This is disgraceful. And it is yet another sign of the mounting weakness of the United States in the international arena.

Tamimi should have been prosecuted long ago by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for her murder of two Americans. I have written not just one, but three separate columns about her case (see here and here and here). Here are the basic facts of her crime, again: on August 9, 2001 a bomb blast pulverized a Sbarro Pizzeria located in Jerusalem, killing 15 people and injuring at least 130 more. 

Among those killed in the blast were two American citizens, one of whom was pregnant. Tamimi was sent to an Israeli jail for organizing this attack. On October 18, 2011, Israel released 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, including Tamimi, in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was being held by Hamas.

After being given blood money from both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for her terrorism, Tamimi moved to Jordan where she has since become a celebrity in the Arab world, hosting her own weekly show on the Hamas satellite TV station Al Quds. Now she has become a regular commentator on Arab media, talking about terrorism and celebrating her crimes.

This Palestinian terrorist has implicated herself for the bombing, on video, multiple times now. Yet the DOJ is ignoring its obligations under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 USC Sec. 2332, which calls for the prosecution and punishment of individuals who murder or maim American citizens in acts of international terrorism.

The DOJ is ignoring this case, even though Congress actually went to the trouble in 2005 of creating a separate unit within the DOJ, the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (OJVOT), to monitor acts of terrorism against Americans outside the U.S. They are ignoring this case even though in the last Congress over 50 members asked the DOJ to go after these kinds of terrorists, including Tamimi herself.

The DOJ should pursue Tamimi not only to bring an admitted terrorist to justice but also based on our clear national interest. It is in America’s national interest to make terrorists, and the nations that harbor them, actually think twice about supporting terrorism–before or after the fact–against U.S. persons and interests. Letting an unrepentant murderer of Americans run around flaunting her crimes to the world, and, in fact, being honored for them, makes us look like a paper tiger. 

Nor is this an isolated occurrence. Under the Obama Administration, the U.S. is simply not a credible superpower, prepared to use force, prosecution, or other punishments to achieve its ends in this dangerous world. As I have stated before, the Administration seems to believe largely in “carrots,” and not “sticks.” So, foreign nations or persons don’t worry about working against us.

For example, in a 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney, President Obama underlined his intention to punish those terrorists who had participated in the September 11, 2012 murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya. However, to date, the only man in prison for the Libyan terror attack is the Christian filmmaker who produced a film that the Obama Administration erroneously blamed for triggering attack. The New York Times, a strong supporter of this Administration, has even reported that a terrorist involved in the attack walks around unmolested in Libya and “scoffs” at the threat of U.S. capture.

There is also our supine behavior towards the radical Islamist regimes of Pakistan andEgypt. Both of these countries have clearly shown, through both word and deed, that they are no longer allies of the United States. The former hid and protected Osama Bin Laden from American justice for years but prosecuted for “treason,” imprisoned, and tortured the Pakistani doctor who assisted the U.S. forces in the search for that arch-terrorist. More recently, Pakistan elected a man who received a million dollar payoff from Bin Laden.

Meanwhile, Egypt is led by a Muslim Brotherhood member, Mohammed Morsi, who is cracking down on democracy and human rights and has repeatedly called for the release of the terror mastermind behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, from a U.S. prison. However, neither nation has felt any repercussions for this kind of anti-American behavior, while we continue to annually supply billions of dollars in American aid to both.

President Obama has almost four more years to go in his second term as our Chief Executive. He will not be leaving early. In my past columns, I have made it quite clear that I disagree with him, and his Administration, on many of the major foreign policy issues facing the U.S. 

However, he is the President, and as an American, I want him to succeed in keeping our country safe. Otherwise, the world becomes more dangerous for the United States and our allies. To succeed in the game of nations, it is imperative that Barack Obama use both the carrot and the stick of international diplomacy. Certainly, one of our more successful foreign policy Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, would counsel so, “I have always been fond of the West African proverb: ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.’" 

Let’s use that stick, Mr. President, to put “the fear of the U.S.” back into those who would do us harm.

On March 31, 2013, Bassem Youssef, an Egyptian television comedian, was arrested in Cairo, for the alleged crime of “insulting the president (i.e., Morsi)” and “insulting Islam.”  This arrest by the MB regime prompted the U.S. government to finally discover the need to promote free speech in Egypt.  U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland criticized the Egyptian government for enabling a “disturbing trend of growing restrictions on freedom of expression.”  Her boss, Secretary of State John Kerry, also weighed in, stating that there are “very real” concerns about the direction in which the MB’s government is headed and that the U.S. “hope(s) that there is still time to be able to turn the corner,” although “the recent arrests, the violence in the streets, the lack of inclusivity with respect to the opposition in public ways that make a difference to the people of Egypt, are all of concern today.”  

None of this seemed to prompt much of a response from Morsi or the MB.

But then the “big guns” came out.  On his Comedy Central cable television show, American comedian Jon Stewart – who is Jewish – belittled Morsi and the MB regime for their prosecution of Youssef.  Youssef and Stewart are close; in fact, you could say that Youssef is a protégé of Stewart’s. To make matters even worse, from the Islamist point of view, a link to Stewart’s skit was tweeted by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for all Egyptians to see.  No doubt visions of a Zionist Jew-controlled America, acting through its Egyptian Zionist agents, danced in MB heads.

Immediately, President Morsi and his cronies swung into action. Officially, the Egyptian Presidential office merely complained that Stewart show was “negative political propaganda” and the Embassy’s tweet of it was “inappropriate for a diplomatic mission to engage in.” Meanwhile, unofficially, the MB posted an anti-Semitic link online, in Arabic, from Al Jazeera, in which former CNN host Rick Sanchez claimed that Jews control the American media. Also, a “usually moderate” senior MB member argued that Western notions of free speech were being used to defame Islam.

In response, Washington, and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, completely caved. The Embassy’s Twitter account was temporarily deleted , and when the account was reinstated, the tweet of the Stewart segment had been removed.  Spokeswoman Nuland was now trotted out to say that the Stewart-linked “tweet was a mistake and new regulations were being put into place” to prevent any further insult to the MB.

None of this should surprise anyone by now. The U.S. has had several earlier opportunities to support free speech, in Egypt and in the West, and at each time they have failed to stand up for speech. Most importantly, the U.S. could have, and should have, vociferously complained about the decision by the Egypt Islamist regime to convict in absentia seven Egyptian Coptic Christians – most of them U.S. residents – and a Florida-based American pastor/U.S. citizen, and sentence all of these individuals to death on charges linked to the film “Innocence of Muslims.”

Regardless of your view of the particular speech put forward by Terry Jones and the others, for another nation, especially a so-called “ally” of the U.S. that receives billions of U.S. foreign aid, to threaten death to U.S. based persons for their speech is beyond the pale.  (It should be noted, by the way, that Jones and several of those other individuals actually had nothing to do with the film in question.)

The U.S. has a national interest in not letting its people be threatened with death for conduct that is speech-related, and not a crime within the U.S. Also, the U.S. could and should have been a lot more upset about the Islamist Egyptian storming of our Embassy in Cairo, which was allowed by the MB regime, supposedly because of the film mentioned above.  But in neither case did the Obama Administration act.

Perhaps Jon Stewart is made of stronger stuff. I hope Stewart will continue to “provoke” the MB in Egypt with his comedy show. MB-controlled Egypt is defiantly heading on the wrong path, with itsattempts to undermine Gulf Arab states, its police participation in attacks on its Christian minority, its promotion of anti-Semitism, its alliance with genocidal governments, and its recently revealedplan to stack the bureaucracy in Egypt with its own minions.  The Obama Administration is doing nothing to stop it, or even to convince it to reverse course.

Maybe the time is right for a Jon Stewart-led revolution in Egypt?  At the very least, having a “descendent of apes and pigs” leading the charge will drive Mohammed Morsi and the Egyptian MB absolutely crazy.

(A version of this article appeared in the print edition of the Washington Jewish Week)

Every person who has any sort of a conscience, what-so-ever, had to be deeply disturbed by the horrific events in Boston, last week.  Here were family members and friends, gathered to cheer one another on in the annual marathon, a yearly spring “happening” in that city.

This year’s marathon will forever be remembered for the senseless, dastardly act of terrorism , that resulted in the loss of three lives, scarred the nation and might have an indelible effect on how public gatherings and sports events will be conducted in this country from now on.

All of this seems very familiar to those of us who have been tightly linked to Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism. There seems to be a predictable psychological cycle to how family members, loved ones and the victims, themselves, (if they have been fortunate enough to have survived), respond to acts of terror. First there is the earth-shattering shock; then when people have had a chance to come to grips with the event, there is a profound, palpable sadness. It often is sadness so deep that one never totally recovers from it. Then, there is this anger at the total senselessness of it. And for some, who have not been so shattered that they have had their spirits totally broken, there is the quest for justice.

How do I know so much about this? Because as an advocate for the state of Israel, I have been working for over twenty years with family members who have lost loved ones to Palestinian terrorism, and have tried to help, at least the American victims who are entitled to American justice.

Whether one is out eating pizza in a restaurant in Jerusalem with one’s family, a child riding on a school bus on his way to school in Haifa, an adult in his car on his way to work on highway one that extends through Jerusalem to Moadin, a teenager out dancing in a discothèque in Tel Aviv on Friday night, a student eating lunch at the cafeteria of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the pattern seems all too familiar, and the acts are just as random and just as senseless.

Each of the stories have gripped me anew with profound sadness. There is the story of Doctor David Applebaum, who on September 3, 2003, took his daughter out to the Hillel Café in Emek Rafaim, Jerusalem the night before what was to have been her wedding day. There was an explosion in the restaurant. The hospital where David worked sprung into full rear. David, who headed up the emergency room in Sharei Tzedek Hospital was usually the first one to show up at such occasions, and the doctors were surprised when he didn’t appear. That night, Dr. Applebaum, who had operated on dozens of victims of terror, and his daughter, Nava on the eve of her wedding, were themselves, fatalities of Palestinian terror.

And there was 13 year old, Koby Mandell of Silver Spring, Maryland, who on May 8, 2001, did the Huck Finn thing together with his friend, Yisef Ishran, and skipped school to go on a hike in the caves near their community of Takoa, Israel. Unfortunately, the punishment did not fit the crime.

When Koby and Yosef did not return home that evening, their parents began to worry. Their bodies had been found so brutally mangled that they had to use dental records to identify the records.

I had known Sherri, Koby’s mother, from Silver Spring.  I knew I had to call her while she was sitting shiva.  What does one say when to comfort a grieving mother, who had just lost her bachor, her first born son, under the worst conditions imagineable.

I decided to tell her the truth. I told her that I was working on a bill to take the issue of justice for Americans who have been killed or injured abroad, away from the State Department, whose primary mission is diplomacy, and to put it in the Department of justice, whose primary mission is justice.

I will never forget what Sherri said. Her words are still ringing in my ears. “I can just see Koby jumping up and down in heaven to have a law named after him”.

I thought to myself, “Sweetheart, it is a long way before a bill becomes a law.” But I vowed to myself, then, that I would not rest until that law was passed. It took many years, but the bill was signed into law in December of 2004. In May of 2005, the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism was opened up in the Justice Department.

It says on their website that the mission of this office is to “ensure that the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks that result in deaths and/or injuries of American citizens overseas remains a high priority within the Department of Justice.”

Unfortunately, there have been scores of Koby Mandells and David and Nava Appelbaums. Not one American victim of Palestinian terrorism has ever received the pursuit of justice under the law that every American citizen deserves.

It is important to understand that terrorism is terrorism. It is simply never justifiable.  Whether committed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah or Ansar al Islam, once someone starts talking about “understanding the root cause”, it provides them with a rationale and opens the door for more of these heinous acts against free people, anywhere around the globe.

There are some within our corridors of power in Washington that have been making the distinction between terrorism against innocent American citizens in Israel taking a class at Hebrew University, or riding a bus, and those in the United States. This is a distinction without a difference. In the minds of the Islamic terrorists, who hate both “the Great Satan”, (America), and “The Minor Satan” (Israel), equally, each act of terrorism against citizens of either nation only serves to empower the terrorist, and to reinforce them to commit more such heinous acts.

Whether in Boston, Mumbai or Jerusalem, every citizen deserves what is etched on the façade of our Supreme Court, “Equal Justice Under the Law.”

A “Failure of Imagination” is often how 9/11 was described, most notably by the commission formed to study it and the lessons to be learned from it.

If there was a failure preceding the Boston Marathon attack (and it is unclear yet that there was), it was not a failure of imagination. It was not, in any real sense, a failure of foresight.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev (The deceased older suspect) and Dzhokar (the younger suspect, as of this writing still being sought by police), were/are Chechen Muslims who had resided in this country for over a decade. They attended school, had friends, girlfriends and social activities (Tamerlan was a golden gloves boxer who expressed a desire to box for the American national team.) Western intelligence officials have long expressed concern over the possible threat from Chechen terrorists, because of their perceived ability to blend in to a “typical” American crowd.

They were also apparently devout Muslims (Tamerlan did not smoke or drink from religious prohibitions and complained about a lack of “values”), who were active in online Islamist activities. A Youtube account believed connected to Tsarnaev features Islamist videos, including homage to the notorious “Black Flag of Khorasan” referencing a hadith popular among jihadists. The hadith relates to an army arising from Khorasan, usually understood as Central Asia, leading to a confrontation and the end times.

For tactics they used multiple improvised explosive devices using what were apparently remote-controlled cars and pressure-cookers, a signature device common to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and recommended as an explosive of choice by Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine. Inspire was produced by American Muslim Jihadist Samir Khan under the guidance of Yemeni –American cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, until they were both terminated via drone strike last year. The magazine noted that the death toll from such a device could be in the “tens”. Mercifully it was not, but the Inspire manual puts the lie to those who rushed to proclaim that the event could not be Jihadi-inspired because the weapons were not devastating enough in their casualties.

Their method of dress, their bags, and their movement prior to the bombing was disturbingly similar to that of the 7/7 London bombers, even down to each attack featuring a suspect in a white hat, as noted by terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares .

Following the revelation of their names and faces by law enforcement, the two engaged in a series of crimes, including a convenience store hold up and a carjacking, which seem guaranteed to draw law enforcement attention, followed by a series of mobile gun battles with police reminiscent of the Mumbai shooting.  Thankfully, American law enforcement have clearly drawn many important lessons about dealing with active shooters since 2008, and are operating with skill and precision in hunting down the remaining suspect or suspects.

In other words, there appears to be very little in this terror attack which was unforeseen or unimagined. Quite the opposite. We may yet learn details to show that these Jihadists’ terrorist tradecraft was more or perhaps less than the Al Qaeda standard, but there can be absolutely no doubt that their tactics, techniques and procedures are completely in line with Al Qaeda’s current operational strategy of self-indoctrinating, self-activating autonomous cells seeking to deal whatever death they can.

The terror in Boston is not a failure of imagination. It is the new “normal.” And it has been for some time.

There is a bumper sticker popular with Libertarians and other folks critical of government tax policy which reads something like, “Don’t steal, the government hates competition.””>There is a bumper sticker popular with Libertarians and other folks critical of government tax policy which reads something like, “Don’t steal, the government hates competition.”

Another area where the current U.S. government has recently made clear it doesn’t like competition from the individual is in the supporting of jihadists in Syria, as recently learned by Eric Harroun, an American army veteran and convert to Islam, who travelled to Syria to fight the Assad regime.

Harroun joined the Free Syrian Army before being separated from his group and being picked up by Jabhat al-Nusra, a brigade of rebels representing Al Qaeda. Harroun fought alongside these Al Qaeda fighters, before finally leaving Syria for Turkey, where he was detained by U.S. officials and charged with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (in this case a rocket propelled grenade or RPG) outside the United States.

So far, so good.

If Harroun is guilty –which seems likely, since all the evidence against him appears to be based on his own public statements – then he should indeed be jailed. Converts to Islam feature prominently in Al Qaeda terror plots against the United States (nearly a quarter of Al Qaeda plots in the U.S. were committed by converts), and U.S. officials are right to be wary of those training and fighting jihad abroad returning to the United States. European security officials have also expressed worries about the high number of European Muslims fighting in Syria.

But it raises a question.

If there is a serious security threat posed by men like Eric Harroun firing RPGs at Assad’s troops, why is the United States involved in shipping arms, including RPGs, to the very men with whom Harroun is fighting?

As reported by the New York Times and others, the Central Intelligence Agency is apparently involved in coordinating the shipment of arms purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, including Croatian-made heavy weapons, to Syrian rebels. This effort is camouflaged by an official policy of only providing limited “non-lethal aid” to the Syrian rebels, while covertly the U.S. is assisting in the transport of lethal aid, with the Qataris and Saudis picking up the cost.

Reportedly these shipments are intended for Free Syria Army units, and not Al Qaeda-linked Jihadis, and the CIA’s role is to insure the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands. But if these reports are correct, they have not proven very successful thus far.

The reason for this failure is because the Obama administration continues to claim that there is a real distinction between groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra and more “moderate” or “secular” Islamists like those tied to the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Syrian opposition; despite all evidence to the contrary. They have not changed their position even after being repeatedly told by Free Syrian Army (FSA) commanders like Riad Al-Asaad that Al-Nusra fighters are “brothers in Islam”, or that “(W)e are all Jabhat Al-Nusra,” as 29 opposition groups insisted in December when the U.S. designated Al-Nusra a terror group.

Which brings us back to the bumper sticker. The reason why the “Competition” sticker is striking is because it points to a fundamental principle of American justice, namely the rule of law, and the understanding that illegitimate actions do not become legitimate simply because they are carried out by the government.

And yet that is, effectively where the U.S. is today. To paraphrase, to provide Al Qaeda with one RPG is a crime, while to provide it with thousands is policy.

Eric Harroun will most likely be imprisoned for his efforts fighting alongside Al Qaeda, as well he should be. But there will be no accountability for the personnel of this Administration, whose policy is effectively to do the same as Harroun, just on a grander scale.

The Biblical Book of Joshua begins:

And it was after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, that the Lord said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying, “Moses my servant has died and now arise and cross the River Jordan. You and all this nation go to the land which I give the Children of Israel. Every place on which the soles of your feet will tread I have given to you, as I have spoken to Moses. No man shall stand up …

“Not so,” say diplomats in the United States and the rest of the Western world.

These leaders have their own, alternate supreme authority, which delineates not just the borders of Israel, but also that of every other nation within the Middle East.  They consider their authority to be an entity far more powerful than the Lord – the European colonial powers, especially the United Kingdom and France.

Just look at today’s map in the Middle East, and you can see what I mean.

Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, etc. all still exist within the borders that the European colonial powers drew for them.  These borders had nothing to do with their history.  They had nothing to do with their ethnic homogeneity.  They had nothing to do with their religious homogeneity.  They had nothing to do with their linguistics.  And today, the mix of peoples within each state is sometimes even more divided than when the borders were first drawn, as the different peoples within them often have different natural growth rates, or emigration rates, which have altered the balance of power in a major way. Simply put, these borders no longer make sense, if they ever did.

But don’t you ever think about touching those borders.  That is not to be allowed.

When the United States ousted the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, and occupied that country, our officials were careful to maintain a unified state out of the hodgepodge of nationalities and religions created by the British-French pen.  The Iraqi population is roughly 30 plus million divide as follows as follows – about 18 million Shia Arabs, 5 million Sunni Arabs, 5 million Sunni Kurds, who are a different ethnic group than Arabs, with the remainder largely Christian Arabs (those who haven’t fled yet).  Generally, the three main peoples live in different areas of the nation, with the Kurds in the North, the Sunni Arabs in the West, and the Shia Arabs predominating elsewhere.  Historically these three groups have been in opposition to one another.  But, even during the height of the Iraqi post-war insurrection, when Shia Arabs and Sunni Arabs and Kurds were all at each other’s throats, almost no American of any significance considered the logical option of dividing the country into three sections. Perhaps the world felt that since Europe colonialists had already spoken on the matter, the Iraqis would just have to learn to live together.

Also, consider Syria and Lebanon.  France originally drew their boundaries.  Both were drawn to maximize French interests, especially in Lebanon, where the French were interested in producing a majority Christian nation.  Today, the conflicts originating out of these lines have led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

In Syria, there are 23 million inhabitants.  16 million are Sunni Arabs.  Over 3 million are non-Sunni Arabs, mostly Alawites, but also including some Druze. Both the Alawites and the Druze live primarily in the Western, more mountainous areas.  There are about 2 million Kurds residing in the northeastern corner.  And there were more than 2 million Christian Arabs, prior to the rebellion.  Currently, much of the country is in flames, as Sunni Arabs – led by jihadists – seek to violently overthrow the Iranian-backed Alawite dictator Assad.  Over 70,000 people have died during this civil war.  Yet, among all the various peace plans that have been proposed by the international elites, precious few advocate the seemingly obvious idea of splitting Syria into its different constituent parts, so as to better protect minorities.  (The Christians may not be concentrated enough to create a separate state, although it is possible that they might be more safe in an Alawite or Kurdish state.)

In Lebanon, there are around 1.2 million Sunni Arabs, more than 1.2 million Shia Arabs, 1.4 million Christians (whom are further subdivided) and 200,000 Druze.  Because Lebanon is so heterogynous, it has had over twenty-five years of civil war, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, and currently is under a fragile “truce” thanks to the ability of the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah to forcibly control the nation.  The Lebanese communities are, once again, mostly segregated.  But, once again, no major international peace plans for Lebanon have ever made the case for a sensible division of the country.

So, now we come back to Israel.

After God had had his way, the British stepped in.  In 1921, the British chopped off 80% of the land to give to their ally, the Hashemite Abdullah, whose family had just lost their prior kingdom in what is now Saudi Arabia.  The monarchy of Jordan – as it became – has been in existence ever since.  Of course, as befits a kingdom arbitrarily drawn up by the British, a majority of the population of Jordan is actually made up of Palestinian Arab emigrants.

After the British tired of keeping peace between the warring Arabs and Jews in the remaining 20% of Palestine, the United Nations – led by the European diplomats – tried to organize that rump into competing areas of Arab and Jewish control.  This led to war, which resulted in the 1948 armistice lines.  Since then, Israel has been forced to fight numerous times against the Arab world.  In each of these struggles, the lines have changed.

But the world – led by the diplomats of Europe – still doesn’t recognize the current borders of Israel.  Neither does the Obama Administration.

Then again, perhaps this isn’t too surprising.  The British never got their final say on Israel’s borders, did they?

When Gunther Grass, a German writer, wrote a nasty bit of verse attacking the Jewish state of Israel and defending the Mad Mullahs of Iran and their genocidal desires to destroy the world’s Jews, many of the chattering classes in the Europe were, oh-so-shocked.  Considering Grass’s background as a member of the notorious Waffen S.S., I was not.  The only shocking thing to me was that a Nazi verbally attacking the Jewish state was considered newsworthy by anyone in the real world.

Likewise, when a French Muslim Arab brutally massacred a French Rabbi, his two sons, and an eight year old girl, I was disgusted, but not shocked.  But once again, many in Europe were.  Disgustingly, the French government, which loves to police the language of some critical of Islam, did nothing to head off the killer, or crack down on his religious inciters.  Over the years, the French government has often gone out of its way to avoid prosecuting, condemning, or even exposing, the anti-Semitic preaching of French imams, which prompted the mass murderer to murder.  Apparently, if the incitement is in another language, and against Jews, it is not all that important to the French government.

Now, some Dutch Muslims have been caught on tape, praising Hitler and the Holocaust, and hoping for a new slaughter of Jews.  Once again, some in Europe are shocked.  How could these children say such things?  But, these days, the Dutch elites are too busy going after Geert Wilders for his speech, which they claim incites hatred against the Dutch Muslim minority, to bother prosecuting the speech of Dutch imams, whom actually incite hatred towards the Jewish minority in the Netherlands.  So, as a result, young Dutch Muslims learn to hate Jews. 

There have been, and there will be, many more such incidents of the European elites expressing their surprise when anti-Semitic incidents occur in Europe.  And you can be sure that as before, the respective European governments will keep expressing their shock, but do absolutely nothing to learn from this incident or act to prevent the next one. 

None of this European obliviousness to anti-Semitism shocks me, though.

I guess I can thank my family for this.  My great grandfather, Nathan Trigoboff, and his father, Samuel Trigoboff, were all too familiar with anti-Semitism, violence against Jews, and an uncaring European elite.  Their story educated me to build up an immunity to the false conventional wisdom I keep hearing from some today, about how Europeans are civilized people who respect their Jewish minorities.

When Nathan was a teenager, the Czarist government of Russia drafted him to join their army.  This was, of course, the same army that often led pogroms against Russian Jews.  Nathan was incredibly strong and muscular; in his picture, his build resembles that of a professional boxer, like a young Mike Tyson.  But Nathan, and his father Samuel, knew that for a Jew to join the Russian Imperial Army was basically to receive a death sentence.  Nathan would either be worked to death, killed by his comrades at arms, who were usually virulent anti-Semites, or killed in battle.  And the Russian elites wanted it this way, while the "progressive" elites from the rest of Europe merely looked away. 

So, to save his son, Samuel sent Nathan to the United States of America, the one nation then in existence that actually cared about the minorities of the world.  Including Jews.  And Samuel did so knowing full well the legal consequences - Russian law demanded that the father of a draft evader must serve in his son’s place.  To avoid the fate he had saved his son from, Samuel then sliced off his own trigger finger, making it impossible for him to use a gun and thus, useless to the army.  Years later, Samuel Trigoboff joined his son in America, and sure enough, his Ellis Island records make note of his missing finger.

The Jews of Europe need to wake up to reality.  There is no future for Jewish life in that dark continent.  It is time for European Jews to go to a nation that welcomes and appreciates them, either the U.S., or (now) Israel.  The 600,000 Jews in France need to go.  The 250,000 in the U.K. must leave.  So too, must those Jews in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Russia (and the former U.S.S.R. states), Italy, and, of course, Germany

Otherwise, in a matter of time, each and every one of these European Jews will be dead.  And the elites of Europe will, like Renault, limit themselves to expressing their "shock" each time another Jew is killed.

Note: I do not generally favor hate speech codes as are found in Europe.  However, I find nothing inconsistent with opposing their creation and implementation in new countries, while demanding that they be enforced as universally as possible in those nations where they are already in existance.

Important overseas populations are drawing the conclusion that the Obama administration is quietly realigning itself in the Middle East, toward the Islamists.

Recently returning from a visit to Egypt, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) noted that many of the Coptic Christian minorities he met believe the United Statessupports the Muslim Brotherhood’s vicious rule there:

 

"I was told people think the United States is developing relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood because it believes the party is going to remain in power," Wolf said. "[T]he feeling is that as long as the Brotherhood protects the United States’ interests in the region, it can act with impunity within its borders."

Such sentiments are increasingly common in Egypt. Protestors against Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Cairo stood outside the Egyptian Foreign ministry, and accused the U.S. of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.  The leadership of the primary Muslim Brotherhood opposition, the National Salvation Front,refused to meet with Kerry, citing his "pro-Morsi stance." And U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson has been repeatedly accused of leading an effort to transform Egypt "into Pakistan,"  which is to say, a militarized, hardline-Islamist state. For his trip to Cairo, Kerry brought with him news of the release of $250 million in aid for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood-led government, a figure which would have been larger still had Congress not intervened.

Nor are the Egyptian opposition the only ones convinced that America has become the strongest ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, or their even more violent Islamist brethren. 

Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently accused the U.S. of partnering with the Taliban in a cynical strategy to prolong the military campaign in Afghanistan.  Karzai’s statement is ridiculous on its face since it’s difficult to give credence to any argument in which the Obama Administration appears anxious to remain in Afghanistan.

But given the repeated U.S. efforts to conduct negotiations with the Taliban, grant them an embassy,  and resist declaring them terrorists, one wonders if Karzai is quite as far off the mark as an objective observer would think he would be. Even if Karzai were speaking to a domestic audience only, shouldn’t the idea that the U.S. is partnering with the Taliban be so laughable as to be completely inconceivable even among isolated Afghan tribal peoples? 

And, of course, if the idea of the U.S. collaborating with the Taliban should be considered as likely as flying pigs, then the idea that, in Syria, the U.S. is actively arming Jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda-affiliates, should be an idea popular with only the tinfoil hat crowd.

But increasingly it’s not. 

As long time specialist on Syria, Barry Rubin, notes:

 

The United States is helping arm and perhaps helping to train radical Islamist guerrillas who want a Sharia state in Syria, who believe Israel should be wiped off the map, and who may soon be murdering and oppressing Christians and other groups in Syria itself.

Author of the Long War Journal, and an authority on Al Qaeda, Bill Roggioagrees:

 

The State Department announced that it would provide $60 million in direct aid to the Syrian Opposition Coalition, an alliance of Syrian groups that has come out in support of the Al Nusrah Front after the US designated it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and al Qaeda in Iraq’s affiliate in Syria in December 2012.

The struggle for Syria is becoming a repeat of the prior situation in Libya.  There, the U.S. provided assistance, including air cover, for Libyan rebels with openlyadmitted Al Qaeda ties. And we continue to reap the consequence0efits"  of that decision today from Benghazi to Mali. Now, the U.S. is doing the same for the Al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian groups.

Apropos the concerns of the protesting Egyptians, not only does U.S. policy risk turning Egypt into Pakistan, but increasingly, in our own way, we are turning our own country into Pakistan. We are, objectively speaking, supporting Islamic fundamentalists, and yes, even terrorists with the one hand, while opposing them with the other. We have transformed ourselves, in the span of a decade, from a nation that declares, "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists," to a nation that is credibly accused of arming terrorists. 

And as in Pakistan, there is perhaps some room for debate over whether this schizophrenic policy is due largely to an increasingly incompetent bureaucracy (of the sort that invites a virulent twitter anti-Semite to be awarded a women’s rights award) or if it is by Machiavellian design.

But there’s no question over what gave rise to the increasing belief that the United States is backing the Muslim Brotherhood over religious minorities in Egypt, providing aid and comfort to the Taliban, or supporting violent jihad in Syria and Libya. What gave them that idea? We did.

“Hey! think the time is right for a palace revolution, but where I live the game to play is compromise solution…”

–The Rolling Stones, “Street-Fighting Man”

Quite a bit of the recent news flowing out of the Middle East has an interesting common thread. Whether it’s Syria, Iraq, Egypt, or Tunisia, all states once known for their strong military leadership, the new power players may not be wearing the uniforms, but they’ve still got the guns.

On the Syrian front it was recently reported that Iran and Hezbollah are preparing a militia, with as many as 50,000 fighters, according to the Iranians, to deal with the potential post-Assad era.  If Assad does fall, the goal would be to use these militiamen to secure key Syrian territory, enabling Iran to continue to control supply lines to Hezbollah in Lebanon and maintain its influence. Despite suffering from financial sanctions, Iran is reportedly funneling millions of dollars in cash and equipment to their newest proxies.

This is an Iranian specialty. Even if you lose the war, you can still win the post-war chaos. They have played a similar game in Iraq with great success. So pervasive is the Iranian presence in Iraq that the Sunni opposition there has accused Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki of granting Iran permission to bring in 50,000 Iranian Basij militiamen to crack down on protestors and target foreign embassies, including that of the U.S. While the Middle East has always been fertile soil for rumors and conspiracy theories, there’s likely a sliver of truth in the claim, with Iranian agents active on the ground in Iraq. Iran’s Basij militia is often credited with the regime’s success at putting down opposition after the fraudulent election in 2009.

That proven capability to suppress protests has been central to Iranian discussions with the new Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government of Egypt’s President Mohammad Morsi as well. Rumors have continued to swirl that Iran may provide advice and assistance to establish a Muslim Brotherhood militia to help defeat street protests there. Other reports indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood may be able to rely on the Iranian-armed Muslim Brotherhood-offshoot Hamas to provide 7,000 fighters to secure Morsi’s rule.

In Tunisia, a vocal anti-Islamist politician, Chokri Belaid, was recently assassinated, leading to street clashes between secularists and the leading Islamist Ennahda party. While the secular left in Tunisia still controls major labor unions, and so maintains a base of power, protestors suffer fromcontinued violence from the pro-Ennahada militia.

The power of sectarian, ethnic, tribal or party militias are greatest in regions where national identity has never really taken root, and the Middle East is one such region. For most of the Middle East, local loyalties have been either sectarian or tribal, while the ideologies that have held sway are supra-national in origin, with either Islam or Pan-Arab nationalism as the guiding belief system.

Thus it is no surprise that, as Daniel Pipes pointed out in a recent article, the United State’s continued focus on creating national armed forces and other national institutions in these states has historically failed, and continues to fail. There is little use in bringing an F-16 to a street fight. Yes, Morsi’s Egypt will gladly take delivery of modern military technology, but his regime’s security is better served by thugs on motorbikes with guns and leather jackets than by fighter jocks in F-16 fighters. And he knows it.

There are forces in the region deserving of American support. Secular activists in Egypt and Tunisia, although small and routinely disorganized, are worthy of recognition. And ethnic and religious minorities including Christians, Kurds and Druze in Syria are sympathetic to our democratic values and all likely to be on the receiving end of violence from both Iran’s new militia and the majority Sunni-rebels if Assad should fall. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that the U.S. will play a role in safe guarding these communities or giving them the ability to safeguard themselves.

The Obama administration has shown it is far more comfortable negotiating across the table from the Islamists, whether from Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood, than it is reaching out to secular and minority groups. And while U.S. officials at the CIA and the Pentagon expressed confidence that they could vet recipients of U.S. armsin Syria, the administration’s track record in this area is not good.  Where the administration has played the militia game, they generally have failed.  For example, they selected the February 17th Martyrs’ Brigade to help guard the Benghazi Consulate. They ended up selecting a Muslim Brotherhood-linked militia that conveniently“failed to respond to repeated calls for assistance” when the Consulate came under attack.  Not encouraging.

So U.S.-manufactured weapons of war serve no good purpose (nor does the American influence they allegedly purchased), while the Islamist rulers establish and maintain their territories using the truncheons and bicycle chains of their militias against the remaining secularists and minorities. While the current administration continues to believe that the time is right for a compromise solution, it seems that in the Middle East “the time is right for fighting in the streets.”

Recently, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt, a supposed “moderate” Islamist, met with Iran’s anti-Semitic, genocidal, President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reportedly, they had a friendly discussion.  Perhaps, in addition to the official topics, they also conversed about their mutual anti-Semitic attitudes.  President Ahmadinejad is already well-known for his hatred of the Jews.  President Morsi’s bigotry, on the other hand, has only publicly come to light this past year.  In 2010, President Morsi delivereda speech urging Egyptians to “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” for Jews. Soon after, Morsi described Jews as “these bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.”   When confronted by U.S. Senators on his impolitic language, Morsi implied that this was only a controversy because the American media was controlled by Jews.

But the two Islamist Presidents have much more in common than just their anti-Semitism.  Both lead radical, dictatorial, and anti-American regimes.  Like the radical Iranian government has since 1979, President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood Party continue to crack down on pro-democracy demonstrations in their country (Egypt), persecuteindependent members of the media, and actively pursue death sentences against Westerners or Americans engaging in Free Speech IN the West.

Unfortunately, none of this negative behavior by Egypt’s leadership seems to matter much to the U.S. government.  The administration’s immediate response – sending four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt.  A bipartisan Congress voted to support the sale.  This is all part of the $1.5 billion or so U.S. aid, most of it military, which has gone to Egypt annually since 1979.

When questioned about the consistent flow of U.S. aid to Egypt, the same argument is often made by the foreign policy elites – Egypt is the colossus of the Arab world, and it would be irrational and unwise for the U.S. to simply let it become a rogue state, or to collapse, as a failed state.  And so the U.S. money spigot must be kept consistently open, if not cracked a bit wider, regardless of how the Islamist-run Egyptian government acts.  In fact, if you persist in doubting this wisdom, sometimes you are belittled as an ignorant isolationist-like opponent of all foreign aid.

But let’s re-examine that pearl of conventional wisdom regarding U.S. aid to Egypt. It simply isn’t valid, as Egypt under the MB is already a rogue state, and it is also pretty much guaranteed to become a failed state.

The fact that Egypt is a rogue state should be patently obvious at this point.  The Egyptian MB has produced Hamas in Gaza, a well-known terrorist organization.  In fact, the MB and Hamas are so close that thousands of Hamas warriors may have been sent to Egypt to help President Morsi protect his regime by crushing Egyptian democratic protestors.  President Morsi and his MB have already shown their willingness to corrupt the democratic process, kill Egyptian demonstrators, discriminate against the Coptic Christians, allow for the harassment or rape of women, and prevent the exercise of a culture of freedom of speech among ordinary Egyptians and foreigners alike.  For more information, see here, here, here and here.  Even President Obama – in a moment of clarity – revealed that he is unsure whether Egypt’s MB regime is an ally of ours.

Egypt’s coming economic failure is not so obvious, perhaps because of Western wishful thinking.  But, as David Goldman writes, Egypt currently requires more than $22 billion a year simply to meet its basic needs.  Because of the increasing violence there, the once flourishing tourist industry is kaput, and people with money and knowledge and skills are fleeing.  A black market of U.S. dollars has developed.  Almost half of the population is illiterate.  There are no major sources of oil, natural gas, or other natural resources in the nation.   In other words, Egypt can’t – and/or won’t – continue to exist without outside help.  So, the question is: is the U.S., or the world, ready to supply that $22 billion – every year – to prop up the Islamist regime of Mohammed Morsi?

Perhaps some believe that the Gulf States and Europe will pay for some of this aid.  Maybe.  So far, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have given Egypt only $9 billion in financial aid and Saudi Arabia may not be willing to deliver this money indefinitely to a MB-dominated government.  And Europe is in really bad economic straits these days.  So that leaves the U.S., and the various international organizations.  But I repeat myself – the U.N. and other international groups may have promised grants/loans, but much of their budget actually comes from the U.S.

There is another point to be made here.  Even if we believe that “Egypt is too big to fail,” why would we ever let the Egyptians know this? As any true believer in realpolitick would know, if Egypt is aware of how vital it is to the U.S., then that nation will do whatever it wants to do, even if what it is doing is in opposition to U.S. interests. This means that it is imperative that the U.S. credibly pretend, even if it would never actually stop its aid to Egypt, that it is open to cutting off the money. Attaching conditions to the aid, and then waiving them, simply does not cut it.

Aside from the question of U.S. foreign aid to Egypt in general, there is also the question of military aid in particular.  About 80% of the U.S. aid to Egypt is military.  There are really only three possible reasons why Egypt would need a strong military: 1) to crack down on its own people; 2) to go to war against Israel, a U.S. ally; and/or 3) to conquer or intimidate other neighboring nations, like Libya, Sudan, Jordan, etc.  None of these actions are in the U.S. national interest.

The most frequently asserted reason to provide the Egyptian military with this aid is that the military is, or will be, a counterweight to the MB.  Now, when the Egyptian army was a more secular-led institution under President Mubarak, bribing Egyptian military leaders to win their support made sense. But considering that Morsi personally named the new army leadership, that the armed forces have shown they don’t want to get involved in politics, and that many officers are pro-Brotherhood or even pro-Salafist, is this really a good reason anymore?  I don’t believe so.  Certainly, Morsi and the MB don’t seem too concerned about the army opposing them.

President Morsi is an Islamist, and his Muslim Brotherhood Party is an Islamist party.  They run a regime that is un-democratic, anti-human rights, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian.  And they need our economic help, just to survive.  It is well-past the time we let them know that, unless they change their ways, their nation’s ride on the U.S. gravy train will end.

Perhaps you haven’t heard, but Coca Cola was recently accused of “racism” against Arabs for its new Super Bowl ad.  It wasn’t just Arab groups that made the claim – here is CAIR, the Islamist group masquerading as a “civil rights” group, grouching about it too.  Other Muslim groups also objected, asking the Coca Cola Company not to air it, or asking for it to be reshot.

The actual Coca Cola ad was as follows:  In it, an Arab caravan wanders through the desert with their camels. The lead man, dressed in traditional Arab robes, sees a giant Coca Cola bottle sign in the distance. Looking thirsty, he begins to walk towards the sign, only to be surprised, and literally left in the dust, by successive groups of American Cowboys, Mad Max-like bikers, and a bus of Vegas showgirls, who all are racing to get to a Coke. All of these groups eventually get to the sign, with the exception of the Arabs, only to find out that the sign says that the Coke bottles are actually 50 miles away. The Coca Cola Company has asked viewers to vote on which group will be able to get the refreshing Coke; but they don’t include the Arab group in the contest.  That was enough for the “racism” charge, and the implied “Islamophobia” charge.  The only way to solve this problem, according to the Arab and Muslim critics – Coke needed to redo the ad, so at the very least, the Arabs had an opportunity to win.

Why were CAIR, an Islamist group, and the other Muslim groups, involved in this controversy?  As we all should know by now, the Islamist lobby has worked overtime to develop the narrative that “Islamophobia” is equivalent to racism, so Nihad Awad of CAIR is able to use the Coke ad debate to get his organization, an unindicted coconspirator in a terrorism finance trial, on a national news program. He successfully did so this time, appearing on the O’Reilly Factor, where he made the case that the ad unfairly connects Arabs to camels, and thus makes them “camel jockeys.” No mention was made of CAIR’s questionable ties or affiliations.

The “Islamophobia=racism” argument is a flimsy one to be sure, but still enough to further the Islamist campaign to force the West to censor its speech regarding Islam. This charge exemplified just one of the three different methods Islamists often resort to, to censor Western speech. Here they applied some pressure based on political correctness, by threatening to smear Coca Cola’s reputation by alleging “racism” and “Islamophobia.” Alternative methods used by Islamists include: the initiation of legal proceedings, known as “lawfare” — i.e., frivolous or malicious lawsuits which often do not even hope to succeed in court and are reluctant to reach discovery to avoid disclosing information, but which therefore seem intended, using charges of hate speech ordefamation, to harass and financially crush the defendant; and threats of violence, or actual violence.

This whole controversy may not seem like much, but it was actually sort of a big deal. The criticisms by these Arab/Muslim groups were patently ridiculous. These include the above whine about a connection between Arabs and camels, a complaint that “Arabs are always shown as either oil-rich sheiks, terrorists, or belly dancers,” and a whimper that the Arabs are not given a chance to win the race. The Coke ad is clearly not guilty of being “racist” or “Islamophobic” or any other type of prejudice. It may be just plain stupid, but it is an equal opportunity stupid. Only those who write commercials professionally should have been offended. CAIR, and the other professional Islamist scolds, were not even trying to put forth good arguments to back up their outrage. So, if Coke had caved, these Arab and Muslim pressure groups would have demonstrated great power to censor non-Muslims, using only the slightest of pretexts as a cover.

But Coca Cola – aside from its decision to express a tepid “regret” for the ad being “misunderstood” – generally stood firm, and the ad aired, unedited, during the Super Bowl. Much credit belongs to them for not bowing further to these groups. The company has a tremendous amount of sales in the Arab and Muslim world, so the economically smart thing for it to have done was just to apologize and tweak the ad.  They didn’t.

As long as Coca Cola continues to stand strong on free speech, next time I am thirsty, I think I will select a Coke.

Imran Firasat, a Muslim-turned-Christian from Pakistan who currently resides in Spain, is facing down a Spanish government that seems determined to punish him for his film, The Innocent Prophet, about the prophet Muhammad. The Spanish government has: 1) revoked his Spanish residency and now threatens to extradite him; and 2) initiated a prosecution for violating a Spanish hate speech law. The Spanish authorities have justified their revocation of his residency on the grounds that he is "threatening national security with the production of this video." Although Mr. Firasat is originally from Pakistan, the Spanish authorities might also deport him to Indonesia, where his wife is from (and still lives) and where Firasat lived from 2008 through 2010. Meanwhile, the accompanying hate speech prosecution filed against Mr. Firasat is because his film violates section 510 of the Spanish Penal Code, which is a crime that punishes incitation to hatred and violence for racial, ideological or religious reasons. More facts about Imran Firasat’s case may be found in an earlier column I wrote,here. In interest of full disclosure I should note, that the Legal Project is providing financial assistance to his attorney.

The most disturbing part of this Spanish campaign against Mr. Firasat is that the Spanish government really should know better than to push for Imran Firasat’s deportation from Spain. As the government is aware, if he is sent to Pakistan, he may face death for his frequent blasphemy.

As the government is aware, if he is sent to Indonesia, the Indonesian authorities have actually accused Mr. Firasat, and convicted him, in abstentia, of a spurious murder charge. The Spanish learned this fact two years ago, when Interpol contacted them regarding an Indonesian warrant. At that time, a Spanish judge ruled that the Indonesian conviction was not strong enough to merit his expulsion from Spain. The Spanish also know that Mr. Firasat has been accused—but not convicted—of blasphemy charge(s) in Indonesia. After all, Spain originally gave him refuge because his criticism of Islam, in various Muslim nations, put him in danger of blasphemy punishment anywhere within the Muslim world.

So, to sum up, the Spanish authorities are trying to remove Imran Firasat from Spain, even though they are aware that: 1) if he were sent back to Pakistan, he very well might be killed for blasphemy; 2) if he were sent back to Indonesia he would be exposed to either a murder conviction or a blasphemy charge, or possibly both; and 3) if he were deported elsewhere, there is an Interpol warrant hanging over his head that could be used to send him back to Indonesia to the same result.

Firasat’s legal problems began in 2010, while he was living in Indonesia when he was arrested for his "blasphemy" on the web against Islam. The Indonesians threatened to charge him for a violation of the 1965 Indonesian law against blasphemy, Article 156(A) of the penal code. This law stipulates up to five years in prison for anyone who publicly shows "enmity" or "abuses or stains" a religion adhered to in Indonesia, or prevents other people from adhering to such a religion. Indonesia’s blasphemy law penalty is not as serious as those of some other Muslim nations, like Pakistan, but a conviction in Indonesia is still nothing to make light of. In 2012, in Indonesia, a man named Sebastian Joe was given five years for his "blasphemy." Apparently, one of Joe’s controversial statements was "God stingy and arrogant," which he wrote on his Facebook page. It also appears that the Indonesian police had arrested Joe partly to protect him from an Islamist mob that was then descending on his home. Another Indonesian man, named Alexander, who is a confirmed atheist, was not so lucky. He was charged with writing "God does not exist" on a Facebook page he moderated, and was beaten by an Islamist mob before he was placed in police custody.

Imran Firasat was deported from Indonesia on July 7, 2010. But, just months after coming back to Spain—where he had resided from 2004 to 2008—the Spanish authorities arrested him at the behest of Interpol and the Indonesians. Indonesia now claimed that on June 10, 2010, Mr. Firasat had committed a murder in Indonesia, and that on July 16, 2010 they had actually conducted a full trial and convicted him. Shockingly, this meant that the Indonesians had held Firasat for 27 days after his supposed murder, never charging him, and then deported him, before convicting him, 9 days later, for his supposed murder. Not surprisingly, the Spanish authorities—after giving the Indonesian authorities ample opportunities to appear in court and present their evidence—ultimately rejected extradition and left Imran Firasat free to live as a resident in Spain.

That is, until the Spanish heard about Mr. Firasat’s movie. In response to Firasat’s stated intent to release the film, the Spanish authorities began to threaten him with lawfare. Because of their threats, Firasat backed down. However, American Pastor Terry Jones, ofKoran-burning fame, then took it upon himself to release the movie. Pastor Jones had a copy of it because he had earlier been approached by Mr. Firasat to help publicize the movie. So, even though Imran Firasat himself had not released the movie, the authorities followed through on their threats and removed his Spanish legal residency.

Now, Imran Firasat sits in a type of legal limbo, a man without a country, stuck in Spain where he can be detained by the police at any time, with only nations like Indonesia wanting him—to punish him for his speech. His only hope is that he will be successful in his administrative appeal to the High Court in Madrid to regain his Spanish residency.

When Spain let Imran Firasat first seek asylum in their nation, they knew all about his vociferous objections to Islam. They let him in anyway. Now, perhaps because of recent Islamist violence directed towards speech, the Spanish want to get rid of him. How craven can you get?

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) and the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum. He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law. This column was written for the LP.

Senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination has already sent an extremely dangerous signal to the Islamic Republic of Iran that President Obama really doesn’t mean what he says when he declares that “all options are on the table”, when dealing with a nuclear Iran.

A nuclear Iran would not be dangerous to Israel alone. It is dangerous to the United States, and incredibly destabilizing to the region, and perhaps to the entire world.

We know that one of the very first things that Iran did after its revolution in 1979 was to seize the American embassy and take our embassy officials hostage. We know that it was Iranian-backed Hezbollah that bombed the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, killing 244 US servicemen. We know that it was Iranian-made IED’s with Farsi lettering on them that were used to maim and kill our U.S. servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We also know that Israel is simply referred to in their rhetoric as “The Minor Satan.” It is America that gets that glorious epithet, “The Great Satan.” 

Within a few years, the Iranians will probably have a missile capable of delivering nuclear material to the United States. At this point their missiles can reach Israel as well as many parts of Europe. And the many Hezbollah cells just beyond our border in Central America may be able to activate something quite horrific to the United States, with a transportable “dirty bomb” carried in a briefcase across the border with Mexico.

However, we have no doubt that Israel will be first in the Iranian crosshairs.

We know that for years Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been preparing his people to do something dreadful to Israel by dehumanizing the Israeli and the Jew. When leaders start making allusions to biological growths and organisms, it is a way of sowing the societal landscape so that their people do not feel the common bond of humanity with Jews. It is a way to minimize any objection they might have to the annihilation of Israel.

In one of his recent televised speeches marking Al Quds Day, (Jerusalem Day), Ahmadinejad called Israel “a cancerous tumor that will soon be destroyed.” He continued: “Even if one cell of them is left in one inch of Palestinian land, in the future the story of Israel’s existence will repeat itself.”

So vile is the existence of Israel in the eyes of Ahmadinejad (and unfortunately in much of the Arab world, as well) that he views the eradication of Israel and the Jews as a great moral service to humanity.
He went on to proclaim, “Confronting Israel is an effort to protect the dignity of all human beings.”

We have been down this road before. The real cancer that is very much in existence throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world is this cancer of hatred that has metastasized throughout the body politic of much of the Middle East and Iran.
By this twisted logic, Ahmadinejad actually feels that he is doing something virtuous by eviscerating the Jewish state.

We are in a very sensitive period of history. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is an arm of the United Nations—so in no way could be construed as part of the “Zionist conspiracy”—last November, Iran was about one year away from possessing enough fissile material for at least three to four Hiroshima-type weapons.

And that is a very conservative estimate.

According to Reza Khalili, a former member of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps, who became a double agent and worked for the CIA in the 1980’s and ‘90’s, Iran already has enough weapons grade, highly enriched uranium, plus the delivery mechanism to carry nuclear warheads.

Speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last July, Khalili said, “This is a messianic regime. There should be no doubt they’re going to commit the most horrendous suicide bombing in history. They will attack Israel, European capitals and the Persian Gulf region at the same time, then they will hide in a bunker (until a religious prophecy is fulfilled), and kill all the nonbelievers.”

How does this apply to Chuck Hagel?

It apples because we know that whoever will be Secretary of Defense during the next four years will undoubtedly need to deal with this issue. It is a necessary prerequisite of the job that whoever that candidate is, he or she needs to understand the urgency of the threat.

Let’s take a look at Senator Hagel’s record:

According to an editorial in the Washington Post—not a conservative publication, by any stretch of the imagination—Chuck Hagel repeatedly voted against Iranian sanctions, including sanctions against the terrorist Islamic revolutionary Guards Corps, (IRGC). Not only has Senator Hagel had a pattern of opposing sanctions when the vast majority of his colleagues were calling for them, but in a discussion held by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2005, he proposed that Iran should be made part of the regional talks on the future of Iraq.

Think about that: Chuck Hagel wants the United States, which has invested so many American lives and a vast amount of our treasure in Iraq, to allow the Islamic Republic of Iran—a nation whic, in its inception, declared war on the United States by seizing our embassy, and has since supplied IEDs that have killed American soldiers in Iraq—to be a party in the shaping of the Iraqi government.

Now, many people have proclaimed that Senator Hagel is a friend of Israel. However, the best test of friendship is: what does a friend do when his friend is down? In July of 2006, Iranian-backed Hezbollah crossed the border of southern Lebanon into Israel, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. They then rained down more than 4,000 rockets on Northern Israel, specifically targeting Israeli citizens and population centers.

There was one Senator, and only one Senator, who stood up on the floor of the United States Senate and upbraided Israel for doing what, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, any nation is entitled to do when its civilian population is attacked, remonstrating against “the systematic destruction of an American friend—the country and people of Lebanon.”

You guessed his name – Chuck Hagel.

Of course, in Chuck Hagel’s worldview, no regime, no terrorist organization, is beyond the pale, no matter how egregious its actions are.

In 2008, Mr. Hagel said we had to negotiate with the regime of Bashir al Assad of Syria, and in 2009, he sent a letter to the president saying that Israel must begin open negotiations with Hamas.

There is also a pattern that has emerged in Chuck Hagel’s record that I find chillingly reminiscent of a very ugly sentiment. Comments that contain within them statements about either the wealth or the power of Jews reek of classic antisemitic canards.

In a discussion with a JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) staff member, Marsha Halteman, when Senator Hagel was head of the USO, they discussed the cost of building up the port in Haifa, the one stable place within the tumultuous Middle East for American ships to dock.

Mr. Hagel’s goose-bump inducing quipL: “Let the Jews pay for it.”

Senator Hagel puts American Jews in a very untenable position. I would like to believe that I, according to the Constitution, have the same right to petition my elected officials as an Irish-American or an Italian-American, or any other American.
There are good reasons for American Jews to be involved in the democratic process. On February 2, 2012, the head of the IDF military intelligence, Aviv Kochavi said, “There are 200,000 missiles pointing at Israel in every direction.”

One would hope that if there were a besieged democratic ally anywhere in the world, say in Ireland, with that many missiles pointing at it from all directions, I would still want to educate members of Congress about that situation. To question my right as an American citizen to do this is bringing back ugly sentiments that have been carefully locked in the closet since the days before the Holocaust.

Last summer, my family and I returned to Eastern Europe. I found out that the person whom I was named after, whom I always thought perished in Auschwitz, never made it that far.  She was one of those who had been forced to strip naked and dig her own grave, later to be mowed down by the Nazis.

There are people in this world who would not hesitate to do the very same thing to my people today, as a nation, given the opportunity. These people also want to destroy the United States.

Our history has taught us that when our enemies speak, we had better heed what they say. Because our enemies mean business.

That is why nominating a person with a track record such as Mr. Hagel’s, so dismissive of the very real dangers in the world, sends such a very dangerous signal to those people.

Originally Printed on Breitbart

Although largely unreported in the West (with a few exceptions),Arab language dailies and internet sites have been a buzz about multiple arrests conducted by the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E)’ security forces, targeting Muslim Brotherhood cells, which they claim are fomenting sedition.  

Ten Egyptians, described as engineers and doctors, who were long time residents of the Emirates and Brotherhood members were arrested. The U.A.E claims that the ten men represented the leadership cell of the Brotherhood’s activities in the Emirates. Officials say those arrested had acquired classified information and were engaged in training U.A.E residents in tactics to promote the overthrow of the regime.

Egyptian leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have confirmed those arrested were Brothers but denied they were seeking to export the revolution from Egypt.

The U.A.E has been spearheading resistance to the Muslim Brotherhood since at least last year, when it arrested some 60 activists of the Brotherhood-linked Islah society. The group has been banned by the U.A.E, accusing them of forming a “military wing” and owing allegiance to foreign forces (namely the Egyptian leadership of the Brotherhood.)

The U.A.E also expelled Syrian activists with suspected ties to the Brotherhood, leading toa diplomatic confrontation, when Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual Guide and Qatari resident Yusuf Al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa against the move.

U.A.E sources have since blamed Qatar as being a primary financial sponsor of efforts to bolster the Brotherhood. Documents allegedly acquired by U.A.E investigators suggested that the U.A.E was a principle target of the Brotherhood; the Islamist group is seeking access to the Emirates oil funds, since Egypt is in grave financial straits.

U.A.E’s allies in this anti-Brotherhood counter-offensive are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both of whom have expressed deep concerns that the Brotherhood’s “Arab Spring” revolution will spread unrest to their own fiefdoms.  A Kuwait MP has also recently warned of the threat posed by Muslim Brotherhood “sleeper cells”.

The U.S. government continues to labor under the delusion that the Muslim Brotherhood “is an umbrella term for a variety of movements” that is “largely secular”.  

The Gulf regimes’ accounting of the organization as a shadowy group which organizes military wings and sleeper cells, that seeks access to classified information, and aspires to overthrow governments, is far more in keeping with what is known of the Brotherhood’smodus operandi.

While the aggressive actions of the Emirates have most likely put a crimp in the Brotherhoods’ plans to export their revolution, it certainly won’t be the last word. According to recent reports, members of the Egyptian government have conducted high-level meetings with Qassem Suleimani, head of the Iranian Al-Quds force, the branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Gorps (IRGC) responsible for organizing cells for conducting terror attacks and subversion abroad.

According to Al-Masry Al-Youm, Suleimani provided advice “on establishing [Egypt’s] own security and intelligence services independent from the army-controlled national intelligence services.” Additionally, Egypt’s interior minister Ahmed Gamal El-Din is said tohave been sacked for opposing the recent Iranian overtures. 

Nor are these the first meetings between the two groups. A previous meeting between the head of Egypt’s intelligence service and a senior official of the Iranian Ministry for Intelligence and Security (MOIS) took place in September of last year, but was overshadowed by the storming of the American Embassy in Cairo and the murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Benghazi.

 While some analysts mistakenly put great stock in the supposed “Sunni-Shia” divide, the reality is, when it comes to sponsoring Islamic revolution, the Iranians are willing to work with almost anyone. Besides, the Al-Quds force has long been the primary financial sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, known by most as Hamas.

Evidence of improving ties can also be seen through recent overtures from the Egyptian government towards Iranian proxy Hezbollah.

While the Brotherhood and the Iranians have been at odds over the fate of Iranian ally Bashar Assad, it’s unlikely that such a difference will be allowed to interfere with a shared desire to see the downfall of the Gulf monarchies.

So while the U.A.E and its allies will continue to crack down on the Brotherhood in order to avoid becoming the next Egypt, Libya, or Syria, expect the Brotherhood to double down on its efforts, using any means available to them, even if it means cooperating with the Iranians.

With the holidays behind us, and the elections, I do have some good news to report about Israel.

No doubt, this is shocking to you.

Only recently, the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics issued its usual press release about how, in 2020, if the current trends persist, the number of Palestinian Arabs will outnumber the number of Israeli Jews (but only if you include Gaza, land which virtually no Israelis are interested in recovering).  Of course, this headline is meant to scare Israelis, and the West especially, into restarting the “Palestinian Arab-Israeli Peace Process” by encouraging new pressure on Israel to make concessions to those noted “moderates” in the Palestinian Authority.  Not that this reset would be necessary, by the way, if the PA had not consistently refused to come back to the negotiating table since 2008 and not violated the prior peace process – the Oslo Accords – by getting the world community at the UN to recognize thenon-nation(s) of “Palestine.”

Unfortunately for the Israel haters, though, time is no longer on their side.  Consider these facts:

• The population of Israel is booming, in contrast to most Western nations, and even many countries in the Arab world.  Meanwhile, Palestinian statistics consistently overstate their actual numbers by 1 million.  I have already written about this here.  One new point though – the current 66% Jewish majority in the area of the pre-1967 Israel, Judea and Samaria could actually increase to an 80% majority in 2035, if Jewish immigration increases from the former USSR, France, Britain, Argentina and the US.  This is quite possible, in response to Israel’s positive economic indicators, the intensification of European anti-Semitism (largely because of growing Muslim populations), and the growth of Jewish-Zionist education.

• Israel’s economy is also booming.  Israel’s 2009-2012 economic growth of 14.7% leads the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, ahead of Australia – 10.7%, Canada – 4.8%, US – 3.2%, Germany – 2.7%, France – 0.3%, Euro Bloc – 1.5% decline. Also, Israel’s unemployment rate edged down to 6.7% in November from 6.9% in October. Tourism numbers went up to an all-time high of 2.9 million tourists in 2012. Simultaneously, much of the civilized world is or seems about ready to sink into a recession.  Also, unlike the US and many other nations, Israel does not have crushing debt and entitlement burdens.  Meanwhile, few of the non-oil producing Arab nations are doing well economically.

• The “Arab Spring,” or more accurately, the “Arab Winter,” has demonstrated, pretty convincingly, that Israel is not the cause of all of the problems in the Middle East.  Even an Arab writer in the Arab News has acknowledged this fact.  It has even prompted the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt, whose leaders continue to spout disgusting anti-Semitism and eliminationist rhetoric, to refuse to stick their necks out for its “little terror brothers” in Hamas, especially when Egypt has so many non-Israel related problems.

• With the Syrian Assad regime in its death throes and Hezbollah worried about its position in Lebanon, Israel can focus on Iranian nukes without worrying about these Iranian allies.  And, by the way, the Iranian Regime, while still very dangerous, has its own economic and population problems that could hobble its drive to world power.

• Related to the above, although Syrian Sunni Islamists are leading the charge against Assad and could gain power in Syria, they have a major problem to face – at least 40% of the nation’s population is made up of Alawite, Christian, Kurdish, Druze, and other non-Arab or non-Sunni minorities.  Many of these minorities, including the Alawites, the Kurds, and the Druze are located in select areas of the country and have substantial amounts of weaponry, and in some cases, the protection of mountainous territory.  In reality, while the Sunni Islamists may lead the ouster of Assad, the likely forecast for Syria in general is for a continuing civil war, which should distract its rather disorganized participants from picking a fight with Israel.

• Related to the above, the Kurdish peoples, perhaps one of the more pro-Israeli Muslim groups in the Middle East, have established their own quasi-states in Iraq and now Syria, and have become a force to reckon with wherever they live.  They are a big threat to the Islamist government of Turkey, which is also facing its own economic problems and a decline in the birthrate of the native Turkish population.   The Turkish Kurds, in contrast, are still growing demographically.

• Israel has discovered a vast amount of natural gas – and oil as well – off shore, which should make it energy independent soon, and might even make it a net exporter of energy.  Beginning in 2009, discoveries were made in: 1) the Tamar field, with 8-9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; 2) the Dalit field, with 500 billion cubic feet of natural gas; and 3) Leviathan, with 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Some estimate that Leviathan alone could provide Israel with all the natural gas it would need for the next 100 years. Also, Israel may have shale oil reserves totaling 250 billion barrels.  Simultaneously, some of the oil producing Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, may be running low of their own oil supplies for export.  Coupling these changes with the rising price of and demand for oil/gas, other energy discoveries in non-Arab/Muslim nations, and the advent of new technologies to extract energy supplies that have been developed in the West, a huge shift may occur in the field of energy, with Israel and the West gaining ground vis-à-vis the traditional Arab/Muslim OPEC Bloc.  This, in turn, could lead to a reevaluation by many other nations of their relations with Israel.  Money talks, as we all know.

• Continuing problems integrating its Muslim minorities into a secular society are prompting some Europeans to reevaluate their respective relations with the Arabs and the Israelis.  Remember the old saying – the enemy of my enemy is my friend?  This is indeed happening in Europe.  Look at the new “Right” that is springing up all over Europe and is, in many cases, shockingly, pro-Israel.  Geert Wilders is one prime example.

• The Palestinian leadership – in both the PA and Hamas – while being corrupt, undemocratic, and genocidal, is also just plain dumb.  For example, a bad actor should be able to, and willing to, tell a lie to advance one’s overall position. Thus, when dealing with the West, it would behoove the Palestinian leadership to talk nice and seem reasonable, while secretly planning to murder the Israelis (and the Jews).  Yet time after time, Palestinian leaders blurt out (see here) that they don’t want any sort of compromise with the Jewish state but want all the land, that the Jews have weak ties to the land, and that Palestinians (and other Arabs) must kill all of the Jews, including the women and children.  They can’t seem to control their emotions, even when doing so would help them achieve their purposes. Such vicious stupidity is a huge weakness.

In the coming year, Israel does have some big challenges facing it, most especially dealing with the threat of Iranian nukes from a genocidal and desperate – for economic and religious reasons – regime.   But, it also has a lot of positive factors coming into play that should help it weather the tide.

So, next time some opinionated anti-Zionist gives you a hard time about Israel, and your support of that nation’s desire to stay alive, I hope you quote some of the above listed positive factors to him.  And be sure to smile.  They really hate that.

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) and the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum. He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law. This column was written for the LP.

While all eyes in Washington have been directed as to whether or not we will be going off the "fiscal cliff", there is a civilizational cliff that much of the Muslim and Arab world are rapidly plunging across. Much of the West had thought we had been providing them with a parachute, cut out of the soft, gentle fabric, imported from America and England, of respect for human rights, the little "give" provided by tolerance, and a foundation of democratic institutions upon which to fall.

Instead, we are looking at a Middle East that is descending in an inchoate free fall back down onto the familiar ground of religious fundamentalism, primordial, primitive tribal society, and internecine warfare which that region of the world is so accustomed to.

Take Egypt, for example. The over 50 billion dollars in U.S. aid that we have given the Egyptians in the 34 years since they had signed the Camp David Treaty with Israel had deceptively assured many of us that we would have our hand on the parachute strings to help direct the trajectory of the fall. Instead we have just provided them with the reassurance that our hard earned tax payers dollars will forever provide a soft cushion on which to land, irrespective of how they value human rights and democracy, or treat America and her one sole democratic ally in the Middle East, the state of Israel.

While many of us were enjoying our winter holidays, Egyptians went to the polls and voted for a Shariah based, Islamist constitution, which passed by 63.8 per cent. Egypt, the largest populated country in the Arab world with a population of 82.5 million people, has been left badly polarized. Coptic Christians, seculars, liberals, and leftists have been rendered powerless as they have watched the march of Islamist ascendency and the slow steady erosion of the liberties.

Morsi’s critics have complained that this constitution does not represent all Egyptians, and that it allows imams to interfere in legislation, while it offers little or no protection to women and minorities.

This is just one of many freedoms that the Egyptians have been watching erode. The secular tyranny of Hosni Mubarak has simply been replaced by the Islamist tyranny of Mohammad Morsi.

As soon as Mohammad Morsi came into power, he took over the media, the fourth estate, sacking the secular communications director and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood member. He then proceeded to purge scores of newspaper publishers and editors.

In August, when Islamists attacked Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai—which as some have taken as a pretense to force Egypt into a confrontation with Israel— Morsi used this instance as a smokescreen to replace Mohamad Hussein Tantawi, the secular head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, (SCAF), and Army Chief of Staff Sami Enan, to replace them with Muslim Brothergood member, Abdal Kahlil Fatah a- Sisi. (So much for the popular argument in Washington that we have to support the Egyptian military because it is the "most western of institutions").

When Morsi sacked Tantawi and Enan, he used that occasion to grab control of all the legislative authorities, promising that this was only going to be until a new, draft constitution could be voted upon. This constitution, which was voted upon on December 25th, makes Islamist clerics the arbiters of human rights and sets up Saudi style "religious police".

The constitution allows for Muslim clerics to segregate the sexes, much as they do in Saudi Arabia, and to impose strict Islamic codes of dress and Sharia punishment for theft, (amputation of the hand), and for adultery, (the stoning or whipping to death of women).

As Sheik Yasser Borhami, an ultraconservative Egyptian cleric, gleefully boasted, "This constitution has more constraints on rights than ever existed before in any Egyptian constitution. This will not be a constitution that allows what God forbids, or forbid what God allows."

Borhani also added that by using the political system of "democracy and the Shura, (Islamic religious consultation), the constitution prevents what he refers to as an "American or European democracy", that "gives the power of legislation to people and not to God."

Although the fig leaf of democracy should have totally been dropped by now, there are still many in Washington who fervently cling to the belief that because Mohammad Morsi came in through a process of democratic elections, this "Arab Spring" has summoned the birth of democracy in the Arab world.

Just as the Nazis came into power claiming to clean up the corruption of the Weimar Republic, and Hamas came into power in Gaza claiming to clean up the corruption of Fatah, Mohammad Morsi came into power cleaning up the corruption of Hosni Mubarak.

Democracy in the Arab world has been stillborn. If you have any doubt about that, just ask the Coptic Christians and the scores of other people who have been detained without trial, tortured and murdered for protesting the new constitution in Egypt.

The target this time is a man named Imran Firasat, who is a former Muslim from Pakistan who is now a convert to Christianity and resides in Spain. Mr. Firasat is a well-known critic of his former religion, and runs a website World without Islam (Mundo sin Islam).  He, in coordination with American Pastor Terry Jones – who seems to be establishing a brand name for himself as a determined but unrefined speech opponent of the religion of Islam – has produced a new movie about the Muslim prophet Muhammad, an hour long cartoon film called “The Innocent Prophet: The Life of Mohammed from a Different Point of View.”  Needless to say, this film does not portray Muhammad in a positive light, basically arguing that Muhammad conspired with his friends to create his own religion to give him ultimate power over Muslims and the World.

The Belgian government was the first European state to overreact to the new film. Soon after Mr. Firasat told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen that he decided to make it, ironically because hethought the Islamist rioting had indeed been caused by “Innocence of Muslims” and that the Western world needed to respond with more free speech about Islam, the Belgium government upped its national security threat level from two to three (meaning “severe”) out of a maximum of four.  ­In response to Belgium’s move, Firasat initially said he might postpone the release of the film so it could be previewed by Belgian authorities to ensure “there is nothing in this movie which doesn’t fall under the right of freedom of expression and that my movie will not cause any kind of loss to humanity.”

Simultaneously, Spain also moved against Mr. Firasat, taking the more serious step of going after him personally for his speech.  They initiated two forms of lawfare against him: 1) attacking him on his Spanish residency grounds; and 2) threatening him with prosecution for violating Spanish hate speech codes.  The former, their threat to remove him from Spain after seven years, is particularly dangerous for Mr. Firasat.  If he loses his residency, he could be deported to Pakistan, which would expose him to a blasphemy prosecution and a death penalty sentence for his speech against Islam. (And even if the Pakistani government doesn’t actually sentence Firasat to death for his blasphemy, Pakistani mobs are known to take blasphemers out of prison and personally kill them.)

The Spanish government is justifying their action to revoke his asylum status on the grounds that he is “threatening national security with the production of this video.”  For the latter form of lawfare, the hate speech prosecution, the Spanish government has brought Mr. Firasat into court to face a charge of violating 510 of the Spanish Penal Code, a crime that punishes incitation to hatred and violence for racial, ideological or religious reasons. In combination, this double dose of Spanish lawfare against Imran Firasat was successful – after two hours before a judge in Madrid, he agreed not to distribute the “offensive” video.  However, the Spanish government won the battle but lost the war, as Pastor Jones then released the film anyway.

Imran Firasat was somewhat surprised by the aggressive Spanish efforts against him. In an interview, he pointed out that “I was granted asylum because of my criticisms of Islam. I have formally asked the Spanish government for the prohibition of Koran in Spain. I have given thousands of interviews to radio and TV channels. I wrote articles in newspapers.”  In other words, Spain knew what they were getting from Imran Firasat when they allowed him to seek asylum there seven years ago, so why would they be upset now?  Also, he ironically noted the fact that he has received far more threats from the Spanish government than from angry Muslims.

Perhaps most disturbing, in another interview, Imran Firasat and his interviewer just blithelyassumed that the United States could, if it so chose, use its judicial system to go after Firasat and Terry Jones. As of right now, of course, this is simply not true, thanks to the First Amendment.  But, as we know, the U.S. has taken legal action against the maker of the “Innocence of Muslims” film, using his probation violations as a way to punish him, presumably for his speech. And considering that fact, and the U.S.’s continuing participation in the Istanbul Process, and President Obama’s UN Speech declaring that “(t)he future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Mr. Firasat and his interviewer may be forgiven for their mistaken assumption.

One day soon, the U.S. may join European nations as a place legally hostile towards free speech that antagonizes Islamists.  That day may very well be sooner rather than later.

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) and the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum. He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law. This column was written for the LP.

Only a week after being praised by the Obama Administration for his supposed helpfulness in ending the fighting in Gaza between Palestinian Hamas terrorists and Israel, Muslim Brotherhood (MB) Member and Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi apparently decided to cash in his praise “chips” early.  Most prominently, President Morsi made himself immune from the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court’s oversight, thereby essentially assuming dictatorial powers over his nation.  Less prominently, one of his appointed judges convicted eight persons, including seven Americans, for their “blasphemy” towards Islam.  Included in this group were well-known Florida Pastor Terry Jones, who has burned several Korans in the United States, and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, one of the people behind the controversial American film “Innocence of Muslims.”  So far, the Obama Administration has lodged no complaints (and here) with the Egyptian regime over either action.

It should be shocking to the Obama Administration, and Americans, that a foreign nation can sentence our citizens to death for the “crime” of free speech.  Free speech, and the First Amendment, is supposed to be sacrosanct in the US.  Our Founding Fathers were certainly very supportive of it.  President George Washington said, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”  Benjamin Franklin understood that, “(i)n those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own.  Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”  And prominent Supreme Court Justices have continued to praise free speech over the years.  Justice William O. Douglas stated, “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.  It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”  Justice Louis Brandeis believed, “Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly.  Men feared witches and burned women.  It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fear.”

Based on the strong historical support for freedom of speech evidence by these quotes, you could be forgiven for thinking that any attempts by foreigners to infringe upon American speech in our own country would prompt our nation to do something about it.  But, apparently, we are living in new times.  President Obama has already said at the UN that “(t)he future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Perhaps he believes that a little thing like the First Amendment in the US Constitution should not be allowed to get in the way.

In fact, instead of objecting to this kind of Egyptian bad behavior, the US continues to reward it.  The American foreign aid money keeps flowing to Egypt.  Roughly $1.5 billion a year, most of it military aid.  Over $50 billion total since 1979.  There are new proposals by President Obama for $1billion in debt relief for Egypt.  And through international organizations like the IMF, even more American aid is coming.

Technically, much of this aid is conditioned on good behavior by the Egyptian regime, but the dirty little secret is that the Obama Administration always waives these restrictions when they aren’t met by President Morsi.  And no bad behavior stops them.  When President Morsi first won his term, he immediately demanded the release of convicted terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, i.e., the “Blind Sheikh,” the spiritual and terrorist leader for the first Islamist attack against the World Trade Center that killed six U.S. citizens.  Silence from the Obama Administration.  Morsi allowed Islamist protestors to overrun the US Embassy in Cairo – sovereign US territory – and raise the black flag of the Islamists.  President Obama did nothing.  The Morsi regime continues to suppress protests by ordinary Egyptians, most horrifically by paying gangs to go out and rape women and beat men who are demonstrating in opposition to Morsi’s new judicial immunity and new dictatorship.  No objections for the US.  The MB-led Egypt is rushing to institute Sharia law, a barbaric code of law which requires that raped women be put to death for adultery.  No complaints came from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.  Morsi’s Administration has presided over a regime that slaughters and discriminates against Egyptian Copts.  The crickets are chirping in the US government.  Figures in the MB call for another genocide against Jews.  “Never mind,” the Administration says, rather than “never again.”

“Don’t worry,” the foreign policy experts assure us, countless times, “US money provides us with great influence over the new Egyptian rulers.”  The MB is a “moderate, secular organization.” “If we keep funding them, we will get a seat at the table.”

Of course, President Obama only sits silently at that table.  This isn’t too surprising, since we already know from his UN speech that he doesn’t always value speech.  So what good is that seat anyway?

Read Article - http://frontpagemag.com/2012/adam-turner/mishandling-morsi/

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and the Endowment for Middle East Truth. He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law.  This column was originally written for the LP and Frontpage Magazine.

After the vote of the UN General Assembly on 29 November 2012, Abbas claimed that an independent Palestinian state now exists. It doesn’t. So what did that vote accomplish?

The author heads the Political Science and Communications Department at the Jerusalem Orthodox College, and teaches International Relations at Tel-Aviv University and at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya.

Since the signature of the Oslo Agreements, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has often threatened to unilaterally declare statehood, even though it did just that in 1988 in Algiers. Abbas himself never formerly declared independence. In his speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2011, he clarified that a Palestinian state had already been declared by Arafat in Algiers in 1988.

After the vote of the UN General Assembly on 29 November 2012, Abbas claimed that an independent Palestinian state now exists. It doesn’t.

For a start, General Assembly resolutions are mere recommendations. Resolution 181 recommended the partition of the British Mandate but it did not establish the State of Israel. Likewise, last week’s resolution did not establish a State of Palestine. The General Assembly does not and cannot establish states.

According to international law, an entity must meet four criteria in order to claim statehood: 1. It must exercise effective and independent governmental control; 2. It must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control; 3. It must have the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations; 4. It must have effective and independent control over a permanent population.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) meets none of the above criteria.

1. Independent Government Control.

Under the Declaration of Principles (“DOP”) on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed between Israel and the PLO on September 13, 1993, the parties agreed that the PA would only have limited powers. The PA does not possess the independent, effective and sovereign governmental control that is required to satisfy the definition of statehood. It has no jurisdiction over significant areas of responsibility which are essential to an effective and independent government, such as control over borders –an area of responsibility which was not transferred to the Palestinian Authority, and which continues to be exercised exclusively by Israel.

Even in Area A, where more extensive powers and responsibilities have been transferred, the PA does not exercise the powers of a sovereign government. The absence of the requisite degree of control is all the more evident in Areas B and C, where the PA’s jurisdiction is of a more limited nature and Israel continues to exercise significant authority.

Finally, there isn’t one Palestinian government but two: A Hamas government in Gaza, and a Fatah government in Ramallah. The last election in the PA was in 2006. It was won by Hamas, and Abbas is hardly representative of a population that hasn’t been allowed to vote for seven years.

2. Defined Territory.

The lack of legitimate title over territory has in the past been the basis for denying recognition to such entities as Manchukuo and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The 1988 PLO “Declaration of Independence” did not specify the borders of the “State of Palestine.”

There never existed such as state in the past, and therefore the PA cannot claim any legal title over the “West Bank”, as if this territory had been under the control of a Palestinian state in the past (it was conquered and annexed by Jordan in 1949 and remained under the Hashemite Kingdom’s control until 1967). By contrast, there is a recorded history of Jewish national sovereignty and presence.

Israel’s legal rights stem from the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and from the League of Nations Mandate (1922). The PLO disputes the legality of both documents. But if it was illegal for the League of Nations to recognize the Jews’ national and historical rights over their original country, then all the nation-states that emerged from the dismembering of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires are illegal as well (such as Austria and Lebanon for instance).

The League of Nations did not grant national rights to some “Palestinian people” because no such people had ever been heard of at the time, and because it had never been recorded in the annals of History. Indeed, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) dismissed Arab claim that the League of Nations Mandate was illegal. The Report says that the Arabs “have not been in possession of it [Palestine Mandate territory] as a sovereign nation,” and that there were “no grounds for questioning the validity of the Mandate for the reason advanced by the Arab states.”

The territory claimed by the PA is not defined. It is fragmented and disputed, and is not based on any past or legal sovereignty.

3. Foreign Relations.

The DOP specifies that the PA does not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations. True, the PA has been conducting foreign relations in practice, but this has been done in violation of the DOP.

4. Permanent Population.

The PA has no control over the population of Gaza, which is run by Hamas. Its control over the population in Areas A and B is partial. And as the U.S. Court of Appeals has held, where there are doubts as to the territorial scope of a putative state, its claim to a permanent population is in doubt.

Those countries who voted at the UN General Assembly in favor of recognizing the PA as a state ignored the most basic rules of international law. Why the EU is keen to lecture on legality, it breached international law by recognizing as a state an entity that doesn’t meet the criteria of statehood. Worse, the EU ignored its own standards and requirements on statehood.

The EU conditioned in the past the recognition of the former republics of Yugoslavia and of the Soviet Union not only on the traditional criteria of statehood, but also on other requirements, such as a commitment to abide by international law, the proof of being a viable entity. The EU did not make such demand with regard to the PA.

The EU let the PA get away with breaching the Oslo Agreements. The DOP states clearly (Art. XXXI [7]) that “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” Declaring the “West Bank” and Gaza a state clearly changes, or aspires to change, the status of those territories.

As for the PA’s claim that such unilateral move (and breach of the DOP) is inevitable in light of the failure to reach an agreement with Israel, it is simply remindful of this well-known anecdote: a man murders his parents, is prosecuted in court, and asks the judge for mercy because he’s an orphan. The PA was unwilling to reciprocate Israel’s compromises and concessions at Camp David (July 2000), at Taba (December 2000), and during the Annapolis negotiations (2008).

The PA’s claim that there is no self-determination without statehood is plainly wrong. In international law, self-determination does not necessarily mean statehood. The Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission, for instance, determined that the self-determination right of Serbians in Bosnia and Croatia should amount to a minority protection but not to statehood. The unilateral declaration of statehood by the Turkish minority of Northern Cyprus was rejected by the international community, which claimed at the time Turkish Cypriots could enjoy self-determination without statehood.

Moreover, the principle of self-determination cannot be applied in an absolute or one-sided way. In international law, the exercise of self-determination must take other rights into account. The PA’s statehood bid denies the rights of the Jews for three reasons:

a) The PA continues to incite its population against Israel and to teach its children that the ultimate goal is the elimination of Israel;

b) Mahmoud Abbas has declared more than once that the Palestinian state will not tolerate the presence of a single Jew in its midst (and therefore that Jews will be denied access to their holy sites such as Hevron and the Tomb of Rachel), if part of that state;

c) By continuing to insist on implementing the ill-named “right of return” to Israel proper, Abbas is denying the Jews their right to self-determination by demanding that they become a minority in their own country.

The General Assembly vote on 29 November 2012 did not establish a “Palestinian state.” It did confirm, though, that the “peace process” is a sham and that there is no point negotiating with the PLO what it will eventually obtain at the UN.

The failure of Western observers to correctly assess the so-called “Arab Spring” has come in part from the Western preoccupation with the nation-state model. The view in the West is that the Tunisian revolution took place principally due to factors affecting the Tunisians, and the Egyptian revolution due to factors affecting the Egyptians, the Syrian revolt due to factors affecting the Syrians, and so on. This view is not shared by the Islamist factions who in every case have established themselves as the beneficiaries of what is, in fact, a single revolution. Despite the desire by many, particularly in the Western media and among the policy elite, to dissect the triumphant force of Islamism into a complicated mixture of “Al-Qaeda”, “Al-Qaeda-linked”, “Salafists” (purportedly not Al-Qaeda-linked), “Muslim Brotherhood (each allegedly characterized by their national party organizations)”, and  “Non-Muslim Brotherhood moderate Islamists” (such as Tunisia’s Ennahada party), the reality is that all of these allegedly “disparate “organizations march to the beat of the same ideological drum. They analyze the correlation of forces and interpret world events in precisely the same manner, guided by the same overarching belief system, on the basis of Sharia law.

Even to the extent they debate among themselves, they do so only within the confines of their shared system. They may debate which strategic “milestone” – taken from the late Muslim Brotherhood thinker Sayyid Qutb’s seminal work “Milestones” – they have reached in their effort, but it is a shared effort.

An example of this cooperation can be seen in the call by the Egyptian President and Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi for the release of Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya leader Omar Abdel Rahman.  Rahman, also known as the “Blind Sheikh, is a native of Egypt who moved to the U.S. and was imprisoned there for his leadership in an Al Qaeda-linked bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. At the same time the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was approaching the Obama Administration about Rahman’s release, in post-Gaddafi Libya a new Al-Qaeda linked group, named the “Imprisoned Omar Abdel Rahman Brigades”, was making a name for itself among the Islamist militias in that nation.  On 9/11/12, in Libya, this group’s fighters may have participated in the attack on the U.S. diplomatic building in Benghazi that killed our Ambassador and three others. Almost simultaneously, on 9/11/12, in Egypt, protestors stormed the American Embassy and raised the black flag of Jihad popularized by Al Qaeda during a protest, not over an alleged movie, but insupport of freeing the “Blind Sheikh.”

Where we see the Muslim Brotherhood activity aligning with Al Qaeda-linked activity, we can be sure that the target of their attentions represents a genuine strategic goal for the forces of Islamism. Using this method, we can predict that the state next targeted for Islamist takeover is Jordan.

In recent months, King Abdullah of Jordan has faced an increasingly intransigent opposition, led by the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Islamic Action Front (I.A.F.). Abdullah’s response has been wish-washy at best, alternating between attempts a crackdown, such as proposed legal changes which would ban the Brotherhood party, to efforts at appeasement. This has been combined with an increasing unwillingness among the King’s traditional power base, the Jordanian tribes, to go along with his policies.

For example, there was the decision by the Obeidat tribe to disown one of its own members and instead stand with the I.A.F. against the King’s decision to appoint Walid Obeidat as envoy to Israel.  Jordan’s relationship with its Jewish neighbor, with whom it has been at peace since 1994, has come under great pressure recently by Islamist forces. Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has issued a fatwa against any Muslim traveling to Jerusalem while it remains in Israeli hands, specifically stating that it is forbidden because it “normalizes relations” with Israel. This is clearly a snub of Jordanian policy.  He also made a statement targeting Jordanian stewardship of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Such declarations, while seemingly insignificant, begin to build the juridical case under sharia for opposing the Jordanian monarchy, and carry significant weight when issued by the spiritual leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood.

This increased Islamist pressure sets the backdrop for an increase in violent jihad activity in Jordan as well. This has primarily been described as “spillover” from the raging Syrian civil war. In the most recent Al Qaeda plot to be thwarted, 11 Jordanians were arrested for planning to attack multiple targets throughout the country. Most reporting focused on their proposed strikes against the U.S. Embassy and shopping malls. But the strike was designed, according to the Washington Post’s sources to “destabilize Jordan’s pro-Western government with massive blows against government institutions and tourism-dependent economy.”

And contrary to the expectations of those who claimed the Al Qaeda attack would act as a “gift” to King Abdullah, permitting a security crackdown on Islamist militants, Abdullah actually caved to the Islamists.  The King responded by releasing six Al Qaeda terrorists, including the man responsible for assassinating a U.S. official. Presumably, Abdullah is unsure that a “mailed fist” policy would be supported by his Western allies, based on the example of President Obama’s 2011 abandonment of Hosni Mubarak.

If we accept that Jordan is indeed the next target on the Islamist chopping block, it is worth asking why, and who’s next?

Jordan makes an excellent subsequent target for several reasons. One, of course, is its location next to Syria, which is the current primary target of the Islamists.   Additionally, if the Islamists control both Syria and Jordan they will have successfully surrounded one of their principle enemies (Israel), and they will have successfully toppled both of the Arab governments who maintain peace treaties with the Jewish State (the other government being Egypt, which is now Muslim Brotherhood-controlled).

Most importantly, Islamist control over Jordan can serve as a gateway into the Gulf States and specifically to the real prize, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the only Arab Muslim state with the financial wherewithal to finance the growing Islamist revolution. Egypt, home of the Muslim Brotherhood and their first successful conquest, is bankrupt, and few of the other countries that have fallen (or might be expected to fall) are able to pick up the financial slack. Only the Saudi Kingdom can.

Jordan remains just on the edge of The Gulf Cooperation Council (G.C.C.). It has been proposed for membership in the economic and security union led by the Saudis, but not yet formally inducted. Indeed the purpose of the proposed membership is, in part, the effort to enhance security, particularly against revolt, a role the GCC is taking increasingly serious in the past two years.

Gulf States Kuwait and United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) are also under pressure, with Kuwaitbanning protests (without success), and the U.A.E arresting and stripping citizenship from Islamist activists. Both of those states might have some expectation of security assistance from the Saudi-led economic and security union, the Gulf Cooperation Council (G.C.C.), if open revolts seem likely to topple their monarchies.  This would be comparable to the Saudi-led intervention in the Gulf State of Bahrain. Speaking before a delegation of Saudi security officers and G.C.C. officials on the occasion of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, Saudi King Abdullah warned:

 

We are surrounded by seditions which can only be deterred by depending on Allah Almighty and standing in the face of whoever contemplate tampering with the security, unity and sovereignty of our country. Therefore, we should shoulder our responsibility.

 

Sedition is surrounding us from all sides, there is nothing to protect us from this except to stand firm, with total reliance on Allah, against anyone who contemplates tampering with the security, unity and sovereignty of our country.

The repeated references to “sedition” make clear Saudi King Abdullah is focused here on the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and their Islamist allies, and not on the threat posed by the Shiite Iran. That he addressed this to both his own security forces and to representatives of the G.C.C. suggests that the G.C.C .will be the primary vehicle for the Saudi’s efforts to restrain the growing revolutionary Islamic fervor. This makes Jordan an increasingly attractive target by the Brotherhood (and Al Qaeda), since it would allow them to “pick off” a future G.C.C .member, and raise the specter of Saudi inability to respond effectively. In turn, this would jeopardize the sense of security the G.C.C. alliance may provide to its other smaller members, and put additional pressure on Kuwait, the U.A.E., and ultimately, Saudi Arabia itself.

All eyes should be on Jordan. Will it prove the high water mark of the Islamist so-called Arab Spring, or will it be the beginning of the end for the traditional Sunni monarchies?

Time will tell.

On November 14th, Israeli President Shimon Peres visited a school the town of Sderot in southern Israel. Sderot is the closest border town to Hamas controlled Gaza and has sustained over 120 rocket attacks in just the prior four days.

“We were born as ‘the code red children’”, said Chen Malkiel. “Code Red “is the name of the siren that blasts giving residents no longer than 15 seconds to run to shelter.”We are children who live in fear and anxiety that at any moment we will hear the code red siren, have to leave our games, our friends and enter the safe rooms”, continued Malkiel.

There have been one million people, extending from Ashdod to Sderot who have been receiving a steady barrage of rocket attacks and have fifteen seconds to run for their very lives.  Israel has endured over 800 of these attacks from Gaza this year, alone.

Could you imagine how the United States would respond if San Diego were receiving this sort of an onslaught from Mexico, or Buffalo from Canada?

According to article 51 of the United Nations Charter, every nation has an inherent right to defend itself.

Hamas, which is on the official State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations,  was swept into power in free and open elections on January 26, 2006.  It is the group that has been behind much of the suicide bombings which Israel has endured since 1996.

On Wednesday,  Israel embarked on Operation “Pillar of Cloud” or “Pillar of Defense” in English, immediately conducting a surgical air strike that killed Ahmed Jabari in a pinpoint strike as he was driving along a Gaza street.  Ahmed Jabari is the terrorist mastermind who had orchestrated the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and was behind many of the bloody suicide bombings.

This targeted assassination is very much like what the United States had conducted in Yemen against Anwar al Awlaki, the US born radical cleric who was identified as chief of external operations of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, also killing his teenage son. The successful killing of Osama Bin Laden in May of 2011 by Navy SEALs is another example of targeted assassination.

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has adopted a policy of targeted killing as a crucial tactic to pursue those responsible for terrorism.  In recent years, both the CIA and the Pentagon have utilized this measure with increasing frequency as part of their general procedures of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in their counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Since President Obama’s election in 2008, the United States has escalated its policy of targeted assassinations, primarily through the use of unmanned drone attacks, much like the strike on Ahmed Jabari.

This sort of tactic has become necessary because 21st century warfare is different than any sort of warfare that has been conducted previously.

Un-uniformed Islamist combatants, often hiding in heavily populated civilian areas, have been waging a war against Israel and the United States, using any means necessary.

The civilized world cannot stand for this.

The US Department of State should be strongly applauded for standing with Israel, here.  Yesterday, State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said, “There is no justification for the violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel. We support Israel’s right to defend itself, and we encourage Israel to continue to take every effort to avoid civilian casualties.”

Israel has always been the canary on the coal mine. The longer Israel, known by radical Islamists as “the Minor Satan”, continues to allow its civilian population to endure this sort of suffering, the more reinforced those Jihadists become to attack America, “the Great Satan”, and the rest of the civilized world.

The radical Islamists see this as a civilizational war. Whether or not we want to believe it, they feel that this is their moment in history, after being dormant for fourteen centuries, and watching the ascendance of the West. They resent us and they despise us. They despise our values, they despise our freedoms and they despise our very way of life.

The entire free civilized world should be applauding Israel right now, for finding the courage to do what it has to do to defend its own people.  The Jihadists that hate Western civilization who are all around the globe are carefully watching and taking notes.

As everyone’s eyes have been focused on the election this fall, scant attention has been paid as the Middle East continues to unravel. Israel, as always, seems to be sitting in the eye of the storm. Many forces have tried to bait Israel into a wider conflict. This reminds us, once again, of what a tough neighborhood Israel finds itself situated in.

On Tuesday, on the southern front, Captain Ziv Shalon, of the Givati Brigade was seriously injured, losing his palm when a bomb detonated along the border fence with Gaza. Doctors at Seroka Medical Center say he is “struggling for his life.”

This is simply one of hundreds of terrorist attacks that have emanated out of Hamas-controlled Gaza this year. Last week, 21 rockets were lobbed into Israel, forcing thousands of people to run into their shelters, and schools in Beer Sheba to close.  There have been 800 Kassam rocket attacks fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip this year alone. Yet no one on either side of the aisle bothered to mention these attacks during the election season.

There is usually 15 seconds from the time when the “Seva Adom” (“Code Red”) siren blares in which people have to run for their lives and find shelter. Think for a moment of the psychological trauma that children are forced to endure when they hear the siren.  Would the world’s media be silent if this were occurring from Canada to Buffalo?

Not surprisingly, Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, has done little to abate these attacks. While President Obama has been more concerned about the response of the Israeli government to the threat of its annihilation by a nuclear controlled Iran, he ignores the pipeline from the Islamic Republic into Hamas controlled Gaza or into Hezbollah on the North, which is a puppet of both Iran and the fragile but deadly regime of Bashar al Assad.

On the Northern front, Assad’s regime has brutally massacred over 30,000 of his own citizens. (The Syrian Opposition website estimates it as nearing 40,000). Some of the missiles have spilled over onto Israel, but Israel has refused to allow itself to be ensnarled in the internecine conflict. Interestingly, many Palestinians living along the border with Syria are trying to hire lawyers to gain Israeli citizenship.

Meanwhile, aside from Secretary of State Clinton uttering a few hollow words, the United States has done too little, too late, to empower the Syrian opposition. This is particularly tragic. There had been a window of opportunity where America might have gained the support of a free and democratic Syria, but after nineteen months of endless bloodshed, that window of opportunity has closed shut. By now, the situation has become more radicalized, with Sunni elements such as the Muslim Brotherhood fighting Shiite forces such as Hezbollah, with a huge mosaic of other radical elements thrown in the mélange.

Since Mohammed Morsi’s election in August, he has used a terrorist incident within a military base in the Sinai as a smokescreen to replace Army Field Marshal Mohmmed Tantawi with Abdul Fattah al Sissi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  He has also used the occasion to bring into the Sinai Abrams tanks and ground to air missiles without first consulting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, contrary to what is written in the Camp David Accords.

During his first public speech, Morsi vowed to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, “the blind sheik”, who was responsible for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. Morsi has placed two Egyptian journalists, Tawfiq Ukasha and Islam Afifi, under trial for insults to himself and to Islam. In August he told the Egyptian newspaper The Independent that he wishes to “amend the Camp David Accords to ensure Egypt’s full sovereignty over every inch of Sinai”.

The abject poverty of Egypt has served, so far, to keep the fragile peace between Egypt and Israel in place. Although we, in the US,  have made a grave error by neglecting to use our monetary aid as real leverage for democracy building, and for human rights and freedom for women and minorities such as Coptic Christians.

Turkey, under the leadership of Prime Minister Erdogan is flexing its muscles, once again, and today has placed four Israel military chiefs on trial in absentia, holding them responsible for the Gaza flotilla.

Ahmadinejad of Iran has become even more bellicose in his rhetoric, increasingly using medical metaphors for Israel, such as a “cancer” or a “blight on humankind”. We Jews know, from our long and sorry history that when leaders resort to biological analogies they are sowing the societal landscape to do something horrible.  Iran now has enough lowly enriched uranium for 3 to 4 nuclear bombs. Scientists from the Institute of Science and International Security estimate it should take about 2 to 4 months before its nuclear project is complete.

Israel is indeed living in a very dangerous neighborhood, caught between tectonic shifts, where some highly nefarious forces from Iran, Egypt and Turkey are vying to become the rightful leader of the fractious and divisive Arab and Muslim world. Israel is like the kid in the school yard that no one wants to have on his team, surrounded by the nastiest playground bullies.

Many in Israel feel stunned and very much alone after the re-election of President Obama, although the leadership might have to pretend otherwise. President Obama made it very clear in a meeting of Jewish leaders early in his first term that he felt that the close relationships that his predecessors always had with Israel was not effective. “Let’s try a different tact”, he was reported to have said, ”There was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.”

That message is quite perilous when you live in a tough neighborhood. It took the strong support of President Bush for the rights of minorities around the world in order for the Christian community to come out during the Cedars Revolution in Lebanon. They were able, then, to venture proudly out into the streets because they knew that the man leading the most powerful force in the world was behind them, in the Oval Office.

Today Israelis are confronted with the hard reality that most of them had known all along.  That they are very much alone in the world, and that they will have to do what they must to survive.

But we vow to be there to help them, in any way that we possibly can.

QUESTION: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply (ph) in Minneola yesterday.

OBAMA: Ah.

QUESTION: We were sitting around,  talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya,  prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.  Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

U.S.  Presidential Debate, October 16, 2012
 
 
  In the second Presidential debate, the September 11, 2012 killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya in Benghazi was the one foreign policy question that made it into the Townhall-style debate.   This led to much analysis of the exchange between President Obama and Governor Romney regarding whether the President had referred to the attack as “an act of terror” in the Rose Garden a day after the attack, and what that really meant.  The main point Romney was trying to make was that the Obama Administration had for two weeks incorrectly blamed an “anti-Muslim”  film made in California for prompting the attack, rather than acknowledging the fact that it was a premeditated assault by Islamists.  Later, the moderator, Candy Crowley, who,  during the debate, had ruled in favor of President Obama’s claim that he had indeed called the attack premeditated terrorism, admitted she had made a mistake herself: “you’re totally correct that they (the Obama Administration) spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape…  He (Romney) was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” by focusing on whether President Obama specifically said “acts of terror.” 

  Unfortunately, I think this entire debate controversy essentially “misses the forest for the trees.”  Regardless of what President Obama specifically said in the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012, his Administration made major mistakes regarding the entire Libyan situation that need to be pointed out and evaluated.   And one of the biggest was confronted by the actual question asked during the debate – Who was it that denied enhanced security (for the Embassy and the Ambassador) and why?   This question was never answered during the debate, thanks to the moderator.  It was also not answered during the third and final debate, on foreign policy matters, which took place on October 22, 2012.  It was not answered before the election.  But it still needs to be.
 

The simple fact of the matter is that having the American Ambassador in Benghazi with no American security guards, poorly-trained, largely unarmed, and possibly Islamist-if not-al-Qaeda supportive Libyan security personnel, and no real secure consulate, is nothing short of scandalous.   This attack took place on 9/11/12, an anniversary date for the greatest Islamist terrorist assault on the U.S, in a Middle East nation.   This point alone should have demanded protection from an extensive security team.  Further, it specifically occurred in Libya, which the Administration knew was an unstable Middle Eastern nation awash with weapons and Islamist militias, including several with al-Qaeda ties.  The Obama Administration also was aware that there had been hundreds of security incidents in Benghazi preceding the 9/11/12 attack, including a prior attack on the consulate.  Also, the State Department/Administration was warned by the Ambassador and members of the Embassy that things were getting increasingly dangerous in Libya, and that more security was needed.  (It gets even worse if Ambassador Stevens had been sent there for another mission: sending arms recovered from the former Libyan regime’s stocks to the rebels in Syria.)  Finally, there were foreign warnings of potential danger to Americans in the Middle East, including a threat of retaliation – and thereby a warning – from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for the death of AQ’s operations guy, Abu Yahia Al-Libi (The Libyan) just the day before.   Yet, even with all that,  someone in charge – be it in the White House or in the State Department – chose to reject requests for more security and let an Ambassador die (possibly in a nasty manner) at the hands of Islamists. 
 

So why did some party in the Administration choose not to protect our Embassy?  There, is of course, no way to know for sure the answer to that question without further information.  It is possible that the Obama Administration is so incompetent that the requests for more security, including from Ambassador Stevens, kept somehow slipping through the cracks until it was too late.  But it is much more likely that the Obama Administration made a conscious effort not to increase security in Benghazi.  In fact, in the six months prior to the attack, they had – despite multiple pleas from U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel – removed as many as 34 people from the country.   Also, as former assistant secretary of defense Bing West has noted, the attacks took place over seven hours without any outside U.S. military forces ever being dispatched.   These provide circumstantial evidence, at least, that the decision to keep security low was an intentional decision on the part of someone within the Obama Administration.
 

If that is true, then the question becomes whom – or what decision making body – within the Administration made this decision, and what was his/their reasoning for doing this?  A number of possibilities have been floated in the press so far.  Perhaps the decision was made by the State Department, which apparently has a longtime disdain for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS) and its agents that are supposed to be protecting our foreign service.  This could be why Secretary of State Clinton has taken “responsibility” for the act,  although this might also be nothing more than a political face saving measure.  Or, the decision to keep security at a low level may have come from the BDS itself, as indicated by some of the documents that have been released by the Congressional investigation.   Or, the decision might have really come from a major player in the Administration, perhaps the President himself, reasoning that security for U.S. interests would have meant more U.S. forces in Libya—which would violate “the Obama Doctrine – a “light footprint” strategy.”  More hearings are necessary for us to get to the bottom of this mystery.
 

Of course, to a certain extent, exactly which Executive branch actor made this decision is beside the point.  In every Administration, the President is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates.  Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican known for his bipartisanship on many issues, has accordingly placed the blame squarely on “failed presidential leadership at its worst.”    Even President Obama has acknowledged this fact. 
 

Now the President needs to just let the facts out, and if they warrant it, truly apologize for his Administration’s mistakes.   The election is over, and he won, so there is no political reason not to.   Besides, it is what a real leader does when he/she makes a mistake.

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) and the Legal Project (LP) at the Middle East Forum. He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law. This column was originally written for EMET.

We all know what it takes to win an election now days. We all know that the candidates must cater to the center, to the undecided voters. Therefore it can prove difficult, judging from the responses of Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama during Monday night’s debate, to appreciate the distinctions between the two candidates’ positions. In terms of foreign policy we often have to look a little closer, to read between the lines, in order to find clues as to their true foreign policy, such as who their advisors are, or what their running mates say. If we go back and look at the Vice-Presidential debate, we find the following exchange particularly telling.

If there is one thing that I would readily agree with Vice President Biden about, in his recent debate with Congressman Paul Ryan, it is that “Facts are facts.”

That is why it was so difficult for me to listen to Mr. Biden declaring with a great deal of confidence and certitude that the Iranians have quite a good deal of time to go before they have a nuclear bomb.

“They are a good way away,” said Mr. Biden. “When my friend (Rep. Paul Ryan) talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 percent up, then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point…”

There are, however, a few facts that the Vice President avoided telling us:

1.) The most difficult aspect of the entire nuclear weapons project is the uranium enrichment part. That is why the international community has been so focused on that aspect of it. It takes a good deal of time to enrich the uranium to 20 percent level of purity. The Iranians already have enoughlow enriched uranium for several (3 to 4) nuclear weapons at the 20 percent level, but for weapons grade uranium, they need to get it to a higher level of purity of 90 percent.

However, as Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey once explained to me, it is essential to understand that the purer the level of enrichment, the less interval of time it takes to get to the next level.

Getting to 20 percent is difficult, and it is subsequently easier to get from 20 to 50 percent, and then from 50 to 90 percent.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal report of October 9th, noted scientific experts at the Institute for Science and International Security have stated that Iran is only two to four months away from the ninety per cent enrichment level. As I write these words, centrifuges are assiduously spinning in plants in Fordow, near the holy city of Qum, in Natanz, Busheir, Isfahan and Arak.

2.)  Many, including our Vice President, are under the erroneous assumption that a weapons delivery system would be worked on only after the process of uranium enrichment was complete; i.e., that the procedure is sequential. But the evidence is clear that the Iranians have been working on a delivery mechanism for years, simultaneously with their enrichment.

This past Sept. 25, Iran test fired missiles at a military exercise designed to reach the Strait of Hormuz. This is the third missile drill the Iranians have had in the last four months.

We know that the Iranians have been working consistently to expand the range for these missiles. The only question is whether they know how to assemble and attach the enriched uranium to the missile warhead. I have been told that that is infinitely less complex than is the enrichment process.

3.) If there is one thing the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate taught us, or should have taught us, it is that nobody can prove anything about the Iranians with any degree of certitude. In an unusual admission a few weeks ago, the Director of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoon Abbasi, was quoted as saying in Al Hayat that the Iranian government has provided false information in the past to protect its nuclear program. He stated that “sometimes the Iranians present certain weaknesses that they don’t have, and sometimes, they present certain strengths that they don’t have.”

As Ambassador Dore Gold has stated, “By admitting that their diplomacy has been based on a series of lies, the Iranians put into doubt whether any of their statements can be relied upon.”

The Iranians are also masters of the Islamic art of “Taqiyah,” which is derived from the Arabic “to shield (oneself). This permits dissimulation and even lying in the furtherance of Islamic law, including when pursuing goals against the so-called “unbelievers.”

4.) What we do know is that the Iranian military facility at Parchin has been used for trigger testing of a nuclear weapon, to produce the explosive charges which set off the chain reactions necessary for a nuclear explosion. We have seen aerial footage of trucks and other vehicles clearing and razing the earth, bulldozing buildings, and moving materials out of the back. Occasionally, the site has been covered by a pink tarp, as if something were being hidden.

We know that in 2003, there was a research and test site called Lavizan –Shan. When the IAEA began to get suspicious of what was going on there, it was ultimately razed to the ground, with top soil put on it, and made into a city park.

5.) We also know that with his expressed over-confidence in the amount of time that the West has before a nuclear Iran, the Vice President sends the Iranians a dangerous signal that we are not serious, and also sends a signal to the Israelis that they are very much, on their own, particularly under an Obama administration.

This is not the first time the U.S. has sent a “bad” signal to Israel regarding Iran, and almost a nod of approval to Iran. On August 31st, General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, he did not “wish to be complicit” in a unilateral strike on Tehran.  His use of the word “complicit” was both hostile towards Israel and morally objectionable, as though he was saying that protecting one’s nation from the threat of genocide is a crime.

6.) We also know that the Iranian nuclear bomb is not just a threat to Israel, but to the entire world. The Iranians would like to take advantage of the current state of chaos that the so-called “Arab Spring” has wrought to rearrange the order of the entire Arab and Muslim world, and claim the mantle of Shiite hegemony. An Iranian nuclear bomb would surely create a nuclear arms race in every capital in the Middle East, as has been hinted at by other Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, and it would be the most de-stabilizing single factor in that region of the world since the great European powers redrew the borders after World War I.

7.)  Israel is only the “Minor Satan.” The United States is the Great Satan.”

We know that almost the very first thing that the Iranians did as soon as the Khomeini Revolution occurred in 1979 was to seize control of the American embassy and take our embassy officials hostage. This was a declaration of war on the United States, and this Iranian war against the U.S. has continued to the current day. It is Iranian manufactured IEDs that have killed so many Americans, and caused many more American troops to come home from Iraq or Afghanistan missing a leg or an arm.

It is Iran that tried to blow up a restaurant on American soil with a Saudi diplomat inside. It is Iran that was responsible for the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks that killed 241 marines. It is Iran who has been identified as the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and terrorist financing” by the Secretary of State. It is Iran which has been upheld in court as having facilitated the terror attack on 9/11.

The false sense of certitude on Iranian progress in developing nuclear weapons that the Vice President conveyed at the VP debate is not at all helpful when dealing with a destabilizing nuclear menace such as Iran. I understand that the Vice President would like to appear as the non-trigger happy candidate, but looking at a despotic crazed regime like the Iranians through rose-colored glasses ultimately just empowers the mullahs.

Originally produced as an internal research product, EMET has examined a shockingly partisan and particularly misleading column by Haim Saban in the New York Times. Our research produced multiple statements and reports which disprove or dispute the depiction of the Obama Administration’s policy towards Israel presented in the piece.

Because these arguments have been repeatedly advanced in the media following the release of the Saban article, EMET has decided to release our report for the edification of our members. Although EMET, as a 501(c)3, does not get involved in political matters, we felt the need to address these erroneous and/or misleading claims. Below you will see each claim made in the Saban article, followed by a refutation, with links and citations.

Assertion:  “Even though he could have done a better job highlighting his friendship for Israel, there’s no denying that by every tangible measure, his support for Israel’s security and well-being has been rock solid.”

 
• Reality: The Democrat 2012 platform watered down the 2008 platform to eliminate any references to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, to remove the refusal to interact with Hamas unless they reject terrorism, etc.  Later, after an outcry, the reference to Jerusalem was put back, but not the other two.
       
  • This removal was planned to reflect Obama foreign policy, and Obama and other Democrats had advance knowledge of it.
       
  • Reality: The Obama Administration does not seem to want to acknowledge that Jerusalem isan Israeli city, let alone Israel’s capital.

   
   

• Reality: On August 30, 2012, with the clear blessing of the president, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey chastised Netanyahu.  According to Dempsey, Obama’s and Israel’s policies on Iran are not exactly the same.  On the contrary, the president is desperate to avoid being seen to be “complicit” should Israel decide to exercise her right of self-defense against Iran.
  
     
  
   
   

• Reality:  President Obama “adopted the Palestinian position on negotiations (that all settlement activity should cease before talks could resume).”
   
   

• Reality: “As for Israeli-US intelligence cooperation, under Obama for the first time, the US hassystematically leaked Israel’s most closely guarded secrets to the media.”
  
   

•     Reality: It has been reported that President Obama wanted to create a strategy of “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel.
  
   

•     Reality: President Obama backtracked on agreementsbetween President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon on the 1967 borders — and then adamantly denied this was a policy change.
  
   
   

• Reality: The Obama Administration excluded Israelfrom its Counterterrorism Forum, despite the prolonged experience Israel has with fighting terrorism, and the reality that Israel is probably the nation most knowledgeable about fighting terrorism.
  
   
   

• Reality: The Obama administration failed to consult with Israel during the upheaval associated with the so-called Arab Spring, and failed to condemn the Muslim Brotherhood’s the anti-Semitism and support for terrorism.
  
   
   

• Reality: The decision by the Obama Administration tolimit the participation of the U.S. in joint U.S.-Israeli security exercises cannot be seen as “support” for Israeli security, including on the issue of missile defense, with both the number and quality of missile interception systems being downgraded from what was scheduled to take place during the exercise.
  
   
   

•   Assertion:  “As president, [President Obama] responded by providing full financing and technical assistance for Israel’s Iron Dome short-range anti-rocket defense system, which is now protecting those villagers. In July, he provided an additional $70 million to extend the Iron Dome system across southern Israel.”
   

• Reality: No president has opposed funding these anti-missile defenses for Israel. The program in question was originally proposed in 2007 under the Bush Administration, and expansion of the program is supported on a bipartisan basis. The initial FY 2013 budget proposed by President Obama did not provide funding for the Iron Dome System, but the Iron Dome Support Act, introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives would permit allocating funds for the program. Additionally, House Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee has proposed earmarking an additional $620 million dollars for the program, almost all of the $700 million Israeli officials have said they require for an additional four missile batteries.

 

• Reality:  Many of the policies of the Obama Administration which can be characterized as pro-Israel were arrived at only under intense pressure from Congressional Democrats, as Mideast expert Barry Rubin noted,“Congress supports Israel. There was more pushback against Obama from Democratic members on this issue than on any other, foreign or domestic.”

 

Assertion: “When the first President Bush had disagreements with Israel over its settlement policy, he threatened to withhold loan guarantees from Israel. Mr. Obama has had his own disagreements with Mr. Netanyahu over the settlers but has never taken such a step.”

 
• Reality: While President George H.W. Bush did seek delays in loan guarantees to Israel over the question of settlements in the disputed territories of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), The Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip, President Obama sought a hitherto unheard of settlement freeze within the boundaries of Jerusalem itself. The Obama administration then used the unfortunate timing of a construction announcement in a Jerusalem suburb to further denigrate the Israeli government, despite that the Netanyahu government had never agreed to halting construction in Jerusalem, only the West Bank.  Responding to the building incident, President Obama then proceeded to snub Prime Minister Netanyahu in the White House, presenting the Israeli PM with a list of demands beforewalking out on the scheduled meeting.[xvii]This new demand of a Jerusalem settlement freeze then became the base line for Palestinian demands even to return to the negotiating table, putting a halt to the prospect of negotiations.
 

Assertion: “Ask any senior Israeli official involved in national security, and he will tell you that the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel has never been stronger than under President Obama. “I can hardly remember a better period of American support and backing, and Israeli cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us,” the defense minister, Ehud Barak, said last year, “than what we have right now.””

 
• Reality:  Not all “Senior Israeli” officials are convinced of this “better period” of support and backing. Israeli vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon is reported to have said, the “US is undermining the military threat against Iran”. President Benjamin Netanyahu himself is reported to have said, “Instead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities,” in a meeting with U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro.[xx]  Those reports were confirmed by Rep. Mike Rogers, who was present for the meeting.Additionally statements by U.S. officials serving under President Obama have done much to undermine the sense of “American backing.” These statements have included those by U.S. General David Petraeusand Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta blaming Israel for Mideast tensions and a lack of progress on peace with the Palestinians. Most recently Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey used language most often associated with criminality when he said he did not wish to be “complicit” in an Israel strike on Iran.
 
• Reality:  The piece ignores the reality of diplomatic niceties and the Israeli urgent efforts to maintain the Israeli-American alliance in spite of Obama policies. As Barry Rubin notes,“ Their task is not to defeat Obama or to critique him but to get along with him as well as possible in order to protect Israel’s long-term alliance with the United States without sacrificing any of Israel’s vital interests. They’ve done it well. The one moment the truth emerged was when Obama betrayed Israel, on the diplomatic level, by announcing, without consultation, a new policy on peace terms while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was flying to Washington. You think Israeli leaders (and this is not ideological, not a matter of left or right) have a high regard for Obama? Read Netanyahu’s speech to the joint session of Congress.”
 

Assertion: “[American-Israeli] cooperation has included close coordination by intelligence agencies — including the deployment of cyberweapons, as recent news reports have revealed — to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

 
• Reality: Far from improving, “Close coordination between intelligence agencies”, a campaign of leaks has been conducted by Obama Administration officials regarding covert activities involving Israel which has strained intelligence ties. Officials have anonymously leaked information involving Israeli ties withAzerbaijan, and activities in Northern Kurdistan. The administration has also leaked information regarding the Israeli timeline for a strike, and leaked information in an effort to persuade the public that an Israeli strike on Iran would fail.The cyber-warfare cooperation, which also began under President Bush, and which Saban cites, was publicly exposed in a New York Times published preview of the book, “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” by David Sanger, in which the Obama administration blamed Israel for “exposing” the computer virus, with Vice President Joe Bidenspecifically accusing the Israelis of having “went too far.”
 
• Reality:  Rep. Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told a Michigan radio interviewer about a high-level confrontation between the Obama appointed Ambassador to Israel, and Netanyahu, and “he described Israeli leaders as being at “wits’ end” over what they see as President Obama’s unwillingness to provide them with his “red lines” in the effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program. He also said that neither the Israelis nor the Iranians believe that Obama would use force to stop the nuclear program.”
 

Assertion: “Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, diverted American attention from Iran — the greatest threat to Israel’s existence — to Iraq, even helping to put a pro-Iranian leader in power in Baghdad.”

 
• Reality:  It is true that since the withdrawal from Iraq, Iraqi President Nour Al-Maliki has turned increasingly towards Iran. What is left unsaid is that this shift occurred at least in part due to the Obama Administration’s decision to withdrawal troops from Iraq. U.S. commanders had recommended retaining a force between 15-18,000, a move which was “welcomed by Sunnis and Kurds.” As former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi noted, “The Americans have pulled out without completing the job they should have finished… We have warned them that we don’t have a political process which is inclusive of all Iraqis…  Iraqis should fill the vacuum, rather than anyone else.”
 
• In the summer of 2009, Obama did his best to overlook a widespread rebellion in Iran and the regime’s brutal repression of it, in his quest to keep his policy of engagement on track
 
• President Obama’s “extended hand” policy to Iran has been condemned as ineffective by leaders as established as French President Sarkozy who indicated“ We live in the real world, not in a virtual one.” Sarkozy[said]: “I support America’s ‘extended hand.’ But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. . . . What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions.”
 

Assertion: “…through painstaking diplomacy, Mr. Obama persuaded Russia and China to support harsh sanctions on Iran, including an arms embargo and the cancellation of a Russian sale of advanced antiaircraft missiles that would have severely complicated any military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Mr. Obama secured European support for what even Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called “the most severe and strictest sanctions ever imposed on a country.”

 
• Reality:  The current sanctions regime is far from air tight. The Obama Administration has granted sanction waivers to a total of twenty countries, including China, and at least ten European countries. Additionally far from deserving credit for the sanctions regime to the extent it is effective at all, the Obama administration actively worked against the expansion of sanctions, reportedly frustrating New Jersey Democrat Rep. Robert Menendez who authored the “Kirk-Menendez” Sanctions together with Represent Mark Kirk (R-IL). Menendez reportedly said he “regretted working with the administration on the issue.” Furthermore it remains to be seen that the Russian S-300 missile deal referred to here is actually terminated, or whether it may be renewed at a later time, particularly if Syria should leave the Russian sphere of influence  The Treasury Department has issued thousands of waivers for companies doing business with Iran, while China and India have been allowed to continue importing oil from the regime. Language aimed at cracking down on financial transactions was made less specific. And Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) led an effort to water down sanctions against insurance companies that underwrite Iranian affiliates.
 

Assertion: “Mr. Obama not only has declared that all options are on the table, but he has also taken the option of merely “containing” a nuclear-armed Iran offthe table. He has directed the military to prepare options for confronting Iran and has positioned forces in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate his resolve.”

 
• Reality: While the Obama Administration has increased the American military presence in the gulf, the administration has reportedly also issued a back channel declaration to Iran that, provided U.S. bases and other infrastructure remains unharmed, the U.S. would not retaliate against an Iranian strike on Israel.
 

Assertion:  “President Obama has blocked Palestinian attempts to bypass negotiations and achieve United Nations recognition as a member state, a move that would have opened the way to efforts by Israel’s foes to sanction and criminalize its policies.” 

 
• Reality: While it is true that the Obama Administration did vow to veto a Palestinian statehood vote at the UN Security Council if necessary, the Palestinians failed to receive enough support to require a veto so the vow was not truly tested.Additionally, the Obama administration has also undertaken efforts to restore funds to UNESCO, which recognized Palestinian as a member against U.S. policy triggering automatic funding cuts. At a minimum this creates confusion as to Obama Administration policy regarding UN recognition of Palestinian statehood.
       
  • Reality: President Obama joined the Human Rights Council – which President Bush had left – thereby providing more legitimacy to its outright anti-Semitism as noted even by administration officials.
       
  • Reality: In fact, no president has done lessabout fighting the delegitimization of Israel by his own statements and actions than has Obama. And in some cases, especially regarding Gaza, he has not really supported Israel’s right to defend itself in practice.
     

   

 

“The obscenities that I have referred to from a recently released [video] as part of an organized campaign against Islamic sanctities are unacceptable and require a promise of firm stance. We have a responsibility in this international gathering to study how we can protect the world from instability and hatred. Egypt respects freedom of expression – freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone – not a freedom of expression that target a specific religion or a specific culture. A freedom of expression that tackle extremism and violence – not a freedom of expression that deepens ignorance and disregards others.”UN Speech by Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, 09/27/12

The Egyptian President, Mohammed Morsi, has given the United States – and the UN – its marching orders regarding the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed.  Insults against Mohammed, and against the Islamic faith, will not be tolerated.

Certainly, the Obama Administration will not object.  They have already enthusiasticallyparticipated in the “Istanbul Process”, which seeks to implement UN Resolution 16/18, the latest iteration of proposed international laws that seek to restrict speech that “denigrates” Islam.  Further, President Obama himself has decreed, in his own UN speech, that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  Apparently, President Obama has never thought too highly of free speech, so, there may not be any daylight between the U.S. and Egyptian governments when it comes to such troublesome speech.

Of course, President Morsi had other demands as well.

Mr. Morsi said, in another New York appearance, that he wants Omar Abdul Rahman, the Egyptian Muslim cleric in a U.S. jail for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to serve out the rest of his life sentence at home in Egypt.  Rahman, who is referred to as the “Blind Sheikh,” issued fatwas and helped plan acts of Islamist terrorism.  In 1993, his followers detonated a truck bomb in a parking garage below the North Tower, with the intention of knocking it into the South Tower, thereby bringing both towers down and killing thousands of Americans.  The bomb failed to deliver these results, but it did kill six people and injured more than a thousand.  Presumably, the Egyptian President’s call for the Blind Sheikh to be transferred to an Egyptian jail supersedes his earlier demand for Rahman to simply be released.  But transfer or release, it seems that the U.S. State Department is seriously considering it.

Also, as expressed in a New York Times interview, President Morsi said it was up to Washington to revitalize its alliance with Egypt.  He clearly doesn’t believe that Egypt owes the U.S. anything, regardless of the fact that, between 1948 and 2011, the United States has already provided Egypt with $71.6 billion in foreign aid, including $1.3 billion a year in military aid from 1987 to the present.  Presumably, the $1.3 billion plus is now just a base requirement, which should be bolstered, either directly by the U.S. or indirectly through international organizations.  And sure enough, the Obama Administration has proposed a plan to provide $450 million in emergency domestic assistance, although Congress is currently blocking this.  The Administration also supports a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to Egypt; the U.S. provides about $64 billion a year to the IMF, by the way.

In that same interview Morsi also criticized the U.S. for not living up to its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian self-rule.   He said that Americans “have a special responsibility” for the Palestinians because the United States had signed the 1978 Camp David accord, and that “(a)s long as peace and justice are not fulfilled for the Palestinians, then the treaty remains unfulfilled.”  The fact that U.S. support for the governing anti-Semitic, anti-American, corrupt, terror supporting, anti-democratic forces in “Palestine” is not actually in our best interest, can safely be ignored.  During the past term the Obama Administration has consistently and one-sidedly pushedIsrael to give up more and more concessions to the Palestinians for the sake of peace.  No doubt, after the election, President Obama will have even more “flexibility” to meet Morsi’s demands.

President Morsi also called for Egypt to be immune from any unnecessary moral evaluations by the U.S.  “If you want to judge the performance of the Egyptian people by the standards of German or Chinese or American culture, then there is no room for judgment,” he said.  So, for example, President Morsi probably believes that a fully democratic state with American style civil rights forcitizens and especially religious minorities is not appropriate for Egypt.  The same applies – or, perhaps more accurately, doesn’t apply – for granting equal rights to Egyptian women.  Democratic competition and the alternation of power between different political parties – if one of those parties is not Muslim Brotherhood affiliated – may also be a big no-no.  And, as mentioned before, free speech rights for the Egyptians are not ok, no matter how much the U.S. values them.  For that matter, based on Morsi’s UN speech, free speech isn’t okay for the U.S., in the U.S., when it concerns the religion of Islam.  Fortunately for Mr. Morsi, the Obama Administration has made clear it has a strong disinclination to judge other nations and cultures.

For example, President Morsi dismissed tepid criticism from the White House that he did not move fast enough to protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo from Islamist rioters on September 11, 2012.  These rioters eventually climbed over the Embassy wall, burned the American flag, and replaced it with the black flag of radical Islam.  Egyptian guards did little to stop them, and President Morsi “remained conspicuously silent as protesters breached the walls of the American Embassy in Cairo — a stark contrast to the help, contrition and condemnation coming from the new government of Libya.” Contrary to the Obama Administration’s continued claims, these Islamist protesters were not objecting some bad California movie, but were actually protesting the continued detention of the Blind Sheikh.

These were Mr. Morsi’s demands.  And what will the U.S. get if we give President Morsi what he wants?

Once again, President Morsi told us exactly that in the Times interview.  In return for our compliance to the above requirements, Mr. Morsi suggested that Egypt would not be hostile to the West, although he also cautioned that it would not be as compliant to the U.S. as it was under Mr. Mubarak, either.  When specifically asked if Egypt would remain an ally of the U.S., President Morsi carefully responded, “(t)hat depends on your definition of ally.”

Once again, based on a statement by President Obama describing the U.S.’s current relationship with Egypt, this type of relationship may well be satisfactory to the Obama Administration.

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to New York to address the UN General Assembly, he had one goal in mind – to reinforce to the international community, and especially to the Obama Administration, that red lines addressing Iran’s Nuclear weapons program must be established. Netanyahu said:

 

Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war. Look at NATO’s charter: it made clear that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on all.  NATO’s red line helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly half a century. President Kennedy set a red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That red line also prevented war and helped preserve the peace for decades. In fact, it’s the failure to place red lines that has often invited aggression.

Netanyahu proposed setting the red line before Iran completed the second stage of nuclear enrichment, reaching a level of medium enriched Uranium (MEU) suitable for a nuclear weapon. This is a stage they are expected to reach, "by next spring, at most by next summer."

For their part, the Obama Administration has stated that red lines are “unhelpful.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went so far as to say, “Red lines are kind of political arguments that are used to try to put people in a corner.” Needless to say, he was NOT referring to putting Iran in a corner.

For some time the stated belief of the Obama Administration has been that Iran remains “undecided” on whether to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Ignore for a moment all the evidence that Iran has long ago decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. This includes its construction of heavily fortified underground reactors. It also includes the statement of an advisor close to Ayatollah Khameinei who said in June that a “nuclear bomb is our right.” The IAEA report in 2011 that indicated that Iran’s program encompasses, “activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”   And the 2012 report where the IAEA expressed concerns about Iranian efforts to conduct a cover up of nuclear weapon research at Parchin.

Leaving all that aside and operating purely from a logical standpoint, the Administration’s position is self-contradictory.

Red lines are helpful when a country has not made a firm decision to take an action and substantially fears the threatened consequences of taking that action. One might argue credibly that red lines are not helpful here because the Iranian decision to develop nuclear weapons has already been made and they are unlikely to be deterred. But reasonably, either red lines ARE helpful, or else Iran has already decided to build a nuclear weapon regardless of the consequences and so cannot be deterred.

So why is the Obama Administration so opposed to a red line?

The real reason the Obama Administration has rejected implementing a red line on the Iranian program is that despite their claims to the contrary, they seem to fully expect Iran will cross any red line, and they have no intention of enforcing one. For the Obama Administration a red line would be a bluff.

The Obama Administration’s assessment that Iran effectively cannot be deterred is most likely accurate. After all, even prior to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s literal “drawing of the red line,” the Iranians had already declared, in numerous venues, that they intend to enrich to 90% weapons-grade levels, allegedly for use in nuclear submarines, a patently ridiculous cover story.

Now it should be recognized that the Obama Administration has stated several times that military action is not “off the table” and that Iran “will not be allowed” to acquire nuclear weapons.

Why then do these statements ring hollow?

In large part, they ring hollow because of the appearance that the U.S. is more concerned with preventing or delaying Israeli action against Iran then they are in preventing an Iranian bomb. Evidence for this includes the reports that the U.S. had reassured Iran that if Israel launched a strike it would be on its own, followed by the remarks of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey that the U.S. did not wish to be “complicit” in an Israeli strike. Additionally there were leaks intended to undermine Israeli strike options, including leaks over possible basing options in Azerbaijan and Iraqi Kurdistan, anonymous reports intended to undermine confidence in the capability of an Israeli strike, and claims by Obama friendly experts that, “Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged.”

Put aside for a moment the morally questionable nature of a remark which presupposes that preemptive action by a U.S. ally would be “as bad” as allowing a self-declared enemy of the United States, which has actively murdered Americans in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, plotted terrorist attacks even in Washington D.C., and openly engaged in incitement to genocide, to acquire nuclear weapons.

Presuppose instead that on a purely strategic level this is true. That an Iran which has had its nuclear program set back by Israel perhaps a year or two, if that, and which retaliates broadly throughout the region is somehow more dangerous than an Iran that may pursue the same agenda, only under the cover of nuclear weapons.

Openly and repeatedly promoting the idea, as the Obama Administration has done, through back channels, leaks and media interviews, can only serve as an inducement to the Iranian regime and its proxies to continue their behavior, and indeed to turn up their rhetoric, as has happened  in recent months.

One of the great difficulties of understanding the Obama Administration’s foreign affairs is that their actual policies are frequently at odds with their stated desires. They state that Iran will “not be permitted” to have a nuclear weapon, while their policies signal that nothing will be done to prevent it. They indicate their belief that a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran would be a disaster, yet their rhetoric makes almost certain that Israel will feel compelled to act alone.

This dichotomy between the administration’s stated desires and the logical outcome of their actions creates a dangerous credibility problem. America’s allies are left adrift, and the Iranian enemy is emboldened. Creating a red line, as Prime Minister Netanyahu suggests, would be a step towards restoring credibility.

It’s true that it is most likely that the Iranians will drive forward towards the red line heedless of the consequences. A nuclear weapon is the center piece of their strategy for regional hegemony and their leadership of the anti-American revolutionary bloc. But at the very least a red line reestablishes American leadership, and shores up America’s alliances in regard to the Iranian threat. It puts the administration’s rhetoric and its actions in line, and makes clear that should military action be required, the onus for the conflict rests on the shoulders of the Iranian Regime.

All of which would be quite helpful indeed.

On September 11 and 12, 2012, all hell broke loose in the Arab world. On September 11, the U.S. Embassy in Egypt was invaded by hordes of Islamists, who tore down the American flag and unfurled a black Islamist triumphalist flag similar to that of al-Qaeda. On September 12, in Libya, in an organized attack, Libyans destroyed the American consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador. Since then, Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Tunisia, the Sudan, India, the United Kingdom, Germany, and many more nations have seen tremendous protests and/or riots on the street.

The cause of this outbreak of violence, supposedly, but not really, was over a California based filmmaker’s amateurish film depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Islam, of course, frowns on any depictions of their prophet; let alone the extremely negative portrayal found in this picture.

As the offensive picture originally came out months ago, the film – called “The Innocence of Muslims” – was clearly a pretext for Islamists to coordinate a campaign of violence against American free speech regarding Islam.  In that, it is very similar situation to what happened in the aftermath of the publication of the Danish cartoons in 2005.  This should not be too surprising, since Islamists have had great success from their Danish campaign – few papers in the West reprinted the Danish cartoons and other Western press and media organizations have self-censored their own Danish cartoons related speech, including Yale Press. Further, the Danish Cartoon Controversy is not the only successful Islamist pressure campaign success against free speech over the years – see the campaigns against Pope Benedict’s speech; Molly Norris and Americans’ who have burned Korans, either deliberately to provoke a reaction or accidentally.  So, it must be asked, why should Islamists stop using a tactic that clearly works for them?

Indeed, in the United States, thanks to the Obama Administration, the anti-free speech Islamist pressure campaign worked even better than before.  What is so disturbing about this is that President Obama should know better; he has often been praised for his brilliance as a constitutional scholar. But the Obama Administration has done almost nothing but appease the Islamist speech bullies, while showing only the most tepid support for our First Amendment rights.

Let’s look at the Obama Administration’s record regarding this situation.

After hearing of potential protests, the U.S. Embassy in Egypt released an apology to the Islamist Egyptians that condemned those who “abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” It also issued apologetic “tweets” that condemned the film.  Only later were all these comments disavowed by the White House—though they continued to be affirmed by the State Department. In fact, until recently muddying the waters, members of the Administration, including the Press Secretary and the UN Ambassador, had continued to go to great lengths to insist that the film was at fault for the rioting and violence.

On September 12, the Obama administration unsuccessfully tried to insert into a UN Security Council press statement, issued in response to the killing of the Ambassador in Libya, language against the denigration of religions.  France vetoed this.
The Obama Administration asked Google, which owns YouTube, to remove the offending film from that site.  Had Google complied, this would have actually have been a reversal of Google’s earlier ruling that the video was not hate speech under its rules because it did not specifically incite violence against Muslims.
After the filmmaker was outed by a disapproving media, federal law enforcement interrogated him in the middle of the night for the minor probation violation of uploading the film onto YouTube.  This act alone prompted a prominent libertarian constitutional blogger to call for President Obama’s resignation.  The filmmaker has since been jailed for these probation violations.

In his speech before the UN, President Obama marred what could have been a teachable moment by continuing to link the actual violence to the film, spending much time denouncing the film, and most disturbingly, uttering language that treated the murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the bullying of women, and the “slander(ing) of the prophet of Islam” as if they were all equal evils.

Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey called Pastor Terry Jones – who himself had conducted earlier mock ceremonies where the Koran was burned – although he had no involvement with the film – to dissuade Jones from, in any way, contributing to this situation.  General Dempsey claimed that the call was his own idea, but considering that Jones has also fielded similar calls in the past from other Executive officials, this Dempsey claim strains credulity.  Presumably, soon Jones will be on the Executive branch’s speed dial.

When the French magazine Charlie Hebdo published its Mohammed cartoons, the Obama Administration protested the “judgment” and “offensiveness” of the magazine, but made no mention of any right to free speech.
The State Department has aired advertisements in Pakistan showing prior apologies for the film from President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

Given the overwhelming reaction from multiple agencies of the executive branch, this appeasement is more than just a one-time error, but a policy. The Obama Administration has consistently shown poor instincts when it comes to protecting free speech. The Administration has participated in the “Istanbul Process” that seeks to implement UN Resolution 16/18, which seeks to restrict speech that “denigrates” Islam. The Department of Justice has also refused to affirm free speech before Congress. And most shockingly, the Administration has signed onto an Interpol Agreement which makes that international police force immune from the restraints of American law, theoretically allowing Egypt, which is seeking a warrant against “the eight defendants implicated in producing an amateur film that denigrates Islam and Prophet Mohamed,” to enforce their blasphemy law in the U.S.  And this wouldn’t be the first time that a Muslim country used Interpol to arrest a blasphemer.

All in all, this is a disappointing record on free speech for a president who once taught constitutional law.  Then again, I know the president lectured primarily on civil rights law, and not free speech. However, considering how badly he seems to understand and value the First Amendment, one can only hope that his lectures on civil rights law were more grounded in the U.S. Constitution and the established law. Otherwise, his former law students might want to demand a refund.

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and the Endowment for Middle East Truth. He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law.  This column was originally written for the LP and The Blaze.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributor/AdamTurner/

The tension in the Middle East is palpable. More potential triggers for regional conflict exist at this time, than any in recent memory. As Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Aviv Kochavi recently warned the IDF senior leadership during an annual situational assessment held Monday, August 27th, “It will be an environment dealing with a series of crises – regional and domestic – which raises the threshold of sensitivity of all the players and may lead – even without advance planning – to flare-ups.”

While it’s seemingly impossible to “expect the unexpected”, it is possible to expect the worst and plan accordingly. For that reason, attempting to examine a “worst case scenario” for a future regional conflict is a useful thought exercise.

Imagine for a moment it’s an unseasonably warm evening in October, Iranian Air Defense commanders are surveying their radars, and the coast seems clear. Suddenly the screen blips out. The commander attempts to reach his superiors in Tehran’s Ministry Of Defense. There is no response. Israeli electronic-  and cyber-warfare are targeting Tehran’s air defense and command and control systems at the very moment that a large wave of fighter-bombers, representing the core strength of the IAF, come screaming overhead.

An Israeli Dolphin-class submarine surfaces at the limits of its 1500-km cruise missile range just long enough to launch, its missiles targeting the residences of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei, and top Iranian commanders in a decapitation strike. While some members of the Iranian high command are killed, the primary key figures, including Khamenei, survive.

The Israelis strike most heavily at the heavily-fortified Fordo facility outside the city of Qom, and at Natanz, both enrichment facilities. They also target the reactor at Arak, but they ignore the civilian reactor at Bushehr, with its Russian advisory personnel, and Parchin, because of successful Iranian efforts to scrub the site of evidence of its role in building warhead components and nuclear weapon triggers.  Pilots are ordered to drop any remaining ordinance on Iranian long-range missile bases in an effort to minimize the coming retaliatory strikes.

A manually launched Surface-to-Air missile hits an Israeli fighter jet, and its pilot is forced to eject. Israeli Search and Rescue (SAR) commandos launch from a base inside Iraqi Kurdistan, but thanks to a campaign of leaks from American officials about Israeli cooperation with countries and factions bordering Iran, the Iranians are prepared. When the SAR team comes under heavy fire they are forced to turn back. The pilot is captured alive, and displayed on Iranian state television.

The Israeli jets leave Iranian airspace, pausing only briefly to refuel over Northern Iraq before returning to Israel to refuel and rearm.

The Iranian response begins.  Hezbollah in the north, and Hamas in the West, and Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Sinai, all begin by launching a steady of missiles into Israel, primarily targeting civilian population centers. While the Israeli missile defense program is excellent, casualties begin to mount as technology is overwhelmed by the sheer numbers.  While its proxies focus on mass casualties, the Iranians use their surface-to-surface missile capability to target Israeli air fields and command and control, seeking to disrupt Israeli attempts to take out Hezbollah launch sites.

President Obama speaks to the nation announcing support for Israeli’s right to preemptive self-defense, but privately administration officials are fuming at the timing, and don’t provide anything more substantive than vague moral support.  The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had previously said the U.S. did not wish to “be complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran, and U.S. statements heavily emphasize that Israel acted alone. This offers a tacit nod to Iran, which had previously received assurances from the Obama Administration that if Israel attacked Iran, it would be on its own.

Throughout the region, the Arab states condemn Israel. In Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the U.A.E. these denunciations are formulaic and tepid, but Turkey, Egypt and Qatar are virulent against the “Zionist entity” and its “criminal attack”.  In Iraq, President Nour al-Maliki issues a stinging communiqué against Israel’s violation of their territory and airspace.  Egypt goes on full military alert.

Israel begins its assault into southern Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah missile sites and command and control, and actively moving in to secure territory. The IDF has learned its lesson from setbacks during the 2006 war, but Hezbollah has been preparing for this eventuality as well, and progress on the ground is grindingly slow. When a grad rocket scores a direct hit on a family home in southern Israel, killing all the residents including children, Israel moves against Gaza as well, but is forced to do so with only minimal air support as Egyptian anti-aircraft batteries stationed in the Sinai in violation of the Camp David Accord threaten Israeli jets operating in the skies above Gaza. That means taking heavier casualties on the ground among IDF troops. Even after the IDF moderates their tactics, the Egyptians provide arms and equipment to the Sinai jihadists fighting alongside Hamas.

Jihadist forces initiate strikes from the Golan, provoking fierce skirmishes. When Israel counterattacks, Assad may launch surface to surface missiles at Israel as well.

After weeks of fierce fighting, with casualties heavy on both sides, there is no obvious sign that a conclusion is approaching, but pressure begins to grow internationally for a resolution, with the U.S. weighing in favoring a cease-fire on the basis of returning to status quo antebellum.

In conclusion, the Israelis have lost hundreds, possibly thousands of lives; thousands of lives have also been lost in Lebanon, Iran and possibly Syria. Iran’s nuclear weapon program may have been set back a few years at best. Hamas and Hezbollah remain active in at least some form. The Sunni states, such as Saudi Arabia, which had been counting on Israeli success to humble their Shiite antagonist, now agree to make non-aggression agreements with Tehran. In the end, despite the attacks, the Iranian regime emerges effectively strengthened, even if their nuclear weapon ambitions are delayed by one to three years.

Why is this a worst case scenario? Could it not be worse? Certainly Iran could launch missiles against American bases in the region, target shipping and oil rigs in the Gulf, as well as mine the straits of Hormuz. Iran, or Syria could also tip their missiles with chemical warheads, possibly increasing the number of Israeli or American casualties substantially. They could also potentially unleash Al-Quds or Hezbollah terror attacks against the American homeland, with the potential for mass casualties.  However exercising any or all of these options would certainly guarantee American military intervention.  While the Israelis can launch only a single strategic air strike against Iranian facilities before they must return to gear up to defend against the Hezbollah counter attack, the U.S. would almost certainly retaliate against such Iranian actions with a full air campaign, which would lead to substantial degradation of Iran’s nuclear capability and/or seriously disrupt the Iranian security forces, to an extent that the regime may not survive.  While initial casualties would likely be more severe in such a case, the ultimate strategic outcome would be a victory for Israel and the U.S. By comparison, if Iran targets only Israel, it is able to isolate one of its enemies, and is more likely to be able to secure victory, or at minimum, the appearance of victory.

This isn’t to suggest that Israel shouldn’t strike Iran. The Israelis may have no choice but to act to delay an Iranian nuclear weapon, even if for a few years, particularly since the U.S. has expressed no willingness to act. Nor will an Israeli strike necessarily play out in this manner, particularly if Israel utilizes capabilities previously unreported, and if Iran has failed to establish low-tech redundancies to their command and control, weakening their ability to counterattack. There’s also no guarantee that Iran will be able to restrain itself and avoid bringing the U.S into the war.

What the scenario DOES suggest is that when (not if) hostilities kick off in the Middle East, there is the potential for events to move fast and furiously, and for a conclusion to hostilities that severely weakens Israeli, and American, interests, particularly if the Obama administration continues to believe it can sit above the fray.

On August 9, 2001, a bomb blast pulverized a Sbarro Pizzeria located at the corner of King George Street and Jaffa Road in Jerusalem, one of the busiest pedestrian crossings in Israel.  The blast occurred at 2 pm, on a summer holiday afternoon, when the restaurant was filled with customers and the street crowded with pedestrian traffic. 

The terrorist and his bomb had been transported by taxi to the area by a woman named Ahlam Tamimi and another Palestinian, and it was concealed inside a guitar case. The pizzeria had been carefully selected by Tamimi to maximize civilian casualties. When the Palestinian suicide bomber exploded the bomb, 15 people were killed and at least 130 more were injured. Among those killed in the blast were two American citizens: Judith L. Greenbaum, 31, of New Jersey, and Malka Roth, 15, of New York.  Several other Americans were injured.

On October 18, 2011, as part of the deal made by Israel with Hamas, 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, including Tamimi, were exchanged for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier. After being given money from both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for her crime, she eventually moved to Jordan, where she has since become a celebrity in the Arab world, hosting her own weekly show on the Hamas satellite TV station, Al Quds. She also found time to get married – with live television coverage of her nuptials – to her equally loathsome terrorist fiancée, another Palestinian murderer who had also been released in the Shalit deal.

Tamimi could be prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for her criminal murders of two Americans and the wounding of the other U.S. citizens. I have already written not one, but two columns about her case and possible prosecution. So far, however, despite attempts by various organizations, including my own, to pressure the DOJ to start these prosecutions, no U.S. criminal prosecution has occurred. The DOJ is blatantly ignoring its obligations under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 USC Sec. 2332, which calls for the prosecution and punishment, in United States courts, of individuals who murder or maim American citizens in acts of international terrorism. There is also no evidence that the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (OJVOT) – the office that was created in 2005 specifically to monitor acts of terrorism against Americans outside the U.S. and pressure the rest of the DOJ to bring to justice those terrorists who have harmed Americans – has made any real effort to push the DOJ to begin a prosecution of Tamimi.

Nevertheless, I never expected to write a third column on this depraved individual, but then I saw this video interview with Tamimi celebrating the attacks and this heart-wrenching article by the parents of Malka Roth. Both demonstrate just how much Ahlam Tamimi is enjoying her fame and good fortune since her release. Further, these also show how little this particular Palestinian terrorist, the Palestinian “governments,” i.e., the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, and even our supposed ally, the nation of Jordan, respect the United States and the lives of our citizens. A woman responsible for the deaths of two Americans – one only 15 years old and another one pregnant with a child – is smiling and celebrating her crimes all over the Arab world, and she and the Arab governments that celebrate and reward her have absolutely no fear or concern that the United States will take any action to punish her or them. The twisted moral code shown here, and the lack of respect for the U.S., is almost unbelievable.

Should the DOJ ever bestir itself to go after Tamimi, I would like to point out that Tamimi’s post- imprisonment media appearances have made an already airtight case against her even tighter. As she had previously done in an earlier video, Tamimi has once again admitted to her crime on tape, and it may be used by the court to convict her. This is because Tamimi, as the defendant in a U.S. criminal prosecution, would meet the definition of a “party opponent,” and thus, under the federal rules of evidence, anything she says would be admissible in court. See FRE 801(d)(2)(A):

Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay…
(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: … (2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity.

Even more importantly, there are now at least two taped confessions and, in contrast to the previous confession, which was filmed while she was still in an Israeli jail, in this most recent interview Tamimi cannot make the (already flimsy) argument that she was somehow forced – by coercion or physical beatings – to admit to her terrorist actions. In Jordan, she is under no duress from anyone; in fact, she is celebrating them.
Ahlam Tamimi has become more than just one Palestinian terrorist with blood on her hands. She is now a symbol of how weak the United States is, how unserious we are about continuing the conflicts formerly labeled the “War on Terror.” The longer her crimes go unpunished, the more dangerous she becomes as that symbol. 

If she escapes justice completely, it will inevitably lead to more dead Americans. 

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and the Endowment for Middle East Truth. He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law.  This column was originally written for the MEF.

It has come to my attention that I may be suffering from “CAIRophobia.”

Almost certainly, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), I am already afflicted with “Islamophobia,” which they define as “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam. Such fear and hostility leads to discriminations against Muslims, exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political or social process, stereotyping, the presumption of guilt by association, and finally hate crimes.” Islamophobia is actually a term the Muslim Brotherhood – the granddaddy of all Islamist groups – and their cohorts may have invented to take advantage of the bleeding hearts among the politically correct. So, if I am suffering from it, I suppose it is just a short hop to also suffering from “CAIRophobia,” which I define as having a very rational fear of CAIR.

I accept this phobia. In fact, I sure wish some others had CAIRophobia.

CAIR is very busy pressure group these days. Recently, it demanded that the Pentagon drop a former CIA operative who worked inside Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, known by his pseudonym of Reza Kahlili, as a lecturer at the Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy. Although Kahlili is primarily known for teaching, writing and lecturing about the dangers the radical Iranian regime poses to the West, CAIR still felt the need to call for his dismissal for his supposed “anti-Islam agenda” as a former Muslim-turned-Christian. This is all part of CAIR’S continuing quest to purge the Defense Department and other government departments or agencies of the services of any expert who identifies radical Islam as a major threat to our nation. CAIR’s public relations “jihads” have been waged against such people as Robert Spencer, John Guandolo, and Matthew Dooley. In Kahlili’s case, the Pentagon refused to drop him, but it did go out of its way to assure CAIR that Kahlili “does not lecture on or about Islam or any religious treatise, and his personal beliefs are his own.”

CAIR has also recently been hard at work attempting to shame and malign Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and her four congressional compatriots for their letters to the Inspector Generals (IGs) of the Defense Department, the State Department, the Justice Department, the Homeland Security Department, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. These letters asked the IGs to investigate thoroughly the degree to which members of, or sympathizers with, the Muslim Brotherhood are active in our defense and intelligence communities, and what impact that possible infiltration might be having on our national security. Through its pressure, CAIR presumably hopes to force the congressional leadership to block any such investigation. Harming the political careers of these Congressmen and intimidating others from ever addressing any issue related to radical Islam is an added benefit.

Further, CAIR, with the help of its left-wing friends at the Associated Press, along with other politically correct leftists, has also sought to embarrass and intimidate the New York Police Department (NYPD) from doing its job: protecting the public of New York City. The NYPD has found itself in CAIR’s crosshairs because of its continuing surveillance of Muslim people, mosques, etc. in public areas. Even though going to Muslim-inhabited areas to surveil Muslim terrorists makes as much sense as going to an Italian-American club to surveil possible members of the Italian Mafia or going to an Irish-American bar to surveil potential IRA terrorists, CAIR believes that Muslim Americans deserve the special right not to be surveilled.

The amazing part of all this is that CAIR has an uncanny, Teflon-like ability to avoid mainstream criticism of its own disturbing background.

These are the facts involving CAIR. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Some of its members have been indicted and then convicted of terrorism, fraud or other criminal charges. Research has shown that CAIR does not seem to have much of an American membership, and that it probably relies on funding from other sources, including the now defunct Hamas-funder, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), and potentially illegal foreign funding, especially from Saudi Arabia. CAIR even hit up the despicable Gaddafi regime in Libya for cash. The executive director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, participated in a three-day summit of U.S.-based members and supporters of the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. CAIR refused for many years to unequivocally condemn Hezbollah and Palestinian terror organizations by name, even those which are formally designated terror groups by the U.S. and international community. Members of CAIR have also been caught promotingor making anti-Semitic statements. For much more information on CAIR, just see this website devoted to exposing CAIR, which CAIR unsuccessfully attempted to shut down through a defamation lawsuit.

Luckily, there are some other prominent CAIRophobes. The FBI has severed its ties with CAIR. Numerous U.S. senators and congressmen have condemned it, including Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Dick Durban. Numerous judges, FBI agents, and even a U.S. attorney have also weighed in.

But there should be plenty more. A simple Google search of the word “CAIR” would lead a researcher to a page with a link to the (above-mentioned) website, “Anti-CAIR.” Anti-CAIR, which is run by Andrew Whitehead, has at the top of its front page these words:

CAIR Founded By Terrorists – “We Know The Founders Of CAIR Are HAMAS Operatives”: CAIR Has Been Identified By The Government At Trial As A Participant In An Ongoing And Ultimately Unlawful Conspiracy To Support A Designated Terrorist Organization, A Conspiracy From Which CAIR Never Withdrew.

Each of these claims is backed up on the website. Further, also on the first page of the Google search, there is the Wikipedia link for CAIR. Wikipedia’s description of CAIR contains many of these same criticisms, listed in a separate section titled “Criticism.” Granted, any Internet user knows to check Wikipedia’s information and claims; but as mentioned before, these criticisms are easily supported on the web.

Yet, somehow, someway, many in the politically correct mainstream, in government and out, and the politically correct mainstream media, continue to interact with CAIR as if they were a normal interest group. Many news organizations simply describe CAIR as only a respectable “Muslim civil rights group,” or simply fail to mention their scandalous past at all. See these articles at the Associated Press, Reuters, and even Fox News. Many interest groups are still willing to work with CAIR as well, including the ACLU and the NAACP. And many government officials still associate with CAIR. At one of its banquets CAIR honored the Sheriff of Los Angeles County for his work with them. Perhaps most disturbingly, members of the Obama administration have admitted to “hundreds” of meetings with CAIR.

If only CAIRophobia were more contagious.

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and the Endowment for Middle East Truth. He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law.  This column was originally written for the MEF.

On August 12, 2012, Egyptian president, and “former” member of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Mohamed Morsi sacked the entire leadership of the country’s defense establishment.  He fired Defense Minister Mohamed Hussein Tantawi and Chief of Staff Sami Anan, among others.  He also cancelled all constitutional changes that gave the military enlarged powers over foreign and military policy making, leaving himself alone in the governmental driver’s seat.  And Morsi has cancelled the old constitutional drafting process and plans to develop a new process for drafting Egypt’s new constitution. This was all in reaction to last week’s Sinai terror attack by Islamists from the Gaza strip, in which 16 Egyptian policemen were killed.  As Barry Rubin has written, Morsi “is now the democratically elected dictator of Egypt”, and even a columnist from the usually liberal TIME Magazine confirms Rubin’s sentiment. 

Considering all of this, can we dispense with our silly policy of funding the (now) Islamist controlled Egypt?

In a prior column, I noted some of the many perfidies of the Egyptian regime towards the U.S. and U.S. interests (including the interests of our democratic ally, Israel), other “realist” reasons not to support Egypt, and called for a cessation of the
annual $1 billion plus U.S. aid to that nation. As demonstrated by the recent Egyptian coup, since my prior column the “bad behavior” of the newly consolidated MB government has only continued, reinforcing the original truth of my argument.
For example, the MB continues to support terrorism. Even before he was inaugurated as the new President, Mohammed Morsi vowed to free the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman. Rahman is the spiritual and terrorist leader of the men convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who is now serving a life term in the U.S. for a plot to blow up New York City landmarks. The 1993 Towers Attack, which is often overshadowed by the more destructive attack on 9/11/01, involved a bomb in a parked Ryder truck that was intended to bring both towers down and kill thousands of people. Instead, the 1993 blast only killed six people and injured more than a 1000 others. Also, the MB leadership in Egypt sent a delegation to the White House that included Hani Nour Eldin, who is both an elected member of Egyptian parliament and a member of the Gamaa Islamiya, i.e., the Egyptian Islamic Group—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.  Eldin used his White House trip to request that the Blind Sheikh be transferred to an Egyptian prison, as a “gift to the (Egyptian) revolution.”  A prior Egyptian delegation to the U.S. government included Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, a former resident of the U.S. who had been implicated – though not charged – in a U.S. child pornography investigation, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

What is worse is that President Mohamed Morsi has provided far more substantial assistance to terrorists.  Morsi has (so far) freed 17 Islamists jailed for terrorism during President Hosni Mubarak’s era. Those released include other members of the above mentioned Gama’a Islamiya, jailed during the group’s armed insurrection against the state in the 1990s, and also members of Islamic Jihad, the movement behind the 1981 assassination of President Sadat. This is on top of the 2,000 Islamists that were released in the 18 months since Mubarak was removed from power, many of them last year on the orders of the council of military generals that steered the transition. One such prominent terrorist is Mohamed al-Zawahri, the brother of Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri.

Further, Morsi and the MB are playing footsy with the genocidal mad mullahs of Iran. Just this month, Morsi met with Iran’s vice president in the highest-level official contact between the two nations in decades. Morsi’s visit “gave Iran a diplomatic coup amid sharpening international pressure over its nuclear program and links to Syria.”

For that matter, as a former member of the MB, Morsi doesn’t get along well with our staunch ally, Israel.  He is fiercely anti-Israel, and it has been reported that he plans to amend the Camp David Accords to “ensure Egypt’s full sovereignty and control over every inch of Sinai” so as to remove those treaty clauses “not deemed beneficial to Egyptian interests.”  Since the chaos of this week began, Egypt has even refused to maintain contact with Israel.

And President Morsi and the MB continue to show disregard for basic human rights, such as freedom of religion and freedom of press, in their quest to implement Sharia law. They continue to lead or sanction the persecution of the Coptic Christian minority. Recently, the entire Christian population of the town of Dahshur was forced to flee from Muslim-initiated violence. This occurred when a Coptic launderer accidentally burned the shirt of a Muslim client, which led to fierce fighting in the town. Apparently, this violence was intensified by a Muslim-Brotherhood cleric who roamed the village “vowing that the village church of St. George will be burned down, its pastor and all the entire Christian inhabitants killed and their homes torched after the burial of Moaz tonight. Then, hundreds of Muslims began looting and burning Coptic businesses and homes, and the Christians all fled. Also, Morsi and the MB increasingly act to limit the freedom of the press and information. Already, the MB controlled Parliament has announced the appointment of new Islamist friendly editors-in-chief of state-owned publications. These new editors will try to make sure that no “unfriendly” views of the MB or President Morsi emerge in any such government controlled newspaper. And, if these unfriendly views somehow sneak through, the MB regime also has no problem with confiscating an offending publication, accusing members of the press of sedition, or even physically attacking them.  Plus, they are already starting to ban books that the MB does not agree with.

In addition to these reasons to axe U.S. aid to Egypt, consider this – the fiscal status of Egypt is increasingly grim. “(T)he country is nearly dead broke, and close to the point where it no longer can finance its $36 billion annual trade deficit.”  The Gulf nation of Qatar may have promised $2 billion in aid to Egypt, but this “is a drop in the bucket; it just replaces the reserves that Egypt lost last month. So is a $3.5 billion IMF loan, under discussion for a year. The Obama administration has been telling people quietly that the Saudis will step in to bail out Egypt, but the Qatari intervention makes this less likely,” since Saudi Arabia apparently wants Morsi and his MB government to take the blame for Egypt’s impending economic disaster. The fact is, Egypt will collapse, regardless of the aid the U.S. gives it. As a result, handing out cash to the MB in Egypt is simply a waste of precious U.S. resources.

So, putting this all together: if our national security interests, our moral concerns, and our own fiscal problems all weight against the U.S. continuing to fund the MB government in Egypt, then perhaps, just maybe, we should stop funding it?  Don’t you think?

And, for God sakes, can President Obama please disinvite President Morsi from his planned trip to the White House?  Why is the U.S. even thinking of rewarding the Middle East’s newest Islamist dictator with a state visit?
Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law.

The signs were there for those who cared to see them.

Shortly after the August 5th attack on an Egyptian army base in the Sinai, in which more than a dozen Egyptian soldiers were killed by jihadists, who seized two armored personnel carriers and attempted to breach the Israeli border, Egyptian President (and Muslim Brother) Mohammad Morsi responded by sacking the Egyptian intelligence chief, and the governor of Northern Sinai. He also replaced the head of the Egyptian presidential guard. That took place Wednesday, August 8th.  A communiqué issued the same day on the M.B.’s IkhwanWeb.com described a so-called “unfolding conspiracy,” in vague terms, calling the soldiers who died in the attack on the Egyptian base, “victims of treachery and treason” and complaining of an attempt to use the incident to “violently and viciously [target] Islamists.”  President Morsi also ordered APCs, troops and attack helicopters into the Sinai to target the “militants,” but residents were reporting little evidence of battle, although a handful of jihadists were reportedly killed in gunfights over the weekend.

Late Sunday night (in Washington), August 12th, reports began to trickle out that President Morsi had sacked Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) head, Defense Minister Tantawi,  Army Chief-of-Staff Sami Annan and several other notable commanders, and canceled the constitutional arrangement instituted by SCAF intended to limit Morsi’s power. Essam El-Erian, the Chairman of the M.B’s “Freedom and Justice Party,” called the move an effort to “foil counter revolutionary plots.”

It will probably never be known for sure whether the initial attack which precipitated events was in the strictest sense orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to engineer the downfall of SCAF. It’s certainly possible, considering accusations by members of the Egyptian military that several high-ranking Hamas members in the Gaza Strip, Ayman Nofal, Raad Atar and Mohammed Abu Shamala, were responsible for the attack. Hamas, after all, openly describes itself as the “Palestinian” chapter of the Brotherhood, and Nofal actually escaped from a Sinai prison during the 2011 revolution, which would have given excellent opportunities for ties with both the Egyptian Brothers and the bedouins who frequently make up the Jihadist factions in the Sinai.

The question of course is what happens now. In all likelihood what little resistance existed to a Muslim Brotherhood state in Egypt is now broken. With SCAF member Abdel Fatah El-Sisi, formerly head of military intelligence taking over as defense minister, and several other key commanders (including the head of the Egyptian 3rd Army based at Suez) taking plum positions in the new hierarchy, it will become increasingly easy to find collaborators within the army structure willing to side with the Muslim Brotherhood.  That means moving forward the M.B. will be able to replace those who participated in or benefited from this bloodless coup, if they should later on resist orders.

For students of revolutionary movements in general, and analysts in the Brotherhood in particular, there ought to have been no surprise here. The only actor in the Egyptian theater which possessed a conspiratorial organization, swiftly and purposefully acting on orders from its leadership was the Muslim Brotherhood.  In heady times of revolution and counter-revolution, such parties are always likely to rise to the top of the pile.

Whether the Brotherhood sparked the events in the Sinai to provide justification to carry out their coup, as the Nazis lit the Reichstag fire to justify their actions, or whether they simply responded to unfolding events with precise and aggressive action is ultimately irrelevant – the outcome, regardless of the excuse, was preordained.  The Egyptian army, the “most secular and pro-western institution in Egypt,” which is the refrain we have heard repeated ad nauseam, has failed to serve as the bulwark to Brotherhood power that we were promised.

Indeed, if there is one silver lining to the weekend’s events in Egypt, it is that policymakers can perhaps finally outgrow their belief in the fictional security blanket of a secular, pro-Western Egyptian military preventing the creation of an Islamist Egypt, and finally move on with the dealing with the world as it really is, one in which Islamism is in a dangerous ascendance across the region.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of Research at the Endowment for Middle East Truth (emetonline.org).

” Everything would have been fine, if only Hitler wouldn’t have lied to me.”

-Neville Chamberlain

As I write these words, I am returning home from a trip to Prague, Vienna and Budapest. Part of the reason for this trip was to find out where, under these ancient cobble stone streets, or perhaps on the bottom of the much romanticized, meandering Blue Danube, all the extended members of both my mother ‘s and my father’s families had been buried. All those unknown aunts, uncles and cousins, crushed in the passion of the Anschluss, because they had been dismissive of which way the wind had been blowing.

Among the most moving aspects of my trip was a Museum of The Jewish People in Vienna, where on a wall was a high tech visual display of the beautiful, rich and deep Jewish life in that city. We saw the way births, Bar and Bat Mitzvot, weddings and funerals were commemorated. As Ahed Ha. Am had once said, “No Jew was alone in his joy or in his sadness.”

So much like my own community, here in the States…but all wiped out. Gone. Why?

Because these good people, in their innocence could not possibly fathom the magnitude of the hatred that had been thrust upon them. Because in their deepest nightmares or the wildest machinations of their imagination they could not possibly conceive of a war machine that could plan out every precise detail of the Anschluss and of their inevitable destruction.

I write this with profound sadness. I took my young son-in-law and beautiful daughter with me to Europe. They have learned some lessons from our people’s history, and have decided to live out their lives in Israel, to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, to predicate their lives on a strong, proud, independent, Jewish state, and to share their destiny with that of the Jewish people.

But today’s leaders have not been listening to the violent wind of antisemitism that has been whipping through that dangerous neighborhood in which the Jewish state is situated. They have been dismissive of the role of words and of ideas.

Words and ideas proceed conduct. Words and ideas can kill.

That is why I could not have been any more horrified than when I read that our Secretary of State said in 2009, “Ideology is so yesterday.”

Perhaps it is for her, but is not “so yesterday” for the people who are prepared to strap a belt of dynamite around their waists and explode themselves as they may kill my children with them. It is not “so yesterday” for the Iranian mullahs who are prepared to sacrifice a million of their own people in order “to wipe the Zionist cancer off the map.”

I have learned to listen to the wind. I wish I hadn’t been so alone.  This is not a happy thing for me to report.

I woke up to the news on Sunday, that the recently elected President of Egypt, Mohammad Morsi had just fired General Tantawi, and his military Chief of Staff, Sami Annan, along with commanders of the air force, navy and an anti-aircraft unit. He did so, while dissolving Article 25 of the Egyptian Constitution that affords the Egyptian military some degree of independence and granting them some legislative powers, and therefore making the entire military a part of his Muslim Brotherhood government.

In their stead, Morsi has promoted generals and chiefs of staff who were all part of Muslim Brotherhood sleeper cells.

For the last year and a half, or ever since the events began in Tahrir Square, I, and my small organization, have been alone on Capitol Hill, talking about the radical Islamist wind blowing throughout the Middle East, and arguing that we should terminate, or at the very least suspend, or even condition, military aid to Egypt, until we see what sort of government will take shape.

Unfortunately, other, much more powerful, organizations in pro-Israel community have been on Capitol Hill lobbying for the exact opposite. They have put their considerable strength and prestige behind a request for continuous military aid for Egypt, arguing that the military is the most democratic of all institutions, and that the dire state of the Egyptian economy and their need for an influx of American dollars will keep the military in power, which will serve as an important check on the Muslim Brotherhood government.

The newly appointed head of the Egyptian military, General Abdel Fattah al Sisi, is a known Muslim Brother sympathizer. As quoted by Zanan Abul Magis, a professor at the American University in Cairo, and an expert on the Egyptian military, in today’s Wall Street Journal,” Sisi is known inside the military for being a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer.”

Our government, in the meantime, is falling all over itself, trying to convince itself that because General Sissi had taken a U.S. infantry training course in Fort Benning, Georgia, thirty one years ago, and had recently met with President Barack Obama’s counter terrorism advisor, he will maintain close ties with the American military and uphold Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel.

This is about as ludicrous a sentiment as could possibly be imagined.

One that is almost rivaled by how we are prostrating ourselves with a huge effort to convince the Islamic Government of Mohammad Morsi to take the 1.5 billion dollars we give in military aid, (which apparently they are ashamed to say to their people that they get from the United States). As we are beseeching them to please accept the additional 500 million dollars offered when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt, last month. This is occurring while the Department of Defense is trying to procure for them, even newer and more advanced weapon systems and technologies

This is akin to after Hitler completed the Anschluss, the Allies begging the the Nazi army to supply tanks and guns needed for the invasion of Poland.

This is because the enlightened ones inside the beltway are still falling into the sandpit of wishful and delusional thinking.

I remember how, before the Gaza withdrawal my friends on the left argued to me that this withdrawal will prove to the entire world, just how far Israel is willing to go for peace, even with the absence of a negotiating partner, and that once we left Gaza, peace will break out, that the Palestinians would begin to appreciate the “peace dividend”, and that “someone has got to be first to break the cycle of violence.”Then, these same left wing friends had argued that Israel will, at least, be able to keep the Philadelphi corridor. Now the Philadelphi corridor is simply a vestibule for continuous arms smuggling.

And last August, when eight Israelis were killed in a cross border attack, the Camp David Treaty between Israel and Egypt had been amended to include an additional 2,500 Egyptian soldiers on the Sinai. Who, in his right mind, really expects the Egyptian military, under Mohammad Morsi to protect Israel from Islamist terrorism?

And Israel is once again alone, facing a mighty military threat deployed along her longest border, the mightiest military threat she has faced in thirty three years. And for all those many years, that Egyptian military had been supplied and trained by the United States. All the illusions and mirages of the Israeli left as well as the assurances and wishful thinking of the United States and the American Jewish left have evaporated under the scorching desert sun of the Middle East, at once.

The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind.

On July 23rd, a spokesman for the Syrian foreign ministry, Jihad Makdisi, issued a public statement warning that the Syrian regime would utilize its long suspected, but officially denied, arsenal of chemical and biological weapons if faced with “external aggression,” while at the same time issuing the statement that they would never be used against the Syrian people, even those currently in rebellion. Those words came as the Assad regime suffered from a series of major setbacks, which included a suicide bombing which killed several key regime leaders, followed by an outbreak of heavy fighting in the Syrian capital of Damascus and the regime stronghold of Aleppo.

The statement was, predictably, widely condemned, but only brings into sharper focus concerns regarding Syria’s weapons stockpile which have been gathering since July 13th, when U.S. officials warned that Syria had begun moving its chemical weapons.  Sources speaking to the Wall Street Journal said they believed the weapons remained under Assad’s control, while Defense Department sources speaking with Fox News warned that local Syrian army commanders may have been responsible for moving the weapons.  Questions abound about what role the weapons might play, ranging from a threat to prevent outside intervention, to their being used to engage in ethnic cleansing to aid in carving out an Alawite-dominated rump-state along the coast. One defector, General Mustapha Sheikh allegedly declared that Assad meant to “burn the country” in retaliation for the high-profile suicide bombing which killed major regime leaders, including Assad’s brother-in-law. Other reports from the Free Syrian Army have suggested that the weapons may be moving towards airports at the borders, although the veracity of those claims is suspect.

Obviously movement in Syria’s weapons of mass destruction arsenal is worrying to all interested parties, but it is of special concern for the Israelis, for whom the Syrian chemical arsenal has always been intended to deter and intimidate. For the Israelis, the issue of greatest concern is the possibility that such weapons may be transferred to Hezbollah, a possibility which the Israelis have called a “red line” which would provoke a “harsh” response. As the situation continues to deteriorate for Assad, the prospect of Israeli action could be an inducement.  But given the fierce resistance to Assad from both the Syrian Sunni community and regional Sunni powers, it is unlikely that a Saddam Hussein-style attempt to provoke the Israelis into action in order to shatter the international consensus will have the intended effect.

Unfortunately analysis is not as straight forward a science as the chemistry which created Assad’s arsenal. But, there are a potent cocktail of potential outcomes which are worth preparing for.

Despite their protests to the contrary, Syria could use chemical weapons against the rebels, the Syrian population in general, or against a neighboring state (most likely Israel with Jordan a close second).  Such a move could come either under Assad’s direction or in localized cases, as regional commanders become desperate to push back the growing rebellion. On a small scale, use of the weapons is likely to provoke severe condemnation and the abandonment by Syria of its remaining key ally, Russia, particularly since Russia has received assurances from Syria that the weapons were contained, and no nation likes being embarrassed after having made public assurances. If used on a large scale, the probability of Western military intervention would increase dramatically. Given these negative outcomes for Assad, the likelihood of an official authorization to use chemical weapons, either domestically or against Israel, seems unlikely as long as there remains any possibility of Assad remaining in power.

Even if the weapons are not used, they remain exceedingly dangerous.  The possibility exists of an authorized transfer of chemical weapons from the regime to Hezbollah, as the Israelis fear. Syria has always been the primary supplier for Hezbollah, and Syria has previously transferred Scud missiles capable of delivering chemical weapons to the Lebanese terror group. While the Syrian regime has had ties to other terror groups, including Al Qaeda, given the anti-Assad stance taken by most jihadist groups, Hezbollah remains the most likely recipient of such weapons if they are transferred by the regime itself. 

Alternatively, there is the possibility of individual commanders attempting to move the weapons to terror groups, including Al Qaeda, motivated either by ideology or in order to raise funds for a comfortable exile if the regime falls. In many ways this is a more dangerous possibility because Western intelligence among the various jihadist groups now active in Syria is limited.  On the other hand, Israel almost certainly dedicates extensive resources to tracking shipments to Hezbollah already and would be more likely to detect a weapons transfer there.

Even if the regime or its followers do not exploit Assad’s chemical weapons, it remains perfectly possible that the opposition or elements within it may. Just as anti-air missiles and other dangerous conventional weapons went missing in Libya following Qaddafi’s fall, the prospect exists for a similar arms “fire sale” in Syria if/when the regime falls.

In order to prevent the worst outcomes, several actions need to be taken. One, the West (and the United States in particular) must be absolutely credible in its deterrence towards the Syrian regime.  In no uncertain terms, it must be made clear to Assad that the consequences of either using or proliferating these weapons will be overwhelming.  To an extent, the Obama administration has done a decent job on this front, although as Assad’s position deteriorates, it becomes increasingly difficult because he has less and less to lose.  The second is to take steps to acquire or destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal. Offers of immunity and financial incentives can be offered to regime members, or opposition militias, who agree to turn over chemical stockpiles to the West to be destroyed. If all else fails, military action to destroy such weapons may become necessary, although this is less than ideal, since it may either provoke a “use it or lose it” response from Assad or lead to an accidental dispersal of chemical agents if air strikes are used. Most likely, planning for both options is heavily classified and already underway. But if not, they should begin in earnest immediately.

Finally, warnings need to go out to other regimes beside Assad’s, most particularly Iran, to make clear that they ultimately will be held responsible for the use of chemical weapons by any of their proxy forces or terrorist groups.  Such deterrence requires utter certainty, on the part of the terror sponsor, that a chemical weapons terrorist attack would mean the end of their regime for good.

When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, there are frequently no good choices. Making the best of a bad situation means acting decisively and with clarity of purpose. Given the Libya example (among others), it is fair to say these traits have not been the hallmark of the Obama Administration to date. Even so, when it comes to Syria’s chemical weapons, there is every incentive to get it right, and no room for error.

This weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her first visit to Egypt since Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected president of Egypt. Despite the fact that her motorcade was pelted with tomatoes and stones and protesters chanted “Monica, Monica,” the Secretary seemed to be willfully blinding herself as to what “Islamism” and the Muslim Brotherhood actually represent.

A clue as to their real intentions, not just for Israel, but for the United States, was that at his very first public appearance addressing throngs of admiring Egyptians, Mohammad Morsi vowed to get the “blind sheik,” Omar Abdul -Rahman, released from prison in the United States.

Remember who this individual is: He is the person who had planned and executed the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and, with his followers, was planning to blow up several significant landmarks in the New York City area, including the George Washington bridge, the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln tunnel, a government building that houses the FBI and the United Nations, all within five minutes.

During the visit with Mohammad Morsi, the Secretary of State announced, “I have come to Cairo to reaffirm the strong support of the United States for the Egyptian people and for your democratic transition.” Also in the speech were vows of a billion dollars in aid for “Egyptian debit relief” (one wonders is that separate from the 1.3 billion dollars we give them in military aid each year?), as well as several additional economic packages. She praised President Morsi for his statement that he would “work with all Egyptains,” and in soft, muted tones, mentioned that he should work with the SCAF, or the Egyptian Generals.

To her benefit, the Secretary of State did mention the continuing value of maintaining the Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel, but, unfortunately, added these very ominously ambiguous words: “And on this foundation, we will work together to build a just, comprehensive, regional peace in the Middle East based on two states for two people with peace, security, and dignity for all.”

This leaves open the possibility of the Camp David Accords being misinterpreted as being contingent on a final deal between Israel Palestinian Authority. Is it any surprise, then, that Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr, at the same press conference, added the following:

I would like to add something about the peace treaty. Mr. President has repeatedly reaffirmed, and on all occasions, that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself. And today, he once again reiterated this issue and also reiterated that Egypt’s understanding of peace is that it should be comprehensive, exactly as stipulated in the treaty itself. And this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and its right to – their right have their own state on the land that was – the pre June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.

Of course, the Secretary of State just sat there and let him say this. This is a very ominous signal and flies in the face of history in terms of how the United States has treated the territories that had been captured in Israel’s defensive war of 1967.

1.) It ignores the entire meaning of United Nations Resolutions 242 which clearly establishes Israel’s rights for “secure and recognized boundaries.” Hitherto, Israel has always been intentionally given tremendous flexibility by the United States as to how much territory it is obligated to withdraw from in order to establish these “secure and recognized boundaries,” or what President Ronald Reagan had called “defensible borders.”

In fact, in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war, President Johnson had said that “an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4 before the outbreak of hostilities” was not “a prescription for peace, but for renewed hostilities.” He stated that the “old truce lines” had been “fragile and violated.” What, in Johnson’s view was required were “recognized boundaries” that would provide security against, terror, destruction and war.”

This, up until now, had been the view of every successive American administration and characterizes a radical departure.

2.) The fact is that we have always assumed that international peace treaties, such as the one brokered between Egypt and Israel, do not involve outside parties, such as the Palestinian Authority. As the Obama administration always stresses, “that should be left up to the parties themselves.”

Having a continuation of the 33-year-old treaty becoming contingent upon a resolution of the Palestinian conflict (with a return to the pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital), both sets up the Palestinians for failure and threatens to undermine the 33-year-old peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

For one, the Palestinians have refused to sit down and negotiate with Israel. And even if they were to, one can well understand how, with over ten thousand rockets flying into southern Israel as a result of the Gaza withdrawal, the Israelis remain quite reluctant to withdraw from Judea and Samaria, or the “West Bank,” if you will. Such a withdrawal would bring virtually every Israeli city within target range of Kassam missile attack. It would also put Ben Gurion Airport within easy striking distance from the Palestinian city of Qalkiya. Can you imagine what just one Kassam missile would do to the nation of Israel if it shot at a plane about to descend upon the Israeli airport. All air traffic would be shot down, and the nation of Israel would remain cut off from the rest of the world.

If every treaty were contingent upon regional peace and stability, would the Obama administration pre-condition peace with the Palestinians upon peace with Syria?

In her haste to please the new “democratically elected” leader of Egypt (as we at EMET have so often argued: “one election, does not a democracy make”), the Secretary of State remained uncharacteristically mute.

Underlying all of this is a total lack of understanding by the Obama administration of what the Muslim Brotherhood actually believes, or worse, a case of “willful blindness.”

Another example of this was an invitation issued from the Oval Office by President Obama to meet with Mohammad Morsi. The rapidity with which the invitation was extended, just after the Egyptian elections, even as the elected Muslim Brotherhood President and the Egyptian military continue to maneuver to determine the extent of presidential power, is representative of the support the Obama administration is willing to give the Muslim Brotherhood.  It shows the extent to which they clearly regard the Muslim Brotherhood as a respectable, legitimate institution, and the democratically elected leaders of Egypt.

We are certain that the Obama administration is fully aware that their views of the Brotherhood are most emphatically not shared by most Americans. In an example of “mother knows best,” a survey of American mothers conducted by the Tarrance Group in 2011 showed that just 16% of American moms believed that the U.S. should negotiate with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Those who would attempt to argue that while “they may not like the Brotherhood” the Obama administration has “no choice” but to deal with them, are missing two fundamental points:

1.) Far from “not liking” the Brotherhood, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to ensure a Brotherhood victory. It was the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, after all, that was invited to Washington and met with key White House staff. No such invitation was extended to any of the smaller struggling liberal parties who might have benefited from Washington’s embrace. And according to sources with contacts in Egypt, it is widely believed within the Egyptian security services that SCAF was warned by the U.S. against announcing victory for their preferred candidate Ahmed Shafiq. Shafiq has since fled the country.

2.) The Muslim Brotherhood simply cannot be regarded as one of any number of legitimate political parties who have successfully been elected, and thus must be met with, regardless of minor differences in political interests. Formed in 1928, only four years after Hitler took over command of the Nazi party, the Muslim Brotherhood is by its very nature a conspiratorial and totalitarian party, entirely dedicated to seizing power and implementing their ideology of political Islam and rule by Sharia law. Those who have read its chief ideologue Sayyid Qutb’s key work, Milestones, will tell you that it reads more like an organizational memo of the COMINTERN then it does a religious document. It is first and foremost a work describing the formation and training of revolutionary cadres for the eventually seizing of political power, although this intent is expressed in religious language. The mere fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has participated, and won, fairly or unfairly, the Egyptian election is irrelevant. As Qutb writes,

Islam possesses sufficient flexibility to enter into any system and mold that system according to its purposes; but this flexibility in the outward forms of Islamic civilization does not mean any flexibility in the Islamic belief, which is the fountainhead of this civilization, nor is it to be considered as borrowed from outside, for it is the character of this religion. However, flexibility is not to be confused with fluidity. There is a great difference between these two.

Nor has there been any deviation from these principles in the 84 years in which the Muslim Brotherhood has been in existence. It can be instituted in stages, or phases, but the basic principles of the Brotherhood do not change. Deputy Guide to the Muslim Brotherhood, Khairat al-Shater, expressed in clear terms that the Brotherhood has not altered itself one iota from the original principles established in 1928. In March of 2011, al-Shater was recorded giving a key address regarding the Brotherhood’s efforts to date:

Naturally, Constants are not subject to developing, hanging, addition or omission; only Variables are. You all know that our main and overall mission as Muslim Brothers is to empower God’s Religion on Earth, to organize our life and the lives of people on the basis of Islam, to establish the Nahda [Renaissance] of the Ummah and its civilization on the basis of Islam, and to subjugation of people to God on Earth.

There is absolutely no obligation in American policy or principles to honor, with high profile public meetings, organizations which fully express their intention to “subjugate.” This is especially true when they are openly understood to use any talks on your part in order to enter into and mold your system according to their purposes. Sadly, it is now widely understood by terrorists and totalitarians of all stripes that with the thinnest veneer of democratic pretensions the United States will treat you with the same recognition and respect which it grants Britain or France. This isn’t to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood can be ignored. It is now, thanks in large part to the Arab Spring and Obama administration policies, a major player in the region, and it must be recognized as such. But it should be greeted with distrust and distaste, as previous totalitarian parties have been. It would be a worthwhile maxim for this administration, and indeed all future administrations, that if you are embarrassed enough by the party you are embracing that you’d prefer to dissemble to the American people about it, then perhaps you shouldn’t be embracing them to begin with.

Unfortunately, the current administration is willfully blinding themselves to the facts of what Islamism really means.

As Sir Winston Churchill once said, “He who appeases the crocodile is only eaten last.”

On November 11, 1999, then First Lady Hillary Clinton paid a visit to Mrs. Suha Arafat in Ramallah. Mrs. Clinton sat by calmly and dispassionately as Mrs. Arafat made an outrageous allegation that the Israelis had been poisoning Palestinian air and water. When Mrs. Arafat finished speaking, what was the former First Lady’s response? A warm embrace and a kiss on the cheek.

This week we saw another reserved, passive response by Mrs. Clinton, as the historical facts of the Middle East conflict became radically dissembled in front of her

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran to Cairo to welcome in Mohammad Morsi, the new President of Egypt, and former head of the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite the fact that her motorcade was pelted with tomatoes and shoes, the Secretary of State remained unruffled, as she rushed to bestow American legitimacy on the newly elected President of Egypt, who incidentally, in his very first Press Conference stated his intention to free from an American prison Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, (known as “The Blind Sheik”), and mastermind of the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993.

Immediately after meeting with Mohammed Morsi, there was a Press Conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr.  At one point, Mr. Amr stated, “I would like to add something about the peace treaty. Mr. President has repeatedly reaffirmed, and on all occasions, that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself. And today, he once again reiterated this issue and also reiterated that Egypt’s understanding of peace is that it should be comprehensive, exactly as stipulated in the treaty itself. And this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and its right to – their right have their own state on the land that was – the pre June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Again, the Secretary of State sat silently, and let this radical departure in the meaning of the Camp David Accords be stated.

Israel has had a 33 year period of relative calm based on the Camp David Treaty. It has been an icy cold peace, but a peace, none-the-less. This peace was supposed to have ushered in “a comprehensive framework” of peace between Israel and all its Arab neighbors. It was a paradigm that was supposed to have been modeled by Israel and all of the individual states that have declared war on the Jewish state, since its birth, in 1948.

The peace with Egypt has heretofore, never been predicated on a peace with all of the other Arab neighboring parties. It would be absurd to make that a condition.

If Abu Mazen would suddenly be convinced to start negotiating once again with Israel, would we in the international, foreign policy community say, “No, You can’t negotiate for a two state solution without getting the Syrians involved , as well?”

What makes this so pernicious is that it flies in the face of commitments made from every single president since Johnson that Israel must have “secured and recognized boundaries” or “defensible borders”. In fact, in an iron clad letter of assurance that was written by President George W. Bush, prior to the Gaza withdrawal on April 14, 2004, and given to Prime Minster Sharon stated that,” The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.”

If Israel were to go back to the pre-1967 lines, she would be nine miles wide in her narrowest waist. It would make every single Israeli city within easy striking distance of a Kassam missile attack. It would endanger the safety and security of every Israeli man, woman and child.

And what of all of the assurances that Americans have heard for years upon years from American Presidents and politicians about the indivisibility of Jerusalem? Did the Secretary of State suddenly have a bout of amnesia, when the Foreign Minister Amr simply threw the division of Jerusalem into the mix as being a condition of a sustained peace treaty between Israel and Egypt?

Again: A deafening silence on the part of the Secretary of State.

Finally, today as we mourn the loss of seven innocent Israelis whose Israeli tour bus was targeted in Burgas, Bulgaria, we are reminded that Israel, unfortunately, has been more affected by acts of terrorism than any single nation in the world.

Yet, Mrs. Clinton has issued invitations to twenty nine Middle Eastern and European countries to her Global Counterterrorism Forum in Madrid. These were all countries affected by terrorism. Which country was glaringly omitted? You guessed it, Israel.

While this administration is running to accord legitimacy to someone who had been, until last week, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, we are forgetting about all the innocent victims of that very organization’s teachings.

Through both her acts of omission and commission, Secretary Clinton is simply throwing Israel under the bus.

Since it evolved from the early Arab Spring-style demonstrations in some Syrian cities, to what is now, in the words of Bashar Assad, “a real state of war from all angles,” the Syrian conflict has drawn in nearly every interested party in the Middle East, leading to a confused and tumultuous situation with multiple interests at stake for every party.

Indeed we may be better served to talk about the multiple “conflicts” taking place in Syria, if we want to have any kind of accurate understanding of the situation as it now exists. Not all of them are shooting wars, but there are serious military and political conflicts being played out in Syria which will have consequences for the future of the entire region.

The first and most obvious conflict is that between the Syrian rebels and the regime of Bashar Assad. Taken as a whole the Syrian rebels’ position has improved substantially. Institute for the Study of War Fellow Joseph Holliday suggests that the Syrian opposition is reaching the point where it will control more territory than the regime, and has reduced the ability of Assad’s forces to maneuver outside of the urban territory they control in Damascus, Homs and other key areas. FSA commander Riad Al-Asaad stated in a recent interview that morale in the Syrian army was considered low and that in particular the elite 4th Armored Division, the Syrian Praetorian guard commanded by Bashar relative Maher Assad, had “completely collapsed.” Because of the rapid changes taking places within Syria, a plan for a buffer zone on the Turkish-Syrian border to protect Syrian refugees is now considered irrelevant by the FSA, which considers itself to be on the offensive now against Assad even as it complains of weapon and ammunition shortages.

Another growing potential conflict is between Turkey and the Syrian regime following the downing of a Turkish fighter jet somewhere near the Syrian border. Syrian officials and anonymous members of U.S. intelligence have suggested that the Turkish jet was likely inside Syria proper when fired upon, while the Turks have vehemently maintained that the jet was fired on in international waters. In response, the Turks have reinforced their positions on the Syrian border, including scrambling fighter jets in response to Syrian aircraft on the Syrian side. British papers have reported that the Syrian Air defense may have been assisted in downing the Turkish aircraft by Russian technicians. According to the reports, the downing of the aircraft was intended as “warning” to NATO not to risk intervention.

This hints at another existing conflict – Russia versus the United States.  While it engages in talks in Geneva with Western diplomats, the Russian bear continues to take steps to keep its Syrian client engaged and in the fight. Reports of Russian troops moving into Syria have continued at a steady pace since March, while the U.S. State Department complains ineffectually about the flow of Russian arms to Syria. The U.S. sees distancing Russia from Syria to be the key to solving the crisis. This has resulted in repeated efforts to produce joint agreements, such as the recent Geneva compromise.  This latest effort was promptly rejected by the Syrian opposition since it was watered down to secure Russian cooperation to the point that it failed to call for Assad to leave power despite calling for a “transitional” government. It’s high time the U.S. recognize that its interests in Syria are in direct conflict with Russian interests, and that Russia cannot realistically be expected to act as a partner in securing an Assad-free Syria.

Then there is the struggle for the soul of the Syrian opposition.  As reported by The New Republic, the Free Syrian Army, led primarily by former Syrian officers, is concerned about the growth of jihadist elements in Syria, which led them to execute the “Emir of Homs” Walid al-Boustani, a Lebanese-born jihadist with ties to Al-Qaeda-linked Fatah-Al-Islam.  Fortunately the history of cooperation between the Syrian regime and jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda, means that there is a strong element of distrust for these groups among the Syrian populace as a whole. However if the FSA should prove unable to effectively engage in opposition to Assad, while jihadist forces succeed in taking the fight to the enemy, this support may change.

The New York Times reported on the role of the CIA in Syria, which is seeking to keep arms from flowing to Al Qaeda-linked militants as outside forces, most notably Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, begin to traffic arms to the Syrian opposition. Unfortunately, it seems that the U.S. is intent on seeing arms directed to the Muslim Brotherhood, through its control of the Syrian National Council. The SNC has made clear in repeated statements that it intends to dominate the rebel forces in country by serving as the primary channel for foreign arms assistance. To that end it has established a “military council” to “support, organize and oversee” the FSA, a move backed by the U.S. The SNC has repeatedly stressed, in their own words, ”the importance of the SNC providing the political cover to avoid the uncontrolled distribution of arms as well as be able to control it later on.”

While U.S. pundits may continue to quibble over the role of the Brotherhood within the SNC, the Syrians themselves have largely acknowledged it.  “They are saying that there are weapons in depots here (in Turkey) but they won’t release them to us because we are not pledging allegiance to them. They want us to follow Saudi Arabia or a big organization like the Brotherhood,” said one Syrian arms broker speaking to Time magazine.  “We are refusing this. That’s why the next batch of weapons has been delayed. Either we follow them, and get lots of weapons, or we don’t and die.”

The prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrian rebellion has led to yet one more conflict of interests playing out inside Syria, between the Sunni Arab regimes in the region. Currently there is no “upside” for U.S. interests in this crucial conflict, largely because the Obama administration continues to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is an acceptable regional actor, and has put the U.S. on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood in the regional conflict between the Brotherhood and the old guard Sunni regimes. This is due to a misconception held by the Obama Administration, which views the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate Islamist opposition to jihadist forces represented by Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have both expressed concerns regarding the growth of Brotherhood power in the region, while Qatar and the Turks have largely supported it.  The Saudis and their allies may have an interest in seeing some other force than the Brotherhood winning in Syria, which may lead them to back other forces, particularly if the FSA is subsumed by the Brotherhood-controlled SNC. Of course it is equally possible that they may see a Muslim Brotherhood-held Syria as a better option than Assad remaining in power.

The final conflict is between the Sunni and Shia.  A defeat for Assad would be a defeat for Iran, the leading Shia state, and in that sense the Syrian conflict can also be viewed through the lens of the Sunni-Shia competition and the Sunni states fear of an aggressive Iranian regime.  For many western analysts, this has been the conflict to which many are most attuned. Assad is an ally of Iran, and if Assad goes, Iran is weakened, ergo Assad should fall, whatever the cost.

In sum, the United States’ Syria policy has been deeply confused, in each of the numerous conflicts now taking place around Syria. In the fight for control of the Syrian opposition, the U.S. has backed the Muslim Brotherhood over overt jihadists, which insures an Islamist victor ideologically hostile to the United States over other more preferable actors. It has failed to recognize the interests at play for Russia, leaving the U.S. continuing to seek Russian complicity in a series of negotiations which are ultimately doomed to failure. Its desire for agreement with the Russians has led it to neglect the goal of ousting Assad and dealing a setback to Iran, which alienates the U.S. among the very rebels we seek to support. In dealing with Turkey, The U.S., through NATO, has both supported Turkey, while casting doubt upon its claims at the same time.

Ultimately as we began the piece by noting, the situation in Syria is made up of multiple interwoven conflicts. The U.S. has a coherent policy for none of them.

On July 4, 2012, a 17-year-old Frenchman was the victim of a violent anti-Semitic attack on a train from Lyon to Toulouse.  The teenager is a student of Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse, where three children and a family were killed by Mohamed Merah on March 19.  A source close to the investigation said that the attackers noticed a chain around his neck.  Aged about 18 years, the two suspects were arrested in an army recruitment office in Lyon.  A police source told AFP that the two men, of North African origin, had no criminal record.

Why anyone is surprised about this attack is beyond me.

As we all know, like much of Europe, France has a long history of anti-Semitism.  As noted scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes has said, “anti-Semitism is not new in France.  France never purged itself of anti-Semitism, it just hid it.”

In 1895, Alfred Dreyfus, a patriotic French Jew, was convicted of treason for supposedly providing secret information to Imperial Germany.  Dreyfus’ trial was a sham, and his conviction was largely based on anti-Semitic feelings among the French elites, the jury and the populace.  Three years after Dreyfus’ exile to the French penal colony of Devil’s Island, on January 13, 1898, French Journalist Emile Zola published an article J’accuse (“I Accuse”) – in the form of a letter to the French President – in which he accused a cabal of high ranking military officers, and other members of the French elite, of making Dreyfus a scapegoat because he (Dreyfus) was a Jew, and even though many of them actually knew who the real traitor was.  Zola published his article at high risk to himself – he could be – and was – prosecuted for criminal libel.  Eventually, as a direct result of Zola’s actions, Alfred Dreyfus was exonerated, and released from Devil’s Island.

The Dreyfus trial may have caused some Frenchmen to reevaluate their feelings towards Jews for the a period of time.  But if so, that was then, and this is now.  Today, anti-Semitism, and violent attacks on French Jews – who number more than half a million – are prevalent.  The French Interior Ministry has detailed that there were 148 anti-Semitic incidents in March and April of 2012, including 43 classified as violent — a huge jump over the 14 violent attacks recorded in the same period in 2011.  The data also demonstrated that there were 69 instances of anti-Semitic intimidation and threats in March and 36 such incidents in April.  Apparently, the vicious murder of three Jewish children and one man, in March by Mohammed Merah in Toulouse actually prompted more violence against Jews, rather than shaming the French populace to oppose anti-Semitism.  In fact, in the 10 days following the Toulouse massacre, there were no fewer than 90 anti-Semitic incidents.  And this anti-Semitic violence has been ongoing for at least a decade – anti-Semitic attacks accounted for half of all racist attacks in France in 2002.

Much of the anti-Semitism, and many of the violent attacks against French Jews, has been initiated by Muslim Frenchmen, the descendants of Algerians and Moroccans who have immigrated to France.  The Muslim population of France is now between four to six million, about 6-10% of the total population.  In 2004, the French government commissioned a report, called the Obin Report, on “the Signs and Manifestations of Religious Affiliation in Educational Establishments,” which showed a deep infiltration by radical Islam into the vast majority of French schools, and the development of a vitriolic hatred for Jews among the Muslim population.  This report was so alarming to the French government that the report was initially buried.  However, the results of this rise in Muslim anti-Semitism cannot be so easily buried.  As a result of this Muslim anti-Semitism, according to the National Bureau of Vigilance against anti-Semitism, nearly four hundred physical attacks against Jews occurred in France in 2011 — more than one a day – and all of these attacks were committed by Muslims.

In addition to the Toulouse massacre, here are some other examples of attacks caused by Muslim Frenchmen against French Jews.  On June 2, 2012, three young Jews wearing skullcaps were attacked in Villeurbanne, a suburb of Lyon, by a dozen individuals who beat them with hammers and iron bars.  The attackers were described as “of North African origin,” and shouted insults against the Jewish religion of the victims before assaulting them physically.  On January 4, 2009, a 29-year old Jewish man was attacked at a Paris subway station by a gang of 20 people who yelled “Palestine will win.” And in 2006, the best known case of French Muslim violence towards Jews, until Toulouse, was the brutal murder of Ilan Halimi, a 23-year-old Parisian Jew.  Halimi had been lured to an apartment, and sadistically tortured to death by Arab and African Muslim Frenchmen.  One gang member later admitted to having put out a cigarette on Halimi’s face “because he did not like Jews.”

Jewish leaders continue to express their concern with the dangerous situation in France, and continue to be ignored by the French government, media, and elites.  Joel Mergui, President of the Jewish group called Central Consistory, has said the country’s Jews are under constant attack. “Not a week goes by without anti-Semitic attacks in France.  I refuse to believe Jews were forced to choose between security and Jewish identity.”  The Chief Rabbi of the Great Synagogue in Lyon, Richard Wertenschlag, called the environment “unbearable.  These incidents are becoming more frequent, so much so, unfortunately, so that they take it for granted,” he said.  And Rabbi Michel Sarfati, who created a Jewish-Muslim friendship group, has lamented, “Don’t tell me French Muslims appreciate Jews – 50 percent of them hate Jews.  Many hate Jews because extremist imams denigrate Jews in their sermons.  They say we’re Israel’s puppets.  Moderate Muslims try to fight this hatred, but they’re being threatened, and they get no support from the state.”  Even former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in 2004, told a meeting of the American Jewish Association in Jerusalem that French Jews should relocate to Israel because of rising violence against Jews there.

So what are the French government, and the French elites, doing about this?  Like the Rabbi said, pretty much nothing useful.  Indeed, “(t)he work of the French media and academia reveals that a majority of members are not only leftist in their outlook, but anti-American and anti-Israel as well and, elements are allied with radical Islamists.  Official policies of the French government since 1967 show they have sought cooperation with the Arab world at the expense of Israel.  The actions of the media, academia and the government have all contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism.”  Also, politically correct attitudes continue to squelch complaints or even reports of the incidents, even among so-called “anti-racist organizations,” which instead focus solely on the anti-Semitism of the native French extreme-right.

In fact, things are so bad that French Jews are just learning to live with the problem.  Nowadays, most of the Jewish victims of anti-Semitic acts don’t even bother going to the French police anymore, as they know that their complaint is likely to be ignored.  For the few incidents that result in an arrest by the police, the victims actually have to worry that those who were arrested may then seek revenge against those who complained, with the authorities refusing to protect the true victims.  And many French Jewish students of Moroccan ancestry try to pass themselves off as Muslim – with some even going as far as to fast on Ramadan.  Others simply emigrate to Israel or other safer nations.

I don’t think anyone should have to learn to live with this problem.  “I dare (to criticize it).  (I) Dare to tell the truth, for I have pledged to tell the full and complete truth if the normal channels of justice failed to do so.  My duty is to speak out; I do not wish to be complicit.”

Also:

I accuse the French government, the media and the elite of ignoring the rise of French anti-Semitism, which makes fighting it almost impossible.

I accuse the French government, the media and the elite of being afraid – based on politically correct concerns – of identifying the increasing problem of French Muslim anti-Semitism, which makes fighting it almost impossible.  In fact, I have written a whole column on this sad fact before.

I accuse the French government of refusing to crack down on radical Imams preaching anti-Semitism to their parishioners, which makes fighting it almost impossible.

I accuse the French government, the media and the elite of practicing the three D’s against Israel – the Demonization, the use of Double Standards, and the Delegitimization of Israel.  This inevitably leads to anti-Semitism directed against innocent Jews.

I accuse the French government, the media, and the elite of refusing to make a good faith effort to integrate its Muslim population into France, and instead of promoting the discredited cause of multiculturalism.  This has led to the rise of radical Islam, and the rise of anti-Semitism.

“This is the plain truth, Sir, and it is frightful… (But) Do not think that I despair of triumphing in the slightest.  I repeat with the most vehement conviction: truth is on the march, and nothing shall stop it.”

The truth is, anti-Semitism is on the march in France, and the French government, media, and elite are doing nothing about it.  And I – for one – won’t allow the French to ignore this fact.

Sunday morning, Egyptian time, Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was declared the winner in the Egyptian Presidential elections. This is a watershed event.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamist group that was founded in 1928 by Hassan al Banna, a devotee of Adolf Hitler. For eighty four years it has been a goal of the Muslim Brotherhood to turn Egypt into an Islamist state, and to be able to spread the flag of Islam throughout the world.

Many people have called this, “A milestone for Egyptian democracy”. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is as much “a milestone for democracy in Egypt “, as the voting in of Hamas is” a milestone for democracy in Gaza”, or the voting in of Hitler was “a milestone for democracy in Nazi Germany.”

Democracy is more than one vote, one time. It is the ability to have a second, a third and a fourth vote. It means that the institutions of a liberal democracy are in place: a free press, freedom of worship for minorities, freedom of assemblage, freedom for women and for gays. Or as the great Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky had written, “It is the freedom to be able to stand in the town square and criticize the government without fear of one’s very life.”

For the last sixteen months, since the fall of the Mubarak regime, many of my colleagues from other pro-Israel organizations have been on Capitol Hill, lobbying that we have to continue our aid to the Egyptian military, arguing that the Supreme Council Armed Forces, (SCAF) is the most Western of institutions in Egypt.

As tempting as it might sound, it would be a serious misreading of the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood   to believe that because SCAF had dissolved the Islamist dominated parliament on June 17th, and vowed to write their own Constitution, that the building up of the military would act as a counterbalance against the Muslim Brotherhood, and safeguard democracy in Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood is as strong as a lion and as sly as a fox. They hung back during the early days of the revolution in Tahrir Square, making it appear that the age of the totalitarian regime of Mubarak was finally falling to the age of the free and enlightened Face-Book and Twitter Generation. The well-intentioned young, educated minority were working to overthrow the Pharonic like suffocation of Mubarak, but most never would have imagined that they were just bartering one sort of state-imposed suffocation for another, mosque-imposed suffocation.

The Muslim Brotherhood was waiting in the wings, knowing full well that the vast majority of Egyptians were neither well educated nor sophisticated, and relied upon the local mosque for most of their information.

According to a February 2011 Pew Poll, a full 95 per cent of Egyptians felt it was “a good thing” for “Islam to play an active role” in politics.  77 per cent felt that “thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off”; 82 per cent felt that adulterers should be stoned to death; 84 per cent felt that apostates should face the death penalty.

We, at EMET, also have been warning, since the revolution first began eighteen month ago, in Tahrir Square, that is time, once and for all, to cease our American taxpayer’s dollars from flowing into Egypt, at least until we knew the results of the elections, what sort of government would be formed, and whether or not this government would adhere to existing treaties with Israel.

Ever since 1979, we have taken the Egyptian military and we have built it from a C-, Soviet equipped military to an A+, American equipped one.

It is our fear that these sophisticated weapons might be aimed at Israeli soldiers or civilians.

Imagine, if you will, an all too likely scenario:  A barrage of Kassam missiles comes raining down into southern Israel and the Eshkol region from Gaza. Men women and children are developing all sorts of psychological symptoms and are living in fear. They each have approximately 15 seconds to run to shelter.

Israel is then forced to do, what any other nation would do under those same circumstances.  Under article 41 of the United Nations Charter,  any nation has an obligation to defend its civilian population. The Israelis make the decision to re-enter Gaza to protect and defend the lives of its citizens whose lives have become a living hell.

Would the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt then feel it is necessary to defend their brothers in Gaza? Would our American made weapons be used against Israeli soldiers and civilians?

There are many who argue that our 1.3 billion dollars in military assistance buys us a seat at the table. ask you:  What sort of leverage has this “seat” at this imaginary “table” bought us over the past 33 years?

Has is made it more comfortable for American style, Western NGO’s in Egypt? Has it prevented the Egyptian people from attacking the Israeli embassy? Has it prevented them from countless attacks on the gas pipeline to Israel? Has it prevented the cross border raids into Israel, one resulting in the murder of eight Israelis, last summer, and one in another Israeli, just last week? Has it resulted in a modification of the vitriol used against Israel and the United States? Has it resulted in guarantees that the Egyptians will adhere not only to the letter, but to the spirit of the Camp david Accords?

During the Egyptian election season, we have heard everything from spokesmen for the Muslim Brotherhood from,” We will uphold the Camp David Treaty with Israel”, to “We will take it to a referendum, to “We cannot be held hostage by a hollow, outdated treaty.”

My suspicion is that the Muslim Brotherhood might, at least initially pay lip service to the Camp David Treaty in order to secure the continuous flow of money from the United States into their bankrupt economy, but that that these will be simply hollow promises.

I fear that there will always be an abundance of naive American “experts” inside the beltway who will be willing to believe them.  I fear that it will not be too long before they will borrow a page from Yassir Arafat’s playbook, whitewash a few members of the Muslim Brotherhood who have paid lip service to the Camp David Treaty, bring them to Washington, where their handlers will say: “This is the pragmatic branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the part that we can deal with.” Probably not before very long, we might find that they will be invited into the White House.

As the old saying goes, “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.”

This could very easily have been a headline today, if approximately 18 years ago, a tiny group of friends and I had not succeeded in our endeavors. This has truly hit home today, as I opened up this Sunday’s New York Times and read the headline, “U.N Suspending Syria Mission, Citing Violence.”

In the early ‘90s, I had been part of a small campaign, led by Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, former minister of congressional affairs at the Israeli Embassy under Yitzhak Shamir, to prevent the stationing of U.S. troops on the Golan Heights. The rationale behind the strategy of stationing America GIs on that valuable strategic terrain, had been to quietly station American forces there, as a way of sweetening a bitter pill to the Israelis as well as the American Jewish community, as part of an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

This was during the heady years of Oslo. Most people then actually believed we could reach a durable peace simply by signing a piece of paper with the likes of a Hafez al-Assad, or a Yasser Arafat. Few, in those days, were thinking down the road. Few questioned whether or not the societal landscapes had been sown for a peace that could endure for generations. Few were asking themselves the crucial questions of what the leaders were teaching their children about Jews, and about Israel.

At that time, negotiators for Yitzhak Rabin had been quietly meeting with representatives of Hafez al-Assad, arguing how much of the Golan Heights Israel was to give up to the Syrians. “We were just a centimeter close to a deal,” said a former Israeli government official.

The overarching tactic of those in favor of stationing U.S. troops on the Golan Heights had been one of a complete blackout of any detail of these plans from public purview. Any time that we had tried to have a complete and open public debate about the ramifications of such a plan, the buzzword used to silence the debate, was “premature.” All the plans were to be made behind closed doors. Then Defense Secretary Les Aspin told us that there had been carefully drawn plans at the Pentagon. The troops were to be stationed as a fait accompli, as part of a “peace package” thrown in, with the giving away of the Golan Heights to Hafez al-Assad.

In October, 1994, under the auspices of former Congressman Jim Saxton, (R-N.J.), I had arranged for a press conference on Capitol Hill with some American generals arguing that America has got to openly and publicly examine the ramifications of such a move. Then Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) came into the room and announced that “The only reason I am here is because my good friend, Jim Saxton, from the Delaware Valley, has asked me to come. As far as I am concerned, this whole issue is premature, and should be left up to the parties, themselves, which are the Israelis and the Syrians. Now I have got a vote I’ve got to go to.”

It was a shame that the good senator had not stayed in the room, because then he would have realized that this plan involved American GIs.

Prior to this, it had always been a cornerstone of Israeli philosophy that the Jewish state defend itself, by itself; that they would never ask foreign power to take a bullet to defend the state of Israel. I knew in my gut, for so many reasons, that this was a lamebrain idea, not the least of which was that if good American Christian boys would start arriving home in body bags, killed in defense of the Jewish state, the door would have been wide open to large scale anti-Semitism in the United States, and, ultimately would be harmful to American-Israeli relations.

An article in the Forward on Oct. 21, 1994, reported, “Although the discussion is ostensibly about sending American troops to the Golan, it will no doubt provide a new battleground for supporters and opponents of an Israeli withdrawal from that area. Meanwhile, though a promise of American involvement in the Golan Heights might help broker an agreement between Damascus and Jerusalem and reassure Israelis wary of a Syrian threat, opponents of the idea argue that it would both needlessly expose Americans and simultaneously fail to provide Israel and Syria with the conditions for a lasting peace.”

In that same article, the then-president of AIPAC, Steve Grossman, was reported as saying, “There is no need to have a discussion” before a detailed request is made by Israel and Syria. And Gary Rubin, then, executive director of American Friends for Peace Now, was quoted as saying, “I don’t believe that the reason this is being brought up is out of sincere concern for the safety of American troops, (but to) impede peace between Israel and Syria.”

In those days, some had called me the “enemy of peace” and “the Jewish counterpart to Hamas”, simply for trying to evaluate the ramifications of such a move and expose it to free and open public analysis. One person told me that his son was in the IDF and that if something happened to him, “I will hold you, Sarah Stern, personally responsible”.

Today, in Syria we are watching the brutal, systematic massacring of more than 12,000 fellow Muslims and Arabs at the hands of men commanded by Bashir Assad. On June 11, 2012, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff, Yair Naveh warned, “If he could, Assad would do to us what he is doing to his own people.”

Many lessons can be drawn from this. Foremost among them, as Judge Louis Brandeis had said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” People are not stupid. Plans like this need to be analyzed before they become a fait accompli” and “Think down the road as to whether your negotiating partner is educating his population for a peace that can endure for generations, or whether this will just be a temporary truce, or a hudna, in which to re-arm and re-group. The best way to test for that is to see what the leaders are saying to their own people, in their own language.

Mostly, l remain incredibly grateful to have been a part of this small but intelligent and effective group, and to have played, even a tiny part in preventing what could have been a huge strategic blunder for both the United States and for Israel.

President Barack Obama’s campaign strategy, at least as it regards foreign affairs, consists almost entirely of boasting of the various covert operation successes that occurred on his watch, and leaking government secrets to buttress these boasts.

This strategy began just days after the successful elimination of arch-terrorist Osama Bin laden in May of last year. Instead of being an operation cloaked in mystery and “no comments,” almost every detail of the raid was almost immediately released, from the unit which conducted the daring operation to the CIA operation to successfully track Bin Laden to his Abbottabad compound. That particular leak cost a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, his freedom, and may also cost him his life.  Ironically the only secrets that the administration has attempted to protect from that day are the photos showing the deceased Bin Laden, lest pictures of the dead terrorist offend Islamist sensibilities, and which details about the raid the administration provided to Hollywood filmmakers so they could produce the story of the raid, coincidently to get it in theaters before the election.

And there have been plenty other leaks from this Administration.  During the State of the Union speech, President Obama publicly congratulated Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta regarding another Navy Seal operation, even while it was still under way. The Obama administration also surely was behind a leak to the New York Times that exposed the American and Israeli allied efforts to conduct cyberwar against the Iranian regime, in an effort to delay Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. Further, the article in the Times may only a tip of the iceberg—it was an excerpt of a newly released book, “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” by David Sanger, which has recently been released, once again, coincidently just in time to influence the election.

Not only has this election campaign via leak infuriated our own military and intelligence professionals, but overseas, the United States, which has always been regarded as something of a sieve by allied intelligence agencies, is now considered an open faucet. The Obama administration leaked the role played by a double agent in breaking up a commercial plane bombing plot from Al Qaeda in Yemen, including the fact that the agent in question was recruited in London by British Intelligence, and supported through Saudi Arabia’s extensive intelligence network in the small Arab peninsula state. The British, and the Saudis, were both furious.  U.S. diplomats have also leaked information about alleged Israeli plans to utilize Iran’s neighbors in the event of a strike on Tehran’s nuclear program, following Secretary Panetta’s open speculation about a potential Israeli timeline.  The Israelis, and their friends, are equally angry.

Presumably, it’s not a coincidence that all these leaks are colored in such a way as to make the President appear as heroic as possible.  In the Sanger piece, for example, President Obama is praised for his role in the Stuxnet operation, while an “error,” which spread the virus beyond its original intended target, is blamed on the Israelis.  And the fawning American media showered praise on President Obama for his ability to “compartmentalize” because he was able to cheerfully taking credit for Navy Seal successes in Pakistan, even while men from the same unit were risking their lives in Somalia to rescue hostages.

It is also not a coincidence that in almost every one of these stories, President Obama is merely taking credit for not terminating a plan of action or a covert capability that was established by his predecessor.  In his prior offices, Obama was often criticized for voting “present.”  As President, it seems, he has continued to do that, in this case by simply not interfering with foreign operations instigated by prior Presidents.  The operation which slew Bin Laden was possible only thanks to the Bush Administration’s program of detainment and interrogation, including so-called “enhanced” interrogation, which anti-war left, and indeed, then-Senator Barack Obama, loudly campaign against, and swore to put to an end.

This campaign of leaks on foreign policy is unlikely to be successful in any case.  Let’s consider just the most prominent example.  Are we really meant to believe that previous presidents, or future potential presidents, would not have ordered the raid to capture or kill Bin Laden? This doesn’t pass the smell test.  Virtually every President would have okayed the raid to kill/capture a man responsible for the deaths of over 3000 Americans.

Despite the sycophantic media, these leaks do little to burnish President Obama’s foreign policy credentials.  Americans who would consider themselves national security voters are well aware of the irony of claiming to be the best administration for covert action while simultaneously spilling one’s guts to every reporter with a pen and a notepad.  And in any case, how many voters does it win over to leak the story of tortured agony and gutsiness with which the president dispatched commandos to kill terrorists or rescue hostages? These are decisions from most of Middle America expects its Commanders-in-Chief that to make.  These self-congratulatory leaks only establish how little the President truly has to be proud of on foreign policy.

Similarly, the secret “kill list” which Obama pores over to determine which terrorists will be slain via drone strike, and which was leaked to the New York Times as an example of President Obama’s “principles and will” was only implemented because the Obama administration has utterly abandoned efforts to take wanted terrorists alive, in order to avoid making the political difficult choice of how to detain and interrogate them.

While President Obama would certainly not be the first President to run his foreign policy with an eye on his domestic political advantage, his administration, in a very real way, is undermining the very powers of which they claim to be such judicious stewards. Cyber-warfare, special operation raids, targeting killings of terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, all these policy tools are weakened, and in some cases effectively neutralized by their public exposure.  Whether President Obama wins or loses the next election, the next president will take office to direct an America whose intelligence and special operations capabilities have been weakened by President Obama’s time in office. An America whose allies will now decline to share crucial information with it, lest this information be leaked merely so that an American politician can take a national security victory lap.

So for the good of the country, and your own election campaign, please Mr. President, plug the leaks.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/you_cannot_leak_your_way_to_national_security_credibility.html#ixzz1xnDd5X4A

What does it take for a country to be kicked off the U.S. foreign aid dole?  We might soon be learning the answer to that question, thanks to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and its consistent efforts to antagonize the United States and oppose our interests.  Recently, the U.S. Congress voted to reduce Pakistan’s aid because of our “ally’s” decision to convict a Pakistani doctor for “treason” for helping the U.S. find Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.  The doctor is named Shakil Afridi, and he was recruited by the CIA to run a fake Hepatitis-B vaccination program in Abbottabad to acquire a DNA sample from one of bin Laden’s children in the compound where he was hiding.

Interestingly enough, an investigation by a former member of the Pakistani army has concluded that Afridi probably didn’t even know he was helping the CIA find bin Laden specifically, but the Pakistanis still convicted him, and are now busy trashing his reputation.  If the congressional vote stands, the $1 billion going to Pakistan this year in U.S. aid will be $33 million less, one for each year that the doctor was sentenced to.  The Obama administration originally requested more than $2 billion, but Congress eventually cut this in half.  This is small change overall, though, as since 9/11 alone, the United States has given Pakistan a total of more than $20 billion in foreign aid.

As I see it, this is just a baby step.  The U.S. needs to make a complete cutoff of all U.S. aid to Pakistan.  There are so many different reasons the U.S. should stop its aid to Pakistan that it is hard to list all of them.  But, in the spirit of David Letterman, here is my “Top Ten” list of reasons to stop providing foreign aid to Pakistan.

1. At least some of Pakistan’s government officials deliberately and/or knowingly sheltered (see: here and here) Osama Bin Laden, the head of the terrorist Islamist group al-Qaeda and the mass murderer of over 3000 Americans.  This reason alone merits the end of U.S. aid.

2. Pakistan’s cooperation in the U.S.-led “War on Terror” and invasion of Afghanistan has been tepid, at best. See: the case of Dr. Afridi; Pakistan’s decision to cut U.S. supply lines for the Afghan war, unless the U.S. apologizes for drone attacks that have targeted terrorists in Pakistan and pays a hefty ransom; Pakistan’s intelligence ties to Islamist terrorists; Pakistan’s army’s consistent “mistaken” attacks on U.S. and other NATO helicopters, which, considering that the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces have no helicopters, can’t really be written off as a mistake; Secretary Clinton’s admission that Ayman al-Zawahiri, who inherited the al-Qaeda leadership after bin Laden’s death, is also hiding “somewhere in Pakistan”; Pakistan’s imprisonment of an American contractor for murder and blasphemy until more than $2 million in blood money was paid, presumably by the U.S.

3. Pakistan has been the foremost supplier of nuclear technology to such rogue states as Iran and North Korea.

4. Pakistan is a corrupt, authoritarian oligarchy.  It alternates between quasi-democrat rule and military rule.  Many of its more prominent leaders, including its best known democratically elected prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, have been assassinated. Many of them also have enriched themselves while in office.  Its current prime minister, Gilani, was recently held for contempt of court for his willful flouting of court instructions to assist in the investigation of old cases of money laundering against Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

5. Pakistan does not respect human rights, especially religious rights.  For one example, look at their use of blasphemy prosecutions to discriminate against religious minorities and settle personal scores, which I have already written about here.  Nothing more really needs to be said, except that things have only gotten worse.

6. Pakistan has become an incubator of terrorism, as its territory has a significant number of Islamist teaching religious schools, i.e. madrassas, and terrorist training camps, which together crank out terrorist after terrorist.  The madrassas are often sponsored by money from Saudi Arabia and – surprise, surprise – teach Wahhabism to the new generation.  There is a reason that many terrorists and would-be terrorist are found to have gone for “vacation” to Pakistan and/or Afghanistan.

7. Pakistan is – as always – belligerent towards its archenemy, the neighboring, more democratic state of India.  The U.S. has an increasing interest in aligning itself with India.  Pakistan is dangerously paranoid about its bigger neighbor.  Elements in Pakistan have already sponsored or assisted terrorist attacks in India, most spectacularly the Mumbai massacre of 2008.  And, of course, Pakistan only developed its own nuclear weapons because of India’s decision to do so.  However, unlike Pakistan, India does not export them to rogue regimes.  Not surprisingly, the U.S. alliance with Pakistan has impeded our developing relationship with India.

8. Pakistan is in bad shape economically, doesn’t have a particularly good economic future, as it is not a good source of natural resources or educated people.

9. Pakistan is likely to become a failed state.

10. Supporting Pakistan makes us look stupid and weak to other states, for the reasons outlined above.

As I stated before, this list is not all inclusive – there are other reasons not to supply U.S. money to Pakistan.  For instance, did you know that Pakistan is a growing participant in the smuggling of opium to the U.S and the world?  Also, the Cold War, which originally prompted our alliance with Pakistan, is long over, but we continue to act as if Pakistan is a crucial ally.

Considering our increasing deficits and debts, does the U.S. really have the money to waste on false friends like Pakistan?  The answer is, obviously, no.  Let’s cut them off now, before they do something else we regret.

Original Article

The outcome of last week’s Egyptian presidential elections was about as preordained as it gets when it comes to predicting foreign events, yet somehow most of the major media outlets seemed to miss it. The Telegraph, on May 25th after the first round of Presidential voting, described the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi as headed to a “surprise” victory. In the end, the M.B. candidate finished with 25% of the vote, former Air force commander and one time Mubarak Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq finished second with 23%, Former M.B. Islamist Abdel Moneim Abol Fotouh held 20%, and leftist Hamdeen Sabahy was at 19%.

Surprise for who exactly?

Eric Traeger wasn’t surprised, pointing to the Muslim Brotherhood’s deep organizational talents and strict hierarchy in an excellent New Republic piece, and comparing it to the complete lack of organization by any other group or candidate.  We at the Endowment for Middle East Truth were certainly not surprised; arguing as we have for months of the inevitability of a Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egyptian government.

Nor is it likely that the old autocrats of the Middle East, represented by men like Shafiq, were surprised either. They had long warned that the choice was either military dictatorship (under their rule), or the Muslim Brotherhood. In Mubarak’s case, he knew this to be true since the Muslim Brotherhood remained the only organization which was able to function, despite arrests and harassment from his security services, while secular and liberal parties stood no such chance. He had made sure of it.

Indeed the story of much of the Arab Spring has been that the old dictators once again putting the choice to Washington, “Either us and our tyranny, or the Muslim Brothers and theirs.” Only this time, the Obama administration chose the Brotherhood.

The people of Egypt are presented with a choice between oppressions, autocratic, or theocratic. And once again the Western media can be expected to continue to ignore it. Leading up to the election, the western media continued to cover so-called front-runner Amr Moussa, who managed to place a dismal fifth, his support flocking to late entry Shafiq. They also ran repeated stories about allegedly dissolving Muslim Brotherhood support, supposing that an ex-Brother like Fotouh was likely to unite the secular left, and the Salafists against his former Ikhwan. The reality was that Fotouh left the brotherhood solely in order to violate its ban against running for president (back when the organization had sworn to run no presidential candidates). Never mind that no candidate who takes large portions of the Egyptian Salafist vote ought to be considered a “modernist” or a reformer.

But that is ever the way of Western reporting on the Middle East. Routinely the media expresses little interest in what the relevant players are actually saying, such as the recent report that Morsi has called for Copts to convert, pay the jizya or emigrate, following the support the Christian minority voters are believed to have given Shafiq, preferring instead to remain true to their narrative of both sides being forced to compete for some mythical “middle ground voter,” as if Egypt’s first free Presidential election was a mirror image of a typical American election, where two mainstream parties compete over a long existing political “center.”

Nor will any actual facts be permitted to disrupt the narrative.  This is why a news article from Reuters or the Associated Press can reflect on the appeal of each candidate to supposed mainstream voters, and yet in the next paragraph discuss the riot which burned down the Cairo headquarters of the candidate that finished second.

They will continue to insist, as they did when the Palestinian elections were won by Hamas, and when Hezbollah triumphed politically in Lebanon, that political power moderates the extremist. That somehow hardened ideologues will be so busy managing train schedules and garbage pickups that they’ll forget about their real goals like the institution of oppressive Sharia law and the destruction of Israel. It is nonsense and it has always been nonsense. After all, Mussolini made the trains run on time, and yet still found time to execute his political enemies and impose his totalitarian program. He found time to conduct wars against his enemies abroad. So will the Muslim Brotherhood. As Egyptian philosopher Murad Wahba has warned, “The Muslim Brotherhood is ideologically required to start wars.”

But that doesn’t matter to the western media. Nor are they alone in the delusion that the solution to dictators is to elect them and hope they spring from their beds on inauguration day born-again democrats. This appears to be the deeply held opinion of numerous foreign affairs specialists and bureaucrats, who serve as the media’s experts and sources.  What matters to such men is the process, not the outcome. They are all about the lipstick, never mind the pig.

Nevermind that the Muslim Brotherhood is an 80-year old totalitarian party whose organization has more in common with Corleone family then the Republican or Democratic parties. As long as they agree to participate in the machinery of democracy, our State Department, and the western media is more than happy to consider them moderate, and expresses no concern that they are likely to rule a one-party state, after having successfully participated in an election, one man, one vote, one time.

The process is what matters to them, not the ideologies of those taking part. Its why the State Department merrily provided electioneering training for any Egyptian organization that wished to take part, and ended up providing guidance to Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist campaigners, when it was the secularists, and the youth of Tahrir square which ought to have received our full support, in an attempt to dispel the pre-existing advantages held by the Brotherhood and the military’s preferred candidates.

Real change cannot come to the Middle East if we continue to allow the media and foreign policy specialists to play pretend. To dress up terrorists like statesmen and totalitarians like reformers. To insist that we must be even-handed in distributing our largesse to the secularist and the Islamist both. To pretend that America’s national interest is served by a democratic process, not a democratic outcome.

Unfortunately no such change is likely to come in time for Egypt.

Recently, the Republic of Turkey barred both Israel, and the European Union, from participating in a NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21.  Apparently, the Turks were miffed that the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) were not invited, and they were also still “troubled” about Israel’s legitimate actions to defend its blockade of Hamas ruled Gaza from violently “peaceful,” pro-terrorist blockade runners on the ship Mavi Marmara, who were sponsored by Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), an Islamist Turkish group.  Many of that ship’s passengers were members of IHH, by the way, including some of those who were killed and injured in their attack on the Israeli commandos who boarded the vessel. Several had indicated a willingness to engage in martyrdom prior to the incident.

For some reason, President Obama and his Administration have granted Turkey the power to make decisions like these.  This is probably because President Obama has developed such a good personal relationship with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  In fact, Obama went so far as to name Erdogan as one of the five world leaders with whom he has the closest personal ties.  President Obama has also gone to Erdogan again and again for help in formulating U.S. policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.  Indeed, President Obama is so close to Erdogan that he even goes to him for parenting advice.  This is a big problem, considering the Islamist background and tendencies of Erdogan and his political party, The Justice and Development Party – in Turkish: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP).

So what information do we have on President Obama’s New BFF (Best Friend Forever) and the regime he leads?  Erdogan is an authoritarian, democratically elected but non-democratic Islamist who is creating a religiously based totalitarian regime.  These days, Erdogan is increasingly cracking down on his domestic Turkish opponents.  Turkey has imprisoned at least 94 journalists for their reporting – the largest number of press imprisoned in the world even higher than communist China’s, which has a population over 17 times larger than Turkey.  The policies of the Islamist friendly government in Turkey have led to an explosion in honor killings of women.  In fact, once again, Turkey is number one worldwide when it comes to this dubious statistic.  The honor killing of gays, lesbians, etc. is also on the increase in the country.  Gay activists have complained that they get little sympathy from Erdogan’s AKP, “which has its roots in political Islam and is known for its socially conservative stance,” and that the police are disinclined to investigate these murders.  AKP-dominated Turkey continues to discriminate against religious minorities, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike.  This discrimination appears to be accelerating – in 2009, Turkey was placed on the “Watch List” of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and it stayed there until 2012, when, in “an unprecedented move,” the bipartisan commission recommended that the State Department name Turkey to its annual list of “countries of particular concern,” marking “the first time a NATO ally has been designated as a nation whose government has engaged in, or tolerated, systematic and egregious violations of the universal right to freedom of religion and belief.”  Of course, there is also some anti-Semitism and violence towards religious Turkish minorities.  And, Turkey just wouldn’t be Turkey if there weren’t violence and discrimination against the ethnic minority group the Kurds.  Finally, the regime goes after its secular foes in the Turkish military.  The Turkish press has reported that one in five Turkish generals – who tend to be strong foes of political Islam and Erdogan – are currently serving jail sentences.

Even better than being an authoritarian, non-democratic Islamist , Prime Minister Erdogan is also openly hostile towards our interests and allies.  For example, in Syria, Turkey is currently directing our support to the radical Sunni fundamentalists within the opposition, rather than the more secular groups that we should wish to support.  In Cyprus, “Turkey continues its 40,000-strong troop occupation of a large part of the Republic of Cyprus — an EU and UN member state — despite numerous Security Council resolutions since its initial 1974 invasion calling for its immediate withdrawal.  Turkey does not comply with its legal obligations to Cyprus or to the EU and forcibly interferes with Cyprus’ rights in its exclusive economic zone of maritime jurisdiction.” In the Middle East, the Turkish AKP leadership is a recognized sponsor and enabler of terrorism. In Israel, the government is worried that the Turkish leadership might share Israeli intelligence secrets with the rogue and genocidal regime in Iran.  In the U.S. Congress, Turkey continues to whine and bluster about the U.S. recognizing the Ottoman Turkish genocide of Armenians in the early part of the 20th century.  (It also does that internationally too.)  In Iraq, Turkey continues to threaten the Kurds, who just so happen to be the most pro-American group in that nation.

This is not a comprehensive list, of course.  In addition, I should add that over just the last year, “Turkey has sided with Iran on the nuclear issue, held secret air force war games with China without first informing the Pentagon or NATO, threatened to initiate military action against Israel and Cyprus, and made anti-American rhetoric a staple of the Turkish ruling party’s proxy press.”  And best of all, the Turks are now meddling in the Balkans, but as we all know there is really no downside to that (aside from the occasional World War).

So why not put Turkey in charge of who gets invited to NATO events?

Last week, the Obama administration freed up $192 million in direct aid to the Palestinian Authority that had been put on hold by the United States Congress’ Committee of Foreign Operations Appropriations, saying that this money had to be given to the P.A. “because of national security interests.”

The hold had been put on this aid because of the Palestinian Authority’s decision to go outside of the framework that had been agreed for Palestinian statehood, which was supposed to have been decided by direct face-to-face negotiations between the parties, themselves, and by incremental stages in which mutual trust was supposed to have been built up.

In all of the various agreements since the Oslo Accords had been signed on the White House Lawn on September 13, 1993, statehood was supposed to have been earned through a series of stages, rather than delivered on a silver platter, through an arbitrary time line. Fundamental to all of the agreements were that the disputes were to be resolves among the parties, themselves. Equally fundamental and predicating all agreements was the condition that there would be absolutely no incitement to violence or terror.

The last iteration of the peace agreements, The Roadmap for Peace, outlines, in Phase 1 as a condition for the Palestinians:

“Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.”

Being well aware of that, when asked in a White House Press Briefing about the freeing up of funds to the P.A., White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor said, that “The PA had fulfilled its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace.”

Unfortunately, not only do we, at EMET know this to be patently untrue, but we know as well, that Palestinian Media Watch, who has been monitoring Palestinian incitement in the newspapers, in textbooks, in Palestinian Authority controlled National Television, on the radio and in public speeches in town squares, but we know that White House officials know this to be untrue. Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch has been keeping the Obama administration regularly informed about the constant and steady diet of incitement to hate and to kill the Israeli, the Christian and the Jew; the constant campaign in P.A. sponsored “public service” advertisements and in the textbooks to reclaim all of Israel as “Palestine”, the glorification and ennoblement of suicide bombers and martyrs and the exhortation for children to follow along in that “noble” path.

The very same week Tommy Vietor made his statement, Palestinian Media Watch issued a bulletin describing how the Palestinian Authority commemorated the anniversary of the death of PLO arch terrorist Abu Jihad. Abu Jihad, (or Kahlil al Wazir), had been responsible for the death of 125 Israeli civilians, which were the result, among other acts. of his masterminding the attack on the Savoy Hotel in 195, which resulted in the death of 11 Israelis, and the coastal road attack which resulted in the killing of 35 Israelis, and an operation to attack scientists in the nuclear plant at Dimona, which resulted in the death of three Israelis and three Palestinians.

The Palestinian Authority had named no fewer than six sporting events after this master-terrorist. In one of these events, on April 16, 2012, the PA TV broadcast the words of Abu Jihad speaking in the 1960′s and 1970′s saying “On one street, for example, we will hold 500 people (hostage) at any moment, he can blow up everyone; blow up their building, or the whole thing, no matter how many people are there…We want to turn the Tel Aviv day black. We want to turn the Tel Aviv day into destruction, Allah willing. We will turn the Tel Aviv day so it will be remembered in the history of Tel Aviv as black Saturday. Black Sunday. Tel Aviv will be closed that whole day with blood and destruction.”

The Palestinian Authority’s national news broadcast extolled Abu Jihad for attacking civilian targets, (notice inside “the Green Line), and depicts the killing of civilians as laudable achievements. In the Palestinian Authority controlled newspaper, Al Hayat , Al Jadida on April 12, 2012,  wrote, “The anniversary of the Martyrdom-death of our people’s legendary leader, Khalil Al Whazir, Abu Jihad, is approaching, and in its honor the sports organizations of Palestine are organizing many tournaments in diverse branches of many sports…”

Or what about this cartoon in the Palestinian Authority daily where a mother instructors her infant that all of Israel is “Palestine”?  Or perhaps the declaration of PA Social Minister Majida Al-Masri who called for unification with Hamas in order to secure “the liberation of Palestine-all of Palestine” meaning also all of Israel?

If glorification of violence and terrorism does not qualify as lack of compliance with the Roadmap, perhaps incitement to genocide does, such as when the Palestinian Authority’s Mufti, Mohammed Hussein, speaking at a Fatah conference cites Islamic hadiths calling for the extermination of the Jews.

Once ignorance might have been an excuse, with the Palestinian spokesmen saying all the right things in English, and then continuing on their jihad against the Jews in Arabic, but in these days of increasing globalization and the internet, it takes only a few minutes of “googling” to put the lie to claims of Palestinian moderation. With translations sites like Palestinian Media Watch and others there’s no escaping the realization that incitement to violence and the rejection of Israel’s right to exist remains the rule, not the exception among the Palestinian Authority.

Indeed, why should the Palestinians be expected to alter their behavior, when time and time again, administrations past and present, have made clear there will be no consequences for not doing so?

With President Obama’s waiver releasing $192 million to the Palestinian Authority, he has blatantly defied Congress’ desire for accountability and reform among the Palestinians. He has certified that by providing the Palestinians with the nearly $200 million for “Sesame Street”, the U.S. congress chose to freeze, is necessary for American national security. Doing so he has made clear, that far from being “the most pro-Israel President in history”, as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman managed to somehow assert without sarcasm, President Obama is a full-throated supporter of the Palestinian cause.

Even those who are passionate supporters of the peace process should be deeply disturbed by President Obama’s lack of neutrality on this issue. His administration ludicrous demands of the Israelis, including the freezing of settlement expansion anywhere beyond the 1967 line, including Jerusalem, have doomed negotiations.

The Palestinian Authority have made these Obama demands preconditions for direct talks. The Palestinians now remain comfortable with refusing even to begin discussions with the Israelis. They have in effect issued demands for unconditional surrender, knowing that the Obama Administration has repeatedly gone to bat for them, applying pressure, and shielding them from all accountability.  This latest decision to release Palestinian funds despite their clear failure to abide by agreements affirms once again that Obama will tolerate no efforts to apply any kind of pressure to the Palestinians.

Pressure is to be applied to the Israelis only.

It is perhaps a great irony that those who may suffer most from Obama’s one-sidedness are the Palestinian people themselves. Abbas’s U.S. funded security forces can continue to crack down on Palestinian freedom of expression without fear that the U.S. may rein them in. They continue to educate their people with a steady diet of incitement, knowing that U.S. executive branch will keep the money flowing, ignoring the will of the American people and their elected representatives who want to see Palestinian violent rhetoric come to an end.

As President John F. Kennedy once said, “Peace does not exist in signed documents and treaties alone, but in the hearts and minds of the people.”

Under the Obama administration,  America has clearly abdicated its role as “Honest Broker” or neutral referee, and has been a coach for one side. What is so nefarious is that the Palestinian Authority has gotten away with this constant and steady diet of incitement to hate and to kill, which has metastasized like a cancer among the body politic of the Palestinians.

It is very clear that the societal groundwork has not been laid for a true, lasting peace, among the Palestinian polity. While the United States looks the other way, or focuses on whether or not an apartment building might be going up in what might or might not be the disputed territories, this cancer of hatred continues to spread.

A complete and total refraining from incitement is truly the one most necessary and essential agreement for a long and lasting peace, or one that will last long after the White House lawn signing ceremony is over.

However, since the Palestinian Authority has been given a pass for such lethal words by the Obama Administration, we are enabling the hatred to continue and to thus poison the minds of countless Palestinian children, spoiling the prospects for a peace for generations to come.

In that way all of our children, both Palestinian and Israeli, are the true losers, here.

In a prior column, I introduced you to Ahlam Tamimi.  Tamimi is a Palestinian terrorist, responsible for the 2001 suicide bombing at the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem that killed 15 people and injured another 132. Among the American victims of this terrorist act: Judith Greenbaum and Malka Roth, who were both killed; and David Danzig, Matthew Gordon, Joanne Nachenberg, and Sara Nachenberg, all of whom were injured. Malka Roth was only fifteen years old at the time of her death, and was one of eight children killed in the bombing. In late 2011, Tamimi was released by Israel as part of the trade of over one thousand Palestinian terrorists for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was being held by Hamas.  Tamimi is now hosting her own television show for Hamas-affiliated Al-Quds TV station from her new home in Jordan.  Tamimi was released even though she has admitted – on television – that she participated in the Sbarro terrorist bombing.  In the interview, she even expressed her delight at the number of children among the dead.

On March 1, 2012, 52 U.S. Congressmen, acting on a bipartisan basis, sent a letter to the Attorney General, and the Department of Justice (DOJ), calling upon the DOJ to “(1) investigate those cases (in Israel or the Palestinian Territories) involving the murder of or infliction of serious bodily injury on American citizens ; (2) where evidence supports, indict those individuals complicit in the deaths of or infliction of serious bodily injury on Americans, (3) seek the extradition of, (4) try in American federal courts, and (5) punish these individuals.”  (Full disclosure – the organization I work for, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, initiated this letter at the behest of many American victims, and their families.)  This letter referenced the 1991 Anti-Terror Act, which allows the United States to prosecute those who commit acts of terror overseas against Americans, and the large number of American victims of attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories, which stands at (at least) 54 killed and 83 wounded.  It also castigated the Department for its non-existent record of indictment and prosecution of these terrorists, in both successive Republican and Democratic administrations.  The letter made note that this poor record “is particularly disappointing given that, in 2005, Congress specifically created a unit within the DOJ, called the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (OJVOT), whose entire purpose “is to ensure that the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks against American citizens overseas remain a high priority within the Department of Justice.”  Finally, the letter’s appendix listed several Palestinian terrorists who deserved prosecution, including Ahlam Tamimi.

On April 5, 2012, the DOJ sent its response.  This letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, claimed that “there are significant impediments to bringing prosecutions in the United States for attacks that occur overseas.”  The main impediment mentioned was “(t)he crime scenes are located in places that are not under the United States’ control and, therefore, the United States is entirely dependent on the sovereign country where the attack occurred for assistance and cooperation in these investigations.” Therefore, the DOJ could not guarantee that everything would be done by the letter of U.S. criminal law, and that there would be no resulting problems with the chain of custody of the evidence and the admissibility of confessions. 

This DOJ letter echoed a statement that was sent in an email last month to the Parents Forum for Justice, a group of American citizens and parents whose children were killed or wounded by Palestinian terrorists in Israel.  It also echoed what the DOJ and OJVOT have been saying – both on and off the record – to the American victim’s families since 2005, when the OJVOT came into existence.  And it even mirrored the complaints of the DOJ prior to the creation of the OJVOT. Since the DOJ letter never mentioned nor referenced any of the specific terrorist cases that the earlier letter had listed, we have to assume that the DOJ believes it is unable to prosecute all of the Palestinian terrorist cases, including Tamimi’s, for the reasons stated in their response letter.   

Now, I don’t normally give out free legal advice on legal matters. After all, it isn’t considered proper to do so, and, besides which, I am not a practicing attorney. But this Justice Department argument, in reference to the Tamimi case, is patently ridiculous. It is certainly true that Tamimi’s terror attack occurred in Israel, and that the Israelis may not have been as careful with the crime scene, for evidentiary purposes, as the American police would have been. However, remember this video.  Tamimi has actually admitted to her crime!  And under U.S. law, this taped admission is not banned “hearsay” by Tamimi and may be used in court to convict her.  This is because Tamimi, as the defendant in a U.S. criminal prosecution, would meet the definition of a “party opponent,” and thus, under the federal rules of evidence, anything she says would be admissible in court.  See FRE 801(d)(2)(A):

Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay …

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: … (2) An Opposing Party’s Statement.  The statement is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity.

In addition, in the video, we can see that Tamimi spends a lot of time smiling when the terrorist attack is brought up, and especially when she learns the true death toll of children from it.  In court, these smiles are not considered “statements,” which may be hearsay, but are instead considered “physical manifestations.”  For this reason, they are admissible even without a hearsay rule exemption or exception.  In a U.S. legal case, all the prosecution would need to do to get all this evidence before the jury is to prove the authenticity of the videotape so that there’s a reasonable basis for the jury to believe that it is, in fact, Tamimi who is making the statement.  The defense will complain about this, but it is not like the tape shows any evidence that Tamimi was forced – by coercion or physical beatings – to admit to her terrorist actions.  Indeed, she was clearly proud of them.

Contrary to the DOJ’s argument in their response letter, there is no credible legal reason that I can see that would bar them from prosecuting Ahlam Tamimi for her 2001 terrorist crime against six American citizens.  And in fact, another American law – 18 USC Chapter 113b Section 2332 – actually demands that they prosecute her:

Sec. 2332. Criminal penalties

-STATUTE-

(a) Homicide. - Whoever kills a national of the United States, while such national is outside the United States, shall - (1) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111(a)), be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both;…

(b) Attempt or Conspiracy With Respect to Homicide. – Whoever outside the United States attempts to kill, or engages in a conspiracy to kill, a national of the United States shall -

(1) in the case of an attempt to commit a killing that is a murder as defined in this chapter, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and (2) in the case of a conspiracy by two or more persons to commit a killing that is a murder as defined in section 1111(a) of this title, if one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both so fined and so imprisoned.

The time for excuses is past. The Justice Department needs to bring Ahlam Tamimi to justice for her terrorism against Americans. 

There is a very dangerous school of thought throughout the West that was succinctly expressed to me a few years back by a State Department official. “Talking,” he said with, “is always better than not talking. ... After all, what harm can words do?”

Plenty. After the P5 plus 1 talks (The United States, the Russian Federation, China, Great Britain, France, plus Germany), adjourned in Istanbul last Sunday, European Union chief negotiator Catherine Ashton said, “The day-long talks at an Istanbul conference center did not yield an agreement on specific curbs to Iran’s nuclear program, but U.S. and European officials described the negotiations as ‘constructive and useful’ and said a second round had been set for May 23 in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.”

For those who believe in the wisdom of my State Department friend’s philosophy, the Istanbul talks were indeed “constructive and useful,” because it brought about their desired goal: More talks.

After all, according to this line of thinking, as long as the Iranians are talking, they aren’t fighting.

Dead wrong. The Iranians are preparing for war. This most recent round of talk has given the Islamic Republic of Iran a smokescreen of five more weeks to continue to enrich their uranium to the highly enriched level of more than 20 percent and to work on their delivery mechanism.

Time is not on our side. Both the Israelis and the Americans are in agreement on the time frame, and we are dangerously close to looking at the world with an Iranian nuclear bomb.

In fact, the most precious gift we can possibly give to the Iranians is time. We are playing right into their hands.

In March, the German newspaper, Die Welt, reported that Western intelligence agencies detected two nuclear weapon tests in North Korea, and one of them may have been conducted for Iran.

The Iranians also walked away from the Istanbul talks with the perception that these talks are a green light from the international community to continue its work on nuclear technology.

According to an article by the Iranian Fars News Agency, Hossein Salami, senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said that as a result of the Istanbul Conference, “despite the efforts by the arrogant powers to prevent a nuclear Iran, you witnessed that all of them have accepted the right of Iran to access nuclear technology.”

“That”, added IRGC Commander Salami, “is a winning card in the glorious history of the sacred Islamic Republic System.”

Why do the Iranians believe that they have been given international consent to produce nuclear weaponry?

Listen carefully to the words of E.U. foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, “We have agreed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty forms a key basis for what must be serious engagement to ensure that all the obligations of the treaty are being met by Iran, while fully respecting Iran’s right for peaceful nuclear technology.”

As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said, “We in the West make a great mistake when we transform our values onto the rest of the world.”

It is quite a leap of faith to assume that once the Iranians cross the nuclear threshold, they will abide by any Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And we are again deluding ourselves if we think this is only about Israel. In March, Iranian Basij Commander, Mohammad Reza Naqi, threatened to “burn the White House as long as America exists” and that Iran would “create the environment for the destruction of America.”

He called America “among the weakest countries with a bankrupted economy and reduced military power. And the international public opinion despises it.” Adding, “It would be naive to show this kind of softness in the face of Satan.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran declared war on the United States as soon as it came to power in 1979, when it seized the U.S. Embassy, taking our officials hostage.

After our military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, we in the United States are exhausted and depleted, and are not in the mood for further military engagement.

But Iranian hegemonic and genocidal desires will not go away because we are not in the mood. Mutually Assured Destruction, which worked so well with the rational actors of Russia, does not work with a maniacal theocratic regime that believes that it will bring the “twelfth Imam” by destroying America or its ally, Israel, and ascend to the its rightful place as the leader of the factious Sunni and Shiite Muslim world.

If you would like to know what the world will be like after Iran reaches nuclear capability, think of all the unnamed protesters of June, 2009 who have disappeared from the streets, who have been raped and tortured and are rotting away in Iranian prisons.

In the words of Soviet dissident, Andrei Sakharov, “If you want to understand a nation’s foreign policy, look at the way they treat their own people.”

Turning our backs on the reality of evil does not make it go away. We tried that once, and the Jewish community just commemorated Yom Hashoah to teach us where this thinking can lead us.

It was billed as a delegation of the Muslim Brotherhood, traveling to America for the first time.  And they were treated like a true diplomatic delegation (i.e., one with diplomatic immunity), despite representing not a government but an eighty year-old totalitarian political party. They paraded before foreign policy establishment gurus at the Council for Foreign Relations, Brookings Institute, and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace like Egyptian Eliza Doolittles, parroting innocuous platitudes to the frustration of Egyptian secular dissidents who did their best to pepper the M.B. delegates with probing questions about the Caliphate, Sharia law, the treatment of women and Coptic Christians, and peace with Israel . But the Western audience was unfazed, and nothing disrupted the M.B. charm offensive as they were hosted at the State Department, and met with White House staff.

They lied seamlessly for Western consumption, saying one thing in English while their less telegenic superiors back in Cairo said the opposite in Arabic. It’s an old Middle East trick from the days of the Oslo accords, and the usual suspects are still falling for it.

You really can fool some of the people all of the time.

But those who know the Muslim Brotherhood best aren’t fooled.  Throughout the Arab states, the remaining regimes are increasingly petrified of the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood expanding its revolution, and they’re taking whatever steps they can to prevent it.  Consider that only one month after the beginning of the Tahrir square uprising, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pulled all Muslim Brotherhood literature from their schools and libraries despite having permitted their presence in the Saudi educational system for over three decades. The United Arab Emirates revoked the citizenship of several Brotherhood operatives, claiming the men were involved in terror finance and a threat to the Emirate’s stability.  This sparked a war of words between Dubai’s chief of police and the Muslim Brotherhood with Dubai threatening to arrest the M.B.’s spiritual leader Yusef Al-Qaradawi. The feud even resulted in Arab League intervention.  In Jordan the parliament has taken under consideration a draft law which would effectively ban the Islamic Action Front, the political party of the Jordanian Brotherhood. Recently, the Egyptian election commission appointed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) banned a number of Presidential candidates, including Muslim Brotherhood leader and businessman Khariat Al-Shater, presumably because of   Al-Shater’s previous conviction for money-laundering under the Mubarak regime. While Al-Shater may yet appeal the ban, the implication is that SCAF, which has previously been accused of cutting a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood to split power, may now believe that the M.B. intends to seek complete control in Egypt, shunting the military to the side.

Of course the Arab regimes have no reason to be surprised by American naivety regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. For decades the Saudis and other Gulf states have spent millions to fund Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America which have orchestrated influence operations to numb the ability of U.S. political elites to speak intelligently about the Middle East and Islam, and millions more in academia to corrupt American scholarship.  The Muslim Brotherhood delegation was hosted by the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding, at Georgetown University, the academic wellspring of American foreign policy bureaucrats. As Egyptian secular activist and scholar Essam Abdallah noted in February:

  Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?  (…)

  One of the most powerful lobbies in America under the Obama Administration is the Muslim Brotherhood greater lobby, which has been in action for many years. This lobby has secured many operatives inside the Administration and has been successful in directing US policy towards the Arab world.

Not the words of an easily dismissed “right-wing Islamophobe,” but a voice from the region that understands the Muslim Brotherhood for what it is, and knows how it operates. Those who know the Brotherhood best understand that while it may attempt to change its tone for Western consumption, this leopard won’t change its spots. It remains the same organization founded by Hassan Al-Banna in 1928, guided by the same motto, “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” As Irfan Al-Alawi of the Center for Islamic Pluralism points out:

  But regardless of its honeyed words and the slick, updated, Westernized vocabulary of its travelling exponents, the Egyptian MB cannot, in its middle sectors, its base, and its fundamental outlook, change. It is a thoroughly Islamist party with a profoundly retrograde vision of a state based on religious dictates… [A]s soon as the Egyptian MB thinks it is strong enough to prevail, the mask will fall, and the promises it made in Washington and elsewhere in the West will be shrugged aside.

So, to answer the question, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood?”

Those who know them best.

Meet the Hamas version of Oprah.  Her name is Ahlam Tamimi, and she is the terrorist responsible for the 2001 suicide bomber attack at the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem that killed 15 people and injured another 132.  Among the American victims of this despicable act – Judith Greenbaum and Malka Roth, who were both killed; and David Danzig, Matthew Gordon, Joanne Nachenberg, and Sara Nachenberg, all of whom were injured.  Malka Roth was only fifteen years old, one of eight children killed in the bombing. 

Tamimi didn’t realize, at the time, that she had killed eight children until after she was imprisoned in an Israeli jail; when an interviewer told her the true body count, she couldn’t wipe the smile off of her face.

On October 18, 2011, Ahlam Tamimi was released by Israel after serving only ten years of her 16 life sentences in a swap for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.  (Shalit had been kidnapped by Hamas.)  She was then deported to Jordan.  Now, Tamimi has been given a Hamas-produced, heavily advertised, weekly show on Al-Quds satellite channel, which focuses on the sob stories of other Palestinian terrorists, those still imprisoned in Israel, and those recently released.  Considering the popularity of anti-Semitism in the Arab world, this is probably only the beginning of Tamimi’s career.  Perhaps she will expand her show to include segments that appeal to Palestinian women, like those focusing on Dalal Mughrabi the Martyr, and/or content produced for Palestinian children, like those focusing on Assud the “Rascally” Jew-Hating Rabbit.

As usual, few in the Western world seem to care much what the moral degenerates who rule Hamastan are doing. The Obama Administration is still too busy trying to keep the aid flowing to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, either directly or indirectly through the United Nations. The U.N. is still too busy condemning Israel for whatever action or inaction the Jewish state is up to.  The European Union is too busy castigating Israel for imaginary offenses in Gaza that somehow are said to be equal the actual terrorist killing of three Jewish children and a Rabbi in France. The U.S. State Department is too busy playing verbal calisthenics to avoid acknowledging that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.

And the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is too busy, well… not enforcing United States law when it comes to Palestinian terrorists who have killed or injured Americans.

For example, there is the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 USC Sec. 2332, which requires the prosecution and punishment, in United States courts, of individuals who murder or maim American citizens in acts of international terrorism. A conspirator in such a crime can get up to 20 years imprisonment, and no statute of limitations precludes prosecution of old offenses.  There is 18 USC Sec. 2332f, which makes it a federal crime to use an explosive bomb “against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States.”  There have been (at least) 71 instances of Palestinian terrorism that have resulted in the murder of (at least) 54 Americans and the wounding of (at least) another 83 Americans. However, none of the Palestinian terrorists behind these attacks have ever been prosecuted by the United States.

Some of the terrorists who were involved in some of these attacks were released, like Ahlam Tamimi, by Israel, which was acting under extreme duress to get back its own citizen. Thus, Israeli law can no longer reach out and punish them. But there is no law or treaty that bars the United States from independently prosecuting these Palestinian terrorists.  In fact, the DOJ even has an entire unit – the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (OJVOT) – that was created in 2005 and is supposed to monitor acts of terrorism against Americans outside the U.S. and pressure the rest of the D.O.J. to bring to justice those terrorists who have harmed Americans.

Recently, fifty-two U.S. Congressmen sent a letter to the Attorney General, asking him, the OJVOT, and his entire Department to do their job, and prosecute these Palestinian terrorists. In response to the concerns of some of the family members of the American victims, the Washington-based Endowment for Middle East Truth persuaded this bipartisan group of Congressmen to sponsor this letter. But other groups have also pushed for the prosecution of these terrorists, including the Parents Forum for Justice, a group of U.S. citizens and parents whose children were murdered or maimed by terrorists, which is led by Dr. Alan Bauer.

There have already been some small results from this pressure – in an email leaked to the Jerusalem Post, Heather Cartwright, director of the OJVOT, said “the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, the prosecutorial office responsible for these cases, plans to meet with U.S. victims of terrorist acts involving Shalit deal prisoners.” Cartwright also stated that the Department of Justice is “taking the matter of prosecuting terrorists very seriously.”

But apparently, we shouldn’t get too excited about bringing these Palestinian terrorists with American blood on their hands to justice.  Ms. Cartwright has also interjected a note of caution about any future U.S. prosecutions, saying there are “significant impediments to pursuing criminal charges in the United States court system for these particular foreign-based attacks.” These DOJ officials are always realists, you understand.  They recognize that it is not so simple to go after vicious terrorists who kill Americans, like Ahlam Tamimi. After all, in the case of Tamimi, we would have to go to Jordan and demand her extradition! Can we really do that? Yes we can. Then, we would have to prepare a strong legal case against her, even though her act of terrorism is over a decade old. Remember, every legal case requires certain procedures to protect the innocent, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant. And it’s not like Tamimi is going to admit to the crime, is she?

Oh wait, she already did.

Adam Turner serves as staff counsel to the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). He is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he focused on national security law.

Link to Original Article

As most of you are well aware, more than 9,000 civilians have been mercilessly killed by the brutal forces of Bashir al-Assad in a human rights crisis of catastrophic proportions.  As a widely circulated Youtube video documents, in just one night, in the town of Homs, twenty -five children were butchered in their beds, and twenty women were taken out and raped in the public square, in front of their husbands’ very eyes.

Amnesty International has compiled a grim catalogue of torture used by the regime in a widespread and systematic attempt to suppress dissent among the civilian population. The human rights abuses detailed within that report are nothing short of egregious, and almost too revolting for most people to read.

Hospitals and sources of medical supplies have been cut off. The government of Bashir al-Assad has savagely shelled out entire cities. Food and water are in short supply. The country has been closed off to journalists.  Just this past Saturday, March 31st,  Ali Mahmoud Othman, a citizen journalist who had been covering the conflict in Homs and who had assisted in evacuating journalists out of the city had been seized by the government of Bashir Assad, and is most likely undergoing severe torture.

These human rights abuses against people who are demonstrating for their freedom, should, alone, be sufficient grounds for American involvement.

If America, which is still the world’s democratic leader, allows this sort of brutality to continue, without eliciting anything more than a few feeble protests from us, what sort of values do we represent? Are we abdicating our responsibilities as the leader of the free, Western world?

People have been speaking for some time now about an age of American decline.  If we behave in such a fashion, we are certainly going to help bring about such an age.

I am aware that identifying who the true, secular democrats are within the chaotic mix of opposition in present day Syria is no easy task, but it is not true to say that the opposition is inscrutable. For more on that, I would recommend “The Institute for the Study of War’s” excellent analysis on the subject.

I am also well aware that in this cynical age, of “realism” human rights and preventing a massacre do not seem to be sufficient motivation for meaningful American assistance. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the American populace is exhausted from two depleting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have no appetite, what-so-ever, for further military intervention.

Equally unfortunate, Americans always tend to generalize from the last instance, “Fighting the last war,” as the saying goes.  Watching the images of celebrating Libyan jihadists, who now dominate Libya thanks to NATO air cover, or the overwhelming election wins for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the assumption is that Syria will be the same, a triumph for radical Islam. But the reality is that this outcome is not prevented by American inaction, but guaranteed by it.  And the choice in Syria is not between Al-Qaeda and a cowed dictator like Qaddafi, or between the revolutionary Muslim Brotherhood and an ageing authoritarian “ally” like Mubarak.

Syria is located in an extremely vital geostrategic region of the Middle East. It borders on Lebanon, which was once home to the proud Cedar revolution, but currently under the crushing foot of Hizballah, and it borders on Israel.

With Assad in power, Syria and Lebanon remain a vast plateau from which Hizballah and other jihadists take easy aim at Israel, from which they can launch thousands of rockets whenever their Iranian paymasters give the word.

We know that for approximately twenty years, Boeing 747’s have been landing in Damascus airport,  in direct flights from the Islamic Republic of Iran, filled with ammunition and equipment for the government of Bashir al-Assad, and before that his father Hafez al-Assad,  to hand directly over to Hizballah, which they supplement with military training.  The IEDs that wound and kill so many American GI’s on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan were made in Iran, and frequently detonated by jihadists transported through Syria.  The Syrian capital of Damascus houses the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PKK and practically every other terrorist group that is listed with the State Department. The Bekka Valley has been a haven for both the narcotics and counterfeiting industries for generations.

Syria is Iran’s only ally within the Sunni Arab world, and is its foothold in the fourteen-century old conflict that is now being played out between Shiites and Sunnis.

Because Iran is the most dangerous and reckless nations in the world today - anything that weakens the hand of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to the advantage of America’s national security. The toppling of Assad is in our national interest.

Syria is not a monolithic Islamic nation. Its people are a diverse mosaic of ethnic groups and political affiliations. Some of them are Salafists, and some are Muslim Brotherhood, that’s true. But other elements of the opposition are not.  It is these opposition elements which must be found and supported. Making that determination should be one of the primary goals of the U.S. intelligence community in this conflict.

If we do not act, there are many nefarious players on the world’s stage that are more than ready, willing and able to swoop in and to fill the void.  And it will be to the benefit of Assad, or the worst among the opposition.  The presence of Al Qaeda has already been noted on the Syrian battlefields.  The dictatorial regimes of Russia, China and North Korea have not been shy with providing Bashir Assad’s regime with weapons. The Sunni regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar can be expected to back Salafist elements with money and weapons.

Syria today is a vitally important battlefield in determining how the Middle East will emerge, not just in 2012, but for many decades to come.  Where goes Syria, there goes the rest of the Middle East.

It is my belief that without American involvement, we will almost certainly see the triumph of the radical Islamists.  And our involvement should be sooner, rather than later. Hardly a person in Syria is not related to, or knows of a friend or neighbor, who has not been slaughtered by the regime.  It has been over a year now since the uprising began.  After watching so many of one’s neighbors and family members routinely and systematically tortured and killed, one is grateful for help, no matter where it comes from. And that gratitude would be much better directed towards America, rather than the radical Islamists, currently on the ascent throughout the rest of the Middle East.

While I am aware that The United States recently pledged $25 million dollars in aid, and offered communications equipment during the most recent “Friends of Syria” summit in Istanbul, what is lacking is American direction and leadership. And that may not be enough.

The window of opportunity to get assistance for the besieged Syrian dissidents is rapidly closing. I am certain that by now, watching all of the daily bloodshed and torture within their communities, and waiting patiently for the aid of the leader of the free, Western, democratic world, many of them are becoming soured at the United States.

As the Sage Hillel famously said, “If I am not for myself, who am I for? And if I am for myself alone, what am I?”

Or, as Walter Laquer has written in his wonderful article, “The Perils of Wishful Thinking”, “If there are no certainties in world politics, there remain possibilities that can be ignored at great peril.”

(Ed. Note: As some times happens, events overtake the publishing cycle, and the March to Jerusalem is now underway. We publish this piece as is, because we believe it contains useful information regardless. Updates will be provided below, as time and circumstances permit, in chronological order.)

The International Global March to Jerusalem (GM2J) appears, at first glance, to be the usual collection of Palestinian activists and leftist useful idiots who typically gather on supposedly “symbolic days” (This Friday is “Land Day” which commemorates an Arab protest in 1976), in order to conduct so-called “humanitarian” missions or formal protests to publicly excoriate the Jewish State, if on a very large scale, featuring demonstrations on the Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese borders and within the disputed territories and Gaza.

But as we learned from the Mavi Marmara incident, beneath the surface of such protests frequently lays the hard-edge of jihad. In the case of the Flotilla, it was the Turkish group IHH, with backing of the ruling Turkish AKP party, which sprang a trap which injured Israeli soldiers, and undermined Israel’s public relations campaign.

The Global March to Jerusalem is another ambush in waiting, although it’s an Iranian hand guiding the attempt.

According to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Center, Iran is heavily invested in supporting the GM2J movement, using its propaganda outlets as well as supporting the movement through various proxies. An Iranian, Hossein Shaikhol-Eslam, senior advisor to the parliament speaker for international affairs of Iran, sits on the global coordinating board for the GM2J, as well as being head of the Iranian GM2J board established by the Iranian government. Other Iranian members on the global board include Seyed Saleem Ghafuri, the head of the executive board of the GM2J.

Internet Haganah, a internet forum maintained by American computer professionals who track Jihadist activity online, reported that the Global March website was hosted and maintained by an organization known as AhlulBayt Islamic Mission (AIM), a Shiite missionary organization in Britain, suspected of being an Iranian front organization. Internet Haganah postulated that the organization volunteered the use of their webspace during a GM2J planning session conducted in Beirut attended by Salim Ghafouri, and another Iranian Roohulla Rezvi. Roohulla Rezvi appears to maintain ties both with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Other Muslim Brotherhood activists are also tied to the GM2J at the International Advisory Committee level, according to the website CIFWatch. The British blog cites M.B. members involved in organizing GM2J as including

Maan Bashour who heads a Muslim Brotherhood organization in Lebanon, Mohammed Kassem Sawalha, with ties to the M.B. and the IHH responsible for the Flotilla incident. Saud Abu Mahfouz, is from the Islamic Action Front, the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s political party.

Other activists maintain ties to the IHH, Jaamat Islami, a Pakistani organization with M.B. links, and the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a leftist pro-Palestinian organization which maintains close ties with Palestinian terrorist organizations.

Iranian terror proxies Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas are also expected to take part, with their members participating in coordination meetings which took place in Beirut. The Israeli open sources intelligence website, DEBKA reported that Iranian Al Quds forces have been training demonstrators in tactics to breach the Israeli border, and arranged for “thousands” of demonstrators to take part along the Syrian border.

Indeed, the Global March to Jerusalem is evidently so infested with terror ties that the North American expedition GM2J-NA, established itself as a separate organization, and specifically notes on its websites that it did so to avoid legal repercussions.  Even Palestinian organizers are attempting to provide themselves with some degree of separation from the events to come, reporting to Haaretz and Al Arabiya that they expected violence on the Syrian and Lebanese borders because of Iranian involvement.

For their part, Israel remains publicly confident that it can handle this latest challenge to its sovereignty and security, by bolstering their border security and providing extra training in non-lethal crowd control, comparing it to previous attempts to breach the border which Israel has repulse. Given the cast of characters assembled however the probability of lethal violence from the GM2J side is high, and Israel must be prepared also to win the resulting public relations battle. So far they have downplayed the event publicly, with one Israeli government official suggesting that probably not many protestors would actually show up, “It’s going to be between 12 and a half and 100,000 — probably closer to 12 and a half.”

While there’s some advantage to attempting to depress turnout by proclaiming a lack of excitement (a common preemptive P.R. tactic), Israel would do well to publicly and repeatedly highlight the Iranian role, and the role of terrorists and extremist organizations involved in the event. This way, Israel has prepared the media for the possibility of violence, rather than scrambling to explain the terrorist ties of organizers after the event, as took place following the assault on Israeli naval commandos aboard the Mavi Marmara.

On a more global scale, the international community has allowed for an atmosphere which fosters this kind of violence, by pretending that the issue of Jerusalem is still open for negotiations and discussion. It results in the kind of embarrassing word play associated with discussing Jerusalem, evidenced in a State Department press briefing this week, where the State Department spokesperson was forced to jump through a series of verbal hurdles to avoid answering the question, “What does the U.S. consider to be the capital of Israel?”

This creates the impression that Jerusalem is a prize yet to be won, rather than recognizing the simple fact that it is, and will remain the Israeli capital, and that no negotiations can be expected to change that. The American people understand this fact, the American congress understands it, but the refusal of the State Department to recognize such a basic reality leaves room for exploitation by entities like the GM2J.  Thereby we leave Israel exposed to attacks and delegitimization, resulting in events like the upcoming Iranian “invasion”.

Update #1: Jerusalem Post reports of some clashes breaking out near Kalandiya with protestors throwing rocks and molotov cocktails. Several protestors “lightly injured” in Ramallah, according to Israel Radio.

Update #2: The United West.org reported an hour ago, of the security forces in Jordan are holding back protestors from approaching the border, and Iranian flags have been spotted in Lebanon.

Update #3: The IDF has published a video of Palestinians throwing rocks and fire bombs at an border watchtower in Bethlehem.  Israel Hayom reports that Lebanese security forces intend to keep protestors North of the Litani river, outside of the UNFIL operating area. However they report Lebanese media as indicating that Iranian Revolutionary Guards were operating in the area, and expected to incite violence.

Update #4: Al Jazeera English reports (citing the AFP) that 15,000 protestors were conducting a “Sit-In” on the Jordanian border with Israel, consisting of Islamists and trade union members.  Israel National News cites Jordanian press putting the number at 20,000. One thing to keep an eye on, will be whether protestors attempt to establish “camps” along the border, in “Tahrir” protest fashion. This is expressly described as part of the plan in the Beirut GM2J planning meeting, according to the notes made available by Internet Haganah:

  Thus let us not assume that we will be stopped, but we are prepared for contingency plans if we are. Also we need to plan & coordinate the mobilizations across all the four borders & each of the four countries will require a different plan due to the different & contrasting political realities in each of them. Thus each of the teams in these countries will have to prepare a feasibility study & submit the same within the next 2 weeks.

  Thus we will proceed till we are asked to halt & our endeavour will always be to get as close to the borders & after that we will set up Camps, like little Tahrir’s to demand our right to go to occupied Jerusalem.

  The number of days that we will continue to protest peacefully will be determined later & as per the existing political situation.

Update #5: While some media is reporting that PA parliament member Moustafa Barghouti was injured when struck by a tear gas canister, the IDF says that Barghouti was injured in a brawl between Palestinians over who would lead the protest.

Update #6: YNet News reports that Hamas forces violently disrupted protests using clubs, and one Palestinian protestor was killed in Gaza.

The crisis in Syria is now into its second year, and the death count, now nearing 8,000 according to rebel sources, continues to rise.  Despite public declarations by the Obama administration that Bashar Assad’s regime was at an end, it remains unclear exactly what the U.S. is prepared to do, other than conduct diplomatic initiatives, which have been rendered useless by Russian intransigence.

While policymakers, and indeed the general public, continue to debate the role of the United States, the Syrian regime continues its bloody work driving rebels from a handful of urban strongholds.  Both private-sector assessments (such as the one conducted by the JCPA) and U.S. officials, such as head of U.S. Central Command Maj. Gen. James Mathis, have concluded that Assad’s forces are in the ascendancy against an ill-equipped “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), which is really a disparate group of militias united only by a commitment to Assad’s overthrow and by a brand name.  Some FSA units have proven effective, while others are largely ineffectual or exist essentially in name only.

The president has requested that the DOD consider available options, including humanitarian airlifts and no-fly zones.  Other basic military plans are being prepared, and 10 million dollars in humanitarian assistance was pledged on March 7.  All air-based contingencies must take into account that the Syrian air defense network is substantially more robust then the Libyan one, and the U.S would likely need a widespread campaign against air defense, radar, and command-and-control installations in order to safely control the skies above Syria.

Most of Assad’s military advantage so far has come from using artillery to shell the lightly armed defenders, so a mere no-fly zone would probably be of minimal value without also targeting Assad’s forces on the ground, in the same manner as eventually occurred in the Libyan campaign.  Strikes from aircraft, or a no-fly zone, while helpful to the Syrian opposition, also do not provide the U.S. with any ability to influence which elements of the Syrian opposition play the leading role in a post-Assad Syria, nor to insure that a post-Assad Syria is more likely to support U.S. interests in the region.  Additionally, an air campaign would not provide the force on the ground necessary to secure Syria’s stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, one of the largest in the region.

An air campaign, unaccompanied by some form of assistance to the rebels, is in some ways the most public, most expensive option, with the smallest ability of the United States to insure a desirable outcome.

To reach the most desirable outcome may require arming elements of the Syrian opposition, an option which so far appears out of consideration.  General Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs said, “If we ever do reach a decision to arm the opposition, it can’t simply be arming them without command and control, without any communications, because then it becomes a roving band of rebels.”

There is also a concern, voiced by critics of intervention, regarding the presence of Islamist and jihadist elements—including al-Qaeda-linked elements, and notably the Al Nusrah Front, which claimed responsibility for a series of suicide car bombings.  The Abdullah Azzam Brigades and al-Qaeda in Iraq also have a presence in Syria.  The armed opposition does contain Salafist elements, which would be a natural fit for cooperation with al-Qaeda, and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has a great deal of influence among the political opposition.  There are also, however, secular political and armed opposition members, particularly represented among those who have defected from Assad’s armed forces.  Additionally, the Syrian regime’s intelligence apparatus has its own al-Qaeda ties and may be utilizing them in an effort to dampen the West’s enthusiasm for intervention.  It’s worth noting that some in the administration who have noted the possibility of al-Qaeda in Syria, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, downplayed the role of AQ-affiliated groups in Libya (such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group).

If the United States and its Western allies do not participate in arming and training the Free Syrian Army, it is almost certain that the armed opposition will turn to the Gulf States, most notably Saudi Arabia, which have already given indications that they intend to see the opposition armed.  They will almost certainly choose to support Islamist and especially Salafist elements at the expense of secular ones.  Additionally, the Syrian insurgency may choose to turn to al-Qaeda and other jihadists for training and tactics, if it cannot find assistance elsewhere.  This does not bode well for the United States.

If the United States should choose to engage in arming, training, and supplying elements of the opposition, we should do so with our own eyes on the ground in Syria and in the Syrian refugee camps so we can make the determination as to which elements of the Syrian opposition are most advantageous for the United States to support.  It would be a grave error for the U.S. to provide funding for arms only to allow regional powers like Turkey or Saudi Arabia to direct who the recipients are.

The United States may decide to forgo providing arms but supply humanitarian supplies and possibly communications equipment to the rebels.  While this would be of some value, without some force to provide security for Syrian civilians, it becomes difficult to see how the U.S. will ensure that its supplies reach the affected populace.  Assad has already shown a willingness to deny access to international humanitarian organizations, or to delay their entry in order to buy time to conduct his violent reprisals against protesters.  Additionally, with the Gulf States still assuredly providing arms assistance, the U.S. is still likely to be faced with its least favorite option among the Syrian opposition in control of Syria, in the event the Syrian opposition should in fact triumph.

In conclusion, the regime of Bashar Assad is determined to literally kill its way to victory, through a brutal suppression of the uprising.  The Syrian opposition is widely diverse, with both effective and ineffectual units made up of both secular and jihadist elements.  If the United States does not provide arms to the elements of the Syrian opposition which seem most favorable to U.S. interests, other regional powers will certainly intervene with arms on their own, to their benefit and to the U.S.‘s detriment.  If the U.S. provides arms, it has some ability to determine who the recipients will be, allowing the U.S. to minimize the role of jihadists in the Syrian uprising.  Additionally, it provides for contact within the militias who can provide intelligence and security to help ensure that Syria’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons can be accounted for.  These abilities are lacking from a policy which would either provide just humanitarian aid and no arms or be based solely on the air campaign option.

Certainly, with the administration having already declared that Assad is finished, the United States is not served by failing to take action to see that declaration come to fruition.  If Assad should succeed, the U.S. loses credibility, as well as an opportunity to weaken the greater strategic adversary in the region, Iran.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/syrian_options.html ” target=“_blank”>Link to Original Article

Bluster (n): loud, aggressive, or indignant talk with little effect

-Oxford English Dictionary

The take away from President Obama’s speech before AIPAC this week has been primarily focused on his stated rejection of “containment” as a strategy against Iran. Some on the President’s left were distraught over this apparent policy position, fearing it made war with Iran “certain,” while much of the mainstream media seems to be supporting the position as a careful and successful threading of the needle between Obama’s desires for diplomacy while assuaging Israeli concerns.

President Obama however has asked to be judged not by words but deeds. In doing so, we note that while President Obama openly stated, “that I do not have a policy of containment,” in reality there is little to distinguish the administration’s present policy from a containment policy. In his AIPAC speech the President called for sustaining international coalitions, maintaining pressure and isolating Iran while preserving diplomatic options, and hoping Iran makes the choice to abandon nuclear weapons. These efforts are effectively the basis of a containment policy regardless of what the President chooses to call it. And while the media may give President Obama credit for his statement, “I will take no options off the table…” the reality is that this trite and largely meaningless phrase has been part of the American lexicon on Iran for a decade.

The Iranians are unlikely to be as impressed as the American news media with President Obama’s reiteration of the Bush-era policy from 2003 under which Iran dramatically expanded its nuclear work. Indeed the day after President Obama gave his speech, the IAEA announced publicly what they had known confidentially since last month, that Iran has tripled its monthly production of uranium enriched to 20%. Such Highly-Enriched Uranium (HEU) is only a short step from being processed into weapons-grade. And even as President Obama took the podium at AIPAC’s conference hall, the German-language newspaper Die Welt reported an analysis suggesting that a North Korean nuclear weapons test conducted in 2010 may have been conducted on behalf of the Iranians.

So while President Obama’s words constructed a rhetorical vision of an Iran increasingly isolated by crippling sanctions and international pressure, events conspire to show the reality, which is that Iran remains unbowed, despite pressure, moving inexorably towards the bomb.

Judging President Obama by his deeds, as he requests, one sees a President who, when timing matters critically, has always been a step or two behind.

President Obama takes credit now for sanctions currently wracking the Iranian economy, when the reality is that he opposed, and sought to delay and water down these same sanctions when they were proposed. In fact on March 1st, the Times of Israel reported that the Obama administration had “side-stepped” the new Kirk-Menendez sanctions, choosing not to impose the required penalties, despite that enforcement was supposed to begin 60 days following the law’s passage. We now, on the President’s insistence, have to wait until July until the new sanctions go into effect. That gives the international community more time to figure out routes for still engaging in trade with the Iranians, and of course, gives the Iranians more time to complete their nuclear weapons program.

President Obama also congratulated himself for his 2009 attempts at diplomatic engagement with Iran. Ironically President Obama takes credit for the failure of his policy since the doomed effort at engagement allegedly helped “rally the international community.” What President Obama did not mention in his AIPAC speech was that while he was extending his hand to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the people of Iran were taking to the streets in a desperate attempt to shake off their dictators. Michael Ledeen, a renowned scholar with long ties to the Iranian dissident community, recently published a memo, purportedly from elements of the Green movement leadership. The memo called out for western assistance, at the exact time the Obama administration insisted that the Iranian people did not want our help, and that our support would be a hindrance. Another time-sensitive opportunity missed by President Obama.

The most strident and aggressive posture taken by President Obama in his speech was directed not at the Iranians at all, but against an army of straw men whose “loose talk of war” was allegedly emboldening and bolstering the Iranian regime by driving up oil prices. In this dizzyingly convoluted formulation, it is apparently the words of unidentified pro-Israel hawks which are driving up the price of oil, rather than the terror attacks and provocative military exercises being conducted by the Iranians themselves.

President Obama stated that, “for the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster.”

He could not be more right.

Unfortunately, of all the parties involved, it is President Obama’s policy which consists primarily of “indignant talk with little effect.” The Israelis have certainly made clear, as evidenced by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own AIPAC speech that they are not merely talking. They are prepared to enforce their stated red lines with action against Iran. The Israeli position has been strident and clear.  Nor is there any indication that the Iranians are bluffing. They have stated an intention to see Israel, and indeed America, wiped from pages of history, and all of their activities are orchestrated to see that goal take effect.

It is only President Obama who is obligated to declare he is not bluffing, largely because his deeds do not match his administration’s actions. It is President Obama who publicly takes credit for sanctions he privately declines to implement. It is President Obama who publicly backs Israel’s right and ability to defend itself, while his advisors, notably Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta pooh-poohed Israel’s ability to stop Iran in the media. Publicly undermining your ally’s deterrence is not an effective strategy for avoiding war. Nor does having an Iran policy which has scarcely evolved from 2009 and the days of the “unclenched fist,” despite Iranian nuclear advancement, help to convince Israel that America intends to honor nuclear red lines.

President Obama is right. It is time for the bluster to stop. Unfortunately following his speech at AIPAC it is increasingly clear, that nobody is blustering but Obama.

Peter Beinart has written a particularly disappointing column on the (non)danger of Iranian nukes.  His column is titled, “Experts Say Iran Attack Is Irrational, Yet Hawks Are Winning the Debate.”  Confusingly, it was also advertised by the Daily Beast website as “The Crazy Rush to Attack Iran.”

The latter is the title that initially attracted us to it, as we wondered how a decision making process can be “rushed” when it has been ongoing since the mid-90’s.  But it turns out that neither of these titles are representative of what Mr. Beinart is actually writing in his column.  (Of course, we realize that sometimes the title is chosen by the editors, and not by the author.)

In his piece, Mr. Beinart makes the following argument: 1) Iran’s government leadership is collectively a rational actor; 2) as a rational actor, they would not use nuclear weapons, or give them to irrational terrorist groups that might use them; 3) besides, Israel cannot actually bomb away the problem – but the U.S. could; 4) if either Israel or the U.S. did bomb, this would destabilize the region by starting a regional war and also “guarantee that which we are trying to prevent: an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon;” 5) therefore, neither the U.S. nor Israel should bomb Iran; 6) considering these facts, it is mystifying that Republicans and/or conservatives – who are the same people who rushed us into war in Iraq – are pushing for a strike and forcing GOP candidates to be hawks and President Obama to be more hawkish.

If Mr. Beinart’s thinking seems somewhat convoluted to you, you will be happy to know that you are not alone.

The major flaw in his op-ed involves his claim that the leaders of Iran are “rational.”  First of all, as many others argue, this is far from an uncontested fact.  Certainly, when one nation’s leadership routinely promises death to another nation as part of an End of Days scenario, people should be forgiven for believing the opposite.

econdly, Mr. Beinart, and presumably his experts assume that if the Iranian government acts rationally, it cannot and will not use a nuclear bomb, or give the bomb to a terrorist group. For this reason, he seems to believe that it is sufficient to provide supporting evidence quoting “experts” describing the Iranian leadership as “rational.”

The problem is, of course, that it is possible for a “rational” Iranian leadership to decide to use a nuclear device in the Middle East.  As David Goldman has written, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a national basket case, with a corrupt government, a dangerously plunging birth rate, and a bankrupt economy.  Further, the Iranian leadership is certainly religious, and it has frequently voiced its beliefs that the End of Days is coming, that this is a good thing, and that they can and should act to hasten Armageddon if they can. Considering these facts, it may even be likely that to the Iranian leadership it would be entirely rational – as Goldman argues –to establish Iranian strategic power, and usher in the End of the World by starting a nuclear war with Israel (or the U.S., or with Saudi Arabia). To achieve their strategic and ideological goals the time may literally be now or never.

Another major problem in this column is that Mr. Beinart does not really compare alternative scenarios involving Iran.  Instead, he simply quotes his chosen experts as asserting that it is unwise for the U.S. or Israel to conduct a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities because it will “destabilize” the region, by starting a “regional war,” and thus “guarantee that … Iran … will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon,” but does not bother to compare this picture with what would happen if Iran is allowed to achieve its nuclear desires.  At best, thus, this column is half of the picture.  Mr. Beinart should have also spent time considering what would happen if Iran went on to develop nuclear weapons.  Would a nuclear Iran stabilize or destabilize the region?  Would a nuclear Iran lead to a regional war?  We, and others, believe it would.  (See here and here.) But he doesn’t bother to pursue these questions.

We also have to wonder about the expertise of the “experts” whom Beinart has chosen to quote. Many of them seem almost blissfully out of this world in their naivety.  After all, aren’t these experts implying that the Middle East is now stable? By what metric can the current situation in the Middle East be considered stability, considering the continuing after effects of the Arab Spring and the Iraq war?  By what evidence do these so-called “experts” suggest that Israel attacking Iran will result in a uniquely destructive regional war?  History does not support this conclusion. Most relevant are the two previous Israeli strikes against potential nuclear threats – against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 –neither of which resulted in the entire region erupting into a major war.

And even if an Israeli strike did lead to a particularly destructive war, how is this historically unusual for the Middle East?  Here is just a partial list of the Middle East’s many major conflicts: the four major Arab-Israeli wars, the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the two Lebanese wars (both Syria and Israel have invaded), the two American invasions of Iraq, and the war between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas.

There are some other flaws in the piece as well.  The title, “Experts Say Iran Attack Is Irrational, Yet Hawks Are Winning the Debate,” is simply not a title that can be supported by the facts. The experts he quotes never come close to saying that an attack on Iran is, itself, “irrational.”  For that matter, Mr. Beinart barely brings up the “Hawks,” let alone discussing why they are winning the debate.  The alternate title also makes no sense, as I mentioned before.

Further, Mr. Beinart spends a paragraph quibbling about the difference between what is an “existential” threat to Israel, what is a “serious” threat to Israel, and what is simply a threat to Israel.  According to his experts, Iran is the latter two, and not the former.  Mr. Beinart then makes the leap that a “serious threat” or a threat does not merit an Israeli, or U.S., strike against Iran.  Based on what evidence?  If Iran acquires a nuclear device, and it detonates said device in Israel (as Iranian leaders have explicitly said they seek Israel’s destruction, and would use nuclear weapons if available). What would the impact really be?

According to a 2009 Study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, if a 20 Kiloton (KT) nuclear device (slightly smaller than the bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945) exploded over Tel Aviv, one could expect 27,420 dead and 111,660 wounded within one week as a result of the blast and radiation. By the end of one year, that number could be expected to rise to 150,000 dead. That’s 2% of the Israeli population dead, not counting those who will almost certainly die from injuries and the lack of medical treatment, or future deaths from cancer and related illnesses. If the Iranians were able to detonate a 100 KT device, the most powerful weapon the Iranians are expected to possibly be able to produce, the number jumps to over 600,000 dead within a year, roughly 8% of all Israelis. These numbers are from a single nuclear weapon. As of September of 2011, the IAEA estimated that Iran had enough low-enriched uranium to produce three to four nuclear weapons. A similar report by the CSIS from 2007 estimated that in a general nuclear exchange, between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis would die within the first 21 days.

While the CSIS report notes that the continuation of Israeli society is “theoretically” possible, one feels required to ask how many dead the Israelis should be expected to endure before Mr. Beinart will entitle them to term a threat “existential?”

Even if nuclear-armed Iran does not strike, how much bolder and more aggressive will Iran become? Consider that Iran already engages in the murder of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and plots terrorist attacks from Baku and Bangkok to Buenos Aires and from New Delhi to Washington D.C. That it imperils U.S. warships, and kidnaps British sailors. What will Iran do when protected by a nuclear deterrent? How much more aggressively will it destabilize the region?

Mr. Beinart also argues that Israel is unable to act to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, by citing such luminaries as Director of National Intelligence James “The Muslim Brotherhood is secular” Clapper, Air Force General David Deptula and former CIA director Michael Hayden, who were quoted in the New York Times as saying only the United States had the capability to set Iran back substantially. But what of Hans Ruhle, a German intelligence expert who published an analysis which suggests Israel could set Iran back “a decade.” Or Professor Austin Long, formerly of the Rand Corporation who agreed that an attack is difficult but feasible. Or Eli Lake who published last year in the same publication as Peter Beinart, pointing out that an Israeli attack would likely consist of a wide variety of non-conventional methods, including electronic jamming and cyber-warfare.

We understand that Peter Beinart has an agenda to push on Iran.  And we understand that he is paid for his opinions.  There is nothing wrong with that.  But we do expect a better final piece – more researched, more thoughtful, and better written – than what he has produced here.  The debate concerning Iranian nuclear weapons is too crucial to our country, and too crucial for our world, for anything less.

Let’s have this debate, let us do so with a full view of the facts, including the facts about what the Iranians themselves have said and evidentially believe, what they have done, and with a careful weighing of what the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran really are.

It seems like all the elements are coming together for a perfect storm coming out of Iran. Here in the United States, we are exhausted after two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and weary of any further military intervention.  We, at EMET, are on Capitol Hill constantly, and, unfortunately, have encountered an atmosphere of fatalism and defeatism which has infected far too many of our policy makers.  This is precisely the wrong emotion at absolutely the wrong moment in history.

The civilized world as we know it is being confronted by a brutal, maniacal theocracy with hegemonic ambitions which does not value the sanctity of human life.  Hashemi Rafsanjani (often regarded as one of the “saner” regime leaders) has already said that he is willing to sacrifice fifteen million of his own civilians in an attack on Israel. The Iranians have proved their disregard for human life, during of the Iran-Iraq war, when they had their own children and adolescents clear the mine fields.  They were willing to sacrifice 700,000 of them, urging children forward on a promise of the “72 black-eyed virgins”, equipped only with little plastic keys to open the gates of paradise.

This is a regime cares not a whit for human life. If they are willing to sacrifice their own children like that, how can many in the west continue to believe that the Iranian regime will make rational choices once they cross over the nuclear threshold?

That is why, despite what some pundits inside the beltway have been arguing, Mutually Assured Destruction, (MAD), which worked against the former Soviet Union will never work with the Iranians. The Judeo-Christian value of the sanctity of human life holds not sway in the regime’s thinking. They are playing out a fourteen century old religious struggle as to who will be the rightful heirs of the throne of Islam and usher in the reappearance of the Mahdi. As Middle East Doyen Bernard Lewis has said, for religious zealots MAD is not a deterrent, it is an inducement.

Last week Iran conducted a series of terror attacks, targeting Israeli embassies in Azerbaijan, New Delhi and Thailand. They were largely foiled; with no one killed and only a handful injured, thanks to a mixture of bumbling by Iran’s would be assassins, and good intelligence. Additionally Iranian officials have spent the past three months issuing a wide variety of bellicose threats, from targeting U.S. military bases in the region to threatening to close the vital Strait of Hormuz. Iran recently upped their rhetoric threatening preemptive action against the western powers.  “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” said deputy head of the armed forces Mohammad Hejazi.

Meanwhile Iran loaded its first home-made uranium fuel rod into its reactor at Tehran, unveiling publicly for the first time a fuel rod enriched to the critical 20% mark, and has installed new equipment in its mountain bunker nuclear complex at Fordo which will enable it can rapidly increase its capability to produced highly enriched uranium with only a minor conversion.

Like most abusers, Iran follows up its violent and unacceptable outbursts and behaviors with offers to talk, to be reasonable. The Islamic regime has proposed to restart talks on its nuclear program with the western community.  And like many of the serially battered, the Western powers seem prepared to accept that this time things will be different. Indeed, we continue to make excuses for the behavior of the Iranians, and urge our friends and allies to tolerate Iranian behavior just a little while longer. We maintain the fiction that the Iranian leadership hasn’t officially decided to make a nuclear weapon, when even the IAEA, not an organization known for institutional hawkishness, has said that much of the Iranian program makes little sense outside of use in a weapons program.

Iran’s policy makes sense if you understand their underlying motivations, The Obama administration’s does not.

Yes, sanctions are having an effect on the Iranian economy, with an effort to cut Iran off from SWIFT, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication being the most recent and effective sanction currently under discussion. This is an option that should have been used, ten years ago.  Moreover, we know that Russia, Red China and North Korea are not going to abide by any crippling sanctions. In order for sanctions to be truly effective, they have to be universally adhered to and universally enforced.

For Iran, the primary question becomes whether they can buy enough time to reach the stage of no return on their nuclear weapons program, before the Israelis or the Americans or some combination thereof, decide to act. That’s the logic behind Iran’s small-scale terror attacks along with the blood-curdling threats (which also help by driving up oil prices), mixed with offers of talks. It’s a shotgun approach aimed at doing anything possible to delay further action, and survive sanctions long enough to acquire the bomb.

But why has the Obama administration played along?  Despite that officials concede that sanctions are doomed to failure and military action is probably inevitable, the administration’s public statements have been primarily focused on deterring not Iran, but Israel.  A Wall Street Journal editorial makes that assertion, backed by statements from the public appearances of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey and Elliot Abrams in the Weekly Standard reading of the congressional testimony of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Gen. Ron Burgess concurs.  In all cases, the representatives of the White House seem anxious to reassure the public and the Congress, that Iran is a rational actor which had not yet made a final decision on nuclear weapons.

The administration refuses to take a hard line with Iran, despite repeated threats to wipe Israel off the map, bomb U.S. bases and disrupt global trade. It refuses, despite attacks against American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, an indisputable nuclear weapons program, and terror attacks plotted in Washington D.C., Buenos Aires, Baku, New Delhi and Bangkok. The same administration which now pleads for time for sanctions to work repeatedly attempted to water down and delay implementation of the sanctions prior to their passage.

We are confronting one of the most critical moments in history. Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, we will not be looking at the same world. They can then act with total impunity.  They can give a wink and a nod to Sheik Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah to activate their many terror cells throughout Europe, Central America and within the United States, and launch attacks throughout the Western world.

Aside from that, both the Department of Defense and Israeli Intelligence Agencies agree that it is only a matter of two to three more years before Iran has the ballistic missile capability to reach the East Coast of the United States, so that they can attack “The Great Satan”, the major target of their hatred.

Even though America is war-weary and fatigued, this situation will not go away by sweeping it under the rug—or focusing our foreign policy on another subject, like the Far East. This is not some reality show that we do not like, and can just change the channel.

This is reality. The question is: Is this generation of Americans adult enough to be able to confront realities we do not like? Or are we a far cry from “The Great Generation” of our parents, who saw the menace arising in Europe and ultimately did the right thing.

As Winston Churchill once said, “The Americans always do the right thing—-once they have exhausted every other possibility.”

The question then remains:  Will the Americans do the right thing in time to stop the Iranians from crossing over the nuclear threshold?

Lately, I have been hearing a great deal of talk inside the beltway about the inevitable decline of America.  The buzz is that all great powers, from that of Rome to Great Britain, have inevitably risen and fallen, and that the United States, because of a series of severe miscalculations in recent years, is in a period of rapidly spiraling decline.  They argue that the age of the current domination of the United States over the world order, at least since the fall of the Soviet empire, is over, and feel that this is a perfectly acceptable option.  I would like to assert that if this were the case, then this would be tremendously tragic for all people of good will throughout the world.

As I write these words, the Syrian opposition is in its eleventh month of a bloody struggle against the brutally repressive government of Bashar Assad.  The people in Syria have been seen for months desperately crying out for help on You Tube videos and often within the mainstream media.  Recent reports coming out of the United Nations put the most recent death toll at 5,400, as of January 10th, more than a month ago, but according to several Syrian dissidents I have spoken with, the death toll is by now, close to 8,000. In the meantime, 20,000 to 30,000 people have been summarily disappeared from the streets, including children.

Today, the western city of Homs suffered its eleventh day of bombardment of its pro-opposition neighborhoods. On this day alone, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that another twenty people have been killed.  Navi Pillay, the UN Commissioner of Human Rights, spoke at the United Nations yesterday, and said that “the suffering of Syrian civilians will continue as long as the international community fails to take action.

The way in which the Obama administration has been behaving, however, in regards to this urgent situation indicates that:  a.) nature abhors a vacuum and b.) without the moral leadership of the United States, there is a danger that the very most egregious and despotic powers threaten to step in and to fill the void.

On February 4th, Russia and China vetoed an Arab League Resolution calling on the government of Bashar Assad to step down.  This led to a statement from the Arab League on February 12th, calling for the formation a joint UN Arab-League Peacekeeping force to support the Syrian opposition. The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, supported the idea, saying ,”Such a mission could have an important role to play in saving human lives.”

Unfortunately, our own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked, “I don’t know that it is going to be possible to persuade Syria. They have already as of today, rejected that.”

This would be akin to Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, under Franklin D. Roosevelt, first calling to ask Adolf Hitler’s permission before landing troops on the beaches of Normandy.

Where is the moral clarity coming out of our own nation?  Even without committing troops on the ground there is a great deal more that we can be doing to help the Syrian opposition, such as providing them with money, weapons, ammunition, and communication devices to organize themselves and to reach the outside world.

By ignoring this tremendous human need, we are only strengthening the genocidal hands of Iran and that of Hizballah. It has long been known that there is a great “axis of evil” between Iran, Syria and Hizballah, that goes back for at least the last thirty years. Iran has long been importing weapons to and training Syrian backed Hizballah. This has then been exported to Lebanon, which has become a puppet state of Hizballah.

So, if we abandon the people that are crying out for our help in Syria, who will swoop in to fill the void?

Last week, Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahari said that “The brave, jihadi Syrian people rose and will never accept anything less than victory over the criminal butchers.”

Al-Zawahari is obviously trying to seize this opportunity for Al Qaeda to profit from the chaos that has been sweeping throughout the Arab world, from Egypt to Yemen.

I understand that people in the State Department and the Obama administration are tired of the mess and confusion of the current Middle East. They want to switch the channel to the Far East. The growing crises in this region of the world, however, will not wait for us to suddenly regain interest in them.

As I said, nature abhors a vacuum. If we do not step in and do what is moral and right for the good people of the Syrian opposition, than there are plenty of other players on the world scene who are more than willing to sweep in and to fill the void with their nasty agendas.

“Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy, because it threatens U.S. interests.”
– Vice President Joe Biden, December 2011

“Dreamers tell us dreams come true, it’s no mistake. Wishes are the dreams we dream when we’re awake.”
–The Glenn Miller Orchestra, Wishing (Will Make it So), March 1939

Wars do not simply end. They are won or lost. There are a host of strategic, moral, and political consequences for having been defeated on the field of battle. Yet this simple truism appears to run utterly counter to the declared policy of President Obama.

During his state of the union speech, President Obama declared, “Most of Al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

False.

The Taliban believe they are poised to retake the country when the U.S. withdrawals, according to a U.S. military report compiled from interviews with recent Taliban detainees. The Afghan forces with whom we are purported allies against Al Qaeda and the Taliban are selling their weapons, signing cease-fires, and turning over territory to the Taliban in preparation for our departure, according to NATO. And that’s when our “allies” aren’t shooting our people in the back. As Army Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis reports, “there is an absence of success…on every level.”

Not content to follow the advice of the late Senator George Aiken who when speaking of Vietnam reportedly said, “the best policy is to declare victory and leave,” the Obama administration intends to do one better and declare that there is no enemy and then leave. Thus, administration officials came to the support of Vice President Biden, insisting that his statement about the Taliban was not in error.  Indeed the administration’s effort to create a non-existent division between the Taliban and Al Qaeda (which they falsely claim to have defeated) serves an obvious purpose since it seems unlikely that even a war-weary public is willing to countenance negotiating with terrorists who openly and repeatedly declare themselves affiliated with those who murdered nearly 3,000 Americans on a fateful September day.

Yet the Administration continues to agree to concessions, including a demand to release hardened terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, and permit the opening of a “Taliban Embassy” in Qatar,  for the mere pleasure of beginning negotiations.

And the Taliban has yet further conditions, insisting that, “ … (4) no ceasefire will be demanded before, during or after the talks; (5) Taliban will not accept any condition contrary to Shariah; (6) whenever desired, the Taliban will disassociate from the talks.”

In other words, the Taliban’s preconditions for negotiations are the right to continue their jihad to establish Shariah in Afghanistan. They have, in effect, asked for a complete acquiescence to all of their goals, as a pre-condition for talks. By comparison, what were once American preconditions, of respecting the Afghan constitution, renouncing Al Qaeda, and laying down their arms, have now become mere “necessary outcomes.”

How did we reach this piteous position?

It is not the fault of America’s valiant soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have shown time and again that they can and will win on the field of battle despite restrictive rules of engagement, never mind the naysayers who spout platitudes about the “graveyard of empires.”

It is not the fighting skills of the Afghan tribes, or the treacherous terrain, both of which confronted all previous occupiers of Afghanistan, which have placed us within a hair’s breadth of defeat. It is instead policy-makers in the United States, who have repeatedly failed to comprehend the threat doctrine of the enemy or the ideology upon which it is based, and through that comprehension devise a strategy which results in victory. Can any member of the Obama administration articulate what negotiating conditions might be contrary to Shariah? Do they understand the concept of a hudna, a tactical peace which exists only until the Muslim side is strengthened and jihad can once again be waged successfully? Do they recognize that any other proposed peace with a non-Muslim power would itself be a violation of Shariah, and thus a violation of Taliban’s preconditions?  It is the same view of Shariah which prohibited the Taliban from turning Osama bin Laden over to an infidel power for his act of jihad in 2001, when that ultimatum was presented to them by then President George Bush.

This failure to comprehend the nature of the enemy has come about not because our policy makers are incompetent or foolish, nor simply because they are politically correct, although this is a factor. Instead it is a matter of a deliberate campaign of misinformation conducted by those who share the Taliban’s doctrine of Shariah, even if they disagree tactically about its violent methods. This campaign, principally conducted by members or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, is one which we have opined on previously, and at some length.

So it came as little surprise to us to learn that the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, serves as a mediator for these ill-conceived negotiations with the Taliban. Nor can we be surprised by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s testimony which judged the Muslim Brotherhood a useful bulwark against Al Qaeda. How can an organization which shares the exact same ideological roots and objectives as Al Qaeda serve as a bulwark against it? This concept is as preposterous as maintaining that by supporting Communist parties throughout Western Europe we might have undermined the Soviet Union.

If the United States and its allies depart Afghanistan under a cloud of defeat, whether granted a fig leaf of negotiations or not, it is a victory for global jihad and will be understood as such. It may be the case that military necessity will dictate a retreat from Afghanistan. That is something which the military planners will have to determine. But that determination should be made with a crystal clear understanding of the enemy, not clouded by muddle-headed pabulum that disguises the Taliban as anything other than the hardened jihadists they are.

It may have been alright to believe that “wishing will make it so” in March of 1939, but by September 1939, it became time to put away such light-hearted fare and recognize implacable enemies for what they were. Yet here we are, ten years into our war with global jihad, and the Obama Administration continues to tell us that dreams may yet come true.

The collapse of Israeli-Palestinian agreements from the 1993 Oslo Accords until today stems from the fact that both Israeli and U.S. leaders ignore the real root of the conflict. The heart of the conflict is the denial of the existence – and not the size – of any non-Muslim entity on land, that, in the eyes of Muslims, is Waqf – and inalienable religious land endowment.

On Jan. 9, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, a close associate of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, stressed that all Israeli territory was Muslim Waqf land, had been since 637 C.E., and would be forever. The mufti made his comments at a rally for Fatah, which Abbas heads, that was broadcast on the official state television station. The mufti also called for the killing of Jews to hasten the Islamic Resurrection. His sentiments have become rooted in the Palestinian consciousness, with the help of the Palestinian Authority educational system, as a poll from July 2011 shows. Conducted by liberal-democratic American pollster Stanley Greenberg, an associate of former President Bill Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the poll found that 73 percent of Palestinians viewed killing Jews as a springboard to Judgment Day. On March 27, 2010, Abbas declared: “Jerusalem and all its surrounding areas are holy lands promised by Allah. We must do everything we can to save them from the Jewish threat.”

This principle of “holy land” is permanent, and is stronger than any leader or passing policy, and it applies to any land that was ever under Islamic control. It is an inseparable part of the legacy of Muhammad and Islamic law, especially at this time of the surge of the trans-national Muslim Brotherhood, which views Allah, the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, jihad and martyrdom as the goal, the law, the leader, the way and the exalted aspiration. Their loyalty to the “holy land” obligates Muslims to “holy war” and the restoration of sovereignty in the Philippines, Thailand, parts of China, Kashmir, Chechnya, Israel, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere.

The centrality of “holy land” in the Muslim experience can be understood from the example of Andalusia, the Arabic name for most of the Iberian Peninsula, which was under Islamic rule from 711-1492 C.E. The Muslim Golden Age did not take place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, but rather in Andalusia, especially in the Alhambra palace/fortress in Granada. At the beginning of the 8th century, the Muslims conquered the Iberian Peninsula, southern France, Sicily and the Italian coastline and declared it “Abode of Islam.” In 1492, Spain was liberated from the control of Muslims, who today still view “Andalusia” as their “holy land.” Muslim terrorist plots in Madrid in March 2004 killed 191 people and wounded around 1,800. The attack intended to correct the “injustice of Andalusia.” Saudi Arabia is constructing the second largest mosque in the world in Cordoba, the former capital of Andalusia, while mosques are springing up like mushrooms all over Spain.

Professor Efraim Karsh, head of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College in London, in his book “Islamic Imperialism” (Yale University Press, 2007), says: “In 1980, there was a huge map of Afghanistan on which large parts of what was then Soviet Central Asia and China’s Xinjiang Province were labeled ‘Temporarily Occupied Muslim Territory.’ Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi, a spiritual guide of the Muslim Brothers [said] the city of Hirqil [Constantinopol] will be conquered first … The other city Romiya, Rome ... we hope and believe that it too will be conquered … That means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror.”

Recognition of foreign sovereignty over Muslim “holy land” amounts to humiliation, betrayal and servitude for Arabs and Muslims. The Treaty of Hudaybiyya from 628 C.E. set a precedent for the “phased plan,” or for signing tactical agreements that temporarily relinquish “holy land,” but never abandon the overarching, permanent strategy of reclaiming it all at a later stage.

Continuing the policy of negotiating “land for peace” plays into the hands of our enemies and dooms us to repeat past mistakes. It ignores the roots of Arab hostility, raises Arab expectations and exacerbates violence and terrorism in the region.

Egypt’s final round of elections earlier this month confirmed our greatest fear: victory by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) received 41% of the parliament. Together with other parties, Islamists dominate two-thirds of the new Egyptian legislature, and elected a strong Brotherhood leader Mohamed al-Katatni, as Speaker of the Parliament.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s election victory indicates strong support for Islamism and for Sharia law. Sharia law does not tolerate free speech or protests against the government, and it exploits and suppresses minorities.  Muslim Brotherhood has expressed their goal to see the newly-formed government, “evolv[e] into a rightly guided caliphate.”

This naturally alarms Israel because the Brotherhood is closely allied with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which has claimed responsibility for murdering hundreds of civilians, including Americans, in Israel. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s prime minister, has described his organization as the “jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face.” Haniyeh stated recently that “our presence with the Brotherhood threatens the Israeli entity.”

The parliamentary elections will soon be followed by a rewriting of the 1971 constitution which will take place prior to the presidential elections.  That will ensure that the power will reside in the Islamist-dominated parliament. In any case, most of the current presidential contenders have a similar agenda to the Brotherhood, calling for imposing Sharia law in Egypt and modifying the country’s peace treaty with Israel.

The 1979 peace treaty was negotiated by Mubarak’s predecessor, Anwar Sadat, and Israel is rightly concerned about whether the document will be honored.  Odds are slim, since the ruling military junta, The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) plans to put the Camp David accords on the ballot for a national referendum. The Brotherhood has vowed never to recognize Israel as legitimate.

As Islamists were swept into power throughout the Middle East, what was the White House doing? It was standing shoulder to shoulder with the Islamists. As the revolution in Egypt evoked Western fears (now proven to be prescient) of a Brotherhood rise to power, the administration dispatched Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to announce that the Islamist group was “largely secular.” The U.S. government provided election training to Egyptian Islamist parties.

The N.Y. Times reported that the Obama administration accepts the Muslim Brotherhood’s assurances that it will build a democracy that respects individual rights, free markets and free speech. On January 4, the administration began to “forge closer ties to the Muslim Brotherhood that once was received as irreconcilably opposed to U.S. interests,” the newspaper said.  The White House is giving the Brotherhood international legitimacy, based on the platitudes the latter expresses in English, while in Arabic it has demanded the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador and called for preparations for war against Israel.

At the same time, the White House has represented the Egyptian military as a pro-Western and secular force which will restrain Islamist elements. In reality, the Egyptian military has used deadly force against civilian protesters. In response to a Coptic protest in the Cairo neighborhood of Maspero, SCAF unleashed armored vehicles, which deliberately ran over protestors. Protestors were assaulted and beaten as Egyptian troops yelled “Allahu akbar” at those they called “Christian sons of dogs.”

These recent attacks by the military and their Islamist allies against Coptic Christians (who make up 10 percent of the 82 million Egyptians) give us a preview of what is to come when the Islamists impose Sharia law:

  “The Islamists have been unleashed,” says Nasri, a Copt pharmacist who is hoping to leave Egypt.  “You’re talking about no rights for women.  No rights for Coptic Christians.  They’ll make us more of a minority.  It will be like living centuries ago.”

Red lights are flashing and sirens are blasting, but the Obama administration does not sense the threat. That is not for lack of information. EMET predicted early-on that the Brotherhood would take power and that the Egyptian military would not stand for democracy and minority rights. Unfortunately, President Obama believes that America’s role in the world is far too aggressive and arrogant in promoting democracy. As a result, he apologizes for our supposed failure to understand others, our alleged selfishness in pursuing U.S. interests instead of global interests and showing far too much concern for U.S. independence and freedom of action.

Perhaps Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) sees the danger in Obama’s support for Egypt’s incoming government. Traditionally, Washington appropriates $1.3 billion a year to Egypt, plus additional support from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Senator Leahy has sponsored a bill in the Appropriations Committee that calls for restrictions in military aid to Egypt. Leahy also calls for funds to be earmarked to promote democracy and limit military power there. The Egyptian military has lobbied aggressively against the Leahy legislation, and it upped the ante by raiding Western pro-democracy Non-governmental organizations.  According to The Washington Post, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also opposes these restrictions, and the State Department has proposed an additional billion dollars in debt relief, to provide funds for the Egyptian government’s “transition.”

The seismic wave of change in Middle East has swept Sharia advocates into power, and the Obama Administration has been a contributor to that outcome. Now, freedoms of speech and of minority rights are threatened. So is Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, which long has stood as the only democracy in the region. The White House has settled for the democracy of “one man, one vote, one time,” thus bringing even worse regimes to power than had previously ruled in the region. Who will take a stand and promote real democratic values?

U.S. officials have vocally opposed the maneuvers and have warned Iran against any attempt to prevent free navigation of the strait. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called its possible closing “a red line.”

The Iranian threats began in late December, as the U.S. Congress sent to President Obama new legislation sanctioning the Iranian central bank. The White House attempted to water down the bill when it was being considered bycongress, and perhaps the Iranians calculated that bluffing over Hormuz would push the Obama administration to back away from the bill or undermine its implementation. This is a reasonable assumption, considering that the White House’s objections, economic instability and a rise in oil prices, are exactly the consequences expected from of a prolonged crisis over the strait.

Some pundits have argued that Iran’s threatened closure of the Strait of Hormuz has more to do with its domestic policy. Iran may be attempting to raise the price of oil to buoy its own economy and blunt the increasingly damaging effects of international sanctions.  The Iranian Rial has already been severely impacted by the sanctions, which led to skyrocketing prices. The European Union agreed to extend its efforts to curtail the import of Iranian oil, and China, which normally shirks anti-Iran sanctions, extended an import cut that more than halved its import of Iranian oil.

Setting aside the question of true motivation, analysts have focused on two questions of supreme importance: Are the Iranians able to close the strait effectively in the face of American military might? If so, are they willing to do so, considering the damage such closure does to their self-interest?

How one answers the first question depends on what one considers to be “effective.” In 2005, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified to Congress that Iran could “briefly close” the strait. Other experts have stated that an Iranian closure might last a few days to a few weeks. These projections seem overly optimistic. Consider that the two most recent examples of American mine-clearing operations took place in 1991 and 2003, in response to Iraqi mine-laying operations. In both cases, the United States was clearing static moored contact mines in areas no longer at risk of enemy contact. They averaged 18-20 mines cleared a day under ideal conditions. By contrast, Iran possesses approximately 2,000 mines, at least a percentage of which are likely influence contact mines, which are more difficult to sweep. Additionally, Iran can utilize its surface-to-surface missiles, and its fast-attack boats to make any mine-clearing operation extremely hazardous without a substantial military action against shore-based Iranian facilities. Such attacks would greatly delay mine-clearing operations, thus prolonging the strait’s closure to commerce. Despite that the Iranians have crafted their military doctrine around this scenario; some analysts believe that Iran would not be able to resist a U.S.-led naval campaign to reopen the strait for very long, and that an Iranian attempt to close the strait would be playing to American strengths.

But in a paper he prepared in 2010 for the Naval War College, “Rethinking the Strait of Hormuz: A Recommended Course of Action that Establishes Operational Advantage,” Commander Daniel Dolan warns,
Inherent with this school of thought is the risk of seriously underestimating the true capabilities and determination of the Iranian forces. To present Iran as the kind of war the United States excels in fighting ignores the lessons of the Iran’s new style of hybrid warfare demonstrated in Lebanon 2006. When the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entered Southern Lebanon, they were prepared to fight the type of war they excel in fighting, but as the popular adage of military strategy states, “the enemy gets a vote” and Hizbullah did not choose to fight on Israel’s terms. The [Commander Naval Forces] would be naïve to think that Iran will fight on ours.

Notable in the 2006 campaign was Hezbollah’s use of a C-802 anti-ship missile to damage the INS Hanit, killing four Israeli sailors. Hezbollah frequently serves as a test for new Iranian weapons and tactics. Despite Israel’s intelligence on Hezbollah’s possessing such weapons, and, indeed, warnings that the weapons were likely to be deployed against the Israeli blockade; Jerusalem did not take the threat seriously enough. The United States ought not underestimate Iranian capabilities.

Iran’s reliance on martyrdom units as a linchpin of its strategic capability also should not be ignored. As Dolan writes, “The inclusion of martyr squads, when combined with Iran’s burgeoning arsenal of conventional weapons equates to a potent hybrid force that would be difficult to defeat or deter.”

This is especially true with Iran well aware of America’s strong aversion to suffering casualties. The Iranians may calculate that sinking or severely damaging a U.S. capital ship would be an enormous political and psychological victory, even if their own loss of life and naval assets are completely disproportionate by Western standards.

Using these metrics, the Iranians can almost certainly close the Strait of Hormuz in a manner requiring substantial U.S. military action to dislodge them, probably taking a month or more to accomplish. Additionally, the Iranians may be able to create such U.S. casualties that even after reopening the strait, the United States would be sufficiently humbled so as to shy away from future military conflict. That would constitute a strategic victory for Iran.

We now must still address the question of whether Iran is willing to close the strait.

The pundit Walter Russell Mead wrote last week that Iran’s stance against sanctions conjures up “the defiance of a cornered animal rather than the insolence of a rising power.” He cited rising economic distress, the results of the Arab Spring, and the current uprising against Syria, which is Iran’s chief ally and major client — combining, he said, to create an image of Iran in retreat and in need of economic stability and security more than it desires to pursue its ideological revolution and global confrontation.

But the Iranian leadership likely doesn’t see the situation this way. The Iranians can claim to have defeated the United States in Iraq, with U.S troops departing as Iran solidified control over Baghdad’s government. Iran is attempting a similar maneuver in Afghanistan, with success there, too. Tehran maintains close relationships with radical leftist leaders in South America, moving freely in America’s backyard. One of its major regional opponents, Egypt, is now headed by Islamist factions with more in common with Tehran than with the United States during Hosni Mubarak’s rule. And while Syria is under pressure due to its slaughter of domestic protestors, the West has barely intervened against Bashar Assad; Iran seems to calculate that Assad will cling to power. Despite killing U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even conspiring to kill a Saudi diplomat (and undoubtedly American civilians) in Washington, Iran has not suffered any overt retribution from U.S. forces.

In other words, Iran sees itself to be a rising power, and the United States to be a waning power with increased reluctance for confrontation.

While international sanctions undoubtedly increase pressure on Iran, the Islamic regime has spent its entire existence under sanctions of one degree or another, and has never put its economic well-being before its revolutionary aspirations. Iran may calculate that while it will suffer additional economic hardship, it is well-positioned to endure, compared to the West, which struggles with bad economic conditions that will be exacerbated by an Iranian closure of the strait. Additionally, if sanctions are truly having such a deleterious effect, Iran may calculate that it has nothing to lose from inflicting comparable economic pain upon its enemies.

If Iran will risk the economic hardship of closing the strait, is it willing to risk providing the United States with an opportunity to engage, and destroy, both Tehran’s naval forces and its nuclear program? One argument against Iran’s closing the strait postulates that it would be foolish to risk its nuclear program when it has continued to make progress — such as by successfully bringing a better-shielded, more efficient enrichment facility at Fordo online, despite covert attacks against Iranian facilities and personnel.

Arguing that Iran will not risk its nuclear program by provoking the Americans puts the cart before the horse. The nuclear weapons program is a means, not an end to itself. Its purpose is to grant Iran a kind of immunity from regime change and to better enable the Islamic Republic to pursue its strategic goals.

If Iran believes that implemented sanctions will weaken the regime to an extent that it risks being overthrown by domestic opposition or that it would be unable to continue its strategic campaign to establish regional dominance, then safeguarding its nuclear capability may cease to be a priority. The comparable historical example is to Japan’s decision to attack the United States in 1941 in response to the U.S. oil embargo. Doing so meant engaging the sleeping giant and its superior industrial and military capability. But not doing so meant Japan’s abandoning its China campaign and not seizing the regional hegemony perceived as theirs by right.

Iran’s ability to close the strait and risk military confrontation with the United States doesn’t mean that it will do so. However, analyses that make assumptions about Iranian will or capability, based on a Western misconception of Tehran’s worldview, would be a serious error with potentially grave consequences.

EMET does not, as a matter of policy, support or oppose political candidates or any political party. However, we feel it appropriate to comment substantively on a political figure’s foreign policy positions, especially those jeopardizing the national security of the United States and her allies, including Israel.

With Republican Congressman Ron Paul coming in a close third in the Iowa presidential caucus, we must look seriously at his foreign policy views, particularly on the Middle East and Israel, and ask whether such views are suitable for a commander-in-chief charged with the security of the United States during a period of conflict with a determined Islamic enemy.

Much attention has been paid, since Paul’s strong showing in Iowa, to statements issued in Rep. Paul’s newsletter publications. Many of these newsletters contain material on domestic matters (such as race relations) that may be objectionable, but one of the most troubling statements on the foreign policy front relates to credence given to a conspiracy theory blaming the Mossad for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. From an April 1993 edition of the newsletter:

  It was only a matter of a few days after the World Trade Center bombing before Mohammad A. Salameh was arrested. Is he guilty? Who knows? Recall that shortly after the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended and accusations were made. Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists matters little.

This statement shows a susceptibility to conspiratorial thinking, which, while contrary to any good analysis, is particularly dangerous when considering the Middle East. The Arab world is fraught with all manner of ludicrous and delusional conspiracy theories about the Jews and Israel, and that a potential American Commander-in-Chief would give them any credence is deeply troubling. Even if, as Rep. Paul claims, he was not the author of the newsletters in question, then at the very least he hired and supervised, or failed to supervise, individuals who maintained these beliefs. Anyone who genuinely considers the possibility that Israel would intentionally bomb an American civilian building for the sole purpose of framing Islamic terrorists, cannot ever be an ally of or, indeed, even neutral in regards to Israel.

The other interesting element of the quote is the use of the word “retaliation.” The assumption that any act of terrorism committed by Muslims must be the result of U.S. behavior, and, therefore, justifiable is a hallmark of Paul’s policies and is deeply troubling. A perfect illustration occurred in Paul’s remarks during the December 15th Iowa Republican debate. “… [T]o say all Muslims are the same is dangerous talk,” he stated. “They don’t come to kill us because we are free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean that’s absurd.”

Of course all Muslims are not the same. No one is suggesting that they are. Paul’s claim that Muslims want to harm us “because we are bombing them” ignores the reality that Islamists have deeply-held religious and ideological beliefs that mandate jihad against non-believers, the spread of Sharia, and the dominance of an Islamic caliphate. We know this because not just Islamic terrorists, but Muslim jurists, thinkers and policy-makers say so routinely, as evidenced by a wide collection of Arabic-language video and transcripts available from translation services like MEMRI.

Ironically the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police recognizes better than does Rep. Paul the reality of jihadist motivations, writing in a 2006 report summary, that Switzerland was both home to, and a target for, Islamist terrorists.

Furthermore, which Muslims exactly does Paul claim the United States bombed prior to the 1993 “retaliation” bombing?

Paul blames Israel for much of the faults of the Middle East and, according to former Paul staffer Eric Dondero, has privately expressed his wish that Israel not exist. Dondero writes,

  He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the American taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

Paul has attempted to create the impression that his stance on Israel is motivated not by anti-Zionism, but, rather, by a principled position on independent national sovereignty. He points to his voting against condemning Israel for the 1981 Osirak reactor bombing, and claims that our “interference” with Israel is to their detriment. Said Paul in a November presidential debate in Washington,

  We interfere with them when they deal with their borders. When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us. And then they decide they want to bomb something, that’s their business, but they should, you know, suffer the consequences. When they bombed the Iraqi missile site, nuclear site, back in the ’80s, I was one of the few in Congress that said it’s none of our business and Israel should take care of themselves.

EMET believes that a close American-Israeli security alliance is to the benefit of both nations, but we understand that one could make the opposing argument that Israel is burdened by its American alliance in good faith. However Paul’s stance is disingenuous, as evidenced by his remarks on the House floor on Israel’s Operation Cast Lead invasion of Gaza that began in December 2008. Paul claimed that Hamas was “encouraged by and really started by Israel,” much as he blames the U.S. for the rise of Al Qaeda. In interviews with Iranian state television, Press TV, he described Gaza as a “concentration camp.” Far from wanting to free Israel to see to its own national security, Paul seizes upon occasions when Israel acts to ensure its security, as in Operation Cast Lead, to condemn it and, by extension, the United States.

Paul prefers pat answers that blame America and Israel to conducting serious investigation of the motivations of our self-declared enemies. Indeed Paul’s belief in American-centric grievance terrorism denies agency to other countries and cultures. He refuses to take into account any historical, cultural or political developments prior to America’s rise to superpower status. Paul’s only solution is a return to American isolationism as a foreign policy.

Paul believes that if Washington ceases to support and ally itself with the Jewish state, then a large number of America’s problems with the Muslim world will disappear. But suppose that a President Paul initiated a foreign policy in which the U.S. government didn’t defend Israel in the United Nations Security Council, recognized “Palestine” as a nation, called on Israel to negotiate with that state, and stopped the sale of American weapons or technology to the Jewish state. Would these actions prompt the Islamist or Muslim worlds to reward us with better behavior?

Certainly, there is plenty of evidence to suggest they would not, just by examining the past three years. President Barack Obama is markedly less supportive of Israel than was President George W. Bush. Obama made improved relations with the Muslim world a cornerstone of his foreign policy, as delineated in his Cairo declaration in 2009. Based on the Paul logic, positive results should come from the Muslim world, but we see no evidence of its becoming more supportive of the United States. Have the Palestinians been more willing to compromise? No. The Palestinian Authority seems to be approaching the even more extreme and radical group, Hamas, with which it now plans to merge. Also, the PA has unilaterally pushed for statehood recognition by the United Nations, an effort the Obama Administration has opposed. And has the rest of the Muslim world become more cooperative with the United States? Not at all. Pakistan hid Osama Bin Laden until we found and killed him, and it continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia still produces textbooks and religious materials filled with anti-Christian and anti-Jewish bigotry. And Iran still pushes ahead with nuclear weapons production.

We have every reason to suspect, therefore, that the Middle East’s reaction to an even softer Ron Paul approach to diplomacy would be greater intransigence.

Paul pretends that this reality does not exist or that it does not matter. Osama bin Laden should not have been killed, under Paul’s reasoning. Iran is not trying to acquire a nuclear bomb, he claims, and if it were, that’s Teheran’s choice. “If I were an Iranian, I’d like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them,” he told Iowans.

Paul’s foreign policy has a seductive attraction. If all the troubles America endures are because of her actions, then ceasing these actions is a cure-all. But this is simply not so. A retreat to some mythical isolationist foreign policy is as impossible as it is undesirable. It would cede regional hegemony to national and non-state actors who have their own innate motivations for wishing death to those they label “infidels,” and make the world, America, and Israel, infinitely more insecure.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;Things fall apart;
The centre cannot hold,
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world …

— William Butler Yeats

By all accounts, 2011 has been a cataclysmic year in the Middle East. What began with a government official’s harassment of Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, and ended in his self-immolation on December 18,2010, sparked riots that led to what has been dubbed “The Arab Spring” but that we at EMET have more appropriately entitled “The Arab Tsunami.”. The events in Tunisia resulted in a wave of protests that has shaken up the Arab and Muslim worlds, stretching all the way from Morocco to Yemen.

As anyone who has not been asleep for the greater part of this year is aware, what transpired in the region in 2011 has been more dramatic than anything to occur in the Middle East since the days after World War I, when French diplomat Francois Georges Picot, together with British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes, carved up the region for their countries.

What has happened since last December 18 has awakened the populations throughout the region to protest their countries’ poor economic conditions and total lack of human rights, as well as corruption within the region’s leadership. That then led, among other astonishing developments, to the resignation of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia; the end of the 33-year reign of Yemenite President Ali Abdullah Saleh;  the overthrow and death of Libyan strongman Muammmar Gaddafi and, most astonishingly, the end of the 30-year, iron-clad reign of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

As of now, more than 37,000 people have died in these protests, and the region is still awash with blood. What will be the final outcome of these cataclysmic events is difficult to predict. Sometimes, revolutions result in more freedom, as defined from the liberal, Western point of view. The French Revolution took decades and finally resulted in more freedoms. A revolution, however, might result in a more oppressive regime within an overarching system, such as occurred in the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

We at EMET have long seen the rising tide of radical Islamism and have expressed the fear that what began with the Facebook generation by a few young, freedom-loving activists (in the Western sense of the concept) would lead to elections ushering in Islamist regimes. That is because the people who truly have the political power and infrastructure control the mosques.

We are witnessing now, as in Germany in 1939 and in Gaza in 2006, the reality that one election does not a democracy make.

EMET has stressed throughout this year that democracy entails the chance to have second, third and fourth elections, and that the institutions that allow a person to dissent without fear of one’s very life must already be in place: a free and independent press, a free and independent judiciary, freedom of assemblage. And, as Natan Sharansky has written: the freedom to scream from the middle of the public square and criticize those in power, in the government.

So, where are we today? Just looking at this week’s headlines, I’d like to present an overview of a few hot spots in this troubled region.

Syria

More than 6,200 people have been murdered by the brutal boot of the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad within the last several months of the uprising, including hundreds of children. Hundreds, if not thousands, more have disappeared from the streets, perhaps languishing in jail, where God only knows the abuse to which they have been subjected, if they even remain alive.  The Syrian government claims that the uprising was orchestrated by “foreign terrorists.” As I write these words, residents of the besieged city of Homs cry out for the world to come and witness the endless bloodshed, which has killed more than 100 residents over the past few days. Videos posted throughout the Internet show blood-soaked streets in that city, with bodies lying about. Homs has been cut off from food and electricity, and, in a scene reminiscent of the film Schindler’s List, the regime’s soldiers take pot shots at people leaving their homes during certain hours. The brave dissidents there, despite, the level of brutality that this oppressive regime has stooped to, have not given up.

EMET has been urging strong American sanctions against Syria, as well as covert or overt help for the dissidents. Replacing the Assad government has got to be better than the current situation. Furthermore, Syria is part of the Iranian constellation, and anything that weakens Teheran’s sphere of influence is a good thing.

Egypt

The results of the long-awaited second of the three rounds of parliamentary elections are finally in, and no surprises occurred. As EMET predicted, the Islamist parties received more than 75 percent of the vote. The highest percentage of votes went to Salafist parties that are even more extreme than the horrific Muslim Brotherhood. This all but paves the way for a radical Sharia state to Israel’s immediate west and the continuation of an open smuggling corridor of goods, weapons and fighters into Hamas-controlled Gaza. The eight million Coptic Christians in Egypt have long endured persecution, but since Mubarak’s overthrow, this minority has endured massacres and unspeakable abuses.

The Egyptian military that has maintained control since the ouster of Mubarak has been exceedingly brutal, particularly in abusing female protestors, who, when arrested, have endured humiliating and painful “virginity tests,” which the army claims protects the women from the charge of prostitution.  This week, millions of viewers were stunned by the YouTube video of a female demonstrator savagely beaten by the Egyptian military; her abaya (cloak) was opened, with her bare midriff and her blue bra appearing as an Egyptian officer prepared to stomp on her with his boot.

I am certain that when the Tahrir Square demonstrations began earlier this year, none of the organizers thought it would have come to this.

Israel has no assurances that there will not be a radical, Sunni Islamic state along on its border or that Egypt will — despite public pronouncements due to diplomatic and economic factors — uphold the fragile 1979 Camp David peace treaty with Israel. In fact, both of the major Egyptian parties have stated that the treaty has to be reexamined.

Since the Camp David Accords was signed, America has elevated the Egyptian military from a C-, Soviet-equipped force to an A+, American-equipped one. EMET has been alone on Capitol Hill in arguing, ever since the demonstrations began in Tahrir Square last winter, that America should withhold further military aid until the results of the elections are known. The results show that, as predicted, Sharia has swept through the region. EMET calls for an immediate cessation of all military funding and weapon shipments to Egypt.

Palestinian Authority-Hamas

Taking a cue from the success of its Islamist brothers in Egypt, Hamas decided this week to enter into the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary elections in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, if you will), which are due to take place in May. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has expressed every confidence in winning the elections.

Beyond that, last Thursday, the Palestinian Liberation Organization — which many world bodies, including the United Nations, feels has the sole legitimacy for representing the Palestinian people — held a historic meeting in Ramallah, where an accord was reached to open up its umbrella group to “activate and reconstruct” it to include organizations that do not currently belong. This paves the way for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to join the PLO.[1]

Just as the Salafists participated in the Egyptian elections not to share power, but to dominate, Hamas is now entering into a relationship with the PLO to dominate it.

I am certain we will soon hear pundits inside the Washington Beltway saying that now is the time for Israel to make dramatic concessions for peace, to buoy Fatah’s chances of winning in the upcoming elections.

Yes, you heard it right: Israel will be asked to sacrifice her own strategic depth, once again, in this tumultuous and rapidly growing Islamist region of the world, for the sake of internal Palestinian politics and to inject a transfusion into the moribund peace process.

Or, borrowing a page from Yasser Arafat’s and Abu Mazen’s playbook, it will not take long before we begin to hear the talking heads telling us that there is a “moderate faction” to talk to in Hamas.

Do not be fooled: Osama Hamdan, Hamas’s newly dubbed foreign minister, told the Al-Quds newspaper: “Anyone who thinks Hamas has changed its positions and now accepts the PLO’s defeating political position is living under an illusion. Hamas cannot make a mistake that proved to be a failed one. … By moving toward reconciliation with the PLO, we are reconstructing the organization and reconsidering its failed program.” So as not to be misunderstood, he added: “Hamas’s goal is first and foremost the liberation of our lands from the sea to the river and achieving the right of return.”[2]

Or, as Khalil Abu Leila, another Hamas official, stated, “Hamas will not join the PLO political program. Rather, a major task of the Hamas provisional leadership will be to bring the PLO back to its correct path and the goal for which it was established, mainly, the liberation of Palestine.”[3]

Iran

Against this rising tide of Sunni Islamist fundamentalism throughout the region is the Iranian quest for hegemony and for the reclamation of the triumph of Shiite Islamism.

One particularly horrifying way Iran has engaged in this quest is through its pursuit of nuclear weapons. None of us was surprised when the International Atomic Energy Agency reported last November that Iran now has the ability to create nuclear weapons, having mastered the “critical steps involved in the process.” The report further stated that a Soviet scientist tutored the Iranians about detonation reactions, and that North Korean and Pakistani nuclear scientists were also available to lend their knowledge and expertise.

This of course totally refutes the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, which stated:

We judge with high confidence that in the fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. …We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguars Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing the international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

First lesson: Do not trust any accord signed by a despot or a dictator. One barometer of whether or not a ruler means what he says is how he treats his minorities and his dissidents. It is all directly related to an underlying premise of one’s respect for the dignity of human life and the basic rights of man.

Speaking of dissidents: There was a moment of opportunity, when the brave, young Iranian dissidents were out on the streets, en masse, and the leader of the free world, President Obama, said nothing in their support for a full two weeks, while skulls were being crushed and people were disappearing from the streets. Most people in Iran are under 30. They were born after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, despise the theocracy and are feeling suffocated by its choking stranglehold.

The Iranian prisons are bursting with such protestors.  Taking a page from the Soviet Jewry movement, in which names like Natan Sharansky became household words in the West, we should all know the names of people like 26-year-old Hossein Ronaghi Malkhi, a blogger and human rights activist, who was arrested for fomenting the demonstrations in June 2009. He was sent to the notorious Evin Prison, where he has beaten and tortured and needs a kidney operation.

The Iranian nuclear program has led to a more rigorous pursuit of nuclear weaponry within such Sunni Arab states as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They, of course, have the petro dollars to buy scientists, technology and nuclear material.

All of this adds to the destabilization of an already volatile and unpredictable region, where human rights abuses are on the rise along with Sunni and Shiite Islamism.

Lessons for 2012

This has been a traumatic year for the entire region. It is a time of chaos and instability, in which we should have learned:

1) The United States has only one stable, reliable ally in the Middle East — the State of Israel, which .should be strengthened against the rising tide of radical Islamism. It is also time we learned that, whether we like it or not, radical Islamists perceive of America as the Great Satan.  As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once warned, our projection of our values onto the world simply does not work. We must understand the sociological and tribal structure of the Middle East before we enter into any further agreements with governments of the region.

2) Appeasement and groveling to despots and dictators have not enhanced America’s standing in the region, but has weakened it immensely.  America’s outstretched hand for dialogue has not prevented Iran from reaching its goal of nuclear capability and regional dominance one iota.

3) The United States appears like a sleeping giant that unconditionally dishes out our precious and rapidly dwindling resources — foreign aid — to unfriendly, unreliable parties in the region without any leverage, making us appear even more embarrassingly pathetic there. This applies to our aid to Pakistan and certainly has been the case with the Palestinians. Ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, we ostensibly conditioned our aid to the Palestinians on very basic principles, all of which they have continuously ignored. Rather than doing away with U.S. aid to the Palestinians, we have done away with enforcing the funds’ conditionality.

4) This is the time to finally stop our military aid and weapons shipments to Egypt, or we will be forced to confront these American-made armaments’ possibly use in attacking our one ally in the region, the State of Israel, or American soldiers and sailors on the Sixth Fleet.

5) Now, in the midst of all this regional chaos, is precisely not the time to pressure Israel to take more risks for peace. The growing radical Islamism is a time for stability, at least in one tiny sliver of the region, the State of Israel.

6) We should be helping and propping up the voices of the dissidents within Iran, and those within the Iranian constellation of power, such as the brave, besieged Syrian dissidents. Not to do so will strengthen the menacing hand of Iran and is nothing short of immoral.

As I write these words, my heart is heavy with pain.  A convoy of buses is now making its way from Ayalon Prison, carrying 550 Palestinian prisoners due to be released as part of Israel’s deal with Hamas that has freed the captured Israel Defense Forces soldier, Gilad Shalit. These prisoners make up the second wave, following the 440 who were released in October, and will be returning home to Jerusalem, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, if you will) and Gaza, where they will, no doubt, receive a hero’s welcome.

I have been told by an Israeli official that all have been involved in acts of terrorism and that some, no doubt, were involved in the murder and maiming of American citizens. This is beyond infuriating to me, not because American blood is any redder than Israeli blood, but because American laws for dealing with such matters have been completely ignored.

The United States’ anti-terrorism statute, passed in 1990, states that any time an American has been killed or wounded in a terrorist attack anywhere around the globe, the federal government has the right to seek out the suspect, and bring him or her to these shores to face justice.

Among the first wave of released prisoners in the Shalit deal was Ahlam Tamimi. On August 9, 2001, Ms. Tamimi planned and helped to execute the bombing of the Sbarro’s pizzeria in the center of Jerusalem. We know that at least two American citizens were killed during this attack: Judith Greenbaum, 31, from Passaic, New Jersey, and Malki Roth, 15, from Queens, New York.

In a taped interview that Ms. Tamimi gave while in prison, she confessed to the crime and said that if given the opportunity, she would not hesitate to do it again. When told that her act was responsible for the deaths of eight children, a smile of deep satisfaction came across her face.

Ms. Tamimi is currently in Jordan, where she is widely recognized as a hero and is on the lecture circuit. The United States has an extradition treaty with Jordan, and should demand her extradition.

On September 8, 2003, an emergency room doctor at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, David Applebaum, originally from Cleveland, Ohio, took his daughter Nava, out for a father-daughter dinner at Café Hillel in the capital’s trendy Emek Refaim neighborhood. The dinner was special: Nava was to be married the very next day. David was known to be a quintessential mensch, always the first to arrive in the emergency room after a disaster or suicide bombing, even when he wasn’t “on call.”  When the suicide bomber entered Café Hillel and blew himself up, everyone wondered why David hadn’t come running immediately to the emergency room to help out. That was because David and Nava were among the dead. Ibraham Dar Musa, who planned the Café Hillel bombing,  was one of those released last October.

There are approximately 54 cases of American citizens who have been killed and 83 of Americans who have been injured by Palestinian terrorists since the singing of the Oslo Accords. The United States government seems to be treating them as invisible, disposable Americans, mere pawns on a political chessboard.

On May 8, 2001, my friends Sherri and Seth Mandell, originally from Silver Spring, Maryland, suffered an unspeakable loss. Their son, Koby, and his friend, Yoseph Ishran, decided to play hooky from school. When they did not return home that evening, their families were incredibly worried. Koby’s and Yoseph’s bodies were found the next day, brutally dismembered, in a cave outside their families’ community of Tekoa, Israel. The boys had been stoned to death.

In those days, I had been working on a law to give the Justice Department primary responsibility for rendering justice on terrorists who had killed American citizens overseas. Prior to that, the State Department had handled such matters. I felt that the State Department was primarily concerned with politics and diplomacy, not justice. By changing the address, we had felt there might be a greater chance of securing justice for victims and their families that wasn’t contaminated by diplomatic or political factors.

I had called Sherri Mandell while she was sitting shiva. What do you say to a woman who has just lost her first-born son, her bechor, so brutally? So, I told her about the bill that I was working on, and asked if she would like it to be named for Koby.

I will never forget her response. In fact, her voice is still ringing in my ears. She said, with a tinge of joy, “I could just see Koby jumping up and down in heaven to have a law named after him.”

I thought to myself, “Sweetheart, it is a long way before a bill becomes a law.” I vowed to myself that I would not rest until it happened. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush in December 2004.

In May 2005, the Office of Victims of Overseas Terrorism was opened in the Department of Justice. The office lists on its website that it was established “to ensure that the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks that result in deaths and/or injuries of American citizens overseas remain a high priority within the Department of Justice.”

The office takes special credit for the seizure and indictment of an Indonesian murderer of one Christian missionary. However, when reading the law, it is clear that the legislative intent of the bill was to address a specific population of Americans who were either studying in, touring in, or living in Israel at the time, the office has not brought a single Palestinian terrorist to justice on these shores. Vicki Eisenfeld of West Hartford, Connecticut, — whose son Matthew, a Yale University graduate, was killed together with his girlfriend, Sara Drucker,  a graduate of Barnard College, on Jerusalem bus number 18 — once confided in me, “It makes me feel that my son’s blood is less American.”

I spend a great deal of time on Capitol Hill, and when I walk between the House side and the Senate side, I see the Supreme Court. Etched on top of the beautiful building are the words, “Equal Justice Under Law.”

Therein lies my profound indignation and sadness.

This past Friday, at a policy conference in Washington, Puneet Talwar, Senior Director for Iran, Iraq and the Gulf States at the White House National Security Council addressed the group. In his “on the record” remarks, Mr. Talwar calmly stated, “We have a three legged stool in our policy toward Iran: The first leg of the stool is engagement. The second is sanctions. And the third is our military option. We are keeping all of the options on the table.”

This is eerily familiar. It is precisely the same statement we had heard from then candidate Obama when he came to address the AIPAC policy conference while running for office in 2008.

Since then, almost four years have elapsed, and the centrifuges have been assiduously spinning uranium to the highly enriched grade necessary for a nuclear bomb. It is said they now have enough enriched uranium for at least one nuclear bomb, and that they are hard at work at a delivery mechanism. As these words are written the Iranians are launching yet another atomic facility, deeply underground, beneath the mountains near the holy city of Qom.

One of the most chilling elements of the policy debate regarding the Iranian nuclear program is the bizarre time stasis in which those who oppose action against Iran exist. Warnings of an approaching nuclear deadline date back at least as far as 2004, when European experts warned Iran could be between five and six years away from a bomb. Even the widely panned and inaccurate 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which incorrectly claimed that Iran had halted production in 2003, set the earliest possible date for Iran to possess enough highly enriched Uranium for nuclear weapons at some time between 2009 and 2010. More recent assessments, such as that of Israeli military intelligence, put Iran is six months to one year away from producing a bomb. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told CNN Iran was less than a year away from being “unstoppable” in its nuclear effort. Weapons inspector David Albright put the Iranians within six months of possessing enough nuclear material if they conduct a crash program, while a more hawkish estimate placed it as low as 62 days.

Yet none of this fazed the Obama Administration, which spent a substantial amount of energy in arm-twisting Congressmen in an effort to push back implementation dates for a new round of Iranian Central Bank sanctions proposed by Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) from two months (already quite a long time) to half a year.  The Obama Administration had also been seeking wider latitude and discretion in applying the proposed sanctions.

According to one report, by Reuters, the Administration has received at least some of those demands, although Sen. Mark Kirk has said the Congressional negotiators resisted “most” of the administration’s attempts to weaken sanctions. A press release from the Armed Services Committee indicates that the implementation timeline survived Administration pressure, a positive sign.

But in what bizarre dimension of time and space does this administration reside where sanctions, implemented six months from now can halt a nuclear program that could potentially be completed, or at least “unstoppable” by the time they take effect?  And yet the officials from the same administration expect to have their cake and eat it too by the claim that “all options” including the military option are on the table, as did Mr. Talwar, or as referenced by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in his speech to the Saban Center.

One must doubt very seriously that anyone in the administration believes that boilerplate response, and for certain the Iranians do not considered it a credible threat. Are the Iranians expected to believe, that an administration which refuses to recover its own downed aircraft for fear of the reaction, will take a full scale military option against it? The same “military option” that has been “on the table” for the past decade, as Iran continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions?

The reality is that while American policy, focused on its table full of options, has remained static for the past ten years, Iran has quietly, persistently marched forward. All policy options, whether they are sanctions, or military force, or even diplomacy, are perishable goods. The longer you wait, the less valuable they become.

This is not to say that the sort of covert attacks against Iranian nuclear installations which appear to be underway , are not helpful, and that they have not bought us time. They are and they have.  But however much time such actions buy, it is not all the time in the world. We must stop treating the Iranian nuclear bomb as though it is some kind of desert mirage, which remains just out of reach, regardless of how much time is spent moving towards it.

The Kirk-Menendez Amendment was a noble and bipartisan move, of the kind all too rare in Washington. It is disturbing the amount of pressure the administration was willing to bring to bear against elected legislators, in the name of NOT bringing pressure against Iranian thugs. It stands also as evidence that American legislators can still come together and produce innovative and useful policy legislation, but only if they are willing to stand up to an administration which expends momentous energy to insure that nothing effective gets done.

There is a fourth option which neither President Obama or Mr. Talwar has discussed, or used, at all, but it is worth discussing briefly.

In June of 2009, after the elections, there were thousands of brave dissidents on the streets. Most people in Iran are under age 30. They despise the mullahcracy in which they have been raised. These people were crying out for a word of support from the leader of the free world, and nothing was said in their behalf for nearly two weeks, while skulls were being crushed and people have summarily disappeared from the streets.

During the era of the Soviet dissidents, we worked with one the “refuseniks”, and everyone knew some of their names.  But few known the names of those like Sa’id Malikpur, a 35 year old web designer from Canada who went to visit his sick father in Iran in 2008, and was arrested by the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Prior to his incarceration, he had been developing a web site, which the regime says he used for posting pornographic images, but which Mr. Malikpur claims no knowledge of. He has been held in the notorious Evin prison, where he has been held in solitary confinement for over a year, and human rights groups say he has been routinely tortured. Mr. Malikpur has been sentenced to death.

It is absolutely unconscionable that we are not empowering the brave dissidents of Iran, and widely distributing these dramatic stories of human rights abuse. The window of opportunity was wide open in June of 2009. We must try, using the new technologies of the internet; Facebook and Twitter to see if we can pry open the window once again, and help these brave people overthrow this despicable regime.

And in terms of the other three options:  Despite the complacent assurances of some people in Washington, we are quickly running out of time.

  MORPHEUS: You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up and believe…whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill… and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole [i.e., the truth] goes.

  Remember…all I’m offering you is the truth, nothing more.

  –Morpheus, The Matrix, 1999

I remember exactly when I took the “red pill” regarding the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict. It was 2000, after then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered then-PLO Chairman/PA “President” Yasser Arafat exactly what he (Arafat) had so recently claimed to want (in English) – a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza consisting of 95% plus of that area, land to live in peace with the Jewish state of Israel – and Arafat walked away from the offer without countering it, then proceeded to incite his people into yet another terrorist war directed primarily against Israeli civilians. At that exact moment in time, I knew the “peace process” between these two parties was complete and utter bunk (actually, another word comes to mind here, but is too crude for use at this website) because one side – the Palestinian side – did not really want to have peace.

Prior to 2000, I, like many of my religious group – I am Jewish – in the U.S., was taken in by the usual propaganda put forth by the chattering classes in the U.S., especially the State Department, Europe, and the New York Times. Israel was at fault for the lack of peace in the Middle East, they said, because its “right wing governments” led by Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir refused to give up on the idea of a “Greater Israel” that included all of the West Bank areas. For this reason, I cheered when Labor Leader Yitzhak Rabin finally and conclusively defeated the Likud in the 1992 elections, assuming that a real peace was finally at hand. I especially respected the fact that Rabin was strong and responsible enough to get over his distaste of the despicable terrorist Arafat and “do what was right for peace” by agreeing to the Oslo Accords in 1994. When Rabin was assassinated and Benyamin Netanyahu had his first stint as Prime Minister, I mourned the loss of all my hopes. But then, in 1999, Ehud Barak led Labor back to victory, and once again, peace in the Middle East seemed right around the corner.

And then Arafat walked away from the negotiating table.

That was when I finally took the red pill and saw the truth. The truth was – and is – that the Palestinians and their leadership – both the PLO and Hamas – simply didn’t, and still don’t, want peace. If they did want peace, Arafat wouldn’t have walked away in 2000. If they did, Arafat’s successor Abbas wouldn’t have also walked away in 2008, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert offered a similarly generous peace offer. But that is not all. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they would – for lack of a better term – fix their “deviant society.” Specifically, the PA/Hamas/Palestinians would:

• Stop utilizing their various cultural, educational, and media sources to undermine the peace process with Israel.
 
• Stop using their children’s shows and elementary schools to incite Palestinian children to kill Israelis, including women and children, and Jews (regardless of their positions on the Arab-Israeli debate) in general.
 
• Stop producing government officials, from the President down to their diplomatic envoys, who spread anti-Semitism throughout the world.
 
• Stop naming streets, buildings, and squares after terrorists who have killed Israelis and Jews.
 
• Stop selling and teaching such trash including Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
 
• Stop smuggling arms and rockets and explosives into the West Bank and Gaza to be used to attack Israeli cities and farms.
 
• Stop praising, paying for, and otherwise honoring Palestinian terrorists, and their families, who kill Israelis, Jews, and even Americans.
 
• Stop saying they want peace in English but saying they want war in Arabic.
 
• Stop denying the Holocaust, while calling for another one,  and stop allowing Holocaust deniers to serve as their leaders, like Abbas, and others.

These demands – and that is what they are – should be non-negotiable. There can be no peace without them being satisfied. Unfortunately, many in the West are still ingesting the blue pill. These people are still stuck in the imaginary world of the Matrix.  Time after time, like clockwork, these delusional persons demand more concessions from Israeli governments, of both left and right, regardless of what is happening in the Middle East or what the Palestinians are doing. In 2005, they demanded, and they got, a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip by the supposedly arch-conservative then-Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. No peace followed. In 2008, they persuaded then-Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert to reiterate the Barak proposal from 2000. No peace followed. Now, the unelected Palestinian “President” Abbas is demanding that the world grant the Palestinians a state without any compromise or peacemaking on their part, as a reward for their violence and their bad faith.

The answer to this demand should be “no.”  It is long past the time for President Obama, members of the U.S. Congress, and even the world community, to take the red pill.  The truth is waiting for them.

This past Friday at the Brookings Institute, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta excoriated Israel for the lack of progress in the peace process.  Sandwiching his remarks between the usual boilerplate platitudes, our Secretary of Defense made it absolutely clear that he and the administration feel that the responsibility for the sorry state of affairs between Israel and the Palestinians, let alone between Israel and the rest of the Arab world in which it is forced to survive, lies, at least partially, at Israel’s doorstep.

Mr. Panetta said that he “believes security is dependent on a strong military, but also on diplomacy,” and he added, “Unfortunately over the past year we have seen Israel’s isolation from the traditional security partners in the region grow and the pursuit of a comprehensive Middle East peace has effectively been put on hold.”

The Secretary of Defense then demanded that Israel reach out, not only to the Palestinians, but to Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, her past traditional allies.

First of all, as has been documented in an article by Khaled Abu Toameh in this Monday’s Jerusalem Post, chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat has rejected the demand by the Quartet (the United States, Russia, the European Union, the UN), for direct negotiations between the two parties.

The Palestinians refuse to sit down and talk to the Israelis, man to man. Why? Because they refuse to recognize the nation for what it is: a Jewish state. How do Obama and Panetta expect the two nations to live together in a peace that will endure for generations if the Palestinians cannot even accept Israel for what it is, and call it by its name?

What’s more:  PA negotiator Saeb Erekat expressed “surprise” that State Department’s Mark Toner has even asked the Palestinians to sit down in direct face-to-face negotiations with Israel.

In his worldview, the United States is out of line to ask anything of the Palestinians. He believes it is the Palestinians alone who have the right and power to do the demanding and set the rules.

The answer lies in the history of the way this administration has coddled the Palestinians since assuming office and has not acted as an “honest broker” or a referee between the sides, but as a consistent coach and cheerleader for the Palestinians.

As soon as Obama entered office, he quickly demanded that the Netanyahu government stop construction anywhere in the territories that Israel captured in its defensive war of 1967 and retained when attacked again in the war of 1973. Astonishingly, his demand included any building in the city of Jerusalem, the eternal capitol of the Jewish people. The actions of the President and Secretary of State gave the Palestinian Authority a new feeling of invulnerability and entitlement.  This was brought out in a now-famous interview that Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post had with P.A. Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas shortly after President Obama assumed office.  Abbas claimed all he had to do to achieve his Palestinian state was to wait for Obama to deliver the state and the land from the Israelis.

Now, Abbas has developed such a heightened sense of entitlement that he said he will not sit down with the Israelis unless first, they deliver on everything on the Palestinian wish list, including a return to the 1949 armistice lines, which UN representative Abba Eban of the Labor Party had realistically dubbed “the Auschwitz” lines because they were simply indefensible.  The 1948 lines would put every single Israeli city within easy range of an Arab Kassam missile. The Arab town of Kalkilya could easily launch Kassam rockets at Ben Gurion Airport. Just one Kassam rocket launched at the airport and the entire country would be closed off from air traffic.

Right of return of all Palestinian refugees.

As far as the right of return is concerned, the Palestinians have a very creative, ingenious way of accounting. The demographic rosters have been infinitely inflated. Every time a woman in Ramallah has an appendix attack, she is listed as giving birth to a child. Any unlimited Palestinian “right of return” would be a demographic nightmare that would signal the end of Israel as both a Jewish state and a democracy.

This growing listing of Palestinian hubris runs contrary to the iron-clad assurances that American President George W. Bush gave to the government of Israel.

In a letter dated April 14, 2004, given to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and signed by President George W. Bush, he stated: “As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

What happened to these American iron-clad assurances to the Jewish state when President Obama assumed office? Do American guarantees last only until the administration that gave them is out of office? And what does that make of American credibility and trustworthiness?

Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense seems to feel that it is Israel’s responsibility to make peace with Turkey, whose Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogen refuses diplomatic ties with Israel and has called Israel the “military threat to the region.” Or with Egypt, who just voted in an “Islamist” Parliament last week. Islamists who have historically viewed both Israel and America as adversaries. And Jordan, whose king finds himself at high risk as Islamist fever and revolution overturn both monarchies and dictators across the Middle East.

It is interesting how a great deal of attention has been given recently to the subject of bullying. We have suddenly noticed that there are kids in the classroom and on the playground who for one reason or another are singled out as vulnerable and everyone piles on them. In the Middle Eastern playground, Israel is cast as the vulnerable child, because she is different and because she is Jewish. The Arab world has never accepted her existence; not in 1929, not in 1948, not in 1967 and not in 2011. And no one in the neighborhood wants her on their team.

We have grown to expect that sort of bullying from the Arab world. It is sad and tragic, however, to see it come from spokesman of the United States.

That is because the kids in this neighborhood play with toys that are all too lethal, and when they sense that the United States is pulling away from Israel, they feel emboldened — and the neighborhood becomes that much more dangerous.

Once again, we at EMET wish that we had been proven wrong. As soon as the demonstrators took to the streets in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt last winter, we had been alone on Capitol Hill arguing that the United States should immediately halt, or at least temporarily suspend, all U.S. military aid and shipments of sophisticated weaponry to Egypt — at least until the results of the Parliamentary elections came in.  It did not take a rocket scientist to understand that a chill wind was blowing through the Arab Middle East that could overturn years of cultivation and bring radical Islamist parties to power — parties that are enemies of Western values and especially of the United States and Israel.

However, a significantly more powerful pro-Israel organization was also on the Hill at the same time arguing the total antithesis — that now was the time to speed up military aid to Egypt. They based their argument on the idea that the Egyptian military is the most Western and moderating of all Egyptian institutions and that supporting the military was our way of “buying a seat at the table.”

What good is a “seat at the table” when we put masking tape over our mouths? The United States has seldom been successful in utilizing our arms shipments to exert influence or leverage over countries that have taken billions of our dollars and our weapons — just look at the U.S.’s disastrous relationship with Pakistan, whom we are currently supporting with billions of dollars in aid and extensive shipments of the most modern arms, while their military actively supports the Taliban and assists in attacks on U.S. forces.

Since the Camp David Accords were signed between Israel and Egypt in 1979, America has rebuilt the Egyptian military from being a Russian equipped C- army to a powerful American trained and equipped A+ army with the most advanced and sophisticated equipment.  Now all that technology and firepower will be in the hands of radical Islamist forces who fully support Hamas and Hezbollah and seek to destabilize the remaining friends of the U.S. in the Middle East.  Behind the scenes the Muslim Brotherhood has had a long and deep relationship with the Egyptian military.  Now, if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to political power in Egypt, it will be openly embraced by the military, producing a potentially disastrous mix of a religious/political ideology and a powerful military machine.

The “seat at the table” argument did not work during the 1979 Iranian revolution when we had to immediately halt our arms shipments to Tehran, nor has it worked with the Lebanese Armed Forces which has been completely over-run by Hizballah.

Anyone with any understanding of the Middle East knows that a.) Armies also want to survive and that the way that they survive is by aligning themselves with the biggest bully in the playground; b.) The Egyptian military is a professional military, and like all professional militaries they do not create policy, but carry it out; and c.) Armies are made up of human beings who are not impervious to the influences of the street.

The revolution that swept through Tahrir Square was initiated by the young, savvy and independent, Facebook crowd, but these idealistic young people lack the deep political infrastructure of the Muslim Brotherhood, the charismatic influence of the Imams and mosques and the deep conservative religious ethos of the Egyptian populace.

Now that Egyptians have gone to the polls, the question is not whether the radical Muslim Brotherhood will win a plurality of seats in their Parliament, but by how many.  The election’s final results will probably not be known until January, but it does not look as though Jeffersonian democracy will spring up in Egypt, or anywhere else in the Muslim and Arab Middle East.

The results of the Moroccan election of November 25th are no more promising. The Islamist Justice and Development Party, (PJD) easily trumped all the others.  Nor are the October 23rd Tunisian election results, which shows the Ennahda party, also Islamist, winning a clear plurality of the votes.

As our people painfully learned in 1932, when Hitler came to power through the process of a democratic election and then again in 2006, when Hamas came to power through another process of democratic elections in Gaza: one election is not sufficient to create a vibrant democracy.

Democracy means the ability to have a second, a third and a fourth election.

It means that the institutions of the government are in place that protects the rights of religious and other minorities, that there is an independent judiciary and an independent press. It means, as Natan Sharansky said, “the freedom to stand in the public square and criticize those in power without fearing for one’s life.”

We are facing the beginning of a long, chilling Middle East winter, where their supporters of America will be few and far between and the rights of the individual remain an even more distant dream. The young and idealistic revolutionaries of the Facebook generation must be feeling bereft, as many of them might soon be forced to conceal their yearnings for independence behind oceans of homogeneous abayas and hijabs.

And our one fellow vibrant democracy in the Middle East, Israel, becomes further isolated in a rejectionist sea of radical Islamism.

Sunday morning, an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps missile commander and sixteen other IRGC officials were killed in an explosion at a base southwest of Teheran. Iranian officials called the explosion an accident during the transport of munitions, but there are a number of reasons to believe it was not.

Firstly, the commander killed was Major Gen. Hasan Moghaddam, a senior IRGC commander with responsibility for the “Self-Sufficiency” unit of the Iranian’s missile forces, in particular surface-to-surface missiles. Moghaddam is said to have been a favorite of Ayatollah Khamenei, and it strains credibility that he was engaged in such a routine activity as personally supervising the transfer of munitions when the “accident” occurred. Secondly, according to an Israeli news report, Moghaddam had close ties to assassinated Hamas arms provider Mahmoud Al–Mabhouh, which suggests that, if Moghaddam was killed by the Mossad, they may be working their way up al-Mabhouh’s list of associates, possibly using intelligence gained from the terrorist’s interrogation before he was killed.

Western intelligence sources are confident that the explosion was indeed a successful Mossad operation.  The assassination of Moghaddam is just the latest in a series of shadowy attacks against Iran, specifically related to the missile program. Explosions have also killed Iranian missile technicians, an IRGC base where Shabab missiles are stored, and convoys transporting missiles, probably intended for Hezbollah.  Numerous nuclear scientists have been assassinated in the past two years, including Russian nuclear scientists killed in a plane crash in June.

Coincidentally, the Iranians also admitted Sunday that they had suffered from another computer virus attack, called “Duqu”, which is closely related to the previous Stuxnet virus. The Iranians claim to have “neutralized” Duqu before any substantial damage was done, but considering that Duqu is primarily designed as an information-gathering device, rather than a weapon of sabotage, it seems likely that whoever injected the code into the Iranian computer systems probably already got what they came for. “Duqu” would represent the third such virus attack against Iranian systems, including Stuxnet, and another virus program which the Iranians called “Stars”.

Lest one think that Iran is some hapless victim, the Islamic Republic is active in the shadows as well. Former CIA spy Reza Kahili’s Iranian sources tell him that the operation which included the assassination plot against a Saudi Ambassador on U.S. soil, and Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington and Buenos Aires, were hatched at the direction of Iran’s supreme leader. Bahraini intelligence claims they successfully intercepted a plot to bomb Saudi targets in the small Gulf country, and destroy the causeway which connects Bahrain to Saudi Arabia. On November 3rd, an Afghan suicide bomb team targeted a construction company in Herat, Afghanistan. The likely commander of that operation, Samihullah, has close ties to Iran’s Al-Qods force.  Iranian support for the Taliban in Afghanistan has been publicly known for some time, and is a great concern for U.S. forces. Closer to home, Iran is heavily active in Latin America, expanding Al Qods and Hezbollah forces, ties with anti-American regimes, and even drug cartels. The Iranians have also been active in promoting and cheerleading the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, in the exact same manner they did the Arab Spring protests. Iran routinely host U.S. based Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR, MPAC and MSA, on their Press TV propaganda outlet.

When we consider the on-going covert conflict with Iran, it becomes readily apparent that the two sides have vastly different objectives. The West (including Israel and the United States, and other western allies who may be assisting in intelligence activities) are almost wholly focused on the nuclear weapons issue. Targets are those actively involved in the Iranian nuclear weapons project, or increasingly, involved in the delivery systems for such weapons, meaning surface to surface missiles.  The operations against Iran are largely technocratic. The elimination of particular scientists or arms suppliers, target specific reactors and centrifuges.  Success or failure can best be measured by Iran’s progress towards nuclear weaponization.

Are we succeeding? The recently released IAEA report contained intelligence information from ten countries, all leading to the conclusion that Iran has constructed and “cold tested” all the components of a nuclear warhead, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that the up to date intelligence places Iran further ahead than would be suggested by the already alarming U.N report. And despite the skill and ingenuity displayed by Western Intelligence in attempting to disrupt Iranian nuclear efforts, such efforts are likely doomed to failure. As U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen stated in February of last year, even an overt military strike would not stop the Iranian nuclear program for good.

By contrast, the Iranian objectives appear to be primarily about spreading influence and ideology, both regional, vis-à-vis its chief competitor Saudi Arabia, but also globally, seeking to hamper U.S. interests. The Iranians are clearly willing to engage in any theater, including the U.S. capital itself. The Iranians are a revolutionary opponent, focused on the spread of their Islamic revolution. They firmly believe that any action which upsets the status quo, and which creates chaos or dissension is to their advantage. As Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, “… [Iran] builds something you can’t respond to: Ethics, decency, monotheism and justice.” In other words, Ahmadinejad views the Iranian ideology as its most powerful weapon.

Viewed in these terms, can the Iranians then said to be achieving their objectives? One would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. The new Islamist Prime Minister of Tunisia has called for a new Caliphate and hosts Hamas. The head of Tunisia’s new ruling Islamist party, Rachid Ghannouchi has publicly declared that he “quite likes” Hamas’ rocket attacks against Israel. Even a leading Saudi thinker is calling the recent upheaval in the Middle East, “The Muslim Brotherhood Spring”. Prior to Mubark’s overthrow in Egypt, Egyptian intelligence warned the U.S. of Iran’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in June of last year, according to a Wikileaked State Department cable. In the UAE, the Crown Prince warned of the risk of elections in any country with an organized Muslim Brotherhood presence.” Despite this the U.S. says it would be “satisfied,” with a Muslim Brotherhood victory, and trains Islamists in electioneering techniques.

Arguably then, Iran is achieving its broad objectives, even as particular operations, such as the Saudi Ambassador assassination fail and their hand is publicly revealed. By contrast, the efforts by the Western covert agencies have been operationally successful, and their fingerprints largely wiped cleaned. But despite numerous operational successes, the Iranians continue on undaunted, inching ever closer towards a nuclear weapons arsenal.

The West must adopt a far broader effort if it hopes to best Iran in this shadowy conflict. While operations delaying or hampering the Iranian nuclear project are positive, (as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said of the Iranian explosion, “May there be more like it”) but these acts are merely to buy time, they do not represent an actual strategy against Iran’s global ambitions. Nuclear weapons play a role in these ambitions, but they are not a goal in and of themselves. The goal is worldwide Islamic revolution with Iran as its leader.

The West must set as its own goal, not merely the prevention of Iran’s nuclear weapons, but the overthrow of the regime, and the defeat of Islamism as an ideological force. To do that will require a willingness to combat Iran in every sphere of endeavor, and on every continent where they are operational. The U.S. must immediately cease cooperating with Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist parties, and equip liberals and democrats with the tools and training necessary to be successful against their Islamist opposition. This idea that the U.S. must support all parties equally in the interest of a free and fair election is deeply misguided.  Refusing to intervene in our own interest means only that Iran’s preferred parties and Islamist fellow-travelers are allowed to dominate. We should instead act, as we did when CIA operations affected the outcome of the Italian election of 1948, keeping the Communists from power in Italy. Even with the opportunity of the Iranian protests in 2009 squandered by an Obama Administration at pains to keep open negotiations with Iran, we can still work within Iran with opposition parties and dissidents to undermine and eventually defeat the regime.

Until such a strategy is devised and executed, we will find that the west can succeed at all of its covert operations, and yet still lose the shadow war.

Over the past year, events in the Middle East, including most notably the Arab Spring, have dramatically altered the security landscape facing the nation of Israel, as well as the national security interests of the United States in the region.  While each of these events have been well cataloged separately and in greater detail elsewhere, it is useful to consider all of these disparate threats together, when thinking about the security and stability of the Middle East. The five categories we have highlighted in this document, “Strategic Threats to Israel and Mideast Stability” represent both relatively new threats such as those posed by Turkey’s Islamization and increasing anti-Israel stance, as well as traditional opposition which is evolving and enhancing its capability including Hezbollah’s successful dominance of the Lebanese government. As we continue to examine the strategic threats to Israel and the greater stability of the Middle East, as EMET does weekly with its articles and analysis, we must also keep in mind that no strategic threat exists in isolation, but instead each acts to multiply the others, leading to an increasingly degenerating security situation for the Jewish state, as well as its ally the United States, and weakening of the overall stability of the region.

Iran – Iran remains the most dangerous actor in the Middle East, more dangerous than Al Qaeda, according to a U.S. official.

Support for Terror- Iran continues to be recognized as the foremost state sponsor of international terrorism in the world, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. Additionally Iran’s elite terrorist unit the Al-Quds force has expanded its capabilities and become increasingly aggressive, including plans to target the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C, and the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in addition to Saudi targets.

Arming Terrorists- Iran continues to use air, land, and sea transport in an effort to arm Palestinian terrorists for attacks against Israel. Israel has repeatedly interdicted arms shipments from Iran including the MV Francop, and Victoria. Additionally Iran continues to smuggle arms overland via the Sudan. Since 2008, Iran has successfully upgraded the Palestinian’s missile capability from homemade Qassem to 122mm Iranian and Chinese manufactured Grad Rockets with a 40km range.

Nuclear Weapons- Iran has continued to make progress with its nuclear weapons program, according to most western intelligence agencies as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which has issued a new report on the Iranian advancements which claims Iran is “on the threshold” of nuclear capability. The IAEA report also claims that Iran has tested all the component parts for a nuclear warhead, and an analysis of the Iranian warhead device in six different categories suggests it is unlikely or impossible for it to be designed for anything but a nuclear weapon.  Former CIA Spy Reza Kahili, who was a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, claims that Iran already possess a small number of nuclear weapons acquired on the black market.  Iran has threatened to invade Israel and “battle Zionists in the streets of Tel Aviv” if its nuclear program is attacked.

Syrian Crackdown- Iran is said to be deeply involved with assisting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s crackdown of his people, according to European , American, and Israeli sources. Iran has publicly remained supportive of their Syrian ally, despite earlier criticism. Iran has issued threats against Western intervention in Syria.

Hezbollah- Hezbollah continues to represent a substantial strategic threat to Israel’s national security both along Israel’s northern border, and world-wide:

Missile threat- According to Hezbollah’s internal discussions and public threats, they are prepared to launch as many as ten thousand missiles into Israel against military and strategic targets such as airfields, as well as against civilian targets, including major population centers such as Tel Aviv.

The Northern Border- Hezbollah has, according to Brig. Gen (ret.) Shimon Shapira, developed with Iranian assistance, an operational plan for the invasion of the Galilee, to commence following its planned missile barrage at the outset of conflict. The plan involves a joint invasion by five Hezbollah brigades, targeting Nahariya, Shlomi, and Carmiel. While Hezbollah’s ability to actually carry out such an operation may be questionable, it represents a very aggressive posture and the increasing confidence of the terror group.

Dominance of Lebanon- Through a series of political, and military crises engineered by Hezbollah, the terror group and its allies now heavily dominate the Lebanese government, including the position of Prime Minister. With the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) sniper attack against Israeli troops which occurred in August of last year, and considering bellicose statements made by Lebanese officials there is every reason to suspect that if Israel were required to take military action against Hezbollah, they could expect the LAF to side with Hezbollah against Israel. This reality seems to have been recognized by the Obama Administration which, while it had been reluctant to do so, has quietly ended aid to Lebanon because of the ascension of a Hezbollah-controlled Cabinet.

World-wide terrorism- Hezbollah remains a major international terrorist organization with operations that stretch far beyond Lebanon, to West Africa, South America, and even Mexico. Hezbollah’s expansion is piggybacked on Iran’s expanded alliances in the Western hemisphere. Hezbollah continues to seek to conduct major terror attacks against Israeli interests with a stated desire to retaliate for the assassination of Hezbollah archterrorist Imad Mughniyeh, which the organization blames on Israel, although it is unclear who actually conducted the operation.

Syria- Syria is facing grave protests from a wide-spread domestic opposition, which may make Assad feel cornered and even more dangerous.

Assad’s Instability- The Assad regime in Syria has been wracked by several domestic protests which began during the so-called “Arab Spring.” Assad has utilized a mixture of promises of reform along with ruthless security crackdowns to try and maintain control, but protests have now gone on since mid-March, despite the more than three-thousand who have been killed by Syrian security forces.  This instability has resulted in Assad seeking to divert attention towards Israel. This was most notable during the June, 2011 attempt by Palestinians, sponsored by Syria, to violently storm the Israeli border, which resulted in 23 protestors killed. If Western pressure on Syria continues, Assad may again seek to use similar attacks on Israel as a lever to release tension and to attempt to distract from Syria’s brutal crackdown and abuses.

Retaliation against Israel- Deeply concerned about the possibility of NATO intervention in Syria comparable to its intervention in Libya, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad has threatened to bombard Israel with its strategic rocket forces, among the largest in the Middle East, if NATO should attack Syria.

Support for Hamas and Hezbollah- Syria remains a major supporter of Hezbollah, as well as all major Palestinian terrorist groups, including especially Hamas. This has continued despite strain between Hamas and Syria over Syria’s crackdown on the opposition, which includes the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is Hamas’ parent organization.

WMD program- Syria is known to have been pursuing nuclear weapons at two sites, one the Al-Kibar Reactor, was targeted by Israeli in an airstrike in September of 2007. The Al-Kibar reactor is reported to have been a direct copy of a North Korean design.  The second site, which now appears inactive, is believed to have been based on a Pakistani design from nuclear proliferator A.Q Khan.  Additionally Syria is believed by some to have the most advanced chemical and biological weapons program in the Arab world.

Gaza- Palestinian terrorists in Gaza continue to represent a threat to Israel, particularly through their ability to launch missiles and other artillery weapons into the Israeli heartland.

Hamas and the Missile Threat- According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hamas has doubled its rocket arsenal, and expanded its anti-tank capability. Hamas now possess thousands of rockets, including Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets with a 75km range which could strike Tel Aviv. Additionally, Hamas’ weapons manufacturing and weapon smuggling capabilities are believed to be much improved compared to their abilities prior to Operation Cast Lead in 2009. Politically vis-à-vis other Palestinian factions, the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit has strengthened Hamas, according to both Hamas, and some Israeli assessments.

Salafist/Al Qaeda Activity- Salafist-Jihadist groups, some with links to Al Qaeda have continued to expand in Gaza. These groups have an occasionally cooperative and occasionally competitive relationship with the ruling Hamas. Attacks have included the terrorist raid near Eilat which killed eight in August of this year, as well as rocket attacks.

Blockade-Running- The Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is a necessary and legal tactic in its conflict with Hamas, but has been repeatedly challenged by a variety of radical-left and Islamist organizations, most notably the Turkish IHH, an organization with ties to terrorism, and which initiated violence against IDF commandos during the Mavi Marmara incident. Efforts to breach the land crossing at Rafah, are also common occurrences, orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Another organization prominent in efforts to break the blockade via land is Viva Palestinia, headed by British Politician George Galloway, who has appeared on video providing money and vehicles to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, and which represents well the alliance of Islamist and radical leftist organizations aligned to undermine the legal blockade.

Egypt and North Africa- Following the so-called Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist groups are on the rise throughout the region.

Terrorism in the Sinai- Following the collapse of the Mubarak government, reports surfaced of increased terrorist activity in the Sinai Penisula, including up to 400 Al Qaeda-linked terrorists. Terrorists have repeatedly targeted the Egypt-Israeli gas line, and the threat from terrorist incursion has forced the IDF to reinforce the southern border, following the attack by Al Qaeda-linked militants from Gaza who infiltrated into Israel via the Sinai border.

Opening of border with Gaza- The interim Egyptian government agreed in April of this year to open the Rafah border crossing into Gaza, despite this some pro-Palestinian organizations continue to express discontent with the limited border crossing restrictions which Egypt has maintained.

Weapons Smuggling- Following the fall of the Egyptian and Libyan governments, there has been a substantial increase in the flow of arms through Egypt. Many of those weapons are headed to Gaza, including Grad Rockets, advanced anti-tank weapons, and Russian SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles.

Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood- The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is widely believed to be the greatest beneficiary of the fall of Egyptian President Mubarak, as upcoming Parliamentary elections loom. Despite having attempted to reassure Egyptian liberals and the West with claims that it would not run for a majority of the seats, nor run a presidential candidate, the MB has broken both promises. They are expected to win at least a plurality of seats and therefore dominate the government, as well as to control the drawing up of the new constitution. The MB has made an electoral alliance with other Egyptian Islamist groups, including the State-department-listed Foreign Terrorist Organization Gamaa Al-Islamiya. Despite this the MB continues to receive State Department funded election training, and a U.S. official responsible for “Middle East Transitions” has said the U.S. would be “satisfied” with a Muslim Brotherhood election win. Muslim Brotherhood leaders have expressed thanks to Iran’s Supreme Leader, demanded the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador, stated a desire for preparations for war against Israel, and said they intend to impose Islamic law on Egypt in the event of electoral victory.

Annulment of Peace with Israel- In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood’s call for war preparations against Israel, other Egyptian politicians have competed to appear the most anti-Israeli. Egyptian Presidential candidate Amr Moussa, Liberal opposition figure Ayman Nour, and Foreign Minister Nabil Al-Arabi have all spoken out against the Camp David Peace Accord. Long-time Western favorite and former IAEA chief Mohammad ElBaradei declared that Egypt should go to war against Israel if Gaza were attacked. More than 50% of the Egyptian public said they want an end to the peace treaty in an poll taken in April of this year.

Changes to Turkey- Once a close ally of Israel in the region, the formerly secular state is increasingly competing for leadership of the Muslim world by showing its anti-Israel credentials.

Islamization of Turkey- The Islamist Turkish AKP party has established control of the Turkish Intelligence agency (MIT), appointing a close friend of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to the position of intelligence chief. The AKP has also successfully orchestrated what some have called a frame up against secular members of the military. The entire Turkish military brass has since resigned in protest. There are allegations that Turkey may have taken part in arming Hezbollah. According to State department documents released by Wikileaks, the Islamist Gulen movement is close to the ruling AKP and may dominate the Turkish police force.

Conflict for Islamic supremacy in Middle East- Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has made no secret of his conflict with Israel. The IHH, the Islamist group which initiated the violent confrontation on the Mavi Marmara, has close ties to Erdogan’s ruling AKP.  Turkey has also taken a very visible role in promoting the Arab Spring. Turkey’s support for Syrian protestors has brought the two countries closer to military conflict.

Challenging Israel- As Turkey competes with Iran (the other non-Arab Muslim country in the region) for dominance, one of the fields of competition is in anti-Israel activity. Turkey has turned to the Israel-Arab conflict as a means to boost its credibility among its Arab neighbors. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has used the Flotilla incident to boost Turkey’s status in the Muslim world by showing a willingness to confront Israel, by demanding U.N Action, and Israeli apologies. Israel’s refusal to apologize provided an excuse for Turkey to cut military ties with Israel. Additionally, renewed Israeli ties with Greece, and Cyprus, two nations with their own strategic concerns about Turkey, and the discovery of natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean have increased the possibility of Turkish-Israeli conflict.

“The Holocaust gave the Jewish people a fifty year respite from antisemitism. I am afraid it is back again”.

—Eliot Cohen,  Renowned Author, Scholar and Professor at the SAIS school at John Hopkins.

Hatred. Sheer, unadulterated, potent hatred.  It is back again, in full force, and it is directed against my people in an alarming and accelerated rate.  Whenever I rise in the morning and open up the morning papers, I grow sick with fear.

I see it crossing over into all spheres of society, in all corners of the globe. These are just a few highlights, (or should I say “lowlights”), that have occurred this week, where it has left its malodorous trail:

It is coming out of the gentrified classes in the Academy, such as out of the unrestrained mouth of Julia Pino, a professor at Kent State University in Ohio. Mr. Pino,  interrupted a forum in which a member of Israel’s foreign ministry,  Ishmael Khaldi,  former Deputy Consul General at the Israeli Consulate in San Francisco, who was speaking about his book, “A Sheppard’s Journey”, which he describes as “One man’s story of Israel’s culture, society and politics from the perspective of a Bedouin minority in a Jewish state”, when Professor Pino simply could not stand it any longer and had to cry out “Death to Israel”.

What is as disturbing is that the Kent State President Lester Lefton simply cannot decide whether or not that outcry constitutes protected speech and whether or not he should discipline Professor Pino.

I ask you:  Israel is the state of the Jews, so that is, in effect saying, “Death to Jews”. Would it be possible to love the people of Israel and cry out for its death? Is it an acceptable expression of free speech to shout out in a forum death to another minority group, such as “Death to Blacks?”

A few years ago, I was part of a United States Commission of Civil Rights Panel which helped the commissioners deem Jewish students to be “ a protected minority under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act”, which means that Jewish students have the right to feel safe and protected from hostility in their academic environment.

While legal scholars split hairs over whether or not this qualifies as a violation of that,  I pray that G-d protect any Jews who have the misfortune of being students in Professor Pino’s classes.

I see it coming out Saudi Arabia, where this week, a Saudi cleric, Alwadah Al-Gurni, promised to pay $100,000 to anyone who would capture an Israeli soldier, (so as to “liberate” other Palestinian terrorists, as in the Gilad Shalit deal). He bemoaned the fact that he could only afford a mere $100K, and wished he could afford to pay one million dollars. Iman Al Gurni did not have to worry for long. The highly philanthropic Prince Khalid Bin Talal kindly responded to the cleric’s deepest wish and offered to pay the remaining $900 K, in order to make it a full million.

I see it coming out of Syria, where there has been a four month old uprising against the suffocating regime of Bashir Assad, in which over 3,000 dissidents have been murdered in the regime’s brutal crackdown.

As in other parts of the Arab world, Syria has in the last several months has experienced an internal struggle for more basic rights, opportunities and freedoms . Israel has no bone in this fight, Yet, as reported in Saturday’s Washington Post, when Bassam Abu Abdullah,  a professor of international affairs and supporter of President Assad ‘s Baath party was asked why the United States has not intervened, as it has to overthrow Kaddafi in Libya, he responded, “Attacking Syria means regional war, because we will attack Israel directly. Hizballah will participate. Iran will participate. This is not in the interests of Europe and America.”

I see it crossing over into all segments of our society within America.  There are several popular You Tube videos going around the internet, where several of the Wall Street protestors and vociferously blaming America’s economic woes entirely on the Jews. Simply Google, “Occupy Wall Street Jews” and I guarantee that you will be nauseated at what you see.

I see it coming out of that lofty institution, the United Nations, where in the recent UNESCO, (The United Nations Education, Scientific, Cultural and Organization) vote,  the Palestinian Authority has been accepted as a full member state, avoiding the hard work of state building and going outside of the framework of the Oslo Accords and every other signed treaty with the Israelis, and making a unilateral move.  Statehood should be earned through the hard work of negotiations and institution building, not craftily manipulated.

Nor should it be based on hatred , or upon of replacing a neighboring nation with one’s own.  For information on that, please see Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’ speech in Gaza, welcoming the terrorists freed in the Shalit deal, calling them “heroes” and “martyrs”  or the textbooks or the maps of Palestine throughout every school that look familiarly like the map of Israel, only with Arabic names substituted for Israeli ones.

Yet, the kind-hearted nations of the UN saw fit to overlook those trivial, little stumbling blocks and voted 107 in favor, 14 against with 52 abstentions.

Interesting . Doesn’t the United Nations Charter call for peaceful relations with one’s neighbors?

On the lighter side, this brings to mind a story about the late Prime Minister Golda Meir. When Prime Minister Meir visited Princeton University in 1978, at a question and answer session after she spoke,a student asked her,  “Why was it that UNESCO had rejected Israel and accepted the Palestine Liberation Organization for membership , or associate membership?

Golda replied that that was a question that should be addressed to UNESCO, not to her.

The student responded, “That is, of course, correct, but it would be interesting to know your opinion, why UNESCO made these decisions.”

To which Golda replied, “As you know, UNESCO stands for the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization. We must assume that these gentlemen, after due consideration, came to the conclusion that the PLO has more to contribute to education, science and culture than Israel does.”

At which the audience burst into roars of laughter and laud applause.

I, on the other hand, do not feel much like laughing.  It looks like an ancient, all too familiar sentiment is back in full swing, rearing its ugly head.

How does one measure a heavy heart? Is there an instrument that can calibrate the considerable weight of the ambivalence that I am feeling today?

I am spending the holiday of Sukkoth here in Israel, with my beautiful children, Rachel and Jeremy, who have just married, and who have recently made aliyah. My son-in-law, Jeremy, has been serving for the last two years in the Israeli Defense Forces in the Golani brigade. His unit has served on the border of Gaza, and is one that has learned house-to-house combat in case the army has got to go back in there. At any moment he can be called up to go back in.

I look at their shining young faces, bright with potential and brimming with plans for the future. They want to raise their family in this beautiful, young land that they have recently planted their roots into.  They want to be a part of the Jewish dream of the return of our people to the ancient Jewish homeland and to be part of the proud struggle of our rebirth and renaissance.

They want to build their life here together, and to cast their lot with the nation of Israel.

And I am terribly frightened for them.

For five and a half years, every day since the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, was kidnapped by Hamas along the border, his parents Noam and Aviva have been holding vigil, counting the days, wondering , is he hungry, is he in pain, is he being tortured, is he is alive.

Gilad has become the symbol for every soldier.  This proud country is a total citizen army. Every mother has a son or a daughter that has been, is in, or will one day be, inducted into the IDF. Everyone has an uncle, a brother, a cousin who is serving, or will serve. Gilad’s name has become a household word.
His parents have set up a tent outside of the President’s house, where they have kept vigil for five and a half years.

The Israeli army has always instilled in its soldiers a remarkable sense of cohesion. Every soldier who has ever served in the IDF feels a sense of responsibility for one another in each unit. Captains of units go into combat shouting “Acharei”, (“after me”).

And it is an unbreakable code that no soldier will ever leave his brother alone on the battlefield.

The pain that Noam and Aviva have been going through must be unbearable. They have stated that they will not believe that their agony is over until Gilad walks through the front door. And everyone in Israel feels their pain.

Last week, Prime Minister Netayahu announced that Gilad is returning home. I can only imagine the emotions that are running through their head. “Is it a dream?” “Can we believe it?” “Is this for real?...Finally, finally ?” Can they even allow themselves to feel the ecstasy of his long awaited return?

And yet…and yet.

In return for this precious young life, Israel has offered to release 1,027 of the most brutal terrorists and murderers imaginable, all with blood dripping from their hands.

Among them is Ahlam Tamimi, the mastermind behind the horrific suicide bombing of the Sabaro Pizza Restaurant in midtown Jerusalem in 2001, in which 15 civilians were killed and 130 were wounded. Among those murdered were 8 children, one of them was 15 year old Malki Roth, a talented flutist who was planning to dedicate her life to working with handicapped children.

They, along with so many parents and loved ones of the approximately 2,000 victims of Palestinian terror since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the ensuing reign of terror that it has wrought ,are feeling abandoned and betrayed.

Ahlam Tamimi, when interviewed in prison, was told that she had killed eight children.  This brought a deep smile of satisfaction to her face.

During that interview she said, ” I am not sorry for what I did. “ And: “When I get out of prison, and I refuse to recognize Israel’s existence. Discussions will only take place after Israel recognizes that this is Islamic land.”

These people are monsters. They have no remorse whatsoever about the taking of the lives of children, of anyone who is a Jew.

And now 1,027 of them will be free to go on the streets. They know that if they kill Jews they will eventually be freed.

What is to prevent them from kidnapping more Gilad Shalits? What is to prevent another reign of terror on the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Rehovot and Haifa?

And herein lays the heaviness of my heart.

My son in law, Jeremy, said to me, “I signed up to serve in the IDF to protect the citizens of Israel. This decision negates everything that I have done for the last two years of my life.”

As Reuven Gilmore whose son Aish Kodesh was killed by one of the terrorists to be released wrote to me, “The deal would be justified to save a life. That is not the problem with this deal. The problem is all the unnamed victims of the released prisoners. For all of us, the pain of losing family members at the hands of these terrorists is not abstract. And that is why the families of the bereaved families should be listened to.”

I look at the beautiful young faces of my children who are planning to build their lives here, in this young and harsh land, and I can feel nothing but anger at those who made this feckless decision for putting their lives and the lives of every other Israeli citizen at risk.

And then, I think of Noam and Aviva.  There is simply no machine yet invited which can calibrate the heavy weight of the ambivalence in my heart.

Last Sunday, as Coptic Christians assembled peacefully in Maspero, Egypt to protest the burning of a Coptic church. The army responded by opening fire on protesters and deliberately driving armored vehicles into the crowd. Video (Warning: graphic), shows military vehicles plowing into the crowds, actively attempting to run down protestors at high speeds.

According to reports, the army was joined in attacking Christians by gangs of Muslim men armed with knives and clubs. A young Copt told Reuters that the violence was reserved for Christians, and that Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups were not attacked when they conducted similar protests.  Egyptian State-controlled media broadcasted calls for Muslims to take to the streets against Christians, even as the Prime Minister blamed “outside forces” a code word which usually implies alleged Israeli or American interference.

But in truth all the American “interference” is on the side of the Egyptian junta squashing protests and targeting minority Copts. The United States provides approximately $2 billion in military aid to Egypt every year, including for the purchase of armored vehicles like those turned on the Copts. Just two weeks the Egyptian government lodged a protest with the Obama Administration, after the Senate appropriations bill, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), included limitations on military aid, including requiring certification that the Egyptian government was respecting freedom of expression and other democratic norms. Secretary Clinton promised the Egyptians that the Obama Administration opposed the restrictions, according to the Washington Post. Following the clashes Sunday, White House Spokesman Jay Carney said the President urged “restraint on all sides,” as if there was some moral equivalence between peaceful protestors and those running them down.  Despite the violence the White House is pushing for the election to continue on schedule; an election which the well established Muslim Brotherhood and its allies are expected to dominate. Even as the Obama administration opposes the Senate appropriations bill, which would provide money for democracy promotion in Egypt and impose limitations on the army, the Obama State Department has held high-level talks with members of the Muslim Brotherhood according to a State Department official last week.  This has occurred despite the Brotherhood’s own electoral alliance with Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiya, an affiliate of Al Qaeda involved in the first World Trade Center attack, and #11 on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Whether done by design or incompetence, one cannot help but believe that the Administration’s policy is on course to ensure the rise of an Islamist anti-Western, Egypt.

EMET has made numerous warnings that the military was far more likely to side with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups, than it was to support minority rights, democratic activists and peace with Israel. Despite this, the administration, and even some pro-Israel organizations have continued to lobby for military aid to Egypt to continue to flow uninterrupted, oblivious to the facts on the ground, motivated by a failed understanding of the dynamics at play within Egyptian society. The events that occurred Sunday, are not the first Egyptian Army outrage. As we have previously reported, the Egyptian Army has conducted virginity checks against protestors, attacked Coptic monasteries, and committed other reprehensible acts against civilians.

Unfortunately there is no reason to imagine that the Obama Administration will reverse course following the tragic events in Maspero. However Sen. Leahy’s appropriations bill, with its restrictions on aid, are the beginning of a sign that those in Congress are beginning to sit up and take notice. However it seems likely that if the administration is granted any leeway by the legislative branch, it will continue its disastrous policy of arming the Egyptian military while at the same time reaching out to Islamists within the Egyptian political process. The U.S. Congress should act immediately to halt all transfers of funds to Egypt for arms, and demand an immediate halt to outreach to the Brotherhood members and other Islamists in Egypt. That is the only course which will provide religious minorities or Egyptian secularists even a modicum of a chance to prevail against the Egyptian Islamist-military alliance.  Until that happens, U.S. Taxpayers will continue to find themselves funding these sorts of massacres in the streets throughout Egypt.

The Palestinian UN statehood bid — statehood without negotiations — which is now before the Security Council, is just the latest step in a never-ceasing effort by the Palestinian leadership to erase the State of Israel. This is the Two State Solution on the way to Hitler’s “Final Solution” — the destruction of the Jewish people.  The goal of this UN end-run, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the disputed territories, is understood by the Palestinians as only a stepping stone for the eventually destruction of Israel. The Palestinians are not quiet or shy about openly trumpeting their goal. As Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki said on September 23rd:

“The settlement should be based upon the borders of June 4, 1967. When we say that the settlement should be based upon these borders, President [Abbas] understands — we understand — and everybody knows — that the greater goal [the destruction of Israel] cannot be accomplished in one go.  If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end!  If we say that we want to wipe Israel out…It’s not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don’t say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself.”

This two-step process to Israel’s destruction was recently given an even more evil and shocking twist by the PA’s ambassador to Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, who told the Lebanon Daily Star, that any future Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza would NOT allow the return of Palestinian refugees from the refugee camps or elsewhere in the world as citizens of the new state.  UN statehood he claimed was not be for the refugees, but only the first step in assuring the refugees’ “right of return” to the State of Israel. “Statehood will never affect the right of return [to Israel] for Palestinian refugees, he said.”

What does it mean when UN recognition of a state is the cause of an even greater and bloodier conflict; when UN recognition enables one party to extend a war of destruction and annihilation.  As Ambassador Abdullah openly declared, “When we [Palestinians] have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

What other nationalist movement cynically seeks a state that will NOT serve as a homeland for its scattered people?  Only the Palestinians! They want the destruction of Israel more then they want a home for Palestinians the world over.  This has been the constant objective of Palestinians demands since 1948. The conditions of a Palestinian state were less important than the annihilation of the Jewish State

While the public language of the Palestinians has stressed land and statehood, this conflict is not about land — but rather the Arabs’ total refusal to recognize the State of Israel. Says Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon:

“The truth is that even though the conflict has a strong territorial component, since two peoples see the same piece of land as their homeland, the heart of the conflict is existential, and centers on the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize the Jews’ right to build their national home in this land, whatever its borders may be. This is why the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.”

That is why the Palestinians continue their denial and incitement going so far as displaying statehood maps at the UN showing a Palestine state that was not next to Israel — but replaced it.  It is why they chose a woman, whose seven children were all Israeli prisoners for terror offenses, including four of them serving time for murder, to lead their Statehood campaign.  And it is why the Palestinians continue to pay the salaries of terrorists in Israeli prisons with funds from generous Western donors.

As the columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out last week, the difference between the failed “land-for-peace” negotiations of the past and this latest U.N. gambit, is that this new Palestinian move is to have “land without peace,” avoiding even a pretense of recognizing Israel, which Abu Mazen has bluntly refused to do.

Any peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians must start with recognition of a Palestinian State and recognition as Israel as a Jewish State. There cannot be a repeat of the phony Oslo formulation where the Palestinians claim to have recognized Israel, but persist in continuously deny its right to exist as a Jewish homeland. The only way to peace will be after Palestinians’ recognize Israel as it actually is –  the Jewish state — and the declaration that this is the FINAL end of the conflict and that they have absolutely no further claims. The onus is on the Palestinians to demonstrate that their declaration of peace is not simply some tactical stage in a plan to eventually eradicate the Jewish State.  Until the Palestinians are prepared to take this step, all the negotiations in the world, all the land swaps, all the territorial concessions, cannot bring peace.

Last Friday in Cairo, a throng of thousands of Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square, marching two miles to the Israeli embassy, proceeding to demolish a protective wall, entering and ransacking the embassy and the building, climbing up and tearing up the Israeli flag, urinating on the building, and concludingby shredding and throwing Israeli documents onto the street below.

In Ankara, Turkey, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is heating up his own anti-Israel rhetoric. Last week, Mr. Erdogan threatened to send warships to escort any new “flotillas” which will try to break the legal Israeli blockade of Gaza.  Even more provocatively, Mr. Erdogan stated that the Turkish navy would not allow Israel to drill for gas in its offshore territory and would send Turkish warships to prevent such action.  Furthering this explosion of hate, Mr. Erdogan‘s government expelled the Israeli Ambassador and ended all military and defense ties, agreements and exercises with Israel.

Last week,  Israeli officials were evacuated from the Israeli Embassy in Amman, Jordan. Activists in Jordan have used Facebook to promote a Million Man Protest,” demanding that the 1994 Peace Treaty with Israel be annulled.  The Jordanian protestors are demanding that the Israeli Embassy be closed and the Israeli Ambassador be permanently removed from Jordan.  Wednesday, about 70 American and Israeli flags were burned in Amman. Fortunately, approximately only two hundred people but that does not negate the possibility that there is not a great deal of anger simmering just beneath the surface.

This week, the Palestinian Authority will go to the United Nations for approval for the PA’s unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. Said Abu Mazen of the PA,  “We are going to the United Nations, seeking to rid ourselves of sixty-three years of occupation.”

Anyone who has passed elementary school knows that 2011 minus 63 does not equal 1967 – But 1948. The “occupation” that the President of the PA must be referring to, therefore, is not about the land that Israel had captured in its defensive war of 1967, BUT ALL OF ISRAEL ITSELF AS ESTABLISHED IN 1948 — meaning the Palestinians and every other Arab state plus Turkey seek to eliminate every last kilometer of the Jewish state and eradicate its inhabitants — every man, women and child.

While Palestinian spokesmen use soft words that resonate well within the international community to describe their intended plan this week at the United Nations while speaking to the West, about the yearning for “freedom”, they have avoided direct face to face negotiations with Israel, and are manipulating sympathies in the international community to take the war against Israel to a different level, using institutions of international jurisdiction to further isolate and penalize the Jewish state. The Palestinians are doing this simply to place another tool in their arsenal to destroy the legitimacy of Israel.

What seems to hardly raise an eyebrow, is that the protestors on the street throughout the Arab and Muslims world do not hide their intentions. The NY Times, in describing the Amman rally in Jordan, said “the dominant call at the Amman rally, however, was for the liberation of all of what the protesters called Palestine, meaning the pre-1948 British Mandate territory stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and a rejection of the Israeli state.”

And let us not keep our eyes off of the genocidal madmen of Iran who, according to the last IAEA report, have enough enriched uranium for at least one nuclear bomb today and are spinning their centrifuges night and day to build more bombs to use against Israel.  Just last month, in another open threat to Israel, Iran sent warships through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea to threaten the southern border of Israel.

These last months have given rise to what the West calls “The 2011 Arab Spring,” — but to Israel it has become “The Arab Tsunami ” The Arab’s newly found “freedom,” after decades of inciting the populace to hate Israel and the Jews, has now unleashed popular emotion — the peoples’ pure unadulterated hatred of Israel. While Arabs throughout the region are expressing frustration with the pace of freedom and democracy, there is still one topic that unites the otherwise widely split and disparate Muslim and Arab world and that is this classic and familiar hatred.

What is even more enraging, however, is that governments in both Europe and the U.S. have refused to acknowledge every sign of this creeping hatred — even though this longing to pounce on and destroy Israel could not possibly be more openly expressed.  Indeed, with a cynicism that rivals that exhibited by the “Great Powers” before WWII, the European and American governments, to achieve their “peace agenda,” would force Israel into giving away positions vital for its defense and security, while sweeping all evidence of this unremitting hatred under the rug.

Have they learned nothing since Chamberlain gave away Czechoslovakia to Hitler to assure “Peace in our Time.”  In fact, Chamberlain’s name is now an anathema, a synonym for the cowardly cynicism that swept all evidence of Hitler’s evil and aggression under that rug so a “historic peace treaty” could be achieved at Munich. That “historic peace treaty,” pursued with all the energy and brilliance that characterizes today’s pursuit of a “historic Arab-Israeli Treaty,” resulted in the catastrophe of WWII and the death of 60 million people, men women and children, including 6 million innocent Jews.

Since the very beginning of Oslo, I have been passing out videotapes to Congress displaying the steady diet of hatred, exhortation to become martyrs and open plans to “liberate” all of Israel — not stopping at the 1967 borders –that has been the constant education of the Arabs, and especially the Palestinian people. During the thirty-two years of peace with Israel,  President Mubarak did absolutely nothing to sow the societal landscape for peace between the two countries.  It is not coincidence that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” that arch anti-Semitic forgery, is still the number one best-seller in Egyptian bookstores.

After their disastrous defeat in the 1973 War Arab-Israeli War, when Egypt’s army had been surrounded and threatened with annihilation, Anwar Sadat saw that peace would bring more benefits than war and broke with the Arab world, addressed the Israeli Parliament and signed a treaty with Israel at the White House.  This was not an act of love of Zion, or of altruism, but a sober calculation stemming from Egypt’s stunning and humiliating defeats on the battlefield.

As columnist Richard Cohen has pointed out in an article in this week’s Washington Post, at the end of WWII, in 1953, when asked to write a fantasy letter to Adolph Hitler, Anwar Sadat wrote a letter that began, “My Dear Hitler, I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart [for your attempt to destroy the Jewish people]. Even if you appear to be defeated — in reality you are the winner.”  This is the Arab world’s Nobel Peace laureate.

Trillions of American tax dollars have been showered on that region of the world and it still has not eradicated their ancient, primordial hatred of Israel and the Jewish people.  It has just been “politically incorrect” to even address this hatred,

But we have our own dangerous dreamers and Chamberlains.  Leaders such as Shimon Peres, who wrote in “The New Middle East,” that if we Jews just tried hard enough, and gave up enough, he would be able to “realize his dream of eating the falafel of Ahmed in Damascus.”  Nice dream Shimon.  But you cannot eat your “Arab falafel” of peace today in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia or Sudan — and certainly not in Damascus, Syria, today.

Unfortunately, these dreams have only empowered and enraged the beast that hates us. The Oslo Accords were a tranquilizer, lulling many lovely, peace-seeking Israelis and American Jews into the seductive slumber with the mirage that they are living in a safe and a secure neighborhood—if only they would be magnanimous, and take the first steps. Israel has proven to take many heroic steps, but these courageous gestures did absolutely nothing to eradicate the age-old, primordial hatreds.

Most within Israel are now waking up to the reality of the neighborhood within which they are forced to live, the Middle East — of nations richly endowed with primordial and manipulated hatreds — but now, thanks to successive American administrations, also endowed with an abundance of lethal weapons.

Welcome to the results of the “Arab Spring”.

It seems as though it is now understood and was even at the time, that the September 11th attacks marked the true demarcation line between the 20th and 21st centuries. The 20th century, filled though it was with both innovation and horror in equal measure, was nevertheless the “modern” century. And on that September morning, nineteen men, with knives and a religious ideology forged fourteen hundred years ago, took airplanes, an innovation born early in the 20th century and smashed them into skyscrapers, the preeminent architectural feature of the age.

In an attempt to understand the events of that day, the immediate comparison was to Pearl Harbor., the starting point of America’s entry into the conflict which defined the 20th century. 9/11 had much to compare itself with Pearl Harbor after all. Both from the surprise nature of the attack, to the number of casualties, and the sheer rarity of an attack upon the American homeland. Perhaps the comparison also drew hope of a united America dealing an overwhelming and certain defeat to a determined foe. And perhaps it brought to mind the apocryphal quote from Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, that to attack America was, “to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

As the American people learned more about the foes that struck us that day, it became clearer that this was not a 20th century conflict. It was, simultaneously something both new and ancient. In western minds it conjured up images of a bold new threat. The risk was seen as one of asymmetrical warfare against shadowy transnational groups. But in the minds of our enemy there was nothing new about 9/11. This was ancient warfare, reborn. 9/11 was a razzia, a raid, into the heart of Dar-Al-Harb, the abode of war, the lands of the infidel. This was the same jihad in pursuit of the same age-old goal. They sought to impose a global Caliphate and the ultimate domination of Islam in the world. As the 9/11 Commission report made clear at the time, there was no method of modern statecraft which might appease this enemy. “[A]l Qaeda’s answer [to the question of what American could do to avoid such attacks] was, “America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture…”

As America became more familiar with this enemy ideology, they realized that it was not merely the held belief of a few hijackers, or even a few thousand terrorists spread across camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thanks to billions in petro-dollars provided by Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia, it was the curriculum for generations of young men educated in madrassas from Indonesia to east Africa. It could even be found within Europe and the United States itself. Its adherents were inculcated in the belief in the righteousness of Jihad, in the status of non-Muslims as infidels and oppressors who must be fought. Among those brought up to believe America and the West were their mortal enemies, were citizens of nations that America thought to be friends and allies. The 9/11 investigation revealed the extensive role played by our so-called allies in financing this jihad war against the West. These facts were revealed to the American public despite the millions of oil dollars the Gulf nations were spending with America’s largest public relations and lobbying firms to convince the American people otherwise.

Even as the depth of the problem became more easily understood by the average American, American leaders were at pains to limit the public’s exposure to certain realities about the nature of the challenge before us. The phrase “the religion of peace,” has been used so often by politicians that it has come to be regarded as a mostly risible and ironic phrase. “Thereligionofpeace.com” for instance, is a website that tracks attacks by terrorists committed in the name of Islam since September 11, 2001, at a current count of 17,710 world-wide. But both the Bush and Obama administrations insisted that any question of the role of religious doctrine or ideology or how widely such ideology might be held, was a dangerous distraction and that outreach to Muslim communities at home and abroad would be the center-piece of the resistance to Al Qaeda, not understanding and countering the enemy’s doctrine.

However in 2004, in the basement of Ismail Elbarasse, were discovered the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The same Muslim Brotherhood whose principle ideologue, Sayyid Qutb, was featured in the 9/11 Commission’s explanation of Osama Bin Laden’s origins and intentions. The documents found there would later be used as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, perhaps the most important terrorism finance trial ever to take place, where several Muslim Brothers were indicted, and convicted of funding Hamas. The documents entered into evidence, and stipulated to by the defense, illustrated to the public a decades’ long “civilization-jihadist” program against the West, to be waged by the Brotherhood. As part of this campaign, the Brotherhood had created numerous front-groups. Now they were marked as unindicted co-conspirators for terrorism, in a federal court.

In the years since 9/11, it was these unindicted co-conspirators that had been sought out by the government as sensitivity trainers, and outreach partners for their anti-terrorism efforts. Even after 2004, despite the government’s knowledge, the Brotherhood remained responsible for certifying the chaplains of America’s prisons, and her military, and remained a close partner for reaching out to Muslim communities. A loud outcry from concerned citizens groups and a few astute lawmakers led to a few of these M.B. organizations being excluded. But federal departments soon were opening up new associations with other Muslim Brotherhood groups — which ironically were also were listed as unindicted co-conspirators for supporting terror organizations.

Since the arrival into office of the Obama administration, this matter of Muslim Brotherhood subversion, once worrisome, have now reached levels of the deepest concern. Administration officials now openly praise the brotherhood as a “largely secular” organization and have squashed future prosecutions against the Muslim Brotherhood and its support for terrorism.

Where once the 9/11 commission openly discussed Islamic history and Bin’ Laden’s ideological motivations, now there is only “violent extremism,” a shapeless meaninglessly vague threat. Where once some complained that the denotation “the War on Terror” was too vague and ill-suited, now there are only “overseas contingency operations” aimed at preventing “man-caused disasters.” These bland characterizations have not stuck with the American public however. Today, more than ever, the American people understand the depth of the threat from the theocratic political doctrine, Sharia, which unites Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and others that pose a threat to the American way of life.

The only way to judge the status of our struggle, is to ask whether Al Qaeda and those who share their beliefs, are closer, or further from their goals? We must say in fairness that they are closer. Secular regimes across the Middle East are in turmoil, and may yet be replaced by Islamic governments. Western academic elites proudly and publicly declare that the very totalitarian law which Al Qaeda and the Brotherhood would impose is neither threatening nor undemocratic. In western countries free expression about the nature of Islam, and those who commit terrorism in its name has been sharply curtailed. In the United States of America, cartoonists are censored, even sent into hiding, because they have violated some Islamic stricture against so-called blasphemy. What’s worse, the government has now partnered with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (formerly Islamic Conference) and Muslim countries to institute global speech codes aiming to brand any critical statements, even those made by apostates or reformers of Islam, to be hate speech and therefore illegal.

Ten years after, we are not a sleeping giant anymore. The public is more awake now, certainly more aware now, of what is happening then it has ever been. We see far more clearly than we did that day in September. But yet we find that despite the awakening of the American people, the organs of our national power do not respond, do not take the appropriate action, despite the warnings. We are a giant suffering under a local anesthetic. A potent mixture of infiltration, subversion, and cowardly political correctness saps our national will. In whatever ways this conflict differs from modern wars of the past century, until America restores its “terrible resolve”, we remain no closer to resolution of this great conflict of the 21st century.

This threat has become an increasing concern for law enforcement thanks in large part to Inspire, an online magazine produced by Al Qaeda, which routinely encourages exactly that kind of behavior from Muslims in the United States and other countries around the world by featuring such articles as “How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,” and detailed instructions for the care and operation of an AK-47 assault rifle.

The lone wolf scenario is so frightening because all of the usual windows of opportunity for security and intelligence officials to become of aware of and interdict the plot are smaller in scope and narrower in time span.

Consider the timeline of a “normal” Islamist terror attack. Muslims sympathetic to Al Qaeda’s cause are radicalized and are encouraged or take it upon themselves to travel to areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or other places where AQ has successfully established training camps. Over a period of months the subjects receive intensive indoctrination in Islamist ideology, weapons training, bomb-making, terror tactics and other important terrorist skills.  When their training is completed they are released back into the world. New identities or travel papers may have been prepared for travel to their target countries. Reconnaissance may begin on selected targets and money may be transferred to the terrorists to keep them operational. The weapons for the attack must be acquired, prepared and possibly tested before the terror attack can begin.

A good example of this sort of timeline is the attempt to bomb the New York City subway by Najibullah Zazi. Zazi traveled to Pakistan will several fellow Muslims in August of 2008 with the intention of joining the Taliban but was instead recruited by Al Qaeda and trained for U.S. operations. He returned to the United States in mid-January of the following year. Zazi became a member of an active cell of terrorist operatives and communicated with them — communications which U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials were able to intercept. Zazi began researching bomb-making materials in June and began purchasing critical materials in August. He conducted tests in late August and early September. Then he drove to New York City where he became aware of FBI and police surveillance.  In a panic, he fled back to his home in Denver and was arrested. From recruitment to (failed) execution took slightly more than a year.

Consider in comparison the case of the 1993 shooting outside the Langley offices of the CIA, when Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani native, opened fire on a line of parked cars waiting to enter America’s intelligence headquarters. Kansi quickly killed two people and wounded three others before fleeing to Pakistan.  Kansi had resided in the United States since 1991. He had acquired the AK-47 automatic rifle with which he committed the crime through an ordinary gun store only three days prior to the shooting. The gun store owner later said that Kansi appeared unfamiliar with the weapon and had to be instructed how to assemble and disassemble it. It is unclear when exactly Kansi was radicalized, but when he was finally arrested in Pakistan in 2002, he claimed to have had “friends among the Taliban” and to have shaken hands with Osama Bin Laden. He told investigators that he wanted to strike at the United States for its “Pro-Israel, Anti-Muslim” policies.

With an unclear period of radicalization and only three days from acquiring the weapon to the attack, the time frame for law enforcement to discover and capture a “lone wolf” like Mir Aimal Kansi is too short.  Law enforcement had only two very brief chances to become aware of the lone wolf. Early during his radicalization before he had, in fact, committed any crime and during the time he acquired the weapon. In fact, Kansi had committed a crime by illegally purchasing a firearm since Kansi was not an American citizen and was thus prohibited from purchasing a firearm.  Still that crime took place only three days before the attack.

Not much to go on.

Even less so, in the North Carolina case of Reza Taheri-azar, a UNC-Chapel Hill student and Iranian immigrant who ran over 9 people in a rented sports utility vehicle selected for that deadly purpose. Fortunately no one was killed. Taheri-azar later told police that he wanted to, “avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world,” and told the judge during his trial that he was “thankful you’re here to give me this trial and to learn more about the will of Allah.” Up until the point Taheri-azar put his foot on the gas pedal instead of the brake he had committed no crime. What chance did law enforcement have of interdicting such an attempt?

Only during radicalization, when the attacker has been exposed to and internalized an Islamist worldview which encourages violent and murderous jihad, is there any chance to intercept such a plot before it is executed.

Perhaps a strategy which educated law enforcement and security officials on the nature of the Islamist ideology, its language, heroes and ideologues and its history and methods might prove a worthwhile endeavor. For instance, if that had been done, perhaps more attention would have been paid to Dr. Nidal Malik Hassan.  The Fort Hood shooter killed thirteen and wounded almost thirty more in a shooting rampage but not before he conducted a PowerPoint slide presentation for senior army doctors entitled, “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military,” which included Islamic justifications for suicide bombings and featured the common Islamist slogan, “We love death more than you love life.” In a Political Correctness-laden report, The Department of Defense’s follow up report on the attack made no mention of Islam or Nidal Hassan’s ideological motivations.

Recently the Obama Administration released its strategy to deal with the lone wolf threat.  Predictably, it proposed the exact opposite of what is needed. Instead, the recent Administration report, incomprehensibly and meaninglessly entitled, Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, is a 4,600 word whitewash completely devoid of meaning or educational potential.  As Professor Daniel Pipes sums up the report:

Nature of the problem? “Neo-Nazis and other anti-Semitic hate groups, racial supremacists, and international and domestic terrorist groups.”

Name of the enemy? The paper itself never mentions Islam or even radical Islam. In fact the report’s title, Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, avoids the mention of the word “terrorism.”

Appropriate Federal law enforcement response? “Just as we respond to community safety issues [such as gang violence, school shootings, drugs, and hate crimes] through partnerships and networks of government officials, Mayor’s offices, law enforcement, community organizations, and private sector actors, so must we address radicalization to violence and terrorist recruitment through similar relationships and by leveraging some of the same tools and solutions.”

A decade after the attacks on 9/11, rather than create a policy that come to grips with the evolving tactics of the fanatical ideological enemy we are fighting, we now have a counterterrorism policy that refuses to even use the word “terrorism,” and treats perpetrators of terror attacks in the same vein as perpetrators of gang violence.

More than just incompetence is at work here.

While Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States was released in early August, its faulty assumptions read identically to those published by the Homeland Security Advisory Council in a report titled,  “Countering Violent Extremism Working Group” and published at about the same time last year.  Both reports are so similar that they utilize the same comparison between terrorism and gang violence and propose using community-policing to “stop violent behavior regardless of the motivation.”

Included, in that working group was the president of at least one Muslim Brotherhood front group, Imam Mohamed Maghid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (although he is not recognized in that capacity in the PowerPoint slide describing the working group’s members) and Mohamed Elibiary, who once shared the platform during a “tribute to the great Islamic visionary” the Ayatollah Khomeini, and who argued against describing the preeminent radical Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, the late Sayyid Qutb, as either radical or dangerous.

In other words, the government has asked the very proponents of the ideologies that have radicalized Western Muslims as well as leaders of organizations which have been named as unindicted co-conspirators for the funding of terrorism, to propose government policy for countering the inevitable “violent extremism” that results from the ideological beliefs which these people themselves apparently hold.

So deeply has our government involved our ideological enemy in our OODA loop that they are now effectively in control of nearly every stage of our decision-making process regarding counterterrorism. They are the advisors to whom our national authorities look for advice and direction in forming our national strategy. They are, according to a former FBI agent, inside members of the executive branch department responsible for implementing U.S. anti-terrorist policy. They encourage our security and law enforcement officials to work alongside community organizations — which they themselves control. And they control the public relations organizations and “civil rights” groups which then heaps praise upon the Administration for following their advice.

The lone wolf threat helps to encapsulate the reality that the greatest threat is not from bombs or guns or rented sports-utility vehicles.  It is a threat springing from a violent belief system — a radical ideology. Our law enforcement and intelligence officials must be given the tools to recognize the signs of that belief system as it manifests itself in human actors. That is the only counter-terror strategy with a hope of success against a lone wolf or against any terror attack. This system can be analyzed and understood. The violent Koranic citations, the hadiths and Sharia jurisprudence which forms the foundation upon which ideologues like Sayyid Qutb and Anwar al-Awlaki build, can be read and understood. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission Report did exactly that, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.

The tragic question many asked that fateful day on 9/11 was, “Why did they do this to us?” A decade later, thanks to our government’s inability to name our adversaries or call out their ideology, the wolves in sheep’s clothing within our own government have us moving even further away from an answer.

On the 9th of March, 1916, Pancho Villa led 100 members of his Mexican revolutionary army across the United States border and attacked the town of Columbus, New Mexico.  Eighteen Americans were killed in the attack and the Mexicans took 100 horses and military supplies stored in the town.  Incensed by this invasion of United States territory, President Wilson, although a pacifist, sent 10,000 American army troops under the command of General John Pershing across the border in an invasion of northern Mexico to apprehend and destroy Pancho Villa and his army of revolutionaries.  Pershing and his young lieutenant George Patton spent 10 months in Mexico punishing those who had the effrontery to invade U.S. soil and attack American citizens.  190 of Villa’s men were killed as well as most of his senior commanders.  This is how America punishes those who cross our border to attack Americans.

Imagine our response if today a terrorist group — an offspring of Al Qaeda — is being shielded by a Mexican government and operating just across our border. They have agitated the Mexican people and riots have taken place denouncing America and its imperialist-colonial occupation of Texas, California and even Arizona and New Mexico — all territory taken by force of arms (even though the Mexican governments started the wars).  And that is not to mention the demonstrations seeking the return of the lands that Americans took from the Indians or Native Americans also by warfare and domination.  These groups have not only expelled all the Americans who lived in Mexico but seek to rid the entire North American continent of these “Europeans” who have been transported to their continent and taken their lands by conquest.

How would President Barack Obama respond if last Thursday, members of this Mexican Al Qaeda, dressed in Mexican army uniforms, and with Mexican government assent, crossed the border into the United States and killed eight American citizens traveling on tourist busses while driving innocently from their homes in Los Angeles to Sea World in San Diego. And when the President called out the U.S. Army to capture or kill the attackers the Mexicans launch more than 100 missiles from Tijuana to rain down on San Diego and Los Angeles.

You don’t have to imagine it.  This is precisely what Israel has been enduring for the past several days. This past Thursday saw a series of well coordinated cross-border terrorist attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. It began when a bus transporting 40 people from Beer Sheva to Eilat, most for a quiet family vacation, was attacked en route to that popular resort.  The bus was attacked by a group of terrorists known as “The Popular Resistance Committee,” which is an umbrella group of terrorists, drawn from the Palestinian Authority’s security apparatus. It is believed that the Popular Resistance Committee gets its funding from Iran.

The terrorists, dressed in Egyptian army uniforms, came across the Israeli border from Egypt and sprayed the oncoming bus with a barrage of automatic weapon fire. It was only because the clear-thinking bus driver immediately accelerated through the gunfire that no one was killed — although several passengers were critically wounded. A total of fourteen people were evacuated to nearby hospitals.  Simultaneously, another bus and two civilian vehicles were attacked. Israeli Defense Forces rushed to the scene only to have an explosive device, similar to those used against American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, detonate in their faces. By the end of the day, the Israeli toll was eight Israelis killed and at least thirty-one wounded.

The terrorists originated in Gaza but slipped across the border into Israel through the Sinai, a vast peninsula that Israel had returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 Camp David Accords. The peace that Egypt maintained there with Israel has been an ice-cold peace,  but never-the-less the Egyptian army patrolled the Sinai and assured that it would remain peaceful. However, since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, the new military government had left it unpatrolled and open to terrorists and thieves.

Israel, like any other nation, has a sovereign responsibility to protect its citizens — even according to Article 41 of the United Nations Charter. No nation can allow cross-border attacks on its citizens — not the United States in 1916 — and not Israel in 2011.

When the IDF began hunting down the terrorists who had killed the Israeli civilians they only targeted terrorist headquarters and places where the terrorists trained or were known to be hiding. As the terrorists fled toward Gaza, the Hamas government of Gaza unleashed a barrage of over one-hundred missile on Southern Israel, striking the major cities of Beer Sheva, Ashkelon and Ashdod. Thousands had to flee to the bomb shelters.  Almost every hour on the hour the silence was broken by the alarm siren of “Seva Adom” (Code Red: which translated into “incoming missile).

Fed by more than 50 years of hatred for Israel and the Jews, the Egyptians of Cairo erupted in a violent demonstration against Israel, even scaling twenty stories of the Cairo Tower to pull off and destroy an Israeli flag as hundreds cheered below.

EMET has been saying for the past six months that the political and strategic landscape in Egypt has been changed by the revolution in Tahrir Square — and not for the better! Although the revolution was ushered in by the small, young elite and educated “Facebook” class, the Egyptian political infrastructure is manipulated by the radical Islamists who have control of the mosques.

The Egyptian army, while it is a professional army, is fighting to maintain its control over the government and has bent to the will of the people in the street who have been taught to hate Israel.  The argument that this army will resist the operations of the terrorists and support Western interests is an exercise in overheated imaginings.

Look what has already happened as a result of American brokered peace treaties: the Sinai which was returned to Egypt in exchange for peace is now being used as a launching pad for terrorists to attack Israel — and Gaza, which the Israeli’s evacuated and gave to the Palestinians in return for a promise of peace has become the main launching pad for terror against Israel and for attacks by thousands of missiles — in addition to being the elected home of a government pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state.

Unless and until the Egyptians demonstrate that they are fully capable of living in peace and enforcing the peace, America should put an immediate hold on any transfer of more weapons to Egypt. It is very possible that we may see these very weapons tuned against Israel or even against our own military in the 6th fleet offshore.

And this does not take a great leap of imagination.

As the Arab Spring has transformed itself into the long, hot Islamic summer, optimism about the Arab world has had to undergo a significant reality check in America and the West.

First off, the sobering results of a recent poll, taken by Zogby International together with the Arab American Institute; this poll, which was released on July 12th, surveyed 4,000 people in six Arab nations, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon , Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, indicates that the respondents actually view the U.S. less favorably today than they did during the last year of the Bush administration

When President Bush left office 9 percent of Egyptians had a favorable attitude towards the United States. Today, only 5 percent of Egyptians surveyed said they have a favorable opinion of the United States and its president. Similar figures were reported throughout the region.

And remember: President Bush had initiated the wars in the Muslim states of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Arab world is reacting to the lack of leadership they see coming out of the White House. A reaction resulting from the falsely high expectations President Obama had given them in his initial Cairo speech.  He assured them that Israel, America’s one stable and reliable regional ally, would not only cave in on concessions and be delivered to them but would also be returned once again to the indefensible pre-1967 boundaries.

The delivery on this promise would have signaled a clear victory for the Palestinians, for Hamas and for radical Islam while weakening the only democracy in the region.

While the U.S.’s reputation in the Arab world suffered when it could not fulfill the unrealistic expectations that were generated about the U.S. delivering Israel to them on a silver platter, it was the killing of Osama Bin Laden by U.S. special forces that sent the poll numbers charting Arab feelings toward the U.S. plummeting to devastatingly lows. The killing of Osama Bin Laden was described as the final “coup de grace” by the 4,000 Arab respondents surveyed.

Which leads us to the following obvious questions about our “Moderate Arab allies:” Are they with us or are they with the terrorists?

It has been difficult for the Obama administration, who began its term in office as the “anti-Bush” president, to come to grips with the lesson that appeasement does not guarantee friendship (or even allies) and only raises the stakes for more concessions.

What else has this administration’s self-described “leadership from behind” brought forth?

The Obama administration also disdained and disregarded the 1979 Camp David Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinians — which America also guaranteed with its signature.  According to an article in Monday’s New York Times, the Accords had banned smuggling of weapons by the Palestinians are being completely ignored as smuggling from the Sinai into Gaza has only accelerated and continues to be brazen and rampant.

In addition, all polls indicate that the Islamist parties that hate the West and seek to destroy Israel (including the Muslim Brotherhood which is far from moderate), are in position to win in the upcoming Egyptian parliamentary elections scheduled for the fall. Anti-American sentiment in Egypt has become so overwhelming that the head of USAID in Egypt was forced to leave Egypt abruptly because of a dispute over whether our aid could be given to pro-democracy groups.

And also in the region, Turkey under Prime Minister Erdogan is getting more and more Islamicized and radicalized and has turned against both Israel and the United States. The Turkish Islamic Government of Erdogan has just undermined the Turkish army, which historically has been the guarantor of a secular state since the days of Ataturk.

For the first time in Turkish history, hundreds of army officers are being put on trial on trumped up charges of “conspiracy to overthrow the government” — in a reprise of Stalin’s infamous purges. General Bilgin Balani has had to appear before a civilian court, together with 27 other army officers in what the Turkish government has entitled, “Operation Sledgehammer.” Until three months ago, General Balani was to have been appointed commander of the Air Force.

This is the method ideological tyrannies have historically used to remove their political opposition — create an imaginary crisis and liquidate the opposition under the guise of “protecting the state” — and this is the same pattern the Erdogan Turkish Islamic government has now copied to destroy its secular political opposition.

In Afghanistan, as the U.S. is getting ready to withdraw its troops, the Taliban is re-emerging as a force to reckon with. They have steadily been chipping away at the root of what the U.S. and its NATO allies had tried to put into place to remain after we leave.  According to an excellent article by Khalid Nasir in Pajamas Media, the U.S. has relied too strongly on tribal strongmen who have proven to be both corrupt and unreliable.

In even more worrying news, according to Khalid Abu Toameh of the Hudson Institute, the Palestinian Authority is planning another uprising in the fall, irrespective of whether or not the US vetoes a unilateral resolution for statehood.  Just two weeks ago, Nabil Shaith, Foreign Policy Head of the P.A., went on Lebanese television, saying that, “We will never accept a two-state solution, whether it is a French plan, a Czechoslovakian plan or an American plan.” Yet Obama continues to push his idea of a two-state solution as though the leader of the Palestinians had never uttered these defiant words.  If the Palestinian government and its people will never accept a two-state solution — what is everyone negotiating about?

In Syria, the blood bath continues.  Well over 1,000 people have been murdered in cold blood for participating in peaceful, democratic protests. As the administration tries to figure out what to do with the situation, the rampant horror and arbitrary arrests, systemic torture and executions continue.  Syrian tanks continue to gun down protestors in the streets.

These are Syrian crimes against humanity.  The Arab League just held an emergency session concerning Syria just today. And even though the Arab governments are recalling their ambassadors to show their disapproval — the U.S. ambassador remains.

The administration is still dithering about what to do in Syria. Our lack of any firm resolve has already emboldened the regime of Bashir Assad. Another speech about considering further sanctions by Secretary of State Clinton is far too little — and far too late.

As Winston Churchill once said, “There is no greater mistake than to suppose that platitudes, smooth words and timid policies offer a path to safety.”

Such is the price of appeasement.

As the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate and tanks and artillery shell Deir al-zour (where fifty civilians were killed Sunday during Ramadan) and other cities. The Sunni nations are beginning to respond, but America remains “Missing In Action.”

Saudi Arabia responded by pulling its ambassador from Damascus. Following Saudi Arabia’s lead,  Riyadh’s Gulf Cooperation Council allies, Kuwait and Bahrain, did the same. The Arab League also condemned the Syrian massacres. Unconfirmed reports from Israeli news have indicated that Turkey has privately approached Syrian President Bashar Assad and demanded he step down.

The United States “welcomed” the Saudi move to pull their ambassador while at the same time the U.S. has kept Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford in the country. Officially, Ford’s goal is to liaise with opposition leadership, but there is little for him to do because Damascus has restricted his access and movement.

Fox News reported Tuesday that the Obama Administration is working on plans to demand Assad step down but it remains unclear when that plan will turn into action. In the meantime, other plans are being considered for United Nations action and the possibility of unilateral sanctions against Assad. Although if it is to be sanctions, it is questionable what value they will have in persuading Assad. Sanctions can be useful in compelling an autocrat to action, but Assad is fully committed to the course of his actions now. If anything, sanctions will probably speed up his repression because he must complete his bloody work before sanctions impair his security forces’ ability to keep him in power.

In all these cases, America finds itself once again “leading from behind.”  One must question why the United States must wait until such human rights stalwarts as Saudi Arabia say “enough-is-enough” before we become willing to act.

Syria is an ally of Iran, who is supplying weapons that kill American servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria funds terror, supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Syria served as a transit point for Al Qaeda members to move into Iran. And yet, the United States, as it did in Libya, seems to wait for an Arab League decision before deciding how to act.

What is the logic behind American Mideast policy?

Consider for a moment, each of the major players in the region and their actions in response to the “Arab Spring.” For most of these nations, there is already an outline of a grand strategy as they move forward.

Iran: Iran supported the insurrections in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain. It opposed the insurrections in Iran (obviously) and also in Syria, where IRGC and Hezbollah assets are said to be participating in the violence.  Iran is also helping to insure the loyalty of Assad’s forces by targeting Syrian military officers who have defected to the opposition. In doing so, it supported an increase in disorder among its Sunni or secular Arab opponents in the region.  Iran is constantly seeking ways to bring Islamist parties to power and forward its Khomenist revolution. It opposed what it might consider “counter-revolution” against itself and its allies, with the brutality for which it is known. In general, it seeks to foment chaos, subverting its opposition and expand its influence, while maintaining an iron grip at home.

Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia opposed the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. It sent military force to back its ally Bahrain and strengthened cooperation among the Sunni Arabs by expanding and bolstering the Gulf Cooperation Council as a regional alliance vis-à-vis Iran. It called Qaddafi illegitimate (unsurprisingly considering Qaddafi’s attempts to assassinate the Saudi King). Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies have now stepped in to condemn Syria for its violence against the Sunni Arab majority. Clearly Saudi Arabia’s actions are based on its own need to insure stability against its Shiite minority at home and to draw a red-line against the advance of Iranian revolutionary activities abroad. It has used the specter of Iranian intervention to formulate an alliance of Sunni states with itself as the head.

Turkey: Turkey called for Mubarak and Qaddafi to be ousted, called the Tunisian revolt “a model for others,” urged restraint on both sides in Bahrain and has been among the most active in calls for Syria to cease its violence. This comes despite the fact that Turkey and Syrian relations have improved greatly since the Islamist AKP took power in Turkey and Turkey has been considered by some to be have been drifting into the Iranian-Syrian axis for some time. However Turkey has also been working to increase its leadership role in the Islamic world by organizing and participating in resistance activities against Israel (such as the now infamous Mavi Marmara incident). In addition to attempting to stave off a humanitarian catastrophe on its border, Turkey appears to be using the “Arab Spring” as an opportunity to take the mantle as a third pole of authority in the Islamic world, opposite both Tehran and Riyadh. Some have referred to this as Turkish President Erdogan’s “Neo-Ottoman” aspirations.

The United States: The United States backed the ouster of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and long time American ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. It called for the Bahraini regime, which hosts the American 5th fleet, to endorse reforms, and opposed Saudi intervention.  After rebel violence forced Yemeni President Saleh to flee to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. has called for him not to return to power. The U.S. also called for the removal of Qaddafi and joined a campaign of airstrikes to hamper the Qaddafi military’s ability to fight the rebels seeking to oust him, but only after receiving cover from the Arab League and the United Nations and at the insistence of western allies such as France and the United Kingdom. Regarding Syria, as mentioned, the United States has slowly increased criticism, only after having been embarrassed by statements calling President Assad a reformer, even after his brutal crackdown against protestors began.

In every case but one, the overarching strategic concept of the parties can be surmised fairly easily. But what is the strategic concept driving U.S. action in the region? By what standards did the U.S. decided to call for the ouster of Mubarak, Ben Ali, Saleh, and demanded reforms in Bahrain, but remains repeatedly behind the curve in dealing with Syria? A campaign built entirely on democracy promotion, or human rights concerns, would have seen Syria as much if not more of a target then Egypt or Libya. A pragmatic, perhaps cynical strategy of merely supporting allies and opposing enemies, would have precluded seeking Mubarak’s exit, and may have backed intervention to insure Bahrain remained out of Shiite hands and risk of Iranian interference, which is after all, the supposed reason behind massive U.S.-Saudi arm sales.

The Obama Administration handling of these events gives the distinct impression that they are “winging it.” Responses to each crisis has been slow to evolve, and based on seemingly random series of factors. In one case, Libya, humanitarian concerns seem to have triumphed. In another, Egypt, democracy promotion has been the order of the day — regardless of the costs: such as the rise of the illiberal Muslim Brotherhood, which the Obama Administration has seen fit to embrace as “mostly secular” despite the facts.  In the Syrian situation, the U.S. has maintained its desire to pursue engagement. Even the flawed concept of seeing institutions of regional cooperation, like the Arab League, take the lead on security issues has been hit or miss, endorsed in Libya, but ignored in Egypt.

In a time of continuous crises, the strategy of “muddling through” is bad foreign policy. With an articulated strategy, a country may find allies to help — but first you have to have a strategy.  Flailing from one crisis to another and responding in an erratic manner to each alienates any possible support. Whereas American leadership may have brewed discontent from states and organizations forced to swallow their ambitions in the face of American power, American incoherence creates a deeply anarchic environment where enemies are testing to see what they can get away with and allies scramble to cut deals outside of the U.S sphere of influence.  How can America “muddle through” while civilians revolt against tyrants in the streets, unsure if their sacrifice will earn American action — or American indifference.

  “Age and health aside, the likelihood of Khomeini taking and holding power for any prolonged period of time are (sic) just about nil. For one thing, the army, the most important organized force in the country could not unite behind him and his concept of instituting a sever religious state opposed to modernization and close ties to the United States.”

  James Weighart, Foreign Affairs Columnist,  January 18, 1979

On Saturday, the front page of the New York Times displayed a picture above the fold showing tens of thousands of Egyptian Islamists pouring into Tahrir Square in Cairo demanding that Egypt be ruled by strict Islamist law. The New York Times caption read, “Islamists show their strength in Egypt.”

This comes as no surprise to us in EMET.  Ever since the dramatic overthrow of the Mubarak government in Egypt last winter, EMET was alone in demanding that the U.S. government halt the continuing supply of military aid to Egypt — or at least place it on “temporary hold” to await the results of the upcoming elections in September — if there are elections.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the Middle East should realize that a radical Islamist wind has chilled the atmosphere and high jacked many of these revolutions that began in pursuit of rights and democracy. Although these revolutions might have been initiated by the young and well-educated of the Facebook generation, this group turns out to represent only a small part of their nation’s population.  They may well have initiated the process of political transformation, but it appears that they lack sufficient political influence and infrastructure to gain the support of the masses and be propelled to political power.

There is a rising tide of fundamentalist Islam throughout the Middle East and Egypt will prove no exception.

In a nation where the adult literacy rate (defined as a primary school education) reaches only 58 per cent of the population, the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist Salafi organizations have long ago planted deep roots within the mosques and Imams to spread their influence over the Egyptian masses.

On December 2, 2010, before the dramatic events of this past winter in Cairo began to unfold, the Pew Research Center released a poll of Muslims in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan,  Nigeria, Lebanon, Jordan and Indonesia.  In Egypt, a full 95 percent of the population believed that Islamic law and the Muslim religion should play a larger role in politics — the highest percentage of all Muslim countries surveyed.

Of the countries surveyed, Egypt also had the highest percentage of respondents who favored the court’s adhering to the strict punishments that are meted out according to Sharia law: 77 percent were in favor either whipping thieves or the amputation of their hands, 82 percent said that women (not men) who commit adultery should be stoned to death (only women can be tried for adultery), and 84 percent say that apostates —  those who convert to Christianity — should receive the death penalty.

Yet, except for EMET, the foreign policy establishment and the pundits in Washington (unfortunately including AIPAC) since the revolutions of the Arab Spring have been on Capitol Hill arguing for continuing the flow of advanced military aid to Egypt. Amazingly, earlier this summer, the U.S. government even sold two additional advanced Abrams tanks to the Egyptians.

Now what could be the use of these advanced tanks for Egypt? Are they planning to defend themselves against attacks from Libya or the Sudan?  Unfortunately, we know what they are planning to use these for.

In fact, all the arguments government officials have put forward in favor of continuing the flow of military aid to Egypt are identical to those disastrous arguments that were used to continue sending arms to Iran following the Khomeini revolution in 1979, including:

1.) It is better that the get weapons from us than anyone else.

2.) Their military was trained by America and remains close to the U.S.; the military is a moderating Western influence in a sea of radical Islamists; and as a highly professional American-trained institution their military represents Western ideals.

In terms of the first argument, I never quite understood how our supplying the weapons to a potential enemy makes them any less lethal?

In terms of the second argument: we are talking about the Middle East here! The military is neither Western nor Eastern. It wants to survive.  And most people survive in the Middle East by allying themselves with the biggest bully in the playground. Besides, if the military is truly professional, it does not make policy, it implements it. Good soldiers obey orders.

Is there some sort of information that the CIA or the State Department or the DoD has that they are not telling us? On what basis do they believe that continuing to supply advanced arms to Egypt will have any greater influence over events than the continuous supply of arms we sent to Iran — who is now an implacable enemy?  The Middle East is overflowing with upheaval and instability and the influence of the radical Islamists grows stronger every day.  This is not the time for our continuing unthinking investment in institutions that may become tomorrow’s new despots or the tools of new radical governments.  Now is the time to await developments while we seriously consider where America’s best interests lie.

Like so much else in regards to the Middle East, I wish to be proven wrong.  But I fear that EMET, once again, will be proven right.

I have a childhood memory of my grandmother in her small Brooklyn apartment crying while holding a faded picture of her huge, beautiful, Hungarian-Jewish family, who, with the exception of one other sibling, perished in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. One of my aunts, who had the sensitivity of a sledge hammer, yelled at her, “Oh momma, stop it. It was their own fault…they should have read the writing on the wall.”

My seven year old psyche recoiled at the coarseness of those words.  Yet, this had an indelible effect on me. I realized at a very tender age that the enemies of our people mean business and that we have a responsibility to take what they say at face value.

That is why I have often been shocked by the ability of many policy makers and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic to overlook, rationalize, minimize and spin the clear words of those who speak and write about their plan to destroy the people of Israel.

An extraordinary example of this bright flashing red light is today’s perfectly clear statement made by none other than Nabal Shaath, the Palestinian Authority’s Head of Foreign Relations. His chilling words were broadcast during an interview on Lebanese ABN television and aired on July 11, 2011. They were translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, (MEMRI) and posted Monday, July 25th for everyone to read.

I plead with you, if you read any one thing this summer, please read Nabal Shaath’s speech pasted below in its entirety. It speaks for itself.

Here is what Nabal Shaath said in his own words. I am putting his last statement first, because it is the most important one to read:

  [The new French UN peace initiative has] reshaped the issue of the “Jewish state” into a formula that is also unacceptable to us – two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of “two states for two peoples” means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this – not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative. We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country. We will not accept this, whether the initiative is French, American, or Czechoslovakian.

  The recognition of a [Palestinian] state is basically a bilateral action, which receives the blessing of the UN. This act, however, will make many things possible in the future. Eventually, we will be able to sign bilateral agreements with states and this will enable us to exert pressure on Israel. At the end of the day, we want to exert pressure on Israel in order to force it to recognize us and to leave our country. This is our long-term goal.

  In my view, it will be difficult for a Black president facing a white majority to exercise his right of veto [at the UN over Palestinian statehood] in order to defend his political platform on health, security, economy, and so on. President Obama will not make his presence felt in the coming 14 months.

  Even though it is embroiled in domestic politics, the U.S. does not want to reach the point where it does not play the main role in the Middle East. But in practical terms, the U.S. does not play a role anymore in the Middle East, although it does not want to acknowledge or accept this.

  What was the role of the U.S. in the “Arab Spring?” In the three weeks of the Egyptian [revolution], Obama changed his position six times. He is constantly reacting to events rather than generating them. What role does the U.S. play in Lebanon and Syria? What the role does the U.S. play in Iran? Do you even read about Iran in the newspapers? Nobody talks about Iran. They want to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama’s problem is that he is being criticized by the Republicans for leaving so fast. With regard to Libya, he is trying not to get involved, but he is being criticized even for sending drones. The U.S. has no real presence.

That last statement clearly indicates that, to the Palestinians, the United States under President Obama has become a laughing stock, an irrelevancy, in the Arab world.  And as proof, Shaath highlights the fact that Iran, the most dangerous, maniacal brutal–not to mention genocidal– dictatorship in the region is being ignored by both the Obama administration and the American public. So much for our president’s “leadership from behind.”

Any person with integrity and intellectual honesty, reading this public pronouncement of Nabal Shaath, knows that it will be suicidal for Israel to give away critical land — the very land that provides the state with the strategic depth necessary to protect its people from the clearly articulated goal of elimination sought by Nebal Shaath and the Palestine Authority.  Protecting its people is clearly the most critical responsibility of any government — and the government of Israel is no exception.

Let it not be said in the next generation — that today’s generation refused to “wake up and read the writing on the wall.”

In a rational world, this could never have happened.  A rational world would be one in which raw emotions would be kept in check by objective analysis, reason and logic; where movements that are governed by prejudice, racism and antisemitism would be limited by civility, (if not by the loftier emotion of empathy); and one in which the community of nations would not allow ideas that are motivated by nothing but thinly-veiled- hatred- masquerading- as- humanitarianism to float.

However, we do not live in a rational world. On the very same day that the New York Times wrote about the booming economy of Gaza, with” two luxury hotels scheduled to be opened this month, thousands of new cars plying the roads, a second shopping mall-with escalators imported from Israel, and dozens of new homes and twp new schools being built”,  further down in the same article they reported of a ship entitled “The Audacity of Hope” which had been about to set sail on a mission to render humanitarian aid to this “beleaguered” region.

Mind you, this is occurring at the precise moment in history when, according to United Nations, over 400,000 people living in Darfur have been systematically annihilated, or more than 100 each day, (in real time, as in now), with 5 thousand dying every month, over 2.7 million people have been displaced, and 4.7 million people are in real need of humanitarian aid; all at the hands of the Sudanese and its “National Islamic Front”  government and their Janjaweed, which the native Africans refer to as “devils on horseback.”  Women have been systematically raped when they dare to leave their villages in search of water. The objective of the Janjaweed is to Arabize the native African region.

Now, this is a genuine humanitarian crisis.

The fact that this Ship of Fools, and others like it, has managed to capture the public imagination is a sheer testament to the robustness and virulence, and might I add:  sheer audacity,  of a certain virus, for which we have found no known antidote: antisemitism. This audacity is of what people call “hope”, which is actually their almost realized dream, of concealing the world’s oldest hatred,  the virus of antisemitism,  behind a sparsely camouflaged cloak of compassion.

Thanks, in no small part, to a crack team of Israeli lawyers, among them the intrepid Nitzana Darshan Leitner and her excellent legal group, Shirut HaDin, the Audacity of Hope has not been allowed to set sail from Greece, mostly because of fear of being plagued by law suits or of being dropped by insurance carriers.

What is even more profoundly disturbing, however,  is how the world has managed to fall for this act. Unfortunately, the work of Shirut HaDin has not prevented other Ships of Fools from attempting the same journey. Like an epidemic of global proportions, this ancient hate-infested virus has prompted the French vessel, the Dignite al Karama, to set sail for Gaza today.

And waiting in the wings are an Iranian ship, a Turkish ship, a Canadian ship, a Spanish ship and a German ship.

This is not to mention the six hundred to on thousand two hundred people who are scheduled to fly into Ben Gurion airport later this week on a misguided “aid” mission to Gaza.

Among the most deeply misguided are, of course, some profoundly disturbed Jews, such as the Brooklyn-born Adam Shapiro, who doesn’t consider himself a Jew. (Sorry, Adam, this denial of who you are didn’t work with Hitler, nor would it work with Khaled Mishal of Hamas, or Ahmadinajad of Iran after, to paraphrase Vladimir Lenin, the usefulness of your idiocy will have expired).

Two thousand years of living in the Diaspora has had an indelible effect on our collective psyches. And many of my fellow coreligionists severely belong on the psychiatrist’s couch.

Every single day, thousands of tons of humanitarian aid are delivered to Gaza through the Karma Crossing in Israel. Why,  I might add,  is there a blockade imposed on Gaza from the new, “democratic” rulers of Egypt?

As the renowned scholar, Eliot Cohen once remarked, “The Holocaust bought the Jews fifty years without antisemitism. It is re-emerging.”

This virulent hatred, masquerading as compassion, is nothing more than the twenty-first century form of that familiar ancient virus, for which the world appears to be uninterested in finding an antidote.

One would think there are limits to audacity, but apparently there are not. Certainly, at least, when it comes to antisemitism.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Roaches scatter when the lights go on. Hollywood movies have taught us that once the hero has shined a light on the doers of evil, bringing troubling matters to light, the cops swoop in, the bad actors are rounded up, the credits roll, and the camera pans up to reveal a bright blue sky. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works in today’s politicized world of homeland security and defense.

Take for instance the case of Abdel Rahman al-Amoudi. Al-Amoudi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (M.B.), and was identified as such in the Holy Land Foundation trial documents. He was the founder of the American Muslim Council, an Islamic advisor to the Clinton White House, a Democratic and Republican fundraiser and a State Department lecturer.  As an advisor to the Department of Defense, the Muslim Brotherhood through the organization he founded was given the responsibility for training our Muslim military chaplains. Al-Amoudi donated $20,000 dollars to help conservative activist Grover Norquist establish the Islamic Institute. In addition, Al-Amoudi worked with Sami-al-Arian, another M.B. member, to get then Presidential Candidate George W. Bush to commit to ending the use of secret intelligence evidence at deportation proceedings.

Then, in 2003 the lights came on.

Al-Amoudi was arrested in 2003 at Heathrow Airport with hundreds of thousands of dollars provided by Libyan President Moammar Qaddafi. He was caught on audiotape calling for acts of terrorism and claiming to support the terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas. In court, he pled guilty to financing terrorism (including funding Al Qaeda) and of conspiring with Libya to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince (they failed). The court sentenced him to 23 years in prison.

In another dramatic 2003 arrest, Sami al-Arian was also caught and charged. He pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to assist the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a specially designated global terrorist.

In 2007, federal prosecutors filed charges against the Holy Land Foundation, a Texas based Muslim charity and front for the terror group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. During the trial, prosecutors released hundreds of pages of documents; the entire archives of the North American Muslim Brotherhood. It included the lists of names and phone numbers of Brotherhood members in the U.S. There were organizational charts and a full strategic memorandum calling for a “Civilization-Jihad process,” in addition to plans for a “Grand Jihad” to sabotage America from within. Documents listed member organizations, including some of the most influential Muslim organizations in America, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  After an initial mistrial, the Federal government won its case in late November 2008.

But then, nothing happened.

The exposed agents of Grand Jihad did not run for cover when the lights came on. With a few exceptions, their American government contacts did not cut them off or treat them as pariahs even though they had been thoroughly tainted with terrorist associations, with plots for sedition against the United States and to establish a global caliphate. Secondary prosecutions that had been planned were suddenly scuttled to avoid political embarrassment. Major news organizations continued to call on the members of known Muslim Brotherhood organizations to get their opinion on all things Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood still provides the FBI with Muslim outreach and the DOD is still provided with Muslim Chaplains through ISNA.

Even more astounding, last week the Department of Justice filed papers to cut short al-Amoudi’s 23 year sentence. Why? Since the documents are under seal, we do not know. The judge in the case canceled a hearing scheduled for last Friday, deciding instead to make the determination based solely on already filed paperwork. In order to get a shortened sentence, the filing would require that al-Amoudi had already provided substantial assistance to the prosecutor’s office.  But it’s difficult to say what such assistance could have consisted of.  With the revelations available in the Holy Land Foundation documents, and considering that Al-Amoudi has been in prison for the past nine years, it’s questionable what cooperation he might have been able to provide at this juncture which would motivate prosecutors to release him.

This raises the very serious question of whether his release may not be political. This is especially true as the Obama administration in recent months has expressed increased acceptance of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, including Secretary Hiliary Clinton’s assurance earlier this month that the U.S. now “welcomes dialogue” with the Brotherhood.

If al-Amoudi is indeed released, it would represent a tremendous success for the Brotherhood. They will have successfully survived the aftermath of al-Amoudi’s arrest and the revelations of the Holy Land Foundation trial. Their operation to penetrate and influence the United States will have been so successful that they will have quashed the proposed secondary prosecutions expected from the Holy Land Foundation and also extricated a major M.B. organizer from prison — despite his crimes. This will certainly embolden them to attempt to free others, including Sami al-Arian, who has long been a cause célèbre for the M.B. and their fellow travelers on the radical left. With the Obama administration having now legitimized the Muslim Brotherhood as acceptable partners abroad, it has made them acceptable partners domestically as well — their call for “Grand Jihad” notwithstanding.

What can be done?

As President Ronald Reagan once reportedly said, “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

If our intelligence and security agencies and the media refuse to see the danger and will not make Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated persons and organizations persona non grata, then the American people will be forced to do it for them. When television news shows and newspapers give face time or column space to M.B. fronts like CAIR, these TV networks and newspapers must hear from their audience.  Legislators willing to hold hearings and draw attention to the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood should be publically praised, as for instance Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who this week has announced a third set of hearings on Muslim radicalization in the U.S.  Those who hold hands with M.B. fronts however, and defend them, must have it known that their disdain for American security will be made an issue when they face election challenges. We must then keep the pressure on our legislators to insure that they also hold the unelected bureaucrats accountable.

Unfortunately, in dealing with “influence” operations of the size and scope of the one being run by the Muslim Brotherhood, there is no easy answer. When exposed, their response is not to flee, but to counter-accuse, to manipulate, and burrow deeper and to use our American process against itself.

We must also double our efforts and know that there will never be a silver bullet for the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilization-Jihad” or for radical Islam in general. It forces us to always remain vigilant. Perhaps this administration will succeed in freeing al-Amoudi, but we must not allow such a setback to keep us from identifying, exposing, and arresting the next al-Amoudi.

Several months into the brutal crackdown perpetrated by Bashar Assad’s regime, suppressing the Syrian people, during which human rights groups estimate as many as 1,600 people have been killed, the “Assad the Reformer” chorus may have finally been silenced.

U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford, and French Ambassador Eric Chevallier earned the wrath of the Syrian regime after touring the restive city of Hama, a hotbed of protest activity. Assad’s goon squad responded by organizing a “demonstration,” in which rioters forced their way into the U.S and French Embassies, injuring personnel and destroying property. Syria accused the United States of using its embassy personnel to violate Syrian sovereignty and foment protests.

Ironically, it is the Syrian embassy, which is violating the rules of accepted diplomatic behavior, as its personnel in the United States have been caught filming participants of anti-Syrian protests in American cities and using the information to threaten their families back in Syria. And these threats carry weight, when one considers the fate of Ibrahim Qashoush, a Syrian musician who wrote a popular protest song. He was found decapitated, floating in the middle of a river.

That, as EMET has repeatedly warned, is the reality of the Syrian regime that so many American officials and the Administration refuse to see.  The recent action against the U.S. Embassy has finally hardened the U.S. stance, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying, “Let me also add that if anyone, including President Assad, thinks that the United States is secretly hoping the regime will emerge from this turmoil to continue its brutality and repression, they are wrong. President Assad is not indispensible, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power. Our goal is to see that the will of the Syrian people for a democratic transformation occurs.”

“Not indispensible” is an improvement over past rhetoric of Assad as “the reformer” and hope of the Syrian people. But it still remains a long way from “…must go,” the language which was applied to force the exit of dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, where the body count never reached the bloody killings in Syria.

Changing opinion — and rhetoric — on Syria will require a conscious rejection by the Administration of their own policy and a rejection of their long-held, but mistaken, belief that Syria could be weaned from their Iranian ally, negotiate peace with Israel, and magically be transformed into a positive influence in the region. For our government to change course will requires an admission of error for a whole host of Administration officials, Federal departments and Washington policy gurus.

How likely is that? Not very, considering the popularity of Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha with reporters, pundits and even members of Congress on the D.C. cocktail party circuit.  His defenders are already prepared to assure us that the Syrian Ambassador believes in, “engagement and supports broad economic liberalization,” even as his embassy staff extends the range of the Syrian police state to spying on anti-government activists in our American cities.

Where is the Administration’s outrage as Syria murders its citizens in Hama, and spies on them here in Washington? How about outrage as Syria sacks our embassy in Damascus? When did the United States become like the old joke about the effectiveness of the unarmed English Bobbies? “Stop or we’ll say stop again!”

The American State Department’s version is, “Cease your brutality, or be prepared to listen to even more tough talk.” (“But don’t worry, it will not be too tough.”)

“Not indispensible” is just not good enough. It is time for America to say that Bashar Assad SHOULD go, and that the U.S. stands with the Syrian people. Not tentatively — not as encouragement to reach some kind of deal with a “reformed” Assad — but as American policy. Let Ambassador Ford return to Hama and stand with the protestors.  Such a move would improve U.S. standing in the world, and strengthen American diplomacy more than any amount of cocktail small-talk with the Syrian ambassador about the phantasm of “engagement and liberalization.”

Many schools around the country have what is called a “zero tolerance” policy on fighting. When two students are involved in a fight, the policy of the school is to punish them both equally, regardless of the circumstances or who started it. Put simply, the punishment for the bully and the victim is the same. It is not a policy that delivers “Justice,” nor intends to be such. It is merely an example of a timid bureaucracy using a blanket policy to avoid actual decision-making or making a moral choice. In practice, of course, while the punishment is the same, the policy greatly favors the attacker. It supports the bully, who, since he started the fight, presumably does not have any concern for the consequences — not giving a thought to any eventual administrative scolding. The victim, on the other hand, suffers the added indignity of not only being attacked, but then being punished although completely innocent.  Is it any wonder then, that we are constantly being reminded that there exists an apparent epidemic of bullying among our youth?

We sit through public service announcements by television personalities, reminding us that “discriminating against others” is wrong.  In truth however, it is the system’s FAILURE to discriminate, between right and wrong, and between those being assaulted and those defending themselves, which has raised the problem to epidemic proportions. We have raised a generation of young people who have been told to expect to be punished even if you are the one attacked — and certainly expect to be punished if you try to defend yourself.

I mention this because it serves as a perfect allegory for recent U.S. policy towards Southern Sudan, in particular, Khartoum’s recent brutal assault against the South Kordofan/Nuba Mountains region. Since the beginning of June, indicted war criminal and Sudanese President Omar Bashir has renewed a long campaign of ethnic cleansing against the people of the Nuba Mountains, both Christian and Muslim, utilizing everything from MIG-29 jets and bombers to having his regular armed forces and Islamist militias slit throats, burn churches, and execute their standing orders to shoot Nuba people on sight.  Even refugees in UN compounds have not been spared bombing, as this amateur video clearly shows.

Indeed, the very UN forces which are there to protect the Nuba people have been complicit in their destruction. In a statement published by “Nuba Mountains/South Kordofan Women and Children on the current Humanitarian crises,” it is revealed that the Egyptian troops of the UN protective mission have collaborated with the Sudanese government by providing government troops and Islamist militias with transport via armored personnel carriers, allowing the arrest and detention of refugees in UN camps by government security forces, and failing to provide basic services to the refugees under their protection.

The situation worsens by the day, yet President Obama’s June 22nd statement on the ethnic cleansing in the South Kordofan/Nuba Mountains spread blame equally on both the aggressive Sudanese army and militias as well as those Nuba simply defending their homes, saying “both parties” needed to end the violence. And while the statement did single out the Sudanese government for its aerial bombardment, it condemned violence, “on both sides,” as though there is some moral equivalence between the bomber and those dying under the bombardment. Additionally, the statement offered no threats of action against the Sudanese government for its ethnic cleansing, except the vapid warning that “without these [remedial] actions, the roadmap for better relations with the Government of Sudan cannot be carried forward.” The statement even fails to specify that it is the Sudanese government that is perpetuating its continued policy of ethnic cleansing, mentioning only reports of “ethnic attacks” having occurred.

This feckless, “even-handed”, and amoral approach is unlikely to put much fear into the genocidal regime of Khartoum, while it leaves the Nuba people defenseless and abandoned. Unlike in Libya, where the President instituted a No-Fly Zone, despite the allegations of Al Qaeda ties among the Libyan rebels, in South Kordofan, it is the Sudanese government that has former Al Qaeda ties — and yet nothing is being done.

The Nuba people have an inalienable right to defend themselves from the ruthless campaign of ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by Omar Bashir and the Khartoum regime. What they need from the U.S. is not mealy-mouthed platitudes calling for violence to end, but the means to protect themselves and prevent their own destruction. In 2008, President Bush approved a request by South Sudan for an air defense system, yet that request was never implemented. The time has come for that to change. An air defense system would allow the Nuba people to defend themselves from Khartoum’s air raids — all the more important as reports are flowing in on the apparent use of chemical weapons in test cases. If the free world chooses to ignore this assault, then widespread chemical attacks may be the result. Certainly the aerial bombardment will continue. That must not be allowed to happen. To stand back, and “urge restraint from both sides” has been the below standard response for much of the Obama administration.  In fact, it was the way candidate Obama described the Russian invasion of Georgia during his election campaign. It is unconscionable that we allow U.S. foreign policy, like the “zero tolerance” policy of the school yard, to side with the attacker over the victim.

But especially in the case of the Nuba Mountain peoples, it is tantamount to waving the green flag for Khartoum to finish off the Nuba people once and for all. During WWII, George Orwell warned that, “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.” So to, Obama’s “call for restraint on all sides,” is objectively pro-Khartoum and pro-genocide. To call for peace, in the face of an enemy who seeks another’s total annihilation, means the peace of the dead. So it will be in the case of the Nuba Mountain peoples unless this administration finally takes a moral and proper stand and does something — and does something soon.

This years Rays of Light Dinner was an amazing success, the most successful event in EMET’s history.  We are going from strength to strength with the EMET about Israel’s proud struggle to survive!

This past winter, the Arab and Muslim worlds have been rocked by a confluence of events, by what some people have dubbed “The Arab Spring”, but which I prefer to refer to as “The Arab Hurricane”.

What began as a routine harassment by a government bureaucrat to a Tunisian vegetable vendor (and ended in his self-immolation), resulted in the fall of the governments in Tunis and in Egypt, and has stirred up a virtual tornado of protest stretching from Fez to Damascus.

This hurricane emanated from a deeply pent up human desire for freedom, for basic human rights and dignity.

Over these last five years, ever since EMET’s inception, we have celebrated and worked together with those courageous and rare people from the Muslim and Arab world who have risked everything—-from exclusion of family and friends–to their very lives- in order to tell the truth about the Muslim and Arab worlds from which they hail.

These are amazingly brave people such as Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Brigitte Gabriel, Ali Alyami, Mosab Hassan Yousef, Fahrid Ghadry,  Walid Phares, Amil Imani ,Zhudi Jasser, Zeyno Baran and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Manda Ervin, whom you will be hearing tonight.

These are people who have penetrated through our superficial differences and have reached down into the core of what unites us and makes us all truly human. They, and our honorees tonight are our heroes in the struggle to preserve Western civilization from the threat of radical Islam. And tonight we are here to say thank you to each and every one of them.

But we are also here for another reason: As the Muslim and Arab worlds are being rocked by this tsunami of the desire for freedom; their struggle is being increasingly hijacked by an Islamist agenda.

And we have but one precious tiny, little country, Israel, who is the Eastern outpost of Western democratic values of pluralism, of tolerance, of freedom of religion, of a free and independent judiciary and a free and independent press that we here have to protect and to defend.

Because Israel is the Eastern outpost of Western democratic values, that is why it is resented and despised by the Islamists, and because of where Israel sits, exactly on the seam lines in the Clash of Civilizations, it is protecting every of us in the room here today.

The Facebook generation might have Initiated the struggle for human rights and freedoms in Egypt,  but the Islamists have wide and deep inroads into the mosques and a well established political infrastructure that has penetrated into the army and the political establishment.

Every Egyptian politician running for office scores political points by saying it is time to re-evaluate the Peace Treaty with Israel, leaving that long border that Israel shares with Egypt, or with Hamas- controlled- Gaza, vulnerable to the infiltration of weapons and vulnerable to the outbreak of new hostilities.

When the Shah of Iran was about to fall during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, folks here in Washington argued that we have to support the Shah and continue to send military aid and equipment to Iran because the army is the most Western o Institutions.. (Sound familiar?)Then, as soon as the Khomeini Revolution occurred, the very first thing that the Islamists did was declare war   United States and Israel by seizing the American Embassy and taking 50 US officials hostage…and people in the Department of Defense were scrambling to stop the shipments.

I am sure you are all familiar with George Santayna’s adage of those who do not study history are condemned to repeat its mistakes.

That is why EMET, unlike any other organization in Washington, has been on the Hill since the eruption of the Arab spring, arguing that it is way past time to stop the military aid shipments to Egypt.

On May 5, in Cairo, Abu Mazen of the Palestinian Authority and Khalid Mishal of Hamas of Hamas shook hands and formed a unity government. The PA has crossed a line in the sand, and the wolf that most of us in this room knew Fatah has been all along, has finally emerged from outside of the sheep’s clothing for all of the world to see. It is against American Law to give money to a terrorist organization.

The Last Time I checked, Hamas was still listed in our State Department as a Terrorist Organization. yet our tax payers’ dollars are still going out to the PA as we speak, and our CIA is still training their (quote unquote) police force in the West Bank, (or Judea and Samaria if you will), under the illusion that these rifles will never be turned against Israeli soldiers or civilians.

As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice. Shame on me. We demand an end now to our American taxpayers’ dollars going to the P.A. No more conditions. Now. Period. End of Story.

In Syria, over 1400 people have lost their lives for demonstrating in the streets. The government has used attack helicopters to wantonly and arbitrarily shoot at protestors.  Thousands of anonymous people have been detained and brutally tortured.  Still more are fleeing over the border to Turkey, creating a REAL refugee crisis. President Bashir Assad is guilty of committing crimes against humanity, and has GOT to step aside.

President Obama in his May 19th address regarding the Middle East said that America has a historic opportunity and responsibility for people clamoring for basic freedoms and dignity.  He called upon President Assad to lead his people to democracy or get out of the way. Yet we have done nothing in the last month to help the Syrians in their bloody struggle to overcome the brutal dictatorship of Bashar Assad

Syria is part of the Iranian constellation, and the only nation that has been empowered by all of this has been the Islamic Republic of Iran.

There is a story in today’s Ha’aretz that Israeli intelligence has found that Iranian Republican Guards are on the ground in Syria, working together with Hezbollah to brutally crush the demonstrators.  They also instigated and paid people to come out for the notorious Al Nakba and Al Naksa days of demonstrations against the state of Israel.

In June of 2009, after the fraudulent election results were announce in Iran, true lovers of democracy were calling out for our help and their calls were summarily ignored, as skulls were being crushed..

Iran has one of the most egregious human rights records in history. More people have been executed and more women stoned to death on trumped up charges of adultery in Iran than anywhere else in the world

Ahmadinajad, and his mullahs, who are the true Hitlers of our generation, have exploited this period of Arab instability to dig their tentacles, deeper and deeper into the region. They are doing this, as they relentlessly pursue nuclear weapons capabilities and are growing closer to their goal of wiping Israel off the map by passing the day. .

There is a rising tide of radical Islamism throughout the region and we have got to be sure that in this Arab hurricane that is recklessly rocking the Middle East, we do not sacrifice our one proven, true stable democratic, ally in the region, Israel, in order to buy the good will of other fair weathered friends in the international community.

That is why, contrary to what President Obama might have said in his Middle East Speech last month, Israel needs defensible borders. As Ambassador Dore Gold recently pointed out in a recent article.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the signer of the Oslo Accords, made clear in his last Knesset address in October 1995 that Israel could never withdraw to the 1967 lines. He stressed that Israel would have to retain control of the Jordan Valley, the great eastern, geographic barrier which provided for its security for decades since the Six Day War.

Prime Minister Rabin didn’t say a word about land swaps. For neither Resolution 242 nor any subsequent signed agreements with the Palestinians stipulated that Israel would have to pay for any West Bank land it would retain by handing over its own , pre-1967 sovereign land in exchange.

We are not going to make our tiny Jewish state, only nine miles wide at its narrowest waist, the sacrificial lamb for America to win a popularity contest in the Arab world.

The West Bank is within easy striking distance of every single Israeli city. And just one Kassam rocket missile launched at Ben Gurion airport from Kalkilya, which is only 6 few miles away, will cut off all air transit and isolate the Jewish state.

Now is not the time for people to urge Israel to take risks for peace.

The forces of radical Islam are rampant throughout the region, and it is incredibly naive to believe that the Palestinians are immune from Islamist and Iranian influences. Israel needs a topographical buffer zone to defend her own population. There is no substitute for a geographical line of defense, especially in the age of missiles.

Israel has given the land…Now where is the peace? This land for peace formulation has produced a paradoxical relationship and has only empowered Iran and other Islamist groups who despise both Israel and the United States, equally. Every piece of land Israel has ceded has become an Iranian puppet state controlled by either by Hezbollah of Hamas.

If I were a scientist, I would have said a long time ago that it is time to go back to the null hypothesis. Or as it says in the philosophy of holes: When you are in a hole, stop digging

Yet people in our Foreign Policy Establishment go back to the same old failed foreign policy paradigm because of three factors:1.) a desire to claim their place history, 2.)  a true failure of imagination in our foreign policy establishment and 3.) cognitive dissonance: Which, in layman’s terms means:: “Don’t bother me with the facts. I have my mind made up.”. Or as the novelist Saul Bellow put it, “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”

We at EMET are here because we do not think American foreign policy should be based upon illusion and wishful thinking, but upon reality. And the reality in the Middle East is not always so pleasant. We at EMET are different because we will not sweep the truth about the harsh realities of life in the Middle East under the rug to score popularity contests with everyone across the map.

We do that for one simple reason: because we need Israel to survive. Our people have gone through far too much in our history simply to have our little, tiny strip of land sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.

And we know that when our enemies talk about wiping us off the face of the map, they mean business.

We in this room all know that Israel is the canary in the coal mine. And we need America, as we love and know it, the last great hope of Western civilization and the democratic values we all cherish, to survive.

And that is why we honor people like Senator Daniel Inouye and Congressmen Trent Franks who has long been champions of Israel’s survival, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has spoken bravely about the difficulties of life under Islam, Manda Ervin from the Alliance of Iranian Women, and Itamar Marcus from Palestinian Media Watch whose excellent institute has been documenting for years and years the Palestinian Authority’s systematic program of incitement to hate and to kill and its failure to teach all of its people, and especially its children, that all of Israel will not one day become Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Just a little over 60 days ago, on March 27, 2011, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton described Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” in her testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee.  Not since September 30, 1938, when Neville Chamberlain descended from a plane after meeting with Herr Hitler, waving a piece of paper and declaring that he has achieved “Peace for our time,” has there been such a wholesale misreading of a very dangerous and volatile situation by a public leader, predicated, primarily, upon wishful thinking.

By now, the death toll from Bashar’s brutal regime’s war against his own people, participating in overwhelmingly peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrations, has reached 1,400. Human Rights Watch has put the number of protestors imprisoned at 10,000. Syrian authorities blame the violence on “armed gangs.”

Reports have just begun to come out, thanks to YouTube and Facebook, that the Syrian government is now using attack helicopters to fire machine guns and rockets at the demonstrators. Randomly, capriciously and unmercifully slaughtering its own citizens. They have fired on the undefended border towns, near Turkey, such as Jisr al Sugar and Maraat al Namaan. Latest reports say these helicopter gunships have killed more than 25 civilians.

Thousands of people are streaming out of these towns and fleeing to safety over the border to Turkey. At this point there are at least 4,300 refugees with the number steadily growing. The Syrian army has even been shooting at the refugees as they are in the process of fleeing over the border.

Everyone by now has become familiar with the name of Hamza Ali al Khateeb, the 13 year old boy who came out to an antigovernment demonstration in the town of Saida. He was arrested by the police and his extraordinarily mutilated, burned and tortured body was returned to his family later that day.  When his father saw the picture, he was so horrified , he passed out.

But there are so many more anonymous Hamzas. One only can imagine what happens to these freedom loving dissidents when they are held in the notorious Syrian prisons. For years the State Departments Human Rights Report has been documenting the arbitrary arrest of political prisoners, lack of due process, and grotesque prison torture and abuse by the Syrian government.

What leads a Secretary of State to have read the cards so seriously wrong when her own Department has been publishing these reports of human rights abuses for thirty years? Little has changed in these thirty years, since the current leader’s father Bashar al Assad masacred more than 20,000 civilians in the Syrian town of Hama in 1982.

No doubt this refusal to acknowledge the brutal reality of the Syrian regime by the State Department has been motivated by the Obama administration’s obsessive and irrational demand that Israel cede the Golan Heights (the militarily dominating high ground) to Syria as it encourages Israel to take yet another “risk for peace.” For many years, when peace talks break with the Palestinian down with the Palestinian track, the State Department and the administration shift to “the Syrian track” and demand the Israelis place their trust in the words and peaceful intentions of such brutal leaders as Bashar al Assad, or his late father, Hafez.

It is time, once and for all,  for some sober-headed realism and some truth in our foreign policy — not wishful thinking.  While American State Department officials might well be inspired by a Syrian White House Lawn Signing Ceremony with lofty speeches of “peace for our time,” Israel would be left defenseless, within easy tank and artillery range of a brutal dictator who has no qualms about massacring his own citizens — much less the Israelis whom they have sworn to destroy.

While these State Department officials return to their safe and warm homes in Chevy Chase, Fairfax or Georgetown, Israel — the only democratic and stable U.S. ally in the region — would be left vulnerable and defenseless against the whims of this maniacal regime. It is difficult to believe that our Secretary of State has been so misinformed that she has never read the reports coming out of her very own Department.

In the meantime, what is keeping the U.S. from helping the freedom-loving dissidents of Syria who are daily risking their lives to overthrow a clearly corrupt, brutal and disgusting regime? This is a regime that has, by the way, has long maintained alliances with Iran to brutally occupy Lebanon and empower Hezbollah Only the Iranian axes has to gain by Bashar Assad’s remaining in power. While we are unsure of the political views of the Libyan rebels we are helping, it is clear that the Assad regime, whose political brutality we have all witnessed, has got to go. The human rights tragedy in Syria is profound. What will it take for the world to finally act?

President Barack Obama took the opportunity while speaking before a crowd of thousands at the AIPAC annual meeting this week to reiterate his Middle East policy as presented in an earlier speech to the State Department — a speech which raised serious concerns among the pro-Israel policy community.  The general message of his remarks was, “why such great concern? I said nothing to the State Department that isn’t ancient U.S. policy.” President Obama stated:

  “And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option.  The status quo is unsustainable.  And that is why on Thursday I stated publicly [in the State Department speech] the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims — the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians since at least the Clinton administration.” [ed. Italics added]

This is simply not true. There might have been some news commentators and “Mideast experts” inside the beltway who have been saying this, but that does not make it established American policy.

The fact is that United Nations Resolution 242 which was drafted in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war has served as the core agreement for all treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

United Nations Resolution 242 never said that Israel has to return to the “1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps.”  On June 19th, in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, in which Israel captured these territories in the process of fighting off attacks on every front, President Lyndon Johnson stated that the prewar 1967 “truce lines” had been “fragile and violated.” What was requires, in President Johnson’s view was now “recognized boundaries”, that would provide Israel with “security against terror, destruction and war.”[1]

Ambassador Joseph Cisco, who was then involved in the drafting of UN Resolution 242, commented a few years later on Meet the Press, “I was engaged in the negotiation for months of that resolution. That resolution did not say “total withdrawal”.[2]

The US government and the government of Britain worked together in drafting the resolution.  British Foreign Secretary George Brown, who had served in Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s government declared that, “The proposal said that ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied, not from the territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all of the territories.”[3]

President Richard Nixon, in 1973 in a private conversation with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stated clearly, “You and I both know that the Israelis cannot go back to the other [prewar 1967] borders.”[4]

What was obvious to so many previous negotiators seems to have disappeared into thin air and has been replaced with a dangerously simplistic and totally foreign idea, “We all know what the final resolution of the borders will more or less look like, along the 1967 lines with a few land swaps…”

It appears that many wise people seem to have forgotten how utterly indefensible the 1949 armistice lines had been. These borders had kept Israel under constant attack by Arab armies and Arab terrorists from the founding of the state in 1948 until the 1967 war.

In a highly volatile and rapidly changing Middle East, there are certain geographic and topographic realities that no responsible person can ignore.  Seventy percent of Israel’s population and its industrial center is located within a coastal plain which is only nine miles wide in many places. This area includes Israel’s major highways, its technological infrastructure, and its one international airport.  Overlooking this coastal plain are the high mountain ridges of the West Bank. Any hostile military force that commands these high mountain ridges will pose a grave threat to the heartland of Israel and its vital infrastructure. The mountain ridge rises 3,000 feet at its apex and descends eastward to the Jordan Valley Rift, which is the lowest point on earth, dipping 1200 feet below sea level. This line of mountains and steep valleys provides the only natural line capable of defending the very center of Israel — a 4200 foot high barrier. In possession of the Palestinians on the other hand, an Arab attack launched from these mountains could quickly overrun the coastal plain and gravely risk the very existence of the state of Israel.

On May 24, 2011, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated clearly and forcefully during a speech before a Joint Session of the Houses of Congress (in which he was interrupted 50 times by applause and 29 times by standing ovations), “Israel needs defensible borders.”

In addition, the President’s plan to leave the highly volatile and emotional issues concerning the return of millions of Arab refugees and the status of Jerusalem until after the borders were agreed, would give the Palestinians a pretense, or cause to launch a new attack on Israel — but this time from their strategic mountain ridges against Israel’s narrow nine-mile neck — a move that could cut Israel in two.

It is not a prescription for peace — but rather a prescription for war.

What is even more dangerous, is that President Obama as well as previous American administrations, in their zeal to sign a historic peace treaty, have totally ignored all the obligations that the Palestinian agreed to but then refused to implement — while leaning heavily on Israel to make more and more concessions.  Obligations to stop their incitement to hate and to kill have been part of Phase One in every agreement since the Oslo Accords.  Yet absolutely nothing has been done — or even tried on the Palestinian side.  We all know that the Palestinian Authority uses every means possible to incite its citizens against Israel’s existence, instill hatred of the Jews and to glorify those who martyred themselves killing Israeli civilians.  They have taught their children to hate Jews and Christians, and that Israel will be erased and their lands will someday be theirs.  Where is the President’s insistence that the Palestinians lay the cultural and educational groundwork that will assure a peace that will endured for generations.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said it clearly and plainly in his speech to Congress, this conflict “is not about the establishment of a Palestinian state — it is about the [continued] existence of a Jewish state!” A state the Arabs and the Palestinians refuse to accept.

As President John F. Kennedy remarked, “Peace does not just exist in signed documents and charters alone, but in the hearts and minds of people.”

The real objection to President Obama’s remarks is that his position has failed to adapt to the sociological and societal factors of the region, even as those conditions have altered dramatically. No matter the history or events that have taken place in the last 43 or even the last 62 years, the solution to all of the problems in the Middle East, including the dangers and turmoil of the “Arab Spring,” is a return of Israeli boundaries to the pre-1967 lines, with agreed upon land swaps.”

President Obama’s speech to the State Department on Thursday, May 19th was supposed to have been about the Arab Spring. I was delighted with certain aspects of his remarks, such as when he said that,  “The Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens…The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition or get out of the way.”

So why does President Obama believe that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is at the core of every Mideast crisis? How does making America’s one stable democratic ally in the area less able to defend itself and more vulnerable enhance the chances for peace and stability in this critical region of the world?

Under any pressure, the State Department returns to the same old tired formulations, even when they are highly extraneous to the issue at hand.

If Israel were to disappear today, would Shiites and Sunnis embrace? Would the Iranians and the Saudis hold hands and sing “Kumbaya “? Would Bashir Assad or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stop arresting and killing their dissidents?

This is a formula which pays no mind to the reality that Hamas, who publically demands the destruction of Israel and has ruled Gaza as an Iranian colony and armed missile base for the better part of the last decade, has now signed an agreement to combine with the Palestinian authority. This is not merely an obstacle to peace, as President Obama seems to assert, it is a positive red-line and the final piece of evidence, if more was necessary, that the Palestinian Authority is devoted to intransigence over cooperation and “resistance” over peace, no matter how many times the “broad outlines” of a peace plan are placed in front of them.

It is also a formula which ignores the fact that the new Egyptian regime, which under Mubarak once made half-hearted efforts to contain weapons smuggling, has made the decision to leave the border with Gaza wide open to promote even greater importation of arms to Hamas, Israel’s sworn enemy. The same Egypt which maintained a very cold peace, but still a peace, now openly cheers presidential candidates who compete with each other in efforts to reject the Camp David accords and return to a hostile relationship with Israel.

How can Israel discuss the establishment of Palestinian borders, as they face government-organized mobs attempting to overrun its borders? Thousands of Palestinians assaulted the Israeli borders on “Nakba day,” a day specifically set aside by Palestinians to reject the reality of the Israeli state. A rejection not just of Israelis living in the West Bank, or even of an Israel within the 1967 borders, but the complete rejection of the very existence of Israel and of any Jewish state in the Middle East. These actions occurred on every Israeli border, including the once quiet Golan Heights border, where the dictator Assad decided that releasing a flood of bussed-in Palestinian protestors would distract from the ongoing massacre of his own Syrian citizens.  It is not a coincidence that the strategic heights have been historically Israel’s quietest border. With the IDF in command of the heights, not even the Syrian regime was foolish enough to risk open conflict. For the Israelis to return the Golan Heights into the hands of a mass-murdering terror supporter like Assad, will require a suicidal level of naivety.

President Obama bases his insistence that now is the time to renew the “peace process” because of the ongoing revolutions in the Middle East. Says President Obama:

  First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories.  This will make it harder and harder — without a peace deal — to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

  Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

  Third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region.  A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders.  Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.  And just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years.

  There’s a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations.  They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one, not just in the Arab World — in Latin America, in Asia, and in Europe.  And that impatience is growing, and it’s already manifesting itself in capitals around the world.

These claims are disturbingly erroneous for a number of reasons. Firstly, the demographic claims are extremely dubious, as EMET advisory board member Yoram Ettinger has long argued.  Secondly, what technological innovations is President Obama referring to?  Upgraded Iranian rockets and missiles in the hands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Or does he mean the same technological innovation, of social media and networking, which brought forward Obama’s third point… regarding the Arab Spring and the rise of democracy. And by the way, is President Obama acknowledging here, that overwhelmingly the Arab people are against Israel, and against peace, reflecting the deep-seated anti-Jewish hatred with which they have long been educated — and that democracy — following the will of the people, may result in tearing up the existing treaties and a return to a state of war with Israel?

As for the reason why the Palestinians are now pursuing a United Nations route to independence, it is not due to “impatience with the peace process.” What utter nonsense. The Palestinians are the ones who have refused negotiations. Even after Israel’s unprecedented settlement freeze, the Palestinians still refused to talk. They are pursuing unilateral independence because decades of a successful propaganda campaign, have finally borne fruit, and made such a pursuit seem viable. This is especially so, since repeated U.S. pressure against Israel, even in the face of Palestinian intransigence has created such daylight between the Israeli and U.S. positions, that the Palestinians had reason to believe that such a strategy would work, that the U.S. would actually consider withholding its no-vote from such a dangerous and destabilizing plan. Additionally much of the so-called “impatience” in Latin America stems not from any deep –seated interest in the Peace Process, but rather the expanded influence of Iran, and its ally Venezuela in the hemisphere, which has gone unchecked by the United States.

This is why peace will never come when Israel’s greatest strategic ally actually undermines, rather than supports the possibility of peace. As the recently deceased Osama Bin Laden expressed it, people, most especially the people of the Middle East, favor “the strong horse.”  Disunity between the United States and Israel, and the unchecked advances of Iran in our own hemisphere, coupled with a confused reaction to the Arab Spring, where former U.S. Allies have been chastised and hounded from office, but long time U.S. adversaries have been largely ignored, creates the impression that the anti-peace crowd of Iran, Hamas, and their allies are in the ascendance.

The Palestinians obviously believe this to be the case and that they can get what they want without ever having to acknowledge the existence of the State of Israel.  This means that they will never come to the negotiating table because they can get what they want from an international community that seeks to appease the Arabs and is willing to once again throw a democratic country to the wolves — as it did in its shameful betrayal of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.  And with President Obama’s insistence that now is the time for peace, because it may be too late otherwise, can he really predict the future?  Does he know the outline of history and that his solution will guarantee peace and not actually provoke another bloody war? Does he know what is in the hearts of Hamas, of Hezbollah, Fatah, the Egyptians, the Syrians or even the Iranians?  And what if he is wrong?  Is America prepared for another three front war in the heart of the Middle East if his predictions prove to be tragically misguided?

As Henry Kissinger once stated, “When the pursuit of peace is the sole objective of foreign policy — it becomes a weapon in the hands of the most ruthless.”

For the last eighteen years, the international community has turned a blind eye and ignored every failure of the Palestine Authority to live up to the signed agreements and commitments it has made. In return for these unfulfilled promises, the Israelis gave very real tangibles, leading to their decisions to: evacuate Gaza, stop building, remove checkpoints and maintain supplies of essentials and electricity. Hardly anyone now remembers that the Oslo Accords, and all subsequent agreements between the Israelis and Palestinians, had been based upon very specific conditions that had been placed upon both the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

In the late 1960’s, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined a phrase “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” In a perfect dramatization of this phrase, the international community now has such low expectations of the Palestinians that there is not a shred of expectation by anyone that the PA will comply with any of the conditions of their agreements and treaties. This patronizing, soft racism has stooped to the lowest level yet, when one reads the argument put forward by former President Jimmy Carter in the Washington Post, that having Hamas in a unity government with Fatah has improved the chances for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Fatah, or the Palestinian Authority, has at least mastered the façade of peaceful intentions by entering into on-again, off-again negotiations with the Israelis. The latest peace negotiations finally broke down, not because of the issue of land or settlements as is erroneously stated, but because the PA gagged on having to articulate the words, “Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.”

Hamas, on the other hand, makes no pretence what-so-ever. Every statement issued by them calls for the immediate destruction of Israel through acts of martyrdom and death. Hamas proudly proclaims a transparent, hate-infested, Nazi-like ideology. The immediate destruction of Israel is its over-riding objective — which it considers its sacred religious duty. Although primarily Sunni, Hamas gets much of its funding from Iran, and has become essentially an Iranian puppet state on the southern border of Israel.

The history of what was so explicitly promised to Israel in return for its withdrawal from Gaza in 2006 bears repeating. Israel was told this was the final risk it would have to take — a demonstration to the world just how far Israel was willing to go for peace. Israel was told that this would be an opportunity for the Palestinians to demonstrate to the world, once and for all, that they can govern themselves independently.

In a painful and gut-wrenching decision, Israel uprooted more than 8,000 settlers as part of the Gaza withdrawal in 2005. Many in the Israeli army complained that they were compelled to rip Israelis from their homes, which was not why they signed up for the army. They were told they were doing this “for the sake of peace.” Rabbis argued that the synagogues should be preserved and turned into mosques, because “after all, we all pray to the same God.” Jewish benefactors bought greenhouses for the nascent Palestinian state to assist it in developing an economic infrastructure.

The world knows the result of this. As soon as the last Israeli soldier left Gaza, everything of value was utterly destroyed in a hate-filled frenzy. Then, when the Palestinians of Gaza freely and independently went to the polls in 2006, they gave vent to their hatred and elected Hamas to govern and represent them.

Today, Gaza has become an Iranian puppet state on Israel’s southern borders. Since the withdrawal, Palestinians have bombarded southern Israel with more than 10,000 Kassam rocket missiles launched from over the border — from Gaza.

Even more dangerous, the same factors of internal corruption that led the people of Gaza to elect Hamas over Fatah, exist in the West Bank. If elections were held today, the people in the West Bank would probably overwhelmingly elect Hamas, — creating another Iranian puppet state on Israel’s eastern border. This will become a new Hamas state capable of bombarding Israel’s coastal plane, where the bulk of the Israeli population lies, with ten thousand additional Kassam rockets.

The biggest winner will be Iran, which already has a puppet state to Israel’s south in Gaza and another one in the north in Hezbollah controlled Lebanon.

Any one with any sense of intellectual honesty and integrity would have to acknowledge that it is long past the time to go back to the drawing board and to examine the premises of the “land for peace” hypothesis. Israel has given the land. Now, where is the peace?

Is Israel any better off now than it was before 1993?

Americans, with our “can do” attitude think that we can “fix” everything. However, some conflicts cannot be fixed overnight. Some actually, despite our best intentions, take time — a considerable length of time, to educate an entire generation about the values of democracy, tolerance, pluralism and the respect for human rights. Anyone who sees the almost daily diatribe of venom coming out of the Palestinian Authority (translated through such websites as Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI), through newspapers, television programs, ceremonies, and textbooks can deduce that the PA has managed to successfully have sown the societal groundwork with values that are antithetical to that.

In the meantime, the rush to create a Palestinian state could be a rush toward war and disaster. Perhaps America should be rather more modest in its goals and consider conflict management — rather than conflict resolution.

With the Cairo handshake, a Rubicon has been crossed. America should no longer, as a nation, fund the Palestinian Authority, since the PA has merged with the terrorist Hamas organization and taken off the mask, revealing its true intentions. The Palestine Authority has shaken hands with the devil
incarnate. Funding a terrorist entity such as HAMAS contravenes US law. No more excuses should be made.

For far too long American has been rewarding the Palestine Authority’s bad behavior. The international community has created a welfare-like dependency. The PA assumes that, irrespective of what they say on the media in the textbooks, at public ceremonies and in the PA appointed mosques, America and the international community will turn a deaf ear. And when they meet in Egypt and shake hands with the devil, and plan more terrorist activities against Israeli civilians, we will turn a blind eye. Now the international community has created an explosive situation where one party is excused for every failing, and the other held from protecting its own citizens.

Perhaps it is time to stop being so patronizing to the Palestinians, and to begin treating them like grownups, holding them accountable, for what they have signed — and for what they have said.

President Jimmy Carter’s ultimate transformation into what might politely be called “a shill of Hamas” and what would less politely be termed a, “material supporter of terrorism,” is a tragedy, yet in many ways instructive. His current state looks like the final, tragic stage of the degenerative disease that could be called “peace-process-ism.” Although it may have started with some positive sentiments, Carter’s unrelenting devotion to “the peace process” has reached the point of perversity — he is now thrown his full support behind the annihilationist jihadists, pledged to the total destruction of Israel — and the Jews.

This inevitably results when an irrational devotion to “process” results in the rejection of reality, refusing to see the Middle East political situation as it exists. The final results of this degrading slide are plain in President Carter’s most recent editorial published by Washington Post on May 3rd.

The obfuscation begins immediately. Mr. Carter writes, “Palestine’s two major political movements — Fatah and Hamas are signing a reconciliation agreement on Wednesday that will permit both to contest elections for the presidency and legislature within a year.” A true statement as far as it goes. But calling Hamas simply a “political movement,” instead of a U.S designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) is only the beginning of the sugarcoating of a terrorist organization which would do Willy Wonka proud. Carter continues:

  “The accord commits both sides to consensus appointments of an election commission and electoral court. I have observed three elections in the Palestinian territory, and these institutions have already administered elections that all international observers found to be free, fair, honest and free of violence.”

Free from violence that is until later, when Hamas conducted its violent coup in Gaza, killing Fatah members and throwing its opponents off the roofs of buildings.  Fatah, no angels themselves, responded in kind. Carter euphemistically describes this bloodshed by saying “Competition between the two factions turned vicious, and each side has arrested the other’s activists.” Actually it was torture and cold-blooded murder on both sides. In another perversion of history, the former president blames this cold-blooded murder and terror on the West’s refusal to provide aid to a recognized terrorist organization –instead of Hamas’ drive to take complete control of Gaza and Fatah’s fight to prevent it.

Once in total control of the Gaza territory, Hamas began utilizing a mixture of home-made and Iranian-supplied rockets to rain terror down upon Israeli towns like Sderot.  But Jimmy Carter was there.  He visited Sderot and “shared their concerns.” Never mind that thanks to now open borders between Gaza and Egypt, Iranian missiles now put much of Israel under threat of Hamas barrage, not just the long suffering residents of Sderot. Free access to the West Bank by Hamas terrorists, their allies, and their rockets will bring all of Israel into missile range.

Carter says the “suspicion” of Hamas stems from its charter, “which calls for Israel’s destruction.” Even in what Carter probably intended as a sop to those with concerns, he can’t find an honest statement. The “suspicion” of Hamas is not a “suspicion” but based on fact.  Facts such as decades of terror, suicide bombings, kidnappings, and the thousands of rocket, missile and mortar attacks that fell on innocent civilians. Multiple “cease-fires” which were broken unilaterally by Hamas acts of terror. And the Hamas charter does not call merely for the destruction of Israel; it calls for the extermination of the Jews.

  “The Prophet (PBUH) said: “The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. The Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will say: ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’ (All the trees will say this except for the gharqad (box-thorn), for it is one of the trees of the Jews.)”

The inclusion of this specific religious language in their charter, goes beyond political rhetoric to a deep-rooted commitment to an Islamic ideology that mandates the destruction and elimination of the Jews as a Muslim religious commandment.

The oft-repeated falsehood, that if Hamas is simply permitted to participate in election… or given the responsibility to govern… or invited into a unity government… it will moderate its position is nonsense. And, this nonsense ought not survive the glowing praise of Osama Bin Laden following his death that was provided by Hamas leader Ismail Haniya , but it probably will.  It was Haniya who praised Bin Laden as, “a Muslim and Arab warrior and we pray to God that his soul rests in peace.” On Thursday, marchers in support of the unity agreement carried Fatah flags and pictures of Bin Laden in Gaza city.  This is the same Ismail Haniya who Carter in his Op-ed proudly describes as the source of his assurances of a peaceful future.

Were all these delusions not farcical enough, Carter expects us to take seriously the notion that the new Egyptian government will play an intermediary role in bringing Fatah and Hamas together to generate a peace treaty with Israel.  Is this the same Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas’ parent organization) is going play a vital role in the government? The same Egypt, where even those contenders described as leading moderates and liberals, like Mohammad El Baradei, still call for war with Israel, if Israel takes action against terrorists in Gaza? The same Egypt that has already opened the border with Gaza to allow the importation of more rockets and military equipment?  Egypt is a fitting interlocutor only in the feverish minds of those so devoted to “dialogue” that they are willing to ignore all reality.

The U.S. must continue to reject a unity government agreement–  and signing of one should signal the termination of foreign aid to any combined government which includes Hamas. It must also signal the end of training of Palestinian security forces since those forces will now incorporate Hamas soldiers and officers.  If it does not, then the U.S. government will have knowingly provided funds and training to a listed Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Hamas will not moderate its position. Providing it with the legitimacy of governance and rewarding it with U.S. aid will have no moderating effect except to strengthen its murderous genocidal intentions. Nor does the upheaval in Egypt, and the prospect of Islamist or Muslim Brotherhood rule there improve the prospects for peace in any way.

Every clear thinking person seriously seeks peace in this volatile area, and champions diplomacy when the situation calls for it. But peace at any price has proved to be the precursor of a new war time and again in history.  It is a dangerous tragedy when Jimmy Carter, and those like him, turn their devotion to the “peace process” into becoming the public relations department for terrorists like Hamas.

Today is a great day to be an American. The news of the capture and the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the man who was responsible for the largest terror attack in history on American soil—the very icon of evil—was killed last night in a storybook lightning strike by U.S. Navy SEALS.

Our heart-felt thanks goes to the wonderful men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who have risked their lives every day since September 11, 2001, and those behind the scenes who paved the way for last night’s victory.  And, our deepest and special thanks go to those brave men who carried out this potentially suicide mission that resulted in a decisive triumph for America and the Western world.

Although we know that there remain hundreds of terror cells around the world just waiting for the opportunity to attack American and Western interests, the killing of Osama Bin Laden is an event of overwhelming importance.  America’s killing of the one person who was the face, and voice, of radical Islam and the mastermind of its worldwide terror network, showed America’s seriousness in avenging the attack on the World Trade Center and eradicating this source of global terror and destruction.

With the death of Bin Laden, America has once again taken a stand on the side of the moral and the right. Just as America stood against Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin, it has again proven that we, as a nation, reveal our strength of character when we stare down the face of evil and put ourselves on the side of moral clarity.

Psychologically and emotionally, for the American victims of September 11, 2001 and the families who had been left behind,  it is the closing of a tragic circle.  In the case of this person who had made every American, every Christian, every Jew, and the States of Israel and America his sworn enemies,  we rejoice in the feeling of relief that Osama Bin Laden, the very face of evil, has been removed from the world.

President Obama’s statement in his speech last night, “Justice has been served,” is an understatement —as much more than “Justice” has been served; retribution has been delivered and a level of fear has been lifted from the world.

Now is also a good time to look back and remember who were Bin Laden’s most enthusiastic supporters and who cheered his murderous attacks on America and the West.

On September 11, 2001, when 19 of Bin Laden’s terrorists high-jacked American airliners and flew them into New York’s World Trade Center, killing 2,752 innocent people, it was the Palestinians in Gaza, in Ramallah and throughout the West Bank, who launched a wild and jubilant celebration by honking horns and passing out candies to cheer Osama Bin Laden’s deadly attack on America.

The first group that condemned America for killing Osama Bin Laden has been Hamas, the Palestinian leadership of the Gaza Strip.  Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, accused the United States of pursuing a policy based on “oppression and the shedding of Arab and Muslim blood.”

“We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior… We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and martyrs.” he said.  This same group, listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, has just announced that they will become partners with the Palestine Authority and the prime minister of the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas.  The PA has endorsed the killing of Bin Laden.

Article Seven of the Hamas Charter states that Muslims will fight the Jews, (and kill them ), until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which [the rocks and trees] will cry: Oh Muslim!...There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.”

As I write these words, high ranking officials from Mahmoud Abbas’ West Bank government are in Cairo preparing to meet with high ranking officials from Hamas to sign a reconciliation agreement.

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September of 1993, the United States has given hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the Palestine Authority. American CIA personnel have even trained their “militia.” Yet, the Palestinian text books, media outlets, maps and sermons from the mosques have for years proclaimed to the world what the P.A’s true intentions are.

How much more evidence do we need before we understand and appreciate who are America’s friends and who are our enemies? We should put an immediate end to any more American taxpayers’ dollars going to the Palestinian Authority.

In this dawning of a new age of decisive moral action, the fig leaf that has masked the Palestinian Authority’s true intentions for the last eighteen years has once and for all been dropped with the agreement between the Palestine Authority and Hamas.  Our sophisticated friends and colleagues inside the beltway, who have for years apologized , obfuscated, excused and covered up for the Palestinian Authority’s words and deeds, should once and for all, recognize on which side of the moral divide Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have made their stand.

“There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

-Secretary Of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on “Face the Nation,” March 27, 2011

Bashar Assad was walking in downtown Damascus, coming from having signed a peace treaty with the Israelis, and on his way to announce new constitutional reforms and the beginnings of democracy to a crowd of activists. He arrived at the corner of an intersection, when on the opposite side of the street he spotted a unicorn, a fairy, and a leprechaun.  At the same time, they all noticed a freedom-loving dissident who was complaining that 61 of his colleagues had been killed by the state’s police forces when they gathered for a peaceful protest. Of the four, the unicorn, the fairy, the leprechaun and Mr. Assad, who do you think invited the dissident into their palace, to consider his legitimate grievances?

None of them, because unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and a reformed Assad are all figments of an overworked imagination –As everyone knows except for those who write speeches for the State Department.

Since 1963, the harsh and brutal Syrian regime, has relied on broadly written “Security” provisions in Syria’s Penal Code to restrict freedom of speech and to arbitrarily detain, arrest, torture and even murder activists under the charge of “issuing calls that weaken national sentiment” or “spreading false or exaggerated information.”

According to Human Rights Watch, the despotic regime of Bashar Assad, prior to the latest government crackdown, had already arrested 92 prominent political and human rights activists.  In prosecuting these activists, the government utilizes a special Supreme State Security Court, a special court that appears to be exempt from the rules of criminal jurisprudence that would be part of any ordinary criminal justice system.

But these facts did not prevent our Secretary of State from saying the words that started this article just a few days ago. Sadly, these sorts of words have been echoed, in one form or another, by countless State Department bureaucrats, “learned” pundits and journalists, and “esteemed” think-thank fellows for decades. As Commentary Magazine’s Jonathan Tobin pointed out, imagining Syrian reform is a long-running Washington obsession:

  From President Jimmy Carter’s discovery that Hafez Assad was a “moderate” to the Obama administration’s constant wooing of Bashar with envoys like George Mitchell and Senator John Kerry (who succeeded the recently defeated Arlen Specter in the role of Syria’s best friend in the Senate), the illusion of a Syrian desire for peace has dominated our attitude towards the country.

Even as the New York Times reported on March 26 that 61 protestors had been murdered by Assad’s political hit squads, U.S. Administration officials were busy complaining to that very newspaper concerns about what effect the Syrian protesters would have on the “peace process.”

Meanwhile, protests reached a boiling point as security forces waged war on demonstrators in the Syrian city of Deraa and engaged in a chilling campaign of suppression and torture, that is the hallmark of the Assad regime. But these tactics, which once inspired fear, now only inflame the demonstrators, with outbreaks spreading to other cities, with no sign of stopping.  Neither the resignation of the Syrian parliament last Tuesday, nor imported thugs from Tehran, nor Assad’s recent speech blaming foreign “conspirators” for the uprisings, is likely to put a damper on continued protests.

Of all the Arab regimes facing the risk of revolution, it is Syria where “regime change” would be most in American interest. Unlike Egypt, where the powerful Muslim Brotherhood waits in the wings to bring Shariah to Cairo, ally with Iran, and overturn peace with Israel, there is little be to lost from a Syria without Assad. Unlike Libya, where ominous hints of rebel ties with Al Qaeda keep many thoughtful people up at night, there is almost no foreseeable scenario where a new regime replacing Assad would be more problematic than what currently exists. Syria already supports the killing of American soldiers by facilitating the transfer of jihadists across their borders into Iraq. It already finances and supports Palestinian terrorists from Hamas to the PFLP and every group in-between. It tortures its own citizens, incites instability in neighboring states, assassinates foreign leaders, and ships a never-ending stream of missiles to Hezbollah. It continues its nuclear weapons program in cooperation with North Korea, and remains closely allied with Iran. If demonstrators were to come to power and put an end to even one of those behaviors, we would be better off than we are now.

What could possibly cause our foreign policy establishment and the present administration to demand that Mubarak and Qaddafi go, but to maintain only the most muted criticism of Assad in Syria and his partners-in-crime in Iran? If the administration took a cynical approach, a wait-and-see attitude, to “The Arab Spring” in every country, then it could be defended on the grounds of pragmatism, and “the devil you know” theory.  On the other hand, were it to champion every protest, no matter the concerns about the players involved, it might be put down to democratic idealism. In fact, completely random choices might have occasionally furthered American interests and opposed our enemies. Even a blind squirrel would have found a nut by now.

But instead, their approach puts America firmly on a path that will most likely further the revolutionary Islamist axis led by Iran, and includes Syria, Hezbollah, and the global Muslim Brotherhood. It is to be expected from a policy forged by the advice of the “experts” who have spent so many decades calling for more pressure on Israel, more concessions to Syria and Iran, and more dialogue with the Islamists that seek to destroy us.  Even as a truly momentous occasion in the region slips away from them, they can do nothing but lament the opportunity lost to make another offer to Assad, “the reformer”.

At five thirty in the morning last Wednesday, my husband was awakened by a phone call from our son, Noam, in Beer Sheba.  “Don’t worry, dad, we’re in our safe rooms at home and we are okay.” He made the call because the sirens went off, after a missile came perilously close to that city’s population center.  This was one of more than 50 that had been lobbed at Southern Israel from Gaza in the last several days.

My daughter in law, Ali, who commutes from Beer Sheba to Hebrew University then got on the bus to Jerusalem, only to find that, later in the day a terrorist attack occurred just a few miles away from where she was, at a bus stop, which she often uses. The attack , the first within Jerusalem in several years, killed one woman, Mary Jane Gardner, 55, and left dozens wounded, some critically.  Another phone call was made, that same day.  The message was:  ” If you hear anything about a bus bombing in Jerusalem, don’t worry, I am okay.”

This is life in Israel.  The people in Israel know what they are up against. They know that they are living in the midst of an earthquake, one that is far more volatile than ever. They are well aware of the dangers of living on this shaky ground. But they are plucky and self reliant. After each terrorist attack or bus bombing, they pick themselves up, clean up the damage, and live from day to day.

They know that now, more than ever in the past, there are rivaling terrorist groups, like marauding neighborhood gangs,  that are itching to have Israel get into the fight. They know that in some of these terrorist gangs, Jewish blood is a trophy that they use to hang on their wall to gain respect in the ‘hood.

They are well aware of the dangers brought by the long tentacles of Iran stretching into every terrorist group. Iran is engaged in death by a thousand blows through their systematic support of terrorism, as it is also engaged in Israel’s ultimate destruction through one nuclear attack, which they are working assiduously to create. They know that according to the latest IAEA report Iran has already compiled 3,606 kg. of low enriched uranium, (that we know of), and might already possess the nuclear warhead mechanism to deliver them.

They know that the ultimate moose head hanging on the wall, the trophy of finally achieving a “World Without Israel”  would win the Islamic Republic prestige within the rivaling Sunni and Shiite world, and will finally settle a primordial, tribal feud for the mantle of Muslim leadership that they have been fighting over for the last fourteen centuries.

They know that Iran has provided training to Hezbollah, just north of their border, and 50,000 to 60, 000 missiles to their bases in Southern Lebanon, aimed at every single city in Israel, and that Hezbollah is a little antsy for a little Jewish blood, as well.  They understand the old Arab adage that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and that Iran has also been providing money , weapons and training to Hamas controlled Gaza.

They know that the over 50 rockets fired last week from Gaza into Southern Israel now have have a much larger and wider trajectory. They landed in a kibbutz, in Eshkol wounding one man and causing sever property damage. The attacks have forced schools to be temporarily shut down in Ashdod, Ashkelon and Beer Sheba. Child psychiatrists have been reporting frequent and sever symptoms of trauma in the school age population.

The Israelis know the international court of public opinion holds Israel to a standard that would be impossible for any other nation of the world to live with, and is scrutinizing their every move. They are well aware of the stakes of military engagement. They know that if Israel decides to retaliate against Hamas, to discourage this sort of wanton terrorism against their people,( which they have every right to do according to international law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter), the Palestinians will use their people as human shields and launch rockets from heavily populated urban centers.

They know that there will be UN resolutions condemning Israel just waiting to be introduced, and that there will always be people who will see a moral equivalency between my son and daughter who were awoken at the night by terrorism, and the Palestinian use of crowded urban settings from which to launch their missiles, so that they can hide behind their own people as human shields and maximize the collateral damage is Israel is forced to respond.

They know that there has been a two year period of relative quiet coming out of Gaza, and that is only because Israel did respond with force in the war with Hamas controlled Gaza of 2009. And they acted with considerable restraint.

Which bring me to my daughter, Rachel, who is going out seriously with a young American who is serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, in the Golani brigade. Rachel’s boyfriend, Jeremy, just made aliyah,  last week, and is proud to wear the uniform of the IDF. He is now being prepared to go from house to house, in case the command comes to re-enter Gaza.

He is willing to do this not because he seeks death, but because he values life.

Which brings me back to my other son, Noam, a medical student in Beer Sheva who has volunteered for a magnificent, humanitarian organization in Israel called,” Save A Child’s Heart Foundation”. This organization delivers highly sophisticated cardiac surgery, totally free of charge to any youngster around the world that might need it. They have already operated on 2,553 children from 43 countries around the world. They also run a clinic every single Tuesday at the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv for Palestinian children who need cardiac care, where they save the lives of children not only from the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, but from Hamas controlled Gaza.  According to their website, nearly half the children that have been served by Save A Child’s Heart Foundation come from the PA, and over 1200 Palestinian children have undergone Open Heart Surgery, since the organization was founded in 1995.

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah was quoted as saying at a Graduation Ceremony, “We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are most vulnerable. The Jews love life so that is what we are going to take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.”

Wrong—-Sheik Nasrallah. That is why we are going to win. You have underestimated the ability of our people to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, pick up the phone, and say, “Don’t worry, dad. I’m okay.”

Last Friday night, five members of the Fogel Family, Udi, 36, Ruthie, 35, Yoav, 11, Eldad, 4, and Hadas, 3 months, were stabbed to death by Palestinian terrorists as they were asleep in their beds in the Israeli community of Itamar,  during the Sabbath.

The terrorists have been specifically linked to Fatah’s Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade.

Ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords, on September 13, 1993, there has been a fundamental condition placed upon the Palestinians that the incitement to hate and to kill Jews and Israelis must come to an immediate end.  Every single signed agreement has predicated the continuation of the peace process with the Palestinians upon this. The most recent signed accord, The Road Map to Middle East Peace, specifically states in Phase I that, “Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.”

However, a constant and steady stream of incitement to hate and to kill and to dehumanize the Jew has flowed from the PA, unabated. Not a week goes by when we do not receive another notification from Palestinian Media Watch (Palwatch.org), of official incitement emanating from the very top of the Palestinian Authority’s leadership down.  They use every means possible, official PA television shows, textbooks, newspaper columns, contests, music on the radio, sermons from PA appointed imams in mosques, naming streets, squares and schools after terrorists.

For the last eighteen years, the Palestinian as have created a culture that has been permeated with a de-humanization of the Jew and the Israeli that is reminiscent of the pages of Der Strummer , that permeated Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust.

This sort of de-sensitization of the humanity of the Jew, or the “other” is the first phase to prepare one’s people for the slaughter of another. The Palestinian Authority uses every means possible, including their official newspaper, Al Hayatt- Al Jadida, which last week, announced that the football tournament would be named after Wafa Idris, the first female Palestinian suicide bomber. Two months ago, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced that he would be awarding $2,000 to the family of a terrorist who had attacked Israeli soldiers.

On August 23, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a hearing before a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, “We will only work with a Palestinian Government that unambiguously and explicitly accepts the Quartet’s principles: A commitment to nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Road Map.”

Our State Department has willfully blinded itself to the constant and steady drumbeat of incitement to hate and to kill that by now had metastasized throughout Palestinian and Arab society.  By constantly looking the other way, and giving the Palestinians a “free pass”, our State Department as well as the entire international community is complicit in creating the atmosphere that has led up to the Fogel family murders.

Moreover: If America is going to position itself in the middle of these agreements, as the “honest” broker, the operative word is “honest”. What does this make of our American credibility and international prestige when we put conditions for furthering the peace process on one party that are willfully ignored? If America is going to put its imprimatur on an agreement, she should stand by her word.

There is no nation on this planet that has had deeper and wider moral scrutiny than the state of Israel, who for over the past 63 years has proven over and over again how interested they are in living in peace with their neighbors, but like every other nation, must first and foremost according to Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, defend the security of its citizens. And there has been no other entity that , for the past eighteen years, has been given such a “free pass” by the international community as the Palestinians, who have been regarded as the darlings of the world.

One of the surviving three children of the Fogel Family, 12 year old Tamar, promised her relatives, “I will now be a mother to my siblings.”

No child should have to go through this.  Ever. We must pledge in memory of the buried members of the Fogel Family, from this moment on,  to predicate American foreign policy on the truth-and only the truth- and to once and for all stop the papering over and the obfuscation for the hatred that is rampant within the culture of the Palestinian Authority, from the top down.

These should be the last five innocent Jews buried because of this culture of hatred. And because of our looking the other way.

America is a nation that was born in religious freedom. As a community,  Jews have found safe harbor and true emancipation on these shores.  When my father came here, fleeing Nazi Germany, he cried when the ship passed the Statue of Liberty. He and his generation profoundly loved what this country stands for. He was Bar Mitvahed on the boat over. His parents decided to send him to public school so he could learn to be an “American”. Although they maintained their religious identities, they decided to cut off his “peyot”, (earlocks), and immerse themselves in the culture of this great nation, including democracy, pluralism, tolerance and the rule of law.

This is in keeping with the religious principles of Judaism. It says in the Talmud that “We are to respect the law of the land”. In our synagogue, as in most others throughout the United States, before we say the prayer for the survival of Israel, we say a prayer for the survival of the United States.

We would like to believe that all religions are equal, that they all want peace, and that no true believer wants religious hegemony, or would ever kill in the name of G-d.

However, the facts necessitate us to conclude differently.

Nina Shea, of the Center for Religious Freedom conducted a study in 2006,  replicated in 2008, where she went into fifteen randomly selected Islamic schools on our shores, stemming from New York to California, and found that they all had a Wahhabaist curriculum.

Among the alarming findings were that Jews are discussed in violent terms, blaming them for virtually all the “sedition” and wars of the modern world; the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is taught as historical fact, and all current events are related back to that as the root cause; the instruction selectively highlights violence against Jews, while the selections of the Koran and hadiths, (sections that explain Muhammad’s life) that counsel tolerance are ignored; the teaching that Jews and Christians are the enemies of “true”  believers.

Jihad is defined as a “religious obligation”, and as “wrestling with the infidels by calling them to faith and battling against them.”

It is no wonder that a Valedictorian of the Islamic Academy of Northern Virginia sent President George Bush a note, threatening his life.  He obviously had learned his lessons well.

Last May, Attorney General Holder was asked at a House Judiciary Committee about three recent terrorist attacks: The Fort Hood Shooting in November 2009, by Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major of Palestinian descent who opened fire on his fellow serviceman , killing 13 and wounding 29 others;  the Underwear Bomber, Omar Farouk Abdulmattalub, a Nigerian who boarded a plane from Amsterdam to Detroit in 2009, attempting to blow it up by hiding explosives in his underwear, and the Times Square bomber, Faisal Shazad, who had attempted to detonate a bomb in the middle of Times Square,  in the middle of the Christmas season.

Unfortunately, we did not hear cries of outrage from imams across the world when these atrocities had been attempted. Why is that?

Moreover:  When asked if these actions night have been the result of incitement within radical Islam, Mr. Holder, replied, “There are a variety of reasons why I think these people have taken these actions.”

Obfuscating, whitewashing and sweeping the obvious under the rug will not keep American citizens safe. This is the very reason why we have a Homeland Security Committee, which was created shortly after September 11.

Chairman King is serving the American people well by holding hearings on this issue. We assume that all immigrant populations come here with respect for the values of this great nation.

Some, however use our constitutional freedoms as a smokescreen behind which to hide. They actually have contempt for American civilization, feel that our freedoms have made us an immoral and corrupt civilization. Many Islamist believers truly believe that they are here to help create a world-wide Islamic caliphate. They see their role here as “dawa”(conversion to Islam).

It is also extremely important for Westerners to understand the concept of “Takia”, within Islam, which means the ends justify the means. It is considered not only acceptable, but actually a good deed, within Islam to lie for the sake of Allah.

As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “We in the West make a great mistake when we transpose our values onto the rest of the world.”

Thank You, Peter King.

As the political earthquake continues to rock the Middle East, one standard complaint has been notably absent. We have heard nothing from the people on the Middle East and North Africa streets about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, the Palestinians themselves have been relatively quiet throughout this period.

The words, “Israel,” “Zionism” and “Palestinian” have all been distinctly absent in televised interviews of people protesting in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain and Libya. The millions of protesters on the street really couldn’t give a hoot whether or not there is an immediate solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question. They are concerned with their poor standard of living, lack of education and opportunities for advancement, nonexistent human rights and the rampant corruption and cronyism of the regimes.

Yet, the Middle East Quartet — the United States, Russia, European Union and United Nations — is determined to convene later this month to pursue an immediate solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is very hard for me to understand the Quartet’s reasoning. We have one stable democracy in the Middle East, Israel, which is just nine miles wide at its narrowest waist, on one side of which is Hamas-controlled Gaza, with Fatah-controlled Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) on the other side. The Palestinian population on the West Bank has said little throughout this period of regional upheaval, possibly because Palestinians are enjoying greater prosperity than the average Arab in neighboring states.

We know that there is a very good possibility that the Egyptian people will elect an Islamist regime within six months, and that such a regime would seriously consider abrogating Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. We also can expect that kind of regime to make the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt into unsupervised transit routes for smuggling weapons to Hamas.

When the people in the region don’t seem to be clamoring for an immediate solution to the Palestinian-Israeli situation, why does the international community seem to feel such a need to intervene? This is an extreme example of international cognitive dissonance. In other words, “don’t let the facts get in the way of my opinion.”

Many in the international community have a single-factor analysis of everything that ails the Middle East: the absence of a Palestinian state. In our Western arrogance, we refuse to listen to the sound of silence of the people of the region regarding this issue.

Even more frightening is the selective amnesia of many in the West for the extraordinarily painful risks for peace that Israel has taken and for how vulnerable those steps have made the Jewish state since the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Last Wednesday, President Obama met with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s account, said that his guests should speak to their “friends and colleagues in Israel” and tell them to “search their souls to see if they are interested in making peace.” He also stated that Israel has the responsibility to create the context for a peace process.

I well remember when some of Israel’s supporters on the left argued in 2005 that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw from Gaza would prove to the world, once and for all, Israel’s seriousness about making peace, especially in the absence of a Palestinian peace partner.

The sacrifices and risks involved the loss of land, training the army not to feel the pain of uprooting fellow Jews from their homes, taking away the life’s work of many people who had devoted their lives to building up Gaza’s Jewish communities.  Jew was pitted against Jew. Soldiers from the army complained to me that they did not sign up for this to uproot Jews from their homes, yet they had to follow orders. This heart wrenching decision divided the Israeli nation in a way that was profoundly more difficult than one could ever imagine. Some Israelis from Gaza have yet to be resettled. The scars linger even to this day.

This painful sacrifice was rewarded with more than 10,000 Kassam rocket missiles launched from Gaza, terrorizing the people of nearby Sderot and kibbutzim and communities as far as Beer Sheva and Ashkelon, necessitating a difficult war in Gaza, beginning in December 2008, meant to stop those missiles once and for all.

The historical record clearly attests to Israel’s persistent efforts to take bold steps for peace. Israel has no apologies to make and no soul searching to conduct. Additional examples from just the past few years include Israel’s repeated offered to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, who have responded only with refusals.

Checkpoints keep Palestinian terrorists out of Israel, yet Israel has opted to remove hundreds of them to further encourage the Palestinians’ economic development in the West Bank. This step has been lauded by many international trade and political figures.

Prime Minister Netanyahu broke new ground by announcing in 2009 his support for the creation of a Palestinian state, and again by agreeing to a 10-month moratorium on new construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, then extended the moratorium by three months. Meanwhile, rather than take its own steps to create the context for peace, the Palestinian Authority continues its delegitimization campaign against Israel at the United Nations, in American stores and on college campuses. This nefarious campaign trumpets the obscene name, Israel Apartheid Week, and is going on this very week. Meanwhile, Israel does not seek to delegitimize the PA.

The Oslo Accords, beginning with the declaration of principles signed on the White House lawn 17½ years ago, obligates the Palestinians to cease incitement against Israel. Yet, Palestinian-published textbooks and television programs continue to demonize Jews, glorify terrorism, honor terrorists past and present and call for attacks on Jews.

Paving the intellectual and emotional landscape for one’s people is much more critical factor for an enduring peace than whether or not a nursery school or apartment building is being built somewhere.

Yet no one asks the Palestinians to do some “soul searching about whether or not their people are actually serious about peace.”

Israel has taken step after step, action after action, on behalf of peace. Israel believes in peace for its own sake. The Palestinians, meanwhile — through their governments in Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (PA) — must continually be invited to return to the table to negotiate, among other issues, a Palestinian state. Instead of negotiating, they seek to impose statehood unilaterally by lobbying for votes for a possible UN declaration in the fall.

Such a declaration would endanger the region’s only one stable democracy that already exists in the region when everyone in the international community is clamoring to see another stable democracy in the region established most of all Israel.

Yes, President Obama, you are correct. There is, indeed, some “serious soul searching that must be done”—but I do not think that it needs to be done by the government of Israel.

As the political earthquake continues to rock the Middle East, one standard complaint has been notably absent. We have heard nothing from the people on the Middle East and North Africa streets about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, the Palestinians themselves have been relatively quiet throughout this period.

The words, “Israel,” “Zionism” and “Palestinian” have all been distinctly absent in televised interviews of people protesting in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain and Libya. The millions of protestors on the street really couldn’t give a hoot whether or not there is an immediate solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question. They are concerned with their poor standard of living, lack of education and opportunities for advancement, nonexistent human rights and the rampant corruption and cronyism of the regimes.

Yet, the Middle East Quartet — the United States, Russia, European Union and United Nations — is determined to convene later this month to pursue an immediate solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is very hard for me to understand the Quartet’s reasoning. We have one stable democracy in the Middle East, Israel, which is just nine miles wide at its narrowest waist, on one side of which is Hamas-controlled Gaza, with Fatah-controlled Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) on the other side. The Palestinian population on the West Bank has said little throughout this period of regional upheaval, possibly because Palestinians are enjoying greater prosperity than the average Arab in neighboring states.

We know that there is a very good possibility that the Egyptian people will elect an Islamist regime within six months, and that such a regime would seriously consider abrogating Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. We also can expect that kind of regime to make the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt into unsupervised transit routes for smuggling weapons to Hamas.

When the people in the region don’t seem to be clamoring for an immediate solution to the Palestinian-Israeli situation, why does the international community seem to feel such a need to intervene? This is an extreme example of international cognitive dissonance. In other words, “don’t let the facts get in the way of my opinion.”

Many in the international community have a single-factor analysis of everything that ails the Middle East: the absence of a Palestinian state. In our Western arrogance, we refuse to listen to the sound of silence of the people of the region regarding this issue.

Even more frightening is the selective amnesia of many in the West for the extraordinarily painful risks for peace that Israel has taken and for how vulnerable those steps have made the Jewish state since the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Last Wednesday, President Obama met with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s account, said that his guests should speak to their “friends and colleagues in Israel” and tell them to “search their souls to see if they are interested in making peace.” He also stated that Israel has the responsibility to create the context for a peace process.

I well remember when some of Israel’s supporters on the left argued in 2005 that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw from Gaza would prove to the world, once and for all, Israel’s seriousness about making peace, especially in the absence of a Palestinian peace partner.

The sacrifices and risks involved the loss of land, training the army not to feel the pain of uprooting fellow Jews from their homes, taking away the life’s work of many people who had devoted their lives to building up Gaza’s Jewish communities.  Jew was pitted against Jew. Soldiers from the army complained to me that they did not sign up for this to uproot Jews from their homes, yet they had to follow orders. This heart wrenching decision divided the Israeli nation in a way that was profoundly more difficult than one could ever imagine. Some Israelis from Gaza have yet to be resettled. The scars linger even to this day.

This painful sacrifice was rewarded with more than 10,000 Kassam rocket missiles launched from Gaza, terrorizing the people of nearby Sderot and kibbutzim and communities as far as Beer Sheva and Ashkelon, necessitating a difficult war in Gaza, beginning in December 2008, meant to stop those missiles once and for all.

The historical record clearly attests to Israel’s persistent efforts to take bold steps for peace. Israel has no apologies to make and no soul searching to conduct. Additional examples from just the past few years include Israel’s repeated offered to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, who have responded only with refusals.

Checkpoints keep Palestinian terrorists out of Israel, yet Israel has opted to remove hundreds of them to further encourage the Palestinians’ economic development in the West Bank. This step has been lauded by many international trade and political figures.

Prime Minister Netanyahu broke new ground by announcing in 2009 his support for the creation of a Palestinian state, and again by agreeing to a 10-month moratorium on new construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, then extended the moratorium by three months. Meanwhile, rather than take its own steps to create the context for peace, the Palestinian Authority continues its delegitimization campaign against Israel at the United Nations, in American stores and on college campuses. This nefarious campaign trumpets the obscene name, Israel Apartheid Week, and is going on this very week. Meanwhile, Israel does not seek to delegitimize the PA.

The Oslo Accords, beginning with the declaration of principles signed on the White House lawn 17½ years ago, obligates the Palestinians to cease incitement against Israel. Yet, Palestinian-published textbooks and television programs continue to demonize Jews, glorify terrorism, honor terrorists past and present and call for attacks on Jews.

Paving the intellectual and emotional landscape for one’s people is much more critical factor for an enduring peace than whether or not a nursery school or apartment building is being built somewhere.

Yet no one asks the Palestinians to do some “soul searching about whether or not their people are actually serious about peace.”

Israel has taken step after step, action after action, on behalf of peace. Israel believes in peace for its own sake. The Palestinians, meanwhile — through their governments in Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (PA) — must continually be invited to return to the table to negotiate, among other issues, a Palestinian state. Instead of negotiating, they seek to impose statehood unilaterally by lobbying for votes for a possible UN declaration in the fall.

Such a declaration would endanger the region’s only one stable democracy that already exists in the region when everyone in the international community is clamoring to see another stable democracy in the region established most of all Israel.

Yes, President Obama, you are correct. There is, indeed, some “serious soul searching that must be done”—but I do not think that it needs to be done by the government of Israel.