Ayatollah calls for genocide

Last Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Ayatolah Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” that is Israel. This statement was seen by some in the West as mere rhetoric, but today the Iranian government, through a website proxy , has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews everywhere.

The doctrine states that because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a preemptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues. The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.

This announcement comes on the heel of Iran's successful launch of a new satellite into orbit, reminding the West that its engineers have mastered the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles even as the Islamic state pushes its nuclear weapons program. In addition Iran’s Defense Ministry announced this weekend that it test-fired an advanced two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile.

Hatred so intense it make an old man perspire.

Some time ago, I wrote an article making fun of Ayatollah's pathological hatred, effectively suggesting he needs to be medicated. If he was in the West, he probably would be a nasty crank, who could be managed with the right pills. But in Iran, he can lead a nation and openly call for genocide.

Unfortunately, we cannot medicate foreign leaders, no matter how much it would help them. Only one kind of cure remains - regime change. Nobody wants to do it, but the alternatives of merely taking out nuclear facilities, etc. are anti-Machiavellian. This man is an implacable enemy of US ('the great satan') and Israel, which it won't even dignify by naming, calling it a cancerous growth. Europe is also in Ayatollah's sights, after freezing the Iran's central banks assets, and beginning to institute an oil embargo.

Japan found itself in a similar economic blockade after US placed an embargo on the oil in the West Indies. It chose to strike first, hitting Peal Harbor. In its present situation, it's not inconceivable that Iran may opt for a first strike. It has recently demonstrated its willingness to take risks, by attempting to hire Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C. Iran didn't have much concern about collateral damage and the possibility of killing Americans on US soil, either.

Jerusalem Post recently published an article entitled "Israel isn't about to hit Iran: Get used to it!" by Barry Rubin. He is the director of the GLORIA institute, author of many books on the Middle East, who modestly calls himself a 30-year 'student' of the region, and is typically flawless in his analysis. Rubin laid out logical reasons against the Israeli strike: the risks are too high, the benefits are uncertain. However, Ayatollahs deranged, pathological hatred makes Israel's calculation very difficult. Could political and military leaders of a country facing an existential threat take any chances?

If Obama gave support for the 'Persian spring' in 2009, as he did for the 'Arab spring' in 2011, the regime could have been overthrown, or at least completely deligitimized Assad in Syria. Now, unless the US steps up overthrow the mullahs militarily, the only remaining questions appears to be whether Iran or Israel chooses to strike first, and when.

Strategic Israeli ineptitude

Israel continues to be unable to secure political victories. It has won 4 or 5 wars against Arab aggression, depending on how you count, but has failed to translate its military success into political terms. South Lebanon and Gaza - territories Israel has given up for peace, have become a launching ground for attack. Now the same is happening with Sinani. The peace treaty with Egypt sealing in 1979 Camp David accord, pursuant to which Israel returned Sinai, is effectively void. One of the 'liberal' leaders in Egypt, Ayman Nour, recently told a Lebanese TV station that "it’s time to revisit the treaty with Israel". That the Muslim brotherhood, which controls nearly 3/4 of the lower Parliament, feels the same way goes without saying.

Israel is tactically brilliant, but strategically inept like Hannibal Barka, who was chided by one of his lieutenants: "vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" (You know how to conquer, Hannibal, but not how to profit by your victory.)

Israel continues to play into the hands of its enemies by its inability to assert its right to defend itself politically. Their lack of confidence is explained in part by the pressure coming from its 'friends' in Europe and the US. With friends like the current occupant in the White House, who needs enemies? Of course, US leaders predating Obama with his deep personal antipathy to the Jewish state applied the same type of misguided pressure on Israel to tolerate the intolerable and negotiate with those who openly call for Israel's destruction.

Israel cannot control the actions of leadership of foreign nation, of course, but its own behavior amounts to placing a 'kick me' sign on its back. Every land-for-peace deal has been bad for Israel, from the Oslo agreement, which PLO negotiated in bad faith, to the more recent pullout from Lebanon and Gaza, which allowed takeover by Hezbollah and Hamas. Current negotiations with Palestinian Authority, which is in the process of unification with Hamas are a no-win proposition for Israel.

A more difficult question for Israel is what to do when the pressure for land-for-peace negotiations comes from White House. The Obama administration has shown its bad faith on several occasions already. When Israel agreed to Obama's call for a moratorium on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, Robert Wexler, who is a major shill for the Jewish vote for Obama, explained the reasons for hope to triumph over experience once again by saying: “I want to call their[Palestinians'] bluff. I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position.” Rather than pressure the Arab world in the wake of Israeli concession, Obama doubled down on his pressure on Israel calling for return to the pre-1967 borders, meaning the indefensible borders of 1949.

Caroline Glick, a keen columnist who writes for the Jerusalem Post, pointed out cost of negotiations in her recent article "Fool me twice" - contrary to American promises every Israeli concession mentioned in negotiations of an becomes the starting point for the next round of negotiations. The Palestinians are even refusing to come to the table now, unless construction in Judea and Samaria is stopped again, while the Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu is offering to negotiate without preconditions (which seems foolhardy given PA-Hamas unity agreement, however that only strengthens the point).

The pathological Israeli strategic ineptitude apparently can only be cured temporarily by a deluge of rockets coming over its borders. Why can't they present a firm position about a lack of a viable partner for peace? A list of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2011 shows that almost every day Israel was subjected to unprovoked bombardment. Why can't Israel demand (sic) respect for their security? There are three main forces that prevent them, the so-called liberals in the West, especially in Europe, the UN, and the liberal media and academia in Israel itself, which is desperate to ingratiate itself to the popular opinion of the elites in the West.

The ridiculous position of the liberals is evident from the headline of an article from a self-described liberal newspaper Haaretz: "Netanyahu must treat Abbas as a genuine peace partner" published late in October of last year. The harebrained newspaper doesn't even attempt to say that Abbas is a genuine peace partner - that is too much for even for die-hard liberals to believe - merely that Netanyahu must treat Abbas as one.

While Israel cannot control those outside it's borders, including its rogue academics, it is slowly waking up to what it can do within its borders. Israel denied Noam Chomsky, a virulent anti-Semite, entry into Israel and West Bank in 2010. However, that was a singular incident. The fifth columnists are still getting funding from governments hostile to Israel. At the end of last year, Israel proposed a bill to limit foreign funding of anti-Israel NGOs, however, the intense pressure from the US has caused Netanyahu to suspend the bill.

Sadly, it appears that nothing short of a catastrophic attack on Israel can shake up the system, and evict Israeli fifth-column academics and journalists from their cozy perches. Until that happens, Israeli politicians will continue to apologize for attempting to preserve the Jewish state, and engage in self-defeating negotiations.

Insanity of Israeli media

Israel had finally negotiated the release of Gilad Shalit, a soldier kidnapper in 2006 from Israel by Hamas last fall. The country had welcome its soldier-son home, but released 1027 Palestinian prisoners, some of them mass murderers. I would like to admire a country that goes so far to bring back one of its own. But I can't. All I see is weakness and stupidity.

Spare me the righteous rhetoric starting with "If it was your son...". A vast prisoner release is a matter of state security. How many murderers went free to secure the release of one Israeli? Many of the released prisoners already swore to go back to terrorism. How many Israelis will die by their hands?

It may seem an admirable goal - doing 'everything' to secure the release of a soldier. But did Israel really do everything? Shalit was held incommunicado, (and he looks starved in all his photos) he had no access even by the Red Cross. Under such conditions, why didn't Israel at least demand equal rights for him?

Shalit during his release interview looked like
an inmate from a Nazi concentration camp.

Shalit was kidnapped from Israel; he wasn't serving in Gaza or West bank at the time. By what right was he detained for 5 years? Unlike the Palestinian terrorists he was never accused of anything. Just being a Jew in Israel is enough.

The trade Israel has carried out 1 for 1027 is not only asymmetrical; it's totally immoral because it draws a false parallel between an innocent youth, and criminals who were found guilty in a court of law. Palestinians often press their cases in Israeli courts - they know Israeli laws a fair.

In fact, Israel was should have demanded Shalit's release. They have non-military leverage, which they never even attempted to use. Israel could threaten to deny visitation rights to Palestinians until Shalit was given access. They could stop remitting taxes to Gaza, limited their electricity, etc. and laid the fault at the feet of Hamas, which runs Gaza since 2006. Nothing of the sort was ever attempted, despite the fact that it would not only further the goal of bringing back Shalit, but weaken Hamas through popular resentment. Apparently 'everything' refers only to Bugs Bunny politics: all carrot.

Immediately after Shalit's release, the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), a Palestinian militant group has vowed to abduct a “new Gilad Shalit” in order to force Israel to free the remaining 6,000 Palestinians still languishing in Israeli prisons. "We are going to capture another soldier and cleanse all the Israeli jails of our prisoners," said a masked spokesman, according to UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper.

It gets worse. Gilad's father, Noam Shalit, has gotten used to the spotlight. Now he wants to go into politics. He even reinstalled the Israeli flag on his roof. His actions betray the inversion of JFK's philosophy: "What can my country do for me?" For five years Noam Shalit was Hamas' champion facilitated by the willing media. You can hear from about this case from Dr. Boaz Ganor, who's the Associate Dean of the Lauder School of Government, the founder and Executive Director of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), and the head of the Homeland Security Studies Programs.

I care about Israel, but these are very bad signs about the power of the left-wing media, and gullibility of the public. A major sobering up after some of the released prisoners are seen engaging in terrorism is inevitable. It will provide a lesson similar to the failed Ozlo initiatives that the media is also going to ignore.

It seems that the sentiment below: "Dear Hamas take me!" applies to the whole country. The affair has been similar to placing a 'kick me' sign on all the military personnel.

Shalit should have been liberated, but not exchanged at ridiculous rate in a way that also contributed to erasing the distinction between citizen-soldiers and terrorists.

Israel should say no to harakiri

Last week I wrote an article expressing my opinion about deep lingering dislike of Jews in Europe that is explains its hostility towards Israel. The fellowship with the sole besieged democracy in the Middle East is certainly underwhelming, whatever it's reasons.

Europe is quickly losing its economic clout abroad, and is barely able to control its periphery (see Lybia). Given their increasing irrelevance, and constant hostility the best strategy for Israel is to ignore them.
Last week the Quartet, which includes the US, EU, Russia and UN, reiterated its long-standing position - encouraging direct talks between Israelis and the Palestinians. Four European members in
UN Security Council (UNSC) – France, Britain (permanent), and Germany and Portugal (rotating) issued a contradictory proposal: "We call the parties to present as soon as possible to the Quartet comprehensive proposals on territory and security" - in other words indirect negotiation. In addition, these four countries went blasted construction beyond Green Line and in East Jerusalem.

These actions undermine negotiations, not further them. In addition, they are based on a demonstrable pipe dream of land-for-peace. As Charles Krauthammer recently wrote, these have consistently been land-without-peace deals - that is why Abbas went to UN asking for statehood in contradiction of all prior agreements to negotiate with Israelies.

Furthermore, they are destroying the remains of good faith in European neutrality: Israeli Foreign Ministry cautioned biased Europeans that "they risk becoming irrelevant".

Of course, some Israelies, like the opposition Tzipi Livni never pass an opportunity to lambaste the leadership, and side with Israels foes. She is the last opportunist remaining from the Kadima party, which sought to breathe new life into discredited ideas of the left which have backfired: Oslo, withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, failures of second Lebanon war, tacit acceptance of Hamas, etc. It is not enough that she represents ideas that have done clear and apparent harm to Israel, she misrepresents Europeans as 'friends' and even stokes friction, but insinuating such intent.

Livni's provocative statement that Netanyahu is "starting war with friends", is at the core of the ideological struggle for survival. Israel-bashers everywhere like to criticize Israel for defending itself and alienating 'friends'. My thesis, is that they are not friends. Fortunately, they can be marginalized and ignored.

Several Israelis have noted that the origins of virulent anti-Israeli manifestation of liberal frustration is not their excessive ideology, but ultimately their rejection at the polls. They are the best the country has the offer, the country rejected them, and deserves to be found guilty in the international court of opinion regardless of actual damage it causes.
Israel is a small, but consequential country. It is a "canary in the mine" in at least two important respects. It's a functioning, Western democracy in the Middle East and they are also a microcosm where a lot of internal contradictions, and lies of the West is manifested.
Binding itself to Europe's leadership (and whims) as Livni suggests, would be masochistic for Israel. Netanyahu's job is made more difficult by a fifth-column oppositionist Livni, and victory is not assured. Recently, bowing to international pressure, he backed off a long-awaited debate in Knesset about a bill to oversee NGO funded from outside the country.
The 21st century's wars are about information, and they are already raging. I see major problems with the fact that the West is trying to solve problems by fixing 'optics'. It is lying, primarily to itself. I guess that means in addition to conflicts such as those in Syria, we can expect a major escalation of 'culture wars' for the soul of Western democracies. And that's why the situation is Israel matters: its a bellwether for the West.

Why Israel matters

Why write about Israel? It is a part of Western civilization, whether or not this idea appeals to the Europeans. Israel is the canary of Western civilization in the dark mine, filled with noxious fumes that is the Middle East.

Watching the second intifada in Israel in 2000, I thought that it was naive of the West to think the antipathy of Arabs was limited to the Jews, and not necessarily applicable to the rest of the West.

That is an extremely naive, but dangerous view.

The hatred of Europe for Israel and the Jews is not uniform, and quite complex. However, the wide-spread antipathy is a fact, and has important implications for the future of the continent. Because of these connections, I will have a discussion thread on Israel and its relationship with the West.

Europe has finally started to wake up to the danger that is Iran. Will common interest with Israel be enough? The Europeans are likely to strengthen sactions, which are barely effective, but unlikely to provide any assistance to Israel, which will have to do the heavy lifting in halting Iran's nuclear ambition.

Europe's scapegoats

When European elites are finally forced to face their own failures, they will not recognize them. Their current behavior suggests that the more likely reaction is that of tin-pot dictatorships everywhere - to find scapegoats to take the heat off themselves. I don't think antipathy to US that is already quite strong in Europe will suffice. The people will likely need a more immediate culprit. That culprit will not be the immigrants, but the old boogey-man - the Jews.

This is not a pleasant charge to make. Some time ago, I have realized that contrary to their statements, the Europeans have never given up on their antipathy to the Jews. History of the continent is full of banishments, burnings and ghettos for the Jews since the time before the Black Death. As tempting is it is to believe that Europe has realize its ethical failures, we should remember the active collaboration Jew-hunters found in most countries, from Netherlands, which lost over 3/4 of the Jews, including the young Anne Frank, to Lithuania, which was declared Juden-rein (free of Jews) in record time. The current antipathy to the state of Israel cannot even be fully explained by the desire to maintain good trade relationships with much more numerous Arabs, rather than Jews, who have not oil.

From the moment of its creation, the British in particular, did everything to nip the nascent state in the bud. Today, Europe's support for Hamas, PA, UNIFIL, and other local Middle Easter obscenities, etc. amounts to this:

Europe is waging a war by proxy against Israel.

I know this is a scandalous assertion, which sounds hysterical and, therefore, implausible. Besides, EU is the champion of initiatives related to global warming/climate change, and a general do-gooder, who eschewed the death penalty and violence in the first half of last century.
Read the following articleby Caroline Glick, one of the most conservative contributors, who writes for Jerusalem Post about Norway, the land of the peace prize.

When you read about the justification of terror against Israeli civilians by Norwegians after their own experience with terror one can only hope that this genocidal hypocrisy is an exception. If only that were the case. Sadly, there is no shortage of support for this view-point, and I will accumulate evidence in this blog.

Tell me how you really feel

Below is a fanciful account of the situation in Iran, based on a Haaretz article.

Reclining on a comfortable sofa was an elderly man dressed in strict black robes, with a flowing white beard. He rolled his eyes thoughtfully to the ceiling.

‘No, I’ve never been there’, he said scornfully, without looking up at the psychiatrist, who had the habit of doodling on his notepad, as he questioned his most tedious patients. He believed not looking at them directly reduced the pressure on patients, and made them relax.

The Supreme Leader would not relax, however. ‘Moreover, you will henceforth refer to it as the Zionist Entity, doctor’, he added sternly. ‘It’s a cancerous growth, and shall be removed’, he added vehemently, his fists clenched, his eyes bulging with emotion.

‘Isn’t the two-state solution encouraging? Wouldn’t that be nice?’

‘I hope their bid (UN state application) fails, and they see that they have no option but to fight.’ He was an angry old man. Prozac, or Lithium - thought the doctor vacantly doodling an elaborate peacock tail – or maybe both.

‘What a sham’, went on the bitter man on the couch, ‘the Palestinians should never settle for *some* of the land. Palestine spans from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Middeterannian), nothing less.’

‘If you could send Palestine a message what would be it be?’

‘Start killing the Jews, already!’

Alas, the presence of a medical specialist is entirely fictional. The physchiatrist ready to help a cantankerous old man was not there, however the patient is, and is in charge of a country one the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Noone was. The Supreme Leader, Khameni, does in fact lead a nation, as a theocracy. His word is the closest thing to the word of god. So, when Khamenei told the "5th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada" in Iran’s capital Tehran that was attended by other by senior Palestinian militant leaders, that the Palestinians should not limit themselves to seeking a country based on the pre-1967 borders because "all land belongs to Palestinians”, they rested easy in the knowledge that the planned genocide was sponsored by god all along.

Nobody was surprised when Hamas leader Khaled Meshal agreed with his paymasters; in addressing the conference he said "resistance" is the only option left for the Palestinians.

Having affirmed that genocide in the holy land is still the logical solution the two leaders and their genocidal cohorts had tea with sweets.

Germans genocide of the Jews, at least, became the ‘final’ solution amidst the ruin of total war, and was largely hidden from the public. The latest breed of genocidal wannabes considers genocide the only solution and sees nothing wrong with discussing it in public. They even have adopted pseudo-democratic language - the "5th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada" sounds much cleaner than “Let’s kill the Jews in the Holy Land”. The latter is a type of slogan commonly held up at the demonstrations, or written on the sides of busses that transport massed to these hate-fests. In international circles you still want a veneer of decency. Of course, it’s preposterous to this this fools anyone; however this of English language and democratic structures was learned by Tehran directly from the successful and long-lasting duplicity at UN Human Rights committee. Tehran was also successful at stymying reviews by the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) for the same period as they held international conferences to extoll the benefits of genocide.

Could this boldness also have anything to do with the permissiveness of the West, such as is repeatedly seen in London where explicit calls to violence by Islamists right in from of 10 Downing St. go unchallenged?

And so Middle East burns and sizzles, while the West fiddles.

Written on 10/01/11