Saturday, March 31, 2012

How To Stop An Israeli Attack On Iran & Get Re-elected!

How To Stop An Israeli Attack On Iran & Get Re-elected!

That is the prevailing thought from the Obama Regime Administration.  It is President Barack HusseinObama's fondest wish that the Islamic Republic of Iran gain a nuclear weapon, use it on Israel, and get rid of his Jewish Problem.
The United States is leaking information to the media in order to avert an Israeli strike in Iran: The US Administration recently shifted into high gear in its efforts to avert an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the end of the year. The flood of reports in the American media in recent weeks attests not only to the genuine US fear that Israel intends to realize its threats; moreover, it indicates that the Obama Administration has decided to take its gloves off.

Indeed, in recent weeks the Administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran. This “surgical strike” is undertaken via reports in the American and British media, but the campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.

The first and most important American objective is to eliminate potential operational options available to the IDF and the State of Israel. I have no intention of detailing or even hinting to the options which the US government aims to eliminate by exposing them in the media. A large part of the reports stem from false information or disinformation, and there is no reason to reveal to the Iranians what’s real and what isn’t. However, it is blatantly clear that reports in the past week alone have caused Israel substantive diplomatic damage, and possibly even military and operational damage.

Another Administration objective is to convince the Israeli public that an Iran strike (including a US attack) will not achieve even the minimum required to justify it; that is, a delay of at least 3-5 years in Iran’s nuclear program. A lengthy postponement would of course justify the suffering on Israel’s home front, while a six-month delay – as argued by a US Congress report – does not justify the risks.

The six-month figure was meant for the Israeli public, so that it would press Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to avoid a strike, whose futility the Americans are trying to prove in every way possible. At the same time, the campaign aims to erode the validity of demands voiced by many members of Congress and Senate – both Democrats and Republicans - who criticize the American president’s inaction.

The Congress report published Wednesday is maligned by several inaccuracies, in terms of both analysis and information. However, this makes no difference. The aim was to make headlines in the Israeli and Washington media, rather than an in-depth analysis, which isn’t possible as Congress researchers in Washington do not have access to all the relevant information, fortunately.

The third objective of the recent publications is to scare the Israeli public via an apocalyptic account of possible retaliation by Iran and its “clients.” This effort also aims to press Israeli decision-makers not to act (including the mention in the Congress report of the accurate fact that Israel’s home front is not adequately prepared to sustain a blow.) Some observers would argue that these reports are not damaging, but rather, grant the Israeli threat validity, thereby serving Western representatives in upcoming negotiations with Iran. So what’s wrong with that?

The damage has to do with the revelation of secret information and assessments that would require an expensive, risky intelligence effort for the Iranians to acquire. Indeed, the Iranians already realize that the West and Israel possess plenty of up-to-date information on Iran’s nuclear project, including centrifuge workshops in Tehran homes. The Ayatollah regime can also predict possible attack routes and methods by Israel and the US.

However, any rookie intelligence officer knows that there is a huge difference between unconfirmed estimates and solid facts or IDF aims and capabilities. Any Iranian intelligence analyst who reads the latest US Congress report or the Foreign Policy report will find invaluable information there. The overwhelming majority of the information has already been published, yet instead of forcing the Iranians to piece together all the assessments themselves, the Congress report offers them everything in one place, including detailed analysis.

Fortunately, as noted, Congress researchers and those who leaked the information to them apparently have some trouble in terms of reading comprehension.

To sum up, the American publications caused the following damage:
  • Iran now has a decent picture of what Israel’s and America’s intelligence communities know about Tehran’s nuclear program and defense establishment, including its aerial defenses.

  • The Iranians now know about the indications that would be perceived by Washington and Jerusalem as a “nuclear breakthrough”. Hence, Iran can do a better job of concealment.

  • The reports make it more difficult to utilize certain operational options. These options, even if not considered thus far, could have been used by the US in the future, should Iran not thwart them via diplomatic and military means.

Needless to say, this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama’s declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel’s vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies.

Indeed, there is a difference between legitimate persuasion efforts and practical steps to thwart Israeli plans and eliminate them.

For a total of seven years, I served as Yedioth Ahronoth’s reporter in Washington, so I know very well that with a few exceptions, the US Administration knows how to prevent leaks to the media if it so wishes. This is the case even when dealing with former officials, and most certainly when dealing with current government officials. What we are seeing here is not a trickle of information, but rather, a powerful current, a true flood that leaves no doubt as to the existence of an orchestrated media campaign with clear aims.

There is another interesting aspect to this story from an American point of view: In 2002, when President George W. Bush sought to embark on war in Iraq, US intelligence agencies provided him with all the “evidence” that Saddam Hussein is developing large quantities of nuclear and chemical weapons. Following the war, when no traces of such weapons were discovered in Iraq, a Congress inquiry found that US intelligence officials were so eager to satisfy their president that they cut corners and relied on unsubstantiated information.

Given American media reports in recent days, one must wonder whether history is repeating itself. Could it be that the US intelligence community is providing President Obama with what he needs for political reasons – that is, information meant to curb an Israeli or American strike on Iran?

An ally doesn't stab an ally in the back.  It is clear that Israel cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama to keep his word, to be an ally.  It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama wants a nuclear Iran, want Iran to Wipe Israel Off the Face of the Earth.  It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama would do the job himself if he could do it and still get the Jewish money he needs.

The Radical Left Unites With Iran in March on Jerusalem

The Radical Left Unites With Iran in March on Jerusalem

 By Mark Tapson 
In the wake of the innocuous-sounding “Arab Spring” that has brought openly Jew-hating Islamists to power in the Middle East, Israel’s enemies everywhere smell blood. Twice last year her borders were breached by mobs seeking violent confrontation, which they achieved as the Israelis defended against the invasion. Recently a global program designed to demonize the tiny democracy, called Israeli Apartheid Week, revved up further anti-Israel sentiment. And now on March 30, an Iranian-backed protest march will attempt to storm Israel’s borders again in an effort to take Jerusalem – or at the very least to draw fire, enabling the marchers and the complicit media to denounce Israel’s “brutality” against “peaceful” protesters.

The Global March to Jerusalem (GMJ) is a well-organized, well-funded movement consisting of Israel-hating activists from around the world seeking to deny Jewish historical connections to Jerusalem and to claim the city for the Palestinians instead. In a clear case of psychological projection, the organizers’ strategy begins with falsely accusing Israel of racism and war crimes:
The march will confirm that the policies and practices of the racist Zionist state of Israel against Jerusalem and its people are a crime not only against Palestinians but against all humanity.
The march is ostensibly peaceful, but in reality the marchers plan to launch their offensive from the Arab countries surrounding Israel and to infiltrate its borders, forcing the Israelis to respond with (justifiable) force – their ultimate goal being to overwhelm the Jewish state and Jerusalem itself by sheer numbers:
We aim to make this march a turning point in the nature of the confrontation, with the occupation having to face millions of protesters and demonstrators demanding Freedom for Palestine and its capitol Jerusalem.
At the heart of the GMJ lies Iran, whose regime expresses, on an almost weekly basis, its desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. It is financially backing various groups participating in the march, and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei verbally lent his imprimatur to the movement recently.

The protest has also been endorsed, unsurprisingly, by prominent radical leftists in the West including anti-apartheid activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former British MP George Galloway, radical professors Noam Chomsky and Cornel West, Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin, and the notoriously controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. A closer look at the anti-Israel track record of this star-studded lineup gives one a clear picture of just how great is the animus that the movement bears toward Israel.

Asserting that “Israel is like Hitler and apartheid,” Archbishop Tutu has been a decidedly anti-Israel voice for many years. Pro-Palestinian activist Galloway is an admirer of Saddam Hussein, Castro, Chavez, Mao, and Stalin. He insists that it is “necessary” for the “two great forces” of Islamists and progressives to unite against “Zionist occupation” and “savage capitalist globalization.”
As for GMJ’s prominent American supporters, influential academic Chomsky openly detests Israel; in 2005 Rachel Neuwirth called him
a one-man cottage industry of hundreds of anti-Israel books, articles, recorded interviews and lectures… Over a thirty-five year span Chomsky has repeated every distortion and libel directed against Israel that’s ever appeared in Arab, Western, and left-wing Israeli publications, to which he adds some conspiracy theories of his own devising.
Racist professor Cornel West is a close friend not only of Obama, the most anti-Israel President in history, but also of noted anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan; West is also an avowed admirer of Rev. Wright (see below). Medea Benjamin and her group Code Pink, who express support for every conceivable extant enemy of the United States from Cuba to North Korea to the Taliban to Hamas, blames the Middle East conflict largely on our “biased policy toward Israel”; meanwhile she praises the savage Hamas for its commitment to “mutual respect and adherence to international law.” That would be the same Hamas whose very charter promises the eradication of Israel.

Black liberation theologist Jeremiah Wright, President Obama’s spiritual mentor for nearly twenty years, has expressed his anti-white racism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism on too many occasions to enumerate. He has likened Israel to “a dirty word,” and accused it of waging genocide against the Palestinians (if so, it’s the most incompetent genocide in history, since the Palestinian population is one of the fastest-growing in the world). He and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, another former Obama associate, jointly addressed a crowd of pro-Palestinian protesters in Chicago in 2009. Like Ayers, Wright is so radioactive that even Obama finally distanced himself from the firebrand. Asked if he had spoken to Obama since he had taken office, Wright replied, “Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me.” The White House maintains its silence in response to Wright’s endorsement of the march on Israel.

Other notable American supporters of the march on Jerusalem are boosters of Obama as well. Writing for the Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo points out that progressivesClayborne Carson and Marcy Winograd donated to Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, as did United Nations official Richard Falk. Carson is a Stanford University professor who citesradical historian Howard Zinn as inspiration for his own political activism and scholarship, and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) schoolteacher Winograd is a Green Party activist who organized OccupyLAUSD to protest school budget cuts. In his position as UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Falk outraged many with his article “Slouching Towards a Palestinian Holocaust,” in which he described Nazi horrors and then drew a parallel with Israel: “Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not.”

The GMJ’s principal backer in the U.S. is the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a radical anti-Israel organization that justifies Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians and actively obstructs Israeli security and anti-terrorism operations. ISM co-founder Huwaida Arraf has acknowledged that her organization works with such paragons of peace as Hamas,Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

With supporters like these, it’s clear that the Global March to Jerusalem is not a peace movement but a large-scale publicity stunt designed to provoke Israel into a violent response, which the participants hope will play right into their relentless strategy to isolate and delegitimize the hated Israel.

PA’s way a parody

PA’s way a parody

Every now and then, at regular intervals of publicly bemoaned protestations of victimhood, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has demanded tangible displays of “confidence-building measures” from Israel. Occasionally, not always – usually when the United States privately echoes those PA protests – the government of Israel complies. It invariably releases Palestinian prisoners, decreases the number of roadblocks on roads from the West Bank leading into Israel or increases trade, commercial or other permits for Palestinian businessmen, entrepreneurs and merchants.
But the reverse has never happened – at least not since September 1993 in Washington, D.C., when a Palestinian leader actually signed a document witnessed by the president of the United States rejecting violence and committing his people to a peaceful resolution of their conflict with Israel. That leader, alas, soon proved himself to be a liar. And the Palestinians have seldom, if ever, extended any confidence-building measures toward the people of Israel since then.
In fact, the Palestinian leadership regularly does the opposite.  It diminishes the level of confidence that the “ordinary” Israeli yearns to feel toward them.
Last week, we saw the latest dispiriting, confidence-destroying behaviour. 
Following the precedent of the infamous Goldstone inquiry for which the PA clamoured after Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza in 2008, the PA sought and obtained last Thursday from the 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council the establishment of an “independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem.”
Like the tainted, corrupt body that created it, like the discredited inquiry into Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war, this latest UN inquiry of Israel conduct will be a travesty to truth, a sick parody and a wound to real concern over human rights abuses around the world.
In response to the council vote, Israel’s foreign ministry said: “The Palestinians must understand that they can’t have it both ways: they can’t enjoy co-operation with Israel and at the same time initiate political clashes in international forums. Had the Palestinians wanted to solve the settlements issue, they would resume without delay a direct and unconditional negotiation on all core issues within the framework of a comprehensive agreement.” Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, in condemning the council vote, effectively agreed. “We continue to call for direct negotiations between the two parties without preconditions.”
So do we. So should all governments and people who seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border

Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border

Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran's nuclear program. 

Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan -- along Iran's northern border. 

The article did not state exactly what the Israelis' intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran. 

"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack," Bolton claimed on Fox News. 

The White House did not respond to Bolton's claims Thursday.

Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country -- jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis' hand by revealing "very sensitive, very important information" could frustrate such a plan. 

Speaking afterward to, Bolton said he didn't have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack. 

But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that's the case, Bolton said, then it would be "entirely consistent" for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome. 

The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as "high-level sources ... inside the U.S. government." It specifically mentioned "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers." 
One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was "watching" the activity and was "not happy about it." 

The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.

"Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak," Bolton told "This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out." 

"It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies," Bolton said.

The IDF's absolutely non-political general

The IDF's absolutely non-political general

This week on the Tribal Update, the satirical newscast produced every wee by Latma, the Hebrew-language satirical media criticism website I run we present IDF OC Central Command Major General Nitzan Alon speaking about his non-political position on settlements, the Palestinians and everything in between.
We also bring you a new sketch with our favorite suicide bombers Jamil and Awad and a children't story about a man who forgot something and couldn't remember what it was.

Latma is funded through contributions to the Center for Security Policy in Washington. If you are in the United States and would like to support our efforts, you can contribute by clicking here. It takes you to the online contribution page for the Center for Security Policy through Network for Good. To earmark your donation to Latma, please write "Latma" in the box marked "designation."

If you live outside the US, we formed a non-profit organization in Israel to accept donations from outside the US called the Zionist Incubator. 

Here is the information you need to make wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.

First of all, here is the link to Latma's page for donating by credit card through PayPal. 

Second, here is the information you need to wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.
Bank Name: Israel Discount Bank Ltd.
Branch Number: 510
Branch Name: Mevasseret Zion
Account Number (IBAN 23 digits): IL94-0115-1000-0010-4351-154

John Bolton is also advising Romney

John Bolton is also advising Romney

After having criticized Mitt Romney for having former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden advising him, I feel it is only fair to point out that former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton is also advising the likely Republican presidential nominee. And unlike Hayden, Bolton  is a brilliant strategic thinker, organizational leader and innovator, and friend of Israel.

In an article in Newsmax published this week, Bolton laid out the threat a nuclear armed Iran poses to the Middle East and the US and presented the argument for military strikes against Iran' nuclear facilities. He summarized Obama's policies towards Iran noting that Obama has no intention of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities and opposes an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities more than he opposes a nuclear armed Iran. 

Bolton then called for the US -- through the Congress -- to support an Israeli military strike. The most important thing the US can do in this regard is ensure that the US will resupply Israel with the military platforms it will need to defend itself against the likely Iranian decision to use its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies to attack Israel to retaliate against an IDF strike on Iran's nuclear installations.

Bolton doesn't cover any new ground in his article. But what he does do is show that Newt Gingrich was talking sense when he said that if he is elected president he will appoint Bolton to serve as his Secretary of State.

Despite Gingrich's enthusiastic endorsement, Bolton came out in support of Romney. He argued that Romney is the most conservative candidate that has the potential to defeat Obama. Since he announced his support, Bolton has reportedly been advising Romney. So after attacking Romney advisor Michael Hayden yesterday for his apparent support for Obama's Iran policy, it is only fair to salute him for having Bolton on his team. 

I think it would be extremely helpful if  for Romney's supporters to pressure him to commit to appointing Bolton as his Secretary of State in the event he wins the Republican nomination and defeats Obama in November. If Romney were to do that, I would say that every right thinking person should go to bat for him. Right now a Romney vs. Obama race is a choice between an acceptable option and an unacceptable one. If he announced that Bolton will be his Secretary of State, Romney would immediately transform the content into a race between an amazing option and an unacceptable one.

Legalizing targeted killings

Legalizing targeted killings

Dore Gold

For most of the last decade, Israel has absorbed incessant criticism for its policy of targeted killings against the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations. After the elimination of Sheik Ahmad Yassin and Abdul Aziz Rantissi, both of whom had masterminded Hamas attacks against Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada, then U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan demanded that Israel “immediately end” its practice of “extrajudicial killings” – a convenient term for Annan, implying that military targets should be tried on the battlefield in the midst of a war.
At a meeting of the U.N. Security Council in April 2004 on this question, Israel was castigated by one country after another. The British representative said the practice was “unlawful.” The French spokesman said that Israel was violating “fundamental principles of international law.” The Russians said they rejected Israel’s policy. When Israel began using targeted killings more extensively to put an end to the wave of suicide attacks in the heart of Israel’s cities after the outbreak of the Second Intifada, even the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, adopted the same tough rhetoric against Israel. He appeared on Israeli television in July 2001, saying: “The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations.’’ He specifically added: “They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”

It is against that background that the speech by U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder on March 5 at Northwestern University School of Law appeared revolutionary. He announced: “It is entirely lawful ... to target specific senior operational leaders of Al-Qaida and associated forces.” Holder rejected calling these operations “assassinations.” He said, “They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced,” because assassinations were “unlawful killings.” The context of his legal decision was significant, for he made clear: “We are at war with a stateless enemy.” This meant that the laws of war applied to the war on terrorism. It was not a police action, in which terrorists were to be arrested and read their rights. The terrorist masterminds that were being targeted were combatants, plain and simple.

What happened to cause this change? Washington’s policy has been evolving since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, after which U.S. intelligence agencies began using targeted killings very selectively. The technological development of unmanned aerial vehicles, like the Predator, and pinpoint intelligence made the use of warfare against terrorist organizations possible. But there were initially legal questions involved. Was the war against terrorism a law enforcement activity that required capturing terrorists and putting them on trial? Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says in his memoirs that when U.S. forces went into Afghanistan in 2001, using a Predator drone, they identified a convoy with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. But before the Predator could shoot, there were long consultations with lawyers, by which time Omar had escaped.

The first known successful drone attack by the U.S. was in Yemen in November 2002 against an Al-Qaida leader who had been involved in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. In June 2006, the U.S. Air Force eliminated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the commander of Al-Qaida in Iraq, using a targeted killing. But where the use of targeted killings greatly expanded was in Pakistan, which gave sanctuary to the Taliban forces fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan. Targeted attacks using drones allowed the U.S. to counter the Taliban beyond the Afghan border in Pakistan without having to invade its territory with ground forces. The number of these attacks increased dramatically in George W. Bush’s last year in office and especially during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Israel’s experience with Hamas and other terrorist organizations was not very different from what the West had to face against the Taliban. Hamas wanted to use international law to its advantage in the struggle with Israel; it even opened up a legal division, al-Tawthiq (documentation), that provided data on Israeli military activities to the U.N. and other bodies seeking to take action against IDF officers. Hamas’ strategy was to mix its military commanders with its civilian population, which it used as human shields. It hoped the West would conclude that Hamas commanders were protected from attack by international humanitarian law, like the famous Fourth Geneva Convention. Such a determination would have tied the hands of the IDF in defending Israel. As a result, Hamas could strike Israeli civilians with rockets with impunity, while hiding behind a legal curtain that protected its commanders.

There were Israeli NGOs, like the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, that petitioned the country’s Supreme Court in 2005, arguing that the laws of war did not apply in Israel’s struggle with terrorist organizations, but rather “the legal system dealing with law enforcement in occupied territory.” As a result, targeted killings, in their view, were “totally illegal.” The Supreme Court rejected the petition against targeted killings, making clear that the law of armed conflict applied to the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. It still required balancing humanitarian considerations with military needs. Clearly, in each case that Israel decided on a targeted killing of a terrorist commander, proportionality needed to be carefully observed and civilian casualties avoided as much as possible, as in any military operation.

After U.S. forces eliminated Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, Professor Alan Dershowitz noted that all the states ganging up on Israel for killing Hamas leaders were now silent about the case of Bin Laden. This was a case of global hypocrisy. The NATO allies in Afghanistan were benefiting from targeted killings by U.S. forces against the Taliban. The Russian parliament adopted a law in 2006 permitting Russian security services, with the approval of the president, to kill alleged terrorists overseas. Belatedly, the major powers are validating the same Israeli strategy against terrorism that they had universally condemned a little more than a decade ago.

Global jihad on Jerusalem

Global jihad on Jerusalem

Ruthie Blum

With the backing of the mullahs in the East, the support of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement in the West, and lots of press coverage everywhere, the “Global March to Jerusalem” kicks off Friday. As soon as all the “peace-loving” Muslims in the region emerge from their mosques following Friday morning prayers, there’s going to be a big protest against the Jews.

Scheduling it to coincide with Land Day -- one of many made-up modern Arab “holidays” the purpose of which is to rile up street mobs and foreign media outlets against the “Zionist entity” – is a way of giving it a veil of legitimacy (pun intended).

Declaring that Arab Christians should join their Muslim counterparts to protect their holy sites from the Jews is an attempt at diverting attention away from the ongoing persecution of Christians in Muslim societies.

What fun for Hamas and the PLO, who get to pretend that the parade to Israel’s borders from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt -- and the solidarity demonstrations in front of Israeli embassies elsewhere -- is a testament to how much the world worries about the plight of the “Palestinian people.”

But they know something that their Western backers don’t bother noting. They know that if it weren’t for the stupidity of some fellow travelers, the knee-jerk ideology of others, and a new legitimized anti-Semitism disguised as “criticism of Israeli policies,” their self-proclaimed nation would long ago have been forgotten or annihilated. Not by Israel, mind you. No, Israel isn’t into mass murder, in spite of what the radical Islamists who enjoy beheading men and circumcising women constantly claim. And it’s a pretty clever propaganda tactic on their part, since they actually respect barbaric practices, and believe their prophet, Muhammad, did too. But they read The New York Times, the Guardian and Haaretz just as carefully as their left-wing apologists in democratic countries do. You see, despite the myth that suicide terrorists and their dispatchers are the product of poverty and despondence, many of them are in fact graduates of MIT, Oxford and even the Hebrew University. Osama bin Laden may have lived in a few caves after 9/11, but he was plenty familiar with room service and wireless Internet.

The now totally impotent Palestinian Authority – on whose supposed behalf liberals’ hearts bleed to the point that they imagine it is different from Hamas – is fully aware that if it were up to its Arab-Muslim brethren, it would have died a stillbirth in 1967. Indeed, over the last 45 years, it has been utterly dismissed, financially abandoned and loathed by any and every Arab country in the region that actually has a Palestinian population to contend with. And though it is said that the Palestinians are the most educated group in the Middle East (other than Israelis), they are nevertheless considered by their “brothers” in the region to be the dregs of the earth.

That the Arab-Muslim world has used them as a tool for their own hegemonic aims is neither new nor surprising. After all, the Palestinian leadership – from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas to Ismail Haniyeh – has itself always made cynical use of the very populace it purports to promote.
Not only has it kept people in squalor for decades in refugee camps as a PR ploy, but it has pocketed all the billions of dollars and euros and shekels that have been earmarked for institution-building and food. And what hasn’t been appropriated for personal use has been spent on arms.

Another thing that the PLO and Hamas know is that the “Arab Spring” has nothing to do with a widespread yearning for democracy in the Middle East, but rather with Islamic fervor fighting secular autocracy, on the one hand, and with angry Arabs wanting their own turn at torturing civilians who don’t follow their orders on the other. The last thing the Palestinian leaders want now is to be slaughtered (a la Moammar Gadhafi) by bloodthirsty revenge-seekers over whom they currently have control.

What could be better than killing several birds with one stone, and using Israel as the scapegoat? And what better issue could there be around which to unite than “affirming the Arab and Palestinian character of Jerusalem” and “against the Zionist policies of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and Judaization”?

Let us not kid ourselves about the motive of the march. It is not about land. It is not about a two-state solution. It is not about Jerusalem.

It is what all such campaigns have been since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. It is about what Arafat spelled out when he created the PLO in 1964 (three years before the Six-Day War). It is about what he and his successors continued to assert in Arabic.

It is about making the Middle East, and eventually the rest of the world, Judenrein, cleansed of Jews, which is why the Iranian regime is behind it every step of the way.

Ruthie Blum, a former senior editor at The Jerusalem Post, is the author of a book on the radicalization of the Middle East, to be released by RVP Press in the spring.

Weeds, the video

Weeds, the video

How much have Muslims venerated the Temple Mount throughout history?

Here's a video I made in 2008 that seems appropriate to repost on this day that so many are pretending to love Jerusalem.