Roger Waters: perverted by his own narrow-minded bigotry

From Times of Israel, 12 Dec 2013:

...“Judging by his remarks, Roger Waters has absorbed classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and these have now seeped into the totality of his views,” Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the ADL), told The Times of Israel. “His comments about Jews and Israel have gotten progressively worse over time. It started with anti-Israel invective, and has now morphed into conspiratorial anti-Semitism.”

Added Foxman: “How sad that a creative genius could become so perverted by his own narrow-minded bigotry.”

 

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

(photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

In the interview, Waters — a longtime supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement — remarked, regarding the Palestinians, that the “parallels with what went on in the ’30s in Germany are so crushingly obvious.

“There were many people that pretended that the oppression of the Jews was not going on. From 1933 until 1946,” Waters said. “So this is not a new scenario. Except that this time it’s the Palestinian people being murdered.”

Waters, an outspoken critic of Israel who urges fellow artists not to play concerts in Israel, came under fire in July for using a pig-shaped balloon with Jewish symbols, including a Star of David, at his concerts.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced the balloon as a “grotesque display of Jew-hatred” and called Waters an “open hater of Jews.”

An op-ed in the Vatican newspaper at the time blasted “unrestrained anti-Semitism” at the music festival in Belgium where Waters displayed the inflatable balloon. “… Did they also have the right to draw the Star of David on the back of a pig and not be reported?” the article asked. “We continue to talk about the respect for every religion and every human being, yet we keep falling into these shameful situations.”...

...Last August, Waters issued a public letter to musicians to boycott Israel. A few months earlier, in an interview with The Huffington Post, Waters remarked that the US has a “knee-jerk” policy to support “anything” that Israel does.

The Ayatollah’s windfall

From the National Post, 2 Dec 2013, by Emanuele Ottolenghi* and Saeed Ghasseminejad:

The billions of dollars Iran can now access due to reduced sanctions will most directly benefit the Supreme Leader and his Revolutionary Guards.

If any proof was needed that the nuclear compromise hammered out in Geneva last month between Iran and the six world powers is a mistake, look no further than the psychological impact it had on Iran’s sanctions’ battered economy. Evidence of such boost is already available: Within hours, Iran’s currency, the Rial, appreciated by 5% and shares of petrochemical companies soared on Tehran’s Stock Exchange, a sure sign that the agreement provides an economic lifeline to the Iranian regime in exchange for no meaningful or irreversible concessions.

Rather than claiming that the international community is offering modest and reversible sanctions’ relief to Iran, Western negotiators should be more candid and admit that theirs is a self-defeating proposition. The main beneficiaries will not be the ordinary Iranians for which Western policymakers constantly express concern when they fret about their own sanctions’ impact. The benefits will instead flow to Iran’s military-industrial complex, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Corps (IRGC) and the Supreme Leader – those most invested in the nuclear program and least inclined to renounce their nuclear quest for economic incentives.

By relaxing sanctions against the petrochemical and automotive industries, the United States and Europe are giving them a cash bonanza. By committing themselves to no nuclear-related sanctions in the six-month interim period established by the agreement, Western governments will also enable Iran to exponentially expand the impact of sanctions’ relief. In practice, the deal authorizes business with the sanctioned IRGC through the backdoor.

Take the petrochemical sector — a key export area for Iran but also a sensitive industry due to the dual-use nature of the technology it requires.

Military involvement in this sector is mainly through the Parsian Oil and Gas Company (POGC), which is controlled by the IRGC through Ghadir Investment Company (80.18%), the Bahman Group (1.1%) and Kia Mahestan Company (1.66%), with a total market value of approximately $3.83-billion. The IRGC also controls Pardis Petrochemical (worth $2-billion), Kermanshah Petrochemical worth ($527-million) and Shiraz Petrochemical (worth $922-million).

Rey Investment, an entity directly controlled by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, owns several spare car parts companies, and has the exclusive dealership for the German car-maker, BMW in Iran

The price tag for IRGC-controlled assets in the petrochemical industry is $7.3b-illion. Add to that Pars Oil and Behran Oil, the two companies controlled by the Supreme Leader through Rey Investment Group, Tadbir Group and the Mostazafan Foundation, which are worth a total of $625-million. Since Iran’s petrochemical sector is worth almost $25-billion; in practice, one third of the industry — $8-billion — is controlled by the two Iranian centres of power in charge of nuclear proliferation.

The car industry is no less problematic — although U.S. sanctions against the automotive sector did not specifically target it on non-proliferation grounds, Iran has used it to procure needed items and materials for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs over the years. Khodro and Saipa, the two main players in the car industry, are government-controlled; their procurement networks raise concerns, given that the car industry, much like the petrochemical industry, relies on sensitive dual-use technology and raw materials.

Besides, the regime benefits from its revenues. Of its main players, the Bahman Group is controlled by the IRGC — its main shareholder is the sanctioned Bonyad Ta’avon Sepah — a company linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. As recently reported by Saeed Ghasseminejad in The Times of Israel, Rey Investment, an entity directly controlled by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, owns several spare car parts companies, and has the exclusive dealership for the German car-maker, BMW in Iran. As for Iran Khodro, its main shareholder — Iran’s IDRO — is a government entity under sanctions.

The Obama administration will no doubt argue that there is no sanctions’ relief for the IRGC — but most of the aforementioned companies are not designated yet. If the U.S. President were to target them under existing executive orders, Iran would denounce such a move as a violation of Western commitments not to impose new sanctions. If Western or Asian companies were punished for conducting financial transactions with IRGC companies in the petrochemical sector, Iran’s rulers would scream murder. The administration may not have thought through this loophole — but it is unlikely to jeopardize a deal it hails as historic.

The agreement does not constitute an incentive for Iran to comply with its international obligations. To the contrary, it offers much needed relief to its procurement efforts, a cash windfall to its channels of proliferation, and financial profit along the way. And given that little is expected of Iran in return, it is hard to believe Western powers thought this was a good idea.

This is a great deal — for Iran. But if the West wishes to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear finish line, this is definitely not the way forward.

*Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Saeed Ghasseminejad is a Ph.D candidate in finance at City University of New York.

PA promotes terrorism with foreign aid funds

From Israel MFA, 4 Dec 2013:

Convicted murderers - 52 of them already released from prison by Israel as part of the negotiating process with the Palestinians - are receiving grants of up to $50,000 and monthly stipends of up to nearly $4,000.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is giving very large grants and generous monthly stipends to terrorists. These convicted murderers - 52 of whom already have been released from prison by Israel in the framework of the negotiating process with the Palestinians - are receiving grants of up to $50,000 and monthly stipends of up to nearly $4,000.

Thus the PA is supporting incitement to terrorism, including through the misuse of foreign financial assistance.

According to Nael Ghannam, the Director of the PA's Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, former prisoners who were incarcerated for more than 15 years receive grants of $2,000 per year of imprisonment, for a maximum amount of $50,000 (although there are credible reports of at least one bonus of $60,000).

Additionally, those who served at least 25 years in prison will be awarded the equivalent rank of major-general in the security forces or of a deputy minister in the PA, both of which earn monthly wages of nearly $4,000. Terrorists who were incarcerated 15-25 years will receive over $2,800 every month.

The amounts of money being bestowed upon these terrorists are large not only in and of themselves, but in particular in contrast to the average monthly salaries of Palestinian workers in the West Bank, which stands at $641, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.

Many of these terrorists will receive the maximum amount of $50,000. When the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians began on July 30, 2014, Israel agreed to release 104 terrorists who had been in prison since before the 1993 Oslo peace process. All were heavily involved in terrorist activities and in acts of murder. Instead of condemning their heinous acts, the PA praises them as heroes, setting them up to be figures of inspiration for the younger generation.

Examples:

• Among those who will receive at least $50,000 is the most veteran prisoner, Issa Abed Rabbo, who shot to death two young Hebrew University students hiking near Bethlehem in 1984. In addition to the grant and salary, the PA also offered to cover the expenses of his wedding.
• Abu-Musa Atia, who used an ax to murder Isaac Rotenberg, a Holocaust survivor who had escaped from the Sobibor death camp.
• Yusef Hazaa who murdered two Israeli teachers, one of them a 19-year-old volunteer.
• Sualha Husseini and Almajed Mahmed who carried out a stabbing attack on a crowded bus, killed 24-year-old Baruch Heizler and wounding three young women.

These grants and salaries are not the only financial rewards given by the PA to convicted terrorists. Prisoners serving time in Israeli prisons for terrorism-related offences are paid a monthly salary by the PA. According to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (15 April 2011), salaries for serving prisoners range from approximately $390 to over $3,300, depending on the length of imprisonment. This means that the terrorists who carried out the most horrific attacks receive the highest salaries.

The Palestinian Authority is highly dependent on foreign aid. This money, which supports the PA budget, is used to meet payments for imprisoned and released terrorists. For example, in 2012 the PA paid over $75 million to terrorists in Israeli prisons, and $78 million to the families of deceased terrorists (including suicide bombers). Together, these amounts account for over 16% of the annual foreign donations and grants to the PA budget.
Publically rewarding convicted murderers gives an official stamp of approval to terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. It is a highly persuasive form of incitement to violence and terrorism.
Providing financial support for terrorists not only violates basic morality, it encourages further terrorist outrages. [For example, it may tempt young Palestinians to seek an answer to familial financial difficulties through the use of violence].
The international community should express their outrage at this abuse of funding that was given for the proper management of PA institutions and for promoting peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Why Should Anyone Believe Kerry?

From Commentary, 7 Dec 2013, by Jonathan Tobin:

Secretary of State John Kerry was back in Israel today with a three-part task. One was to reassure the Israeli government that the weak nuclear deal the administration cut with Iran is not threat to the Jewish state’s security. The second was, as I wrote on Wednesday, to present the Israelis with a detailed plan about the future of the West Bank after a peace deal with the Palestinians is achieved. The third was to convince the Palestinian Authority to play along and to accept the scheme that theoretically guarantees Israel’s security by the stationing of U.S. or other foreign troops along the Jordan River.

Kerry may be still riding the rush he got from succeeding in persuading the Iranians to sign a deal that he has tried to represent as a diplomatic triumph, but he’s likely to strike out on all three counts in the Middle East–and for reasons that are not unrelated to his diplomatic coup. The Israelis now have even less reason to trust Kerry and the U.S. than they did before. And having watched how the Iranians were, despite the enormous economic and military leverage the U.S. had over them, able to hold out and retain all of their nuclear infrastructure and stockpile, there is absolutely no reason for the Palestinians not to be just as patient with Kerry, confident that they need never give up their demands for territory, Jerusalem, lack of security guarantees for Israel, and even right of return for refugees. Though he can pretend that he has made the world safer with his Iran deal and contend that the peace negotiations he has promoted will also solve the region’s problems, the parties involved no longer believe a word he says.

Leaving aside the obvious shortcomings of the Iran deal from the point of view of those who believe that it does nothing to prevent the Islamist regime from gaining a nuke in the long term, there is tremendous irony in Kerry arriving in Israel to ask the Netanyahu government for more concessions on the heels of the Geneva signing. For years the Israelis had been told that if they were more accommodating to the Palestinians, it would convince the West to do its best on the Iranian nuclear threat. Though the logic of such linkage was faulty, it was at least a coherent argument. But after having trashed years of American pronouncements (including President Obama’s campaign promise to force the Iranians to give up their nuclear program) by legitimizing Iran’s nuclear program and right to enrich uranium, Kerry has effectively destroyed that argument. Having embarked on what appears to be a misguided attempt to achieve détente with a hate-spewing, terrorist-sponsoring nuclear scofflaw state, the U.S. assurances about having Israel’s back ring hollow. While there is no alternative to the U.S. alliance, the Netanyahu government knows that it is on its own with respect to security issues in a way that it may not have felt in decades. As much as Israel has always been dubious about putting its safety in the hands of anyone, this is hardly the moment to be selling it on the notion that it can rely on Washington.

By the same token, the Palestinians have also been paying attention to the Iran talks. And the evidence for this came almost as soon as Kerry arrived when it was reported that the Palestinians rejected the security measures that the U.S. envisions out of hand. Palestinian sources told the Times of Israel that the plan, which was predicated on the notion of a complete Israeli withdrawal from strategic areas of the West Bank along the 1967 lines and a new partition of Jerusalem, was unacceptable because it would prolong “the occupation.” That should alert the Americans to the fact that the Palestinians have little interest in peace talks since in this context “occupation” seems to be referring to pre-1967 Israel and not to West Bank settlements. Nor, as I wrote earlier this week, are the Palestinians budging from their refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, something that would signal the end of the conflict rather than merely a pause in it.

If the Palestinians’ genuine goal is a two-state solution and peace, their rejectionist attitude is as crazy as their previous three refusals of statehood. But even if we were to believe despite abundant proof to the contrary that they do want a two-state solution, with Kerry on the other side of the table, why should the Palestinians be any less tough in these talks than the Iranians were in theirs?

Kerry’s ego may have been stroked by the Iranian deal, but his already shaky credibility is shot. There is no reason for Israel to believe American assurances and even less reason for the Palestinians not to think that they have more to gain from saying no than yes. But the consequences of this diplomatic farce are more far-reaching than the souring of relations between Israel and the United States.
By setting the Middle East up for certain diplomatic failure, Kerry has set the stage for a third intifada and threatened the Israelis with it himself. He may think he can blame Israel with the violence that may come after the negotiations blow up but, like the almost inevitable Iranian betrayal of the nuclear talks, what follows will be largely on his head.

Mandela's ambivalent relations with Israel

From JPost, 6 Dec 2013, by Steve Linde:

...Mandela voiced his vehement opposition to Israel's control of the territories it had “occupied” in the Six Day War, and he urged it to concede land to the Palestinians and Syrians, just as it had done with the Egyptians, for the sake of peace.

“My view is that talk of peace remains hollow if Israel continues to occupy Arab lands,” he said. “I understand completely well why Israel occupies these lands. There was a war. But if there is going to be peace, there must be complete withdrawal from all of these areas.”

He did, however, acknowledge Israel¹s legitimate security concerns, declaring: “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders.”
One of Mandela's greatest strengths was his ability to bury but not forget ­ the bitterness of the past, and actively work for a fairer future.
He did so when, upon his release from 27 years in jail, he emerged without exhibiting any signs of anger, reconciling with president F.W. de Klerk (earning them both Nobel peace prizes) and even sipping tea with Betsie Verwoerd, the 94-year-old widow of apartheid's architect, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd.
He did so when he became president of the new democratic South Africa in 1994 and set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, pitting perpetrators of apartheid crimes against its victims and their families.
He did so when he went to watch the Springbok team beat the All Blacks in the Rugby World Cup in 1995, depicted in the Clint Eastwood film, Invictus.
And he did so when, at the age of 81, he paid what was termed “a private visit” to Israel for two days after completing his five-year term as president and handing over the reins to his deputy, Thabo Mbeki, in June, and choosing to fly first to Iran, Syria and Jordan.
The peace overtures of then-prime minister Ehud Barak had paved the way for Mandela ­- a devout Christian ­- to make his first and only pilgrimage to the Holy Land. After taking a jab at the Jewish state for being the only nation not to invite him when he was appointed president, and then refusing several invitations to travel here, this trip was aimed at burying the hatchet­ or, in his words, “to heal old wounds” both with Israel and South African Jews.
Mandela had an ambivalent, almost love-hate relationship with Jews and Israel. Like Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi before him, his first job had been with a Jewish law firm in Johannesburg, and some of his closest friends, political advisers and business associates were Jewish. When he needed advice or money, they were the first people he called upon.
Many South African Jews had supported him, but others had openly backed or implicitly endorsed apartheid. One of his close Jewish friends, Arthur Goldreich, provided refuge to Mandela and other ANC leaders at his farm in Rivonia, later made aliya and became a professor at the Bezalel Art School.
On the other hand, Percy Yutar, the chief prosector at the infamous Rivonia treason trial at the end of which Mandela was given a life sentence, was Jewish too.

Mandela resented Israel's military relationship with apartheid South Africa, and passionately supported the PLO, which he saw as a liberation movement similar to his own ANC.
He supported Israel's right to exist as a democratic Jewish state, yet felt closer to its enemies: the PLO's Yasser Arafat, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Iran¹s Mohammed Khatami and Syria's Hafez Assad. ...

...In his talks with Levy at the Foreign Ministry, Mandela shared his impression during his visit to Iran that the country had become more “moderate” under then-president Khatami. He said he had received assurances that the trial of 13 Iranians Jews arrested earlier that year on charges of spying for “the Zionist regime,” which was of great concern then, would be “free and fair.” Levy protested politely against Mandela¹s reading of the situation, telling him that Iran, which backed terrorist groups targeting Jews and the Jewish state, was certainly not giving the 13 Jews a fair hearing.



In July 2000, after a closed trial that violated international legal norms, 10 were given harsh sentences, while three others were acquitted. Levy had been right, Mandela wrong.
Following his visit to Israel, Mandela flew to Gaza, where he enthusiastically embraced Arafat and endorsed Palestinian statehood, but made a point of urging Arab acceptance of Israel.
...While he supported Zionism in principle, he believed that if there was to be peace in the Middle East, Israel must negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians and avoid becoming a binational “apartheid state” ­ or risk becoming an international pariah like apartheid South Africa.
A humble hero, Mandela was the first to acknowledge that he wasn't always right, but as an advocate of justice for all, he was always ready to stand up and fight for what he believed was right, even when his views were not popular....

Opinion: Mandela Was an Enemy of Israel

From Israel National News,6 Dec 2013, by Giulio Menotti*:

Nelson Mandela has already been mourned by many Jews around the world. And for good reasons. When Mandela was released from prison by de Klerk, he showed statesmanship and reconciliation rather than revenge.
But his biography reveals that he was an enemy of the Israeli people.
A post-apartheid Pretoria that joins in boycotting Jerusalem is one of the more powerful victories for the boycott and divestment campaign. And it’s Nelson Mandela’s legacy.

Historically, black leaders in South Africa such as Desmond Tutu viewed the Jews as a part of the “capitalist camp”, and therefore exploitative of the blacks. Neo Mnumzama, chief representative of the ANC (Mandela’s party) at the United Nations, called Zionism an “ally of apartheid” and “an accomplice in the perpetuation of the crimes of Pretoria against the South African people”.

In Mandela’s twisted version, Israel and South Africa - both, in his view, under apartheid rule - were small bastions of Western interests surrounded by a larger and non-Western people; both governed hostile majorities, using force and denying rights to subjugate them; both were run by nationalistic, racist governments unwilling to grant rights to these people but anxious to exploit labor.
Mandela always made it clear that those who are the enemies of the Jews are not necessarily his enemies.

In 2000, the American Jewish Committee canceled a Washington luncheon scheduled to honor Mandela after he said that 13 Jews tried for “espionage” in Iran were receiving a “fair trial”.
Mandela laid a wreath on the grave of Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian revolution, warmly greeting his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “We are indebted to the Islamic Revolution”, Mandela proclaimed. It is the same Mandela who claimed that Communist Cuba had achieved the “systematic eradication of racism”.

In 1990, Mandela likened Israel to a “terrorist state” and declared that “we do not regard the PLO as a terrorist organization. If one has to refer to any parties as a terrorist state, one might refer to the Israeli government because they are the people who are slaughtering defenseless and innocent Arabs in the occupied territories”.

Mandela should have raised Jewish eyebrows when in 1990 he embraced Arafat in Lusaka, Zambia, likening the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the struggle against South African apartheid. “If the truth alienates the powerful Jewish community in South Africa, that’s too bad”, said Mandela.
During a trip to Libya, Mandela declared that “we consider ourselves to be comrades in arms to the Palestinian Arabs in their struggle for the liberation of Palestine. There is not a single citizen in South Africa who is not ready to stand by his Palestinian brothers in their legitimate fight against the Zionist racists”.

In September 1990, addressing the Reform congregation of Johannesburg, Mandela said: “If Zionism means the right of the Jewish people to seize territory and deny the Palestinian people the right to self-determination, we condemn it”.

In 1999 Mandela supported the Palestinian Arab use of violence. With Arafat seated next to him in Gaza, Mandela declared:

“All men and women with vision choose peace rather than confrontation, except in cases where we cannot proceed, where we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence”.

A few weeks later, the Palestinian Arabs began the Second Intifada. 2,000 Jewish civilians have since been killed in suicide attacks and shootings. When the terrorist Arafat died, Mandela called him “outstanding freedom fighter”.

Then Israel’s President Ezer Weizmann said of Mandela: "He calls Arafat by his first name, Yasser. They embraced, and he said he and Arafat were brothers. I said: ‘Then, Mr. President, we are cousins’”.

Nelson Mandela might be a symbol of goodness for many, but for Israel’s Jews he has been an enabler of anti-Semitism.

*Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary. He has just prblished a book about the Vatican and Israel titled "J'Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel" published by Mantua Books.

Rare Victory: Israel’s Admission to UN Regional Group

From the Times of Israel, 1 December 2013, by Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights organization in Geneva, Switzerland:


    Hillel Neuer

GENEVA, Dec. 1 – After decades of being excluded from all of the UN Human Rights Council’s regional groups in Geneva, Israel will be formally invited to join the Western group on Monday.

 

This is a rare and historic victory for the cause of equality at the United Nations, a memorable milestone moment, and an important step forward in the long struggle against institutionalized injustice at the world body.

 

Israel is to be saluted on its special diplomatic achievement.

Special recognition must go to Canada, the UK, France, Germany and the US for playing a key role in ending an egregious form of bias within the existing pattern and practice of anti-Israel prejudice at the UN.

For two decades UN Watch fought publicly and privately to overturn the blatantly discriminatory practice whereby the Jewish state was segregated — in direct violation of the UN Charter’s equality guarantee — into a category of its own, the only nation excluded from a regional group.

That is why it so gratifying to see this victory today. Given all of the obstacles, one might even call it a Hannukah miracle.

Contrary to several news reports, however, admission to WEOG in Geneva is unrelated to membership on the 47-nation council. Israel remains an observer state just like 145 other nations in Geneva, all of whom are entitled to participate in the council’s proceedings but not to vote on resolutions.

And regrettably this advance will not detract from the Arab states’ continued ability to target Israel in resolutions, urgent sessions and a special agenda item.

Rather, WEOG admission will allow Israel to participate together with all 192 other UN member states in receiving regular briefings, and to have its small say in the selection of council investigators, known as special rapporteurs.

More than anything, what regional group admission means for Israel is a sign of equal treatment — the removal of a symbol of bigotry and of an ugly stain upon the reputation of the UN.

The Palestinian Naqba was self inflicted

From Algemeiner, November 29, 2013, by David Shayne 

 

Physical map of the State of Israel.

 

This week marks the 66^th anniversary of one of the more celebrated events in modern Jewish history: 

The United Nations General Assembly decision to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into two independent states – one Jewish and the other Arab, adopted Nov. 29, 1947.

The Arab world with one voice bitterly condemned what was called “the Partition Plan” and threatened to destroy the Jewish State if it was declared. 

In fact, the Arab side did not wait until that date, sixth months later, but attacked Jewish Palestine the following day, launching what Israelis call the War of Independence and the Palestinians call the “Naqba” (the catastrophe), what Arabs see as their dispossession and loss of patrimony.

Ever since then, shifting coalitions of Arab and non-Arab forces, have waged continuous war against Israel, both on and off the battlefield. No less relentless has been the propaganda war.  This propaganda war, supported by some Americans  and Europeans, includes attempts to distort and obfuscate the historical record regarding Israel’s founding.

One of these tactics is to attempt to propagate “creation myths” intended to give the false impression that Israel is an artificial entity wrongfully imposed by outside powers on a unfairly victimized Arab population.

 

Below four of these myths are discussed:

Myth No. 1: The UN created Israel.

The UN is an international organization of nation-states created by treaty shortly after World War II, with the primary purpose to prevent war.  It has two main governing bodies, the General Assembly and the Security Council.  Most of the authority rests with the Security Council, the only body that can create binding obligations for member states. The General Assembly can only make recommendations or general policy declarations.

In May 1947, the British government announced it would end its 30-year rule over Palestine and requested the UN decide its future. On Nov. 29, 1947, the General Assembly passed Resolution 181 , the Partition Plan. Res. 181 was a suggestion. It had no binding force.  The Arab side rejected the resolution and, as mentioned above, launched a war of annihilation against Jewish Palestine, and then Israel.

The Security Council could have supported the General Assembly with its own resolution and sent forces to keep the peace, but it did not.  No nation, or group of nations or any UN organ took steps of any kind to prevent or punish the Arab aggression. Indeed, when the armies of five Arab nations invaded the newly established State of Israel, they flagrantly violated the UN Charter, which forbids wars of aggression, but the Security Council still did nothing.

In the end, no nation or group of nations took any concrete political or military steps to stop the Arab armies.  No foreign army came to Israel’s defense, not in 1948 and not ever.

 

Myth No. 2:  The US created Israel.

President Truman was in office in 1947 and 1948.  He was personally sympathetic with plight of Jewish Holocaust survivors (see further discussion below), but his Secretary of State favored adopting the same Pro-Arab stance the British government had adopted.  So, while the US supported partition (at least at first) and became the first nation to extend formal recognition to the new government of Israel, it refused to extend any assistance and, in fact, imposed a facially neutral arms embargo on all of the warring parties. The embargo, however, favored the Arab side as it received all the arms it needed from the British or other handy sources.  Contrary to what many people think, the US did not become Israel’s chief supporter and military supplier until after the 1967 Six Day War.

The only world power willing to aid Israel is one that may surprise some readers: the Soviet Union, which allowed its satellite state, Czechoslovakia, to sell desperately needed arms to Israel.  While Stalin was no Judophile, to put it mildly, he saw the real politik advantage to helping Israel beat back its Arab allies, which it was only able to partially do after months of long and bitter fighting. Britain, a Soviet rival, thereby suffered loss of prestige and influence in the Arab world.  (Only a few short years later, Britain and the Soviet Union would be on opposite sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the Soviets backing the Arabs and Britain backing Israel.)

In the end, Israel created itself, as did the US and as many other nations, through the ultimate exercise of a popular will seeking self-determination and, especially, self-preservation against the Arab onslaught.  No outside power can take credit-or blame-for Israel’s existence.

Myth No. 3:  Israel was created as a result of or in compensation for the Holocaust.

This is a particularly oft-repeated myth by Israel’s enemies, e.g. Iran’s Ahmadinejad, in order to negate the truth that the State of Israel is a natural, organic result of a national group exercising its will.

The Holocaust and its aftermath certainly played a catalytic role, in that it galvanized the Jewish people, both inside and outside of Palestine, to unite, organize and rebel against British rule to achieve independence, and this, in no small part, to provide a refuge for the tens of thousands of survivors trapped in Displaced Persons Camps. The existence of these camps also created a certain amount of sympathy in Europe and the US, especially in light of the reluctance of any government to take in large numbers of these refugees.  Beyond that, the Holocaust played no role in Israel’s founding. In fact, the number of Holocaust survivors who actually made it to either Palestine or Israel were but a fraction of the number of Jewish immigrants (olim) who arrived both before and after the founding of the State.

As already explained, it is simply untrue that any nations or group of nations “imposed” the Israeli state at all, whether due to the Holocaust or for any other reason.

Myth No. 4:  Israel could not exist but for the lands and property stolen from dispossessed Arabs in 1948.

This one is such a whopper that even smarter Arab propagandists know better than to repeat it.  But given how much ignorance and misinformation is spread about Israel, especially on the Internet, it needs addressing. First, the underlying premise, that the Jews willfully and maliciously dispossessed the entire Arab population, is false at many levels.

A significant portion (about one third) of Palestine’s Arabs were dispossessed but as result of a war their side started.

A detailed analysis of the causes of Arab dispossession is beyond the scope of this article. It will just be noted that fighters on both sides committed atrocities and civilians on both sides suffered terribly, including losing their homes.

The suffering that was caused, however, is largely the fault of the Arab side that launched and perpetuated the war, as it continued to do long after 1948.  Blaming Israel for the Palestinian “Naqba” is a classic case of blaming the victim for the bad outcome incurred by the would-be victimizer whose evil designs are thwarted.

But assuming, for the sake of argument only, that Israel was to blame, this myth would still be a lie because it ignores the basic fact that those parts of Palestine that became “The State of Israel” were developed mostly by the Jews who lived there. Jews founded Tel Aviv, most of Haifa, and Western Jerusalem and hundreds of smaller towns and villages long before 1948. Yes, the Israelis did acquire and use abandoned Arab property and even built a few villages over abandoned Arab villages, but these made up a tiny percent of privately owned Jewish property, or state lands acquired through independence.

Had there been no war, there would have been no dispossession, and yet, there still would have been a thriving Jewish State in former Palestine. Arab property was neither coveted nor needed before the war, although occasionally it was plundered and appropriated afterward. (But the same is true for thousands of Jewish homes and property that ended up in Arab-controlled Palestinian areas, i.e, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, not to mention the millions of Jews plundered in Arab countries in revenge for the “Naqba.”)

To conclude, many  currently existing nation-states, besides the US, “willed” themselves into existence often by throwing off the rule of a foreign power (e.g. Greece, India, Pakistan) or were born out civil war (e.g., South Korea, Eritrea).  Israel is no different, and has no less of a right to exist than any of those nations. And all of the claims that somehow Israel is an artificial entity with no right to exist is just a myth.

The world has been sorely remiss in remaining silent in or acquiescing to the blatant lies the anti-Israel forces spread.  The issue is not simply historical accuracy and fairness. Palestinian Arab hatred, intransigence and violence is fueled by this false narrative of Israel’s illegitimacy.  Peace will only be possible when Palestinian leadership and its supporters are forced to confront and acknowledge the truth:  The Palestinian Naqba was self inflicted. It’s time for Palestinians to own up to that fact, to put an end to their “righteous” warfare, and for them to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors.

Spreading European Anti-Semitism

From the Jewish Daily Forward, 25 November, 2013, by Liam Hoare:

85% of French Jews See Hatred as Major Problem

getty images

Conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, known as the FRA, “Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in E.U. Member States: experiences and perceptions of anti-Semitism” surveyed 5,847 individuals 16 years old and over who considered themselves Jewish, residing in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

.... Across Europe, 66% of Jewish people see anti-Semitism as a problem in their respective countries today — as high as 90% in Hungary and 85% in France. The perception, moreover, is that over the past five years, the level of anti-Semitism has increased, with 76% of respondents saying it had gone up...

..Thirty-eight percent of Jews now avoid, all the time or frequently, wearing, carrying or displaying things that might help people identify them as Jews in public; 60% of Swedish Jews and 51% of French Jews act this way. Forty-eight percent of Jews in Hungary and 46% in France have considered emigrating because they do not feel safe living in those countries as Jews, with 90% of French Jews stating that the Arab-Israeli conflict affects their feelings of safety.

Immediately discernible from the statistics, though, is that the number of people who fear becoming a victim of anti-Semitism is greater than those who have experienced it as verbal insults, harassment or a physical attack. While 21% have been the actual victim of an anti-Semitic incident in the past 12 months, 46% worry about the possibility of such an assault.

There is also tremendous regional variation between fear and experience. In France, for example, an astonishing 70% fear becoming the victim of a hate crime. In the United Kingdom, however, the fear is not as heightened, with 28% of respondents worrying about becoming a victim of verbal assault, and 17% the victim of a physical assault — still high numbers, to be sure.

The reason for this disparity between perception and experience, however, is not groundless panic or hysteria; it comes because of new manifestations of anti-Semitism, principally dissemination via the Internet and new media.

When asked where anti-Semitism against Jewish communities occurs, 75% of European Jews pointed toward anti-Semitism on the Internet above all else, followed by 59% for anti-Semitism in the media. Internet anti-Semitism today is considered a greater problem than the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, the vandalism of Jewish buildings or institutions, and expressions of hostility toward Jews on the street and in other public places.

The perception is that the level of anti-Semitism on the Internet over the past five years has increased, as discussion forums and social networking sites are now the main places where European Jews are most likely to have seen or heard anti-Semitic comments. While 75% reported seeing or hearing anti-Semitic comments on the Internet in the past 12 months, 51% saw or heard them in a social situation, 47% among the general public and 42% at a political event.

And what exactly are they hearing? 

• 48% of respondents have seen or heard someone make the statement that Israelis behave “like Nazis” toward the Palestinians; 
• 38% that Jews have too much power in the economy, politics and the media; 
• 37% that Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes, 
• and on and on. 

Small wonder, then, that European Jews fear that they, their friends or their families might become victims of an anti-Semitic attack, if all this is a regular part of European discourse...

A safer world? ...Hardly.

From JPost, 24 Nov 2013, by Herb Keinon:

There is deep concern that the Geneva agreement will bolster Iran in the region...

Self congratulations and mutual admiration at the Iran nuclear talks in Geneva November 24, 2013. 

Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

Judging from their reactions to the deal that world powers signed with Iran in Geneva early Sunday morning, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama live in different worlds.

Diplomacy, Obama declared in a message to the nation announcing the accord, “opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure.”

Netanyahu begged to differ, telling the cabinet Sunday that “today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.”

Same world, yet diametrically opposed risk assessments by two very close allies.

Beyond the nuclear element, one of Jerusalem’s main concerns is that Iran... is suddenly cleansed, receiving a stamp of approval as a legitimate member of the international community in good standing. Iran ... has ... undergone a revolutionary rebranding...from pariah state to “constructive” actor.

Or, as Obama enthused, if Iran “seizes this opportunity” to prove to the world that its nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes, then “the Iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community, and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. This would provide Iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect.”

Really? How about Iran’s part in Syrian President Bashar Assad’s massacre of tens of thousands of people? How about its continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads that were not even mentioned in the Geneva agreement? How about its role in exporting terrorism around the globe? How about its stoning of women accused of adultery, hanging of homosexuals and gruesome rate of executions? How about the anti- Semitic ranting of its leaders? Does all of the above really render the world a safer place, as Obama said? This agreement shows that Iran can indeed do all of the above, yet still get to be a member of the international community.

Israel’s concern about a nuclear Iran has never only – or even primarily – been that the Iranians will use a nuclear bomb on Israel, but rather that even having the weapon or the weapons capability will magnify its power in the region and embolden it and its proxies.

There is a deep concern that the Geneva agreement will indeed bolster Iran in the region.

Iran is already a nuclear threshold state, as is any state that can enrich uranium to 5%, has 18,000 centrifuges (nuclear-armed Pakistan has only 6,000) at its disposal and can “break out” with a bomb in five weeks.
But if before Saturday night Iran was a nuclear threshold state with leper status in the world, now it is a nuclear threshold state with international legitimacy.

UN Security Council resolutions on Iran called for it explicitly to suspend its enrichment; this agreement says go ahead and enrich, just not beyond 5%.

The agreement gives Iran considerable regional leverage.

Will the US or other Western countries push Iran on the Syrian issue, knowing that if they push too hard, Iran may walk away from the nuclear agreement? After investing so much time and energy into forging an agreement, none of those involved will want to do anything that could lead to its falling apart.

Two weeks ago, US Secretary of State John Kerry, following an inconclusive round of talks in Geneva, was asked in a BBC interview whether Hezbollah or the conflict in Syria came up in his talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. “I think we spent 30 seconds on Syria,” Kerry said tellingly.

And the regional ramifications do not only touch on Syria (notice that Damascus praised the agreement to the moon), but will also have ramifications on the diplomatic process with the Palestinians.

Firstly Iran – suddenly let off the ropes – will once again be free to do what it can to torpedo any possible Israeli-Palestinian accommodation, as any pressure on Iran to demonstrate “good behavior” in order not to scuttle a potential deal with the West is now off. Expect, therefore, a sudden upsurge again in Iranian support for Hamas, a group looking for a new patron following their split with Damascus and the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi in Egypt.

The agreement will also have ramifications on the Israel-Palestinian front for a couple of other reasons. First of all, Israel will feel no compulsion now to repay a tough US or international stance on Iran with concessions to the Palestinians, since from Netanyahu’s point of view there was no strong stance on Iran.

The linkage discussed so often in the past, “Bushehr for Yitzhar” – the US stops a nuclear Iran symbolized by the nuclear reactor in Bushehr, and in return Israel gives up settlements symbolized by Yitzhar – has lost currency, for from Israel’s perspective the world is letting Iran keep Bushehr.

Also, any agreement with the Palestinians will necessitate Israel taking calculated risks. But Israel now will be much more risk averse, with Iran suddenly emboldened and enjoying new-found international legitimacy.
In addition, any possible future agreement with the Palestinians would undoubtedly necessitate ironclad security guarantees from the US. Considering the way Washington handled the Iranian file since Rouhani’s election in June, does anyone really think Netanyahu is going to place Israel’s security in the hands of US guarantees?

A safer world? Maybe seen from Washington, a long way from Iran and the Middle East.

But from Jerusalem, close to Iran, and in the eye of the storm? Hardly.

The Agreement with Iran is only a starting point

From Times of Israel, 24 Nov 2013, by Avi Issacharoff:

The interim agreement announced in Geneva early Sunday morning between Iran and the world powers does not resolve the issue of Iran’s rogue nuclear power program. 

It is only the starting point on the way to a decisive junction that the sides will reach in another six months. 

Only then will it become clear how good or bad the interim agreement is for the State of Israel, the United States, Iran and its Arab neighbors. Only then will it be possible to gauge its success (or lack thereof) in reducing Tehran’s ability to attain a nuclear bomb.

Still, even at this early stage, it is possible to declare some interim winners and losers.

Tehran and its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (represented by the charming President Hassan Rouhani) are big winners, at least for the next six months. Under the deal, the international community has essentially recognized the right of Iran to enrich uranium, which has long been demanded by the regime. Moreover, the world has basically agreed that for the next half a year, Iran can continue as a nuclear threshold state — though not a nuclear state, a critical difference.

Iran will retain its stores of low-enriched uranium, quantities which today could be further enriched to produce between six and eight nuclear bombs. The financial situation in Iran is likely to improve, given the immediate release of $8 billion in assets and, in the near future, increased state revenue from the easing of sanctions. The likelihood of an “Iranian Spring,” a la July 2009, has been decreased and the public support for Khamenei and his messenger Rouhani will only increase. The Iranian president’s speech on Sunday morning and Khamenei’s statements illustrate how enthusiastically they view the achievement.

A second big winner is US President Barack Obama. Although bitterly critical voices were heard against the agreement in Israel, in the Arab countries close to the United States and even in Congress (including Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader), the White House stayed the course. The American public, entering the holiday season, is likely to welcome the deal — a “historic” alternative to what could have become a new outbreak of American warfare in the Middle East. Obama will tout the Geneva agreement as his latest foreign policy achievement, following the summer deal for the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities. And the deal does, indeed, provide for the rolling back, to some extent, of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear bomb: uranium enrichment above 5% will stop, and Western supervision at the Fordo and Natanz facilities will be increased with inspectors allowed in at any time.

Nonetheless, Iran’s ongoing “right” to even low-level enrichment raises serious and justified concerns in Jerusalem, Riyadh, Amman, Bahrain, and beyond. The conviction here is that Tehran has managed to fool Obama, and will use the next six months to move closer still to nuclear weapons capability. It is not clear what has been decided regarding surprise inspections at other facilities, such as Parchin. And Iran has a track record of building secret facilities which inspectors know nothing about.

The concern, anger and dismay among moderate Sunni states and in Jerusalem has only increased in light of what is perceived as an exercise in deception by Washington. According to a Sunday Associated Press report, the American government managed to keep secret for months a series of meetings it held with Iranian emissaries, which began even before Rouhani was elected five months ago.

Obama and Iran should not be contemptuous of the “losers.” Today there is an unprecedented crisis of faith between the moderate Arab states and Washington. What was perhaps regarded as a beginner’s mistake concerning the US attitude toward former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and continued in a surreal fashion with Washington’s incoherent stance on the current Cairo strongman, Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, had already developed, following the deal on Syria, into a terrible sense of betrayal among Arab countries.

Relations can only further deteriorate now. This twisted atmosphere could lead some in the moderate Arab world, mistrustful of US readiness to stand up for its allies, to move closer to Moscow, and perhaps even to enter into secretive agreements with Israel, headed by the current “biggest loser,” Benjamin Netanyahu.

The prime minister of Israel has emerged battered and bruised from his struggle with the White House. His efforts, overt and covert, to dissuade Obama from signing the agreement have failed. Some US newspapers have opined that he tried to pull the United States into a war. At home, along with a fair amount of support, he has also drawn some criticism for his belligerent statements on the issue.

It is hard to know how Netanyahu and the Arab states will act with their backs to the wall. Obviously they’ll try to use every ounce of leverage to secure a permanent accord that would neutralize Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons in the long term. This will mean pressure on Obama, via the US Congress, to stand by his commitment to thwart the Iranian bomb. There is no shortage of members of Congress, Democrats among them, prepared to go head-to-head with Obama on this issue. That pressure is only expected to increase as the six months mark nears.

Finally, Iran has a history of attempting to hide elements of its nuclear program. If it becomes clear in the coming weeks that Iran is doing so again, and taking further significant steps toward the bomb, then Israel’s moment of truth will come in much less than six months.

Senior General: US in Greatest Danger Since 1930s

From A7, 22 Nov 2013, by Ari Yashar& Orli Harari:

Senior analyst Gen. McInerney warns that US is in comparable danger to pre-WWII period, specifically from Russian and Iranian hegemonies.

Senior military analyst Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney spoke to Arutz Sheva on Tuesday, warning that rising Russian and Iranian influence, coupled with America's waning Middle East presence, has put the US in the most dangerous situation it has been in since the 1930s just prior to World War II....
The General urged the world to wake up to the Iranian nuclear threat which he fears may be allowed a free hand following deals in the ongoing Geneva conference.
Aside from the Iranian danger, McInerney noted that spreading Russian influence poses a serious threat.
In particular McInerney highlighted the danger of US President Barack Obama's handling of longtime US ally Egypt, which has recently turned to Russia. Just on Wednesday reports revealed that Egypt signed a $4 billion arms deal with Russia designed to let Egypt attain parity with the IDF.

McInerney's warning call, followed by the transcribed statement, appears below:


When you support America you support Israel. That's fundamental to our society.

We are facing the most dangerous threat that the United States has seen since the 1938-39 timeframe, and we do not realize it, the public does not realize it.

We have an administration that has an entirely different view about the world.

We're giving a key ally away to the Russians--Egypt. And Egypt is crucial to our success in the Middle East because of its relationship to the (Israeli) peace treaty, number two--the Suez canal, our access, number three--overflight.

And four, for the first time an Arab nation is openly attacking the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical Islamists. And we should be supporting General (Abdel) Al-Sisi, we are not. He's extremely important.
You've seen what's happened in Syria. We have now legitimized (President Bashar) Assad, we've legitimized the Soviet hegemony in the region, as well as the Iranian hegemony.

So we have a very dangerous situation in the world, and fundamentally in two days I believe this administration will acquiesce and pull off the sanctions against the Iranians.

We should double the sanctions, that's the only thing that's working. So that's why I believe it is the most dangerous position the United States has seen since the 30s.

Finally, we are unilaterally disarming the US military, it is very dangerous what's going on. And all of this is coming together at a very critical time in our history.

Once again intransigent Israel refuses to cooperate in its own destruction.

Iran clarifies its hate-filled aims

From the DAILY ALERT Friday, November 22, 2013:

Khamenei: "We Fight Against the Arrogance. The U.S. Is on the Top of the Arrogance in the World"
BBC translation of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's speech to Basij commanders on Nov. 20 [2013]:

"We are against the arrogance. We fight against the arrogance. Arrogance is a word in the Koran. It is used in the Koran for people like Pharaoh, malevolent groups which are hostile to truth and righteousness....

The government of the United States of America is on the top of the arrogance in the world." [The audience repeatedly chants: "Death to America."]

"The Zionist regime is doomed to oblivion. ....Unfortunately, some European countries cringe before this creature which is not worthy of the name of a human being, before these leaders of the Zionist regime, who look like beasts and who cannot be called human."  (BBC)

See also Decoding Khamenei's "Heroic Flexibility" - Michael Rubin
Much of the optimism that Iran is sincere in its desire to reach a nuclear accord is based on the assumption that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei backs President Hassan Rouhani's diplomatic initiative. But the notion that Khamenei's call for "heroic flexibility" equates with endorsement of a diplomatic solution misreads Khamenei.
    Khamenei clarified the meaning of "heroic flexibility," telling Basij commanders on Nov. 20: 

"Some interpreted 'heroic flexibility' as letting go of the system's principles and ideals....These claims are contrary to reality and are an incorrect understanding."

"Heroic flexibility means an artful maneuver and utilizing various methods to achieve the various goals and ideals of the Islamic system."  (Commentary)

Netanyahu: The Real Iran Is Chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel"
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Russian Jewish community leaders in Moscow on Thursday: 

The Iranians deny our past and repeat their commitment to wipe the State of Israel off the map. This reminds us of the dark regimes of the past that plotted against us first and then against all of humanity.

They have now created a propaganda film in which a piano is being played and the Foreign Minister is seen talking about the need for peace. This is not the real Iran. The real Iran is what the leader of Iran, Khamenei, said yesterday. He called Jews "rabid dogs" and said that they were not human. The public responded to him with calls of "Death to America! Death to Israel!"

Doesn't this sound familiar to you? This is the real Iran! We are not confused. They must not have nuclear weapons. And I promise you that they will not have nuclear weapons. (Prime Minister's Office)

Ya'alon: A Stronger Iran Means a Stronger Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said in Ottawa on Thursday that 

the Iranian regime "is involved in every conflict in the Middle East and has also set up terror bases in Africa, Asia and South America. They want to defeat Western culture, and are prepared to sacrifice to achieve this."

    "The Iranians want, under the cover of the nuclear umbrella that they will have, to advance their terror activities, such as using a 'dirty bomb' at various targets in the Western world. Therefore, we must not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran. One way or another, Iran's military nuclear project must be stopped."

    "We stand before the signing of a bad deal with Iran, which will allow the regime in Tehran to preserve its [uranium] enrichment capabilities and operate without pressure," he warned. "If Iran gets stronger, Hizbullah and the Islamic Jihad will get stronger. These are forces that will challenge both the West and us."  (Jerusalem Post)

 

Atrocity could ignite fire beneath Middle East's sectarian cauldron

From: The Times, November 21, 2013, by Michael Binyon:

Forensic experts work at the site of the twin suicide bombings outside Iran's embassy in southern Beirut yesterday. Source: AFP

THE suicide attack on the Iranian embassy in Beirut has brought the Syrian civil war to the heart of Lebanon. 

It threatens to reignite the bitter 15-year Lebanese civil war at a time when the country is overwhelmed with more than 800,000 Syrian refugees - about a fifth of its own population.

The attack, claimed by an al-Qa'ida offshoot, is clear revenge for Iran's support for President Bashar al-Assad and its backing for Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia now deeply engaged in Syria fighting for the government.
It comes after an escalation of tit-for-tat attacks on Shia and Sunni leaders and communities in Beirut and the northern city of Tripoli that threatens to trigger all-out fighting between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
The precarious religious balance in Lebanon could be upset by further attacks on Hezbollah. Lebanon's Shia Amal opposition has long depended on Hezbollah to protect it, but it now fears that the larger community of Sunni Muslims will see it as an Iranian fifth column seeking to undermine Lebanon's sovereignty. Whereas the 1975-90 civil war largely pitted Lebanon's Christian minority against the Muslim majority, the Christians now fear that they could be caught in the crossfire between al-Qa'ida-linked jihadists and Iranian-backed Shia militias.
Assassinations, gunfights and car bombs have claimed hundreds of lives, culminating in two blasts outside mosques in Tripoli in August that killed 40 people and wounded 400.
Iran lamely tried to blame Israel for Monday night's atrocity in an attempt to dampen tensions, but Tehran's proxies in Lebanon are sure to respond with revenge attacks on prominent Sunni politicians. The spectre terrifying the Muslim world is that of outright war between Shia and Sunni Islam. The escalating hostility between Saudi Arabia and Iran could quickly spark new flare-ups across the Middle East. Already tensions in Bahrain, Libya and northern Yemen have divided the Muslim population along sectarian lines.
Saudi Arabia, fearful of what it sees as encirclement by Iranian-backed Shia rivals, is now fearful that a nuclear deal between Iran and the West will remove all restraint on Tehran and encourage Iran and Shia militants to threaten Saudi Arabia's internal stability and privileged religious position in the Muslim world. The bombs in Beirut might be the catalysts for an ideological struggle that could devastate global Islam.