Moderate Muslims step up, risk and give their lives

Western commentators, including me, have been wondering for a long time when the much-acclaimed "moderate" Muslims were going to step up and actively oppose Islamist killers. Here's two examples.

The Lebanon Daily Star reports of a recent event in Beirut:

Residents and witnesses spoke of the heroics of “Abu Ali” Issa Khaddour Saturday night. After a suicide bomber detonated his vest outside a cafe in the predominantly Alawite neighborhood of Jabal Mohsen, the 60-year-old father of seven rushed with locals to the scene, a mere hundred meters from his house.

But five minutes after the first bombing, he noticed another man walking toward the crowd shouting “Allahu akbar.”

Residents and witnesses said Abu Ali then tackled the suicide bomber before he could reach the crowd, perishing alongside him and preventing an even greater massacre.

“Do not give me condolences, congratulate me,” Khoder Khadour told The Daily Star. “Our traditions and our faith tell us to give martyrs, and my father was a hero and a martyr.”

“We are proud of him, and he is the martyr of all of Jabal Mohsen and Lebanon,” he added.

Abu Ali died with at least eight others in Lebanon’s first suicide attack of 2015, after a lull that lasted nearly a year.

And in Turkey, "A newspaper in Turkey whose roots stretch to the founding of the modern republic will truly live the words “je suis Charlie” on Wednesday when it publishes the new Charlie Hebdo issue in Turkish despite threats."

Its editors have already received death threats from other Turks and the police have already tried to shut it down.

Update: And let us praise the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam!

Photo-Op

Netanyahu is flying to Washington today to meet with Obama tomorrow. The goal of both is to survive the meeting with kissy faces. Arutz Sheva reports that both men are strategically interested in doing nothing controversial.

Both leaders “have a deceptively simple mission: getting their picture taken together,” the Washington Post reported Monday night. “There are going to be more photographers there than at the Academy Awards,” Israeli’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren quipped.

Prime Minister Netanyahu left Israel late Monday night, leaving behind almost wall-to-wall opposition by the whips of his coalition parties who oppose an extension of the 10-month building freeze against building for Jews in Judea and Samaria. The freeze is to expire in September, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has demanded it be extended permanently as a condition for his entering direct talks with Israel over the establishment of the PA as a new Arab country.

The only coalition partner not opposing the freeze is the Labor party, which has only 13 Knesset Members but which is headed by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who has been on much better terms with U.S. President Barack Obama than the Prime Minister.

Netanyahu is still remembered for selling out to Clinton and Israelis are scrutinizing his every move right now for signs of a repeat performance with Obama. The fact that he betrayed his foreign minister and coalition partner, Leiberman, last week with a completely useless appeasement gesture to Turkey pretty much put the prime minister on notice.

In fact, the abortive diplomatic effort with Turkey has resulted in exactly the opposite. Yesterday, YNET News reported that the Turkish foreign minister said that unless the Israelis apologize and compensate Turkey for the flotilla incident, Turkey will sever all relations with Israel. In the words of another Nobel Laureate, Professor Yisrael Aumann, Turkey like the PA is utilizing the Game Theory gambit called the Blackmailer's Paradox.

Israel’s political stand is based on the principle that agreements must be reached with the Arabs at any price, that the lack of agreements is untenable. In the Blackmailer’s Paradox, Reuben’s behavior is the result of his feeling that he must leave the room with some money, no matter how little. Because Reuben cannot imagine himself leaving the room with empty hands, he is easy prey for Simon [who makes unrealistic demands up front from which he will not budge], and ends up leaving with a certain amount of money, but in the role of the humiliated loser. This is similar to the way Israel handles negotiations, her mental state making her unable to reject suggestions that do not advance her interests.

Right now, Netanyahu is perceived as a Reuven--an actor willing to give anything to close a deal. When Israelis ask why, they can only assume that Netanyahu caves in to US demands. Shafting his coalition partner does not help matters at all.

The key person to watch here, however, is Mr. Obama. Despite his tanking support at home, he's perceived as desparate to score some political mileage. Alas, his stature in the Middle East is pretty thin. More to the point, his best chance to improve his standing across the board is to support vigorously Israel, ignore the building freeze, and talk tough to the Turks.

Israelis are not hopeful.

Will Turkey's blockade running mean NATO's end?

I argued long ago that NATO long ago outlived its usefulness to the United States ("What has NATO done for us?").

NATO was founded to form a bulwark against Soviet invasion of western Europe in 1949. As the charter's Article 5 states,

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith ... such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

So just what does this mean today? Pretty much nothing. Strictly interpreted, Article 5's provisions are not tripped by an attack on United States' interests outside North America. One must wonder whether an attack by someone against Guam, a non-North American, American territory, would trigger Article 5, but the question is actually moot since there is no imaginable threat to mount such an attack.

So: Who is there to attack either North America or Europe? There are really only two threats reasonably imaginable - Russia and Islamist terrorists.

Now NATO member Turkey is aligning itself with Islamist terrorists, namely Hamas and Hamas' state sponsor, Iran. Israel has enforced a sea blockade of Gaza for most of the time since Israel completely vacated Gaza in 2005. International-law experts agree that this blockade is legal. Turkey's anti-Israel, pro-Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has vowed to break the blockade, even saying he would be aboard a vessel attempting to force it. Iran's Revolutionary Guard says it will join the effort and Iran's Red Crescent (its Red Cross) says it will send two ships to Gaza this week. Finally (same link) prominent Israelis are saying that if Turkish warships accompany the next flotilla (as Turkey has indicated) then Israel must consider it an act of war.

But who would be making war against whom? That is, which country would be the aggressor? If Turkey and NATO come to blows, could Turkey invoke Article 5 and if so would NATO members, including the United States, be obligated to commit military force against Israel?

In my mind these are not difficult questions but you can bet that bureaucrats in Brussels are already writing position papers on the topic. One key is that the charter establishes a defensive alliance. Hence, naming the aggressor party is crucial to whether Turkey can justly invoke the charter.

And the answer is no.

Israel has committed no act of aggression against Turkey. Its Gaza blockade has always been recognized as valid by national governments (as opposed to anti-Israel "activists). The governing document for matters relating to blockades is the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea." Blockades are covered in Section III, which is fairly short. Three paragraphs of note:

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

Note that once a state establishes a blockade it does not have the option to partially enforce it or enforce it only once in awhile. Legally, a blockade must be a 24/7, no exceptions operation. Elsewhere the San Remo Manual authorizes the blockading power to set rules for passage or diversion of vessels and materiel, including humanitarian supplies. This is what Israel has done by insisting that vessels dock at an Israeli port for inspection of cargo followed by overland transport to Gaza of non-contraband.

Here is the key point: Israel's enforcement of its blockade is an act of war - but against only Gaza, not against third parties. Vessels, whether Gazan or not, that attempt to force the blockade make themselves belligerents and the Manual not merely permits but actually requires the blockading power to act against forcing vessels. This not not mean all guns blazing, the blockading power may certainly use its discretion in response. But if Israel does not attempt to enforce the blockade against the Turkish or Iranian vessels that prospectively will tryb to force the blockade, then Israel will give national governments the loophole to declare the blockade ineffective, hence broken and no longer cognizable.

But if Israel and Turkey come to shots on the sea, it is Turkey that will be the aggressor. Might this fatally weaken NATO? The alliance never foresaw that collective "defense" would include assisting other members in starting a war of aggression. But that is what Turkey is apparently about to do.

Perhaps NATO could survive such a conflict. It may depend heavily on how long the shooting lasts. But NATO's reputation as an alliance of self-protection will be shattered. Unless NATO's nations can rein in Turkey, the alliance's toothlessness will become even more evident.

If Turkish warships sail toward Gaza, what to do to preserve NATO, if NATO is to be preserved? To be clear, I still think that the US should resign from the military entanglements of the NATO treaty's collective defense, while preserving the elements of collective security (not the same thing) and political engagement on the continent. But conflict caused by a NATO member is not the way for NATO to dissolve, even if dissolution is a logical step.

1. NATO's members must make it clear that they will not assist Turkey in a conflict with Israel even if Turkey attempts to invoke Article 5. They should also make it clear that Turkey will be evicted from the alliance if it attempts to force the blockade.

2. The United States should first notify US citizens in Turkey to leave. We should tell Turkey that we will impose unilateral sanctions against it if it attempts to force the blockade, including freezing of Turkish financial accounts and of individual Turks in the US, eviction of Turkish embassy staff except for the ambassador and a skeleton staff and revocation of visas for Turks inside the United States. (You may be surprised to know that these measures are very close to those enforced by President Carter against Iran after the US embassy in Iran was seized in 1979.)

However, I see almost no chance of this happening. None of the other NATO countries want to fight anyone, Israel included. But I suspect that NATO's European countries will maintain a studied neutrality as conflict looms, except perhaps Britain and France. Germany's Chancellor Merkel will want to be more forceful than she can afford to be since Germany's economy relies heavily on Turkish guest workers.

As for decisive and effective action by the Obama administration? Expecting that would be the triumph of wishful thinking over experience.

Someone will no doubt say that the US Navy should establish a presence between Turkish ships and Israeli ships if they start to come to proximity. I demur. Unless US warships would be ready to fire then such a patrol would do more harm then good to US interests. We are certainly not going to war against Turkey over this issue; the US public will not support it and this Congress will never authorize it, anyway. And the blockade is Israel's problem, not ours. But the US should be ready to render materiel and intelligence assistance to Israel quickly. We should also be clear to Turkey that if shooting does break out, we will unilaterally dissolve our NATO alliance with it, regardless of what other NATO members do, and will actually seize, as opposed to freeze, Turkey's assets inside the US.

Update: Here's what our president is focusing on:

Comments on

Ataturk is dead, awaiting burial

Paul Rahe holds The Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western Heritage at Hillsdale College, where he is Professor of History and Politics. He writes that the tradition of secular government begun in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk after World War I has reached a dead end under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Then, after being re-elected [in 2007], Erdoğan and his supporters began slowly but steadily to take over the state apparatus and to install Islamists in positions of responsibility that had always been reserved for the Kemalist admirers of Atatürk. They are now on the verge of completing that effort. ...

Turkish nationalism may also have run its course. If Recep Tayyip Erdoğan succeeds in his quest, there will be a major change in the balance of power in the Middle East. These days, apart from the Islamic Republic of Iran and its ally Syria, there is no state of any real significance in the Middle East that sponsors terrorism. But Turkey now appears to be coming down on the side of Hamas and Hezbollah, and that really matters.

But it gets worse:

Meanwhile, in Egypt, an epoch is about to come to an end. Soon, Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for nearly thirty years, will pass from the scene. I would not be surprised if his successor, responding to the impulses felt by the younger generation, were to ally himself with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then it gets really bad:

There is a storm gathering in the Middle East, and at the White House, alas, it is amateur hour, for the United States now has a President who appears to be blithely unaware of the consequences – or worse: unconcerned or even vaguely sympathetic to the transformation about to take place.

Related:

Middle East's fuze is very short

On the Gulf Course

The Summer Games

Turkey & Iran to force blockade?

Uzi Dayan, the former deputy Chief of General Staff, wants Israel to state formally that if the Turkish Navy accompanies a second peace flotilla it will be taken as an act of war. The Jerusalem Post reports.

Israel must send Turkey a clear message that if Turkish warships are sent to accompany the next flotilla trying to break the embargo on Gaza, these will be considered acts of war by Israel , Uzi Dayan, former deputy Chief of General Staff, told Army Radio Monday morning.

"If the Turkish Prime Minister joins such a flotilla,” Dayan said, “we should make clear beforehand this would be an act of war, and we would not try to take over the ship he was on, but would sink it.”

“If Israel doesn't make this clear beforehand, the Turks will grow increasingly self-assured, and we may indeed find ourselves facing such a scenario, which could have been averted.”

Elsewhere, the Jerusalem Post reports that the Iranians want to get into the act.

The Iranian Red Crescent is planning to send two ships to Gaza this week it was announced on Monday.

AFP quotes Red Crescent director for international affairs Abdolrauf Adibzadeh as saying: "One ship will carry donations made by the people and the other will carry relief workers. The ships will be sent to Gaza by end of this week."

In the words of the late James Durante, "Everyone wants to get into the act."

The Whole World Is Watching

While it may be the case that Israel's intelligence community misread the indicators revolving around Turkey's breakneck pace to radical Islam, the American counterpart has been clueless. Erdogan has been blatant in his thumbing his nose at the US since 2003 when he refused to allow the US led coalition access to Turkey from which to stage the invasion of Iraq. His most recent role as the facilitator of the Brazil Iran nuclear material scam was completely in Obama's face. The O-Meister did not even twitch.

It is clear that Erdogan has no intention of pulling back from the brink. He means what he says that he intends to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza. Now, the Jerusalem Post reports that Iran's Revolutionary Guard says they want to go along for a ride. He has islamified his control of the Army and Intelligence upper ranks with loyal cronies so a coup from secular forces is a pipe dream.

It would appear that Admiral Mullen's concern for "unintended consequences" has now materialized. Deploying US ships to the Persian Gulf would appear to open the sealanes to Israel from Turkey. The prospect of a Turkish Iranian force "escorting" a peace flotilla to Gaza is nothing short of an invasion--a provocation to war.

This is not a game theory scenario. This is real. Already Erdogan is spending millions to prepare new ships to head to Israel. The man is spoiling for a fight. His verbiage makes absolutely no sense to Western circles; but, it is perfectly clear to his audience and their normative system. The pragmatic objective is to destroy Israel. This is not paranoia. He is not interested in a "fair" inquiry; in fact, he is loathe to anything of the sort. The man means war.

Israel has many aces up its sleave. It has gone round and round with Turkey in war games so both sides know what to expect. The stakes are higher now because Israel's strike will be followed by the missile barrages from Gaza and Lebanon. Everyone will be involved.

Mr. President Barack Hussein Obama MUST determine which side he is on. He has been elected to the post of commander in chief. War is coming in no uncertain terms. How will Mr. President react? Will he hold back and let Iran take out a carrier or two? Will he permit a Turkish Iranian invasion of Gaza? How much destruction of Israeli cities and population will he permit before he can behoove himself to act?

Turkey and Iran are betting the farm that Mr. President is all talk and no action. It is time for Mr. President to make Turkey know in no uncertain terms that setting sail to attack Israel is unacceptible. He could even ask his friends at NATO if they would help out.

The first step is to censure Turkey as a NATO member for financing the "hate boat" and for its war build up against Israel.

The second step, simultaneous with the first, is to deploy US naval forces to the south of Cyprus.

The third step is let Mr. Putin know VERY CLEARLY, in your best communication oratory style, to stay out of this mess completely. Use the teleprompter.

Finally, forget the oil spill and focus on the blood spilling that is to come. BP and the USCG can handle the spill, as messy as it is. If action is not taken soon, it will be on the beaches of Tel Aviv that Mr. President will be walking to sift the sand for evidence of carnage for photo-ops.

Mr. President--the whole world is watching which way you turn. This is your D-Day--your day of decision. Israelis will pay for their freedom with their blood. But you, Mr. President, will pay with your name. History will not be kind. We will never forget.

Related:

The Turkish Armada

Middle East's fuze is very short

With Friends Like Erdogan, Who Needs Enemies 

Erdogan should know

One if by land, two if by sea

The Summer Games

On the Gulf Course