<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; meeting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/meeting/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Presbyterian Church USA&#8217;s Terrorist Ties</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/the-presbyterian-church-usas-terrorist-ties/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-presbyterian-church-usas-terrorist-ties</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/the-presbyterian-church-usas-terrorist-ties/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2014 05:02:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ari Lieberman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hezbollah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presbyterian church usa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zionism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the Hezbollah-allied church could soon lose its tax-exempt status. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/pcusa.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-247061" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/pcusa.gif" alt="pcusa" width="233" height="235" /></a>On April 18, 1983, an explosive laden truck driven by a Hezbollah terrorist slammed into the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 63 people, including 17 Americans, some of whom were CIA operatives. According to the CIA, it was the <a href="https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2014-featured-story-archive/flashback-april-18-1983-u-s-embassy-bombed-in-beirut.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">most lethal</span></a> attack ever against the Agency. Just six months later, Hezbollah terrorists struck again, this time hitting the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/world/meast/beirut-marine-barracks-bombing-fast-facts/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">U.S. Marine compound</span></a> in Beirut.  In a repeat of the embassy bombing, a Hezbollah homicide bomber crashed his explosive laden truck into the barracks killing 220 marines and another 21 U.S. service personnel. It was the largest single-day loss of life sustained by the marines since Iwo Jima.</p>
<p>Hezbollah’s atrocities against the United States and its allies did not cease with the embassy and marine compound outrages and have in fact, continued unabated in intensity and scope since that time. Hezbollah has recently carried out a global campaign of terror spanning five continents including an attack and bombing of a civilian tourist bus in Bulgaria that resulted in the deaths of six civilians.</p>
<p>Despite Hezbollah’s involvement in international terrorism and its designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States, the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) has had extensive contacts with the organization according to a federal complaint filed by the legal advocacy group, Shurat HaDin, Israel Law center.</p>
<p>The 38-page complaint filed with the Internal Revenue Service alleges that PCUSA has engaged in “a range of activities prohibited under U.S. tax law” which are wholly inconsistent with PCUSA’s stated aims when it filed for tax exempt status in 1964.</p>
<p>In its 1964 filing with the IRS, PCUSA posed as a religious body whose purpose was to engage in “peaceful relationships with individuals of all faiths and wholly unengaged in political activities.” But the federal complaint filed by Shurat HaDin paints a completely different picture and alleges that PCUSA has repeatedly met and established dialogue with Hezbollah terrorist officials.</p>
<p>The complaint also alleges that PCUSA violated its tax-exempt status by “publishing anti-Semitic materials, enacting a racist policy to divest from American companies doing business with Israel, lobbying the U.S. Congress, and distributing political advocacy materials&#8230;”</p>
<p>Indeed, as far back as 2004 PCUSA officials met with Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon with one PCUSA official, perhaps in an attempt to endear himself to his Hezbollah hosts, making crude <a href="http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/294.htm"><span style="color: #0433ff;">anti-Jewish</span></a> remarks. Though PCUSA subsequently disavowed itself from the remarks as well as the meeting, PCUSA sanctioned meetings with Hezbollah continued.</p>
<p>In October 2005, a PCUSA delegation headed by Robert Morley and Father Nihad Tomeh <a href="http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1535.htm"><span style="color: #0433ff;">met with</span></a> Nabil Qaouk, a senior Hezbollah commander in Lebanon. During the exchange, Qaouk complained that U.S. policies in the region were dictated by Israel. It is the same banal complaint often regurgitated by an assortment anti-Semitic groups and conspiracy types. Nevertheless, the delegation, rather than challenging Qaouk, concurred with him stating that PCUSA was blameless because its members had voted for the Democratic Party and the organization was under pressure from U.S. Jewish groups due to its divestment efforts against Israel.</p>
<p>The Israel-Palestine Mission Network of the PCUSA has been engaged in a relentless effort to delegitimize Israel. As <a href="http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&amp;x_issue=37&amp;x_article=2712"><span style="color: #0433ff;">detailed</span></a> by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), the IPMN has been linked to a number of anti-Israel initiatives the most notorious of which is a malevolent publication called “Zionism Unsettled.”</p>
<p>“Zionism Unsettled” adopts a viscerally anti-Israel narrative, in line with the views of Hamas and has won praise from the who’s who of Judeophobes including former KKK “Grand Wizard” David Duke.  Among its many pernicious lies is that Jews had “harmonious relations” with Muslims prior to the ascendancy of Zionism and that Zionism is the sole cause for Palestinian suffering. The screed was peddled and offered for sale on PCUSA’s website and was taken down only after encountering extremely negative feedback and intense public pressure.</p>
<p>PCUSA took its anti-Israel political advocacy to new levels when in June 2014, its General Assembly <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/presbyterian-shame-article-1.1844099"><span style="color: #0433ff;">voted</span></a> by a narrow margin to attack Israel’s legitimacy by divesting itself from three companies doing business with Israel. A similar resolution in 2012 failed but remains testament to the relentless effort PCUSA places on political advocacy when it comes to harming relations with the Jewish State.</p>
<p>PCUSA, by both word and deed, has made itself out to be a leading purveyor of anti-Semitism. Its divestment initiatives hold Israel to a standard expected of no other nation. By peddling an anti-Semitic screed on its website, it becomes an integral party to anti-Semitism. By meeting and maintaining dialogue with Hezbollah, a Foreign Terrorist Organization that next to al-Qaida was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group, it provides aid and comfort to the enemy.</p>
<p>In 1964, PCUSA presented itself to the IRS as a benign religious organization with an apolitical agenda. The facts however, prove otherwise. As Shurat HaDin’s founder, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner accurately summed it up in an email to me; “The Presbyterian church long ago abounded any claim that they are not a political organization with ties to terror groups and an Israel-bashing agenda.  The IRS is obligated to investigate PCUSA and strip it from its tax free status. The PCUSA would need to decide ultimately whether they are a church or a political group.”</p>
<p>Given the PCUSA’s aggressive political agenda and its anti-Israel machinations, it is patently clear that they’ve already made that decision.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/the-presbyterian-church-usas-terrorist-ties/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Netanyahu’s Statements and Policies</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/netanyahus-statements-and-policies/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=netanyahus-statements-and-policies</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/netanyahus-statements-and-policies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2014 04:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Decoding the Israeli prime minister's message to the Obama administration. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5618435092089408259no.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242294" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5618435092089408259no.jpg" alt="5618435092089408259no" width="315" height="200" /></a>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Netanyahus-statements-and-policies-377946">Jerusalem Post</a>. </em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Although commentators overlooked it, the Obama administration did it again. They blindsided Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the eve of his trip to Washington.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The last time it happened was in May 2011 when US President Barack Obama set out his policy toward Israel and the Palestinians as Netanyahu was in flight, en route to Washington to meet with him.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In that speech Obama announced his support for an essentially full Israeli withdrawal to the entirely indefensible 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. Obama adopted this position despite the fact that Netanyahu and the Israeli public rejected it and viewed it as a threat to Israel’s survival.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">This time the Obama administration didn’t blindside Israel on the eve of Netanyahu’s visit with another hostile pronouncement in relation to the Palestinians. This time they did so in relation to Iran.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In an address on Saturday night before the National Iranian-American Council, Phillip Gordon, the White House’s coordinator for the Middle East, said that if US-Iranian talks on Iran’s nuclear weapons program lead to an agreement, they can pave the way for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. In his words, “A nuclear agreement could begin a multi-generational process that could lead to a new relationship between our countries.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Gordon’s statement was a blunt departure from the White House’s previous position that the only gain Iran would make by obeying binding UN Security Council resolutions that prohibit the Islamic theocracy from enriching uranium would be the abrogation of economic sanctions that were adopted to force Iran to end its illicit nuclear activities.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In accordance with US law, diplomatic relations with Iran are contingent on Iran’s cessation of support for terrorist organizations and other unlawful activities.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In his remarks to NIAC – a group that the vast majority of Iranian-Americans view as the unofficial lobby of the Iranian regime – Gordon said that due to the importance of the nuclear issue, to make progress in nuclear talks, the US is willing to ignore Iran’s support for terrorism and other crimes.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In his words, “The nuclear issue is too important to subordinate to a complete transformation of Iran internally.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">FACED WITH this boldfaced US declaration that it will not only do nothing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but is also endorsing continued Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah, Netanyahu opted to avoid yet another direct confrontation with the White House. Rather than directly call the administration out for its role in enabling Iran to become a nuclear state, Netanyahu sufficed with his usual rhetoric. He gently chided Obama for his pro-Iranian policy during his public remarks at the White House. And in all of his public statements, Netanyahu underlined how and why Iran and its nuclear weapons program are a greater threat to the free world than Islamic State.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">There are probably two reasons for Netanyahu’s reticence. First, a confrontation would be futile.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Even before Gordon’s speech, it was obvious to Netanyahu that Obama’s goal is not to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. The goal of Obama’s Iran policy is to reinstate US-Iranian relations.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Obama sees himself as a reincarnation of Richard Nixon. He will be for US-Iranian relations what Nixon was for US relations with Communist China.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Obama doesn’t mind if Iran has a bomb in the basement so long as he can drink tea with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the drawing room.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Given Obama’s absolute commitment to his goal, there was no point in having a confrontation with him. Netanyahu’s rejection of Obama’s position, made through his repeated warnings, was directed toward other ears. Netanyahu’s statements and warning were directed toward the American media, the American public and the American political class. His goal is to develop and strengthen support for an Israeli policy that would run counter to Obama’s policy of embracing Iran even at the cost of enabling Iran to become a nuclear power.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The only problem with Netanyahu’s rhetoric is that it isn’t credible. At this point, it is hard to believe Netanyahu has a policy to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">During his five-and-a-half years in office, Netanyahu has taken only sporadic action against Iran.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The cumulative impact of those actions has been limited, in part due to the Obama administration’s policy of leaking Israeli operations to the media.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Moreover, in light of the episodic nature of these actions, it is hard to view them as integrated components of an overall strategy whose aim is to destroy or significantly degrade Iran’s nuclear installations. In other words, it doesn’t appear that Israel has a policy of any kind for dealing with Iran’s nuclear weapons program.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">All we have is Netanyahu’s Churchillian rhetoric, which in itself will do nothing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">As the media analysts were quick to point out, whereas Netanyahu sought to focus his discussions with Obama on Iran, Obama was keen to focus his discussions with Netanyahu on the Palestinians.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Netanyahu’s unwillingness to focus specifically on the Palestinian issue was notable mainly because in his limited remarks on the issue, he signaled that he has a new strategic vision and policy for contending with the Palestinian conflict with Israel.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The first aspect of Netanyahu’s apparently emerging policy came out on Monday during his speech at the UN General Assembly. There Netanyahu criticized PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas more honestly and assertively than he ever has before.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Slamming Abbas for his libelous charge that Israel enacted a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, Netanyahu said that the deranged moral universe in which Israel can be accused of genocide is “the same moral universe where a man [Abbas] who wrote a dissertation of lies about the Holocaust, and who insists on a Palestine free of Jews, judenrein, can stand at the podium and shamelessly accuse Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Netanyahu then further distanced himself from the PLO-centric framework for building peaceful relations between Israel and its neighbors. He noted that the rise of Sunni jihadist forces and the Iranian nuclear threat have brought major Sunni Arab states to the conclusion that their best bet is to work with Israel to meet and surmount the growing dangers. This new regional landscape in turn can provide a means of resolving the Palestinian conflict with Israel in a manner that will not endanger Israel.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Netanyahu’s suggestion, repeated at the White House Wednesday, that neighboring Arab states may develop new means of resolving the Palestinian issue, rings true in light of the diplomatic support Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates gave Israel in its war against Hamas this summer. And even though the Egyptian government later denied the reports, talk persists that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi did in fact offer the Palestinians sovereignty over a large swathe of Sinai adjacent to Gaza as a means of establishing a viable Palestinian state without sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The assessment that a policy is slowly being developed along these lines was reinforced on Tuesday by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Repeating Netanyahu’s reference to a regional alliance structure that can be used to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel, Ya’alon said that it is irrational to even consider an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria in the aftermath of the war in Gaza.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The emerging policy apparently involves the application of Israeli sovereignty over all or parts of Judea and Samaria, along the lines I set out in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, in combination with an Egyptian offer of Sinai territory to the Palestinians in conjunction with the demilitarization of Gaza.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">From the administration’s behavior following Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu on Wednesday, we learned that the administration is adamantly opposed to any revision of the current PLO-centric framework, which is predicated on Israeli concessions to an intransigent PLO.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Shortly after Netanyahu left the White House, the administration bitterly attacked and threatened Israel, because the Jewish state refuses to obey the administration and deny Jews the right to buy and own property in eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem. The administration was enraged because in line with Israel’s refusal to adopt anti-Semitic housing policies, the Jerusalem Planning Board approved the construction of housing for Jews and Arabs in the city.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Also on Wednesday, Channel 10 reported that Secretary of State John Kerry is seeking to scuttle the developing Israeli alliance with Egypt and other anti-jihadist Sunni states by bringing Qatar, Hamas’s principal Sunni state-sponsor, into the mix. Kerry is reportedly trying to organize a regional peace conference that would coerce Israel into accepting the so-called Saudi Peace Initiative from 2002. That initiative would require Israel to surrender to all the PLO’s territorial demands and accept millions of foreign, hostile Arabs into its shrunken, indefensible territory.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In light of Obama’s absolute commitment to the anti-Israel, PLO-centric policy model for dealing with the Palestinian rejection of Israel, for the next two years there will be no change in US policy on the issue.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Under these circumstances, Netanyahu’s task is to lay the foundation in Washington for support for an Israeli policy that abandons the PLO as a partner and moves beyond the failed two-state model. Here, Netanyahu’s statements at the UN and the White House indicate that this is the path he has embarked upon.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Unfortunately, while Netanyahu may prefer to lay the groundwork for a new policy indirectly and cautiously, Abbas’s bid to convince the US to support the passage of a Security Council resolution that would require Israel to withdraw from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem a week after the 2016 presidential elections will likely force Netanyahu present an alternative to the PLO-centric two-state plan sooner rather than later.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">After the 2016 elections, Obama will be unconstrained by concerns for Democratic candidates.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Most of the Security Council resolutions against Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria were passed after the 1980 presidential elections when the then lame duck Jimmy Carter felt free to attack Israel at will.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">To avoid a repetition of that experience in late 2016, Netanyahu will have to offer an alternative to the failed two-state plan ahead of the 2016 presidential nominating conventions.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Netanyahu’s statements in the US this week present us with a mixed picture of his leadership.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Netanyahu appears more resolute on the Palestinian threat than he has in the past. This is a good thing. But on the most pressing threat Israel faces today, his strong words rang hollow. The only way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power is for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Until Israel adopts a policy for doing so, words will not suffice.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/netanyahus-statements-and-policies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taxpayers Fund Prof&#8217;s Overseas Meeting with Terrorists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/taxpayers-fund-radical-profs-overseas-meeting-with-terrorists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=taxpayers-fund-radical-profs-overseas-meeting-with-terrorists</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/taxpayers-fund-radical-profs-overseas-meeting-with-terrorists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 04:15:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ari Lieberman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestinian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[san francisco state university]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorist]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will San Francisco State University finally take action against Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hezil.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-226454 alignleft" alt="hezil" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hezil.jpg" width="320" height="213" /></a>In April, I wrote an </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/terrorists-on-campus/">article</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> directing the community’s attention to Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies/Race and Resistance Studies at San Francisco State University, highlighting some of her very disquieting comments and behaviors. Abdulhadi embodies all that is wrong with today’s social science and humanities fields and her actions unequivocally demonstrate how those fields have been hijacked by extremists whose comments and lectures are devoid of any academic value and often veer into outright Judeophobia and anti-Semitism.</span></p>
<p>Abdulhadi’s pernicious agenda as a professor at SFSU is not to teach but to indoctrinate, not to impart knowledge but to disseminate hate-filled propaganda. In the past, she has been relentless in her efforts to demonize and delegitimize the Mideast’s only democracy, while applying double standards and ignoring those who actually commit egregious human rights violations.</p>
<p>In past speeches, Abdulhadi has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4l2P-WRSGc">accused Israel</a> of turning mosques into bars, looting churches and desecrating Muslim cemeteries. Of course, she offers not a scintilla of evidence to support her slander and worse yet, completely ignores the plethora of evidence documenting Muslim atrocities and persecution of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims.</p>
<p>There have been numerous instances where Abdulhadi, with help from her cohorts, created an on-campus atmosphere of fear and intimidation aimed at the pro-Israel community, in an effort to stifle legitimate discourse and promote a hate-filled agenda. Those who have reviewed her odious record can come to but one conclusion; Abdulhadi masquerades as an academic but is in fact a rabid hater of the Jewish State and a racist.</p>
<p>It is one thing however, to maintain marginal beliefs that most of us view as repugnant but an entirely different matter when one engages in dishonest and likely criminal behavior to further those beliefs. According to the findings of a recent investigation, that is precisely what Abdulhadi did and caused SFSU as well as California State University to become complicit in her odious scheming.</p>
<p>According to papers received through the California Public Records Act, on August 11, 2013 Abdulhadi submitted a request for more than $7,000 in State University funds to finance her upcoming excursion to “Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine,” $2,000 of which was accelerated as a “Travel Advance.” As an aside, Abdulhadi, like the terrorist groups of Hamas and Hezbollah, shuns use of the word “Israel” and University officials have shamelessly played along with her insidious charade.</p>
<p>In all, four SFSU documents were submitted in connection with Abdulhadi’s excursion and each of these documents state that the purpose of her trip was related to University business, specifically, she was to present a paper at the 4th conference of the Center for American Studies and Research to be held at the American University in Beirut. In addition, she was to conduct &#8220;research&#8221; and to meet with &#8220;potential collaborators towards [establishing a] memorandum of understanding (MOU) with San Francisco State University&#8221; in Jordan and the West Bank. The noted documents were reviewed and approved by high-level University officials, including Abdulhadi’s Dean, Kenneth Monteiro, as well as University President, Leslie Wong, among others.</p>
<p>Abdulhadi’s stated purpose for the trip was nothing short of a pre-mediated, bald-faced lie. In December 2013, Abdulhadi sent an email to the University’s Risk Management office stating that she would not be attending the Beirut conference claiming that her name was “dropped” as a conference speaker. More importantly, Abdulhadi neglected to note in any of her submitted papers that she would be meeting with members of terrorist organizations, specifically designated as such by the State Department.</p>
<p>While in Jordan, Abdulhadi met with <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4078246,00.html">Leila Khaled</a>, a convicted hijacker and member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization responsible for committing reprehensible crimes targeting civilians, including US nationals. Abdulhadi also met with Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel who was convicted of providing material support to Hamas. In addition, in 2008 Salah was charged with incitement to violence and racism after giving a speech in which he alleged that <a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2014/March/Islamic-Movement-Leader-Off-to-Prison-again/">Jews use children&#8217;s blood to bake bread</a>. Apparently, the SFSU professor feels right at home with terrorists who kill American civilians and those who propagate ancient blood libels.</p>
<p>Contrary to her claims of pursuing University business, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the aim of the trip was to further Abdulhadi’s nefarious political goals. Indeed, following her taxpayer funded trip, she noted on the SFSU <a href="http://ethnicstudies.sfsu.edu/content/news-events">Ethnic Studies website</a> that while in the West Bank and “1948 areas of Palestine” (i.e. Israel) she engaged with Palestinian “scholars, artists and activists” to strengthen the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. Through Abdulhadis’s obfuscation and deceit, SFSU unwittingly facilitated a trip with taxpayer and University funds that enabled meetings to take place between University professors and assorted terrorists and racists and helped strengthen an anti-Semitic movement whose stated goal is the eradication of Israel.</p>
<p>That a miscreant like Abdulhadi can maintain her position as Associate Professor at SFSU speaks volumes on the decayed and decrepit state of affairs of contemporary academia. However, the recently uncovered documentary evidence in connection with Abdulhadi’s excursion to the Levant suggests that not only is she a detestable racist, but a dishonest one at that.</p>
<p>Abdulhadi has had a number of free passes that garnered nothing more than <a href="http://president.sfsu.edu/president/statement-campus-discourse">indirect condemnation</a> from President Wong. Hopefully, this time around, he won’t let her egregious and unscrupulous actions go unpunished.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/taxpayers-fund-radical-profs-overseas-meeting-with-terrorists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arab Rejectionism from Khartoum to Ramallah</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/arab-rejectionism-from-khartoum-to-ramallah/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=arab-rejectionism-from-khartoum-to-ramallah</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/arab-rejectionism-from-khartoum-to-ramallah/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:02:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ari Lieberman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abbas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arab league]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[declaration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KHARTOUM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[three no's]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221908</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Abbas carries on the Arab League's absolute refusal to make peace with Israel. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1395071177000-GTY-479263775.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221909" alt="1395071177000-GTY-479263775" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1395071177000-GTY-479263775-450x337.jpg" width="270" height="202" /></a>Following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel offered to return land acquired during the conflict to her defeated Arab enemies in exchange for peace. On September 1, 1967 the Arab League, convening in Khartoum, Sudan drafted its predictable response to the Israeli overture in the form of the now infamous “Three No&#8217;s” proclamation: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it…”</span></p>
<p>Nothing has changed since then. Arabs still maintain their rejectionist attitudes toward reconciliation with Israel as evidenced by Mahmoud Abbas’ own version of the Arab League’s Khartoum declaration.  A <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/tv-report-abbas-said-no-to-obama-on-3-core-peace-issues/">recent report</a> indicated that Abbas rejected Israel’s three core demands that represent red lines for the Jewish state. Abbas refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, refused to abandon the so-called Palestinian “right of return” and refused to commit to an end of conflict or claims. Refusal to meet any one of the three conditions severely undermines prospects for peace. Refusal to accept all three however, all but torpedoes the process.</p>
<p>President Obama has all but chosen to ignore Palestinian rejectionism in favor of heaping criticism on the only democracy in the Mideast, Israel. Obama suffers from an acute case of tunnel vision when it comes to Israel focusing on ancillary matters, like the so-called settlements, instead of focusing attention on the real stumbling blocks to peace, namely, the consistent refusal of the Palestinian Arab leadership to accept any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. This rejectionism has manifested itself in the anti-Jewish Arab pogroms of 1921-22, 1929 and 1936 as well as the Arab rejection of the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, the Arab aggression that precipitated the Six-Day War and the wave of terror unleashed by Yasser Arafat following <a href="http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=101041">his sabotage of the Camp David summit</a> in 2000.</p>
<p>The Palestinians have only themselves to blame for their stagnation and sorry state of affairs. Their corrupt and venal leaders care more about accumulating wealth and power than about advancing civil rights for their people. Indeed, the unelected, autocratic “President” Abbas is now in the midst of his 9<sup>th</sup> year in office when his term should have terminated after four. Freedom of the press and dissent are virtually nonexistent and incitement to violence and anti-Semitism continue unabated.</p>
<p>This is the force of “moderation” that the Obama administration expects Israel to contend with. Israel of course must also contend with Hamas, which unlike Abbas and his Palestinian Authority offers <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/24/we-must-massacre-them-hamas-politician-says-palestinians-must-kill-humiliate-and-tax-the-jews/">frighteningly honest opinions</a> about how it intends to deal with Jews should it ever get the opportunity. For the Palestinians, whether Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah or Ismail Haniyeh’s Hamas, nothing has changed since the days of the infamous Palestinian leader and Nazi collaborator, Haj Amin al-Husseini. The goal of eradicating Israel and replacing it with yet another dysfunctional Arab state remains the same.</p>
<p>The Obama administration, fixated with Israel’s development of Judea &amp; Samaria and besotted by the idea of making Israel minuscule and indefensible, has chosen to ignore <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=Q86jQX6GJKA">subtle</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRaKwJu_2Fk">not so subtle</a> proclamations by senior Palestinian ministers and law makers concerning their pernicious objectives. This flawed and one-sided policy in turn serves only to embolden and harden Palestinian intransigence making compromise and peaceful resolution impossible.</p>
<p>Israel has sacrificed much over the years for the cause of peace and has received nothing but worthless guarantees and groundless criticism in return. Israel, under Prime Minister Netanyahu has wisely adopted the policy of reciprocity. The days of unilateral Israeli territorial concessions are over. No longer will Israel hand over chunks of its ancestral land for vague assurances and worthless promises. It is time for the Obama administration to recognize the Palestinian Authority for what it truly is; an entity that does not seek peaceful relations with its neighbor but rather one that seeks the eradication of an existing democracy in favor of yet another dysfunctional Islamist theocracy.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/arab-rejectionism-from-khartoum-to-ramallah/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Worst Alternative</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/the-worst-alternative/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-worst-alternative</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/the-worst-alternative/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:31:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abbas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PLO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221631</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why a one-state solution is the only viable option Israel has left. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/abbas_obama_400.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221636" alt="abbas_obama_400" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/abbas_obama_400.jpg" width="280" height="210" /></a>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-One-The-worst-alternative-346054">Jerusalem Post</a>. </em></p>
<p>PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas must have gotten a kick out of it on Monday when he visited the White House and President Barack Obama praised him as “somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security.”</p>
<p>After all, the same day the men met, Abbas’s regime continued its week-long celebration of the deadliest Palestinian terrorist attack on Israel to date.</p>
<p>On March 11, 1978, PLO terrorists commandeered a passenger bus on the coastal highway and massacred 37 people, including 12 children.</p>
<p>Dalal Mughrabi, a female terrorist, led the raid. Ever since, she has been lionized by the PLO.</p>
<p>While he met with Obama, Abbas’s adviser Sultan Abu al-Einein proclaimed that Mughrabi was the ultimate role model for Palestinian women.</p>
<p>In Einein’s words, (reported by Palestinian Media Watch), “In March, [we mark] Palestinian Women’s Day, in March, Palestinian Mother’s Day also occurs, in March… [we remember Dalal Mughrabi] who would not agree to anything other than to establish her state between Jaffa and Lebanon in her special way.”</p>
<p>Einein urged Palestinian youth to follow Mughrabi’s example of mass murder. “Let the young people hear me: Allah, honor us with Martyrdom, Allah, give us the honor of being part of the procession of Martyrs.”</p>
<p>The Israeli Right didn’t need the Mughrabi festival to understand that Obama’s claim that Abbas wants peace is ridiculous. As Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon explained last Saturday, Abbas is “a partner for taking, not for giving.”</p>
<p>Israeli Leftists, who have slavishly championed Abbas, are finally catching on. Last month, in an op-ed in Haaretz, long-time PLO champion Shlomo Avineri acknowledged the dynamic at work in the two-state policy model and how Abbas uses it to Israel’s disadvantage.</p>
<p>Avineri wrote that it is not that Abbas “is no partner for talks, but that he is an excellent partner for talks — as long as they are talks designed to lead Israel to make more and more concessions, and to put them in writing. Then, on one pretext or another, he is unwilling to sign and brings the negotiations to a halt, so they can be restarted in the future ‘where they left off’: with all the previous Israeli concessions included, and no concessions having been put forward by the Palestinian side.”</p>
<p>In other words, Abbas negotiates not to achieve peace, but to weaken Israel.</p>
<p>But the Americans remain oblivious to all of this. And by now it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Obama’s ignorance of the nature of Abbas’s game is deliberate. His apparently deliberate blindness to the obvious indicates that Obama doesn’t have a problem with Abbas’s behavior and goals.</p>
<p>The lesson from Abbas’s real game and Obama’s apparent support for it is that the status quo is devastating for Israel.</p>
<p>For the past 20 years, Israel has confined itself to a paradigm of two-states. Under this model, since 1994 it has shared control over Judea and Samaria with the PLO.</p>
<p>As statements like Ya’alon’s and Avineri’s make clear, their experience with this model has shown Israelis across the political spectrum that the Palestinians’ primary goal is not to build a Palestinian state. It is today what it has always been: the eradication of the Jewish state.</p>
<p>For the Palestinians, the two-state strategy isn’t about receiving land from Israel in exchange for peace. The two-state strategy is about undermining Israel’s relations with the US and other Western allies and weakening Israeli society’s resolve to defend itself while the PLO builds its terrorist infrastructure for use when deemed appropriate.</p>
<p>Abbas’s unique contribution to this strategy is that he places economic, diplomatic and legal attacks on Israel rather than terrorism at the forefront.</p>
<p>Not that he opposes terrorism. Just like his predecessors, Abbas believes that all means for achieving Israel’s destruction are legitimate. And Israel cannot help but assist him.</p>
<p>Due to Israel’s continued acceptance of the two-state policy model it continues to share control over Judea and Samaria with the PLO. This joint control encourages acceptance of the PLO’s propaganda claim that Israel is a foreign occupier of the areas, and that they rightfully belong to the Palestinians who are dominated by an illegal Israeli occupation.</p>
<p>Israel’s continued abidance by this paradigm makes it impossible for its representatives to defend the country against PLO challenges to its legitimacy. Hence most Israelis assume, rightly, that Israel is powerless to defend itself from the PLO’s political warfare at places like the UN and the International Court of Justice.</p>
<p>The only way that Israel can defend itself against these PLO abuses, the only way it can stop the PLO from continuing to undermine its alliances with the US and friendly parts of Europe, is by ending its embrace of the status quo. So, too, the only way Israel can stop the PLO’s expansion of its security forces into a full-fledged military force, armed and trained by the US and Europe, is by abandoning shared control and ditching the two-state model.</p>
<p>In my new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, I advocate for Israel to end the current situation, which erodes its ability to survive, by applying its laws to Judea and Samaria and providing the Palestinians who live there with permanent residency status and the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.</p>
<p>Obviously, I recognize and discuss at length the challenges this policy will present. And I also explain, at length, why the dangers inherent to this clearly imperfect policy are smaller than those Israel faces from the status quo.</p>
<p>Critics of my policy like Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin have dismissed my policy as “fantasy” and insist that the best option for Israel is the status quo of shared control over the areas with the PLO.</p>
<p>Among other things, Tobin and others insist that since there is no support for the option of Israel applying its laws to Judea and Samaria in the US today, the plan should be ignored.</p>
<p>But it is far from clear why this is the case. A better plan is to build support for this option in the US and in Europe as the only viable alternative to the two-state paradigm which has failed for 90 years and will continue to fail for the foreseeable future because the Palestinians reject the Jews’ right to self-determination.</p>
<p>Like the rest of the world, today, due to its abidance by the two-state formula, Israel’s default position is that it is the occupier of its own historic homeland without which its borders are indefensible and its existence is incomprehensible.</p>
<p>The only way for Israel to defend itself competently in the international arena is for its default position to rest on Israel’s historic and legal rights to the areas – that is, to stop accepting that these areas, to which Israel has a stronger legal claim that the Palestinians, belong to the Palestinians and begin asserting Israel’s positive case for sovereignty.</p>
<p>Other critics of the Israeli one-state plan like Hillel Halkin argue that if Israel applies its laws to the areas, all of the Palestinians will immediately apply for Israeli citizenship and vote in Knesset elections.</p>
<p>The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Israel’s experience with implementing the one-state policy – in unified Jerusalem in 1967 and in the Golan Heights in 1981 – is irrelevant.</p>
<p>This assumption is hard to understand.</p>
<p>As I show in my book, Jerusalem’s Arabs only applied for Israeli citizenship when they feared that Israel would surrender their neighborhoods to the PLO. And the Golan Heights Druse only began applying for Israeli citizenship in significant numbers after the Syrian civil war broke out.</p>
<p>Since an Israeli decision to apply its laws to Judea and Samaria is a clear statement that Israel has no intention of leaving, history indicates that there is no reason to assume that the Palestinians will apply for Israeli citizenship en masse.</p>
<p>Another criticism is that it is too late in the game for Israel to end PLO rule in Judea and Samaria. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.</p>
<p>There are two problems with this contention.</p>
<p>First, it assumes that Israel must agree to remain confined to a policy model that undermines its ability to survive and damns it to an eternal erosion of its national resolve and relations with the rest of the free world while building the military capabilities of an enemy dedicated to its destruction.</p>
<p>The second problem is that it assumes that applying Israeli civil law to the areas involves reverting to the past.</p>
<p>But the Israeli one-state plan is not a reversion to the military government. It is a progression to the rule of civil law, under which the Palestinians and the Israelis in the areas will be governed as the rest of the citizens of Israel are governed, under a liberal legal code which provides full legal protections to all.</p>
<p>Critics extrapolate from Israel’s current diplomatic helplessness under the weight of the twostate paradigm that Israel will necessarily and forever be incapable of defending itself. And so they assume that Israel will be powerless to offset the economic devastation of European economic sanctions that they believe will necessarily follow an Israeli decision to apply its laws to Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>This claim ignores three important issues. Its proponents assume the US will back a European trade war against Israel. Is this really the most likely scenario? Second, they ignore the fact that Europe initiated its economic war against Israel now, as Israel maintains its allegiance to the two-state paradigm.</p>
<p>Obviously maintaining this faith isn’t getting Israel to a better place.</p>
<p>By changing its default position to one based on asserting Israel’s rights rather than ignoring them, Israel will have the capacity to defend against Europe’s political and economic warfare.</p>
<p>Finally, they assume that Israel has no ability to withstand a European economic war. But this assessment ignores Israel’s burgeoning trade with Asia. China is building a rail link between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean through Israel as an alternative to the Suez Canal. Israel is India’s largest military supplier. Israel’s energy independence and emergence as a major exporter of natural gas similarly decreases its reliance on European markets.</p>
<p>To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Israeli one-state plan is the worst possible plan for managing the Palestinian and pan-Arab conflict with Israel, except for every other plan that has been tried from time to time. It presents Israel with considerable threats and challenges. But on balance, as I show in my book, these threats are less acute and less dangerous than the ones Israel now faces. Moreover, the Israeli one-state plan is a viable prospect, which similarly distinguishes it from all the other ideas on offer.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/the-worst-alternative/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Abbas to Obama: No &#8216;Peace&#8217; Without 26 Freed Terrorists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/davidhornik/abbas-to-obama-no-peace-without-26-freed-terrorists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=abbas-to-obama-no-peace-without-26-freed-terrorists</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/davidhornik/abbas-to-obama-no-peace-without-26-freed-terrorists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[P. David Hornik]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abbas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisoners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Extortion attempt at the White House.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2121664613.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221238" alt="2121664613" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2121664613-402x350.jpg" width="281" height="245" /></a>One wonders if, during his meeting with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on Monday (reports </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-to-abbas-palestinians-must-take-risks-for-peace/">here</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> and <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Abbas-to-Obama-Time-is-not-on-our-side-for-two-state-solution-345624">here</a>), President Obama ever felt he was being subjected to a shakedown. In front of the press, Abbas expressed his concern about Israel’s freeing of a fourth and last batch of 26 convicted Palestinian terrorists on the scheduled date, March 29, saying this would “give a very solid impression about the seriousness of the Israelis on the peace process.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This latest “process,” which began for a nine-month period last July, is due to end—unless extended—in April. To put it mildly, it would not go over well in Israel, and certainly not in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition, if the prisoners were freed carte blanche, without even the talks’ continuation as a supposed recompense.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Abbas, of course, is under pressure from home to get the 26 sprung from jail. He is not under pressure to “make peace” with Israel, a Western concept foreign to the Palestinian population, which has been fed—under Abbas’s tutelage—a diet of pure hatred and delegitimization of Israel. </span></p>
<p>Abbas further pursued the shakedown effort by claiming the Palestinians had already recognized Israel in 1988 and 1993. It was an attempt to evade Israel’s demand for recognition as a Jewish state. It was also untrue.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://jcpa.org/article/arafat-jewish-state-setting-record-straight/">noted</a> by Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the supposed 1988 recognition of Israel as a Jewish state by Yasser Arafat, Abbas’s predecessor, was rejected as totally inadequate by the U.S. at the time. As for 1993, at that time Arafat <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/davidhornik/the-oslo-process-and-the-jewish-state-issue/">purportedly recognized</a> Israel’s “right to exist”—but with no mention of its Jewish character.</p>
<p>That ongoing evasion has a simple basis: acknowledging Israel as a Jewish state would—albeit only semantically—entail an end to demands to flood it with “refugees.” It is something Abbas is <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-Abbas-thinks-Jewish-state-is-a-delusional-myth-345549">adamantly unwilling</a> to do—not even to promote that other supreme value of getting the convicted terrorists released.</p>
<p>It sounds, in other words, like a deadlock—as just about everyone knowledgeable in these matters predicted back when this latest “process” was getting underway.</p>
<p>Obama, for his part, praised Abbas as “someone who has renounced violence” and did not subject him to any of the <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out">belligerent criticism</a> to which he subjected Netanyahu as he made his way to the White House two weeks ago.</p>
<p>Again, some things are predictable; no one expected the “violence-renouncing” Abbas, who earlier this month <a href="http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=135&amp;doc_id=10872">sent a wreath</a> to honor a suicide bomber who in 2002 killed eight people by blowing himself up on an Israeli bus, to catch any of the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/president-allegedly-dumps-israeli-prime-minister-dinner/">special antagonism</a> Obama reserves for the Israeli leader.</p>
<p>A note of realism did seem to creep in when Obama called peace an “elusive goal” and said, “It’s very hard. It’s very challenging. We’re going to have to take some tough political decisions and risks if we’re able to move it forward.”</p>
<p>A few days earlier Israel’s straight-talking defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, <a href="http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=16171">put it bluntly</a> and—to his credit—undiplomatically when he said:</p>
<blockquote><p>Unfortunately, an agreement will not happen in my generation…. Abbas is a partner who takes, not a partner who gives. He is not a partner for a permanent peace agreement that includes recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. He just takes back prisoners….</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, what is known as a shakedown. The next couple of weeks should tell which of two unpalatable possibilities faces Israel: the shakedown continues; or it ends, with the Palestinian Authority turning to the UN to wage diplomatic war against Israel, and Israel hardly assured of U.S. support.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/davidhornik/abbas-to-obama-no-peace-without-26-freed-terrorists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama to Boehner: Drop Dead</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obama-to-boehner-drop-dead/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-to-boehner-drop-dead</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obama-to-boehner-drop-dead/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:55:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boehner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shutdown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Republican overtures on the debt ceiling are rebuffed -- while the president threatens default.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/120912obama_boehner_dngnk.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-207042" alt="120912obama_boehner_dngnk" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/120912obama_boehner_dngnk-450x347.jpg" width="270" height="208" /></a>President Obama has rejected a proposed compromise from House Republicans that could have helped to end the congressional standoff that led to the now 11-day-old partial federal government shutdown.</span></b></p>
<p>House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/10/Obama-balks-at-Boehner-s-debt-ceiling-offer">pitched</a> a “clean” six-week increase with nothing in return to the community organizer in the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).</p>
<p>As Big Government&#8217;s Matthew Boyle reports,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Obama’s and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to completely reject any offer of a compromise from House Republicans confirms what most conservatives already know: Obama will not negotiate on anything (he has said as much numerous times over the past couple of weeks) unless he faces consequences for failing to do so.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The entirely predictable response from the nation&#8217;s top Democrats throws a public spotlight on their intransigence, and in particular, on Obama&#8217;s refusal to compromise on anything, unless he&#8217;s harming America by shredding the nation&#8217;s nuclear deterrent or extending a welcoming hand to the al-Qaeda operatives who murdered nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11.</p>
<p>Conservatives had been hoping Republicans would use the leverage GOP leadership doesn&#8217;t seem to realize it has in Congress to kill Obamacare or at least throw a few wrenches in the works.</p>
<p>Republicans&#8217; reasonableness and generosity (with other people&#8217;s money) was rewarded with a swift kick in the teeth.</p>
<p>Boehner apparently succumbed to the relentless stream of horror propaganda from the fiscally illiterate Chicken Littles of the mainstream media and went to Obama with a no-strings attached &#8220;temporary&#8221; debt ceiling increase. Of course, there is no reason to grovel before Obama who has a pathetic 37 percent approval rating at the moment as Americans recoil from the president&#8217;s petty shutdown-related torments but Republicans did it anyway.</p>
<p>Obama and his lieutenants had laid down a marker, falsely claiming that the government wouldn&#8217;t be able to meet its obligations if the debt ceiling wasn&#8217;t raised by Oct. 17. Then Obama&#8217;s former campaign manager turned senior adviser David Plouffe upped the ante by throwing a temper tantrum on Twitter, screeching that Republicans were traitors for refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The smarmy Plouffe accused House Republicans of “committing economic treason” for not offering unconditional surrender to America&#8217;s Marxist president on the debt ceiling issue.</p>
<p>Plouffe didn&#8217;t bother to point out that it was just a few short years ago when Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) suggested it was treasonable <i>to raise</i> the debt ceiling. When President George W. Bush sought an increase in federal borrowing authority Obama said at the time that to do so would be &#8220;unpatriotic.&#8221; But times have changed and consistency has never been a condition that afflicts Saul Alinsky devotees.</p>
<p>And there is no possibility of default, as Moody&#8217;s, the Wall Street rating agency says. The only person who can cause a default is President Obama if he re-orders the government&#8217;s payment priorities. Right now more than enough revenue is coming in to cover interest payments on the national debt.</p>
<p>Republican thinking yesterday was that punting the debt fight till late November would be a good strategic move that would allow the congressional GOP to focus all its energies on undermining Obamacare in the interim. It could at least be argued that piling another trillion dollars or so in government debt on top of at least $16.74 trillion in already outstanding debt would be worthwhile if there&#8217;s a possibility it will afford patriotic lawmakers an opportunity to strangle Obama&#8217;s unholy offspring in its crib.</p>
<p>Heritage Action CEO Mike Needham, who has been pushing hard to defund Obamacare, said the GOP should let Obama have his so-called clean debt limit increase so conservatives can turn their attention to the partial government shutdown and Obamacare.</p>
<p>Under another approach, Republicans could simply go into hibernation and allow Obamacare to go forward. This would let Americans bear the full brunt of this hideous usurpation of civil society. The hope is that public opposition would mushroom to torch-and-pitchfork levels that would force repeal. It is a superficially appealing plan until one realizes that no major entitlement program has ever been repealed once entrenched.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s a problem that benefits are being implemented early in the process. If people get used to the &#8220;sugar,&#8221; as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) puts it, they are likely to support Obamacare. With each passing day and every new benefit, the people who get the goodies aren&#8217;t going to want to give them up and they&#8217;ll get awfully upset at anyone who tries to take them away. This is the animating principle of the welfare state. If you think it&#8217;s hard to curb government spending now, just wait till the future when the program kicks into high gear.</p>
<p>Republicans could also try to delay the individual mandate for a year, embark on a consciousness-raising adventure, and then pray they crush Democrats in next year&#8217;s congressional elections. Under the best of circumstances, the GOP still wouldn&#8217;t achieve the supermajority it needs to overcome a presidential veto of repeal legislation in America&#8217;s sclerotic House of Lords. On the other hand, every bit of pressure helps to weaken Obama and his signature monstrosity.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, at the end of last month the federal government’s total debt brushed up against the debt ceiling, <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/09/5-facts-about-the-national-debt-what-you-should-know/">weighing in</a> at $16.74 trillion, which is slightly more than the $16.66 trillion gross domestic product figure (on an annualized basis) for the second quarter.</p>
<p>Other arms of the U.S. government &#8220;own&#8221; 28.4 percent of the debt, or roughly $4.76 trillion. Like all federal government accounting this is sleight-of-hand, a fiction that increases the money supply and further debases the greenback.</p>
<p>Former SEC chairman Chris Cox and former House Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Archer (R-Texas) <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html">say the true debt level</a> is five times the official figure.</p>
<p>&#8220;The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees&#8217; future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP,&#8221; according to Cox and Archer. &#8220;For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.&#8221;</p>
<p>Some economists <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/debt-deal-reached-us-fiscal-woes-worse/t/story?id=14189343&amp;ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F">say it&#8217;s a lot more</a> than that, even more than $210 trillion, or roughly triple the annual economic output of every single person on the planet Earth combined.</p>
<p>Such a colossal sum could never be repaid even if the U.S. government imposed 100 percent income tax rates on Americans and invaded its neighbors and siphoned their wealth.</p>
<p>Although a real, live default is still probably far off in the future, Americans ought to be nervous that investors&#8217; appetite for U.S. public debt appears to be tapering off.</p>
<p>JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co. <a href="http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4080996">said</a> Thursday that its money market funds have dumped all of their short-term U.S. government debt in an attempt to limit exposure. The mega-bank reportedly said, &#8220;its money market funds no longer held any U.S. Treasurys that mature or have payments scheduled between Oct. 16 and Nov. 6.&#8221;</p>
<p>On Wednesday Fidelity Investments said it no longer possesses U.S. Treasurys that fall due when the government maxes out on borrowing.</p>
<p>&#8220;While JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co. says it believes the probability of a U.S. government default is low, it&#8217;s taking precautionary measures to protect investors,&#8221; the news report indicated.</p>
<p>Wall Street knows the borrowing can&#8217;t go on indefinitely.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Jamie Glazov&#8217;s </strong>video interview with <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong> about &#8220;Obama&#8217;s Shutdown Strategy&#8221;: </em></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hpyoCFF-iL8" height="315" width="420" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obama-to-boehner-drop-dead/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>338</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Renewed Iranian Romance</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obamas-renewed-iranian-romance/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-renewed-iranian-romance</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obamas-renewed-iranian-romance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2013 04:52:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phone call]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rouhani]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president fawns over sham moderate Rouhani -- and repeats the North Korea mistake. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/143022.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-205705" alt="143022" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/143022-399x350.jpg" width="319" height="280" /></a>Three days after being snubbed at the United Nations by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, President Obama made a hurriedly arranged telephone call to Rouhani last Friday as the Iranian president was heading to the airport to return to Tehran.  This followed what Secretary of State John Kerry had described as his own “constructive” meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif the previous day.</p>
<p>Obama couldn’t wait to tell reporters after his call with Rouhani how optimistic he was at the prospect of new talks with Iran over its nuclear program.  He looked forward to resolving this issue, which “could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.”</p>
<p>A twitter account in Rouhani’s name also expressed optimism, stating, “In regards to nuclear issue, with political will, there is a way to rapidly solve the matter.” The message added that “We’re hopeful about what we will see in coming weeks and months.” Alas, the original message text on Rouhani’s Twitter account was deleted. It was most likely too hopeful for the hardliners back home to stomach.</p>
<p>President Obama congratulated Rouhani on his election and praised the supposedly constructive statements Rouhani made while in New York for his address to the UN General Assembly. Obama also reaffirmed to Rouhani his respect for Iran’s right to develop civilian nuclear energy, but noted that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons was unacceptable.  In his comments to reporters after the call, Obama said that “we’ve got a responsibility to pursue diplomacy, and that we have a unique opportunity to make progress with the new leadership in Tehran.” However, he added that only “meaningful, transparent and verifiable actions” regarding Iran’s nuclear program could lead to a decision to ease the economic sanctions currently imposed on Iran.</p>
<p>Obama’s problem is that there is no real new leadership in Tehran, only a new figurehead. The real leader remains Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. He isn’t called Iran’s “supreme leader” for nothing. He is the ultimate decision-maker on the future of Iran’s nuclear program and on any rapprochement with the United States.</p>
<p>Rouhani is Khamenei’s errand boy to find a way to lure the West into pretend negotiations that will buy Iran more time to complete its development of a nuclear bomb and that will provide just enough bait to persuade at least some U.S. allies, if not the Obama administration itself, to lighten up on the sanctions that have been hurting Iran’s economy. Rouhani is an old hand at using negotiations as a cloak behind which the Iranian regime moved forward with its nuclear arms development program. As Congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, pointed out, Rouhani dragged out negotiations with the Europeans a decade ago as Iran’s chief nuclear point man. The Iranian regime used the time to get more advanced centrifuges spinning away:</p>
<p>&#8220;That&#8217;s been his past policy. What we need to do is make it very clear that we&#8217;re wise to that. We know he&#8217;s playing the same playbook that North Korea used to get nuclear weapons, to get out from under the sanctions.&#8221;</p>
<p>Rouhani himself has boasted about his successful tactics in using negotiations and temporary suspension of activities that the Iranians had already mastered technically as a smokescreen:</p>
<blockquote><p>While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Esfahan, but we still had a long way to go to complete the project. In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Esfahan. Today, we can convert yellowcake into UF4 and UF6, and this is a very important matter. In fact, UF6 is what the centrifuges feed on; it is the feed material for centrifuges. Therefore, it was important for us to conclude that process… When we wanted to negotiate with the Europeans last year, we had something like 150 centrifuges, but today we have about 500 centrifuges that are ready and operational. We could increase that number to 1,000. We would not have any problems, should we decide to do so. We have made good progress in this area.</p></blockquote>
<p>(Hassan Rouhani, Beyond the Challenges Facing Iran and the IAEA Concerning the Nuclear Dossier, from text of speech delivered to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council in the fall of 2004 while Rouhani was still serving as chief nuclear negotiator with a number of European Union countries)</p>
<p>Rouhani claimed at a news conference last week during his New York City charm offensive, in response to a question whether his diplomatic blitz was intended to just buy the Iranians more time, that, “We have never chosen deceit as a path. We have never chosen secrecy.” This revisionist spin directly contradicts Rouhani’s speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council in the fall of 2004.  Iran’s nuclear program, Rouhani said back then, “never was supposed to be in the open. But in any case, the spies exposed it. We wanted to keep it secret for a while.”</p>
<p>Iran’s secrecy about its nuclear program included its years of hiding the construction of an underground nuclear enrichment facility, a cluster of 3,000 connected centrifuges, until its hand was forced in 2009 by Western intelligence’s discovery of the site. And Iran’s secrecy continues, including regarding its Arak heavy-water production plant for weapons-grade plutonium as an alternative means of building a nuclear bomb.</p>
<p>Rouhani used his speech to the UN General Assembly on September 24th to try and set a moderate tone. Indeed, he used the words “moderate” and “moderation” throughout his speech. He even called for a new UN project entitled “the World Against Violence and Extremism.”</p>
<p>Rouhani repeated Iran’s long-standing position that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes and said that his country was prepared to prove its good intentions to the world through “time-bound and result-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and removal of mutual uncertainties with full transparency.” But he also repeated Iran’s demand that its right to enrich inside Iran “and enjoyment of other related nuclear rights” be fully respected. Iran’s “nuclear technology, inclusive of enrichment, has already reached industrial scale,” he said. It would be “an illusion, and extremely unrealistic, to presume that the peaceful nature of the nuclear program of Iran could be ensured through impeding the program via illegitimate pressures.”</p>
<p>Such “illegitimate pressures” include the economic sanctions currently imposed on Iran, which Rouhani described in his speech as “unjust,” a “manifestation of structural violence,” “intrinsically inhumane,” and “against peace.” He also complained that “Propagandistic and unfounded faith phobic, Islamo-phobic, Shia-phobic, and Iran-phobic discourses do indeed represent serious threats against world peace and human security.”</p>
<p>Iran, on the other hand, is a peace-loving nation that eschews violence and intolerance, according to Rouhani. “Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the region,” Rouhani tried to assure the General Assembly in one of his more deceitful declarations.</p>
<p>To the contrary, aside from Iran’s potential nuclear threat, it is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism with its tentacles spread around the world directly or through proxies such as Hezbollah. It is providing funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups in the Middle East and beyond.  The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a principal arm that the Iranian regime uses to support terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, as well as to intervene in Syria on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.</p>
<p>The Iranian clerical rulers’ entire theocratic ideology is built around Shiite fundamentalist extremism and violence. They believe that chaos is necessary to bring about the early return of the 12th Imam, the latest in the succession of imams believed by some Islamic Shiite fundamentalists to be the direct descendants of Prophet Muhammad and the carriers of his message on earth.</p>
<p>According to such believers, the 12th Imam will return just before the end of the world, preceded by several years of horrendous world chaos. Before there can be peace and justice under sharia law, there must first be war and chaos. The Imam will force people to convert to Islam or be beheaded, ruling over the Arabs and world for 7 years before finally bringing harmony and total peace under one world religion, Islam.</p>
<p>Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has reportedly issued a fatwah demanding that he be obeyed as the earthly “deputy” of both the Prophet Muhammad and the 12th Imam. In July 2010, this supreme leader is said to have claimed that he actually met with the 12th Imam.</p>
<p>Khamenei wants to see Israel, the “Little Satan” which he hates, destroyed as part of the process to prepare for the 12th Imam’s arrival. Last year he declared that &#8220;From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this. The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing.”</p>
<p>Ayatollah Khamenei linked Israel and the United States, the Great Satan, together as the mortal enemies of the 12th Imam and declared through a spokesman in August 2009:</p>
<p>“We have to train honest forces that can stop the obstacles that may hinder the coming of the Mahdi like the United States and Israel.”</p>
<p>In February, 2011, Khamenei proclaimed: “We will never forget who the main enemy is. We continue to shout passionately: Death to America, death to Israel.”</p>
<p>So much for President Rouhani’s pledge of peace and moderation, given that Khamenei is the real power behind the throne. But his lies to the General Assembly did not stop there. He boasted of the Iranian government’s “reliance on the ballot box as the basis of power.” The 2009 “re-election” of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s president was a complete fraud, leading to massive demonstrations in the streets that the government brutally suppressed. The 2013 presidential election, which Rouhani won, was peaceful but hardly demonstrative of an honest “reliance on the ballot box as the basis of power.” The Guardian Council screened 680 registered candidates, approving only eight to run in the election. The eight approved candidates were conservatives <a name="0.1__GoBack"></a>not expected to challenge the absolute supremacy of Ayatollah Khamenei on all important policy decisions. Reformist candidates, including former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, were barred from running.</p>
<p>Last week, while Rouhani was still in New York City, protesters gathered near the UN denouncing Rouhani as the “murderous moderate.” They pointed, for example, to his choice of Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi as Minister of Justice, who as deputy in the Ministry of Intelligence for years participated in the death committees responsible for the 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners. Rouhani’s choice of defense minister, Hossein Dehghan, is also a hard-liner. He served as a commander in the Iranian Revolution Guards Corps and in its air force, and reportedly was one of the radical students who took 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days.</p>
<p>If President Obama were truly interested in actions and not words, he would look at the real record of the sham “moderate” who is lulling him into months more of fruitless negotiations and of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to whom Rouhani is beholden.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obamas-renewed-iranian-romance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Praises Jihad-Supporting Turkish Prime Minister</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-praises-jihad-supporting-turkish-prime-minister/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-praises-jihad-supporting-turkish-prime-minister</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-praises-jihad-supporting-turkish-prime-minister/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 04:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erdogan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[praise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rose garden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[turkey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=190379</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president plays into the hands of Islamist Erdogan. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Obama-and-Erdogan.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-190397" alt="Obama-and-Erdogan" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Obama-and-Erdogan-450x309.jpg" width="270" height="185" /></a>Turkey’s jihad-supporting Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan received effusive praise from President Obama last week during their joint news conference in the White House Rose Garden.  Obama described the Islamist leader, who unapologetically called Zionism “a crime against humanity,” as &#8220;a strong ally and partner in the region and around the world.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is just a continuation of President Obama&#8217;s infatuation with Erdogan. When the two leaders met at the Seoul, South Korea, Nuclear Security Summit in March of 2012, Obama called Erdogan his “friend and colleague….We find ourselves in frequent agreement upon a wide range of issues.” Not content with this level of praise, Obama added that he considered Erdogan &#8220;an outstanding partner and an outstanding friend&#8221; who has displayed “outstanding leadership.” In fact, Obama so admires Erdogan&#8217;s &#8220;outstanding leadership&#8221; that Obama has allowed the United States to lead from behind Turkey in Libya and Syria, sucking the U.S. into a swamp inhabited by Islamist jihadists.</p>
<p>As Barry Rubin, the director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal explained:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Once again the Turkish government has taken the lead on U.S. policy by pushing for direct U.S. aid to the rebels. That means giving money, weapons, and other aid to the Muslim Brotherhood and more radical groups to take power because the real moderates in the Syrian opposition are rare.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Obama fancies Turkey as a model of a modern democratic Islamic state.  At their joint news conference last week, Obama praised Erdogan&#8217;s &#8220;reforms&#8221; and  said &#8220;we will support efforts in Turkey to uphold the rule of law and good governance and human rights for all.&#8221;</p>
<p>Erdogan&#8217;s idea of democracy is an electoral system that he can manipulate in order to remain in power. His Islamist party has moved inexorably to <a href="http://www.michaelrubin.org/7639/turkey-ally-enemy">replace the secular republic</a> established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk with an Islamic state.  Erdogan&#8217;s jails have housed more journalists than any other country in the world, including Iran and Russia.  And talking about Russia, Erdogan appears to be taking a page out of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin&#8217;s playbook. Like Putin, Erdogan plans to play musical chairs between the prime minister post he now holds but cannot run for again under his party&#8217;s rules, and the presidency which he is intent on taking over in 2014 and converting into the country&#8217;s most powerful position from the symbolic one it is today. Erdogan will ram through whatever changes to the constitution are necessary to make this happen if a consensus cannot be reached.</p>
<p>&#8220;Turkey would walk into a dark dictatorship,&#8221; said Riza Turmen, a deputy from the opposition Republican People&#8217;s Party. &#8220;Turkey is already on this path. The parliament is unable to fulfill its duties even in a parliamentary system. The judiciary is not independent, the press is not free,&#8221; he told Reuters.</p>
<p>At last week&#8217;s joint news conference, President Obama lauded Erdogan&#8217;s supposed efforts to &#8220;normalize relations with Israel.&#8221; Erdogan then proceeded contemptibly to use the joint news conference to announce in Obama&#8217;s presence that he will be visiting Gaza next month, after previously rejecting Secretary of State John Kerry&#8217;s request not to go there at this time because it could interfere with just such a normalization of relations. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh claimed that Erdogan’s upcoming visit to Gaza “emphasizes that the era of U.S. tutelage has ended.”</p>
<p>Aside from Barack Obama, Haniyeh has been one of Erdogan&#8217;s biggest cheerleaders.  Back in 2010, Haniyeh said: &#8220;Mr. Erdoğan has become our voice and won hearts of all Palestinians. We began naming our children after Tayyip Erdoğan. The name of Erdoğan has been immortalized in Palestine.” He also called Turkey “the new Ottoman.”</p>
<p>In his description of Turkey under Erdogan&#8217;s leadership as &#8220;the new Ottoman,&#8221; Haniyeh has a much better idea of Erdogan&#8217;s true agenda than President Obama does. Obama thinks that Turkey, like the United States, is interested in removing President Bashar Hafez al- Assad from power in Syria in order to bring about a free Syria &#8220;that is intact and inclusive of all ethnic and religious groups,&#8221; as Obama put it in his joint news conference with Erdogan last week.  That may be Obama&#8217;s naive aspiration but, as Hamas leader Haniyeh knows, Erdogan is interested in building &#8220;the new Ottoman&#8221; in the entire region, which means promoting revolutionary Sunni Islamism under Turkey&#8217;s leadership. Erdogan is using Obama to advance his Islamist agenda.</p>
<p>No doubt Erdogan will use his upcoming Gaza visit to further solidify Turkey&#8217;s prestige in the Muslim world, which will also help him politically at home. Expect, for example, Erdogan to push publicly for Israel to completely lift its embargo on the Gaza Strip. Expect him also to mark the three-year anniversary of the incident involving the Turkish-owned Mavi Marmara vessel in which a number of Turkish radicals lost their lives as they attempted violently to break Israel’s legal naval blockade of Gaza. They had assaulted Israeli naval commandos trying to stop the blockade-running ship. The radicals were heard chanting the jihad call to arms honoring Muhammad&#8217;s massacre of the Jews of Arabia: &#8220;Khybar, Khybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.&#8221;</p>
<p>Erdogan has exploited the Mavi Marmara incident for propaganda purposes for three years. But this was not just exploitation of an opportunity that happened to present itself to Erdogan. In fact, Erdogan was reportedly supportive of the flotilla idea all along before it set sail, because it would create a confrontation with Israel that would cost Israel in the court of public opinion, which is precisely what happened. A journalist on board the Mavi Marmara with good connections to government officials and the IHH group that organized the flotilla stated: “The Turkish government was behind the flotilla to the Gaza Strip and its objective was to embarrass Israel: ‘The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.’ The flotilla was organized with the support of the Turkish government and Prime Minister Erdogan gave the instructions for it to set sail. That was despite the fact that everyone knew it would never reach its destination.”</p>
<p>Immediately after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the urging of President Obama, apologized to Erdogan for the Marmara operation and committed to reach final agreement on compensation, Erdogan began backtracking from his own promise to restore full diplomatic relations with Israel and stop certain legal proceedings brought against Israeli soldiers.</p>
<p>Erdogan told Turkish reporters that it was too early to talk about dropping the Mavi Marmara case against the Israeli soldiers, and that normalizing diplomatic relations would come gradually. “We will see what will be put into practice during the process. If they move forward in a promising way, we will make our contribution,” Erdogan said.</p>
<p>Turkey is reportedly holding out for extraordinarily high compensation which, even if paid, would not satisfy some of the families of the radicals who became &#8220;martyrs&#8221; on the Mavi Marmara.</p>
<p>Yet, in the face of Erdogan&#8217;s continued anti-Israel rhetoric and his backtracking on his promises of normalization, Obama still made a special point at last week&#8217;s joint news conference &#8220;to note the Prime Minister’s efforts to normalize relations with Israel.&#8221;</p>
<p>Obama continues to play right into Erdogan’s hands as the devious Islamist leader prepares to visit with the Hamas terrorists in Gaza next month, to provide weapons and other support to Islamist jihadists in Syria and to consolidate his increasingly authoritarian power at home.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-praises-jihad-supporting-turkish-prime-minister/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>King Abdullah&#8217;s Wish List</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/king-abdullahs-wish-list/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=king-abdullahs-wish-list</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/king-abdullahs-wish-list/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 04:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jordan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[king abdullah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182853</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With neighbors falling apart, the Jordanian monarch grows uneasy. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/king-abdullahs-wish-list/ap-us-obama-mideast-jordan-4_3_r536_c534/" rel="attachment wp-att-182929"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-182929" title="ap-us-obama-mideast-jordan-4_3_r536_c534" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ap-us-obama-mideast-jordan-4_3_r536_c534-450x337.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="202" /></a>His majesty, King Abdullah II of Jordan, hosted U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama on Friday, March 22, 2013, following Obama’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories.  According to the Jordan Times (March 18, 2013) the Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications and government spokesperson Samih Maaytah expressed hope that Obama’s visit “would give real <a title="http://jordantimes.com/jordan-hopeful-obama-visit-would-boost-peace-push" href="http://jordantimes.com/jordan-hopeful-obama-visit-would-boost-peace-push" target="_blank">momentum</a> to the Palestinian peace process, noting that a just, viable and comprehensive peace, based on international resolutions is important for the Palestinians and the Israelis, as well as the entire region.”</p>
<p>For King Abdullah, however, troubles to his north in Syria represents a more pressing matter.  Jordan has absorbed more than 455,000 Syrians since the onset of the Syrian conflict in March, 2011, and the number is expected to surpass one million before the end of this year.  King Abdullah is hoping that the Obama administration will push for a political solution that ends the crisis in Syria.  At the same time though, he is expecting the U.S. to increase its aid to Jordan, in order to enable the Kingdom to deal with the economic challenges caused by the recent influx of Syrians and previously, by Iraqi refugees.</p>
<p>Jordan and Israel share a common security concern regarding the flow of Syrian chemical weapons to terrorists, and the spillover of the Syrian chaos into their countries.  The chemical weapons issue will undoubtedly be raised by Abdullah in his meeting with Obama.  In an interview with AP, Abdullah pointed out that the most worrisome factors in the Syrian conflict relate to the spread of chemical weapons, and the emergence of a <a title="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/20/ap-interview-jordan-king-warns-syria-could-become-jihadi-state-says-assad-days/" href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/20/ap-interview-jordan-king-warns-syria-could-become-jihadi-state-says-assad-days/" target="_blank">Jihadist</a> state in Syria.</p>
<p>Thus far, Jordan’s leader has been spared the fate of those of other regimes, who have fallen victim to the so-called “Arab Spring.”  Notable among them are Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who held power for 30-years (1981-2011), Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, having ruled in Tunis for 24-years (1987-2011) and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, not exactly pro-western, ran Libya for 42 years (1969-2011).  Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen was another casualty of the “Arab Spring.”  Although he did not have to escape the wrath of his people like Ben Ali, nor was he humiliated the way Mubarak was, or murdered as Gaddafi was, Saleh had to step down and pave the way for his Vice President to take over after 34-years in power (1978-1990 as president of North Yemen, and from 1990 after unification with South Yemen as President of Yemen until 2012.)</p>
<p>Bashar Assad and King Abdullah succeeded their fathers as rulers of their respective countries (Syria and Jordan) almost at the same time.  Abdullah ascended to the throne in 1999 and Basher took over the presidency in 2000.  Both were thought to be young reformers given their long exposure to the West (Assad in Britain, and Abdullah in the U.S.).  Soon however it became clear that Bashar Assad, (a member of the Alawite minority despised by the Sunni majority) reverted to his father repressive ways.  Jordan’s Hashemite rulers, on the other hand, were respected by the majority of Jordanians, and especially the East Bank Bedouin tribesmen, as descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.</p>
<p>The current U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama administration in general, heaped praise on Bashar Assad as a “<a title="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/16/generous-remember-john-kerrys-praise-of-syrian-dictator-assad/" href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/16/generous-remember-john-kerrys-praise-of-syrian-dictator-assad/" target="_blank">generous man</a>,” and as a reformer. Yet, Syria’s human rights record has been abysmal, and its economy was stagnant long before the current civil war began.</p>
<p>Although both Bashar Assad and King Abdullah had to deal with the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), there has been a marked difference in their approach, and in the apparent results.  The elder Assad (Hafez) bombed the Muslim Brotherhood stronghold in Hama and killed <a title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/01/hama-syria-massacre-1982-archive" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/01/hama-syria-massacre-1982-archive" target="_blank">20,000</a>.  Bashar, fighting the Syrian opposition (comprised of a great many MB members) has killed an even greater number, but is now facing an uncertain end.  Conversely, King Abdullah outmaneuvered the MB and scored a tactical victory over the most serious political challenge to his rule – doing so without firing a shot.</p>
<p>Prior to the January, 2013, elections for the lower house of Parliament, the MB and its affiliates fomented protests against the monarchy.  Jordanian voters nevertheless ignored the MB call for an election boycott.  The outcome was a clear victory for Abdullah.  Unlike Assad, Abdullah is committed to reforming the political system in Jordan, hoping to enfranchise evermore Jordanian-Palestinians, including women.  He is also encouraging the creation of genuine secular and democratic political parties with serious platforms for change.  The high participation (<a title="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/world/middleeast/in-jordan-progress-in-small-steps.html?_r=0" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/world/middleeast/in-jordan-progress-in-small-steps.html?_r=0" target="_blank">56%</a>) in the elections was followed by Abdullah’s promise to consult Parliament in choosing a new prime minister.  Jordanians hope that this will lead to a more open political system.</p>
<p>In an address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in mid-January, Abdullah, according to the NY Times (January 30, 2013), “promised to <a title="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/world/middleeast/in-jordan-progress-in-small-steps.html?_r=0" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/world/middleeast/in-jordan-progress-in-small-steps.html?_r=0" target="_blank">reach out</a> to the MB in Jordan” suggesting that the MB was “not a serious problem, and had the weakest standing of any other MB organization in the Middle East.” While Jordan is not currently faced with a civil war or violent disturbances like those in Egypt under MB President Muhammad Morsi, it is facing a budget deficit projected to reach about $3 billion.  This would require austerity measures and price increases that might cause upheaval in the Kingdom with unknown consequences.  In addition, the influx of Syrian refugees has further strained Jordan’s limited resources, and might aggravate the already high youth unemployment estimated to be about 26%.</p>
<p>The domestic economic situation and trouble on its northern border with Syria notwithstanding, Jordan’s other concern is uncertainty on its western border with Israel.  It is a peaceful and productive border by all measures but Abdullah wants more.  In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic (March 18, 2013), Abdullah said, “I don’t want a government to come in and say, ‘We <a title="http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/monarch-in-the-middle/309270/?single_page=true" href="http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/monarch-in-the-middle/309270/?single_page=true" target="_blank">repudiate</a> the peace treaty with Israel ” (referring to the peace treaty signed in 1994 between King Hussein and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin). “ Israel,” writes Goldberg, “is Jordan’s most important ally.” Asked about whether he believed Obama wants to work on a Middle East peace, Abdullah answered, “That is the million-dollar question,” but he was certain that John Kerry does.  Abdullah said that only a second term president has the maneuverability and the experience to oversee an effective peace process.  For Abdullah, a two-state solution is still the best hope.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen whether Obama will implement what he has heard in Jerusalem and Amman.  For King Abdullah II, however, increased American aid to Jordan to save it from financial catastrophe, along with a thoughtful American peace initiative on a two-state solution, and the U.S. preventing a jihadist state in Damascus will be the ultimate answer to his wishes.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/king-abdullahs-wish-list/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Regional Threats Loom Large over Obama&#8217;s Israel Trip</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/davidhornik/regional-threats-loom-large-over-obamas-israel-trip/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=regional-threats-loom-large-over-obamas-israel-trip</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/davidhornik/regional-threats-loom-large-over-obamas-israel-trip/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 04:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[P. David Hornik]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trip]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's first day in a deteriorating Middle East makes clear he has entered a war zone.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/davidhornik/regional-threats-loom-large-over-obamas-israel-trip/attachment/3604053445/" rel="attachment wp-att-182472"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-182472" title="3604053445" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3604053445-450x316.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="190" /></a>Speculations that President Obama was coming to Israel to keep pursuing a blind obsession with the Palestinian issue appeared, fortunately, unsubstantiated by the time of his press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu on Wednesday evening.</p>
<p>Both leaders’ words were devoted mainly to the Iranian and Syrian issues; Obama’s own words on the Palestinian matter expressed a lowering of expectations and an acknowledgment that the “solution” he had often stridently pursued during his first term was more elusive than he had thought.</p>
<p>In their three-hour talk before the press conference, Netanyahu was accompanied by his national security adviser Yaakov Amidror and his military attaché Yair Zamir; Obama by his security adviser Tom Donilon and Secretary of State John Kerry. The makeup clearly connotes that security issues were paramount.</p>
<p>A grim preface to Obama’s visit was a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israeli-official-chemical-weapons-syria-18769446">statement</a> earlier in the day by Yuval Steinitz—Israel’s finance minister in the previous government, now minister of intelligence and strategic affairs—that chemical weapons had been used in Syria. Steinitz did not claim to know whether it was the regime or rebel forces that had used them. AP reports that a “senior [Israeli] defense official… concurred…[based] on intelligence reports.”</p>
<p>Obama has called the use of chemical weapons in Syria a “red line” possibly prompting U.S. military action. Asked about the matter during the press conference, Obama said the U.S. would investigate whether the weapons were used and that “the Assad regime must understand that they will be held accountable for the use of chemical weapons or their transfer to terrorists.”</p>
<p>Lebanon’s <em>Daily Star</em> had <a href="http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2013/Mar-18/210633-israeli-jets-drop-flare-bombs-over-s-lebanon-coast.ashx">reported</a> two days earlier that Israeli planes had dropped flare bombs in southern Lebanon—a possible response or warning about Syrian weapons making their way into Hizballah’s hands.</p>
<p>Obama, in other words, is entering a war zone, not a playground for peace fantasies. Although his visit to Palestinian Authority headquarters and address to Israeli university students on Thursday may yet hold surprises, indications so far are that he has sobered up about Israel’s neighborhood and the real issues it faces.</p>
<p>More critical yet, of course, than the Syrian crisis is Iran’s ongoing march toward a nuclear bomb. Netanyahu told the assembled reporters: “A nuclear Iran is a grave threat. The U.S. is committed to deal with it, Israel is committed to deal with it. Israel has a right to independently defend itself from any threat.”</p>
<p>Obama responded with words that did not negate that right of Israel’s and appeared aimed at making Tehran nervous. Stating that “there is not a lot of daylight between our countries’ assessments as to where Iran is right now, in its nuclear weapons program,” Obama went on to say:</p>
<blockquote><p>Each country has to make its own decisions. Israel is differently situated from the US. I would not expect that the prime minister would defer decisions on his country&#8217;s security to other countries. I would not do that regarding my country’s security.</p>
<p>I have said to Bibi that I think there is time to solve this diplomatically. Will Iran seize that opportunity? It would be in Iran’s interest if this were solved diplomatically.</p></blockquote>
<p>As if to shore up the claim that the two countries are not too far apart on the Iranian issue, the chemistry between the two leaders appeared comfortable and good—clearly unlike in previous joint appearances.</p>
<p>Obama is well aware that a new government has taken the reins in Israel. Its more dovish factions, Hatnuah and Yesh Atid, account for 25 mandates (out of Israel’s 120-seat Knesset); while the solidly hawkish Habayit Hayehudi faction and Netanyahu’s Likud—with a more hawkish composition than in the previous government—account for 43.</p>
<p>It is not, in other words, a government looking to make reckless concessions.</p>
<p>One would like to think Obama is also aware of such data as the Palestinian Authority’s official daily <a href="http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&amp;doc_id=8684">stating</a> in an op-ed on Tuesday—one day before his visit—that America itself was behind the 9/11 attack and Hitler was a noble statesman, superior to Roosevelt and Churchill.</p>
<p>After the press conference the two heads of government were to be joined in a working dinner by the abovementioned top security official Yuval Steinitz and Israel’s new defense minister, Moshe Yaalon. On the Israeli side it was a particularly intelligent and reality-oriented crew. One would like to think the discussion was serious and realistic all around.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/davidhornik/regional-threats-loom-large-over-obamas-israel-trip/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Egyptian-Iranian Axis?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/the-new-egyptian-iranian-axis/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-new-egyptian-iranian-axis</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/the-new-egyptian-iranian-axis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morsi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sunni]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=177039</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A dangerous prospect for the West. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/the-new-egyptian-iranian-axis/morsi-ahmadinejad/" rel="attachment wp-att-177219"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-177219" title="morsi-ahmadinejad" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/morsi-ahmadinejad.jpg" alt="" width="290" height="242" /></a>Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Cairo on Tuesday, February 5, 2013, marking the first time an Iranian president has visited Egypt since 1979, the year the two countries, Egypt and Iran, broke off diplomatic relations.  Earlier, in June 2012, Mohammad Morsi visited Iran to attend the Non-Aligned Movements (NAM) Conference.  The Muslim Brotherhood leader elected as President of Egypt is the first Egyptian president to visit Iran in decades.  The ostensible reason for Ahmadinejad’s visit was participation in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Summit was slated for February 6-7 in Cairo.  This also happens to be the first time Egypt has hosted the OIC Summit since its establishment in 1969.</p>
<p>Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to elevate the diplomatic relations between the two countries during his visit.  Iran is eager to resume diplomatic relations with the largest Arab Sunni state as a way to break out of the regional isolation.  Egypt, under the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, is however, a bit more hesitant about resuming diplomatic relations, albeit, Morsi has abandoned Mubarak’s policy of isolating the Islamic Republic of Iran in the region.</p>
<p>In February 2011, soon after the fall of President Mubarak, Egypt allowed two Iranian warships through the Suez Canal on their way to the Syrian port of Tartous, rebuffing U.S. requests to prevent the Iranian passing through the Canal.  The following year Egypt once again permitted Iranian warships to pass through the Suez Canal on their way to the Mediterranean Sea, aimed at providing military support for Hezbollah and the Assad regime.  Egypt’s gesture towards Iran underscored Cairo’s intent of carrying out an independent foreign policy, which is to be neutral between the West and the revolutionary Islamist Iran.  Moreover, Morsi intended the gesture toward Iran as pressure on the oil-rich Arab Gulf states hostile to Iran schemes in the Gulf.  Cairo indicated that it will improve relations with Iran unless the Gulf States come through with cash for Egypt.</p>
<p>Iran broke its diplomatic relations with Egypt to protest Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel.  Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s Supreme Leader, was additionally outraged by President Sadat for Egypt providing asylum to the deposed Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  Iran then named a street in Tehran in honor of President Sadat&#8217;s murderer, Khaled al-Islambouli.   Sadat’s successor, President Hosni Mubarak, in turn, supported Iraq against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).  Mubarak’s toppling prompted Iran’s leaders to send several of its officials to Cairo in an attempt to break the ice between the two regional heavyweights.  These officials offered, among other things, economic assistance to Egypt.</p>
<p>One of the incentives Iranian officials have offered to Egypt is to encourage 5 million Iranians to visit Egypt annually.  This, in the estimation of the Iranians and some Egyptian officials, would warm up the relationship while revitalizing Egypt’s tourism sector following two years of turmoil.</p>
<p>Mohammad Abbas Nagi, an Egyptian expert on Iran, pointed out to ABC-News on February 4, 2013 that, ”Despite the fact that <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-irans-ahmadinejad-visit-cairo-week-18403228?page=2">restoring</a> relations is a sovereign decision fully belonging to Egypt, I don’t see that Egypt will make a decision separate from the course of its relationship with the U.S. and Israel, for whom Iran is now the main issue.” Earlier on April 17, 2011, however, Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Menha Bakhour, in an interview with the Egyptian publication Almasry Alyoum asserted, “We are prepared to take a <a href="http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/403745">different</a> view of Iran.  The former regime (Mubarak’s) used to see Iran as an enemy, but we do not.”</p>
<p>Iran has hinted to Egypt the possibility of joining forces and collaborating with Egypt on the <a href="http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3333/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-bomb">nuclear</a> level.  An Iranian-Egyptian nuclear partnership would be a game changer in the Middle East, and the impact would be felt by both Israel and the U.S.  Currently, Iran’s only close ally in the region is Bashar Assad’s Syria, which is torn by a civil war.  For Egypt, an alliance with Iran would free it from the stipulation imposed by the U.S. to maintain Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.  The joint forces would potentially be able to drive out western interests from the region.  The Sunni-Shia divide constrains such an alliance at the moment.  The current situation in Syria where Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are supporting the Sunni opposition against the Assad regime while Shiite Iran backs Assad makes full diplomatic relations untenable.</p>
<p>Since Egypt depends on Arab Gulf states and the U.S. to rescue it from economic disaster, it is unlikely that full partnership will arise between Egypt and Iran beyond good prospects to break the ice.  Morsi’s economic troubles at home will discourage him from risking the alienation of his Arab Gulf states.  Egypt’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Kamel Amr stated clearly that Egypt won’t improve its ties with Iran at the expense of undermining Gulf Arab security.  He declared that, “The security of the Gulf countries is a <a href="http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/egypt-unlikely-to-retore-relations-with-iran-1.1142">red line</a> for Egypt.”</p>
<p>Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayeb, head of Cairo’s historic Al-Azhar, the 1000-year old supreme Sunni-Muslim institution, told the visiting Ahmadinejad that his Shiite government must refrain from interfering in the affairs of the Arab Gulf States and must give full rights to Sunnis living in Iran.  Al-Tayeb urged Ahmadinejad “to <a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/iranian-president-makes-landmark-visit-to-egypt/1597318.html">respect</a> Bahrain as a sisterly Arab state and rejected the spread of Shiism in Sunni countries.</p>
<p>Another issue Ahmadinejad insinuated as a way to bridge Egyptian-Iranian differences is by unified support for the Palestinians, especially the Hamas terrorist organization based in Gaza.  In an interview with the Beirut based Mayadeen TV, on the eve of his trip to Egypt, Ahmadinejad stated that “The political geography of the region will change if Iran and Egypt take a unified position on the <a href="http://www.arabnews.com/print/440661">Palestinian</a> question.”</p>
<p>Two years of bloodletting in Syria and the revolution in Egypt that brought down the Mubarak regime and saw the election of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) leader Muhammad Morsi as President of Egypt, changed the orientation of the Gaza based Islamist Hamas terrorist organization.  Khaled Meshal, Hamas’ political head moved out of Damascus to Qatar and the mediation of President Morsi during the Pillar of Defense operation in Gaza, shifted the patronage of Hamas from Iran to Egypt.</p>
<p>According to Eitan Meyr, a fellow at the Institute for counter-terrorism in Herzliya, Israel, “<a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/united-by-a-common-threat-israel-egypt-and-hamas-all-fear-iran-and-its-islamic-jihad-proxy-in-gaza/">Iran</a> is using Islamic Jihad to try to take over Gaza.”  He added, “Hamas is more afraid of them (Islamic Jihad) than of us.”  Myer pointed out that Egypt, Israel, and Hamas share a common interest in denying Iran a foothold in Gaza. “We are not friends but we do have mutual interests in denying the presence of an Iranian proxy on our doorstep.”</p>
<p>Ahmadinejad, it appears, is likely to return to Tehran empty-handed, unless of course, Iran can replace American and Gulf Arabs generosity.  Iran, being squeezed economically by western sanctions, is highly unlikely to do it.  At the moment at least, Egyptian-Iranian relations are going nowhere.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/the-new-egyptian-iranian-axis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Slap at Netanyahu</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obamas-slap-at-netanyahu/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-slap-at-netanyahu</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obamas-slap-at-netanyahu/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 04:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morsi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snubb]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=143687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Israeli PM gets the shaft -- while Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood figurehead gets the red carpet.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/unhappy_obama_netanyahu.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-143706" title="unhappy_obama_netanyahu" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/unhappy_obama_netanyahu.gif" alt="" width="375" height="248" /></a>On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2012/0911/Netanyahu-criticizes-US-refusal-to-draw-a-red-line-on-Iran">leveled</a> some of his most stinging criticism to date at an Obama administration that refuses to issue concrete ultimatums to Iran regarding that nation&#8217;s pursuit of nuclear weapons. &#8220;Those who refuse to draw red line to Iran don&#8217;t have the moral right to put a red line to Israel,&#8221; said Netanyahu during a press conference in Jerusalem. The Prime Minister&#8217;s comments were an apparent reaction to a statement made by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in an interview with Bloomberg Radio on Sunday. When asked if the administration would specify consequences for Iran&#8217;s refusal to quit its uranium enrichment program, Clinton refused to do so. &#8220;We&#8217;re not setting deadlines,&#8221; she responded.</p>
<p>The statement was an apparent response to a prior <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-redlines-20120911,0,4658921.story">call</a> by Netanyahu on Sunday for the administration to declare &#8220;red lines&#8221; regarding Tehran&#8217;s nuclear ambitions &#8212; the absence of which daily emboldens the Iranian government, as the regime will not take U.S. threats of military action seriously without them. &#8220;The sooner we establish (red lines), the greater the chances that there won&#8217;t be a need for other types of action,&#8221; the Israeli PM told Canada&#8217;s <em>CBC News</em>.</p>
<p>On Tuesday, Netanyahu&#8217;s tone was more urgent. &#8220;The world is telling Israel to wait on Iran because there is time and I ask, &#8216;Wait for what? Wait for when?&#8217;&#8221; Haaretz diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid quoted Mr. Netanyahu as saying, tweeting some of the Prime Minister&#8217;s comments. &#8220;Clearly, diplomacy and sanctions didn&#8217;t work. Every day that passes brings Iran closer to a nuclear bomb and that&#8217;s a fact.&#8221; Netanyahu continued elaborating. “Now if Iran knows that there is no red line, if Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it’s doing. It’s continuing, without any interference, toward obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs.”</p>
<p>Netanyahu said the United States and Israel have been in talks regarding what constitutes a definable threshold of tolerance that would engender a military response were Iran to cross it. Yet Obama administration officials are apparently content to maintain their current delusional strategy &#8212; a combination of offered settlements, endless fruitless negotiations, coupled with an array of sanctions. “It’s a very challenging effort to get (Iran) to move in a way that complies with their international obligations,” Clinton said on Sunday. “But we believe that is still by far the best approach to take at this time.”</p>
<p>Such an approach strains credulity. The so-called &#8220;P5+1,&#8221; as in the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council &#8212; America, Britain, France, China, Russia plus Germany &#8212; have engaged in three rounds of diplomatic talks with Tehran since April. Those talks, coupled with U.S. and EU sanctions on energy, trade, banking and shipping, have done absolutely nothing to dissuade Iran&#8217;s pursuit of nukes.</p>
<p>And why should they? Last December, in a <em>100-0 vote </em>the Senate <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/senate-passes-iran-sanctions-100-0-obama-objects-really/2011/12/02/gIQA7yELKO_blog.html">approved</a> the most stringent sanctions against Iran to date. The measure established concrete prohibitions for any financial institutions that continued to do business with the Iranians, along with harsh penalties. Humanitarian aid was exempted and the president was granted the opportunity to implement national security waivers, classified or unclassified, every 120 days. Despite the unanimous vote on the resolution, the administration did what has become their increasingly common modus operandi with respect to congressional input: they ignored it.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s been downhill ever since. The Treasury Department has <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/25/harry-reid-white-house-work-to-weaken-iran-sanctions/">issued</a> thousands of waivers for companies doing business with Iran, while China and India have been allowed to continue importing oil from the regime. Language aimed cracking down on financial transactions was made <a href="http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE86O1OD20120725">less specific.</a> And Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) <a href="http://freebeacon.com/insuring-ahmadinejad/">led</a> an effort to water down sanctions against insurance companies that underwrite Iranian affiliates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obamas-slap-at-netanyahu/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>177</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Netanyahu Speaks Truth to Power</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/netanyahu-speaks-truth-to-power/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=netanyahu-speaks-truth-to-power</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/netanyahu-speaks-truth-to-power/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=124779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exposing the apocalyptic agenda of the regime with which Obama now wants to engage.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/w460na4.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-124789" title="w460na4" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/w460na4.gif" alt="" width="375" height="251" /></a>Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met President Barack Obama at the White House on March 5th for a critical meeting focusing on the impending nuclear crisis in Iran. The differences between the two leaders on how to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were barely mentioned this time.</p>
<p>Prior to their meeting, Obama re-affirmed what he had said the day before to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference. “My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons,” he promised. Obama also reiterated that &#8220;the United States will always have Israel&#8217;s back.&#8221;</p>
<p>Netanyahu pointed to the common bond between Israel and the United States, and the threat the two allies shared in common from Iran:</p>
<p>&#8220;Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests and that we face common enemies. Iran&#8217;s leaders know that too. For them you&#8217;re the Great Satan, we&#8217;re the Little Satan. For them, we are you and you are us. And you know something, Mr. President? At least on this last point I think they&#8217;re right. We are you and you are us. We&#8217;re together. &#8230; Israel and America stand together.&#8221;</p>
<p>The three-hour meeting in the Oval Office was described as “friendly, straightforward, and serious” by an unnamed White House official quoted by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/middleeast/obama-cites-window-for-diplomacy-on-iran-bomb.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=2&amp;hp"><em>New York Times</em></a>. The mood during the meeting was said to be somber and business-like, but less icy between the two leaders than during previous meetings. Netanyahu thanked Obama afterwards for the &#8220;warm hospitality.&#8221;</p>
<p>Netanyahu reportedly told Obama that Israel had not yet made a decision on striking Iran. Nevertheless, while appreciating President Obama’s pledge to prevent the Iranians from building a nuclear bomb rather than rely on a policy of after-the-fact containment, Netanyahu left no doubt that Israel was prepared to act alone if necessary to neutralize the Iranian threat to Israel&#8217;s very existence.</p>
<p>Key differences were apparently not resolved during the meeting. Obama still believes there is a window for sanctions and the blacklisting of Iran&#8217;s central bank to work in pressuring Tehran back to the bargaining table. He tried to persuade Netanyahu to give these measures and diplomacy more time before deciding whether to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran&#8217;s nuclear facilities.</p>
<p>Netanyahu does not like the odds that such pressure tactics would work. He expressed deep skepticism that diplomacy and sanctions alone would persuade Iran’s leaders to forsake the development of nuclear weapons. He also made Israel&#8217;s case that negotiations proposed by Iran should not resume unless Iran agreed first to a verifiable suspension of its uranium enrichment activities. Obama has not appeared willing to make such suspension a pre-condition to re-opening talks with Iran.</p>
<p>A key difference between Obama and Netanyahu on Iran is over timing of a possible military attack. When will it be time to move beyond diplomacy and sanctions, and take military action? The Obama administration is willing to wait until there is clear evidence that Iran is actually in the process of building one or more nuclear bombs. Israel&#8217;s leaders believe waiting that long &#8211; even if it were possible to detect such bomb-building activity occurring deeply underground &#8211; is a gamble that Israel cannot afford to take.</p>
<p>According to the White House official quoted by the <em>New York Times</em>, Netanyahu did not press Obama on this specific timing point during their discussions. Evidently, Netanyahu saw no benefit in precipitating a dispute with the United States at this time over whether or where to set a firm “red line” beyond which military action would be taken. In effect, for the purposes of their March 5th White House meeting at least, Obama and Netanyahu agreed to disagree.</p>
<p>However, whatever pressure the president and Obama administration officials are putting on Israel privately to stand down until the United States gives its go-ahead, Prime Minister Netanyahu will not agree to put the fate of Israel in the hands of the United States to decide.</p>
<p>Instead, he chose to focus on President Obama&#8217;s public statement of support for Israel&#8217;s &#8220;sovereign right to make its own decisions” when it comes to defending its own people, which Obama expressed during his AIPAC speech on Sunday. In his own speech to AIPAC on Monday evening, Netanyahu said that Israel &#8220;must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself against any threats. As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/netanyahu-speaks-truth-to-power/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama, Israel and the Mullahs</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/the-most-critical-us-israel-meeting-to-date/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-most-critical-us-israel-meeting-to-date</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/the-most-critical-us-israel-meeting-to-date/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:15:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aipac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=124310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why expectations for next week should be kept to a minimum. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Obama-Netanyahu1.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-124334" title="Obama-Netanyahu" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Obama-Netanyahu1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="252" /></a></p>
<p>President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be meeting in Washington, D.C. on Monday March 5th. This meeting is likely to be their most critical one to date. The Iranian nuclear problem, and the need for a definitive response, are expected to dominate their discussions. Israel believes that time is quickly running out for non-military means such as economic sanctions to stop Iran from being able to build a nuclear bomb at will. The Obama administration is saying &#8220;not so fast&#8221; and to give sanctions more of a chance to work.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Netanyahu is expected to publicly express a hard line against Iran during the meeting, according to a senior Israeli official quoted by <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-will-ask-obama-to-threaten-iran-strike-1.415428"><em>Haaretz</em></a>. Netanyahu will reportedly press for American support for firm action beyond the vague declaration that all options remain on the table. He wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain &#8220;red lines,&#8221; according to this Israeli official. Obama is unlikely to go anywhere close to making such a public declaration or to openly back Israel if it decides to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran&#8217;s nuclear facilities.</p>
<p>The United States and Israel do agree on two basic points. They agree that Iran is intent on achieving a nuclear arms capability and is moving full-steam ahead with its nuclear program. They also agree that there will come a point when it will probably be too late to stop Iran from achieving its objective.</p>
<p>Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have confirmed that there is a sound basis for these concerns in their latest report. They concluded that Iran is pushing ahead with its nuclear program while stonewalling the agency’s efforts to investigate allegations that Iran’s scientists had conducted extensive research on how to build a nuclear warhead. When IAEA inspectors visited Iran recently, Iranian officials refused to allow them to visit a key research facility where some of the alleged experiments were said to have occurred.</p>
<p>However, while sharing concerns about Iran&#8217;s advancement towards becoming a nuclear power, the United States and Israel disagree on the urgency of the problem and the timing of any military action to counter it. They differ on the precise point when it will become too late to stop Iran from producing a nuclear bomb and whether Iran can be successfully contained even if it is not stopped in time. &#8220;We believe that there is time and space to allow for a diplomatic resolution,&#8221; White House press secretary Jay Carney said last month.</p>
<p>No meeting will paper over these differences as long as Obama, who has yet to visit Israel as president while managing to find time to visit Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, fails to fully appreciate the threat that Israel is confronting. He fails to understand Israel&#8217;s acute sense of vulnerability against hostile forces determined to destroy the Jewish state by any means possible and Israel&#8217;s fierce determination to protect itself at any cost. Nor does he seem to understand that the direct threat a nuclear armed Iran would pose to Israel today will become a direct threat to the United States in the not too distant future if the jihadist megalomaniacs now ruling Iran or their like-minded successors remain in charge.</p>
<p>In short, Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat. No wonder, considering the Iranian leaders&#8217; repeated calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state, Iran&#8217;s proximity to Israel, and the ease with which Iran&#8217;s surrogates in the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations can be used to help carry out its plans for Israel&#8217;s destruction.</p>
<p>On the other hand, while the Obama administration views a nuclear-armed Iran as a very serious threat to regional peace and security, it does not view a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat to the United States itself or to the free world generally. It believes that even a successful military strike would only delay Iran&#8217;s nuclear program for a few years and would almost certainly set off a firestorm of violence in the Middle East and elsewhere with dangerously unpredictable consequences for America&#8217;s strategic interests. That is why President Obama and his top officials have been urging Israel not to take precipitous unilateral military action.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/the-most-critical-us-israel-meeting-to-date/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rising World Powers Align</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/rising-world-powers-align/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rising-world-powers-align</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/rising-world-powers-align/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[April]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[basic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brasilia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BRIC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bric brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colonial model]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G20]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greenhouse gas emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[growth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hu jintao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Monetary Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latin America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[luiz inacio lula da silva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lula da silva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW DELHI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political clout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Dmitry Medvedev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Hu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president hu jintao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Hugo Chavez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president luiz inacio lula da silva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Manmohan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prime minister manmohan singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Vladimir Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spokesperson Jiang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transfer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Venezuela]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yu]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Washington pushes further away.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Lula_BRIC_2008.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-58794" title="Lula_BRIC_2008" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Lula_BRIC_2008-300x178.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="178" /></a></p>
<p>The coalition of major developing nations known as BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) continues to pull closer together while becoming more alienated from the United States. The Obama administration has made constant pushes to limit BASIC&#8217;s economic growth in an effort to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. However, the agenda of BASIC at the United Nations has been to pressure the industrialized nations (America, Europe, Japan) to commit to ambitious cuts in emissions while staying free of any restrictions on their own activities. They have also demanded technical and financial support to speed the transfer of production capabilities from the West to the Third World.</p>
<p>The three core members of BASIC are also part of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China.) The BRIC group met in Brasilia on April 14-16 to draw up a common plan for a “new international order” to be presented at the G20 meeting in June. The BRIC nations account for 42% of the world&#8217;s population but only 15% of the world&#8217;s gross domestic product. Promoting economic growth to improve per capita incomes and living standards is their top priority, but they believe they will need greater political clout in world affairs to gain the wealth they seek.</p>
<p>The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs&#8217; <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t682900.htm">report</a> on the meeting between President Hu Jintao of China and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil at BRIC emphasized “investment cooperation&#8221; between the two countries which would entail that &#8220;both sides&#8230;actively encourage two-way investment&#8230;in the areas of energy, mining, agriculture, industry and infrastructure construction.” Brazil has been leery of China’s economic pattern in Latin America which resembles that of the old colonial model. Beijing trades manufactured goods for raw materials and fuel which stunts the economic development of its trading partners. In the case of Brazil last year, 76.8% of exports to China were basic products and 98.1% of Chinese imports were manufactured goods. Trade rose from $6.7 billion in 2003 to $36.1 billion last year, with China surpassing the United States as Brazil’s main trading partner.</p>
<p>In the wake of the international financial crisis, any inflow of capital is welcome in Latin America. China has been investing in the mining and the oil industries and in building infrastructure. A common interest in promoting growth and a shared antipathy towards the United States is pulling Brasilia and Beijing together despite concerns in Brazilian industrial circles about the influx of Chinese goods. The developing countries hold the American banks responsible for the financial crisis, which they see as another negative manifestation of U.S. &#8220;hegemony.” Calls for global financial reform and a “multipolar” world were major BRIC themes articulated by all four nations.</p>
<p>The first BRIC meeting was held in June, 2009. The central topic was the need to move trade away from dependence on the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. At Brasilia last week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev again raised this issue. His <a href="http://eng.kremlin.ru/speeches/2010/04/13/0911_type104017_225331.shtml">statement</a> called for “multilateral cooperation in nuclear energy, aircraft engineering, space exploration and nanotechnologies. Such cooperation can be enhanced through financial interaction of the BRIC countries, in particular in the form of agreements on the use of national currencies in mutual trade.” While still well short of calling for a new non-dollar reserve currency, in its final statement, BRIC called for a greater role of its members in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.</p>
<p>At the BRIC summit, President Hu <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-04/16/c_13254287.htm">spoke</a> of the same goals of an international transfer of wealth as China has insisted upon in the UN climate talks. He said the developed countries should honor their commitments of increased assistance, debt relief, market access and technology transfer while helping developing countries promote economic growth and improve people&#8217;s well-being. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh joined in, calling for a “multipolar” world order in which the UN would play a central role.</p>
<p>The unity on economic goals provides a foundation which allows Beijing and Moscow to pull Brasilia and New Delhi in their direction on other strategic issues. Though Iran was not mentioned in the final BRIC communiqué, Lula made Brazil’s opposition to new UN sanctions on Tehran known at the close of his private meeting with Hu. Indeed, Brazil’s position seemed identical to China’s.</p>
<p>Though President Obama tried to give the impression that he had persuaded President Hu to support new sanctions on Iran when they met at the Nuclear Security Summit, this was not the case. When Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu was asked about this at a press conference April 13, he <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t679545.htm">stated</a>, “On the Iranian nuclear issue, our position has been consistent&#8230;.Sanctions and pressure are not the fundamental way out. Relevant actions of the UN Security Council should be conducive to the turn-around of the situation and proper settlement of the issue through dialogue and negotiation.” News <a href="http://community.washingtonpost.com/ver1.0/Direct/Process">reports</a> cited Brazilian officials as saying that their country shares “great affinity” with China over what course to take on Iran.</p>
<p>The visit to Brazil by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March proved a failure. Clinton had urged Brazil, who currently holds one of the rotating seats on the UN Security Council, to support sanctions. But she had combined talks about Iran with discussions about how to move the UN climate talks forward, a combination that did not go over well. Brasilia kept its distance from Washington DC on both issues.</p>
<p>After the BRIC summit, President Hu had to return home to deal with the Tibet earthquake, but the Chinese delegation continued on to Venezuela as planned. The rabidly anti-American strongman President Hugo Chavez was <a href="http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/latest/story/0,4574,381863,00.html">offered</a> $20 billion in “soft loans” from the state-owned China Development Bank and a $16 billion investment package for oil development in the eastern Orinoco region. The loan will be paid back with increased oil exports to China. Venezuela has already increased oil shipments to China by 21% over the last year while cutting back exports to the U.S. Beijing’s strategy has been to lock up oil supplies rather than be dependent on a volatile world market where increasing demand is driving up prices.</p>
<p>Earlier in April, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-0403-venezuela-russia-20100403,0,4631128.story">traveled</a> to Venezuela and promised to help build a nuclear power plant. Putin also discussed arms sales and cooperation on a space program.</p>
<p>The coalition may expand further, as it has been suggested that Indonesia join both BRIC and BASIC.</p>
<p>The Obama administration seems asleep at the switch as new powers not only rise, but cooperate on strategic issues that directly target American interests. If the White House pushes Congress to adopt a crippling energy tax and other restrictions on domestic growth as a result of climate paranoia, the need to adopt universal mandates at the UN will be increased. Unilateral anti-growth policies by the U.S. would put American firms and workers at a terrible disadvantage in global competition. Yet, pushing for UN restrictions on the developing world to make stagnation more “symmetrical” will only make the BASIC-BRIC bloc stronger, with major negative consequences to U.S. security as well as to prosperity in the years to come.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/rising-world-powers-align/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alienating India</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/alienating-india/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=alienating-india</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/alienating-india/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american ally]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[basic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bureaucratic language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cooperative partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copenhagen conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[December]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greenhouse gas emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indian prime minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indian prime minister manmohan singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international fora]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jairam ramesh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manmohan singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mexico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Jairam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ministry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitigation actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW DELHI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Manmohan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prime minister manmohan singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramesh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wen jiabao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Xinjiang]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=57268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How bad American policy is pushing a strategic ally toward China. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/W020091026467167539030.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-57270" title="W020091026467167539030" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/W020091026467167539030.jpg" alt="" width="360" height="292" /></a></p>
<p>India has long been regarded as an American ally but a series of missteps by the United States may be driving a strategic American partner directly into China’s embrace. One sign of that comes from India’s ministry of defense, which released its annual <a href="http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=59945&amp;kwd=">report</a> last week. Cloaked in bureaucratic language is the highly significant revelation that relations between India and China have “generally progressed well in the last year based on their strategic and cooperative partnership” and that “there has been a convergence of views and actions on various issues of international fora.” This is bad news for the United States, but an outcome largely of its own making. Washington has needlessly provoked India on a vital issue, pushing New Delhi towards Beijing.</p>
<p>The American blunder has come over climate change policy at the United Nations, and reached its peak at the Copenhagen conference last December. Meeting in Beijing November 29, officials from Brazil, South  Africa, India and China (known as BASIC), and Sudan (chair of the Group of 77 developing countries) drafted a <a href="http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/29/stories/2009112954930800.htm">joint document</a> with four “non-negotiable” elements that would guide their behavior in Copenhagen. They would never accept legally binding greenhouse gas emissions cuts, mitigation actions that are not paid for by the developed countries, international (foreign) measurement of their mitigation actions, nor the use of climate change as a trade barrier by the developed countries. Having protected their economies from outside pressure, they would then insist that legally binding restrictions be imposed on the developed countries. As Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh stated, “BASIC countries are basic reality.</p>
<p>The BASIC-Group of 77 bloc deadlocked the UN conference, as the U.S. insisted that no agreement was possible without some mandates being imposed on all parties. As the summit neared its end, President Barack Obama barged into a private meeting between Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and demanded a compromise be reached. The resulting Accord did not impose mandates on any country, and thus should have diffused the confrontation. But the UN process continues, officially still based on conflict between the developed and developing nations over who will be required to make cuts. The next negotiating session is scheduled for April 9-11 in Bonn, Germany. It is likely two additional sessions will be scheduled before December when another large Copenhagen-style meeting is set for Cancun, Mexico.</p>
<p>If the Obama administration renews its push to impose mandatory emission controls on India and the other developing countries, it will push New Delhi even closer to Beijing. India understands that UN controls would be devastating to its economy, and its scientists are very skeptical about the entire climate change issue (as they should be). Washington must understand India’s position and back off, so the two countries can better cooperate on the much more important strategic interests which they share.</p>
<p>India and China may be allies at the UN, but they are rivals in Asia. The Indian ministry of defense report notes, “India also remains conscious and alert about the implications of China’s military modernisation….Rapid infrastructure development in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Xinjiang province has considerably upgraded China’s military Force projection capability and strategic operational flexibility.” The MoD says that, “Necessary steps have been initiated for the upgradation of our infrastructure and force structuring …along the northern borders.” Tibet is a sour spot between India and China, as it has become between the U.S. and China. Beijing declared that relations with Washington have been “severely undermined” by the February meeting between President Obama and the Dalia Lama.</p>
<p>Tibet has historical and cultural links to India which have been severed by China’s occupation. India moved 60,000 additional troops to the border last summer, a deployment condemned by Beijing. An <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2009-06/436174.html">editorial</a> in the Communist Party’s publication <em>Global Times</em> stated, “The tough posture Singh’s new government has taken may win some applause among India’s domestic nationalists. But it is dangerous if it is based on a false anticipation that China will cave in.” The editorial went on in a very harsh tone,</p>
<blockquote><p>India is frustrated that China’s rise has captured much of the world’s attention. Proud of its “advanced political system,” India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation which is unstable compared with China’s.</p>
<p>India likes to brag about its sustainable development, but worries that it is being left behind by China. China is seen in India as both a potential threat and a competitor to surpass.</p>
<p>But India can’t actually compete with China in a number of areas, like international influence, overall national power and economic scale. India apparently has not yet realized this.</p></blockquote>
<p>The editorial also raised the specter of India joining with the United States and Japan in creating a “ring around China.” It is just such an alliance of Asian democracies that should be the objective of American diplomacy.</p>
<p>Washington and New   Delhi also have a common interest in defeating Islamic radicalism. The MoD reported favorably the deployment of more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, stating that “the security and stability of Afghanistan is critical to India’s own security concerns.” The use of Pakistan as a sanctuary for Islamic terrorist has been a concern of India since long before 9/11 because of attacks in Kashmir. A government in Islamabad that sees Islamic terror as a threat to its own security, rather than an opportunity to conduct proxy wars against its neighbors, is in both U.S. and Indian interests.</p>
<p>The MoD report says “all parameters of proxy war are at an all time low and the current situation indicated a shift towards normalcy and peace.” This is to a large extent due to American influence on Pakistan. The problem has not gone away completely, however, as the MoD notes, “The continued infiltrations across the LoC [Line of Control] and the existence of terrorist camps across the India-Pak border however, demonstrate the continuing ambivalence of Pakistan in its actions against terrorist organisations.”</p>
<p>American and Indian influence and pressure on Pakistan reinforces the efforts of both nations to keep a more moderate, democratic Islamabad focused on eradicating terrorist sanctuaries to avoid a wider war.</p>
<p>There is a China angle to this issue as well. Beijing has long counted Pakistan as an ally against India and has been happy to see tensions on India’s northwest frontier divert New Delhi’s military resources away from the Chinese front. Beijing continues to provide Pakistan with most of its armaments, including help with its missile and nuclear programs. The Chinese are completing a new deep-water port at Gwadar, where they have also helped to build a major new international airport. Beijing intends that the port will give their expanding navy access to the Indian Ocean and to the world’s key oil-shipping routes. The U.S. and India (as well as Japan) have a common strategic interest in preventing such an expansion of Chinese power.</p>
<p>A new year of UN negotiations on climate change should not be allowed to disrupt U.S.-Indian relations. The Accord reached last year was the best of all possible outcomes in what has been a fatally flawed process. The Accord should be interpreted as acknowledgement that all nations have the right to pursue economic and environmental policies in their own interests. It should be seen as the end of the UN madness about climate as a zero sum game of international conflict. Moving forward, the U.S. should build on its agreement with India to cooperate in the expansion of nuclear power on the subcontinent. This is a positive program that supports growth while also minimizing green house gas emissions for those who are concerned about such things.</p>
<p>Climate change is a chimera that can only detract from the real factors that will govern the balance of power in Asia and thus the evolution of international politics. Handing China an issue with which it can unite the developing world against the United States has been a mistake of the first order that must be put to an end.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/alienating-india/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The China Dream</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-china-dream</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese communist party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchange rate policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global downturn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeffrey Bader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[March]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Yang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Yang Jiechi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[number]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Premier Wen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Premier Wen Jaibao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public disagreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taipei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan Strait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[track]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade deficit with china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yuan currency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=54624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Beijing’s rise can no longer be ignored.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/china.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-54633" title="china" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/china.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="314" /></a></p>
<p>The 3<sup>rd</sup> session of the 11th National People’s Congress (NPC) ended on March 14. The annual meeting of the faux legislative branch of the People’s Republic of China dictatorship met for less than two weeks, having only opened on March 5. At the closing press conference, Premier Wen Jaibao <a href="http://china.globaltimes.cn/day-photo/2010-03/512795.html">stated</a>, “Some say China has got more arrogant and tough. Some put forward the theory of China&#8217;s so-called &#8216;triumphalism&#8217;. My conscience is untainted despite slanders from outside.” He was referring to the increased public disagreements between China and the United States over a number of issues since the end of last year.</p>
<p>An issue Wen was particularly adamant about was one of long standing, the claim by officials, business leaders and economists in both America and Europe that the PRC has gained a trade advantage by setting a low exchange rate for its Yuan currency by government fiat. Despite the global downturn from the financial crisis and recession, China is expected to have a current account surplus of $450 billion this year. The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2009 in goods was $226.8 billion, and America has sent to the PRC over $1.7 trillion in deficits since 1999. China’s total international currency reserve from its surpluses is approaching $3 trillion.</p>
<p>Premier Wen denounced “finger pointing” in the currency manipulation controversy “A country&#8217;s exchange rate policy and its exchange rates should depend on its national economy and economic situation,&#8221; he said. G<em>lobal Times</em>, a publication of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, ran a<a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-03/511320.html"> commentary</a> attacking the Western media. The paper argued,</p>
<blockquote><p>“’It would be good for China,’ is a typical tone adopted to draw Chinese or international readers. But in reality, currency policy is so critical to China&#8217;s economy that a cautious approach must be taken. Any sharp appreciation will give rise to a series of negative chain reactions in employment, trade and many aspects of life.”</p></blockquote>
<p>It is clear how China sees its situation. But when other countries react to Chinese policy, Beijing officials denounce them for adopting “protectionism” as if only China has a right to defend its economic interests and pursue job creation and growth.</p>
<p>The heightened sense of confrontation between Beijing and Washington does not, however, stem from trade problems which have been a sore point for a decade. A number of other issues of a direct, strategic nature have become more prominent since December.</p>
<p>The Chinese list of problems is much shorter than the U.S. list. Beijing has protested the sale of $6.4 billion in military equipment to Taiwan and the meeting between President Barak Obama and the Dalai Lama. These events focused attention on Beijing’s threats against democratic Taiwan and its human rights abuses in Tibet.</p>
<p>Beijing has reacted most strongly to the arms sale even though the U.S. pulled its punch on the deal. The Taiwan package is defensive in nature, consisting mainly of utility helicopters, air defense missiles, and mine clearing ships. The U.S. did not fulfill Taipei’s request for more F-16 fighter-bombers which the island needs to contest air superiority over the Taiwan  Strait or attack a Chinese invasion fleet.</p>
<p>On the eve of the NPC, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs Jeffrey Bader were sent to Beijing to smooth relations. Their mission failed. In reporting on the visit, state-owned <em>China Daily</em> ran the banner <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010npc/2010-03/07/content_9549745.htm">headline</a> “U.S. urged to respect China&#8217;s core interests.”</p>
<p>That the United States sent envoys to make amends only confirmed Beijing’s wisdom in taking an assertive stance, confident that the Obama administration was looking for ways to appease Beijing. On March 7, three days after the American envoys left; Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/wjbz/2467/t662388.htm">stated</a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>“The responsibility for the difficulties in China-U.S relations does not lie with China…. The United States should properly handle the relevant sensitive issues and work with the Chinese side to return China-US relationship to the track of stable development.”</p></blockquote>
<p>China has not acknowledged its own confrontational actions since December. Beijing has backed Tehran’s rejection of President Obama’s “open hand.” Even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim that Iran is now a “nuclear state” has not lessened Chinese support. Minister Yang repeated China&#8217;s line at the NPC, “We don&#8217;t think diplomatic efforts have been exhausted.” Negotiations have been held since 2003 without stopping the advance of Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile programs. Beijing understands the process very well, and is happy with the results. A stronger, anti-American Iran is a strategic asset to China.</p>
<p>In her January 29 Paris speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “As we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the result that some had hoped for, and move forward on the pressure and sanctions track, China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have.” <em>Global Times</em> <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-02/504906.html">replied</a> in a Feb 10 editorial, “China has economic stakes in Iran, and China is determined to protect its interest through diplomacy….. Some voices have recently surfaced in the Western media asking for isolating China on the issue. These voices are extremely shallow and ludicrous.”</p>
<p>Another game changer was the December UN climate conference in Copenhagen. President Obama experienced Chinese intransigence personally. A year-long effort to cooperate with Beijing turned into a nasty confrontation with the fate of the world economy in the balance. Leading the BASIC bloc (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), Beijing demanded crippling restrictions on the U.S. economy while proclaiming its own freedom to do as it pleases in pursuit of growth. President Obama rejected the demand, and has since taken a harder line on matters of trade and competition. The conflict over climate policy (which has never been about the weather) will continue, as another UN conference is scheduled in Bonn next month.</p>
<p>If the Steinberg-Bader mission signaled that some factions in the Obama administration wants to return to the earlier engagement policy. Beijing will see this as a U.S. retreat due to a lack of will, and will press its own agenda harder.</p>
<p>A March 4 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2010-03/509829.html">commentary</a> in <em>Global Times</em>, written by Rong Xiaoqing, a Chinese journalist based in New York City, was entitled<strong> “</strong>American softness bodes poorly in competitive era.” Rong wrote of spoiled Americans “who whine about so much that they will find it difficult to cope with a world where nations like China, India and Brazil are becoming rivals.”</p>
<p>A current best seller in China is the book <em>The China Dream</em>, by People’s Liberation Army Colonel Liu Mingfu, a professor at the National Defense University. He <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200P620100301">urges</a> China to replace the America as the preeminent global power by building the world&#8217;s largest economy and using its wealth to expand military capabilities. &#8220;If China&#8217;s goal for military strength is not to pass the United States and Russia, then China is locking itself into being a third-rate military power,&#8221; he writes. A March 10 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-03/511703.html">editorial</a> in <em>Global Times</em> tells “the world to be prepared for China&#8217;s first aircraft carrier…. China has the legitimate right to build up its naval force.” The editorial goes on to talk of aircraft carriers in the plural and “other advanced weapons.”</p>
<p>From its aggressive trade policy to its military buildup, and from its bloc politics at the UN to its support of rogue regimes around the world, Beijing’s rise is generating confrontations with American interests than can no longer be ignored.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Cold War</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-new-cold-war</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ambassador Jon Huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american initiative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bennett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese vice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dalai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dalai Lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[December]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic island]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DoD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[draft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[February]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign ministry spokesperson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[formal protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John T. Bennett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jon huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapons program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offensive weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[province]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qdr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quadrennial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renegade province]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling communist party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions against iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Robert Gate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=51760</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why Chinese leaders believe they can stand up to America anywhere, anytime. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/us-china-yin-yang1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-51769" title="us-china-yin-yang" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/us-china-yin-yang1.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="476" /></a></p>
<p>The People’s Republic of China has denounced the meeting of Tibet’s Dalai Lama with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb.18. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t659091.htm">said</a> the meetings:</p>
<blockquote><p>“have severely violated the basic norms governing international relations….The Chinese Government and people stand steadfast in their resolve to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any attempt from any person to interfere in China&#8217;s internal affairs under the Dalai issue is doomed to failure.”</p></blockquote>
<p>For Beijing the issue is not just about the oppression in Tibet, but the Dalai Lama’s larger message that it is the responsibility of the outside world to bring Communist China into the mainstream of global democracy,</p>
<p>Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai called in U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman for what were called “solemn representations.” This was the second time in recent weeks that the ambassador has been summoned. The previous time was after the Obama administration announced on January 29 that it would fulfill the commitment made by the Bush administration to sell $6.4 billion worth of defensive arms to Taiwan. Beijing has massed offensive weapons opposite the democratic island. The PRC considers Taiwan to be a renegade province despite its de facto independence for over sixty years.</p>
<p>The U.S. did not summon the Chinese ambassador in Washington for a formal protest after Beijing blocked an American initiative to strengthen sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons program. As <em>Global Times</em>, an official publication of the ruling Communist Party, stated<em> </em>in a Feb 10 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-02/504906.html">editoria</a>l, “China has economic stakes in Iran, and China is determined to protect its interest through diplomacy.”</p>
<p>U.S.-PRC relations have soured steadily since the confrontation between the two powers at the UN Climate conference in Copenhagen in December. At that meeting, President Obama came face to face with Chinese intransigence and saw his year long attempt to cooperate with China come to nothing.</p>
<p>While the White House and State Department were rethinking engagement with China, the Defense Department was finishing its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the blueprint for how the U.S. military will meet threats to national security. The February 8 issue of the weekly <em>Defense News</em> had a disturbing sidebar by John T. Bennett to its lead <a href="http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4489193&amp;c=FEA&amp;s=CVS">story</a> about the QDR. Bennett reported,</p>
<blockquote><p>As the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review moved from a December draft to the February final version, Pentagon officials deleted several passages and softened others about China’s military buildup.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Gone is one passage, present in the Dec. 3 draft, declaring that “prudence requires” the United States prepare for “disruptive competition and conflict” with China.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Altered are passages about Russian arms sales to Beijing and China’s 2007 destruction of a low-orbit satellite.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Why the changes? One Pentagon official said department and Obama administration officials worried that harsh words might upset Chinese officials at a time when the United States and China are so economically intertwined.</p></blockquote>
<p>Trade policy is not, however, in the DoD’s province. It is more likely that the QDR reflects Secretary Robert Gate’s often articulated view that future wars will be like the current small, irregular combat in Afghanistan rather than large-scale conventional warfare against a rival nation-state.</p>
<p>In his joint <a href="http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1416">announcement</a> of the QDR and the 2011 budget on Feb. 2, Gates summarized his vision as, “Rebalanc[ing] our programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our ability to fight the wars we are in today, while at the same time providing a hedge against current and future risks and contingencies.” The “hedge” is not of sufficient concern to justify continuing programs like the F-22 air superiority fighter, or a capability to mount large-scale Marine amphibious assaults, or an expanded national missile defense system. Shipbuilding plans will also see the Navy continue to shrink, with an emphasis on smaller warships.</p>
<p>The QDR states, “successfully balancing requires that the Department make hard choices on the level of resources required as well as accepting and managing risk in a way that favors success in today’s wars.” Obviously, winning in Iraq and Afghanistan are the current top priorities, but Gates has also emphasized his desire to “institutionalize” DoD planning, meaning his vision of avoiding confrontations with a rising “peer competitor” like China or even a major regional power like Iran.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2029JAN10%201600.pdf">QDR</a> did not completely ignore China, though the country was mentioned only a handful of times in 105 pages. Its most complete statement is on page 60.</p>
<blockquote><p>China’s military has begun to develop new roles, missions, and capabilities in support of its growing regional and global interests, which could enable it to play a more substantial and constructive role in international affairs. The United   States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater global role. The United   States welcomes the positive benefits that can accrue from greater cooperation. However, lack of transparency and the nature of China’s military development and decision-making processes raise legitimate questions about its future conduct and intentions within Asia and beyond. Our relationship with China must therefore be multidimensional and undergirded by a process of enhancing confidence and reducing mistrust in a manner that reinforces mutual interests.</p></blockquote>
<p>A bit tougher review of China’s military buildup is on p. 31, before the ludicrous statement about welcoming the “constructive role” of a “strong, prosperous and successful China.”</p>
<blockquote><p>As part of its long-term, comprehensive military modernization, China is developing and fielding large numbers of advanced medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, new attack submarines equipped with advanced weapons, increasingly capable long-range air defense systems, electronic warfare and computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter aircraft, and counter-space systems. China has shared only limited information about the pace, scope, and ultimate aims of its military modernization programs, raising a number of legitimate questions regarding its long term intentions.</p></blockquote>
<p>The notion that American military leaders and defense analysts don’t know what Beijing is trying to do and need to find out more before determining if there is a danger is disingenuous. Every advanced weapon is being designed to attack and defeat U.S. forces. In Chinese documents, the new anti-ship ballistic missile being developed is shown in artwork as attacking U.S. aircraft carriers.</p>
<p>None of the issues currently roiling U.S.-PRC relations are new. What has changed over the last decade is the wealth and industrial power Chinese leaders now have at their command. Economic growth is being turned into diplomatic influence and military strength. President Hu Jintao built his career as a hard-liner and has centered his leadership position on a close alliance with the People’s Liberation Army. Looking at the turmoil in America, Chinese leaders believe that the balance of power is shifting and they can now stand up to America on issues across the board. Such a change, whether real or imagined, makes for a much more dangerous world whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The “Peace Partners” Who Never Were</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joe-kaufman/an-attempt-to-unify-palestinian-terror/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=an-attempt-to-unify-palestinian-terror</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joe-kaufman/an-attempt-to-unify-palestinian-terror/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:04:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe Kaufman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[camp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[camp members]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fatah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[front]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fundamentalist islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza Strip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic imagery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahmoud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marxist leninist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national liberation movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national unity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestine liberation organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestinian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian islamic jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace partner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PFLP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pij]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PLO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Popular]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[popular front for the liberation of palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secular]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violent manner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violent methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=51649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An attempt to unify Palestinian terror.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/kauf.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-51651" title="kauf" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/kauf.jpg" alt="" width="495" height="378" /></a></p>
<p>On February 14th, all of the major Palestinian terrorist factions met at the offices of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) for peace talks. But this was not about peace with the Israelis. No, this was a meeting to reconcile differences, in order to direct all energies in a violent manner <em>against Israel</em>. While the West has been obsessed with locating a “peace partner” for the Jewish state, none would be found here.</p>
<p>The Palestinian people, for the most part, can be divided into two camps: one, a religious terrorist camp and two, a secular/nationalist terrorist camp. Members of Palestinian society usually side with one or the other, whether it’s through politics, community affairs or violence. There is little grey area, in this respect.</p>
<p>The religious terrorist camp is made up of organizations which spawned from the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, a group created in the 1920s that merged fundamentalist Islam with an extremist political agenda. Palestinian organizations that fit into this category include Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). PIJ, while deriving its existence from the Brotherhood, however, was established in 1979 with a greater attachment to the more violent methods of the Iranian Revolution of the same year.</p>
<p>The secular terrorist camp consists of groups that fall under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The two main groups that make up the PLO are the Palestinian National Liberation Movement or Fatah and the <a href="http://www.americansagainsthate.org/PFLP_website.html">Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine</a> (PFLP). Unlike Fatah, though, which uses some Islamic imagery, the PFLP operates solely as a Marxist-Leninist organization.</p>
<p>All four of these organizations, in addition to nine others, held a joint meeting this month at the PFLP headquarters. The meeting came at the foot of an Egyptian initiative for reconciliation between the parties and what was being termed a “restoration of national unity.”</p>
<p>But according to the PFLP, this was less about restoring unity among the Palestinian groups and more about fighting Israel <em>as a unified force</em>.</p>
<p>As stated by PFLP leader Rabah Muhana, following the meeting, “An atmosphere of placing national interest ahead of factional interest had prevailed. All of the factions agreed on the urgent need to end division in order to confront the occupation.”</p>
<p>To be sure, there is no love lost between many of the groups, primarily Fatah and Hamas. In June 2007, Hamas launched a bloody coup against Fatah, throwing out the PLO group from the Gaza Strip, whilst brutally executing some 400 individuals associated with Fatah. And as this author writes, the homepage of Fatah’s official website contains a graphic of Hamas leaders Khaled Meshaal, Mahmoud al-Zahar and Ismail Haniya with their <a href="http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Fatah_Hamas_Leaders_in_Blood.html">faces covered in drops of blood</a>.</p>
<p>Now, it appears the two are coming together, as it has been reported that all of the Palestinian terror factions have voiced support for the Egyptian plan.</p>
<p>Of course, this does not bode well for those who have been hell-bent on finding a “peace partner” for Israel. Regarding the United States and the European Union (EU), the only one that fits that bill, at least according to them, is Fatah.</p>
<p>The names of three of the four organizations mentioned previously as representing the Palestinian people, Hamas, PIJ and the PFLP, can be found on <a href="http://www.americansagainsthate.org/US_and_EU_Terror_List.html">terrorism lists compiled by both the US and the EU</a>. Fatah appears to be the only one that has been left off the lists – but that appearance is somewhat deceiving.</p>
<p>Toward the top of both lists is found the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AMB), the self-described “military wing” of Fatah. It was named to the US list in March 2002 and the EU list in October of the same year. Indeed, the group has a history of targeting civilians via such means as suicide bombings and has, in the past, worked with the likes of Hamas and PIJ.</p>
<p>While government agencies admit to an affiliation between AMB and Fatah, they also act to put distance between the two, in what seems to be an attempt to separate Fatah from the terrorism. But there is no separation between Fatah and AMB, for they are essentially the same organization.</p>
<p>AMB’s website addresses, <a href="http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Al-Aqsa_Martyrs_Brigade_Websites.html">kataebaqsa.org and kataebaqsa.ps</a>, remain active, but the content from them has been entirely removed. That’s not a problem for AMB, because the group shares the official website of Fatah, fateh.org. On any given day, one can see the AMB logo on the Fatah site homepage along with a link to the AMB’s most recent terror communiqué, discussing its latest attack and referring to Israel as the “enemy.”</p>
<p>Atop all of the Fatah website pages, including AMB’s terror communiqués, is a large picture of the head of Fatah and the President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Mahmoud Abbas. This is the same Mahmoud Abbas who, less than two months ago, <a href="http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&amp;doc_id=1524">honored three fallen AMB murderers</a> of 45-year-old Israeli Rabbi Meir Avshalom Hai as “Shahids” or holy martyrs. Hai, who was gunned down during a December 24th drive-by attack, left a wife and seven children. Abbas visited and offered condolences to the families of the dead perpetrators of the attack.</p>
<p>When the 13 Palestinian terrorist groups met at the PFLP headquarters, they did so with an understanding – that even though they might have personal differences with each other, they are <em>all</em> united by an intense hatred of Israel.</p>
<p>It is this understanding that drives them to choose violence over peace, and it is this understanding that will always foil those who act to downplay terrorist groups and who push Israel into a treaty with entities, like Fatah, that wish for her destruction.</p>
<p><em>Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of </em><a href="http://www.americansagainsthate.org/"><em>Americans Against Hate</em></a><em> and the founder of </em><a href="http://www.youngzionists.org/"><em>Young Zionists</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em>Beila Rabinowitz, the Director of </em><a href="http://www.militantislammonitor.org/"><em>Militant Islam Monitor</em></a><em>, contributed to this report.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joe-kaufman/an-attempt-to-unify-palestinian-terror/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1900/1979 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 03:10:27 by W3 Total Cache -->