Posts
34 minutes ago
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Elder of Ziyon: Bahraini football team criticized for planned PalArab game
Bahraini football team criticized for planned PalArab game
From The National, in an episode that is mirroring what happened with Egypt recently:
More evidence, as if any was needed, that the people who pretend to support Palestinian Arabs the most are the ones who do the least for them, and that hate for Israel is much stronger than any love they have for "Palestine." |
Elder of Ziyon: Bahraini football team criticized for planned PalArab game
Love of the Land: An Unusual Alignment of Interests
An Unusual Alignment of Interests
Michael J. Totten
Contentions/Commentary
31 March '10
More than any other Arab head of state in the world, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has mastered the art of telling listeners what they want to hear.
Last week, he said his country is fully committed to peace in the Middle East, though he worries the Israel government isn’t. He knows this is what bien pensants in the West like to believe. He knows they find it refreshing that he can talk like a liberal while Iran’s Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten apocalypse.
He also knows how to talk like the right kind of hardliner. Yesterday, he condemned the double suicide-bombing in Moscow’s underground metro and urged the international community to “fight terror around the globe.”
It’s no wonder, then, that some in Washington, Paris, and even Jerusalem think he’s a man they can do business with. All they have to do is convince him that his alliance with Iran is counterproductive, that it runs contrary to his self-evident interests and public pronouncements.
Syria, though, is the most aggressive state sponsor of terrorism in the world after Iran. Assad doesn’t even try to keep up the pretense when he isn’t preening before peace processors. Last week, he said Israel only understands force — a statement perfectly in line with his behavior. And just two days ago, he and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi urged the Palestinian Authority to scrap negotiations with Israel and return to its terrorist roots.
(Read full post)
Love of the Land: An Unusual Alignment of Interests
Love of the Land: 'The cycle of violence between Jews and Egyptians continues': How CNN might have reported the Passover story
'The cycle of violence between Jews and Egyptians continues': How CNN might have reported the Passover story
Stephanie Gutmann
Telegraph UK
29 March '10
Here’s how the Passover story would have been reported, back in the day, by CNN or the New York Times (courtesy Daniel P. Waxman of Mideasttruth.com):
The cycle of violence between the Jews & the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness.
Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. “It is simply impossible to report when you can’t see an inch in front of you,”complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. “I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians. Their word is solid enough evidence for me.”
While the Jews contend that the plagues are justified given the harsh slavery imposed upon them by the Egyptians, Pharaoh, the Egyptian leader, rebuts this claim. “If only the plagues would let up, there would be no slavery. We just want to live plague-free. It is the right of every society.”
Love of the Land: 'The cycle of violence between Jews and Egyptians continues': How CNN might have reported the Passover story
Love of the Land: High-Ranking U.S. Official: Enemies? Islamists? Revolutionaries? We Don't See Anyone Like That!
High-Ranking U.S. Official: Enemies? Islamists? Revolutionaries? We Don't See Anyone Like That!
Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
31 March '10
What could one sentence spoken by a high-ranking U.S. official prompt a brilliant pro-Western Arab intellectual to go ballistic and say the following:
“How could America be governed and represented by such blazing idiocy? How is that possible? It's a parallel universe, I'm convinced. The biggest threat, I maintain, to global security is not terrorism. It's stupidity.”
Well, this one. At his confirmation hearing, Robert Ford, ambassador-designate to Syria said:
"I do not see how instability in the region serves Syrian interests."
So here is Syria, a radical, anti-American regime allied with Iran, a major sponsor of terrorism, and Ford says that this government has no interest in stirring up instability and cannot receive any benefit from doing so? Of course, Ford rightfully does not want to criticize Syria before arriving there as U.S. ambassador. OK, understood.
But does he have to indicate such an appalling view in advance? Doesn't this throw away all U.S. leverage over Syria in advance? I can tell you that this is precisely the way Syrian leaders are portraying American policy nowadays. Of course, Ford is saying this because it reflects the thinking of this administration and the president.
Incidentally, I recently saw a non-published communication from an international affairs' expert that criticized someone else for having the old-fashioned view that the point of foreign policy is to reward friends and punish enemies. As I have said before even the most basic principles of diplomacy have been forgotten nowadays in large sections of academia, the media, and--much more dangerous--policymaking circles.
(Read full post)
Love of the Land: High-Ranking U.S. Official: Enemies? Islamists? Revolutionaries? We Don't See Anyone Like That!
Love of the Land: The Full Measure of Joe Biden's Hypocrisy on Jerusalem
The Full Measure of Joe Biden's Hypocrisy on Jerusalem
Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
31 March '10
Not that long ago, Joseph Robinette Biden was supposedly gravely insulted by Israel announcing that potential housing to be built in Jerusalem had passed one stage of a multi-stage approval process. Biden was so insulted by this dastardly act that he stood up the Prime Minister of Israel for 90 minutes and that he and various Obama Administration officials proceeded to lambaste Israel for "insulting" Biden.
Hillary Clinton proclaimed; "it was not only an insult to Biden, but an insult to the United States." "There was an affront, it was an insult", huffed Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod. Hundreds of newspapers immediately penned editorials denouncing Israel's grave insult. The essence of it was that Israel had insulted Biden by laying claim to Jerusalem during his visit.
There's just one problem with this. In 1995 Biden himself served as a co-sponsor of S. 1322, known as the Jerusalem Embassy Act. (Additional Senate co-sponsors included such obscure legislators as John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Jesse Helms, John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, Strom Thurmond and Bob Dole.) Let's look at the text of the Jerusalem Embassy Act now.
(Read full article)
Love of the Land: The Full Measure of Joe Biden's Hypocrisy on Jerusalem
Love of the Land: The Ruins of Byblos
The Ruins of Byblos
Joel B. Pollak
American Thinker
31 March '10
Imagine, for a moment, that Iran and Syria had begun feuding publicly over the fate of the ruins in Byblos, Lebanon. Imagine that some Syrian-backed party in the Lebanese government had begun restoring the buildings of the early Islamic period, leaving evidence of Persian rule for a time of greater budgets and ambitions. Imagine, then, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had taken to the airwaves to denounce the Syrian insult.
What would we think, as outsiders with a vested interest in weakening Syria's alliance with Iran? We would, of course, seize the moment. We might take the opportunity to topple the brutal Syrian regime -- or, more likely, offer inducements to dictator Bashar al-Assad to encourage him to open his country to the Western world. Either way, we would see a superficial spat over a few buildings as evidence of a deeper, emerging divide.
Imagine further that a prominent Syrian figure on the international stage -- or someone of Syrian descent, like Syrian-American novelist Mona Simpson, for argument's sake -- had stepped forward to lead a U.N. fact-finding mission on Syria, which aimed to document "brutal violations of human rights and suppression of democracy." Barred from entry by the regime, the mission would still interview dissident exiles and international NGOs.
Now imagine that in the wake of the lengthy, strident report produced by Simpson and approved by the U.N. General Assembly, the U.N. Human Rights Council had passed five resolutions condemning Syria and established a new U.N. body to monitor compliance with the Simpson report. Would we not feel a sense of momentum, an expectation that the regime would soon crack? Would we not try to ratchet the pressure ever higher?
That is exactly what Israel's enemies feel at the moment, watching President Barack Obama join international condemnation of Israel over a housing project in Jerusalem, watching a prominent Jewish intellectual like Richard Goldstone accuse Israel of crimes against humanity, watching the U.N. Human Rights Council devote the bulk of its efforts to attacking Israel's right to defend itself from genocidal terrorist groups on its borders.
(Read full article)
Love of the Land: The Ruins of Byblos
Elder of Ziyon: In Turkey, NGOs and terrorists are indistinguishable
In Turkey, NGOs and terrorists are indistinguishable
On March 19th, there was a large rally in Istanbul to protest Israeli actions and rumors of Israeli actions in Jerusalem.
 Palestine Today is now publishing photos that show that protesters were also showing their support for Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups:  Flags for Islamic Jihad, the PIJ Al Quds Brigades and Hezbollah. The photo on the T-shirt is of Islamic Jihad founder Fathi Shaqaqi.  IHH is recognized by the UNHCR as an NGO. It is also one of the groups supporting the Free Gaza organization, |
Elder of Ziyon: In Turkey, NGOs and terrorists are indistinguishable
Elder of Ziyon: Israel dropped leaflets on Gaza? Um, no.
Israel dropped leaflets on Gaza? Um, no.
Ma'an breathlessly reports:
The story is illustrated with a picture of a leaflet dropped during Cast Lead. |
Elder of Ziyon: Israel dropped leaflets on Gaza? Um, no.
Elder of Ziyon: Egypt finds another weapons cache destined for Gaza
Egypt finds another weapons cache destined for Gaza
From Ma'an:
If the allegations are true, the children of Gaza would appear to know more about the weapons smuggling than any Western media agency - that employs Gazan adults. |
Elder of Ziyon: Egypt finds another weapons cache destined for Gaza
Elder of Ziyon: Muslims warn against April Fools Day
Muslims warn against April Fools Day
Firas Press publishes a long missive detailing the history of April Fools pranks, and concluding that it is a major Islamic sin to act like the non-Muslims in this day dedicated to "lying." |
Elder of Ziyon: Muslims warn against April Fools Day
Elder of Ziyon: Hamas celebrates two female "martyrs"
Hamas celebrates two female "martyrs"
The Al Qassam Brigades website has added two female "martyrs" to its ever-growing list.  And here's what the second one looks like: The resemblance is striking! Both women were allegedly killed on October 27, 2007, by a "Zionist shell" as they were doing some "charity" work for Hamas. The only problem is, the PCHR lists no women killed by Israel that week, nor the week before and not the week after, in Gaza. It looks like it is time for martyr inflation! |
Elder of Ziyon: Hamas celebrates two female "martyrs"
Elder of Ziyon: Pig blood in cigarette filters?
Pig blood in cigarette filters?
Al Arabiya reports:
|
Elder of Ziyon: Pig blood in cigarette filters?
Israel Matzav: Where has all the money gone?
Where has all the money gone?
Remember the anti-war song, Where Have All the Flowers Gone? Let's go to the videotape.
We need to change the words to that song for the 'Palestinian Authority' and ask Where Has All the Money Gone?
We need to change the words to that song for the 'Palestinian Authority' and ask Where Has All the Money Gone?
Malhis estimated that foreign countries had donated a total of $12 billion to the PA since 1995. That figure did not include billions of dollars in aid provided by international aid groups such as UNRWA and other NGO's, she noted. Aid to the PA is increasing steadily: the PA received an average of one billion dollars a year between 2001 and 2005, $1.5 billion in 2007, $1.8 billion in 2009, and an estimated $2 billion is expected in 2010.
The amount of aid provided is particularly high when compared to the number of PA Arabs – the highest estimated PA population is 3.9 million, and more conservative estimates put the number of PA Arabs at 2.6 million – and the PA's GDP is an estimated $4.5 billion annually.
And yet, Malhis said, it has been difficult to note any positive impact of these enormous sums on the PA economy. The GDP is 13 percent lower than it was in 1999, and GDP per capita is down by 30 percent, she said. .
Two main contributing factors are the large PA public payroll, which accounts for almost 60 percent of the PA's spending, and the money poured into the armed forces, which is more than the combined amounts spent on health and education, Malhis said. Malhis elaborated:
1. The production capacity in the occupied territories was higher in the early nineties prior to the peace process,
2. The ratio of exports to imports became a feeble 19 percent
3. The ability of Domestic Production to cover domestic national consumption deteriorated resulting in an increase in dependency on Israeli imports and a heavy reliance on Arab and international aid to finance the cost of these imports.
4. We have also witnessed deterioration in PA ability to provide basic services such as health, education, social development and security unless heavily subsidized by Arab and international donations and aid to support its expenditures.
5. In 2009, international support was required to address a budget deficit of 61.4 percent, equivalent to 39 percent of the Palestinian GDP."
She concluded: "One cannot but feel that these resources have been wasted. When the outcome of more than a 12 billion dollar investment results in such disastrous numbers, then it is obvious that immense mistakes were made on a strategic level". She named the following causes:
Read the whole thing.
And then just give them a state and then they'll figure out where all that money went and how to spend the billions more they'll be receiving from the 'international community.'
Where has all the money gone? When will WE ever learn?
And then just give them a state and then they'll figure out where all that money went and how to spend the billions more they'll be receiving from the 'international community.'
Where has all the money gone? When will WE ever learn?
Israel Matzav: Where has all the money gone?
Israel Matzav: Palin nails Obama on Iran and Israel
Palin nails Obama on Iran and Israel
On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin nails the Obama administration on both Iran and Israel. While President Obama once said a nuclear-armed Iran would be “unacceptable,” after more than a year in office it’s sobering to have to acknowledge that his administration has made no progress in implementing “crippling” sanctions on Iran, let alone halting Iran’s nuclear program. Even the rhetoric moved in the wrong direction – recently the administration downgraded their call for “crippling” sanctions to sanctions that “bite.” Shockingly, as we learned last week, these “biting” sanctions will no longer include actions that could actually change Iran’s behavior, including limiting Iran’s access to international capital markets and banking services or closing air space and waters to Iran’s national air and shipping lines. So the issue is not when the so-called sanctions will come (President Obama promised them in “weeks” today) but whether they will even “nibble.” And while the Obama administration was more than willing to use every parliamentary trick in the book to ram its government health care takeover through Congress, conversely, it has worked hard to stall bipartisan efforts to pass the Iran Sanctions Act.
Many, many Americans and our allies know that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the consequences will be catastrophic for our interests in the Middle East, and we want our government to do everything in its power to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. We foresee a regional nuclear arms race beginning as other countries seek their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Iran. Nuclear non-proliferation efforts would be over. The U.S. and our allies in the international community would be shown to be impotent – after long claiming that Iranian nuclear weapons could not and would not be tolerated. And Israel would face the gravest threat since its creation. Iran’s leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, the mullahs would be in a position to launch a Second Holocaust.
Iran continues to develop long range missiles. Its missiles can reach Israel and Europe right now and in time they will be able to reach US territory.
This issue is the most serious security challenge facing the U.S. in the region. Yet just as the Obama administration inexplicably gives up on imposing crippling sanctions on Iran, it’s taken an uncompromising hard line against one country in the Middle East: Israel. On his recent visit to Washington, the Israeli Prime Minister was treated like an unwelcome guest, as shown by White House actions such as refusing to be photographed with Israel’s Prime Minister.
Public demands for concessions have been made of the Israelis while the Palestinians add ever more conditions to their participation in peace talks, and those in the administration that dare to argue for looking at these policies through the lens of Israel’s security needs are subject to slanderous attacks from “senior administration officials.” The Obama administration has their priorities exactly backwards; we should be working with our friend and democratic ally to stop Iran’s nuclear program, not throwing in the towel on sanctions while treating Israel like an enemy.
Exactly.
Israel Matzav: Palin nails Obama on Iran and Israel
Israel Matzav: The US interest in 'Palestine'
The US interest in 'Palestine'
And pardon me for asking, but what exactly is our interest in setting up a Palestine? We need another country we will have to fly predator drones over? Oh right. If we set up a Palestine, then the not-to-be-called-Islamo-fascists will not hate us so much, and peace and brotherhood will ensue in the Middle East. My personal view is that if we are going to set up new countries, they should be countries that will not be our enemies. If the idea is to set up an enemy of the US, why not let Iran or somebody do it? They have lots of useless desert. They could put it there.
Indeed.
Israel Matzav: The US interest in 'Palestine'
Israel Matzav: Obama administration's head in the sand on Iran
Obama administration's head in the sand on Iran
It is now obvious to just about everyone outside the Obama administration that effective sanctions against Iran are not on the horizon, and even if they were it is doubtful that there is sufficient time left for them to work. What could happen next? Danielle Pletka explains that Obama's treatment of Israel and Binyamin Netanyahu is not inspiring Arab confidence in America's leadership. The implications of this ostrich-like behavior are grave. Some Gulf states (including, some say, Qatar, which hosts American forces and equipment) have begun to openly propitiate the Tehran regime, anticipating its regional dominance once it is armed with nuclear weapons. Others, not reassured by Clinton drop-bys and ineffectual back-patting, have begun to explore their own nuclear option. Repeated rumors that Saudi Arabia is negotiating to buy an off-the-shelf Pakistani nuclear weapon should not be ignored.
What of Israel? The mess of U.S.-Israel relations has ironically only bolstered the fears of Arab governments that the current U.S. administration is a feckless ally. If the U.S. won’t stand by Israel, by whom will it stand? Conversely, our adversaries view both the distancing from Israel and the debacle of Iran policy as evidence of American retreat. All the ingredients of a regional powder keg are in place.
Finally, there is the military option. Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu left Washington last week befuddled by Mr. Obama’s intentions on Iran. Should Israel decide to attack Iran, the shock waves will not leave the U.S. unscathed. Of course, Mr. Obama could decide that we must take action. But no one, Iran included, believes he will take action.
And so, as the failure of Mr. Obama’s Iran policy becomes manifest to all but the president, we drift toward war. The only questions remaining, one Washington politico tells me, are who starts it, and how it ends.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Obama administration's head in the sand on Iran
Israel Matzav: Good news: PA to incite riots in Jerusalem
Good news: PA to incite riots in Jerusalem
Yeah, they really want peace, don't they?
Palestinian Authority officials threatened Tuesday that the PA would incite riots in Jerusalem, along the lines of the weekly riots at the site of the construction of the security fence in the villages of Na'alin and Bil'in. Top Fatah terrorist Jibril Rajoub said that “all options were on the table” when it came to preventing Israel from continuing its “Judaization” of Jerusalem. Rajoub made the statement at a press conference in Ramallah, accusing Israel of using "savage" tactics against the PA.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Good news: PA to incite riots in Jerusalem
Israel Matzav: Overnight music video
Overnight music video
Moadim l'Simcha to those of you who just finished Yom Tov.
Posting may be a little lighter tomorrow - I have to take the family on a trip.
But for now, with (half) Hallel all week, here's Mordechai Ben David with Moh Ashiv la'Hashem (Psalms 116).
Let's go to the videotape.
Posting may be a little lighter tomorrow - I have to take the family on a trip.
But for now, with (half) Hallel all week, here's Mordechai Ben David with Moh Ashiv la'Hashem (Psalms 116).
Let's go to the videotape.
Israel Matzav: Overnight music video
Israel Matzav: Kerry visiting Lebanon and Syria
Kerry visiting Lebanon and Syria
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who at one time was mentioned as a possible candidate to be President Obama's Secretary of State, is in Beirut on Wednesday, and will be visiting Damascus on Thursday. The purpose of the trip is "to investigate the political situation in Syria and Lebanon and the prospects for progress in the Arab-Israeli peace process," a travel schedule provided by his committee office said. He is traveling with Middle East advisor Perry Cammack and committee staff director Frank Lowenstein, with no other members on the trip.
In Beirut, Wednesday, Kerry is due to meet with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, President Michel Suleiman, and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri; and in Damascus he's due to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem.
It goes without saying that in any such talks, Israel would be pressured to give up the Golan Heights for a piece of paper.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Kerry visiting Lebanon and Syria
Israel Matzav: Heroes' widows and orphans homes may get reprieve?
Heroes' widows and orphans homes may get reprieve?
The Defense Ministry is looking to find a way to convince the High Court of Justice not to force it to demolish the homes of Major Eliraz Peretz HY"D (may God avenge his blood), who was killed in action along the Gaza border fence on Friday, and of Major Roi Klein HY"D, who was killed in the battle of Bint Jbeil in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Peretz and Klein both lived in the neighborhood of Givat HaYovel in the Samarian town of Eli along with their wives and children and 15 other families. The Defense Ministry has until May 1 to notify the High Court of Justice how it plans to demolish the neighborhood. The order to demolish the neighborhood derives from a lawsuit brought by Peace Now in 2005, which claimed that parts of the neighborhood were built on 'Palestinian' land. On Sunday, a senior defense official said that in the coming weeks the IDF Blue Line Group – a branch of the Military Advocate General’s Office responsible for marking Israel’s borders – would conduct a review of the Givat Hayovel outpost.
Following the demarcation, the Defense Ministry will submit its response to the High Court of Justice.
To date, the outpost, created in 1998, is unauthorized because it was built without all the necessary legal approvals, even though it was given NIS 250,000 from the Ministry of Housing and Construction.
Twelve of the 17 homes and 30 caravans on the outpost were built on land which the civil administration contends is partially owned by Palestinians. It issued a demolition order against the homes when construction started, but never acted on the order.
In May 2005, Peace Now petitioned the High Court of Justice to ensure that the administration enforce its demolition orders.
In the past, the court has rejected attempts by the state to reexamine the outpost’s legal status. The state now has until May 1 to present the court with a timetable for the demolition of the homes.
The Defense Ministry has been sitting on this story for way too long (you will recall that I first reported that Klein's home was to be destroyed in July 2009).
Israel Matzav: Heroes' widows and orphans homes may get reprieve?
Love of the Land: It’s tough to be Russian
It’s tough to be Russian
Fresnozionism.org
30 March '10
Rob Vincent has a unique, very focused view of things. I hope you’ll enjoy this guest post.
By Rob Vincent
What follows below is not in any way meant to make light of the horrible suffering recently inflicted on Russian civilians in Moscow earlier this week.
However, given the experience of at least one country near and dear to my heart that has suffered to a far greater degree from Islamist terrorism over the past several decades, a country that has had a great deal of time to consider this matter and which has received voluminous advice and counsel from abroad on this topic, I would offer the following modest proposal to our friends in Russia:
They need to give independence to Chechnya.
Not that there’s a lot of international pressure on them to do so. Where is the ‘Chechen Authority observers seat’ in the UN? Where are all the college protests, the boycotts, the divestment campaigns over the brutal Russian occupation of Chechnya (and it really has been pretty brutal, incalculably worse than anything Israel has ever done)? Where are all the UN resolutions condemning Russia? Has the UN Secretary General made a tour of Chechnya lately? I kind of doubt it. Why isn’t the Obama administration threatening some kind of sanction or another against Russia, standing up to them, over the poor oppressed Chechnyans?
But why not? I mean, how about — dare I say it? — land for peace?
A perfectly reasonable request, I submit. If it is good enough for tiny Israel, I’m sure Russia — which has more land to spare than anyone — could set the example. After all, they are a member of the Quartet that presumes to tell the Israelis what they must do for peace, aren’t they?
(Read full post)
Love of the Land: It’s tough to be Russian
Love of the Land: Take your money back
Take your money back
Avi Trengo
Opinion/Ynet
31 March '10
Senior New York Times commentator Tom Friedman is not an anti-Semite and will never be one. He wholeheartedly believes that he is objective and genuinely wishes to help Israel. Yet even a real friend like him is inspired by the “commander-in-chief’s spirit” these days.
In February 2002 I reviewed his peace initiative with astonishment: Full Arab world recognition of Israel’s right to exist in exchange for a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders. As an Israeli leftist, I lauded the fact that a senior commentator realized the problem is not merely Israeli-Palestinian, but rather, has to do with the Arab world’s unwillingness to accept any sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East.
February 17th, 2002 is a day I will never forget: It was during the Intifada, with the worse still ahead of us. I participated in an intimate Peace Now demonstration as an active member. For more than 30 years, I shared Friedman’s view that a return to the 1967 borders is a magical solution. Yet during the rally, we were informed that a suicide bomber killed two children at a pizza parlor. The protestors observed a moment of silence, before the next speaker, a Palestinian “moderate,” took the stage. His speech focused solely on accusing Israel while going back to the Nakba and early days of Zionism. The terror attack at the pizza parlor in Karnei Shomron was not mentioned at all. I left the rally with a sense of disgust.
The next day, I read in the New York Times that the Saudi ruler, who was preoccupied at the time with a PR effort after “fine Saudi boys” carried out the September 11 attacks, adopted the Friedman initiative and turned into the “Saudi peace plan.” Friedman must have noticed that the Saudis added a condition that no Israeli could accept: The immigration of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (“1948 refugees”) to Israel, thereby amending its demographic character. Did Friedman fail to understand back then already that this is a symptom of the problem: The Muslim world’s unwillingness to accept Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East?
(Read full article)
Love of the Land: Take your money back
RubinReports: High-Ranking U.S. Official: Enemies? Islamists? Revolutionaries? We Don't See Anyone Like That!
High-Ranking U.S. Official: Enemies? Islamists? Revolutionaries? We Don't See Anyone Like That!
Please be subscriber 9,797. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
What could one sentence spoken by a high-ranking U.S. official prompt a brilliant pro-Western Arab intellectual to go ballistic and say the following:
“How could America be governed and represented by such blazing idiocy? How is that possible? It's a parallel universe, I'm convinced. The biggest threat, I maintain, to global security is not terrorism. It's stupidity.”
Well, this one. At his confirmation hearing, Robert Ford, ambassador-designate to Syria said:
"I do not see how instability in the region serves Syrian interests."
So here is Syria, a radical, anti-American regime allied with Iran, a major sponsor of terrorism, and Ford says that this government has no interest in stirring up instability and cannot receive any benefit from doing so? Of course, Ford rightfully does not want to criticize Syria before arriving there as U.S. ambassador. OK, understood.
But does he have to indicate such an appalling view in advance? Doesn't this throw away all U.S. leverage over Syria in advance? I can tell you that this is precisely the way Syrian leaders are portraying American policy nowadays. Of course, Ford is saying this because it reflects the thinking of this administration and the president.
Incidentally, I recently saw a non-published communication from an international affairs' expert that criticized someone else for having the old-fashioned view that the point of foreign policy is to reward friends and punish enemies. As I have said before even the most basic principles of diplomacy have been forgotten nowadays in large sections of academia, the media, and--much more dangerous--policymaking circles.
Back to Ford and Syria. Yet even if Syria is not building apartments in east Jerusalem, it might still be a threat to U.S. interests and regional stability. (Note: The previous sentence was sarcastic.)
If Syria was not sponsoring the Iraqi insurgents to overthrow the government in Baghdad so as to replace a regime linked with the United States with one servile to itself, it should have been sufficient to show how instability in the region serves Syrian interests.
If Syria was not sponsoring Hizballah and others to seize control over Lebanon it should have been sufficient.
If Syria was not sponsoring Hamas to sabotage any peace process and seize control over the Palestinians it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not oppose peace with Israel so as to destroy that country and replace it with a pro-Syrian Palestinian state it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not back Iran in order to destabilize the Middle East to destroy relatively moderate Arab regimes that oppose Syrian leadership over all the Arabs it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not do everything possible to destroy U.S. influence and interests in the region it should have been sufficient.
To some extent, the State Department has been forced to acknowledge some of these problems in the face of congressional criticism about sending a U.S. ambassador back to Damascus. I'm not saying that the ambassador shouldn't be sent back--though we should remember that Syria has done zero about the reason which led to the withdrawal in the first place, its complicity in the murder of Lebanon's former prime minister--but if he's returned it should be to wage diplomatic battle, not appeasement.
We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
What could one sentence spoken by a high-ranking U.S. official prompt a brilliant pro-Western Arab intellectual to go ballistic and say the following:
“How could America be governed and represented by such blazing idiocy? How is that possible? It's a parallel universe, I'm convinced. The biggest threat, I maintain, to global security is not terrorism. It's stupidity.”
Well, this one. At his confirmation hearing, Robert Ford, ambassador-designate to Syria said:
"I do not see how instability in the region serves Syrian interests."
So here is Syria, a radical, anti-American regime allied with Iran, a major sponsor of terrorism, and Ford says that this government has no interest in stirring up instability and cannot receive any benefit from doing so? Of course, Ford rightfully does not want to criticize Syria before arriving there as U.S. ambassador. OK, understood.
But does he have to indicate such an appalling view in advance? Doesn't this throw away all U.S. leverage over Syria in advance? I can tell you that this is precisely the way Syrian leaders are portraying American policy nowadays. Of course, Ford is saying this because it reflects the thinking of this administration and the president.
Incidentally, I recently saw a non-published communication from an international affairs' expert that criticized someone else for having the old-fashioned view that the point of foreign policy is to reward friends and punish enemies. As I have said before even the most basic principles of diplomacy have been forgotten nowadays in large sections of academia, the media, and--much more dangerous--policymaking circles.
Back to Ford and Syria. Yet even if Syria is not building apartments in east Jerusalem, it might still be a threat to U.S. interests and regional stability. (Note: The previous sentence was sarcastic.)
If Syria was not sponsoring the Iraqi insurgents to overthrow the government in Baghdad so as to replace a regime linked with the United States with one servile to itself, it should have been sufficient to show how instability in the region serves Syrian interests.
If Syria was not sponsoring Hizballah and others to seize control over Lebanon it should have been sufficient.
If Syria was not sponsoring Hamas to sabotage any peace process and seize control over the Palestinians it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not oppose peace with Israel so as to destroy that country and replace it with a pro-Syrian Palestinian state it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not back Iran in order to destabilize the Middle East to destroy relatively moderate Arab regimes that oppose Syrian leadership over all the Arabs it should have been sufficient.
If Syria did not do everything possible to destroy U.S. influence and interests in the region it should have been sufficient.
To some extent, the State Department has been forced to acknowledge some of these problems in the face of congressional criticism about sending a U.S. ambassador back to Damascus. I'm not saying that the ambassador shouldn't be sent back--though we should remember that Syria has done zero about the reason which led to the withdrawal in the first place, its complicity in the murder of Lebanon's former prime minister--but if he's returned it should be to wage diplomatic battle, not appeasement.
RubinReports: High-Ranking U.S. Official: Enemies? Islamists? Revolutionaries? We Don't See Anyone Like That!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
