My seven year old psyche recoiled at the coarseness of those words.  Yet, this had an indelible effect on me. I realized at a very tender age that the enemies of our people mean business and that we have a responsibility to take what they say at face value.

That is why I have often been shocked by the ability of many policy makers and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic to overlook, rationalize, minimize and spin the clear words of those who speak and write about their plan to destroy the people of Israel.

An extraordinary example of this bright flashing red light is today’s perfectly clear statement made by none other than Nabal Shaath, the Palestinian Authority’s Head of Foreign Relations. His chilling words were broadcast during an interview on Lebanese ABN television and aired on July 11, 2011. They were translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, (MEMRI) and posted Monday, July 25th for everyone to read.

I plead with you, if you read any one thing this summer, please read Nabal Shaath’s speech pasted below in its entirety. It speaks for itself.

Here is what Nabal Shaath said in his own words. I am putting his last statement first, because it is the most important one to read:

[The new French UN peace initiative has] reshaped the issue of the “Jewish state” into a formula that is also unacceptable to us – two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of “two states for two peoples” means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this – not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative. We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country. We will not accept this, whether the initiative is French, American, or Czechoslovakian.

The recognition of a [Palestinian] state is basically a bilateral action, which receives the blessing of the UN. This act, however, will make many things possible in the future. Eventually, we will be able to sign bilateral agreements with states and this will enable us to exert pressure on Israel. At the  end of the day, we want to exert pressure on Israel in order to force it to recognize us and to leave our country. This is our long-term goal.

In my view, it will be difficult for a Black president facing a white majority to exercise his right of veto [at the UN over Palestinian statehood] in order to defend his political platform on health, security, economy, and so on. President Obama will not make his presence felt in the coming 14 months.

Even though it is embroiled in domestic politics, the U.S. does not want to reach the point where it does not play the main role in the Middle East. But in practical terms, the U.S. does not play a role anymore in the Middle East, although it does not want to acknowledge or accept this.

What was the role of the U.S. in the “Arab Spring?” In the three weeks of the Egyptian [revolution], Obama changed his position six times. He is constantly reacting to events rather than generating them. What role does the U.S. play in Lebanon and Syria? What the role does the U.S. play in Iran? Do you even read about Iran in the newspapers? Nobody talks about Iran. They want to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama’s problem is that he is being criticized by the Republicans for leaving so fast. With regard to Libya, he is trying not to get involved, but he is being criticized even for sending drones. The U.S. has no real presence.

That last statement clearly indicates that, to the Palestinians, the United States under President Obama has become a laughing stock, an irrelevancy, in the Arab world.  And as proof, Shaath highlights the fact that Iran, the most dangerous, maniacal brutal–not to mention genocidal– dictatorship in the region is being ignored by both the Obama administration and the American public. So much for our president’s “leadership from behind.”

Any person with integrity and intellectual honesty, reading this public pronouncement of Nabal Shaath, knows that it will be suicidal for Israel to give away critical land — the very land that provides the state with the strategic depth necessary to protect its people from the clearly articulated goal of elimination sought by Nebal Shaath and the Palestine Authority.  Protecting its people is clearly the most critical responsibility of any government — and the government of Israel is no exception.

Let it not be said in the next generation — that today’s generation refused to “wake up and read the writing on the wall.”

It’s always a few people in each generation that help to keep the spark of our people alive.  Last Thursday night, I was incredibly gratified to be able to participate in a very well organized rally at the National Mall, organized under the excellent mentorship of Rabbi Ari Israel of the University of Maryland Hillel. The real fire that ignited the spark, however, came directly from three dynamic, young college students from the University of Maryland Hillel: Daniel Berdugo, Malka Goldberg and Nathan Cohen. These three young leaders are proud to call themselves Zionists and have the potential to carry the torch of professional and responsible advocacy for our people into the next generation, and give me hope for the future of the state of Israel and the Jewish people.

I was honored to be asked to participate at their rally, organized  entirely by these students to commemorate the 1600th day of captivity of Gilad Shalit, who had been captured  by HAMAS on Israeli territory on June 25, 2006, and has been held in captivity, ever since.  There were several hundred people at the rally, mostly college students from across the country. The following were my remarks:

We Jews are very good at counting. We count the days a baby boy is born until he is brought into the fold through Brit Milah.  We count the days of the month of the yearly calendar which is punctuated with both joyful times and sad.

I can only begin to imagine the agony of the sitting  and the waiting  and the counting that Noam and Aviva Shalit, Gilad’s  parents, have been going though. 1600 Days of waiting by the door, of wondering what sorts of conditions Gilad is going through, if he is being kept warm, if he gets enough rest, if he  is being fed, if he is being beaten, if he is being tortured…if he is alive.

As a mother, I can only begin to feel Noam and Aviva’s outrage at the duplicitous moral superiority of the quote, “humanitarian institutions” of Universal Jurisdiction, such as the International Red Cross.

According to Article 126 of the Geneva Convention, the International Red Cross has the prerogative to visit any prisoner of war and to meet with him individually, to check on his welfare and report back to his families and loved ones.

Where have the efforts been for the International Red Cross to meet with Gilad Shalit? Why are they not insisting on a meeting?

Where is the outrage, that this organization, who has the unmitigated gall to dare to say that Gaza is a huge prison, when they can’t even visit the one real prisoner who is there?

What has been going on is that Islamist terrorist organizations such as Hamas have been setting the agenda, and we, in the civilized world, have enabled them to do so because we are afraid of their dastardly acts. These Islamist terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, are the bullies in the playground of the international community.

It is time for us in the civilized world to summon up the courage, once and for all, and to call Hamas controlled Gaza, what it actually is, one huge, Islamist terrorist prison that has total disregard for human rights and the rule of law, where even fellow Palestinians who were members of Fatah have been summarily executed, where no criticism of the government, what-so-ever,  is tolerated. and where homosexuals are hung from the public square.

Yet, the International Red Cross, and much of these other institutions of universal jurisdiction has the unmitigated hypocrisy to single out the one  vibrant democracy in the Middle East, Israel, where there Arab members of Knesset, and where each and every hospital delivers the most sophisticated medical care in the world to all of its patients, irrespective of whether or not they be, Arab, Muslim, Christian or Jew; where Sudanese refugees fleeing atrocities, run over the border to Israel  for s Where Every Time there is an earthquake,  a hurricane, a flood or a Tsunami the Israelis are the first to arrive unto the scene and to deliver highly sophisticated medical care.

Yet, in what can only be described as a Kafkaesque inversion of the truth, only Israel, alone among nations, is singled out for such stringent  moral scrutiny, and international  opprobrium.

This is a duplicitous double standard.  Hamas is using this vulnerable young soldier to blackmail the state of Israel, while the institutions that are set up specifically for this purpose are yawning and looking the other way.

When the international court of opinion allows itself to adopt the view of terrorists and thugs, the international court of opinion is behaving like a bunch of quivering cowards and jellyfish.

The world will be judged by how it treats Israel, and these institutions of international jurisdiction will be judged by how they are treating that most vulnerable of all Israelis, Gilad Shalit.

I ask you please to demand that the International Red Cross visit Gilad Shalit today, and that the United Nations stand up and recognize Hamas and Hezbollah for the thugs, terrorists and tyrants that they actually are, and demand his immediate release.

Thank You Very Much

Note:  Below is a letter from Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, regarding the proposed $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.

November XX, 2010

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520

The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
U.S. Department of Defense
100 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1000

Dear Madam Secretary and Mr. Secretary:

We write concerning the notification to Congress of arms sales to Saudi Arabia with a reported value of approximately $60 billion, the largest in United States history.  Some of us have been briefed about aspects of the sales; others have not.  Congress takes seriously its responsibility under the Arms Export Control Act to review potential sales of defense articles and services abroad.  Therefore, we are writing to raise concerns and pose a number of strategic questions about the impact such sales would have on the national security interests of the United States and our allies.

We would like you to explain the rationale for a sale of such magnitude.  What U.S. policy goals and interests are advanced by this sale and have we placed any conditions on it?  What is the threat or threats that this sale is intended to address?  Do the Saudis share our assessment of those threats, and will they be amenable to, and capable of, carrying out these missions?  We are also concerned about the potential repercussions for our friends and for our own forces in the region in the event of political change in Saudi Arabia.

We are also concerned about whether these transfers are being integrated into broader U.S. national security policies.  As you know, a recently-released report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the Departments of State and Defense “did not consistently document how arms transfers to Gulf countries advanced U.S. foreign policy and national security goals…”

We also continue to be troubled about aspects of Saudi regional policy.  For example, we have serious concerns about the nature of Saudi involvement in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, particularly since the Saudis have failed to take steps toward normalization of relations with Israel or to augment their financial support to the Palestinian Authority.

Likewise, Saudi officials have often made clear their anxiety over the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability.  But what action, if any, has Saudi Arabia taken to address this threat?  For example, have the Saudis used their considerable leverage in the international oil market to diminish Iran’s oil revenue?  And what have the Saudis done to stem terrorist financing?  What steps has Saudi Arabia taken to support U.S. counter-proliferation efforts and to substantially improve their own non-proliferation record?  We would like to know if these types of issues were addressed in the course of negotiating these arms sales with the Saudis.

We also want a clear understanding of how these sales are likely to impact others in the region.  America has long been committed to Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) – that is, its ability to prevail against any combination of regional threats.  While we understand the Administration has worked productively with Israel to address Israeli security concerns, we would like to know how these arms sales will affect Israel’s QME and what steps we have taken, or are planning to take, to maintain and strengthen Israel’s edge.

We believe that arms transfers, particularly those of this magnitude and involving such sophisticated equipment, require careful Congressional scrutiny and oversight in order to ensure that our national security interests are advanced and our allies are protected.  We look forward to your response to the questions we have raised and to discussing these matters with you in the weeks ahead.
Sincerely,

Mosab has told us that it was thanks to the efforts of EMET that the government decided to dismiss its case and grant him political asylum.

EMET is enormously grateful to all those who played a part in standing with Mosab during this time, and helping the Department of Homeland Security come to understand what a grave error deporting Mosab would have been.

A special thank you is due to Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), who authored a letter to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, co-sponsored with 21 other Representatives. We wish to thank each and every representative who added their names to this call for sanity and to do right by a man who has stood up to terrorism and hatred, at a great personal cost.

Thanks also to former Ambassador R. James Woolsey, who also wrote a letter on Mosab’s behalf, and to all those who called, wrote, or emailed their congressional representatives and the White House on behalf of seeing justice done.

By. Emmanuel Navon

René Descartes’ Discours de la Méthode opens with one of the most nonsensical sentences ever written: « Common sense is the most evenly shared thing in the world. »  Then there is Immanuel Kant, who wrote in his Zum ewigen Frieden that republics are less likely to go to war than monarchies, even though the French Republic had declared war on the British Monarchy two years before Kant published his essay.  The European rationalist mind can have it wrong, it seems.

So should we cheer at Europe’s renewed fondness for irrationality?  One only has to remember the political avatars of Nietzsche and Heidegger to answer no.  Or, playing the smart aleck à la Foucault and Derrida, I would say that the answer is both yes and no -but mostly no.

What I mean by “Europe’s renewed fondness for irrationality” is a tendency to abandon reason out of fear.  Most European politicians are no longer willing to resist the demands of their expanding and wahhabi-educated constituencies -whether it’s establishing sharia courts, wearing the burqa, or treating Israel as the enemy of the Prophet.  A new political party, “Sharia for Belgium,” intends to impose sharia law in that country and then in the rest of Europe.  Those Europeans who are not happy with sharia, says the party’s founder, will be welcome to leave.

In his new book A State beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel, Robin Shepherd argues that Europe should be berated for “lacking a moral compass, for hypocrisy, wickedness and appeasement” and for “succumbing to an obsession, of giving in to irrationalism and anti-intellectualism.”  Focusing on anti-Israeli sentiment inside the mainstream of the public discourse, the book argues that Israel has been pushed beyond the pale of polite society across Europe and that, as a result, Europe is putting itself beyond the pale by descending into bigotry.

Shepherd’s book is more analytical than Oriana Fallaci’s passionate La Forza della Ragione, but its bottom line is similar: Europe’s irrational attitude toward Israel is the symptom of a cultural and intellectual surrender.

There are a few résistants.  José Mariá Aznar’s newly founded Friends of Israel Initiative is not altruistic.  It simply understands, to use Aznar’s own words, that “If Israel goes down, we all go down.”  There is also hope that sane Muslims will speak out and be brave.  Dr. Tawfik Hamid, for example, has become a forceful and outspoken advocate of Islam’s embrace of rationality and tolerance.

Europeans simply need to stop being intimidated.  True, Descartes and Kant sometimes wrote nonsense like everyone else, but reason is what shall set Europe free.  After all, the Discours de la Méthode’s most famous sentence (“cogito ergo sum”) could also be understood as a warning: If you stop thinking, you’re dead.

Earlier this month we watched as the high seas had become the theater for staging yet another hate-infested anti-Israel drama, costumed in heart-rendering, humanitarian language.  This premeditated performance had been cynically calculated to pirate the international sympathy for the people who in open and democratic elections, freely elected the terrorist group Hamas to lead them.

It is nothing short of an outrage to see how pieces of footage regarding the Flotilla incident had been selectively edited by the media. To see the real story, please click here.

In the wake of the Flotilla incident, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ met with president Obama. As someone who showed he is not capable of stemming the rising wave of “group think”, President Obama left the meeting, and made an address in which he promised $400 million in taxpayers’ money for the people of “Gaza, as well as the West Bank”.

“Gaza as well as the West Bank”? This was a lovely piece of syntax, with dramatic emphasis in the auditory delivery clearly intended to focus on the” West Bank” segment of the sentence.

Put aside for a moment the fact that every day Israel sends approximately 15,000 tons of humanitarian supplies into Gaza. Put aside the fact that the cargo that was not intended for military usage would have gotten through after inspection in the port of Ashdod. Put aside the fact that when that offer was made the leaders in Gaza said, “We don’t want the aid if the Israelis have touched it.”

Put aside for a moment even, the fact that Hamas is a terrorist entity sworn to the destruction of Israel, and according to article 51 of the United Nations Carter, every nation has the primary responsibility to protect the lives of its civilians.

Focus for a moment, on the fact that we have statutes on the books that clearly state that it is illegal to send money to terrorist entities or to the states that harbor them.

In a move which would baffle the great military minds of the past from Clausewitz to Macarthur and Patton, The United States’ response to its ally Israel’s successful enforcement of a legal blockade is to think that we should just “loosen up a little”.

Of course, the Obama administration squares this circle, by denying that money sent to support the infrastructure of the terrorist-held enclave that is the Gaza Strip, will not, in fact, be aiding the party that governs it, namely Hamas, because, as someone close to the administration assured us, that the money, “will go to the UN or other internationally-recognized NGOs.”

We were afraid you’d say that.

According to a fact sheet issued by the White House Press Secretary, $40 million dollars will go directly to the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA)’s Emergency Appeal for Gaza and the West Bank. $10 million dollars will go to UNRWA in order to build 5 new schools in Gaza, with somewhere around $104.5 Million will be administered by USAID for a variety of school, economic, sewer, housing, and related infrastructure projects. The remaining $240 million will be used to increase homeownership by offering long-term mortgages.

So drastic and repressive is the Israeli blockade, so urgent is the need for humanitarian assistance, that the bulk of funds will be used to make home loans?

Let us focus a moment, on the $50 million that will be turned over to UNRWA. If the involvement of the United Nations is meant to belay the concern of skeptics, it’s a weak effort. As those who have followed the situation in the West Bank and Gaza are well aware, UNRWA’s relationship with the ruling Hamas regime in Gaza is a cozy one.  UNRWA directors in the past have publicly stated that Hamas members were on the UNRWA payroll.  This is not surprising, since UNRWA refuses to even ask prospective employees if they are members of foreign terrorist organizations (Except Al-Qaeda or the Taliban), and does not screen for membership in Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade. And while having UNRWA build 5 schools in Gaza seems like a worthy project, it becomes substantially less worthy when one recognizes that as of 2009, Hamas dominated the UNRWA Teacher’s Union.  UNRWA schools have been used as mortar launching grounds and sniper posts, and UNRWA ambulances as terrorist troop carriers, in Hamas’s continued war against Israel which has seen 10,000 rocket and mortar attacks against Israel in the past years.

And while the Israeli blockade can turn back arms smuggling ships intent on delivering rockets and small arms to Hamas, it can do nothing to prevent the flow of hatred that is generated by the incitement to hate and fight the Jews, that are encouraged by Hamas and its allies, often utilizing the classrooms of the very UNRWA schools American taxpayer funds go to fund.

For too long UNRWA and the terrorists in their midst have been able to play a wink and nod game. On the one hand, UNRWA proclaims itself innocent of responsibility for the incitement found in classrooms and textbooks, pointing out that,

“UNRWA, like any other refugee organization, uses the textbooks and curriculum of the local authorities that play host to its refugees. This policy is based on long-standing agreements made with host governments that ensure that the arrival of a population of refugees does not infringe on the sovereignty of the host government or nation. Given these agreements UNRWA is in no position to unilaterally replace or amend the textbooks used in its schools…”

At the same time incitement to hate and kill Israelis and to destroy the Israeli state continues, even as defenders reject the claims of critics, since these are “UN” schools and programs, where no such incitement could possibly take place, despite the repeated reports and videos to the contrary.

For anyone who may doubt this, we ask you to this please view an excellent film produced by the Center for Near East Policy entitled, “For the Sake of the Nakba”. This film clearly documents multiple interviews of teachers in UNRWA schools who have been interviewed and the overwhelming emphasis given there is to replace Israel with one state: Palestine, and that the method of doing this is through martyrdom and jihad.

Throughout the schools are maps of Palestine, always the identical one to that you might recognize as Israel. The teaching constantly emphasizes that the greatest thing one can do for one’s country is to wage  jihad  and to die as a shaheed.

Above and beyond the moral question of American aid being used to support such activities, the transfer of funds to UNRWA may very well be against U.S law as well. Section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended states:

“No contributions by the United States shall be made to [UNRWA] except on the condition that [UNRWA] take all possible measures to assure that no part of the United State’s contribution shall be used to furnish assistance to any refugee who is receiving military training as a member of the so-called Palestinian Liberation Organization or any other guerrilla type organization or has engaged in any act of terrorism.”

And indeed, given the certain knowledge by this (and previous administrations) that UNRWA has members of Hamas and other terrorist organizations on its payroll (as UNRWA has admitted it has), that UNRWA facilities have in the past served as training centers for terrorist actions, and UNRWA employees have themselves conducted terror attacks, one could make the moral, if not the legal, argument that the administration is essentially engaged in “material support for terrorism.”

The fact that the administration’s intent is a humanitarian one, does not absolve them of the knowledge that funds and materials provided to UNRWA have in the past, and likely will in the future reach Hamas. That such assistance is intended for “humanitarian” aims does not absolve the U.S government of its responsibility, any more than it resolves the responsibility of organizations like the Holy Land Foundation, whose founders were criminally convicted of providing funds to Hamas.

Related to the Holy Land Foundation, is the land mark decision by 7^th Circuit court of appeals, in Boim v. Holy Land Foundation, where the court opined:

“But if you give money to an organization that you know to be engaged in terrorism, the fact that you earmark it for the organization’s nonterrorist activities does not get you off the liability hook….The reasons are twofold. The first is the fungibility of money. If Hamas budgets $2 million for terrorism and $2 million for social services and receives a donation of $100,000 for those services, there is nothing to prevent its using that money for them while at the same time taking $100,000 out of its social services “account” and depositing it in its terrorism ‘account’….Second, Hamas’s social welfare activities reinforce its terrorist activities both directly by providing economic assistance to the families of killed, wounded, and captured Hamas fighters and making it more costly for them to defect (they would lose the material benefits that Hamas provides them), and indirectly by enhancing Hamas’s popularity among the Palestinian population and providing funds for indoctrinating schoolchildren.”

We mention this, not to seriously suggest that the United States government could be legally held liable for its decision to contribute services and materials to UNRWA, some of which it must know or suspect will reach Hamas, but rather to establish that if the average citizen were to contribute funds to an organization, knowing with certainty that some of those funds or materials would go on to support a terrorist organization’s criminal or political activities, the outcome would be very different indeed.

One of the great ironies here, is that in the same week that the President announces the transfer of $400 million dollars to Gaza and the West Bank, the news broke big that the Department of Homeland Security intends to deport Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas Founder, and former Israeli counter-terrorism asset who used his position close to those in the Hamas top ranks to break up suicide bombings, prevent terror, and save lives. Why is he to be deported? Because during his time as an Israeli spy he had “provided material support to a [Tier I] terrorist organization…” according to the government.

While Hamas remains the ruler of the Gaza strip, there can be no doubt that the economic or financial aid to the area ultimately benefits them as the ruling party. While our consciences may dictate the distribution of basic humanitarian goods (such as the kind which Israel oversees the delivery of every day), they should likewise also prohibit us from supporting the infrastructure, finances, and economy of the territory from which Hamas wages its war to kill Jews. Our doing so makes no more sense than if during World War II, we announced a $50 million dollar fund to help repave the Autobahn.

While the situation in Gaza, and Hamas’ ongoing conflict with Israel make it the natural focus point for opposition to this funding,  President Mahmoud Abbas’ bold-faced lie that there is no incitement in the West Bank, ought to be addressed as well. The very fact that the man who said it heads a party which named a city square after a terrorist responsible for the bloodiest terror attack in Israeli history ought to have led to a field day for reporters, anxious to show up the statement for what it was.

It’s also worth asking whether the United States ought to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help improve the economy of the West Bank, when the Palestinian Authority just the previous month, announced a $50 million dollar fund to pay Palestinians to quit their jobs, if those jobs are in Jewish settlements.

The terrorism and violence generated by the incitement spread in Palestinian society by both Hamas, and Fatah, is not a problem which can be solved by throwing money at it. Indeed, to the contrary, it makes the problem that much worse. It convinces the Palestinian people that they should continue to assert the all or nothing approach to conquest of Israel that their school textbooks and religious sermons demand of them. All the while, the West seems glad to sit in the sidelines and not be moved by the abundance of evidence that many NGOs’ such as IMPACT, MEMRI and PMW have been providing for decades now, that the text books of the Palestinian schools have been replete with steady incitement to hate and to kill and to conquer all of Palestine.

Why is it that they are so moved by the staging of the Flotilla incident, yet blind itself to the real root cause of the conflict?

If this charade continues, our children and theirs will be condemned to live in a perpetual state of violence for generations to come.

As President John F. Kennedy once said, “Peace does not depend on signed documents and charters alone. But on what is in the hearts and minds of the people”

First was Denial, of which the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was the best example, proclaiming that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program,” despite ample evidence to the contrary. The wholly politicized almost farcical nature of the report became clearly revealed after the Iranians announced a second, previously unreported nuclear enrichment site at Qom. The Bargaining stage, as the U.S and E.U attempted to secure Iranian agreement on a nuclear fuel swap, only to be rebuffed by the Iranians. Anger took hold as the Iranian Green Movement arose vibrantly on the scene only to have been followed rapidly by the stage of Depression as  its hopes and aspirations dragged into the dumps by U.S Policy-makers, as the White House could summon up the enthusiasm for only a very late and “tepid” response.

And so now that we have passed through the other four stages, it is time, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post tells us, for Acceptance.

That stalemate, in the view of many analysts, means that a strategy of containing Iran is inevitable — diplomatic isolation backed by defense systems supplied to Persian Gulf allies.

“I think we are in for a long cold war with Iran. It will be containment and deterrence,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a former top State Department official who is now a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “Iran will muddle along building its stockpile but never making a nuclear bomb because it knows that crossing that line would provoke an immediate military attack.”

With irony, the piece then proceeds to say that the Obama Administration has all but eliminated the military option, thus making it clear that there does not appear to be any line which Iran might cross which would provoke an “immediate military attack.” This coincides with the recently released 2009 Memo from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates which warns that the U.S lacks any long-term strategy for dealing with a nuclear Iran, which isn’t true actually, as long as to do nothing but sit back and accept  it is considered “a strategy.”

There is one single overwhelming problem with a containment strategy for a nuclear Iran, which makes all other arguments in favor of it irrelevant. It will not work. And the reason we know definitively that it will not work is because at this very moment we are failing to contain a non-nuclear Iran.

How else do you interpret the recent DOD report, which warns that the Iranian elite Al-Quds force has increased its presence in Latin America, and in particular Venezuela, where Iran maintains a close operational alliance with Hugo Chavez’s regime? That cooperation is increasing on all levels including arms and drug trafficking, transport of personnel, oil exploration and sanctions busting, and ideological support. It is no longer necessary to go as far as Syria to find a fierce Iranian ally which facilitates terrorists like Hezbollah. They are in our own backyard.  And while the Defense Department report suggesting that Iran could potential produce Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles capable of reaching the United States as early as 2015 is of deep concern, the reality is that, with their South American operations, the Iranians already have a delivery system in place.

If we cannot contain Iranian activity in our own hemisphere, how do we expect to respond to Iranian activity in Afghanistan, where it continues to arm the Taliban in an effort to hamper U.S interests and kill American soldiers according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Can we successfully respond to Iran’s covert campaigns of voting buying and subversion in Iraq? And while the Obama administration “stops short of confirming” the Syrian transfer of Scud missiles to an Iranian proxy, Hezbollah had no qualms about admitting it.

Far from contained, the Iranians are active, to the detriment of American interests, in every possible theater of engagement from Ecuador to Sudan, Mexico to Afghanistan.

Nor do the Iranians merely seek to contain us, in a “live and let live” situation where the world might be divided into spheres of influence. They have instead initiated a “Rollback” strategy. Where once the pro-democratic forces of the Cedar Revolution held the streets of Lebanon, now the Lebanese government acts as another subsidiary of Iran, held in check by the violent power of Hezbollah, demonstrated by its May 2008 Beirut takeover. And they will seek to undermine Western, and especially U.S, influence elsewhere as well.

Whether Iran indeed makes the decision to maintain itself as a “virtual” weapon state, with a uranium stockpile which can be quickly converted into weapons, or whether it simply decides to test a nuclear weapon and announce its power to the world, such a capability will not suddenly make the Iranians easier to contain.

And even this assumes that we do not take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word, that Iran will wipe Israel “off the map,” as soon as the opportunity becomes available.

For Israel this is an unacceptable risk. The question may become whether or not Israel will notify the United States if it makes the decision that it must strike, and if so, how the U.S will respond.  This question weighs not just on the mind of Israel policy wonks either. In Morgantown, West Virginia, a ROTC cadet asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen, to respond to the “rumor” that the U.S would fire on Israeli jets traversing Iraqi airspace in order to strike Iran.  From Wired.com:

Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”

Many pundits were less than reassured by Mullen’s response and rightfully so, since one would hope that if a military option is “off the table” with an adversary like Iran, it is not even in the realm of possibility against an ally like Israel.  But Mullen’s equivocation is probably for the best, as any answer risks misinterpretation by any number of players in the Middle East.  It seems unlikely that the Israelis would put the United States in that position if forced to strike, by choosing instead to pass through Saudi airspace, which some sources have said the Saudis have tacitly agreed to tolerate, although the Saudis deny it.

An Israeli strike is perhaps not the most desirable of options, and there may yet be others, either crippling sanctions (not watered down China and Russian-approved sanctions), or perhaps the Green Movement may yet pull off its color revolution, but one thing on which we should all agree, is that containment is NOT an option.

Containment has already failed.

One of the many promises made by President Obama was the desire to “repair” America’s relations with the Middle East and Muslim world. Hence speeches aimed at the Muslim world in Turkey, and Cairo, a reversal of long-time, American policy on Israeli settlements , numerous attempts to reconcile with Syria and holding back on supporting Iranian dissidents . Yet none of those have succeeded in winning respect for the United States from Arab and Muslim states of the Middle East.

Perhaps then, the Obama Administration should take note of recent remarks by Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara, a member of the Knesset with responsibilities for the Negev and Galilee area. Kara told an Israeli crowd at an event in Beersheba last Saturday that the Israeli government has received assurances from several Islamic nations, that they would be willing to “quietly” support a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary.  Kara’s remarks are not the first public indication that the various Arab regimes fear Iran far more than they fear the Jewish State. Speaking with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal said Saudi Arabia considered sanctions against Iran “too slow”and wanted a “more immediate resolution.” In July of last year, Israeli intelligence suggested that Saudi Arabia would ignore Israeli use of their airspace in a strike against Iran.

The Saudis, naturally, denied the claim publicly, but the evidence is clear that the Arab states fear Iran far more than they fear and hate Israel. After all, Saudi Arabia has engaged in a bloody border conflict, not with Israel, but with Iranian proxies, when it intervened in Yemen against Shia Houthi rebels suffering several hundred casualties. Jordan and Morocco also dispatched troops against the rebels.  Egypt last year traded sharp barbs, not with Benjamin Netanyahu, but with Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, after arresting 49 members of the Iranian-backed terrorist group in an alleged plot to destabilize their country.

Unlike the faux realists in the Obama Administration, to whom every problem big and small in the Middle East seems to revolve around some Israeli settler building a porch, the wily kings and slick dictators of the Middle East are hardened realists. For all their pro forma complaints against Israel, it is Iran, and not Israel, whose revolutionary hegemonic designs threaten the security of their states, and they know it.
Middle East Scholar Barry Rubin calls it “Middle East 2.0″, where the interests of Arab nationalists and Israel are now aligned in opposing Revolutionary Islamists, represented primarily by Iran and Syria.  We find ourselves in the curious situation where Israel’s ally, the United States, continues to pander to those committed to its destruction. Even the steps which are being pursued against Iran, are being done so half-heartedly. A recent article by the New York Times revealed that under Presidents Bush and Obama, the United States had provided over $107 billion dollars in contracts, grants and benefits to U.S and foreign companies which were active in Iran, including $15 Billion dollars to companies actually engaged in deals in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act. Little wonder then, that the Saudis are less than impressed with the idea of additional sanctions.

It is well past time for the U.S to start getting serious about the threat posed by Iran. The Middle East is unmoved by American apologies for the last eight years anymore, what they are hoping for now is American leadership. It seems that the Iranian threat has done what all the cajoling of the Obama administration could not, get the Arabs and Israelis to agree. At least about Iran.

Now is not the time for appeasement, not only because of Israel, but because of our Sunni Arab allies, and the entire civilized, Western world, as we know it.  Now is the time to show some vertebrae.

In the past two and a half weeks, the Obama administration has ramped up its efforts to engage with Syria’s Dictator Bashar Assad, announcing its intentions to appoint an ambassador to Syria 5 years after the Bush Administration severed ties in the aftermath of the Rafik Hariri assassination, the killing which led to the Cedar Revolution and the effort to expel the last remnants of Syrian domination over Lebanon. Yet the Hariri assassination, one of many political assassinations conducted by the Syrians in Lebanon for which no justice has been done, plays absolutely no role in the decision to reopen ties.

Syria remains on the U.S’s list of Terror Supporters, and is well known to provide safe harbor to terror organizations ranging from Hezbollah and Hamas, to Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as being suspected of harboring insurgents who conduct attacks against U.S forces and civilians in Iraq. But that support for terror played no role in the decision to reopen ties. “There are a variety of actors in Damascus we think should not be there,” says State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley, a strong candidate if the State Department gives employee awards for understatement in the line of duty. Despite these numerous “bad actors,” the State Department lifted its travel advisory to U.S citizens traveling to Syria on February 20^th.

Nor has civil and human rights abuses in Syria improved.  According to the State Departments own Human Rights Country Report for Syria,”The government’s respect for human rights worsened, and it continued to commit serious abuses. The government systematically repressed citizens’ abilities to change their government. In a climate of impunity, there were instances of arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life.”  This is a polite way of saying that the Syrian regime continues to jail, torture and murder anyone who stands in their way.

The Syrian regime continues to act in an aggressive, destabilizing way. In early February, Syrian foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu’alem threatened missile attacks against Israeli cities while at the same time Syria began transferring  long range Fateh-110 missiles to Hezbollah. Syria also has resumed shipments from North Korea of materials for use in the building of centrifuges, an activity which initially halted after the 2007 Israeli strike against a suspected Syrian nuclear facility.

Why then, if all of these behaviors have remained unchanged does the Obama Administration seek to reopen ties with Syria? State Department Spokesman Mark Toner says, “It’s a clear sign, after five years without an American ambassador in Damascus, of America’s readiness to improve relations and to cooperate in the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis.”

Once again Syria’s victims of repression, terrorism, and assassination are sacrificed on the altar of “peace.”

Even for those of the “Realist” foreign policy school, who may be totally unmoved by Syria’s human rights abuses, sponsorship of terror, and penchant for assassinating neighboring leaders, the decision to reopen a full range of ties with Syria should be regarded  in the words attributed to the wily French Diplomat Talleyrand as, “worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.” Why? Because it is doomed to failure.

The supposed goal of the Syrian outreach is to open negotiations with Israel, and to distance it from Iran.  If you’re experiencing déjà vu, it’s for the simple reason that we’ve been here before. In fact, William Burns, the man likely to be tapped as Ambassador to Syria, met with Bashar Assad in 2004. Other notables who attempted to reach out to the Syrians included then Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John Kerry, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (through Turkish intermediaries.) None have succeeded in distancing the Syrian regime from its Iranian ally, nor in opening real negotiations for an Arab-Israeli peace.

Far from responding to the U.S rapprochement with anything like eagerness, the Syrians took the opportunity February 26^th to mock the deal. In a joint press conference with Iranian ally Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Assad condemned “US Colonialism,” while joining the Iranian Holocaust denier in a pledge to create a Middle East, “Without Zionists.”

The two terror sponsors also took the opportunity to lunch with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah, and are believed to have discussed war plans, which involves building up Hezbollah’s military force until Israel is forced to respond, then  having Syria strike Israel with its large arsenal of ballistic missiles. IDF Military Intelligence has reported to the Knesset that Syria is now transferring military arms and technology to the Lebanese terrorist group that far exceeds anything it has given its proxies before, including long-range surface to surface missiles; surface to air missiles, and sophisticated anti-tank rockets.

In our efforts to engage the Syrians, we have ignored that they have expressed time and time again, their complete disinterest in amending their behavior. Throughout the Middle East it is becoming apparent to dissidents and reformers, that standing up to the despotic and tyrannical regimes is a mistake. The March 14^th movement in Lebanon is on its last legs. Saad Hariri, son of the murdered Lebanese politician and now Prime minister must go to Damascus and kow-tow to Assad and Hezbollah. Lebanese and Syrian dissidents must once again disappear into their bolt holes, as America, which encouraged and supported their movements, now aligns with their oppressor in another failed attempt at swaying the unswayable.

Under our current policy, diplomacy has become (with apologies to Will Rogers), the art of saying nice doggie, until you can find a bigger carrot.

On Tuesday (Janurary 12) afternoon four agents of intelligence ministry went to our home in Qom and arrested my father Mohammad Taqi Khalaji. They searched the home and collected hundreds of his notes, books, personal letters, computer and also our satellite receiver.They also took the passport of whole family and said that all members of family are banned from leaving Iran. My parents along with my daughter were planning to come to United States on March to visit me for two weeks. My family does not know where my father is held and Iranian officials do not give them any information.

My father is a prominent cleric who was close to Ayatollah Montazeri. He is one of closet clerics to Ayatollah Sanei who was recently attacked by regime.

My father was an outspoken cleric who supported the green movement and criticized the regime for its policy in his recent speeches in Tehran and also in Qom.

His photos as well as the audio file of his speech on Ashoura eve in the house of Ayatollah Sanei are available. I believe spreading the news is better than keeping silent. I deeply appreciate any effort to disseminate the news of my father arrest and I am ready to discuss it this with media.

Best
Mehdi Khalaji