WarSclerotic

The Big Picture: ISIS in Context, Front Page Magazine, William Kilpatrick, September 4, 2014

(Please see also Jihad Comes To Europe. — DM)

Whether or not Obama is a secret Islamist (as claimed by another Egyptian newspaper) is almost beside the point. Judged by his policies, he might as well be. And long before its romance with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the current administration had shown a distinct favoritism toward Muslim Brotherhood offshoot organizations such as ISNA and CAIR. So also did the Bush administration. As I wrote two years ago:

In Europe, the rise of Islam has been a slow, incremental process—the result of decades of immigration combined with high birthrates for Muslims and low birthrates for indigenous Europeans. In America, Muslim strategists may have found a way to shortcut the long process.

Thus far, stealth jihad has met with relatively little resistance in America. That’s not to say that we should ignore armed jihad. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Iran is acquiring them, and Turkey has the eighth largest army in the world. ISIS, Hezbollah, and Hamas have well-equipped fighting forces and all are capable of carrying out terrorist operations far from their home bases. And the United States? The U.S. plans to shrink its Army to pre-World War II levels. One other factor to be considered when assessing the big picture is that the U.S. is drastically reducing the size and strength of its military. Just at the point when the rest of the world is arming to the teeth, the American solons think it’s safe to bid a farewell to arms.

**********

It’s hard to keep up with the news about Islam. One week, the focus is on Boko Haram, then it shifts to Hamas, and then to ISIS.

Every once in a while, it helps to step back and take a look at the big picture—that is, the big picture in regard to the Islamic resurgence. Not that there aren’t other big threats on the horizon—such as Russia, China, and North Korea—but let’s confine ourselves here to the Islamic threat.

That threat comes in two forms: armed jihad and stealth jihad. Since armed jihad is more conspicuous, it gets most of our attention. It’s difficult not to notice the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria or ISIS in Iraq, or the major terror attacks that occur once every year or so—the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the London bus and subway attack, the bombing of commuter trains in Madrid and Mumbai, and the mall massacre in Nairobi. In the back of our minds, we also know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that Iran will soon acquire them (although some American bishops assure us that Iran has no such intention).

The balance of military power still favors the West—although it’s no longer clear whether Turkey, which has the second largest military in NATO, will come down on the side of the West or on the side of the Islamists. But military power can be offset by asymmetrical warfare—in other words, the type of warfare that terrorists favor. A small team of terrorists can incinerate the World Trade Center or paralyze Madrid or Mumbai, and there’s not much that F-16s or nuclear submarines can do about it.

Which is where that other form of jihad comes in. Stealth jihad, which, as the name implies, is the less noticeable type, can create a base for armed jihadists to ply their trade. Stealth jihad, in essence, is an attempt to turn a culture in an Islamic direction by infiltrating and influencing key institutions such as schools, courts, churches, media, government, and the entertainment industry. The “Trojan Horse” plot for taking over 10 schools in Birmingham, England is one example of stealth jihad; the national security establishment’s purging of training materials that cast a critical eye on Islam is another.

But, in order to do the long march through the institutions, you have to have enough bodies to do the marching. Thus, many critics look upon Muslim immigration into non-Muslim societies as a form of stealth jihad. For example, in their book Modern-Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Sam Solomon and Elias Al-Maqdisi describe Muslim immigration as, well, a “modern-day Trojan Horse.” They’re not saying that every single Muslim immigrant wants to subvert your local school, but rather that mass migration and Islamic conquest have been linked ever since Muhammad and his followers migrated from Mecca to Medina and commenced the takeover of Arabia.

Many places in Europe have changed almost beyond recognition due to the combination of mass immigration and high Muslim birth rates. And the political makeup of Europe is also changing. Since Muslims in Europe and the UK tend to vote as a bloc, politicians have begun catering to them, thus magnifying their influence. It’s widely thought, for instance, that the victory margin for French President Francois Hollande—a strong proponent of Muslim immigration—was provided by Muslim voters.

It used to be that anyone who talked about the Islamization of Europe was dismissed as an “alarmist.” But plenty of Europeans are talking about it now– including European Muslims who proudly march with signs proclaiming their intention to dominate Europe. Social-network researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have concluded that “when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakeable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.” France is already over 10 percent Muslim, and the majority of Frenchmen, like most Europeans, don’t seem to have any strong convictions about anything outside of an unshakeable belief in long vacations and early retirement.

In significant ways, stealth jihad paves the way for armed jihad. In its early stages, it can create localized environments where homegrown jihadists can grow and flourish. In its later stages? The ultimate aim of stealth jihad is to put the reins of power in the hands of Muslims. What if, as seems increasingly likely, France and England concede more and more political power to Islamists? Both countries are nuclear powers with advanced delivery systems. Given the rapid rate at which the old order of things is being turned upside down, it is not inconceivable that these weapons could someday fall into the hands of Islamic radicals.

As for the Muslim nations—those with nukes and those without—they too are rapidly changing. The reason that the West was so unprepared for the reappearance of traditional Islam as a world force is that, up until relatively recent times, most of the major Muslim nations were under the control of secular-minded strongmen who made a point of suppressing the full expression of Islam. The 1979 Iranian Revolution changed all that, and most of the Westernized secular strongmen were replaced over time by leaders who felt they need answer only to Allah. For example, Turkey, which for years was touted by Westerners as a model moderate Muslim society, is now run by a rabidly anti-Semitic, Muslim Brotherhood true believer who seems intent on making Turkey the world’s foremost Islamic power—as it was as recently as one hundred short years ago.

Where does this leave the United States? Most Americans, I would venture to guess, are of the opinion that it can’t happen here. While many are now willing to admit that jihadists can once again damage America through terrorist attacks, few can imagine the possibility of an Islamicized America.

Yet Islamization is occurring in Europe, and many of the same conditions that make it possible there make it possible here, as well. Stealth jihad is already a fact in America. Its influence can be seen in textbooks and on college campuses, in the media, and even in the movies. Moreover, there are numerous American activist groups—offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood—which are dedicated to stealth jihad. Although disguised as civil rights groups, these organizations would like nothing better than to see sharia become the law of the land. And their own litigators are as adept at lawfare as ISIS is at warfare.

Surprisingly, they meet with little resistance. That lack of pushback can be explained by considering one other factor in the overall mix—political correctness. Political correctness greases the skids for stealth jihad. It’s the “open sesame” password that allows the stealth jihadists in America to go just about anywhere they please. Right now, most Americans are more afraid of violating the rules of PC than they are of another 9/11 occurrence. They’re afraid, in other words, of being thought bigoted, racist, or—God forbid—Islamophobic. There’s little resistance to stealth jihad in America, because the few that do resist are reliably cast by the PC enforcers as anti-Muslim haters. Most people don’t want that to happen to them. So they don’t make a fuss when Muslims make demands. They go along to get along. As just one tiny example among hundreds of others, consider the recent story about a bistro in Winooski, Vermont, that removed a window sign advertising their delicious bacon because a Muslim woman claimed it was offensive.

That’s a fairly minor concession, but your nation’s really in trouble when Muslims complain about “insensitive” training materials used by the Department of Defense and the FBI, and the Department of Justice immediately complies by ordering a purge of all training manuals in all security agencies that contain even a hint of a link between terrorism and Islam. On the other hand, when five Congressmen complained that they had good evidence of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the State Department and other government agencies, they were treated to a resounding rebuke by fellow legislators for having offended the Muslim community. Who needs ISIS when ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America) is allowed to vet military training manuals, or when Congress members who complain about such things risk being sent off to sensitivity training camp?

But wait a minute, you may be tempted to say, Europe’s slow-motion surrender can’t happen here because Europe’s birth rate imbalance and Muslim immigration problem don’t exist here. That’s true enough, but there is one other factor to consider—conversions. Right now, conversions to Islam by U.S. citizens remain on the low side. But remember that Muhammad also had a conversion problem. For the first twelve years of his ministry, he never had more than 100 followers. Then he moved to Medina, started raiding and looting, and the numbers kicked in. There seems to be a tipping point in the affairs of men which can result in a dramatic acceleration of conversions. Once a movement starts looking like the coming thing, more people will contemplate jumping on board.

We may be at one of those tipping points now. For the middle-aged and arthritic, it’s difficult to understand why thousands of recruits from all over the Western world are signing up with ISIS. But ISIS and similar groups do have a certain “cool” appeal to those of fighting age. Some Western analysts mistakenly believe that contact with Western pop culture will have a de-radicalizing effect on potential jihadists. But that’s not necessarily the case. Recall that Muhammad Atta and his crew partied it up at bars and strip clubs in the weeks before 9/11. Or consider that a British rapper is the main suspect in the Islamic State’s beheading of American journalist James Foley. It seems that the Islamic encounter with pop culture may turn out to be a case of “they came, they saw, they co-opted.” That’s because much of pop culture is already halfway there.

To youngsters brought up on gruesome video games and gangsta rap, YouTube videos of severed heads aren’t appalling, they’re “awesome.” Graduates of relativist pop culture don’t think in terms of right and wrong, they think in terms of cool and uncool. ISIS types are also very savvy exploiters of social media. “Like #ISIS in #Iraq” has become a popular hashtag. And the Daily Mail reports that “ISIS militants and their supporters are using social media to encourage protestors in Ferguson [Missouri] to embrace radical Islam and fight against the U.S. government.” Why should black Americans embrace Islam? Well, because “Racism and discrimination are rampant” in America and “In Islam there is no racism.” If the militants ever decide to hang up their bomb belts, they can always find work on Madison Avenue.

There is another disturbing possibility that needs to be taken into account when assessing the Islamic threat to America. In a recent column, former U.S. representative and retired lieutenant colonel Allen West stated that Barack Obama “is an Islamist in his foreign policy perspectives and supports their cause.” West isn’t saying that Obama was born in Mombasa or that he wears a secret Muslim decoder ring, but that his policies suggest a deep sympathy with Islamist causes. West provides a list of particulars, including this eye-catching item: “The Obama administration has lifted longtime restrictions on Libyans attending flight schools in the United States and training here in nuclear science.” To which the obvious reply is “What could possibly go wrong?”

Here are two other items on West’s list:

• Returning sanction money, to the tune of billions of dollars, back to the theocratic regime led by Iran’s ayatollahs and allowing them to march on towards nuclear capability
• Providing weapons of support to the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government—F-16s and M1A1 Abrams tanks—but not to the Egyptian government after the Islamist group has been removed.

The second item also troubled Michele Bachmann and four other House members when they asked for an investigation two years ago into possible Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the government. They expressed concernthat the Department of State had “taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests.”

If not many Americans have taken notice of the administration’s Muslim Brotherhood bias, the Egyptians have. When then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Alexandria in July of 2012, her motorcade was pelted by tomato-throwing protestors who charged that Washington had helped the Muslim Brotherhood come to power. A year later, after the overthrow of the Brotherhood, demonstrators at a huge rally in Cairo roundly criticized Obama and U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson. A typical poster read: “Obama, stop supporting the Muslim Brotherhood fascist regime.” In December 2012, an Egyptian magazine, Rose El-Youssef, claimed that six American Islamic activists working within the Obama administration were Muslim Brotherhood operatives. And this past week, it was revealed that the Egyptians had teamed up with the United Arab Emirates to bomb Islamist forces in Libya, but purposely neglected to tell the Obama administration of their plans. It doesn’t take a mind-reader to guess why. They obviously feared that the Americans might leak the operation to the enemy. The point is that Obama’s consistent pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies reveals a lot more about his sympathies than his occasional don’t-slander-the-Prophet type remarks.

Whether or not Obama is a secret Islamist (as claimed by another Egyptian newspaper) is almost beside the point. Judged by his policies, he might as well be. And long before its romance with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the current administration had shown a distinct favoritism toward Muslim Brotherhood offshoot organizations such as ISNA and CAIR. So also did the Bush administration. As I wrote two years ago:

In Europe, the rise of Islam has been a slow, incremental process—the result of decades of immigration combined with high birthrates for Muslims and low birthrates for indigenous Europeans. In America, Muslim strategists may have found a way to shortcut the long process.

Thus far, stealth jihad has met with relatively little resistance in America. That’s not to say that we should ignore armed jihad. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Iran is acquiring them, and Turkey has the eighth largest army in the world. ISIS, Hezbollah, and Hamas have well-equipped fighting forces and all are capable of carrying out terrorist operations far from their home bases. And the United States? The U.S. plans to shrink its Army to pre-World War II levels. One other factor to be considered when assessing the big picture is that the U.S. is drastically reducing the size and strength of its military. Just at the point when the rest of the world is arming to the teeth, the American solons think it’s safe to bid a farewell to arms.

When you put together all the pieces of the big picture puzzle, it begins to look like a decidedly grim picture.

Watchdog demands Schabas quit UN Gaza inquiry over anti-Israel bias
By Raphael Ahren September 4, 2014, 6:40 pm Via Times of Israel

William Schabas (screen capture: YouTube)
‘Unfair and unbalanced.’

(I remember visiting the UN as a young man on a business trip. It was my first time in NYC. Nearby were the World Trade Center towers, one complete and the other still under construction. What a sight for a small town guy like myself. Walking around the UN was easy in those days. So much so, I wondered into a secure area and got run off by the guards. I guess I was ‘thrown out’ in a sense. This was my first and only experience with the UN. – LS)

A watchdog group on Thursday filed a legal request demanding William Schabas step down as the head of a United Nations-established fact-finding mission into Israel’s recent violent conflict with Gaza terrorists, citing statements he made in the past that were critical of Israeli leaders and policies and supportive of Hamas, which the legal scholar two years ago termed a “a political party” representing the Palestinian people’s aspiration for statehood.

Schabas in 2012, for instance, expressed the wish to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried at the International Criminal Court, which clearly indicates that he is biased and thus unqualified to lead the investigation, UN Watch’s executive director Hillel Neuer said. “That statement alone is sufficient to disqualify Prof. Schabas on the question of whether he can impartially sit on this panel.”

Schabas voiced his opinions about Israeli policies vis-à-vis Gaza as recently as this summer, Neuer said. In one interview Schabas gave during the early days of Operation Protective Edge, he suggested Israel’s military response to fire emanating from Gaza was disproportionate and therefore could not be considered legitimate self-defense.

“We are filing the first formal legal request to Professor Schabas at the Human Rights Council, calling on him to recuse himself,” Neuer told Israeli journalists during a press conference in Jerusalem. In any situation where a judge or the head of a fact-finding mission has been proven to be biased, or even if there is merely “the appearance of bias, the individual is obliged to step down,” he said.

Schabas remaining in place and leading the fact-finding mission “would have a potentially deleterious impact on the international rule of law,” Neuer writes in the request.

UN Watch’s legal request for Schabas to step down has been submitted as an official written statement to the upcoming session of the UN Human Rights Council and is set to be placed on its agenda for the September 22 debate on Israel. It will be distributed to the session’s delegates as an official document.

During the press conference, Neuer quoted several statements that Schabas, a Canadian international law professor, has made in the past that appear to portray him as a fierce critic of Israel sympathetic to Hamas.

Some of Schabas’s past quotes about Israel and Israeli leaders have been reported widely in the Israeli and Jewish media – such as the desire to see Netanyahu indicted, or calling him “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel.” UN Watch’s 20-page text documents many other instances in which he either criticized Israel or called for Israeli leaders to be investigated for war crimes. In October 2012, for instance, he accused Jerusalem of “crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.”

Neuer also discovered an interview Schabas gave to the BBC on July 17, about a week after Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in response to incessant rocket fire from Gaza terrorist groups. Asked by the interviewer whether Israel’s actions could be seen as self-defense, given that Hamas rockets were fired at residential areas, Schabas replied that self-defense can only be used as a justification if it is “proportionate to the threat that’s being posed.” Since there are “huge numbers” of Palestinian civilian casualties but virtually none on the Israeli side, “prima facie, there is evidence of disproportionality in the response that Israel is undertaking in order to protect itself.”

With this interview, UN Watch argues in the legal brief, “Schabas effectively pronounced Israel presumptively guilty on the very question his commission in now called to investigate.”

During a legal symposium in 2012, the UN Watch document states, Schabas said Israel’s actions during the 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead were to be seen as “punitive actions” aimed at Gaza’s civilian population rather than self-defense. “If we look at the poor people of Gaza… all they want is a state — and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration.”

In August, Schabas refused to say during an interview with Channel 2 whether he considers Hamas a terrorist organization, arguing that such an evaluation would prejudge the work of his fact-finding commission. But Schabas is no agnostic or neutral on the nature of Hamas, Neuer said. “Hamas, in Prof. Schabas’s view, very clearly is a legitimate political party that represents the aspirations of the Palestinian people for statehood. He does not talk about the war crimes committed by Hamas or the daily genocidal anti-Semitism.”

US to hold new nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Iranian FM Zarif meets with Italian counterpart, Federica Mogherini, soon to replace Catherine Ashton as EU foreign policy chief, saying Tehran looking forward to improving ties with Europe.

AFP

WASHINGTON – American and Iranian officials will resume negotiations in Geneva on Thursday and Friday as they seek to hammer out a full nuclear deal ahead of a November deadline, US officials said Wednesday.

“Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy R. Sherman, and Senior Advisor Jacob J. Sullivan will meet with Iranian officials in Geneva on September 4-5,” the State Department said in a surprise late-night statement.

Global powers and Iran agreed in late July to extend a deadline to reach a comprehensive and complex deal on curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions until November 24.

Iranian Foreign Minister meets with Italian counterpart Federica Mogherini who will soon replace Catherine Ashton as EU foreign policy chief (Photo: EPA)

The negotiations being led by a group known as the P5+1 had been expected to resume on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly later this month in New York.

“These bilateral consultations will take place in the context of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations led by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton,” the State Department said in its announcement.

Earlier this week, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said he had “good discussions” with Ashton and Tehran was committed to an accord over its contested nuclear program.

Quoted by the Belga state news agency, Zarif said he was “fairly optimistic” after talks in Brussels on Monday with Ashton that Iran and the five permanent UN Security Council members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – plus Germany could reach a deal by the November deadline.

The West suspects Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons but Tehran insists the program is purely for peaceful purposes.

In exchange for accepting curbs on its nuclear activities, Iran wants a vast array of US, EU and UN sanctions to be lifted.

But any deal will have to be approved by the Islamic leadership in Tehran as well as by the US Congress, where many lawmakers are seeking to impose even greater sanctions on Iran.

Better prospects with Ashton’s successor

On Wednesday, Zarif said Iran was looking forward to improved relations with the European Union following the appointment of an Italian to be the bloc’s next foreign policy supremo.

Zarif’s comments came after talks with Federica Mogherini, the current Italian foreign minister who will shortly take over from Britain’s Catherine Ashton as the public face of EU relations with the rest of the world.

Zarif said the crisis in Iraq and Syria demonstrated that the EU and Iran need to work together to address common challenges.

Iranian Foreign Minister meets with Italian counterpart Federica Mogherini who will soon replace Catherine Ashton as EU foreign policy chief (Photo: EPA)

“The same challenges (Iran faces) are before the EU, both as international security and local and domestic security.

“The very sad fact a very large number of foreign fighters are now in Iraq and Syria brings this issue very close to home here in Europe.

“So I think we have common ground both in terms of opportunities for great cooperation, greater economic development, dialogue on human rights as well as cooperation to address these common challenges.

“This mixture… should provide us with a basis for better work together particularly with the role Italy has played as a bridge between Europe and the Islamic world. That role can be further enhanced by the role Mrs Mogherini will play as the High Representative of Europe.”

Mogherini’s first major goal in her new job will be to wrap up a deal with Iran on the Islamic state’s contested nuclear program. The Italian minister said her discussions with Zarif had left her hopeful that could be achieved.

“We have said that an agreement ought to be reached by November in order to guarantee greater stability in the region,” Mogherini said.

“It is my hope the negotiations will have a positive outcome and that this will be done by November 23, the agreed deadline.

“I was assured that there is a strong political will in Tehran for this to happen and we hope that there will also be the necessary technical steps taken.”

Mogherini said Italian officials had been in close discussions with their Iranian counterparts on how to bring stability to Iraq/Syria.

“We share a belief in the need to respond with a military presence in the emergency situation we are in but above all we believe in the need for an inclusive government in Baghdad,” Mogherini said.

Shurat HaDin to Bring Hamas to Hague for War Crimes Against its Own People
By: Zeev Ben-Yechiel – Tazpit News Agency
Published: September 3rd, 2014

Israeli activist lawyer Nitzana Darshan-Leitner: The US should make Iran pay off its debts to American relatives of terror victims before easing sanctions.

(Just getting on the docket is half the battle.-LS)

An Israeli civil rights group, Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, has filed a complaint in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague against Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal over the July-August murders of 38 Gazan civilians.

The motion by the Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center to bring Mashaal to the ICC was made possible by the fact that he is a citizen of Jordan, one of the ICC member states, and represents the first time that a Palestinian terrorist would be brought to the court on the basis of his Jordanian citizenship.

The complaint alleges that Hamas executed 20 Gazan civilians on July 28 for engaging in anti-Hamas protests, and publicly executed at least 18 civilians on August 22 for “collaboration” with Israel. The complaint further states that Mashaal “had knowledge of the executions, oversees Hamas’s governance of Gaza, and actively encourages and supports the executions.”

As a Jordanian citizen, the Hamas leader is subject to prosecution by the ICC because court is “empowered to exercise its jurisdiction over all acts committed by the citizen of a member, wherever those acts are committed,” explained attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the chairperson of Shurat Hadin.

In video footage broadcast around the world, Hamas spokesmen testified to the killings of at least 38 civilians in Gaza since the outbreak of this summer’s war with Israel. One of the videos shows Hamas executioners publicly announcing the verdict against some of the condemned civilians, who appear kneeling with cloth bags over their heads in a Gaza mosque. The executions brought widespread condemnation of Hamas from a number of human rights groups.

The Israeli legal group filed the complaint partly as a response to statements made last week by ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who said that the court has not “avoided opening an investigation into alleged war crimes in Gaza due to political pressure” and has only failed to do so due to a lack of jurisdiction. According to ICC protocols, either the claimant or defendant in a case must belong to an ICC member state, a status that neither Israel nor Gaza holds. By trying Mashaal as a Jordanian, the Israeli group hopes to force the court to convene on the case, as Bensouda indicated it would be willing to do.

Darshan-Leitner told Tazpit News Agency that if the case against Mashaal succeeds in going to court, the results would be significant for Israel. The Hamas leader would be arrested and put on trial, and as the attorney pointed out, “the punishment for war crimes is imprisonment for life. It’s a life sentence without parole.” She also noted that a successful trial would undermine the legitimacy of Hamas, who would be “recognized as committing war crimes against its own people.”

Asked about the prospects of the case going to trial, Darshan-Leitner said that she intends to “put public pressure on the court to deal with this issue.” She noted that the court has an incentive to take the case in order to avoid appearing hypocritical, since the chief ICC prosecutor herself wrote that the court is willing to deal with allegations against Hamas.

“Quite frankly,” she said, “I don’t see a way out for the court from dealing with this case. For the first time they have the jurisdiction to deal with Hamas war crimes in Gaza.”

More Mush from the wimp, Power Line,  Steven Hayward, September 3, 2014

Jimmy Carter was not available for comment.

**********

It sounded for a little while this morning as though Obama had woken up, maybe even had a bowl or two of Wheaties.  The headline comment from him was “The bottom line is this:  Our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so it is no longer a threat.”

But ABC News noted that he’s spent the rest of the day backing away or qualifying this statement so as to make it virtually meaningless:

But when ABC News Radio White House correspondent Ann Compton today asked the president to clarify whether the United States now wants ISIS destroyed, the president seemed to significantly backtrack.

“Our objective is to make sure they aren’t an ongoing threat to the region,” he said.

Then, in response to another question, he seemed to backtrack even further:  “We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

Making ISIS a “manageable problem” sounds like a far cry from destroying it.

Jimmy Carter was not available for comment.

Syria forces ranged for major counteroffensive to dislodge rebels from Quneitra. High tension on Golan, DEBKAfile, September 3, 2014

Syrian tanks roll into Golan

Israel’s Golan forces and population are in a state of preparedness. Tensions rose palpably Wednesday, when Syrian fighter-bombers flew over Quneitra and dropped Iranian-made barrel-bombs on rebel positions. They acted in defiance of Israel’s threat to send its air force against Syrian jets intruding in the Golan no-flight zone.

*************

The Syrian army was poised Wednesday, Sept. 3 for an all-out offensive in the coming hours to take out the rebels holding parts of the Golan town of Quneitra and the crossing into Israel, DEBKAfile’s military sources report. The concentration of Syrian troops at a staging point is clearly visible from Israeli military positions and villages on the Golan.

The assault force consists of a large number of troops from the Syrian army’s 7th Division with many tanks, which the Syrians have been wary hitherto of moving into the battle zone, after being cautioned by Israel via the UN that they would be infringing ceasefire agreements with Israel and risk incurring IDF counteraction.

However, high authority in Damascus appears to be counting on the revulsion and shock,  generated around the world by the beheading by ISIS of the American-Jewish journalist Steven Sotloff, deterring Israel from intervening against Syrian forces which are fighting another Al Qaeda offshoot, the Nusra Front.

All in all, say DEBKA’s sources, the decision to embark on a large-scale assault on rebel gains in the Golan means that military priorities have been reshuffled at the highest level of Syrian policy-making. After treating the Golan and Quneitra front as a strategic backwater hitherto, they suddenly occupy center stage in Damascus as a key arena for vanquishing rebel forces.

Israel’s Golan forces and population are in a state of preparedness. Tensions rose palpably Wednesday, when Syrian fighter-bombers flew over Quneitra and dropped Iranian-made barrel-bombs on rebel positions. They acted in defiance of Israel’s threat to send its air force against Syrian jets intruding in the Golan no-flight zone.

This threat followed the first Syria air strike over Quneitra on Aug. 28, against which Israel refrained from interfering. But Damascus was obviously not deterred from launching another air strike over the Golan to support its coming offensive.

Wednesday night, the Security Council called on all UN members who had any influence with Nusra al-Jabha to intercede for the release of the 44 UN Fijian observers the Islamist group is holding hostage since last week. The same resolution also ordered Nusra to immediately return the weapons and vehicles, some of them armored, they had seized from the UN Disengagement and Observer Force.

With the Syrian sword about to fall on their heads, it is doubtful that the Syrian Islamists will heed either of those calls.

Political theatrics.

Ira Sharkansky

We’ve known for a long time that politics combines theater with serious business. How much of each can vary from place to place and within each place by circumstances?

Israeli pundits are having fun with recordings of Netanyahu’s hyperbolic promises and subsequent behavior. The prime minister has lost ground with the voters, but the same polls that show sharp decline in support for his conduct of the Gaza operation are showing that he is the only game in town. He has two or three times the percentage supporting him than other contenders for the big job.

Perhaps Israelis have learned to accept and discount Bibi’s bluster, to enjoy their decent level of existence, and to ignore the prime minister when he claims responsibility for all that is good.

Somewhat more frightening is the record of Bibi’s American equivalent. It’s hard to measure these things, but it appears from his public comments that the American leader is far removed from a realistic assessment of important things. What makes that more frightening than an Israeli’s bluster is the power of the United States to act or not, with results of great good or harm.

Obama’s record includes demanding, and perhaps expecting democracy and equality in the Muslim Middle East, discarding a moderate leader of Egypt while asserting that he was an extremist, seeing the mechanics of a third world election as more important than the essence of Islamic passions in the elevation of the Muslim Brotherhood to the control of an important Muslim country, and delivering three-quarters of an impassioned speech against Syria’s use of chemical weapons while the final quarter of the speech said that he would not do anything.

The most recent Obama wonderment is saying that the US does not have a strategy for dealing with Daish et al. He has sent his ponderous Secretary of State John Kerry on an international tour to gather support from a joint operation, largely among countries that have learned to distrust the Obama administration. Given the record, we can expect him to shuffle away from anything serious.

Historians and others will quarrel about the contribution of Obama’s Nobel-winning speech to Arab Spring, and its metamorphosis from hopes for democracy to the realities of barbarism.

Mainline Israeli commentators have been ridiculing the lack of judgment in the Obama administration, focusing on the obsessive concern for a formalized peace between Israelis and Palestinians when it should have been clear that neither were ready; seeing Qatar as an appropriate mediator between Israel and Hamas; and now dithering about what to do in response to the escalating ugliness of what is politely called Islamic extremism.

Competing with all of this in a continuing performance is the role of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Staying in office five years after the end of his term exceeds the political comedies typical of the third world, where at least the semblance of election occurs as a device to claim legitimacy.

One wonders what is more worthy of cynicism: Abbas’s travels to meet the leaders of the world, kissing cheeks, reviewing honor guards, or proclaiming what it is doubtful he can deliver? His recent description of Khalid Marshal as a “peacock” after a meeting when each was claiming how much they could do for Gaza is worthy of some praise, but neither Abbas nor Mashal is likely to provide Palestinians more than individuals and families can acquire through their own hard work.

We should all learn something from the Palestinians. Politics is out there and cannot be avoided, but cynicism may be an essential component of mental health.

At the same time, we should not overlook the essential task of comparison. It’s a lot better on this side of the poorly defined borders with Palestine. When the Israeli government orders our children, grandchildren, or those of our friends into action, it is important to go along. We–and those younger folks risking a great deal more–will not get everything promised, but it would be a lot worse if we did not cooperate.

One must admit that judgement is difficult.

Iran is a case in point. Should we remain convinced that it is set to prepare nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, see signs for hope in what some claim to be its compliance with international demands, take heart from the US reinstating certain sanctions, applaud Iran’s contribution to the military campaign against Daish in Iraq, or dismiss that as nothing more than Shi’ite mobilization against Sunni forces?

We should remember that politics is the most civilized way of settling disputes. Its essence is argument prior to voting, either by the masses in an election or by those who have acquired office and the responsibility to make policy.

Among the legitimate subjects of dispute are which candidate to select? what policy to support and has the incumbent screwed up enough to be thrown out of office?

Also to be remembered is that the cynic’s handbook for politics has no chapter on heroes. The authors may have searched for examples for such a chapter, but found none worthy.

It is not pleasant for Israelis to realize that we are on the borders of civilization, that many see us as part of the problem rather than part of the solution, and that the purported leader of the free world is wondering if a looming disaster is a problem worthy of action.