The 3 Levels Of 'Moderate' Terrorism

Over the last number of years, the approach the West has taken to terrorism has become more nuanced (read: desperate). As a result, we have seen 3 different levels assigned to 'moderate' terrorists.

In the first--and highest level--there is the terrorist who turns around and becomes a moderate, recognized as such lauded by the West, even as he fails to win the respect of the Muslim world.

Mahmoud Abbas is such a moderate terrorist--he has to be, because the West insists he is.

This in spite of the fact that

• The reason Abbas gives for seeking peace is that terrorism has not worked (and has not ruled out the possibility of returning to using terrorism)
• Abbas speaks openly and with pride of his days as a terrorist
• Abbas requires recognition of Israel only to the extent that it is necessary to sit at the same table during negotiations--and explained that it was necessary to recognize Israel to get money from it.

Also

o Abbas ordered all flags at half mast for 3 days after the death of terrorist George Habash

And

o The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades--an arm of Fatah headed by Abbas--announced in November 2007 that it would escalate attacks against Sderot from Gaza--and has taken credit for such attacks as late as last month.

And this is the epitome of what the West will insist is a 'moderate' Muslim leader--but there are 2 other levels yet.

The second level is where there are not one but two leaders of a group of terrorists: one side is the moderate terrorist group while the other is the evil terrorist group. The good terrorists can be brought into the fold if they can only be reasoned with: this is Hamas.

This must be true--after all, the Associated Press wrote already back in 2005:

Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel and has carried out dozens of attacks that have killed hundreds of Israelis in recent years, but the group also is pragmatic and has proven itself willing to make ideological compromises when it suits its political interests. [emphasis added]

And The LA Times writes in 2007 "Hamas walks an ideological tightrope" and "disavows Islamic radicalism but faces tension between its religious hard-liners and pragmatists who want to convince the West that it is not a political mask for jihad"

Clearly what Hamas needs is not more money--they need Valium.

According this theory of a moderate vs extremist sides of Hamas:

Hamas chose Ismail Haniyeh as its prime minister and Khaled Mashaal as its political leader. While Haniyeh is considered a moderate willing to discuss peace with Israel, Mashaal adheres to Hamas' charter that calls for the destruction of Israel.

Simple: Haniyeh is moderate--Mashaal is not.

Unfortunately, not everyone follows the script:

"There is a split inside Hamas," Fatah legislator Jamal Tirawi, who represents the Nablus district in the Palestinian Legislative Council, said. "Siam, Zahar and Abu Zuhri represent the radical trend, while Haniyeh and Mashaal belong to the moderate side." [emphasis added]

But no matter: there is a moderate side and an extremist side somewhere in there--and either way, Hamas in Gaza are moderate and can be talked to.

The third and last level is to claim that a terrorist group is splintered--and we must somehow reach those who are moderately...greedy:

In response to a question about how many of the Taliban might be considered "moderate" and therefore open to reconciliation, Mr. Biden ticked off some percentages.

"Five percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another 25 percent or so are not quite sure, in my view, [of] the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency," Mr. Biden said during a press conference.

"And roughly 70 percent are involved because of the money, because of them being...paid," he said.

No real moderates here--just mercenaries, and how do you negotiate with mercenaries other than by paying them off? That of course is an effective way to dissuade mercenaries, and encourage more to follow.

(Interesting how the implied assumption is that extremists must be defeated--something that has not be said by the Obama Administration about Hamas, or any of Israel's other enemies)

The search for moderation among terrorists is pursued not so much with laser-like precision as with a large set of blinders.

Is there any situation where in confrontation with a terrorist group a way cannot be found to find someone worth talking to?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Abbas and Taliban.

Obama Channels Nixon

Sure, President Obama is going to appear on a The Tonight Show.

Others have appeared on TV as well:

Presidential candidates often appear on television shows when they’re trying to get elected, but once successful, it is rare to find a commander in chief appearing on TV shows except as joke fodder. President Bush did show up on NBC’s “Deal or No Deal” last year, but it was in a taped appearance in which he voiced support for a contestant who had served three tours of duty in Iraq.

Apparently, Obama will be talking about the economy and already, the White House is hedging on the key question: Will Obama be funny?

“As funny as the times allow,” the official said.

The question is, can Obama be as funny as...Nixon?

Not exactly a tall order, but Obama is appearing in order to talk about the economy--but not in front of a live audience answering questions nor in a format that lends itself to seriously addressing the issue.

Personally, I would have liked to see Obama appear on a show where he could be interviewed by someone like John Stossel, who did a report entitled: Bailouts and Bull:

Instead we will get a carefully choreographed presentation which suites Obama's style and reduces an issue important to Americans to simple table talk.

Somehow, I don't see Obama granting David Frost an interview in the near future...and don't even think about SNL.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Nixon.

The West's Proxy War Against Israel Is Worse Than Iran's

Gunnar Heinsohn, of the Raphael Lemkin Institute dedicated to comparative genocide research has written an intriguing article for the Wall Street Journal--Ending the West's Proxy War Against Israel: Stop funding a Palestinian youth bulge, and the fighting will stop too.

He writes that the violence and bloodshed between Hamas and Fatah is typical of countries where at least 30% of the male population is age 15 to 29:

In such "youth bulge" countries, young men tend to eliminate each other or get killed in aggressive wars until a balance is reached between their ambitions and the number of acceptable positions available in their society. In Arab nations
such as Lebanon (150,000 dead in the civil war between 1975 and 1990) or Algeria (200,000 dead in the Islamists' war against their own people between 1999 and 2006), the slaughter abated only when the fertility rates in these countries fell from seven children per woman to fewer than two. The warring stopped because no more warriors were being born.

...In Gaza, however, there has been no demographic disarmament. The average woman still bears six babies. For every 1,000 men aged 40-44, there are 4,300 boys aged 0-4 years. In the U.S. the latter figure is 1,000, and in the U.K. it's only 670.

There are other numbers of interest that Heinsohn brings to our attention:

In the six decades since Israel's founding, "only" some 62,000 people (40,000 Arabs, 22,000 Jews) have been killed in all the Israeli-Arab wars and Palestinian terror attacks. During that same time, some 11 million Muslims have been killed in wars and terror attacks -- mostly at the hands of other Muslims.

But the key point that Heinsohn makes is that the perpetual violence of the Palestinian Arabs is made that much easier by UNRWA and those that support it:

UNRWA is benevolently funded by the U.S. (31%) and the European Union
(nearly 50%) -- only 7% of the funds come from Muslim sources. Thanks to the West's largesse, nearly the entire population of Gaza lives in a kind of lowly but regularly paid dependence. One result of this unlimited welfare is an endless population boom. Between 1950 and 2008, Gaza's population has grown from 240,000 to 1.5 million. The West basically created a new Near Eastern people in Gaza that at current trends will reach three million in 2040. Within that period, Gazans may alter the justifications and directions of their aggression but are unlikely to stop the aggression itself.

The Hamas-Fatah truce of June 2007 allowed the Islamists again to direct all their energy on attacking Israel. The West pays for food, schools, medicine and housing, while Muslim nations help out with the military hardware. Unrestrained by such necessities as having to earn a living, the young have plenty of time on their hands for digging tunnels, smuggling, assembling missiles and firing 4,500 of them at Israel since 2006. While this gruesome activity has slowed the Palestinian internecine slaughter, it forced some 250,000 Israelis into bomb shelters.

In other words, the West itself has created their own proxies of sorts in Gaza, in a way that is more direct and more deadly than Iran:

As long as we continue to subsidize Gaza's extreme demographic armament,
young Palestinians will likely continue killing their brothers or neighbors. And yet, despite claiming that it wants to bring peace to the region, the West continues to make the population explosion in Gaza worse every year. By generously supporting UNRWA's budget, the West assists a rate of population increase that is 10 times higher than in their own countries. Much is being said about Iran waging a proxy war against Israel by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. One may argue that by fueling Gaza's untenable population explosion,
the West unintentionally finances a war by proxy against the Jews of Israel.

Heinsohn offers a solution to this problem, but it is more problematic that he seems to suggest. The answer he gives goes way beyond reducing aid and making Gazans more responsible for themselves:

If the West prefers calm around Gaza even before 2025, it may consider offering immigration to those young Palestinians only born because of the West's well-meant but cruelly misguided aid. In the decades to come, North America and Europe will have to take in tens of millions of immigrants anyway to slow the aging of their populations. If, say, 200,000 of them are taken from the 360,000 boys coming of age in Gaza in the next 15 years, that would be a negligible move for the big democracies but a quantum leap for peace in the Near East.

Read the whole thing.

It is noteworthy that Senator John Kyl of Arizona has actually reacted to this possibility in a proposed amendment to the Omnibus Bill:

Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1105, making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 942, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following: PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR RESETTLEMENT INTO UNITED STATES OF PALESTINIANS FROM GAZA Sec. 7093. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States.

One reason for Senator Kyl's amendment may be simply the potential importing of Palestinian terrorists. Another may be transporting the Hamas vs Fatah to the US. Regular immigration is one thing, but importing Gazans en masse could lead to a problem:



The issue though, of Gaza immigration, is real. On February 4th, the following was entered into the Federal Register:

Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.

Ted Belman suggests, more reasonably, that perhaps Obama is "attempting to break the UNRWA’s strangle hold on resettlement of refugees." His suggestion makes sense in light of Congress's demand for better oversight on UNRWA:

Over 40 members of Congress now have signed onto a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for an independent audit of UNRWA. The letter was drafted by Reps. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Steve Rothman, D-N.J.

...Kirk is also a co-sponsor of legislation introduced last week by Rothman calling for greater transparency at UNRWA, insisting that the agency put its textbooks on the Internet and screen its payroll against terrorist databases of members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian-based organizations. UNRWA admitted to FOXNews.com that it currently only screens its employees against a watchlist of roughly 500 Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, most of whom live in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The underlying issue, not surprisingly, is UNRWA--whether the West will recognize the problem UNRWA represents and what the West is willing to do about it.

Footnote: Keep in mind how Heinsohn's numbers for Gaza compare with elsewhere. The Jerusalem Post has reported on a downward trend in the Arab World:

The Westernization of Arab fertility rate (3.5 births per woman in pre-1967 Israel and four in Judea and Samaria) is apparent throughout most of the Arab and Muslim world. For instance, the 2008 map of the UN Population Division documents an average fertility rate of two-four births, compared with over four births 30 years ago. Even Yemen, the flagship of robust Arab demography, is adopting family planning. This month it approved a new law setting the minimum age for marriage at 17 for boys and girls, prohibiting marriage without the consent of the woman and benefiting divorced women.

However, though the article mentions the West Bank, there is no mention of Gaza.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the total fertility rate is approximately 5.19 children born/woman, but again--why is Gaza more than elsewhere, including The West Bank?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas.

Nachum Segal Interviews Malcolm Hoenlein

Each week Nachum Segal interviews Malcolm Hoenlein:

Nachum interviewed Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who called in live for the latest Weekly Update. Nachum and Malcolm began with a brief explanation of the Durbin I conference and then a lengthier discussion about the upcoming Durbin II conference. Nachum asked Malcolm to address the Status of Israel's search for a Prime Minister and pointed out that Malcolm's prediction that Ehud Olmert could still be Prime Minister of Israel in March despite elections etc. has become a reality. They covered several other important issues including: economic aid being sent to Gaza despite the continued captivity of Gilad Shalit, the ongoing grassroots effort to obtain Gilad Shalit's freedom, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her actions/attitudes toward Israel and the Middle East, the growing threat of Iran and the growing realization of that threat, President Obama's approach to dealing with Iran, and much more. Click the link to listen.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

One Jerusalem: End of Week Review: March 15, 2009

From an email from One Jerusalem:

End of Week Review: March 15, 2009

Dear Friend of Jerusalem,

Here are the latest headlines from the One Jerusalem Blog:

● Victim of a Jewish Plot?:  In the aftermath of his decision to withdraw from the Obama Administration, Charles Freeman revealed his well developed anti-Israel bias. He charged that he was done in by the "Israel Lobby." As I've said before, the facts did Freeman in --... (read more)

● Obama's Man Charles Freeman Drops Out:  Michelle Malkin reports that Charles Freeman the Obama Administration's disastrous choice for a sensitive national security post has withdrawn his name from consideration.Charles Freeman wilted under the heat generated by bloggers like Michelle Malkin, American Thinker, Power Line, and One... (read more)

● Where is the Tomb of Mordechai and Esther?:  As Jews worldwide celebrate the joyous holiday of Purim, check out this fascinating article by Michael Freund.... (read more)

incerely, The One Jerusalem Team

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Chas Freeman, Salesman

"Ultimately, Freeman deserves credit for one thing: he knows his audience and gives them exactly what they want – a new catchphrase for vilifying those who support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. This is the sort of skill that makes him a talented, well-paidproponent of official Saudi positions in our nation’s capital. It is also the sort of skill that would have made him a wholly untrustworthy chairman for the NIC."

Eric Trager on Freeman, who now blames his woes on Avigdor Lieberman of the "very right-wing Likud"--whose party is called by those less manipulative as Yisrael Beitenu

Technorati Tag: Chas Freeman.

John Bolton On Obama's 'Anti-Israel Turn'

John Bolton writes about Team Obama's Anti-Israel Turn:

THE Obama administration is increasingly fixed on resolving the "Arab-Israeli dispute," seeing it as the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. This is bad news for Israel - and for America.

This of course is nothing new, focusing on the Israel-Arab (though these days isn't more just the Israel-Palestinian) Conflict. But the Obama Administration seems to be going after this with particular relish:

And now the Obama administration has made it US policy. This is evidenced by two key developments: the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as special envoy for the region, and Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's recent insistence on a "two-state solution" sooner rather than later.

Naming Mitchell as a high-level, single-issue envoy - rather than keeping the portfolio under Secretary Clinton's personal control - separates Israel from the broader conduct of US diplomacy. Mitchell's role underlines both the issue's priority in the president's eyes and the implicit idea it can be solved in the foreseeable future.

...Here, Clinton's strident insistence on a "two-state solution" during her recent Mideast trip becomes important. She essentially argued predestination: the "inevitability" of moving toward two states is "inescapable," and "there is no time to waste." The political consequence is clear: Since the outcome is inevitable and time is short, there is no excuse for not making "progress." Delay is evidence of obstructionism and failure - something President Obama can't tolerate, for the sake of his policies and his political reputation.

And of course, if you are going to show off your diplomatic prowess in the Middle East, there is only one way to go--take the short cut:

Almost invariably, Israel is the loser - because Israel is the party most dependent on the United States, most subject to US pressure and most susceptible to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure must be applied to make compromises, it's always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.

One wonders why the US still goes to the trouble to put up the front of pushing diplomatic negotiations when they could just as easily phone it in--just tell the Israeli Prime Minister that you need to bolster Abbas (sigh, again) and what new concession Israel must provide in the interest of peace.

Of course there are murmurs of actually applying meaningful pressure on Hamas:

U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the Middle East subcommittee of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton demanding that $900 million in proposed Gaza aid for Palestinians be conditioned on ending rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza and having Hamas release kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

But no indication that the Obama Administration is interested in that idea--

If anything, one can predict coming pressure on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to negotiate with them as equals (albeit perhaps under some artful camouflage). The pattern is so common that its reappearance in the Mitchell-led negotiations is what is really "inevitable" and "inescapable."

Bolton sees the explanation for Obama's approach as seeing Israel as more of a hindrance than as a help:

The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel's disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a national-security asset, the administration likely sees a relationship complicating its broader policy of diplomatic "outreach."

No one will say so publicly, but this is the root cause of Obama's "Arab-Israeli issues first" approach to the region.

Read the whole thing.

From Obama's perspective of course, this makes sense. If the world is not at war with terrorism--who needs Israel.
If what is needed is a diplomatic, negotiating approach--Israel is much more useful put on the chopping block than as an ally.

Those who voted for Obama because of his proposed economic policies can afford to have buyers remorse--and go on with their lives.

Those who voted for Obama because they convinced themselves that Obama was a friend of Israel--can also go on with their lives.

But Israel does not have that luxury.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Having Lots of Guests This Pesach? Invite A Quatorzieme!

MSNBC has some facts you should now about Friday the 13th, which will appear 3 times this year. Among them:

Mark Twain once was the 13th guest at a dinner party. A friend warned him not to go. "It was bad luck," Twain later told the friend. "They only had food for 12." Superstitious diners in Paris can hire a quatorzieme, or professional 14th guest. [emphasis added]

Hmmm, now there's an idea--just in time for Pesach!

Technorati Tag: Friday The 13th.

When 'The Nation' Supported Israel

Just as Anti-Semitism now finds its voice among the left more than on the right, there was a time when support for Israel was epitomized by those on the left--such as The Nation:

When Israel had not yet been born, the idea of a Jewish state had the support of substantial numbers of Americans, drawing special enthusiasm from members of the left intelligentsia. This was especially true of The Nation magazine. In fact, no journal of opinion or media outlet campaigned more vigorously and vocally for Israel’s creation. For The Nation’s publisher and editor-in-chief, Freda Kirchwey, the struggle for a Jewish Palestine was nothing less than the sequel and parallel of the Spanish Civil War, the other struggle to which she had dedicated the opinion journal.

Freda Kirchwey’s credentials on the left were impeccable. Her father had been dean of Columbia University Law School, a well-known pacifist, and president of the American Peace Society (a sponsor of this journal). After graduating from Barnard College in 1915, she began a career in journalism, working for various New York newspapers. In 1918, she joined the staff of The Nation, eventually becoming its editor in 1933 and its publisher from 1937 to 1943. That same year she launched The Nation Associates, a mechanism to fund the poorly financed magazine and influence policy on the issues of the day.

This is a far cry from what you will find in the pages of 'The Nation' these days:

Last year, in a special issue devoted to Israel, the magazine’s editors noted that, although for many years the publication had supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a shift of “realities on the ground” mandated a shift in their thinking. If the age-old goal of a two-state solution fails—and the magazine’s editors suspect it might very well—then “the calls for inclusion on fully equal terms in one state will grow.” Americans thus have to “rethink our assumptions.”

Not all assumptions have to be rethunk, however--The Nation Associates is still around.

Technorati Tag: Israel and The Nation.

UN To Put Palestine Media Watch Out Of Business

Not directly, and not intentionally--but the UN proposal to "criminalize defamation of Islam" will do more that just affect Islam.

True, the proposal only mentions one religion by name--Islam:

Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and in this context stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

...7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and in this regard regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;

...17. Requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers, to the Council during its 12th Session;

However, putting aside for the moment the absurdity of singling out Islam as deserving some sort of special treatment or requiring protection at a time that Anti-Semitism again is rampant and freedom of religion is denied religions outside of Islam according to Dhimmi law--this proposal is actually a great idea!

8. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards any religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons;

Think about it. We wouldn't have to be offended any more by Syrian anti-Semitic movies:

The Syrian-produced television series, called "Al-Shatat," includes horrific distortions of Judaism, including the presentation of the use of a Christian child's blood in preparation of Matzah for Passover, as religious necessity. The graphic episode features Jews kidnapping a Christian boy and slitting his throat to drain his blood, and the brutal execution of a Jew by a "Talmudic" court, by pouring boiling lead down his throat. [Warning: The following two video links to the above episodes are very difficult to view: 1) Christian boy, 2) Talmudic Execution] All of the anti-Semitic libels in this series are presented as fact.

Those 2 links still work, and are as disgusting as the warning indicates--but surely "defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general" will cease with the passage of this proposal. If Muslim countries would stop doing all the things that they are claiming are being done to them, I suppose I could live with that.

But then again, is there any indication that the Muslim world thinks anything in this proposal applies to them?

What is more likely is that videos like the one below will have to be removed from YouTube--while the imams keep on saying the things in mosques without fear of exposure [all videos below are from the Palestine Media Watch channel on YouTube]:



Surely no one expects Hamas, which does not allow humanitarian groups to see Gilad Shalit to suddenly stop showing videos like this:



or for imams to stop talking like this in their mosques



or be sure that stuff like this will never appear on PA TV.

If Muslim countries would finally be willing to give the respect to other religions that it demands for itself, at the very least this proposal could serving as a starting point.

But as things stand, Muslim Anti-Semitism will continue, and Islam needs to first earn what it demands.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Anti-Semitism and UN and Islam and Palestine Media Watch and PMV.