India, once the champion of the Non-Aligned Movement, angered Iran once by voting to refer the Islamist dictatorship to the United Nations Security Council because of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It looks like India is set to vote against Iran again. The Times of India is almost apologetic about the Indian ruling party’s (UPA’s) stance:

India looks set to go against Iran once again on November 24 at the IAEA as the prospect of a vote is looking increasingly difficult to avert. The decision, taken at the highest levels of the Indian government, comes even as the Left parties upped the ante, even leveraging its support to UPA [United Progressive Alliance] on the issue. …

… the Manmohan Singh government is bracing itself for a decision that, on the face of it, may have an effect on UPA’s relations with Left parties. While government recognises the need to humour the Left, it is clear that it cannot possibly reverse its vote at IAEA or can acquiesce in what it calls the attempt to “communalise” foreign policy.

Humoring the Left is non-sequitur, as India seems to have chosen a course that it cannot realistically stray from: re-alignment pointing towards the West. For example, India established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, and in 2004, bought a $1 billion early warning radar system from the Jewish state — one of the biggest military contracts in Israel’s history.

According to the BBC:

India and Israel’s bilateral relationship has blossomed since the two countries opened diplomatic ties in 1992.

From India’s Tribune :

“The fact that India and Israel are going to cooperate in a big way in such sensitive areas shows the depth of the strategic ties which have developed between the two countries over the past few years,” a senior official of the Ministry of Defence told The Tribune.

Strategic ties with the Little Satan is not exactly what one could consider non-aligned.

In October, the Islamists set off three bombs, killing 62 and wounding 200 innocent civilians in New Delhi, India’s capital. The terrorist cowards targeted a bus and two open-air markets, seeking the maximum carnage. This is not the first time India has tasted the wrath of Islamist terror.

As Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, India must have mixed feelings about its relationship with the Islamic Republic. When India first voted against Iran at the UN, Iran reacted with non-aligned dismay:

We are not as angry as we are hurt. We are shocked and completely surprised.

First, Iran threatened to terminate its $22-billion oil deal with India, but seems to have backed off. Even the mullahs have their priorities. Money is a good thing when you are an Islamist dictator who will do anything to stay in power.

But India’s votes, its alliance with Israel, its warming relations with the U.S., and its suffering at the hand of the Islamists, will continue to align this largest democracy on Earth closer to the West – and the Anglosphere – where India rightfully belongs.

by Patrick D. O’Brien
Clarity & Resolve*
November 19, 2005
http://clarityandresolve.com/archives/2005/11/decision_time.php
* Cross-posted with permission

Duh (403-3)

I really try not to drag the good Clarity & Resolve name through the noxious muck of politics too much. Yeah, I do give the left a hard time over its increasingly strident—and growing—faction that is bent on tearing down America and enabling Islamic terror no matter what, but I know that not all liberals run with that deranged, self-loathing mob. Also, I have my issues with the more extreme elements of the right. Somewhere between Joe Lieberman and a bit past John McCain… is your humble blogger.

(more…)

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a subsidiary of the Economist Newspaper has released its Index of Political Freedom for the Middle East, putting Israel in first place in terms of political freedoms, with Lebanon taking second, the Palestinian Territories in third, and Iraq taking fifth place, respectively. These ratings have caused some consternation in politically correct circles, such as the BBC. Here are the rankings of Middle Eastern nations surveyed:

(more…)

Al-Qaeda’s hypocrisy is mind-numbing, and entirely racist. Its activities in Iraq are not an “insurgency,” but rather ethnic and religious cleansing. Nonetheless, the terror group’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is trying his hand at managing public relations in the Muslim world – and he is failing miserably.

Today, he announced that he really didn’t mean to kill all those Muslims attending a wedding in Amman, Jordan last week — just Jews and Americans. But, also today, his followers murdered at least 80 Shiite Muslims by blowing up two mosques in Iraq. To paraphrase George Orwell, “are some Muslims more equal than others?”

First, the failure of al-Qaeda’s public relations campaign. From the BBC:

At least 100,000 people marched through Amman on Friday in the latest mass show of anger at the suicide attacks.

“Zarqawi, you coward, what brought you here?” shouted the marchers.

The two-hour march concluded with a rally in central Amman, where dignitaries and clergymen addressed the crowd, condemning Jordanian-born Zarqawi and his group.

Before the attacks, Zarqawi appeared to enjoy a certain sympathy in some sections of Jordanian opinion, the BBC’s Jim Muir says.

But the death of so many Jordanian civilians seems to have eroded that sympathy very sharply, our correspondent says, and this broadcast seems to be aimed at regaining that lost ground.

Now, how al-Qaeda really feels about its fellow Shiite Muslims:

People of discernment and knowledge among Muslims know the extent of danger to Islam of the Twelve’er school of Shiism. It is a religious school based on excess and falsehood whose function is to accuse the companions of Muhammad of heresy in a campaign against Islam, in order to free the way for a group of those who call for a dialogue in the name of the hidden mahdi who is in control of existence and infallible in what he does. Their prior history in cooperating with the enemies of Islam is consistent with their current reality of connivance with the Crusaders.

Finally, al-Qaeda’s Machiavellian solution for the Shiites (i.e., we’ll kill all of them when it becomes more convenient):

Indeed, questions will circulate among mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia at this time. Is it something that is unavoidable? Or, is it something can be put off until the force of the mujahed movement in Iraq gets stronger? … And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that?

Still think the appellations “militants” or “insurgents” apply to the terrorists?

Iran today admitted it obtained a copy of “partial instructions for making the core of a nuclear bomb” back in 1987. But the Islamist mullahs claim they never “used it.”

Yeah, and the Pope isn’t Catholic… I forgot to pay my taxes… The check’s in the mail… The copier’s busted — I swear it.

So, this document has been laying around in Iran for 18 years and nobody looked at it or made a copy? Uh, huh…

The Islamist fantasy world… How reassuring to hear the mullahs’ claim that they never “used” this bomb-making cookbook. Their actions speak otherwise. They have resumed “uranium conversion - a precursor to enrichment. Highly enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons.”

After shutting down popular hopes for reform and appointing a president who called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” can there be any doubt as to their nuclear ambitions?

Evil collateral damage control:

An audio message purportedly from the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says the Jordan bombings were not meant to hit Muslim weddings.

The voice in the tape defends the triple hotel bombings in Amman, saying the group believed they were home to US and Israeli agents.

How nice of Zarqawi to try to explain his campaign of mass slaughter. The only silver lining here is that some Muslims finally reacted to terrorism against their own people — and that has put al-Qaeda on the defensive.

But what, no apology from Zarqawi for blowing up 2 Shiite mosques in Iraq today, killing 74 people?

What? No protests by the radical Left? The Arab/Muslim “Janjawid” and their Sudanese army allies murder thousands of Black Africans… silence. Kuwait ethnically cleanses hundreds of thousands of Palestinians… not a whisper. al-Qaeda exterminates 26,000 Iraqis — mainly Shiites… no protests.

But when Israel defends itself from the above-mentioned criminals, there is massive (and hysterical) “outrage.” What a world…

Opinion
Alastair Gordon
November 18, 2005 - Toronto

Prime Minister Paul Martin is no friend of Israel. Even by the standards of politics, Paul Martin’s willingness to lie to a Jewish audience, especially when it is certain that he will be caught out a few days later, beggars the imagination.

On November 13, Paul Martin spoke to an overwhelmingly Jewish audience at the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities (UJC) in Toronto. He said [view video 1,2]:

“Canada has for many years supported Israel’s rightful place in the international community, including at the United Nations. And we will continue to press for the kinds of reforms that will eliminate the politicization of the United Nations and its agencies, and in particular, the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions.” [my emphasis]

Three days later, Canada voted in the 4th Committee of the UN General Assembly on this year’s ritual of 9 “politicized anti-Israel resolutions”. Unbelievably, Canada voted against Israel 7 times, abstained once, and supported Israel only once.

(more…)

5 Marines were killed in Iraq yesterday. The more than 2000 U.S. troops lost in Iraq makes me want to vomit. But now, as calls to pull our troops out of Iraq grow, I fear that a premature withdrawal will lead to an even greater disaster than the sacrifices already made. Cutting and running now would render this ultimate in human toll meaningless. Unfortunately, the great gains that have come from American sacrifices go under-reported.

Iraqis are learning the intricacies of democratic politics, as “accountability has taken root.” Coalitions are being formed and reshuffled. Pundits are speculating on party endorsements. A free press is flourishing. Millions have voted in two rounds of elections. Sunnis participated big-time in most recent elections, allaying all the fears about whether they were “engaged” (the link is from Aljazeera). With a new constitution ratified — the vote endorsed by the UN — Iraqis are entering the final stretch in proving that democracy can work in an Arab country (the Lebanese have recently proved that, too).

Iraq’s economy is booming (see here also). Though still “fragile,” it grew an astonishing 50% last year. Some investors see the country as an opportunity, despite all the bad news. On Tuesday, the United Gulf Bank (UGB) of Bahrain increased its holdings in Iraq’s Bank of Baghdad from $3.6 million to $36 million. According to Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,

Ordinary Iraqis are financially better off now than they were at any time in the past two decades. According to World Bank and International Monetary Fund estimates, per capita income has doubled since 2003. Iraq’s per capita gross domestic product is today almost twice that of Yemen and nearing that of Egypt and Syria, hardly a sign of failure in a country in which, just three years ago, antiwar groups insisted children were starving en masse. Statistics aside, the Iraqi economic boom is apparent to anyone who visits an Iraqi market. Not only are appliances and luxuries in the stores, but customers are actually purchasing them.

Iraqis today employ technologies that were nonexistent or off-limits to all but the Baathist elite just three years ago. As of September 2005, there were more than 3.5 million cell-phone subscribers in Iraq, for example. Under the Baath party, there was no cell-phone service, and possession of satellite phones was a capital offense. Internet cafés dot not only Baghdad thoroughfares, but also dusty back streets in provincial towns. When I visited the (restored) marshlands of southern Iraq, I checked my e-mail and sent dispatches from internet cafes not only in the Maysan provincial capital of al-Amarah and the Dhi Qar provincial capital of Nasiriyah, but also in small, dusty towns like Islah, a Dawa stronghold on the edge of the marshes.

Is Iraq becoming the “next Vietnam,” or is it being made into one?

John Murtha - a decorated Vietnam War veteran - said US troops had become “a catalyst for violence” in Iraq. …

“Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency, they are united against US forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence,” Mr Murtha said at an emotional news conference in Washington.

We’re causing the insurgency? A speedy American withdrawal is just what the jihadists want – to fulfill their dream of creating an Islamist caliphate in the heart of the Middle East, then spreading it. This is what al-Qaeda says in its own words – and it makes all sorts of racist statements against Iraq’s Shiites.

Many of the war critics legitimize Iraqi terrorists merely by labeling their atrocities as an “insurgency,” not the ethnic and religious cleansing that it really is. 26,000 Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of these “insurgents.”

While the Bush administration has certainly made some blunders in Iraq, Fareed Zakaria – nobody’s yes man, thinks that the neocons have “finally” implemented “a smart Iraq strategy.” Do we now feed Iraqis to the dogs?

We lost 400,000 in WWII, but Europe and Japan are flourishing free-market democracies. We lost 30,000 in Korea, and South Korea is one of the world’s wealthiest and freest nations. When we cut and run in Vietnam, after losing 50,000 men, the communists killed far more people than were lost in the war — all in the name of “re-education.” Cutting and running from Iraq would be an equally senseless tragedy. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman agrees with President Bush on Iraq: We can’t abandon this fledgling democracy. Many other Americans believe the same.

Bob Woodward just can’t resist the urge to play hardball with Washington’s powerbrokers. Now he’s caused a stir in the “Plamegate” debacle. Reads a Washington Post story today “Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby:”

The revelation that The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward may have been the first reporter to learn about CIA operative Valerie Plame could provide a boost to the only person indicted in the leak case: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Legal experts said Woodward provided two pieces of new information that cast at least a shadow of doubt on the public case against Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, who has been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Woodward testified Monday that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s public statements, a senior government official — not Libby — was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame and her role at the CIA. Woodward also said that Libby never mentioned Plame in conversations they had on June 23 and June 27, 2003, about the Iraq war, a time when the indictment alleges Libby was eagerly passing information about Plame to reporters and colleagues.

While neither statement appears to factually change Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby lied and impeded the leak investigation, the Libby legal team plans to use Woodward’s testimony to try to show that Libby was not obsessed with unmasking Plame and to raise questions about the prosecutor’s full understanding of events. Until now, few outside of Libby’s legal team have challenged the facts and chronology of Fitzgerald’s case.

Fitzgerald spent two years on the investigation, and must be a bit surprised at Woodward’s revelations.

This new variable will throw the radical Left into further turmoil. Woodward is one of their heroes, and remember that Fitzgerald deflated their expectations by explicitly and categorically stating:

This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe furthering the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are — have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel. The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction and I think anyone who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this process for any answers or resolution of that.

Now I certainly don’t begrudge Woodward for bringing down the paranoid Nignew administration, but that was long ago. One has to question what’s going on in Woodward’s head now. He lost legitimacy with me when he falsely charged that President Bush and the Saudis had a secret “deal” to keep oil prices low in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.

Plamegate does expose a certain hypocrisy in America’s media. On the one hand, many reporters were eager to learn the source of the supposed White House leak — to fuel their mission to bring down the fascist Bush. But what does this do to the tradition of keeping a story’s sources secret? On the other hand, many certainly wouldn’t want to shut down government leaks, an awesome source for news stories. The Fitzgerald investigation will certainly cause lawmakers to think very carefully before stepping forward as “anonymous sources.”

Just look at Judith Miller, who originally broke the Plame leak story, served jail time, and eventually revealed her source. This is what she now thinks of her long-time employer, the New York Times:

[Miller] described herself as a “free woman,” no longer bound to what she called the “convent of The New York Times, a convent with its own theology and its own catechism.”

While trying to clean out the terrorist hornets’ nest in Fallujah, Iraq last year, U.S. forces apparently used “highly caustic white phosphorus flares.” The news came out last week in a documentary produced by Rai, an Italian TV station. While the Pentagon fumbled, first denying, then admitting Rai’s claims, it appears that the phosphorus flares were never intentionally targeted at civilians. According to the BBC:

San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC’s Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used “as an incendiary weapon” against insurgents.

However, he “never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians”, he said.

Regarding the Pentagon’s response:

The US initially said white phosphorus had been used only to illuminate enemy positions, but now admits it was used as a weapon.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract that denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus “as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants” - though not against civilians, he said.

“Public relations disaster?” Or another solution looking for a problem. One more “reason” to oppose bringing democracy to Iraq…

Condi has brokered a deal that will ease international pressures on Israel, and hopefully help the lives of average Palestinians — if it is adhered to by Palestinians and Egyptians, that is. And there’s a big footnote. From the Beeb:

Israeli, Palestinian and EU officials have welcomed a deal to reopen Gaza’s border with Israel and Egypt.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brokered the deal which sees the Rafah border due to open on 25 November. …

It will allow Palestinians to travel in bus convoys between Gaza and the West Bank starting in a month, and in lorry convoys a month after that.

Its other provisions include:

- Beginning construction of a sea port for Gaza, and further discussions about an airport

- Allowing the urgent export from Gaza of all the agricultural produce of the 2005 harvest

- The reduction of obstacles to movement in the West Bank, which Israel still controls. …

The deal also includes video surveillance of the Rafah crossing to Egypt by a joint EU-Palestinian team.

Israel will have access to the video via the Europeans, but will not have veto power over individuals moving through Rafah, as it had wanted.

That last sentence make me nervous, re: security. As thanks for Israel’s concessions:

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas delivered a harsh criticism of Israel shortly after she [Rice] left.

In a speech marking the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1988, he accused Israel of wanting to push the Palestinians into civil war.

Let’s see. Israel withdraws from Gaza, starts relinquishing security control, and Abbas refuses to crack down on the terrorists causing the chaos there. Just how does this “push the Palestinians into civil war?” By the way, a civil war will be necessary if Palestinians are to implement the rule of law. There can be no indepenedent Palestinian state with Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc., running terrorist operations against Israeli civilians.

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun*
November 15, 2005
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3133
* Cross-posted with permission

A suicide bombing in Hadera, Israel, on October 26 that killed five people inspired the usual Palestinian joy: some 3,000 people took to the streets in celebration, chanting Allahu Akbar, calling for more suicide attacks against Israelis, and congratulating the “martyr’s” family on the success of the attack.

But Palestinian Arabs were uncharacteristically morose after three explosions went off on November 9, killing 57 persons and injuring hundreds, in Amman, Jordan. That’s because, for the very first time, they found themselves the main victim of those same Islamist “martyrs.”

(more…)

The Times of India today quotes Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf:

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that this country is a moderate country and moderate forces have reasserted themselves and religious forces have gone down.

I’d say he is almost half right. Moderate forces may be resting a bit easier. The proof in the pudding is in the eating. In September, Musharraf initiated talks with Israel for the first time ever. The foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan met in Turkey. Pakistan initiated contact as thanks for Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Turkey helped broker the unprecedented meeting.

On September 17, Musharraf spoke before the American Jewish Congress and said:

According to the Holy Quran and our Holy Prophet, Jews and Christians are the ‘People of the Book,’ belonging to the same spiritual tradition. … Our experiences and histories intertwine in many regions of the old world and most significantly in the Holy Land.

According to the BBC :

… in July 2003, President Pervez Musharraf called for a national debate on the possibility of opening diplomatic ties with Israel.

There were a few rumbles in reaction to this news. But Pakistan’s teeming masses of hysterical Islamists reacted rather mildly, relatively speaking, e.g., there weren’t quite as many car-swarms as expected. After Pakistan and Israel announced that their foreign ministers met in Istanbul, the BBC reported that Islamist reaction in Pakistan to the news was “muted.”

Could it be either 1) a grudging acceptance of the Jewish state, one which cannot be destroyed militarily or by terrorism, or 2) that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza has deflated anti-Israeli sentiment?

Musharraf lived in Turkey from the ages of 6 to 13 and, very interestingly, considers Kemal Ataturk his personal hero. I say this is very interesting because Ataturk founded Turkey and insisted that the country be modern and secular.

Pakistan’s president has survived several assassination attempts, yet has stuck to his course. Today he said:

Claiming that his government had broken most of the radical gangs and terrorist outfits, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has said his grip on power was strong and moderate forces had reasserted themselves in the country.

That may be a bit optimistic, but let us hope that Musharraf continues to seek the strength of his youthful convictions, when he considered Ataturk as a role model.

by Alexander H. Joffe
Middle East Quarterly*
Winter 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/789
* Cross-posted with permission

When the Middle East Studies Association’s annual conference ends on November 22, 2005, University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole[1] is scheduled to become the organization’s president. The association describes itself as:

A non-political association that fosters the study of the Middle East, promotes high standards of scholarship and teaching, and encourages public understanding of the region and its peoples through programs, publications, and services that enhance education, further intellectual exchange, recognize professional distinction, and defend academic freedom.[2]

As president, Cole is the public face of Middle Eastern studies. His election marks an endorsement of his work by hundreds of professors in various fields of Middle Eastern studies in American universities. Cole has written four academic books but his prominence comes not from scholarship but from his commentary on history and current events.[3] As such, this commentary provides a mirror into the state of Middle Eastern studies and the widespread urge of its practioners to promote polemic over scholarship.

(more…)

By Andrew L. Jaffee

Note: This article may seem pedantic, but it is aimed at those who are not “insiders” on the history of the Middle East.

I keep hearing the phrase, “It’s their land,” regarding Palestinian claims to Israel. Terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad publicly assert that their aims are to reclaim every inch of Israel as part of a proposed Palestinian homeland. Unfortunately, these ownership claims are echoed by “activist” groups like the International Solidarity Movement and the Palestine Solidarity Movement, both with throngs of naïve followers on U.S. and European college campuses. The followers are too eager to take these territorial claims at face value, concentrating on pure emotion as opposed to sound historical research.

Information about the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not that hard to find. For example, take the World Almanac and Book of Facts, available in any mainstream bookstore and at most public libraries. Its profile of Israel states,*

(more…)