Posted tagged ‘Foreign Policy’

ISIS capture of Jordanian pilot puts US and Jordan in conflicting dilemmas, may be pivotal to anti-terror war

December 25, 2014

ISIS capture of Jordanian pilot puts US and Jordan in conflicting dilemmas, may be pivotal to anti-terror war, DEBKAfile, December 25, 2014

F-16_down_Syria_24.12.14A Jordanian air force F-16 downed over Syria

DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources add that Middle East military and aviation control centers are quite sure that the Jordanian warplane was hit by an ISIS missile, while making low passes over the terrorist organization’s Syrian headquarters at Raqqa in violation of the pilot’s orders.

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

The US military is going to great lengths to deny any evidence that ISIS shot down the Jordanian Air Force F-16 which came down Wednesday, Dec. 24 over the northern Syrian town of Raqaa. First Lieutenant Muath al-Kasaesbeh, aged 27, was the first Arab pilot to be taken prisoner by the Islamic State. The US Central Command statement said: “We can say with certainty that it was an aircraft crash and the plane was not downed by ISIL as was claimed by the terrorist organization.”

This contradicted an earlier statement by the Jordanian Information Minister Mohammad Momani that the plane had crashed after being hit by a ground-air missile. DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources add that Middle East military and aviation control centers are quite sure that the Jordanian warplane was hit by an ISIS missile, while making low passes over the terrorist organization’s Syrian headquarters at Raqqa in violation of the pilot’s orders.

The Jordanians are making intense efforts to deter the jihadis from harming 1st Lt. Kasaesbeh.The Hashemite Kingdom’s armed forces warned that “IS and its supporters would be held responsible for the pilot’s safety and his life.”

The pilot belongs to the Bedouin tribe of Bararsha near Kerak in southern Jordan, which boasts several army generals. They and the tribal chiefs are bringing all their influence to bear to obtain his release.

American military is joining the effort to save the Jordanian pilot – from different motives, which are geared more to sustaining the goals and tactics pursued by the US and the coalition in the war on the Islamic State.
Thursday, Central Command chief Gen. Lloyd J. Austin, who is in charge of US and coalition operations in Iraq and Syria, released a long communiqué praising Jordan for its military actions in the battle, adding: “We will not tolerate ISIL’s attempts to misrepresent or exploit this unfortunate aircraft crash for its own purposes.”

The US general’s message was designed to reassure Jordanian Air Force pilots and dissuade them from dropping out of the coalition air campaign for fear of being shot down by an ISIS missile. The three other Arab coalition members, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, must also be kept from quitting.

The share of the four Arab air forces in the war is too weighty to forfeit.

ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has not doubt calculated his stake in keeping the Jordanian pilot alive and at risk to scare fellow Arab pilots from continuing to take part in US-led bombing missions against his forces.

Furthermore, the Bararsha, like other South Jordanian Bedouin tribes, is known around the region for producing fierce fighters and their relentless pursuit of blood revenge.

Al Baghdadi may opt to avoid antagonizing them for this reason, as well as in the hope of a tangible benefit: ISIS is already using the smuggling routes of southern Jordan as channels to the groups his organization has planted in Sinai, Egypt and eastern Libya. He may decide to go one better and build an alliance with those very tribes behind the backs of the Americans and Jordan’s Abdullah II.

Such an eventuality would add a new dimension to the war on the Islamist terrorists.

The unlikely founding fathers of the Islamic State

December 24, 2014

The unlikely founding fathers of the Islamic State

 By Missing Peace

via The unlikely founding fathers of the Islamic State | Missing Peace | missingpeace.eu | EN.

 

Islamic State

The rise of the Islamic State (sometimes called ISIL) is commonly seen in the West as something that emerged more or less out of the blue. US President Obama for instance has said the dramatic rise of IS was not anticipated by the intelligence services of the US.

That’s not true, however. At about the time that Obama made this claim, European diplomats stationed in Syria told a journalist working for an Asian newspaper that the CIA had repeatedly warned the US government of the danger posed to America by the IS. The CIA termed it the greatest threat to the US since the Second World War, according to the diplomats.

So it may be more accurate to say it was Obama himself who underestimated the danger of the Islamist movement, and who chose to ignore the CIA’s warnings.

Why? Because heeding those CIA warnings would have meant admitting that US policy in Syria and Iraq had failed, and that his disengagement policy in the Middle East needed significant adjusting.

Von Oppenheim’s Jihad strategy

As we will see,the Islamic State ‘s current campaign of Jihad is not only unsurprising but is in large measure the result of a strategy that has been known for  more than a hundred and twenty years and was devised by a German diplomat of Jewish origin.

That diplomat was Max von Oppenheim, born in Cologne in 1860 to a Jewish banking family whose members converted to Catholicism after his birth.

Von Oppenheim traveled throughout the Middle East in the last years of the 19th century, visiting Syria, Mesopotamia (now called Iraq), the Persian Gulf, Morocco and Egypt. After his return to Germany, he published his observations in a two-volume book. He studied law and, later, Arabic in Egypt, and in 1896 was became an attaché at German’s embassy in Cairo, Egypt.

During that Egyptian stint, von Oppenheim authored 467 reports on the Middle East, including a lengthy report on the rise of the Pan-Islamic movement. These influenced and to an extent even determined German policies in the region. He eventually became a key adviser to the German emperor Wilhelm.

On the eve of Wilhelm’s visit to the Middle East in 1889, von Oppenheim recommended that Germany support the emerging Islamist movement. This, he argued, would benefit German interests in the region. On one hand, the Germans were without colonies in the Middle East. On the other, the area’s Muslims sought an end to the dominance of the Christian powers – Great Britain, France and Russia – in a region with a Muslim-majority population. There was therefore a shared interest. The Muslims alone were not able to bring an end to foreign domination. And German was anxious to expand its influence in the Middle East at the expense of the French and British.

In his report to the emperor on Pan-Islamism, Von Oppenheim explained that the Muslims already had established a Caliphate, an overarching state, in the Middle East in the seventh century and that state had existed for centuries. The German diplomat argued that the Ottoman Turks had managed to breathe new life into this state and had succeeded in attracting Muslimloyalty to the Sultan/Caliph.

The Muslim masses increasingly viewed the Ottoman leader as the protector of Islam and its holy sites, Von Oppenheim wrote. He concluded that if the Sultan would issue a fatwa calling for Jihad, three hundred million Muslims could be counted upon to rise in revolt and put an end to Anglo-French dominance in the Middle East.

The mission, in his words, was therefore “to unleash Muslim fanaticism that would border on madness”.

Von Oppenheim’s plan led to a pact between Germany and the Ottoman Empire.  However, the concept of a massive jihad that might have produced a German-Turkish victory over the Allies in the First World War failed completely.

Mainly, this was the result of fundamental errors in his analysis. Von Oppenheim ignored the internal divisions in the Muslim world, for instance. And he over-estimated the extent of Arab acceptance of the Turkish Caliph’s authority.

But along with a group of German Middle East experts, Von Oppenheim succeeded in establishing Islamist groups that did in fact begin to execute the planned Jihad in certain Muslim countries.

In November 1914, he dispatched a 136-page plan entitled “Revolutionizing the Islamic territories of our enemies” to his emperor. The plan was quickly approved and Von Oppenheim’s team was provided with the necessary funds. Shortly afterwards, Von Oppenheim’s terrorist groups began deploying suicide attacks as a means of achieving their goals. In India, for instance, a group of 25 Jihadists attacked British targets.

German experts

The German experts recognized that there was a risk the forces of jihad would eventually be out of control and turn into an offensive against the West. The unfolding of events after the defeat of Germany and Turkey in World War I and the emergence of Franco-British domination over the Middle East resulting in the Sykes Picot agreement proved them right.

Sykes-Picot, in particular, resulted in a redefined Middle East of states whose borders were drawn by the French and British. These borders however failed to take account of the tribal nature that had long characterized the Middle East. They also ignored the sharp divisions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The so-called Arab Spring in 2010 represented a kind of turning point. Dictatorships in the area had prevented some of the states that emerged under British-French influence from falling apart. Their leaders had more or less succeeded in curbing sectarian violence within their borders.

But then came the fall of dictators like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Gaddafi of Libya. These changes, plus the uprising against Assad in Syria and the reduction in the United States’ Middle East influence finally offered Islamists the opportunity to establish a new order based on their interpretation of Islam.

Immediately after proclaiming the establishment of an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIL was able to triumphantly announce – with a certain degree of justification – that the Sykes-Picot era had finally come to an end.

Hitler and Husseini

Following the failure of Von Oppenheim’s plan in World War I, a second German attempt was made by Hitler through his alliance with the Islamist, Haj Amin al-Husseini.

Husseini originally harbored pan-Arab ambitions, aspiring to become the leader of the Arab world. He eventually settled for becoming the Grand Mufti of Palestine and the de facto leader of the Palestinian Arabs.

Husseini and Hitler shared a deep hatred of the Jews and other common interests. Hitler sought an Arab leader who would promote his agenda of world domination in the Middle East. Husseini in turn needed a Western ally who would prevent the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and put an end to Western domination of Muslim countries.

Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis is well known. It went well beyond preventing the emergence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. For example, Hitler took the decision to embrace the so-called ‘Entlosung ’, the strategy of systematically exterminating European Jewry, a few hours after a meeting with Husseini. During that meeting, Husseini had exerted pressure on Hitler to solve the “Jewish problem” once and for all.

In 1944, Husseini succeeded in preventing a deal between the Germans and the Allied forces in which 5,000 Jewish children would be exchanged for Allied prisoners of war, and frustrated the escape of 14,000 Jewish children from Hungary. Almost all of these children were later murdered in the Nazi death camps.

Husseini spent much of World War II living in Berlin, establishing his headquarters in a confiscated Jewish mansion. The Nazis provided him with funds to undertake a range of Islamic projects in Europe and beyond.

He developed a plan to establish death camps in Arab countries for the intended extermination of the Jews in the Middle East. This failed because of the 1942 defeat of the advancing German army at El Alamein, Egypt and the collapse of Hitler’s Africa Korps.    Most of the Middle East’s Jews thus escaped the Holocaust.

Husseini escaped prosecution for war crimes after World War II, largely for political reasons. He was thus able to continue to lead the jihad against Israel and keep the Islamist movement alive. In May1946, carrying a false passport, he escaped from French custody and fled to Egypt. Once in Cairo, he founded a new army al-Jihad al-Muqaddas, under the leadership of another Nazi collaborator, al-Qawuqii. With a training camp near the Libyan border, its soldiers prepared for the ”struggle against the Zionists” and participated in the War of Independence in 1948.

Following the Arab defeat in the 1948 war, Husseini united the Islamists under his leadership in a new organization called the Islamic World Congress (IWC). Among its other prominent members: Sayyid Qutb, the ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood; and the Iranian Islamic spiritual leader Abd al-Qasim al-Kashani. One of Kashani students was Ruhollah Khomeini who went on in 1979 to lead Iran’s Islamic revolution.

Husseini moved the headquarters of the Islamic World Congress (IWC) to Karachi, Pakistan,in 1949. He appointed Dr. Inamullah Khan as its Secretary General. Khan, known for his hatred of Jews, nevertheless became the recipient of the prestigious 1988 Templeton Prize for Progress in. This prize had been awarded in previous years to Mother Teresa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Syrian Islamist Maaruf al-Dawalibi, who had also collaborated with the Nazis, was Husseini’s successor. In 1984, he declared at a United Nations seminar that Hitler had been right when he wanted to exterminate the Jews because of their belief that they were God’s chosen people. In the same speech, he repeated the classic anti-Semitic blood libel that the Talmud commands the Jews to drink the blood of non-Jews at Passover.

Jihad in Europe

Said Ramadan, the son-in-law of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, was asked by Husseini to spread the Islamist ideology in Europe. In 1958, Ramadan fled to Geneva due to the repression of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria. In 1959, Ramadan wrote a dissertation on Islamic Sharia law called “Islamic Law: Its Scope and Equity” for the University of Cologne in which he called upon European Muslims to fight against Western secular culture in Europe.

Ramadan, aided by money from al-Husseini’s Nazi funds and later with the financial help of Saudi Arabia, began a process whereby local Muslim communities in Europe came under the control of the IWC and the Muslim Brotherhood. By 2000, many Muslim communities in Europe had adopted the Islamist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and were led by members of the organization.

After Ramadan’s death, Ali GhalebHimmat, one of his lieutenants, became the leader of one of Europe’s most important beachheads of radicalIslam – a mosque in the German city of Munich. The mosque had beenestablished by Muslims who had fought for the Nazis.

Together with the Syrian Islamist Yusuf Mustafa Nada Ibada, Himmat built a global financial network for the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1988, they founded the al-Taqwa bank that was involved in financing the Al Qaeda attack on the United States on 11 September 2011. The main architect of the attack on the US was Aiman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al Qaeda. He is the grandson of Abd al-WahhabAzzam, who was the spiritual leader of Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Al-Wahhab was the brother of Abd al-Rahman Azzam , the first Secretary General of the Arab League. During World War II, Abd al-Rahman Azzam worked as a secret agent for the Nazis under al-Husseini.

From Hassan al-Banna to ISIL

Prior to his membership of Al-Qaeda, the Egyptian Al-Zawahiri was the leader of Tanzim al-Jihad, the group responsible for the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. He was strongly influenced by Sayyid Qutb, the ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In one of his writings, he wrote that Qutb started the Islamic revolution against the enemies of Islam in the Middle East and beyond. This bloody revolution continues up to this day, wrote Al-Zawahiri. He fully endorsed Qutb’s view that the establishment of the kingdom of Allah on earth cannot be achieved through prayer and preaching alone. In order to reach this goal, it was necessary that those who did not recognize Allah’s authority should be killed.

According to Qutb and al-Zawahiri, Islam permits killing people in Jihad for Allah.

Al-Zawahiri also explained the importance of the mobilization for Jihad against the enemies of Islam. Since the end of the Anglo-French domination in the Middle East, these enemies had been replaced by the United States and Israel.

This Jihad is not – like the Sufi version of Islam says – a spiritual struggle of the Muslim, but is the ultimate battle between Islam and the infidels and their societies. This is the main theme that connects all Islamist groups and that is practiced by Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic State, Boko Haram (whose name means Western education is forbidden) and many other Islamist movements.

In this view, Jihad against the Jews (and other infidels) becomes a primary religious duty. In this respect, there is no difference between the ideas of Khomeini, Khamenei, Al Qutb, Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, al-Husseini, IS leader al-Baghdadi, the current Brotherhood ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Hamas leaders.

All have said publicly that the Jews control the world and that they are the enemies of Allah and must be expelled from Muslim land (meaning Palestine) or they are to be killed. They also stated that Jihad should continue until Islam rules the world.

So the ideology of the Islamic State is not new. It is rooted in the ideology of Islamists who previously, not coincidentally, collaborated with the Nazis.

The similarities between the methods of IS and those of the Nazis are striking as well as the ideology that underlies those methods. For Islamic State, the ‘ubermensch’ is a Muslim who has abandoned the state of barbaric negligence (Jahaliyah) which in IS view also prevails in Arab countries and that is typical of the West. Jahaliyah existed before the advent of Muhammad and the goal of Islamists is to bring the Umma, the Islamic world community, back to the early days of Islam and the path of the upright Caliphs who led the Islamic empire at the time.

Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, who was an admirer of Hitler and Mussolini, had the model of the SS in mind when he founded the so-called shock battalions. These battalions intended to do what ISIL is now doing in Iraq and Syria. So it comes as no surprise that a variation on al-Banna’s slogan can now be seen on the black flags of Islamic State: ‘Allah is our objective, the Koran is our constitution, the Prophet our leader; struggle is our way and death for Allah is our highest aspiration. ‘

This article is partly based on research by Middle East expert professor Barry Rubin

Satire: How Obama briefly shut down North Korea’s internet

December 23, 2014

How Obama briefly shut down North Korea’s internet, Dan Miller’s Blog, December 23, 2014

Obama’s confidential adviser on all matters Islamic, Mohamed Allah-dork, is disgusted with Obama’s recent attack on North Korea’s internet because the methods He used were contrary to true Islamic doctrine. Concerned that his silence might be viewed as agreement with Obama’s methods, Allah-dork decided to divulge what really happened and how.

Mohamed Allah-dork

Mohamed Allah-dork

Great technological sophistication was needed to take down North Korea’s internet. Therefore, experts who had created the ObamaScare website, together with experts from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), managed the project. Together, they provided an elegant solution which, unlike the ObamaScare website, worked perfectly (if only briefly) on the second attempt.

First, all of the glitches thus far identified in the ObamaScare website were recycled and combined in one enormous package. Next, FCC experts working diligently to degrade the U.S. internet devised a set of protocols to accomplish the same for North Korea. ObamaScare website experts then translated the FCC protocols into binary code and placed it in a massive glitch package for transmission by the National Security Agency (NSA) to all computers and internet hubs in North Korea.

Initially, the outages were limited, sporadic and hence disappointing. NSA had been unaware of the substantial time differences between Washington and North Korea and therefore made their transmissions during periods of highest internet usage in the Washington, D.C. area (during the day and early evening hours). When it was discovered that North Korea does not operate on Eastern Standard Time, NSA repeated the transmissions during periods of lowest D.C. area internet usage (late at night). That required overtime pay, but the necessary funds were easily diverted from the Department of Defense. The cyber attack worked beautifully until it failed.

According to Mohamed Allah-dork, the technology that Obama used to take down North Korea’s internet was un-Islamic for at least two reasons. First: no modern technology, including computers and the internet, is mentioned in the Holy Koran and all are therefore prohibited. Second: such technology — unlike tried and true Islamic methods — does not kill apostates and other infidels efficiently. Indeed, the first (but not, of course, the second) was the basis for the unwritten fatwa issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader declaring nuclear weapons un-Islamic. Iran does not even use modern technology to execute its domestic enemies.

Iran hangings by crane

Obama Clinton and Muslim Brotherhood

Allah-dork had explained to Obama that the Islamic Republic of Iran would never develop nuclear weapons due to the Supreme Leader’s fatwa and its basis in proper Koranic interpretation. Obama agreed, and that continues to be the foundation of His superb leadership of the P5+1 negotiations with Iran which, as all true Islamic scholars know, desires only Islamic peace and tranquility for all.

North Korea’s internet has recovered from Obama’s efforts. Although not previously reported, it is due to Allah’s displeasure with Obama’s deviation from true Islamic doctrine. Despite His universally understood transparency and candor, Obama will never admit the truth of Allah-dork’s revelations because He is embarrassed about the un-Islamic methods He used and their ultimate failure due to Allah’s displeasure. Hence, it is my civic duty to relay here what really happened and why.

The very highest credibility should be assigned to Allah-dork’s revelations because, as is well known, truth telling and the enlightenment it brings are among the greatest and most treasured of all Islamic values. Truth telling is no less important than slaughtering all who are unwilling to submit to the proper version of Islam, the religion of true (Islamic) peace everlasting.

ISIS sneaks behind US-backed Kurdish victories in Iraq to retake Baiji refinery city

December 22, 2014

ISIS sneaks behind US-backed Kurdish victories in Iraq to retake Baiji refinery city, DEBKAfile, December 22, 2014

IraqBaiji

American, Kurdish and Iraqi officials have hailed as a “major victory” the release of thousands of distressed members of the Yazdi community, trapped for four months on on Mt. Sinjar in northern Iraq, since Islamic State thugs overran their town. Many more fled to Syria while Yazdi women were kidnapped.

This was a necessary rescue operation, but hardly a major victory, say DEBKAfile’s military experts. ISIS continues to maintain its grip on vast stretches of Iraq and Syria, defying the efforts of sparse US and coalition air strikes to dislodge them – beyond minor tactical withdrawals.

The town of Sinjar is not mentioned in the US and Kurdish releases, because large sections are still in jihadi hands.

Even less is heard about the situation on the northern Iraqi-Syrian border, where Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has achieved almost total supremacy.

But the most telling omission by the US-led allies is the fact that, while they focused on Mt. Sinjar, ISIS forces restored their siege of Baiji, Iraq’s main oil refinery center, after pushing Iraqi troops out.

This happened after a majority of the local Sunni tribes who fought alongside the Iraqi army up until November, switched sides.

The tribal chiefs complained that the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who was installed in Baghdad with Washington’s support last year, as a figure able to unite the country’s Sunni and Shiite communities for the war on ISIS, reneged on his promise of pay checks and weapons for the tribesmen who threw in their lot with the national army.

Instead, he is accused of aggravating disunity in the armed forces by firing Sunni officers and replacing them with officers loyal to Iraq’s pro-Iranian Shiite militias, who take their orders from Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps commanders.

DEBKAfile’s military and counter-terrorism sources describe the current military state of play in Iraq as bizarre, fought on three more or less disconnected levels:

1.  In the north, a mixed Iraqi-Kurdish force, accompanied by US military advisers, is poised to attack the key town of Tal Afar, which lies 50 km west of Mosul.

Friday, Dec. 21, they took the town’s Iraqi military base that fell to ISIS in June. But, like in Sinjar, the assault force has not yet occupiedy the town.

This Tel Afar operation was a compromise in the disagreement the Iraqis and Kurds had with Washington. They asserted they were fully capable of recapturing Mosul from the Islamists, while the US military advisers disagreed and warned that this offensive was doomed to failure.

2.   While Iraqi and Kurdish peshmerga forces are concentrating their assaults on areas where ISIS forces are thin on the ground (like Mt. Sinjar), the jihadis are throwing strength into capturing and controlling the Iraqi and Syrian oil industries (like Baiji). They are by now accruing revenues running into $2 to 2.5 billion, despite falling crude prices. In fact they are dumping the looted oil for $25-30 per barrel, well below the world market prices.

3.  Washington is sparing too little attention for the ISIS outgrowths mushrooming outside Iraq and Israel – especially in Libya, Egypt and Egyptian Sinai.

EU Gives Hamas Green Light to Attack Israel

December 22, 2014

EU Gives Hamas Green Light to Attack Israel, Gatestone InstituteKhaled Abu Toameh, December 22, 2014

Although the EU court has said that its controversial decision was “technical” and was not a reassessment of Hamas’s classification as a terrorist group, leaders of the Islamist movement believe that the move will eventually earn them legitimacy in the international arena.

The EU court’s decision represents a “severe blow to the Palestinian Authority and Egypt,” according to Palestinian political analyst Raed Abu Dayer.

Any victory for Hamas, albeit a small and symbolic one, is a victory for the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups, and causes tremendous damage to those Muslims who are opposed to radical Islam.

Hours before the EU court’s decision was made public, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar announced that his movement would never recognize Israel, and that Hamas seeks to overthrow the Palestinian Authority and seize control of the West Bank.

The EU court’s decision also coincided with a rapprochement between Hamas and Iran. Now, the Iranians and other countries, such as Turkey and Qatar, are likely to interpret the EU court’s decision as a green light to resume financial and military aid, including rockets and missiles, to Hamas — not only to Gaza but to the West Bank as well — to support those Palestinians whose aim it is to eliminate Israel.

Less than 48 hours after a top European Union court ruled that Hamas should be removed from the bloc’s list of terrorist groups, supporters of the Palestinian Islamist movement responded by firing a rocket at Israel. The attack, which did not cause any casualties or damage, did not come as a surprise.

Buoyed by the EU court’s ruling, Hamas leaders and spokesmen see it as a “political and legal achievement” and a “big victory” for the “armed struggle” against Israel.

Musa Abu Marzouk, a top Hamas leader, issued a statement thanking the EU court for its decision. He hailed the decision to remove his movement from the terrorist list as a “victory for all those who support the Palestinian right to resistance.”

When Hamas leaders talk about “resistance,” they are referring to terrorist attacks, such as the launching of rockets and suicide bombings against Israel. In other words, Hamas has interpreted the court’s decision as a green light to carry out fresh attacks as part of its ambition to destroy Israel.

The rocket that was fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel only days after the court decision is not likely to be the last.

Although the EU court has said that its controversial decision was “technical” and was not a reassessment of Hamas’s classification as a terrorist group, leaders of the Islamist movement believe that the move will eventually earn them legitimacy in the international arena.

Ironically, the EU court’s decision coincided with Hamas celebrations marking the 27thanniversary of its founding. Once again, Hamas used the celebrations to remind everyone that its real goal is to destroy Israel. And, of course, Hamas used the event to display its arsenal of weapons that include various types of rockets and missiles, as well as drones.

845 (1)Thousands of armed Hamas troops showed off their military hardware at a Dec. 14, 2014 parade in Gaza, marking the organization’s 27th anniversary. (Image source: PressTV video screenshot)

Hours before the EU court decision was made public, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar announced that his movement would never recognize Israel. Zahar also made it clear that Hamas seeks to overthrow the Palestinian Authority [PA] regime and seize control over the West Bank.

The EU court’s decision also coincided with increased efforts to achieve rapprochement between Hamas and Iran. Recently, a senior Hamas leadership delegation visited Tehran as part of efforts to mend fences between the two sides. The main purpose of the visit was to persuade the Iranians to resume military and financial aid to Hamas. The visit, according to senior Hamas officials, appears to have been “successful.”

“There are many signs that our relations are back on the right track,” explained Hamas’s Musa Abu Marzouk. “Hamas and Iran have repaired their relations, which were strong before the Syrian crisis.” Relations between Hamas and Iran deteriorated due to the Islamist movement’s refusal to support the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Now the Iranians are likely to interpret the EU court decision to remove Hamas from the list of terrorist groups as a green light to resume financial and military aid to the movement.

Iran’s leaders recently announced that they intend to dispatch weapons not only to the Gaza Strip, but to the West Bank as well, as part of Tehran’s effort to support those Palestinians who are fighting to eliminate Israel.

Moreover, the EU court’s move will also embolden other countries that provide Hamas with political and financial aid, first and foremost Qatar and Turkey. Oil-rich Gulf countries such as Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia will now face pressure from many Arabs and Muslims to join Qatar, Turkey and Iran in extending their support to Hamas.

The biggest losers, meanwhile, are Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Over the past few months, the two men have been doing their utmost to undermine Hamas and end its rule over the Gaza Strip.

Abbas has been fighting Hamas by blocking financial and humanitarian aid and arresting its supporters in the West Bank, while Sisi continues to tighten the blockade on the Gaza Strip and destroy dozens of smuggling tunnels along the border with Egypt.

The EU court’s decision represents a “severe blow to the Palestinian Authority and Egypt,” noted Palestinian political analyst Raed Abu Dayer. “As far is Abbas is concerned, the decision grants Hamas political legitimacy and challenges his claim to be the sole legitimate leader [of the Palestinians]. With regards to Egypt, the European court decision calls into question rulings by Egyptian courts that Hamas is a terrorist organization.”

Even if the EU court decision is reversed in the future, there’s no doubt that it has already caused tremendous damage, especially to those Muslims who are opposed to radical Islam.

Any victory for Hamas, albeit a small and symbolic one, is a victory for the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups around the world.

The decision has left many Arabs and Muslims with the impression that Hamas, after all, is not a terrorist organization, especially if non-Muslims in Europe say so through one of their top courts. Even worse, the decision poses a real and immediate threat to Israel, as evident from the latest rocket attack.

If the Europeans have reached the conclusion that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, then why don’t their governments openly invite tens of thousands of Hamas members and supporters to move to London, Paris and Rome? And they should not forget to ask the Hamas members to bring along with them their arsenal of weapons.

Why is Israel blamed for evil while Islamic nations are not?

December 21, 2014

Why is Israel blamed for evil while Islamic nations are not? Dan Miller’s Blog, December 21, 2014

Blaming Israel for evil, rather than her many Islamic neighbors and enemies is, despite the views of Obama and His colleagues, contrary to American values. Doing so is based on Jew hatred, envy of success, and the multicultural absurdity that no culture or religion is better or worse than any other.

As I argued most recently here and here, Israel is fighting for her survival against regimes that want her to cease to exist because she is Jewish, not Islamic, and her government is free and democratic, not dictatorial. She is, therefore, an outsider in the Middle East.

This video identifies many of the reasons why Israel is viewed harshly by other Western civilizations while Islamic nations, which are neither free nor democratic, are viewed favorably.

I suspect that Dr. Ben Carson, who recently visited Israel and was much impressed, would agree with the points made in the video.

Although the U.S. remains Israel’s closest and most important ally, Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have little personal chemistry and have frequently clashed. The U.S. has been outspoken in its criticism of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem — captured areas claimed by the Palestinians as parts of a future state. At the same time, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has made numerous trips to the region and elsewhere to try to broker a peace deal.

Carson said the criticism of the settlements has been exaggerated, and he asserted that Palestinian hostility toward Israel is what is preventing peace in the region. Of Netanyahu, Carson said, “I think he’s a great leader in a difficult time.” [Emphasis added.]

The Muslim Council of Britain on the Peshawar Massacre

December 20, 2014

The Muslim Council of Britain on the Peshawar Massacre, American ThinkerPaul Austin Murphy, December 20, 2014

(Islam is taqiyya all the way down. Examples of the same sorts of Islamic distortion and public acceptance of them as true are commonplace and guide foreign policy in the United States of Obama and Europe. — DM)

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) seems to spend almost its entire time publishing apologies for Islamic slaughter, killing, terrorism, violence, misogyny, sexual-grooming gangs, and so on. And it usually does so with Islamic taqiyya: lies, prevarications, evasiveness, equivocations, ambiguity, deceit, dishonesty, obfuscation, deception, dissembling and dissimulation (all used to advance and/or protect Islam).

Predictably, in the aftermath of the Islamic slaughter in Peshawar, the MCB has given its own response to the event in a very short piece entitled, ‘A Massacre of Children: An Ummah in Shock’. And equally predictably, it quotes the one quote that Muslims always use in such circumstances.

Basically, you hear this passage all the time at Interfaith meetings, in the Guardian, on the BBC, etc. Try Googling the phrase and you’ll get literally dozens of links; almost all will be from Muslim or interfaith groups.

This is a passage from the Koran which even many non-Muslims will recognize. The MCB version goes:

“Whosoever kills a human being, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

This quote is a perfect and despicable example of Islamic taqiyya and it is so for many reasons.

What surprises me, however, is that — after the deceitful nature of this passage has been demonstrated so many times and in so many different places — Muslims and Islamophiles are still using it. The MCB, for example, must think its non-Muslim supporters/readers are either stupid or even (fellow) liars.

This following is the MCB’s lead-up to its citation:

“While it is very hard to find the words to respond to the tragedy before us, I can only quote a verse from the Koran in which it says…”

And then we have the passage itself:

“Whosoever kills a human being, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

(The passage is verse 32 of sura/chapter 5.)

Virtually no religion or ideology believes or accepts what is purported to be the meaning of that Koranic statement. In order to fully accept it, the religion or ideology concerned would have to be fully pacifist in nature (e.g., Jainism or Quakerism); which makes its use by Muslims all the more ironic or even somewhat sick.

This passage — at least within a MCB and indeed Islamic context — is at best meaningless (a mere soundbite) and at worse a piece of gross deceit.

The relevant point is that the MCB has cynically removed the middle clause knowing full well that it more or less negates the surrounding clauses. After all, the erased central clause isn’t long: it’s a mere ten words in length. This, I suggest, is classic Islamic taqiyya or deceit. And no Islamic organization does that better than the Muslim Council of Britain.

Here’s the passage in full:

“… We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land [my italics] – it would be as if he slew the whole people.”

Immediately after that, we have:

“And if anyone saved a life, it would be as he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them our messengers with clear signs, yet even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

It can be seen that the opening clause is also always deleted by Muslims when they quote it at non-Muslims. That is, for a while I didn’t even know — because of the deliberate misquotations from Muslims (or their use of Kitman) — that the passage begins with the clause: “We [i.e., Allah] ordained for the Children of Israel…” That is followed by: “…. that if anyone slew a person…”.

So not only is this supposedly peaceful — or even pacifist — passage not aimed at Muslims in the first place (it was aimed at Jews), on only a tiny bit of analysis it can be seen not to be very peaceful or positive in the first place!

(This well-used passage is from Jewish scripture (Mishnah, Sanhedrin: 4:5) anyway. It was stolen from Jewish sources by Muhammad and his immediate followers (something they often did).

In addition, the passage doesn’t appear to have been abrogated like so many other “peaceful verses” in that book. Perhaps this is so precisely because of the surgically removed central clause.)

Here’s another equally-positive translation used by Muslim:

“That whosoever killed a human being, it shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind.”

The actual version (again) is:

“That whosoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy [sometimes ‘mischief’] in the land, shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind…”

This, of course, prompts the question: What would be deemed as “villainy” by Muslims?

What about what the Taliban has claimed about the Pakistani Army and others?

Anyway, here’s a list of what has been — and still is — classed as “villainy in the land” by millions of Muslims:

apostasy, churches, the possession of Bibles, homosexuality, preaching a religion other than Islam, all criticism of Islam, Muhammad, the Koran, not going to the mosque, sex outside marriage, atheism, Zionism, materialist philosophies and political views, secularism… basically anything non-Islamic and certainly everything anti-Islamic.

Let’s not mess about here.

Millions of Muslims today believe the very existence of people who aren’t Muslims — or lands that aren’t Islamic — are examples of “villainy in the land”.

 

Imperialism, Obama style

December 20, 2014

Imperialism, Obama style, Dan Miller’s Blog, December 20, 2014

Obama condemns “wicked” U.S. imperialism for supporting American values such as freedom and democracy abroad. Simultaneously, he tries to precipitate “regime change” in Israel so that she will support His values and those of Palestinians rather than American and Israeli values of freedom and democracy.

The Palestinians have placed before the United Nations Security Council a “peace proposal” intended to force Israel to agree to creation of a Palestinian state and “an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines” by the end of 2017. Secretary Kerry has argued that the matter should not be considered until after the Israeli Knesset elections in March. According to an article in Foreign Policy,

Speaking at an annual luncheon with the 28 European Union ambassadors, Kerry cautioned that any action by the U.N. Security Council would strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners who oppose the peace process. . . . [Emphasis added.]

“Kerry has been very, very clear that for the United States it was not an option to discuss whatever text before the end of the Israeli election,” according to a European diplomat.

The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the luncheon was confidential, said that Kerry explained that Israel’s liberal political leaders, Shimon Peres and Tipzi Livni, had expressed concern that a Security Council move to pressure Israel on the eve of election would only strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Naftali Bennett, an implacable foe of a Palestinian state and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party. Netanyahu is also fiercely opposed to the Palestinians effort to secure Security Council backing for its statehood drive. [Emphasis added.]

Kerry said Livni had “told him that such a text imposed by the international community would reinforce Benjamin Netanyahu and the hardliners in Israel,” as well as the hardliners in Palestine, according to the European diplomat.

The message, said another European diplomat, was that U.N. action would “give more impetus to more right-wing parties, that there was a risk this could further embolden the more right-wing forces along the Israeli political spectrum.” [Emphasis added.]

Kerry’s remarks highlight the Obama administration’s delicate balancing act when it comes to its tense relationship with the Israeli government. On the one hand, senior  administration officials make little attempt to hide the personal dislike between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama or their sharp disagreements on issues ranging from the peace process to Iran. On the other hand, Kerry and other top policymakers have tried to avoid saying or doing anything that could be seen as meddling in the Israeli election in an effort to oust Netanyahu and replace him with a more centrist prime minister. [Emphasis added.]

On an open microphone in March of 2012, Obama

told Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more flexibility after November’s election to deal with contentious issues such as missile defence. . . .

Obama’s candid remark was considered a gaffe because He made it assuming that the microphone had been turned off and that no one other than Medvedev would hear Him. Kerry, however, candidly but intentionally told twenty-eight European Union ambassadors that it is U.S. policy to encourage the Israeli left, to diminish the Israeli right and to make it more difficult for Prime Minister Netanyahu to remain in office. Aside from his incredible naivete, why did Kerry do that?

For Obama and European leaders, Israel is reducible to the peace process. And the Israeli left depends on the support of foreign governments for its network of foreign funded non-profit organizations. The Israeli left can’t let go of its exploding version of ObamaCare [Palestine] because the left is becoming a foreign organization with limited domestic support. Its electorate isn’t in Israel; it’s in Brussels. [Emphasis and bracketed insert added.]

. . . .

Escalating a crisis in relations has been the traditional way for US administrations to force Israeli governments out of office. Bill Clinton did it to Netanyahu and as Israeli elections appear on the horizon Obama would love to do it all over again.

There’s only one problem.

The United States is popular in Israel, but Obama isn’t. Obama’s spats with Netanyahu ended up making the Israeli leader more popular. The plan was for Obama to gaslight Israelis by maintaining a positive image in Israel while lashing out at the Jewish State so that the blame would fall on Netanyahu. [Emphasis added.]

Kerry’s remarks — covered by Israeli media — seem, contrary to his intentions, likely to enhance the chances of Israeli “hardliners” on the “right,” to hurt the chances of those on the left and hence to increase PM Netanyahu’s chances of remaining in office. Even leaving that aside, how will Kerry’s remarks favoring regime change be viewed by other increasingly reluctant U.S. allies in the Middle East?

Israeli “hardliners” have already yielded to the Palestinians as much as, if not more than, they can without greatly endangering the security of Israel because there is no Palestinian entity with which peace can be made other than through Israel’s suicide.

The remarks of the Islamic preacher at the mosque in Jerusalem reflect a general Palestinian view.

Interestingly, the speaker doesn’t mention the longing for Palestinian statehood or independence. Instead, he talks of the establishment of the “Islamic Caliphate.” “Oh Allah’” he states, “Hasten the establishment of the State of the Islamic Caliphate,” and further rants, “Oh Allah hasten the pledge of allegiance to the Muslim Caliph.” He spews forth the latter statement three times to chants of “Amen!” from the large, approving crowd congregating around him.

These comments, which would register horror and revulsion in the West (at least in some quarters) are almost banal among Palestinians. In fact, a similar video featuring a different speaker some days earlier at the same venue, conveyed identical sentiment, expressing admiration for the Islamic State and calling for murder of Jews and annihilation of America. [Emphasis added.]

Here’s the other video referenced in the article:

Guttural anti-Semitism is ingrained and interwoven in the fabric of Palestinian society. Despite their minuscule numbers, 78% of Palestinians believe that Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars while a whopping 88% believe that Jews control the global media and still more believe that Jews wield too much power in the business world. [Emphasis added.]

Much of the blame for this can be placed squarely on the doorstep of Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, which subjects the Palestinian population to a steady diet of hate-filled, Judeophobic rhetoric through state-controlled media and educational institutions. It is so well entrenched that the process of deprogramming, if it were ever attempted, would take generations to reverse. [Emphasis added.]

As noted in the Wall Street Journal article linked in the quote immediately above,

To understand why peace in Palestine is years if not decades away, consider the Palestinian celebrations after Tuesday’s murder in a Jerusalem synagogue of five Israelis, including three with joint U.S. citizenship. Two Palestinian cousins armed with meat cleavers and a gun attacked worshipers during morning prayers, and the response was jubilation in the streets.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility, while Hamas praised the murders as a “response to continued Israeli crimes.” The main obstacle to peace isn’t Jewish settlements in the multireligious city of Jerusalem. The barrier is the culture of hatred against Jews that is nurtured by Palestinian leaders. [Emphasis added.]

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas condemned the killings, but not without calling for Israel to halt what he called “invasions” of the holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Mr. Abbas has previously said the Temple Mount was being “contaminated” by Jews, despite assurances by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque are for Muslim worship only. The Memri news service reports that the Oct. 29 issue of the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida was full of false accusations that Israel is damaging Jerusalem’s holy sites. [Emphasis added.]

Moreover,

An overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs support the recent spate of terrorist attacks against Israelis, an opinion poll released Tuesday finds, according to The Associated Press (AP).[Emphasis added.]

The poll also found that more than half of Palestinian Arabs support a new “intifada” (uprising) against Israel, and that Hamas would win presidential elections if they were held today. [Emphasis added.]

Palestinian Arab pollster Khalil Shikaki said the results reflected anger over Israeli statements about Jerusalem, as well as a loss of hope following the collapse of U.S.-brokered peace talks and Israel’s recent war with Hamas in Gaza.

Shikaki heads the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which interviewed 1,270 people in the Palestinian Authority-assigned areas of Judea and Samaria and Gaza last week. The poll had an error margin of 3 percentage points.

“There is an environment in which violence is becoming a dominant issue,” Shikaki told AP. “This seems to be one of the most important driving forces.”

Hamas is, if possible, even worse than Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

Both Hamas and Abbas’ Palestinian Authority seek the death of Israeli Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only democratic and free nation in the Middle East. Kerry’s ill-conceived efforts to assist them at the expense of Israel, most recently by actively seeking to promote Israel’s left wing, to diminish its right wing and hence to empower Palestinians intent upon the death of Israel, may well fail. Succeed or fail, those efforts are consistent with Obama’s preference for Islamic dictators over democracy coupled with freedom.

Barack Mitsvah

Off Topic: Awed by Israel, 2016 Republican hopeful Ben Carson pledges support

December 20, 2014

Awed by Israel, 2016 Republican hopeful Ben Carson pledges support, Times of IsraelJOSEF FEDERMAN, December 20, 2014

Mideast-Israel-Carson_Horo-e1419086784255-635x357Ben Carson visits Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem on December 18, 2014. Carson, 63, a retired African-American neurosurgeon best known for his groundbreaking work in separating conjoined twins, has not yet declared his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination, saying that he is “strongly considering” a bid. (photo credit: AP Photo/Dan Balilty)

Carson said the criticism of the settlements has been exaggerated, and he asserted that Palestinian hostility toward Israel is what is preventing peace in the region. Of Netanyahu, Carson said, “I think he’s a great leader in a difficult time.”

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

JERUSALEM (AP) — In his first visit to Israel, prospective Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said he is in awe of the Jewish state, inspired by its ancient holy sites, impressed by the resilience of people living in a perpetual conflict zone — and deeply disappointed in President Barack Obama.

“I do not believe that Obama has been one to cultivate the relationship,” said Dr. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who has emerged as a favorite of some conservatives in the early field of possible GOP candidates.

“I would make it very clear that Israel and the United States have a long, cordial relationship, and I don’t think we should ever leave the Israelis in a position of wondering whether we support them,” Carson said in an hour long interview with The Associated Press in Jerusalem. “And that certainly is a question now.”

Carson, 63, perhaps best known for his groundbreaking work in separating conjoined twins, is largely unknown to most Americans. But he’s earned hero status among conservative activists thanks to his outspoken criticism of Obama’s health care law.

His rags-to-riches story — he had a hardscrabble childhood in inner-city Detroit — and his deep Christian faith also appeal to potential voters. While Carson has said he is “strongly considering” a bid, supporters have already opened offices in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

He is one of more than a dozen Republicans eyeing the presidency, and those with little international experience, such as Carson, are working to strengthen their resumes before formally announcing their 2016 plans.

Carson at Israeli hospitalBen Carson visits in Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, December 18, 2014. (photo credit: AP Photo/Dan Balilty)

Speaking to the AP, Carson expressed views that are common among Israel’s nationalist right wing. He showed sympathy for Israel’s much-maligned settlement movement and questioned the desire among Palestinians for peace. He even suggested that instead of Israel relinquishing captured land to make way for a Palestinian state, neighboring countries such as Egypt should provide the space for a future Palestine.

“That’s one possibility,” he said.

Carson is visiting Israel as a guest of “The Face of Israel,” a private group that sponsors trips for “influential decision makers” to promote a positive image of the country and counter “threats to Israel’s international legitimacy.” The trip has included visits to Israel’s northern front with Syria and the southern border with Gaza, and meetings with military officials and everyday people.

Although the U.S. remains Israel’s closest and most important ally, Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have little personal chemistry and have frequently clashed. The U.S. has been outspoken in its criticism of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem — captured areas claimed by the Palestinians as parts of a future state. At the same time, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has made numerous trips to the region and elsewhere to try to broker a peace deal.

Carson said the criticism of the settlements has been exaggerated, and he asserted that Palestinian hostility toward Israel is what is preventing peace in the region. Of Netanyahu, Carson said, “I think he’s a great leader in a difficult time.”

While he expressed sympathy for the plight of Palestinians, Carson said Israeli security concerns were more important in the short term, noting that after Israel’s withdrawal of troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the territory was overrun by Hamas militants. An Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, he said, would be even riskier, given its proximity to major Israeli cities.

“Until such time as their neighbors are no longer desirous of their elimination,” he said, Israel’s continued control of the West Bank “makes perfectly good sense.”

There is little disagreement among the GOP’s top prospects on American policy toward Israel, given religious conservatives’ overwhelming support for the Jewish state and the influence of conservative donors like billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, an outspoken Israel supporter who donated more to Republicans in the last presidential contest than anyone else.

Carson said he expects to make a decision on seeking the presidency by May. If he wins the job, he promised a different approach toward Israel.

“I would make sure that Israel knew that we had their back,” he said. “Because if their neighbors know that we’re backing them up, they’re not going to be anywhere near as aggressive.”

 

The Palestinians’ UN Charade Collapses

December 19, 2014

The Palestinians’ UN Charade Collapses, Commentary Magazine, December 19, 2014

[T]he endless quarrels between Obama and Netanyahu over the peace process are so pointless. No matter how much Obama tilts the diplomatic playing field in the Palestinians’ direction or how often he and his supporters prattle on about time running out for Israel, Abbas has no intention of signing a peace agreement. The negotiations as well as their maneuverings at the UN and elsewhere are nothing but a charade for the PA and nothing Netanyahu could do, including offering dangerous concessions, would change that. The sooner Western leaders stop playing along with their game, the better it will be for the Palestinian people who continue to be exploited by their leaders.

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

In the end, there wasn’t much suspense about the Obama administration’s decision whether to support a United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing a Palestinian state. After weeks of pointless negotiations over proposed texts, including a compromise endorsed by the French and other European nations, the wording of the proposal that the Palestinians persuaded Arab nations to put forward was so outrageous that even President Obama couldn’t even think about letting it pass because it would undermine his own policies. And the rest of the international community is just as unenthusiastic about it. In a very real sense this episode is the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict in a nutshell: the world wants to do something for the Palestinians but their leaders are more interested in pointless shows than in actually negotiating peace or doing something to improve the lives of their people.

The resolution that was presented to the Security Council was so extreme that Jordan, the sole Arab nation that is currently a member, didn’t want anything to do with it. But, after intense lobbying by the Palestinian Authority representative, the rest of the Arab nations prevailed upon Jordan and they put it forward where it will almost certainly languish indefinitely without a vote since its fate is preordained.

The terms it put forward were of Israeli surrender and nothing more. The Jewish state would be given one year to withdraw from all of the territory it won in a defensive war of survival in 1967 where a Palestinian state would be created. That state would not be demilitarized nor would there be any guarantees of security for Israel which would not be granted mutual recognition as the nation state of the Jewish people, a clear sign that the Palestinians are not ready to give up their century-long war against Zionism even inside the pre-1967 lines.

This is a diktat, not a peace proposal, since there would be nothing for Israel to negotiate about during the 12-month period of preparation. Of course, even if the Palestinians had accepted the slightly more reasonable terms proposed by the French, that would have also been true. But that measure would have at least given the appearance of a mutual cessation of hostilities and an acceptance of the principle of coexistence. But even those concessions, let alone a renunciation of the “right of return,” was not possible for a PA that is rightly fearful of being supplanted by Hamas. So long as Palestinian nationalism remains wedded to rejection of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders might be drawn, no one should expect the PA to end the conflict or actually make peace.

Though many of us have been understandably focused on the question of how far President Obama might go to vent his spleen at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government, that petty drama is, as it has always been, a sideshow distraction from the real problem at the core of the Middle East peace process: Palestinian rejectionism.

Though the administration has tirelessly praised PA leader Mahmoud Abbas as a champion of peace in order to encourage him to live up to that reputation, he had other priorities. Rather than negotiate in good faith with the Israelis, Abbas blew up the talks last year by signing a unity pact with Hamas that he never had any intention of keeping. The purpose of that stunt, like the current UN drama, isn’t to make a Palestinian state more likely or even to increase Abbas’s leverage in the talks. Rather, it is merely a delaying tactic, and a gimmick intended to waste time, avoid negotiations, and to deflect any pressure on the PA to either sign an agreement with Israel or to turn it down.

That’s not just because the Palestinians wrongly believe that time is on their side in the conflict, a dubious assumption that some on the Israeli left also believe. The reason for these tactics is that Abbas is as incapable of making peace as he is of making war.

This is not just another case of the Palestinians “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” in Abba Eban’s immortal and quite accurate summary of their actions over the years. It’s that they are so wedded to unrealistic expectations about Israel’s decline that it would be inconceivable for them to take advantage of any opening to peace. That is why they turned down Israeli offers of statehood, including control of Gaza, almost all of the West Bank, and a share of Jerusalem, three times and refused to deal seriously with a fourth such negotiation with Netanyahu last year.

And it’s why the endless quarrels between Obama and Netanyahu over the peace process are so pointless. No matter how much Obama tilts the diplomatic playing field in the Palestinians’ direction or how often he and his supporters prattle on about time running out for Israel, Abbas has no intention of signing a peace agreement. The negotiations as well as their maneuverings at the UN and elsewhere are nothing but a charade for the PA and nothing Netanyahu could do, including offering dangerous concessions, would change that. The sooner Western leaders stop playing along with their game, the better it will be for the Palestinian people who continue to be exploited by their leaders.