Well, the US is stepping down as the Iraqi’s stand up.

The plan for the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to take over Iraq security is directly linked to the US plan to draw down forces and as briefed by General Petraeus in September 2007. For military planners, there are natural decision points for when to reduce forces based on the rotation schedule of US forces. These semi-annual decision points are September for drawdowns to be completed by January, and March for drawdowns to be completed by July. The drawdown schedule is not a hard and fast schedule. At each of these points the option to delay exists if the situation on the ground warrants it.

This Long War Journal article details plans for withdrawal, which should be good news to anyone involved.
Also read Michael Totten over at Commentary, describing the “perilous peace.”

Associated Press Baghdad Bureau Chief Robert Reid and his chief military reporter Robert Burns published a dispatch from Iraq over the weekend that should have made banner headlines. “It’s not the end of fighting,” they wrote. “It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.” This is exactly right, but millions of Americans still have no idea. Coverage from Iraq has diminished as much as the casualty rates since General David Petraeus implemented an effective counterinsurgency strategy in early 2007. At least we’re finally seeing a media consensus emerge after a year and a half of looking at the data as though it were inkblots on a Rorschach. It’s nearly impossible to work in Iraq anymore and deny what has happened.

Even so, this is no time to get recklessly drunk on victory and declare “mission accomplished.” Nor is this the time to bolt for the exits from an unpopular war. The peace, as Burns and Reid say, is perilous and only just now beginning. The war is still not actually even over, though the fighting has been greatly reduced. Every single last inch of progress can be reversed. Keeping the relative peace will be just as difficult, though less dangerous, than making it in the first place. “[J]udging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year,” they wrote, “as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 — the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.”

It is a long ways from over in Iraq, and probably just as far in Afghanistan due to the Pakistani government’s refusal to clamp down on the Taliban there. But we’re on the upside of the battle now, at last….

~from The Daily Star

It is a damning indication of just how bad things have become in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip when Fatah militants there must look to Israel for protection from their Palestinian rivals. The Jewish state announced on Monday that it would help a group of 150 Fatah fighters who had fled weekend clashes in Gaza relocate to the West Bank, after determining that they would face “imminent danger” if they were to return home. The scenes of Israel coming to the rescue of Palestinians after a bout of Arab fratricide were reminiscent of the events of Black September, during which scores of Palestinians sought asylum in Israel to escape King Hussein’s crackdown on thePalestine Liberation Organization. The only difference this time around is that instead of seeking refuge from a heavy-handed Arab crackdown, Palestinians are fleeing from the murderous hands of their own Palestinian brothers.

Achievement of the Palestinian cause requires that all factions maintain a semblance of orderliness and keep their eyes on the price of independent statehood. In this both Fatah and Hamas have been miserable failures. Both have put partisan interests ahead of national ones and therefore have failed to maintain anything like a united Palestinian front. Even the mediation attempts of Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia have not been enough to curb the political infighting and internecine bloodshed that have served to further threaten the Palestinians’ very right to existence.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza has been deteriorating since the international community callously decided to punish an entire people for having exercised their democratic rights in the legislative elections of January 2006. But the Hamas movement is now exacerbating the situation by undermining the rule of law in the territory. After accusing its Fatah rivals of carrying out a deadly bombing late last week that killed five Hamas leaders and a little girl, the Islamist party launched what can be only be described as a witch-hunt, rounding up some 200 Fatah activists. Fatah provided an equally bad example of governance in the West Bank when it retaliated against the move by rounding up scores of people it branded “Hamas activists,” including many judges, students and activists who have no known affiliation with the Islamist party. On both sides of divided Palestine, civilians must now add Fatah and Hamas to the long list of threats to their security and wellbeing.

The events of the last week are just the most recent example of how the situation in the Occupied Territories has gone from bad to worse under the watchful eyes of elected Palestinian “representatives.” Hundreds of people were killed last year when the two groups allowed their rivalry to degenerate into street violence. Hundreds more were prevented from going about their normal activities such as attending school, going to work or expressing political views.

Over the past few days the two Palestinian factions seem to be close to repeated the same disastrous mistakes. We have seen Palestinians denigrating the legitimacy of other Palestinians, Palestinians making war on other Palestinians, and Palestinians arresting other Palestinians, while the Jewish state has come to the rescue of those Palestinians who fear for their lives. Israel has never looked so good.

By Trita Parsi and Roi Ben-Yehuda

The looming Iran-Israel confrontation has a seemingly deterministic quality to it. Listening to the politicians, one gets a sense that powers beyond our control are pulling us toward a 21st-century disaster. Yet a great deal of the force propelling us into confrontation is fueled by ignorance and dehumanization. Israel is demonized as “Little Satan,” while Iranians are portrayed as irrational Muslim extremists.

Indeed, mutual ignorance of our respective societies plays into the hands of the hard-line leaders who are calling for blood and destruction. They manipulate and distort; above all, they do everything to prevent us from recognizing that the enemy has a face.

Not that either of us is naive enough to believe that mere knowledge of one another will offer a miraculous solution. We do believe, however, that mutual understanding will go a long way toward allowing us to feel empathy and compassion for each other, and to sound off at those calling for bloodshed and war.

	Advertisement

Here are some essential things Iranians and Israelis should know about each other:

1. Israel is a vibrant yet incomplete democracy

On his visit to the United States last fall, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously stated that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Well, in Israel there are plenty of homosexuals, and they are the only ones in the Middle East who have an annual gay pride parade in their capital city.

Democracy in Israel means that every citizen and group (Jewish or otherwise) has the right to express him/herself and assemble in public. Also, that every citizen is equal under the law, has voting rights, religious freedom, access to education, health care and economic opportunity.

Undoubtedly, Israel’s democracy is still a work in progress. The fusion of religion and state has limited people’s rights and freedoms (for example, Israelis of different faiths cannot legally marry one another in the country), and the de-facto secondary status of Arab Israelis is an affront to the country’s democratic ideals. Fortunately, many people in Israel are assiduously working to change the system from within.

2. Iran is a vibrant quasi-democracy

It is far from a full democracy, but neither is it a complete dictatorship. Its severe limitations notwithstanding, Iran has a lively civil society and possesses most of the building blocks for a successful democracy down the road. Iranians’ struggle for democracy dates back to the 1906 Constitutional Revolution. Since then, Iranians have learned two important lessons.

First, war and democratization don’t mix. As tensions between Iran and the outside world increase, the first to pay are Iran’s pro-democracy and human rights activists. For Iran to move toward a democratic system, it needs peace and tranquility; bombs and surgical strikes will achieve the opposite.

Second, when you carry out a revolution, you know against whom you are revolting, but not necessarily for whom you are waging the revolution. Iranians have little appetite for another revolution. As unpopular as their current government is, they prefer gradual and manageable change.

3. Streets are named for poets

Just like Iran, Israel puts great value on the written word. In Israel, streets are named for poets - writers who have revived a people and its ancient language. It is the pen and imagination, more than the sword and muscle, that have been responsible for the creation of this nation. Israel’s historical roots are traced in a book; its people are called the “People of the Book”; and its founding father, Theodor Herzl, a playwright, liked to write books. It is no surprise then that Israel leads the world in new book titles per capita, per year.

As in Iran, everyday conversations in Israel are as likely to be peppered with literary references as with practical concerns.

4. Iranians are lonely and distrustful

Much like Israelis, Iranians feel painfully isolated in the Middle East. They are surrounded by people with whom they share neither language nor religion. Iran is majority Persian and Shi’ite; its neighbors are majority Arab and Sunni.

Nor does Iran have many friends beyond the Middle East. If anything, the international community has never treated them fairly, Iranians believe. In the last century alone, Iranians have contended with colonization and decades of foreign intervention, not to mention an eight-year war against Saddam Hussein, in which the entire world sided with Iraq.

The UN didn’t consider Saddam’s invasion a threat to international peace and security; it took the Security Council more than two years to call for a withdrawal. Another five years passed before it addressed Saddam’s use of chemical weapons. For the Iranians, the lesson was clear: When in danger, Iran can rely on neither the Geneva Conventions nor the UN Charter for protection. Just like Israel, Iran has concluded that it can rely only on itself.

5. Zionism is not a dirty word

In a show of disrespect, many leaders in Iran refer to Israel as the “Zionist regime.” While being called a “regime” may not be flattering, for most Israelis, Zionism is not a dirty word.

From within, Zionism is a national liberation movement, whose aim it is to create a safe haven for Jewish people, culture and national identity. Zionism is the Jewish people’s answer to the centuries-old impulse to erase them from history. When Ahmadinejad and his ilk speak of Zionism’s imminent doom, they are in fact strengthening the very movement they seek to eliminate.

Israelis joke that Israel is the only country in the world where the words “dirty Jew” mean a Jew who has not taken a shower. In a way, this joke encapsulates the essence of Zionism. Everything else is commentary.

6. Sympathy with Palestinians, but no desire for conflict with Israel

Ahmadinejad’s venomous rhetoric notwithstanding, Iranians don’t spend much time thinking about Israel. They are far more concerned about Iran’s crippled economy and rampant corruption. While the sympathies of most Iranians fall squarely with the Palestinians, this is not an issue they feel their country must be actively involved in.

Iranians will fiercely defend their independence and territory, yet they have no desire for conflict with Israel. Iranians remember Alexander’s sacking of Persia, the Arab conquest in the seventh century C.E., the Mongol invasion, and the 1953 CIA coup against Iran’s democratically elected prime minister. But there is no recollection of any conflict with the Jewish people because there hasn’t been one. Most Iranians would like to keep it that way.

Dr. Trita Parsi is author of “Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S.” (Yale University Press, 2007). Roi Ben-Yehuda is an Israeli-American writer living in Spain, and a regular contributor to Jewcy and France 24.

One of the main problems in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict today lies in the fact that Israel and the Palestinians do not come to the negotiating table with equal rights. However, the U.S. State Department, in playing the role of mediator, has decided to treat this conflict as if two equally deserving parties are fighting over issues to which each have equal rights.

Secretary Rice and the State Department attempt to equate Israeli and Palestinian rights to the disputed territories. One of the prevalent global misunderstandings today about the Arab-Israeli conflict is that Israel occupied the West Bank after conquering it in June 1967. What ought to be made clear, is that in order for land to be occupied, it needs to have belonged to a sovereign power first. From 1948 through 1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank after having illegally annexed it (and renamed it), but they were never an internationally recognized sovereign power. The West Bank was not Jordanian sovereign land when the Israeli army conquered it in 1967.

Another misunderstanding is that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention, which addresses the laws an occupying power must abide by. This claim is unfounded. Israel did not forcibly transfer its own population to the newly captured territories and allowed full freedom of movement for Palestinians who wished to leave the West Bank on their own accord, as outlined by the Convention.

Israel’s detractors have long preferred to use the politically loaded term “occupation” since it conveniently lends emotion to their argument and falsifies the reality of the dispute. Just as land disputes in Northern Cyprus, Mont Blanc and Abu Musa are not considered occupied territory, the West Bank certainly cannot be considered as such either.

B’Tselem, a left-wing Israeli NGO calling itself an “Israeli human rights organization,” wrongfully declares on its website that Israeli settlement “in occupied territory is itself a breach of international law.” It is unclear from their site what specific law, if any, Israel is violating. B’Tselem proudly quotes the Fourth Geneva Convention as one of their reliable sources for their accusations but it is due to their misinterpretation of the article that they are mistaken. In the end, their vague accusations lend credence to their followers and provide them with a false base of support for which there exists no real documentation or proof.

The State Department consistently uses reports by groups such as B’Tselem to support their positions on various issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In light of the last paragraph, this is a worrying phenomenon and Secretary Rice needs to take responsibility for the positions she maintains especially if they are based on a misunderstanding of key documents and international agreements.

It is important to remember that in negotiations after a war, the losing side always makes the concessions. In a defensive war on non-sovereign land, the winning country always has rights to the land it conquered without being considered occupying it.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s statement at the Annapolis Conference that she understands “what it is like to hear to that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian” and “the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness” is very worrying. This comment is ultimately misleading since it equates racist whites with non-racist Israelis and lends value to Palestinian claims that Israel violates their rights.

The civil rights movement in 1960’s America cannot be compared to the 21st century Middle East conflict by any stretch of the imagination. Israel does not prevent Palestinians from going through a checkpoint because of who they are but because of the potential danger involved.

Furthermore, Palestinians seek to destroy Israel whereas the black population and their leaders did not seek America’s destruction and did not promote the terrorization of Americans. They also did not educate their youth to hate white people nor did they send them to summer camps for hate training. Secretary Rice is mistaken if she believes that she is being “even-handed’ and “fair” by equating the conflict and comparing it to America’s south.

The Palestinians, and the Arab leaders who have led them astray, are the ones responsible for their past mistakes. There are consequences in losing an aggressive war, and the Palestinians, as the aggressors, now must face up to their obligations and recognize that they do not have equal rights in this conflict.

The Americans must realize this too and, in lieu of trying to appease the Palestinians and show even-handedness, should be talking tough and making more demands of the Palestinians – not Israel.

The Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be resolved fairly unless the U.S. State Department resolves to be impartial in approach while simultaneously recognizing the differing degree of rights between the two sides.

While Israel is engaged in a deadly, drawn-out conflict with Palestinian terrorists, one must wonder: Do all Israelis hate Palestinians and do all Palestinians hate Israelis? I posit in the negative.

I am a Jewish Israeli and while I take a very firm stance against terrorism, incitement and anti-Israel activity, by no means do I harbor hatred towards the Palestinian people. My problems lie with the Palestinian terrorists and their leaders who, I do not believe represent the Palestinian people.

For so many years, Palestinian leaders have done nothing but lead their people away from opportunity and even farther from peace. These same politicians claim to be the “sole representatives” of the Palestinian people. Only corruption has kept them in power. (more…)

CNN today reported that high-level Hamas officials are stating that an imminent cease-fire with Israel is in the works, and could happen within three days.

Now, I’m torn on this.  First of all, we all know that Hamas can use open-roads, and a cease-fire, simply to rearm and regroup forces.  Then again, any move toward peace is a welcom one–if it really is a move toward peace.

Maybe if things with Syria were going better, this news might, just might, be a little more welcome, hopeful, promising.  Olmert, however, has been weakened by scandal, and it seems unlikely that anything done under his ministership will have any lasting value.

Egyptian sources have confirmed that the peace deal is to go into effect Thursday. (more…)

There is an absurd notion floating (or perhaps burning wild-fire-like) throughout the anti-war camp that Iraq is some invention of the Bush Administration.  Now, while I have professed many times to having been a critic of our entrance into Iraq due to what I perceived as poor (and avoidable) timing, I take offense at the notion that somehow this is Bush’s war, pawned off on the American public and the US Congress alike in some epic hoodwinking–as though there was no lead-up whatsoever during the Clinton years.

This ignores history, of course, and parces quite selectively the situation in Iraq in ways that are utterly untrue. (more…)

Which comes first, democracy or security?

It’s a trick question, like the one about the chicken and egg. The truth is they must come simultaneously.

And ay, there’s (as Hamlet would say) the rub, because in chaotic third-world nations—Pakistan comes immediately to mind, of course—the two exist in very uneasy and difficult-to-implement equilibrium.

Democracy requires a certain amount of openness and civility. Despite accusations of dirty campaigning in this country, and the recent increase of post-election sour grapes, elections are a tea party here compared to most of the world.

As Amir Taheri writes in today’s Times Online:

Whoever killed Benazir belonged to one of the nebulae of organisations that have vowed to kill not only those who stand for election but also those who vote. Their slogan is: “From box to box!” This means that, by slipping one’s vote into a ballot box, one risks ending up in a coffin.

This transcends one candidate vs. another, although the terrorists had special reason to hate Benazir Bhutto. This is about the process of democracy itself.

We often hear the slogan “There is no military solution in Iraq.” There is no democratic solution, either. The only solution must contain both elements. We in the West tend to forget that because the element of security is so firmly in place for us.

One of the effects of 9/11 was to undermine that feeling of security for us. The threat, however, was not internal, but external; the perpetrators were visitors from another culture and another world. Of necessity, in that culture and that world, security is usually provided in a heavy-handed manner.

Whatever one thinks of Musharraf and his recent racheting up of repressive measures in Pakistan, and the question of whether he purposely left Bhutto with inadequate security, or even of Bhutto’s checkered career when she was in power in Pakistan, it’s plain that the violence of those who would subvert the democratic process in Pakistan requires a leader who must be willing to apply a level of security that can be read as tyranny to outside observers. It’s not always easy to tell the difference between true tyranny and the toughness that is necessary to secure a government and a democratic process in a country rife with powerful and ruthless forces that are dedicated to tearing it down.

The assassination of JFK in this country represented a moment when we imagined we could feel the hot breath of that chaos on our necks. But in truth we were nowhere near that point. A few relatively simple precautions for presidents—including the prohibition of motorcades with open cars—seem to have taken care of the problem so far. We did, however, lose a certain innocence—a naivete we probably should have lost long ago, when Lincoln was assassinated—and have retained an extra feeling of vulnerability ever since.

Imagine, however, what it must be like to live in a country with a history of assassination and execution as a commonplace way to take care of political rivals. Unfortunately, the world contains all too many such countries. That’s one of the reasons our experiment in Iraq is so fraught with peril, and why recent encouraging signs there are so important.

There are those who say, along with commenter Tim P, that:

Once the population refuses to be cowed and begins to actively oppose the terrorists, they can no longer operate nearly as effectively. We have seen that in Iraq.

They have forgotten the all-important element provided by American security. Whether it be the postwar influx of terrorists in Iraq, or the prewar tyranny of Saddam, the people of Iraq were powerless to resist without the guarantee of at least a modicum of security.

In Iraq, the hope now is that, ultimately, the people of Iraq themselves will be able to provide that security. But it would not have possible without our initial help. Saddam’s net was way too tight, and his own “security” way too effective. Then later, the terrorists took advantage of the postwar chaos to get their own tight grip on many areas of the country.

That grip has been loosened now in Iraq, and there’s a promise of better things to come. But it remains fragile there. Pakistan has not had a recent war, but it seems at least as fragile right now.

No, I’m not suggesting a US invasion for Pakistan; even a neocon has no interest in invading all the failed and chaotic countries of the world. But the problem there is very real, and is not going away by itself, nor by the magic of a democratic election alone.

~from Neo-Neocon

The dictionary definition of ‘to assume’ is defined as ‘to take for granted or without proof; to suppose; to postulate’. It is a natural human trait which has benefited our species but one that has also pitched us into numerous wars and hatreds throughout the various millennia. Everyone has assumptions about this and that, from the meditating Buddhist monk in Vietnam to the Jamaican family enjoying the sun on the beaches in Montego Bay. However, the dangers appear when these assumptions lead to the appearance of bigotry, malevolence and worst of all, loss of life. Unfortunately, the subject people of this essay have probably suffered worse than any other from the corruptive results of wild assertions - those people being the Jews.

Richard Littlejohn, the British broadcaster and journalist, recently noted a peculiar case of assumption here in Britain in his Channel 4 documentary, ‘The War on Britain’s Jews?’. When telling dinner guests, fellow journalists and politicians that he strongly supported Israel, the first question they always asked in return was, ‘Are you Jewish?’ I’ve noticed the very same thing. Why does one have to be Jewish or an Evangelical Christian to back Israel? Usually the second and third questions involve a combination of inquiries as to whether I am a Neo Conservative and/or Islamaphobic. I admit, I am exaggerating a little. It depends what company I am in and usually their political persuasions which leads to a very interesting phenomenon. It is certainly no exaggeration, I’m disappointed to say, that the majority of Left leaning individuals I come across do ask these questions.

The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the various reasons why I respect, admire and support the State of Israel. Before I bring my introduction to a close, I think it wise to state my connections with Israel and Judaism, in case of the likely event interested readers will ‘assume’ I am biased because of heritage or religion. Firstly, I am not Jewish and as far as I know have no Jewish ancestry within the last two centuries. Secondly, I am not Israeli, I am British. I’ve never even set foot in Israel. Thirdly, I am non-religious. I’m an atheist who has medium to little interest in the religion of Judaism, let alone any regard for Evangelical Christianity. Fourth and finally, I consider myself to be on the centre-left of the political spectrum which means I’m certainly not a Neo-Con.

The Underdog

The Social Anthropologist Kate Fox provided a detailed and interesting commentary on a certain English trait in her book, ‘Watching the English’. She wrote ‘Those who are truly, culturally ‘English’ - whatever their race or country of origin - can be distinguished by their automatic, instinctive inclination to cheer for the underdog’ (p247). Perhaps she and I are being rather big headed in assuming the Anglo-Saxon world is the only arena for such a occurrence, I’m sure it’s not but it does lead on to another reason of mine for supporting Israel and will probably lead to a few people choking on their coffee. I see Israel as the underdog, not the Palestinians.

There are between 1.3 and 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, that’s about one fifth of the total population. I do not feel it is disingenuous to proclaim that the majority of the Muslim World are at best, mildly antagonistic and at worst, openly belligerent towards the Jewish State. Then you have European anti-Semitism which is particularly at home in the Eastern countries such as Poland, the Ukraine and Russia. Russia as a larger world player has been fastidious in its various anti-Israeli initiatives, both inside and outside of the UN, over the past decades. In the Americas there are anti-Israeli initiatives and rhetoric, especially surprisingly, from the United States. Well known commentators, television personalities and anti-Israelis such as Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Noam Chomsky and Susan Sarandon, whilst in no way politically influential, do hold vast swathes of ordinary Americans under their pseudo intellectual charms. In Britain, the likes of the Respect politician George Galloway, London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Sayeeda Warsi, the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, hold their own firebrand views of Israeli defensive policies which, like in America, greatly influence certain sections of British society.

This bias against Israel isn’t only confined to a few famous instigators but also parts of the media. I will take Britain as my example. Newspapers, especially The Guardian and The Independent, regularly print articles and news stories that cross the line between fact and fiction, leaving out vital information and only mentioning that which places Israel in a bad light. Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the latter newspaper is notorious for his hatred of the Jewish State and, in his own words, the ‘International Zionist Lobby’. On television, the Channel 4 broadcasters have as good as swallowed Hamas propaganda word for word; it being very rare and incredibly surprising when a positive line is unravelled about Jerusalem politics. However, the most shocking I save for last, that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. ‘Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest’ it says in their ‘Purpose and Values’ section but is it?

No, certainly not when it comes to Israel at any rate. Take for instance, the recently released BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston. When first captured, the Palestinian Authority Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti stated, ‘We are apposed to the kidnapping of foreign journalists who serve the Palestinian cause’. The Beeb did not reply nor more importantly rebut, neither has Johnston since his release. In another case, Fayad Abu Shamala, another BBC Gaza correspondent, told a Hamas rally that ‘journalists and media organisations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.’ What was the BBC’s response? This was their response, ‘Fayad’s remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC’. There are literally hundreds of examples I could use of the British Press and its bias against Israel which leads to the conclusion that the Palestinians and Muslim world in general are certainly winning the war of words. Israel is the underdog and the next chapter provides even more reasons why.

Myths and Lies

The majority of British people are not anti-Semitic and what is often construed as so is in fact idle acceptance of misinformation and lack of knowledge about the region and its history. For the genuine anti-Semites (edited), no amount of reasoning, facts and learning will recede their hatred.

So what are the common assumptions and myths that people in Britain hold to be true about Israel, Zionism and the Jews but which are in fact lies? Why is this propaganda especially absorbed by the Left that once fought shoulder to shoulder with the Jews against the Fascists of Oswald Mosley in 1936, but who now side with Hamas and Hezbollah? The latter question deserves an essay of its own and that it shall receive but part of the answer lies in the support of the perceived underdog as noted in the preceding chapter, which in itself is a noble engagement, but one that can also be severely misplaced.

One of the major assumptions is that Israel is an Apartheid State similar to that of South Africa a few decades ago, where Israeli Arabs fair no better than did the black South Africans. This is a myth, a complete fabrication of the truth. Whilst some Arabs in Israel do suffer from discrimination, which is of course abhorrent, it is in no way similar to Apartheid. Arab citizens of the Jewish State can vote, participate in the government (there are a number of Arab Knesset politicians), they can own and buy land, are protected against discrimination in the workplace and have a better standard of living, education and healthcare than anywhere else in the Arab World. The blacks of South Africa had none of the above. Israeli Arabs can even serve in the Israeli Armed Forces.

Another assumption is that the ‘Wall’ separating Israel from Palestine is a racist barrier and a Zionist attempt to steal more land. Firstly, only 5% of the entire length of the barrier is actually a wall, the rest is wire fence and add to the previous fact, the concrete walls are temporary, easily removable and with no permanent foundations. Why is the barrier necessary? Because of Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians in buses, nightclubs, restaurants, shops and cafés. In 2002, before the security barrier, 451 Israelis died in terrorist attacks whereas in 2006, when much of the security barrier was in place, 30 Israelis were killed. (Statistics) If any justification is needed for this security fence/wall/barrier, whatever you want to call it, then these startling figures are surely it. Secondly, if it was a barrier based on race then there would be no Arabs living in Israel nor would Arabs be allowed access, although under tight security control which is understandable, into Israel to work, visit relatives and cross from the West Bank to Gaza and vice-versa like they do.

A third major assumption is that Israelis are doing to the Palestinian Arabs what Hitler did to the Jews in the Holocaust. This is definitely the most sickening and outrageous slandering of Israel that possibly exists, at least in Western circles. There are no gas chambers in Israel or the disputed territories, nor are there concentration camps, cruel medical experiment laboratories, ghettoes or forced starvation of Arabs by the Israeli military. Where are the millions of dead Arabs if the Jewish State is carrying out a Nazi-like massacre? George Galloway and German Bishop Hanke are still convinced: the latter saying on a visit to the West Bank in March 2007, ‘This morning we saw pictures of the bestial Warsaw Ghetto at Yad Vashem, and in the evening we were in the ghetto of Ramallah’. Such delusions are unfortunately common place but these people should ask some questions. Were the Jews in Europe under the Nazis provided with hospital treatment? The Palestinians are, even those who tried to blow up Israelis in failed suicide attacks. Small Arab children are treated in life saving operations and often get the best treatment available in the whole of the Middle East. Another question, if the Israelis wanted to eradicate the Palestinians, why would they continue providing electricity and water supplies to the Gaza Strip despite the numerous rockets and walking bombs originating from this small area? The accusations, in my view, are thoroughly baseless and despicable.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of myths and lies spread about Israel worldwide, largely as the result of Arab media propaganda and the notorious Russian conspiracy theory, ‘The protocols of the Elders of Zion’, which incidentally is widely available in Islamic bookshops across Britain, along with the Arabic translation of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’. The Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel will be explored in further detail in the next chapter.

Let me first say this. I am not intending to go into the fascinating history of Israel and Zionism in this particular essay as that would indeed make a book, of which there are already many. I can recommend one specifically, which I’ve read myself, that interested readers can order online and that is ‘A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time’ by Howard M. Sachar.

Islamic Enmity

“The Hour (of the Last Judgment) will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
Hadith - Volume 4, Book 52, No’ 177; Narrated by Abu Huraira.

From the days of Mohammed in the 7th Century AD to those of the modern age, Islam has been hostile to the Jews. The Jewish tribes, such as the Banu Qaynuqa, were the first to incur the Prophet’s wrath by refusing to submit to the young and militarily successful religion. A Jewish poet, K’ab bin Al-Ashraf also fell victim to Mohammed’s anger due to a succession of supposed insults. ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Mohammed asked his followers (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, book 17, no.4436). The poet was later killed. The ramifications of which still affect us today, for example, last year in the Danish cartoon controversy, the slaying of Theo Van Gogh and also the avoidance of using the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ in the same sentence by frightened British politicians, human rights groups, media heads and writers like Karen Armstrong.

The Koran is full of commands to kill Jews but Islamic apologists constantly refer to one verse, ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion …’ (Koran 2:256) which in their eyes clears the Muslim Holy Book of any serious guilt. Unfortunately the rules of abrogation (annulment) are not widely known to the Western World. Abrogation is when verses written later replace earlier verses if they conflict with one another. The suras of the Koran are not arranged chronologically but according to length, in descending order. Therefore it is vitally important to know which are the ‘Meccan’ and which are the ‘Medinan’ verses. The last quote is unfortunately from the Meccan period of time when Islam was against the proverbial ropes and did not have the means to wage war. Later, when Islam grew stronger, this would change as would the nature of Mohammed’s words.

‘None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?’
(Koran 2:106)

If you don’t believe my words, then read the widely circulated lectures of the respected Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid on the subject.

Of course I am not saying all Muslims hate Jews, that would be a ridiculous thing to say. There are numerous partnerships and groups where Muslims and Jews, along with other religions, come together in art, culture, play and most importantly, peace initiatives. What I am saying however, is that there is a foundation in the Islamic religion for Jew hatred and that those who invoke the killing of Jews to be an Islamic duty, are not in fact misguided but actually correctly following the Koran. Thankfully the majority of Muslims do not intensively study their Holy Book, rather like the majority of Christians don’t their Bible. One can see nevertheless, that hatred of Israel is not purely to do with the supposed invasion and occupation of Arab-Muslim land but goes much deeper and further back into history.

The major problem that results from this Muslim hostility towards the Jews is the modern day media propaganda that is burning furiously across the Islamic world. Anti-Jewish cartoons, media distortions, films and even children’s television programmes incorporate bigoted portrayals of the Jewish blood libel and Zionist world domination myths. Astonishingly, Europeans and Americans have swallowed the Middle East lies about Jews and Israel, whether intentionally or not and thus the mass misinformation phenomenon has spread across Left-Wing circles on all continents. Former American president Jimmy Carter is a prime example with his recent book, ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’.

Democracy and Growth

Israel is a parliamentary democracy; the only one in the Middle East. Jerusalem is its capital. What is now Israel was once an Ottoman backwater of desert, swamps and basic farmlands but has since developed into one of the most advanced nations on the planet. All of this through the solid hard work, bravery and persistence of the early Zionist settlers and the many generations that followed them right up to the present day. Tens of thousands of Jews fled from Pogroms in Eastern Europe, the Arab World, and infamously the Holocaust, to settle in what would become Israel. Through a mixture of need, religious devotion and a desire for national identity and self-reliance/defence, they built and developed a proud, strong and extraordinary little country on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

Nowadays Israel can lay claim to a myriad of achievements and developments that benefit not only its own people but the whole world. This small nation of around 7 million people has advanced science, technology, literature, culture and politics to new levels whilst all the time being under attack from its larger neighbours. Israeli medical engineering has saved and improved millions of lives across the globe with inventions such as: stem-cell technology to regenerate heart tissue; the first fully computerised, radiation-less, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer; the first ingestible video camera that’s so small it fits in a pill, used to discover possible cancers in the intestines; an Ex-Press shunt that provides relief to glaucoma sufferers; a device which directly helps the heart pump blood; a ‘bone glue’ that will heal bones and joints affected by disease and for one final example, a device which restores the use of paralysed hands, providing hope to many victims of strokes and spinal injuries. There are many, many more Israeli inventions connected with science that have helped people from all countries, including the disputed territories.

Most of the latest technology in mobile phones was developed in Israel as was computer voice mail. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world; the third highest rate of entrepreneurship in the world; more museums per capita than any other country in the world; the second highest per capita of books in the world and has been instrumental in designing high tech security systems at airports to prevent bombs getting on board aeroplanes. Again, like with the medical innovations, there are many, many more technological advances originating from Israel.

All of the above plus more and people still hate Israel, excuse the Palestinian suicide attacks, call for boycotts, demand Israel to disband and worst of all, work actively to undermine the most culturally, socially, scientifically and politically advanced nation in the whole of the Middle East.. I can only ask at this point, what the hell have Israel’s neighbours given to the world in the last century, two centuries, three centuries even? Where have the development of human rights been in the Islamic world? Where have the countless genuine peace initiatives been in the Arab World? The harsh questions needed to be asked of those who attack Israel are a hundredfold.

Conclusions

I don’t believe there has been a country in modern history so reviled and misunderstood as Israel is today. It is a nation that has fought unflinchingly for its survival from the very first day of its conception but has nevertheless overcome every obstacle, bullet and bomb that its enemies have thrown against it. The Arabs have waged or threatened war numerous times over the past decades from 1948 through to 1967 and on to 1973 and beyond. Europeans who share the values and ideals of Jews worldwide have gone from enthusiastic support to an attitude of aggressive suspicion and non-violent derogation, especially on the Left. Centuries old falsities about the Jewish people have been dragged from the swamps of history and subsequently been renamed ‘Anti-Zionism’. Over half a century after the Holocaust, a new label has been found in which to hide their prejudices and has been stamped with approval and justification by the mass anti-Semitic hysteria emanating from the Islamic World. Newspaper journalists, peace campaigners and even politicians proclaim with gusto that, ‘Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism’, before parading conceited smiles and swaggering strides. Yet few ask in return, how can disagreement and outright hostility towards the existence of a successful, democratic, peace seeking and established nation, that happens to be the only Jewish one of its kind, be anything other than anti-Semitism? Remember, ‘Zionism’ in its basic terms is support for a Jewish nation state.

In the 21st Century, Israel faces yet more threats, especially from Iran and its proxies, Syria and Hezbollah. The almost certain threat of Persian nuclear weapons is growing, week by week, as peace protestors in London, Washington DC and Paris call on their governments to refrain from bombing Iranian nuclear sites and instead cut ties with ’the Zionist entity’. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas, a wing of the worldwide ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is actively attacking Israeli towns such as Sderot causing few casualties but nonetheless dreadful mental and emotional trauma.

Please don’t mistake my purpose here, I don’t hold up Israel as the ideal nation state that all others should emulate, I don’t think it is, like I don’t think the United States or even the United Kingdom are. I couldn’t name or even know if that apotheosis of nationhood actually exists. There are negatives to Israeli society and policies that I dislike and question, such as the violent actions of some of the Ultra-Orthodox community against Palestinians, the governmental corruption and the terrible road safety statistics. Despite the minus points however, Israel is in my view, a brave, vastly misunderstood and much hated (unwarranted) living and breathing embodiment of democracy and liberty fighting tyranny and religious despotism. It’s a nation that needs our support, our good will, our understanding and our help because if we refuse, we are in fact permitting large chunks of our own values and ideals of freedom be torn apart by Islamic absolutism. We in Europe, America and the rest of the democratic world are not idle spectators to this ‘regional’ confrontation between Israel and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, as it so often might seem; we are on the very same front line! From the Philippines to southern Russia and from the Parisian suburbs to Sudan and Nigeria there lies the same inherent danger that is facing us all, that of Islamic terrorism.

The Palestinians are suffering, there is no doubt about that. However the blame for their horror is not to be put solely or even mostly, at the feet of the Jewish State. Countless times Israel has offered them peace and their statehood but each time their leaders have refused. With all my heart, I truly believe Israel is seeking genuine peace and friendship with its Arab neighbours which would be overwhelmingly beneficial to both sets of people. What has been done in Israel, regarding technology, human rights, living standards and wealth, can also, if peace and reconciliation is achieved, be had in Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. I ask my fellow countrymen and women why they morally attack that which is defending itself against tyranny and the suppression of human freedom, in order to champion the rights of those who bring their suffering upon themselves? Until we step away and rationalize the situation and put our support behind the true victim which fights the very same battle we are fighting, then we will remain in the downward spiral that is sucking away our morality, democracy, freedoms and indeed, our very existence.

I’m proud to call myself a friend of Israel.

~read more at Beaman’s World.

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

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.

by Dennis Wright