Hamas Is Fair Game Just Like ISIS and Al-Qaeda

...Hamas will continue attacking Israel—as it has this week after the collapse of the latest ceasefire—not because they’re upset about what happened to Deif and his comrades but because their belief system will not allow them to make peace, no matter what the Israelis do. The next generations of terror are not motivated so much by specific tales of “martyrs”—be they terrorist killers or civilian casualties—as they are by the mission of avenging the real offense given by Israelis: their presence in their historic homeland that Hamas and other Palestinian factions believe should be cleansed of Jews.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
21 August '14..

Hamas supporters came out in their thousands today in Gaza for the funerals of three senior commanders of the terror group’s “military” wing. The trio, along with their chief, Mohammad Deif, whose fate is still unknown, was targeted by Israeli air strikes after days of renewed rocket fire from Gaza on Israeli cities. While no one blinks an eye when the U.S. takes out leaders of al-Qaeda affiliates and other jihadists throughout the Middle East, the deaths of these Hamas figures is being discussed as a provocation that may well lead to more fighting that could have been avoided. But the attempt to draw any meaningful distinctions between Hamas and al-Qaeda or ISIS murderers in Syria and Iraq is mistaken.

The targeted killings of this latest group of Hamas murderers will, no doubt, set off the usual chorus of critiques of Israel from those who will claim that this action will somehow be the cause of more violence. As with acts of Israeli self-defense, we will be told that their deaths will sow the seeds of new generations of terrorists.

Throughout the history of Israel’s battles with Palestinian terror factions, Israel’s security services have been constantly lectured about the costs of their successes as well as their near misses.

Whenever attempts to take out known terrorists fail or result (as is often the case with similar attacks by the U.S. on al-Qaeda figures) in casualties among civilians or family members of the targets, Israel is lectured for its inability to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. But when it does manage to take out Hamas members personally responsible for terror attacks, it is then told that doing so will anger the Palestinians so much that it will only cause them to double down on their war on the Jewish state.

Disclosed today: Major wave of Al Qaeda-inspired terror attacks from Jerusalem thwarted

...Certain voices in the news media are fond of asserting that the desire of the Palestinian Arab side to carry out terrorist actions of the kind we saw a decade ago has somehow diminished. This is nonsense of a very dangerous kind. The security barrier has played a key role in reducing the number and severity of terrorist attacks on Israelis and so too has the vigilance of the various Israeli security agencies. As for a reduced desire to see dead and maimed Jews? Our impression is that this remains as potent among parts of the Arab world as it ever was, even while the current focus on International Solidarity gets much of the media's attention. Seems likely that we will be hearing more about today's disclosures.

Frimet/Arnold Roth..
This Ongoing War..
22 January '14..

We are barely a week into the much-heralded International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, crafted and launched by the UN on January 16, 2014. Already, we are being reminded of what it is about which certain Palestinian Arabs seek our solidarity.

“The coming year will be crucial to achieving the two-State solution,” Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said in his remarks to the UN General Assembly’s Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Mr. Eliasson said Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are working hard towards a peaceful, comprehensive settlement of all permanent status issues. [From the UN website]

Some hours ago, here in the mixed Jewish/Arab city of Jerusalem, the security authorities announced the thwarting of a major terror plot involving Al Qaeda, human bombs, exploding trucks, East Jerusalem Arabs, and some of the best-known and most-prominent landmarks in the city. It appears arrests were already made some weeks ago, but a court-imposed gag order prevented them being reported until now.

Yes, it was stopped before it happened. But there's something breathtakingly disturbing about how threats on such a vast scale can (as it appears) evolve right under our noses even as the trams, buses, hospitals, schools, cafes and sidewalks of our country's capital are shared by people with different outlooks and expectations in life. None of them, for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with life in Jerusalem, walk around with the word "terrorist" branded on their foreheads. That's a reality that defines a large part of what a society needs to do to keep itself and its children safe.

(Continue)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Check-it out! 
.

With humanitarians like these, who needs militant barbarians? Revisiting the Mavi Marmara

Frimet/Arnold Roth..
This Ongoing War..
04 October '12..

Remember the Mavi Marmara? It's the ship that tried to force its way past an Israeli naval blockade of the terrorist Gaza Strip in June 2010.

The deaths of nine men - mostly Turks and all of them invariably described in the media as 'activists' - in a commando raid on the vessel continue to be cited by the Turkish prime minister as the reason why he refuses to reconcile with Israel. He made the point again this past Sunday [source]. At a congress of his political party in Ankara and while standing beside Egypt's Moslem Brotherhood prime minister Mohammed Morsi, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Israel must lift its blockade of Gaza and must also apologize for the attack on the Mavi Marmara.

Let's note Israel's position: that it regrets the loss of lives, that an apology is not required, and that its commandos opened fire only after they came under violent armed attack by the 'activists'.

This blog post is not actually about the ship. It's about the organization that arranged it, financed it, sent it on its way and continues to thoroughly milk the public relations impact of what happened on board two years ago. We are referring to İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri ve İnsani Yardım Vakfı. Translated from Turkish, the name means The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief. It's commonly called IHH [website here].

Backspin - Scales of Militancy For The Independent

Simon Plosker..
Honest Reporting/Backspin..
21 June '12..



Is there a sliding scale of terrorism? Are some terrorists more extreme than others? The Independent, in its apparent desperation to avoid using the “t” word, refers to Israeli targeting of members of the global jihad movement:

The strike killed Ghaleb Armiilat and seriously wounded Mohammed Rashdan, who was a member of the Tawhid and Jihad organisation, an ultra-militant group that the army said had played a “central role” in Monday’s border attack.

So while Hamas is merely a “militant” group, any Al-Qaeda-style operatives are “ultra-militants”.

What next? “Moderate militants”?

Link: http://honestreporting.com/scales-of-militancy-for-the-independent/

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.
.

Keyes - Stop comparing Hamas to al-Qaida

David Keyes
Israel Hayom
01 December '11

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=932

In May, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not negotiate with Hamas because it is the “Palestinian version of al-Qaida.” This incendiary rhetoric is not only untrue, it polarizes the parties and distances the possibility of peace.

British newspaper The Guardian, unlike Netanyahu, knows that “Hamas is not al-Qaida” and that the two groups are “radically different.” One Harvard scholar rightly noted that “assertions about a Hamas-al Qaida alliance are incorrect.” The Christian Science Monitor echoed that “Hamas is a far, far cry from the utopian global fighters of al-Qaida.” Unfortunately, some persist in spreading the myth that Hamas is the “Palestinian version of al-Qaida.” To dispel this untruth once and for all, below is a compilation of just a few of Hamas and al-Qaida’s radically different views.

On territorial compromise:

Hamas: “We do not recognize the state of Israel or its right to hold onto one inch of Palestine.” –Mahmoud al-Zahar, foreign minister

Al-Qaida: “We will not recognize a state for the Jews, not even one inch of the land of Palestine …” –Osama bin Laden

On death:

Hamas: [D]eath for the sake of Allah is [our] most coveted desire.” –Hamas charter

Al-Qaida: “[T]he most honorable death is to be killed in the way of Allah.” –Osama bin Laden

On co-existence:

Hamas: "By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine.” –Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi, co-founder

Al-Qaida: "Just as the law of extermination was applied to the infidel forces among the nations in previous days and no one could escape it, so it will be applied to the infidel forces in our day and no one will escape it ... the American state, the Jewish state, and all other infidel countries will certainly be destroyed." –Saif al Din al Ansari, senior leader

What Obama Must Do About Bin Laden’s Hamas Allies

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
03 May '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/02/what-will-obama-do-about-bin-ladens-hamas-allies/

One of the enduring images of the post-9/11 agony was the way that many Palestinians cheered the news of the terrorist attacks. Veteran terrorist Yasir Arafat soon ordered an end to the demonstrations in Gaza and elsewhere but the willingness of Palestinians to identify with al Qaeda atrocities resonated for many Americans, including President George W. Bush, who challenged the world to declare which they side they were on in the conflict between America and terrorism.

(Palestinians celebrating the fall of the twin towers on 911, uploaded by Yank507 YH)


It is worth remembering the Palestinian reaction to 9/11 on the morning after Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. forces because a triumphant President Obama must soon make a critical decision that affects the future of a terrorist ally of bin Laden. The United States has always and quite rightly insisted that Hamas must be treated as a terrorist group, not a political party or a government, in spite of the fact that they are the de facto rulers of Gaza since the bloody coup in which they seized power in the strip from the Palestinian Authority in 2007. But by agreeing last week to join a coalition government with their Fatah rivals, Hamas is putting itself in position to benefit from the massive American aid that flows to the PA.

Many in Congress from both the Republican and Democratic parties have rightly put the Palestinians on notice that if the Fatah-Hamas alliance is signed, American financial support for the PA will cease. But the White House and the State Department, though mildly critical of the pact, have yet to enunciate the administration’s determination to go along with the will of Congress on this issue.

There’s not much doubt that PA leader Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah followers have interpreted the events of the Arab Spring, especially the fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, as a sign that their brand of “moderation” and accommodation with the West is losing support in the region. The increased influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group from which Hamas sprang, in Egypt was a major factor behind Abbas’s decision to embrace his deadly Hamas foes, even though doing so must undermine Western support for his bid for United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state. Hamas’s presence in a Palestinian government dooms the already virtually non-existent chances that the PA will ever make peace with Israel.

A PA spokesman endorsed bin Laden’s killing but Hamas condemned the operation as an “assassination” mourned bin Laden as a “holy warrior.” Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas government in Gaza told reporters today, “We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”

Though there will be some who will attempt to argue that the continuation of American aid to the PA must continue despite the alliance with Hamas and that the flow of money can be controlled so it will not go directly to the terrorists, this is nonsense. American acquiescence to a Hamas role in the Palestinian Authority will be a signal to the Arab and Islamic world that despite bin Laden’s death, America is willing to bend to terrorists. President Obama must make it plain to Abbas that his alliance with bin Laden’s friends means that U.S. support for his government is at an end.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Schanzer: The Hamas - Al-Qaeda Alliance

Jonathan Schanzer
The Weekly Standard Online
May 2, 2011

http://schanzer.pundicity.com/9518/the-hamas-al-qaeda-alliance

While most of the world celebrates the U.S. military operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the sentiment is not unanimous. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh has condemned the United States, accusing Washington of assassinating a "Muslim and Arabic warrior" and the "continuation of the American oppression and shedding of blood of Muslims and Arabs."

Haniyeh's reaction underscores the ideological roots Hamas and al Qaeda share: Hamas was founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a prominent Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood figure; al Qaeda was cofounded, along with bin Laden, by Abdullah Azzam, another prominent Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood figure.

But this only partially explains why Haniyeh and his ilk are now mourning the death of the most notorious terrorist in modern history.

While Hamas insists that it has no operational ties to al Qaeda, in the early and mid-1990s Hamas members received paramilitary training and attended Islamist conferences in Sudan, alongside bin Laden and his supporters.

The operational ties were confirmed a decade later, when bin Laden reportedly sent emissaries to Hamas on two separate occasions (September 2000 and January 2001). While most analysts believe Hamas rejected al Qaeda's offer to coordinate violence against Israel, it appears Hamas never closed the door. In 2002, the Washington Post quoted official U.S. government sources as confirming a loose alliance "between al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah."

In 2003, Israel arrested three Hamas fighters returning from al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. That same year, Jordanian security officials confirmed to Time magazine that two Hamas members went on a recruiting mission in Afghanistan hoping to bring al Qaeda fighters back to the Palestinian territories.

Arab media also reported in 2006 that Syria-based Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal had met in Yemen with Abd al-Majid al-Zindani, whom the U.S. Treasury officially designated as a terrorist in 2004 for his ties to al Qaeda. Zindani has openly boasted of providing funds to Hamas.

Thus, over the course of two decades, Hamas has maintained a relationship with the al Qaeda network. This explains Haniyeh's lamentations after hearing of bin Laden's death, and further explains, in part, why the United States has designated Hamas a terrorist organization.

But Hamas's sympathies for bin Laden hold a deeper meaning now than they did a week ago. Last week, Hamas entered into a unity government with the rival Fatah faction, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority. The deal immediately raised questions about whether Washington could recognize such a government.

If the group's grisly record of suicide bombings and attacks against civilians since its inception in 1988 were not enough, the aforementioned ties between Hamas and al Qaeda should serve as further warning to Washington about the terror group that now appears to have a controlling stake in the Palestinian Authority.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former intelligence analyst at the U.S. Treasury, is vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine (Palgrave Macmillan 2008).


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Poll Reveals Frightening Popularity of Revolutionary Islamism

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
20 December '10

There’s a lot of interesting material in the Pew Foundation's latest poll of the Middle East, a survey that focuses on attitudes toward Islamism and revolutionary Islamist groups. The analysis that accompanies the poll, however, is not very good, so here is mine.

For example, in evaluating attitudes toward Hamas and Hizballah, Pew says that they receive “mixed ratings from Muslim publics [while] opinions of al-Qaida and its leader, Usama bin Ladin, are consistently negative….” The implication is that the poll shows that people in these countries are not radical. Actually, the poll shows the precise opposite.

To begin with, let's look at Jordan. There, 55 percent say they like Hizballah (against 43 percent negative) while 60 percent are favorable (compared to 34 percent negative) toward Hamas. Yet this is even more impressive than the figures indicate. Jordan is a staunchly Sunni country whose government opposes the ambitions of Iran and Syria, indeed it often identifies the threat as coming from Shia Muslims. Hizballah is a Shia group which also is an agent of Iran and Syria. For a majority to praise that organization—conscious of strong government disapproval—is phenomenal.

The figures for Hamas can be more easily explained by the Palestinian connection. Yet the difference between support for Hamas and for Hizballah in terms of public opinion isn’t that great. And liking Hamas also suggests that Jordan's people--of whom a majority are Palestinian--prefer Hamas over Fatah and the Palestinian Authority—Hamas's rival.

(Read full "Poll Reveals Frightening Popularity of Revolutionary Islamism")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Saudi Arabia: Hates Iran, But Loves Al Qaeda--And Relies On Israel

Daled Amos
30 November '10

I already posted earlier today that Arab World Agrees With Israel--Iran Is More Urgent Than A Palestinian State, which makes sense from the viewpoint of keeping the status quo--particularly Sunni Arab dominance vis-a-vis Muslim non-Arab Shiites.

On the other hand, based on a small snippet reported in passing by The New York Times, we see that Saudi Arabia still supports Al Qaeda--in a big way:

Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December.

Grant Lawrence notes that The New York Times does not link to the cable it is quoting from, and goes on to point out:

As the WikiLeaks Embassy Cables show the Saudi King has been urging an attack on Iran. The Saudis are worried about Iran gaining superiority in the region. The King doesn't seem to be worried about triggering a World War or even a nuclear exchange. He doesn't care how many people will die.

Instead the Saudi's are busy keeping al Qaeda well funded so they can blow up an American target. Now their support of terrorism should put Saudi Arabia at the top of the list as a terrorist nation and possibly open it up for an American invasion.

We know that the hijackers on 9/11 were nearly all Saudis, but the United States invaded Afghanistan. Even though the al Qaeda network was known to be well supported by Saudi Arabia.

The US does have a huge blind spot when it comes to our 'moderate friends' the Saudis--but Saudi Arabia's fear of Iran is connected to its support to Al Qaeda.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Why Do Radical Muslims Want to Kill Europeans?

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
08 October '10

How true is it that Al-Qaeda's terror attacks around the world are directly linked to the Israeli-Arab conflict?

Some Middle East and terror "experts" have long maintained that the West's support for Israel was one of the main motivations behind the attacks of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist groups.

These "experts" have naively and foolishly endorsed Al-Qaeda Chief Osama bin Laden's argument that the terror attacks against the US and Western targets are the result of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

In the past, bin Laden justified his organization's attacks on Americans by citing continued US support for Israel as the main reason.

But now that it has been revealed that Al-Qaeda is also planning a new wave of terror attacks in Europe, it would be interesting to hear what excuse bin Laden would have this time.

If the Americans deserve to be murdered because of Washington's "bias" in favor of Israel, why are countries such as France, Britain and Germany -- which have, generally speaking, been very supportive of the Palestinians -- now on the black list of radical Islamic groups?

The Europeans are being targeted for the same reason the Americans are: for being "infidels" and enemies of Islam and for the Western values they represent. They are being targeted because of their failure to transform into Islamic countries. Those who think that solving the Israeli-Arab conflict will undermine Al-Qaeda and its allies do not know what they are talking about.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Why All Middle Eastern Politics Can't Be Reduced Merely to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
16 August '10

I simply cannot comprehend why so many in the West refuse to see that Arabs can be revolutionaries. It is remarkable that so many who claim to be experts don’t incorporate the idea that Arabs, like other peoples, might dislike their existing societies or be motivated by ideologies claiming to be the blueprints for utopias.

After all, if Africans, Asians, Europeans, and Latin Americans think and behave this way, why aren’t Arabs going to act the same?

The two paragraphs above are written in response to yet another book, by a very experienced expert on the region, saying that al-Qaida is almost completely motivated by the Palestinian issue as well as a couple of articles claiming that the only reason why the United States or President Barack Obama isn't popular in the Middle East is due to Israel.

In fact, al-Qaida, Hamas, Hizballah, Muslim Brotherhoods, and other Islamist groups, have been overwhelmingly motivated by a desire to revolutionize the entire Muslim-majority world (and even the whole world) in line with its interpretation of Islam. Al-Qaida's original cause was to overthrow the Saudi royal family, followed by an effort to help Iraq against Western pressure. In al-Qaida documents before and after the September 11 attacks, the Palestinian issue was not mentioned more than about ten percent of the time and never highlighted.

In addition, radical Arab nationalists, including many intellectuals and several Arab regimes (Egypt, 1952-1970; Syria, 1949-present; Iraq, 1958-2003; Libya, 1973-present), have sought to unite the Arab world under their leadership, overthrow neighboring governments, and expel Western influence in line with their ambitions and ideology.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Mohammed Oudeh’s Lesson: Attacking the West Pays

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
08 July '10

After Mohammed Oudeh, planner of the terror attack that killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, died this weekend, media obituaries noted that he never regretted his actions. A 2006 interview with AP explained why:

“Before Munich, we were simply terrorists. After Munich, at least people started asking who are these terrorists? What do they want? Before Munich, nobody had the slightest idea about Palestine.”

George Habash, founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and architect of the campaign of airline hijackings that began terrorizing Europe in the late 1960s, offered an identical argument as far back as 1970:

“When we hijack a plane it has more effect than if we kill a hundred Israelis in battle. For decades, world public opinion has been neither for nor against the Palestinians. It simply ignored us. At least the world is talking about us now.”

Both men, of course, are right. As long as the Palestinians stuck to attacking Israelis on Israeli soil, the West ignored them. But when they began launching attacks in Europe, many Westerners suddenly started asking what could be done to satisfy their grievances and make them stop. And gradually, these questions morphed into a fixed determination to make Israel give the Palestinians whatever they wanted.

The same process is happening now with al-Qaeda. Before 9/11, almost nobody in the West had even heard of al-Qaeda. Since then, numerous articles by journalists, academics, ex-diplomats, ex-intelligence officers, et al. have argued that the West could take the wind out of al-Qaeda’s sails by withdrawing all troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries, forcing Israel to quit the territories, halting drone attacks on terrorists, and so forth.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

CIA Chief Says Al-Qaida is Weaker. True But So Is U.S., and Revolutionary Islamist Groups Are Stronger

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
27 June '10

CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He’s probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large.

Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that’s a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally—the most important actions damaging the group—took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about.

But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida—a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta’s optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week—but how one should regard that organization.


In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group’s decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle.

But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other--leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration’s policy.

First, the longer-term historical importance of al-Qaida has not been to be the revolutionary impetus in its own name but the inspiration for a great increase in revolutionary Islamist activity in many places. An increase in anti-American terrorism was a key element in this process but is only one part of the picture. Al-Qaida’s role has been particularly important in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in North Africa.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Nuclear Terrorism: Threat to the Public or to Credibility?

Jonathan Schachter, Yoel Guzansky,
and Yoram Schweitzer
INSS
Insight No. 178
28 April 28 '10

(Decent article discussing possibilities, but more importantly, where the focus should be at this time. Y.)

During a recent trip to Prague, where he signed a new arms control treaty with Russia, President Barack Obama declared that nuclear terrorism is “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.” Though the unique destructive power of nuclear arms justifies his concern regarding their spread and potential use, this grave assessment regarding the imminent threat of nuclear terrorism does not appear to stand up to scrutiny, and might even set the stage for weaker international non-proliferation resolve in the future.

Threat comprises both intent and capability. Analysts are nearly unanimous in their evaluation that al-Qaeda has demonstrated the former through its public statements and its efforts to secure both nuclear materials and religious rulings supporting their nefarious use. Documentary evidence of the group’s interest reportedly was found in Afghanistan in the years immediately after 9/11. This is significant, for not only is the intent to cause large numbers of casualties consistent with the philosophy and modus operandi of al-Qaeda and its affiliates, but very few other groups have ever demonstrated any interest in or willingness to acquire nuclear weapons and bear their real and potential associated costs.

Capability is another matter. According to the RAND Corporation’s Brian Jenkins, who first wrote about terrorists “going nuclear” in 1975, “Usama bin Laden certainly wants a nuclear weapon. He’s been trying for the last 15 years to get a nuclear weapon. There’s no doubt that if he had one, he would use it. Al-Qaeda frequently talks about nuclear weapons….But the fact is there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has nuclear weapons or that it has the material or knowledge to make nuclear weapons.”

If al-Qaeda has neither the weapons nor the ability to make them, the concern remains regarding the group’s acquisition of a weapon from a nuclear state, either through cooperation or following regime collapse. Here the question centers mainly on Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. For over 30 years Iran has provided shelter to and trained, equipped, and dispatched terrorists to strike at American and Israeli targets. Is it likely that a nuclear Iran would usher al-Qaeda or Hizbollah into the nuclear club as well?

The evidence suggests not. First, despite reports of al-Qaeda members finding refuge and passing safely through Iran, the tensions and mistrust between Shiite Iran and Sunni al-Qaeda would almost certainly be a deal breaker. Second, and perhaps most importantly, we have seen no evidence that state sponsors of terrorism have ever provided terrorist groups with non-conventional weapons. The US has designated Iran and Syria, for example, as state sponsors of terrorism for more than a quarter of a century, and both states are known to have large stocks of chemical weapons (which they appear to be developing together; according to Janes, in July 2007 an accident at a joint Iranian-Syrian chemical weapons plant in Aleppo led to dozens of deaths). Nevertheless, none of the terrorist groups sponsored by these two states has ever carried out an attack using these weapons, nor is there evidence that they’ve been equipped to do so.

(Read full insight)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Armageddon Scenario: Israel and the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Chuck Freilich
BESA
Perspectives 104
08 April '10

EXECUTIVE SUMMERY: The Iranian nuclear threat has obscured the possibility of waging nuclear terrorism against Israel. There is a clear rationale for employing nuclear terrorism and countering it needs calibrated policies of prevention and possibly US-Israeli cooperation. The time to prepare for the Armageddon scenario is now.

For the past 15 years, Israel's focus on the Iranian nuclear threat has been nearly all-encompassing, eclipsing virtually all other threats. While understandable, this preoccupation may have distracted Israel from a threat which may be no less likely and actually far more dangerous; nuclear terrorism. Unlike "traditional" terrorism, nuclear terrorism poses a catastrophic threat to the state.

Moreover, those most likely to conduct nuclear terrorism (al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Iran, and others) may be fundamentally nihilistic and thus undeterrable. As millennial movements who believe that Israel's destruction is a sacred mission, they may view a nuclear attack, even assuming a devastating Israeli response, to be a worthy means of ushering in a messianic era.

A nuclear terrorist threat against Israel might be designed for:

Actual Use – to deal Israel a devastating blow

Deterrence – to counter Israel's conventional superiority and purported nuclear capability, to deter Israeli attacks, or to conduct attacks with relative impunity

Compellence – to exert a decisive influence on Israeli decision making during crises or over fundamental issues, holding it hostage by the threat of an attack

Weakening – to severely erode Israel's national resilience due to the ongoing need to live in the shadow of nuclear terrorism

Back Up – to strengthen the deterrent value of a state-based (Iranian or Syrian) capability

Decapitation – to remove the Israeli political and/or military leadership

(Read full paper)
.

Other Than Apartments in Jerusalem, What Else is Going on in the Middle East?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
21 March '10

While the Obama Administration is fiddling over the construction of apartments in Jerusalem, the Middle East is burning. Yet these other issues don’t attract the attention—and certainly not the action—required.

1. Iran is now allied with al-Qaida: General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, revealed a bombshell story that has been ignored: Iran is helping al-Qaida attack Americans.

Iran, he said in military-speak, provides "a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al Qaida's senior leadership to regional affiliates." Translation: Tehran is letting al-Qaida leaders travel freely back and forth to Pakistan and Afghanistan, using its territory as a safe haven, while permitting them to hold meetings to plan terrorist attacks for attacking U.S. targets and killing Americans. While nominally Iran sometimes takes these people into custody, that seems, Petraeus says, a fiction to fool foreigners.

Oh, and Petraeus added that Iran also helps the Taliban fight America in Afghanistan. Regarding Iraq, the general explains, "The Qods Force [an elite Iranian military group within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] also maintains its lethal support to Shia Iraqi militia groups, providing them with weapons, funding and training,"

So, Petraeus pointed out that Iran is helping al-Qaida against the United States and also, at times, Shia groups intended to be Iran’s proxies for spreading its influence in Iraq. In effect, the Tehran regime is at war with the United States. Yet this point is not being highlighted, nor does it stir rage in the hearts of White House officials or strenuous attempts to counter this threat.

Meanwhile, Iran isn’t just building apartments but nuclear weapons’ facilities.

2. Lebanon being further integrated into Iran-Syria alliance

In an interview with al-Jazira television, Walid Jumblatt, formerly the roaring lion of the opposition, turns into a mouse and apologizes to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad:

(Read full article)
.

White House Ignores Iran’s Help to Al-Qaida in its Passion over Jerusalem Apartments

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
20 March '10

The United States is at war with al-Qaida. Al-Qaida carried out the attack on the World Trade Center that killed 3,000 Americans. Al-Qaida is killing Americans in Iraq and elsewhere. So one would think the fact that al-Qaida has found a powerful ally would be a big story in the American media and by a big priority for setting off U.S. government anger.

And this would be especially so if that was explained by one of the most respected men in the country, a man who has access to the highest-level intelligence.

Not at all.

In the same testimony which created lots of discussion regarding remarks on the Israel-Palestinian issue, General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, revealed a bombshell story that has been ignored: Iran is helping al-Qaida attack Americans.

Iran, he said in military-speak, provides "a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al Qaida's senior leadership to regional affiliates." Translation: Tehran is letting al-Qaida leaders travel freely back and forth to Pakistan and Afghanistan, using its territory as a safe haven, while permitting them to hold meetings to plan terrorist attacks for attacking U.S. targets and killing Americans. While nominally Iran sometimes takes these people into custody, that seems, Petraeus says, a fiction to fool foreigners.

Oh, and Petraeus added that Iran also helps the Taliban fight America in Afghanistan. Regarding Iraq, the general explains, "The Qods Force [an elite Iranian military group within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] also maintains its lethal support to Shia Iraqi militia groups, providing them with weapons, funding and training,"

(Read full post)
.

Reading Like a Middle Easterner

Where we see coincidences in U.S. news coverage of the Middle East, locals see conspiracies—and sometimes they’re right


Lee Smith
Tabletmag.com
10 March '10

Postmodernists long ago disabused us of the idea that texts have stable, fixed meanings. French literary critics like Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes introduced a vision of the text as a tricky, shape-shifting improvisation; their American disciples like Stanley Fish proposed that these texts only acquire meaning through the efforts of interpretive communities. The relevance of academic critical esoterica to America’s ever-shifting Middle East policies—and how they are understood by Middle Easterners and manipulated by Middle Eastern regimes—may not seem immediately clear. But bear with me.

Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained that the biggest threat to America’s national security comes not from Iran but al-Qaida. “Most of us believe the greater threats are the trans-national non-state networks,” Clinton said, referring to “the fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are connected to al-Qaida.”

What Clinton meant certainly seems straightforward enough. Transnational, nonstate Sunni jihadi networks like al-Qaida are responsible for not only 9/11 but also attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have dispatched at least one suicide attacker, the Detroit Christmas bomber Omar Faruq Abdulmuttalab, and apparently have plans to send more. While it is arguable whether a shadowy network of terrorists led by a man who may or may not be alive is more dangerous than an Iranian regime with terrorist assets throughout the Middle East and a nascent nuclear program, Clinton’s assertion is hardly ridiculous. It’s not outside of the realm of possibility that we could still sit down and strike a Grand Bargain with the Islamic Republic, whereas we don’t even have a working phone number for al-Qaida.

For the interpretive community that forms itself around the products disseminated by the American media—that is, for New York Times readers, Washington Post readers, and the CNN audience—Washington’s apparent about-face is due to the desire of the current White House to do the exact opposite of its unpopular predecessor. But a Middle Easterner hears something else.

(Read full article)
.

It's Not Al-Qaida the Obama Administration Doesn't Understand, It's Everything Else

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
10 January '10

A friend sent me an article written, in his usually witty style, by Mark Steyn in the conservative magazine, National Review, entitled "But We’re Still Gonna Kill You." Steyn writes:

"Barack Obama has spent the last year doing bigtime Islamoschmoozing, from his announcement of Gitmo’s closure and his investigation of Bush officials to his bow before the Saudi King and a speech in Cairo to `the Muslim world' with far too many rhetorical concessions and equivocations. And at the end of it, the jihad sent America a thank-you note by way of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s underwear: Hey, thanks for all the outreach! But we’re still gonna kill you."

But Mr. Steyn, who goes on to talk about various al-Qaida and individual attacks by revolutionary Islamists misses the main point (and I don't say this in any antagonistic sense as I often admire his writings). Of course al-Qaida is attacking America, that's why Obama says the United States is at war with al-Qaida.

The point that both Steyn and Obama are leaving out is this:

Despite all of Obama's policy and rhetorical efforts no one in the Muslim-majority world--no major cleric, government, or group--is going to HELP the United States no matter what it does. They may attack, they may cheer, they may do nothing, but no amount of concessions or flattery is going to get them actively to help the United States achieve its policy goals or even defend its people and institutions.

After all, Saudi money and youth are going into Iraq through Syria to kill Americans. Egypt's media promotes anti-Americanism. The Palestinian Authority won't even talk to Israel no matter how hard this U.S. government tries to give it a state and prove that it doesn't love Israel. Pakistan is most willing to fight the Taliban trying to overthrow the Pakistani government but helps the Afghani Taliban trying to kill Americans and overthrow the Afghan government.

(Read full article)
.

“Outsmarting” the Terrorists by Being Incredibly Stupid?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
06 January '10

Here’s my usual disclaimer: I would love to be able to stop criticizing the Obama Administration but it keeps saying and doing things that shock and surprise me or—if you want to put it this way—live up to my worst expectations.

I’m sitting on a U.S. army base briefing officers along with a high-ranking State Department official who works on the Middle East. At one point, he gets a quaver in his voice and starts talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict making quite clear which side he’s on. Sounding scared he says: “While a lot of problems in the world can bring trouble only the Arab-Israeli conflict can get you and your families killed.”

The officers look disgusted. He is fitting precisely their stereotype of a cowardly diplomat. Abandon Israel and save your life and that of your children, is his message. Oh, and this is after September 11 which makes the statement even more ridiculous.

This kind of blatant cowardice is usually better concealed. It more often occurs in regard to intellectuals facing challenges like the “Danish cartoons.” But it is glimpsed at times in a sort of strategic fearfulness, a refusal to do what’s in one’s interest lest someone might get mad about it.

John Brennan is the president’s advisor on counter-terrorism and may be the dumbest of all Obama’s foreign policy appointments. Brennan is apparently ex-CIA and he has yet to persuade me that he has any understanding whatsoever about terrorism. He’s the guy who said that Hizballah wasn’t a terrorist group because it ran candidates for parliament and had lawyers among its members.

Now in a television interview, he stated that the Guantanamo prison should be closed because al-Qaida has used its existence in order to make propaganda.

A few hours later, President Barack Obama repeated this talking point in the course of discussing reinforced controls on airplane passengers:

"We will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaida," Obama said. "In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula."

What? Is his understanding really so minimal that he thinks the formation of a revolutionary movement to seize power in Iraq and overthrow the Saudi government took place because the United States maintained a prison in Cuba? Is this man who proclaims himself the great understander of other cultures so ethnocentric that he thinks, so to speak, that “everything is about us?”

(Read full article)
.