Archive for August 2014

Fmr. Israel Navy Chief: A Gaza Seaport Would Be an Iranian Seaport

August 18, 2014

Fmr. Israel Navy Chief: A Gaza Seaport Would Be an Iranian Seaport

VIDEO August 17, 2014 11:29 am

via Fmr. Israel Navy Chief: A Gaza Seaport Would Be an Iranian Seaport VIDEO | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

 

F.r Israel Navy chief, Vice Admiral (Ret.)
Eliezer Marom Photo: Wikipedia
 

Allowing Hamas to open a Gaza seaport would only serve to allow Iran direct access to rearm the Islamic terror group, the former chief of the Israeli Navy told Israeli Army radio Sunday.

“Let’s say an Iranian ship docked at Gaza Port for a visit. We know that Iranian military vessels smuggle munitions nearly every time they hoist anchor. But, because this is a military craft, we can’t inspect it,” Vice Admiral (Ret.) Eliezer Marom, stressed.

“And thus, without even noticing, we’ve established an Iranian port two hours away from Ashdod,” Marom said, and pointed out that, “Israel security doctrine is that we are responsible for security on all crossings…”

“The security challenge would be immense, and it would be very difficult for us to keep an eye on things,” he said.

However, Hamas representatives to indirect talks with Israel in Cairo over extending a cease-fire set to end at midnight Monday night, demanded a seaport, “or the talks were off,” Army radio reported.

Noting that the issue of securing such a port has been in discussion for two decades, Marom pointed out that he was in the original team that was tasked with offering the government solutions to the thorny issue, but said at the time that “we had very few answers.”

Also on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told cabinet members that “security needs of the State of Israel,” were paramount for representatives at indirect talks with Hamas in Cairo.

“Only if there is a clear response to our security needs will we agree to reach understandings. In the past month Hamas has taken a severe military blow,” the PM said.

“We destroyed its network of tunnels that it took years to dig. We intercepted the rockets that it had massed in order to carry out thousands of deadly strikes against the Israeli home front. And we foiled the terrorist attacks that it tried to perpetrate against Israeli civilians – by land, sea and air,” according to Netanyahu.

Watch a recent interview with Marom, in which he discusses Israel’s chief maritime threats, including from underwater vehicles:

‘If Hamas renews fire, Israel will respond with full force’

August 18, 2014

If Hamas renews fire, Israel will respond with full force’

Israel is prepared for potential resumption of Gaza fighting, with five-day cease-fire set to expire at midnight on Monday

Israeli officials: If fire at Israel is not renewed, it is possible we will enter a state of calm without an agreement.

Mati Tuchfeld, Daniel Siryoti and Israel Hayom Staff

via Israel Hayom | ‘If Hamas renews fire, Israel will respond with full force’.

 

IDF troops on the Gaza border are prepared for the potential renewal of fighting
 

With the five-day cease-fire set to expire at midnight on Monday, Israel is preparing for the possibility Hamas will renew rocket fire.

“If the fire [from Gaza] resumes, Israel will respond with full force,” a senior Israeli official said. “If fire at Israel is not renewed, it is possible we will enter a state of calm without an agreement. Patience is necessary. The operation is not over and it could take more time. The greater the resilience of the public, the more we will be able to achieve.”

Egypt is trying to prevent a collapse of the indirect cease-fire talks being held in Cairo. Egyptian and Palestinian media outlets reported that Egypt has proposed that the sides declare a permanent cease-fire and that talks on a long-term arrangement resume next month. These talks would reportedly deal with all matters on the table, including Hamas’ demand for an airport and seaport in Gaza and Israel’s demand for the return of the remains of fallen soldiers Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul.

Meanwhile, Israel has lifted some the restrictions that were put in place in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge. On Sunday, Israel permitted Gaza fishermen to go back to work and fish up to three nautical miles from the Gaza coastline.

At the start of Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We are in the midst of a combined military and diplomatic campaign. From the first day, the Israeli delegation to Cairo has worked under clear instructions: Insist on the security needs of the State of Israel. Only if there is a clear response to our security needs will we agree to reach understandings.

“In the past month, Hamas has taken a severe military blow. We destroyed its network of tunnels that it took years to dig. We intercepted the rockets that it had massed to carry out thousands of deadly strikes against the Israeli homefront. And we foiled the terrorist attacks that it tried to perpetrate against Israeli civilians — by land, sea and air.

“If Hamas thinks that it can cover up its military loss with a diplomatic achievement, it is mistaken. If Hamas thinks that continued sporadic firing will cause us to make concessions, it is mistaken. As long as quiet is not restored, Hamas will continue to take very harsh blows. If Hamas thinks that we cannot stand up to it over time, it is mistaken.”

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhri issued a quick response, saying, “Netanyahu is throwing dust in the eyes of the Israeli public, because he is afraid Israelis will be furious when they find out the real results of the campaign. The Palestinian resistance forces caused hundreds of deaths and injuries in the Israeli army.”

Numerous cabinet ministers are calling for Israel to show no flexibility toward Hamas. International Relations, Intelligence and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said Israel must insist on the demilitarization of Gaza. Steinitz said a seaport or airport in Gaza would be nothing more than “duty free for rockets.” Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi) called for an end to the talks in Cairo.

“The situation in which we bite our nails while we wait for an answer from a murderous terrorist organization must stop,” Bennett said. “We must immediately stop the negotiations with Hamas and take our own destiny in our hands with a simple formula: humanitarian — yes, terror — no.”

As usual, the various Palestinian groups were not on the same wavelength on Sunday, and divisions were also evident within Hamas itself. Arab media outlets reported that chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat met in Doha over the weekend with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and urged him to accept the Egyptian cease-fire proposal.

The Al-Hayat newspaper reported that the U.S. has agreed to serve as a guarantor that Israel will uphold what has been agreed to in Cairo. The report also said the Egyptian cease-fire proposal has won the support of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad officials are saying that the demilitarization of Gaza is not in the cards.

“We will not agree to give up weapons which we use for self-defense,” Islamic Jihad official Khaled al-Batesh said. “It would be preferable to return from Cairo without an agreement than with a humiliating agreement that in effect represents a surrender agreement.”

A Hamas official threatened, “The next campaign against the Zionist enemy will be held inside the Zionist entity, on the lands of Ashkelon.”

Obama’s Hubris is His Undoing

August 18, 2014

Contentions Obama’s Hubris is His Undoing

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 08.17.2014 – 8:00 PM

via Obama’s Hubris is His Undoing « Commentary Magazine.

 

Historians will have the rest of the century to unravel the mess that is the Barack Obama presidency. While they can explore these years of foreign policy disaster and domestic malaise at leisure, the rest of us have 29 more months to see just how awful things can get before he slides off to a lucrative retirement. But those who want to start the post-mortem on this historic presidency would do well to read Jackson Diehl’s most recent Washington Post column in which he identifies Obama’s hubris as the key element in his undoing.

As our Pete Wehner wrote earlier today, the president’s reactions to what even Chuck Hagel, his less-than-brilliant secretary of defense, has rightly called a world that is “exploding all over” by blaming it all on forces that he is powerless to control. As Pete correctly pointed out, no one is arguing that the president of the United States is all-powerful and has the capacity to fix everything in the world that is out of order. But the problem is not so much the steep odds against which the administration is currently struggling, as its utter incapacity to look honestly at the mistakes it has made in the past five and half years and to come to the conclusion that sometimes you’ve got to change course in order to avoid catastrophes.

As has been pointed out several times here at COMMENTARY in the last month and is again highlighted by Diehl in his column, Obama’s efforts to absolve himself of all responsibility for the collapse in Iraq is completely disingenuous. The man who spent the last few years bragging about how he “ended the war in Iraq” now professes to have no responsibility for the fact that the U.S. pulled out all of its troops from the conflict.

Nor is he willing to second guess his dithering over intervention in Syria. The administration spent the last week pushing back hard against Hillary Clinton’s correct, if transparently insincere, criticisms of the administration in which she served, for having stood by and watched helplessly there instead of taking the limited actions that might well have prevented much of that country — and much of Iraq — from falling into the hands of ISIS terrorists.

The same lack of honesty characterizes the administration’s approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the nuclear negotiations with Iran, two topics that Diehl chose not to highlight in his piece.

Obama wasted much of his first term pointlessly quarreling with Israel’s government and then resumed that feud this year after an intermission for a re-election year Jewish charm offensive. This distancing from Israel and the reckless pursuit of an agreement when none was possible helped set up this summer’s fighting. The result is not only an alliance that is at its low point since the presidency of the elder George Bush but a situation in which the U.S. now finds itself pushing the Israelis to make concessions to Hamas as well as the Palestinian Authority, a state of affairs that guarantees more fighting in the future and a further diminishment of U.S. interests in the region.

On Iran, Obama wasted years on feckless engagement efforts before finally accepting the need for tough sanctions on that nation to stop its nuclear threat. But the president tossed the advantage he worked so hard to build by foolishly pursuing détente with Tehran and loosening sanctions just at the moment when the Iranians looked to be in trouble.

On both the Palestinian and the Iranian front, an improvement in the current grim prospects for U.S. strategy is not impossible. But, as with the situation in Iraq, it will require the kind of grim soul-searching that, as Diehl points out, George W. Bush underwent in 2006 before changing both strategy and personnel in order to pursue the surge that changed the course of the Iraq War. Sadly, Obama threw away the victory he inherited from Bush. If he is to recover in this final two years in office the way Bush did, it will require the same sort of honesty and introspection.

But, unfortunately, that seems to be exactly the qualities that are absent from this otherwise brilliant politician. Obama is a great campaigner — a talent that is still on display every time he takes to the road to blame Republicans for the problems he created — and is still personally liked by much of the electorate (even if his charms are largely lost on conservative critics such as myself). But he seems incapable of ever admitting error, especially on big issues. At the heart of this problem is a self-regard and a contempt for critics that is so great that it renders him incapable of focusing his otherwise formidable intellect on the shortcomings in his own thinking or challenging the premises on which he has based his policies.

Saying you’re wrong is not easy for any of us and has to be especially hard for a man who has been celebrated as a groundbreaking transformational figure in our history. But that is exactly what is required if the exploding world that Obama has helped set in motion is to be kept from careening even further out of control before his presidency ends. The president may think he’s just having an unlucky streak that he can’t do a thing about. While it is true that America’s options are now limited (largely due to his mistakes) in Syria and Iraq, there is plenty he can do to prevent things from getting worse there. It is also largely up to him whether Iran gets a nuclear weapon or Hamas is able to launch yet another war in the near future rather than being isolated. But in order to do the right things on these fronts, he will have to first admit that his previous decisions were wrong. Until he shed the hubris that prevents him from doing so, it will be impossible.

The Final Death of Western Civilization

August 18, 2014

The Final Death of Western Civilization

via The Final Death of Western Civilization | Gates of Vienna.

 

Last week in the Austrian daily Die Presse Michael Ley about the new anti-Semitism and the role of the Left in the Islamization of Europe. JLH, who has kindly translated the piece, includes this note:

The Muslims’ faithful reprise of Mohammed’s original temper tantrum at the Jews makes Sicilian vendettas and Appalachian feuds look like cocktail party spats. Modern leftist Jew-hatred, on the other hand, is an echo of the age-old search for a scapegoat — any scapegoat — guided by the Alinskyite technique of identify, isolate, destroy, but older than socialism and its acolytes. Just think Fiddler on the Roof.

This is a very effective picture of how and why Islam and Leftism suit each other so well, and how they are bound by anti-Semitism. The example of wheat happened to the Left after Khomeini at least offers some ironic feeling of poetic justice.

 

The translated article:

Who Owns the World?

Criticism of Islam is often denounced as “the new racism.” Hostility to Jews, on the other hand, is as old as Islam itself.

Taking aim at the new anti-Semitism.

by Michael Ley

Anti-Semites like to compare Jews, Zionists and Israelis to Adolf Hitler. Recently, Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey certified that the Israelis are worse than Hitler. “What Israel is doing to Palestine and Gaza is beyond what Hitler did to the Jews.” In the Arab world, this equivalence has the status of legend. It was not only Yasser Arafat who made use of this smear. It is a part of Arab identity. This extreme hatred of Jews has long since spilled over into European societies and spread quickly through the Muslim parallel societies. The image of the radical rightist anti-Semite is overdue to be augmented by the Muslim Jew-hater. The French political scientist Pierre-André Taguieff determined years ago: “The originators of violence against Jews are no longer mostly from the extreme right. They are recruiting above all among young immigrants, especially from the Maghreb*.” Hatred of Jews is a part of their cultural identity.

For several years sociologists have been confirming a “new anti-Semitism” which is above all else a Muslim anti-Judaism. The contemporary violent excesses and Jew-hostile slogans of the Muslim mob are energetically supported by many from the Left and are also sympathetically received by leftist media personnel. In the leftist daily taz the editor Stefan Reinicke recently wrote: “In a free country, it must be possible to question Israel’s right to exist.” From there to questioning the right of Jews in general to exist is a shorter step.

Hostility to Jews is nothing new among Muslims or leftists — it is as old as socialism or Islam.

Islam exhibits an extreme anti-Judaism. The Koran is permeated by Jew-hostile stereotypes overlapping with those of Christians. The Jews have the hardened hearts of the uncircumcised; they have broken the bond with God and killed the prophets; they lie and have falsified God’s word; they do not honor treaties; they are usurers; they steal money; they do not believe in the afterlife. The Jews appear in the Koran as evil characters. Thus the battle cry: “Fight against them until they are humiliated and pay the tax.” (9:29) The Koran portrays Jews as not only warmongers guilty of every misdeed on earth, but also curses them as “apes and pigs” and assigns them the lowest, subhuman rank: “And you have surely known those among you who broke the Sabbath. Then we said to them: ‘Be outcast pigs and apes!’’ (Surah 2:56) Because the Jews did not recognize Allah, they were dehumanized and became as animals: “Say this: ‘Shall I teach you of those whose penalty from Allah is even worse than that? They are those who have cursed Allah and whom he has scorned and made into apes, pigs and idolaters. They are in an even worse situation and have wandered still further from the right path.’” (Surah 5:60) This motif occurs again and again.

Islam’s end-times prophecy sees the annihilation of the Jews. The pertinent Hadith says: “In the final hour, Muslims will fight against Jews. Since Jews belong to the army of Satan and Muslims are the soldiers of the Prophet Jesus, they will fight against each other, and the Muslims will be victorious until every stone and tree will say: ‘Come here, Muslim. A Jew is hiding behind me. Kill him.” But Islamic anti-Judaism is only the tip of the iceberg in the battle against the infidels.

Jihad is the highest duty in Islam and no Muslim may evade it. Martyrs of jihad go directly to paradise, while Muslims who refuse jihad are threatened with “the torments of Hell.” So long as Muslims are a minority in a non-Muslim country, there can be no offensive, militant jihad. If Muslims expand to an appropriate percentage of the population, they must arm for the forthcoming battle: “And arm yourselves against them with men and horses a much as possible, in order to menace Allah’s enemy.” (Surah 8:60) If Muslims have enough power and influence, then they must pursue jihad. Every Muslim is duty-bound to kill infidels who refuse to convert. “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and seize them and besiege them and lie in ambush for them in every nook and cranny.” (Surah 9:5) The only alternative to conversion is subjection as a dhimmi and payment for “protection.”

From the Islamic point of view, the world belongs to Allah. Theologically, jihad is simply re-conquest of Islamic territories. Jihad signifies permanent war against infidels and precludes any peace with them. The battle against non-Muslims may only be interrupted by a “truce” and this may not last longer than ten years. Truce based on treaties may be rescinded by Muslims at any time. The holy war knows no lasting peace. However, jihad can also be prosecuted peacefully: by conversion, propaganda and bribery.

Class war was the secular left’s jihad, through which the original, perfect world was to be restored. Many anarchists, socialists and communists saw in the Jew the spear-point of the class enemy. In his diatribe “On the Jewish Question,” Karl Marx wrote: “Let us not seek the secret of the Jew in his religion, but the secret of the religion in the real Jew. What is the worldly basis of Jewry? Practical need, self interest. What is the worldly cult of Jews? Usury. What is their worldly god? Money. The ultimate meaning of Jewish emancipation is emancipation of humanity from the Jews.” Marx is in the tradition of an older, leftist hatred of Jews. Early French socialists at the beginning of the 19th century dreamed of a worldly redemption of humanity, and proclaimed a political religion whose flip-side was anti-Semitism. They secularized, so to speak, Christian anti-Judaism to modern, political anti-Semitism.

Charles Fourier preached a utopian socialism and saw himself as the new prophet, claiming to recognize the Jews as the bane of humanity. His students, Pierre Leroux and Alphonse Toussenei, likewise saw absolute evil in the Jews. Toussenei warned of Jewish world domination. The philosopher, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, proclaimed: “The Jew is the enemy of humanity. This race must either be sent back to Asia or annihilated.” His anti-Semitism became the model for modern Jew hatred, which the left has to this day not been able to discard.

In the postmodern era, proletarians are no longer the subject of human salvation. They have been replaced by immigrants, who are the new stylites** of the leftist utopia for an old, doomed society, still bourgeois in places. Millions of immigrants will dissolve old Europe to make way for a new culture of multiculturalism. It will be national identities making way for diversity in ethnicities, religions and identities.

Western apologists for Islam and those who represent the interests of Islamic organizations never tire of denouncing any criticism of Islam as “new racism.” The new definition of racism is: Anyone who seeks the causes of Islamic terrorism and the lack of desire to integrate on the part of many Muslims in the religion of Islam, and does not overwhelmingly hold the Crusades, colonialism, imperialism and European xenophobia responsible for it, is displaying a racist attitude toward Islam and Muslims.

Every criticism of Islam must be denounced as “racism” or “Islamophobia” and this is preparatory to eliminating all religious, cultural and social criticism of Islam. Consequently, doubt is cast on all the positive cultural and political achievements of the modern West in favor of a multi-ethnic state whose basis is relativistic values. A society that gives up its own obligatory norms and values is preparing for its own disposal. Exclusive social self-criticism and compulsive xenophilia are the expression of a serious collective neurosis and testify to an incomparable political foolishness.

The political goal of the mainstream Left — transforming society with massive immigration — will be reached in the foreseeable future. But the result will shock the most naïve of do-gooders. The goal of orthodox Islam and its organizations is the Islamization of European society, and in this context, the Left plays the role of the useful idiot who believes it has found in orthodox Islam an ally in the struggle to overcome the despised bourgeois society.

Islam’s representatives, however, are not in the least interested in the utopia of a new human being in the sense of multiculturalism or diversity. They want to overcome any life form that is not Islamic. If Islam should succeed in several decades, the leftists would be the first victims of this most dangerous political religion of the 21st century. The Left did not learn this lesson in its fight alongside Ayatollah Khomeini against the hated Shah. After the takeover, they were ruthlessly persecuted and liquidated.

The goal of orthodox Islam and the Islamists is Islamic theocracy, which has no place for decadent Western society. Therefore, all radical organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, the Wahhabis, and/or groups infiltrated by them, as well as the foreign representatives of the Turkish religious authorities must be banned.

Radical imams and their mosques must have no place in an open, pluralistic society. Islam’s jihad is the greatest threat to the freedom of Europe and signifies no more nor less than a new descent into slavery, the final death of Western civilization.

Report: US exerting pressure on ICC not to open war crimes probe against Israel

August 18, 2014

Report: US exerting pressure on ICC not to open war crimes probe against Israel

By JPOST.COM STAFF08/18/2014 15:09

The Guardian’ quotes lawyers and former court officials as saying that western pressure has influenced decision not to open probe;

ICC probe reportedly among issues being discussed at Cairo cease-fire talks.

via Report: US exerting pressure on ICC not to open war crimes probe against Israel | JPost | Israel News.

 

International criminal court Photo: REUTERS
 

The US and other western powers have exerted pressure on the International Criminal Court at the Hague to prevent a war crimes probe of Israel’s operation in the Gaza Strip, The Guardian reported on Monday, quoting former court officials.

During Operation Protective Edge, the Palestinian Authority has threatened to request that the court look into allegations that the civilian deaths in Gaza during the IDF’s operation constitute a war crime.

According to the report, the issue is among the matters being discussed at cease-fire talks in Cairo.

Palestinians requested that the court probe Israel for war crimes in 2009 , following Operation Cast Lead, however that request came before the Palestinians were recognized as a non-member observer state at the United Nations in 2012.

The ICC itself is divided on whether or not it has jurisdiction to probe the matter based on the 2009 request, or whether a new request would have to be submitted, according to The Guardian. The Palestinian factions would have to agree on submitting a new request, a difficult task, as Hamas would also be opening itself up to a war crimes inquiry.

The Guardian reported that western pressure has prevented the ICC from taking the view that the 2009 request gives the court jurisdiction to open a war crimes investigation into Israel’s actions.

Both current ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and Luis Moreno Ocampo, who was prosecutor at the time of the 2009 Palestinian declaration, argue that a new Palestinian request would have to be made to allow the court to open an investigation. However, The Guardian quoted another former official of the court as saying, “They are trying to hide behind legal jargon to disguise what is a political decision, to rule out competence and not get involved.”

The French lawyer representing the Palestinians, Gilles Devers, was quoted by The Guardian as saying that “there is enormous pressure not to proceed with an investigation. This pressure has been exerted on Fatah and Hamas, but also on the office of the prosecutor.

“In both cases, it takes the form of threats to the financial subsidies, to Palestine and to the International Criminal Court,” he added.

‘Fifth Column’ Arab MKs Visit Qatar and Meet with Former MK-Traitor

August 18, 2014

The good news that Zoabi and two of her Knesset pals left the country. The bad news is that they are coming back.

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: August 18th, 2014

via The Jewish Press » » ‘Fifth Column’ Arab MKs Visit Qatar and Meet with Former MK-Traitor.

 

Picture of Arab MK Hanin Zoabi superimposed on an Iranian passport.
 

Knesset Members Hanin Zoabi, arguably Israel’s most hated MK, Jamal Zahalka and Basel Ghattas Hamas’ benefactor Qatar last week and reportedly met with former colleague Azmi Bashar, who fled the country seven years ago after being indicted for spying on behalf of Hezbollah in the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

The Balad party MKs appeared on Al Jazeera, where they espoused their criticism of the Israeli government.

Al Jazeera is financed b and based in Qatar, which also has financed Hamas terror and has provided technology for Hamas to launch rockets from underground in Gaza by pressing on a computer button in Qatar.

Knesset Members from Yesh Atid and Likud asked Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to investigate the connection between the three Arab MKs and Bashara as well as Qatar.

Weinstein previously has shown himself to be feeble when it comes to investigating incitement and alleged terrorist connections among Arab Mks, particularly Zoabi, who was on the IHH flotilla when terrorists brutally beat IDF navy commandos before the soldiers were able to overcome the Mavi Mamara ship trying to break the maritime embargo on Gaza.

The Knesset Ethics Committee got tough with Zoabi this year by suspending her for a period of time from the Knesset for hateful speech, including epithets at Arab security guards who escorted her out of the legislature after inciting remarks.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the Yisrael Beitenu party, said he will continue to whatever has to be done to prevent the Balad party’s fifth column from representing a terrorist organization in the Knesset.”

What Gaza Again Reveals About the Danger of Palestine

August 18, 2014

What Gaza Again Reveals About the Danger of PalestineMonday, August 18, 2014 | Israel Today Staff

via What Gaza Again Reveals About the Danger of Palestine – Israel Today | Israel News.

 

 

A chorus of Israeli officials are again singing the dangers of facilitating the creation of a Palestinian state, as demonstrated by this summer’s Gaza war.

The ninth anniversary of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza actually occurred during the fighting, as Hamas was raining rockets down on Israeli cities, and IDF soldiers were battling to find and destroy an enormous network of terror tunnels.

Israelis have been noting that this is the third Gaza flare-up since the so-called “disengagement,” which Israeli and Western officials alike promised would result in calm and improved regional and international relations for the Jewish state.

As that has clearly not been the case, many insist that the situation in Gaza is the final piece of evidence needed to prove that permitting the birth of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state is suicidal, and therefore must be taken off the table.

“After withdrawing from Lebanon brought Hezbollah to power and withdrawing from Gaza brought Hamas to power, the lesson must be not to form a terrorist state in the heart of our land,” said Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar at a conference in Jerusalem earlier this month.

 

 

A Palestinian state, which the Palestinian leadership says must be free of Jews, “would endanger Israel’s future,” insisted Sa’ar. “Where there are no settlements, there is no IDF, and where there is no IDF, there is terrorism.”

And, contrary to the lofty assertions coming out of Washington, Brussels and even Jerusalem, the 2005 Gaza pull out proves this to be the case. “Terrorism was not defeated by withdrawing,” Sa’ar pointed out. “It was strengthened by the withdrawal.”

Days later, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett voiced similar sentiments, stating that Israel could not afford to allow the terrorism that has overtaken Gaza to gain a foothold in Judea and Samaria.

Recalling that international air travel to Israel was briefly halted after a Gaza rocket struck near Ben Gurion Airport, Bennett argued, “What one rocket fired at [central Israel] from Gaza succeeded in doing is liable to be duplicated by an anti-aircraft missile from Samaria, [less than four miles] from Ben Gurion Airport… In this case [the airport] would be shut down for more than just two days.”

In short, Bennett said, “a Palestinian state will destroy the Israeli economy. It will destroy tourism, business and commerce.”

Such remarks put Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a difficult position. Ministers like Sa’ar and Bennett are popular with the public, and their views on this topic make a lot of sense to a lot of people.

Netanyahu, however, has previously committed himself to negotiating a “two-state solution” to the present conflict, and it is a certainty that America and Europe will hold him to that, even in the face of Palestinian violations and intransigence.

Earlier in the Gaza war, Netanyahu told a Jerusalem press conference that “the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

Failing to relinquish security control over the so-called “West Bank” would mean no Palestinian state, as the Palestinian leadership would never agree to such as stipulation.

But it would seem that Netanyahu’s claim that the Israeli public at large, let alone the international community, now understands why this is impossible might be somewhat premature.

Some Israelis are already demonstrating and calling for an immediate renewal of bilateral peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority in the wake of the Gaza war, and Netanyahu’s earlier warnings have already been drown out by international voices insisting that the status quo is unsustainable (diplomatic-speak for birthing a Palestinian state, now)

NATO Commander: We Need to Be Ready for ‘Little Green Men’

August 18, 2014

NATO Commander: We Need to Be Ready for ‘Little Green Men’

via NATO Commander: We Need to Be Ready for ‘Little Green Men’.

 

FILE – NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, U.S.
General Philip Breedlove, speaks during a news conference in Ottawa, Canada, May 6, 2014. o
 

VOA News

August 17, 2014 8:30 PM

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe says the alliance would respond militarily if any of its member countries faced an incursion similar to the one sustained by Ukraine’s Crimea prior to its annexation by Russia earlier this year.

“If NATO were to observe the infiltration of its sovereign territory by [anonymous] foreign forces, and if we were able to prove that this activity was being carried out by a particular aggressor nation, then Article Five would apply,” said U.S. General Philip Breedlove in an interview with Germany’s Die Welt, referring to NATO’s collective defense principle.

“That’s when the alliance principle goes into force. This means a military response to the actions of this aggressor,” said Breedlove.

The U.S. general said that the “big problem” facing NATO today is a new type of warfare that the alliance is in the process of preparing for. Citing the Crimea precedent and pointing to developments in eastern Ukraine, Breedlove said that it’s imperative that the alliance be prepared for anonymous warriors.

 

FILE – Armed men in unmarked uniforms, believed to be Russian soldiers,
are seen walking at the Crimean port of Yevpatoriya March 8, 2014.
 

“To be honest, it’s of utmost importance that NATO be ready for so-called ‘little green men.’ Armed military personnel without sovereign insignia, who create unrest, occupy government buildings, incite local populations, train and provide tactical advice to separatists, and in doing so, strongly contribute to the destabilization of a country.”

Such scenarios, said Breedlove, could also occur in other eastern European countries, and NATO must take steps there to prepare police and military forces to deal with such challenges.

Breedlove said that the new reality confronting NATO is part of a new type of hybrid warfare referred to as DIME: Diplomacy, information, military and economy. And in the case of Ukraine, Russia can be seen using all of these instruments of power, said he.

“Diplomatically, Russia is trying to push the argument that Ukraine’s authorities are the problem. In the information sphere, we see an information and disinformation campaign aiming to mask Russia’s intentions. Militarily, we see daily troop movements, cross-border shelling and the use of all [types of] military capabilities. And, lastly, economic warfare through [the manipulation of] energy supplies,” said Breedlove.

He added that this type of hybrid model brings all means to bear, and that mixture he called “very troubling.”

Iraqi government objects US airstrikes, arming peshmerga without permission

August 18, 2014

Iraqi government objects US airstrikes, arming peshmerga without permission, Iraqinews.com, August 17, 2014

(Huh? — DM)

iraqi-government-objects-us-airstrikes-arming-peshmerga-without-permission

Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) The office of the Commanding General of the Iraqi Armed Forces announced that “The Iraqi Government did not give permission for any military plane to violate the Iraqi space,” in a sign to the US airstrikes targeting the shelters of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant near Erbil and Mosul.

A statement by the office received by IraqiNews.com cited “During the last few days, we noticed violation of some military air-jets for Iraqi space and handing over of military equipment without permission of the Iraqi Government,” which is a sign for providing the Kurdish peshmerga with western weapons.

The statement added “We welcome the supportive stances of the international community for Iraq in its war against terrorism but we assert the necessity of respecting the sovereignty of Iraq.”

Hamas manipulated and intimidated the media in Gaza. Why was that kept from us?

August 18, 2014

We should normally say if our reports are censored or monitored or if we withhold information, and explain, wherever possible, the rules under which we are operating.-          Section 11.4.1 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality in times of War, Terror and Emergencies

The Foreign Press Association (FPA) issued an astonishing protest yesterday about “blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox” intimidation of journalists in the Gaza Strip by Hamas. “In several cases,” they complained, “foreign reporters working in Gaza have been harassed, threatened or questioned over stories.” The FPA said this amounted to “denying readers and viewers an objective picture from the ground,” adding  “we are also aware that Hamas is trying to put in place a ‘vetting’ procedure that would, in effect, allow for the blacklisting of specific journalists. Such a procedure is vehemently opposed by the FPA.The statement raises a lot of questions. Here is one: why have British broadcasters not mentioned any of this to their viewers?

Let’s review what we know.

Indian television station NDTV broadcast and posted on its internet site on 5 August a report by Sreenivasan Jain showing rockets fired from a tent next to his hotel. In the accompanying text on NDTV’s website, Jain wrote that it was published “after our team left the Gaza Strip – Hamas has not taken very kindly to any reporting of its rockets being fired. But just as we reported the devastating consequences of Israel’s offensive on Gaza’s civilians, it is equally important to report on how Hamas places those very civilians at risk by firing rockets deep from the heart of civilian zones.” In an article published subsequently, Jain wrote of “the fear which hobbles the reporting such material: fear of reprisals from Hamas against us”, asking “how long do we self-censor because of the fear of personal safety in return for not telling a story that exposes how those launching rockets are putting so many more lives at risk, while the rocket-makers themselves are at a safe distance?”

More and more examples of intimidation of journalists by Hamas are seeping out of Gaza:

  • Israeli filmmaker Michael Grynszpan described on Facebook an exchange he had had with a Spanish journalist who had just left Gaza. “We talked about the situation there. He was very friendly. I asked him how come we never see on television channels reporting from Gaza any Hamas people, no gunmen, no rocket launcher, no policemen. We only see civilians on these reports, mostly women and children. He answered me frankly: ‘It’s very simple, we did see Hamas people there launching rockets, they were close to our hotel, but if ever we dare pointing our camera on them they would simply shoot at us and kill us.'”
  • An op-ed in The Australian and other sources including The Jerusalem Post noted that after Nine Network reporter Peter Stefanovic tweeted that he had seen rockets fired into Israel from near his hotel, he was threatened by pro-Hamas tweeters and warned: “in WWII spies got shot”.
  • The Wall Street Journal’s Nick Casey posted a photo of a Hamas spokesman being interviewed from a room in the hospital along with this tweet: “You have to wonder (with) the shelling how patients at Shifa hospital feel as Hamas uses it as a safe place to see media.” After “a flood of online threats”, the tweet was deleted.
  • John Reed of The Financial Times was reportedly threatened after he tweeted about rockets being fired from the same hospital.
  • Following his departure from Gaza, Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati tweeted on 29 July. “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamas retaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.”
  • French-Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abou Dagga wrote an article for French newspaper Libération, on July 23, detailing how he was “detained and interrogated by members of Hamas’s al-Qassam Brigade at a room in Shifa hospital next to the emergency room” and was forced to leave Gaza immediately without his papers. The day after publication, Mr Dagga asked Libération to remove his article from their website.
  • RT correspondent Harry Fear was told to leave Gaza after he tweeted that Hamas fired rockets into Israel from near his hotel.

Hamas manipulation of the media is not always so crude.

  • As reported in Times of Israel on 11 July, the Hamas Ministry of Interior in Gaza published a video in Arabic advising on “cautious and effective” social media engagement on Facebook and Twitter during Operation Protective Edge. It contained such directives as “Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank … Don’t forget to always add ‘innocent civilian’ or ‘innocent citizen’ in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.”
  • Hamas has also actively interfered with bomb sites in order to gain PR advantage. The Washington Post’s Sudarsan Raghavan detailed how Hamas staged events and scenes to evoke sympathy. By way of illustration, he was taken to photograph a mosque that had been bombed, and discovered that someone had “prepared” the scene and placed a prayer mat and burnt Quran pages. “The symbolism was obvious, almost too perfect. It was clear that someone had placed them there to attract sympathy for the Palestinian cause. A television crew spotted the pile and filmed it. Mission accomplished.”
  • Hamas ensure reporters are exposed to casualties by insisting that spokesmen could only be interviewed in the courtyard of the Al-Shifa hospital, as described by Ynet News.

The long Hamas record of shutting down news bureaus, arresting reporters and cameramen, confiscating equipment and beating journalists has already been documented by the Committee to Protect Journalists. In the latest conflict Hamas wanted to reduce the reports coming out of Gaza to what Reinhold Niebuhr once called “emotionally potent over-simplifications”. Journalists from India, America, Norway, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada and elsewhere are complaining. Will we now hear from the Brits?