Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Another question mark in foreign affairs is Saudi Arabia. Even without President Obama bowing to Saudis for all the world to see, the US has maintained a strange relationship with this Arab country for many years. Most would agree it is simply a matter of hedging bets on oil supplies. But even the country noted as the home of 9/11 hijackers and the birthplace of Osama bin Laden is not exempt from terrorist action within Islam.

Deputy Interior Minister Prince Muhammad bin Nayef was receiving visitors at his home in Jeddah late Thursday when the bomber got close and detonated his explosives. The prince had opened his house to visitors as part of observances for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Imagine that. Open the house for visitors during Ramadan and have a terrorist try to kill you. Yes, Ramadan, the Islamic event of fasting and asking forgiveness for one’s sins. Gotta love this religion of peace. So many contradictions, so little time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exactly the kind of talk that supports the notion Arab countries and Muslims worldwide have an agenda for the destruction of Israel.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is in the United States for talks, says Arab nations would recognize Israel only after a just and comprehensive Mideast peace deal is reached.

Nothing like putting the cart in front of the horse. Does Mubarak say anything with this other than they want a deal that places Israel in more jeopardy from the foes that surround them? A tiny country, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography populated by Muslims has been a target of these neighbors since 1948 when the current chapter in the saga began.

As early as 2010 or 11 things may change in Egypt removing them from the occasional moderate position they express. That is not how all of this sounds.

The talks in Washington are centered on the Middle East peace process and the Arab world’s relationship with Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all issues Mr. Mubarak has taken an active interest in.

But underneath lies the question of what comes next for Egypt, or more specifically, who. In power since 1981, Mr. Mubarak has given little indication of what the transition might look like. He has no vice president. He has not said if he will run for re-election in 2011, and many wonder if that would even be advisable, as he would be nearly 90 at the end of that term.

It is an issue that concerns not just Egyptians. Professor Said Sadek is a political scientist at the American University in Cairo, who worries any instability or political vacuum could be exploited by hardline groups and politicians across the region that oppose U.S. influence in the region.

“How do you guarantee the transition of power in Egypt, so that we don’t have an unpredictable situation in Egypt that would get you the Muslim Brotherhood here in alliance with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Beirut and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad in Tehran - voila, the American strategic policy in the area would collapse,” said Sadek.

As with any conflict all sides have made mistakes. But that certainly does not justify calling for the destruction of Israel. While calling for the death of infidels, the destruction of Israel and at the same time claiming they are mistreated, Muslims need a reality check.

Stop the terrorism and calls for more of it and someone might begin to take you seriously. Constant violence, calling for it and promoting it does not suggest a religion of peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Read a book. It’s possible this blog has never recommended reading a particular book other than Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. But a recent visit to tsowell.com served up a reminder of a wise choice from many of Thomas Sowell’s suggested reading list. It is not new or the latest bestseller but that is certainly not a reason to discount it. In these times of social and political unrest not to mention terrorism and Jihad the book by Bernard Lewis entitled ‘ What Went Wrong’ is not only relevant but extremely well written and compelling. If you do not care to take this blog’s word for it, being on Sowell’s reading list should suffice.

Like any treatment of the topic discussed by Lewis it is not without its detractors. In the interest of fairness one search engine result that provides the dissenting viewpoint is linked here so you can have one recommendation accompanied by one random review by someone not impressed with the work or the author. It would not be surprising if this dissenting viewpoint is held by someone not fond of criticism toward someone or something they personally value, right or wrong.

A description of the book from Sowell’s site is presented here and hopefully Mr Sowell will not object.

A small book presenting a top scholar’s very readable account of the history that led the Islamic world from its pinnacles of achievement in the past to its present pathology and poisonous and dangerous hatreds.

How about a guess? Terrorists, Jihadis, Muslims and Islam will be offended. The rest of us will not. Give it a read and make up your own mind. Hopefully you have already accepted the earlier recommendation on Levin’s book and read that by now. It would not hurt to follow the link to Sowell’s lists, etc., to find other good reading material.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For the liberals who love to label anyone expressing a strong disfavor toward ‘foreigners’ as xenophobic try on this report. Obviously this blog did not produce this report but of course extends its profound gratitude to Voice of America for presenting it. There are some who believe that Jews and others who support them are overreacting to threats from their Arab ‘neighbors’ who surround them as well as to the actions that go beyond threat level. This should be yet one more wake up call to those same liberals and another example of the mounting evidence demonstrating Muslim hate.

And the current US President is going to cozy up to the world’s Muslims yet again. Do you suppose he will start by bowing this time too? How embarrassing. And it is ironic the POLS mentioned in this story are Democrats, liberals, whatever.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(from left) Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Joe Crowley (D-NY) with poster showing excerpt from Saudi school book

Lawmakers in the U.S. Congress say Saudi Arabia has failed to remove offensive material from textbooks used in the kingdom’s schools, including language promoting hatred of and violence against Jews. Three House Democrats used a news conference coinciding with U.S. President Barack Obama’s stop in Saudi Arabia to draw attention to the problem and urge the president to press Saudi leaders on the issue.

Congress has complained for years about hate-promoting language in textbooks used in Saudi Arabia’s schools, and about books used in other countries in the Arab world, notably Egypt, as well as in schools in the Palestinian territories.

Where Saudi Arabia is concerned, the issue has been raised repeatedly by the U.S State Department in its annual religious freedom report, and by the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In a news conference, lawmakers said that despite assurances from various Saudi officials over the years that offensive and inaccurate material would be removed from textbooks, it appears little has been done.

Representative Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York, displayed a 10th grade textbook, smuggled out of Saudi Arabia and translated by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Gulf Affairs, and he read one extract. “This is to be taught to children age 15: “The Prophet said, “the hour [of judgment] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. . . “O Muslim! O Servant of God! There is a Jew Behind Me. Come and kill him.” This is the language that is being taught to students as young as age 15,” he said.

A report prepared by Congressman Weiner’s office, with assistance from the Institute for Gulf Affairs, examined seven textbooks in circulation in Saudi Arabian public schools and used in the 6th through 12th grades in 2008 and 2009.

Among portions translated for the report are those inciting hatred of Jews and Zionism, encouraging jihad against Jews and Christians, endorsing punishment for homosexuality, demeaning women, and affirming the right of parents to force children into marriages against their will.

Representative Shelley Berkeley, a Democrat from Nevada, says Saudi Arabia, which wants to be seen as a leader in the Arab world, must take the lead in eliminating intolerant, hateful material from its textbooks.

“Until they change their textbooks and help educate the younger generation of Saudis that are in their elementary schools and in their secondary schools, and take these hateful teachings out of the textbooks and substitute what we would consider appropriate, tolerant language in teaching for these kids, I am afraid we are just going to see a perpetuation of what we see now, cycle after cycle of hatred and intolerance,” she said.

Congressman Weiner says the Saudi government must decide which side of the debate over tolerance it wants to be on. “Do they want to be on the side where President Obama and the American people are, where we want to reduce the tensions and stop passing hate from generation to generation, or do they want to continue their age-old ways of exporting the worst type of hate, which unfortunately leads to terrorism, misunderstanding and distrust all over the world,” he said.

In its report this past April, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom named Saudi Arabia a Country of Particular Concern, saying promises and Saudi commitments to the U.S., including pledges to reform textbooks, remain unfulfilled.

The report issued by Congressman Weiner’s office quoted a pledge in 2006 by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki Al-Faisal, that the government had removed intolerance from old textbooks, and implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan.

Saying patience in Congress with Saudi Arabia has worn out, Weiner said President Obama has an opportunity to prod Saudi Arabia to take action once and for all on the issue.

The first story is a bit of a surprise. The second, another in a series of stories on Dick Cheney is not. And the third, on Gitmo and the detainees continues. President Obama also suggests ‘loose nuclear materials’ will be secured in four years. Funny how US Presidents always seem to provide time lines that coincide with the election cycle for the term of the office they hold. Doesn’t do much for the public confidence factor. Is Obama’s stance on Gitmo based on a reasonable approach, his own personal opinion or the concern that not closing the facility will break one more campaign promise to his followers?

The bomb plot story has a time line indicating it is a legacy operation from the Bush Administration. You remember him. The President many love to bash yet are willing to forget he kept the US safe since 9/11 along with the man in the second story listed here by the name of Dick Cheney. BTW, another story indicates Cheney’s popularity in the polls has risen since his return to public discourse on the topic of terrorism. And another story suggests ‘the muscle’ for the GOP resides in Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich. Another ‘funny’ item in the sense of interesting or unusual is that President Obama mentions in the third story presented here that his number one job is to keep America safe.

A familiar pattern seems to be emerging here. Other reports suggest Obama cannot distance himself from items associated with the previous administration no matter how hard he may try. He has at least altered action of promises made to his legions of followers and been criticized by them for not being to the left enough. His actions would indicate he agrees there is some wisdom in what Bush and Cheney accomplished yet he cannot bring himself to say it. But his actions reflect that at times. And yet the left side of politics continues to bash the past and criticize the present. While the rest of us realize things weren’t so bad during the Bush years. Sure, there were reasons to be concerned. One example would be Bush pushing the shamnesty immigration policy that was soundly defeated by public outrage. The fall from grace on fiscal discipline is another. But the number one job as described by Obama in the third story here was a complete success.

Those who support keeping Gitmo open and handling the detainee question as in the Bush years express the notion that it has worked. Those who oppose it suggest their is something wrong, immoral or impractical about it. Try this parallel. The use of self-defense in protecting one’s life and the lives of others. No reasonable person wishes to kill another. But sometimes it is necessary. Consider you have a weapon in your possession. An armed intruder violates the sanctity of your home and the scenario places you face to face with the threat. As the intruder raises his weapon toward you there are two choices. It might be nice to talk it over and find a mutually agreeable resolution to this conflict. But most reasonable people would understand the intruder already made his decision which leaves you with one choice. It is unfortunate. But not unlike the Gitmo and other terrorism questions choosing the ‘nice’ choice may end your life or the lives of others.

Try stirring that ingredient into your humble pie.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Four men arrested in an alleged plot to blow up a synagogue, a Jewish community center, and U.S. warplanes are expected to appear in federal court Thursday in White Plains, New York.

Federal prosecutors say New York City authorities arrested the men Wednesday, following a year-long undercover operation. In a statement Wednesday, prosecutors say the suspects tried to buy plastic explosives from an undercover FBI informant to use in an attack on a New York synagogue.

They are also accused of trying to obtain surface-to-air missiles to attack military planes at an Air National Guard Base near New York City.

Federal prosecutors say the four men have been charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. They have also been charged with conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles.

Officials say three of the defendants are U.S. citizens and one is of Haitian descent.

Authorities say one suspect, James Cromitie, told an informant that his parents once lived in Afghanistan and that he was angry about the killings of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces.

The other three suspects are David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen.

A local newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, says an area mosque leader has described one of the men, 21-year-old Payen, as a “strange kid” with “a lot of psychological problems.” The newspaper quotes mosque leader Hamin Rashada as saying Payen would occasionally attend services and that his statements on Islam often had to be corrected.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has defended the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation methods, saying they were necessary to get information from terrorists and save American lives.

In a speech Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Cheney said President Barack Obama and other officials have largely “mischaracterized” the previous administration’s approval of such techniques.

He said they were “essential,” “justified,” “successful,” and the “right thing to do” and that they prevented the violent deaths of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people.

The former vice president, who played a major role in crafting U.S. anti-terrorist policies under George W. Bush, said the methods were always given legal review before approved and that torture was never permitted.

President Obama says the Bush-approved simulated drowning technique known as water-boarding was torture and vows to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Cheney has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s national security policies, saying he is making the United States more vulnerable to terror attacks.

Former Vice President Cheney has said he has made a request to declassify two CIA memos that he says outlines, in detail, the successes that came from using harsh techniques during interrogation of terror suspects.

Al-Qaida actively planning to attack US

U.S. President Barack Obama says al-Qaida is actively planning to attack the United States again.

In a speech in Washington Thursday, Mr Obama said these are “extraordinary times” for the country, fighting two wars and facing a range of challenges. He said his single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe.

The president said the U.S. must use all its elements of power to defeat the threat posed by al-Qaida terrorists, and he added that steps have already been taken to ensure the country is secure.

Addressing an audience of senior Cabinet officials and members of Congress, Mr. Obama said these steps include providing the necessary resources to fight the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and investing in military and intelligence capabilities. He also said his administration has “re-energized” a global effort to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons - in the president’s words, “to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons.”

Mr. Obama said all “loose” nuclear materials in the world should be secure within four years.

He said the United States is better protecting its borders and increasing its preparedness for any future attacks or natural disasters. The United States is building new partnerships around the world, the president said, “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates.”

Mr. Obama said the United States has renewed American diplomacy, so that the U.S. once again has the “strength and standing to truly lead the world.”

Obama defends decision to close Guantanamo prison

President Obama has defended his decision to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the facility set back the moral authority of the United States.

Although hundreds of people have been detained at Guantanamo during the past seven years, Mr. Obama said, the military commissions set up to try those detainees have handled only three cases.

Continued operation of the prison at Guantanamo has “weakened” U.S. national security, according to Mr. Obama, who announced his intention to transfer some of those held in Cuba to so-called “supermax” prisons - ultra-secure detention facilities - in the United States.

The president’s plan to close Guantanamo by January of next year has attracted widespread criticism in the United States from those who oppose the transfer of dangerous suspects to U.S. states.

Mr. Obama pledged that his administration will not release anyone who would endanger U.S. national security or the American people.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s policies on Guantanamo and other issues, also is speaking out on national-security issues Thursday.

Mr. Obama says the Guantanamo detention camp has been an obstacle to getting allies to cooperate with the United States in fighting worldwide extremism.

He described the prison as a “mess” and said it was a “misguided experiment” begun by the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama said all pending cases at Guantanamo will be reviewed.

US Must Not Abandon Principles

President Obama has said that after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States entered a new era, in which enemies did not abide by any laws of war and presented new challenges to the application of U.S. law.

Mr. Obama said the government needs new tools to protect the American people, prevent terrorist attacks and prosecute those who carry them out.

He said that faced with an uncertain threat to the United States after the September 11 attacks, the government made a series of hasty decisions in an effort to protect Americans, and did so based on fear rather than foresight.

He said the U.S. cannot afford to set aside its principles, something he accused both Democrats and Republicans of doing.

President Obama called on both parties to take a new approach, rejecting torture and recognizing the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The president said the United States needs to update its institutions to deal with the threat of extremism, but must do so within the the rule of law and with due process, checks and balances and accountability.

President Obama said the legal approach for fighting terrorism over the last eight years was neither effective nor sustainable, and failed to adhere to America’s values.

Mr. Obama said that is why he chose to ban so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, such as water-boarding. He said he rejects the assertion that such methods are the most effective means of interrogation.

He said they undermine the law, alienate the U.S. internationally, and increase the enemies’ will to fight.

Some detainees to be tried in US federal courts

President Obama says whenever feasible, detainees at Guantanamo who have violated American criminal laws will be tried in American federal courts.

Mr. Obama noted that terrorists including Zaccarias Moussaoui, identified as the 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks, was convicted in a U.S. court and is serving a life prison sentence.

He said detainees who violate the laws of war will be tried through military commissions, saying such panels have a history in the United States dating back to the first U.S. president and the Revolutionary War.

The president said his administration is bring the commissions in line with the rule of law, instead of using what he called the same “flawed” commissions of the last seven years.

Many challenges remain before closure of prison

President Obama says there are detainees at Guantanamo who in effect “remain at war” with the United States.

He acknowledged challenges in closing the facility, and said his goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees.

He said the toughest decision on the closure is what to do with detainees who cannot be prosecuted but yet pose what he called a “clear danger” to the American people.

The president said if the U.S. determines it must hold someone indefinitely to prevent a terror attack, then it must be done with a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.

Review of state secret doctrine nears completion

President Obama says his administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of the state secret doctrine.

Mr. Obama noted the doctrine has been used for many decades by presidents to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. He said the practice is “absolutely necessary” to protect national security, but he is concerned that it has been overused.

He said governments must not protect information merely because it reveals violations of the law or embarrasses the government.

Although the report below is brief the less than subtle omission by one of Ahmadinejad’s challengers to reject the holocaust denial renders him just another thug cut from the same cloth. How difficult is it to draw the conclusion that this is simply more Iranian dinner theatre attempting to portray their country as something other than what it is. Just one more haven for the ‘religion of peace’ focused on Middle East power, nuclear extortion or worse as well as the destruction of Israel and infidels in general.

At the rate Iran delays the inevitable intervention to eliminate their pursuit and use of nuclear weapons the prospect that they will succeed or that Israel will be the one to stop them increases. And somehow through all of this President Obama gives the impression he thinks he has the answer where none has been found to date. It is time the rest of the world reduces the Iranian threat to a minor historical footnote unless we would all rather face the limited options once Iran has a few nukes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of two reformist candidates in Iran’s upcoming election is lashing out at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his denial of the Holocaust.

Former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi says Mr. Ahmadinejad’s claim that the Holocaust never happened, only serves to antagonize the West. He also says such comments help the rest of the world to stand by Israel.

This is not the first time Mr. Karroubi has criticized the Iranian president for his stance on the Holocaust, during which six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.

In April, he called Mr. Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust “harmful” to Iran’s interests.

Mr. Karroubi and fellow reformist presidential candidate, former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi have also accused President Ahmadinejad of mismanaging the country’s oil resources.

Iranians go to the polls June 12.

Mr. Mousavi was prime minister in the 1980s during Iran’s war with Iraq and is seen as the main challenger to President Ahmadinejad.

Although Iran’s nuclear program and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s negative comments about Israel have generated attention abroad, analysts predict the worsening Iranian economy and high inflation will dominate the campaign.

Why do many MSM reports about an upcoming speech to be given by President Obama in Egypt focus on the expressed opinion of a group called the Muslim Brotherhood? By all accounts the group has been around for a very long time and could be characterized as favoring a militant strategy or adopting what is typically called radical Islam as opposed to the religion of peace notion expressed by other Muslims.

While Egypt has banned the group officially some reports indicate independents in the Egyptian parliament account for 88 of the 454 seats. Those independents are described as members of the brotherhood. It is also reported that this brotherhood operates hospitals and schools within the country. What may have originally been a serious attempt to eliminate the group may have changed to a hollow gesture as a public relations strategy. Ties to Hamas and the fact that many organizations which funnel money to terrorist groups operate enterprises to hide their activities casts suspicion on the motives of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its ‘colorful’ history is not without examples of terrorist connections.

What is one to make of the Muslim Brotherhood’s latest contention that President Obama’s upcoming speech to the Arab world is a ploy to push a pro-Israeli agenda? The critics of Obama in the US have lined up to denounce his submissive advances to Arab leaders in recent months. The more extreme views of his critics suggest his Muslim background will influence his agenda in a manner unfavorable to Israel as demonstrated by his call for a two-state solution. The deputy leader of this Islamic brotherhood has referred to Obama’s speech as a ruse. Maybe the ruse is in the brotherhood’s calculated public statements and is being used to hide the fact the American President is no friend to Israel.

An interesting note in a WaPo piece on this topic suggests Muslims do not trust the US due to American support for Arab leaders who have not been elected. In Eqypt, Mubarak does not tolerate political opposition and is said to be preparing for his son to take the helm in the future. The push for democracy in the Middle East by the US is seen as hypocritical by Muslims who oppose leaders like Mubarak.

The piece includes statements that three items are key to anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. The war in Iraq, Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib are listed as the main grievances. It is worthwhile to note that it is likely none of these three items would have occurred had the US not been attacked by terrorists on 9/11. It also fails to note the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers. Not to mention that most Arab countries celebrated the attack while at the same time releasing statements of condolence as official government actions or remaining silent about the incident.

There is no indication the current American President will be as strong an ally to Israel as past presidents. There is ample reason to be concerned his two-state solution favors those intent on destroying Israel. Which in turn raises concern that many of the new President’s agenda items put the nation he took an oath to protect at greater risk. But there has already been opposition to some of the President’s actions from his own party. Could it be that is a sign his dangerous plans will fail before any serious damage is done? Or are we headed for the iceberg in the Titanic?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes it is good to delay publishing one’s opinion on a topic even when the facts are right there in front of you and your frustration level could use the release of expressing the obvious about someone who has been entrusted with leading your nation, that you love and is entirely wrong. It is only good when someone with a great deal more credibility does it for you. And that expression includes the credibility of many more who feel the same way. The excerpt below explains it.

The Interrogation Memorandums
By Gary Berntsen
April 22, 2009

President Obama’s release of these memos took place despite substantial protest. The four most recent CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden-all recommended against the release of these memorandums. President Obama’s own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents. Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

As with other references presented on this blog it adds to the growing criticism of a new President and dispels much of the inflamed rhetoric employed by the far left strictly for political purposes. While some on the left may express genuine concern and honest, although misinformed, opinions on critical issues or even which issues are critical the dominant theme especially with regard to national security dooms us to repeat history if we follow suggestions to ignore it.

Which brings us back to the beginning. President Obama like many others in the past expressed an interest in being surrounded by smart people who disagree with him to give him advice. Based on his recent choice for CIA chief who advised him not to disclose the memos it is obvious again Mr Obama had no intention of listening to those who present arguments contrary to his own. Just like calling the GOP the party of ‘no’ and doing your best to shut them out since you have a political majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Jeff Jacoby emphatically emphasizes the need to consider context when discussing the uproar caused by President Obama releasing the so-called ‘torture memos.’ Reading the excerpt below out of context is something else that should be emphasized. Don’t do it. Read the entire piece but start with the quote provided as it is central to this point but does not include Jacoby’s entire opinion. This may put things in perspective for you on the topic of ‘enhanced’ or ‘brutal’ interrogation techniques or if you must, ‘torture.’

The opinion on this blog includes what Jeff Jacoby states below. The remainder of his argument and opinion is compelling as well.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A tortured debate over the ‘torture memos’

Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe)

What’s missing from all this sanctimony and censure is any acknowledgement of the circumstances under which the CIA interrogations took place, let alone the successes with which they have been credited. That may be a good way to score easy political points. It doesn’t add much to the public discourse.

Context matters. Actions that are indisputably beyond the pale under normal conditions - waterboarding a prisoner, for example - can take on a very different aspect when conditions are abnormal, as they surely were in the terrifying wake of 9/11.

It is probably too early to draw a conclusion on President Obama’s reported ‘go ahead’ order on the Navy Seals mission to end the hostage situation involving Somali ‘pirates’ (thugs, terrorists, extortionists) and a now famous Captain Phillips of the ship Maersk Alabama. With one 16 year old perp in custody and Phillips still being held hostage, under imminent threat of death, the Navy team took out the remaining three thugs effectively freeing the captain from his captors.

If reports are accurate and President Obama twice gave the order to proceed then he should receive credit for doing the right thing. But that is what he is supposed to do, the right thing. While doing the right thing is subject to debate even in this case the outcome could have been a problem. What if the plan went forward and disaster was the result? That is the difficulty in doing the right thing under these circumstances. There would have been no shortage of criticism. So it was not an easy call contrary to what popular opinion might be but it was the right thing to do. And on that note this blog offers its first positive response to the new President.

Be it known that it is for this event and this event only that the positive response is offered. For between the Presidential agenda and the main stream media, what of it still remains viable, the phony treatment of current events distort reality. A report from AP this weekend emphasizes this assertion.

Obama Hopes to Use Dealmaking Skills Honed Abroad
Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:33 AM
WASHINGTON –

Let’s make a deal.

President Barack Obama honed his dealmaking skills on his maiden international trip, to Europe and the Middle East.

The trip helped burnish his image abroad. But can he translate that into getting his legislative priorities through Congress, where partisan lines continue to harden?

Analysts say the generally positive reception to his first venture on the international stage can’t hurt. But foreign-policy successes don’t necessarily mean achievements at home.

What analysts say any of that? Where are they? Why does the AP report not refer to them by name and offer supporting resources or evidence? Could it be the author is making it up? Like Obama suggested of those who presented less than flattering information on him during the 2008 campaign. ‘They’re just making it up.’

Analysts say. Sources say. Unnamed sources say. High level sources close to the President say. Under the promise of anonymity so and so said. This is not convincing. Right out of the gate on this one the AP is helping support the notion that the MSM is a fraud.

In the very next paragraph after such a pathetic beginning with the AP report the following was concluded. Obama helped negotiate a compromise among world powers to battle the global recession, helped break a deadlock over NATO’s next secretary-general and helped coordinate NATO’s strategy for Afghanistan. Where do they get this stuff? The G20 was a flop. Go read the statements of Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and others at the G20. You will, if you haven’t already, see a different outcome from this particular international political show. Economic pledges of a trillion dollars do not a success make. No ‘fighting’ troops to Afghanistan from the EU is not an accomplishment. There is nothing about the G20, the UN, NATO or Obama that suggest the glowing report offered by the AP.

He agreed to restart languishing nuclear arms control talks with Russia, laid down a marker on terms for a Palestinian state, delivered a strong pitch for allowing Turkey to join the European Union and sought to heal a rift between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Appeasement, surrender, appeasement, appeasement in that order on the last misguided excerpt from the report by AP. For a more realistic view on the nonsense that is President Obama’s agenda and his crews’ efforts thus far is another promotion from this blog to read yet another piece from George Will.

Rice really thinks there is a community out there. To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity’s natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements.

Regarding North Korea’s missile launch, Rice was very stern. She said the U.N. Security Council would “meet,” and there would be “consultation with our partners,” who “all need to come together” and “add to” the 2006 U.N. resolution that North Korea had just disregarded, the one that demanded a halt to future missile-related activity, including launches. The Security Council met. It could not even bring itself to say North Korea’s launch had violated the resolution against launches.

The column by Will must be read in its entirety as the lone excerpt provided here doe not do it justice. Plus it is good to refer to other sources from this blog that have, shall we say, ’street cred’ in making the case or point suggested here. With more talent like George Will in the MSM they might have a better chance for survival as well as being taken seriously.

It would be wonderful if this blog could expand this one time positive response to the President’s action on the Phillips’ rescue to his entire agenda. But there is currently no evidence the remainder of his plans will be an exercise in doing the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This month President Barack Obama caused the eyes of many to glaze over with his wandering message expressing an interest in a world free of nuclear weapons. Those who applauded the announcement were from one of three groups. Those who share membership in the not so exclusive nuclear club of planet Earth or wannabees who are delighted the new American President will try to disarm the US. Or uber liberals with reality issues who still believe surrender and appeasement will bring peace to the world. Or really nice folks who thought it impolite not to applaud the person on stage accepting blame for everything on behalf of the country he represents.

Yo Barry. Here’s a heads up for you. Most people accept the events in history that led to the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France being the original, and for a time only, members of the group known as the Nuclear Club. Well, except maybe for France, but that’s another story. They’re the same ones who support the US strategy in Afghanistan but won’t send troops or ones that can fight. Oh ya, and they’re the ones like some others in the EU who support the G20 idea of providing a trillion in stimulus but are fine with the US contributing more than their share. And apparently, Mr Obama, you agree.

In addition to the original members of the Nuclear Club are India and Pakistan. Just like Iran and North Korea now, no one had a clue how to prevent these two countries from joining. And there are about a dozen other countries included in discussions of who has the ability to go nuclear. (Israel’s ability is assumed but not declared ) So the number is at or approaching a couple of dozen. Are you following this so far, Mr President?

If you understand the previous few paragraphs then why the hell are you making these public statements about a nuclear free world? This is one time most Americans would hope you are offering another promise you will break. Otherwise one can only assume the pressure is getting to you and you’re losing it. If the problem was so simple to solve and all the people of the planet could get along as you and your followers believe, don’t you expect it would have been achieved by now? Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the problem has not been corrected is that no one has the answer yet? It is fair to assume that what was once feared as the ultimate fate of a nuclear armed Earth still remains.

But a likely alternative expectation, given the UN’s typical failure to respond to the DPRK’s missile launch, is that with proper handling avoiding catastrophe can be achieved in much the same way as it was in the past. All parties will be attracted to their nuclear power of choice while the nuke powers will maintain a balance still based on mutual assured destruction if the worst would happen. At some point thereafter this game will be exhausted and other circumstances yet to arrive will cause nations of the world to abandon this stupidity. Not because we will then be wiser but some other equally scary threat will require extraordinary cooperation between all the people on this planet in order to survive. And no, Mr Gore, it’s not Global Scamming Warming. It’s those peaceful Muslims carrying suitcases. (hint, hint)

We may then have a taste of peace long enough to become addicted to its benefits. But it won’t happen due to some idealistic fantasy that we can all get along because that is the way ti is supposed to be. That may come within time but for now you are trying to put the cart before the horse at best or transforming the human race to an endangered species at worst. Starting with the United States for whom you took an oath. It may be time for you to read it again for the first time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In early March 2009 Iran’s Khamenei expressed several points that would suggest the US and Iran will not likely find agreement with any proposed dialogue that could occur. There seems to be much posturing by both Iran and the White House. Obama and other Democrats have pushed for talks with Iran for a long time claiming the two countries can work out problems. Those in the US opposing such talks argue concessions or appeasement would be the only items in which Iran would be interested. And Iran continues to maintain their opposition to Israel and deny involvement in terrorism or pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Iran Denounces US During Gaza Meeting
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
04 March 2009

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in the opening speech at the conference that President Obama spoke of change during his campaign but supported Israel’s devastating three-week offensive against the Gaza Strip earlier this year.

He says that even the new American president, who came to office with the slogan of bringing change to the policies of the Bush administration, avows unconditional support for Israel’s security, which means defending state terrorism, injustice and oppression, as well as a 22-day long massacre of hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children. This, the Ayatollah said, is the same path of the Bush administration.

You may notice in the excerpt above that Khamenei conveniently omits attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah and others or describing them as terrorism. Yet clearly in the example he uses, the December 2009 retaliation by Israel from repeated rocket attacks by Hamas, was initiated by terrorists he refuses to acknowledge.

Khamenei called for a referendum of all those residents of historic Palestine, whom he termed “legitimate,” to determine the fate of the Holy Land.

He says that he is proposing a solution which is democratic in principle and which serves as a logical basis for everyone. All those who have a legitimate stake in the territory of Palestine, he says, including Muslims, Christians and Jews should choose the structure of their ruling system in a general referendum. He says that Palestinian exiles must also participate in the referendum.

Mr. Obama has said his administration is looking for opportunities to engage Iran to help reduce tensions between the two countries - particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.

Khamenei’s comments Wednesday highlighted how difficult it will be for the Obama administration to improve relations given the deep disagreements on both sides on issues like Israel and Iran’s nuclear efforts.

And the Iranian leader insults the intelligence of anyone reading his words regarding a referendum. Even without doing a head count on those living in the areas mentioned, to add so-called Palestinian exiles would at the very least stack the deck with unverifiable votes reminiscent of ACORN and make this ‘referendum’ a self-fulfilling prophecy with a nearly unlimited quantity of phantom voters that are anti-Israel.

Syria Offers to Mediate With Iran
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
18 March 2009

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is proposing to mediate between the West and Iran, telling an Italian newspaper that he’s prepared to act as a go-between to improve relations that have been further strained over Iran’s nuclear program.

How convenient that after Congressional Dems sponsored an appeasement tour of the Middle East in August 2007 and Obama has been calling for appeasement worldwide Syria decides to offer to be a mediator on the Iran nukes issue as well as improving foreign relations with the United States.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy urged Mr. Assad, during a conference in France last July, to use his influence to help resolve Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West.

President Assad noted that dialogue was the best means to end long-standing disputes with Tehran, arguing that any attempt to contain a country ends by strengthening it.

And it seems French President Sarkozy is hedging his bets. It may be fair to say his rise to power not unlike Obama’s was premised on change. Now that the honeymoon is long over two things stand out. Mention of him in the previous reference as inviting Syria to get involved and lately warming up to re-entering NATO. What’s that about? Go for appeasement and if that puts you at risk fall back on newly formed ties with NATO to do your fighting for you?

Iran Warms to Obama Appeal for Better Relations
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
20 March 2009

Iranian government TV carried a traditional New Year’s greeting from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad calling it the day of the “rebirth of love, friendship, and aspiration,” but it was President Obama’s message that captured many people’s attention.

First of all, ‘love, friendship and aspiration’ coming from Ahmedinejad is in direct opposition to his statements that Israel must be eliminated. And the Iranian President also had this to say.

“Mr. Obama has talked of change, but has taken no practical measures to redress America’s past mistakes in Iran,” he said. “If Mr. Obama takes a concrete action and makes fundamental changes to U.S. foreign policy towards other nations, including Iran, the Iranian government and people will not turn their back on him. Mr. Obama has referred to differences between Iran and the US. We believe that those differences stem from Washington’s hostile policy towards Iran. Minor changes will not end the differences.”

It is obvious anything short of appeasement and caving to Iranian intentions will not produce effective solutions or dissuade Iran from their current agenda. Where the author came up with the title suggesting Iran is ‘warming’ to the US is a puzzle.

US Looking for Reciprocal Iranian Gesture After Obama Message
By David Gollust
State Department
20 March 2009

The State Department said Friday U.S. officials are looking for a reciprocal gesture from Iran after President Barack Obama’s conciliatory holiday message to the Iranian people and government Thursday. Mr. Obama said in a broadcast for the Iranian new year holiday Nowruz that the United States wants “honest engagement” with Tehran based on mutual respect.

If the report above is true there is confirmation that Hillary Rodham Clinton does not have a clue or thinks you do not.

At a news briefing, State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood said that the crux of the President’s message was that despite the serious differences that have marred the relationship over time, the Obama administration is committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues with Tehran.

Senior Iranian leaders have not given any direct response but Wood signaled patience, saying the process is at an early stage.

“We’re at the beginning of this process,” he said. “The President has made it clear we’re going to engage diplomatically with Iran. We intend to do that. It will be up to the Iranians how they want to reciprocate.”

“But I also want to emphasize we still have some very difficult issues that divide us. And what the President has said is that we want to work with Iran on trying to deal with these differences. We’re willing to diplomatically engage. It’s really going to be up to Iran,” he added.

Wood said the problem issues in the relationship include Iranian threats toward Israel and other countries in the region and its nuclear program, which U.S. officials believe is weapons-related despite statements from Tehran that it is for peaceful purposes only.

If you cite all the problems with Iran and what they are trying to accomplish and yet claim to hold out hope for a few publicly expressed kind words to initiate some sort of reconciliation two things become apparent. Either you’re an idiot or much more is going on behind the scenes and as usual public rhetoric is for political purposes. Of course it is always possible both are right.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama’s Appeal
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
21 March 2009
Speaking in the holy city of Mashhad Saturday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the United States is using “the slogan of change,” but that he sees no real change in U.S. policy toward Iran.

Change in rhetoric alone is not enough, he said, and even then we haven’t seen much change in vocabulary. Change, he insists, must be authentic.

This part could be called ‘ gimme something.’ Obviously Obama blinked and now the Iranians are feeling superior. Could it be that during the Bush Administration Iran only talked tough as they had no other options to save face? Now that an American President is ‘asking’ to talk they have the upper hand in a discussion. So now what? Does Obama expect them to roll over and play nice or is the opposition correct, Obama’a agenda is full of appeasement?

PRESS RELEASE - Washington, D.C., March 23, 2009 - President Obama’s message to the Iranian people on the Nowruz holiday drew millions of viewers and listeners to the Voice of America (www.VOANews.com ), the largest international Persian-language broadcaster.

By Monday, VOA sites had more than 134,000 views of the three-minute speech, which Obama delivered late last Thursday as Iranians prepared to celebrate Nowruz, the Persian new year. The video was posted on www.VOANews.com, www.VOANews.com/persian/, and VOA’s partner YouTube channels. VOA’s Persian News Network (PNN) also broadcast the message to Iran, a country with a restricted media, on satellite television and on shortwave radio.

Over the weekend, PNN received and broadcast e-mails from inside Iran, many of them praising Obama’s speech. In one, Arash said he was pleased with Obamas “message because he (Obama) actually recognizes the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The writer also said he hoped Iran’s leaders “will study Obama’s speech and make a good decision.”

In his remarks, Obama talked of a “new beginning,” saying he hoped Iran, the United States and other nations would form constructive ties. He also praised Iran’s “great and celebrated culture.”

VOA’s dissemination of the video was also cited by Fox News Network, the Times of London and the Guardian in the United Kingdom, among many other places.

Whatever happened to strength through power?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Moving forward on plans to have a sit down with Iran. Sending officials to hold preliminary discussions with Syria and other countries typically at odds with the US. Attempting a ’secret deal’ with Russia. Hell bent to withdraw from Iraq and now this. President Obama is ready, willing and able to cave to the Taliban in Afghanistan just as he directed more troops be sent there. How many events like this must take place before the public begins to see the appeasement and surrender tendencies of a new President?

Don’t be fooled by the President’s comparison to the US Military enlisting the help of various groups in Iraq. Al-qaeda was murdering their people as well and they were not opposed to retaliation for those actions even if it was done with Americans. ‘Reconciling’ with the Taliban amounts to conceding defeat and allowing the enemy to claim victory. The double danger lies in the fact that any concessions guarantee nothing and can enable the enemy without ever reaching agreement. It is a sign of weakness and puts everyone at risk.

Reengage the enemy in Afghanistan after a long interruption. Fashion success after the troop surge in Iraq and get this thing done once and for all. Obama appeasement and preemptive surrender is not an option unless one wishes to invite subsequent challenges from enemies. Another Neville Chamberlain moment hatched by a liberal in America, President Barack Obama.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Ponders Outreach to Taliban Moderates

U.S. President Barack Obama says he is looking at all kinds of options in Afghanistan - including reaching out to more moderate elements of the Taliban.

The president is in the midst of a detailed review of U.S. policy on Afghanistan, and he is indicating reconciliation could play an important part in his emerging strategy.

In an interview with the New York Times, he was asked if he would consider reaching out to more moderate elements of the Taliban - mirroring a successful U.S. military tactic in Iraq.

Mr. Obama said it might be possible, noting the outreach program in Iraq helped turn around the course of the war.

He spoke aboard Air Force One and his comments were recorded by a Times reporter.

“If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said.

President Obama said there may be comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border. But he stressed the situation there is much more complicated than in Iraq.

“You have a less-governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes,” Mr. Obama said. “Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge.”

His comments were welcomed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has long advocated reconciliation with moderate elements of the Taliban. But Mr. Karzai emphasized there could be no dialog with Taliban allied with al-Qaida.

Violence in Afghanistan is at its highest level since the Taliban’s ouster in late 2001. President Obama announced last month that an additional 17,000 U.S. troops will be deployed to the country.

When asked by the New York Times if the United States is winning there, he replied no, adding U.S. troops have done an extraordinary job in a very difficult situation. He said conditions have deteriorated over the last year in Afghanistan, the Taliban is bolder, and the Afghan government still lacks the confidence of the people.

Analysts to Obama: There are no Taliban “moderates,” you nitwit (Michelle Malkin) 

The report indicates Hillary Clinton said the US will pursue a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. How does that square with her quote below that different opinions will be respected? And how can she claim ‘time is of the essence’ if not to mean she wants a political win for her 2012 resume’? With at least one neighboring state calling for Israel to be eliminated and no significant history of progress towards peace since 1948 or before no one can really expect this situation to change soon.

Without serious impediments placed on groups like Hamas and their rocket attacks from a wide variety of nations in the world including Arab countries asking for cease fire agreements is just more of the same that has accomplished nothing worthwhile over decades. It is obvious the vast majority of nations in the world are not interested in solving this conflict. At least not in a way that would benefit all involved. When all the opinions vary and feature self-serving proposals or strategies as solutions there can be little optimism for the illusive prize some call peace. It would appear that most do not really seek peace but having their own way.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States will press for a two-state solution to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mrs. Clinton met with Israeli officials in Jerusalem Tuesday as part of her first foray into the region as Secretary of State.

Secretary Clinton’s pledge of support for a two-state solution may put the Obama administration at odds with Israel’s new leadership. The country may soon be led by the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu who has refused to declare his support for a totally independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

At a news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Tuesday, Secretary Clinton said the White House believes that moving toward a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interests.

“It is our assessment as I expressed yesterday and again today that eventually the inevitability of working toward a two-state solution seems inescapable,” Clinton said. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t respect the opinions of others who see it differently. But from my perspective and from the perspective of the Obama administration time is of the essence.”

Clinton’s schedule on Tuesday included a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, who has been designated to form a coalition government after last month’s inconclusive elections. Mr. Netanyahu has said he wants to focus less on negotiations with the Palestinians and concentrate more on shoring up the Palestinian economy. He also supports the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank - something the United States sees as an obstacle to peace.

The Secretary of State acknowledged the road ahead will be difficult. She said the process of peace must start with finding a solution to the Gaza conflict. She called on Hamas to cooperate.

“The first step right now, not waiting for a new government, is a durable cease fire, but that can only be achieved if Hamas ceases the rocket attacks,” Clinton said. “No nation should be expected to sit idly by and allow rockets to assault its people and its territory. These attacks must stop.”

Israel’s defense ministry says militants in Gaza have fired more than 120 rockets at Israel since the end of Israel’s 22-day assault in January.

Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday also sought to ease Israeli concerns over the new U.S. approach to Iran. During his campaign, President Barack Obama said his administration would be open to dialogue with the Iranian leadership, triggering concern among many here that Washington might soften its position on Tehran.

Secretary Clinton assured the Israelis that will not happen.

“When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused,” Clinton said. “Our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism. It happens to be a goal that is shared not only with Israel but with many countries that view Iran through the same prism that we do.”

Regarding Syria, she announced Washington plans to send two envoys to Damascus soon to begin discussions on improving relations with the U.S. and furthering peace efforts in the region.

On Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton is due to travel to the West Bank for meetings with President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

Over the years many published reports indicate terrorism is fostered in the West Bank and Gaza for the high unemployment, predominantly youthful population with no opportunity and a crowded populace living in poverty and dire conditions. Then how did Abbas calculate they would need $2.8 billion to rebuild Gaza? How does Clinton determine $300 million in aid will make Gaza peaceful and responsible? And then there are 75 ‘donor’ nations meeting to raise more money. The better question is how smart do you have to be to realize if you launch rockets against Israel long enough to force retaliation after the smoke clears you will receive billions of dollars to do with as you please? The secondary question is this. If Gaza is so bleak and suffering from deplorable conditions why would it cost that much to rebuild and why do the Palestinians need wads of cash to ‘cover a budget’ and for ‘institutional reforms and economic development’? Is this the first time they have ever received money in this manner? No.

There seem to be glaring contradictions not to mention an international scam that the US should not condone. Pay to bury the dead and patch up the wounded and humanitarian aid you can verify but how do they expect to avoid terrorists from getting there hands on the money? Hamas may not touch donations directly but there is nothing to stop millions from filtering to them through the many sinister alliances present in the region or across the street.

And some wonder why the situation never changes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States’ pledge of $300 million in humanitarian aid for Gaza is intended to help achieve a Palestinian state that is “peaceful” and “responsible.”

In remarks Monday in Egypt at the international donors’ conference on reconstructing the Gaza Strip Clinton said U.S. monetary support for Gaza cannot be separated from achieving a “comprehensive peace” in the region.

Clinton said an additional $600 million of U.S. aid will go to the Palestinian Authority to cover budget shortfalls, institutional reforms and economic development. The U.S. says none of the money will benefit Hamas militants, who do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told international donors that financial aid without an end to the conflict with Israel would be “insufficient.”

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon warned that rebuilding the coastal enclave will be a daunting task as long as border crossings between Israel and Gaza remain closed, calling the situation “intolerable.”

Representatives from at least 75 donor nations are meeting in Sharm el-Sheik with a goal of raising money to rebuild Gaza after Israel’s military offensive.

The Palestinian Authority says it needs to raise $2.8 billion to reconstruct Gaza.

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council said Sunday they would contribute $1.65 billion.

This trip is Clinton’s first to the Middle East as U.S. secretary of state. After the conference, Clinton is scheduled to meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel and Hamas declared separate cease-fires in January, but rocket fire into Israel from Gaza has continued and Israel has launched targeted attacks on militants and smuggling tunnels in Gaza.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.