The American Kafir

2012/03/29

Anti-terror chief says Frenchman suspected in attack on Indonesian embassy

Filed under: France, Indonesia, Islamist, Terrorism — Tags: — - @ 2:06 pm

Source StarTribune

Anti-terror chief says Frenchman suspected in attack on Indonesian embassy

by: NINIEK KARMINIJAKARTA, Indonesia – A Frenchman who studied with Islamic militants in Indonesia allegedly orchestrated last week’s bombing at the country’s embassy in Paris, a top anti-terrorism official said Thursday, citing intercepted emails and online chats.

The package bomb that exploded March 21 did not cause any injuries or major damage to the building.

Indonesia’s anti-terrorism agency chief Ansyaad Mbai told The Associated Press that French investigators had confirmed that the main suspect is Frederic C. Jean Salvi, who also is believed to have studied for several years with Islamic militants in this predominantly Muslim nation.

The attack was apparently meant as a warning to Indonesia to stop a U.S. and Australia-funded security crackdown that has resulted in the arrests, convictions and imprisonment of hundreds of Islamic militants in recent years.

“There were strong indications he was involved in the bombing at our mission in Paris,” Mbai said.

The Frenchman has been on Indonesia’s wanted list since 2010 when police raided a home in West Java province.

Salvi and several other members of a small terror cell — who had allegedly been planning a car bombing when police swooped in — managed to escape

Indonesia, a secular nation of 240 million people, most of whom are Muslim, has been battling terrorists since 2002 when the al-Qaida-linked Jemaah Islamiyah attacked two nightclubs on Bali island, killing 202 people, many of them foreign tourists.

Though the group carried out several other deadly attacks in the years that followed, it has since been largely dismantled, replaced by several smaller, less organized cells.

Mbai said emails and internet chats intercepted by Indonesian investigators indicated Salvi was involved in the embassy blast and that Indonesian militants helped him.

The bomb appears to be linked to a similar, October 2004 attack on the embassy that injured 10 employees, he said.

Both devices went off at around 5 a.m. and were placed beneath the same window.

Salvi has also been targeted by Interpol for crimes he committed at home, Mbai said. He’s presumed to be in France.

2012/03/27

Whitewashing Islamic Terror in Toulouse

View this document on Scribd

Toulouse attacks expose, and overexpose, French jihadism

Source France 24

Toulouse attacks expose, and overexpose, French jihadism

Toulouse attacks expose, and overexpose, French jihadism

The recent attacks by Toulouse gunman Mohamed Merah have put the spotlight on the threat of French Islamist terrorism. But how widespread is the phenomenon of French-born jihadists and why have they not risen up the terror ranks?

By Leela JACINTO

Shortly after September 11, 2001, a French-born jihadist, Zacarias Moussaoui – sometimes called “the 20th hijacker” – shot into the spotlight when US prosecutors charged him as a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks.

More than a decade later, another French-born, self-confessed jihadist, Mohamed Merah, captured international headlines during a nail-biting, 32-hour siege in Toulouse after he killed seven people – including three children – in a shooting spree in southwest France.

Merah was killed in a police commando raid in Toulouse at the end of the siege while Moussaoui was convicted and is currently serving a life sentence in a Florida prison.

In death and in life, Moussaoui and Merah share similarities in more ways than one.

Both French nationals of North African origins, Moussaoui and Merah were brought up by single mothers in southern France. Like most European-born militant Islamists, their radicalisation process involved at least one trip to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. By most accounts, the two men felt marginalized in the country of their birth.

In the shocked aftermath of the Toulouse attacks, French as well as international news organisations were quick to highlight the fact that Moussaoui and Merah were not the only ones with a shared background.

Concentric circles of Islamisation

Stirred by a plethora of Islamist contents on the Internet, some young French Muslims with bleak socio-economic prospects in the suburbs of France’s cities are being increasingly radicalised.

Their disenchantment with the French state has been stoked on the domestic front by the government’s ban on the niqab (the full Islamic veil) and the ruling party’s focus on French identity, which critics say fuels resentment against the country’s Muslim community.

On the foreign policy front, the presence of French troops in Afghanistan is a common grievance among French Islamists – as is the Palestinian issue.

Estimates of the number of French Islamist militants in global jihadist circles are hard to come by and vary depending on the source.

French authorities believe that between 20 and 30 French nationals are tied to jihadist groups in the Afghanistan-Pakistan area. But according to CNN, a 2010 French intelligence estimate put the potential number as high as 200 or 250.

Mathieu Guidère, a professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at the University Toulouse II-Le Mirail, breaks down Islamists according to their ideological fervor into what he calls four concentric “circles” of extremism.

“The largest circle, that of radical Islamists, are against Western culture and democracy because they believe in the presence of divine law,” said Guidère, adding that these radical Islamists are not violent. He estimates that there are between 400 and 500 French Muslims worldwide in this group.

A smaller circle of Salafists are those revivalists who emphasise the salaf (ancestors), referring to the 7th century companions of the Prophet Muhammed. Guidère believes that there are between 150 and 200 Salafists of French origins.

Islamist jihadists, or the ones who take up jihad or violent action to achieve their goals, number between 10 and 20, according to Guidère’s count.

Finally, there’s the terrorist who has actually turned ideology into lethal action. Guidère believes that since the mid-1990s, there has been just one example of a French-born terrorist who has successfully applied violence, taking it past the plotting or the conspiracy to plot stage: the Toulouse gunman.

Effective security and the influence of ‘French culture’

In a country that is home to Europe’s largest Muslim community – estimates range from 3 to 5 million since the French state does not officially tally religious groups – that is not as alarming as some news reports suggest.

Noman Benotman, a former Libyan jihadist who now works for the London-based counter-extremism think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, notes that, “As far as I can see, there has not been a single incident of a French national conducting a suicide attack – neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan nor Europe”.

Benotman believes there are two reasons for the absence of French-born suicide bombers. “The first definitely has to do with security,” he said. “Security is very effective in France, there’s no doubt about that. The second is the influence of French culture, I believe it’s still very powerful.”

When asked what exactly he meant by the influence of French culture, Benotman chuckled, “You know when you’re French, it’s the way you dress, the taste of food, the way you enjoy the finer things, it’s a lifestyle. This kind of influence will shape your worldview. I believe that French individuals, regardless of their ethnic group, are still under the influence of French culture, including the French values of liberty and democracy. Despite their feelings or their grievances about their situation, they are still within the context of a French culture,” he said.

Ironically, despite the well-documented identity crisis that many children of immigrant parents in the West undergo, Benotman suggests that the strong French cultural identity makes them less willing to offer themselves up on suicide missions and even less disposed to the austerity of jihadist training camps.

A former commander of the now defunct, al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Benotman had met with senior al Qaeda leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri before he publicly renounced violence after the 9/11 attacks.

Benotman is familiar with the rigors of jihadist training camps such as the ones in the Pakistani border region. “It’s not easy at all. They’re in a camp, you can’t do whatever you like, you have to follow orders even if you don’t like it. You think what the hell is this? Why should I listen to all this?” he explained.

French-born jihadists have not risen high up the ranks in global terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, unlike some of their fellow French-speaking comrades who were born and raised in Muslim-dominated former French colonies such as Algeria.

“I think there is a difference within the francophone sphere,” said Benotman. “The Algerians are part of francophone culture but they have a very different experience. They have come out of the 1990s jihad [in Algeria] and the terrorist campaigns there,” he said, referring to the brutal Algerian civil war between the Algerian military and government-backed security services on one side, and various Islamist groups including the GIA (Armed Islamist Group), which splintered into the GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), which in turn merged with al Qaeda’s North African branch, AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), on the other.

The ‘lone wolf’ as a model

In the Toulouse gunman’s case, security experts have noted that Merah was a classic example of the “lone wolf” operator who is not closely linked to an organized network, making it easier for him to slip through security radars.

A ‘small minority’ of French jihadists

Like the case of Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born US citizen who attempted the failed May 2010 Times Square attack, Merah was an individually radicalised, legal resident of a Western country who sought training in the Pakistani border region.

But Benotman is careful to note that, “Tactically they are lone wolves, but strategically, in terms of theory and philosophy, they are part of the global jihadist insurgency led by al Qaeda. This is very important,” he said. “Without this, you can do nothing.”

Following the Toulouse attacks, jihadist websites have been inundated with praise, according to Benotman, with many followers quoting Merah’s boast of bringing “France to its knees”.

Benotman however does not believe Merah’s attack will increase the profile or the respect accorded to French-born jihadist recruits. That, he noted, depends on an individual’s commitment and training. But, he adds Merah’s case could serve as a model for radicalised young men seeking the path to jihad. “That’s the danger,” said Benotman. “If you’re a French Muslim looking for a war with French society, maybe you will look to Merah as a model.”

2012/03/26

France’s Jihadist Shooter Was No Lone Wolf

Filed under: al Qaeda, France, Jihad, National Security — Tags: , — - @ 5:42 pm

Source Wall Street Journal

France’s Jihadist Shooter Was No Lone Wolf

Mohamed Merah was practically a prince in violent extremist circles.

By Jytte Klausen

Zuma Press
Mohamed Merah

Mohamed Merah, the Frenchman who assassinated three French paratroopers of North African background and then launched a terrible attack on a Jewish school—murdering a teacher, his two young sons and an 8-year-old girl—claimed to act for al Qaeda. Skeptics have dismissed the claim, saying al Qaeda barely functions anymore. But Merah was no “lone wolf” and did indeed bear the imprint of al Qaeda.

Young and alienated, Merah had served two years in a juvenile prison for robbery. Was he rejected by French society because of his Algerian background? “He snapped,” say friends. After prison, he was completely cut off from reality, said his lawyer.

In fact, Merah was practically a prince in French jihadist circles. His mother is married to the father of Sabri Essid, a leading member of the Toulouse radical milieu who was captured in Syria in 2006. Essid and another Frenchman were running an al Qaeda safe house in Syria for fighters going to Iraq. In a 2009 trial that came to be known in the press as “Brothers for Iraq,” they and six others were convicted in France of conspiracy for terrorist purposes. Essid was sentenced in 2009 to five years imprisonment.

Family contacts could have been instrumental in setting up Merah’s jihadist contacts and facilitating his travels to South Asia. Le Monde reports that the Pakistani Taliban and the Uzbek Islamic Movement trained Merah to become a killer. In 2010, he was captured in Afghanistan (reportedly by Afghan forces) and handed over to the French government, yet French media report that he was able to return to Northwest Pakistan in 2011.

The French police have confirmed that Merah was under periodic surveillance in recent months. That he slipped through and was able to carry out his attacks will become a source of criticism and self-recrimination on the part of the generally efficient French police. It certainly suggests that he had help from a network.

In executing his attacks, Merah did everything by the jihadist textbook. He made sure he would die a martyr’s death that would be witnessed on television screens around the world. He murdered with a video camera strapped to his body, making him star and director of his own epic. He told journalists his videos would soon be uploaded. In the attack at the Jewish school Monday morning, Merah held a little girl by her hair while he paused to reload his gun. He then shot her. In a recording found in his apartment he tells another victim, a soldier: “You kill my brothers, I kill you.” This is theater.

The Internet was his friend. “I have changed my life . . . on video,” said one of his last tweets (in French) during the siege. His account ID featured a black knight on a horse holding high the flag of jihad.

He signed that last tweet “Mohamed Merah-Forsane Alizza.” Forsane Alizza, or “Knights of Glory,” is a France-based jihadist media organization that was banned in January by French authorities after they discovered members preparing to train in armed combat. The ban made little difference, as content was uploaded to new sites. A website using the Forsane Alizza alias is still active—and registered with a domain name registrar and Web hosting company based in the state of Washington.

Two hours before the police arrived at his apartment, Merah was calling a French TV station. He appears to have had the media on speed-dial and was an active user not only of Twitter but of Facebook and YouTube. (Authorities took down his online outlets one-by-one on Wednesday.)

Merah’s shootings in Toulouse again shatter the illusion that counterterrorism can be 100% successful. Jihadist terrorism exploits our freedoms and opportunities in a global campaign linking foreign insurgencies and extremist activism in the West. Highly scripted and planned with the assistance of accomplices in and outside of France, Merah did not act in isolation.

Ms. Klausen. a professor of politics at Brandeis University and author of “The Cartoons That Shook the World” (Yale University Press, 2009), is founder of the Western Jihadism Project, which tracks and analyzes the development of jihadi networks in the West.

2012/03/21

French officers surround apartment building in search for school shooter claiming al-Qaida links

Filed under: al Qaeda, France, Jews, Murder, Muslim Brotherhood — - @ 8:27 am

Source Article Link Sun Times

French officers surround apartment building in search for school shooter

ASSOCIATED PRESS

TOULOUSE, France — French police surrounded an apartment building where a gunman claiming al-Qaida links and suspected in the killings of three Jewish schoolchildren, a rabbi and three paratroopers barricaded himself Wednesday and stopped talking to negotiators.

An early morning raid by hundreds of police to arrest the 24-year-old Frenchman of Algerian descent erupted into a firefight. Three police officers were wounded, Interior Minister Claude Gueant said.

The suspect told police he belonged to al-Qaida and wanted to take revenge for Palestinian children killed in the Middle East, Gueant said. The suspect also said he was angry about French military intervention abroad, and had spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Gueant said.

The suspect threw a handgun out a window in exchange for a communications device, but he has more weapons, authorities said. An Interior Ministry official identified the suspect as Mohammad Merah, who has been under surveillance for having “fundamentalist” views. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Police swept in soon after 3 a.m. (0200 GMT; 9 p.m. CDT Tuesday) on the residential neighborhood in northern Toulouse where the suspect was holed up. At one point, volleys of gunfire heard around the neighborhood were exchanged. An elite squad was handling the negotiations.

It was part of a manhunt for the shooter who has killed seven people, including French soldiers and Jewish school children, in three attacks in the Toulouse area. In Monday’s attack, the three young children and a rabbi were killed.

“Terrorism will not be able to fracture our national community,” President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a declaration on national television before heading to the funeral services for two paratroopers killed and another injured in nearby Montauban.

The series of attacks — every four days since March 11 — began with the killing of another paratrooper in Toulouse.

The interior minister, who was at the scene of the standoff, said the suspect tossed from his window a Colt 45 used in each of the three attacks. He has other weapons, like an AK-47 machine gun, but is talking with police and said he would surrender in the afternoon, Gueant said.

Read all of the article at Sun Times

2012/03/19

Gunman kills 4 outside Jewish school in France

Filed under: anti-Semitism, France, Jews — Tags: — - @ 2:36 pm

Source Article Link: CBS8.com

Gunman kills 4 outside Jewish school in France

TOULOUSE, France (AP) — A motorcycle gunman opened fire Monday in front of a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse, killing a rabbi, his two small sons and one other child, the prosecutor’s office said.

It was at least the third deadly motorcycle shooting in France in a week, shocking the country and prompting strong emotions and high-level discussions in Israel. French prosecutors were studying possible terrorist links, but the motive for Monday’s attack was unclear.

Concerns about a serial killer emerged, as investigators examined whether Monday’s shooting was linked to two deadly shooting attacks in the Toulouse region last week that killed three French paratroopers and left another seriously injured. French media reported those paratroopers were of Arab origin.

President Nicolas Sarkozy rushed to the school, ordering increased security at Jewish and Muslim buildings around Toulouse, while his prime minister ordered officials to “secure” all school and religious buildings in France.

A 30-year-old man and his 3-year-old and 6-year-old sons were killed in Monday’s attack, just before classes started at the Ozar Hatorah school, a junior high and high school in a quiet residential neighborhood, Toulouse Prosecutor Michel Valet said. Witnesses said the man worked at the school.

Valet said another child, between 8 and 10 years old, was also killed, and a 17-year-old was seriously injured.

“He shot at everything he had in front of him, children and adults,” he said. “The children were chased inside the school.”

Sarkozy denounced “the savagery” of Monday’s attack on a school, and vowed to find the killer or killers. “We will find him,” he said.

Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet told The Associated Press that the suspect in Monday’s school shootings made his getaway on a dark-colored scooter — just as the assailant or assailants did in the two shootings last week.

The school targeted Monday, behind a high white wall with few external markings, was cordoned off by police, who then escorted other children out as forensics police combed the scene.

One officer held a distraught girl, her face in her hands. A mother and son wearing a yarmulke walked away from the site, their faces visibly pained. A video camera was visible at the school’s entrance.

“The drama occurred a bit before 8 a.m. A man arrived in front of the school on a motorcycle or scooter,” Valet said, adding that the man got off his scooter outside the school and opened fire.

Continue Reading All of the Article at CBS8.com

2011/12/07

Perfidious Britain and Treacherous France

Perfidious Britain and Treacherous France

Posted by Joseph Puder

At the recently held Cannes G-20 Summit, the host, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, unaware of the fact that his lapel microphone was live, said to U.S. President Barack Obama, “I cannot stand Netanyahu. He’s a liar.”  And, according to the report by French media website Arret Sur Images, Obama responded with, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day.”  The shameful and hypocritical behavior of Sarkozy and Obama, not to be outdone by Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron, speaks volumes about their perfidy and treachery.

Earlier this year, Sarkozy and Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron threatened Israel with severe consequences if Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not accept the Hamas-Fatah unification, and agree to their demands as a price for the resumption of “peace” talks.  Sarkozy (and Cameron) hinted he will certainly vote for a Palestinian State. Although France ultimately abstained on Palestinian statehood, France voted for the Palestinians to have full membership in UNESCO.

French treachery vis-a-vis Israel has a history.  And, on the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War​ it was on full display, when French President Charles de Gaulle decided to reverse the country’s foreign policy to one in favor of the Arabs, and placed an embargo on weapons deliveries to Israel, despite France’s contractual agreements with Israel. De Gaulle​, who had served as founder and president of France’s Fifth Republic from 1959-1969, had forged an alliance with the Jewish state during a time when both France and Israel fought Arab nationalism in Algeria and Nasser’s Egypt respectively.

In 1960, France promised to supply Israel with 200 AMX-13 tanks and 72 Mystere fighter jets over the next 10-years.  On June 2, 1967, three days before the war broke out, de Gaulle cut Israel off cold.  He told his cabinet that “France will not give its approval to, and still less, support the first nation to use weapons.” De Gaulle’s statement was hypocritical and treacherous since he had already decided to abandon Israel and embrace the Arabs. On November 27, 1967, in a televised news conference, de Gaulle described the Jewish people as “this elite people, sure of themselves and domineering.”

Much of the instability and violence in today’s Middle East has its antecedents in the actions taken by the British and French governments.  While World War I was still going on they met and began to draw the map of the Middle East and drew up what would became known as the Sykes-Picot secret agreement of May 1916.  Following the end of war and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire they created new and mostly artificial nations such as Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, while abandoning minorities such as the Kurds.

On August 10, 1920, a pact between the allies (Britain and France) and the representatives of the Ottoman Turkish government, known as the Treaty of Sevres, abolished the Ottoman Empire and obligated Turkey to renounce all rights over the Arab Middle East and North Africa.  The treaty also provided for the establishment of an autonomous Kurdistan.

The Turks rejected the Treaty of Sevres, and in 1923, Turkey was recognized as an independent nation, with the Treaty of Lausanne subsequently replacing Sevres.  Under its terms, Turkey was no longer obligated to grant the Kurds autonomy.  The treaty divided the Kurdish region among Turkey, Iran, and Syria – with British and French collusion.

Syria became a hodge-podge of ethnic and religious groups.  The French, who were wary of Sunni-Arab nationalism, granted autonomous status to the Alawites. They created an officer cadre from amongst the Alawites, which eventually gave rise to the Assad dictatorships, and Alawite domination of the Syrian military. Today’s upheaval in Syria has a great deal to do with those early French policies. The majority Sunni-Arabs resent the Alawite monopoly on power, and they remember (as the Kurds do) the betrayal of the French.

Read the entire article at FrontPageMag

Why French People Hate The United States, Africa, and Israel?

Filed under: Africa, France, Israel, United States — - @ 5:28 pm

Why French People Hate The United States, Africa, and Israel?

BY Joseph Haba, ME
PhD Candidate in Business Administration

American veterans, American businesses, American people, Israel, African patriots, and friends of Africa will finally analyze the legal issues of French Anti-Americanism by (a) identifying the issue, (b) explaining the rule of law, (c) applying the law to new facts, and (d) giving a conclusion.

a. The issue is whether, besides general anti-American perceptions, the French constitute a threat to anti-Americanism movement; given that a poll pre-Iraq war in France showed that “The French regarded themselves not sharing Americans’ ideas about family (58 percent), ethics (69 percent), work (76 percent) and, of course, life-style (81 percent), with democracy faring a little better at 49 percent” (Roger, 2006, p. 449). The second factor is the “switch in the very nature of anti-Americanism, from elitist, intellectual rejection of a boisterous rival to populist-extremist hatred and resentment against the ultimate enemy, half Terminator, half golden calf” by the French (Roger, 2006, p. 451).

b. Significant ties to an American-French treaty include “ The most Christian King and the United States … having this Day concluded a Treaty of amity and Commerce, for the reciprocal advantage of their Subjects and Citizens have thought it necessary to take into consideration the means of strengthening those engagements and of rendering them useful to the safety and tranquility of the two parties” (Miller, 1931).

c. The rules of this treaty have not been respected by the French, and the French think Americans are untrustworthy, provincial, individualists, egoist; therefore, they should focus “on the domineering presence of the United States, which needed to be countered, either culturally or politically” (Meunier, 2005, p. 128). The idea of countering the United States presence around the world culturally and politically is a relevant precedent case Americans must fight according to international laws.

The issue under discussion is profound because the French has built of “a critique of the self-centeredness of America…the French also offer a “liberal” critique of America as not living up to its ideals…look down on America because of the lack of education and taste of its citizens. The French negative sentiment about the beliefs that their country used to be a better place before the United States, but today many people from all walks of live have embraced the American culture instead of theirs (Meunier, 2005, p. 134). Meunier concluded:

Finally, the most recent type of anti-Americanism in France comes from some Muslims who partake in the “clash of civilizations” idea. Over the years, some disenfranchised youths of North African origin have become religiously radicalized, in a society in which they have not “integrated.” They consider the United States as the Great Satan, whose goal it is to lead the Western world in destroying Islam, and they believe in Jihad against an American nation (p. 135).

Now, this disenfranchised youths and French politicians have used their anti-Americanism to pollute a great number of Africans in their hate crime scheme. We need to join hands to fight back.

French Venality and Politics in the United States

Though scholars, educators, and the media have written about anti-Americanism, little link exists on French direct and indirect financing of some American politicians and lobbyists, friends of French political machines around the world and its venality. What do the some American politicians, Friends of French venality know about the funding of the American politics unknown to the American public? What do American veterans don’t know about the monetary statistics some American politicians receive from French diplomats to conceal vital information about French political entrepreneurs who use America’s good intention of promoting democracy as a catalyst to breed anti-Americanism around the world?

Before, going further, let me give you something to refresh your thought. French has forced more than 16 African countries, to keep 65% of their countries’ bulged in the French treasury. For example, let me assume the bulged of an African country such as the Ivory Cote (la Cote d’Ivoire) to be 5000 billion CFA. Just for the country of la Cote d’Ivoire, according to my assumption, France keeps one trillion CFA in its treasury because it keeps 65% of Cote d’Ivoire annual bulged. This means 40 billion dollars in French treasury plus 20 billion dollars in Cote d’Ivoire treasury equals 60 billion dollars.

Let’s assume that if we convert this sum of money in US dollars, we have about 50 billion dollars. Now, let’s assume that the average bulged of those 16 countries is 45 billion dollars, and French is keeping 65% of these amounts in its treasury and giving 35% to individual 16 countries.

African countries
Bulged per country
35% in Treasury
65% African countries in French treasury

Country 1 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 2 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 3 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 4 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 5 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 6 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 7 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 8 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 9 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 10 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 11 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 12 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 13 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 14 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 15 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 16 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US

Total 720 billion 240 billion US 480 billion US

Do you see why Americans should never join with French people? France alone is keeping 65% of about 20 African countries, besides the effects of la Francafrique in Africa. Again, the 35% of the money that should be used for Africa development, France selects the African elites to steal 65% This means, out of the 15 billion US, only about 5 billion is used. But the 65%, which is 10 billion US belong to France and the members of her occult system. This means that About 85% of 20 African countries’ bulged are taken away by France. Why do people don’t see this? Can African nations use 15% of their bulged to develop their countries?

Now, instead of taken full responsibility of stealing about 85% of the bulged of 20 African countries, France almost always use the United States to mislead African. Now, when we look at how thousands of families accept that their love ones volunteer to fight for their countries, but the French use the United States as a partner to steal 85% of 20 African countries, you understand why some Africans get mad at the United States. How much money are the United States veterans getting of the these trillions of US dollars France have been taking out of Africa? The French are like snake; according to some sources, the French use a few American diplomats, and give them a few millions of dollars so that those Americans support the French in their dirty tricks. At that moment, African countries will be blaming France and the United States, but the French keep the money while the United States is blamed.

In la Cote d’Ivoire, for example, France used the United States and Israel. President Gbagbo wanted to work with Israel and the United States, according to a French writer and journalist. So France had to teach Gbagbo a lesson which states that France former colonies in Africa should and must remain under Francafrique. Even the United States cannot protect her friend, President Gbagbo, against France. French politicians know how to use the United States for their own interests in Africa.

Should the American public know about this? In fact, only French companies, which pay less salaries to Africans, prosper in Africa. American companies, which pay high salaries to Africans can hardly get contracts in Africa. Why? As American, I want the American public to ask Americans, Friends of France to answer these questions. The United States should protect President Gbagbo from being killed by Ouattara who is supporting those who want to kill Americans. Our government needs to send a clear message now to the French about Anti-Americanism.

Joseph Haba, a native of Guinea, West Africa, fled his homeland under persecution from the dictator, Lansana Conté. He lived in Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Switzerland before becoming a political refugee in the U.S. in 2000.  He has written Education, Democracy & Leadership!, detailing his method of transitioning from autocracy to democracy. He has an M.Ed. from the University of Phoenix and is completing his Ph.D.

2011/11/28

ARE AMERICAN POLITICIANS STILL IN THE STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT FRENCH THREAT?

The below article is written by Joseph Haba, a reader of The American Kafir,  used the articles as a comment to several articles here.. I find it an excellent read and quite factual concerning the relationship of France, Islamic Ideology and the United States. I hope you will enjoy it as well. Walt

ARE AMERICAN POLITICIANS STILL IN THE STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT FRENCH THREAT?

By Joseph Haba
October 2, 2011

Politicians today believe they are good for the people. While they become multibillionaires, the population becomes extremely poor as they suffer humiliation in the hands of self-serving politicians. To humiliate people, politicians attack the economic power of ordinary people. Next, they engineer social injustice, social division, and interest groups to create enmity and distrust among the constituents. Finally, they enshrine psychological concepts of superiority for the wealthy and inferiority for the poor. In his gripping account of terror, Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef who is one of the founding leaders of Hamas (a terrorist organization) wrote, “A moderate Muslim is actually more dangerous than a fundamentalist, however, because he appears to be harmless, and you can never tell when he has taken that step toward the top. Most suicide bombers began as moderates” (p. 12). Are moderate Muslim in the world ready to join American enemies to attach America one day from this comment? This author was a terrorist who is now a born again Christian.

The relationship between the United States and France, for most scholars and those who care about the United States appears to be harmless, and American politicians can never tell when France has taken the step to attack the United States. However, my research has proved that France is more dangerous than any terrorist organization for the following reasons:

AMERICA’S KINDNESS IS THROWN AWAY UPON EVIL FRENCH POLITICIANS AND THEIR ACCOMPLICES

The United States politicians and the media have not told Americans that France is a viper numb with cold and out of perceived friendship. France is placed in America’s bossom. However, sooner will France be capable of uniting the whole world against the United States, France will turn upon its benefactor and inflict a fatal bite upon Americans. The warning signs are there.

First France has to stifle the United States army by creating conflicts and involving the United States. For example, “In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line.” Was it necessary for the United States to help France to retain control of its colonies?… And everyone knows how the Vietnam war ended.

France has to prevent the United States from getting lucrative markets, and France will continue to do everything to immobilize the United States economic power. For example, “With the end of the Cold War the list of disagreements between the USA and France increased. France and the USA clashed about the liberalisation of cultural goods, knowing both that the spread of culture goes with that of values and economic powership. They clashed again about NATO’s strategies and leadership, in 1996, and again for the appointment of the new UN Secretary-General, after B. Boutros-Ghali.” France has been dismembering American business in Africa, and the French consider the United States as a threat to their national security. According to French officials, “US threat is a genuine concern for French authorities, as admitted by Michel Roussin, then Minister of Co-operation : a series of meetings were held at the highest levels of the French Government, in 1993-1994, to discuss strategies to defend French interests against those of the US. While visiting Gabon in July 1995, President Jacques Chirac verbally attacked “the Anglosaxons (who) dream of pushing France out of its position in Africa without paying a price”.

Finally, and maybe most important, France uses American officials to weaken and undermine American security For example, Barack Obama has declared that France is America’s greatest ally, yet France exported nuclear technology to Iran, according to U.S. intelligence reports, which had an active nuclear weapons program at least until 2003. France also sold nuclear technology to Pakistan (www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/…/nuclear-power-in-france-setting.pdfSimilar). “U.S. intelligence officials claimed Pakistan was a key supplier of uranium enrichment technology to North Korea, and some media reports suggested that Pakistan had exchanged centrifuge enrichment technology for North Korean help in developing longer range missiles” France also delivered and built Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq that was bombed by Israel in 1981. “France’s Areva nuclear engineering firm said it would sell China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp. 20,000 tons of uranium over a decade. The contract is worth around $3.5 billion dollars.”

For French President Nicolas Sarkozy, nuclear reactors are the bridge between the West and the Islamic world… Since December, Sarkozy has signed deals with or offered nuclear technical advice to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Libya, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco.” “France hopes to sell a nuclear power station to Libya in 2010…French firms also want to gain access to Libya’s massive unexploited oil reserves, as do the rest of the world’s oil companies. France has a 1.3 billion-euro trade deficit with Libya, mainly due to oil imports.” “French nuclear scientist with involvement with a terrorist group Monday, opening a formal investigation into his suspected links with Al-Qaeda in North Africa” (http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/118/article_5467.asp). More troubling, “Did you know Obama is using your tax dollars to support pro-Al Qaeda brigades in Libya?”

What does it mean for France to sell nuclear technology to countries that support terrorists? First, it allows France to have many friends while America’s enemies are emboldened. Second, Muslims who want to attack westerns will consider France as their protectors against the United States. As a result, more Americans will be trying to fight emboldened enemies as billions of dollars are spent for war on terror and thousands of Americans are killed and wounded. In addition, many tourists will not consider the United States as their destination for vacation, and many investors will prefer doing businesses elsewhere, but the United States. America will continue to spend her time defending itself against enemies while French people continue to create jobs for the French people. Should we say that all of these are making the United States to lose millions of jobs? Should Americans care? Do you understand why France was against President Bush for the Iraq war?

Many Americans don’t know that by 2050 Muslim leaders will be ruling Europe because the number of Muslims will be more than the number of White Europeans. Europeans know this and they are doing their best to befriend them. In the United States, there will be about 26 million Muslims in 2050. If war breaks out between Europe and the United States, will Muslims in the United States support European Muslims? The Qu’ran is clear:

In another development, France has used the United States to remove pro-American presidents from power in Africa. We saw the cases in Guinea and Ivory Coast where France financed Al-Qaido through Muslim rebels, and burning pro-American Christians (See picture). What Americans don’t understand is that if the French occult network, Francafrique, was dismantle, America could create more than 20 million jobs by doing business in Africa. “On top of its mining opportunities, the continent offers interesting agricultural opportunities, “such as the plantations or outgrower production of tea, coffee, cocoa, cotton, sugar, and the like” as well as “some low-tech manufacturing for local markets, such as beer and soft drinks, plastics and cement, and a very limited amount of export manufacturing (eg textile) by subsidiaries of foreign firms, especially under the Lomé Convention which gives African countries special access to European markets” Not only that if American businesses could legally supply weapons, logistical support to courts and police units, training of soldiers and officers, and the organisation and management of “presidential guards” to about 50 countries in Africa. Do you understand the stakes?

FRANCE OPPOSE ENGLISH AND SUPPLY PROSTITUTES TO THEIR ACCOMPLICES

“Pro-French elites in Africa are selected through various means, including the promotion ofFrench language (as opposed to English), in general, and the maintenance of close relations between the main actors, including heads of states. These relations are very similar to those in force in crime syndicates, with the promotion of a fake friendship based on the share out of riches, private meetings involving exchanges of gifts or supply of prostitutes, implying in return a secrecy linking accomplices, and even familial ties, with, for instance, current French President being the godfather of one of Senegalese President Abdou Diouf’s daughters”

2011/11/10

Media Attempt to Cover Up Obama Comments on Israel

Source Link: Family Security Matters

Media Attempt to Cover Up Obama Comments on Israel

Written By Roger Aronoff

The incident involving a live microphone that took place last week at the G20 summit in Cannes, France involving President Barack Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was an important revelation on several levels.

First, it revealed the true feelings that Obama and Sarkozy have toward Netanyahu, which is quite different from their public pronouncements and actions. No big surprise in either case. But the bigger story is how corrupt the media are to go along with the attempted deception.

What occurred is that the two presidents were speaking in what they thought was a private conversation. But what they overlooked was that the mics they were wearing were live, and a simultaneous translation of their conversation was being broadcast to the journalists outside the room. Those journalists were not to be given headphones until the session resumed, but a number of them had their own and were listening as a translator repeated the comments of the two men.

Initially, in the conversation, Obama was critical of Sarkozy for not letting him know in advance that France would be voting to allow the Palestinians membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). After they were voted in to the organization, the U.S. Congress voted to cut off its portion of the funding for UNESCO, as it is required by law to do if Palestine is admitted as a member of any international organization before it reaches a peace agreement with Israel. Obama, whose spokesmen have made clear that he once again will ignore Congress and do what he can to help UNESCO, was also reported to have asked Sarkozy to try to help persuade the Palestinians to stop their bid to gain full UN recognition as a state.

Sarkozy then said of Netanyahu, “I cannot bear him, he’s a liar.” To which President Obama reportedly said, “You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”

A number of journalists heard this, but did not report on it after staffers from Sarkozy’s office went to the journalists and told them the comments were meant to be private. According to reports, French media tradition requires journalists to honor that privacy, and in keeping with that tradition, they were asked to sign agreements to that effect. Apparently many of them complied, “due to the sensitivity of the issue.” But it was a French website, Arret sur images, that first reported the conversation. Reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press confirmed the account of the conversation. Sarkozy’s and Obama’s offices have refused to comment.

There are a couple of excellent articles about this, though not much in the mainstream media. One is by Arnold Ahlert in Jewish World Review, in which he writes that “it is hard to decide which part of this story is more revealing: the incident itself, or the subsequent reaction by the Fourth Estaters whose commitment to the standards of journalistic integrity—or perhaps more accurately JournO-listic integrity—seemingly never reach the bottom of an apparently bottomless barrel.” And to the issue of reporters agreeing, after the fact, to keep this quiet, Ahlert writes, “What reporter in his right mind would sign anything that prevents him from reporting on a story made available, not by subterfuge or anything else resembling illegality, but by the carelessness of two world leaders? Since when did a legitimate ‘gotcha’ moment become off limits to the press?”

In a piece on FrontPageMag.com, Joseph Klein discusses some of the history between Obama and Israel that makes Obama’s comments unsurprising: “…we all know what Obama really thinks. This is a president who has gone out of his way to visit Muslim countries in the same region as Israel, but has yet to visit Israel itself since taking office. Obama had no trouble bowing to the Saudi king, while insulting the Israeli prime minister at every turn.”

Added Klein, “Obama’s latest blast at Netanyahu recalls his snub of Netanyahu during the prime minister’s first visit to the Obama White House in March 2010. Obama presented Netanyahu with a list of demands, including a halt to all settlement construction in East Jerusalem. When Netanyahu resisted Obama’s charms, Obama picked up his marbles. He stormed out of the meeting and declared, ‘I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.’ Obama also refused the normal protocol of a joint photograph with the Israeli leader.”

As I detailed in a recent AIM Report, Obama has made the situation much worse through his heavy-handed demands, and an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is more distant as a result. Obama raised the stakes enormously when he came to office in 2009 by demanding that Israel freeze all building of settlements, something they had never done before, and which had not been a pre-condition of the Palestinians. Then Obama pushed the 1967 borders issue, to make that a starting point for negotiations rather than one of many issues to be resolved through direct negotiations. And add to Obama’s missteps the so-called Arab Spring; Iran’s continuing efforts to possess nuclear weapons and to threaten Israel, both directly and through surrogates including both Hamas and Hezbollah; and the participation in the Palestinian government of Hamas, which controls Gaza. It is clear that Israel is less secure than at any time in recent years.

The timing of this incident has been bad for Obama. After barely a year in office, in April of 2009, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama, after having won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. He has slowly won some of that support back by trying to convince Jewish voters that he really does support Israel. A key test in that process came in September when he reluctantly made it clear that the U.S. would veto the Palestinians’ bid for statehood.

But this recent “live mic” revelation will clearly set back the Obama PR campaign to win over more Jewish voters.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Roger Aronoff is a media analyst with Accuracy in Media, and is the writer/director of the award-winning documentary “Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope.” He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

With friends like these

Filed under: France, Israel, Lies and more Lies, Netanyahu, Obama, Sarkozy — - @ 11:13 am

Source Link: CarolineGlick.com

With friends like these

Written By Caroline Glick

Obama Sarkozy cartoon.jpeg

The slurs against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voiced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama after last week’s G20 summit were revealing as well as repugnant.

Thinking no one other than Obama could hear him, Sarkozy attacked Netanyahu, saying, “I can’t stand to see him anymore, he’s a liar.”

Obama responded by whining, “You’re fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”

These statements are interesting both for what they say about the two presidents’ characters and for what they say about the way that Israel is perceived by the West more generally.

To understand why this is the case it is necessary to first ask, when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama? This week the UN International Atomic Energy Agency’s report about Iran’s nuclear weapons program made clear that Israel – Netanyahu included – has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along. In contrast, world leaders have been lying and burying their heads in the sand.

Since Iran’s nuclear weapons program was first revealed to the public in 2004, Israel has provided in-depth intelligence information proving Iran’s malign intentions to the likes of Sarkozy, Obama and the UN. And for seven years, the US government – Obama included – has claimed that it lacked definitive proof of Iran’s intentions.

Obama wasted the first two years of his administration attempting to charm the Iranians out of their nuclear weapons program. He stubbornly ignored the piles of evidence presented to him by Israel that Iran was not interested in cutting a deal.

Perhaps Obama was relying on the US’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As Israel said at the time, and as this week’s IAEA report proves, it was the NIE – which claimed that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 – not Israel that deliberately lied about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the US intelligence community that purposely deceived the American government and people about the gravest immediate threat to US national security.

Israel, including Netanyahu, was telling the truth.

So if Netanyahu never lied about Iran, what might these two major world leaders think he lies about? Why don’t they want to speak with him anymore? Could it be they don’t like the way he is managing their beloved “peace process” with the Palestinians? The fact is that the only times Netanyahu has spoken less than truthfully about the Palestinians were those instances when he sought to appease the likes of Obama and Sarkozy. Only when Netanyahu embraced the false claims of the likes of Obama and Sarkozy that it is possible to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River could it be said that he made false statements.

Because the truth is that Israel never had a chance of achieving peace with the Palestinians.

And the reason this has always been the case has nothing to do with Netanyahu or Israel.

THERE WAS never any chance for peace because the Palestinians have no interest in making peace with Israel. As the West’s favorite Palestinian “moderate,” Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egypt’s Dream TV on October 23, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the ‘Jewishness’ of the State [of Israel] or a ‘Jewish state.'” That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.

Acknowledging this, on Tuesday Netanyahu reportedly told his colleagues that through their recent actions, the Palestinians have abrogated the foundations of the peace process. As he put it, “By boycotting negotiations and by going instead to the United Nations [to achieve independent statehood], they [the Palestinians] have reneged on a central tenet of Oslo.”

That tenet, which formed the basis of the Oslo peace process, was “land for peace.”

As Netanyahu explained, Israel gave up land within the framework of the Oslo Accords. In exchange the Palestinians committed to resolve their conflict with Israel through direct negotiations that would lead to peace. Their UN gambit, like Abbas’s statement to Egyptian television, shows that the Palestinians – not Israel – have been lying all along. They pocketed Israel’s territorial concessions and refused to make peace.

So why do the likes of Sarkozy and Obama hate Netanyahu? Why is he “a liar?” Why don’t they pour out their venom on Abbas, who really does lie to them on a regular basis? The answer is because they prefer to blame Israel rather than acknowledge that their positive assessments of the Palestinians are nothing more than fantasy.

And they are not alone. The Western preference for fantasy over reality was given explicit expression by former US president Bill Clinton in September.

In an ugly diatribe against Netanyahu at his Clinton Global Initiative Conference, Clinton insisted that the PA under Abbas was “pro-peace” and that the only real obstacle to a deal was Netanyahu. Ironically, at the same time Clinton was attacking Israel’s leader for killing the peace process, Abbas was at the UN asking the Security Council to accept as a full member an independent Palestine in a de facto state of war with Israel.

So, too, while Clinton was blaming him for the failure of the peace process, Netanyahu was at the UN using his speech to the General Assembly to issue yet another plea to Abbas to renew peace talks with Israel.

Clinton didn’t exhaust his ammunition on Netanyahu. He saved plenty for the Israeli people as well. Ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Palestinians freely elected Hamas to lead them, Clinton provided his audience with a bigoted taxonomy of the Israeli public through which he differentiated the good, “pro-peace Israelis,” from the bad, “anti-peace,” Israelis.

As he put it, “The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazis of longstanding, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel’s founding.”

As for the bad Israelis, in the view of the former president, “The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious who believe they’re supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they’re not encumbered by the historical record.”

BY RANKING the worthiness of Israel’s citizens in accordance with whether or not they agree with Clinton and his friends, Clinton was acting in line with what has emerged as standard operating practice of Israel’s “friends” in places such as Europe and the US. Like Clinton, they too think it is their right to pick and choose which Israelis are acceptable and which are unworthy.

On Wednesday we saw this practice put into play by British Ambassador Matthew Gould. This week the Knesset began deliberations on a bill that would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 to Israeli nongovernmental organizations. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis with Netanyahu’s support.

According to Haaretz, Gould issued a thinly veiled threat to Okunis related to the bill. Gould reportedly said that if the bill is passed, it would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.

Last month, Makor Rishon published a British government document titled, “NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”

The document showed that in 2010, outside of Iraq, the British government gave a total of £100,000 to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.

In contrast to Britain’s miserly attitude towards Arab civil society organizations, Her Majesty’s Government gave more than £600,000 pounds to farleftist Israeli NGOs. These Israeli groups included the Economic Cooperation Foundation, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim and Gisha. All of these groups are far beyond Israeli mainstream opinion.

All seek to use international pressure on Israel to force the government to adopt policies rejected by the vast majority of the public.

So for every pound Britain forked out to cultivate democracy in 20 Arab non-democracies, it spent £6 to undermine democracy in Israel – the region’s only democracy.

And the British couldn’t be more pleased with the return on their investment. Speaking to Parliament last year, Britain’s Minister of Middle East Affairs Alistair Burt said the money has successfully changed Israeli policies. As he put it, “Since we began supporting these programs some significant changes have been made in the Israeli justice system, both civilian and military, and in the decisions they make. They have also raised a significant debate about these matters and we believe these activities will strengthen democracy in Israel.”

In other words, as far as Britain is concerned, “strengthening democracy” in Israel means tipping the scales in favor of marginal groups with no noticeable domestic constituency.

These shockingly hostile statements echo one made by then-presidential candidate Obama from the campaign trail in February 2008. At the time Obama said, “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a[n] unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”

Scarcely a day goes by when some foreign leader, commentator or activist doesn’t say that being pro-Israel doesn’t mean being pro-Israeli government. And like Obama’s campaign-trail statement, Clinton’s diatribe, Sarkozy and Obama’s vile gossip about Netanyahu and Britain’s self-congratulatory declarations and veiled threats, those who make a distinction between the Israeli people and the Israeli government ignore two important facts.

First, Israel is a democracy. Its governments reflect the will of the Israeli people and therefore, are inseparable from the people. If you harbor contempt for Israel’s elected leaders, then by definition you harbor contempt for the Israeli public.

And this makes you anti-Israel.

The second fact these statements ignore is that Israel is the US’s and Europe’s stalwart ally. If Sarkozy and Obama had said what they said about Netanyahu in a conversation about German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or if Netanyahu had made similar statements about Obama or Sarkozy, the revelation of the statements would have sparked international outcries of indignation and been roundly condemned from all quarters.

And this brings us to the other troubling aspect of Sarkozy and Obama’s nasty exchange about Netanyahu. Their views reflect a wider anti-Israel climate.

Outside the Jewish world, Sarkozy’s and Obama’s hateful, false statements about their ally provoked no outrage. Indeed, it took the media three days to even report their conversation. This indicates that Obama and Sarkozy aren’t alone in holding Israel to a double standard. They aren’t the only ones blaming Israel for the Palestinians’ bad behavior.

The Western media also holds Israel to a separate standard. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel and its elected leaders for the Palestinians’ duplicity. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel for failing to make their peace fantasies come true.

And that is the real message of the Obama- Sarkozy exchange last week. Through it we learn that blaming the Jews and the Jewish state for their enemies’ behavior is what passes for polite conversation among Western elites today.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

2011/11/09

One Day in the Life of a Jew in France

Filed under: anti-Semitism, France — - @ 6:03 pm

Source Link: FrontPageMag

One Day in the Life of a Jew in France

By Brenda H. Mitchell

I received this post from a friend in NY. One of his friends is living in France and posted this to him with the request that he distribute it to his American friends. He prefaces with:

Once again, the real news in France is conveniently not being reported as it should. To give you an idea of what’s going on in France where there are now between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews, here is an email that came from a Jew living in France. Will the world say nothing – again – as it did in Hitler’s time? He writes:

“I am a Jew — therefore I am forwarding this to everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back and do nothing. Nowhere have the flames of anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France: In Lyon, a car was rammed into a synagogue and set on fire. In Montpellier, the Jewish religious center was firebombed; so were synagogues in Strasbourg and Marseilles; so was a Jewish school in Creteil – all recently. A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with Molotov cocktails, and on the statue of Alfred Dreyfus in Paris, the words ‘Dirty Jew’ were painted. In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars. The bus that takes Jewish children to school in Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.

According to the Police, metropolitan Paris has seen 10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past 30 days. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been defaced with slogans proclaiming ‘Jews to the gas chambers’ and ‘Death to the Jews.’ A gunman opened fire on a kosher butcher’s shop (and, of course, the butcher) in Toulouse, France; a Jewish couple in their 20′s were beaten up by five men in Villeurbanne, France The woman was pregnant; a Jewish school was broken into and vandalized in Sarcelles, France . This was just in the past week.

So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a friend, or merely a person with the capacity and desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do, at least, these three simple things:

First, care enough to stay informed. Don’t ever let yourself become deluded into thinking that this is not your fight. I remind you of what Pastor Neimoller said in World War II: ‘First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.’

Second, boycott France and French products. Only the Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and, unlike them, France exports more than just oil and hatred. So boycott their wines and their perfumes. Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs. Boycott their movies. Definitely boycott their shores. If we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and, whatever else we may know about the French, we most certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a hurricane in the face of well-directed pressure.

Third, send this along to your family, your friends, and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of good conscience that you know and let them know that you and the people that you care about need their help.

The number one bestselling book in France is….’September 11: The Frightening Fraud,’ which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon.

Please pass this on. Let’s not let history repeat itself, thank-you for your time and consideration.”

2011/03/31

Libya: Protect People, Not Arm Them – NATO Chief

Filed under: European Union, France, Libya, National Security, NATO, Obama — - @ 9:11 am

Source Stratfor

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance’s position is to protect the Libyan people, not arm them, Times of Malta reported March 31. He said the alliance will focus on the enforcement of the arms embargo. NATO said it has taken over from the United States all air operations over Libya. (emphasis added)

France Will Not Arm Libyan Rebels – DM

Arming the Libyan rebels in incompatible with U.N. Resolution 1973, so France will neither supply the rebels with weapons nor commit ground troops to the country, French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said March 31, AFP reported.

2011/03/24

Europe’s Libya Intervention

Source Link: Stratfor
Europe's Libya Intervention: Special Series
Editor’s Note: This is the first installment in a four-part series publishing in the next few days that will examine the motives and mindset behind current European intervention in Libya. We begin with an overview and will follow with an examination of the positions put forth by the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and Russia.

Distinct interests sparked the European involvement in Libya. The United Kingdom and France have issued vociferous calls for intervention in Libya for the past month, ultimately managing to convince the rest of Europe — with some notable exceptions — to join in military action, the Arab League to offer its initial support, and global powers China and Russia to abstain from voting at the U.N. Security Council.

U.S. President Barack Obama said March 21 that the leadership of the U.S.-European coalition against Libya would be transitioned to the European allies “in a matter of days.” While the United States would retain the lead during Operation Odyssey Dawn — intended to incapacitate Tripoli’s command and control, stationary air defenses and airfields — Obama explained that Odyssey Dawn would create the “conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council resolution.” While Obama pointed out that the U.S.-European intervention in Libya is very much Europe’s war, French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) and Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi (551) arrived in waters near Libya, giving Europeans a valuable asset from which to increase European air sortie generation rates and time on station.

Before analyzing the disparate interests of European nations in Libya, one must first take stock of this coalition in terms of its stated military and political goals.

The Military Response to the ‘Arab Spring’

The intervention in Libya thus far has been restricted to the enforcement of a no-fly zone and to limited attacks against ground troops loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in the open. However, the often-understated but implied political goal seems to be the end of the Gadhafi regime. (Some French and British leaders certainly have not shied from stressing that point.)

Europeans are not united in their perceptions of the operation’s goals — or on how to wage the operation. The one thing the Europeans share is a seeming lack of an exit strategy from a struggle originally marketed as a no-fly zone akin to that imposed on Iraq in 1997 to a struggle that is actually being waged as an airstrike campaign along the lines of the 1999 campaign against Serbia, with the goal of regime change mirroring that of the 2001 Afghan and 2003 Iraq campaigns.

Underlying Europeans’ willingness to pursue military action in Libya are two perceptions. The first is that Europeans did not adequately support the initial pro-democratic protests across the Arab world, a charge frequently coupled with accusations that many European governments failed to respond because they actively supported the regimes being challenged. The second perception is that the Arab world is in fact seeing a groundswell of pro-democratic sentiment.

The first charge particularly applies to France — the country now most committed to the Libyan intervention — where Former French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie vacationed in Tunisia a few weeks before the revolution, using the private jet owned by a businessman close to the regime, and offered then-Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali the services of French security forces to suppress the rebellion. Though an extreme example, the French case highlights the close business, energy and often personal relationships Europeans had with Middle Eastern leaders.

(click here to enlarge image)

In fact, EU states have sold Gadhafi 1.1 billion euros ($1.56 billion) worth of arms between 2004, when they lifted their arms embargo, and 2011, and were looking forward to much more in the future. Paris and Rome, which had lobbied hardest for an end to the embargo, were particularly active in this trade. As recently as 2010, France was in talks with Libya for the sale of 14 Dassault Mirage fighter jets and the modernization of some of Tripoli’s aircraft. Rome, on the other hand, was in the middle of negotiating a further 1 billion euros worth of deals prior to the unrest. British media meanwhile had charged the previous British government with kowtowing to Gadhafi by releasing Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan held for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. According to widespread reports, the United Kingdom’s Labour government released al-Megrahi so that British energy supermajor BP would receive favorable energy concessions in Libya.

The second perception is the now-established narrative in the West that the ongoing protests in the Middle East are truly an outburst of pro-democratic sentiment in the Western sense. From this, there arises a public perception in Europe that Arab regimes must be put on notice that severe crackdowns will not be tolerated since the protests are the beginning of a new era of democracy in the region.

These two perceptions have created a context under which Gadhafi’s crackdown against protesters is simply unacceptable to Paris and London and unacceptable to domestic public opinion in Europe. Not only would tolerating Tripoli’s crackdown confirm European leaderships’ multi-decade fraternization with unsavory Arab regimes, but the eastern Libyan rebels’ fight against Gadhafi has been grafted on to the narrative of Arab pro-democracy movements seeking to overthrow brutal regimes — even though it is unclear who the eastern rebels are or what their intentions are for a post-Gadhafi Libya.

The Coalition

According to U.N. Security Council resolution 1973, the military objective of the intervention is to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to protect civilians from harm across all of Libya. The problem is that the first goal in no way achieves the second. A no-fly zone does little to stop Gadhafi’s troops on the ground. In the first salvo of the campaign — even before suppression of enemy air defenses operations — French aircraft attacked Libyan ground troops around Benghazi. The attack — which was not coordinated with the rest of the coalition, according to some reports — was meant to signal two things: that the French were in the lead and that the intervention would seek to protect civilians in a broader mandate than just establishing a no-fly zone.

Going beyond the enforcement of the no-fly zone, however, has created rifts in Europe, with both NATO and the European Union failing to back the intervention politically. Germany, which broke with its European allies and voted to abstain from resolution 1973, has argued that mission creep could force the coalition to get involved in a drawn-out war. Central and Eastern Europeans, led by Poland, have been cautious in providing support because it yet again draws NATO further from its core mission of European territorial defense and the theater they are mostly concerned about: the Russian sphere of influence. Meanwhile, the Arab League, which initially offered its support for a no-fly zone, seemed to renege as it became clear that Libya in 2011 was far more like Serbia 1999 than Iraq in 1997 — airstrikes against ground troops and installations, not just a no-fly zone. Italy, a critical country because of its air bases close to the Libyan theater, has even suggested that if some consensus is not found regarding NATO’s involvement it would withdraw its offer of air bases so that “someone else’s action did not rebound on us,” according Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. In reality, Rome is concerned that the Franco-British alliance is going to either reduce Italy’s interests in a post-Ghadafi Libya or fail to finish the operation, leaving Italy to deal with chaos a few hundred miles across the Mediterranean.

Ultimately, enforcing a humanitarian mandate across the whole of Libya via air power alone will be impossible. It is unclear how Gadhafi would be dislodged from power from 15,000 feet in the sky. And while Europeans have largely toed the line in the last couple of days that regime change is not the explicit goal of the intervention, French and British leaders continue to caveat that “there is no decent future for Libya with Gadhafi in power,” as British Prime Minister David Cameron stated March 21, virtually mirroring a statement by Obama. But wishing Gadhafi gone will not make it so.

Endgame Scenarios

With the precise mission of the intervention unclear and exact command and control structures yet to be decided (though the intervention itself is already begun, a summit in London on March 29 will supposedly hash out the details) it is no surprise that Europeans seem to lack a consensus as to what the exit strategies are. Ultimately some sort of NATO command structure will be enacted, even if it is possible that NATO never gives its political consent to the intervention and is merely “subcontracted” by the coalition to make coordination between different air forces possible.

U.S. military officials, on the other hand, have signaled that a divided Libya between the Gadhafi-controlled west and the rebel-controlled east is palatable if attacks against civilians stop. Resolution 1973 certainly does not preclude such an end to the intervention. But politically, it is unclear if either the United States or Europe could accept that scenario. Aside from the normative issues the European public may have with a resolution that leaves a now-thoroughly vilified Gadhafi in power, European governments would have to wonder whether Gadhafi would be content ruling Tripolitania, a pared-down version of Libya, given that the bulk of the country’s oil fields and export facilities are located in the east.

Gadhafi could seek non-European allies for arms and support and/or plot a reconquest of the east. Either way, such a scenario could necessitate a drawn-out enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya — testing already war-weary European publics’ patience, not to mention government pocketbooks. It would also require continuous maritime patrols to prevent Gadhafi from unleashing migrants en masse, a possibility that is of great concern for Rome. Now that Europe has launched a war against Gadhafi, it has raised the costs of allowing a Gadhafi regime to remain lodged in North Africa. That the costs are not the same for all participating European countries — especially for Italy, which has the most to lose if Gadhafi retains power — is the biggest problem for creating European unity.

The problem, however, is that an alternative endgame scenario where Gadhafi is removed would necessitate a commitment of ground troops. It is unclear that the eastern rebels could play the role of the Afghan Northern Alliance, whose forces had considerable combat experience such that only modest special operations forces and air support were needed to dislodge the Taliban (or, rather, force them to retreat) in late 2001 through early 2002. Thus, Europe would have to provide the troops — highly unlikely, unless Gadhafi becomes thoroughly suicidal and unleashes asymmetrical terrorist attacks against Europe — or enlist the support of an Arab state, such as Egypt, to conduct ground operations in its stead. The latter scenario seems far-fetched as well, in part because Libyans historically have as much animosity toward Egyptians as they do toward Europeans.

What ultimately will transpire in Libya probably lies somewhere in between the extreme scenarios. A temporary truce is likely once Gadhafi has been sufficiently neutralized from the air, giving the West and Egypt sufficient time to arm, train and support the rebels for their long march to Tripoli (though it is far from clear that they are capable of this, even with considerable support in terms of airpower, basic training, organization and military competencies). The idea that Gadhafi, his sons and inner circle would simply wait to be rolled over by a rebel force is unlikely. After all, Gadhafi has not ruled Libya for 42 years because he has accepted his fate with resignation — a notion that should worry Europe’s governments now looking to end his rule.

Lebanon: Arab States Consider Deportation Of Hezbollah, IRGC Linked Shia

Filed under: Arab Nations, France, Hezbollah, Iran, Lebanon, National Security, Obama, Shi'ite, UK — - @ 11:41 am

Source Link: Stratfor

Arab states in the gulf are considering the deportation of suspected Hezbollah- and Iranian Revolutionary Guard-linked Lebanese Shia, AFP reported March 24, citing Al Seyassah. The measure is in response to intelligence reports alleging Lebanese Shia had been involved in protests in both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, according to London-based Arab diplomats. The United States, France and Britain alleged Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards were leading protests in conjunction with local Shiite clerics in Bahrain and the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia. No Lebanese Shia suspected of being associated with Hezbollah or the Revolutionary Guards will remain in the Gulf, a diplomatic source said, citing Bahraini officials.

2011/03/23

A Running Time Line of Recent Events In Israel, Palestine and Gaza

It has been a busy several of weeks in Israel, I have been keeping articles aside in order to build this time line. What it shows is a whole lot of Islamic Militants have decided to send rockets into Israel. Now Abbas is asking Russia to take the lead in talks between Israel and Palestine. Russia???

Israel: Pipe Bomb Explodes In Hebron

March 23, 2011

A pipe bomb exploded March 23 near an Israel Defense Forces post in Hebron but did not cause any injuries or damage, Ynet reported. Troops patrolled the area following the explosion.

U.S. Defense Secretary Condemns Bus Bombing

March 23, 2011

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates condemned the Jerusalem bus bombing March 23 as a “horrific terrorist attack,” Reuters reported. Speaking during his visit to Cairo, Gates said that despite the attack, he did not see the situation in Israel deteriorating.

Israel: Mortar Shells Fired At Ashkelon, None Injured

March 23, 2011

Five or six mortar shells and a Qassam rocket were fired from the northern Gaza Strip to Ashkelon, Ynet reported March 23. Only open areas were hit and no injuries or damages were reported.

Israel: Palestinian President Condemns Jerusalem Attacks

March 23, 2011

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas released a statement March 23 condemning the Jerusalem bus bombing and earlier Israel Defense Forces attacks on Gaza, Israel News reported.

Israel: French Support For Operations Against Hamas Sought

March 23, 2011

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will leave for Paris on March 23 to request support from his French counterpart, Alaine Juppe, for Israel’s operations against Hamas’ missiles from Gaza, Voice of Israel Network B reported. Lieberman said that Hamas is creating escalation by firing missiles at Israeli population centers in an attempt to take advantage of the instability in the Middle East in order to harm civilians.

Israel: ‘Quiet Period’ Has Ended – Lawmaker

March 23, 2011

War has restarted in southern Israel along with terror in Jerusalem, an Israeli lawmaker from the Kadima party said March 23, The Jerusalem Post reported. Speaking at a Knesset meeting on rocket attacks in the south, the official said the quiet period was ending.

Israel: Woman Dies After Bus Bombing

March 23, 2011

A woman wounded in the March 23 bus bombing in Jerusalem has died, Al Jazeera reported.

Israel: Government Must Consider Anti-Terror Operations – Minister

March 23, 2011

Recent attacks in Israel require the government to consider anti-terrorism operations, Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai said March 23, Ynet News reported. No decision has been made, Yishai said, but options are being weighed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened an emergency meeting following the bombing in Jerusalem, but he had not canceled his trip to Moscow. The Jerusalem district police commander said there were no leads on potential suspects behind the attack. The March 11 attack in Itamar does not appear related to the March 23 bombing, Israel’s internal security minister said, but rocket attacks in the south could be linked.

Israel: Popular Resistance Committees Praise Attack

March 23, 2011

The Popular Resistance Committees, a coalition of militant Palestinian groups, praised the recent bomb attack near a bus in Jerusalem, saying the attack comes in direct response to Israel crimes, Ynet reported March 23.

Israel: Device Weighed 1-2 Kilograms

March 23, 2011

The explosive device that detonated March 23 in central Jerusalem weighed 1-2 kilograms (2.2-4.4 pounds) and was packed with shrapnel, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Israel: 25 Wounded In Bombing

March 23, 2011

At least 25 people were injured, four seriously, when an explosive device attached to a telephone pole exploded March 23 at a Jerusalem bus stop, Haaretz reported. The blast happened outside the International Convention Center, opposite the central station in Jerusalem. There were no fatalities, according to the Magen David Adom emergency services. Preliminary reports had said at least two people had died, Sky News reported.

Israel: Explosion Not Suicide Bombing – Official

March 23, 2011

Contrary to initial reports, the March 23 blast outside a bus in Jerusalem was not a suicide bombing, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in the United States said on his Twitter account. Haaretz meanwhile reported that a suicide bomber detonated a device outside the bus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delayed a planned visit to Moscow due to the blast, Al Arabiya reported.

Israel, Palestinian Territories: 20 Injured In Bus Blast

March 23, 2011

At least 20 people were wounded March 23 in an explosion on a public bus outside the International Convention Center, just opposite the central station in Jerusalem, Haaretz reported. Four were seriously wounded; there were no reported fatalities, the Magen David Adom emergency services reported. The city’s entrance has been closed.

Israel: Militant Group Vows Attacks On Israeli Cities

March 23, 2011

Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad’s military wing al-Quds Brigades said it will fire rockets further away deep into Israeli cities as part of a “new phase” of resistance and bombing targets, AFP reported March 23. Al-Quds spokesman Abu Ahmad said the days of just bombing the southern Israeli towns of Ashkelon and Sderot are over, adding there will be no lines al-Quds will not cross as long as Israel does not respect U.N. conventions and keeps killing civilians. He said al-Quds will respond in kind.

Israel: Abbas Asks Russia To Help Stop Gaza Escalation

March 23, 2011

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to pressure Israel to halt the escalation of strikes in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian news agency Maan reported March 23. Abbas said Israel has no right to object to Palestinian reconciliation, since Israel has no stake in Palestinian unity, adding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complained to the United States about Palestinian division and his inability to negotiate with them. Abbas said unity between Islamist Hamas and secular Fatah increases the chances for a Palestinian state.

Israel: Middle East Quartet To Meet In April – Abbas

March 23, 2011

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the next meeting of the Middle East Quartet (the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia) will be April 15, Itar-Tass reported March 23. Speaking on a visit to Moscow, Russia, Abbas said he discussed with Russian leadership solutions to regional issues that could be adopted at the upcoming meeting. Abbas said Russia pays great attention to the meeting’s agenda and is making every effort for its successful completion.

Israel: Gaza Rocket Attacks May Be Prelude To War

March 23, 2011

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said the current situation in the region recalls the run-up to the 2008-2009 Israeli Gaza offensive and Israel might consider a return to such an operation, adding he understands another war would bring the region to a far more combustible situation, Israel Radio reported March 23. Shalom said the recent Hamas rocket attacks might be an attempt to open an new front with Israel to prevent any intra-Palestinian dialogue or for Hamas to come to the intra-Palestinian negotiations in a far stronger position.

Israel: Palestinians Push To Resume Peace Talks

March 23, 2011

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki said Israel must return to peace talks “before it is too late,” adding Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is the most moderate leader in the region and if a peace agreement is not reached by September, Abbas will resign and all hope for peace will be over, Ynet News reported March 23. Speaking at a peace convention at Tel Aviv University, al-Maliki said he expected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to condemn the March 22 Israel Defense Forces attack in the Gaza Strip just like Netanyahu asked the Palestinian Authorities to condemn the attack on Israeli settlers in Itamar.

Israel: Gaza Militants Fire Rocket At Beersheba

March 23, 2011

Militants from the Palestinian Gaza Strip fired a Grad-type Katyusha rocket at the southern Israeli city of Beersheba early March 23, striking in the center of a street in a residential area, Haaretz reported. Shrapnel from the rocket penetrated a nearby third-floor apartment, moderately injuring one man.

Israel: Islamic Jihad Claims Ashdod Attack

March 22, 2011

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the Grad rocket attack at Ashdod and denied reports that one of its members was killed by an Israel Defense Forces strike, Ynet reported March 22. The militant sustained serious wounds but did not die, Islamic Jihad stated.

Israel: IDF Strikes Gaza Targets

March 22, 2011

An Israel Defense Forces plane attacked a target in the northern Gaza Strip on March 22 during a “terrorist attempt” to shoot a Grad rocket toward Ashdod, according to an IDF spokesperson, The Jerusalem Post reported. The target was located east of the Zeitun neighborhood in Gaza City, Palestinians said, adding some members of the “terrorist unit” were injured, Ynet reported. A separate target was reportedly attacked east of the Shujayya neighborhood in Gaza City.

Palestinian Territories: Grad Rocket Fired From Gaza

March 22, 2011

A Grad rocket was fired from Gaza in the direction of the Israeli city of Ashdod and landed south of the city, Ynet reported March 22.

Palestinian Territories: Qassam Rocket Fired Toward Ashkelon

March 22, 2011

A Qassam rocket was fired from northern Gaza toward the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon and landed south of the city, Ynet reported March 22. No injuries or damage were reported.

Israel: Salah al-Din Brigades Claim Attack On Sufa

March 22, 2011

Fighters from the Salah al-Din Brigades, the military arm of the Palestinian Popular Resistance Committees, launched a homemade projectile at the military post at Sufa on March 22, Maan news reported. The attack was made in response to “Israeli aggression” in Gaza, the group said.

Israel: Rocket Hits Eshkol Region

March 22, 2011

A Qassam rocket hit an open area in Israel’s Eshkol Regional Council early March 22, but no injuries or damages are reported, Israel National News reported.

Israel: Iran, Hezbollah Training Gaza Militants – Official

March 10, 2011

Hamas has recovered from the war with Israel and very much resembles an army, due in part from Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, a senior Israeli official in Israel’s Southern Command said March 10, AP reported. Hamas now has a vast amount of anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets, a large arsenal of rockets that can strike deep inside Israel, and a sophisticated communications system, according to the official. Hamas also has developed greater expertise in roadside bombs. Iran and Hezbollah send experts though illicit tunnels to train Hamas; Israeli authorities know the names and whereabouts of these experts, the official said. A spokesman for Hamas’ military wing characterized the statements as “incitement” against the group and the resistance.

2011/03/22

What is Next in Libya?

Filed under: France, Libya, National Security, Obama, UK — - @ 11:29 am

Source Link:Stratfor

As the air campaign over Libya enters its third night, command of military operations will soon transfer from the United States to either the Europeans or NATO. By most accounts, the opening gambit of the air campaign went well and was effective in achieving initial objectives — destroying or suppressing air defenses and destroying what remained of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s air force. The loyalist drive toward Benghazi appears to have been halted, and the rebels have made tentative movements toward Ajdabiyah. There were no reports of combat losses; also, the coalition has not acknowledged responsibility for any civilian casualties.

This is not a surprise. The coalition air campaign, with ready, uncontested access to regional air bases, has become a hallmark of U.S. and NATO military operations. Though complex, it is a discipline of warfare that has been carefully refined, and there was little doubt that within days, the coalition would get to this point. The issue was never the ability to apply airpower to Libya. The problem of Libya is twofold. The first is what the coalition seeks to achieve and what forces it is willing to dedicate to that end, a subject about which there has been glaring contradiction from the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The second is the the applicability of airpower to that problem, however it is ultimately defined.

Airpower alone cannot force Gadhafi from power unless his position can be pinpointed and he can thereby be killed. Even if Gadhafi is killed, forces loyal to him cannot be removed from built-up urban areas without the risk of massive civilian casualties. At its core, Gadhafi’s forces are not tanks or artillery pieces — and certainly were not combat aircraft before they were destroyed. Gadhafi’s forces remain a ruthless internal security force loyal to the regime and oriented toward the management of internal dissent. At its heart, this is a light infantry force.

Dismounted forces in an urban area are difficult to target by fast moving aircraft even when forward air controllers are on the ground and are able to talk to and guide aircraft. Doing so still entails a significant risk of civilian casualties and in any event, aircraft are not the ideal tool for that job unless the entire area can be declared hostile.

So, the coalition is rapidly running up against a fundamental incompatibility with the air campaign. The objective is to prevent civilian casualties. Even setting aside the fact that airpower is not a precise tool and that its continued application will in all likelihood entail civilian casualties, the problem is that the danger to civilian lives is ground forces loyal to Gadhafi. While some of those forces were caught in the open in readily identifiable armor, others will continue to move in civilian vehicles and perhaps not even wear uniforms. For example, with troops on the ground in Afghanistan, Western military forces struggle to distinguish between and protect local populations from Taliban intimidation. It is not possible to do this from the air.

The question was never one of establishing air superiority over Libyan skies. The question remains what the coalition will do with that air superiority to further its objective. Control of the skies over Libya can help defend Benghazi from loyalist formations of armor, but it does not provide control of the streets in Tripoli. With or without Gadhafi, the country remains fractious and divided. The coalition has stepped into the fray in support of a loosely affiliated opposition that has thus far failed to coalesce into a meaningful military force capable of challenging Gadhafi. The removal of Gadhafi ‘s air force and the reduction in his ability to move conventional military vehicles do not fundamentally alter the underlying tactical equation: Loyalist forces have proved dedicated and capable; the opposition’s forces have not.

It is at this point in the air campaign that the question of “what is next” begins to become much less abstract and much more real.

2011/03/21

Russia Finds Opportunity in the Libyan Crisis

Filed under: Communism, France, Libya, National Security, Obama, UK, United Nations — - @ 5:47 pm

Source Link: Stratfor

March 21, 2011 | 2026 GMT

SERGEY MAMONTOV/AFP/Getty Images Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin speaks at a meeting in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk on March 19

Summary

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said March 21 that the U.N. Security Council resolution allowing foreign military intervention in Libya is “defective and flawed,” and criticized the West — particularly the United States — for being overly aggressive. The military intervention in Libya has given Russia an opportunity to return to a confrontational stance against the United States as Moscow and Washington discuss missile defense and other contentious issues.

Analysis

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on March 21 criticized the U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya for allowing foreign military intervention in a sovereign state. Putin called the resolution “defective and flawed,” adding that “it allows everything and is reminiscent of a medieval call for a crusade.” Putin noted that Russia, which abstained on the U.N. resolution vote and is not involved in the operation, wanted to avoid direct intervention and admonished the West — especially the United States — for acting too aggressively.

Putin’s comments indicate the strength of Russia’s geopolitical position in the midst of several ongoing crises. The Western-led intervention in Libya is an opportunity for Putin to return to a familiar confrontational position on the United States in order to advance Russia’s interests even further at a difficult time for Washington.

As several crises continue unfolding across the world — the nuclear accident in Japan, growing unrest in the Persian Gulf and now the military invention in Libya — no country has benefited geopolitically from these developments more than Russia. Growing instability has caused oil prices to rise, boosting Russia’s income. Japan’s dependence on nuclear power for energy has caused Tokyo to turn to Russia for more natural gas supplies, and concerns over the safety of nuclear power have led the Europeans — Russia’s primary energy market — to reconsider many future (and existing) nuclear plants. The chaos in Libya, even before the Western-led military intervention began, took much of Libya’s oil and natural gas exports offline, and Russia has been more than happy to make up the difference to Italy and other European countries. Perhaps most important, it appears that the window of opportunity that led to Russia’s geopolitical re-emergence in the first place — U.S. distraction in the Middle East — will be growing for the foreseeable future.

The conflict in Libya has not only opened up a third theater for U.S. military involvement, it has also given Putin the chance to characterize the United States as overly aggressive and willing to invade anywhere, while Russia prefers a more cautious approach. Russia’s position is strong enough that it feels it can easily switch between cooperation with and opposition to the United States. Russia has been more cooperative under the “reset” in ties between Washington and Moscow, but Putin is reverting to the tactics he used when Russia was geopolitically weaker, from the mid-2000s through early 2009, when he constantly and publicly railed against the United States.

Besides using the opportunity to criticize the United States, Putin has two other reasons for his confrontational push. First, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is in St. Petersburg meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov. Missile defense is the key topic, and Washington is offering a small concession on this controversial topic in setting up an exchange center for sharing data. However, this is not enough for the Russians, who want actual participation in missile defense. Putin’s speech criticizing the U.S. involvement in Libya symbolically was made at a ballistic missile factory on the same day Gates was in the country. Putin noted that the Libyan intervention “once again confirms the rightness of those measures which we undertake to strengthen Russia’s defense capacity” and that Russia would increase its ballistic missile capabilities.

The second issue is that Putin personally is not happy with the United States after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Russia. When Biden was in Moscow, he met with Russian opposition leaders — something that displeased the Kremlin, particularly since Biden mocked a famous quote from former U.S. President George W. Bush about Putin during these opposition meetings, saying he “looked into Putin’s eyes and saw no soul.”

Given that U.S. commitments are increasing while Russia’s ability to maneuver is growing, Moscow is using the current opportunity to make its displeasure with Washington known.

Libyan Airstrikes March 20-21, 2011

Filed under: France, Libya, National Security, Obama, UK — - @ 11:30 am

Source Link:Stratfor

Libyan Airstrikes March 20-21, 2011
(click here to enlarge image)

U.S. and European intervention in Libya continued on March 20 with more strikes by cruise missiles and coalition aircraft, bringing the total number of cruise missiles launched by U.S. and U.K. naval assets since the opening of hostilities to 124.

The main targets of the cruise missiles have been the long-range air defense missile batteries — SA-5s, SA-3s and SA-2s. The U.S. military stated that the strikes have been successful, but that there are still hundreds of mobile surface-to-air missile systems — SA-6s and SA-8s — as well as hundreds of shoulder-fired SA-7 missile launchers. Also, anti-aircraft artillery has not been targeted because much of it is placed close to civilian areas and is far more mobile and difficult to detect. The SA-7s and anti-aircraft artillery will remain a persistent, if low-level threat. Following the cruise missile strikes, three U.S. B-2 long-range strategic bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri attacked a number of Libyan airfields. There was also an apparent cruise missile strike against an administrative building inside Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s compound. However, U.S. officials stressed that Gadhafi was not a target and that the attack was against command-and-control structure.

A number of tactical airstrikes also took place. In what may be the first combat use of the EA-18G “Growler” electronic warfare aircraft, the United States deployed the new aircraft to support U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier jets launched from amphibious assault vessel the USS Kearsarge (LHD 3). The Harriers engaged Libyan government ground units around Benghazi. The U.S. Air Force deployed its multi-role F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16CJ Fighting Falcons, but the precise location of their strikes is unknown.

Libyan Airstrikes March 20-21, 2011
(click here to enlarge image)

U.K. Tornado GR4 aircraft were also involved in launching airstrikes while French aircraft enforced the no-fly zone. It is notable that U.K. Tornado and Typhoon fighters have finally deployed to the Italian Gioia del Colle air base, thus placing them much closer to the combat theater. French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) has also left its port of Toulon, accompanied by the anti-submarine frigate Dupleix, frigate Aconit and refueling ship La Meuse. This will significantly increase the European sortie generation rates and time on station with Charles de Gaulle’s complement of Rafale and Super Etendard jets.

According to U.S. officials, the United States continues to be taking the lead of the initial salvo against Libyan air defense. However, U.S. military officials are stressing that the leadership will ultimately be passed to one of the coalition members, most likely France, in the coming days. The role of NATO in the intervention is still unclear. Politically, the alliance has not been able to agree to stand behind the action, but STRATFOR sources are saying that this will not prevent the alliance from providing its command-and-control functions to the intervention. It is also notable that the French strike against ground units around Benghazi on March 20 — which STRATFOR noted seemed politically motivated and out of character with how the initial phase of an air war is traditionally conducted — has apparently caused a minor rift between U.S. and French military leadership.

2011/03/20

Libya’s Opposition Leadership Comes into Focus

Filed under: France, Libya, National Security, Obama, UK — - @ 8:24 pm

Source Link: Stratfor

Libya has descended to a situation tantamount to civil war, with forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in the west pitted against rebels from the east. However, one of the biggest problems faced by Western governments has been in identifying exactly who the rebels are. Many of the rebels, including former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and former Interior Minister Gen. Abdel Fatta Younis, defected early on from the Gadhafi regime and represent what came to be the Transitional National Council (TNC), which promptly lobbied Western government for support after its formation. In light of logistical and maintenance capabilities militarily, further defections would certainly help the rebels achieve victory, though there has been no sign of such defections.

Editor’s note:This analysis was originally published March 8 but has been significantly updated with current, accurate information.

Analysis

Identifying the Opposition

One of the biggest problems Western governments have faced throughout the Libyan crisis has been in identifying who exactly the “eastern rebels” are. Until the uprising began in February, there was thought to be no legitimate opposition to speak of in the country, and thus no contacts between the United States, the United Kingdom, France or others. Many of those who now speak for the rebel movement headquartered in Benghazi. There have been several defections, however, from the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to the eastern rebel leadership, and it is men like these with whom the West is now trying to engage as the possible next generation of leadership in Libya, should its unstated goal of regime change come to fruition.

The structure through which the Libyan opposition is represented is formally known as the Interim Transitional National Council, more commonly referred to as the Transitional National Council (TNC). The first man to announce its creation was former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who defected from the government Feb. 21, and declared the establishment of a “transitional government” Feb. 26. At the time, Abdel-Jalil claimed that it would give way to national elections within three months, though this was clearly never a realistic goal.

One day after Abdel-Jalil’s announcement, a Benghazi-based lawyer named Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga held a news conference to refute his claims. Ghoga pronounced himself to be the spokesman of the new council, and denied that it resembled a transitional government, adding that even if it did, Abdel-Jalil would not be in charge. Ghoga derided the former justice minister as being more influential in the eastern Libyan city of Al Bayda than in Benghazi, which is the heart of the rebel movement.

The personality clash between Abdel-Jalil and Ghoga continued on for most of the next week, as each man portended to be running a council that spoke for the eastern rebel movement in its entirety. It was significant only insofar as it provided just a glimpse of the sort of internal rivalries that exist in eastern Libya, known historically as Cyrenaica. Though Cyrenaica has a distinct identity from the western Libyan region historically referred to as Tripolitania, that does not mean that it is completely unified. This will be a problem moving ahead for the coalition carrying out the bombing campaign of Libya, as tribal and personal rivalries in the east will compound with a simple lack of familiarity with who the rebels really are.

The TNC officially came into being March 6, and (for the moment, at least) has settled the personal and regional rivalry between Abdel-Jalil and Ghoga, with the former named the TNC head, and the latter its spokesman. Despite the drama that preceded the formal establishment of the council, all members of the opposition have always been unified on a series of goals: They want to mount an armed offensive against the government-controlled areas in the west; they want to overthrow Gadhafi; they seek to unify the country with Tripoli as its capital; and they do not want foreign boots on Libyan soil. The unity of the rebels, in short, is based upon a common desire to oust the longtime Libyan leader.

The TNC asserts that it derives its legitimacy from the series of city councils that have been running the affairs of the east since the February uprising that turned all of eastern Libya into rebel-held territory. This council is, in essence, a conglomeration of localized units of makeshift self-governance. And while it may be centered in the east, the TNC has also gone out of its way to assert that all Libyans who are opposed to Gadhafi’s rule are a part of the movement. This is not a secessionist struggle. A military stalemate with Gadhafi that would lead to the establishment of two Libya’s would not represent an outright success for the rebels, even though it would be preferential to outright defeat. Though it has only released the names of nine of its reported 31 members for security reasons, the TNC has claimed that it has members in several cities that lie beyond the rebel-held territory in the east (including Misurata, Zentan, Zawiya, Zouara, Nalut, Jabal Gharbi, Ghat and Kufra), and promised membership to all Libyans who want to join and asserted that the council is the sole representative of the whole of Libya.

The TNC’s foremost priorities for the past several weeks have been garnering foreign support for airstrikes on Gadhafi’s forces and the establishment of a no-fly zone. Absent that, they have long argued, none of their other military objectives stood a chance of being realized.

It was the lobbying for Western support in the establishment of a no-fly zone that led the TNC’s “executive team,” also known as the crisis committee, to go on a tour of European capitals in mid-March designed to shore up support from various governments and international institutions. Mahmoud Jebril, an ally of Abdel-Jalil, and de facto Foreign Minister Ali al-Essawi, the former Libyan ambassador to India who quit in February when the uprising began, comprise the executive team. The result of this trip was the first recognition of the TNC as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people, which was provided by France on March 10. France, as we were to see in the following days, was to become the most vociferous advocate of the international community coming to the aid of the TNC through the use of air strikes.

Challenges

Before the decision was made to implement a no fly zone, the Libyan opposition forces collapsed in the face of Ghaddafi’s onslaught, and have shown little sign of coalescing into a meaningful military force. While the loyalist eastward thrust was against a disorganized rebel force, Ghaddafi’s forces have demonstrated that they retain considerable strength and loyalty to the regime. That means that even with coalition airstrikes taking out armor and artillery, there will still be forces loyal to Ghaddafi inside any urban center the rebels might encounter in a westward advance, meaning that the rebels would be forced to fight a dedicated force dug in in built up areas while operating on extended lines, a difficult tactical and operational challenge for even a coherent and proficient military force. So the even though the coalition airstrikes have since shifted the military balance, the fundamental challenges for the rebels to organize and orchestrate a coherent military offensive remain unchanged.

It is important to note that little of the territory that fell into rebel control in the early days of the insurrection was not actually occupied through conquest. Many military and security forces in the east either deserted or defected to the opposition, which brought not only men and arms, but also the territory those troops ostensibly controlled. Most fighting that occurred once the situation transitioned into what is effectively a civil war, particularly in the main population centers along the coastal stretch between Benghazi and Sirte, consisted of relatively small, lightly armed formations conducting raids, rather than either side decisively defeating a major formation and pacifying a town.

Just as the executive team represents the TNC’s foreign affairs unit, the council also has a military division. This was originally headed by Omar El-Hariri, but the overall command of the Libyan rebels has since reportedly been passed to former interior minister Gen. Abdel Fattah Younis. Younis’ name arose early on as the man with whom the British government was engaging as it tried to get a grip on the situation unfolding in rebel-held territory. He was not included in the original TNC membership, however, despite several indications that he did in fact retain widespread support among eastern rebels. This, like the clash between Abdel-Jalil and Ghoga, was another indication of the rivalries that exist in eastern Libya, which paint a picture of disunity among the rebels.

Younis, however, now appears to have been officially incorporated into the command structure and is presiding over a TNC “army” that, like the TNC itself, is the sum of its parts. Every population center in eastern Libya has since the uprising began created respective militias, all of which are now, theoretically, to report to Benghazi. Indeed, the most notable of these local militias, created Feb. 28, has been known at times as the Benghazi Military Council, which is linked to the Benghazi city council, the members of which form much of the political core of the new national council. There are other known militias in eastern Libya, however, operating training camps in places like Ajdabiya, Al Bayda and Tobruk, and undoubtedly several other locations as well.

Younis has perhaps the most challenging job of all in eastern Libya: organizing a coherent fighting force that can mount an invasion of the west — something that will be difficult even after an extensive foreign bombing campaign. More defections by the military and security forces in the west, like the earlier defections in Zawiya and Misurata, would perhaps benefit the TNC even more than the bombing campaign under way. There is no sign that immanent defections from the west, however, which will only reinforce the military and geographic challenges the TNC is faced with.

Libyan society is by definition tribal and therefore prone to fractiousness. The Gadhafi era has done nothing to counter this historical legacy, as the Jamihiriya political system promoted local governance more than a truly national system of administration. Ironically, it was this legacy of Gadhafi’s regime that helped the individual eastern cities to rapidly establish local committees that took over administration of their respective areas, but it will create difficulties should they try to truly come together. Rhetoric is far different from tangible displays of unity.

Geography will also continue to be a challenge for the TNC. The Libyan opposition still does not have the basic military proficiencies or know-how to project and sustain an armored assault on Tripoli; if it tried, it would run a serious risk of being neutralized on arrival by prepared defenses. Even Gadhafi’s hometown of Sirte — almost certainly a necessary intermediate position to control on any drive to Tripoli — looks to be a logistical stretch for the opposition. An inflow of weapons may help but would not be the complete solution. Just as the primary factor in eastern Libya’s breaking free of the government’s control lay in a series of military defections, the occurrence of the same scenario in significant numbers in the west is what would give the newly created National Libyan Council its best chance of overthrowing Gadhafi.

Older Posts »