JINSA Report #846 Victory Dancing

JINSA Report #846 January 20, 2009 Victory Dancing There was no victory to be had in Gaza; all the possibilities were bad.   Israel's Operation Cast Lead intended to damage the Hamas leadership and infrastructure in hopes of stopping the rocket fire that has terrorized more than three quarters of a million Israelis in the south. Because Hamas not only fired at civilians, but fired from among civilians, it was always clear that the job of "dismantling the terrorist infrastructure" would be ugly and that Palestinian civilians would pay a price for the lousy Hamas leadership for which they voted.  This is why the Israelis waited so long; returning fire only after 8,000 Hamas rockets of increasing range and precision hit Israel since the disengagement in 2005, including 3,700 rockets in 2008. Which is why, since December 27, Israel has transferred more than 450,000 gallons of fuel and 37,000 tons of humanitarian supplies to Gaza in 1,500 trucks. And which is why the Magen David Adom (Israel's Red Cross) set up a medical clinic on the Israeli side of the Erez check point to serve the Palestinian population. Paramedics are working with volunteer doctors, specializing in family medicine, pediatrics, gynecology, trauma, orthopedics and surgery. The clinic is equipped with laboratories, X-ray machines and a pharmacy. After diagnosis, patients may be transferred to Israeli hospitals so MDA ambulances have been sent to the clinic. Only in the warped minds of people who poison their own children and hide behind their own mothers could the devastation of Gaza be portrayed as a victory. But Hamas and its Iranian backers are performing a sort of loopy victory dance.    Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said the Palestinians had achieved an historic and strategic victory over Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agreed, congratulating Khaled Mashaal, the Hamas leader living in Syria, on a "great victory." He called it "only the beginning."   Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of the Hamas "political bureau," pointed to what he called, "the failure of the Zionist aggression on the Gaza Strip and its failure to impose its conditions on the resistance and our people....We also emphasize our demand that the Zionist enemy withdraw from the Gaza Strip within a week and that the border crossings be reopened." He's making demands? Note: Abu Mazen's term as elected president of the Palestinian Authority quietly expired last week.  Israel, the United States and the European Union have continued to speak to him, and of him, as if he has some legal place in Palestinian affairs. Hamas disagrees. Faraj al-Ghul, Hamas minister of justice (oxymoron alert), said Abbas is the former president and according to the Palestinian Authority Basic Law, the Hamas government of Ismail Haniyeh is the only legitimate representative. No Palestinian government would honor an agreement signed by Abbas. The Jerusalem Post reported that al-Ghul called, "for the arrest of Abbas so that he could be interrogated and tried for committing hundreds of atrocities and for coordinating with [U.S. security coordinator Lt. Gen. Keith] Dayton and the Israeli occupation against the resistance. Abbas is also accused of giving a green light to the Zionist occupation to perpetrate the biggest holocaust in history against the Palestinians." On the other hand, The Jerusalem Post also reported that Fatah's armed wing, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, bragged that its operatives in Gaza fired 102 rockets and 35 mortars at Israel and that one of its top commanders, Ali Hijazi, had been killed. Fatah, remember, is Israel's "partner." In all of this, not one Palestinian leader suggested that the Hamas war against Israel was a tragedy for the Palestinian people and that for their sake it should end.   They are dancing on the wreckage of their own people, something Israel could not and would not in a million years have done. Which, we suppose, is the difference. Archive of past JINSA Reports Support JINSA, click here! email: feedback@jinsa.org phone: 202-667-3900 web: http://www.jinsa.org

Forward email This email was sent to davidlevy68.people@blogger.com by info@jinsa.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by JINSA | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 515 | Washington | DC | 20036

Email Winner

Email Owner,

Your Email address has won the sum of €915.810.00 (Nine Hundred And
Fifteen Thousand, Eight Hundred And Ten Euro) in an International Email
Sweepstakes Program corporation held on the 22nd of December 2008 in
Spain .We write to officially notify you of this award and to advise you
to Contact your claim agent
Mr, Rau Lopez Email: raulopez2009@gmail.com, Tel: +34-618-125-559.
(1)Coupon No: LGH7852 (2) Ticket No: 9624QHE (3) Lucky No: 4-12-20

Visit (www.euromillions.com) for more informations.We
wish you the best of luck as you spend your good fortune.

Mrs Mireya Carolina Menéndez

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Email Winner

Email Owner,

Your Email address has won the sum of €915.810.00 (Nine Hundred And
Fifteen Thousand, Eight Hundred And Ten Euro) in an International Email
Sweepstakes Program corporation held on the 22nd of December 2008 in
Spain .We write to officially notify you of this award and to advise you
to Contact your claim agent
Mr, Rau Lopez Email: raulopez2009@gmail.com, Tel: +34-618-125-559.
(1)Coupon No: LGH7852 (2) Ticket No: 9624QHE (3) Lucky No: 4-12-20

Mrs, Yanire Braña

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

CONGRATULATIONS!!! YOU HAVE WON

PRIZE WINNER
EURO MILLIONS SPANISH LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL
FROM:INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION / PRIZE AWARD DEPT.
112-113 AVENIDA DE AMERICA 28008
MADRID - ESPANA.

(Ў) REFERENCE: 67/80/CCL
(ЎЎ)BATCH: EGGS-541-623-782
(No Ticket Sold)
**********************************************************
AWARD WINNING NOTIFICATION / FINAL NOTICE
Sir/Madam,
We happily announce to you the draw of the EURO MILLIONS SPANISH LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL
EMAIL WINNINGS PROGRAM PROMOTIONS held on the 10TH JANUARY 2009 in SPAIN. Your company
or your personal e-mail address attached to ticket number 653-908-321-675 with serial main number
345-790-241-671 drew lucky star winning numbers 34-32-90-43-32 which consequently won in the 2ND
category, you have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay out of Ђ960.000.00 Euros.
(NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND EUROS ).

The online draws was conducted by a random selection of email addresses from an exclusive list of 29,031
E-mail addresses of individuals and corporate bodies picked by an advanced automated random computer
search from the internet all the continents of the world.this lottery was promoted and sponsored by
Spanish European Lottery Board in line with the King Of Spain (REY) in order to enhance and promote
the use of Internet Explorer Users and Microsoft-wares around the globe.

To claim your winning prize, you should contact the assigned office by E-mail for Processing and
remittance of your winning funds without delay.
The Claims Officers:
NAME:MRS GISELA WILLIAMS
For:: DR TOM J.GARCIA
BNV SECURITY COMPANY S.L
MADRID ESPAСA
Email: info.bnv@aol.es

Remember, all winning must be claimed not later than two weeks, after this date all unclaimed funds
will be included in the next stake.

Please note in order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications please remember to quote your
Reference number and Batch numbers in all correspondence with the claim officers.
Furthermore, should there be any change of address do inform our agent as soon as possible.

Congratulations once more from our members of staff and thank you for being part of our promotional
program.We hope with part of your winning you will take part in our end of year 50 millions spanish International lottery.

Sincerely yours,
MRS,CARLOTA GUILLERMO.
Director Online International Promotions Unit/Lottery Co-ordinator.

CONGRATULATIONS!!! FILE IN YOUR WINNING PRIZE

PRIZE WINNER
EURO MILLIONS SPANISH LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL
FROM:INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION / PRIZE AWARD DEPT.
112-113 AVENIDA DE AMERICA 28008
MADRID - ESPANA.

(Ў) REFERENCE: 67/80/CCL
(ЎЎ)BATCH: EGGS-541-623-782
(No Ticket Sold)
**********************************************************
AWARD WINNING NOTIFICATION / FINAL NOTICE
Sir/Madam,
We happily announce to you the draw of the EURO MILLIONS SPANISH LOTTERY INTERNATIONAL
EMAIL WINNINGS PROGRAM PROMOTIONS held on the 9TH JANUARY 2009 in SPAIN. Your company
or your personal e-mail address attached to ticket number 653-908-321-675 with serial main number
345-790-241-671 drew lucky star winning numbers 34-32-90-43-32 which consequently won in the 2ND
category, you have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay out of Ђ960.000.00 Euros.(NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND EUROS ).

The online draws was conducted by a random selection of email addresses from an exclusive list of 29,031
E-mail addresses of individuals and corporate bodies picked by an advanced automated random computer
search from the internet all the continents of the world.this lottery was promoted and sponsored by
Spanish European Lottery Board in line with the King Of Spain (REY) in order to enhance and promote
the use of Internet Explorer Users and Microsoft-wares around the globe.

To claim your winning prize, you should contact the assigned office by E-mail for Processing and
remittance of your winning funds without delay.
The Claims Officers:
NAME:MRS GISELA WILLIAMS
For:: DR TOM J.GARCIA
BNV SECURITY COMPANY S.L
MADRID ESPAСA
Email: info.bnvsur0@aol.es

Remember, all winning must be claimed not later than two weeks, after this date all unclaimed funds
will be included in the next stake.

Please note in order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications please remember to quote your
Reference number and Batch numbers in all correspondence with the claim officers.Furthermore, should there be any change of address do inform our agent as soon as possible.

Congratulations once more from our members of staff and thank you for being part of our promotional program.We hope with part of your winning you will take part in our end of year
50 millions spanish International lottery.

Sincerely yours,
MRS,CARLOTA GUILLERMO.
Director Online International Promotions Unit/Lottery Co-ordinator.

Coupon No:TY8949

Your Email address has won the sum of 950,000Euros in an International Email Sweepstakes Program Cooporation held on the 4TH of Jan 2009 in Holland.We write to officially notify you of this award and to advised you to contact your claim agent Mr,Willian Bouch standardtrust112@aol.com Tel:+:+31-651 -781-309.
(1)Coupon No:TY8949
(2)Ticket No:9512EU
Belinda Van Weeps

JINSA Report #845 Sometimes It Really Is That Simple

JINSA Report #845 January 12, 2009 Sometimes It Really Is That Simple One of the raps on President Bush is that he is not a "deep thinker," that he holds a simplistic view of the world. Particularly in Washington, if you say something in seven sentences where one would do, you win points. If you drive a stake through the heart of conventional wisdom you lose points. But sometimes it really is that simple.   Mr. Bush held his last press conference today and was asked, of course, about Israel's operation in Gaza. He said: I'm for a sustainable cease-fire. And a definition of a sustainable cease-fire is that Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. And there will not be a sustainable cease-fire if they continue firing rockets...the choice is Hamas's to make. And we believe that the best way to ensure that there is a sustainable cease-fire is to work with Egypt to stop the smuggling of arms into the Gaza that enables Hamas to continue to fire rockets. And so countries that supply weapons to Hamas have got to stop. And the international community needs to continue to pressure them to stop providing weapons... Hamas, obviously, if they're interested in a sustainable cease-fire, needs to stop arming.     I think Israel has a right to defend herself.   We will miss the clarity of a president who says a cease-fire means you cease firing, and we wonder why the solons in Europe and the UN have so much trouble understanding self-defense. On the other hand, sometimes nuance counts. Wedded to the "two state solution," the President failed to note that there are now three geographic and three governmental entities between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River; one democracy, one terrorist-state and one governed by Abu Mazen (whose term in office has expired) and Salam Fayyad (who was never elected). Mr. Bush also attributed increased stability on the West Bank to the establishment of Palestinian security forces, a recent development, rather than to Israel's six-year quest to establish security control of the area, under the auspices of which the Palestinian economy has begun, finally, to grow. And finally, he suggested that a "vibrant economy will help lead to democracy." This is backwards - only the rule of law will enable a vibrant economy to emerge. Lest we sound churlish as President Bush leaves office, we are truly grateful for his steadfast support of Israel and his understanding of the bad guys. The challenge...is always complicated by the fact that people are willing to murder to stop the advance of freedom. Hamas, or for that matter al Qaeda, or other extremist groups, are willing to use violence to prevent free states from emerging. And that's the big challenge.     Yes, it is. And we hope his successor doesn't make those things more complicated than they need to be.     Archive of past JINSA Reports Support JINSA, click here! email: feedback@jinsa.org phone: 202-667-3900 web: http://www.jinsa.org

Forward email This email was sent to davidlevy68.people@blogger.com by info@jinsa.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by JINSA | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 515 | Washington | DC | 20036

Re: Seeking Executor Of Last Will And Testament.

Dear: Sir/Madam,

My name is Barrister PERE A DANIS, an Attorney (Lawyer) to late Mr.Yaroslav Zojniuk.

I am writing to notify you of the TESTAMENT of my late client Mr.Yaroslav Zojniuk, a Ukrainian who unfortunately lost his life in the Madrid Bomb Blast on March 11, 2004, in Madrid-Spain.

My late client (Mr.Yaroslav Zojniuk) was a prominent business man who travelled to Spain on business survey/holiday with his wife and their only daughter when they met their tragic death.

My client before his death made a deposit of Thirty Seven Million, Three Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$37,300,000.00) in his effort to set up a business in Europe .

However, I am searching for a trust worthy person or the relatives of the deceased regarding his deposit, as the holding financial institution wants him to come forward for the endorsement of the re-investment documents, hence I am seeking your assistance to provide you as the next of kin to my late client, since he died with his wife and their only daughter without making a WILL in all his deposit paper works.

This transaction is very confidential as I can re-draft his LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT to bear your name as the TRUSTEE & EXECUTOR. This transaction shall be executed under legitimate and legal procedures that will protect you from any breach of the Law.

It is in this regard that I decided to solicit your assistance, by presenting you as the Executor and Trustee (Next of Kin) to my late client. Although, I have agreed on the following sharing ratios: 35% for your assistance and 65% for me but this is still open for negotiation.

Kindly revert back to me urgently on your kind interest to lay claim of the deposit. You are to send me your complete Names, Telephone and Fax numbers, Present contact address, and Occupation for more information on how to release the inheritance sum via this email address: peredanischambers@gmail.com OR danipereabogados@aim.com

Regards,
Pere A Danis (Barrister).
Attorney At Law.

JINSA Report #844 “Heartened and Relieved” While Remaining “Seized of the Matter

JINSA Report #844 January 9, 2009 "Heartened and Relieved" While Remaining "Seized of the Matter" UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "heartened and relieved" that the Security Council passed a resolution on Gaza. It takes so little to make the man happy.  He told the Security Council, "Your decision signals the will of the international community. It must be fully respected by all parties to this conflict." Excuse our skepticism. Perhaps because the resolution did not actually require action to enforce its vapid posturing, the Bush Administration felt an abstention rather than a veto would do no harm. We strongly disagree; the United States should veto any and all vapid resolutions lest the Security Council begin to believe anyone important takes it seriously.    The key points and our notes:  "Expressing grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm; and emphasising that the Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations must be protected..." "The refusal to extent the period of calm." Note the passive voice, as if it was a disembodied action. It was Hamas that refused and simultaneous with its announced intention to resume the war, actually resumed the war. Israel was attacked and has the right of self-defense - the moral equivalence is unseemly (not unusual for the UN, but reason enough to ignore it). "1. Stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza." This one is simple. Israel has been suffering rocket attacks since 2005 and is taking legitimate military action to restore status quo ante - no rockets. The fastest way to affect that would be for Hamas to stop shooting rockets into Israel.     "6. Calls upon Member States to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the sustained re-opening of the crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority and Israel." That agreement failed shortly after signing because of Hamas terrorism designed to ensure that the crossing points are open only to bring in humanitarian aid under its control. On the other hand, the fact that this section only calls on Member State to "intensify efforts" and does not call on them to actually DO anything (such as to create an international peacekeeping force) is a plus. "8. Calls for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognised borders. There are currently three states/entities and three governments between the Jordan and the Mediterranean with no real prospect of creating two. There are four states/entities in the space of the old British Mandate for Palestine. Only one is democratic and only one is entitled by UN Security Council Resolution to "secure and recognized borders, free from threats or acts of war." That would be Israel. "10. Decides to remain seized of the matter." A sop to its own conscience. The Security Council appears to believe that being "seized by the matter" is the same as actually doing something about the matter.  The people of Darfur, we suspect, are not comforted by the fact that the Security Council is also "seized by" their plight. On the other hand, when the Council actually decides to do something, rather than just think something, the result is often the opposite of helpful, so perhaps it is better that they just think.   Archive of past JINSA Reports Support JINSA, click here! email: feedback@jinsa.org phone: 202-667-3900 web: http://www.jinsa.org

Forward email This email was sent to davidlevy68.people@blogger.com by info@jinsa.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by JINSA | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 515 | Washington | DC | 20036

JINSA Report #843 Ceasing Fire

JINSA Report #843 January 7, 2009 Ceasing Fire Israel has come under increasing international pressure to stop shooting. OK, stop. For once, though, Israel should get ahead and announce the conditions under which it is choosing to stop. If we could be so bold as to make a suggestion to the Israeli government, an announcement could look like this: The IDF has completed the current phase of operations in Gaza and is withdrawing its forces. The IDF has ceased firing, but will return fire on its way out as required.   The Government of Israel does not agree to a cease-fire with Hamas and reserves the sovereign right to protect the citizens of Israel. It will do so in a manner of its choosing, consistent with its right to self-defense and the obligation of the government to be responsible for the security of its own people - we will not subcontract our security to either Hamas's presumed goodwill or to international forces. It is up to Hamas to determine the circumstances under which Israel will have to exercise its right of self-defense. The choices it makes will have consequences. If Hamas does not resume firing rockets, Israel will not have to respond. If Hamas does not resume importing arms, Israel will not have to respond. If Hamas does not resume its threat to the people of Israel - in word or in deed - Israel will not have to respond. If it chooses those activities, Israel will respond by eliminating more of the Hamas infrastructure and leadership, as is its right. The Hamas choice to ally with Iran, import weapons and hold 750,000 people in southern Israel hostage to random, but increasingly long-range and lethal attacks, forced Operation Cast Lead.  The IDF has done an excellent job of degrading Hamas' capabilities and eliminating the mid- and upper-mid range of Hamas leadership. But if Israel has no desire to create a permanent occupation force in Gaza, it must, as it did in the West Bank during and after Operation Defensive Shield, retain security control of the area - "cutting the grass," as the IDF says and having enough of a military presence entering and leaving the territory as it deems necessary to create stability. It was this, plus the Security Fence, that produced the calm on the West Bank that allowed for a political process. No less than Israeli security control would make that possible - although still extremely unlikely - in Gaza. In order for such medium-to-long range security control to succeed, Israel must reject international forces for Gaza. In Lebanon, UNIFIL became the wall behind which Hezbollah restored and increased its military capabilities. In the West Bank, Israel has retained unimpeded access. If the Palestinians want political and economic development, it has been proven possible on the West Bank under security circumstances that Israel controls. If they prefer terror warfare, Israel has not only the right, but also the sovereign obligation, to respond. Archive of past JINSA Reports Support JINSA, click here! email: feedback@jinsa.org phone: 202-667-3900 web: http://www.jinsa.org

Forward email This email was sent to davidlevy68.people@blogger.com by info@jinsa.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by JINSA | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 515 | Washington | DC | 20036

India: The Origins of Jihad

India: The Origins of Jihad By M.D. Nalapat January 7, 2008 As a country at risk of being on the cusp of joining Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq to form the quartet most affected by international terrorism, India presents several lessons to other democracies in how not to fight the War on Terror. The three present terrorist-prone states bear witness to the fact that terrorism flourishes where terrorists do. That rather than being freedom fighters, terrorists are parasites that drain the host nation of its resilience and eventually its existence. Jihadi terrorism first manifested itself in India in Kashmir in 1989 after the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan made the jihadi forces' Pakistan-based controllers turn their attention to Kashmir. So long as the virus was confined to that state and, excepting rare incidents in the rest of India, such as the 1993 terror attacks in Bombay, India could continue to develop normally, because of the low economic linkage between Kashmir and the hinterland. However, since 2005, the jihadi virus has spread across India and is today lodged in more than 20 cities across the country including the metropolises of Bombay (Mumbai), Delhi, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Calcutta (Kolkata). Thus far, not only has a strategy not been initiated that would stanch and reverse this spread but there has, since 2007, been a multiplication of jihadi networks in smaller cities such as Pune, Kanpur, Surat, Jaipur and more than two dozen others. Should such a metastases continue through the next five years, before 2015, India would be where Pakistan is today - a country where jihad has taken such deep root that it would take almost a civil war to dislodge it.       How did India reach such a crossroads? What were the policy errors made and when did they occur? Within an overall context of low salaries and lax oversight leading to the demoralization of much of the national police force (thus facilitating the setting up terrorist cells) the modern litany begins in 1986 when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi ignored the advice of (majority) moderate Muslim opinion and passed a law that deprived Muslim divorcees of the protections given by the Constitution of India to women. Since the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, known as the "Shah Bano" Act, was passed by the Indian parliament there has been a revival of the impulse for separatism among the Muslim community, a mindset that led in 1947 to the founding of a separate country for the Muslims - Pakistan. In what was left of India, the public revulsion against the Hindu Right that followed the 1948 assassination of Mahatma Gandhi helped the agnostic, wannabe Brit Jawaharlal Nehru to impose what may be termed "majoritarian secularism" in which only the Hindu majority was expected to conform to secular codes not the rest of society. Under Nehru, the rights of the Hindu majority were diluted in favor of special provisions favoring minorities whose holy places - unlike that of the Hindus - remained outside of state control. Developments in India are proof that the only effective way of preserving a secular state is to avoid the extreme of Pakistan where Muslims are given legal status and privileges above others and of India where it is the minorities who are given rights and protections denied to the majority Hindus. Genuine secularism implies equal treatment to all faiths and their practitioners and this is of particular relevance in large, multi-ethnic and cultural countries such as the United States and India. Any partiality toward, or bias against, a particular faith will dilute the inclusive ethos needed for long-term social stability.       Earlier, a serious misstep was made in Kashmir in 1984 when a religious moderate by the name of Farooq Abdullah, who was married to a British woman, was arbitrarily dismissed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as chief minister of Kashmir and replaced by a political lightweight who pandered to the religious right and the extremists. The 1984-1986 rule of this individual, G.M. Shah, saw the return of several tens of thousands of Kashmiris who had immigrated to Pakistan and there had come under the sway of the jihadist ideology that was state policy. Secular leaders adopting a religious agenda was commonplace in the subcontinent for example in Pakistan during the 1970s,when Z.A. Bhutto sought to strengthen his political base by adopting many elements of a religious agenda. This radicalization of state policy was accelerated by the jihadization of the Pakistan army following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. When the Kashmir jihad erupted in 1989, these returnees - along with the graduates of the religious schools that had been set up across Kashmir from the 1970s - became the spearhead of the local component of what soon became an international jihad. Ironically, throughout the 1990s the Clinton administration followed a policy of appeasing the jihadists active in violence in Kashmir by conflating their exclusivist goals with those of the Kashmiri people. This backing given to extremists against the moderate majority gradually resulted in the near-extinction of the moderates from public discourse especially as successive Indian governments too ignored the moderates in their eagerness to engage and attempt to co-opt the extremists. The traction given to such elements by the 1990s policy of seeking to co-opt rather than isolate the jihadis resulted in a conflict that has yet to end and which has placed Kashmir squarely within the locations that nourish International Jihad. Several points in the rest of India followed this course with more joining the grouping each year forming a pattern of dots on the map that is getting denser each year rather than disappearing. If the 1970s saw the legitimization by the state of religious extremism in Pakistan, the 1980s saw its militarization and the 1990s witnessed its spread into civil society. It is a baneful process that, since 2005, has got under way in India as well. Sadly, neither in the United States, the European Union (EU) nor in India has there been a comprehensive post-mortem conducted of the policies that helped create such a situation in Pakistan and now in India. Bangladesh is a unique example of a state hosting a growing number of jihadists, almost all of who get activated in outside areas rather than at home even after it has been clear that policy towards Pakistan, especially the army, has failed. Those who see "engagement" as preferable to the exclusion from the political space of those entities that promote terrorism and religious intolerance continue to dominate the policy discourse in the United States and the European Union. As a consequence, many Muslim populations worldwide have fallen into the error of regarding terrorist organizations as victims rather than as the harbingers of desolation.       Although in effect Pakistan has been a terrorist state vis-à-vis India since the Khalistani struggle was launched in 1981 (which was followed by the Kashmir jihad in 1989 and the all-India jihad in 2005), since April 1997 successive Indian prime ministers have followed the example of Prime Minister I.K. Gujral by treating Pakistan as a normal state and giving it diplomatic and other benefits and access this entails. In 1997, Gujral began a policy of opening India's borders to Pakistan, a process that reached a high point in 2006, when more than 300,000 Pakistanis were given visas to visit India. Several of those Pakistanis helped create networks to assist those planning terror attacks. Rather than handle the issue on a case-by-case basis the granting of visas to Pakistani nationals has become the norm, a policy that was reviewed only after the November 26-28 Mumbai attacks. Although the Pakistan army has been the source of much of the sinews of the jihadists including those operating within India, even after then-Army Chief of Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Pervez Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup, the so-called hard-line BJP-led government welcomed him to Agra in 2001 and joined the United States and the EU in giving Musharraf's rule legitimacy. This action by the governments of India and the United States bred cynicism within the Pakistani citizen's mind about the actual commitment of India, the United States and the EU to supporting democracy in Pakistan. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went even further in 2006, saying that Pakistan was itself a "victim" rather than a state sponsor of terrorism and even consenting to the setting up a Joint Investigation Mechanism that has thus far helped the Pakistan army to protect the terrorists and their networks without a single one of those active against India being captured.       India's ultra-soft policy towards Pakistan has been mirrored by an equally benevolent policy towards religious extremists in India so much so that despite several terrorist attacks, few have been prosecuted and even fewer sentenced and none have been executed thus far although several of those guilty of other capital crimes have had capital punishment carried out. Successive Indian governments have weakened the state's hand in combating terrorism by such actions as tolerating the Bangladesh/Nepal safe havens and focusing on the creation of laws so loosely worded (such as the recent Information Technology Act) that hundreds of millions of citizens fall within its purview rather than the few thousand who are actual or potential terrorists. Through its legitimization of the extreme fringe as the "Voice of the Muslims" and its refusal to accept the reality that the Pakistani military is a facilitator of terrorism against India (and now Europe) the Indian state has become almost passive in the approaching meltdown of civil governance in India. Unless the next five years witness a concerted effort to reverse the trend towards the nourishing of jihad, the country may within that period become not part of the solution to the problem of terrorism but join Pakistan as the core of the problem. M.D. Nalapat became India's first professor of geopolitics in 1999 at Manipal University in India's Karnataka state. Since 1992,he has held that Wahabbism-Khomeinism and authoritarianism are the twin threats faced by the international community and that the "unified field" of terrorism mandates a similar response. In 2003,he partnered with JINSA in organizing the first of four annual India-Israel-U.S. Conferences. Professor Nalapat, who first put forward the idea of forming an "Asian NATO," believes that Israel, India, Turkey and Singapore form part of the "Extended West", rather than an "extended Middle East", and that the countries in this group need to work in concert to promote prosperity, democracy and freedom from terror. email: feedback@jinsa.org phone: 202-667-3900 web: http://www.jinsa.org

Forward email This email was sent to davidlevy68.people@blogger.com by info@jinsa.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by JINSA | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 515 | Washington | DC | 20036

JINSA Report #842 The Ducks are Lining Up – and Turkey is a Turkey

JINSA Report #842 January 6, 2008 The Ducks are Lining Up - and Turkey is a Turkey Middle East reaction to Israel's defensive operations in Gaza is split along lines indicating that the locals understand Israel's fight to be at least as much about Iran as about Hamas. The new alignment has major implications for future regional diplomacy, including President-elect Obama's desire to have a different relationship with Iran than his predecessor. (Outstanding as President Bush has been on Israel's self-defense and the nature of Hamas, there will be, sadly, no follow-through.) On one side, Egypt and Jordan are, by absolute necessity, clearly aligned with the anti-Iranians - meaning with Israel. In Amman, King Abdullah replaced the chief of intelligence last week over his conversations with Hamas. Egypt is fighting in the Sinai to keep Muslim Brotherhood members from leaving Gaza for Egypt. More surprisingly - unless you consider Iran - Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have not only been quiet, there has been a spate of articles in the Gulf press questioning Hamas as a legitimate Palestinian leadership group and wondering aloud why the Arabs are so fixated on the Palestinian question anyhow. There is no free press in the Gulf. Iran tried to call an emergency meeting of the 54-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) to fulminate over "Palestine," but only eight countries agreed to show up. The Saudis said that since there was a regularly scheduled meeting of OIC foreign ministers in two weeks (now in about a week) there was no need for an emergency meeting. Palestine does not constitute an emergency. This is in line with Saudi, Bahraini and Omani gestures to Israel over the past year indicating that they see Israel as a partner in countering Iran. And there is the point - Iran is trying to round up the usual suspects to denounce Israel, but a lot of those suspects would prefer to denounce Iran. Iran's allies are Syria, Hezbollah and Turkey. No surprises but Turkey and that's only a surprise if you haven't been paying attention. Under the leadership of the AKP and Prime Minister Erdogan, Turkey has moved sharply from pro-Western to pro-Iranian. Some of this has to do with the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam; some of it is old politics - Istanbul (now Ankara), Tehran, Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad are historic centers of regional power (it helps to think in centuries, not years). Muslim-but-not-Arab Turkey has moved to enhance its position in the Middle East at the expense of Arab Cairo and Arab Baghdad. Its key friend is Muslim-but-not-Arab Shiite Iran. Sunni-populated-but-Alawi-ruled Arab Syria has thrown in with the Shiite Persians.  Probably to justify its continuing relations with Israel, Turkey presents itself as a "mediator" between Israel and Syria, and Israel and the Palestinians - including Hamas, which was formally received in Ankara despite the protestations from the United States and Europe. Israel foolishly, and in the face of U.S. opposition, allowed itself to be used by Turkey in sham "peace" talks with Syria. Now, after a "fact finding" tour that skipped Israel, Erdogan has "found" that Hamas strictly observed the "truce," but Israel is conducting "inhuman acts" in Gaza. "Allah," he said, "will punish those who violate the rights of the innocent." Turkish President Abdullah Gul added, "What Israel has done is nothing but atrocity." Strange words for Turks. Turkey in or Turkey out, if the incoming Obama administration wants to play a useful role in regional politics, it should first understand that the paradigm has shifted, the ducks are realigned, the ground has moved, or whatever cliché you like. It is no longer simply "everybody in the region against Israel," and it is not about a Palestinian state. It is, rather, the pro-Iranian axis including Hamas and Hezbollah as its proxies vs. the anti-Iranian axis that puts Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the same side. Our side. Archive of past JINSA Reports Support JINSA, click here! email: feedback@jinsa.org phone: 202-667-3900 web: http://www.jinsa.org

Forward email This email was sent to davidlevy68.people@blogger.com by info@jinsa.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by JINSA | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 515 | Washington | DC | 20036

JINSA Report #841 Dead Palestinians and "Strengthening Abu Mazen"

JINSA Report #841 January 4, 2008 Dead Palestinians and "Strengthening Abu Mazen" Demonstrations against Israel have been stronger, louder and longer in Europe than in the West Bank.  There are, in part, two reasons. Palestinians in the West Bank have lived for the past six years under a combination of Israeli security and Fatah political control.  This has provided stability and, recently, improved economic and social conditions. There are Palestinians who regret the emergence of Hamas although LOTS of Palestinians voted for it: some because Fatah was corrupt, and some because they liked Hamas's plans for killing Jews.  Hamas is proving (again) that it will kill Palestinians as well as Israelis. Khalid Abu Toameh reports in The Jerusalem Post that since the beginning of the Israeli offensive, more than 75 Gaza Palestinians have been shot in the legs or had their hands broken, and more than 35 have been killed - by Hamas operatives who called them "collaborators." Those "collaborators" are no more than Palestinians who accept the need for a long-term modus vivendi with the State of Israel - the ones Israel, the Quartet and others call the "moderates." They are not Zionists; "peace" may be beyond them and even "moderate" is a term of art.  But there they are - Palestinians who may not even have helped Israel, but who know that Hamas isn't helping them.  One man said his hands were broken when he cheered for an IDF airstrike.  According to Abu Toameh, the dead were already held in Hamas prisons; the decision to murder them was out of fear of an Israeli rescue attempt. Isn't it against the Geneva Convention to kill prisoners? This is potentially a signal moment in Palestinian politics.   For a long time, the goal of Israel and the Quartet has been to "strengthen Abu Mazen," perhaps in hopes that his popularity among Palestinians would improve. Despite the fact that his term of office ends next week and even before the operation in Gaza he was unwilling to either stand for election or stand aside, we have to hope Abu Mazen has been sufficiently strengthened to assert the obvious - a relationship with Israel is the best mechanism for the advancement of Palestinian political and economic maturation.   If he can't go that far, perhaps Abu Mazen could at least point out that Hamas is committing war crimes by a) directing fire at Israeli civilians; b) using Palestinian civilians as human shields; c) calling for the destruction of a UN member; and d) executing prisoners.  (The first three crimes were enumerated by Alan Dershowitz in The Wall Street Journal; the fourth was not yet public.)   If he can't go that far, perhaps the Quartet could do it for him. Abu Mazen has called Israel's operation "criminal," but said Hamas was responsible because it ended the "truce." Hamas called him a collaborator and no doubt hopes for an opportunity to eliminate him with the others. Archive of past JINSA Reports Support JINSA, click here! email: feedback@jinsa.org phone: 202-667-3900 web: http://www.jinsa.org

Forward email This email was sent to davidlevy68.people@blogger.com by info@jinsa.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by JINSA | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 515 | Washington | DC | 20036