FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

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: Islam, violence

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: Islam, violence

NPR this morning:

Rachel Martin: After 34 years of open hostility, the United States and Iran appear to be on the verge of a historic thaw. Iran’s new reform-minded president Hassan Rouhani wrote in a Washington Post op-ed this week that he wants to move “beyond impasses, whether in relation to Syria, my country’s nuclear program, or its relations with the United States.”

Martin then introduces Trita Parsi of the Iranian-American council, who says that the Iranian PR campaign is “sincere” and that “reform-minded” Rouhani is “capable of delivering.” Parsi argues that Rouhani has been granted “flexibility” by the real power in Iran, the Supreme Leader Khameinei, and if he can “prove” that his softer approach will be successful in advancing Iranian interests, like removing sanctions, then we have a historic opportunity for rapprochement. In 2003, Parsi says, Rouhani and others made overtures to the US, which didn’t respond. Now we have another chance.

No one else is interviewed for this story, and Parsi is asked no probing questions.

On the face of it, Parsi’s argument is simply a non-sequitur. There is no evidence that the ‘softer’ approach is anything other than a PR device. There is no evidence that Rouhani’s ‘flexibility’ extends to a willingness to give up the development of nuclear weapons. Listen to what Barry Rubin wrote about this very subject today:

Rouhani is a veteran national security official. He was backed by the regime. The voters would not be allowed a choice of a reformer so they could only vote for a phony one.

Now what then happened?

“President Rouhani says Iran will never develop nuclear weapons.” But that is what Iranian leaders have always claimed!

The Los Angeles Times applauded that ten dissidents were released. But they weren’t even though the newaspaper said, “It’s Rouhani’s strongest signal yet that he aims to keep a pledge to improve ties with the West.” But he didn’t do it!

Rouhani said, “I have full authority to make a deal with the West.” But that’s what they said too!

He then implied that he reversed Iran’s denial that the Nazis committed a Holocaust of Jews. But even that turned out to be a lie here and here.

They also had a phony New Year’s greeting to the Jews. Rouhani added a Jew to the UN delegation of Iran, no doubt to tell how well they were treated. So Rouhani loves the Jews and wants to make peace.

Obama swallowed the bait, eagerly.

But note that Rouhani does not have a moderate record and meanwhile Iran now has troops in Syria. What suckers Americans are. They’ll still [be] talking about Iranian nukes on the day they get them and probably about Syria giving up chemical weapons, too.

Rouhani may speak more pleasantly than Ahmadinejad, but the scale of the Iranian nuclear program indicates that it is a major policy goal of the regime. It is hard to imagine that it would have gotten to the point it has, while defying international pressure and suffering (although not as much as one would like) from economic sanctions, just to dismantle the program as success is around the corner.

The Obama administration is jumping on the bandwagon for the ‘moderate’ Iranian president. Barack Obama loves the idea of solving problems diplomatically, without recourse to force. That is what he wants to happen in Syria, and now with Iran. The problem is that the Iranian regime, as well as Bashar al-Assad, have interests too, and they won’t give them up unless they get something that they think is at least of comparative value. What can the US offer Iran that would be as valuable to them as nuclear power status? The end of sanctions? Please.

A credible threat of force changes the equation. Suddenly, the nuclear path to regional domination doesn’t look so inviting. You might not get there at all, and you might lose other important assets along with your enrichment facilities, like for example your air defense system, missiles and launchers, etc.

But everyone can see that the US will not use force, that the calculation has been made that US interests will better be served by allowing Iran to build its weapons than to take the risks inherent in trying to stop it. So the US cannot make such a threat.

Iran’s charm offensive has made it possible for the administration to delay or even avoid the embarrassment of admitting this.

Israel’s calculation has had a different outcome. Although Israel does not have the capabilities of the US, it probably can put a big dent in Iran’s program — and in other stuff that the regime does not want to lose. Israel will suffer in the process, but its leadership believes that if Iran does get the bomb, the chances that it will use it are too great to ignore.

The problem is that the US strongly opposes an Israeli attack. Iran has threatened that it would retaliate against US interests if Israel strikes, which is one reason. Another is that it would mess up the carefully nurtured impression that the administration’s foreign policy is actually succeeding in the Mideast.

Israel is therefore in the uncomfortable position that it must act against Iran, and do it against the will of the US, which has already vetoed a planned Israeli attack.

Talk about “daylight” between the US and Israel!

Technorati Tags: Iran, Obama Administration, Israel

The Palestinian problem can be solved, but the only way to do it is to work within the situation on the ground today.

I won’t hide my bias: the primary objective is a secure Jewish state of Israel. And while I believe that we must treat the Palestinian Arabs decently, that doesn’t include accepting their false historical narrative of Jewish guilt and Arab ownership of the land of Israel.

Ideology-based approaches ranging from annexing all of Judea and Samaria to handing all of it over to the PLO with or without a ‘right of return’ will not achieve this goal.

The much-reviled Meir Kahane said that the survival of a Jewish state was inconsistent with its having non-Jewish citizens. I wouldn’t go that far, but I do think that a) if the percentage of non-Jewish citizens goes beyond a certain point — and Israel is close to that point today — it will be destabilizing, and b) Israel’s political system cannot tolerate anti-Zionist parties or politicians.

It is also becoming clear that the US is not and — unless there are significant changes here — will not be an honest broker between Israel and the PLO. The American bottom line, since the 1970’s, has been that Israel must withdraw from all territories captured in 1967. This is inconsistent with Israel’s security, which requires defensible borders. It is also becoming more and more clear that US commitments cannot be relied upon.

Other nations and international institutions that could replace the US as a broker are even more anti-Israel. To some extent this is because Israel is perceived as an agent of the US, but it is unlikely that this can be turned around in the near future.

Therefore, Israel has two options: maintain the status quo, or act unilaterally.

What would such unilateral action look like?

• Israel declares that since the PLO has abrogated the Oslo accords by continued violations such as terrorism, incitement and non-recognition of Israel, as well as by declaring a state of ‘Palestine’ and obtaining UN recognition of it, Israel will no longer be obligated by them. Israel will end financial and security cooperation with the PLO.

• Israel annexes (perhaps with some adjustments) “Area C,” those parts of Judea and Samaria which it deems essential for security purposes, or which have large Jewish populations. This area contains most of the Jews in the territories and very few Arabs.

• Israel commits to providing full security and services to Jews living in areas that were outside the Green Line.

• Israel declares that its actions are legally grounded on its right to all of Judea and Samaria as expressed in the Palestine Mandate, and its right to defensible borders as expressed by UNSC resolution 242.

• Israel adopts the policy that it will not supply water or electricity nor will it allow land transport of goods to Gaza when there is hostile activity emanating from there. This includes rockets, attempts at infiltration, tunneling under the border fence, etc.

• Israel reaffirms the annexation of Jerusalem, although it might abandon outlying Arab neighborhoods. Arab residents of Jerusalem who have not accepted Israeli citizenship are required to accept it and affirm loyalty to the state, or they will be required to leave, with compensation of course.

• Present Arab citizens of Israel will not be required to affirm loyalty to the Jewish state, but anti-Zionist candidates will not be allowed to hold elective office. Arab citizens of Israel will be eligible to receive compensation if they declare that their conscience does not permit them to live under Jewish sovereignty.

This is not simple, but neither is keeping the status quo. Here are some of the problems that would have to be worked out:

• There are some important Jewish sites in Arab-populated areas, such as Joseph’s tomb, which is near the Arab city of Shechem. Hevron, where the cave of Machpela is located, is also home to a significant Jewish community. Under the Oslo accords, the PA is supposed to allow Jews to visit these sites; but in fact it is very difficult and dangerous — IDF protection is required, and there have been numerous instances of Arab violence, including murders, at these places.

• Without IDF protection, the PLO in Judea and Samaria could fall to Hamas. I am not sure that this would necessarily be a disaster, since the PLO is no less committed to Israel’s destruction than Hamas. A true liberal Palestinian regime desirous of peace is highly unlikely to come about regardless of Israel’s actions.

• The Arab entity that would be created by an Israeli withdrawal would be in a state of war with Israel. The boundaries would have to be designed to ensure that it could not be a strategic threat.

• Israel would have to be prepared to take preemptive action against terrorism, both in the new Palestinian entity and Gaza. It could not be allowed to develop military capabilities under the cover of ‘cease-fires’ as happened in Gaza.

Some additional comments:

• In the long term, Israel needs to reduce its dependence on the US, which is both becoming less friendly to Israel and less able to project power in the Middle East. Israel should do its best to obtain good relations with China, and as much as possible with non-Islamist Muslim regimes.

• I am not opposed to democracy. But it is not an all-or-nothing concept. A country can still be democratic while maintaining boundaries beyond which political expression may not go. In the case of Israel, these limits should exclude the position that Israel is not the state of the Jewish people. All democracies in fact have such limits, so why not make them explicit?

• The Arab ‘refugees’ are not Israel’s problem. Both Arabs and (a greater number of) Jews were displaced in 1948. While some of the original Arab refugees could have been allowed to return after 1948 if the Arab nations had wished to make peace, their actions and the subsequent actions of the international community made it impossible. Today the descendents of these refugees are their responsibility, and should be resettled.

• Today, the top priority must be the Iranian threat. The status quo in the territories will have to be maintained until Iran is dealt with. I believe that Israel will act alone, and a successful strike will also greatly strengthen its position on other issues.

Update [2008 PDT]: Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon also wants to end Oslo, but sees a different solution. And he also used the phrase “three state solution!” No, I didn’t read his piece before I wrote this (and he probably didn’t read mine).

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Judea and Samaria

Leftish Israeli journalist Ben Caspit thinks that he knows what is going on between Obama and Netanyahu, and he may very well be right:

So what is the grand plan? In broad strokes, its tenets are as follows. This is a plan hatched between the US administration and Netanyahu, with Palestinian knowledge as well as the tacit knowledge of other elements in the Middle East. Its general underlying principle is “Iran for Palestine.” US President Barack Obama pledges, by also giving his own personal guarantee, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capability. In return, Netanyahu will reciprocate by awarding him a diplomatic achievement vis-a-vis the Palestinians. We have seen the first step in this direction in recent weeks in the arrangement Obama has worked out to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons. Netanyahu did not speak against this arrangement, partly because he has received US assurances that this will not be a precedent, that the Iranian issue is entirely different from the Syrian one and that the “credible threat” of a military strike on Syria still remains on the table.

Netanyahu is unable to reach a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians. Everyone in Ramallah, Washington, Jerusalem and the settlements knows that. According to the plan, at some point in the negotiations all the parties will have reached this conclusion, and at that juncture the Americans will lay out their alternative proposal. It will consist of a permanent arrangement in phases, beginning with an interim arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in the setting of which a Palestinian state will be established under temporary borders.

Netanyahu hopes that he will not have to evict any settlements in the framework of this arrangement and that the Palestinian state will be established in areas A and B, which are under Palestinian security or civilian control. The United States will give the Palestinian Authority (PA) guarantees that this is not the final arrangement but rather an interim stage that is limited in time. The issues of Jerusalem, the refugees and final borders will be postponed to later stages. The Palestinian state will be recognized by the United Nations, with the support of Israel, which will withdraw to the separation fence line.

If true, this explains a lot, including Netanyahu’s agreement to a shameful prisoner release last month. It also explains why Washington continues to push Israel to negotiate with the PLO, despite the ample evidence that a real final agreement is unreachable. This plan achieves the multi-decade high-priority US policy goal of getting Israel out of the territories, without a final agreement. And getting Israel out is what Obama and the State Department care about, more than almost anything.

A deal with the PLO as described above would be very bad for Israel’s security, since a sovereign Palestinian state in Judea/Samaria that the IDF can’t enter without violating the UN Charter will become a terrorist base far more dangerous than Gaza. And delaying the intractable issues of Jerusalem, refugees, etc. until after Israel withdraws from much of the territory means that Israel will lose its leverage on them when they are finally laid on the table.

I understand why Netanyahu thinks the problem of Iran is of overriding importance, because it is. But of course there is one literally fatal flaw in the logic that would trade submission to the PLO for US action on Iran.

Even given the best of intentions, today’s US cannot be trusted to keep its commitments. If there is one lesson from the shockingly incompetent fumble of the Syrian situation, it is that one cannot count on America. And we cannot assume the best intentions from Obama, whose anti-Israel bias has been evident from the very beginning of his presidency.

Recent overtures between Obama and Iranian President Rouhani indicate that Obama is prepared to accept some kind of diplomatic ‘solution’. But it is certain that Iran will not agree to anything that will deny it the weapons that it has been struggling to develop, despite international condemnation and economic sanctions, for more than a decade. As in the case of Syria, Obama wants an excuse to declare victory. But only a credible threat of military force will succeed in getting Iran to dismantle its weapons program.

A PLO terror state a few miles from its population center or an Iranian bomb are both unacceptable to Israel. There is no way it can trade one of these for the other — it is not in Obama’s power, nor does he desire, to keep such a bargain.

The proposed American deal, if it is as described, is a chimera. Israel needs to take the hard road, to destroy Iran’s nuclear program itself and to keep sovereignty over the territories, at least for the near future.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama Administration, Iran