Review of Bolton's last few chapters _"Defeat Is Not An Option."

I consider the Wall Street Editorial; page an antidote to the poison that drips from the pens of the editorial staff of the New York Times.

In Saturday's WSJ there was an interview by David Rifkin, Jr. of former Sec of State , Henry Kissinger. Frankly I did not get a lot out of it because it was more wordy than concrete but I am sure there are those who might challenge that view. Mr. Kissinger believes diplomacy in the new era will be more difficult because of technology and the breaking down of nation states.

As for unilateralism he believes, as John Bolton pointed out by quoting George Washington (see my previous memo,) national interests remain paramount but that we have to be more empathetic to the demands of our allies even though they are less capable of doing for themselves because they cannot call on their citizens as in former years.

Kissinger also raised the question whether Americans have the patience for long term solutions. As I said in my speech, which I made at a local University recently, we are a "come on something" people.

Rifkin closed by stating the future appears uncertain.

Perhaps Rifkin was limited in space and thus unable to expand more fully on the depth of Kissinger's thinking or perhaps Kissinger's thinking has no more depth.

I never was enamored with Kissinger's talents and believe he really never understood the soul of America as say, in my opinion, Newt Gingrich does. Kissinger's willingness to negotiate our defeat in Viet Nam will, forever, leave a bad taste in my mouth and will forever be a sad legacy for our nation. Bolton is correct when he writes "Defeat is Not an Option" nor should it ever become one. However, Kissinger validated our defeat and it continues to hang as an albatross around our neck so I am not sure Bolton's view will obtain.

The lead editorial praised Bob Zoellick for kicking out a few inflated personnel at The World Bank and the editorial reminded me that it would be nice if Zoellick could do the same at the U.N. Bolton urged U.N. reform but his efforts were eclipsed by Annan. Both The World Bank and the U.N. are bloated with self-serving egos. Both organizations waste billions in pursuit of projects that create more despair than fulfillment, and conclude in more corruption than effective accomplishment.

The second editorial highlighted the fiscal practices of the Democrats as being no better than the Republicans they replaced notwithstanding their initial high sounding platitudes and promises of responsibility. As I have said repeatedly, Congress is The Best Little Whorehouse in America.

Bolton's chapter on Israel and Lebanon forces the reader to recognize how the conflicting goals of the Perm 5 and a weak Secretariat in the name of Annan, has led to a dead end investigation of the Hariri assassination. Yet, all fingers point to the highest levels of Syria which has now been invited by Sec. Rice to participate in Annapolis so Assad can make claim on The Golan. Reward the murderer, bury the victim and avoid offending seems to be the West's prescription for world peace because that is what consistently oozes from the auditorium of that august debating body.

In the case of Israel's "disproportionate" response to Hezballah's unprovoked attack against Israel, Bolton serves the reader up another dish of "trash talk" by U.N. members led by Annan. They complained, since Hezballah only captured a few Israelis and killed a few others, Israel's response was deemed "excessive." "Amoral equivalency" is the steady porridge served in the U.N debate cafeteria. Bolton posed to the media, which was quick to pick up on Annan's biased claims, whether killing a few thousand Japanese and sinking some of their ships, after Pearl Harbor, would have been considered a proper response and we should have ended then and there. The media seemed speechless but that did not deter them from their constant badgering of Israel with "over the top" accusations. The fact that Israel rightfully acted in self-defense seemed to escape the prejudices of the U.N. and their media midget compatriots. Israel,in Bolton's mind, was simply used as a surrogate because the media and Annan's intended target, all along, was the U.S.

With respect to GW's support of Israel's retaliatory efforts, Bolton writes GW was unequivocally unflappable.

Bolton served as an interim appointment and when it came to an end Senator Chafee, in an act of outright selfishness and cupidity, held Bolton's re-momination hostage to his own re-election efforts, which Chafee subsequently lost. After the Democrats captured the House and Senate, though they appeared willing to vote in favor of Bolton prior to their political victory, it was obvious they would not now do so. Bolton told GW he did not wish to serve any longer.

Also motivating Bolton was his disappointment that after the famous Florida vote which at the behest of former Sec. of State James Baker, Bolton assisted in, it was evident the administration had drifted far away from its pronounced foreign policy moorings. Though Bolton never comes out and writes it, no doubt his respect for Powell, Rice, the way the president dumped on Rumsfeld the day after the mid-term election, and the purposeless and futile machinations of the U.N. had completely turned him off and left him dispirited.

In his concluding chapter, Bolton focuses predominantly on the failure of former secretaries of state to reform The State Department so that the department runs itself with the consequence our ability to advocate our interests in foreign affairs has been impaired. Too much of the State's permanent bureaucracy thinks it is responsible for both setting as well as implementing policy but it has no constitutional authority to engage in the former.Only the president, and the vice president as an adjunct of the president, does. In Bolton's view the prototypical State Department professionals and civil-service are an endangered species because of the self-selection process and dominance of and uncontested nature of State's liberal bias. Second, they yearn to operate as in Europe where the "mandarins of Whitehall" hail forth with little interference and third, presidential ineptitude, cannot be ignored.

These factors morph into a State Department rife with "clientitis", ie. an inability to distinguish whose interests should be served. Furthermore, the "High Minded", as Bolton calls them, succumb to the "moral equivalency" disease whereby they ten to equate Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli defensive responses as contributing to the "circle of violence." Another version of State a long list of afflictions is "blame America first" which is based on the confused premise if America behaved or changed the world would become benign. Then Bolton comes to the "mirror image" problem which is rooted in the fact that State, all too often, concludes failure to reach agreement is our fault so we concede more and more and come across appearing wimps.

Bolton proffers State careerists are schooled in accommodation and compromise as opposed to aggressive advocacy of U.S.interests.Adversarial violation becomes non-compliance for fear of offending sensibilities. Straight talk is subordinated to accommodation. By giving adversaries the benefit of doubt gratuitously we wind up watering down our own negotiation strategy before we even begin. We have allowed ourselves to be played like a musical instrument. Our diplomatic concept of negotiation eventually boils down to supremacy of process over substantive results - again N Korea, Iran, Lebanon, UNFIL comes to mind and the list is unending. The State Department operates in a manner that self-perpetuates its own culture of failure prone behavior. It is as if the alternative to diplomatic talk carries an unthinkable cost but legitimizing outlaw regimes also carries an enormous cost - increased opportunities for propaganda and disinformation among others. Lastly, time and consequently delay become ever more costly, particularly when WMD are the issue.

Bolton's other most pressing concern is the spread of WMD undertaken predominantly by Russia and China. He submits nations engaging in this practice have not fully internalized the long term threats because of the perceived near term rewards. He explains the US position as one of foregoing "profits" from such endeavors as an investment in future security. As for the "EUroids," they too are myopic and overly focused on mercantilism, disregarding the threats over the horizon. Having placed their faith in global governance they have misread their own history.

Returning to Russia, Bolton argues the Bush Administration thought Putin would be equally concerned about the threat of terrorist possession of WMD. However, for a variety of reasons (great power aspirations,economic incentives, feelings of being slighted and basic distrust)Putin has pursued a different course. The Bush Administration has lost all illusions about Putin, according to Bolton. Russia's support of Iran and N Korea in the Security Council reaches Cold War proportions.

Bolton laments the "watered down" versions of meaningless policies that emanate from the EU -3 and their wrong headed advice that we also must tread softly in order to bring Russia aboard. The consequence being weak signals sent to rogue regimes with nuclear intentions.

The case of China is somewhat more mixed in that, when we have challenged their commercial interests, they have taken notice. There is strong divergence over N Korea which China feels less threatened by, according to Bolton, although they fear the eventual collapse of Jung-il's regime. China's concerns are based on fear of an influx of immigrants and the political instability such would create and fear of the re-uniting of N and S Korea. Bolton views their first concern transitory and the second, inevitable, ie re-unification will eventually occur. In the final analysis China's foreign policy will continue to be driven by securing reliable and expansible energy sources.

Japan, Bolton sees, is at a crossroad in terms of deciding to build up its own military and , for the moment, appears content to remain positioned under our own nuclear umbrella but that means we must demonstrate to Japan we are reliable and thus how the N Korea and Iran nuclear situation evolves is critical. Bolton then discusses India's growing desire to expand its naval force and nuclear capabilities as it sees China's regional influence spreading.

What GW did regarding Iraq comes into play because if we are unwilling to stop a regime that threatens our long term interests, as Bolton believes Sadaam did, then it sends a signal to more rogue regimes they are free to "nuclearize." This is not to say how we handled Iraq post the war was correct but taking Sadaam down, in Bolton's view was. Regime change and post overthrow are not, in Bolton's view, equatable and it is dangerous to do so. Nor does he argue regime change by force is preferable but in the case of N Korea , Iran , Sadaam etc. we probably have little rational choice or options. Possession of nuclear weapon status is something these nations are not likely to renounce willingly.

Again, returning to the issue of our pressing discussions and/or peace overtures on with Paletinians by Israel; Bolton, like myself, points to Hezballah and Syria's desire to control Labanon, Hamas' split with Fatah, and Iran's continued financing of all three as evidence that were Israel to disappear the problems presented Iran's voracious appetite to fund Islamic terrorism and fascism would not disappear.

Pakistan also remains a cause of concern, and remember Bolton wrote his book before recent events. Bolton also believes we should eliminate remaining remanants of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan because of the collateral political and propaganda benefits that would accrue by destroying this theological Fuhrer. Most particularly for Musharraf.

Finally, the U.S. must continue to avoid the trap of laundering our efforts thru the U.N. when such does not serve out national interests. Bolton points out all 192 member nations use the U.N. as an instrument of their national foreign policy but only we are criticized. He acknowledges the "High Minded" elites would have us worship at the altar of the "Secular Pope" and he cautions against this repeatedly.

Bolton enumerates such issues as family planning. abortion, right to keep and bear arms, environmental policy, death penalty, even taxation as items once exclusively within the purview of nation states is now actively being dragged into the international arena - often by the members of the U.S. Left.

Bolton states emphatically the U.N. needs to be made transparent in the distant hope it will become more effective. Here again Bolton offers voluntary must replace assessed contributions as the best approach. This approach will be resisted but it should begin with Congress forcing the initiative. Meanwhile, the new SG - Ban-moon, should be given support in his reform efforts, such as they have been to date. Furthermore, we should withhold contributions to UN activities we consider illegitimate like the Human Rights Council.

Bolton further cautions against our propensity to allow the EU to become an increasing U.N. broker where our interests are involved and points out the fallacy of such calling to mind their failed and time wasted Iranian diplomatic initiatives and, beyond, our own pleading with China to host Six-Party Talks on N Korea.

Speaking of the State Department. (See 1 below.)

Dick

1) Washington announces a Middle East conference “later this fall” amid reports of a tendency to postpone the event for a year: Rice still believes she can pull it off.

In an communique released to the media Sunday, Nov. 18, the US President and Secretary of State announced they would host a Middle East conference with the support of prime minister of Israel Ehud Olmert and President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas later this fall. There was no mention of invitations or when they would be sent out. The date and the time of the meeting will be announced subsequently. Therefore, the state department would like the accreditation process to begin. When the date is finalized, arrangements for collecting accreditation will be announced. A senior US official stated, even if the meeting does take place - on Tues. Nov. 27 as presumed in the Middle East - it will be no better than a “Potiomkin village-type” façade behind which a sham peace conference performs.

Our Washington sources report that in recent conversations, Rice confessed to overrating the chances of bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together on joint statements and that, at best, they would agree to carry on talking.

The Secretary had no solution for the Gaza situation and the Hamas takeover of government there. The administration would try and put the Bush two-state vision to the test in the course of 2008, but she already understands that the process will pass to the next US president as a vision rather than reality.

Rice said she would try and persuade some Arab governments to make token gestures towards Israel. But she could not explain how Mahmoud Abbas’ flat opposition to any such Arab gestures could be overcome.

All the Secretary of State was able to extract from the two parties, she said, was their consent for the first time to implement the first clause of the Road Map independently and irrespective of whether the other side carried out its part.

The Palestinians accordingly agreed to disband terrorist structures on the West Bank, while Israel agreed to freeze settlement activity.

Prime minister Olmert also said Israel’s military would withdraw to the positions it held on Sept. 28, 2000, prior to the Palestinian uprising, although this step was contingent on security.

Palestinian interior minister Abd Razzak Yihye vowed Sunday to go ahead and dismantle all the armed militias, i.e. Hamas, Jihad Islami and the radical Fronts. Abbas’ Fatah-Tanzim leadership declared Hamas on the West Bank “a cancer to be rooted out.”

Hamas and Jihad Islami fought back on the instant by establishing a joint command for their West Bank forces, calling it “Guardians of the Walls.” The Popular Front joined the terrorist coalition after its gunmen were attacked by Palestinian security forces in the Al Ain district of Nablus. All three announced they would forcibly resist any attempt to disband them.

Washington sources reported earlier:

The growing tendency to postpone the event was further spurred last week by urgent private messages from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They warned the administration that, if the Annapolis conference were to be staged as a photo-op lasting a few hours and sidestepped the core issues of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Jerusalem, borders and refugees, as Olmert plans, serious damage would blow back on the Muslim governments which backed the US against Iran.

State Department officials advised Rice to reply that calling off the conference would reflect badly on the US government, showing it to be short of the clout for convening a meeting of anti-Iran Sunni Arab rulers.

Save me and my nation from mindless do-gooders!

State Department pulls out all stops and plays the religious card in advance of Annapolis. (see 1 below.)

Sec. of State, Rice, met resistance when she stated that if enough State Department officers do not volunteer for the Iraq post she will have to order some officers to go. There were howls of protest from some quarters in the building at Foggy Bottom - what a great name for the Department's location.

In today's Wall Street Journal there are two op ed articles which pertain to different subjects and thus, seemingly have nothing in common, but they do. The first is about Hillary's flip flop support for New York's arrogant governor who believes it wise to issue legal drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. The thrust of the article is the threat such would have in creating increased voter fraud.

Do-gooders are in favor of the governor's actions because it gives entitlement to illegals and we citizens must be sensitive to the needs of illegals even if our most sacred right of voting is debased and threatened by voter fraud.

The second article is about the LAPD's efforts to enforce vagrancy laws and thereby clean up the city's crime and health related problems which are destroying neighborhoods. The LAPD have been embraced by the homeless because law enforcement has made their life saner, safer and better.

But these facts do not phase the do-gooders. They are challenging the LAPD in court because vagrancy enforcement, they claim, abridges the constitutional freedoms of street people to "crap" wherever they choose and for gangs to distribute their wares , ie dope etc.

Society needs do-gooders when they do good but most of the time their mindless focus on the needs of their constituents disregards the rights of other citizens and in the case of LA residents most assuredly so. These LA residents are simply trying to keep peace in their neighborhoods, prevent them from deteriorating while maintaining home values so they can live and conduct business in a safe and productive manner. But this is of no concern to do-gooders because they are on a holy and self-righteous mission.

It is one thing to be a voice of reason. It is yet another to be oblivious to the greater harm created by witless concepts which impose on others circumstances do- gooders never experience themselves.

Mitchell Bard has written a provocative book entitled:" Will Israel Survive." He acknowledges the greatest threat to Israel is an Arab nation with nuclear capability but concludes:
a) "...the fortitude of the Israeli people will allow them to overcome their adversaries for the next 60 years and beyond." and

b) Bard's confidence the relationship between the U.S. and Israel will persist is based upon "... the bedrock values and interests that the two nations share that gives me confidence the United Sates will remain Israel's staunchest ally."

Bard also pointed out to the reader that: "Israel might be the only country in the world whose right to exist is debated and whose future is questioned."

The problem is Bard seems not to offer much evidence to support his conviction other than the 5000 plus history of Jewish survival.

Did a U.S. drone kill a slew of Taliban in Pakistan? Would not seem likely while Admiral Fallon was meeting with Musharraf but then again it might have been launched specifically to let Musharraf know we mean business and territorial matters might not stop us from our goal. (See 2 below.)

al Qaeda is crumbling? According to Ray Robison it is but the media seems unwilling to report as much because to do so would bolster Bush and the Administration. (See 3 below.)

Has Russia and China had a change of heart and are they about to do an about face vis a vis more sanctions against Iran? (See 4 below.)

Barry Rubin see little possibility of any agreement between Palestinians and Israel as of the moment because of Palestinian rules of the game, which he enumerates. (See 5 below.)

Gerard Baker, like myself, believes the Republicans, not the Democrats can defeat Hillary. She is beatable because she is not a person Americans find likeable. She is as slick as her husband ever was but can't carry it off as well as "aw shucks Bill."(See 6 below.)

Dick


1)A group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish clerics based in Jerusalem invited for week-end trip to Washington to meet Bush


Our Middle East sources report the scheme was initiated by the State Department ahead of the forthcoming Annapolis peace conference in an effort to impart spiritual weight to the conference and so offset the empty chairs. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice will back in the Middle East for a last-ditch effort to finalize a date and an agenda capable of drawing participants from the region, including the very reluctant Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

The invitees include the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Theolophilos III, the Latin Patriarch Dr. Michel Sabah, head of the Lutheran Church Bishop Mounib Younan, head of the Episcopal Church Rev. Suheil Dahana, the Armenian Patriarch Torkom II, Head of the Palestinian Sharia Courts,Sheikh Tasir Tamimi and Palestinian Minister of Endowments Sheikh Jamal Buwatani.

Israel’s Chief Rabbis Yonah Metzger and Bakshi Doron were also invited, but they have decided not to go because the trip is aimed at promoting a conference that will discuss renunciation of parts of the Land of Israel.

2)A suspected US missile strikes Taliban or al Qaeda hideout, killing 10 people, in Miran Shah, capital of Pakistan’s North Waziristan


Later, armed men surrounded the scene, 20 km from the Afghan border, and carried away the dead and wounded. al Qaeda makes it a rule to evacuate the dead and wounded so as not to disclose their identities, especially when a prominent operative is hit.

Witnesses reported seeing a drone flying in from the West before a big explosion.

Two foreigners, usually associated with al Qaeda in the tribal regions, were among the dead, according to locals. They said the house targeted was a training base for insurgents loyal to Baitullah Mehsud, leader of Pakistan-based Taliban terrorists who are blamed for suicide attacks which have killed 400 people since July.

The attack, denied by a US military spokesman, took place as U.S. Central Command chief Adm. William Fallon was in Pakistan to meet President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Suspected US missiles have struck extremist hideouts in Pakistan’s tribal regions in the past but were never acknowledged.

Muslim extremists have spread out of Pakistan’s tribal belt to the Swat Valley, beyond the North-West Frontier Province, where pro-Taliban cleric Maulana Fazlullah is trying to impose strict Sharia law on formerly Buddhist villages. Friday, masked men paraded 48 men claimed to be Pakistan paramilitary troops who had surrendered in clashes after 2,500 troops were moved into the valley.

3) Al Qaeda's Taliban Troubles
By Ray Robison

The signs of al Qaeda's downward spiral are accumulating. If the media were as anxious to find signs of victory as signs of failure in our war with al Qaeda, the incipient crumbling of its support in South Asia would already be noted. But of course that would require giving credit to the Bush Administration's war policies.

Already beleaguered in Iraq, where tribal leaders have turned against it, al Qaeda faces a crumbling of its tribal alliances in the Afghanistan/Pakistan borderland regions. New reporting reaffirms my belief that substantial portions of the Taliban, a tribal entity which is under the influence of the Maulana Fazlur Rahman, have turned against al Qaeda. To be sure, not every Taliban leader is going to turn, but a significant portion of them will.

The Maulana is already a target of al Qaeda, and he is working against them.

President Mushareef finally showed the will to act against the Maulana and his jihadists with a raid on a mosque a few months back, letting him know there is pressure. In addition, Mushareef is now sending forces -- which have been getting trounced by Taliban and tribal forces so far -- into tribal lands.

Enter back into the Pakistani political mix former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazeer Bhutto. She worked closely with the Maulana when she was PM. He was then and is still the political leader of the militant Islamic faction in Pakistan. Bhutto will help bring him back into the inner circle. Though he will not act by proclamation and his changes will be covert, he will affect the Taliban by internal political maneuvering within his jihad-centric political parties.

Al Qaeda has targeted the Maulana. Undoubtedly the U.S. is applying more than a little bit of pressure on him, and his former foreign sponsors Saddam and Qaddafi are no longer pumping millions to his jihad groups. The new Bhutto/Mushareef alliance leaves him divided from the military and democratic political interests of Pakistan. He is increasingly isolated.

But Bhutto also gives the Maulana an escape valve; a chance to earn a powerful ally. The Maulana is no fool and he sees the weakness of al Qaeda and the end of the current incarnation of its international jihad just around the corner. Already his vitriol against the United States has lessened.

He is positioning the Taliban to start making peace agreements.

Faced with the looming conflict with the Maulana, Al Qaeda is concentrating its forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The New York Times describes a new influx of foreign fighters into Pakistan and Afghanistan. As always, the Times spins the hollowest analysis to portray defeat for the United States. But there are some questions the Times didn't bother to ask or answer, beyond the usual "the U.S. made them do it" tripe anyway. Chiefly, "why are they coming to Afghanistan"?

As the Times notes, many of these new foreign fighters in Afghanistan are being placed in leadership positions within the Taliban, usually under newer, younger Taliban commanders. The article even notes that this is a somewhat "new" vs. "old" battle for Taliban leadership. The Times fails to realize the obvious, that these are al Qaeda fighters, and instead refers to them as new Taliban recruits. But the timing of this "new phenomenon" makes the reality self-evident.

These fighters were meant for Iraq but the core al Qaeda leadership has realized that the war there is lost. They are no longer sending the new recruits in large numbers. In the current environment, only small teams can go unmolested in the Iraqi lands al Qaeda used to control. Since al Qaeda can no longer send large numbers of fighters to Iraq and since their Taliban support base is slipping away at home they have one option left to them.

Al Qaeda is attempting a hostile takeover of the Taliban.

And that signals the end of al Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan just as it did in Iraq when they tried to take over from local chieftains.

Other tribal leaders are also reported to be turning against AQ. The Telegraph reports:

The Daily Telegraph has learned that the Afghan government hopes to seal the deal this week with Mullah Abdul Salaam and his Alizai tribe, which has been fighting alongside the Taliban in Helmand province.

Diplomats confirmed yesterday that Mullah Salaam was expected to change sides within days. He is a former Taliban corps commander and governor of Herat province under the government that fell in 2001.

Military sources said British forces in the province are "observing with interest" the potential deal in north Helmand, which echoes the efforts of US commanders in Iraq's western province to split Sunni tribal leaders from their al-Qa'eda allies.

Older Taliban commanders are flipping to our side. In response, al Qaeda is seeking out young leaders to take over with the support of al Qaeda fighters. Now we know that UBL's latest statement was about more than just the split of his jihadists in Iraq. It is about the coming crumbling of the Taliban in Southern Asia.

You can bet that Taliban commanders like Mullah Salaam would not be making deals if they didn't have the support of the major players in Pakistan, namely Maulana Fazlur Rahman. If this "new" vs. "old" stew with al Qaeda stirring the pot comes to a boil, the fighting will resemble the Iraqi sectarian fighting, except this time is will be all Taliban and al Qaeda fighters killing each other in an all out war. And here is the bad news for The New York Times. When that happens, we win.

In fact, al Qaeda is now engaging in a propaganda effort to conceal its' Achilles heal of fractionalization. The Times of India is now reporting that a significant Taliban leader has just released a rare video reaffirming his commitment to al Qaeda:

A top Taliban commander has said his group maintains good relations and military cooperation with the Al-Qaida insurgents not only in Afghanistan but in Iraq as well.

"We have good and strong relations with Al-Qaida mujahideen in Iraq, provide them with our expertise and share with them military information," Taliban southern commander Dadullah Mansoor on Wednesday said in a video produced by Al-Qaida's media production wing, as-Sahab .

How very interesting that al Qaeda is so concerned about the jihadist split that it is running videos from sympathetic Taliban commanders to refute it.

Hold on to your seats, things are about to get messy in South Asia. A war is shaping up between New Taliban backed by al Qaeda on one side and Old Taliban backed by Fazlur Rahman/Mushareef/Bhutto on the other side. The first shot came with the bombing of Bhutto's motorcade, which killed over a hundred.

When these murders are fully targeting on each other instead of innocents they will kill thousands of their own fighters.

4) Russia, China fall in line with Security Council on nuclear Iran


The five permanent members of the UN Security Council agreed Friday to move toward a third set of sanctions if Iran fails to answer key questions on its nuclear program, the British Foreign Office said.

The Foreign Office said diplomats from the US, Russia, China, Britain and France agreed, along with Germany, to come up with a new sanctions resolution with the aim of voting on it if November reports by the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency do not show improved Iranian cooperation.

Russia and China did not comment, and the agreement seemed at odds with weeks of public opposition, primarily by the Kremlin, to new sanctions against Iran.

Still, a senior diplomat from one of the six nations meeting in London suggested Russia's statements on the issue were not necessarily a reflection of its "determination, along with the other five (countries) to prevent an Iran armed with nuclear weapons." He spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media on the issue.

A senior Security Council diplomat at UN headquarters in New York said the five permanent members have not yet agreed on sanctions to be included in the new resolution. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because discussions are continuing.

Friday's agreement seemed to reflect earlier consensus among the six about the possibility of new sanctions.

Iran has repeatedly said it would not freeze enrichment and IAEA officials have privately said Teheran is expanding the program.

The diplomats who met in London on Friday will hold talks again on Nov. 19 to assess the pending reports, a Foreign Office spokesman said.

He said the Security Council members and Germany had agreed to "finalize a text for a third UN Security Council Sanctions resolution with the intention of bringing it to a vote in the UN Security Council unless the November reports of Dr. Solana and Dr. ElBaradei show a positive outcome of the efforts."

US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns had urged China and Russia to support harsher UN sanctions, saying the two nations were key to a diplomatic solution to the standoff.

"The US believes very strongly there is a need to accelerate the diplomacy, to strengthen the sanctions," Burns told The Associated Press.

"We want a diplomatic solution, we do not want to give up on diplomacy, but we need the help of the P5 (permanent Security Council member) countries to do that, particularly the support of Russia and China."

Britain and France have backed the US call for a resolution on a third round of UN Security Council sanctions if Iran continues to refuse to suspend uranium enrichment.

Burns said the US believes China has increased trade with Iran in the last six months, sending the wrong signal about the international community's attitude toward the nuclear program.

Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, said Friday in Teheran that talks between Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog were making progress and he warned the US to avoid resorting to threats.

Burns said participants at Friday's meeting in London did not discuss an offer from Saudi officials to create a Middle East consortium of users of enriched uranium.

The proposal by the Arab nations around the Persian Gulf is to build a uranium enrichment plant in a neutral country to supply the region's states, including Iran, with reactor fuel for nuclear energy programs.

Burns said Washington would look carefully at the offer, but stressed a similar proposal from Russia - to host Iran's uranium enrichment facilities on its territory to allay Western concerns about monitoring - had been ignored.

5) The rules of Palestinian politics ...
By Barry Rubin

Several Fatah security force officers assigned to protect Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as he went to meet with Palestinian Authority (PA) head Mahmoud Abbas, it has just been revealed, planned to assassinate him instead. This event should be amazing enough to get people to rethink their premises. After all, it is late 2007, with a supposedly moderate leadership running the PA and Fatah, and this kind of thing is still happening.


It should be emphasized that the would-be assassins were Fatah, not Hamas, and that they were quickly released by PA authorities before outside pressure forced their re-arrest. (Prediction: they will be freed soon with little or no international media coverage.)


But this is merely the same basic pattern as happened with the assassins of Israeli government minister Rehavam Zeevi in 2001 or the gunmen who seized the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002: international indifference, a show of PA law enforcement, and terrorists go free. Not to mention thousands of other attacks when the PA had a chance to teach its own people about the politically counterproductive — not to mention immoral and divisive--nature of terrorism.


The PA has never really punished anyone for murdering or trying to kill an Israeli or for attacking Israel. Occasionally, in the 1990s, there were convictions but only on charges of damaging the Palestinian cause which meant attacking at an embarrassing time. Even those prisoners were quickly released.


Remember that the conspirators, if successful, would have tremendously damaged the PA and Fatah before an international summit meeting from which Palestinians hoped to benefit. If they'd actually started shooting, much less killed or wounded Olmert, the PA, Fatah, and the Palestinian cause would have been so discredited that it would take years before they were offered a state or lavish Western aid again.


Consequently, based on his own interests, Abbas should have them shot, which is what the PA does to people it deems traitors. But they probably won't even get community service in the end.


Why? Because of the rules of Palestinian politics which are absolutely fatal to the hope of getting a Palestinian state, becoming more moderate, ending terrorism, or stopping even officially sponsored PA incitement to commit terrorism. Palestinians know these rules well though outsiders seem largely unaware of them. Exceptions can be found but few and since these are considered shameful they go unpublicized and thus form no precedent for changing the rules, which are:


1. Palestinians cannot stop other Palestinians from attacking Israel. To do so would be betraying the cause, becoming Israel's lackey. This applies even if the Israelis are bringing in supplies or providing jobs to Palestinians, or if the attack damages Palestinian interests. If the victims are schoolchildren or shoppers or people riding on a bus, of course, is irrelevant in this world view.

2. He who is most militant is always right. Extremism equals heroism. This is one reason why Fatah has such a difficult time competing with Hamas. It cannot denounce these rivals for being too hardline and intransigent. Suicide bombers along with those who incite and manage them are role models, not misled individuals, much less evil ones.

3. More violence is good and a victory if it inflicts casualties or damage on Israel. Other than ritual denunciations for the foreign media, these are matters for pride, with the implication being that they advance the cause rather than sabotage it.

4. No Israeli government can do anything good. Thus, Olmert is no better than anyone else even as he withdraws from the Gaza Strip, offers to accept a Palestinian state, and is ready to give up east Jerusalem. Some Palestinian leaders can talk privately to Israeli counterparts about cooperation and even their dream of peace but don't tell this to their own people.

5. Since Palestinians are the perpetual victim they are entitled to everything they want and never need to give anything in exchange for Israeli concessions. Thus, the preferred PA diplomatic option is that Israel withdraws from the West Bank and east Jerusalem, recognizes an independent Palestinian state, releases all Palestinian prisoners, and then talks can begin. (Note: I thought of this as a satire but a high-ranking Syrian official just proposed the equivalent on that front.)

6. No Palestinian should be imprisoned for attacks on Israel one minute longer than required by international public relations' needs. After all, if they are doing heroic deeds against an evil enemy — even by murdering civilians on purpose — why should they be punished?

7. Fatah won't discipline or expel anyone for launching attacks.

8. Wiping Israel off the map is morally correct. If anyone says anything different they will be scared or ashamed, justifying their lapse as a temporary tactical measure or way to fool enemies.

9. While pretending to be nationalist, the movement sets as top priority the so-called "right of return," the demand that all Palestinian refugees or their descendents — several million people — must be allowed to live in Israel. It is better not to get a state than to give up this demand. Even though having many Palestinians go live in Israel would make Palestine weaker and poorer it is better to focus on destroying Israel from within.

10. It is more important to be steadfast and patient with a terrible status quo than to make big gains by ending the conflict forever. To do so would give up future Palestinians' chance to seek total victory. Their right to all of the land cannot be given away.

11. No speeches, no foreign aid, and no international plans or meetings have altered these basic rules. Palestinian leaders may sincerely voice their dismay with this problem privately but won't fight to smash them. If they ever really do change we'll know. But until then, these are the reasons why the Palestinian side cannot and will not reach for peace or keep existing commitments very well. Even if a handful of top Palestinians want to reach agreement with Israel, they cannot — and even worse, dare not — violate these commandments.

6) Hillary's choice: be a bully or delicate flower Mrs Clinton's opponents haven't a clue how to take on a woman
By Gerard Baker

There's an essential paradox about successful women in politics that we flat-footed men have never really grasped.

To succeed in anything, but especially in the cold brutality of politics, you have to be hard as nails, ruthless, willing to win at all costs. Life and love have taught us that these are qualities we associate mostly with the selfish, hardened, ambitious male.

But the few women who do possess these traits are unusually blessed. They are after all, still female, and as such have, or at least are deemed to have also those feminine qualities that speak to a different kind of leadership - maternal solicitude, selflessness, enduring loyalty.

I pondered this chromosomal dimension to political competition as I watched the latest American presidential debate.
Background

* Rats scrabble to take over sinking ship

* Hillary Clinton, new pin-up of the Republican right

* Who can stop President Clinton II?

* Remarkable death of Dixie America

The campaign for the Democratic nomination entered a new phase this week. Lagging Hillary Clinton ever farther in the opinion polls with only two months until the first votes are cast, her increasingly desperate rivals have decided to go on the attack.

Instead of politely setting out an alternative that nobody seems to want, they have chosen to come at her with pitchforks and steak knives. At the debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, they went for the jugular and it wasn't an edifying spectacle.

There stood Mrs Clinton, the little woman, caught like a frightened doe between her two principal rivals. The shameless John Edwards pounded her repeatedly over her tough foreign policy stance and her dishonesty. Barack Obama, the more reluctant pugilist, landed softer jabs, still designed to tenderise her. From the wings, the also-rans - all male - threw a few lusty punches.

Needless to say, the Clinton campaign seized on the opportunity that the spectacle presented. They issued a video after the debate that emphasised the narrative - Little Woman Waylaid by Big Bullies.

It was pure Clinton. Having spent a lifetime insisting that women should be treated exactly the same as men, Mrs Clinton has been quite brilliant at exploiting her femininity.

She campaigned for years for the rights of women to stand up to abusive men, and then defended her husband as he treated vulnerable female employees as playthings for his own sexual gratification. Better still, she exploited her own status as the helpless, wronged wife of a multiple philanderer to launch her campaign for the Senate from the humiliating ashes of the Monica Lewinsky affair.

In that campaign, the most telling moment came in a debate with her Republican rival, Rick Lazio. The witless Mr Lazio had happened upon a brilliant wheeze to challenge Mrs Clinton directly over some issue by striding towards her podium and insisting that she sign some piece of paper. As Mrs Clinton visibly flinched, the election was clinched. Who wants to vote for a man who would treat a woman like that?

Now she's under attack from a whole gang of men, and tactically speaking it's a no-lose situation for her. If her opponents play tough, she can shrink and look like the intimidated woman beset by brutal men. If they treat her with kid gloves - all gallant forbearance and courtly deference - she can open up a can of whoop-ass on them as eagerly as a dockside bully.

Mrs Clinton, of course, is not the first woman to spot the possibilities of this duality. Elizabeth I, when she wasn't putting Spaniards to the sword overseas or lopping off the heads of Catholics at home, softly reminded her courtiers that she had the body of a weak and feeble woman. Margaret Thatcher could beguile any opponent with her feminine wiles even as she demonstrated repeatedly that she was the proud owner of the largest pair of steel balls in the Cabinet.

All this merely emphasizes again her rivals cannot really defeat her. Only Mrs Clinton can. And it is also why the most revealing moment of the debate was a self-inflicted wound.

Asked whether she stood by an earlier remark that she supported a plan by the Governor of New York to give driving licenses to illegal immigrants, she said, essentially, of course she did. But when one of her opponents said he didn't agree - that driving licenses were a privilege that ought not to be extended to people who were here illegally, Mrs Clinton backtracked furiously.

It was a startling moment - a rare blunder and an insight into the candidate's fundamental weakness - a powerful impression that she will say and do anything to get elected, even if it means contradicting herself in consecutive sentences. It was a reminder, too, that for all the advantages she and the Democrats possess, both remain deeply vulnerable.

It's been tempting to write off the Republicans, but history suggests that it would be unwise. They have proved remarkably good at winning elections. Since the Republican party was founded in the middle of the 19th century there have been 39 presidential elections. In 23 of those the winning candidate secured a majority of the popular vote. Of those majority winners, 17 were Republicans – beginning with Abraham Lincoln in 1864 and ending with George Bush in 2004 (there's a pair of bookends for you). Only six of those elections were won by Democrats and, get this, four of those winners were Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

So in 150 years, only three Democrats have been elected to the presidency with the support of a majority of voters — FDR, Lyndon Johnson (by a landslide in 1964) and Jimmy Carter (he scraped home with 50.1 per cent in 1976). Now, to be fair, there have been sometimes been special circumstances - Bill Clinton surely would have won a majority in 1996 had it not been for the late entry of the quixotic Ross Perot as a third-party candidate.

But the numbers are so stark that they suggest something quite enduring. The Republicans have been brilliant at assembling winning coalitions over the years — social conservatives, business interests, libertarians, national security hawks. And it is still true that Americans are, deep down, rather conservative.

For most of the past 150 years the Republican message of free markets, traditional values and a strong defence has seen off a steady succession of ambitious Democratic men. Who's to say it won't do the same for a Democratic woman?

Nobel Prize for hysteria and unscientific proof! Reid get's his ears pinned!

I have just returned from a back roads trip to The Outer Banks area of N.C. Beautiful region. Lots of history, scenery and excellent sea food. Some of what I am posting is, admittedly, old news.

Al Gore won the Nobel prize in a new category - "Scary Unscientific Verbiage." His name now resides alongside Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter who were given the award for their peace contributions commitment to intellectual honesty.

There is no doubt humans impact the environment. Rachel Carson helped get rid of DDT. Consequently, multitudes die needlessly from Malaria. Bill and Linda Gates are spending millions of their Capitalistic earnings trying to solve the problem.

Because of the impact of widespread media stories we rush to conclusions disregarding proven and tested scientific fact. Trial lawyers sue drug and industrial companies for alleged sins only to find retroactively many of the assertions by lawyers were, in fact, based on spurious science and questionable testimony of "expert" witnesses. Meanwhile trial lawyers become winers as they pocket millions in fees.

Media hype and single issue do-gooders' rantings and accusation supplant science. Corporations cave because associated costs are not worth the defense effort, figuring who would listen anyway. In reaching this point of trial by public hysteria we will be worse off down the road because irrational behaviour dictates the path and who knows where that ultimately leads?

Compliments to Al Gore because he has had an impact on awareness but the consequences of the response are likely to do more harm than good as we discovered responding to Rachel Carson's concerns.

Ne'eman points out the ludicrous position Olmert and Israel could be engineered into regarding Rice's forthcoming Annapolis meeting. (See 1 below.)

Peter Zeihan discusses the significance of Russia's role in Iran as we seek to block Iran's ultimate goal of become a hegemony enjoying increased, if not dominant influence in that region of the world. He outlines what Russia's ultimate goal is and how it hopes it can achieve some re-balancing. (See 2 below.)

Intrigue with respect to Israel's raid on Syria continues. (See 3 below.)

Rush scores over the Democrat's Digby O'Dell! Sen. Reid looks like the buffoon he is as a result of being boxed around the ears! The article, cited below, parrots Rush's claim, ie. Reid engaged in a clumsy attempt to curtail free speech and it backfired.

When it comes to believing in "free" markets Democrats distrust the collective thinking of the unfettered, preferring instead the imposition of government thinking and solutions. Liberals profess they are for the "little man" and they are as long as the "little man" submits to their control achieved through entitlements and other " government gifts." (See 4 below.)

Wes Pruden points out the folly of Sec. Rice's Annapolis meeting but there is always the possibility the world will tire and eventually press Israel and a weakened and appeasing Olmert will cave. (See 5 below.)

After Putin's visit to Iran, Olmert felt compelled to get a reading on Putin's intentions so he flew to Moscow and Olmert got a briefing that allayed his concerns. The problem is Putin uses Iran and Israel as pawns in his attempt to get the U.S. to bend and GW, seeking a diplomatic victory as his term in office draws near, may need to put pressure on Israel in order to get from Putin what GW needs. (See 6 below.)

Dick




1) Back To The Future: Annapolis 2007
By Yisrael Ne'eman

It is hard to believe that in preparation for the Annapolis peace conference the Palestinians are successfully picking up where they left off after the Camp David 2000 (and Taba 2001) peace initiative failure starring then Israeli PM Ehud Barak, the late Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat and then US President Bill Clinton. The Palestinians could have had a thriving state by now but they insist that every last one of their demands be met. They are dictating terms of a final accord, not negotiating compromises. Last time Arafat & Co. threatened and implemented a violent response because Israel did not accept 100% of their stated conditions. The same threat is being made again.

Today the PA chairman or president, Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is supposedly in a much weaker position than Arafat was seven years ago. Then Arafat controlled the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and the Gaza Strip. As of June Gaza was overrun by the Islamist extremist Hamas and Jihad factions in a military overthrow of a freely elected Palestinian government and parliament (even if Hamas was and is the dominant political party). As often mentioned, should Israel leave the West Bank, it would be just a matter of weeks before Hamas would complete their rout of the secular Fatah and expel them completely from all the Palestinian areas. Paradoxically, it is the pathetic weakness of Abbas and his emergency Fatah government which gives him strength.

He is considered too weak to make concessions and therefore Palestinian demands concerning a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders (with the possibility of a land swap of a few percentages of the total) have gained credibility even with the Americans. Jerusalem will be divided with Arab neighborhoods going to a Palestinian state (seen as reasonable by many Israeli Jews) but it is far from sure that the Jewish Quarter and Western Wall will remain in Israel since the Palestinians demand the Old City for themselves, or at best the world community is speaking about some sort of international arrangement for the entire "holy basin" of Jewish, Christian and Moslem holy sites (Temple Mount included). Lack of defensible borders will have a definite impact on Israeli security should such a massive withdrawal be implemented. And it does not matter what "security arrangements" will be agreed upon by the Palestinians, they will be violated as they were in the 1990s. Arafat initiated an overall low intensity conflict in September 2000 (known as the Second Intifada) to force Israel into further concessions. And can anyone trust either the Palestinians or the international community to ensure security and free access to all the holy sites?

Over the past seven years the Israeli denial of Palestinian refugee return appeared to be the only issue where common sense (and Israeli policy in this case) was making inroads. Compensation in one form or another was being discussed in the international community. But here we managed to shoot ourselves in both feet when Vice Premier Haim Ramon decided to discuss refugee return with Abbas during the pre-Annapolis preparations, raising Palestinian expectations of a reversal of American foreign policy as expressed by Pres. Bush's letter to PM Ariel Sharon in April 2004. Later Congress joined the president and came out completely against any Palestinian refugee return to Israel proper. Even European and Arab countries began to accept this perspective.

Abbas has made clear he will not take responsibility for any agreement with Israel but rather will send it to a referendum by "the people." Very interesting since they voted a landslide victory for Hamas in the January 2006 elections and in Gaza supported the violent overthrow of the hybrid Abbas led but Hamas dominated government.

So with whom is Israel negotiating? Not Abbas and Fatah, but the Hamas. Unless Israel self-destructs there will be no Palestinian agreement. The international community is "strengthening" Abbas and Fatah by forcing Israel to make concessions. Their weakness is Hamas' strength. Any Palestinian can figure out the necessity of supporting Hamas to pressure Israel to give in to Abbas/Fatah demands.

As this charade continues, it appears that Yossi Beilin of the left wing Meretz faction may have a point when insisting that Israel deal directly with the Hamas. After all, who needs the facade of the Abbas scarecrow? Better Hamas should be completely intransigent out of choice than we should be railroaded into an agreement (by choice of course) detrimental to Israel's security in the name of strengthening a phantom partner who will be unable to enforce any security clauses.

Middle Eastern logic exists, whether the Jews can figure it out or not.


2) The Russia Problem
By Peter Zeihan

For the past several days, high-level Russian and American policymakers, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Russian President Vladimir Putin's right-hand man, Sergei Ivanov, have been meeting in Moscow to discuss the grand scope of U.S.-Russian relations. These talks would be of critical importance to both countries under any circumstances, as they center on the network of treaties that have governed Europe since the closing days of the Cold War.

Against the backdrop of the Iraq war, however, they have taken on far greater significance. Both Russia and the United States are attempting to rewire the security paradigms of key regions, with Washington taking aim at the Middle East and Russia more concerned about its former imperial territory. The two countries' visions are mutually incompatible, and American preoccupation with Iraq is allowing Moscow to overturn the geopolitics of its backyard.

The Iraqi Preoccupation

After years of organizational chaos, the United States has simplified its plan for Iraq: Prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Once-lofty thoughts of forging a democracy in general or supporting a particular government were abandoned in Washington well before the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. Reconstruction is on the back burner and even oil is now an afterthought at best. The entirety of American policy has been stripped down to a single thought: Iran.

That thought is now broadly held throughout not only the Bush administration but also the American intelligence and defense communities. It is not an unreasonable position. An American exodus from Iraq would allow Iran to leverage its allies in Iraq's Shiite South to eventually gain control of most of Iraq. Iran's influence also extends to significant Shiite communities on the Persian Gulf's western oil-rich shore. Without U.S. forces blocking the Iranians, the military incompetence of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar could be perceived by the Iranians as an invitation to conquer that shore. That would land roughly 20 million barrels per day of global oil output -- about one-quarter of the global total -- under Tehran's control. Rhetoric aside, an outcome such as this would push any U.S. president into a broad regional war to prevent a hostile power from shutting off the global economic pulse.

So the United States, for better or worse, is in Iraq for the long haul. This requires some strategy for dealing with the other power with the most influence in the country, Iran. This, in turn, leaves the United States with two options: It can simply attempt to run Iraq as a protectorate forever, a singularly unappealing option, or it can attempt to strike a deal with Iran on the issue of Iraq -- and find some way to share influence.

Since the release of the Petraeus report in September, seeking terms with Iran has become the Bush administration's unofficial goal, but the White House does not want substantive negotiations until the stage is appropriately set. This requires that Washington build a diplomatic cordon around Iran -- intensifying Tehran's sense of isolation -- and steadily ratchet up the financial pressure. Increasing bellicose rhetoric from European capitals and the lengthening list of major banks that are refusing to deal with Iran are the nuts and bolts of this strategy.

Not surprisingly, Iran views all this from a starkly different angle. Persia has historically been faced with a threat of invasion from its western border -- with the most recent threat manifesting in a devastating 1980-1988 war that resulted in a million deaths. The primary goal of Persia's foreign policy stretching back a millennium has been far simpler than anything the United States has cooked up: Destroy Mesopotamia. In 2003, the United States was courteous enough to handle that for Iran.

Now, Iran's goals have expanded and it seeks to leverage the destruction of its only meaningful regional foe to become a regional hegemon. This requires leveraging its Iraqi assets to bleed the Americans to the point that they leave. But Iran is not immune to pressure. Tehran realizes that it might have overplayed its hand internationally, and it certainly recognizes that U.S. efforts to put it in a noose are bearing some fruit. What Iran needs is its own sponsor -- and that brings to the Middle East a power that has not been present there for quite some time: Russia.

Option One: Parity

The Russian geography is problematic. It lacks oceans to give Russia strategic distance from its foes and it boasts no geographic barriers separating it from Europe, the Middle East or East Asia. Russian history is a chronicle of Russia's steps to establish buffers -- and of those buffers being overwhelmed. The end of the Cold War marked the transition from Russia's largest-ever buffer to its smallest in centuries. Put simply, Russia is terrified of being overwhelmed -- militarily, economically, politically and culturally -- and its policies are geared toward re-establishing as large a buffer as possible.

As such, Russia needs to do one of two things. The first is to re-establish parity. As long as the United States thinks of Russia as an inferior power, American power will continue to erode Russian security. Maintain parity and that erosion will at least be reduced. Putin does not see this parity coming from a conflict, however. While Russia is far stronger now -- and still rising -- than it was following the 1998 ruble crash, Putin knows full well that the Soviet Union fell in part to an arms race. Attaining parity via the resources of a much weaker Russia simply is not an option.

So parity would need to come via the pen, not the sword. A series of three treaties ended the Cold War and created a status of legal parity between the United States and Russia. The first, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), restricts how much conventional defense equipment each state in NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, and their successors, can deploy. The second, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), places a ceiling on the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that the United States and Russia can possess. The third, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), eliminates entirely land-based short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles with ranges of 300 to 3,400 miles, as well as all ground-launched cruise missiles from NATO and Russian arsenals.

The constellation of forces these treaties allow do not provide what Russia now perceives its security needs to be. The CFE was all fine and dandy in the world in which it was first negotiated, but since then every Warsaw Pact state -- once on the Russian side of the balance sheet -- has joined NATO. The "parity" that was hardwired into the European system in 1990 is now lopsided against the Russians.

START I is by far the Russians' favorite treaty, since it clearly treats the Americans and Russians as bona fide equals. But in the Russian mind, it has a fateful flaw: It expires in 2009, and there is about zero support in the United States for renewing it. The thinking in Washington is that treaties were a conflict management tool of the 20th century, and as American power -- constrained by Iraq as it is -- continues to expand globally, there is no reason to enter into a treaty that limits American options. This philosophical change is reflected on both sides of the American political aisle: Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations have negotiated a new full disarmament treaty.

Finally, the INF is the worst of all worlds for Russia. Intermediate-range missiles are far cheaper than intercontinental ones. If it does come down to an arms race, Russia will be forced to turn to such systems if it is not to be left far behind an American buildup.

Russia needs all three treaties to be revamped. It wants the CFE altered to reflect an expanded NATO. It wants START I extended (and preferably deepened) to limit long-term American options. It wants the INF explicitly linked to the other two treaties so that Russian options can expand in a pinch -- or simply discarded in favor of a more robust START I.

The problem with the first option is that it assumes the Americans are somewhat sympathetic to Russian concerns. They are not.

Recall that the dominant concern in the post-Cold War Kremlin is that the United States will nibble along the Russian periphery until Moscow itself falls. The fear is as deeply held as it is accurate. Only three states have ever threatened the United States: The first, the United Kingdom, was lashed into U.S. global defense policy; the second, Mexico, was conquered outright; and the third was defeated in the Cold War. The addition of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states to NATO, the basing of operations in Central Asia and, most important, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine have made it clear to Moscow that the United States plays for keeps.

The Americans see it as in their best interest to slowly grind Russia into dust. Those among our readers who can identify with "duck and cover" can probably relate to the logic of that stance. So, for option one to work, Russia needs to have leverage elsewhere. That elsewhere is in Iran.

Via the U.N. Security Council, Russian cooperation can ensure Iran's diplomatic isolation. Russia's past cooperation on Iran's Bushehr nuclear power facility holds the possibility of a Kremlin condemnation of Iran's nuclear ambitions. A denial of Russian weapons transfers to Iran would hugely empower ongoing U.S. efforts to militarily curtail Iranian ambitions. Put simply, Russia has the ability to throw Iran under the American bus -- but it will not do it for free. In exchange, it wants those treaties amended in its favor, and it wants American deference on security questions in the former Soviet Union.

The Moscow talks of the past week were about addressing all of Russian concerns about the European security structure, both within and beyond the context of the treaties, with the offer of cooperation on Iran as the trade-off. After days of talks, the Americans refused to budge on any meaningful point.

Option Two: Imposition

Russia has no horse in the Iraq war. Moscow had feared that its inability to leverage France and Germany to block the war in the first place would allow the United States to springboard to other geopolitical victories. Instead, the Russians are quite pleased to see the American nose bloodied. They also are happy to see Iran engrossed in events to its west. When Iran and Russia strengthen -- as both are currently -- they inevitably begin to clash as their growing spheres of influence overlap in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In many ways, Russia is now enjoying the best of all worlds: Its Cold War archrival is deeply occupied in a conflict with one of Moscow's own regional competitors.

In the long run, however, the Russians have little doubt that the Americans will eventually prevail. Iran lacks the ability to project meaningful power beyond the Persian Gulf, while the Russians know from personal experience how good the Americans are at using political, economic, military and alliance policy to grind down opponents. The only question in the Russian mind pertains to time frame.

If the United States is not willing to rejigger the European-Russian security framework, then Moscow intends to take advantage of a distracted United States to impose a new reality upon NATO. The United States has dedicated all of its military ground strength to Iraq, leaving no wiggle room should a crisis erupt anywhere else in the world. Should Russia create a crisis, there is nothing the United States can do to stop it.

So crisis-making is about to become Russia's newest growth industry. The Kremlin has a very long list of possibilities, which includes:

* Destabilizing the government of Ukraine: The Sept. 30 elections threaten to result in the re-creation of the Orange Revolution that so terrifies Moscow. With the United States largely out of the picture, the Russians will spare no effort to ensure that Ukraine remains as dysfunctional as possible.

* Azerbaijan is emerging as a critical energy transit state for Central Asian petroleum, as well as an energy producer in its own right. But those exports are wholly dependent upon Moscow's willingness not to cause problems for Baku.

* The extremely anti-Russian policies of the former Soviet state of Georgia continue to be a thorn in Russia's side. Russia has the ability to force a territorial breakup or to outright overturn the Georgian government using anything from a hit squad to an armored division.

* EU states obviously have mixed feelings about Russia's newfound aggression and confidence, but the three Baltic states in league with Poland have successfully hijacked EU foreign policy with regard to Russia, effectively turning a broadly cooperative relationship hostile. A small military crisis with the Balts would not only do much to consolidate popular support for the Kremlin but also would demonstrate U.S. impotence in riding to the aid of American allies.


Such actions not only would push Russian influence back to the former borders of the Soviet Union but also could overturn the belief within the U.S. alliance structure that the Americans are reliable -- that they will rush to their allies' aid at any time and any place. That belief ultimately was the heart of the U.S. containment strategy during the Cold War. Damage that belief and the global security picture changes dramatically. Barring a Russian-American deal on treaties, inflicting that damage is once again a full-fledged goal of the Kremlin. The only question is whether the American preoccupation in Iraq will last long enough for the Russians to do what they think they need to do.

Luckily for the Russians, they can impact the time frame of American preoccupation with Iraq. Just as the Russians have the ability to throw the Iranians under the bus, they also have the ability to empower the Iranians to stand firm.

On Oct. 16, Putin became the first Russian leader since Leonid Brezhnev to visit Iran, and in negotiations with the Iranian leadership he laid out just how his country could help. Formally, the summit was a meeting of the five leaders of the Caspian Sea states, but in reality the meeting was a Russian-Iranian effort to demonstrate to the Americans that Iran does not stand alone.

A good part of the summit involved clearly identifying differences with American policy. The right of states to nuclear energy was affirmed, the existence of energy infrastructure that undermines U.S. geopolitical goals was supported and a joint statement pledged the five states to refuse to allow "third parties" from using their territory to attack "the Caspian Five." The last is a clear bullying of Azerbaijan to maintain distance from American security plans.

But the real meat is in bilateral talks between Putin and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the two sides are sussing out how Russia's ample military experience can be applied to Iran's U.S. problem. Some of the many, many possibilities include:

* Kilo-class submarines: The Iranians already have two and the acoustics in the Persian Gulf are notoriously bad for tracking submarines. Any U.S. military effort against Iran would necessitate carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf.

* Russia fields the Bal-E, a ground-launched Russian version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile. Such batteries could threaten any U.S. surface ship in the Gulf. A cheaper option could simply involve the installation of Russian coastal artillery systems.

* Russia and India have developed the BrahMos anti-ship cruise missile, which has the uniquely deadly feature of being able to be launched from land, ship, submarine or air. While primarily designed to target surface vessels, it also can act as a more traditional -- and versatile -- cruise missile and target land targets.

* Flanker fighters are a Russian design (Su-27/Su-30) that compares very favorably to frontline U.S. fighter jets. Much to the U.S. Defense Department's chagrin, Indian pilots in Flankers have knocked down some U.S. pilots in training scenarios.

* The S-300 anti-aircraft system is still among the best in the world, and despite eviscerated budgets, the Russians have managed to operationalize several upgrades since the end of the Cold War. It boasts both a far longer range and far more accuracy than the Tor-M1 and Pantsyr systems on which Iran currently depends.


Such options only scratch the surface of what the Russians have on order, and the above only discusses items of use in a direct Iranian-U.S. military conflict. Russia also could provide Iran with an endless supply of less flashy equipment to contribute to intensifying Iranian efforts to destabilize Iraq itself.

For now, the specifics of Russian transfers to Iran are tightly held, but they will not be for long. Russia has as much of an interest in getting free advertising for its weapons systems as Iran has in demonstrating just how high a price it will charge the United States for any attack.

But there is one additional reason this will not be a stealth relationship.

The Kremlin wants Washington to be fully aware of every detail of how Russian sales are making the U.S. Army's job harder, so that the Americans have all the information they need to make appropriate decisions as regards Russia's role. Moscow is not doing this because it is vindictive; this is simply how the Russians do business, and they are open to a new deal.

Russia has neither love for the Iranians nor a preference as to whether Moscow reforges its empire or has that empire handed back. So should the United States change its mind and seek an accommodation, Putin stands perfect ready to betray the Iranians' confidence.

For a price.

3)The nuclear watchdog is checking US spy satellite images of Syrian site hit by Israeli warplanes on Sept. 6 for signs of secret nuclear activity



Diplomatic sources reported US intelligence agencies sent satellite images to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Its experts have found nothing to substantiate the claim that the site hit was a secret nuclear facility.

Intelligence sources report the credibility of data Israel presented to Washington before the air strike continues to be questioned in some Washington quarters. They contend, even if the target was a nuclear facility under construction, it would not have posed a threat for years. One purpose of this argument is to belittle Israel’s intelligence findings and detract from questions about how other agencies and the nuclear watchdog missed them. Another is to put the Bush administration on the spot for approving the Israeli air attack in order to deter it from a military strike against Iran.

Two days after President George W. Bush said an Iranian nuclear bomb could lead to World War III, The Washington Post reported Syria had begun dismantling the remains of a bombed site near the Euphrates River in an attempt to prevent it coming under international scrutiny. It bears the “signature,” said the paper, “of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea’s facilities.”

The WP adds: The bombed facility is different from the one Syria displayed to journalists last week to support its claim that Israel bombed an empty building.

Intelligence sources have reported from "Day One" of the bombing the structure Israel bombed was located between the Euphrates and Lake Assad and that the Syrians misled correspondents by showing them a site at Deir al-Azur. Military sources also refuted Damascus’ claim Israeli bombers had ejected unmarked fuel tanks over Turkey. They were dropped by the Turkish air force, as Syrian president Bashar Assad was informed during his visit to Ankara this week. The genuine Israel fuel tanks with Hebrew markings were shown this week by Al Arabiya TV.

The “no comment” line to which the US and Israel are sticking is having the desired effects, which are:

1. To keep Syria in the dark about the amount of intelligence garnered by the US and Israel on its nuclear activities.

2. To entangle the Assad regime in its own untruths, which are spun in an effort to conceal the location that was struck and disguise its true nature. The Syrian version is crumbling piece by piece each time another authentic element is published, at the heavy cost to Assad’s prestige at home and abroad.

4) The Media's Dilemma
By Thomas Lifson


Rush Limbaugh’s political jiu-jitsu masterstroke came to a climax, when the ebay auction for the letter sent by 41 Senate Democrats to the CEO of his syndicator Clear Channel ended. The bid had already toppped two million dollars, with the purchase price to be donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, benefiting the education of children of deceased Marines and federal law enforcement personnel. Because Rush Limbaugh has offered to match the purchase price, the total donation exceeded four million dollars.

The Mainstream Media have virtually blacked out the story, but now that the auction is over and a highly impressive sum as been paid, will they continue to ignore it? After all, the auction of a grilled cheese sandwich claimed to display the image of the Virgin Mary fetched only $28,000 and received widespread publicity in the US and overseas. Someone paying several million bucks for a contemporary letter is pretty big news, even without the charity angle. And this is no food product bearing a resemblance to sacred art, this is a historic document signed by 80% of the majority caucus of what is commonly alleged to be the world’s greatest deliberative body.

Rush Limbaugh outsmarted the Democratic Leadership of the Senate and cornered the media. If the media does not cover the auction results, they will look ridiculous. The letter is easy enough to explain that it will inevitably be discussed at water coolers, sports events, churches, parties, and other get-togethers. But if the media does cover it, they must include some explanation for the high price, and that will make Reid and the Democrats look silly or worse. Capitalizing on their rhetoric, the letter is to be delivered in an attaché case made by a company carrying the name Halliburton.

In case your media diet does not include talk radio and the conservative commentariat, the backstory is fairly simple, which makes the auction all the harder to ignore.

The blowback from the “General Betray Us” MoveOn.org left the Democrats and their Soros-funded allies smarting, and they were anxious to demonstrate to their own supporters that conservatives behave reprehensively. Accordingly Media Matters (which Hillary bragged she “helped start” took out of context a phrase Rush Limbaugh spoke, “phony soldiers” and alleged he had smeared good patriotic American soldiers and veterans who disagree with him.

In an effort to promote the fabricated media storm and perhaps force change on Rush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got 40 other Senate Democrats to sign a letter to Mark P. Mays, CEO of the syndicator of Rush’s show, calling on him to publicly repudiate Rush and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize.

Instead of cowering, Mr. Mays turned the letter over to Rush, who came up with the brilliant plan to make the Democrats regret their hasty attempt to intimidate a private citizen who is their critic. Invoking the majesty of the United States Senate to intimidate a private citizen demonstrates a remarkable degree of self-absorption. A simple thought experiment:

What if Newt Gingrich, while he was Speaker, had enlisted 80% of the House majority as signatories of a letter to the CEO of General Electric asking Jack Welch to apologize for a sin of NBC News? Do you think Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman would have ignored it? How about CBS and ABC? There was no Media Matters back then, but fax machines were in widespread use. How long would it take for everyone to be pointing out that broadcasting is a regulated industry, and that the evil politicians were muzzling the free press?

Reid & Company never for a moment imagined anyone would characterize their act as bullying a free press and possibly even raising First Amendment issues. Because Clear Channel hold many radio licenses from the federal government, it is very vulnerable to pressure from the government, and the words “chilling effect” do not seem outrageously out of place in evaluating the intended consequence of the Senate Majority Leader’s letter. Interviewed on Hannity & Colmes Thursday evening, Rush called the letter “neo-Stalinist.”

The letter is, in fact, an important historical document, representing an attempt to silence the single most prominent private citizen critic of the Democratic Party, written on official stationery of the Majority Leader of the United States Senate and bearing the signatures of the vast majority of his caucus, including the front-runner and other candidates for the Party’s presidential nomination. Should the purchaser be so-minded, it may someday be donated to the Smithsonian Institution, National Archives or some other nonprofit library or archive.

The mainstream media have taken a beating in viewership and readership and in credibility the past two decades that Rush Limbaugh has been on the air, and the Democrats are perpetually outraged that he dominates the entire medium of talk radio, while no liberal host has ever been able to mount a halfway comparable performance on the public airwaves.

Arrogance combined with the emotion of hate leads to dangerous mistakes. Reid and the media which gave initial credence to the Media Matters-generated smear of Rush have stepped in something whose smell may linger in the history of American politics.

5) Off we go again, to process peace
By Wesley Pruden



One of these days an attempt to make lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians will succeed, but it might be on the day after that roomful of monkeys with typewriters finish the manuscript of "War and Peace."


Condoleezza Rice is in Jerusalem this morning, trying to "spark the region" with the news that the United States will set up an international peace conference next month in Annapolis. It's all about a legacy for George W. Bush. Organizing a Palestinian state is essential, she said, and it has the highest Bush priority.


"Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," the secretary of state told reporters after four hours with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinians, now without a state. "The United States sees the establishment of a Palestinian state, a two-state solution, as absolutely essential to the future, not just for the Palestinians and Israelis, but also the Middle East and indeed for American interests."


The dilemma, diplomatically unspoken, is that the Palestinians — and their regional enablers — don't actually want a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution, and if they stall, delay and dodge long enough, the rest of the world will grow weary with intransigence and tell the Israelis to shut up already and let the barbarians, who send women and children to blow themselves up along with whoever may be unlucky enough to be standing nearby, take it all.


Civilized men and women, both of the West and of whoever among the Palestinians who yearn for something better than they have, must keep trying. We can hope, as Miss Rice predicts, that there's "going to be a serious and substantive conference that will advance the cause of the establishment of a Palestinian state. We frankly have better things to do than invite people to Annapolis for a photo op." But the rest of us are entitled to think that a photo op, with the pols standing around looking for a cucumber sandwich and trying to look useful, is all that Miss Rice will accomplish in Annapolis.


Negotiators for both Israel and the Palestinians already disagree on what they want to talk about, much like the famous argument between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho about the shape of the table at those long-ago "peace" talks to strike an end to the Vietnam War. The parties finally agreed on the table and an agreement that enabled Mr. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to fly to Oslo to pick up their Nobel Peace Prizes. Then the Communists took South Vietnam. (Nobel laureates get to keep their peace prizes; there is no money-back guarantee.)


But Israel can't afford to make sucker deals. The Palestinians want a detailed laundry list of goodies, with delivery dates carved in a hard wood if not in stone, and iron-clad solutions to "core issues," agreed on now. The Israelis want a measured approach, with what the diplomats call "confidence-building steps" before anyone carves anything in wood or stone. The laundry list, agreed on now, would give the game to the Palestinians. They could behave as they have in the past, stalling, delaying and dodging, confident that the rest of the world will blame the Jews for the Palestinians not living up to the bargain.


Who can blame the Israelis for smelling a mouse, if not a rat? Condi Rice first told the reporters yesterday that there won't be an attempt to solve everything in Annapolis, "but it does need to be a serious and substantive and concrete document that demonstrates there is a way forward." She later "clarified" her remarks. She did not mean that the Annapolis conference should give the Palestinians everything they want.


Mr. Abbas emerged from his talkathon with Miss Rice with a list of what the Palestinians want in exchange for a promise to quit killing Jews: restored borders, settled refugees and a piece of East Jerusalem, which would become the capital of the Palestinian state. That's a lot to ask from a man who doesn't believe in Christmas and Santa Claus.

6) Olmert: I returned from Moscow reassured
By Ronny Sofer

Prime minister concludes visit to Russia on positive note. 'I am very satisfied with my meeting with the Russian president,' he says. Olmert's associates explain he got the impression that Putin administration is not interested in seeing Iran turn into nuclear super-power.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Friday that he was very satisfied with his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.


Olmert and his small entourage returned to Israel on Friday morning following a one-day visit to Moscow.


Snap Visit

Putin to Olmert: We know how worried you are over Iran. Russian leader tries to allay Israel's concerns about Islamic Republic's nuclear program, tells Israeli PM during Moscow meeting that he is 'ready to share results' of recent visit to Tehran

Full story

"There is someone to talk to in Moscow, and there are things to talk about. The last word on the Iranian nuclear issue has yet to be said," one of the entourage members noted.


The prime minister met with the Russian president for three hours on Thursday, a day after the latter's return from a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.


Putin invited Olmert to move from the discussion room to his private office, where they met from 5 pm till 8 pm.


"The Russians were very good hosts, and the president warmly welcomed the prime minister," an entourage member said. "The prime minister believes that a great part of the diplomatic work is being done through interpersonal meetings between heads of state.


"This is the network he has created worldwide, and this serves the State of Israel and people of Israel. He can arrive almost anywhere, and in the Kremlin, where he has an excellent relationship with President Putin, he was welcomed in a wonderful manner."



One of the issues the two leaders discussed, according to Olmert's aides, was the Iranian nuclear program.


Olmert briefed Putin on the information Israel possesses about Iran's intentions, including its uranium enrichment activities ahead of the creation of a nuclear bomb.


Aides to Olmert said that he was under the impression that the public Russian rhetoric was different than the reality as Putin sees it.


"What is clear is that the Russians have their own agenda. They view themselves as a super-power, and do not wish to be the passenger sitting beside the American driver. They want to lead processes.


"At the end of the day, however, the Putin administration is not interested in seeing Iran turn into a nuclear super-power, and that is the important thing," said an entourage member.


"The evidence is that nuclear fuel is not being supplied to Bushehr yet, and the question is why. I assume the answer is clear," he continued. "In international diplomacy not everything is seen on the surface. There is a lot of activity down underneath.


"Although the Russians made some commitments to the Iranians, such as the fuel to Bushehr, things are not happening, at least in the meantime. The Russians made it clear to the prime minister that Russia does not want to make things worse for Israel."


Moscow sitting on the fence

Members of the prime minister's entourage rejected claims that Russia had made a decision to abstain from voting on toughening the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council.



"They are sitting on the fence. As far as we know, they have yet to make a deicison on the matter and wish to wait and see how this would suit their policy."




Olmert told Putin that he was skeptical over Iran's claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful uses only. The two leaders also discussed Russia's arms deals with Syria, which are threatening Israel's security.



The prime minister made it clear to the Russian president that these deals could harm the military balance in the Middle East. According to the entourage members, Putin promised once again not to harm Israel's security interests.


t

Unike Adlai, Hillary has a hole in her soul!

I caught a news blurb recently about candidate shoe wear. Unlike Adlai, Hillary has a hole in her soul.

After his comment about getting the assistance of "The Legal Aid Society" to help make decisions , Romney has a bigger one in his head.

Reid and Pelosi have cleverly and purposefully gone off the charts to stimulate the left while demonizing the right in hope of censoring free debate. Rush can handle himself and all of this may ultimately backfire. Nevertheless, political debate has sunk to new lows while the Dow rises to new highs. Could there be a correlation?

Abbas remains duplicitous and Olmert indifferent. (See 1 below.)

Netanyahu makes a sensible and realistic speech. It is one thing to talk the talk, can he walk the walk if ever given the opportunity? (See 2 below.)

Syria will not go to Annapolis. Would one have thought otherwise. Annapolis is the home of The Naval Academy and Syria and Assad have already sunk about as low as it can get. (See 3 below.)

Russia driven by own self-interest and Russian expert says Israel is unrealistic in thinking otherwise. Russia see's the decline in America's unipolar influence and Iran is far down the list of its concerns. (See 4 below.)

Former Clerk for Justice Thomas wonders out loud why so many in the media remain full of angst over him. (See 5 below.)

Long article asks the question: "Should Muslims Integrate in The West?" (See 6 below.)

Plan on driving around Outer Bank area in N.C. for next two weeks so no memos.

Dick

1)Undercover border police kill Palestinian Fatah suicide bomber on his way to central Israel from West Bank town of Jenin - 8th time in a month


Military sources report the bomber was Mustapha Mohammed Abu Srur, 21, of the Fatah al Aqsa Brigades. He was already driving in his accomplice’s car on their way to pick up his explosive bomb belt and continue to target, when they were surrounded by undercover Israeli troops. The bomber who was armed was shot dead and his partner captured and questioned.

At the Israeli cabinet session Sunday, Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin reported that seven Palestinian suicide missions inside Israel had been foiled in the past month. Eleven wanted terrorists were rounded up Wednesday night.

Sources reveal a worrying escalation. It signals the across-the-board determination of all the Palestinians groups, including Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah and his rival Hamas, Jihad Islami and the “Fronts,” to revive mass killings in Israel’s cities by West Bank suiciders. The approaching international conference in Annapolis has pushed the Palestinian terrorists into greater efforts to execute mass-casualty strikes in Israel to demonstrate “the armed conflict” continues undeterred by any peace talks.

Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas has responded by hardening the line he takes with him to the conference. As presented Wednesday, the new line is all or nothing: If the Palestinians cannot have every inch of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem for their state, the “armed conflict” will continue.

This pattern is a replay of Yasser Arafat’s tactics in the years 2000-2004 – talking “peace” while ordering his terrorist bombers to redouble their suicide offensive to squeeze Israel. Abbas does not need to issue orders. Hamas and Jihad Islami are more than willing to derail the international conference in Maryland and step up their violence. However, no branch of the Palestinian government in Ramallah is lifting a preventative finger.

Jerusalem sources report Israel’s security and army chiefs have warned prime minister Ehud Olmert a dangerous situation is boiling up and called for his urgent attention. He responded now was not the time and he would get back to the problem in a few days.

They also gave him due notice of the hardening of Abbas’ approach to negotiations with Israel. It was indicated by the appointment of Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), prime minister under Arafat and an old hand in beating Israel down by bazaar tactics, to lead the Palestinian negotiating team. Olmert was advised to ginger up the Israeli team which, aside from Maj. Gen (ret) Amos Gilead, consists of officials and lawyers who have no experience in the wiles of hard bargaining with Palestinians.

Whereas Abbas has assembled a top team for the conference, the Israeli side appears unready and short of firm positions, well-chosen arguments and effective rhetoric. Israel will find itself standing practically alone, with the scales weighted against its team by participants who are predominantly hostile and sympathetic to radical Palestinian positions. Palestinian propagandists are already pressing their international advantage with aggressive campaigns to prepare the ground for the hard crunch at Annapolis.

2) Netanyahu Speech - Opening Session Winter 2007

We want to forge a genuine peace - a peace that can be made only with a
genuine partner and which will be based on the following principles.
1. Defensible borders and not the indefensible 1967 lines - the Jordan River
will be Israel's eastern border.
2. A united Jerusalem, not a divided one.
3. Israeli sovereignty over the holy sites, safeguarding the freedom of
worship for all religions, and not the transfer of control over these sites
to Islamic extremists.
4. Cooperation with Jordan and Egypt over final status questions.
5. Complete dismantling of all terror infrastructure.
6. Resolution of the refugee issue by dismantling the refugee camps and
rehabilitating their inhabitants - and not by bringing even a single refugee
into Israel.

Attached and below is Mr. Netanyahu's speech given this past Mondayat the Knesset's opening session. Sent by Ari Harow, Senior Advisor Benjamin Netanyahu


Israel can suceed!

We can succeed in every field - in building a prosperous economy, in
developing advanced technology, in fostering excellence in education, in
creating a strong society, in combating crime and violence and in so much
more.

Some of these efforts are already underway. The free market reforms we
implemented filled the state coffers with billions of shekels that can now
be directed toward helping those who are truly needy.

With courageous leaders who can make tough decisions and implement
fundamental reforms, we can finish the job.

But first and foremost, we need a government that knows how to neutralize
the serious threats that confront us.

The primary objective for our national defense has been and remains to
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This is an objective that I reiterated at the start of the current Knesset's
session, and for many years my colleagues and I have emphasized in the
clearest terms its paramount importance.

But the countdown to a nuclear Iran continues and time is running out.

With what little time remains, we must redouble our efforts to influence
world leaders and international public opinion to act with determination
against Iran, including through much tougher and more painful economic
sanctions.

Of course, we must be prepared to practice what we preach. That is why I
intend, during this session, to bring for a second and third reading a bill
that will prevent any indirect Israeli investment in Iran - similar to the
bills that I have supported in leading American states.

We must use all means - economic and others - to ensure that an Iranian
nuclear threat does not materialize.

As I have said time and again, when it comes to this existential issue,
there is no opposition and no coalition. All of us are united in our desire
to thwart the Iranian threat.

That is why we have difficulty understanding why the government is using one
hand to repel the Iranian nuclear threat while using the other to bring the
Iranian terror threat closer.

On the one hand, the government wants to fight the nuclear tentacle of the
Iranian octopus; on the other hand its diplomatic plan opens the door to
other tentacles of that same octopus.

The hasty unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon created the first Iranian
base in the north, from which the Iranian proxy Hezbollah threatens Haifa
and the Galilee.

The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza created a second Iranian base in the
south - Hamastan - from which Iranian financed terror groups attack Sderot,
Ashkelon and the Western Negev.

As time passes, it becomes increasingly clear that this threat is spreading
ever wider, reaching more and more parts of the country, including yesterday's
rocketing near Netivot.

And now the government plans a further withdrawal in Judea and Samaria
a move that will inevitably create in the center of the country a third
Iranian base that will threaten Jerusalem and the entire coastal plain.

These three tentacles of the Iranian Octopus will thus envelop Israel from
every side!

I would like to believe that the government is truly convinced that its plan
will bring peace, but in fact it will bring the opposite result.

According to the government's plan, Israel will withdraw to the 1967 lines,
hand over half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians and relinquish Israeli
control over the holy sites in the city.

Let there be no confusion - this is the plan. All attempts to disguise it
are futile.

If the plan sounds familiar, it should. This is the exact plan offered by
the Barak government at Camp David in 2000. As the saying goes, it's the
same lady and she didn't even bother to change her dress.

And what will be the results?

First: Israel leaves, Hamas enters.

Without an Israeli military presence, Hamas will again easily overcome the
Palestinian Authority, just as it did after the Gaza disengagement.

Second, handing over half of Jerusalem to Hamas will make life unbearable in
the city's other half.

How will people live in Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods - Neve Yaakov,
Pisgat Zeev, Ramot, the Jewish Quarter in the Old City - when Hamas controls
the houses across the street?

These communities will turn into Jewish enclaves in a Hamas sea.

Their inhabitants will abandon them, and the Old City's vital center will be
emptied of Jews once again.

Third, giving away Judea and Samaria will give Hamas and other Islamic
extremists control over the territories dominating the coastal plain.

From there, they will be able to fire missiles directly at Israel's dense
urban centers, Ben Gurion Airport, and Tel Aviv itself.

Just ask the residents of Sderot, Ashkelon, and as of yesterday, Netivot.
Ask the residents of Nahariyah, Haifa and the Galilee.

This is not how you make peace. This is how you strengthen terror and bring
it nearer.

Before the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Mr. Olmert said:
"After the initial increase, there will be a significant reduction in
terror. there will be industrial parks." (Yediot Ahronot 12/05/03)

And Mr. Olmert continued:
"We will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Philadelphi Corridor
will not turn into a weapons smuggling pipeline that will endanger Israel."
(NRG 07/27/05)

On the day of the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, before three soldiers
were kidnapped on Har Dov and thousands of missles were fired on our towns
and cities, Mr. Barak said:
"Who would dare fire on our soldiers or communities? (Yediot Ahronot
05/25/2000)

Who will try to harm us after we leave Lebanon? They will have no
opportunity, reason, or excuse." (Ha'aretz 05/25/2000)

How many times is it possible to repeat the same blunder, to proceed with
the same blindness!

With the same blindness that led to a security collapse north and south, the
government is now preparing the next withdrawal that will bring about an
even greater collapse - and this time in the center of the country where
most of our citizens live.

The government concedes everything in advance. It erodes Israel's positions
in any future negotiation - and gets nothing in return.

This is not how you negotiate! This is not how you make peace!

But the government contends that by offering these far reaching concessions,
it is strengthening the moderates and weakening the extremists. The
opposite is true.

When the government agrees in advance to withdraw from all the
territories, the terrorists need only increase their pressure on us so that
we will leave sooner. In doing so, the government's policy strengthens
terror.

And what about the claim that relinquishing Israeli control over the holy
sites will bring about an end to the conflict?

On the contrary. This will increase the scope and intensity of conflict to
unprecedented levels.

As long as Israel remains sovereign over the holy sites, it maintains peace
and tranquility there and guarantees freedom of worship for the three
religions.

And how does Israel maintain this quiet? Every Friday during the Temple
Mount prayers, the peace is protected by Israel's police, army and security
services.

But if we remove our forces, terrorists from around the world, including
Al-Qaeda, will flock to Jerusalem.

We would be giving our greatest enemies the most explosive square mile in
the world: The Temple Mount which overlooks the Western Wall, the Church of
the Holy Sepulcher and the Al Aqsa Mosque.

It is not difficult to imagine what they could do after we leave, and the
chain reaction their actions could trigger.

Such a concession will not bring about an end to the conflict but its
perpetuation. And who knows where that could lead!

Instead of the government's blind policy, Israel needs a different policy,
one that is based on an accurate assessment of reality.

We want to forge a genuine peace - a peace that can be made only with a
genuine partner and which will be based on the following principles.
1. Defensible borders and not the indefensible 1967 lines - the Jordan River
will be Israel's eastern border.
2. A united Jerusalem, not a divided one.
3. Israeli sovereignty over the holy sites, safeguarding the freedom of
worship for all religions, and not the transfer of control over these sites
to Islamic extremists.
4. Cooperation with Jordan and Egypt over final status questions.
5. Complete dismantling of all terror infrastructure.
6. Resolution of the refugee issue by dismantling the refugee camps and
rehabilitating their inhabitants - and not by bringing even a single refugee
into Israel.

Real peace will come when a Palestinian leader arises who is ready and able
to lead his people to peace - just as Anwar Sadat did when he made peace
with Prime Minister Menachem Begin and King Hussein did when he made peace
with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Indeed, Prime Minister Olmert quoted Menachem Begin who made peace with
Sadat. But there is one problem. Abbas is no Sadat. Perhaps he is a
partner for talking, but he is no partner for doing.

There is no one in Israel who does not want peace. We have proved this time
and again. Likud led governments and all Israeli governments have sought
peace. But today the burden of proof is on the Palestinians, not on Israel.

Today we must insist on keeping our security in the IDF's hands. Our
destiny must remain in our hands and in our hands alone.

In the meantime, we can and should encourage Palestinian economic
development in Judea and Samaria -- and by that I mean economic development
for the Palestinian population and not for lining the pockets of a corrupt
Palestinian bureaucracy.

Most Israeli citizens know that this is the right way forward. Some of the
coalition members know this as well.

They heard the Vice-Premier say yesterday that in Annapolis, the division of
Jerusalem will be discussed.

I ask you, my friends in Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu: What are you doing
there? What are you doing in this government?

Do you really agree with a policy that would have Hamas rule over
neighborhoods in Jerusalem? Do you really agree with a policy that would
have them sitting on the hilltops overlooking Kfar Saba, Raanana and Tel
Aviv?

You are not preventing the danger by sitting in the government. On the
contrary, you are giving legitimacy to a dangerous initiative and allowing
it to happen.

No one has the moral right to frivolously and irresponsibly concede the most
precious assets of the Jewish nation.

"The shofar blows on the Temple Mount" For two thousand years generations of
Jews prayed for our return to this sacred site, and now they are going to
concede it?!

In an emotional moment 40 years ago, General Motta Gur said, "The Temple
Mount is in our hands." Well, it must stay in our hands, and so too must all
of Jerusalem!

After two thousand years, after the devastation of the Holocaust, we
returned and built our country, we liberated our ancient capital while
sacrificing the best of our sons.

Throughout this historic process, we drew great strength from a firm belief
in the justice of our cause.

If the government has stopped believing in the justice of our cause, if it
is weary of standing up to our enemies - it must do one thing: go to the
people and set a date for elections.

If you are tired, step aside. There are those who will carry the burden.
There are those who will restore faith and hope to the nation.

3) Syria refuses to participate in Middle East peace conference


Syrian President Bashar Assad announced on Thursday that his country would not participate in the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis next month, Army Radio reported.

Speaking to Tunisian media, Assad said the conference had no chance of achieving Syria's goals.

Regarding the IAF raid in Syria on September 6, Assad said that Israel's silence proved the failure of Israeli and US intelligence. He said the two were attempting to cover up their actions in a cloud of mystery.

Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have yet to confirm their participation in the conference, which is scheduled for November.

Last month, Arab diplomats based in Cairo told The Jerusalem Post that the majority of Arab leaders believe that the conference is just a "waste of time."

Meanwhile, Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that "any efforts to deal with core issues at the conference in Annapolis will bring about the dissolution of the government."

At a meeting with Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair, Lieberman said: "The solution must include Arab Israelis as the basis for an arrangement of land and population transfer."

He said that the international community must concentrate its efforts on improving security for Israel, and improving the economy for the Palestinians.

4) Expert: We missed opportunity to enlist Russians against Iran
By Roi Mandel

Russian expert says Israel was wrong in believing it could pressure Russia on Iran via US; 'Russia has its own interests'

The damage caused by a lack of direct dialogue with Russia regarding the Iranian nuclear issue is beyond repair, Yaakov Kidmi, former head of the Russian Jewry liaison office Nativ said Thursday.


His comments were made in response to Russian President Vladmir Putin's refusal to tighten sanctions on Iran because of a lack of evidence that the Middle Eastern state is developing nuclear weapons.


Kidmi explained some politicians in Israel wrongly believed it was possible to pressure Russia to toughen its stance on Iran through the US. "Apparently they did not understand that Russia has its own interests," Kidmi continued.


The Russian expert believes that Moscow does not feel very threatened by the prospect of a nuclear Iran. "Russia today has three strategic nuclear threats – the US, China and Europe, the Iranians are not at the top of this list," Kidmi explained.


According to the consultant, "the Russians are of the opinion that the era of the uni-polar world is coming to an end and the US will no longer be able to dictate policy to countries all over the world."



Russia worried of puppet government in Iran


At this point in time, it is not in Russia's interest to weaken Iran and encourage the prospect of an American-allied regime taking power there, the former Nativ head said. An American puppet government in Iran is a lot worse for the Russians than the symbolic US presence in Georgia, Kidmi continued.


According to Dr Baruch Gorvich, a Russian expert from the University of Haifa, this is the first time that Putin has said outright that he will not support tougher sanctions against Iran. "Putin is using the example of what occurred in Iraq when all the accusations of possession of unconventional weapons proved to be false," the expert said.


"It is in Russia's interest to continue its relationship with Iran and they are exploiting the lack of intelligence on Iran's nuclear program to their benefit," Gorvich said.

5) Why are the media so angry at Clarence Thomas?
By Helgi Walker

MEDIA REACTION to the release last week of "My Grandfather's Son" by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been noteworthy in two respects: First, while the general coverage across the country had been even-handed and fair, some journalists feel compelled to express their views of the book and the justice in terms that are so negative and personalized that they seem to belie a deep anger toward the man and what he stands for; second, others in the press are being chastised by their peers for not being critical enough of the book. The irony is that the man who some regrettably still feel the need to tear down 16 years after his confirmation is among the staunchest defenders on the Supreme Court of a fulsome understanding of the First Amendment - thus protecting their right to voice their opinions, however mean-spirited.

What are the principles expressed in the book that are so worthy of vitriol and cannot be acknowledged as legitimate? As a former law clerk to Thomas, I have heard these principles from him for many years: All people are created equal, with inherent worth and dignity; freedom includes freedom of thought; hard work and education are important elements of success; aim for self-reliance so that you can help not just yourself but others too; stand up for what you believe in; never give up in adversity, keep trying to put one foot in front of the other; and great things are possible in this nation. I have never understood what was so "dangerous" about these ideas. Indeed, most Americans would have little quarrel with these propositions.

It must not, then, be the ideas themselves that Thomas's critics find so objectionable. Perhaps it is that he dares to contradict their own notions of who he should be, what he should think, and what kind of life he should lead. Indeed, the coverage at issue is not composed of arguments against the ideas expressed in the book but of the classic argumentum ad hominen -- "arguments against the man." As the book shows, the thread that weaves through all of the diverse experiences in the justice's life - from Roman Catholic seminarian in the 1960s, to Black Student Union member in the 1970s, to chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the 1980s, and now to originalist jurist - is his insistence on independence. During all these times of his life, he refused to be controlled by the relevant establishment or indeed by any person.

Rather than attempting to psychoanalyze the justice - who in the book declares his own humanity with a grace and vulnerability that people of all walks of life can relate to, explaining that he has simply tried to do his best, step by sometimes-unsure step - these critics, including columnists from the New York Times, might well consider their own selves. When they call him "a justice with issues," as a Washington Post website columnist did last week, one might reasonably wonder what their issues are. What are they so angry about? That Justice Thomas won't kowtow to them? That he was confirmed to the Supreme Court despite their best efforts to stop him? That he, along with four other members of the Court, ruled that Florida violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection in the 2000 presidential election?

Meanwhile, the justice goes on with the work of the Court, as he has for the last 16 years. For those interested in his professional endeavors, his opinions are printed in the United States Report. These opinions are, as even legal scholars who do not share the justice's jurisprudential views have acknowledged, thorough, well-written, and soundly researched. They reflect Thomas's willingness to debate legal issues with his colleagues on the Court, as well as his unfailing courtesy toward those colleagues when they disagree.

Finally, these opinions lay out one of the most robust theories of the First Amendment in modern American jurisprudence. Justice Thomas protects our rights to form our own opinions, to hold them as part of who we are, and to express them in the marketplace of ideas. His theory of the First Amendment is premised on the principles that, in the end, the people will choose the ideas they consider to be the best ones, and that in a democracy the truth will will out from the fulcrum of vigorous substantive discussion.

Those who criticize the justice personally in such uncivil tones benefit from this just like the rest of us. But they are apparently not interested in the law or the justice's work on the Court, only (and sadly, still) in ad hominem politics.

6) Should Muslims Integrate into the West?
by Uriya Shavi

The veil has become the center of a European fight over how to balance expressions of Muslim identity with the Western idea of citizenship.[1] How can states achieve a balance between republicanism and minority rights? Can majorities in liberal, Western nation-states, force a dress code upon minorities? While Muslim societies have debated various garments and coverings for women through the twentieth century,[2] the issues are broader. Often, Muslim commentators in the West couch their arguments in the Western discourse of the balance between individual rights and public interest.[3] However, the personal freedom versus integration debate is only one context of the polemic; another is the dichotomy between two types of nationality and between two sources of legitimacy. Here, Muslim scholarship on migration sheds more light than Western political theory.
Immigration to Expand the Muslim Nation

Muslim jurists since the ninth century have considered Muslim residence in non-Muslim societies to be dangerous. Not only might residence abroad weaken faith and practice, they argued, but migration to non-Muslim areas might also strengthen non-Muslims in their wars against Islam. However, the pronouncement was not absolute. Some scholars legitimized living among the infidels so long as Muslims living outside Islamic lands had no alternative, were helpful to the Muslim cause, and were able to practice their religion. Here the Islamic concept of nationhood comes into play. While Muhammad established a nation with territorial dimensions, to belong to it, one only had to become Muslim in faith and practice. Thus, throughout the Middle Ages, Muslims who lived under Christian rule could still be considered part of the Muslim nation.[4]

Throughout the Ottoman period, contacts between Muslim societies and the West were largely limited to trade, diplomacy, and occasional pilgrimage. While migration from Islamic lands to Western countries became more common after the nineteenth century, it was only when the European demand for manual labor grew after World War II that the phenomenon grew in earnest.

Renewed migration led Muslim jurists to reexamine religious attitudes toward Muslims living in non-Muslim societies. For the past thirty years, some jurists have sought to define the identity and duties of these emigrants. Through new institutions dedicated to migration and, more recently, using the Internet and satellite television, they both publish literature dedicated to the subject and answer queries from Muslims in the West, a process that facilitates a center-periphery relationship. Most influential among them is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian-born and Qatar-based Sunni jurist who heads the European Council for Fatwa and Research, a body established in London on March 29, 1997, to address in uniformity questions relating to Muslim migration.[5] He also hosts a weekly question-and-answer program on Al-Jazeera, watched by millions of Muslim immigrants, and heads the supervising committee of IslamOnline.net, one of the world's largest Muslim Internet portals, which claims to receive a million hits daily.[6]

Regardless of sect, legal school, nationality, or political status, Muslim jurists from Arab countries have reached similar conclusions as to the proper status and role of Muslim emigrants to the West. To ban or ignore mass Muslim migration to the West would only alienate immigrants, they found. Muslim jurists concentrated instead on constructing a legal-religious framework to maintain emigrants' Muslim identities while using the diaspora in the service of Islam.

Their judgment called upon Muslim immigrants in the West to place religious identity above national and ethnic identities and to promote the interests of a global Muslim nation. The jurists' consensus involved five points: First, a greater Islamic nation exists of which Muslims are members wherever they live. Second, while living in a non-Muslim society is undesirable, it might be legal on an individual basis if the immigrant acts as a model Muslim. Third, it is the duty of a Muslim in the West to reaffirm his religious identity and to distance himself from anything contrary to Islam. Hence, he should help establish and patronize mosques, Muslim schools, cultural centers, and shops. Fourth, Muslims in the West should champion the cause of the Muslim nation in the political as well as the religious sphere, for there should be no distinction between the two. Lastly, Muslims in the West should spread Islam in the declining, spiritual void of Western societies.

Such a consensus developed for several reasons. The political atmosphere proved fertile ground for renewed religiosity. The decline of pan-Arabism in the 1970s and the Islamic Revolution in Iran at the end of that decade suggested that political Islam rather than pan-Arabism could appeal not only to Muslims in the Middle East but also to Muslims in the West.

Fear of Westernization also catalyzed the process. In the early 1980s, scholars, especially in Saudi Arabia, developed a paradigm of "Western cultural attack." They believed that Europe and the United States sought to use textbooks and television, among other tools, to weaken Islam and Christianize Islamic countries. Some clerics suggested that Muslims should counterattack and recruit Muslim immigrants to undermine Western societies from within, using the same means that they believed Western societies employed to undermine Muslim societies.[7] Muslim immigrants, they believed, could be a powerful weapon in the struggle between the West and Islam.

Here, the political theories of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood activist executed by the Egyptian government in 1966, had resonance. Qutb argued that contemporary Muslim societies were as misguided as their pre-Islamic predecessors and that a pioneering group of devout Muslims should immigrate to prepare from afar for the reinstitution of a true Islamic reign.[8] Qutb's ideas narrowed the distinction between contemporary Muslim and non-Muslim societies and legitimized residence outside majority Muslim countries. These ideas bestowed an honorable aura upon migration. Though few jurists followed his ideas to the letter, he influenced many.

Such theories also played well in contemporary Middle Eastern politics. Most Arab governments are despotic.[9] While authoritarian regimes worked to suppress the Islamist challenge at home, they did not hesitate to assist Islamists in the exportation of their ideas. This was particularly the case with Saudi Arabia, which dedicated billions of dollars to the establishment of Islamist educational institutions, cultural centers, mosques, and media.[10]

Why did some Muslims in the West seek—and eagerly adopt—a reaffirmation of their Muslim identity? In the early 1980s, many Muslims who had immigrated to the West as laborers in the years after World War II recognized that their residence was not as temporary as they had once intended. As their financial situation improved and their political consciousness developed, they began to ponder their identity and roots. When doing so, many of them noticed they were surrounded by large communities of other Muslims; while in absolute numbers Muslims consisted of only a small percentage of the Western societies they immigrated to, most resided in industrial areas, amplifying an illusion of mass.[11] This introspection coincided with the Western embrace of multiculturalism, which challenged nation states' traditional quest for homogeneity and unity.[12] However, at the very time when immigrants from Muslim societies were encouraged to explore their origins, the oil embargo and later the Islamic revolution, terrorism, and the Rushdie fatwa sparked increasing anti-Islamic sentiment in the West. Together, these factors led some Muslim immigrants to identify themselves by their religion, which they considered under attack, rather than by ethnic or linguistic affiliation.

Cultural factors also encouraged religious revival. Most Muslim immigrants, even those who did not regularly practice their faith, came from conservative backgrounds. They promoted the sanctity of the family and a distinction between gender roles, stipulated obedience to parents, did not tolerate premarital sex or homosexuality, and demanded modesty in the public sphere. As the second generation of these migrants matured, growing Western liberalism challenged these values. Muslims in the West encountered the feminist revolution, the sexual revolution, gay rights, and the collapse of parental authority. To settle their anxieties about the breakdown of authority and morals, some parents sought to reaffirm the Muslim identities of their families. Religion provided an appealing moral response that ethnic heritage could not. However, religiosity was not only imposed by parents. For some of the younger generation, the first-class status they enjoyed in Islam compared favorably to the marginalization many felt within European societies.[13]
Theorizing Muslim Immigrants' Roles and Identity

As Muslim Arabs established themselves in Europe, Islamic jurists developed a legal framework to accommodate them. However wary they might be of the temptations facing Muslims in the West,[14] jurists, aware that migrants are in the West to stay, have retroactively bestowed legitimacy upon all types of migration—whether its purpose is labor, commerce, political refuge or studies.[15] Even ‘Abd al-‘Aziz bin Baz, a strict Saudi scholar who from the 1980s until his death in 1999 was the highest religious authority in the kingdom, left the door for migration open because of its benefits for da'wa (proselytizing).[16] Still, legitimacy was not without commitment. Most theologians conditioned their consent strict demands for Muslims in the West to maintain their religiosity.

Many jurists believe Muslim migrants to the West have only two paths to follow: reaffirmation of Muslim identity or its complete abandonment. Such an understanding places a burden upon immigrants' shoulders: While religious leaders acknowledge migrants' membership in the Muslim nation, scholars insist emigrants should comprehend the gravity of their situation and work to amend it. To reside in the West, a Muslim must make sure his and his family's identity are strictly maintained and the Shari‘a remains the comprehensive source regulating all aspects of their lives.

Reaffirmation of Muslim identity involves three duties: First, it mandates unity among Muslims. In his book Islam Behind its Boundaries, Muhammad al-Ghazali, a renowned Egyptian jurist who was in charge of da'wa for Egypt's ministry of awkaf (religious endowments), wrote that "loyalty [should be] to Islam, not to race. The brotherhood of Muslims is the first connection, even if places and times have distanced."[17] Qaradawi agreed. He wrote:

With Muslims being a minority in those non-Muslim countries, they ought to unite together as one man. Referring to this the Prophet (Peace and Blessing be upon him) is reported to have said: "A believer to his fellow believing brother is like a building whose bricks cement each other." Hence, Muslims in those countries have to unite and reject any form of division that is capable of turning them an easy prey for others.[18]

Success in resisting temptation and seduction for himself, his spouse, and his offspring conditions the legality of any immigrant's residence in a non-Muslim society. Qaradawi continues, "I told brothers and sisters living in the West that if they find it extremely difficult to bring up their children as Muslims, they should return to their countries of origin."[19] To defend the family from assimilation does not mean seclusion from all that is Western but rather living according to Islamic jurisprudence. The process is ongoing. Parents newly settled in the West, for example, have sent queries to Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, one of the leading Shi‘i authorities in the Arab world, about the permissibility of allowing their children to watch Western television, to which he ruled that parents should forbid shows which might weaken their children's minds but encourage their children to watch anything on Western television that could strengthen them.[20]

Theologians have also reached a broad consensus that to be able to screen the negative influences of residing among non-Muslims or infidels, Muslim immigrants to the West should dedicate themselves to an Islamic texture of life. This requires participation in Muslim organizations and associations. According to Ghazali, the cornerstone for such efforts should be the establishment of Muslim schools that maintain immigrants' "relation to their heritage, traditions and rituals as if all that changed in their lives is their location." He also calls for the establishment of mosques and clubs to bring Muslims together in order to encourage Muslim men to marry Muslim women and not infidels.[21] The recommendations of Fadlallah are similar.[22]

Migration therefore is a privilege only for the strong in faith. For example, Fadlallah instructs an Iraqi who left his homeland for higher studies in a Western country fourteen years earlier and subsequently sought political asylum that if migration does not cause him to deviate from Islam, then he might stay abroad, but if he fears his religiosity might weaken, he must return to his homeland.[23] In response to another inquiry, Fadlallah offers the principal of comparison: The immigrant should examine whether his presence in a new location causes him to suffer more or less hardship in terms of practicing his faith.[24] A similar principal of comparison is invoked in a ruling of the European Council for Fatwa and Research in response to a query by a Muslim residing in Brussels.[25]

Most Muslim thinkers further advance the debate over migration with consideration of proselytizing. In his doctoral dissertation at Morocco's King Muhammad University, for example, Muhammad al-Qadi al-‘Umrani argues that when the criteria legalizing migration is met, it should be encouraged for da'wa (proselytizing).[26] Shi‘i scholars Yusuf Najib and Muhsin ‘Atawi also validate migration on these grounds.[27]

Rather than be a threat, migration under the right circumstances can be an opportunity to advance the divine plan for a world where there are no nations but the Muslim nation and no political parties but God's. Ghazali urges migrants to be "pioneers" in spreading religion,[28] and Qaradawi argues, "Muslims in the West should be sincere callers to their religion. They should keep up in mind that calling others to Islam is not only restricted to scholars and sheikhs, but it goes far to encompass every committed Muslim."[29] According to Khalid Muhammad al-Aswar, an Egyptian author, Muslim immigrants constitute the new frontier settlements of Islam, defending its values and its interests.[30] He compares the Muslim to the moon: When not shining in one land, it shines in another.[31] Here, Fadlallah also agrees. "We expect you [immigrants] over there to be the callers for Islam, so that new positions will open for us and so that you open for Islam new prospects,"[32] he instructs. Yusuf and ‘Atawi suggest it is the duty of Muslim immigrants to enlighten the world with Muhammad's prophecy.[33]

Here, the popular literature encourages proselytizing. Some Arabic newspapers report mass conversions of Christians to Islam. For example, Asharq al-Awsat related the story of a young woman named Debbie Rogers who converted with thirty of her friends.[34] A 1997 Egyptian book published stories of recent Western conversions to Islam and suggested mass migration is taking place in Europe despite the "Zionist-inspired" campaign against Islam.[35] And Islamway.com, one of the world's most popular Internet sites for Muslims, offers stories of new converts alongside guides for proselytizing.[36]
Dual Loyalty?

If Muslim jurists insist Muslim immigrants avoid assimilation and reserve loyalty to the Islamic nation, should Western governments regard Muslim immigrants as disloyal? Not according to the jurists. Both Fadlallah and Qaradawi, for example, emphasize obedience to laws of the receiving states and urge new immigrants to avoid acts that harm the security of those states.[37]

This is not a case of doublespeak. Islamist jurists do not view the Muslim nation and the West as equivalent structures. They interpret the secular, liberal nature of Western states as mere social mechanisms enabling Muslims to practice Islam to its fullness. ‘Umrani, for example, argues that if Muslims know how to hold on to their civilian and legal rights in societies that raise the "slogans of freedoms and rights for all people," then they should have no problem in adhering to the Islamic law.[38]

Yet, there is another, deeper aspect of Western society that allows Islamist jurists to regard immigrants' loyalty to Western nations as not damaging: They believe Western civilization to be marked by a moral and spiritual void and believe that Westerners will, therefore, gravitate toward Islam. ‘Umrani, for example, has no doubt that Westerners will sooner or later embrace Islam.[39] He sees the Western nation-state as a temporary entity while the Muslim nation is both eternal and universal.

However, dualism is only allowed because theologians do not consider it harmful to Islam. Islam and not the interests of the European nation-state remains the benchmark for any political action. Fadlallah, for example, argues that Muslims might serve in Western parliaments but only so long as they guard the interests of Muslims.[40] The European Council for Fatwa and Research evokes the same principle in response to a query about Muslims contending in municipal elections.[41] The role of the Muslim immigrant is to do his best to promote the interests of his nation—that is, the Muslim nation. Because Islam is blind to boundaries, jurists argue that promoting its cause is not limited to a specific community or country but to Muslims everywhere. Thus, Qaradawi argues, it is necessary to "adopt and champion the rights of the umma" be it in "Palestine, Kosovo, Chechnya," or any other place where Muslims fight for autonomy and statehood.[42]
Assimilationist Dissent

For mainstream Muslim jurists, Islam is not a culture, a religion, or a tradition, but rather an alternative type of nationality which claims jurisdiction over all aspects of human activities. A Muslim can also be a citizen of a Western nation state, yet the Western nation state is tolerated only because it is bound to dissolve and because its weaknesses may be of use to the Muslim cause.

Many Muslims do not accept such a view in practice, and some—within and outside the Muslim world—criticize it. Sa'id Lawindi, an Egyptian academic and journalist who resided in Paris for eighteen years, argues that Muslims in Europe should follow the model provided by European Jewry, acting Western in their relations with European society while living true to their religion at home.[43] ‘Amr Khalid, a Birmingham-based Egyptian television preacher who remains influential despite his lack of formal religious training, calls on Muslim immigrants to become an active and constructive part of their adopted non-Muslim societies. Though he sees Islam as the only solution for all aspects of life, the role he envisions for Muslim immigrants is that of improving the West's image of Islam rather than Islamizing Europe. He encourages integration and broad social initiative.[44]

Many European Muslims also reject or remain ignorant of the roles which jurists assign them. Even some practicing and devout Muslims, while believing in the concept of the Muslim nation and in Islam as the future for Europe, insist upon their independence from any particular contemporary religious authority and emphasize their duty towards the society in which they reside and not a larger Muslim nation. They may advocate coverings for women on one hand and yet seek integration on the other.[45]
Conclusions

Nevertheless, because Islamist jurists in the Arab world have considerable resources, they at times drown out or wear down more pro-assimilation voices. The collision between Western interpretations of personal freedom and some Islamist interpretations of Muslims' rights and duties is inevitable. For mainstream Muslim jurists, Islam trumps all aspects of human activities.

Herein lays the challenge. Many ethnic and religious minorities seek to establish an autonomous sphere within multicultural societies, but only Arab Muslim jurists consider such an autonomous sphere to constitute a substitute for the liberal state itself. Many ethnic and religious minorities attempt to speak for their countries of origin through the political systems of their adopted countries, but only Arab Muslim jurists regard their Muslim nation as overstretching the boundaries of all nation-states in its political demands.

How then should liberal nation-states, using the principals of liberalism and multiculturalism as their shield, deal with individuals who resist their very existence? How can Western societies distinguish between those Muslims who seek a place for their beliefs and traditions within a pluralistic framework and those who adhere to a school committed to the destruction of that framework? Perhaps a good point of departure would be to understand that it is not veils that matter, but the individuals and ideas that are behind them.

Uriya Shavit is currently a scholar of the Minerva Foundation, a subsidiary of the Max Planck Society, and author of the forthcoming Wars of Democracy: The West and the Arabs from the fall of Communism to the War in Iraq (Dayan Center, Tel Aviv). He thanks Ursula Apitzsch, Felicia Herrschaft, David Shavit, and Lance Weldy.

[1] John R. Bowen, Why the French Don't Like Headscarves: Islam, the State and Public Space (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), pp. 13-4; BBC.com, Oct. 5, 2006.
[2] Buthaina Sh'aban, "Mukadama," in Nazira Zin ad-Din, ed., Al-Sufur wal-Hijab [The unveiling and the veil], sec. ed. (Damascus: Al-Mada Publishing Company, 1998), pp. 7-33; Din, Al-Sufur wal-Hijab, pp. 154-86. The debate centers around Qur. 33:32, 53, and 59: 24:30.
[3] Muhammad as-Shaf'i, "Al Munqabat … wal Tawasul" [The fully veiled … and the progression], Asharq al-Awsat (London), Oct. 13, 2006; Fareena Alam, "Behind the Veil," Newsweek International, Nov. 27, 2006.
[4] Sami A. Aldeeb Abu Salieh, "The Islamic Conception of Migration," International Migration Review, Mar. 1996, pp. 37-57.
[5] Qararat wa-Fatawa al-Majlis al-Urubbi lil-Ifta wa al-Buhuth [Decisions and religious edicts of the European Council for Fatwa and Research] (Cairo: Dar al-Tawj'i wa al-Nashr al-Islamiya, 2002), pp. 5-10.
[6] Gary R. Bunt, Islam in the Digital Age: E-Jihad, Online Fatwas and Cyber Islamic Environment (London and Sterling, Va.: Pluto Press, 2003), pp. 147-60, 165.
[7] For an overview of the cultural attack debate, see Uriya Shavit, "Al-Qaeda's Saudi Origins," Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 3-13; Muhammad ‘Abd al-'Alim Marsi, Ath-Thakafa…wal-Ghazu ath-Thakafi fi Duwal al-Khalij al-'Arabia [The culture … and the cultural attack in the Arab gulf states] (Riyadh: Maktabat al-'Abikan, 1995), pp. 129-72.
[8] Sayyid Qutb, Ma'alim fi at-Tarik [Milestones], first ed. (Damascus: Dar Dismask, 1964), pp. 9-10, 21-3, 30-1; Muhammad Hafiz Diyab, Sayid Qutb: Al-Khitab wal-Idiolojiya [Sayid Qutb: The rhetoric and the ideology] (Beirut: Dar al-Tali'ah, 1988), pp. 90-8.
[9] Freedom in the World, 2006 (Washington, D.C.: Freedom House, 2007), p. 15.
[10] Khalid Muhammed al-Aswar, Al-Jaliyat al-Islamiya fi Uruba: Al-Manafidh, al-Mushkilat, al-Hulul [The Muslim diasporas: The origins, the problems, and the solutions] (Cairo: Dar al-I'tisam, 1998), p. 68; Hasan ‘Ali al-Ahdal, "Dawr Rabitat al-'Alam al-Islami fi Nashr at-thakafa al-Islamiya khrij al-'Alam al-Islami" [The role of the Muslim World League in spreading the Muslim culture outside the Muslim world], in Hawiyat al-Muslimun wa Thaqafatuhum fi Uruba (Rabat: Matba'at al-M'aarif al-Jadida, 1995), pp. 141-8.
[11] Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Vienna, 2006, p. 22; ‘Abd al-Majid Bakr, Al-Aqaliyat al-Muslima fi Uruba (Saudi Arabia: Hayat al-Ighatha al-Islamiya al-'Alamiya, 1992.)
[12] Rogers Brubaker, "The Return of Assimilation? Changing Perspectives on Immigration and Its Sequels in France, Germany, and the United States," in Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska, eds., Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-states (New York: Palgrave, 2003), p. 39.
[13] Bowen, Why the French Don't Like Headscarves, pp. 66-8.
[14] Muhammad al-Kadi al-‘Umrani, Fiqh al-Usra al-Muslima fi al-Muhajar [The Religious law of the migrating Muslim family] (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2001), part I, pp. 53-65; Najib Yusuf and Muhsin ‘Atawi, Dalil al-Muslim fi Bilad al-Ghurba [Reference of the Muslim in foreign countries] (Beirut: Dar at-Ta'aruf lil-Matbu'at, 1990), pp. 21-31.
[15] ‘Umrani, Fiqh al-Usra al-Muslima fi al-Muhajar, p. 29-127; Yusuf and ‘Atawi, Dalil al-Muslim fi Bilad al-Ghurba, pp. 31-2.
[16] ‘Abd al-'Aziz bin ‘Abd-Allah bin Baz, "Hukm as-Safr kharij ad-Duwal al-Islamiya" [The rule of traveling outside Muslim lands], accessed Mar. 29, 2007; idem, "Hukm as-Safr ila al-Kharij lil-Dirasa wa Ghyriha" [The rule of traveling abroad for study and other purposes], accessed Mar. 29, 2007; idem, "As-Safr ila al-Kharij" [Travel abroad], accessed Mar. 29, 2007.
[17] Muhammad al-Ghazali, Mustaqbal al-Islam kharij Ardihi: Kayf Nufakir u fihi? (Amman: Orient Public Relations, Publishing and Translation, 1984), p. 138.
[18] Yusuf al-Qaradawi, "Duties of Muslims Living in the West," Islam Online.net, May 7, 2006.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, Tahaduyat al-Muhajir, bayna al-Asala wal Mu'asara [The challenges of the immigrant between rootedness and modernity] (Beirut: Dar al-Malak, 2000), p. 125.
[21] Ghazali, Mustaqbal al-Islam kharij Ardihi, pp. 155-7.
[22] Fadlallah, Tahaduyat al-Muhajir, bayna al-Asala wal Mu'asara, pp. 87-8, 92-5.
[23] Ibid., p. 89.
[24] Ibid., pp. 75-86.
[25] Qararat wa-Fatawa, p. 30.
[26] ‘Umrani, Fiqh al-Usra al-Muslima fi al-Muhajar, pp. 29-127.
[27] Yusuf and ‘Atawi, Dalil al-Muslim fi Bilad al-Ghurba, pp. 31-2.
[28] Ghazali, Mustaqbal al-Islam kharij Ardihi, p. 104.
[29] Qaradawi, "Duties of Muslims Living in the West."
[30] Aswar, Al-Jaliyat al-Islamiya fi Uruba, pp. 7-8.
[31] Ibid., p. 313.
[32] Fadlallah, Tahaduyat al-Muhajir, bayna al-Asala wal Mu'asara, p. 82.
[33] Yusuf and ‘Atawi, Dalil al-Muslim fi Bilad al-Ghurba, p. 32.
[34] Mar. 18, 2001.
[35] Yasir Hussein, Al-Islam Mustaqbal Uruba (Cairo: Dar al-'Amin, 1997).
[36] "Amazing Interview with a 14-years Old New Muslimah," Islam Way Radio, accessed Mar. 29, 2007.
[37] Qaradawi, "Duties of Muslims Living in the West"; Fadlallah, Tahaduyat al-Muhajir, bayna al-Asala wal Mu'asara, p. 88
[38] ‘Umrani, Fiqh al-Usra al-Muslima fi al-Muhajar, p. 4.
[39] Ibid., p. 51
[40] Fadallah, Tahaduyat al-Muhajir, bayna al-Asala wal Mu'asara, p. 334.
[41] Qarart wa Fatawa, p. 95.
[42] Qaradawi, "Duties of Muslims Living in the West."
[43] Sa'id Lawindi, Fubiya al-Islam fi al-Gharb [The Islamophobia in the West] (Cairo: Dar al-Akhbar, 2006), pp. 136-7.
[44] Amr Khalid, "Between Integration and Introversion," accessed Mar. 29, 2007.
[45] Author interviews with eighteen Muslims, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Nov. 2006-May 2007; author observations in mosques and centers.