The UNRWA Leech Locates In D.C. To Be Closer To American Tax Payer Blood! ISIS and Jordan. Iraqi Insights!

Obviously, the SIRC is a partisan political organization on whose board I serve.  That said, one of our purposes is to educate voters and we do this in several ways.  We sponsor programs of general interest and then we invite candidates from the Republican ranks running for office so you can meet them, get to know them and ask them questions and then judge for yourself.

The Beer and Brats is an annual event.Come and enjoy the opportunity of meeting those who seek public office face to face.

Save the date!  Spread the word! Skidaway Island Republican Club Beer, Brats, & Politics Party MONDAY, OCTOBER 20th Plantation Club   5:30 to 8:30 Meet and mix with local officials and candidates to hear the latest in local, state and national politics. More info to follow later

Our mailing address is: SIRC P.O. Box 15165 Savannah, GA 31416 Add us to your address book === As I have oft said and written.  (See 1 below.) === The UNRWA. leech. opens in D.C. in order to get closer to  American Tax  Payer Blood! (See 2 below.) === Zev Chafets explains why Liberal Jews will continue to vote for Democrats.  (See 3 below.) === Is Jordan the next to erupt and eventually go while Obama dawdles?  Time will tell. (See 4 below.) === My friend, Toameh, discusses how Hamas is planning the next Gaza War in furtherance of its long standing plan to destroy Israel. (See 5 below.) === Insights into Iraq's New P.M from their current Amb. to the U.S. (See 6 below.) And, Kerry apparently wants to try again.  (See 6a below.) === Dick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1)Incompetence of Leftist Ideology By Kevin Wade and Fay Voshell Competence is the ability to get things done. The word itself has no particular value judgment attached to it. Many perfectly intelligent people have been labeled “incompetent,” particularly by conservatives, when actually they are or have been quite competent -- at achieving disasters.  We have such a person sitting in the White House -- quite intelligent, but committed to disastrous ideology. Our present administration is not incompetent in the way its officials go about achieving their goals, using as they do the incredible powers of bureaucracy and executive orders to bypass Congress and override the Constitution. They are perfectly competent in promoting and putting their toxically incompetent leftist ideology into effect. They are perfectly competent in promoting and putting their toxically incompetent leftist ideology into effect. To put it another way, people who are competent at creating disasters are not necessarily dimwitted, though some are. The problem is not their stupidity. The problem is that their core ideas about how the world works are wrong. If their basic ideas are wrong, everything else goes wrong. History abounds with cases of bright people who have been zealously committed to wrong ideas they were expert in putting into action. Trofim Lysenko was an intelligent Russian peasant who rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of agricultural Lamarckianism. He manipulated the scientific method in order it fit into Soviet communist ideology. Political ideology dictated his agricultural methods, with disastrous results that lingered for decades. German race theorists were bright people, but they were committed to a “science” of race glorifying Aryans and denigrating the rest of humanity. We all know how those race theorists’ ideas turned out. Today’s global warmists are not stupid people, but they go beyond the limits of scientific method, endorsing instead what is basically deluded apocalyptic prophecy. Chairman Mao Zedong’s idea to have citizens smelt iron in their backyards was ineffably stupid, but he himself was a cunning and savvy manipulator who got appalling things done with remarkable efficiency. It is not hard to find examples of how things have gone wrong because of bad ideas now in ascendency in Washington. A complete list would fill a book, but a random list could include the incompetence of the ObamaCare website and the ACA in general; the incredible expense of trafficking alien children around the U.S. versus the cost of returning them to their own villages; the nonstop printing of trillions and trillions of dollars; the appalling waste and improper payments in Medicare and Medicaid; the corruption of the Food Stamp program and the misuse of the Social Security disabilities program. The competence to wreak havoc extends to whole nations, which can be completely run into the ground because defective ideology is effectively employed by a bunch of zealous, bright people who are wholeheartedly committed to bad ideas. As Panos Mourdoukoutas noted in Forbes magazine, recent economic troubles in Greece have been due almost solely to bad ideas put into practice by competent ideologues whose business model very effectively produced economic and societal catastrophe: “For years, Greece had the wrong business model -- A Semi-Soviet, semi-Latin model that was backwards -- it applied markets and governments in areas of the economy where each institution fails rather than excels. This resulted in a large and corrupt government that lacked the resources to finance its multiple roles in the economy.  With the former Soviet Union as a model, the Greek economy was subject to the excessively intrusive presence of government in the business and professional lives of citizens, directly controlling more than 50% of the economy. Government was active in the pension fund industry, as manager of employer-employee contributions, deciding who would retire, when their retirement would happen, and what pension they would receive.  Government was present in commodity markets, as regulator and gatekeeper, deciding who could be in what kind of business and for how long; and in labor markets, setting labor compensation and employment standards.” The core incompetency that afflicted Greece and that is now afflicting our own country is leftist ideology, including leftist economic policy. When disaster producing ideas are the foundation stones of governance, no amount of finagling with business models; no new techniques or innovative means to improve efficiency; no new five-year planning commissions; no new agencies created to examine the problems of government will ever succeed in improving those governments, state and federal, as life-killing ideas have no ability whatever to enable society to flourish.  As long as our leadership is committed to outdated, disproven and ruinous ideologies, the results will be the same as they have been wherever leftist ideals have been promoted and implemented: cataclysmic failure, both economic and societal. But with the right ideas put into effect, a country’s turnaround can be rapid.  As Mourdoukoutas writes: “But now, in the aftermath of the most recent crisis, the Greek economic model has begun to change. The country seems to have gotten its economic model right: the size of government has been reduced, state-owned enterprises have been privatized, transparency is improving, and calm is returning to the streets of major cities. Result? Government deficits are turning into surpluses, exports and tourism are soaring, shipping leads the world, and real GDP is turning the corner. Slowly, Greece is rebuilding its brand image. Simply put: Greece is headed in the right direction, applying the right institutions in the right sectors, releasing the ingenuity and creativity of its people.” What is happening in Greece can happen here. It has happened here.  In many respects, it started here. But the American miracle that is our constitutional republic, along with the gifts it has imparted to the whole world, will not be revived and nursed back to health unless the incompetent ideology of the Left is firmly renounced across the board, both in faith and practice. Leftist ideology is an American political heresy that has no real roots in our history, no consonance with the independence-loving American character, no resonance with American’s highest ideals and therefore no real place in our society. In the final analysis, one must place a moral judgment on leftist ideology and its deleterious results. At every turn, leftist ideology has been proved incompetent in producing a flourishing society. It has always produced disaster. Always. There is not one exception in all the Left’s brutal, inglorious and destructive history. In the end, the goal of government is to contribute to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of every citizen. Unless government is committed to and driven by ideals that support those goals, it is not just useless. It is not merely incompetent.  It is corrupt and tyrannical. There is still enough life and enough good in our republic of the United States to return to and to affirm the principles that make us the greatest nation on earth. The only question is whether or not we will do so. Kevin Wade is the Delaware’s Republican candidate for the US senate.  He may be reached at klw@wadefordelaware.com Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and other online publications. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -2) Give Palestine—Not the U.N.—the Money, Responsibility, and Glory What the UNRWA representative in D.C. misunderstands about our argument by Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky In responding with pique to our piece on the the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, Matthew Reynolds deflects attention from our real proposal—one that would put the organization at least partially out of business. Reynolds' criticism must be situated properly. Having found the distance from New York to Washington too great, UNRWA opened an office in the capital in 2011. As UNRWA's representative in Washington, Reynold's job is to lobby UNRWA's largest donor, the United States. For this reason, he seizes upon various observations of ours that he believes are "canards" for the sake of "cheap political shots." For example, he is outraged that we observed that UNRWA's union in Gaza is dominated by Hamas members, who won 25 out of 27 seats in a 2012 election. As one unnamed former UNRWA staff member put it at the time, "For the moment, Hamas and UNRWA seem to have an agreement that UNRWA may continue to function in Gaza so long as it does not engage in actions that significantly contradict Hamas' world view." This would appear to support our assertion that "UNRWA is effectively a branch of Hamas" and belie Reynolds' claim of UNRWA's "policy of strict neutrality." We observed that "an unknown number of employees are actual Hamas fighters (or at least know UNRWA employees with keys to the schools so that rockets can be stored in classrooms over the summer)." Reynolds calls this "a very extreme accusation made without any substantiation." He might take up the matter with former UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen, who in 2004 stated, "Oh, I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime. Hamas as a political organization does not mean that every member is a militant and we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another." (This was before Hamas took over Gaza and its ruling institutions.) As for Reynolds' mention of UNRWA's vetting of employees, this is done under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267, a terrorist screening list meant to ensure that no known members of Al Qaeda join the organization. A 2010 Congressional Research Service report notes that the "list does not include Hamas, Hezbollah, or most other militant groups that operate in UNRWA's surroundings…. Nevertheless, UNRWA officials did say that if notified by U.S. officials of potential matches, they would 'use the information as a trigger to conduct their own investigation.'" Excluding Al Qaeda members from UNRWA is a lesser concern than say, excluding members of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, like UNRWA school headmaster and PIJ rocket makerAwad al-Qiq, killed in an Israeli airstrike in 2008, or other local Islamists who might fill out an UNRWA job application in Gaza. Regarding our allegation that some relief supplies brought into Gaza are ending up in Hamas, Reynolds seizes upon a photo used in a news item we linked to and fabricates an accusation from us, about UNRWA cement bags found in Hamas' tunnels. Alas, we do not mention cement bags (or flour bags) in our piece. He does so to divert attention from several things, above all the question of what happened to all the cement UNRWA imported into Gaza. Cement, like money, is fungible. Given the undeniable immensity of Hamas' underground tunnel infrastructure, it behooves UNRWA to demonstrate what became of the cement it imported above ground. Reynolds protests our assertion that Hamas supporters "shape the curriculum" and retorts "the curriculum of the host country and in the specific case of Gaza we use the Palestinian Authority (PA) curriculum." But in the link we cited no less an authority than Motesem Al Minawi, spokesman for the Education Ministry in Gaza—which is run by Hamas—who complained that in the PA's curriculum, "There is a tremendous focus on the peaceful resistance as the only tool to achieve freedom and independence." Indeed, another report quotes that Al Minawi complained precisely that "UNRWA is acting like a state within a state… It must understand the limits of its authority; that it is bound by the curriculum taught in its areas of activity." Are we then to believe that UNRWA's teachers, who belong to the Hamas-run union, do not "shape" the curriculum to conform to what UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness has called "local values"? Perhaps because it would put him out of work, Reynolds never does address our substantive proposal: that Western donors should reprogram monies from UNRWA and toward the Palestinian Authority, in order to strengthen the latter in Gaza. In 2013, the U.S. gave UNRWA more than $294 million and the European Commission gave more than $216 million. This money is power; reluctantly we conclude it should be given to the PA rather than to UNRWA. We do so fully acknowledging that the PA is corrupt. We should add that it differs ideologically from Hamas mostly in the extent of Islamist rhetoric. It too believes, as Adli Sadeq, the PLO ambassador to India, recently put it, "We are protecting all humans, and are on the first line of defense in the battle of humanity against the dogs." In the end, Reynolds tips his hand: "With very generous and much appreciated contributions from the American people, UNRWA is able to provide basic humanitarian services to some five million registered Palestine refugees not only in Gaza but also in Lebanon, war-torn Syria, Jordan, and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem." Like all welfare organizations, UNRWA wishes "to provide" endlessly and to a unique population whose "refugee" status it has independently expanded. In doing so it insinuates itself into every level of Palestinian society and discourse, competes with the PA for international funds, andexpands its welfare and legal mandates on its own authority. Our proposal is to begin the long, painful and overdue process of shifting money away from UNRWA to the putative Palestinian state. Let "Palestine"—a "non-member observer state" in United Nations parlance—take responsibility for its own people. Let the PA show to the people of Gaza that it can "provide." We propose to give them the money, the responsibility, and the glory. This, perhaps, is what UNRWA cannot abide. Alexander Joffe is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow of the Middle East Forum. Asaf Romirowsky is an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum. They are co-authors of the book Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Will Jews turn on Obama, Dems in 2014 and turn out for GOP? By Zev Chafets This year, as in every election year since Barack Obama has been in the White House, we are hearing the cry of the hopeful Republican: This is the year that Jewish voters and donors and activists are going to turn on the president and his party and turn out for the GOP. The hope stems from a few observable truths. President Obama is not a great friend of Israel and he visibly doesn’t get along with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The American Jewish community – white, assimilated and prosperous – is out-of-place in a Democratic Party determined to build a coalition around an appeal to racial gender minorities, unmarried women, the LGBT community, immigrants and the dependent poor. And while the Jewish community is shrinking because of low birthrates and intermarriage, its Orthodox wing – strongly pro-Israel and socially conservative – is gaining in numbers and self-confidence. The great majority of American Jewish Democrats see their party and its agenda as their secular religion. All this, according to some conservative pundits, has created a tipping point. In November, they say, Jews could turn out in key congressional elections, especially in Senate contests, and vote for Republicans who have made support for Israel a signature issue. And in 2016, fed up with Obama’s chilly attitude toward the Jewish state and his weakness in the face of Islamic aggression, Jews could abandon their traditional affiliation with the Democrats and give their energy, their contributions and their votes to the Republicans. I hate to rain on anybody’s inaugural parade, but this is sheer fantasy.  Jews are not simply supporters of the Democratic Party; they are at the heart of everything from union leadership to campaign funding, think-tank policy making to grass roots organizing.  Three of the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court are Jews. There are 10 Jewish U.S. senators and more than 20 Jewish members of the House.  In contrast, after the departure of Majority Leader Eric Cantor, there isn't a single Jewish Republican in Congress (or in any statehouse). And 2014 isn't going to reverse that.  There are only three congressional races – two in New York, one in Connecticut – where Jewish candidates are considered competitive, and all three are long shots. The GOP has no Jewish senatorial candidates at all. The Republican side of the aisle in both houses of Congress has, and will have, about as many Jewish members as the Icelandic parliament.  There aren't even any great Hebrew hopes out there, just a few obscure local politicians who might, someday, run for higher office. The best known (and most influential) Republican Jew in America is Sheldon Adelson, the octogenarian casino mogul and mega-donor. Whatever Adelson’s virtues, he isn't anybody’s idea of an electoral poster boy. Of course you don’t have to be Jewish to get Jewish votes. Al Smith, a New York Catholic, won almost 75 percent in his loss to Herbert Hoover in 1928. Franklin Roosevelt got between 85-90 percent in four straight elections. John F. Kennedy, the son of a notorious anti-Semite, topped 80 percent in 1960. Four years later, Lyndon Johnson got 90 percent running against Barry Goldwater, the grandson of frontier Jews. Obama got 69 percent of Jewish voters in 2012. In the last 20 presidential elections, only Jimmy Carter, a transparently unfriendly figure, got less than two-thirds of the Jewish presidential vote – and even he out-polled the strongly pro-Israel Ronald Reagan. The fact is, the great majority of American Jewish Democrats see their party and its agenda as their secular religion. Reform Judaism, America’s largest Jewish denomination, is sometimes jokingly called “the Democratic Party with holidays.” A lot of Jews would sooner convert to Shia Islam than leave the party of their forefathers. Republicans sometimes wonder at this loyalty. After all, polls show that they and their voters are more pro-Israel than Democrats. Republicans are attracted to the Jewish state because of its pioneer ethos, its “peace through strength” posture in the face of anti-Western jihad, its reflexive pro-Americanism and, for Christian evangelicals, its biblical roots. None of this means much to most American Jews, however (except to the Orthodox, still a relatively small minority). There isn't much data, but conventional political thinking is that secular Jews, to the extent they are voting as Jews, are more concerned about a woman’s right to choose, gay rights or comprehensive immigration reform than they are about specific Israel-related policy. Jews of all sorts tend to be pro-Israel. For many it is personal. But that doesn't mean supporting specific policies. The Democrats will retain their loyalty as long as the party maintains an acceptable level of support for Israel – to be, as Barack Obama once said about Hillary Clinton in a different context, “likable enough.” President Obama clears that bar. Clinton, if she runs in 2016, will do even better. Bibi Netanyahu would prefer a Republican president, but he won’t be on the ballot, and any candidate he supports will lose big time to Hillary Clinton. Or Chelsea, for that matter. SHARE SUBSCRIBE NOW 4) Jordan to NATO: ISIS terrorists have infiltrated our borders Iraqi troops with U.S. air force backing are trying to lift a two-month siege against the mostly Turkmen Shiite town of Amirli • Australia drops weapons to Kurdish fighters in Iraqi army • UK ambassador: We'll help Jordan against foreseeable threats. By Eli Leon and Yoni Hirsch After breaking the siege against the Iraqi Yazidi people atop Mount Sinjar, the Iraqi army and the U.S. air force have set off on a new mission -- hitting Sunni militants who have besieged the Shiite Turkmen at the town of Amirli for two months. Iraqi forces already made an incursion into the 12,000-person town on Sunday, backed by precise U.S. airstrikes. "Amirli has been liberated," said Mahdi Taqi, a member of the provincial council, speaking with The Washington Post. "We resisted these people and we won. Now all we need is food and water." Meanwhile, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, Anthony Zinni, said the U.S. should not rule out putting "boots on the ground" to fight the Islamic State (ISIS). "Very simply put, if you put two brigades on the ground right now of U.S. forces, they would push ISIS back into Syria in a heartbeat. And probably take less time, less cost and, I think in the long run, fewer casualties overall," said Zinni. Even Australia joined the battle, with Prime Minister Tony Abbott acceding the U.S. request to help drop weapons and munitions to Kurdish fighters, who are at the front lines against ISIS. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabian media reported on Sunday that Jordan had handed secret intelligence over to the NATO with details about infiltrations of ISIS fighters into Jordanian territory through its borders with Syria and Iraq. The British ambassador to Jordan, Peter Millett, said the U.K. and NATO were prepared to assist Jordan in dealing with the dangers posed by ISIS. Meanwhile, it appears as though ISIS is beheading their own people as well. Such was the fate of Abu Obeida al-Maghrebi, who was until recently commanding the prison in which American journalist James Foley, whose beheading was filmed by ISIS, was also being held. Members of ISIS apparently suspected, according to reports, that Maghrebi passed information along to British intelligence agency MI6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5)  IS THE GAZA WAR REALLY OVER?After breaking the siege against the Iraqi Yazidi people atop Mount Sinjar, the Iraqi army and the U.S. air force have set off on a new mission -- hitting Sunni militants who have besieged the Shiite Turkmen at the town of Amirli for two months. Iraqi forces already made an incursion into the 12,000-person town on Sunday, backed by precise U.S. airstrikes. "Amirli has been liberated," said Mahdi Taqi, a member of the provincial council, speaking with The Washington Post. "We resisted these people and we won. Now all we need is food and water." Meanwhile, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, Anthony Zinni, said the U.S. should not rule out putting "boots on the ground" to fight the Islamic State (ISIS). "Very simply put, if you put two brigades on the ground right now of U.S. forces, they would push ISIS back into Syria in a heartbeat. And probably take less time, less cost and, I think in the long run, fewer casualties overall," said Zinni. Even Australia joined the battle, with Prime Minister Tony Abbott acceding the U.S. request to help drop weapons and munitions to Kurdish fighters, who are at the front lines against ISIS. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabian media reported on Sunday that Jordan had handed secret intelligence over to the NATO with details about infiltrations of ISIS fighters into Jordanian territory through its borders with Syria and Iraq. The British ambassador to Jordan, Peter Millett, said the U.K. and NATO were prepared to assist Jordan in dealing with the dangers posed by ISIS. Meanwhile, it appears as though ISIS is beheading their own people as well. Such was the fate of Abu Obeida al-Maghrebi, who was until recently commanding the prison in which American journalist James Foley, whose beheading was filmed by ISIS, was also being held. Members of ISIS apparently suspected, according to reports, that Maghrebi passed information along to British intelligence agency MI6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author:  Khaled Abu Toameh  Source:  Gatestone Institute Statements made by Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders and spokesmen following the announcement of the long-term cease-fire agreement with Israel this week serve as a reminder of their true intentions and strategy. Over the past two months, the two groups, together with several armed factions in the Gaza Strip, repeatedly announced that their main goal was to end the “siege” on the Gaza Strip and build their own airport and seaport. During the cease-fire talks in Cairo, the Palestinian groups repeatedly and stubbornly insisted that complying with these demands, along with opening all the border crossings with the Gaza Strip, was the only way to end the violence and achieve a long-term cease-fire with Israel. However, it is important to note that these cease-fire demands are not part of Hamas's or Islamic Jihad's overall strategy, namely to have Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Hamas and its allies in the Gaza Strip are not only fighting for an airport and seaport. Nor are they fighting only for the reopening of all border crossings with Israel and Egypt. During this war, many seem to have forgotten that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are actually fighting to “liberate Jerusalem and all Palestine.” The two groups have never recognized Israel's right to exist and continue to oppose any attempt to make peace with the “Zionist entity.” Many foreign journalists who came to cover the war in the Gaza Strip were under the false impression that it was all about improving the living conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by opening border crossings and building an airport and seaport. These journalists really believed that once the demands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are accepted, this would pave the way for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Yet these journalists, like many others in the international community, failed to look at the bigger picture or take into consideration the context of conflict. Moreover, most of them did not even seem to be listening to what Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been stating before and after the war — that their real goal is to “liberate all Palestine.” Operation Protective Edge may have ended, but the dream to destroy Israel is still alive. Even if Hamas and Islamic Jihad eventually get their own airport and seaport, it is obvious that the two groups are now more determined than ever to pursue their fight to eliminate Israel, especially in light of the fact that they feel they have emerged from the war triumphant. Masked Hamas gunmen celebrate their “victory” over Israel before the international media this week. (Image source: Facebook/Palestinian Information Center) The Egypt-brokered cease-fire may achieve some calm for Israelis and Palestinians in the foreseeable future, particularly in the aftermath of the severe blow Hamas and Islamic Jihad suffered as a result of Israel's massive military operation. Indeed, Hamas and its allies will now be busy rebuilding the damage in the Gaza Strip. But they will also continue to raise new generations of Palestinians on glorification of terrorism and jihad, with the hope of achieving the destruction of Israel, which they view as an alien body planted by colonialist powers in the Middle East. To understand the true intentions of Hamas and its allies, it is sufficient to follow the statements made by their leaders after the cease-fire announcement earlier this week. Evidently, these statements show that Hamas and Islamic Jihad see their “victory” in the Gaza Strip as a first step toward “liberating all Palestine.” They also show that these groups intend to use the new cease-fire to continue preparations and amass more weapons for what they call “the mother of all battles – liberating Palestine.” Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shalah was one of the first figures to spell out his organization's real intentions. Hours after the cease-fire announcement, the Lebanon-based Shalah declared: “The war is not over. It will continue in other means and methods.” He went on to warn Palestinians against resuming negotiations with Israel, saying the Oslo Accords were now “buried under the rubble of the Gaza Strip” and Palestinians should as of now only endorse the “path of resistance.” The following day, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh crawled out of the bunker he had retreated to during the war to declare that “Gaza is now preparing for the battle of comprehensive liberation.” He told Hamas supporters during a “victory” rally in Gaza City that “Gaza has paved the way for reaching Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.” To his credit, Haniyeh has never concealed Hamas's desire to destroy Israel. Only days before the war, he said in a speech before schoolchildren attending a Hamas summer camp that his movement's strategy “is to liberate the land of Palestine.” He added: “Whether we are in the (Palestinian) government or outside, we will continue to educate and call for the liberation of all Palestine and the establishment of a Palestinian state on all the land of Palestine.” For those who do not know, Haniyeh is in fact just repeating Hamas's charter, which does not accept Israel's right to exist on any part of what is perceived as Muslim-owned land. Another Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, went even farther by calling for the establishment of a “Palestine Liberation Army” in wake of the “victory” scored by his movement and other Palestinian groups during the war. Further evidence that this war was not about border crossings or improving living conditions of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was also provided by a spokesman for Hamas and several Palestinian groups that participated in the fighting against Israel. At a press conference one day after the cease-fire announcement, Abu Obaida, spokesman for Hamas's armed wing, Izaddin al-Qassam, declared: “Gaza won because it has revived the hopes of 1.5 billion Arabs and Muslims that the road to Jerusalem is now open and all we need is to be united and have a will.” So for Hamas and its allies, the war in the Gaza Strip is not just about the closure of border crossings or freedom of movement. Instead, they see the war in the Gaza Strip as part of their strategy to destroy Israel. What they are actually saying is, “Give us open borders and an airport and seaport so we can use them to prepare for the next war against Israel.” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6)  IRAQI AMBASSADOR OFFERS WINDOW INTO NEW PRIME MINISTER'S WORLDVIEW Author:  John Hudson  Source:  foreignpolicy.com.      The Iraqi government is poised for a significant overhaul following this month's nomination of Haider al-Abadi as the country's next prime minister. But at least one senior official won't have to worry about cleaning out his desk: Iraqi ambassador to the United States Lukman Faily. “I anticipate that I will stay here,” Faily told Foreign Policy. “I know the prime minister-designate extremely well.” Indeed, Faily and Abadi have been close confidants since their days of academic and private-sector work in England in the 1980s. While Abadi earned a doctorate in engineering at the University of Manchester in 1980, Faily completed his degree in mathematics and computer science at Manchester Metropolitan University a few years later. On a weekly basis, the two men collaborated on student activism projects and demonstrations rooted in their opposition to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. While immersing themselves in the Shiite Dawa Party, Abadi led a company that serviced elevators for the building that housed the BBC World Service; and Faily worked for multiple IT companies. It is Abadi's connection to the West that has fueled hope that he might govern in a more inclusive manner than his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki, whose insular, power-hungry style alienated Iraq's Sunnis and helped pave the way for the Islamic State's takeover of large swaths of the country. But much remains unknown about Abadi's plans for Iraq, and many doubt that a lifelong Islamist of his profile can save the bitterly divided country. In comparing the two leaders, Faily said Abadi's rise brings an opportunity for better relations with Washington. “He speaks English. He doesn't need a translator. He can tune into the D.C. frequency quite easily,” he said. By contrast, Maliki spent many of his formative years in Iran and Syria. “Prime Minister Maliki hardly had been to the West,” noted Faily. “He was taught in a region where anti-imperialism is the normal doctrine. In that sense, they are two different breeds.” But those hoping for a dramatically different chief executive in Baghdad will likely be disappointed. Faily emphasized that the two Dawa Party members share a broadly similar worldview and cautioned against those depicting the political transition in stark terms. “He's also an Islamist by background. He will not have that much of a different vision than Maliki,” said Faily. Born to a prominent doctor in Baghdad in 1952, Abadi joined the Islamic Dawa Party at age 15. In the 1970s, the Dawa Party staged an armed insurgency after the Baathist Party came to power. Two of his brothers, also Dawa Party members, were killed by the Baath regime, and another was imprisoned for 10 years. In the late 1970s, Abadi moved to Britain and later became an outspoken critic of Saddam Hussein. Although his time in Britain introduced him to the Western way of life, it also exposed him to policies he vehemently disagreed with, such as London and Washington's support of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War. “He and I and others had difficulties with the British system because they were with Saddam at the time,” Faily said. “People talk about justice and fairness, but at the end of the day, they're supporting him in a fight where he was the aggressor. So how would you expect him to think that these were people with ideals rather than opportunists?” Abadi now finds himself in a high-stakes effort to keep Iraq in one piece. He must build a power-sharing government that diminishes sectarian tensions and fends off Islamic State militants, the greatest threat to the country's security since the fall of Saddam in 2003. According to the White House and State Department, forging strong partnerships with Iraq's Sunnis and Kurds is key, but the going hasn't been easy. On Monday, Aug. 25, Abadi said the new government was forming with a “clear vision,” but the remarks coincided with a spate of fresh car bombings underscoring the deep divisions in the country. “The talks to form the government were positive and constructive. I hope in the next two coming days to agree on a clear vision of a unified program for the government,” Abadi told reporters at a news conference in Baghdad. After the address, a suicide bomber detonated his vest inside a Shiite mosque in Baghdad, killing at least nine people and wounding 21. On Monday, bombings in the Shiite holy city of Karbala killed four and injured 17. On Saturday, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for three car bombings in Kirkuk and one in Erbil, the capital of the semiautonomous Kurdish north. Besides divvying up cabinet positions among Iraq's various sects, experts say Abadi must repair relations with Sunni tribes supporting the Islamic State and tweak the constitution to limit executive power. “Iraq does, in my view, require a very different model of governance,” said Charles Dunne, Middle East director at Freedom House, a Washington think tank. But few are convinced that Abadi will take up the West's recommendations just because he knows English or has lived in Britain. “Bashar al-Assad was an ophthalmologist in Britain, so we can't necessarily read too much into that,” Dunne said. Others are slightly more optimistic. “Abadi might not differ much from Maliki in that they both are from the same party, but the expectation is that Abadi would be more inclusive than Maliki in making sure all forces, particularly the Sunnis, feel part of the decision-making process,” said Marwan Muasher of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “With ISIS controlling a good chunk of Iraq's territory, and the Kurds threatening to go their separate way, Abadi can go a long way by being more inclusive; and so far many of the Sunni forces [have] indicated their willingness to cooperate so long as he shows inclusiveness.” To some extent, the ball is in the Sunnis' court, said Kenneth Pollack, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The Shiites did a really big thing in forcing Maliki out,” he said. “Now the question is, what are the Sunnis going to be willing to accept to turn against the Islamic State and fight them?” As for whether Abadi has the political skill to win over skeptical Sunni leaders, Pollack said it's impossible to know. “Too many times, Americans get themselves overexcited about a new 'great white hope,' but it rarely pans out,” he said. “If you were a betting man, you'd say it's unlikely that this is going to be fixed soon.” 6a) Kerry said trying to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks US secretary of state reportedly suggests to Netanyahu new negotiations, release of fourth group of prisoners BY STUART WINER Palestinian sources claimed US Secretary of State John Kerry and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had spoken on the phone about the possibility of restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks alongside a number of gestures to the Palestinians, including a previously canceled prisoner release The sources also revealed that Palestinian officials Saeb Erekat and Majid Faraj were due to travel to Washington on Tuesday to present Kerry with a new Palestinian proposal. The proposal likely calls for the Palestinian Authority to delay a bid to have the United Nations Security Council define a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, as well as moves to join international bodies, according to Israel Radio, citing Arab media reports. Instead, the sides would spend four months in negotiations defining borders. Over the past week, there has been increased talk of reviving talks between Israel and the Palestinians after a previous round of negotiations fell apart in April with no results. During the nine months of talks, Israel released three rounds of Palestinian prisoners but balked at a fourth and last release. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is expected to next week update the Arab League about developments in Washington. Abbas has made various statements in the past week about new initiatives and the consequences if they fail. During an interview with Egyptian television, Abbas said he would soon propose an unconventional diplomatic resolution to the Palestinian conflict, one that is likely to make the US unhappy. He said the plan would be presented to Kerry during an upcoming visit to the region, and added that the secretary of state was unlikely to accept it, according to a Haaretz translation. Palestinian sources close to Abbas told Haaretz that the plan would involve handing over responsibility for a resolution to the conflict to international forces. During another interview with Palestinian TV, Abbas said he intends to demand that Israel and the US outline specific borders for a Palestinian state. If Israel does not respond, “we have what to do,” he said in an apparent veiled threat to take Palestinian demands to the international community. Netanyahu rejected negotiations on the basis of the pre-1967 lines when Kerry launched his unsuccessful effort at peace talks last year. In recent weeks, the prime minister has said the conflict with Hamas underlines his concern with the need to maintain security control of the West Bank to ensure that the area not turn into another Gaza. Last week, unconfirmed media reports said that Netanyahu and Abbas met secretly in Amman, Jordan, ahead of agreed ceasefire to halt the fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Ramallah was heavily involved in talks to end the fighting, and the ceasefire was announced by Abbas last week. Peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority collapsed after nine months in April amid mutual recriminations that each side refused to live up to its pre-talks commitments. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni led the Israeli delegation while Saeb Erekat fronted the Palestinian team. Israel officially suspended peace talks after Abbas agreed to a unity pact with the Islamist group Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Before that, Palestinians applied to join a series of international treaties in contravention of understandings with the US and Israel, an apparent reaction to Israel’s own refusal to go ahead with a scheduled release of Palestinian prisoners. The sources also revealed that Palestinian officials Saeb Erekat and Majid Faraj were due to travel to Washington on Tuesday to present Kerry with a new Palestinian proposal. The proposal likely calls for the Palestinian Authority to delay a bid to have the United Nations Security Council define a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, as well as moves to join international bodies, according to Israel Radio, citing Arab media reports. Instead, the sides would spend four months in negotiations defining borders. Over the past week, there has been increased talk of reviving talks between Israel and the Palestinians after a previous round of negotiations fell apart in April with no results. During the nine months of talks, Israel released three rounds of Palestinian prisoners but balked at a fourth and last release. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is expected to next week update the Arab League about developments in Washington. Abbas has made various statements in the past week about new initiatives and the consequences if they fail. During an interview with Egyptian television, Abbas said he would soon propose an unconventional diplomatic resolution to the Palestinian conflict, one that is likely to make the US unhappy. He said the plan would be presented to Kerry during an upcoming visit to the region, and added that the secretary of state was unlikely to accept it, according to a Haaretz translation. Palestinian sources close to Abbas told Haaretz that the plan would involve handing over responsibility for a resolution to the conflict to international forces. During another interview with Palestinian TV, Abbas said he intends to demand that Israel and the US outline specific borders for a Palestinian state. If Israel does not respond, “we have what to do,” he said in an apparent veiled threat to take Palestinian demands to the international community. Netanyahu rejected negotiations on the basis of the pre-1967 lines when Kerry launched his unsuccessful effort at peace talks last year. In recent weeks, the prime minister has said the conflict with Hamas underlines his concern with the need to maintain security control of the West Bank to ensure that the area not turn into another Gaza. Last week, unconfirmed media reports said that Netanyahu and Abbas met secretly in Amman, Jordan, ahead of agreed ceasefire to halt the fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Ramallah was heavily involved in talks to end the fighting, and the ceasefire was announced by Abbas last week. Peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority collapsed after nine months in April amid mutual recriminations that each side refused to live up to its pre-talks commitments. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni led the Israeli delegation while Saeb Erekat fronted the Palestinian team. Israel officially suspended peace talks after Abbas agreed to a unity pact with the Islamist group Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Before that, Palestinians applied to join a series of international treaties in contravention of understandings with the US and Israel, an apparent reaction to Israel’s own refusal to go ahead with a scheduled release of Palestinian prisoners.