CenterFeud

Taking Iran (and its allies) at its word

Mark Steyn is singularly unimpressed with the reaciton of the world community's reaction to the latest belligerent statements from Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which he backed off his original position that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and instead insisted that the Holocaust was a fiction, but perhaps if Europeans felt bad about it they could make space for Israel in Germany and Austria. His piece is called, fittingly, "But seriously folks, this clown is dangerous":

So let's see: We have a Holocaust denier who wants to relocate an entire nation to another continent, and he happens to be head of the world's newest nuclear state. (They're not 100 percent fully-fledged operational, but happily for them they can drag out the pseudo-negotiations with the European Union until they are. And Washington certainly won't do anything, because after all if we're not 100 percent certain they've got WMD -- which we won't be until there's a big smoking crater live on CNN one afternoon -- it would be just another Bushitlerburton lie to get us into another war for oil, right?)

So how does the United States react? Well, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the comments of Ahmadinejad "further underscore our concerns about the regime."

Really? But wait, the world's superpower wasn't done yet. The State Department moved to a two-adjective alert and described Ahmadinejad's remarks as "appalling" and "reprehensible." "They certainly don't inspire hope among any of us in the international community that the government of Iran is prepared to engage as a responsible member of that community," said spokesman Adam Ereli.

You don't say. Ahmadinejad was speaking in the holy city of Mecca, head office of the "religion of peace," during a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. There were fiftysomething other heads of government in town. How many do you think took their Iranian colleague to task?

Well, what's new? But, that being so, it would be heartening if the rest of the world could muster a serious response to the guy. How one pines for a plain-spoken tell-it-like-it-is fellow like, say, former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali? As he memorably said of Iran, "It's a totalitarian regime." Oh, no, wait. He said that about the United States. On Iran, he's as impeccably circumspect and discreet as the State Department.

Iran's nuclear ambitions will come to a head (or perhaps to an abrupt halt) in early March, when they reach the point at which they can enrich enough uranium to have bombs within 2-4 years. No one expects Israel to sit still, but no one seems to be doing much else to thwart Iran. It would help to have the Russians and Chinese on board (for once) but they are more interested in pursuing their own trade agreements with Iran. In the meantime, the US and Europe dither (one hopes that dithering is a smokescren for some serious contingency planning) and Israel tests its anti-missile defense systems.

When the attack on Israel comes, it may come from several directions, not just in the form if incoming warheads from Tehran but in attacks coordinated through Al-Qaeda and Hamas in Gaza, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Palestinian Jihad in the West Bank, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Has anyone noticed that, in spite of having peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, Israel is still bordered on its north, west and south by people who have declared openly they want it wiped off the map? When were we planning to take them at their word?

A Muslim reformer's perspective of Israel

Tashbih Sayyed, the California-based Editor In Chief of Muslim World Today visits Israel and ponders how it can be so different from the way it is portrayed in the media:

There are many things that I wanted to talk about with Israelis, the foremost among them being their reluctance to do something about the bad press that continues to paint them as villains. Although I understand why the media, which reasonably covers most events accurately, chooses to ignore all rules of ethical journalism when it comes to Israel, I could not fathom Israel's reluctance to challenge the negative press effectively. Media bias against Israel reminded me of the Nazi-era German press that was recruited by Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, who picked every hate-laden word against the Jews. Just like the German press that refused to print the truth about the gruesome atrocities in Europe's death camps, or claimed that it was all an exaggeration, the media today also ignores Arab terrorism.

I wanted to see if there was any truth in the media allegations that Israel was an apartheid state, undemocratic and discriminatory.

What he found was, well, Israel:

The very first day in Caesarea introduced us to Israeli democracy. The air was full of political debate and discussion. Ariel Sharon's decision to leave the Likud and form a new political party dominated the hotel halls and underlined the problems caused by the necessity of having democratic coalitions. Someone commented: "The object of a free and democratic Israeli society is to reach satisfactory compromise, but often the conclusions are less than satisfactory - especially for the majority. It involves coalitions and unity, which are also checks and balances on any potential abuse of minority rights. It is a better system than the American representative Republican system - which is really a representation of power and special interests. In the US, you get a democracy for the few. In Israel, you have a democracy for everyone."

I tried very hard to find any Muslim state that has true democracy and where religious minorities are accorded equal democratic rights, but failed. The map of the Muslim world is too crowded with kings, despots, dictators, sham democrats and theocratic autocrats, and the persecution of minorities is an essential part of Islamist social behavior. But here, protected by Israel's democratic principles, the Muslim Arab citizens of Israel are afforded all the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship. When the first elections to the Knesset were held in February of 1949, Israeli Arabs were given the right to vote and to be elected along with Israeli Jews. Today, Israel's Arab citizens are accorded full civil and political rights, entitled to complete participation in Israeli society. They are active in Israeli social, political and civic life, and enjoy representation in Israel's parliament, foreign service and judicial system.

Sayyed is also president of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute. He is an opponent of radical Islam, terrorism, and organizations that act as fronts or apoligists for jihad. I think it's safe to say that his view of Israel is far from representative of mainstream Muslim opinion. Or for that matter, the mainstream media in most parts of the world. But I wish it were.

(Hat tip: Dhimmi Watch)

The Gaza dilemma: What about the rockets? What about the world?

The Israeli pullout from Gaza is all but fait accompli. In an op-ed piece written last week for the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer lays out a reasoned argument as to why the Gaza pullout was the right thing for Israel to do:

Gaza was simply a bridge too far: settlements too far-flung and small to justify the huge psychological and material cost of defending them. Pulling out of Gaza leaves behind the first truly independent Palestinian state -- uncontrolled and highly militant, but one from which Israel is fenced off.

If Israel can complete its West Bank fence, it will have established a stable equilibrium and essentially abolished terrorism as a regular and reliable means of attack -- i.e., as a usable strategic weapon. That will leave the Palestinians a stark choice: Remain in their state of miserable militancy with no prospects of victory or finally accept the Jewish state and make a deal.

That is Israel's strategy. There are two problems with it: What about the rockets? What about the world?

I always find it a bit dismaying that journalists and pundits who make serious-sounding statements about "the next step in the Middle East Road Map" are almost without exception focusing on further concessions by Israel. The Palestinian Authority receives no real scrutiny, and the world has never held it accountable for its obligation under the Road Map, which is to make a genuine effort to disarm terrorist groups and prevent attacks against Israel.

In such a context, it is not surprising that many Palestinians believe there is no downside to continuing to fire Katushya rockets across the Gaza border into Israel. The dysfunctional and corrupt PA is not in any position to confront Hamas, which is a force to be reckoned with in Gaza, both politically and militarily. In any event the PA leadership finds it convenient for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations (including its own closely affiliated Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) to press the attack against Israel, while maintaining a facade of plausible deniability before its Western interlocutors.

Israel and the US both know this, but everyone is playing a public game while each pursues separate but not so-hard-to-discern policy goals.

Hamas and other Islamist groups have always been quite clear about their aims: the total destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place. That state would be a strict Islamist regime, comparable to Afghanistan under the Taliban. In fact, it would become the new Afghanistan, as Hamas is coordinating its efforts with al-Qaeda, which it sees as an ally in the war against the West. They are using the pullout as a propaganda victory in that war, claiming to have chased the Israelis out of Gaza, as Hezbollah claimed to chase them out of southern Lebanon.

Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah (Conquest) party have similar goals but are somewhat more secular in their outlook. It suits them to be positioned as moderates as compared to Hamas, but in fact have stated quite openly that their eventual goal is not two states living side-by-side in peace but a single Palestinian state encompassing all of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel proper. This is stated clearly in the charter of the PLO, which was written before Israel occupied the West Bank and has never been revoked, though statements were made during the Oslo years to lead the West to believe this was the case.

Fatah's strategy is to profess the willingness to negotiate, but make only cosmetic efforts to combat terrorist groups, since the PA can distance itself from the attackers while reaping the benefits. So long as the world continues to make an exception to terrorism directed at Israel, this strategy will work. To this day, the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Fatah's "military wing", continues to launch attacks against Israel's citizens, which the PA maintains the charade of denying any connection. Fatah will also press for the most expansive interpretation of the "right of return" since demographics and birthrates would eventually result in a Palestinian majority even within Israel proper. Over the long haul, negotiations and terrorism are complementary tactics for achieving the same strategic goal, the eradication of Israel.

This is not to say that there are no Palestinian moderates who are genuine in their desire for peaceful coexistence with Israel, but based on polls they are not in the majority and there is little evidence of them in the leadership of the PA, which in any event is on the brink of collapse. So as Israel looks for a peace partner, it must choose between radicals who preach jihad now, or "moderates" who are willing to bide their time and incrementally move towards a future conquest of Israel that they see as inevitable, a policy which they are willing to pursue over decades or even centuries if necessary.

During the '90s, the Israeli government of Ehud Barak was skeptical about the Oslo Accords, but worked with the Clinton White House and the EU to pursue a peace deal with Arafat on the grounds that it was worth the risk. During that time, terrorist activity ebbed (though it didn't entirely disappear) and the Palestinan economy benefited from ties with Israel. Following the collapse of Oslo and in response to the second intifada, Israel began pursuing a strategy of separating itself from the Palestinians, with its major settlements on one side of the barrier and would-be suicide bombers on the other. While the fence's path, which cuts through areas of the West Bank, routinely provokes international condemnation, the fence itself is an entirely rational response by a democracy confronted with the nightmare a dysfunctional society next door that trains its children to become human bombs, and whose religious leaders preach hatred of Jews on the official airwaves.

In this context, the Gaza pullout makes tremendous sense to Israel, not as a "peace offering" (Sharon is not so naive) but as a military strategy. It makes no sense to have 9,000 settlers surrounded by 1.3 million Palestinians, many of whom want them dead. Even from a religious standpoint, Gaza has little significance compared to areas of the West Bank ("Judea and Samaria" to the Israeli right). It requires some thirty thousands IDF soldiers to protect those settlements, and Sharon's decision to abandon them is based purely on a cost-benefit analysis. Removing the settlements not only removes the roadblocks and occupation forces that have increased misery for the Palestinian residents of Gaza, but it also puts the emphasis on the creation of a functioning civil government. He (and future Israeli leaders) can now demand that Gaza get its house in order before there are any further concessions. And should Israel need to undertake military operations against Hamas and other terrorist groups using Gaza as a base, they can go on the offensive without having to divert resources to protecting setllers (not killing innocent Palestinians in the process will still be a major challenge, given that terrorist groups often hide among and draw support from the civilian population).

From the US perspective, Bush is making the best of a fait accompli handed to him by Sharon. Recall that Sharon's unilateral decision to pull out from Gaza was originally viewed with misgivings by the United States and others because it was a departure from the Road Map and the decision was made unilaterally, without consultation with the Palestinians. It was only after Sharon made clear that he was determined to carry out the Gaza withdrawal at whatever cost, that the Bush administration began to tout it as a step towards peace in the region. By lending US support to the withdrawal, Bush can placate his critics who would rather his Middle Eastern policy focused on a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the democratization of Iraq. And while he is not keen to see a terrorist base emerge in Gaza or the West Bank, he recognizes that an eventual peace deal, whether next year or in 50 years, will involve the removal of large numbers of settlers in both Gaza and the West Bank. If Israel chooses to undertake such removals for its own reasons, why should any US administration stand in its way? Eventually, when Israel draws the line at further concessions and consolidates its West Bank settlements behind the separation fence, the Americans will be in a position to argue that the some positive steps were taken, which will help Israel's image within the international community.

And what of the international community? Does Israel's uprooting of settlers from Gaza buy it legitimacy in the eyes of a world that views it as tantamount to Apartheid-era South Africa? Not likely. The rest of the world will continue to blithely ignore cross-border missile attacks on Israel from Gaza that, were they aimed at Britain, France, Russia, China, the US or virtually any other country one cares to name, would be rightly seen as an act of war, with a major military response entirely justified. Instead, these attacks will be viewed as evidence that Israel needs to go through further painful withdrawals from settlements in the West Bank, in order to pave the way for a "just and comprehensive resolution".

Let's test that assumption. Assume Sharon or a successor government took the next step urged by the international community, the Israeli Left, and even Condoleeza Rice, and uprooted tens of thousands of settlers from the West Bank. Would attacks on Israel stop? No, if historical precedence is a guide, they would most certainly increase, as the hard-line factions would claim -- with some justification -- that violent attacks on civilians were weakening Israel's political will and forcing it to retreat, with no parallel compromises or concession required on the Palestinian side. Even if Israel withdrew to its pre-1967 borders -- within which portions of the country are only nine miles wide and extremely vulnerable to attacks that would place Northern Israel at risk of siege, and which no Israeli government considers defensible -- that would still not result in a resolution to the conflict, as there would still be the matter of Palestinian control East Jerusalem. If we assume the Israelis were to cede East Jerusalem, would that move the region closer to peace? No, because as the PA considers all of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and has not shown any inclination that it would accept a dvided Jerusalem. So those who are expecting that concessions from the Israelis will result in reciprocal concessions from the Palestinians will repeatedly find their hopes dashed.

What could change this dynamic? The emergence of a stable Palestinian government that was really interested in building a true state, as opposed to tearing down the one next door. What would be the indicators that such a government was in charge? For one thing, we'd see Palestinian leaders renounce terrorism unequiviocally, not just rhetorically pro forma but in deed. Incitement against Jews by official imams and broadcasts on Palestinian TV glorifying suicide bombers would end. Aggressive crackdowns on radical groups would become the norm. Children would be raised with hopes for peace, rather than groomed for jihad. We'd see homegrown Palestinian peace organizations that are counterparts to B'Tselem in Israel. We'd see Palestinians speak openly of their Israeli friends, and of the things they admire about Israel, as Americans and Russians did of one another, even at the height of the Cold War. The PA would not need to forswear criticism of Israel (why should they do that when Israelis frequentky criticize their own government?) but would focus their resentment against Israeli policies as opposed to the fact of Israel's existence. And they might reserve some of their scorn for figures on their own side whom they view as barriers to peaceful coexistence.

Since this kind of shift is by its nature generational, none of these developments is likely to happen in the near future. There is a possible future in which political and economic cooperation between Israel and Palestine is indeed possible (in fact, there was evidence of it at the grassroots level during the Oslo years). Gaza was a start -- now, the Palestinians will need to get serious about making their state a reality. In the meantime, Israel will gird itself for more rockets across its borders, and more condemnation from the rest of the world.

UPDATE: Don't miss Mark Steyn's scathing assessment of the aftermath of the Gaza withdrawal:

Even when Ariel Sharon hands them a great “victory”, some Palestinians can’t stop blowing themselves up long enough to celebrate it. I’ve never subscribed to the notion that this or that people “deserve” a state - a weird and decadent post-modern concept of nationality and sovereignty, even if it weren’t so erratically applied (how about the Kurds then?). The United States doesn’t exist because the colonists “deserved” a state, but because they went out and fought for one. The same with the Irish Republic. By contrast the world deemed Palestinians “deserving” of a state ten, three, six, eight decades ago, and they’ve absolutely no interest in getting it up and running. Any honest visitor to the Palestinian Authority is struck by the complete absence of any enthusiasm for nation-building – compared with comparable pre-independence trips to, say, Slovenia, Slovakia, or East Timor. Invited to choose between nation-building or Jew-killing, the Palestinians prioritise Jew-killing – every time.

(Hat tip: Ambivablog)

UPDATE: That didn't take long...

[The EU envoy to the Middle East, Mark Otte] dismissed statements by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Israel will retain large blocs of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria in any permanent arrangement with the Palestinian Authority. Such commitments, the European Union envoy asserted, are nothing more than "spin" intended for internal Israeli consumption.

The EU also does not take seriously Israel's demand that the PA fulfill its commitments to disarm Arab terrorist groups. According to the Al-Quds interview, Mr. Otte said the EU does not demand that the PA confront terrorist groups militarily, or that the PA initiate a civil war in order to carry out its obligations.

Moving out of Gaza was still, in my view, the right thing for Israel to do, both morally and tactically. But the rest of the world will continue to make Israel the lone exception when it comes to condemning acts of terror. No concession Israel can make, short of national suicide, will be satisfactory. But what concessions should Europe be willing to make when Al-Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups decide the time is ripe to reclaim the occupied terroritories of al-Andalus (i.e. Spain)?

Making his list, checking it twice

Alan Dershowitz makes some very needed distinctions between criticizing Israel for its policies and blatant anti-semitism. Shamefully, in the global discourse about Israel, we see too little of the former and too much of the latter.

Nature abhors a vacuum - and so does Jordan

Wheels within wheels...DEBKA has a fascinating bit of speculation on Jordan's contingency plans should Abu Mazen's government fall, leading to a power vacuum in the West Bank:

Last Tuesday, April 11, US president George W. Bush and Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon debated the chances of propping Abbas’ rule up against collapse. Next Thursday, two senior American officials, deputy head of the national security council Elliott Abrams and undersecretary of state for Near East affairs David Welch, will be visiting Jerusalem and Ramallah to try and determine its feasibility.

But according to our Amman sources, Abdullah thinks the Palestinian Authority under Abu Mazen is sinking rapidly and may be beyond saving. What interests him most is the July 17 Palestinian election and its potential impact on stability in his kingdom given his large Palestinian population. Hamas’ prospects of sweeping the election improve as Abbas weakens. Of one thing Abdullah is certain: he cannot afford a Hamas takeover of Palestinian government in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian Hamas terrorist group is not isolated or autonomous; it is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement which is strongest in the Arab world. A Brotherhood-dominated government in Ramallah would point a knife at the Hashemite throne in Amman.

Abdullah is therefore turning over the possibility of Jordan moving in to fill the power vacuum that would be formed on the West Bank by Abu Mazen’s downfall.

Most people who rail against Israel's occupation of the West Bank seem to not recall that Jordan occupied the West Bank from 1948 through 1967, with nary a complaint from anyone, least of all the Arab world. From Jordan's standpoint, the occupation made sense, since Jordan was formerly known as Eastern Palestine, and 70% of its population is made up of Palestinians (though it is ruled by the Hashemites, a different ethnic group). DEBKA's reading of the situation is that Jordan's King Abdullah (not to be confused with the Saudi Crown Prince by the same name) is prepared to reintegrate the West Bank rather than let it fall under the influence of Hamas.

As for the West Bank, the Jordanian king would not be surprised if a breakdown of the Abbas government in Ramallah produced an invitation from Washington, pro-Jordanian elements among the Palestinians - and even possibly Israel, for him to step in and sort out the mayhem in the West Bank.

Such an invitation might lead to consideration of a plan to make the territory the Jordanian kingdom’s fourth wilaya. The Palestinian Authority already has a muqataa - the Ottoman Empire’s term for a governing administration under the Sultan. It would retain broad powers in such local fields of operation as employment, education, and general services to the population, while West Bank representatives would be integrated in the Palestinian faction of the disempowered central parliament in Amman...

Washington sources have no doubt that the king discussed his West Bank concept with Bush during their White House talks in March. Neither gave the game away in their public appearances later. The president only praised “His Majesty’s” steps for democracy in general terms, making no commitments. He may have set Abdullah’s suggestion aside as a possible Plan B for consideration if the Palestinian Authority crisis becomes terminal. Our American sources are certain Sharon was clued in on the Jordanian option when he visited the presidential ranch in Texas last week.

DEBKA's reports are always intriguing, even if not always credible. It draws on intelligence sources from within the region who have their own agendas for spinning their versions of events and/or spreading disinformation, and the site often trades in outright runmor or speculation. But its reputation is for getting about 50% of its calls right, which is better than the CIA is doing right now.

And it remains a fact that Jordan is a key player and an ostensible "moderate" Arab country that maintains diplomatic relations with Israel and works in the background with the US. So it's not at all a stretch to imagine that, should Abu Mazen crumble, Jordan would be integral to any "Plan B" scenarios being discussed with regional leaders when they pay a visit to Crawford.

Two weeks in the Reserves

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Reserves, that is, on patrol in the West Bank. A must-see photo-essay with some images that I can pretty much guarantee will never be published anywhere else. Doesn't fit the storyline.

(Via Little Green Footballs)

Reaching the "Rinse" Cycle of Violence

Bill Roggio debunks the "cycle of violence" meme that has become a predictable cliche in any discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:

The problem with the cycle of volence meme is that it implies Israel, and not the Palestinians, is the origin of violence in the conflict, and excuses Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli citizens. The logic that flows from accepting the veracity of the cycle of violence goes something like this: “The attack on the bat-mitzvah / university / pizza shop / restaurant / bus / prayer gathering was horrendous, but Israel has to take responsibility for uprooting olive trees, building the fence, closing borders, conducting searches, building settlements and razing homes of the families of militants. If Israel would just stop these actions, the Palestinians would not have to resort to such measures.” In essence, the Cyclists are stating the violence is the fault of the Israelis and they are getting what they deserve.

The Cyclists apply moral equivalence to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Israeli responses to terror attacks are considered to be just as heinous as the deliberate targeting of Israeli citizens. They ignore the motives of some actions, such as the destruction of the homes of Palestinians, the destruction or seizure of farm land and the construction of the fence. Actions such as destroying olive groves are taken to remove known mortar and rocket firing sites of Palestinian terrorists. Homes are demolished to remove known smuggling tunnel entrancess, weapons factories, meeting places and supply depots. Both of these actions are undertaken with the idea of punishing those who cooperated. The message to the Palestinians is, if you don’t want your home destroyed or crops uprooted, do not allow terrorists to use your property to attack Israel. And do not encourage your sons and daughters to martyr themselves. The security fence was designed to stop the infiltration of suicide bombers into Israel proper, and has been successful. While they possess the region's most powerful military, the Israelis have been remarkably restrained in their actions against Palestinians. The Israelis take great pains to minimize the death of Palestinian civilians, while the Palestinians intentionally target Israeli citizens. Short of genocide, what are the Israelis to do if the Palestinians will not police their own?

The solution, says Roggio, lies with the Palestinians themselves:

Until the Palestinians accept the fact that terrorist attacks will only worsen their situation, they are doomed to live in a Palestinian induced cycle of self destruction. In order for the cycle to be broken, the Palestinians must reach the “rinse” cycle; they must clean house and purge the terrorists that refuse to accept a negotiated solution to the issue of Palestinian statehood and Israel’s right to exist. The belief that peace can be negotiated while the Palestinians continue to advocate the destruction of Israel and support terrorist attacks is misguided at best.

Of course, the Palestinian leadership has no incentive to reach the "rinse" cycle so long as supposedly enlightened nations in Europe persist in demonizing Israel for defending itself - even for constructing a protective barrier to prevent terrorist infiltration. Many in the West hold out hope that the recent election of Mahmoud Abbas represents a new opportunity for peace. Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes is not sanguine:

Mr. Abbas shows tactical flexibility. Unlike Arafat, who could never let go of the terrorist tool that had brought him wealth, power, and glory, Mr. Abbas sees the situation more cogently. If stopping the violence against Israel best serves his goal of eliminating the sovereign Jewish state, that is his program.

He no more accepts what he so charmingly the other day called the "Zionist enemy" than Arafat did (or Hamas, or Palestinian Islamic Jihad), but he is open to a multiplicity of means to destroy it. As he announced after his electoral victory this week, "the lesser jihad is over and the greater jihad is ahead." The form of jihad must change from violent to nonviolent, but the jihad continues.

And count the many ways to undo the Jewish state: nuclear weaponry, invading armies, mega-terrorism, plain old terrorism, Palestinian demographic fertility, the "right of return," or confusing Israelis to the point that post-Zionist leftists cause the population unilaterally to crumple and accept a dhimmi (subservient) status within "Palestine."

Abbas has been positioned as a "moderate" but his statements during the recent campaign, in which he denounced "the Zionist enemy" and his refusal to use force to rein in terrorist groups are both indications that he may be nothing more than Arafat in a fancier suit.

"A series of unfortunate events" for Middle East peace

David Brooks' op-ed in today's New York Times is too good to miss:

How did we get to this sudden moment of cautious optimism in the Middle East? How did we get to this moment when Egypt is signing free trade agreements with Israel, when Hosni Mubarak is touring Arab nations and urging them to open relations with the Jewish state? How did we get to this moment of democratic opportunity in the Palestinian territories, with three major elections taking place in the next several months, and with the leading candidate in the presidential election declaring that violence is counterproductive?

How did we get to this moment of odd unity in Israel, with Labor joining Likud to push a withdrawal from Gaza and some northern territories? How did we get to this moment when Ariel Sharon has record approval ratings, when it is common to run across Israelis who once reviled Sharon as a bully but who now find themselves supporting him as an agent of peace?

It was a series of unfortunate events.

Read the rest.

(Via Instapundit)

They're out there...

Moderate Muslims, that is. No, I don't mean the phony Saudi-financed apologists who operate as fronts for global jihad and are ready to hurl accusations of "Islamophobia" at critics at a moments' notice. I mean honest, thoughtful people who value living in open, liberal, multicultural societies.

Some of their names may be familiar: Academic Fouad Ajami, Canadian "Muslim refusenik" Irshad Manji, and of course Iraqi bloggers Zeyad, A.Y.S. and Alaa. Others are less known: Indian feminist Asra Q. Nomani, Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, Al-Arabiya general manager Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, and religious leader Muhammad Hisham Kabbani.

They're out there, speaking out against terrorism, religious hatred, gender apartheid, racism and anti-semitism committed in the name of Islam. And they're standing up for democracy, tolerance, human rights, womens' rights and religious freedom. If you don't know them or their work, here are two opportunities to meet them, in articles at Front Page magazine and the website of middle east scholar Daniel Pipes. Both articles will link you to the writings and work of these and many other Muslims whose voices will hopefully grow louder as Islam struggles to find its place in the modern world.

UPDATE: See my previous posts on moderate voices of Islam here and here. If only the leadership of the Presbyterian Church USA had the moral clarity of these outspoken Muslims.

ANOTHER UPDATE: On Walid Shoebat's website, scroll to the bottom and click the audio link to Shoebat's interview with radio host Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. It makes for fascinating listening. Highly recommended.

Is Arafat dying of AIDS?

Here's a fascinating bit of speculation that Arafat's lowered platelet count and other symptoms point to AIDS. The article provides additional historical anecdotal evidence to back up this contention:

Earlier, John Loftus told John Batchelor on ABC radio on October 26 that Arafat is dying from AIDS. Loftus said the CIA has known this about Arafat for quite awhile and that as a result the US has encouraged Sharon not to take Arafat out because the US has known Arafat was about done. It was deemed better to have Arafat discredited as a homosexual.

Although homosexuality is rife in the Arab world, it is at least officially considered a sin and a crime, and regarded--especially in fundamentalist circles--as a mark of great shame and depravity.

Interestingly enough, I had read something along these lines years ago, an observation by Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, at the time a supporter of the Palestinian cause, who in a 1972 interview documented in her book Interview with History, describes Arafat's bodyguard:

But what a bodyguard! The most gorgeous piece of male flesh I had ever seen. Tall, slender, elegant: the type who wears camouflage coveralls as though they were black tie and tails, with the chiseled features of a Western lady-killer. Perhaps because he was blond and with blue eyes, I had the spontaneous thought that the handsome bodyguard was a Westerner, even a German. And perhaps because Arafat brought him along with such tender pride, I had the still more spontaneous thought that he was something more than a bodyguard. A very loving friend, let's say.

In the Western world, Arafat's alleged homosexuality would hardly raise an eyebrow (other than in 11 or so red states). In the Islamic world however, gays may be subject to death by beheading or stoning particularly under the more fundamentalist Islamic governments, including the supposedly secular Palestinian Authority. Not exactly the detail you want leaking out to crap all over your legacy.

(Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

UPDATE: The Associated Press announcement of Arafat's death lists the cause as an "undisclosed illness". Note, not "unknown" but "undisclosed". Apparently the French doctors know the cause of death but French privacy laws allow the nature of his illness to remain a secret.

I know many are skeptical of the notion, but I am less so. His sexual orientation would not be an issue other than the hypocrisy that gays are persecuted throughout the Arab world and under the rule of this man so beloved in "progressive" circles. Definitive proof of his HIV-positive status will never be allowed to see the light of day because it would discredit Arafat. Isn't that an irony? Murder, or complicity in the murder of innocents, including schoolchildren, doesn't appear to discredit Arafat; but evidence that he may have been gay - that would spark major outrage. That's the topsy-turvy world we live in.