Western states into appeasing Tehran. It is in Iran's interest if it believes--and in listening to Obama how could it help but believe?--that "very onerous sanctions" are just a bluff and the president is desperate to avoid using them.
These administration arguments are bogus. Most people in the Middle East--whether Arab, Iranian, or Israeli--can see through them easily. The U.S. and European leaders simply miscompehend the Middle East because they keep seeing it in terms of their own world view and behavior.
Here's the real answer: Arab and Iranian politicians put their own survival above making Obama happy every time. If they can use a show of militancy and intransigence, it is all the better for them. And if they can get away with it and not incur any cost from U.S. criticism, punishment, or pressure, then that is an extra incentive to bash U.S. interests and reject peace with Israel.
By Barry Rubin
In a democratic country, where politicians need to gain the majority of votes, to win an election requires convincing voters that you are not too extreme. It’s ok to talk about hope and change and reform, but generally speaking the citizens will support a candidate who convinces them he will create some combination of stability and material benefits.
In Middle Eastern dictatorships, and even if there are elections it is the regime’s power which determines the outcome, things are different. Demagoguery and ideology comes from Arab nationalist (or Islamist in Iran and the Gaza Strip) rulers as well as from Islamist oppositions.
In this narrow spectrum ruled by hardline nationalism and religious passions, you are either a hero or a traitor. Militants are heroes; moderates are traitors. And material benefits just aren't important. The virtues are honor and steadfastness, defending Islam and Arabism, resistance to the forces of evil.
Sure, the regime gives material benefits to its elite cadre of supporters but these governments don't mobilize support by promising a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and better health care. And any way the resistance to the forces of imperialism, Zionism, and the infidel come first. No voice, as the Arab saying goes, can be allowed to rise above the din of battle.
Alas, how Middle East politics works! And so if you do something that can be portrayed as moderate--even as a cynical maneuver to benefit your own side--rivals will use this to portray you as a traitor. Western observers often write as if people are afraid to speak out lest they be killed. In leading circles however, the more immediate fear is to have your reputation ruined and to be cast out of power.
Imagine for the moment that Syria were to make peace with Israel in exchange for all the Golan Heights. Within days, two-thirds of the population would be demanding a peace divident in terms of more freedom and democracy, threatening the regime's survival. And another two-thirds would be denouncing the rulers as traitors who any way aren't proper Muslims who should be overthrown. A lot of people would be doing both at the same time. The dictatorship's survival would be put in question.
Instead, the Syrian regime thunders about resistance and not surrendering one inch. It supports Hizballah and Hamas and the Iraqi insurgency to kill people. Naturally, the economy is in the dumps. But the regime is wildly popular at home.
Naturally, this inhibits moderation and provokes a race in which everyone tries to prove how militant they are.
This common tactic in Arab politics can also be seen in Iran. The opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi says that the Iranian regime is selling out by talking with the Americans. He criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being too soft on the United States because he expressed “readiness for dialogue” and met personally with non-governmental Americans.
Karroubi said:
"If one-tenth of such a meeting happened at the time of all past government, Islamists would have come onto the streets...to protest the government….National interests should be observed. The national interest is not a matter that different governments can change."
And who’s the enemy here? President Barack Obama, the man who has bent over double-backwards to make Tehran want to engage with him. The problem is not who the American president is but the needs of radical dictatorial regimes in the Middle East
So if Karroubi came to power he’d have to build nuclear weapons and follow anti-American policies because he defines these things to be in the national interest of Iran, and certainly in the regime’s interest, and most certainly of all in his own political interest to stave off accusations that he was too moderate.
The same thing applies to Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas. Even after the United States and Israel announce that Israeli construction will be frozen, Abbas must insist that he can’t even talk to Israel unless not a single cinder block is laid atop another one. He also says that he will hold new elections next January but won’t run in them.
First of all, there won’t be new elections because his Fatah movement will never get a deal with Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and maybe also because Fatah’s afraid it won’t win.
Second, Abbas is trying to use this threat as leverage on the United States to get more. Let’s remember the situation: President Barack Obama wants direct Israel-PA talks and Abbas refuses. Obama made a deal with Israel on freezing construction on settlements, Abbas rejects it.
Once again, this is the farce played out in which everyone pretends Abbas is serious, while Washington pretends that it can get some real cooperation from the PA
But what is triggering Abbas’s action most immediately is the cries of betrayal when he agreed with Obama’s request that the PA not take the lead in pushing the Goldstone report in the UN. Everyone knew that it would pass and that all the Arab and Muslim-majority regimes would support it. Yet Washington wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having one of the two parties it is trying to get to the negotiating table call the other one a bestial war criminal that should be lynched.
Abbas went along for about 48 hours but there was an uproar in Fatah. Why? Because everyone was scoring points by proving they were more militant than Abbas. So Abbas did a turnaround. That wasn’t enough so then he helped provoke riots on the Temple Mount and now is doing this resignation farce.
This is one of the main reasons why the region is caught in a vicious circle from which Arab governments and Iran don’t escape.
Equally, that’s why when Obama asks Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt to make some small concession so he can get a construction on settlements freeze from Israel they turned him down flat.
And that’s why no amount of apology, flattery, or concessions from the United States will moderate radicals or make moderates more outspoken and ready to compromise.
Western politicians generally don't want to face this reality. Instead, they even defend their adversaries' behavior (as the alternative would be to have to confront them.)
Thus, Obama claims, with no conceivable justification, that getting a deal on nuclear weapons, "is going to take time, and part of the challenge that we face is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues."
No, the problem is the precise opposite: they have already decided they won't make a deal. One reason for this is that they are all to "settled enough" politically and can ignore any argument that they would be better off if they made a compromise agreement. Another reason is that they want to remain "settled enough" and realize that an agreement to make peace with Israel or dispense with nuclear weapons would leave them worse off.
And when the inexperienced president says things like this, he doesn't understand that he is signalling Iran to stall for an even longer time while it rushes to get nuclear weapons. In other words, Obama is playing right into Iran's hands and sabotaging his own efforts. Sure, he can pretend he's making progress now but what's he going to do in six months?
Or consider Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who is generally more realistic, explaining:
"It is not in Iran's interest to have a nuclear arms race in the Gulf, where they would be less secure than they are today. It is not in Iran's interest, to the Iranian people's interest, to be subjected to very onerous sanctions."
Sure, but it is in Iran's interest if Tehran believes that having nuclear weapons will raise Islamic fervor and Iranian patriotism at home while intimidating Arab and Western states into appeasing Tehran. It is in Iran's interest if it believes--and in listening to Obama how could it help but believe?--that "very onerous sanctions" are just a bluff and the president is desperate to avoid using them.
These administration arguments are bogus. Most people in the Middle East--whether Arab, Iranian, or Israeli--can see through them easily. The U.S. and European leaders simply miscompehend the Middle East because they keep seeing it in terms of their own world view and behavior.
Here's the real answer: Arab and Iranian politicians put their own survival above making Obama happy every time. If they can use a show of militancy and intransigence, it is all the better for them. And if they can get away with it and not incur any cost from U.S. criticism, punishment, or pressure, then that is an extra incentive to bash U.S. interests and reject peace with Israel.
RubinReports: What’s the Difference between Middle East and Western Politics? The Race to Moderation versus The Race to Militancy
Israel Matzav: Europeans deeply divided on Goldstone
Europeans deeply divided on Goldstone
Last Thursday, the day I arrived in the US, I devoted nearly all my blogging time to the Goldstone report and the debate with Dore Gold at Brandeis. There was a story I didn't cover that was related to the Goldstone report that I'd like to talk about a bit now: The United Nations General Assembly vote to approve the Goldstone report.That the resolution passed the General Assembly was a foregone conclusion. What's surprising and disturbing is how many countries that ostensibly recognize how biased the Goldstone report is could not bring themselves to vote against it. This is especially true of the European Union.
The 192-member General Assembly approved the resolution by a vote of 114-18, with 44 abstentions and 16 countries not voting.
This non-binding resolution recommends the report be referred to the UN Security Council and the contracting parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention for further consideration.
The European Union was deeply divided on the issue.
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia voted against the resolution, while Austria, Britain, France, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Latvia, Sweden, Romania, Greece, Belgium, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Luxembourg and Spain abstained.
I'm most surprised at Britain and France, and slightly surprised at Denmark. One would have thought that they would take a stand. One would have been wrong.
There aren't that many Jews in Denmark to start with (there are some). Many of France's Jews have left or are leaving - every one of my kids has French-born kids in their class in school. Will England be next?
There aren't that many Jews in Denmark to start with (there are some). Many of France's Jews have left or are leaving - every one of my kids has French-born kids in their class in school. Will England be next?
Israel Matzav: Europeans deeply divided on Goldstone
Israel Matzav: Overnight music video
Overnight music video
In this week's Torah portion, we read of the one place in the Land of Israel that was purchased by our forefathers and not only given by God as a gift. In this week's portion, our forefather Abraham buys the Cave of Machpeila in Hebron - ironically one of the places the Arabs now claim as theirs.
This is Mendy Jerufi singing about how God always watches over the Land of Israel. I apologize for the poor camera work and for the fact that it's 'live' with not such great sound rather than a studio version - I've been looking for this song all week.
Let's go to the videotape.
Israel Matzav: Overnight music video
This is Mendy Jerufi singing about how God always watches over the Land of Israel. I apologize for the poor camera work and for the fact that it's 'live' with not such great sound rather than a studio version - I've been looking for this song all week.
Let's go to the videotape.
Israel Matzav: Overnight music video
Israel Matzav: The way forward?
The way forward?
Elliott Abrams tries to propose a way forward for the Israeli - 'Palestinian' negotiations. The way forward does not lie through fancy international conferences, and one idea still mentioned as an Obama option--proposing a final status plan--would be disastrous and unsuccessful. The way for the Palestinians to get a state is to go ahead and build it. If and when the institutions are there and functioning, from police and courts to a parliament, negotiations will reflect that fact. But the argument that settling the borders and removing the Israeli troops must come first is a path to failure. For one thing, Israel will not and should not leave until it is clear that the West Bank can be policed by Palestinians and that the region will not be a source of terrorism against Israel, as Gaza and South Lebanon became when Israel left there. No conference and no treaty can provide such a guarantee; only functioning Palestinian police forces that are already fighting and defeating terror can do so.
Such a practical approach would bring other benefits. It would enhance the status and power of Palestinian moderates who are working to improve life in the West Bank, rather than enhancing the status and power of old PLO officials who thrive on endless, useless negotiating sessions. It would put a premium on practical Israeli-Palestinian cooperation, rather than elevating precisely the final status questions (like Jerusalem or Palestinian refugees) that most bitterly divide them. It would increase the gap between the West Bank and Gaza, thereby showing Palestinians that Hamas rule brings only despair and poverty. It would press the Arab states to help real live Palestinians in the West Bank, rather than the imaginary Palestinians--all either bold jihadists or desperate widows and orphans--whom they see on Al Jazeera. In fact, except for occasional visits by Jordanians and Egyptians (who have peace treaties with Israel already), top Arab officials haven't a clue what's going on in the West Bank, for they've never been there. Not one head of state or government or foreign minister, not once. If George Mitchell wants to do something useful, he could organize a tour; take a few princes and foreign ministers to Ramallah and Jericho and Jenin, where they would find that they are neither in Somalia nor some heroic battle scene against Zionist oppressors.
Nice try, but this will never happen. The Obama administration isn't willing to adopt such a long-term strategy that is unlikely to bring it any political benefit and that is likely to lead to Obama failing to fulfill his number one foreign policy goal during his term.
And the 'Palestinians' are looking for instant gratification and glory, and not for the grind of day-to-day construction of state institutions like schools, roads, hospitals and sewers. Even Salam Fayyad - who purports to be willing to take time to build 'Palestinian institutions' puts a two-year deadline on that process.
Meanwhile, Israel would be insane to allow a 'Palestinian' state to happen unless and until its security has an ironclad guarantee. And that's the least likely thing of all to happen.
And the 'Palestinians' are looking for instant gratification and glory, and not for the grind of day-to-day construction of state institutions like schools, roads, hospitals and sewers. Even Salam Fayyad - who purports to be willing to take time to build 'Palestinian institutions' puts a two-year deadline on that process.
Meanwhile, Israel would be insane to allow a 'Palestinian' state to happen unless and until its security has an ironclad guarantee. And that's the least likely thing of all to happen.
Israel Matzav: The way forward?
Israel Matzav: Iran developing 'two-point implosion' device
Iran developing 'two-point implosion' device
This is from a New York Daily News editorial. A just-revealed IAEA dossier says Iranian scientists may have tested a sophisticated design for a "two-point implosion" device. This is the technology that allows for production of smaller, simpler nuclear warheads that can be fit on missiles.
In other words, nukes that could hit Tel Aviv.
Iran has admitted to testing technologies for multiple high-explosive detonations that are synchronized to within a microsecond. Its leaders insist there is a civilian application for such tests. But no civilian application is known.
Now, a European adviser on nuclear issues has described Iran's two-point implosion research as "breathtaking." For millions who live within striking distance, that could take on literal meaning.
How much longer are we going to pretend that Iran's nuclear program is for civilian use?
Israel Matzav: Iran developing 'two-point implosion' device
Israel Matzav: Why Obama and Bibi discussed Iran on Monday night
Why Obama and Bibi discussed Iran on Monday night
Anyone need more proof that Monday night's White House meeting was about Iran? Consider this by Steve Rosen from the hours leading up to the meeting. Some on the U.S. side may want to use the opportunity to take Netanyahu to the woodshed, to say to the Palestinians, "See, we are being tough with Israel." That would be a profound mistake, one that would convince Israelis that their original fear that Obama is allied with the Arabs and not with Israel was correct. And it would reinforce the belief among many on the Arab side that what is needed is American diktats to Israel, not direct negotiations.
If the president wants to avoid the appearance that a positive meeting with Netanyahu means he is deaf to Palestinian concerns, a solution is close at hand. The meeting, or at least the public diplomacy about the meeting, should be primarily about Iran, not the Israeli-Palestinian morass. Nothing is going to happen on the Palestinian front until their crisis of legitimacy reaches some kind of new equilibrium in January with presidential elections anyway. The Iranian issue, by contrast, is at an urgent moment and cannot long be ignored.
If Obama were to emerge from a meeting with Netanyahu with their partnership on Iran restored, all the friendly governments in the Mideast would be gratified -- from Riyadh to Cairo to the Mukata in Ramallah, not to mention the people of Israel. Renewing real U.S.-Israeli strategic cooperation on the Iranian crisis is a necessity and an opportunity for Obama to undo some of the harm of past mistakes and get back on a track that may actually produce progress in the Middle East.
And the 'Palestinians' now find themselves in the position of begging the US not to take a pause in the 'negotiations' with the 'Palestinians.'
There are rumors that the White House is considering a pause in its shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East, a recognition that the administration goal to convince the Israeli government to impose a freeze on settlements might not be possible in the near term and the tumultuous situation inside the Palestinian Authority might prevent that side from sitting down at the table.
The Palestinian Authority, for one, is calling on the administration not to take a break in their initiative, while still acknowledging that there is wide space between the current atmosphere and one that could precede a resumption of talks.
"I don't think the administration can impose a pause on their activities. We heard that, it is not official or confirmed," said Ambassador Maen Rashid Areikat, PLO representative to the United States and head of the PLO mission in Washington, "The middle east conflict is too important an issue for the administration to abandon or to take a back seat, I think."
Actually, I would venture a guess that a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is of a lot more concern to just about everyone in the world than a 'Palestinian state.' With the possible exception of the 'Palestinians.'
Talk about a sense of self-importance....
UPDATE 8:25 PM BOSTON TIME
Here's more proof that I'm right about what was discussed.
Talk about a sense of self-importance....
UPDATE 8:25 PM BOSTON TIME
Here's more proof that I'm right about what was discussed.
Although the details of Monday night's talks between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama continued to be shrouded in secrecy, speaking to reporters before boarding the plane to Paris from Washington on Tuesday night, the prime minister dismissed suggestions of a tense meeting and said the "importance of the visit will become clear in the future."
...
"The discussions dealt with the complex of issues vital for Israel's security</span> and our joint efforts to advance the peace process. We discussed these issues in detail, in a practical way and out of friendship. I really appreciated the professional and positive approach I discovered," he said.
Hmmm.
Israel Matzav: Why Obama and Bibi discussed Iran on Monday night
Israel Matzav: India buys $1.1 billion weapons system from Israel
India buys $1.1 billion weapons system from Israel
Indian Chief of Staff Gen. Deepak Kapoor (pictured with IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi) has been in Israel since Saturday, and that visit paid off on Monday, with India agreeing to buy a $1.1 billion seaborne tactical air defense system from Israel. Made by state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd., the Barak-8 is designed for use aboard ships and can shoot down incoming missiles, planes and drones. The most advanced version can be also deployed on land, the Israeli official said.
India has already acquired an earlier generation of the Barak system, the official said.
The Barak-8 contract was signed in April, and delivery of the systems will take place "over the next six to eight years".
Israel has overtaken Russia as India's largest military supplier.
Israel and India enjoy close defense ties and Israel last year overtook Russia as the number-one supplier of military platforms to India after breaking the $1 billion mark in new contracts signed annually.
According to press reports, India is interested in working with Israel on submarine-launched cruise missiles, ballistic missile defense systems, laser-guided systems, satellites as well as unmanned aerial vehicles.
Israel has also helped India beef up its security since last year's coordinated terror attacks in Mumbai.
This looks like a win-win situation for both countries.
This looks like a win-win situation for both countries.
Israel Matzav: India buys $1.1 billion weapons system from Israel
Israel Matzav: Netanyahu's strange meeting with Obama
Netanyahu's strange meeting with Obama
President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu met on Monday night in what has to be one of the more bizarre meetings between an American President and an Israeli Prime Minister of recent memory. Obama did not agree to the meeting until Sunday night, even though he knew that Netanyahu would be in Washington for the UJA General Assembly. But that was just the start of the strangeness. A White House statement after the one-hour, 40-minute session framed the meeting in only general terms, saying the two leaders discussed "how to move forward on Middle East peace" and also spoke about Iran and security issues.
A spokesman for Netanyahu declined to comment on the talks and a briefing the prime minister intended to hold on Tuesday for reporters who accompanied him to Washington was canceled.
The meeting was also attended by National Security Adviser Retired Gen. Jim Jones, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, special US envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell and Director for Near Eastern Affairs at the National Security Council Dan Shapiro.
On the Israeli side, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, National Security Council head Uzi Arad, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren and Prime Minister's Office adviser Yitzhak Molcho joined Netanyahu.
Let's start with this: What the heck was Rahm Emanuel doing there in a room full of diplomats? If you've ever sat in a business meeting with Israelis and Americans, the answer is obvious: He was available to translate for Obama so that the Israelis could not speak among themselves in Hebrew and keep their discussions private from Obama.
Why no statement? Well, there actually was a statement on Tuesday morning as Netanyahu was leaving Washington: He said that the meeting with Obama was 'warm.' Rahm Emanuel has confirmed that and has claimed that the 'peace process' was discussed. So I ask again: Why no statement? And why were the reporters kept out of the oval office - not even a photo op? And why did Netanyahu arrive after dark? So he could steal into the White House? So that the 'Palestinians' wouldn't find out?
My guess is that neither the White House nor the Prime Minister's office is telling the truth about this meeting. This meeting wasn't about the 'peace process.' This meeting was about Iran. Both Netanyahu and Obama want the media to think that they were discussing the 'peace process.' They weren't.
It's November 10. Obama gave Iran until the end of September to reach a deal with the West over its nuclear program, and he then extended the deadline to the end of the year. That's 51 days from now. Netanyahu is not going to sit tight and see that deadline extended again. And he needs the answer to one simple question from Obama: Are you with us or against us? Did Netanyahu get the answer he sought? We'll find out in early January.
Why no statement? Well, there actually was a statement on Tuesday morning as Netanyahu was leaving Washington: He said that the meeting with Obama was 'warm.' Rahm Emanuel has confirmed that and has claimed that the 'peace process' was discussed. So I ask again: Why no statement? And why were the reporters kept out of the oval office - not even a photo op? And why did Netanyahu arrive after dark? So he could steal into the White House? So that the 'Palestinians' wouldn't find out?
My guess is that neither the White House nor the Prime Minister's office is telling the truth about this meeting. This meeting wasn't about the 'peace process.' This meeting was about Iran. Both Netanyahu and Obama want the media to think that they were discussing the 'peace process.' They weren't.
It's November 10. Obama gave Iran until the end of September to reach a deal with the West over its nuclear program, and he then extended the deadline to the end of the year. That's 51 days from now. Netanyahu is not going to sit tight and see that deadline extended again. And he needs the answer to one simple question from Obama: Are you with us or against us? Did Netanyahu get the answer he sought? We'll find out in early January.
Israel Matzav: Netanyahu's strange meeting with Obama
Israel Matzav: CIA to target Dearbornistan to recruit Arab and Iranian translators
CIA to target Dearbornistan to recruit Arab and Iranian translators
The CIA is looking for translators for Arabic and Persian and they think they have found just the area to target: Dearbornistan. The CIA plans a Detroit-area premiere for two TV commercials aimed at recruiting Arab- and Iranian-Americans.
The private screening will be held Nov. 18 in Dearborn, the heart of Michigan's large Middle Eastern community.
The commercials are part of a major outreach effort by the CIA that's included a high-profile visit to Dearborn in September by CIA Director Leon Panetta. He urged Arab-American and Muslim leaders to join efforts to reduce the threat of terrorism in the U.S.
The agency has a five-year plan to boost fluency in Arabic and other languages deemed critical to its work. Panetta wants to raise foreign language proficiency inside the CIA from less than a third to at least half of all analysts and intelligence operatives.
Good luck with that.
What they ought to be targeting is the Gravesend section of Brooklyn, New York, Deal, New Jersey, and Los Angeles and Great Neck, New York, where there are loyal American Jews who are of Syrian and Iranian origin and speak Arabic and Persian respectively.
But no, the CIA won't recruit Jews, so they'll go to Dearbornistan instead.
What could go wrong?
What they ought to be targeting is the Gravesend section of Brooklyn, New York, Deal, New Jersey, and Los Angeles and Great Neck, New York, where there are loyal American Jews who are of Syrian and Iranian origin and speak Arabic and Persian respectively.
But no, the CIA won't recruit Jews, so they'll go to Dearbornistan instead.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: CIA to target Dearbornistan to recruit Arab and Iranian translators
Israel Matzav: Ahmadinejad to Obama: 'Abandon Israel and we'll talk'
Ahmadinejad to Obama: 'Abandon Israel and we'll talk'
At a press conference in Istanbul on Monday night, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spurned the outstretched hand of American President Barack Obama, telling Obama that he would have to choose between Iran and Israel. [Ahmadinejad] told a press conference in Istanbul that Obama had failed to deliver his promise of change in US foreign policy and said he had to choose between Israel and relations with Iran.
...
Speaking at the end of a summit of 57 Islamic countries, Ahmadinejad was less conciliatory on the US, a possibility raised by Obama's offer to "reach out a hand" to Iran after 30 years of ruptured ties. Asked by the Guardian what conditions the US would have fulfil for relations to be restored, Ahmadinejad said: "Change should happen in practice. Which change has happened? Was Guantánamo Bay shut down? Were the US policies supporting Zionists and the mass murder of Palestinians stopped? Were the US policies in Afghanistan changed? Were the policies in Iraq changed?
"Obama should take big decisions and changes. He can't collect the support of the illegal murderous Zionist regime [Israel] and the countries of the region as well. Earning friendship of the countries in the region is not compatible with the Zionist regime's friendship. I know that dropping the Zionist regime is a difficult choice and task. [But] he should confront the Zionists and obviously the changes would not take place unless big choices happen."
Fortunately, Congress is unlikely to let Obama completely abandon Israel. But that doesn't mean that Obama will destroy his chance for 'change' by actually taking action against Iran's nuclear threat.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Ahmadinejad to Obama: 'Abandon Israel and we'll talk'
Israel Matzav: Obama: 'Progress' toward nuclear non-proliferation
Obama: 'Progress' toward nuclear non-proliferation
President Obumbler told Reuters on Monday that the United States has made more 'progress' toward nuclear non-proliferation in the last several months than it did in the previous several years (i.e. the entire Bush administration).There are only two problems. First, you have to exclude Iran and North Korea - the two countries that have progressed toward nuclear proliferation over the last 'several months' - for the statement to even be prima facie arguable. Second, given how Obama has cowtowed to Russia, the only country that has made 'progress' toward non-proliferation is the United States, whose arsenal Obama is attempting to shut down. The Russians certainly aren't going to destroy their nuclear weapons. For that matter, neither will Pakistan.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Obama: 'Progress' toward nuclear non-proliferation
Israel Matzav: Lebanon's 'unity government'
Lebanon's 'unity government'
Lebanese Prime Minister Sa'ad Hariri formed a cabinet on Monday. While the cabinet may reflect unity in Lebanon, the price has been steep: Hariri has squandered his election victory and the opportunity it gave him to dictate the country's agenda, while making a future war with Israel that neither the Israelis nor Hariri want a lot more likely. Yet for all the relief surrounding its formation, the government will continue to face deep rifts that go to the heart of Lebanon’s still-unresolved identity, with one camp defining itself through resistance to Israel and the West, and the other aspiring to a more commercial and cosmopolitan role.
The new cabinet includes 15 seats for the majority led by Mr. Hariri, 10 for the Hezbollah-led opposition, and five for President Michel Suleiman, who has struggled to maintain neutrality. But because of the role of independent power brokers — including the wily Druse leader Walid Jumblatt, an ally of Mr. Hariri’s who distanced himself after the elections — the majority will have little chance to dictate the agenda.
That limitation could be a formula for further gridlock, especially on divisive issues like the international tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the father of the prime minister-designate.
Another volatile issue, Hezbollah’s arsenal, is not even up for discussion. When Saad Hariri’s allies appeared to challenge Hezbollah’s military prerogatives in May 2008, the group and its allies seized much of west Beirut, setting off the worst internal clashes since this country’s 15-year civil war. The violence was a bitter lesson, and led to a power-sharing agreement that enshrined a cabinet veto for Hezbollah and its allies.
By choosing to bring Hezbullah into his government, Hariri has ensured that any future terror attacks by Hezbullah on Israel will be treated as an action of the government of Lebanon and not just an act of Hezbullah. And by cowering in fear of Hezbullah's weapons, he has ensured that his country will continue to be dominated by Iran and Syria.
Will the United States deal with a Lebanese government that includes Hezbullah? Under George W. Bush, the answer would have been no. Under Barack Hussein Obama, I would bet that the US will deal with Lebanon.
What could go wrong?
More here.
Will the United States deal with a Lebanese government that includes Hezbullah? Under George W. Bush, the answer would have been no. Under Barack Hussein Obama, I would bet that the US will deal with Lebanon.
What could go wrong?
More here.
Israel Matzav: Lebanon's 'unity government'
Israel Matzav: No great loss?
No great loss?
The New York Times decided to publish a special article in honor of Prime Minister Netanyahu's meeting with President Obama, which pushes the 'Palestinian' agenda in a way that only the Times knows how to do. In a word, the sky is falling. “I think he is realizing that he came all this way with the peace process in order to create a Palestinian state, but he sees no state coming,” Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian peace negotiator, said in an interview. “So he really doesn’t think there is a need to be president or to have an Authority. This is not about who is going to replace him. This is about our leaving our posts. You think anybody will stay after he leaves?”
Mr. Abbas warned last week that he would not participate in Palestinian elections he called for, to take place in January. But he has threatened several times before to resign, and many viewed this latest step as a ploy by a Hamlet-like leader upset over Israeli and American policy. Many also noted that the vote might not actually be held, given the Palestinian political fracture and the unwillingness of Hamas, which controls Gaza, to participate.
In the days since, however, his colleagues have come to believe that he is not bluffing. If that is the case, they say, the Palestinian Authority, which administers Palestinian affairs in the occupied West Bank and serves as a principal actor in peace negotiations with Israel, could be endangered.
Four top officials made the same point in separate interviews. Mr. Abbas, they say, feels at a total impasse in negotiations with the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has declined to commit to a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem. Mr. Netanyahu favors negotiations without preconditions.
And then there's perhaps the most ironic statement of all:
The officials who spoke said they were no longer interested in being part of an artifice that effectively masked Israeli occupation. While others might come forward to take their places, the new leaders would lack legitimacy with the Palestinians.
Let's take that last statement first. The 'Palestinians' were supposed to hold elections a year ago. They did not. 'Mr. Abbas' Abu Mazen has no legitimacy as leader today and he is too weak to reach any kind of agreement. His going out to pasture could be the best thing that could happen for the 'peace process' - not the worst. He's just extending his own term in power and occupying a seat.
Second, there aren't likely to be 'Palestinian elections' in January unless Gaza is excluded. Abu Mazen will use that as an excuse not to hold elections and not to chance his own tenuous hold on power (what would he do with himself were he not 'President'? The question is absurd). Abu Mazen is going to be 'President' for a long time to come.
Third, what the 'Palestinian Authority' is trying to do is to manipulate the United States, the Europeans and Israel to agree to thttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=20498788heir demands for a 'settlement freeze.' Abu Mazen has been part of negotiations with every Israeli government since 1993 and never once has there been a demand for a 'settlement freeze.' There is no way Israel will agree to one now and there is certainly no way Israel will agree to a 'settlement freeze' in Jerusalem, which Israel does not consider a 'settlement.' That's beyond absurd.
Fourth, anyplace else in the world, 'negotiations without preconditions' would be all you can ask for. Just ask President Obama - that's what he's offered to rogue regimes in Iran and Syria. But not when Israel is involved. When Israel is involved, the outcome has to be predetermined. It's high time we put a stop to that.
If Abu Mazen wants to resign, let him. It's no major loss. Most of the rational 'Palestinians' would probably prefer being ruled by the IDF to being ruled by the 'Palestinian Authority' anyway. Their economy did much better from 1967-88 than it has before or since. Of course, the rational 'Palestinians' are not part of the leadership. This is from Eliot Jager's review of George Gilder's The Israel Test, a book I have recommended to you previously.
Second, there aren't likely to be 'Palestinian elections' in January unless Gaza is excluded. Abu Mazen will use that as an excuse not to hold elections and not to chance his own tenuous hold on power (what would he do with himself were he not 'President'? The question is absurd). Abu Mazen is going to be 'President' for a long time to come.
Third, what the 'Palestinian Authority' is trying to do is to manipulate the United States, the Europeans and Israel to agree to thttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=20498788heir demands for a 'settlement freeze.' Abu Mazen has been part of negotiations with every Israeli government since 1993 and never once has there been a demand for a 'settlement freeze.' There is no way Israel will agree to one now and there is certainly no way Israel will agree to a 'settlement freeze' in Jerusalem, which Israel does not consider a 'settlement.' That's beyond absurd.
Fourth, anyplace else in the world, 'negotiations without preconditions' would be all you can ask for. Just ask President Obama - that's what he's offered to rogue regimes in Iran and Syria. But not when Israel is involved. When Israel is involved, the outcome has to be predetermined. It's high time we put a stop to that.
If Abu Mazen wants to resign, let him. It's no major loss. Most of the rational 'Palestinians' would probably prefer being ruled by the IDF to being ruled by the 'Palestinian Authority' anyway. Their economy did much better from 1967-88 than it has before or since. Of course, the rational 'Palestinians' are not part of the leadership. This is from Eliot Jager's review of George Gilder's The Israel Test, a book I have recommended to you previously.
GILDER'S BOOK is also an excellent primer against the Palestinian Arab cause.
Their self-induced dependency on foreign aid, exacerbated by the intervention of international aid groups, has "transformed the Palestinians into a ghetto of violent male gangs and welfare queens." Such over-the-top language actually camouflages an otherwise convincing argument.
As proof Gilder cites Musa Alami telling David Ben-Gurion in 1934: "I would prefer that the country remain impoverished and barren for another hundred years, until we ourselves are able to develop it on our own" than make common cause with the Zionists. Sure enough, between 1967 and 1987 – prior to the first intifada – the West Bank was "one of the most dynamic economies on earth."
True to Alami's sentiments, the Palestinians threw it all away by launching the first intifada in 1988. Then in the wake of the 1993 Oslo accords, their economy began thrived again. Hundreds of thousands of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were employed within the Green Line; Nablus license plates could be seen on the streets of Tel Aviv. And still, in 2000, having rejected Ehud Barak's overly generous terms for a state, the Palestinian leadership launched the second intifada and again drove their people into a crater of violence and economic depression. It was all done out of irrational hatred. Gilder says "capitalism requires peace" and the Palestinians want neither.
What would happen if the 'Palestinian Authority' collapsed? My guess is that the IDF would take over, and the 'Palestinians' would either behave and watch their economy flourish, or they wouldn't behave in which case all the rational 'Palestinians' would leave. Given the defensive infrastructure Israel has in place for the last six or seven years, either of those may be acceptable results. They are both far better than a 'Palestinian state' that seeks to destroy us.
Israel Matzav: No great loss?
Israel Matzav: Abu Bluff to remain President for a long time
Abu Bluff to remain President for a long time
Well, he was bluffing after all. 'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Palestinian analysts as well as senior Palestinian Authority and Fatah officials believe that so long as Fatah and Hamas do not reconcile, the presidential and parliamentary elections Abbas called for January 24, 2010 will be postponed indefinitely.
This is partly due to Hamas' refusal to hold elections in Gaza, and the problems that would arise from holding elections in the West Bank alone. Another issue in question is whether East Jerusalem would participate in the elections.
Additionally, Fatah is currently refusing to name a candidate to take Abbas' place. Senior Fatah officials say they expect Abbas to retract his statement and run for reelection, and that they hope his announcement will increase pressure on the U.S. administration to help Abbas do so.
The officials expect the U.S. administration to announce that East Jerusalem will be the capital of a future Palestinian state, and to stop trying to force Abbas to forgo his preconditions for returning to negotiations with Israel - that Israel freeze construction in the settlements.
Abu Bluff is acting like a spoiled child whose toys were taken away. On Sunday, he complained that Israel 'doesn't want peace' and vowed that the 'Palestinians' would not make any more concessions. Funny, I can't think of any they've made until now.
Israel Matzav: Abu Bluff to remain President for a long time
Israel Matzav: Hmmm....
Hmmm....
US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, told the National Press Club in Washington last week that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. That recognition has apparently led to something that could be important to stop Iran. Remember how I reported last summer that the US was not willing to let Israel install its own technology in the F-35 jets being purchased from the United States? That seems to be changing. Ahead of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's visit to the Pentagon this week, Israeli military sources said they were satisfied with the progress in talks with their American counterparts over acquiring F-35 fighter jets. Israel will pay $135 million per jet if it buys 25, and $100 million if it buys 75.
Meanwhile, Washington has retracted its opposition to installing Israeli-made systems on the jets. However, a disagreement over Israel's request for complete access to the planes' computer systems is yet to be resolved.
At a conference at the National Press Club, Mullen said he has spent a significant amount of time with his Israeli counterpart, IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, and that "it's very clear to me that a nuclear weapon in Iran is an existential threat to Israel," according to a transcript released by his office.
"There is no doubt in my mind that's how the Israelis feel," he said, adding, "Given that view, [and] their sense of both focus and urgency ... it is up front. It is at the top of their list."
Hmmm.
Israel Matzav: Hmmm....
Israel Matzav: Change?
Change?
With President Obama scheduled to meet Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday night - after agreeing to the meeting only at the last minute - the Wall Street Journal discusses what may be a change in 'Palestinian' tactics. Many Middle East analysts voiced skepticism over what Mr. Netanyahu could announce that would lend support to the stalled peace process. But Palestinian officials have told Mrs. Clinton and other U.S. diplomats in recent weeks that they were concerned they could be drawn into negotiations with Israel that fell short of establishing an independent state. Mr. Netanyahu in the past has described granting Palestinians broad autonomy, but without total control of their defenses and foreign policy.
Some U.S. officials said they believe the administration took too confrontational an approach toward Mr. Netanyahu soon after Mr. Obama took office, insisting early on a total settlement freeze and turning Israeli public opinion strongly against the U.S.
The perception in the last week that the U.S. has eased up on the Israeli leader has rippled through the Palestinian political establishment. Senior officials have in recent days begun speaking publicly about abandoning negotiations for an independent state, and focusing instead on full citizenship rights for Palestinians in Israel. Such an approach is anathema to the vast majority of Israelis because it would mean the end to Israel's Jewish identity.
Long time lead Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said last week that Palestinians "should refocus their attention to the one-state solution, where Muslims, Jews and Christians can live as equals." Another option being discussed is pursuing Palestinian statehood unilaterally by seeking recognition from major European countries or in the United Nations.
"We are on the verge of a real shift and I think what gave it the big push was Obama reneging on his promises," veteran peace negotiator and Palestinian lawmaker Hanan Ashrawi said. "Palestinians believe that there is no chance now of having a two-state solution."
This just isn't going to happen. What the 'Palestinians' may not realize is that the Israeli Left is more opposed to having one state than the Israeli Right. The Israeli Left will never agree to giving the 'Palestinians' full citizenship rights in the State of Israel - it's what they've been trying to avoid for more than 40 years.
Of course, giving the 'Palestinians' full citizenship rights could have one advantageous result: Israel would get to determine how many 'Palestinians' there really are. There wouldn't be any dead people voting Chicago style.
Heh.
Of course, giving the 'Palestinians' full citizenship rights could have one advantageous result: Israel would get to determine how many 'Palestinians' there really are. There wouldn't be any dead people voting Chicago style.
Heh.
Israel Matzav: Change?
Israel Matzav: Iran threatens Russia
Iran threatens Russia
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't afraid of anyone these days. Having sent the Obumbler cowering into a corner, now he's going after the Russians. Iran's state television is reporting that a senior lawmaker has warned Russia over a delay in the delivery of an anti-aircraft missile defense system to Tehran.
Sunday's report quotes the head of parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, as saying that if Russia does not fulfill its promised delivery of the missiles, it will be "a negative point" in their relations.
Russia and Iran have been discussing the delivery of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense system based on a 2007 agreement.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Iran threatens Russia
Love of the Land: Hamas' West Bank Popularity Up, So Abbas Isn't Running
Hamas' West Bank Popularity Up, So Abbas Isn't Running
JINSA
JINSA Report #: 938
November 9, 2009
Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority (West Bank division) has announced that he will not run in the Palestinian election currently scheduled for January 2010. He blames Israeli "intransigence" on the issue of houses for Jewish people east of the 1949 Armistice Line.
We offer another perspective.
"Strengthening Abu Mazen" has been U.S., European and Israeli policy since Abbas took over control of Fatah after Yasser Arafat's death. President Bush, who shunned Arafat, was the first American president to call the establishment of an independent Palestinian state an American objective. Billions of dollars, shekels and euros have been poured into the Palestinian Authority territory; the Palestinians are far and away the largest per capita recipients of international largesse. President Obama received Abu Mazen in the White House. The United States sent an American Army general to create a "police force" that has the structure and potential to become a Palestinian army, loyal to Abu Mazen.
In his limited range, Abu Mazen has had some limited success. He has cracked down on corruption, crime and, in particular, on violent criminal gangs on the West Bank. With that and Israel's removal of a large number of security checkpoints, economic growth on the West Bank has been about seven percent in 2009-better than in most of the world. [He has no function in Gaza except to continue to use Western funds to pay salaries for government employees there who now work for Hamas.]
But if Abu Mazen is the darling of those non-Palestinians who wanted him to lead the Palestinians toward the Western construct of a "two-state solution," he has largely been a failure as a Palestinian leader pursuing Palestinian national goals and appears unwilling to ask Palestinians for a renewed mandate.
Abu Mazen is the leader of Fatah, just one party within the Palestinian political constellation. Hamas, Palestinian Jihad, PFLP are other parties, and Iran is a looming presence. In August, the first Fatah convention in 20 years resulted in a restatement of the "right of armed resistance" and "right of return." Jerusalem was labeled holy only to Christians and Muslims. Committee recommendations rejected negotiations with Israel until after 14 conditions are met, including lifting the blockade of Gaza and releasing all prisoners. Younger, harder-line members were elected to the Central Committee.
Since then, Abu Mazen has tried to burnish his hard line credentials-reneging on his promise to President Obama to leave the Goldstone report alone, and insisting on a total settlement freeze even after the United States changed its view.
But it may be too little too late. Despite the economic gains under Fatah, Hamas is increasingly popular among West Bank Palestinians. Instead of running and losing in his remaining satrapy, Abu Mazen is talking about canceling the election and maintaining the political status quo, i.e., himself in charge, spending our money.
Somehow, that's not surprising.
Love of the Land: Hamas' West Bank Popularity Up, So Abbas Isn't Running
Love of the Land: Who Was Distracted by Settlements, Rahm?
Who Was Distracted by Settlements, Rahm?
Rahm Emanuel’s statement today that “no one should allow the issue of settlements to distract from the goal of a lasting peace between Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab world” may be interpreted in a couple of different ways. Some may see it as a jibe at Israel to give in on the issue so as to enable peace talks to proceed. But the truth is, if anyone has been distracted by the settlements to the detriment of peace, it would be Emanuel and his master in the Oval Office.
Some feared that the White House chief of staff’s speech to the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities today in Washington might be the latest in a series of tit-for-tat ripostes between the Obama administration and the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. However, it appears that Netanyahu’s determined effort to pretend — at least in public — that all is well between the two bickering allies has resulted in the administration’s deciding that increasing the tension between the two isn’t in their interest. Thus, although Emanuel’s talk sought to defend his boss’s feckless pursuit of popularity in the Arab world by distancing himself from Israel at every opportunity, it appears as though he passed on the chance to take any direct shots at Netanyahu.
As for his line about letting settlements “distract” anyone from the goal of peace, if anyone has done that, it has been Obama and his minions, whose recklessness on this issue has led to no end of Middle East mischief in recent months. Obama was determined to end what he termed the George W. Bush policy of allowing “no daylight” between the countries (which was hardly true, as Bush’s secretary of state spent her last two years in office trying to push the Israelis into more concessions to the Palestinians). His decision to pick a fight with the newly elected Netanyahu over a settlement freeze in Jerusalem and the territories was as foolish as it was pointless. The Palestinian Authority and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, had just turned down yet another generous peace offer from Netanyahu’s predecessor Ehud Olmert. And the administration’s settlement stand merely encouraged the Palestinians to dig in their heels and refuse to talk until Netanyahu bowed to a demand that no Israeli government would ever agree to.
The result is that Obama’s settlement distraction helped further undermine the already weak Abbas and strengthened the hand of his Hamas rivals. With Abbas threatening resignation, there is now a chance that the Palestinians will opt, as they always have whenever they have been faced with a serious policy choice in the past, for an escalation of violence in the hope that more bloodshed will result in greater pressure on Israel. Obama and his hatchet man Emanuel have been chastened by the Israeli public’s strong support for Netanyahu’s refusal to bow to American pressure, and they appear to be adopting a more realistic policy on settlements these days. But their resentment of Netanyahu, who they thought they might topple a few months ago, has done nothing to advance the cause of peace, let alone regional stability. Let’s hope they take that line about distractions more seriously in the future.
It should also be noted that in the same speech Emanuel claimed that the administration has made some sort of progress on stopping Iran’s nuclear program since “thanks to the work of the president, there is strong and international consensus against a nuclear-armed Iran.” Sorry, Rahm, but that consensus existed long before Obama arrived in Washington. The problem today is whether the United States and its allies (who have taken a much tougher stand on Iran than Obama has) will draw the right conclusions from America’s failed attempt at nuclear diplomacy with Iran. On Iran, as well as on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama’s first initiatives have been fiascoes. What’s needed now is not rhetoric aimed at reassuring American Jews that Obama cares about Israel but rather a dramatic policy overhaul that recognizes and seeks to correct the dramatic mistakes that have been made in the last ten months.
Love of the Land: Who Was Distracted by Settlements, Rahm?
Love of the Land: Keeping Fayyad Out
Keeping Fayyad Out
Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
10 November 09
In a “dramatic” speech to his people last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced that he had “no desire” to run for another term in a new election slated for January 24, 2010 – a threat was directed first and foremost toward the US Administration, which he and his top aides accused of being “biased” in favor of Israel.
Abbas’s message to the Americans: You either endorse my policies entirely or I won’t run in the next election. He has convinced himself that without him the world would stop and the Palestinians would never be able to move forward.
Abbas’s departure from the scene would, in fact, benefit the peace process and bring the Palestinians closer to fulfilling their aspirations. But he does not seem to in a hurry to retire.
The Palestinian leader is upset with Washington because of its failure to force Israel to freeze all construction in Jewish settlements and neighborhoods in the West Bank and Jerusalem. He has refused to resume peace talks with Israel unless construction in these areas is halted completely.
But the US Administration, along with some Arab leaders, insists that the Palestinians must return to the negotiating table with Israel unconditionally.
Abbas is now finding it difficult to meet this demand, especially in light of the fact that he had been telling his people, almost on a daily basis, that he would never resume the peace negotiations while construction in the settlements and Jerusalem was continuing.
Abbas’s move is seen by many Palestinians as a ploy aimed not only at pressuring the Americans, but also at boosting his standing among his constituents. Some said that he was trying to imitate ex-Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who announced his resignation after his country’s humiliating defeat in 1967, only to retract the decision the following day following massive demonstrations throughout Egyptand the rest of the Arab world.
(Continue reading ...)
Love of the Land: Keeping Fayyad Out
Love of the Land: On threats and opportunities
On threats and opportunities
Recently Israel has been warned of the ‘threat’ of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state if it doesn’t move to make ‘peace’ with the PA soon. Ha’aretz threatened,
Concerns are growing in Israel’s government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United Nations Security Council.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.
The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line, even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense.
There is no doubt that some ‘major EU countries’ and “certain U.S. officials” would love to see the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria declared illegal, not to mention East Jerusalem (in fact, these same countries and officials would probably say that Israel should be replaced by a Palestinian Arab state if they spoke honestly).
But a secret agreement? There’s still enough support for Israel in the US Congress and the public to make this a very dumb idea. At least today.
Here’s another threat, of a different kind, this one from Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas:
“I don’t know what the Israelis want,” he said. “They must start thinking about what needs to be done if they really want peace.”
Meanwhile, Hassan Khraisheh, deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, called on Abbas to seriously consider dissolving the PA because of the failure of the peace process. “This authority was created so that it could prepare for the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Khraisheh said. “But after more than 15 years of thorough negotiations with Israel, this state still hasn’t been established.”
On Sunday, The Jerusalem Post, quoting senior PA officials, revealed that Abbas was already considering dismantling the PA, to protest Washington’s failure to force Israel to freeze settlement construction.
Leaving aside the fact that the dissolution of the PA would end the hundreds of millions of dollars that flow to Abbas and Co. from the US, as well as the arms and training for the PA’s new army, the implied danger here is that Hamas — or Israel — would take over control of PA territory and population.
Love of the Land: On threats and opportunities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
