Posts
1 hour ago
Saturday 14 November 2009
RubinReports: Why I Murdered 13 American Soldiers at Fort Hood: Nidal Hassan Explains It All to You
Why I Murdered 13 American Soldiers at Fort Hood: Nidal Hassan Explains It All to You
[Please subscribe for exclusive stories like this one]
By Barry Rubin
How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You’ve seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’s most amazing of all is this:
Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States--to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.
It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.
It is quite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still a note of ambiguity in it. He's still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.
In a sense, Hassan's lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated--rather than swept under the rug--more people will die.
In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. .
Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything.
Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5]. Ironically, if an American journalist or professor said this he’d be accused of Islamophobia.
Now here’s Hassan’s central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it’s getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hassan was deciding that he couldn’t do so.
He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13]
Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there’s one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don’t they will suffer torments of Hell.
Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of “defensive Jihad” which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.
And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly” with those who fight Muslims.” [Slide 40]
If Nidal Hassan believed this and would follow it, he must—to be a proper Muslim in his eyes—pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he’d been fighting…Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem.
Being ordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hassan now had to decide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with the infidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He made his decision.
It is interesting that no Muslim debate has developed over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim allies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to “kill Muslims” but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the same thing.
Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this position more easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction but knowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of all Muslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world.
The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hassan never considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to other Muslims in Western militaries.
So, in his thinking, how might Hassan have escaped from that stark choice? Hassan answers that question. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans ended the wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary. [Slide 42]
Another alternative is if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) and paid a special tax [Slide 43-44].
The third alternative would be if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn’t mention another part of this description, which was the murder of all Jews.
A digression is appropriate here. Hassan, although a Palestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews. This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just about Israel. But it also tells something important about Hassan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.
As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changed sides in the War on Terror.
Hassan was no fool or blind fanatic. Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotes contradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions can enter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47].
His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes:
“If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the `infidels’; i.e., the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”
And of course, these groups did so convince Hassan. [Slide 48]
Why? Hassan tells us:
“God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but God is not.” [Slide 49]
And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route:
"Recommendation: Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as `Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” [Slide 50]
If that had existed for Hassan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal is worth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. But then he had other options. He could have resigned his commission, deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone to prison. In fact, Hassan himself cited individuals who had done the last two.
The answer must be in a mix of psychological factors and the fact that he did see himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence of the former in no way negates that of the latter.
The fact that Hassan’s lecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of how impoverished are the “experts,” journalists, and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they're wasting everyone's time. They're also going to be wasting quite a few lives.
By Barry Rubin
How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You’ve seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’s most amazing of all is this:
Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States--to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.
It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.
It is quite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still a note of ambiguity in it. He's still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.
In a sense, Hassan's lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated--rather than swept under the rug--more people will die.
In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. .
Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything.
Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5]. Ironically, if an American journalist or professor said this he’d be accused of Islamophobia.
Now here’s Hassan’s central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it’s getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hassan was deciding that he couldn’t do so.
He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13]
Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there’s one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don’t they will suffer torments of Hell.
Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of “defensive Jihad” which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.
And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly” with those who fight Muslims.” [Slide 40]
If Nidal Hassan believed this and would follow it, he must—to be a proper Muslim in his eyes—pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he’d been fighting…Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem.
Being ordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hassan now had to decide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with the infidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He made his decision.
It is interesting that no Muslim debate has developed over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim allies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to “kill Muslims” but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the same thing.
Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this position more easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction but knowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of all Muslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world.
The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hassan never considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to other Muslims in Western militaries.
So, in his thinking, how might Hassan have escaped from that stark choice? Hassan answers that question. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans ended the wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary. [Slide 42]
Another alternative is if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) and paid a special tax [Slide 43-44].
The third alternative would be if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn’t mention another part of this description, which was the murder of all Jews.
A digression is appropriate here. Hassan, although a Palestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews. This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just about Israel. But it also tells something important about Hassan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.
As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changed sides in the War on Terror.
Hassan was no fool or blind fanatic. Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotes contradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions can enter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47].
His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes:
“If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the `infidels’; i.e., the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”
And of course, these groups did so convince Hassan. [Slide 48]
Why? Hassan tells us:
“God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but God is not.” [Slide 49]
And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route:
"Recommendation: Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as `Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” [Slide 50]
If that had existed for Hassan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal is worth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. But then he had other options. He could have resigned his commission, deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone to prison. In fact, Hassan himself cited individuals who had done the last two.
The answer must be in a mix of psychological factors and the fact that he did see himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence of the former in no way negates that of the latter.
The fact that Hassan’s lecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of how impoverished are the “experts,” journalists, and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they're wasting everyone's time. They're also going to be wasting quite a few lives.
RubinReports: Why I Murdered 13 American Soldiers at Fort Hood: Nidal Hassan Explains It All to You
RubinReports: The Great “Abbas is Quitting” Farce; Media Deletes Palestinian Intransigence
The Great “Abbas is Quitting” Farce; Media Deletes Palestinian Intransigence
[Please subscribe and get daily, accurate coverage of the REAL Middle East--not the fantasy version.]
By Barry Rubin
It’s really funny how the story about Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas supposedly-going-to-call-elections-and-resign story was covered. Everyone in the Middle East knew he wouldn’t resign and he wouldn’t call elections. It was a blatant bid to get something from the Americans and pretend that he was tough. But the Western media reported the story as if it were true.
This technique borrows from Egyptian President (dictator) Gamal Abdel Nasser after he lost the 1967 war. Step 1: Announce your quitting. Step 2: Organize big demonstrations begging you not to quit. Abbas added to this a Step 3: Get Westerners to give you goodies and demand more concessions from Israel so that you'll stay.
So the media played along and took it seriously. In the process we were given the mainstream view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict within the framework of the Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize the Palestinian side. Well, you can knock Hamas but not the PA. In fact, the more one-sided the reporting, the better.
But it wasn’t long before it was clear he’d stay on as the PA’s head and there won’t be any elections.
In covering the story, though, the media generally gave us this narrative: The poor Palestinian leadership is just slathering for peace but Israel won’t give them anything and President Barack Obama won’t help. (Yes, so compelling is the Commandment on not criticizing the Palestinians that people are even willing to criticize Obama instead! Which really tells you something about the intensity of this syndrome(.
For example we got “Abbas says he doesn't want to seek reelection,” by Howard Schneider in the Washington Post:
” Abbas' announcement follows months of failed attempts by the United States to restart direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. A weekend trip to the region by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton accentuated the impasse, as the United States announced it was scaling back its expectations, and Palestinians contended there was a growing pro-Israeli tilt to U.S. policy.”
Now what doesn’t that paragraph tell us? Abbas is the one rejecting negotiations with Israel right now! This is the central problem Obama is facing today.
Yet everything—and I do mean everything—is spun in a pro-PA, anti-Israel manner. Look at this:
“But advisers and analysts said it was possible he was merely venting frustration over a dialogue with the United States and Israel that has undercut him politically without any marked progress toward the creation of a Palestinian state.”
Poor Abbas! The U.S. and Israel are undercutting him and preventing any progress toward a Palestinian state. Might Abbas and the PA bear some responsibility for this situation? Not according to the coverage.
Nor are we even told how they are really undercutting him. Here's how: The United States asked Abbas not to go all demagogic on the Goldstone Report, that collection of unproven Hamas accusations that has become a UN report, and demand that Israel be sanctioned and declared a war criminal state. If you're going to negotiate with Israel, goes the correct logic of the Obama Administration, you can't demonize it.
In addition, this behavior would have had the PA emerge as the leading defender of Hamas, which not only killed Abbas's men but is openly genocidal toward Israel and will never make peace. The underlying PA strategy, of course is this: Why negotiate with Israel when you can get the international community to put such crushing pressure on it as to force Israel to give you everything you want with no concessions on your part.
But this is the kind of analysis we never hear. Instead we get:
“[Abbas’s speech] should "be understood as an urgent scream against the continuing pressure and bending our arms" by the United States and Israel, Abbas aide Yasser Abed Rabbo said….
“After initial optimism that President Obama's election would elevate Palestinian interests, Abbas has been steadily frustrated in his hopes for quick results on issues he regards as central, such as a freeze on the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
“Instead, his political standing has declined, as decisions made in consultation with the United States proved unpopular locally while still failing to produce anticipated Israeli concessions.”
Well you get the idea. But wait a minute! Isn’t this article being published after the U.S. and Israel reached a deal that there would be a free of construction on settlements? So in fact the United States didn’t fail to produce anticipated Israeli concessions. It did produce them.
And since the PA betrayed its promise about Goldstone to Obama within about 48 hours while refusing to engage in negotiations with Israel, it didn’t exactly give the president much chance to produce results.
Goodness, the PA doesn’t need to hire a public relations’ agency, does it?
In other anguished coverage of Abbas’s phony resignation threat, we got the November 7, “Despair rises as Abbas talks of bowing out,” by Steven Gutkin, Associated Press. Despair? Laughter is more like it.
How about this lead:
“By saying he wants to step down as president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas has highlighted a deep Palestinian despair rooted in decades of failed peace initiatives and fruitless violence.
“Neither strategy has yielded a Palestinian state, and Israeli settlements still encroach on lands that would be part of their would-be nation.”
Remember Camp David and the Clinton plan of 2000, which the Palestinians turned down? But we are to believe they keep trying and nothing works for them. You’d never know the peace initiatives failed because the PA vetoed them. The Palestinians rejected a peace which would have had Israel remove all the settlements on its territory. That’s why the settlements are still there!
And of course the PA flubbed it when Israel did remove all the settlements from the Gaza Strip.
And what’s the subtle implication of the PA's policy which the media interpretation usually reinforces? Answer: Israel should remove the settlements and give everything the PA demands now and later on the two sides can negotiate.
The article continues:
“Facing a hawkish Israeli government and an Obama administration reluctant to put muscle behind its demands on Israel, many Palestinians say they see no hope.”
Poor Palestinians! Israel just won’t make peace and Obama won’t help. The key to success is just pressuring Israel's government. Yeah, that’s sure an accurate description of the situation, isn’t it?
Yet what does this tell us? That the relative moderates, the PA and Egypt and Saudi Arabia (see here) are now blaming Obama for not doing enough nice things for them. Publicly, their complaint is that he’s not bashing Israel enough; privately, that he’s not bashing Iran and Syria enough. A good portion of the media is picking up this public theme, implying that Obama is just too darn right-wing on the Middle East.
The radicals are even more outspoken. They don’t care about Obama’s Cairo and Istanbul and UN speeches. No matter what he does, he and America are their enemies.
And so for example, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah has called Obama even more pro-Israel and anti-Muslim than George W. Bush. He’s just trying to stall for time “and gain Arab sympathy," says the Hizballah chieftain, and all "illusions" of his being fair are gone.
Unfortunately, there are still too many illusions left, and they are with American policymakers who let Iran and the Palestinians stall and gain Western sympathy.
By Barry Rubin
It’s really funny how the story about Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas supposedly-going-to-call-elections-and-resign story was covered. Everyone in the Middle East knew he wouldn’t resign and he wouldn’t call elections. It was a blatant bid to get something from the Americans and pretend that he was tough. But the Western media reported the story as if it were true.
This technique borrows from Egyptian President (dictator) Gamal Abdel Nasser after he lost the 1967 war. Step 1: Announce your quitting. Step 2: Organize big demonstrations begging you not to quit. Abbas added to this a Step 3: Get Westerners to give you goodies and demand more concessions from Israel so that you'll stay.
So the media played along and took it seriously. In the process we were given the mainstream view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict within the framework of the Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize the Palestinian side. Well, you can knock Hamas but not the PA. In fact, the more one-sided the reporting, the better.
But it wasn’t long before it was clear he’d stay on as the PA’s head and there won’t be any elections.
In covering the story, though, the media generally gave us this narrative: The poor Palestinian leadership is just slathering for peace but Israel won’t give them anything and President Barack Obama won’t help. (Yes, so compelling is the Commandment on not criticizing the Palestinians that people are even willing to criticize Obama instead! Which really tells you something about the intensity of this syndrome(.
For example we got “Abbas says he doesn't want to seek reelection,” by Howard Schneider in the Washington Post:
” Abbas' announcement follows months of failed attempts by the United States to restart direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. A weekend trip to the region by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton accentuated the impasse, as the United States announced it was scaling back its expectations, and Palestinians contended there was a growing pro-Israeli tilt to U.S. policy.”
Now what doesn’t that paragraph tell us? Abbas is the one rejecting negotiations with Israel right now! This is the central problem Obama is facing today.
Yet everything—and I do mean everything—is spun in a pro-PA, anti-Israel manner. Look at this:
“But advisers and analysts said it was possible he was merely venting frustration over a dialogue with the United States and Israel that has undercut him politically without any marked progress toward the creation of a Palestinian state.”
Poor Abbas! The U.S. and Israel are undercutting him and preventing any progress toward a Palestinian state. Might Abbas and the PA bear some responsibility for this situation? Not according to the coverage.
Nor are we even told how they are really undercutting him. Here's how: The United States asked Abbas not to go all demagogic on the Goldstone Report, that collection of unproven Hamas accusations that has become a UN report, and demand that Israel be sanctioned and declared a war criminal state. If you're going to negotiate with Israel, goes the correct logic of the Obama Administration, you can't demonize it.
In addition, this behavior would have had the PA emerge as the leading defender of Hamas, which not only killed Abbas's men but is openly genocidal toward Israel and will never make peace. The underlying PA strategy, of course is this: Why negotiate with Israel when you can get the international community to put such crushing pressure on it as to force Israel to give you everything you want with no concessions on your part.
But this is the kind of analysis we never hear. Instead we get:
“[Abbas’s speech] should "be understood as an urgent scream against the continuing pressure and bending our arms" by the United States and Israel, Abbas aide Yasser Abed Rabbo said….
“After initial optimism that President Obama's election would elevate Palestinian interests, Abbas has been steadily frustrated in his hopes for quick results on issues he regards as central, such as a freeze on the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
“Instead, his political standing has declined, as decisions made in consultation with the United States proved unpopular locally while still failing to produce anticipated Israeli concessions.”
Well you get the idea. But wait a minute! Isn’t this article being published after the U.S. and Israel reached a deal that there would be a free of construction on settlements? So in fact the United States didn’t fail to produce anticipated Israeli concessions. It did produce them.
And since the PA betrayed its promise about Goldstone to Obama within about 48 hours while refusing to engage in negotiations with Israel, it didn’t exactly give the president much chance to produce results.
Goodness, the PA doesn’t need to hire a public relations’ agency, does it?
In other anguished coverage of Abbas’s phony resignation threat, we got the November 7, “Despair rises as Abbas talks of bowing out,” by Steven Gutkin, Associated Press. Despair? Laughter is more like it.
How about this lead:
“By saying he wants to step down as president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas has highlighted a deep Palestinian despair rooted in decades of failed peace initiatives and fruitless violence.
“Neither strategy has yielded a Palestinian state, and Israeli settlements still encroach on lands that would be part of their would-be nation.”
Remember Camp David and the Clinton plan of 2000, which the Palestinians turned down? But we are to believe they keep trying and nothing works for them. You’d never know the peace initiatives failed because the PA vetoed them. The Palestinians rejected a peace which would have had Israel remove all the settlements on its territory. That’s why the settlements are still there!
And of course the PA flubbed it when Israel did remove all the settlements from the Gaza Strip.
And what’s the subtle implication of the PA's policy which the media interpretation usually reinforces? Answer: Israel should remove the settlements and give everything the PA demands now and later on the two sides can negotiate.
The article continues:
“Facing a hawkish Israeli government and an Obama administration reluctant to put muscle behind its demands on Israel, many Palestinians say they see no hope.”
Poor Palestinians! Israel just won’t make peace and Obama won’t help. The key to success is just pressuring Israel's government. Yeah, that’s sure an accurate description of the situation, isn’t it?
Yet what does this tell us? That the relative moderates, the PA and Egypt and Saudi Arabia (see here) are now blaming Obama for not doing enough nice things for them. Publicly, their complaint is that he’s not bashing Israel enough; privately, that he’s not bashing Iran and Syria enough. A good portion of the media is picking up this public theme, implying that Obama is just too darn right-wing on the Middle East.
The radicals are even more outspoken. They don’t care about Obama’s Cairo and Istanbul and UN speeches. No matter what he does, he and America are their enemies.
And so for example, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah has called Obama even more pro-Israel and anti-Muslim than George W. Bush. He’s just trying to stall for time “and gain Arab sympathy," says the Hizballah chieftain, and all "illusions" of his being fair are gone.
Unfortunately, there are still too many illusions left, and they are with American policymakers who let Iran and the Palestinians stall and gain Western sympathy.
RubinReports: The Great “Abbas is Quitting” Farce; Media Deletes Palestinian Intransigence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
