Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 03, 2005

Another suicide bombing foiled

Now, lets do a search for articles mentioning any arrests of Islamic Jihad members by the PA.

Hmmmm.

A terror attack planned for the center of the country over the weekend was prevented. A gag order has now been lifted reporting soldiers of the Nachshon unit apprehended two Islamic Jihad terrorists northeast of Tulkarem.

The two planned a suicide bombing attack in the center of the country, with security forces linking the terrorists to the cell responsible for the Stage Club attack in Tel Aviv in the past.

President George W. Bush has placed democratization at the center of his Middle East policy. At his inauguration he declared, “Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.” Bush is sincere, confronting not only adversaries like Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but also pro-American dictators like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Bush can claim success: 2005 is the year of the election. Iraqis defied predictions to cast their ballots. Palestinians also embraced the vote, electing Mahmoud Abbas to replace the late Yasser Arafat.

Elections alone do not make democracy, though. Washington should be cynical about Mubarak’s commitment to democracy. Even though 83 percent of his electorate voted for multiparty elections in a May 25, 2005 referendum, his government still determines who can run. In October 2004, Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali won 94.5 percent of the vote after curtailing his opponents’ campaign. The Saudi kingdom has trumpeted its municipal elections, but the resulting councils have had neither budgetary nor legislative authority.

While the White House has treated these autocrats’ commitments with skepticism, the Bush administration refuses to extend the same cynicism to Islamist groups, many of which embrace elections but cast aside democratic values. In 1992, for example, Ali Balhadj, a leader of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria declared, “When we are in power, there will be no more elections because God will be ruling.” In March 2004, influential Karbala cleric Sayyid Hadi al-Modarresi told al-Hayat, “The first article in a democracy is the rule of the majority over the minority.”

In recent months, the Bush administration has sent mixed signals to Islamist groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt. Bush has held out an olive branch to Hizballah, a group funded and armed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Syrian intelligence. While the party does hold seats in the Lebanese parliament, it maintains its own private army and embraces violence. Hizballah’s March 8, 2005 rally in Beirut in favor of occupation made a mockery of its claim to be an anti-occupation resistance movement.

The White House has also flip-flopped on Hamas. While Hamas candidates came in second to those of Fatah in Palestinian elections, it nonetheless won the largest municipalities in Gaza. White House spokesman Scott McClellan called Hamas’ successful candidates “business professionals.” But election participation does not make candidates democratic. Hamas ran on a platform rejecting the compromises necessary for Palestinian statehood. Its charter embraced imposition of Islamic rule, with the Koran as its constitution, and it has eschewed rule-of-law. Well-known for its attacks on Israelis, it has also targeted liberal Palestinians.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, another recipient of recent State Department outreach, also has a long legacy of violence. Its armed wing has murdered thousands. Engaging any group that has been involved in terror only legitimizes the violence that propelled that group to prominence. Better that Washington support bold but peaceful politicians like Ayman Nour.

Washington’s infatuation with Islamists has emboldened such groups and deflated the morale of democrats. Condoleezza Rice bolstered the legitimacy of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq when she invited its leader to the White House. This invitation signaled that the Bush administration endorsed the Islamist group over more democratic movements, and suggested to the Supreme Council that an ephemeral embrace of democracy was sufficient. Today, gangs belonging to the Supreme Council enforce Islamic law on cities like Basra and Kut, breaking up student picnics and tearing down posters championing other groups. More recently, many Iraqis interpreted the April 2005 appointment of National Endowment for Democracy official Laith Kubba as Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari’s spokesman to be an American endorsement for his Islamist platform.

The Arab world is capable of democracy. When mechanisms for electoral accountability exist, Islamists lose their charm. In Jordan, for example, the Islamic Action Front lost half its seats between 1989 and 1993, after it failed to fulfill its promises. Unable to withstand the popular rebuff, the Islamists boycotted the next election.

There is no reason why the Arab world cannot be democratic. But for democracy to succeed, all parties have to embrace not only elections as the path to power, but also regular subservience to the electorate as their master. Because Islamists base their legitimacy upon a higher power, they are intrinsically anti-democratic and unwilling to accept popular rebuke. One man, one vote, one time makes dictatorship, not democracy.

By embracing Islamists in Iran, President Jimmy Carter replaced one dictatorship with another. The Bush administration’s flirtation with Arab Islamists risks doing the same. Washington should push for democracy, but only work with groups willing to abide by democratic precepts.- Published 2/6/2005 © bitterlemons-international.org

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.

Israel frees 398 jailed Palestinians.

How many times has Israel done this "gesture"? How many Israelis died as a direct result?

Israel freed 398 Palestinians in a gesture to moderate President Mahmoud Abbas, giving rise to emotional reunions with relatives and comrades near Israeli checkpoints in the occupied West Bank and Gaza where handovers took place.

Ten armed members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an offshoot of Abbas's Fatah movement, mobbed Aqra as he got off a bus at Gaza's Erez crossing with Israel after serving 2 1/2 years of a 4-year sentence for militant activity.

'Freedom is precious but our happiness will never be complete until all (8,000) of our brothers suffering in jails of the (Israeli) occupation are freed,' al-Aqra, 38, said.

'If Israel really wants peace, they must free all of us, especially those in prison for more than 20 or 30 years,' he added, echoing a collective grievance of Palestinians over jailed compatriots they see as heroes fighting occupation.

Yeah, if Israel wants peace, all it has to do is free every terrorist who wants to destroy it. And go back to the Green Line. And allow 8 million Palestinians to move to Israel. And give them all of Jerusalem. And kick out all the Jews.

How reasonable!

Syria test-fires 3 Scud missiles

This doesn't bother me too much. It appears to me that it shows Syrian impotence in today's world, and it is designed to give the Syrians a psychological boost as if they still matter.

Syria test-fired three Scud missiles last Friday, including one that broke up over Turkish territory and showered missile parts down onto unsuspecting Turkish farmers, Israeli military officials revealed Thursday.

These were the first such Syrian missile tests since 2001, the Israelis said, and were part of a Syrian missile development project using North Korean technology and designed, the Israelis contend, to deliver air-burst chemical weapons. The missiles included one older Scud B, with a range of about 185 miles, and two Scud D's, the Israelis say they believe, with a range of about 435 miles.

British built "wall" to stop Arab terror in 1938

The world changes, the Arab terrorists don't. This is from the June 2, 1938 Palestine Post.

So the question is, what fence? A little research finds this article from May 30, 1938:

Deja vu is the rule when you look at the history of the conflict. Except when the British built walls, executed Arab terrorists and demolished their houses, they were fully justified. Only when the Jews do it does it become a crime.

Lessons for today from June 2, 1937 - 1935 - 1933

The Arabs will not allow any part of the country to be owned by someone other then themselves, neither will they allow the country to be controlled, politically or administratively, by the Jews or anyone else.

No solution which does not meet these demands will ever be accepted by the Arabs and the Moslems throughout the world.

This statement can be seen as a blueprint for Arab-Israeli relations throughout the entire century. Everything that the Arabs have said or done since then, including Camp David and Oslo, has been entirely consistent with this statement. (In my opinion, the Jordanian leadership has been the only exception, and I think the reason is that they hate the Palestinians more than they hate the Jews.) All "peaceful" moves have been with an eye towards the long-term eradication of Jewish control over any part of the area.

Interestingly, on the same date in 1935, there was a review in the Palestine Post of a book about the history of Arabs in Palestine, and it rightly pointed out that Arabs themselves only ruled the area between 637 and 1071. Although this seems comical, it points out another fact that gets lost in today's world of instant news: the Arabs have a very long historical memory, their perceived humiliations from centuries past are still considered fresh wounds (reference Bin Laden's mention of "the tragedy of Andalusia"), and they are therefore patient as to when they will finally acheive their ultimate victory over the world.

Of course, Jews happen to have a historical memory that is quite a bit longer than the Arabs', as can be seen from this page 1 article of June 2, 1933: (Syria should be thankful that Israel doesn't assure its historic rights over Damascus!)

Yet somehow the Jews didn't rely on the very strong Biblical-era reasons that they should remain in the area, but they also worked hard to ensure that they keep their rights to the Land - with a superior claim historically, militarily, politically and legally.

Jew-hatred, however, will always ignore mere facts.

Jerusalem double suicide attack thwarted

Security forces thwarted a large attack terrorists planned to carry out in Jerusalem, it was released for publication Wednesday evening.

Earlier this week, five Palestinians, members of Islamic Jihad, were arrested in the vicinity of the West Bank cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem.

The five were planning on carrying out a double suicide bombing in the capital on Thursday, near the Ramot neighborhood. The plan was apparently to detonate explosives on a bus and in a cafe or synagogue. Two explosive belts have been found.

Behind the planned attack was the Islamic Jihad's headquarters in the West Bank, which is responsible for carrying out an attack at the Stage nightclub in Tel Aviv in February, in which five people were killed.

Remember what Abbas said just this week:

The era of suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be over and the culture of violence is changing in the region, said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in an interview aired on Sunday.

Abbas, who was in Washington last week to meet U.S. President George W. Bush, said Palestinian-Israeli violence was down 90 percent in the past four months and he was optimistic for the future.

Asked in an interview with ABC's "This Week" whether the era of suicide bombing was over, he said: "I believe it is over."

"We have started to deal with the culture of violence, we stopped the culture of violence and the Palestinian people have started looking at it as something that should be condemned and it should stop."

Arab medical technology catching up to Israel's

Israeli technology is only able to do this:

Adult liver cells can be redirected to produce insulin in response to glucose levels, according to the results of an Israeli study released last week.

The scientists at Tel Aviv's Sheba Medical Center have successfully modified liver cells to produce insulin that, when transplanted into mice, brought diabetes under control. The researchers hope that one day the method will allow the use of a diabetes patient's own liver cells to treat their condition.

'This approach may overcome the shortage in tissue availability from cadaver donors and the need for lifelong immune suppression,' said the director of the study, Dr. Sarah Ferber from The Endocrine Institute, at Sheba. The study was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

But the latest out of Saudi Arabia shows startling breakthroughs in Arab medicine:

The following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Ibrahim 'Abd Al-Karim Al-'Arifi, a urologist in the King Fahd Military Hospital in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which aired on Qatar TV on May 23, 2005.

Host: Let's talk about the medical treatments for impotence and about other methods that are popular, especially among young people. [...]

Al-'Arifi:In ancient Islamic medicine, there's some kind of lizard called Sagangor.

Host: Sagangor?

Al-'Arifi: Yes. This is a lizard-like animal, a reptile that can be found in the Al-Nufudh and Al-Rub' Al-Khali areas. This animal is mentioned in many books, and a colleague of mine even studied this matter. You take the tissue surrounding its kidney, dry it, grind it up, and give it to the man. This strengthens his erection.

Host: This still needs to be researched scientifically.

Al-'Arifi: A colleague of mine wants to conduct such a study, but we've found references in several medical books by the greatest ancient Muslim doctors.

Saudi Iqra TV aired a Jordanian-produced series titled "Stories from Before the Verses Came Down" during February 2005. The series was a dramatization of numerous teachings about the Prophet Muhammad in Al-Madina, including some accounts about the Jews of that time.

The dramatic scenes presented in the series included: the Muslim tradition of the Jews' distortion of their own Torah so as to make it seem that Muhammad could not be the true Prophet; Jews voicing their hatred for Muhammad while vowing to destroy Islam and to kill all Jews who follow it; Jews using black magic to curse Muhammad; and a scene in which Jewish leaders explain how following Muhammad would drastically reduce their tax revenues from the common folk.

Scene: The Jewish leaders – bewigged, bearded, in long brown robes with oversized gold Stars of David dangling from chains around their necks – discuss how to ensure that Muhammad will not be recognized by the Jews as a prophet, drawing Ibn Salul, considered in Islam to be a leader of "the hypocrites," into their scheming. (To view this clip, visit http: //memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=685 ) The following are excerpts:

Ka'b [Jewish leader]: Huyay, and you too Shas, do as much as you can to [alter] the Torah. Change the characteristics of the awaited Prophet, and make him as different as possible from Arab traits.

Shas [Jewish leader]: Maybe we should say… We'll say that he… What shall we say, Huyay?

Huyay [Jewish leader]: We will say that he has blue eyes.

Shas: Yes, that's it. [Also, say that he is] a tall man.

Ibn Salul: By God! You Jews altered the Torah in a matter of seconds.

Shas: Ibn Salul, if you want to keep your throne, take it easy. Cooperate with us, and don't bother your mind with such things.

Ibn Salul: Yes, he is indeed a tall man.

Scene: At the behest of the Jews, the Arab sorcerer Labid casts spells against Muhammad. The Jews laugh gleefully as Labid works his magic. (To view this clip, visit http: //memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=686 ) The following are excerpts:

Huyay: Get on with it, Ibn Al-A'sam. We've got what you asked for.

Kinana: Here is the comb with Muhammad's lock of hair. We kept it safe. This box contains the statue [made of dough] in the shape of Muhammad.

Labid: Well done. Well done, Jews. Now you've fallen into our hands, Muhammad. Now that you are in the hands of the Jews, we shall see whether there's a god protecting you.

Kinana: What are you going to do, holy man?

Labid: What will I do? You will see what I'll do. Muhammad will regret the day his mother gave birth to him.

Huyay: Can a Muslim fall into the hands of Jews and survive?!

Kinana: You don't have to teach us who we are, uncle.

Labid: This is what I have in store for him. These are eleven needles. This needle goes into his heart.

Huyay: Ouch! You hurt me in the heart!

Labid: This one goes in his right eye. This one goes into his left eye. This one goes into his liver. And this one goes into his leg. Kinana, bring me the comb and the lock of hair. We should thread each hair through a needle and then tie them in a knot with this string here. Now we have eleven knots.

Kinana: Could you explain what you did, so we can understand?

Labid: I've appointed a demon to protect each knot. I have gathered them from all corners of the earth […]

Scene: The Jewish leaders reaffirm that they will never follow Muhammad, and explain to Ibn Salam, a former Jewish convert to Islam, that although they know that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, they will not accept him because if they do they will lose the revenues they collect from their people – and offer Ibn Salam a bigger cut for his silence. (To view this clip, visit http: //memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=687 ) The following are excerpts:

Kinana: No matter what signs this Muhammad brings us from his god, we will not follow him.

Ka'b: I swear by the Torah that if Moses son of Amram had brought him here, and said to us: "Follow Muhammad," I would have rejected Moses himself.

Old Jew: Then it is settled, Jews. We will not follow Muhammad.

Shas: How did you get us into this mess, Ibn Salam?

Ibn Salam: Shame on you. Your character as pigs is showing.

Old Jew: Ibn Salam, we know he is indeed the messenger of Allah, but if we believe him this quickly, we will lose the respect of our people, and we will lose the money we collect from them.

Shas: This means that the common people will stop paying us our share of the gold and silver, and we will become poor.

Old Jew: We will lose our status as leaders of the Jews.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan Jun 1, 2005 — A bomb from a suicide attacker tore through a mosque during Wednesday's funeral for a Muslim cleric opposed to the Taliban, killing at least 20 people, and the local governor said an al-Qaida-linked militant was responsible.

At least 42 people were wounded.

Palestinian Gaza farmers against disengagement

This article proves something I've said before: don't confuse Palestinian leadership with the Palestinian people. Palestinians themelves just want to live in peace, whether it is in occupied land or other Arab lands. Being an independent state under a corrupt thugocracy is far worse than being under "occupation" but being able to feed one's family. Their situation is being kept purposefully artificially bad by their so-called "leaders" whose interest is not in their own people but rather in the destruction of Israel in stages.

GAZA - As it turns out, Israeli settlers are not the only Gaza residents concerned about the upcoming Israeli withdrawal. Palestinian farmers employed in Gush Katif told Ynet they are worried about what may lie ahead.

Currently, some 3,000 Palestinians are employed in the Gaza settlement bloc, most of them in agriculture. Some agreed to speak to Ynet about their feelings ahead of the disengagement, however they declined to use their real names.

Mahmoud, 33, a Khan Younis resident, said he is concerned about providing for his family once the pullout is complete.

“We hear in the news that in August they will leave Gush Katif, and we pray to God it won’t happen,” he said. “I ask God for them not to leave. If they do leave, there will be no food for my children.'

Mahmoud has been working at the settlement of Ganei Tal for more than 18 years and said he is happy with the work and earns as much as three Gaza laborers.

“There’s no work in Gaza,” he said, slamming the Palestinian Authority for its corruption.

“Only PLO members, those who work for the government, will get everything (following the pullout),” he said. “We won’t get anything.”

Still, Mahmoud chooses to blame Israel for all his problems. He said he would be doing better had Israel refrained from signing agreements with late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

“Palestinians and Jews can live together, that’s how it used to be,” he said. “I don’t believe in a man coming from Tunis, who comes here and runs the country. They sucked our blood. You brought this mess upon us to begin with.”

“You didn’t make peace with the Palestinian people but rather, with a man from Tunisia,” he said. “What does everyone want after all? To live peacefully side by side.”

Just like Mahmoud, 35-year-old Imad said he is also in despair over the upcoming withdrawal and is counting on a miracle to change the turn of events.

Imad said he has been working in Gush Katif for 17 years, adding that “agriculture is the only thing I know how to do.”

“After the disengagement, my children and I will have to eat gravel,” he said. “This entire disengagement is a big problem. I don’t want this soil. Take it and give me a way to make a living. In any case I’m not going to benefit from this land. ”

He said he would happily give his house for half of what the settlers are receiving for compensation, or even work.

“I would rather live in a makeshift hut all my life, but have food for my children,” he said. “I trust in God, and in my opinion the disengagement will be carried out. And therefore, only God can help me in making a living. Before I was born my fate was already sealed.”

"Your Rabin, before his death, brought us cancer along with peace,” he said. “Now Sharon also wants to say he is making peace, and he will give us more disease than calm. If you hand over Gush Katif, do you think there’ll be peace and everything will be OK? No. It hurts me to see my children and to know that in a little while there will be nothing for them to eat.’

“The best situation for everyone would be for them (settlers) not to leave. What will happen once they leave,” he said. “We will have more unemployment. Who will receive the land? Not the (Palestinian) nation.”

Our friends the Egyptians

Nice to know that our $2B/year bribe to keep Egypt's "peace" with Israel is paying such dividends.

Egypt has blocked Egyptian playwright and satirist Ali Salem from entering Israel to receive an honorary doctorate Wednesday from the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

The university is involved in numerous projects to promote peace between Israel and its neighbors and has nurtured ties with Egypt since the peace treaty with Israel was signed. Anwar Sadat visited the campus in May 1979, accompanied by Hosni Mubarak, to receive the Star of Peace along with Menachem Begin. In 1995 the university bestowed an honorary doctorate on Egypt's then-ambassador to Israel, Mohammad Bassiouni.

Salem is known for his biting prose, and his plays have savagely attacked various phenomena in Egyptian society. In recent years he has published a series of articles in the Egyptian and world press, alongside humorous pieces and short satirical stories. His stories have been anthologized and are very popular.

Since the Oslo Accords, Salem has braved criticism for publicly preaching peace and normalization of ties with Israel.

He has visited here several times, and chronicled his first trip in the book "Journey into Israel," which became a best seller in Egypt and was published in Hebrew and English.

Israel joins NATO parliamentary assembly

Israel was voted in a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Tuesday, after previously only enjoying monitor status. The decision was made during the spring session of the organization being held this week in Ljubjana, Slovenia.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is the inter-parliamentary organization of legislators from 14 member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, and is a forum for international parliamentary dialogue.

This is an important step on the way for Israel to join NATO as a full member.

But there is a fundamental question about this possibility. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

If a NATO-member Israel is attacked by Arab countries, according to a strict interpretation of this 1949 Treaty, Israel would not expect the aid of other NATO countries the same way that the European and North American members would - since it is not a part of Europe.

So while the possibility of Israel joining NATO is probably welcome and would help Israel's diplomatic efforts, it does not necessarily help Israel's defense in a fundamental way.

Also see NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's speech in Israel in February. In this speech he makes it clear that NATO is reaching out to Arab countries as well as Israel, and it seems that NATO is trying to remake itself to be more relevant in a post-Cold War world, to be more of a political player and less a defense pact:

This Alliance is no longer the static organisation of the Cold War. In fact, the very moment the Cold War ended, that old NATO ceased to exist. NATO today is an agent of political change. NATO enlargement has been a key factor in overcoming the division of Europe. NATO’s cooperative mechanisms, such as Partnership for Peace, have turned this Alliance into the hub of a network of continent-wide cooperation – cooperation that encompasses the most diverse countries, from Switzerland to Uzbekistan. And NATO’s military involvement in the Balkans has created the conditions for long-term stability and reconciliation in a troubled region.
[...] On that basis, last June, at NATO’s Istanbul Summit, we agreed, in close consultation with Israel and other partners in this process, to try to move our relationship to another level – in short, to move from dialogue to partnership. We want to further intensify our political dialogue; to promote greater interoperability between our military forces; and to encourage greater cooperation on defence reform, as well as in the critical fight against terrorism. These are all areas where we have a lot to offer to each other, and where working together is beneficial to us all.
[...]
I am happy to note that Israel has very recently stepped forward with a list of concrete proposals for enhancing our cooperation. These proposals cover many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism or joint military exercises, where Israel’s expertise is very much valued. They underline your country’s desire for a strenghtened relation, and we are looking forward to working with Israel in the framework of an individual action programme.

NATO's outreach is certainly flexible enough to allow each partner to go its way, at its own rythm. So the stage is set for a more substantial cooperation between NATO and Israel. In doing so, we also want to make sure to keep everybody on board in this Dialogue and to take account of the overall even-handedness of the process at large.

In that context, further positive developments in the Peace Process, as we seem to witness them now, should allow our nascent partnership to achieve its full potential, both in terms of bilateral and regional cooperation.

The enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue will go a long way towards putting the relationship between NATO and its Middle Eastern partners on a new footing. At a certain stage if the current positive trend continues, Allies might also have to look into the possibility to extend this dialogue to others in the region. In that regard, you will remember that NATO Heads of States and Government in Istanbul did not exclude, at some stage to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority under our initiatives, subject of course to an approval by the North Atlantic Council.

If long-term stability for the region is our common goal, we have to build bridges to the wider region as well.

This is what we are trying to do with our Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Through the ICI, we have offered cooperation to countries of the broader region of the Middle East, starting with countries from the Gulf. Right after we launched this initiative at our Summit last June, we received a lot of positive feedback. And this was, quite frankly, no surprise. Because in the Gulf region as well, there is a growing awareness that we face common challenges, and that we need to meet them together. With Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar we have already moved to the stage where we are in the process of developing a programme of activities that will be open to them. And I am sure that other countries will follow this example.

So this is interesting and welcome news but not necessarily a clear pro-Israel vote on the part of Europe.

UPDATE: Capt. Diggs (who pointed this out to me) responds:

NATO's primary mission is to be the military arm of politics for the free world.
( "war is politics by other means", Karl Von Clausewitz )

Despite talk of politicizing NATO, it is highly unlikely. The US, as well as other members vehemently oppose this. And of course, without the US, there is no NATO.

My thoughts on the statements to arab nations is that this is some soothing diplomacy in the face of active courting by NATO, of Israel.
Israel has already worked with NATO in both war gaming and military exercises.
NATO eyes Israel as a strategic, not political, asset. They have the 6th most powerful military in the world, superb technology and innovation, and unfortunately, experience. They are also located at an extremely important geographical junction.
I would believe that NATO is eyeing the world through the lens of what is happening in the Muslim and arab world today. That being that confrontation is most likely with these arab/muslim countries.
NATO's countship of Israel despite the political heat from the arab world is quite telling.
As I said, Israel is not a political asset for NATO.

Article 5 of the NATO charter is the very foundation of NATO, and without it NATO becomes just another roundtable of jawboning politicians.

The clause statement concerning the "North Atlantic" has already been amended to include Greece and Turkey.

In short, there is no point to being a member of NATO except for the protection it offers militarily.

At least, IMO.

Elephants in the room

When you see pundits talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict or terror at large, there are very often a few elephants in the room that for some reason they pretend to ignore. Occasionally it is useful to point some of these elephants out.

"Disengagement" will be followed by increased terror. Every single military and intelligence analysis comes to this conclusion.
Israel will need to retain troops in Gaza after "disengagement" to try to stop Qassam rockets from hitting Israeli towns proper. So in the end, the process will keep just as many Israeli soldiers in the same area.
The maximal Palestinian concessions conceivable for a peace agreement is very far apart from the maximal Israeli concessions. Everyone assumes that in the end the Palestinians will accept a Barak-style plan, yet no Palestinian leader has ever said that this would be acceptable.
The terror suspects that get arrested in the US and Europe, whether they support Al Qaeda or Hamas, are usually successful professionals - doctors or professors. They live good lives in the West. They do not support terror because of "desperation" - they support terror ideologically.
Islam may be a religion, but from a geo-political perspective, it is also an ideology. The Islamic ideology includes the desire, and possibly the obligation, to literally take over the world - politically, militarily or otherwise. As such, it is a world threat. It is more accurate to compare Islam to Communism or Nazism than it is to compare it to Buddhism or Christianity.

Any other elephants out there?

Sharansky on Amnesty and disengagement (Time)

Once again, Natan Sharansky shows clarity and consistency.

Too bad these attributes are in such short supply.

AS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS A THING OR TWO ABOUT GULAGS, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S ACCUSATION THAT GUANTANAMO IS THE GULAG OF OUR TIMES?

The violation of human rights at Abu Ghraib was very serious, but it was only a few people. In Guantánamo, the human-rights violations were much more serious because they were part of the system.

BUT IS IT REALLY A GULAG?

I have very serious criticisms of Amnesty. There is no moral clarity. It doesn't differentiate between what I call fear societies and free societies. In the democratic world, there are violations of human rights, but they are revealed and dealt with. In a fear society, there are no violations of human rights because human rights just don't exist. All citizens are deprived of those rights. Amnesty International says it doesn't support or oppose any political system, so it ends up with reports that show a moral equivalence between, for example, Israel and the terrorist regimes that attack it.

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE WORLD'S VIEW OF ISRAEL'S HUMAN-RIGHTS RECORD?

Amnesty doesn't examine Hamas, only Israel. It ignores violations by terrorist organizations. We find the unfortunate situation that somehow there's no difference between terrorists targeting civilians and democratic countries targeting terrorists.

SO ISRAEL IS THE FOCUS OF HUMAN-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS BECAUSE IT HAS DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS THAT MAKE PROTEST POSSIBLE?

Look, violations by Israel are on the world's agenda, but Sudan's aren't. Human-rights organizations create an atmosphere in which dictatorial regimes dictate the human-rights agenda of the entire world.

IS WORLD PRESSURE THE REASON FOR SHARON'S DECISION TO WITHDRAW FROM GAZA?

That's why he told me he decided on it. The withdrawal shouldn't be unilateral. It should be connected to changes by the Palestinians. It's an illusion to think that the pressure on us will stop.

DOESN'T THE GAZA WITHDRAWAL HELP PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS, THOUGH?

It's clear that with [Abbas], there's a better chance for progress than with [Yasser] Arafat. But only if he is under strong pressure toward democratic reforms. The disengagement is unilateral, so it means zero pressure for reform.

WHEN YOU RESIGNED FROM SHARON'S CABINET, YOU CALLED THE PLAN A "TRAGIC MISTAKE."

We are missing a historic opportunity, with a new Palestinian President, to link all contacts to progress toward democracy. Instead, in some months, we will find ourselves in a situation of increased terror and a weakened Israeli society.

BUT ABBAS SAYS DEMOCRACY IS THE BASIS OF HIS POLICY. HE EVEN WANTS HAMAS TO RUN IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN JULY.

If the Palestinian Authority is not fighting Hamas as a terrorist organization, then Hamas keeps its weapons. He's giving more and more time to the terror groups to strengthen themselves, and he's not competing with them to create better welfare for his people.

SHOULD SHARON MAKE SOME KIND OF CONCESSION TO ABBAS TO STRENGTHEN HIS STANDING WITH HIS OWN PEOPLE?

Sharon is refusing to make concessions to [Abbas], but he's making a huge concession to Hamas by withdrawing from Gaza. It encourages Hamas and Hizballah and al-Qaeda. It will hamper everyone around the world who's fighting terror.

DO YOU THINK SHARON IS ANXIOUS ABOUT THE WITHDRAWAL?

I'm sure he is. But he knows how not to show it. He's a general who goes ahead with the implementation of his plan, regardless.