Love of the Land: Ettinger: No US pressure on Israel

Ettinger: No US pressure on Israel

Yoram Ettinger
Israel Opinion/Ynet
17 May '11



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4069618,00.html

Op-ed: Despite Bin Laden success, Obama has no mandate to press Jewish State

President Obama intends to leverage the elimination of Bin Laden and intensify pressure on Israel. However, the ability of an American President to exert pressure in the international arena is a derivative of his domestic clout, especially when it comes to pressuring the Jewish State.

Most Americans consider the Jewish State not only an international issue, but also a domestic issue, related to the Judeo-Christian foundations of the US, enjoying an inherent bi-partisan high-level public and congressional support.

On May 20, 2011, Prime Minister Netanyahu will meet with President Obama, whose frail popularity constitutes a burden upon Democratic incumbents and candidates as we approach the November 2012 election. The president struggles to gain public support for his legislative agenda and for his reelection campaign, in spite of the overwhelming support of his authorization to eliminate Bin Laden (80%).

On May 20, Netanyahu will meet a president who seeks enhanced cooperation with Congress, lest he become a lame-duck president failing to be reelected in 2012. However, most legislators oppose pressure on the Jewish State, whose solid support is a rare bipartisan common denominator during an era of heated polarization on Capitol Hill.

Obama will try to pressure Netanyahu, but will not sacrifice his key goal – a second term – on the altar of the Palestinian issue. Obama is familiar with Tip O'Neal's assertion that "All politics is local." He has learned from his predecessors that external success usually does not rid presidents of domestic woes.

For instance, Bush 41st surged from 39% to 85% popularity following the 1991 Gulf War. Bush also benefitted from the dismantling of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall – significantly more dramatic developments than the elimination of Bin Laden. Therefore, major Democratic candidates were deterred from challenging Bush in November 1992, which paved the road for the relatively unknown Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton.

Will Bibi leverage US public support?

In contrast to Bush, who was preoccupied with foreign and national security issues, Clinton adhered to the advice of James Carville and Paul Begala: "It's the economy, stupid!" As constituents turned their attention back to economic and health problems, Bush's Gulf War "bonus" gradually dissipated. On Election Day President Bush reverted to his real political popularity – 38% - and Clinton won.

Presidents Wilson and FDR were heroes of WW1and WW2 – dramatically more notable events than the slaying of Bin Laden – but they lost Democratic majorities in both congressional chambers in the 1918 and 1946 elections. Bush 43rd gained a 35% popularity bonus following 9/11 and the 2003 apprehension of Saddam Hussein, but he barely won in 2004 (51%:48%). His role in the economic meltdown triggered GOP election devastation in November 2008.

The killing of Bin Laden has accorded President Obama an extremely slim, soft and short-term bonus. The counter-terrorism global milestone is unrelated to the long-term issues haunting Obama at home: Unemployment, the price of gasoline, the deficit, the national debt, taxation, the mortgage and pension funds crises, declining housing values, the threat of inflation and recession, potential insolvency of states and municipalities, health reform, etc.

Ridding humanity of Bin Laden deserves much praise, but its impact on Obama's domestic clout is minimal, and it does not provide the president with a public or congressional mandate to pressure the Jewish State.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu leverage public and Capitol Hill support and fend off pressure attempts by President Obama, who has been transformed from a coattail-president to an anchor-chained president? Will Netanyahu leverage the seismic developments in Arab lands – which have exposed the marginal role played by the Palestinian issue in shaping the Middle East agenda – and focus on the need to enhance strategic cooperation between the US and the Jewish State, in order to face the mounting threats in the Middle East?

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Ettinger: No US pressure on Israel

Sources: Raiders knew mission a one-shot deal - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Sources: Raiders knew mission a one-shot deal

By Kimberly Dozier - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday May 17, 2011 5:41:30 EDT

WASHINGTON — Those who planned the secret mission to get Osama bin Laden in Pakistan knew it was a one-shot deal, and it nearly went terribly wrong.

The U.S. deliberately hid the operation from Pakistan, and predicted that national outrage over the breach of Pakistani sovereignty would make it impossible to try again if the raid on bin Laden’s suspected redoubt came up dry.

Once the raiders reached their target, things started to go awry almost immediately, officials briefed on the operation said.

Adding exclusive new details to the account of the assault on bin Laden’s hideout, officials described just how the SEAL raiders loudly ditched a foundering helicopter right outside bin Laden’s door, ruining the plan for a surprise assault. That forced them to abandon plans to run a squeeze play on bin Laden — simultaneously entering the house stealthily from the roof and the ground floor.

Instead, they busted into the ground floor and began a floor-by-floor storming of the house, working up to the top level where they had assumed bin Laden — if he was in the house — would be.

They were right.

The raiders came face-to-face with bin Laden in a hallway outside his bedroom, and three of the Americans stormed in after him, U.S. officials briefed on the operation told The Associated Press. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a classified operation.

U.S. officials believe Pakistani intelligence continues to support militants who attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and actively undermine U.S. intelligence operations to go after al-Qaida inside Pakistan. The level of distrust is such that keeping Pakistan in the dark was a major factor in planning the raid, and led to using the high-tech but sometimes unpredictable helicopter technology that nearly unhinged the mission.

Pakistan’s government has since condemned the action, and threatened to open fire if U.S. forces enter again.

On Monday, the two partners attempted to patch up relations, agreeing to pursue high-value targets jointly.

The decision to launch on that particular moonless night in May came largely because too many American officials had been briefed on the plan. U.S. officials feared if it leaked to the press, bin Laden would disappear for another decade.

Discuss:

The one-shot deal

U.S. special operations forces have made approximately four forays into Pakistani territory since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, though this one, some 90 miles inside Pakistan, was unlike any other, the officials say.

The job was given to a SEAL Team 6 unit, just back from Afghanistan, one official said. This elite branch of SEALs had been hunting bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan since 2001.

Five aircraft flew from Jalalabad, Afghanistan, with three school-bus-size Chinook helicopters landing in a deserted area roughly two-thirds of the way to bin Laden’s compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, two of the officials explained.

Aboard two Black Hawk helicopters were 23 SEALs, an interpreter and a tracking dog named Cairo. Nineteen SEALs would enter the compound, and three of them would find bin Laden, one official said, providing the exact numbers for the first time.

Aboard the Chinooks were two dozen more SEALs, as backup.

The Black Hawks were specially engineered to muffle the tail rotor and engine sound, two officials said. The added weight of the stealth technology meant cargo was calculated to the ounce, with weather factored in. The night of the mission, it was hotter than expected.

The Black Hawks were to drop the SEALs and depart in less than two minutes, in hopes locals would assume they were Pakistani aircraft visiting the nearby military academy.

One Black Hawk was to hover above the compound, with SEALs sliding down ropes into the open courtyard.

The second was to hover above the roof to drop SEALs there, then land more SEALs outside — plus an interpreter and the dog, who would track anyone who tried to escape and to alert SEALs to any approaching Pakistani security forces.

If troops appeared, the plan was to hunker down in the compound, avoiding armed confrontation with the Pakistanis while officials in Washington negotiated their passage out.

The two SEAL teams inside would work toward each other, in a simultaneous attack from above and below, their weapons silenced, guaranteeing surprise, one of the officials said. They would have stormed the building in a matter of minutes, as they’d done time and again in two training models of the compound.

The plan unraveled as the first helicopter tried to hover over the compound. The Black Hawk skittered around uncontrollably in the heat-thinned air, forcing the pilot to land. As he did, the tail and rotor got caught on one of the compound’s 12-foot walls. The pilot quickly buried the aircraft’s nose in the dirt to keep it from tipping over, and the SEALs clambered out into an outer courtyard.

The other aircraft did not even attempt hovering, landing its SEALs outside the compound.

Now, the raiders were outside, and they’d lost the element of surprise.

They had trained for this, and started blowing their way in with explosives, through walls and doors, working their way up the three-level house from the bottom.

They had to blow their way through barriers at each stair landing, firing back, as one of the men in the house fired at them.

They shot three men as well as one woman, whom U.S. officials have said lunged at the SEALs.

Small knots of children were on every level, including the balcony of bin Laden’s room.

As three of the SEALs reached the top of the steps on the third floor, they saw bin Laden standing at the end of the hall. The Americans recognized him instantly, the officials said.

Bin Laden also saw them, dimly outlined in the dark house, and ducked into his room.

The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described.

Two women were in front of bin Laden, yelling and trying to protect him, two officials said. The first SEAL grabbed the two women and shoved them away, fearing they might be wearing suicide bomb vests, they said.

The SEAL behind him opened fire at bin Laden, putting one bullet in his chest, and one in his head.

It was over in a matter of seconds.

Back at the White House Situation Room, word was relayed that bin Laden had been found, signaled by the code word “Geronimo.” That was not bin Laden’s code name, but rather a representation of the letter “G.” Each step of the mission was labeled alphabetically, and “Geronimo” meant that the raiders had reached step “G,” the killing or capture of bin Laden, two officials said.

As the SEALs began photographing the body for identification, the raiders found an AK-47 rifle and a Russian-made Makarov pistol on a shelf by the door they’d just run through. Bin Laden hadn’t touched them.

They were among a handful of weapons that were removed to be inventoried.

It took approximately 15 minutes to reach bin Laden, one official said. The next 23 or so were spent blowing up the broken chopper, after rounding up nine women and 18 children to get them out of range of the blast.

One of the waiting Chinooks flew in to pick up bin Laden’s body, the raiders from the broken aircraft and the weapons, documents and other materials seized at the site.

The helicopters flew back to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and the body was flown to a waiting Navy ship for bin Laden’s burial at sea, ensuring no shrine would spring up around his grave.

When the SEAL team met President Obama, he did not ask who shot bin Laden. He simply thanked each member of the team, two officials said.

In a few weeks, the team that killed bin Laden will go back to training, and in a couple months, back to work overseas.

Sources: Raiders knew mission a one-shot deal - Navy News News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Israel Matzav: Thousands of Turks mourn Bin Laden

Thousands of Turks mourn Bin Laden

Thousands of demonstrators in Istanbul protested against the death of Osama Bin Laden on Friday, while setting fire to the flags of the United States, Israel and Britain (Hat Tip: Joshua I).

"The US, UK and Israel are the murderers of the martyr," the participants chanted. "The US is the terrorist, bin Laden is the warrior."

The mourners carried pictures of bin Laden and signs condemning his assassination, and called the man who planned the September 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed thousands of Americans "a beautiful, wise man, a warrior for Islam."

The mourners, who gathered near Istanbul's Fatih Mosque, which is located in the area that is considered Turkey's epicenter of Islamic extremism, burned Israeli, American and British flags, and prayed facing a stone bench that traditionally holds the body of the deceased.

Let's go to the videotape (sorry, Turkish only):







In November 2003, a series of four truck bombs in Istanbul killed 57 people and wounded more than 700. The bombs were placed at two Jewish synagogues, a branch of HSBC Bank and the British consulate. Al-Qaeda was responsible for those attacks. On Thursday, a hotel opened on the site where the HSBC Bank stood. I wonder how many Turks will go there.

Israel Matzav: Thousands of Turks mourn Bin Laden

Love of the Land: There's more to learn about terrorism via Bin Laden's personal example than most realize

There's more to learn about terrorism via Bin Laden's personal example than most realize

Arnold/Malki Roth
This Ongoing War
06 May '11



http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.com/2011/05/6-may-11-theres-more-to-learn-about.html

When the Palestinian-Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh addresses the subject of terrorism and the terrorists, readers can generally be assured of common sense insights that they will find elsewhere only rarely.

So much nonsense and double-talk about terrorism has been purveyed by journalists, analysts and politicians, that insight is about the last thing a rational consumer of news and analysis can expect to find.

Abu Toameh published an article called 'Muslim Terror Leaders Send Anyone But Their Own Family Members To Murder "Infidels"' earlier today. Here's how it starts:

Those who say they were surprised that Osama bin Laden had been leading a relatively comfortable life in his mansion in an affluent suburb in Pakistan obviously don't know anything about the leaders of Islamic terror groups. The fact that bin Laden was surrounded by women and children also should not come as a surprise to anyone -- nor should the reports that his men and he used some of the women as "human shields" during the US military raid on his compound..


In this regard, bin Laden was doing what many other Muslim terror operatives used to do in Afghanistan, Iraq and the West Bank and Gaza Strip: These operatives are good at sending anyone but their own family members to murder "infidels," "apostates" and any Arab or Muslim who dares to stand up to them. Bin Laden chose to live a good life surrounded by women, children and couriers who provided him with everything he needed. Like the rest of the terror leaders, bin Laden never sent any of his sons on jihad missions. He always made sure that his wives and sons and daughters stayed safe and happy.

Abu Toameh's general observations are especially true of the Palestinian Arab leadership, and in particular that part of which has driven the terror war against Jews and Israel for the last several generations.

Near the end of the piece he writes:

"This is the nature of the coward Muslim terror leaders; they do not hesitate to hide behind women and children and often choose to live in mansions instead of joining their men in the caves and mountains."

Please read Abu Toameh's entire article. It will take you no more than two minutes.

The people he describes here truly are cowards. So too are the analysts and commentators who, far from the danger and threat, relentlessly rip into Israelis who are conducting an existential war of self-defence against an enemy who see pizza restaurants, school yards and buses as their battlefield.


Love of the Land: There's more to learn about terrorism via Bin Laden's personal example than most realize

Bin Laden's One Mistake

Bin Laden's One Mistake

by Shmuel Sackett

Manhigut Yehudit International Director

May 8, 2011

One thing made Osama bin Laden public enemy #1. One thing made him a target for America's hit squad. One thing – and only one thing – made his assassination justified and praised by world leaders. He didn't just kill Jews.

Had he limited his terrorism to Jews only, he would not have been targeted. The same world leaders who today take great pride in his death would have celebrated his life. He would not have been killed by President Obama; he would have dined with him.

He would have been invited to the United Nations. He would have had a worldwide speaking tour. He would have won the Nobel peace prize.

Think I'm crazy? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran. His resume includes much more than just politics. He and his Persian mentors ordered Hezbollah to bomb the Jewish Community of Argentina in the 90s and killed hundreds of Jews. He has stated – time and again – that he wants to destroy Israel. He wants to kill the 6,000,000 Jews (interesting number) who live here and he is feverishly working to build a bomb that will do just that.

Has he been targeted? Is this animal on anyone's "hit list"? Actually, just the opposite is true. He recently spoke in the UN. He was a guest speaker in Columbia University. Why? Because he is only interested in killing Jews.

Khaled Mashaal is the leader of Hamas. Hamas is a sworn enemy of Israel. It has killed and maimed thousands of Jews since the “peace process” came about. It has fired over 5,000 missiles into Israel, aiming for Jewish homes and hoping to kill Jewish children.

Has he been targeted? Is this beast on anyone's "hit list"? Actually, just the opposite is true. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently invited Mashaal to Moscow. Former US President Jimmy Carter has embraced Mashaal and considers him a “partner for peace”. Why? Because he is only interested in killing Jews.

Yasser Arafat was the leader of the PLO for almost four decades. He has more innocent blood on his hands than bin Laden. Yet this murderer was a guest at the Clinton White House more than any other world leader! He spoke in the UN. He was accepted around the world as a leader and spoke in over 30 countries. He won the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Because he was only interested in killing Jews. [And his successor Mahmoud Abbas is as much of a Jew-murderer as him.]

Although I can go on, I will give just one final example: Adolf Hitler. The world knew about his plans for the Jews as early as 1933. The world knew about Kristallnacht back in November of 1938, and of the concentration camps shortly thereafter. Yet the entire world called this monster “Herr” Hitler. They gave him respect. They recognized him as a leader. All that changed when Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. From that point on he became an enemy. Why? Because until that day he was only interested in killing Jews.

Osama bin Laden violated the golden rule: In addition to killing just Jews, he also killed non-Jews. That is why he was targeted and for no other reason!

The message to Jews – and the State of Israel - is very clear. Learn to defend yourself. Learn to take revenge yourself. The world will not help you with Iran, Hamas or the PLO/PA.

Ahmadinejad, Abbas & Mashaal will not make the same mistake as Bin Laden. They will continue to be accepted and embraced by the world. Understand this, accept this and deal with this.

"We have no one on whom to rely, other than our Father in Heaven". May today's Jewish leaders – and the brave warriors of the IDF – engrave this on their hearts. And may they – very soon - do to these terrorists exactly what was done to Bin Laden.

Love of the Land: Middle East Scorecard

Middle East Scorecard

An Interview with Lee Smith


Matthew RJ Brodsky
inFocus
Spring '10

Posted before Shabbat

On February 28, inFOCUS Editor Matthew RJ Brodsky interviewed Lee Smith, author of the new book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. Smith writes a weekly column called "Agents of Influence" for Tablet Magazine, and is a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute. He has worked at a number of journals, magazines, and publishers, including GQ Magazine, the Hudson Review, and Talk Magazine. He was also editor-in-chief of the Voice Literary Supplement, the Village Voice's national monthly literary magazine. Smith has been a frequent guest on radio and television, including Fox News and National Public Radio, and has contributed articles on Arab and Islamic affairs to, among other publications, the Weekly Standard, the New York Times, the New Republic, and the Boston Globe.

iF: What inspired the title of your new book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations ?

LS: The title comes from Osama Bin Laden's observation, "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."

iF: What is your book's central thesis and why did you decide to write it?

LS: I was raised in New York City and wanted to understand and explain why almost 3,000 of my neighbors were killed on 9/11. So I sought to explain the centrality of violence in Middle Eastern politics and society to an American audience that is freakishly lucky insofar as we are able, unlike the majority of human beings throughout history, to conduct our political lives free of bloodshed, repression and coercion. Because we have inherited this system we tend to assume that most of the world's other political cultures are similar to ours. Some are but many more are not; the political culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East is one that has no mechanism for sharing power, or transmitting political authority from one governing body to another except through inheritance, coup or conquest.

iF: A cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy has been engagement based on the idea of "resetting" our relations with certain countries. Does such a metaphorical reset button exist and how does it work in the Middle East?

LS: Such a button could only exist, even metaphorically, if American interests and policies were subject to change every time a new president came to office. Since they are not, all the "reset" button did was to inadvertently make explicit what everyone already knows about the United States: new administrations typically ignore the lessons of their predecessors and have to make their own mistakes before they are capable of dealing with the reality that is, rather than the reality they promised on the campaign trail.

Let's hope the administration has learned from its errors over the past year. Among others, they should have discovered that: 1) despite the counsel of academic experts and media pundits, there is a point past which you cannot "strong-arm" an Israeli government; 2) the Saudis do not offer confidence-building gestures toward Jerusalem and it is unwise to push them on this in public; 3) the Iranians do not wish to have normal bilateral relations with Washington, a preference they have made clear to five different U.S. administrations over the last 30 years.

(Read full interview)

Love of the Land: Middle East Scorecard

Love of the Land: Deterred but Determined: Salafi-Jihadi Groups in the Palestinian Arena

Deterred but Determined: Salafi-Jihadi Groups in the Palestinian Arena

Yoram Cohen,Matthew Levitt, with Becca Wasser
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Policy Focus #99
January '10

Last summer, Hamas security forces raided a mosque affiliated with the Salafi-Jihadi group Jand Ansar Allah, killing 24 and wounding 130 in the ensuing firefight. This relatively recent episode highlights the presence in Gaza of Salafi-Jihadi groups inspired by but not yet formally affiliated with al-Qaeda. Unlike Hamas, which despite espousing violent Islamism has nevertheless occasionally agreed to short-term ceasefires, Salafi-Jihadi groups champion "pure resistance" in their dealings with Israel. The resulting tension between these groups and Hamas, the latter currently reigning as the political authority in Gaza, has created the perfect environment for further radicalization of Palestinians.

So far, none of the Salafi-Jihadi groups have established formal ties to al-Qaeda, but many intelligence analysts argue that such a relationship could develop quickly given the right combination of circumstances. Should U.S. policymakers be concerned? In The Washington Institute' s newest Policy Focus, two former top counterterrorism officials assess the game-changing potential of a formalized al-Qaeda presence in the West Bank and Gaza, including implications for the wider Arab-Israeli conflict and international counterterrorism efforts. In the troubling words of one senior Palestinian Salafi-Jihadi leader, "So far al-Qaeda has not sponsored our work. We are waiting to carry out a big jihadist operation dedicated to Sheikh Usama bin-Laden."

(Click here to read full report)

Love of the Land: Deterred but Determined: Salafi-Jihadi Groups in the Palestinian Arena

Love of the Land: The Expansion of Al-Qaeda-Affiliated Jihadi Groups in Gaza: Diplomatic Implications

The Expansion of Al-Qaeda-Affiliated Jihadi Groups in Gaza: Diplomatic Implications

Dore Gold
JCPA
Vol. 9, No. 17
4 January '10

In the West there is a growing trend to view Hamas as separate from al-Qaeda in order to open a political dialogue with Hamas, but is this view correct?

In its annual survey of terrorist threats to Israel during 2009, the Israel Security Agency noted the spread and buildup of "global jihadi" organizations in Gaza. In recent years a number of these jihadi groups have emerged that openly identify with al-Qaeda, such as Jaish al-Islam (the Army of Islam), Jaish al-Umma (the Army of the Nation), and Fatah al-Islam.

Hamas was founded in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden was educated in Saudi Arabia by Muhammad Qutb of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Abdullah Azzam of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, came out of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood still defines its goal as "a world Islamic state."

In February 2004, the U.S. designated Sheikh Abd al-Majid Zindani, president of Iman University in Yemen, as a "loyalist to Osama bin Laden." On March 20, 2006, Zindani, who recruited volunteers for al-Qaeda, sponsored a major fundraising event for Hamas in Yemen. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, went to hear lectures on radical Islam at Iman University.

The al-Qaeda affiliate Jaysh al-Islam joined Hamas in the 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. This proves that Hamas and al-Qaeda affiliates have been involved in joint operations. In 2007, the Egyptian press reported that one of the heads of al-Qaeda in Egypt had escaped and sought sanctuary in Gaza. In May 2009, Egypt charged that another al-Qaeda-linked group was using Gaza for training terrorists for attacks in Egypt.

In its annual survey of terrorist threats to Israel during 2009, the Israel Security Agency (also known by its Hebrew acronym Shabak or Shin Bet) noted a number of positive trends - with one glaring exception: the spread and buildup of "global jihadi" organizations in Gaza.1 A number of these groups, like Jaish al-Islam (the Army of Islam), Jaish al-Umma (the Army of the Nation), and Fatah al-Islam, openly identify with al-Qaeda.2

Indeed, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told al-Hayat on February 26, 2008, that al-Qaeda was present in Gaza and he charged that "the Hamas movement brought al-Qaeda." He described the two groups as "allies." However, in the West there is a growing trend to view Hamas as separate from al-Qaeda in order to open a political dialogue with Hamas.

Western Calls to Open a Dialogue with Hamas

For this reason, it should not be surprising that in the months ahead, it is likely that British, European, and even American groups will step up their efforts to demand that Hamas be brought into the political process. To advance this goal there will be increasing calls for direct political engagement with Hamas by various governments and current and former officials.

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: The Expansion of Al-Qaeda-Affiliated Jihadi Groups in Gaza: Diplomatic Implications

Love of the Land: An Open Question to Osama Bin Laden - or Any Other Islamist

An Open Question to Osama Bin Laden - or Any Other Islamist

Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Forum
07 October 09

Ever since 9/11, when Osama bin Laden was thrust into the spotlight, he has made it a point to occasionally submit questions to Americans — questions which he apparently thinks are unanswerable.

In his last message "commemorating" 9/11, for instance, after rehashing the storyline that the jihad on America wholly revolves around U.S. support for Israel — former grievances cited throughout the years include America's "exploitation" of women and failure to sign the environmental Kyoto Protocol — bin Laden concluded with the following musing: "You should ask yourselves whether your security, your blood, your sons, your money, your jobs, your homes, your economy, and your reputation are more dear to you than the security and economy of the Israelis."

In fact, bin Laden et al. have made it perfectly clear that should U.S. support for Israel cease, so too would Islamic terrorism cease. Hence, in this last communiqué: "Let me say that we have declared many times, over more than two and a half decades, that the reason for our conflict with you is your support for your Israeli allies, who are occupying our land of Palestine [emphasis added]."

Fair enough. Yet before responding to Osama, it must be noted that, in and of themselves, his communiqués beg a simple, logical question — one that, as shall be seen, responds to all his observations and questions by making them moot.

Before articulating this question, let us first establish much-needed context: As clearly demonstrated by Islam's doctrines and history — the former regularly manifesting themselves in the course of the latter — it is a historic fact that Islamic hostility for and aggression against non-Muslims transcends any and all temporal "grievances." In short, Islam, according to the classical — not "radical" — schools of jurisprudence, is obligated to subjugate the world.

From a traditional Muslim point of view, this troubling assertion is as open to debate or interpretation as is the notion that Muslims are obligated to pray. This is also why prudent non-Muslims have for centuries been finding the question of achieving permanent peace with the Islamic world a vexatious problem. Professor of law James Lorimer (1818-90) succinctly stated the problem over a century ago:

So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem. … For an indefinite future, however reluctantly, we must confine our political recognition to the professors of those religions which … preach the doctrine of "live and let live" (The Institutes of the Law of Nations, p. 124).

In other words, political recognition — with all the attendant negotiations and diplomacy that come with it — should be granted to all major religions/civilizations except Islam, which does not recognize the notion of "live and let live," as evinced by, among other stipulations, the Koran's commands to its adherents to "enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong," (e.g., Koran 3:110), that is, enforce Sharia law upon the earth.

Now while most Muslims may not go around evoking Islamic law's dichotomized worldview that pits Islam against the rest of the world — many may not even be aware of it — bin Laden, the "man of grievances," has. (This, of course, has long been an al-Qaeda tactic: convince the West, which is generally ignorant of Islam's bellicose doctrines, that jihad is a byproduct of foreign policy, while inciting Muslims to the jihad by stressing its obligatory nature.)

As for bin Laden and his communiqués: For all his talk of Israel being the heart of the problem, he exposed his true position in the following excerpt, which he directed to fellow Arabic-speaking Muslims not long after the 9/11 strikes:

Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?

So much for bin Laden's insistence that Israel is the "reason for our conflict with you." Now we see that the conflictultimately revolves around whether Islam is obligated to dominate the world by force. Well, is it? Bin Laden continues:

Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

This threefold choice, then — conversion, subjugation, or the sword — is the ultimate source of problems. All Islamist talk of jihad being a product of U.S. foreign policy is, therefore, false. When bin Laden asserted in this last message that it is the "neocons" who "impose the wars upon you — not the mujahideen [i.e., jihadis]," he lied. Islamic law, as he himself delineated, "imposed" war between Muslims and non-Muslims well over a millennium before the "neocons" — let alone the state of Israel — came into being.

Thus to all of bin Laden's grievances and questions, there is but one counter-question — one that, in bin Laden's own words, "demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice" — and it is: Even if all your grievances against Israel and America's support for it were true, why come to us — your natural-born enemies, according to your own worldview — looking for any concessions?

To better appreciate this position, consider the following analogy: Say your weaker neighbor has a border dispute with you. At the same time, however, you know for a fact that he sees you as his "eternal" enemy for nothing less than your beliefs/lifestyle, and nothing short of your total acquiescence to his beliefs/lifestyle will change that. Finally, you know that the day he grows sufficiently strong, he will undoubtedly attack you in order to make you live according to his beliefs/lifestyle.

Surely in this context, whether his border dispute with you is legitimate or not, making concessions to him while knowing his hostility for you will never subside — but rather become more emboldened and augmented with contempt — is sheer suicide. Yet this is precisely what happens whenever the U.S. makes any concessions to Islamists.

In sum, we, the "infidels" — Americans and Israelis alike — are de facto enemies. It is in this context that the question of U.S. support for Israel should be examined. Being hated and deemed the enemy for temporal grievances of a political nature must be viewed as peripheral to being hated for fundamental differences of an existential nature.

When the latter, much more important issue is redressed, then — and only then — should the veracity of the former be open to debate or even consideration. In the meantime, all "political" complaints must be seen as absolutely moot. It's a simple matter of priorities.

Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/an-open-question-to-osama-bin-laden-%E2%80%94-or-any-other-islamist/

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda .

Love of the Land: An Open Question to Osama Bin Laden - or Any Other Islamist