1. Pelosi is one heartbeat away from the Vice Presidency. Is nobody worried?
2. Everyone's asking will Palin be ready to lead if McCain dies. Why is nobody asking "will Obama be ready to lead if Biden dies?"
3. The Senate approval rating is 14%, the House approval rating is 14%. Adding Biden's approval rating to Pelosi's approval rating is still lower than Bush's approval rating of 29%.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Thursday, October 02, 2008
300 Rabbis for Obama?
I am very worried about the physical survival of Israel.
For more than 35 years, as an Adjunct and Clinical Professor at two major universities and as a military officer, I taught and advised more than 900 graduate students from throughout the Islamic world. This has resulted in many enduring relationships. For more than 25 years (beginning well before the fall of the Shah of Iran), I also served as a senior analyst for the Rand Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Department of Defense, etc. My assignments included maintaining an overview of Iran’s weapons development programs, including, more recently, Iran’s nuclear weapons development efforts. To illustrate this point, several months ago, at a Rand intelligence review on the status of Iran’s nuclear programs, my “special guest” was introduced to the attendees by Rand’s director of Middle East studies as: “the person in the western world who knows the most about Iran’s nuclear programs, both open and clandestine.”
Recently, the more radical elements of Iran’s political establishment have seized firm control of Iran’s nuclear program. Many of our prior key contacts within the Iranian government and within Iran’s nuclear program were removed from their positions. Some of them were jailed. Other were “exiled” to relatively minor activities, such as teaching at the undergraduate level, supervising the construction of bridges and buildings, etc. Thus, the United States’ visibility into Iran’s nuclear program has been materially reduced.
From all that we currently know (and from other nations’ intelligence sources), it appears that Iran has already mastered all the technical processes that they need to be able to actually produce nuclear weapons and that Iran is racing at full speed to obtain operational nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that the IAEA has clear evidence that Iran’s military is also making rapid headway in developing the skills and equipment that they need to manufacture nuclear warheads and that Iran is actively working to develop the processes that will allow them to retrofit these warheads into long range missiles capable of reaching all of Israel and much of Europe.
On September 19, 2008, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared in his sermon delivered to thousands of worshipers gathered in downtown Tehran for Friday prayers that Iran is not only an enemy of Israel, but Iran is also an enemy of the Israeli people: “They [the Israeli people] are combatants, stooges at the service of the arch foes of the Muslim world...We are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine.”
Khamenei’s statements finally dashed the hopes held by certain Israeli and American Jewish leaders that previous remarks made by Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei might have been signaling a softer approach towards Israel by Iran.
Although, currently, there is a struggle for power between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Revolutionary Guards faction and Khamenei’s clerical faction, both sides still firmly insist they are determined to destroy Israel.
Ten years ago, Dr. Iftikhar Khan Chaudry defected to the United States from Pakistan’s nuclear program. He described to US intelligence how Dr. A. Q. Khan had transferred Pakistan’s nuclear expertise and materials to Libya, Iraq and North Korea. He told us exactly how Khan had established Pakistan’s nuclear channel with Iran. At that time, Chaudry also informed US intelligence that: “Iran intends to utilize a nuclear weapon in the future - when a nuclear weapon would be operational - against the State of Israel.”
Iran is dispersing and hardening their nuclear development and production facilities. All of these facilities will be protected from air attack by advanced antiaircraft missile batteries (to be largely supplied by Russia). Already, Nantanz is protected by more than 26 antiaircraft missile batteries.
Western political weakness and lack of resolve have embolded Iran. In Fall 2007, a leaked US National Intelligence Estimate, which incorrectly claimed that Iran had discontinued their nuclear weapons development efforts in 2003, undercut all the efforts that were then being made by the United States and by Israel to organize an effective world response to Iran’s nuclear program.
Recently, I received a letter from a group called “Rabbis for Obama” which stated that “with his tough but pragmatic approach to Iran, Senator Obama is in the best position to restore faith in America as a leader in the fight against serious threats to Israel, our allies, and the United States.”
The organizing co-chairs of “Rabbis for Obama”, in their letter, go on to state that it is dangerous (to Israel) to politicize the pro-Israel position.
I fully agree that it is dangerous to Israel for anyone in the United States to politicize the pro-Israel position. As I reported in the International Jerusalem Post (8/8/08), although we can never be certain of the exact words that Senator Obama’s proxy utilized in his communications with Hamas, we do know what Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran believe to be the message that was transmitted to them by Senator Obama: that his “appropriate action” in response to any major attack on Israel would be for him (President Obama) to publicly advocate that the world join to undertake a “strong and determined international response” and then for him to turn the problem of the attack on Israel over to the United Nations Security Council “for action”. (Unfortunately, all parties recognize that if the “problem” of an attack on Israel is given to the UN, not much action will happen. Senator Obama’s public recommendations that he made shortly after Russia’s attack on Georgia only served to reinforce this perception.)
A bipartisan working group consisting of four of Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s foreign policy advisers stressed the urgency of implementing a more robust and a more comprehensive approach in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program (Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2008).
I urge that the “Rabbis for Obama” cease their divisive accusations (of spreading “lashon hara,” of waging “smear campaigns,” of making “vicious attacks,” etc.) against others in the Jewish community. In the spirit of this h oliday season, I pray that these rabbis will disband their organization and that they will again devote their energies towards countering Israel’s real enemies, those that have sworn to destroy the people of Israel.
For more than 35 years, as an Adjunct and Clinical Professor at two major universities and as a military officer, I taught and advised more than 900 graduate students from throughout the Islamic world. This has resulted in many enduring relationships. For more than 25 years (beginning well before the fall of the Shah of Iran), I also served as a senior analyst for the Rand Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Department of Defense, etc. My assignments included maintaining an overview of Iran’s weapons development programs, including, more recently, Iran’s nuclear weapons development efforts. To illustrate this point, several months ago, at a Rand intelligence review on the status of Iran’s nuclear programs, my “special guest” was introduced to the attendees by Rand’s director of Middle East studies as: “the person in the western world who knows the most about Iran’s nuclear programs, both open and clandestine.”
Recently, the more radical elements of Iran’s political establishment have seized firm control of Iran’s nuclear program. Many of our prior key contacts within the Iranian government and within Iran’s nuclear program were removed from their positions. Some of them were jailed. Other were “exiled” to relatively minor activities, such as teaching at the undergraduate level, supervising the construction of bridges and buildings, etc. Thus, the United States’ visibility into Iran’s nuclear program has been materially reduced.
From all that we currently know (and from other nations’ intelligence sources), it appears that Iran has already mastered all the technical processes that they need to be able to actually produce nuclear weapons and that Iran is racing at full speed to obtain operational nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that the IAEA has clear evidence that Iran’s military is also making rapid headway in developing the skills and equipment that they need to manufacture nuclear warheads and that Iran is actively working to develop the processes that will allow them to retrofit these warheads into long range missiles capable of reaching all of Israel and much of Europe.
On September 19, 2008, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared in his sermon delivered to thousands of worshipers gathered in downtown Tehran for Friday prayers that Iran is not only an enemy of Israel, but Iran is also an enemy of the Israeli people: “They [the Israeli people] are combatants, stooges at the service of the arch foes of the Muslim world...We are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine.”
Khamenei’s statements finally dashed the hopes held by certain Israeli and American Jewish leaders that previous remarks made by Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei might have been signaling a softer approach towards Israel by Iran.
Although, currently, there is a struggle for power between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Revolutionary Guards faction and Khamenei’s clerical faction, both sides still firmly insist they are determined to destroy Israel.
Ten years ago, Dr. Iftikhar Khan Chaudry defected to the United States from Pakistan’s nuclear program. He described to US intelligence how Dr. A. Q. Khan had transferred Pakistan’s nuclear expertise and materials to Libya, Iraq and North Korea. He told us exactly how Khan had established Pakistan’s nuclear channel with Iran. At that time, Chaudry also informed US intelligence that: “Iran intends to utilize a nuclear weapon in the future - when a nuclear weapon would be operational - against the State of Israel.”
Iran is dispersing and hardening their nuclear development and production facilities. All of these facilities will be protected from air attack by advanced antiaircraft missile batteries (to be largely supplied by Russia). Already, Nantanz is protected by more than 26 antiaircraft missile batteries.
Western political weakness and lack of resolve have embolded Iran. In Fall 2007, a leaked US National Intelligence Estimate, which incorrectly claimed that Iran had discontinued their nuclear weapons development efforts in 2003, undercut all the efforts that were then being made by the United States and by Israel to organize an effective world response to Iran’s nuclear program.
Recently, I received a letter from a group called “Rabbis for Obama” which stated that “with his tough but pragmatic approach to Iran, Senator Obama is in the best position to restore faith in America as a leader in the fight against serious threats to Israel, our allies, and the United States.”
The organizing co-chairs of “Rabbis for Obama”, in their letter, go on to state that it is dangerous (to Israel) to politicize the pro-Israel position.
I fully agree that it is dangerous to Israel for anyone in the United States to politicize the pro-Israel position. As I reported in the International Jerusalem Post (8/8/08), although we can never be certain of the exact words that Senator Obama’s proxy utilized in his communications with Hamas, we do know what Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran believe to be the message that was transmitted to them by Senator Obama: that his “appropriate action” in response to any major attack on Israel would be for him (President Obama) to publicly advocate that the world join to undertake a “strong and determined international response” and then for him to turn the problem of the attack on Israel over to the United Nations Security Council “for action”. (Unfortunately, all parties recognize that if the “problem” of an attack on Israel is given to the UN, not much action will happen. Senator Obama’s public recommendations that he made shortly after Russia’s attack on Georgia only served to reinforce this perception.)
A bipartisan working group consisting of four of Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s foreign policy advisers stressed the urgency of implementing a more robust and a more comprehensive approach in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program (Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2008).
I urge that the “Rabbis for Obama” cease their divisive accusations (of spreading “lashon hara,” of waging “smear campaigns,” of making “vicious attacks,” etc.) against others in the Jewish community. In the spirit of this h oliday season, I pray that these rabbis will disband their organization and that they will again devote their energies towards countering Israel’s real enemies, those that have sworn to destroy the people of Israel.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Obama's a Christian! (But, Al Jazeera says he's Muslim)
Many widely distributed e-mails and several individuals within Senator Obama’s presidential campaign are accusing the Jewish community of “smearing Obama by falsely stating that Obama is a Muslim.”
Their inflammatory charges against the Jewish community are untrue. No responsible (or even irresponsible) Jewish group has in any way been involved in spreading this rumor.
The attached memo documents exactly how, when and where the rumor originated.
Please feel free to publish this memo (or to use any portion of it) to inform your readers that accusations against the Jewish community are completely unfounded.
Obama is a Christian. Then How did the Rumor that Obama is a Practicing Muslim get Started and Why are Islamic Sources Helping to Fuel its Spread? What are possible National and International Impacts of This Belief?
Recorder: Lt. Col. Howard Laitin, Ph.D. [ Neither the Rand Corporation nor the US Army are responsible for the contents of this memo.]
Sources of the Rumor
Several columnists and voter survey organizations have stated that many Americans believe that Barack Obama is either a practicing Muslim or a closet Muslim (Pew Research says approximately 12%).
The Obama campaign website brands this belief “a smear.” Official and unofficial advisers within the Obama campaign accuse “right wing nuts”, “republicans within the McCain campaign”, “Jewish Neocons”, “Orthodox Jews”, etc. of deliberately spreading this “smear.”
In media interviews, both Barack Obama and Michelle Obama state that they are practicing Christians. From all that I have personally observed, I believe that both Obamas are Christians. (How “committed” they are is not the subject of this discussion.)
How then, did this apparently widespread public perception that Barack Obama is a Muslim originate?
During the three years (1985-1988) that Barack Obama worked in South Chicago as a community organizer, it was obvious both to Obama and to many in the South Chicago community that “Obama looked different, that Obama acted different and that Obama talked white.” To gain acceptance and the required “street cred,” Obama needed to obtain the approval and the support of other groups that were already entrenched within the South Chicago area such as youth gangs, the Nation of Islam, etc.
Most community organizers learn that involvement in church meetings and door to door campaigns are the two prime vehicles that must be mastered in order to successfully penetrate the community. The Nation of Islam was active and successful in the South Chicago community. The Nation of Islam concluded that Obama was no threat to them. Thus, at joint appearances, the Nation of Islam representative often assured the audiences: “Don’t worry. You can trust Barack here. He’s one of us.”
When Barack Obama campaigned for a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, Muslims were a major base of his support. While Obama had already gained a great deal of voter and financial support in the general Islamic community, to capture additional votes and financial support from the more conservative elements of the Islamic community, some of Obama’s supporters within the Islamic community spread the rumor that Obama was actually a practicing Muslim.
This rumor appeared to succeed in that Obama gained additional support from those more conservative segments within the Islamic community (to whom ethnic considerations matter a great deal).
The current re-floating of the rumor that Barack Obama is a practicing or is a closet Muslim can be traced to at least six domestic and international sources.
1) Some residual beliefs that circulated during Obama’s days on the Chicago streets as a community organizer, are still floating around within the general Chicago community.
2) Some Muslims who were induced to vote for Obama and to contribute to Obama in previous campaigns due to their belief that Obama is, in fact, a Muslim, remain within the Islamic Community.
3) Several Obama presidential campaign staffers, several of Obama’s left wing supporters, and a surprisingly large number of pro-Obama journalists state that by continually affirming that Obama is not a Muslim, they are “preempting”, what, in their eyes, is the near certainty of future attacks on Obama by what they label “the Republican smear machine”. (One of the repeated sound bites is “They will try to scare you. They will tell you that Barack Obama looks different. He has a funny name. He’s a Muslim. He’s black.”) These statements and sound bites are directed towards an audience that is only half listening. Thus, the effect of these statements seems to help cement the view that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
4) The many official denials that have been issued by the Obama campaign, coupled with numerous journalist denials, coupled with various much-too-clever cartoons issued by Obama supporters (such as Barry Blitt’s New Yorker cover, dated July 31, 2008) tend to reinforce existing subliminal impressions that may have been held by a portion of the American public that Obama is a Muslim.
5) Currently, the rumor that Obama is a Muslim is being heavily marketed throughout the Islamic world by Al Manar, Al Jazeera and by other Islamic media. Also, several Islamic leaders are publicly claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim. For example, on June 11, 2008, Muammar Qaddafi stated: “...there are elections in America. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Isamic world and Africa applaud this man. They welcome him and pray for his success. We are still hoping that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity.” Qaddafi further stated that many throughout the Islamic world have been involved in contribution campaigns “to enable him [Obama] to win the American presidency.”
6) Also, partially responsible is the intentional spread of this rumor by a small number of individuals and websites. (My survey indicates that the elements that are spreading these kinds of reports are not tied to the McCain campaign nor are they tied to the Republican party, nor are they tied to any responsible or even irresponsible Jewish organizations.)
Possible National and International Impacts of This Belief
1) Key 2008 battleground states where the perception by a portion of the electorate that Barack Obama is a Muslim (which could be a major advantage to the Obama campaign) include: Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado and Washington. However, the net effect of this lasting perception on the actual voting results remains to be determined.
2) Of more concern is that a major portion of the Islamic world believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Currently, mainly due to extensive Arab television coverage, they are fully aware of Obama’s many recent pro-Israel statements. They are willing to forgive Obama’s words because they believe (as Al Jazeera stated) that his words are “merely an election lie to enable him to get the Jewish vote.” “A person lies and lies to people just so they will vote for him.” (Al Jazeera TV, June 11, 2008) The Islamic world expect that Obama’s actual agenda will include:
* Dismantling Israel nuclear capability;
* Implementing “the one state solution”;
* Arranging for “the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the land of Palestine [Israel] from which they were expelled in 1948 and 1967.”
If in Islamic eyes, Barack Obama fails to fully deliver on all of these expectations, the Islamic world will feel betrayed and they will brand Barack Obama as a hated apostate “Enemy of Islam.” And the consequences of their resentments may be severe.
Their inflammatory charges against the Jewish community are untrue. No responsible (or even irresponsible) Jewish group has in any way been involved in spreading this rumor.
The attached memo documents exactly how, when and where the rumor originated.
Please feel free to publish this memo (or to use any portion of it) to inform your readers that accusations against the Jewish community are completely unfounded.
Obama is a Christian. Then How did the Rumor that Obama is a Practicing Muslim get Started and Why are Islamic Sources Helping to Fuel its Spread? What are possible National and International Impacts of This Belief?
Recorder: Lt. Col. Howard Laitin, Ph.D. [ Neither the Rand Corporation nor the US Army are responsible for the contents of this memo.]
Sources of the Rumor
Several columnists and voter survey organizations have stated that many Americans believe that Barack Obama is either a practicing Muslim or a closet Muslim (Pew Research says approximately 12%).
The Obama campaign website brands this belief “a smear.” Official and unofficial advisers within the Obama campaign accuse “right wing nuts”, “republicans within the McCain campaign”, “Jewish Neocons”, “Orthodox Jews”, etc. of deliberately spreading this “smear.”
In media interviews, both Barack Obama and Michelle Obama state that they are practicing Christians. From all that I have personally observed, I believe that both Obamas are Christians. (How “committed” they are is not the subject of this discussion.)
How then, did this apparently widespread public perception that Barack Obama is a Muslim originate?
During the three years (1985-1988) that Barack Obama worked in South Chicago as a community organizer, it was obvious both to Obama and to many in the South Chicago community that “Obama looked different, that Obama acted different and that Obama talked white.” To gain acceptance and the required “street cred,” Obama needed to obtain the approval and the support of other groups that were already entrenched within the South Chicago area such as youth gangs, the Nation of Islam, etc.
Most community organizers learn that involvement in church meetings and door to door campaigns are the two prime vehicles that must be mastered in order to successfully penetrate the community. The Nation of Islam was active and successful in the South Chicago community. The Nation of Islam concluded that Obama was no threat to them. Thus, at joint appearances, the Nation of Islam representative often assured the audiences: “Don’t worry. You can trust Barack here. He’s one of us.”
When Barack Obama campaigned for a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, Muslims were a major base of his support. While Obama had already gained a great deal of voter and financial support in the general Islamic community, to capture additional votes and financial support from the more conservative elements of the Islamic community, some of Obama’s supporters within the Islamic community spread the rumor that Obama was actually a practicing Muslim.
This rumor appeared to succeed in that Obama gained additional support from those more conservative segments within the Islamic community (to whom ethnic considerations matter a great deal).
The current re-floating of the rumor that Barack Obama is a practicing or is a closet Muslim can be traced to at least six domestic and international sources.
1) Some residual beliefs that circulated during Obama’s days on the Chicago streets as a community organizer, are still floating around within the general Chicago community.
2) Some Muslims who were induced to vote for Obama and to contribute to Obama in previous campaigns due to their belief that Obama is, in fact, a Muslim, remain within the Islamic Community.
3) Several Obama presidential campaign staffers, several of Obama’s left wing supporters, and a surprisingly large number of pro-Obama journalists state that by continually affirming that Obama is not a Muslim, they are “preempting”, what, in their eyes, is the near certainty of future attacks on Obama by what they label “the Republican smear machine”. (One of the repeated sound bites is “They will try to scare you. They will tell you that Barack Obama looks different. He has a funny name. He’s a Muslim. He’s black.”) These statements and sound bites are directed towards an audience that is only half listening. Thus, the effect of these statements seems to help cement the view that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
4) The many official denials that have been issued by the Obama campaign, coupled with numerous journalist denials, coupled with various much-too-clever cartoons issued by Obama supporters (such as Barry Blitt’s New Yorker cover, dated July 31, 2008) tend to reinforce existing subliminal impressions that may have been held by a portion of the American public that Obama is a Muslim.
5) Currently, the rumor that Obama is a Muslim is being heavily marketed throughout the Islamic world by Al Manar, Al Jazeera and by other Islamic media. Also, several Islamic leaders are publicly claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim. For example, on June 11, 2008, Muammar Qaddafi stated: “...there are elections in America. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Isamic world and Africa applaud this man. They welcome him and pray for his success. We are still hoping that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity.” Qaddafi further stated that many throughout the Islamic world have been involved in contribution campaigns “to enable him [Obama] to win the American presidency.”
6) Also, partially responsible is the intentional spread of this rumor by a small number of individuals and websites. (My survey indicates that the elements that are spreading these kinds of reports are not tied to the McCain campaign nor are they tied to the Republican party, nor are they tied to any responsible or even irresponsible Jewish organizations.)
Possible National and International Impacts of This Belief
1) Key 2008 battleground states where the perception by a portion of the electorate that Barack Obama is a Muslim (which could be a major advantage to the Obama campaign) include: Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado and Washington. However, the net effect of this lasting perception on the actual voting results remains to be determined.
2) Of more concern is that a major portion of the Islamic world believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Currently, mainly due to extensive Arab television coverage, they are fully aware of Obama’s many recent pro-Israel statements. They are willing to forgive Obama’s words because they believe (as Al Jazeera stated) that his words are “merely an election lie to enable him to get the Jewish vote.” “A person lies and lies to people just so they will vote for him.” (Al Jazeera TV, June 11, 2008) The Islamic world expect that Obama’s actual agenda will include:
* Dismantling Israel nuclear capability;
* Implementing “the one state solution”;
* Arranging for “the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the land of Palestine [Israel] from which they were expelled in 1948 and 1967.”
If in Islamic eyes, Barack Obama fails to fully deliver on all of these expectations, the Islamic world will feel betrayed and they will brand Barack Obama as a hated apostate “Enemy of Islam.” And the consequences of their resentments may be severe.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (Intro)
Over a period of 30 years, I taught and advised (at the graduate level) nearly 1000 students from throughout the Islamic world. Many of these students have risen to high level positions within their countries. They keep in close touch with one another and with me. Unfortunately, much of the Muslim world is firmly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The following report is the consensus view of several hundred Islamic reporters and stringers stationed throughout the Islamic world. Please bring these materials to the attention of those who you believe are most concerned about developments in the Middle East.
Subject: Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes
Recorder: Lt. Col. L (United States Army, Retired)
Background
At a recent photo-documented meeting, the chief operating officer of a large Middle Eastern (primarily Arab) news organization summarized the inputs transmitted to him by his several hundred reporters and stringers stationed in 18 countries throughout the Middle East concerning their expectations for Israel's future.
Subject: Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes
Recorder: Lt. Col. L (United States Army, Retired)
Background
At a recent photo-documented meeting, the chief operating officer of a large Middle Eastern (primarily Arab) news organization summarized the inputs transmitted to him by his several hundred reporters and stringers stationed in 18 countries throughout the Middle East concerning their expectations for Israel's future.
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (I, Part 1)
Near-term expectations
The reporters are skeptical concerning the next two years and the Annopolis-generated "peace negotiations" that are currently in progress. They emphasize that Syria (who's representative had previously spoken in warm support of President Bush's vision) has already denounced the negotiations as a "public relations stunt" and has already announced that Syria would veto any proposed agreement that might be reached at the negotiation table. Thus, the Syrians are committed that there will be no agreement possible within Bush's announced time deadline of signing an agreement by the end of 2008.
The reporters listed several negotiation alternatives that had been bruited about and presented their evaluations. These were:
1. The "Saudi Arabian Peace Initiative." The "Saudi Proposal" was first carried to Israel, to the United States and to the West by Tom Friedman. It was not officially signed by Saudi Arabia. Friedman was selected as the plan's bearer after careful consideration by the Saudi foreign policy advisor because of his high level government and extensive media contacts both within Israel and the United States and the Saudi's belief that Friedman's ego would make Friedman relish what he would perceive as his playing a critical role in changing the entire history of the Middle East. The reporters claimed that if the Saudis and the other Arab states were really interested in proposing this "solution", they would have invited Prime Minister Sharon to speak in front of the then pending Arab Summit.
The Saudi plan was described as follows: "Israel must first satisfy all of the current (and future) demands (e.g. territorial, water rights, etc.) of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon (Hezbollah). Israel must also agree to the unlimited right of return to Israel of all the Palestinian refugees and all of their descendants (as they self-identify). Israel must pay compensation to all refugees and all of their descendants who choose not to exercise their right of return. Only after Israel complies with each and every one of these demands (to the satisfaction of all of the Arab countries involved) will Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations then consider recognition of Israel and normalizing relations with Israel."
2. The roadmap and Bush's vision as announced at Annapolis. Annapolis is presented by the US State Department as a "resumption" of peace talks. The plan that was proposed by the US is, in fact, a radical departure from the dynamics of the original roadmap. (The original agreed-upon roadmap had a series of reciprocal, tangible, measurable benchmarks, e.g.: stop the terror violence; disarm the armed non-government forces; develop a functioning legal/justice system; etc.) The Annapolis vision replaces the roadmap with a fixed end point goal and a deadline. This enables the Palestinians to exert pressure on Israel and the US by threatening to halt the talks, relieves the Palestinians from having to deliver anything tangible, and would compel Israel to deliver to the Palestinians, on or before some date certain, all or most of the West Bank, part of Jerusalem, control of many places holy to Jews, etc. In return, the Arab League, Hamas and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are adamant that they will never recognize Israel as a "Jewish State". Thus, implementation of the Annapolis approach would deny Israel both security and peace.
3. One democratic, secular nation for two peoples. Increasingly, the Arab League, individual Arab governments and the Palestinians are threatening to support a "one state solution" as their final objective. When evaluating this proposed "solution", both the Israelis and the Arabs are well-aware of the comparative Palestinian and Israeli birth rates, with both expecting that any democratic "one state" would soon have a Palestinian majority. Both sides are also well-aware that "secular" is the code word for the end of a Jewish state and termination of the currently existing world-wide Jewish right of citizenship in Israel. Presently, within the Palestinian controlled areas of the West Bank, within Gaza and within Jordan, it is a death penalty offense to even contemplate offering to sell land to a Jew. A one state solution would make the entire West Bank, parts of Jerusalem (and possibly some parts of the current state of Israel) "Jew-free".
The bottom line in evaluating the feasibility of any possible "solution" is the likely on-the-ground response of the Palestinians. Results of recent polls conducted by Palestinians show that: a) 57% of Palestinians would support armed actions (terror, missile and rockets attacks) against Israel while negotiations are being conducted; and b) even if Israel would meet each and every Palestinian demand (including the West Bank, Jerusalem, right of return, etc.), 45% of Palestinians would still strongly oppose any recognition of Israel.
The reporters are skeptical concerning the next two years and the Annopolis-generated "peace negotiations" that are currently in progress. They emphasize that Syria (who's representative had previously spoken in warm support of President Bush's vision) has already denounced the negotiations as a "public relations stunt" and has already announced that Syria would veto any proposed agreement that might be reached at the negotiation table. Thus, the Syrians are committed that there will be no agreement possible within Bush's announced time deadline of signing an agreement by the end of 2008.
The reporters listed several negotiation alternatives that had been bruited about and presented their evaluations. These were:
1. The "Saudi Arabian Peace Initiative." The "Saudi Proposal" was first carried to Israel, to the United States and to the West by Tom Friedman. It was not officially signed by Saudi Arabia. Friedman was selected as the plan's bearer after careful consideration by the Saudi foreign policy advisor because of his high level government and extensive media contacts both within Israel and the United States and the Saudi's belief that Friedman's ego would make Friedman relish what he would perceive as his playing a critical role in changing the entire history of the Middle East. The reporters claimed that if the Saudis and the other Arab states were really interested in proposing this "solution", they would have invited Prime Minister Sharon to speak in front of the then pending Arab Summit.
The Saudi plan was described as follows: "Israel must first satisfy all of the current (and future) demands (e.g. territorial, water rights, etc.) of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon (Hezbollah). Israel must also agree to the unlimited right of return to Israel of all the Palestinian refugees and all of their descendants (as they self-identify). Israel must pay compensation to all refugees and all of their descendants who choose not to exercise their right of return. Only after Israel complies with each and every one of these demands (to the satisfaction of all of the Arab countries involved) will Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations then consider recognition of Israel and normalizing relations with Israel."
2. The roadmap and Bush's vision as announced at Annapolis. Annapolis is presented by the US State Department as a "resumption" of peace talks. The plan that was proposed by the US is, in fact, a radical departure from the dynamics of the original roadmap. (The original agreed-upon roadmap had a series of reciprocal, tangible, measurable benchmarks, e.g.: stop the terror violence; disarm the armed non-government forces; develop a functioning legal/justice system; etc.) The Annapolis vision replaces the roadmap with a fixed end point goal and a deadline. This enables the Palestinians to exert pressure on Israel and the US by threatening to halt the talks, relieves the Palestinians from having to deliver anything tangible, and would compel Israel to deliver to the Palestinians, on or before some date certain, all or most of the West Bank, part of Jerusalem, control of many places holy to Jews, etc. In return, the Arab League, Hamas and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are adamant that they will never recognize Israel as a "Jewish State". Thus, implementation of the Annapolis approach would deny Israel both security and peace.
3. One democratic, secular nation for two peoples. Increasingly, the Arab League, individual Arab governments and the Palestinians are threatening to support a "one state solution" as their final objective. When evaluating this proposed "solution", both the Israelis and the Arabs are well-aware of the comparative Palestinian and Israeli birth rates, with both expecting that any democratic "one state" would soon have a Palestinian majority. Both sides are also well-aware that "secular" is the code word for the end of a Jewish state and termination of the currently existing world-wide Jewish right of citizenship in Israel. Presently, within the Palestinian controlled areas of the West Bank, within Gaza and within Jordan, it is a death penalty offense to even contemplate offering to sell land to a Jew. A one state solution would make the entire West Bank, parts of Jerusalem (and possibly some parts of the current state of Israel) "Jew-free".
The bottom line in evaluating the feasibility of any possible "solution" is the likely on-the-ground response of the Palestinians. Results of recent polls conducted by Palestinians show that: a) 57% of Palestinians would support armed actions (terror, missile and rockets attacks) against Israel while negotiations are being conducted; and b) even if Israel would meet each and every Palestinian demand (including the West Bank, Jerusalem, right of return, etc.), 45% of Palestinians would still strongly oppose any recognition of Israel.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (I, Part 2)
Long-term expectations
After the current negotiations were reviewed, the discussion proceeded to Israel's future. Here, the reporters expectations are chilling. Nearly all of the reporters reported that their close contacts (Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah and the ruling inner-clique in Iran) state that Israel will be "totally annihilated by a nuclear weapon." They personally believe that the State of Israel will be physically destroyed well before January 1, 2020. Many speculated that the attack on Israel will not be launched by Iran, but rather by Egypt or Syria (or even Jordan).
This was mapped out as follows:
1. Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons, a missile force to deliver these weapons, and nuclear warheads capable of being carried by Iran's currently developed medium range missiles. (Although a recent, publicly released, "consensus" US Intelligence report stated that Iran had halted its nuclear warhead development activities in 2003, the opposition group that had first exposed Iran's previously undetected 18 year clandestine nuclear weapons development program is now reporting that Iran did not stop these developments, but rather that Iran currently has an operating facility near Tehran which is actively developing nuclear missile warheads.)
2. Iran's progress toward developing operating nuclear weapons and means for their delivery will be a lot more rapid than is currently estimated by US intelligence. The reporters pointed out the dismal history of US intelligence in making these kinds of estimates. US intelligence vastly underestimated the technical capabilities of the Soviet Union and they vastly overestimated the time that they thought would be required for the Soviets to successfully complete their atomic bomb as well as their hydrogen bomb programs. US intelligence completely missed Saddam's alternative, pre-1991 nuclear weapons development program. (After they gained access to Iraq, US and international inspectors reported that Saddam had been within six months to one year of obtaining operational nuclear weapons, and they concluded that had Saddam waited to obtain these weapons, his forces would have been unstoppable in Kuwait, and then later in their conquest of Saudi Arabia.) US intelligence had been surprised by the Indian, Pakistani, Libyan and North Korean nuclear programs. Further, my informants emphasized that the help that had been provided by the Kahn network was substantial and effective and that North Korea had provided technical support and on-the-ground assistance for missile development and for nuclear weapons development to both Syria and Iran. "You can't unring the scientific knowledge bell."
3. Iran's nuclear development program will trigger a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East. Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria will all begin nuclear weapons development programs. Saudi Arabia will also attempt to obtain nuclear weapons.
4. Islamic fundamentalists, in the name of Islamic religious purity, will seize control of one or more nuclear armed governments in the Middle East and thus, the fundamentalists will obtain access and control of one or more nuclear weapons. Prime candidates for such a seizure of control include Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
5. Most moderate Muslim groups will not resist this fundamentalist seizure of power, but will accept the fundamentalists control of governments and societies.
6. The various extremist groups will compete in burnishing their credentials as the most faithful (extreme) of the "true believers." The ultimate crown of truest believer will be accorded to the group that succeeds in destroying Israel.
7. Muslim casualties that would be caused by their nuclear attack on Israel or that would result from retaliatory attacks by Israel will not in any way deter these fundamentalist groups from attacking and attempting to destroy Israel.
8. There is nothing that Israel can do to avoid this fate. No concessions, no accommodations and no peace agreements will protect Israel.
After the current negotiations were reviewed, the discussion proceeded to Israel's future. Here, the reporters expectations are chilling. Nearly all of the reporters reported that their close contacts (Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah and the ruling inner-clique in Iran) state that Israel will be "totally annihilated by a nuclear weapon." They personally believe that the State of Israel will be physically destroyed well before January 1, 2020. Many speculated that the attack on Israel will not be launched by Iran, but rather by Egypt or Syria (or even Jordan).
This was mapped out as follows:
1. Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons, a missile force to deliver these weapons, and nuclear warheads capable of being carried by Iran's currently developed medium range missiles. (Although a recent, publicly released, "consensus" US Intelligence report stated that Iran had halted its nuclear warhead development activities in 2003, the opposition group that had first exposed Iran's previously undetected 18 year clandestine nuclear weapons development program is now reporting that Iran did not stop these developments, but rather that Iran currently has an operating facility near Tehran which is actively developing nuclear missile warheads.)
2. Iran's progress toward developing operating nuclear weapons and means for their delivery will be a lot more rapid than is currently estimated by US intelligence. The reporters pointed out the dismal history of US intelligence in making these kinds of estimates. US intelligence vastly underestimated the technical capabilities of the Soviet Union and they vastly overestimated the time that they thought would be required for the Soviets to successfully complete their atomic bomb as well as their hydrogen bomb programs. US intelligence completely missed Saddam's alternative, pre-1991 nuclear weapons development program. (After they gained access to Iraq, US and international inspectors reported that Saddam had been within six months to one year of obtaining operational nuclear weapons, and they concluded that had Saddam waited to obtain these weapons, his forces would have been unstoppable in Kuwait, and then later in their conquest of Saudi Arabia.) US intelligence had been surprised by the Indian, Pakistani, Libyan and North Korean nuclear programs. Further, my informants emphasized that the help that had been provided by the Kahn network was substantial and effective and that North Korea had provided technical support and on-the-ground assistance for missile development and for nuclear weapons development to both Syria and Iran. "You can't unring the scientific knowledge bell."
3. Iran's nuclear development program will trigger a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East. Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria will all begin nuclear weapons development programs. Saudi Arabia will also attempt to obtain nuclear weapons.
4. Islamic fundamentalists, in the name of Islamic religious purity, will seize control of one or more nuclear armed governments in the Middle East and thus, the fundamentalists will obtain access and control of one or more nuclear weapons. Prime candidates for such a seizure of control include Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
5. Most moderate Muslim groups will not resist this fundamentalist seizure of power, but will accept the fundamentalists control of governments and societies.
6. The various extremist groups will compete in burnishing their credentials as the most faithful (extreme) of the "true believers." The ultimate crown of truest believer will be accorded to the group that succeeds in destroying Israel.
7. Muslim casualties that would be caused by their nuclear attack on Israel or that would result from retaliatory attacks by Israel will not in any way deter these fundamentalist groups from attacking and attempting to destroy Israel.
8. There is nothing that Israel can do to avoid this fate. No concessions, no accommodations and no peace agreements will protect Israel.
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (II, Part 1)
Additional lessons for Israel: "The future will be very much a repeat of the past."
1. Israel will never be able to locate a negotiating partner who will be willing to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" and who will be able to effectively guarantee Israel peace and security "within recognized boundaries". Nearly all Islamic factions seek the political and physical elimination of the "Jewish state". This is the more immediate, absolute goal of Hezbollah, Hamas and the other rejectionist groups. For even the "moderates", the demise of Israel is the highly preferred outcome.
1. Israel will never be able to locate a negotiating partner who will be willing to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" and who will be able to effectively guarantee Israel peace and security "within recognized boundaries". Nearly all Islamic factions seek the political and physical elimination of the "Jewish state". This is the more immediate, absolute goal of Hezbollah, Hamas and the other rejectionist groups. For even the "moderates", the demise of Israel is the highly preferred outcome.
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (II, Part 2)
2. Violence will continue. Violence and negotiations will be the twin tools employed (sometimes alternately, sometimes simultaneously) to sap Israel's emotional and economic strength. Arab violence does not just happen, nor is it merely the result of a "cycle of violence." The violence is planned and employed in order to create pandemonium, demonstrate the inability of Israel's government to defend the safety of Israel's citizens, make demands (such as for the release of prisoners), establish the group's reputation within Arab circles or on the world stage, cement relationships with other terrorist organizations, etc.
[Recorder's notes: Specific terror examples were described in detail in order to illustrate Palestian utilization of targeted violence. Several early operations ordered by Yassir Arafat and conducted by the Palestinian Liberation Organizaton (PLO) included: the Avivim school bus massacre (5/8/70); the Munich Olympic massacre (9/5/72); the Ma'alot school massacre (5/15/74). Arafat launched the second "Intifada" in the fall of 2000 to prevent President Clinton's peace process from having any chance of success. Arafat personally ordered and financed the purchase and importation of numerous shipments of weapons and explosives (including 50 tons of sniper rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. from Iran - Karine A, 1/02) to be used for terror attacks against Israel. The Lod Airport massacre (5/30/72), an operation planned by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and conducted by the Japanese Red Army (JRA), illuminates that there is extensive international cooperation among terrorist organizations.]
[Recorder's notes: Specific terror examples were described in detail in order to illustrate Palestian utilization of targeted violence. Several early operations ordered by Yassir Arafat and conducted by the Palestinian Liberation Organizaton (PLO) included: the Avivim school bus massacre (5/8/70); the Munich Olympic massacre (9/5/72); the Ma'alot school massacre (5/15/74). Arafat launched the second "Intifada" in the fall of 2000 to prevent President Clinton's peace process from having any chance of success. Arafat personally ordered and financed the purchase and importation of numerous shipments of weapons and explosives (including 50 tons of sniper rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. from Iran - Karine A, 1/02) to be used for terror attacks against Israel. The Lod Airport massacre (5/30/72), an operation planned by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and conducted by the Japanese Red Army (JRA), illuminates that there is extensive international cooperation among terrorist organizations.]
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (II, Part 3)
3. Israel's government (and the US and Western Europe) will be confounded by the continued use of traditional Middle East negotiating techniques, such as: a) present a long list of grievances and demands; b) use proxies, back channels, US allies and other third parties to pressure Israel to negotiate on only some of the Palestinian grievances and demands and also to pressure Israel to defer some of Israel's counter-demands (until some future negotiations); c) use proxies, back channels, off-the-record interviews, etc. to create the impression that the Palestinians are willing to make reciprocal concessions on one or more of Israel's major concerns, thus getting some elements in Israel and the US to conclude that completing a partial deal is nearly within reach; d) recess or terminate the negotiations; e) at that point, take off the table the concessions that were made by Israel and maintain that these offered concessions are merely the starting point for negotiations that will take place in the future; and f) then add to and extend the previous list of grievances and demands. The underlying rationale of this approach is: "If a person can be made to make one step backwards, then he can be made to take one thousand steps backwards."
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (II, Part 4)
4. The Islamic world believes that there are many large divisions (fault lines) within Israel (between the political left and the political right, between the religious and the secular, between different orthodox groups, between various economic, social and ethnic groups, etc.) as well as between the national interests of Israel and the national interests of the US. The Arab world is also witness to much robust Jewish self-examination which tends to focus on Israel's historical and current flaws. Israel's government and most government officials, including Prime Minister Olmert, are viewed as weak, ineffective and unpopular. All of these factors are evaluated by the Palestinians as major vulnerabilities of Israel and as good sources of useful ammunition which will help them to undermine Israel's case for legitimacy and continued existence.
Thus, suggestions that Israel should offer certain concessions to the Palestinians which are floated by outside parties (especially suggestions that originate from groups within the Jewish community) will probably be interpreted by the Palestinian negotiators as a sign that Israel's resolve is weakening and these suggestions will most likely encourage the Palestinian negotiators to toughen their bargaining stance by making increased demands. This effect is described as "the bleat of the lamb excites the lion."
Thus, suggestions that Israel should offer certain concessions to the Palestinians which are floated by outside parties (especially suggestions that originate from groups within the Jewish community) will probably be interpreted by the Palestinian negotiators as a sign that Israel's resolve is weakening and these suggestions will most likely encourage the Palestinian negotiators to toughen their bargaining stance by making increased demands. This effect is described as "the bleat of the lamb excites the lion."
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (II, Part 5)
5. The Palestinians (and Hezbollah) have already defeated Israel in the international public relations war.
a) The Palestinians have gained control of the reporting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the world media by gaining control of the words, phrases and definitions that the world media currently utilizes in describing underlying political, military and social conditions and in explaining their causation; in describing events on-the-ground; in presenting alternative negotiating positions; in evaluating proposed solutions; etc. Some examples include:
• occupation, occupying power, illegal occupation, brutal occupation;
• West Bank, occupied territories, Palestinian territories, Palestinian West Bank;
• militants (referring to those Palestinians committing acts of terror) rather than using the
term "terrorists";
• catastrophic economic conditions in Gaza caused by Israel's economic blockade, the
economic and health catastrophe now occurring in Gaza, collective punishment, high
unemployment rate which makes it difficult for Palestinians to feed their families, cuts
in electrical power distribution which greatly curtails factories, inability to run hospitals
due to the lack of electrical power and basic medical supplies;
• disproportionate response, innocent civilian casualties, women and children killed;
• military check-points that choke Palestinian development, daily humiliation, humiliate
Palestinian residents, prevent Palestinians from seeking medical care.
b) The Palestinian's usually get their version of the story out first and their spokespersons stay "on message." Even when, as is frequently the case, the Palestinian-issued accounts prove to be false, their story gains worldwide headlines. On the other hand, Israel's response pattern is to hold back until they can demonstrate the validity of their information. Then the Israeli story, if it's covered at all, is relegated at best to the inside pages of newspapers or to the tail end of TV news broadcasts.
[Recorder’s notes: Israel's government and media were criticized for Israel's ineptness in making its own case and in responding to various Palestinian and Hezbollah accusations, thus creating, by default, substantial victories for the Palestinian and Hezbollah public relations machines. Three of Israel's major public relations defeats were described in detail: 1) The Palestinian-generated fires that damaged the Church of the Nativity's interior during Israel's siege of Palestinian gunmen who had taken up positions inside the church; 2) The deaths of civilians (mostly women and children) when an apartment building in Kana, Lebanon collapsed several hours after an Israeli air attack on nearby Hezbollah missile firing positions; and 3) Israel's incursion into Jenin. The discussion of the world's media coverage of Israel's April, 2003 military incursion into Jenin was cited as the most illustrative: Palestinian spokespersons (Saeb Erekat, Yasser Abed Rabdo, Ahmed Abdel Rahman) claimed that Israel had carpet bombed and destroyed the entire Jenin camp, that Israel had massacred thousands (500 to 3000, "half of them women and children"), that the Israeli invasion army bulldozers had buried the "martyrs" in mass graves in order to conceal the massacre, and that 60 to 70 Palestinians had been summarily executed by the Israeli military. For several weeks, these and similar stories dominated the world news media and the editorial pages of much of the world press (Agence France Press, Associated Press, BBC, CBS, CNN, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, NBC, United Press International, United Nations press releases, etc.). Nearly two weeks elapsed before Israel began to respond: in fact, only about 10% of the buildings in the camp had been destroyed, nearly all due to the intense building-by-building, hand-to-hand combat that took place (this was confirmed by satellite photographs, interviews with PLO fighters and independent on-the-ground NGO observers); there had been no summary executions; the total Palestinian death toll was set at 56 (nearly all of them fighters) by the Palestinian medical authorities and was confirmed by Fatah's director for the Northern West Bank (Kadoura Mousa Kadoura). However, the early false stories of Palestinians killed and massive destruction still dominates the public's memory of the incident.]
c) The Palestinians (and Hezbollah) exercise extremely tight operational control over all media access in nearly all areas that are controlled by the Palestinians or Hezbollah. In order to obtain any information on events occurring in these areas, the western media is forced to rely nearly entirely on the inputs generated by local stringers (who are usually allied with the local extremist establishment). Should any member of the media report any "unfriendly information" then the reporter's physical safety is explicitly threatened and the reporters' organization will be threatened with denial of all future access. The western media, by continuing its presence in these areas, has demonstrated its willingness to comply with these restrictions on its reporting and it has also demonstrated that it will not reveal these restrictive and bias-inducing conditions to their audiences.
[Recorder’s notes: some of the news organizations that have readily accepted these Palestinian and Hezbollah demands were listed. However, since I do not have any independent ability to confirm this information, I did not include this list in these notes.]
a) The Palestinians have gained control of the reporting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the world media by gaining control of the words, phrases and definitions that the world media currently utilizes in describing underlying political, military and social conditions and in explaining their causation; in describing events on-the-ground; in presenting alternative negotiating positions; in evaluating proposed solutions; etc. Some examples include:
• occupation, occupying power, illegal occupation, brutal occupation;
• West Bank, occupied territories, Palestinian territories, Palestinian West Bank;
• militants (referring to those Palestinians committing acts of terror) rather than using the
term "terrorists";
• catastrophic economic conditions in Gaza caused by Israel's economic blockade, the
economic and health catastrophe now occurring in Gaza, collective punishment, high
unemployment rate which makes it difficult for Palestinians to feed their families, cuts
in electrical power distribution which greatly curtails factories, inability to run hospitals
due to the lack of electrical power and basic medical supplies;
• disproportionate response, innocent civilian casualties, women and children killed;
• military check-points that choke Palestinian development, daily humiliation, humiliate
Palestinian residents, prevent Palestinians from seeking medical care.
b) The Palestinian's usually get their version of the story out first and their spokespersons stay "on message." Even when, as is frequently the case, the Palestinian-issued accounts prove to be false, their story gains worldwide headlines. On the other hand, Israel's response pattern is to hold back until they can demonstrate the validity of their information. Then the Israeli story, if it's covered at all, is relegated at best to the inside pages of newspapers or to the tail end of TV news broadcasts.
[Recorder’s notes: Israel's government and media were criticized for Israel's ineptness in making its own case and in responding to various Palestinian and Hezbollah accusations, thus creating, by default, substantial victories for the Palestinian and Hezbollah public relations machines. Three of Israel's major public relations defeats were described in detail: 1) The Palestinian-generated fires that damaged the Church of the Nativity's interior during Israel's siege of Palestinian gunmen who had taken up positions inside the church; 2) The deaths of civilians (mostly women and children) when an apartment building in Kana, Lebanon collapsed several hours after an Israeli air attack on nearby Hezbollah missile firing positions; and 3) Israel's incursion into Jenin. The discussion of the world's media coverage of Israel's April, 2003 military incursion into Jenin was cited as the most illustrative: Palestinian spokespersons (Saeb Erekat, Yasser Abed Rabdo, Ahmed Abdel Rahman) claimed that Israel had carpet bombed and destroyed the entire Jenin camp, that Israel had massacred thousands (500 to 3000, "half of them women and children"), that the Israeli invasion army bulldozers had buried the "martyrs" in mass graves in order to conceal the massacre, and that 60 to 70 Palestinians had been summarily executed by the Israeli military. For several weeks, these and similar stories dominated the world news media and the editorial pages of much of the world press (Agence France Press, Associated Press, BBC, CBS, CNN, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, NBC, United Press International, United Nations press releases, etc.). Nearly two weeks elapsed before Israel began to respond: in fact, only about 10% of the buildings in the camp had been destroyed, nearly all due to the intense building-by-building, hand-to-hand combat that took place (this was confirmed by satellite photographs, interviews with PLO fighters and independent on-the-ground NGO observers); there had been no summary executions; the total Palestinian death toll was set at 56 (nearly all of them fighters) by the Palestinian medical authorities and was confirmed by Fatah's director for the Northern West Bank (Kadoura Mousa Kadoura). However, the early false stories of Palestinians killed and massive destruction still dominates the public's memory of the incident.]
c) The Palestinians (and Hezbollah) exercise extremely tight operational control over all media access in nearly all areas that are controlled by the Palestinians or Hezbollah. In order to obtain any information on events occurring in these areas, the western media is forced to rely nearly entirely on the inputs generated by local stringers (who are usually allied with the local extremist establishment). Should any member of the media report any "unfriendly information" then the reporter's physical safety is explicitly threatened and the reporters' organization will be threatened with denial of all future access. The western media, by continuing its presence in these areas, has demonstrated its willingness to comply with these restrictions on its reporting and it has also demonstrated that it will not reveal these restrictive and bias-inducing conditions to their audiences.
[Recorder’s notes: some of the news organizations that have readily accepted these Palestinian and Hezbollah demands were listed. However, since I do not have any independent ability to confirm this information, I did not include this list in these notes.]
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Katharine Graham / Joe Laitin Legacy Project: Must Reads
As part of an extensive search of articles in the media (as part of the Katharine Graham / Joe Laitin Legacy Project), I am gratified to report the following must-read examples:
The Tide Is Turning In Iraq, by Kimberly Kagan, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 4, 2007;
Selling Weapons To The Saudis Is Logical. But Is It Wise?, by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 7, 2007;
This Isn't Civil War, by Carter Andress, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 28, 2007;
What New Orleans Really Needs, by Mona Charen, syndicated columnist, Daily Breeze, Sept. 3, 2007;
Don't Discount This Enemy's Resolve, by William F. Buckley Jr, syndicated columnist, Daily Breeze, Sept. 5, 2007;
Liberals Must Get Over Their Desire To Be Loved, by Dennis Prager, syndicated radio talk show host, Daily Breeze, Aug. 29, 2007.
Attempting to summarize or paraphrase these articles would not do them justice. Thus, the reader is urged to obtain them and read them in their entirety.
Congratulations are in order to all of the authors listed above for their well-thought out and well-presented articles.
Howard Laitin, Program Trustee, Legacy Project
The Tide Is Turning In Iraq, by Kimberly Kagan, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 4, 2007;
Selling Weapons To The Saudis Is Logical. But Is It Wise?, by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 7, 2007;
This Isn't Civil War, by Carter Andress, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 28, 2007;
What New Orleans Really Needs, by Mona Charen, syndicated columnist, Daily Breeze, Sept. 3, 2007;
Don't Discount This Enemy's Resolve, by William F. Buckley Jr, syndicated columnist, Daily Breeze, Sept. 5, 2007;
Liberals Must Get Over Their Desire To Be Loved, by Dennis Prager, syndicated radio talk show host, Daily Breeze, Aug. 29, 2007.
Attempting to summarize or paraphrase these articles would not do them justice. Thus, the reader is urged to obtain them and read them in their entirety.
Congratulations are in order to all of the authors listed above for their well-thought out and well-presented articles.
Howard Laitin, Program Trustee, Legacy Project
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)