Author Archives: jimmy
02/23/10
UN: Heritage sites on occupied land
Netanyahu has caved to pressure from the Right, and has also enraged the international community. United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry issues a special statement on Monday in which he expressed “concern” over the Israeli government’s decision to declare the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem national heritage sites.
Serry said that these sites are located in occupied territories and in places that are not only holy to Jews.
The statement read: “I am concerned at the announcement of the Israeli government regarding holy sites in Hebron and Bethlehem and the heightened tensions that have resulted.
“These sites are in occupied Palestinian territory and are of historical and religious significance not only to Judaism but also to Islam, and to Christianity as well.”
On Sunday, the cabinet approved a comprehensive plan for the preservation of “heritage” sites across the country, at an investment of some NIS 400 million (roughly $106 million).
At the last minute, following pressure from ministers and rightists, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to ad the two West Bank locations to the preservation plan.
The UN envoy urged Israel not to take any steps that would undermine confidence and harm negotiations, “the resumption of which should be the highest shared priority of all who seek peace.”
He also called for restraint and cal, after Palestinians in Hebron declared a general strike on Monday in protest of the decision, and held a demonstration in which stones were thrown at security forces.
Serry noted that he had visited Hebron last week and would like to “see more positive steps by Israel to enable Palestinian development and state-building in the area and throughout the West Bank, reflecting a genuine commitment to the two State solution.”
China taps more Saudi crude than US
The shift in strategy is not expected to weaken the political relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia’s oil exports to the US last year sank below 1m barrels a day for the first time in two decades just as China’s purchases climbed above that level, highlighting a shift in the geopolitics of oil from west to east.
The drop in US demand for oil from the kingdom, traditionally one of its primary sources, is the result of overall lower energy consumption but also greater reliance on imports from Canada and Africa.
China’s economic growth, meanwhile, is prompting Beijing to buy more Saudi oil, a trend Riyadh has encouraged through refinery joint ventures.
“China offers demand security, something that for a long time the oil-producing countries including Saudi Arabia have called for,” said John Sfakianakis, chief economist at Banque Saudi Fransi in Riyadh. “As global demand has been picking up in the east . . . Saudi Arabia has been looking east.”
Barack Obama, US president, wants to reduce US dependence on foreign oil and encourage renewable fuels. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia wants stable markets for its oil reserves.
The divergence will provide the backdrop as Steven Chu, US energy secretary, visits Riyadh on Monday. His agenda reflects Washington’s focus, with an emphasis on technology research rather than oil politics.
The drop in Washington’s reliance on Riyadh’s oil is unlikely to alter dramatically their relationship, at least in the short-term. Analysts say oil is a fungible commodity and any supply shock in the Middle East will still affect the US economy in spite of lower imports from Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, China’s rising demand for Saudi oil, on top of already large purchases of Iranian crude, could boost Beijing’s interest in the region.
The US imported 998,000 b/d of Saudi crude in the first 11 months of 2009, the lowest since 1988, according to official data. Analysts expect that December figures will confirm the drop. The fall came as Saudi oil exports to China hit a record in December above the psychologically significant 1m b/d level. Beijing has doubled the amount of oil it buys from the kingdom over the past three years.
For years, state oil company Saudi Aramco “was under strict orders to be first in sales” to the US, a strategy that was “political and not commercial”, according to Amy Myers Jaffe and Jareer Elass at Rice University in Houston. That changed in 2003 after the Saudi ruling elite relaxed the strategy.
02/22/10
* Iran ‘to build two new nuclear sites this year’ The head of Iran’s nuclear programme has said the country will build two new uranium enrichment facilities within the next year.
* UN: Heritage sites on occupied land UN special coordinator for Mideast peace process condemns cabinet decision to declare West Bank Jewish sites national heritage sites.
* Right-wingers raise flag in Jericho Security forces begin evacuating activists from ancient synagogue.
* China taps more Saudi crude than US Saudi Arabia’s oil exports to the US last year sank below 1m barrels a day for the first time in two decades just as China’s purchases climbed above that level, highlighting a shift in the geopolitics of oil from west to east.
* False accusations against Israel On sidelines of EU meeting, FM cites insufficient evidence in Dubai case.
* Riots over Israeli claim to West Bank heritage sites Israeli soldiers have clashed with protesters in the West Bank town of Hebron after two disputed shrines were listed as Israeli heritage sites.
* EU condemns passport use in Dubai killing European Union foreign ministers have “strongly condemned” the use of forged European passports in the assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.
* Robots and bees to beat the Taliban The homemade IED is the extremists’ deadliest weapon and America is spending billions on trying to combat it. We are granted access to this secret, smart and bizarre world
* Suddenly serious about the atomic ayatollahs The Obama Administration’s Iran policy has spun like a weathervane during the past year.
* Wall from King Solomon Period Revealed in Jerusalem Hebrew University archaeologists have revealed an ancient path in Jerusalem believed to date back to the time of King Solomon, along with structures including a gateway and the foundation of a building.
02/20/10
02/19/10
02/18/10
In the Mideast, bet on a strong horse
The violence and cruelty of Arabs often perplexes Westerners. Not only does the leader of Hizbullah proclaim “We love death,” but so too does, for example, a 24-year-old man who last month yelled “We love death more than you love life” as he crashed his car on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge in New York City. As parents in St. Louis honor-killed their teenage daughter with 13 stabs of a butcher’s knife, the Palestinian father shouted “Die! Die quickly! Die quickly! … Quiet, little one! Die, my daughter, die!” – and the local Arab community supported them against murder charges.
A prince from Abu Dhabi recently tortured a grain dealer whom he accused of fraud; despite a video of the atrocity appearing on television internationally, the prince was acquitted while his accusers were convicted.
On a larger scale, one accounting finds 15,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. Governments throughout the Arabic-speaking countries rely more on brutality than on the rule of law. The drive to eliminate Israel still persists even as new insurrections take hold; the latest one has flared up in Yemen.
Several excellent attempts to explain the pathology of Arab politics exist; my personal favorites include studies by David Pryce-Jones and Philip Salzman. Now add to these The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations (Doubleday, $26), an entertaining yet deep and important analysis by Lee Smith, Middle East correspondent for the Weekly Standard.
Smith takes as his proof text Osama bin Laden’s comment in 2001, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” What Smith calls the strong-horse principle contains two banal elements: Seize power and then maintain it. This principle predominates because Arab public life has “no mechanism for peaceful transitions of authority or power sharing, and therefore [it] sees political conflict as a fight to the death between strong horses.” Violence, Smith observes, is “central to the politics, society, and culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East.” It also, more subtly, implies keeping a wary eye on the next strong horse, triangulating and hedging bets.
Smith argues that the strong-horse principle, not Western imperialism or Zionism, “has determined the fundamental character of the Arabic-speaking Middle East.” The Islamic religion itself both fits into the ancient pattern of strong-horse assertiveness and then promulgates it. Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, was a strongman as well as a religious figure. Sunni Muslims have ruled over the centuries “by violence, repression, and coercion.”
Ibn Khaldun’s famous theory of history amounts to a cycle of violence in which strong horses replace weak ones. The humiliation of dhimmis daily reminds non-Muslims who rules.
Smith’s prism offers insights into modern Middle East history. He presents Pan-Arab nationalism as an effort to transform the mini-horses of the national states into a single super-horse and Islamism as an effort to make Muslims powerful again. Israel serves as “a proxy strong horse” for both the US and for the Saudi-Egyptian bloc in the latter’s cold-war rivalry with Iran’s bloc. In a strong-horse environment, militias appeal more than do elections. Lacking a strong horse, Arab liberals make little headway. The US being the most powerful non-Arab and non-Muslim state makes anti-Americanism both inevitable and endemic.
WHICH BRINGS us to policies by non-Arab actors: unless they are forceful and show true staying power, Smith stresses, they lose. Being nice – say, withdrawing unilaterally from southern Lebanon and Gaza – leads to inevitable failure. The Bush administration rightly initiated a democratization project, raising high hopes, but then betrayed Arab liberals by not carrying through. In Iraq, the administration ignored advice to install a democratically minded strongman.
More broadly, when the US government flinches, others (e.g., the Iranian leadership) have an opportunity to “force their own order on the region.” Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese leader, has half-seriously suggested that Washington “send car bombs to Damascus” to get its message across and signal its understanding of Arab ways.
Smith’s simple and near-universal principle provides a tool to comprehend the Arabs’ cult of death, honor killings, terrorist attacks, despotism, warfare and much else. He acknowledges that the strong-horse principle may strike Westerners as ineffably crude, but he correctly insists on its being a cold reality that outsiders must recognize, take into account, and respond to.
Obama’s Politically Correct Pentagon
America’s military is being destroyed by a readiness-busting political correctness (PC) because those wearing stars too often lack the courage to tell their civilian bosses “no.” That lack of courage has led to a long string of cultural PC crises – including refusal to recognize internal threats from Islamists to sex-based absurdities and misguided rules of engagement.
Top brass should oppose PC-related corruption and remain focused on preparing for and prevailing in combat. That mission requires a culture of principled and honest leadership that accepts contrary views. But unchecked politics can corrode even the best military.
After 9/11, President George Bush said the U.S. isn’t at war with Muslims. “Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths,” Bush said. But that view morphed into a PC issue for the Pentagon.
The Pentagon launched a Muslim outreach program that gave “legitimacy” to some Islamic organizations promoting an ideology that shares the same objectives as al Qaeda. Soon officials such as then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England cavorted with leaders from organizations like the Islamic Society of North America, a group associated with a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to subvert the U.S.
That outreach program created widespread military cultural fear of being vilified as “Islamaphobic” which explains why the brass ignored important warnings like that delivered by Stephen Coughlin, a military intelligence analyst. Coughlin was hired to “…set aside the feel-good assumptions about Islam … and take an unblinkered look at the facts.” He warned senior officers that there were dedicated jihadists wearing the U.S. uniform. In 2008, Coughlin was sacked as a result of a campaign undertaken by England’s Muslim aide because of Coughlin’s “Islamaphobic” views.
Hundreds of Army leaders were warned in 2008 at an Army-sponsored anti-terrorism conference that jihadism — Islamic holy war — was a serious threat to personnel in uniform and there were strategic deficiencies in the military’s comprehension of the threat. Patrick Poole, one of the conference speakers, warned that “…ignorance and inaction keeps our troops vulnerable.”
Poole illustrated that ignorance by citing a lecture on Islam given to troops at Fort Hood by Louay Safi. Poole said Safi was caught on FBI communications intercepts talking to a senior Palestinian Islamic jihad leader. “Amazingly,” Poole said, “a Fort Hood spokesman claimed that Safi had been fully vetted.”
Recently, Poole reviewed his 2008 warning by citing three jihadist cases that validate them. In 2003, Army Sgt. Hasan Karim Akbar, who opposed killing of Muslims in war, killed two officers and wounded 14 in an attack in Kuwait. Second, last June, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, allegedly killed a U.S. soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark. Prosecutors say Muhammad targeted soldiers “…because of what they had done to Muslims in the past.” Third, in November, a Muslim soldier, Maj. Nidal Hasan, shot dead 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood after shouting the Muslim expression “Allahu Akbar.” Hasan frequently expressed radical Islamic views and associated with Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemen-based radical cleric who promotes jihad against the U.S.
The Army’s PC view of the Islamic threat continued even after the Fort Hood massacre. General George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, never mentioned the Islamist factor but made statements expressing concern about “force protection” and the potential heightened “backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers” and the risk to Army “diversity.”
Casey likely took his “diversity” cue from President Obama who mentioned military diversity in his Saturday radio address after the massacre. Obama reinforced PC status for Muslims by making a goal of his presidency improving relations with the Islamic world.
Last month, the Pentagon’s official review of the Fort Hood massacre concluded the Army is ill-equipped to deal with “insider” threats. But when asked whether PC led to the Army’s security failures, the officials said the matter is secret.
Shortly after the review became public, six officers were formally disciplined for failing to take action against Maj. Hasan. The attorney for one of those officers said the military was blaming a handful of officers for “a broader institutional [read PC cultural] failing.”
The PC view of the Islamic threat continues in the Pentagon with the publication of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. That 128-page report sets out the military’s future strategy and force structure and described the country’s terrorist threat without using the words “Islam,” “Islamic” or “Islamist” a single time.
Gender integration is a deeply rooted PC issue which seldom draws attention from top brass in spite of contradictory facts.
For decades the military’s PC culture accepted without complaint the readiness-busting problems associated with gender integration: lowering of standards, sexual activity, sexual tension and declining morale. The consequences are accepted and the military muddles along.
Top brass understand the importance of building cohesive forces. By now most have seen that mixing military men and women often defies the glowing political promises of equal opportunity. The problem is male/female relationships work differently than single-sex groups, which any parent of teenage sons and daughters understands.
Mix young men and women in close, 24/7 austere military settings and exclusive relationships rather than platonic, selfless situations emerge. The sexes begin to pair off and develop exclusiveness instead of cohering with the larger group, which hurts the type of trust and confidence military units need. The worst cases are often among leaders and their opposite sex subordinates because they can undermine trust in the chain of command.
But these facts are ignored by the PC Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead who feels “very comfortable” lifting the ban against women on submarines. Apparently, he’s following the lead of Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he’s “…an advocate for improving the diversity [read PC] of our force, I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women.”
Such readiness-busting sex silliness blinds all but realists and the few who speak out risk the ire of the PC police.
Last December, Maj. Gen Anthony Cucolo III, the commander for the Third Infantry Division in northern Iraq, issued orders threatening to punish soldiers, married or single, who become pregnant while in the combat zone.
Cucolo imposed the rule because “I need every soldier I’ve got … Anyone who leaves the fight earlier than expected … creates a burden on their teammates.” Pregnant soldiers are immediately removed from the combat zone and not replaced.
The Pentagon’s PC police responsed to Cucolo’s problem of at-war pregnancies by forcing him to rescind the rule and then stocked war zone pharmacies with the morning-after pill, a birth control pill in super-high doses that leads to an early abortion. Pentagon officials claim the decision to stock the pill in Iraq was not prompted by the uproar over Cucolo’s pregnancy policy.
Homosexual sex could soon gain PC status if President Obama gets his way. Obama wants to repeal the military’s gay ban to repay the homosexual lobby for their political support. Unfortunately, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mullen support that decision and Mullen abandoned all pretense of objectivity to say lifting the ban is “the right thing to do” but then admitted he doesn’t know the impact of that decision.
PC also infects rules of engagement when capturing terrorists as illustrated by the Navy’s court martial case against three SEALs. The criminal charge involves allegedly smacking a captured al Qaeda terrorist, who is accused of murdering four American security guards in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. This is PC because the military is well aware that al Qaeda teaches captured terrorists to “…claim they were tortured and/or maltreated.”
Charging the SEALs on the basis of evidence given by a terrorist stifles special forces aggressiveness, injects PC into combat and ultimately makes the country less safe.
Our military brass has become dangerously PC. It’s past time they vigorously oppose readiness-wrecking PC-inspired social engineering and turn their full attention to honing hardened, fighting forces.
