Eliminate Israel and replace it with an Arab-majority nation?

 Jonathan Tobin

The New York Times just spent 2,300 words outlining how -- and why -- it should be done

JewishWorldReview.com | Twenty years after the signing of the Oslo Peace Accords the two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs that was its premise remains unrealized. Indeed, support for the idea that a century-old struggle can be ended merely by the stroke of a pen and a new round of concessions on the part of the Israelis is smaller than ever in Israel, even if some elsewhere (such as Secretary of State John Kerry) cling to such illusions.

As I wrote last week, it is clear that while the majority of Israelis seem to have drawn some appropriate conclusions to twenty years of peace processing, there remains a constituency in Washington that is determined to ignore the costly mistakes that were made in 1993 and since in the name of promoting peace. So long as the Palestinians are unable to re-imagine their national identity outside of an effort to extinguish the Zionist project and to therefore recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn, negotiations are doomed to fail.

	Nate Beeler, The Columbus Dispatch
	Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on print Share on email More Sharing Services17

This is frustrating for the vast majority of Israelis who, despite their political divisions, are united in a longing for peace that made projects like Oslo and other such initiatives possible. It also exasperates foreign onlookers who wrongly believe the Arab-Israeli conflict is the root of all trouble in the Middle East (a myth that has been exploded by the Arab Spring and its battles in Egypt and Syria that have nothing to do with Israel).

But it is welcomed by those in the West whose dreams have never centered so much on schemes of a "New Middle East" in which economic cooperation will make everyone happy as they have on simply ending the Zionist dream.

One such dreamer is the University of Pennsylvania's Ian Lustick, a political science professor and sometime State Department consultant who was given the front page of the New York Times Sunday Review to explain in 2,300 words why the obsession with two states should give way to the project of simply eliminating Israel and replacing it with an Arab-majority nation.

Given the persistent and increasingly obvious anti-Israel bias of the paper (especially its editorial and op-ed pages) it is hardly a surprise that it would give such prominent play to a piece with such a goal. But even by the low standards that currently govern that section, the disingenuous nature of Lustick's rant is stunning.

The core conceit of Lustick's piece is to put forward the idea that a radical transformation of the conflict is not only possible but also probable. Thus, he claims that "the disappearance of Israel as a Zionist project through war, cultural exhaustion or demographic momentum" is a plausible outcome.

Indeed, though his essay occasionally hedges its bets, his enthusiasm for the prospect of the end of the Jewish state is palpable. Indeed, he compares it to the end of British rule over all of Ireland, the French hold on Algeria, or the collapse of the Soviet Union, historical events that he claims were once thought unthinkable but now are seen as inevitable outcomes.

These analogies are transparently specious, but they are telling because they put Israel in the category of imperialist projects rather than as the national liberation movement of a small people struggling for survival. That tells us a lot about Lustick's mindset but little about the reality of the Middle East.

Unlike the Brits' Protestant ascendancy in Ireland or the French pieds noirs of Algeria or even the Soviet nomenklatura, the Jews of Israel have nowhere to go. That he also compares Israel to apartheid South Africa, the Iran of the shah, or Saddam Hussein's Iraq shows just how skewed his view of the country has become and how little he understands its strength and resiliency.

 

Read More

Saudi Daily: 'Chemical Weapons Smuggled to Hezbollah'

 Adam Ross 

President Bashar Al-Assad has smuggled part of his chemical weapons arsenal to Hezbollah in a bid to evade international inspection, the Saudi newspaper Al Watan reported Monday. 

The report quoted Syrian National Coalition member Kamal al-Labwani as claiming that: "The Syrian regime has transferred some of its chemical weapons arsenal to its ally Hezbollah aboard trucks used to transport vegetables."

The article published Monday, also included a claim that the Assad regime had covertly moved significant parts of its chemical weapons aboard Russian ships docked along the Syrian coastline. 

"We have credible information indicating that the Assad regime has smuggled part of its chemical arsenal to Russian ships in barrels," al-Labwani added. 

Last week, Syria officially handed in a request to the United Nations to join the convention which which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. 

The regime led by President Bashar Al-Assad is widely believed to have used lethal sarin gas in an attack on a Damascus neighborhood on August 21, killing more than a thousand civilians including hundreds of children.  According to U.S. estimates, the Syrian regime has an arsenal  of 100 tonnes of chemical weapons.

Days after Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem pledged to sign the convention, intelligence reports indicated Assad had begun scattering his chemical stockpile to around 50 different sites across the country making them harder for the international community to track. 

Another unconfirmed report claimed that the regime had begun moving its stockpiles to Iraq, although both the Syrian and Iraqi governments firmly denied the report. 

But the prospect of chemical weapons in the hands of Syria's non-state ally Hezbollah will be of particular concern to Israel.  

The Iranian-backed terrorist group is sworn to Israel's destruction, and has repeatedly threatened the Jewish state with violent attacks. It has made good on those threats in recent years, including a recentborder attack which wounded four IDF soldiers, and the infamous "Burgas Bombing" in 2012, in which Hezbollah-linked terrorists murdered 5 Israeli tourists and their Bulgarian bus driver in a bombing attack in Bulgaria.  

But intelligence experts have warned that Hezbollah is still seeking to carry out a large-scale attack in revenge for the assassination of its leading commander, Imad Mughniye, in 2008 - an attack which Hezbollah blamed on Israel, but for which Israel has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility.  

Read More

Livni 'Willing to Cede Control of Jordan Valley'

 Gil Ronen 

Sources close to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are once again expressing concern that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who heads the Israeli negotiating team with the Palestinian Authority (PA), is undermining the prime minister's positions in the talks. 

Daily newspaper Maariv quoted sources close to Netanyahu who said that Livni's positions differ from those of Netanyahu on the key issues of Jerusalem, eviction of Jewish communities and Israel's security arrangements in the Jordan Valley. 

According to the report, Livni - who heads the left-wing Hatnua political party - is willing to pull out the IDF from the Jordan Valley which guards Israel's long eastern border, and let an international force take its place. Netanyahu vigorously opposes this, citing the region's crucial strategic importance. 

In addition, Livni has agreed to divide Jerusalem between Israel and a future state of “Palestine” in Judea and Samaria, as well as a large scale eviction of Jews from communities in Judea and Samaria – whereas Netanyahu believes that communities need to remain under Palestinian sovereignty, with proper security arrangements. 

Maariv reported three weeks ago that Livni has been making various generous offers in contacts with the PA and US representatives, while Netanyahu thinks that Israel should not give up its best cards in the early stages of negotiations, as it is not clear what the PA is willing to cede in terms of security arrangements. 

“In Netanyahu's vicinity,” the newspaper explained, “there is a feeling that the Americans, whom Israel is making every effort not to bring into the negotiations room, are eagerly using Livni's statements in their conversations with the Palestinians and thus weakening Israel's position in the talks." 

There is widespread consensus among experts that ceding control of the Jordan Valley to any force but the IDF will make it extremely likely that missiles and other military hardware will be smuggled into Judea and Samaria, from where it could be used to target Tel Aviv with ease. 

If a Palestinian state were to be established in all or the majority of Judea and Samaria, experts say such an arrangement would leave central Israel as narrow as 8 miles at some points, placing approximately 70% of Israel's population within firing-range of deadly mortars and rocket fire, and without the "strategic depth" to successfully defend against invasion. 

Other sources close to the Prime Minister told Maariv that they were not aware of the aforementioned concerns regarding Livni.

Read More

A Taxi Ride down Syria Street

Hannah Lucinda Smith 

In Tripoli, Lebanon, one aptly named road divides two sides in a proxy Syrian war

BACKGAMMON blog: A board game played in smoky cafes from Beirut to Baghdad. Backgammon’s earliest ancestor is five thousand years old and was unearthed in southern Iraq. Modern-day descendants teach players survival skills beyond the game: although luck is involved, strategy wins out in the long run. ‘Backgammon’ covers the state of play in the countries spanning the Fertile Crescent: Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq.

Barbed wire between Bab Al-Tabbaneh and Jebel Mohsen on Syria Street, Tripoli, Lebanon. (The Majalla/Hannah Lucinda Smith)

Thirty seconds into the taxi ride, Ahmed answers the question that I didn’t want to ask.

“I’m a Sunni,” he says, “and I think that Assad needs to go. That regime has been there for forty years. Why? Where is the democracy?”


The escalating sectarian war in neighboring Syria has steadily seeped into Ahmed’s hometown, the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. As we drive to the area that has been the epicenter of sporadic clashes between members of the troubled city’s Sunni and Alawite communities since the Syrian uprising began, we pass one of the mosques that was targeted in a double car bombing two weeks ago. The façade that faces the road is blackened and hung with a huge banner showing a montage of images of the aftermath. “I can’t say who did it,” says Ahmed, “but it’s linked to the war in Syria, for sure.”
We are heading for Syria Street, the political faultline with the grimly appropriate name. It forms the geographical divide between two neighborhoods that that have faced each other in a tense standoff since the dark days of Lebanon’s own civil war. The Sunni neighborhood of Bab Al-Tabbaneh nestles beneath the Alawite-dominated hillside of Jebel Mohsen. Syria Street is the frontline: behind it, just 30 meters and a few rolls of barbed wire separate the warring neighbors.
A corner shop near Tripoli’s main bus station sells flags of every affiliation: three-starred for the Syrian revolution, black with the Prophet’s seal for Al-Qaeda, yellow with a green Kalashnikov for Hezbollah. Business takes precedence over politics here. But on Syria Street it is different. Black Salafist flags flutter on poles propped up on islands of sandbags in the middle of the road, and the faces of the neighborhood’s young Sunni martyrs gaze down from bullet-riddled banners strung up above the side streets. Ahmed tells me that it is Tripoli’s native Lebanese population, not Syrians, who live here and own the shawarma shops and car garages along the street. But they have been dragged into another country’s war regardless.
The latest burst of fighting erupted in August. Eyewitnesses described machine gun fire exchanges on Syria Street itself, only quelled when the Lebanese Army moved into the district to re-establish the fragile peace. Even in the relative calm that followed, the snipers positioned on Jebel Mohsen’s vantage points continued to take aim at the residents of Bab Al-Tabbaneh below. Ahmed says that no-one knows when the fighting might flare up again: “Maybe in one hour’s time, maybe tomorrow,” he says, as he points to a gun positioned in clear view up on the hillside. He says that the street is quieter than he’s ever seen it; the shoppers are going elsewhere to buy their groceries.
At the northern end of the street a hairpin bend takes us up into Jebel Mohsen. In less than a minute, we have crossed through an invisible border into the pro-Assad area of this proxy Syrian war. Huge pictures of the Syrian dictator and pasted onto the sides of the buildings. Ahmed is nervous. “I don’t want to get stopped here,” he says. “They will wonder what we’re doing. Take your photos quickly, from inside the car.”
From here, you can see the massive strategic advantage that the Alawite militias of Jebel Mohsen have over their adversaries in Bab Al-Tabbaneh. The people who walk the street below are the easiest of targets.
We find Tripoli’s Syrians to the west of Syria Street, selling fruit and vegetables in a marketplace that is huddled in the shadow of a flyover. They have escaped from the war in their own country, but even here it is still on their doorstep.
Abdullah says he is seventeen, but stress has etched so many lines on his face that he looks like a man of forty. He tells us that he came to Tripoli alone: no job, no family, no wife. His family is still living in their house in the Aleppo countryside. “I haven’t spoken to them for two months,” he says. “The phone lines have been cut.”
And yet he cares little for the politics of it all. “When the fighting starts I go to Beirut,” he says, “and as soon as it stops I come back and carry on.” Living, not war, is his priority. The tensions in Tripoli may have their roots in what is happening across the border in Syria, but it is Lebanese history and politics that is providing the momentum.
Back in the comfort of a bar in cosmopolitan Beirut, just an hour and a half’s drive from the standoff in Tripoli, two friends drink coffee and chat. The situation in Syria is playing on the minds of everyone here. A week ago, it looked as though America was set to attack Damascus, and Lebanon was bracing itself for the repercussions.
“Lebanon could fall apart in two days,” says one.
“Don’t think about it, habibi,” his friend replies, dropping his head into his folded arms in a gesture that says he’s sick of it all.
“But we have to think about it,” says the first. “We have to think about it, because it’s happening.”
This article was originally published in The Majalla.

Hannah Lucinda Smith

Hannah Smith is a freelance journalist who has worked on a number of high-profile investigations for Channel 4 and the BBC. Her recent work has seen her gain access to inner city gangs, sex workers and the British far right. She traveled to Kosovo, Syria and Brazil to report on human rights issues. She lives in London.

Read More

The Military Option and Disarmament Diplomacy with Syria

Michael Eisenstadt

By limiting potential strike options, Washington risks undercutting diplomacy and being drawn into the kind of intensive, open-ended engagement in Syria that it wants to avoid.

If the threat of force persuaded Syria to agree to the destruction of its chemical weapons (CW) arsenal, as President Obama and his advisors claim, then clear signs that military planning and preparations continue could bolster the search for a diplomatic solution. This diplomatic "timeout" could also help the administration address concerns raised during the recent debate about the use of force, which focused on how a limited strike might deter further CW use by a determined and ruthless regime, avoid morphing into an open-ended conflict, and advance broader policy objectives in Syria.

AVOIDING POTENTIAL PITFALLS

Should the United States eventually decide to attack Syria -- whether to deter CW use or in response to Syrian obstruction of disarmament efforts -- limited strikes on tactical targets would likely yield only limited results. Bashar al-Assad's regime has become inured to hardship after more than two years of bloody, desperate fighting that has touched even its inner circle (e.g., the defense minister and his deputy -- Assad's brother-in-law -- were killed in a July 2012 bomb attack). Thus, a limited strike that focused on noncritical targets would probably not alter the cost-benefit calculus in Damascus; it might even assuage the regime's fears about U.S. military action, thereby emboldening Assad.
The Obama administration seems to believe that a smaller strike is the best way to limit the U.S. role in Syria, but the converse seems more likely: such a strike could invite further challenges from Damascus, creating an open-ended cycle of provocation and response. Israel's experience is instructive here. On four occasions this year, Israeli forces have carried out limited preemptive airstrikes to disrupt the transfer of "game-changing" weapons systems to Hezbollah, and although Damascus has not retaliated, it has not been deterred from trying again either.
The United States currently has four destroyers off the coast of Syria, and perhaps one or two submarines; together, these vessels could conceivably launch 150-400 Tomahawk cruise missiles. This relatively small arsenal would limit the operation's impact, since some targets would require multiple strikes, and Tomahawks are not very useful against hardened, buried, or mobile assets. Many important targets would not be hit in a cruise missile strike.
For this reason, if a strike is eventually ordered, it should include manned attack aircraft and bombers, which could hit targets that Tomahawks cannot, and whose pilots could confirm target information in realtime, reducing the likelihood of harming civilians (including human shields, which the regime has already reportedly employed). This would necessitate a more expansive strike, since elements of Syria's air defenses would need to be suppressed before manned aircraft could be sent in.

DEGRADING AND DETERRING

Several considerations should guide planning for a strike that could be ordered in the event that diplomacy fails. These considerations should also be quietly publicized in order to bolster CW disarmament efforts.
First, the United States should be prepared to strike repeatedly. Imposing limits that preclude follow-on strikes would diminish the deterrent value of U.S. threats and undermine the prospects for diplomacy.
Second, a U.S. strike should target personnel and assets that are critical to the regime's survival and its ability to prosecute the war, and that are not easily replaced. This would show the regime that its recalcitrance imposes heavy costs and could jeopardize its survival.
The template for such a strike is Operation Desert Fox, the December 1998 action that targeted Iraq's Special Republican Guard and its surviving missile production infrastructure. Because it came as a surprise, the four-day strike reportedly killed hundreds of Special Republican Guard personnel and struck a critical blow to its missile production capabilities, shaking the regime's confidence.

SELECTING TARGETS

U.S. planners should choose targets whose destruction would have a major psychological impact on the regime, altering its cost-benefit calculus. This means hitting the regime's most loyal and capable units, the Republican Guard and the 4th Armored Division, which have frequently spearheaded operations against the opposition and have been deeply implicated in CW use. Specifically, U.S. forces should target headquarters, command posts, barracks, and maintenance facilities associated with these units, as well as their field formations if possible.
The most important aim would be to inflict heavy personnel losses, since loyal, committed, and experienced soldiers are more difficult to replace than military equipment. (Because only about a third of its army is actively engaged in combat, the regime probably has large excess stocks of equipment, and Russia has pledged to replace any materiel destroyed in a U.S. strike.) Many members of the Republican Guard and 4th Armored Division are related by blood and marriage to the regime's leadership, so targeting these units would convey the message that CW use or obstruction of disarmament efforts threatens Assad's most stalwart supporters. As long as U.S. operations do not target the senior leadership in Damascus, they are unlikely to be mistaken for decapitation strikes, which could cause Syria to overreact or prompt Hezbollah and Iran to lash out against the United States in an effort to save their embattled ally.
The United States should also target the scores of helicopters and aircraft that have supported these units in combat by delivering conventional and chemical munitions, as well as the regime's arsenal of long-range rockets and missiles, which have killed thousands of Syrians and can deliver CW. Yet there are clear limits to how much this type of strike could degrade Syria's ability to deliver chemical munitions -- especially if Washington is unwilling to attack CW storage facilities that are close to populated areas. For this reason, these weapons systems should not be the main target of a strike.

ENABLING ACTIVITIES

Hitting high-value targets could prove difficult under present circumstances. By telegraphing its intention to strike, Washington gave the regime time to evacuate headquarters and disperse and conceal its forces, though this posture could be difficult to sustain over time. One way to counter these tactics would be to encourage the opposition to launch a broad offensive on the eve of a U.S. strike should such a decision be taken. This might compel the regime to concentrate its forces to meet the offensive, creating lucrative targets for U.S. missiles and air power. Such coordination could also lay the foundation for an enhanced train-and-equip effort with moderate rebel factions.
In addition, military action would be more effective if accompanied by diplomatic efforts to strip away the regime's foreign enablers. Here, NATO's Operation Allied Force (March-June 1999) offers a precedent: Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic eventually accepted a ceasefire in large part because he lost the support of his Russian patron. Accordingly, Washington should explore whether the diplomatic process can be used to drive a wedge between Moscow and Damascus if the latter reneges on its commitment to destroy its CW. At the end of the day, the fear of losing his most important allies could have as great an impact on Assad's cost-benefit calculus as military action.

CONCLUSION

As Washington enters a new phase of its crisis with Damascus, the threat -- and, potentially, use -- of force will remain critical to the success of disarmament diplomacy, and to achieving whatever measure of policy success is possible in Syria. Failing to get this piece of the policy right could diminish the prospects for diplomacy and increase the chances that a limited strike will lead to the kind of intensive, open-ended engagement Washington has been trying to avoid. Either way, there seems to be no easy exit from the dilemmas that the United States now faces in Syria.
Michael Eisenstadt directs the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute.

Read More

Obama's YouTube Wars Posted

Sultan Knish
 

Last September, Barack Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly to denounce a YouTube video, calling it "crude and disgusting" and assuring Muslims everywhere that this particular YouTube video did not represent America.

Finally Obama delivered what is surely one of the most famous YouTube negative video comments ever, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

The future is still up for grabs, but the man behind the YouTube video was taken in by a crowd of armed police and locked up earning him the privilege of being one of the few movie producers imprisoned for their movies; alongside Robert Goldstein of  "The Spirit of '76".

As YouTube thumbs downs go, a year in jail is pretty harsh. The thumbs of American presidents historically lacked the thumbpotence of Roman emperors sitting in their Coliseum boxes and deciding if a gladiator should live or die. But when a YouTube video is passed off as the biggest national security threat since a Twitter hashtag about Biden's hairplugs, why shouldn't Obama take on imperial airs and drop the prison banhammer?

The trailer for a movie about the Muslim persecution of Christians did not actually lead to multiple coordinated attacks by Salafists against American embassies and diplomatic missions.

Unfortunately in an election where the incumbent was running on his claim that he had single-handedly killed Osama bin Laden in an arm wrestling match, it would have been embarrassing to admit that Al Qaeda had pulled off its second worst attack on America since September 11... on September 11.

It was easier to blame it on YouTube.

Last September, a YouTube video was blamed for several acts of war. This September, a war may be fought over a bunch of YouTube videos.

Obama addressed the nation to rally support for his Syrian strikes. As evidence that "chemical weapons were used in Syria" he mentioned the "videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack".

The message was that if you want Obama's case for war, go watch it on YouTube. And hope it isn't as staged as Jimmy Kimmel's Twerking fail video..

William Randolph Hearst was supposed to have told a reporter, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war". Now YouTube and social media furnishes the videos and pictures and Barack Hussein Obama will furnish the war.

Obama didn't even bother assembling a playlist of the top 10 WMD YouTube videos that will make a case for war; a strange omission for an administration that prides itself as the most tech-savvy organization in the room when it comes to emailing voters and reading their email.

Instead officials boasted about their high-end YouTube watching skills and their "Classified intelligence tools... used to ensure that bodies were not counted twice." Hopefully at least one of those classified tools involved basic arithmetic.

Traditionally a case for war would be based on some kind of physical evidence, but in this new digital world where no one ever has to do anything in person, except get treated for carpal tunnel syndrome, we can blame wars on YouTube videos and fight wars over YouTube videos.

And if the whole Syrian chemical attack turns out to have been faked by Jimmy Kimmel, at least it will have been the most epic troll ever leading to a flame war with actual flames.

It's easy to blame Obama for being too lazy to send someone out to Syria to actually check the toe tags instead of clicking through a few videos, marking the WMD box checked and then checking out the trailer for the remake of Robocop.

But it's not like anyone else has been doing a much better job.

French intelligence released a report confirming a chemical weapons attack by Assad that killed 281 people based in part "on dozens of videos culled by French intelligence services".

Forget James Bond. Jacques Bond dispenses with the tuxedo, martinis and the Walther PPK and equipped with a Snuggie, a swivel chair and some Hot Pockets assembles a case for war based on his unique skill of video cullings. It really is the ultimate playlist with Europe's The Final Countdown as the soundtrack. Or maybe Iggy Pop's Search and Destroy.

When Assad said that the accusations are based "on arbitrary videos posted on the Internet", he kind of had a point. Or maybe he didn't. After all they're based on arbitrary videos posted on the internet and then culled by the crack Le Hot Pockets team at French intelligence and the best YouTube watchers our own intelligence services have to offer.
It's easy to get confused when building a case for war based on YouTube videos.

France's Top Secret YouTubers claimed 281 people had been killed. Our own YouTubers appear to have come up with 1,429 since that's the number that John Kerry has been waving around on any channel willing to give him 5 minutes of airtime.

But maybe our YouTubers just watched the same video 5 times.

Across the channel, UK's social media spooks claimed 350 dead. Maybe they watched the full video. Doctors Without Borders, which hopefully counted actual bodies instead of URLs, pegged the death toll at 355. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights went up to 502. Even that is only 1/3 of Kerry's 1,429.

Where does Kerry get his oddly specific 1,429 number from?  No one knows. The Senate Intelligence Committee received 13 videos whose authenticity was verified by that specter known as "the intelligence community". The intelligence community is a notoriously flexible entity. It usually knows the truth, but sometimes serves other masters.

Back when Obama was determined to blame a movie trailer for the murder of four Americans, the intelligence community, which originally pointed to a terrorist attack, was muscled by Hillary's people into blaming the dreaded YouTube video in the Benghazi talking points.

Online videos don't make the best case for war. It's not just Jimmy Kimmel who can fake viral videos.

Both sides in the Syrian Civil War have filled the internet with viral videos claiming to show the other side using chemical weapons, killing babies and eating with their left hands. There's a fake suicide bomber auction video being distributed by the regime and a fake government massacre being passed around by the rebels. And those are just some of the more notorious examples.

The pro-regime Syrian Electronic Army is hacking websites and the Syria expert whose Wall Street Journal article claiming that the Syrian rebels were moderate was cited by McCain and Kerry turned out to have faked her academic credentials while working for a Syrian rebel front group.

The best thing to believe about Syria is nothing. Both sides are engaged in epic levels of fakery. And if we are going to bomb Syria, the least we can do is sort through real life evidence.

Obama may begin wars over YouTube videos and blame wars on YouTube videos, but the people who die in those wars are all too real. In his UN General Assembly speech, he mentioned the video seven times, but never once mentioned the names of the two former Navy SEALS who rushed to the rescue.

If the future is to belong to anyone, it should belong to men like them and not to amateur YouTube reviewers who start wars.

Those who live in a virtual world, often forget that the things that matter are real. Wars aren't really virtual; even if they're fought with drones and reported on by Twitter accounts. The people who die in them are real and the money used to wage them has to be taken out of the monthly paychecks of families struggling to pay for winter clothing, braces and a home cooked meal.

Obama, like Hollande and Cameron, his leading Syrian War allies, slashed military spending while starting new wars. He cut military paychecks and raised the cost of military healthcare while drastically slashing the armed forces. In a debate, he sneered that objections to his policy of gutting the Navy while expecting it to fight all his wars for him were like so retro.

"We have fewer ships than we did... we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed," Obama said. The line quickly became a trending Twitter hashtag and inspired YouTube videos; none of which, fortunately, led to jail sentences.

But now it’s not hashtags or YouTube videos steaming toward Syria; it’s Navy ships with not enough of the cruise missiles that Obama would like to fire off. And so the bayonets may have to do.

YouTube videos are great for streaming Obama’s war speeches and finding scapegoats for the terrorist attacks he wants to deny happened, but they don't fight wars.

Men like Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died not because of a YouTube video, but because Obama failed to provide them with armed support while they were fighting for their lives, are the ones that fight them. And they fight with whatever is left to them by a government that tried to blow $250,000 on an Afghan YouTube channel, but didn’t have enough left over to provide security for American diplomats or health care for American soldiers.

Obama is a virtual leader for a virtual nation. He has virtual solutions for all problems, none of which actually work in the real world. He can virtually do anything, but he can't really do anything except spend fortunes on useless boondoggles in proper Silicon Valley style. Like so many dot coms, he thinks that inspiration is a substitute for a business plan and communications and social media outreach are a substitute for a strategy. They aren't.

Like so many Silicon Valley dot coms with a huge audience and no profits to show for it, he has gotten away with it because too many are invested in the virtual pyramids of the Arab Spring, along with his other pyramid schemes, to hold him accountable.

But his Syria speech is only another reminder that he doesn't have a plan for the war. He has a video. - See more at: http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/obamas-youtube-wars.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+(from+NY+to+Israel+Sultan+Reveals+The+Stories+Behind+the+News)#sthash.rkUSjDyD.dpuf

Last September, Barack Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly to denounce a YouTube video, calling it "crude and disgusting" and assuring Muslims everywhere that this particular YouTube video did not represent America.

Finally Obama delivered what is surely one of the most famous YouTube negative video comments ever, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

The future is still up for grabs, but the man behind the YouTube video was taken in by a crowd of armed police and locked up earning him the privilege of being one of the few movie producers imprisoned for their movies; alongside Robert Goldstein of  "The Spirit of '76".

As YouTube thumbs downs go, a year in jail is pretty harsh. The thumbs of American presidents historically lacked the thumbpotence of Roman emperors sitting in their Coliseum boxes and deciding if a gladiator should live or die. But when a YouTube video is passed off as the biggest national security threat since a Twitter hashtag about Biden's hairplugs, why shouldn't Obama take on imperial airs and drop the prison banhammer?

The trailer for a movie about the Muslim persecution of Christians did not actually lead to multiple coordinated attacks by Salafists against American embassies and diplomatic missions.

Unfortunately in an election where the incumbent was running on his claim that he had single-handedly killed Osama bin Laden in an arm wrestling match, it would have been embarrassing to admit that Al Qaeda had pulled off its second worst attack on America since September 11... on September 11.

It was easier to blame it on YouTube.

Last September, a YouTube video was blamed for several acts of war. This September, a war may be fought over a bunch of YouTube videos.

Obama addressed the nation to rally support for his Syrian strikes. As evidence that "chemical weapons were used in Syria" he mentioned the "videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack".

The message was that if you want Obama's case for war, go watch it on YouTube. And hope it isn't as staged as Jimmy Kimmel's Twerking fail video..

William Randolph Hearst was supposed to have told a reporter, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war". Now YouTube and social media furnishes the videos and pictures and Barack Hussein Obama will furnish the war.

Obama didn't even bother assembling a playlist of the top 10 WMD YouTube videos that will make a case for war; a strange omission for an administration that prides itself as the most tech-savvy organization in the room when it comes to emailing voters and reading their email.

Instead officials boasted about their high-end YouTube watching skills and their "Classified intelligence tools... used to ensure that bodies were not counted twice." Hopefully at least one of those classified tools involved basic arithmetic.

Traditionally a case for war would be based on some kind of physical evidence, but in this new digital world where no one ever has to do anything in person, except get treated for carpal tunnel syndrome, we can blame wars on YouTube videos and fight wars over YouTube videos.

And if the whole Syrian chemical attack turns out to have been faked by Jimmy Kimmel, at least it will have been the most epic troll ever leading to a flame war with actual flames.

It's easy to blame Obama for being too lazy to send someone out to Syria to actually check the toe tags instead of clicking through a few videos, marking the WMD box checked and then checking out the trailer for the remake of Robocop.

But it's not like anyone else has been doing a much better job.

French intelligence released a report confirming a chemical weapons attack by Assad that killed 281 people based in part "on dozens of videos culled by French intelligence services".

Forget James Bond. Jacques Bond dispenses with the tuxedo, martinis and the Walther PPK and equipped with a Snuggie, a swivel chair and some Hot Pockets assembles a case for war based on his unique skill of video cullings. It really is the ultimate playlist with Europe's The Final Countdown as the soundtrack. Or maybe Iggy Pop's Search and Destroy.

When Assad said that the accusations are based "on arbitrary videos posted on the Internet", he kind of had a point. Or maybe he didn't. After all they're based on arbitrary videos posted on the internet and then culled by the crack Le Hot Pockets team at French intelligence and the best YouTube watchers our own intelligence services have to offer.
It's easy to get confused when building a case for war based on YouTube videos.

France's Top Secret YouTubers claimed 281 people had been killed. Our own YouTubers appear to have come up with 1,429 since that's the number that John Kerry has been waving around on any channel willing to give him 5 minutes of airtime.

But maybe our YouTubers just watched the same video 5 times.

Across the channel, UK's social media spooks claimed 350 dead. Maybe they watched the full video. Doctors Without Borders, which hopefully counted actual bodies instead of URLs, pegged the death toll at 355. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights went up to 502. Even that is only 1/3 of Kerry's 1,429.

Where does Kerry get his oddly specific 1,429 number from?  No one knows. The Senate Intelligence Committee received 13 videos whose authenticity was verified by that specter known as "the intelligence community". The intelligence community is a notoriously flexible entity. It usually knows the truth, but sometimes serves other masters.

Back when Obama was determined to blame a movie trailer for the murder of four Americans, the intelligence community, which originally pointed to a terrorist attack, was muscled by Hillary's people into blaming the dreaded YouTube video in the Benghazi talking points.

Online videos don't make the best case for war. It's not just Jimmy Kimmel who can fake viral videos.

Both sides in the Syrian Civil War have filled the internet with viral videos claiming to show the other side using chemical weapons, killing babies and eating with their left hands. There's a fake suicide bomber auction video being distributed by the regime and a fake government massacre being passed around by the rebels. And those are just some of the more notorious examples.

The pro-regime Syrian Electronic Army is hacking websites and the Syria expert whose Wall Street Journal article claiming that the Syrian rebels were moderate was cited by McCain and Kerry turned out to have faked her academic credentials while working for a Syrian rebel front group.

The best thing to believe about Syria is nothing. Both sides are engaged in epic levels of fakery. And if we are going to bomb Syria, the least we can do is sort through real life evidence.

Obama may begin wars over YouTube videos and blame wars on YouTube videos, but the people who die in those wars are all too real. In his UN General Assembly speech, he mentioned the video seven times, but never once mentioned the names of the two former Navy SEALS who rushed to the rescue.

If the future is to belong to anyone, it should belong to men like them and not to amateur YouTube reviewers who start wars.

Those who live in a virtual world, often forget that the things that matter are real. Wars aren't really virtual; even if they're fought with drones and reported on by Twitter accounts. The people who die in them are real and the money used to wage them has to be taken out of the monthly paychecks of families struggling to pay for winter clothing, braces and a home cooked meal.

Obama, like Hollande and Cameron, his leading Syrian War allies, slashed military spending while starting new wars. He cut military paychecks and raised the cost of military healthcare while drastically slashing the armed forces. In a debate, he sneered that objections to his policy of gutting the Navy while expecting it to fight all his wars for him were like so retro.

"We have fewer ships than we did... we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed," Obama said. The line quickly became a trending Twitter hashtag and inspired YouTube videos; none of which, fortunately, led to jail sentences.

But now it’s not hashtags or YouTube videos steaming toward Syria; it’s Navy ships with not enough of the cruise missiles that Obama would like to fire off. And so the bayonets may have to do.

YouTube videos are great for streaming Obama’s war speeches and finding scapegoats for the terrorist attacks he wants to deny happened, but they don't fight wars.

Men like Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died not because of a YouTube video, but because Obama failed to provide them with armed support while they were fighting for their lives, are the ones that fight them. And they fight with whatever is left to them by a government that tried to blow $250,000 on an Afghan YouTube channel, but didn’t have enough left over to provide security for American diplomats or health care for American soldiers.

Obama is a virtual leader for a virtual nation. He has virtual solutions for all problems, none of which actually work in the real world. He can virtually do anything, but he can't really do anything except spend fortunes on useless boondoggles in proper Silicon Valley style. Like so many dot coms, he thinks that inspiration is a substitute for a business plan and communications and social media outreach are a substitute for a strategy. They aren't.

Like so many Silicon Valley dot coms with a huge audience and no profits to show for it, he has gotten away with it because too many are invested in the virtual pyramids of the Arab Spring, along with his other pyramid schemes, to hold him accountable.

But his Syria speech is only another reminder that he doesn't have a plan for the war. He has a video. - See more at: http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/obamas-youtube-wars.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+(from+NY+to+Israel+Sultan+Reveals+The+Stories+Behind+the+News)#sthash.rkUSjDyD.dpuf

Read More

Really? It's only about the money or are you afraid to stand up!!

Procter & Gamble runs NFL ads on Al Jazeera America, ONLY major company remaining

creeping

click image for more on this banner to fly 9/22

Green Bay Packer and Pittsburgh Steeler fans need to step up and stop jihad tv in the U.S. Make a difference today using the email form linked below. via Procter & Gamble airs NFL, Green Bay Packer and Pittsburgh Steeler sanctioned Gillette and Head & Shoulders advertisements on Al Jazeera America.

---

Click here to send your email to P&G corporate officials, their advertising agencies and NFL officials.

Some of Procter & Gamble’s best known products include:  Tide detergent, Swiffer mop, Mr. Clean, Febreze, Duracell batteries, Downey, Gain, Cascade, Dawn and Bounty.

The Florida Family Association office sent emails to Procter and Gamble to inform them about Gillette and/or Head n’ Shoulder advertisements on Al Jazeera America on January 31, 2013, February 4, 2013, February 20, 2013, March 7, 2013, March 19, 2013, March 22, 2013, April 2, 2013, May 9, 2013, May 28, 2013, June 18, 2013, July 2, 2013, July 30, 2013, August 5, 2013, August 14, 2013, August 21, 2013 and August 26, 2013.  However, Gillette and Head n’ Shoulders advertisements continued to air.

Florida Family Association sent out email alerts on August 16 & 17, 2013 regarding Gillette’s advertising on Al Jazeera America.  FFA supporters sent thousands of emails to Procter & Gamble officials.  Gillette advertisements stopped airing on Al Jazeera America two days after the first email alert.

However, Gillette and Head n’ Shoulder advertisements resumed after Florida Family Association deactivated the email campaign.  Procter & Gamble is the ONLY MAJOR company advertising on Al Jazeera America.

Al Jazeera is a news company that is owned by a non-democratic, monarch styled emirate who does not afford citizens freedom of the press, espouses Islamic Sharia law, backs the leader of Hamas and supports the Muslim Brotherhood.  Al Jazeera, headquartered in the Middle East (Doha, Qatar), purchased the CurrentTV channel at the end of 2012 and officially changed its name to Al Jazeera America on August 20, 2013.

Procter & Gamble has the right to choose where they use their advertising dollars.  You have the same right to object and choose products from another company.   Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to Procter and Gamble corporate officials, officials at the Grey Group which handles the advertising for Gillette Company, officials at Saatchi & Saatchi which is the advertising agency for the Head & Shoulders – Troy Polamalu ad and officials at the NFL, Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish. Read more »

 

Read More