Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Middle East Tag

Posted by Bruce Carroll on June 17, 2014 42 Comments
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who has an increasing reputation as a shill for the left wing, viciously attacked the Heritage Foundation in a column on Monday evening. The column, "Heritage's ugly Benghazi panel" characterized the event as though it were a full-throated, Muslim-bashing hate-crime cleverly disguised as a public forum to discuss the Benghazi attack.
What began as a session purportedly about “unanswered questions” surrounding the September 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya deteriorated into the ugly taunting of a woman in the room who wore an Islamic head covering. [...]  Then Saba Ahmed, an American University law student, stood in the back of the room and asked a question in a soft voice. “We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam,” she told them. “We have 8 million-plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.” Panelist Brigitte Gabriel of a group called ACT! for America pounced. She said “180 million to 300 million” Muslims are “dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.” She told Ahmed that the “peaceful majority were irrelevant” in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and she drew a Hitler comparison: “Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result, 60 million died.” “Are you an American?” Gabriel demanded of Ahmed, after accusing her of taking “the limelight” and before informing her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.” “Where are the others speaking out?” Ahmed was asked. This drew an extended standing ovation from the nearly 150 people in the room, complete with cheers. The panel’s moderator, conservative radio host Chris Plante, grinned and joined in the assault. “Can you tell me who the head of the Muslim peace movement is?” he demanded of Ahmed. “Yeah,” audience members taunted, “yeah.” Ahmed answered quietly, as before. “I guess it’s me right now,” she said.
Milbank's account seemed to suggest an anti-Muslim witch hunt with one lone innocent standing at the back braving the torrent of hate. Except it wasn't true. Milbank's story was immediately challenged by those who know him best -- fellow political reporters in Washington, DC. Mollie Hemingway dissects Milbank's account versus the video excerpts first released by, ironically, Media Matters for America -- the famed leftist attack "media watchdog" group.

Posted by Bruce Carroll on June 17, 2014 23 Comments
News broke this morning that U.S. Special Forces over the weekend captured the key terrorist figure in the September 11, 2012 attack at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
Abu Khattalah will be brought to the United States to face charges "in the coming days," said Edward Price, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Abu Khattalah, who faces three federal criminal charges, will be tried in U.S. courts, said Attorney General Eric Holder. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. citizens died in the September 11, 2012, attack, which became a political flashpoint. "We retain the option of adding additional charges in the coming days," Holder said. "Even as we begin the process of putting Khatallah on trial and seeking his conviction before a jury, our investigation will remain ongoing as we work to identify and arrest any co-conspirators."
U.S. officials say that Abu Khattalah is being held in a location outside Libya -- perhaps on a naval vessel. Khatallah had been a key suspect from the start of the post-Benghazi investigation. It also appeared he was never worried about being captured by the U.S. government. Just weeks after the assault on the compound, Khatallah was seen sipping a strawberry frappe on the patio of a Benghazi hotel, according to The New York Times.

Posted by David Gerstman on June 08, 2014 8 Comments
When Mahmoud Abbas's "moderate" Fatah movement first reached out to make an agreement with the terrorist Hamas movement, the response in the United State was "mostly nonchalant." Now that the two sides have announced the creating of a unity government, the response has continued to be muted. Certainly not outraged. Last week, of course, the administration didn't wait a day before endorsing the blatant violation of the American sponsored peace process. This was disappointing but hardly surprising given Barry Rubin's observation last September that the United States had gone to "backing the 'bad guys.'” In major American newspapers there was little initial editorial comment. However later in the week, the Washington Post endorsed the American response as did the New York Times. Though, surprisingly, the Times actually qualified their endorsement warning that "the United States has to be careful to somehow distinguish between its support for the new government and an endorsement of Hamas and its violent, hateful behavior," without actually offering a practical suggestion how distinguish that support. There are three main reasons why the administration was wrong to support the unity accord. 1) It is unpopular in the United States In the middle of May, The Israel Project conducted a poll of likely voters and their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One question dealt with the formation of the Fatah-Hamas unity government. When those originally saying they were undecided offered an opinion, the poll showed a massive rejection of the Palestinian reason for the cooperation.

Posted by David Gerstman on June 04, 2014 11 Comments
David Horovitz, the editor of the Times of Israel has written a scathing critique of the Obama administration's treatment of Israel. In the aftermath of the administration's acceptance of the Fatah/Hamas unity government in defiance of the letter of American law, Horovitz wrote yesterday,  12 ways the US administration has failed its ally Israel. Horovitz's criticisms can be broken down into three categories: mistakes in proceeding with the peace process, primarily blaming Israel for the failure of the peace process and other breaches of faith with Israel regarding Israel's enemies in the Middle East. In that last category (the last three of Horovitz's examples) he observes that rather than keeping quiet about reported Israeli air strikes against Syrian arm shipments to Hezbollah, the administration attributed the strikes to Israel risking possible Syrian retaliation against Israel and blasts the administration for "rushing to support Islamic extremists ... when they come to power in a neighboring state," referring to the Muslim Brotherhood's brief stint as rulers of Egypt. But he's harshest in his criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of Iran arguing that "[t]he central goal of US policy in this regard should not be merely denying Iran nuclear weapons but denying Iran the capacity to build nuclear weapons." Regarding the peace process Horovitz faults the administration for looking to solve the conflict in just nine months instead of just working on trying to build a climate of trust:

Posted by David Gerstman on June 02, 2014 3 Comments
A little more information is available now about Mehdi Nemmouche, the gunman who killed three people - including an Israeli couple - and gravely injured one other in the Jewish Museum of Belgium on May 24. Nemmouche is a French citizen (he was arrested in Marseille, France) with a long arrest record, was known to have extreme religious beliefs and reportedly joined the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS while fighting in Syria last year. Nemnouche was captured during a customs check carrying a revolver and AK-47 thought to have been used in the attack as he arrived in Marseille from Belgium this past Friday. The New York Times reported:
He had been convicted seven times, on several occasions for driving without a license but also for violent robbery, and began a series of imprisonments in 2001, according to François Molins, the state prosecutor in Paris. Mr. Nemmouche appeared to have become radicalized during his time in prison; during his final stay, a five-year sentence, “he distinguished himself by his extremist proselytism,” Mr. Molins told reporters on Sunday, and fell in with other “radicalized Islamists.” Prison administrators “signaled” Mr. Nemmouche to the French intelligence services upon his release from prison, on Dec. 4, 2012, Mr. Molins said. Within about three weeks, however, Mr. Nemmouche had left France, bound for Brussels, London, Beirut, Istanbul and, ultimately, Syria, Mr. Molins said. French intelligence services believe it was there that he joined ISIS.
The Times reports further that "3,000 Europeans, including more than 700 French, are thought to have fought or to be fighting in Syria." The Washington Post included more details including statements from Belgian federal prosecutor, Frederic Van Leeuw.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 18, 2014 2 Comments
In 1994 terrorists struck the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. 85 people were killed. In 2003, an Argentine judge issued arrest warrants for four Iranian officials (but denied warrants for twelve others) for their involvement in the terror attack. In 2007 INTERPOL, an international police organization, issued warrants for five Iranians and one Lebanese for the involvement in the AMIA bombing. Early last year Argentina's government reached an agreement with Iran to form a "truth commission" to investigate those who were responsible. The agreement was immediately controversy because, in the words of former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, it was "inviting the murderer to participate in the murder investigation.” Last week, an Argentine federal court struck down last year's "truth commission" agreement with Iran to investigate the AMIA bombing. Several senior Iranian officials and Hezbollah have been implicated in the attack that killed 85 people in that Jewish community center.
Thursday's ruling declared the agreement unconstitutional and ordered Argentina not to go ahead with it. The deal had been delayed anyway by Iranian reluctance to move forward in implementing it. ... Israel and world Jewish groups had denounced the "truth commission" deal with Iran, calling it a diplomatic win for Tehran that offered no benefit to Argentina. The deal would have let Iran review Argentina's investigation into the bombing.
Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor who took over investigation of the case, established responsibility to the highest level of Iran's government. Among those implicated were then President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Iran's previous defense minister Ahmed Vahidi. Vahidi and intelligence officer Moshen Rabbani were among five Iranians who were flagged by INTERPOL for arrest in the case. (Video from March 2013) While current Iranian President was a member of the group that ordered the attack, Nisman told David Horovitz of the Times of Israel last year that Rouhani was not present at the meeting where the attack was planned. An English version Nisman's indictment is here (PDF). An op-ed in the New York Times at the time of the Argentine-Iranian agreement accused Argentina's government of doing "an about-face on terror."

Posted by David Gerstman on May 12, 2014 12 Comments
The Los Angeles Times just published The Mideast peace gap: Why Kerry has failed by Aaron David Miller. Miller, a long time peace processor (he served under both Presidents George H. W. Bush and BillClinton) nails the essential problem with the Kerry's peace process.
Simply put, the maximum that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to give on the core issues that drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can't be aligned, let alone reconciled, with the minimum that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to accept. You want to know why every effort in the last decade has failed? That's why.
If Miller had left it at that he would have been correct. Obvious. But correct. The problem with the op-ed is that he continued. For example:
The idea that Netanyahu is ready to pay the price and could be persuaded to do so was a fundamental misunderstanding of the man and his times. Now the longest continuously serving prime minister in Israel's history, Bibi never envisioned himself as the midwife or father of a Palestinian state. That's not who he is. Ideology, family, politics and his fears of the Arabs all drive him in a different direction. His self-image is as the Israeli leader who is to lead Israel out of the shadow of the Iranian nuclear bomb and to guide it through the challenges of a dangerously broken, angry and dysfunctional Arab world. And he reflects the mood of an Israeli public that sees almost no reason or urgency — regardless of U.S. doom-and-gloom threats of violence, third intifadas, apartheid state or demography — to grapple with the problem. Governing is about choosing. And for now, Netanyahu has made his choice.
This is not a serious appraisal of Netanyahu, but psychoanalysis by an unlicensed psychiatrist. Instead of looking at Netanyahu's record, Miller strung together a series of cliches that every right thinking peace processor would believe. I would agree that Netanyahu "never envisioned himself as the midwife or father of a Palestinian state." But he also understands that as a leader of a democratic country he is bound by the obligations of his predecessors. Netanyahu would not have been elected in 1996 if the peace process had been successful. He was elected in the wake of ten days of terror in February and March of 1996. Though he was elected because of his critique of the peace process, he continued it. Backed by assurances of the Clinton administration (later betrayed), Netanyahu withdrew Israel from most of Hebron, and as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, "With Hebron, Netanyahu managed to bring most of the nationalist camp of Israel to recognize that Oslo is a fact." Has Miller, who now demeans Netanyahu at a distance, ever done as much for the peace process?

Posted by David Gerstman on May 09, 2014 14 Comments
Why is it so hard to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Look at the final scorecard of the latest round of Middle East peace talks. Israel allowed three groups of prisoners - a total of 78 - to go free in exchange for talks. These prisoners were murderers. When they went to their homes their actions were celebrated. Put aside why Israel didn't release the final group of prisoners. Put aside the spectacle of a society that honors killers and what that implies for peaceful coexistence. Israel paid a price for negotiations that led nowhere. This isn't the first time either. In 2010, the administration pressured Israel to agree to a "settlement" freeze in order to coax Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate. Abbas dragged his heels and in the last few weeks of the freeze. When the Palestinians finally started to negotiate the freeze was set to expire. The United States tried to encourage Israel to extend the freeze but Israel refused and the Palestinians walked away from the negotiations at the end of the freeze. Earlier too, Israel paid a price just to get the Palestinians to negotiate. A commenter on an earlier post of mine made a great point:

Posted by David Gerstman on May 04, 2014 7 Comments
It is hard to believe that it has been three months since Barry Rubin passed away. With all going on in the world, and especially in the Middle East, Barry's absence is pronounced as there are few who saw things as clearly as he did. Barry's essays and columns are not disposable, like those of some other columnists and analysts. He wasn't looking for some pithy phrase to describe a complex problem or looking for new evidence to support his ideology. He looked at events and facts and drew his conclusions. Consequently something Barry wrote could still be relevant or true, months or years later. Two recent stories illustrate this point. Barry had been a critic of the Obama administration's handling of Syria's civil war. The Times of Israel last week featured an interview with a Syrian dissident Kamal Al-Labwani, Israel is our last hope, indicates Syrian dissident. The point referred to in the headline is Labwani's belief that Israel could win over the moderate rebels in Syria and much of the population if it helped protect civilians.
“If you only helped us intercept low-flying [regime] helicopters by providing a limited amount of antiaircraft weapons, with American approval, it would have a huge effect, morally and militarily,” Labwani said. “There are a million ways such weapons can be given to recognized people [in the opposition]. These weapons have ‘fingerprints’ and deactivation modes.” Alternatively, he said, Israel could declare a no-fly zone in southern Syria, as NATO did in Libya in its bid to topple Muammar Gaddafi. Such a move would immediately cause a large segment of Syrian society to support peace and normalization with Israel.
But there's more to the interview. Labwani is not currently among the Western backed rebels. He explained why:

Posted by David Gerstman on April 25, 2014 9 Comments
In the wake of Fatah's embrace of Hamas earlier this week there has been a very interesting reaction. Actually, the reaction has been interesting because it's been mostly non-existent. Though the New York Times and Washington Post have reported on Fatah's betrayal of the American sponsored peace process, neither has published an angry editorial denouncing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for endangering or destroying the peace process. Few news events shatter perceptions more clearly than when a supposed moderate embraces extremism. And even given the fraught history of past Fatah-Hamas agreements the symbolism here is unmistakable. A week before Secretary of State John Kerry hoped to have a framework agreement, the Palestinian Authority came to an agreement with the terrorist Hamas organization and not with Israel. Let's do a few comparisons. Exhibit A: New York Times  In March 2010, when Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel, Israel's Interior Ministry announced plans to build houses in Ramat Shlomo. Even though Ramat Shlomo is part of Jerusalem and a part of Israel's capital that everyone expects will be part of Israel in any final agreement with the Palestinians, the announcement precipitated a diplomatic crisis between Israel and the United States. An editorial in the New York Times two days later stated about the announcement, "And it is hard to see the timing as anything but a slap in the face to Washington." In 2010, the Israeli announcement didn't and wouldn't change anything about the Middle East materially and yet the New York Times criticized the Israeli action. That Fatah-Hamas agreement, on the other hand is a game-changer. Israel dropped its objections to the PLO when the PLO renounced terror. Of course, under Arafat that declaration was meaningless as he encouraged terror against Israel even after Oslo. Abbas was supposed to be the peaceful one. But now he's embraced a terrorist organization.

Posted by David Gerstman on April 18, 2014 21 Comments
Is there anything that the U.N. does right? I noticed a story earlier this week, Apology for UN refusal to stop Rwanda genocide. The context for the apology is the twentieth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide.
Former New Zealand ambassador Colin Keating issued the rare apology during a council meeting to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the genocide and examine what has been done since to prevent new genocides. The open session elicited praise for the U.N.'s stepped-up commitment to put human rights at the center of its work but widespread criticism of its failure to prevent ongoing atrocities in Syria, Central African Republic and South Sudan.
Keating was the President of the Security Council twenty years ago. Of course, another U.N. official was in charge of peacekeeping operations at the time one million Rwandan's were killed. His name is Kofi Annan. Despite his failure to prevent the genocide he was promoted to Secretary General of the United Nations. (There is even a Kofi Annan Peacekeeping Training Centre in his native Ghama. It's as if he actually succeeded at his job. The job he's good at is funding vanity projects.) To be sure Annan apologized for his failure ten years ago. Two months ago, U.N. diplomat, Lakhdar Brahimi also apologized:

Posted by David Gerstman on April 07, 2014 7 Comments
Last month, Jeffrey Goldberg published an interview with President Barack Obama, ahead of Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's trip to the United States to attend the AIPAC conference. The President wasn't at all friendly in the interview, warning (in Goldberg's words) that "time is running out." Roughly four weeks later, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority refused to continue negotiations with Israel. Is there a connection between the two? Put a different way, in the words of Neo-Neocon Did Obama Sabotage Kerry on Peace Talks? The answer is "yes," and here's how. There are two points that Obama made in his interview worth recalling. Answering a question from Goldberg about Abbas, President Obama said:
We don’t know exactly what would happen. What we know is that it gets harder by the day. What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20 years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel’s position. And that’s a reflection of a genuine sense on the part of a lot of countries out there that this issue continues to fester, is not getting resolved, and that nobody is willing to take the leap to bring it to closure.

Posted by David Gerstman on February 03, 2014 4 Comments
Thirty two years ago yesterday, February 2, 1982, Syrian President Bashar Assad's father, Hafez, began an assault on the city of Hama to put down a Muslim Brotherhood revolt against his regime. Two years ago NPR recounted:
The facts of that event are well-known, but the photographic evidence has been scant. Then, Syria's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood led an uprising centered in Hama, a central city of around 400,000. In response, President Hafez Assad, the father of the current president, ordered 12,000 troops to besiege the city. That force was led by Hafez Assad's brother Rifaat. He supervised the shelling that reduced parts of Hama to rubble. Those not killed in the tank and air assault were rounded up. Those not executed were jailed for years. To this day, the death toll is in dispute and is at best an estimate. Human rights groups, which were not present during the slaughter, have put the toll at around 10,000 dead or more. The Muslim Brotherhood claims 40,000 died in Hama, with 100,000 expelled and 15,000 who disappeared. The number of missing has never been acknowledged by the Syrian leadership.
As we know the lessons of the father have been well learned by the son. Kill enough people and no one will make you pay a price. Somehow the UN and Secretary of State John Kerry thought that they could get some sort of agreement to stop the killing in Syria. The latest round of talks ended on Friday, apparently in failure.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia raised expectations in January at a joint news conference in Paris that a way would be found to open humanitarian aid corridors and possibly establish local cease-fires in Aleppo and other cities and towns. But to the dismay of the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations, even those basic steps proved elusive.
Accessibility by WAH