“47 years ago the [Fatah] revolution started.  Which revolution?  The modern revolution of the Palestinian people’s history.  In fact, Palestine in its entirety is a revolution, since [Caliph] Umar came [to conquer Jerusalem, 637 CE], and continuing today, and until the End of Days.  The reliable Hadith (tradition attributed to Muhammad), [found] in the two reliable collections, Bukhari and Muslim, says: “The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews.  The Jew will hide behind stones or trees.  Then the stones or trees will call: ‘Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…”

-PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein, PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012

There is nothing particularly surprising about the above statement, made so recently by the Palestinian Authority (PA) funded Palestinian Mufti, who is the leading Sunni Muslim religious authority in the PA.  In fact, it is well representative of the state of current Palestinian society (which I described more fully in a previous column), with its government sponsorship of hate against Israelis and Jews, its promotion of terrorism, its production of murderous children’s television shows, and even its advocacy of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.  Unfortunately, beginning in 1994, with the removal of Israeli forces from the Palestinian areas, the governing Palestinian group Fatah received control the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, (although the Hamas terror group seized control of Gaza in 2007).

Palestinian leaders could have taken advantage of their new power to develop the economy, produce jobs, provide support for its disadvantaged, and develop an agricultural base.  Instead the Palestinian leaders cancelled democratic elections,  cracked down on free speech and  religion, tortured and killed their own people, and funneled money into personal bank accounts or into support for terrorism against Israel.

A distinction can be made between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah, subsidized by the U.S., international organizations, Europe, the Gulf States, and even Israel,  is the more secular of the two even though it continues to fund Muslim religious events demonizing Jews, and paying the salary for the anti-Semitic Palestinian Authority Mufti. Fatah continues to glorify terrorism on television, including praising vicious murderer of an Israeli family, including two children and an infant.

This ought not come as a surprise, since for forty years Fatah was the personal fiefdom of arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat, the man who introduced the world to airline skyjackings.  (Unholy Alliance, David Horowitz, pg.145) Arafat spent much of his diplomatic career walking away from peace deals that would have given him a viable Palestinian state, the very thing he claimed to want, when speaking to a western audience. Under their current leader, Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah has continued to avoid any final settlement of the peace process. Just this month, the Abbas appointed terrorist Mahmoud Awad Damra to serve as a PA official, despite his recent release from jail for attacks which killed Israelis and Americans. Last month, Abbas pushed for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the UN, in an effort to bypass bilateral peace negotiations and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

The other ruling Palestinian regime is the Islamic fundamentalist Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Hamas is the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), which now dominates the Egyptian parliament. Hamas and the Brotherhood’s goal is to implement Sharia (Islamic law), with all of its mandated 7^th century punishments including flogging, stoning and amputation. Hamas has a strong claim of legitimacy, having defeated Fatah in Palestinian elections in 2006, and because its genocidal covenant is strongly grounded in traditional Islamic anti-Semitism and contains the exact hadith uttered by the PA‘s Mufti. In fact, it is so identified with virulent anti-Semitism that the foreign travels of its leadership have led to mass demonstrations throughout the Arab world reminiscent of the demonstrations 1930’s Nazi Germany.  Hamas is led by a triumvirate of terrorists: Khaled Mashal, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar. Mashal has praised Osama Bin Laden and condemned Bin Laden’s killing. Al-Zahar has reiterated that Hamas will “never give up its armed struggle against the Zionist enemy.” Nor is such talk likely to end, as each member of the leadership attempts to outdo the other in demonstrations of their terrorist credentials and Jew-hatred in an effort to emerge victorious in an internal Hamas power struggle.

Because of these factors, Hamas manages to be even more repressive and destructive to the hopes of a stable Palestinian society than Fatah. When the Israelis removed their settlements from the Gaza strip in 2005, it was Hamas which led the Gazans in riots to destroy the agricultural industry Israel left behind. Hamas has spent its three years cracking down on the rights of women in the Gaza Strip, harassing its tiny Christian community into exile, and suppressing free speech.  There has been some growing resentment of the authoritarian and fundamentalist Hamas among young Palestinian Muslims. As a result Hamas has resorted to conducting a “charm offensive” in Gaza to win back public support.

Recently, “President” Abbas and Khaled Meshaal met to discuss reconciliation between the two groups. They agreed to hold presidential and legislative elections by May of 2012, and to initiate some confidence-building measures. But so far negotiations have not resolved the issue of forming a unity government, nor who would lead it. Hamas remains adamant that the West Bank’s Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, popular in the West for his statements in favor of developing a more economically advanced and democratic Palestinian entity, be removed, while Abbas is pretending to support him to keep the foreign aid flowing.  If the two sides do eventually come together, it will be to produce a government which shares the values which unite the two parties, namely, terrorism against Jews, government corruption, and opposition to free speech.

Until there is a fundamental change in the nature of Palestinian society, negotiations will never succeed. All moderation will continue to be “English-only” meant to purchase western aid to facilitate corruption and terror.  Palestinian leaders will continue to compete with each other over the support of a Palestinian public, in order to show that they are the party that best represents the principle, “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

With Republican Congressman Ron Paul coming in a close third in the Iowa presidential caucus, we must look seriously at his foreign policy views, particularly on the Middle East and Israel, and ask whether such views are suitable for a commander-in-chief charged with the security of the United States during a period of conflict with a determined Islamic enemy.

Much attention has been paid, since Paul’s strong showing in Iowa, to statements issued in Rep. Paul’s newsletter publications. Many of these newsletters contain material on domestic matters (such as race relations) that may be objectionable, but one of the most troubling statements on the foreign policy front relates to credence given to a conspiracy theory blaming the Mossad for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. From an April 1993 edition of the newsletter:

It was only a matter of a few days after the World Trade Center bombing before Mohammad A. Salameh was arrested. Is he guilty? Who knows? Recall that shortly after the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended and accusations were made. Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists matters little.

This statement shows a susceptibility to conspiratorial thinking, which, while contrary to any good analysis, is particularly dangerous when considering the Middle East. The Arab world is fraught with all manner of ludicrous and delusional conspiracy theories about the Jews and Israel, and that a potential American Commander-in-Chief would give them any credence is deeply troubling. Even if, as Rep. Paul claims, he was not the author of the newsletters in question, then at the very least he hired and supervised, or failed to supervise, individuals who maintained these beliefs. Anyone who genuinely considers the possibility that Israel would intentionally bomb an American civilian building for the sole purpose of framing Islamic terrorists, cannot ever be an ally of or, indeed, even neutral in regards to Israel.

The other interesting element of the quote is the use of the word “retaliation.” The assumption that any act of terrorism committed by Muslims must be the result of U.S. behavior, and, therefore, justifiable is a hallmark of Paul’s policies and is deeply troubling. A perfect illustration occurred in Paul’s remarks during the December 15th Iowa Republican debate. “… [T]o say all Muslims are the same is dangerous talk,” he stated. “They don’t come to kill us because we are free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean that’s absurd.”

Of course all Muslims are not the same. No one is suggesting that they are. Paul’s claim that Muslims want to harm us “because we are bombing them” ignores the reality that Islamists have deeply-held religious and ideological beliefs that mandate jihad against non-believers, the spread of Sharia, and the dominance of an Islamic caliphate. We know this because not just Islamic terrorists, but Muslim jurists, thinkers and policy-makers say so routinely, as evidenced by a wide collection of Arabic-language video and transcripts available from translation services like MEMRI.

Ironically the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police recognizes better than does Rep. Paul the reality of jihadist motivations, writing in a 2006 report summary, that Switzerland was both home to, and a target for, Islamist terrorists.

Furthermore, which Muslims exactly does Paul claim the United States bombed prior to the 1993 “retaliation” bombing?

Paul blames Israel for much of the faults of the Middle East and, according to former Paul staffer Eric Dondero, has privately expressed his wish that Israel not exist. Dondero writes,

He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the American taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

Paul has attempted to create the impression that his stance on Israel is motivated not by anti-Zionism, but, rather, by a principled position on independent national sovereignty. He points to his voting against condemning Israel for the 1981 Osirak reactor bombing, and claims that our “interference” with Israel is to their detriment. Said Paul in a November presidential debate in Washington,

We interfere with them when they deal with their borders. When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us. And then they decide they want to bomb something, that’s their business, but they should, you know, suffer the consequences. When they bombed the Iraqi missile site, nuclear site, back in the ’80s, I was one of the few in Congress that said it’s none of our business and Israel should take care of themselves.

EMET believes that a close American-Israeli security alliance is to the benefit of both nations, but we understand that one could make the opposing argument that Israel is burdened by its American alliance in good faith. However Paul’s stance is disingenuous, as evidenced by his remarks on the House floor on Israel’s Operation Cast Lead invasion of Gaza that began in December 2008. Paul claimed that Hamas was “encouraged by and really started by Israel,” much as he blames the U.S. for the rise of Al Qaeda. In interviews with Iranian state television, Press TV, he described Gaza as a “concentration camp.” Far from wanting to free Israel to see to its own national security, Paul seizes upon occasions when Israel acts to ensure its security, as in Operation Cast Lead, to condemn it and, by extension, the United States.

Paul prefers pat answers that blame America and Israel to conducting serious investigation of the motivations of our self-declared enemies. Indeed Paul’s belief in American-centric grievance terrorism denies agency to other countries and cultures. He refuses to take into account any historical, cultural or political developments prior to America’s rise to superpower status. Paul’s only solution is a return to American isolationism as a foreign policy.

Paul believes that if Washington ceases to support and ally itself with the Jewish state, then a large number of America’s problems with the Muslim world will disappear. But suppose that a President Paul initiated a foreign policy in which the U.S. government didn’t defend Israel in the United Nations Security Council, recognized “Palestine” as a nation, called on Israel to negotiate with that state, and stopped the sale of American weapons or technology to the Jewish state. Would these actions prompt the Islamist or Muslim worlds to reward us with better behavior?

Certainly, there is plenty of evidence to suggest they would not, just by examining the past three years. President Barack Obama is markedly less supportive of Israel than was President George W. Bush. Obama made improved relations with the Muslim world a cornerstone of his foreign policy, as delineated in his Cairo declaration in 2009. Based on the Paul logic, positive results should come from the Muslim world, but we see no evidence of its becoming more supportive of the United States. Have the Palestinians been more willing to compromise? No. The Palestinian Authority seems to be approaching the even more extreme and radical group, Hamas, with which it now plans to merge. Also, the PA has unilaterally pushed for statehood recognition by the United Nations, an effort the Obama Administration has opposed. And has the rest of the Muslim world become more cooperative with the United States? Not at all. Pakistan hid Osama Bin Laden until we found and killed him, and it continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia still produces textbooks and religious materials filled with anti-Christian and anti-Jewish bigotry. And Iran still pushes ahead with nuclear weapons production.

We have every reason to suspect, therefore, that the Middle East’s reaction to an even softer Ron Paul approach to diplomacy would be greater intransigence.

Paul pretends that this reality does not exist or that it does not matter. Osama bin Laden should not have been killed, under Paul’s reasoning. Iran is not trying to acquire a nuclear bomb, he claims, and if it were, that’s Teheran’s choice. “If I were an Iranian, I’d like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them,” he told Iowans.

Paul’s foreign policy has a seductive attraction. If all the troubles America endures are because of her actions, then ceasing these actions is a cure-all. But this is simply not so. A retreat to some mythical isolationist foreign policy is as impossible as it is undesirable. It would cede regional hegemony to national and non-state actors who have their own innate motivations for wishing death to those they label “infidels,” and make the world, America, and Israel, infinitely more insecure.

— William Butler Yeats

By all accounts, 2011 has been a cataclysmic year in the Middle East. What began with a government official’s harassment of Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, and ended in his self-immolation on December 18,2010, sparked riots that led to what has been dubbed “The Arab Spring” but that we at EMET have more appropriately entitled “The Arab Tsunami.”. The events in Tunisia resulted in a wave of protests that has shaken up the Arab and Muslim worlds, stretching all the way from Morocco to Yemen.

As anyone who has not been asleep for the greater part of this year is aware, what transpired in the region in 2011 has been more dramatic than anything to occur in the Middle East since the days after World War I, when French diplomat Francois Georges Picot, together with British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes, carved up the region for their countries.

What has happened since last December 18 has  awakened the populations throughout the region to protest their countries’ poor economic conditions and total lack of human rights, as well as corruption  within the region’s leadership. That then led, among other astonishing developments, to the resignation of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia; the end of the 33-year reign of  Yemenite President Ali Abdullah Saleh;  the overthrow and death of Libyan strongman  Muammmar Gaddafi and, most astonishingly, the end of the 30-year, iron-clad reign of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

As of now, more than 37,000 people have died in these protests, and the region is still awash with blood. What will be the final outcome of these cataclysmic events is difficult to predict. Sometimes, revolutions result in more freedom, as defined from the liberal, Western point of view. The French Revolution took decades and finally resulted in more freedoms. A revolution, however, might result in a more oppressive regime within an overarching system, such as occurred in the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the  Iranian Revolution of 1979.

We at EMET have long seen the rising tide of radical Islamism and have expressed the fear that what began with the Facebook generation by a few young, freedom-loving activists (in the Western sense of the concept) would lead to elections  ushering in Islamist regimes. That is because the people who truly have the political power and infrastructure control the mosques.

We are witnessing now, as in Germany in 1939 and in Gaza in 2006, the reality that one election does not a democracy make.

EMET has stressed throughout this year that democracy entails the chance to have second, third and fourth elections, and that the institutions that allow a person to dissent without fear of one’s very life must already be in place: a free and independent press, a free and independent judiciary, freedom of assemblage. And, as Natan Sharansky has written: the freedom to scream from the middle of the public square and criticize those in power, in the government.

So, where are we today? Just looking at this week’s headlines, I’d like to present an overview of a few hot spots in this troubled region.

Syria

More than 6,200 people have been murdered by the brutal boot of the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad within the last several months of the uprising, including  hundreds of children. Hundreds, if not thousands, more have disappeared from the streets, perhaps languishing in jail, where God only knows the abuse to which they have been subjected, if they even remain alive.  The Syrian government claims that the uprising was orchestrated by “foreign terrorists.” As I write these words, residents of the besieged city of Homs cry out for the world to come and witness the endless bloodshed, which has killed more than 100 residents over the past few days. Videos posted throughout the Internet show blood-soaked streets in that city, with bodies lying about. Homs has been cut off from food and electricity, and, in a scene reminiscent of the film Schindler’s List, the regime’s soldiers take pot shots at people leaving their homes  during certain hours. The brave dissidents there, despite, the level of brutality that this oppressive regime has stooped to, have not given up.

EMET has been urging strong American sanctions against Syria, as well as covert or overt help for the dissidents. Replacing the Assad government has got to be better than the current situation. Furthermore, Syria is part of the Iranian constellation, and anything that weakens Teheran’s sphere of influence is a good thing.

Egypt

The results of the long-awaited second of the three rounds of parliamentary elections are finally in, and no surprises occurred. As EMET predicted, the Islamist parties received more than 75 percent of the vote. The highest percentage of votes went to Salafist parties that are even more extreme than the horrific Muslim Brotherhood. This all but paves the way for a radical Sharia state to Israel’s immediate west and the continuation of an open smuggling corridor of goods, weapons and fighters into Hamas-controlled Gaza. The eight million Coptic Christians in Egypt have long endured persecution, but since Mubarak’s overthrow, this minority has endured massacres and unspeakable abuses.

The Egyptian military that has maintained control since the ouster of Mubarak has  been exceedingly brutal, particularly in abusing female protestors, who, when arrested, have endured humiliating and painful “virginity tests,” which the army claims protects the women from the charge of prostitution.  This week, millions of viewers were stunned by the YouTube video of a female demonstrator savagely beaten by the Egyptian military; her abaya (cloak) was opened, with her bare midriff and her blue bra appearing as an Egyptian officer prepared to stomp on her with his boot.

I am certain that when the Tahrir Square demonstrations began earlier this year, none of the organizers thought it would have come to this.

Israel has no assurances that there will not be a radical, Sunni Islamic state along on its border or that Egypt will — despite public pronouncements due to diplomatic and economic factors — uphold the fragile 1979 Camp David peace treaty with Israel. In fact, both of the major Egyptian parties have stated that the treaty has to be reexamined.

Since the Camp David Accords was signed, America has elevated the Egyptian military from a C-, Soviet-equipped force to an A+, American-equipped one. EMET has been alone on Capitol Hill in arguing, ever since the demonstrations began in Tahrir Square last winter, that America should withhold further military aid until the results of the elections are known. The results show that, as predicted, Sharia has swept through the region. EMET calls for an immediate cessation of all military funding and weapon shipments to Egypt.

Palestinian Authority-Hamas

Taking a cue from the success of its Islamist brothers in Egypt, Hamas decided this week to  enter into the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary  elections in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, if you will), which are due to take place in May. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has expressed every confidence in winning the elections.

Beyond that, last Thursday, the Palestinian Liberation Organization — which many world bodies, including the United Nations, feels has the sole legitimacy for representing the Palestinian people — held a historic meeting in Ramallah, where an accord was reached to open up its umbrella group to “activate and reconstruct” it to include organizations that do not currently belong. This paves the way for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to join the PLO.[1]

Just as the Salafists participated in the Egyptian elections not to share power, but to dominate, Hamas is now entering into a relationship with the PLO to dominate it.

I am certain we will soon hear pundits inside the Washington Beltway saying that now is the time for Israel to make dramatic concessions for peace, to buoy Fatah’s chances of winning in the upcoming elections.

Yes, you heard it right: Israel will be asked to sacrifice her own strategic depth, once again, in this tumultuous and rapidly growing Islamist region of the world, for the sake of internal Palestinian politics and to inject a transfusion into the moribund peace process.

Or, borrowing a page from Yasser Arafat’s and Abu Mazen’s playbook, it will not take long before we begin to hear the talking heads telling us that there is a “moderate faction” to talk to in Hamas.

Do not be fooled: Osama Hamdan, Hamas’s newly dubbed foreign minister, told the Al-Quds newspaper: “Anyone who thinks Hamas has changed its positions and now accepts the PLO’s defeating political position is living under an illusion. Hamas cannot make a mistake that proved to be a failed one. … By moving toward reconciliation with the PLO, we are reconstructing the organization and reconsidering its failed program.” So as not to be misunderstood, he added: “Hamas’s goal is first and foremost the liberation of our lands from the sea to the river and achieving the right of return.”[2]

Or, as Khalil Abu Leila, another Hamas official, stated, “Hamas will not join the PLO political program. Rather, a major task of the Hamas provisional leadership will be to bring the PLO back to its correct path and the goal for which it was established, mainly, the liberation of Palestine.”[3]

Iran

Against this rising tide of Sunni Islamist fundamentalism throughout the region is the Iranian quest for hegemony and for the reclamation of the triumph of Shiite Islamism.

One particularly horrifying way Iran has engaged in this quest is through its pursuit of nuclear weapons. None of us was surprised when the International Atomic Energy Agency reported last November that Iran now has the ability to create nuclear weapons, having mastered the “critical steps involved in the process.” The report further stated that a Soviet scientist tutored the Iranians about detonation reactions, and that North Korean and Pakistani nuclear scientists were also available to lend their knowledge and expertise.

This of course totally refutes the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, which stated:

We judge with high confidence that in the fall of 2003, Tehran  halted its nuclear weapons program. …We judge with high confidence that  the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguars Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing the international scrutiny and pressure  resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

First lesson: Do not trust any accord signed by a despot or a dictator. One barometer of whether or not a ruler means what he says is how he treats his minorities and his dissidents. It is all directly related to an underlying premise of one’s respect for the dignity of human life and the basic rights of man.

Speaking of dissidents: There was a moment of opportunity, when the brave, young Iranian dissidents were out on the streets, en masse, and the leader of the free world, President Obama, said nothing in their support for a full two weeks, while skulls were being crushed and people were disappearing from the streets. Most people in Iran are under 30. They were born after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, despise the theocracy and are feeling suffocated by its choking stranglehold.

The Iranian prisons are bursting with such protestors.  Taking a page from the Soviet Jewry movement, in which names like Natan Sharansky became household words in the West, we should all know the names of people like 26-year-old Hossein Ronaghi Malkhi, a blogger and human rights activist, who was arrested for fomenting the demonstrations in June 2009. He was sent to the notorious Evin Prison, where he has beaten and tortured and needs a kidney operation.

The Iranian nuclear program has led to a more rigorous pursuit of nuclear weaponry within such Sunni Arab states as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They, of course, have the petro dollars to buy scientists, technology and nuclear material.

All of this adds to the destabilization of an already volatile and unpredictable region, where human rights abuses are on the rise along with Sunni and Shiite Islamism.

Lessons for 2012

This has been a traumatic year for the entire region. It is a time of chaos and instability, in which we should have learned:

1) The United States has only one stable, reliable ally in the Middle East — the State of Israel, which .should be strengthened against the rising tide of radical Islamism. It is also time we learned that, whether we like it or not, radical Islamists perceive of America as the Great Satan.  As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once warned, our projection of our values onto the world simply does not work. We must understand the sociological and tribal structure of the Middle East before we enter into any further agreements with governments of the region.

2) Appeasement and groveling to despots and dictators have not enhanced America’s standing in the region, but has weakened it immensely.  America’s outstretched hand for dialogue has not  prevented Iran from reaching its goal of nuclear capability and regional dominance one iota.

3) The United States appears like a sleeping giant that unconditionally dishes out our precious and rapidly dwindling resources — foreign aid — to unfriendly, unreliable parties in the region without any leverage, making us appear even more  embarrassingly pathetic there. This applies to our aid to Pakistan and certainly has been the case with the Palestinians. Ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, we ostensibly conditioned our aid to the Palestinians on very basic principles, all of which they have continuously ignored. Rather than doing away with U.S. aid to the Palestinians, we have done away with enforcing the funds’ conditionality.

4) This is the time to finally stop our military aid and weapons shipments to Egypt, or we will be forced to confront these American-made armaments’ possibly use in attacking our one ally in the region, the State of Israel, or American soldiers and sailors on the Sixth Fleet.

5) Now, in the midst of all this regional chaos, is precisely not the time to pressure Israel to take more risks for peace. The growing radical Islamism is a time for stability, at least in one tiny sliver of the region, the State of Israel.

6) We should be helping and propping up the voices of the dissidents within Iran, and those within the Iranian constellation of power, such as the brave, besieged Syrian dissidents. Not to do so will strengthen the menacing hand of Iran and is nothing short of immoral.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid.

December 25, 2011

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964, is touted — by the UN and a number of nations — as the ”sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  As such, it is officially the organization responsible for negotiating on behalf of Palestinian Arabs: It was the PLO that negotiated with Israel with regard to the Oslo Accords.     While 10 groups (e.g., Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - PFLP) are members, it has long been heavily dominated by Fatah: Major figures in Fatah — notably Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas — have played key roles in the running of the PLO.    That situation may be changing shortly, and I see considerable significance in this possibility. On Thursday Palestinian Arab leaders representing several groups announced an “historic” agreement to “activate and reconstruct” the PLO so that organizations that do not currently belong might join.  Most significantly, this would open the door to membership by Hamas, as well as the “up-and-coming” Islamic Jihad.

As I have watched a continually shifting situation with regard to Fatah-Hamas relations and the possibility of a “reunification” agreement, it has seemed to me that one of the major prizes that Hamas was seeking was membership in the PLO.  More important than a joint government and all the rest — most of which probably will never materialize.   This is a shift from its earlier position, which was one of shunning PLO membership — a shift from having no part of this “official” organization to seeking to play from within.  And make no mistake about it: The ultimate goal of Hamas is not to belong to the PLO, but to dominate and control it.  Hamas speaking for and acting on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people.

The meeting on Thursday (ed. note: December, 22nd, 2011) took place in Cairo, with Abbas, Palestinian National Council speaker Salim Zanoun (also Fatah) and Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal in attendance. It was agreed that a committee, headed by Zanoun, would meet — in Amman, starting January 15 — to discuss ways to incorporate groups such as Hamas into the PLO.    According to Khaled Abu Toameh and Herb Keinon, writing in Friday’s JPost (ed note: December 23rd, 2011), this will pave the way for a new provisional PLO leadership that would include Hamas and other radical groups for the first time. Ultimately, this would lead to incorporation into various PLO institutions — most significantly, the Palestinian National Council, the PLO’s parliament in exile.   The Council elects the Executive Committee, the PLO’s main decision-making body.  So we can see where this may be going.

With statements by Hamas leaders over the weekend, we can see this even more clearly:   Osama Hamdan – referred to as Hamas’s “foreign minister” – in response to claims that Hamas was moderating, felt the need to clarify what is happening.  He was quoted by the Quds Press news agency:   “Anyone who thinks Hamas has changed its positions and now accepts the PLO’s defeating political program is living in an illusion.  Hamas cannot make the mistake of joining a process that has proved to be a failed one…”   By moving towards “reconciliation,” Hamas is aimed at “reconstructing the organization and reconsidering its political program.”  Hamas’s goal is “first and foremost the liberation of our lands from the sea to the river and achieving the right of return.”

Another Hamas leader, Khalil Abu Leila, cited by Abu Toameh, said that Hamas would not join the PLO’s current political program.  Rather, a major task of the provisional leadership will be to “bring the PLO back to its correct path and the goal for which it was established, namely the liberation of Palestine.”

And it’s here that I want to stop for a moment and provide important background and context.    The PLO was founded in 1964 at a summit of the Arab League, which committed to being more active in “liberating” Palestine.  A pivotal role was played by Egypt’s president Gamal Abdul Nasser, and indeed the first chair of the PLO was a Nasser protégé, Ahmad Shuqeiri.  The first meeting was held at the Intercontinental Hotel in eastern Jerusalem (then under Jordanian control) and meetings continued to be held in eastern Jerusalem until 1967.   The overriding factor of significance here is that the founding of the PLO took place BEFORE 1967, before Israel controlled Judea, Samaria and Gaza.  What it sought to “liberate” was Israel INSIDE the Green Line.  This puts the lie to all the hoopla regarding Oslo, a “two-state solution,” a Palestinian state with the ’67 line as border, etc. etc.    The original Palestinian National Charter clearly specified that there were no designs on the areas within “Palestine” that were controlled by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (Judea and Samaria).  All that was to be “liberated” was what Israel then controlled.  This Charter was amended once, in 1968, after Israel acquired control of the land from the river to the sea.  That is, what the PLO sought to “liberate” was adjusted according to what Israel controlled — the ultimate goal being the eradication of Israel.

The complications arose with Oslo, in 1993.  As part of understandings at that time, Arafat was committed to amending the PLO Charter, removing or changing those sections that called for Israel’s destruction.  But all Arafat did was declare the intention of making required changes.  Those changes were never actually made.  A committee to explore the matter was appointed, following a vote by the PLO National Council, but the committee never met.   What followed was what I have dubbed “as if” diplomacy: nations conducting themselves “as if” something has happened, when it fact it has not. Among those celebrating the changes was then-President Bill Clinton.

The sense of the Charter, and the need for elimination or amendment of certain clauses, becomes clear from the following examples:

“Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.” (Article 2)

“The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country.” (Article 3)

“…[The Palestinian] must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.” {Article 7]

“Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it…” [Article 9]

“The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland…” [Article 19]:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood…”  [Article 20]

“The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations..” [Article 23]

But these clauses stand to this day.  What they represent is not significantly different from what Hamas espouses.

The entire charter can be seen at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

One would have to ask how it was that the Western world, over a period of almost two decades, could have anticipated a “peace process” resulting in a “two-state solution” if one of the parties to that process embraced the above principles so thoroughly inimical to true peace.   The answer, of course, is that the Western leaders (including many Israeli leaders) were imitating the three monkeys who hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

They allowed themselves to be convinced that these were not the PLO principles any longer and that its leaders were prepared to seek peace.   But since, indeed, the PLO has retained these principles, while feigning the embrace of peace in English for Western consumption, only disaster has ensued.

Now along comes a more forthright Hamas, determined to call the PLO back to honestly embracing what it was supposed to stand for in the first place.  No more subterfuge or mixed messages.   Of course, when it comes to interactions between Fatah and Hamas, everything is tentative.  And so it remains to be seen what role Hamas does ultimately play in the PLO.  But I’m not at all certain that this transition would be a bad thing: it would eliminate a very pernicious pretense and push Western leaders towards having to face the reality of the situation.   Then — as Minister of Security Affairs Moshe Ya’alon said this evening (ed. note: December 25th, 2011), when I queried him about this at a meeting — it would be important to make certain that Western nations continued to recognize the Quartet requirements.

Mr. Panetta said that he “believes security is dependent on a strong military, but also on diplomacy,” and he added, “Unfortunately over the past year we have seen Israel’s isolation from the traditional security partners in the region grow and the pursuit of a comprehensive Middle East peace has effectively been put on hold.”

The Secretary of Defense then demanded that Israel reach out, not only to the Palestinians, but to Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, her past traditional allies.

First of all, as has been documented in an article by Khaled Abu Toameh in this Monday’s Jerusalem Post, chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat has rejected the demand by the Quartet (the United States, Russia, the European Union, the UN), for direct negotiations between the two parties.

The Palestinians refuse to sit down and talk to the Israelis, man to man. Why? Because they refuse to recognize the nation for what it is: a Jewish state. How do Obama and Panetta expect the two nations to live together in a peace that will endure for generations if the Palestinians cannot even accept Israel for what it is, and call it by its name?

What’s more:  PA negotiator Saeb Erekat expressed “surprise” that State Department’s Mark Toner has even asked the Palestinians to sit down in direct face-to-face negotiations with Israel.

In his worldview, the United States is out of line to ask anything of the Palestinians. He believes it is the Palestinians alone who have the right and power to do the demanding and set the rules.

The answer lies in the history of the way this administration has coddled the Palestinians since assuming office and has not acted as an “honest broker” or a referee between the sides, but as a consistent coach and cheerleader for the Palestinians.

As soon as Obama entered office, he quickly demanded that the Netanyahu government stop construction anywhere in the territories that Israel captured in its defensive war of 1967 and retained  when attacked again in the war of 1973. Astonishingly, his demand included any building in the city of Jerusalem, the eternal capitol of the Jewish people. The actions of the President and Secretary of State gave the Palestinian Authority a new feeling of invulnerability and entitlement.  This was brought out in a now-famous interview that Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post had with P.A. Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas  shortly after President Obama assumed office.  Abbas claimed all he had to do to achieve his Palestinian state was to wait for Obama to deliver the state and the land from the Israelis.

Now, Abbas has developed such a heightened sense of entitlement that he said he will not sit down with the Israelis unless first, they deliver on everything on the Palestinian wish list, including  a return to the 1949 armistice lines, which  UN representative Abba Eban of the Labor Party had realistically dubbed “the Auschwitz” lines because they were simply indefensible.  The 1948 lines would put every single Israeli city within easy range of an Arab Kassam missile. The Arab town of Kalkilya could easily launch Kassam rockets at Ben Gurion Airport. Just one Kassam rocket launched at the airport and the entire country would be closed off from air traffic.

Right of return of all Palestinian refugees.

As far as the right of return is concerned, the Palestinians have a very creative, ingenious way of accounting. The demographic rosters have been infinitely inflated. Every time a woman in Ramallah has an appendix attack, she is listed as giving birth to a child. Any unlimited Palestinian “right of return” would be a demographic nightmare that would signal the end of Israel as both a Jewish state and a democracy.

This growing listing of Palestinian hubris runs contrary to the iron-clad assurances that American  President George W. Bush gave to the government of Israel.

In a letter dated  April 14, 2004, given to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and signed by President George W. Bush, he stated: “As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

What happened to these American iron-clad assurances to the Jewish state when President Obama assumed office? Do American guarantees last only until the administration that gave them is out of office? And what does that make of American credibility and trustworthiness?

Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense seems to feel that it is Israel’s responsibility to make peace with Turkey, whose Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogen refuses diplomatic ties with Israel and has called Israel  the “military threat to the region.” Or with Egypt, who just voted in an “Islamist” Parliament last week. Islamists who have historically viewed both Israel and America as adversaries. And Jordan, whose king finds himself at high risk as Islamist fever and revolution overturn both monarchies and dictators across the Middle East.

It is interesting how a great deal of attention has been given recently to the subject of bullying. We  have suddenly noticed that there are kids in the classroom and on the playground who for one reason or another are singled out as vulnerable and everyone piles on them. In the Middle Eastern playground, Israel is cast as the vulnerable child, because she is different and because she is Jewish. The Arab world has never accepted her existence; not in 1929, not in 1948, not in 1967 and not in 2011. And no one in the neighborhood wants her on their team.

We have grown to expect that sort of bullying from the Arab world. It is sad and tragic, however, to see it come from spokesman of the United States.

That is because the kids in this neighborhood play with toys that are all too lethal, and when they sense that the United States is pulling away from Israel, they feel emboldened — and the neighborhood becomes that much more dangerous.

Firstly, the commander killed was Major Gen. Hasan Moghaddam, a senior IRGC commander with responsibility for the “Self-Sufficiency” unit of the Iranian’s missile forces, in particular surface-to-surface missiles. Moghaddam is said to have been a favorite of Ayatollah Khamenei, and it strains credibility that he was engaged in such a routine activity as personally supervising the transfer of munitions when the “accident” occurred. Secondly, according to an Israeli news report, Moghaddam had close ties to assassinated Hamas arms provider Mahmoud Al–Mabhouh, which suggests that, if Moghaddam was killed by the Mossad, they may be working their way up al-Mabhouh’s list of associates, possibly using intelligence gained from the terrorist’s interrogation before he was killed.

Western intelligence sources are confident that the explosion was indeed a successful Mossad operation.  The assassination of Moghaddam is just the latest in a series of shadowy attacks against Iran, specifically related to the missile program. Explosions have also killed Iranian missile technicians, an IRGC base where Shabab missiles are stored, and convoys transporting missiles, probably intended for Hezbollah.  Numerous nuclear scientists have been assassinated in the past two years, including Russian nuclear scientists killed in a plane crash in June.

Coincidentally, the Iranians also admitted Sunday that they had suffered from another computer virus attack, called “Duqu”, which is closely related to the previous Stuxnet virus. The Iranians claim to have “neutralized” Duqu before any substantial damage was done, but considering that Duqu is primarily designed as an information-gathering device, rather than a weapon of sabotage, it seems likely that whoever injected the code into the Iranian computer systems probably already got what they came for. “Duqu” would represent the third such virus attack against Iranian systems, including Stuxnet, and another virus program which the Iranians called “Stars”.

Lest one think that Iran is some hapless victim, the Islamic Republic is active in the shadows as well. Former CIA spy Reza Kahili’s Iranian sources tell him that the operation which included the assassination plot against a Saudi Ambassador on U.S. soil, and Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington and Buenos Aires, were hatched at the direction of Iran’s supreme leader. Bahraini intelligence claims they successfully intercepted a plot to bomb Saudi targets in the small Gulf country, and destroy the causeway which connects Bahrain to Saudi Arabia. On November 3^rd, an Afghan suicide bomb team targeted a construction company in Herat, Afghanistan. The likely commander of that operation, Samihullah, has close ties to Iran’s Al-Qods force.  Iranian support for the Taliban in Afghanistan has been publicly known for some time, and is a great concern for U.S. forces. Closer to home, Iran is heavily active in Latin America, expanding Al Qods and Hezbollah forces, ties with anti-American regimes, and even drug cartels. The Iranians have also been active in promoting and cheerleading the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, in the exact same manner they did the Arab Spring protests. Iran routinely host U.S. based Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR, MPAC and MSA, on their Press TV propaganda outlet.

When we consider the on-going covert conflict with Iran, it becomes readily apparent that the two sides have vastly different objectives. The West (including Israel and the United States, and other western allies who may be assisting in intelligence activities) are almost wholly focused on the nuclear weapons issue. Targets are those actively involved in the Iranian nuclear weapons project, or increasingly, involved in the delivery systems for such weapons, meaning surface to surface missiles.  The operations against Iran are largely technocratic. The elimination of particular scientists or arms suppliers, target specific reactors and centrifuges.  Success or failure can best be measured by Iran’s progress towards nuclear weaponization.

Are we succeeding? The recently released IAEA report contained intelligence information from ten countries, all leading to the conclusion that Iran has constructed and “cold tested” all the components of a nuclear warhead, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that the up to date intelligence places Iran further ahead than would be suggested by the already alarming U.N report. And despite the skill and ingenuity displayed by Western Intelligence in attempting to disrupt Iranian nuclear efforts, such efforts are likely doomed to failure. As U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen stated in February of last year, even an overt military strike would not stop the Iranian nuclear program for good.

By contrast, the Iranian objectives appear to be primarily about spreading influence and ideology, both regional, vis-à-vis its chief competitor Saudi Arabia, but also globally, seeking to hamper U.S. interests. The Iranians are clearly willing to engage in any theater, including the U.S. capital itself. The Iranians are a revolutionary opponent, focused on the spread of their Islamic revolution. They firmly believe that any action which upsets the status quo, and which creates chaos or dissension is to their advantage. As Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, “… [Iran] builds something you can’t respond to: Ethics, decency, monotheism and justice.” In other words, Ahmadinejad views the Iranian ideology as its most powerful weapon.

Viewed in these terms, can the Iranians then said to be achieving their objectives? One would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. The new Islamist Prime Minister of Tunisia has called for a new Caliphate and hosts Hamas. The head of Tunisia’s new ruling Islamist party, Rachid Ghannouchi has publicly declared that he “quite likes” Hamas’ rocket attacks against Israel. Even a leading Saudi thinker is calling the recent upheaval in the Middle East, “The Muslim Brotherhood Spring”. Prior to Mubark’s overthrow in Egypt, Egyptian intelligence warned the U.S. of Iran’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in June of last year, according to a Wikileaked State Department cable. In the UAE, the Crown Prince warned of the risk of elections in any country with an organized Muslim Brotherhood presence.” Despite this the U.S. says it would be “satisfied,” with a Muslim Brotherhood victory, and trains Islamists in electioneering techniques.

Arguably then, Iran is achieving its broad objectives, even as particular operations, such as the Saudi Ambassador assassination fail and their hand is publicly revealed. By contrast, the efforts by the Western covert agencies have been operationally successful, and their fingerprints largely wiped cleaned. But despite numerous operational successes, the Iranians continue on undaunted, inching ever closer towards a nuclear weapons arsenal.

The West must adopt a far broader effort if it hopes to best Iran in this shadowy conflict. While operations delaying or hampering the Iranian nuclear project are positive, (as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said of the Iranian explosion, “May there be more like it”) but these acts are merely to buy time, they do not represent an actual strategy against Iran’s global ambitions. Nuclear weapons play a role in these ambitions, but they are not a goal in and of themselves. The goal is worldwide Islamic revolution with Iran as its leader.

The West must set as its own goal, not merely the prevention of Iran’s nuclear weapons, but the overthrow of the regime, and the defeat of Islamism as an ideological force. To do that will require a willingness to combat Iran in every sphere of endeavor, and on every continent where they are operational. The U.S. must immediately cease cooperating with Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist parties, and equip liberals and democrats with the tools and training necessary to be successful against their Islamist opposition. This idea that the U.S. must support all parties equally in the interest of a free and fair election is deeply misguided.  Refusing to intervene in our own interest means only that Iran’s preferred parties and Islamist fellow-travelers are allowed to dominate. We should instead act, as we did when CIA operations affected the outcome of the Italian election of 1948, keeping the Communists from power in Italy. Even with the opportunity of the Iranian protests in 2009 squandered by an Obama Administration at pains to keep open negotiations with Iran, we can still work within Iran with opposition parties and dissidents to undermine and eventually defeat the regime.

Until such a strategy is devised and executed, we will find that the west can succeed at all of its covert operations, and yet still lose the shadow war.

Over the past year, events in the Middle East, including most notably the Arab Spring, have dramatically altered the security landscape facing the nation of Israel, as well as the national security interests of the United States in the region.  While each of these events have been well cataloged separately and in greater detail elsewhere, it is useful to consider all of these disparate threats together, when thinking about the security and stability of the Middle East. The five categories we have highlighted in this document, “Strategic Threats to Israel and Mideast Stability” represent both relatively new threats such as those posed by Turkey’s Islamization and increasing anti-Israel stance, as well as traditional opposition which is evolving and enhancing its capability including Hezbollah’s successful dominance of the Lebanese government. As we continue to examine the strategic threats to Israel and the greater stability of the Middle East, as EMET does weekly with its articles and analysis, we must also keep in mind that no strategic threat exists in isolation, but instead each acts to multiply the others, leading to an increasingly degenerating security situation for the Jewish state, as well as its ally the United States, and weakening of the overall stability of the region.

Iran – Iran remains the most dangerous actor in the Middle East, more dangerous than Al Qaeda, according to a U.S. official.

• Support for Terror- Iran continues to be recognized as the foremost state sponsor of international terrorism in the world, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. Additionally Iran’s elite terrorist unit the Al-Quds force has expanded its capabilities and become increasingly aggressive, including plans to target the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C, and the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in addition to Saudi targets.

• Arming Terrorists- Iran continues to use air, land, and sea transport in an effort to arm Palestinian terrorists for attacks against Israel. Israel has repeatedly interdicted arms shipments from Iran including the MV Francop, and Victoria. Additionally Iran continues to smuggle arms overland via the Sudan. Since 2008, Iran has successfully upgraded the Palestinian’s missile capability from homemade Qassem to 122mm Iranian and Chinese manufactured Grad Rockets with a 40km range.

• Nuclear Weapons- Iran has continued to make progress with its nuclear weapons program, according to most western intelligence agencies as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which has issued a new report on the Iranian advancements which claims Iran is “on the threshold” of nuclear capability. The IAEA report also claims that Iran has tested all the component parts for a nuclear warhead, and an analysis of the Iranian warhead device in six different categories suggests it is unlikely or impossible for it to be designed for anything but a nuclear weapon.  Former CIA Spy Reza Kahili, who was a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, claims that Iran already possess  a small number of nuclear weapons acquired on the black market.  Iran has threatened to invade Israel and “battle Zionists in the streets of Tel Aviv” if its nuclear program is attacked.

• Syrian Crackdown- Iran is said to be deeply involved with assisting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s crackdown of his people, according to European , American, and Israeli sources. Iran has publicly remained supportive of their Syrian ally, despite earlier criticism. Iran has issued threats against Western intervention in Syria.

Hezbollah- Hezbollah continues to represent a substantial strategic threat to Israel’s national security both along Israel’s northern border, and world-wide:

• Missile threat- According to Hezbollah’s internal discussions and public threats, they are prepared to launch as many as ten thousand missiles into Israel against military and strategic targets such as airfields, as well as against civilian targets, including major population centers such as Tel Aviv.

• The Northern Border- Hezbollah has, according to Brig. Gen (ret.) Shimon Shapira, developed with Iranian assistance, an operational plan for the invasion of the Galilee, to commence following its planned missile barrage at the outset of conflict. The plan involves a joint invasion by five Hezbollah brigades, targeting Nahariya, Shlomi, and Carmiel. While Hezbollah’s ability to actually carry out such an operation may be questionable, it represents a very aggressive posture and the increasing confidence of the terror group.

• Dominance of Lebanon- Through a series of political, and military crises engineered by Hezbollah, the terror group and its allies now heavily dominate the Lebanese government, including the position of Prime Minister. With the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) sniper attack against Israeli troops which occurred in August of last year, and considering bellicose statements made by Lebanese officials there is every reason to suspect that if Israel were required to take military action against Hezbollah, they could expect the LAF to side with Hezbollah against Israel. This reality seems to have been recognized by the Obama Administration which, while it had been reluctant to do so, has quietly ended aid to Lebanon because of the ascension of a Hezbollah-controlled Cabinet.

• World-wide terrorism- Hezbollah remains a major international terrorist organization with operations that stretch far beyond Lebanon, to West Africa, South America, and even Mexico. Hezbollah’s expansion is piggybacked on Iran’s expanded alliances in the Western hemisphere. Hezbollah continues to seek to conduct major terror attacks against Israeli interests with a stated desire to retaliate for the assassination of Hezbollah archterrorist Imad Mughniyeh, which the organization blames on Israel, although it is unclear who actually conducted the operation.

Syria- Syria is facing grave protests from a wide-spread domestic opposition, which may make Assad feel cornered and even more dangerous.

• Assad’s Instability- The Assad regime in Syria has been wracked by several domestic protests which began during the so-called “Arab Spring.” Assad has utilized a mixture of promises of reform along with ruthless security crackdowns to try and maintain control, but protests have now gone on since mid-March, despite the more than three-thousand  who have been killed by Syrian security forces.  This instability has resulted in Assad seeking to divert attention towards Israel. This was most notable during the June, 2011 attempt by Palestinians, sponsored by Syria, to violently storm the Israeli border, which resulted in 23 protestors killed. If Western pressure on Syria continues, Assad may again seek to use similar attacks on Israel as a lever to release tension and to attempt to distract from Syria’s brutal crackdown and abuses.

• Retaliation against Israel- Deeply concerned about the possibility of NATO intervention in Syria comparable to its intervention in Libya, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad has threatened to bombard Israel with its strategic rocket forces, among the largest in the Middle East, if NATO should attack Syria.

• Support for Hamas and Hezbollah- Syria remains a major supporter of Hezbollah, as well as all major Palestinian terrorist groups, including especially Hamas. This has continued despite strain between Hamas and Syria over Syria’s crackdown on the opposition, which includes the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is Hamas’ parent organization.
• WMD program- Syria is known to have been pursuing nuclear weapons at two sites, one the Al-Kibar Reactor, was targeted by Israeli in an airstrike in September of 2007. The Al-Kibar reactor is reported to have been a direct copy of a North Korean design.  The second site, which now appears inactive, is believed to have been based on a Pakistani design from nuclear proliferator A.Q Khan.  Additionally Syria is believed by some to have the most advanced chemical and biological weapons program in the Arab world.

Gaza- Palestinian terrorists in Gaza continue to represent a threat to Israel, particularly through their ability to launch missiles and other artillery weapons into the Israeli heartland.

• Hamas and the Missile Threat- According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hamas has doubled its rocket arsenal, and expanded its anti-tank capability. Hamas now possess thousands of rockets, including Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets with a 75km range which could strike Tel Aviv. Additionally, Hamas’ weapons manufacturing and weapon smuggling capabilities are believed to be much improved compared to their abilities prior to Operation Cast Lead in 2009. Politically vis-à-vis other Palestinian factions, the release of  Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit has strengthened Hamas, according to both Hamas, and some Israeli assessments.

• Salafist/Al Qaeda Activity- Salafist-Jihadist groups, some with links to Al Qaeda have continued to expand in Gaza. These groups have an occasionally cooperative and occasionally competitive relationship with the ruling Hamas. Attacks have included the terrorist raid near Eilat which killed eight in August of this year, as well as rocket attacks.

• Blockade-Running- The Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is a necessary and legal tactic in its conflict with Hamas, but has been repeatedly challenged by a variety of radical-left and Islamist organizations, most notably the Turkish IHH, an organization with ties to terrorism, and which initiated violence against IDF commandos during the Mavi Marmara incident. Efforts to breach the land crossing at Rafah, are also common occurrences, orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Another organization prominent in efforts to break the blockade via land is Viva Palestinia, headed by British Politician George Galloway, who has appeared on video providing money and vehicles to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, and which represents well the alliance of Islamist and radical leftist organizations aligned to undermine the legal blockade.

Egypt and North Africa- Following the so-called Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist groups are on the rise throughout the region.

• Terrorism in the Sinai- Following the collapse of the Mubarak government, reports surfaced of increased terrorist activity in the Sinai Penisula, including up to 400 Al Qaeda-linked terrorists. Terrorists have repeatedly targeted the Egypt-Israeli gas line, and the threat from terrorist incursion has forced the IDF to reinforce the southern border, following the attack by Al Qaeda-linked militants from Gaza who infiltrated into Israel via the Sinai border.

• Opening of border with Gaza- The interim Egyptian government agreed in April of this year to open the Rafah border crossing into Gaza, despite this some pro-Palestinian organizations continue to express discontent with the limited border crossing restrictions which Egypt has maintained.

• Weapons Smuggling- Following the fall of the Egyptian and Libyan governments, there has been a substantial increase in the flow of arms through Egypt. Many of those weapons are headed to Gaza, including Grad Rockets, advanced anti-tank weapons, and Russian SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles.

• Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood- The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is widely believed to be the greatest beneficiary of the fall of Egyptian President Mubarak, as upcoming Parliamentary elections loom. Despite having attempted to reassure Egyptian liberals and the West with claims that it would not run for a majority of the seats, nor run a presidential candidate, the MB has broken both promises. They are expected to win at least a plurality of seats and therefore dominate the government, as well as to control the drawing up of the new constitution. The MB has made an electoral alliance with other Egyptian Islamist groups, including the State-department-listed Foreign Terrorist Organization Gamaa Al-Islamiya. Despite this the MB continues to receive State Department funded election training, and a U.S. official responsible for “Middle East Transitions” has said the U.S. would be “satisfied” with a Muslim Brotherhood election win. Muslim Brotherhood leaders have expressed thanks to Iran’s Supreme Leader, demanded the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador, stated a desire for preparations for war against Israel, and said they intend to impose Islamic law on Egypt in the event of electoral victory.

• Annulment of Peace with Israel- In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood’s call for war preparations against Israel, other Egyptian politicians have competed to appear the most anti-Israeli. Egyptian Presidential candidate Amr Moussa, Liberal opposition figure Ayman Nour, and Foreign Minister Nabil Al-Arabi have all spoken out against the Camp David Peace Accord. Long-time Western favorite and former IAEA chief Mohammad ElBaradei declared that Egypt should go to war against Israel if Gaza were attacked. More than 50% of the Egyptian public said they want an end to the peace treaty in an poll taken in April of this year.

Changes to Turkey- Once a close ally of Israel in the region, the formerly secular state is increasingly competing for leadership of the Muslim world by showing its anti-Israel credentials.

• Islamization of Turkey- The Islamist Turkish AKP party has established control of the Turkish Intelligence agency (MIT), appointing a close friend of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to the position of intelligence chief. The AKP has also successfully orchestrated what some have called a frame up against secular members of the military. The entire Turkish military brass has since resigned in protest. There are allegations that Turkey may have taken part in arming Hezbollah. According to State department documents released by Wikileaks, the Islamist Gulen movement is close to the ruling AKP and may dominate the Turkish police force.
• Conflict for Islamic supremacy in Middle East- Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has made no secret of his conflict with Israel. The IHH, the Islamist group which initiated the violent confrontation on the Mavi Marmara, has close ties to Erdogan’s ruling AKP.  Turkey has also taken a very visible role in promoting the Arab Spring. Turkey’s support for Syrian protestors has brought the two countries closer to military conflict.

• Challenging Israel- As Turkey competes with Iran (the other non-Arab Muslim country in the region) for dominance, one of the fields of competition is in anti-Israel activity. Turkey has turned to the Israel-Arab conflict as a means to boost its credibility among its Arab neighbors. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has used the Flotilla incident to boost Turkey’s status in the Muslim world by showing a willingness to confront Israel, by demanding U.N Action, and Israeli apologies. Israel’s refusal to apologize provided an excuse for Turkey to cut military ties with Israel. Additionally, renewed Israeli ties with Greece, and Cyprus, two nations with their own strategic concerns about Turkey, and the discovery of natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean have increased the possibility of Turkish-Israeli conflict.

—Eliot Cohen,  Renowned Author, Scholar and Professor at the SAIS school at John Hopkins.

Hatred. Sheer, unadulterated, potent hatred.  It is back again, in full force, and it is directed against my people in an alarming and accelerated rate.  Whenever I rise in the morning and open up the morning papers, I grow sick with fear.

I see it crossing over into all spheres of society, in all corners of the globe. These are just a few highlights, (or should I say “lowlights”), that  have occurred this week, where  it  has left its malodorous  trail:

It is coming out of the gentrified classes in the Academy, such as out of the unrestrained mouth of Julia Pino, a professor at Kent State University in Ohio. Mr. Pino,  interrupted a forum in which  a member of Israel’s foreign ministry,  Ishmael Khaldi,  former Deputy Consul General at the Israeli Consulate in San Francisco, who was speaking about his book, “A Sheppard’s Journey”, which he describes as “One man’s story of Israel’s culture, society and politics from the perspective of a Bedouin minority in a Jewish state”, when  Professor Pino  simply could not stand it any longer and had to cry out “Death to Israel”.

What is as disturbing is that the  Kent State  President Lester Lefton simply cannot decide whether or not that  outcry  constitutes protected speech and whether or not he should discipline Professor Pino.

I ask you:  Israel is the state of the Jews, so that is, in effect saying, “Death to Jews”. Would it be possible to love the people of Israel and cry out for its death? Is it  an acceptable  expression of free speech to shout out in a forum death to another minority group, such as “Death to Blacks?”

A few years ago, I was part of  a United States Commission of Civil Rights Panel which helped the commissioners deem Jewish students  to be “ a protected minority under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act”, which means that Jewish students have the right to feel safe and protected from hostility in their academic environment.

While legal scholars split hairs over whether or not this qualifies as a violation of that,  I pray that G-d protect any Jews  who have the misfortune of  being students in Professor Pino’s classes.

I see it coming out Saudi Arabia, where this week, a Saudi cleric, Alwadah Al-Gurni, promised to pay $100,000 to anyone who would capture an Israeli soldier, (so as to “liberate” other Palestinian terrorists, as in the Gilad Shalit deal). He bemoaned the fact that he could only afford a mere $100K, and wished he could afford to pay one million dollars. Iman Al Gurni did not have to worry for long. The highly philanthropic  Prince Khalid Bin Talal kindly responded to the cleric’s  deepest wish and offered to pay the remaining $900 K, in order to make it a full million.

I see it coming out of Syria, where there has been a four month old uprising against the suffocating regime of Bashir Assad, in which over 3,000 dissidents  have been murdered in the regime’s  brutal crackdown.

As in other parts of the Arab world, Syria in the last several months has experienced an internal struggle for more basic rights, opportunities and freedoms . Israel has no bone in this fight, Yet, as reported in Saturday’s Washington Post, when Bassam Abu Abdullah,  a professor of international affairs  and supporter of President Assad ‘s  Baath party was asked why the United States has not intervened, as it has to overthrow Kaddafi in Libya, he responded, “Attacking Syria means regional war, because we will attack Israel directly. Hizballah will participate. Iran will participate. This is not in the interests of Europe and America.”

I see it crossing over into all segments of our society within America.  There are several popular  You Tube videos going around the internet, where several of the Wall Street protestors and vociferously  blaming  America’s economic woes entirely  on the Jews. Simply Google, “Occupy Wall Street Jews” and  I guarantee that you will be nauseated at what you see.

I see it coming out of that lofty  institution, the United Nations, where  in the  recent UNESCO, (The United Nations Education, Scientific, Cultural and Organization) vote,  the Palestinian Authority has been accepted as a full member state, avoiding the hard work of state building and going outside of  the framework  of the Oslo Accords and every other signed treaty with the Israelis, and making a unilateral move.  Statehood should be earned through the hard work of negotiations and institution building, not craftily manipulated.

Nor  should it be based on  hatred , or upon of replacing  a neighboring nation with one’s own.  For information on that, please see Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’ speech in Gaza, welcoming the terrorists freed in the Shalit deal, calling them “heroes” and “martyrs”  or the textbooks or the maps of Palestine throughout every school that look familiarly like the map of Israel, only with Arabic names substituted for Israeli ones.

Yet, the kind-hearted nations of the UN saw fit to overlook those trivial, little stumbling blocks and voted 107 in favor, 14 against with 52 abstentions.

Interesting . Doesn’t the United Nations Charter call for peaceful relations with one’s neighbors?

On the lighter side, this brings to mind a story about the late Prime Minister Golda Meir. When Prime Minister Meir visited Princeton  University in 1978, at a question and answer session  after she spoke,a student asked her,  “Why was it that UNESCO had rejected Israel and accepted the Palestine Liberation Organization for membership , or associate membership?

Golda replied that that was a question that should be addressed to UNESCO, not to her.

The student responded, “That is, of course, correct, but it would be interesting to know your opinion, why UNESCO made these decisions.”

To which Golda replied, “As you know, UNESCO stands for the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization. We must assume that these gentlemen, after due consideration, came to the conclusion that the PLO has more to contribute to education, science and culture than Israel does.”

At which the audience burst into roars of laughter and laud applause.

I, on the other hand, do not feel much like laughing.  It looks like an ancient, all too familiar  sentiment is back in full swing, rearing its ugly head.

I am spending the holiday of Sukkoth here in Israel, with my beautiful children, Rachel and Jeremy, who have just married, and who have recently made aliyah. My son-in-law, Jeremy, has been serving for the last two years in the Israeli Defense Forces in the Golani brigade. His unit has served on the border of Gaza, and is one that has learned house-to-house combat in case the army has got to go back in there. At any moment he can be called up to go back in.

I look at their shining young faces, bright with potential and brimming with plans for the future. They want to raise their family in this beautiful, young land that they have recently planted their roots into.  They want to be a part of the Jewish dream of the return of our people to the ancient Jewish homeland and to be part of the  proud struggle of our rebirth  and renaissance.

They want to build their life here together, and to cast their lot with the nation of Israel.

And I am terribly frightened for them.

For five and a half years, every day since the  Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, was kidnapped by Hamas along the border, his parents Noam and Aviva have been holding vigil, counting the days, wondering , is he hungry, is he in pain, is he being tortured, is he is alive.

Gilad has become the symbol for every soldier.  This proud country is a total citizen army. Every mother has a son or a daughter that has been, is in, or will one day be, inducted into the IDF. Everyone has an uncle, a brother, a cousin who is serving, or will serve. Gilad’s name has become a household word.

His parents have set up a tent outside of the President’s house, where they have kept vigil for five and a half years.

The Israeli army has always instilled in its soldiers a remarkable sense of cohesion. Every soldier who has ever served in the IDF feels a sense of responsibility for one another in each unit. Captains of units go into combat shouting “Acharei”, (“after me”).

And it is an unbreakable code that no soldier will ever leave his brother alone on the battlefield.

The pain that Noam and Aviva have been going through must be unbearable. They have stated that they  will not believe that their agony is over until Gilad walks through the front door. And everyone in Israel feels their pain.

Last week, Prime Minister Netayahu announced that Gilad is returning home. I can only imagine the emotions that are running through their head. “Is it a dream?” “Can we believe it?” “Is this for real?…Finally, finally ?” Can they even allow themselves to feel the ecstasy of his long awaited return?

And yet…and yet.

In return for this precious young life, Israel has offered to release 1,027 of the most brutal terrorists  and murderers imaginable, all with blood dripping from their hands.

Among them is Ahlam Tamimi, the mastermind behind the horrific suicide bombing of the Sabaro Pizza Restaurant in midtown Jerusalem in 2001, in which 15 civilians were killed and 130 were wounded. Among  those murdered were 8 children, one of them was 15 year old Malki Roth, a talented flutist who was planning to dedicate her life to working with handicapped children.

They, along with so many parents and loved ones of the approximately 2,000 victims of Palestinian terror since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the ensuing reign of terror that it has wrought ,are feeling abandoned and betrayed.

Ahlam Tamimi, when interviewed in prison, was told that she had killed eight children.  This brought a deep smile of satisfaction to her face.

During that interview she said, ” I am not sorry for what I did. “ And: “When I get out of prison, and I refuse to recognize Israel’s existence. Discussions will only take place after Israel recognizes that this is Islamic land.”

These people are monsters. They have no remorse whatsoever about the taking of the lives of children, of  anyone who is a Jew.

And now 1,027 of them will be free to go on the streets. They know that if they kill Jews they will eventually be freed.

What is to prevent them from kidnapping more Gilad Shalits? What is to prevent another reign of terror on the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Rehovot and Haifa?

And herein lays the heaviness of my heart.

My son in law, Jeremy, said to me, “I signed up to serve in the IDF to protect the citizens of Israel. This decision negates everything that I have done for the  last two years of my life.”

As Reuven Gilmore whose son Aish Kodesh was killed by one of the terrorists to be released wrote to me, “The deal would be justified to save a life. That is not the problem with this deal. The problem is all the unnamed victims of the released prisoners. For all of us, the pain of losing family members at the hands of these terrorists is not abstract. And that is why the families of the bereaved families should be listened to.”

I look at the beautiful young faces of my children who are planning to build their lives here, in this young and harsh land, and I can feel nothing but anger at those who made this feckless decision for putting their lives and the lives of every other Israeli citizen at risk.

And then, I think of Noam and Aviva.  There is simply no machine yet invented which can calibrate the heavy weight of the ambivalence in my heart.

A version of this article appears in this week’s Washington Jewish Week.

The Palestinian UN statehood bid — statehood without negotiations — which is now before the Security Council, is just the latest step in a never-ceasing effort by the Palestinian leadership to erase the State of Israel. This is the Two State Solution on the way to Hitler’s “Final Solution” — the destruction of the Jewish people.  The goal of this UN end-run, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the disputed territories, is understood by the Palestinians as only a stepping stone for the eventually destruction of Israel. The Palestinians are not quiet or shy about openly trumpeting their goal. As Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki said on September 23rd:

“The settlement should be based upon the borders of June 4, 1967. When we say that the settlement should be based upon these borders, President [Abbas] understands — we understand — and everybody knows — that the greater goal [the destruction of Israel] cannot be accomplished in one go.  If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end!  If we say that we want to wipe Israel out…It’s not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don’t say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself.”

This two-step process to Israel’s destruction was recently given an even more evil and shocking twist by the PA’s ambassador to Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, who told the Lebanon Daily Star, that any future Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza would NOT allow the return of Palestinian refugees from the refugee camps or elsewhere in the world as citizens of the new state.  UN statehood he claimed was not be for the refugees, but only the first step in assuring the refugees’ “right of return” to the State of Israel. “Statehood will never affect the right of return [to Israel] for Palestinian refugees, he said.”

What does it mean when UN recognition of a state is the cause of an even greater and bloodier conflict; when UN recognition enables one party to extend a war of destruction and annihilation.  As Ambassador Abdullah openly declared, “When we [Palestinians] have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

What other nationalist movement cynically seeks a state that will NOT serve as a homeland for its scattered people?  Only the Palestinians! They want the destruction of Israel more then they want a home for Palestinians the world over.  This has been the constant objective of Palestinians demands since 1948. The conditions of a Palestinian state were less important than the annihilation of the Jewish State

While the public language of the Palestinians has stressed land and statehood, this conflict is not about land — but rather the Arabs’ total refusal to recognize the State of Israel. Says Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon:

“The truth is that even though the conflict has a strong territorial component, since two peoples see the same piece of land as their homeland, the heart of the conflict is existential, and centers on the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize the Jews’ right to build their national home in this land, whatever its borders may be. This is why the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.”

That is why the Palestinians continue their denial and incitement going so far as displaying statehood  maps at the UN showing a Palestine state that was not next to Israel — but replaced it.   It is why they chose a woman, whose seven children were all Israeli prisoners for terror offenses, including four of them serving time for murder, to lead their Statehood campaign.  And it is why the Palestinians continue to pay the salaries of terrorists in Israeli prisons with funds from generous Western donors.

As the columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out last week, the difference between the failed “land-for-peace” negotiations of the past and this latest U.N. gambit, is that this new Palestinian move is to have “land without peace,” avoiding even a pretense of recognizing Israel, which Abu Mazen has bluntly refused to do.

Any peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians must start with recognition of a Palestinian State and recognition as Israel as a Jewish State. There cannot be a repeat of the phony Oslo formulation where the Palestinians claim to have recognized Israel, but persist in continuously deny its right to exist as a Jewish homeland. The only way to peace will be after Palestinians’ recognize Israel as it actually is –  the Jewish state — and the declaration that this is the FINAL end of the conflict and that they have absolutely no further claims. The onus is on the Palestinians to demonstrate that their declaration of peace is not simply some tactical stage in a plan to eventually eradicate the Jewish State.  Until the Palestinians are prepared to take this step, all the negotiations in the world, all the land swaps, all the territorial concessions, cannot bring peace.