► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Barry Rubin’

« Older Entries

The Israel card has been overstated

by Mojambo ( 100 Comments › )
Filed under Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinians, Syria, Turkey at May 15th, 2013 - 7:00 am

For decades now the popular mantra has been that the Israel-Arab dispute (or more precisely theIsrael-Palestine dispute) is what is making the Middle East so combustible. The fact of the matter is that the  pathologies of the Arab world be they Islam, Arab nationalism (Nasserism), or Baathism would guarantee a dysfunctional region even if Israel were no longer there.

by Barry Rubin

Bashing Israel has become fashionable in many Western circles, but in the Middle East it doesn’t work anymore.

For decades in the Middle East the most reliable political tool often seemed to be the Israel card; condemning Israel, blaming it for the Arab world’s problems, and claiming that those who were insufficiently militant on the issue were traitors.

But the Israel card doesn’t work anymore, at least not in the way it used to. True, the rise of revolutionary Islamism has focused more hatred against Israel. Yet at the same time – and this analogy is imperfect – it is less of a single-issue movement. As revolutionary Islamists seek to destroy their rivals (nationalist, moderates and each other) and fundamentally transform their own societies, they are kept pretty busy.

Jibril Rajoub, a senior Fatah official and supposed moderate, may insist that Israel is the main enemy of the Arabs and Muslims, but the Arabs and Muslims aren’t paying much attention. The Palestinian Authority, which his group runs – and which rules only on the West Bank – has no Middle Eastern patron at all.

[…….]

The chance that these two blocs would cooperate against Israel is close to zero. It was different a few years ago. Before the “Arab Spring,” Iran seemed set to become the region’s Muslim superpower. If Tehran obtained nuclear weapons (sometimes referred to as the “Islamic bomb”) it was expected to wield growing influence throughout the Arab world.

Today, however, that situation has reversed itself. Sunni Arabs, whether they are Islamists or anti-Islamists, openly hate and fear Iran. A nuclear weapon in Tehran’s hands would not increase its strategic or political influence. Iran faces a Sunni wall against its ambitions and it is almost without Arab allies.

As for Hezbollah, Iran’s sole reliable ally, it is not able to attack Israel from southern Lebanon. Thousands of its soldiers are tied up in Syria to keep an arms supply route open, help the Bashar Assad regime win, and protect Shia villagers. It also faces growing opposition from Sunni Muslims, financed by the Saudis and stirred up by hatred over Hezbollah’s actions in Syria, within Lebanon itself. Plus the fact that the Lebanese don’t want to be victimized by Hezbollah going to war with Israel given the damage suffered in the late round in 2006.

This is not, of course, due only to the Sunni-Shia issue. There has also been a sharp revival of Arab identity against the Turks and Persians. The region’s history of such ethnic clashes has been revived. If the Syrian civil war ends in a rebel victory, the winners will soon turn against their Turkish patrons. Indeed, while the trade between the two countries is still growing, the Syria issue has driven a deep rift between Turkey and Iran, who are supporting opposite sides.

Even Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, have fallen out, albeit perhaps temporarily. The Egyptian government is unhappy that Hamas has not cracked down enough on the Salafists in Gaza and the Sinai who want to attack it.

[…….]

Israeli officials describe current security cooperation with the Egyptian government, or at least the intelligence services and military, as being quite good. Disputes between Muslim Brotherhood groups and even more radical Salafists are creating problems in Egypt and Syria.

Another factor is the economic catastrophe that is striking, or is about to strike, much of the Arab world. The incompetence and bad policies of the Islamists are making a mess. In Iran, of course, this is heightened by international sanctions.

The obsessively anti-Israel strategy of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become unpopular as being unnecessarily provocative.

The fact is that Syria is wrecked for many years to come; Iraq is not in good shape due to internal battles; and Egypt is on the verge of disaster. Obviously, to attempt to stir up hatred against Israel as being responsible for these problems in order to mobilize popular support is tempting.

But what can be done about it? Israeli flags can be burned in Cairo; tourism there may become impossible; and the embassy could be closed. Yet will Egypt court war, with a reluctant military, the need for international financial aid, and the possibility that the US could cut off the arms supply?  [……]

Finally, something has been learned by the Arab masses and leaders over the past half-century. The old cries that Israel could easily be destroyed by cooperation and determination don’t seem quite as persuasive in the face of many Arab military defeats. There’s a lot more caution. Among the elites there’s even the idea that Israel can be an asset in their struggle against Iran.

I don’t want to overstate the case. Moves toward peace – with Islamists in power or looking over the regime’s shoulders and eager to inveigh against treasonous moderation – are unlikely. Vicious propaganda will continue unabated. Terrorism will be launched at every opportunity.

Ironically, this change coincides with a frenzied effort to reduce support for Israel in the West, including in Jewish communities through boycotts, sanctions, divestment, and massive misinformation.  […….] Perhaps this is taken as justifying inaction or perhaps it is seen as still another attempt to find a victorious strategy when so many others have failed.

Perhaps someday, if and when revolutionary Islamists have consolidated power in several countries, the situation will change again. But until then, yelling “Israel” at a crowded rally – at least in the Middle East – will not prove a panacea for the political problems of Arab governments and politicians.

Read the rest – The Israel card has been overplayed

Tags:
Posted in Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinians, Syria, Turkey | 100 Comments »

The four horesemen of the American foreign policy apocalypse

by Mojambo ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Cold War, Egypt, Fatah, Hamas, Hezballah, History, Iran, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinians, Syria at January 14th, 2013 - 7:00 am

Barack Obama as president, John Kerry as Secretary of State, Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, and John Brennan as C.I.A. chief,  Barry Rubin thinks that John Brennan wins the prize as being the worst of the four. You can take your pick but as the cliche goes, the fish stinks from the head down. I wish Susan Rice did not withdraw her candidacy for Secretary of State.

by Barry Rubin

I did a lot of soul-searching before writing my latest article, “After the Fall: What Do You Do When You Conclude America is (Temporarily or Permanently) Kaput?” Of course, I believed every word of it and have done so for a while. But would it depress readers too much? Would it just be too grim?Maybe U.S. policy will just muddle through the next four years and beyond without any disasters. Perhaps the world will be spared big crises. Possibly the fact that there isn’t some single big superpower enemy seeking world domination will keep things contained.Perhaps that is true. Yet within hours after its publication I concluded that I hadn’t been too pessimistic. The cause of that reaction is the breaking story that not only will Senator John Kerry be the new secretary of state; that not only will the equally reprehensible former Senator Chuck Hagel be secretary of defense, but that John Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism advisor, will become CIA chief.
About two years ago I joked that if Kerry would become secretary of state it was time to think about heading for that fallout shelter in New Zealand. This trio in power—which along with Obama himself could be called the four horseman of the Apocalypse for U.S. foreign policy—might require an inter-stellar journey.[…….]
You can read elsewhere details about these three guys. Here I will merely summarize the two basic problems:
–Their ideas and views are horrible. This is especially so on Middle Eastern issues but how good are they on anything else? […….]  Far worse is that they are pro-Islamist as well as being dim-witted about U.S. interests in a way no foreign policy team has been in the century since America walked onto the world stage.Brennan is no less than the father of the pro-Islamist policy. What Obama is saying is this: My policy of backing Islamists has worked so well, including in Egypt, that we need to do even more! All those analogies to 1930s’ appeasement are an understatement. Nobody in the British leadership said, “I have a great idea. Let’s help fascist regimes take power and then they’ll be our friends and become more moderate!  […….]

–They are all stupid people. Some friends said I shouldn’t write this because it is a subjective judgment and sounds mean-spirited. But honest, it’s true. Nobody would ever say that their predecessors—Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus—were not intelligent and accomplished. But these guys are simply not in that category. Smart people can make bad judgments; regular people with common sense often make bad judgments less often. But stupid, arrogant people with terrible ideas are a disaster.

 

Brennan’s only life accomplishment has been to propose backing radical Islamists. As a reward he isn’t just being made head of intelligence for the Middle East but for the whole world! […….] All he has is a proximity to Obama and a very bad policy concept. What’s especially ironic here is that by now the Islamist policy has clearly failed and a lot of people are having second thoughts.

 

With Brennan running the CIA, though, do you think there will be critical intelligence evaluations of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, or even Hamas?  […….]   Can we have confidence about U.S. policy toward Iran?

To get some insight into his thinking, consider the incident in which a left-wing reporter, forgetting there were people listening, reminded Brennan that in an earlier private conversation he admitted favoring engagement not only with the Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah but also the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.  [……..]
Kerry, of course, was the most energetic backer of sponsoring Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad before the revolt began. Now he will be the most energetic backer of putting the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Syria. Here is a man who once generalized about American soldiers in Vietnam as being baby-killers and torturers. Such things certainly happened but Kerry made the blame collective, except for himself of course.As for Hagel, suffice it to say that the embarrassing quotes and actions from him in the past–including his opposition to sanctions against Iran–fueled a response to his proposed nomination so strong that the administration had to back down for a while.
What would have happened if President Harry Truman turned over American defense, diplomacy, and intelligence in 1946 to those who said that Stalin wanted peace and that Communist rule in Central Europe was a good thing?
[…….]

I apologize for being so pessimistic but look at the cast of characters? When it comes to Obama Administration foreign policy’s damage on the world and on U.S. interests one can only say, like the great singer Al Jolson, folks, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

To get a sense of his thinking, check out Brennan’s article, […….] Here’s the conclusion:

“If the United States actually demonstrates that it will work to help advance rather than thwart Iranian interests, the course of Iranian politics as well as the future of U.S.-Iranian relations could be forever altered.”
The Obama Administration followed this advice during its first two years with the result being total failure. The theme of the 2008 article carries over to his view of the Muslim Brotherhood. If the United States shows it is friendly, helpful, and does not oppose their taking power then revolutionary Islamists will become moderate.
For example, he also proposes a U.S. policy, “to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system….” This step, he suggests, will reduce “the influence of violent extremists in the organization.”
Of course, Hizballah does not need to stage terrorist attacks if it holds state power! Terrorism is only a tactic to seize control of countries.  […….] Yet putting them in power does not increase stability, improve the lives of people, or benefit U.S. interests. If al-Qaeda, for example, overthrew the Iraqi or Saudi government you would see a sharp decline in terrorist attacks! If the Muslim Brotherhood rules Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria it doesn’t need to send suicide bombers into the marketplaces.
The same by the way would apply to anywhere else in the world. If Communist rebels took power in Latin American or Asian countries you wouldn’t find them hanging out in the jungles raiding isolated villages.In Brennan’s terms, that means the problem would be solved. Instead, the correct response is parallel to Winston Churchill’s point in his 1946 Fulton, Missouri, speech: “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.”
This is what Brennan—and the Obama Administration—fails to understand regarding this point. The danger is not terrorism but a dangerous revolutionary movement that becomes even more dangerous if it controls entire states, their resources, and their military forces.
Read the rest – Noxious nominations: the four horsemen of the American foreign policy apocalypse

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Cold War, Egypt, Fatah, Hamas, Hezballah, History, Iran, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinians, Syria | 101 Comments »

Staring into the abyss in Syria

by Mojambo ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Islamists, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Muslim Brotherhood, Syria at December 26th, 2012 - 11:30 am

We have the makings of  a full scale disaster in Syria and Obama is facilitating it. ANother Islamist regime will be installed In Damascus with dire consequences fo r non Muslims in the region. And don;t for a moment think that an Islamist regime in Syria will not eventually reconcile with Iran and Hezbollah.

by Barry Rubin

In his article “The Revolt of Islam in Syria” (Jerusalem Post, December 12), Jonathan Spyer — senior fellow at the GLORIA Center — points out compelling information about the new Western-backed leadership in Syria.

The bottom line: if this is Syria’s new government, then Syria now has an Islamist regime.

This is happening with the knowledge and collaboration of the Obama administration and a number of European governments. It is a catastrophe, and one that’s taking place due to the deliberate decisions of President Barack Obama and other Western leaders. Even if one rationalizes the Islamist takeover in Egypt as due to internal events, this one is U.S.-made.

[…….]
The new regime, recognized by the United States and most European countries as the legitimate leadership of the Syrian people, is the Syrian National Coalition, which has also established a military council.

Spyer’s detailed evidence for these arguments — much of which comes from raw wire service reports, for which praise is due to Reuters in this case — is undeniable. And if we know about these things, there is no doubt that the highest level of the U.S. government does as well.

Why is this happening? Because Obama and others believe that they can moderate the Muslim Brotherhood and this will tame the Salafists, despite massive evidence to the contrary. This is going to be the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last century, and the cost for it will be high. It should be stressed: such a strategy is totally unnecessary; the alternatives have been ignored; and the real moderates are being betrayed.

Here is some of the proof for these assertions:

– “The founder of the Free Syrian Army, former Syrian Air Force Colonel Riad Asaad, is notably absent [from the leadership].  General Mustafa al-Sheikh, the first of his rank to defect to the rebels, is also not there. Sheikh is known for his fierce opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hussein Haj Ali, the highest ranking officer to defect so far, was similarly absent.” These men are all anti-Islamists.

– “A Reuters report on the new joint military council calculated that the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies account for about two-thirds of the 263 men who met in Antalya and formed the new body. Salafi commanders are also there.” In other words, the Islamists will get the overwhelming share of weapons provided under U.S. sponsorship, Turkish oversight, and Qatari and Saudi financing. And the United States has not objected to the arming of Salafist super-extremists as long as they aren’t affiliated to al-Qaeda.

[…….]

– “The domination by the Muslim Brotherhood of the new military council mirrors the movement’s leading position in the new civilian leadership body — the Syrian National Coalition. The leader of this coalition is Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, former Imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus.

“Khatib is closely associated with the Damascus Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The leader of the new coalition has a long history of anti-Semitic, anti-Western, and anti-Shia remarks. (He praised Saddam Hussein, for example, for “terrifying the Jews” and wrote an article asking if Facebook was an “American-Israeli intelligence website.”) He is also an admirer of the Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood preacher Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

– “Within the body headed by Khatib, the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian National Council controls around 27 of the 65 seats on the executive body of the new coalition. There are also Islamists and fellow travelers among the non-SNC delegates. The Brotherhood is by far the best organized single body within the coalition.  [……..]

Let me add two other points:

– The U.S. government backed the previous opposition “leadership,” the Syrian National Council, which was formed as a result of American initiative operating through Islamist Turkey.  [……..]  Only when the council had clearly failed — and despite the fact that months earlier several moderates had resigned complaining about Brotherhood domination — did the U.S. government change strategy to organizing a new, yet also Muslim Brotherhood-dominated group.

– American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that they not go to al-Qaeda-affiliated Salafists.

One day, those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used to install an Islamist regime and to kill or intimidate its opponents.

How has the United States handled this threat?

Well, it declared one Salafi group off-limits, because it is linked to al-Qaeda. That’s it.

As Spyer points out, there has been and still is an alternative: for the West to back non-Islamist leaders, including liberals, Arab nationalists, and Kurdish nationalist forces. Such a strategy was not pursued either in Egypt or in Tunisia.

So when Syria gets an anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-democratic (aside from holding elections) regime, don’t be surprised. You can read it in the surprised and grudging admissions of the Western mass media a year or two after this regime takes power, or you can know about it right now.

This outcome might have been inevitable anyway — but I don’t think that’s true. A vigorous policy of supplying non- and anti-Islamist forces while doing nothing to help the Brotherhood and Salafist militias, plus the formation of a non-Islamist dominated political grouping that would receive Western aid could have produced a very different result.

But Western policy, and especially Obama administration policy, is now putting into power yet another anti-Western regime that will oppress its own people and put a high priority on trying to wipe out Israel.

Read the rest – Proof of a Scandal: U.S. Policy is Making Syria into an Anti-Western, Antisemitic Islamist State

Tags:
Posted in Al Qaeda, Islamists, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Muslim Brotherhood, Syria | 108 Comments »

The Washington Post thinks that the iron dome anti-missile system is anti peace; the E.U. will soon list Hezbollah as a terrorist group

by Mojambo ( 107 Comments › )
Filed under Hamas, Hezballah, IDF, Iraq, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Media, Palestinians, Syria, Turkey at December 19th, 2012 - 12:00 pm

File this under  the heading of  “Can you believe this dreck”? Recently on PBS an idiot named Mark Shields actually complained that only a few Israelis were killed by Hamas’s rockets while scores of Palestinians have been killed, Charles Krauthammer rolled his eyes at him  and gave him a “What kind of moron are you?” stare.

by Barry Rubin

I hate to spend time discussing US media coverage of Israel. It should be clearly understood that in general this coverage is a farce and should not be taken seriously. Yet there are examples which are irresistible because they are so revealing of the political as well as media assumptions made about Israel that so mislead the Western public and policymakers.

The Washington Post ran a major article explaining that while, on one hand, the Iron Dome missile defense system is a good thing because it blocks missiles that would otherwise kill and injure Israelis as well as cause damage, it is also a bad thing. Thomas Friedman made similar claims. Why? “For a nation that longs for normalcy and acceptance, one question being debated here is whether Iron Dome will motivate Israel’s leaders to pursue peace with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world or insulate them from having to do so.”

In other words, if a lot more Israelis were being killed and wounded, Israel would have more incentive to make peace with the Palestinians and Arabs. But since their lives are merely being paralyzed, Israel just isn’t interested in making peace.

And who is “debating” this? Well, basically the Post comes up with one name: left-wing author Tom Segev.

Nobody is interviewed who ridicules this bizarre thesis.

And who in Israel is arguing that if only they were more bloodied, their hearts would be softened and they would prefer peace to endless conflict? Supposedly Israelis are saying: “Wow, we wish our leaders tried harder to make peace with the Palestinians. Maybe it’s because we are too strong and secure.” Well, basically the Post comes up with one name: left-wing author Tom Segev.  [……..]

JUST TO make the situation completely clear let me be very explicit: In the 1980s and in 1993 at the time of the Oslo agreements many Israelis argued that because Israel was more secure it could take risks and make concessions to try to achieve peace. A number of specific steps, including Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, were based on this same premise.

[………]

That’s the historic argument: The more secure Israel was, the more it could offer the Palestinians in the hope that they would make peace. Is that clear? When a country becomes less secure it must increase its ability to protect itself, including by retaining territory useful for that defense, spending more on military equipment, and not making concessions and taking risks. The only exception is if people feel certain that such concessions and risks would definitely bring a full response from the other side and thus lead to a secure and lasting peace.

Now even leaving aside the Palestinian Authority’s intransigence and desire – clearly visible for the past 12 years – to avoid a compromise two-state solution, Israel also faces the following new regional features:

• Hamas, which constantly attacks Israel and would continue to do so (indeed, it would escalate attacks) if Israel did reach an agreement with the PA.

• An Islamist Egypt whose ruling Muslim Brotherhood group daily speaks of genocide against Israel and Jews, plus not accepting the 30-year-old peace treaty, not to mention the even more extreme Salafists.

• An Islamist-ruled Lebanon, where Hezbollah, the ruling group, constantly threatens to attack and also daily calls for Israel’s extinction.

• A hostile Turkey whose rulers support Hamas and Hezbollah.

• A Syria where radical Islamists seem poised to gain power. They cannot possibly be more anti-Israel than the current regime, but they are willing to make the anti-Israel war a higher priority for direct action.

So this is an era where Israel clearly needs to defend itself. Compare this to the early 1990s.

Saddam Hussein had been defeated in the 1991 war; the radical Arabs’ main ally, the USSR, had fallen; America was the sole superpower; the PLO was so weak and depressed that it seemed conceivable it might be pushed into peace because it had no other alternative (in contrast to the contemporary Palestinian Authority which just got recognition as a state and is feeling very confident); and other factors.
[……..]

SO HOW do we get from here to demands that Israel must keep doing what has failed and the claim that the weaker Israel’s strategic position, the more it can and should make concessions and take risks? Such a stance is just about equivalent to saying it is a pity US counter-terrorism measures are working, because if more September 11-type attacks were to succeed, Americans would be nicer to Muslims.

Or that if the British air force had only not defeated the Luftwaffe, perhaps prime minister Winston Churchill wouldn’t have been so insulated from the need to make peace with the Axis.

What’s most infuriating about all of this is not just that Israel has tried so hard to make peace – including risks and concessions – but that the very attacks referred to in the Washington Post article were made possible only because Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in an attempt to promote peace! Yet the essential insanity of the kind of thinking epitomized by this article is shielded when it comes to Israel, by the media’s bias and sense that it can get away with any nonsense when it comes to discussing Israel.

MEANWHILE, THERE is some concern among Israeli intelligence officials with regard to a possible new intifadah in the West Bank. This would be due to new confidence created by the UN’s decision to make Palestine a non-member state (the UN’s contribution to peacemaking); a rapprochement between the PA, which rules the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip; and the PA’s wish to compete with Hamas in attacking Israel and trying to kill Israelis.

Following the logic of the Washington Post we should hope lots of Israelis are killed by terrorists as a way to pressure those obdurate Israelis to make peace.

The Washington Post article basically follows the same Palestinian political line that has prevailed since the 1960s: forget about a negotiated compromise, Israel must be defeated, and Israelis made to suffer. The main goal is to get Israelis to give up altogether and abandon their state; the shorter-term goal is to get Israelis to accept a Palestinian state unconditionally so it can get on with the task of finishing that job.

BEFORE AROUND 1980, the above analysis would have been considered normative in Israel. Between the 1980s and 2000, when there was rising hope of a compromise peace with the PLO and its child, the PA, it would have been considered a right-wing view.  [……..]

Internationally, the refusal to face the fact that the Palestinian side is responsible for the failure of peace leads to such bizarre theories and blinds people to the actual situation.

Read the rest – Is iron dome anti peace?

Chuck Hagel several years ago refused to sign a letter to the EU asking that Hezbollah be designated as a terror group. Something to think about, if Hezbollah is not a terrorist group I do not know who is.

by Hilary Leila Krieger

The US State Department indicated Tuesday that it expected the EU to finally designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, following an intensive US lobbying campaign and suspected Hezbollah plots on European soil.

“We’ve been engaging with our partners in Europe and we are cautiously optimistic – at last – about the prospects for an EU designation of the group,” Daniel Benjamin, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, said during an address at the Brookings Institution.

Benjamin, speaking later to The Jerusalem Post, didn’t give a specific date when he anticipated the designation to be made, but suggested the Europeans will have to “think hard about things in the next few months.”

The US and Israel have long pressed the EU to include the Lebanese group on its terror list, and recently US officials have publicly been making the case that that designation would help with enforcement efforts against the organization and its criminal activities.

Benjamin told the Post that the US has also been sharing information with European counterparts on Hezbollah’s increased activities in their region.

The US and Israel have accused Hezbollah of being behind a bombing that killed Israeli tourists in Bulgaria in July and a disrupted plot against Israelis in Cyprus less than two weeks earlier.

[……]
Clear Hezbollah ties to the attack could be a significant factor in the EU determination on whether to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

“Obviously if the Europeans feel that the proof is decisive then they’ll have to confront the fact that Hezbollah carried out an attack in Europe,” Benjamin said.

Benjamin, speaking ahead of his departure from the State Department, told Brookings that overall the appeal of extremist groups such as al-Qaida is diminishing.

“There are clearly indications that the al-Qaida message continues to wane in popularity,” he asserted.

He said that many of the new governments in the Middle East are also contributing to eroding the capabilities of this and similar groups.

“These governments increasingly show the will to tackle the terror threat,” he said, pointing to the attack on the US outpost in Benghazi, Libya, in September that left four American diplomats dead as an act that awoke many to the internal threat posed by terror groups.

[…….]

“The populations that have historically produced lots of the extremists, these people aren’t interested in violent extremism but in building better lives for their families and their communities within the international system,” he said.

But he added that despite these positive developments, “This is not a reason to relax.”

Read the rest – EU will soon list Hezbollah terrorist group, US expects

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Hamas, Hezballah, IDF, Iraq, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Media, Palestinians, Syria, Turkey | 107 Comments »

« Older Entries