Muslim Brotherhood (Probably) Wins Presidency; Egyptian-Islamist/Hamas Jihad Against Israel (Apparently) Begins

By Barry Rubin

A well-organized, well-equipped group of terrorists has attacked Israel from Egyptian territory Monday morning, possibly the second such Egyptian-assisted assault in a week.

As for the presidential election, the Brotherhood candidate, Muhammad al-Mursi, seems the likely winner. His rival, Ahmad Shafiq, won Cairo by a big margin but it was not enough to overcome al-Mursi's lead in the countryside. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salfists are claiming victory. Official results will be released on June 21.

Al-Mursi has openly declared his support for Hamas and priority on battling Israel on some level. Those campaigning for him, in his presence, have said that the Brotherhood is seeking a Sharia state in Egypt and a caliphate over the whole Middle East whose capital will be in a conquered Jerusalem. The Salafists--a coalition of many hardline Islamist groups--gave the Brotherhood candidate full support.

An armed squad of two men—said to be Hamas, though this is not confirmed—crossed the border after travelling 30 miles from the Gaza Strip through Egyptian territory. They wore flak jackets, camouflaged uniforms, and carried a large amounts of explosives. Members of their support team remained on the Egyptian side of the border. The two men hid by Israel's highway 12, near an area called White River Lake.

When two vehicles came by, carrying workers finishing up a security fence to guard against just such attacks, they set off a bomb that had been placed on the roadway and fired a rocket-propelled grenade. Both missed but bullets from a Kalashnikov hit one of the vehicles which flipped over. One Israeli, an ethnic Arab labor contractor, was killed, two or three terrorists have been shot dead.

Within minutes, Israeli soldiers arrived and fired on the terrorists. Their bullets blew up a suicide vest being worn by one of them, killing two of the attackers.

This event follows a report in Haaretz newspaper, attributed to Israeli security officials, that the Muslim Brotherhood had asked Hamas to attack Israel. According to the story, an Egyptian Bedouin unit was given the job of firing a rocket, which landed in open ground in southern Israel. This story was not picked up by other Israeli newspapers, suggesting either that it was wrong or that it had been a security leak which the army had then stopped.

So far this year, 280 rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel. This has prompted no international concern or action. The new fence along the Egypt-Israel border is mostly complete but due to difficult terrain the last portion will only be finished late this year.

At any rate, we are now at the beginning of Egypt’s involvement, directly or indirectly, in a new wave of terrorist assault on Israel. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, a likelihood made less probable perhaps by the military’s dissolution of parliament, this offensive will enjoy official support. Even if the army remains in control, the Brotherhood and Salafists will use their considerable assets to back this new insurgency war.

The ultimate scenario would be if Hamas decided to renew a large-scale offensive against Israel from the Gaza Strip using rockets, mortars, and attempted cross-border attacks. Egyptian Islamists would send volunteers and money. The Egyptian army would not be scrupulous in stopping the smuggling of weapons, terrorists, and money across the border. As Egyptian fighters are killed in the Gaza Strip the hysteria in Egypt would escalate.

In such a scenario, the army would also allow Hamas to have military bases and headquarters on Egyptian territory, where Israel could not attack them. Indeed, this is already happening. And the Egypt-Israel border would not be protected from cross-border attacks.

To read the entire article click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Hamas Chief: “Islamic Spring”; Brotherhood Chief: Caliphate Soon; Western Media: Islamists Moderate, Israel Bad

By Barry Rubin

A 27-year-old American-Israeli law school student decides he's going to go to Egypt and talk to Egyptians. He gets arrested by the authorities there as a spy, then is released in the prisoner exchange. He then brags that the mere charm of his magical persuasion convinced hardened Muslim Brotherhood cadre not to be anti-Israel any more. So there's nothing to worry about!

That’s worth a Washington Post op-ed.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s leader calling for an Islamic state and a caliphate that isn’t?

But at least the New York Times reported the statement of Ismail Haniya (who it calls “the Hamas prime minister of Gaza”) on his official state visit to Turkey: “The Arab Spring is turning into an Islamic spring.”

Haniya knows it. We know it. Why don’t Western governments, mass media, and “experts” understand what this means? It doesn’t mean a springtime for “Islam” as a “religion of peace” but a springtime for political Islamism as being in power, imposing a very anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-American and radically intolerant interpretation of Islam on their countries.

In his official weekly message published on the official Brotherhood website the official leader, Muhammad al-Badi, of the group  that is officially by far the biggest political party and parliamentary vote-getter in Egypt said, in an Egyptian newspaper’s summary, that the Brotherhood will now begin the “long-term plan for the reform of all aspects of people’s lives.” (Note: Why didn’t Barack and Michelle think of that phrase first?)

And soon, the Brotherhood's supreme guide also explains, the caliphate will be restored (I don't believe him but the fact that he thinks so is significant. Oh yes, now why is the caliphate important? Well, one reason is that the caliph can supposedly declare an international jihad in which every Muslim must fight. (I don't believe that either and it didn't work out well when the German-backed Ottoman caliph tried it in World War One. But it does tell something about the Brotherhood's plans for the future. 

To my knowledge that statement by the supreme guide--an actual leaders of hundreds of thousand of people backed by almost half of Egyptians--has not been reported in any Western mass media outlet.

Click here to read the entire article

Two Good Articles on the Gaza Flotilla

I want to call your attention to two excellent articles on the Gaza flotilla that I commissioned and edited for PajamasMedia:

Hadar Sela, why the flotilla didn't float 



Yochanan Visser the dutch flotilla as a case study of political warfare

Thoughts and Facts on the Gaza Flotilla II

By Barry Rubin

A second flotilla of ships is going to the Gaza Strip. Or should I say, trying to go there since it will be stopped if necessary by a legal Israeli blockade. In the first flotilla, the Islamist holy warriors organized by the Turkish government-backed IHH group all gathered on one ship. The other boats, the ships of (political) tools cooperated, no one was injured, and they were towed into port. The ship of jihadists attacked Israeli soldiers, kidnapped and beat up a couple of them, and had the "victory" of getting nine martyrs out of it. Let us never forget that when the Israeli Defense Forces made public a video showing these facts the New York Times blog in a particularly shameful moment dismissed it alleging that the soldiers might have been shooting down unarmed civilians just standing around the deck before the film began. (Thus posing the twenty-first century journalistic question: Who are you going to believe, the facts and your eyes or your predetermined ideological bias?)

Now, of course, any actual humanitarian aid could be taken into the Gaza Strip through Egypt, showing that this is a purely political operation designed to end all sanctions on the Gaza Strip so that weapons, money, terrorists, and all necessary equipment can flow in freely. In addition, the goal is to undermine international support for Israel. This time there's also a different strategy for the flotilla itself. The would-be terrorists have dispersed themselves among the naive "peace activists"...

read more

Understanding Hamas, A Detailed Assessment

This article is published in the Toronto Globe & Mail and is presented here with some additions:

By Barry Rubin

What do you have to do to be recognized as a revolutionary Islamist group using terrorism, backed by Iran (and now probably a radicalized Egypt), seeking to wipe Israel off the map and kill the Jews? It isn’t easy. People keep trying to make you into something else: incipient moderate? Multifaceted debating society? Insisting that you just don’t really mean it?

Such is the case with Hamas. Every day—in speeches, articles, violence, mosque sermons, and media, Hamas makes its positions absolutely clear. And every day someone in the West just doesn’t want to believe it.

Now Hamas has formed an alliance (of convenience?) with the Palestinian Authority (PA), run by Fatah and governing the West Bank. It’s a remarkable situation—or would be anywhere outside of the Middle East.

After all, Hamas won an election, made a deal with the PA, and then staged a coup to take over the Gaza Strip that included shooting dead wounded Fatah fighters in hospital. Fatah and the PA regularly repress Hamas on the West Bank. So why are they “working together”? The PA wants to show unity to the world; Hamas hopes that it can take over the PA.

Is it true that “as older leaders of Hamas claim some degree of moderation, younger radicals refuse to give up violence?” Not exactly. First, there is no real division along age lines. Nor is it all but merely some leaders of Hamas who “claim” some moderation.

But what’s important is that word “claim.” They do not claim it in Arabic, they do not claim it when talking to their people, and they do not claim it on their television stations or their debates with the PA and Fatah. They only claim it when they are talking to Westerners, usually reporters or sometimes diplomats. In other words, it is just a public relations’ exercise.

What about the “Salafi-Jihadist” groups? Clearly, there are some differences, often relating to external alliances. Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood group; the dissidents sympathize with al-Qaida. Yet they don’t pose any serious challenge since Hamas is far stronger. Hamas also uses them as deniable purveyors of attacks on Israel, assaults that Hamas can allow but also deny. The most important non-Hamas group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, very much plays that role.

There has been some effort to set up a distinction between Hamas, as the relative moderates, and the new small groups as the radicals. This would legitimize Hamas as protecting everyone from the real extremists. But the problem with these other groups—and that includes al-Qaida—is that they are too tactically inflexible. They only use violence rather than base building; reject elections; and never pretend to be moderate.

Thus, while these groups can stage terrorist attacks or violence, they are not the real threat. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, or Hamas, or Hizballah, they cannot take over whole countries. And if in the Gaza Strip they ever do challenge what Hamas wants to do, they will be slapped down without mercy. That’s not because Hamas is moderate but because it will accept no rival.

Indeed, one reason why salafi-jihadist groups have not been successful among the Palestinians is that there is already a strong Islamist organization—Hamas—which can combine the nationalist and religious cards. Among the Palestinians, Hamas are the Salafists and Jihadists. Who needs any alternative?

The article states that “a generation of Hamas leaders, now mostly in their 60s, that wants to deal, that's willing to agree to establishing a Palestinian state within Gaza and the West Bank as defined by the Green Line, the ceasefire line that separated Israelis from Jordanian and Egyptian forces until June, 1967.”

But this is misleading, as the article goes on to explain. For whenever these Hamas leaders discuss such an idea they make absolutely and explicitly clear that this is a temporary measure, a temporary truce, designed to get a state that can be used as a platform for destroying Israel. The PLO accepted such a “two-stage strategy” more than 35 years ago but no one thought that was moderate at the time.

Who needs “radicals” when you have Hamas. Incidentally, the same arguments can be applied to the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or any number of other militant groups. There is always someone even more radical. But the most extreme of the extreme simply are not good at building a mass organization, in part because they are so much on the edge.

There is another assumption made in dealing with Hamas that is also very dangerous. It is presumed that the PA will moderate Hamas. Yet it is more likely that Hamas would radicalize or take over the PA. Many times before, it has been seen around the world that highly disciplined groups with a clear ideology have the advantage of looser, corrupt and ill-defined rivals.

But Hamas is also more dangerous precisely because it is more flexibly clever. The naïve super-radicals want to convert the Gaza Strip into an imitation of Taliban Afghanistan overnight. Hamas leaders understand, however, that they must go step by step so as not to antagonize the population so much as to lose power or to show the West their true intentions so much that it might do something about the danger Hamas poses.

Thus, Ghazi Hamad, Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, explains the situation in the article: "No one is more experienced in resistance than Hamas. No one has more martyrs…..Resistance has cost Gaza a lot of lives and a lot of damage. We need to evaluate each situation" before waging resistance.’

What he’s saying here is that Hamas isn’t moderate, it just isn’t stupid. Compare Iran and Afghanistan, for example, the Islamic republic of Iran has known—even while sponsoring terrorism and subverting neighbors—how to be cautious and when to be brutal. The regime is still in power after more than three decades. The Taliban was foolhardy and adventurous, getting involved in the September 11 attacks against the United States. Its leaders are now living in caves.

At the end, the question is asked: “Which side of Hamas will prevail?” But aside from interviews given in English for the express purpose of fooling people there is no evidence that there are two sides of Hamas.

The Toronto Globe & Mail should be praised by seriously studying this issue, at a time when many newspapers in other countries increasingly “dumb down” their coverage. But the question remains how Hamas should be understood.

The advisor on counterterrorism to President Barack Obama once explained that Hizballah couldn’t be terrorists because it included lawyers. But who says that a revolutionary Islamist movement must merely be drooling terrorists saying, “Kill, kill, kill!” Even the Nazis weren’t like that and neither were the Stalinists. Of course, there are intellectuals and doctors, teachers and engineers, involved in the movement, as in all revolutionary Islamist movements. So what?

Quickly, however, in such discussions there is a felt need to discover a spectrum of views when no significant differences exist, or at most they are purely tactical emphases. For example, an article in the Toronto Globe & Mail says that Hamas has “disavowed suicide attacks in recent years.” In fact, they have claimed many such attacks. They might disavow certain specific attacks that are inconveniently timed. That isn’t moderation it is political cleverness.

That article notes: “Hamas-backed militias regularly rain rockets down on targets inside Israel.” Yes, but so does Hamas itself. Other militias have been used as fronts since Hamas’ defeat by Israel in 2009 so that Hamas can pretend it isn’t violating the ceasefire. Yet this is a thinly veneered trick since Hamas verbally supports the attacks, does nothing to prevent them and never punishes them afterward. Compare this to the bloody crackdowns of Hamas—as discussed in the article—when it really does feel its power and policy challenged.

Another important misunderstood point made in the same article says, “Hamas members remain the elected representatives of a large chunk of the Palestinian people, placed there by a fair exercise in democracy.” That is true as far as it goes. But many people think Hamas governs the Gaza Strip because it won an election. First, it won an election, then it made a coalition deal, then it seized power by force.

In stating the usual juxtaposition, the article compares Hamas, “committed to the destruction of the Jewish state,” with Fatah and the PA, “moderate and secular.” While there is certainly truth in this distinction it is also dangerously misleading. For it suggests that these two groups are like oil and water. Yet while there are hardline and very pious forces in Fatah, there are no moderates and secularists in Hamas. Thus, Hamas can appeal to a lot of Fatah supporters but not so much the other way around.

The article states, “It would be unrealistic to think that Hamas will fade away.” Absolutely right. But it is more possible that it will win control of the Palestinians altogether. True, as the article correctly states, people in the Gaza Strip have a lower living standard than those in the West Bank living under PA rule (mainly because the latter receive high levels of international aid). But is that enough to sustain Fatah?

Suppose an independent Palestinian state is established after an agreement with Israel and internationally supported. What would happen if some time later Hamas seized power by force, won an election, or formed a coalition with some younger Fatah cadre to rule. It would tear up the agreement with Israel—as is about to happen in Egypt—and return to the conflict with itself much stronger and Israel weaker than is true at present. Such a scenario is a very realistic one.

Even short of that, Hamas would maintain that it had the right and duty to attack Israelis (whether or not it publicly claimed responsibility for doing so).whenever that was politically profitable. Is a Fatah or coalition government really going to stop them from doing so?

Meanwhile, Hamas preachers and teachers would be telling young people that being a jihad fighter or a suicide bomber is the most properly Islamic and wonderful thing they could do with their lives. How easily could moderates compete with such appeals, especially when—as we have seen elsewhere—moderates would be subject to intimidation or even assassination.

But actually the world should continue to shun Hamas for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. The Middle East today faces a huge internal conflict. That is the region’s main feature. The battle is between Islamists—be they Afghan, Iranian, Arab, or Turkish—and a much-varied set of nationalists, liberal reformers, and traditionalists. The mix is different in every country.

This battle is similar to the great struggles in Europe once caused by Communists and fascists. It is not merely a matter of Islam or Muslims because most of the people on the anti-Islamist side are also Muslims who think they are just as properly Islamic as the revolutionaries.

Giving international recognition or help or legitimacy to Hamas helps the radical Islamist side. It entrenches the Gaza Strip as a revolutionary statelet on the Mediterranean Sea, backed by Iran, using terrorism, dedicated to genocide against Israel and to subverting all of the relatively moderate Arab states.

It indoctrinates children to be future terrorists, to hate and kill Jews, expels Christians, subjugates women, and supports the murder of gays. In addition, it advocates the expulsion of Western influence from the region and opposes virtually all Western interests. A Hamas regime is bound to return to war again in the not-distant future. The group’s radicalism will kill any hope for a peace process between Israel and the PA. Hamas in power means a totalitarian state using torture and ferocious repression.

And it also furthers the revolutionary Islamist movements’ efforts to dominate the Middle East and spread their doctrine and power to Western countries.

A handful of carefully tailored English-language interviews by some Hamas leaders (while they and others speak very frankly and in a totally opposite way in Arabic) changes nothing. The group’s actions speak louder than such words. Their television shows directed at children tells more than soothing words meant to lull the West to sleep.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

One Degree of Separation: President Obama, al-Qaida's New Leader, and Their “Mutual Friend”

By Barry Rubin

Ayman al-Zawahiri, nephew of a Nazi collaborator and grandson of the man who helped produce the genocidal antisemitic doctrine in Islamism, now seems to be head of al-Qaida.

In what appears to be his inaugural speech as al-Qaida leader, al-Zawahiri thanked Ismail Haniya, leader of Hamas, for his praising Usama bin Ladin after his death.

Haniya is often described as a moderate in the Western media.

The group that Haniya heads benefited from:

--U.S. and Western pressure on Israel to stop fighting Hamas in early 2009 and not to overthrow that regime.

--U.S. aid to pay Palestinian Authority employees in the Gaza Strip, which thus benefits Hamas by improving the economy there and thus stabilizing its rule.

--U.S. pressure on Israel to reduce sanctions against the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip to the absolute minimum.

--U.S. efforts to overthrow the anti-Hamas regime in Egypt and President Barack Obama’s support for bringing Hamas’s ally, the Muslim Brotherhood, into Egypt’s government.

--U.S. willingness to say and do nothing while Hamas, led by Haniya, made a merger deal with the Palestinian Authority so that it could enter into the PA government.

--The PA government receives massive aid and diplomatic support from the U.S. government.

--The U.S. government has treated the Syrian regime, also a Hamas patron, as a friend and has done everything possible to avoid acting against the Syrian dictators' bloody repression of peaceful demonstrations.

Perhaps Haniya, once he becomes one of the main leader (or even prime minister? president?) of the state of Palestine will introduce President Obama to al-Zawahiri and they can discuss the virtues of bin Ladin, the finer points of training suicide bombers, and that jolly little party al-Zawahiri and bin Ladin organized in New York…on September 11, 2001.

Indeed, since Haniya is also an ally of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist Iran, the revolutionary Islamist Hizballah, and repressive Syria, too, they can all get together at Haniya’s house. But I don’t recommend making it a beer summit.

OK, I don't want to be unfair. But in reality U.S. policy--whatever its intentions--has protected and helped Hamas in practice. Currently, the strategy of the greatest superpower in the world is based on standing by, watching, and hoping that the Fatah-Hamas deal will fall apart. Even while it tries to advance the creation of a Palestinian state--half under the rule of Hamas--as fast as possible.

Meanwhile, in "respectable" circles of the West it is permissible to argue that Hamas has become and is becoming more moderate. Attacking the United States for killing a "good guy" like Usama bin Ladin seems to be no barrier to that perception.

Think I'm exaggerating? Read this AP article claiming that Hamas is really going to be moderate now and doesn’t really want any power.

 Just like, no doubt, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood doesn't want power, right? They began by saying that they wouldn't seek any political power; then they were only competing for 30 percent of the parliamentary seats, then 50 percent but not running a presidential candidate; and now 50 percent and a presidential candidate.

Bin Laden's Death Creates Teachable Moments about the Middle East

This article was published on PajamasMedia. The text is provided here for your convenience.

DOROTHY: “I thought you said she was dead.”
GLINDA: “That was her sister--the Wicked Witch of the East. This is the Wicked Witch of the West. And she's worse than the other one was.”
--“The Wizard of Oz”

By Barry Rubin

It's astounding that Hamas, Fatah al-Aqsa Brigades, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood all issued pro-bin Laden statements. They didn't have to do it. He was no friend of theirs. Yet out of Islamic solidarity, anti-Western hatred, and perhaps fear that it could happen to them they did. It's extraordinary these groups could say such statements and not be totally discredited in American eyes for taking the side of the September 11 terrorist leader.


Ding-dong, bin-Ladin’s dead. The Wicked Terrorist of the West is no more. But there are plenty more around.

In fact, several events are already proving it. The question is: Does the U.S. government, its European friends, and the Munchkins of their intellectual elite know a wicked witch when they see one?

Even the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades of Fatah—the ruling party in the “moderate” Palestinian Authority (PA) of which “President” Mahmoud Abbas is a leader (Abbas himself didn't criticize the operation)—cheered bin Laden. In other words, the militia of a group that has received lavish U.S. funding has now endorsed the September 11 attacks! Will the mass media notice this point? Will Congress?

To make the story even more interesting, Palestinian Media Watch pointed out that the Palestinian news agency edited out that message in its English-language site. What a marvelous case study of the usual practice of expressing extremism in Arabic for their own audience and moderation in English for the Western journalists, policymakers, and “experts.”

The statement is truly remarkable. Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Brigades didn’t owe bin Laden anything. It is supposedly a secular-oriented group and has never cooperated with al-Qaeda. Yet so great is the power of radical Islamism, anti-Americanism, and pure hatred of the “other” that this group—which easily could have remained silent—couldn’t help itself.

The statement reads—and note the use of the word “jihad” from a Fatah group:

“The Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Brigades mourned Tuesday the death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, following his assassination Sunday by American troops in Pakistan.

“His death, a statement said, `won't stop our Jihad mission against injustice and occupation….The Islamic nation was shocked with the news that bin Laden had been killed by the non-believers."

He left a generation who follows the education he gave in Jihad, the statement continued. The fighters in Palestine and around the world who have lost their leaders did not stop their mission and will continue in the tutelage of their masters."

"We say to the American and Israeli occupier: The umma, [Islamic nation] which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing.'"

And Ma’an in English changed the end of that passage as follows:

"We tell the Israeli and the American occupiers that we have leaders who have changed history with their Jihad and their steadfastness. We are ready to sacrifice our lives to bring back peace."

Get it? The Fatah group says jihad, Islamism, terrorism hooray! Bin Laden was their great teacher. But the version given out to the world is that they are ready to die for peace. This is the gap that usually exists and usually goes unnoticed.

It is less surprising that Hamas expressed anger at its sister’s demise. Yet remember that historically Hamas was not an ally of bin Laden's. Yet it couldn't resist either. Hamas’s candidate for Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh—you know, the guy we are always being told leads the “moderate” faction—mourned the death of this “Arab holy warrior.” He was confirming that bin Ladin was properly waging jihad.

Haniyeh continued, “We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”

Now, if you just see that line quoted consider what it means. Haniyeh is declaring a blood feud with the United States which means that Hamas is committing itself to kill Americans. Saying that the United States sheds “Muslim and Arab blood” is not an accidental phrase.

Of course, this comes after the U.S. government successfully intervened to press Israel to reduce sanctions on the Gaza Strip to an absolute minimum; okayed the passing of $400 million of U.S. taxpayer money to the Gaza Strip (through the Palestinian Authority) to take care of folks there; and helped overturn an Egyptian government keeping Hamas in check.

You call that gratitude? Objectively, the Obama Administration has been one of Hamas’s best friends. Moreover, Hamas has just signed a unity agreement with Fatah. Scores of countries will vote in September at the UN General Assembly to recognize a Fatah-Hamas government unconditionally.

Incidentally, note that it is portrayed as an act of aggression for the United States to try to kill or capture the man who launched a bloody, unprovoked attack on it. This is precisely the way much of the Western mass media and a number of governments portray Israel's self-defense against terror attacks.

The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl asks the right question:

“Should the mourner of bin Laden be recognized as a worthy partner for peace with Israel, or a potential leader of a new Arab state? Haniyeh’s comments won’t leave the White House--which has been weighing how to respond to the Palestinian unity deal -- with much of a choice.”

Perhaps and perhaps not. And how about the leaders of all those other democratic countries just aching to break bread with Hamas? In fact, what is career moderate Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate Palestinian Authority making a deal with Hamas?

Well, a few hours later the PA signed a unity agreement with Hamas. Backing the September 11 attack seems no barrier to their cooperation. Or to continued U.S. aid and diplomatic support? Or to Europeans supporting a Fatah-Hamas state? Guess what? The British government immediately issued a statement applauding the Fatah-Hamas deal.

And that’s not all. Haniyeh also urged the Palestinian Authority to rescind its past recognition of Israel. Remember, that’s no longer a demand by an enemy but a proposal made by a partner and ally. In Haniyeh’s words: Israel’s presence “on our land is illegal and cannot be recognized.” Be sure that he was not talking about parts of the West Bank and east Jerusalem but the whole shebang.

Meanwhile, the Syrian regime’s killing of more than 500 unarmed demonstrators is not damaging its standing at the UN, where Syria may soon receive a seat on the Human Rights’ Council. Well, why not? Libya and Iran have achieved such rewards.

And what about Hizballah, now a major part of Lebanon’s government, involved in such events as the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks, killing 242 Americans, and a number of kidnappings including the horrible torture and murder of Colonel Rich Higgins?

Then there's the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Its leader called for violent Jihad to destroy America in October 2010. Four months later, the president of the United States publicly accepted its inclusion in a future Egyptian government. Might this not be a good idea?

Finally, if the United States can do a targeted killing of a terrorist who had killed Americans, unintentionally knocking off an innocent bystander in the process, how can anyone complain about Israel doing the same thing?

Yes, there’s a great deal to learn from the bin Laden assassination.

PS:
Maan has issued a "correction" on the translation but then al-Aqsa Brigades denied having made the statement. Presumably, Maan would not have been fooled by imposters and Abbas probably told the al-Aqsa Brigades that the statement was very damaging and should be withdrawn.
Oh, and by the way, appeasement won't work with these forces because they view the conflict as irreconcilible no matter what America does. Here's a little parable:

DOROTHY: "You can have your old slippers but give me back Toto...." The Witch tries to remove the slippers and gets a terrible shock from them.
DOROTHY: "I'm sorry. I didn't do it! Can I still have my dog?"
WITCH: "No!....Those slippers will never come off, as long as....you're alive."

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704330404576291193887494596.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4062337,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/the-mourners-of-binladen/2011/04/19/AFlPCfYF_blog.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110502/wl_nm/us_binladen_palestinians_2
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4976

Hamas is Moving Toward War With Israel

By Barry Rubin

Two attacks by Hamas today signal an escalation in which Hamas, emboldened by the changed strategic situation and especially by Egypt's revolution, want to provoke a war with Israel. A huge crisis could result and Western governments are totally unprepared to deal with it. See here.

Egypt's Revolution Plus U.S. Government Mistakes Makes Israel-Hamas War Inevitable

Please be subscriber 19,256 (daily reader 36,250). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

I'm going to make a prediction here that, unfortunately, I'm sure will come true. Any good analyst should be able to see this, yet few will until it happens within the next one or two years:

The Egyptian revolution and U.S. policy mistakes make a new Israel-Hamas war inevitable, and as a result it will be a lot more of an international mess.

Why?

First, Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, is a revolutionary Islamist movement that  views itself as directed by God's will; considers Jews to be subhuman; believes that a willingness to court suicide and welcome death and destruction will bring victory; is certain that it is going to destroy Israel; and is determined to transform Palestinian society into an Islamic utopia, no matter how many people it has to kill. It is indifferent to the well-being, or even physical survival, of the Palestinians it rules.

And not one word of that is an exaggeration.

Given this situation, there are only two ways to stop Hamas from waging war on Israel. A shorter-range solution is deterrence through strength and weakening Hamas with tough sanctions. The defeat Israel inflicted on Hamas in the 2008-2009 war and the tight sanctions in place until 2010 forced the organization to retrench and  be cautious for a while.

The only longer-term solution is the overthrow of the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip and the maximum possible destruction of that group's leadership, structures, and resources.

Events in Egypt and U.S. policy, however, have at least temporarily destroyed this shorter-range solution and made impossible the longer-range one.

If Hamas is confident, it will go to war. With more and better weapons, Hamas will go to war. If it believes that the international environment is permissive--much less supportive!--it will go to war. It's only a matter of timing.

Second, the Egyptian revolution removed a regime that defined its own and Egypt's national interest as having an anti-Hamas policy. The Mubarak government did not maintain sanctions and an (imperfect) blockade of weapons' shipments out of concern for Israel.

No. It did so because the Egyptian government saw revolutionary Islamism as the main threat to the country and to itself. This was not, as current U.S. officials claim, some cynically manipulated mirage to justify dictatorship. Rather, it was a very logical policy.

In addition to the direct threat of Hamas subverting Egypt in cooperation with Islamist groups in the country, the Mubarak government saw Hamas as part of a broader Iran-led strategic threat to Egypt, Sunnis, and Arabs generally.

A new government in Egypt, whether radical nationalist, Islamist, or "liberal democratic" will have the opposite view.

The Muslim Brotherhood views Hamas as its closest ally and wants it to overthrow the Palestinian Authority as well as to destroy Israel.

The nationalists support Hamas as part of the Arab struggle against Israel.

The "liberal democrats" do so because they know this is a very popular position with Egyptians and to oppose it would reduce their already tiny base of support to zero. Remember that April 6 Youth Movement, the young Facebook-using liberals who launched the revolution? Well, it engaged in two activities before that: one was to free imprisoned bloggers; the other was to end sanctions against the Hamas regime in Gaza.

And so, Hamas knows that it now has an ally, rather than an enemy, at its back. Moreover, there is no incentive in Egypt--or among its nationalist and Islamist-sympathetic officers--to block arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip. As a result, Hamas is stronger and more confident, and hence arrogant and reckless. It is better able to launch rockets, mortars, and cross-border attacks, and far more eager to do so. Hamas is also able to get longer-range missiles and other new types of weapons.

As for U.S. policy, while supporting some sanctions on Hamas and refusing to deal directly with the group, the U.S. government has not supported overthrowing the Gaza regime, though any serious assessment of U.S. interests show this should be a priority. A policy to destroy Hamas should be part of the war against Iranian hegemony in the region, revolutionary Islamism, terrorism, and instability. Even more, doing so would aid the moribund Israel-Palestinian peace process and keep the Palestinian Authority in power.

But there is no appreciation for these points in Washington. When it comes to fighting revolutionary Islamism, U.S. policy sees the Middle East as a no-try zone.

What makes matters worse, is the Obama Administration's demand--after being shaken by a small incident in which about a half-dozen Islamist militants were killed on a ship after they attacked Israeli soldiers--to minimize sanctions. And then, out of misplaced humanitarian concern, the U.S. government deliberately, albeit indirectly, pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the Gaza Strip, thus strengthening Hamas and its popular base of support.

By such behavior, the Obama Administration is not just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; it's enlarging the hole below the ship's water-line, arguing that by doing so it is moderating the ocean.

This strategy ensures that there would be a genocidal-oriented, revolutionary Islamist, subversion-spreading, anti-American, brutally repressive, anti-Christian, woman-oppressing, Iranian client regime on the Mediterranean. What's really alarming is that the previous sentence is not in the least bit exaggerated. We're talking about a Taliban-equivalent regime here. 
 
Now, U.S. support for a transformation of Egypt with no idea where that would lead, has helped turn that enemy of Hamas into a Hamas ally. The Obama Administration has also supplied one more reason why revolutionary Islamists feel as if the future belongs to them, America is finished in the region, and why they  should be even more bold and aggressive.

Much of the escalation of attacks on Israel now is the result of Hamas getting new weapons and escalating its use of terrorism on all levels. In addition, we are seeing no significant international action or even criticism of this behavior. On the contrary, the more terrorism Hamas commits, the more Israel is criticized in the Western media.

Terrorism works; aggression goes unpunished. Why be surprised that Hamas becomes increasingly confident and aggressive?

It is only a matter of time until Hamas once again does what it did at the end of 2008: launch a larger-scale assault on Israel. At that point, Israel will have to respond by a major attack on the Gaza Strip.

What will happen? Will Egypt remain neutral? Will its government stop the Muslim Brotherhood and other sympathizers rush arms, money, and even armed Egyptian volunteers into the Gaza Strip? Will the West blame Israel, instead of itself, for the violence? Will the United States take any productive action at all?

This crisis is inevitable, though it might take one or at most two years to happen. Yet nobody outside Israel sees--or wants to see--what's coming.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

"Thousands of Palestinians rally for reconciliation." But reconciliation with whom?

By Barry Rubin


The headline on the Associated Press story caught my eye immediately:

Thousands of Palestinians rally for reconciliation

I always look for stories that contradict my assumptions so that I can examine or change them if necessary. According to the headline, this might be an important new--and positive--development.

So, did thousands of Palestinians come together to rally for reconciliation with Israel following the horrendous murder of an entire family? Is there really the hope for Israel-Palestinian peace that the Western governments and media keep telling us about?

Of course not! (Sadly.). These Palestinians--about 25,000 of them--were rallying for reconciliation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas so that they could go to war against Israel together!

You know, Hamas, the organization that calls for the killing of all Jews and wiping Israel off the map. Reconciliation also includes, of course, the murderers of the Fogel children in Itamar and all the other suicide bombers and terrorists who killed Israeli civilians.

Moreover, Hamas, even though the demonstration served its purpose generally, is so dictatorial that it attacked some of the participants because they were Fatah supporters, thus showing why there isn't unity.

Of course, the headline should have tipped me off: You can't have "reconciliation" with someone when you've never been willing to have "conciliation" with them in the first place.

A Weapons-Laden Ship for Gaza Marks A Big Transformation of the Middle East

Please be subscriber 19,198 (daily reader 36,138). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

The story of the Liberian-flag ship Victoria is dramatic enough but few will understand, at least immediately, that it opens a new era in the region’s history. It is a period when, for the first time in more than thirty years Egypt will not be a reliable force for regional peace and stability.

The Victoria was loaded with a large shipment of weapons in Latakia, Syria. Note that Syria is a dictatorship where nothing happens without government approval. Thus, the Syrian regime decided to provide arms to the terrorist group Hamas. It did so fairly openly because the Asad dictatorship has no fear of individual punishment, censor, or even bad publicity.

The Syrian government also supplies arms to Iraqi insurgents who murder Americans as well as Iraqi civilians. Nevertheless, the current U.S. government has engaged Syria diplomatically and has made a series of concessions to it. The Syrians have made clear that they view these thing as concessions showing that they are strong, America is weak, and that Syria can get away with whatever it wants to do.

Question: Will the U.S. government and European governments change their policies when presented evidence of open Syrian sponsorship of terrorism and destabilizing the region? Will the U.S. engagement end? Will the European Union censure Syria the way it has so frequently treated Israel? Will the media spend anywhere near as much time criticizing Syria, exposing its human rights’ violations, and international misbehavior as it does in finding reasons to vilify Israel?

Answer: You know the answers are all “No.”

By the way, the photos (see links at the end of this article) show some official Iranian documents were captured. It is likely that Iran paid for the weapons and supplied some or even most of them directly. You see, Iran is at war with America. It backs terrorism generally, kills Americans in Iraq, trains the Taliban, shelters al-Qaida (according to U.S. intelligence documents), and tries to foment war on Israel.

Question: Will U.S. policy under the current administration recognize these (non-nuclear) threats and take up the competition seriously?

Answer: You know already that it's "No."

The Victoria then proceeded to Turkey as a way to launder the true purpose of its voyage. Next, it headed for Alexandria, Egypt, where the arms were to be unloaded and shipped to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

This operation would not have happened three months ago, before the Egyptian revolution because Syria and Hamas would have faced two problems:

First, under the Mubarak government the ship would have been checked and the cargo confiscated. Israel would have informed Egypt about the cargo and purpose. But even if that had not happened, for its own interests the then-government of Egypt would not have wanted a large-scale arms shipment to Hamas.

Second, under the Mubarak government even if the weapons had been unloaded there is a good chance they would have been seized at the Egypt-Gaza border. Even though many weapons are smuggled across, the chance of being caught has kept the level of smuggling below a certain point. Now, emboldened, Iran, Syria, Hizballah (there are now Hizballah advisors in Gaza), and Hamas itself believe that either the Egyptian forces don’t care, are ideologically supportive, or can be even more easily bribed.

However, the gates are not completely open. A much more blatant arms smuggling effort to Hamas through Sudan has been reportedly intercepted and stopped by the Egyptian military.

Events in Egypt teach us once again that while countries pursue their national interests it is up to governments to define those interests. The previous sentence is the key to international affairs. It provides all the international relations and political science theory you will ever need. A new regime--as we saw with the overthrow of the shah and his replacement by Islamists in Iran--has a new view of national interests.

The old Egyptian government knew Hamas wanted to destabilize it and help replace it with an Islamist regime. That Egyptian government also understood that an escalation of Hamas-Israel war could draw in Egypt as well and destabilize the region. The old Egyptian government was angry at Hizballah, which tried to carry out terrorist operations on its own soil. That regime viewed its interests as diametrically opposed to those of the Iran-Syria axis that wishes to seize hegemony in the Middle East and drive out Western interests.

Egypt is in the process of redefining its national interests.

Ladies and gentlemen, everything you have been told by most Western governments and virtually all the world’s media was wrong. Egypt has gone from being a force for stability in the region and the strengthening of Western interests to—at best—a neutralist state that is indifferent on the key issues. The next step could well be into the negative category.

With the U.S. government unreliable and the Europeans even more so, Israel is going to look after its own defense. Israel’s government is going to be very polite about all of this. It will make protests that it knows will go unheeded. It will prepare detailed dossiers of its assertions that it knows will go unpublished. It will offer potential compromises that it knows will go unmet by counterparts.

And at the same time it will go about the business of protecting itself and its people.

As everyone is watching the results of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, there is a man-made earthquake and tsunami in the Middle East.

Note: It is interesting to compare the Victoria to the ship Karina-B, carrying weapons from Iran to Fatah with the deal being arranged by Hizballah. This showed that Yasir Arafat wanted to escalate the fighting into a major Israel-Palestinian war. Under a previous president, U.S. policymakers reacted strongly, though only very temporarily, against the Palestinian Authority.

For details on the Victoria ship affair see video on boarding of ship, Past Attempts of Weapons Smuggling by Sea; and Israel's interception of arms ships - Background. And here's a slide show.

Update: A list of the weapons aboard and photos are here.

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

How Has U.S. Policy Toward Hamas and the Gaza Strip Turned Around 180 Degrees?

Please be subscriber 17,780 (and daily reader 19,290). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

A reader asks what I meant when I wrote:

"Should I mention the total reversal of U.S. policy on Hamas from trying to undermine that radical Islamist group's rule in the Gaza Strip to believing Hamas will fall if Gaza becomes prosperous?"

Here's my answer:

From the time Hamas seized the Gaza Strip until last summer, the U.S. government supported a strategy of trying to bring down the Hamas government. It did this by both political isolation and supporting embargos to minimize Gaza's imports and exports. The idea was that weakening Gaza's economy would weaken Hamas's rule.

At the same time, by lavishing aid on the PA-ruled West Bank, the United States and its allies would show that West Bankers were much better off because they were ruled by peace-oriented moderates. In other words, West Bankers would support the PA rather than Hamas because they were materially better off; Gazans would yearn for (and support a return of) PA rule because they were much worse off.

After the Gaza flotilla incident in 2010, however, President Barack Obama declared a new policy--though he never identified it explicitly as a new policy. Now, the US would provide a lot of aid to Gaza in the belief that it became more prosperous the citizens--apparently a strengthened middle class and businessmen--would bring down the regime in Gaza. Although they never said this explicitly, the implication seemed to be that they expected something like what happened in Eastern Europe in opposition to Soviet control and Communist rule.

The aid is to go to carefully designated and monitored projects. Whether or not that goal is achieved, however, the infusion of $400 million in U.S. aid directly (plus many millions more of U.S. aid filtered through the PA for supporting civil servants in Gaza (intended to bolster their support for Fatah) will have the effect of strengthening the Hamas regime.

Aid will reduce popular discontent against Hamas while letting Hamas divert some of this aid and a lot of funds that would otherwise have been needed to do some of these projects (and buy popular support) for terrorist/military purposes.

Thus, however well-intentioned or apparently clever the new policy may seem to Washington decisionmakers, its practical effect is to strengthen Hamas; undermine any hope for Israel-Palestinian peace; and to help establish a stable, long-term radical, terrorist, Islamist, anti-Western, and genocidally minded Iranian client state on the Mediterranean coast.

And to see how upset the Egyptian government is about this institutionalization of Hamas' rule in Gaza, read this.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Millions of Virgins; Millions of Martyrs. These Guys Have Followers and They Really Mean It

Please be subscriber 17,410. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Yes, it’s true; a fringe minister with just fifty followers in America wanted to burn a Koran. But he didn’t. Meanwhile another nut wants to kill all Jews, wipe Israel off the map, destroy the United States, eliminate all Christians, indoctrinate children into being suicide bombers, and carry out a revolutionary war of terrorism for decades no matter how many die and how much destruction occurs.

Oh, and by the way, he and his colleagues have several hundred thousand followers and are ruling what amounts to an independent state bordering on the Mediterranean.

When you study the Middle East seriously you get used to this kind of rhetoric, yet somehow the seriousness and importance of such talk doesn’t seem to register with many Western government officials, journalists, and academics who explain away these movements and regimes as somehow rational and moderate.

Maybe that’s because when you look at the situation honestly it’s really rather scary. Another word for finding something scary is to have a “phobia” toward it.

So it wasn’t some silly, obscure guy who said this but…well, please wait just one more paragraph to find out.

In the speech, this fellow said that it was really great to be a martyr for Islamic revolution because there are 2.5 million black-eyed virgins waiting at the gates of a palace--just one, so presumably there are more--in the Garden of Eden just waiting for them. You do the math: 500 gates, 5,000 virgins per gate.

Who said this? Ahmad Bahr, a Hamas leader and speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council. In other words, he’s the Palestinian equivalent of Nancy Pelosi.

Bahr and his colleagues aren’t just joking; they aren’t just telling tall tales to titillate the yokels. Nor are they making this stuff up, since Bahr is quoting one of Muhammad's chief lieutenants and a caliph in his own right. This speech was broadcast on al-Aqsa television on September 5, 2010. It was intended to mobilize the masses to go out and die for Hamas and the Islamic revolution. So presumably a good number of Palestinians take this seriously, too.

Now how is this plan going to be implemented? Basically, Bahr said that every Muslim should have a lot of sons and train them to be terrorists and hence martyrs. He concluded:

“If this is the culture of the nation today, who will be able to stop it?...As long as we continue on this path, nobody on Earth will be able to confront the resistance, or to confront the mujahideen, those who worship Allah and seek martyrdom.”

So it doesn't matter how hopeless the odds seem, how many will die, how much suffering will take place. Peace is not more attractive than war; having a nice future for your children is not the top priority. Goals are not set by a cost/benefit analysis but on the basis that the creator of the universe is calling the shots, insists on this path, and will ensure its victory.

OK, you say, but maybe Bahr just hates Israel and would be satisfied if it is wiped out and then the struggle would end? Nope. Maybe he just wants an independent Palestinian state and then will leave everyone else alone? Again, nope.

Here’s what he said in 2007 in a speech broadcast on Sudan television:

"'You will be victorious' on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] 'you will be victorious,' but only 'if you are believers.' Allah willing, 'you will be victorious,' while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: 'You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives.' They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere….

"America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims 'will be victorious, if you are believers.' Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel."

Again, this is one of Hamas’s top leaders, and others in the leadership--not to mention their Iranian, Hizballah, and Syrian allies--have said similar things. This is not a joke. Middle East: This is your life!

Do you mind if I'm perfectly frank with you? I suspect that deep down most Westerners think people like Bahr are as corrupt and hypocritical as an Upper-West-Side-of-Manhattan progressive thinks is true for a Southern televangelist. They probably expect Bahr steps out of the pulpit then goes to a bar for a scotch and a ham sandwich.

If they would only apply to Bahr--whose extremism they tend to ignore, feel overrated, or can easily be turned into moderation--the same standards as they do to Christian Pentecostals--who they despise without tolerance--that would be one step in the right direction. Then keep going, adding on that, unlike Christian "fundamentalists" in America, revolutionary Islamists have murdered tens of thousands of people and want to kill many more; unlike those Christians they command thousands of armed soldiers; unlike those Christians they will kill anyone who changes to another religion or who doesn't behave as they want; and, too, their program is to seize state power, establish totalitarian states, and attack other countries.

No, Bahr isn't just speaking for effect. He's dead serious, and that expression isn't chosen by accident, betting his life on his cause while much of the Western elite trembles at merely being unfashionable. And what Bahr says and believes word-for-word also applies to Hizballah; the Egyptian and Jordanian Muslim Brothers; Iran’s regime; the Taliban; Islamists in areas of Russia; Islamists in Indonesia and Pakistan; clerics in Syria and many other countries; and is heard in certain meetings and mosques throughout Europe and North America.

By no means all Muslims, or even most, but a heck of a lot do talk like Bahr. Not a very small minority of believers; a very big minority of believers. And if they are not stopped they will be the majority of believers and the rulers of multiple countries.

Given the number of martyrs that have been and are going to be generated, there's going to be a need for all 2.5 million of those virgins Bahr mentions. Actually, that won’t be enough because at 99 per (male) martyr that’s only enough for about 25,000.

Very few Muslims are publicly making fun of such statements or battling against them, though many are fighting the Islamists on political grounds.

Doesn’t all of this matter a bit? Shouldn’t this be something people in the West know about, the mass media cover fully? Mightn’t this kind of talk and thinking convey something of why nobody should try to bring Hamas or similar groups into the diplomatic process, give it aid, or help it in any way? Isn’t this a bigger threat than some marginal haters of everything Muslim who just aren’t going to become martyrs? In the face of this threat should people be demonized and intimidated if they dare talk about it?

I can’t imagine why there should be any doubt about the answers to these questions.

Note: the 2007 quote is translated from MEMRI but available only by subscription.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Albert the Alligator and the British Ambassador

Please be subscriber 16,997. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Once upon a time in an intellectual galaxy now seemingly far away, liberals and conservatives shared a common view. There were the forces of democracy and the forces of totalitarianism (or, if you prefer, authoritarianism) that threatened the world, took away freedom, and held back both economic and social development. The goal of Western foreign policy was to help those favoring liberty against the tyrants and would-be tyrants.

Naturally, there were different views about how to do this, for example should some dictatorships be backed against those deemed worse, but the basic template was the same.

Then came a turning point which can be symbolized by a line in Walt Kelly’s comic-strip “Pogo.” A dialogue balloon destined to shake the world: “We have met the enemy,” said either Pogo the possum or Albert the alligator, “and he is us.” Kelly later wrote that he originated this line in 1953 in an essay opposing McCarthyism but it really took off in a 1972 cartoon, perfectly timed for the "1960s," the era whose ideas rule us today in much of the West.

The sentence was a parody of Oliver Hazard Perry’s message—“We have met the enemy and they are ours”—describing his naval victory during the War of 1812. So what had once been a triumphant shout of American victory was transmuted in a post-Pogo world to symbolize a vitriolic yell of self-induced anti-Americanism.

And so if there are evil forces in the world, they are said either not to be evil at all (mislabeled as so by false Western propaganda) or were only made to behave that way by our (Western, American, democratic, capitalist, etc) sins. In other words, the guilty party is the democratic victim whose bad behavior created the monsters. In this spirit, a supposedly great American intellectual claimed America was the cancer of the world. Formerly, it had been known as the last, best hope of humanity.

How often do we see this worldview evinced nowadays? After September 11, America was said to be the cause of the terrorism that struck it. After the bloody July 7 attacks on British mass transport, a top British intelligence official said the terrorism happened due to Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. President Barack Obama has made this a constant theme, most recently putting the Turkish trend toward Islamism (without admitting it exists) on the shoulders of European states that didn’t admit Turkey into the EU.

So nowadays, the most common way of dealing with radicalism, repression, terrorism, and such things in the Third World is to blame it on democratic states so often victimized by such issues.

The latest contribution to this genre comes from British ambassador to Israel Tom Phillips who said Israel’s sanctions’ regime on the Gaza Strip “was breeding radicalism.”

He claimed it had driven “Gaza into a Hamas-controlled tunnel economy, and the Palestinian Gaza private sector has been almost completely destroyed….Young boys on the streets [have had] no role models apart from the Hamas guy in the black shiny uniform on the street corner...creating, in psychological terms, another generation of people that are not going to feel that friendly about Israel.”

The message is that the problem is completely due to “us.” The other side doesn’t actually exist. It has no history, no worldview, no ideology, and no goals. The “other side” is merely a blank screen or mirror, reflecting back what we do.

This is, of course, a racist and imperialist vision. It denies the others any culture or history or mentality of their own. If one is only a victim always, one has no volition, higher intelligence, or ability to affect history.

Can somebody just be a sincere revolutionary Islamist or radical nationalist who wants to seize state power, wipe you out, and implement his own program for achieving utopia?

The truth can be found by examining the sequence of events. For instance, Islamist Iran is not radical because it has been isolated; rather, it has been isolated because of its radical behavior. Same thing with Syria.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the publicly known facts should be recalled. Let’s count the number of times Hamas was treated generously and not driven toward radicalism.

The participation in elections of Hamas in Palestinian elections was clearly illegal, since that group did not accept the Oslo Accords, recognize Israel, or cease using terrorism. Yet despite all of this, the United States actually urged, and Israel accepted, its participation. (1)

When Hamas won the elections, neither the United States nor Israel tried to intervene or reverse the results. Again, they didn’t “drive” Hamas into radicalism by denying it that electoral victory. (2) True, the Palestinian Authority tried for a while to hang on, but in the end it signed a power-sharing agreement with Hamas. (3) But then Hamas staged a coup, killed fellow Palestinians, and seized power. Yet even then there was no move by Israel or the United States to unseat the new regime. (4)

After repeated Hamas attacks on Israel and Israeli retaliation a ceasefire was signed. There were restrictions on supplies but they regularly flowed into Gaza. (5) There was, for example, a border industrial area that provided jobs for Gazans from Israeli companies until Hamas attacked it.

Finally, near the end of 2008, Hamas tore up the ceasefire and launched a massive attack on Israel. Israel defended itself. After the resulting war in which Western countries made sure Hamas would not be overthrown (6) the sanctions’ regime we've seen until recently was implemented by both Egypt (which feared Hamas’s revolutionary Islamism and status as an Iranian client) and Israel.

This is not a picture of Gazans being driven to radicalism, it is a story of how the consequences of a radical policy unfolded, forcing Israel to react.

There’s more. Ambassador Phillips, and the many others who speak about events around the world in similar terms, simply fail to comprehend how a dictatorship works. They think that if you engage hardline ideological revolutionaries they will moderate. If you offer to trade with them, a process of materialism will set in so that the once fire-breathing radicals will be transformed into luxury-loving bourgeois.

Suppose Gaza didn’t have a “Hamas-controlled tunnel economy” but merely had a Hamas-controlled normal economy, would that be better? And why should one believe that the economy wouldn’t be controlled by the dictatorship, because Western governments or companies were doing business there? But that is equally true of Syria, Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and ideological dictatorships in other parts of the world. Has this turned them toward love and moderation?

Oh, and let's remember that the main purpose of those tunnels was to import weapons for attacking Israel.  Hamas will take advantage of any openings to bring in more arms and things that can be used for fighting (cement for military installations; pipes for rockets). It will tax and seize assets to build up its military machine. The more satisfied are people's material needs, the less reason they will have to oppose the Hamas regime.
This Phillips-Pogo view also ignores the political mechanisms of ideological dictatorships. Hamas doesn’t wait for young boys to see its cadre as role models. Here’s what it does:

--Pays people with money obtainable, including that siphoned off from aid and trade, to recruit them and make them the arms of the regime. The more commerce, the more money Hamas has to spend on indoctrination, organization, and weaponry.

--Arrests and intimidates opponents so they don't provide alternative role models. In the Gaza Strip there aren’t that many moderate role models. Wealthy businessmen? Fatah gunmen? Corrupt figures against whom people voted for Hamas. Maybe the dedicated UNRWA teacher offers an alternative role model? OK, but how many of these are also radicals?

--Control all institutions including mosques, media, youth organizations, schools, and so on which all actively and intensively preach the same message. Support Hamas; kill the Jews; be a Jihad fighter. The regime isn’t going to let external institutions or countries that oppose its Islamist radicalism have influence in its territory. Hamas would rather sacrifice benefits to its people than give up authority to those it knows want to overthrow the regime.

Phillips’ line that it is Israel’s policy which is creating “another generation of people that are not going to feel that friendly about Israel” is rather ludicrous in light of this reality. After all, the same thing is happening on the West Bank where there is no sanctions’ regime in place, Western aid flows lavishly, and supposed moderates are in control. Whatever Israel does, incitement and indoctrination will continue at the same level from those who  hate Israel because it exists.

Here’s the truth: revolutionary forces that use terrorism, preach a totalitarian ideology, create dictatorships, and have genocidal goals are responsible for war and conflict in the Middle East.

No matter how intensely Western democracies flagellate themselves, no matter how much they appease and concede, that basic and deadly fact will not change. No, let me correct the end of that sentence: the cost will become more dangerous, bloody, and deadly.

Speaking of alligators, it was another Briton, Winston Churchill, who said that an appeaser is someone who feeds the alligator--ok, nitpickers, I know he said crocodile but they differ only in the roundness of the snout--in hopes that it will eat him last.

Our problem is that contemporary appeasers also hope the alligator will eat us first.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

What Really Happened on the Mavi Marmara and Some Revealing Events in the Middle East Today

Please be subscriber 16,899. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

I. Saudi and Arab Leaders Want Obama to Rescue Them, Not Flatter Them

A UPI dispatch reports:

"A former Arab leader, in close touch with current leaders, speaking privately not for attribution, told this reporter July 6, `All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want Iran taken out of the nuclear arms business and they all know sanctions won't work.'"

Now there are few former Arab leaders--they usually stay leader until health or a bullet makes them no longer available for interviews--but this sounds precisely like Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, former Saudi ambassador to the United States.

This is an accurate reading of what's going on in most Arabic-speaking states (obviously not Syria and another de facto country called the Gaza Strip). It runs quite contrary to the dominant Western view that the Arabs-will-love-us-if-we-bash-Israel-and-show-we-think-Muslims-invented-mathematics-and-don't-want-to-be-aggressive-or-use-force-against-anyone school.

Well, the Prince who used to be known as ambassador was basically expressing this sentiment (note 1):

"If there's something strange
in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?"
(note 2)

The "Zionist entity"?

One can almost imagine the Saudi king's memo book:

Monday: Bash Israel
Tuesday: Israel destroys Iran nuclear facilities. Whew!
Wednesday: Bash Israel 

2. U.S. Government Cannot Find Evidence That Flotilla Organizer is Terrorist, Germany Can

Not only are the Saudis ahead of the U.S. government, so is Germany. In an earlier article I provided proof--including U.S. court records--that the Turkish IHH, organizer of the flotilla and a Hamas ally--was linked to terrorism. Now Germany has banned the group from raising money for that very reason.  So might one expect that observers reevaluate the flotilla? And I'm not talking about the good intentions of the European participants but the fact that they were being used for a pro-terrorist public relations' operation.

The German statement says:

"The IHH [is] supporting organizations specifically under the control of Hamas or support Hamas. Hamas is, as noted also by the Federal Administrative Court in its Al-Aqsa 2004 decision, a unified structure in which social activities can not be separated from the terrorist and political action organization....

"Organizations that operate directly or indirectly, from German soil against the existence of the State of Israel, have forfeited their right to exist as a recognited organization."

While the government statement said that the IHH in Germany is not part of the IHH in Turkey,  sources tell me that despite the formal independence of the group in Germany it is for all practical purposes a branch of the IHH-Turkey. This point was also made on the German Television One program whose transcript I published last month.

Here's another tip: Israel has now dropped all limits on imports except the restrictions on weapons and dual-use military items. Nevertheless, more ships are being organized and sent off. So again this is not a humanitarian operation but one to support a revolutionary Islamist, client of Iran, genocide-intended, terrorist state on the Mediterranean that oppresses women, seeks to subvert moderate Arab governments, and expels Christians.

There is also a deliberate design to persuade the world that there is some terrible suffering in Gaza and a humanitarian crisis which is belied by photos from there on a regular basis. It is part of the war to destroy Israel and bring revolutionary Islamists to power. And the good will or naivete of many participants in this effort has nothing to do with that reality and no effect on it.

3. What Really Happened on the Mavi Marmara ship

A new Israeli army report is fascinating in its details on the flotilla operation, including the fact that three soldiers were taken hostage and taken to a lower deck, two escaped by jumping into the sea, and the third was too injured to do so. Thus, the need for a rescue raid using force. Lots of other new material.

There was also a real mistake. The navy disregarded intelligence and reports from others that the militants would use violence if the soldiers went on board.

Giora Eiland, former national security advisor, summarized his report as follows:

"We found some professional mistakes that were made, however there were also positive aspects. Specifically, the manner in which the Israeli commandos behaved, the decisions that they made and the way in which they took control of the ship. There were at least 4 incidents where Mavi Marmara passengers shot at IDF soldiers. There is good reason to believe that the first incident of live fire shooting on the ship was by passengers of the Mavi Marmara. The classified suggestions that I made were accepted in an open and willing manner by the officers who received them."

Preparing to attack the soldiers, the terrorists took over the ship and ignored the orders of the captain to stop what they were doing.

The first three Israeli soldiers to arrive on deck were taken hostage forced to the lowest deck at the ship's bow. During the rescue attempt, two jumped into the water and were picked up by Israeli navy boats. The third was too badly hurt to escape but was saved by the rescue forces.


The kidnapping of the soldiers led to the fighting in which nine militants were killed. People killed after attacking and kidnapping soldiers aren't innocent bystanders.

On at least four occasions and perhaps six, passengers shot at Israeli soldiers. Shell casings were found and one soldier was wounded in the knee by weapons that the soldiers did not possess.

The only mistake made was not to use different boarding tactics based on the assumption that the militants would attack. There was no guarantee that this would have resulted in fewer casualties. Eiland concluded that without boarding the ship there was no alterntive way of stopping it.

Incidentally, Eiland specifically said that while he found mistakes he did not conclude that the operation had failed.



So what are the headlines? Israel Says At Least Four Flottila Members Fired at Soldiers?

Of course not!:

Israel military faulted over flotilla raid (AFP)

Israel report blames flawed planning for Gaza raid (AP)

Israel failed in ship interception planning: reports (Reuters)

But here's a critical point everyone has missed. Suppose the navy had planned for a violent resistance. The soldiers would have been more aggressive, perhaps crowd control gas would have been laid down first and they would have been ready to fight. Given the terrorists' determination, more people might have been killed and Israel would have looked more aggressive.

In other words, if the operation had been a "total success" Israel would have looked worse, kidnapping attempts--even if temporary--would have failed, and no Israeli soldiers (instead of nine) would have been wounded.

This is an important reminder. The goal of a military operation is to minimize your own casualties and eliminate--by incapacitating or killing--those who are fighting you. A military success would have been even worse in international terms. Think of that the next time you see Israel judged in such matters, given the complaints from abroad that not enough Israelis are killed when the army fights Hizballah and Hamas.

4. PA Leader Says No Direct Talks, Throws Pie in Obama's Face

Mahmoud Abbas said it would be pointless to engage in direct negotiations with Israel. President Barck Obama says he wants direct negotiations. Oh, no! PA leader, recipient of massive U.S. aid, thwarts will of president. U.S. media rage at extremism, intransigence, ingratitude, proof that Palestinian leaders don't want peace? Palestinian-Americans undergo crisis of conscience; write letters to editor beginning, "As a Palestinian I cannot approve the actions of...: form anti-Palestinian lobby called A Street? President criticizes publicly, puts on major pressure, supports the other side?

No, we're talking about the PA, not Israel.

5. Um, Hasn't that happened?

Lead of Los Angeles Times article:

"Pressure intensified for a resumption of direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on Sunday, but Palestinian leaders continued to insist that Israel first freeze settlement construction in the West Bank."

Memo to PA: When coming up with excuses for refusing to negotiate peace with Israel you should stick to things that might actually hold up if journalists really thought through what they write on the subject.

Example 2, Financial Times:

"The question facing Mr. Netanyahu now is whether his success in Washington also offers a fresh start back home."

Right, Netanyahu needs Obama's approval to be popular at home? Um, he's far more popular in Israel than Obama is in the United States. (In a few months, the way the president's public approval at home is going Netanyahu might be more popular in the United States than Obama.)


Example 3: New York Times editorial

"Nearly six weeks later, Turkey and Israel are still stoking anger over the disastrous Israeli attack on a Gaza-bound aid ship. ... The Obama administration has been trying to help."

Right, Israel is just criticizing Turkey every day and, who knows, may threaten to break relations! (It's the other way around, dude.


6. Military Force at Work

"The U.N. Security Council strongly deplored on Friday recent confrontations between south Lebanese villagers and U.N. peacekeepers in the area and called for the troops to be allowed to do their work.

"Last week villagers seized weapons from French troops in the UNIFIL force and wounded their patrol leader."

So do we need another UN military force to protect the UNIFIL soldiers from the villagers? Obviously, they aren't going to confront Hizballah or stop it from a build-up in south Lebanon or an attack on Israel.

Of course, the villagers are acting on Hizballh orders. Let's see, Hizballah agents attack UN soldiers. Hizballah condemned, sanctions, support for other side? Oh, right, still not Israel. They're only terrorists so no reason to be angry at them. In fact, the (ex) CNN Arab affairs editor and the British ambassador to Lebanon finds them thoroughly admirable and all sorts of people want to engage them diplomatically.

You don't need to have a good sense of humor to be a Middle East analyst. It's easy to develop one along the way.


Note 1: Reference is to Prince, the nom-de-rock of the singer/songwriter. He said he wanted to be known as the artist formerly known as prince.

Note 2: Song, "Ghostbusters" from film of the same name.

West Says: We've Helped Poor Gazans! Hamas Says: You've Given Us Gaza, Now on to More Wars, Seizing the West Bank, and Wiping Out Israel

Please be subscriber 16,842. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Here is what President Barack H. Obama said after his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

"We believe that there is a way to make sure that the people of Gaza are able to prosper economically, while Israel is able to maintain its legitimate security needs in not allowing missiles and weapons to get to Hamas."

Now compare this with what the leader of the regime ruling the Gaza Strip says in explaining his broad strategy. See if there is any possible intersection between reality and Obama's priority on mking the Gza Strip prosperous.

Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar doesn’t want anyone to accuse him of hiding his plans and views. Perhaps he is trying to tip off the writers of all those Hamas-is-moderate articles.

Nope, they won't listen. They'll just keep writing about how Hamas is already moderate or about to be made so with more concessions.

Zahhar is also telling everyone the consequences of what the West has just done: accepted on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea a revolutionary Islamist, anti-American, anti-Western, repressive, Iranian client, terrorist regime that oppresses women, drives out Christians, and abuses children’s lives by turning them into future suicide bombers.

Or, what in the Western dialogue is referred to as resolving the “humanitarian crisis.” This is the regime whose domain Obama proposes to make prosperous. It makes me think of a cub scout meeting a serial murderer.

Zahhar explains the Gaza flotilla hoopla and subsequent wave of anti-Israel sentiment not as a way for getting more wheelchairs into Gaza but as the end of phase one of his plan, which in future intends to place a lot more people into wheelchairs in Gaza:

"We have liberated Gaza, but have we recognized Israel? Have we given up our lands occupied in 1948? We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key–without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land….

"Our plan for this stage is to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, and to establish a state on it. Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy."

Zahhar reveals his next target:

"If we could liberate the Negev now, we would continue [our military activity], but our capabilities dictate that after we got rid of the Israeli presence in Gaza, we must finish off the remnants of that occupation, and move on to the West Bank."

Incidentally, how many Western leaders, politicians, academics, journalists, and activists advocate merging the Palestinian Authority and Hamas into a single government? Isn't that what President Barack H. Obama said was his goal, too? Sure he wants the PA on top, but who would you bet on would emerge victorious in the battle over the West Bank if Hamas were welcomed back into the PA?

I'm not saying that Hamas can take over the West Bank, though that's due more to Israel's efforts than to the PA's resistance. But it will try to do so. And when it gets frustrated, at some point, it will renew war with Israel. Hamas will also try to help subvert Egypt and work to help Iran in spreading its influence and intimidation throughout the region.

When Iran has nuclear weapons will it declare that the Hamas Gaza regime is under its protection? That would, if it were to happen, probably be a bluff, but a bluff that would take the region one step closer to war.

Is there any chance of any Western leaders actually reading and comprehending this speech; any possibility its implications will be taught in Western classrooms; any way that it will be prominently quoted and explained in the Western media?

Because Zahhar and Hamas really mean what they say, and most Western governments don't even hear what they say.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran; The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East; and The Truth About Syria. To see and subscribe to his blog go here; for GLORIA Center publications go here.