IGNORING KORANIC SURAS 8 AND 9 (PROCLAMATIONS JUSTIFYING WAR AGAINST THE INFIDEL)

McChrystal, Tocqueville, and the Koran: The Postmodern ‘COINage’ of a Failed Policy

References to the Koran are all-but-missing from “COIN,” our counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. In contrast, 150 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville knew better.
June 29, 2010 – by Andrew G. Bostom

Just over nine months ago, on September 20, 2009, the Department of Defense released a declassified version of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s assessment of the war in Afghanistan. The Washington Post published a version of this report with minor deletions of material that officials maintained could compromise future operations, rather than a copy of the document marked “confidential.” Although Gen. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency (COIN)-based analysis, “updated” for the Afghanistan theater, at least mentioned the “Koran” (a word omitted entirely from the December 2006 COIN manual co-authored by Gen. David Petraeus), the Koran’s motivational relevance — consistent with a over a millennium of jihadism within Afghanistan (or “Ghazni”) — was completely misrepresented. Negating doctrinal and historical realities, past and present, McChrystal’s uninformed, panglossian Koranic gloss rationalized an ostensibly “more forceful” strategy:

whereby INS [insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the INS from the vast majority of the Afghan population. (emphasis added)

McChrystal’s superficial, bowdlerized pieties on the Koran, and Petraeus’ complete neglect of this foundational Islamic text, contrast starkly with the contemplative, firsthand observations on the Koran (and Islam) made by Alexis de Tocqueville. Shortly after his return from America, Tocqueville studied North African Islamic culture and history — which included an analysis of the Koran (“Notes on the Koran,” March, 1838) — and made two visits to Algeria (in 1841, and 1846), becoming one of the foremost experts on these matters, while serving as a French parliamentarian.

Before visiting Algeria, Tocqueville studied the Koran, writing an analysis of the first 18 suras (chapters) in careful, if succinct notes, and elaborating his summary conclusions during additional private observations and correspondence recorded through his voyage to North Africa in 1841. Tocqueville opens his March 1838 “Notes on the Koran” with these two observations:

Encouragement, commandments for holy war.

Necessity of obeying the Prophet, of obeying him as one does God.

He accurately documents the Koran’s repeated references to jihad warfare, noting,

Sanctity of holy war encouraged with both energy and violence. … Permission and commandment to kill infidels. Prohibition against killing believers. … Cut off the hands and feet of those who fight God and his prophet.

This discussion culminates, appropriately, in Tocqueville’s more extended assessment of suras 8 and 9, which are redolent with eternal proclamations justifying and describing the conduct of jihad war against the non-Muslim infidel:

Spoils taken from the enemy belong to God and to his envoy. Fear the Lord. Whoever turns his back on the day of combat shall remain in hell. Fight infidels until the point  when there is no more schism and when holy religion is universally triumphant. O  believers! when you march on the enemy, be resolute, obey God and the prophet, fear the discord that extinguishes the fire of courage. Be firm. The incredulous who refuses to believe in Islam is more abject than a brute in the eyes of the Eternal. If the fortune of battle causes those who violate the pact they have made with you to fall into your hands, use torture to terrify their followers. God will ease your task: 20 brave believers will  crush 200 infidels, 100 will put 1,000 to flight. No prophet has taken prisoners without spilling the blood of a great number of enemies. Feed on what you have taken from the enemy. You shall have no society with believers who have remained at home, until they have marched into combat. Believers who have left their country to fight under the standard of faith and those who have given aid to the prophet are the truly faithful ones.        Paradise is their portion.

Believers who tear themselves from the bosom of their family to follow [God’s] standard,  sacrificing their property and their lives, shall have the first places in the realm of the heavens. They shall be the object of God’s kindness; they shall live in gardens of delights and taste eternal pleasures. Cease loving your fathers, your brothers, if they prefer incredulity to faith. … Young and old, enter combat, sacrifice your wealth and your lives for the defense of the faith, [for] there is no more glorious advantage for you. Some believers have let the prophet go, they have said, “Let us not fight during the heat!” The  fire of hell shall be much more terrible than that heat. … O Believers! Fight your unfaithful neighbors. May they find implacable enemies.

Tocqueville concludes his Koranic analysis in the March 1838 “Notes” with these additional observations:

Everything that relates to war is precise; everything that relates to morals … is general and confused. … As in practically all of the Alcoran [Koran], Muhammad concerns himself  far more with making himself believed than with giving rules of morality. And he employs terror much more than any other motive.

Prior to visiting Algeria, Tocqueville supplemented his initial reflections on the Koran with further meditations on both this defining Muslim text and Islam:

Reading the latter [Koran] is one of the most … instructive things imaginable because the eye easily discovers there, by very closely observing, all the threads by which the prophet held and still holds the members of his sect. … [T]hat the first of all religious duties is to blindly obey the prophet, that holy war is the first of all good deeds … all these doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.

Jihad: Holy war, is an obligation for all believers. … The state of war is the natural state with regard to infidels. Only truces can be made [meaning…can only be interrupted by a  truce, not ended]. … After the victory, 4/5 of the booty — land, buildings, and other property — of the defeated I shared out. Two motives: fanaticism, cupidity.

Muhammadanism is the religion that most thoroughly conflated and intermixed the  powers in such a way that the high priest is necessarily the prince, and the prince the high priest, and all acts of civil and political life are more or less governed by religious law. … [T]his concentration and this conflation of power established by Muhammad     between the two powers … was the primary cause of despotism and particularly of social immobility that has almost always characterized Muslim nations.

And following his first sojourn in Algeria, Tocqueville compared Islam’s lasting impact with that of Christianity (and the latter’s possible disappearance), in an October 1843 letter to Arthur de Gobineau:

If  Christianity should in fact disappear, as so many hasten to predict, it would befall us, as already happened to the ancients before its advent, a long moral decrepitude, a poisoned old age, that will end up bringing I know not where nor how a new renovation. … I closely studied the Koran especially because of our position with regard to the Muslim populations in Algeria and throughout the Orient. I admit that I came out of  that study with the conviction that, all things considered, there had been few religions in the world so dreadful for men as that of Muhammad. It is, I believe, the major cause of  the decadence today so visible in the Muslim world and though it is less absurd than ancient polytheism, it’s social and political tendencies, in my opinion much more to be feared. I see it relative to paganism itself as a decadence rather than an advance.

 

Nearly 170 years later, it is a bitter, tragic irony that the harshest and most valid critiques of Stanley McChrystal — leveled by military officers in Michael Hastings’ now infamous Rolling Stone essay (“The Runaway General“) — hinge upon the general’s ignorant and willfully misconceived formulation of the same timeless Islamic doctrines so plainly elucidated by Tocqueville.

Retired Col. Douglas MacGregor, an accomplished military strategist who attended West Point with Gen. McChrystal, remonstrated:

The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people. The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is  utter nonsense.

MacGregor’s plaintive statement reiterated the essence of Marine Corps Sergeant Major (Ret.) James Sauer’s criticisms elaborated with meticulous detail — doctrinal, historical, and hands-on experiential — in an October 2009 essay. But perhaps even more revealing — and damning — was the impassioned comment about the prohibitively restrictive rules of engagement (ROE) McChrystal has imposed upon U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan. A Special Forces soldier with years of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan opined:

Bottom line? I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers’ lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing.

With a combined wisdom and intellectual honesty almost absent in journalism today, Diana West has been chronicling, tirelessly, the dangerous absurdities of our “See-No-Islam” COIN strategy, pitted against the menace of global Islamic jihadism. Following McChrystal’s resignation, West, in her singular clarity, further identified the Gordian knot intertwining COIN doctrine and our troops’ hideously self-destructive ROEs — which she aptly termed “a post-modern form of human sacrifice” — in Afghanistan.

It is this COIN theory that is directly responsible for the unconscionably restrictive ROEs that have been attracting media attention, a postmodern form of human sacrifice staged to appease the endlessly demanding requirements of political correctness regarding Islam. There is no separating the two. If we have COIN, we have these same heinous ROEs.

West also reminded those engaging in wishful speculation that Gen. Petraeus, now re-assigned to McChrystal’s former command in Afghanistan, would somehow alter the current ROEs:

And there is no sign of the COIN nightmare ending anytime soon. Alas, the new commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, is the man who literally wrote the  COIN book.

Subsequently, Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman concurred with West’s assessment, noting:

Gen. Petraeus has been in the loop during the formulation of these [ROEs], has been  sitting in on weekly satellite conferences, has been part of most of the major monthly and  quarterly reviews. So this is not somebody coming to this with a new set of attitudes.

Moreover, while he commanded U.S. troops in Iraq, Petraeus (re-)stated during a 2007 interview with National Public Radio the standard mantra of COIN enthusiasts: that this mode of warfare featured “protecting the Iraqi population,” ostensibly to avoid actions which “create more enemies than you take off the streets.”

Past, both distant and recent, as prologue, Afghanistan’s present manifestations of Islamic irredentism — jihadism and dehumanizing, often lethal persecution of non-Muslims, especially “apostates” from Islam and Muslim women — reflect a readily discernible continuum also ignored by the avatars of COIN. Indiana University Professor Nick Cullather (noted here by Diana West), for example, described in a 2002 essay how during more than three decades, between 1946 and 1979, the U.S. engaged in precisely the kind of sustained, non-military “hearts and minds-winning” utopian efforts advocated by today’s COIN doctrinaires, to no avail. This doomed “Helmand Valley Project” — Helmand being a present day Taliban stronghold — even featured a massive dam designed by the builder of the Hoover Dam (in addition to Cape Canaveral, and the Golden Gate Bridge), Morris Knudsen. As Cullather observed, instructively, the Helmand Valley Project:

 …was lavishly funded by U.S. foreign aid, multilateral loans, and the Afghan government, and it was the opposite of piecemeal. It was an “integrated” development scheme, with education, industry, agriculture, medicine, and marketing under a single controlling authority. Nation-building did not fail in Afghanistan for want of money, time, or imagination. In the Helmand Valley, the engines and dreams of modernization had run their full course, spooling out across the desert until they hit limits of physics, culture,  and history. … Proponents of a fresh nation-building venture in Afghanistan, unaware of the results of the last one, have resurrected its imaginings.

Some 25 years after the Helmand Valley Project terminated in 1979, between October 2005 and October 2006, Holly Barnes Higgins worked as a public information specialist for a U.S.-funded aid project, also in Helmand, seeking to inspire local citizens to commit themselves to economic progress, including the “repudiation” of poppy cultivation. Higgins left embittered by the project’s failure, which she attributed in large measure to the region’s Islamic irredentism:

Aside from a lack of security arising from the informal local poppy alliance, the barriers to shifting the local economy toward licit crops also included the absence of the rule of  law, widespread illiteracy, corruption and fiercely conservative interpretations of Islam that seemed to oppose all change, especially change introduced by foreigners.

The 16-year experiences of Dr. Theodore Leighton-Pennell (1867-1912), originally published in 1909, provide sobering, if disquieting evidence that Islamic religious fanaticism has been a continuous phenomenon among a defining element of the Afghan Muslim population — its frontier tribal peoples spanning the present day border with northwestern Pakistan — since at least the latter half of the 19th century. Pennell was a noble physician and Christian missionary who founded the Bannu hospital, and died (of septicemia, likely contracted from a patient) serving the region’s indigenous Afghan Muslim population. Although devoted to his patients, and sympathetic to their culture, Pennell objectively documented the anti-infidel jihadism and brutal misogyny he witnessed firsthand more than a century ago. Pennell’s references to the profound societal influence of Afghan “mullahs,” and the sway they held over their “talibs,” or students (and in contemporary parlance, “Taliban”), remain depressingly relevant in our era.

There is no section of the people of Afghanistan which has a greater influence on the life of the people than the Mullahs, yet it has been truly said that there is no priesthood in Islam. According to the tenets of Islam, there is no act of worship and no religious rite which may not, in the absence of a Mullah, be equally well performed by any pious layman; yet, on the other hand, circumstances have enabled the Mullahs of Afghanistan to wield a power over the populations which is sometimes, it appears, greater than the power of the throne itself. For one thing, knowledge has been almost limited to the priestly class, and in a village where the Mullahs are almost the only men who can lay claim to anything more than the most rudimentary learning it is only natural that they should have the people of the village entirely in their own control. Then, the Afghan is a Muhammadan to the backbone, and prides himself on his religious zeal, so that the Mullah becomes to him the embodiment of what is most national and sacred. The Mullahs are, too, the ultimate dispensers of justice, for there are only two legal appeals in Afghanistan — one to the theological law, as laid down by Muhammad and interpreted   by the Mullahs; the other to the autocracy of the throne — and even the absolute Amir would hesitate to give an order at variance with Muhammadan law, as laid down by the leading Mullahs. His religion enters into the minutest detail of an Afghan’s everyday life,  so that there is no affair, however trivial, in which it may not become necessary to make an appeal to the Mullah.

Frequently the object of the mullah is to egg the people on to acts of open violence:

The more fanatical of these Mullahs do not hesitate to incite their pupil [“talibs”] to acts of religious fanaticism, or ghaza,[jihad operation] as it is called. The ghazi [jihadist] is a man who has taken an oath to kill some non-Muhammadan, preferably a European, as representing the ruling race; but, failing that, a Hindu or a Sikh is a lawful object of his fanaticism. The Mullah instills into him the idea that if in so doing he loses his own life, he goes at once to and enjoys the special delights of the houris and the gardens which are set apart for religious martyrs. When such a disciple has been worked up to the degree of religious excitement, he is usually further fortified by copious draughts of bhang, or Indian hemp, which produces a kind of intoxication in which one sees everything red, and the bullet and the bayonet have no longer any terror for him. Not a year passes on the frontier but some young officer falls a victim to one of these ghazi fanatics. Probably the ghazi has never seen him his life, and can have no grudge against him as a man; but he is a “dog and a heretic,”and his death a sure road to Paradise.

The Afghan noblemen maintain the strictest parda, or seclusion, of their women, who pass their days monotonously behind the curtains and lattices of their palace prison-houses, with little to do except criticize their clothes and jewels and retail slander; and. …The poorer classes cannot afford to seclude their women, so they try to safeguard their virtue by the most barbarous punishments, not only for actual immorality, but for any fancied breach of decorum. A certain trans-frontier chief that I know, on coming to his house unexpectedly one day, saw his wife speaking to a neighbour over the wall of his compound. Drawing his sword in a fit of jealousy, he struck off her head and threw it over the wall, and said to the man: “There! you are so enamoured of her, you can have her.” The man concerned discreetly moved house to a neighbouring village….The recognized punishment in such a case of undue familiarity would have been to have cut off the nose of the woman and, if possible, of the man too. This chief, in his anger, exceeded his right, and if he had been a lesser man and the woman had had powerful relations, he might have been brought to regret it. But as a rule a woman has no redress; she is the man’s property, and a man can do what he likes with his own. This is the general feeling, and no one would take the trouble or run the risk of interfering in another man’s domestic arrangements. A man practically buys his wife, bargaining with her father, or, if he is dead, with her brother; and so she becomes his property, and the father has little power of interfering for her protection afterwards, seeing he has received her price.

…The two greatest social evils from which the Afghan women suffer are the purchase of wives and the facility of divorce. I might add a third — namely, plurality of wives; but though admittedly an evil where it exists, it is not universally prevalent, like the other two — in fact, only men who are well-to-do can afford to have more than one wife.

 

Consistent with Tocqueville’s learned approach to understanding Islam — based upon actually studying the creed’s foundational texts, and living history of jihad — Major Stephen Coughlin, a trained lawyer and the Pentagon’s only expert on Islamic law, wrote a magisterial thesis on the contemporary jihadist enemy’s threat doctrine. Coughlin concluded his analysis, published in July 2007, with this warning — and challenge — to the advocates of COIN:

Islam is not just a religion but a way of life. As a way of life for all Muslims at both the individual and community level, [they] are bound by Islamic law. Islamic law understands jihad exclusively as warfare to establish the religion. In the doctrinal  trenches of jihad, while Current Approach advocates and the national security community consistently message adoctrinal notions of Islam and jihad, the “extremists”  will always be able to counter with the requirements of jihad that are grounded in Sacred Islamic law emanating directly from Allah and His Prophet.

Finally, the juxtaposition of COIN-based Islamic negationism to Tocqueville’s writings — both on Islam, and his renowned two-volume Democracy in America — also reveals the post-modern immoral equivalence between Islamic and uniquely Western values promoted by the avatars of COIN.

(The discussion of Tocqueville relies upon Professor Michael Curtis’ insightful analysis, “Orientalism and Islam — European Thinkers on Oriental Despotism in the Middle East and India,” chapter 6, “Alexis de Tocqueville and Colonization,” Cambridge, 2009. Translated extracts of Tocqueville’s letters and observations from his “Oeuvres Completes,” Paris, 1952-1995, were kindly provided by Nidra Poller, or reproduced from Professor Jennifer Pitts’ “Alexis de Tocqueville — Writings on Empire and Slavery,” Baltimore, 2001.)

A friend asked that I write a post-script to this essay, listing strategic aims for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. has these two main, legitimate strategic interests in so-called “Af-Pak”:

  1. First and foremost, seizing and destroying or removing Pakistan’s nukes.
  2. Second, destroying Afghanistan’s — and the Taliban’s — odious “cash crop” – opium.

If the U.S. is unwilling to pursue these two basic strategic aims, we should withdraw, lest our brave combat soldiers — subjected as they are to our heinous, COIN-based ROEs — become victim to the hopeless malaise characterized so aptly by Rudyard Kipling in his “The Young British Soldier.

Kipling wrote, “When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains.”

Andrew Bostom (http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/) is the author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (2005/2008) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (2008).

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mcchrystal-tocqueville-and-the-koran-the-postmodern-coinage-of-a-failed-policy/?singlepage=true

ISRAELI CONFUSION “YOU RELEASE THE FLOTILLA TERRORISTS, AS IF THEY WEREN´T CRIMINALS”

From: Bernice S. Lipkin, Ph.D. [mailto:editor@think-israel.org]

Subject: Yeshiva Demolition

TO: PM Netanyahu, MK Yaalon, MK Begin, Defense Minister Barak,

Has it occurred to you that if you demolish the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar, the publicity you will receive in America will be all bad? All negative. And it will make it harder to ask religious people — Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists – to support Israel.

You have a POTENTIALLY large support group. But frankly, you confuse everyone.

You say you need to blockade Gaza and then you send in supplies. You give them water and electricity. Blockades are supposed to weaken the enemy, not support them.

In the flotilla, your well-trained commandos got the situation in hand
before the terrorists had a chance to lynch them as in Ramallah. And
what do you do? You release the terrorists, as if they weren’t
criminals. (In contrast to the way you treated Jewish teen-agers who
were demonstrating PEACEFULLY against government demolitions.)

You say Israel is a Jewish country. And then you say you are willing
to give up Biblical Israel to a bunch of ersatz “people”. Let me tell
you, Americans know that no one willingly gives up land that is his.
If someone so much as says he’s willing to consider giving up land, we know he doesn’t really believe it is his. Especially when the “Palestinians” say they won’t give up any land — not even the land that is now called Israel.

You say the Temple Mount is yours. But you let the Arabs destroy Jewish artifacts. And you keep Jews from praying there. Can you imagine the USA sharing “Constitution Hall” in Philadelphia with a tribe of Indians? Or splitting the White House into two semi-detached Houses so Mexico could govern land they say is theirs? (And they have a better claim than the Arabs to any of mandated Palestine..)

You think you are clever creating a “historical landmark” list. You are not. You will win friends when you can say with true belief and
passion that Samaria and Judea and the Golan and Gaza belong to you because they are yours. By history. By devotion. By Biblical promise. By international law. By conquest.

You say Hamas’s mission is to destroy Israel, but you allow funds and material to reach them because you fear world opinion. The so-called “world opinion” will scream no matter what you do, If they scream anyways no matter how much you try to protect enemy civilians — at the cost of your own sons and daughters — you might as well do what you need to do. They can’t scream any louder. And Obama and the State Dept. will be lame ducks by November, anyways.

Why aren’t you spending your time and effort protecting Israel? If you must worry about the local Arabs having a state, suggest it be in some ISOLATED place that is part of Arab Land — after all, they do own 99.9% of the Middle East. (I wouldn’t make it Jordan because that’s too close to Israel.) That would clean out the refugee camps and the locals in Samaria, Judea and Gaza and the Israeli Arabs that are pro-Palestinian. It could be 10 times the size of Israel (with Samaria, Judea and Gaza annexed) and still not make a dent in the Arab land holdings. Now that’s a 2-state solution that would have a chance of peace. In their State, the “Palestinians” could learn to develop the infra-structure of a state. Or they could kill themselves. Either would be better than giving them land from which they can kill you. Right now, people who hear you say you are willing to have the Arabs take over some of Samaria and Judea — which means you are willing to let the Arabs control your water supply — figure you must be as irresponsible as the Arabs.

There is only one Jewish state and by being timid and figuring on how
little you can live on, you are helping destroy it. You are losing
support from your friends. You are perceived as a bully to the weak and weak to the bullies of this world.

I don’t know if HaShem will forgive you, but Jewish history will not.

Sincerely

Bernice Lipkin
Editor, Think-Israel

US PR FIRM PAID TO DEMONIZE ISRAEL

US PR firm paid to demonize Israel



FRESNO ZIONISM

Think about this: there is at least one American business that is paid to demonize Israel.

The employees, well-paid professionals, go to work every day and think up ways to make Israel look like a moral monster, a rogue state dangerous to world peace for which the only remedy — as in the case of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or apartheid South Africa — is more than just regime change, rather, a fundamental change in the nature of the polity which can only be effected by force.

They are creative people and they know their jobs. Their trade is building or wrecking the public images of politicians, products, organizations, companies and even nations.

Today their goal is to prevent the Jewish state from defending itself by creating a mass of public opinion that sees its self-defense as war crimes. To prevent the Jewish state from defending itself, so that its enemies can finally succeed in doing what they have been trying to do since Israel was born, destroy it.

They are Fenton Communications, and they are working on their current project as diligently as they did for MoveOn.org, The Body Shop, Greenpeace, Ben and Jerry’s and numerous other clients:

    Fenton Communications, which has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco, signed two contracts last year with Qatar to develop “a communications action plan for an 18-month campaign” aimed at delegitimizing Israel and generating international support for the Hamas-run Gaza strip, documents filed with the Department of Justice show.

    The campaign, known as the “Al Fakhoora Project,” has a very visible Web presence that boasts of rallying 10,000 activists “against the blockade on Gaza.”

    Fenton signed the contracts, worth more than $390,000, with the Office of Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned, the wife of the Qatari ruler, and a separate foundation she chairs. The contracts are ongoing, according to Fenton’s Foreign Agent registration forms…

    The cash from Qatar bought a sophisticated U.S. media campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion to generate support for the Hamas-led government and the people of the Gaza strip.

    It also included a full-scale fundraising effort aimed at generating a war chest of up to $100 million in addition to the money the Qatari sheikha provided. — Ken Timmerman

You can see Fenton’s registration as a foreign agent here (h/t: The Israel Project). I’ve extracted the part which describes more work to be performed by Fenton this year:

CONTINUE TO BACK THE JEWS INTO A CORNER AND THIS TIME THERE WILL BE NUCLEAR WAR!

“Samson Option”: choice in absence of choice?

 By Alexander Maistrovoy  Wednesday, June 23, 2010

“When people speak about human rights, everyone has in mind his own ones”, a German scientist and publicist Wilhelm Schwebel wrote. His words perfectly reflect the issue of “breaking” the Gaza blockade. These actions are as related to human rights as Josef Stalin’s “fight for peace”.

Till now not a single person has died of hunger in Gaza . They die in the other parts of the world, like Kirghizia , but nobody cares about it. The rights of Palestinians are above the rights of Uzbek people. As well as the Sudanese Christians, Iraqi Kurds, Boers in Southern Africa, “Ahmadyya” in Pakistan and Baha’is in Iran. Palestinians are the high caste of mankind because fortunately they are up against Israel , and the international community has its own rights and interests in this conflict.

What are they? Interests of all the players are very clear except for the West.

The goal of Iran is to strengthen its base on the Mediterranean Sea coast to escalate the confrontation with Israel and moderate Sunni Arab regimes, and at the same time to distract the world attention from its nuclear program.

The goal of Turkish Justice and Development Party led by Erdogan is to get points before the elections, make Turkey the leader of the Sunni world and to revive the national ambitions lost with the fall of the Ottoman Empire .

Russia is supporting Iran and Turkey in an attempt to restore the previous Soviet influence, push the US out of the region, and recover the lost imperial greatness.
The aims of these powers are completely contrary to the aims of the other two leading players in the region: Israel and the moderate Arab regimes.

The goal of Israel is to provide its safety by weakening HAMAS and depriving it of its life support: weaponry, rockets and building materials to fortify smuggling and transportation tunnels and defensive bunkers.

Arabs fear the Iranian Shiites. Nor do they want Turkey

The goal of the moderate Arab regimes coincides with that of Israel . Arabs fear the Iranian Shiites. Nor do they want Turkey , which they dislike and fear too, to raise its role in the Middle East . Least of all they are interested in strengthening the Palestinian enclave where the Iranians and Turks will rule. First of all it concerns the Mubarak regime that fears the Muslim Brotherhood’s (of which Palestinian HAMAS is an offshoot) popularity.

Theoretically both Israel and the Arab regimes are allies of the West. So it would be right to assume that the West will protect them from regional predators. Alas! Common sense and political expediency do not work. Why? There are two reasons: irreparable losses of spiritual and cultural values by once the greatest world civilization and banal political cowardice.

The radical left and liberal part of the Western elite has voluntary deprived itself of its own heritage, values and ideals. It has refused itself the right to exist, reconciled to the secondary role and even recognized its own uselessness.

“Alliance of Civilizations” of Zapatero and Obama is nothing else but accepting voluntary the status of dhimmitude

The supposed “Alliance of Civilizations ” of Zapatero and Obama is nothing else but accepting voluntary the status of dhimmitude, invitation of an alien strong, dominant, and aggressive civilization to take the place of their own bankrupt and degrading one. Obama’s bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia , a mosque in the place of WTC, kūfīyä on Zapatero’s neck, the Libyan terrorist who had blown up the plane over Lockerbie released “for health reasons” – all are the displays of this outlook. As Israel is the main irritant to Muslims, it loses its right to exist.

Zapatero recognizes the idea almost openly, Obama does it less obviously, but the essence does not change. His recent demands of Israel to open its nuclear program for IAEA oversight and to remove Gaza ’s blockade are more eloquent than any other words.

The other part of the Western political elite, European right and social-democrats, don’t accept this attitude. However, they don’t have any outlook at all. Their only goal is to keep their power up to the following elections and not to “rock the boat”.

The ideology of surviving at all costs leads to the policy of appeasement. Sarkozy (“Disproportionate application of force” by Israel ) and Kouchner (“Recognize Palestinian state before the agreement between Israel and the PA is signed”); Brown (“Labourites have a lot in common with Muslims”) and Miliband (“More respect” to Muslims), Baroness Ashton (The blockade is “unacceptable and politically counterproductive”) and Berlusconi kissing the hands of Muammar Kaddafi are certainly not anti-Semitic.

Some of them are even Jews. They have nothing against Israel , as it is. They have little concern for the simple fact that the Muslim “sea” floods their own house washing away its foundations. So what use to speak about Israel , Mubarak and the Hashemite dynasty? Why to speak at all, if it is so comfortable to be silent? Especially, if there are big business, EU officials, “Greens” and anti-globalists, “Human Rights Watch” and their own cultural elite to resist? So they meekly follow the “Alliance of Civilizations”.

The more timorous is the policy of the West, the more aggressive Ahmadinejad and Erdogan become. The USA and Western Europe encourage these hysterical politicians, and their wild behavior can lead to uncontrollable consequences.

Fall of moderate Arab regimes in Egypt , Jordan and the Persian Gulf states, Israel will be backed into a corner

If the situation does not change (that is extremely improbable), we will witness a two-act drama. The first act will be the fall of moderate Arab regimes in Egypt , Jordan and the Persian Gulf states. If it happens, the second act will follow. Israel will be backed into a corner, surrounded by uncontrollable mad regimes. It will face the total Islamic hysteria. It will see how the circle of its enemies such as Turkey , Syria , Iran and their puppets in Lebanon and Gaza unite with “revolutionary” Muslim brothers in Egypt and Jordan .

It will see the silent indifference of the West at best and shouts of triumph and jeering at worst. The next Holocaust will cease to be an abstraction and become a reality.
Israel will be left with only two options: to die without a fight or to be lost, having destroyed the enemies. The option of falling victim to genocide or the “Option of Samson”.  Zapatero and Obama believe that Israel will choose the first one. Considering the tragic and painful history of Jews, from Maccabeus and Jerusalem’s zealots to the Warsaw ghetto and the Six-Day War, I would not hurry up with conclusions. And in this case there will be no outside observers…

THE EMPIRE, THE JIHAD, AND YUGOSLAVIA

The anniversary (fifteenth) of the worst outrage on humanity since the Holocaust of the Jews takes place inside about a month (August 4). This is not the fake “Srebrenica Massacre” but the ethnic cleansing of almost 300,000 Serbs from the Krajina in Yugoslavia.

Note here we did not say the Krajina area of Croatia. This is the first lesson to learn – the Krajina was an independent entity since 1400, which is before the Mayflower set sail to create modern America. The Krajina was thus a very old nation. Jews should be particularly aware, what happened at the hands of the Empire allied with Jihad was the total destruction of a nation.

This issue of the destruction of Krajina (it was more than ethnic cleansing) is inseparable from an understanding of the great hoax that was foisted onto humanity through the claim that the Serbs in the “Srebrenica Massacre” killed 8000 Muslims.

The Krajina was all too real. The Srebrenica “Massacre” a total hoax.

But these are not issues by themselves.

There is no such thing as Krajina, or Srebrenica, separated from the overall political situation in the world.

That is the second main lesson to learn about the Krajina and how we should approach it in the context of the coming fifteenth anniversary

It was clear then, it was even more obvious now, that the main mover in what happened in the destruction of Yugoslavia was the US, EU and NATO Empire, with United Nations in close support.

The Islamic Jihad of Izetbegovic, the Islamic thugs around Thaci in Kosovo, were entirely subservient to the Empire.

At the same time the Islam Jihad is a real phenomenon and is also as well (as being the tool of) quite independent from an Imperialist system in crisis.

This is dialectical, contains contradiction and can never be understood by formalist thinkers.

The Empire is the partner of Jihad. At times it is also in conflict. Both the Empire and Jihad are ways of disciplining the mass movement of ordinary people. These two phenomena are interrelated and interconnected-

When we on 4international talk about the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina, of the giant hoax of Srebrenica, we see it as one with the plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jewish people, which has always been the aim of world antisemitism, whether of the Islamic or Vatican “Judeo Christian” variety

The “Left” of the Stalinists and fake Trotskyists like the WRP or WSWS supported Khomeini to power and helped create a theocracy, which now threatens directly Jews, and to create a new holocaust, this time by the direct use of nuclear bomb, or the indirect use by means of threat of same.

This same fake Left is still supporting this Jihad against Israel.

Only now this Jihad is clearly being assisted and often simply led by the US and EU, that is by the Empire.

This is what this lying fake left is hiding.

All that is raised in the issues surrounding the destruction of Yugoslavia, the demonization of the Serbs and the setting up of a totally illegal international court system

To complicate this situation, those who are directly threatened by this Empire cum Islamic Jihad, the Jews, have a section of their leadership which openly and shamefully joined in with the Empire against the Serbs.

That is, of course, a direct threat against their own people.

So what is posed in all of this is the creation of a new leadership, the Trotskyist Party, in total opposition among Jews and others to those who support the Empire in the world today.

The insular forces within Judaism drives certain forces, whome we will talk about, to see only themselves. A little like the narrow parochialness of “we ourselves” Sinn Fein. That is fatal.

Only the Trotskyist Party can see the whole, and this is why the best way to defend Israel, or the Serbs, is to build 4international. It is the only way.

Over the next month of July along with much else 4international will be printing many articles which will enlighten on the issue of the Empire, the Jihad, and Yugoslavia.

Be sure to tune in.

ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL TIED TO US IMPERIALISM

The following is the recent article by Phyllis Chesler

A secret admirer, perhaps a critic, has sent me a gift subscription to Time magazine. I leaf through its pages, stop at the two page layout of “The World” which displays Israel as one of ten world hot spots this week. Israel’s “easing of the Gaza blockade” merits 176 words and comprises a column which is 5 ½ inches by 2 ½ inches. By contrast, China’s “easing” of its financial currency restrictions (which may have major world repercussions) merits only 89 words; the refugee crisis in Kyrgyzstan which has displaced 400,000 ethnic Uzbeks merits only 82 words and a photo. Obama’s Patients’ Bill of Rights is only 65 words;   America’s additional resolutions sanctioning Iran merit only 58 words.

Am I crazy, counting words? Not really.  Propaganda works, word by word when it is repeated day after day, year after year. The aim of such propaganda is to render Israel a pariah among nations–so that proposals for its elimination will seem reasonable and will achieve as welcome a reception  as have the narratives about Israel murdering little Muhammad Al-Dura, committing a massacre in Jenin,  harvesting Palestinian organs, and attacking non-violent humanitarians on a boat.  We also understand how propaganda fulfills its mission by counting, literally, how many words are being used to focus attention on one subject, one special country. Obsessive attention versus benign neglect is also a propaganda tool.

But, some might say that Time’s editors chose Israel for praise, not blame: they viewed Israel’s “easing” of the “controversial” Gaza blockade as a positive accomplishment. On the other hand, Time ties this “easing” to “the Israeli raid on an aid flotilla which killed nine and drew international condemnation.”

In other words: Lean on the Jew. It works. The fact that the “aid flotilla” bore hired assassins, shahids; that the so-called humanitarians knew they were aiding Hamas, an organization deemed a “terrorist” group by the United States; and that Israeli soldiers killed them in self-defense, is not acknowledged here as a contending counter-narrative.

Thus, all the other areas and issues chosen by Time: Severe Brazilian floods which left thousands homeless, the rather serious Uzbek refugee crisis, the sentencing of Somali pirates in Holland, the violence which continues, unabated, in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe over the “blood diamonds,” Obama’s Patients’ Bill of Rights, the “loosening” of China’s currency restrictions, the arrest of a major drug lord, etc. deserve fewer words.

Finally, guess which country is shown first, in the #1 position, onTime’s map of the world? Tiny Israel of course.

So much for what Israel is up against in terms of the allegedly neutral Western media.

Israel is also up against Israeli Jewish critics and Jewish rabbis. There are so many examples that it is hard to pick and choose any one. Well, here’s one. J Street just published a full-page ad in the July 2nd edition of The Forward. It is signed by too many American rabbis to even count. While acknowledging Gilad Shalit’s captivity and Hamas’ rockets, it nevertheless remains committed to a “democratic Jewish state—a nation that upholds the highest human and Jewish values.” It “hopes” that Israel will end the “counter-productive” Gaza blockade and remains proudly hopeful about “the possibility of two states, Jewish and Palestinian, living as neighbors, in peace and security.”

The J Street rabbis absolutely refuse to understand that dealing with Hamas (or with Arafat’s heirs) is a little like dealing with Hitler or with Al-Qaeda, that evil does not negotiate, nor does fascism, that Israel has tried their approach over and over again only to have “peace” and a “two-state solution” rejected by the Palestinians. What is it that they don’t understand? Or is it that they are far too frightened to face an evil which is not fathomable, not receptive to appeasement, not even to surrender?

Since many of the rabbi-signatories are women and/or feminists, I wonder if they would give a battered woman or a rape victim the same advice: Sit down with your batterer, reason, compromise with him, forgive him, act non-violently, show the world that you are more ethical than he is.

Finally, over the weekend, an acquaintance sent me an article and implored me to read it with an open mind and open heart. She is an educated and religious woman who wrestles with the narrowness of Judaism. Like many writers and intellectuals, I usually first go to the footnotes and bibliography. I need to know whose shoulders a particular work is standing upon. Idly, I glanced at the recommended reading list at the end of the article. It consisted of Jimmy Carter, Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart, Baruch Kimmerling, the early Benny Morris. This told me all I needed to know without reading the article which, indeed, turned out to be a trite one-sided critique of Israel but one launched in a soft and “healing” voice.

Hark! A new kind of propaganda.

I wish I were part of a Ministry to Combat Propaganda in the age of post-Orwellian Newspeak. Well, maybe I already am.

Here is another piece that Chesler wrote, in 2008, carried on the Julia Gorin Blog, who I will say something about later. The piece is totally self explanatory

On my way to Penn Station on Friday afternoon, (on West 29th St. to be precise), there seemed to be some kind of demonstration going on. When we got closer we saw that it was a large Islamic prayer service which had spilled out onto the sidewalk and into the gutter. It was mainly a mass of prostrated men but women in hijab walked nearby. The driver, a silver-haired man of Greek and Bulgarian background, launched into a non-stop monologue.

“I wouldn’t mind it if they came here to become Americans like I did. But no, they hate America. They want to stay the way they are but they want to take over America. You ought to see it in Astoria, Queens! Far bigger than this. You know why they’re on the sidewalk and in the street? Because they are really protesting not having larger and larger mosques.”

Well, their prayer service, (and it was that), did somehow seem like a protest. There was an aggressive rather than a humbled feeling in the air, more anger than love, a separatism but one right in-your-face.

Upon my return, several brave members of the LiberalHawks listserv group, including Pamela Hall, Tom Dolan, (of Gathering Eagles), Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs, and others from the United American Committee were discussing the Muslim Day Parade. I watched a very disturbing Video and read personal accounts of what happened at yesterday’s parade. Unlike the Hispanic Day Parade, which also took place yesterday, the Muslim Day parade was aggressive, angry, confrontational, and did not seem very happy or joyful. No one was celebrating Islam’s many cultures and ethnicities. One sign read “Home of the Free Shari’a Movement.”

A number of super-angry bearded men tried to charge a small group of women who were holding signs which read “We Will Not Submit.” The men called one woman: “A fu–ing bitch,” “You whore,” “Your Talmud says you can rape a three year old,” “You baby murderer,” “The Jews kill little children,” “Rothschild was a Zionist,” (!). The background was a continuous roar of “Allahu-Akbar.”

One woman, (who prefers to remain anonymous), a member of the LiberalHawks listserv group, was threatened by a Muslim man. He threatened to “rape her fifty times.” He, and several other men, walked right through the barrier that had been erected to separate the two groups. Muslim parade marchers also photographed the protesters — a method of intimidation, a threat that they are being watched and might be stalked or worse. The police ended up having to protect the small band of protesters. In my time, it was the police who photographed the demonstrators, the demonstrators and counter-demonstrators did not photograph each other (unless they were FBI or CIA agents disguised as demonstrators or protesters).

Perhaps perfectly peaceful Muslims are paranoid about not being allowed to pray in the public square and are therefore aggressive about it. Perhaps their leaders want to claim public, secular space as Islamist religious space — just as they’ve enjoyed it in the Old Country. Perhaps Muslims who really want to pray have only seen Muslims marching in anger or even rioting in public and believe that this is what Muslims “do.”

This is an ill wind and it’s blowin’ right here in Manhattan and Brooklyn and Queens. The March for McCain on Manhattan’s upper west side elicited a solid, ugly wall of hoots, jeers, boos and rage. (Kudos to Pamela Hall who took the footage). When I asked some liberal friends of mine to view it, they were non-plussed. Indeed, they said that the hoots and jeers were proof of a flourishing First Amendment. “The marchers can march and we can express our views of their views.”

When I and others had to be protected by police officers when we spoke on campus about Islamic gender and religious apartheid and about Islamic imperialism and pro-slavery views, many of the students looked and acted a lot like the upper westsiders — but that too was defended as the First Amendment in action. I have been a radical feminist for most of my life and have always voted Democratic. I voted for Bush once and reaped the whirlwind. However, I have not seen conservative students boo, jeer, and move menacingly against speakers who opposed the military, the War, etc. Have you? They just seem to wear their bow-ties and behave in civilized ways. Why? (Needless to say, I do not agree with many items on the conservative and Republican agenda but I do appreciate their civility in these times).

The Muslim Day parade in Manhattan seems to be another example of the First Amendment and freedom of religion being used to censor other views in an ugly and threatening way.

I am afraid for our country. There seems to be an escalation, an acceleration of Islamist aggression in many of our cities, and not just via prayer-protest but also via lawsuit. Even now, the United Nations is preparing a truly racist document against the Jews, (Durban II), and yet it’s being promoted as an “anti-racist’ document. Why is the mainstream media so silent about all this? Why are the intelligentsia silent, why do they once again make common cause with totalitarians and fascists? What will it take to connect the dots?

Julia Gorin had introduced this as “an account of the day by fair feminist Phyllis Chesler — an increasingly conservative-friendly Democrat who is increasingly freaked out by jihad and her liberal friends’ non-response to it”

At the end of that piece by Chesler above Gorin went on to write this:

Chesler deserves credit for the honest intellectual road she has traveled, including recognizing the lack of civility that her fellow Democrats show conservatives. She also deserves credit for trying to find her way through the Balkan morass after initially penning — like everyone else — a piece repeating the ubiquitous Bosnian propaganda upon Radovan Karadzic’s arrest (I couldn’t stomach the read, but here is the link).

If you followed the link above supplied by Gorin you will have found out that Chesler engaged in Serb hating, comparing Serbs to Nazis, attacks on Serb leaders, glorification of the Muslim Jihad against the Serb Christians.

Where Gorin refers to Chesler “trying” we have this from Chesler

Who can understand Balkan history–that cursed region whose fiery nationalisms led to World War One? Not I. East Europeans remember how especially brutal Muslim Nazi- and Arab-empowered soldiers were during World War Two. Yes, there once were some pockets of European-style assimilation and sophistication among Caucasus-based Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the region. Has anyone read the incomparably charming and popular novel, Ali and Nino: A Love Story written by the very Jewish Lev Nuissimbaum whose pen name was Khurbain Said? The romance captured everyone’s longing for operatic harmony between Christians and Muslims. (For the Jews, it was always more complicated). Tom Reiss has written a must-read biography of Nuissembaum titled The Orientalist: Solving The Mystery of A Strange and Dangerous Life.

But fiction and exceptions aside, ethnic and religious feuds have simmered and boiled over between the Christians of different nationalities in the Caucasus and between Christians and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.

I have now received and posted the most challenging comments in response to my piece about the capture of Radovan Karadzic.

What I do know about the recent warfare in the former Yugoslavia is that many girls and women were brutally and repeatedly gang-raped. I know this because I spoke with their lawyers and with feminist counselors and I read everything about their plight that I could find. Had there been funding enough to protect the raped women witnesses, I might have testified to the Court in The Hague about Rape Trauma Syndrome.

Other than this, and like everyone else, I believed that, although atrocities were committed by all sides, that the Bosnian Serbs were the ones who mainly committed genocide, “ethnic cleansing” and the gang-rapes. Now, Mr. John Peter Maher writes here that the massacre in Srbrenica was a Big Lie propagated by masterful Muslim deceivers. Several other commentators, including Felix Quigley here compare this lie to the lie about a massacre in Jenin which never really took place. They claim that in fact, most of the allegedly dead Muslim boys and men made their way to Tuzla where they joined or were protected by Muslim jihadists.

I have begun to ask my sources whether any of this is true or whether none of this is true. So far, I have been told that “some” of this might be true; that “none” or “little” of it can be true; that this might be the beginning of a masterful disinformation campaign to support Karadzic’s testimony at trial; and that the disinformation campaign was begun long ago by Islamists who are covetously eying Europe.

Friends: This is not my area. Do I have any Balkan experts out there? If so, please weigh in.

So under “trying” Gorin has Chesler now stating that “this is not my area”. The problem is that it was late, because she had already as we have seen made it very much her area. Her attacks on Karadzic and the Serbs, her identification with the Muslim Jihad was total in both cases.

Under the link “find”, that is Chesler finding her way, Chesler asked around and came up with material published by John Bostom and Srdja Trifkovic and before she took herself “off fishing”, and  I have not heard from her since on the issue, she penned these lines:

Folks: I am getting many articles on the Balkan Mess. I am still no expert but what must be admitted is this: The West, including America, has been “had” in terms of signing on to only one acceptable narrative: The Christian Serbs are the evil aggressors and the Muslim separatists and imperialists are the innocent victims. (Where have we heard this before?)

The truth: That all sides committed war crimes but not genocide is apparently too complicated to bear. Anyway, I am reposting an entire article that has just appeared. Once again, dear reader, tell me what you know and what you think about this.

READERS PLEASE NOTE: I will post no comments that insult other commentators or that insult me. Good will must be assumed or I must assume an absence of civility on the insulter’s part. Also please note: This is not a legal tribunal. And calls for “evidence” must bear this in mind.

What are the lessons we must learn from the article? Please read the Comments posted at the Trifkovic article below.

Source http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=673

So after much reflection by Chesler she comes up with these conclusions:

1. One side is as bad as another

2. It is a mess, and as we know if it is a mess then it is very dificult to understand, maybe even impossible to understand, hence her remark about “going fishing”.

3. Chesler´s formula “That all sides committed war crimes but not genocide is apparently too complicated to bear” well that is really too difficult indeed for anybody to bear, because how would Chesler address the truth, that it was ONE side which was creating and carrying out the war crimes

4. And that one side, Phyllis Chesler, was your beloved “West”, that is US Imperialism, and their agents and “babies”, why that is Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Thaci, just as Hajj Amin el Husseini had been the baby of the British Imperialists in the Mandate, just as Bin Laden had been the baby of the US imperialists post 1945 (see John Loftus and see also Christopher Simpson explanation in “Blowback” of how the US foreign policy became that foreign policy of Hitlerian Nazis)

5. Then having done that Phyllis Chesler you might consider what the US ruling class is really doing to Israel at the moment. Having created a continuation of the Holocaust as far as the Serb people was concerned from 1990 to the present, especially the Holocaust Continuation in the Krajina in August 2005, they are now preparing with Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah, plus Syria and Turkey, with the US elite ruling class in the lead, the same continuation of the Holocaust as far as the Jewish people are concerned.

JEWISH LEADERS AND THEIR ALLIANCE WITH US IMPERIALISM

The biggest problem is the US Government. Not Islam, not Hamas etc, but the US Government. It matters not in the slightest whether republican or democrat

The biggest problem though of the Israeli people is the ideology of the Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora.

The first and biggest problem is not inflicted, it is self-inflicted!

This came across forcefully when I read the recent article by Barry Rubin.

The essence of Rubin in this article was that the US Government of Obama (and remember Bush or McCain would be no different) is that the US is going after Hamas as its real strategic ally        

Rubin is right there. Really you would need to be blind not to see that.

The US has always looked to the billion plus Arabs and Islamists as its ally, never the Jews, who add up to a mere few millions. The only thing keeping the US elite back from the open alliance with Islam was NOT THE JEWS IN AMERICA who add up to a tiny minority, BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A WHOLE WHO HAVE ALWAYS STOOD BEHIND THE JEWISH HOMELAND.

Hence the noted researcher Professor Francisco Gil White could go through all of the years since 1945 and determine that the policy and programme of ALL THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE US were anti Jew and anti Israel

In the article mentioned above Barry Rubin has all of this reversed!

The heading of the article states the obvious that “””OBAMA EMBRACES HAMAS”

It is the sub-heading that Rubin follows up with that is SO wrong:

White House Announcement on Gaza Shows the Missing Element: Strategic Rationality

Who does Rubin think that he is…God?

Is he able to read the mind of the most powerful Empire that the world has ever known.

Rubin displays a great deal of arrogance here in that he figures he knows better, knows so much that he can begin to lecture the Empire on “strategic rationality”

Rubin like so many of these wannabe Jewish pundits think that they know better than the Empire and that they can lecture the Empire on issues of Empire strategy.

The underlying message is “What is good for Empire is good for us Jews too”

Part of the Rubin “analysis”:

Everyone will probably view the just-released official document, “White House on Israel’s Announcement on Gaza,” as purely routine government rhetoric that means nothing. But that just shows how much people have become used to taking for granted the lack of any strategic sense in this U.S. government.

The June 20 White House statement opens thusly:

“The President has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change.”

One would expect that a rational policy would use the words “unsustainable” and “demands fundamental change” to mean that the president demands the overthrow of Hamas. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: he demands the stabilization of that regime.

The statement continues:

“On June 9, [Obama] announced that the United States was moving forward with $400 million in initiatives and commitments for the West Bank and Gaza. The President described these projects as a down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”

Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a “down payment on the U.S. commitment,” that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money.

Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution.

Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn’t the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority?

This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel’s existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority’s rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the “humanitarian” consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program.

In seeking an analogy to this abdication of strategy and politics, it would be like the United States making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war or North Korea during the Korean war by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state.

Doesn’t who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit?

The announcement continued by welcoming Israel’s new policy as something that “should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons.”

In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach.

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/24328#more-24328

Which leaves us on 4international mentally chewing over the fact that Barry Rubin has his head firmly lodged inside the rear of US Imperialism.

Rubin and others if they had given just one minute´s thought to what happened in the destruction of Yugoslavia would know

THIS IS THE STRATEGY OF ALL US GOVERNMENTS

US Governments are not ever interested in rights, who was in the right, principles.

Their only strategy is to back reactionary regimes and the more reactionary the better. Why is this?

There is actually a perfectly logical reason and strategy Mr Rubin is always based upon reason.

In a period of deep political and social crisis the force which can keep down populations is always the force of deepest reaction.

In the last War it is easily demonstrated that the US and Britain had NO fundamental difference with Fascism. They made war on Hitler only because Hitler was expansionist. For a very long time they thought that Hitler was a damned good idea.

No Mr Rubin. Hamas is the BABY of the US, as is Iran, Hizbullah and you had better get used to that as well.

It is the ultimate in folly to suggest as does Rubin and others that the US would ever attack Iran.

Israel is alone and the US Government is the enemy of Israel. The axis that Israel faces is Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the US ruling class.

Step outside of that truth as the Israeli leaders and the Jewish Diaspora leaders all do, then they are laying the basis for a new Holocaust