Feed a bully - grow their appetite!

As expected, Olmert tells AIPAC, Iran must be curbed.

My response to Rice and Olmert would be:

a) Establishing a Palestinian State will not necessarily stop violence. In fact it might increase violence. Rice can offer nothing by way of evidential proof. Turnover of Gaza did not bring peace. The only thing that will bring peace is a state inhabited by people who want peace. Far too many Palestinians and their leadership do not want peace. They do not teach their children peace. They do not express peace in their press and media articles. They do not practice peace. What they want is more than Israel can give them and the world continues to press Israel, because giving into Arab demands has become the habit forming act of appeasers.

Arab nations have consistently rejected Palestinians, and in the case of Jordan murdered them. The Arab world needs the Palestinian "boil" to remain on the body politic because it serves the purpose of keeping the Arab street roiled. It provides Arab propagandists with the convenient excuse that Israel's existence is the cause of all the problems in The Middle East. Granted, Israel is not without its share of blame but this tiny nation is not the threat that Iran, N Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Hezballah, Hamas, radical Islamists everywhere are and I will throw in Jimmy Carter as a bonus - unless you have a distorted sense of size and reality.

b) As for Iran, yes Iran should be curbed but according to George Friedman the Saudis do not want a confrontation, though they fear Iran. GW is not in a position politically to confront Iran though I suspect he would love nothing better than to turn their nuclear facilities, military and air force into dust and rid the world of their current leadership. Israel might feel compelled and possibly could do the job but at a very high cost. The world remains feckless and the UN and its IAEA has been nothing less than a facilitator of Iran's nuclear program as have the Germans, French, Brits, Russia and China.

It is amazing that this spunky little country has stood the world on its ear and is allowed to continue defying every institution devised to prevent such happening.

Something is wrong with this model. Perhaps it is because the model is based on fear, oil dependency and commercial avarice.(See 1 below.)

If Syria, Iran the Palestinians were your next door neighbor(s) and acted as they have you would either have moved away, called the police or rallied the neighborhood to freeze them out and force them to move. Yet, the world mollifies, beseeches, cajoles and proceeds with PC'ism.

Feed a bully, grow their appetite.(See 2 and 2a below.)

Can defeat of terrorists be measured any longer? Radicals of any variety and cut from any cloth, I have always maintained, over shoot, eventually fall on their own sword. This was true of the Klan, White Citizen Councils, David Duke, even Rev Wright etc. and will be true of radical Islamists as well.

However, freedom loving people cannot stand idly by and wait for the eventual demise of evil. Freedom loving people must challenge their views and engage them physically if need be. This is where liberal and conservative thinking often conflicts. I am more activist and hawkish - 54/40ish, if you will. We once believed in "Don't Tread on Me" but that has gone the way of all flesh. PC'ism dictates our responses today. Pacifism has supplanted activism. Viet Nam hovers over us as a convenient cudgel to beat down those who still believe the sensible exercise of power is justified.

Putting off in the hope diplomacy will work generally postpones the inevitable confrontation. When dealing with truly committed radicals it seldom solves the problem. Radicals interpret and process talk differently. It serves to nourish their demoniacal pursuits and goals. They respect power and the willingness to engage.

I am reminded of the phrase "hell hath no fury as a woman scorned." Try and talk to one and see where that gets you. So as not to appear sexist, talk with a male drunk or gang member holding a gun.

Sad as it may be, violence must often be met with violence. Violence must be made to succumb and often bullets are more effective than words and empty threats. That is the history of the world and of man and even the animal kingdom and, in this world, the Obama's and Carter's come across as overly imbued with their own mistaken feelings of self importance and thus are fools. They play on frustration and man's natural desire for calm, tranquility and peace but their methods, more than not, create the reverse of what they seek. (See 3 below.)

When does one quit observing, sees a threat as a threat and acts accordingly? Generally when it is too late. That has become the modus operandi of contemporary Israel. (See 4 below.)

The Wall Street Journal suggests Democrats are taking a leap of faith with Obama. Liberals base a lot of their policies and decisions on faith and belief in their desire to do good. Al Gore comes to mind. Empirical evidence, unadulterated science, facts are intolerable inconveniences to theory and emotion.

Better to repeat the mistakes of failed policies as a means to possess power than to serve your fellow man a dose of reality which demands extracting a price of self-sacrifice and personal responsibility. The latter is where Republicans lost the will and stomach to adhere to their supposed principles. They became corrupted by power and thus deservedly lost their right to govern.

Ignore the errant child because confrontation is painful - a model for disaster. (See 5 below.)

Off to our granddaughter's confirmation. Have a great weekend.

Dick

1) Olmert to AIPAC: We must stop the Iranian threat
By Barak Ravid

The moment when Israel and the Palestinian Authority will have to make tough decisions is fast approaching, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference Tuesday.

"We must stop the Iranian threat by all possible means," he said.

"Each and every country must understand that the long-term cost of a nuclear Iran greatly outweighs the short-term benefits of doing business with Iran."


Olmert is to meet Wednesday with U.S. President George W. Bush to discuss the Iranian nuclear program and upgrading security relations between the U.S. and Israel.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who also addressed the AIPAC conference in Washington Tuesday, stressed the urgency of establishing a Palestinian state, saying that the increase in violence in the Middle East makes the establishment of a peaceful Palestinian state more urgent rather than less.

That remark, however, was greeted with silence - though the secretary had been warmly greeted by the conference. AIPAC has been a leading skeptic regarding the current Palestinian leadership's ability to control terrorism should a state be established.

Rice said that while the present opportunity is not perfect by any means, it is better than any other in recent years, so it must be seized. "Israelis have waited too long for the security they desire and deserve," she said, "and Palestinians have waited too long, amid daily humiliations, for the dignity of a Palestinian state."

Regarding the Iranian issue, Rice said "We would be willing to meet with them, but not while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talk."

"Our partners in Europe and beyond need to exploit Iran's vulnerabilities more vigorously and impose greater costs on the regime - economically, financially, politically and diplomatically," she added.

Rice also said the Palestinian track should take precedence over recently renewed Israel-Syria talks, though she stressed that the U.S. appreciated the efforts Turkey is making to mediate a peace between Israel and Syria.

Rice was scheduled to come to Israel next week. However, she has decided to cancel her trip, apparently in response to the political crisis in Israel.

Sources in Washington said Rice is concerned that the parties will not be able to reach an agreement before the end of the year, and there will be no possibility of creating continuity in the negotiations with the next American administration.

Meanwhile, in Rome, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Israel will cease to exist with or without Iran's involvement, while in Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni branded Iran a "neighborhood bully" that must be met with firmness.

Livni told a closed-door meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the international community must take decisive action on Iran and reiterated that military action was an option.

On Monday, Ahmadinejad had said in Tehran that the "satanic power" of the U.S. faced destruction, and that Israel would soon disappear from the map - a theme he returned to yesterday.

"This will happen whether we are involved in it or not," he said at a news conference at a UN food summit in Rome.

"The Iranian people are the most peace-loving nation in the world, but we believe that peace can be durable and meaningful only when it is based on justice," he added.

Livni told the Knesset committee that the international community must send a strong signal to Middle Eastern nations that are undecided on which camp to join. "The inability to build an international consensus against Iran will be interpreted in our region as weakness," an official present at the meeting quoted Livni as saying.

Referring to Iran as the "neighborhood bully," Livni said that making clear that the military option is on the table "may in the future mean it is less likely to be used."

2) Diplomats: Syria won't let IAEA visit 3 suspected nuclear sites


Syria has told fellow Arab countries that it will not permit an International Atomic Energy Agency probe to extend beyond a site bombed by Israel, despite agency interest in three other suspect locations, diplomats told The Associated Press Tuesday.

The agency's main focus on its planned June 22-24 visit to Syria is a building in the country's remote eastern desert that was destroyed in September by Israeli jets.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei announced Monday that Syria had agreed to an agency check of U.S. assertions that the target was a plutonium-producing reactor that was near completion, and thus at the stage where it could generate the fissile material for nuclear arms.

But the agency is also interested in following up on information that Syria may have three other undeclared atomic facilities. Diplomats and a nuclear expert told the AP Monday that at least one of the sites may have equipment that can reprocess nuclear material into the fissile core of warheads.

Gregory Schulte, U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, demanded Syria not hinder agency investigators in any way.

"The United States welcomes the announcement that the IAEA will visit Syria and stands ready to support a rigorous IAEA investigation into Syria's clandestine nuclear activities," Schulte said in a statement sent to Reuters.

"It is imperative that Syria fully cooperate with the IAEA and in no way hinder the investigation either by further delaying an inspection or by refusing the IAEA unfettered access to any site requested by the IAEA," he said.

One of the diplomats said the IAEA was following up on a U.S. intelligence-based tip but emphasized the agency had not seen the intelligence itself. The nuclear expert said two of the military sites were operational and one was under construction. He and the diplomats asked for anonymity because their information was confidential.

On Tuesday, a senior diplomat familiar with the planned IAEA Syria trip told the AP that expectations were that Syria would gradually warm to the idea of giving agency experts access to those three sites, as well as the bombed Al Kibar facility.

But two other diplomats briefed on the Syrian stance said outside a meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board that a senior official from Damascus ruled that out during a meeting with chief delegates of the 10 Arab nations accredited to the IAEA.

The diplomats said Syrian atomic energy chief Ibrahim Othman told the Arab delegates that his country could not open secret military sites to outside perusal as long as Syria and Israel remained technically in a state of war.

After fighting three wars and clashing in Lebanon, Israel and Syria are bitter enemies whose last round of peace talks collapsed eight years ago. Both countries recently confirmed that they are holding peace talks through Turkish mediators.
As well, they said, Othman expressed fear that too much openness on Syria's part would encourage the U.S. to push for years of relentless international scrutiny of the kind Iran's nuclear program is now undergoing, despite Tehran's assertions its aims are purely peaceful.

After-hours calls to the Syrian Mission to the IAEA in Vienna for comment went unanswered.

Neither the U.S. nor Israel told the IAEA about the bombed site until late April, about a year after they obtained what they considered decisive intelligence: dozens of photographs from a handheld camera of the inside and outside of the compound.

Since then, Syria had not reacted to repeated agency requests for a visit to check out the allegations. Satellite photos appear to show construction crews using the interval to erect another structure over the site - a move that heightened suspicions of a possible cover-up.

Pressure on Syria to respond positively mounted with the approach of the latest meeting of the IAEA board that opened Monday.

In announcing the Syrian visit to the board, ElBaradei repeated his criticism of Israel and the U.S., taking Washington to task for waiting so long to brief him on its suspicions, and Jerusalem for its airstrike.

Diplomats have recently suggested that the Americans may have waited even longer, telling the AP that Washington may have had indications of Syrian plans more than five years ago. They demanded anonymity because their information was confidential.

The invitation signaled the start of an international fact check of U.S. and Israeli assertions that Damascus had tried to build a plutonium-producing facility under the radar of the international community.

Syrian President Bashar Assad denied once again that his country has a secret nuclear program in interviews appearing Tuesday in United Arab Emirates newspapers.

Israel has never officially confirmed September's air strike on the Al Kibar site, though it has not disputed the foreign reports, or U.S. government comments, on the incident.

2a) Defense sources: Syria arming Hezbollah, despite peace talks


Syria is continuing to supply the Lebanon-based Hezbollah organization with large amounts of weapons, missiles and rockets even as it conducts indirect negotiations with Israel, defense officials in Jerusalem told Army Radio on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Monday in a series of interviews that resumed peace talks with Israel hinge on the current cabinet remaining in power in Jerusalem.

In interviews he gave to newspaper editors in the United Arab Emirates, Assad said: "The success of the talks depend on the Israeli side and is tied to the Israeli government's ability and how stable it is."

According to one report, Assad said direct talks would begin only next year, though Syria is not opposed in principle.

"We explained our vision for peace, and we are waiting for the Israeli response. However, our previous attempt to negotiate with Israel was not encouraging, and what we are doing now is to verify that Israel is ready for peace," he said.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak referred to the indirect talks with Syria while touring the northern border Tuesday. "With the Syrians, feelers are being put out to check whether there is a possibility of opening direct negotiations and discussing in that framework all of the topics about which we will have to make tough decisions and make concessions, but it cuts both ways. These will be tough decisions from Assad's perspective and also ours," Barak said.

Referring to Syria's "intimate" cooperation with Hezbollah, including helping to arm it," Barak said "the supreme responsibility in our view falls on Hezbollah, on the one hand, and Syria and Iran, on the other."

3) How to measure al Qaeda's defeat
By Walid Phares

In an article published in the Washington Post on Friday May 30, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden is quoted as portraying al Qaeda movement as

"essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."


The article said Hayden asserts that

"Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents." More importantly, the article quotes the chief intelligence declaring a "near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq; near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia; significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam."


These powerful declarations prompted a series of reactions and debates both in political and counter terrorism circles, causing loud media discussions. The main but simple question of interest to the public, and subsequently to voters in the US and other Democracies, is this:

Is al Qaeda being defeated?

However more complex questions arise from the CIA Director's statements, which if answered accurately would leave the main assertion still unclear. Following are few of these strategic questions:

If al Qaeda is being defeated, who is defeating it? Is it the US and the West, the Arab and Muslim moderates, or other Jihadists? If Usama Bin Laden is being challenged by his own members, ex members or non al Qaeda Jihadists, how can that be determined as a defeat and to whom?

Would a coup inside al Qaeda be of interest to Washington if the new team is as Jihadist but not as "Bin Ladenist"? Or is it the US-centered interests that are at play? Meaning the inability of al Qaeda under Bin laden and Zawahiri to strike at America or target American troops and presence overseas, including in Iraq?

Is it Bin laden's discredit, al-Qaeda's weakening or Jihadism's defeat that is the broadest strategic goal to attain? Even farther in questioning, is it al Qaeda'Takfiri method or it the global Jihadist ideology that is receding? The matter is not that simple, as one can conclude. So how can we measure an al Qaeda defeat in the middle of a War still raging around the world? I propose the following parameters.

Is al Qaeda being defeated strategically worldwide as stated by the CIA Director?

First the confrontation is still ongoing. Hence we need to situate the conflict first. Are we comparable with WWII before Normandy or after? In this War on Terror terms, what are our intentions? Is the US-led campaign designed to go after the membership of al Qaeda, go after its ideology or to support democracy movements to finish the job? Everything depends on the answers.

Geopolitically and at this stage, al Qaeda has been contained in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Somalia. But al Qaeda has potential, through allies, to thrust through Pakistan and the entire sub Sahara plateau. It was contained in Saudi Arabia but its cells (and off shoots) are omnipresent in Western Europe, Latin America, Indonesia, the Balkans, Russia and India, let alone North America. Objectively one would admit that the organization is being pushed back in some spots but is still gaining ground in other locations. Although geopolitical results are crucial, a final blow against al Qaeda has to be mainly ideological.

How can we measure al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq, if that is true?

There are three ways to measure defeat or victory: Operational, Control and Recruitment. First, is al Qaeda waging the same number of operations? Second, does it control enclaves? Third, is it recruiting high numbers? By these parameters al Qaeda was certainly "contained" in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni triangle. This was a combined result of the US surge operations and of a rise by local tribes, backed by American military and funding. But this scoring against al Qaeda would diminish and probably collapse if the US quit Iraq abruptly, or without leaving a strong ally behind. So, technically it is a conditioned containment of al Qaeda in Iraq.

How about Saudi Arabia?

The Saudis have contained many of al Qaeda's active cells in the Kingdom. But authorities haven't shrunk the ideological pool from which al Qaeda recruits, i.e. the hard core Wahabi circles. The regime has been using its own clerics to isolate the more radical indoctrination chains. It has been successful in creating a new status quo, but just that. If Iraq crumbles, that is if an abrupt withdrawal takes place in the absence of a strong and democratic Iraqi Government, al Qaeda will surge in the Triangle and thus will begin to impact Saudi Arabia. Therefore the current containment in the Kingdom is hinging on the success of the US led efforts in Iraq, not on inherent ideological efforts in Saudi Arabia.

How about Pakistan-Afghanistan?

In Afghanistan, both the Taliban and al Qaeda weren't able to create exclusive zones of control despite their frequent Terror attacks for the last seven years. But there again, the support to operations inside Afghanistan is coming mainly from the Jihadi enclaves inside Pakistan: Which conditions the victory over al Qaeda by the Kabul Government to the defeat of the combat Jihadi forces within the borders of Pakistan by Islamabad's authorities. Do we expect President Musharref and his cabinet to wage a massive campaign soon into Waziristan and beyond? Unlikely for the moment believe most experts. Hence, the containment of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is hinging on the Pakistan's politics. While it is true that the Bin Laden initial leadership network has been depleted, the movement continues to survive, fed by an unchallenged ideology, so far.

The war of ideas: Is al Qaeda losing it?

Geopolitically, al Qaeda is contained on the main battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan and somewhat in Somalia. It is suppressed in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. But it is roaming freely in many other spots. It is not winning in face of the Western world's premier military machine, but it is still breathing, and more importantly it is making babies. All what it would take to see it leaping back in all battlefields and more is a powerful change of direction in Washington D.C:

As simple as that: if the United States decides to end the War on Terror. or as its bureaucracy has been inclined to do lately, end the War of Ideas against Jihadism, the hydra will rise again and change the course of the conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Arabia and the African Sahara. All depends on how Americans and other democracies are going to wage their campaign against al Qaeda's ideology. If they choose to ignore it and embark on a fantasy trip to nowhere, as the "Lexicon" business shows, al Qaeda -- or its successors -- will win eventually.

But if the next Administration would focus on a real ideological defeat of Bin Laden's movement, then, the advances made on the battlefields will hold firmly and expand.

Lately, some in the counter terrorism community are postulating that Bin Laden is being criticized by his own supporters, or more precisely by ideologues and Jihadists who backed him in the past, then turned against him lately. These analysts offer striking writings by Salafist cadres against the leadership of Bin laden and his associates as evidence of an al Qaeda going into decline. Would these facts mean that the once unchallenged Bin Laden is now losing altitude? Technically yes, Usama is being criticized by Jihadists. But does that mean that we in liberal democracies are winning that war of ideas? Less likely.

A thorough review of the substance of what the Jihadi critics are complaining about (a subject I intend to address in a future article), is not exactly what the free world would be looking forward to. But in short, al Qaeda is now contained in the very battlefield it chose to fend off the Infidels in: Iraq. But this is just one moment in space and time, during which we will have to fight hard to keep the situation as is. Our favorable situation is a product of the US military surge and of a massive investment in dollars. It is up to this Congress, and probably to the next President to maintain that moment, weaken it or expand it.

Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime know exactly the essence of this strategic equation. I am not sure, though, that a majority of Americans are aware of the gravity of the situation. In other words, the public is told that we have won this round against al Qaeda but it should be informed of what it would take to reach final victory in this global conflict.

4) Barak: Hezbollah setting up fortified positions along border
By Yuval Azoulay

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who toured Israel's northern border Tuesday,
said that Hezbollah is setting up fortified positions in villages along the
Israel-Lebanon border while continuing to grow stronger and collect weapons.

According to Barak, the militant Lebanon-based guerilla group is also
setting up positions in 150 villages deep within southern Lebanon.

Barak added that the strategic positions were established in a clear
violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which
ended the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.

"On the surface it appears that there is calm," Barak said, "but there are
no delusions here. Israel Defense Forces officers in the northern command
and the lateral units are working day and night along the fence, primed and
ready for any possibility."

Addressing the issue of the cooperation between Hezbollah and Syria, Barak
said "the Syrians are working in intimate cooperation with Hezbollah, and
they are in large part responsible for the transfer of weapons and supplies
to Hezbollah. The ultimate responsibility, as far as we're concerned, lies
with Hezbollah on the one hand, and with the Iranians and the Syrians on the
other."

The defense minister also addressed the recently renewed indirect peace
negations between Israel and Syria, saying "initial contact with the Syrians
is aimed at determining whether there will be proper conditions in the
future to launch direct negotiations and discuss all the issues. But the
issues themselves require, like in any negotiations, some tough concession.
That means difficult decisions on [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's part as
well as on ours."

During his visit to the border, Barak met with GOC Northern Command Gadi
Eisenkot, Division 91 Commander Brigadier General Imad Fares, and IDF Chief
of Operations Major General Tal Russo. The senior officers briefed Barak on
the recent security developments in Syria and Lebanon, and the condition of
IDF units along the northern borders.