Thursday, June 28, 2007

HonestReporting Movie: 15 Seconds

This short movie begs the question of how much restraint Israel should now demonstrate with Hamas. Within no more than 12 months (and maybe tomorrow, if the Iranians so deem it), not only will the dusty development town of Sderot be within 15 seconds of disaster, but the heart of Israel as well, as Hamas/Iran begins to take over the West Bank from the corrupt and feckless Fatah. Tony Blair is not going to change that. The only solution is total military reoccupation of the West Bank by the Israelis, or Jordanian confederation/trusteeship over the West Bank (I have long preferred the latter). The Palestinians are a failed state before they even are a state. It would be insanity and suicidal for the Israeli government to pretend otherwise.

HonestReporting Movie: 15 Seconds

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

2007 Failed States Index

See this link for the entire article, from Foreign Policy magazine. When you look at the chart below, please note that a disproportionate number of failing states are either Islamic or strongly influenced by Islamic neighbors, underscoring the threat that Islam presents to the modern world. We can't hide from it and we can't appease to it -- we have to figure out how we can score some military and political victories in this war of civilizations, thereby gaining respect and a glimmer of recognition in the Islamic Street that we are not caving in to the inevitability of history, and help the moderate Islamics turn the tide.
Foreign Policy: The Failed States Index

The columns highlight the 12 political, economic, military, and social indicators of instability. For each indicator, the highest score (greater instability) is in black; the lowest score (less instability) is in white.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Middle East Going to Crap -- Weekend Headlines

JINSA Report #678
Weekend Headlines
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs prepares a "Daily Alert" for The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. We share today's headlines straight off the page with a sinking feeling. Some stories require elucidation, and we will try later in the week, but in sum they suggest that Western political establishments are ill equipped to deal with, or even properly understand, the depth and breadth of the threat we face and the relationships among those who would destroy Israel and America.

* Six UN Peacekeepers Killed in Lebanon (NYT) and Al Qaeda suspected in Attack on UNIFIL (Jerusalem Post): (The IDF) warned in December of increasing signs that global Jihad elements were setting up a presence in Lebanon and were planning attacks against UNIFIL. He said global Jihad terror cells posed a direct threat to the multinational force in southern Lebanon.
* Kidnapped BBC Journalist Shown Wearing Explosives Belt (AP/Washington Post) "Captors tell me that very promising negotiations were ruined when the Hamas movement and the British government decided to press for a military solution to this kidnapping," Johnston says in the recording. And Report: Captured IDF Soldier Held in Booby-Trapped Gaza Building (Reuters/Haaretz)
* Iran Takes Step Nearer a Nuclear Bomb (Telegraph-UK): 100 kg of enriched uranium...enriched to the level needed to run civilian nuclear power stations. But if Iran chooses to enrich it to 84% purity, the uranium would reach weapons-grade level. Iran would need 50 kg of weapons-grade uranium to make one atomic weapon of the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.
* U.S., Egypt at Odds on Gaza Border Curbs (LA Times) Cairo insists the threat is greatly exaggerated. "The truth of the matter is that the problem is not nearly as large as the [U.S.] allegations imply, and we're doing quite a bit already."
* Saudi Says No More Mediation between Palestinians (Reuters): Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said, "The kingdom played its part at the right time and so it will not return to the same effort."
* U.S. House Bans Aid to Saudi Arabia (AFP/Peninsula-Qatar): more than 2.5m dollars to the kingdom in FY 2005 and 2006 as part of their partnership in the war on terror...lawmakers said Hamas received more than half of its financing from Saudi Arabia, and last May alone the Saudi government planned to send 300m dollars to the group...also accused the Saudi government of undermining U.S. military efforts in Iraq by making "no official move" to stop about 3,000 Saudis allegedly fighting U.S. troops in the country.
* Israelis, Arabs Meeting to Shore Up Abbas (Haaretz)
* Shin Bet Chief: Hamas Planning Terror Attack (Ynet news)
* Egyptian Militant Leader Calls for Attacks in Support of Hamas (Reuters)
* Olmert Shelves Rice's Shelf Agreement (Haaretz): In Rice's view, merely reaching such an agreement in principle would provide the Palestinians with a "political horizon" and hope. Olmert...fears a situation in which Israel approves the agreement, but Abbas fails to sell it to the Palestinian public and then Israel might be pressured to make further concessions.
* Three Injured in Palestinian Rocket Attack (YNET) and Palestinians Shell Israeli Border Area Near Gaza Crossing (Jerusalem Post): Palestinian terrorists fired 11 mortars towards Israel Sunday afternoon, hitting an area near the Karni crossing.

Hamas releases recording of Schalit | Jerusalem Post



Hamas releases recording of Schalit | Jerusalem Post

Monday, June 18, 2007

Report: Assad linked to Katyusha rocket attack | Jerusalem Post

Report: Assad linked to Katyusha rocket attack | Jerusalem Post

If true (and there is no reason to doubt it), this proves once a gain the bad player that Syria is, and the almost laughable impunity with which it engages, through its myriad of proxies, in violence against its neighbors (principally, Lebanon and Iraq, and also Israel during last summer's war and now with this Katyusha strike yesterday). I thought that Olmert was foolish when he kept reassuring the Syrians last summer that he wouldn't attack them, even though he knew they were aiding Hezbullah in that war. Assad needs some attitude readjustment from the IDF or the US Air Force next time one of our soldiers in Iraq dies from a Syrian supported terrorist -- a slow moving UN trial of his involvement in the Hariri assassination won't do. Arab despots respect the violent use of power, and will not stop attacking US and Israeli interests until they see that they will have to pay a physical price for their proxy wars. It is time that Assad is on the receiving end of this power, for once. It will make him reconsider his actions next time.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

DEBKAfile - Recapture of the Philadelphi Route Is Proposed to stop the Hamas Horror Show from Moving forward

DEBKAfile - Recapture of the Philadelphi Route Is Proposed to stop the Hamas Horror Show from Moving forward: "More and more Israeli commentators are frankly admitting that Israel’s pull-out from Gaza in the summer of 2005 was an open invitation to the forces of radical Islam to set up house in the defenseless territory. Now, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, foreign minister Tzipi Livni and the rest of their Kadima party who presided over that withdrawal are building new castles in the sky to vindicate that error.

Hamas has not triumphed, they say, but offered Israel the chance of a fresh start to separate Gaza, a mere “terrorist entity,” from the West Bank. There, a Hamas-free regime led by Abbas is a fit partner for peace diplomacy."

Thursday, June 14, 2007

The Palestinian Democratically-Elected Government Takes Over Gaza in a Hail of Gunfire

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

Hamas overruns Fatah security command

By DIAA HADID, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas fighters overran one of the rival

Fatah

" type="hidden"> SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web

" type="hidden">
Fatah movement's most important security installations in the
Gaza Strip

" type="hidden"> SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web

" type="hidden">
Gaza Strip
on Thursday, and witnesses said the victors dragged vanquished gunmen from the building and executed them in the street.




Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Stratfor: Fascinating Analysis on Putin and European Missile Defense

Russia: Using Missile Defense as a Geopolitical Lever

By George Friedman

Russian President Vladmir Putin threw a classic Cold War curveball during his chat with U.S. President George W. Bush at the G-8 summit. Having totally opposed the creation of a U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) system in Poland and the Czech Republic, Putin suddenly shifted his position, saying he might go along with a BMD system under certain conditions. The system, he said, would be acceptable if the United States used a Russian radar system placed in Azerbaijan and based its interceptor missiles anywhere else, such as on ships or in Turkey or Iraq -- anywhere but in Poland.

By rejecting the proposal, Washington would look hostile and uncompromising. Accepting it would mean basing the missiles near the Iranian border, possibly too close to intercept long-range missiles fired from there. Using Russian radar -- which currently is insufficient for U.S. needs -- would make the entire system dependent on Russian cooperation. And pulling the system from Poland would be a signal to Central Europe that military agreements with the United States are subject to negotiation with the Russians. That, of course, is exactly the signal Putin wants sent.

First, let's consider the BMD system itself. There are two criticisms of it, usually made by the same people. The first is that it won't work, and the second is that it is destabilizing. That the two statements are incompatible does not seem to faze most people. Therefore, it is necessary to begin by explaining the reason the BMD is such a passionate issue.

The foundation of stability during the Cold War was Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. MAD was based on the certainty that an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), once launched, could not be blocked. With enough ICBMs, land- and submarine-launched, both the United States and Soviet Union could assure the destruction of the other side in the event of a nuclear exchange. That deterred nuclear risk-taking and stabilized the situation.

The introduction of a missile defense system threatened to change this equation. If one side created such a system, its destruction would no longer be assured, and it might choose to launch a nuclear attack against another side. Even if the effectiveness of the BMD system were uncertain, its very uncertainty created an unknown factor. Neither side could be sure the system would work -- one's own or the other's. In the hall of mirrors that constituted nuclear strategic thinking, the possibility that the other side might calculate probabilities different than you might force you to strike pre-emptively. Since the other side wouldn't know what you were thinking, it might strike pre-emptively. Thus, the existence of a BMD system that might not work was seen as increasing the chance of war.

The Soviets, however, had two very real fears when then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed Star Wars. The first was that the United States might just create an effective BMD system. The Soviets had been burned too many times by underestimating U.S. technological capabilities to be as dismissive as Western critics. The second problem was that the Soviets could not match the system financially or technologically. If it failed to work, fine. But if the United States pulled it off, the Soviet Union would be wide open to attack without the ability to field its own system.

Therefore, the Soviets went ballistic because they were uncertain about the system's effectiveness. They carried out diplomatic attacks against the system and encouraged its Western critics -- and critics of the Reagan administration in general -- to do all they could to block the system. As it was, Star Wars couldn't be made to work at the time, but if you were to have listened to the Soviets on the subject in the mid-1980s, you would have thought the United States was on the verge of annihilating the Soviets with Star Wars. By then, the Soviets' nerves were pretty well shot. They were generally on the ropes, and knew it.

Since those days, the concept of a BMD system has been seen as a technical impossibility that nevertheless is dangerous and destabilizing. There might have been an element of truth to that, but it is difficult to describe a system designed to block one or two missiles fired by a rogue state as destabilizing. MAD is not in effect, for example, with an Iranian or North Korean missile launch. There is no balance to destabilize. An argument could be made that the system doesn't work. You also could argue that the cheapest and most effective solution to an Iranian missile launch is a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian missile site. But it is hard to argue that the existence of a small defensive system of uncertain effectiveness and geared to look at a third party increases the probability of an American-Russian nuclear war.

But the complexities of nuclear deterrence against Third World countries with minor nuclear ambitions are not what Putin was thinking about when he made his offer to the United States. Rather, Putin was thinking about Poland, its role in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union (FSU), and its relationship to the United States. That's what really is worrying Putin, and the BMD issue is merely a lever to deal with the larger geopolitical issues. In other words, this isn't about missile defense, but about a U.S. military presence -- no matter how small -- in Poland.

Ever since the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Russians have been shifting their foreign policy to reassert their sphere of influence in the FSU. In their view, the Andropov experiment of trading geopolitical influence for economic benefits with the West has failed. The benefits failed to solve their problems when they materialized, and the geopolitical concessions have created massive insecurity for the Russian Federation. Therefore, reclaiming Moscow's sphere of influence is the primary issue, starting with Ukraine.

The Russians blamed the Americans for Ukraine, but they also have blamed Poland. Of all of the former European satellites, Poland has been the most openly anti-Russian and the most active in supporting forces in the FSU that also are resisting Russian resurgence. This was shown recently in the Baltic states, particularly Estonia, where Russians have been angered over what is portrayed as increasingly repressive moves toward the local Russian population. The relocation of a monument to the Red Army for liberating Estonia from Germany led to riots by ethnic Russians. Moscow deliberately intensified the crisis, warning the Estonians not to take actions against Russians.

The Russians have a particular problem with the Baltic countries, in that they have been admitted to NATO. The Russians believed they had an understanding with NATO and the United States, dating back to the fall of the Soviet Union, that NATO would not be extended into Central Europe -- and certainly never into the FSU. Obviously, though, many Central European countries have joined NATO. The induction of the Baltic countries, which brought NATO within 60 miles of St. Petersburg, angered the Russians but was grudgingly seen as the price of the Andropov doctrine. However, it was post-Orange Revolution talk of including Ukraine in NATO that drove the Russians to reverse policy.

The Poles, given their long history, are not a trustful or secure people. They view the Russians as merely recovering from a setback, not permanently vanquished. They also have no love or trust for the Germans. Historically trapped on the hard-to-defend northern European plain, equally afraid of both Russians and Germans, the Poles have always looked to an outside power as a protector. Even the experience of French and British guarantees in World War II has not soured them on this strategy, since it is the only one they've got. And that means the Poles now are relying on American guarantees.

But the Poles also badly need a buffer between them and the Russians. They want independent Baltic states in NATO. They want Ukraine in NATO. If there was any way to swing it, they would want Belarus in NATO. They want the Russians kept as far from them as possible. So long as they feel they have U.S. guarantees, they will do everything they can to create blocks to a return of Russia to the frontiers of the FSU.

The Russian view is that the Poles are being encouraged and emboldened by the United States. The missile defense system in Poland is not important in and of itself. It certainly doesn't affect Russia's ability to launch a nuclear strike. But as a symbol of a Polish-U.S. alliance that transcends NATO, it is absolutely vital. The Poles wanted the missiles in their country to symbolize the link, and the Americans wanted them there for the same reason. As long as that link exists, the Poles feel secure, and as long as the Poles feel secure, they will be a thorn in the side of the Russians. The Russian goal of exerting a sphere of influence in the FSU has a broader component. Russia does not expect to regain influence in most of Central Europe -- Serbia possibly excepted. It does want the Central Europeans to be sufficiently wary of the Russians as to exercise caution. Most of the rest of Central Europe tries hard not to get in Russia's way. The Russians want to solidify this posture and extend it to Poland while they redefine the status of the Baltics.

If the Russians can get the Americans to withdraw the missiles from Poland, placing them in Azerbaijan, on ships at sea or in downtown Moscow, the Russians will have achieved their goal. The Russians have a lingering distaste for the BMD. But the real issue is to force a U.S. retreat from Poland. That would shake Polish -- and broader European -- confidence in the U.S. commitment, sober the rest of an already cautious Central Europe and certainly cause the Balts to rethink their posture toward Russia.

If the United States refused to shift the system, this would give the Russians a lever with the Germans. Moscow could then go to the Germans (who still are smarting over a couple of brief cut-offs of natural gas from Russia) and argue that the Americans are triggering another Cold War by their inflexible commitment to basing in Poland when Russia has offered a set of workable alternatives. Whatever German Chancellor Angela Merkel's view of geopolitics, the German public does not want a replay of the Cold War -- and wants Poland to be quiet.

There is also, as in all good Cold War games, a domestic political component. The United States has enjoyed meddling in Russian politics for the past 15 years or so. This gives Putin a chance at payback. At a time when the Bush administration is both politically weak and quite distracted, painting the administration as being inflexible and aggressive, courting another ill-conceived confrontation over a weapon that doesn't work anyway, is a low-risk, high-gain proposition. The New York Times already bit on the bait with an editorial praising Russian flexibility.

The administration's geopolitical problem is obvious. It has too many irons in the fire and a couple of them -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- are white hot. The Russians are deliberately raising the stakes over the Polish system because they see the Bush administration's last two years as a golden opportunity to redefine their sphere of influence. If the United States resists Russia's suggestions, Russia can make inroads in Germany and the rest of Western Europe while causing more domestic political pressure on an administration that already is in the red zone when it comes to political weakness. If Washington compromises, the Russians can use that in Central Europe as evidence of the United States' lack of commitment and of a need for the Central Europeans to rethink their position. It particularly puts the Baltic states in a difficult position. Poland alone (or with the tiny Baltic states) certainly is not a sufficient counterweight to Russia.

Putin's move, therefore, was brilliantly timed and conceived. He took an issue that is controversial in its own right and used it as a geopolitical lever, striking hard at a relationship that is most troubling to Moscow. The Washington-Warsaw relationship represents a serious regional challenge to Russian ambitions. If the Russians can get an American retreat on the anti-missile system in Poland, they can begin the process of unraveling the U.S. position in Central Europe. Since the Western Europeans wouldn't mind in the least, there are possibilities here.

But the possibilities are not the same ones that existed during the Cold War, or even as recently as three years ago. Any region with three dozen states -- read: Europe -- is a dynamic place where governments regularly come and go. By the end of June, the three major European leaders who demonstrated the greatest affinity for Russia during their terms -- German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- will all be gone. Their replacements, and the replacements of similar governments throughout Europe, are largely Russo-skeptic. But they also are not instinctual European federalists.

This both destroys and creates opportunities for Moscow. The Kremlin is now facing a Europe that is actually more hostile to it than a similar pan-European alignment of the 1980s. Simultaneously, the unraveling of the European project means that, though the overall region is certainly more suspicious, Russia's ability to peel off individual states from the whole, either with sweet talk or intimidation, could actually prove easier.

And nowhere will it be easier than Serbia. The Russians have made it clear that they do not favor an independent Kosovo. Friendly with Serbia, and very unhappy with the way the Kosovo war was handled by the United States, the Russians could well choose to create a second confrontation over the future of Kosovo, testing both the Americans and Western Europeans at the same time. The Russians now have very little to lose and quite a bit to gain from confrontation.

Mideast: On Target - Lebanon Reflections 1982 – 85

Mideast: On Target - Lebanon Reflections 1982 – 85: The attached piece may be an allegory to Israel's first Lebanon War -- essential and a terrible waste all at once, Israel's Vietnam and Iraq combined -- or to our involvement in Iraq, as it has panned out and promises to most probably end. This is a great and instructive read, and every one of our soldier in Iraq would sympathize with it. Please read this article at the link above.

Its Preface: "Note: This past week most attentions were focused on the 1967 Six Day War, its aftermath and our perspectives 40 years later. Completely forgotten was the First Lebanon War of 25 years ago. The following piece was written in June 1985 when Israel pulled out of Lebanon after three years of conflict. Shortly afterwards we returned to the south Lebanese security zone. "

Monday, June 11, 2007

A Hotter Holy Land-- The International Security Impact of Global Warming

This is a great article in full -- here is a link to a free extract from the Jerusalem Report. Basically, global warming is making the Middle East an even more dangerous place to live, and as former Marine General Zinni says, the increasing lack of water in poorer Middle East countries (think Jordan, for example) that is being brought on by global warming can be expected to be terribly destabilizing in the future.
A Hotter Holy Land

The Horrors of Gaza, by Khaled Abu Toameh

Thanks to Suzanne of HonestReporting for this one. I met the author of the following article, Khaled Abu Toameh, in Jerusalem last year. He is a brave Arab journalist who writes for the Jerusalem Post (among other things), exposing his readership to real conditions in the Palestinian territories, much to his personal danger, rather than simply providing sanitized or propagandistic stuff given to him by Palestinian-controlled stringers (which is the way almost all Western journalists operate). He has written a very interesting article on Gaza below for the National Review (don't expect Time Magazine or the Economist to take an article this honest anytime soon). There are facts here that never see the light of day but must in order for people to understand what is happening. And abu Toameh, with his unparalleled access, for a non-controlled journalist, is the most credible source of news in the region.

A Ghastly Little Place
The fate of the Gaza Strip

KHALED ABU TOAMEH


N
ahed Nimer had just finished afternoon prayers at his home in Gaza City when he heard loud banging at the door. About twelve gunmen stormed their way in, aiming rifles at the terrified man and his family. “Come with us for ten minutes,” the intruders demanded as they dragged the 58-year-old father of six away.

Two hours later, Nimer’s family received a phone call from a friend telling them that their father had been admitted to a hospital. “We rushed to the emergency room, but my father was not there,” recalls the oldest son, Muhammad. “We were told that he had been taken directly to the morgue. He had been brutally tortured before being shot 50 times in various parts of the body.”

Nimer was a victim of the bloody power struggle that has been raging for more than a year in the Gaza Strip between the Islamic movement Hamas and its rival secular faction, Fatah. He was known as one of the political leaders of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. His murderers are believed to be members of the Fatah-controlled security forces loyal to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. The parties have been fighting each other ever since Hamas came to power in a free and fair parliamentary election in January 2006. Most of the fighting has taken place in the Gaza Strip, home to an estimated 1.4 million Palestinians, the majority of whom live in harsh conditions in scores of refugee camps.

In the Gaza Strip, unlike the West Bank, Hamas is extremely popular. That’s why U.S.-backed attempts by Abbas and Fatah over the past year to undermine Hamas have so far been unsuccessful. As one of Abbas’s top security advisers admitted recently, “President Abbas is in a difficult situation because Hamas is now in control.”

In the last round of internecine fighting in Gaza, Abbas’s security forces suffered one defeat after another. This is particularly interesting given that Abbas has more than 40,000 policemen and gunmen under his jurisdiction. Hamas, by contrast, is said to have no more than 12,000 soldiers. So how come Abbas hasn’t been able to crush Hamas, especially when the U.S. and some Arab countries have given him large amounts of weapons and millions of dollars?

Abbas, like the vast majority of the Palestinians, is well aware of the fact that Hamas came to power as a result of a free and democratic vote. Undoubtedly, he and his followers would love to see Hamas removed from power. But the last thing they want is to be perceived as part of a U.S. and Israeli plot to get rid of a democratically elected government. Moreover, there is no guarantee that Fatah would win if elections were held tomorrow in the Palestinian territories. That’s because it has yet to draw the appropriate conclusions from its defeat in 2006.


Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, May 2007
Mohammed Salem/Reuters


Fatah lost that vote mainly owing to rampant financial corruption, abuse of power, and mismanagement. Since then, its leaders have done almost nothing to implement reforms and get rid of the icons of corruption in their midst. The Fatah candidates who ran in the 2006 parliamentary election are still around, and many of them even belong to Abbas’s inner circle.
Instead of searching their souls and preparing to run in another free and democratic election, Abbas and his colleagues are obsessed with the dream of removing Hamas from power. They still haven’t come to terms with the fact that they lost, and would be willing to do almost anything to regain what they believe should be theirs forever, if only they could get away with it.

Many Palestinians see the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah as a fight not between good guys and bad guys, but between bad guys and bad guys. The parties are not in dispute over democracy, reforms, and peace; they are killing each other for money and power. The Hamas–Fatah confrontation has resulted in a dramatic breakdown of law and order, especially in the Gaza Strip, where thousands of militiamen belonging to various factions and clans are now roaming the streets freely. Hardly a day passes without a Palestinian’s falling victim to this state of anarchy and lawlessness. In the course of the fighting, which has claimed the lives of more than 160 Palestinians since the beginning of the year, children have been murdered in front of their parents, mothers and fathers have been shot execution-style in front of their children, wounded people have been disconnected from life-support machines in hospitals, bodies have been mutilated and dismembered, ambulances and medical teams have been assaulted, and schools, universities, mosques, churches, and medical centers have been blown up.

Israel’s 2005 unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has done much to aggravate the problem. By abandoning the border between Gaza and Egypt, the Israelis paved the way for the infiltration of al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. Today, there are at least three such groups operating in Gaza. In their attempts to impose a Taliban-style regime, they have bombed Internet cafes, restaurants, and schools that allegedly promote Western values. One of the groups, calling itself the Righteous Swords of Islam, threatened to behead female newscasters on Palestine TV who refuse to cover their faces.


“The Gaza Strip will soon become an international base for global jihad,” said a senior Palestinian security official. “We are no longer in control and we don’t know what to do. We don’t have a strong leader who is capable of making tough decisions.”

Most foreign journalists have stopped traveling to the Gaza Strip for fear of being kidnapped by one of the powerful gangs. In the past two years, more than 30 foreigners have been abducted for ransom. In most cases, the hostages were released in return for money and jobs in the Palestinian Authority.

By staying away from Gaza, the foreign media have left the coverage of events there in the hands of local Palestinian stringers and reporters, most of whom are affiliated with one of the factions. They have the power to decide what the world will see, hear, and read about what happens in the Gaza Strip. Needless to say, most of them are not keen on bringing Gaza’s dirty laundry out into the open.

Following the Israeli “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians had an opportunity to turn the area into the Middle East’s Hong Kong or Singapore. Instead they have turned it into one of the world’s most dangerous places, where even aid workers and human-rights activists are not safe. The former Jewish settlements of the Gaza Strip, which were supposed to be replaced with industrial zones and modern housing projects, have become training bases for armed gangs.

At a meeting with a group of businessmen last week, President Abbas admitted that anarchy in the Gaza Strip has blocked development, “and this is unfortunate.” This was indeed a rare moment of truth for Abbas — the first time he did not blame his people’s miseries on the “occupation.” In fact, some Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are no longer afraid to say that they miss the “good old days” of Israeli occupation. In the words of a former Palestinian minister, “We were dreaming of Hong Kong and Singapore and instead we got Somalia and the Taliban.”

Mr. Toameh is a Jerusalem-based journalist who specializes in Palestinian affairs.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

What Happened on Northwest Flight 720? » The Aviation Nation

What Happened on Northwest Flight 720? » The Aviation Nation

Terrorists probing our defenses... or two insane passengers? Either way, they were handled by courageous passengers...

Time to confront the Muslim conspiracists | Uk News | News | Telegraph

Time to confront the Muslim conspiracists | Uk News | News | Telegraph: "Something is seriously wrong. A quarter of British Muslims believe the government and security services were involved in the July 7 suicide bombings in London, according to a poll for Channel 4 News.

One quarter cannot be dismissed as a lunatic fringe but constitutes a significant minority.
advertisement

Yet this is not the first poll to show that many British Muslims harbour conspiracy fantasies: an NOP poll last August showed that 45 per cent of Muslims believed that the attacks of 9/11 were a conspiracy between the USA and Israel.

Last month, the Pew Research Center published findings consistent with this.

While we don't have figures for comparison, it seems highly unlikely that anything approaching the same proportions of Britons generally entertain such preposterous fantasies. Something has gone seriously wrong within the Muslim community."

Iran Focus-Iran adding attack boats in Persian Gulf, U.S. says - Iran (General) - News

Iran Focus-Iran adding attack boats in Persian Gulf, U.S. says - Iran (General) - News

Netanyahu On British Academic Boycott of Israel– Daily Video News from Israel

JerusalemOnline – Daily Video News from Israel

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Israel's wasted victory, May 26th | The inbox | Economist.com

The Economist, as much of the British elite, has a long tradition of glossing over history to support their essentially Arabist viewpoints, as was the Economist's editorial bemoaning the harm that has fallen upon the Middle East as a result of Israel's 6 Day War victory. Read David Harris' Letter to the Editor, attached, contesting this interpretation of history.

Israel's wasted victory, May 26th | The inbox | Economist.com

The 40th anniversary of the Six Day War -- On the seventh day, the beginning of the US-Israeli relationship | Jerusalem Post

On the seventh day | Jerusalem Post

Ignored by the Brits - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

Ignored by the Brits - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews: "Ignored by the Brits

Druze PhD student defends Israel, but British academicians uninterested

Amir Hanifes

As a holder of two degrees from the University of Haifa and a PhD student at the University of London, I traveled to Bournemouth for the meeting of the British University and College Union (UCU) as an Israeli delegate on behalf of the Israeli Council for Academic Freedom.


The discussions at the meeting regarding the imposition of a boycott on Israeli academia took place in a hostile environment while ignoring all the facts we presented regarding freedom of expression and academic freedom at Israeli institutions of higher learning.


Evidence that Israeli lecturers who hold pro-Palestinian views are able to express their positions uninterrupted both in their research work and lectures, as well as in the media, had no effect whatsoever on the discussions."

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

DEBKAfile - DEBKAfile Exclusive: Ahmadinijad’s bluster boosted by secret deal for North Korean Taep’o-dong-2 ballistic missiles

DEBKAfile - DEBKAfile Exclusive: Ahmadinijad’s bluster boosted by secret deal for North Korean Taep’o-dong-2 ballistic missiles--4000 KM range

Los Angeles Times: Remaking the world in six days

Los Angeles Times: Remaking the world in six days:
Remaking the world in six days
Though it failed to bring peace, Israel's 1967 military triumph saved the country and changed the global landscape.
By Michael Oren

BY ALL contemporary accounts, it was one of the most stunning military victories in history. In six intense days of fighting that began on June 5, 1967, Israeli forces saved their country from an imminent existential threat, defeated three major Arab armies and almost quadrupled the territory under their country's control.

Israeli flags flew on the banks of the Suez Canal, over the Golan Heights and above the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the holiest site in Judaism. The victory was so great that Israelis naturally assumed that this would be their last war and that the spoils of their triumph could be traded for a permanent peace.

(continue in article)

The Six Day War -- No Pyrrhic Victory- WSJ.com

Global View - WSJ.com: "On the morning of June 5, 1967, a fleet of low-flying Israeli jets surprised the Egyptian air force on the ground and destroyed it. This act of military pre-emption helped save Israel from what Iraq's then-President Abdul Rahman Aref had called, only several days earlier, 'our opportunity . . . to wipe Israel off the map.' Yet 40 years later Israel's victory is widely seen as a Pyrrhic one -- 'a calamity for the Jewish state no less than for its neighbors,' according to a recent editorial in the Economist.

And the alternative was?

The Six Day War is supposed to be the great pivot on which the modern history of the Middle East hinges, the moment the Palestinian question came into focus and Israel went from being the David to the Goliath of the conflict. It's a reading of history that has the convenience of offering a political prescription: Rewind to the status quo ante June 5, arrange a peace deal, and the problems that have arisen since more or less go away. Or so the thinking goes.
[Photo]
Israeli soldiers by Western Wall, June 1967.

Yet the striking fact is that all of Israel's peace agreements -- with Egypt in 1979, with the Palestinians in 1993, with Jordan and Morocco in 1994 -- were achieved in the wake of the war. The Jewish state had gained territory; the Arab states wanted it back. Whatever else might be said"

Monday, June 04, 2007

Putin Threatens West Over Plan To Deter Missiles - WSJ.com

Putin Threatens West Over Plan To Deter Missiles - WSJ.com

The big bad Soviets are back, but with a difference -- Putin is much more dangerous than the relatively cautious, sclerotic old men of the Soviet Union. he has more money at his disposal (thanks to the high price of energy) and is not influenced by the horrific Soviet WWII experience, which held back the Soviet leadership from taking global revolution too far (and in fact, partially as a result of this mindset, they were better at controlling nuclear technology proliferation than the West was). the Soviets are attempting to convince the Syrians now that Israel intends to attack them and that they'd better preempt (just as they did in '73), they are arming Iran with anti-aircraft weaponry (even while they slow the pipeline on helping Iran's nuclear effort), and they are playing their effectively anti-American role almost everywhere on the international stage. No wonder that Defense Secretary Gates has been reaching out to the Chinese lately on military cooperation (while our political leaders push them aware over the downside of globalization).

Putin looks more likely to act like some James Bond film super villain than his Soviet predecessors did. Is it possible that Putin will put Iranian fingerprints on an attack of American forces or interests in Iraq, the Gulf or Europe that is calculated to send us to war against Iran, thereby further making the US unpopular in the world as the big bully, bleeding us and also taking care of an annoying and potentially dangerous Iranian nuclear problem,cutting them down to size to give the Russians more ability to reassert control in the Arab world? It might sound like something from "24", but with this Russian dictator, it is distinctly possible...

Israel spurns C-Ram anti-rocket system | Jerusalem Post

Israel spurns C-Ram anti-rocket system | Jerusalem Post

This article indicates that Israel can effectively prevent most Kassam rockets form landing on Sderot for the cost of four, $15 Million systems that the Israelis are unwilling to buy, preferring a homegrown super system that will be available in 2011. We use this system to protect the Green Zone in Baghdad, and the Brits use it to protect their critical assets in Iraq from mortars, artillery and rockets. It might not be 100% perfect, and will not stop the psychological damage of knowing you are being shelled, but if it can protect this level f protection, it is criminal that it not be deployed by the Israelis and reflects the moral bankruptcy of Israel's leadership.

Several interesting ideas in the talk back blog to this column with regard to this missile system:

1. Israel use the tax revenue that it withholds form the Palestinians to pay for this device -- the Palestinian democratically-elected government is causing the problems, let them pay for this partial solution.

2. Simultaneously with deploying a mostly effective solution like this, Israel should announce that a 100 meter radius around each Kassam launch site will be deemed a military target and be obliterated, putting more pressure on civilians to do something about the launch of these rockets from their land, and their democratically chosen government (again, we must not let the Pals off the hook for this -- this terrorist government is by their own creation, not imposed from the outside, and they must bear the consequences for their irresponsible democratic action -- enough low expectations of the Arabs -- hold them responsible for their own actions).

3. Ominously, one step removed form number 2, one person suggests that Israel allows its own "militant movement" to develop, manufacture their own Kassams, and let them fly. I am worried because I do see an increasing danger of rebellion by elements of the Israeli military against their government's lack of willingness to take decisive action against Gaza, while one town in Southern Israel withers and dies. Last week, over 100 Israeli army reserve officers from Sderot demonstrated against the government's restraint against Gaza as immoral and destroying their homes, the obverse of the Zionist dream. Keep an eye on this development as it spreads. One well-placed tragedy (another Gaza terrroist attack or kidnapping against Israeli soldiers, leading to bad casualties, or a truck bombing) and this could develop into a broad movement quickly. I am not suggesting the possibility of a military coup, but this government is stupid enough to defy the will of the people for so long before something may pop in Israel's dysfunctional democratic system.

Stay tuned...