Gilad Shalit Prisoner Swap

Israel's deal with Palestinians to release kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, held for five years by Hamas, demonstrates the lengths the Jewish state will go to take care of its service members.

His release by the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a prisoner swap that ultimately will include the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. A total of 477 prisoners were freed Tuesday, after Shalit was returned to Israel.

Over a thousand prisoners released to free one soldier, including hundreds of terrorists who will probably kill more Israelis. Not everyone in Israel is happy.

Shalit’s father, Noam, appeared Monday before the Israeli Supreme Court, where he came face to face with relatives of victims of terrorist attacks who oppose the deal. Several relatives filed motions urging the court to annul the deal, and according to Israeli news reports, some angrily confronted the soldier’s father.

I understand how they feel. I'd have a pretty hard time supporting such a one-sided deal. According to the article, Hamas is celebrating the agreement as a great victory, for good reason. Kidnapping Shalit worked out really well for them. Plus, they now know that if they need to spring a bunch of their people from Israeli jails, they just need to kidnap another Israeli soldier.

Israeli Scientist Wins Nobel Prize for Chemistry

This isn't surprising, since despite its size, Israel is a leader in science and technology. From the New York Times,

An Israeli scientist won this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering quasicrystals, a material in which atoms were packed together in a well-defined pattern that never repeats. ... Dan Shechtman, 70, a professor of materials science at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. Dr. Shechtman is also a professor at Iowa State University and a researcher at the United States Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory. ... Israeli leaders expressed delight and pride at the 10th Nobel Prize won by a citizen of Israel, which has a population of less than eight million. Two years ago, Ada E. Yonath of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, shared the award for chemistry as well.

It's useful to compare Israel's record of scientific achievement to that of its larger and more populous hostile neighbors and other states in the region. Their recent contributions to the world tend to be things like terrorism, Islamism, dictators, anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, theocracy and varieties of burkhas for women.

Wikipedia has a good rundown of science & technology in Israel.

Effective Missile Defense

The Christian Science Monitor has a report on Israel's "Iron Dome" rocket defense system that credits it with contributing to a cease-fire with Hamas.

A key factor supporting the cease-fire was a new weapons system that allows Israel to protect its citizens and thereby lessen public pressure for swift retaliatory strikes on Gaza.

Though not fool-proof, the "Iron Dome" missile-defense system shot down about 20 militant rockets in recent days before they landed in Israel cities. That provided a window for mediators from Egypt and the United Nations to step in and calm the situation.

Iron Dome achieved a 93% success rate even though it has only deployed two of the fifteen batteries planned for defense against the Gaza terrorist attacks. For once the U.S. is getting its money's worth from some foreign aid, since Israel is essentially field-testing missile defense technology applicable to U.S. systems under actual hostile conditions.

Experts say the technology of Israel’s anti-missile interceptors – which also includes the Arrow II missile for Iranian ballistic rockets – is based on the same concepts as the US-conceived Star Wars missile defense program.

The other benefit, as the article emphasizes, is that effective defense against rockets lessens the need for immediate Israeli retaliation. This is important, since alone among states, Israel is expected to absorb rocket attacks against its cities without taking any serious retaliatory measures. When it takes even minimal measures against Gaza, its actions are called "excessive force" by Israel-haters and their useful idiots worldwide, and it comes under tremendous pressure to refrain from doing things necessary to protect its citizens. Even though it should have the right to use whatever force necessary to eliminate the terrorist threat from Gaza, Israel's unique position makes this rocket defense system even more significant than otherwise -- at least until Gaza terrorists find a new preferred method for targeting Israeli civilians.

US Marines Training in Israel

There's an interesting post at Elder of Ziyon about a US/Israeli joint military training program.

As part of the ongoing cooperation between the Israeli Defense Forces and the US Armed Forces stationed in Europe, a company of US Marines came to Israel for a month of intensive training at IDF facilities and alongside IDF soldiers. Dividing their time between the Adam Base in central Israel and the Tze'elim Base in the south, the soldiers trained in urban and cautious warfare, reconnaissance, and at various shooting ranges.

The Israelis have built an entire mock town for urban warfare training. According to Israel Today, this facility has been used extensively by U.S. forces training to go to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not Being Run Over by Tanks

This picture is from an article by Kelly McParland in the National Post. The caption reads: "Thousands of protesters march in Israel. Notice how they're not being run over by tanks."

The caption was my favorite part of the article, but the rest is good too.

I’ve been scouring the web sites of fearless critics of Israel — attention-grabbing authors, union bosses, self-righteous leftwingers, NDP deputy leaders, flotilla supporters etc. — for signs they are putting their famed organizing abilities to work to focus international outrage on the Syrian regime via marches, protests, demonstrations etc. And praising Israel for its democratic response to a national crisis.

Can’t seem to find any. Odd. But I’ll keep looking.

Good luck with that.

German Holocaust Reparations

World War II ended sixty-six years ago, but Germany is still paying reparations to Israel for the Holocaust. According to Strategy Page, Israel's purchase of German Dolphin-class submarines has been subsidized by Germany as part of ongoing Holocaust reparations.

Germany has agreed to pay 20 percent of the cost of a sixth Dolphin class submarine for Israel, which was ordered earlier this year. Two more are under construction, and will arrive in the next two years. ... The first two Dolphins were paid for by Germany, as was most of the cost of the third one. This is more of German reparations for World War II atrocities against Jews.

It's interesting that Holocaust reparations are helping pay for a key strategic force that helps ensure that Israel will not suffer a new holocaust.

The Israelis have developed a cruise missile, which is has a range of 1,500 kilometers and carries a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. The objective of deploying nukes on subs is to further enhance deterrence to any nation launching a nuclear strike against Israel.

How long will Germany continue paying Holocaust reparations? According to an Israeli source the 2011 German budget for reparations is 110 million euros, to be used to compensate the estimated 520,000 survivors still alive worldwide. But the new submarine cost $650 million, twenty percent of which is 130 million.

I'm a big supporter of Israel, and it's nice that they can get the Germans to subsidize submarine purchases. If I were a German, however, I'd be pretty annoyed at this whole arrangement.They're already paying 110 million euros to survivors.

Tim Pawlenty's Middle East Speech

My first impression when reading stories about GOP presidential contender Pawlenty's speech was negative, and after reading the whole thing I think it's a mixed bag -- with the bad outweighing the good. First, the good:

• The criticism of Obama's foolish "engagement" policy is on point
• Recognition that strong U.S. support for Israel gives a better chance for peace than a pretense that we are some sort of neutral broker.
• Threat to cut off Palestinian aid.

And the bad:

• a strong fetish for democracy promotion, and a seeming failure to understand that democracy is other countries is not necessarily in the U.S. interest.
• call to pressure friendly nations over human rights issues
• a way too optimistic view of Arab uprisings
  
• offhand dismissal of realpolitik in favor of what I consider unwarranted optimistic idealism

Overall I'm not thrilled with Pawlenty's ideas as advanced in this speech. What he calls isolationism can be better categorized as realistic assessment of American interests. There was some talk of U.S. interests in the speech, but not nearly enough. In purely political terms, the speech appears to indicate that he has knowledge of Middle East policy and coherent, if unconvincing ideas. But in my opinion various portions of his speech could easily have been spoken by George W. Bush or Barack Obama. And that's not a recommendation.

Best Middle East Peace Plan Yet

Link to Video.

h/t Cold Fury

Terroristine

A must-read from Daniel Greenfield. Some excerpts:

There are states that support terrorists, and give safe harbor to them, but that's not good enough. We don't want another Pakistan or Iran. We're not half-assing it this time. What we want is the genuine article. Terrorists from the top down. Terrorists everywhere. A state where every branch of government and the entire country is nothing but terrorists.

AND

Why do we need Terroristine? Peace. There can be no peace without a terrorist state. Not a chance of it. The only way we'll ever have peace is to give the terrorists a country of their own. A country dedicated to terrorism. Only then will the Terroristinians finally give up on all the killing, and dedicate themselves to medical research, quantum physics and the arts. It hasn't happened yet to. But it's bound to.

AND

We know the Terroristinians want their own state. Every time they walk out of negotiations or end them with a round of terrorist attacks, it shows their deep and abiding passion for a state. They want it so badly they aren't willing to make a single concession for it. So committed are they to Terroristine. And who can blame them?

Least Deserving of Statehood

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas wrote an article in the New York Times called, "The Long Overdue Palestinian State." It's about what you'd expect. There's an excellent rewrite at Elder of Ziyon that makes it into something more truthful. One of the stupidest U.S. foreign policy positions is our support for the so-called "two state solution." It is difficult to think of any people that deserve a state less than the Palestinians. What have Palestinians ever done that makes supporting their statehood a good idea? Is a legacy of international terrorism, virulent anti-Semitism, celebration of murders and murderers, endemic violence, corruption, repression, irrational demands and complete intransigence when it comes to peace negotiations a good recipe for statehood? How about rule by murderous factions that are distinguished only by one being more openly murderous and anti-Semitic than the other?

A Palestinian state is not and has never been in the interests of the United States. We have no interest in creating another hostile state. No matter how much we help the Palestinians, we will never get any credit for it, because we support their great enemy Israel -- which makes us ultimately their enemy too. Oh they'll gladly take our money as long as we are stupid enough to give it to them, but it won't make them like us. I have little doubt that many Palestinians probably laugh privately at our foolishness.

Can We Stop Giving Money to Our Enemies?

The revelation that Osama bin Laden had been living in luxury in Pakistan, in a resort town full of military families about a mile away from the nation's military academy, has already spurred some calls to cut, or at least reevaluate the massive aid we give to that country. But Pakistan is far from the only dubious recipient of U.S. money. For years it has been U.S. policy to support the Palestinian Authority, an entity made up of people largely hostile to America, whose greatest enemy is Israel, a major U.S. client state. Now our Palestinian "friends" have signed a unity agreement with the terrorist rulers of Gaza, Hamas. According to the BBC, the agreement "paves the way for a joint interim government ahead of national elections next year." As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu points out,

"When... the head of the Palestinian Authority embraces Hamas, an organisation that two days ago condemned the American action against Bin Laden, praises Bin Laden to the gills as some great martyr for emulation, when he embraces this organisation that is committed to Israel's destruction, fires rockets on our cities... this is a tremendous setback for peace, and a great advance for terror."

If we continue funding the Palestinians, at some point we will not only be providing money for Israeli missile defenses, but for the rockets those defenses are designed to stop -- if we aren't already.

That Didn't Take Long

Last Friday I wrote a post arguing that we were setting a bad precedent by launching a military intervention based on a UN resolution centered around the notion of protecting civilians.

Is there the slightest doubt that the next time Israel has to launch a major military action there will be calls for international action to protect civilians?

Our nominal ally and now Islamist-led Turkey didn't even wait until the next major Israeli operation. Here's the Deputy Prime-minister.

We wish that the United Nations had made similar resolutions, and countries had taken action, in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and other regions,"

I didn't expect to be proven correct quite that fast.

Israeli Foreign Minister Makes Mistake of Stating the Obvious

One of the last things you want to do when conducting diplomacy is tell the unvarnished truth -- which is one of the reasons that the publication of U.S. State Department secrets was so damaging to U.S. foreign policy. The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, recently made the mistake of stating the obvious with regard to Turkey, and caused a rift with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is trying to patch up relations between Israel and Turkey in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara incident. In time-honored diplomatic fashion, Netanyahu is attempting to forge a compromise whereby both sides save face.

Envoys of the two countries held rapprochement talks in Geneva this month. Israeli officials say they broached a deal that would entail them expressing “regret” for the ship violence and paying damages to those bereaved or hurt, in return for a Turkish commitment to indemnify navy personnel against lawsuits.

Basically Israel is offering a non-apology apology in return for the Turks backing off. But here's Lieberman.

“I think the matter of an apology borders on chutzpah or beyond,” Mr. Lieberman told Israeli diplomats in a speech attended international media. “If anything, we are waiting for an apology from the Turkish government, and not the other way around.” ... “If anyone should apologise, it should be the Turkish government to Israel over cooperation with terrorist elements, support for terrorism, support for the IHH, Hamas and (Lebanese) Hezbollah. There will be no (Israeli) apology,” Mr. Lieberman said.

Lieberman is correct. By rights, Turkey should apologize to Israel for assisting an attempt to break its blockade. I wrote basically the same thing when the incident occurred. But I'm not the foreign minister of Israel. Unless Israel wants to increase hostility between the two nations, some sort of compromise would be preferable. Expressing "regret" for violence is not really an apology, since you are regretting that violence occurred at all, not taking responsibility. Getting the Turks to accept such a gesture would actually be a diplomatic victory, cost nothing, and probably benefit Israel overall. Lieberman clearly lacks the diplomatic skill required for his office.

It's Not Racism It's Religion

That's the argument of a group of Israeli municipal rabbis who signed a religious ruling barring renting or selling apartments to non-Jews.

The rabbis defend their ruling. It's not racism, it's halacha -- Jewish law -- that prohibits allowing Gentiles a foothold, Rabbi Eliyahu told Israel Radio: "We've seen what happens in mixed towns, our girls are tempted and this leads to assimilation." "We don't want this happening in Safed or anywhere else," he said. Rabbi Dov Volpe was blunter. "State laws contravening halacha count as dust," he said, making clear that the Torah trumps democracy.

This type of discrimination, along with the idea that religion is the highest law, is common in many Muslim countries. But the Jewish state isn't immune either. It's always worth pointing out that religious fanatics of any stripe, whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise, tend to share some similar beliefs. Their religious beliefs trump the law and rules of the society they live in. If their actions and statements appear bigoted, they aren't. They are just following their religion. Does that mean that their religion itself is partially based on bigotry? They tend to avoid that logical progression. And if you point it out they'll accuse you of being the bigot instead, or of trying to repress their religious freedom.

Fortunately, unlike some Muslim countries where far worse, such as killing people who convert from Islam, is the right and proper thing to do, many Israelis are not happy with religious leaders promoting discrimination. 

others want more than just pens taken from the rabbis -- they want their jobs. Many of those who signed the decree serve as municipal rabbis, their salaries funded by taxpayers. The Haaretz editorial calling for their dismissal was only one of many. "Racism at the expense of Israeli citizens," its headline said.

Myths about Middle East Peace

The Washington Post has a new entry up in its "Five Myths" series, this one about Middle East peace. I fully expected to see things categorized as myth that were not, but the characterization of myths is surprisingly accurate. The problems come with the analysis and recommended U.S. courses of action.

1. Direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are the key to reaching an accord. The author, Aaron David Miller,  points out that direct negotiations have achieved little, whereas advances -- such as they are -- have come from the U.S. But the recommendation for action is horrible, and conflicts with one of the author's later points.

Sooner rather than later, the United States will need to invest itself more heavily in the negotiations in order to bridge gaps on core issues such as borders and the status of Jerusalem; will need to marshal the billions of dollars required to support an agreement; and probably will need to deploy U.S. forces to the Jordan Valley to monitor security arrangements.

How about no, no and no? None of that would be in the U.S. interest.

2. The United States is an honest broker in the peace process. I've made this point many times. The U.S. is an ally of Israel. It is not and should not pretend to be an honest broker. We are deceiving no one. Naturally Miller thinks we need to be more even-handed. We don't. We should do exactly the opposite of what he argues, recognize that Israel is our ally, the Palestinians are hostile, and act accordingly. It is not in the U.S. interest to try to benefit the Palestinians at the expense of Israel.

3. Settlements are the main obstacle to peacemaking. Again, right on target. Settlements are only one of many issues. Their impact is greatly exaggerated. Israel could declare a total halt to all settlements tomorrow and the Palestinians would simply switch to some other grievance.  

4. Pressuring the Israelis is the only way to reach an agreement. No argument there. Any agreement obtained by pressuring Israel to accede to Palestinian demands isn't going to be in the U.S. interest.

5. Arab-Israeli peace is critical to securing U.S. interests in the Middle East.If it isn't, and I agree that it isn't, then this point undermines pretty much all the author's other recommended policy moves. There's only one good reason for the U.S. to damage relations with its ally, and assist those hostile to it (and that's what trying to adopt a neutral position means), and that's if there's no other choice in order to secure U.S. interests in the region. As the author rightly notes,

Arab-Israeli peace will not stabilize Afghanistan or facilitate an extrication of U.S. forces from there. It will not create a viable political contract among Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. It will not stop Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to make a nuclear weapon. It will not force Arab states to respect human rights. Nor will it end anti-American sentiment fueled by our support for authoritarian Arab regimes, our deployment of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, our war against terror and our close relationship with Israel.

The U.S. interest in Arab-Israeli peace is primarily to keep a lid on the situation while maintaining ties with our allies in the region. It would be nice if the so-called peace process was viewed primarily through that lens. But I know it's too much to ask that American leaders actually put American interests first.

 

Religious Fundamentalism: Not Just an Islamic or Christian Problem

There's an article in Haaretz warning about the rise in Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. It's interesting just how close the parallels in thinking are with Islamic fundamentalism/extremism. For example:

"In discussions on the killing of infants and children ... it is reasonable to harm children if it is clear they will grow up to harm us. Under such circumstances they should be the ones targeted." And finally: "There is no need to discuss the question of who is and is not innocent, just as when we are defending against evil we do not hesitate to strike at limbs that were not actually used in actions against us." AND ""When there is a conflict between orders based on the ethics code and a halakhic instruction, of course one must follow halakha" - Jewish law."

Blind, fanatical adherence to religion is a problem that transcends any one particular faith. The writer even calls the movement he is attacking, "Jewish Wahhabism." As the article notes, fundamentalist rabbis have

approved murder, attacks on Arabs and their property, the illegal takeover of land, racist segregation between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi female pupils, and have ignored (at least ) the murder of a prime minister.

Like fundamentalist Islamic madrassas that turn out Muslim extremists,  Jews have yeshivas turning out "tens of thousands" of students who then go on to become soldiers, and take other positions of authority.

Many Americans support Israel -- at least in part -- because despite the many differences between the U.S. and Israel, they recognize it as a sort of kindred state: an advanced, modern, industrialized nation built along Western lines. If it were ever to become a radical Jewish state, where a fundamentalist version of Judaism takes center stage, much of that support will dry up. Fanatical adherence to religious beliefs, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or something else, is a plague on society whenever it infects, let alone takes over government. Anything can be justified if it's God's will. And since God doesn't actually talk to anyone, God's will tends to be determined by fundamentalist leaders and their particular interpretation of holy books.  Religious fundamentalism and government authority are a deadly combination that should be kept as far apart as possible. 

Some Remarkably Obtuse Foreign Policy Analysis by Stephen Walt

Although I strongly disagree with Stephen Walt's hostility toward Israel, and his conspiracy theories regarding the so-called "Jewish Lobby," I usually at least respect his foreign policy analyses covering subjects not involving Israel. His latest article is called, "Obama is zero for four and Republicans are sitting pretty." Among other things, he points out four areas where Obama's foreign policy has failed. If Obama is 0 for 4, Walt's analysis is 1 for 4 at best. Let's look at issue number 1, Iraq.

it's now clear that the much-vaunted "surge" was a strategic failure, and Iraq could easily spin back out of control once U.S. forces are gone.

No, that isn't clear at all. It is instead a poorly supported opinion. Obviously things could spin out of control at some point; there's no way to secure the situation for all time. That's an impossible standard for success. But the actual success of the surge is the only reason we are even able to consider withdrawing from Iraq on decent terms. Unless you think a permanent, major-force U.S. presence and war effort in Iraq is a good idea -- which Walt does not-- calling the surge a strategic failure is flat-out idiotic. And there's more nonsense about Iraq.

Even in the best case, Iraq can only be judged a defeat for the United States

Another ridiculous assertion. It is obviously far too early to render a final judgment on the long-term consequences of the Iraq War. Neither Walt or anyone else has any idea what Iraq will be like twenty-years from now, or the future state of its relations with the U.S. Walt's blithe assertions reflect an inability to look past present conditions, or consider any possibilities aside from his preconceived assumptions, which he apparently mistakes for facts.

Walt's second point concerns Iran. Here Walt laughably argues that the Obama administration has been too harsh in its demands of Iran. Seriously.

the U.S. position on Iran remains: "first you give us everything we want -- namely, a complete end to nuclear enrichment -- and then we'll be happy to talk about some of the things that you want."

In Walt's world, the U.S. needs to offer up some preliminary concessions to a rogue regime like Iran. Remember, this guy is actually a leading realist. Unfortunately, being a realist school foreign policy proponent apparently has little to do with facing reality.

Naturally the third point is Israel/Palestine, where Walt thinks Obama caved in to the evil Jewish lobby. There's a big surprise. What Obama actually did was to apparently recognize that his one-sided pressure on Israel merely encouraged Palestinian intransigence. He belatedly backed off after risking major damage to U.S. relations with Israel. Obama screwed up badly in the Middle East, but for pretty much exactly the opposite reasons that Walt believes.

And finally there is Afghanistan, where Walt joins the majority narrative that the war is going badly, it's a no-win situation, and Obama's escalation makes it a political albatross. That's his one piece of reasonable analysis, but it didn't exactly require much insight. Overall this was one of Walt's weakest foreignpolicy.com pieces (aside from those directly focused on Israel).

Laughable Propaganda From Turkey

The Turkish ambassador to the U.S., Namik Tan, wrote an editorial in the Washington Post actually demanding an apology from Israel. It takes quite a bit of nerve to stab  your former ally in the back, help sponsor a mission to break its naval blockade, openly support its enemies, misrepresent what happened and then demand an apology. But that's Turkey these days.

As we now know well, instead of the day ending with the delivery of humanitarian aid to ease the desperate lives of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, it began with the killing by Israel Defense Forces of nine peace activists and the wounding of about 30, all civilians.

Opening up with outright lies. The people killed were in no way "peace activists." And armed individuals attacking a boarding party gave up their civilian status by their own actions.

The Free Gaza flotilla was not an initiative by the Turkish government.

Oh please. It was organized by a Turkish terrorist support outfit, permitted and no doubt encouraged by the Turkish government, and included Turkish vessels. The only thing it lacked was a Turkish naval escort. It may not have been an official mission, but it clearly had the support of Turkey's government.

It was an international aid convoy made up of nationals of 32 countries taking food, toys, medical equipment and similar aid to the people of Gaza, who have been deprived of these basic commodities for years.

Nonsense. Gaza hasn't been deprived of those things for days, let alone years. The Israelis themselves deliver humanitarian supplies to their enemies.

Among the ships' 600 activists were Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, European lawmakers, journalists, business leaders and an 86-year-old Holocaust survivor -- hardly targets who could pose a threat to Israel's well-trained commandos.

Another lie, this time of omission. Let's not mention the armed individuals who ambushed the naval boarding party.

this was a humanitarian initiative.

No, actually it wasn't. Israel had already agreed to deliver the humanitarian supplies. What this was was an attempt to break the blockade, and to stage an incident to use against Israel.

Because the attack took place in international waters, 72 miles off Israel's coast, it was illegal.

No, it wasn't. It was legal in accordance with the rules of blockades. The ambassador knows this and is again blatantly lying.

this was the first such attack against civilian Turkish citizens by a foreign military force in our republic's 87-year history.

It wasn't an attack at all. The attack was against the Israeli boarding party. The ambassador goes on to whine about how great a friend Turkey was to Israel, and how horribly it has been treated, as if it hasn't been undertaking a campaign to delegitimize its former ally and support its enemies.

We cannot avert our eyes when the lives of our citizens -- innocents -- are lost during an illegal assault in defense of a blockade that is unfair, inhumane and unsustainable.

It was not illegal, not an assault, and the blockade is neither unfair, inhumane, nor unsustainable.

Israel can start by bringing an end to its blockade on Gaza; by ending its inappropriate and disproportionate police actions toward the Palestinian civilians of that land; and by allowing a prompt, independent, impartial, credible and transparent international investigation into the incident.

Israel should maintain the blockade, which is there for excellent reasons. The disproportionality argument is ludicrous. If there is need for an investigation, it should be directed at the Turkish role in fomenting this incident.

Israel owes an apology to the Turkish nation

Turkey owes the apology for supporting a hostile act against Israel and then lying about it.

The United States should encourage Israel to become a genuine partner for peace in the Middle East.

The U.S. should encourage Israel by standing behind its reasonable and necessary actions, and making it clear to the Turks that we aren't impressed by their transparent propaganda. 

Obama Administration Says Helping Our Enemies is a Priority

In the aftermath of the Gaza blockade incident, the Obama administration has been relatively quiet, trying in its typical weak way to appease everyone, rather than taking a clear stand in support of our ally. The latest statement illustrates yet again that we have a foreign policy team that isn't particularly interested in advancing U.S. interests.

"We are working urgently with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other international partners to develop new procedures for delivering more goods and assistance to Gaza," said Mike Hammer, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

The last thing we should be doing is delivering goods to Hamas-controlled Gaza, a clear enemy of the United States. The Obama-administration is spending U.S. taxpayer money to help Hamas, a terrorist organization that hates the U.S. slightly less than it hates Israel.

"It remains a U.S. priority to provide assistance to the people of Gaza," Hammer said.

What have the people of Gaza ever done to deserve a single penny of U.S. assistance, let alone be a "priority" for U.S. aid? If a nuclear terrorist device took out a U.S. city tomorrow, there'd be rejoicing in the streets of Gaza. Rather than finding new ways to undercut the Israel blockade, the U.S. should stand aside, let Israel do the dirty-work, and shield it from any effective international response. It is clearly in the U.S. interest for the blockade to remain in effect, and for Hamas to be deprived of the weapons and resources it needs to resume attacking Israel. 

On the broader foreign policy front, the Obama administration continues the pretense that a state can separate the people of another state from their government, for purposes of policy. The Bush administration made a similar error, which reflects a lack of understanding of how states interact. It is simply not possible to make a clear distinction in most cases between the general population of a country and its government. For better or worse, a government represents the people to the outside world. No government can remain in power without the support of at least a substantial minority within its own country. And in the case of Hamas, it apparently has majority support in Gaza. The idea that we can help the people of Gaza, yet not help Hamas is ludicrous. By giving assistance to Gaza we are undermining the necessary blockade put in place by our ally Israel, and we are directly assisting a terrorist organization similar in nature to the Islamist enemies we are already at war with. By doing so we gain absolutely nothing. We aren't going to generate good will in Gaza, or a sense of gratitude. The Palestinians despise us. Look at any opinion poll. We will get no credit whatsoever for our efforts. The people of Gaza will take our aid, spit in our faces, and cheer the deaths of Americans whenever they fall to Islamist terrorist attacks. But the fools in charge of our foreign policy are more interested in appeasing international Israel-hating opinion than in U.S. interests.

Note: No HOT5 Daily today. It will return tomorrow.

What to Do About Turkey?

There has been much nonsense written regarding Turkey in the aftermath of the flotilla incident. Here's just one example from an Israeli no less.

Monday's botched commando raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla has proven disastrous for Israel. World public opinion has united in condemning the Jewish state and the U.N. Security Council has already demanded an inquiry. Closer to home, the strategic alliance that Israel had painstakingly forged with Turkey is in tatters.

The strategic alliance between Israel and Turkey has been dead for quite some time. The Islamist government of Turkey has for years now pursued a policy of using Gaza and the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel, and as a lever to advance its own power in the region at the expense of both Israel and the U.S.  This policy has included close relations with Iran to the extent of attempting to undermine even the mild sanctions advanced by the Obama administration. Yet from many pundits you still see a pretend view of Turkey, as if it were still the 1990s, with Turkey a solid ally of the U.S. and a friend to Israel.

It has been the shift in the Turkish government, from secular and western-oriented, to Islamist and focused on regional power that has produced not only the rift with Israel, but its transformation from strong U.S. ally to neutral bordering on hostile. There is little Israel could have done to change this dynamic, and any Israeli still pretending that Turkey is some sort of strategic partner rather than a dangerous threat is a deluded fool. The idea that Turkey actually cares about the Palestinian self-determination and humanitarian issues is utterly laughable. All you have to do is look at its savage repression of the Kurds. The Turks have joined Arabs in using the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel, going so far as to help organize the latest blockade-breaking effort in support of Hamas.

So what should the U.S. do? First and foremost we need to recognize reality. And reality is that Turkey is no longer an ally, a strategic partner, or a friend to the U.S. Friends don't ally themselves with rogue states who are open enemies of America (Iran), attempt to destroy the legitimacy of the key U.S. ally in the region, and support anti-American terrorist organizations. Far from being a friend, Turkey is now a problem and a threat to U.S. interests in the region. It's time we recognized that situation and planned accordingly.

One of the main reasons Turkey has felt confident in acting against U.S. interests is the Obama administration's projection of weakness abroad. None of our enemies, rivals and potentially hostile states fears Obama in the slightest. They know his instinctive desire to appease, naivete, inexperience, extreme reluctance to act unilaterally, self-delusion and wishful thinking cripple U.S. power. The overwhelming power of the U.S. is useless without the will to wield it in the service of U.S. interests. Turkey, like many other states, has every reason to feel confident that it can do whatever it wants as long as Obama is in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Weakness breeds aggression, and U.S. weakness risks a Middle East war, something that is definitely not in our interests. There have been reports and speculation that Turkey might actually send a naval escort with another Gaza flotilla. Attempting to break the Gaza blockade with naval force would be an act of war against Israel. A war between Turkey and Israel, which would probably draw in Arab states as well, would be a enormous disaster for U.S. interests. It seems unlikely, but given the current conditions it is conceivable.

One way to avoid conflicts and all-out war is to establish clarity in foreign policy. If the possible reaction of a great power is unclear, an aggressive state might be inclined to gamble. What would happen in the event that Turkish naval forces clashed with Israeli over the Gaza blockade? What is the position of the U.S.? In the aftermath of the latest incident the U.S. should be holding high-level talks with Turkey, and making our position absolutely clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding or miscalculation. Most of this should take place behind the scenes, but it should be forceful and direct. Turkey should be told that regardless of our disagreements with certain aspects of Israeli policy, U.S. power stands firmly behind Israel. We recognize that a Turkish military attempt to break the Gaza blockade is an act of war against Israel, and it will be treated accordingly. Depending on the Turkish response, this message could be reinforced by sending a powerful U.S. naval force to the Eastern Mediterranean. There are all sorts of other issues that should be raised at such a conference between the U.S. and Turkey, but I'll leave it at that for the moment since this post is getting pretty long. Wars often begin through miscalculation and delusions about the possible actions of states with interests in the matter. It's time to for Obama to use his "let me be clear" line for something meaningful.