That there is a conflict existing between the Jewish state of Israel and its neighbors is a known fact throughout the world. From there, however, explaining the conflict further and exploring its roots requires a certain amount of nuance. Most casual observers may equate the conflict over religious differences between two monotheistic faiths or even a dispute over real estate. In large part they would be right. However, there is something more profound just under the surface. What fuels this incredible conflict is something far more tangible than religious disputes and closed borders. What gives the region the awesome force of power to take up arms for their cause generation after generation comes from the concept of ethnonationalism.

Ethnonationalism, or ethnic nationalism, may sound like the latest academic buzzword; but, in fact, ethnonationalism is hardly a new concept. It has been around since humans first developed the sense of kinship, language, tribalism, tradition, religion, cosmopolitans, nation states and so forth. It produces the sources for human spirit and enmity. Ethnonatioalism brought forth Manifest Destiny, the U.S. Civil War, WWI and WWII (which was fueled by extreme ethnonationalism in National Socialism ideology) and centuries long continental and world dominance by the nation states of Europe. The list could literally go on and on. It’s based off a narrow list of identities that fuels the societal belief behind a particular cause. It’s often strong, unwilling to compromise, and lasting. Those in the modern era that may find such an archaic premise troubling, intellectually and morally, haven’t paid attention to how the world has been shaped by ethnonationalism. Take America, our modern thinking polity often times belittles the ideas of ethnic nationalism or a particular national identity. We often pride ourselves as an “open” society where numerous ethnicities live in relative peace.

Social scientist go to great lengths to explain the enduring qualities of a culture, usually described as Western, that is inviting making it easier for different nationalities regardless of racial or religious origins to assimilate. They label this as liberal or civic nationalism. However, the fact that ethnonationalism already won out in North America over a century ago and continues to shape the identity of this country is rarely considered. Jerry Z. Muller (2008) says in his Foreign Affairs article, Us and Them, “The liberal view has competed with and often lost out to a different view, that of ethnonationalism. The core of ethnonatioinalist idea is that nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry.” (p. 20) Over the course of a couple of centuries, migration by a disproportionate amount of white Protestants from Northern-Europe and England brought with them a culture, traditions, laws and language. They, and their subsequent ancestors (that even include us), tamed, created and shaped the U.S. and as a result, the competition between civilizations in North America has been over for nearly 200 years.

Through conquest and industry, ethnonationalism in America reigned supreme and it has been by those standards that others have assimilated and adopted. If the societal equilibrium were to shift away from this because of mass migration or, a separate demographic explosion, it’s not all that unlikely that competing cultures here in the U.S. could rekindle the flames of ethnonationalism.

Ethnonationalism is a strong force in Arab nations. Mainly because of their history, good and bad, and their religion. The modern Arab nationalist/extremist suffers from insecurities, and an inferiority complex. Added to that is a long laundry list of grievances and jealousies suffered by the West. While their history involves Defensive Developmentalism, government incompetence and loose and feuding confederations of tribes, all in which brought on a steady decline of social, military and political capital. Their nemesis in the West represents the antithesis to their situation. Europe’s high sense of identity and righteousness led to a global pursuit of riches, conquest, glory and dominance at the expense of the Middle East. When that episode in their history ran its course, American dominance picked up where Europe left off.

But to get to the point that allowed Western-European dominance and manipulation in the Middle East something binding and energetic was needed in the region. It came in the form of strong nation-states that were emerging in Western Europe. The competition between the competing powers in Europe during the 1500s – 1800s laid the way for increased economic and military expansion. Economic prosperity and ethnic nationalism requires literacy and education to promote communication and common beliefs. What developed from this was set of competing nation states that were very defined, educated and ethically charged, and the results were explosive. Consequently, the Middle East endured centuries of economic and political incursion through colonization by a Western civilization that far outpaced them in almost all aspects of life, and continues even today. Nothing in the daily lives of Arabs pass without a Western imprint on it. From music, to movies, commercial goods and technologies, all are a product of Western civilization. For many Arabs that even means the very country they live in was created or influenced by Western powers.

These are all things that most Arabs are aware of and resent. This, of course, plays heavily on their physic. And herein lies the reason for conflicts, ethnonationalism and the clash between West and Middle-east vs. Israel.If ethnonationalism gives reason to fight along borders or within a region, then hatred, distrust, jealousy and indifference with the Christian West give Arab-Muslims an overarching global cause.Samuel P. Huntington (1996) refers to this movement in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (p. 255). It is the overriding force in today’s global politics and particularly in the Middle East. All observable differences have to be considered and accepted as major contributors to the conflict such as different language, religion, culture, etc. However, Western dominance and Diktat runs an equally strong course through the life of the Arab world. In the view of most Arab-Muslim nationalist, Israel’s existence in former Palestine offers a daily reminder of Western dominance and the inadequacies of the Arab world. Jewish Israel is a spur literally in the side of Islam.

Considering Israel’s size and population great wealth, technology, and medical advances provide a standard of living that far exceeds most Arab countries.What’s more, it is the region’s premier military power and has been tested numerous times, in which resulted in embarrassing and disastrous defeats for Arab-Muslim nations. It’s no wonder that the creation and existence of Israel is first on the list of grievances.

Balfour Agreement, Zionism and Hezbollah

The ending of WWI brought the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and with it a great vacuum to fill. The British Empire still had important interest in the region. Palestine stood out strategically because it served as a land bridge from Egypt to India and offered security to the Suez Canal protecting the sea road to India and elsewhere throughout the Empire. Britain, under Lloyd George devised away to bring Palestine under its sphere and serve as an ally in the Mid East. He distrusted the Arabs in Palestine and possible German interference in the region; therefore, pushed the idea of mass Jewish resettlement in the ancient land. David Fromkin (1989) in his book A Peace to End All Peace supports the idea. “There were also those who were worried about allowing the Germans and Turks to retain control of an area whose vital importance had been underscored by the Prime Minister. The assistant secretaries of the War Cabinet , Leo Amery and Mark Sykes, worried that in the postwar world the Ottoman Empire might fall completely in the clutches of Germany. Were that to happen, the road to India would be in enemy hands – a threat the British Empire could avert only by ejecting the Turks and Germans, and taking into British hands the southern perimeter of the Ottoman domains.” (p. 276)

These factors plus Biblical romanticism, Woodrow Wilson’s high-minded and heavy-handed international views, and a growing surge of Zionism led to the Balfour agreement the prelude to the British mandate that created modern day Israel.Zionism was growing in importance in Europe as well as in America. It was fueled from Jewish suffering and centuries of persecution in just about whatever land they settled. Before the end of WWI, they began to be gripped by the idea returning to their ancestral homeland in Palestine as the “Land of Israel”. The idea that they could set up a Jewish government based on self-determination and structured on Western democracy, led to a nostalgic frenzy. Backed by the British government, fear of anti-Semitism and, later the holocaust, migration was encouraged to create a modern Jewish state.

With them they brought valuable trades in medicine, law, education, commerce and a Western sense of culture that previously was absent from the area. All of this was promptly greeted with a revolt from the indigenous Arabs of the region. The areas under control by Arabs were cleansed of Jews and the areas controlled by Jews forced Arabs out to the surrounding Arab countries. During the ensuing years, violence against Jews in Arab countries forced another round of migration to Israel. Jerry Muller (2008) writes about the impact in the region upon the establishment of the Jewish state and Jewish migration. “Some 750,000 Arabs left, primarily for the surrounding Arab countries, andthe remaining 150,000 constituted only about a sixth of the population of thenew Jewish State. In the years afterward, nationalist-inspired violence against Jews in Arab countries propelled almost all of the more than 500,000 Jews there to leave their lands of origin and immigrate to Israel.” (p. 29)

The seeds for ethnonationlsim and true clash between West and Islam were being planted.Hezbollah is a byproduct from the creation of the Jewish sate and Zionism. Though founded only in 1982 out of reaction from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the group itself is hardly a new concept. Its history goes back as far as Arab-Muslim nationalism/Islamism does and can be seen as a microcosm of Arab/Islamic sentiment towards Israel and Western backing. The force itself acts as troops in the trench on the front line fighting against Western incursion and Zionism. Also, it gives an outlet for uneducated and unemployed young men to serve a cause greater than their lowly existence can muster. Furthermore, Hezbollah gives the Muslim world a chance to cheer and feel a source of pride as it repeatedly thumbs its nose at Israel and, by extension, engages in a proxy war with the West. Naturally, they receive high popularity in Southern Lebanon and support from regional powers like Syria and Iran.

Ethnonationalism, and all the defining and clashing identities that come with it contributed to the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006. However, something much greater and far reaching was at play.What actually is taking place is the Islamic world’s attempt to do away with the status-quo of Western interference in the region. Israel represents Western dominance and arrogance; therefore, the conflict is one entirely between the West and Islam, with Israel as the battlefront. The West, and America being its standard bearer, represents an image of unimaginable power and wealth — with God like powers that is able to topple governments as well as prop them up. With that comes an arrogance and a global swagger coupled with high minded policies of inclusion, tolerance and the persuasion of Western universal values and systems. While promoting these ideals, the West (mainly the U.S.) sometimes bomb and invade Muslim countries while at the same time preaching restraint, praising human rights, and acting as a global hawk for weapons proliferation. This creates resentment and assertiveness from the Muslim world and sets the path for extremism. The populace adopts an antagonistic attitude and governments begin to cooperate to undermine American-Western aims, as was the case with the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

History is always present and the events of the past leaves the residual necessary to fuel the ongoing pattern of conflict between the West and Islam. There is a source of pride and romanticism that exist in the Muslim world. Muslim dominance was absolute in the Middle East and North Africa by the 8th century. The Arabic armies fought off Christian advances into the Holy Land and by the 13th century the Ottomans were a “world” power that caused Europe to quake. This era was the high-water mark of Muslim dominance and exertion in worldly affairs. From the 16th century on the West, powered by organized nation-states, gained every conceivable advantage over the Ottomans and other Empires in the Middle East.

By the 20th century almost the entire Middle East was under the sphere of Western control. Huntington (1996) writes, “By 1920 only four Muslim countries – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan – remained independent of some form of non-Muslim rule.”(p. 210). Considering all of this, that groups like Hezbollah draws support is hardly amazing. These Islamic groups play up Islamic romanticism and fuel the imagination of a time when Islam and its principles ran supreme. It glorifies an explosive culture, a growing population and draws out on the fundamental differences that exist between Christianity and Islam especially in a time when the American-Western way of life is so heavily promoted and seductive to Middle Eastern culture. It gives a growing population of youth a chance to be a part of a grand cause and an opportunity to advance socially.

More importantly, Islam has showed a propensity for violence and absolutism and with the Western creation of Jewish Israel sitting squarely and defiantly on their land only brings the volatile culture to a boil. Samuel Huntington (1996) states, “Intense antagonisms and violent conflicts are pervasive between local Muslim and non-Muslim peoples.” And again he states supported by a list of evidence. “In the early 1990s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup violence than were non-Muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarters of intercivilazational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims” (pp. 256, 257, 258).

Conclusion

The ideological, cultural, religious and deeply historical differences between the Islamic/fundamentalist Middle East and the Christian/secular West are likely to continue. A growing younger Muslim population who tend to be more conservative and are likely to be more fundamental will only add to an assertive culture with an absolutist faith. Larger numbers of immigrants from the Middle East to Europe and America will further create antagonisms between the cultures as tensions and conflicts take place elsewhere. Islamic states like Iran who is showing the willingness to assert their power regionally may also prove to be a destabilizing influence.

Israel was created during an age of ethnonationalism and many of its citizens and leaders are still influenced by it. The country and its government was born from 20th century style of European nationalism and still carries with it the policies and sentiment that helped to shape it. Therefore, it is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, that Israeli will make any substantial concessions to Muslim demands. As the regional military power, backed by the U.S., Israel will continue to defend itself from threats and protect its interest in the region.

If the Middle East can become stabilized economically during this century, many of the disenchanted youth can find opportunity socially and through education, and not through radical Islamic groups. As opportunities increase and standard of living goes up so will the fortunes of the region. However, radicalism and resentment seems to be the only social/political outlet and current source for Arab-Muslim thinking.

References and Bibliography

Ferguson, N. (2006). The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Books.

Fromkin, D. (1989).A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Avon Books

Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & amp; and; Schuster.

Muller, J. (2008). The Clash of Peoples: Us and Them. Foreign Affairs, 87 (2) , 18-35.

Super fly smart guy Michael Oren (O yeah! He got game!) shares that talk isn’t always cheap (not to be confused with talking trash).

“The issue of American dialogue with Iran featured prominently in Friday’s presidential debate. Barack Obama pledged “to engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran.” John McCain denounced that notion as “naive” and “dangerous.”

This exchange capped a week in which five former secretaries of state, including Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, called for talks between the United States and Iran, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured the United Nations General Assembly that “the American empire is reaching the end of the road.”

Amid all of these declarations, though, few questions were raised about the possible benefits of U.S.-Iranian talks as well as the potential pitfalls. What, for example, would be the talks’ objectives — to moderate Iranian behavior and renew Iranian-American relations or, more broadly, to recognize a new strategic order in the Middle East?

(more…)

The Jerusalem Post has published an incredible interview with writer Bat Ye’or.  She is an historian and a prolific critic of the rise of Islamic extremism, especially in Europe.

She is the author of eight books, including The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (1985); The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (1996); Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2001); and - the one which captured international attention and catapulted her into the center of controversy - Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (2005). Saying that Europe is basically finished, due to its kissing up to the Arabs, will do that.

Eurabia was an instant hit, and has added real intellectual power to the counter-jihad movement.  It describes Europe as having shifted from its Judeo-Christian Post-Enlightenment grandeur, into one increasingly subservient to the oppression of Islamic law, or Sharia, where all non-Muslims live as dhimmis.

Bat Ye’or is a powerful, controversial writer, and I think the interview should be read in full at the Jerusalem Post, but I’ve reprinted a bit of it here to give you a sense of the woman’s character:

When you heard about the peace treaty that Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin signed with Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1979, how did you feel?

I wasn’t following it that carefully, due to family problems. Nor was I familiar with Israeli politics at the time. But I trusted Begin to do the best thing for Israel. So, I did have hope. Still, what you have to understand is that the problem is much larger than Egypt. The whole Muslim world is becoming more and more radicalized - more rooted in Shari’a, and less open to anything outside the religion. This is due to the policies of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), with 57 Islamic member states and a permanent delegation to the UN. At its last summit in December 2005, it decided upon a 10-year plan, one of whose resolutions was to root the Islamic uma - the world Muslim community - in the Koran and the [oral tradition of the] Hadith, which, of course, means Wahabbism. They also resolved to make the Palestinian issue the central issue of international politics. This is why we see relentless pressure on Israel from different countries. Because the OIC is an extremely powerful body, demographically, politically and economically.

The OIC is an Islamic body. How has it managed to turn the Palestinian issue into a Western focus? And to what do you attribute the political and cultural success of its ideology in Europe and the United States?

First of all, a distinction has to be made here between Europe and America, which have chosen opposite paths in relation to the Middle East.

As for OIC influence on Europe: It is visible in immigration policy toward Muslims, and in the Muslims’ refusal to integrate into European societies.

The OIC considers nationalist-European movements, European history, European culture, European religions and European languages as Islamophobic. Why? Because Europeans have begun to feel that they are losing their own identity, due to their efforts to welcome immigrants who don’t want to integrate. As a result, they have adopted measures to stop illegal immigration, to control legal immigration and to curb terrorism. Europeans fear losing their historical and cultural assets - particularly those of democracy and human rights - to Shari’a law. They want one law for everybody - and it’s not Shari’a, which involves things like honor killings. It is thus that in all international forums, the OIC attacks Europe and demands that it apply multiculturalism.

Now, Europeans do not want multiculturalism. But this is a problem, because European governments - and especially the European Union - do not want to fight the OIC, and so they collaborate with it. Therefore, what we have inside Europe is a clash of interests between the European citizens and their governments.

A similar claim is often made about Muslim-Arab citizens and their governments - that a majority of the former is moderate, while the latter is extremist. Do you agree with this assessment?

No, I don’t agree with it at all. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the Arab world, it is the governments - as we see so well in Egypt - that are at the mercy of the radicalized, Islamized, anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israel masses who are in a dynamic of jihad. Certainly the majority of Muslims follow the ideology of conquest; it is in the Koran and the Hadith! And every time they go to the mosque, they hear it. I mean, the first shura, that is recited five times a day, is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. So they cannot escape from it.

Unfortunately, the Muslims who are against this trend don’t have the courage to make the effort to change it. And those who do have the courage are threatened with losing their jobs and having harm done to them and their families. So Islamism is the natural culture of the Arab-Muslim world. Even in Turkey an Islamist government has taken over. So, how can we deny the reality? And anyway, if the moderates were in the majority, they would be making protests and issuing manifestos against Osama bin Laden, instead of against America and Israel.

The environment is one of jihad on the one hand and of dhimmitude [the state of being a non-Muslim subject living in a country governed by Shari'a law] on the other. European countries are becoming dhimmi countries, and people don’t realize it, because they don’t know what jihad and dhimmitude are, so they don’t recognize what condition they’re in. When you have an illness, but are unfamiliar with its symptoms, you don’t know that you are sick. You feel sick, but you don’t know what you’ve got. You therefore can’t make a diagnosis or embark upon a method of treatment to cure yourself. This is the current condition of Western civilization right now.

How, then, do you explain the electoral victories of France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and London’s replacement of mayor Ken Livingstone by Boris Johnson? Wouldn’t you consider this phenomenon as indicative that Europeans are making a diagnosis of and seeking a cure to the illness you say they suffer from?

Oh yes, they are extremely important developments which prove what I am saying about European citizens having had enough of this attempt to merge - culturally, religiously and demographically - the Arab and European sides of the Mediterranean. But the pressure exerted by the OIC on European governments is very strong. In addition, there is the pressure of terrorism inside and out of Europe, and that of the oil. So the task of these new governments you refer to will not be easy, to say the least. I don’t doubt their good intentions. But I don’t know if they will succeed in bringing about the change their citizens want.

Furthermore, unlike President Bush - who recognizes that Israel has a legitimate right to exist as a normal nation in its homeland - the Europeans think that Israel’s legitimacy should be granted by the Palestinians and the Arab states. In other words, Europe is putting Israel into a position of dhimmitude, whereby it will be recognized by Muslims if it abides by certain rules and duties.

This is in keeping with its own mentality. When the European community, in December 1973, published its document on European identity in the Copenhagen Declaration, they themselves were adopting a dhimmi mentality toward the Arab League countries. After World War II, Europeans decided that they didn’t want any more wars. Then, when they suffered aggression, such as the oil boycott and Palestinian terrorism that emerged in Europe in the late 1960s, instead of fighting, they joined their aggressors. This was their concept of multilateralism - thinking that by joining those who attacked them, they would be protected. This is when a tremendous Muslim immigration into Europe began.

Read the rest at the Jerusalem Post…

As you can see, Ye’or is not one to play into the hands of apologists.  She describes the Muslim world as being in a “dynamic of jihad” wherein the it is the governments themselves “as we see so well in Egypt - that are at the mercy of the radicalized, Islamized, anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israel masses.”

Brilliant interview all around–and important words.  Europe has let the thief in through the front door, and now they have no way of turning him out again…

It looks like despite continued mortar fire, Israel is opening up its border with Gaza, which should at least allow some humanitarian aid to cross into the area.  It also comes during a time when Hamas, despite the continued shelling of Israel, blames the Israeli government for delays in talks over the release of Gilad Shalit.

The BBC reports:

GAZA, July 8 (UPI) — Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Tuesday reopened border crossings between Israel and Gaza after earlier mortar fire prompted their closings.The Jerusalem Post, without naming sources, reported Barak made the decision to allow the movement of goods and humanitarian aid into Gaza at the urging of Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who reportedly told Barak that reopening the crossings would help in negotiations with Palestinian militants Hamas, who control Gaza.

Of course, this may or may not end the hue and cry over “collective punishment.”  Perhaps Egypt should also do something about opening its borders with Gaza….

Israel and Hamas are meeting to secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. A Hamas delegation was set to arrive in Cairo Tuesday to discuss Shalit as well as the option of reopening another crossing, the Post said.

“There are several small offshoots (of the major terror groups) in Gaza trying to disrupt the truce, but we have one address, and that is Hamas,” an unnamed Israeli security official told the newspaper. “We know Hamas has dispatched forces to track down these renegade cells, but (the group) is not (doing) enough.”

The question now is whether or not Gilad Shalit is even alive, or if Israel will move to trade more living terrorists for the body of a brave Israeil soldier.

The irony that I see in all of this is that Hamas is moving closer and closer toward actually being a government.  That they should have to “track down these renegade cells” is awfully reminiscent of the PLO as it moved away from overt terrorism and into the political sphere.  Of course, the reaction to this shift was the rise of Hamas.  Now that Hamas, too, may be moving toward pseudo-legitimacy, the cynic in me is simply waiting for the next major terror organization to rise up and fill those empty shoes.

This may be the cyclical sort of problem Israel will face when negotiating peace with terror groups.  By the time they are actually willing to negotiate peace, they’re no longer the ones who are making war.  A new group has risen, and a new negotiation period has to resume.  Imagine the IRA had made peace with the UK, and a new Irish terror group had taken its place…

I remember, as a child, watching old Western’s in which a prisoner exchange would go down on some dusty, old-West street.  The bad guys would line up on one side of the road, hands on their pistols, faces grim.  On the other side, the good guys, slightly outnumbered, heroic, desparate, would untie the really, really bad guy’s wrists and push him out on to the street.

The bad guys would release the captive hero.  A tumbleweed would roll into view, bouncing recklessly past the good guys, who would glance nervously, their trigger-fingers itchy, their eyes narrowed.

Inevitably something would go wrong.  The good guy would get half way before being shot, or a rookie cowboy on the good guys side would get nervous and accidently fire his pistol.  Even when the prisoner swap went well, the moral of the story was always this: the badguy will still be a badguy, and will live to fight another day, kill again, but the goodguy will too.  The moral was that shades of grey exist in this world, and while you don’t want to see the badguy set free, because you know deep down that he’ll come back worse than ever, you also want to see the goodguy safe and sound.  You want to be reassured that it wasn’t all for nothing.  It’s a tough question–one of the few real morality issues that one encountered in old Westerns.

So, to extend what was bound to be an extended metaphor further, I now take you to the modern Wild West, which just so happens to be Israel.  The Israeli government has signed a prisoner swap deal with Hizbullah, exchanging several prisoners for two Israeli soldiers who may or may not be alive.

Dead men on both sides will be exchanged if the two IDF men, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, are indeed dead. According to the Jerusalem Post:

Members of the IDF Rabbinate were exhuming the bodies of approximately 200 Hizbullah men killed in fighting with Israel from their graves in a cemetery near Safed.

What makes this deal really appalling to me, and to many in Israel and around the world, is the release of Sami Kuntar–this without the release of Israeli Gilad Shalit.

CNN writes:

Kuntar was convicted over a 1979 attack in which he shot and killed an Israeli man in front of his 4-year-old daughter, then smashed her head against a rock with his rifle butt, tossing her body into the sea.

Another daughter, 2, was accidentally smothered by her mother, who tried to keep her quiet as they hid from the attackers.

In fact, the whole capture of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser is said to have been a tactic used by Hizbullah, who apparently were expecting the half-assed Israeli invasion of Lebanon, to secure Sami Kuntar’s release.   I personally am not against prisoner swaps, or the trading of bodies as it may be–but releasing a man who dashed a four-year-old girl’s head in after killing her father in front of her…?  The man deserves worse than death, and certainly worse than freedom and a heroes welcome by Hizbullah.

Al-Jazeera has reported on the exchange with an article titled “Israel to Exhume Bodies of Martyrs Ahead of Swap” which basically gives you the Arab perspective on this exchange.  They write:

The exchange is to occur on three phases, the first of which will include the release of Lebanese detainee Samir Kintar and three others, according to the Ma’an report.

The second phase, Ma’an reported, will begin six days later and the third a few days after that. The news agency further reported that one of the Palestinian bodies slated to be returned under the second phase of the deal would be that of Dalal Mughrabi, a female resistance fighter launched a heroic operation in 1978 killing 36 Israelis. The report does not detail at which stage Hezbollah will release the two Israeli soldiers.

Interesting, this completely different take on the matter.  One man’s terrorist is another man’s resistance fighter, I suppose.  Of course, I call any man (or woman) who kills innocent people a terrorist, whether or not they happen to also be resistance fighers, or whether they buy into the destructive, poisonous notion of martyrdom–instant-heaven, as easy as instant macaroni and cheese, all it takes is one suicidal mission and you’re there, dark-eyed virgins and all.

Al-Jazeera calls Mughabri “a female resistance fighter launched a heroic operation in 1978 killing 36 Israelis.”

Let’s learn a little bit about the “heroic operation” of Ms. Mughabri….

On March 11, 1978, Mughrabi led a band of eleven terrorists who took boats from Lebanon and landed north of Tel Aviv. Upon landing, they met an American photographer, Gail Rubin. Their intended target was Tel Aviv so they asked her where they were. Once she told them, they murdered her.

They then hijacked a bus filled with families going on an outing, seemingly with the intent to take it to Tel Aviv.

An IDF unit chased the bus and finally forced it to stop, and then the shootout began. Mughrabi and her gang started shooting passengers point-blank and then they firebombed the bus itself, trapping the passengers. At least 35 were killed, including 13 children, in what became known as the Coastal Road Massacre.

But I still see no problem with returning her corpse.  Sami Kuntar, however, is another matter.  I don’t believe Israel should hand him over alive.  I think murderers should be treated as such, and Kuntar should rot in an Israeli prison until the day he dies.

[note: Sami Kuntar is also known as Samir Quntar or Samir al-Quntar]

The Arab Press and pro-Arab and Islamic bloggers and members of sites such as Newsvine are constantly up in arms over the supposed war crimes the Israeli government is perpetrating against the Palestinian people. Prior to Israel conquering the territories of the West Bank, which was annexed initially by Jordan, and Gaza, which was Palestinian only insomuch as it was a part of Egypt, the conflict in the Middle-East was referred to as the Arab/Israeli conflict.

It has now become the Palestinian/Israeli conflict–a convenient change of term for Arab propaganda, as it is much easier to define the Palestinians as the victim or minority than it was previously to define the Arabs in that fashion. The irony is that the conflict is still an Arab/Israeli conflict, and by no means a Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The Palestinians, much to their misfortune, are little more than puppets in this sad game, used by the hostile Arab states in their proxy war against Israel.

(more…)

Well, as per usual, the internet is buzzing with information, news, a wide variety of topics.  I’ve taken it upon me to find just a few of the most interesting, riveting, and thought-provoking bits.

CNN reported on the arrest of over 500 people allegedly linked to al Qaeda.  Liberals in America will be pleased to hear they won’t be going to Gitmo to suffer the atrocities of the American military prison system, but will instead be comfortably housed in Saudi prisons, where undboubtedly they will be treated with good, old-fashioned Wahhabi hospitality.

In a written statement, the ministry said the cell’s leader was found with a letter from al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, “urging him to raise funds and that [al-Zawahiri] will provide him with the personnel, whom they called the mujahedeen.”

(more…)

Hamas has proposed a ten-year truce with Israel. Continued peace–peace that could extend beyond one decade–is apparently too much of a commitment for the Palestinian terrorist group. Ten years. I imagine Khaled Mashaal thought that this was a rather nice number. A rounded number. A short time for peace to sink in–certainly not long enough for a viable two-state solution to become solidified. Without a doubt, not long enough for any sort of reconciliation to occur between the Palestinians and the Israelis, or should I say between the Arabs and the Jews.

Ten years isn’t really long enough for any sort of real peace to manifest. It sounds rather like a very long cease-fire. As with all cease-fires, however, what lays in wait at the end of the line is a fire. When the cease ceases to exist, all that’s left is a conflagration. That seems to be the meat of this so-called truce offer, which is so obviously flawed that Mr. Jimmy Carter should be hanging his head in shame and embarrassment right now for ever lending credence to the Hamas movement. Carter seems completely oblivious to the outrageous demands of the militants, and suspiciously optimistic about chances to negotiate with these killers and kidnappers.

Nevertheless, Hamas has made an offer. This is something. Even if it is just a ploy to buy time and re-arm, at least it is something, right? Even if ten years would only serve to make Hamas stronger and more capable of attacking Israel with real force, at least there is some motion, some budging of the proverbial tectonic plates.

It is important to note, however, that nobody in their right mind would accept a peace agreement from a group who refuses their enemy’s very right to exist.

Ten years. Hamas, even though “at peace” with Israel would still refuse to acknowledge Israel’s very right to exist. More than likely, terrorism from other groups would continue, unchecked, the entire time.

Here is one scenario: Hamas and Israel make “peace” and Hamas promises not to attack Israel if Israel withdraws from the West Bank. Then another terrorist group emerges as the “new” Hamas. Perhaps Islamic Jihad will take the reigns. Perhaps some other fringe movement will rise up to replace the now “legitimate” Hamas–sort of a replay of what Hamas did when Fatah became a recognized political group, when Arafat was suddenly not a terrorist anymore but a statesman.

This group will blow themselves up in an Israeli cafe, or a Jerusalem bus, or will start hurling makeshift rockets into Israeli cities. They will complain of human rights violations, of Israeli occupation, regardless of the fact that Israel at this time will have withdrawn from all so-called “occupied” lands. They will do this and Hamas will not stop them. Likely, they will be funded by some outside government–probably the same government or governments that will fund the armament of Hamas who now will operate without Israeli supervision of any kind.

So Israel will retaliate, and has always been the case, the world will condemn them for it, casting their act of self defense as an atrocity. People from countries around the world who are not (and probably never have been) under constant attack will chastise and berate the Israeli actions. Hamas will have the high moral ground, since they didn’t carry out the attack–all the while rearming, not doing the dirty work, building up international support, and plotting what their charter has always said they would carry out: the utter destruction of Israel.

Is this the peace we want for the region? Is this even, in any sense, peace? It’s like one kid saying to another, if you look away, take your guard down, I won’t hit you for ten minutes. For ten minutes you’re good to go, no fist, no sucker-punch.

And then?

There’s an impression that Muslims suffer disproportionately from the rule of dictators, tyrants, unelected presidents, kings, emirs, and various other strongmen - and it’s accurate. A careful analysis by Frederic L. Pryor of Swarthmore College in the Middle East Quarterly (”Are Muslim Countries Less Democratic?”) concludes that “In all but the poorest countries, Islam is associated with fewer political rights.”

The fact that majority-Muslim countries are less democratic makes it tempting to conclude that the religion of Islam, their common factor, is itself incompatible with democracy.

I disagree with that conclusion. Today’s Muslim predicament, rather, reflects historical circumstances more than innate features of Islam. Put differently, Islam, like all pre-modern religions is undemocratic in spirit. No less than the others, however, it has the potential to evolve in a democratic direction.

Such evolution is not easy for any religion. In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church’s political role lasted painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published Defensor pacis in the year 1324, it took another six centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam’s transition be smoother or easier?

To render Islam consistent with democratic ways will require profound changes in its interpretation. For example, the anti-democratic law of Islam, the Shari’a, lies at the core of the problem. Developed over a millennium ago, it presumes autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasizes God’s will over popular sovereignty, and encourages violent jihad to expand Islam’s borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, males over females, and free persons over slaves.

For Muslims to build fully functioning democracies, they basically must reject the Shari’a’s public aspects. Atatürk frontally did just that in Turkey, but others have offered more subtle approaches. Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese thinker, dispatched the public Islamic laws by fundamentally reinterpreting the Koran.

ATATÜRK’S EFFORTS and Taha’s ideas imply that Islam is ever-evolving, and that to see it as unchanging is a grave mistake. Or, in the lively metaphor of Hassan Hanafi, professor of philosophy at the University of Cairo, the Koran “is a supermarket, where one takes what one wants and leaves what one doesn’t want.”

Islam’s problem is less its being anti-modern than that its process of modernization has hardly begun. Muslims can modernize their religion, but that requires major changes: Out go waging jihad to impose Muslim rule, second-class citizenship for non-Muslims, and death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy. In come individual freedoms, civil rights, political participation, popular sovereignty, equality before the law, and representative elections.

Two obstacles stand in the way of these changes, however. In the Middle East especially, tribal affiliations remain of paramount importance. As explained by Philip Carl Salzman in his recent book, Culture and Conflict in the Middle East, these ties create a complex pattern of tribal autonomy and tyrannical centralism that obstructs the development of constitutionalism, the rule of law, citizenship, gender equality, and the other prerequisites of a democratic state. Not until this archaic social system based on the family is dispatched can democracy make real headway in the Middle East.

Globally, the compelling and powerful Islamist movement obstructs democracy. It seeks the opposite of reform and modernization - namely, the reassertion of the Shari’a in its entirety. A jihadist like Osama bin Laden may spell out this goal more explicitly than an establishment politician like Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but both seek to create a thoroughly anti-democratic, if not totalitarian, order.

Islamists respond two ways to democracy. First, they denounce it as un-Islamic. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna considered democracy a betrayal of Islamic values. Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb rejected popular sovereignty, as did Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami political party. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Al-Jazeera television’s imam, argues that elections are heretical.

Despite this scorn, Islamists are eager to use elections to attain power, and have proven themselves to be agile vote-getters; even a terrorist organization (Hamas) has won an election. This record does not render the Islamists democratic but indicates their tactical flexibility and their determination to gain power. As Erdogan has revealingly explained, “Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off.”

Hard work can one day make Islam democratic. In the meanwhile, Islamism represents the world’s leading anti-democratic force.

~by Daniel Pipes

Dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue. Perhaps not coincidentally, most of the foreign oil we purchase is from States that are openly hostile to our interests, or who we probably should not be aligned with, such as the Saudis who have supplied many of the terrorists, extremists, and funding for terror against the United States and the West, not to mention their insistence on the spread of Wahabism through Suadi funded Islamic schools and mosques across the globe.

Other oil producers, like the UAE, are less radical in practice, but still represent a culture that America should hardly embrace or support–after all, we are supposed to represent freedom, personal security, and individual liberty. We are supposed to embody justice and economic prosperity for the masses, not just the elite oil cartels and dictators who populate the Middle-East leadership.

Then, too, there is Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, the Western Hemisphere’s answer to its relative lack of dictators and despots. Mr. Chavez is quite friendly with the rogue leadership of Iran, and further shows the fallacy behind so-called socialist States. Chavez should be decrying the inequity present in most Middle-Eastern States. After all, he is a populist and a champion of the little guy, right?

Nevertheless, as bad as Chavez may be, at least we aren’t supporting suicide bombers and the total repression of women when we buy his oil. We’re supporting his inflated ego, and we’re not really doing the world a service by inflating him further, but we’re not funding radical imams who incite violence against Western States and Israel….at least, I hope we’re not. Where Venezuelan oil profits go is a good question. Surely Chavez is aligned with some very unfriendly people. Should some of that money find its way into the hands of organizations whose intent is the destruction of Israel or the United States, no one would really be surprised.

The Price of Oil

Oil money is blood money, no doubt about it. I understand that right now, we have very little choice in the matter. Our economy depends on oil, sadly, and alternative energy sources are still in their infancy. This is one reason that I’m fully behind the reinstitution of Nuclear Power in the United States. New reactors should be built, and this should be done sooner than later. The more we can get away from oil and coal (which has its own long list of problems) the better.

The cost of oil is also paid by the people of the Middle-East, whose leaders maintain their tight grip in part due to their vast oil wealth. Using religion as their front, the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria to name a few, manage strict, brutal control over their populations. Islam has been radicalized over the past 100 years, in part due to the natural reaction to Colonialism, but largely due to the rapid increase in wealth in the region, and the imbalanced way that wealth has been distributed. Lack of freedom, the radicalization of Islam, and an inherent yet reasonable mistrust of the West, all contribute to what has become the Iron Veil.

Religious Violence

Most of the religions of the world have embraced violence at one time or another. And most adherents to their religion have remained blessedly peaceful even during the darkest of times. Nevertheless, in Medieval Europe Christians allowed other Christians to kill millions of women in so-called witch hunts. The Spanish Inquisition was one of the bloodiest campaigns the world has ever seen.

In Spain peaceful Muslims and Jews were driven from their homes and exiled–or were put to the sword. This in the name of Catholicism. Christians remained silent as their leaders shored up power in the name of religion, using extreme ideologies to pacify their people and tighten their control. Vast wealth discrepancies existed between the peasantry and the elite, and these increased as Empires grew–the Spanish, the Austrian, each torch-bearers of the Holy Roman Empire.

Vast wealth and religious extremism cast Europe under a familiar cloud, one that can be seen above the region once known as Mesopotamia today. Gone are the days of Islamic glory–the Ottoman Empire is fallen; the Caliphates of old are no more. The height of Islamic splendor evidenced in Cordoba is a thing of the far distant past.

Perhaps colonialism left the region vulnerable for what is happening today. Perhaps globalism has followed too close on the heels of its predecessor, and now it is too simple to equate the two, and spread an anti-Western ideology that festers into hate and extremism. Then, too, there is a yearning for days gone by–for a mythical Islamic State that once existed in the form of the Caliphates of old. Islamism today is attempting to spread this Caliphate and with it Sharia or Islamic Law to all the countries where Muslim immigrants and converts have spread. The simplicity and idealism of Islamic Law ignores all the terrifying realities inherent in its practice–but a secular world, a global world, is a frightening thing. Fear of meaninglessness and a distrust of capitalism lead to the adoption of religious extremism. Sometimes this manifests peacefully–Buddhist monks who detach from society; the Amish who abandon technology–and sometimes it is a violent manifestation.

I have no doubt that most people just want to live–most Muslims just want to work, eat, love and build a life for themselves like anyone else. Family, security, stability, and though they may not understand it in some parts of the world, freedom. Freedom to achieve these things without the intervening hand of theocracy or despotism or ancient, brutal legal systems.

The Way Forward: Addressing the Issues at Hand

So from all of this–oil, poverty, economic imbalance, historical distrust of Western society, the equating of Colonialism with Globalism, social despondency–the extremists are able to grow new extremists, suicide bombers, the faithful but impoverished, the martyrs.

So can we combat this rise of extremism? Surely it cannot benefit either the West or the Islamic world. As I stated previously, I believe most Muslims just want to live and let live. The extremists poison the well. Yet, if this extremism is an effect of so many different causes, how can we ever hope to contain it, to quash it, to drive it back into the pages of history?

I think we can fight the spread of Islamism and accept the religion of Islam all at the same time.

First, we must find ways to break our ties with despotic regimes whose only connection to us is through the oil pipelines. Undoubtedly, our support of Saudi Arabia is hypocritical when we are so blatantly against the State of Iran. Both governments should be on our list of antagonist entities. Leveling the economic discrepancies in the Middle-East is vital to creating stability in the region. Dictatorships gorged and fat on their oil riches will never voluntarily move toward economic freedom, as it will invariably cut into their pocket books in one form or another.

Second, we must wage a war of ideas. Somehow we must debunk the notion that colonialism and globalism are one and the same. For one thing, globalism is here to stay. It is the way the world has evolved, and no matter what the isolationists here and abroad wish, there is no way to turn back the clock. We are stuck with a global economy for all the growing pains it may create. Friction is inevitable, but there is no reason it should spark such vehement resistance in the middle-east. The use of Islam as a fomenter of radicalism is one tool the anti-globalists in the Arab world have in their arsenal against the West.

Thirdly, we must maintain a strong military and do whatever it takes to provide stability for us and our allies, especially Israel who endures the most constant battering of terrorism. Any success the terrorists have against the West will serve only to further their cause and popular acceptance. I am an advocate of practical neoconservatism. I believe in the spread of security first, and democracy later. Security is far more important to those nations rising out of the clutches of despotism, than democracy–as is evidenced by the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, neither of these wars, nor the larger war on terror can be won through military means alone, but that is no reason to abandon our military and intelligence efforts.

And lastly, we must champion womens’ rights across the globe. The lack of womens’ rights in many regions of the world has lead to the widespread poverty, increased childbirth rates, and yes, an expansion of radicalism. Promoting womens’ rights and education can combat these epidemics in a truly positive way.

The Muslim World

Democracy is important, but it is not the first priority in this war. Security, energy independence, and the continuation of the war of ideas and the war of truth against propaganda, the fight against inequality and social injustice, these are the most important factors in the war on terror.

Until these issues are addressed, the strife will continue. Islamists will continue to radicalize their religion, and dictators will continue to sap their populations and convince them at the same time that their woes are the effect of the West, of colonialism, of Israel.

The Islamic world has as much to gain in the defeat of their tyrants and extremists as the Western world, and the last step in fighting this long war must be taken by the Muslims themselves in decrying and ousting the radicalism from their own populations. It will be nigh impossible for the West to do this alone. A concerted effort by the Islamic world to end terror and accept modernity is necessary. I believe this can be done without sacrificing the culture or faith of Islamic society.

All these things must be accomplished, and we cannot give up on any front if peace is ever to be achieved.

Jimmy Carter said in Sderot that he deplores the killing of innocent civilians. Snubbed by most of Israel’s top brass, Carter managed to get an audience with the rocket-strewn town’s mayor. The peace process was central to Carter’s message, though one has to ask oneself just how much sanity the ex-President retains. After all, by meeting with Hamas, Carter is taking a huge step away from the peace process. Any step toward legitimizing the terrorist organization is a mistake, including the US insistence that Hamas be allowed to participate in elections, which has led us down the road we’re on now.

Carter needs to realize that he’s fell into the trap of moral relativism–that his reasoning for meeting with Hamas, no matter how well-intentioned it may be, is still likely to cause more harm than good. Visiting Sderot will do nothing to make up for this error in judgment. I do not doubt that Mr. Carter wants peace. I’m sure he does. I simply believe that in his quest for middle-ground, the former President has lost sight of the facts. If peace is to be achieved, it will not be done my giving the terrorists more power. It will not be achieved through so-called ceasefires that allow the terrorists to be rearmed. It will only be won when the forces of terror abandon the killing and seriously work for peace. How can Israel make peace with those who publicly state they are after its destruction? How can they make peace with an enemy that fires rockets indiscriminately at civilians?

Carter is making a mistake by dealing with Hamas. He is giving them credibility, and credibility is one thing that terrorist organizations should never possess.

In the Korean War, we weren’t fighting the Koreans. Not really. We were fighting the Chinese, but we didn’t call it the Chinese War in Korea. Everybody knew that this was happening, that the Chinese were heavily involved in the war, and that without their influence, we probably would have stopped the North Koreans–but it was easier to continue calling it the Korean War. Could stronger diplomacy with China have changed the course of events?

Iraq is the same. We’re not really fighting Iraqi insurgents. Now that we’ve chased many of the major al-Qaeda elements out of the country, we’re not really fighting them either.

We’re in a proxy War with Iran.

Iran has sponsored illegal militias since the formation of the Maliki government in 2006. The Qods Force, Iran’s premier terrorist training team and exporter of its revolution, provided between $750,000 and $3 million-worth of equipment and funding to Iraq’s militias monthly in the first half of 2007, according to U.S. Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner.

More information about the Qods Force and the Iranian “Special Groups” who are the puppet-masters behind the Sadr militia and many other Shiite militias in Iran can be found here.

Ms. Kagan writes a very informative article about the depth of Iranian funding and training of “insurgents” in Iraq. For an even more detailed look at the Iranian smuggling of arms and general support to their Iraqi counterparts, visit this site.

It’s apparent that what’s happening in Iraq is not so much about the welfare of the Iraqi people, but as an attempt to undermine America’s influence in the region. Essentially, Iran is exporting, in a violent fashion, their “Revolution” to Iraq. Both are Shiite countries, and while one is Persian and the other Arab, the Shiite bond is strong. Iraqi Sunis aren’t too fond of the idea, and while they helped US forces drive the Suni terrorists organization al Qaeda out of Iraq, the Shiites have done nothing to halt the flow of Iranian influence in their country.

Indeed, this war has no hope of every ending so long as US and Iraqi forces can’t stop the Iranian presence. This will probably not be won through military means alone, although the recent show of strength from the Iraqi government is a sign of progress, even if the execution was not entirely successful.

People worry that we might invade Iran, or strike them militarily. I propose that it is too late to avoid war with Iran, as we are already caught up in it. It is not, however, too late to broker a peace. The moment Iran decides to stop intervening against the Iraqi government is the moment peace will return to the Iraqi people. al-Qaeda alone is no more than an organization of thugs, but Iran is a rich, influential, and powerful nation. It’s time they realized that peace in the region will lead to greater stability for everyone involved. If they do not, we may need to take greater lengths to disable their actions in Iraq.

I must confess: I was completely against the War in Iraq from the beginning. It felt so…reckless. Right off the bat, I had the ominous sense that things hadn’t been thought through. Unfortunately, I was right.  My neocon brethren had rushed too quickly, or perhaps there were too many differing views on how the War should be carried out, or….

Maybe Rumsfeld’s vision of a New American Military was too ambitious or naive or visionary…I’m not sure. I wasn’t there. All I know, is that I felt we should have handled Hussein similarly to how the Israelis did in 1981. “Walk softly and carry a big stick” is how Teddy Roosevelt put it. Well it’s too late for the “walk softly” part. So what about that stick?

We diverted massive resources away from graver threats, such as Iran and Syria, and North Korea. Oh, and Afghanistan, while not really a threat anymore, was and still is unfinished business.  So entering Iraq was not really defensible, even if the blame for that can’t be laid solely at the feet of the Administration–many a Democrat participated in the march to war.   Invading Iraq wasn’t in our best interest at the time.

It wasn’t in our best interest and it certainly wasn’t in the best interest of Israel, either.  Many critics of the so-called “Israel Lobby” claim America always acts in the best interests of Israel, or that Iraq was somehow a war for Israel, but that is purely absurd as can be seen here and here.  Besides, it’s not hard to see that an unstable region is bad for Israel.  A weak Saddam is better than a strengthened Iran.  America often does work to benefit Israel, which makes sense.  We have common allies and common foes.  Many Americans are also Israeli citizens.  We share commerce, technology, and have an intelligence relationship rivaled only by the one we share with the United Kingdom.

Well What About Now?

Now that we’re in Iraq we need to decide how to get out of Iraq. Nobody wants to be there anymore, least of all the soldiers who have to risk their necks every day to try to make the world safer. There are many schools of thought on this subject, but the two most popular are:

1. Begin withdrawing troops and funds immediately. The only way the Iraqis will ever solve their problems is if we let them hash it out. Like a crowd letting a fight continue with breaking it up. “Eventually they’ll tire out, you’ll see.” Eventually….

or,

2. Continue the “surge” and maintain troop levels and funds until the job is done. Nobody is quite in agreement on what “the job” is that needs to get done, but several things are agreed upon:

• The Iraqis need a stable political system and a government than can actually operate on its own. To get here, they obviously need a stable and secure enough country in which to operate said government.
• A solution to the Civil War has to be political, and this will be heavily influenced by economic factors such as the division of oil profits; the autonomy of the Kurds; and the under-representation of the once politically dominant Sunni Muslims.
• No political aims will ever be achieved in a state of chaos, which is likely if too many American troops are withdrawn before Iraqi security forces can take over.
• That’s going to take time and money, and its going to take its tole in lives as well.

What’s the result of our early withdrawal?   Will the Iraqi people simply duke it out–and when the punches stop, and the dust settles, will they help each other up like two spent boxers and shake hands?

Doubtful.

The only reason there wasn’t Civil War under Saddam was that he provided security and stability. Of course, he did so with brutal and inhumane tactics, but nevertheless, the various groups were able to live together relatively peacefully. I think what most Iraqi’s want is running water, roofs over their heads, a steady paycheck, and no lines at the gas pump. It is the minority that wants death, suicide bombings, and constant chaos.

The problem with Option #1–our early withdrawal–is that I don’t think it will give the moderate majority time to do what they need to do - cast out the radicals and retake the country.  A moderate majority is easily cowed by a radical minority–especially one so well armed and well-funded by hostile Iranian and Syrian interests. So the only option to create a political solution in which the moderates win and the radicals lose, is to stay and provide the necessary peace-keeping and security that only American troops can provide, at least until Iraqi troops can take over.

Too bad NATO and the UN decided not to help. More peace-keeping forces are needed until the Iraqis can take the reigns. Until such time, though, we need to “stay the course” because it’s the only humane thing to do, now that we’re here. I wish we’d been wiser in the beginning, but at least we can be wise, and humane, now.

Jimmy Carter is getting my 2007 Idiot of the Year Award (I don’t remember doling it out already, but it’s no big deal if two idiots get it this time) for his statements on Hamas.

“This effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples now is a step in the wrong direction,” he said. “All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there’s no effort from the outside to bring the two together.”

Well, Mr. Carter, maybe that’s because Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the complete destruction of Israel and the murder of its entire Jewish population. Think that might have just a little tiny bit to do with the West’s refusal to legitimize them?

Carter told the Toronto Star:

Despite the concerns expressed about the character of Hamas, we have to hope for the best. My prayer is the Hamas leaders, now serving in positions of unprecedented authority, will lead the Palestinian people on a peaceful, non-violent path toward a two-state solution.

What Carter may be suffering from, aside from Idiocy, is a bit too much optimism. Or, it could be due to the fact that he sees himself in some, I don’t know, Messianic light after brokering the Israeli/Egypt peace deal.

Of course, all that self-congratulation must have gotten to his head, because, as we all know by now, Mr. Carter has described Israel’s relationship with the “Palestinians” as apartheid.

The only funny thing that’s come out of all of this isn’t really funny at all. I think Dry Bones has said it better than I can. Read the strip below and you decide….

All cartoons courtesy of CoxAndForkum.com and Drybones.

By Ardeshir Arian (pajamas media)

The Iranian regime does its best to keep a tight rein on news outlets, but new media – cell phone video, YouTube, and the countless number of blogs and news forums in Farsi means that when large-scale protests against the regime occur in public they are impossible to completely conceal.

This is apparently what happened over the weekend. Sources have told PJM of a major public uprising over the weekend in Tehran – an account corroborated by other reports on the Web.

This is the story they tell: at approximately 7 pm on Saturday, February 23, the Ershad patrol, modesty police assigned to enforce clothing regulations, accosted and attempted to arrest a young woman at Goldis Shopping Mall, located in western Tehran, presumably because her dress was not sufficiently modest.

In recent weeks, the police squads charged with enforcing modesty have become more rigorous in their enforcement, with thousands of women detained, questioned, and arrested for violating hijab standards.

Instead of meekly submitting to her fate, the woman fought back. A young man - it is unclear whether he was accompanying her - came to her defense and joined her in fighting the police. In an attempt to subdue – and humiliate him - the police grabbed the young man and threw him into the garbage can nearby.

That was when the large crowd, predominately made up of young people, rose up against the police and attempted to liberate the young woman themselves.
Faced with a full-blown riot - complete with angry crowds with garbage cans being set on fire - the frightened police jumped into the van and fled the scene, except for one unfortunate officer who was left behind. The policeman was reportedly attacked and beaten by the mob.

The police returned, reinforced by a full-fledged anti-riot unit. To gain control of the situation, members of the unit fired warning shots into the air and threatened to fire directly into the crowd. There were reports of between 10-15 arrests.

The incident documented by cell phone video that was uploaded to YouTube. While the quality of the video is extremely poor, the Farsi narration and background voices were intelligible and translatable.

Among the calls coming from the angry crowd after the police were first driven away:

“You have put us on since 1979 until now” (the Islamic Revolution of 1979) The crowd cheered after repeating the slogan multiple times.

Another slogan chanted repeatedly - accompanied by boos: “We do not want the Islamic regime”

The crowd continuously boos and heckles the police: “A revolution is happening” When a police vehicle approaches, there is a call: “Look this guy is entangled too” “He is going the wrong way”, “What the hell are you going to do?” “How many people do you think you can kill?”

Then, there are cries of “Death to the Police”

On the video, the voice of an individual – a citizen reporter - narrates: “Thy (police) arrested a girl and put her in the van, people rushed to free her from the police custody. The arresting officer let go of her and they started attacking him. The van belonging to the agents left the scene, not wanting to be hit by the people and left that officer behind. People ambushed him as he was running away from them and beat him up badly.”

In a report on the event that appeared the Iran Press Service web site, student web sites are quoted as saying “to disperse the angry mob, heavy police and anti-riot units that arrived fired