Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

08/18 Links Pt1: After American withdrawal from Afghanistan, implications for Israel look grimmer; Netanyahu: In 2013, John Kerry Offered Israel to Adopt ‘Afghanistan Model’ with PA

From Ian:

After American withdrawal from Afghanistan, implications for Israel look grimmer

As Israel observes the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, it’s difficult to forget the capitulation of the Iraqi army to ISIS in 2014 or the EUBAM observers who fled as Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip in 2007, not to mention visions of the United States fleeing Saigon in the spring of 1975 as part of the collapse of the Vietnam War.

Noting the coincidental, yet equal number of years separating each of the Middle Eastern incidents in which Islamic fundamentalists defeated their adversaries, Eran Lerman, vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, half-jokingly called it the “seven-year-itch.”

“What worries me,” he says, “is a much broader symbolic message that Islamist radicalism is once again on the march, the Americans have no staying power, and the West is in decline.”

Lerman suggests that Israel learn lessons from the past, saying it should “band together with other countries to hold against the tide.”

Referring to Israel’s own concerns of Islamic fundamentalists taking over Palestinian areas besides Gaza, which Hamas already controls, Lerman says “I hope we never again hear lectures from the Americans on how you can trust Palestinian security forces to run their country and keep us safe once we leave.”

Israel has long argued that a future Palestinian state left to its own devices and without Israeli oversight would easily collapse if confronted by a terrorist organization like the Islamic State (ISIS), the Taliban or Hamas.

The fall of Afghanistan only strengthens Israel’s argument and, as Lerman argues, its leaders must learn the lessons here.

Having finally extricated itself from the mire that is Afghanistan—a goal shared by the previous two U.S. administrations, one Democrat- and one Republican-led—America has simultaneously sent a dark and ominous signal suggesting to its allies that it is no longer reliable, especially since it grossly underestimated the speed at which the Taliban took control.

Noah Rothman: The Magical, Self-Justifying Afghanistan Debacle

On Monday, President Joe Biden delivered what could only have been a hastily prepared speech on the meltdown in Afghanistan before resuming his vacation. In it, the president abandoned his rationale for total U.S. withdrawal which, in July, was predicated on the competence, training, and numerical strength of the Afghan National Forces. This week, Biden insisted, withdrawal was justified by the abject weakness and cowardice of those very same Afghan soldiers.

“American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves,” Biden insisted. “We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.” This sentiment must have appealed to Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy, who took the opportunity of Afghanistan’s collapse to insist that the lesson here is that we should abandon the pursuit of America’s long-term interests in favor of applying Band-Aids to threats as they arise. Presumably, the rest of Joe Biden’s party will see the virtue of this sort of projection soon enough.

Leaving aside for a moment that running down an ally—even one we’ve summarily abandoned to the mercies of an Islamist militia—is an odd way to restore American credibility on the world stage, Biden’s exercise in blame-shifting has the added defect of being untrue. Tens of thousands of Afghan soldiers fought and died in defense of their country since NATO-led combat operations ended in 2014. They continued to do so well into 2020, when American “peace talks” with the Taliban began to sap those soldiers of the “will to fight” with the understanding that U.S. support was winding down. And when Biden pulled the plug on “air support, intelligence, and contractors servicing Afghanistan’s planes and helicopters,” a thorough Wall Street Journal expose revealed, “the Afghan military simply couldn’t operate anymore.” The Afghans didn’t lose the will to fight for their country; they were robbed of the means of effectively doing so by Washington.

The audience for President Biden’s self-soothing talk about the inevitability of Afghanistan’s implosion isn’t limited to stunned Democrats. A certain sort of conservative for whom retrenchment is both a means to an end and an end in itself is just as enamored of this dubious talking point.

Netanyahu: In 2013, John Kerry Offered Israel to Adopt ‘Afghanistan Model’ with PA

The former prime minister revealed Wednesday that in 2013, he was approached by then US Secretary of State John Kerry, who invited him on a secret visit to Afghanistan to see, as he explained, how the US had set up a local military force that could stand alone against terrorism.

“The message was clear – the ‘Afghanistan model’ is the model that the United States seeks to apply to the Palestinian issue as well,” he wrote.

He “politely declined” the offer and rejected the idea.

“I estimated then that as soon as the US left Afghanistan, everything would collapse. This is unfortunately what has happened these days: an extremist Islamic regime has conquered Afghanistan and will turn it into a state of terror that will endanger world peace,” he said.

“We will get the same result if we hand over swaths of land to the Palestinians. The Palestinians will not establish Singapore. They will establish a state of terror in Judea and Samaria, a short distance from Ben Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv, Kfar Saba and Netanya,” he warned.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is now under full Taliban control after the fall of Kabul, as US forces and Western diplomats are fleeing the capital’s airport.

He further cautioned that “we saw the same wrong policy with regard to Iran. The international community has embarked on a dangerous agreement that would have given Iran an internationally condoned arsenal of nuclear bombs meant for our destruction.”

“I was then asked by our friends to keep quiet. Do not act or fight. I did not agree to that either. We have pursued an attack policy both in the operational field and in the diplomatic and explanatory field. I went out against the whole world, including many in Israel, and spoke in the US Congress against this dangerous agreement,” he recounted.

🇺🇸 Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield says U.S. expressed "in no uncertain terms" at the United Nations through "a very strongly worded press statement" from the Security Council that "we expect the Taliban to respect women's rights" and "to be respectful of humanitarian law." pic.twitter.com/32TEyRFu4O
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) August 18, 2021

That "demographic bomb" threatening Israel is now closer to a firecracker

Remember the articles from the 1990s and early 2000s that predicted a demographic bomb that would destroy Israel?

This front page article in the St. Petersburg (FL) Times from September 21, 2003 was typical:

Note the pull quote - the entire reason this woman wants lots of children is because she wants to ethnically cleanse Jews.

In that article, Israeli demographer Arnon soffer confidently predicted that by 2020, there were be 8.5 million Arabs in territories Israel controls, compared to 6.5 million Jews.

His predictions of the Arab population was only off by 1.5 million.

The Arab population growth has been steadily slowing over the years, and their birthrate has plummeted. While the Palestinian Arab and Israeli Arab birthrates per thousand used to be more than double that of Jews in Israel in 2001, they are now much closer to parity.

Also, in 2018, the fertility rate of Jewish women in Israel surpassed that of Arab Israeli women.

Not to say there isn't still an issue, but that argument that Israel must panic and give Palestinians a state because of the demographic threat has lost much of its urgency - especially since Israel washed its hands of Gaza and has no interest in controlling that sector with its 2.1 million Arabs.

Interestingly, most feminists don't seem to have a problem with the reasons for a higher Arab birthrate - a patriarchal culture, women discouraged from getting jobs, illegal abortions, and polygamy.

(h/t Noah)

In the Times of Israel, diplomatic reporter Lazer Berman offers an analysis of how the Afghanistan fiasco could affect Israel:

Though the tragedy is unfolding almost 4,000 kilometers (2,485 miles) from Israel, it will have important ramifications for Jerusalem and the choices its partners and enemies will make in the coming months.

For Israel, which has tied itself snuggly to Washington for decades, the downsides are clear.

“When the US is seen as weak, in the simplest terms, it’s bad for Israel,” said Micky Aharonson, a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and former foreign policy director at Israel’s National Security Council.

The idea that the most capable intelligence apparatus in the world so badly misread a country it has been intimately involved with for two decades does not inspire confidence in America’s abilities to read and shape the region — especially after a string of high-profile intelligence failures in Iraq, Iran, Libya and more.

“Whenever the world’s most powerful nation suffers a humiliating foreign policy failure, it’s going to have far-reaching international effects, including for countries, like Israel, who have based so much of their own deterrence and national security on the credibility of their strategic partnership with the United States,” said John Hannah, senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.

“If I’m a Saudi, or an Emirati, or a Bahraini, or others who have been close to America, I will want to do some thinking about my relationship with the United States, and whether it might be wise of me to begin to explore whether my survival will be better assured by cutting some sort of deal with Iran rather than rely on American support,” said Cliff May, founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a right-leaning think tank.

These experts have good points, but there is something missing in their analyses.

To the Arab world, the US abandonment of Afghanistan is not the epochal event that changes their opinion of the reliability of the United States. The Arab world already experienced a US government that was willing to abandon its Muslim allies - during the Obama administration. Then came the whiplash of a Trump administration that looked upon all relationships as transactional and not strategic. And now, Obama's Democratic successor is appearing to be as unreliable as Obama - but even less competent.

The four year presidential cycle is what makes America an unreliable partner. Afghanistan is just a data point.

The biggest difference in the region in the past decade is that Israel is now looked upon as the most reliable pro-Western superpower. Israel's new government is not pursuing foreign policy that is fundamentally different from Netanyahu's. To the Arabs, Israel is strong and reliable - unlike the US.

In this sense, Israel is a beneficiary of the US debacle in Afghanistan.

It is true that the Arab nations have been hedging their bets by opening up channels to Iran. This wasn't in response to Afghanistan. This was because they fully expected Biden to be Obama 2.0. It doesn't indicate that they are pro-Iran, just that they want to position themselves for whatever happens. And they are strengthening relations with Israel for the exact same reason.

Beyond that, the Arab world isn't stupid. The US' poor decisions doesn't affect its strength, its technological leadership, or its intelligence gathering capabilities (although it indicates that the analysis of that intelligence is sub-par.) Israel still benefits greatly from its strong relationship with the US in terms of weapons acquisition and development and signals intelligence (and perhaps human intelligence) in the region. The raw power of the US still benefits Israel tremendously, both in real terms and in optics.

It is too early to say much more. Afghanistan will probably revert to becoming a haven for international Sunni Islamist terror groups. Their choice of targets will mean that they will be setting the agenda for the region. Uncertainty and chaos helps the terrorists.

However, as Arabs noted often during the 2000s, Al Qaeda rarely targeted Israel - because of Israel's strength and resolve. Many Arab nations will want to be under that umbrella when they are directly threatened by whatever will become the new Al Qaeda. Unlike the US, Israel is not perceived as someone who abandons her friends.

Source material proves that Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Conventions does not say Israeli settlements are illegal

The sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

This has been used since 1967 to claim that Israeli settlements violate international law.

Back in 2012, I dug up all the preparatory notes - the Travaux Préparatoires - I could find for the Fourth Geneva Convention article 49 (then called Article 45) to see if the discussions of the article would shed light on the issue. My conclusion then was that the entire paragraph dealt with forcible transfers and deportations of civilians, and all the drafters were unanimous in saying that forcible transfer of people against their will was reprehensible. Given that Israelis who move to Judea and Samaria are doing that voluntarily, no one can claim that Israel is violating the Geneva Conventions.

However, the 1958 ICRC Commentary on the Conventions indicates that perhaps the sixth paragraph is anomalous inside the article and does not only refer to forced transfer:

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

This commentary makes a large distinction between the sixth paragraph and the others. However, nowhere does it indicate that the transfer mentioned could be voluntary - it emphasizes that the important difference between the first five paragraphs and paragraph 6 is that the first five refer to forcible transfer of the occupied and the last refers to citizens, but in all cases the transfer seems to be forced.

I looked up the sources given, which are in French.

Footnote 13 is the ' XVIIth International Red Cross Conference, Legal Commission, Summary of the Debates of the Sub-Commissions, ' pp. 61-62 and 77-78. They say:

My translation:

Article 45 M. Cohn (Denmark, Gvtc) proposes to add a new paragraph as follows: "The Occupying Power may not carry out the deportation or the transfer of part of its own population from a territory other than it occupies in the territory occupied by it ", in order to protect the population of an occupied state against an invasion of persons.

Mr. Pilloud (ICRC), believes that it is more about the duties of the Occupying Power, which is not entirely the responsibility of the International Red Cross, We must seek to protect rather the nationals of the country.

Mr. Castberg (Norway, Gvt,) supported Mr. Cohn's proposal because he considered that this new paragraph would protect the nationals of an occupied country against an invasion of people coming from other territories and who would have to be fed, etc .. •

The Commission, on a proposal from MM. Holmgren (Sweden, CRO) .. and Abus (Turkey, CR) decided to postpone its decision on this article and to wait until Mr. Cohn's proposal has been distributed,

The "hesitancy" mentioned in the Commentary seems to be regarding whether this belongs in the Convention altogether because Mr. Pilloud said that transferring people from a nation to an occupied territory is a crime against the people themselves, and therefore doesn't fit in an article about the rights of the occupied. This sure makes it sound like "transfer" means against their will.

Mr. Castberg, however, says that the crime would be the occupiers taking away limited resources from the occupied, and that should be a violation. If his logic is correct, then settlements that do not affect natural resources would not be an issue. But even he could admit that the transfer being prohibited is forcible.

The second part says:

My translation:

Article 45 M. Cohn (Denmark, Gvt,) proposed the following addendum to article 45: 'The occupying Power may not deport or transfer part of its own population or of the population of another territory which it occupies within the territory occupied by it. "

After a discussion took part Mr. Clattenburg (USA, Gvt,) who considers that this paragraph has a much too broad meaning, Mr. Wershof (Canada, Gvt,) and Mr. G. Pilloud (ICRC), the deputy Commission adopted this amended paragraph as follows "The Occupying Power may not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population to the territory occupied by it". Mr Wershof (Canada, Gvt,) points out that he abstained from voting, not that he. condemns the sentiments expressed in this paragraph, but he considers that this conference is not qualified to examine questions of this kind in this paragraph and finds that the Convention is not intended to show Nations how they act in war.

Apparently, the first language was dismissed, so Mr. Cohn changed it - but this time he added specifically that the transfer could be of a nation's own citizens or people in other occupied territories.

This is pretty clearly talking only about forced transfer! People in occupied territories couldn't decide to move to another occupied territory on their own.

Footnote 14, which the ICRC says indicates that the words "deport" and "transfer" have different meanings, is for the Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 664. I can only find this one section that indicates what they are saying, and it is not very clear to me:

Mr. MARESCA (Italy) said that in the last war the flower of Italian youth had been sent to Germany in cattle trucks. Such forced transfers must at all events be prohibited in the future. The term "deportation" in the last paragraph of the Article had better not be used, as "deportation" was something quite different.

But the word "deport" was kept in the final paragraph! And he didn't say anything about "transfer."

There is not the slightest indication that the word "transfer" in all these cases means anything beyond forcible transfer. After all, who could have imagined a situation where nationals want to move out? The phenomenon of Israeli settlements is not one imagined by the drafters.

Later on, the entire article is discussed without making any distinctions between paragraphs:

The CHAIRMAN, before declaring the discussion on Article 45 closed, noted that the Committee was unanimous in condemnation of the abominable practice of deportation. The sole purpose of every speaker had been to strengthen the interdictory provisions of the Article. He suggested that deportations should, in the same way as the taking of hostages, be solemnly prohibited in the Preamble.

This mirrors what I had found in my 2012 post on the topic - discussions of the article as a whole never made an exception for paragraph 6 as far as meaning forcible transfers. The only real question was whether such transfers belong in the Geneva Conventions that are meant to protect those inside the occupied territories.

Secondary sources that agree with me that paragraph 6 refers to forced transfers are summarized in a 2011 article by Alan Baker:

The international lawyer Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State, stated in 1990:

[T]he Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviet Union during and before the Second World War – the mass transfer of people into and out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor or colonization, for example….The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been “deported” or “transferred” to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent.

Ambassador Morris Abram, a member of the U.S. staff at the Nuremburg Tribunal and later involved in the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is on record as stating that the convention:

was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people.

Similarly, international lawyer Prof. Julius Stone, in referring to the absurdity of considering Israeli settlements as a violation of Article 49(6), stated:

Irony would…be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that…the West Bank…must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6.)

My reading of the source material as specifically meaning forced transfer is supported by very distinguished law experts.

It seems pretty clear that Geneva does not prohibit the settlements.

(h/t Andre)

08/17 Links Pt2: Cancel the Durban IV Review Conference; Israeli Survey of US Universities Sees Left-Leaning Groups as ‘Significant’ Source of Campus Antisemitism

From Ian:

Amb. Alan Baker: Cancel the Durban IV Review Conference

In what can only be seen as an amazing act of institutional masochism and hypocrisy by the international community, the upcoming UN General Assembly’s opening meetings in September 2021, attended by heads of state and government, will “commemorate” the 20th anniversary of the infamous 2001 Durban conference.1

The 2001 Durban World Conference, aiming to address the struggle against racism, was abused by Muslim and Arab states and anti-Israel non-governmental organizations and became a blatant antisemitic and anti-Israel hate-fest, singling out and lynching Israel in such a manner as to permanently taint the name of the Durban conference.

The damage caused by this public condemnation of Israel laid the groundwork for a concerted campaign in the international community to undermine and delegitimize the State of Israel and served as the inspiration for the launching of the infamous BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanction) campaign that continues to be waged against Israel.

The UN and its respective High Commissioners for Human Rights have attempted to re-legitimize the Durban process through Review Conferences in 2009 and 2011, which reaffirmed the Durban I conference declarations and plans of action, thereby in effect reaffirming and sanctioning the calls to delegitimize Israel.

This process will be repeated soon at the upcoming Durban IV conference at the UN in September 2021.

Durban must be expunged and forgotten. The international community must set about dealing with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and antisemitism in a genuinely serious, a-political, and non-hypocritical manner, far from Durban.

Now that we know from Biden's speech yesterday that he takes his predecessors diplomatic commitments seriously, I expect him to shelve all discussions of opening a PA consulate in Jerusalem, and revive the Trump Framework for peace.
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) August 17, 2021

Daniel Gordis: Forego the Jewish State to save Liberal Zionism?

Two guys are sitting in a bar in Amsterdam. (They aren’t—but bear with me.) One of them was born in the United States, yet left years ago, brimming with distaste for what America had become. Now he lives in Amsterdam and teaches continental philosophy at a university there, enjoying the tulips and the beer.

The other was born in Holland. He spent a few years in the U.S. but hasn’t been back in a while, either. He didn’t like America much, either. Nasty place—anti-intellectual red states, terrible treatment of immigrants on the Texas border, the politics of masks trumping science. The list goes on. “Yup, America’s done,” they say to each other, with knowing nods, as they clink their bottles, taking another swig of the ice-cold Heineken.

They’ve met up at the bar to celebrate the new book that the one who was born in the US but now lives in Holland wrote about the US. The point of the book? Well, the US is highly imperfect, and he can’t really see any way to fix it. The only way to save the American dream is to break up the Union. Create a “more perfect union” by having no union at all.

Oh, and he wrote the book in Dutch.

So here are my questions: First, aside from perhaps getting himself a few reviews in his echo-chamber and maybe another notch on the proverbial academic bedpost, what’s the point of the book? Does he imagine that anyone in America is going to think about disbanding the union because of a guy who was born in America, left it, and bereft of solutions to complex problems, has decided to end the project? Does he really imagine he’s going to move any policy needle in America? And if he really hoped he’d engender a conversation, why did he write the book in Dutch?

I begin with that little analogy because of two very different sorts of conversations that crossed my screen this week, two pieces that I think are emblematic of the radically different conversations unfolding about Israel—one in the US and one in Israel, the latter conversation sadly almost never making it into the English press and thus remaining pretty much unknown in America. (Hence, Israel from the Inside.)

The Israel Guys: This Little Girl Was Used by the BBC As Anti-Israel Propaganda

The BBC ran an article recently with a heart-wrenching photo of a little girl sitting on a pile of rubble in Gaza. What they failed to mention however, is that the photo was staged, and the pile of rubble was home to a terrorist organization.

When will the international media be held responsible for their discrimination and lies? When will Hamas be rightfully held responsible for child abuse, instead of Israel falsely accusing Israel of the same crime?

*Correction at 1:41: should be "600 rockets were fired at the civilian population of Israel" (not Gaza)

This is an important topic. Please share this video widely.

The Alma Research and Education Center makes a very good pont:

The Taliban had an apparent goal - to regain control of Afghanistan, now it does so with a great deal of American equipment. And that brought me back to Hezbollah that is here across the border. Lebanon is also a failed state. How will the Lebanese army behave the day Hezbollah decides to take over Lebanon officially?

Half of the Lebanese army soldiers are Shiites - many of them from Hezbollah's support base...

As an Israeli, I am very uncomfortable with apocalyptic predictions. Still, when I look at what is happening in Afghanistan, I am concerned about the ease with which an extremist ideology wins and brings a country into the dark days of oppression of women and the growth of terrorist cells.

It's true. While Hamas already controls a defined area, it isn't a state and doesn't want to be (until they take over the West Bank as well.) But Hezbollah has a great deal of control over Lebanon - complete control of South Lebanon and veto control over the government, as well as an army more powerful than the Lebanese army. If Lebanon collapses, it can turn into an Islamist state instantly.

And as far as the Shiite/Sunni divide, they might hate each other but they cooperate when it is in their own self-interest.

The Syrian army has put the area of Daraa al-Balad - with 40,000 residents - under siege since June.

Daraa was where the Syrian revolution started. In 2018, a Russian brokered agreement allowed the rebels to maintain some power while many were forcibly deported to northern Syria. Now Syria is breaking that agreement.

Ammar, an activist and journalist living in Daraa who asked not to use his last name, said the situation for civilians was increasingly desperate. “Civilians are trapped in Daraa al-Balad and Daraa’s [refugee] camp,” he said via an encrypted messaging platform. “Because of the presence of regime forces and pro-Iranian militias near these areas, dozens of families are completely besieged to the extent that they are unable to leave their homes due to sniper fire.”

“These besieged neighborhoods have also lost access to the only medical point that was working due to a critical lack of medical supplies,” he said. Speaking on the international community, Ammar called for immediate action to protect civilians and “prevent the [regime’s] military campaign.” “The sectarian militias are obstructing agreements in southern Syria and are drastically escalating the military situation,” he said.

Bakeries have been forced to close. There are no medical corridors for the injured to leave for treatment.

The world doesn't care.

Even though there is an UNRWA-run camp in Deraa, with thousands of Palestinians living there because they couldn't find a better place to go. They are suffering from having no food, no medical aid, and no water. UNRWA says that there are some 30,000 Palestinians in southern Syria, caught between Syrian forces, Russian influence and the Iranian desire to build a military zone there adjacent to Israel.

But the civilians of Daraa, and the Palestinians there, have a much bigger problem: Israel has nothing to do with this.

That's why the world ignores them. That's why 99% of articles from the region that mention "siege" or "collective punishment" or "ethnic cleansing" or "Palestinian suffering" aren't talking about Daraa.

The people of Daraa would trade places with Palestinians in Gaza in an instant. They would love to be in a place where they are warned to leave their houses before they are bombed or shot. They would love to be somewhere with hospitals and well-stocked supermarkets and malls. They would love to be under a "siege" where food, electronics and other goods are imported and exported.

Daraa, Syria is closer to Haifa than Gaza is. The hundreds of Western journalists in Israel could easily drive into Jordan and be on Daraa's footstep, they could interview refugees, they could publicize the crimes against humanity. NGOs could issue reports with details of individuals who suffered losses. The media could publish a count of the number of casualties on each side. They could have articles about Palestinians who are suffering under Syrian fire.

But that won't happen. And the only reason that Gaza gets the media and Daraa doesn't is because no one can blame Jews for the inhumane siege of Daraa.

08/17 Links Pt1: Elliott Abrams: Afghanistan and the Abraham Accords; Ben-Dror Yemini: The fall of Kabul is warning sign for Israel; Col Kemp: Greatest humiliation for America and the West in decades

From Ian:

Elliott Abrams: Afghanistan and the Abraham Accords

Simply put, Arab states face numerous threats and see their region as one where Iran, Turkey, and Israel are the most powerful nations. They also see a decline in American willingness to use power to protect U.S. interests—and to protect U.S. allies. Witness, for example, the failure of the Biden administration to respond to the Iranian drone attack on the Mercer Street commercial vessel in the Arabian Sea last month, which killed two members of the ship’s crew, or the Trump administration’s failure to respond when Iranian-backed terrorists attacked the Abqaiq petroleum facility in Saudi Arabia in 2019.

What is happening in Afghanistan will deepen the impression among Arab governments that they cannot rely on the United States to protect their security as they used to. So those states have increasingly drawn the conclusion that they have one neighbor who unlike Iran or Turkey poses no threat to them, and who continually displays a firm willingness to use military power against its enemies. That’s Israel. Israel in addition has a modern economy based on exceptional high-tech achievements, and maintains not only a close alliance with the United States but working relationships with Russia and China. For the Arabs, then, the Abraham Accords were at long last the victory of self-interest over ideology –and over outmoded versions of Arab nationalism and support for Palestinians.

This is a boon for Israel, and seeing Arab states draw closer to Israel is a benefit for the United States as well, because we maintain close relations with many of them. But the reason for this development is problematic. It does not primarily reflect U.S. pressures or urgings, especially under the Biden administration. Instead it reflects a realpolitik judgment about the U.S. role in the region, and about our willingness to act to protect allies, friends, and even ourselves. The collapse in Afghanistan will only deepen the doubts and fears many countries --including Israel and the Arab states-- have about America’s role in the world, and about the Biden administration’s understanding of the challenges we face.

Ben-Dror Yemini: The fall of Kabul is warning sign for Israel

There are those in the U.S. willing to dismiss nearly half a million dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the $6.4 trillion – an amount equal France's annual GDP – that went up in smoke. While they may assert that "an agreement" will make everything okay, Israel has no such option.

Anyone seeking to understand what will now happen to Afghanistan - and probably Iraq in the near future - should take a look at the Gaza Strip as a test case.

The images of Taliban militants marching victoriously through the streets of Kabul will only whet the appetites of their acolytes, wherever they may be.

If they are successful in bringing the world's most powerful nation to its knees, everyone else should be a mere pushover.

This massive geopolitical shift affects Israel directly. There is no need for most Palestinians to support Hamas or Sharia law. All that it takes is one fanatical fundamentalist group with boundless determination, regardless of public support or lack thereof.

With the Taliban defeating the Soviet Union and now the U.S., the implicit conclusion is that without Israel's security control, Ramallah - the West Bank seat of power for the Palestinian Authority - will fall to Hamas much faster than Kabul fell.

This does not mean that Israel now needs to take extreme measures such as annexing the West Bank or increasing its settler presence, both decisions that will prove fatal, but that the country's security establishment must start to think outside the box.

All nations of the West suffered complete strategic blindness to the dangers of the Taliban and Israel must take care that it does not catch it too.

Col Kemp: Greatest humiliation for America and the West in decades

We are now in transition from an elected — if deeply flawed — administration to a bunch of murderous thugs who just marched in and demanded control. Despite the lying platitudes of Taliban spokesmen the benighted Afghan people will see an immediate return to the unmitigated savagery of pre-2001 days — execution and amputation for transgressing the strict sharia code, women stoned to death, girls banned from school, institutionalised rape and recreational killing.

Afghans have already begun fleeing from these horrors and many more will follow, with a favourite route crossing Iran, into Turkey and on to Europe.

We are in direct danger too. This victory for the Taliban has already been proclaimed by jihadists everywhere who will be inspired and emboldened by it. Those that think the Taliban has broken with Al Qaida can think again. In reality the relationship between the two has strengthened and deepened over the last 20 years. The Islamic State too now has a significant and growing presence in Afghanistan. We will soon see jihadists from around the world pour into the country as they did before 9/11. They will train, organize and plan for strikes against the West, including Britain.

One of the greatest concerns over a Taliban takeover has long been the risk of further instability in Pakistan, with the potential of jihadists gaining control of their nuclear weapons. The prospects of that nightmare scenario just increased.

Strategically the catastrophe is at least as great. Biden’s decision means America’s word will be seen to count for nothing by governments across the world that we had hoped to win onto our side against the despots in Beijing and Moscow. Those same despots will conclude that America is weaker than they thought and work to exploit it.

Sunday, August 15 is the date the Abraham Accords were signed and became official -- making this past Sunday the first anniversary of the Accords.

Of course, for all that they have accomplished over that one-year period, the Abraham Accords are not the first peace treaty that Israel has ever signed with an Arab country. That distinction belongs to the peace agreement that Israel signed with Egypt in March 1979.

Even so, everyone agrees that while the Abraham Accords represents a major breakthrough in the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab signers to the agreement, the peace treaty with Egypt, by contrast, is a cold peace.

Yet, we have forgotten just how similar that first peace treaty was supposed to be to the Abraham Accords.

According to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, Mar. 26, 1979, art. III.3

The Parties agree that the normal relationship established between them will include full recognition, diplomatic, economic and cultural relations, termination of economic boycotts and discriminatory barriers to the free movement of people and goods, and will guarantee the mutual enjoyment by citizens of the due process of law. [emphasis added]

Rael Isaac, in a 1993 article in Commentary Magazine notes the extent to which real normalization and cooperation was planned between the two countries:

Under the terms of the agricultural agreement, for example, Israel and Egypt promised to “undertake joint research projects in fields of major interest, including the exchange of scientists, joint seminars and symposia, and exchange of research information.”
...A similarly detailed agenda was adumbrated by the cultural agreement, which in Israel’s perspective assumed special importance as a means of transforming attitudes among an Egyptian public accustomed to the demonization of the Jewish state. Here the two countries pledged “contacts and exchange of visits of experts in the cultural, artistic, technical, scientific, and medical fields”; “exchange of cultural, educational, and scientific publications”; “exchange of archeological and technical reproductions”; “exchange of art objects and the encouragement of holding scientific, technological, and plastic-arts exhibitions”; and “exchange of radio and television programs, recordings, and tapes, as well as cultural and scientific films.”

Israel and Egypt further promised to “facilitate visits of scientists, scholars, and research workers of the other country”; to develop special-equivalence “diplomas, certificates, and academic degrees”; and to “encourage and promote youth and sport activities between youth and sports institutions in each country.”

That description could just as easily describe the Abraham Accords.

But 3 years after the Egyptian peace agreement was finalized, relations between the 2 countries simply froze.

Why 3 years?

Because April 1982 was when Israel completed its 3-year phased withdrawal from the Sinai.

True, Anwar Sadat, who had led Egypt into Camp David, had by then been assassinated, and Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June of that year did not help matters. But the fundamental reason for the freeze was later offered by King Hassan of Morocco. He reported in 1984 that Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak, had told him the treaty was empty of substance since “Cairo had obtained from it what it could.” [emphasis added]

Just how bad did things get?

o Two Egyptian newspapers, Al-Akhbar (December 30, 1988) and Al-Masa’a (December 11, 1991), portrayed the blowing up of the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, as an Israeli plot.
o Israel was accused of introducing hoof-and-mouth disease into Egypt (Al-Ahram, June 8, 1987);
o And accused of exporting radiation-contaminated food to Egypt (Al-Ahram, April 21, 1987);
o And accused of introducing “most of the plagues that afflict agriculture and animal health” (Al-Jumhuriyah, September 13, 1988);
o And accused of causing earthquakes in Egypt (Al-Wafd, December 27, 1992);
o And accused of bombing the World Trade Center in New York while contriving to throw blame on the Arabs (Al-Jumhuriyah, April 5, 1993);
o And accused of introducing AIDS into Egypt (Rose Al-Yusuf, July 2, 1990);
And accused of polluting the entire globe (Rose Al-Yusuf, June 15, 1992).

Isaac quotes Jimmy Carter in an interview with Charlie Rose when he claimed "the treaty has been meticulously observed on both sides.” Yes, the cessation of overt military hostilities was -- and is -- being maintained, but Egypt's honoring of the agreement as a whole falls far short of "meticulous."

Evil portrayals of Jews and Israel in the Egyptian media cannot exist side-by-side peaceful relations between Egypt and Israel.

Something bad is bound to happen.

As an example of how bad things got, in 1995 there was an incident in Egypt reminiscent of the Island of Peace Massacre in 1997 where a Jordanian soldier shot and killed 7 Israeli High School girls at an observation post on the Jordan River island of Naharayim. In the Egyptian incident, an Egyptian policeman shot and killed 7 Israeli tourists. There were accusations that lives could have been saved if the Egyptian authorities had allowed victims to be evacuated to the hospital sooner -- and that Egyptian police fired at Israeli tourists who tried to come to the aid of one victim who bled to death.

Part of the problem is the idea of normalization itself.

Isaac describes Egypt's attitude to normalization in a way Palestinian Arabs today would likely agree:

For Egypt normalization was yet another form of Israeli aggression. Thus an article in Al-Jumhuriyah (June 4, 1985) complained: “Israel thinks that Camp David entitles it to a cultural and economic invasion of Egypt. That is why it insists on normalization and on special relations with Egypt. . . .” [emphasis added]

By comparison, Abbas last year attacked the normalization of the Abraham Accords as a “violation” of a “just and lasting solution under international law”.

Another parallel might be drawn in the way the US enforces the Israel-Egypt peace agreement in comparison with the Abraham Accords.

According to Isaac:

The United States also, despite the leverage it possessed over Egypt by virtue of military and economic aid, made no effort to hold Egypt to its normalization commitments—even though that aid was premised upon Egypt’s signature on the treaty whose provisions it now ignored.

That economic aid includes the $3 billion Abraham Fund that is supposed to promote economic cooperation and that military aid is intended for use against the very real threat of Iran. In fact, the Biden administration cannot even bring itself to use the phrase "Abraham Accords." The major reason for Biden dragging his feet on this is the fact that the Abraham Accords are a product of the Trump administration. As to why the US has not done more to get Egypt to honor its peace agreement with Israel is not clear.

But on its most basic level, the peace agreement with Egypt does succeed, no matter how "cold," on the same level as the Abraham Accords -- as a defense against common enemies -- in Egypt's case, dealing with jihadists operating out of the Sinai and with Hamas.

After all, there are bound to be areas of enlightened self-interest between countries. Especially in a tough neighborhood like the Middle East.

But the Abraham Accords succeed where the peace treaties with Egypt -- and Jordan -- fail because the Accords have been built from the bottom up. They are based on what has proven to be a genuine desire among the people of the countries themselves for peace and actually cooperation. A desire for normalization that even goes beyond the need to defend against the threat of Iran which made the Abraham Accords necessary to begin with.

Israel continued to ease restrictions on the Gaza Strip in recent days.

Today, Israel informed Gaza authorities that it will allow building materials into Gaza for the first time since the May war, but only for the private sector and humanitarian projects.

Similarly, Israel will allow telecommunications equipment for the private sector.

Israel is working on a way for Qatar to donate money directly to Gazans through a UN mechanism, after Palestinian banks balked, concerned that they might be sued for terrorist funding.

Earlier this week, Israel resumed allowing Gaza merchants and businesspeople - over a thousand a day - to cross into Israel to work out deals for imports and exports, as they did (quietly) before COVID. (Only those with COVID antibodies are allowed to enter.)

So tensions should be easing, right?

Of course not.

Last week the IDF shot down a Hamas drone that flew into Israeli territory.

Yesterday, Gaza terror groups shot a rocket towards Israel that was intercepted by Iron Dome, with another falling short in Gaza.

Gaza groups announced their intention to resume riots at the Gaza fence and an increase in balloon firebombs later this week. Hamas acknowledged that Israel has been working on easing restrictions - and saying that this isn't enough.

What's the difference between the Taliban and Hamas?

What is the exact difference between the Taliban and Hamas?

Both are Islamist groups that have taken over a geographic area.

Both govern according to their interpretation of Islamic Sharia law.

Both take rights away from women.

Both are viciously violent against their political opponents.

But when Hamas attacks Israeli civilians, we are told "armed resistance is legal under international law."

When Hamas says that women cannot travel without a male guardian the world shrugs.

When Hamas takes suspected "collaborators" out of prison and kills them publicly by dragging them along the street, Human Rights Watch pretends it was some rogue element and calls on Hamas to investigate - itself.

Everyone is outraged at the Taliban, but no one is outraged at Hamas. On the contrary - Hamas is considered far more legitimate a government than the Taliban.

There's no difference between them. But Hamas has one advantage: people hate Jews and therefore, people support Hamas over the Jewish state.

Everything else Hamas does - which is everything the Taliban does - can be swept under the rug so as not to diminish from people's hate of Israel.

08/16 Links Pt2: We can no longer ignore anti-Zionist Jews; It is time for Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's existence; Israel Sends Emergency Team to Help With Devastating Earthquake in Haiti

From Ian:

We can no longer ignore anti-Zionist Jews - opinion

The new anti-Zionist Jews are not like members of the Satmar Hassidic community who hold the theological belief that Jews should not have a state of their own until a miraculous messianic era. The new anti-Zionist Jews are Jews who have decided to wage war against other Jews. They are Jews who advocate for economic boycotts of Israel, which will rob other Jews of their means of livelihood; they are Jews lobbying to limit weapons sales to Israel, choking the Jewish state's ability to defend itself, they are Jews seeking to tilt public opinion against Israel and seeking to diplomatically isolate Israel. This is not about Israel being in the land of Israel with all of the historical and religious meanings that might have; this is about waging war against the largest Jewish community in the world. It is about taking an active role in seeking to harm other Jews.

Peter Beinart could have taken whatever position he wanted on what the meaning of Zionism is. Joining Ben and Jerry's campaign to actively boycott other Jews, whether they live inside or outside the Green Line, in Uganda or Iran, crosses a red line. It is the kind of behavior we cannot contain as a community. This brings us to why it is that Zionism plays a role in our communities when not religiously mandated or inspired.

Two things that have always brought together Jews regardless of place or ideology have been the concept of arevut – a commitment to the well-being of fellow Jews – and a shared belief in the need to secure the future of the Jewish people. Jewish institutions in America did not just pop up. They were built with immense sacrifices.

I think of my grandfather Rabbi Bernard Poupko who miraculously fled the Soviet Union in the 1930s just to come and help build Hillel Day School and much of the Jewish communal structure in Pittsburgh, or of my friend and hero, Rabbi Joseph Polak, who survived the Holocaust to become the Rabbi of Hillel in Boston University and raise funds to build one of the most beautiful and successful Hillel Houses in North America. They sweated and bled because of their commitment to the Jewish people and our shared future.

It is time for Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's existence - opinion

ALTHOUGH MILLIONS of Israelis still sympathize with the Palestinian cause and want to end the conflict on the basis of a two-state solution, they are often treated with disdain by other Israelis because they are assumed to be ignorant of the Palestinians’ real intentions. And of course, leave it to the Palestinians to engage in a narrative that inflicts the most injury on themselves and obscures their legitimate demands to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Meanwhile, look at what has transpired over the past 73 years. Israel has become one of the most advanced nations in just about every field of endeavor and with formidable military prowess, while millions of Palestinians continue to languish in refugee camps. Why? Every Palestinian of conscience and knowledge must ask this question. Why have their so-called leaders led them astray one generation after another clinging to an illusion, and betrayed every Palestinian who wants to live with dignity and grow and prosper in peace and security?

I am the last one to suggest that Israel did not play a role in perpetuating the Palestinian plight; it certainly took advantage of the Palestinians’ weak leadership while successfully pursuing a policy of "divide and conquer," pitting one Palestinian segment against another. Meanwhile, Israel is expanding its foothold and taking hard measures against the Palestinians in the occupied territories to keep them at bay. Moreover, Israel uses national security as a blanket insurance policy under which it could justify the occupation, the settlements and its continued resistance to the creation of a Palestinian state. To that end, Israel developed the most comprehensive security apparatus, and no longer feels pressure. For a growing number of Israelis, the status quo has become the new normal with which they can live comfortably.

One other sad implication of the Palestinians’ unruly resistance to Israel’s right to exist is that the Arab states who championed the Palestinian cause for decades are losing patience and no longer make normalization of relations with Israel conditional upon the establishment of a Palestinian state. In addition to Egypt and Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have recently normalized relations with Israel because their strategic interests outweigh their concerns over the Palestinian cause.

It is a wake-up call for all Palestinians, from the most moderate to the staunchest extremist. They must disabuse Israel of the belief that the Palestinians cannot be trusted and instead put Israel on the defensive by ending the dead-end narrative of from the river to the sea, and mean it. To be sure, the longer they hammer this illusion, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza will become an illusion too.

The United Church of Christ's obsession with Israel - opinion

At the 33rd General Synod in July the church took an approach very different from its approach heretofore. Instead of framing the conflict in political terms, it focused on theological interpretations grounded in a document issued in July 2020 by Kairos Palestine, the Palestinian Christian group that actively solicits American Christian denominations, including the Presbyterians, Methodists, and UCC. “Cry for Hope: A Call for Decisive Action,” the Kairos document, proclaimed that “support for the oppression of the Palestinian people, whether passive or active, through silence, word or deed, is a sin.”

This year’s Synod statement “is not just a call to action. It is, centrally, a confession of faith and principles,” wrote Hans Holznagel on the UCC website in May, ahead of the July virtual conference. The resolution, “Declaration for a Just Peace Between Palestine and Israel,” adopted on July 18 by a vote of 462 to 78, declared “Israel’s continued oppression of the Palestinian people a sin in violation of the message of the biblical prophets and the Gospel.” It firmly rejected “the notion that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is a purely political problem.” Notable is the lack of clarity of what constitutes Palestine in the view of the UCC. The “text of the motion,” following the preamble, opens with “whereas for over seventy years Palestinian people have faced dispossession of their land.”

This view that the “occupation” began not in 1967 but in 1948 is the conviction of extremist Palestinians, notably Hamas, who firmly believe that the Jews are colonial intruders, have no connection to the land, and must be expunged. In the entire UCC declaration there is no mention of Hamas, which has governed Gaza since 2007, is committed to Israel’s destruction, opposes any peace initiatives, and in May initiated another conflict by firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately at Israel’s cities.

The UCC declaration rejects “the imposition of so-called peace agreements by Israel or the United States,” but does not identify any of them, while totally ignoring genuine peace offers by Israel, with American support, that have been consistently spurned by the Palestinian Authority.

THE LATEST UCC resolution is a disservice to those truly committed to achieving durable Israeli-Palestinian peace and no doubt will be enshrined in the permanent record of UCC policy toward Israel. Other Protestant churches may well emulate the UCC’s new theological approach when they convene next year and, as they do regularly, prepare and adopt statements condemning Israel. Repetitions of accusations and judgments do not make them any truer and certainly do not advance peace.

From Haaretz:

Toasting marshmallows around the campfire, splashing in a lake and competing in color wars are all images that come to mind when we think of classic summer camp activities. Comparing narratives about Jerusalem by reading the poetry of Israeli and Palestinian writers Yehuda Amichai and Mahmoud Darwish, or stepping into the shoes of Jewish, Christian and Muslim social justice activists? Not so much.

But a new program launched this summer in the United States, called “Breaking Binaries, Creating Connections,” is attempting to add a new dimension to the Jewish summer camp experience.

In 2018, the need to better equip young Jews for such future challenges came to the fore when the leftist-activist group IfNotNow launched its “You Never Told Me” campaign.

In an open letter that year to their day schools, youth movements and summer camps, a group of young Jewish Americans asserted that they had been denied “the honest truth” about Israel and would “no longer accept an educational approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that ranges from open endorsement of indefinite occupation to saying ‘it’s complicated’ and leaving it at that,” nor “accept a communal norm that will force another generation to only learn about the occupation only once they leave these institutions.”

That campaign (which led to a syllabus drawn up by Jewish educators, spiritual leaders and students to be used as a resource by institutions and individuals) “rattled” the world of Jewish summer camps and the wider community, said Libby Lenkinski, the NIF’s vice president of public engagement, who is spearheading the new camp curriculum effort.

The problem of Jewish teens going to college completely unprepared to discuss Israel is a real problem.

The solution isn't to give all narratives equal weight. That is not how to educate kids - itis how to confuse them and let them know that their fellow Jews in Israel are awful human beings who don't give a damn about human rights.

Any Jewish camp or school must teach from the perspective of "here is what the other side says, and here is why it is wrong." Students and campers would have the opportunity to ask the hard questions but the important part is that they would know that there are answers, even if the answers are sometimes difficult.

Just like it would be unfair to ask kids to look objectively at any negative feelings their neighbors and parents' coworkers might feel about their family, it is irresponsible to raise them to think that the Israeli side of the story is just one of many, and that those who want to destroy the Jewish state have just as much of a right to describe it as Jews do. Even if that description is in a beautiful poem.

So, yes, kids should know both sides, know what side they are on - and know how to answer the other side. They should know the arguments and understand them, but they need to be brought up with a sense of right and wrong and not that everyone is equally right.

The "right of return" sounds very reasonable unless you know its history and real goals.

"Occupation" sounds awful unless you know Israel's valid claims to the territory and the dangers it faced before 1967 as well as Palestinian rejection of a state with terror.

"5 million refugees" sounds terrible unless you compare them to other real refugees and understand what the definition of refugee is, and how innocent people are used as weapons. against Israel.

"67 kids killed in Gaza" sounds horrific if one if ignorant about the difficulties of war in an urban area where the combatants purposefully hide behind children.

Yes, some Palestinians have suffered and deserve sympathy, empathy and help. But that doesn't make them automatically right, nor righteous.

And teaching the history of Zionism without putting it in the context of both Jewish history in the Land, and of historic Muslim and Arab antisemitism, is irresponsible.

This the the education that the organized, Zionist community has failed at, and it is 70 years past due.

08/16 Links Pt1: Biden Just Made America and the World Much Less Secure; The US should have learned from IDF withdrawals

From Ian:

Noah Rothman: Joe Biden Just Made America and the World Much Less Secure

Eighty years ago, the West’s appeasers howled in unison “Why Die for Danzig?” Why wouldn’t today’s “peacemakers” be just as inclined to question the value of a global war against Russia over Tallinn? At least, that’s what the Kremlin’s hungriest revanchists must be asking themselves.

It’s a perfectly rational question. After all, even America’s allies were shocked to watch the United States so callously sacrifice an ally for no discernible strategic purpose and under no perceptible pressure from the voting public. Our caprice has shaken the faith that we will defend our partners’ interests around the world if we’re unwilling to bear the modest burdens associated with preserving our own.

As the Washington Post’s Liz Sly reported over the weekend, U.S. allies are fit to be tied over the shambolic handling of Afghanistan. “U.S. allies complain that they were not fully consulted on a policy decision that potentially puts their own national security interests at risk,” Sly reported. One German official raged over the Biden administration’s haughty disregard for European security. “We’re back to the transatlantic relationship of old, where the Americans dictate everything,” she snarled. Another British parliamentarian wondered aloud about whether America under Joe Biden would or even could stand up to its peer competitors if it is “being defeated by an insurgency armed with no more than [rocket-propelled grenades], land mines, and AK-47s?” And in the Middle East, which continues to be menaced by an increasingly extroverted Iran, some are now conceding that American involvement in the region ends up ultimately being more trouble than it’s worth.

Advocates for American retrenchment abroad fancy themselves a serious sort. They don’t think America should commit its resources to the defense of interests on purely moral grounds. So, if they are not moved by the sight of Afghans we abandoned to the Taliban clinging to U.S. transport planes, tumbling to their deaths from hundreds of feet up, perhaps they will be moved by they will be moved by the grave implications to U.S. interests and global security. If not, we can safely assume that their interests are not as benign as they insist. Perhaps pursuing what’s best for America at home and abroad isn’t their only or even foremost motive.

Melanie Phillips: The rout of America

In the unholy armoury of the enemies of the west, their single most important weapon is their understanding that the west is no longer willing to do what it needs to do to defend itself. It is no longer willing to be in it for the long haul. It no longer has the stomach for a fight.

In baleful contrast, jihadis take the longest possible view. They have been waging holy war against the enemies of Islam — as they view them — since the seventh century; and for them this holy war won't end until the whole world is under Islamic rule or the world itself ends, whichever comes first.

The west just doesn’t understand that mindset. It doesn’t understand cultures so very different from itself, and tries fatuously to fit them into a western template. It doesn’t understand that in Islamic societies negotiation is regarded as a sign of incipient surrender and therefore incites further aggression to achieve final victory. It doesn’t understand that Islamic religious fanaticism is fuelled not by helplessness or despair but by exultation.

When in the 1980s America and Britain rejoiced in the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the war fronted by the Afghan mujahideen, they ignored the warnings from a prescient few that the people who had been energised and incentivised were Islamists who viewed their victory over the Soviet empire as a precursor to and augury of their forthcoming victory over the American empire.

Those warnings were borne out. Afghanistan became the crucible of al Qaeda, providing a base for Osama bin Laden and resulting in the 9/11 attacks. Now Afghanistan is poised to become jihad-central with rocket-boosters. The Taliban have already released thousands of terrorists from Afghan prisons. Afghanistan will become a magnet and an inspiration for jihadis from all over the world.

For the abandoned Afghan people, the consequences are likely to be hideous. But the malignant effects of this disaster are already rippling way beyond this epicentre of terror.

America’s allies can now see that the US is a faithless friend, the weak link in the chain of western defences and with untold consequences for their own security.

With America on its knees, other enemies of the west — Iran, China Russia — must be rubbing their hands in glee over the opportunities for evil now opening up for them as a result.

David Singer: Israel boosts Biden image while blunting UN and EU Jew-bashing

The decision will give President Biden’s image a much-needed boost in the international arena as his administration battles with the results of his disastrous decision to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan.

This breakthrough represents an affirmative response to the following emotive-packed question posed by UN-Habitat:

“What do you do if you are told you need a permit in order to build a home that would not be demolished, but it is all but impossible to acquire such a permit? This is the situation facing many Palestinians living in Area C in the West Bank.”

UN-Habitat’s own in-depth response is revealing:

“The vast majority of Palestinian applications for Israeli building permits in Area C are rejected by the Israeli authorities on the grounds that the relevant area has not been zoned for construction. This is the case even when the land for which the permit is requested is undisputedly owned by the Palestinian applicant. Consequently, it is virtually impossible for Palestinians to obtain building permits: according to data obtained by the Israeli organization Peace Now from the ICA, between 2009 and 2018 only two per cent of all requests submitted by Palestinians for building permits in Area C were granted (98 out of 4,422).”

Jewish Israelis fare no better.

Both the UN and EU have condemned demolitions of illegally built Arab residences in Area C.

The EU has also become increasingly embroiled in planning and financing unauthorized structures in Area C – which UN-Habitat has confirmed:
“Based on certain criteria, the European Union (EU) collectively, as well as certain individual EU members states, sometimes support the construction of essential infrastructure projects in areas covered by pending local outline plans, despite the risk of demolition and confiscation.”

An EU Report covering 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2020 openly admits:
“According to UN OCHA [UN office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs – ed] 318 Palestinian owned structures were demolished or seized… 38 structures were funded by the EU or EU Member States. 50% of the targeted structures were residential in nature. 30% were agricultural and livelihood related. The total losses were estimated at EUR 124,725, which represents a nearly 40 % increase in financial injury compared to the 36 EU-funded structures demolished during the equivalent period in 2019 that were valued at EUR 89,219”

The EU’s blatant intervention in Area C – and the resulting tensions caused between Israel and the EU - will hopefully be diminished in the future following Israel’s latest decision.

Prime Minister Bennett has vowed to extend Israeli sovereignty to Area C – offering Israeli citizenship to its Arab residents. Treating Jewish and Arab building applications in Area C on an equal footing will blunt UN and EU criticism of Jews being granted permission to build there.

Decisions taken by Bennett’s coalition Government continue to surprise and impress.