Give me Liberty ?

Today is the anniversary of Patrick Henry's famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech before the Virginia House of Burgess on March 23, 1775. Liberty has become such a little understood term that we seldom use it when referring to political events. In fact in America today the word is used as a insult or pejorative by progressives against "right wing" extremist. But I will leave that debate aside for now and concentrate on something more in the news of late, the various uprisings in the Middle East.

... it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

There is little doubt that many of the demonstrators and rebels in the various countries currently in conflict are struggling for "liberty" from their current leadership. However the liberty of Patrick Henry's time and place and the liberty that the uprisings in the Middle East will bring forth, in the short term, are two entirely different things. We do not hear a call for liberty in the current struggles simply because it is a somewhat foreign concept to the participants. Most often it is called a"Democracy Movement". The left sees this "struggle" as a battle against oppression and the right led primarily by the NeoCons see it as a battle for freedom but will the outcome achieve either of these goals?

It is not unimportant to realize where and to whom Patrick Henry was speaking when he made his historic speech. His audience was the representatives of the Virginia Colony in the existing institution of the House of Burgess, soon to be the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth (state) of Virginia, which operated under well established and institutionalized English Common Law. The Liberty which Patrick Henry was pleading for was just a continuation of centuries of evolving political doctrine well know and understood by the politicians and leaders of that day, and accepted as a "God given rights" by most of the colonist.

Most of the colonies were established by individuals whose primary reason for relocating to the "New World" was to achieve more individual freedom. Whether it was greater religious, economic or personal liberties which they sought, the colonies were primarily populated with the decedents of those seeking liberty. There was a tradition of liberty in America unlike anywhere else or at any previous time in the long history of mankind. It is important to realize this and not, as many do, automatically assume that the practices of freedom is the same as the God given desire for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.

How many times have you heard that you can not really win by just being against something? In order to truly succeed you must be for something. Against will only tear down, For will build something in the ruins. There was little doubt what the Founding Fathers were against (tyrannical rule) and what they were for (individual liberty), the missing ingredient in today's events as they unfold across the Middle East are what are the demonstrators and rebels for?

I have little doubt that the majority of people in the Middle East given the opportunity and security would choose as much freedom as they can get within the confines of their own traditions which in most cases are far more restrictive than ours in America. The question is will they be given the opportunity or the security to achieve maximum individual liberty?

Twenty years after Patrick Henry's speech, the United States of America existed as a representative Republic with George Washington as it's first elected President. Twenty years after the Storming of the Bastille which is considered the beginning of the French Revolution, Napoleon ruled as an absolute Emperor. In today's jargon both started as "Democracy Movements".

In Iraq today there exists a very fragile constitutional democracy created through the overthrowing of a tyrant by American force of arms and established and maintained by the security provided by American military might. As a goal liberty is always a preferable outcome, the question is can liberty be imposed from the outside? The historical record is pretty good that it can be. Japan had no real history or tradition of democratic institutions until after World War 2 we "forced" it on them. To a lesser degree the same could be said of Germany and countries such as South Korea have through the security provided by the United States established their own democratic institutions and traditions.

All of these and others such as Eastern European countries show that democratic institutions and traditions can take hold and grow in former totalitarian states given time and opportunity. That is the rub though, as we all know nature abhors a vacuum and in order for liberty to take hold there can be no vacuum. In political vacuums the most organized political entities will take hold. Unfortunately usually the most organized political entities are also the least democratic, see the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution.

As the Middle East is set afire and the Neo-Cons cry freedom and the Leftist cry out for revolution, it might be wise to remember that they are probably not being led by modern day Patrick Henry's. They are also not going to be provided the protection provided by freedom loving presidents such as Harry Truman or even George W. Bush but rather the fate of the "Democracy Movement" lies in the hands of the hesitant and apologetic Barack Oboma.

I suspect that if the world is lucky we will end up with a slew of modern day Napoleons, much like we had. If we are unlucky we will end up with a Middle East ruled by fundamentalist Ayatollahs. What I seriously doubt though is that in the foreseeable future we will find the Middle East, outside of Israel, governed by anything close to a George Washington or even a Barack Obama.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The Gathering Storm In The Middle East

Via-Big Journalism

by Paul A. Rahe

There is very little difference between what intelligence analysts do and what ordinary folks try to accomplish when they pick up a newspaper, listen to the evening news, or read the posts on this and other sites. In every case, wittingly or not, they attempt to separate the revealing details from the background noise.

That is what we should do with regard to the violent incident that took place when the Israelis boarded the six ships constituting the so-called Gaza Flotilla. Most of what we have learned in the aftermath is true and appalling but, in the long run, inconsequential.

The Israeli soldiers who landed on the Mavi Marmara (in Turkish, the Blue Sea of Marmara) in preparation for conducting the ship to an Israeli port – from which the goods being carried could be sent on to Gaza – were, in fact, ambushed, as Allison Kaplan Sommer indicates in her lucid analysis of the evidence that has become available, and all of the usual suspects quickly lined up to condemn Israel for crimes she did not commit.

This is a tiresome, all-too-predictable business reminiscent of the campaign launched in the wake of the clearing action undertaken some years ago at the Jennin refugee camp and of the campaign launched after the Israelis intervened in in 2008 to put an end to Hamas’ firing of missiles into Israel from their stronghold in Gaza. It is part and parcel of a long struggle on the part of the PLO in days gone by and of Hamas now to stage incidents and rally world public opinion against the Israelis for doing what they have to do to defend themselves.

I do not mean to say that the Israelis have never erred. They have. Nor would I want to be taken to suggest that they did not overstep in establishing some of the settlements set up on the West Bank. There, also, I believe they did wrong. But what they did in Jennin, in Gaza, and on the Mavi Marmara was a matter of self-defense. All of this should be obvious.

The Convenient Villain

Via-Townhall

by Jonah Goldberg

On May 29, two days before Israel's botched raid of six "humanitarian" ships bound for Gaza, Robert Naiman, the policy director of something called "Just Foreign Policy," wrote an item on the Huffington Post headlined "Gaza Freedom Flotilla Shows Awesome Power of Nonviolent Resistance."

Naiman waxed lyrical about how the moral authority of nonviolence had compelled Turkish-controlled Cyprus to help the flotilla while Greek-controlled Cyprus had allegedly caved to Israeli pressure in refusing to help the heirs of Gandhi (it couldn't have been because the Turks were up to no good).

"All this," Naiman gushed, "and the main confrontation between the Israeli occupation authorities and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla has not yet begun."

Roughly 48 hours later, the "main confrontation" unfolded. In fairness, the majority of "peace activists" on the ships were nonviolent, offering passive resistance. But on the last boat Israelis boarded, the supposed disciples of peace attacked the Israeli commandos. These new Gandhians beat the Israelis with metal bars and even threw one Israeli overboard.

Funny, I'm no expert, but that's not how Gandhi behaved in the movie. Maybe there was a sequel with Chuck Norris as the Mahatma? "Gandhi's back, and this time it's personal!"

The Rush To Judge Israel

Via-Creators.com

David Harsanyi

Unsure whether Israel has acted in self-defense? Just check whether the United Nations has called for an "emergency session." At the U.N., Jews' wielding guns always precipitates an international crisis.

Now, I'm not one of those who reflexively accuse critics of Israel of anti-Semitism. That would be preposterous. Or nearly as preposterous as pretending that Judaism has nothing to do with the defense, criticism or the never-ending war waged against Israel.

And it is undeniable that there are those who consistently and disproportionately vilify the Jewish state as an impediment to peace and rationalize or ignore far greater injustices and dangers in the world — often simultaneously.

The brouhaha over the skirmish on a Turkish flotilla with humanitarian aid headed to Gaza — to help fix a self-inflicted crisis — was only the latest case in point.

America is still the best guarantor of freedom and prosperity

Via-LA Times


The U.S. still possesses unprecedented power projection capabilities, and just as important, it is armed with the goodwill of countless countries that know the U.S. offers protection from bullies.

Max Boot

Much nonsense has been written in recent years about the prospects of American decline and the inevitable rise of China. But it was not a declining power that I saw in recent weeks as I jetted from the Middle East to the Far East through two of America's pivotal geographic commands — Central Command and Pacific Command.

The very fact that the entire world is divided up into American military commands is significant. There is no French, Indian or Brazilian equivalent — not yet even a Chinese counterpart. It is simply assumed without much comment that American soldiers will be central players in the affairs of the entire world. It is also taken for granted that a vast network of American bases will stretch from Germany to Japan — more than 700 in all, depending on how you count. They constitute a virtual American empire of Wal-Mart-style PXs, fast-food restaurants, golf courses and gyms.

There is an especially large American presence in the Middle East, one of the world's most crisis-prone regions. For all the anti-Americanism in the Arab world, almost all the states bordering what they call the Arabian Gulf support substantial American bases. These governments are worried about the looming Iranian threat and know that only the United States can offer them protection. They are happy to deal with China, but it would never occur to a single sultan or sheik that the People's Liberation Army will protect them from Iranian intimidation.

In the Far East, a similar dynamic prevails. All of China's neighbors happily trade with it, but all are wary of the Middle Kingdom's pretensions to regional hegemony. Even Vietnam, a country that handed America its worst military defeat ever, is eager to establish close ties with Washington as a counter to Beijing.

What of America's two most important allies in Northeast Asia — South Korea and Japan? Not long ago, relations with Seoul were frosty because it was pursuing a "sunshine policy" of outreach to North Korea that the George W. Bush administration (rightly) viewed as one of the world's most dangerous rogue states. More recently, relations with Japan became strained after the election of the Liberal Democratic Party in 2009 on a platform of cozying up to China, rethinking the 50-year-old alliance between the U.S. and Japan, and moving U.S. bases out of Okinawa. Now Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has had to undertake an embarrassing U-turn by agreeing to an earlier plan that would move a U.S. Marine Corps air base from one part of Okinawa to another but keep it on the island.

In justifying his reversal, Hatoyama said that "we cannot afford to reduce the U.S. military deterrence" because of "political uncertainties remaining in East Asia." There is no shortage of such uncertainties with the Chinese navy becoming increasingly assertive in moving into Japanese waters and with North Korea, which has missiles that can easily hit Japan, sinking a South Korean naval ship with the loss of 46 sailors.

The latter incident naturally has focused attention in Seoul and served to accelerate the reaffirmation of close American-Korean ties that had already begun with the election of the more conservative President Lee Myung-bak in 2008. The anti-Americanism that had been prevalent in South Korea only a few years ago has all but disappeared, and it is not only (or even mainly) because of President Obama's vaunted charm. It is largely because South Korea has tried detente and found that it did nothing to moderate the aggressive behavior of the North Korean regime.

China is South Korea's largest trade partner by far, but Beijing shows scant interest in reining in Kim Jong Il. The greatest fear of Chinese leaders is that North Korea will collapse, leading to a horde of refugees moving north and, eventually, the creation an American-allied regime on the Yalu River. Rather than risk this strategic calamity, China continues to prop up the crazy North Korean communists — to the growing consternation of South Koreans, who can never forget that Seoul, a city of 15 million people, is within range of what the top U.S. commander in South Korea describes as the world's largest concentration of artillery.

South Korea knows that only the U.S. offers the deterrence needed to keep a nuclear-armed North Korea in check. That is why the South Koreans, who have one of the world's largest militaries (655,000 activity-duty personnel), are eager to host 28,000 American troops in perpetuity and even to hand over their military forces in wartime to the command of an American four-star general. Under an agreement negotiated during the Bush administration, operational control is due to revert to the South Koreans in 2012, but senior members of the government and military told us they want to push that date back by a number of years.

South Korea's eagerness to continue subordinating its armed forces to American control is the ultimate vote of confidence in American leadership. What other country would the South Koreans possibly entrust with the very core of their national existence? Not China, that's for sure.

And yet South Korea is not so unusual in this regard. The Persian Gulf emirates also entrust their continued existence to America's benign power. The Kurds, whom we visited in Irbil, are eager to host an American base, because they know that all of the gains they have made since 1991 have been made possible by American protection. Even Arab Iraqi politicians, who traffic in nationalist slogans while running for office, are quietly talking about renegotiating the accord that would bring the U.S. troop presence in Iraq down to zero by the end of 2011. They know what Kosovars, Kuwaitis and countless others have learned over many decades: American power is the world's best guarantor of freedom and prosperity.

This isn't to deny the prevalence of anti-Americanism even in the Age of Obama. Nor is it to wish away the real threats to American power — from external challenges ( Iran, China, Islamist terrorists) to, more worrying, internal weaknesses (rising debt levels, decreasing military spending as a percentage of the federal budget, a shrinking Navy). But if my cross-global jaunt taught me anything, it is that those countries that dismiss the prospects for continuing American leadership do so at their peril. The U.S. still possesses unprecedented power projection capabilities, and, just as important, it is armed with the goodwill of countless countries that know the U.S. offers protection from local bullies. They may resent us, but they fear their neighbors, and that's the ultimate buttress of our status as the world's sole superpower.

Max Boot is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a contributing editor to Opinion.

The Palestinians’ Dirty War

Pictured, a Palestinian youth stands in front of a burning vehicle during Fatah-Hamas clashes
Photograph: Mohammed Abed/AFP
Via-Hudson New York

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Were it not for Israel’s presence between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Fatah and Hamas would most likely be dispatching suicide bombers and rockets at each other.

And they would perhaps still be throwing each other’s supporters from the fifteenth and sixteenth floors of tall buildings had not Israel, in the summer of 2007, helped Fatah members and their families run away from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

This is not a conflict over which side will bring democracy and good government to the Palestinians so much as it is a power struggle over money and power.

The fight between Hamas and Fatah is not a power struggle between good guys and bad guys: it is a rivalry between bad guys and bad guys.

Fatah leaders hate Hamas to a point where they are even prepared to ally themselves with the “Israeli enemy” to achieve their goal of overthrowing the Hamas government. During Israel’s last massive military operation in the Gaza Strip over a year ago, Fatah officials provided Israel with valuable intelligence that resulted in the killing of many Hamas operatives.

A state is not something that Palestinians should expect Binyamin Netanyahu or Ehud Olmert or Shimon Peres to give them on a silver platter. A state is something that the people earn by standing united and establishing good government and proper institutions and infrastructure, as well as democracy and a strong economy.

The only way to make progress towards peace is by insisting that the Palestinians first get their act together.

What is the point in signing any agreement with Mahmoud Abbas or Salam Fayyad when we all know that the two men have no control over the Gaza Strip?

And who said that Abbas or Fayyad, who are regarded by a large number of Palestinians as “puppets” in the hands of the Israelis and Americans, would ever be able to sell a peace deal with Israel to a majority of Arabs and Muslims?

While Fatah has been seeking the help of the Israelis, Americans and Europeans to get rid of Hamas, the Islamic movement continues to rely on Iran, Syria and Qatar to undermine and discredit its rivals in the West Bank.

The power struggle began almost immediately after Hamas came to power in January 2006. Backed by the US and some European countries, Fatah, which never came to terms with its humiliating defeat in the election, set as its main goal the task of overthrowing Hamas.

Instead of drawing the conclusions from its defeat and putting its house in order, Fatah chose to do its utmost to return to power by any means. Attempts at that time to topple the Hamas regime backfired and triggered a mini civil war that resulted in the entire collapse of the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip.

When the war ended without the removal of Hamas from power, a number of senior Fatah officials expressed disappointment that Israel had not “finished the job.”

The biggest mistake the Americans and Europeans made back then was to allow Hamas to participate in the election unconditionally. Hamas should have been told that if it wished to contest the vote, it must accept three conditions: renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and honor all previous agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel.

The international community finally did wake up and present Hamas with these three conditions. But then it was too late because the Islamic movement had already won in a free and democratic election that was even supervised by former US President Jimmy Carter.

Now, the two rival Palestinian parties, which have been at war with one another since the former US Administration and many European governments drove the Palestinians into a parliamentary election in 2006, seem determined to pursue the fight to the last Palestinian.

This dirty civil war has thus far claimed the lives of nearly 2,000 Palestinians, most of them innocent civilians, while thousands of others have been injured.

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas is reported to have killed or imprisoned many Fatah loyalists over the past three years. Human rights organizations recently expressed concern over the Hamas government’s intention to start executing “collaborators” - many of whom are believed to be Fatah men.

In the West Bank, hundreds of Hamas members and supporters are being held in Fatah-run prisons without trial. Dozens of Hamas-affiliated charities and educational institutions have been closed. Thousands of civil servants suspected of being Hamas supporters have been fired by the Palestinian Authority government.

In this war, Hamas and Fatah have been using various “weapons.” This war is taking place not only on the ground, but also in the media. The two sides have established countless Web sites that are almost entirely dedicated to attacking one another.

It is hard to see how the “peace process” could ever move forward when the Palestinians are too busy fighting each other. The gap between the two Palestinian entities is so wide that they could not even reach agreement on weekend holidays. And last week hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were left in the dark for a few days because the government in the West Bank did not pay the bill for fuel that keeps the local electricity company operating.

The Hamas-Fatah dispute is an internal Palestinian affair that should be solved by the Palestinians and not the Saudis, Egyptians, Israelis or Americans.

Outside meddling in Palestinians affairs will only exacerbate the crisis.


More...

KUHNER: Lethal olive branch

COMMENTARY:

President Barack Obama has disgraced himself and the United States. His first formal television interview as commander in chief was not with CNN, MSNBC, ABC or Fox News - American media outlets. Instead, it was with Al Arabiya, a Saudi-funded Arabic-language news channel.

Mr. Obama's intent: To provide an olive branch to Muslims in the Middle East. Mr. Obama's goal is to send a clear message that his administration represents a dramatic break from President Bush's policies. "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," he said.

Moreover, Mr. Obama admitted the United States committed "mistakes" in the past, but he now wants to restore "the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
More...

He called for a new partnership with the Muslim world "based on mutual respect and mutual interest." Mr. Obama also did something he refused to do as a candidate: play the Muslim card. During the election, the mainstream media and his campaign spokesmen denounced as bigots anyone who raised the issue of Mr. Obama's Islamic ties. It was taboo to even mention it. It is now fair game - provided it comes from the president. In the interview, he talked about growing up in Indonesia, the Muslim world's most populous nation, and noted that he has Muslim relatives. Hence, Mr. Obama seeks to woo the notorious "Arab street" by demonstrating his multicultural credentials: He understands the Islamic faith and possesses the empathy to forge a durable peace.

There is something unseemly - and pathetic - about a U.S. president groveling in front of the Middle East's tyrants and tin-pot dictators, asking for their understanding. The fundamental problem in the region is not American mistakes or Mr. Bush's assertive diplomacy, but its theological backwardness and dysfunctional political culture.

The Arab world's leaders are a motley crew of fanatics, mass murderers and kleptocrats. Decades of misrule, oppression and Islamist propaganda have created the climate for youngsters to embrace jihadism.

There is nothing new in Mr. Obama's approach. It amounts to a return to the realpolitik and appeasement of Arab autocracies championed by U.S. administrations since the 1950s - policies that in the long-run have proved disastrous. If the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks should have taught us anything, it is that diplomatic "engagement" with Middle Eastern thugs guarantees neither stability nor peace.

It is no wonder Mr. Bush's policies were despised by Arab political elites. He was never a conservative - at least, not in the traditional sense. Rather, he was a liberal revolutionary, who sought to transform the Middle East by bringing democracy and political pluralism. He understood that the only way to eliminate the root cause of terrorism is to sweep away the old autocratic structures.

Mr. Bush's pro-democracy, pro-freedom agenda threatened the rotting status quo, the powerful princes and corrupt clerics who have kept the Arab masses in poverty and ignorance for generations. This has allowed hatreds and resentments to fester, eating away at the region's body politic - enabling radical Islam to fill the void.

For the first six years of his presidency, Mr. Bush awakened the impulses of liberty and encouraged the rise of democratic movements once thought impossible.

The long-term consequences of the Bush Doctrine are still not known - and will not be known for some time, especially whether Iraq remains a pro-American democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

But this much we know: The United States does not owe the Muslim world an apology. No country has done more to liberate Muslims than America.

Under Mr. Bush's leadership, the United States toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, overthrew Saddam Hussein's fascist dictatorship in Iraq, helped drive Syria from its occupation of Lebanon, laid a path to an independent Palestinian state (provided it renounces terrorism), forced Libya to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, saved millions of African Muslims from the scourge of AIDS, and prevented Pakistan from falling into the hands of Islamist extremists.

Prior to the Bush administration, Washington bombed the Serbs to protect the Muslim populations of Bosnia and Kosovo. U.S. soldiers were killed - their dead bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu - trying to prevent famine in Somalia. American forces liberated Kuwait from Saddam's brutal occupation. None of this is applauded or acknowledged in the Muslim world. Yet America's accomplishments are no less real.

Mr. Obama's vow to "listen" instead of "dictating" to Muslim leaders shows how little he understands his own country, the Middle East or the seminal reality of our time. At his core, Mr. Obama is a post-modernist leftist who champions an anti-American, transnationalist agenda. Whenever there is an international problem, America is always to blame and "aggressive diplomacy" (a meaningless and incoherent phrase) is always the answer.

Yet, it is not America's flaws that need to be focused on; it is the Muslim world's deep-seated flaws. The region is dysfunctional, and the only thing that can fix it is real reform - the kind ushered in by the Bush administration. "Listening" to venal Saudi princes or inept Palestinian leaders or corrupt Egyptian strongmen will not lead to a new strategic partnership. It will lead to another dead end - one that enables the region's autocrats to stay in power.

Call it diplomacy by self-induced delusion. Mr. Obama may want to deny we are in a war against radical Islam, but it doesn't mean there isn't one. He may choose not to fight it.

We did that once before. The result was 3,000 dead and the worst attack ever on U.S. soil. What price will America pay the next time we refuse to face this ugly reality?

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times.

Complete Original Article

Dancing Among Landmines--The Obama Al-Arabiya Interview

President Barack Obama is being praised for choosing an Arabic TV network for his first formal television interview on the Dubai-based, Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel. I think we can all appreciate the thinking behind such bold outreach, given that the media at home has chortled to the world that our new guy's unusual background, in sort of Zen-fashion, has befuddled the radical Islamic movement.

The subtext of our satisfaction has been that Obama--African-American, son of a Muslim father, erstwhile resident of Muslim Indochina, with Hussein as his middle name--makes it far harder for the Arab Islamic world to typecast America unfairly as the Great Satan than would be true in the case of an evangelical, Texas-drawling, hard-core conservative Chief Executive like good 'ole boy George Bush.

True enough, no doubt.

But triangulation is a touchy art and it takes the genius of a Dick Morris cum soulless Bill Clinton to pull off such disingenuousness. In less experienced hands it can be explosive and turn on its user. And Obama will soon learn the dangerous game he is playing. Consider:More...
1) When abroad it is not wise to criticize your own country and praise the antithetical world view of another--especially if yours is a democratic republic and the alternative is a theocratic monarchy that has a less than liberal record on human rights, treatment of women and homosexuals, and tolerance for religious plurality.

But here's what Obama said:

"... All too often the United States starts by dictating...in the past on some of these issues...and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen...Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia...I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage...to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace."

The end, if unintended, result is that the Saudi King comes across as courageous, while the U.S. President and State Department (e.g., "the United States") are portrayed as dictatorial-like ("dictating") in the region.

2) An unspoken rule of American statesmanship is not to be overtly partisan abroad. And in Obama's case it is high time to arrest the campaign mode, cease the implied "Bush did it" (which ipso facto has a short shelf life), and begin dealing with the world as it is, rather than the world you feel was unfairly presented to you by someone more blameworthy in the past. But again consider:

"But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task... And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs... but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well."

Perhaps. But once again, the impression comes across as 'past America bad /present and future America good.' (Even the senior George Bush learned that lesson at home with his serial "kinder, gentler nation" [e.g., kinder than what?]). And nothing is offered here (other than our lack of a colonial past) about the actual impressive record: amazing American good will in saving Kuwait, objecting to the Kuwaiti deportations of thousands of Palestinians, speaking out against Russia on behalf of the Chechens, trying to save the Somalis, bombing a Christian European Serbia to save the Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims, helping the Afghans against the Soviets, removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and trying to invest a $1 trillion in fostering democracy in their places, billions in disease relief for black (and often Muslim) Africa, timely help to the Muslim victims of the tsunami, and liberal immigration laws that welcome in millions of Arabs and/or Muslims. I could go on but you get the picture left out that America, far better than China, Russia, or Europe, has been quite friendly to the Muslim world.

Instead the supposition is that somehow the culpability is largely ours--and therefore ours to rectify. In fact, the widespread hatred in the Islamic world, manifested, and sometime applauded, on September 11, was largely a result of the failures of indigenous autocracy--whether in the past Pan-Arabist, Baathist, theocratic and Islamic, Nasserite, or pro-Soviet statism.

Such repression and failed economic policies, coupled with the sudden ability of a long-suffering populace in a globalized world to fathom that things were bad in the Middle East but no so bad elsewhere, led to growing anger and frustration. That state megaphones (in a devil's bargain with radical Islamists) preached that the real culprit of general Muslim misery was neither Islamic terrorism nor state dictators nor gender apartheid nor religious intolerance nor state-run economies, but solely the fault of America and the Jews hardly helped.

We should also remember that the Bush record was often quite good: we have not been hit in over seven years; Pakistan's nuclear proliferation was stopped; Libya gave up its nuclear program; Syria is out of Lebanon; Hamas and Hezbollah have suffered a great deal of damage as a result of their aggressions; there are constitutional governments at work in place of the Taliban and Saddam; the leadership of al Qaeda is scattered and depleted and its brand is diminished in Iraq. The fact that Middle East authoritarian governments might not like all of that; or that radical Muslims find this disturbing; or even that the spokesmen for the unfree populations of the Arab world object--simply does not change the truth. I wish President Obama better appreciated that simple fact, because he surely is a beneficiary of it.

3). Beware of the dangerous two-step. For nearly two years the unspoken rule of the campaign (ask former Senator Bob Kerry or Hillary Clinton herself or talk-show host Bill Cunningham) was that mentioning Obama's Muslim ancestry was taboo. It was illiberal to evoke his Muslim-sounding name or his Indonesian ancestry, as if one were deliberately trying to suggest his multicultural fides made him less appealing to the square majority in America. But Obama apparently himself is immune to such prohibitions--at least abroad. If he appreciates the off-limits landscape at home, overseas it is suddenly to be showcased to reemphasize his global, multicultural and less parochial credentials. E.g., it comes off as something like: 'between you and me--typical Americans could not relate to you the way I can--even though back in America to even suggest that I am not typical is sometimes the greatest of sins--albeit in the manner I adjudicate.' Consider again:

"Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries...The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."

4) At some point, soaring rhetoric makes banality the harder to accept. For all the talking about path- breaking new/old envoy George Mitchell, and the new President's background, and the novel sensitivity, Obama offered nothing new on the Middle East and Iran, because (1) there is very little new to be offered; and (2) George Bush, apart from the caricatures, was by 2004 about as multilateral as one can be; consider the Quartet, the EU3, the UN efforts at international disarmament with Iran, the use of NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Coalition in Iraq, the efforts to promote constitutional government in the Middle East, and on and on.

There is a danger here that Obama's hope and change on the Middle East will start to resemble his hope and change on new governance in Washington: utopian promises about absolutely new ethics, followed by the same old, same old as exemplified by the ethical problems encountered by Geithner, Holder, Lynn, Richardson--and by extension Blago, Dodd, Frank, and Rangel. Again, saintly rhetoric only highlights earthly behavior.

I am glad Obama confounds the radical and hostile Islamic world, if it is in fact true that he does. But we are witnessing a delicate balancing act in which he seems to be saying to us "I am best representing you by distancing myself from you and your past".

Again, that may well work, but also in time may prove not to be what Americans thought they were voting for. So a final Neanderthal thought: some of us would like our President in calm, polite and diplomatic tones to emphasize the past positive Middle East work of his predecessor Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. He should make the case that the United States has tried hard and will try hard again to promote peace in the Middle East, but that certain fundamental facts make that awfully difficult, and often are beyond our control, resting largely in the decisions that others make for themselves--and the inevitable reactions that will follow from a liberal democracy like our own, faced with clear signs of religious intolerance, illiberality, violent aggression, and complicity in the promotion of terror as a political means. In other words, I think Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Pakistan--and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others--know exactly what are they doing and thus the problems that arise between us transcend occasional and unfortunate smoke 'em out/bring 'em on lingo.

Just a modest thought.


Complete Original Article

Why doesn't anybody dare say it? Israel Didn't Leave, It Lost

The first rule of pride is this: When they run you out of town, walk like you're leading the parade.

I'll give Israel this: When international pressure got to be too much, Israel left Gaza as if it was Israel's bright idea, "a unilateral ceasefire."

In truth, Israel surrendered. It is "surrender" if you leave with Hamas rockets still flying into Israel, and with Gilad Shalit remaining in his private Auschwitz. Imagine how Shalit was tortured these past three weeks. Imagine being his parents. If this Gaza operation even resembled a success, Israel could have said, OK Hamas, we'll stop devastating your neighborhoods and killing your so-called civilians in exchange for two things: The rockets have to stop, and Shalit comes home.

What we see is that Hamas wasn't all that devastated; if they were, they'd have taken the deal.

Instead, Israel quit, like Roberto Duran not coming out for the next round, "no mas," throwing in the towel.

We know that Israel lost because Hamas set the terms: The rockets do not stop; Shalit stays where he is.

What would we be saying about Roosevelt and Churchill if they settled for a cease fire on Jan. 18, 1945, with the excuse that, hey, Hitler's supply lines have been damaged, but yes, he can still bomb London, and yes, the Jews are still in the camps. Even if it's only one Jew. More...

This war was supposed to re-establish Israel's deterrence. That was supposed to be the lesson. Instead, the lesson is that Israel quits before the rockets do.

Israel has established in Gaza exactly what it established in the Hezbollah war: That Israel can go three weeks and only three weeks, and then Israel looks at its watch (or at the European Union's watch) and goes home, job incomplete.

Hamas, like Hezbollah, is an Iranian satellite, a stand-in. This, like the 2006 war, is a harbinger of a worse war to come.

What if Iran is prepared to fight for four weeks? Is Israel prepared to go four? If Israel is so flustered by charges that it killed a stray civilian, be prepared that when Israel fights Iran we'll be told that every Israeli bomb falling on Iran is landing on nothing and no one but women and children, innocent babies and maternity wards. If Israel attacks Iran, you can bet that Iran's nuclear operation will suddenly be declared "peaceful," generating only nuclear energy to help Iranian orphans and United Nations relief facilities. The so-called "international community" will then help rebuild Iran's peaceful nuclear facility and they'll call it humanitarian aid. Israel will then send Iran medical supplies and halvah. With that scenario, already played out by Israel with Hamas, I don't see how Iran is deterred at all.

Israel should not be answering those who accuse Israel of war crimes by begging the cynics to believe that "we love life." That's embarrassing. It sounds like Mister Rogers.

If cynics accuse Jews of deliberately targeting civilians, don't answer like that doomed drama queen in "A Streetcar Named Desire," Blanche DuBoise: "Deliberate cruelty is unforgivable, and the one thing of which I have never, ever been guilty of."

Jews should be very, very worried when their leaders sound exactly like Blanche DuBoise.

Instead, Jews should answer that the premise of war is that cruelty is indeed forgivable, some things are worth dying for; better yet, some things are worth YOU dying for — you, Hamas. Disproportionate? As Gen. Patton said, the purpose of war is not to die for your country, it's to make the other son of a bitch die for his country. And that's what Israel did, making Hamas killers and their civilian supporters die in a war that Hamas started and Israel should have finished.

"A Streetcar Named Desire"? Better another Brando movie, "The Godfather." When charged with war crimes, Jews should answer unemotionally, but with total confidence, like Don Corleone: "I don't apologize for taking care of my family."

Israel had no business fighting this war in the first place, and risking the lives of Jewish soldiers, if Israel had no intention of going the distance. Why did any Israeli soldier have to die, leaving family, friends and lovers to mourn for the next 60 years? To set Hamas back six weeks? Israel didn't set Hamas back six hours. Rockets were flying the day that Israel left Gaza.

And Israel continues to send "humanitarian aid" into Gaza, aid that Israel admits is being hijacked by Hamas. What parent would give their child's kidnappers "humanitarian aid" without even demanding a phone call, a chance to hear their son's voice, even a Red Cross visit to the kidnapped child? No, Israel is facilitating the flow of food, cash and supplies to Shalit's kidnappers in exchange for nothing.

And if, G-d forbid, Shalit is already dead, then Israel ought to withhold aid to Hamas at least until Shalit gets a decent burial, if not long after, if Israel has any dignity left. There have been over two dozen instances in recent years in which the Palestinian Authority has suspended talks with Israel to protest one Israeli policy or another but Israel won't suspend the sending of tons of supplies to Hamas to protest the torture and imprisonment of Shalit that is in total violation of the supposedly sacred Geneva guidelines for a prisoner of war.

That's right, the very same Geneva guidelines for p.o.w.'s that so inflamed politicians, academics, clergy, editors and, ethicists from around the world to demand that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo be closed, and that its Al Qeda prisoners not be "tortured," have never sparked a similar international campaign to close the Hamas dungeon where Shalit is tortured, a dungeon where war crimes are never tabulated. Odd, how concern for Shalit eludes the humanitarians. Pity him in his lonely war, the last Jewish soldier in Gaza.

In the end, like all Israeli wars, these past weeks were somehow inspirational if only for the courage and holiness of the soldiers. They are the best of us, and "us" is the key word. The goodness and passion of young Israelis — who were winning this war but who will suffer its consequences — may not deter Iran but it's a reason to believe, and to fall in love with the Jewish people, all over again.
Complete Original Article

The only thing Hamas likes better than dead Israelis is dead Palestinians

Reaffirming the Right of Israel to Exist

A detailed reminder to the next leader of the free world

What the world cannot remember the Israelis cannot forget. The Israelis know the Jewish nation has been one defeat away from extinction for 70 years. They know that every partition plan in the region, from the dawn of Zionism to the present day, has failed because of the Arab failure to accept the State of Israel. They know that the Palestinian leadership is virtually hopeless, wherein the people who are moderate are not effective and the people who are effective are not moderate.More...

Today the impossible Yasser Arafat has been replaced by the impotent Mahmoud Abbas. It was Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, who presided over the division of the Palestinians into Fatah and Hamas. Hamas doesn't want peace, and Fatah can't deliver it. Fatah is so weak that it cannot enforce the rule of law against terrorism or make compromises for fear of the radical Islamists. Indeed, without the support of the Israeli Defense Forces, even now it is under threat of being displaced by Hamas. Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a major Hamas leader, underlined Fatah's weakness when he said, "Fatah can't stop us from seizing control of those [West Bank] territories. It is only a matter of time."

Israel is so small it has no margin for error. A Hamas takeover of the West Bank would put Ben-Gurion Airport and major cities like Tel Aviv in the firing line, which would render Israel virtually uninhabitable. This is not guesswork. When Israel left the West Bank, it became a base for suicide bombers, ultimately forcing the Israelis to go back at great cost. They've since built a security fence, but a fence will not protect people from rockets. The rockets and mortars launched against Israel from Gaza have gained greater lethality, accuracy, and range, going from 20 kilometers before the truce to 40 after. And without the current operation, it is estimated that within two to three months new rockets supplied to Hamas by Iran and assembled in Gaza would have been able to hit Tel Aviv. One of them just reached the outskirts.

Acceptable response. Over 20 percent of the Israelis were vulnerable even before Tel Aviv came within range. No government could ignore these threats to its people. Yet Israel's belated response has been challenged as "disproportionate". This is ridiculous. In the first place, it was Hamas's intention that at least thousands of Israelis would die from its 7,000 rockets. Would it fit the doctrine of proportionality if Israel were to respond with 7,000 missiles against Gaza civilians? Or must it wait until the number of dead is piled high enough to justify a "proportioned" response. And what of the emotional trauma inflicted on the living? Men, women, and children have 15 seconds to reach a bunker, which they must do several times a day. They must live with the constant fear of death and maiming.

Would America sit back if, over three years, 7,000 rockets and missiles were launched at our citizens from Mexico or Canada? We would attack these missile sites and wipe them out. End of story. The "disproportionate" criticism is a cop-out. Hamas sought this battle. It was Hamas that broke the six-month truce organized by Egypt. Both Fatah and Egypt urged its continuance; the current violence would have been avoided, as Abbas stated, had Hamas not fired its missiles.

Tony Blair, now the special envoy of the Mideast quartet, concedes he understands the consequences now more than when he was prime minister of Britain: "I would hesitate to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians after the nightmare Israel has faced since the Gaza withdrawal." He recognizes that Hamas has sabotaged years of negotiation. "Land for peace," he warns, "is in itself not sufficient. Not less important is the character of the Palestinian state."

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya has made it clear what kind of state his Palestine would be. Hamas seeks nothing less than an Islamic state as its covenant describes: "To raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." To that end, Hamas has turned Gaza into a home for every brand of radical Islamist engaged in a holy war that sanctifies bloodshed, glorifies murder, and educates children to die as shahids —martyrs. There was to be no Israel alongside a Palestinian state. Over and over again Haniya has said that Hamas will never recognize Israel nor honor any of the existing agreements with the infidels. Its founder, Abdul Aziz Rantizi, is explicit: "We will not leave one Jew in Palestine."

To achieve the extermination of Israel, Hamas is ready to sacrifice its followers: "We are not," says Haniya, "seekers of office but seekers of martyrdom." The Palestinian people are like the prisoners in a hijacked plane: hostage to the death cult of radical Islamists. Hamas calculates that no state can tolerate its citizens being vulnerable day after day to the russian roulette of rocket fire that hits children, kindergartens, playgrounds, and hospitals. The attacks are designed to provoke Israel while its perpetrators hide behind their own civilians and keep women and children in their forces. They keep TV cameras at the ready to transmit every image of dead Palestinians, especially children. Except for dead Israelis, there is nothing Hamas leaders like better than dead Palestinians, given the global media's appetite for pictures—all to damage the image of Israel. Who else but Hamas leaders would put their headquarters in a hospital or move about in the street only when they are surrounded by children or carry them in their arms because they reckon this will protect them from the more scrupulous Israelis?

They are abetted in this cynical game by the United Nations World Relief Association headquartered in Gaza, headed by and staffed by Palestinians. U.N. schools in Gaza have long ago stopped being just schools where children are taught. They are places of refuge for Hamas terrorists—and points of provocation. There is video footage of terrorists firing mortar rounds from the U.N. school and then running so that others might pay the price for their deadly work. Haniya and other Hamas leaders openly boast about the effectiveness of their human shield tactics, yet it is Israel that gets blamed when some of them die.

Israeli aid. The hypocrisy of it all is manifest on the issue of humanitarian aid. Who else but Israel would suspend the war effort for three hours every couple of days to aid in the provision of humanitarian assistance? Could you imagine England doing something like that when it was being bombarded by Hitler's V-2 rockets during WWII? Israel delivers to Gaza about 2,500 tons a day of food and fuel and other vital supplies. Hamas repeatedly attacks this mercy operation. Last May I visited the border and saw firsthand the result of these attacks on Israelis whose sole purpose for being there was to place bales of humanitarian aid on big flat-bed trucks, drive them through the crossings, deposit them 150 yards on the other side, and return. A week earlier, suicide terrorists exploded bomb-laden cars adjacent to one of the crossings.

The unthinking street crowds in European capitals with their Hamas flags don't give Israel credit for these humanitarian efforts nor its strenuous efforts to avoid civilian casualties: Leaflets are dropped and warnings phoned, even though this will alert the terrorists to escape. The protesters give Hamas a free pass for murder.

How rare it is for the truth to penetrate the moral fog! The Czech foreign minister, Karel-Schwarzenberg, now the president of the European Union, asks a good question. Given that Hamas "deliberately puts its military targets in civilian centers," he asks, "why am I one of the few that have expressed understanding for Israel? I enjoy the luxury of being able to tell the truth."

President Bush has the clearest perception of what is at stake. At Israel's 60th anniversary he said: "Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong because the United States of America stands with you." Alas, this pledge was shamefully compromised by one member of that audience, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. When it came to a vote at the U.N., the United States abstained. But for some reason best known to her, she drafted and urged the U.N. into supporting a resolution that called for a cease-fire without the protections of prior agreements, or the cessation of rocket attacks, or the prevention of Hamas rearming itself. In short, she was behind a resolution guaranteeing a continuance of the terrorism.

Any cease-fire must include cast-iron guarantees. They must decisively end the smuggling of arms, largely through the tunnels from Egypt. They must ensure that the firing of rockets will stop—not just for now but for good. That means the guarantees must leave open not the remotest chance that Hamas can be rearmed. Otherwise, as the National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley put it, the cease-fire would be "a prescription for the resumption of hostilities at some point in the future."

Hamas, in short, must be made to fail and be seen to fail. Israel is not trying to take over Gaza; it is trying to protect itself from Gaza. It is trying to preserve the possibility of a Mideast peace process. If the international community will not permit Israel to respond to ceaseless terrorism launched from land from which Israel has withdrawn, it ends any hopes for a two-state solution. What incentive would Israel have to withdraw from the West Bank were it to become a launching pad for terrorism? Hamas will fight tooth and nail to retain this terrorist option. That is why it must be defanged.

The Middle East conflict must also be framed on a bigger canvas. It is not just about creating a Palestinian state. It is also about preventing the region's takeover by radical Islam, especially Iran, which has co-opted Hamas and Hezbollah. If Hamas is successful in manipulating world opinion to impose a premature cease-fire, it will proclaim victory and continue its murderous ways. Iran and the radical Islamists are out to destroy Western interests in the Middle East—and to replace Arab regimes with radical Islamic states, Iranian-style.

On a visit to Sderot, President-elect Barack Obama said, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I am going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same." As president, he should continue speaking truth to terror.

Complete Original Article

Gaza Children Sacrificed to a Malevolent God

Hamas manipulated the deaths of their own offspring to appease the ravenous media.

Thousands of years ago, in the Middle East, cradle not just of civilization but of many gods, was a deity named Moloch. Today, he would be considered a pagan god by those of the one God of Abraham, with whom he long coexisted. But in that time, he prevailed for centuries. Like the God of Abraham, he was an angry god (though not clearly a jealous one). But the God of Abraham was more complex, and — at least later — merciful, and also loving.*

Moloch was a lot simpler. He was purely malevolent, and basically an extortionist — one that any modern gangster would recognize and admire.

More...

His deal was basically this: “I am the bringer of the sun. Nice little city you have here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it, like the crops dying because the sun didn’t show up. I can make sure that doesn’t happen. I don’t ask much — a temple with priests and ritual prostitutes, and an occasional sacrifice.”

His representative in the temple was an upright bull with horns and crown, gaping mouth, and outstretched arms. On sacrifice days, within him raged a fire.

The crowds would gather around and chant, and the drums would beat, and the ungodly din would drown out the screams of unknowing infant terror and keening mothers. Babies were brought up to the arms of Moloch, and through an ancient ingenious mechanism, raised up to his mouth to cruelly plummet them to the inferno below.

And to reinforce the tradition, the sun continued to shine.

But eventually, the God of Abraham became dominant in the Middle East, with three major religions worshiping him. Moloch was abandoned.

Fast forward to the early twenty-first century in the Middle East. There is a new child-sacrifice cult in the ancient land, albeit one that claims to be of the God of Abraham.

This time, the purpose of the sacrifice is not to keep the sun shining and the crops growing. This sacrifice is to placate the gods, or devils, in the news media and to help the people achieve a much different and less laudable goal — the extinction of another people.

In 2009, in the “Gaza strip,” one of the ancient Philistine cities, an Islamic group called Hamas has the goal to, as part of its charter, destroy all Jews in creation.

It lacks the military resources or competence to do so for now, but it satisfies itself with merely attempting, however ineffectually, to kill whatever Jews lie within the range of its unguided rockets. While few of them hit their marks (which, were they to satisfy their wont, would apparently be kindergartens and ice-cream parlors, or wherever young Jews would most likely be present in the highest density), they are of sufficient danger to continually disrupt the lives of those at whom they are aimed, if such a word can be applied to so crude a weapon.

But the crudity of the munitions is beside the point, isn’t it? What is important is the intent.

Hamas wants Jewish children to die. The Jews want their children to live. Beyond that, the Jews even want the children of Hamas to live. This is evidenced not just by the pains and risk to their own troops they take to carefully target those trying to kill them, and to minimize (though they cannot be eliminated, for reasons explained shortly) the number of Hamas children hurt, to the point of issuing warnings when they will be attacking their parents thus decreasing the probability of killing the actual enemy. It is also demonstrated by their willingness to take the wounded into their own hospitals for treatment when permissible.

But herein lies the real asymmetry between the two sides. Hamas doesn’t merely want to kill the Jewish children (though of course they do want to kill them, for no other reason than that they are Jews, in accordance with their diabolical charter). They are also willing and eager to sacrifice their own.

How?

In any way imaginable. They set up rocket-launching bases in schools, which will become targets for retaliation. They establish military quarters in family homes, where children can be counted on to be present. They even go so far as to establish military headquarters in the basement of Gaza’s largest hospital, which will ensure that if they are attacked, not just children, but sick and injured children, as well as sick and injured adults and their caregivers, will be maimed or killed.

And they do not do this simply to protect themselves by using the young, sick, and otherwise helpless as human shields, though that would be bad enough and is a major war crime in and of itself. But apparently, it is a war crime that the media dare not say its name.

No, they do it in the hope that those young — down to the babies, sick and, helpless — will in fact be killed so that they can be paraded before their allies, witting or otherwise, in the western media, to aid them in their goal of at least temporarily ending the Jewish defensive onslaught upon them. This is all done in the hope that that their enemy will, once again, be politically defanged, and that once again, it will buy them time to rearm, with better weaponry, and take up again their ultimate genocidal cause.

That they are not merely cowards, hiding behind infants’ diapers, but rather actually desirous of the death of their own offspring is revealed by their own words of indoctrination, in which they encourage their own children to become martyrs to their evil cause. As further evidence that death is the intent, news stories are offered by them to show the deaths, even when they didn’t necessarily happen.

Moloch has returned to the Mideast, after millennia. Except this time, the maw of the bull is the eye of the camera lens, into which the slaughter of the innocents is fed to a complicit press to be passed on to a gullible world.

And this time, those sacrificing the children don’t want to drown out the noise of the terrified screams of those tossed to the fire. The screams, and (as always) the terror, are the whole point.

But at the rate things are going, perhaps the media’s sun, unlike Moloch’s, may start to dim. If so, and if this behavior continues, those of us less morally challenged will not fear the eclipse, but rather, will welcome it.

* Yes, no need to comment. I know about the sacrifice of Abraham. Please…

Complete Original Article

*Middle East Delusion, Part 2

or why is acid and stoning a good public relations policy?



As I was writing about earlier, it sometimes amazes me how some Americans can be so out of touch with the reality of the Middle East. I wrote a bit about the current Hamas - Israel conflict, but the much larger issue is really one of freedom versus intolerance and oppression.As I said I had read several articles lately that remind me of how different the cultures, traditions and laws of the United States and the west are compared to many places in the Middle East. It is almost frightening that many in the west would so naively embrace and defend certain regimes and organizations in the region not out of national self interest such as our need for oil or for political expediency but more as a protest against their own much freer and tolerant countries and governments.

This is not a knock on Islam as a whole but that aspect of it which is so destructive and restrictive to what any rational person would consider an enlightened world. Yet today we have many in the west who protest in defense of backward, repressive cultures and belief structures and condemn those that speak out against these archaic views. Terrorist are heroes and lovers of liberty are labeled as oppressors. It truly is an "Alice Through the Looking Glass" outlook on the world.

Personally I have problems with some of the fundamentalist Christian community's rhetoric and even some of their beliefs, but all in all the Christian community is a source for good in our society far outweighing any negatives anyone could have with their philosophical outlook or utterances. Yet in the upside down world we live in many of the same people who attack both verbally and and on occasion physically fundamental Christianity or Mormons or Catholics for opposition to Gay Marriage will embrace and defend regimes, organizations and theologies that not only ban Gay Marriage, they ban homosexuality. You remember the Ahmadinejad visit to Columbia. From NPR

In an address to an audience at Columbia University last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that homosexuality does not exist in Iran. The comment prompted derisive laughter from his audience and put a spotlight on the hostile treatment of gays and lesbians in the Muslim world.

Parvez Sharma, the filmmaker behind the documentary A Jihad for Love, discusses the underground world of homosexuality in Muslim countries. Filmed in 12 countries and nine languages, the documentary profiles men and women who struggle daily against persecution, danger and social isolation.

and Iran is by no means alone in its persecution of homosexuals in the Mid East

Shari'a law, as interpreted and enforced in Saudi Arabia, also allows punishment for consensual homosexuality, ranging from imprisonment to 'flogging'. In 2007, two gay men were given 7,000 lashes by prison authorities in Saudi Arabia.

Some Christians in the west may have strong theological and moral objections to homosexuality but our culture and legal system has advanced to the point where Gays while in some cases are unfortunately shunned, they certainly are not legally persecuted or condemned.


This persecution is not reserved for homosexuality but intolerance and medieval traditions and attitudes are ingrained into the fabric of cultures by a warped interpretation of religion which subjugates an entire gender into a prison of archaic customs and chauvinistic destructiveness.

Many of the same self professed advocates for the equal right of all peoples who speak piously of their idealistic view of humanity by condemning the bastion of freedom and liberties every slight miscue, then turn around and embrace and coddle the most despicable of all ideologies. Nowhere is this more evident than the treatment of women.


Take the case of Dr Zahra Bani Yaghoob in Iran, she was murdered or more accurately executed in 2007 her crime?

Dr Zahra Bani Yaghoob arrested by the head quarter of Basig’s Militia at the publics park in Hamadan while she was walking with her fiancé, the couple has been stopped by Militia and requested to show a legal marriage certificate. For the reason of not having that marriage certificate handy to show, she was arrested and 2 days latter she died suspiciously.

Remember this is the ideology that is shared with most Islamic terrorist groups, this is the cultural heritage of certain regimes that have absolutely no desire to evolve into the modern world. Yet so called "progressives" in the west see these oppressive regimes as the oppressed, defending them while condemning the very democratic institutions which allow then their freedom of dissent, something not tolerated by the very people they champion.

Freedoms and opportunities that they and we take for granted are and will be destroyed given the success by force, not ideas , of radical Islam.

Taliban militants in a former tourist region of Pakistan have banned girls from school beginning this month, claiming female education is contrary to Islam.

"From January 15, girls will not be allowed to attend schools," Mullah Shah Doran, the Taliban second in command in the scenic Swat Valley, announced in a recent radio address. Mullah Doran said educating girls is "un-Islamic."

he announcement is a further blow to a system in which female enrollment already has plunged because of ongoing violence. Three years ago, more than 120,000 girls attended schools and colleges in the region, which has a population of 1.8 million. Now only about 40,000 are enrolled.

"More than 30 percent [of the] girls dropped out of educational institutions in 2006 and 2007 due to speeches of [militant leader] Mullah Fazlullah on his FM radio against girls' education," said an official in the Swat education department, who asked not to be named to avoid becoming a target for militants.

"Half of the remaining girls dropped out or could not attend their studies due to attacks on their schools and colleges.

When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan from the mid-1990s until it was ousted by U.S.-led forces in 2001, it barred girls from attending school. Women were banned from appearing in public unless completely covered, their faces hidden and accompanied by an immediate male relative.

The very idea that women would be treated as sub-human slaves, not worthy of advancement or respect of any kind is the teaching of a backward and archaic belief structure that not only has no desire to change but in fact believes it is superior to all others.


Acid attacks and wife burnings are common in parts of Asia because the victims are the most voiceless in these societies. Naeema Azar, above, was attacked by her husband after they divorced. Her 12-year-old son, Ahmed Shah, looks after her. NYT

This month in Afghanistan, men on motorcycles threw acid on a group of girls who dared to attend school. One of the girls, a 17-year-old named Shamsia, told reporters from her hospital bed: “I will go to my school even if they kill me. My message for the enemies is that if they do this 100 times, I am still going to continue my studies.”

When I met Naeema Azar, a Pakistani woman who had once been an attractive, self-confident real estate agent, she was wearing a black cloak that enveloped her head and face. Then she removed the covering, and I flinched.

Acid had burned away her left ear and most of her right ear. It had blinded her and burned away her eyelids and most of her face, leaving just bone.

Do you believe they are unaware of our cultures, our ideals, our system of laws that imperfectly protect us from our own worst instincts? Yes they know, but their theological mind set is based on something many naively believe can be changed in a few short years through dialog and understanding, perhaps.

From the story above

The most haunting part of my visit with Ms. Azar, aside from seeing her face, was a remark by her 12-year-old son, Ahsan Shah, who lovingly leads her around everywhere. He told me that in one house where they stayed for a time after the attack, a man upstairs used to beat his wife every day and taunt her, saying: “You see the woman downstairs who was burned by her husband? I’ll burn you just the same way.”

I personally am opposed to the death penalty, for many reasons, though from time to time I tend to want to equivocate, but one thing I am sure I believe in is that I am opposed to this.


Iran says man stoned to death for adultery

Iran said on Tuesday that a man convicted of adultery had been stoned to death in a village in northwestern Iran, the first time it has confirmed such an execution in five years.

"This case has been recently executed in the village that was mentioned," judiary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi told reporters about the stoning of Jafar Kiani in a village in Qazvin province.

Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery is still theoretically punishable by stoning although in late 2002, judiciary head Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi had issued a directive suspending the practice.

In June, the Fars news agency reported that the judiciary had halted the stoning of a man and a woman in Qazvin province, believed to be the same man who has now been executed.

The judiciary had up until now vehemently denied any stonings since 2002, although rights activists and press reports have on occasion claimed that such verdicts have been carried out.

Under the punishment of stoning, a male convict is buried up to his waist with his hands tied behind his back, while a female offender is buried up to her neck with her hands also buried

It is obviously not quite as rare as Reuters would have us believe

Three men were officially stoned in the city of Mashhad in Eastern Iran on Thursday, one ‎of whom survived the ordeal.‎

An informed source in Mashhad told RoozOnline that three were stoned in the Behesht ‎Zahra cemetery in Mashhad. Mahmud M.G of Afghan nationality succeeded in pulling ‎himself out of the ditch where he had been buried for the stoning and escaped death. The ‎other two dies of wounds inflicted by the stones. Under Islamic punishment, if a person ‎can survive or escape the ordeal, s/he is considered kosher. ‎

I am more than willing to let Islam take care of its own idealogical nut cases. However the delusion is that if we just leave them alone, or stop abusing them?, they will leave us alone. The truth is that this brand of Islam believes that we are the enemy, regardless of our actions.

I know it is popular to label such talk as neo-con propaganda, well I do not consider myself a neo-con, but I do consider myself a thinker and an observer. After years of observation and serious thought on the subject, I have come to believe that the people that would perpetrate the above actions as part of their mind set and cultural tradition, are not to be trusted. I'll trust the idealogical and cultural traditions of the basically good and generous people I know and see every day, over those that would not only slam airplanes into buildings, but throw acid on the faces of their wives.

If Islam truly is not the religion of these monsters, then it is time for it to condemn these type of actions and deeds, until then, and after then God Bless the USA.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

More...

Middle East Delusions Part One

or why Tel Aviv is like Las Angeles

I was reading a couple of article recently and it suddenly occurred to me how out of touch we American's are from reality in some respects. All the articles were about various Mid East situations and two of the articles were from Mid East media outlets. Before I comment on the stories, I think it might be wise to very briefly review what, if anything, America stands for at its core. Don't worry this will only take a second.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

At least I hope those words are still the core of what America is or strives to be, lately I have my concerns.

Of the articles I read the first group are really just a propaganda pieces which is instructive only to the degree that it illustrates the popular view or at least the one portrayed in the Mid East of the ongoing Palestinian-Israel issue. But first let me quote from the same outlet Middle East On Line on something that was in the news regularly until the recent conflict erupted, the headline reads:

Piracy in the Red Sea: Saudi points towards Israel

Just the headline tells the story now don't it? I have long felt that Israel surely must be behind the Somalia pirates, how about you? They after all have the capability, everyone remembers the Rescue at Entebe don't they? The IDF forces sweeping into Uganda to save their citizens from what we used to call terrorist, back when Israel was the victim instead of the terrorist themselves. The question of course is why would Israel get into international piracy with Muslim bandits? Well you can read the article but here is the highlight.

“These acts triggered statements on the internationalization of the Red Sea, in which the enemy state of Israel would be a crucial element,” he adds.

“Who has got an interest in such an internationalization?” Asks the analyst, echoing “another disturbing development represented by the decision of a shipping company (AP Moller-Maersk, the world’s largest container ship operator and supply vessel operator) to divert its huge merchant fleet from Suez Canal and take the route via the Cape of Good Hope.”

“Who has got an interest in putting pressure on Egypt, by diverting cargo ships of Suez Canal and by making Egypt lose daily income of over $15 million?” the analysts asks again.

Just so we know who has such interest, they tell us later on

“The aims of the Zionist enemy in the Red Sea have never ceased,” wrote the Islamist cleric on his website, illustrating his long article with a quote by a former commander of the Israeli navy regarding “a diabolical plan” which aims to “transform the Red Sea into a Jewish lake.”

Of course this is all coached in the context of quoting various scholars and clerics but the point is made that it is probably Israel behind the pirates.

Now to more recent events of course staring with images such as this



and headlines like this Gaza babies at risk of hypothermia


and commentary like this

But Hamas - before the Israeli ground offensive - had already accepted more than once EU proposals for ceasefire. It was always Israel who refused a truce.

The Israeli offensive has sparked spiralling anger in the world and protests across the globe.

or this

and this

"The Israeli army will use stronger force against Hamas," said one Israeli propaganda message received early on Monday.

Another Israeli propaganda message sent was "Hamas's leadership is bringing you destruction."

For most of the population, it was another night of looking for any place that might be able to resist an Israeli shell.

"Our life is filled with fear," said Abdelrahim Malaka, a resident of the surrounded city. "We call on the world to have mercy on us and save us from the Israeli war. What did the children do wrong to have their houses bombed?"

Obviously the children in Gaza did nothing to deserve their houses being bombed, anymore than Israel children deserve the constant fear of Hamas rockets fired at them from Gaza, which is the catalyst for the entire Israeli response.

All of this is very sad to be sure, but ask yourself a very simple question, why would Israel just invade the Gaza strip which they unilaterally turned over to the Palestinians just 4 years ago? They obviously don't want it, otherwise they would not have given it up in the false hope that it would achieve peace.

The truth is that Israel is attempting to protect itself against an organization, Hamas, who does not recognize Israel's right to exist and has sworn to wipe it from the face of the earth. Now the people in Gaza, not all but a majority, voted that Hamas represent them. So Israel lives side by side with an enemy that does not recognize its right to exist and has vowed to wipe it from the face of the earth, great neighborhood.

What most people do not know, because most people base their opinions on feelings rather than knowledge, is that when Israel was formed by the United Nations, ironic isn't it?. The plan was for there to be two nations, one for Palestinians and one for Jews. The Palestinians at the insistence of their Arab brethren rejected this with the understanding that the Arab nations would wipe out Israel and give all the land to the Palestinians. Of course we know that they have tried several times but failed and Israel is still there.

For there to be a resolution, there are only two possibilities. The first solution is if Palestinians and the Muslim nations which do not recognize Israel came to accept Israel as a sovereign nation and the original two nation concept be implemented. The second solution or more ominously the final solution, would be the destruction of Israel and the formation of a single Palestinian State. Really that is it, there must be an Israel, a Palestine or both and the both is the only one that has a diplomatic solution, the others require an almost total destruction of a peoples.

Some people reading this may think, mistakenly, that there was once a nation called Palestine with a functioning government run by Palestinians which was taken over by the Jews to create Israel. As I said, this is a mistake, no such place ever existed. It can be argued and constantly is who has a better claim to the land which is now the country of Israel. Both sides make very good arguments and depending on your prejudices a person could be persuaded either way.

But the fact is there currently exist a thriving democracy with a vibrant society, well established institutions based on one of the oldest traditions and religions in the world currently established there. And as we all know, possession is nine tenths of the law.

Some may find this unfair, but historically it is not the least bit unfair. As a matter of fact historically speaking Israel is one of the fairest and legally justifiable countries ever created. After all it was created by the United Nations, the world so to speak willed Israel into existence. Now you may argue that the United States excerpted undo influence into this decision, I believe if you study the issue there was a pretty broad consensus but regardless compared to how most countries came to be it was pretty fair.

After all what do you expect, the Israel nation after 60 years of struggle to suddenly turn over their country to Palestinians? If you believe that is fair, then to be even more righteous perhaps the United States should give California back to Mexico, after all nobody voted on that little transaction we took it along with Arizona, Nevada, Utah and parts of Colorado and New Mexico. Perhaps if we dig through history and start evening the scores we could come up with a completely new globe. Actually most of the countries in the Middle East are actually 20Th Century creations, Iraq for example is not 30 years older than Israel.

As I said there really are only two possibilities here, the Palestinians accept Israel and a country of their own, or they continue to try to destroy Israel with ever decreasing support from their Arab brethren who got them into the mess to begin with. As for Israel, they have every right to exist and every right to defend themselves from neighbors who are bent on killing them. Now why can't we all just get along.

(to be continued) Part 2 - How stoning and acid make for good public relations.

More...