Preceding the two articles is a series of discussions by some very bright men expressing their views. They were sent to me by a wonderful friend and fellow memo reader whose family were forced to leave one of the Middle Eastern countries simply because they were Jewish. His family were well connected and had lived their for generations.
---
Discussion:
---I often ask myself if it is in the US's best interest to get rid of Assad. What do you think? E---
---Assad is Iran's pawn and will do whatever Iran wants. So is Iraq, because we left too soon and before cementing a pro Western regime.The Syrian rebels are mostly pro radical Islam or the Muslim Brotherhood. We don't seem to be cementing relationships there either.Either way, whoever wins, it well be a mess for the US. It may be an even bigger mess if we leave completely. Obama's foreign policies hasn't left us any good choices. M------
My addition to this discussion is:Assad is no more Iran’s pawn, as he does not control his country or can send armaments through to Lebanon, thus, Hizballah is the new pawn of power. However, they are keeping their heads down despite Israel's attack on a Syrian convoy to them with sensitive armaments. Notice, neither Assad nor Hizballah made a song and dance about it. However, Iran said “the next time Israel attacks” – notice the words, the next time – so they are not reacting now. Their senior man is just now in Damascus trying to assess the situation on the ground.With regard to US interests; looking at history in the 20th century, the only foreign thing that the US achieved and FINISHED was World War 2. In Korea, no one listened to McArthur, so the USA left, leaving a token force of their own. Then there was Vietnam which was IndoChina where the Frenchies were having a very hard time – what did USA do? It went in, boots and all, without analyzing and studying the enemy’s culture and purpose of resistance. Result, they left with their tails between their legs.
---Let us go on. The Middle East – Iran some 30 years ago under Jimmy the peanut, a tragic aborted rescue of US hostages in Teheran. Meanwhile, James believed that the Middle Easterners shared the same culture and values of the USA (tragically wrong), and did not retaliate. Afghanistan – these Talibans chased out the Russians out of there after 10 long and hard years – what happens next – in jumps the USA to set matters right, and it is still embroiled in a bloody war without end. Then we come to Iraq. In 1991 (Iraq 1) they only did half a job, which was followed by Iraq 2 which cost a hell of a lot of money, and at the end of the day, did not achieve the desired results. Look at the murder and mayhem going on in Iraq at the moment. Let’s not talk about the Eastern Mediterranean nor North Africa. The picture shows regrettably, that the USA in all these conflicts has achieved very little, if anything at all, and as always – pulled out too early.Finally, we, in the group, understand Arabs, but the average American or European cannot believe that the Arabs do NOT share the same values or cultural history, whilst the British still romanticize the Arab like ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ – must be the latent homosexuality in the British Foreign Office. I just say that water and oil do not mix, and it is time the world realizes this before it is too late.One note for all to ponder – the Middle East is slowly but surely reverting to its original boundaries, ending the Sykes, Picot agreement and is slowly forming natural boundaries, very much like Yugoslavia has done.My dissertation is by no means an attack on the U.S., but it’s failed foreign policies. Very regrettable. In my view, America should become the strong man again and, with feet on the ground, hit all the miscreants before they do fatal damage to the USA and the rest of the civilized world. P----
---Could not agree more. Well thought and well said, F-----
I’ll go along with both. A clear development of events.
As with Korea where in this case was a WWIII in the making. Truthfully, we should thank our lucky stars that MacArthur wasn’t listened to. We could have been at war to-day with the Soviets and China. Let alone world opinion.In the case of Viet Nam, America went in thinking it could do a better job than the Froggies. They went in as the saviors of cohesion.
Iran defied the West the minute the Ayatollah came into the scene. Bit the hand that fed him and had a number of prominent Iranians assassinated in France. Jimmy Peanuts maybe thought he was dealing with monkeys when he sent eight helicopters to save the hostages.
Afghanistan was a bit similar to Viet Nam. Oust the Russky and come in a saviors. Now soldiers from all over the world are returned in body-bags.
Iraq is a different kettle of fish. The first go at them was to stop an invasion that threatened Saudi Arabia a long and dear friend of the US. The second go was because of very poor information that was also hyped by, again, hush-hush info coming from the same ‘preferential’ source. Is it not surprising that the US was fed with dramatic information from their ME Dear Friends and have 15 of the 17 or 19 sky-jackers coming from the same country!
A lot of things have been left unbaked by the United States. No doubt about it.Wish I could have sent a video I viewed a very short time ago where a cleric had a Q&A session with Occidentals. His rhetoric was perfectly honed to fit-in with Western values!! Obviously, a number of politicians on their side are coached to give the impression that there’s no difference between the two views on the world.
I’ll join you and P--- in your criticism of the poor foreign policy the US is applying. Just wait until some new guy comes to power in the US and discovers how far his people have been bamboozled from outside and inside.
Pleased to add my bit of poison!
---BE HAPPY, R----
---I am surprised the only reaction to this discussion – was only replied to and added on to by 2 people – both in Europe, Yet, you Americans who are worried, it seems, not a twitter out of you in argumentation or suggestion. P----
Nothing seems coherent. You should receive the messages I get about the happenings in France…… lucky you don’t!!America, like the rest of Europe is falling apart at the seams!
BE HAPPY, R---
---
I wouldn't sell America short. There are some short term problems to work out; also Obama can only do so much damage in his eight years. If his policies clearly appear to be harmful the next administration can reverse most of them.
---There are two big problems facing us this year. There is an automatic cut (sequestration) in government spending due to occur in the next 3 months. If the Republicans in Congress do nothing, there will be a huge automatic cut in government spending. Short term this will cause confusion and certain problems, but long term it would greatly reduce government spending. The Democrats and Obama are doing all they can to avoid this. But like governments often do, when they run out of bad solutions eventually they adopt the good ones.This country has faced many problems since its inception and the current ones too will pass.I am more concerned with the problems that our short term foreign policies may cause. These will be harder to fix and more difficult to avoid. Other countries may be seriously affected.Stay well, M------
===Your answer to R--- does not address the original query by E--- and my subsequent reply. You are dealing with internal matters, that effectively do not impact outside countries. Limits in government spending in the USA does not affect Europe, China, Japan, Oz or any other foreign country. Your foreign policy input would be interesting to us all. P----
In a nutshell, so far the direction of Obama's foreign policy seems to be one of appeasement and disengagement. As I see it, he permits rogue regimes of various kind to act out their often destructive objectives to others without restraint.
---The world needs a "policeman" in many instances to keep the peace and the United Nations has failed miserably in that endeavor. In the past, the US through a combination of force and funds, has been able to control certain world events, but clearly not anymore. Hence the surge in terrorists organizations, who now are able to control whole countries with impunity. Radical Islamists have taken full advantage of this. M------
---Thanks for an interesting analysis and viewpoint. It seems that you agree with the foreign policy failure of the USA at this time and if someone does not wake up soon, it will bode worse for the USA and the world. Very worrying. P----
I agree with you, we made big blunders on occasion, Egypt, the high dam, Foster Dulles. Iran 1970's, the Shah, Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Korea.
---But I also have to agree with Mi-----,we did magnificent things in foreign policy, We seem to blunder when weenter a conflict voluntarily, and shine when we are forced into it. J---
---lAbsolutely right. But the subject under discussion is not how marvelous the US foreign policy, but the reverse. You are right when you say when the US is forced into a conflict it succeeds. Maybe that’s the way to go – but being world policeman is not easy and the paradigm must change. P----
Now we have a man with an unknown "agenda", speaks fluent Arabic, Apologizing to the oil "Nababs" about our arrogance, He does what he wants to do irrespective of our Constitution,the massacre of our ambassador in Benghazi, who was fluent in Arabic , cuts to our armed forces, sends a few modern air jets fighter to Egypt,.... It looks like we have a common denominator here. Is there an agenda in the fog that we don't see or we want to just ignore it? Today we don't need rockets, tanks and sophisticated ammunition to destroy a country, just an economic disaster.
I follow this up with Sen. Rand Paul's seminal speech before The Heritage Foundation. (See 1b below.)
---
Why the reluctance to call Morsi what he is? Is it because PC'ism dictates our foreign policy? (See 2 below.)
----
An interesting take on why Israel and its defenders are losing the propaganda war -the old facile arguments will no longer hold. The internet has upped the ante. (See 3 below.)
---
More intelligence regarding Israel's recent attack on the Syrian convoy. (See 4 below.)
Then why is N Korea testing nuclear weapons now? (See 4a below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Abourezk: U.S. Should Leave The Middle East
By Travis Gulbrandson
VERMILLION — Former Sen. James Abourezk has some advice regarding the United States’ foreign policy.
“I think it’s in the interest of the United States to get the hell out of the Middle East,” he said.
Abourezk spoke about the issue, as well as the rebellion in Syria and the influence of Israel on U.S. policies, Monday during a forum in Farber Hall on the University of South Dakota campus.
The U.S. government currently is aiding the ongoing rebellion in Syria by sending the rebels weapons through Saudi Arabia, Abourezk said.
“My theory is ... the reason we’re helping try to overthrow the Syrian regime is that we want to break the alliance between Iran and Syria,” he said. “The reason we want to break the alliance — even though Iran is no threat to us — is because Israel wants the regime to be overthrown.
“And that’s exactly what’s happening.”Abourezk said the U.S. would be better off not to help the rebels overthrow Syria’s current leader, Bashar al-Assad, because “that is the most progressive government you’ll ever get in Syria.
“It’s a dictatorship, but they’re not making anything better,” Abourezk said. “In fact, if the rebels take over, it’s going to be worse. Much worse.”
Approximately 75-80 percent to Syria’s current population consists of Sunni Muslims, which is a more orthodox form of the religion, while the country itself is ruled by an Alawite group.
“The Alawites are considered by Sunnis to be non-believers because they are the progressive religious sect over there,” Abourezk said. “For example, they don’t require the women to wear veils, where Sunnis mostly do, and the dictator of Syria provides freedom of religion to everybody.”
Abourezk said that “entire Alawite villages” are currently being slaughtered by the Syrian rebels.
“Pay no attention to what the American press says about this,” he said. “They’re following the government line. The government line is to support the rebels, and they’re not going to run anything on television or in major newspapers that will help Assad. They want Assad out, so the press goes along with it.”
The former senator’s wife comes from Syria and is herself an Alawite. Her family still lives in an Alawite area, he said.
“She talks to them every day by telephone to make sure they’re OK,” he said. “They give her the news every day, and Alawite villages, one after the other, captured by the rebels, and they slaughter the people there. Then they take photos of it and they say, ‘The government did this.’
“The propaganda machine by the rebels is almost perfect, and they’re being aided by money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” he said.1a)The Suffering in Syria
by JAMES ABOUREZKThe violent uprising in Syria has produced some predictable and sorry results. Aside from the numbers of people dying prematurely as a result of the fighting, there are tens of thousands of Syrian civilians, consisting mostly women and children, both inside and outside of Syria who are suffering from the war. This suffering does not choose sides, both opponents and supporters of the Asad government have become victims. Their sympathies matter not as much as the amount of help they need, no matter whose side they’re on.In the refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, Syrians who have been driven from their homes by the fighting are not only near starvation, but are suffering from the cold weather with little help from warm clothing, kerosene for heaters, or any other comforts. The international agencies are overwhelmed and are without enough money to feed and clothe them.Inside Syria, commerce has come to a standstill. Farmers have no money for planting seeds, and even so, there are no markets for the food they could produce even if given the money to plant and to harvest. Trying to send produce to market, provided they have something to sell, is a suicide mission, as it’s much too dangerous to travel the roads.My wife, who is of Syrian origin, and whose family are farmers, has learned that her siblings give whatever heating oil they can find to their mother so she can find some warmth. Most Syrian civilians do what they can to help their neighbors and their families who are in need, but it’s more than a matter of money. There simply is not enough bread and heating oil to go around, leaving a large part of the country wanting for the necessities of life.The United States government has imposed sanctions on Syria, and, like most sanctions placed on someone perceived to be an enemy of the United States, only the population suffers, not the leaders who have displeased our government. What is unconscionable is the punishment of a people who have had no beef with the United States.And conceding that the Asad government is a dictatorship, the rebels that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are supporting are, with some exceptions, allied with Al Qaeda. Our government’s grand pronouncement that we have withdrawn recognition of one of the groups–the Al Nusra Front–because they are radical jihadists is nothing more than hot air. Despite this “non-recognition,” these jihadists as well as other jihadist groups are still fighting alongside the non-jihadists and the suffering of the civilian population continues.At least, the Asad government insures equal rights for women, and does not interfere with the religious preference of Sryians. The same cannot be said for the groups who are trying to overthrow the Asad government, as Syria would regress to the 13th century with a jihadist overthrow. The Muslim Brotherhood, one of the jihadist groups seeking overthrow voices a slogan, “Alawites to the tomb, and Christians to Beirut.” Alawites are an offshoot of the Shiite sect of Islam, and are more progressive than either the Sunnis or the Shiites.As recently as two or three years ago, the people of Syria admired the United States. A great many Syrians, like other Middle Easterners, have voted with their feet by trying to emigrate to this country. I’m not sure that this is still the case, given the extreme suffering US policy has inflicted upon them. Although it may not be widely known that our government is both arming and funding the rebels and the jihadists through Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it is no secret over there. We have also sent troops to Turkey to man the missile batteries we have sent to Turkey.Destroying the Asad government is a way for the United States to attempt to weaken Iran, but in the process our government is destroying the lives of countless numbers of Syrians who had, at one time, been friendly to us.Not only has Syria never sent out any terrorists from Syria to damage the US, the Asad government a few years ago actually uncovered more than one secret Al Qaeda plots to damage American interests in the Middle East. Asad turned over the information to the US government, which was then able to prevent the plots from coming to fruition. Our government’s actions against Syria today bring forth a statement Gore Vidal once made, that, “no good deed goes unpunished.”The United States government can bring an end to the suffering of Syrian civilians by ending its interference, first in Syria, then overall, throughout the Middle East, which not only costs us both too many lives and too much money but creates more enemies for this country.JAMES ABOUREZK is a former U.S. Senator from South Dakota. He is the author of Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S. Senate, a memoir now available on Amazon’s Kindle and soon to be republished by University of Nebraska’s Bison Press. His email address is: georgepatton45@gmail.com
1b) Rand Paul's Seminal Speech
Rand Paul’s foreign-policy speech before the conservative Heritage Foundation on Wednesday represents an event of perhaps seminal significance to the Republican Party—and the nation. The Kentucky Republican outlined a foreign-policy outlook—and perhaps the beginnings of an actual foreign policy—that would guide America along a middle path between the boundless national ambition of Republican Party neoconservatives and the isolationism of his father. He declared himself "a realist."
This is consequential in itself, given the sway of the neocon philosophy over GOP thinking since the early days of George W. Bush and the paucity of enthusiasm for realist convictions. When such a prominent Republican senator embraces the realist label, it presents just a hint of a possibility that a foreign-policy debate actually could emerge in a Republican Party long frozen in the tundra of neocon thinking.
But greater significance is embedded in Paul’s effort to elucidate just what a realist foreign policy would look like. Granted, his formulations are a bit vague, lacking the specifics that would have to emerge eventually to give his thinking force and credibility. But he put forth some powerful ideas that could capture the imagination of the American people if presented with consistency and clarity.
Consider his view of the threat posed by radical Islam, which was presented with more nuance and depth of perception than is seen in the pronouncements of most politicians these days. The senator accepts the conventional view that the West is not in a conflict with Islam itself but rather with radical elements within Islam. But he adds: "the problem is that this element is no small minority but a vibrant, often mainstream, vocal and numerous minority." Whole countries, he adds, adhere to certain radical concepts of Islam, and the Muslim peoples are animated by powerful political sentiments born of a long history of frustration and passion.
"Radical Islam," declared Paul, "is no fleeting fad but a relentless force." It makes up for its military weakness "with unlimited zeal."
Thus does Paul dismiss those who seek to minimize the potency and durability of the Islamist threat. No, he says, it isn’t going away anytime soon, and it isn’t subject to the kind of friendly outreach that President Obama seemed to embrace early in his first term. As Paul puts it, "I don’t agree with FDR’s VP Henry Wallace that the Soviets (or Radical Islam in today’s case) can be discouraged by ‘the glad hand and the winning smile.’" By invoking the memory of Wallace, probably the country’s most dangerously naïve Cold War leader of serious stature, Paul signals a dismissive attitude toward such gauzy thinking. One key aim of strategic realism, after all, is to snuff out foreign policy naivety wherever it may be found.
But it is noteworthy that Paul’s pragmatic view of the true nature of radical Islam doesn’t lead him to calls for the kinds of open-ended military excursions pushed by such polemicists and politicians as William Kristol, Robert Kagan and Senator John McCain. Paul writes:
What the United States needs now is a policy that finds a middle path. A policy that is not rash or reckless. A foreign policy that is reluctant, restrained by Constitutional checks and balances but does not appease. A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of radical Islam but also the inherent weaknesses of radical Islam. A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of bombing countries on what they might someday do.
In putting forth his formulation, Paul comes closer than any politician of recent memory to the thinking of the late Samuel P. Huntington, the Harvard political scientist whose famous article (later expanded into a book) on what he called The Clash of Civilizations caused a major stir in intellectual circles in the 1990s. Like Paul, Huntington rejected the notion, embraced with such earnest conviction by many American leaders after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, that Islam’s radical elements represent merely a small segment of the Muslim civilization. "Some Westerners," wrote Huntington, "…have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremism. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise."
But, also like Paul, Huntington didn’t see this reality as calling for an extensive American attack on radical Islam to protect Americans. Indeed, he argued that such an approach could exacerbate existing tensions between the civilizations. That’s because civilizational conflicts, far more than territorial disputes or even ideological ones such as the Cold War, are extremely difficult to adjudicate or terminate. "Differences among civilizations are…basic," wrote Huntington. "Over the centuries…[these] differences have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts."
Huntington, like Paul, opposed the Iraq War in large measure because he saw that it would enflame the world of Islam and heighten tensions between it and the West. They favored instead a more measured approach summed up by Paul when he said in his Heritage speech: "Containing radical Islam requires a worldwide strategy like containment. It requires counterforce at a series of constantly shifting worldwide points. But counterforce does not necessarily mean large-scale land wars with hundreds of thousands of troops nor does it always mean a military action at all."
In his speech, Paul lauded Cold War thinker George Kennan for articulating a strategy based on a careful calibration of U.S. interests. Kennan, he said, objected to President Harry Truman’s "implied obligation to act wherever Soviet aggression or intimidation occurred, without regard to whether American interests were at stake or the means existed with which to defend them." After all, not every cluster of Islamic radicals in far-flung outposts of the world constitutes a threat to the United States, just as not every two-bit Communist regime constituted a Cold War threat. Paul’s "saner, more balanced approach to foreign policy" would take account of these distinctions.
Paul was particularly intriguing in his assessment of Ronald Reagan, often invoked by neoconservatives as a model for their aggressive foreign-policy prescriptions. This is a false analogy, says Paul, adding that Reagan’s foreign policy was "robust but also restrained." He quotes Reagan adviser Jack Matlock as saying the fortieth president’s Soviet policy "had more in common with Kennan’s thinking than the policy of any of Reagan’s predecessors." The Cold War ended, Paul argues, because the engine of capitalism defeated the engine of socialism. "Reagan aided and abetted this end not by ‘liberation’ of captive people," but with tough talk accompanied by a willingness to engage diplomatically. And he praises Reagan’s "strategic ambiguity"—his willingness to keep the world guessing about just how he defined his own foreign policy.
This was far more effective, says Paul, than the current tendency to outline precisely what the United States will and won’t accept from other countries, which he suggests undermines effective diplomacy. He is particularly critical of how this has worked vis-à-vis Iran, which has been told that "all options are on the table" (meaning, obviously, the military option) while U.S. officials sternly remove from the table any prospect of containment and have handled the diplomatic option in ways suggesting limited interest in that as well. Just as it would be unwise to state unequivocally that we will accept containment as a policy against a nuclear Iran, says Paul, it is equally unwise to say we will never accept containment. "War," said Paul, "should never be our only option."
And yet Washington operates in a political environment in which it is not acceptable to question the bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Those who do so, says Paul, are "immediately castigated, rebuked and their patriotism challenged." He adds, "The most pressing question of the day, Iran developing nuclear weapons, is allowed to have less debate in this country than it receives in Israel."
He bolsters that assertion by citing Israeli high officials and former officials who have stepped forward with warnings about a military strike against Iran. These include the current head of the Mossad, a former head of the Mossad, the former chief of Israel’s domestic-security service, and the army chief of staff. Paul sees little of this kind of dissent in U.S. political discourse.
There is plenty in Paul’s speech worthy of debate, but that’s the point. He wants to generate debate on matters that in recent years have received little serious discourse within the Republican Party—and not much more within the broader confines of official Washington. This should be welcomed by anyone who wants the country’s foreign-policy decisions to be vetted, weighed, adjudicated and pushed through a process of sound and measured consideration. Perhaps prospects of another disastrous Iraq War could thus be diminished.
It is widely believed in Washington that Rand Paul plans to run for president in 2016. If he does, and if he hones and refines this Heritage message to a fine point, then we can learn if such views can find resonance among Republican voters in the primaries or whether the aggressive foreign-policy outlook of the party’s neoconservatives will inevitably hold sway. Either way, let the games begin.
Robert W. Merry is editor of The National Interest and the author of books on American history and foreign policy. His most recent book is Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obscuring the True Face of Mohamed Morsi
By Michael Kravshik
Why can't the Western media and the Obama administration call Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi out for what he is -- a racist? On the contrary, both groups have a frightening habit of portraying Morsi as a respectable politician, someone whose values resemble something similar to our own. The horrific comments made a few years back by Morsi that have recently made it to the headlines are a prime example of this disquieting trend.
Take this comment by New York Times writer David Kirkpatrick, for example:
[T]he exposure this month of [Morsi's] virulent comments ... have revealed sharp anti-Semitic and anti-Western sentiments, raising questions about Mr. Morsi's efforts to present himself as a force for moderation and stability. Instead, the disclosures have strengthened the position of those who say Israel's Arab neighbors are unwilling to commit to peace with the Jewish state.
Do Morsi's comments merely "raise questions about his moderation" or "strengthen the position" of those saying he is unwilling to make peace? "We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews" should do more than just raise questions about Morsi's moderation.
Morsi, who clearly sees no difference between Jews and Zionists, goes on to call them "bloodsuckers" and "descendants of apes and pigs." He then declares that "[t]he land of Palestine will not be freed except through resistance." Does this seem like the future bearer of peace to the region?
Kirkpatrick seems genuinely confused about the nature of such statements, despite their candidly blunt articulation. He goes on to analyze the political implications of the comments in the way one would go about describing Romney's position on health care, or Obama's tax plan. Kirkpatrick labels Morsi's statements as a liability abroad but as standard discourse at home -- circumstances which put Morsi him in quite a bind. Well, yes, it must be very difficult to pretend you're not a racist when you really are one. Even more challenging when your political base demands that you remain that way and stay vocal about it.
This is a striking example of the media's attempt to impose Western political norms on a region that clearly does not conform to such standards. None of Romney's, Obama's, or even Biden's past comments amounted to extreme bigotry. Why, then, does Kirkpatrick treat Morsi's comments as just another run-of-the-mill political gaffe -- something that merely upsets one political constituency or another?
Saving judgment on whether Mr. Kirkpatrick is actually blind to the reality or just choosing to ignore it, repeated attempts by the media to portray Morsi's politics as moderate, or something not at all different from our own (something not confined to Mr. Kirkpatrick) are deplorable and, in the long run, extremely damaging.
This type of disingenuous reporting eventually plants the seed in Western readers that such comments are reasonable and therefore acceptable merely because, in Kirkpatrick's words, it is "standard stump discourse." That Morsi can't "clarify" or retract his comments because it would be politically damaging -- since so many of his supports are virulent anti-Semites -- has somehow become a justifiable response to learning of their existence.
The response of the Obama administration has been only marginally better. Yes, various officials have released a slew of weakly worded condemnations. But you'd think that such appalling comments would warrant the personal attention of, and a statement by, the president himself. Unfortunately, so far he has been silent on the matter, relegating that duty to his underlings. One of these, White House spokesman Jay Carney, seems to be just as delusional as Kirkpatrick on the subject, telling reporters:
We believe that President Morsi should make clear that he respects people of all faiths and that this type of rhetoric is unacceptable in a democratic Egypt." No, it's Mr. Carney who should make clear that Morsi doesn't respect people of all faiths, something that's blatantly obvious at this point. In a similarly bigoted rant Morsi claims, "[Jews] have been fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout their history. They are hostile by nature.
How much evidence of this severe prejudice is needed for it to be called what it is?
Of course, Mr. Carney and the Obama administration are aware of the reality, but instead of just being honest, they seem to have decided that the best course of action is to make excuses for Morsi and sweep the whole unpleasant business under the carpet. If another world leader made similar remarks -- say, Benjamin Netanyahu about the Palestinians -- would that have been treated with the same level of nonchalance?
Mohammed el-Baradei, an Egyptian politician and former head of the IAEA, had this to say regarding Morsi's comments: "We are all aware that those statements were not taken out of context and that this discourse is very common among a large number of clerics and members of Islamist groups." And indeed it hasn't taken long for more comments to surface. Just recently, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, a senior figure close to President Morsi, Fathi Shihab-Eddim, called the Holocaust a myth made up by U.S. intelligence.
Despite all of this, the Obama administration still concluded that a good course of action is to supply Morsi with another $1.5 billion in aid -- aid bereft of any conditions on its use, even as Morsi calls Americans his "enemies" in the same hate-filled rant. The whitewashing continues, even amid the deadly anti-Morsi protests currently sweeping through Egypt. These protests provide resounding recognition that a great many Egyptians themselves do not view Morsi as the keeper of their revolution. Why, then, does the West help Morsi maintain the charade?
It's time our media and the Obama administration stop the superficial quest to portray Morsi as something he is not. These comments cannot be judged on the same merits as a debate on implementing health care or raising taxes. We need to call President Morsi what he is: an unrelenting anti-Semite, and a purveyor of exactly the kind of thinking that we in the West abhor.
Michael Kravshik is a chartered accountant who is obtaining his masters in conflict analysis focusing on the Middle East. Visit his blog at www.kraxinlogic.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)How not to Defend Israel
By Mike KonradRead more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/how_not_to_defend_israel.html#ixzz2KU6FJMEC
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Experience has taught me that some of the worst anti-Israel polemics come from those who think they are defending Israel. In an age where large sections of the planet have access to the internet, the old methods for defending Israel will not work. Tired shibboleths will fail and prove to be counterproductive. Zionists are using old strategies to fight a new war; and Israel is losing the propaganda battle.
A classic case of this is Newt Gingrich's recent statement that Palestinians are an "invented people." Well, we all knew what he meant, and surely his motives were right; but the statement was abysmal.
We Americans invented ourselves in 1776. Prior to that, the colonials were fighting for the rights of Englishmen, not independence. The Argentines, Mexicans, Chileans, much of Latin America invented themselves in 1810 when revolution ripped through two continents. It didn't matter whether Newt Gingrich was right or not; what mattered was that his point was meaningless. Nations and peoples invent and reinvent themselves all the time. Instead of helping Israel, that statement backfired and Gingrich ended up looking foolish, except to stalwarts.
The next argument often used is that the UN voted to partition Israel in 1947. Well this sounds good; but the fact is that only the General Assembly voted to partition Israel. After the Arabs walked out, the whole matter degenerated into war. It never went to the Security Council, which was necessary for legal standing.
Zionist supporters, at that time, made a point of this in defending Israel's expansion beyond the 1947 partition lines. They did not feel bound by the General Assembly vote, either. To uphold the General Assembly vote may inadvertently give the Arabs standing to claim everything back to 1947 partition boundaries. With an educated anti-Zionist population on the internet, that weak argument will be chopped to shreds.
Of course, none of this invalidates Israel; but it does mean that the old facile arguments will no longer hold. The internet has upped the ante.
Another mistake is to cite the Balfour Declaration as justification when it was merely a recommendation.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Altogether noble and wonderful, but it has no legal standing. The Balfour Declaration devolves to the realm of good wishes.
Of course, then the San Remo Conference of 1920 is brought up whereby the British were empowered to set up the Palestinian Mandate as a homeland for the Jewish people by the authority of the League of Nations. The problem is that the document has a fatal flaw. In typical British fashion, the document used weasel words to talk out of both sides of the mouth. It incorporated the Balfour Declaration's insidious escape clause.
...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...
This is no minor issue. In 1939, in the infamous MacDonald White Paper, the British used that escape clause to cut off Jewish immigration to Palestine, thereby damning millions of Jews to the gas chambers.
His Majesty's Government... would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.
We rarely hear about this in Anglophilic America, but many Israelis consider the British to be passive accessories to the Holocaust. When the British finally decided to speak "unequivocally," it was in favor of the Arabs.
Perfidious Albion; but treacherous though it may have been, it was legal. The San Remo Document provided Britain an escape clause. It matters not what the conferees said in 1920, they did not have the guts to declare themselves unequivocally in favor of the Jews at that time; and they muzzled their support for the Jews in ambiguous language.
Anti-Zionists know this flaw quite well. Churchill himself in his White Paper of 1922, inadvertently alluded as much:
Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." HMG regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine.
Just exactly what were the English contemplating? Apparently not much more than a kosher version of an Apache reservation in a greater Arab state.
When I bring this up to Zionist supporters, in an effort to hone their skills, it is I who am criticized as trashing Israel, when all I am doing is pointing out the fallacies in their apologetics.
Another myth which may hurt Israel is that the land was empty. Actually, while some parts were empty, there were approx 550,000 people on the land by 1900, almost all of them non-Jewish, admitted by even Jewish sources. Most of these Arabs were not new arrivals. Some were, but not all. High Arab birthrates could explain most of the Arab increase after that, between 1900 and 1947.
Of course, Mark Twain is quoted where he proclaims how barren the land is in one area; but what is ignored is where Twain speaks of a highly populated Nablus (or it would not have been highly cultivated).
The narrow canon [sic] in which Nablous, or Shechem, is situated, is under high cultivation, and the soil is exceedingly black and fertile. It is well watered, and its affluent vegetation gains effect by contrast with the barren hills that tower on either side -- Innocents Abroad
Twain, though a sympathetic to the Jews, was not reliable. He was given to poetic exaggeration.
More reliable is Napoleon's defeat at Acre in 1799. Acre's defense would not have been so stiff had the land been empty. Oddly enough, during his campaign, Napoleon entertained the idea of creating a Jewish state.
Israelis, and the Jewish people, make a serious tactical mistake in how they defend Israel. They seek approbation from the world's legal systems for their actions. Herzl tried to get the support of the Kaiser, before the Zionists had lucked -- if lucky it was, given later actions -- upon British support. All of this was a search for respectable approval. All of it failed.
The world's legal systems are flawed. Men are not perfect. If Israel can be justified by a UN vote in 1947, it can be dissolved by a UN vote today. In a sad parody of a Jewish prayer, "What the United Nations giveth, the United Nations taketh away; blessed be the name of the United Nations."
Israel's claim to the land can be better defended apart from legal systems.
1) History: This is incontrovertible. The Jews were in the land.
2) Archeology: You cannot sink a shovel in Israel without bringing up Jewish artifacts
3) Continuous Presence: Though not a majority until 1948, Jews were always trying to return. They were constantly being kicked out whenever their presence grew, only to return again.
4) DNA: There is evidence showing that most Jews have a genetic connection to the Mideast. DNA destroys Koestler's claims of a Khazarian origin for the Jews. Not all Modern Jews are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but clearly most are.
5) The Bible: If you believe it. There is no double talking equivocation in the Abrahamic Covenant. No escape clause.
The first four are not debateable.
No congress or parliament can rewrite history. Many try, but all have failed. Historical artifacts are beyond debate. A Roman coin saying Judaea Capta can undo mountains of Arab academic papers denying Jewish history. During every period of history, historical records speak of Jews in the land, often with an aim to expel them. DNA, which is history writ in genome, cannot be fudged.
These facts do not depend on this treaty or that treaty. They are not dependant on some foreign power showing good favor to the Jewish people. The last case, the Bible, offers the Jews the protection of a power far more reliable than Britain or the U.S. Congress.
These, and only these, should be used to defend Israel. Everything else can be manipulated by anti-Zionists, and have been, quite effectively.
The Arab is not stupid. What does he care about Western Law? If San Remo was legal according to Western precedent, the Arab feels bound by Sharia, and ignores Western jurists. Why should he feel obliged to respect Imperial British and French demarcations upon the Islamic Ummah? The force of Western decrees faded with the collapse of Western Power. This is the folly of the infidel. The Romans, the Crusaders, the Mongols, the Turks have all gone. The Arab remains.
The Arab has to be presented with facts not subject to subjective jurisprudence, either Western or Islamic.
What is more amazing is why the Jewish people use such an appeal to legalism to defend Israel. That is the greater issue.
What is more amazing is why the Jewish people use such an appeal to legalism to defend Israel. That is the greater issue.
The Jewish settler does not depend on the UN for building his settlements. He cites the Bible as his authority. We might criticize the settler for brutal actions, or property theft, which have been documented on occasion -- and where proven, such be condemned -- but at least he does not base his claim to Israel on flawed legal theory. In this he is to be admired above so many talking heads with degrees. His actions may not always be pure, but his logic is irrefutable.
If I might opine, the tendency of Zionist apologists to seek legal justification is a fatal flaw. Every ethnic group has its virtues and its flaws; the Jews are no different.
If there is a flaw in many Jews, it is the tendency to conflate legality with morality. This no doubt stems from the elevated view of law (Torah) in Jewish culture. What is legal is right. This may be true were the world perfect, but it is not. It would have had some justification if the legal sanction being sought were biblical, but all too often what was sought was sanction from man-made law; and that would prove tragic for the Jewish people, as we have seen.
So, there is a tendency to seek legal approval for Israel's actions. Herzl sought the protection of Germany. Weizmann got the approval of the British. The Zionists got the Mandate from the League of Nations. It was all legal, signed, and sealed. It was all worthless.
The ironic thing is that the first and second Aliyahs (prior to 1917) occurred without any help from world powers. Early pioneers from Eastern Europe and Yemen got up and left on their own. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda did not need state sanction to resurrect Hebrew; he was often condemned by the rabbis for trying to bring it out of Torah study. Yet these prospered.
Jews have succeeded most when they have acted on simple faith apart from legal approval. When they have sought the world's legal approval, they have failed; often catastrophically.
From a Christian point of view this would make sense. Christians, while respecting law, place faith, grace, and love as higher standards.
This may be the one fatal flaw in Jewish history.
Two thousand years ago, a teacher came along, who by all accounts was very popular with the Jewish people, though not the Jewish leadership. They were afraid of him. He would not buckle under to their rules and legalisms. So they connived to bring him before the Romans; doing so at night, because they knew the Jewish people would not approve.
The Romans offered to let the teacher go, finding no fault with the man. But the leadership told the Romans, "We have no king but Caesar."
Whatever one thinks of that teacher, one thing is clear: For the past 2,000 years, the Jews have been seeking legal approval from worldly powers -- Caesar by another name.
A tragic transaction was made at that moment; the Jewish leadership, without the approval of the Jewish people, placed the Jewish people under worldly rule, under Caesar.
Since then, the Jews have been seeking the approval of Caesar. Herzl tried getting help from the Kaiser, whose very title means "Caesar." When that didn't work, Weizmann tried getting help from Britain. Then the Zionists trusted the League of Nations. Now, they yield to our own Congress.
They want Caesar's favor.
What they should remember is that a mere forty years after those high priests said, "We have no king but Caesar," the Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, renamed the land Palestine, and started the process of evicting Jews.
Caesar is not reliable!
So if you are a Zionist, and meet me in a chat room; please do not appeal to Caesar's documents in your defense of Israel. There is no point to it.
Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is not Jewish, Latin, or Arab. He runs a website, http://latinarabia.com/where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America. He wishes his Spanish were better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)First Satellite Photos from Scene of Syrian Attack
IsraelDefense has obtained initial satellite photography from the scene ofthe attack in Syria attributed to Israel. According to an analysis by Ronen
Solomon, it is discernable that the attack was aimed at a convoy. The key
question – what was its cargo?
By Ronen Solomon
The IDF deployed several Iron Dome batteries in the Israeli north in the
past two weeks against the backdrop of the increasing activity surrounding
Israel's concern over the collapse of the Assad regime, and the possibility
of Hezbollah and Global Jihad elements acquiring the regime's advanced
weapons.
The IDF claimed at the time that it was a routine procedure for examining
operational readiness. However, several days later, the first report came
from Western defense officials claiming that the IDF attacked several
targets in the area of the Israel-Syria border during the night of Tuesday,
January 30, 2013. This report was followed by the Lebanese military’s claim
that 12 IAF aircraft carried out three sorties above the skies of Lebanon
Tuesday evening and later in the night. The message claiming that four
aircraft participated in every sortie, stated that near Israeli combat
aircraft entered Lebanese airspace at 16:30 in the south of the country, and
returned to their bases at roughly 21:00.
According to the same report, the Israeli aircraft passed over several areas
in Lebanon, and performed another sortie at 02:00. According to the report,
a third sortie took place at nighttime, and the aircraft returned to their
bases on Wednesday morning. Several hours after a series of denials from
unofficial elements on behalf of the regime in Damascus, officials in the
Syrian military command stated that the Israeli Air Force did attack in
Syrian territory in the early hours of the morning. According to the Syrian
report, the attack was directed at a military research center in Jamaria.
The district of Jamaria, northwest of Damascus, resides next to a military
complex that hosts two large facilities that belong to the Syrian military’s
special forces. These are a school for training special forces (including
the units that operate chemical and biological weapons) and a military
center for scientific research (a facility of the Syrian Scientific Studies
and Research Center, which deals in the production and development of
biological weapons), near Lake Barada. An investigation reveals that the
neighborhood of Jamaria is where engineers and senior officials connected to
the development of the biological and chemical weapon arsenal, who belong to
a branch of the SSRC reside. The SSRC is a scientific body that employs
thousands of people trained by the high institute for science and technology
(which belongs to the SSRC and is located near its bureau).
The area located between the SSRC's military and civilian training centers
serves as an enclave for countless emergency storage units and is secured by
advanced antiaircraft missile batteries. Most of the assessments published
due to the report indicated that the attack in Jamaria was directed against
the chemical and biological weapon facilities. According to one report, the
research center was destroyed, and another report hinted that the target of
the attack was a weapon convoy intended for transferring advanced weapons
(apparently Russian SA-17 antiaircraft systems) and perhaps chemical or
biological weapons to Hezbollah. An examination of the satellite photography
before the attack confirms the report that the attack in the Jamaria region
was directed against a convoy of trucks (approximately ten of them) and
escorts. These were gathered in the parking area of the special forces’
school, located on a central traffic axis linking between the Damascus road
to the Al-Masna crossing point in Lebanon.
Was the Smoking Gun Found?
Israel, which the attack is attributed to by foreign reports, has
specifically defined several scenarios as red lines that would necessitate
IAF activity in Syria. These include concern over the unconventional weapons
falling into the hands of hostile elements such as Hezbollah or Jihad
elements; the transfer of advanced weaponry (naval, antiaircraft and
surface-to-surface missiles, EW systems) from Syrian warehouses to
Hezbollah; and the mobilization of unconventional weapons in a manner that
might endanger them according to the regional combat picture.
If so, an attack near Assad’s chemical weapons and firearms centers
necessitated some sort of ‘smoking gun’ to link between terror agents such
as Hezbollah and weapons that Syria prepared to mobilize from one of the
defense facilities in the district of Jamaria. This is a small industrial
area which serves several companies, one of them an export/import company
which conveys naval and ground cargos from the Latakia and Tartus ports to
the company’s warehouses - located nearly 200 meters from the front gate of
the special forces’ school.
The company operates 32 trucks of the kind that were hit and presented in
Syrian television photos. The company's website states that it conveys
commodities such as food and metallic pipes into Lebanon, passing through
Lebanon’s Bakaa Valley which is under Hezbollah’s control. The company’s
owners include citizens of Lebanese origin who were brought up in Beirut. In
the company’s employment conditions, candidates are required to specify if
they are Palestinians, Lebanese or Syrians. It is unclear if there is a
connection to the attack of the truck convoy that gathered in the nearby
military parking lot but to exclude the possibility that a civilian platform
operates there, serving as a cover for smuggling weapons from the Syrian
military’s emergency warehouses to Hezbollah.
4a)
Why North Korea Is Testing Nuclear Weapons Now
Andrew Natsios is an executive professor at the George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and the author of Sudan, South Sudan and Darfur: What Everyone Needs to Know. Natsios served as administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and as President George W. Bush's special envoy to Sudan.
The first test of the Obama administration's second term foreign policy team is shaping up to be North Korea's upcoming nuclear explosion. Korean President Kim Jong Un last week declared martial law in anticipation of the country's third nuclear test that Un has reportedly ordered be conducted before the middle of February, which will coincidentally occur on his late father's (and former leader of North Korea) birthday. This week a bellicose and belligerent North Korean government put on its official website a bizarre and provocative video of the bombing of what appears to be New York City with the caption: "Somewhere in the United States, black clouds of smoke are billowing... It seems that the nest of wickedness is ablaze with the fire started by itself." The video includes the launch of a North Korean missile, implying that if the United States puts too much pressure on them the consequence will be a nuclear response. The Chinese foreign minister on Wednesday issued a stern public warning to North Korea against the test, and the Chinese Communist Party official party newspaper published an unprecedented editorial saying, "If North Korea insists on a third nuclear test despite attempts to dissuade it, it must pay a heavy price." North Korea is in no position to anger its only remaining patron and ally, and yet it may go ahead with the nuclear test anyway.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said that he regards the North Korean nuclear threat to be greater than that of Iran, which has yet to test its first nuclear bomb. Kerry's statement may reflect the growing concern of U.S. intelligence officials and members of Congress that North Korea now has both nuclear weapons and the means—intercontinental ballistic missiles—to deliver them.
The nuclear test will come at a politically sensitive moment. The Obama administration's new foreign policy team is not fully in place. Three new heads of government in the countries most affected by North Korea's threats have recently taken office: Chinese President Xi Jinping who took office late last year as did Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and South Korean President Park Geun-hye who will be sworn in shortly. President Park is the daughter of former South Korean President Park Chung-hee, who the North Koreans bungled an attempt to assassinate in 1974, but ended up killing his wife, and mother of the new president, instead. All three leaders have one thing in common, they all face domestic problems requiring their attention and do not want to be distracted by a foreign policy crisis their first few months in office orchestrated by the ever-troublesome North Korea. All three new leaders face diplomatic challenges with each other. China and Japan are quarreling over control of a small, uninhabited island in the China Sea. Debates in Japan about the need to rearm in the face of rising Chinese military power have unnerved South Korea which suffered under Japanese abuses in the first half of the last century when Korea was a Japanese colony.
Why, then, is the 28-year-old ruler of North Korea, Kim Jong Un—himself in office for just over a year—exploding a nuclear weapon right now? One reason may be to distract the attention of Communist Party cadres, the North Korean military, and its long suffering population to a fictional external threat. He has been purging its geriatric government and military officialdom to put in place younger men, loyal to him, but the change of leadership is not going well. Rising official dissent appears to be spreading across the country from those who have lost political and military power. Fabricating an external threat may be meant to suppress dissatisfaction among unhappy North Korean elite. The only product the North Korean economy now produces of any consequence are weapons, since it cannot feed itself or provide consumer products for its population (except through imports from China).
Kim promised—but has not delivered—more food, economic reform, improvements in public services, and a way out of the country's slide into oblivion. A sizeable portion of the general population has no economic livelihood or political power to command food and may be facing sustained hunger and even famine in some areas. The World Food Program in the summer of 2012 issued two reports which warned against a famine in 2013 because of a severe drought followed by widespread flooding and a typhoon which did extensive damage to the rice and maize crops. South Korea faced the same climatic conditions which reduced agricultural production. Mysteriously, in last November's crop assessment from the World Food Program and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, they announced a 10 percent increase in production, two months after their prediction of catastrophe. How could conditions have changed so quickly? Why was North Korea unaffected by the same drought and flooding which damaged South Korean agriculture? These most recent crop estimates lack credibility and likely reflect manipulated data by Pyongyang, since the North cannot admit declining production and a famine in the first year of Kim Jong Un's reign. So instead of reforming their economy and agricultural system, they fed their hungry population propaganda instead of food, the irony of which would have amused George Orwell.
Famine may have returned to the North last year according to a new report issued in January 2013 by Asia Press International run by North Korean defectors based in Osaka, Japan. If the report is accurate, a famine took place in the southwest region of North Korea the first quarter of last year, in what is the richest agricultural area of the country. The famine was caused by Pyongyang's confiscation of a large portion of the rice crop in late 2011 to ensure the capital city (where the privileged elite live) and military were fed. Between 10,000 and 20,000 may have died in North and South Hwanghae provinces. We have another unconfirmed report, also from defectors I interviewed late last year, that in the northwest rice growing areas a famine killed between 6,000 and 8,000 people a year earlier. The Asia Press story also reported shocking instances of cannibalism, which I had heard similar stories about from North Korean refugees in China during the famine of the 1990s. Several reports from different sources say that North Korean soldiers are suffering from acute malnutrition because the food ration system appears to be failing. National Public Radio reported in a Dec. 10, 2012 story that the government had lowered to 4 feet 7 inches the minimum height for young recruits, a tacit admission of years of acute malnutrition severely stunting an entire generation of North Koreans. Evidence of the continuing food crisis facing the country come from an unlikely source: the farmers markets.
Since February 2012 the markets in North Korea, which feed more than half of the population, have operated without interference from the central government which may signal a shift towards reform, since in the past, Pyongyang has grudgingly permitted them to function under duress, sending in the police to harass merchants and confiscate merchandize. The shift of policy towards the markets may be a way of reducing public anger at the economic and food situation, or it could be a tacit acknowledgement by the government of continuing food scarcity, hunger, and starvation.
The North's upcoming test and threats to bomb the United States are a crude attempt to intimidate the South Korean, Japanese, U.S., and Chinese governments into making economic concessions to resuscitate their sclerotic economy or provide food aid. All four governments have at varying times provided assistance to the North, three of them in exchange for ending the weapons programs. Pyongyang took the aid and continued to build their arsenals. By connecting aid to the weapons programs we have trained the North to continue building missile and nuclear bombs, since it is the one way the North can capture their neighbor's attention and get help. North Korea has resolutely avoided any major economic reforms to build a market economy, because the leadership believes reform poses too many risks to the continuity of the Kim dynasty. So they let their population starve, while they use their scarce revenues to build weapons of mass destruction to threaten their neighbors. The one bottom line the North Korean ought to consider when they make their threats: One or two nuclear weapons does not pose any real threat to the United States or its allies, because should they attempt to use them, the United States will turn North Korea, as former Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice so famously put it, into "a parking lot." Threats must be creditable and the North Korean threats simply aren't. The bigger issue has always been the North Koreans selling their technology to a nonstate actor (read: terrorist groups) against which the deterrence principle is less effective. In any case it's time the United States tell Pyongyang that we aren't playing their games any longer—the game is over and it time for them to accept the risk implicit in any political and economic reform strategy and end their contemptible threats.
No comments:
Post a Comment