Obama: An/Our Embarrassing Gift To The World?

Best tweet ever...."Dear Egyptian rioters, please don't destroy the pyramids. We will not rebuild them.

Thank you.

The Jews"
---
Just another community organizer gone awry. (See 1 below.)
---
The Executive Director of The Birmingham Federation points out the potential pitfalls of the rush to judgment foreign policy initiatives of Obama and how dangerous and misguided they are.

But then Obama is the Messiah and everything he does and says is golden. We should prostrate ourselves in front of him instead of riot as the Egyptians. They could not possibly understand what an/our embarrassing gift Obama is to the world. (See 2 below.)

More from Stratfor. (See 2a below.)

A more dire view. (See 2b below.)
---
Let Kim's words reach God's ears! (See 3 below.)
---
And this from my English 'girl' friend! (See 4 below.)

And this from another friend, fellow memo reader and cynic. (See 4a below.)
---
Elliot was just here several weeks ago and I reported on his comments in a subsequent memo.
Some additional food for thought.

Mention the word Obama and I get heartburn. Therefore, though it might not seem so, I am initially reluctant to criticize him but then he accommodates me by making a continuing fool of himself, as I believe he has done once again, when it comes to his demeaning self-serving lecturing and posturing about the course of action Mubarak should take so 'he will not damage his legacy.' What tripe!

Watching our president advise Mubarak is nauseating. Mubarak is no saint but he has had to grapple with problems in that region that Obama cannot comprehend. Yes, Mubarak should have listened to GW and Rice and begun loosening the reins but democracy is not something that, Israel and GW learned to their dismay, comes overnight because of an election. Otherwise why would Gaza be controlled by Hamas thugs and what of Iran?

When Arabs live lives of desperation, are uneducated and unsophisticated in the ways of Western values all too often their legitimate hopes and aspirations are filled by the likes of radicals. Carter learned this the hard way and we are still paying for his empathetic stupidity. Now Obama is likely repeating the same mistake believing that The Muslim Brotherhood has changed its ways. They have changed their strategy but their goal remains the same.

Those in the liberal press and media who are sucked in by the Muslim Brotherhood's metamorphosis are the same who helped sell us Obama. I did not buy their garbage then and I still 'ain't' buying their nonsense.

Why? Because they are more prone to bleed than hemophiliacs and lose perspective of the future ramifications of their wishful thinking.

Let's face it - Chodoff and Suissa say it better than I. (See 5 and 5a below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Big Obama donor quits envoy job amid criticism
By MATTHEW LEE

As a supporter of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Cynthia Stroum was a superstar whose financial backing of the campaign landed her a plum diplomatic posting in Europe.

As America's ambassador to Luxembourg, the wealthy Seattle-based businesswoman was a disaster.

According to an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum's management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

Stroum's case illustrates the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint non-career diplomats to ambassadorships as a reward for their political support.

The Luxembourg embassy "has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador's tenure," said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. "At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities."

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department's inspector general was made public. A message left with a person who answered the phone at her Seattle home said she was unavailable for comment. The call was not returned.

In a farewell message published in the Luxembourg press, Stroum said she was leaving the job because she wanted to return to private life. "The reality is that I now need to focus on my family and personal business," she said.

At the State Department, her departure was not announced. Spokesman Mark Toner gave no hint of problems when asked about the situation. "We are grateful for her service to the United States and wish her all the best in her new endeavors," he said.

But the report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

"The bulk of the mission's internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style," the report said. "She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction."

"Those who have questioned or challenged some of the ambassador's actions state that they have paid a heavy price in the form of verbal abuse and been threatened with dismissal," it said.

The report said the State Department was aware of the situation and that a perceived lack of action in dealing with it could be harmful. "It is unfortunate that an impression is being created among officers and local employees at this mission that this kind of behavior may be routinely tolerated by Department of State leadership, particularly for non-career ambassadors."

Stroum began her short diplomatic career in 2009 when Obama nominated her to the cushy position of U.S. ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a tiny nation of 500,000 people about the size of Rhode Island and surrounded by France, Belgium and Germany.

Aside from her business experience as an investor, entertainment producer and philanthropist active in numerous charities, Stroum's major qualification for the post appeared to be her generous contributions to Democratic politicians and causes, particularly Obama's campaign.

Financial reports say Stroum donated the maximum personal amount to Obama's campaign. She also donated $2,300 to the failed presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

As a fundraiser, the records show she was responsible for ginning up at least $500,000 for Obama, putting her near the top of the campaign's money generators.

The inspector general said it had learned in interviews with embassy staffers that Stroum, shortly after her arrival in Luxembourg, discussed with them "the importance she attaches to the perquisites of" being an ambassador. As such, she was particularly concerned about the state of the ambassador's residence, which was being renovated, it said.

Because of the renovation, Stroum sought temporary housing. An embassy official spent six weeks searching for an appropriate property and, using contacts in Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France along with two officials from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, screened 200 properties and visited 30 to 40.

They found only four that met the ambassador's requirements and she rejected all of them, according to the report, before an acceptable residence finally was found.

Apart from those difficulties and management problems, the report identified several improprieties while Stroum was in charge in Luxembourg. Among them:

• Stroum spent $2,400 to fly with an aide to a Swiss "professional school" whose graduates have gone on to work for Buckingham Palace and similar places to interview candidates to replace a retired property caretaker and a fired chef. The purpose of the trip was listed as "management meetings." Although no one from the school was hired, such recruitment is allowed only if there are no qualified local employees. In addition, they did not get proper authorization for the trip.

• The embassy purchased $3,400 in wine and liquor a day before the 2010 budget year ended in an effort spend as much of its annual entertainment funds as possible. The booze did not arrive until the next fiscal year and State Department rules say embassies are not allowed "to use excess year-end funds" to buy items unless they are used in that year.

• Stroum was reimbursed for the purchase of a new bed because she "preferred a queen bed to the king-size bed already provided." The embassy twice asked Washington to reimburse the amount but was denied because it was a personal choice. Despite the refusals, the No. 2 at the embassy signed off on a voucher "reimbursing the ambassador for the cost of the mattress out of program funds." The report said the voucher needs to be repaid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)OBAMA & MUBARAK: TWO REVOLUTIONS
By Richard Friedman, Executive Director


While the attempted revolution in Egypt is in full view 24/7, there is another revolution going on more quietly which may turn out to be just as profound. It's the revolution in US foreign policy that major media outlets and other analysts are starting to dissect -- and digest.

These dramatic developments in the US and Egypt will especially pose challenges for organizations which are dedicated to strengthening the relationship between the US and Israel and other allies in the region and helping people better understand Israel's difficulties and dilemmas in that part of the world.

In a story headlined, "Sudden Split Recasts US Foreign Policy," the New York Times observed, "The open rupture between the United States and Egypt illustrates how swift and dramatic changes in Cairo are altering the calculus of the entire region and the administration's foreign policy agenda." The paper, noting Washington's swift and public distancing from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, added, "Egyptian officials reached out to reporters to make clear how angry they were at their onetime friend."

It's hard to remember when -- or if -- an American president has been as overtly confrontational with a longstanding ally as President Obama has been with Mubarak.

REMAINS TO BE SEEN

Whether the bare-knuckled approach that President Obama has taken will become a staple of American foreign policy remains to be seen. One can assume, however, that allies throughout the world have taken note and are wondering what to expect if they and their countries face similar crises.

There is concern also in some quarters that the Obama administration rushed to judgment and responded to a very complicated issue as if it were black and white when indeed it is not. The Jerusalem Post worried about this in an editorial on the Egyptian crisis headlined, "Beware the Islamists." Of America's strategy regarding the Egyptian situation, the Post wrote, "There are a number of profound flaws to this 'hurry up and democratize' approach, perhaps the most obvious being historical precedent."

The Post specifically referenced examples of other democracy efforts gone sour in the Middle East.

"If Hamas' victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections did not illustrate the danger of a reckless rush toward hoped-for democratic representation without first carefully and systematically building the necessary democratic institutions -- a free press; a legislature with a healthy opposition standing a real chance of coming to power; an honest judicial system not dictated by religious or ideological prejudices; and strict, effective and fair law enforcement -- there is the much fresher example of Hezbollah in Lebanon," the editorial added.

As protestors battle on the streets of Egypt for the future of their country, a new approach to US foreign policy is being discussed and implemented at the White House and State Department. There's a revolution underway in both places and what it will mean for the US, Egypt, Israel, the Middle East and the rest of the world remains to be seen.

Phrased in 1960s talk, "There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear."



2a) U.S. Strategy Toward Preserving the Egyptian Regime
Stratfor Commentary Archives

Wednesday was another Egypt day, but the most important development did not take place in the country. Instead, it was in Washington, where White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used some pretty tough language in demanding that Egypt immediately engage in the process of transition: “The time for a transition has come, and that time is now is not September now means yesterday,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs’ comments clearly show that the United States wants Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down and without much delay. Washington sees this as a way to try to defuse the street agitation. The fear is that should the unrest continue, the situation may get out of hand and even the Egyptian military might not be able to handle the situation.

“The United States is not worried about the end of the “Mubarakian era” and is in fact demanding that the embattled president depart sooner rather than later.”
The critical element in this process is the Egyptian military, which is expected to ensure that Mubarak’s fall does not lead to a collapse of the existing order. As things stand, it seems the opposition forces would be satisfied if Mubarak stepped down, after which they are prepared to negotiate with his successors. Of course, such an event would herald the next phase when all sorts of issues (interim administration, elections, new constitution, etc.) would have to be sorted out.

But the bottom line is that regime change would not take place. Any new ruling elite — if and when it took office — would be dependent upon the military, internal security forces, intelligence service, bureaucracy and business community to govern the country. After all, these are the basic instruments of governance that any political force would be dependent upon.

A key thing to note in the case of Egypt is that the public agitation is not led by any political force. Rather, civil society is behind the protest demonstrations. So, when Mubarak throws in the towel and the public goes back home, the political parties will be left with little leverage vis-a-vis the state.

That weakens the ability of the political forces to negotiate with the regime from a position of relative strength. This is not to say that the ruling National Democratic Party sans Mubarak would be able to continue with business as usual with the military’s backing. There will be compromises but nothing that would lead to a fundamental shift in the nature of the Egyptian polity.

The important thing to keep in mind at this point is that the political forces depend upon the military for any political change. It is this dependency that will likely allow the military to ensure continuity of policy. This would be the case, even if the country’s most organized political group, the Islamist movement the Muslim Brotherhood, were to come to power.

On their own, political forces do not wield much power and in Egypt, where the political forces do not own the streets, this is all the more the case. Thus, the move toward a more democratic polity is an evolutionary process and will likely take many years to transpire — assuming, of course, ceteris paribus — all things being equal. Until then, the guarantor of state stability is the country’s armed forces, which means that the order established by Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1952 will not undergo any major change anytime soon.

It is for this reason the United States is not worried about the end of the “Mubarakian era” and is in fact demanding that the embattled president depart sooner rather than later.

2b)We Are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East
By James Simpson

If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East. Jordan is facing similar unrest, as are Algeria and Yemen. Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January. It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated. A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel. Once their power is solidified, perhaps in a year or two, they will combine forces to attack Israel. If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.


So whom does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?


Obama wasted no time in telling us. He supports Mubarak's opponents, and he probably has been all along. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.


The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed. And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different story.


And if that weren't bad enough, Obama's latest comment to Egypt's leader is that "an orderly transition ... must begin now."


Must begin. Now.


Simply stunning.


Juxtapose Obama's statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran. Tunisia: "Reform or be overthrown." Egypt: "an orderly transition ... must begin now." Iran: "It is not productive ... to be seen as meddling." Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed that the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb'allah have "legitimate claims," and we all remember his mindless counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, reaching out to "moderate" Hezb'allah members last spring. Hezb'allah moderates?


The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies but rarely, if ever, with our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far-left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this president's un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play.


Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers's, Bernardine Dohrn's, Code Pink's Medea Benjamin's and Jody Evans's trips to Egypt in 2009. Following those trips, these same people made multiple visits to the White House.


Obama's breathlessly arrogant answer? Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin, and Evans. Sure.


A few years back, I cited a quote by Lynn Stewart, the National Lawyers Guild attorney jailed for helping blind sheikh Omar Adel Raman foment terror from his New York jail cell. One might think that atheistic radical leftists would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women's rights, murders homosexuals, and enforces strict theocratic mandates. No such luck, Stewart said:


They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination. ... My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries ... to liberate.


" ... movements within their own countries ... to liberate." Given recent developments, Stewart's statement was prescient. But I think it had a special meaning. Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about "liberation," they are really talking about communism.


It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and Red China. Almost since the beginning, Muslim terrorist organizations have been supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or its Middle Eastern surrogates.


Yasser Arafat's PLO is a prime example. Created by the KGB, the PLO was always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and they said so! Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium 210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations, that al-Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent. And while today Hezb'allah is the de facto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is Ba'athist Syria.


David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between leftists and Muslim terrorists in his seminal book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He describes in detail how the left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the destruction of America.


It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of Egypt's sham "democracy movement" is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern allies and, by extension, our own country.


Unfortunately, his view is shared by some Republicans who are so in love with the idea of "democracy" that it doesn't matter to them that the "democrats" in this case include fanatic mass murderers. At best, it can be seen only as incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak's enemies. People make the same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error of assuming that just because a country's current leadership is flawed and "undemocratic," that automatically means that someone else would do better. Newsflash: they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because people who take power by street riot have no interest in "democracy."


If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies allied with our communist enemies. Israel will be the first target, and with Obama's radically anti-Israel orientation, the Israelis will stand alone. We will be next. One wonders if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American flags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)ObamaCare's Repeal Has Begun
This week's Senate vote to scrap an IRS reporting requirement is the start of a piece by piece approach.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Mark this date: On Feb. 2, 2011, a Democratic Senate killed the first piece of the health-care law it passed less than a year ago. Bowing (finally) to reality, 34 Democrats rushed to be among the 81 senators who axed the bill's odious 1099 tax reporting requirement.

Let the ObamaCare dismantling begin.

The White House and Democrats have worked hard in recent weeks to suggest that this first casualty of their signature legislative achievement was no big deal. President Obama went so far as to make the idea his own in his State of the Union address, offering up the end of 1099 as an example of his willingness to "improve" his health legislation. And the death of 1099 was indeed overshadowed by this week's headlines that the Senate GOP had failed to repeal the larger bill.

It is nonetheless worth recalling the 1099 saga. The entire arc of this tale—from Democrats' initial defense of the provision, to this week's full-scale rout—is an example of how dramatically politics has shifted. It has also starkly laid out the real threat that the White House faces over ObamaCare in the coming year. It's not full repeal. With 1099, Republicans have shown they intend to rip it up piece by piece.

The 1099 provision was a new requirement that businesses report to the IRS annual purchases from any contractor above $600. The provision targeted 40 million businesses and other organizations, crushing them under a costly bookkeeping mandate. But hey, desperate Democrats needed funds to pay for their $1 trillion healthathon. By closing this "loophole," they claimed, the IRS could commandeer a whole $17 billion in previously uncollected taxes.

This was symbolic of the entire slapdash process and rotten substance of ObamaCare. Like so many provisions, it mysteriously appeared in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 2,000-plus page bill; to this day, no Democrat has claimed authorship.

Like so many provisions, it received no due diligence, and no attention until after it became law. Only then did National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, a federal employee, explain that its giant costs would likely outweigh any new tax compliance. The requirement, it turns out, doesn't just crush businesses—it also crushes churches, charities and municipalities.

Republican Sens. Mike Johanns (Neb.), left and John Barrasso (Wyo.).


Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns and California Rep. Dan Lungren turned the issue into a cause. By last July, the business community was in an uproar, and both Republicans had introduced 1099 repeal. Yet Democrats refused to back down.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a vote on a House bill that would have repealed 1099 but also imposed costly new taxes on multinationals. She knew Republicans wouldn't vote for it (they didn't), which allowed her to keep 1099 while blaming the GOP.

Senate Democrats flat-out defended the provision. When Mr. Johanns got a September vote on repeal, he lured just seven Democrats—not enough for passage. In truth, many Democrats simply liked the provision, as evidenced by their votes for Florida Democrat Bill Nelson's amendment to keep 1099 but to raise the threshold to $5,000. (That, too, failed.) The White House remained opposed to repeal.

Only after their November rout did vulnerable senators begin to jump to Mr. Johanns. Yet Mr. Reid obstructed. In late November, Mr. Johanns marshaled 61 votes for repeal—including 21 Democrats—but Mr. Reid set the rules so that he needed 67. As for the nay votes, they were now balking at cutting even $17 billion from unused government money.

By January, the pendulum had swung. The White House, eager to put on a centrist smile, adopted 1099 repeal as its own. Senate Democrats followed this week. Mr. Reid, knowing he'd be hard-pressed to stop another vote, deputized Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow (who needs some re-election help) to steal Mr. Johanns's bill.

She changed five words and offered it as her own amendment to the Federal Aviation Authority reauthorization bill. Mr. Reid then allowed a vote on her amendment, while blocking Mr. Johanns's.

With a Democratic sponsor, 1099 repeal got 34 Democrats. Thus does the leadership that wrote the offensive provision, voted for it, and defended it, now take credit for exterminating it.

Republicans aren't exactly bitter. If the GOP is to dismember ObamaCare, it must pressure Democrats into helping. That's what Republicans did this week. Next up for debate will be other odious elements: the individual mandate, taxes on kids' braces, restrictions on health savings accounts, cuts to Medicare. The GOP will highlight each one and then ask 2012 Democrats what they are willing to defend.

What does the White House do then? Some Democrats are already jumping ship on these other issues. This week also showed that—unless Mr. Reid intends to halt all legislation—Senate Republicans may be able to force ObamaCare votes. The White House gave its sanction to 1099 repeal, but that won't end the debate on "fixing" ObamaCare. That debate has just begun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)England my England

Goodbye to my England , So long my old friend
Your days are numbered, being brought to an end
To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh that's fine
But don't say you're English, that's way out of line.
The French and the Germans may call themselves such
So may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch
You can say you are Russian or maybe a Dane
But don't say you're English ever again.
At Broadcasting House the word is taboo
In Brussels it's scrapped, in Parliament too
Even schools are affected. Staff do as they're told
They must not teach children about England of old.
Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw
The pupils don't learn about them anymore
How about Agincourt, Hastings , Arnhem or Mons ?
When England lost hosts of her very brave sons.
We are not Europeans, how can we be?
Europe is miles away, over the sea
We're the English from England , let's all be proud
Stand up and be counted - Shout it out loud!
Let's tell our Government and Brussels too
We're proud of our heritage and the Red, White and Blue
Fly the flag of Saint George or the Union Jack
Let the world know - WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK !!!!



4a) Subject: Fw: SCOTTISH FEMALE COMPASSION


A man was sitting on a blanket at the beach. He had no arms and no legs.
Three women, from England, Wales, and Scotland, were walking past and felt sorry for the poor man.
The English woman said, 'Have you ever had a hug?' The man said, 'No,' so she gave him a hug and walked on.
The Welsh woman said, 'Have you ever had a kiss?' The man said, 'No,' so she gave him a kiss and walked on.
The Scottish woman came to him and said, 'ave ya ever been fooked, laddie?'
The man broke into a big smile and said, 'no'.
She said, 'Aye - Ya will be when the tide comes in.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)The Egypt Conundrum
By Elliot Chodoff


As the Cairo protests continue into the end of their 11th day, cheers, fears, and wishful thinking prevail in the media reports and commentaries. The prevalent themes blend into the fanciful predictions that the dictatorial Mubarak regime is being overthrown by a popular democratic movement. The Muslim Brotherhood, a small opposition party, is a benign onlooker, having renounced violence, and the US is correctly distancing itself from the dictator, allowing democracy to finally surface, after three decades of backing the wrong horse. The time has come to allow the progressive peoples of the region to overthrow their regimes and step forward to democracy.

This picture is comforting, perhaps, but, unfortunately, unrelated to reality. While it would be nice if democracy were to suddenly erupt around the Middle East, the fact remains that the upheavals of the past few weeks have little to do democratic reforms. True, these are popular movements, fueled in large part by the technology of social networks. But behind them stalks the specter of Islamic radicalism that will likely rear its ugly head if the current regimes descend into chaos.

The Egyptian case is very different from that of Tunisia, despite the fact that the latter sparked the former. Transition in Tunisia, while still underway, is proceeding gradually, with a fair chance of producing a stable system. In Egypt, the opposition, driven by the radical Muslim Brotherhood and encouraged by the statements of the US administration, is holding out for the immediate collapse of the regime. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical jihadist Islamic movement, and is the ideological forebear of al Qaeda, Hamas, and other global terrorist organizations.

Revolutions have an unfortunate proclivity to be hijacked by forces whose values are often antithetical to those of the high-minded revolutionaries who overthrew oppressive regimes. One may presume that the French people were as dismayed by Robespierre’s Reign of Terror as the Russians were by Stalin, and, more recently as we know, the Iranians by the Islamic Republic of the ayatollahs.

Unfortunately, and despite the fact that he is a dictator, Hosni Mubarak is the only viable game in town for the US, Israel, and the West. This is not simply a case of the classic, “he may be a murderer, but he’s our murderer.” The alternative to Mubarak, if his regime is permitted to collapse, is chaos, followed by either a military dictatorship or the Muslim Brotherhood. It should be clear that no amount of American castigation of Mubarak, accompanied by public calls for his ouster, will make the Brotherhood support US policies. At stake are issues far beyond the peace treaty with Israel (important as that might be), and include Egyptian support for the war on terrorists in the Middle East, military cooperation, and US access to the Suez Canal.

A military dictatorship will be no better than the Mubarak variety, and, after the sudden American withdrawal of support from the Egyptian regime, it will likely be far more reticent to throw in its lot with the US. Along with other US allies in the region and around the world, the Egyptians are certainly wondering about the value of American friendship when the American president can change policy 180 degrees in the span of hours. Further, what is the value of American weapons when a sovereign government is humiliated by the US and told publicly that the use of those weapons will lead to the threat of an arms embargo? Knowing that Vladimir Putin has no such qualms about the use of weapons provided by his country, American allies are likely to begin searching for other sources of support, which may appear to be more consistent and longstanding.

Had the US supported Mubarak’s position, it could have remained in a position to wield influence, in Egypt and other countries, while improving the chances of a gradual and stable shift toward greater democracy. As we have seen in other cases, recent and not-so-recent, elections alone (even if they are free and open) are no guarantee of a transition to democracy. In 1933, Germany freely elected Hitler as chancellor. That election heralded the end of German democracy for the next two decades. Building democracy requires institution-building, as well as encouraging and strengthening a middle class, along with inculcating democratic social and political values in a society. Democracy is worth waiting for, and it takes a lot of painstaking work. Those who attempt to impose it by quick fixes and slogans are likely to be disappointed when the emerging outcome is worse than the dictatorship the revolution strove to replace.

5a)Israel's Never Looked So Good
By David Suissa - Founder, OLAM magazine


They warned us. The geniuses at Peace Now warned us. The brilliant diplomats warned us. The think tanks warned us. Even the Arab dictators warned us. For decades now, they have been warning us that if you want "peace in the Middle East," just fix the Palestinian problem. A recent variation on this theme has been: Just get the Jews to stop building apartments in East Jerusalem and Efrat. Yes, if all those Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would only "freeze" their construction, then, finally, Palestinian leaders might come to the table and peace might break out.

And what would happen if peace would break out between Jews and Palestinians? Would all those furious Arabs now demonstrating on streets across the Middle East feel any better?

What bloody nonsense.

Has there ever been a greater abuse of the English language in international diplomacy than calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the "Middle East peace process?" As if there were only two countries in the Middle East.
Even if you absolutely believe in the imperative of creating a Palestinian state, you can't tell me that the single-minded and global obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the enormous ills in the rest of the Middle East hasn't been idiotic, if not criminally negligent.

While tens of millions of Arabs have been suffering for decades from brutal oppression, while gays have been tortured and writers jailed and women humiliated and dissidents killed, the world -- yes, the world -- has obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As if Palestinians -- the same coddled victims on whom the world has spent billions and who have rejected one peace offer after another -- were the only victims in the Middle East.

As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has anything to do with the 1,000-year-old bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or the desire of brutal Arab dictators to stay in power, or the desire of Islamist radicals to bring back the Caliphate, or the economic despair of millions, or simply the absence of free speech or basic human rights throughout the Arab world.

While self-righteous Israel bashers have scrutinized every flaw in Israel's democracy -- some waxing hysterical that the Jewish democratic experiment in the world's nastiest neighborhood had turned into an embarrassment -- they kept their big mouths shut about the oppression of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East.
They cried foul if Israeli Arabs -- who have infinitely more rights and freedoms than any Arabs in the Middle East -- had their rights compromised in any way. But if a poet were jailed in Jordan or a gay man were tortured in Egypt or a woman were stoned in Syria, all we heard was screaming silence.

Think of the ridiculous amount of media ink and diplomatic attention that has been poured onto the Israel-Palestinian conflict over the years, while much of the Arab world was suffering and smoldering, and tell me this is not criminal negligence. Do you ever recall seeing a UN resolution or an international conference in support of Middle Eastern Arabs not named Palestinians?

Of course, now that the Arab volcano has finally erupted, all those chronic Israel bashers have suddenly discovered a new cause: Freedom for the poor oppressed Arabs of the Middle East!

Imagine if, instead of putting Israel under their critical and hypocritical microscope, the world's Israel bashers had taken Israel's imperfect democratic experiment and said to the Arab world: Why don't you try to emulate the Jews?
Why don't you give equal rights to your women and gays, just like Israel does?
Why don't you give your people the same freedom of speech and freedom to vote that Israel does? And offer them the economic opportunities they would get in Israel? Why don't you treat your Jewish and Christian citizens the same way Israel treats its Arab and Christian citizens?

Why don't you study how Israel has struggled to balance religion with democracy -- a very difficult but not insurmountable task?

Why don't you teach your people that Jews are not the sons of dogs but a noble, ancient people with a 3,000-year connection to the land of Israel?
Yes, imagine if Israel bashers had spent a fraction of their energy fighting the lies of Arab dictators and defending the rights of millions of oppressed Arabs. Imagine if President Obama had taken one percent of the time he has harped on Jewish settlements to defend the democratic rights of Egyptian Arabs -- which he is suddenly doing now that the volcano has erupted.

Maybe it's just easier to beat up on a free and open society like Israel.
Well, now that the cesspool of human oppression in the Arab world has been opened for all to see, how bad is Israel's democracy looking? Don't you wish the Arab world had a modicum of Israel's civil society? Would you still be worrying about "stability in the Middle East?"

You can preach to me all you want about the great Jewish tradition of self-criticism -- which I believe in -- but right now, when I see poor Arab souls being murdered for the simple act of protesting on the street, I've never felt more proud of being a supporter of the Jewish state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------