American Foriegn Policy

Palestinian Missile Hits Israeli School Bus — 2 Hurt

Israel deploys rocket defense system against Gaza

Iron Dome intercepts first rocket

Fighting flares in Gaza, shattering lull

Israeli President Peres Appeals to U.N. for Wisdom in Handling Middle East Region

Islamist Hard-Liners Seize the Political Moment in the Freer Egypt

Democracy on the march: Muslim Brotherhood calls for Egyptian modesty police

Group Says Spies Have Found Secret Iranian Nuclear Facility

Misquote the Koran in Malaysia? You Can Now Go to Jail for That

Malaysian Lawmaker: It‘s Cool For Men to Have Affairs if Wives Neglect Bed ’Duty’…But Not So Cool For Women

NATO Fears War without End in Libya

General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya

Democrat: White House is low-balling costs of Libya mission

Pig & a poke: Rep. King threat racist, too

{ 0 comments }

Caroline B. Glick: Celebrate Arab democracy?.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |Over the past week, Israel has been criticized for being insufficiently supportive of democratic change in Egypt. While Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been careful to praise the cause of democracy while warning against the dangers of an Islamic takeover of the most populous Arab state, many Israelis have not been so diplomatic.

To understand why, it is necessary to take a little tour of the Arab world.

In the midst of Tunisia’s revolution last month, the Jewish Agency mobilized to evacuate any members of the country’s Jewish community who wished to leave. Until the end of French colonial rule in 1956, Tunisia’s Jewish community numbered 100,000 members. But like all Jewish communities in the Arab world the advent of Arab nationalism in the mid-20th century forced the overwhelming majority of Tunisia’s Jews to leave the country. Today, with between 1,500 and 3000 members, Tunisia’s tiny Jewish community is among the largest in the Arab world.

So far, six families have left for Israel. Many more may follow. Two weeks ago Daniel Cohen from Tunis’s Jewish community told Haaretz, “If the situation continues as it is now, we will definitely have to leave or immigrate to Israel.”

Since then, Rached Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia’s Islamist party Ennahdha, returned to Tunisia 22 years living in exile in London. He was sentenced to life in prison in absentia by the regime of ousted president Zine al-Abdine Ben Ali on terrorism charges.

Then on Monday night unidentified assailants set fire to a synagogue in the town of Ghabes and burned the Torah scrolls. In an interview with AFP, Trabelsi Perez, President of the Ghriba synagogue said the crime was made all the more shocking by the fact that it occurred as police were stationed close by.

The day after the attack Roger Bismuth, President of Tunisia’s Jewish community disputed the view that the scorching of Torah scrolls had anything to do with anti-Semitism. The man responsible for representing Tunisia’s Jewish community before the evolving new regime told The Jerusalem Post that the attack was the fault of the Jews themselves, “because they left [the synagogue] open…This is not an attack on the Jewish community.”

The fear now gripping the Jews of Tunisia is not surprising. The same fear gripped the much smaller Iraqi Jewish community after the US and Britain toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. The Iraqi community was the oldest, and arguably the most successful Jewish community in the Arab world until World War II. Its 150,000 members were leading businessmen and civil servants during the period of British rule.

Following the establishment of Israel, the Iraqi government revoked the citizenship of the country’s Jews, forced them to flee and stole their property down to their wedding rings. The expropriated property of Iraqi Jewry is valued today at more than $4 billion.

Only 7,000 Jews remained in Iraq after the mass aliya(ascension) of 1951. By the time Saddam was toppled in 2003, only 32 Jews remained. They were mainly elderly, and impoverished. And owing to al Qaida threats and government harassment, they were all forced to flee.

Shortly after they overthrew Saddam, US forces found the archives of the Jewish community submerged in a flooded basement of a secret police building in Baghdad. The archive was dried and frozen and sent to the US for preservation. Last year, despite the fact that Saddam’s secret police only had the archive because they stole it from the Jews, the Iraqi government demanded its return as a national treasure.

As embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak began his counteroffensive against the anti-regime protesters, his mouthpieces began alleging that the protesters were incited by the Mossad. For their part, the anti-regime protesters claim that Mubarak is an Israeli puppet. The protesters brandish placards with Mubarak’s image plastered with Stars of David. A photo of an effigy of newly appointed Vice President and intelligence chief Omar Suleiman burned in Tahrir Square showed him portrayed as a Jew.

Wednesday night, Channel 10′s Arab affairs commentator Zvi Yehezkeli ran a depressing report on the status of the graves of Jewish sages buried in the Muslim world.

The report chronicled the travels of Rabbi Yisrael Gabbai, a fervently–Orthodox rabbi who has taken upon himself to travel to save these important shrines. As Yehezkeli reported, last week Gabbai travelled to Iran and visited the graves of Purim heroes Queen Esther and Mordechai the Jew, the prophets Daniel and Habbakuk.

He was moved to travel to Iran after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered Esther’s and Mordechai’s tomb destroyed. The Iranian media followed up Ahmadinejad’s edict with a campaign claiming that Esther and Mordechai were responsible for the murder of 170,000 Iranians.

Gabbai’s travels have brought him to Iran, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and beyond. And throughout the Arab and Muslim world, like the dwindling Jewish communities, Jewish cemeteries are targets for anti-Semitic attacks. “We’re talking about thousands of cemeteries throughout the Arab world. It’s the same problem everywhere,” he said. Israelis have been overwhelmingly outspoken in our criticism of Western support for the anti-regime forces in Egypt due to our deep-seated concern that the current regime will be replaced by a regime dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Representing a minimum of 30 percent of Egyptians, the Muslim Brotherhood is the only well organized political force in the country outside the regime.

Their organizational prowess and willingness to use violence to achieve their aims was likely demonstrated within hours of the start of the unrest. Shortly after the demonstrations began, operatives from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood branch in Gaza — that is Hamas — knew to cross the border into the Sinai. And last Thursday, a police station in Suez was attacked with RPGs and firebombs.

Hamas has a long history of operations in the Sinai. It also has close ties with Beduin gangs in the area who were reportedly involved in attacking another police station in northern Sinai.

Western — and particularly American — willingness to pretend that the Muslim Brotherhood is anything other than a totalitarian movement has been greeted by disbelief and astonishment by Israelis from across the political spectrum.

It is the likelihood that the Muslim Brotherhood will rise to power, not an aversion to Arab democracy that has caused Israel to fear the popular revolt against President Hosni Mubarak’s regime. If the Muslim Brotherhood were not a factor in Egypt, then Israel would probably have simply been indifferent to events there as it has been to the development of democracy in Iraq and to the popular revolt in Tunisia.

Israel’s indifference to democratization of the Arab world has been a cause of consternation for some of its traditional supporters in conservative circles in the US and Europe. Israelis are accused of provincialism. As citizens of the only democracy in the Middle East, we are admonished for not supporting democracy among our neighbors. The fact is that Israeli indifference to democratic currents in Arab societies is not due to provincialism. Israelis are indifferent because we realize that whether under authoritarian rule or democracy, anti-Semitism is the unifying sentiment of the Arab world. Fractured along socioeconomic, tribal, religious, political, ethnic and other lines, the glue that binds Arab societies is hatred of Jews.

A Pew opinion survey of Arab attitudes towards Jews from June 2009 makes this clear. 95 percent of Egyptians, 97 percent of Jordanians and Palestinians and 98 percent of Lebanese expressed unfavorable opinions of Jews. Three-quarters of Turks, Pakistanis and Indonesians also expressed hostile views of Jews.

Throughout the Arab and Muslim world, genocidal anti-Semitic propaganda is all-pervasive. And as Prof. Robert Wistrich has written, “The ubiquity of the hate and prejudice exemplified by this hard-core anti-Semitism undoubtedly exceeds the demonization of earlier historical periods — whether the Christian Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the Dreyfus Affair in France, or the Judeophobia of Tsarist Russia. The only comparable example would be that of Nazi Germany in which we can also speak of an’eliminationist anti-Semitism’ of genocidal dimensions, which ultimately culminated in the Holocaust.”

That is why for most Israelis, the issue of how Arabs are governed is as irrelevant as the results of the 1852 US Presidential elections were for American blacks. Since both parties excluded them, they were indifferent to who was in power.

What these numbers, and the anti-Semitic behavior of Arabs show Israelis is that it makes no difference which regime rules where. As long as the Arab peoples hate Jews, there will be no peace between their countries and Israel. No one will be better for Israel than Mubarak. They can only be the same or worse.

This is why no one expected for the democratically elected Iraqi government to sign a peace treaty with Israel or even end Iraq’s official state of war with the Jewish state. Indeed, Iraq remains in an official state of war with Israel. And after independent lawmaker Mithal al-Alusi visited Israel in 2008, two of his sons were murdered. Alusi’s life remains under constant threat.

One of the more troubling aspects of the Western media coverage of the tumult in Egypt over the past two weeks has been the media’s move to airbrush out all evidence of the protesters’ anti-Semitism.

As John Rosenthal pointed out this week at the Weekly Standard, Germany’s Die Welt ran a front page photo which featured a poster of Mubarak with a Star of David across his forehead in the background. The photo caption made no mention of the anti-Semitic image. And its online edition did not run the picture.

And as author Bruce Bawer noted at Pajamas Media website, Jeanne Moos of CNN scanned the protesters’ signs, noting how authentic and heartwarming their misspelled English messages were yet failed to mention that one of the signs she showed portrayed Mubarak as a Jew.

Given the Western media’s obsessive coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict, at first blush it seems odd that they would ignore the prevalence of anti-Semitism among the presumably pro-democracy protesters. But on second thought, it isn’t that surprising.

If the media reported on the overwhelming Jew hatred in the Arab world generally and in Egypt specifically, it would ruin the narrative of the Arab conflict with Israel. That narrative explains the roots of the conflict as frustrated Arab-Palestinian nationalism. It steadfastly denies any more deeply-seated antipathy of Jews that is projected onto the Jewish state. The fact that the one Jewish state stands alone against 23 Arab states and 57 Muslim states whose populations are united in their hatred of Jews necessarily requires a revision of the narrative. And so their hatred is ignored.

But Israelis don’t need CNN to tell us how our neighbors feel about us. We know already. And because we know, while we wish them the best of luck with their democracy movements, and would welcome the advent of a tolerant society in Egypt, we recognize that that tolerance will end when it comes to the Jews. And so whether they are democrats or autocrats, we fully expect they will continue to hate us.

JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

{ 0 comments }

Columnist Larry Elder published a thought provoking article at http://www.JewishWorldReview.com entitled: “President Obama, Make the Case for Afghanistan — or Get Out”.  In it, he makes THE important point regarding any war to be fought by US troops:  If the US is not TOTALLY committed to win a war, it is immoral to ask the youth of our nation to leave their homes and risk all to pursue it.

Evidently, we did not learn that important lesson for which we paid 50,000 precious American lives (not to mention most of our country’s global credibility) in Vietnam.  Our government owes the American people, particularly those who are sent to fight this war:

  1. A clearly defined objective  What does “winning” this war actually mean?
  2. A total commitment to “win” this war as quickly possible with the minimum loss of American lives.
  3. Or, in the alternative, Immediate withdrawal.

Excerpts from Mr. Elder’s commentary:

We need “a warrior,” not “a flower child.”
The anguished mother of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan said this about President Barack Obama. She objects to the rules of engagement, which she feels caused her son’s death. The recent Rolling Stone piece on the former Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, showed widespread troop disapproval of these rules, designed to minimize civilian casualties but which increase the danger to coalition soldiers in the field.
But this is the mindset of Obama.

As a candidate for president, Obama criticized President George W. Bush for “wrongly” taking the nation to war in Iraq and thus “neglecting” Afghanistan. Then President Obama spent months deciding whether to agree to the 40,000 additional troops requested by McChrystal, whom Obama appointed after firing his successor. Reportedly, the general wanted 80,000 more troops but scaled it down after fierce resistance. And Obama agreed to a goal of recruiting and training approximately 250,000 Afghan troops and police, well short of the 400,000 requested by McChrystal.

Finally agreeing to an increase of 30,000 troops, Obama simultaneously announced that in July 2011, troops will begin coming home. Afghan political analyst Ahmad Sayedi predicted this announcement would embolden Afghan terrorists: “When the USA sets a timeline of 18 months for troop withdraw, this by itself boosts the morale of the opponents and makes them less likely to take any step towards reconciliation.” Sen. John McCain recently said, “You cannot tell the enemy when you’re leaving in warfare and expect your strategy to be able to prevail.”

The “war of necessity” became the schizophrenic war.

How stupid can one administration be????  Commit or get out!

Please enjoy the full article at:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder070110.php3

{ 0 comments }

Nationally syndicated radio host and bestselling author, Monica Crowley, has published a thought provoking article at politicalmavens.com entitled “McChrystal Goes Rogue — Again”

Shortly after President Obama assumed the Commander-in-Chief duties, he retired the existing commanding general in Afghanistan and hand-picked his successor: General Stanley McChrystal. McChystal was always known as a brash and outspoken military man, an expert in counterinsurgency, greatly respected by the troops under his command, and as having little patience for fools.

His requirement to have to answer to Obama, then, was a trainwreck waiting to happen.

Last year, McChrystal made no secret of his desire to have as many as 80,000 additional troops to press the fight in Afghanistan. He went to the press to state that objective and to dismiss those, like VP Joe Biden, who opposed any kind of surge.

…while McChrystal was right on policy (never commit militarily to an operation without committing overwhelming force and having a clear plan), he was wrong to go public …

Today… McChrystal is being recalled  … to explain disrespectful comments he and his aides made to Rolling Stone magazine about Obama, Biden, other top national security officials, and the war strategy. Once again, McChrystal is right on policy (Obama is a destructive, disengaged, uninterested fool whose withdrawal timetable and ridiculous hamstringing rules of engagement are costing us lives and progress), but he was wrong to go public with that criticism.

~~~~~

But there are 2 big points to consider as this story unfolds:

1. McChyrstal is a four star general, graduate of West Point, has extensive combat experience and a chest full of medals. In other words, he knows what he’s doing. This was NOT a mistake. These comments were not “off the cuff” or limited to just one or two flippant remarks. And the interview was deliberately given to far-Left, anti-war Rolling Stone. None of this was a coincidence.

That can only mean one thing: that McChrystal is playing a game of chicken with Obama. He was daring Obama to respond. Obama runs a huge risk if he fires him. If the war goes under, it’ll be Obama’s fault for firing an insubordinate and prickly but effective general. If he doesn’t fire him, he may look weak and McChrystal will likely feel freer to do what he needs to do to win on the battlefield. Either way: McChrystal has made his point.

2. Many are asking today: Does Obama still have the necessary trust and confidence in McChrystal? I think the more appropriate and important question is: Does McChrystal have ANY trust and confidence in the Commander-in-Chief?

Please read the entire article and other interesting commentary at:

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2010/06/22/mcchrystal-goes-rogue-again/

{ 0 comments }

At West Point, Obama Presses for New World Order to Defeat Al Qaeda

President Obama on Saturday vowed to press for a new international order “that can resolve the challenges of our times” and help the United States defeat Al Qaeda and other threats to freedom.

Delivering the commencement speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama ticked off a list of lofty goals this new order could accomplish; from combating violent extremism to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to stemming climate change and sustaining global growth.

While saying he was “clear-eyed about the shortfalls” of the international system that has led many critics of the United Nations and other institutions to abandon multilateralism, Obama said the United States would move ahead on a policy of “national renewal and global leadership.”

“We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice — so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don’t,” he said.

Saturday’s comments suggest the Obama administration may be ready to more vigorously court the international community’s support, and further distance itself from the “distinctly American internationalism” pursued by George W. Bush.

Please Read More Here…

{ 0 comments }