Obama and the twilight of the West

...What brought Iran to the table was not economic pressure, but the opportunity presented by the Obama Administration, which was anxious to shed its obligations in the Middle East. The administration understood that only a credible threat of military action could stop Iran, and it was not prepared to make such a threat – because it might have to carry it out. And it was not prepared to pay the price for that.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
17 July '15..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2015/07/barack-obama-and-the-twilight-of-the-west/

So Barack Obama has got his agreement, his legacy. There will be debate and a vote (or votes) taken in the US Congress, but even if the Congress passes a resolution that disapproves the deal, and even in the unlikely event that such a resolution survives a presidential veto, the horse is out of the barn. The US is only one of the Western parties to the deal, which will likely receive the backing of a UN Security Council resolution. Who would enforce continued sanctions?

I’m not going to enumerate all the reasons this is a bad deal on a global scale (you can read about some of them here). What I wonder is why Obama and his people pushed for it. Did they think at first that they could get an agreement that would moderate Iran’s behavior and hold back their nuclear project, and then found themselves suckered by Iran’s negotiators? Or were they going for something entirely different?

As an Israeli, I can’t see anything good in the deal, and both Israel’s government and opposition agree with me (although the opposition is somewhat comically trying to blame the Prime Minister for it). But looking at it from an American point of view, what were they thinking?

One explanation is sheer incompetence. I suppose this is possible, especially since John Kerry is involved, but it’s not terribly interesting. What other explanations are there?

Another is the one I suggested in “Breakdown and Betrayal:” they were following the Iraq Study Commission recommendations to buy the friendship of the Arab and Iranian troublemakers in the Middle East by giving them Israel. This is certainly part of it, especially for Obama, who I am convinced would like nothing better than another Arab state in the place of Israel.

But there’s one other – even worse – possibility: that the deal represents a way to cover a strategic withdrawal from the Middle East. Could it be that the administration has decided that the US can’t successfully confront Iran in any case, and the deal exists to put a pleasant face on the American surrender?

(Video) Jihad, the West and the Jews - The World according to Ja'far

Calev..
LOTL..
17 February '13..

Once again, our appreciation to MEMRI TV Project for their ongoing coverage of television broadcasts throughout the region. In this latest piece we have an opportunity to hear from Ja'far Abd Al-Salam, the Secretary General of the Islamic Universities Association, as broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza)on 21 January '13.


MEMRITVVideos

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.

.

Exempting the Middle East from the rules of civilized behavior

Victor Davis Hanson..
National Review Online..
02 October '12..

Let us confess it: Many of the things that are bothersome in the world today originate in the Middle East. Billions of air passengers each year take off their belts and shoes at the airport, not because of fears of terrorism from the slums of Johannesburg or because the grandsons of displaced East Prussians are blowing up Polish diplomats. We put up with such burdens because a Saudi multimillionaire, Osama bin Laden, and his unhinged band of Arab religious extremists began ramming airliners into buildings and murdering thousands.

The Olympics have become an armed camp, not because the Cold War Soviets once stormed Montreal or the Chinese have threatened Australia, but largely because Palestinian terrorists butchered Israelis in Munich 40 years ago and established the precedent that international arenas were ideal occasions for political mass murder.

There is no corn or wheat cartel. There are no cell-phone monopolies. Coal prices are not controlled by global price-fixers. Yet OPEC adjusts the supply of oil in the Middle East to ensure high prices, mostly for the benefit of Gulf sheikhdoms and assorted other authoritarian governments.

Catholics don’t assassinate movie directors or artists who treat Jesus Christ with contempt. Jewish mobs will not murder cartoonists should they ridicule the Torah. Buddhists are not calling for global blasphemy laws. But radical Muslims, mostly in the Middle East, have warned the world that Islam alone is not to be caricatured — or else. Right-wing fascists and red Communists have not done as much damage to the First Amendment as have the threats from the Arab Street.

The world obsesses over Israel and the Palestinians because of the neurotic Middle East. The issue is not really the principle of a divided capital — or Nicosia would be daily news. Nor is the concern over refugees per se, since well over 500,000 Jews were religiously cleansed from the major Arab capitals following the 1948 and 1967 wars. No one cares where they went or how they have fared in the decades since. Is the global worry really over occupied territories? Hardly. Lately it seems that every desolate island between China and Japan is equally contested. Are there special envoys to the Falklands, and do the islanders receive international aid? Will there be a U.N. session devoted to the Kuril Islands? Does Gdansk/Danzig merit summits? We are told ad nauseam that the Arab minority in Israel suffers — would that the ignored Coptic minority in Egypt had similar protections and freedoms.

Sultan Knish - The View from a Broken Bridge

Daniel Greenfield..
Sultan Knish..
05 March '12..

Between the modern and the post-modern worlds, peace negotiations took on the fevered air of senseless enthusiasm that was once the sole preserve of wars. Once upon a time it was treasonous to oppose wars, now it is virtually mandatory to do so. Today it is treasonous to oppose peace processes, no matter how ill-founded, how senseless and how pointless they might be. The treason is no longer toward a country, but toward an ideal.

What ideal is it that the peace process represents? The ideal that we are all basically alike, that we might speak different languages, wave different flags and have differently shaped borders, but that we are all basically alike. We all want peace and wars only happen when our jingoistic leaders mislead us into a conflict. Peace happens when ordinary people of goodwill under the leadership of a few enlightened peacemongers get together and realize how much they have in common and that any disputes they have can be settled over some coffee or tea.

No mythical ideal propounded by the postmoderns is quite as dully stupid and thoroughly delusional as this one. It is progressive in its insistence that we are all alike because we are human and that being the same means that there is no reason for conflict. Its irrational insistence that war is irrational perfectly captures the false reason of progressive paradigms which treat their own philosophical constructs as more real than reality.

We do not stand at the end of history, but we are witness to the end of the West, which remains as deeply in love with the peace process, as the members of the League of Nations, shortly before their pacifism destroyed Europe and plunged the world into the most destructive war in human history which left the winners locked in a struggle that nearly culminated in the end of life on earth.

Why the West is crazy

An Israeli border police
officer is burned by a firebomb
thrown by a 'Palestinian'
demonstrator
in Jerusalem, March 18.
The officer survived.

Fresnozionism.org
24 March '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/03/why-the-west-is-crazy/

There is a tiny country surrounded by enemies. The official position of all Western governments is that this country is a nation no less legitimate than their own, having been established in accordance with international law. The country is a member of the UN in good standing. The country has contributed enormously to science and culture, particularly in the area of medical science. Prior to its establishment, its people were subject to persecution and racism wherever they were found, including the largest mass murder of a single ethnic group in human history.

Its enemies wish to destroy it because of religious and ethnic prejudice and because of a false historical narrative in which they portray themselves as dispossessed. They have rejected every attempt at compromise or coexistence. They are obsessed with hatred, and have brought about enormous misery for their own people in order to use them as weapons. They have created a culture — the ‘Palestinians’ — which, if it was a person, would be considered psychopathic in its obsession with death and revenge.

This ‘Palestinian’ culture has been attacking the people of the tiny country since before the country was officially founded. The attacks take the form of terrorism, in which random victims are murdered — with especial emphasis on children whenever possible — as brutally as possible, sometimes blown up, sometimes butchered like farm animals.

There is also continuous racist incitement to murder in ‘Palestinian’ media, mosques, schools, etc. The Terrorist murderers are national heroes and schools, streets, football fields, etc. are named after them. The ‘Palestinian’ government gives monetary rewards to the families of ‘martyred’ terrorists.

Now we come to the crazy part.

One would think that the enlightened, cultured, educated, abundant, successful Western nations, the dominant culture on the planet, which professes to favor the continued existence of the tiny nation and to admire its people, would also give it concrete support against its vicious enemies. That would be the rational thing to do.

But instead, this is what they do:

• They provide welfare assistance for ‘Palestinian refugees’ — most of whom are in no way refugees — according to a formula which encourages explosive (pun intended) population growth, while at the same time acquiescing in the ‘Palestinian’ obsession that they will not be settled anywhere else but in the besieged tiny country.

• They pay one ‘Palestinian’ faction — one which is committed to the destruction of the tiny country for revanchist and nationalistic reasons — large amounts of money, making it possible for them to continue terrorism and incitement to terrorism. Much of this money is transferred to another ‘Palestinian’ faction, this one motivated by religion and committed to jihad against the tiny country.

• While they verbally condemn the jihadists for their refusal to even pretend to renounce terrorism, they have prevented the tiny country from trying to force them from power either militarily or by nonviolent embargo.

• Their leaders and diplomats try to force the tiny country to make concessions to its enemies, in the unrealistic belief that this will damp down the conflict, when historically such concessions have always made it worse. While giving lip service to the tiny country’s right to exist, they push ‘solutions’ that will end in its dissolution.

• Their media almost universally report the conflict in a distorted way, suggesting that the tiny country bears the primary responsible for the attacks against it.

• In some parts of West — the UK and Europe — incitement in the media against the tiny country almost reaches the level found in the media of its declared enemies.

• In Western academic society, where concepts of anti-racism, self-determination and human rights are given enormous importance, opinion leaders almost universally turn reality upside down and support the racist aggressors who want to destroy the tiny nation and kill or disperse its people.

Is this crazy or what?

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.
.

Time to open our eyes

Yoaz Hendel
Israel Opinion/Ynet
24 February '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4033124,00.html

Samuel Huntington’s famous book, The Clash of Civilizations, includes a grim prediction of the post-Cold War world. Contradicting what was considered politically correct, Huntington chose to point to that which is different and problematic, thereby prompting a discussion on the danger inherent in cultural isolationism (Among other things, in respect to the distance between Islam and the West.)

Huntington got a cold shower of criticism by those who did not recognize gaps as a product of human nature; these were people who chose to ignore hundreds of years of ignorance in Arab states. If you will, it was similar to the old debate between pessimists and optimists.

In Europe, this was manifested through the turning of a blind eye to the ceaseless stream of immigrants. We then saw the famous multicultural approach, which allowed Muslim immigrants to live their lives with complete freedom, assuming that this will prompt them to abandon their old culture and warmly adopt the liberal Europe.

This approach, by the way, led to the creation of current-day Europe – scared of and trampled by the Muslim giant, which chose a renewed conquest instead of the melting pot.

The optimist approach was also manifested through the West’s foreign policy – especially in respect to the Middle East. The longtime Arab-Israeli conflict was forced to become a minor dispute over territory, while disregarding its cultural and religious roots, and especially the scope of the hatred it comprises.

For years, the West sold the notion of peace as a bridge between cultures. Egypt and Jordan served as proof. Yet peace did not become a bridge, but rather, a momentary interest. While the leaders made peace, Israel continued to serve as the target for mass fury.

New Middle East?

The approach espoused by objectors to the “clash of civilizations” notion forcefully permeated Israeli policy. Instead of examining the Middle East through a wide prism, our leaders (some of them brave and filled with good intentions) chose to examine reality via borders, withdrawals, and construction freezes. In short, they adopted a narrow view in line with the rhetoric of those who sought peace now.

I’d like to clarify that my words do not aim to again slam the supporters of withdrawal. There are situations where we may have to evacuate some communities in order to expand others and create viable borders. There are no holy compounds that we must not ask questions about when taking strategic decisions. On the other hand, thus far things in Israel had been done based on thoughts of a new Middle East or a breakthrough in shattering the obstacles of civilization.

The paradox is that now of all times, when the Arab world changes and seemingly adopts the root of Western culture, democracy, the clash of civilizations appears more tangible than ever.

The best illustration of this is the speech delivered by the 84-year-old Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi over the last weekend. After long years in exile as result of his radical views, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood returned to Egypt on the wings of democracy. In one appearance, whose most practical element was anti-Israel expressions, he managed to bring more than two million people to Tahrir Square.

This number is supposed to be of great interest to President Barack Obama’s people, who estimated that only half a million people support the Muslim Brotherhood. Qaradawi, whose weekly show on al-Jazeera is watched by 40 million people (much more than any reality show,) demonstrated what his civilization is all about.

Yet Egypt, the historic anchor of peace, is not alone. The process of radicalization is also sweeping through Jordan and the Palestinian street. Nonetheless, we are hearing calls in Israel that “this is the time to make peace.”

However, I suggest that we read Huntington and look in the mirror.

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.
.

Disconnect, Part III: The West

Shoshana Bryen
Senior Director for Security Policy
JINSA Report #: 1,064
February 21, 2011

http://www.jinsa.org/node/2218

So repressive governments – Arab governments – lie to their people about Israel, politics and the 21st century to maintain the illusion of security and control at home until the dam breaks. But why do governments in the West, knowing better, nevertheless insist that lies and wishful thinking be accounted for in policy formation at Israel’s expense?

Just because the Palestinians say they are entitled to an independent state where no state ever existed; just because they demand that their capital be Jerusalem, which has never been the capital of any people except the Jewish people; just because they say Israel is “illegally occupying” Palestinian land; just because they say the 1949 Armistice Line is a border that should be the first border of Palestine and houses for Jews east of the line are illegal, why does anyone who knows better agree?

Just because Hezbollah says Shebaa Farms is Lebanese territory that Israel occupies. Just because Hezbollah says it needs an Iranian-sponsored army inside Lebanon to continue the “resistance” against Israel. Why does anyone who knows better agree? When the Turkish government says the agitators aboard the Mavi Marmara were “peace activists” who were mauled by the vicious IDF. When the Turkish government erects billboards denouncing Israeli “war crimes” in Gaza. Why doesn't anyone who knows better tell them to stop?

Or, when the president of Iran calls for a world without Israel or the United States and denies the Holocaust, why do people who know better still permit him to address the United Nations, which is supposed to be a civilized place. OK, scratch that last one.

There are two reasons why otherwise well-informed people voluntarily suspend their knowledge of history, religion, international law and political reality when Israel is involved: money and fear. Both lead weak Western leaders to blame Israel for the illusions Arab dictators and potentates have foisted on their own people.

Arab states have lavished millions of dollars on American academia for the sponsorship of Islamic studies programs, paid for private schools that have no requirement for civics education or the history of the countries in which they operate, and set up groups to promote their version of the world from apparently respectable “think tanks.” Where do you think Director of National Intelligence James Clapper got the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood is a diversified secular social service organization?

Oil is also money and the West needs Arab oil because weak leaders have been unable to diversify their sources of energy. Oil states buy Western weapons and technology – this is a financial incentive as well. Fear of upsetting the money line is one problem.

Fear of large Muslim minorities – unassimilated and unassimilable – fear of attacks at home and abroad, fear that the "Strong Horse" really is the rise of radical, jihadist Islam trying to conquer Europe again is the other.

Unless the West develops confidence in Western civilization and willingness to stand up for what is right and demonstrably true – stand up for the democratic ally that is Israel – their fears may well become reality.

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 West's Bloodstained Hands

Melanie Phillips
spectator.co.uk
02 September '10

Obama has called it

senseless slaughter.

On the contrary, the cold-blooded murder of four Israeli civilians near Hebron was not senseless at all. Just look at the reaction in influential parts of the western media, in which the dead have effectively been blamed because they were ‘settlers’ and thus are deemed to have brought the atrocity upon themselves. Now two more Israelis in the West Bank have been shot and wounded, one seriously, in what has been described as another drive-by shooting which riddled their car with bullets. This was the obscene reaction by Hamas supporters to the murders. They rejoice because they glory in the killing of Israeli civilians. Yet as Just Journalism observes, in the Guardian Harriet Sherwood used the atrocity to blame the settlers for being the principal obstacle to peace, while providing

no discussion of the relevance of Hamas, or any background information on its history of violence aimed at civilians as exemplified by yesterday’s killings;

while the New York Times similarly blamed the settlers for

the disruptive role

they were playing in the ‘peace process’.

(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.
.

Immanuel Kant vs. Israel

by Daniel Pipes
danielpipes.org
National Review Online
17 August '10

As someone who deeply appreciates what Western civilization, for all its faults, has achieved, I puzzle over the hostility many Westerners harbor toward their way of life. If democracy, free markets, and the rule of law have created an unprecedented stability, affluence, and decency; how come so many beneficiaries, fail to see this?

Why, for example, does the United States, which has done so much for human welfare, inspire such hostility? And tiny Israel, the symbol of rejuvenation for a perpetually oppressed people – why does it engender such passionate hatred that otherwise decent people desire to eliminate this state?

Yoram Hazony of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem offers an explanation for this antagonism in a profound and implication-rich essay, "Israel Through European Eyes." He begins with the notion of "paradigm shift" developed by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 study, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

This influential concept holds that scientists see their subject from within a specific framework, a "paradigm." Paradigms are frameworks that underpin an understanding of reality. Facts that do not fit the paradigm are overlooked or dismissed. Kuhn reviews the history of science and shows how, in a series of scientific revolutions, paradigms shifted, as from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian physics.

Paradigms also frame politics and Hazony applies this theory to Israel's delegitimization in the West. Israel's standing has deteriorated for decades, he argues, "not because of this or that set of facts, but because the paradigm through which educated Westerners are looking at Israel has shifted." Responding to the vilification of Israel by offering corrective facts – about Israel's military morality or its medical breakthroughs – "won't have any real impact on the overall trajectory of Israel's standing among educated people in the West." Instead, the latest paradigm must be recognized and fought.

The fading paradigm sees nation-states as legitimate and positive, a means of protecting peoples and allowing them to flourish. The treaty of Westphalia (1648) was the key moment in which the sovereignty of nations was recognized. John Stuart Mill and Woodrow Wilson endowed the nation-state ideal with global reach.

(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.
.

Netanyahu's warning

George F. Will
The Washington Post
15 August '10

JERUSALEM

When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.

To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself -- a perfect victim."

Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.

Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense. After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."

(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.
.

Delusion instead of solution

Op-ed: Western preoccupation with engaging Iran must make way for tougher approach


Yoram Ettinger
Israel Opinion/Ynet
29 July '10
Posted before Shabbat

Western policy-makers grow increasingly reconciled to coexistence with a nuclear Iran. They assume that notwithstanding the radical rhetoric, the Iranian leadership is pragmatic, cognizant of its limitations, unwilling to expose its people to devastating Western retaliation and considering nuclear capabilities as a tool of deterrence – and not as an offensive means – against the US, NATO and Israel.

However, a nuclear Iran would constitute a clear and present danger to global security and peace, which must not be tolerated. In order to avert such a wrath, it is incumbent to disengage from illusions and engage with realism.

Unlike Western leaders, the Iranian revolutionary leadership is driven by ideological and religious conviction, bolstered by ancient imperialist ethos:

1. Jihad is the permanent state of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, while peace and ceasefire accords are tenuous.

(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.
.

If Israel goes down, we all go down

Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West’s best ally in a turbulent region


José María Aznar
WJC
17 June '10

The following article by the former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar was published in the British newspaper 'The Times' on 17 June 2010:

For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion.

In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbours using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathisers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

(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.
.

The Noose Around Israel's Neck

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
16 June '10

Israel is being hung on a public gallows erected on the grounds of the United Nations with yards of rope gleefully supplied by the Muslim world. But the hangmen are mostly Westerners who still think that the Muslim lynch mob at their doorstep can be pacified with the death of a single victim.

There are three things you can do when you are about to be hung. You can walk proudly, recite a glorious line or two to embed your martyrdom in historical memory, and then allow yourself to be hung. Jews have an extensive body of experience with that brand of martyrdom.

Alternatively you can plead your case all the way to the gallows, arguing that a mistake has been made, that your case has been improperly reviewed, begging for someone to listen and do something. This way also ends in a hanging. But it's the hanging of a slave without even a shred of dignity attached to it. A man that dies pleading with his murderers, and puts his fate in the honesty of the liars and hypocrites whose own crimes makes the worst of his look like virtues, is a craven fool.

Because there is really only one thing you can do when the noose is being placed around your neck. Resist. A noose works by tightening around your neck and cutting off your air or breaking your neck. If you resist the tightening of the noose, you may actually survive. On the other hand if you follow through all the procedures, if you allow your hands to be tied behind your back, and the noose to be fastened around your neck while trusting in the system to do right by you-- your death is inevitable.

For seventeen years Israel has been walking toward the gallows. Its leaders have led it there by the nose ring of international assurances. Its people have been led there by refusing to see what is waiting ahead for them, even while the blood was being cleaned off the streets. Every attempt to reach a peaceful solution, every concession and show of good faith, has only tightened the bonds around its hands and the noose around its neck.

That is because every concession Israel has made, has further restricted not only its ability to defend itself, but even its ability to do basic things such as build residential housing in the capital of its own nation. Every gesture and agreement Israel has signed has bound it to ever more restrictive terms. And none of them have brought any peace. All they have ever done is set the bar higher for the next round of concessions demanded by the enemy and its aiders and abettors in the next phase of negotiations.

This is not a peace process, and it has never been one. It is a public lynching. It is the lynching of a country whose only real crime is that its existence offends the religious fanaticism and prejudices of a billion Muslims, who control much of the world's oil, and whose followers are willing to riot and kill in the streets of nearly every major city in the world at the slightest offense.

(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.
.

Turkey Says Good Bye to Israel and the West

Prof. Efraim Inbar
BESA
Perspectives 108
06 June '10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: By endorsing the “Gaza Flotilla” Turkey escalates tensions with Israel. This is just another reflection of the change in Turkish foreign policy, which acquires a greater Islamic coloration and is distancing itself from the West. Only a change of government in Ankara can bring Turkey back into the Western fold and restore the partnership between Ankara and Jerusalem. The next elections in July 2011 provide the Turkish citizens an opportunity to remain democratic and part of the West.

The Turkish Role

The “Gaza flotilla” incident has revealed once again the Turkish government’s ugly face and particularly the great hostility harbored by its prime minister, Tayyip Erdoğan, towards Israel. Many Israelis watched TV broadcasts of incited Turkish mobs chanting “Death to Israel.” Prime Minister Erdoğan, who occasionally makes anti-Semitic statements, takes every opportunity to slam the State of Israel. Moreover, it seems that the Turkish government was behind the organization of this provocation and it definitely endorses it. Even more troubling is the fact that the Turkish government has cooperated with IHH (Turkish Relief Organization), an outfit with links to Al-Qaeeda and other Islamist terrorists.

Turkey Slides Away

It is a shame to see Turkey, an important strategic partner of Israel in the 1990’s, turn into a bitter adversary. Turkey, an important regional state and an important Western ally, stayed away from the Middle East for almost a century, because the Turks perceived this region as backward, fanatical, corrupt and undemocratic. Yet, in the last few years, Turkey is returning to the Middle East and tries to carve a leadership role commensurate with its imperial past. Moreover, in the last few years, Turkey has been in the throes of an identity crisis, in which Muslim tradition, which is still entrenched within Turkish society, aspires to greater expression than was hitherto permitted by the secular regime in Ankara. Attitude toward Israel is part of that debate.

The ruling Islamist party (AKP) since November 2002 become emboldened only after its reelection in July 2007 to make significant changes to Turkish foreign policy. Ankara’s relations towards Israel cooled, especially in the wake of the Gaza war in the winter of 2008. Scathing criticism, cancellation of joint military maneuvers and warming up toward Hamas have characterized Turkish policy. As of late, the fact that Washington has a weak president who emphasizes improvement of relations with the Muslim world, even at the expense of Israel, only encourages Turkey to distance itself from the Jewish state.

The deterioration of relations between Ankara and Jerusalem is a Turkish initiative, over which Israel has no influence. The hostile stance taken by Turkey towards Israel is part of the major transformation of Turkey’s foreign policy. In fact, Turkey is turning away from the West. Its position diverges from that of the West on Hamas, but also on other important issues. Ankara hosted Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, accused of war crimes, despite the protest of the European states. Turkey is the only member of NATO to have hosted Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Turkey is also growing closer to Syria, which is anti-American and deep in the Iranian camp.

(Read full perspective)

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.
.

Fitzgerald: When it comes to Islam, please stop this "problem" and "solution" nonsense

Hugh Fitzgerald
Jihad Watch
16 January '10

Many continue to believe that if we argue that Islam itself is the problem, this will leave the West with no solutions.

The word "solution" leapt out at me. I have written about it many times before, in regards to those who speak of a "two-state solution" to the Arab Muslim Jihad against Israel. I have written many times about what a foolish idea it is to believe that further Israeli surrenders, of claims, legal and moral and historic, and of tangible assets, especially the supreme asset, as it is viewed in the Muslim world, of land, would somehow change the immutable and uncreated words of the Qur'an, or somehow change the Hadith -- that is, change either the contents, or the rank of "authenticity," assigned to the Hadith (the written records of the words and deeds of Muhammad) more than a millennium ago by the most authoritative Muhaddithin.

I noted that Americans, unlike Europeans, are used to identifying situations that are troublesome or difficult or unpleasant as "problems," and, as problems, they are assumed to be susceptible of solution and therefore can be "solved." In some ways it is an attractive attitude. It testifies to a certain strain in the national character, a belief that may come from the encounter in this country with Nature, that the settlers in order to survive had to learn to subdue. And they felt, in a different way (a way we find not quite so unobjectionable today) it was felt necessary to subdue the indigenous Indians. Nature could be overcome, other men could be overcome. And when there was a need for something to be invented, born of necessity that invention would emerge. Yankee know-how and stick-to-it-iveness, the attitude that there is "no problem in the world that cannot be solved" if we just put our minds to solve it, may seem to some comically naïve, but for many it reflects an attitude that will not disappear, and of which many of us apparently cannot be disabused.

(Read full article)
.