How To Deal With Gaza After Hamas

If, as anticipated, Israel launches a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip to drive out the Hamas government that deployed hundreds of terrorists to inflict barbaric horrors on Israeli civilians on October 7, the question remains: what next?

Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. It removed all Israeli settlers and military personnel from the territory, and sealed it off from Israel, taking a wait-and-see approach. The hope was that self-governing Palestinians in Gaza would take the opportunity to build a peaceful, prosperous society that would be able to coexist with the Jewish State of Israel. That hope did not materialize.

Instead, within a year, Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah, the Islamic Resistance Movement known by its portmanteau Hamas, became the governing body in Gaza. Hamas is a fanatical religious organization committed to reestablishing an Islamic caliphate and has genocidal designs towards Jews, which it makes explicit in its founding charter.

Since 2006, Hamas, aided by the governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Qatar, has made its main purpose to wage war against Israel both ideologically and through relentless terrorism. Ideologically, it tunned its education system into a hate factory that teaches kids, from the time they learn to speak, that Jews are evil creatures who not only deserve to be killed, but the reward for murdering them is a paradise in the afterlife. The terrorism took the forms of launching indiscriminate missiles at Israeli civilian centers, savage raids into southern Israel, and attempts at hostage taking. Contrary to popular belief in the west, these raids were never halted for any length of time since 2006. They had lulls and when these lulls turned into onslaughts, Israel was forced to periodically retaliate in force as a deterrent.

The scale of the sadistic, depraved brutality of this last incursion by terrorists controlled by Hamas has completely changed the equation for Israel’s leadership. No country could accept hundreds of terrorists invading and raping, murdering, and torturing innocents as young as infants, and to abduct children and the elderly. America imposed regime change on Afghanistan for acts less savage and on Iraq, which never launched an attach on the US at all.

The only viable solution to Israel for the war declared by Hamas is the complete reoccupation of Gaza and installation of a new government. For it to work in the long term, there is only one approach, but one that has come to be disdained in western capitols. Nation Building.

There is a particular conceit in the west that everyone is basically the same and if given the opportunity, they will all welcome the peaceful lives we have in liberal democracies. This outlook does not take history of culture into account. It took western civilization over two thousand years to develop the democratic traditions we enjoy, and we still haven’t perfected them. To expect a place like Gaza, a theocratic dictatorship with no liberal democratic tradition, to become a functioning democracy in a matter of months or even a few years is completely unrealistic.

To democratize and essentially de-Hamasify Gaza, it will require something like a Marshall Plan for Palestine. Democratic political parties will need to be fostered with western assistance. A massive shift in culture and education will be required, and the Palestinians have demonstrated little will and no ability to do this on their own.

Other powers, some from western nations, others perhaps from more moderate nations like Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, will have to administer Gaza until the task is complete.  

There is another component which is absolutely necessary but intimidating. Any armed resistance or efforts by parties in Gaza to reestablish terrorist political movements have to be crushed as ruthlessly as chemotherapy attacks cancer cells.

Based on historical example of post World War 2 Europe and Japan, this effort will take at least twenty years, and possibly even a decade or more longer. It is an expensive, risky, and daunting prospect. But the alternative, as anyone who has witnessed what has occurred in the region should now realize, is a continuation of the endless, horrific cycle of violence and despair. 

J Street - idiot Jews working to enable the destruction of Israel

When Jeremy Ben-Ami founded J Street in 2008, he wished to provide an alternative voice within the mainstream American Jewish community for pro-Israel supporters who were also deeply invested in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians. These aims are important, as AIPAC, the larger pro- Israel lobby group in Washington, often does not focus enough attention on the Palestinian’s plight, alienating a large segment of the young American Jewish population.

However, at this year’s J Street conference I saw a different picture.

At one of the endless sessions on the Israeli occupation, Fatah’s Husam Zomlot exclaimed, “As for the refugee issue, how do you want me to sign a deal with my own hands that would compromise the rights of two-thirds of the nation? Why do I have to compromise? What do the refugees want? Some of them want to return to their original home, but all of them want one thing: full recognition of the nakba [“catastrophe”] that has befallen our people.”

Zomlot’s declaration for the right of return and refusal to compromise on the contentious issue of refugees received sustained and loud applause. Zomlot’s wishing for the right of return, that would allow millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees from 1948 to reenter Israel, would provide the Arabs with a majority within Israel and destroy the Jewish state. This sentiment was received with cheers among J Street’s extremely left-wing activists.

Canada has its own collection of useful idiots with the same goal by the name of JSpace Canada

h/t Meryle K.

Iran-sponsored terrorist group admits fighting for Assad in Syria's civil war

Hasan Nasrallah’s televised address provided the clearest public acknowledgment to date that his men are fighting alongside Assad’s troops and will continue to do so. As he spoke, Hezbollah and government forces were escalating an assault on the strategically important Syrian town of Qusair.

A staunch ally of Iran as well as Assad, Hezbollah has deepened its involvement in Syria’s two-year-old civil war in recent weeks, leading the push to drive rebels out of Qusair, near the Syria-Lebanon border. The group has long justified its stockpile of weapons as necessary to the “resistance” against Israel, and its growing role in Syria has stirred controversy in Lebanon.

Bahrain declares Hezbollah a terrorist organization

The parliament of Bahrain approved a bill Tuesday declaring Lebanese-based Hezbollah a terrorist organization and called on the country’s Foreign Ministry to follow suit.

Legislators in Manama called on other Persian Gulf nations to also declare the Lebanese militia a terrorist group, according to Israel Radio.

h/t Meir W.

Canadian government speaking out against persecution of Christians in Middle East

Stephen Harper's right-hand man, Immigration Minister Kenney, is one of the few politicians in the west with the courage to speak out against the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries.

h/t Blazing Cat Fur

The frightening ramifications of the White House dissembling over Bengazi

David Harris is one of the most knowledgeable security experts in North America - what he says in this interview about the Bengazi fiasco is truly frightening:

Is There Hope for a Democratic Middle East?

Do the anti-U.S. protests in the Muslim world represent a clash of culture or a clash of interests? Robin Wright, Aurel Braun, Dirk Vandewalle, Lina Khatib and others weigh in.

Obama and the politics of appeasement

Barack Obama - The Great Appeaser

And more here...

See Michael Coren, Tarek Fatah, Carole MacNeil and Jonathan Kay live!

Media Perceptions of the Middle East is a free event at the University of Toronto on Thursday, March 5th from 7 to 9 pm.

It's a live panel discussion with Jonathan Kay, Carole MacNeil, Tarek Fatah and Michael Coren.

Survey shows that Canadians support the government on its mideast policies

A new survey indicates that most Canadians think the government is on he right course with its policies involving Israel and the Palestinians (that's if you include the 3% who think Mr. Harper is too pro-Palestinian.)

But the real results of the survey should come as no surprise to people who follow the issue: Most Canadians just don't care all that much about the issue.

The veil has dropped: PLO now includes terror group Hamas

Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews in its founding charter has now joined the Palestine Liberation Organization as partners in a coalition.

This represents a major setback for any potential peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, while making it more apparent that the Palestinians' ultimate goal is the elimination of the Jewish state.

Republican front-runner Gingrich calls Palestinians "an invented people"

More video excerpts from Gingrich interview at Sassy Wire

The Palestinians are offended by Newt and have responded in their usual fashion, with threats of violence.

More Newt, including declaration that he will move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and his willingness to completely cut off funds to the United Nations:

Palestinian Leader Abbas says Arabs made a mistake in rejecting 1947 Partition Plan creating Israel

Asked why the Arabs had rejected the plan while Jewish leaders accepted it, Abbas replied: “It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole. But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?” Palestinian leaders have always insisted that Resolution 181, which paved the way for Jewish statehood in parts of then-British-ruled Palestine, must be resisted by Arabs who went to war over it.   

Decades of regional fighting have hinged on challenges to Israel’s existence and expansion.  

By describing historical fault on the Arab side, Abbas appeared to be offering Israel an olive branch, while promoting his own bid to sidestep stalled peace talks by winning UN recognition for a sovereign Palestine.  

When the interviewer suggested the reason was Jewish leaders’ acceptance of the plan and its rejection by the Arabs, Abbas said: “I know, I know. It was our mistake. It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole.”

The rest is at The Jerusalem Post

EXTRA: Condoleeza Rice's memoirs discuss how Abbas made his own mistake in rejecting the Olmert deal which would have given Palestinians 100% of the amount of pre-1967 land that Israel conquered from Jordan.

Oil Vey! Israel to become the new Saudi Arabia??

A huge shale oil discovery in Israel rivals the deposits in Saudi Arabia. The geopolitical ramifications are immense if the Jewish state becomes a major player in the energy market.




Video by sdamatt2

Klavan on the Culture proposes a One State Solution for Middle East Peace

Why the "Arab Spring" spells disaster... and why it might not

The Arab countries undergoing revolutionary maelstroms are all dictatorships without any real democratic traditions. The history of latter-day revolutions suggests that bodes badly for what may come in those lands. If the examples of the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Cambodian and Iranian Revolutions are anything to go by, the consistent tradition would be for another, more brutal form of government to emerge.

Robespierre's France, Lenin's Russia, Mao's China,  Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Khomeini's Iran became Living Hells for anyone who espoused the ideals of freedom.

In an odd way, revolutions become strange reflections of the tyrannies they profess to replace. Lenin and Stalin became sadistic Czars, Mao became a cruel Emperor, Khomeini was a bloodthirsty, ecclesiastic Shah, and Castro a despotic Generalissimo who just happened to favour Communism over Capitalism.

There is one exception, where a revolution resulted in profound change while civil order
was maintained, and a new government was formed that enshrined rights and liberties unknown in the past. That is in the example of the United States of America.

The differences in the outcome of the American Revolution could be attributed to a variety of factors, but the most basic and profound of these is the fact that the US emerged from the British democratic tradition. The American Revolution was actually the culmination of a British tradition of rebellion aimed at transferring authority from the monarch to the people, dating from the Magna Carta in 1215, through to the English Civil War that pitted Parliament against King Charles I, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that saw James II removed from the throne.

The American Continental Congress was a genuine, functioning, democratic body, so the transition to an independent, liberal democratic system was a natural outgrowth of existing institutions. In fact, it was only through the extraordinary humility and nobility of George Washington that America didn't have its own monarchy for a time. Washington declined the offer to become America's king and in a most rare example among those in position of great power, voluntarily removed himself from it.

Unfortunately, there is no Arab country that bears much resemblance to the values of Colonial America, other than that many of them still maintain the institution of slavery.

And to make matters worse, Arab countries have been mired in state-fed ignorance and hate. Their leaders have, for generations, promoted the idea of Arabs as victims oppressed by the West while fostering sectarianism and racism in government-controlled media that would be shocking to the outside world. As an example of what can happen to a society built on those foundations, one need look no further than the psychotic administration of Ahmadinejad's Iran.

However things may not be as bleak as they seem.

The revolutions that went bad were usually centred around a charismatic leader who would become a new tyrant in the resulting government. No such leader seems to be a factor in any of the Arab revolts.

An even more important consideration is that the revolutions of the past existed largely in a vacuum. While people may have been generally aware of what happened elsewhere, they were primarily focused on themselves. Now we live in an age of instant, global communication. It is just that pervasive exchange of information that is spreading the seeds of revolt through the Arab middle east. On their computer screens, Arabs can see how Canadians, British and Australians live and enjoy democratic freedoms. With that genie out of the bottle, it is unlikely they will want to emulate the repression that the Ayatollahs are imposing on the Iranian people.

Only time will reveal what becomes of the change of the Arab Upheaval. While there is a great deal to be cautious about, there is also much cause for hope.

Hosni Mubarak: "I will die on the soil of Egypt"

In the face of massive protests, beleaguered Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has just announced that he will not seek re-election in September elections.

He forcefully stated in a speech in the last hour that he will "die on the soil of Egypt" and will initiate electoral reforms, including fixed presidential terms.

Whether the public accepts his decision to retain power until fall will be determined over the next few days. The crowds listening to his speech on outdoor monitors heckled as he delivered it. There is speculation that if he can, Mubarak will be using the time to ensure that a successor in the NDP, the ruling Egyptian party, can be introduced to the public and make use of the largely-government controlled media to win popular support. Mubarak's son Gamal is usually mentioned in Egypt as being groomed to take over his father's role. Mubarak has another son, Alaa.

One observation the protesters are beginning to realize is that there may be a million people in the streets, but there are 79 million Egyptians who are staying home who don't necessarily share their aspirations.

A question that remains is, if Mubarak were to step down now, who would assume the reins of power?