‘Palestine’ adores vicious murderers

From FresnoZionism

January 29th, 2012

The murdered Fogel family: Ruth, Udi, Yoav (11), Elad (4), Hadas (4 mo.).

The absolute vileness of the “Palestinian movement” is hard for those of us who grew up in civilized societies like the US and Israel to comprehend. As a result, many of us may be prepared to listen when they say that it is about human rights or justice.
But every once in awhile we get a window into what’s really behind it.
Even Israeli police and security personnel, who have seen some terrible things, were shocked last year by the sadistic murder of five members of the Fogel family including a 4-month-old baby whose throat was cut, committed by two Palestinian Arab teenagers, Amjad and Hakim Awad, cousins from the village of Awarta.
Captured after an intensive manhunt, the Awads were both convicted and given multiple life sentences. There was even consideration of applying the death penalty, something not done in Israel since Eichmann was hanged in 1962. Unfortunately, the court decided against it.
One might expect that the official Palestinian reaction — after all, they are preparing to petition the UN for statehood again — would have been something like “we condemn violent extremism, although we understand their frustration, etc.”
But they are past pretending even that much.The official reaction is that the butchers  are heroes!
Watch the following video, from official Palestinian TV, courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch:
If you can see this, then you might need a Flash Player upgrade or you need to install Flash Player if it's missing. Get from Adobe.

PA TV host: “We have a call from the family of prisoner Hakim Awad.”
Mother of Hakim Awad: “I thank you for connecting me with my son, because I and all of the family are prevented for security reasons [from visiting him].
Host: “Go ahead, sister, we can convey your voice.”
Mother of Hakim Awad: “My greetings to dear Hakim, the apple of my eye, from the village of Awarta, 17 years old, who carried out the operation in Itamar [i.e., killing of 5 Fogel family members], sentenced to 5 life sentences and another 5 years, in prison.”
Aunt of Hakim Awad: “I’m the sister of prisoner Hassan Awad and of Salah Awad; [I am] Um Habib, from the village of Awarta. My warm greetings to all the great heroic prisoners, to my brother Hassan Awad, head of the village council; to my brother Salah Awad, the heroic prisoner journalist; to the heroic, resolute prisoner, the lion, Yazid Awad, my nephew; and to my nephew Hakim Awad, the hero, the legend.”
Host:“We [PA TV], for our part, also convey our greetings to them.”
Aunt of Hakim Awad: “I dedicate this song to Hassan Awad, Yazid Awad, Hakim Awad, and Salah Awad, in prison:
‘My brother, in solitary confinement, your voice calls to me
You dare not throw down the rifle
That is what the homeland asked of me
In your eyes, we are all self-sacrificing fighters.
I convey greetings to the sound of the bullets of Ahmad Sa’adat and Hakim Awad.’”
Host: “Thank you for being with us, the family of prisoners Hassan and Salah Awad of Awarta.”
– (PA TV, Jan. 19 and 21, 2012)

This is nothing new. According to the Palestinian ethos, murdering Jewish civilians, including (especially) children, is not only legitimate, but praiseworthy.
Now I know that if any Palestinian sympathizers are reading this, right now they will be saying “well, didn’t the IDF murder children in Gaza?”
Actually, no. Pro-Arab propaganda often takes the form of inverting reality, accusing Israel of behaving like Nazis, or (more to the point) Arab terrorists. The IDF’s operation in Gaza in 2008-9, a response to the thousands of rockets that had been bombarding Israeli towns since 2002, resulted in a higher ratio of combatant to noncombatant casualties (about 3 to 1) than any instance of urban warfare in recent times (where the ratio is more like 9 to 1). This is despite the fact that Hamas deliberately operated from civilian areas in order to use the population as a shield.
On the other hand, we have Palestinian Arab ‘military’ actions like these:

The Ma’alot massacre, in which 25 Israelis were killed including 22 children, the Bus of Blood (35 dead, 13 children), the attack on the nursery at Kibbutz Misgav Am (3 dead, 2 children), the Dolphinarium bombing (21 teens dead), the Sbarro Pizza bombing (15 dead, 5 children), the shooting at the Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva (8 dead, 7 teens), the vicious butchering of the Fogel family (5 dead, 3 children), the antitank rocket attack on a yellow school bus (1 child) — these are just a few of a long, long list.

One of the scandals of the the conflict is that the media have helped the Arabs get away with portraying it as a dignified struggle for self-determination, when it is better described as one to eliminate the Jewish presence from the region, carried out primarily by terrorism against civilians — an attempt to make living in Israel so painful that Jews will simply give up — and only secondarily by conventional war and diplomacy.
Don’t expect to see the details of the Palestinian admiration for murderers in the NY Times, for example.

When the President (of Palestine) is a mass murderer

From FresnoZionism

January 26th, 2012


From Ha’aretz:

[Marwan] Barghouti, who is likely to become the next Palestinian President, was convicted by the Israeli justice system of five counts of murder – four Israelis and a Greek monk – during the second intifada. There is no question he supported and encouraged violence.

Actually, as the head of the Fatah Tanzim during the second intifada,  he was almost certainly responsible for many other murders. But the prosecution was unable to provide sufficient evidence to convict him of more than five, for which he received five life sentences.
In a normal world it would be impossible to imagine that one country would release a convicted mass murderer so that he could become the president of a state to be established next door. In Russia (or Texas) he would be executed. Here in California, he might be sentenced to death but then remain in prison for life (while running up astronomical legal costs). But he would not be released to become, for example, Governor of Nevada.
The Ha’aretz story continues,

Barghouti’s involvement in past terror attacks does not change the fact that in light of the political developments on the Palestinian side – the possible reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah and especially the lack of contenders against President Mahmoud Abbas – Barghouti remains the only Fatah member who could inherit Abbas’ place when the time comes.

In other words, since he is the one murderer that two murderous terrorist organizations find acceptable, then by all means Israel should facilitate unifying them by letting him go free. Incredible logic!
Barghouti appeared at a court hearing concerning a lawsuit filed by the family of Esther Kleiman, who was shot to death in 2002:

Esther Kleiman z"l

March 24, 2002 – Esther Kleiman, 23, of Neve Tzuf, was killed in a shooting attack northwest of Ramallah, while traveling to work in a reinforced Egged bus.
Esther was on the bus on her way to the Samaria community of Ofra where she worked as a special education kindergarten teacher for Downs Syndrome children. At least one terrorist on a ridge overlooking the Abud bypass road fired at the bus as it passed the village of Umm Safah, near Ateret. A bullet apparently penetrated an unprotected part of the bus above the bullet-proof windows, hitting her in the head…
Esther completed high school at Ulpanat Zvia and then volunteered for National Service for two years in the Neveh Sha’anan School for disturbed children in Jaffa, where she worked with both Arab and Jewish children. After completing her service, she studied special education at the Talpiot teacher’s college in Jaffa. Esther was quiet and shy, but she loved working with children, her father said, and preferred relating to the youngsters on a one-to-one basis, rather than in a classroom.
Neve Tzuf residents described Esther as a very kind and pleasant person who always had a smile on her face. She worked as a volunteer with disabled and disadvantaged children in addition to her regular job.

Kleiman’s family is suing the Palestinian Authority for several million dollars, because the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades killed her. Barghouti is supposed to testify on the connection between Fatah, the PA, and the al-Aqsa Brigades. Of course he refused to testify on the grounds that he does not recognize the authority of the court (to be precise, he does not recognize the Jewish state).
One wonders why he was brought to the courtroom in the first place, since he refused to speak at his own murder trial for the same reason. He was, however, given a platform to speak on an unrelated question:

The court hearing provided Bargouti with a rare opportunity to communicate with the Palestinian – and the Israeli public. One of the most important messages he conveyed to the many journalists surrounding him was that an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state will bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

An ‘important message’ indeed! As one popular pro-Israel blogger would write, “what could go wrong?”
You might be forgiven for wondering if it would be a good idea to take the word of a mass murderer who in effect promises that if you give him half of what you possess, then he won’t try to take the rest. But the Ha’aretz reporter assures us that Barghouti has repented from his evil ways:

In the past, Barghouti spearheaded the Fatah faction that called for terrorist attacks against Israeli targets in the West Bank, and from January 2002 he even supported attacks within the Green Line. Like many Palestinians, Barghouti drew inspiration from Hezbollah, which forced Israel to retreat from southern Lebanon in May 2000, and thought that adopting the Shiite group’s tactics will cause Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian territories.
However, in recent years Barghouti admitted that the Palestinians made a grave mistake by turning to terrorism. In countless interviews he said he supports “popular resistance” – that is, unarmed resistance.

I don’t know about that last argument. For example,

The Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) (Arabic: لجان المقاومة الشعبية, Lijān al-Muqāwama al-Shaʿbiyya) are a coalition of various armed Palestinian factions that oppose the conciliatory approach adopted by the Palestinian Authority and Fatah towards Israel…
Set up in late 2000 by former Fatah and Tanzim member Jamal Abu Samhadana, the PRC are composed primarily of ex-Fatah fighters and al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades members and are alleged by Israel to be inspired and financed by Hezbollah. The PRC specializes in planting roadside bombs and vehicle explosive charges – directed against military and civilian convoys in the Gaza Strip. The PRC is described as a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. — Wikipedia

Is that the way ‘popular’ means ‘nonviolent’?
According to the reporter, Israel will have no choice if he is elected ‘President of Palestine’:

…some of the people close to Barghouti have no doubt he intends to run for president, even if it means being elected while still behind bars. He also understands that after the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap – in which he was not included – his only chance of being released is to be elected president. Israel will have a hard time dealing with the international pressure to release an imprisoned president.

It’s hard to think of an analogy. Could California mass murderer Charles Manson be elected Governor of Nevada? Of course not. But then, Nevada is not an artificial entity created simply to oppose and destroy California.
Israel is still a sovereign state, which can keep its convicted murderers in prison despite the pretensions of its enemies. Releasing Barghouti because he may become ‘President of Palestine’, or even if he is elected, would be a surrender of sovereignty, and cannot be permitted.
The best solution, going forward, will be the establishment of a death penalty for terrorist murderers like Barghouti.

The evolution of the Oldest Hatred

 From FresnoZionism

January 22nd, 2012

An "anti-Zionist" demonstrates in San Francisco, 2009. No Jew-hatred here!

Somebody asked me to expand on the remark I made Friday, when I said,

Today the impulse to hate — at least as it affects the more sophisticated Americans and Europeans — is directed at the concrete national expression of the Jewish people, the state of Israel, rather than at ‘the Jews’ … Irrational, obsessive hate is irrational, obsessive hate. Only the object is different. And the bloody results can be the same.

People that hate Israel every bit as viciously as the Nazis hated Jews are at pains to distinguish their hatred from antisemitism, because although anti-Zionism is acceptable, antisemitism is not.
Today, there is an absolute taboo in educated Western society against racist or ‘prejudiced’ speech.  Even some words (or ones that sound like them) are absolutely forbidden. Do you recall this incident?

On January 15, 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., used “niggardly” in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (identified by Howard as Marshall Brown), who interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25 Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it [he was later offered another position] … Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. “I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That’s naive, especially for a white person, because a white person can’t afford to be colorblind. They don’t have to think about race every day. An African American does.” — Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article lists several similar incidents. Of course the word ‘niggardly’ has nothing to do with the famous ‘n-word’, in etymology or meaning –  it comes from A Swedish dialect word that means ‘stingy’ or ‘miserly’. I mention this to illustrate how incredibly touchy we can be about this kind of taboo.
How did we get here? In America, the fact of slavery followed by institutionalized racism and the struggle to end it was especially traumatic, in different ways, for both whites and African-Americans. Similarly, the Holocaust created a sensitivity to antisemitism in Europe and America. Explicit Jew-hatred is almost never expressed by the educated classes in the US and Europe (although it is quite common in the Muslim world — a recent poll shows that only 2% of Egyptians have a favorable opinion of Jews).
It is almost unthinkable that a university teacher today would deliver a lecture accusing international Jewry of conspiring to take over the world, or saying that Jews have inordinate control over the US government. On the other hand, the equally false propositions that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian Arabs (despite the fact that their number has grown steadily since Israel was established), and that US policy is warped by a powerful ‘Israel lobby’ are heard in classrooms every day.
Especially in left-wing circles, where political correctness is carefully enforced and nobody would dream of accusing Jews of putting Christian blood in their matzot,  it is considered perfectly legitimate to accuse Israel of deliberately shooting Palestinian children, or of killing Arabs to steal their organs, on the strength of unsubstantiated statements made by Israel’s enemies — including those who themselves regularly practice murderous terrorism! But that doesn’t matter, because actual evidence is not required when the hatred is irrational.
We find irrational, obsessive and extreme hatred of the Jewish state everywhere on the Left, particularly among Jews. One example is here.
My thesis is that extreme Israel-hatred in this context is simply an evolved form of antisemitism. Let me explain.
Antisemitism is a meme.

A meme is “an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture.”A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures. — Wikipedia

While it’s possible to take analogies too far, the biological metaphor seems spot-on in this case. Like a living species, traditional antisemitism developed throughout European cultures (and spread to others) until 1945, because the environment was favorable to it. In fact, one can see the Holocaust as the logical result of this development, the final flowering of it.
But like biological population explosions in which a species’ excessive expansion can change its environment in ways that make it less hospitable to the organism, the horrors of WWII changed the cultural environment in which the antisemitism meme lives. At least among educated Westerners, a resistance to traditional Jew-hatred developed, and the meme was inhibited from reproducing there.
There were other reasons. I mentioned the trauma of white racism in America. An analogy was drawn between racism and antisemitism. A great amount of energy was directed towards extirpating all kinds of prejudice in our society. Political correctness developed, which helped suppress racism and antisemitism, but also has had other non-benign effects.
Unfortunately, like living creatures, memes have the ability to mutate and mutations that improve their ability to reproduce in a particular cultural environment will be strengthened by natural selection. So rather than dying out, the meme evolved. Jew-hatred became Israel-hatred. Instead of  being directed at a group of people because of who or what they are, it was directed at the state that they created for themselves. The taboos against racism and prejudice were circumvented, because the meme could be presented as political opposition to a country rather than hate for a people.
Little else changed. The fundamental irrationality of traditional antisemitism, by which Jewish crimes and the evidence for them could simply be made up, remained. The ability of the antisemite to believe anything negative about the Jew no matter how outlandish, remained. The application of antisemitism to every area of human interaction — literature, music, sports, professions, etc., remained (consider academic boycotts, for example). The extreme vitriol that characterizes it, remained. And it appears that the ultimate goal — the destruction of the hated object — remains.
One way to see the connection between the Oldest Hatred and today’s attacks on Israel’s legitimacy is to note that what is being denied by Israel-haters today is that the Jewish people are a people, and they have a right of self-determination.
Keep this in mind the next time — and I’m sure there will be a next time, probably in the next few months — that there are massive anti-Israel demonstrations against the state of the Jewish people having the chutzpah to defend itself. Not much is new under the sun.

What’s good for Israel is good for the USA (apologies to General Bullmoose)

 From FresnoZionism
January 20th, 2012

Lately I’ve been reading a lot about whether certain bloggers associated with the Center for American Progress (CAP) — an organization ‘closely linked to the White House’ — have crossed the line by using the expression “Israel-Firsters” for American supporters of Israel. Peter Wallsten of the Washington Post provides a relatively neutral summary of the controversy here.
I am beginning to think that nothing is less productive than discussing whether a particular expression or person is antisemitic. Certainly saying that “American Jews are disloyal because they choose Israel over the USA” is antisemitic. But the CAP bloggers who used this expression insist that they are only talking about specific individuals, and their being Jewish is irrelevant.
I’ll be generous and give them this. It’s unimportant (although I’ll add that the expression is quite popular in explicitly antisemitic and neo-Nazi circles).
Today the impulse to hate — at least as it affects the more sophisticated Americans and Europeans — is directed at the concrete national expression of the Jewish people, the state of Israel, rather than at ‘the Jews’.
So what? Irrational, obsessive hate is irrational, obsessive hate. Only the object is different. And the bloody results can be the same.
What is a bit ironic today is that the interests of the US and Israel are more closely aligned than ever before. Speaking for myself, I believe that being pro-Israel is part of being pro-American (if this weren’t the case, I would go back to Israel tomorrow).
The Obama Administration doesn’t agree with me. The thrust of its policy, since the 2009 Cairo speech, has been to bring us closer to the Muslim world, which naturally implies drawing away from Israel, and in particular trying to force the creation of a Palestinian state, regardless — despite what Mr. Obama says in public — of the cost to Israel’s security.
An argument was made in the 1970′s that US interests, in the form of low oil prices, implied that the US should adopt a more ‘even-handed’ (read: pro-Arab) approach in the Middle East. I would dispute this, but at least the proposition makes sense.
Today the situation is entirely different. The tide of radical Islamism that is sweeping over the region is ideologically hostile to the West and particularly to the US. Appeasement of these forces — which is the appropriate way to describe a great deal of Administration policy — weakens our strategic position towards them.
The present goals of the regime in Iran include the elimination of US influence in the region, the control of its oil resources, the establishment of a regional Shiite hegemony under Iranian control, and oh yes, the elimination of the “Little Satan,” Israel. Ultimately the regime’s admittedly grandiose aim is to replace the “Great Satan” (that’s us) as the world’s superpower and spread Islam throughout the world.
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has similar goals. The Turkish AKP envisages a new Ottoman Empire. Whether any of these regimes or groups stand a chance of realizing them is another question, but their ideological enmity to the US is unquestionable. Appeasement of any of these will not bring lower oil prices.
In every case, the Jewish state is the active front in their diplomatic, informational and sometimes military war to achieve their goals.  Israel has the ability and desire to defend itself, and therefore to help protect US interests as well.
Despite the recent campaign to portray Israel as undemocratic, it is the state that most closely embodies our values of freedom, justice, democracy, free enterprise, etc. in the Middle East. We should do our best to support it, and not work against its self defense as the Obama Administration has done.
Are those the only reasons that I support Israel? Of course not. But they are good reasons for all Americans to do so.

Different values

 Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Talking about political Islam

 From FresnoZionism

Non-Muslims in the West are beginning to be divided into two groups: those who believe that it is possible and necessary to talk about political Islam, and those who see that discussion as religious prejudice, and therefore taboo.
The present American administration falls into the latter group. While it is committed to fighting against those who are waging war — jihad — against us, it has abstracted the violence from its religious/ideological context, and has done its best to forbid our government and law enforcement agencies from mentioning the context.
This is a logically incoherent position, and prevents us from taking appropriate actions to protect our liberal, secular and democratic way of life.
One of the main problems is that the ideology of political Islam calls for both violent and non-violent action to change the nature of society — American and European society — in accordance with Islam’s ideal, which is as different from ours as seventh-century Arabia is from the 18th century Enlightenment.
For example, recently we have been hearing about the ‘moderate’ Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. It is true that the Ikhwan (Brotherhood) is not presently engaged in actual warfare with the West, the way al-Qaeda is. But thanks to Raymond Ibrahim, we have a statement by Dr. Muhammad Badi, leader of the Brotherhood since 2010 that explains its true objective:

Dr. Muhammad Badi, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: “The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system [based on Islamic sharia], with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world.” Badi added in his weekly message yesterday [12/29/11]: “When the Brotherhood started its advocacy [da'wa], it tried to awaken the nation from its slumber and stagnation, to guide it back to its position and vocation. In his message at the sixth caucus, the Imam [Banna] defined two goals for the Brotherhood: a short term goal, the fruits of which are seen as soon as a person becomes a member of the Brotherhood; and a long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life.” The leader of the Brotherhood continued: “The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world” [emphasis added by Ibrahim].

This is somewhat incompatible with the principles of our Founding Fathers, isn’t it!
Especially in Europe after the mass murder committed by Anders Behring Breivik, any deviation from politically correct speech about Islam is criticized as “right-wing extremism,” tantamount to neo-Nazism. For example, in a fascinating interview, the Norwegian blogger Peder Jensen (‘Fjordman’) described his experience:

I have never once met Anders Behring Breivik in my entire life and have been checked out of the case by the police after an extremely thorough investigation that at best operated at the very fringes of what could be considered legal. I am obviously aware of the fact that I am one of the many people who have been quoted a number of times in ABB’s so-called manifesto. I intensely dislike this, as most sensible people would do in my place, but since all of my writings are available on the Internet there is, sadly, little I can do about that. I see no reason why others should be held accountable for the acts of an insane person they have never met.
I did seriously consider quitting as a writer in the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks due to the immense international pressure on my person at that time and because I genuinely felt horrible about being quoted by such a man. Being dragged into the Breivik case against my will is the worst thing that ever happened to me in my life. After coming to my senses and recharging my mental batteries I decided to continue after all. I remain dedicated to the truth. Whatever was true before Breivik is also true after Breivik. If I ever quit as a writer I want this to be my own choice, not something I am forced to do by others.

Although Jensen vehemently opposes multiculturalism and calls for an end to Muslim immigration into Europe, he has never advocated violence against Muslims or left-wingers. He is not a racist or extremist, although he is regularly called such, as well as blamed for the murderous actions of Breivik.
If we want to survive as a culture, we cannot continue to ignore reality, to live in a world undergoing a titanic struggle while pretending that the struggle does not exist.
Is it possible for the Enlightenment-based West to coexist with Islam? Is it true a priori that Islam must be expansionist? We need to understand Islam in order to find out.
We can start on the road to understanding by dropping the rules of political correctness. It is possible to distinguish between opposing an ideology that wishes to harm us and irrational prejudice without making rules about what we are allowed to say, and what ideas we are allowed to entertain.

The Iranian threat

In his article in the Washington Times Reza Kahlili analyzes the possibility of an Iranian victory in a war against the U.S.

Kahlili determines, correctly in my opinion, that such a war won't be a walk in the park for the U.S. His conclusion is based on an assumption of a conventional approach to defeating Iran. If this conventional approach isn't followed the results might be very different from Kahlili's conclusion.

According to Kahlili the Iranians have plenty of means to close the Straits of Hormuz thus disrupting 40% of the world's oil flow. Using their large missile force, submarines (including midget ones) and missile armed speedboats they can inflict serious pain on the U.S. air bases around the Persian Gulf and in Afghanistan.

Iran is a big country, much larger than Iraq and much more difficult to subdue. By the time the U.S. will get its act together and Iran will be in danger of losing the war, the Russians and Chinese will intervene to broker a peace agreement and save the mullah's bacon. In the wake of such a war it's reasonable to expect that the military rulers of Egypt will fall and the ruler of Bahrain will succumb to the Shiite majority. Saudi Arabia will spend lots of resources suppressing uprisings and Israel will be busy defending against Hizballah.

A survivor mullah's regime will be the strongest Islamic force in the world and will be able to act with impunity. The U.S. would have spent large amounts of money it can't afford and, despite all the efforts to conceal it, would have lost face and influence.

Kahlili's scenario is entirely possible, especially with a U.S. administration that will hesitate to start hostilities and if it does, will want to wrap everything up before the elections and declare victory as fast as possible. It will be impossible to win such a war in the conventional sense of the word - Iran will not surrender and will become even bolder if the regime survives.

Iran warned the U.S. not to return its aircraft carrier to the Gulf and the Iranian parliament is debating a law that will make all foreign traffic into the Persian Gulf subject to Iranian approval. The administration's response is not certain, though the President can't appear weak before the elections. The prospect of a difficult war with Iran, even with no ground troops involved, may deter President Obama and hand Iran an easy victory.

But there is another way. The Kahlili scenario involves the use of U.S. air-power against Iranian armed forces, which will lead to an Iranian response and a possible prolonged war. On the other hand the Iranian army and Revolutionary Guard are not the regime's weak spot.

The mullah's regime suffers from a fatally weak economy that is dependent on its oil exports. Terminating exports will be fatal to the regime.
Blockading Iran is not a good option since most of the exports are on foreign vessels and we don't want to fight everybody.
The other option would be to damage the oil fields. Assuming the Iranians attack the aircraft carrier when it sails through the Straits of Hormuz, the U.S. could retaliate with a massive attack on the Iranian oil fields. A successful attack would make most of the installations inoperable, not unlike Kuwait. After this we need only wait. It won't take long for the economy to collapse and take the regime with it. We may have to assist the Iranian people by attacking some headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards and the Basiij militia and the President will have to express his support for the people of Iran, unlike the last time they tried to acquire freedom.

It is highly dubious whether the Chinese will be able to do anything fast enough to repair the damage. The Russians will have no incentives to help: inoperative Iranian oil field will cause the price of oil to rise and increase Russia's income enough to compensate for the loss of other revenue from nuclear sales and weapons sales to Iran.

The major victims of this strategy will be the Europeans that rely on Iranian oil and, of course, the world economy. The impact on both can be minimized if the action is coordinated with the major oil producing countries: Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait and Oman. They will cooperate for two reasons: getting rid of the Iranian threat and making more money.

The only obstacle to this strategy will be the current administration that cant find an Islamist regime it doesn't like, including the Iranian mullahs.

Political correctness, Jew-hatred and Islam

From FresnoZionism.org

Dr. Charles Jacobs is a longtime anti-slavery and pro-Israel activist, one of the founders of CAMERA and the American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG). He has also been a persistent critic of the ADL, arguing that it concentrates way too much on ‘old-fashioned’ neo-Nazi antisemitism and not enough on threats from Islamists and the extreme Left. What I found interesting in a recent exchange was this:

Shifting the focus away from skinheads, neo-Nazis, and Christian bigots and onto radical leftists and Muslim Jew-hatred would be extraordinarily difficult. It would require a massive and unpopular effort: leading the Jews to think difficult thoughts about their new situation, thoughts that put them at odds with their comforting universalist theology of Political Correctness. And it would be costly: ADL would forfeit loads of leftwing money – and its liberal bona fides. The organization would hardly ever get a letter published in The New York Times. It would be viciously attacked by Islamist leadership. CAIR would be relentless. Abe Foxman, ADL’s head, acknowledges that Islamic Jew hatred is the biggest threat we face (he’s still shy about the radical left)  – yet ADL spends much, much more time, effort, resources and focus on the older, less dangerous threats while practically ignoring the new, more ominous ones.

The problem he touches on is not just an issue for Jews and Israel. The taboos of political correctness (PC) applied to anything connected with Islam or Muslims have the Orwellian effect of making it impossible to describe the motivating force of the great majority of armed conflicts in progress today, or even the future of Western civilization.
PC says that one may not criticize a religion or a group of individuals characterized by a religion. Someone who does that is accused of practicing hate and is called a bigot. Haters and bigots are considered the morally defective dregs of humanity, and anything one of them says can be ignored. Hitler and Bull Connor are common examples of bigots, and the Holocaust of the European Jews is used as a cautionary tale about the wages of hate.
On the other hand, it is considered entirely legitimate to attack ideologies or political or economic systems in the most vicious terms possible. It is even permissible to exaggerate and lie when doing so, because “it’s politics.” Marxism, Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Zionism, etc. are fair game.
Probably the trauma of slavery and institutionalized racism in the US and the Holocaust in Europe had something to do with the development of the shibboleths of PC, which even have the force of law in many nations. PC can be understood as an attempt to root out the darker aspects of our culture that allowed these atrocities to happen.
PC distorts the truth, and doesn’t even achieve its intended goals. Direct expressions of Jew-hatred in the developed world have been severely limited by PC. But, unfortunately, the same feelings are now expressed as rage against Zionism or Israel, entities not protected by PC rules. Unacceptable Jew-hatred evolved into ‘normal’ Israel-hatred. Today, the inevitable reaction against PC is bringing back traditional antisemitism as well.
Islam is more than just a set of religious beliefs. The main texts of Islam also include a legal system and a political ideology. What we call ‘political Islam’, ‘militant Islam’ or ‘Islamism’ is the attempted actualization of the political ideology of Mohammad — a highly particularist, aggressive and warlike one — in today’s world.
As a political ideology, and an unfriendly one at that, it is essential that we have the ability to learn about, to discuss, and to criticize it. But the position of the major Muslim organizations in the US, the Obama Administration, the ADL, most politicians and political organizations of the Center and Left, most academics, etc. is that the rules of PC forbid this. This has led to such absurdities as a government dictate that official discussions of terrorism must not use the word ‘jihad’, although most present-day terrorism is in fact perpetrated under the banner of jihad!
Part of the ideology of political Islam is that the Islamic legal system, Shari’a, must be applied to Muslims and of course to countries under Islamic control. Principles of Shari’a directly contradict our modern views about the equality of all people, regardless of gender or religion. Shari’a is all about a pervasive hierarchy of rights and privileges given to Muslim  men, women, Jews and Christians, and others. Conflict is guaranteed when Islamists become a sizable minority in a liberal culture, as is becoming apparent in the UK and other European countries.
It is necessary and possible for non-Muslims to learn to understand the principles of political Islam and Shari’a. It is not inappropriate to criticize their application to unbelievers and women.
It’s way past time to distinguish the religious and political parts of Islam.

Just for fun

Ron Paul and foreign policy

Today I was driving and listening to the radio. This is an activity that may become illegal - distracting the driver - so I enjoy it while I can.
As I often do I was listening to talk radio - the Jerry Doyle show. I like Jerry's show; he is a conservative and an equal opportunity offender. Sometimes he expresses strange views, but this is excusable - if you have to talk on the radio for several hours every day you will inevitably say strange stuff.

The part of the show I listened to today featured a guest: Ron Paul's policy adviser Bruce Fine. Mr. Fine very eloquently presented Paul's positions on foreign policy. These positions make sense, at least superficially. The problems begin when you look deeper and try to explore scenarios beyond the simplistic black and whites presented by Bruce Fine and Ron Paul. For simplicity I'll refer to the positions as being Paul's.

First example: Israel.

Mr. Fine quoted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress where he said, and I am trying to quote accurately: "We don't need you to build our nation, we have already built one; we don't need you to built our democracy, we have already built one and we don't need you to send troops to defend us, we defend ourselves". Based on this quote Ron Paul concludes that his policies are the same as proclaimed in the Prime Minister's speech and therefore he is a friend of Israel, more so than any other candidate. He will stop selling weapons to Israel and to it's enemies thus not discriminating and will not stand in Israel's way when it defends itself.

Sounds good, but:

1. Only some of Israel's enemies buy their arms from the U.S. The more aggressive ones (Iran and Syria come to mind) get theirs from Russia and China. Turkey, that is becoming unfriendly, is part of NATO and as such can buy arms from other members of the alliance. Will this "even handedness" mean that Israel will be on its own? My understanding of Ron Paul's position is that it will be.
2. What about spare parts? Israel's air force is using mostly U.S. planes. Does stopping arms sales include spares? If it does, we leave Israel defenseless after it runs out of spares, which will happen within months and until it manages to set up domestic production - which may take years.
3. Mr. Paul sees no difference between Palestinian terror attacks and Israel's defense of it's citizens. In fact he called Israel's operation in Gaza "a preemptive attack" - ignoring the 3000 rockets that have been shot at Israel from Gaza and that provoked Israel's action. Ron Paul said that "if the U.S.didn't support Israel it wouldn't be burdened by the immoral action in Gaza".  He also compared Gaza to a concentration camp. Shouldn't we assume that a Paul administration will see Israel as evil and act accordingly?

Of course if Mr. Paul doesn't care whether Israel exists or not he is not bothered by the consequences of his policy.

Mr. Paul wants to go back to "Jeffersonian principles of offering peaceful relations and commerce to all and defending ourselves vigorously if attacked on our soil". This includes non interference in what ever other countries do. Does that mean that when next time the Palestinians apply for membership in the UN the U.S. will do nothing? If this inaction is because we left the UN I can live with this but not if we are still members.

Speaking of Jefferson: The Marines sing of "the shores of Tripoli". Last time I checked Tripoli is in Libya. This is where the Marines overthrew a regime that supported Berberian pirates that interfered with U.S. trade. The war lasted from 1801 to 1805 and Thomas Jefferson was President. So does a foreign policy based on "Jeffersonian principles" include foreign wars in defense of our interests or just wars to defend against attacks on our soil? Maybe Mr. Paul needs to review his position on this issue.


This brings to the Second Example: Iran

According to Ron Paul we don't need to interfere with Iran's nuclear weapons program. There are two reasons:

1. We can deter Iran by making it clear that an attack on us will end Iran's existence. "Deterrence works always" according to Paul. Let's assume for a moment that he is correct and the apocalyptic wing of the Iranian theocracy doesn't exist. We do know that Iran is itching to attack us, so does deterrence solve this problem? Here is a scenario: a cargo ship registered in Panama (like so many of them are) enters the port of Baltimore and a couple of hours later a 1 megaton nuclear bomb explodes on board. Baltimore, Washington DC and a big chunk of the Eastern US is gone. Do we incinerate Iran now or do we start an investigation to see who did this to us?
   Another scenario: a cargo ship steaming far outside our territorial waters launches a missile from a specially equipped cargo container (Iran recently purchased these missile launchers from Russia). The missile carries a 300Kt warhead and explodes high above the East Coast of the U.S. The Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) is expected to shut down the power grid in the Eastern U.S. and as a cascade reaction the rest of the U.S. will also lose power. The damage can be repaired but it will take at least two years and probably closer to four, to restore some semblance of normalcy. This scenario has been debated and simulated by a number of analysts.
   Don't be fooled by Ron Paul - he assumes an Iranian missile attack on the U.S. But the Iranians are not stupid. They would like to destroy us and live another day, which they will if Ron Paul ends up shaping the U.S. foreign policy.
2. Iran is not going to attack us if we pull out of the region and stop irritating them. The problem with this is that Iran is an expansionist Islamic state. Islamic being the keyword. We are their enemy by virtue of our existence and because of what we do in the Middle East. Leaving Iran to its own devices also means that sooner rather than later the flow of oil from the Middle East to the U.S. will stop. Besides prices going up and causing a serious depression this will also necessitate some kind of action by the West, but if Iran is nuclear the options will be limited. We will be left with one option: appeasement, at least until we develop our own sources.

This post is getting a bit long and though I could bring more reasons to label Mr. Paul's foreign policy as being lunatic I will stop here.

Please feel free to comment.