After commenting that he's not sure the US should be sending an ambassador to Syria at all (I believe that they should not be), Max Boot has this to say about new American ambassador designate Robert Ford.That said, if we are going to send an ambassador to Damascus, it is hard to think of a better choice than Robert Ford. He is currently deputy chief of mission in Iraq, and it was in that capacity that I met with him on my visit to Baghdad last fall. I came away extremely impressed by this career diplomat, who speaks fluent Arabic and has previously served as the U.S. ambassador in Algeria. I realize that State Department Arabists have a checkered reputation — see Robert Kaplan’s fine book on that subject, which makes it clear that too often the Arabists have adopted a “see-no-evil attitude” toward the Arabs while displaying unremitting hostility to the Israelis. Bob Ford isn’t like that at all. I found him to be a singularly shrewd, insightful, and clear-eyed analyst of Iraqi politics. In fact, I left his office wondering why he wasn’t appointed ambassador in place of Chris Hill, who has no background in the Middle East.
Ford will be the best possible American representative in Damascus. I just hope he will not be forced to front for an Obama-esque policy of appeasement. It is possible that after the failure of engagement in Iran, the administration will now redouble its efforts to reach some kind of accommodation with Syria that will enhance rather than diminish the troublemaking capacity of the Alawite clique at the center of Syrian politics.
I have discussed the 'Palestinian' corruption scandal exposed by whistleblower Fahmi Shabaneh (pictured), including its related sex scandal, several times over the last few weeks.Blaming Israel and the Jews for everything that goes wrong has long been the accepted norm in the Arab and Islamic world. This is how Arab dictators divert attention from the real problems at home. If the economy in an Arab country is bad, then it’s because of Israel and the Jews. If there is no democracy and stability, then its Israel’s and the Jews’ fault, too.
Rafik Husseini was caught with his pants down in the bedroom of an Arab woman and, of course, it’s the Jews’ fault. Never mind that he was caught red-handed soliciting sex from the woman by members of his own security forces, who also filmed him while he was bad-mouthing Abbas and his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. Instead of responding to the charges made by Shabaneh, the Palestinian Authority rushed to accuse him of “collaboration” with Israel. The official Palestinian version is that the Israeli government had recruited the whistle-blower to incriminate Abbas because of his refusal to return to the negotiating table with Israel.
So what if Shabaneh has all the evidence to prove that he was acting on direct instructions from his boss, Tawfik Tirawi, former head of the Palestinian General Intelligence Service. And so what if Abbas knew about the sex scandal more than a year ago, when Shabaneh presented him with all the material he had collected during his work as head of the anti-corruption unit in the Palestinian security forces? If anything, the “Fatahgate” scandal shows that the Palestinian leadership is not different from the rest of the Arab world’s dictatorships. Under these regimes, the authorities often seek to discredit critics and political opponents by accusing them of working for the Israeli enemy.
Instead of coping with charges of corruption, Arab rulers and governments find it easier to direct a blaming finger at Israel. This anti-Israel incitement has resulted in the emergence of an entire generation or two of Arabs and Muslims who are convinced that Jews are behind all evils and should therefore be fought against or even eliminated.
Davis Lewin argues that regime change is the only answer in Iran and has been for the last 30 years. To call for regime change is neither simplistic nor imperial. For those of us blessed with freedom, it is a mere resignation to hard truth in the face of oppressive evil. For those Iranians with their throats under the boot of the Basij - the mothers, fathers and children choking on Khomeini's self-serving fantasies - it is bravery beyond what we could know.
No deal must be struck with the Mullahs. The Islamic regime's hegemonic desires will not be allayed by treaty, and the West must never betray the people of Iran by legitimising the very leaders they are - in too many cases literally - dying to shake off.
A question remains only over the means, not the necessity. Regime change is the only option to deliver the change the Iranian people both desire and deserve.
Iran needs America's help to achieve change its sons and daughters can believe in.
In the early days of Oslo, when Yasser Arafat wanted to convince everyone that he was fighting terror without fighting terror, he claimed that the best way to stop the terrorists was to turn them into terror fighters. So he made them all 'Palestinian policemen' and put them on the 'Palestinian Authority' payroll. We all saw what a disaster that was when the 'intifadeh' - led by 'Palestinian police' - started in earnest in 2000. Worse, the Israeli security forces cooperated with the 'Palestinians' in joint patrols and information exchanges that blew up in our faces when the 'intifadeh' started. It took four years of terror bombings before the Israeli security forces recovered.Although there is no evidence of an exchange of classified information, this meeting was the beginning of an Obama administration program aimed at devising a new information-sharing framework with the Muslim organizations — some of them regarded as extremist because of their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The group is to meet regularly with DHS senior aides and with Napolitano. This program was imported from the United Kingdom. The Obama administration has decided to replicate the UK program to win over Muslims and to get them to collaborate with the federal government.
Although Matthew Chandler, deputy press secretary and spokesman for Secretary Napolitano, refused to comment on the meetings or identify the groups that attended the two-day session, Pajamas Media has learned the identities of a number of the participants and interviewed them — including those linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The program requires bringing in Muslim groups as “partners” in a two-way information sharing program.
If the Mossad wanted to liquidate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, would it have given its agents foreign passports with the names and details of Israeli citizens? Many Israelis who were once part of the security establishment say no, and believe that the fact that those passports were used is a reason to be cautious about blaming the Mossad for Mabhouh's liquidation. Like Lieberman, Israeli security analyst Ephraim Kam said the use of Israeli identities did not prove the Mossad killed Mabhouh.
"I cannot see a reason why the Mossad would use the names of Israelis here or citizens who live here," Kam said.
Rafi Eitan, a former Cabinet minister and Mossad agent who took part in the capture of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, thought Israel's foes were trying to frame it by using the identities of Israelis.
"It means some foreign service, an enemy of Israel, wanted to taint Israel. It took the names of Israeli citizens, doctored the passports ... and thus tainted us," Eitan said.
Lawmaker Yisrael Hasson, a former deputy commander of Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), said he would ask to convene a meeting of the Israeli parliament's powerful foreign affairs and defense committee to discuss the matter.
"No one should use someone's identity without his permission or without his understanding in some way what it is being used for," Hasson told Israel Radio.
...
Kam, the security analyst, said the people whose identities were released could be in danger from Hamas.
"I think they should be careful," he said.
A loss leader is a product sold at a low price (at cost or below cost)[2] to stimulate other, profitable sales. It is a kind of sales promotion, in other words marketing concentrating on a pricing strategy. The price can even be so low that the product is sold at a loss. A loss leader is often a popular article. Sometimes leader is now used as a synonym for loss leader and means any popular article, in other words one sold at a normal price.[3]. Here's El Al's loss leader. Sorry, not New York, LA, London or Paris.
On Wednesday, I reported that Iran had invited UN 'Human Rights Commissioner' Navi Pillay to visit - the first time since 2005 that Iran had expressed a willingness to allow anyone from the 'Human Rights Council' to visit their country. But Pillay said that she is 'too busy' and would not have time to visit before 2011.Iran has backtracked on a pledge to invite a UN torture investigator to visit the country. Iranian officials in Geneva say they rescinded the invitation because Western countries used "poisonous language" at a UN debate Monday on the Islamic Republic's human-rights record.
Iran on Wednesday rejected 43 other recommendations made during the Human Rights Council's first review of its rights record. They included ending discrimination against women, releasing political prisoners and stopping harassment of journalists and bloggers.
Remember how Hillary Clinton was the one who was supposed to be tougher on Iran? The New York Times even reported on Tuesday that the Obama administration's 'tougher' line on Iran was more in line with Clinton's views than with those of Obama who favored 'engagement.'MR. FOUKARA: So, Madam Secretary, now you are saying there is no plan on the part of the United States to launch an attack? Not in the immediate future, not in the middle term, not in the long term?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are interested in changing Iran’s behavior and — now, we will always defend ourselves, and we will always defend our friends and allies. And we will certainly defend countries here in the Gulf who face the greatest immediate nearby threat from Iran. But we have pursued a dual track, not a triple track, but a dual-track approach of engagement and potential pressure, and that is what we’re focused on.
Take, for example, the different responses from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on whether they would view an attack by Iran on Israel as an attack on the United States. (Mrs. Clinton said such an attack would result in “massive retaliation from the United States,” while Mr. Obama said such an attack would be “unacceptable” and would lead him to take “appropriate action.”)
London's Daily Telegraph reports that Britain has threatened to suspend intelligence cooperation with Israel if it turns out that the Mossad stole the identities of British passport holders. All of the British passport holders whose identities were stolen live in Israel, meaning Mossad would have had ready access to copies of their travel documents.
A senior Foreign Office source told The Daily Telegraph: “If the Israelis were responsible for the assassination in Dubai, they are seriously jeopardising the important intelligence-sharing arrangement that currently exists between Britain and Israel.
“If it transpires that Israel has been using British passports to assassinate its opponents, the British government will need to give serious consideration to any future cooperation.
“Britain has cut ties with Mossad in the past, and will do so again if the Israelis are found to be acting against British interests.”
Britain’s relationship with the Israeli security service reached an all-time low in 1986, when the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher closed down Mossad’s UK operation in response to a series of incidents including the discovery of a bag of forged British passports which had been lost by a Mossad agent.
Mossad was only allowed to re-establish its presence in the UK after it promised not to abuse British passports in the future.
Its intelligence-sharing relationship with the security services over such sensitive issues as Iran is now more important than ever, but the Foreign Office source said: “In the past Israel has had a reputation for making life difficult for its friends. It is sincerely to be hoped that this is not the case in this instance.”
Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer reached the semifinals of the Dubai Open after her Chinese rival Li Na quit in the middle of the second set. Peer was leading 7:5, 3:0.
I don't know about the rest of you but I could have (and did) predict this. Several weeks ago, the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, discussing his pending legislation for broad-based sanctions, noted that there are “no sanctions strong enough to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course that would not impinge on the quality of life of average Iranians.” The administration does not even purport that its targeted sanctions would be “crippling” — a word that has disappeared from its vocabulary.
President Obama has yet to deliver the “tough, direct message to Iran” that one of the presidential candidates in the October 7, 2008, debate proposed: “If you don’t change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences,” starting with crippling sanctions – “never taking military options off the table” or providing “veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests”:… if we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it’s an oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them.
The candidate who promised that approach was Barack Obama, less than a month before he was elected. Sixteen months later, he can no longer muster even the rhetoric, much less the reality, of what he promised. He does not appear to be the person the country thought it knew.
It's no secret that Israel's government-funded public radio station is sharply biased to the Left. Still, it's at least somewhat surprising that something as blatant as this happened. Public radio host Keren Noibach, who hosts the Voice of Israel's main news program, said on air that Israel kills Arabs for no reason.
After the remark caused an uproar, the station demanded Noibach publicly apologize, which she did.
In an earlier post, I reported on the connection between Rashad Hussain, President Obama's appointment to be his representative to the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Countries, and Sami al-Arian, the former Florida professor who pleaded guilty to being a fundraiser for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization.In 2004, Rashad Hussain, then a Yale law student, declared that the investigation and prosecution of University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian, who ultimately pled guilty to charges involving his activities as a leader of the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was a “politically motivated persecution” designed “to squash dissent.”
Journalist Patrick Goodenough of Cybercast News Service reports that Hussain’s remarks in support of Al-Arian were published in the jihad-enabling Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in November 2004. But now all that has gone down the memory hole. The Washington Report’s archived version of this November 2004 article lacks two paragraphs that were included in the original version: the ones quoting Rashad Hussain. Otherwise the article is unchanged.
The Washington Report editors, caught red-handed, decided to brazen it out, and blame their accusers – a tried-and-true tactic that is also frequently employed by jihadists in the West. They insist that there was no cover-up, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a venomous Islamophobe: according to Goodenough, “WRMEA news editor and executive director Delinda Hanley denied there was a ‘cover-up,’ and implied that anti-Muslim discrimination was behind the fact this was now being raised.”
Sure. It’s just “anti-Muslim discrimination” to be concerned about Rashad Hussain’s support for Al-Arian, a vicious suicide-bombing supporter who chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and clearly meant it. When two Islamic Jihad suicide bombers killed eighteen people in Israel in 1995, Al-Arian called them “two mujahidin martyred for the sake of God.”
But there was no cover-up! It was all a mistake, you see: according to the Washington Report now, Sami Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila Al-Arian, actually said the words that were attributed to Rashad Hussain.
But this explanation doesn’t make sense, since the article was altered just to remove the quotes, not to change the name of the person quoted. Also, the author of the original story, Shereen Kandil, contradicts the Washington Report’s explanation, telling Goodenough:“When I worked as a reporter at WRMEA, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately. I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying. They never once contacted me about an ‘error’ they claim I made.’”
Was the Washington Report covering for Rashad Hussain at its own discretion, or at the behest of someone else? Did Barack Obama himself know about this cover-up? Did someone in the White House or the State Department find out about Hussain’s defense of Al-Arian, and act to cover for the bright young special envoy before this defense was discovered and he became known as a terror apologist?
What does Hussain say? Hussain does not deny the remarks. A White House official who talked with Hussain on Tuesday said he acknowledged attending the event to discuss civil rights in a post-9/11 world but has "no recollection" when it comes to the comments attributed to him. He has not (yet) sought to explain away the remarks away as a youthful indiscretion. What does Hussain think of Sami al-Arian today? The White House doesn't say.
The striking thing for me is that President Obama made Hussain his deputy associate counsel at a time when, as best I can tell, he had maybe a year of experience as a lawyer (plus some time as a House Judiciary Committee staffer). And now, a year later, he has given Hussain what appears to be a reasonably significant diplomatic-type job.
I guess there's a fast track for Muslim-American lawyers, at least those with connections to Paul Soros [note: also a prominent liberal, Paul is the brother of George; I'm only speculating that Hussain's connection with him is relevant] and sympathy for Palestinian jihadists.
Noah Pollak makes an important point about Dubai's handling of the aftermath of the liquidation of Hamas terrorist and arms dealer Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Now imagine if the Israeli government had shown the same speed, efficiency, and common sense in getting information out to the world about, say, a headline-making Arab claim that the IDF had committed an atrocity (pick one among dozens: the Al-Dura affair, the Gaza beach explosion, the “Jenin massacre,” or any number of incidents from the Lebanon and Gaza wars).
The relevant officials would start by not reflexively apologizing; then they would quickly determine what happened; put together a short video presentation, with English narration; complete said presentation while the story was still in the headlines — in days, not weeks, months, or years later; and get it online and sent to journalists and bloggers around the world.
The Dubai authorities did this on the fly in a one-off crisis. The Israeli authorities have been dealing with crises on a constant basis for decades, and they still can’t put something like this together, even when they have months to prepare. Has anyone seen the slightest effort by the Israelis to discredit, say, the Goldstone Report in a way that is accessible and relevant to ordinary people? (Ordinary people don’t read 1,000-page documents.) I sure haven’t, and they’ve had a year to work on it.
I stayed out of the battle between Leon Wieseltier and Andrew Sullivan earlier this month, in which Wieseltier published a lengthy post that much of the blogosphere saw as accusing Sullivan of anti-Semitism. I didn't comment on it because I haven't been reading Sullivan long enough or often enough to back up anything I would say, but you all know I have done a couple of posts ripping individual things Sullivan has written, and on one occasion even called him an anti-Semite myself (that last post even drew an email from Jeffrey Goldberg).In fact, the whole Wieseltier-Sullivan episode has served to illustrate an emerging trend among critics of Israel: Their eagerness to allege that they've been accused of being an anti-Semite. I do agree that some of Israel's defenders are too quick to throw out charges of anti-Semitism or "self-hating Jew," and that's lamentable and a problem. But it seems that among many of Israel's critics, claiming that you've been accused of being an anti-Semite has become some sort of bizarre badge of honor. And quite a few of those that have allegedly been accused of being an anti-Semite, according to Wieseltier's critics, either were never smeared with such a term or were only accused of making a specific problematic remark and not tarred with some broad brush of disliking Jews, as they claim.
The best example of this overheated "He called me an anti-Semite" charge is a column by Glenn Greenwald last week. Early in the article, he writes: "As Charles Freeman can attest, frivolous anti-semitism accusations can still damage those seeking high-level political positions, but those accusations no longer pack any real punch in virtually any other realm" and later gives us this paragraph:If The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, and Time's Joe Klein, and Foreign Policy's Stephen Walt, and the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer, and Gen. Wes Clark (a TNR target), and Howard Dean, and former President Jimmy Carter, and a whole slew of others like them are "anti-semites," then how terrible of an insult is it?
So let's examine a few of Greenwal'd alleged victims.
Why exactly has claiming you've been called an anti-Semite become so cool lately? Could it be that those claiming they've been called anti-Semites find it easier to do that that actually defend their positions with facts?
In what can only be described right now as a pleasant daydream, Bernie Quigley speculates on what Moshe Feiglin means by 'independence from America,' and likens Feiglin to Sarah Palin and Scott Brown. But what I want to know is about the “independence from America” part. Which America? The current, transient New York City zeitgeist of dark-wing late-night comics like David Letterman and Tina Fey, New York Times lifestyle columnists such as Frank Rich and Manhattan’s resident avatar, that great, aging emperor penguin, Bill Clinton? Or that of Auschwitz survivor, Elie Wiesel, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Pastor John Hagee of San Antonio?
Attitudes of support for Israel vary on a spectrum. Probably many are like Thomas Friedman, the Times columnist, who supported the invasion of Iraq and even suggested American boots on the ground in Israel and throwing France off the U.N. Security Council. Then he changed his mind and started talking about India.
Pastor Hagee’s America is a different place, and it is alienating and unacknowledged in the Clinton outlook. Hagee sees a biblical life-or-death conflict in Israel. Passing through the cable channels recently, I saw both Elie Wiesel and Rick Perry sitting on his couch.
As journalist Max Blumenthal writes (on 10/29/09): “On October 25, while an overflow crowd of 1,500 poured into the first convention of the progressive-leaning Israel-oriented lobbying organization J Street, Elie Wiesel, addressed a crowd of 6,000 Christian Zionists at Pastor John Hagee’s ‘Night To Honor Israel.’ According to the San Antonio Express News, while Wiesel sat by his side, Hagee trashed President Barack Obama, baselessly accusing him of ‘being tougher on Israel than on Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.’ ”
How many of you are old enough to remember Leila Khaled? To hear her tell it, airplane hijackings were relatively tame in the '60's and '70's. On August 29, 1969, Khaled was part of a team that hijacked TWA Flight 840 on its way from Rome to Athens, diverting the Boeing 707 to Damascus. She claims she ordered the pilot to fly over Haifa, so she could see her birthplace, which she could not visit.[4] No one was injured, but the aircraft was blown up after hostages had disembarked. According to some media sources,[5] the PFLP leadership thought that Yitzhak Rabin, then Israeli ambassador to the United States, would be on board. This was however denied by Leila Khaled and others.[3] After this hijacking, Khaled underwent plastic surgery to conceal her identity and allow her to take part in a future hijacking.[4]
On September 6, 1970, Khaled and Patrick Argüello, a Nicaraguan, attempted the hijack of El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam to New York City as part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, a series of almost simultaneous hijackings carried out by the PFLP. The attack was foiled when Israeli skymarshals killed Arguello before eventually overpowering Khaled. Although she was carrying two hand grenades at the time, Khaled said she had received very strict instructions not to threaten passengers on the civilian flight.[4] (Patrick Argüello, the co-hijacker, shot a member of the flight crew).
The pilot diverted the aircraft to Heathrow airport in London, where Khaled was delivered to Ealing police station. On October 1, the British government released her as part of a prisoner exchange. The next year, the PFLP abandoned the tactic of hijacking, although splinter movements would continue to hijack airplanes.[citation needed]
Hmmm.
A stone with an inscription in Arabic that is estimated to be 1200 years old was found in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem on Wednesday according to a statement released by Israel's Antiquities Authority. The stone (pictured) is approximately 20 centimeters by 20 centimeters (8 inches by 8 inches). The inscription was said to date back to the Abbasid Caliphate, the third caliphate of Muslim rule in the region and a dynasty founded by the prophet Muhammad’s youngest uncle in the tenth century CE.
The three lines of Arabic script were carved into a marble slate 20 centimeters long and 20 centimeters wide.
In addition to the inscription, numerous ceramic vessels, glass vessels and coins that range in date from the Second Temple period to the Middle Ages were discovered in the excavation. Noteworthy among the pottery are the oil lamps decorated with Arabic inscriptions that were found in the foundations of the Ayyubid structure and on its floor.
The archaeological finds were discovered in the Jewish part of Jerusalem’s Old City, underneath an area on which a private home will be constructed, north of the Church of St. Mary of the Germans. Parts of the foundations of the church were also unearthed in the excavation.
Two similar inscriptions have been discovered in Israel in the past. Based on those previous discoveries, Professor Moshe Sharon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem concluded that the recent discovery “dates to the year 910 CE … commemorates the granting of an estate by the Abbasid caliph to one of his loyal followers in Jerusalem.”
Her Blog began with, "Starting from a very young age, Israeli boys (and girls) know that they are destined to go to the army. It's part of how they grow up, where they are headed, who they will become..."
She is an Israeli Soldier's Mother. She writes a heartfelt blog of what it's like to send her son's to the IDF for their required 3 years of military service.
Her eldest son has just completed his third year and she wrote, "Tonight, I close my eyes and will sleep deep and with the normal fears of a normal mother. I have no sons on the borders of Israel, none at a checkpoint or deep in the desert."
On her son's miliray service she wrote, "I wish as a soldier's mother there was someone I could thank for the gift they have given to my son. In making him a soldier, they have made him a better, stronger, healthier, smarter man. I gave them a boy, much loved and handsome. He was smart, they made him smarter. He was too quick to anger, they taught him discipline. He was always analytical, they taught him to think. I gave them a beautiful boy, they return to me an amazing man."
There's lot's more at IsraeliSoldiersMother
Gen Carter confirmed on Tuesday a missile that struck a house outside Marjah on Sunday killing 12 people, including six children, had hit its intended target.
Gen Carter said the rocket had not malfunctioned and the US system responsible for firing it was back in use. Officials say three Taliban, as well as civilians, were in the house but the Nato soldiers did not know the civilians were there.
Initial Nato reports said the missile had landed about 300m (984ft) off its intended target. Gen Carter blamed these "conflicting" reports on "the fog of war".
Posts
All Comments
