Obama Pick To Head National Intelligence Council Got The Surge Wrong And Wants To Talk To Hamas

Arutz Sheva is reporting:

A flurry of reports over the weekend said that the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, considered a sharp critic of Israel, is to be named to a top intelligence post in the administration of President Barack Obama. Chas W. Freeman Jr., who was U.S. ambassador to Riyadh from 1989-1992, is set to be named chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which has a strong influence on the content of the intelligence briefings presented to the President (and puts together the National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, which in 2007 dissuaded the Bush regime from attacking Iran). The Council chairman is also often called on to give direct briefings to the President.

Freeman has expressed concern about how the rest of the world judges the US because of Iraq.

In September 2007 on the surge (PDF):

And now I understand that weʹre hanging around there and shooting the place up in the hope that something positive will turn out and happen. But I donʹt see it happening.

...And, finally, I think we have to take account of the fact that this war has taken a huge toll on American prestige and leadership internationally.

When we call, no one answers anymore. The costs of this adventure go well beyond the Middle East.

In October 2007

By invading Iraq, we transformed an intervention in Afghanistan most Muslims had supported into what looks to them like a wider war against Islam. We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism, and civil war in that country.

Freeman was wrong about the surge--of course he is not the only one; Obama was wrong too. But more than that, we have clearly seen that the US did not destroy the Iraqi state--nor have we "catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism, and civil war in that country." The rash words of Chas Freeman do not bear even a passing resemblance to what exists in that country today.

Freeman is equally wary of what the world will think of the US because of Israel:

Arab identification with Palestinian suffering, once variable in its intensity, is now total. American identification with Israeli policy has also become total. Those in the region and beyond it who detest Israeli behavior, which is to say almost everyone, now naturally extend their loathing to Americans. This has had the effect of universalizing anti-Americanism, legitimizing radical Islamism, and gaining Iran a foothold among Sunni as well as Shiite Arabs. For its part, Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them. Palestinian retaliation against this policy is as likely to be directed against Israel's American backers as against Israel itself. Under the circumstances, such retaliation – whatever form it takes – will have the support or at least the sympathy of most people in the region and many outside it. This makes the long-term escalation of terrorism against the United States a certainty, not a matter of conjecture. [emphasis added]

Before Freeman goes around blaming Israel for terrorist attacks, does he blame Israel for the over 30,000 murdered and injured around the world by Islamist terrorists in 41 countries?

Country	Killed	Injured
Afghanistan	1265	1479
Algeria	210	270
Angola	1	40
Azerbaijan	2	8
Bangladesh	2	15
Chechnya	48	46
China	34	49
Dagestan	24	21
Denmark	0	2
Dubai	1	1
Egypt	1	3
Ethiopia	3	7
France	0	1
Gaza	5	2
Germany	2	0
India	547	1445
Indonesia	3	277
Ingushetia	30	26
Iran	41	160
Iraq	4453	7829
Israel	28	151
Jordan	8	0
Kenya	0	10
Kosovo	2	130
Lebanon	74	302
Mauritania	24	7
Nigeria	12	20
Pakistan	2133	3499
Palestinian Authority	14	35
Philippines	151	315
Russia	13	42
Saudi Arabia	1	0
Somalia	921	1237
Sudan	322	253
Sweden	1	0
Syria	17	14
Thailand	317	405
Turkey	8	0
UK	1	2
USA	3	0
Yemen	63	132
Totals	10785	18235

Something is clearly going on--but this is global terrorism, and it is past time to direct our anger against the perpetrators and not on the country that takes the battle to them.

Unfortunately, Freeman is likely to fit right in as an adviser to Obama, who wants to talk to Iran--Freeman wants to go a step further, urging that the US talk with Hamas too:

we must talk with all parties, whatever we think of them or their means of struggle. Refusal to reason with those whose actions threaten injury to oneself, one's friends, and one's interests is foolish, feckless, and self-defeating.

So just why is Obama picking Freeman?

Based on his past experience as ambassador to Saudi Arabia, it is because of Freeman's expertise in the Middle East.

And based Freeman's incorrect analysis of Iraq and his willingness--if not eagerness--to talk to Hamas, we have here another appointment by Obama that is less than reassuring.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Chas Freeman

Netanyahu--The Next Winston Churchill?

In the past I have only compared Bibi to former President George Bush. Now comes Investors Business Daily and compares Netanyahu to Winston Churchill:

Bibi Netanyahu, former prime minister and current Likud Party leader, has just been asked by President Shimon Peres to form a new coalition government after the close results in the recent Knesset elections.

His coalition will undeniably be fragile, depending on the support of one or a handful of the Jewish state's tiny fringe parties. But Netanyahu used his first statement as prime minister-presumptive to send a powerful message to both Iran and the Obama administration.

To the shock of many, he pointedly refused even to mention the Palestinian peace process, which has been going nowhere of late. Nor was there, again clearly deliberately, any reference made to the so-called two-state solution, which those negotiations had been aiming to find.

Instead, the man who will soon once again lead the state of Israel spoke of "the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence" — Tehran's Islamofascist regime, which for years now has been pursuing a uranium enrichment program it claims to be peaceful, but which even the United Nations diplomats who seek to appease Iran know to be an unprecedented danger to the free world.

...Like Churchill, Benjamin Netanyahu is calling on his political rivals to unite in a broad "national unity" coalition government.

Read the whole thing.

That is an awful lot of history to place on the shoulders of one man. Considering how poorly the world as a whole has done in its feeble efforts to stop Iran's drive towards nuclear power, it is difficult to see how Israel can be expected to do much--especially since Iran has had so much time to prepare against a repeat performance of Israel's bombing of the Iraqi reactor.

Better to first let Netanyahu try assembling a unity coalition.

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Winston Churchill.

Sweden Dissuades Israeli Taekwondo Team From Participating

As vociferous as the world reaction to Dubai not allowing Israel's tennis team in, that is how little attention was paid to a different sports event during February 14-15 that dissuaded Israel from participating:

An Israeli taekwondo delegation, consisting of 45 athletes and 5 coaches, was supposed to travel last weekend to Trelleborg for the Swedish championship (Trelleborg Open). However, the trip was canceled due to threats by a Muslim organization.

The Swedish Federation warned the Israeli delegation that they had concrete threats of an attack on the Israelis during the competition. They asked the Israeli delegation to cancel the trip due to security problems and the flight was indeed canceled.

A senior Swedish taekwondo official told his colleagues in Israel: "Ten thousand members of a Muslim organization are threatening to settle the account with you because of the war in Gaza." The threat was received by email from somebody claiming to represent a pro-Palestinian organization.

Hat tip: Islam in Europe

Mere Rhetoric notes that the consequences of Sweden giving in to the threats goes way beyond the theoretical:

Whether those threats are credible is one thing. Whether Sweden is making the situation worse by granting these violent fanatics a hecklers' veto - which is how they've been dealing with anti-Jewish incitement for years - is something totally different. Across Sweden Jewish buildings are being set on fire...Mobs are have been rampaging through the streets chanting "Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!" At the end of last month police stood aside while Jews were attacked in broad daylight on Swedish streets.

Read the whole thing.

Another point worth mentioning is that Sweden is also among those European countries who have made a new friend in the Middle East:

Mr Hamdan [Hamas representative in Lebanon] said yesterday that since the end of last year, MPs from Sweden, the Netherlands and three other western European nations, which he declined to identify, had consulted with Hamas representatives.

Besides calling into question their overall judgement, the fact that Sweden would talk to the terrorist group--without its having recognized Israel's right to exist or calling an end to its terrorist attacks--indicates that Sweden is less than reliable when it comes to the safety of its Jewish citizens, a point aptly demonstrated by Mere Rhetoric above.

Technorati Tag: Sweden and Anti-Semitism.

Does The US Prefers Hamas To Netanyahu?

I can understand that the US believes that Avigdor Lieberman is too right-wing, especially since Obama wants to go along the same path as his predeccessors, pushing for a second Palestinian state. Therefore, I am not surprised to read this:

Kurtzer: Netanyahu-Lieberman is 'bad combination' for U.S.

Daniel Kurtzer, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said on Tuesday that a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu that also included Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman would be a "bad combination for American interests." 

"It would be much more difficult for the right-wing even with determined American leadership to advance the peace process," Kurtzer said. "Not impossible, but very difficult."

But if Lieberman is so radical and the US feels it cannot pursue peace--at least not easily--with Lieberman as part of the government, then by what logic would the US look favorably on including a terrorist group that has pledged to destroy Israel in a Palestinian "unity" coalition? Is that going to encourage peace?

Yet, according to George Mitchell, the US is prepared to support a Palestinian government that includes the terrorist group Hamas:

Mitchell expressed support for Egyptian efforts to forge a Palestinian national unity government, indicating that America could take a new tack on Fatah-Hamas reconciliation.

Mitchell said that Hamas would still need to adhere to the Quartet’s demands that it halt violence, recognize Israel and accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements in such a government.

Let's assume that Obama will keep to that proviso--just what kind of message is he trying to send Gazans? Is he giving an excuse to start talking to Hamas without having to do so privately as Europe is doing?

If Obama is offering a carrot to Hamas in order to bring them into the fold, what is he willing to do for Israel? Would he be willing to pardon Jonathan Pollard?

After all, before the inevitable confidence building measure of releasing Arab terrorists that Israel is encouraged--if not forced--to do, why shouldn't the US make a meaningful gesture towards Israel to inspire confidence in the new Administration?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hamas.

If Bibi Is Bush, Why Can't Livni Be Gore?

In a previous post, I drew comparisons between Bush and Bibi, noting the level of hate that has been exhibited towards both of them--with my going so far as to suggest that the day may come when BDS will be an abbreviation for Bibi Derangement Syndrome. I also suggested that if Netanyahu becomes the new Prime Minister, then like Bush he could face resentment for becoming Prime Minister contrary to the popular vote.

Peres has given Netanyahu the job of forming a coalition government, and now it looks like Netanyahu will be following in George Bush's footsteps, assuming the position of Prime Minister instead of Livni--and Gil Hoffman of the Jerusalem Post notes that Livni is refusing to play her part in the scenario:

When then-vice president Al Gore won the popular vote for the US presidency by a margin of 543,895 ballots, but lost in the decisive Electoral College, he challenged the results in the state of Florida and only conceded defeat fully 37 days after the election, having gone all the way to the Supreme Court.

But then Gore respectfully accepted the outcome and vowed to work to heal the rifts in the nation caused by the divisive campaign and the legal aftermath of the close race.

"For the sake of the unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession," Gore said. "Let there be no doubt that while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome."

Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu can only wish that Livni would act like Al Gore and let him return to the Prime Minister's Office in peace and quiet.

When Livni won the premiership in the popular vote by 28,978 ballots, but lost in the decisive coalition process, she decided to join the opposition and do everything possible to bring a Netanyahu government down. [emphasis added]

No such luck. 

In an interesting sidepoint, Hoffman urges Livni to follow the examples of both Peres and Gore in what can be achieved even when not gaining the highest office, referring to Peres being Foreign Minister to Prime Minister Sharon despite their differences:

Peres and Gore might be losers, but they both are Nobel Prize winners who took steps to unite their nations later in their careers.

Gore galvanized his people and the world to prepare for the threat posed by global warming. Israel is facing a threat to its existence from Iran. [emphasis]

I would have compared Gore's campaigning on the dangers of global warming with Livni's pushing for the two-state solution.

As with the case made for creating a second Palestinian state, in the case of global warming as well there are strong reasons to be made against the idea.

As with those who back the idea of an Arab Palestinian State, with Global Warming too, we find alarmism instead of open debate of the facts.

Be that as it may, the question is what Livni hopes to gain should her actions in fact lead to the coalition government falling apart. Does she really expect Israelis to thank her?

More at Memeorandum

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israeli Election and Netanyahu and Livni .

The New Israeli Government: E Pluribus Duo?

Shmuel Rosner writes about the criticism of already being heard of the Netanyahu government, based on the assumption that without the addition of Livni and the inclusion of Lieberman it will be an extreme right-wing coalition. Livni is thus holding back from Netanyahu the ability to create a unity government that will negate that labeling:

If Livni chooses not to join the coalition and Labor remains in the opposition (left-wing Meretz, with its meager three mandates, has little bearing on the viability of a coalition) - who else would there be for Netanyahu to work with? Do these doomsday-prophets want Israel to vote again because they didn’t like the initial outcome? Do they want the interim government to stay in power indefinitely?

Putting aside that the answer is yes--to both of those questions, Paul Mirengoff of Powerline suggests that Netanyahu might yet be able to include Kadima in a coalition, even without Livni:

But I wonder whether the less leftist, more hawkish elements of Kadima might be willing to join a Netanyahu government. After all, Kadima was not founded (only a few years ago) as a party committed to making concessions to the Palestinians in the hope of obtaining promises of peace. To the contrary, Kadima was founded by the hawkish Ariel Sharon on a platform disengagement from the Palestinians. To be sure, this meant giving up land, but the territory was abandoned unilaterally, not pursuant to a peace process but in order to make Israel easier (with the help of a massive fence) to defend.

Those who joined Kadima did so in part, I suspect out of opportunism/loyalty to Sharon and in part because they agreed with Sharon at that moment about withdrawing from certain territory. Today, the opportunistic move might well be to abandon this borderline ersatz party. And Sharon's program, which he carried out in part, no longer defines the debates.

The defining issues now are whether to revisit the "land for peace" dead end and what to do about Iran. It's not hard to imagine that there are elements in Kadima with views on these matters are closer to Netanyahu's than to Livni's.

Even assuming Mirengoff is right, the point Rosner raises still remains: critics of Netanyahu will still claim that Netanyahu's coalition is a unity government in name only, consisting only of right-wingers.

Will the end result be a coaltion with Netanyahu and Livni rotating as leaders of Israel?

Technorati Tag: Israeli Elections.

This Week The World Finally Reacted To Anti-Israel Bias

Eric Trager notes that when Israeli tennis star Shahar Peer was denied a visa by the UAE and excluded from the Dubai Tennis Championships this past weekend, something unexpected happened: there was international outrage:

For once, Jewish leaders weren’t the only voices speaking out against anti-Israeli exclusion.  Indeed, the Wall Street Journal withdrew its sponsorship; the Women’s Tennis Association, which initially considered canceling the event until Peer rejected the idea, announced that it might eliminate the event from next year’s schedule; and the Tennis Channel refused to broadcast the week-long tournament in protest.  The response was so overwhelming that the U.A.E. was immediately on the defensive: the tournament’s organizers first claimed - very dubiously - that they were merely trying to protect Peer from anti-Israel protesters, but later vowed that Andy Ram, another Israeli player, would be granted a visa for next week’s men’s bracket. That has since happened.

While Trager credits the nature of sports for bringing this incident out into the open and encouraging both world reaction and condemnation, the bottom line is that:

if Shahar Peer’s exclusion from the Dubai Tennis Championships has served any greater purpose, it is to call attention to decades of Arab discrimination against Israelis and - within one fateful week - reverse it on a most public stage.

And that is a victory too.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Dubai Tennis Championships and Shahar Peer.

What US Ban On Hamas--US Delegation Visits Gaza

A US delegation is visiting Gaza:

A U.S. congressional delegation visited Gaza Thursday, marking the first time that American lawmakers have entered the Hamas-controlled Palestinian territory in eight years, according to the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem.

The delegation included Reps. Brian Baird, D-Washington, and Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, who is the first Muslim to serve in the U.S. Congress.

The delegation's protection is being provided by Hamas--the same terrorist group that somehow lost the unexploded bombs that the UN gave them to protect.

Kerry, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, apparently has not made a statement yet--but that has not stopped Baird and Ellis:

Baird said that the visit represents a change in the United States' attitude and approach to Gaza, under newly elected President Barack Obama.

The destruction from Israel's recent military operation in Gaza was beyond description, Ellison said. The two men visited the United Nations headquarters in Gaza City, and toured homes that had been destroyed in Israel's three-week military campaign.

Well, at least Obama did not make Hamas his second official phone call after Abbas...

The delegation will visit Sderot as well, where Israel actually provides its citizens with bomb shelters--instead of rockets. Perhaps Baird and Ellis will notice the difference.

American Thinker notes the message being sent:

Baird is not speaking for the Administration. Nor is Ellison. Nor are any of the politicians meeting with Hamas officials (at least, “officially”). And with European politicians also speaking with Hamas, it may not seem like much. Nevertheless, the breaking of the de facto ban on Members of Congress visiting Gaza is telling.

Especially when you include the US involvement in Durban II this time around.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

Tibet -- China's Gaza Strip

That is the name of this article I found on Spiegel Online:

Tibet -- China's Gaza Strip
By Jürgen Kremb

The violence in Lhasa is not part of a separatist campaign. Rather, it is the result of failed political policies. To avoid an Olympic-sized debacle, it is time for Beijing to sit down together with the Dalai Lama. The radical Tibetan alternative is far more dangerous.

Read the whole thing.

I don't have time right now to read it and comment on it, but I hope to have time tonight. In the meantime, if anyone has time to read it and has comments, please feel free to share in the comments.

Technorati Tag: Tibet and Gaza and Hamas and Dalai Lama.

A Mundane Turn In The AIPAC Case--And The Absurdity Required To Reach It

The current issue is rather mundane, but read to the end to get a picture of the absurdity that had to be pursued to reach this point.

Judge allows ‘classification czar’ in AIPAC case

The judge in the classified information leak case against two former AIPAC staffers is allowing the Bush administration's former "classification czar" to testify for the defense.

William Leonard, who headed the Information Security Oversight Office, could be the most damaging defense witness when Keith Weissman, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's former Iran analyst and Steve Rosen, its former foreign policy chief, go to trial for allegedly relaying classified information to colleagues, journalists and Israeli diplomats.

Lawyers for Rosen and Weissman sought the testimony of Leonard, who over saw classification procedures from 2002-2008, and his predecessor, Steven Garfinkel, because both men have argued in retirement that the government overclassifies. Their expertise could undermine arguments that the information allegedly handled by Rosen and Weissman met the standards of "national defense information," which federal Judge T.S. Ellis III has said the government must prove.

Prosecutors sought to bar Leonard from the witness stand, saying that his testimony would violate a law banning government officials who have been substantially involved in an investigation from bearing witness for any party contesting the United States in court case arising out of the investigation.

In an order released Wednesday, Ellis summarily dismissed prosecution claims that an hour-long conversation prosecutors had with Leonard in 2006 qualified as "substantial involvement" in the investigation as defined by the law.

Read the whole thing.

Now this is only the latest development in one of the odder aspects of Leonard's testimony that goes back to September. Back then, Leonard's attorney squashed the subpoena requiring him to testify in order to allow the judge to force Leonard to testify:

In an unusual maneuver designed to evade a threat of government sanction, a key defense witness in the trial of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who are charged with mishandling classified information last week moved to quash (pdf) a subpoena summoning him to testify at their upcoming trial.

J. William Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office, indicated he was prepared to testify that the classified information at issue did not meet the standards for national security classification. If so, the defendants could not have violated the law by receiving and transmitting the information without authorization. Not only would they not be guilty, there would have been no crime.

But prosecutors objected to Mr. Leonard’s testimony, arguing that he should not be permitted to appear since he briefly consulted with prosecutors about the case while he was still a government employee in 2006. In a March 31 motion (pdf), they even suggested that he could be liable to a year in jail if he testified for the defense.

In the normal course of events, government officials are sometimes threatened with sanctions if they refuse to testify in a judicial or congressional proceeding. But in the topsy-turvy world of the AIPAC case, Mr. Leonard is threatened with sanctions if he does testify.

To forestall that eventuality, Mr. Leonard was formally subpoenaed (pdf) by the defense on July 25. His attorney, Mark S. Zaid, then moved to quash the subpoena on August 28, in the expectation that the court would issue an order compelling Mr. Leonard to testify. Such an order would serve to shield him against the threatened sanctions from the prosecution.

The fact that the judge has now ruled on permitting Leonard to testify would imply that the judge did issue the order compelling Leonard to appear.

Maybe we can look forward to seeing this case finally resolved.

Technorati Tag: AIPAC.