Is the ghost of Chamberlain alive and well?

The report "Smoking Gun (see 1 below) was sent to me by a dear friend. To actually see the three videos and/or read the report you will have to go to the American Jewish Congress web page site. The report is very lengthy, over 80 pages, and is broken down, because of its length, in sections.

See 2 below for a report from Stratfor's Friedman re Cuba post Castro who is finally dying.

Ne'eman writes about the prospect for Lebanon's democracy to survive and the fact that there is basically little hope it will without western intervention, which is most unlikely. (See 3 below.)

I am trying to arrange for Brigette Gabriel to speak. If you would like to see what she has to say you can do so by entering youtube.com/watch. She has written a best seller which describes her flight from the Palestinians to Israel and her experience.

The Baker report will be released tomorrow and is supposed to urge we have direct talks with Syria and Iran. If this is correct, somewhere along the way, those who came together in unison seem to have ignored the multitude of direct talks in the past on the part of the Europeans and our own rebuffed past attempts by Carter and Clinton. Iran and Syria have broken all their commitments, have lied to the UN and the Europeans endlessly but Baker and company persist in arguing we need to talk. Iran and Syria have no reason to help pull our chestnut out of the fire.

Now come Chirac and Merkel, basically pleading with Syria, to make nice and quit fomenting the overthrow of the Lebanese government. (See 4 below.) When will world leaders get real? Until they do, they look like fools and simply prove the ghost of Chamberlain still stalks the halls of Europe's capitals and even some alleys of DC.

Nominee Gates stated today that Iran might well attack our troops and a report by Memri supports his comments.(See 5 below.) Is Iran, The Mouse That Roared?

Does former Israeli Ambassador Ayalon know something or is he extrapolating previous comments and doing some wishful thinking? (See 6 below.)

Jeff Ballabon reminds Jimmy of his former words and poses the question what has changed? Ballabon believes Israel's leadership buckled and thus, have brought this new anti-Israel attitude on themselves, in the process. (See 7 below.)

Dick



1)The Smoking Gun

We have charged in previous emails and on our website that, by hiding behind “human shields,” Hezbollah and other terrorist groups have been placing civilians at risk and that the blood of these civilians is on their hands if civilians are killed and injured in the ensuing conflict. Today, New York Times has published a just-declassified report from Israel, based on evidence seized in Lebanon and on video footage, showing Hezbollah’s consistent pattern of intentionally placing its fighters and weapons among civilians. Most shocking of all, the report shows that Hezbollah terrorists were well aware of the civilian casualties that would ensue and callously disregarded the consequences.

Because the American Jewish Congress worked closely with the Israeli military both to see that the report was compiled and to ensure that it was brought to public attention, we are able to present a copy of this extraordinary, shocking report on our website.

2) Cuba After Castro
By George Friedman

It is now apparent that Fidel Castro is dying. He is 80 years old, so that should not be surprising. The Cubans are managing his death as if it were a state secret -- hiding the self-evident -- but that is the nature of the regime, as it is the nature of many governments. The question on the table is whether the Cuban government can survive Castro's death -- and in either case, what course Cuba will follow.

The Communist regime, as we have known it, cannot possibly survive Castro's death. To be sure, Fidel's brother Raul will take over leadership; the Cuban Communist Party, the military and intelligence system, and the government ministries will continue to rule. But the regime that Castro created will be dead. It will be dead because Castro will be dead, and whatever survives him cannot be called the same regime. It will have been fundamentally transformed.

Fidel Castro's departure from the stage, then, leads to two questions. First, what will the future hold for Cuba? And second, will that matter to anyone other than the Cubans?

The Death of a Dream

Under Fidel, the Cuban regime had an end beyond itself. Fidel believed -- and, much more significantly, enough of his citizens and international supporters believed -- that the purpose of the regime was not only to transform life in Cuba but, more important, to revolutionize Latin America and the rest of the Third World and confront American imperialism with the mobilized masses of the globe. Fidel did not rule for the sake of ruling. He ruled for the sake of revolution.

Raul was a functionary of the Castro regime, as were the others who now will step into the tremendous vacuum that Fidel will leave. For Raul and others of his class, the Cuban regime was an end in itself. Their goal was to keep it functioning. Fidel dreamed of using the regime to reshape the world. His minions, including his brother, may once have had dreams, but for a very long time their focus has been on preserving the regime and their power, come what may.

Therefore, on the day that Fidel Castro dies, the regime he created will die with him and a new regime of functionaries will come into existence. That regime will not be able to claim the imaginations of the disaffected and the politically ambitious around the world. The difference between the old and the new in Cuba is the difference between Josef Stalin and Leonid Brezhnev. It is not a difference in moral character but of imagination. Stalin was far more than a functionary. He was, in his own way, a visionary -- and was seen by his followers around the world as a visionary. When the Soviet Union fell into the hands of Brezhnev, it fell into the hands of a functionary. Stalin served a vision; Brezhnev served the regime. Stalin ruled absolutely; Brezhnev ruled by committee and consensus. Stalin was far more than the state and party apparatus; Brezhnev was far less.

Brezhnev's goal was preserving the Soviet state. There were many reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union, but at the core, the fact that mere survival had become its highest aim was what killed it. The Soviets still repeated lifelessly the Leninist and Stalinist slogans, but no one believed them -- and no one thought for one moment that Brezhnev believed them.

It has been many years since Fidel's vision had any real possibility of coming true. Certainly, it has had little meaning since the fall of the Soviet Union. In some ways, the death of Che Guevara in Bolivia was the end. But regardless of when the practical possibilities of Cuba had dissolved, Fidel Castro continued to believe that the original vision was still possible. More important, his followers believed that he believed, and therefore, they believed. No one can believe in Raul Castro's vision. Thus, the era that began in 1959 is ending.

The ascent of Raul raises the question of what hope there is for Cuba.

Fidel promised tremendous economic improvements, along with Cuba's place in the vanguard of the revolution. The vanguard now has disintegrated, and the economic improvements never came in the ways promised. When Fidel took power, he argued that it was economic relations with the imperialists that impoverished Cuba. By the end of his rule, he had come to argue that it was the lack of economic relations with the imperialists that impoverished Cuba -- that the American embargo had strangled the country. That was absurd: Cuba could trade with Canada, the rest of Latin America, Europe, Asia and wherever it wanted. It was not locked out of the world. It wasn't even locked out of the United States, since third parties would facilitate trade. But then, Fidel was always persuasive, even when completely incoherent. That was the foundation of his strength: He believed deeply in what he said, and those who listened believed as well. Fidel was writing poems, not economic analysis, and that kept anyone from looking too closely at the details.

Now, the poetry is ending, and the detail men and bean-counters are in charge. They don't know any poems -- and while they can charge the United States with bearing the blame for all of the revolution's failures, it is not the same as if Fidel were doing it. Regimes do not survive by simple brute strength. There have to be those who believe. Stalin had his believers, as did Hitler and Saddam Hussein. But who believes in Raul and his committees? Certainly, the instruments of power are in their hands, as they were in the hands of other communist rulers whose regimes collapsed. But holding the instruments of power is not, over time, enough. It is difficult to imagine the regime of functionaries surviving very long. Without Fidel, there is little to hope for.

A Question of Control

The future of Cuba once meant a great deal to the international system. Once, there was nearly a global thermonuclear war over Cuba. But that was more than 40 years ago, and the world has changed. The question now is whether the future of Cuba matters to anyone but the Cubans.

Geopolitically, the most important point about Cuba is that it is an island situated 90 miles from the coast of the United States -- now the world's only superpower. Cuba was a Spanish colony until the Spanish-American war, and then was either occupied or dominated by the United States and American interests until the rise of Castro. Its history, therefore, is defined first by its relationship with Spain and then by its relationship to the United States.

From the U.S. standpoint, Cuba is always a geographical threat. If the Mississippi River is the great highway of American agriculture and New Orleans its great port to the world, then Cuba sits directly athwart New Orleans' access to the world. There is no way for ships from New Orleans to exit the Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic Ocean but to traverse two narrow channels on either side of Cuba -- the Yucatan channel, between Cuba's western coast and the Yucatan; or the Straits of Florida, between the island's northern coast and Florida. If these two channels were closed, U.S. agricultural and mineral exports and imports would crumble. Not only New Orleans, but all of the Gulf Coast ports like Houston, would be shut in.

Cuba does not have the size or strength in and of itself to close those channels. But should another superpower control Cuba, the threat would become real and intolerable. The occupation of Cuba by a foreign power -- whether Spain, Germany, Russia or others -- would pose a direct geopolitical threat to the United States. Add to that the possibility that missiles could be fired from Cuba to the United States, and we can see what Washington sees there. It is not Cuba that is a threat, but rather a Cuba that is allied with or dominated by a foreign power challenging the United States globally. Therefore, the Americans don't much care who runs Cuba, so long as Cuba is not in a politico-military alliance with another power.

Under Spain, there was a minor threat. But prior to World War II, German influence in Cuba was a real concern. And Castro's Communist revolution and alliance with the Soviet Union were seen by the United States as a mortal threat. It was not Cuban ideology (though that was an irritant) nearly so much as Cuba's geopolitical position and the way it could be exploited by other great powers that obsessed the United States. When the Soviet Union went away, so did the American obsession. Now, Washington's Cuba policy is merely a vestige from a past era.

Without a foreign sponsor, Cuba is geopolitically impotent. It cannot threaten U.S. sea-lanes. It cannot be a base for nuclear weapons to be used against the United States. Its regime cannot be legitimized by the fact that the international system is focused on it. That means that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cubans, under Castro, have been trying to make themselves useful to major powers. Havana approached the Chinese, and they didn't bite. The Russians may be interested in the future, but they have their hands full in their own neighborhood right now. Countries like North Korea and Iran are in no position to exploit the opportunity.

The Cubans have had to content themselves with playing midwife to the leftist movements in Venezuela and Bolivia. The Latin American left in general continues to take its inspiration from Fidel's Cuba. Now, this does not create a new geopolitical reality, but it does create the possibility of one, which is what Fidel has been working on. If Fidel dies, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia are not going to turn to Raul for inspiration and legitimacy. Rather, Raul is going to be looking to Venezuela for cheap oil, while Chavez claims the place of Fidel as the leader of the Latin American left.

So, if Cuba is no longer to be the center of the Latin American revolutionary left, then what is it? It will become an island of occasional strategic importance -- though not important at the moment -- with a regime of functionaries as inspiring as a Bulgarian Party Congress in 1985. Cuba with Fidel was the hope of the Latin American left. Cuba without Fidel is tedious method, a state with a glorious past and a dubious future.

Past as Prologue

Certainly, Raul and his colleagues have superb instruments with which to stabilize Cuban security, but these are no better than the instruments that Romania and East Germany had. Those instruments will work for a while, but not permanently. For the regime to survive, Cuba must transform its economic life, but to do that, it risks the survival of the regime -- for the regime's control of the economy is one of the instruments of stability. Raul is not a man who is about to redefine the country, but he must try.

We are, therefore, pessimistic about the regime's ability to survive. Or more precisely, we do not believe that the successor regime -- communism without Fidel -- can hold on for very long. Raul Castro now is reaching out to the United States, but contrary to the Cuban mythology, the United States cannot solve Cuba's problems by ending the trade embargo. The embargo is a political gesture, not a functioning reality. End it or keep it, the Cuban problem is Cuba -- and without Fidel, the Cubans will have to face that fact.

3) Lebanese “Democratic” Collapse
By Yisrael Ne’eman

The “Democratic” forces led by the Christian Maronite, Druze and Sunni factions in Lebanon stand little chance of overcoming the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis in the latest confrontation between the Hezbollah and the pro-west Lebanese government led by Fuad Siniora. There are two simple reasons: First, they do not have the weapons, where as Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and the Hezbollah are armed to the teeth and secondly they are not willing to die for the type of Lebanon they are said to desire – liberal, pluralistic and with full individual freedoms. Also, who are their allies? Supposedly, the moderate Sunni Arab regimes should be showing support, meaning – Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. None of the above mentioned are democracies.

Election practices in Egypt are suspect and should the average citizen express himself at the polls it is suspected the Moslem Brotherhood would make a powerful showing. Jordan is a monarchy where the king can dismiss parliament and Saudi Arabia is an oppressive monarchical oligarchy where 2,500 members of royalty rule and women are second class citizens. Saudi Arabia is the universal nesting grounds for the Wahhabist movement – the ideological home grounds of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. These regimes are viewed as corrupt American-European lackeys, the proof being their alliance with the West. Are these role models for the forces of democracy in Lebanon?

There is an illusion (delusion?) of possible European influence on the Lebanese resulting from trade and tourism, but this is of no concern to Iran, Syria or the Hezbollah. Although the continuing demonstration of thousands demanding the resignation of the Siniora government has so far been relatively peaceful, serious violence could flare at any moment and no one – not the “moderate” Sunni Moslem states nor the Europeans will be sending troops to save the Cedar Revolution democratic movement. The EU has troops in south Lebanon where they (esp. the French) are far more worried about Israeli over flights than they are concerning Hezbollah smuggling of arms/ammunition, rockets and launchers across the border from Syria. And let us not forget that the US is bogged down in Iraq and completely out of the picture. The Americans have horrendous memories of the Oct. 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut by a suicide-homicide bomber. Furthermore the Americans are so despised that any direct steps taken by Washington to try to influence events in Lebanon will only backfire.

Late last month Minister Pierre Gemayel became the sixth prominent Lebanese figure to be assassinated by the pro-Syrian/Iranian forces in Lebanon in less than two years. The murders will continue and at best there will be verbal condemnations, investigations, declared intents of boycotts but no action taken. The new direction is being set by the Baker- Hamilton committee “Iraq Study Group” which has a “realist” approach to foreign policy. It is so realist it believes in engaging both Syria and Iran (and Hezbollah by proxy) in negotiations for Middle East peace and security. British PM Neville Chamberlain did the same in the 1930s to ensure a stable Europe and “peace in our time”.

Not that Nasrallah is having an easy time of it. He overplayed his hand this past summer and ended up in an unplanned war with Israel. Worse yet for him, Hezbollah was forced into the open. Previously the pro-Iranian Shi’ite party was working from within the government to undermine Western influence. They held south Lebanon firmly and had built an impressive social and military infrastructure.

Last month Hezbollah and the secular Amal Shi’ites quit the Siniora government in an attempt to bring it down. That having failed, Nasrallah is screaming “democracy” due to his own self imposed non-representation. Switching tactics, he orchestrated a massive demonstration of 800,000 on Friday to demand the government’s resignation followed by an imposed vigil of thousands to besiege Siniora and his cabinet in central Beirut, so far without results.

But the game is far from over. To call off the vigil will cause Nasrallah enormous damage, resulting in loss of face and possibly loss of support. It must be remembered that moderate Shi’ites also exist, even if they are afraid to oppose the Hezbollah publicly. Syria and Iran have every intention of winning.

So far Nasrallah is calling for peaceful massive pressure to force out the pro-West government, but if that does not succeed, armed confrontation should not be ruled out. Sudden violent turmoil in Lebanon may very well offer the Tehran-Damascus axis the opportunity to intervene. After all, if the Baker - Hamilton recommendations include negotiations with Syria and Iran to ensure stability in the Middle East, then what better “proof of goodwill” could be shown than for the two powers to send “peace keeping” forces, end the Lebanese chaos and guarantee that all factions, including the Hezbollah of course, are represented in the government. Certainly it could be argued, that having Nasrallah in the government under national unity circumstances is far preferable to the present paralysis with the Hezbollah “being forced” to take to the streets.

Such a “moderate” and “peaceful” solution will be considered a more “positive” outcome than physically opposing the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis.

4) Merkel and Chirac urge Syria not to meddle in Lebanese politics
By Reuters

The leaders of France and Germany yesterday urged Syria not to interfere in Lebanon but to contribute constructively to efforts aimed at bringing peace and stability to its neighbor.

"France and Germany call for an end to all interference in the affairs of Lebanon," German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Jacques Chirac said in a joint statement issued after a meeting in Mettlach, Germany.

"They wish that Syria will no longer support forces that want to destabilize Lebanon and the region," the statement said.

"Through a change in its behavior Syria can hope to develop the normal relations it desires with the international community, including the countries of the European Union."

The leaders of the two European Union heavyweights also "called on all parties in Lebanon to be aware of their responsibility to find their way back to dialogue so that all problems can be resolved by the country's democratic institutions."

Merkel and Chirac also expressed their full support for Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Lebanon's army deployed more soldiers in Beirut on Monday after the killing of a pro-Syrian Shi'ite Muslim demonstrator raised fears anti-government protests could turn into sectarian violence.

5) MEMRI: Iran Military Leaders Discuss Targeting U.S. Troops


Top Iranian Military Commanders: In Case of Attack on Iran, We'll Target
U.S. Troops in Gulf; U.S. Warships "Have No Maneuverability and Are Easily
Sunk"; Iranian Suicide Squad Commander: We'll Carry Out Suicide Operations
in Gulf Countries

To mark Iran's Basij Week and Navy Day, in late November 2006, Iranian
Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi and Iranian
Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy Commander Admiral Sejad Kouchaki both
threatened that Iran would strike U.S. military targets in the Gulf in the
event of an attack on Iran. IRGC Commander Safavi made threats against "the
200,000 U.S. troops" stationed in the region, threatened to close the
Straits of Hormuz, and said that Iran had not yet given orders to the Iraqi
people to fight against the U.S. troops in Iraq. IRGC Navy Commander
Kouchaki threatened to sink U.S. warships in the Gulf.

In addition, Firooz Rajai-Far, commander of the Martyrs Brigades, commander
of an Iranian volunteer suicide bomber organization, threatened that her
group would carry out suicide operations in the Gulf countries if the latter
permitted the U.S. military to use U.S. military bases in those countries to
launch an attack on Iran.

The following are the main points of reports on the threats:

IRGC Commander Safavi: 200,000 [U.S.] Troops In Their 33 Bases Are Highly
Vulnerable

To mark Basij Day, on November 21, 2006 IRGC Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi
said, "Any time it wants, Iran can implement its control of the Straits of
Hormuz, from whose waters 17 million barrels of oil [per day] leave [the
region]...

"The Americans are sunk in the quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq, and there
is no way for them [to move either] forward or backward. Assuming they
attack Iran, [then] their 200,000 troops, in their 33 bases, are highly
vulnerable. American politicians and military commanders both know this.

"They can start a war, but [the decision to] end [the war] will not be in
their hands. In the meantime, we still have not told the Iraqi people to
act... "(1)


Iranian Navy Commander: "American Warships Are Heavy... And Easily Sunk"

On November 27, 2006, the Iranian news agency Mehr reported that IRGC Navy
Commander Admiral Sejad Kouchaki had said, "We are fully monitoring the
route taken by the American [warships in the Gulf], and because American
warships are heavy, they have no maneuverability, and are easily sunk." (2)


Iranian Suicide Bomber Organization Threatens Suicide Operations Against
U.S. Targets in Gulf

On November 20, 2006, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai reported: "An extremist
Iranian group is threatening to carry out suicide operations in the Gulf
countries that are allies of the U.S., in the event that the U.S. uses its
own bases in these countries to attack Iran." (3)

The paper quoted the commander of the Kataeb Al-Istishhadiyeen (Martyrdom
Brigades) organization, Firooz Rajai,(4) as saying: "If the [U.S.] bases in
the [Gulf] countries are used by the American forces as a point of departure
for an attack [on Iran], these [countries] should not expect to enjoy
security while we [Iran] have none." She added: "If some of the [Arab Gulf]
countries provide America with bases or camps for them to use for conducting
an attack against Iran, is it logical for them to expect security?"

The report also said: "Rajai further clarified that the Martyrdom Brigades,
which was founded in 2002, currently included 56 volunteer suicide bombers,
and was independent and unconnected to the [Iranian] government or the IRGC.

"She said that she had been one of the students who took over the U.S.
Embassy [in 1980] after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and that she would
be willing to do it again were [the Embassy] to reopen."

Rajai has been in the Iranian media a number of times, as leader of an
Iranian organization of volunteers who have registered to carry out suicide
operations against American targets and interests in the region:

* On May 27, 2004, the reformist daily Sharq reported that Rajai-Far was an
activist for a local Iranian organization called Hizbullah, and quoted her
as saying that "martyrdom operations are the only option to expel the
Americans and British from Iraq." (5)

* On June 5, 2004, Sharq reported that Rajai-Far had been one of the
organizers of a conference for signing up volunteers for suicide operations
against American targets in Iraq and against Israel. The report also said
that she had been among the "students who support the line of Imam Khomeini"
in their occupation of the U.S. Embassy.

Sharq also quoted Rajai-Far as saying, "The violence of martyrdom operations
is the same as the violence of the war, and there is no escape from [this
violence]. Although the target of the [martyrdom] operation is military,
civilians may also be killed - and this is exactly what the Americans do.
When civilians are killed in their [the Americans'] attacks, they blame the
inaccuracy of their weapons, and act innocent."6


Endnotes:
(1) Fars news agency, November 21, 2006,
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8508300470 .
(2) Mehr news agency, November 27, 2006,
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=412831.
(3) Al-Rai (Kuwait), November 20, 2006.
(4) It should be noted that Firooz Rajai, quoted here by Al-Rai, appears to
be the same individual who is known to the Iranian media by her full name,
Firooz Rajai-Far.
(5) See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 723, "Iran's Revolutionary Guards
Official Threatens Suicide Operations: 'Our Missiles Are Ready to Strike at
Anglo-Saxon Culture... There Are 29 Sensitive Sites in the U.S. and the
West...'" May 28, 2004,
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP72304 .
(6) Sharq (Iran), June 5, 2004.


6) Ayalon says US won't let Iran go nuclear
By GIL HOFFMAN


The defense establishment is wrong in its opinion that the US will not undertake a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear installations and will allow Teheran to obtain nuclear weapons, according to former ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon.

Ayalon, who returned to Israel last month after four years in Washington, disputed the security assessment published in Tuesday's Post that the chances of an American strike were low. He said US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested otherwise when they said publicly that no options were off the table when it came to preventing the nuclearization of Iran.

"I am absolutely certain that the US will not allow Iran to go nuclear, because this is a direct challenge to the most vital interests of the US in the region and beyond," Ayalon said. "There is a deep understanding of this among American strategic thinkers and political leaders in both parties."

"It's true that the focus right now is on a diplomatic solution and all avenues will be exhausted there, but we all should take seriously Bush and Rice's statements that all options are on the table, because they're not just posturing," he said.

Ayalon stressed that the US would not act based on Israel's interests, but on its own. He said acquiring nuclear weapons would allow Iran to continue its aggressive expansion with complete impunity. Iran had proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority and the Iranian regime wanted to drive the US out of the region completely, he said.

According to Ayalon, the US also has an economic interest in stopping Iran because with nuclear weapons, Teheran could control the flow of oil, which could devastate the US economy and the entire international community.

"A nuclear Iran would threaten the world order, because it could ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," Ayalon said. "I disagree with the assessment in [Tuesday]'s Jerusalem Post, because in my estimation, the president, the State Department and the National Security Council do not subscribe to the notion that Iran is bound to be nuclear, that it cannot be stopped and that it must be accommodated. Such a notion is a self-fulfilling prophesy that would allow Iran to become nuclear."

Ayalon also disagreed with the assessment that the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq study group led by former US secretary of state James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton slated to be presented to Bush on Wednesday would be bad news for Israel. A defense official said this week that if the report called for the US to engage Iran, Israel would eventually be left alone to confront the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

"Even if the report recommends engaging Iran, the talks would be about Iraq and not in reference to the Iranian nuclear program," Ayalon said. "Iran hopes to get a nuclear green light in return for its cooperation on Iraq, but the American administration and Congress will not let this happen."

A senior cabinet member who recently returned from a visit to Washington went even further and predicted that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be part of the American exit strategy from Iraq. He said the US would use an attack on Iran to explain its need to withdraw from Iraq.

Meanwhile, former CIA director Robert Gates, who has been nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday that US "military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort." He said the US should first use diplomacy and work with allies to deal with the problems posed by Iran.

"I think that we have seen, in Iraq, that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable," he said.

Gates suggested that Iran could respond to a US attack by closing the Persian Gulf to oil exports and "unleash a significant wave of terror" in the Middle East, Europe and US. He said the US could not promise Israel that Iran would never launch a nuclear attack.

Asked whether he believed Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, Gates said he was not sure, because "the risks for them [the Iranians] are enormously high. I don't think anybody can provide that assurance."

Gates told the senators that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and its leaders were lying when they said the program was strictly civilian.

"Yes, sir, I do," he answered when asked at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether he believed Iran was seeking a nuclear weapons capability. Asked if he believed Iran's leaders were lying, Gates responded, "Yes, sir."

While Iran had not been helpful in Iraq, it could do a lot more to hurt US efforts there, he said. As an example, he said Iran could provide chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups.

Also, he said, Iran's "ability to get Hizbullah to further destabilize Lebanon, I think is very real."

As for Syria, Gates said a US attack on that country would unleash a wave of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

It would have "dramatic consequences for us in the Middle East," Gates said. "It would give rise to greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. It would immediately complicate our relations with every country in the region."

7) Jimmy Carter: “I oppose a Palestinian State”
By Jeff Ballabon



This was Carter, THEN:

… I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States interests. (Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980).

———-

…we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America’s own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel’s security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer to the world. A strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own security interests.We are committed to Israel’s right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and committments. (Source: First anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty / White House joint conference, March 23, 1980).

What has changed in the last 25 years? Not Israel’s 1948 independence. Not the 1967 war. Not the cynical, ignominous treatment of Arab refugees by the Arab world.

So why, 25 years later, is Israel’s right to exist a matter of debate, while Palestine’s right to exist is presumed by everyone from the United Nations to Jimmy Carter to George Bush to Ehud Olmert?

Why, when the Palestinian leaderships - PA and Hamas - the first imposed and the second popularly elected, demonstrate that their chief characteristics are, respectively, corrupt thuggery and bloody holy war, why then is endless-concession-making, negotiating, retreating, disengaging, humanitarian-aid-giving, appeasing Israel viewed as the “destabilizing factor?”

Did a massive land-grab by Israel precede Carter’s new book? On the contrary: a massive land-surrender preceded the book. And, in fact, when it retreats, morally, intellectually, politically, physically, Israel does become the destabilizing factor - or at least surrenders its role as the stabilizer of the world’s most volatile region.

What has changed is Israel’s own resolve. Why should anyone else fight to support a nation whose political elite takes every opportunity and advantage we give it and squanders it? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which sacrifices its soldiers rather than vanquishes its enemy? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which has ceased believing in itself? Which cravenly begs forgiveness on the rare occasions it actually defends its citizens? Why should anyone fight for a Jewish homeland which seems bent on denying its Jewishness? Why should anyone care about a state which retreats from its victories? Which sheds its democratic veneer to brutalize and displace its most patriotic and committed citizens, its idealists, its pioneers? Why should anyone care for an Israel that is willing, even eager, in its quest for a “secular revolution” to declare that the Jewish heritage is an albatross, that Judea and Samaria are a burden, and that Jerusalem is negotiable? That the State of Israel is, in fact, seeking to disengage from the Holy Land?

The turning point, perhaps the catalyst, was Oslo; the Bill Clinton/Ehud Barak plan to (in Clinton negotiator Dennis Ross’ terminology) dispense with the “mythologies” in order to negotiate. How very modern and enlightened and liberal and civilized. And how very destructive and foolish and deadly. The ideas, the principles, the vision, the morals, the truths which they disdain as mythologies were and are the very heart of Israel’s national aspiration. It was the vision that kept Jews alive through millenia of diaspora and dispersion, crusade, expulsion, forced conversion, blood libel and pogrom, and, finally, Holocaust And the heart may be romanticized as the seat of emotion, but only the hopelessly deluded excises it and thinks the body will survive. Only the deluded excises the heart. Or the suicidal.

What has changed, in consequence, is the resolve of Israel’s enemies as well. And, because they are not burdened by the selfish inanity of modern liberalism, they have not lost their willingness to suffer and to sacrifice. The suicides they are committing are anything but deluded; their terror is a winning strategy. Rather than eliciting disgust and fury, rather than being condemned as unutterably barbaric, the use of civilians as targets, children as bombs and grandmothers as bunkers has even brought them the sympathies of the deluded West. Not only in the corridors of the UN or the salons of Europe - but even in those enlightened liberal precincts in Israel where the stubborn, unruly Jewish “mythologies” have long since been relegated, surrendered, sublimated to an oh-so-superior modern Israeli multicultural consciousness.

Dick