Spain’s Policy of Appeasing Terrorists Backfires

Spain’s Policy of Appeasing Terrorists Backfires

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain’s accidental prime minister who was thrust into office by the Islamic terrorists who set off a series of train bombs in Madrid only three days before the 2004 general elections, has just marked his third year in power.

Since taking office, Zapatero, who is dogmatically attached to the ideas of the European left, has presided over controversial domestic and foreign policies that range from legalizing gay marriage to supporting the separatist aspirations of regional Basque and Catalan nationalists to selling weapons to the authoritarian regime of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

Zapatero has also managed to re-open many of the wounds that most Spaniards thought had been put to rest with the end of the Franco dictatorship (1975) and the advent of democracy (1978). The result is that Spain is more divided today than at any time in its modern history.

Nowhere have Zapatero’s policies been more controversial than in his approach to countering terrorism. In fact, Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist, lately has committed a number of blunders so outrageous that Spaniards of all political leanings now fear that he has made Spain more, not less, vulnerable to terrorism.

Zapatero’s ‘Truce’ With Islamic Extremists

A few days after taking office in April 2004, Zapatero withdrew the 1,300 Spanish troops that were deployed to Iraq by the previous government of José Maria Aznar. Opponents of the withdrawal accused Zapatero of naively thinking that the threat posed by Al-Qaeda terrorists exists only because of the war in Iraq. And although it is true that a most Spaniards opposed the intervention in Iraq, many also believed that Zapatero’s precipitous action smacked of appeasement that not only weakened Spanish national security, but also destroyed the international credibility and stature that Spain had built up during the Aznar government.

Although the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq did not make much of a strategic difference in terms of the war effort, the move sent a symbolic message that represented a major victory for Al-Qaeda. Because what Zapatero did not seem to understand was that Islamic radicals still consider four-fifths of Spain to be Muslim land that must be liberated from the Spanish infidels who drove out the Moors in what is known as the Reconquista (1492). Thus by appearing to give in to the demands of medieval-minded Islamic extremists, Zapatero reinforced the perception that it is the terrorists, not the government, that sets the agenda in Spain.

Confirming the growing suspicion that Zapatero’s post-modern approach to fighting terrorism lacks a basis in reality, he told TIME Magazine in September 2004 that ‘sexual equality is a lot more effective against terrorism than military strength’. At the same time, he announced an ill-defined initiative he calls the ‘Alliance of Civilizations’, which borrows heavily from the ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’ concept promoted by Islamic radicals in Iran during the 1990s; in its essence, the initiative calls on the West to negotiate a truce with Islamic terrorists, and on terms set by the latter.

Indeed, Zapatero seems to believe that multilateral group therapy is the best way to work out his differences with the Islamic extremists who want to take over his country. But the prime minister’s initiative has been widely criticized in Spain and elsewhere because of its failure to comprehend that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists are at war not just with Spain or other individual states, but with the very ideals of Western society…and especially with post-modernist hyper-secularists like Zapatero himself.

But now that Zapatero has had three years in office to test his feminist approach to fighting terrorism, has it brought any tangible benefits for Spain? A Google-search on Zapatero will show that he is almost universally held up as the epitome of a post-modern appeaser. Even those on the political left in a Europe that is awash with like-minded equivocators have expressed serious doubts about the wisdom and efficacy of Zapatero’s anti-terrorist policies.

But what do the terrorists think? Well, they seem to understand Zapatero better than Zapatero understands himself. Indeed, in March 2007, Al-Qaeda launched new threats against Spain, this time over its military deployment in Afghanistan. In a video, a hooded man said the presence of Spanish troops in Afghanistan “exposes Spain again to threats” unless they withdraw their troops from the country. “The Spanish people have been tricked by a socialist government which withdrew troops from Iraq and sent 600 to Afghanistan,” the man proclaimed.

Then on April 11, the Islamic terrorists who claimed responsibility for an attack which killed some 25 people in Algeria, called for the reconquest of Spain. “We will not be in peace until we set our foot again in our beloved al-Andalus,” Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb warned. That prompted Spanish anti-terrorism judge Baltasar Garzon to caution that Spain was at a “very high risk” of suffering an Islamist attack. So much for Zapatero’s truce with Islam.

Zapatero’s ‘Truce’ With Basque Extremists

Notwithstanding the embarrassing setbacks for Spain vis-à-vis Islamic extremists, however, Spaniards have reserved their fiercest criticism of Zapatero over his domestic anti-terrorism policies.

And critics across the political spectrum say that nowhere has the prime minister erred as much as when, in June 2006, he agreed to begin a dialogue with ETA, the Basque separatist group, without first requiring that the group disarm. ETA, which is listed as a terrorist organization by both the European Union and the United States, has killed almost 1,000 people over the past four decades in its quest for an independent Basque state in seven parts of northern Spain and southwest France.

To initiate his dialogue with ETA, however, Zapatero pulled out of an agreement that he himself had proposed in 2000 with the PP not to talk with ETA unless it agreed to disarm. “Any normal person understands you can’t negotiate with someone whose negotiating weapon is as powerful and hard to argue with as a pistol,” PP leader Mariano Rajoy said at the time. The PP also opposed any talks with Batasuna, the outlawed political front of ETA.

This split between Spain’s two main political parties had the effect of limiting public support for a negotiated settlement; it also left the PP positioned to gain politically should the peace process break down. Zapatero, on the other hand, made the peace process the centerpiece of his political agenda in the hopes that a resolution to the Basque conflict would help him secure an easy re-election victory in early 2008. This highly risky proposition, however, also made him acutely vulnerable to intimidation from ETA.

Indeed, during the final months of 2006, ETA began complaining that the peace process had stalled because Madrid was refusing to make preliminary concessions. For example, ETA has long demanded that more than 400 of its prisoners, who are being held in locations across Spain, be moved closer to the Basque region. ETA has also insisted that the government stop arresting ETA suspects and that it legalize Batasuna.

Undeterred, Zapatero said at a year-end news conference on December 29 that his peace initiative was making progress. “Are we better off now with a permanent cease-fire, or when we had bombs, car bombs and explosions?” he asked. “This time next year, we will be better off than we are today.”

The very next morning, ETA set off a powerful car bomb at Madrid’s International Airport, killing two people and bringing to a dramatic end nine months of a so-called ‘permanent cease-fire’. The bombing caught Zapatero completely by surprise and shattered his attempt to solve the 40-year Basque conflict through dialogue. It also sent hundreds of thousands of Spaniards onto the streets in rallies to protest the attack and left a reeling Zapatero fighting for his political future.

The attack has produced a profound split within Spain: on the one hand, there are those on the left who remain open to the idea of re-establishing some sort of dialogue with ETA in the future; on the other hand, there are those on the right who believe that ETA must be forced into an unconditional surrender.

But by far the most controversial decision Zapatero has made since taking office was to convert the prison sentence of Iñaki de Juana Chaos, a high-profile member of ETA, to house arrest. De Juana began a hunger strike in November 2006 to protest a second jail sentence, which he received for ‘inciting terrorism’ (he had already completed an 18-year term for the murder of 25 people). In March 2007, when de Juana was reportedly near death after more than 100 days without eating, Zapatero agreed to allow de Juana to finish his sentence at his home in the Basque Country.

The outrage felt by Spaniards across the political spectrum was immediate; spontaneous anti-government demonstrations have been held across Spain. In response to the criticism, however, the Zapatero government justified its decision with an incredible statement that perfectly encapsulates the moral confusion of the post-modern mindset: “One of the differences between terrorists and us is that for us, life is important, no matter whether the person is a terrorist or not, and this is where our moral legitimacy derives,” said Interior Minister Alfredo Rubalcaba.

Many Spaniards say it was weakness, not morals, that guided Zapatero’s decision. Indeed, critics of the government say that although the Madrid bombing should have brought an end to the fledgling peace process, it did not, in fact, diminish Zapatero’s willingness to negotiate with terrorists. Others argue that Zapatero allowed himself to be blackmailed by ETA, and that he caved in to that blackmail. Some suspect he still hopes that a resolution to the Basque conflict will earn him another term as prime minister.
Whatever the rationale behind Zapatero’s decision to free de Juana, it has divided Spain in a way not seen since the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War. And that, say critics, is precisely the problem. Because when Spain is divided, terrorists are strengthened.

Indeed, in Zapatero’s Spain, the terrorists seem to have more influence than the government. And many Spaniards now fear it’s only a matter of time until they strike again.
Soeren Kern is Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

”What we are so unhappy about?”

 ”What we are so unhappy about?”

The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain’t happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ”What we are so unhappy about?”

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don’t have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn’t take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it……are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the “Media” told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful ass every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn’t have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ”general” discharge, an ”other than honorable” discharge or, worst case scenario, a ”dishonorable” discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-pro fit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by “justifying” them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn’t kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way…… Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH, WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY…..

History Lesson



This is an EXCELLENT essay . Well thought out and presented.

Historical Significance

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered
England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 , and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us It was a dicey thing . We had few allies .

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of
France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers . Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in
.  Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of
Asia .

Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and

America ‘s only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland , Canada , Australia, and
. That was about it All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except
in the East) was already under the Nazi heel

The US was certainly not prepared for war.  The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn’t have guns, and cars with “tank” painted on the doors because they didn’t have real tanks A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when
was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).

Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed
into rubble the next day just to prove they could .

Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by
only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later.  Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when
England was on the verge of collapse.

Ironically, Russia saved America ‘s butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany .

Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and
alone . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then
America .  If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war .

All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things.  Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world .

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs — they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world.  To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated . They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy
Israel , and purge the world of Jews This is their mantra . (goal)

There is also a civil war raging in the
Middle East
— for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas.  Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win — the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the
US , European, and Asian economies.

The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC — not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.  Do you want gas in your car?  Do you want heating oil next winter?  Do you want the dollar to be worth anything?  You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the
Middle East
will eventually fade away.  A moderate and prosperous
Middle East
will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements  We have to do it somewhere.  We can’t do it everywhere at once  We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . . . in
.  Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or Berlin , but in
, where we are doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein.  Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades  Saddam is a terrorist!   Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in
Iraq .   We have focused the battle.  We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here.  We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the
Middle East
for as long as it is needed .

WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a “whimper” in 1928.  It did not begin with Pearl Harbor  It began with the Japanese invasion of
China .  It was a war for fourteen years before the
US joined it.  It officially ended in 1945 — a 17 year war — and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . . a 27 year war.

WW II cost the
United States
an amount equal to approximately a full year’s GDP — adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars.  WW II cost
America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York.  It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack

The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater — a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism

This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay .  The real world is not like that.  It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly.  It always has been, and probably always will be .

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is.  It will not go away if we ignore it .

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the
Middle East
.  The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.

The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war.  Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons.  Unless some body prevents them from getting them.

We have four options:

1 . We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2 . We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran ‘s progress on nuclear weapons is what
Iran claims it is).

3 . We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in
America .


4 . We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of
.  It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles

The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes.  All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win . The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them

Remember, perspective is every thing, and
America ‘s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989; forty-two years!

Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and
Japan .  World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in
Iraq ..  The
US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944 , the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.

In WW II the
US averaged 2,000 KIA a week — for four years.  Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire
Iraq war has done so far

The stakes are at least as high . . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law) .

It’s difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this.  They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.

“Peace Activists” always seem to demonstrate here in
America , where it’s safe.

Why don’t we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan ,
North Korea
, in the places that really need peace activism the most?  I’ll tell you why! They would be killed!

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc . , but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

Americans who oppose the liberation of
are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!

Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in
Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion


Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today — history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too).  By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today.  They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

Conservative Students Join in Nationwide Demonstration Against Islamic Fascism

Conservative Students Join in Nationwide Demonstration Against Islamic Fascism

David Horowitz’s Freedom Centre

In one of the most extensive demonstrations ever staged by American college conservatives, close to one hundred university and college campuses across the country yesterday held an “Islamo Fascism Awareness Day.” Thousands of students were involved in the event, which was coordinated by the Terrorism Awareness Project, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center whose objective is to counter college students’ lack of awareness about the War on Terror and the disinformation about it propagated by radical faculty and student groups.

A total of 96 colleges and universities, including Pace University, Columbia, Duke, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Purdue, Ohio State, Alabama, Colorado and other prominent schools, together with three high schools and two military bases, marked the event by showing Obsession, a documentary film using materials from Arab TV rarely seen in the West and interviews with authorities on Middle East politics, former jihadists, and experts on terrorism to take the viewer inside the worldview radical Islam and its plans for world domination.

Freedom Center President David Horowitz said that the event represented a clear challenge to faculty and administrators who, in the name of political correctness, have sought to shut down debate about Islamic extremism: “The simultaneous showing of a film exposing the Islamist threat at nearly 100 universities is a tremendous victory for the forces of freedom and for intellectual diversity, which are now under attack.”

Reports from many of the participating schools gave a sense of the success of the event. Ryan McCool, Chairman of the College Republicans at Temple University commented after the showing that “the student who participated left with a better understanding of the evil that exists in the world.” And Harrison Sontag, a student at Dartmouth who coordinated the event there, said, “Everyone was completely blown away by the film. Many had no idea exactly how large and credible a threat our enemy is.”

But on some campuses, students attempting to present this program about the nature of radical Islam complained about being pressured, and in some cases openly harassed, to cancel the eventintimidation, they said, that proved exactly how necessary the Terrorism Awareness Project is. Josiah Lanning, a student at Ohio’s Columbus State Community College, recounted how, when he was filling out the paperwork for the event, the school’s activities center required him to “tone down” his proposed flyer for the showing of Obsession because it referred to Hezbollah and similar groups as terrorist organizations, Lanning was next told to suspend the film until further notice because of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Only after he appealed to the dean of students at the college was Lanning finally permitted to proceed with the showing.

Carl Soderberg, chair of the University of New Haven’s College Republicans chapter, encountered similar resistance: “There were some faculty members who pressured me to postpone the film until they could find someone who could properly frame the issue,’” he says. But he went forward, and the film was shown to some 50 students and faculty. For Soderberg the outcome was worth the difficulty: “The point of the film was to raise awareness about a problem that many have stopped thinking about in the last five and a half years, and the best place to do that is on a college campus.”

Ruth Malhotra, a student at Georgia Tech and a member of the school’s College Republicans chapter, had perhaps the most difficult time. Among the hurdles erected by the school, Malhotra faced interference by opposed faculty and school administrators, boycotts and counter-demonstrations from left-wing student groups — and even death threats designed to prevent the screening. Given day long police protection as she presented Obsession on the Tech campus, Malhotra observed: “It’s important for students to know that violent Islamic extremism does pose a threat to our way of life, and to challenge that threat we have to understand what it is we’re up against.”

Stephen Miller, a senior at Duke University and national coordinator of the Terrorism Awareness Project, summed up the meaning of the historic, day-long experience: “Islamo Fascism Awareness Day is necessary because of the denial and ignorance about terrorism on the part of many students,” says “These factors, combined with the unholy alliance between anti American and pro jihad groups on many campuses has made for a lethal combination. We’re in a fight for survival and many students are on the sidelines.”

Posted by Ted Belman @ 4:38 pm |

Hamas Demands Parliament: Adopt Decision to Kidnap Soldiers

Hamas Demands Parliament: Adopt Decision to Kidnap Soldiers, Rice Meets With Hamas Government Representative

by Omri Ceren

Secretary Rice held an official meeting with the Finance Minister of the Hamas led government…

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held an unannounced meeting with Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority finance minister, in Washington on Tuesday. It was the highest-level meeting granted so far to a member of the Hamas-led unity government and a sharp departure from the original American position of avoiding contact with any member of that government. In a notable break with Israel, the Bush administration’s policy was later revised to allow meetings with ministers who are not members of Hamas.

… on the same day that the Hamas led government demanded that the Palestinian parliament pass a resolution encouraging Palestinian groups to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Details after the jump.

Hamas MPs called on the Palestinian parliament to adopt a formal decision, which would encourage Palestinian groups to kidnap more “Zionist soldiers,” Hamas’ website revealed. “The failure of the president and the government in releasing the [Palestinian] prisoners, means we have to secure their release through armed resistance,” Hamas Member of Parliament Hamid Al-Bitawi said on Tuesday during the parliament’s meeting.

Now, we’re not professional diplomats. Nor do we have any particular training in how foreign diplomacy is conducted on a day to day level. But here’s our idea: in order to show displeasure with the elected Palestinian government’s repeated acts of war and attempt to legally codify same, maybe we shouldn’t reward them with high-level meetings. It’s a radical idea, we know. But hear us out: if not cutting them off for their violence isn’t working, maybe we should consider yes cutting them off. Even if cutting them off them off doesn’t work, at least we wouldn’t be rewarding their actions. And this goes for meetings between Olmert and Abbas as much as it does between Rice and Fayyad.

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]

Posted by Omri Ceren @ 9:40 am |

Hamas Demands Parliament: Adopt Decision to Kidnap Soldiers

Hamas Demands Parliament: Adopt Decision to Kidnap Soldiers, Rice Meets With Hamas Government Representative

by Omri Ceren

Secretary Rice held an official meeting with the Finance Minister of the Hamas led government…

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held an unannounced meeting with Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority finance minister, in Washington on Tuesday. It was the highest-level meeting granted so far to a member of the Hamas-led unity government and a sharp departure from the original American position of avoiding contact with any member of that government. In a notable break with Israel, the Bush administration’s policy was later revised to allow meetings with ministers who are not members of Hamas.

… on the same day that the Hamas led government demanded that the Palestinian parliament pass a resolution encouraging Palestinian groups to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Details after the jump.

Hamas MPs called on the Palestinian parliament to adopt a formal decision, which would encourage Palestinian groups to kidnap more “Zionist soldiers,” Hamas’ website revealed. “The failure of the president and the government in releasing the [Palestinian] prisoners, means we have to secure their release through armed resistance,” Hamas Member of Parliament Hamid Al-Bitawi said on Tuesday during the parliament’s meeting.

Now, we’re not professional diplomats. Nor do we have any particular training in how foreign diplomacy is conducted on a day to day level. But here’s our idea: in order to show displeasure with the elected Palestinian government’s repeated acts of war and attempt to legally codify same, maybe we shouldn’t reward them with high-level meetings. It’s a radical idea, we know. But hear us out: if not cutting them off for their violence isn’t working, maybe we should consider yes cutting them off. Even if cutting them off them off doesn’t work, at least we wouldn’t be rewarding their actions. And this goes for meetings between Olmert and Abbas as much as it does between Rice and Fayyad.

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]

Posted by Omri Ceren @ 9:40 am |

Fighting the next war

Column One: Fighting the next war

Last Friday, Haaretz‘s military commentator Ze’ev Schiff accused the Barak and Sharon governments of responsibility for last summer’s war. As Schiff put it, since the IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, “a threatening system [comprised of Hizbullah, Syria and Iran] arose [on Israel’s northern border], which required a preemptive strike. The aversion to conducting such a strike eventually caused the war.”

Schiff’s analysis is correct. But since it stops short of drawing lessons for the present dangers, it is largely useless. Today, due to the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government’s failure in the last war, we stand at the brink of the next one. And in the next war, the main enemy will be Syria, which will fight in coordination with Hizbullah and the Palestinians and under Iranian guidance.

Syria has been openly preparing for war since the last summer. And in the space of the past week alone, the Syrians twice announced their intention to attack Israel. On Monday, Syria’s Propaganda Minister Moshen Bilal threatened that if Israel doesn’t fully implement the Arab plan which calls for its retreat to the 1949 armistice lines and acceptance of millions of Arab immigrants, Syria will go to war. On Wednesday, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad said, “We always prepare ourselves. Israel is a fierce enemy. We have seen nothing from it but harm.”

A constructive Israeli policy for contending with Syria must be based on a clear understanding of both Syria’s interests and our own.

First there are Syria’s war preparations. Many note optimistically that Syria has not moved its tanks to the border. But why would it?

Syria has no intention of fighting a conventional war against Israel. The war that Syria is planning will bear greater similarity to the insurgency in Iraq and Hizbullah’s war last summer than to Syria’s previous wars with Israel.

In the midst of last summer’s war, Assad announced the formation of a new terror force tasked with infiltrating and attacking targets on the Golan Heights. The Syrian order of battle also includes a highly trained commando division; a massive artillery force capable of wreaking destruction on the Golan Heights and the Galilee; Scud ballistic missiles with ranges covering all of Israel; and chemical warheads that can be fitted on the Scuds.

This week CBN broadcast satellite footage of three hardened Syrian missile facilities outside of Homs and Hama. Syria aims to bleed Israel in order to force subsequent Israeli political concessions.

Syria has good reasons to go to war with Israel. Its forced departure from Lebanon in 2005 humiliated and weakened the regime both politically and economically. The regime views an achievement on the Golan Heights as a way to make up for the shame.

Moreover, Hizbullah’s achievements in last summer’s war challenge Syria to demonstrate that it too can humiliate Israel. It is also notable that June 11 will mark the fortieth anniversary of Israel’s liberation of the Golan Heights.

Rather than contend with the Syrian challenge, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government has opted to ignore it. In his appearance before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Wednesday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, “We have no intention of attacking Syria.”

He added, “The assessment of all of Israel’s assessment bodies is that Syria is deploying defensively in line with a scenario of an attack against them. But we are also preparing for a situation where we are surprised.”

The gist of Olmert’s statements is that he is unwilling to decide how to deal with the Syrian threat. He would rather be “surprised” by the Syrians than prevent surprises by crafting an Israeli policy that would defend Israel’s interests and preempt Syrian aggression.

The Israeli Left maintains that the only way to prevent war is by holding peace talks with Syria that will lead to an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. But former national security adviser Maj. Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland explained in a recent lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that under current conditions, in contrast to the Left’s protestations, an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, even in return for a peace treaty, would increase the chance of war with Syria, and decrease Israel’s chances of winning the war. Syria would have little reason to abide by the agreement after an Israeli withdrawal and Israel would lack international support to enforce the agreement after Syria breached it.

Rather than preemptively surrendering, Israel’s strategic aims should be to degrade Syria’s capacity to harm it and to change the Syrian regime’s assessment of the attractiveness of attacking Israel.

Any plan to reduce Syria’s capacity for aggression against Israel should properly begin with Schiff’s analysis of last summer’s war in Lebanon. Given the nature of the gathering threat, it makes sense to consider a preemptive strike on Syria’s terror training camps, its missile sites and artillery bases. Such a strike should be guided by the lessons from the last war regarding the limitations of air power. Air strikes had limited results against hardened targets and they exposed Israel’s flank to anti-Israel propagandists in the media war.

Changing Syria’s cost-benefit analysis of war with Israel involves going beyond the military realm. To impact Syria’s decision-making loop, Israel must also consider the economic and political realities facing the Assad regime.

Syria is an economic basket case. In a study of the Syrian economy published this week, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) noted that since the US-led invasion of Iraq, some one million Iraqis have fled to Syria. Rather than stimulate economic growth, due to the corruption and economic incompetence of the regime, the population inflow has simply caused massive inflation. Aside from this, Syria’s oil revenues are steadily declining. US and EU economic sanctions instituted in recent years have made it impossible for Syria to receive financial credits or significantly expand its international trade. Today the regime can barely provide basic services to the population.

Syria’s economic weakness undermines the regime’s political stability. Another factor undermining that stability is the restive Kurdish minority in northeast Syria. The Kurds, who comprise twenty percent of Syria’s overall population, already staged an uprising against the regime in May 2004.

Today, Syria’s Kurds are inspired by their brethren in Iraq to work to achieve their rights. Like the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrian Kurds, who have good relations with their Arab compatriots, do not demand independence. Rather they seek to transform Syria from a centralized totalitarian state into a federated democracy.

Two weeks ago a conference of Iraqi, Syrian, Turkish and Iranian Kurds took place in Irbil, Iraq. Massoud Barzani, the President of Iraqi Kurdistan, spelled out the Kurdish view of Israel in an interview with Al Arabiya.

In his words, “If [Iraq] establish[es] relations [with Israel] we will do so publicly. There is no reason for these relations to be kept secret, because we are neither afraid nor ashamed of such relations.”

Barzani attacked the Iranians, Hizbullah and Palestinians for supporting Israel’s destruction, explaining, “I am against driving Israel into the sea…. This policy is wrong, illogical, and unreasonable. Why annihilate a people?”

Sherkoh Abbas, who heads the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria from his home in the US, participated in the conference. In a recent conversation he explained, “Most Syrian Kurds…have views similar to President Barzani. As Kurds we can say that we have no issues with Israel; in fact we are against the desire of the Ba’ath party, the Muslim Brotherhood or terrorists to destroy Israel…

“The Kurds did not suffer by the hands of Israelis or Jews. All or most of their sufferings were caused by Arabs, Persians and Turks. In Syria, the Ba’ath regime Arabized the Kurdish region, stripped 300,000 Kurds of Syrian citizenship, and killed many Kurds.…. We do not want to fight for the Syrian regime.”

The Kurds’ desire to replace the current regime with a democratic federal government is backed by the Syrian Reform Party, an exile group with strong ties to the population in Syria. Farid Ghadry, a Washington-based Syrian exile who heads the party, believes that the Kurdish federal plan is the best way to bring freedom to Syria.

The interests of the Kurds and the other regime opponents align with Israel’s interests in many ways. First, Israel will benefit greatly if they achieve their aim of democratizing Syria and protecting minority rights by decentralizing authority while maintaining the territorial integrity of the country.

Centralized governments throughout the Arab world are the primary fulminators of Arab hatred of Israel. These regimes require a constant drumbeat of incitement against Israel to deflect their people’s attention from their failure to provide basic services. Decentralized governments would have difficulty blaming the Jews for their failures.

There is widespread fear in Israel that if Assad’s regime is overthrown, it will be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. This makes sense given that for the past 30 years, the Ba’athists ensured that the Muslim Brotherhood is the only other force in the country with organizational and financial means. But even so, strengthening the Kurds – who oppose jihad – will counterbalance the Muslim Brotherhood, whether or not the regime falls.

Turkey, too, fears Kurdish separatism. But Israeli support for the advancement of legitimate Syrian Kurdish rights through the cultivation of democratic federalism rather than secession, should not concern Ankara.

One of the reasons the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government is taking the Arab “peace plan” seriously in spite of the fact that it is inherently hostile to Israel is because the government is desperate to find allies against the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah axis. The trouble with this gambit is that the Sunni countries involved in the initiative act as the Iranian-Syrian-Lebanese-Palestinian axis’s support network against Israel. The Saudis and their colleagues have no interest in helping Israel.

In contrast, the Kurds are natural allies for Israel with overlapping interests and values. They would be happy to receive Israeli media and financial support. And, if at the same time as Israel helped broadcast Kurdish language television and radio into Syria, it also provided the Kurds with arms to defend themselves against Syrian aggression, the move could potentially alter Syria’s cost-benefit analysis of war with Israel.

Even if the Syrians open hostilities, arming the Kurds would likely muddy the waters in a manner that would cause serious harm to Syria’s war-making capacity. How well would Syria contend with the IDF if it were simultaneously trying to put down a popular rebellion? And how long would the regime survive in the aftermath of such a war?

Studying past wars is always worthwhile. But today we must prepare for the next one.

There is an Israeli strategy for victory. If we conduct a military strike that degrades Syria’s ability to harm us while economically weakening the regime still further and politically supporting an oppressed, large, pro-Israel minority, perhaps we could avert war altogether.

At the very least, if war comes, we would win.

The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby

The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby

comment by Jerry Gordon

John MacAthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine has it exactly right in this opinion piece originally published in the Providence Journal. The Saudi lobby in the U.S. has far more ‘power’ than the purported ‘octopus’ of the Jewish lobby maligned by Mearsheimer Walt, George Soros, Tony Judt, ‘Jimma’ Carter and Saudi financed the Council for the National Interest. MacArthur is a so-called ‘progressive’. But a ‘progressive’ who isn’t hoodwinked.

by John MacArthur, Providence Journal, April 16, 2007

Given my dissident politics, I should be up in arms about the Israel lobby.

Not only have I supported the civil rights of the Palestinians over the years, but two of my principal intellectual mentors were George W. Ball and Edward Said, both severe critics of Israel and its extra-special relationship with the United States.

Nowadays I ought to be even bolder in my critique, since the silent agreement suppressing candid discussions about Israeli-U.S. relations has recently been shaken by some decidedly mainstream figures. These critics of Israel and its American agents include John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, of the University of Chicago, and Harvard’s Kennedy School, respectively; Tony Judt, a historian at New York University; and former President Jimmy Carter.

Somehow, though, I can’t shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn’t all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present.

Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can’t see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house, led by King Abdullah.

The long and corrupt history of American-Saudi relations centers around the kingdom’s vast reserves of easily extractable oil, of course. Ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt met aboard ship in 1945 with King Ibn Saud, the special relationship with the desert kingdom has only grown stronger. The House of Saud is usually happy to sell us oil at a consistent and reasonable price — and then increase production if unseemly market forces drive the world price of a barrel too high for U.S. consumers.

In exchange we arm the Saudis to the teeth and turn a blind eye to their medieval approach to crime and punishment.

Even during the Saudi-led oil embargo of 1973-74, an exceedingly hostile action against the United States supposedly justified by Washington’s support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the Nixon administration treaded very softly. Despite the illegality of the embargo — it arguably violated international law as well as a bilateral commercial agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia — the White House and the State Department could hardly have been more diplomatic toward their Bedouin friends.

As the historian J.B. Kelly recounts, the U.S. ambassador to Riyahd, James Akins, did his best to placate King Faisal by urging the Saudi’s American-owned oil concessionaire ARAMCO to, in Aken’s words, “hammer home” to the White House that the embargo wouldn’t be lifted unless “the political struggle [between Israel and the Arabs] is settled in [a] manner satisfactory to [the] Arabs.”

In all, as Kelly wrote, “a most peculiar recourse for an ambassador to employ to influence the policy of his own government.”

But this was a blip on the screen of harmonious petrol politics. After Iran’s Islamic revolution overthrew the trusted shah, in 1979, the thoroughly anti-democratic Saudi oligarchy appeared an island of stability and thus of greater strategic value to Washington. Indeed, in a head-to-head match-up with the Israel lobby in 1981 over the proposed American sale of AWACS planes to the Saudis, the Saudi lobby won a close vote in the Senate.

Leading the Arab charge on Capitol Hill was the debonair Prince Bandar, who demonstrated that charm mixed with a lot of money could beat the Israelis, even during the pro-Israel administration of Ronald Reagan.

Bandar was quickly promoted to Saudi ambassador to Washington, where, in 1990, he was assigned the task by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney of, in effect, doling out press passes to the U.S. media before the Gulf War — this in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of U.S. troops were swarming into the kingdom to defend it against a perceived invasion threat from Saddam Hussein.

When he wasn’t entertaining congressmen and spreading good cheer through his highly paid lobbyist, Fred Dutton, Bandar was busy making friends with, at first vice president, and then president, George H.W. Bush, and by extension with Bush’s son, the future president. This personal relationship with the Bush family has served Bandar and his family very well, as documented in Craig Unger’s book, House of Bush, House of Saud.

But the prince and his royal relatives evidently also impressed the Clinton administration. Before he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the former FBI counterterrorism chief John O’Neill complained to French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard that Saudi pressure on the State Department had prevented him from fully investigating possible al-Qaida involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and of the destroyer Cole in 2000.

As with Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf, there’s always talk of the Saudis playing a double game with al-Qaida — publicly denouncing it and privately paying it off — but you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that the Saudis don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

So it gets worse. Now, according to Seymour Hersh, Bandar has virtually joined the Bush administration as a shadow cabinet member. Hersh’s New Yorker article last month described “the redirection” of U.S. foreign policy against Iran and Arab Shi’ite terrorists in collaboration with such Sunni-dominated countries as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt (this in spite of the fact that Sunni rebels, funded in part by Saudi “private citizens,” have killed the bulk of American solidiers who have died in Iraq).

The wise men in this new policy council reportedly include Vice President Cheney, deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams (an Iran-Contra convict who is very pro-Israel), the nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, and none other than Bandar, now the Saudi national-security adviser. Such is the cynicism of Bushian, Israeli and Saudi foreign policy that Abrams collaborates with Bandar, whose country does not recognize Israel and whose “charities” give money to the families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up inside the Jewish state.

Lately, King Abdullah has been making anti-American noises, calling the U.S. presence in Iraq an “illegitimate foreign occupation.” But like the Saudis’ paper-thin devotion to the Palestinian cause, this is just so much realpolitik. In March 1974, the oil embargo was lifted without any conditions concerning Palestinian rights. Today, as the Shi’ism scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb told Mohamad Bazzi, of Newsday, “the Saudis are being more autonomous, but it’s a very contrived sense of autonomy” designed “to give [them] more political cover so they can rally Arab support against [Shi’ite] Iran.”

If you’re naïve enough to believe that the Saudi king’s rhetoric signifies a genuine break with the United States over Iraq, or anything else, then you might also believe that the Israel lobby is more powerful than the Saudi lobby. And if you think that Israeli security means more to George Bush than Saudi oil, then you might even believe that Bush saw 9/11 coming.

John R. MacArthur, a monthly contributor, is publisher of Harper’s Magazine.

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 2:11 am |

Saudi Arabia’s Export of Radical Islam

Saudi Arabia’s Export of Radical Islam

I just came across an excellent three part review of Saudi Arabia’s Export Of Radical Islam by Adrian Morgan published by The Family Security Foundation, Inc on January 15, 2007. It was prefaced with this,

We read that Saudi Arabia is guilty of sponsoring terrorism but that America is working with them to end this. But how many more heinous crimes must they commit, finally, to be condemned by our government? In this truly shocking exposé, FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan reveals just how mind-numbing Saudi Arabia’s many trespasses have been.

Part I

Over the last week, several items in the world news have highlighted the problem of Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally in the War on Terror, funding mosques which promote the same extremism and calls for jihad which create terror. There is a certain hypocrisy about the Saudis exporting any form of Islam abroad, as the undemocratic kingdom prohibits any symbols of other faiths from being imported. Crucifixes, Bibles are forbidden. Guest workers proliferate in the kingdom, but if any attempt to hold Christian prayer and worship, they are jailed.[..]

Part II

Part III

Another blog hot on the trail Wahaudi — the Wahhabi/Saudi watch recently was brought to my attention. We must keep the pressure on.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:19 am |

Facing Unpleasant Facts in the Middle East

Facing Unpleasant Facts in the Middle East

By Steven Plaut

The world is now well into the post-Oslo. post-911 era, in which the delusions and denials of reality that were the foundations of the “Middle East peace process” are at last being acknowledged for what they were. For those returning to the planet Earth from Fantasyland in the “Oslo” parallel universe, it behooves them and us all to bear in mind some of the unpleasant facts of life about the Middle East.

1. The Arab world has never come to terms with Israel’s existence within ANY set of borders whatsoever and is still seeking the annihilation of Israel and its population.

2. ANY Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it, will produce escalated violence, terror and warfare in the Middle East, and neither stability nor peaceful relations. ANY Palestinian state will seek warfare with Israel and not solutions to the economic and social problems of its citizens.

3. The only reason Arafat and the PLO ever wanted control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was to use them as bases for attacks on Israel. This is the only real use to which they will be put by any future Palestinian state.

4. There is no alternative that will stop the bloodshed and war in the Middle East other than the adoption by Israel of an unambiguous policy of R&D, that is, of Re-Occupation and Denazification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Every other alternative proposal for stabilization and pacification is delusional.

5. Denazification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip must be based partly on the programs of Denazification imposed on Germany and Japan by the Allies after World War II, but in part must be different. Such Denazification policies will have to stay in place for decades. There is no other way by which Israel can prevent the daily massacre of its civilians by Palestinian terrorists.

6. The bulk of Palestinians have lived outside Israeli “occupation” for years, and their “liberation” from Israeli “occupation” only produced Nazification, terrorism, mass murders, and violence. Their pacification requires re-imposing of open-ended martial rule upon them by Israel.

7. The instability of the Middle East is not caused by Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands but by PLO occupation of Israeli lands.

8. There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state. There is no justification whatsoever for one now (other than perhaps in Jordan).

9. The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the right to set up their own state. It is doubtful whether they ever did have such a right, but – even if they once did – they forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and barbarism.

10. Palestinians are Arabs. The Arabs already rule 22 states. There is no reason why they should be entitled to a 23rd state, and creation of a 23rd Arab state, “Palestine”, in the West Bank and Gaza will escalate Middle East violence and world terrorism.

11. The Palestinians are not and never were a “nation”. They are not even a tribe. They are a branch of Arabs with only minor and secondary cultural differences that distinguish them from Syrians, Lebanese or Jordanians.

12. The Middle East conflict cannot be resolved through endless exhibitions of niceness and restraint by Israel. Israeli niceness, restraint, and goodwill gestures are interpreted by the Arab world as weakness and as signs that the Jews, like Paul McCartney’s Band, are on the run.

13. The Palestinians are not “mistreated” by Israel, but ARE poorly treated by the Palestinian Authority. The treatment of Arabs by Israel is a thousand times better than the treatment of Arabs by Arab countries.

14. The only Arabs in the Middle East with any semblance of civil rights are those who live under Israeli rule.

15. If the intifada “uprising” were in fact a product of oppression and mistreatment of Arabs by a government, then Israel should be the only country in the Middle East that does NOT have an intifada.

16. Oslo has radicalized and Sudetenized most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab parties and politicians who call openly for terror violence against Jews and the destruction of Israel.

17. There exists no set of concessions by Israel that would result in the Arab states coming to terms with Israel’s existence.

18. There are no Arab democracies and no support for democracy among significant minorities within the Arab world.

19. Israeli assassination of Palestinian terrorists is in fact a substitute for retaliation in kind against the Palestinians for bombings of Israeli children and other civilians. The alternative to such assassinations is bombings of Palestinian civilians.

20. Israeli settlements are the “mine canaries” of the Arab world. There is no reason why Jewish civilians should not be free to live in peace within Arab countries truly seeking peace with Israel, just as Arabs live at peace within Israel and within the United States. The attitude of the Arab world in general and of the Palestinian Authority in particular towards such “settlements” is indicative of their attitudes towards Israel and Jews in general. If the Palestinians are NOT seeking peace with the Jews, and indeed they are not, then the real problem is that Israel has built too few settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

21. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate.

22. There is an inverse relationship between the material comfort of Arabs living under Israeli rule and political moderation. The better off they are in a material sense, the more violent and radical they are. More generally, Arab radicalism and terror are positively correlated with comfort and education and wealth. Bin Laden and his people are filthy rich. There have been no undernourished Palestinian suicide bombers. Many have been college students.

23. Palestinians endorse terrorism and violence against Jews by near-universal majorities.

24. Israeli Arabs endorse terror and violence against Jews by large majorities. They also support bin Laden and the Hizbollah.

25. There are no visible Palestinian public figures who oppose violence, terror and Islamist fascism. There are no Palestinian “moderate” leaders, only a few Palestinian fascists who speak English well and elegantly, like Hanan Ashrawi.

26. There is not and never has been a Palestinian “peace movement” nor a Syrian “peace movement”.

27. Syria has no legitimate claim to the Golan Heights. Its claim to the Golan is far less legitimate than German’s claim to Alsace and Lorraine.

28. The PLO, and not just the Hamas, is itself very much a manifestation of Islamist fascism and was founded by Islamist fundamentalists. Its head, Abu Mazen, is no more “moderate” than the heads of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

29. Asking Arafat to arrest the terrorists is a bit like asking Osama bin Laden to arrest those responsible for the September 11 attacks on the US or asking Hitler to take steps against those who invaded Poland. It is all part of the Oslo era of mass delusion and make-pretend.

30. Peace cannot be achieved through pretending that war does not exist.

31. The Israeli Left is responsible for the bloodshed in Israel. The Israeli Left rescued the PLO from oblivion in the early 1990s, armed it, and allowed it to become entrenched in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Israeli Left is as wacky as is the pro-Taliban, pro-Saddam campus Left in the United States. It is today as anti-Israel as the US far Left is anti-American.

32. Ehud Olmert and his crew have yet to detach themselves from the pipe dreams and denials of reality imposed on the country by the Israeli Left, those that produced the Oslo debacle. They continue to insist they favor creation of a Palestinian state.

33. The only peaceful terrorist is a dead terrorist.

34. Israel cannot restore the credibility of its military prowess through “signaling,” but rather only through using that prowess and putting its military might to actual use.

35. Unilateral withdrawal by Israel produces massive terrorist aggression. Anyone nursing doubts should contemplate what Israel’s 2000 withdrawal from Southern Lebanon produced in the summer of 2006.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 11:32 am |