Archive for the ‘General’ Category

Maybe the bond is a little too unbreakable

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013

President Obama mentioned the “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel yet again at the UN last week.

It hasn’t always been that way. In 1947, the US imposed an arms embargo on the region, while the Arabs were being supplied by the British. But until Stalin put an end to it in 1949, Israel was able to import much-needed weapons and ammunition from Czechoslovakia. From 1953 until 1967, Israel bought weapons — and a nuclear reactor — from France.

American support began secretly and on a small scale in the early 1960’s and became overt after 1967, as part of a proxy struggle with the Soviet Union for control of the Middle East (of course the US also sold weapons to Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia).

After Israel suffered massive losses in the first days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, officials approached the Nixon Administration for resupply. The initial response was that the US would have to think about it, but after Israel began to prepare its nuclear arsenal for use, and while the Soviets were sending large quantities of war materiel to the Arabs, Nixon and Kissinger decided to take action, and ordered a 32-day airlift of tanks, aircraft and other weapons and supplies to Israel.

US policy became less pro-Israel after the war, as a result of the Arab oil boycott and the desire to woo the Arabs away from the Soviet Union. Although aid to Israel reached new heights with the 1976 Camp David accords — keeping in mind that this aid was almost entirely directed to the purchase of US arms — US policy began to emphasize the goal of bringing about an Israeli withdrawal from the territories captured in 1967. Meanwhile, Western Europe, also stung by the boycott and lacking the pro-Israel base of the American people and Congress, moved still closer to the Arabs.

Since then, Israel and the US have developed a somewhat ambiguous relationship, with very close military and security cooperation along with growing distrust (it’s recently been revealed that Israel is one of the main targets of US espionage, along with Russia and China).

American and Israeli interests have never been perfectly aligned, but they diverged further with the end of the Cold War struggle for influence in the Mideast. More recently the divide has widened even more, for several reasons.

One is a leftward shift in the Democratic Party, with cold warriors being replaced by activists with roots in the New Left that gained influence at the time of the Vietnam War. These circles (and we can probably thank the KGB for this) tend to see Israel as an oppressive colonial power rather than the national liberation movement of an oppressed Jewish people. This has culminated in the election of Barack Obama, probably the president with the least amount of personal sympathy for Israel of any US chief executive since Israel’s founding.

Another recent wedge driven between the US and Israel is the Iranian nuclear program. Israel sees an Iranian bomb — or the ability to quickly produce one — as a threat to Israel’s continued existence, and is prepared to use military force to stop it. The US believes that rapprochement with Iran is more important than ending the development of its nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, Israel’s dependence on the US has reached the point that it can’t say ‘no’ to US requests. One example is recent US pressure on Israel to give in to PLO demands to release Arab terrorists, some of whom are convicted mass murderers serving life sentences, as a condition for negotiations — which I called a “national degradation.” Given that the overwhelming majority of Israelis are convinced that there is no possibility of peace with the PLO, Israel’s justice system and the feelings of the families of terror victims appear to have been sacrificed for nothing — or for no other reason than to give President Obama a foreign policy ‘success’.

Even more serious is the near certainty that the US vetoed a planned Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities last October. There have also been several cases in which the US prevented Israel from developing weapons systems in order to protect the US arms industry, or kept Israel from selling equipment to particular countries (e.g., China) for its own policy aims. The US, on the other hand, has no compunctions about selling the most advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia.

US interference in Israel’s affairs has reached the point that one could say that Israel is becoming a satellite of the US rather than an independent sovereign state. Those of us who remember the Cold War remember the contempt with which the governments of ‘countries’ like the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) were held. Although Soviet satellites had their own national character, everyone knew that policies were dictated from the Kremlin.

It’s becoming clear that it is imperative for Israel to start reducing its dependence upon — and its obeisance to — the US, which is increasingly making it harder for Israel to take the necessary actions to defend itself. The greatest threat to Israel’s existence today is Iran’s nuclear program, but in the longer term, the loss of strategic depth as a result of an imposed agreement with the PLO is equally dangerous.

The US is not the only foreign ‘ally’ that is acting counter to Israel’s interests. European funding of anti-state NGOs in Israel also needs to be curtailed. But the Europeans do not appear to exercise the kind of control over Israel’s government that the US does.

There are other great powers in the world than the US, particularly China. A recent $130 million grant to the Technion in Haifa is hugely encouraging. Israel should do its best to develop commercial, diplomatic and security relationships with China, India, even Russia, as well as tell its story to the people in those places.

As much as it would be satisfying, it is probably impossible to simply tell Obama to go to hell tomorrow. But Israel should make it a top priority to get out from under the American thumb, which will only get heavier in the future.

Technorati Tags:

Show me your fatwa!

Monday, September 30th, 2013

Most of my friends have already heard this story, but if you are one of them, don’t skip it. There’s an important parallel.

When I served in the IDF reserve, my job was guard duty at Air Force installations. This is (or was) one of the lowest tasks in the army, being reserved for people who hadn’t done regular service, or who had various ‘problems’. And we were a motley bunch. In particular there was one guy who always wore sneakers instead of boots. He explained to his commanders that he had a ptor, a medical release.

One day in 1987 when we guarding Tel Aviv’s Sde Dov airport, we were informed that a helicopter carrying the Chief of the General Staff was arriving and we were to go out and meet it. With feelings of great importance (and relief from the crushing boredom of guard duty), we surrounded the landing area. The helicopter touched down, and out stepped the highest-ranking officer in the IDF, Dan Shomron, along with other generals, bodyguards, etc.

The first thing he noticed was the sneakers. Before he stepped into his car, he nudged a major, who spoke to my associate.

Major: You. What’s on your feet?
Cpl. X: Sneakers.
M: Why?
X: I have a ptor.
M: Show it to me.

Of course he couldn’t, since it existed only in his mind. There were unpleasant consequences for him.

Which brings us to the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani. (h/t: Elder of Ziyon). Rouhani — and his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — have claimed several times that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons because the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa [judgment of Islamic law] against it.

In fact, they even succeeded in persuading President Obama, who mentioned it in his speech at the UN last week. But like my unfortunate friend’s ptor, the fatwa seems to be imaginary. Read what MEMRI says about it:

In fact, such a fatwa was never issued by Supreme Leader Khamenei and does not exist; neither the Iranian regime nor anybody else can present it.

The deception regarding “Khamenei’s fatwa” has been promoted by the Iranian regime and its spokesmen for several years. Each time it was mentioned, the “fatwa” was given a different year of issue – for example, 2005, 2007, or 2012 – but the text of the “fatwa” was never presented.

MEMRI has conducted in-depth research with regard to this “fatwa” and has published reports demonstrating that it is a fiction. See MEMRI reports:

Renewed Iran-West Nuclear Talks – Part II: Tehran Attempts to Deceive U.S. President Obama, Sec’y of State Clinton With Nonexistent Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa By Supreme Leader Khamenei

Release Of Compilation Of Newest Fatwas By Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei – Without Alleged Fatwa About Nuclear Bomb

The Iranian regime apparently believes that its frequent repetition of the “fatwa” lie will make it accepted as truth. To date, the Europeans refuse to accept it. According to unofficial sources, the legal advisors of the EU3 made an official request to the Iranian regime in 2005 to provide a copy of the “fatwa,” but in vain.

The imaginary fatwa is just one of many lies told by the Iranians about their nuclear program. Another is that it is for peaceful purposes, when the overwhelming evidence indicates that it is intended to produce weapons.

Iran has been making great sacrifices for more than a decade to become a nuclear power, something which it correctly believes will change the balance of power in the Middle East, replacing US influence with that of Iran. Now it is on the verge of completing its project — is it likely to give up now just to end the leaky sanctions that it has borne up to this point? Would the US have scrapped the Manhattan Project in January of 1945?

The Iranian lies are transparent, but they are not designed to be convincing. They are designed to provide cover for the Obama Administration, which has already decided that it is more important to achieve a ‘diplomatic solution’ to the Iranian crisis than it is to actually prevent them from assembling nuclear weapons (or coming close enough to do so on very short notice).

Unlike the IDF major I mentioned above, President Obama is not prepared to call an obvious bluff.

Technorati Tags: ,

A nuclear Iran: get used to it

Wednesday, September 25th, 2013
Banner at Tehran military parade, Sept. 23, 2013. Although the English statement is relatively mild, in Persian and Arabic it says "Death to America."

Banner at Tehran military parade, Sept. 23, 2013. Although the English statement is relatively mild, in Persian and Arabic it says “Death to America.”

Most observers expected that Hassan Rouhani would continue his so-called ‘charm offensive’ when he spoke at the UN yesterday. They thought that he would accept the proffered handshake from Barack Obama, and then propose negotiations that, some hoped, might lead to a halt in Iran’s nuclear program.

I admit that although I believe that negotiations with Iran would be no more than an attempt to run out the clock, I thought that Rouhani would at least continue his pretense of moderation.

Well, I was wrong. Rouhani is so confident that Barack Obama is no threat that he snubbed the US president’s hand, and in his speech took the hard line that his nuclear program is for ‘peaceful purposes’ — if you believe this, I will sell you all of the bridges to Manhattan — and indicated that while he would be prepared to negotiate, “the right to enrichment inside Iran and enjoyment of other related nuclear rights” would not be on the table.

Two days before he spoke, Rouhani reviewed a military parade in Teheran at which missile transports carrying slogans of “Death to America” and “Israel should cease to exist” were shown.

Unfortunately, Rouhani’s confidence is not misplaced.

Although President Obama says that he is “determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,” his willingness to talk, along with his unwillingness — indeed, inability — to premise such talks on a credible military threat, guarantees that Iran will continue its weapons development.

Rouhani understands Obama’s weak position, both domestically and with Western allies, which was illustrated by his embarrassment over the Syrian crisis. He can afford to play to the gallery of anti-Americans and Israel-haters at the UN.

Israel has threatened to use force. But it has been neutralized by the Obama Administration, which already vetoed an Israeli attack in October of last year. Any Israeli action during the interminable negotiations that will follow would be portrayed as disruptive to the diplomatic process, making Israel an international pariah. Israel will only act if it believes a strike against it is imminent.

Unless something entirely unforeseen happens, I expect that Iran will continue to approach nuclear capability asymptotically, not actually testing weapons, but reducing the time required to deploy them to a minimum. At some point within the next year or two, Iran will be a nuclear power for all intents and purposes.

The discussion will then shift to questions about deterrence, containment, etc.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Islam’s violence problem

Tuesday, September 24th, 2013

Yesterday I wrote that Muslims have a problem: a significant number of them believe that killing non-Muslims (or ‘bad’ Muslims) is a legitimate expression of their grievances (and boy, do they have grievances).

Here is another example:

Last March, Mohammed Merah entered the Ozar Hatorah school on a motorcycle and gunned down a 30-year-old religious education teacher and his two sons, aged 3 and 6 and the 10-year-old daughter of the school principal. …

Lucien Abdelrhafor, a French national of Moroccan origin who claimed to be Merah’s cousin, was arrested over the weekend for making a threatening phone call to the French Jewish school …

According to SPCJ, the French Jewish community’s security service, the man called the school on Sept. 16 and told a secretary “I am Mohammed Merah’s cousin and I’m coming over tonight to kill you.”

According to reports, the man was not actually related to Merah, but had recently become extremely religious.

Just a nut? Probably. For every terrorist murder there are probably 100 threatening phone calls made by nuts.

Look at the last sentence above. Do you see the problem?

Here is a description of Lucien from another source (my translation):

Lucien, who called himself Lahcène, was born of an unknown father and a Moroccan mother, into a family of nine brothers and sisters who did not practice Islam. He has been regularly attending the Luxeuil mosque for four years. Unemployed but enrolled at the local mission, he admits to two passions in life: “religion and football.”

The police noted religious books in his room, and a photo of a jihadist holding an RPG on the screen of his mobile phone.

Lucien likely was incapable of murder. But being passionate about religion, for him, meant being violent in its name.

The problem is the equation of piety with violence. A significant number of Muslims, often including recent converts or returnees to Islam, seem to believe that the more ‘religious’ you are, the more violent you will be (usually presented as violence in defense of Islam, although it may seem aggressive to us).

A more moderate Muslim might find it hard to criticize extremists, even if he thinks their behavior is not productive or excessively cruel, because he sees it as an excess of piety, something good in itself. Extremism is seen as Islam done more seriously. To criticize extremists would be to criticize Islam. So there are many Muslims who are not extremists themselves who keep quiet, and even contribute money in support of extremist organizations.

Although there are violent extremists in Christianity and Judaism, they are not generally considered ‘more religious’ than the moderate majority — they are marginalized, placed outside the tent.

Critics will say that I am overgeneralizing, that not every Muslim thinks like this. And I agree. But there are enough who do to enable, encourage and financially support the jihadists among them.

British PM David Cameron was entirely wrong when he said,

These appalling terrorist attacks that take place where the perpetrators claim they do it in the name of a religion – they don’t. They do it in the name of terror, violence and extremism and their warped view of the world. They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world.

They do it precisely in the name of Islam. And a great many other Muslims understand and even accept this.

As I wrote yesterday, this is a Muslim problem that Muslims must solve.

Technorati Tags: ,

A vicious weekend

Monday, September 23rd, 2013
Women with children flee Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya

Women with children flee Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya

How was your weekend?

2013.09.22 (Baghdad, Iraq) – A sectarian suicide bomber hits a funeral, killing at least sixteen mourners.

2013.09.22 (Peshawar, Pakistan) – Two Jundullah suicide bombers obliterate over eighty [Christian] worshippers at a church service, including many women and children.

2013.09.21 (Azamiyah, Iraq) – Fundamentalist gunmen kill four people at a store selling alcohol.

2013.09.21 (Nairobi, Kenya) – Nearly sixty shoppers are murdered by Islamic activists in a targeted attack on non-Muslims at a shopping mall [now at least 69].

2013.09.21 (Sadr City, Iraq) – Women and children are amply represented among over seventy people massacred by a Shahid suicide bomber at a funeral.

2013.09.20 (Qalqiliya, Israel) – An Israeli soldier is kidnapped and murdered by Fatah [the majority faction of the PLO, Israel’s ‘peace partner’].

And this list doesn’t include Sgt. Gal Kobi, killed by a sniper in Hevron yesterday. Or who knows how many killed in Syria.

The shopping mall incident is still in progress as I write this, with the attackers holding hostages. According to news reports, the mall is partly owned by Israelis and some Israeli security personnel are at the scene assisting Kenyan police.

Is it ‘blowback’ against years of ‘Western imperialism?’ So the Pakistani Christians were imperialists? And the Iraqi Shiites?

Israel is a special case, always a target. The ideological excuses for killing Israeli Jews are multiple: they combine the religious motive, Arab honor, imperialism-colonialism-apartheid (thank the KGB for this), etc. But note that Palestinian nationalism developed as a response to Jewish sovereignty. The Arabs of Palestine didn’t target the Ottoman Turks that exploited them for hundreds of years, nor did they demand a Palestinian state from Jordan and Egypt between 1948 and 1967.

In Kenya, the attackers specifically targeted non-Muslims. Witnesses said that people were asked the name of the Prophet’s mother (Aminah bint Wahab — remember this the next time you are a hostage), and shot if they answered incorrectly.

I think we have a general problem here, which is that a significant number of Muslims think that it is a proper expression of their grievances to murder people of different religious persuasions, including the ‘wrong’ form of Islam.

I wonder if this would stop if the various Islamic authorities — the Ulama of Al-Azhar in Egypt, for example, and the Shiite Ayatollas, as well as local scholars and Imams would issue fatwas saying, more or less, “don’t kill people for religious reasons.”

This isn’t a “tiny minority of fanatics.” It costs money to support and arm all of these terrorists and to carry out attacks. The jihadist factions in Syria, Gaza and the Sinai are well-armed, the fighters are paid. Somebody provides the Kalashnikovs, grenades, RPGs, etc. that are in their hands. I am not even talking about the NATO-level armament in the hands of Hizballah!

The Sunni factions are financed by wealthy individuals in the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, and by money collected all over the Muslim world (even in Europe and the US) and funneled through a network of helpful banks and Islamic finance institutions. Money is collected at the annual Haj to Mecca and at local mosques. The Shiites have Iran.

This is a Muslim problem that Muslims must solve. The rest of us need to aggressively — and preemptively — defend ourselves.

Technorati Tags: ,