Two articles in the Jerusalem Post provide graphic and deeply alarming confirmation of the extent to which America appears to have lost the plot in the war to defend the free world. Khaled Abu Toameh shreds the notion that underpins American (and Israeli) policy towards the Palestinians — that Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah are good while Hamas is bad, and that Abbas is weak and needs to be propped up against Hamas, most notably by the Americans supplying him with a load of guns. As Khaled Abu Toameh observes, however, this is all totally ridiculous.
Abbas has control over at least 45,000 members of a dozen or so security forces in the Gaza Strip. This is in addition to thousands of gunmen and activists belonging to his Fatah party. Hamas, by contrast, has less than 5,000 militiamen, who are not as effective as Abbas’s policemen and security agents, some of whom were trained by American and European security experts… Why, then, doesn’t Abbas simply order thousands of his policemen to deploy along the border with Israel to halt the Kassam attacks? How come he hasn’t even made the slightest effort to stop the smuggling of tons of explosives from Egypt into the Gaza Strip?
The answer is simple. Abbas lacks the will - not the ability - to take harsh decisions. In fact, he appears to be comfortable with the image of the weak leader low on funds and resources. Abbas’s message to the outside world is: If I only had more weapons, policemen and money, I’d be able to move against the terrorists. This was the same excuse that his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, used to give whenever he was asked why he was not doing anything to stop suicide bombings against Israel.
Judging from his actions over the past year, it is clear that Abbas is not interested at all in a confrontation with Hamas or any of the radical groups in the Gaza Strip. His strategy is based on the notion that if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Although he has repeatedly condemned the firing of the ‘primitive’ rockets at Israel as ‘harmful’ to the interests of the Palestinians, he has never ordered his security chiefs to go after the rocket squads - not even when the miserable residents of Beit Hanun, who are continuing to pay a heavy price, begged him to take action.
Abbas’s claim that he is lacking in weapons and money is ridiculous given the facts on the ground. Just last week, thousands of PA policemen and Fatah gunmen staged paramilitary parades in various parts of Gaza, during which they reportedly fired more than a million bullets into the air. The cost of each bullet ranges between NIS 1-NIS 5, depending on the type of rifle or pistol. Also, it is worth noting that some of the weapons and ammunition that are being smuggled from Egypt goes to Fatah militias and Abbas’s security forces in Gaza. With regard to the funds, millions of dollars continue to pour into Abbas’s office almost on a weekly basis. Just last week, Kuwait transferred $29 million to Abbas’s bank account. The US, which is eager to bring down the Hamas government, has also been arming and funding Abbas and his Fatah party.
One report cited an official US document as revealing that Washington had allocated $42 million to fund the opponents of the Hamas government, while another claimed that the Americans had decided to provide Abbas’s Force 17 with an additional 6,000 M-16 rifles. Such reports have left many Palestinians confused about America’s Middle East policy, particularly the idea of spreading democracy.
They aren’t the only ones. Meanwhile, Caroline Glick writes:
The Democratic Party’s victory in the November 7 Congressional elections convinced Iran and Syria that they are on the verge of a great victory against the US in Iraq. Iranian and Syrian jubilation is well founded in light of the Democratic leadership’s near unanimous calls for the US to withdraw its forces in Iraq; Bush’s firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his appointment of his father’s CIA director Robert Gates to replace him; and Bush’s praise for the Congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group charged with revisiting US strategy in Iraq, which is being co-chaired by his father’s secretary of state James Baker III. Although his committee has yet to formally submit its recommendations, Baker made clear that he will recommend that the administration negotiate a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq with Iran and Syria. That is, he is putting together a strategy not for victory, but for defeat.
Baker fervently believes that US foreign policy should revolve around being bad to its friends and good to its enemies. Consequently he thinks that the US can avoid the humiliation of the defeat he proposes by buying off Syria and Iran, the forces behind most of the violence, instability, subversion and terror in Iraq. If the US accepts their conditions, they will temporarily cease their attacks to enable a US retreat that will look only mildly humiliating to the television viewers back home.
…The most pressing question today then is whether Bush will give in to Baker and the Democrats and agree to capitulate to Iran and Syria in Iraq, Lebanon and indeed throughout the world. Unfortunately, things look bleak given that Bush relies most heavily on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice has been blocking US action against Syria and Iran for the past two years. She was the primary architect of UN Resolution 1701 this summer, has been pushing for dangerous Israeli concessions to the Palestinians and is known for her good relations with Baker.
Those who know President Bush say that alarm over Baker and Gates should not be overdone, since Bush is a man who means what he says and is unlikely to retreat from his stated positions over seeing it through in Iraq and not tolerating Iranian nuclear weapons. Against that, however, is the fact that he does rely on Condoleezza Rice; and no less disturbingly, that he requires his people to present him with a consensus for action. This means he does not hear rival proposals, and instead gets served with proposals which are forced to embody the lowest common denominator. This is not the leadership required for the defence of the free world.
