Israel Ready To Invade Gaza

Israel Ready To Invade Gaza


Israel at the ready to invade Gaza Strip

ISRAELI forces have made preparations to invade the Gaza Strip to stop a guerilla build-up by the Palestinian group Hamas but may have only a limited opportunity to stage such an attack, an army commander has said.

(Read More)

Posted by Pat Dollard 1 Comment

New Video: Hamas TV Kills Islamic Mickey MouseVIDEO:– HAMAS MICKEY MOUSE ‘KILLED BY JEW’…

Our Terrorists Are Better Than Your Terrorists

Our Terrorists Are Better Than Your Terrorists
Supporting Fatah, the Bush administration makes a deal with the devil.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

President Bush’s stirring post-9/11 message that regimes the world over have to choose between aligning with civilization or with terrorists should officially be interred in war-torn “Palestine.” Seriousness about the doctrine is the only realistic way to defeat our enemies, and now we make a mockery of it. A mockery built on the trifecta-fiction that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is an avatar of peace, that his Fatah faction has aligned with civilization, and that the Palestinian people — the ones who freely chose to install Hamas as their parliamentary majority and who have trademarked “Intifada” as an instrument of statecraft — are somehow worth prostituting ourselves over.

In the Palestinian civil war, the Bush administration has unabashedly cast its lot with Fatah. The United States, in the midst of its own global war against Islamic radicalism, is promising additional millions in foreign aid for a cabal which maintains its own jihadist wing, and which is so thoroughly corrupt — having pocketed much of the foreign aid billions that poured in over the last two decades — that Palestinians opted for the more transparent Hamas terrorists when given the option.

Fatah is the creation of the late terror master, Yasser Arafat. It is currently led by Abbas, formerly Arafat’s close aid. When last we left Abbas, the administration’s favorite “moderate,” he was laying a wreath at The Great Man’s grave — the Palestinians, by the way, have turned the site into an Arafat shrine, telling us everything we need to know about them.

Abbas proceeded to urge a throng of 50,000 Palestinians to re-aim their guns at the “occupation” (that would be Israel) instead of turning them on each other: “[W]ith the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue,” he brayed. “We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation…. We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation….”

That was less than six months ago — despite administration assertions on Monday that Abbas is “a partner who is committed to peace.” And none of it was a surprise. When Abbas was seeking election in 2005, he declared to a cheering mob in Gaza that Palestinian terrorists being sought by Israel were “heroes fighting for freedom.”

And just what are these Fatah principles that the moderate was referring to at the founder’s tomb? Abbas’s American boosters don’t talk about them much, but Fatah itself is not so bashful. They are spelled out, for all to see, in the Constitution of Fatah (the name, by the way, means “Conquest” … and would anyone want to take a wild guess against whom?).

Here is what we’re getting for millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars:

… We all must sacrifice ourselves, our effort and time; these are the weapons of honest patriots. Don’t, therefore, dear brother bring your march to a halt! Proceed in your march, armed with the patriots’ resolution, the true believers’ determination, and the fighters’ patience… Let’s not forget for a while that our enemy is strong, and that the fight is fierceful [sic] and long… Consequently, determination, patience, confidentiality, commitment, and abiding by the revolution’s goals and principles keep our march unremittingly steady and makes [sic] our road to victory much shorter. Proceed, then my brother, forward… to the revolution. Long live Palestine, a free Arab state.

FATEH is a national, revolutionary movement and its membership is top confidential. … The Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism. … The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organisation and method. … The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism. … Liberating Palestine and protecting its holy places is an Arab, religious and human obligation. … Palestinian National Liberation Movement, “FATEH, is an independent national revolutionary movement representing the revolutionary vanguard of the Palestinian people. … The crowds which participate in the revolution and liberation are the proprietors of the Palestinian land.

[Our “Goals” include:] Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. … Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city[.]
(Bold in original, emphasis in bold-italics added.)

Sure, Fatah, like Arafat, makes the occasional feint at peace-making, or, to be more precise, at the “Peace Process,” invoking the biggest snow-job of all time — one that enriched Fatah leaders with piles of cash while “the Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence” received the bulging body-count of a second Intifada.

But we oughtn’t be fooled: Fatah is still avowedly dedicated to the destruction of its neighbor (or, by Fatah’s lights, its trespasser) by any means necessary, including terrorizing, inducing outside political pressure on, and gradually out-breeding the Israelis. For the purpose, Fatah-controlled school systems and media continue without surcease to inculcate a virulently anti-Semitic martyrdom culture in the young. (See, e.g., this report from Palestinian Media Watch on the stunning curriculum through which Fatah, in the rhetoric of radical Islam, delegitimizes Israel and Jews.)

And, of course, Fatah maintains its own terrorist wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, in addition to maintaining close ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization — both of which are Iran-friendly, Hezbollah-friendly, and formally designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the United States.

These ties put the lie to the myth that Fatah is a moderate political movement that is secular in nature. Yes, Fatah is not a self-identified Muslim fundamentalist movement as Hamas is. But it demonstrates vibrant streaks of Islamic radicalism, as illustrated, for example, by its Brigades named for the al-Aqsa mosque in coveted Jerusalem, and the frequent admonitions on Fatah websites that prying that city from Zionist clutches is a religious obligation.

The terror ties also reveal the illogic of the Bush administration rationale (echoed in a recent National Review Online editorial, here) that Fatah, whatever its flaws, merits our support because its rival, Hamas, is in the pocket of Iran. There are divisions within Fatah, and it may be freely conceded that some of them, historically, have been anti-Iranian. But, on balance, Fatah’s ties to Iran are longstanding, and operational. It is no wonder that the al-Aqsa Brigades, beneficiaries of Iranian largesse, speak glowingly of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his call to wipe Israel off the map.

Fatah may not love Iran, but it will work with Iran. After all, it has a lot more in common with the mullahs than it does with us — beginning, of course, with their mutual goal of eliminating our ally, Israel. The wager that, if Fatah ultimately beats back Hamas, Iran will have suffered a serious set-back is wishful thinking, not strategy. What Iran cares most about is Israel, not Hamas. To terrorize Israel it will work with whoever is left standing.

Finally, even if, with several grains of salt, we were to accept the stop-Iran line of argument as well as the party line that Abbas himself has evolved into a trustworthy peace partner, there is still the 800-pound gorilla in the equation: the Palestinian people.

Such is the delusional U.S. looking-glass on Palestinian society that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the administration’s staunchest Abbas booster, told columnist Cal Thomas last October, “[Y]ou can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they’re perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace.”

Come again? As it happens, recent polling actually turns out to be more reflective of common sense, which says that when you systematically rear a people on hatred and a cult of death, as Fatah has been so instrumental in doing, they grow up to be hateful and instinctively resort to savagery to settle their disputes.

Thus we find that up to 93 percent of young Palestinian adults (aged 18 to 25) deny Israel’s right to exist — as compared with “only” 75 percent when the total population is factored in. Thus we find, moreover, that when not brutalizing Israelis, Palestinians now brutalize each other. The cold truth is exactly the opposite of the idyllic picture painted by the administration — and given the bile that Abbas’s Fatah spoon-feeds Palestinian children, how on earth could it be otherwise?

Why is the administration supporting Fatah without demanding that it shred its Constitution and unambiguously recognize Israel’s right to exist, as Israel, in perpetuity? Why isn’t President Bush demanding that Abbas not only order the disarming of Hamas in the West Bank (which Abbas did only because Hamas is fighting Fatah, not because Hamas is a terrorist organization), but that he also disarm the al-Aqsa Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad? Because Abbas would be finished the minute he tried any such things. They are not what Palestinians want.

The Palestinians are a backward people, indoctrinated toward brutality. They don’t rate a sovereign state or anyone’s help until they civilize themselves. Sovereignty is a privilege that implies acceptance of civilized norms — that is why we speak of states like Iran and North Korea as “rogues.” Regardless of whether there really are scattered Palestinian moderates, it is a dangerous fantasy to assume the Palestinian people, as a whole, are ready to be anyone’s peace partner.

We are enabling their hatred when we provide support without insisting that the Palestinian people — not just Abbas and Fatah, but the people — convincingly foreswear revolution, terrorism, violence, ethnic-cleansing, and the goal of eliminating Israel. We are a generation or more, at least, from any hope of such developments. In the meantime, as long as we subsidize the hatred, we shall be buying more of it, while giving the Palestinians no incentive to reform.
Andrew C. McCarthy directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

9-11: A Jimmy Carter Production

9-11: A Jimmy Carter Production

Jimmy Carter Is The Father Of Modern Jihadism


From tomorrow’s Jerusalem Post:

We just don’t get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called “dim-witted cowboy,” has created the entire mess.The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter’s ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.” Carter’s Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.” Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”

The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, “Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?”

Let’s look at the results of Carter’s misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Read More)

Posted by Pat Dollard 25 Comments

Seemingly Demented Carter Defends Hamas

Seemingly Demented Carter Defends Hamas

Sources in Ireland say Jimmy Carter seemed “positively senile” Tuesday during his speech and a press briefing at Ireland’s annual human rights forum.

The 83-year-old former American President–who effectively launched the worldwide Islamist revolution nearly three decades ago by undermining Iran’s modernizing, pro-Western Shah in a cynical, failed attempt to curry favor with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini–shocked many observers by issuing a passionate defense of the Palestinian Islamist terrorist group Hamas.

Carter accused the United States, Israel and the European Union of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas’ new government in the West Bank while denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Carter also said the Bush administration’s refusal to accept Hamas’ 2006 election victory was “criminal.” He said monitors from his Carter Center observed the 2006 election that Hamas won, adding that he vote was “orderly and fai.”

Hamas triumphed, in part, Carter said, because it was “shrewd in selecting candidates,” whereas a divided, corrupt Fatah ran multiple candidates for single seats.

“The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah,” Carter said.

Carter said the US and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would “conquer Hamas in Gaza” — but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its “superior skills and discipline.”

Carter Hearts Hamas

Carter Hearts Hamas
By Ben Johnson | June 20, 2007

IT’S EITHER AN UNPRECEDENTED LOW IN PARTISAN DISCOURSE OR POLITICAL SURREALISM worthy of André Breton: on Tuesday, former president Jimmy Carter, speaking on foreign soil, denounced the policies of his successor as “criminal” because they fail to subsidize a genocidal Islamic terrorist organization that has killed Americans. Then, he blamed internecine Palestinian warfare on Americans and Israelis. Speaking in Ireland at the eighth annual Forum on Human Rights – without an apparent hint of irony – Carter said the Bush administration had sinned against heaven and earth in its decision to withhold direct aid to Hamas once that group came to power in the Palestinian Authority. “That action was criminal,” he said. The Palestinian people had elected Hamas fair-and-square in elections his Center described as “orderly and fair.” (Carter said the same of Hugo Chavez’s election.) He deemed Hamas “shrewd in selecting candidates.”  

The world’s most famous Sunday School teacher further praised the genocidal terrorist organization, at a human rights conference, by citing its penchant for bloodshed. Hamas, Carter doddered, was more orderly than the rival Fatah organization, which Hamas demonstrated in military clashes that showed its “superior skills and discipline.” (The Jerusalem Post reported his argument thus: Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.) One can only imagine how impressed he would have been by the “efficiency” of the SS.

 Sounding like a junior anchor for al-Jazeera, the Nobel Peace Prize winner incredibly blamed the Palestinian civil war on Crusaders and Zionists. “The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine,” he said, “and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah.” He continued: This effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples now is a step in the wrong direction. All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there’s no effort from the outside to bring the two together…I don’t see at this point any possibility that public officials in the United States, or in Israel, or the European Union are going to take action to bring about reconciliation (between Fatah and Hamas). Thus, the Americans and the Jews are to blame for divisions between groups of Palestinians that chuck fellow Palestinians out of windows. Only in the most fevered Islamist media are Muslims so excused from personal responsibility for their brutality toward one another.  

Carter does not persuasively explain why Israel would want to “reconcile” terrorist groups bent on jihad. (Few things reconcile Palestinians more than dangling an unarmed Jew in front of them.) The Hamas Charter instructs, “There is no other solution for the Palestinian problem other than jihad.” Killing infidels is “an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his master’s permission.” This makes jihad nearly the only thing she can do without her husband’s permission. But Carter, who once lectured Pope John Paul II for his “perpetuation of the subservience of women” and blasted “the mandated subservience of women by Christian fundamentalists” wants us to fund this misogynist death cult. You’ve come a long way, Baby….

 Carter skirts the fact that Hamas is not merely a threat to Israelis; the group has claimed the lives of numerous Americans. Its ever-expanding U.S. infrastructure may one day conduct terror strikes on U.S. soil. Authorities nabbed Hamas member Ismail Selim Elbarasse in August 2004 for videotaping Maryland’s Bay Bridge in what authorities worried constituted “a potential link between Hamas and al-Qaeda.” Last October, a Hamas commander ominously told Time magazine, “We shouldn’t stand by idly while the Americans are plotting against us.” But Carter has indicated the Bush administration is criminal for not supporting this stouthearted nationalist. “Criminal” might better describe the workings of any government in the Muslim world, so conspicuously over-represented in the Carter Center’s donations – nations in which, for instance, its elected officials have to consult with and bribe a departed leader’s widow to find out where he hid billions of dollars of their people’s assets. Nonetheless, the U.S. is sending barrels of greenbacks and weapons to the kleptocratic Fatah, whose membership largely overlaps with that of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the group responsible for the Mickey Mouse Murder Hour. Condoleeza Rice has also announced the U.S. is shipping tens of millions of dollars to the UNRWA, where future terrorists are incubated. Yet Carter denounces his own country for failing to establish a Marshall Plan for totalitarian murderers. Thus concludes a rational progression for Jimmy Carter: in the 1970s, he blundered into establishing terrorists as Iran’s all-powerful theocratic rulers. In the 1980s and ‘90s, he wrote speeches for Yasser Arafat and defended extremists around the globe. Now, he calls the U.S. president a pariah for refusing to underwrite unrepentant jihadists dedicated to spilling as much infidel blood as possible.  Thus, Man from Plains confirms what many long suspected: the Worst President of the 20th Century does not want the United States to end the War on Terror. He merely wants us to switch sides.

Bye, Bye, Gaza

Bye, Bye, Gaza
By Jacob Laksin | June 18, 2007

“Bye, bye, Gaza.” So declared terrified Palestinians this weekend, as they fled from what, after six days of street fighting between rival Hamas and Fatah cadres, has effectively become the realm of the Islamic terrorist organization. They have the right idea. Although Hamas has offered amnesty to its political opponents, Gazans are unwilling to credit the offer. That’s not especially surprising. By now, few require edification about what Hamas means when it proclaims that the “era of justice and Islamic rule have arrived.” It means, for instance, that prisoners can expect the treatment afforded 28-year-old Muhammad Swairki, a cook for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas‘s presidential guard. After seizing Swairiki last week, Hamas fighters bound his hands and legs, then “freed” him in the following manner: by hurling him to his death from a 15-story apartment complex in Gaza City. Cases like these contribute to the minimum of 120 people who have been killed in the recent carnage unleashed by Hamas. Measured by the unebbing flood of refugees from Gaza, many Palestinians consider the era of Islamic justice and rule far more desirable in principle — after all, they did vote to elect Hamas — than in practice. Abbas’s Fatah seems bent on capitalizing on that hard fact. While Hamas was crushing the remaining pockets of resistance in Gaza this weekend, Fatah forces moved to assert control over the West Bank. In his boldest move, Abbas expelled Hamas from the Palestinian Cabinet and decreed an “emergency government,” with himself in command. The ploy is clear enough: To send the message that Fatah, unlike its bloody-minded counterpart in Gaza, is a force for moderation and compromise; that it is the true representative of the Palestinian people; and that the international community’s assorted diplomats should address themselves — and their aid packages — to its offices.  Will it work? Fatah cannot be disappointed with the early evidence. Hardly had Abbas ousted Hamas from the Palestinian Authority this weekend than the American consul general in Jerusalem, Jacob Walles, turned up at Abbas’s headquarters in Ramallah to announce that the United States would suspend its economic embargo, a response to the election of Hamas in 2006, just as soon as the new emergency government is appointed. The European Union has similarly pledged to work with a Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Even Israel is on board. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert kicked off his trip to the U.S. on Sunday by hailing the emergence of a new Palestinian government as a victory for peace. In Fatah, Olmert said, he saw “an opportunity that has not existed for a long time.”  What Olmert could have possibly had in mind is unclear. Proof of Fatah’s moderate credentials, which supposedly make it a credible partner for negotiations, is nowhere to be found. In his enthusiasm for Fatah, for instance, Olmert declined to mention that it remains an umbrella organization for terrorist factions committed to and, indeed, actively seeking Israel’s destruction. Just last Saturday, one of these factions, the Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, launched an attack on an Israeli military post near Gaza using a jeep disguised as a television vehicle. The European Union has had its own runs-ins with Fatah terrorists. To take one recent example, in January of 2006, Fatah militants stormed the EU’s offices in Gaza after the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammed in a Danish newspaper. One might think that such incidents would cast doubt on the popular narrative that Fatah represents the “peaceful” and “secular” alternative to Hamas. Instead, faced with two uninspiring choices among the Palestinian leadership, the international community has mistakenly invested its hopes in the one with better public relations. Aside from being misguided, calls for negotiations with Fatah are a diversion from the more important work at hand. Now that Gaza has officially become “Hamastan,” emphasis should be placed on isolating Gaza. Properly, Israel has already taken action in that direction, declaring Gaza a “terrorist entity,” locking down the Gaza border, and deploying troops along its perimeter. Even more encouraging is a new report in the Times of London that Ehud Barak, now Israel’s defense minister, is considering an invasion of Gaza, with 20,000 troops, to lay waste to Hamas’s military capability. That still doesn’t address a central problem — the smuggling of weaponry into Gaza across the porous Egyptian border — but suggestions from senior Israeli military figures that IDF troops may be deployed along the Egyptian border indicate that Israel is at least serious about eliminating any potential threat from Gaza. None of this will please Israel‘s hardened critics. In its latest policy brief, Amnesty International lays out what will likely be the theme of human-rights watchdogs who specialize in depicting Palestinians as blameless victims of Israeli injustice. Waving aside Israeli concerns about security, the group concludes that border closures, as “well as other forms of restrictions on freedom of movement of people and goods,” can under no circumstances be imposed “on whole communities.” Similarly, count on self-appointed global consciences — a certain ex-president comes to mind — to claim that Israel’s isolation of Hamas, rather than the campaign of terror that makes it imperative, is the true cause of conflict in Gaza.  But here is the good news: In the new security environment, these positions are unlikely to garner a substantial following. Most reasonable observers recognize that there are authentic threats to Israeli security and that no country could countenance an open border with a failed state presided over by terrorists. Both the United States and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization, and after a flurry gruesome reports about revenge killings and public executions in Gaza, none of the prominent players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are ready to reconsider their view. No one wants to see undue suffering befall Gaza’s residents, of course, but in this instance the suffering is largely self-imposed. Unsettled though the future course of Palestinian politics remains, it seems clear how the civilized world is prepared to greet the Hamas terror state. In short: Bye, bye, Gaza.



“We are now in the middle of the third great battle with totalitarianism in living memory. As with the struggles against fascism and communism, this conflict can only be won by a mobilization of Western resources and resolve. What has happened in the Gaza Strip is a lost battle in that process. There is not room for too many more of these defeats.”

by Barry Rubin, The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2007

The seizure of the Gaza Strip by Hamas opens a new period in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East. A new Islamist state is being established and it doesn’t bode well for the West or regional stability.

And yet we can hope that something will be learned from this experience. Israel’s left-leaning Ha’aretz expresses the lesson with what some would call British understatement: “Anyone in Israel still contemplating the question of a Palestinian partner might also need to do some rethinking. In Gaza, at least, it seems there is nobody left for Israel to talk to.”

In 2000, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down President Bill Clinton’s offer of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem and an opening offer of $23 billion in aid. Ever since then it has been clear that there is no diplomatic solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arafat’s renewal of terrorist violence only reinforced this point.

The problem was not just Arafat, but the overall strategy of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian movement. Since the peace process began in 1993 with the Oslo Accords, that leadership made hardly a single effort to move Palestinian society toward peace and moderation. Fatah did have an attractive alternative it could have offered: We will get a state, return the refugees to live in it, develop our economy and culture and enjoy large-scale international aid in exchange for ending the conflict.

Instead it continued to glorify violence, spread hatred of Israel and America, and raise a new generation with a belief in eventual “total” victory and the extinction of Israel. After Arafat died, Fatah remained incompetent and corrupt but lacked a strong leader. Unable to obtain a state, unwilling to make peace and uninterested in governing well, Fatah dug its own grave. Why should anyone be surprised that Hamas replaced it? At most, Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and American pressure to hold fair elections only accelerated this process.

There has been another important lesson in this recent history: Most of the Arab states and movements need the conflict to continue. After all, what would mismanaging dictatorial regimes do without having Israel as a scapegoat? If, for example, Syria made peace with Israel in exchange for getting back the Golan Heights, it would be the beginning of the end for that regime. Within weeks, its people would be demanding human rights and free-enterprise economic reforms. The regime could not use anti-Israel and anti-American demons as an excuse to continue the dictatorship, deprive its people of rights and material well-being, and mobilize support. The same applies to radical Islamist movements seeking to gain power.

So let’s get this straight: There is no near-term solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is no Palestinian side with which a compromise agreement can be negotiated. Many Arab states seek to exploit the conflict. Others would like to make peace but are too scared, and it is to the West’s discredit that such states don’t believe that it can or will protect them.

There are several key policy conclusions to be drawn from the Hamas triumph. First, Western and especially U.S. policy must get beyond an obsession with solving this conflict. It is going to go on for decades. Peace plans will go nowhere. Hamas will not be persuaded to moderate — why should it when it expects victory at home and appeasement from Europe? Hamas is the enemy, just as much as al Qaeda, because it is part of the radical Islamist effort to seize control of the region, overthrow anything even vaguely moderate, and expel any Western influence.

Second, since Palestinian politics have clearly returned to a pre-1993 status, so must Western and U.S. policy. This means no Western aid and no diplomatic support until their leaders change policies. The Palestinian movement can only earn financial help and political backing on the very distant day when it accepts Israel’s right to exist, stops endorsing and using terrorism, and is serious about negotiating a real two-state solution.

Third, it is time to support Israel proudly and fully. Israel has done everything possible for peace, taking great risks to do so. But the idea that evenhanded, confidence-building behavior can broker peace is regrettably dead.

There are wider strategic implications for U.S. and Western interests in this dramatic yet predictable development. The radical forces have gained a major new asset that will encourage the recruitment of new cadre. Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will grow more confident and aggressive.

We are now in the middle of the third great battle with totalitarianism in living memory. As with the struggles against fascism and communism, this conflict can only be won by a mobilization of Western resources and resolve. What has happened in the Gaza Strip is a lost battle in that process. There is not room for too many more of these defeats.

Mr. Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and the author of “The Truth About Syria” (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007).

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 4:50 pm |

A Lack of Tolerance That Is Justified — Read this very carefully it’s good

A Lack of Tolerance That Is Justified

October 13, 2006

 This week, the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference decried what it called the “shrinking space” for tolerance toward Muslims in Europe.“Muslims have noted with concern that the values of tolerance are eroding and there is now shrinking space for others’ religious, social and cultural values in the West,” the Saudi-based OIC, the world’s largest Islamic association, said a statement sent to Reuters.This lack of tolerance is absolutely as it should be.If anything, there is still far too much tolerance of European Muslim isolationists and their preachers, whom the OIC and its Saudi patrons train, fund, and influence to promote barricaded communities inside cultural ghettos, waging war against the societies that embrace them.For decades, these interconnected webs of mosques, Islamic schools, and imported OIC imams have used the same freedom of speech they deny others to introduce the favored OIC concept of repressed societies to the heart of liberal Europe.Their quest has not been limited to insulating their communities from a sea of democracy. They also have sought to reverse freedoms for Western citizens who want to publish, write, make films, and read. Witness the hounding of the British author Salman Rushdie and his books, the mayhem over the Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, the upheaval over Pope Benedict’s critical comments on Islam, and the far too numerous attempts to ban creative works on Islam.Until recently, Muslims were close to achieving a separate status for Islam, contravening the very essence of the secular state that is Europe’s foundation.But news reports from the Continent suggest that Europe is finally fighting back.In Rome, London, Paris, Madrid, Copenhagen, and Berlin, the talk is no longer of Muslim-Christian dialogue but of the need for Muslim reforms within Europe.In the past few weeks alone, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister de Villepin of France, and several candidates for higher office on the Continent have gone on the offensive in defense of Europe’s way of life.The budding revolt is underpinned by a political realignment. From France to Scandinavia, conservative, anti-immigrant parties are on the rise, forcing the center to shift rightward and the liberal left to edge toward the middle.Laws are coming into existence to arrest, expel, and keep out those who do not respect personal and communal space — which in every case turns out to be Muslim immigrants or Europeans of Muslim origin. Britain and France have been in the lead in enforcing such measures and have already arrested and expelled several who preached violence or supported it.Long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, many of us in the press were watching, reporting, and documenting the steady descent of political Islam into terrorism: Western hostages kidnapped in Beirut; terror attacks against Christians, tourists, and American workers in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; and the imprisonment of American diplomats for 444 days in Iran. We now feel that depriving militant Islam of oxygen is not only overdue but insufficient.A prime target should be the OIC and its Saudi patrons.OIC member nations should be told in the bluntest terms that no more mosques will be built in Europe until Saudi Arabia and other states reciprocate by allowing the construction of churches in the heart of Riyadh, Jeddah, and other cities and the lifting of restrictions on Christians and Jews living and working there.Eight million expatriates live and work in Saudi Arabia, many of them Philippine Catholics, American and British Christians, and Buddhists. They are not only deprived of houses of worship but at risk for punishments, including whipping, if they hold a private service.By contrast, the Saudi royal family has been allowed to fund the building of hundreds of thousands of mosques and schools in Europe, America, Asia, and Australia, where Muslims are free to worship and be indoctrinated in Wahhabism.It is high time for equality.This is what the pope meant by a “real” dialogue between Muslims and Christians — no polite exchanges over tea, but some serious, adult talk about whose tolerance is in question.