Israel to Obama...Hellooooo

The implication is that Israel should suffer the Palestinian rockets attacks indefinitely.

Islamism is enjoying a resurgence throughout the Islamic world, though it may remain invisible a little longer to Western observers relying on media that have lost interest in the topic. It will become visible again only when there are renewed, newsworthy terrorist attacks on Western targets.

For the moment, this resurgence may be detected only in the accelerated retreat of the forces of order, in places like Pakistan's North-West Frontier, where the authorities have recently negotiated a ceasefire in which large areas of Pakistan's sovereign territory are effectively surrendered to the rule of Taliban-like militias imposing strict Sharia; or the overturning of transient gains made against Islamist forces in Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

The reasons for this resurgence are ready to hand. To the Islamist mind, the United States and her allies appear mortally wounded by a financial crisis that is metastasizing into an international depression. While they, too, suffer from the collapse of the oil price, and such funding as depends upon it, their war against the "Great Satan" remains asymmetrical, and material setbacks count harder against their enemy.

But there is a larger, though less tangible reason for their renewed confidence. "Bush and Blair" -- the enemies Islamists most feared and detested -- are now gone from the world stage, and the vision and determination with which they resisted Islamism has become suddenly a thing of the past.

The new American president, Barack Obama, has come to power with a promise to negotiate with America's most deadly enemies; he signalled weakness unambiguously in a television interview to the Muslim world; he wants out of Iraq, and does not know what he is doing in Afghanistan. The very gloom and doom he is preaching on the home front, in order to get huge "progressive" spending measures through Congress, is the final confirmation that the United States is down and ready for the kicking.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton's new tone -- both for her and for the U.S. -- can only cheer Islamist hearts. American Jewish leaders have already expressed alarm at her recent remarks on Israel. The proposal to drop nearly a billion U.S. tax dollars into "rebuilding Gaza" after the recent Israeli incursions is exceptionally alarming. The money can only go into the pockets of Hamas, given their total control of the territory. Much of it will certainly be used to rebuild the Hamas arsenal, for renewed missile and other terror attacks against Israelis.

The new, increasingly "neutral" or indifferent U.S. posture towards Israel was on display in preparations for the United Nations' Durban II conference. U.S. delegates failed to challenge resolutions that would equate "Zionism" with "racism," and identify Israel alone among all nations as a violator of "human rights." Under intense domestic pressure, the Obama administration withdrew from the conference Friday, having come perilously close to participating in an international anti-Semitic propaganda stunt, which would provide ideological cover for murderous assaults on Israel and Jews everywhere.

Israel has not been the key target of most Islamist movements, however.

The focus, for the past several years, has been on Iraq, primarily, and secondarily Afghanistan and Pakistan. The destruction of the secular democracy now established in Iraq (unique in the Arab world) has been the priority both in propaganda, and in practical terror operations.

If the U.S. and allies abandon the Iraqi regime (the way Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran), everything President Bush accomplished will have been more than undone. The pressure on other Arab states to make the sort of concessions to Islamists that Pakistan is now making will grow exponentially, for the world will look very different to the "moderate" tyrants of Arabia, Egypt and North Africa, once the U.S. has fled.

There will, moreover, be nothing left standing in the way of Iran's emergence as the regional superpower. The proxies of Iran's patronage -- Hezbollah and Hamas -- are daggers officially pointed at the throat of Israel. But every regional Arab regime is vividly aware that they could be pointed elsewhere.

When I wrote about these questions of "realpolitik," diplomacy and war, over the past eight years, it was with the assurance that while it might make mistakes, the Bush administration was at least aware of the threats, and aware that America's own security depended on how those threats were parried. Quite frankly, after 40 days of the Obama presidency, it is obvious that this realism is gone. We have a new administration that genuinely does not grasp the consequences of retreat from its inherited international obligations.

Maybe a buddy chat with Maaaagmoud?

David Rittgers, a legal policy analyst with the Cato Institute who served three tours with the U.S. Army's Special Forces in Afghanistan, said the statement would mark the most extreme attempt so far to engage an adversary.

He said negotiating with moderates at the local level, some of whom might fall under the multifaceted umbrella of the Taliban, could be possible and worthwhile. But he said any attempt to divide and conquer the Taliban would probably fail, and he said Obama had given the Taliban leadership "propaganda strength" in publicly suggesting that outreach is possible.

"They really are negotiating from a position of strength. What are we going to offer them?" Rittgers said. "I don't know where we're going to find the common ground, with the exception of leaving their drug money alone."

He said the Taliban does not offer the same opportunities as the Sunnis in Iraq, because whereas the Sunnis could be economically motivated, many in the Taliban control drug money and are economically independent.

Shortly after the Obama interview was published, a Taliban spokesman told Britain's Guardian newspaper that the overture was a sign that Americans are "tired and worried."

And the administration has escalated outreach to Russia in recent weeks, with Obama writing a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Though Obama denied it, some officials suggested the letter floated the possibility that the U.S. could junk its plans for a missile defense shield Moscow opposes in exchange for Russia's help in stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons.

The Hamas 'Peace' Gambit
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 08, 2009

"Apart from the time restriction (a truce that lapses after 10 years) and the refusal to accept Israel's existence, Mr. Meshal's terms approximate the Arab League peace plan ... "
-- Hamas peace plan, as explained by The New York Times

"Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
-- Tom Lehrer, satirist WASHINGTON -- The Times conducted a five-hour interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal at his Damascus headquarters. Mirabile dictu, they're offering a peace plan with a two-state solution. Except. The offer is not a peace but a truce that expires after 10 years. Meaning that after Israel has fatally weakened itself by settling millions of hostile Arab refugees in its midst, and after a decade of Hamas arming itself within a Palestinian state that narrows Israel to eight miles wide -- Hamas restarts the war against a country it remains pledged to eradicate.

There is a phrase for such a peace: the peace of the grave.

Westerners may be stupid, but Hamas is not. It sees the new American administration making overtures to Iran and Syria. It sees Europe, led by Britain, beginning to accept Hezbollah. It sees itself as next in line. And it knows what to do. Yasser Arafat wrote the playbook.

With the 1993 Oslo accords, he showed what can be achieved with a fake peace treaty with Israel -- universal diplomatic recognition, billions of dollars of aid, and control of Gaza and the West Bank, which Arafat turned into an armed camp. In return for a signature, he created in the Palestinian territories the capacity to carry on the war against Israel that the Arab states had begun in 1948 but had given up after the bloody hell of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Meshal sees the opportunity. Not only is the Obama administration reaching out to its erstwhile enemies in the region, but it begins its term by wagging an angry finger at Israel over the Netanyahu government's ostensible refusal to accept a two-state solution.

Of all the phony fights to pick with Israel. No Israeli government would turn down a two-state solution in which the Palestinians accepted territorial compromise and genuine peace with a Jewish state. (And any government that did would be voted out in a day.) Netanyahu's own defense minister, Ehud Barak, offered precisely such a deal in 2000. He even offered to divide Jerusalem and expel every Jew from every settlement remaining in the new Palestine.

The Palestinian response (for those who have forgotten) was: No. And no counteroffer. Instead, nine weeks later, Arafat unleashed a savage terror war that killed 1,000 Israelis.

Netanyahu is reluctant to agree to a Palestinian state before he knows what kind of state it will be. That elementary prudence should be shared by anyone who's been sentient the last three years. The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It's called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians.

If this is what a West Bank state is going to be, it would be madness for Israel or America or Jordan or Egypt or any other moderate Arab country to accept such a two-state solution. Which is why Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian Authority first build institutions -- social, economic and military -- to anchor a state that could actually carry out its responsibilities to keep the peace.

Apart from being reasonable, Netanyahu's two-state skepticism is beside the point. His predecessor, Ehud Olmert, worshiped at the shrine of a two-state solution. He made endless offers of a two-state peace to the Palestinian Authority -- and got nowhere.

Why? Because the Palestinians -- going back to the U.N. partition resolution of 1947 -- have never accepted the idea of living side by side with a Jewish state. Those like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who might want to entertain such a solution, have no authority to do it. And those like Hamas' Meshal, who have authority, have no intention of ever doing it.

Meshal's gambit to dress up perpetual war as a two-state peace is yet another iteration of the Palestinian rejectionist tragedy. In its previous incarnation, Arafat lulled Israel and the Clinton administration with talk of peace while he methodically prepared his people for war.

Arafat waited seven years to tear up his phony peace. Meshal's innovation? Ten -- then blood.

If you read the recent Bipartisan Statement on U.S. Middle East Peacemaking, you can be very impressed by the credentials of the ten participants. You can also be stunned at how such a lofty group can be so ignorant of the history of the last century. After reading their statement three times, it was easy to come to the conclusion that they were passing around a bong while writing this statement of irrationality.
You must be impressed with their guile. They call it “A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement.” Certainly with names like Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Volcker, Wolfensohn and Thomas Pickering involved, you can see how they came to this heady claim. The fact that there did not seem to be one member in the group pitching for the safety and security of our ally, Israel, becomes quite evident when you read the 17 stunning pages that make up this ego stroke.

How about coming up with one concession by the Palestinians, Syrians or other Arab parties to this proposal? There is proposal after proposal for the Israelis to give. Now, the Jews would like to believe they are a giving people, but they learned from history that you cannot concede all points. It could be easy to say that this proposal does not even come close to a negotiation. What it should be called is a plan for the unilateral dismemberment of Israel.
Not even once does this document state the Israeli’s principle point of negotiation – recognition by the negotiating parties to Israel’s right to exist. We are not even speaking of their right to exist as a Jewish State. The plan does not even mention that the Arab parties need to recognize Israel as neither a beginning point of agreement nor an ending point. One would like to ask these people of immense knowledge and experience what they were thinking when they did not include this in their plan. Why would any country have serious negotiations with another that does not believe in its right to exist?

The plan drafters included a point that Jerusalem should be split into parts and become the capital of a Palestinian State and Israel. Does anyone really consider this a plausible solution? Since 1967 when Israel took over all of Jerusalem, it has become a mecca for people of all major faiths to experience. If the city were to split, it is quite apparent that Jews and Christians will not be welcome or feel safe in parts of the city. Why would the world want to have this happen once again to such an important historical place? When has a city been split into two parts and successfully served as the capital of two distinct countries? This proposal is not only unworkable, it is just plain silly.
Since the proposal calls principally for the return to the pre-1967 borders, that means the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. During the negotiations of the peace treaty consummating the First World War, the French wished to establish a natural buffer to protect them from another German invasion. They did not and we saw what happened in 1940. The Golan, basically a desolate place, is now inhabited by over 8,000 Jews and creates a natural buffer from an attack by an unstable Syria.

To protect Israel the authors suggest a U.S. led multinational force under a U.N. mandate. That must give Israeli mothers tons of comfort for the safety of their children. Other than the fact that the U.S. is involved, we can easily see the blue helmets of the U.N. running for cover ala Rwanda or many others places. Since they propose a non-militarized Palestinian State, the Israelis should rest easy. The question is do the American troops have to be in the middle of this for the next 300-400 years? What happens if the Americans do not want to be there anymore? Should the Israelis then rely on a force from Egypt, Jordan or France?
This babble would fall into the trash if it were not for the current administration. If it were released two years ago, President Bush would have swatted it away understanding the great harm this proposal would cause. It would be hard to fathom any five Republicans supporting this proposal other than the ones involved. But notice this proposal was released in January, in time for Obama and his team to soak it up and that is apparently what they have done.

From their commentary and actions, the Obama Administration has chosen to side with the Palestinians and not the Israelis. Think about it, the Palestinians break a truce, lob hundreds or rockets into residential areas of our ally, then our ally defends itself, and the Obama Administration offers the Palestinians $900 million to repair the damage -- without any concessions. In the past, America has waited for the transgressor against our allies to capitulate before we show our humanity.
Vice-President Biden went in front 6,500 strong supporters of Israel and insisted that Israel must accept a two-state solution, start to dismantle homes, and end all building in post-1967 acquired areas. That is just the beginning of their attempt to make Israel cow-tow to the combination of this “Bipartisan Proposal” and the one previously floated by Saudi Arabia. While Obama and his team talk about the eternal bind between our countries, they want to force Israel into a vapid peace that will eviscerate it.

If the Obama Administration wants to achieve peace for an ally, it should ask first what the other parties are willing to concede. It should not force Israel into giving up land that risks its security or the freedom of the entire world to visit historical areas. The Administration should encourage our Arab friends to take responsibility for the people on the West Bank and Gaza like they should have 60 years ago. After that, they should then ask Israel for even more concessions than they have made in the past.
Unfortunately, the tenor of what the Administration has communicated so far will play into the hands of the enemies of Israel. They have played a waiting game until there was an American Administration that turns its back on Israel and they know that will be the beginning of the end. The enemies of Israel know they need only one American Administration not siding with Israel. The question to Mr. Obama is will his be the one?

Link

it was easy to come to the conclusion that they were passing around a bong while writing this statement of irrationality.