Dems Treat Al Qaeda Like the Weather, Everyone Talks About it But.....

Last time General Petraeus came to town the Democrats blasted because so few of the "benchmarks" were being met by the Iraqi government. Now that most of the benchmarks are being met, its very strange, but the Democrats do not want to talk about benchmarks, they want to talk about Afghanistan. Their contention is the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq is hurting our fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the real issue is that George Soros' MoveOn wants out of Iraq and the Democrats want to give George what he wants. So when you hear the Dhimmicrats in Congress mention Afghanistan....its like that old saying about the weather, "everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it."

The 'Real' al Qaeda

Dems talk Afghanistan, but do nothing. by Frederick W. Kagan

ONE THEME THAT emerged clearly at the Senate hearings with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker was the need to abandon Iraq in order to deal with the real center of the war on terror in South Asia. A series of questioners put on the airs of grand strategic sophisticates to remind Petraeus that whereas his brief includes only Iraq, theirs covers the entire world--and from their viewpoint, the fight that matters is not the one that Petraeus and Crocker and their subordinates are winning in Iraq, but the one in the "Afghan-Pakistan border region," as it was so often called. Petraeus and Crocker pointed out repeatedly and accurately that al Qaeda's leaders themselves continually refer to Iraq as the central front in their war against us, but to no avail. The real fight, they were told each time, is in the Afghan-Pakistan border region against the real al Qaeda that the Intelligence Community says has only grown stronger. And, the general and the ambassador were lectured, keeping too many troops in Iraq was preventing the United States from prevailing in this more important fight. Let's consider this thesis in a little more detail.

To begin with, numerous senators spoke of the Afghan-Pakistan border area as though there were no border--forces poured into Afghanistan would somehow directly affect what was going on in Pakistan or, alternatively, the real al Qaeda was on the Afghan side where U.S. troops could get at them. Speaking ethnographically, of course, there is no border--the Durand Line that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan cuts the Pashtun nation just about in half, and the porous border has seen decades of happy smuggling. But the border is very real both to our forces and to their enemies. Our troops know that they cannot cross into Pakistan, and the enemy knows it too. That's why the bases of the "real" al Qaeda are not in Afghanistan--American troops in Afghanistan report very few al Qaeda fighters and those they do come across are mostly operating out of Pakistani bases. The al Qaeda bases that harbor Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and the other al Qaeda leaders plotting the attacks against which the Intelligence Community warns are in Pakistan--principally Waziristan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Chitral in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP).

Pouring troops into Afghanistan does not address those problems. Even advocating an invasion of those areas (with or without Islamabad's consent) makes little sense--al Qaeda works also with Kashmiri separatists, who have their own terror training bases outside of these areas, and we can be certain that the Pakistani government that supports the Kashmiri fighters will not be enthusiastic about American forces taking them out. And, even if they were, by this point we're pretty much occupying half of Pakistan. We could line a lot of soldiers up along the (20,000-foot) mountains along the border, but how does sealing the terrorists into their own base camps in Pakistan help? The problem isn't that they go into Afghanistan, but that we have no good plan for getting them out of Pakistan. That is a problem worthy of many senatorial hearings, and it would be nice if any of the advocates of losing in Iraq to fight the real enemy in South Asia had a solution to propose. It should be a sine qua non, in fact, for anyone who proposes accepting defeat in Iraq first to offer a concrete plan for doing something against the supposedly realer al Qaeda enemy in Pakistan.

Afghanistan is extremely important in its own right, of course, and if we fail in Afghanistan, then we will indeed offer al Qaeda another potential base from which to operate. Considering how well established it already is in Pakistan and how little Afghanistan--one of the most desperately poor countries on earth--has to offer the terrorists, it's a bit hard to see why they would relocate, but we should certainly deny them the opportunity. There are many other reasons to succeed in Afghanistan as well, moreover, including the possibility of developing a stable, democratic ally in the heart of a key region that is a producer rather than a consumer of security.

But now we must consider another set of questions: How urgently do we need to send more troops to Afghanistan, and is there really nothing else we can do? At the end of 2006, Iraq was so close to complete catastrophe that nothing short of a military surge supporting a changed military strategy had any chance of success. We were within a hair's breadth of defeat. That is not the case in Afghanistan. The Taliban insurgency has grown in strength, particularly in the south, government control remains weak, security forces are small and inadequately trained and equipped, corruption is rampant, and so on. But the situation is not deteriorating that rapidly, and relatively small additions of force--with improved approaches--have made a significant difference in important areas. NATO certainly needs to send significant additional forces to Afghanistan, and the United States will probably have to contribute most of them. But the urgency is nothing like what it was in Iraq in December 2006, and is driven more by the need to secure Afghan elections in 2009 than by the danger that the country is about to collapse.

To the question, "Is there really nothing we can do unless we send more troops?" the answer is unequivocally that there is something we can do. Congress can do it, in fact, and very quickly. Pass the supplemental defense appropriation that would allow development money to flow reliably to our soldiers in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. The advantage of Afghanistan's poverty (for us) is that a little money goes a long way. American soldiers have increasingly been leveraging development funds to starve the insurgency of recruits in a way similar to what has worked in Iraq (but tailored appropriately to conditions in Afghanistan). They need more money. One of the problems the British face in the south of the country is that their government does not give their soldiers development money to spend. We should find ways to help them out. Congress could do all of this with one roll-call vote in each house, and the aid would start flowing to Afghanistan faster than any additional brigades could arrive. American soldiers in Iraq often say that dollars are their best bullets--the same is true in Afghanistan. If the congressmen who evince so much concern about Afghanistan's well-being really had the success of our effort at heart, they would stop playing political football with the supplemental and send the aid they control to our soldiers in this key front right away. The fact that they have preferred to delay the supplemental in order to threaten to force the president to withdraw forces from Iraq--a tactic that hinders the effort in the theater they say is the most important in order to force a change of strategy in a secondary (to them) theater--speaks volumes.

Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Iraq: The Way Ahead," the Iraq Planning Group's phase IV report.

Britain and Iraq --NO LONGER ON SPEAKING TERMS

Great Britain and Iraq are no longer best friends forever...in fact they may not even be on speaking terms. Iraq is angry at Great Britain because they made a deal with the Shia militia last year. Britain agreed to let some of the terrorists out of jail, and the Shia agreed not to attack Britain’s last battalion as the British were cutting and running from Basra last year.

Last week the Iraq army was fighting the Shia terrorists, when they needed reinforcements they called upon the US Army even though it was British responsiblity. This really hurt the "Brits" feelings. I guess Iraq was just worried the British would cut and run in the middle of the battle:

Iraq snubbed Britain and calls US into Basra battle
Iraqi soldiers are flown into Basra
Deborah Haynes and Michael Evans

Relations between Britain and Iraq suffered “catastrophic failure” after Baghdad bypassed the British military and called in the American “cavalry” to help the recent offensive against Shia militia in Basra, The Times has learnt.

About 550 US troops, including some from the 82nd Airborne Division, were sent from Baghdad to Basra to join up with 150 American soldiers already serving with Iraqi forces in the southern city.

The Ministry of Defence made much of the fact that British troops, based at Basra airport outside the city, were not requested in the early stages of the operation. British officials claimed that the Basra offensive was proof that Iraqi troops could cope on their own.

The Times has learnt, however, that when Britain’s most senior officer in Basra, Brigadier Julian Free, commander of 4 Mechanised Brigade, flew into the city to find out what was going on, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who was orchestrating the attacks on militia strongholds, declined to see him.

Brigadier Free flew to Basra city with Lieutenant-General Lloyd Austin, the commander of American and coalition forces in Iraq, on March 27, two days after the operation began. The Iraqi Prime Minister spoke only to the US general.

A source familiar with the sequence of events said that Mr al-Maliki seemed to have it in for the British because of the alleged “deal” struck with the Shia militia last year under which they agreed not to attack Britain’s last battalion as it withdrew from Basra in return for the release of several of their leading members from prison.

According to The New York Times, Baghdad turned to the Americans for help when the Basra operation was launched.Two senior American military officers, Rear Admiral Edward Winters, a former member of the US Navy Seals special forces unit, and Major-General George Flynn, a Marine, were sent toBasra to help to coordinate the operation. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division were drafted in as combat advisers and air controllers were positioned to call in airstrikes.

Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Baghdad, told The New York Times that the first he learnt of the Iraqi plan for Basra was on March 21. “The sense we had was that this would be a long-term effort, increased pressure gradually squeezing the special groups [the Iranian-backed Shia militia],” he said. “That is not what emerged. Nothing was in place from our side. It all had to be put together.”

A source told The Times that US forces were in Basra, eating and sleeping alongside their Iraqi counterparts, “basically doing the work that we were supposed to do. It was a catastrophic failure of diplomacy.”

The source described the moment when the American general arrived at the British base from Baghdad: “Suddenly the cavalry appeared.”

The source said that the Americans provided “loads of technical equipment and combat power”. As soon as the Americans arrived and started hitting houses in Basra, the daily attacks of indirect fire on the British base stopped. The source said that during that time the mood among the British forces on the base was “miserable”.

There was even speculation that Mr al-Maliki had refused to talk to Gordon Brown since the operation began. But a Downing Street spokesman said: “Mr Maliki spoke with the Prime Minister on the phone during the Nato summit in Bucharest [last week].”

It was not clear who had initiated the phone call, but Downing Street said that the two leaders had been trying “for a few days” to speak to each other and that when they did the conversation had been “constructive”.

A defence source played down the snub, saying: “Mr al-Maliki only deals with people at a certain level.” The source added that Major-General Barney White-Spunner, the British General Officer Commanding Multinational Division Southeast, had been out of the country at the time.

British troops did become involved in the operation eventually, first with RAF Tornado GR4 aircraft firing warning shots over Shia militia areas of Basra and then supplying troops from two battle groups to help the Iraqis, although not in the city itself.

Artillery was also fired from the British base at Shia militia targets.

However, British troops are now back in Basra serving alongside Iraqi forces for the first time since withdrawing from the city in September. The Ministry of Defence confirmed that 150 British soldiers were now embedded with the Iraqis in Basra, serving as military transition teams.

The 150 British troops now in Basra city have been drawn predominantly from the 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland battle group. They have been formed into six military transition teams (Mitts), made up of advisers, force protection units equipped with Mastiff and Warrior armoured vehicles, and medical support.

The presence of British troops in Basra again was the main reason why Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, told the Commons last week that the plan to reduce the force levels in Iraq from 4,000 to 2,500 from the spring had to be postponed.

Both the Americans and the British felt that Operation Charge of the Knights was a hastily conceived offensive without proper planning or consultation. The result is that the American and British military will have to be based in Basra for the foreseeable future, something which neither coalition partner had foreseen or planned for after security for the south was handed over to the Iraqis.

Hebron-The FIRST Jewish City-> NO LONGER WELCOMES JEWS

Hebron (Chevron in Hebrew) was the first piece of land ever purchased by the Jews in Israel. Approximately 38 centuries ago Abraham, the first Jew purchased a cave in in Chevron to bury his beloved wife Sarah. Jews have owned land in the city pretty much from then till now.

One Friday night in 1929, that all changed. Rabbi Ya’acov Slonim’s son invited any Jews fearful of Arab mobs to spend the Sabbath in his house. The rabbi was highly regarded in the community, and he had a gun. Many Jews took him up on this offer, and many Jews were eventually murdered there.

As early as 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, Arabs began to gather en masse. They came in mobs, armed with clubs, knives and axes. While the women and children threw stones, the men ransacked Jewish houses and destroyed Jewish property. With only a single police officer in Hebron, the Arabs entered Jewish courtyards with no opposition.

Rabbi Slonim, who had tried to shelter the Jewish population, was approached by the rioters and offered a deal. If all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students were given over to the Arabs, the rioters would spare the lives of the Sephardi community. Rabbi Slonim refused to turn over the students and was killed on the spot. In the end, 12 Sephardi Jews and 55 Ashkenazi Jews were murdered.

When the massacre finally ended, the surviving Jews resettled in Jerusalem. Some Jewish families tried to move back to Hebron, but the British authorities forced them out in 1936 at the start of the Arab revolt. In 1948, the War of Independence granted Israel statehood, but further cut the Jews off from Hebron, a city that was captured by King Abdullah's Arab Legion and ultimately annexed to Jordan. When Jews finally gained control of the city in 1967, a small number of massacre survivors again tried to reclaim their old houses. Then defense minister Moshe Dayan supposedly told the survivors that if they returned, they would be arrested, and that they should be patient while the government worked out a solution to get their houses back. Dayan never got around to it--I guess he was too busy giving away Jewish rights to the Temple Mount.

In a few short weeks Israel will be celebrating a bittersweet 60th birthday. We are thankful that God has given us our homeland back, but we are sad that it has been run by people who no real connection to the soul of the land. That's why today in a Jewish Homeland we are not allowed to buy homes in the first Jewish City--Chevron:

Why can't Jews buy homes in Hebron?

David Wilder , THE JERUSALEM POST

Apr. 8, 2008

Many events, despite their joy and festivity, may also have bittersweet shadows lurking behind them.

It is customary at every Jewish wedding, that under the huppa, or wedding canopy, the groom recites the words from Psalms 137:5-6: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not; if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy." In some traditions the groom also places ashes on his forehead, recalling the destruction of the second Temple, and breaks a glass as an expression of loss. Even on the happiest of occasions, we recall the depths of sorrow at the loss of our most significant national enterprises, Jerusalem and the Temple.

ON THURSDAY night I attended a wedding. The daughter of one of Hebron's leaders was married in Jerusalem. As is wont at such weddings, the groom rubbed two sets of ashes on his forehead: ashes discovered in the Old City of Jerusalem, from the fire 2,000 years ago which destroyed the city, and also dust from Gush Katif, razed and obliterated almost three years ago, this summer. However, this past Thursday night had a particularly poignant significance. The groom was a graduate of Mercaz HaRav High School. He knew many of the young men killed there by an Arab terrorist just a few weeks ago. The night of his marriage was also the "shloshim" - the 30th day following the murders. That night there was also a large memorial service at the yeshiva in memory of the young victims.

So, when the groom recited the words, "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem," all the people in attendance were remembering not only the Temple from two millennium ago, but the deaths of those eight students, only a short time ago.

This is, perhaps, the story of Judaism: a combination of sadness and happiness, mixed together, making for the Jewish people.

SOME EVENTS can be understood; others are difficult to fathom. We are currently celebrating the first anniversary of the conclusion of the purchase of Beit HaShalom in Hebron. Exactly a year ago attorneys gave us the green light, and in we went. This huge, 3,500 square meter structure, strategically located on the road between Hebron and Kiryat Arba, was the first property purchased outside of the borders of the original Jewish neighborhoods. The roof of the building serves as a lookout, with a view of Kiryat Arba to the east and the Hebron Hills to the south. It is an amazing sight; on the one hand, exceedingly beautiful, and on the other hand, a bona fide security asset.

Israel is on the verge of a 60th birthday. Since the birth of the state in 1948, despite all the problems encountered, Israel has made tremendous achievements. Who could have expected that a people being shoveled into ovens only a few years before, with over six million of their brethren exterminated, could overcome all odds and bring an ancient nation back to life, a feat unequaled by any other culture or nationality in the history of the world. It certainly does deserve to be celebrated.

However I cannot but sense that this celebration is somewhat bittersweet with the case in point an excellent example, a microcosm of issues continually encountered.

The Jews came back home to Israel; but to what kind of an Israel? Of course growth and development are measures of success. But do we remember where we've come from? Do we take into account the triumphs upon which modern Israel was born? Do we recall the bedrock which serves as the justification for the rebirth of our people in our homeland?

HEBRON WAS the first Jewish city in the land of Israel, home to our patriarchs and matriarchs. The Cave of Machpela is our people's second holiest site, after the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It was off-limits to Jews for 700 years, until Hebron came under Israeli control in the 1967 Six-Day War. As we celebrate 60 years of independence, so too we observe 40 years since the return of Jewish residency in Hebron during Passover of 1968.

Yet when Jews legally purchase a building in Hebron, 60 years after the rebirth of our statehood, such a transaction is automatically shrouded in controversy. So much so that the families in the building were prevented from installing glass windows throughout a snowy and rainy winter. At present they still may not install plastic shades on the windows, nor may they hook up the building to the city's central electric services. This is not due to any question of the legality of the purchase, but rather to a fundamental question: Can Jews continue to live, grow and develop freely in Hebron?

How can we, as a people, justify our existence in Tel Aviv or Haifa, if we do not recognize the validity of our presence in Hebron? If we cannot accept and respect the very pillars upon which our statehood lies, a peek into a crystal ball of the days and years to come looks dismal and bleak. A people with no past, or a people that refuses to recognize its past, has no future. A Jewish purchase of a building such as Beit HaShalom in Hebron should not be viewed as "problematic."

Instead it should be cheered on as a positive step in the renewal of Israel's oldest city.

The time has come for Jews throughout Israel and around the world to declare their allegiance to Hebron.

OBAMA SLEEZE ALERT-SENATOR TO BREAK FIRST CAMPAIGN PROMISE

We always remember our firsts, first day of college, first love, first day in a real job...etc. It looks as if the Junior Senator from Illinios the one that is running on a platform of changing the political landscape is about to celebrate a first--breaking his first presidential campaign promise. The Senator has said that if the Republican Candidate went the route of federal campaign financing he would also...but that was until he raised a ton of cash, because now he is not so sure:

Obama May Bypass Public Financing


MALVERN, Pa. -- Barack Obama, whose fundraising prowess has set records, appears to be paving the way to bypass the public financing system in the fall without yet spelling out his intentions.

Last year, Obama indicated he would accept public funds if his Republican opponent did as well. But as John McCain takes steps to accept the $84 million available in federal money for the general election, Obama has been hedging.

This week, he appeared to be making a case that his broad base of small dollar donors is as egalitarian as the government's public subsidy.

"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it," he told donors at a Washington fundraiser Tuesday night. "And they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

Campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that Obama's remarks were "not a policy statement." He said Obama merely was trying to underscore the grassroots nature of his fundraising.

But Obama's point is an echo of an argument made privately by a number of Democratic strategists who believe that if he were to raise his own money in the general election, his base of nearly 1.3 million donors could easily deliver in excess of the amount available from the federal treasury.

While presidential candidates have rejected public financing in primaries, no major party candidate has bypassed the system in the general election since the program was created in the wake of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.

At the same time, the invitation to Obama's fundraiser Tuesday specifically asked donors to contribute money only to the primary election effort. Obama has raised more than $8 million for the general election, out of a total $234 million raised though the end of March.

"Our focus has always been on primary money," Gibbs said.

McCain, meanwhile, has returned money he raised for the general and is taking steps to build up the Republican Party's fundraising to assist him in the campaign.

Obama rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has raised nearly $22 million for the general election, out of a total of about $176 million. But Clinton has never suggested she would rely on public financing in the fall.

In response to a questionnaire in November from the Midwest Democracy Network, which is made up of nonpartisan government oversight groups, Obama said: "Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

"Barack Obama publicly promised the American people that he would accept public financing if he is the nominee of his Party. Launching his campaign by going back on a promise to voters would be dishonest, and exposes his politics of hope as empty rhetoric out of a typical politician," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Gibbs dismissed the criticism, noting that McCain is at an impasse with the Federal Election Commission regarding questions over a $4 million loan McCain obtained last year to help jump-start his campaign. The loan has been paid back and McCain and his lawyers have said they abided by campaign finance laws.

"We're not going to be lectured about public financing and campaign finance by somebody who the FEC believes serious questions have been raised about the conduct with which they have financed their campaign, questions that remain unanswered today," Gibbs said.

Someone PLEASE Tell the Jewish Forward THE GREAT DEPRESSION IS OVER

The Weekly Jewish newspaper the Forward is over 110 years old. But it really "cut its teeth" during the Great Depression in the 1930's. Back then the Forward was a major DAILY news paper with a circulation of almost 300 thousand. The Forward's editorial slant at the time was SOCIALIST, VERY LIBERAL. In the ensuing 7+ decades, the Jewish Population as eased back into the mainstream...still mostly liberal but more centrist. The Forward, now a weekly is still living in the 1930's still on the extreme left side of liberalism...HEY GUYS WAKE UP--- SOCIALISM IS DEAD--ITS BEEN IN ALL THE PAPERS. Maybe the paper's refusal to move on from their socialists roots is why they take the EXTREME liberal position on just about everything... including Israel:

The Forward Takes Israel Backward
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, April 09, 2008

The latest issue of the liberal American Jewish weekly Forward has an editorial demanding of Israel a “Settlement Freeze.” Its mere 722 words contain enough falsehoods and perversities that it takes more than 722 words to set them straight.

The Forward warns darkly of “a spurt of new construction . . . under way in Israeli settlements in the West Bank”—actually bids for about 2,000 apartments about half of which will be in Jerusalem—and says this “development should be alarming to anyone who cares about Israel’s welfare.” What should really be alarming to anyone who cares about Israel’s welfare is that there are still Jews who think Israel can win peace by making Judea, Samaria, and part of Jerusalem off limits to Jews.

To begin with the editorial’s outright falsehoods and distortions:

Forward: The “new construction [is] a violation of Israel’s public commitments, most of all to the Bush administration…. Israel committed itself in the framework of President Bush’s 2003 Road Map to peace to ‘freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).’”

Fact: The Forward doesn’t misquote the “Performance-Based Roadmap” but badly distorts the import of the quote. The idea of “performance-based” is that the road map—whatever one thinks of it otherwise—is a process. It clearly makes an Israeli settlement freeze conditional on certain antecedent Palestinian measures in the first phase of that process:

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence.… Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation…to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including…free, fair and open elections…. Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.

The settlement freeze, in other words, comes last in that paragraph (even longer and more detailed without my deletions). Not even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her frequent hectoring of Israel over housing construction has charged Israel with violating the road map before it has even begun. Leave that to the Forward.

Forward: “Every other government [than Israel] in the world, including the United States, believes that east Jerusalem is occupied territory, and that civilian Israeli construction there is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions.”

Fact: Claiming that the U.S. government “believes that east Jerusalem is occupied territory” is technically true but leaves out the crucial datum that since 1990 the legislative branch of that government, i.e., Congress, has consistently taken a different position. Congress formally established that position in its 1990 resolution declaring that “Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel” and “must remain an undivided city” and in its 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, which not only reiterated that “Jerusalem should remain an undivided city” but added that “the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

Since then both Presidents Clinton and Bush—while both having made similar statements in their initial presidential campaigns—have made use of a waiver in the 1995 Act allowing them to refrain from moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But to say as the Forward does that “the United States…believes that east Jerusalem is occupied territory” distorts the record by leaving out all this information.

And as for the Forward’s assertion that “the United States…believes that… civilian Israeli construction [in east Jerusalem] is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions,” that has never been the official U.S. position and in July 1999 the U.S. worked to counter UN attempts in Geneva to declare Israel in violation of the conventions.

Forward: “Israel’s political and defense leaders see their country’s survival as dependent on separating from the Palestinians by withdrawing from the West Bank. If that doesn’t happen soon, Israel is, as Olmert said recently, ‘finished.’”



Fact: Some of Israeli’s political leaders take that view—though to ascribe any sort of coherent view to Olmert is to give him way too much credit—but a lot of them don’t. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has now come out against a West Bank withdrawal unless first a comprehensive missile-defense system is in place—an idea that’s clearly a pipedream. Binyamin Netanyahu, not currently in office but the current favorite for prime minister according to all polls of the last few years, certainly doesn’t take the view described by the Forward.



As for defense leaders, the new air force chief Ido Nehushtan wrote in an article published last month, under the subhead “The Importance of Controlling Territory”:



Professionally speaking, if Israel wants to prevent any high-trajectory rocket or mortar fire, it must establish good control on the ground. Compare Lebanon and Gaza to the West Bank, where Israel has control over the external perimeter and can control the entrance of weapons inside the area. In Lebanon, well-organized shipments of weapons flow across an open border with Syria. Gaza is open along the Egyptian border. The West Bank is not open and the weapons don’t flow in with the same freedom.



Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter favors reoccupying parts of Gaza and opposes any military withdrawal from the West Bank; General Security Service chief Yuval Diskin has said that “from a security point of view I am against giving land to the Palestinians”; previous National Security Council head Giora Eiland has come out against a two-state solution entailing a West Bank withdrawal—and there are many other examples.

Forward: “Whatever the status of Jerusalem, outlying West Bank communities such as Ariel and Betar Illit are settlements by anybody’s lights, including Israel’s.”

Fact: Although views on whether Ariel is “outlying” differ (it’s actually sandwiched equidistant—all of 25 miles—between Tel Aviv and the Jordan River), Betar Illit is all of six miles from Jerusalem and is not an “outlying community” by anyone’s lights.

Forward: “At the moment the sole candidate for the job [of taking over the West Bank if Israel withdraws] is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the secular-leaning Fatah party.”

Fact: Apart from the contentious issue of Abbas, Fatah, while still less monolithically religious than Hamas, is not “secular-leaning” but rather increasingly similar to Hamas in its growing Islamism.

So much for the bloopers. As for what, apart from ignorance, leads the Forward to make statements that are both at variance with the truth and harshly censorious of Israel, more than a clue can be found in the editorial’s follow-up to its false claim that Israel has already “committed itself…to freeze all settlement activity”:

There’s no exception for new building inside the settlements’ municipal boundaries, which Israel insists it’s entitled to do. New homes for the settlers’ growing families are exactly what is meant by “natural growth.”

If I can get this straight: the Forward isn’t saying Israelis who live on the West Bank are forbidden to have kids—I think—but that if they do have the chutzpah to have them, they’ll either have to live dense-packed together with them or send them off to live somewhere else.

Indeed, the Forward further pontificates:

Jerusalem maintains that the Palestinians must honor their Road Map commitment to stop incitement and break up terrorist gangs before Israel needs to begin acting on its commitments. The way things look now, though, that may be backward. Israel needs to help Abbas win back control by first honoring its own commitments.

In other words, it all gets down to that root of all evils—those “settlements”—and Israel doesn’t even have a right to demand an end to incitement and terrorism without first stopping its own diabolical “natural growth” in places like Ariel, Betar Illit, and Jerusalem. The Forward stays faithful to all the self-negating axioms of the Left that, in the form of the Oslo process, got Israel surrounded by terrorist gangs in the first place. It can’t give up the idea that Israel brings terrorism upon itself and could still appease its way into its enemies’ hearts.

PROVEN ! Minnesota Charter School Is a Publicly Funded Madrassa

Last month I posted about a Muslim School Funded by Minnesota Tax Dollars/Run by Imams with help from MAS (Muslim American Society-a good friend) This charter school in Minneapolis that is run by Imams, has a central carpeted prayer space where there are regular prayer services, serves halal (kind of Muslim Kosher) food in its cafeteria---well except during Ramadan, when the student body is encouraged to fast from sunrise to sunset. This is not a religious school according to the school's leaders but a cultural school. But this school, funded by tax payer dollars "walks like a religious school, squawks like a religious school....

Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune has followed up the initial report by interviewing a substitute teacher who confirmed the initial suspicion that this is a MUSLIM Religious school funded by tax dollars:

Teacher breaks wall of silence at state's Muslim public school
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune

April 9, 2008

Recently, I wrote about Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights. Charter schools are public schools and by law must not endorse or promote religion.

Evidence suggests, however, that TIZA is an Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers.

TIZA has many characteristics that suggest a religious school. It shares the headquarters building of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, whose mission is "establishing Islam in Minnesota." The building also houses a mosque. TIZA's executive director, Asad Zaman, is a Muslim imam, or religious leader, and its sponsor is an organization called Islamic Relief.

Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves halal food - permissible under Islamic law -- and "Islamic Studies" is offered at the end of the school day.

Zaman maintains that TIZA is not a religious school. He declined, however, to allow me to visit the school to see for myself, "due to the hectic schedule for statewide testing." But after I e-mailed him that the Minnesota Department of Education had told me that testing would not begin for several weeks, Zaman did not respond -- even to urgent calls and e-mails seeking comment before my first column on TIZA.

Now, however, an eyewitness has stepped forward. Amanda Getz of Bloomington is a substitute teacher. She worked as a substitute in two fifth-grade classrooms at TIZA on Friday, March 14. Her experience suggests that school-sponsored religious activity plays an integral role at TIZA.

Arriving on a Friday, the Muslim holy day, she says she was told that the day's schedule included a "school assembly" in the gym after lunch.

Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform "their ritual washing."

Afterward, Getz said, "teachers led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day," was preparing to lead prayer. Beside him, another man "was prostrating himself in prayer on a carpet as the students entered."

"The prayer I saw was not voluntary," Getz said. "The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred."

Islamic Studies was also incorporated into the school day. "When I arrived, I was told 'after school we have Islamic Studies,' and I might have to stay for hall duty," Getz said. "The teachers had written assignments on the blackboard for classes like math and social studies. Islamic Studies was the last one -- the board said the kids were studying the Qu'ran. The students were told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. That gave me the impression that Islamic Studies was a subject like any other."

After school, Getz's fifth-graders stayed in their classroom and the man in white who had led prayer in the gym came in to teach Islamic Studies. TIZA has in effect extended the school day -- buses leave only after Islamic Studies is over. Getz did not see evidence of other extra-curricular activity, except for a group of small children playing outside. Significantly, 77 percent of TIZA parents say that their "main reason for choosing TIZA ... was because of after-school programs conducted by various non-profit organizations at the end of the school period in the school building," according to a TIZA report. TIZA may be the only school in Minnesota with this distinction.

Why does the Minnesota Department of Education allow this sort of religious activity at a public school? According to Zaman, the department inspects TIZA regularly -- and has done so "numerous times" -- to ensure that it is not a religious school.

But the department's records document only three site visits to TIZA in five years -- two in 2003-04 and one in 2007, according to Assistant Commissioner Morgan Brown. None of the visits focused specifically on religious practices.

The department is set up to operate on a "complaint basis," and "since 2004, we haven't gotten a single complaint about TIZA," Brown said. In 2004, he sent two letters to the school inquiring about religious activity reported by visiting department staffers and in a news article. Brown was satisfied with Zaman's assurance that prayer is "voluntary" and "student-led," he said. The department did not attempt to confirm this independently, and did not ask how 5- to 11-year-olds could be initiating prayer. (At the time, TIZA was a K-5 school.)

Zaman agreed to respond by e-mail to concerns raised about the school's practices. Student "prayer is not mandated by TIZA," he wrote, and so is legal. On Friday afternoons, "students are released ... to either join a parent-led service or for study hall." Islamic Studies is provided by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, and other "nonsectarian" after-school options are available, he added.

Yet prayer at TIZA does not appear to be spontaneously initiated by students, but rather scheduled, organized and promoted by school authorities.

Request for volunteers

Until recently, TIZA's website included a request for volunteers to help with "Friday prayers." In an e-mail, Zaman explained this as an attempt to ensure that "no TIZA staff members were involved in organizing the Friday prayers."

But an end run of this kind cannot remove the fact of school sponsorship of prayer services, which take place in the school building during school hours. Zaman does not deny that "some" Muslim teachers "probably" attend. According to federal guidelines on prayer in schools, teachers at a public school cannot participate in prayer with students.

In addition, schools cannot favor one religion by offering services for only its adherents, or promote after-school religious instruction for only one group. The ACLU of Minnesota has launched an investigation of TIZA, and the Minnesota Department of Education has also begun a review.

TIZA's operation as a public, taxpayer-funded school is troubling on several fronts. TIZA is skirting the law by operating what is essentially an Islamic school at taxpayer expense. The Department of Education has failed to provide the oversight necessary to catch these illegalities, and appears to lack the tools to do so. In addition, there's a double standard at work here -- if TIZA were a Christian school, it would likely be gone in a heartbeat.

TIZA is now being held up as a national model for a new kind of charter school. If it passes legal muster, Minnesota taxpayers may soon find themselves footing the bill for a separate system of education for Muslims.

The Al-Dura Fraud --that "Shitty Case"

I have to be honest...I don't quite understand the French fascination with solid digestive waste. You had that French "Diplomat" who called Israel "that shitty little country," now you have Arlette Chabot the News director involved in the al-Dura fraud hoping to get that "shitty case off my back!"

That "shitty case" is Phillippe Karsenty's appeal of a libel ruling against him. Karsenty, is a 42 year-old former stockbroker, media analyst, and founder of Media-Ratings. The state owned TV channel, France 2, sued him for defamation when Karsenty insisted that their airing of a brief (55-59 second) portion of the (27 minutes of raw footage) al-Dura "shooting" constituted a Blood Libel. The staged event took place on September 30, 2000 at the Netzarim Junction and became the Face that launched far more than a thousand Islamist riots, anti-Israeli petitions, and successful and intercepted Palestinian suicide bombings.

This past September, almost seven years later, a Paris judge finally ordered that France 2 turn over the film to the court by November 14th. The trial was conducted on February 27th of 2008, where Karsenty presented a mountain of evidence that proving beyond even a moonbat's doubt that the entire al-Dura shooting was a Hoax (despite the fact that the tape provided had a major portion missing-kind of a shitty little gap--see More on The Al-Durah Courtroom Follies: France 2 Libelers"On The Run")

The fact the principals on the France 2 side, the side that perpetuated the fraud, still believe their slander about Israel killing Mohamed al-Dura is astounding. The fact that they had the gumption to sue Philippe Karsenty for libel when he showed that the TV New operation was willingly perpetuating a fraud that incited terrorist to kill so many is just as astounding. Next month, when the French court clears Philippe Karsenty it should at the same time indict "Shitty" France 2 Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin and his "crappy" Palestinian Cameraman for murder, and the original French Judge who convicted Karsenty for obstruction of Justice:

Out Damn Spot

By Nidra Poller

It’s been called the mother of all fauxtography, the biggest media hoax of our times, the most damaging image ever attached to Israel, an icon of hatred, blood libel on an international scale: the shooting of Mohamed al Dura, a 12 year-old Palestinian boy allegedly gunned down by murderous Israeli soldiers on September 30, 2000 at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip.

The incident, fortuitously filmed by France 2 , has been at the center of debate ever since. Al Dura, the poster boy of the al Aqsa intifada, has served as justification for some of the most atrocious crimes of this decade—two Israeli reservists massacred by an enraged mob in Ramallah to avenge Mohamed al Dura; the Palestinian boy’s shooting spliced into the beheading video of WSJ’s Daniel Pearl. Echoes of the hatred generated by the al Dura image resound to this day. The murder of eight students at Jerusalem’s Mercaz Harav yeshiva is the latest in a long series of savage attacks against civilians in Israel and Jews worldwide, in revenge for some Ur-crime committed against Palestinians.

Despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, France 2 Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin has never withdrawn the accusation that the boy was killed and his father wounded by gunfire “from the Israeli positions.” The origin of that hypothetical gunfire is a moot question to observers who claim the whole scene was staged.

While Israeli authorities hunkered down, hoping the al Dura accusations would fade away, France 2 correspondent Charles Enderlin has staked his reputation on keeping them blood red. French media closed ranks and stifled the controversy on their home turf but it kept bouncing back internationally. Determined to silence “enemies” once and for all, France 2/Enderlin brought defamation suits against three websites that had posted critical examinations of the al Dura report, losing one on a technicality and winning two on generalities.

But one of the defendants, Media-Ratings director Philippe Karsenty, appealed and Enderlin’s slam-dunk litigation is looking more like a boomerang. Whereas the court of first resort had avoided questions that might have embarrassed the state-owned television network, Laurence Trébucq, the no-nonsense president of the three-judge Appellate Court panel, lifted the lid to see what’s cooking and ordered France 2 to turn over the raw footage. The court got a stingy 18-minute excerpt, but it was enough to confirm the initial observation that France 2 stringer Talal Abu Rahma did indeed film fake battles, simulated injuries, and comical ambulance evacuations…that fateful day. And the al Dura shooting? Also staged? Or paradoxically authentic?

Evidence and closing arguments were heard at a marathon session on February 27th. Initially convicted of defaming France 2/Enderlin without conducting a proper investigation, Philippe Karsenty presented bushels of evidence that the judge observed with rapt attention. France 2/Enderlin brought in its Big Bertha in the person of Maître François Szpiner, former president Chirac’s personal counsel. Szpiner defended the Paris Mosque in the Charlie Hebdo-Danish cartoons case (he lost) and was literally dispatched to represent Ruth Halimi whose son Ilan was tortured to death by the anti-Semitic “Gang of Barbarians” in February 2005. The aggressive, abusive, sarcastic Szpiner did not attempt to defend the facts on the ground, obviously a lost cause. He saved his ammunition for underhand blows and snide remarks about “The Jew who gives money to a second Jew who gives it to the third Jew who fights to the last drop of Israeli blood.” Karsenty, described with a snarl as a cross between the Shoah negationist Faurisson and the 9/11 revisionist Meyssan, has it in for Enderlin, says Szpiner, because the France 2 correspondent covers the hotheaded Mideast conflict with consummate fairness and not, as some would wish, as a fight between the good guys and the bad guys. Enderlin, in turn, vouched for his trusted Palestinian cameraman, assuring the court that if Talal had engaged in crooked reporting, the Israelis would have revoked his accreditation.

In fact, Abu Rahma’s accreditation has not been renewed since 2002 because, according to Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman, he was filming staged scenes. Invited to react to this information, news director Chabot relayed the request to Enderlin who shot back with a half dozen insulting e-mails including one in English—addressed to the Foreign Press Association—identifying me as “that lady.” “You are a militant,” wrote Enderlin, “I expect nothing from you. You won’t even mention that we won four libel suits and the Avocat Général recommended confirmation of Karsenty’s initial conviction.” In the midst of the bluster, Enderlin confirmed that the GPO withdrew accreditation from all Gaza and West Bank journalists, including Abu Rahma, at the end of 2001. Any other explanation, he threatened, is a lie.

Caught off guard during a brief recess during the trial, Arlette Chabot let off steam. “I just want this shitty affair over and done with. I want Karsenty to lose! This nutty case has been bugging me since day one.” Implying that her people have no idea where the murderous gunfire came from, she assured the gentleman who had buttonholed her that she was willing to investigate everything and everyone if she could only get this shitty case off her back. What about the fact that the dead child identified as Mohamed al Dura was brought into the hospital between noon and 1 PM while the alleged shooting occurred at 3PM? Making the motions of someone who turns back a clock, madame Chabot explained there was “some kind of time change that day in Gaza.”

Chabot had already left the premises when Philippe Karsenty stood before the court and replied soberly to the ultimate question: Why are you doing this?

“I will not give up. I owe it to the father of Daniel Pearl, beheaded with the image of Mohamed al-Dura incrusted in the video. I owe it to my parents, who taught me to respect the truth. I owe it to the Jewish people, victim of lies, I owe it to France, I owe it to history.”

The verdict will be pronounced on May 21st.

Carter Loves Hamas Because He HATES Menachem Begin

Its almost old news already, the worst president in United States History, Jimmy Carter, will be meeting with Hamas in a few weeks:

Fox News— The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.

“President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week,” wrote Congileo. “I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.”

The State Department has designated Hamas a "foreign terrorist organization," and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, "That's not something that we could possibly conceive of."

Everyone is now reporting the Carter meeting but no one is reporting the reason BEHIND the meeting. You see, Jimmy Carter has an obsessive, frothing at the mouth-type hatred of former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

Ken Stein (the man whose resignation over the Peanut's book, started the exodus from the Carter Center) wrote an extensive article in of Middle East Quarterly last year More than just correcting the mistakes in Carter's trashy opus, Stein (who worked with Carter on the book The Blood of Abraham and was director of the Carter Center until his resignation) gave us insight into Carter's heart and why he [Carter] hates Israel so much.

Jimmy Carter is obsessively fostering hatred for a Ghost. Jimmy Carter Hates Israel and loves Hamas because he hates Menachem Begin. Carter feels that Begin cost him the 1980 election and also cost him the opportunity to be known as the greatest peacemaker ever in the history of the world.

Carter thinks the reason Israel STILL will not leave the disputed territories is the legacy of the late Israeli Prime Minister The intransigence of Begin and his successors, Carter believes, was compounded by a failure of U.S. political leaders to pressure the Israeli government to" correct its policy".

HEY JIMBO! GIVE THE GUY A BREAK HE PASSED AWAY A LONG TIME AGO....GET OVER IT !!!!...Carter's Obsessive Hatred of Begin reaches almost comic proportions.

Stein gives examples:

• Carter's animosity toward Begin has grown with time. He blames Begin for refusing to negotiate over the West Bank. Not only did this deny Carter a more complete peace deal, but, Carter believes, it also institutionalized itself in Israeli policymaking, worsening the Palestinians' plight. Since Begin took office on May 17, 1977, ending the Labor movement's hegemony in Israeli political life, Carter has repeatedly blasted Israeli prime ministers for what he terms the creation of a "horrible" and "terrible" state of affairs for the Palestinians in areas of east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip

• Skepticism of Carter's intentions may have convinced Begin to take a harder line about the West Bank, which, in line with biblical terminology, he called Judea and Samaria. During his tenure as prime minister, Begin forbade the negotiation agenda to include the West Bank and those portions of Jerusalem that the Israeli government annexed after the 1967 Six-Day war. This refusal to negotiate became Carter's core disagreement with Begin. Carter realized that with Begin adamant against further concessions, he had no tangible item to offer to the Palestinians or other Arab leaders to reach a broader peace agreement. With Begin not offering a fallback position, Carter could not initiate a conclusive Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process. He never forgave Begin.

• A point he has repeatedly made when speaking to my students, his animus toward the late Israeli leader is limitless. This became evident when we were writing The Blood of Abraham, and Carter insisted on asserting that Begin "wanted to expand Israeli borders to both sides of the Jordan River." In fact, this is anachronistic. True, this had been Begin's view prior to Israel's independence in 1948, but it was not, as Carter implied, Begin's position after his twenty-nine years in the Knesset (parliament) or during his premiership. During chapter editing, I brought the error to Carter's attention. He declined to correct it.

• The Negotiations with Egypt was really two against one: During the difficult negotiations between Egypt and Israel, Carter and his advisers tried to get Sadat to engage in a collusive scheme: They would encourage Sadat to make "deliberately exaggerated" demands. The White House would then intervene to "compel" Cairo to scale back its demands in exchange for Israeli concessions. Then-national security advisor Brzezinski explained that Washington would "apply maximum leverage on Israel to accommodate,by keeping the West Bank's political future on the table for future negotiations. That Carter risked possible Israeli-Egyptian peace in an effort to extract greater concessions from Begin underscores the tension in their relationship.

• Carter also blames difficulties with Begin for undermining his re-election. In early 1980, with the critical New York Democratic primary looming, Mondale urged Carter to repudiate the U.S. vote for U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 465,which had condemned Israeli settlement activity. According to Barack Obama's Adviser Brzezinski:
  

Jewish voters swung heavily over to Senator [Edward] Kennedy, ensuring Carter's defeat. The set-back prolonged the Carter-Kennedy contest. Sadat did not want a final showdown on the Palestinian problem prior to the return of the Sinai to Egypt. Without pressure from Sadat, our own incentive to push Israel hard was much decreased. Begin proved himself to be a skilled manipulator ... adroit at delaying tactics and in diversionary public appeals ... by mid-June it was clear even to Mondale that Begin wanted Carter defeated.

Carter reminds me of Herbert Lom in the old Pink Panther movies, he played Clouseau's Boss who hated the Peter Sellers character so much that he kept trying to kill him. Lom's character keeps hurting himself in his attempts and eventually winds up insane.

Such is Jimmy Carter's sick hatred of Menachem Began. The man has been dead for sixteen year's and Cater allows his hatred to stew, effect his decision making, and cause him to ruin any legacy that he might have had.

Israel--Feeding the Hand that Bites It

In an amazing display of Hamas cynicism, todays terrorist attack in Israel was directed at a diesel fuel depot preparing a shipment of fuel for the Gaza strip. We are talking about the Gaza strip controlled by Hamas which will soon be visited by Democratic former President Jimmy Carter and the Hamas that is controlled by Iran were Democratic Candidate for President Barack Obama promises will be one of the first places he will visit if he were to be elected. Do we sense a pattern? I do. But before the GOP gets too cocky let me give you two words Condoleezza Rice. The wicked witch of the south---who has convinced Israel's feeble minded Prime Minister to avoid protecting his people at all costs. Condi keeps preventing Israel from turning up the screws on Hamas--Between Condi and Olmert--Israel keeps feeding the hand that bites it:

FROG BITES SCORPION*

By Barry Rubin

On April 9, Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip attacked the Nahal Oz fuel terminal in Israel near the border. Two Israeli workers were killed. Shortly before, a shipment of diesel fuel for the Gaza power plant, paid for by the European Union, had left there.

What makes this attack especially significant—and horrible—is that the only reason the terminal was open and the workers were present was to supply the needs of the Gaza Strip’s population. In previous months, the international media and many governments criticized Israel for not doing enough to help Gaza, despite the fact that the area is ruled by an openly anti-Semitic regime which makes clear its goal of destroying Israel, and also daily fires mortars and rockets into Israel. Indeed, as part of this attack, several mortar shells were fired at the terminal.

Hamas, and the world, cannot have it both ways. Either Hamas is the aggressor while Israel is the victim, in which case there should be full international support and favorable media coverage for Israel. Or if unwilling to take such an appropriate stance, the world cannot expect Israel to risk its people’s lives to fuel Gaza machine shops that make rockets to assault it and should stop complaining about Israeli actions in self-defense.

In either case, the latest attacks make even clear what should already be obvious: Hamas is responsible for any suffering in the Gaza Strip. And if Israel should cut off all fuel deliveries to the Gaza power plant, which would only affect about one-quarter of the area’s supplies, it is fully justified in doing so.

The situation, however, goes even beyond this: Hamas is deliberately intensifying the suffering in order to use it as a pretext for its own failure as government, its attacks on Israel, and its ability to beg for international support for victim.

Could the situation possibly be any more obvious?

Apparently it is still not obvious enough for too much of the media and too much of the Western political establishments. Of course, there are many exceptions and more so as time goes on.

One of the classic Middle East stories is the tale of the frog and the scorpion. The scorpion demands that the frog provide a ride across the river on his back. “But you will sting me and I will die,” protests the frog.

The scorpion points out, in response, that since he cannot swim he would not do such a rash thing since he, too, would drown.

The frog agrees.

The scorpion climbs onto the frog and they set off. But in the middle of the river the scorpion stings the frog, and as they sink beneath the water the frog complains, “Why did you do that? Now we’ll both die!”

And the scorpion complains: “Well, what do you expect, this is the Middle East.”

So goes the story in its traditional form. But now we can add some additional modern touches.

First, in the new version the scorpion declares that he will sting the frog without any doubt. But the frog agrees to take the scorpion because he is encouraged or intimidated by onlookers’ remarks on onlookers—“What! You won’t take that poor scorpion on a ride? What kind of imperialist, racist aggressor are you?”

Second, after the duo drowns, the next day newspapers run the following headlines:

“Frog in Unprovoked Attack on Scorpion!”

“Cycle of Violence Continues”

“Frog Uses Excessive Force on Scorpion Civilian”

* Based on the classic journalistic saying, “Man Bites Dog, news; Dog Bites Man, no news.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley)