Wednesday July 1, 2009

Column:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not make empty threats.

Last week the president of Iran threatened the president of Azerbaijan. Using his foreign minister as a mouthpiece, Ahmadinejad threatened to severely punish Azerbaijan if the official visit of Israeli President Shimon Peres was not cancelled.

The official visit went on as planned. And this week the Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan was called home.

Shimon Peres, undaunted by the diplomatic curve he had been thrown Azerbaijan, continued on to the Central Asian country of Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan is a burgeoning country. It has a blossoming economy and its influence in the Muslim world is substantial and growing more substantial. Kazakhstan is a country in the right place, with the right natural resources, at the right time in history.

Kazakhstan is the 2nd largest producer of uranium in the world and has, by far, the largest uranium reserves in Eurasia. The only country that has more uranium than Kazakhstan is Australia, but Australia can never wield the influence over the Muslim world that Kazakhstan can wield. Nuclear energy speaks volumes in today's world.

Shimon Peres had multiple agendas in going to Kazakhstan. One of those reasons was expanding relations between Israel and a significant Muslim country. Another reason had to do with nuclear energy. Peres wanted assurances that Kazakhstan would not be supplying nuclear fuel to Iran. The promises were received, but promises from Kazakhstan are not completely reliable.

Last year I wrote about a train that departed from Kyrgyzstan, crossed into Kazakhstan and then crossed the border into Uzbekistan where it was intercepted and stopped. The train was making its way to Iran. The train was filled with uranium. It had already traveled through and crossed over the entire Kazakh before it was stopped on the Uzebeki side of the border.

The Uzebeki border guards were shocked to find the uranium. They sent it back and alerted the Kazakh government. In retrospect, that was probably not the wisest move. According to most people in the know, including International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed el Baradei, Kazakhstan is one of the most nuclear-trafficked states in the world.

Uranium is for Kazakhstan what oil is for Saudi Arabia. Every country will want it, many countries will need it and Kazakhstan will be one of the only countries that has it. Estimates for the revenue Kazakhstan will reap exporting their natural resource are coming in high, as high as $15 - $20 billion a year for this sleepy little Asian Muslim country.

Central Asia is the future battlefield for the conflict between East and West. It is where Islam retains a strong moderate tradition, it is also where the Fundamentalist population is growing. Kazakhstan realizes that it is coming of age and that it will very soon be in control of the world's supply of nuclear fuel much the same way OPEC is in control of the world's oil production and supply.

We must keep a very close eye on Kazakhstan. We must nurture the Kazakhs and help them grow responsibly. We must cultivate a deep and trusting relationship with Kazakhstan. We must make every effort to lure Kazakhstan away from Iranian influences. If Kazakhstan falls under the influence of Iran the results will be cataclysmal for the Western world.

That is why Iran's president saw fit to make threats. It is why Israel's president thought it wise to pay a visit.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Wednesday June 24, 2009

Column:

Think of a word that expresses the ideal for which the Western world strives.
That word would be "democracy."

Think of a concept that epitomizes a dream for all Westerners.
That concept would be "freedom."

Think of a game that emblemizes the way Westerners chase after that ideal and live out that dream.
That game is "follow the leader."

As independent as we think we are, we in the West look to leaders to rally us forward and define our purpose. For Westerners, especially in the United States, every movement needs a face.

Good movements or bad movements, ideological movements or religious movements, self help movements or mass demonstration movements - every movement needs a leader, every movement needs a face.

Americans join the army because Uncle Sam asks us to. Americans slim down because Tommy Lasorda, Valerie Bertinelli or Oprah ask us to. Our leaders shape our world by shaping our ideas.

We cannot understand Islamic terror, so we focus on Osama bin Laden. We cannot understand the complex tribal balance between Arab groups, so we focus on Saddam Hussein. We cannot understand Hezbollah, so we focus on Nasrallah. We cannot understand the thirst for freedom, so we focus on twenty-six year old Neda Agha-Soltan lying dead in the street. We cannot understand a government so willing to strip away the freedoms of its citizens, so we focus on Mir Hussein Mousavi.

We cannot understand, even our supreme leader, our president, does not completely understand, but we should try.

The power of the events now unfolding in Iran has revealed the true Iran. The curtain has been lifted and we must allow the reality of life and governance and religious control in Iran to take hold in our minds and in the minds of our leaders, our decision makers, the faces we look up to and follow.

The execution of Neda, shot through the heart by Iranian secret security sniper fire has outraged the world. Neda's death is proof positive that the leadership of Iran is not about to either reform or to liberalize. And as that reality sinks in we must also realize that no matter who the elected face of government in Iran belongs to, nothing will change.

Mir Hussein Mousavi's greatest contribution to the movement that we think he leads is that he is not Mohammad Ahmadinejad. The biggest difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad is that Mousavi wears nicely cut pinstripe suits and Ahmadinejad wears polyester leisure suits.

The people of Iran had their cause, they had their movement. They were not looking for a leader - they were looking to express themselves in a peaceful manner. They went out to vote, not riot. And then they went out to peacefully demonstrate, not violently revolt.

But the West could not understand what was happening. So the Western media chose a face for the people of Iran, and that faced belonged to Mousavi. The media chose Mousavi not for Iranians - they knew all along that all the candidates were one and the same, they chose him so that the West would have a face and therefore be able to understand the movement taking place in Iran.

Iranians are upset not because Ahmadinejad was declared winner in this election and Mousavi was not, they are upset because Ahmadinejad was proclaimed to have won a landslide victory. And that means that their votes were not even counted. Ahmadinejad might have honestly won the election, but not by that large a margin.

The Supreme Leader miscalculated, and he knows it. And that is why Iran has exhibited so much patience in dealing with this internal crisis. That is why so few protesters have died so far. Hundreds of graves, rectangles dug into the earth, have been prepared for the violence. The family of one victim was told that they
could not receive their loved one's body for burial unless they paid for the cost of the bullets used to kill him. The sum they were given was equivalent to $3000. Thankfully, most other graves remain open and unused.

Other countries in the region would not have behaved with such restraint. Egypt and Jordan, friends of the West, would never have permitted these protests to continue. By now, Syria would have massacred thousands of protesters making it clear from the outset that protests are not permitted.

And if Mousavi were in office, he would do the same. As prime minister of Iran Mousavi was responsible for 7,000 deaths by execution of Iranians who challenged the authority. Under Mousavi the fatwah, the religious edict calling for the death of Salman Rushdie was issued. Mousavi, the face the West has chosen to represent freedom from Iranian persecution, called upon all Iranians to kill the author on sight.

In the West we need leaders to propel our movements. In non-Western countries leaders inhibit movement.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Wednesday June 17, 2009

Column:

The light has finally gone on in American foreign policy vis a vis Iran. The token has finally fallen into place. The president is finally speaking about Iran in terms that prove that he, Barack Obama, really, finally, understands Iran.

In remarks that were on target and accurate, soundbites that reflect good advice and sound judgment about the crisis in Iran. President Obama said: "It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, in terms of their actual policies, may not be as great as has been advertised..."

He said: "Either way we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons."

And in discussing the real differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Mousavi he said that those differences: "[M]ay not be as great as has been advertised." That is an understatement of the highest order, but at least the truth has finally been spoken by the American president.

Obama is acknowledging, explaining to the people of the United States of America, that when it comes to the big issues, to the issues that mist directly affect the United States - to nuclear development and to religion, that there is little to no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Both candidates are insiders. Both candidates were vetted by the religious council of Iran and chosen as four out of four hundred other wannabe candidates to be the mouthpiece of the real leader of Iran, The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. And why? Because both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi represent the mullahs of Iran and both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad respect the religious establishment that is Iran.

So, one might rightfully ask, if Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are so similar, why is there such a public row in the street of Teheran? If they are both the same, what difference does it make who wears the mantle?

The answer is actually very simple. The one great difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is that Mousavi is not Ahmadinejad. Iranians are tired of Ahamdinejad. The sheer fact that Mousavi is not Ahmadinejad was enough to motivate Iranians to vote for the one and against the other. Anyone would have beat out Ahmadinejad if this were a real election. But a real election it was not.

The vote against Ahmadinejad was a rejection of the religious leadership of Iran. That holds true despite the fact the Mousavi represents the same religious leadership. The vote against Ahmadinejad was a rejection of the role played by the political leadership within Iran. That holds true despite the fact that Mousavi has also held political office, serving as prime minister under the founder of the Revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

As they were casting their votes every Iranian knew that the only vote that would count would be the one cast by The Supreme Leader. They knew it as well as Mousavi knew it.
They knew that the only way Mousavi would win the election would be if The Supreme Leader was convinced that Mousavi would be an even more willing and convincing messenger than Ahmadinejad had been.

The people tried to convince The Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader was not swayed. Their message was not convincing enough. The people tried hard and they have not given up trying. They are paying with their freedom and with their lives.

Here again, finally, President Obama is showing knowledge heretofore unseen. "I do believe that something has happened in Iran," he said. "There is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past and that there are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy."

And Obama is beginning to understand The Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei and the real monopoly he holds over the lives of the Iranian people. He hinted that the Ayatollah might actually have insight and influence when he said that the Supreme Leader "indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

There are a few things I will never understand. Why the president chose a midday show on CNBC as the platform from which to broadcast the most important and profound statements he has made about Iran since the days leading up to and following the election, is beyond me. CNBC is watched, depending on the day of the week and the time of day, by between 20,000 and 300,000 people. More people watch the local evening news in Akron, Ohio than watch daytime CNBC.

And why it took until Tuesday, five days after the Iranian election, for the president to show us that he has finally been briefed by someone who really knows what is happening is another unsolvable.

As they say, better later than never.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Wednesday June 10, 2009

Column:

Strategy. Tactics. Move and countermove. Sometimes it's called chess, sometimes it's called diplomacy.

Foreign policy and international relations aside, United States President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Bibi Netanyahu are now engaged in a game of chess. And no, the pawns in this game are not the Palestinian people or Palestinian nationhood. The pawn in this game is a relationship forged long ago between two countries with many significant shared values and principles.

Obama and Netanyahu each have their own philosophy of fair play. Right now, they are trying to psyche each other out. And as in any game of chess, sacrifices will be made. In this game, sacrifices are being made in order to gain better position and advantage and at times, even to give an impression of changing style and attitude and strategy.

The game is being played over the idea of a Two State Solution, an idea that Obama is pushing hard and Netanyahu cannot accept.

The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly rejected the term Two State Solution while the American president speaks of it as a sine qua non. So where do they go from here?

The president made an important speech on June 4th in Cairo. The prime minister will be making his own important speech, a counter speech,on Sunday at Bar Ilan University. In his speech, Netanyahu will speak about Palestinian self rule. He will stress the importance of Palestinian self rule. He will speak of the necessity of building an infrastructure for a state. He will say that it is a time to build, not to destroy. He will be playing tactical semantics.

For Netanyahu, Palestinian self rule is synonymous with Two State Solution. Palestinian self rule is a term he can live with, Two State solution is a term he cannot bring home to his ruling coalition.

Netanyahu has a difficult needle to thread. The Israeli leader knows how important the issue of Palestinian nationhood is for the United States and for the president of the United States. He also knows that he is the prime minister of a parliamentary government which is very different from the republic of the United States. And he knows full well that his coalition is in place in large part because he chose to include two parties who will not - under any circumstances, support a Two State Solution. These two parties represent only a sliver of Israeli society, but a very vocal and now important of Israeli society. The overwhelming majority of Israel, 78% of Israel, supports the Two State Solution.

But even that 78% has a caveat. Their support is conditional upon their own security and survival.

So Netanyahu will finesse the term. If he pushes his coalition too hard, he will fall and no longer be prime minister. If he does not pursue the matter he will fall from the good graces of the United States and jeopardize US support for Israel, especially US military support. The Obama Two State Solution plan has already been proposed and drafts have been given to Israel, Egypt and the Palestinians. The Egyptians have invited all Arab foreign ministers to a meeting on June 17th to discuss the plan and to make certain that they are all on board.

Here we have it. Netanyahu will be able to finesse his way through the Two State Solution and the Arab world will back the Two State Solution and the United States will be thrilled with the Two State Solution - so wherein lies the problem?

The biggest problem is that there is no real infrastructure within the Palestinian Authority and without infrastructure there is no way to create a state. The Palestinians do not have their bureaucracies in place not for justice, or police, or education, health or self governance. The Palestinians have not yet erected the building blocks of a state.

The next biggest problem is Hamas. If a Palestinian state were to be declared in the West Bank tomorrow or in two months or two years from tomorrow, there is little doubt that as Gaza went, so will the West Bank go. Within six months Hamas will take over, ousting Fatah in a coup and asserting their role as Muslim extremists and establishing a terror state.

The same 78 % of Israel that supports the idea of a Two State Solution knows full well that until the Palestinian Authority can control Hamas it will be impossible to avoid the Hamas state. And that they reject - and so to does the rest of the Arab world. Neither Arab leaders nor the Arab street want Hamas to take control. The only player unconcerned by the lack of Palestinian infrastructure and the rise of Hamas is the United States. It is a part of the greater game plan that the United States considers to be neither likely nor serious.

Netanyahu will do what it takes to protect his people and pacify his friends. But he will not allow his country to be checkmated.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Wednesday June 3, 2009

Column:

Let it be known that, first and foremost, the Obama Doctrine for the Middle East is a doctrine for and about the United States. It is the personal wish list of this president of the United States.

President Barack Obama and his team of advisors, envoys and mediators are acting in the best interest of the United States and of the United States only. The people who conceived of and the people implementing the Obama Doctrine do not have a mutual interest - or even a partial interest - in what benefits Israel.

True, they would be saddened should something catastrophic happen to Israel but the ultimate security of Israel is not primary in their minds. Israel's safety and Israel's security is purely in the hands of Israel. Right now, the United States will not move a dingy, a toy soldier, or a paper airplane to assist an Israel in crisis.

The intent of this new doctrine is to resurrect the status of the United States, to reshape the power base of the United States and to reposition the influence of the United States in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The Obama Doctrine for the Middle East is a classic replay of geo-politics.

Barack Obama wants to even out the playing field. And in making things even the special relationship between Israel and the United States is automatically diminished. Significantly diminished. And the Obama Doctrine is already in play.

The historic foray into the Middle East embarked upon by the Obama entourage visits four Middle East countries - and Israel is not one of them. The trip to Israel would have been an easy sashay over the Egyptian border, the most significant stop on the trip. Instead, Israel is being snubbed, ignored, diplomatically reprimanded.

The rationale is that a broader US coalition in the Middle East will make for a safer Israel and that a safer region is a safer Israel. The logic is that if, in the long run, Israel will be safer, who can argue with the means through which this happens. Stating his thesis even more pointedly, Obama asserts that only good friends can be so brutally honest with one another. His objective is to apply pressure on the Israeli populace to force their prime minister to buckle under US pressure and to accommodate this new doctrine. Obama is dangling the special Israel/US relationship in the faces of Israelis assuming that they will care so passionately about the relationship that it will override the traditional skepticism that has been so ingrained in the Israeli psyche and that has kept their nation alive until now.

The fact is that there are more Muslims and more Arabs than there are Israelis and Jews in this world. In the end, the Obama camp will cast aside shared values, issues of mutual benefit and past special relationships for the sake of the massive numbers represented by the Muslim and Arab states. It is a quotient somewhat familiar to those students of history and diplomacy who watched the United States cast off a relationship with Hong Kong in favor of a new relationship with Mainland China.

When the inevitable danger befalls Israel in the near term, Israel will be prepared. But Israeli military superiority cannot last long because the qualitative edge that Israel holds is often due to the weapons received from the United States. Will it happen before or after the fall of the Obama Doctrine, I cannot say.

But the Obama Doctrine for the Middle East will, inevitable, fail.

It will fail because Hamas will overpower Fatah and take charge of both the West Bank and Gaza.

It will fail because Israelis will not support Obama over Bibi if only because of the Holocaust mentality and Masada complex which is part and parcel of the Israeli nation.

It will fail because, despite Obama, the Arab world will not trust the United States.

It will fail because Arab leaders cannot believe the naivete of Barack Obama regarding Iran and they cannot believe that the president of the United States will move ahead and try to befriend Iran over the Arabs.

No matter how charming and how powerful his speeches are, no matter how powerful or poetic his rhetoric, the Obama Doctrine in the Middle East will fail. I just hope it doesn't take too many casualties along the way.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday May 26, 2009

Column:

President Barack Obama's desire for change is admirable, but it is also dangerous. It is especially dangerous when he reaches out and embraces other nations and cultures. Especially, in the Middle East.

The buzz has begun on the Obama Middle East doctrine. The speech is still in the formation stages, but it has already had a huge impact on events in the region.

The chosen date is June 4th. The chosen venue is Cairo. It began during the presidential campaign and has been repeated over the last 100+ days. Obama advisers have promised a broad, far reaching presentation aimed at putting into perspective the desires, intentions and ambitions of the United States for the Middle East. In short, this address will speak of the changes that President Barack Obama hopes to wrest from the Israel, the Palestinians, Iran and the nations, cultures and religions of the Middle East region.

The concept of such a speech is as grand as it is tactically well intentioned. Barack Hussein Obama has chosen an Arab center of power from which to reach out to the Muslim world and explain where the United States stands on important issues. In his own way, Obama is restoring to Egypt the grandeur of days long gone, re-asserting the power and presence of Egypt in today's historic and diplomatic context.

Obama will not lay out details of an Israeli/Palestinian peace, the White House made that clear last week. He will mention it and he will emphasize the US conception of a Two State Solution and he will stress the need for Palestinians to have their own, independent state, one that lies next door to Israel and lives there is peace.

He will talk about terror and about freedom and about Iran and about Iran’s race to acquire nuclear technology. He will speak of advancement and of culture, of sharing and learning and understanding. The speech will be very polished and very well delivered - that is the Obama way. And the president of the United States will probably include phrases in Arabic and perhaps even begin his address with an Arabic verse from the Koran. He will not speak in Pharsi, the language of Iran. And much of what he says will fall on deaf ears.

As smart a tactical move as making this speech is, as good as it will look and sound from the point of view of the United States and the West, the impact of this grand maneuvering, of this speech, will be, at best, negligible in the Muslim world. At worst, it will be dangerous.

The Muslim world is divided into three parts. Part one is looking for a ray of light, of hope, of change, from the United States. Part two can never see or hear or experience anything positive from the United States. Part three, the majority of the Muslim world, requires much more than a well spoken, well intentioned, grandstanding speech from the president of the United States of America to impact the way they view US/Muslim interaction.

Despite the good intentions and the positive aspects of the speech, it will bring about no serious change in US/Muslim interaction. By definition, it cannot.

Arab and Muslim cultures are deeply informed by myths and historical narratives. Those narratives take a long time to develop and to seep into the culture. They may be and often are based on half truths and incorrect, revisionist, history but they are a part of the collective memory of the region and of the entire culture.

And part of the currently held myth is that the United States and Israel are inextricably bound together. The myth propagates the idea that the US protects Israel and oppresses the Arab and the Muslim. Part of the myth is that Israel is grabbing Arab land and that Israel is intent on the destruction of the Arab people and Muslim/Arab culture.

Iran has already rejected everything Obama is about to propose, even before the words have been said. Iran has no desire to reach out and grab the Obama gesture. Rather, Iranians exploit Obama's gesture and use it as cover for their own duplicitous end in acquiring nuclear capabilities. Iran understands Obama, realizes how weighty his words will be to part of the Muslim world and knows that they can be the counter weight to this message.

As he ascends the literal platform to deliver his address in the heart of the Arab world, Obama is handing over a figurative platform to enemies of the West. And that is dangerous and damaging.

For Iran, the Obama message is a message of assimilation and a Western cultural attack against Islam. For Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah it is emboldening. The warming period that Obama has extended to these rogues has given them the opportunity, means and motives to act more boldly and become more powerful.

I admire Obama's desire for change, but the Arab world is not the United States.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Wednesday May 20, 2009

Column:

It happened because it had to happen, because history dictated that it happen.

Barack Obama, the newly elected President of the United States of America and Benjamin Bibi Netanyahu, the newly resurrected Prime Minister of Israel, were fated to meet. The meeting had historical precedence. The meeting had diplomatic overtones. And like historical precedence and like diplomatic two steps, the meeting yielded nothing except for another page written into history and another diplomatic gesture politely completed.

Think tactics, not strategy. The changes in the administrations brought about under the leadership of both Obama and Netanyahu will be tactical changes, not strategic changes. To think otherwise is to be naïve and overly optimistic.

The changes we will see will be in the attainment of short term goals, not long term objectives. Both men acted maturely and stately. The tensions that were expected were present, but only minimally. They heard each other out. They shared and they discussed for one hundred and five minutes. And they both leaned a little.

They learned about each other and about each other's agenda. And because they were engaged in discussion and dialogue, not in debate, they actually heard what the other had to say. In the end, Netanyahu confirmed what he knew about Obama the man and came away reassured about Obama the leader vis a vis his take on Iran. Netanyahu came away so reassured on that one important issue that he was quoted as saying that "the US and Israel see eye to eye on Iran" and since the meeting, Obama has repeated more than once, that Iran must not be allowed to acquire military nuclear power.

The Palestinians are another matter. As part of their give and take, their point and counterpoint discussion, Obama made his case for a Palestinian state to be created now. And Netanyahu, the consummate orator, treated Obama to a brief course on Israel’s reservations about creating a Palestinian state at this juncture. There was nothing new in the material that either the American president or the Israeli prime minister delivered over, but the time, the place and mutual respect between these two Western leaders required that it be said and said in its entirety.

They spoke, they listened, they changed nothing. Not at the White House, that is. On Capitol Hill Netanyahu who had been courting the Hill was greeted with great fanfare - and with frankness. Much as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had done, John Kerry, Chairman of the Senatorial Committee on Foreign Relations made it very clear that the United States is in favor of creating a Palestinian state and that the United States wants Israel to cease settlement building.

America wants a two state solution and so do the vast majority, over seventy percent, of Israelis. That comes as no surprise, but it does come with a bit of a problem. The problem for Israeli leadership, aka Bibi Netanyahu, is that in order for Israel to sign off on a Palestinian state there must be real safeguards, not theoretical safeguards, within the Palestinian government. And right now, there are no safeguards of any kind.

Looking out on the Palestinian horizon there is no leader who can control the Palestinian factions. Looking past the horizon the only figure to emerge would be Marwan Barghouti, but he is serving a term in an Israeli prison for his role in terror attacks against Israelis. In the absence of a real leader it will be almost impossible to reign in the various Palestinian factions in. Without a real Palestinian leader it will be impossible to strike a blow against Hamas and return Hamas to its proper place in the Palestinian hierarchy. And without a real leader the Palestinians will never be able to invest in building the institutions that will help pull them out of the muck and mire and into the modern technological world.

Despite their desire for a Palestinian state to be established, US senators realize the dilemma of the situation. And that is why, in a letter addressed to the president they wrote that they hoped he would "promote far greater involvement and participation by the Arab states both in moving toward normal ties with Israel and in encouraging moderate Palestinian elements."

Creating a Palestinian state takes vision, not history. The meeting between Obama and Netanyahu was historic. The meeting between Obama and Netanyahu was not visionary.

The relationship between Israel and the US remains very strong.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Wednesday May 13, 2009

Column:

The pressure is on for a Two State Solution. Almost everyone, from east to west, is hounding Israel's new prime minister, pushing and pushing hard.

The UN Security Council issued a statement advancing the idea.

Egypt clearly and directly stated their point of view in a face to face meeting with Netanyahu in Sharm el Sheik.

Jordan's King Abdullah is calling for it. The European Union. Spain. The Czech Republic. President of the United States Barack Obama and General James Jones, his National Security Adviser, are endorsing it.

The only voices not heard advocating for a Two State Solution are the voice of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the voice of Hamas.

The question we need to ask is "why?" Why are so many countries and so many world leaders so very interested in a Two State Solution. There are as many answers as there are countries. Each country has its own agenda, its own special interests, its own selfish reasons for wanting the Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side, state-along-state, sharing and in harmony.

King Abdullah of Jordan has a one word reason for pushing towards a Two State Solution. War. For the past year the Jordanian monarch has been repeating the same refrain: it is essential that there be a resolution, a peaceful resolution, a Two State Resolution because the alternative is war. He has said that if there is no resolution within a year, the Palestinians and Israelis will be at war.

So far, the King's prediction has not panned out. In fact, as far as war goes, the Palestinians are closer to a civil war than an Israeli/Palestinian war. And as far as an Israeli/Palestinian war goes, there is less likelihood of that happening now than there was a year ago. In fact, the head of Israel's Military Intelligence, Amos Yadlin, just testified before his Knesset committee saying "the likelihood of war with the Palestinians within the next year is low."

The US National Security Adviser explained the American point of view while interviewed on a recent Sunday morning talk show. Jones explained that the United States supports the idea of two states and then took it a giant step forward. He said that solving the problem of Palestinian/Israeli tensions would help reduce the problem of Iranian nuclear tension. It's an interesting theory, but the NSA chief is way off the mark. His first error is in his analysis, his second error is in turning his analysis into political posturing. It's embarrassing.

There is absolutely no connection between Iran and the Palestinians and certainly, there is no connection at all with Iran's nuclear program. Iran pays tribute to the Palestinian issue but does nothing to advance the Palestinian cause. Iran offers words and words only to the Palestinians and when it comes to the Palestinians the word of the Iranian government is nothing more than hot air. And the Palestinians are happy that way.

Mainstream Palestinians reject Iran and reject Ahmadinejad. Only Hamas supports Iran. Mainstream Palestinians reject Iran's message and Iran's culture. The Palestinians view the Iranians as heretics. The Palestinians are not alone in their opinion of Iran.

The entire Arab world views Iranian support for the Palestinian cause as a façade. They view it as a tool used by Iran to advance its own objectives and primary among Iran's objectives is to be positioned as the leader of the Muslim world.

Sadly, President Obama's most important and influential adviser, James Jones, buys into Iran's rhetoric. And if Jones cannot realize that simple truth about Iran it calls into question some of the most critical decisions taken and to be taken by the United States regarding the Middle East region. The Saudis are livid. The Egyptians are fuming. The United States has shown itself to be ignorant of the machinations that run the Middle East.

The 50 state large United States has no idea of what a Two State Solution means.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday May 5, 2009

Column:

The equation is simple: pirates capture, companies pay.

Millions and millions of dollars have been paid out as ransom to pirates who capture vessels on the high sea. The story has repeated itslef many times over the past few months. The glaring turth is that the modern world is extremely under-prepared to battle piracy.

The world has changed, but piracy hasn't.

Centuries ago civilized nations were held hostage by pirates, much as we are today. Centuries ago civilized nations were virtually powerless to act against piracy, much as we are today. Centuries ago it was fear that gripped the civilized world, today, that fear is mixed with law.

Historically piracy was never considered political. It was never seen as a form of terror. It was seen through the prism of thievery. Pirates were self motivated. They wanted money. They still want money. But in today's world, if pirates are helping a government and that government, in turn, helps them continue to kidnap ships the law says that the pirates are outside the boundary of the the international law of the high seas and of UNCLOS.

The UN Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines piracy as
"any illegal acts of violence or detention, committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship"
"on the high seas"
"outside the jurisdiction of any state"
This is the definition of piracy as laid down in international law. It is Article 101 a,b,c. It is simple, direct and woefully incomplete.

Imagine this situation: a NATO ship captures an entire pirate crew, captures them red handed, with their weapons, with the goods and even saves the day by freeing the hostages and returning the captured vessel to the crew. After a spectacular rescue the NATO team has the pirates and the pirate vessel. The crack NATO team confiscates the weapons, searches for more weapons, finds and takes those, too and then - then the NATO team releases the pirates. Why? Because according to the law NATO does not have jurisdiction. NATO cannot arrest pirates, NATO cannot bring pirates to trial and NATO cannot punish pirates.

The reality is that legally, not only NATO has no jurisdiction. Almost no country will arrest pirates, that is the unwritten rule of the sea and it is a rule that pirates know well. The exception to that rule is in those rare cases in which the rescue team is from the same country as the captured crew. In other words, the only way that pirates will be arrested is if, by chance, the host nation is around and sails to the rescue. Why? Because that way there is no jurisdictional challenge. And that almost never happens.

According to this inadequate definition of piracy, the Somalian pirates plying their trade within the territorial waters of Somalia, are not practising piracy. And according to this definition, pirates who pay tribute to local governments and leadership are not practising piracy either. The act of paying tribute transforms the illegal action from an international act to a local act. Jurisdiction is then covered locally because the pirates have linked themselves to a particular cause and political leader. In the eyes of the law they have been transformed from money and booty seekers to political or governmental activists.

These laws must be changed.

These antiquated perceptions of piracy help the pirate, defend the pirate and lend no incentive to stop the pirate.

When looking at the situation around Somalia it becomes clear that the Somalian government is powerless. The government of Somalia is too weak to stop the piracy and the government of Somalia does not want to stop the piracy because the government gains from the piracy. Rather than stop the pirates, local governments offer the pirates protection, safe haven and refuge.

During the 19th century Barbary Pirates ruled the seas. Civilized countries paid regular ransoms to insure that either their ships were protected in advance or that the vessels would return safely after being boarded and abducted. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said enough, and charged the United States Marine Corps with the responsibility of crushing piracy. Rooselvelt asserted that neither the free world nor the world economy should be brought to its knees by a handful of sea pirates.

The Marine Corps is still capable of handling the job. They just need international law behind them. The time has come to update the law and put down the piracy.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday April 28, 2009

Column:

Change, the central theme of the Obama campaign, is now insinuating itself into Middle East policy.

The LA Times recently reported that the Obama administration has asked Capitol Hill to change the law on Hamas. If the president was asking for only slight alterations, even a few cosmetic modifications to the way the United States handles Hamas, Congress might let it slide. But no, this is true change, big change.

As it now stands, it is against the law in the United States to send money that in any way will benefit Hamas either directly or even indirectly. US funds may not support the terrorist organization Hamas or the terrorists of Hamas. Congress has been very clear on this matter. So clear on this matter that Congress came to their decision without the prodding of the "Israel Lobby" or any other "pro" Israel group.

The change President Barack Obama is requesting would alter bedrock assumptions about Hamas and terror. It would permit Hamas' people to be part of a Palestinian unity government if the individuals themselves were not terrorists, just leaders of a terrorist organization.

For the United States Congress, this distinction will not be about political expedience. It will not be about prevailing winds. For Congress it is not a test of friendship between the United States and Israel. Should the Obama change be implemented that friendship will change quickly and completely, perhaps irrevocably.

The men and women on The Hill view dealings with Hamas, the avowed and acknowledged terrorist organization, as an issue of right and wrong. Israel is right and Hamas is wrong. Congress was not planning on altering its stance vis a vis Hamas until Hamas altered its stances on what Congress considers four essential givens. Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, must renounce terror, must actively try to prevent terror, must agree to abide by and honor previous agreements. If change of any sort was expected, it was expected to come from Hamas, not from the United States.

Congress is not alone. These four stipulations were laid down by the Quartet the last time an opportunity arose for Hams to join a Palestinian Unity government. The Quartet, a group composed of Russia, the European Union, the United States and the United Nations, is not what anyone could call an overly demanding group when it comes to making demands on Hamas. But even then Hamas was unwilling to meet the demands.

So why does this administration want to bring about this change? The Obama administration likes to look at things, even tried and true, iron clad, basic rules of diplomacy, differently. The Obama administration wants to challenge "what has always been done" and transform it into "what we are now doing."

In some ways challenging basic issues and ideas is refreshing. But it can also be dangerous. And the people who will be paying the price for this particular change in policy towards Hamas don't live in Washington D.C. they live in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon and Sderot. It is Israelis who will be paying the price for Barack Obamas' creative zeal. The new kids on Pennsylvania Avenue will be sitting back, watching their experiment play out from a safe and comfortable distance.

The White House's argument is that they are doing this out of their love and commitment for Israel. They will say that this is not an anti Israel stance, that it is an incentive package for Hamas.

Hamas will not change because Hamas does not want to change. Hamas will neither stop terror nor renounce terror. Hamas may pretend to be a political organization, but terror is their trade. Hamas will not accept Israel. That is clear. And now, in the midst of this era of new ideas, it is becoming clearer and clearer that neither will the present day ruling faction within the Palestinian Authority.

Just a few weeks ago Mohamed Dahlan, probably the second most publicly recognized person in Fatah and second only to Mahmoud Abbas, clearly stated that just because the government had to accept Israel, it does not automatically follow that Fatah, the ruling party in the PA, must accept Israel. The government needs to recognize Israel because of world politics, but that fact does not reflect a change in the policy of Fatah.

And now Abbas is even challenging the principle of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state as a sine qua non for movement in the peace process. Abbas came out and said "no" it is not. He said "they can call themselves what they want but I do not have to accept it. I do not accept it and I say it publicly."

The White House, the Palestinian Authority and Israel are about to go head to head to head. It will all come to a head in May when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu makes his first visit to Washington. The real battle will be waged on Capitol Hill. If the White House successfully convinces the Hill to adopt this new approach towards Hamas it will lead to a revolutionary period in United States diplomacy and the attitude of the United States toward Israel.

If Congress does not stand strong, Israel will truly be all alone. All those ideas of peace and two states will be gone, off the table until some day in the distant future. If Congress does not stand strong hope of containing Hamas inspired terror will be gone. Hamas will emerge stronger and empowered. But true to its mandate, the Obama administration will have brought about change.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday April 21, 2009

Column:

On Sunday April 19th, on the day that was Adolf Hitler's birthday, Hans Rudolf-Merz, the president of Switzerland, met with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran.

On Monday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an avowed Holocaust denier, addressed the forum at the UN sponsored Durban II conference held in Geneva.

On Monday members of Western delegations, in attendance at the conference, walked out of the hall as an unfazed, unflustered, uncaring Ahmadinejad spouted his rhetoric, lambasting Israel and the United States of America.

On Monday night, Jews world over began marking Holocaust Memorial Day.

What were they thinking? What were the planners of the conference and what were the handlers of the Swiss president thinking?

The Iranian leader was invited to give the keynote address at the conference and took every advantage of the opportunity to spew terrible hatred and bald faced lies - his mainstay rhetoric and public pronouncements. Representatives from 24 Western nations walked out on Ahmadinejad.

The European Union, in attendance only as observers, walked out.

Jordan, repulsed by what was being said, walked out.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, host of the event, stayed seated but released a statement. The secretary general condemned the Iranian leader's speech and pointed out that, in advance of the address, he had spoken to Ahmadinejad and made it clear that the United Nations has officially repealed the Zionism is racism pronouncement and has affirmed the historical reality of the Holocaust.

In the end, the keynote speaker was the only head of state remaining in the room. And you want to know what Ahmadinejad was thinking? He was pleased. He had made his point. And Ahmadinejad continued on, regurgitating the same hate filled lies.

The Western world and even some members of the Arab world, made a point of walking out on Ahmadinejad and the president of Switzerland made a point of welcoming him into his country.

Hans Rudolf-Merz justified his meeting with the Holocaust denier and rabid anti-Semite Ahmadinejad by repeating the by now overused and incorrect cliche that Switzerland is a neutral country, that as a neutral country Switzerland embraces the idea of maintaining open channels and talking to everyone in order to properly facilitate negotiations between battling parties.

It is the same empty cliche that the Swiss used during World War II to avoid saving Jews, the cliche they used to cover up collaboration with the Nazis.

Neutrality does not mean spineless. Neutrality does not mean an incapacity to differentiate between right and wrong. Neutrality does not mean the inability to condemn evil and wrongdoing.

Neutrality means taking no sides, but it also means adopting a set of values that embraces moral and ethical principles.

Switzerland should have joined countries of conscience and condemned Ahmadinejad, condemned the words he used and the ideas he espoused. Instead, by paying him a courtesy call, the Swiss leader showed that he is not at all repulsed by the ideas Ahmadinejad holds dear. The Swiss president followed the lead of his predecessors and remained silent in the face of evil.

Excuses aside, Switzerland did not host the event. Durban II was hosted by the United Nations and held on United Nations territory. Switzerland was as much the host of Ahmadinejad at Durban II as the United States was when he came to New York to address the UN General Assembly in September.

There was no diplomatic need, no protocol for the head of Switzerland to go out his way and have a special dinner with the head of Iran. And because of that meeting Israel has called its ambassador to Switzerland back to Jerusalem for consultation and has called the Swiss ambassador to Israel in for a serious tongue lashing and is demanding an explanation.

Israel is making symbolic gestures, the president of Switzerland was not acting symbolically. Israel was pointing out that Switzerland has not learned their lessons. Nothing has changed in Switzerland. The Swiss witnessed Jews being murdered and did worse than nothing, they sent them back to Germany.

And today, a man preaches the murder of Jews and the Swiss plead neutrality and dine with the preacher.

Shame on Switzerland. Shame on the United Nations. Shame, shame.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Monday April 13, 2009

Column:

Israel and the United States are on a collision course.

The issue they are colliding over is world terror.

When it comes to terror, either you are against it, or you are a terrorist. The disagreement between Jerusalem and Washington is not over the definition of terror, it is over the parameters of terrorism.

Barack Obama and Benjamin Bibi Netanyahu, both newly elected, are out to strut their stuff - in front of their respective countrymen and in front of the world. This collision course is premeditated, it is about perspective. Given the personalities and public flair of these two men, the clash between their administrations was predictable.

Obama and Netanyahu need to collide in order to clearly define the red lines of each of their new administrations. The purpose of this deliberate sparring match is for each leader to discover how far the other will go in order to pursue his country's new Middle East policy.

Fear not, this collision will not shake the foundation of the strong, vibrant and important relationship between the two countries. That relationship is built on a mutuality of interests and in the end the friends will, as the children's song goes, shake hands and make amends. But it will be heated and it will impact on the relationship not of the countries, but personally, on the relationship of the two men.

The new Obama-led administration wants to insist on enforcing the principles laid down in Annapolis almost two years ago during the previous administration. The United States wants to make certain that the Palestinians uphold the stipulations of the Road Map developed by the Bush Administration.

That plan includes a two state solution.

The even newer Netanyahu-led administration refuses to embrace Annapolis. Israel has asked for new ideas to solve the current logger jam. Israel has carefully and delicately done a diplomatic tiptoe around the famed two state solution.

The collision is being played out in the press and on the Hill.

Obama's team has already begun to brief Congress about their new plan and the need to hold Israel to the Road Map. The Obama team is promising continued support for Israel and is emphasizing the need to continue to defend Israel. But they also want the Palestinian track to be put on high speed.

Netanyahu's team knows how to use Congress, as well. Their plan will be to set up numerous face-to-face meetings with Congressional leaders with the intention of sabotaging Obama's objectives.

Obama has tried to outsmart Netanyahu by being the first to approach Congress. Netanyahu will be making his first trip to Washington as new Israeli prime minister next month. Bibi will be forced to play catch up, but Bibi is no newcomer at this game. Unlike Obama, Netanyahu is on his second go round in office.

The Israelis will come calling on Capitol Hill with three cards in their pocket, three critical cards that will be difficult for the Obama people to refute.

Card #1 - The Palestinians have never been able to deliver on any significant agreement that included reigning in terror and confronting Hamas.

Card #2 - The plan that the Obama administration is presenting is a replica of the Bush plan with only a few minor revisions. It is a plan that has failed and will fail again.

Card #3 - Iran is spinning out of control. The Obama plan lacks real substance and is Pollyanna-ish at best and extremely dangerous at worse when it comes to Iran. It is one thing to play roulette with Israel's security vis a vis Iran, but the new president is also playing with the security of the United States.

Israel's messages will resonate loud and clear with the leaders on the Hill. Obama's bonafides are in serious question and Bibi Netanyahu can be very convincing and very compelling when he speaks about threats to Israel's very existence,

Even, especially, as the United States is stretching out both arms to Iran, Iran has become more and more involved in political acts that are destabilizing Arab world friends of the United States.

Egypt recently arrested almost one hundred terrorists connected to Hezbollah who, most importantly, are connected through Iran. The Egyptians have blamed Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah for the new terror infrastructure that they have uncovered.

A Kuwaiti newspaper called al Jarida recently wrote that the Egyptians have arrested Sami Shahib an Egyptian trained in Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. From Iran he was sent to Egypt to organize a Shiite underground terrorist organization which would destabilize Egypt.

An Egyptian newspaper called al Ghoumhouria wrote the following about Nasrallah in an editorial: "We do not allow you, monkey sheikh, to mock our judiciary, for you are a bandit and veteran criminal who killed your countrymen, but we will not allow you to threaten the security and safety of Egypt ... and if you threaten its sovereignty, you will burn!"

Egypt is taking this very seriously.

Netanyahu will make certain that Congressional leaders on Capitol Hill take it seriously as well. He will let it be known full well that by supporting President Obama's new policy they are, albeit inadvertently but certainly definitely, destabilizing both United States interests and United States control in the world.

There will be a collision. Don't expect a big bang, but be ready for some fireworks.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Thursday April 2, 2009

Column:

In the year 1532, when Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince he could never have dreamed that his ideas would ring true even until today. He could never have dreamed that arch enemies, The United States and Iran, would bond over a relatively insignificant country called Afghanistan.

The United States is at diplomatic war with Afghanistan. Iran is at diplomatic war with Afghanistan. The United States and Iran are united in their different wars with Afghanistan. Confused? That's foreign policy for you.

A cardinal rule in foreign policy is that there are no best friends. There are best interests. And foreign affairs work best when there are mutual best interests between countries.

So, yes, diplomatically speaking, the enemy of my enemy is my friend - but my best interests come first. And that explains how the unlikeliest of buddies, the United States and Iran, sat down together to discuss the problem called Afghanistan.

The United States experiences no greater global tension than in its dealing with and about Iran. And yet, in a desire to control the threats emanating from a third country these two countries, diametrically opposed on every other issue, sat down together at a United Nations sponsored summit held this week in The Hague dedicated to discussing, dissecting and neutralizing Afghanistan.

The idea belonged to United State Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iran jumped on board immediately. Iran had two reasons for agreeing to the secretary of state's suggestion. Firstly, Afghanistan is a true problem for the international community and Iran recognizes how important it is to solve the problem and solve it effectively. Secondly, Iran wants to show the Arab world that it can work side-by-side with the United States to solve some issues.

Don't get too carried away, now. The Summit pitted the United States and Iran against Afghanistan but that is where the mutuality ended. The summit also pitted the United States and Afghanistan against one another in terms of each country's style of operation, specific complaints and endgame solutions.

Iran wants no outside forces in Afghanistan. By outside forces Iran means no non-Muslim forces in Afghanistan. Right now, the United States is not only a force in Afghanistan, it is a significant force in Afghanistan and getting ready to increase their presence there. Looking at the situation from Iran's point of view, Iran borders Afghanistan and having US soldiers in Afghanistan makes it all the easier for those soldiers to saunter on over and enter Iran. Iran also borders Iraq. That puts Iran in the middle of two countries playing host, invited or uninvited it makes no difference, to US forces. In other words, Iran is surrounded on the north by way of Afghanistan and in the south by way of Iraq.

Despite Iran's desire to rid the region of the United States the deputy Foreign minister of Iran, Mehdi Akhundzadeh, agreed to an understated albeit significant meeting with Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's personal troubleshooter for Afghanistan. The meeting was brief. The outcome was a decision to keep in touch. This kind of discussion, on this diplomatic level, is less important for what happened at the moment than for what might happen in the future. A door has been opened and when and if the need arises, and we know it will, these two men can walk through that door again.

The honest truth is that there has been no serious change in United States policy toward Iran. In diplomacy you need backdoors in order to deal with substantive issues on the ground. And there has been no serious change in Iranian policy toward the United States. The final outcome aside, Iran had its own objective in agreeing to this meeting.

Iran was poking fun at the United States in front of other Muslim countries and the almost one hundred countries in attendance at the summit. Iran was using this opportunity to show the rest of the Muslim world how they can and will boldly make their Muslim agendas known to the United States. Iran was standing up for Muslim hegemony. Iran was saying that the major obstacle to real solutions in the region is the aggressive meddling of the United States and Iran was saying it to their face. Iran is making a regional play, hoping that resentment toward US interventionism will sway countries back in their direction.

Iran and the United States have had a modicum of success in the past when they joined forces in collaboration in the war against drugs. And at this summit the United States and Iran again agreed to start working together to curb the drug trade that empowers many of the Afghani warlords.

Two steps backward, one step forward. At least there’s a step in the right direction.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday March 24, 2009

Column:

Makara. It means deceit. It is part of an ancient Arabic custom, still practiced today.

Kyhr. It means subterfuge. In Arabic the word kyhr shares a root with the word makara. Makara and Kyhr its root are mentioned 43 times in the Koran.

Certain concepts, inconceivable to the Western mind, are commonplace and easily comprehendible to the Arabic mind. In order to understand the Arabic mind, in order to anticipate the decision making process that goes on in the Arab world, the West must suspend its own system of beliefs and open its collective mind to allow for contradictions in words and actions.

Mohammed Dahlan is one of the most significant leaders the Palestinian people have who is neither in hiding nor imprisoned in Israel. Tall, broad shouldered, well dressed and smooth talking, Dahlan is known as the strong arm man of Fatah. It was Dahlan who was responsible for security in Gaza and the West Bank. It was Dahlan who was at the helm when Hamas ousted Fatah from Gaza, essentially ousting him as security chief. Mohammed Dahlan has a vendetta to settle with Hamas. Not only was he publicly embarrassed, but the armed forces under his control were horribly treated and brutally killed.

And still, Dalhlan, the face of Fatah, and Hamas are joined at the hip when it comes to Israel.

In a recent interview on PA TV (Palestinian Television) Mohammed Dahlan said, simply and matter-of-factly, that the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel, but that Fatah does not. A shocking contradiction? Yes, if you are a Westerner. Not at all if you are a Palestinian.

Dahlan said that Fatah was not asking Hamas to recognize Israel. He explained that the only reason the Palestinian Authority recognized Israel was to get the money that the Western world was doling out to the Palestinians because they had made that concession and publicly claimed to accept Israel. He said the PA would never get the money if they did not recognize Israel. But that was the PA, not Fatah. A distinction with a difference.

In the minds of most Westerners, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are one and the same, it is Hamas that is on the outside. In the mind of Mohammed Dahlan and his compatriots, things look different. Dahlan is adept at double speak, and double speak has a long history in the Arab world.

Double speak is one of the many facets of makara and in the Arab world, makara has both positive and negative attributes.

In the Koran, in both Sura 3:54 and in Sura 30:8 Allah is referred to as Makara. It therefore stands to reason that if Allah is deceitful, and deceit can be good. If Allah can practice kyhr, subterfuge, which has a similar word in Farsi (Persian, the language of Iran), practicing subterfuge can be good.

The Koran tells a glorious story which teaches that Allah will plot against those people who plot against him and Allah will win out in the end. Dahlan has a modern day take on the story.

Quoting from his interview with Palestinian TV, Dahlan said: "I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel even today."

And he is not alone. Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah chair and the president of the Palestinian Authority gave voice to almost the exact same sentiment in 2006 when he said: "Hamas is not required to recognize Israel ... It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front [to liberate Palestine] to recognize Israel."

And he gave voice to it on PA TV when he said: "The PLO, in 1993, recognized Israel. As Israel recognized the PLO. Every person has the right to say "I do not recognize," okay? It's your right. It is the right of every organization. But the government which will be formed, and which will function opposite the Israelis on a daily basis ... every hour and perhaps every second, there will be contact between Palestinian ministers and Israeli ministers. And I ask - how can this government, or these ministers, not recognize their counterparts, and then solve people's problems?"

It's a good question. The simple answer is, they can't. Israel and the West must try not to let deceit and subterfuge and double speak get in the way.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Monday March 9, 2009

Column:

Lieutenant General Omar al Bashir is a ruthless thug.

The despotic president of Sudan has spurned the world's condemnations of the mass murders perpetrated under his rule and following his direction in Darfur. The delusional al Bashir has gone so far as to, on the one hand, say that the mass murders never happened and on the other hand, to claim that he is doing everything in his power to prevent further killings.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has just drawn up papers ordering the arrest and prosecution of Omar al Bashir. The court is charging him with direct and indirect responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur. Modest estimates put the death toll at 300,000 and the number of people forced from their homes at 2.7 million.

The ICC is the court of justice. The Hague is charged by the United Nations with the task of defending the oppressed and with prosecuting tyrants who persecute, terrorize and murder masses of people. Practically, the Court is problematic and it has a very uneven track record. But the principle under which it was created - that the free world should have access to an international court of justice that takes on issues of human rights, is an important one.

In the case of the people of Darfur the process has been extended, but finally, justice will be served. In corridors of power throughout the world the decision to act against al Bashir was met with great enthusiasm and expelled sighs of it's about time. In two corridors, however, news of the decision has been met with anger laced with fear.

Neither the leadership of Iran nor the leadership of Hamas is pleased to know that the leader of Sudan is to be prosecuted by The Hague.

Rather than acknowledging that justice is to be served, the Iranians publicly condemned the world court calling the action a corruption of justice and wondered how it was possible for the world court to act against Sudanese President al Bashir before it had acted against the Zionists. Similarly, Hamas announced that it was acting in solidarity with the Sudanese leader and issued a call for other true Arabs to do the same.

To prove their points, on Friday Hamas and Iranian delegations flew to Khartoum, Sudan to show their support for al Bashir.

Upon touching down at the Khartoum airport Ali Larjani, speaker of the Iranian parliament, made a strident and aggressive announcement. He termed the decision of the international court to prosecute al Bashir "an insult." In the eyes of Larijani and all of Iranian leadership, the act truly is an insult not just to al Bashir, but to all Muslims. The Hamas spokesman, Tahir Nunu, called the indictment a political ploy.

In choosing to prosecute Omar al Bashir the International Criminal Court in The Hague has violated a fundamental principle in the Muslim world. According to that principle non Muslim-authority and non-Muslim forces may not impose their standards and their values on Muslims, especially in Muslim controlled lands.

Iran and Hamas are not just being good friends and good Muslims. Iran and Hamas have their own axe to grind. Certainly, both constituencies long to see Israel in the docket, but right now, that is not their biggest worry. They fear that they will be next in line for prosecution by The Hague.

For Iran and for Hamas, this is personal. If the Sudanese leader can be arrested and brought to The Hague for trial so can they. And that is not a precedent they want to see set.

Iran is responsible for numerous terror attacks around the world. Iran sponsors terror organizations including Hezbollah and including Hamas. Hamas, obviously, is a terror organization that has perpetrated hundreds of terror attacks. They are speaking out and politicking in support of al Bashir out of pure, selfish, self interest.

What neither Iranian nor Hamas leadership realizes is how ridiculous their actions. What neither Iranian nor Hamas leadership realizes is how slowly the wheels of justice at The Hague turn. Look at the enormity of the crime perpetrated by the tyrant Omar al Bashir and then look at how long it took to draw up a warrant against him for that crime. The likelihood that they will be the next targets of ICC justice is truly, quite small.

But let that be the little secret of the freedom loving world. Let Iran and Hamas sweat a little or even a lot. It's OK, let them sweat.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday March 3, 2009

Column:

The official announcement was made on Monday, at the Donors' Conference held in Egypt, but the story was not news to any of the participants.

The news was leaked days before the event took place. The story splashed across newspapers throughout the country and in many parts of the Western world. The United States of America was pledging $900 million to the Palestinians.

Wow! That was the response of most of the people when they learned of the pledge. Didn't matter what side of the aisle they sat on, Republican of Democrat, pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, Muslim, Christian or Jew. $900 million is a lot of money.

The idea of the Donors' Conference, according to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, whose idea it was, was to create a forum through which money would be raised to rebuild Gaza. As a result of Israel's twenty-two day operation against Hamas in Gaza, which was a response to the terror strikes and constant barrage of rockets fired into Israel by Hamas, Gaza, which was never a luxurious spot under the care of the Palestinians, is pretty much a wreck.

Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister appointed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, raised an ambitious nearly $5 billion at the Conference.

Pledges came in. The United States put Fayyad at nearly one-third on the way towards his goal. Israel has already given $100 million, a modest but still significant donation. The Quartet and other European countries came out saying that they were willing to give, as well.

Now comes the first AHA moment.

Salam Fayyad is the PA prime minister of the West Bank, not of Gaza. He, along with Abbas and the rest of the PA were kicked out of Gaza, ousted in a coup, by Hamas, a year ago last summer. They may care about the plight of the Palestinians of Gaza but they have no purview over Gaza. Now, Fayyad has a wonderful personal record. It was he who revolutionized the Palestinian Authority coffers. It was he who convinced Yasser Arafat to direct deposit government salaries thereby removing the temptation from Arafat to dip his fingers into everyone else's tills as he stuffed their envelopes with cash which was his favorite way of doing business.

Fayyad cares about the people of Gaza, but he has no way of controlling, overseeing or even monitoring the flow of money. That responsibility belongs fully and solely to Hamas because Hamas is the only address in Gaza.

Here's the second AHHAA moment.

It is against United States law to give money to Hamas. It is against United States law to transfer money to support terror. The US State Department considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization.

Congress, the governing body that set up these laws, will not be happy if money finds its way into the hands of terrorists. But how can it not? Nothing comes into or goes out of Gaza without some of it accidentally falling off a truck and going directly into the hands of Hamas. Nothing. Hamas totally controls Gaza. The Palestinian Authority has no police, no soldiers, no authority and no clout in Gaza. Unless Congress finds a way around Hamas, that $900 million will be going to Hamas. By dividing the allocation and announcing that they are giving $300 million to humanitarian relief in Gaza and the other $600 million to the PA for reconstruction Congress thinks they have found the way.

And now, the third AHHHAAA moment.

The Arab League, which also pledged money to Gaza at the Donors' Conference, has not yet fulfilled an earlier pledge to help out the people of Gaza. In January the Arab League obligated itself to a donation of $1 billion. That pledge, that obligation, has not yet been met.

As recently as last week, the Arab League explained that they could not deliver on the money while stability and unity between the Palestinians was unclear. In other words, the Arab League is uncertain. The Arab League is afraid that their money will fall into the wrong hands. And who understands the dynamics of Hamas leadership if not the Arab League?

Here comes the fourth AHHHHAAAA moment.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Column:

Thursday February 26, 2009

Was I deceived, or did a sable cloud
Turn forth his silver lining on the night?

Those words were written in 1634 by John Milton. While very few of us can quote the poem verbatim, almost all of us have expressed the sentiment inherent in these words and said: every cloud has a silver lining.

The economic downturn we are now experiencing has rippled throughout the world. The news is not good and yet, every cloud, even this cloud, does have a silver lining. And while they are few in number, there are a few positive changes that have occurred specifically because of this colossal calamity. The number one change is worth discussing.

The most important change to have been brought about by the economic condition is the drop in oil prices.

Oil prices are down from the record high summer price of nearly $150 a barrel. The prices will remain down, hovering in the $30-$40 range, and may even drop a little lower before they go up again. Funny, isn't it, how what was such an all consuming worry and topic of conversation has been pushed to the sidelines and almost ignored. Sad, that very few of us have been able to enjoy the upside of the oil conundrum because of the downturn in the economy.

OPEC wants to drop production in order to increase prices. But to their chagrin, the general demand for oil has dropped. So even if OPEC drops the price their short term benefit will be minimal. In an ideal world, OPEC would have the price of oil even out at between $75-$85 per barrel.

And who is the most hurt by these low prices? Iran. Iran is hurting bad.

In truth, it's not just Iran. Venezuela and Russia are also suffering seriously because of the great drop in oil prices. But it is Iran that is most affected and interesting to us.

Iran is the third largest producer of oil in the world and yet, Iran must resort to importing its own gasoline. Iran has antiquated refineries and has not built any new refineries since they threw BP out a half a century ago. There's more. Iran not only imports gasoline, the Iranians have no real natural gas and must import that also.

It gets worse for Iran. Add to that an inflation rate that the present regime admits to be at 26% and the country is ripe for an economic implosion. Others, including Khatami who will be opposing Ahmadinejad in Iran's upcoming election on June 12th, put the inflation rate as high up as 65%.

The Iranians need the price of oil to be close to $80 a barrel so that they can break even. They are inefficient. They need subsidies. They need to import. They have almost no cash reverse from their product and they are hemorrhaging money. Iran also made the mistake of dropping the dollar as the official currency exchange link and adopting the Euro, a move that has not proved beneficial.

The picture for Iran is very bleak indeed. No amount of nuclear energy will be able to pull Iran out of this very deep hole.

During the "seven good years of plenty" Iran should have been investing, saving and improving their systems. That, they did not do. That's what Qatar did. Qatar improved its oil infrastructure and is reaping the profits of their investment. The break even point to produce a barrel of oil for Qatar is about $10, substantially lower than what Iran needs. Iran was expecting to earn well over $100 billion in oil revenues this year. With the slashed prices, that number will probably be way down at $20 billion.

So what does this mean? While it is tempting, there is no great pleasure to be had in wallowing in the misfortune of Iran. But what we can do is point a finger, and that finger is pointed at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man responsible for the dramatic economic failure of Iran. Ahmadinejad ran for office on a platform that promised to improve and resuscitate Iran's ailing oil industry. And oil is the only real industry Iran has to export.

If the Supreme Leader, The Ayatollah Khamenei, would lift his head from the clouds and see Iran the way it really is right now, he would oust Ahmadinejad as President of Iran. The people might vote, but it is The Supreme Leader who determines the winner.

If Khatami, the former president and present political rival, wins the election that would be good for Iran. Khatami is less abusive. He is less of a bulldog when dealing with the West. He is more pragmatic and less prone to rhetoric. He understands the need to deal with oil. He understands the need to deal with economics.

OK, so maybe the cloud's lining isn't really silver. But neither is it completely black.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday February 17, 2009

Column:

Tennis is a sport, it is not a political movement. Tennis tournaments are supported by sponsors and should not sponsor terror, terrorists or terrorist activities. Playing tennis is about competition, not boycotts.

The Dubai Tennis Championships ranks among the most prestigious tournaments in the world of professional tennis. Coverage of the Dubai receives international attention. This year, the coverage began even before the first match was played. The United Arab Emirates has denied an entrance visa to the person ranked 48th in the world in women's tennis.

Who has the distinction of being denied entry into the UAE? Her name is Shahar Peer. Why has Shahar Peer been singled out? Because Shahar Peer is an Israeli.

The decision sent shock waves throughout the international tennis community. Peer herself received word while participating in a match in Thailand. The shock was dramatic. The response of tennis players has been a unified clamor of dismay.

The players have all sided with Peer. Their support is as admirable as it is ineffective.

International sports at the level of the Dubai Tennis Championships should stand above politics. The reason the Olympics was re-established was specifically to highlight the credo that great sports and great athletics transcend the boundaries of politics and even of war.

The Women's Tennis Association should have cancelled the tournament. The WTA knew that there was a possibility that one of their players would be denied entry into the host country. They warned the hosts not to be discriminatory, not to deny a participant the chance to compete because she came from a country not on their politically approved list.

Larry Scott, director of the Women's Tennis Association, explained the situation by saying the WTA "knew it was an issue, but we made it clear that she was going to be in the draw and we wanted to be optimistic that she would get the visa." But, he said, "they (the UAE) waited until the 11th hour to deny it (the entry visa )."

The WTA director continued by saying: "I made it clear to them that if Shahar were not allowed to play, they would run the risk of losing their tournament. It would be a big blow to lose one of this prestige and money, but if it comes to the principles of fairness and openness, there can be no compromise."

Scott said all the right things. The problem is that he did nothing.

Larry Scott and the WTA have already compromised. They permitted the tournament to play despite their own warning and without the participation of one of their own member players. Larry Scott and the WTA did nothing to insure or to insist that the boycott against Israel declared by the Dubai Tennis Championships be rescinded.

Larry Scott and the Women's Tennis Association spoke up, but they took no action. They let the ball fall where it may. Canceling the Dubai Tennis Championships would have hurt the rankings of all the women scheduled to participate. Now, the only woman to be hurt is Shahar Peer, she has been cancelled, not the tournament.

This boycott is not personal it is political. Shahar Peer is a symbol, not a person for the Dubai organizers and decision makers. Her fellow players understood the situation and that is why they were in favor of supporting Peer and exerting more pressure on the hosts. The players were less afraid than the Association.

Shame on the Women's Tennis Association. The world has come to expect little of the United Arab Emirates, the decision to block Peer was true to form.

Boycotting Israel is wrong - regardless of the justification. There are organizations that boycott Israeli scholars and academics even translators and organizations that are attempting to divest from Israeli technology. Not agreeing with Israel is not the same as fostering hatred of Israel. These boycotts are enforced not to cause financial harm, these are boycotts for the sole purpose of fostering hatred.

The Israeli operation in Gaza was an act of defense. Even if one disagreed with the operation, one must accept the principle that Israelis eventually have the right to defend themselves against terrorists who want to see them and Israel wiped off the map.

By permitting the Dubai Tennis Championships to play on without the player ranked 48th in world women's tennis, the Women's Tennis Association has allowed itself to be co-opted by the wrong kind of sponsor. The United Arab Emirates does not sponsor athletic shoes, the UAE does not sponsor artificial turf or watches or soft drinks. The UAE has the full support of the Women's Tennis Association and they boycott Israel.

\Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Wednesday February 11, 2009

Column:

Monday morning football is always rough, even when it happens on a Wednesday. Players nurse their wounds and elevate their swollen joints. Bruised egos need massaging and swollen egos need time to relax.

The elections in Israel are over. The race was tight, but the winner won by a large margin. The winner, you see, is not a party. The clear cut winner in this Israeli election is the Israeli people, the masses were the winner.

Sure, some commentators will say I told you so and others will justify their projections. In the coverage leading up to this election most commentators fell into the trap of predicting what they, personally, wanted to happen rather than what the Israeli public was saying they wanted to have happen.

The masses in Israel are in the middle and that is how exactly they voted.

That is how the voters voted in the last election and in the elections before that. Israelis are not extremists. Despite stories that pepper media around the world, Israelis are not on the lunatic fringe. Israelis are moderates.

In every election since Yitzhak Rabin was voted into office the masses have voted for the middle. The same people sway slightly to the right on one election and then slightly to the left on the next election. The same people who ousted Peres when he took over the position of prime minister following the Rabin assassination voted for Netanyahu. And the same people who voted Netanyahu in ousted him and voted for Barak. And those are the same people who then ousted Barak and voted for Ariel Sharon.

Sharon was the first prime minister and party leader to figure it out. And that is why he moved away from Likud - toward the center, and created the Kadima party, a party that could swing a little bit right and a little bit left. That is why Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni will be called upon to form a government. She did not tinker with success.

And that is why Bibi Netanyahu and his Likud Party was successful and garnered so many seats. The vast majority of Israelis voting for Likud are only slightly right of center, they are not extremists. And the vast majority of Israelis voting for Kadima are only slightly left of center and some are actually right of center.

That is how the center took the plurality.

So why were so many people, pundits and pontificators fooled? There are several reasons.

The foreign press stationed in Israel, and it is one of the largest postings for foreign journalists in the world, find it entertaining to cover the characters who occupy the fringes. It's good reading. It's sexy. The people on the fringes are interesting, even if they are not representative of mainstream Israel.

The local press, for the most part, is revolted by the right wing. And they feel the need to transmit that revulsion to the masses. They see the right, even the slightly right of center party supporters, as Neanderthals, as people who have only one response to every situation - violence. Don't get enough health and welfare services - violence. Not enough money for education - violence. The Palestinians - violence. Of course, the local press knows how to temper their portrayals of the right wing. But when local stories are picked up by international media the nuance is lost, the coverage is warped, the story is out of perspective. For their part, the average Israeli feels battered by the press. The lives they lead and the lives portrayed on media screens and in newspapers collide and clash.

And that explains why everyone was so far off in predicting the end result of the election in Israel and in predicting the continued stability of Kadima and Livni. No one paid attention to the masses in the middle. The coverage focused on the extremes.

The race was close and Livni squeaked by Netanyahu. They may have to share power, they may even have to negotiate a rotation of power. Right now the process of coalition building, the true art of compromise, begins. There too the center will emerge - just watch.

Instead of reading their own columns, the commentators should have been reading the writing on the wall.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Thursday February 5, 2009

Column:

If life was a school playground the revered and feared principal would say "OK boys, shake hands and be friends" and voila, the boys would do just that.

But life is not a school playground. And there is no revered and feared principal. And Hamas and Fatah are not about to shake hands and be friends just because the United States, with the backing of many other Western nations, wants them to.

It's not what they want to do. And who's gonna make them?

Since the conclusion of the Israeli operation against Hamas by way of a grudgingly agreed upon if not entirely adhered to unilateral cease fire, the Western world has been calling for an end to hostilities not between the avowed enemies, but between the two parties who are in reality the one enemy. In other words, forget about Israel for now, let's get Hamas and Fatah together. And then we can call it a Palestinian nation and turn our attention to a peace treaty between Israel and the now unified Palestinian nation.

The idea is to co-opt Hamas and make them a part of the greater Palestinian cause. And it is a very bad idea.

Forget about whether Israel thinks that this is a good idea, which they do not. Forget about whether Egypt and Jordan think this is a good idea, what do they know and why should they count, they are the bordering countries who understand the customs, cultures and citizens of the not-yet-formed Palestinian state. Why take into consideration the concerns of those people who are most affected by any decisions taken by the various strata of Palestinian leadership.
And why take into consideration the lessons that should have been learned from not-so-distant experience.

Just ask Hamas. They've been there and done that. Hamas wants nothing to do with this idea now just like they wanted nothing to do with it after receiving a majority in the Palestinian Parliamentary election.

Doesn't anyone in the Western world of diplomacy and decision foisting remember what happened last time there was a power sharing situation between Abbas and his Fatah party and Hamas? Come on, it wasn't that long ago. It was such a resounding success that the United States and most other Western countries cut off all aid and relations with the Palestinian Authority. And that happened why? That happened because Hamas refused to accept the three principles of the Quartet. Hamas refused to accept Israel's right to exist, Hamas refused to uphold previously entered into peace agreements with Israel and Hamas refused to denounce terror and work towards combating terror.

When asked just recently whether they would join Fatah and Abbas, Hamas said "no." Hamas did not even blink. For Hamas it is a no brainer. Hamas does not like to share, does not want to share and will not share. Once again, think schoolyard. Hamas likes to bully. Once again, think back just a little. Hamas ousted Fatah from Gaza only a year ago last summer. They won an election and received a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament. Hamas has no need for Fatah.

Hamas not only has no need for Fatah in Gaza, Hamas actually wants to oust Fatah from power in the West Bank. In the eyes of Hamas, Hamas deserves total control.

The Western sponsored proposal for Palestinian power sharing would have Fatah's Abbas as the number one man and Hamas coming up second. And now the West is surprised that Hamas finds the proposal, how shall I say it, unacceptable. Fatah and Hamas are sworn enemies. And as far as Hamas is concerned, Abbas is a traitor.

Hamas believes that Abbas and, by extension, Fatah were in favor of the Israeli operation into Gaza. Hamas believes that Fatah collaborated with Israel. And in the world governed by Hamas calling someone a collaborator is akin to an Imam calling someone an infidel. Hamas believes that Israel would never have been so successful had they not had the assistance of Fatah members on the ground. And that is why the human shields that Hamas used in Gaza against the Israelis were families of Fatah affiliates.

Ismail Haniyah, the Hamas leader from Gaza who was elected Palestinian Prime Minister, has vividly depicted Abbas as a man who would "ride into Gaza on an Israeli tank." The imagery is powerful. The imagery resonates with Hamas advocates and Hamas supporters. It is a symbol that will be repeated in the Arabic press and on the Arab street. It means that Abbas permitted Israel to do what it did all in order to reap the benefits of an Israeli operation that would crush Hamas and neuter it militarily. This is a blood feud as much as it is a religious conflict.

The battle between Hamas and Fatah is the central story in the Palestinian world today. Neither side is shaking hands. Hamas and Fatah are not about to become friends.

They've learned their lesson. We should learn it, too.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Monday January 26, 2009

Column:

Israel is proposing an eighteen month truce with Hamas. Hamas is asking for a twelve month period of quiet with Israel. So what's it gonna be?

It's gonna be a serious problem. As the prison guard in the movie Cool Hand Luke so eloquently put it: "What we have here is a failure to communicate." What we have in this particular case is failure to communicate on two levels.

Level one deals exclusively with Hamas. Truce, cease fire, deal - these notions are all anathema in Hamas' understanding of Islam.

Level two deals with the Western world's understanding, or better yet, lack of understanding, of Hamas. Without understanding the Hamas approach to decision making, decision makers, diplomats and politicians from countries around the Western world will try to force Israel into a situation that is hardly optimal. It will be a colossal mistake. It will be a mistake made in the name of peace, laced with all best intentions, predicated upon a total lack of understanding of Hamas' motives and Iran's intentions. It will be a tragic mistake.

In Arabic culture conflict can be resolved in only two ways. One way is Hudna. Hudna has a deep historical and theological history. The second way is Tahadiyah. In contrast, Tahadiyah has no theology and absolutely no history outside of modern, contemporary events.

Both terms have been bantered about, both have been mistranslated. Neither Hudna nor Tahadiyah means what politicians in Washington DC, the United Nations and European capitals think they mean.

Hudna is a concept best described as a tactical response to being out numbered and out armed. As opposed to admitting to losing in conflict, Hudna is a move that permits the fighting to be halted in order to be continued on another day. One strikes a Hudna in order to regroup, rearm and then, most importantly, to attack and vanquish the party that you struck a treaty with. Hudna has a built in time limit of 10 years, but it may be renewed. It is far from anything we would consider to be a truce.

As a classic form of Islamic diplomacy Hudna was first introduced by the prophet Mohammed when, according to the Koran in the 48th Sura known as "The Victory," Mohammed engages in an agreement with the tribe of Quraysh.

The story begins in Medina. Mohammed takes 1500 men and marches on Mecca, his native city. He is confronted by an army that is far superior to his own from the tribe of Quraysh at a place called Hudaiybiyah. It is at Hudaibiyah that the two parties agree on a ten year pact. But two years later, after building a bigger and better army Mohammed breaks the treaty, attacks and enters Mecca victorious.

As the ten year pact or treaty was being negotiated, Mohammed's advisers, principally his general Umar ibn al Khatib, rejected the idea. The advisers called entering into a pact with the knowing intention of reneging on your word dishonorable. But the Prophet made it very clear that this was the way to proceed and so it was done.

As an interesting aside, the Sura aka "The Victory" in Arabic is called Al Fath. It was no accident that the first Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, chose to name his organization Al Fatah after that very same Sura in the Koran.

Tahadiyah has much less history. It is not a theological term, it is not in the Koran and there is no link to any decision or stratagem of Mohammed.

As a modern Arabic term Tahadiyah simply means calm or lull. It is a very problematic term and it is the term that Hamas is using now in talking about the cessation of hostilities with Israel. Tahadiyah does not mean cease fire. A lull implies a reduction, not a stoppage, of aggression. The concept of Tahadiyah implies that there is plenty of wiggle room. Tahadiyah is not quiet nor is it a commitment to enforce a quiet. Quite to the contrary a Tahadiyah actually allows for attacks and a gradual increase of pressure and a change in the status quo over time. It is a very ambiguous and amorphous term that translates into a very ambiguous and amorphous status on the ground.

Tahadiyah is a diplomatic Pandora's Box. Hudna is diplomatic double talk. It really makes no difference if the world-at-large believes that Israel and Hamas have a year long truce or an eighteen month long truce. In the end, the hostilities will resume when Hamas is ready for the hostilities to resume. And then, Israel had better be ready.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday January 13, 2009

Column:

Iran and Syria see the world through their own prism. They keep each other's company, they enjoy each other's company, they support each other's diplomatic machinations, they don't trust each other one little bit and they certainly don't trust anyone else.

For Iran and Syria, that's normal. Iran and Syria need to feel in charge. Ask Hamas and Hezbollah leaders and they will answer that they are independent entities, but observe Hamas and Hezbollah and you will know that they are ruled by the whim, whimsy and wealth of Iran. Ask the rulers of Lebanon and they will claim to be an independent country, watch what happens in Lebanon and you will see the guiding hand of Syria. It's a mutual admiration society - Iran applauds Syria, Syria applauds Iran and they both applaud Hamas and Hezbollah.

Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, just came back from a multi day trip to Syria and Lebanon. This was not a routine trip. This trip had a definite, specific purpose. Larijani went to gather information about Gaza, he wanted details on the Israeli operation against Hamas.

Larijani is not your typical guest. He was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator. He is a master strategist. He and Iranian leader Ahmadinejad are a team, they might disagree on economic issues and Ahmadinejad may take issue with some minor tactics within the larger strategic plan that Larijani composed, but that has not compromised their alliance.

If the Western world had been paying attention, if the Western world had bothered to monitor Larijani's comments during this trip, the Western world would have a better understanding of the rudder that guides Hamas. Instead, the Western world has averted its collective eyes, clogged its collective ears and turned oblivious to one of the most significant visits to take place in the Middle East in a long time. That's how we missed out on reacting to one of the most poetic descriptions delivered on the Egyptian/French cease fire proposal in Gaza.

While in Lebanon, after meeting with Hezbollah, Larijani summed the initiative up by calling it "honey injected with poison." While in the Syrian capital Damascus Larijani met with Khalad Mashaal, the head of Hamas. Yes, the actual head of Hamas is not in Gaza, he is in Syria, living under the protection and sponsorship of the Syrian government.

The Iranian/Hamas meeting lasted hours, it ran deep into the morning and when it was over, there were no official reports, no statements, no press conferences. Iran wanted details. Iran wanted specifics about Gaza - how much damage has been done, how strong is Hamas, how capable is Israel. Larijani was not interested in the mainstays of Arab conversation, rhetoric and hyperbole, he wanted cold, hard, facts, he wanted what the business world calls a real time assessment. For Larijani the situation in Gaza is a business deal turning sour.

Mashaal was not interested in giving over information, Mashaal wanted Iranian support, even Iranian intervention. If he could not persuade the Iranians to enter the fray against Israel he was at least hoping for them to sanction and enable international terror strikes, if not that then to at lest unleash Hezbollah rockets upon Israel from the North forcing Israel into a two-front war. He got none of that.

In return for information Iran promised to give money and to help rearm, retrain and rebuild their proxies - but they will not act. Iran will not jeopardize assets and push to the margins their larger objectives to help Hamas in a losing battle. Iran will serve as cheerleaders galvanizing Muslim support for Hamas and rally against Arab leaders, against Israel and against the West, against anyone helping Israel even by fiat or through acquiescence. Nothing more.

Iran is taking the Israeli invasion of Gaza very seriously. So seriously that Larijani is not the only high ranking Iranian official to visit Syria and meet with Hamas and Hezbollah. Saeed Jalili, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, also traveled to Syria and met with Syrian leader Bashar Assad. More importantly he met with Halad Mashaal and Ramadan Salah, the head of Islamic Jihad, the other terrorist group in Gaza. Jalili, not quite as poetic as Larijani, echoed a common Iranian theme, saying that "the Zionists are one step away from collapse."

Syria and Iran are trying to spin the situation in Gaza, they are trying to figure out how to best manipulate world opinion against Israel. That's why Mashaal rejected all the cease fire proposals but demanded that Israel live up to the UN and Egyptian/French proposal. Is that seems like a contradiction it's only because you are analyzing the situation from a Western perspective. From the Iran/Syria/Hamas perspective the UN and Egyptian/French proposals are ammunition with which Israel can be attacked in the international arena.

Gaza is not going away. Syria and Iran are not going to change. Hamas and Hezbollah are not going to give up. If we want to keep up with the situation, we had better start looking at it through the Iranian/Syrian prism.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday December 30, 2008

Column:

Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, is a terrorist organization that trains cohorts from that other terrorist organization, Hamas. Hezbollah also sponsors Hamas through donations of weapons and donations of money. The nation of Iran is another large supporter and sponsor of Hamas. Iran also lends Hamas moral support, offers advice and serves as a general cheering squad.

It comes as no surprise that Hezbollah and Iran have been loud and public in denouncing Israel's retaliatory strike on Hamas security strongholds in Gaza.

The surprise comes in the form of the almost inaudible voices of protest emanating from the rest of the Muslim world. Protests against Israel have been minimal. Disapproval of Hamas, now and in the period leading up to the Hamas decision to discontinue the "lull" with Israel has been vocal.

Major players in the Arab world urged Hamas to continue with the "lull" but Hamas turned a deaf ear, Hamas would not heed their urgings. In a break with tradition, rather than showing a united Arab/Muslim front against enemy Israel, Arab leaders have come out in censure against Hamas.

On Sunday, the second day of Israel's operation, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas held a joint press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Gheit. Abbas minced no words, he laid all the blame on Hamas. "I say in all honesty, we made direct contact with the leaders of the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip. We spoke with them in all honesty and directly and after that we spoke with them indirectly, through more than one Arab and non Arab side ... We spoke with them on the telephone and we said to them: We ask of you, don't stop the lull. The lull must continue and not stop, in order to avoid what has happened and if only we had avoided it."

In response, Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, called Jordan and Egypt collaborators and an arm of the Zionists and the Americans in the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.

Mainstream Arab leaders think that Hamas brought this situation upon themselves and believe that now Hamas must suffer the consequences of their own actions. They hope that the operation ends quickly and they hope that the innocent people living in Gaza are spared from too much suffering and horror. President Bush, who made contact with many Arab leaders in the region expressed that same concern for the people of Gaza. So, too, did Israeli leadership who allowed one hundred supply trucks to enter Gaza from Israel on Monday. The trucks contained medicines, blood, cooking fuel and even ambulances.

Even Palestinians living in Gaza, victims of the destruction brought on by this retaliatory effort by Israel, blame Hamas and not Israel for the death and destruction. Even a seven year old girl who woke up to find bricks on her head and her younger sister lying dead beside her after an Israeli air raid was quoted in an interview on Al Aksa Hamas TV saying that she blamed Hamas for the death. In Gaza, Hamas is far from loved, in Gaza Hamas is feared.

Hamas has embraced death as a virtue.

Palestinian Authority legislator Fathi Hamad, interviewed on Hamas TV on Monday explained it this way: "For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life."

This sentiment, this revelation that Hamas respects death and uses innocent people as human shields, is not new. It is not merely a response to Israel's retaliatory raid. In the weeks before this raid, in the weeks of the "lull," Hamas began the process of instituting a series of punishments, their own revision of Koranic law that was meted out during the medieval period. The Hamas penal regressions were broadcast across the Arab world, to the horror of Arab leaders from other countries who themselves have archaic judicial and penal systems, but nothing as severe as those Hamas intends to impose.

Some of the laws are literally directed at the Palestinian Authority and at Palestinian leadership. It seems clear that according to the new/old Hamas laws all Palestinian leadership is guilty of capital crimes. The language of the law proposes "primary and secondary" laws.

Primary laws include: "Koranic laws, blood revenge, lashes, crucifixion, and execution." The new law establishes that the "punishment of death will be enacted on any Palestinian who intentionally does one of the following: raised a weapon against Palestine on behalf of the enemy during war, was appointed to negotiate with a foreign government on a Palestinian issue and negotiated against Palestinians' interest, performed a hostile action against a foreign country in a way that endangers Palestine in war or in harming political relations, served a foreign army in time of war, advised or helped soldiers to enlist in this army, weakened the spirit or the force of resistance of the people, or spied against Palestine especially during war."

Hamas is not the victim. Hamas is an oppressive, terrorist regime. The rest of the Arab world sees this very clearly. And for the first time, the rest of the Arab world is not afraid to speak out against Hamas. That's how bad the situation in Israel has gotten. Even the Arab world is sympathetic to the plight of Israel.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday December 23, 2008

Column:

His stage name is Massive. He is a rapper. And he is a singing sensation in certain parts of the Middle East. Courtesy of the Goethe Institut, a German based cultural agency, Massive just concluded a tour of the West Bank. His Palestinian audiences were enthralled.

I, on the contrary, am appalled.

This is a verse from one of Massive's most popular numbers: "I'm planning a terrible suicide attack. I'll storm you with a 100 year old beard and we'll blow you up like the Twin Towers." Other lyrics speak of terrorists as freedom fighters and glorify "their fight against the Israelis the Americans and the West."

Massive's parents call him Wassim Taha. He is the son of Lebanese parents who arrived in Germany by way of a United Nations refugee camp set up for Palestinians. Wassim Taha was born in Germany, but his heart and soul and music are pure Palestinian.

The Goethe people claim that they were duped. They say they had no idea of the message Massive spreads through his music. They say that they relied on the good judgment of their satellite office in Ramallah. Truth is, you do not have to go far to uncover the imagery invoked by the Palestinian rapper. Massive is not into subtlety. His songs, his posters, his album covers, all scream hatred.

Middle East diplomacy and culture are rife with complexities that Westerners cannot understand. What Middle Easterners interpret as nuance, Westerners call duplicity and lies. The basic rule of thumb for dealing with Arab Middle East entities is to verify, to check and to confirm through outside sources. Never believe what was promised. That truth holds for politics, for aid packages and for business. It holds for cultural exchanges even for concerts.

The Goethe Institut did not do their due diligence. When the agency discovered that their money was sponsoring an individual who fomented hatred and embraced suicide attacks they expressed embarrassment. German politicians and German newspapers raised serious questions about how this debacle happened.

Politics is not a part of the Goethe Institut. They are a state sponsored educational center that brings German culture and language to the world. Their mandate is to highlight the beauty of Germany. The budget comes directly from the German foreign ministry and the government press office.

The head of The Goethe Institute in Germany issued an important, albeit weak, statement. Klaus-Dieter Lehmann said: "Some of Massive's texts are not free of violence. In the future we should be more careful with whom we invite."

I say, in the future you should be more careful about whom you hire.

The local Ramallah Goethe people should be fired. They knew what they were doing and why they had to hide it. It was no accident that they invited Massive with his lyrics to tour the Palestinian Authority. They sold the home office a carefully crafted lie. And those in charge in Germany simply believed what they were told.

Saying I'm sorry is not enough. The damage has been done.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=halpern%2C+micah

Tuesday December 9, 2008

Column:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Polish born National Security Adviser under President Jimmy Carter who became an early adviser to the Obama campaign, is still dispensing foreign policy advise.

At eighty something years old Brzezinski, aka Ziggy, is probably too old to want to get his hands dirty with the nitty gritty of daily crisis management that a close national security advisor to the president of the United States must be involved in. I do not expect to see Ziggy playing a formal or significant role in the White House of Barack Obama. But I do expect that we will be hearing from him.

Right now, Brzezinski seems to feel more comfortable as an arm chair advisor than as a paid or appointed advisor. And right now he has decided to make the State of Israel the recipient of his hard earned experience and erudite advise.

In an interview with the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, Brzezinski leveled some harsh and disturbing criticism, in the guise of advise, upon Israel's military and political leadership. Brzezinski's remarks were made in the context of following up on comments made by the president-elect. Specifically, Obama saying that he would meet with Iranians without preconditions and his recent Meet the Press interview during which he described the carrot and stick incentives he intends to propose to Iran enabling them to put aside their nuclear aspirations.

Brzezinski had four main points to make:

# 1: He advised the Israeli government "not to engage in this campaign for an American attack on Iran, because I don't think America is going to attack Iran, and if it did, [and] the consequences would be disastrous."

# 2: He warned Israel saying "I don't know if Iran believes the military option is real, but I think it's not a real option for the U.S., and it is not a real option for Israel, because Israel doesn't have a capability to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities."

# 3: He predicted that "It can damage them, so it can only delay the process, while intensifying Iranian extremism and wielding together Iranian nationalism and Iranian fundamentalism, which I don't think is in anyone's interest.

# 4: He heckled. "Last, but not least, Israel really cannot execute effective strike without our permission. Because if you look at the map, you can see the reason why it is so."

Brzezinski is taking Israel to task. The former national security adviser under one of the most unfriendly former presidents of the United States towards Israel, is publicly asserting that Israel is behind the move to stop Iran's race to become a nuclear power. He is asserting that Israel is exerting serious force on the United States to intercede and prevent Iran from becoming an atomic nation and a nuclear leader in the Middle East.

While there is little doubt that Israel sees a nuclear Iran as a significant threat, there is also little doubt that the United States has arrived at the same conclusion totally on its own. And so has the United Nations. And that is where and why Brzezinski's analysis falters. Any student of the global political map knows with clarity and certainty that while Israel may hold some sway over United States policy, Israel holds nothing over the United Nations.

Even the conspiratorialists who actually believe that Israel has a lot to say and considerable pull in determining US policy could never convince any level headed person that Israel pulled the strings and exerted influence to convince the United Nations to exert their power and efforts to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear. The UN Security Council has been the most significant force attempting to persuade Iran from becoming nuclear. And seated on the UN Security Council have traditionally been some of Israel's most vocal and forceful opponents.

While Ziggy is no longer an Obama adviser, his ideas area shared by many of the people who are current Obama advisers. But not by all. There are others who think as I think. Who think that while Brzezinski was a brilliant advisor years ago, now he should remain in his arm chair and keep his thoughts to himself.

If the United States wants Iran to take their demands seriously, the United States must make level demands upon Iran. One of those demands must specifically call for Iran to behave within nuclear norms that are internationally acceptable. Another equally important demand must be for Iran to tone down the rhetoric and stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map. America must demand that Iranians proves that they are a country of builders and not destroyers before they are allowed to have such dangerous technology.

I believe that the new administration will pursue the right path when it comes to Iran, not the Brzezinski path. They will do so because when you analyze the situation today, now, not with hindsight but with foresight, they will discover that there is no other realistic option.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday December 2, 2008

Column:

We have come face to face with the terror of the future and it is ugly, heinous, barbaric, very well planned and executed with verve and precision.

The enormity of the terror attacks perpetrated by relatively unknown but flawlessly trained terrorists upon the city of Mumbai has left the world shaken and speechless. The legacy of the perpetrators of this terror speaks volumes.

Shariyah, Muslim tradition, clearly commands that all Muslims receive a proper Muslim burial regardless of whether they lived as "drunkard, rapist or criminal." The obligation to bury the nine men who shattered the social, cultural and economic bubble of India fell to the Jama Masjid Trust, the group responsible for the Muslim cemetery in Mumbai. They declined. The Jama Masjid Trust refused to bury the dead Muslim terrorists.

It is an act unprecedented in the modern world. Muslims refusing to bury Muslims. The highly respected and accepted Muslim leaders of the Trust would not accept these men in their cemetery. Why? "[T]he people who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslims" they said, "Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime."

The elders of the Jama Masjid Trust understand what happened in Mumbai during those three days of terror. They understand what the terrorists were doing and why they did it. They understand the implications of their own decision. Just as the terrorists were sending a message, they are sending a message.

The message sent out by the terrorists was not at first understood by the world. The people covering the attack and the people deciding how the story line should unfold had no clear idea of the mission of the terrorists. Maybe because the messengers transmitting the message - the media - were too busy with thanksgiving stories to pay attention to what was really happening in the city known as the Silicon Capitol of India. They were too busy focusing in on the American and British passport holder angle of the story to understand that "American" and "British" were just shorthand for "Western."

They were too busy recounting the story of the one person who said he was Italian and was told by the terrorist that he could go to focus on the story of the little boy who miraculously escaped in the arms of his baby sitter, the little boy whose parents were mercilessly massacred.

The story behind the terrorist attack on Mumbai is the story of terrorist targets. No location was arbitrarily chosen. No terrorist entered a site by chance. The locations and the people inside those locations were carefully chosen.

The terrorists chose to attack Western hotels, Western hang outs and the Central Train Station populated by Western nationals. They entered those locations in order to cripple India economically. They entered in order to make India pay for the crime of fraternizing with Westerners, for the crime of falling under the influence of Western mores and norms. They were there in order to show the West and the world that ultimately India was weak and incapable of caring for their Western investments, their Western concerns, their Western guests.

The terrorists chose to attack a Jewish Israeli center because Jews and Israelis do not belong in India. Locating the Jewish site was no accident. It required a great deal of research and knowledge. The terrorists were asserting the very nature of India by attacking the Chabad center. India is a Muslim country, Muslims host neither Jews nor Israelis.

These Muslim terrorists were in India to teach the Indians a lesson. Their lesson should not be lost on us. A large part of the world despises, truly despises, the West. The principled Muslims of the Jama Masjid Trust are few and far between. The majority of Muslims will not turn into terrorists. But others will. And they will be well armed, well trained and well organized. We have been warned. We have seen the future of terror.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday November 25, 2008

Column:

In the past year the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ruled by King Abdullah son of Hussein, signed nuclear agreements with the United States, with Russia, with Great Britain, with France and with South Korea. They also initialed a set of understandings with China.

That set of understanding has now turned into a treaty. China and Jordan have just signed a nuclear treaty. Of all the treaties entered into by Jordan, the one that most interests me, the one that most reverberates throughout the Middle East, the one that most impacts the world, is the treaty with China.

Predicting what will happen next in the Middle East is one of the trickiest games ever played in the foreign policy arena. But careful observation of Jordan, monitoring what Abdullah considers to be important and what he considers inconsequential, tracking those colleagues with whom he has conversations and those whom he snubs, is one of the most precise ways to determine the future of the Middle East region and one of the best guides to be used in shaping Middle East policy.

Under Hussein, Jordan was a significant player in the Middle East. Always hosting, always promoting. The former leader of the Hashemite Kingdom took some bold steps and brought his country into the big leagues, into league with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The apple has not fallen far from the tree. Abdullah has continued to maintain the stature of Jordan in the Arab and Muslim world, maintaining order even while he brings about change in Jordan. With this latest move the Jordanian monarch and benevolent despot is planning for the future.

King Abdullah has seen the path toward nuclear capability burgeon in the Middle East and he has decided not to let his own influential, but small, country linger on the sidelines. That is why Jordan signed on with China. According to the treaty these two unlikely partners have signed, China will train the Jordanians in nuclear technology, China will help Jordan build an experimental nuclear reactor and finally, China will teach Jordanians how to mine for the Uranium that already exists in at least two spots in Jordan.

In other words, China will prepare Jordan for what King Abdullah perceives to be the inevitable future - a nuclear, trigger happy, Iran.

Jordan may not border Iran, but Jordan is still threatened by Iran. Iran threatens every nation in the Middle East. Iran threatens even non-democratic, non-Western nations. The Middle East is no longer about a conflict between Israelis and Muslims. The Middle East is a bigger conflict, it is about Muslims and Muslims, it is about Shiites and Sunnis.

Iran is struggling to get nuclear technology and so the rest of the Middle East must struggle to keep up with Iran, knowing that they can never get ahead of Iran. It is a case of keeping up with the Jones', Middle East style. When it comes to nuclear affairs, Iran has set the agenda for the Middle East and hence, for the world.

The big powers in the Arab world need to respond to Iran's nuclear acquisition now. Saudi Arabia and Egypt and now Jordan need to be prepared. Following the lead of the major players are some smaller countries, like Yemen, which has also begun the process of developing nuclear technology. Other countries are sure to follow and that is not mere prediction, it is a reality. Iranian expectations have caused a spiral effect in the Middle East region. The balance of power will be shifted and then re-shifted and re-shifted again after Iran attains nuclear superiority in the region.

Sunni Jordan realizes that there will be a time when they will have to shoot out of the blocks to maintain a sense of parity against Shiite Iran. Egypt will do the same. So will Saudi Arabia. Ironically, the big winners in this Middle East race towards nuclear technology and capability will not come from the Middle East region. The big winners will be China and Russia. It is China and Russia who are supplying the countries of the Middle East with the technology and information they need and lack. And in the end both China and Russia will be uniquely qualified to determine the assets of each of the player countries. China and Russia will know which buttons to push, literally and figuratively, because they are the countries to have installed them.

The world is changing. Allegiances are changing. Change is not always for the best.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday November 19, 2008

Column:

The United Nations is scheduled to release a report on nuclear activity in Syria. Specifically, the report will present data on whether or not traces of uranium were discernible at the Syrian site attacked by Israel on September 6, 2007. In plain terms, the UN is asking whether or not Israel was justified in attacking Syria.

The answer is obvious - to everyone except the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nation's watch dog agency. The United States knows that Israel was justified, Israel knows that Israel was justified, Syria knows that Israel was justified, but the United Nations is still unsure.

Initially, the UN reported that the evidence was inconclusive. Soon afterwards the UN reported that traces of highly enriched uranium were, indeed, found at the site. And now Muhammad El Baradei, head of the IAEA, is scheduled to release the formal, long awaited, report on the matter.

In a more informal setting El Baradei gave out a hint of what will be found in this report. Speaking at a Cooperation Conference held in Dubai El Baradei said that the soon to be released report will be "inconclusive." First the findings were designated inconclusive, now the report will be inconclusive. The word "inconclusive" I now conclusively declare is a code word in UN speak. It really means "we do not want to condemn Syria."

The UN and El Baradei put it more delicately. They have said that they had wished that Syria "would have been more transparent." They said they had hoped to get more help form Syria. I ask: Why would Syria help?

Immediately after the predawn air strike by Israel on the building that abuts the Turkish border the Syrians came out with bulldozers and plowed under the entire site. Anyone who watches CSI knows that they not only tampered with the evidence, they not only contaminated the site, they destroyed it, they decimated it, they wiped it clean. The Syrians wanted nothing to remain, they wanted nothing standing and nothing on the ground, they wanted nothing that they knew would be part of the inevitable investigation.

Syria does not want to cooperate, Syria wants to complain.

Initially, Syria said that the building was an agricultural laboratory. Now, more than a year later, an adviser to Syria's President Bashar Assad asserted on CNN that the site was a military building. Which was it? It cannot be both. And we know that it was neither.

When trace elements of uranium were found at the site, the Syrians began shouting out explanations. First, they claimed that the trace was from the Israeli bombs. Second, they said the world is conspiring against Syria and their proof is that word of the uranium story was leaked by diplomats even before Syrian authorities had a chance to hear the accusations.

First things first. The Israelis did not use nuclear warheads in their attack, so there goes that theory. Second, the world is conspiring, but not against Syria. The world, using the United Nations as the largest representative of the world, is conspiring to whitewash Syria, to benefit Syria, to bend over backwards and give Syria more than the benefit of doubt.

When the IAEA report is released it will say that the presence of highly enriched uranium is not evidence of a nuclear reactor. That is true, but it misses the point.

The inspectors, the International Atomic Energy Agency and even the Syrians are missing the point of the Israeli strike. The point was to hit the reactor before it was on line. The point was to set Syria back on their timeline for nuclear purposes. The point was to stop Syria before it was too late.

If the structure truly had been an agricultural laboratory, or if it had even been a military building there should not have been fission material on site. And if the material was found at the site it should only have been in minute amounts. But the material was found and it was found in larger than minute amounts.

Israel knew what it was doing and we should say thank you. We all know what the United Nations is doing and we should be afraid.

When you hear hoof beats, don't start looking for zebras.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday November 11, 2008

Column:

We may all live in the same universe, but we also live in very different worlds.

The Arab world, with the exception of al Qaeda, is pleased as punch, tickled pink, just plain thrilled that Barack Obama has been elected to the high post of president of the United States. The Arab press has not stopped singing the praises of the man now known as 44.

The choice of Barack Hussein Obama as president of the United States of America is seen as a victory for the Arab and Muslim world by the Arab and Muslim world. The vast majority of that world has been frustrated, annoyed and angered by United States foreign policy for many years, never more so than under the helm of President George Bush. When Obama first entered the presidential race he was heralded as a hero. Almost every statement released by the Arab world prior to the election endorsed Obama. Now that he has won he is just short of a messiah. They are convinced that now everything will be different. They are convinced that Obama is one of their own, they are convinced that foreign policy under Barack Obama will smile upon them.

What has become evident from the coverage, editorials, statements and comments by leaders of the Arab world in praise of Obama is just how little these societies understand about the United States and about democracy. They think, they truly believe, that US foreign policy will change on a dime. The Arab world thinks that this new administration will come to its senses about Israel. They think that the United States and Iran are about to begin a friendship.

Certainly it is customary to congratulate a winner in any election, but the congratulatory messages from the Arab world were anything but standard protocol.
Here is a sampling of their comments:
Iranian President Ahmadinejad: "Obama's victory proves Bush failed."
The Iranian president even wrote a letter to Obama saying that the time has come for Americans to stop butting into the affairs of other countries and focus on internal affairs.

Hamas: "Obama should learn from Bush's mistakes."

Syrian Minister of Information: "hopes that Obama will herald a change in United States policy" and that the US will be constructive instead of destructive.

President Mubarak of Egypt: "expects a constructive approach to the Middle East."

President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas: "Obama is serious about the Middle East."
He "hopes that Obama will make headway in the Middle East Peace process."

The president of Iraq: "eager to cooperate with Obama."

A large and influential newspaper in Saudi Arabia wrote: "the election of Obama is the end of the era of white men in the White House." "We want to be able to admire the US once again."

Al Qaeda did not share in these sentiments. Al Qaeda is disappointed in the election of Barack Obama. Al Qaeda was hoping that John McCain would be elected the next president of the United States so that, to paraphrase them,
the United States would continue the failed policies of George Bush which would serve to motivate more fighters to join al Qaeda in the Jihad against the US.

The Arab and Muslim world will be disappointed.

United States foreign policy under Barack Obama will differ very slightly from United States foreign policy under George Bush when it comes to the Middle East and to terror. It makes no difference who the president is, facts are facts and security briefings are security briefings and Barack Obama has already begun to get his daily briefings. The strength and direction of US policy will continue because there is no other alternative if we are to remain safe and win the war against terror.

Fundamentally, neither priorities nor policy can change. If there is anything that can humble the most powerful man in the world it is his daily security briefings.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday November 4, 2008

Column:

Agreed: Hamas has never foresworn terror.

Agreed: Hamas refuses to recognize Israel.

Agreed: Hamas refuses to adhere to previously signed peace treaties.

Agreed: Hamas is and should be labeled as a terrorist organization by the United States and across Europe.

These are facts. They are not in dispute by any Western country. Neither are they in dispute by non-Western countries. With Hamas, what you see is what you get. Hamas pulls no punches. Hamas puts up no facade.

Why then, how then, could the European Union Parliamentary Delegation officially invite Hamas legislators to come and visit in the Spring of 2009?

This isn't some surreal novel or a Hollywood action flick, this is for real. This is happening, now, in 2008.

The invitation to Hamas was issued by the head of the EU Parliamentary Delegation, Kyriacost Trianphyllides. When the Reuters news agency challenged the delegation head as to the appropriateness of the invitation given the status of Hamas in the eyes and on the State Department list of the United States and of EU countries, Trianphyllides was ready with a response.

He said: "We don't care who they are as long as they are members of the Legislative Council."

He said: "We don't ask if they are members of Hamas or members of Fatah."

He said: "The PLC was elected in 2006 and it was democratically elected."

Well, he should care. And he should ask. And he should be reprimanded. And the European Union should be challenged for allowing this invitation to be extended to a sworn enemy of freedom and democracy.

Freedom is not to be taken lightly. Is the European Union Parliamentary Delegation intentionally making a mockery of that which we hold dear?

Agreed: Hamas should not be given a forum anywhere in the free world for any reason until they have sworn off terror.

Agreed: Hell will freeze over before that happens.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday October 28, 2008

Column:

For the third time in only six years, Israelis will be heading to the polls in search of a prime minister.

I must confess, I did not see this one coming. Seldom have I been as off base as I was in thinking that the leader of the Kadima party, Tzipi Livni, would be unable to form a government. My predictions concerning the Middle East are usually on target and ahead of the curve - this time, however, it came at me like a curve ball.

Livni was in position to inherit a government from her predecessor. Ehud Olmert had left everything in place. All the former foreign minister and current head of the Kadima party had to do was make the same promises to the same people and parties that Olmert had made. The same promises that Ariel Sharon made before Olmert inherited his government.

Of course there are slight changes, variations on a few themes, but the principles are all the same. In the end, Livni was only able to cobble together 60 out of 120 Israeli Knesset members, exactly one half of the Parliamentary body. And that just wasn't enough. She needed one more vote.

Sixty is not a majority government in the Knesset, it is a narrow government. Other governments have been formed with only sixty members, but it has never been a prudent move. In a country in which a "vote of no confidence" is never farther than a breath away, it is a dangerous political move. And it was a move Livni was not prepared to make.

So now the country waits for another national election.

The part of the political equation that I got so wrong was the Shas party part. Shas has 12 seats in today's Knesset. With Shas in her government Tzipi Livni would have had a comfortable majority of 72. But Shas would not join.

My assumption was that Shas would do everything to avoid elections because elections themselves are so risky, because it is never clear whether a party will go up or down, will gain or lose seats and stature and power. Polls taken now in Israel have Shas losing seats in an upcoming election. A basic and sensible rule of Israeli politics is avoid elections if you think you are going to lose seats. But Shas doesn't play by the rules and my mistake was in underestimating just how far afield they would go this time around. Shas is not a regular political party. It is often referred to as an ultra religious party. It is not. It is a party run by religious leaders.

The masses of the Shas party are traditional, rather than religious themselves, but they feel very positively toward religion and toward their religious leaders. The members are the immigrant children and grandchildren of Jews who came to Israel from Arab countries. They are called "Aidot Hamizrach" which translates to mean "Eastern communities" and they are sometimes referred to as Sepharadim. In the 60 year context since Israel's establishment this group has felt they have not had opportunities for growth and true assimilation into the higher echelons of Israeli society. So Shas was created and continues to function as the political arm that fights for the social, political and religious needs of immigrant Jews from Arab lands.

The masses of Shas voters serve in the army. But the decisions in Shas are made by their great rabbinic leader, by Rabbi Ovadiah Yossef. Shas political leadership advises the Rabbi, but make no mistake about it, the decisions themselves are made by the Rabbi.

And Rav Ovadiah ruled that Shas was not to join in the Livni government. The conflict was over three items: Jerusalem; money to schools; money for families with large children. Most of the issues were resolved. But most is not good enough for Rav Ovadiah.

Shas will probably be a member in the next government go round, but after that election, they may have fewer seats which translates into a lot less power. And to their chagrin, that government may again be headed by Livni.

According to two polls out right now, Kadima headed by Tzipi Livni will keep the same number of seats or gain a couple more, which puts them at 29 - 31 Knesset member seats. Likud, the party that thinks it can steal the crown, will increase their seats to 26 - 29 which is not enough to edge out Kadima. According to the polls Labor is on the way out. Labor will not be a contender and Israel has probably come to the end of an era of Labor national leadership.

Mainstream Israelis responded well to Livni and to the fact that the almost-but-not-quite prime minister said "no" to Shas and would not buckle. Shas, on the other hand, is counting on luring back voters because the party stood on principle and did not capitulate on the issues so dear to their constituents.

What do I think? I think I'll think about it a little longer.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

October 6, 2008

Column:

When Ephraim Halevy has something to say, most people listen. And Halevy, former chief of the Israeli Mossad, does not believe that Israelis should be involved in American politics. The Obama camp, apparently, thinks otherwise.

In a new Obama ad, an ad that will begin running on You Tube, on television and on radio this week, prominent Israeli heroes are seen and heard endorsing Obama Barack for president. According to the ad, the suggestion is that Obama is best for Israel and for the region and a vote for McCain is a vote for the continuation of George Bush's "failed" Middle East doctrine. Only problem with the ad, say some of the Israelis, is that when they were interviewed, they were never told that it was for a campaign ad and certainly not for an Obama ad campaign.

The stretch-the-truth ritual has been celebrated by candidates ever since the advent of political advertisements. This year, however, the candidates aren't just stretching or bending the truth, they are twisting and turning the truth, sometimes even going so far as to make up or fabricate what they then call truths.

The former head of the Mossad actually likes Obama. "I think that Obama is a breath of fresh air," he said during the interview. But he is not about to let the Barack Obama campaign twist either his words or his implication. Halevy is livid, to quote him directly: I told them I thought it was inappropriate for an Israeli to express an opinion on who should be president of the U.S. ... it angers me. I think it was an improper use of the interview with me and I will demand that they correct it ..."

The back story about this ad is becoming big news in Israel. In a piece that ran in the largest Hebrew daily newspaper, Yediot Ahronot and on YNET, the papers popular web site, Halevy denied ever having expressly supported Obama. He said: "I said he's a fresh, interesting personality and so forth, but I also said positive things about McCain."

The group responsible for - and under fire for - putting this ad together is called The Jewish Council for Education and Research. This same group is responsible for two other Jewish voting initiatives for Obama, they are the sponsors of jewsvote.com and The Great Schlep. Jews Vote is a program that tries to register as many democratic voters as possible. The Great Schlep has gained fame and notoriety for developing the Sarah Silverman ad, a campaign directed at younger, Jewish voters urging them to schlep to Florida in order to convince their bubbes, and I presume their zaydees as well, their grandparents, to vote Barack Obama for president. Silverman is so impassioned in her plea that she says: "if Obama loses this election I'm going to blame the Jews."

General Uzi Dayan, a nephew of Moshe Dayan arguably one of Israel's most famous war heroes turned politician, is another of the heroes featured in the ad campaign. In the ad Dayan says: "I would say that an American president, in my personal opinion, needs actually to be engaged with Iran ... you can't not talk to the Iranians and then one day attack them ... I'm not saying give in to them, because ultimately, you need to stop Iran from reaching nuclear capability."

After discovering that he was featured in the ad Dayan said: "I never said I support Obama or his opinions ... they interviewed me in early July and said the interview would be devoted to questions of Middle East policy that would be on the new president's desk ... I don't know what I'm doing in a campaign video." Like Halevy, Dayan has asked for a correction and asked the Obama people at The Council for Jewish Education and Research to remove him from the ad.

Other voices, like those of Reserve Brigadier General Shaul Arieli and ex-Mossad agent Yossi Alpher, are heard on this ad criticizing the Bush administration for Middle East failures and asserting that McCain seems close to the Bush doctrine so with McCain there will be more of the same.

The issue here is not as simple as a manipulation of quotes and out of context interviews. The issue is intention and the intention of this ad, and other ads like it on both sides of the aisle, is to change reality. The intention of this ad specifically is to exploit American viewers by having first exploited Israeli war heroes. That is wrong. That is immoral.

Are there no ex-generals or intelligence people who actually do subscribe to the Obama thesis? Are there no military types who would willingly and knowingly praise Barack Obama? If there were, why would the Obama campaign have resorted to trickery and chicanery and why go all the way to Israel? It makes me wonder.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday September 24, 2008

Column:

Ahmadinejad is many things but he is far from crazy.

The present and future ruler of Iran is totally in control of his faculties. Thinking of him a raging lunatic is a serious mistake. Thinking of him as an out of control maniac is a serious miscalculation.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is dangerous, very dangerous. He is not dangerous because he is deranged, he is dangerous because he has a brilliant grasp of the way the world works. And the way the world works is not the way Ahmadinejad wants it to work. So Ahmadinejad wants to change the world.

It's that simple.

To discount Ahmadinejad because he rants and raves and makes statements that are so outside the realm of believable that he sounds crazy only puts us, his non-believers, at risk. To minimize his power and his importance as the conveyer of ideas to his many followers is to misunderstand the power that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad truly wields.

There are people who trust his word and believe his rhetoric. There are people who have fallen under the mystique he has created about himself. But there aren't enough people like that. Ahmadinejad is trying to drum up more followers, more believers, and to achieve that aim, he ratchets up his rhetoric.

Ahmadinejad is an anti-intellectual intellectual. He deliberately presents himself as an anti-intellectual, as someone against the intelligentsia and the wealthy elite of Iran. In reality the leader of Iran is a true intellectual, schooled deeply in history and literature.

So when Ahmadinejad makes his statements about Israel or when he denies the Holocaust he is not speaking out of ignorance. He is using buzz words. He know that the words "Israel" and "Holocaust" elicit a visceral, a palpable, reaction in the Arab Muslim world. Ahmadinejad has a reason for what sounds like madness.

His objective is to lead a united Islam under his control.

Ahmadinejad does what he must do to attain the status he seeks. Certainly Ahmadinejad knows that there was a Holocaust in Europe, he knows that the Holocaust resulted in the murder and destruction of the Jewish community of Europe. He also knows that the way to achieve his objective is to feed off of the conspiracy theories that thrive in the Muslim world. And he knows that in order to obtain standing in the greater Muslim Arab world he must pay lip service to the Palestinian cause.

Ahmadinejad does what he believes because he himself is a believer. He rejects the premise that a non-Muslim body can control Muslim land. And there is no more Muslim land than Jerusalem. He rejects Israel's very presence because Israel has shattered Islamic hegemony over the land. And he cannot tolerate or condone a situation that allows Zionists to exist on holy land and a situation that even allows the Zionists to control the holy sites in the Holy Land.

Ahmadinejad acts the way he does because in his own world, he is politically savvy. He will never speak the word "Israel" or use the term "Jewish State" because, surprisingly, the Koran does not always view the Jew negatively. In fact, in the Koran there is at times an intimation that the Jew is valuable and important. Instead, Ahmadinejad uses the term "Zionist entity." That is why he so carefully differentiates between "Jews" and "Zionists."

If there was no Holocaust there is no justification for creating the Jewish State. By rejecting the Holocaust Ahmadinejad takes away the moral, ethical and historical grounds upon which Israel was created. The truth has nothing to do with the reality when you are a motivational Muslim extremist. Theories are built upon emotion and emotion, in Ahmadinejad's case, is used to stoke the passions that will enable him to rise as a leader.

Ahmadinejad is not crazy. He is ruthless.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday September 17, 2008

Column:

Mickey Mouse is getting mauled in the Muslim world.

It all began when Hamas children's television transformed the lovable Disney character into a Palestinian character, renamed him Farfu and had him beaten up and pummeled within inches of his life by Israeli soldiers. It was in very poor taste. It was immoral. Co-opting one of the most universally recognized and loved Disney characters and turning him into a creature that preaches rage and teaches hatred, murder and revenge was unconscionable.

The world cried out, the Magic Kingdom threatened lawsuits but the Palestinians persisted. Mickey Mouse recently re-appeared in a program produced by Palestinian television and geared for children. In this go round Mickey and his friends remain in the background as the child host of the program educates his audience on the subject of the borders of Palestine, omitting any mention of Israel.

Now the situation has taken a more adult and more sensational turn.

A leading Sunni cleric has come out with a Fatwa, a religious edict, declaring that all mice, including and especially Mickey Mouse, are repulsive and are to be destroyed. The cleric behind this religious pronouncement is named Mohammad al Munajid. The Fatwa was made public during an interview on Al Majd TV.

Al Munajid was not just grabbing headlines, there is reason to his madness.

This sheik is no stranger to the West, on the contrary, he is conversant in and very aware of Western culture and Western television programming. Al Munajid was stationed in Washington, DC as a diplomat in the Saudi Embassy.

According to this cleric Islamic law is unambiguous about mice. Mice are repulsive, corruptive, creatures. Al Munajid maintains that Disney purposefully transformed these vile rodents into lovable characters instead of portraying them as the awful creatures that they truly are. Al Munajid quotes the Shaariya. He says that mice are linked with Satan. He says that mice set fire to the house, that mice are the soldiers of Satan.

These are pretty harsh attack against a defenseless cartoon character.

It's easy to simply respond by saying that Munajid is corrupting the essence of Disney. Right now, however, a little perspective is essential in order to truly understand what is behind these controversial, confrontational comments.

Sunni cleric Mohammad al Munajid is a radical. He is radically anti-Western, radically anti-American and radically anti everything that is not Muslim. He is an extremist. He lives off anger. He is the Sunni sheik who gained notoriety during the Beijing Olympics by calling the games satanic and by calling them the Bikini Olympics. Yes, he is that Muslim, he is that character.

When Walt Disney first conceived of a mouse named Mickey there was some fear on the past of the company about how the world would connect with a mouse. Screaming and running away is exactly the opposite of the desired effect. Those fears proved unfounded. Mickey Mouse entered the homes and the hearts of children and their parents all across America and around the world.

And some of the homes that allowed Mickey to enter are located in the Muslim Arab part of the world. And that frightens Sheikh Mohammad al Munajid. And that is why it was not only permitted to corrupt the image of Mickey Mouse in the Muslim world, that is why it was encouraged. And that is why Mickey Mouse has now been banned.

Mickey Mouse deserves better. So do the children of Islam.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday September 11, 2008

Column:

One of the best ways to evaluate a society is by examining the humor of that society.

Freud asserted that in every joke there is a kernel of truth. I would assert that there is much, much more than simply a kernel. There is profound expression in humor. Societies use humor as a way of calling out, of crying for help, of pleading for law and order, a way to save their victims from untenable situations. The twist is that the call, the cry and the plea are accompanied not by tears, but by laughter.

In many circumstances the joke, humor, is the only way to actually raise essential societal questions while also allowing people to live through a situation that should be viewed as crazy and out of the ordinary, but that has become their everyday norm.

Jewish jokes have set the standard for gentle but honest self-deprecation. Jewish jokes were also the first to tackle indelicate situations in a digestible way. The jokes, written by Jews and about Jews are a window into the pain and pathos of the Jewish people during specific times in history. Originally intended for Jewish audiences, the genre has now become familiar to all ethnic groups and is a staple of many comedic performances.

It's okay to laugh at a Jewish joke, even if you're not Jewish. It's acceptable. In many cases, it's expected. That is not the case in all societies.

The Jewish people have a heightened sense of humor. Jews have taken to expressing themselves through humor even in the most horrific of situations. Sometimes, that humor is used as a defense mechanism. Sometimes it is a release from the tensions of life, or of death, surrounding them.

This poignant and powerful tool called humor was even used to help navigate through the horrors of the Holocaust. In Nazi Germany the Jews were being murdered. There was no escape from the German death machine. And yet the period is replete with jokes about Hitler and his allies, about Poles, about Lithuanians and Germans and everyone else. There were jokes about the murderers, about the allies, about the collaborators and even about fellow Jews.

Even the movie Cabaret, a story about the sidebar atrocities perpetrated by German Nazis during the Holocaust, makes its point through humor. The cabaret inside the movie Cabaret is the vehicle for humor, the cabaret is the release valve, it is the time and place where one is not only permitted, but encouraged, to laugh.

Humor provides people a tool and the ability to critique even in the most oppressive societies, even in the Muslim world.

In most of the Muslim world there is no free press, there is no freedom of expression and there is no permission to offer critique. Muslims living in Muslim countries do not have the right to freely assemble or to publicly redress grievances. Freedoms considered essential by Americans and by most of the Western world do not exist in the Muslim world.

But humor does exist. Humor in the Muslim world is an underground movement. Jokes never have authors, they just have a life. It's safer that way, so when a joke really takes off no one knows where it came from and when it will stop. Internet joke listings and SMS cell phone messaging have propelled Muslim humor. There is even an Iranian joke that ends with Ahmadinejad receiving a joke about himself on his own cell phone and getting so angry that he purges the cell phone company's entire SMS bureau. That's funny. That's a joke that was written by and for Iranians, but made its way to the Western world.

Most of the Iranian jokes that have made their way through Iran portray Ahmadinejad as a buffoon. They are mostly about the Iranian leader and his interaction with Western society. There are, of course, a good number of Iranian jokes about George Bush.

Many of the jokes that pervade the Arab world in general deal with Ahmadinejad. They also deal with the previous henchmen and thugs aka former leaders of Arab Muslim countries, leaders who can no longer retaliate against the humor. By and large Arab leaders found jokes to be offensive and called them criminal acts against the state. They said jokes foment anti-state feelings. Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat fell into that category. So does Muammar Qadaffi, despite the new relationship between the United States and Libya. So do most of the monarchs and dictators still ruling the Middle East.

Humor is not just political commentary. It is a panacea that allows people in oppressed and in free societies to wake up in the morning and go to sleep at night. It allows us to laugh until we cry.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday September 3, 2008

Column:

There are countries that practice diplomacy as a form of fine art and there are countries that practice diplomacy as an "in your face" martial art. And there are countries that practice a mix of the two arts.

Western countries usually, successfully, practice the fine art form. The Palestinians usually end up in the "in your face" martial art category. The first phase of Palestinian diplomacy, the obligatory polite, fine art, phase, almost immediately gives way to the we-will-do-it-our-way-but-make-believe-we-are-still-being-polite phase which then turns into their we will do what we want, when we want, whichever way we want "in your face" final stage of diplomacy.

And when that happens, which is almost always, only another Arab country can get the Palestinians to change policy or principle. No Western power, not the United States, not Israel, not any other Western democracy has any power, or recourse, or redress when the Palestinians have made up their minds and decided diplomacy be damned.

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinians Authority, leader of Fatah and successor to Arafat just demonstrated the type of diplomacy he practices. It was "in your face" of the highest rank. Mahmoud Abbas traveled to Lebanon for a special meeting with one of the most notorious, most vile, most celebrated, freed from prison in a prisoner exchange, terrorist alive today.

Abbas met with Samir Kuntar. Kuntar is the terrorist recently released by Israel along with four other terrorists held in Israeli prisons in exchange for the mutilated, desecrated and obviously tortured remains of Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev who had been kidnapped by Hezbollah and taken into Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

Kuntar was captured by Israel only after he had brutally and publicly murdered a four year old girl, bashing her skull with the butt of his machine gun until blood oozed out of her ears and her head was so crushed it looked to those who found the dead body like a raw egg. And he killed her father. And he killed a policeman. And in the throes of the terrorist attack he perpetrated her younger sister died, too.

Why? Why would the leader of the Palestinian people, the man lobbying for his own country by promising peace with Israel, even go to a meeting with Samir Kuntar let alone ask for the meeting as Kuntar proudly boasted.

The King of Saudi Arabia did not call for a meeting, or even call, Samir Kuntar. Neither did the president of Egypt or the Emir of Dubai or the Emir of Qatar. Abbas paid double respect to the released murderer, he called him upon his release and has now met with him.

Why? Because politically Abbas gains much more from the meeting than he loses. The hits or losses that Abbas takes from this meeting are obvious - Israel is very, very upset, the United States is very upset, Germany is upset. But those countries will move on and as they say in diplomatic circles, they'll get over it. It will take Israel the longest to get over it and it may come back to haunt Abbas, but there will be no immediate reaction. The response at home is immediate.

Abbas calculates that the benefits from the meeting will win him points at home. He does not hope to convince fence sitters because there are no fence sitters in the Palestinian Authority. There are supporters of Hamas and there are supporters of Fatah. And they are killing one another.

The President of the Palestinian Authority met with Samir Kuntar to prove that he is not a Jew lover, that he is not an Israeli lover. Diplomacy be damned. He wants to prove that Mahmoud Abbas and notorious killer of Israelis Samir Kuntar are cut of the same cloth. Abbas went to Lebanon to put on a show for Palestinians and Arabs world over. He went to prove that Abbas embraces murderers of little Israeli Jewish children.

The actions of Mahmoud Abbas, the intentions of Mahmoud Abbas, should inspire fear in every person who fights terror and favors democracy. The heart of Mahmoud Abbas is stone cold. He places politics above humanity. He embraces terror. That has just been proven with one significant visit to Lebanon.

The reality of Palestinian politics is that, at this point, Fatah has a plurality over Hamas and that advantage will for the near future. Sometimes, some people get frustrated with the corruption of Fatah and the extremism of Hamas but few will ever bolt to the other party. In the Palestinian Authority most party lines divide by families and loyalties to family members in various positions of power.

Most recent polls show that Abbas beats Hanyiah of Hamas 53%-39% and Fatah beats Hamas 43%-29% in party polling. The numbers are virtually unchanged since the last serious poll.

You see, Abbas really did not have to prove anything. He's made it. Abbas met with Samir Kuntar because he wanted to meet with Samir Kuntar, because in his heart, he probably respects Samir Kuntar. The intense emotional pull Mahmoud Abbas felt for terrorist Samir Kuntar overrode diplomacy. And it overrode decency.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday August 28, 2008

Column:

A recent poll shows that 63 percent of Americans favor a military strike against Iran should diplomacy fail.

Sixty three percent, that's a whopping big number. It's an important number. It's a number that speaks not of an America that is fed up, tired or weary. It speaks of a spirited and vibrant America. And it's a number that shows that Americans are not gun shy, that Americans have not become weakened by the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans do not like injustice, Americans do not like evil and Americans are not afraid of bullies. And for Americans, Iran is all of those.

But there's a problem with the results of this poll. The problem is that the people of America are not the government of America. Americans are not afraid, but the government of America is afraid, or at least, wary. The results of this survey come at a very important time, they come only days after the conclusion of the conflict between Russia and Georgia, a conflict during which the United States of America chose to stand on the sidelines rather than stand up for freedom and democracy.

Interestingly, this poll was commissioned by the Israel Project, an unabashedly pro Israel advocacy program in Washington DC - and proud of it.

To give this study credibility, and to guarantee objectivity, the Israel Project went to both Democratic and Republican pollsters and jointly they produced the study. On the Republican side the poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies. On the Democratic side it was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. They also took the poll to Germany and Great Britain.

85 percent of Democrats and 97 percent of Republicans see Iran as a serious threat to the United States. That is about as close as one can get to a bi-partisan agreement on anything, let alone a call to war. These conclusions are enormously important for the presidential candidates. They are also important for those countries around the world who hoping to continue to receive infusions of support for their burgeoning democracies from the United States.

Right now, right when the results of this poll are being released countries like Israel and Georgia are trying to integrate the lessons learned during the conflict between Russia and Georgia. They are trying to understand the how could they and the why did they not of the American response. Now they have an answer, the American people will support them, even if the American government does not. They know it because 55 percent of the Americans polled said that they viewed positively a strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities.

They know it because they know that 57 percent of Americans actually understand Iran better than most American politicians do. 57 percent of those Americans polled responded that they believe that the reason the Iranians want to attain nuclear power and nuclear weapons is to maximize their own, personal, regional authority and world power.

Americans attribute an actual motive to Iran's nuclear pursuits. And they are not afraid to admit it.

Take heed, that is the American way.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday August 21, 2008

Column:

The Zionist dream is alive and well.

Refugees are once again abandoning their place of birth, enduring great physical hardship and risking their lives to enter the Land of Israel. These are not the Jews of Europe, fleeing anti-Semitism, yearning for their ancestral home. They are not the Jews of Iraq, expelled from their homes and hiking across borders to take refuge in the land of their biblical forefathers. They are not the Jews of Ethiopia who walked for hundreds of miles and hundreds of days to escape persecution before they were, finally, airlifted to safety in Israel.

They are Muslims.

They are survivors from Darfur.

And only the lucky ones make it. Since January of this year nineteen people have been shot to death at the border between Egypt and Israel. Hundreds of others have illegally but safely and successfully crossed the border into Israel.
The Jewish government of Israel allows these non-Jewish escapees who have made their way across the fertile plain to enter their country unharmed. The Egyptian Arab government shoots to kill as fellow Muslims attempt to leave their country. How ironic. How very sad.

Egyptian policy is to use lethal force, that's the way they do things. Israeli policy is to offer medical plans.

Despite all the horrific anti-Israel vitriol than pervades the Muslim world, despite the lessons of hate that children are taught from their earliest years in schools and in places of worship, these people fleeing for their lives know that escape to Israel is one of their only chances of survival. They risk danger in order to enter the Land of Zion, in order to achieve their own dreams of coming to Israel.

Persecuted Jews came to Israel in order to transform their Jewish experience from one of being the victim to one of being the defender. They came to be a part of a society that is new, vibrant and free of oppression. So, too, with today's refugees entering Israel. What makes Israel so exciting to the people of Darfur and other parts of Africa, what makes Israel so enticing, so worth the risk of getting there is the life they will lead once there. Freedom is a hard commodity to come by in most of the world, even today.

The story of the miracle of Israel has taken hold in the hearts and minds of oppressed people - even oppressed Muslims in far away Africa. In Israel, the Jews made the desert bloom. And in Israel they provide health care and offer education to everyone regardless of religion or color or citizenship.

The Darfur Muslims now entering Israel are given a home and a haven. When Jews were in trouble the gates of the world were shut to them. Israel will never shut the gates - not to Jews and not to any peoples in need. Just like the stranded Boat People of Viet Nam who entered Israel in 1978 when the world was willing to let them die and few other countries were granting refuge, most of the Darfur refugees who made it to Israel will find their place in Israeli culture and society.

It is still unclear how Israel will process the new population illegally entering the country. Some have been arrested and some have been granted refugee status, some have been granted citizenship and some are living in tent camps. But a solution will be found, the process has begun and the refugees are still attempting to make their way to freedom in the State of Israel.

One thing is for sure, they are not being shot at at the border - not as they enter and not if they choose to one day leave.

So how do these Muslims fit into the Zionist dream?

They don't. But Israel will see to it that they will.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday August 13, 2008

Column:

The biggest military threat Israel faces is not Iran, the biggest threat is a combined attack against Israel involving Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. What we call in sports a pile on. I have been analyzing this potential threat for many months now. That specific attack is a worst case scenario - a coordinated effort during which Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah missiles and rockets come pummeling into Israel all at the same time. The result would be more devastating than any war Israel has been involved in since the creation of the state.

On Tuesday August 5, 2008 the Strategic Air Command in Israel conducted an exercise that precisely simulated my worst predictions and fears. The exercise was not intended to be kept a secret. It was made public and was filmed by Israel's Channel 10 News and reported on by the popular Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008808.html
It was intended as a warning.

The exercise was an overwhelming success. Of course, certain elements will require tweaking but should Israel become the target of a three pronged attack by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, Israel will mount a successful defense. Yes, the Israeli military will be able to defend the citizens of Israel in a worst case scenario attack.

The further Israel gets from the worst case scenario, the fewer enemy players involved in the attack, the better the odds are for Israel. Fewer enemy nations translates into higher odds. How does Israel stay out of the worst case scenario? By managing their own three pronged, non-military, attack - threats, disincentives and classic cold war tactics.

The ultimate objective is to frighten Israel's enemies and aggressors. Those countries intent on destroying Israel must know that if they were ever to attack Israel or join forces with Iran, Syria or Hezbollah in order to destroy Israel, their own potential for loss would be significantly greater than the internal, Muslim and Arab world glory they would gain for attacking the Zionist infidel state.

The Arab world is struggling under the weight of a double message about Israel. Message one perpetuates the conspiracy theory of the greatness of Israel and Israel's military might. Message two speaks to a growing sense that Israel's army has faltered and its former glory is fast fading. Israel's military prowess and capability as proved by this latest exercise, combined with Israel's non-military actions, should set the record straight.

Over the past year defense and strategy groups in Israel, Washington and London have spent a great deal of time debating Iran's potential for attacks and the West's ability to counter attacks. Some DC policy planners are of the opinion that Iran's capability is really irrelevant, that Iran will not take the initiative and initiate an attack. The thinking is that Iran has a thousand year history of non-aggression and that history is not about to be altered now. These same people assert that while the real fear is not an Iranian initiated attack, the real fear is an Iranian counter-attack. They are of the belief that if Iran is pushed, if Iran interprets Western actions as insults, that may well trigger what the Iranians will view as a counter attack. Is it a game of semantics? It is. Is it a game of perceptions? It is. Either way, it is a dangerous situation.

Israel does not have the luxury of banking on a historical precedent. Semantics and perceptions are no longer relevant when an attack is launched. Israel must prepare for the worst possible scenario if only to repel the bluster that Iran is perpetually spouting. Iran is trying desperately to become the epicenter of the world. Iran wants all eyes on Iran. And that explains why, for example, in response to an ultimatum and deadline calling for Iran to cease and desist in the development of uranium the Iranians arrogantly, conceitedly and openly proclaimed that they had no plans of the sort.

The Iranians were playing to the Muslim world. They were hoping to galvanize the Muslim world against the West under the leadership of Teheran. The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Mohammad Ali Jafari, held a press conference and announced that Iran had just tested a new anti-ship missile that could sink "enemy ships" at a range of more than 200 miles. http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iran-threatens-to-shut-strait-of-hormuz/83142
He asserted that Iran could shut down the Strait of Hormuz with ease, he said: "Enemies know that we are easily able to block the Strait of Hormuz for an unlimited period."
Everyday about 35% of the world's oil travels through the Straits of Hormuz on its way to Africa and Asia. It does not matter whether Iran is capable of closing the Straits either for the long or short term. The threat alone will have a cataclysmic effect on markets and world economies.
Iran's threats need to be taken seriously by the West because they are being taken seriously by the Muslim world. And one day another Muslim country just might decide to take up the cause and join Iran in an attack against the West. And if that happens a very bad scenario becomes worse.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Column

Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister, returned to Israel from a visit to Washington, D.C. In an almost revolving door scenario, Barak arrived on the coattails of Gabi Ashkenazi, Israel's Chief of Staff.

They were there to talk about Iran.

Iran has been the most important topic in every conversation between Israel and the United States for the past eighteen months. Iran is the most critical challenge to Israel and the most significant factor impacting the region. Iran is the most problematic force in the world today according to the thinking of the most powerful country in the world today, the United States of America.

And then they discussed terror.

They discussed Hamas and Hezbollah generated terror. They discussed the role of Iran in sponsoring the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations. Towards the end of that agenda item the United States and Israel probably shared insight and information on the status of world terror.

Finally, they discussed the Palestinians and the inability of the Palestinians to reign in terror even in the West Bank, let alone in Gaza.

Those were the discussions. Then came the crux of the visits. Then came the request.

Ashkenazi and Barak came to ask the United States for help in putting a stop to the acts of almost daily terror Israel is subjected to by Hamas. They came to brainstorm and to investigate. Israel is thinking of either borrowing or purchasing an American made weapon called the Phalanx CIWS Cannon. CIWS stands for Close-in Weapons System.

Both Barak and Ashkenazi are experienced in the military needs and demands of Israel. Like Ashkenazi, Barak once held the position of Israel's Chief of Staff. During his tenure as Israel's senior military official he was often touted as the most highly decorated officer in Israel's history. He was a prime minister once before and hopes to become his country's prime minister once again.

In Israel right now defense officials are frowning on buying the Phalanx or any new military equipment, for that matter. They want to concentrate all their investment energy and resources in one direction. They want to complete development on their own, new, weapon - a weapon that will protect Israel and be available for export around the world. It is called the Iron Dome.

The Iron Dome will probably meet all of Israel's expectations. The only thing the Iron Dome cannot meet is Israel's needs now. The Iron Dome system is not scheduled for completion until 2011. Israel needs help now.

Actually, the city of Sderot, the city most in need of protection from the daily onslaught of missiles, needed protection yesterday and the day before that and the months and months before that.

There is no doubt that the Phalanx will improve the defense of Sderot and of other communities that abut Gaza. But the Phalanx alone will not work. The Phalanx is nicknamed R-2 D-2 because it looks like the droid from Star Wars. This cannon system works like a hi-tech gatling gun. It shoots 3,000 to 4,500 twenty millimeter rounds a minute. It is designed to hit missiles and rockets and mortars that fly in low. Every United States Navy fighting ship is equipped with this system. The Phalanx uses two sets of radar, the first set tracks and the second, much more powerful and precise, guides the shot. There is also a Phalanx designed for the ground.

If the Phalanx was used together with an advanced radar system the people of Sderot would be able to sleep quietly at night - in their own beds, not in shelters. If the Phalanx was in Israel today the entire country would be safer. If the Phalanx was in Israel today Hamas would be one large step further away from destroying the lives and weakening the morale of Israel's citizens.

Buy it or borrow it. Go back to Washington. Israel needs protection now. And now, only the United States has the equipment capable of providing that protection. Some things are not worth waiting for.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday July 30, 2008

Column:

There are murders, mass arrests and a leading newspaper has been shut down. Tensions that had been simmering below the surface are now out in the open and they are boiling over. Hamas and Fatah are not only out for blood, they are out for power and control.

Gaza and tension go together like America and apple pie. They are inseparable. Even when the tension was not obviously manifest, even when it was not visible to the naked, untrained, non-Palestinian eye, it was palpable, it could be felt by the locals. An outsider's first peek at the rising tensions came when five Hamas military members were killed in a parking lot explosion in Gaza - and Hamas immediately pointed the finger of blame at Fatah.

And where Gaza goes, the West Bank is sure to follow. Here too, tensions, violence, acts of intimidation and menacing threats are emerging and hitting the streets and byways. Hamas began by arresting members of Fatah in Gaza. Fatah followed by arresting Hamas members in the West Bank. Now it is a game of Tit for Tat, Palestinian style. And for the players in the West Bank and Gaza Tit for Tat is a war game.

The game has just been taken up a notch. Murders, arrests, finger pointing, newspaper closings - those are the old components of the game. A new component has just been unleashed, it is the Palestinian propaganda machine. When it comes to Palestinian propaganda, Fatah is at a distinct disadvantage, Hamas is master.

It was one year ago that Hamas ousted Fatah from Gaza. Seven months earlier Hamas defeated Fatah in a parliamentary election. Hamas is using that imagery to convince the Palestinians of their superiority and right to rule. Hamas is using that imagery to instill fear in the hearts of Fatah and all other Palestinians. It is the imagery of victory and defeat.

Hamas has released some very powerful statements that cut to the core of every Palestinian citizen and taunts present-day, mainstream Fatah leadership. "Now the Zionists are protecting you," says Hamas. "You know that once the protection of the Zionists is over, people will enter your headquarters and kick you out."

These statements evoke memories of the coup in Gaza, pictures that every Palestinian has etched in their memories as clear as the photos that were taken and proudly flaunted at the time. Hamas gunmen taking over Fatah headquarters in Gaza. Hamas gunmen kicking up their feet with a massive portrait of Yasser Arafat on the wall behind them. Fatah, forced out and on the run.

"You must know," continues Hamas "we are not acting against you now in the West Bank because ... we know the Zionists will immediately back you."

Believe me, the average Palestinian is thinking those exact thoughts. And judging by recent polls it looks as if Hamas is gaining popularity - not in overwhelming numbers, but certainly gaining.

Palestinians leadership, that is Fatah leadership, is caught in a real sticky situation. Fatah needs Israel to prop them up, but Fatah cannot be seen as collaborating with Israel. The average Palestinian wants an end to the conflict, but the average Palestinian does not want to live in a West Bank ghetto. Palestinians prefer economic opportunity, Palestinians want freedom of movement. Palestinians want to be able to go into Israel and find work. Israel is a tool that is and will continue to be used by both sides in this war of words and actions.

The intimidation continues. So do the arrests and so does the bloodshed. Reuters reported that human rights groups are charging both Fatah and Hamas with the use of torture. The situation is out in the open, once again. The situation will continue to escalate.

The war between Hamas and Fatah never ended, it just went underground for a while.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday July 23, 2008

Column:

The Muslim world often sends out mixed messages, one message for the outside world, another for inner consumption. It's not ineptitude or poor translating capabilities, it is pure, simple, intentional manipulation.

The Iranians have mastered the art of international diplomacy. The Iranians have also bested their Muslim brethren in the art of mixed political messaging and media manipulation.

The Iranian missile tests, intended to showcase military prowess as well as nuclear capability, was quickly and artfully re-shaped into a showcase of creative, media manipulation. Not only did the Iranians photo-shop the pictures - for external consumption, they photo-shopped the facts - for internal consumption.

IRNA, one of the official Iranian government media outlets, ran a news scoop after the missiles were released. According to the report, Israelis were fleeing for their lives in fear. Why? Because now the world had proof of Iran's great missile system and now it was clear to every country that Iran is the most powerful of all.

"Following the successful maneuver executed by Iran last week, which included the firing of new missiles, Zionist residents living in occupied Palestine have begun to flee from there."

"The residents told their illegitimate government that this was the reason they refused to go on living there."

The report actually says that there has been a "massive emigration from Tel Aviv following the military maneuver."

Iran wants their internal world to believe that they are a great and undefeatable society. Iranian leadership wants to assume the mantle of Cyrus the Great and lead the people of Persia to world dominance. But this is far from the truth.

And what Iran refuses to acknowledge is that an accurate assessment of military abilities is as essential in foreign diplomacy as it is in war. That is why Iranian leaders not only photo-shopped the missile launch transforming a mid-range dud into a long range threat, but they also created a fiction in which their every movement evinces fear and quaking from the citizens of Israel.

Iranian political and military leadership has made it almost impossible to ferret out the truth from the bluster when it comes to Iranian nuclear development and capability. Propaganda and nuclear preparation go hand-in-hand. Diplomacy and deceit are interwoven and at times, both are very convincing.

In the midst of their race for nuclear technology, Iran is taking the time to attempt to open diplomatic channels with the United States. Several times in the past week Ahmadinejad has said that he would not be averse to the opening of a US diplomatic office in Teheran. In one instance he said it was a good idea and that it would improve relations between the countries especially after the November presidential elections.

Iran is courting the United States at this historical juncture because Iran understands that most of the Western world is soft when it comes to military strikes and that the only two powers that really count in that arena are Israel and the United States.

They know that the vast majority of the world will condemn a strike against Iran. They know that most countries will deceive themselves to avoid a military strike. And they know that letting in inspectors, negotiating with the inspectors, stopping the inspectors from doing their job and then starting all over again is a diplomatic game that allows European nations to cling to a glimmer of hope that Iran might be on the verge of acquiescing to world demands and actually cooperating. And where there is hope there will be no strike. It costs the Iranians absolutely nothing and it buys the Iranians good will and more time.

By making overtures to the United States in an effort to open a diplomatic office, especially a trade office, Iran is achieving a double goal. They are deflecting attention away from their nuclear mission and adopting the role of peace maker. It is Iran playing the role of peace loving nation by holding out the olive branch to the largest country in the Western world. It is the United States and by extension Israel that are now forced into playing the role of nay sayer and war monger. Iran is all good, Israel and the West are all evil.

The West cannot allow Iran to re-write history or photo-shop reality. It is our job to understand all the messages emanating from Iran, those for internal consumption and those for diplomatic convention. It is our job to weed out truth from rhetoric, to predict and to be prepared.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday July 15, 2008

Column:

For years, Israel was considered to be the superior force in the Middle East. That fact alone kept Israel safe from many of her enemies, most of the time. It was the deterrence factor, and historically, the deterrence factor has played an important role in keeping countries - and the world, safe.

Mutual deterrence was the pinnacle of the Cold War, it was the reason why there was a stalemate between the US and USSR. Deterrence is what kept Israel safe in the midst of the Middle East. Until now.

It is not that Israel has changed, it is the world that has changed. Major players in the world are no longer nations - strong, powerful, autocratic or democratic nations, some players are now organizations -terrorist organizations.

For years Israel and her friends have touted the concept of the qualitative edge as a significant tool in the arsenal of military deterrence. The United States was a strong proponent of the concept and, within the Arab world, encouraged the image of Israel's superior military status which in turn kept Israel's enemies at bay.

Israel always had better fighters, better training, better tanks, better planes and better intelligence. Israel was wealthier, more motivated, more successful, more worldly, Israel was more Western. Israel was more free and Israel was more democratic. Still is. But all that no longer matters. The overwhelming intimidation, the powerful facts on the ground and the fear factor that kept Israel safe for years no longer works against this new breed of idealistic, terrorist, enemy.

Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda as well as the lone country Iran are neither stunned nor smitten by the Israel's great military prowess. Israel neither petrifies nor paralyzes them. They are fearless. And the rules of the game they play are solely theirs.

With most countries, the qualitative edge still works. It was deterrence that brought about peace between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan, it is that qualitative edge that keeps the peace alive. Other, more established Arab and Muslim countries, have realized that Israel is here to stay and have begun dealing with the Jewish state even if only behind closed diplomatic doors. Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Qatar have begun interacting with Israel. Even Syria is now in the throes of third party negotiations with Israel precisely because of this very intimidating qualitative edge.

These are countries that are still informed by the same basic concept that informed them twenty years ago. It is called self-preservation and it still works. It is the same motivation that kept the world safe during the years of Cold War.

Islamic extremists like al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and the powers leading Iran are wired differently. Self preservation holds no interest for them. They cannot be intimidated and they do not have conventional thresholds of fear. They exist in perpetuation of a principle, they care only about total compliance to a religious idea and they cannot be deterred. Anyone who rejects the foundation of their extremism, even another Muslim, becomes a blatant target of the movement's ire. According to their new dogma, it is religiously permitted to attack non-believers.

The warriors in the armies of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran are not afraid of dying. Their leaders think nothing of sacrificing the masses to achieve the organization's greater goal. The goal is to attack - at all costs, regardless of impact or effect.

According to the rules of play of extremist, terrorist, religious, organizations, every attack, even a minor attack, is major victory. The obsession is the attack, not the result of the attack. Precisely because of Israel's great military superiority any small irritation by Hezbollah or Hamas is interpreted by group supporters as a death blow to Israel. Any counter attack by Israel or strike against the terrorists is considered a victory for the terrorists. Theirs is an all-or-nothing game. If they are not wiped out totally, they are victorious. If even a single Hamas or Hezbollah believer remains standing, it is considered to be a win against Israel. Israel was unable to defeat them. The same rule extends to al Qaeda and to Iran and their wars with Israel and with the world.

The challenge is ours, the Western world. We must develop a new model to confront this new form of enemy. We must prepare ourselves to confront this new threat to our war plans and strategy, to our way of life and to our existence. The Western world must find a new deterrent, appropriate in the fight against extremism. We need to develop a new qualitative edge.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday July 8, 2008

Column:

The deal is done. Israel has agreed to exchange live Arab prisoners for dead Israeli soldiers. Walking, talking, alive and breathing, tried and convicted terrorists and 190 dead terrorists for the corpses of kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

In politics, much like in big business, decisions do not always follow the classic game theory model. Win-win, win-lose and even lose-lose do not always apply. Sometimes, decisions are made only in order to cut future losses and move on. Israel is cutting losses, Israel is moving on. Israel has nothing more to gain in this go-round with Hezbollah and nothing more to lose.

Bad decisions were made from the beginning and those bad decisions will live on, setting a bad precedent. When the War with Lebanon began two summers ago, the intention was to find Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and bring them home - dead or alive, to return Israeli soldiers to Israeli soil. Along the way Israel lost sight of the original goal. Instead of fighting to find the boys, Israel fought to debilitate Hezbollah. By the time a cease fire was called, neither goal had been achieved.

There have been other deals between Israel and Hezbollah and none of them have been good - but neither have they significantly hurt Israel. This deal, which includes exchanging notorious terrorist Samir Kuntar, will number among one of the worst deals the State of Israel has ever cut with the enemy.

The reasoning for accepting the deal goes like this. The parents of Goldwasser and Regev, their immediate family, need closure. Their extended family, which has grown to include the entire country of Israel, needs closure. The Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem has said that Hezbollah has no more information to give about Israeli navigator Ron Arad who was shot down, taken hostage and abandoned on enemy soil twent-two years ago. If Hezbollah has no more information to give, then Kuntar has little currency. Politically Kuntar is now dead weight.

The best use of Kuntar right now is to sacrifice him for the remains of the Israelis, to stave off the possibility of Goldwasser and Regev turning into Arad - disappeared into a black enemy hole with no one claiming knowledge or possession. By retrieving the bodies Israel will be denying her enemies the pleasure of gloating over a prized possession - the bodies of two Israeli soldiers.

Kidnappings take a tremendous toll on a tiny, tightly knit, nation like Israel, a place where there are very few degrees of separation between families and the masses. In Israel almost everyone serves and that means that almost everyone's child is put at risk.

Israelis loan their children to the army, defending Israel against enemies is an unfortunate but totally understood reality. Israel receives those children with a special promise - to protect them, to make certain they do not die in vain. And if a parent is called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice for home and country, if an Israeli soldier is killed, Israel has always promised to bring back the body and erect a proper grave.

The Israeli army mantra, the Israeli army code, of "no body left behind in the battlefield" is not only meant to soothe soldiers and their families. It is also meant to tell the enemies of Israel that they will be denied the perverse thrill of publicly mutilating the bodies and then exchanging the corpses for live terrorists.

The ramifications of this deal are significant. The bodies will be returned, graves will be erected, but a gaping hole will have been placed in the Israeli justice system because of this prisoner exchange. The Arab terrorists in this exchange were tried and convicted by the Israeli court. Kuntar was sentenced to four life sentences without the possibility of parole for his brutal acts. Israel does not have capital punishment, this judgment was the toughest sentence the court could give.

Now the message is being transmitted to all terrorists - those already convicted and those still planning their acts - that there is always a way to get out, there is always the possibility of exchange. The message to the terrorists is that there is always a way to get out. Just kidnap Israelis and hold them for ransom.

And then there is the blow to the victims, the people injured by the terrorists now being released, the families of the people whom they killed and the people injured and killed in the capture of these terrorists. All Israelis understand the risk of living in Israel. All Israelis understand the dangers of terror and the reality of army service. These citizens of Israel relied on the State for justice. Now the brutal murderers will be set free because the State is cutting political and military losses.

There are some in Israel who think that this exchange does more than cut losses, they think that it hurts Israel militarily. They think that it signals a death sentence for Gilad Shalit, another hostage, another kidnapped Israeli soldier who is being held in Gaza by a Hamas-related group. They think that the enemy will now believe that if you can get so much for a dead soldier, why go through the trouble of keeping Shalit alive? The answer to that is, strange as it sounds, Hamas is not Hezbollah. Each enemy group, each terrorist organization, each country at war with Israel plays by their own set of rules much as Israel deals differently and independently with each of them.

There are those in the intelligence and the defense world who say never exchange live prisoners for dead soldiers. Live for live, dead for dead, no exceptions or you lose the advantage in negotiations. That thinking has merit. But today's politicians have acted differently and right now, in this exchange, it is too late to implement that policy.

This will not be the last negotiation because this will not be the last kidnapping. Terrorists are rehearsing. They have training films and propaganda reels. Recruits are learning how to grab the Israelis and how to carry them away.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday July 2, 2008

Column:

Ever since the Friday June 20th piece in The New York Times describing an Israeli air force training exercise into Iran analysts and prognosticators have been busy commenting, speculating and, in many cases, downright fantasizing.

The front page piece detailed an exercise involving hundreds of Israeli fighter jets flying over nine hundred miles and refueling mid-air on a practice run into Iran in order to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. Now everyone is busy speculating on if and when Israel will invade and attack Iran for real, not merely as exercise.

Truth is Israel might invade Iran, but only when there is no other alternative, only if the international community falls down on its job and allows Iran to achieve independent nuclear capability. And that time is not now. And should that time come, Israel will not announce it anywhere, not in the Israeli press, not in the international press and certainly not on the front page of The New York Times.

The story was released not by Israel, the story was released by the United States. Publicly announcing Israel's ability to target Iran is not in Israel's best interests - it is in the interest of the United States. This story was pitched not by Israel in an attempt to place pressure on Iran, it was pitched by the United States, a public relations ploy, a way for the Washington to apply pressure on Iran. True, Israeli defense and diplomatic channels have neither denied nor confirmed the activity and they have probably collectively chuckled over the speculative effect this story is having, but it was not their leak.

Washington is telling Teheran that there is a third party out there and that party is acting independently. Washington is telling other European capitals to look out for Israel, because Israel can do it on its own - and Israel will destroy Iran's nuclear capability on its own if they do not hurry up and act to get Iran under control.

The training exercise that took place a few weeks ago, in early June, was not the first such exercise by the Israeli air force. It will not be the last. Israel needs to plan. Israel needs to be prepared for a worst case scenario. Israel needs to be ready to thwart an imminent attack.

At the point of no return, if it seems certain that Iran has gone beyond the threshold and is on the verge of having everything necessary to create their nuclear bomb, at that last possible moment, that's when Israel will attack. And according to all Israeli estimates - if Iran cannot be derailed by the international community, that time will not come for at least another eighteen months.

An Israeli attack will be a specifically targeted attack. Israel will not set out to destroy everything Iran has, that takes too much effort and the risks are too high. All Israel needs to do is derail Iranian nuclear productivity, to set back the clock, to delay the process. A successful Israeli attack against Iran will be an attack that buys the time to bring down the weight of the world upon Iran and ultimately destroy Iran's dreams of successful nuclear development.

When Israel hit the Syrian agricultural laboratory on September 6th of last year the air force knew how to negotiate the mountain ranges of Turkey. They knew because they had practiced and practiced and practiced and they had permission from Turkey to fly over Turkish air space. Specifically, they had permission from Turkey to fly over their air space in order to enter and exit not Syria - but Iran. The Turkish government was not pleased, to say the least, that Israel chose to use their air space to bomb Syria without asking, but Turkey got over it, because Turkey realizes the need to keep Iran in check and Turkey knows that should all else fail, Israel will be forced into action.

Should international sanctions of Iran prove effective, Israel is less likely to attack Iran. Should the international community successfully limit Iranian nuclear development an Israeli attack will be less likely regardless of the vitriol and intensity of Ahmadinejad's verbal attacks against Israel and the West. Should Iranian Supreme Leader The Ayatollah Khamenei lose confidence in Ahmadinejad and trust that Israel and the international community are capable of striking Iran and should he consequently decide to soften Iran's nuclear stance, even for the short term, the possibility of an Israeli attack is reduced.

Inner Iran and the international community factor into the Israeli decision making process. But probably the most significant factor of all is the next president of the United States of America. Israel will not and cannot go into Iran without the permission of the United States and that permission is handed down directly from the Oval Office. Israel will petition for carte blanche permission. They will probably get a conditional yes depending on the intelligence reports and urgency. That's the way it played out on September 6, 2007. Plans were in place and Israel wanted to hit the Syrian site during the summer. The United States said no, the United States wanted more intelligence, proof that more and more materials were arriving from North Korea. And then, when the United States was satisfied of the need and the urgency, Israel attacked.

Iran has said publicly that "the Zionists do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic." But Iranian leaders know Israel's potential and they are willing to walk the tight rope, to balance the odds. Iran wants to be in control. Right now, Iran has the most to gain from this conflict. The Iranians are getting tremendous pan-Muslim support by simply standing up to the United States and drawing Israel into the conflict.

Israel realizes how dangerous Iran is. Israel knows how costly an air attack will be. If the time is right, if Israel does attack Iran, know that, without a doubt, we will have reached the point of no return.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Friday June 27, 2008

Column:

There have been two assassination attempts on the life of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the past several weeks. The first attempt was made while the Iranian leader was on an official visit to Iraq, the second attempt was planned for last week, in Italy.

In making these threats public the government of Iran has added the name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a long and dubiously distinguished list of world leaders who have been openly targeted for assassination.

Today, every world leader no matter how popular or how reviled must consider every threat a serious threat. Assassinations and terrorist attacks are a part of today's political culture. A leader represents a political party, a social agenda and a country. Today's leaders wander through many sets of cross hairs by virtue of position - personality hardly enters into the assassin/terrorist agenda and master plan.

There have been seventeen known attempts to kill a sitting United States president. Four, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy, Jr. succeeded. Presidents Zachary Taylor and Warren Harding died while in office and rumors and several books suggest that both presidents were poisoned. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, by an Israeli citizen, in Israel. Mohandas Ghandi, Father of the Nation of India as he was affectionately called by most of his country, was killed on January 30, 1948. Assassinations and attempted assassinations are not relegated to the domain of autocratic, dictatorial governments. Democracies are by no means immune from assassination attempts.

Assassinations have altered history. The successful attack on the life of Ferdinand, Archduke of the Austria, sparked World War I. And the assassination of Lebanese President Rafik Hariri is still setting off sparks in the Middle East.

There are many attempts that never make it to the history books. In the United States there are numerous threats that never make it outside the offices of the Secret Service. There are plots that are just that plots and hundreds of those are investigated each year. All it takes is one successful attempt - and when it comes to the assassination of a world leader, one is too many.

If the Secret Service is kept busy thwarting attempted attacks on the life of the president, imagine how busy the army and secret police are in a religious police state like Iran. In Iran, thousands of people are arrested for the crime of having ideas contrary to the ruling religious leadership. In Iran today, there are numerous groups and countless individuals who want to do away with Ahmadinejad.

The Iranians blame the United States for the two plots on the life of Ahmadinejad. Specifically, the Iranian government blames President George Bush. They rationalize the accusation by pointing out that on several occasions the US president has said that the conflict the United States has with Iran is not with the people of Iran, it is with the leadership of Iran. In Iran-think, the leap is obvious. Iranian leadership interprets this diplomatic statement as a direct threat and credits the US president with sponsoring coups as well as assassinations.

The Iranians would do better analyzing the data rather than fabricating an unreal scenario if they truly wish to protect their leader. Both plots would have Ahmadinejad assassinated outside his own country, in Iraq and Italy, respectively. That is important. It is not to say that the assassins, or intended assassins, were not Iranians - it is to say that if caught, the assassins would be outside the jurisdiction and control of the brutal Iranian police force. The plotters were looking for more freedom and more safety. Local governments are less concerned about the plot against foreign, visiting dignitaries and have less intelligence about the plotters.

The odds are there really are people out there trying to assassinate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But those people are not the CIA or any United Sates agency. There is a significant Iranian expatriate community who see Ahmadinejad as a tyrant. There are a significant number of Middle East Arabs who see him as one the most explosive and problematic leaders in the region. These groups fly way under the radar in Italy and especially in Iraq, but they are on Iran's radar. They are probably the same groups trying to sponsor political opposition to Ahmadinejad, at home, in Iran.

Ahmadinejad, like almost every other world leader today, is on someone's hit list. A news flash, planning an assassination is a lot easier than executing the plan.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Friday June 20, 2008

Column:

Peace is an elusive term in the Middle East, especially if you are Israel. Peace is the dream, never the reality. While Peace In The Middle East is not quite the oxymoron many people believe it to be, it is a concept that goes by many names.

Despite it all, despite a long history of missed opportunities and wasted efforts, despite the many intentional misrepresentations and outright lies, if Israel had a wish list, Peace With Neighbors - or some variation on the theme - would top the list. Right now, at a dizzying speed, in both much heralded and grossly overlooked negotiations, Israel is pursuing peace with all those neighboring nations with which there is no signed document diplomatically termed a peace treaty.

In the end, as history is our teacher, Israel will be lucky if even one opportunity turns into a reality - even a short term reality. There will be disappointments, but that is all part of the process, it's what happens when a Middle East country, especially Israel, pursues peace.

Hamas and Israel
Word of the ceasefire, truce, lull, between Israel and Hamas has been front page and lead story news. At best, the situation as it now stands is tenuous. It was a long, complicated process and even eleven hours before the cessation of attack and retaliation was actualized the office of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert predicted that the truce will be fragile and short lived.

But that's okay. The day before the ceasefire 50 rockets and mortars were shot from Gaza into Israel. The day before the ceasefire Israel shot back hitting two launch sites in Gaza. The day after, there were none - no rockets, no mortars, no retaliation. Just as there is no doubt that a ceasefire is critical for the well being of those Israelis within firing range of Gaza there is no doubt that an open border is good for the Palestinians living in Gaza.

The biggest problem right now is that the terms of this variation-on-the-theme - of - peace are not clear. In an off the record interview one Israeli official made it perfectly clear that this is not to be construed as peace. Call it a truce, call it a lull but do not for a minute call it or think of it as peace. And it doesn't even matter if each side calls it a different name. This arrangement is not a written agreement, it is an agreement brokered by third party Egypt. All Israel and Hamas have is the information given them by Egypt. Neither Israel nor Hamas have any idea what was said by Egypt to the other side.

It is a game of perception.

Israel and Syria
Most people would be surprised to read Israel, Syria and peace linked in the same sentence. But right now, Syria is out to surprise.

Surprising at it may appear on the surface, the Syrians are looking at the Egyptian brokered deal between Israel and Hamas with optimism. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem said that Israel's lifting of the blockade against Gaza will help the Palestinians - which is as close as Syria has come to complimenting Israel in pasta memory. He was, not surprisingly, quick to add that he also expects that the Israelis will soon violate the agreement.

Even more surprising is that in another press statement the Syrians said that a peace deal with Israel will "produce a harmonious Middle East." Even the Syrians are putting Israel, Syria and peace in the same sentence.

And even much more surprising is an item spilled by Claude Gueunt, Chief of Staff to French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Gueunt suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may sit down face to face with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Paris on July 13th of this year, of 2008. The occasion will be a summit of European and Mediterranean countries hosted in Paris by Sarkozy who thinks that he can get the two men, these two nemeses, in the same room.

Even if they don't shake hands, that photo will be worth many words.

Israel and Egypt
Israel and Egypt have a "cold peace." They are not at war, neither are they friends. It is a situation that works for both sides of the border. The key word here is border. What is good for one side of the border is good for the other and Egypt's border with Gaza is no exception. By brokering this deal Egypt was also doing itself a favor. And just as neither Israel nor Hamas know what Egypt told the other, no one knows what the other told or promised Egypt.

Egypt worked hard making this agreement happen. The deal with Hamas is not just with Hamas. Egypt had to get the agreement of 12 different organizations in Gaza, each individual organization had to agree to stop firing at Israel. Then Egypt had to convince Hamas to absorb most of the responsibility for compliance and insure that the other 12 groups would not violate the agreement. At least, not violate the agreement in the short term.

Hamas has to stop the attacks. Hamas has to stop smuggling weapons and building tunnels and producing rockets and explosives. Only then will there be an opening of the border to allow in food and other supplies for Gazans. And after that, if it works, there is to be accelerated talk about exchanging 350 Palestinian prisoners for one Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held in Gaza.

The role of Egypt was applauded by certain other members of the Middle East Arab community, especially by Egypt's comrade-in-arms, Jordan.

Israel and Jordan
Israel and Jordan, too, have a "cold peace" arrangement. Warmer than Israel and Egypt but still diplomatically chilly.

At a conference that he was hosting for Nobel Prize winners in Jordan, the King took the opportunity to speak about the lull between Israel and Hamas. King Abdullah of Jordan said that it would indeed be a great tragedy if this opportunity was lost to create a Palestinian state.

Israel and Hezbollah
While most of the headlines are going to the lull between Hamas and Israel, there is another story going on between Hezbollah and Israel. In this noted but much less heralded story, Germany is to Hezbollah and Israel what Egypt is to Hamas and Israel.

In this story, Germany is the middle man, the broker, the deal maker. In this story Germany has been working to create a situation that would allow for the return of the two Israeli MIA's, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, captured by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 and taken to Lebanon.

Israel and Lebanon
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert announced on Wednesday June 18, 2008 that Israel wants to embark on direct bilateral relations with Lebanon. Now that is a curveball that barely made any news at all. It should have.

What makes this an even more interesting and compelling and historically newsworthy story is that Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has made statements in the past proudly proclaiming that Lebanon would be the last Arab country to make peace with Israel. Is the fat lady about to sing? Olmert's statements were on the record, even if they were not widely recorded.

It all seems like just too much for one country to handle. The past week has seen a flurry of diplomatic tap dancing in pursuit of promises, pledges and peace. What will next week bring?

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Friday June 13, 2008

Column:

In the end, it will all come down to a simple, strategic, calculus. The "X" Factor. How many lives versus how many lives. How many Israeli civilian lives have already been lost and how many Israeli military lives will be lost in an operation fighting Hamas and Islamic Jihad forces in Gaza versus how many civilian and military lives will be lost if the situation remains status quo.

Heartless? Humane? Those are the issues that Israel's political and military leaders have been struggling over.

For months there has been talk of an Israeli invasion into Gaza. The objective is obvious - to silence, even if only for the short term, the relentless barrage of rockets and mortars that rains down on Israeli communities bordering Gaza.

The mission would be justified morally and legally, about that there is no question. Even die hard Israel bashers Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu have condemned the Palestinian launched rocket fire on these defenseless, civilian Israeli townspeople. Even the United States, in a high level meeting held several weeks ago, asked Israel if they had a response to the Qassam crisis, a response other than sitting still and allowing the rockets to fall where they will. Even the venerable United Nations has made it clear and public that, although restraint is advised, Israel, one of the unacknowledged least favored nations, has the right to act in order to protect Israeli citizens and protect Israeli borders.

Internationally, of course, there would be a backlash from the typical far flung corners of the world. The Muslim world, the Arab countries, Venezuela, and one or two European countries will cry out for the pain of the Palestinian people denied their favorite sport - injure the Israeli.

An Israeli military response to the untenable situation called Gaza has been in formulation for long months. And during those months many Israelis have been injured, some physically, some financially, almost all psychologically. An Israeli does not have to share a border with Gaza to feel national pain. The reason the response plan has not yet been activated is because the political side has not yet been reconciled with the military side. Political Israel is less comfortable with the calculus than is military Israel.

How fast and furious are these rockets and mortars coming? On Thursday June 12th, 40 mortars and 24 Qassam and I GRAD rocket fell on Israel. What has been the damage in terms of lives? 8 Israelis and I Ecuadorian farm worker have been killed by Qassam rockets in 2008.

The decision to invade Gaza will be made easier if the death toll goes higher. If more than 2 Israelis are killed by mortar or rockets in a single week Israel will be forced into it and the response will commence.

Israel needs to have fresh victims in order to respond. Israel needs to appear to be responding to a fresh act of aggression. Israel needs this to happen because Israel is unlike many other nations, because Israel does not arbitrarily, indiscriminately, unjustifiably invade another entity. For the sake of Israel it must appear that Israelis are responding to a specific act of aggression, even if most of the free and democratic world is convinced that Israel would be justified if the response attack came now - right now.

The X Factor calculus weighs most strongly, but there are other issues that go into the decision making process of whether or not to launch an invasion into Gaza to ferret out and destroy the Hamas and Islamic Jihad rocket launchers. One of those issues putting the brakes on a military response is that military intelligence is saying that Hamas is preparing for an Israeli land assault.

The way in which Hamas prepares is to physically, bodily, lay in wait and create booby traps for the invading Israelis troops. If that happens, casualty numbers will be great and that troubles decision makers. Then again, the situation in border towns like Sderot, particularly in Sderot, is unacceptable and intolerable. And that troubles decision makers.

It took Hercules to cut off heads of the many-headed serpent. It took super human (Herculean) strength to defeat the Hydra from the Lake of Lerna. And Israeli defense planners are saying that they have a series of plans to invade and cut the off the many heads of their own Gazan serpent.

The ancient Greek myth has taught an important lesson to Israel's leaders. Over the past 8 weeks 81 Hamas leaders have been killed by Israeli soldiers using In and Out operations and air force helicopter and unmanned drone attacks. More than 300 Hamas leaders have been killed over the past 6 months. It also has become apparent that Egypt has begun an attempt at foiling acts of aggression within Gaza by protecting their own border and by searching for underground tunnels with the help of the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Hamas might be on the ropes. There is talk of internal conflict. There was an assassination attempt by Iranian backed Hamas fighters against the current leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh.

It might soon be time to formulate another calculus: How strong is Hamas - will an Israeli invasion into Gaza unify Hamas or topple Hamas.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday June 5, 2008

Column:

If Tzipi Livni is elected the next prime minister of Israel, she should say a big "thank you" to The Sunday Times of London.

And The Sunday Times of London will probably respond by saying "oops."

This is a story of a smear campaign gone awry. It is the story of misplaced values and misunderstood priorities. It is shoddy journalism from one of the most respected newspapers in the democratic world. The Sunday Times of London recently devoted space to a large and probably exaggerated piece on Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The newspaper had an agenda - to marginalize a serious contender for the position of prime minister. Instead, they elevated her status. If I didn't know better, I would say that Livni planted the story herself - but she would have been more accurate.

The Sunday Times of London may understand their British public, but they are clueless about the Israeli public. They reported that during the 1980's Livni, then a first year law student, took leave to become a Mossad agent attached to Israel's Western European operation. The Sunday Times claims that young Livni was attached to an assassination team charged with hunting down Palestinian terrorists in Europe. The story they tell runs similar to the story told in Munich, the 2005 Steven Spielberg movie, depicting an Israeli assassination team sent out to find and kill the terrorists involved in the 1972 Munich massacre of the Israeli Olympic team.

Tzipi Livni's connection to the Mossad is not a secret. Tzipi Livni's specific role in the Mossad has been and will probably always be cloaked in secrecy. But portraying her as an assassin is almost definitely a stretch. It has always been assumed that her role in Europe was that of analyst and gatherer of intelligence. An attractive woman who frequents coffee houses, chats up the clientele and pieces together and passes on the information she receives.

According to the piece in The Sunday Times Livni was part of a team specifically charged with gathering information needed to search out terrorists and then assassinate those terrorists. The Times does not place her as an assassin, but definitely as part of that team. The objective was to smear Tzipi Livni. The objective was to point out that Israel's foreign minister has a dark past, to point out that she acted to seek out and perpetrate assassinations. The objective was to point out that, as a law student on leave, she knew the difference between revenge and justice, she knew that justice is cold and revenge is hot. The Sunday Times of London had an obvious political agenda in writing this piece.

The next Israeli election might take place six months from now, it might take place a year from now. The timing of the election is unclear, the knowledge that Tzipi Livni will be on the short list as a candidate for Israel's top position is perfectly clear. The Sunday Times wants to influence the political field. The Sunday Times wants international leaders to begin exerting pressure and playing behind-the scenes games now.

But the plan is backfiring.

In Israel, the only place where it really counts, the political stock of Tzipi Livni has skyrocketed. What the Sunday Times failed to understand is that by circulating a rumor that Livni was willing and able to defend her country in a way few people can, that she was a part of the dangerous and secret world that defends Israel internationally, they showed that this woman, Tzipi Livni, has what it takes to lead the country.

Israelis like female leaders. They like them on the right of the political spectrum and on the left. They particularly like them if they have the strength to act to defend their country. In Israel this is not an inter-party argument, it is the sine qua non of every Jewish, Israeli party.

Israelis have a long history of senior leaders, prime ministers, having been in involved in dangerous and desperate acts in defense of their country. Benjamin Netanyahu, like his brother Yoni, was a member of the IDF anti-terror team and was one of those responsible for rescuing a hijacked plane. Ehud Barak was a member of a secret team and even disguised himself as a woman and entered Lebanon in order to assassinate terrorists. Yitzhak Shamir was Mossad station chief in Egypt and was also stationed in France after WWII, which would account for the superb French accent of this tightly wound little man who broke his teeth over English. Menachem Begin fought in pre-state Israel against the Arab terrorists and was responsible for blowing up the wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where the British were headquartered.

She is a woman. She is a defender of her country. She has political savvy. She has a track record. The Sunday Times of London has helped to strengthen Tzipi Livni's bona fides far more than it has damaged her.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday May 29, 2008

Column:

In a mathematical equation, 1+1 always = 2.

In an ideological equation, 1+1 can sometimes = 6+10

When it comes to the lives of their soldiers, Israel does not think mathematically, Israel thinks ideologically. And that makes the equation much more difficult to analyze, much more difficult to work out and much more emotionally laden. Ideological equations are not computed in our brains, they are wrenched from our hearts.

And that is the how and the why explaining Israel's decision to engage in talks with Hezbollah over the exchange of one famous Hezbollah terrorist, four live Lebanese prisoners, one Israeli Druze who spied for Hezbollah and ten dead Lebanese for two Israeli soldiers taken captive over the Lebanese border by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. For Israel, it's 16 for 2 when the two are Ehud Goldwasser, affectionately known by the entire country as Udi, and Eldad Regev.

The faces of Udi and Eldad, along with the face of a third Israeli soldier taken captive by Hamas, Gilad Shalit, are known to every Israeli and almost every Jew worldwide. Their birthdays are noted. Their family members are recognized on streets and in airports. Their capture is mourned, but they have not been turned into martyrs. That is not the Israeli way.

That is the Hezbollah way. And that is why it is so important for Hezbollah to include the famous Hezbollah terrorist Samir Kuntar in this prisoner exchange.
Samir Kuntar is a symbol more than a man for Hezbollah, he is a part of Hezbollah lore.

Samir Kuntar represents the ideal terrorist, he is the man every Hezbollah member hopes their child will become. On April 22, 1979 Kuntar arrived on Israeli shores in a rubber speedboat and terrorized the Haran family in their home in the port city of Nahariya, Israel's northernmost city. Within one hour he had shot and then drowned Danny the father in front of his four year old daughter and then turned around and bludgeoned and bashed four year old Anat. He bashed, he brutalized, he butted. He shot, he drowned, he bludgeoned.

Fearing for their lives, twenty four month old Yael was hiding in a crawl space with her mother Smadar and a neighbor. Cradled in the loving embrace of her mother, fearing Yael's cries would alert the murderers, the helpless baby was smothered.

In every negotiation between Israel and Hezbollah, Samir Kuntar is on the table. He has been Hezbollah's most often repeated request from the time of his capture, conviction and sentencing. Hezbollah has not yet secured his release and Kuntar is in an Israeli prison, sentenced to four life terms. This time, only thirty years into his sentence, Hezbollah might just get their man.

These deals are never simple. This one is even more complex. When the sides refuse to negotiate directly, when they will not talk to each other, when conversations are conducted through third parties, the risk of miscommunication is obvious. In this type of sensitive negotiation the possibility for misunderstanding and the probability of misinterpretation is great.

Israel and the Arab world have engaged in, negotiated and successfully arranged several swaps over the past several years. Many more have fallen apart. For the most part Israel has received dead Israeli soldiers and returned live prisoners - and that was OK, because every Israeli is deserving of burial at home. One notable exception is the recent swap Israel conducted with Lebanon which resulted in the return of Elhanan Tannenbaum, an Israeli criminal/businessman and former IDF colonel was captured by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The question is not whether Israel should do everything to free Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. According to a poll published by the Israeli daily Haaretz, 63% of Israelis think that releasing Kuntar for Goldwasser and Regev is a good idea. 21% do not agree and the remaining 16% are unsure.

The question is what happens when Israel exchanges live terrorist symbols for Udi and Eldad. Does a bargain of this magnitude increase the possibility of more captured soldiers? Hezbollah has already proclaimed that capturing Israelis is one of their most sought after goals. And one of the reasons capturing Israeli soldiers is so enticing to Hezbollah is, without doubt, because it is an effective way to bring Israel down on her knees.

The question is what is the obligation of a country to the families of the victims? What is the obligation of a country to the justice system that tries and sentences terrorists? When the exchange centers on the dead bodies of terrorists, decisions are easier. When the exchange centers live terrorists, the decision is more complex.

The question is - is Israel like every country?

When Samir Kuntar entered Israel, he came with three other terrorists. Two of the four were killed. Ahmad Al Abrass, the fourth member of Kuntar's terror unit, was freed from Israeli prison in May of 1985 as part of a prisoner exchange of 1150 Lebanese prisoners for three Israelis POW's held by Lebanon. Because of the success of that exchange the terrorists were emboldened to act again. Within months the same Palestinian group from Lebanon hijacked the Achille Lauro. They killed a disabled American Jew named Leon Klinghoffer, a passenger on the ship. And then they pushed his dead, drooping body, still in his wheelchair, overboard. They did it because they were emboldened, they did it also because they were angry, they did it because Kuntar had not been included in the original prisoner exchange. And then, once again, they demanded the release of Samir Kuntar, their star terrorist.

It is essential to recall these events and their brutality. It is essential because it provides perspective. Israel must do whatever Israel can do to negotiate the release of prisoners held by the enemy. But at what price? What about the victims of terror, what about those families? It's a very hard call. It's a question of justice.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday May 19, 2008

Column:

George Bush participated in the festivities and was himself feted on his trip to the Middle East in honor of Israel's anniversary. And while that component of his visit was important, it was not the focal point of the trip.

The most important discussion George Bush made on this diplomatic mission to the Middle East was with Saudi Arabia. And it was also the most demeaning.

The president of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, attempted to persuade the King of Saudi Arabia, the most oil rich country in the world, to increase oil production for US consumption. And the king turned the president down. And this wasn't the first time it happened. Only eight months ago the president made the same visit to the king with the same request and received the same negative response. O.K, so this time it was not an outright "no." This time a promise was made to increase oil production for the United States by 300,000 barrels a day - but in diplomatic-speak, that is worse than a "no," that is a "dis." It means "I can do it if I want do, but I don't, so I won't."

Why did Saudi Arabia turn down this request by the United States?

Because they could. And because it makes the Saudis feel very good and very powerful to turn down the United States. And because Saudi Arabia knows that they will suffer no repercussions for having turned down a heartfelt plea from the most powerful country in the free world.

In diplomatic terms, this was a botched job. It proved, once again, just how little the policy wonks of the United States understand the Middle East. The United States, in the person of President George Bush, threw diplomacy aside and begged. And when he was laughed at for begging, he scuttled out leaving gifts behind. Good gifts. Great gifts. Valuable gifts. Gifts that will elevate the status of Saudi Arabia in Middle East circles. Gifts that will change the status of the Region.

The United States approached Saudi Arabia from a position of weakness, it was, in the eyes of the Arab Middle East, an act of humiliation and degradation. By repeating his request to the Saudi king, Bush telegraphed to the Arab world just how needy the strongest country in the world is.

The entire situation could, and should, have been conducted differently. As opposed to putting forth his request while in the Region, the United States could have continued the discussion from home field. It is an ages old rule in the history of diplomacy in the Middle East - power sits with the host. And as opposed to rewarding the Saudi Kingdom with gifts following the refusal of the Saudi Kingdom to aid the United States, those gifts should have been held back either as rewards for complying with the request and significantly expanding oil production for the United States, or held back and denied entirely.

And what are those gifts:
Gift # 1: On the Friday following the turn down the White House announced that the United States will help Saudi Arabia develop atomic energy.

Gift # 2: The United States has signed a very expansive military arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The US will be selling some of the most sophisticated and most advanced weapons in the US arsenal to the Saudis - this deal includes new planes and technology.

Israel, not surprisingly, has issued a formal request to torpedo the deal because these new weapons would significantly threaten Israel's qualitative advantage in the region. This time it was the United States who said "no" and the US will go through with the deal.

What could have been important fulcrums for leveraging power have turned into fool's gifts. What incentive do other countries have for assisting the United States when gifts are lavishly dispensed anyway? All countries create foreign policy and act in their own best interest. Saudi Arabia is no exception, neither is the United States. The point is that until now the United States had tremendous leverage when urging other countries to help out. Bribes worked, arm twisting worked. Dangling enticing carrots from the Oval Office packs far more power than standing hat in hand in another country's front yard.

So what if the world accused the United States of offering bribes? The United States can handle that. In many parts of the world, that ability inspires respect and commands fear. That is how successful US foreign policy has often been determined. In the words of Machiavelli, "It is better to be feared than loved."

And in the words of Alexander Pope,"... fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday May 14, 2008

Column:

President George Bush is singing his swan song.

There are several verses to that song. One verse has decidedly Middle Eastern overtones. And that explains this American president's trip to the Middle East occasioned by Israel's 60th anniversary.

This trip was motivated by several objectives. One objective is, truly, to celebrate Israel's 60th. There is no doubt that the United States and Israel have a special relationship and special friends share special occasions. There can also be no doubt about the impact that President George Bush has had on that relationship - he has strengthened and deepened and made that relationship more significant and more unabashedly public.

At the same time, another objective of this trip is to apply pressure on Israel to make concession to the Palestinians in the name of advancing the peace process. For the president, that would be the perfect closing stanza of his song.

George Bush wants to create a lasting legacy and he does not want it to involve Iraq or Afghanistan. Condi Rice wants to create a position for herself as the next vice president of the United States. But Israel should not be forced into being the spring board for either of those noble aspirations.

Israel has sacrificed enough in the name of friendship. Asking Israel to totally abandon borders that keep Israeli citizens safe, asking Israel to take down roadblocks that prevent terrorists and tools of terror from entering their country, asking Israel to stop arresting terrorists is asking too much. Asking Israel to abandon the methods that have proven effective in safeguarding the lives and property of Israeli citizens is taking too much advantage of friendship.

The verses missing in this stanza of Bush's song are the lines asking the Palestinians to stop the flow of terror and to, of their own volition, arrest the terrorists. Missing is the US demand to Palestinian leadership to clamp down on Hamas and to issue a cease and desist order on the activities emanating from Gaza. Missing is a plea from the president of the United States to the Palestinian people to place their values and their future on the line by challenging Hamas, the real threat to Palestinian dreams.

If President George Bush succeeds in making the Palestinians realize that the real enemy rises from within and that Israel and the United States are there to help them achieve the lofty goals of statehood he will have succeeded in the Middle East. He will have sown the seeds of peace. But if the Palestinians cannot be made to see what is obvious to the rest of free and democratic world, there can never be peace with Israel.

We don't yet know the words to the Bush Swan Song, they are still to be composed. So let's just sing the song we do know. Happy anniversary to Israel, happy anniversary to you. And many more!

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday May 7, 2008

Column:

The prophet wrote "and they shall turn their swords into plowshares." And when will that happen? When there is peace among neighbors.

Israel is trying to bring peace to the neighborhood called the Middle East. First there were overtures towards the Palestinians, now those overtures are being reformatted and put forth to the Syrians. What is Israel really up to? Is it the Palestinians or is it the Syrians? And is any of this realistic? Or is Israel making a public, ceremonial, wish before blowing out the candles on her 60th birthday cake?

Peace in the Middle East is certainly in the best long term interest of Israel and of the Palestinians and of the Syrians and of the entire region - it's in the best interest of the entire world, but the truth is that true peace is not exactly what Israel is pursuing right now.

Let's analyze the situation.

Israel is in a no win situation with the Palestinians. The two are at loggerheads. The Israelis are frustrated and discouraged. The more successful Israel is at fighting terror, the more successful Israel is at keeping the borders safe, the farther Israel is from peace with the Palestinians. It sounds counterintuitive and that's because it is a matter of Palestinian pride.

Israel, you see, has figured out how to keep terror down without the help of the Palestinians. This newfound security solution is in direct conflict with the accords signed in Annapolis and the testosterone levels of Palestinian leadership. The Israelis do not see the Palestinians as seriously combating terror. Israel wants Palestinian leadership to take charge and bring stability and a sense of normalcy to the Palestinian people and that, the Israelis feel, is best accomplished by providing a safe haven, literally and figuratively a safe home, for the Palestinians.

Clearly the Americans want peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And to that elusive end the United States is investing huge amounts of time, energy and money. The United States wants the conflict resolved and the United States wants it resolved by the end of 2008. Just as clearly, Israel does not want to disappoint the United States, their sponsor and friend. But progress on the Palestinian peace front is v-e-r-y slow and not even arm twisting and document signing has succeeded in moving the process along.

Israel's success at road blocks arrests and targeted attacks prevent terrorists from reaching their targets. Israel's success at arresting gang members breaks up the units that are plotting terror attacks. Israel's success at assassinating terrorist leaders knocks the tops off of terrorist organizational pyramids and disrupts the command and control of the terrorist network. And for the most part, Israel is doing it without Palestinian assistance. And that hurts Palestinian leadership pride.

So Israel has turned her diplomatic energy away from the Palestinians and aimed it in the direction of Syrian. It was not a difficult move. It required nothing more than sending a message to the Turkish prime minister who passed it to the Syrian ambassador who delivered it to the Syrian foreign minister. It is the ripple effect of that overture that is dramatic.

The Palestinians know that Israel can only move on one peace track at a time. Israel cannot pursue peace with Syria and the Palestinians at the same time and the Palestinians know that they have been sidelined. They are upset. The pressure is on.

The world is getting the message that Israel is interested in negotiating for peace. Israel is so interested in negotiating for peace that they are turning to Syria, one of the members of the evil access. That means that Israel is willing to make concessions. That means that Israel has changed and the first country to break the logger jam and join Israel in peace will reap the most rewards.

The United States is being shown, subtly but clearly, that Israel can make diplomatic decisions without consultation, without asking for or receiving permission from Washington D.C. It means that the United Stats must revaluate the power plays of the Middle East because perhaps, just perhaps, little Israel may be able to wrestle Syria out of the grips of Iran. It means that the United States has to accept Israel's overture to Syria despite any previous hesitations over just such an overture on the part of Israel.

And it all happened without Israel's ever sitting down with the Syrians.

In real terms Israel cannot possibly come to terms with Syria at this stage. But Israel can put pressure on the Palestinians. And Israel can engage in a diplomatic ploy to push off the pressure by the United States to pursue peace on the Palestinian front.

There are many reasons why countries make overtures towards peace, only one of them is to actually achieve peace.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday May 1, 2008

Column:

Right means left. Up means down. Yes means no.

That's the Middle East for you.

The best way to understand the play book of the Middle East is to think of a game of opposites. You mean one thing, you say another. You want something specific, you do everything in your power not to have it happen. The cardinal rule of the Middle East goes like this: nothing should ever be taken at face value. Everything should be seen for its superficial meaning.

Take these past few days, for example.

First came rumors:
The Region was rife with rumors about discussions about negotiations about sending back and forth messages about peace between Israel and Syria. The scuttlebutt had it that Israel was willing to cede the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria.

Then came a news report:
The story was first published in a newspaper from Qatar. According to that report Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent a message to Syrian President Bashar Assad intimating that the door to negotiations is open. The idea was that if Assad stepped over the threshold and if a peace accord was hammered out, Syria's reward for agreeing to peace with a neighboring country would be sweetened by that neighboring country's good and wealthy friend, the United States of America.

On the surface, it all looks legitimate.

It looks as if, finally, Israel and Syria are getting closer to negotiating than they have since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. But remember, this is the Middle East. Remember, think opposites. Remember, nothing should be taken at face value.

Finally, came confirmation:
Al Manar, Hezbollah satellite TV, interviewed Samir Taqi, the Syrian ambassador to Turkey and the diplomat responsible for delivering the message from Olmert to Assad.

And then clarification:
The real reason behind the move towards negotiations became clear. And I quote: "It is naive to think Syria would behave foolishly and abandon its strategic alliances with Iran and Hezbollah, which are not limited solely to the Israeli-Arab conflict but also touch on topical geopolitical issues. These strategic associations are for the long term." Taqi continued by explaining that Syrian has no plans for bailing out on Iran and Hezbollah. The real reason for any interest that was shown toward Israel is to stake a more significant Syrian claim on the Golan Heights.

Aha! Now we all get it.

To say the least, Iran became very nervous when Israel made overtures to Syria. Iran knows that if Syria falls into a peace accord with Israel that means that Syria will have been poached from their side of the hostilities and brought over onto the side of the Western infidel, the United States.

Syria knows that Iran needs to be placated, that Iranian concerns need to be soothed. Syria knows that Iran needs to know that all is well, that nothing has changed, that this really is the Middle East game being played.

So Syria sent its ambassador out onto the Shiite airwaves of Hezbollah TV to explain what should have been obvious to Iran and to all Middle East watchers, analyzers and players from the outset. And then Taqi took it a step further. Taqi explained that accepting overtures from the Israelis and accepting an invitation from the White House to attend the Annapolis Conference were one and the same.

Syria is not interested in peace, Syria is interested in getting the Golan back and Syria is interested in destroying Israel.

What stymies me is not that Syria took a great offer and threw it right back in the diplomatic face of Israel. Why stymies me is that serious, seasoned, world leaders actually thought that Syria would go for a deal.

Okay, so Jimmy Carter didn't get it. I expect nothing more of him. But significant players in the Israeli government - including the prime minister, allowed themselves to be duped by the Syrians - much as the Iranians were. This was not new behavior for the Syrians, they were playing by the old rules, not making up new rules. What happened?

If the Golan Height is given to the Syrians today, Iran and Hezbollah will be there tomorrow. I cringe to think about what those two haters of Israel would do with such an unbelievable vantage.

You know who got it?

You know who reacted only tepidly, very tepidly, to the entire advance toward negotiations episode - the United States, that's who. The United States does not trust Syria. As much as the United States wants there to be peace in the Middle East, the United States does not trust Syria to deliver on any bargain.

So the big winner in this game is the United States. Thankfully, this time around, there were no big losers.

Game's over.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday April 23, 2008

Column:

It's a case of the kettle calling the pot black - Muslim style.

Al Qaeda is on the defensive - not against the United States, not against Israel, not against any Western country. Al Qaeda is taking to task one of the only countries that really counts in their Muslim world, al Qaeda is taking Iran to task.

For the past several months the Iranians have been spreading a conspiracy theory that diminishes al Qaeda. The theory has it that together, in collaboration, the United States and Israel masterminded 9-11, that it was not al Qaeda, that it was not Osama bin Laden and his henchmen that it was a home grown Western job.

And al Qaeda, in the person of Ayman Zawahiri is setting the record straight.

In a contest that ran from December 2007 through January 16, 2008 Muslim Arabs were invited to submit questions for Zawahiri, the al Qaeda number two man behind bin Ladin, to answer. Zawahiri chose the questions he deemed most interesting and important and has begun responding to those questions via the internet. It is all part of an al Qaeda sponsored public relations campaign. Al Qaeda needs a new and improved reputation in the Arab world.

The first installment of Zawahiri responses came out a few days ago, the second is out now and is a two - hour long monologue available on several Islamist websites.

The message in this installment is clear: when it comes to 9 -11 it was al Qaeda, it was all al Qaeda and it was only al Qaeda.

Why has Iran been spreading this awful anti-al Qaeda conspiracy theory? According to Zawahiri, there are several reasons why.
Reason # 1: "The purpose of this lie is clear - (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it."

In other words, for Zawahiri, al Qaeda and Iran it is all about the inner Muslim conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.

But Zawahiri could not let it end there. Rather than presenting his argument - which many Muslims could find cogent and convincing, Zawahiri continues on with his own conspiracy theory i.e., his own lie.
Reason # 2:
":Iran's aim here is also clear - to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq."

If it was obvious before, it is all the more obvious now. Al Qaeda and Iran hate one another. Zawahiri has spoken time and again about the intentions of Iran to hijack the Muslim agenda and take charge of the Muslim world. He has repeated over and over again his assertion that Iran is dangerous.

Through his audio preachings Zawahiri is promoting the good that Sunni al Qaeda brings to the Muslim word. It is al Qaeda, says Zawahiri, who is fighting against Western evil. Al Qaeda, he says, is "the primary force opposing the Crusaders and challenging Iranian ambitions" in Iraq. He continues by throwing out the terms ? "Iranian collaborators complicity" and "Iranian agents."

Those are fighting words.

"Crusaders" is an obvious reference to the United States. "Agents" and "Collaborators" are very strong words in Arabic with serious historical connotations that can justify targeting and killing.

The diatribes of Ayman Zawahiri have become familiar litany to all who listen. And the success of Iran in minimizing the role of al Qaeda can be directly linked to the frequency and intensity of those diatribes.

Sunnis are running scared. Iran is posing a direct threat. Iranian policies, politics and activities are presenting a real challenge to al Qaeda. Iran’s involvement in destabilizing Iraq and their sprint to become a significant nuclear power minimizes the allure and grandeur of al Qaeda in the Muslim world.

Muslim competition for guts and glory is heating up.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday April 16, 2008

Column:

Jimmy Carter is probably not an Antisemite. He is probably not un-American. In plain English the gentleman from Plains, Georgia, is just plain WRONG!

He is wrong about his take on events in the Middle East. Wrong about his perspective on how to solve conflicts in the Middle East and worldwide. Wrong about the self-important role he has chosen for himself to play - a former president of the United States turned humanitarian for the world.

And because he is so wrong, so very wrong, and because he is so self-centered and single-minded he is doing much damage to the people he represents - the United States of America and to the people whose cause he is championing - the Palestinians. About Israel he doesn't really care, but he is, of course, doing damage there, as well.

Whatever you think of Jimmy Carter, his is a name that packs weight. Around the world Jimmy Carter's face, with that broad grin and buck smile, is identifiable and recognized. Around the world Jimmy Carter is respected and highly acclaimed. His is the face of the United States that most of the world both likes and appreciates. His is the kind of face that most of the world wishes the rest of the United States had.

But look closer and you will see the real face of Jimmy Carter. Look closer and you will see that the face of Jimmy Carter is fundamentally the face of a loser and a capitulator. Look closer and you will see that the famous smile masks a political career marred by catastrophic decision making and poor judgment.

I am not referring only to the Iran hostage crisis which cost Carter the presidential election and a second term in office. I am referring to Jimmy Carter's attitude toward the world. The crisis in Iran is just one example of his skewed world perspective and his faulty, self-interested, analysis.

During this trip to the Middle East Jimmy Carter, peacemaker, cum diplomat, cum thinker has bent over backwards to accommodate the enemies of the West, the enemies of the United States, the enemies of Israel and even the enemies of the people he proposes to save - the Palestinians.

When Jimmy Carter meets and dialogues with Hamas leaders he is by extension bestowing upon those men and the organization they represent a place of stature in world diplomacy. The United States calls Hamas a terrorist organization. Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, major Arab players in the Middle East, are downplaying the stature of Hamas in their region. The Palestinian Authority is trying desperately to belittle the status and stature other Palestinians have bestowed upon Hamas and here Jimmy Carter goes and raises the stature and legitimacy bar.

Carter bolsters Hamas. By meeting with this terrorist organization he is de facto recognizing Hamas and giving Hamas credence. Yes, Hamas also provides social, welfare and other services to certain Palestinians, but that does not make them any less terrorists. A murderer who stops off to deliver a bouquet of flowers to his mother on the way to committing his crime is still a murderer.

To go and lay a wreath at Arafat's tomb is not to have learned from the investigations and realizations of corruption and malfeasance that became so obvious after Arafat's death. It is to ignore the facts in favor of predilections and predisposed notions. It is self-serving. It is not morally uplifting. It does not help the Palestinian cause, it perpetuates Palestinian myth and mythos.

It buys into the worst part of the Carter gestalt, the world as seen through the eyes of Jimmy Carter, a point of view that says that everyone is the same, that everyone has equal weight. It is a point of view in which traditional enemies and traditional friends are put on an even keel. It is a point of view that obliterates the special relationship between Israel and the United States.

The entire Arab world knows that there is a special relationship between Israel and the US. The only person who is either unaware of or in disagreement with that special relationship - I haven't yet figured out which - is Jimmy Carter and his small band of followers.

Jimmy Carter needs to be sidelined - in the name of peace and peaceful co-existence. Jimmy Carter needs to be denied access and special State Department permission to undermine US diplomatic policy and practice. Jimmy Carter needs to get a swift kick in the ... but that would be inappropriate, un PC and downright - well, gosh darned it, downright wrong.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday April 9, 2008

Column:

Which European country is impartial? It could be a question on any TV game show. On Millionaire the answer should be worth no more than $100. On Smarter Than A Fifth Grader the kids would get it right away. The answer of course, is Switzerland.

But really, here comes the buzzer, that answer is wrong. Which country claims to be impartial? That would be Switzerland. Which country hides behind impartiality? That would be Switzerland. But which country truly is impartial - Switzerland is not the answer.

Switzerland has always had the reputation of being impartial. So impartial, in fact, that they are a country without an army. There is no need for protection if you are truly impartial, no reason to feel threatened if you are truly impartial. But Switzerland only pretends at impartiality, Switzerland has successfully put up a facade of impartiality and Switzerland is laughing all the way to the bank - and I mean that quite literally.

During World War II, while the Germans were perpetrating a Holocaust by murdering millions of European Jews, the Swiss claimed impartiality and eagerly accepted German monies and Nazi monies. And then they saved the property and properties of those murdered Jews of Europe who put money in their banks for safe keeping. And when the few survivors tried to regain their family money and property the Swiss put stumbling blocks in their way, all in the name of impartiality. Swiss authorities asked for actual documentation on accounts, they asked for death certificates - they asked for material that was impossible to produce. They feigned ignorance. They pretended not to know that relocation and deportation were Nazi code for murdered.

Switzerland has allowed, even encouraged, criminals and mafia lords to take advantage of their impartiality for years, using Swiss bank accounts to hide illegally gotten gains. And now, right now, Switzerland would have us believe that they are pursuing impartiality by investing in Iran and purchasing Iranian oil.

In today's world impartiality is both unfeasible and almost impossible. Countries, especially Western countries, should take an interest in and be actively involved in regional and even global affairs - they should not hide behind the guise of impartiality in order to advance their own self interests and personal gain. In today's world that behavior is immoral and it is wrong.

Societies must condemn evil and condemn the perpetrators of evil. Trading with Iran is supporting Iran and supporting Iranian policy. Iran is a state sponsor of terror. This is not open for question. Iran admits to supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, avowed and acknowledged terrorist organizations. By making a deal with Iran and by purchasing Iranian oil Switzerland is de facto supporting terror.

Switzerland is now not only investing in Iran and buying oil from Iran, the Swiss government has signed a $30-$50 million a year renewable contract with Iran. The loudest voice to declaim this outright abuse of status is the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL has placed advertisements in major newspapers around the world, in European newspapers including Swiss papers and in leading papers across the United States including The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The ads have a clear message: "When you finance a terrorist state you finance terrorism."

The Swiss have not learned the lessons of history. Once again their behavior is immoral, repugnant and dishonorable. Their insistence on touting their impartial status is bogus and dishonest. The Swiss are breaking the Western economic boycott of Iran because they are getting a good deal from Iran. And they hide behind their thin veil of impartiality.

Shame on you Switzerland for lining the pockets of mass murdering terrorists.

Shame on you Switzerland for hiding behind a false claim of superiority.

Shame on you Switzerland for shunning your responsibility to the Western world.

Shame on you, Switzerland.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday March 31, 2008

Column:

Fact: Victory in battle against Islamic radicalism and terror will take several generations.
Nothing new there. Western thinkers have been saying that for years.

Fact: Fighting terrorism means knowing the enemy and knowing the weapons the enemy is using.
Nothing new there either.

Fact: Victory in battle against Western infidels will take generations.
Now that's new.
For the first time ever the terrorists and the Muslim extremists from whose midst they emerge, the believers who want to topple the West, are declaring outright that according to their plan the actual defeat of the West will take generations to accomplish.

The new approach that Muslim extremism is taking in explaining their plan to rid the world of infidels, to take over the world and to rule the world, is colossal. And yet, rather than boldly heralding this news, rather than proclaiming this transformative thinking to be policy, the Muslim world is slowly slipping it into the vernacular of radical Islam.

The original objective of radical Islam was two-fold.
First, the infidels.
Islamic radicals would bring about the overthrow and ousting of Western society. An Islamic Revolution would transform the world. America, Israel and all countries that embrace Western countries would be toppled, destroyed, eradicated.
Next, the believers.
Islamic radicals would replace the Arab and Muslim leaders with theocracies. The current regimes in the Muslim world are run by Muslims, but Muslims in name only. The goal of Muslim Islamisists is to replace the kings and dictators with Islamic law and run a country patterned after Iran - according to Shariya, according to Islamic law.

Jihad is an overarching concept for the radical Muslim and the terrorist. Originally, radicals like Osama bin Laden and The Ayatollah Khomeini advocated the Islamic principle of Jihad. Jihad is a religious obligation to defeat those who reject the primacy of Islam and resist the hegemony of Islam.

Jihad is no longer the working principle of radical, extremist, Islam. Terrorists and Muslim extremists have made a transition. That transition is manifest in language. It is subtle, it is strong. It signifies an essential shift in principles. Jihad has been replaced with a new theological term.

Jihad has been replaced with Moqawamah.

Moqawamah. The word actually sounds Native American, like a summer camp in the Pocono Mountains or the name of a boy scout troop. It is pure Arabic. It explains an attitude similar to but significantly different from, Jihad. It means resistance.

Jihad implies an all out struggle and absolute victory.

Moqawamah implies that victory is not near at all.

In Moqawamah the fighter must fight, but the fighter must not necessarily win. Moqawamah is not about the current engagement, Moqawamah is about a long, protracted, multi-generational struggle.

Moqawamah is a way for terrorists and radical Islam to save face. It is a way of saying that not winning is not defeat. Not winning is part of a process. Not winning is a step forward. Moqawamah is why Muslim radicals around the world can interpret the Hezbollah war against Israel as victory - Israel did not destroy Hezbollah so Hezbollah is victorious and Hezbollah can continue to strike against and hit Israel. Moqawamah is why Muslim radicals around the world can interpret al Qaeda sponsored and led attacks against Western targets as victory. The resistance is still viable. Moqawamah is successful.

In brief, in Moqawamah, if you do not lose - you win. If there is one fighter still standing, one subscriber to the principle of Moqawamah unvanquished, Moqawamah wins. The flip side for the Western world is that it is almost impossible to defeat Moqawamah.

The terrorist need not win to win. Moqawamah is the perfect equation for a guerrilla - terror philosophy that does not favor fighters fighting in uniform and that promotes attacks against innocent civilians in schools, airplanes, office buildings and trains. Shooting rockets from Gaza into innocent Israeli towns will help the next generation get closer to the goal of ridding the world of Israel. Attacking the Twin Towers will help the next generation get closer to the goal of ridding the world of Western influences.

This thinking is deeply intertwined with theological justification. The Muslim radical has found a way of justifying the cruel reality that Allah has turned his back on Islam. Allah has not heard the prayers of radicals. Israel and the Jews have been blessed while the Muslim world sits in utter poverty and chaos despite enormous oil and gas reserves. Moqawamah puts it all in perspective for the Muslim mind.

Moqawamah turns little actions into large symbols. Moqawamah speaks not to the now, it speaks to the future. Moqawamah allows radical Islam to continue to plan great victory in the future. In the war against terror and radical Islam Moqawamah is the new fact on the ground.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday March 24, 2008

Column:

Barack Obama is in trouble, serious trouble. He needs help, real help.

The presidential hopeful doesn't seem to realize the precariousness of his situation, and that's a problem, a big problem.

His reputation has been compromised. His judgment is being called into question. His allegiance to his country, to our country, is under scrutiny. His unwillingness to either confront or truly separate from a man he considered to be his mentor is turning into a political liability.

"A true master of politics is able to calculate, down to the smallest fraction, the advantages to which he may put his very faults," said Napoleon Bonaparte. Obama, I believe, has got his math all wrong.

America, as a whole, may be willing to forgive Barack Obama for his association with Jeremiah Wright, even if many Americans do not forgive Wright himself. But there is one statistically small group of Americans who will not be able to forgive. America's Jews.

I do not know if presidential hopeful Barack Obama will regain his reputation in the Jewish community after the scandal caused by his religious mentor. No doubt, this is a case of "guilt by association" but as Obama full well knows, politics is all about contacts, all about affiliations, all about associations.

Disagreeing with Wright is not good enough. Saying I was not present when those despicable pronouncements by Wright were declared is not denial enough. Explaining that Wright has been an integral part of his life and that separation is difficult is not reason enough. Jeremiah Wright is a liability to the Obama campaign. If the candidate could not see that himself his handlers should have seen it. And his handlers should have forced this separation before the damage was done.

Loyalty to an individual is not a virtue in politics. Loyalty to a nation is a virtue. Loyalty to the people is a virtue. America watched and America listened as Barack Obama eloquently justified the person - not the words, but the person, who had vilified America, preached hate against Israel and against Jews and who stands shoulder to shoulder with, who embraces verbally and emotionally, Louis Farrakhan.

Statistically, the Jewish vote is not significant. Politically, it is very significant. There are a mere six million Jews in the United States - what makes the Jewish vote significant is that almost all six million make their way to the voting booth on election day, almost all six million are active voters. And they are significant contributors to campaigns. And the Jewish community has a strong history of political activism. Forget the numbers, Jews do make a difference. The influence the Jewish community wields in this presidential election is dramatically greater than mere numbers.

If I were advising Barack Obama I would make a concerted effort to woo Jewish America back into his camp.

I would immediately convene a six day to Israel (visiting the Western Wall and Sderot, the city under siege) and to the Mid East (including the Palestinian Authority) region.
How that would help: American Jews need to know that their next president understands the facts on the ground in Israel. Jewish Americans, as all Americans, need to know that their next president has a true understanding of the threats and perils that Iran poses to the West.

I would insist that he condemn (strongly) both the man and his (more strongly) words and publicly announce his departure from Wright's church.
How that would help: Jeremiah Wright is the antithesis of the Obama unity platform. Obama cannot be trusted to "bless America" when his mentor publicly "damns America." Obama must place physical and emotional distance between himself and his past influences.

I would have him clearly explain what he knew and when.
How that would help: Apologizing for a lapse in judgment inspired by close family ties is humbling, but ingratiating. Explaining that there was once a time when Obama believed in the virtues that Wright then preached and they were attractive to the Obama family but that has now changed, that there has since been a divergence in beliefs and thoughts shows that Obama himself can change, that he can push the envelope, that he listens and recalibrates as situations change.

Barack Obama needs to do the right thing. He needs to do what is right for his candidacy and what is right for America whether or not it brings Jewish America and disenchanted America back into his camp.

He needs to do the right thing but I am doubtful that he will do the right thing. The man who wants to be the next president of the United States of America does not really know about Americans. He does not realize the depth of the pain that Americans felt as they watched and they heard Jeremiah Wright. For Barack Obama the man, for Barack Obama the candidate, that is a fatal flaw.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday March 17, 2008

Column:

Riga is the capital city of Latvia. Located on the Baltic Sea, Latvia, a scenically beautiful country to behold, is one of the former Soviet states. Riga is a city rich in culture in history and even in human and natural resources.

On Sunday, in Riga, three thousand Latvians came out to join a parade. It was a parade to honor those Latvians who belonged to and fought in and defended the honor of a notorious SS Unit known as the Latvian Legion.

Three thousand people came out and joined that parade. Did I make myself clear? Three thousand Latvians flocked to the city of Riga to participate in a pro-Nazi rally.

It happened this Sunday - in the year 2008, in a European capital.

As Americans, we think that most people think the way we do. We think that not to think the way we do is bad, or wrong, thinking. We think that our understanding of right versus wrong is universal. We think that the reason others do not think the way we think is because they have not heard the power of our argument, that they would be convinced if they had As Westerners, we think that
our belief system is the correct system, the most evolved system, the most popular system. In actuality, we are deluding ourselves. Our view of the world is insular, it is short sighted and it is narrow-minded.

Look no further than Riga, March 2008.

Latvia, along with the rest of the USSR, was invaded by the Germans in 1941. Then, as now, Riga was the capital of Latvia. According to a census taken in 1935 there were 43,672 Jews living in Riga. After the war there were 150 Jews, survivors from Riga.

Most of Riga's Jews were murdered in a place called Rumbla, a "killing fields" located only seven miles outside the city. There, on two separate days, first on November 30th and then on December 8th, 1941 the Nazis - with the help of the local Latvians, mowed down 25,000 Jews.

The Jewish Ghetto in Riga, like most Jewish ghettos created during World War II, was situated in the most densely populated area of the Jewish community. In Riga that area was called Maskava. In Riga, like in every other city under their control, in order for the Nazi massacre of the Jews to succeed the Germans needed local assistance. The assistance that the Latvian community of Riga gave to Nazi Command came in the form of the Latvian Legion, proud members of the German SS.

We now know, the proof is in the numbers, that local Latvians today, are still proud of their members of the Latvian Legion.

Was there a counter demonstration? There was - and we should be thankful that there was, but their well intended shouts of "disgrace" and "Hitler is Dead" and their few numbers pale in comparison to the pomp and glory of the Pro Nazi parade.

The lessons of the mass murder of the Jews at the hands of Nazis have not sunken in very well in Europe - even in those places where the lessons are most needed. Mass murder is still celebrated. Local mass murderers are encouraged to strut their stuff in style.

The most important lesson we can draw from the citizenry of Riga is not to be deceived. Realize that the values and issues that we hold dear are unique to us. We can try to influence others to adopt our values, we can even bribe them to behave in ways that we deem appropriate, but in their hearts seldom do they truly adopt our values and our sense of right and wrong.

We are who we are because we think that what the Nazis did was wrong. Some of the world still does not agree.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday March 10, 2008

Column:

History in the Muslim Arab world, the remembrance and recording of the past, differs from history in the Western world. The Western world records past events and calls them history. The Muslim Arab world recalls myths, hopes, conspiracies and events and calls that history. In the Arab world history and memory merge into a psycho-cultural universe that informs and motivates and plots the future.

The events on the evening of Thursday March 6th, 2008 were part of a chain of events that began years earlier, late at night, on Friday August 23rd, 1929.

The eight Jewish students killed by an Arab terrorist while learning in their religious school, their yeshiva, on Thursday March 6th, 2008 were a part of history even before they were brutally gunned down and massacred. Even before their deaths these Jewish students held a special place in history - a special place in Arab history. The machine gun toting terrorist who entered the Zionist stronghold yeshiva called Merkaz HaRav Kook on that Thursday evening, the people who planned the operation and sent him there and the people who rejoiced for his having been there, were all reliving a historical memory from 1929.

They were reliving the 1929 massacre of Hebron that began in Yeshivat Hebron. They were re-enacting the massacre of other Jewish students in another religious school. The location and the act chosen for this terrorist deed were a direct outgrowth of Arab/Jewish interaction and history, a history of Arabs massacring Jews. They were reconnecting the present with their past.

It was a hot Friday night in August. The students were gathered together in their yeshiva in the city of Hebron. The Sabbath had already been ushered in - and then the massacre began. The calls for reinforcements from the one British policeman in the area went unheeded for five hours, unanswered until it was too late. When it ended, three days later, 67 Jews were dead, brutally murdered - butchered with axes and knives and swords. Those students still alive were evacuated by the British to Jerusalem.

And that massacre, the 1929 Massacre of the Students in Hebron, became the paradigm in the Arab world for removing Jews. Massacre them. Massacre them especially while they are at study in their religious schools. Massacre them today and it will lead to the Jewish evacuation of Jerusalem just as it led to the Jewish evacuation of Hebron in 1929.

In the morning, after a night of murdering Jews, Arab leaders came to the home of a man whom they respected, a prestigious, well liked teacher at the yeshiva. They had a proposal to place before Rabbi Jacob Slonim. If the rabbi were to hand over all the Ashkenazi students, the students of European birthplace, they would end the massacre and spare the lives of the Sephardic students, the students who came from Arab lands. Rabbi Slonim declined the offer. He was killed on the spot. The massacre continued.

In retrospect we can say that in the days leading up to the Hebron Massacre tensions between Arabs and Jews were high, very high, especially in Jerusalem, especially around the area of the Western Wall. In sermons delivered in area mosques and in propaganda spread in Arabic newspapers stories were told about Jews killing Arabs and about Jews taking advantage of Muslim holy sites. These messages fed the already widespread - and still growing - conspiracy theory that the Jews were engaged in what was termed "the wholesale murder of the Arabs." So the Arabs of Hebron took matters into their own hands murdering the Jews of Hebron and forcing the survivors out of their city.

Re-enactments of the Hebron Massacre of 1929 have been carried out several times over the years, but never so successfully as this last attack. In the city of Ma'alot, high up in the Galil, a horrific attack was carried out in a school. In Gaza, just before Israel evacuated, terrorists massacred a Jewish religious school as the students sat down to eat on a Saturday night. Most recently terrorists attempted to murder students in a school in the Etzion block located between Bethlehem and Hebron. Luckily, teachers thought quickly, acted more quickly and killed the terrorist.

The Arab world claims that their intention to remove Jews is steeped in history, that their desire to remove Jews today is being done "for their own safety" - just as the British did in 1929 in Hebron. In truth, Arab leaders around the world are stoking the flames of the conspiracy in order to motivate their murderers to act. That is one of the most significant reasons that the Arab world, with regular frequency, speaks of the Holocaust Israel is perpetrating on the Palestinians.

There is no Holocaust being perpetrated by Israelis or by Jews anywhere in the world upon Arabs and there are no Jewish land grabbers. If anything, the opposite is true. Jews are ceding land and Israel is pursuing peace. But that message will not motivate.

Hatred and fear motivate evil. Untruths motivate massacres. History and conspiracy theories merge.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday March 3, 2008

Column:

It's official. It's on the record. The words have been spoken out loud. Israel, according to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, is using "excessive and disproportionate" force in Gaza.

Now the Security Council knows it. Now the world knows it.

After years of being pounded by missiles and rockets from Gaza, after weeks of escalating Hamas instigated and led attacks, Israel chose to respond. And in turn, the world has responded by condemning Israel.

"While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself," said the Secretary General "I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children."

What did Israel do? Did Israel raze a village, bomb an orphanage, massacre an entire village? No. Israel officiated a counterattack, striking at those terrorists who are targeting Israeli cities and citizens with Qassam rockets and with missiles.

"I call on Israel to cease such attacks" said the Secretary General with the European Union saying almost exactly the same thing, using almost the same language. Well what would Ban Ki-Moon and European leaders have Israel do? What would be an acceptable, proportionate response? Let me offer some suggestions. Perhaps, Israel should:

* day after day, for the next few years, indiscriminately lob rocks into residential areas

* sponsor civilians to build and shoot crude and inaccurate rockets into Gaza

* preach hatred, teach about destruction and dream of annihilating the entire Palestinian population

* reprint textbooks eliminating the Palestinian Authority from maps

Would that change the thinking of those who are now condemning Israel? Would those be less excessive and proportionate responses? I don't think so.

Israel has initiated a series of surgical aerial operations and ground strikes. There might even be plans for a ground invasion. The purpose of these strikes is to assess the value of an invasion. The purpose is to hurt Hamas command and destroy Hamas resources. And in all that, Israel has been successful. And because Israel has been successful, Israel is being condemned.

Condemned for using excessive force. Condemned for using disproportional force. And this condemnation of Israel comes from the same man who, until now, has been pretty clear about condemning the Palestinians for their relentless Qassam rocket attacks into Israel. And the Secretary General is still condemning them. He is still saying: "I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks and call for the immediate cessation of such acts of terrorism."

And Israel is taking this all very seriously.

Israeli Defense Minister Barak, a former Prime Minister and a former Chief of Staff, has officially asked Israeli Justice Minister Daniel Freidman to examine international law on the issue of targeting terrorists who attack from within civilian populations. Barak wants to determine Israel's right and Israel's position on hitting Hamas terrorists. The defense minister wants to know how to respond to the world as they vilify Israel for finally initiating what is a low grade response to the daily blows raining down on them from Gaza.

And defense minister Barak wants to reassure Israeli soldiers that the counter attack they are now engaged in, the operation that has already cost the lives of Israeli soldiers is just, is fair, is appropriate and is essential.

There are people around the world who hate Israel and who will do anything to vilify Israel. There are people who are cheering after hearing about the UN condemnation of Israel. There are people, including Jews, who cannot accept Israel in any role other than victim. These are the people who fall prey to the Palestinian public relations campaign that paints Israel as the big, bad Goliath of modern history. But instead of five smooth stones, in this version the wronged and smaller Daoud slings rockets and missiles.

If anything, Israel can be blamed for exercising too much restraint. Maybe it was that restraint that brought about the current situation. Maybe Israel should have responded sooner and responded more vigorously. Maybe Sderot would be safe and Israel would not be criticized in today's news. But that is a historical, not a military analysis.

Say what they want, if Israel was not using restraint in their response to Hamas many more Palestinians would be dead.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday February 27, 2008

Column:

There are war games. There are diplomatic games. There are mind games. And there are just plain - games. Monopoly, the most popular game in the world, produced by Hasbro, one of the most successful game sellers in the world, used to be just a game, a fun, simple, wildly popular game.

And then Hasbro decided to take the game one step further. Hasbro already had the Banking Edition, the SquarePants Edition, the Junior Disney Princess Edition, but they did not yet have the World Edition. So Hasbro came up with a plan to invite fan participation and create Monopoly Here and Now: The World Edition. The invitation went out from headquarters in Pawtucket, Rhode Island to the entire online world - vote for you favorite city anywhere in the world and the cities with the most votes will win spots around the coveted Monopoly board.

That's when the fun stopped. That's when true competition stepped in. That's when Hasbro - unwittingly - stepped out of the realm of gamesmanship and into the real world of politics and diplomacy. Problem was, votes came in for the city of Jerusalem, Israel. Problem is, the Arab world does not believe that Jerusalem belongs to Israel, the Palestinians want Jerusalem for their own capital city one day. The problem was solved by an independent-thinking Hasbro employee in the London office. Just take out the comma and the word Israel. London remained London comma England, Paris remained Paris comma France, Istanbul a frontrunner for first place remained Istanbul comma Turkey and Jerusalem was left to stand alone. And that did not sit well with Israel's friends.

Hasbro does not like to make enemies. Hasbro will do almost anything to avoid alienating clients. Politics is one property that Hasbro does not want to land on. So Hasbro made another decision and this time the decision came from way high up the management chain. All the commas and all the countries were dropped. After all, Hasbro was really only interested in city names for their game. The plan is working, Hasbro dodged the bullet.

Truthfully, Hasbro did the right thing. Hasbro should not be in the game of politics and diplomacy. It's not good for business. That game is best played by governments and law makers. And the government of the United States of America is playing the Jerusalem game right now.

The United States government, like Hasbro, has dropped the comma and the country from the passports off all US citizens born in the city of Jerusalem. That's right. If you are a US citizen born in Jerusalem your official, listed, country of birth is ---, left blank.

There's more. Jerusalem is the only city in the world with two United States consulates. One is in East Jerusalem, one is in West Jerusalem. The embassy is in Tel Aviv. Year ago, there was need for two consulates because Jerusalem was in two countries - Jordan and Israel. But that was 41 years ago, everything changed in 1967. When Berlin was divided they, too, had two consulates. The wall came down and one of the embassies went away. Not so in Jerusalem.

The current presidential campaign is the first campaign in recent history during which no candidate has declared that moving the United States Embassy in Israel to the city of Jerusalem is a priority. In other campaigns Israel was discussed and promises were made. OK, the promises were broken, but the inequity was an issue that was opened up and discussed.

Congress even passed an act to move the embassy. The reason it has never happened is because of a presidential waiver written into the law that requires the State Department to agree and traditionally, both professionals and career people in State, have a real problem designating Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
They fear that if the US officially recognizes Jerusalem it will enrage the Arab and Muslim world and create a real problem for any future deal the US makes with the Palestinians. I disagree. I know it would upset the Arab world, but I also think that the Arab world would show more respect towards the United States if the United States, knowing that there would be strong disagreement over the policy, was emboldened enough to make a clear decision on Jerusalem.

It's about time that the world recognizes that Israel has made her own choice. And Israel has chosen Jerusalem. Jerusalem, comma, Israel.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday February 21, 2008

Column:

The numbers are numbing.

Do the calculation.

Fifty days. Four hundred Qassam rockets.

If Qassam rockets continue to be fired off at this rate by the end of the year Israel will have been hit by almost two thousand eight hundred rockets.

Last year, 2007, there were one thousand one hundred and fifty rockets hitting Israel from Gaza. This year, 2008, the projected number - if the situation remains unchecked - will be three times this year's total. That means two thousand eight hundred enemy rockets hurdling into Israel.

Those mind boggling statistics refer just to rockets. What about the people?

What about the people who will be forced to run for shelter 2,800 times this year. What about the kids? Just think about it, a child born into the city of Sderot within the past six years has never known what it is NOT to run for shelter on a regular basis. Has never known that meals are NOT supposed to be interrupted by blasts. Has never known that other people sleep peacefully at night. Cannot know that bedwetting is not the norm, that shaking and difficulty concentrating are not normal childhood behaviors. Has never known life without Qassams.

And what is being done to secure the lives of these people on the brink - on the brink of society, on the brink of sanity, on the brink of the country they call their own - secure rooms are planned for their homes.

3,150 rooms will receive fortification in the near future inside homes that are within a one mile range of Israel's border with Gaza. Do not misunderstand, 3,150 homes will not be fortified. A designated room within each of 3,150 homes will be fortified. It's called a safe room, a secure room. It's where you go when everything around you is scary and unsafe, when your world is literally crumbling down upon you.

In a briefing given to the government by Brigadier General Yair Golan, head of the Home Front Command, that same briefing that announced the 3,150 safe rooms, members of Israel's Knesset were informed that since the year 2001 $138 million has been spent in the defense of civilians living in the area around Gaza.

Now do that calculation.

In seven years one hundred and thirty eight million dollars was spent. In other words, about $19 million dollars per year has been spent to protect Israeli citizens - locked into their homes because they have no place else to go - from Qassam rockets. $19 million for the people in need is a paltry sum. It is an embarrassingly paltry sum. It is smaller than the annual budget for Knesset travel.

Why are Israel's decision makers incapable of defending Israel's poorest citizens? "Why," as one general put is "are Israeli children on the front line and not soldiers?" It is not the role of children to sit, to play, to learn, to live in a bomb zone. It is the role of the government to protect those young citizens.

The story of the Siege of the Qassams upon Israel is the story of 21st Century international diplomacy.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and members of his government have been traveling the world talking to world leaders trying to get the nod of approval for a sustained Israeli strike against Hamas forces in Gaza. Israel wants to set the groundwork for the propaganda battle that will inevitably ensue after an attack. Israel's intentions are admirable - but time is being wasted. It is a pre-determined, historically-validated given that most of the world will condemn Israel even as they tacitly acknowledge the moral right of a country to defend her citizens.

Why scurry around the world begging for permission to do what you know must inevitably be done with or without permission? Why waste time, risk more lives, incur more injuries, ruin more lives? Just plan and implement multiple sets of attacks, strategies and counter attacks. Include media plans along with the military plans. Do it before more young boy lose their legs. Do it now.

Do it before a horrific disaster. Quite frankly, that is my fear. I fear that Israel is waiting for a sign - an awful, disastrous, costly sign - to legitimize an Israeli attack against Hamas. I fear that Israel will wait until a Qassam hits a house and kills a family. I fear that Israel will wait until a terror attack from Gaza successfully infiltrates into Israel and people are murdered.

The founders of the Jewish State were obsessed with the idea of taking charge. The idea of creating Israel was predicated on moral and historical ideals. One of those ideals was controlling the destiny of the Jewish people, another was providing a safe refuge for Jews from around the world.

The Jews have arrived. Protect them.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday February 11, 2008

Column:

Sometimes, the pen truly is mightier than the sword.

Hamas, in Gaza, has shut down a newspaper called Al Ayyam. A Hamas court ordered that the newspaper cease operations and that the people employed by Al Ayyam in Gaza, there are about thirty-two of them, cease work.

The newspaper was ordered closed on Sunday because of a cartoon that appeared on the back page of the paper last November. The cartoon depicted former Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh addressing the Palestinian Parliament. All the men he was addressing looked like clones of the prime minister and they all held photos of the prime minister. The caption on the caricature translates to mean "illegitimate" or "irrelevant."

Haniyeh, to this day, is a strong, mighty and fierce Hamas leader. And Hamas leadership took offense at the portrayal. November, December, January, February. What took Hamas so long to react? That, I can't answer. Maybe they read slowly. Maybe this was a down period, maybe they were just looking for something else to be angry about, another way to prove to us all how un-democratic and non-Western they are in thought and in action.

But this I can tell you. A Hamas court may have ordered the paper closed, but the paper will not close. Ay Ayyam is a privately owned, Fatah leaning, press. And Al Hayyam is homebased on the West Bank not in Gaza. The thirty-odd reporters who write from Gaza may be forbidden from doing their job, and their lives may be in jeopardy if they continue to post their pieces from elsewhere in cyberspace, but those presses will continue to roll. And given the fact that there are over one million three hundred thousand Palestinians living in Gaza and the fact that only 3,400 copies of the paper were distributed in Gaza, I don't think the publishers will even notice the loss. My high school paper printed more copies
than are read in Gaza.

And I can tell you that the Hamas declaration ordering the closure of Al Ayyam is another clear and definitive indication of the way in which Hamas is now officially out of control.

Hamas is threatened by the slightest criticism. Hamas, right now, reminds me of the Soviets during the Communist era. We in the West encourage critique and thoughtful dialogue. Freedom or expression, especially freedom of the press, is sacrosanct. Western journalists are willing to surrender themselves to prison in order to uphold that freedom, they are not, as in Hamasland, imprisoned for writing for the "wrong" paper. Hamas feels that freedom of the press should be restricted - and even eliminated.

Hamas' greatest enemy right now is not Israel. As much as Israel applies pressure upon Hamas, the reality is that Fatah and Egypt are applying even more pressure. Hamas is fighting for survival, but ultimately, not survival against Israel. Israel, right now, is a side show. Israel, right now, is a way for Hamas to let our aggression and pent up hostility. The real battle is being waged within, the battle is against Fatah and against Egypt.

A stable Hamas was dangerous. An unstable, out of control Hamas is all that much more dangerous.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday February 6, 2008

Column:

It was a 1 - 2- 3 punch.

An increase in terror inside Israel proper was as predictable as it was inevitable.

Step one, Gazans breached their border with Egypt. Step two, terrorists from Gaza set up new centers inside Egypt. Step three, the terrorists mobilized. Step four, BOOM.

This time the attack took place in a sleepy little city, primarily populated by immigrants and even a group of Black Muslims originally from Chicago. The city is called Dimona, it is home to the most developed nuclear reactor in Israel. The reactor was not the target. A pedestrian mall located in the city's commercial center was the target.

What makes this terror attack a classic example of terror attacks? The intention of this attack like all other attacks was to wreak havoc and devastation. The intention of this attack like all other attacks was to maim psychologically even more than to harm physically.

What makes this attack dramatically different from so many other attacks? One innocent little old lady who is now dead, one medic who ran to the scene as soon as the boom was heard, one well-trained police officer who saved many other innocent victims from dying and an entire group of people celebrating the deadly attack with candy and song.

After scanning the crowd to determine who was most in need of care the Jewish Israeli medic ran to the side of an Arab man lying on the ground. The medic evaluated the condition of the unknown stranger and ripped open his coat to begin administering care. And then he saw the explosive belt still strapped to his body. He had run to the aid of the second of two suicide bombers, a bomber whose worst nightmare had come true. His partner was dead, he was still alive. The medic, Salomon Amar, ran to help a patient as if he were any injured man, not a man dedicated to ending his own life as a mass murderer. Keeping watch was an Israeli policeman who, after rushing to the scene, had cleared out the area to protect those still uninjured from the blast. And when the hand of the suicide bomber reached towards the explosive belt still on his body, as the suicide bomber attempted to complete his mission, Kobi Mor, the policeman, shot him. Kobi Mor shot him four times in the head killing the Arab terrorist, the failed mass murderer. For 73 year old Lyubov Razdolsky, a retired physics professor, it was too late. She was already dead - killed on impact.

The attack in Dimona claimed three dead. Two suicide bombers and one old lady so badly disfigured that her sons could only assume that it was she after discovering that their father had been seriously injured and their mother was nowhere else to be found. Over thirty people were injured. And then the celebrations began.

These two terrorists were celebrated around the world. Their identities are known and were broadcast on TV and radio. I will not identity them by name, they are not deserving of recognition. They should not be googled, their photos should not be displayed. But the youth of Gaza would disagree with me.

Across Gaza young people handed out flowers and candy. Young men and women stood at intersections and stopped cars giving sweet and fragrant gifts in honor of the two murderers. There was shared laughter. There was a feeling of national pride.

Until we understand a culture that celebrates brutal killing, a culture that calls terrorists soldiers, a culture that transforms murderers and elevates them to the status of national heroes, we will never succeed in the fight against terror.

By reading or listening to the responses of Hamas and of other extremist groups in the Muslim world immediately following this lone attack in the city of Dimona one would think that a death blow had been dealt to Israel. How can anyone truly be convinced that murdering one elderly woman was a death blow to Israel? Hamas and Hamas henchmen, in this case the al Aksa Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestinians, the groups claiming credit for this attack are not super powers, their operatives are not super heroes, they are simply a band of murderers.

They live in order to kill. And their victims are 73 year old women.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday January 29, 2008

Column:

Hexachlorine gas is a major contributor to the enrichment of uranium.

On Sunday Iran announced that they have successfully produced 300 tons of hexachlorine gas.

Once again, Iran is snubbing its diplomatic nose at the United Nations, at the West and especially at the United States of America. Iran is continuing to develop nuclear technology despite a direct plea from the United Nations asking this rogue nation to stop producing nuclear materials and to open their facilities for nuclear inspection. Iran's race towards nuclear productivity has escalated so quickly that just last week some of Iran's best friends and business partners publicly turned against the Shiite nation. The leaders of the five countries with permanent seats on the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to expand sanctions against Iran.

Russia, China and France three countries that have been or intend to be facilitators of Iran's nuclear habit all agree that Iran has crossed the line and is officially, by all definitions, out of control. Last week Russia, China and France, the three countries that stand to gain the most from Iran's move into the nuclear world took a firm and dramatic stand against Iran.

For Iran it is not just about flaunting defiance in the face of world decision making, for Iran it is all about pride. Iran has and will continue to develop nuclear technology for three simple reasons.

Reason # 1: Muslim Pride
Pride is a strong and inherent trait in the Muslim world. Iran will only be induced to backtrack and halt nuclear development if they can do so and still preserve their pride.

Reason # 2: Shiite Pride
Tensions and competition between Muslims is fierce. For small Shiite Iran winning the nuclear race is a sure way to maintain superiority over the larger Sunni nations that surround her.

Reason # 3: International Pride
Iran needs to have nuclear weapons to prove to the rest of the world that a Muslim country can and will compete in the international arena. Iran needs to have nuclear weapons to prove to the world that a Muslim country can and should be a world leader in technology and science. Iran has the need to feel superior to the rest of the world and the power of nuclear technology empowers Iran.

Iran wants to be a world player. Iran would like to oust the hegemony of the United States and other Western nations, to oust the countries that set the world's agenda. And that, parenthetically, explains why Iran is in bed with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Iran and Venezuela have nothing in common other than their resentment of and absolute disdain for the United States and for Western agendas. Chavez is not a Muslim, he is a Catholic. Chavez does not lead a fundamentalist state, he leads a democratic, albeit flawed, parliamentary democracy. Chavez does not carry the title Supreme Leader, he is simply called president.

Chavez of Venezuela dreams of turning the world upside down and giving voice to those who cannot speak on their own. Iran dreams of turning the world upside down. And then Iran wants to speak for everyone and convert everyone to Islam.

Meanwhile, Iran still has those 300 tons of hexachlorine gas. That is a nightmare we have to deal with. Quickly.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday January 21, 2008

Column:

Was the glass half empty or was the glass half full? Was the United States displaying strength through restraint or did the United States reveal weakness through inaction? It all depends on your particular perspective.

The incident occurred two weeks ago. It happened in the Straits of Hormuz, the Gulf waters through which about 35% of the world's oil passes. It involved three United States war ships, a cruiser, a frigate and a destroyer and five blue, ultra light, ultra fast Iranian speedboats.

What were the United States ships doing in the Straits of Hormuz? They were patrolling the international waterway, protecting the waters, following the mandate placed upon the broad shoulders of the United States by the international community. And what were the Iranian boats doing there? They could have been doing anything, after all, the Straits of Hormuz hugs the long Iranian coastline. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that the Iranian boats were aggressively invading the space of the American ships. The big deal is that the Iranian shipmen were teasing and taunting the American sailors. Goading them. Daring them.

And then the Iranian speedboats released little white boxes and propelled them in the direction of the US vessels and announced over loud speakers that they were coming to destroy them.

Were the little boxes bombs or were they simply little white boxes? Were the Iranians really about to blow the ships to kingdom come or where they just blowing hot air? The United States chose not to react. The United States simply announced over their own loud speakers that their mission was peaceful and that they were in international waters. The Iranians turned around as quickly as they arrived and left. The boxes bobbed in the water.

I ask again, was the glass half full or was it half empty?

The Iranians have specially designed their blue boats and specially trained the crews of the blue boats to create havoc in the Straits of Hormuz, an area they wish to have sole control over. The boat teams swarm and bomb. They are trained to attack oil tankers. Their intention is to destroy the status quo and rock the peaceful waters of the Straits, the water so crucial to the flow of so much of the world's oil supply.

This time the Iranians were sending a greeting to the American president as he was about to embark on his Middle East trip. A week earlier the Iranians sent a similar greeting, that time the response of the United States was to shoot over the bow of the blue boats.

All of these blue boats are manned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a group the United States has determined to be a terrorist organization.

Two weeks ago the United States sighed in relief. Thankfully, their vessels did not take the bait. Thankfully, they did not fall into the well-placed Iranian trap.

The Gulf nations gasped in disbelief. The United States, the great defender, the country responsible for keeping the Straits of Hormuz open to all and free for all, chose not to respond to a direct challenge from the enemy Iran. Once again, just as they had done with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate the United States showed weakness in the face of Iranian aggression. Their interpretation of events: The United States was powerless to act.

I ask again, half empty or half full? Did the United States respond with courage or with cowardice. It all depends on your perspective.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday January 16, 2008

Column:

Sometimes, one plus one equals three.

It's not the right answer, it's not the way things should be, it's just the way things are. Sometimes, try as you might, it's just impossible to make things come out right.

Most analysts, diplomats, presidents and prime ministers concerned about the future of Israelis and Palestinians are in sync about one item on the Middle East agenda. They all agree that a two-state solution is the way to go. Israel and Palestine, Palestine and Israel, side-by-side-separate states. Shared borders, perhaps even a shared capital, but two separate and distinct states.

Here's the problem: Israel is one state, but Palestine is two.

Israelis and Palestinians are in the midst of high level, on-going, negotiations about the future of the two nations. The talks are tense, but they are moving along. Israel is represented by the government of Ehud Olmert, the elected and recognized leader. The Palestinians are represented by Mahmoud Abbas, the elected and recognized leader of - well, of only a part of the Palestinian people. The other part is led by Hamas. Hamas and Abbas are like oil and water, they are like fire crackers and matches. Put them together and they don't mix, force them together and the result is explosive.

The way things are progressing right now, the Palestinians want to solve their problem by creating a three-state solution. State one, Israel. State two, West Bank Palestine. State three, Hamas-led Gaza Palestine.

Mahmoud Abbas is dealing with the question of what happens to Gaza if and when a Palestinian state is declared, by ignoring the question. It is a question Abbas and his government cannot answer. It is a situation Abbas and his Fatah comrades cannot handle. It is a war Abbas and the West Bank Palestinians cannot win. Only Israel is asking the hard questions, only Israel is willing to deal with the reality of this unreal situation.

In pre-Annapolis dialogues and discussions the Israelis raised the subject of Gaza. They were ignored. On the bottom of one of the draft documents leading up to Annapolis the Israelis scribbled a note asking about Gaza. It went unanswered. Neither the Palestinians sitting around the negotiating tables of Annapolis nor the Palestinians sitting around negotiating tables in Jerusalem and Ramallah can deliver Gaza. And neither can their leader, neither can Mahmoud Abbas. And because they cannot deliver Gaza the Palestinians want to excise Gaza from their discussions and deliberations.

And by removing Gaza from the dialogue Abbas is de facto turning Gaza into a second Palestine state.

No one involved in talks about the future of Palestinians and Israelis has ever envisioned a three-state solution. It has never been mentioned in any document, it has never been spoken of in any speech. Only now, when the reality of a two-state solution seems closer than it has ever been before, when there is a timetable to be met, has the specter of three states emerged.

The leader of the Palestine Authority will not deal with the situation in Gaza. Abbas is petrified. He does not want to engage in another civil war with Hamas. He lost the last war and he cannot afford to lose again. If Abbas were to publicly lose out to Hamas now the way he lost in June his future as Palestinian leader would be over. Gaza is not only a threat to Israel, Gaza is a threat to Palestinian leadership.

The irony of it all is that even though grass roots support for Hamas is growing, even though the ranks of Palestinians volunteering to be on the side of Hamas is growing, Hamas supporters and adherents among the greater Arab world is dwindling. The irony is that Hamas is losing the public relations campaign because they were so successful in their war in Gaza. The shame of it all is that Fatah cannot control Hamas and if Hamas is not controlled Israel will not be able to continue to negotiate with Fatah leaders.

A Hamas-controlled Gaza, a Gaza that is outside the influence of Fatah and outside the influence of any Western power is a significant threat to Israel. The reason Israel has even engaged in two-state dialogue is to create a situation that is safer for Israelis. Unless and until Abbas is willing to engage in the physical and political battles necessary to wrest control of Gaza from Hamas Israel cannot, in good faith, continue to talk of a two-state solution. The State of Palestine that does not include Gaza under is a very serious risk.

When one plus one equals three something is terrible wrong with the equation.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday January 9, 2008

Column:

The truth is that when it comes to Arab countries, the United States gets very little bang for its foreign policy buck.

The United States is great at giving, the Arab world is great at taking, the problem is collecting. When the United States decides to give money away, call it aid, assistance, grant or emergency relief, two assumptions are made. The first assumption is that those dollars will buy the United States good will and support, the second is that some of the money will go towards the purchase of US goods and services.

Many countries, especially Middle East Arab countries, take the money and run without so much as a diplomatic courtesy nod let alone an obligatory purchase of products. The assumption of the countries receiving the multi-million dollar packages from the most powerful country in the Western world is that they are recipients because they deserve to be recipients, not because the United States is helping them, doing them a favor, answering their specific needs.

The United States gives graciously and then the United States goes begging to make good on their deal.

The money comes from Congress. The United States Congress debates the merits of the case and then decides if and how much to give. Real life is not like the movies, but after watching Tom Hanks wheedle and cajole in "Charlie Wilson's War" you get a basic idea of how the deals are done. In the movie, however, the Congressman received a big thank you. In the reality of the Middle East, however, most of those countries that have received dollar gifts from Congress care not a whit about US policy or objectives. They will extend their hands in acceptance of US dollars and then turn their backs and actively flaunt their disdain for the US and everything Western.

The best example of this flagrant disregard for foreign policy etiquette by an Arab country is Egypt. Egypt receives over $2 billion US yearly from Congress. Egypt is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid, the first is Israel. And Egypt is rarely in sync with their donor on matters of international importance.

This year, as usual, Egypt received their aid. And now, right now, rather than thanking the United States with even a small show of support, the United States is - figuratively speaking, being smacked in the face by Mubarak and his gang. Egypt is thinking through the process of renewing diplomatic relations with Iran. And it looks as if their thoughts are soon to turn into actions.

Well, not if Congress can help it. At long last, Congress - in the person of the republican senator from Pennsylvania is forcing Egypt to play by the foreign policy rules of the United States. Senator Arlen Specter has turned off the faucet that flows from the coffers of the US Congress into the Egyptian treasury.

Shortly before the start of the new year Egypt was publicly embarrassed by Israel. Israel had video footage of Egyptian security teams helping Hamas smuggle weapons into Gaza. The immediate Egyptian reaction was that the situation was doctored, that the tape was doctored, but Israel took the tape to the White House and to Capitol Hill and the United States was convinced of the truth of the story. Congress was shocked.

Egypt reacted by trying to intimidate Israel. But the ire of Congress was raised. Congress promised to cut off $100 million in aid to Egypt unless their conditions were met. Egypt must start working on ways to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza. And then Arlen Specter told Egypt plain and simple and straight forward that if Egypt did not change their behavior they will lose their US funding. And that is exactly what Congress did, they turned off the faucet to Egypt.

But the United States believes in foreign policy, the United States is in the business of helping countries in need and so, in a twist worthy of the movie industry, a Jewish congressman from New York named Steve Israel (I could not make that up) negotiated an agreement with Egypt solving the problem and making everyone happy.

According to the agreement Egypt will use $23 million of their US aid to buy US machinery that can help them find the tunnels used by the arms smugglers. Egypt will also receive assistance from the US Army Corps of Engineers and from US civilian staff to help stop the smugglers. The high tech machinery that Egypt will purchase includes robots, scanners and computers.

Two high powered politicians with a heightened sense of justice and a belief in foreign policy quid pro quo have brought Egypt to their diplomatic knees. The beneficiaries are US business and the US economy, and of course US foreign policy.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday January 1, 2008

Column:

Let's play "association." If I say "New Year" chances are pretty good that you will say "resolutions." It's the American way. Every new year Americans from Phoenix Arizona to Butte Montana and anywhere else honestly and sincerely make their resolutions. And before January turns into February the vast majority of those resolutions have been broken. People in Crawford Texas are no exception. George Bush is no exception.

On January 8th the president and his entourage will be heading out for the Middle East. George Bush has resolved to set the record straight in the Middle East.

Officially, President Bush will be using this, his first official visit to the Middle East since taking office to "...follow up on the progress made at Annapolis in helping Israelis and Palestinian to advance their efforts ..."

True enough, the presidential agenda on this trip is to follow through on the work that was begun in Annapolis, but the work begun in Annapolis, truly had less to do with Israelis and Palestinians than it did with the Arab world and Iran. If this trip was all about Israelis and Palestinians, then why are Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt all crowded into the agenda? The answer comes in the form of a throw away line in the official announcement outlining this trip which states that the president will use this opportunity "...to reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of our allies in the Middle East ... and our close work with them to combat terrorism and extremism ..."

In Annapolis, Israeli/Palestinian peace was the premise, but there was a very important and delicate subtext. In Annapolis, the unstated objective of the United States was to bring Arab and Muslim countries in concert with the United States of America in an effort to thwart Iran and Iran's nuclear objectives. And the president almost pulled it off.

He had them in the palm of his hand. While in Annapolis George Bush had the most powerful and most wealthy Arab nations just on the verge of being convinced that he and the United States could actually lead the Arab world in a movement against another Muslim country. He had them almost ready to follow his lead and squelch Iran's nuclear aspirations. He was, as the saying goes, just about to put the genie back in the bottle.

That support lasted exactly one week, and then the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was made public. George Bush became his own worst enemy. The Arab countries who had quietly stepped forward to join the United States against Iran pulled immediately back. Thousands of hours of diplomatic work was lost. And now, in the course of an eight day trip, President Bush is trying to win it back.

Quite frankly, I do not have high hopes for President Bush's upcoming trip to the Middle East.

George Bush may have determination and resolve, but his goal of reassuring the Arabs of the region that the Annapolis Conference sub text is actually a primary text and that the US still stands firmly behind the message delivered in Annapolis - that Iran is a real threat and it is crucial to stand shoulder to shoulder against Iran's development of nuclear technology - has evaporated into thin Middle East air. No visit, no cajoling, no pleading will succeed in convincing the Arab world for a second time to join the enemy against one of their own.

As for "helping Israelis and Palestinians advance their efforts ..." the sentiment is sincere, but the President knows the situation. He knows that both Israelis and Palestinians will complain about non-compliance and about how the other side has broken the agreement - again. And Israel and the Palestinians need to know that George Bush, just like the many American presidents before him who sought to bring peace to the Middle East, is driven by American interests. And right now American interests lie in trying to isolate Iran and unify Arabs against the Islamic state. And before putting pressure on Iran the Arab world will demand that the United States pressure Israel to accommodate the Palestinians.

Despite his affinity for Israel and his religious love of Jerusalem, this President of the United States will agree to those Arab demands. And along the way President Bush will make his pilgrimage to the Western Wall and visit the Western Wall Tunnels and tour the excavation sites around the Second Temple. This was the Temple built by Herod during the time of Jesus and it has significance and value for George Bush. He will touch the stones and admire the architecture and marvel at the remarkable feats of construction that brought and still bring people from all around the world to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem shuts down when a United States president comes to town. I have sat on special busses accompanying the presidential motorcade as it drives along. Israelis line the streets, waving. I wave back. Not this trip. The excitement isn't there. Once again, the outcome is predictable. In the aftermath of this trip Bush and Condi Rice will pressure Israel to move ahead on the Road Map despite their reservations and despite the lack of follow-up on the part of the Palestinians especially on security issues and the lack of Palestinian control over their terrorists.

I hope the President has made some other resolutions for this New Year. Maybe those will last a little longer than his Middle East resolve.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday December 25, 2007

Column:

In an ideal world, the city of Sderot would have remained a small, sleepy Israeli city. In a world in which Qassam rockets are hurled almost daily into Israel by hostile neighbors, the city of Sderot has gained prominence.

Since the beginning of the Second Intifada, since October 2000, Sderot has been under siege from rocket attacks launched from Gaza. Sderot, you see, abuts Gaza. It is the easiest place inside Israel for rockets to land.

The word "sderot" translates to mean boulevards. The place called Sderot, a poor under-developed area that covers 5,000 dunam (about 1,200 acres) of land in the southern district of Israel, was declared a city in 1996. Just for the sake of comparison, the Four Seasons Hotel in Disney World covers 900 acres. The Israeli census of 2004 reported that 20,000 people lived in Sderot. That number still remains constant. It's not that the folks of Sderot enjoy the daily bombardment, it's that they have no place else to go.

Until now Israeli leaders - both military and political - have been incapable of stopping the gifts from the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip. In principle, of course Israelis are incensed and outraged by the almost daily bombardment of rocket attacks by terrorists from Gaza onto their soil. In practice, they have grown to become laissez faire. Nobody much cares about the people of Sderot. The 20,000 inhabitants of Sderot are an immigrant mix - mostly former Soviet immigrants living alongside the families of poor immigrants from North Africa living alongside a sizable Ethiopian community.

The good news is that finally, Israel has come up with a solution, a plan, a way to re-gift to Gaza. The other news is that the plan will not be operable for two years.

On Sunday the Israeli Security Cabinet, the inner Cabinet within the Cabinet dubbed the Kitchen Cabinet during the tenure of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, agreed to fund "Iron Dome" a $200 million project which will help protect Israeli cities from rocket attack.

In proposing the Iron Dome project Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak was careful to speak of the two year time delay. Barak also explained that Iron Dome is one part of a larger defense strategy for Israel. In essence, Barak was saying that Iron Dome which will be used to defend Sderot more than any other city is being pursued only because it is part of the larger package - not because the people of Sderot need it so badly. What Barak omitted was the simple fact that after all the time and all the money, it is unlikely that Iron Dome will even be a useful defense weapon against rockets aimed from Gaza into Sderot.

Iron Dome, like all related defense weaponry, operates successfully only with minimum height and distance requirements. Because Qassam are low flying rockets, the likelihood of success in firing back at Qassams is hard to guarantee.

The system works like this: After a rocket is shot computer generated radar and laser identify its origin and trajectory. The computer figures out where the rocket is going to hit and plots the exact path of the rocket. The computer then shoots off another, much faster, missile to destroy the incoming enemy rocket. The more distance the rocket needs to travel and the higher the rocket shoots, the easier the calculation. The objective is to explode the rocket over enemy territory and not over your own land so that you reduce the number of your own potential injuries due to falling debris.

Using this technology Israel can and should be able to dispatch missiles to destroy not only the rocket launchers but also the terrorists launching their rockets into most parts of the country. Any type of defense against Qassams is difficult. The problem with the newest Qassam rockets, the rockets now being fired into Israel, is that they have a range of 10 kilometers, that is only 6.2 miles - they do not have a very high arc and they are very small targets to hit.

It sounds good at the press conference, and it is important for Israelis to know that their defense establishment is actively pursing a large, encompassing security plan, but the people of Sderot will not be much better off two years from now than they were six years ago or than they are today.

My suggestion? Hit the terrorists today. The Iron Dome and the $200 million and the two years are a long way away.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday December 17, 2007

Column:

I ate latkes under the watchful gaze of President Abraham Lincoln. I could have chosen sushi, or gravlax, or glatt kosher roast beef or even lamb chops, but latkes, for me, was the appropriate choice. The latkes were more than delicious, they were symbolic.

Eating latkes, in the White House, as a guest of President George and First Lady Laura Bush, at their Chanukah party, symbolized for me the Jewish coming of age in America. On Monday, December 10th, the sixth day of Chanukah, the eve of the seventh Chanukah candle to be lit, the president of the United States of America, the most powerful man in all the world, chose to devote a large part of his day and evening honoring and celebrating with American Jews.

Think about it.

Think about how blessed the Jews of America are to live in a country that allows them to thrive and appreciates their contribution. Think about how lucky the Jews of America are to live in a country that so cherishes their participation. Think about how a community of immigrants that, like Horatio Alger, came to these shores and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, has become a part of society and yet retained individual and communal identities as Jews. Think about a world leader who spent the majority of his day focusing on Judaism and issues of religious freedom. Think about the hours George and Laura Bush spent standing in a receiving line, meeting and greeting Jewish guests from around the country, shaking hands, being photographed, exchanging pleasantries.

Was it a waste of the president's time? A colossal waste of taxpayer money? A political statement? Not at all. It was a statement of purpose. It was a defining example of how the Jewish people now freely roam - literally and figuratively - halls of power in the United States. On that day there was nothing more important on the agenda of the president of the United States than to celebrate Judaism in the White House with American Jews.

Now think about other democracies around the world.

Think about the United Kingdom where terrible racism is eroding the fabric the monarchy tried so hard to knit together. Think about France where immigrant communities from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are greeted with hatred and disdain. Think about Germany where anyone from Turkey or North Africa is shunned. Think about Japan where a Koreans who came between 1910 and 1915 can never become citizens. And these countries call themselves democracies.

There is no historical precedent to match the position of Jews in America today. Yes, in various societies, in various historical periods Jews have reached positions of prominence, but never en masse, only as isolated instances. In Egypt in Babylonia in Greece and in Rome, in Poland in Germany in Russia, there were examples of Jews who rose to power and entered the halls of power - but not like America.

As I wandered from the Map Room to the China Room, as I rubbed shoulders with other guests spanning the entire spectrum of Judaism, as I shared a small portion of Torah with a Lubavitch rabbi and joined in a debate over the state of world terror today and as I exchanged thoughts with the President of the United States about our need to seek out and destroy those thugs seeking to destroy us I was reminded of other ways in which the United States has reached out to embrace Jews and other immigrant societies. I was reminded of the famous quote inscribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. The famous quote from Leviticus 25:10 reads: "Proclaim liberty throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof." The experience made me feel grateful but also greatly humbled.

The White House Chanukah party was not about politics, everyone knows that the Jewish community leans overwhelming democratic. The White House Chanukah party was about the success of America as much as it was about the success of the Jewish community.

I was honored to be invited, I was proud to participate.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday December 12, 2007

Column:

Headline news on the wire services this week: Israel is moving ahead on the path towards peace with the Palestinians.

That same day, another headline: Israel is invading Gaza with armor and airplane cover.

One country, two entirely different headlines defining the Israeli attitude towards the Palestinians. It's not that Israel is suffering from a split personality. It is that the Palestinians are coming to terms with the reality of a split population and a split nation.

The concept of a split population in a split nation was difficult for the Palestinians to accept. It has taken a very long time and cost too many lost lives but Palestinian leadership is now ready to accept the facts on the ground and able to move ahead with plans for a dis-unified but workable Palestine. It is a concept that is difficult for the West to comprehend, difficult to come to terms with, difficult to embrace. It is a concept that Israeli political and military leadership can work with and live with, perhaps, the only way for Israel and any Palestinians to live side by side in peace and harmony.

A split Palestine is a significant move towards a straight forward system within the Palestinian Authority. Fatah is Fatah and Hamas is Hamas - separate, disparate entities. From now on, when we speak of the PA, of the Palestinian Authority, we need to realize that we are speaking only of Fatah and Fatah rule of the West Bank. When we speak of Gaza we speak of Hamas and Hamas rule of that area, the land wrested away from Fatah through guns and bloodshed.

Gaza is, quite simply, a mess. It is a mess that was created by Hamas and can only be cleaned up by Hamas. Hamas controls Gaza and even though a significant segment of local Gazans are displeased with Hamas rule they are stuck with it. Fatah will not step back into the area, will not come to the rescue of the people who live in Gaza or attempt to come to their rescue. It is not in the best interests of Fatah, not in the best interests of the rest of the Palestinians, not on the agenda of Palestinian i.e. Fatah leadership.

Gaza is geographically, politically and emotionally separated from the West Bank.

Hamas is not willing to cede control of Gaza. Hamas has created an enclave that is separate and independent from the rest of the Palestinian people, an enclave that is and neither under the influence nor the rule of mainstream Palestinian leadership. Palestinian leadership under Abbas wants nothing to do with Hamas in Gaza. The ugly ousting of Fatah from Gaza this summer served to exacerbate an already strained and artificial relationship.

Abbas and Fatah will return to Gaza only after they are recognized as the legitimate leaders of the Palestinian people. Hamas will do everything possible to prevent that from happening. The people of Gaza now stand alone. No help is coming their way from Abbas and, more crucially, no help will be sent to them by the West.

Hamas is a terrorist organization and that fact is now clear to everyone, everyone including the leadership of Fatah.

In the discussions which led up to the Annapolis Summit, when the Palestinians and the Israelis were hammering out a joint document, a few words were scribbled on the bottom of an Israeli working copy. The words were: what about Gaza? The Palestinians never addressed the question. It was no longer their domain, no longer their responsibility.

Fatah is interested in creating a working relationship with Israel. Hamas is not. Hamas wants to shoot Kassam rockets into Israeli cities and towns on a daily basis. And that is why Island launched an armored incursion with air cover into Gaza. To attack the launch sites, to manage a quick fix to a deadly problem with an in-and-out raid. Not to eliminate the long term problem, simply to temporarily close down the short term problem. To put Hamas on edge. To force Hams to consider the ramifications of shooting at Israel.

And that is why Israeli leadership and Fatah leadership are working towards fulfilling the commitment they both made in Annapolis and working towards implementing the Road Map. But here too there are issues. This past week Israel starting construction in parts of Jerusalem the Palestinians lay claim to. It was a real monkey wrench thrown into the negotiations. US Secretary of State Condi Rice was livid. UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon was furious. But Israel did what it thought it must do.

In order for Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to keep his coalition together, he must make it very clear to Israelis and to those parties in his coalition to the right of center that Israel will maintain Jewish Jerusalem and most certainly, retain custody and control of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Jewish Jerusalem includes the communities that are growing around the city, like the community of Har Homa where the building is taking place. Building in Har Homa is the kind of international flack that Olmert can handle without even flinching - with the exception of the extreme right parties, Olmert has almost complete support for the action.

The Israeli prime minister will persistently and proudly continue to build and announce that he is building. But as part of his plan he will also insist that eventually, those Arab neighborhoods that surround Jerusalem will eventually compose part of the Palestinian area and become part of the Palestinian capital. The split that divides the Palestinian people is Palestinian induced, it will not be Israeli produced.

Palestinian politics are complicated. So are Israeli politics.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Monday December 3, 2007

Column:

Uriah P. Levy, a fifth generation American, left home at the age of ten to become a cabin boy on American ships. Ten years later he was fighting in the War of 1812 as a member of the United States Navy. Levy would eventually attain the rank of Commodore, the highest rank attainable in the US Navy at the period in history, equivalent to the rank of Admiral in today's Navy.

To the distinction of Commodore, add another distinction. Uriah P. Levy was the first Jewish American to reach the rank of Commodore. The road to leadership was not smooth for Levy. He also had the distinction of being court-martialed six times, more than any other sailor in US military history. He received a total of three presidential pardons from United States presidents Monroe and Taft. Owing to his vast personal experience, President Abraham Lincoln personally appointed Levy to head the court martial board of the United States Navy.

Uriah Levy is responsible for abolishing the act of corporal punishment known as flogging in the United States Navy. He is also the man who purchased and refurbished the famed landmark Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, a man whom Levy admired for his strong belief in freedom of religion.

Uriah Phillips Levy was a man with a vision. He was a man with perspective. He suffered greatly because he was a Jew in a non-Jewish world, but he persisted and he prevailed. And because of Levy's suffering it is much easier to be a Jew in today's United States Armed Services. The newly-designed Jewish chapel at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland is named in memory of Uriah P. Levy.

The Levy Chapel is a magnificent structure. I had the opportunity to visit the Chapel during one of many breaks in the proceedings during the Peace Summit known as the Annapolis Conference. Hundreds of journalists from around the world attended the Conference, many of them Jewish, many of them Israeli. Tens of diplomats, career and political appointees, attended the Conference. The Chapel was open and visitors were welcome. I was the only man to walk through the large glass doors, to open the ark, to pay tribute to my religion and to a man who fought a valiant battle to maintain his religion.

I was also the only man to enter the Muslim prayer room, an interfaith room that has no markings or art work, a comfortable environment for prayer and introspection outfitted with six prayer rugs spread out on the floor in order to accommodate the many Muslim diplomats and journalists in attendance at the Annapolis Conference.

Middle East Peace Summits are usually hotbeds of tension and unrest, negotiators engaged in diplomatic combat, journalists struggling for exclusive interviews and looking for news leaks. What will Israel's Arab counterpart demand? What will Israel abandon, give up, negotiate out? Will the United States save Israel or sell Israel out? Annapolis, in contrast, was easygoing and actually quite fun. I felt less tension and less pressure than at any previous Summit I have attended.

The stakes were minimal, the negotiations non-existent, the outcome pre-determined. Tensions are still to come, when the real negotiating begins, when real details are brought to the table, when the parties are no longer in the glare of newspaper headlines and television lights. Annapolis was the pre-game show.

The Conference was a huge success for the United States, for the moment. It was a blatant American-orchestrated affront to Iran and to the extremists in the Muslim and Arab world. The United States successfully coerced a large group of countries, including many Arab and Muslim countries, in a way that has never been done before. The United States succeeded in an unstated but implicitly understood goal of creating a behind-closed-doors groundswell of concern over Iran and Muslim Fundamentalist extremism.

The Israeli/Palestinian peace issue was just an excuse manufactured in order to deal with much larger and more significant regional and global objectives. The principles knew that going in. The Israeli team assured me that there was no pressure put on them about anything. No new commitments were made. Instead, a previous commitment, to move forward with the Road Map, was re-affirmed.

For the involved parties, the Annapolis Conference was all show. The substance was obvious only in the well-intended preparations made by the Annapolis Naval Academy itself. Like the open and welcoming chapel and the properly laid out prayer room. And like the fact that along with Navy trinkets, cold drinks and candy bars, the concession sold kosher brown bag lunches properly sealed and prominently stamped with the symbol of a reliable rabbinic authority. For $6 Jews, Muslims and even gentiles were able to buy kosher corned beef and turkey sandwiches.

What a shock that would have been to Uriah P. Levy.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday November 28, 2007

Column:

Cogito Ergo Sum. I think therefore I am.

It is the simple reality of recognition. From the point of view of the United States and Israel it was the driving force behind the Annapolis Conference.

Countries, much like people, crave recognition. Even high-powered people. Even powerful countries. The United States convened the Annapolis Conference not to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but to gain recognition and acceptance by the very countries that had refused to acknowledge the greatness of the greatest country in the world. The United States wanted, needed, craved, recognition by Arab and Muslim countries. And the United States succeeded.

At the Annapolis Conference the United States changed long-held policy. When it comes to the Middle East the United States is no longer a defender of Israel, the United States is now diplomatically and officially an even handed deal maker.

This change is significant. It made all the difference in the world to the Arab and Muslim nations attending the Conference, it was why these countries attended the Conference. Yes, Arab and Muslim countries will always believe that the United States is a protector of Israel, but along with that belief comes a new view that the US will, when necessary, abandon a friend i.e. Israel for the greater good. It is a concept that Arab countries will applaud, but never adhere to themselves.

Arab and Muslim countries came to Washington and then to Annapolis in order to recognize the Palestinians. Amongst themselves, the Arab/Muslim world has no significant interest in the Palestinians or in Palestinians statehood. It is not high up on the general priority list. But amongst strangers, the outside world, the United States of America, they had to band together in recognition of brethren.

Arab and Muslim nations needed to cross the world and come to Annapolis solely to bolster Palestinian credibility in the international arena. Along the way, they paid tribute and respect to the United States by offering recognition to an outsider, non Arab/Muslim country, showing interest in the Palestinians. As for the Palestinians, they are too insecure and too insignificant to advance on a peace initiative without the supervision and approval of mainstream leadership.

Without that recognition, Palestinians cease to exist. Lucky for them, one of the holiest sites in the Muslim world, al Aqsa, adorns the city of Jerusalem. It is because of al Aqsa, because the Palestinians are the gate keepers of al Aqsa, that the Muslim world takes interest in and partial responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians.

The most obvious Muslim Arab country not in attendance in Annapolis, not even invited to Annapolis, is Iran. The Annapolis Conference was a direct assault against Iran. One of the foremost goals of Iranian leadership is to drive a wedge between every Muslim and Arab nation and the United States and to build bridges between Muslims world over to unite against both the US and Israel.

The Annapolis Conference was a major setback for the Iranian agenda. Future US success with the Arab and Muslim world vis a vis Iran is not immediately quantifiable, but for the moment, the success was significant. Iran was not only not recognized, it was dissed. Iran was not only not recognized, it was minimized. Iran was not only not recognized, it was neglected.

Because of the US Sponsored Annapolis Conference Israel, a country that craves recognition from the Arab and Muslim world received de facto recognition from the Arab and Muslim world. That so many Arab countries sat together in a room with Israel discussing Israel and the Palestinians, discussing rapprochement, discussing borders and discussing the future means, de facto, that they recognize the very existence of the Jewish state in the Middle East.

Syria attended the Conference specifically to make certain that such policy not apply, it was a condition for Syrian attendance. They wanted to make certain that their issue, the Golan Heights, be dealt with. But what they really wanted was to make certain that the recognition of Israel not be discussed.

In the end, Israel was recognized, but Israeli recognition came with a price. Recognition is all that the Arab and Muslim world can give Israel. The United States gave Israel friendship and support. That friendship can no longer be taken for granted, the United States has new friends to play with.

Friends come and friends go. And in Annapolis Israel was sent up the Severn River without a paddle.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday November 21, 2007

Column:

The whole Annapolis Conference scene is getting way out of hand. This is not, as the saying goes, brain surgery. It is diplomacy. And the men and women arranging, re-arranging, negotiating, not negotiating, grandstanding, foot stomping and name calling are all supposed to be diplomats. Not just diplomats, seasoned diplomats.

So what's the problem? Emotion has gotten in the way of sound diplomatic reasoning. Hopes have replaced reality. Expectations have exceeded the norm.

So who's to blame for the problem? All three parties are to blame. The United States for setting out goals which are doomed to fail. The Palestinians for not taking any of this seriously enough to actually make either commitments or concessions. Israel for going along with this charade in the first place.

So why not just fix the problem? Because none of the parties will own up to the problem. Because each of the three principle parties has a private agenda and neither the United States nor the Palestinians nor Israel are willing to share that agenda with the others. Each country is guided by an unwritten, unarticulated and unannounced agenda. Until those agenda are given voice and shared there will be no progress between Palestinian and Israelis. Until a focused, agreed upon objective is put forth there will be no significant change in the in the status quo. No progress will be made, not in Annapolis, not in Jerusalem, not anywhere.

Let's begin with the United States, the host nation, the Conference sponsor. There has been a lot of talk about the need to create a Bush legacy, about the need to save face in the context of a failed Iraqi policy. If only that were so, if only that was the motivation behind the Annapolis Conference, expectations would have been lowered and goals might be realized. But all that has little to do with this Conference.

The most essential reason for the Annapolis Conference is the rebirth of the United States secretary of state. At long last, Condoleezza Rice is beginning to understand the region. She sees changes. She infers from those changes that this is the moment for greater change. She allows herself to believe that the time has come to create a solution to the years old and dragging on Israeli/Palestinian conflict. She thinks that she has regional support for the cause. She is wrong and with that as her goal she has set herself up to fail.

In an interesting aside, however, the Annapolis Conference will bring success of another type to the United States. More than the Israeli/Palestinian issue, the United States is concerned, nay worried, one might even say obsessive about the question of Iran.

In Annapolis the United States will be host to about forty other nations, many of them member nations of the Arab and Muslim world. This Conference will prove to the Iranians that the enemy United States can hold sway over those nations that Iran depends on most. That is success. Peace between the Palestinians and Israel will take longer to achieve.

Now let's look at Israel. The Israelis are in a very different situation. The Israelis are principle players at this Conference, but they are guests, not hosts, in Annapolis. They have nearly no leverage and almost no power. All the Israelis really want is peace, but this time around, Israel is not willing to give too much away in order to obtain that peace.

Israel has learned a lesson from previous peace summits and conferences. The more Israel gives away, the less Israel gets in return. Experience has taught Israeli leadership that their gestures have been in vain. Yes, they have won approbation from various other countries, but they have come not one bit closer to peace with the Palestinians. Israel is looking for a gentleman's agreement right now. A firm hand shake and the deal is closed. Peace for the sake of peace.

So why is Israel attending the Annapolis Conference when none of that is about to happen? Because Israel has no choice. When the United States extends an invitation, you respond and you respond positively.

Now let's look at the Palestinians. The Palestinians are in a win-win or loose-loose situation. The choice is theirs but they have not yet figured out how to play their own game. The Palestinians want everything and they have nothing to give in order to get it. They are making more and more demands and living up to fewer and fewer commitments.

So why are the Palestinians attending the Annapolis Conference? Not because they have to, because they want to. The Palestinians are hoping to take advantage of the other nations present at the Conference and enlist them in the effort to pressure the United States and Israel to make even more concessions. In short, the Palestinians want to take advantage of the situation to satisfy their own goal. And their goal is not peace.

The single, unanimously accepted, document that could bring the parties together - the document that the United States was hoping to produce in Annapolis, is not about to happen. The ultimate, unrealistic, hope. The ultimate failure. Are there any bright spots for Annapolis? I checked the weather forecast. They are not predicting snow.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Tuesday November 13, 2007

Column:

Downtown Annapolis is quaint, quiet and picturesque. The town square is host to a child friendly statue of Alex Haley, reminiscent of Central Park's Alice In Wonderland and Albert Einstein relaxing in Washington, D.C. The streets are lined with taffy and ice cream parlors, hat stores and souvenir shops. Boats dock in the harbor. The statehouse sits on a manicured lawn and cannons used long ago dot the landscape. The naval academy rests in the background. Annapolis is as charming as it is historic.

In a few days, charm will all but disappear in Annapolis, Maryland. History of another kind will be made. Annapolis, a former capitol of the United States, will join the growing list of venues chosen by the United States to host Middle East Peace Summits. And the hope that this Summit fares better than previous Summits is quickly diminishing.

If the United States is to be accused of anything, it is for trying and trying hard. If Israel is to be accused of anything it is for bungling small issues and turning them into international incidents. If the Palestinians are to be accused of anything it is for just not getting it, not getting it at all.

Invitations to the last major world event of calendar year 2007 haven't even gone out and the squabbling and the quibbling and the insults have turned vicious.

On Saturday the Palestinians called US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to complain. The complaint was that Israel had reneged on a deal, that Israel was no longer planning to participate in the high level trilateral meetings that had been agreed upon earlier in the week. Complaining to the United States is a little obvious and smacks of grandstanding since the three countries involved in the "tri" lateral talks were the Palestinians, Israel and the United States and the US would know what was happening, but I take the complaint as a good, even positive sign.

This early tattling is actually an indicator that the Palestinians are really planning to attend, despite the protestations we have heard and will probably continue to hear. It indicates that the Palestinians have accepted the United States as mediator. It indicates that the Palestinians are searching for tools to be used in the negotiating process. In order for there to be any modicum of success at Annapolis, both the Palestinians and Israelis must feel that they can complain to the host, even about minutia, especially early in the process, in order to keep the process going. And it means that both sides can expect the United States to keep the other honest, to live up to their respective ends of the deal.

I hope that the Secretary of State took the Palestinian complaint seriously, not in content, but in style. The most glaring explanation for past failed agreements between Palestinians and Israelis traces directly back to failed follow-through. There has never been an authoritative, outside party forcing the parties to adhere to agreed upon principles. Maybe Annapolis can change that. Maybe that is how the Annapolis Summit will make history. But first, the sides have to get there.

On Sunday Israel committed what is referred to in the Middle East in Arabic as a major "fashla" - a big, awful, mistake. We would use the acronym SNAFU. For reasons still unknown a senior Palestinian negotiator, on his way to sit down at a negotiating table, was denied entry into Israel. That should never have happened. What should have been a simple border crossing turned into a door slammed shut.

The United States and Israel have secured a very important Annapolis pre-requisite from the Palestinians that they will work on their Security front. The Palestinians are negligent and too lax when it comes to matters of security and now, in this important instance, Israel can be accused of misplaced, too stringent security.

Security lies at the heart of the matter. If Palestinians actually take charge and attempt to bring some safety and security to their own areas the door to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians allowing for a Palestinian state will automatically open. The United States will make certain of that. I am careful to use the words "attempt" and "some" here. No country can expect 100% success, but 100% effort can certainly be expected. But this is not new. And yet, today's Palestinian leaders, the men who hold the key to this door, are unwilling and unable to insert the key into the lock and swing open the door.

We know that Hamas has no problem activating their armed militia to attack Palestinians. Why is it so difficult for Abbas to control his security forces? On the third anniversary of Arafat's demise a mausoleum was erected in Ramallah. In attendance were Abbas and other Fatah leaders. At the site, in front of witnesses, only days ago, these Fatah members swore to continue the vision Arafat set forth for the Palestinian people, for his people. Have Abbas and company forgotten the Arafat legacy so quickly? Arafat had no problem using brute force, at whim, to squelch his opponents. Arafat realized that he would get more by saying yes than by saying maybe. Abbas is a leader, unlike Arafat, who refuses to clamp down internally and then blames outside forces for his problems.

The United States is still trying. Egypt is trying. Egypt gets it and Egypt has convinced Saudi Arabia of the importance of Annapolis for the sake of the Palestinians. Syria is seriously considering coming, but nor for the sake of the Palestinians, for their own sake. Syria will attend only if the Golan Heights are under discussion. Israel says no way. The United States says please come.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Wednesday November 7, 2007

Column:

The Annapolis Conference will take place. I say this despite the numerous rumors flying around on both sides of the Atlantic about the future of the Palestinian/Israeli Washington hosted forum for negotiations and meeting. The Annapolis Conference will not be cancelled. Actually the invitations will go out next Friday.

I speak with confidence on this issue for one simple reason. The invitation to appear in Annapolis was proffered by the president of the United States of America, and like it or not, like him or not, he is still one of the most powerful people in this world. When the President of the United States extends an invitation it is a command performance, and protocol demands that one always RSVP in the affirmative.

Certainly, there are reasons not to pack up, travel thousands of miles and arrive in Annapolis, Maryland. But they are just excuses, tools used by both sides to ratchet up the pressure on the other side. They are vehicles for leaders to prove to constituents that they are working on their behalf, protecting their interests, dealing from a position of strength. They are negotiating tricks, media manipulation techniques, intentional distortions of the vox populi in order to raise the level of expectation for this Conference so high that negotiator participants can then say things like, "my people will never go for that" or "I can't sell that back home."

Over the past few weeks, in fact, ever since the Conference was first announced and was scheduled to take place right now, in mid November, both the Palestinians and the Israelis have threatened to pull out. Israelis have said that weapons continue to be smuggled into Gaza from Egypt which is a clear signal that neither Palestinians nor Egyptians have any real interest in a true and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are saying that if there is no real, significant, tangible outcome from the Annapolis Conference the result will be another uncontrolled and uncontrollable Intifada, that the streets will be filled with riots and disorder, that chaos will rule. The Palestinians are placing responsibility for the outcome of this Conference squarely on the Israelis. It is up to Israel to cede to Palestinian demands. It is up to the United States to see to it that Israel cedes to Palestinian demands.

Or else.

Palestinian leadership has begun to present several Annapolis Conference ultimatums. A senior Palestinian official has said that no Conference is better than failure. He continued by saying "however if we do participate, we expect the US and the Quartet to pressure Israel heavily, so as not to allow the Summit to hurt Abbas' image or become a weapon in the Palestinian opposition's hands." And then he added "if the Conference fails, this would be the last nail in the coffin of negotiations. The public's faith in the diplomatic process is nonexistent as it is, and any failure in the summit would turn the process into a corpse."

Those are serious threats.

US chief diplomat Condi Rice has made numerous trips over the last month to the region for the express purpose of lowering these all or nothing expectations and asking Palestinian leadership to stop this do or die rhetoric. Apparently, these efforts by the secretary of state fell on seriously self-interested and deaf ears. The statements made by leading Palestinians merely serve to highlight how ginormous the gap is between the way Palestinians view the purpose and focus of the Annapolis Conference and the way the United States and Israelis see this Conference.

For the United States and Israel Annapolis is a starting point not an end point. For the Palestinians and their allies, it is everything. It is such an important part of the process for Israel that both the Israeli prime minister and the Israeli minister of defense have expressed the hope that Syria, a sworn enemy of Israel, will attend and participate. Why? Not to talk about the Golan Heights, but to discuss the Palestinians. Israel believes that Syria is part of the region and therefore, for that reason alone, the Syrians should have a role in how the future of the Palestinians plays out.

Obviously, the United States wants to claim success in the Middle East to counter the prolonged quagmire of Iraq.

Obviously, the United States feels that a special relationship has developed with both sides, with both Israel and with the Palestinians, and the United States wants to enable both countries in cobbling out an agreement.

Obviously, there are only thirteen and a half months left in the Bush presidency and George Bush and his government are searching for accomplishment on the Middle East front.

The reality, however, is that in the Middle East one step forward and two steps back has become the rule. And that is why, while I believe that the Annapolis Conference will obviously take place, I am not at all confident of the outcome.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday November 1, 2007

Column:

Think of it as a chain reaction, a deadly chain reaction, a nuclear chain reaction.

Iranian nuclear proliferation sends ripples around the world and chills down my spine. Iran just won't stop. And there is no country in the world today that is both willing to intervene and capable of making Iran stop. Those countries willing to intervene, the United States, Great Britain and France, are all ignored. Iran just laughs. Those countries capable of making Iran stop, Russia and China, are instead aiding and abetting. Rather than asking Iran to slow down Russia and China, the only countries with power over Iran, are - either actively or benignly - helping Iran pursue the goal of nuclear proliferation.

I understand why Iran so wants nuclear energy. Iran wants to rule the world and this is one very significant step in the process. I understand why Russia and China are helping Iran. It works for them. For Russia, it is the ability to make money by selling product and technology. For China it is the satisfaction of knowing that the United States and all Western allies are spinning wheels and getting absolutely nowhere.

Even the Arab world is up-in-arms over Iran. The Arab world is divided, us against them, Shiites versus Sunnis, Shiite Iran versus Sunni everyone else. The Arab world is thinking: if Shiite Iran can become nuclear, so can we. Not only can we, but we must. The Sunni world must be at least as nuclear-ly capable as Iran. Or more so. If they can develop nuclear energy so can we. If they can take the next step and develop atomic weapons, so must we. And we must do it first and do it better.

So Sunni countries are developing nuclear facilities, it is the newest Sunni trend in the Middle East. The Egyptian daily al Ahram has revealed that Egypt has begun planning and developing the first of eight nuclear plants. The Egyptians anticipate that the entire endeavor will take eight years. Egypt already has one nuclear reactor, but it is very old and has been cited by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and needs to either be shut down or totally revamped. Egypt is reacting to Iran's nuclear reactor.

The list goes on. Jordan has announced the desire to develop nuclear energy. Saudi Arabia is investigating the development of nuclear energy. And intelligence sources and the IAEA have confirmed that Syria has been developing a small 27 kilowatt reactor. Development began in 2001 and continued until only recently. It is all in reaction to Iran's nuclear development.

Iran has stated very clearly that one of their goals is to use their own nuclear know-how to help other countries develop nuclear power. By other countries, they mean other countries friendly to Iran, they certainly have no intention of helping the West. Iran intends to cheaply export the process of nuclear capability to friends and neighbors. Iran wants every nation to be able to exercise the right to nuclear energy.

That explains why Russia is so in favor of nuclear growth within Iran. Russia views Iran as the perfect client. Russia exports all the nuclear goods that are necessary for Iran and all other interested parties to become nuclear players. Russia exports the product, provides the technology and co-ordinates the training in one package deal.

China just refuses to get involved. When China does express any interest in Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability, it is to side with Iran. China sees the entire situation as the perfect jab at the United States and at Western interests - and that makes China very happy. As the largest consumer of oil in the world, China does not want to disturb the flow of oil that reaches her shores via Iran. For now, China can chuckle about the diplomatic tug-of-war being waged between Iran and the West, but eventually, that will change and eventually, China will be forced to intercede.

Nuclear technology in the hands of pseudo-responsible and totally irresponsible nations increases tensions in the region. And increased tensions lead to instability. And instability leads to an increase in the price of oil. And that is what China does not want. When you add to that the possibility of Middle East dictators and monarchs being overthrow, much as it happened in the Soviet Union, China has cause for eventual worry.

After the fall of the Soviet Union nuclear technology fell into the hands of corrupt money making business people and from there made its way into the open market. The United States spent enormous amounts of both energy and money running after illicit nuclear technology on the black market - doing everything possible to prevent nuclear technology from falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. The precedent has been set. The similarities between the Soviet approach to nuclear proliferation and the Iranian approach are glaring.

China is the only country that can break the chain. Iran understands that. China is an impartial force. China is not in the pocket of the United States and the United States has virtually no influence over China. Russia will do anything for money and Russia's current position is dependent upon the amount of pressure that the United States applies. China does not have that dependency. China does not have that pressure.

China does things when China wants to do things, China moves according to an internal Chinese timetable. Israel's foreign minister Tzipi Livni just returned from a trip to China. Livni reported that she saw no sign of a change in China's attitude toward Iran's nuclear development and no move towards expanding sanctions against Iran. Right now China does not want to stop Iran, but soon it will have to.

We must be vigilant. We must be patient. We must wait for China. As scary as that appears, it is the only way to stop the chain of nuclear proliferation instigated by Iran.

Read my new book THUGS. It's easy. Just click.
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/product_detail.asp?sku=1595550739

Thursday October 25, 2007

Column:

Every child in this world should be entitled to an education. In the United States, every child is.

In the United States the question is not: whom should we educate. The question is rather: how should we educate.

In Fairfax, VA, a stone's throw away from Washington D.C., the freedom capitol of the world, there exists a school that has chosen to teach hatred - pure, evil, hatred. And that hatred is directed at you and me.

One thousand students, spread over two campuses, from kindergarten through twelfth grade, are enrolled in a Saudi sponsored school in Fairfax County. The school adheres to the educational model followed in Saudi Arabia. And even though some modifications have been made to the curriculum this is a school that preaches and teaches hatred of Jews, Christian and all Muslim non-believers.

Only fifteen miles away from the White House, the Washington Monument and the Capitol Rotunda there is an educational facility sponsored and funded by the Saudi government. Only minutes away from the Smithsonian Institute is an educational facility under the direction and influence of the Wahabi sect of Sunni Muslim.

The Wahabi sect should be familiar to all Americans. Products of the Wahabi educational experience have made their