Killing Palestine - When will enough be enough?

Killing Palestine - When will enough be enough?

Catherine Shakdam

July 27, 2014 In yet another gruesome display of violence and bloodshed, Israel has declared war on the Gaza strip, its prime minister having announced that an example would have to be made out of Hamas for peace to ever have a chance to flourish. Under PM Benjamin Netanyahu's impetus, Israel's peace will be negotiated with hard iron, guns pressed onto women and children's neck, since all Palestinians have been labelled terrorists. But this new war on Gaza has little to do with peace and even less to do with terrorism, unless of course one would be willing to admit that killing and maiming innocent civilian populations would actually qualify, in which case the award would go to Israel. Israel is not the victim western media have quite clumsily and desperately attempted to portray; the horrors which have unfolded before the world's communities, the ever mounting death toll, the images of wounded children, dead children, orphaned children should suffice as testament to Israel's barbaric streak. But Israel, the apartheid state, the terror state, the racist state, the police state wants the world to empathize and sympathize with its people. It wants to project onto the world this idea that its people, the so-called "Chosen People" have, because of their inherent superiority the right, and to an extent the duty to annihilate whoever and whatever they perceive as a threat to their existence. Waving the guilt of the holocaust as a protective cloak, Israel has perpetuated this idea that its people can bear no critic and face no opposition. Forever the victim, forever the martyr of the world, Israel feels the world ought to bow before its will, never to challenge its actions as its very existence has been ordained by God. It is such a narrative which has driven the Palestinian-Israeli conflict since 1948. Because Nazi Germany committed genocide against the Jews, Israel was given a licence to kill on Palestine. Because the world felt too guilty to argue with Zionits' calls for a state of Israel, Palestine was made to burn and cry. Because the world has been blinded by lies, Palestine has stood to suffer decades of humiliation and injustice. A perfectly well-oiled terror machine, Israel has committed more crimes against humanity than any so-called democracy. Israel cannot claim moral high ground against Palestine, it has lost the right to ever be granted the luxury of a tear as its land is still soaked with the blood of the innocent. Israel's buildings have been erected on stolen lands, its fields bear the stolen fruits of Palestine, its people claimed ownership of a land which was never theirs to have. Israel's hatred Because Israel has been driving the propaganda bus, always pushing for the demonization of Palestine, its people, its politicians, it is often too easy to forget that it is Palestinians who are paying with their lives for Israel's aggression. Driven into a crazed trance by Prime Minister Netanyahu over the death of three young settlers, whose death it is important to note was exploited by the government to sell yet another war on Gaza, Israelis have spit their venom at Palestinians in the most horrific manner, revealing to the world the extent of their hatred, the blackness of their hearts. Israel is the monster not Palestine. In a detailed report Electronic Intifada clearly outlined Netanyahu's deceit, detailing how his cabinet chose to stage a revenge campaign against Hamas to revert into a state of war and thus refocus Israel's attention toward the cause which has been feeding its very life force – the destruction of Palestine. Israel's June rescue show, the calls for the return of Israel's three youth after their disappearance, was all but an elaborated plan set in place to legitimize another war, another bloodshed on Gaza. "Max Blumenthal has documented it was all a shameful and cynical political show. The Israeli leadership knew within the first day of their disappearance that the youths were dead; bullet holes, blood samples and a telephone recording provided evidence of what happened. But the ever-receptive Jewish-Israeli public demanded revenge and by the time the extent of the sham was revealed, the Israelis had killed nine people in the West Bank and three more in the Gaza Strip through missiles they fired in "retaliation" for the West Bank murders," wrote Ahmed Moor. But Israel' sickening gist would not end at the unwarranted and illegal brutalization of an entire people. Israel pushed the envelope further yet, revealing the true nature of its essence. Following weeks of what can only be described as a vicious, racist campaign against Palestinians Netanyahu has quite overwhelmingly convinced his people that Palestinians are lesser human beings destined to die under the mighty boot of Israel. Regardless of officials claims before the international community that Israel is a moral people, a good people; Israel has shown its true colours too many times for the world to care to ignore. When officials have felt so bold as to openly call for the massacre of all Palestinians – women, children and the elderly - there is little moral ground to be had. Earlier this week Israeli politician, Ayelet Shaked, wrote in a controversial Facebook post, "all Palestinians are our enemies...Israel should declare war on the entire [Palestinian] people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure." Many Israeli Facebook users have posted violent and disturbing content on their personal accounts. Talya Shilok Edry, who has more than one thousand followers, posted the following "status": "What an orgasm to see the Israeli Defense Forces bomb buildings in Gaza with children and families at the same time. Boom boom." Edry's Facebook timeline shows a pattern of calls for bloodshed against Palestinians. Writing about the murdered sixteen-year-old Mohammed Abu Khudair, who was kidnapped and burned alive by Israeli youth, she stated: "Sweet settlers, next time you kidnap an Arab boy, call me and let me torture him!! Why do you get to have all the fun?" And yet, Palestinians are made to bear the blame. While Israel rains death and terror onto Palestine much of the world has looked onto Palestine and in a perfect paradox called on its people to look for peace. But how can there be peace when Israel continues to deny Palestinians the right to exist? Where else on earth is there a system where a government tolerates and condones its citizen to infringe on another people' sovereignty – illegal settlements – while arguing it is legitimate? Is there ever a justification for the targeting of children? Is it ever legitimate to brutalize and terrorize children on account of their ethnicity? Is it ever moral to impeded on another's most basic human rights and yet pretend to righteousness? Israel is the monster not Palestine. Source

Is the West Bank ripe for an intifada?

Is the West Bank ripe for an intifada?

Mya Guarnieri

July 27, 2014 Media and politicians have been quick to claim that Palestinian protests against Operation Protective Edge mark the beginning of a third intifada. But in Beit Sahour, the town that was the heart of the First Intifada, some are skeptical that today’s demonstrations will turn into tomorrow’s revolution.  Some ten thousand Palestinians marched from Ramallah on Thursday night to Qalandia checkpoint, in protest of Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip and in hopes of reaching Jerusalem. One man was killed and dozens were injured in what was the largest demonstration the West Bank has seen in years. While protesters and observers alike speculate that this marks the beginning of the Third Intifada, the mood in Beit Sahour – the small, predominately Christian town that was the heart of the First Intifada – is decidedly more pessimistic. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, "Nasser," a Beit Sahouri and veteran of the First Intifada who was arrested nearly a dozen times for his political activities says that recent protests in West Bank are "emotional." Palestinian youth burn an Israeli flag during clashes following a protest against the Israeli attack on Gaza in the Qalandyia checkpoint near Ramallah, July 24, 2014. Palestnians marched from Al Amar refugee camp to Qalandyia checkpoint to protest against the Israeli attack on Gaza. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org) The First Intifada was "based on hope," he explains, which allowed people to slow down, think ahead, and "restrain themselves and strategize." People are "moving out of emotions now and that becomes violent," Nasser says, pointing to the Second Intifada as an example. Many Palestinians feel that the Second Intifada accomplished very little. Today, he adds, "We lack any political movement that’s capable of moving the masses—neither Hamas, nor Fatah, nor any other group." Nasser’s sentiments were echoed at a small demonstration in Beit Sahour on Monday, as the West Bank observed a general strike in protest of Operation Protective Edge and what is being called a massacre in Shajaiyah. A few dozen protesters attempted to march towards an Israeli army base that is perched on a hill outside the village. But they were quickly deterred by tear gas. "This is all about Gaza right now," said a woman in her late twenties. She hung back, watching, as theshebab, young men, edged forward. "When there’s a ceasefire, the people [in the West Bank] will go back to sleep." For years, Palestinians have pointed out that demonstrations in the West Bank are usually reactionary and don’t reflect clear goals, vision, or a long-term strategy. Protests and strikes against Israel’s last two military operations in Gaza – 2008-2009’s Operation Cast Lead and 2012’s Operation Pillar of Defense – did not snowball into Intifadas. "We have no leadership," is another oft-repeated explanation as to why there is no sustained revolt against the Israeli occupation. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is widely viewed as a puppet who is more concerned with placating the Israelis than taking care of his people. And West Bank protests are often put down by Palestinian Authority security forces.          A professional in his mid-30s, who was born and raised in Beit Sahour and whose father was arrested three times during the First Intifada, attended Monday night’s march. The man, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym, felt discouraged by the small demonstration. "There’s no one supporting the protesters," George said, calling the PA the "Palestinian Zionist Authority." "When you have an authority that supposedly works for your benefit and you see the [Palestinian] security personnel…acting just like Israeli soldiers," George continued. "There will be no motivation to do anything." Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh is the author of Popular Resistance in Palestine, a professor at Bethlehem University, and an activist. He responds to concerns regarding leadership and organization. Such questions, Dr. Qumsiyeh says, "assume that colonized, occupied people sit down together to come up with a strategy. If you’re looking for organization, it doesn’t happen this way. Sometimes at the peak of a revolution, leaders emerge—revolution makes leaders, leaders don’t make revolutions." Clashes erupted between Palestinians and the Israeli army during a demonstration in Solidarity with the Gaza Strip, at Huwwara military checkpoint, Nablus, West Bank, July 24, 2014. 3 Palestinians were injured by rubber bullets. (Ahmad Al-Bazz/Activestills.org) He adds that claims that leaders or political parties are necessary for an intifada suggest that Palestinians are "still thinking paternalistically, that a father figure has to tell them what to do." Dr. Qumsiyeh points to the spontaneous nightly protests in Bethlehem as proof positive that the youth can get an intifada moving on their own. "Uprisings happen when there is no leadership. That’s happening in Bethlehem now. Who told these kids to go out every night?" Hundreds of protesters have attend the nightly demonstrations in Bethlehem, which neighbors Beit Sahour. But these demonstrations are dominated by shebab – young Palestinian men. And some young Palestinian women say they’re uncomfortable joining. "We are a patriarchal society," Dr. Qumsiyeh reflects. "I hate that personally. The old men in the PLO—I’d love to see them all gone and see women and young people in charge." While the media’s eyes are trained on the male-dominated, urban protests that erupted in response to Operation Protective Edge, demonstrations are more sustained and egalitarian in the Palestinian villages. The weekly protest in Nabi Saleh comes to mind. Since 2009, men, women, and children have been marching to reach the village’s spring that was expropriated by Israel. Nariman Tamimi, the wife of organizer Bassem Tamimi, is a leader in the demonstrations. And Nabi Saleh has seen a number of women’s marches, as well. Indeed, many argue that the strength of the First Intifada is that it engaged men, women, children, and families of all economic classes. That the middle class Beit Sahouris interviewed for this article all asked to remain anonymous suggests that, today, they feel like they have too much to lose. Many here say that neoliberal policies has had a sedating effect on the West Bank. Some blame former Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his focus on economic development; they blame banks that give loans to Palestinians, encouraging them to live beyond their means and chaining them to debt. Others point to a society that is increasingly driven by consumerism. Family members and friends mourn next to the body of killed Palestinian Mohammed al-Araj during his funeral at the Qalandiya refugee camp near the West Bank city of Ramallah, on July 25, 2014. Al-Araj was shot with live ammunition in his head during a demonstration the night before in Qalandiya. At least other 500 Palestinians were injured from live ammunition, some of them are still under critical condition. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org) All people think about today, George argues, "is paying off their debt. There’s no time to think of the occupation." He adds that in 1987, when the First Intifada began, the financial system was different. Loans and consumerism "didn’t exist" then. Nasser agrees that Palestinian society is more consumerist and individualistic than it was in the past and that this is an obstacle to getting a revolution off the ground. But he’s quick to add that "the generation that grew up under the PA and Israel cannot help but be individualistic, to find a way to benefit from the situation." Also problematic, Nasser says, is that Palestinians have "adapted" to the occupation. "We got used to not going to Jerusalem, we got used to checkpoints. We’ve lost a major part of our self-respect. We cannot have a massive intifada without a mental shift." While Dr. Qumsiyeh agrees, remarking, "Our first liberation has to be of our own minds," he insists that the circumstances are ripe for a revolution. He ticks the list off on his hand, taking the opportunity to again point out that previous intifadas didn’t begin with leaders but, rather, with the people. "They started because of pent-up frustration," he says. The other conditions? "One: paralysis of the peace process; two: lack of trust in the Palestinian leadership." The third, according to Dr. Qumsiyeh, is that "the occupier becomes even more arrogant. They assume they can get away with anything." Like killing civilians in Gaza. Nasser maintains that the Third Intifada has yet to begin. But he calls it "inevitable." "There’s one thing I’m sure of," he says. "Palestinians are not going to raise a white flag." As for the young woman who, on Monday, was sure that the West Bank will go back to sleep – on Friday morning, she woke up to the news of the 10,000 strong march on Qalandiya. And she said, "[No one] can predict anything anymore." A shorter version of this article was first published on Al Jazeera English.  Source

Merciless Israeli mobs are hunting Palestinians

(Ismael Mohamad / United Press International) Merciless Israeli mobs are hunting Palestinians Rania Khalek Right-wing Israelis rioting in Jerusalem earlier this month.(Tali Mayer / ActiveStills)  July 27, 2014 All eyes are on Gaza, where the death toll from Israel’s merciless bombing campaign has topped 1,000.  But back in Jerusalem, where sixteen-year-old Muhammad Abu Khudair was burned alive by Jewish vigilantes in a "revenge killing" incited by Israeli politicians early this month, right-wing lynch mobs continue to roam the streets in search of Arabs to attack.  Their most recent victims are twenty-year-old Palestinians Amir Shwiki and Samer Mahfouz from the Beit Hannina neighborhood in occupied East Jerusalem. The pair were severely beaten into unconsciousness on Friday night by Israeli youths armed with iron bars and baseball bats.  Mahfouz told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that he and Shwiki were on their way to the light rail when they were stopped by "a man [coming] from the direction of Neve Yaakov,"  an illegal Jewish-only Israeli settlement in occupied East Jerusalem.  "He said give me a cigarette. I told him I don’t have any, and he heard [from my accent] I’m Arab and went away, coming back with his friends, maybe twelve people. They had sticks and iron bars and they hit us over the head," Mahfouz recounted.  Haaretz added, "According to the victims, police officers that arrived at the scene did not call an ambulance, and they were instead evacuated by passersby to receive medical treatment at a Beit Khanina [sic] clinic. They were later rushed to Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem in serious condition." Though investigators believe the beating to be racially motivated, no one has been arrested.  Police complicity Israeli police have a pattern of ignoring hate crimes against Palestinians, as was the case immediately following the reported kidnapping of Muhammad Abu Khudair. Police did not immediately respond when his family called to report that he had been kidnapped and they actively thwarted efforts to locate those who murdered him by spreading false rumors that Abu Khudair was murdered by his family in an "honor killing" over his sexuality.  Police also neglected to respond when Abu Khudair’s murderers tried to kidnap ten-year-old Mousa Zalum from the same East Jerusalem neighborhood two days earlier.  When police aren’t busy ignoring Jewish vigilante violence against Palestinians, they are actively participating in it.  On Thursday night last week, police teamed up with a Jewish mob assaulting two Palestinian men while they were delivering bread to grocery markets on Jaffa Street in West Jerusalem from their van.  The men — identified by Ma’an News Agency as twenty-year-old Amir Mazin Abu Eisha and Laith Ubeidat (age not specified) — were encircled and beaten with empty bottles by a mob of some twenty to thirty Israelis, according to their attorney, Khaldun Nijim.   Rather than assist the men as they were being attacked, Nijim told Ma’an, "The Israeli police stopped them in their van and pointed guns at them." Nijim added: "After they drove away a few meters, the police shot at them. They then stopped and were assaulted again." After barring an ambulance from transferring Abu Eisha, who sustained head and ear injuries, to the hospital for medical treatment, police detained the two Palestinian men at the Russian Compound police station close to the scene and charged them with "having a knife and obstructing the work of police," according to Nijim.  Abu Eisha and Ubeidat were eventually released on bail but are currently under ten days of house arrest. Meanwhile, several of the mob participants filed complaints against their victims, accusing the men of trying to assault them with a knife. Racist activism on the rise The same Ma’an article notes that in Jerusalem, "Jaffa street has been covered with flyers warning Arabs not to 'touch’ Jewish women in recent weeks, as part of a right-wing Jewish campaign to prevent mixing among Jews and Arabs." The fliers were probably designed and distributed by Lehava, a fanatical anti-miscegenation group whose sister organization, Hemla, receives state fundingto "rescue" Jewish women from romantic relationships with Arab men.  Leanne Gale, an anti-racist activist living in Jerusalem, recently reported on her blog that Lehava has been holding nightly gatherings in West Jerusalem’s Zion Square and littering all of Jerusalem with stickers and fliers in Arabic that state, among other things, "Do not even think about a Jewish woman." Other catchphrases adorned on Lehava T-shirts and stickers include "Jews love Jews" and "The women of Israel for the nation of Israel," according to Gale.  Fascist mobs from Haifa to Tel Aviv Violent mobs of anti-Arab fascists aren’t isolated to Jerusalem. Last week in Haifa, the Arab deputy mayor and his son were brutally beaten by a mob of Jewish supremacists chanting "death to Arabs" and "death to leftists" in response to a rally against the Gaza onslaught. Police did nothing to stop the assault. Similar fascist demonstrators have surfaced in supposedly liberal Tel Aviv as well, verbally and physically attacking Palestinians and leftists protesting the war on Gaza.  Israeli blogger Elizabeth Tsurkov, who has been regularly attending and live-tweeting the racist attacks against anti-war demonstrators in recent weeks, heard a new racist chant mocking the more than two hundred children slaughtered by Israel’s merciless bombing campaign in Gaza: "Tomorrow there’s no school in Gaza, they don’t have any children left."  Incitement from the top While calls for extermination have been rampant both in the streets of Israeland on Israeli social media for months, the "death to Arabs" sentiment is not isolated to vigilantes.  Take for example Israeli lawmaker Ayelet Shaked, a rising star in the far-rightwing Jewish Home party, who recently called for genocide by slaughtering Palestinian mothers to prevent them from giving birth to "little snakes." Fast forward several weeks, and the United Nations is reporting an alarming rise in miscarriages and premature births in Gaza, where newborn infants are dying due electricity blackouts that shutdown their incubators. Another Israeli public official inciting violence is Dov Lior, Chief Rabbi of the illegal West Bank settlement Kiryat Arba, who issued a religious edict declaring that it is permissible under Jewish religious law for the Israeli army to "punish the enemy population with whatever measures it deems proper," even if that means "exterminat[ing] the enemy." Since then, portions of Gaza have been reduced to rubble in apocalypse-like scenes that look indistinguishable from the flattened cities of Syria.  With all eyes glued to Israel’s destruction of the besieged Gaza Strip, little attention is being paid to the heightened levels of racism in Israeli society as demands for "death to Arabs" echo across the country with devastating consequences for Palestinians from Shujaiya to Qalandiya to Jerusalem to Haifa.  Source

Why Obama Ignored Iraq

- FrontPage Magazine - http://www.frontpagemag.com -

Why Obama Ignored Iraq

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On July 7, 2014 

ISIS marching through Iraq has smashed the media’s taboo against criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. Substantive discussions are taking place about why his foreign policy is such a miserable failure.
And they mostly miss the point.
Liberal journalists still proceed from the fallacy that there was a foreign policy debate between neo-conservative interventionists and liberal non-interventionists. These are a series of digested Bush era talking points that have no relationship to reality since Bush’s foreign policy on Iraq carried over from Bill Clinton. It’s why Hillary gets so uncomfortable when she has to discuss her vote on Iraq.
The liberals weren’t non-interventionists who insisted on multilateralism and UN approval before acting. Obama, like virtually every other Democrat, disproved that myth as fast as he could. Nor were they even opponents of the Iraq War until opposing the war became politically convenient.
Obama however isn’t on this map at all. It’s not that he is an opponent of intervention. The Libyans can tell you that. It’s that his reasons for intervening fall completely outside the grid of national interests.
The anti-war activist as pacifist is largely a myth. There are a few anti-war activists who oppose all wars, but mostly they just oppose America. Obama, who got his foot up the political ladder by flirting with the anti-war movement, falls into that category. Obama isn’t opposed to wars. He’s opposed to America.
Obama is an ideological interventionist, not a nationalist interventionist. And despite his multilateralist rhetoric, he isn’t your usual globalist either. Instead he uses national and international power as platforms for pursuing ideological goals without any regard to national or international interests.
That is true of both his foreign and domestic policy.
Obama’s foreign policy is issue oriented, just like his domestic policy is. There is no national agenda, only a leftist agenda. America is just a power platform for pursuing policy goals.
Domestically, Obama does not care about fixing the economy. The economy is a vehicle for pursuing social justice, environmental justice and all the many unjust justices of the left. It has no innate value. Likewise national security and power have no value except as tools for promoting leftist policies.
Obama thinks of the ideological issue first. Then he packages it as a national interest for popular consumption. It’s a Wilsonian approach that is not only far more extreme than the policies of most White House occupants have been, but also more detached.
Wilson couldn’t understand that American power couldn’t exist without a national interest. Obama and his staffers see America as just another transnational institution that they happen to be running, not all that different than a corporation, non-profit or UN body. They don’t see it as a country, but a series of policymaking offices that reach across the country and the world.
It’s a globalized mode of thinking that is common among Eurocrats, but has never been represented in the Oval Office before.
Obama doesn’t just oppose America. He disregards it as an outmoded institution. When confronted with the border crisis or the rise of ISIS, he doesn’t see them in terms of American interests or even world interests, but in the narrow terms of leftist ideology.
He will use national and international institutions to promote LGBT rights or Green Energy. He won’t however get involved in actively using them for national security unless he absolutely has to in order to protect his own political power.
To a transnational mindset, institutions exist to promote issues. America is only of value to the extent that it can promote the left’s agenda. To the extent that it doesn’t, America is dead weight.
Once Bush was out, Iraq ceased to matter because it was no longer a packaged issue. It couldn’t be broken down into a simplistic Blame Bush policy agenda. And so Obama stopped paying attention.
Now Iraq is getting in the way of the things that he really cares about, such as illegal alien amnesty, dismantling Israel and transsexual bathrooms, because these are ideologically meaningful issues to him. And like every other obstacle, whether it was the national debt or the VA scandal, he pretends to take them seriously until a sufficient amount of time passes and he can dismiss them as “phony scandals”.
Obama didn’t just ignore Iraq because he wanted to avoid any connections to a war that he had helped make unpopular. He ignored Iraq because it had nothing to offer his ideology. If Iraq had a secular dictator, he might have been interested. If Islamists were fighting to take over from that dictator, there would have been planes and diplomats flying over Baghdad before you could shout, “Allah Akbar.”
It’s why he backed the Islamist overthrow of Arab governments, but not the popular protests against Islamist governments in Iran or Turkey.
But Iraq was a battle between Sunni and Shiite Islamists, backed by the Saudis and Iran. Even the left has trouble picking a side between two anti-American Islamic factions who are divided over theological issues, instead of practical things like dialectical materialism and the discourse of othering. In a pinch they pick the Iranian side as being more anti-American, but the prospect of American intervention on the same side as the Shiites confuses them even further and they have to go lie down in a dark room.
When there is no clear ideological guide, Obama takes meetings with generals, tunes them out, plays with his phone and delays doing something for as long as possible. That was the pattern in Afghanistan and Syria. Ideologues can’t function without an ideological orientation. When the ideological value of a problem is unclear, Obama either freezes up, like a robot whose manual was misplaced, or ignores it.
Obama’s only approach to Iraq came from Bush era opposition. Without Bush to push against, he had no idea what if anything should be done about Iraq. He still doesn’t. Instead he resorts to the antiquated attacks on Bush because it’s the last time that Iraq made any sense to him. It was the last time that the left had successfully packaged Iraq into a simple scenario in which there was only one right choice.
Ideologues are not big on independent thinking. When everything is politicized, they lose the ability to see the things that can’t be neatly assigned to one side or another.  America is being run by a blinkered ideologue who ignores issues that fall outside his ideological spectrum.
Those problems that he doesn’t cause directly and intentionally through his ideology, he causes indirectly and unintentionally by being unable to operate outside his ideology except in an emergency. Like the difference between the pilot who flies a plane deliberately into a mountain and the one who accidentally flies it into a mountain, there is a gap in motivation, but not in outcome.
History will not record why Obama screwed everything up. It will only record that he did it.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/why-obama-ignored-iraq/

Obama’s Secret Directive Supporting Global Islamism

- FrontPage Magazine - http://www.frontpagemag.com -

Obama’s Secret Directive Supporting Global Islamism

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On July 4, 2014 

A recent Gulf News report sheds some light on how and why the United States helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies to power, followed by all the subsequent chaos and atrocities in the Mideast region.
Large portions of the report follow with my commentary interspersed for added context:

Dubai: For the past decade, two successive US administrations have maintained close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Libya, to name just the most prominent cases.
The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the “Arab Spring” erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt. The President personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010, ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other “political Islamist” movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting “stability” in the Middle East and North Africa (that is, support for “stable regimes” even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing “moderate” Islamic political movements (italics added for emphasis throughout).

And we have certainly witnessed this shift.  Chaos and the Islamic ascendancy in the Middle East and North Africa never flourished as under the Obama administration—and precisely because the administration shifted from supporting stability under secular-minded autocrats.
The most significant example of this is how the Obama administration threw Hosni Mubarak—a U.S. ally for three decades—under the bus in order to support the Islamists, most specifically the Muslim Brotherhood.  And we saw how that ended—with another revolution, hailed as the largest revolution in human history, with the average Egyptian accusing Obama of being a terrorist supporter.

To this day, PSD-11 remains classified, in part because it reveals an embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view of trends in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.

“Embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view” is synonymous with the “orthodox and mainstream view pushed forth by Mideast studies professors and academics,” especially those with political influence, such as the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies of Georgetown University, in Washington D.C.  Such programs, which I’m only too well acquainted with, begin with false—that is, “embarrassingly naïve and uninformed”—premises, namely: that the source of all the region’s woes are (formerly) U.S.-propped autocrats (reality is that dictators don’t create such societies but rather are the natural outcome of Islamic societies and are the ones most prone to keeping law and order—compare Iraq under Saddam and Iraq now, as a “democracy,” with “ISIS” proclaiming a caliphate).  Mideast academics have also long spearheaded the idea that there are “moderate” Islamists and “radical” Islamists, and that the U.S. should work with the former (in reality they are all radical—to be an Islamist is to be radical—the only difference is that the “moderate” Islamists don’t wear their radicalism on their sleeves, even as they work toward the same goals that the more open “radicals” work for, namely, a Sharia-enforcing caliphate).

The revelations were made by Al Hewar centre in Washington, DC, which obtained the documents in question.

This too is significant. As Daniel Greenfield writes: “Al-Hewar, which actually got hold of the documents, is linked to the International Institute of Islamic Thought… which is a Muslim Brotherhood front group.  Figures in the Muslim Brotherhood had threatened to leak understandings with Obama Inc. This is the next best thing. It warns Obama that if he tries to forget about them, they can prove that the relationship was official policy.”
To be sure, after the ousting of the Brotherhood in Egypt, several Brotherhood members made, sometimes not so veiled, threats to the Obama administration if it turned its back on them, including top ranking Brotherhood member, Khairat al-Shatter’s son.

Through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, thousands of pages of documentation of the US State Department’s dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood are in the process of being declassified and released to the public.

If and when these thousands of pages are released, they should be combed through, as no doubt answers to many of the Obama administration’s hitherto inexplicable policies in the Middle East will be found—to wit:

US State Department documents obtained under the FOIA confirm that the Obama administration maintained frequent contact and ties with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood. At one point, in April 2012, US officials arranged for the public relations director of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Gaair, to come to Washington to speak at a conference on “Islamists in Power” hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Indeed, despite the administration’s later insistence that it did not favor the Islamists over other parties, anecdotes implying otherwise were constantly on display.  In Egypt alone, U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson, due to her close ties not just to President Morsi, but the Muslim Brotherhood in general, became such a hated figure in the months before last year’s anti-Brotherhood revolution.

A State Department Cable classified “Confidential” report says the following: “Benghazi Meeting With Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: On April 2 [2012] Mission Benghazi met with a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood steering committee, who will speak at the April 5 Carnegie Endowment ‘Islamist in Power’ conference in Washington, D.C. He described the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision to form a political party as both an opportunity and an obligation in post-revolution Libya after years of operating underground.

These documents on the Obama administration’s connections with the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya are especially disturbing in the context of earlier revelations made in Arabic media, including that the Brotherhood’s Libyan wing was very much involved in the 9/11 Benghazi U.S. consulate attack.

Another State Department paper marked “Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)” contained talking points for Deputy Secretary of State William Burns’ scheduled July 14, 2012 meeting with Mohammad Sawan, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who was also head of the Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party. The document is heavily redacted, but nevertheless provides clear indication of Washington’s sympathies for the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as a major political force in the post-Gaddafi Libya. The talking points recommended that Secretary Burns tell Sawan that the US government entities “share your party’s concerns in ensuring that a comprehensive transitional justice process is undertaken to address past violations so that they do not spark new discontent.”

“To address past violations so that they do not spark new discontent” is another way of stating another popular position among Mideast professors, namely that whenever Islamists engage in violence or terrorism, that is proof positive that they have a legitimate grievance, hence the US must “appease” lest it “spark new discontent” (perhaps the true backdrop of Benghazi).

The Burns paper described the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: “Prior to last year’s revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned for over three decades and its members were fiercely pursued by the Gaddafi regime.

In light of all the chaos the Islamists have been responsible for in Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, et al—is it now obvious why Arab autocrats like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, and currently Bashar Assad have always “banned” and “fiercely pursued” the Brotherhood and its affiliates?

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/obamas-secret-directive-supporting-global-islamism/