Revitalizing the Transatlantic Security Partnership – An Agenda for Action

A Venusberg Group and Rand Corporation Project

Report written by F. Stephen Larrabee and Julian Lindley-French

The election of Barack Obama as the new U.S. president provides an opportunity to overcome many of the divisions that have bedeviled U.S.-European relations in recent years and give the transatlantic partnership new dynamism and vision. In the coming decade, the United States and Europe face a daunting array of challenges. These challenges are so complex and demanding that neither the United States nor Europe can manage them on their own. They require close and sustained collective action.

To manage these challenges successfully, the transatlantic relationship needs a new mindset based on the premise that a multipolar world is emerging—one that will affect foreign policy options and consequently the ability of Americans and Europeans to shape others. To that end, a new transatlantic security partnership must be crafted that reflects both the new global realities and the political realities in Europe and the United States.

Central to such a partnership will be shared interests and values and a mutual commitment to the projection of stability and the anchoring of emerging powers in effective multilateral institutions underpinned by a strong commitment to the international rule of law. Specifically needed is a new architecture founded on a strong U.S. involvement in NATO, NATO-EU relations aimed at promoting and projecting effective civil-military security beyond the Euro-Atlantic area and an EU-U.S. security relationship that assures the protection of the home base.

This report is aimed at furthering that goal. It seeks to define the substance and parameters of a new security partnership between the United States and Europe as well as to outline an Agenda for Action for the new partnership.

Read full story.

Zahal-Orchester auf Tour in Deutschland

Keren Hayesod Deutschland veranstaltet zwischen dem 14. und 23. November 2009 eine Konzertreihe mit dem Orchester der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL).

 Termine in Deutschland

14.11.2009: Jüdische Gemeinde Dortmund

16.11.2009: Jüdische Gemeinde Hannover

17.11.2009: Jüdische Gemeinde Kassel

19.11.2009: Sankt Marienkirche, Stralsund

21.11.2009: Jüdische Gemeinde Hamburg

22.11.2009: Kraftwerk e.V., Chemnitz

23.11.2009: Historische Rathaus, Nürnberg

Kontakt: 

Keren Hayesod Berlin

Kurfürstendamm 196 – 10707 Berlin

Tel.: (030) 88 71 93 3 – Fax: (030) 88 71 93 50

E-Mail: kh.berlin@keren-hayesod.de

British Army Hero Tells UN Human Rights Council: ‘Israeli Defense Forces Most Moral Army in History of Warfare’

Today’s emergency United Nations Human Rights Council debate in Geneva on the Goldstone Report predictably saw a line-up of the world’s worst abusers condemn democratic Israel for human rights violations.

In a heated lynch mob atmosphere, Kuwait slammed Israel for “intentional killing, intentional destruction of civilian objects, intentional scorched-earth policy”, saying Israel “embodied the Agatha Christie novel, ‘Escaped with Murder’. Pakistan said the “horrors of Israeli occupation continue to haunt the international community’s conscience.” The Arab League said, “We must condemn Israel and force Israel to accept international legitimacy.” Ahmadinejad’s Iran said “the atrocities committed against Palestinians during the aggressions on Gaza should be taken seriously” and followed up by the international community “to put an end to absolute impunity and defiance of the law.”

What the world’s assembled representatives did not expect, however, was the speech that followed (see video and text below), organized by UN Watch. The speaker is a man who repeatedly put his life on the line to defend the democratic world from the murderous Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. The moment he began his first sentence, the room simply fell silent. Judge Goldstone, author of the biased report that prompted today’s one-sided condemnation, had refused to hear Colonel Kemp’s testimony during his “fact-finding” hearings.

But UN Watch made sure today that this hero’s voice would be heard – at the United Nations, and around the world.

***

UN Human Rights Council, 12th Special Session
Debate on Goldstone Report – Geneva, October 16, 2009

Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Did More to Safeguard Civilians Than Any Army in History of Warfare

Colonel Richard Kemp served in the British Army from 1977 – 2006.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

How We Can Win in Afghanistan

 

U.S. Soldiers with the 101st Division Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division watch as two Chinook helicopters fly in to take them back to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, November 4, 2008.

 

The most pressing issue on the U.S. president’s agenda today is whether he will commit more troops to Afghanistan – the “good war.”

In an article published in the November issue of Commentary Magazine, military historian Max Boot brings all his expertise to bear on explaining how the U.S. can win in that Taliban-plagued country.

But first we have to win the battle at home – the battle to convince Barack Obama to learn the right lessons from history and to heed the wise counsel of his own general, Stanley A. McChrystal.

Read full story.

General Stanley A. McChrystal’s military strategy in Afghanistan

President Barack Obama meets with General Stanley A. McChrystal, in the Oval Office at the White House, May 19, 2009.

 

General Stanley A. McChrystal’s review of U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, in which the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan calls for an increase in troops, can be read here.

The Washington Post also reports on the military debate over whether to withdraw from isolated rural parts of Afghanistan where U.S. troops are more vulnerable to attack and refocus on urban centers.

Read full story.

French-Israeli Soldier Gilad Shalit seen for the first time in a Hamas videotape

Following Gilad Shalit family’s authorization, video of Gilad Shalit received from Hamas in exchange for prisoner release distributed to news agencies as sign of life, more than three years since soldier captured.

USA, UK and France Tell Iran to Open Nuke Site

The New York Times reports that U.S. President Obama and the leaders of UK and France will accuse Iran of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years, according to senior administration officials. 

The revelation, which the three leaders will make before the opening of the Group of 20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, appears bound to add urgency to the diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its suspected ambitions to build a nuclear weapons capacity. Mr. Obama, along with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, will demand that Iran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection of the facility, which is said to be 100 miles southwest of Tehran. 

U.S. officials said that they had been tracking the covert project for years, but that Mr. Obama decided to make public the American findings after Iran discovered, in recent weeks, that Western intelligence agencies had breached the secrecy surrounding the project.

On Monday, Iran wrote a brief, cryptic letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that it now had a ‘pilot plant’ under construction, whose existence it had never before revealed. In a statement from its headquarters in Vienna yesterday, the atomic agency confirmed that it had been told by Iran that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country.

Read full story.

American Jewish Committee’s Letter in NY Times on Goldstone Report

Israel and Gaza: Which Standards Apply?

by Richard Sideman
President, American Jewish Committee
New York, September 18, 2009

To the Editor:
Re “Justice in Gaza” (Op-Ed, Sept. 17):

Richard Goldstone displays the same disregard for Israel and naivety regarding Hamas that permeates the report he wrote for the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Since its inception in 2006, the council has consistently demonized Israel while giving a free pass to some of the world’s worst tyrants, from Sudan to Iran. Mr. Goldstone largely neglects what prompted Israel to act militarily against Hamas.

Let’s be clear for historical accuracy. Israel’s military operation came after eight years of relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli towns and villages. Indeed, thousands of rockets were launched after Israel transferred the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinians four years ago.

While the United Nations made no effort to stop the Palestinian rockets, Israel showed remarkable restraint over the years until it could not hold back anymore.

More disturbing, the Goldstone report has set a new standard for equating the behavior of democratic nations and terrorists.

He makes no moral distinction between Israel, a United Nations member state, and Hamas, a terrorist organization that violently seized control of Gaza two years ago from the Palestinian Authority.

The implications of this moral equivalency go beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, they undermine the United States and other democracies facing asymmetrical warfare from adversaries who care little for international norms of war and international humanitarian law.

In sum, Mr. Goldstone’s conclusions are a disservice to the credibility of the United Nations itself.

The United States commemorates 9/11 anniversary

Memorial services in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania commemorate the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. Eight years ago, al-Qaeda terrorists from Hamburg, Germany, hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center tower, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing 2,752 people.

The New York Times notes “the fortress city,” many New Yorkers feared to protect against a future attacks, never came to pass.

In an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami, adjunct fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, discusses the relationship between 9/11 and the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Read full story.

Lockerbie Aftermaths

Scotland’s parliament has been recalled for an emergency session today amid mounting international outrage over last week’s release of terrorist Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, convicted for the Lockerbie plane bombing.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will address the meeting to defend his decision to free al-Megrahi on “compassionate” grounds. Al-Megrahi was serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, and received a hero’s welcome on return to his home country Libya.

Read full story.

Festival Interceltique 2009 – Bagad de Lann-Bihoué

Ensemble traditionnel de musique bretonne, le bagad de Lann-Bihoué a vu le jour en 1952 sur la base aéronautique navale de Lann-Bihoué, près de Lorient.

Cette formation musicale militaire est unique en son genre. En effet, elle est la seule à représenter à la fois la Marine nationale française et la culture celtique avec un répertoire bigarré dans le cadre de diverses manifestations nationales et internationales, notamment lors du 39ème Festival Interceltique, qui s’est déroulé du 31 juillet au 9 août 2009.

USA to resume training Georgian troops

The United States will resume training Georgia troops to prepare them for service in Afghanistan, despite the possibility that the move could anger Russia. Pentagon officials say the training will not cover skills that would be useful for fighting Russia’s military.

Read full story.

Lockerbie bomber may be freed

Several news reports say Britain will release from a Scottish prison Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a former Libyan secret service agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people. Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill denied the reports that a decision has already been made, but said he is taking into consideration whether al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, should be freed on compassionate grounds.

The reports that al-Megrahi would be released aroused ardent debate between family members of the Lockerbie victims. Al-Megrahi is serving a life sentence for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Most of the victims were U.S. citizens.

Reuters considers the implications of al-Megrahi’s release for Libya.

The Times of London looks at divisions between U.S. and British relatives of Lockerbie victims over the news that al-Megrahi may be freed, noting that many British family members have long doubted his guilt and are supporting his release.

The BBC has an audio slideshow of the Lockerbie bombing.

The Guardian profiles al-Megrahi.

World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder: Mideast Peace Starts With Respect

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, the president of the World Jewish Congress argues that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Read the full contribution of Ronald S. Lauder below.

***

Mideast Peace Starts With Respect

The Wall Street Journal – August 11, 2009

by Ronald S. Lauder

Note to Obama: The Palestinians still haven’t recognized the Jewish state.

More than one American president has tried to bring peace to the Middle East, and more than one has failed. So as the Obama administration outlines its own prospectus for a comprehensive settlement to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world, it would do well to take note of some potential pitfalls.

Rule No. 1: Respect the sovereignty of democratic allies. When free people in a democracy express their preferences, the United States should respect their opinions. The current administration should not try to impose ideas on allies like Israel.

The administration would also do well to take heed of the Palestinian Authority’s continued refusal to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This is not a trivial matter. A long-term settlement can only be forged on the basis of mutual recognition and respect. To deny the essence of the Zionist project—to rebuild the Jewish people’s ancient homeland—is to call into question the seriousness of one’s commitment to peace.

It is a sad statement of the Palestinians’ approach to peace-making that denial of the Jewish homeland is not simply contained in the openly anti-Semitic leadership of Hamas. It is a widespread belief across the spectrum of Palestinian opinion. This reality must be confronted.

Today’s leadership must never forget that the core historic reason for the conflict is the Arab world’s longstanding rejection of Israel’s existence. The two-state solution was accepted by Israel’s pre-state leadership led by David Ben-Gurion in 1947 when it agreed to the partition plan contained in United Nation’s General Assembly Resolution 181. The Arabs flatly rejected it. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knows all too well, President Bill Clinton’s peace plans in 2000 foundered due to Palestinian rejection of the Jewish state, even as Israel, once again, accepted their right to statehood.

More recent experience in Europe also offers lessons about the dangers of negotiating with terrorists. Over the past year, officials from Britain, France and the European Union all held talks with officials from the “political wing” of Hezbollah in a bid to get the terrorist group to moderate its behavior. Hezbollah is undoubtedly grateful for the legitimacy that these meetings have conferred, but it is not laying down its arms. Indeed, according to a recent report from the Times of London, the group has now stockpiled 40,000 rockets close to the Israeli border.

To be sure, we must have hope. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are useful models. Nonetheless, the recent rebuffs by Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia of efforts by the Obama administration to promote a more conciliatory attitude to Israel offer a salient reminder that those who started this conflict may not yet be in a mood to end it, whatever their rhetoric to the contrary.

And then there are the settlements. Undoubtedly, this is a complex matter. Yet the administration must beware of overemphasizing it. Compromises between people of goodwill can be made on the settlements, as Israel has demonstrated in the recent past. But no compromise can be made on Israel’s right to exist inside secure borders unmolested by terrorist groups or threatened by belligerent states.

That’s why an unambiguous strategy explaining precisely how Hamas and Hezbollah can be disarmed and how Iran can be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons is of central importance to any peace plan.

The administration must also be wary of letting Israel’s opponents use the settlement issue as a convenient excuse for failing to make moves of their own. The settlements matter, but they do not go to the core of this decades-old conflict.

Making peace in the Middle East is an unenviable task. It is also a noble calling. To be successful, it will require patience and fortitude. It will also require an ability to stand above the fray, to see the problems for what they are, and the courage to confront them at their source.

Earl Shugerman’s Corner: The Sabra

Earl Shugerman, will bring every week a serie of stories about Anglo-Saxon immigrants to Israel. This project is aimed to promote a more realistic view of life in Israel.

The term Sabra has been traditionally used to refer to native born Israelis. It is believed that the Sabra {lit meaning cactus} is hard and prickly, but in reality this is an unfair characterisation. In contrast, Sabras are warm and welcoming. Israel’s diverse community is a testimony to a spirit of camaraderie. On an annual basis, the country has embraced a burgeoning number of immigrants. It also remains committed to realising a peaceful accord with its Arab neighbours.

Israelis are forced to live three lives: That of a soldier, citizen and peace-maker. Jesse Lachter is a leader in all three respects.

Dr. Jesse Lachter has lived in Haifa, Israel since making aliya in 1979. He was born and raised in the USA and is a native of Wisconsin. He is married and has four children, aged 7-22. He is a physician at the renowned Rambam Medical Facility. When duty calls, he is a senior officer in the IDF (Israel Defence Force) reserves. His social activism spans teaching in a Reform synagogue, environmental issues, bi-national Israeli-American issues, and advocacy of pluralism. He considers himself a peacenik. During the Second Lebanon War, Jesse treated wounded civilians and soldiers in Haifa and Nahariya. 

***

Dr. Jesse Lachter’s War Blog – July 27, 2006

Shalom all,

them were soldiers. Rambam hospital, where I did bikkur holim (sick visits) today has about 50 people now hospitalised due to war injuries, and more are coming in each day. The relevant medical staffs are working round the clock. Rambam has lots of experience in trauma care including mass injuries. The mechanisms are all in place in case things get even worse.

The stories of the patients and their families are sometimes heartbreaking, sometimes inspiring. A pilot regained consciousness after a week. His helicopter fell a great distance and the co-pilot died. His mother told me she feels she got her son back – although he’s still in intensive care, with many injuries. This will necessitate lots of support. Soldiers from the Golani brigade, who are now side-by side in medical wards, were yesterday fighting tough face-to-face battles. Several soldiers were injured. Of course, there are also people, generally civilians, who come to the hospital unable to cope emotionally. The frequent blaring sirens, the blasting and thudding echoing sounds of missiles landing – the noises and the opposing silence of the streets and silencing of the lives of so many, leads to a breakdown of coping ability even among people who are generally resilient.

What can anyone do to try to ameliorate the situation?

The Israeli Movement for Progressive Judaism set up a refuge for citizens of the North, especially those with children, using a site in the South of Israel. People who have been bombarded and terrorized over the past weeks can find respite from the bombing and there has been financial support for this from Israel and from abroad. In my new volunteer elected position as Deputy Chairman of the National Committee of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism, we continue to find ways to help people from the bombarded communities of the North.

Rabbi Avi Weiss of Riverdale, flew in from New York and I joined him in meeting the wounded and making visits of spiritual support and chaplaincy. Several Israelis including lay groups and VIPs made bikkur holim supportive visits.

The synagogue I belong to, Or Hadash, had all its bar mitzvah ceremonies cancelled. The day camp for kids was cancelled. Incoming monies expected will not come in, but salaries and bills will have to be paid.

I wanted to share my impressions with as many sympathetic ears as possible. As I write, the sirens in Haifa just began again – time to huddle the family together in the safest spot in the house until a boom passes and we are once again rattled. Israel will survive, and we are firm in our resolve to reduce the threats from Hezbollah. We hope and pray for a speedy resolution of the current conflict.

***

Three years later, we’ve had another conflict in Gaza. In that respect, the country sadly remains on a war footing. However, efforts to build peaceful relations continue. The authors of this column have been privileged to participate in peace building initiatives at our Synagogue.

We have had youth soccer games with our Muslim friends and neighbours the local Ahmaddiyah. The local Focolare meeting was cited in the previous article. Furthermore, a television show was broadcast throughout the World.  It documented a sports event (run4unity) involving Muslims, Christians and Jews. Everyone indulged in the affable atmosphere.

One of Dr. Lachters projects is to develop a dialogue with the Druze of Northern Israel. Their faith is an offshoot of Islam. The Druze are among the most loyal Israelis and serve in the army. They have produced many of Israel’s predominant physicians, academics and soldiers.

In our next article, we will convey our gratitude to the AACI – the reputable group assisting immigrants from the US and Canada to settle in the Holy Land. We will expand on some of their social activities and how Israelis enjoy life in one of the most beautiful and complex nations.

About the author: Earl Shugerman is a retired American Government public relations specialist, and currently spokesperson in Haifa for the Jewish Agency and a writer specializing in interfaith relations. He has worked together with the Catholic and Southern Baptist Movements, the Reformed Jewish Movement and Muslim groups in interfaith activities.

Leadership as Practical Ethics

A paper Leadership as Practical Ethics written by Dr. Joel Rosenthal, President of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and presented at the US Army War College cosponsored research colloquium, Leadership and National Security Reform, is available at the Carnegie Council webseite.

“What does one need to know to be a leader in the field of public policy? I want to argue for the centrality of ethics as a basic component of leadership training for anyone pursuing a career in public and international affairs.

If you are a student, please take a moment to ask yourself what you have learned about ethics in your time in the classroom. If you are a teacher or administrator, consider what your curriculum covers in this regard. We know that medical students engage medical ethics, law students study legal ethics, business students take on business ethics, military officers study military ethics, and so on. So let’s ask ourselves, what should students and aspiring leaders in public affairs know about ethics to be considered professionals competent to practice?

By ethics, I do not mean simply compliance with law. Compliance is of course an essential part of ethics. But it is only a beginning. Compliance is a floor, a minimum upon which to build. Many actions in government, business, or private life comply with the law but are not optimal from an ethical perspective.

Examples are all around us. British members of parliament may not have broken laws when they used expense accounts to bill tax payers for lifestyle enhancements such as moat cleaning, the upkeep of expensive second homes, or the rental of adult movies. But surely this kind of behavior was wrong. In more serious policy matters, it may well be that most of our major banks and financial institutions were in full compliance with the law when it came to the management of credit default swaps and derivative trading. Yet something went very wrong in the area of risk and responsibility. There are many things we can do and still be in compliance with law—but some of them are wrong. Ethical reasoning helps us make these distinctions.”

Read full story.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton in North Korea

 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy shaking hands with teenager Bill Clinton.

 

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton made a surprise visit to North Korea to try to convince the government to liberate two imprisoned U.S. journalists.

The journalists – Euna Lee and Laura Ling, of U.S. media outlet Current TV – were arrested on the North Korea-China border in March. The women were sentenced to twelve years of hard labour for entering the country illegally and for “hostile acts.”

Bill Clinton is well respected in North Korea, as he almost visited Pyongyang toward the end of his presidency, and because he met with North Korea’s top military commander, Jo Myong-rok, in Washington in 2000. North Korea and the United States also made a deal to freeze plutonium-based nuclear reactor at Yongbyon under the Clinton administration.

Former South Korean government official Park Chan-bong tells the Wall Street Journal the talks will probably serve as a launching point for bilateral discussions between the two countries.

Read full story.

The targeting of Israel and Darfur by the Arab world

by Dr. Kenneth Levin

The world’s media have given scant coverage lately to the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and – despite extensive reporting on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict – they have likewise offered little on the continuing campaign of genocidal incitement against Israel by her enemies.

While seeming very separate issues, the two campaigns, and the choice by media and world leaders largely to ignore both, are, in fact, connected.

On one level, of course, the connection is obvious. Israel-hatred is spearheaded by the Arab world; in virtually every Arab nation, demonizing and delegitimizing of Israel, and often of Jews, is a staple of government-controlled media, schools and mosques. This is true even of the Arab states with which Israel is formally at peace. At the same time, the Arab world is the chief support of fellow Arab leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his Sudanese regime’s genocidal assault on the Muslim blacks of Darfur. Illustrative was the Arab League’s unanimous, effusive embrace and defense of al-Bashir at its meeting in Doha, Qatar, in March, shortly after his indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Efforts at mass murder directed at Israel and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur flow from the same mindset.

Tunisian human rights activist Mohammed Bechri several years ago argued that to understand Arab support for the genocide in Darfur, one has to recognize the “twin fascisms” – Bechri’s term – that dominate the Arab world: Islamism and Pan-Arabism. The first rejects the legitimacy of any non-Muslim group within what the Arabs perceive as their proper domain; the latter takes the same view towards any non-Arab group. The genocidal rhetoric, and efforts at mass murder, directed at Israel, and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur follow from this mindset. (Bechri’s “twin fascisms” also account for the besiegement of Christians across the Arab world and backing for Sudan’s murder of some two million Christian and animist blacks in the south of the country. They help explain as well broad Arab support for the mass murder of Kurds – a Muslim but non-Arab people – in Iraq by Saddam Hussein and for the besiegement of the Kurds of Syria and the Berbers – another non-Arab Muslim group – in Algeria.)

But the connection between animosity towards Israel and coldness towards the victims in Darfur extends beyond the Arab world. It embraces, for example, all those European leaders who bend their consciences to accommodate Arab power – in oil, money and strategic territories – and who may pay lip service to recognizing the murderous incitement and related threats faced by Israel or to deploring the crimes suffered by Darfur but refuse to take serious steps to curb either.

Nor are American leaders entirely free of similar predilections. President Bush (43) was certainly sympathetic to Israel’s predicament. But he sought to assuage Arab opinion by pushing for rapid movement towards a Palestinian state and endorsing Machmoud Abbas as Israel’s “peace” partner, even as Abbas refused to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, consistently praised anti-Israel terror and stood fast in demanding a “right of return” that would turn Israel into yet another Arab-dominated entity. (On Darfur, the “moderate” Abbas responded to the ICC indictment by declaring, “We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir.”) Regarding Darfur, President Bush led the way in condemning Sudan’s campaign of mass murder and rape and first calling it a genocide. But — already attacked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — he was not prepared to act aggressively against a third Muslim nation, even though doing so would have been aimed at saving hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives.

President Obama has adopted winning over Arab and broader Muslim opinion as a foreign policy priority and he has shown little interest in according more than verbal acknowledgment to the threats facing Israel. At the same time, those in the Muslim world whose good opinion he is most seeking to win are not the Muslims of Darfur but rather Darfur’s oppressors and their supporters. Some of President Obama’s ardent backers have expressed dismay, and have been openly critical of him, for what they see as his reneging on campaign pledges to put Darfur at the top of his agenda. (For example, Kirsten Powers, “Bam’s Darfur Sins,” in the New York Post, May 11, 2009). But given his focus on appeasing Muslims hostile to America, his inaction on Darfur should not surprise.

In major Western media as well, deference to Arab opinion vis-a-vis Israel has generally been accompanied by silence on the central role of the Arab world in providing support for Sudan’s actions in Darfur. While the Arab League’s embrace in Doha of Sudanese President al-Bashir was widely reported, few major outlets offered editorial criticism of the Arab stance — The Washington Post being a notable exception. The New York Times, which for decades has used both “news stories” and editorials to argue that Israeli concessions are the key to peace and has refused to cover the genocidal incitement against Israel and Jews endemic in Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools, offered no editorial opinion on the Doha meeting.

Kristoff generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide.

Several years ago, the Times‘ Nicholas Kristof won a Pulitzer Prize for his op-ed coverage of the slaughter in Darfur. Kristof is a constant critic of Israel and, like his bosses, avoids the issue of rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, and promotion of genocidal hatred towards the Jewish state, by its Arab neighbors. In a similar vein, for all his extensive writing on Darfur, he generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide. In some forty op-eds on Darfur published between March, 2004, and April, 2006, shortly after he won the Pulitzer, Kristof devoted only five sentences to Arab backing of the Sudanese regime, and that in an article focused on China’s shameful complicity in Darfur.

But if all this not is very surprising, there are also more curious aspects to the convergence of animosity, often of murderous dimensions, towards Israel and sympathy for, or at least indulgence of, those who perpetrate the genocide in Darfur.

For example, while Egypt has not overtly broken with the unanimous Arab League support for al-Bashir, Egyptian President Mubarak chose not to attend the Doha conference, and he and some other Arab leaders have been worried about the Islamist Sudanese regime’s close ties to Iran and to Iran’s radical Arab allies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet a number of Western leaders, who advocate “dialogue” with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, prefer to ignore their genocidal agenda towards Israel and their leading role in aiding Sudan’s genocidal government – in effect, outpacing Egyptian backing of al-Bashir by soft-pedaling the role in Sudan of those most supportive of al-Bashir’s murderous regime.

Iran has long given extensive financial assistance to the Sudanese government, has provided its forces with weapons and training and has underwritten Chinese provision of arms to al-Bashir. Sudan, again with Iran serving as financier and mid-wife, has also been a training ground for Hamas, fostering as well an ongoing cross-fertilization between Hamas and the militias responsible for the Darfur genocide. Hezbollah and Syria have likewise been in the forefront of Sudan’s supporters and enablers.

Following the International Criminal Court’s action against al-Bashir, a delegation of his radical allies quickly arrived in Khartoum in a show of solidarity with their indicted brother. It included the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, Syrian parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash and an official of Hezbollah. Hamas also sponsored a large pro-Sudan march in Gaza.

But inevitably, Khartoum’s allies’ contributions to the Darfur genocide, like their promotion of genocide vis-a-vis Israel, are ignored by those eager for diplomatic engagement with them.

Also in early March, around the time of the ICC indictment, the British Foreign Office, led by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, announced its agreement to talks with Hezbollah. More recently, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner have met with Hezbollah representatives. Hezbollah head Nasrallah’s commitment to the murder of all Jews – as in his 2002 statement that “if [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide” (in the past Hezbollah has gone after them as far afield as in Argentina) – was hardly something Miliband and the Foreign Office, or the Quai D’Orsay, or Solana and the European Union, or those British and continental media sympathetic to Hezbollah, were about to note. Nor were they going to note Hezbollah’s support for Sudan’s policies in Darfur.

Similarly, those many European leaders promoting engagement with Hamas typically avoid acknowledging Hamas’s call in its charter for the slaughter of all Jews, its teaching Palestinian children – in its schools and on children’s television – that Jews are eternal enemies of Islam and must be annihilated, and its other purveying of genocidal Jew-hatred. In April, the Dutch Labor party demanded that the European Union sanction Israel if it refuses to accept Hamas as a negotiating partner. Dutch Labor party leaders and like-minded European politicians, in their efforts to push acceptance of Hamas, soft-pedal its aims regarding Israelis and Jews and likewise say little about Hamas’s support of and contributions to Sudan’s genocidal assault on the blacks of Darfur.

European media that are hostile to Israel also virtually ignore Hamas’s genocidal policies and actions regarding both Israel and Darfur. British news outlets such as The Guardian and The Independent, which had barely covered years of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities, or Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for its attacks, but excoriated Israel when it responded with its assault on Hamas beginning in December, 2008, are likewise essentially silent regarding Hamas’s promotion of mass murder in Israel and support for mass murder in Darfur. The same is true for myriad news outlets on the Continent.

Most American political leaders have shunned Hamas for its commitment — in words and deeds – to Israel’s destruction and for its genocidal agenda. (There are some notable exceptions such as Jimmy Carter, who has met with Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal and urged including Hamas in “peace” talks.) But many American media organizations, particularly those, like the New York Times, most committed to portraying Israeli policy as the major obstacle to peace, have followed their European counterparts in saying little of Hamas’s genocidal policies regarding Jews or of its support for Sudan’s genocidal policies in Darfur.

Even people whom one might expect to identify most closely with the victims of the Darfur genocide often do nothing, or limit their actions to words, or actually lend support to the perpetrators, in large part because of pro-Arab sympathies or hostility to Israel. Congress has one Muslim black representative, Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, and Ellison has at times spoken out against the Darfur genocide. In April, for example, he joined a protest at the Sudanese embassy in Washington and was arrested along with other demonstrators. But Ellison has consistently supported pro-Hamas groups in America. He also aggressively embraced the Hamas line in last winter’s Gaza War in terms of alleged civilian casualties and Israeli misdeeds while remaining silent on Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for attacks on Israel. Ellison has likewise never publicly addressed Hamas’s alliance with Sudan and its backing of Sudanese policies in Darfur. Alignment with those arrayed against Israel seems to trump criticism of those arrayed against Darfur for the Minnesota congressman.

The major force driving genocidal agendas toward Israel and Darfur is, again, Arab supremacism. It is abetted in the wider world by power politics, as well as by, in many quarters, a twisted ideological allegiance whose credo requires that hostility to the Jewish state and consequent sympathy for, or prettifying of, those dedicated to her destruction trumps sympathy for Darfur and criticism of those participating in its people’s annihilation. The overall result is that powerful links between murderous hatred towards Israel and support for, or at least accommodation of, genocide in Darfur are a fixture of today’s geopolitics and go largely unchallenged.

A longer version of this article originally appeared on www.frontpagemag.com.

Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.

New Afghanistan strategy

Lieutenant General Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is preparing a new strategy for U.S. forces, calling for unconventional methods for dealing with the Taliban fighters.

McChrystal will reportedly ask for a doubling of the number of U.S. and NATO troops stationed in Afghanistan, and will call for a change in the “operational culture” of U.S. and NATO forces. He will recommend that commanders boost personal contact with Afghans, possibly living in towns and spending more time on foot patrols.

The Los Angeles Times interviews McChrystal on the assessment of military operations.

Read full story.

Der zweite Libanonkrieg – drei Jahre danach

 Am 12. Juni 2006 drang ein Trupp von Hisbollah-Terroristen in israelisches Territorium ein und attackierte eine Patrouille der israelischen Armee. Während des Angriffs und dem nachfolgenden Versuch der Rettung von zwei entführten Soldaten würden acht israelische Soldaten getötet. Die Leichen der entführten Soldaten, Stabsfeldwebel der Reserve Ehud Goldwasser und Hauptfeldwebel der Reserve Eldad Regev, wurden am 16. Juli 2008 nach Israel zurückgeführt.

In Reaktion auf den Überfall griff die israelische Armee das Hisbollah-Hauptquartier im Libanon sowie den internationalen Flughafen von Beirut an und verhängte eine Luft- und Seeblockade, gefolgt von einer Bodenoffensive im Südlibanon.

Während des Krieges, der vom 12.Juli bis zum 14. August 2006 dauerte, griff die Hisbollah absichtlich die israelische Zivilbevölkerung an, indem sie mehr als 4000 Raketen auf dicht bevölkerte Gebiete abfeuerte. 44 israelische Zivilisten wurden getötet und über 600 verletzt. Außerdem wurden 121 israelische Soldaten getötet und 450 verwundet. Die Hisbollah konnte sich auf ein ansehnliches Waffenarsenal stützen, darunter 1000 Langstreckenraketen, über 13 000 Kurzstreckenraketen sowie Luftwaffen- und Marineeinheiten und Guerilla-Truppen zu Land mit Panzerabwehrwaffen.

Die Antwort der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte beinhaltete den Einsatz von etwa 10 000 Soldaten im Libanon, 18 800 Lufteinsätze, den Beschuss mit 120 000 Artilleriegranaten. Mehr als 600 Hisbollah-Terroristen wurden getötet, und die Infrastruktur der Terrororganisation, darunter 15 000 ihrer Stellungen, wurde schwer getroffen. Während des Krieges koordinierte die israelische Armee erfolgreich 800 Hilfskonvois sowie 613 Evakuierungen auf dem Luft-, Land- und Seeweg.

Am 12. August 2006 wurde die UN-Sicherheitsratsresolution 1701 angenommen, die zu einem Waffenstillstand und dem Ende des Krieges führte. Die Resolution rief zur völligen Einstellung der Kampfhandlungen auf und grenzte das Gebiet zwischen der Blauen Linie und dem Litani-Fluss als Pufferzone ab, die frei sein sollte von „bewaffneten Kämpfern, Posten und Waffen, die nicht der libanesischen Regierung oder UNIFIL angehören“. Außerdem wurden die UN-Truppen auf 15 000 Mann aufgestockt.

Drei Jahre nach dem zweiten Libanonkrieg bleibt die Hisbollah von den Nachwirkungen des Krieges beeinflusst. Die Terrororganisation hat sich im Libanon sowohl in politischer als auch militärischer Hinsicht als einflussreiche Kraft etabliert.

Durch den militärischen Erholungsprozess sowohl in qualitativer als auch quantitativer Hinsicht besitzt die Terrororganisation in ihrer Funktion als verlängerter Arm des radikalen Lagers unter der Führung des Iran ein größeres Waffenarsenal als viele Staaten.

Dadurch hat die Hisbollah raffiniertere und weiter reichende Möglichkeiten sowohl im Nord- als auch im Südlibanon erhalten, die in direktem Widerspruch zur UN-Sicherheitsratsresolution 1701 stehen. Wiederholt hat sie ihre Absicht gezeigt, ein politischer Faktor im Staat zu bleiben, und ist dabei so weit gegangen, dass sie ihre Waffen im Mai 2008 gegen die libanesische Armee gerichtet hat.

Das anschließende Doha-Abkommen verlieh ihr in der Regierung die Möglichkeit des „blockierenden Dritten“. In den Wahlen vom Juni 2009 scheiterte die Hisbollah daran, diesselbe Unterstützung wieder zu gewinnen; die moderne 14. März-Fraktion gewann 71 von 128 Sitzen. Aufgrund fehlender Errungenschaften vor Ort bleibt dies jedoch von lediglich symbolischer Bedeutung.

Quelle: Außenministerium des Staates Israel.

India gets nuclear submarine

India will launch its first nuclear submarine later this month, the Financial Times reports.

The submarine would add India to a short list of countries with the capability to launch a nuclear strike from the sea.

Read full story.

China’s public relations strategy

Thousands of Chinese military forces have been deployed into Urumqi, Xinjiang’s regional capital, in an attempt to control turmoil that has led to over 150 deaths in recent days.

A BBC correspondent in Urumqi says the situation “feels like martial law in everything but name.” The troop deployment comes after disorder yesterday when thousands of angry ethnic Han Chinese wielding improvised weapons engaged in sporadic revenge attacks against Uighurs after deadly riots Sunday.

Meanwhile, Chinese President Hu Jintao left the G8 summit in Italy and returned to Beijing to deal with the violence. The Wall Street Journal says Hu’s departure from the G8 summit underlines the severity of the challenge the Xinjiang violence presents to China’s leadership.

Newsweek looks at the evolution of China’s public relations strategy, as evidenced in the latest crisis.

Read full story.

U.S. marines launch major Afghan offensive

U.S. marines launched today a military offensive to retake the Helmand River Valley in south-western Afghanistan from Taliban militants.

The U.S. military says this operation is the largest since its invasion of Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004. The focus of the offensive will be bolstering local Afghan governments and protecting civilians. Pakistan says it deployed troops to a stretch of its border to prevent insurgents from fleeing across.

Reuters provides a Q&A on the new military offensive.

Read full story.

Mossad says Iran to have nuclear weapon by 2014

The head of the Mossad has said that Iran will be able to launch its first nuclear weapon by 2014.

Meir Dagan, the Israeli intelligence agency chief, told a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that “If the project has no technical glitches, and if Iran’s program does not malfunction in any way, they will have a bomb to launch by 2014. This is a significant existential threat for the State of Israel. We must distance this threat.”

Meir Dagan also said that the current unrest in Iran over the disputed results of last week’s presidential election was “an internal matter” and that it would soon die down. He said the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would make it easier for Israel to explain to the world the significance of the threat of Iran gaining nuclear capability. He also pointed out to the committee that it was actually the more moderate candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had actually started Iran’s nuclear program when he was prime minister.

Iran’s New Revolution

Iran entered its final day of campaigning before its presidential elections tomorrow. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s challengers held rival protests in the city, criticizing the president for his crackdowns on personal freedoms and his troubles managing Iran’s struggling economy.

Several media have noted that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s challengers, mostly the reformists Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, once appeared pretty weak but seem to have gained momentum in recent weeks. It remains to be seen, of course, whether any of the challengers stands a chance of unseating the president. Some analysts have predicted that Mousavi and Karroubi will split the reformist vote, undermining one another.

The Economist says the results of the vote could hinge primarily on voter turnout, with higher turnout benefiting the reformists. The piece notes that recent televised debates seem to have energized Iranians “as much as any [election] since the Islamic revolution of 1979.”

The New York Times reports the state of the Iranian economy has emerged as a defining issue ahead of the vote.

EurasiaNet has an analysis arguing that Ahmadinejad may be trying to foment a “revolution within the Islamic Revolution” in hopes of establishing a “neoconservative dictatorship with the blessing of the country’s spiritual leader.” The problem, the article says, is that Ahmadinejad’s opponents are stronger than the Iranian president once thought.

Foreign Policy has a special report on the elections questioning whether a new revolution might be taking place.

Read full story.

D-Day – June 6, 1944: The Meaning of the Supreme Sacrifice of Heroes and Guardians of Freedom

 

Let Our Hearts Be Stout – Roosevelt D-Day Prayer

My Fellow Americans,

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest – until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home – fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them – help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too – strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment – let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace – a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.

U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – June 6, 1944

The Debate over Keeping America Safe

Last week, President Barack Obama and former vice president Dick Cheney presented competing views of how America was kept secure after September 11, 2001 - and how to proceed in the future.

Mr. Cheney, who has rejoined the Board of Trustees of the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) since leaving government in January 2009, gave a widely covered speech at AEI on May 21, 2009, just minutes after President Barack Obama spoke. The president defended his ban on enhanced interrogation techniques and his plans to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Cheney first documented the threats America faced in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and how the Bush administration shaped the nation’s response. The post-9/11 “comprehensive strategy” has “required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden,” he said. “Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive–and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.”

Key to the successful post-9/11 strategy, Mr. Cheney said, was “accurate intelligence” – including that received through enhanced interrogation.

Danielle Pletka, foreign policy insider and former staff member for Near East and South Asia at the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate, commented on the Cheney speech in the pages of USA Today. 

Read full story.