Obama Promotes Islamist Turkey to Israel -- What about Israel's Honor?

UPDATING 8-3&11&18-&9-5-2011 at bottom

The Obama administration is now pushing Israel to make up with Turkey by apologizing for killing 9 Turkish thugs/jihadists on the Mavi Marmara in 2010. They don't ask Erdogan to apologize to Israel for trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, an act of war on Turkey's part although executed through an ostensibly non-official body, the terrorist IHH. Apologizing to Erdung will only encourage him to continue his life of crime, Islamist crime. And what about Obama's commitment to the US's NATO ally, Greece, which is threatened by Erdung's renewed Turkish imperial drive? Or, speaking about blockades, what about the Turkish blockade of Armenia that has been going on since 1993?

Carolyn Glick and the Jerusalem Post editorial staff realize the dangers in the Obama approach.

1) Jerusalem Post editorial 7-26-2011
The US is keenly pursuing reconciliation between Turkey and Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convinced UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to postpone until the end of August the release of the UN’s Palmer Commission report on the Mavi Marmara. The delay would facilitate negotiations between Jerusalem and Ankara aimed at returning to semi-normalcy in relations and allow for the burying of the Palmer Commission report, which reportedly upholds the legality of Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, but takes the IDF to task for using disproportionate force.

The Obama administration is convinced that resolution of the Mavi Marmara fiasco is the key to maintaining the Israel-Turkey-US strategic triangle, so essential in American eyes to a stable Middle East.

The US, therefore, wants Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to back a formula that includes an apology for “operational mishaps” that resulted in the loss of nine Turkish lives in the Israel Navy commando raid last year, and payment of compensation through a fund to be set up by the Turkish governmen. - - -[Excerpt from JPost editorial 7-26-2011; Read rest here]- - -

Note that the Obama administration is not asking the Turks to apologize to Israel, although Israel was the victim of an act of war on Turkey's part --breaking a legal and justified blockade of the Gaza Strip, now controlled by the Nazi-like Hamas. To be sure, Turkey's act of war was executed through an ostensibly non-official body, the terrorist IHH, but was nonetheless a Turkish govt act in view of the strong ties between the govt and the IHH [see here & here].

Secretary of State Clinton's claim that an Israeli apology was needed for the sake of "stability" is hardly convincing given that the US under Obama has caused much instability in the Middle East and has seldom shown any sign that it appreciates stability as such. Recall that Obama and his gang helped bring down Mubarak in Egypt, although Mubarak's fall has unleashed much still ongoing instability with the danger that the Muslim Brotherhood might come to power there.




2) Carolyn Glick does her usual good job, providing information and analysis.

No Prizes for Erdogan

July 27, 2011, 3:10 PM

Comments (4)

Shortly after Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recip Erdogan came to power in 2002, he began undermining Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. Erdogan officially ended the alliance last May when he sent the IHH, an al Qaeda-aligned, Turkish NGO affiliated with his Islamist AKP Party to lead the pro-Hamas flotilla to Gaza.

Aboard the Mavi Marmara, IHH members violently attacked IDF naval commandos who boarded the ship in order to prevent it from breaking Israel's lawful maritime blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza coast. In the life and death battle that ensued, nine of the IHH assailants were killed.

By attempting to break Israel's lawful blockade, passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara and the rest of the ships in the flotilla were engaged in illicit acts of war against the Jewish state and providing illicit aid and comfort to an illegal terrorist organization. In supporting and arguably organizing the flotilla, including the Mavi Marmara, Erdogan himself was waging an unlawful war against Israel.

Erdogan reacted to the Mavi Marmara incident with enraged indignation. He demanded that Israel apologize for its commandos' actions and pay compensation to the families of the dead. He also demanded an international inquiry into Israel's actions.

Answering his call, the UN set up a commission to investigate last year's flotilla episode. The report has been ready since May. But its publication has been repeatedly delayed. According to media accounts of its findings, the UN commission agrees that Israel's blockade of Gaza is legal. It also claims that the naval commandos used disproportionate force in fending off the Mavi Marmara passengers' assault against them.

In a bid to salvage Turkey's ties to Israel and so increase waning Congressional support for Turkey, the Obama administration has been mediating talks between Israel and Turkey for the past few months. According to news reports, the administration is now pressuring Israel to agree to Erdogan's demand for an apology and to pay compensation to the families of those killed onboard the Mavi Marmara. The U.S. is also demanding that Turkey agree not to press damages or war crimes claims against Israeli personnel in international or other courts.

Given President Obama's expressed admiration and support for Erdogan, it makes sense that he is pushing this position. But the question remains, why is Turkey insisting that Israel apologize and pay damages for the IDF's lawful actions on the Mavi Marmara? What is he trying to achieve? And what would be the consequences if Israel were to bow to U.S. pressure and apologize?

There are two explanations for Erdogan's behavior. First, there is the issue of honor, which plays such a prominent role in Islamic society. He views the Mavi Marmara incident in the context of honor politics. And he demands an apology from Israel in order to increase his honor and diminish Israel's.

Most of Israel's objections to Erdogan's demand to date have centered around this issue. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon have cited this as the primary reason for refusing to apologize.

But while unpleasant, honor is probably not Erdogan's main rationale for pursing his demand for an Israeli apology. Since he was reelected to serve a third term as prime minister last month Erdogan has been openly seeking to establish a neo-Ottoman Turkish hegemonic position in the Arab world.

To this end he has been actively interfering in the popular revolt against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. The IHH has been hosting Syrian opposition leaders in Turkey. Erdogan's clear aim is to replace Iran as Syria's overlord in a post-Assad Syria.

Erdogan has also been actively engaging Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood since the overthrow of former president Hosni Mubarak in February. Erdogan plans a high profile visit to Egypt in the near future. And he plans to end his visit to Egypt by crossing the Egyptian border with Gaza. There he will become the highest-level foreign leader to visit Gaza since the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood Hamas took over in 2007.

As far as Erdogan is concerned, if he gets the U.S. to force Israel to apologize, it will be a massive public relations coup in his bid to convince the Arabs to accept his leadership. After all, Israel would be apologizing for having had the temerity to oppose the aggression of IHH terrorists engaged in an act of war against Israel. An Israeli apology would serve as proof that his double game of remaining a NATO member and carrying out aggression against Israel is the winning formula. If Israel apologizes for defending itself against Turkish aggression, Erdogan will have succeeded where the Arabs have failed.

Obviously, on the merits, Israel has no reason to apologize. And Turkish promises not to file lawsuits and war crimes complaints against Israel will have no legal weight. The Turkish pledge will not bind the relatives of the dead. And an Israeli apology and compensation will provide them with a prima facie claim that Israel admits culpability.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and senior IDF officers reportedly argue in favor of an apology, claiming the strategic alliance with Turkey is so important that Israel must be willing to swallow its pride in order to rebuild it.

This argument has apparently won over Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor. It has also caused Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to temper his honor-based rejection of the Turkish demand.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to take address Erdogan's second, and more strategically significant motivation of using Israeli humiliation to strengthen his image as a pan-Islamic leader.

That motivation gives lie to the notion that Erdogan has any interest in reinstating Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. The man who is cultivating Hamas in the PA, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, is not going to permit the Israeli Air Force to renew its training flights over Turkish airspace.

Erdogan is not going to share intelligence with Israel on Iran. He will not cooperate with Mossad agents along Turkey's border with Iran or Syria.

Instead he will use his ability to humiliate Israel and curb its military operations to demonstrate to the Muslim Brotherhood that it should accept Turkey's role as regional hegemon and operate under its wings.

Moreover, Israel can fully expect that under Erdogan, Turkey will share any intelligence information Israel provides with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that any intelligence information Turkey transfers to Israel to be of limited value.

The UN announced on Sunday that it was delaying the publication of its report on the Mavi Marmara for another month. The expectation is that Israel will bow to Turkish and U.S. pressure and apologize and so obviate the need for the report to ever see the light of day.

Given the true stakes involved, Israel must stick to its guns and say no apology, no compensation, and no political prize for Erdogan.

Originally published in The Jewish Press.

Posted on July 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/07/no-prizes-for-erdogan.php?pf=yes

Hilary and her State Dept apparently have a deep psychological need to protect Turkey's reputation even when it has committed the most heinous crimes. A few years ago Hilary tried to get Turkey and Armenia to make up by glossing over the Armenian genocide issue. In the case of the Turkish Armada and the Mavi Marmara affair, Hilary is shoving the guilt, the onus onto Israel when it is really Turkey that is guilty. [here & here]
8-3-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein, deputy chairperson of the Italian parliament's foreign affairs committee, reports that Erdogan now demands an apology from the Armenian president, Serzh Sarksyan, who recently responded to a question about recovery of Armenia's lost territories now incorporated in Turkey --including Mount Ararat-- that: "The future is only in the hands of the youth." [qui][& in English here]. Let's see if Obama & Hilary join in with Erdogan in demanding that the Armenian president apologize.
8-8-2011 Moshe Ya`alon calls Turkish demand for an apology for the Mavi Marmara incident [provoked by Turkey] "rude" [here]
Herb Keinon in Jerusalem Post reports on divisions among top ministers in the security cabinet over whether Israel should somehow apologize to Turkey for killing nine Turkish thugs on the Mavi Marmara in May 2010 [here]. The usually foolish Dan Meridor claims that with "wisdom" on both sides, good relations can return [But if the Turks don't want to return to good relations?]. Minister Ya`alon, Avigdor Lieberman, Eli Yishai, and Benny Begin oppose any apology to Turkey. Ehud Barak unbecomingly accepts the State Dept/Obama position. Netanyahu & Steinitz have not committed themselves.
8-9-2011 Israelo-American peacemonger joins in the chorus of simpletons advocating an "apology" to Turkey for Turkey's brutality [here]. One Barry Leff of "Rabbis" for "Human Rights" [human rights for some humans, not for others] demonstrates his own ignorance and that of his group whose dishonest and foolish antics in the past have led to other Jews being killed. Is Leff aware that Turkey has been blockading Armenia for at least 18 years? Is he aware of the Turkish conquest of northern Cyprus in 1974? and the 100,000s of refugees thus created? Why doesn't he propose that Turkey apologize to Armenia and Cyprus? Would not that be the right, the moral thing for him to do?
8-11-2011 The Jerusalem Post reports that Obama made a special call to PM Netanyahu to pester him about an apology to Turkey [here]. Bibi, just say No!!!
Pressure from Turks resident in Germany has led Stuttgart University to "capitulate[d] to pressure from resident Turkish Muslims and cancel[ed] an event entitled, "Persecution, Expulsion and Annihilation of Christians in the Ottoman Empire'" [here & here]. The Western university continues to decline.
Israel Matzav on Erdogan's demand for an apology from Armenia [here]
8-14-2011 Oded Eran wants Israel to offer to make some sort of apology to Turkey, not because it's justified in any way but to keep Obama happy [here]. That is precisely a good reason not to make any apology. The more Israel gives in to Obama the worse he treats Israel.
8-18-2011 Tony Badran sees Obama as allowing Erdogan to lead his policy on Syria [here]
8-22-2011 Ely Karmon examines the issue in the JPost [here]. He stresses the strangely exaggerated involvement of Obama and Hilary in pressuring Israel to apologize to Turkey.
9-5-2011 Caroline Glick sees Erdogan's scapegoating of Israel as useful for his neo-Ottoman policy of expanding Turkey's influence in the Islamic world [here]

Israel Anti-Boycott Law Misrepresented by Interested Parties, as Expected

Israel's new anti-boycott law does not "criminalize" speech --nor even pro-boycott speech or acts-- as was claimed in a rather overheated reaction by the New Israel Fund. Rather, the law defines pro-boycott agitation as a tort, a civil wrong [in Hebrew `avlah עוולה]. As such, parties injured by a boycott can sue for damages. Moreover, the Israeli government is to withhold state benefits and favors, grants, subsidies, guarantees, etc, from those who practice or advocate a boycott. Hence there is no criminal punishment in the law, no jail sentences; the State of Israel is not "criminalizing" boycotters, as the NIF claimed. It is denying state benefits which it has the right to do to protect the state and people of Israel. [See text of law at link below comments. See Hebrew text פה {pdf} or כאן] Maybe the NIF thought that they could get away with lying about the law, depending on the general ignorance of the Hebrew language.

The NIF has been charged by NGO Monitor with funding pro-boycott activities and advocacy. The NIF itself is funded by --among other bodies-- the Ford Foundation, which in its turn helped to organize and fund participating anti-Israel outfits that created an anti-Israeli hate atmosphere at the racist, Judeophobic Durban "anti-racism" conference which took place in early September 2001, just before the 9-11 tragedy. Among hateful things done at Durban in 2001 was to advocate the BDS strategy against Israel [BDS = boycott, divestment, sanctions].

What does the law do?
1) the law does not restrict free speech except insofar as injured persons or bodies may sue the boycott advocates for damages under the old damages law [neziqin]. Laws in civilized countries restrict free speech, of course, on the grounds of libel which can lead to imposing payment of damages on libellers, as well as on the grounds of incitement to violence, sedition, threats of violence, etc.
2) the law also allows the govt to withhold govt grants, subsidies, or other special state benefits and favors from advocates of the boycott, not including pensions, child allowances, etc.
3) BDS advocacy is treated as a civil offense perhaps warranting damages or withholding of state benefits. It is not treated as a criminal matter. The law does not forbid bds advocacy.

One member of Knesset explained why the law was needed. MK Tsipi Hotobeli said today --in a radio discussion with Uri Avneri, head of the pro-BDS "Gush Shalom" outfit, that it is hard for Israel to denounce and complain about BDS efforts abroad when they are allowed here at home.
Further, those who criticize the law should ask whether the govt should have to pay public money [state benefits-but this does not include pensions or regular social benefits enjoyed by citizens] to those who act against the public interest .

Ironically, those who defend boycott advocacy on the grounds of freedom of speech are themselves guilty of undermining the human rights of others, particularly but not only Jews who live or wish to live in Judea-Samaria. Uri Avneri and "Peace Now" advocate preventing Jews from peacefully migrating to live in Judea-Samaria and advocate boycotting products made by Jewish firms in those areas, firms which hire Arabs as well as Jews.

Those who boycott settlement products because they believe that Jews have no right to live or conduct businesses or manufacturing in Judea-Samaria are taking a racist, apartheid position against Jews. Although they typically justify this position on the grounds of international law, the interpretations of int'l law that they brandish about are false. They typically claim that Geneva Convention IV, article 49, forbids "transfer" of population to "occupied territory." It does. However, recall that Germany, Austria and Japan were avowedly occupied by US, USSR, UK, and France after WW2. Many civilians from the occupying powers voluntarily moved into those countries while they were occupied. Nobody complained that Geneva IV, article 49 [or whatever] forbid these civilians to move into occupied countries. Large parts of Japan are still occupied by Russia, that is, they were annexed in the Soviet Communist days by the USSR, although Japan never recognized that annexation and there is as yet no Russian-Japanese or Soviet-Japanese peace treaty as far as I know. Hundreds of thousands --if not millions-- of Soviets/Russians were moved into these formerly Japanese areas. Nobody gives a damn but the Japanese. Nor is the situation considered a threat to international peace.

Now many of us would argue that Judea-Samaria are not occupied, and this on various grounds [such as the Jewish National Home principle]. Further, "transfer" means compulsory migration, whereas the Jews living in Judea-Samaria were willing migrants. But even if J-S were occupied and even if Geneva IV, 49, applied to voluntary migrants [not persons subject to "transfer"] across the Green Line, the position demanding exclusion of Jews from Judea-Samaria would still be racist. Legal perhaps, but racist against Jews. Since when do advocates of liberty and human rights want to punish people who have flouted restrictive laws [if J-S were occupied and if Geneva IV, 49, applied legally]?? And BDS relies on these false interpretations of law and is a legalist-nativist argument as well, which humanitarians and human rights advocates should eschew. BDS falsely speaks in the name of human rights.

The bds campaign actively tries to prevent people --Jews-- from exercising human rights, the right to live where their long-time enemies don't want them to live. Hence it is BDS that is racist. Racist against Jews. This is the argument that should be made. Heretofore, the Yesha Council, Women in Green, and such groups have NOT been making the right arguments to the world.

Here is an interesting case in which a person who would likely be called "a progressive" sued someone who libelled him, thereby restricting the libeller's freedom of speech and press.

The so-called Association for Civil Rights in Israel [ACRI] issued a position paper against the new law, while NIF has so far just sent around a whining email [their position paper will likely follow soon]. The paper does not mention --probably due to the author's ignorance-- that in the United States a private person was allowed to sue for damages to his work and endeavors caused by libel of the group to which he belonged and in which he was named personally. Libel laws too have "a chilling effect" on freedom of speech. The ACRI paper decries the permission granted by the new law to private persons to sue for damages caused by boycott calls. But a trial was begun on such a matter in the USA. The defendant --who was promoting libel through his newspaper, eventually settled in the plaintiff's favor. This represented a restriction on the defendant's freedom of speech as well as on freedom of the press.

I refer to a suit against Henry Ford by a Jew. In the early 1920s, Ford's newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, worked out its own version of the forged and plagiarized Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also naming individual Jews.

"Aaron Sapiro, a lawyer who was organizing farmers' cooperatives [kind of like a community organizer], sued Mr Ford and his paper for a million dollars on the ground that his valuable work would be ruined by their lies. The trial was begun in Detroit in 1926 but it was never finished because Mr Ford apologized to Aaron Sapiro and to the Jewish people as a whole . . . [Ford] said: 'I deem it to be my duty . . . to make amends for the wrong done to the Jews. . . asking their forgiveness. . .'" [Rabbi Lee Levinger, A History of the Jews in the United States (NY: UAHC 1959), p 358].

Henry Ford to be sure was an intense Judeophobe and Nazi sympathizer. He had to produce his own version of the Protocols because --among other things-- the original version was --anti-Roman Catholic & anti-Protestant and sympathetic to the Russian Orthodox Church. The anti-Catholic hate in the original would not have gone down well in the United States.

So, although the libel trial against Ford did not conclude, Sapiro's claim --which restricted Ford's freedom of speech-- was accepted for trial as justiciable. Sapiro did not have to wait for governmental action. Of course the case is not identical. But I think it is rather close to the "private action" that the ACRI paper so deplores. Curiously, the Ford Foundation, founded with Henry Ford's money, works against the Jews as did its namesake, Henry Ford.

- - - - -
NGO Monitor's comments and translation of the law [here]
Eli Hertz compares the present Israeli anti-boycott law with an American anti-boycott law [here]
Isi Leibler discusses anti-Israel boycotts and the anti-boycott law [here]
Eugene Kontorovich blasts hypocrisy of anti-boycott law defamers [here]
7-29-2011 Martin Sherman argues that those circles in Israel advocating boycotts against Israel and/or opposing the anti-boycott law have been undemocratic in their recent history and constitute the greatest threat to democracy in Israel [here]

The Moral Depravity of the "Free Gaza" Flotilla movement

Somehow the aura of "humanitarianism" has attached itself to the so-called "free gaza flotilla." However, let's examine what their actions are designed to accomplish and who their allies and beneficiaries are in this effort.
The "free gaza" movement openly demands removal of the blockade on Gaza. That would mean that the Hamas Islamofanatic/Islamofascist govt of Gaza would be free --free to bring in any sort of heavy weapon that can be loaded on a ship. And shipping by sea is a more convenient way of transporting heavy weapons than by land. So they want Hamas in Gaza to have heavy weapons. In the past, Hamas has used the lighter, simpler weapons available to it to attack the Jewish civilian population in southern Israel, not only in Sderot but in Ashqelon, Ashdod, Beersheva and other towns and villages. The children of Sderot have been living under rocket attack, first by the rather simple Qassam rockets "home made" in Gaza which were not very accurate. The children often developed serious traumas from rocket attacks, even if they were not physically touched by the rockets or the shrapnel or pieces of broken houses. Now the Hamas has longer-range heavier rockets, like the Grad or Katyusha, which are somewhat more accurate and bear more explosives. In the last Israel-Hamas war 12-2008/1-2009 the Hamas shot rockets from Gaza that hit schools and kindergartens in Beersheba, a city previously out of range. The "free gaza" flotillas want to improve Hamas' chances in the next war. So much for the purposes of the flotilla.

Now about the beneficiaries and allies of the "free gaza" movement. Christopher Hitchens has drawn up a powerful indictment of flotillamania, also explaining what Hamas stands for. By the way, I don't always agree with Hitchens:

Boat People

Some questions for the "activists" aboard the Gaza flotilla.

By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, July 4, 2011, at 11:03 AM ET

Palestinian boats and the Freedom Flotilla in the port of Gaza City

The tale of the Gaza "flotilla" seems set to become a regular summer feature, bobbing along happily on the inside pages with an occasional update. A nice sidebar for reporters covering the Greek debt crisis: a built-in mild tension of "will they, won't they?"; a cast of not very colorful characters but one we almost begin to feel we know personally. Such cheery and breezy slogans—"the audacity of hope" and "free Gaza"—and such an easy storyline that it practically writes itself. Since Israel adopts a posture that almost guarantees a reaction of some sort in the not-too-distant future, and since there was such a frisson of violence the last time the little fleet set sail, there's no reason for it not to become a regular seasonal favorite.

However, given the luxury of time, might it not be possible to ask the "activists" onboard just a few questions? (Activist is a good neutral word, isn't it, with largely positive connotations? Even flotilla, with its reassuring diminuendo, has a "small is beautiful" sound to it.) Most of the speculation so far has been to do with methods and intentions, allowing for many avowals about peaceful tactics and so forth, but this is soft-centered coverage. I would like to know a little more about the political ambitions and implications of the enterprise.

It seems safe and fair to say that the flotilla and its leadership work in reasonably close harmony with Hamas, which constitutes the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. The political leadership of this organization is headquartered mainly in Gaza itself. But its military coordination is run out of Damascus, where the regime of Bashar Assad is currently at war with increasingly large sections of the long-oppressed Syrian population. Refugee camps, some with urgent humanitarian requirements, are making their appearance on the border between Syria and Turkey (the government of the latter being somewhat sympathetic to the purposes of the flotilla). In these circumstances, isn't it legitimate to strike up a conversation with the "activists" and ask them where they come out on the uprising against hereditary Baathism in Syria?

Then again, Syria's other proxy party in the region is Hezbollah, which operates a state-within-a-state and maintains a private army on the territory of Lebanon. Senior associates of this group have recently been named in a U.N. indictment concerning the broad-daylight murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Hezbollah's leadership and propaganda organs, while refusing all cooperation with the United Nations, are currently expressing undying solidarity with the Assad regime, which relies additionally on heavy support from the dictatorship in Iran. Again, the Hamas leadership seems compromised at best by its association with this local Tehran-Damascus axis. Surely there must be some spokesman for the blockade-runners who is able to give us his thinking on this question, too? At a time of widespread democratic and pluralist revolution in the region, Hamas imposes its own version of theocracy on Gaza and seems otherwise aligned with the forces that stand athwart the hope of continued and deeper change. Who wants to volunteer time to make this outfit look more presentable? Half the published articles on Gaza contain a standard reference to its resemblance to a vast open-air prison (and when I last saw it under Israeli occupation, it certainly did deserve this metaphor). The problem is that, given its ideology and its allies, Hamas qualifies rather too well in the capacity of guard.

Only a few weeks ago, the Hamas regime in Gaza became the only governing authority in the world—by my count—to express outrage and sympathy at the death of Osama Bin Laden. As the wavelets lap in the Greek harbors, and the sunshine beats down, doesn't any journalist want to know whether the "activists" have discussed this element in their partners' world outlook? Does Alice Walker seriously have no comment?

Hamas is listed by various governments and international organizations as a terrorist group. I don't mind conceding that that particular word has been used in arbitrary ways in the past. But what concerns me much more is the official programmatic adoption, by Hamas, of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This disgusting fabrication is a key foundational document of 20^th-century racism and totalitarianism, indelibly linked to the Hitler regime in theory and practice. It seems extraordinary to me that any "activist" claiming allegiance to human rights could cooperate at any level with the propagation of such evil material. But I have never seen any of them invited to comment on this matter, either.

The little boats cannot make much difference to the welfare of Gaza either way, since the materials being shipped are in such negligible quantity. The chief significance of the enterprise is therefore symbolic. And the symbolism, when examined even cursorily, doesn't seem too adorable. The intended beneficiary of the stunt is a ruling group with close ties to two of the most retrograde dictatorships in the Middle East, each of which has recently been up to its elbows in the blood of its own civilians. The same group also manages to maintain warm relations with, or at the very least to make cordial remarks about, both Hezbollah and al-Qaida. Meanwhile, a document that was once accurately described as a "warrant for genocide" forms part of the declared political platform of the aforesaid group. There is something about this that fails to pass a smell test. I wonder whether any reporter on the scene will now take me up on this.

- - - - - - - - end hitchens - - - - - - -

To conclude, the whole notion of a "palestinian people" was invented for the sake of a psychological warfare/cognitive warfare struggle against Israel. The flotillas and fly-ins serve that purpose with professional expertise.
- - - - - - - -

Hamas organizer behind flotilla [here]
Israel officials explain the threat represented by the flotilla [here]
NGO Monitor: Flotilla won't bring peace [here]
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs on Hamas organizers behind the fooltilla [here]

Brits Echo US State Dept Soft Hand with Syria -- More UK Hypocrisy

UPDATING 7-13&20&21&23&24&25&27&8-4&6&9-2011 at bottom

BRITAIN ECHOES OBAMA POLICY ON SYRIA: The British are still waiting for Assad to carry out reforms!! Can you believe the naked hypocrisy?

Syria: London condemns the repression in Hama: "The violent repression in Hama will only undermine the regime's legitimacy a little more and raise serious question about its will to put into practice the reforms that it recently announced," William Hague, British minister of foreign affairs stressed in a communiqué. "No true political dialogue can take place at the moment when a brutal military oppression is being conducted," he added. At least eleven civilians were killed by Syrian forces on Tuesday in Hama, a city in the center of the country. [Guysen News 7-5-2011]

Syrie: Londres condamne la répression à Hama "La violente répression à Hama ne fera que saper un peu plus la légitimité du régime et soulèvent de sérieuses questions sur sa volonté de mettre en oeuvre les réformes qu'il a annoncées récemment", a souligné le ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères William Hague dans un communiqué. "Aucun véritable dialogue politique ne peut avoir lieu au moment où est menée une répression militaire brutale", a-t-il ajouté. Au moins onze civils ont été tués par les forces syriennes mardi à Hama, une ville du centre du pays.

London thinks [ostensibly] that Assad's regime still has some "legitimacy" left because it says, "The violent repression in Hama will only undermine the regime's legitimacy a little more ." When did the Assad regime in Syria --going back to the 1960s-- ever have legitimacy? The Hama massacre of 1982 did not undo the regime's legitimacy at all as far as Her Majesty's Govt was & is concerned.
7-5-2011 Washington is still wringing its hands over Syrian repression. "The United States is very troubled by the continuing attacks on peaceful demonstrators in Syria"-- State Dept. Harsh criticism? Maybe not in the circumstances. Anyhow the State Dept is not troubled enough to demand that Assad get out. Recall that Obama told Mubarak to get out for much less.

Syrie: les USA réclament le départ des troupes syriennes d’Hama (Guysen.International.News)Les Etats-Unis ont réclamé aujourd'hui le départ des forces syriennes de la ville d'Hama, exigeant aussi du régime qu'il cesse sa "campagne d'arrestations". "Les Etats-Unis sont très inquiets de la poursuite des attaques contre des manifestants pacifiques en Syrie", a souligné Victoria Nuland, la porte-parole du département d'Etat.

- - - - - -
Carlo Panella sees Bashar Assad's speech of 20 June 2011 as resembling a Goebbels speech [qui]. He thinks that Assad fears fitna, chaos within the Muslim community [Il Foglio, 21 Giugno 2011]. Among other things, Assad reported in the speech that 64,000 Syrians had been arrested or were being sought for arrest and punishment by Syrian security forces. Panella published his article on June 21, but UK chief diplomat, William Hague, was still calling Assad a potential reformer on July 5, 2011.
7-20-2011 Hilary/Obama backtracks on harsh words for Assad. Brutality is OK and the Syrian Opposition should cooperate with Assad Basher to bring reforms -- That's Washington's message about Syria as of now and the EU falls in line [here].
Tony Badran diagnoses earlier stages of the pathology of Obama Syria policy [here]
7-21-2011 Barry Rubin picks apart a lunatic editorial in the New York Times [State Dept mouthpiece] which tells the Lebanese prime minister to be a good boy and follow through on the international tribunal's indictments of the Hizbullah operatives who organized and carried out the murder of Rafiq Hairi & a score of others, and arrest them [here]. Unless the current Lebanese PM wants to end up like Hariri, he is quite unlikely to taken any meaningful action against Hizbullah operatives as long as the Hizb controls Lebanon. But the NYT can pretend that we are living in a civilized world.
Tony Badran now diagnoses the latest stages of Obama's pathological Syria policy [here]. Should we blame Obama's mentors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton, or an ingrained and insane Third Worldism transmitted to him as a contagion from the Communist who served him as a father figure in his youth?
7-23-2011 Barry Rubin again ponders why Obama & Co. are still trying to prop up the Syrian Assad regime, although it is hated by most Syrians and is likely to be overthrown [according to Israeli intelligence] [here]. Instead of trying to work with the Syrian opposition --a heterogeneous group to be sure-- in order to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of a future Syrian power structure as much as possible, the Obama administration throws out several fraudulent arguments. One is the lie that Israel wants Assad and his regime to stay in power. Another is the danger that the Muslim Brotherhood might take power in a post-Assad Syria. But we can't trust that as being a real concern in Washington, since Obama and others speaking for him urged the powers that be in Egypt to allow "non-secular" forces to share power in a new, post-Mubarak Egypt, and one of Obama's "national security" clowns, Clapper, even minimized the Islamist nature of the MB by falsely claiming that it was "largely secular."
7-24-2011 Lee Smith calls the Obama White House's Syria policy "morally obtuse" [here]. Smith believes that the regime is doomed.
7-25-2011 Elliott Abrams judges the sincerity of Assad's offer to allow political parties to organize in Syria, provided that they respect "freedom and basic rights." [here]
Tony Badran offers ways that Obama & his administration could use to pressure Assad into leaving. But Badran makes the diagnosis that Obama is still reluctant to tell Assad to leave [here]
7-25-2011 Hossein Askari [here] writes: "While the Arab Spring has threatened the Assad regime, at first the White House lent support to Syria’s dictator, privately arguing that Assad’s fall would increase both instability in the region . . . . Such hypocrisy—backing oppressive regimes in Riyadh, Manama and Damascus while professing unquestioned support for human rights and democratic values—undermines U.S. credibility and influence in the Middle East . . . ."
8-3-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein on the Security Council's failure to speak out about the regime massacres in Syria [here]
8-4-2011 Catherine Ashton has given your ever loyal and ever modest blogger a helping hand. She told the world after Bashar Assad had taken "a step in the right direction" by issuing a new law permitting a multi-party political situation in Syria [here]. She did this after French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, had sneered at Assad's move as a joke and a "provocation." The rather dull-witted Mrs Ashton or Baroness Ashton is holding on to the old British position of forgiving indulgence for Assad after even Obama had taken a more hostile stance toward Assad. She helped me, as said above, because other leaders, like Obama and Juppe, had already distanced themselves more from Assad, thereby leaving me without as much to criticize in them as before. She is the EU foreign affairs commissioner and seems to becoming an embarassment for the EU. They should throw her out now in order to maintain any semblance of decency.
8-6-2011 Jonathan Tobin reports that UNESCO, headed by former Clinton honcho, Anthony Lake, continues to give money to Syrian govt programs --money raised from American children among others, while the regime keeps on slaughtering its people and while world powers finally rebuke Assad & his regime that [here]
8-9-2011 Eyal Zisser gives the 20th century historical background of Syria and the present regime [here]

How Obama's State Dept Works to Keep Assad Basher in Power

UPDATINGS up to 7-17&20&21&24&8-6&7-2011

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

Despite the usual viscous peace-loving goo that is often emitted by the State Dept, it is obvious now and has been --for years in fact-- that successive US administrations have worked to keep the Assad regime in power in Syria. They have worked to protect it from enemies both at home and abroad [such as Israel, such as the Lebanese anti-Syrian March 14 Movement, etc]. This was done despite the aid that the Assad regime gave to al-Qa`ida and pro-al-Qa`ida terrorists to get into Iraq and kill American troops there as well as Iraqi civilians.

Elliott Abrams talks about Obama's latest Syria policy on the Council for Foreign Relations blog, of all places. The policy now is that the Syrian opposition --whose rank & file Assad Basher's regime has been torturing and slaughtering for months now-- should talk with the regime in order to bring about "reforms" and "transition" in Syria. It is a weird, if not bizarre, policy. Here is Abrams:

In the last week the news has brought reports of additional repression in Syria, and of the American response: to urge Syrian dissidents to negotiate with the Assad regime.

This Washington Post account describes typical events on the ground in Syria:

“Around 100 peaceful protesters calling for freedom were met with police and baton-wielding security forces Thursday at Damascus University. Students gathered outside the faculty of economics in the Baramkeh area of Damascus minutes after 3pm today calling for freedom. Dozens more students joined together with the small group as the chanting became more forceful. One female protester managed to unfurl a flag before police and security forces charged on the crowd.”

On June 23, The New York Times reported that “Syrian forces backed by snipers and tanks stormed into the border town of Khirbet al-Jouz…sending hundreds of refugees fleeing to Turkey from the informal camp where they had sought shelter from a violent crackdown on protests in the country’s rural northwest.”

The Assad regime has adopted a diplomatic and propaganda plan so clear in its duplicity that I had assumed no one would fall for it. While the killing and jailing continue, the regime has also allowed one single meeting of dissidents in Damascus. In response, according to the Guardian newspaper in London, “The US is pushing the Syrian opposition to maintain dialogue with Bashar al-Assad’s regime as details emerge of a controversial ‘roadmap’ for reforms that would leave him in power for now despite demands for his overthrow during the country’s bloody three-month uprising.”

The Guardian account continues: “Quiet US interest in the roadmap dovetails with public demands from Washington that Assad reform or step down. Robert Ford, the US ambassador, has been urging opposition figures to talk to the regime, said Radwan Ziadeh, a leading exile, who insisted the strategy would not work. ‘They are asking Bashar to lead the transition and this is not acceptable to the protesters,’ he said. ‘It is too late.’”

The State Department denies that it is pushing the opposition into compromising its objectives and principles, but the Guardian then reports this: “A state department spokesman said: ‘We are encouraging genuine dialogue between the opposition and the regime but we are not promoting anything. We want to see a democratic Syria but this is in the hands of the Syrian people.’”

So, it is in the hands of the Syrians—but just in case they don’t get the message it is again clarified: the United States wants the regime to talk, not to fall. In recent trips to the Middle East and in conversations with Arab democracy activists, I have often been asked why the United States is backing Bashar. After months of denying it, I can only conclude they were right. How else can one read these news reports?

It is not possible to have “genuine dialogue” with a regime that has murdered roughly 1,400 peaceful protesters, jailed up to 10,000 more, and continues to shoot and imprison anyone it pleases. The American call for such “dialogue” is an act of realpolitik that abandons all claim to morality.

That is bad enough, but realpolitik must then be judged by its logic and its fruits. There are none, except for undermining the moral position of the United States. To repeat what has been written here before, the Assad regime is an enemy of the United States. It has the blood of tens of thousands of Syrians on its hands but also of thousands of Americans, killed in Iraq by jihadis it led into Iraq for that purpose. It is Iran’s only Arab ally, and provides Iran with a Mediterranean port, a border with Israel through Hizballah, and an arms trafficking route from Iran to Hizballah. It supports and houses Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. The fall of the Assad regime would be the greatest blow we can strike against Iran and its terrorist allies today.

“Encouraging genuine dialogue” is a pitiful position for the United States to take when our interests—and those of our enemies—are so clear, and when astonishingly courageous Syrians keep risking their lives to bring down the Assad regime. Our interests and our values coincide in Syria, and both are undermined when our policies have the effect of prolonging in power a vicious, anti-American regime allied to terrorist groups and to Iran. This policy is folly, not realpolitik. - - - - - end of Abrams - - - -

7-5-2011 BRITAIN ECHOES OBAMA POLICY ON SYRIA: The British are still waiting for Assad to carry out reforms!! Can you believe the naked hypocrisy?

Syrie: Londres condamne la répression à Hama "La violente répression à Hama ne fera que saper un peu plus la légitimité du régime et soulèvent de sérieuses questions sur sa volonté de mettre en oeuvre les réformes qu'il a annoncées récemment", a souligné le ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères William Hague dans un communiqué. "Aucun véritable dialogue politique ne peut avoir lieu au moment où est menée une répression militaire brutale", a-t-il ajouté. Au moins onze civils ont été tués par les forces syriennes mardi à Hama, une ville du centre du pays.

London thinks [ostensibly] that Assad's regime still has some "legitimacy" left because it says, "The violent repression in Hama will only undermine the regime's legitimacy a little more ." When did the Assad regime in Syria --going back to the 1960s-- ever have legitimacy? The Hama massacre of 1982 did not undo the regime's legitimacy at all as far as Her Majesty's Govt was & is concerned.
7-5-2011 Washington is still wringing its hands over Syrian repression. "The United States is very troubled by the continuing attacks on peaceful demonstrators in Syria"-- State Dept. Harsh criticism? Maybe not in the circumstances. Anyhow the State Dept is not troubled enough to demand that Assad get out. Recall that Obama told Mubarak to get out for much less.

Syrie: les USA réclament le départ des troupes syriennes d’Hama (Guysen.International.News)Les Etats-Unis ont réclamé aujourd'hui le départ des forces syriennes de la ville d'Hama, exigeant aussi du régime qu'il cesse sa "campagne d'arrestations". "Les Etats-Unis sont très inquiets de la poursuite des attaques contre des manifestants pacifiques en Syrie", a souligné Victoria Nuland, la porte-parole du département d'Etat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
More on Syria and Obama's policy on helping the Assad gang stay in power. [here & here& others].
The word "power" by the way reminds me of one Samantha Power, the leading humanitarian phoney in the White House on Obama's staff. She went so far as to write a book about the US failure to effectively oppose past genocide & also recommended sending troops to Israel to enforce a pro-Arab settlement on Israel.
The slaughter in Syria may not yet be genocide. But mass slaughter fits what's happening.
7-4-2011 Barry Rubin points out that the Obama White House's warm spot for the Assad regime extends to Lebanon where the Obamanoids have allowed Hizbullah, Assad's allies, to take over the govt. Rubin says that the recent indictment of 4 Hizbullah operatives for murdering former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, has not moved Obama to do anything concrete to punish the Hizb for that murder and others [here]
7-7-2011 John Hannah wonders about the paradox of Obama's toleration for Assad Basher while he had told Mubarak to get out shortly after the protests began in Egypt [here]
7-16-2011 Barry Rubin tries to fathom the depths of Obama's Middle Eastern policy and to identify the reasons for it [here]
7-20-2011 Hilary/Obama backtracks on harsh words for Assad. Brutality is OK and the Syrian Opposition should cooperate with Assad Basher to bring reforms -- That's Washington's message about Syria as of now and the EU falls in line [here].
Tony Badran diagnoses earlier stages of the pathology of Obama Syria policy [here]
7-21-2011 Barry Rubin picks apart a lunatic editorial in the New York Times [State Dept mouthpiece] which tells the Lebanese prime minister to be a good boy and follow through on the international tribunal's indictments of the Hizbullah operatives who organized and carried out the murder of Rafiq Hairi & a score of others, and arrest them [here]. Unless the current Lebanese PM wants to end up like Hariri, he is quite unlikely to taken any meaningful action against Hizbullah operatives as long as the Hizb controls Lebanon. But the NYT can pretend that we are living in a civilized world.
Tony Badran now diagnoses the latest stages of Obama's pathological Syria policy [here]. Should we blame Obama's mentors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton, or an ingrained and insane Third Worldism transmitted to him as a contagion from the Communist who served him as a father figure in his youth?
7-23-2011 Barry Rubin again ponders why Obama & Co. are still trying to prop up the Syrian Assad regime, although it is hated by most Syrians and is likely to be overthrown [according to Israeli intelligence] [here]. Instead of trying to work with the Syrian opposition --a heterogeneous group to be sure-- in order to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of a future Syrian power structure as much as possible, the Obama administration throws out several fraudulent arguments. One is the lie that Israel wants Assad and his regime to stay in power. Another is the danger that the Muslim Brotherhood might take power in a post-Assad Syria. But we can't trust that as being a real concern in Washington, since Obama and others speaking for him urged the powers that be in Egypt to allow "non-secular" forces to share power in a new, post-Mubarak Egypt, and one of Obama's "national security" clowns, Clapper, even minimized the Islamist nature of the MB by falsely claiming that it was "largely secular."
7-24-2011 Lee Smith calls the Obama White House's Syria policy "morally obtuse" [here]. Smith believes that the regime is doomed.
8-3-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein on the Security Council's failure to speak out about the regime massacres in Syria [here]
8-4-2011 Catherine Ashton has given your ever loyal and ever modest blogger a helping hand. She told the world after Bashar Assad had taken "a step in the right direction" by issuing a new law permitting a multi-party political situation in Syria [here]. She did this after French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, had sneered at Assad's move as a joke and a "provocation." The rather dull-witted Mrs Ashton or Baroness Ashton is holding on to the old British position of forgiving indulgence for Assad after even Obama had taken a more hostile stance toward Assad. She helped me, as said above, because other leaders, like Obama and Juppe, had already distanced themselves more from Assad, thereby leaving me without as much to criticize in them as before. She is the EU foreign affairs commissioner and seems to be becoming an embarassment for the EU. They should throw her out now in order to maintain any semblance of decency.
8-6-2011 Jonathan Tobin reports that UNESCO, headed by former Clinton honcho, Anthony Lake, continues to give money to Syrian govt programs --money raised from American children among others, while the regime keeps on slaughtering its people and while world powers finally rebuke Assad & his regime about that [here]
8-7-2011 The Hill reports on the US public relations outfit that arranged for Assad's wife to have a profile of her done for Vogue [here]