Ten False Assumptions Regarding Israel

By Alan Baker   

Institute for Contemporary Affairs  Vol. 16, No. 13

Israel is inundated with one-sided international resolutions, declarations, “peace plans,” and advice from governments, international organizations, leaders, pundits, and elements within the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities.

Most of the above rest on widely-held, false and mistaken assumptions regarding Israel, its leaders, government, policies, and positions held by the vast majority of the Israeli public.

These false and mistaken assumptions need to be addressed:

1. “Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank territories (Judea and Samaria) will provide Israel with security and international acceptance.”Wrong.

• Prior to Israel’s entry into the territories in the 1967 war, the Arab states made every effort to attack and weaken Israel militarily and diplomatically.
• The Arab and Iranian attempts today to challenge Jewish history in the Biblical land of Israel and in Jerusalem and the legitimacy of the State of Israel as a Jewish state still resonate in the international community, most recently in UNESCO.
• The Palestinians are committed to eventually establishing their state over all of mandatory Palestine and they indoctrinate their children this way.

Children “killing” an Israeli soldier, Hebron school, April 18, 2016

• The most recent, absurd initiative by the Palestinian leadership to prosecute Britain for issuing the 1917 Balfour Declaration proves the deeply-rooted Palestinian rejection of the existence of Israel.
• From Israel’s establishment in 1948 and up to present day, Israel has been, and continues to be the only UN member state denied its UN Charter-guaranteed right of “sovereign equality.”
• Clearly, withdrawal from the territories now under these conditions would threaten Israel’s security.

2. “Israel’s ‘occupation of the territories’ is illegal and a violation of international law.” Wrong.

• Israel entered the territories in 1967 after being attacked by all its neighbors, acting in self-defense against an offensive and aggressive war.
• Occupation of territory during an armed conflict is an accepted and recognized legal state-of-affairs in international law and practice.
• Israel has committed itself to abide by the international humanitarian and legal norms for the administration of such territories. Israel’s administration of the territories is under strict judicial supervision by Israel’s Supreme Court.
• The territory was never under Palestinian rule or sovereignty, and when it was under Jordanian control there was no intention by Jordan to turn it into a Palestinian state.
• The oft-used term in UN resolutions “occupied Palestinian territories” has no legal basis or validity whatsoever. It is not supported by any legal, historical or other binding document, and its use prejudges the outcome of a still pending negotiation.
• It is an accepted fact that the issue of the future of the territories is in dispute. Israel entertains valid, widely acknowledged and long-held historic and legal claims regarding the territories.
• Signed agreements between the Palestinian leadership and Israel have established an agreed framework for settling the territorial dispute through negotiation of their permanent status.
• Pending agreement between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the permanent status of the territory, no external, third-party political determination or resolution can establish that that the territories belong to the Palestinians.

3. “The Palestinian leadership is united and popularly supported.”Wrong.

• The Palestinian leadership is far from united. There is a total, irreconcilable disconnect between the Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria, and the Hamas administration in Gaza. The leadership is seen as incorrigibly corrupt. President Mahmoud Abbas is in the 11^th year of his four-year term. The Authority lacks internal credibility, accountability, and popular support.
• This situation undermines any confidence in a viable and united governance and representation of the Palestinians. It neutralizes any capacity to enter into and to implement any international commitment or obligation.

4. “The Palestinian leadership is moderate, willing to negotiate and to live in peace with Israel.” Wrong.

• The Palestinian leadership, is far from moderate, by any standard. Even without Hamas incitement, it engages in an officially-sanctioned policy of “de-normalization” vis-à-vis The leadership often praises, memorializes, and encourages Palestinian terrorists.

Palestinian Chairman Abbas, PA Television, September 16, 2015. (Palwatch)

• The Palestinian leadership refuses to resume negotiations, and refuses to meet or to enter into any dialogue with Israel’s leaders. It blocks contacts between Palestinians and Israelis at the diplomatic, professional, and people-to-people levels. This policy runs counter to Palestinian commitments in the Oslo Accords to encourage development cooperation and “people-to-people dialogues” at all levels.
• The Palestinian leadership initiates and openly supports boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) aimed at the delegitimization of Israel in the international community on international and regional organizations, international tribunals, and the UN and its specialized agencies.
• While Israel has expressed its willingness for the principle of “two states for two peoples,” the Palestinian leadership consistently refuses to accept the concept of Israel as the democratic nation state of the Jewish People.

5. “Israel’s settlements are illegal and violate international law.” Wrong.

• These allegations are based on a misreading of the relevant international laws and the reciprocal commitments between Israel and the PLO.
• The prohibition on the transfer of population into territory occupied during war, set out in the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, was specifically drafted in order to prevent a recurrence of the mass forcible population transfers that occurred during the Second World War. In the case of Israel’s settlement policy, there are no forced expulsions or coerced settling.
• This has no bearing on, or relevance to Israel’s settlement policy, which enables the legitimate utilization of non-privately-owned land pending the permanent settlement of the dispute. Use of non-privately-owned public land for settlement or for agriculture is fully consistent with accepted international norms as long as the status of the land is not changed pending its final negotiated outcome.
• As such, Israel’s settlements cannot be seen to be a violation of international law. Any determination of such is based on a selective, politically biased viewpoint taken outside the accepted international practice.
• Notwithstanding the divergence of views on the legality of Israel’s settlements, according to the Oslo Accords, this issue is an open negotiating issue between the Palestinians and Israel.
• Pending attainment of a negotiated settlement, the Oslo Accords place no freeze or restriction on either Israel or the Palestinians to engage in planning, zoning, and construction in the respective areas under its control. To the contrary, planning, zoning and construction are specifically permitted.
• Accordingly, arbitrary and unilateral predetermination as to the legitimacy of settlements, and any call for their removal prior to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians are inconsistent with the agreements and constitute prejudgment of a negotiating issue.
• The claim that the settlements are the source of the conflict holds no logic. The Arab-Israel conflict existed long before the establishment of any settlement, with efforts by the Arab states in 1948 to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel and their ongoing efforts since then to bring about its demise.

6. “Jerusalem belongs to the Arabs. The Jews have no rights or claims to it.” Wrong.

• The Palestinian leadership manipulates history and denies Jewish history and heritage in Jewish holy sites in its presentations to international organizations such as UNESCO. They cannot alter the historic fact that Jerusalem has, from time immemorial, been the epicenter of the Jewish religion and heritage. It also plays a major role in the history of Christianity. This is acknowledged in the Quran, the Old and New Testaments and in the writings of historians.
• Attempts by the Palestinian leadership to generate incitement and violence through false accusations regarding the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem have no basis and will not alter the fact that the issue of Jerusalem is an agreed negotiating issue between Israel and the Palestinians pursuant to the Oslo Accords.
• Any assumption or expectation that the Israeli public may be pressured into supporting demands for a unilateral withdrawal from Arab areas of east Jerusalem outside of a negotiated and agreed-upon framework is misplaced and has no basis in fact.

7. “The Israeli leadership and government are inflexible, extreme and oppose peace.” Wrong.

• The intense hostility towards Israel’s democratically-elected government is misplaced and insulting to the Israeli public.
• The tendency, especially in Europe and in international organizations, to accept outrageous Palestinian allegations against Israel, often old anti-Semitic canards, is nothing more than submission to cynical manipulation. Such allegations deliberately abuse the bona fides and sense of political correctness prevalent among Western countries and societies.
• This comes at the expense of genuine objective, historic, legal and factual analysis.
• Well-meaning and sincere European and American politicians, community-leaders and organizations together with international and regional organizations appear to feel that they are better-able and equipped, more-so than Israel’s elected leaders and the Israeli public, to know what is in the better interests of Israel.
• The Israeli public, whose voters and their elected officials face the threats of hostility and terror on a daily basis, have deep political awareness and are fully capable of determining the fate of Israel.
• The assumption that international pressure will bring about the downfall of Israel’s democratically-elected government belies the strength of Israel’s democracy and undermines the West’s democratic principles.

8. “The present status quo between Israel and the Palestinians is unsustainable.” Wrong.

• The present situation of political stalemate between the Palestinians and Israel is not the result of Israeli defiance, as claimed by some Western leaders, governments, and commentators.
• Israel has repeatedly expressed its willingness to resume the negotiation process immediately. Israel is committed in the Oslo Accords and has made it very clear that it has no intention of carrying out any unilateral action aimed at changing the status of the territories.
• The “present status quo” is determined by the fact that the Palestinian leadership consistently refuses to return to a negotiating table. It prefers to indulge the international community with its victimhood and to generate negative initiatives aimed at denying Israel’s character as the Jewish State, and delegitimizing Israel.
• Palestinian leadership prefers to conduct diplomatic warfare through boycotts against Israel and legal proceedings against Israel’s leaders in international and national courts.
• The one-sided imposition of politically oriented solutions is not an acceptable mode of changing the status quo.
• In the absence of a viable diplomatic process today, the current status quo is sustainable.

9. “Islamophobia is parallel to anti-Semitism.” Wrong.

• The tendency in the international community to link anti-Semitism with Islamophobia as two equal phenomena of racism is totally wrong. This tendency regrettably emanates from exaggerated political correctness on the part of many Western countries and communities.
• Anti-Semitism has been a tragic phenomenon conducted solely against Jews for thousands of years, causing massacres, pogroms, expulsions, public torture and executions, lynching, forced conversion, destruction of synagogues, enslavement, confiscation of belongings, culminating in the Nazi Holocaust.
• Anti-Semitic themes are a staple of Palestinian and Arab media, school curricula, cartoons, and sermons.

Palestinian cartoon after the murder of five rabbis in a Jerusalem synagogue, November 2014.

• The aim of anti-Semitism has been to exterminate and bring about the total genocide of the Jewish People as a race.
• Anti-Semitism cannot be compared or linked to Islamophobia, which emanates from the fear of Islam as a result of fanatical Islamic movements and the terror generated by them. It bears no relation whatsoever to any philosophy advocating genocide of Muslims.
• In this context, de-legitimization of Israel is seen by most Western states, as a new version of anti-Semitism.

10. “Israel is a racist state that violates human rights and practices apartheid.” Wrong

• This claim is repeated by Palestinian leaders and left-wing propagandists throughout the world. It was initially advocated by Yasser Arafat and adopted by NGO groups at discredited 2001 UN Conference on Racism at Durban.
• It is indicative of an evident lack of understanding of the racist nature of the phenomenon of “apartheid” and an even further and deeper misunderstanding of the character of Israel as an open, pluralistic and democratic society.

Israel Miss Universe pageant 2013 and the winner, second from the left, Yityish Aynaw, an Ethiopian Israeli (African Sun Times)

Israel Miss Universe pageant 2013 and the winner, second from the left, Yityish Aynaw, an Ethiopian Israeli (African Sun Times)

• The comparison of Israel to South Africa under white supremacist rule has been utterly rejected by those with intimate understanding of the old Apartheid system, especially South Africans. The aim of such propaganda, in addition to delegitimizing the very basis of existence of the State of Israel, is to cynically manipulate the international community and to encourage imposition of an international sanctions regime against Israel modeled on the actions against the former apartheid regime in South Africa.
• Israel is a multi-racial and multi-colored society, and the Israeli Arab population actively participates in the political process. Israeli Arabs enjoy complete equality and freedom of expression. They elect their own Knesset members and Arab judges serve in the Supreme Court. Israeli Arabs serve as heads of hospital departments, university professors, diplomats, and senior police and army officers.
• Each religious community has its own religious court system, applying Sharia, Canon, and Jewish law respectively.
• Unlike those Arab and other states in which one religion is declared the state religion, or Western countries where Christianity is the predominant religion, or Moslem countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia where certain areas, towns, and roads are restricted to “Moslems only,” and where women are treated as second-class citizens and gay people as criminals, Israeli law regards Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as official religions and constitutionally ensures complete freedom and equality to all.
• Incitement to or practice of racism in Israel is a criminal offence, as is any discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or gender. Israeli schools, universities, and hospitals make no distinction between Jews and Arabs.

Whether in day-to-day political and social discourse, or whether in the international and local media, the above canards appear repeatedly and consistently.

Communities, especially Jewish communities throughout the world, Christian congregations, students and academic staff, parliamentarians, publicists, as well as all well-meaning people in general, are being cynically targeted and manipulated in order to generate artificial narratives through repetition of lies and through distortion and perversion of truth.

It is to be hoped that this manipulation will be seen in its true light and will be rejected.

Front Page

ISIS Copies a Palestinian Tactic

EVELYN GORDON / AUG. 15, 2016

In my last post I discussed how Palestinian culture encourages suicidal youngsters to kill by offering a simple bargain: Murder a Jew, and you instantly become a hero. While the West has long turned a blind eye to this behavior, its refusal to look reality in the face is now coming back to haunt it. For today, the Islamic State is making the very same tempting offer to distraught Muslims in Western countries–murder a Westerner, and you can instantly become a hero instead of a failure.

It’s no accident that several recent terror attacks in Western countries have been carried out by people who apparently had histories of mental illness, including Nice, Orlando, and several attacks in Germany. Nor is it any accident that the Islamic State is cultivating such people. As with many other terrorist techniques pioneered by the Palestinians, ISIS has copied this one precisely because it proved successful–and not just as a means of recruiting assailants.

This tactic also serves two other important purposes. First, it encourages an already strong Western tendency to ignore the terrorists’ true aims. I discussed this with regard to the Palestinians in my previous post; a classic example concerning the Islamic State was Kenan Malik’s op-ed in the New York Times on Tuesday. “In the past, groups employing terrorism, such as the Irish Republican Army or the Palestine Liberation Organization, were driven by specific political aims: a united Ireland or an independent Palestine,” Malik wrote. “Jihadists are different. They have little or no explicit political aim but are driven by a visceral hatred of the West.”

In reality, Islamic State is quite open about its aims: It wants to destroy the West and establish a global Islamic caliphate. Indeed, being open about its goals is part of how it attracts new recruits, just as Palestinian organizations attract support by boasting of their efforts to destroy the Jewish state. But at the same time, both the Palestinians and ISIS would prefer that the West not take their goals too seriously since, if it did, it might stop supporting the Palestinians or actually get serious about destroying ISIS.

The use of emotionally distressed recruits is an ideal way for terrorists to foster confusion about their aims because it makes it even easier for well-meaning Westerners to reassure themselves that Islamist death cults, which exploit such distress to turn people into killers, aren’t actually the problem. The real issue, they tell themselves, is mental health or social alienation.

Second, this tactic helps divide the West and turn it against itself, because it reinforces another existing tendency of many well-meaning Westerners–blaming the victim for having driven the attacker to such a dreadful deed. Westerners have been blaming Palestinian terror on Israel for years, and now, many are blaming themselves for ISIS.

A classic example of this tendency emerged the day after deadly attacks killed 129 people at the Bataclan concert hall and other venues around Paris last November. Anshel Pfeffer of Haaretz visited the 11th arrondissement, one of the neighborhoods where attacks took place and discovered that people “aren’t angry, at least not at the perpetrators.”

The terrorists are “stupid, but they aren’t evil,” a woman who works at one of the district’s theaters told him. “They are victims of a system that excluded them from society, that’s why they felt this doesn’t belong to them and they could attack. There are those who live here in alienation, and we are all to blame for this alienation.”

Some of the others blamed French or American foreign policy. But “no one wanted to talk about Islamists or the Islamic State, even after it took responsibility for the attacks,” Pfeffer wrote. “It was hard to find anyone at this gathering who would say a bad word about the attackers.”

Using assailants with a history of mental or emotional problems is an ideal way for terrorists to reinforce this tendency as well, because it enables people to focus on the assailant’s distress, and society’s failure to deal with it, rather than on the evil intent of those who incited him to kill by telling him he would thereby become a hero instead of a loser.

Yet both gambits are working for ISIS now precisely because Westerners were conditioned for decades to believe them by the way their own journalists, academics, and political leaders insistently treated Palestinian terror as Israel’s fault.

Some Westerners, like the young Parisians interviewed by Pfeffer, have so internalized this attitude that they simply transfer it to their own countries; asserting that their society, too, must be to blame for the attacks against it. Others, like Malik, perform a kind of inversion: Indoctrinated to believe that terror is the victim’s fault, yet unable to believe their own societies evil enough to merit such attacks, they resolve the dilemma by asserting that unlike Palestinian violence–which Malik deems “rational” and “governed by certain norms”– jihadist violence must be senseless than rather than purposeful. “It is the arbitrariness of jihadist violence and its disregard for moral bounds that make it terrifying,” he proclaimed (he evidently thinks murdering random civilians in Israel is well within moral bounds).

But whichever approach they choose, the one thing people like Malik and those young Parisians aren’t doing is putting the blame where it belongs: on the terrorist leaders who groom perpetrators to commit mass murder by indoctrinating them to believe that the road to glory runs through killing others.

Terror can never be defeated until Westerners recognizes the crucial role played by this glorification of murder. And that won’t happen as long as the West keeps giving it a pass among the Palestinians, for they are the ones who pioneered this culture of death and inspired all the subsequent copycats.

Could a South China Sea Dispute Affect Palestinian Statehood?

RAFAEL MEDOFF 8-12-16

Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and coauthor, with Prof. Sonja Schoepf Wentling, of the new book "Herbert Hoover and the Jews: The Origins of the 'Jewish Vote' and Bipartisan Support for Israel."

http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/08/12/could-a-south-china-sea-dispute-affect-palestinian-statehood/

JNS.org – Could satellite photos of a tiny island in the South China Sea affect the debate over creating a Palestinian state?

The photos, released earlier this week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), show that China is building military aircraft hangars on the disputed Spratly Islands. That violates a promise China’s president, Xi Jinping, made to President Barack Obama less than a year ago, that “China does not intend to pursue militarization” of the islands.

Moreover, a United Nations tribunal ruled last month that China’s claim to the Spratly Islands and other nearby territories is “unlawful.” Yet the international community has taken no action against either the illegal Chinese occupation or China’s militarization steps.

Israeli policymakers might want to keep an eye on these developments. Israel’s leaders have said any future Palestinian state would have to be completely demilitarized. But can Israel rely on the international community to enforce the demilitarization rules if the Palestinians violate them?

Perhaps the most infamous experiment in demilitarization involved the Rhineland, an area of western Germany along the border with France, Belgium and Holland. The 1925 Locarno Pact, signed in the aftermath of World War I, required that the Rhineland be permanently demilitarized. But when Hitler sent his troops to occupy the Rhineland in March 1936, the Locarno signatories — Britain, France and Italy — stood idly by.

Pacifist sentiment was strong in England; treaty or no treaty, the Brits were in no mood to confront the Nazis. Lord Lothian, the veteran British diplomat, rationalized the militarization of the Rhineland as “no more than the Germans walking into their own backyard.” The French, who now found themselves within shooting distance of the Wehrmacht, were not quite so sanguine about the latest developments. But with France mired in economic troubles and national elections just months away, French Prime Minister Albert Sarraut was unwilling to risk a costly conflict with Hitler.

The United States was not a party to the Locarno agreement, but what President Franklin Roosevelt said mattered in the world arena. In this case, he didn’t say much. Determined to maintain friendly relations with Germany, FDR refrained from explicitly condemning Hitler’s Rhineland action. He would not even send US observers to a League of Nations discussion of German aggression. Shortly after the Rhineland crisis erupted, Roosevelt headed off for a two-week fishing trip in the Bahamas, which coincidentally helped him evade questions about the controversy.

Israelis don’t need to go back to the 1930s for examples of how the world might respond if a Palestinian state began importing tanks or missiles. They have had some bitter experience in this area in recent decades.

The late Israeli diplomat and politician Abba Eban describes in his autobiography how the Nixon administration pressured Israel to accept a ceasefire in the 1970 War of Attrition, promising that Egypt would not be allowed to move its missiles close to the Suez Canal. “Within a few days of the conclusion of the cease-fire agreement,” Eban writes, “our head of military intelligence…was reporting…the Egyptians had begun to move their missiles forward as soon as the ink was dry on the agreement.” Nixon’s response “was evasive,” Eban charitably recalled. The US administration “professed not to know that the violations were taking place.” No action was taken against the Egyptians.

An even more current example presents itself. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which consists of 10,506 soldiers (and 848 civilian advisers) is pledged to ensure that southern Lebanon is kept “free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area.” That commitment from the international community is supposed to protect Israel’s northern border. Yet Hezbollah has stationed more than 100,000 missiles in that area, according to Israeli military estimates. The missiles are aimed at Israel. And UNIFIL refrains from intervening.

All of which leaves some Israelis wondering how international promises would fare if a demilitarized Palestinian state decided to remilitarize. When push comes to shove, would world leaders decide, as FDR did, to go fishing?

Dr. Rafael Medoff is author or editor of 16 books about Jewish history, including The Historical Dictionary of Zionism (with Chaim I. Waxman).

Russian Reactions To The Putin-Erdogan Meeting

MEMRI

Kommersant Columnist: This Is In Many Senses A Rapprochement ‘Under Duress’

In an article titled “Why It’s difficult for Russia and Turkey to Become Strategic partners” Kommersant columnist Maxim Usim analyzed the current state of Russo-Turkish rivalries and disagreements.[2] Usim wrote that the first and the most important disagreement concerns diametrically opposed positions on the Syrian issue – Russia favors keeping Assad in power, Turkey wants him out. Turkey has not ceased its support for the Syrian opposition, which is trying to storm Aleppo and which is under Russian fire these very minutes.

The second problem is posed by the Kurds: for Erdogan, Syrian Kurds are adversaries, separatists and PKK allies. For Moscow, Syrian Kurds are potential allies. The third problem is the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh: Turkey supports Azerbaijan while Russia supports Armenia, its ally in the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The fourth problem is Turkish influence in the former Soviet republics whose population is of Turkish origin (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan and Turkmenistan) – Ankara and Moscow are geopolitical competitors in those areas. The fifth problem is that various anti-Russian groups – Northern Caucasian, Crimean Tatars and others are operating in Turkey. If Erdogan wants to restrain them per Moscow’s request, he will encounter serious opposition at home. The sixth problem is the prevailing lack of confidence between Ankara and Moscow: Moscow did not forget the announcement that Turkish officials made following the downing of the Russian jet. And finally – this is in many senses a rapprochement “under duress”: the West is very reserved towards Moscow and Ankara and thus both Moscow and Ankara are attempting to break the isolation, while there is no assurance that in case Turkish relations with Europe and the US are normalized, Turkey will continue pursuing the Moscow track. However, considering that the two countries were on the verge of a military conflict half a year ago, the talks represent huge progress and provide hope that the sides will try to resolve some of the above enumerated problems.

The same opinion is shared by Sergey Zheleznyak, vice-speaker of the Duma. Commenting on the Putin-Erdogan meeting, the vice-speaker listed the following matters as “complicated problems” that need to be solved in Russia-Turkey mutual relations: the Kurdish question, blocking the smuggling of weapons and oil products through the Turkish-Syrian border, and the fate of terrorists who still reside in Turkish territory. He then added: “Without solving those fundamental questions of international security and without long term partnership with our country Turkey will face serious difficulties in having peaceful and stable development in the modern world.”[3]

Russian Middle East Expert: ‘Russian Air Force In Aleppo Does Not Have Much Time Before Ankara Resumes…Aid To Islamist Terror Groups’

According to several Russian commentators, these differences of policies and views between Russia and Turkey make Erdogan an unreliable partner in settling the Syrian crisis. Prominent Russian Middle East expert, president of the Moscow-based Institute for Middle East Studies,Evgenii Satanovski wrote in his analytical article on future Russia-Turkey relations: “Contemporary Turkey will be a country of Erdogan’s personal rule [Satanovski uses the term that was used to describe the Stalin era in the USSR] throughout his presidency. Turkey will only formally preserve the democratic institutions and a parliament, will remain part of NATO, but won’t react to criticism by Western allies  onthe inadmissible destruction of human rights. It’s hard to tell when Erdogan considers that the total control over security forces is achieved and hits Syria – but it won’t take too long. Thus, Russian air force in Aleppo does not have much time before Ankara resumes military and technical aid to Islamist terror groups in that territory.”[4] 

Igor Korotchenko, director of the Russian Center for the Analysis of the Global Arms Trade and a candidate for parliament from the nationalist Rodina (Homeland) Party said in an interview to RIA that in order to reach a full normalization with Moscow, Turkey has to block the Turkish –Syrian border and deny weapons smuggling, start fighting ISIS on the ground and interdict financial aid to ISIS. Korotchenko also said that Turkey must officially recognize Assad as the sole legitimate authority in Syria.  “If all of that is accomplished, we will be convinced that Turkey has seriously corrected its foreign policy. As for now, Erdogan’s announcements made in Russia are just words. He has to confirm the words with real deeds,” said Korotchenko.[5]

Vzglyad Columnist: ‘Erdogan, Like Him Or Not, Is One Of The Independent Leaders’

Despite the differences of views between the two leaders, Petr Akopov, columnist for Russian online newspaper Vzglyad, wrote that Erdogan and Putin fit each other. Akopov assessed that “Erdogan is neither a friend nor a foe of Russia – he’s independent ruler, who is not afraid of taking decisions and is supported by his people. And this is exactly what makes him an important and interesting partner for Putin”. The author continues: “Most heads of foreign states, whom Putin encounters are not his equal – neither intellectually nor in strength of will, but in terms of their roles and functions. Those heads of states are merely managers hired by the elites – some have more powers, others – less. No western leader is capable of making a decision – by himself – on the issues that really matter. Moreover, not one of them thinks in decades-long terms, considers the lessons of the past and has a clear picture of his own country’s future… Erdogan, like him or not, is one of the independent leaders. Taking into consideration Turkey’s weight in the world and especially in the Middle East, this makes him a very important figure, that [Putin] can talk to seriously”. The author adds: “Erdogan will not exit NATO and will not enter the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but the mere vector of his rule will diminish the influence of the Atlanticists on Turkey and will bring [Turkey] closer to Russia, China and Iran…Erdogan has no alternative but to strengthen Russia-Turkey relations. Not because he likes Russia or Putin too much but because Turkey requires independence and stability, taking into account that Turkey wants to be a state where the native figures, professing the same faith as the majority of the people, rule rather than Westernized elites alien to the people. This is exactly Erdogan’s path – and this is Putin’s main bet on working with him, because Putin himself follows the same path of geopolitical and civilizational independence.”[6]

Georgi Bovt, a columnist for the Russian news site Gazeta.ru, wrote in an article titled “A Long Term Game” that Turkey maybe a useful political partner for Russia, since Moscow needs to diversify its allies in the East. He then added that Moscow may exploit Turkey’s worsening relations with EU and US for its own benefit. Bovt wrote: “We need to recognize that the major long term strategic threats to Russia do not derive from Europe, even if four NATO regiments are deployed there in former Warsaw Pact countries. The threats do not emanate from ‘accursed’ America with its State Department and CIA, even if there is a harsh military-political rhetoric, heated up by our former brothers from the Warsaw pact.” The major long term strategic threats stem from the burning and disintegrating Middle East, which is feeding terroristic Islamism and the threats are stemming from China, despite our own pontifications about “turning to the East”. Russia may utilize new opportunities regarding Ankara, taking into consideration that Russia needs to diversify its attitudes and relations in the East and avoid excessive dependence on China.”[7]

Conspiracy Theories – Col-Gen (ret) Ivashov: ‘The [US] Desire[s] To Push Russia Into A Military Conflict With Europe, [And] Turkey’

Among the reactions to the Putin-Erdogan meeting, the popular pro-Kremlin newspaperKomsomolskaya Pravda published an extensive interview by its military correspondent colonel (ret) Viktor Baranez with colonel-general (ret) Leonid Ivashov, former commander of the Main Directorate of International Cooperation of the Russian MOD, and a professor at the Moscow State Diplomatic University.

Ivashov explained that the West had a clear strategy towards the Middle East, which eventually backfired and delivered Erdogan into Moscow’s hands: “At first US finance and petro capital unleashed the geopolitical tragedy in the Middle East in order to subjugate Europe and Asia to dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which is controlled by American companies and satellites like Saudi Arabia or Qatar. The prepared role of the Middle East itself was to be a ‘region of chaos’, and source of terror that spread destabilization to Europe, Asia, Russia. For that reason they’ve needed to destroy regimes firmly connected to Russia, China and Europe. I refer to Iraq, Lybia, Syria and Mubarak’s Egypt, which tried to free itself from American ‘custodianship’. I also refer to Iran which was gaining geo-political might and confronting US and Israel politics in the region.” Ivashov then added that Erdogan followed American policy in the region until he understood that the US treats him as “worn-out” material while the US was – just in case – quietly supporting his rival Fethullah Gullen, a leader of military and religious opposition. Ivashov mentioned that the very minute Erdogan began thinking about re-approaching Russia, apologizing for the downed jet, a terror attack occurred in Istanbul airport, which could not have been executed by the Kurds or ISIS for political reasons. Ivashov concluded that that was the first shot heralding the attempted coup, which followed Erdogan’s firm decision to re-engage Russia. “Erdogan understands who was behind the coup, and that Russia was the only real place he could take refuge in…  The whole idea behind the turmoil in the Middle East, including Turkey, is the [American] desire to push Russia into a military conflict with Europe, Turkey and whoever in order to stop Russia’s resurrection, regain control over Eurasia, eliminate economic competitors and to stop China’s advance,” concluded Ivashov.[8]

Endnotes:

[1] Ria.ru, August 9, 2016.

[2] Kommersant.ru, August 9, 2016.

[3] Ria.ru, August 9, 2016.

[4] Vz.ru, August 9, 2016.

[5] Ria.ru, August 9, 2016.

[6] Vz.ru, August 9, 2016.

[7] Gazeta.ru, August 8, 2016.

[8] Kp.ru, August 8, 2016.

Front Page

Hillary’s Deadly Iran Deal

By Shmuley Boteach 8-9-16

Let’s focus for a moment on two major headlines that appeared on the same day last week. The first claimed that Donald Trump was continuing to feud with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of murdered American war hero Humayun Khan. The second said that President Obama last January sent the Iranian regime $400 million in cash, which in all likelihood will be used to fund terrorism.

Now, I will never defend Trump’s gratuitous insults to so many groups, especially the grieving parents of a fallen American soldier. It’s unforgivable and Trump must apologize. The same is true of his immoral proposal to temporarily ban Islamic immigrants into the US, which I have repeatedly denounced.

But for all that, which is worse? Trump’s utterly offensive insults, or Obama secretly giving a terrorist regime nearly half a billion dollars in cold cash?

Hillary Clinton has vowed to continue Obama’s policies on Iran, handing over to the mullahs $150 billion and honoring the nuclear agreement that in about 10 years will make it legal for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Are Trump’s unforgivable verbal put-downs of Mexicans, Muslims and parents of fallen soldiers — disgusting as they are — worse than Hillary’s actions in funding a state sponsor of terrorism and facilitating the Iran nuclear agreement, which she proudly lists as an accomplishment?

There is the age-old Jewish question of whether words or actions are more consequential, to which the answer is clear: while words are always important, actions are infinitely more so.

Hillary’s participation in, and stated commitment to, continuing the funding of Iran — which will use the money to make orphans and widows, with Americans and Israelis at the top of the list — is the far greater danger.

There is no excuse for Trump’s appalling insults, whether about John McCain, a Mexican-American judge or — especially — the Khans. But, however reprehensible, these are still words.

The money that the President Obama is giving to Iran is not offensive; it is deadly. Hillary Clinton’s plans to continue to give Iran cold, hard cash will not just offend sensibilities. It will kill people.

In saying this, I accept that my argument only applies if Trump’s words are never translated into action. And I expect that they cannot be.

There is no reasonable way for Trump to enforce a ban on Muslim immigrants, a position that he might now, in any event, be retreating from. And while Trump may indeed build a wall between the United States and Mexico, I don’t see that wall, which I understand offends many, leading to the murder of innocents. Likewise, if Trump continues to insult the parents of fallen American war heroes, he will continue to invite the contempt and scorn of a large number of Americans, myself included. But it will not lead to American soldiers dying. President Obama’s plane-load of cash to Iran will.

Hillary allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon by continuing with the catastrophic Iran nuclear agreement, which Iran has repeatedly violated, can be potentially genocidal, as Ayatollah Ali Khameini, the Supreme Leader, has made clear.

I wish I could sit Trump down in a locked room and tell him I’m not going to let him out until he understands that I have a son serving in the IDF on the Israel-Lebanon border right across from Hezbollah, Iran’s terror proxy army. If Hillary wins the election, Hezbollah will get billions more money funneled from a Clinton administration that can, God forbid, further endanger my son’s life. “Can you therefore, Mr. Trump, rein in your gratuitous insults, so as not to hand Hillary the election? Have you no self-control?”

Sadly, I don’t have that kind of relationship with Mr. Trump, and I’m not sure he would listen to me if I did.

As an American Jew who believes that stopping genocide is the foremost issue of any age, my number one concern today is stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and stopping its weapons flow to terrorists. But senior Obama adviser Ben Rhodes revealed to the New York Times that the administration, with Hillary as secretary of state, was negotiating with Iran even when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president.

In Christianity, personal salvation always comes before communal redemption. It’s the righteousness of the man that matters. In Judaism, however, communal salvation is paramount. A person’s character is subordinate to his actions and the mark he leaves on the world.

I could not care less about Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. While others condemned him for demeaning the office of the presidency, I always maintained that his failure to stop the 1994 Rwandan genocide was infinitely worse. What Clinton did behind closed doors had no impact on our lives. But what he did not do to stop the Rwandan slaughter meant that for a period of three months, hundreds of Africans were being slaughtered every hour without anyone to save them.

What would the world look like if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had not been president, despite the fact that he died with his mistress in Warm Springs, Georgia — even though he had in Eleanor Roosevelt a wife who was universally admired?

John F. Kennedy saved the world from potential nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis, even as he humiliated the world’s most glamorous woman with repeated affairs.

When it comes to leadership, it’s not personal morality that we look for, but public contribution to the world’s improvement. Hillary Clinton has promised to fund a government that hangs gays and stones women  — which speaks to a general unwillingness to confront evil.

In 2010, she gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu what’s been described as a 43-minute tongue-lashing on the issue of Israeli settlements and boasted to the Washington Post, “I was often the designated yeller” of the Obama administration to Bibi. Hillary wants to reward Palestinian kleptocracy and terror with the creation of a Palestinian state, even as PA President Mahmoud Abbas incites the murder of Jews in the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Can Donald Trump change his behavior and stop the insults? Perhaps not. If he continues, he is almost certain to lose the election. But Hillary’s pledge to continue to fund Iran must be even more strongly resisted.

Shmuley Boteach, whom The Washington Post calls “the most famous rabbi in America” is the author most recently of “The Israel Warriors Handbook.” Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Israeli Think Tank Says Iranian Desire to Destroy Jewish State is Part of Regime’s ‘Founding Vision’

David Daoud  8-16-15

Ayatollah Khamenei. Photo: wiki commons.

Israeli think tank, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, published a report on Sunday that extensively details Iran’s threats to destroy Israel.

In the report, the author, Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall, calls Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei the “chief agitator for the extermination of Israel.” He says this position is a continuation of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s “founding vision” that “the eradication of Zionism is an inevitable precondition for redeeming contemporary Islam.”

According to the report, this fight to destroy the Jewish state has been an axiomatic directive of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the founding of the theocracy in 1979, which could never be “questioned or strayed from,” and was an “objective to be perpetually and actively pursued.”

Segall asserts that this enmity has filtered down through the ranks of the Tehran regime’s military, intellectual and political leadership, and is a centerpiece of touted moderate President Hassan Rouhani’s foreign policy just as much as it was for infamous former President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad.

The Iranian armed forces, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the IRGC’s Quds Force have declared their readiness to attempt to destroy Israel once the order is given, says Segall, and have thrown their weight behind international anti-Israel activities, terrorist attacks, and even conferences that deny the occurrence of the Holocaust.

This hostility towards Israel, he asserts, allows Iran to fulfill two main aspects of Khomeini’s ideology: exporting the worldview of the ruling mullahs by posing as a champion of the Palestinian cause, expanding its regional influence in the process, and ultimately gaining enough power to pose a significant threat to Israel.

Therefore, Segall concludes, Iran keeps fanning the flames of anti-Israel hatred through supplying terrorist organizations and organizing rallies like the International Quds Day rallies calling for Israel’s destruction.

Don’t be duped about Muslim migration to the US

By Ted Belman

Donald Trump keeps referencing that Obama let in 10,000 “Syrian” refugees and saying that Hillary wants to increase it by 550%. The a small number but a large increase.  I decided to do some googling on the matter because I thought the number was more like a million.

The first article that I came up with was published on Dec 10/15 by NBC News titled Mass Muslim MIgration mostly a Mirage:

Donald Trump might be tapping into Americans’ wariness with his call to stop all Muslims from coming into the U.S., a new poll finds — but the flood of Islamic immigrants is a mirage.

Not one predominantly Muslim nation makes the list of top 10 countries of origin for legal immigrants in 2013, according to the most recent census figures compiled by the Migration Policy Institute.

At #14, Pakistan was the top-ranked Islamic country with 13,251 legal permanent residents — just 1 percent of the total 990,553 immigrants who received Green Cards that year, the figures showed.

“Definitely as a share of the foreign population, Middle Eastern and North African immigrants are small,” Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the organization’s U.S. immigration policy project, told NBC News. “But right now there is a lot of fear about terrorism and that affects how people perceive those numbers.”

There has been for several years a “perception that immigration has been out of control is disproportionate to the facts on the ground,” Rosenblum said. “The numbers of people immigrating to the U.S. have been pretty stable the last few years, and illegal immigration is much lower than it was a decade ago.”

“Now the total foreign population is a third Mexican and three-quarters Latin American and Asian,” said Rosenblum. “Europe accounted for just 12 percent of the foreign-born population in 2013. It was 75 percent in 1960.”

Two years ago, the top three Green Card recipient countries were Mexico, 135,028, China, 71,798, and India, 68,458, according to the figures.

Only 9,552 Iraqis and 1,463 Saudis got Green Cards in 2013. As for Syrians, whom Trump and much of the GOP wants to bar from the United States, just 3,366 were granted permanent residency.

When it comes to other Muslim countries, 10,294 Egyptians, 3,532 Yemenis, 2,783 Lebanese and 376 Libyans were allowed into the U.S. in that year.

Three-quarters of GOP voters think Muslim immigration is already too high and nearly the same percentage is convinced that Syrian refugees are too dangerous to let into the country, according to the poll.

After reading this article I was reassured. The problem wasn’t as big as I thought it was. I then did some more googling and learned that Muslims constituted about 1% of the US population, a manageable percentage. But I was wrong and was being misled.

One of my friends referred me to this link. https://www.facebook.com/TheKellyFile/videos/1813461242202066/

Be sure to watch it twice.

According to the Report, Obama has issued over 832,000 green cards to Muslim majority countries in his first 6 years of his presidency. In addition, 482,000 Muslims overstayed their visas and are not being sent back.. These  Muslims support Sharia  to an astonishing degree. In Afghanistan 99%, in Iraq 91% and in Pakistan 70%. When in the US 70% vote Democrat.

And now Obama is intending to allow in another 1 million Muslims.

Then American Thinker published an article by Elise Cooper entitled, Sen. Jeff Sessions: Trump Is Right on Muslim Immigration Ban.

Once again Donald Trump has opened a dialogue about a controversial issue.  As he did with illegal immigration, he has brought to the forefront his desire to keep Americans safe by temporarily banning Muslims from entering the U.S.  His critics are from the left and right, calling him a divider and a racist.  Those in the Republican establishment hint at preventing the ban by any means, including threatening to sue Trump if he becomes president and issues the executive order.  Too bad they have done nothing regarding President Obama’s executive orders.  American Thinker asked the chairman of Donald Trump’s national security committee, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), about this issue.

Donald Trump has called for a ban, stating, “Although the pause is temporary, we have to find out what is going on.  It will be lifted, this ban, when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen this country.”

Even those in the Obama administration question the vetting process.  People should not forget that FBI director James Comey has said several times that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct a thorough background check on all the Syrian refugees.  Just last week, CIA director John Brennan concurred that Syrian refugees cannot be fully vetted because there are no databases available and that ISIS is working to smuggle Syrians into countries through the refugee process.

A poll published in 2014 by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that 13% of Syrian refugees have positive feelings toward the Islamic State terrorist group.  This means that 8,450 of 65,000 refugees Hillary Clinton wants to allow into this country could have terrorist ties or be radicalized.

Senator Jeff Sessions referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, which shows that throughout the Obama administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the president’s watch.

Eric Bolling, whose book Wake Up America is due out next week, told American Thinker, “After Trump made his statement about temporarily banning Muslims from entering the U.S., the left and half the right went crazy.  Let’s not forget that the Orlando terrorist had contacts with those who were in Syria.  Let’s err on the side of caution until we fix the problem.”

He has a good point, considering that the driving force behind the San Bernardino terrorist attack was the wife.  She passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan, and nothing was ever uncovered about her online views on violent jihad.  Immigration officials also allowed into this country a terrorist, convicted in an Israeli court and later released in a prison swap, because they never caught her lies on the application.  In November 2014, a federal jury found her guilty of illegally obtaining naturalization.  Not to mention that all the 9/11 terrorists entered this country legally.

Senator Sessions told American Thinker, “Thirty refugees have already been convicted of terrorism, so we know they are not always peaceful.  Now the President is accelerating the speed of admitting Syrian refugees.”

The senator said, “We have no duty to morally or legally admit people.  The Immigration Naturalization Act says the president can refuse entry to ‘any alien or class of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of the U.S.’  It is appropriate to be aggressive in our vetting.  Questions can be asked: do you believe in religious freedom, do you believe in sharia law or the Constitution, and do you respect minorities such as women and gays.  We are not required to admit people if their philosophies or principles are contrary to the Constitution.  We have to understand that most Muslims do not adhere to this extreme ideology, but there is nothing wrong to refuse admittance to those who distance themselves from our values.  We need to use common sense with the who-what-where of the threat.  It is the toxic ideology of Islam.”

A British poll in April of this year supports what Donald Trump and Senator Sessions are stating.  Among the results: 52% believe that homosexuality should be illegal, 47% do not want homosexuals working as teachers, 39% want their wives always to obey their husbands, 33% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet Muhammad, and about 25% favor replacing the British legal system with Islamic law.  Another recent poll found that 99% of Afghans believe in sharia law.  This is not good news for American values of freedom of religion, speech, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is not Donald Trump who should be criticized, but President Obama.  His policies to keep Americans safe at home are deeply flawed.  The president calls out his critics but never Islamic extremist radicals.  Unlike many other candidates, Trump has forced people to know who the true enemy is.

Senator Sessions noted, “Hillary Clinton had to back down and acknowledge the radical extremist threat and capitulated after Donald Trump called her out.”  President Obama also was forced to respond, calling a news conference to defend his policies and unfairly criticizing Trump.  Yet in agreement with Trump’s definition of who is the enemy are Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, who blasted the Islamist extremists.  English prime minister David Cameron and French prime minister Manuel Valls, meanwhile, admitted that there is a war against radical Islam.

Instead of calling out Donald Trump, the Obama administration might want to listen to the senator and former law enforcement officers who agree with what Sessions told American Thinker: “federal officers have been restricted too much in their ability to conduct investigations.  You are not going to be very effective if you are intimidated in conducting basic inquiries.”  A retired FBI Agent summarized their feelings: “given the current philosophy of the administration, they do not want Muslims investigated unless there is clear information or evidence indicative of criminal activity.  Therefore, in evaluating these cases, the FBI is likely going to be very conservative in their approach to these matters unless they have clear and unambiguous factual information meeting the threshold of ‘predication.’”

When asked if he would agree to be Donald Trump’s vice president, the senator responded, “He is going to find someone a lot better than me.  I look forward to whoever he chooses, and I would be honored to consider such a request.”  Actually, it would be the American people who would be honored if he served.  Senator Sessions understands, unlike many of the current leadership, that this is a time to pause and to make sure a policy is in place that serves American interests.

People should be thankful that Donald Trump laid out the problems and what is needed to keep those in the U.S. safe: make sure people with radical and dangerous views that are contrary to the values of America be excluded from entering the U.S.

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.