[WashExaminer] Ever since President George W. Bush said "Islam is peace" on Sept. 17, 2001, it has been politically shielded from any debate about its effects on its adherents or on the rest of the world. Moslem nations and pressure groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations ... the Moslem Brüderbund's American arm ... have used political correctness as a weapon to punish anyone who dared to begin any debate on Islam by calling them "Islamophobes," an accusation of racism.
That era was ended by the lead editorial in the July 5 edition of The Economist, the prominent liberal British news magazine. Titled "The Tragedy of the Arabs," the article began by wondering why after the glories of past centuries the Arabs are in a "wretched state," why the fruits of the Arab Spring "rotted into renewed autocracy and war."
It concludes that, "Islam, or at least modern reinterpretations of it, is at the core of some of the Arabs' deep troubles. The faith's claim, promoted by many of its leading lights, to combine spiritual and earthly authority, with no separation of mosque and state, has stunted development of independent political institutions." The Economist correctly assesses the problem by finding that economic stagnation is an inevitable product of these problems and that "only the Arabs can reverse their civilizational decline and right now there is little hope of that happening."
Posted by: Steven ||
07/11/2014 1:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
T.E. Lawrence: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.
#3
its not just arab islam that has become terroristic
Pakistani Islam
Somali Islam
Nigerian Islam
all have brought cruelty, death, etc. also
Posted by: lord garth ||
07/11/2014 5:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I suspect there is at least a millennium of evidence that might suggest Islam as a faith and ideology is genereally incompatible with modern western culture. The "Breaking Through" can only begin when Islam and it's various manifestations is finally seen for what it is, not for what someone might hope it to be.
Pakistani military officials are now claiming that the North Waziristan operation, which began on June 15, will target the Haqqani Network. Sorta. Reuters reports on a press briefing with a general and government official. A cursory read of the report might lead you to conclude that yes, the Pakistani military is now indeed serious about squaring off against the Haqqanis. But see the following excerpt ...
Note how General Bajwa can't even bring himself to name the Haqqani Network. He does promise to target "terrorists of all hue and color," but if you don't consider the Haqqanis to be terrorists, that solves that problem.
#2
My understanding, to date, is that Haqqani is a business conglomerate with monopolies on some infrastructure, such as trucking. Not ideologically driven like turbans but not Mary Poppins, either. Just as ruthless as turbans but working for money, territorial franchises. Akin to mafias, with field-operational units. Control trucking from Pak to Afg. Which means they are extorted by government officials, especially Pak, who can apply fires to them. So, yeah, I can see Pak not touching Haqqani.
Politicians start wars optimistic about their prospects of gaining from combat, Geoffrey Blainey notes in his masterly study, "The Causes of War;" otherwise, they would avoid fighting.
Why, then, did Hamas just provoke a war with Israel? Out of nowhere, on June 11 it began launching rockets, shattering a calm in place since November 2012. The mystery of this outburst prompted David Horovitz, editor of the Times of Israel, to find that the current fighting has "no remotely credible reason" even to be taking place. And why did the Israeli leadership respond minimally, trying to avoid combat? This although both sides know that Israel's forces vastly out-match Hamas' in every domain intelligence gathering, command and control, technology, firepower, domination of air space.
What explains this role reversal? Are Islamists so fanatical that they don't mind losing? Are Zionists too worried about loss of life to fight?
Actually, Hamas leaders are quite rational. Periodically (2006, 2008, 2012), they decide to make war on Israel knowing full well that they will lose on the military battlefield but optimistic about winning in the political arena. Israeli leaders, conversely, assume they will win militarily but fear political defeat bad press, United Nations resolutions, and so on.
The focus on politics represents a historic shift; the first 25 years of Israel's existence saw repeated challenges to its existence (especially in 1948-49, 1967, and 1973) and no one knew how those wars would turn out. I remember the first day of the 1967 Six-Day War, when the Egyptians proclaimed splendid triumphs while complete Israeli press silence suggested catastrophe. It came as a shock to learn that Israel had scored the greatest victory in the annals of warfare. The point is, outcomes were unpredictably decided on the battlefield.
No longer: The battlefield outcome of Arab-Israeli wars in last 40 years have been predictable; everyone knows Israeli forces will prevail. It's more like cops and robbers than warfare. Ironically, this lopsidedness turns attention from winning and losing to morality and politics. Israel's enemies provoke it to kill civilians, whose deaths bring them multiple benefits.
The four conflicts since 2006 have restored Hamas' tarnished reputation for "resistance," built solidarity on the home front, stirred dissent among both Arabs and Jews in Israel, galvanized Palestinians and other Muslims to become suicide bombers, embarrassed non-Islamist Arab leaders, secured new United Nations resolutions bashing Israel, inspired Europeans to impose harsher sanctions on Israel, opened the international Left's spigot of vitriol against the Jewish state, and won additional aid from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The holy grail of political warfare is to win the sympathy of the global Left by presenting oneself as underdog and victim. (From a historic point of view, it bears pointing out, this is very strange: Traditionally, combatants tried to scare the enemy by presenting themselves as fearsome and unstoppable.)
The tactics of this new warfare include presenting a convincingly emotional narrative, citing endorsements of famous personalities, appealing to the conscience, and drawing simple but powerful political cartoons (Israeli supporters tend to excel at this, both in the past and now). Palestinians get even more creative, developing the twin fraudulent techniques of "fauxtography" for still pictures and "Pallywood" for videos. Israelis used to be complacent about the need for what they call hasbara, or getting the message out, but recent years find them more focused on this.
Hilltops, cities, and strategic roadways matter supremely in the Syria and Iraqi civil wars, but morality, proportionality, and justice dominate Arab-Israeli wars. As I wrote during the 2006 Israel-Hamas confrontation, "Solidarity, morale, loyalty, and understanding are the new steel, rubber, oil, and ammunition." Or in 2012: "Opeds have replaced bullets, social media have replaced tanks." More broadly, this is part of the profound change in modern warfare when Western and non-Western forces fight, as in the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Clausewitzian terms, public opinion is the new center of gravity.
All this said, how fares Hamas? Not well. Its battlefield losses since July 8 appear higher than expected and worldwide condemnations of Israel have yet to pour in. Even the Arabic media are relatively quiet. If this pattern holds, Hamas might conclude that raining rockets on Israeli homes is not such a good idea. Indeed, to dissuade it from initiating another assault in a few years, it needs to lose both the military and the political wars, and lose them very badly.
July 11, 2014 update: While the usual coven of Palestinian extremists, Islamists, Leftists, and all-around antisemites are bashing Israel, as expected, the Jewish state is also getting support from unexpected sources.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: "Today we face the risk of an all out escalation in Israel and Gaza with the threat of a ground offensive still palpable and preventable only if Hamas stops rocket firing."
By a nearly 3-to-1 margin (42 to 15 percent) , Rasmussen reports, a national survey of 1,000 likely American voters (conducted on July 7-8, just as hostilities began) blames Palestinians more for the conflict in Gaza than they blame Israel, with a very substantial 43 percent undecided.
The Lebanese Internal Security Forces detained two persons for having fired rockets into Israel.
Egyptian security forces seized 20 rockets on their to being smuggled into Gaza.
Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestinian Authority, attended a Ha'aretz peace conference the day the current fighting began and has infuriated Hamas by his willingness to continue to work with the Government of Israel.
Jordan's foreign minister, Nasser Judeh, demanded that Israel "stop its escalation immediately," but he balanced this with calls for "the restoration of complete calm and avoidance of targeting civilians" and for "the return to direct negotiations."
July 11, 2014 addendum: Great minds think alike and Caroline Glick has an article just out, "Hamas's (and Iran's) fail-safe strategy," that asks the same question I do above:
What is Hamas doing? Hamas isn't going to defeat Israel. It isn't going to gain any territory. Israel isn't going to withdraw from Ashkelon or Sderot under a hail of rockets. So if Hamas can't win, why is it fighting?
Her answer is somewhat along the same lines as mine: She contrasts the generally favorable conditions Hamas enjoyed when it took over Gaza in 2007 ("All was good") with the many problems it faces today, mentioning the governments of Egypt and Syria, the Palestinian Authority, ISIS, and even the Arab Bank. Given these difficult circumstances,
it was just a matter of time before Hamas opened a full-on assault against Israel. Jew-hatred is endemic in the Muslim world. Going to war against Israel is a tried and true method of garnering sympathy and support from the Muslim world. At a minimum it earns you the forbearance, if not the support of the US and Europe. And you get all of these things whether you win or lose.
In other words, Glick and I agree on the political goals; but she places more emphasis than me on Hamas' problems. I prefer to see war with Israel as a standing option that Hamas chooses to take up for its own internal reasons whether circumstances are good (as in 2008 and 2012) or bad (as in 2014).
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/11/2014 16:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
'tis how they extract $. And that they may kill a few Juices is a bonus.
They think God (Allan) will prove them right. If He proves them wrong, they just scream ALLAH ACKBAR, And Claim that he's right anyway.(God works in mysterious ways) INSHALAH.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/11/2014 22:41 Comments ||
Top||
[Jpost] Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason, apparently expected a limited response to the recent rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns; The organization is concerned the IDF's operation could be the end to Hamas's rule over the Gazoo Strip.
Despite fiery ...a single two-syllable word carrying connotations of both incoherence and viciousness. A fiery delivery implies an audience of rubes and yokels, preferably forming up into a mob... statements issued by Hamas spokesmen over the past 48 hours, it was obvious Tuesday night that the Islamist movement was searching for ways to rid itself of the current escalation.
Hamas feels that it has been forced into a confrontation with Israel — one that it did not want at this stage because of its increased isolation and financial crisis.
The massive Israeli air strikes on the Gazoo Strip over the past 24 hours have surprised Hamas and other Paleostinian groups. Hamas apparently expected a limited response to the recent rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns. But as the IDF intensified its strikes against Hamas targets — including the homes of some of its top commanders — it became clear to the movement's leaders that Israel means business.
On Tuesday night, Hamas spokesmen were sending distress signals to various parties. The organization is concerned that if the IDF operation continues for another few days, the movement will pay a very heavy price — one that could even bring about an end to Hamas's rule over the Gazoo Strip.
Hamas accused Israel of "crossing all the redlines" by bombing the homes of its military commanders. This shows that Hamas did not expect Israel to take such a drastic move. Less than 24 hours after the beginning of the IDF offensive, Hamas talked about the need to return to the truce that was reached with Israel in 2012.
A front man for Hamas's armed wing, Izzadin Kassam, listed this demand as part of his movement's effort to end the current confrontation. The front man called for an end to the IDF crackdown on Hamas members in the West Bank, which began after the abduction and murder of three Israeli youths last month.
On Tuesday night, Hamas and other Paleostinian groups appealed to Egypt and Arab countries to intervene to stop the IDF operation. Given Hamas's bad relations with the Egyptian authorities, it's unlikely that President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi would rush to save the movement that is openly aligned with his enemy, the Moslem Brüderbund.
The Paleostinian Authority, which has condemned the Israeli "aggression," is also unlikely to make a big effort to save Hamas from destruction. In fact, President the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas ... a graduate of the prestigious unaccredited Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow with a doctorate in Holocaust Denial... and his Fatah faction would be happy to see Hamas severely defeated.
Hamas is beginning to feel the heat and that's why its leaders, who have gone into hiding, are seeking an "honorable" way out of the confrontation, which, they say, they didn't want to begin with.
#2
it has been forced into a confrontation with Israel — one that it did not want at this stage because of its increased isolation and financial crisis.
If they did not want a confrontation with Israel, all they had to do was release the kids. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/11/2014 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Too bad.
Israel shouldn't stop until Gaza is a ruin. These idiots brought this on themselves.
#7
"Let's only bomb them one more time -- with everything that will fly, dropping everything that will go BOOM!"
C-130s don't make GREAT bombers, but you can load 'em to the gills and they still fly - kinda, sorta.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/11/2014 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
OP, isn't the MOAB designed to be dropped from the C-130s? Admittedly, only one at a time, but a few dozen sorties should help.
Unfortunately, the Israelis actually are too civilized to use MOAB near civilians.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/11/2014 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Hamas seems to be a threat to Egypt, too, so it seems to me that a quiet squeeze on Egypt and Israeli borders will start squeezing Hamas. The average Joe Paleo needs to realize that Hamas is a dead end and to stop supporting them.
And that will be a tough nut to crack.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/11/2014 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#10
A front man for Hamas's armed wing, Izzadin Kassam, listed this demand as part of his movement's effort to end the current confrontation.
Dumb f'n Paleos. You don't get to make demands whilst getting your asses kicked
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/11/2014 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Help. Help. They're bombing us. (Umm, we bombed them first, but that doesn't count)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/11/2014 23:02 Comments ||
Top||
[Jpost] The security cabinet is trying to determine whether there may be a middle path between totally taking over Gazoo, or having to go through what Israel is going through right now every few years.
As Operation Protective Edge enters its fourth day, the eight-person security cabinet — which met in a marathon session on Thursday — is faced with a stark strategic choice.
Should Israel retake Gazoo, destroy its terrorist infrastructure and then control the Strip for the foreseeable future — paying a price in Israeli casualties that will likely result from both the initial occupation and the cleaning out of the area, and then having to administer Gazoo for who knows how long? Or is it better to suffice with delivering Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason, a punishing blow, stopping short of retaking the Strip, but knowing full well that if that is the course of action pursued, than in another few years what is happening now will simply repeat itself? Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in December 2008, an operation that led to the death of 13 Israeli soldiers, and some 1,166 Paleostinians, nearly 800 of them defined as combatants. The deterrence achieved in that operation lasted almost five years, until November 2012, when Operation Pillar of Defense was launched, an operation that lead to six Israeli fatalities, and 133 Paleostinians, of which 80 were combatants.
That deterrence only lasted a year and a half — until now.
Neither Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu nor Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon have given any indication that they are interested in once again taking over Gazoo, but if the pounding the IDF has delivered from the air does not — within a few days — bring about the quiet that is the stated purpose of the operation, then that may change.
Former national security adviser Ya'acov Amidror, in an interview with Israel Radio on Thursday, laid out the options in a very blunt way: Either retake Gazoo and stop the fire, or live with a situation where every few years a military operation of this scope will be necessary.
He did not express any personal preference, just laid out the choices. And each option had its price.
"It is possible to completely stop the firing on Israel," he said.
"They are not firing from Kalkilya onto Israel and did not fire from Gazoo until the Oslo agreements."
The only way to do this, he added, was to control the territory — no one in the world has found a way to stop someone from firing rockets into their territory, unless they control the territory.
The question is not whether Israel could stop the fire, he said. It is rather whether it is willing to pay the price in blood, treasure and difficulties in the international arena to do so.
The price would come in three different stages. The first would be in the loss of IDF soldiers during an operation to take over the 60-km.-long, 5-km.-wide territory.
The second price, also in likely fatalities, would come in "cleaning out the stables" in Gazoo, destroying the terrorist infrastructure there — the stockpiled arms as well as the ability to manufacture more arms. The price for this, too, would be the loss of IDF soldiers.
Amidror said this stage would take some six months to a year.
And the third stage would be controlling Gazoo, with its 1.5 million inhabitants, after it is retaken. This would have a financial price tag, since Israel would have to administer the area, much as it did before the 1993 Oslo Accords. Amidror said that the price of administering Gazoo would likely not be significantly more than the price of Operation Protective Edge-type military operations every couple of years.
If Israel is not willing to pay those prices and retake the Strip, then these types of operations will be necessary every few years. But that option also has a price; namely, that every few years the country will be subjected to what it is going through right now.
The principle behind the current operation is based on the idea that there is a middle path between the two stark options — and that it is possible to create a reality whereby the deterrence created by a major military operation could last beyond just a couple of years.
And one of the reasons for that assumption has to do with the geopolitical changes in the region.
The operation is based on two legs: The first is to pound Hamas, to dismantle as much as possible the organization's arsenal and weapon making capabilities so that even if they want to fire on Israel, their ability to do so will be severely curtailed. One issue the security cabinet is grappling with right now, is whether this can be achieved without committing ground troops.
And the second leg is deterrence: Pound Hamas so hard, that they will think twice before daring to strike again.
Those two considerations animated Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense, with the deterrence gained from the last operation not lasting too long.
One main difference now, however, is Egypt. Every passing hour and day leads to a diminishing of Hamas's military capabilities.
But while in the past Hamas could count on being able to quickly smuggle more rockets into its territory through Egypt, arming itself to the teeth for the next round, that situation has changed because of the change of leadership in Cairo.
That new reality is being considered as the security cabinet is trying to determine whether there may be a middle path between totally taking over Gazoo, or having to go through what Israel is going through right now every few years.
#1
Middle Ground may be a bad translation/interpretation. Level ground may be more effective in the long run. Seemed to have worked for good portions of Germany and Japan by '45.
#2
ARCLIGHT the he$$ out of Gaza, then pave it over into the world's largest runway. Problem ended PERMANENTLY. Either that or take the place over and force everyone currently living there out. They can go to any Islamic country of their choice (NOT the US or Europe), to remain there for the rest of their lives, and the lives of their children to the seventh generation (after that they can move to Africa for another 70 generations). It's either that or put up with these murderous savages for the next 1000 years. Do it right, once, and the problem's over.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/11/2014 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
OP, Gaza is so small that Israel could buy a similar sized piece of Saudi or Libyan or Algerian coast and transplant the whole population.
Then Israel could de-louse Gaza and open a high rent gated community on the Med.
...Every so often I am asked about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab-Muslim conflict and the interrogators are baffled when I tell them that there is no solution.
"No solution at all? But there has to be a solution. What of all the moderate voices of goodwill? What of all the mothers who only want to raise their children to sing happy songs about peace? What about all the old soldiers who are tired of war? What if we get them all in a room to shake hands and pose for photos? Then won't there be peace?"
As society has become more progressive, it has become progressively more difficult to explain even even to intelligent people that the world simply does not work that way.
#5
Thomas Sowell had a column entitled “Primer on Race.” The gist of the column was: “"Please do not do any more good in my country, we have suffered too much already from all the good that you have done." Although, the column was slanted towards the efforts of Progressives to “help” blacks in the U.S., the theme is also applicable to the peace mongering by the Progressives in the Mideast. Sowell column: Sowell column. The Yiddish word “nudnick” comes to mind with regards to these efforts. A nudnick is a boring, annoying pest who won’t leave things alone, they end up being control freaks who hair up the butter (paraphrased)and making things worse than they were.
[DailyBeast] The man who calls himself Caliph Ibrahim and demands the allegiance of Moslems everywhere has mastered the manipulation of religious symbols in ways that resonate with gullible young Moslems and scare the hell out of some wiser ones—including many nervous Arab leaders. His Supreme Immensity, Caliph of the Faithful and Galactic Overlord, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ...formerly merely the head of ISIL and a veteran of the Bagram jailhouse. Looks like a new messiah to bajillions of Moslems, like just another dead-eyed mass murder to the rest of us... , as he used to be known, has stopped short of proclaiming himself the Mahdi, a messianic figure who will appear on earth shortly before Judgment Day, but that might just be next.
Ibrahim has captured the imagination of angry young people looking for a different kind of savior: at once an avenging angel, an imposer of order, a restorer of dignity. "What he has done to the global jihad is what 9/11 did," says a veteran CIA analyst, speaking privately. "Who ever heard of the global jihad on September 10, 2001? And this is on top of that. This takes it to a whole new level, this declaration of the caliphate."
Posted by: trailing wife ||
07/11/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant
#3
I read the article through. The author, I think, confuses elements of the sitrep: theology for politics, ideology for war-fighting capacity, the fevers of youth for political astuteness. Still, a useful read.
Baghdadi is a competent field commander. Zarqawi was a psycho case, merely brutal. Zawahiri is a rump session for a Salafist movement that moves way beyond his remit. Baghdadi also has the taunting/mocking skill of Occupy White House and as much propensity to use it. The press love him for that.
Occupy White House will not touch him. And I still think Saud and Qatar fund him, which the article author does not touch one way or another and is important, either way.
#6
At this rate, we won't be able to wait on Congress for impeachment, either.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
07/11/2014 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
#4 I don't think they teach History in public schools anymore.
And what they do teach isn't really history.
Posted by: CrazyFool 2014-07-11 16:36
Not doing such a good job with math either, else there would be a general understanding that The United States of America will run out of resources long before South America runs out of the poor.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Pakistani military officials are now claiming that the North Waziristan operation, which began on June 15, will target the Haqqani Network. Sorta. Reuters reports on a press briefing with a general and government official. A cursory read of the report might lead you to conclude that yes, the Pakistani military is now indeed serious about squaring off against the Haqqanis. But see the following excerpt ...
