The Gap between Fairness and Safety: WMDs in Iraq and Iran

Posted on March 1, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: There can be a large gap between perceived fairness and ultimate safety. Liberals seem to prefer the moral value of the former, while conservatives value the comfort in the latter.

Liberals on Iraq

Many liberals in the United States love to attack former President George W. Bush for his decision to go to war in Iraq. The president acted on bad information that Iraq was involved in the attacks on the US on 9/11/01, and then doubled-down on flawed intelligence which claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). America engaged in a very costly war in terms of lives, cost and credibility based on that bad information.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama campaigned to pull American troops out of Iraq because he thought the war was wrong, and when he became president, he fulfilled that pledge. Not long after the last US troops left Iraqi soil, the terrorist group Islamic State/ISIS filled the vacuum left by America’s absence. In the wake of several thousands of murdered people, Obama is now weighing how deeply to reengage in Iraq to combat the demons his actions helped create.

Liberals on Iran

In a related policy, the liberal-minded Obama is in the process of enabling the Islamic State of Iran to become a threshold nuclear power. In Obama’s worldview, it is difficult to validate why the US, Pakistan and seven other countries should have nuclear weapons and Iran shouldn’t.

Obama obsesses over “inequality” and fairness in society and also believes that all countries consider themselves to be exceptional. In a “fair” world of complete equality, the liberal position of equal entitlement prevents Obama from negotiating forcefully against the Iranian regime that desires to enter the pantheon of nuclear states.

Obama on Iran Negotiations

As such, Obama concluded that he will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and use the negotiations as an opportunity repair ties with Iran that have been combative since the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Conservatives on Ramifications

While most conservatives will agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, they argue that the decision to completely high-tail out of Iraq was a more tragic mistake. Abandoning the country left a power-vacuum which was filled by the Islamic State. Iraq became lawless and is now a foundation state for jihadists. Obama’s decision further destabilized the country, which has produced terrible security outcomes in the Middle East, the US and the world.

Senator McCain speaking against Iraq pullout

Conservatives believe that Obama’s “soft” negotiations with Iran will similarly have terrible ramifications for global security.

The US State Department has called Iran the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” It supplies Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza with weapons, money and intelligence. Iran was involved in blowing up the Jewish center in Argentina in 1994 and attacks on US military personnel in1996.
Saudi Arabia, an enemy of Iran, has made clear that it will pursue nuclear weapons if Iran obtains such capabilities.
Iran has publicly threatened to destroy Israel.

The ramifications of enabling Iran to get nuclear weapons will likely either lead to Israel attacking Iran, or initiating an arms race in the volatile Middle East. So much for Obama’s desire to have a world with fewer nuclear weapons. The only party to have fewer nukes will be the US while human rights-abusing countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia would be on their way to being able to cause global destruction as one considers a world of nuclear terrorism.

Conservatives are less worried about the double-standards of who gets nuclear power today if it leads to greater stability tomorrow. Liberals, on the other hand, focus on being fair today and are less fixated on the ramifications tomorrow.

Iranian bombing of Khobar Towers killing 19 Americans,
June 1996

Lessons in Safety from Experience

It would be worthwhile for Obama to consider “unfair” laws in the US. Many laws and policies are deliberately biased to counter-balance experience related to safety.

Rental car companies discriminate against youth. People under 25 years of age cannot rent a car on their own.
The US enforces seatbelt laws and helmet laws for motorcycles, limiting individual freedoms.
Insurance companies charge more for certain models of cars, particularly high-performance and sports cars, regardless of the driver’s record.

These laws and accepted biased corporate policies are in place because of experience. People under 25 get in more car accidents than older people, so the car rental companies charge them a bundle because of the perceived risks, even if the renter is a great driver. Similarly insurance companies charge all drivers of Mercedes convertibles more, which has led to police charging those drivers four times as many traffic tickets.

Seat belt laws and helmet laws are in place because they save lives. Many studies have shown the drop-off in fatalities due to these laws, which (literally) restrict a person’s freedom. State laws prevent under-age (sometimes 20 or 19) people from consuming alcohol because it helps save lives.

These are just a few examples of where society assesses risks based on historic outcomes. They exist everywhere including health insurance companies charging more to smokers than non-smokers. While a particular smoker may live much longer than a non-smoker, society draws certain conclusions based on past behavior and history.

History serves as the basis for making policies that improve safety.

Iran is not just another country

There are Islamic countries such as Pakistan that have nuclear weapons. There are repressive regimes such as China with nuclear weapons. However, the world has not seen a state sponsor of terrorism (such as Qatar) obtain a weapon of mass destruction.

The history of Iran and current statements from the government make it a dangerous player on the world stage. Endorsing Iran’s building the most powerful weapons in the world puts the entire planet at risk..

There were no WMDs in Iraq and America should not have gone to war. But Obama’s abandoning Iraq to reverse a bad decision ignored the reality of the existing paradigm. His decision to be fair had terrible ramifications for regional peace.

Enabling Iran to get WMDs ignores the actions of that government. Obama’s deep belief in equality cannot be allowed to jeopardize global safety.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Obama’s Iranian Red Line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

Obama’s foreign policy: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/obamas-foreign-policy/

Obama dancing with the asteroids: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/dancing-with-the-asteroids/

I’m Offended, You’re Dead

Posted on February 19, 2015 by First.One.Through

The US President and the media have portrayed “radical extremists” as angry about cartoons of the Muslim prophet by western media. Such a view focuses very narrowly on the recent attacks in Paris and Copenhagen. This is because democracies consider freedom of speech a fundamental right in their societies and object strongly to such rights coming under fire. Should the media and democracies look more broadly, they would note the broader attacks on basic human rights that Islam imposes where it is in control.

The “hateful ideology” (as US President Obama calls it) is not simply an “ideology” by a few “extremists”. The basic laws of several Islamic countries trample on many fundamental human rights. Islamic laws do not only challenge what you can say, but often attack the essence of who you are, and enforce double standards regarding what you can do. To aggravate the Islamic illiberal attitudes further, the laws impose severe punishments to the offenses, often the death sentence.

Muslim Protest in England

What you said

Blasphemy is clearly part of the objection of the Muslim killers. Whether Charlie Hebdo (2015), Copenhagen (2005; 2015) or Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands (2004), the drawings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed were considered offenses deserving of murder. Those attacks made news and drew world attention because they happened in Western Europe. In the Islamic world, blasphemy is considered a crime in over a dozen countries. Pakistan recently sentenced a blasphemer to death, but the laws and actions do not often attract the world’s attention.

Asa Bibi sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy,
November 2014

Who you are

Islamic countries impose the death sentence on people for simply being who they are. Innocent civilians are viewed as criminals even though they harm no one.

Apostasy is the act of changing religion. In several Islamic countries, the act of converting from Islam to another religion is punishable by death. Those countries include: Afghanistan; Brunei; Mauritania; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Sudan; United Arab Emirates; and Yemen. Many other countries also consider it a crime, punishable by a year or more in prison.
Being Gay is considered a crime in 76 countries in 2015. There are several Islamic countries that sentence gays to death including: Iran; Iraq; Mauritania; Nigeria; Qatar; Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Islamic terrorists targeted Jews in recent attacks in Jerusalem; Paris and Copenhagen. Many Muslims feel that non-believers are doomed and should be killed according to Islamic teachings. While many Islamic countries do not sentence non-Muslims to death, they subject the non-Muslims to secondary “dhimmi” status and make them pay special taxes. There are “radical” Islamic groups like Boko Haram and ISIS that are actively killing non-Muslims throughout Nigeria, Iraq, and Libya.

An estimated 4,000 gays have been killed in Iran since 1979

What you do

Some Islamic countries have laws that prevent persecuted segments of society from doing what other members of society (Muslims, men) can do freely. The double standards and misogyny are simply part of the culture that the world ignores.

In Saudi Arabia, there are laws that prevent women from driving cars; only men can drive.
In Pakistan, girls are prevented from going to school to get an education; only boys can go to school.
In many Southeast Asian countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, a girl who reject a boy’s marriage proposal may be disfigured either by having her nose and ears cut off, or acid poured on her face. Boys do not deal with such issues.
In Israel, the Jordanian Muslim Waqf prevents Jews from praying on the Jewish Temple Mount; only Muslims are allowed to pray on the entire 35 acre site.
In Gaza and Islamic countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, people kill female family members in “honor killings” if they dress inappropriately or date unapproved men. Men do not face honor killings.

Woman arrested for driving in Saudi Arabia,
December 2014

How they Respond

The punishment for many of these basic activities that people in the western world take for granted, is death. The death sentence is often brutal and public.

Infidels are beheaded
Gays are hanged from cranes in the middle of the city, or thrown off of buildings
People who speak against the government are caned in Saudia Arabia and killed in Syria
Saudi Arabia considers witchcraft a capital offense

“Minor” infractions also can yield a death sentence:

Adulterers are stoned to death in Iran; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Somalia; Sudan; UAE; Yemen
Drug traffickers are killed in: Egypt; Indonesia; Iran; Iraq; Kuwait; Oman; Saudi Arabia; South Sudan; Syria and UAE
Prostitutes are killed in Sudan

The Danger

The view that a few “extremists” have hijacked Islam and are attacking the freedom of press is both myopic in terms of history and geography, and hazy in terms of numbers and scope. In reviewing the laws and actions of several Islamic countries, one can better understand the gross intolerance and extremism in their societies. Many Muslims are offended by a great many things, and will kill the offender.

If the West limits its review to freedom of speech in the world of social media, the conversation becomes limited as well. Hate speech versus freedom of speech, and attitudes towards censorship of social media (such as in Turkey) are worthwhile discussions, but far too narrow. The value of jobs and economic development for a handful of radicals is brought up by the Obama administration because he misses the larger point. Obama argues for “reasonableness and restraint” from countries because he views the attacks on them as limited to a handful of radicals.

That flawed worldview led Obama to abandon Iraq without helping secure the vacuum. It will lead an Obama administration to enable Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Perhaps it is time for Obama to visit Cairo again as he did on his first international trip in 2009. This time he will meet a new leader in al-Sisi who has called for a “revamping” in Islam. Maybe al-Sisi should be on Obama’s Iran negotiating team.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Murderous governments

Blasphemy

My Terrorism

US Hypocrisy – “Reasonableness and Restraint”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Obama’s Foreign Policy

Posted on January 27, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: Obama’s foreign policy is viewed by both liberals and conservatives as deeply flawed

Both liberal and conservative commentators had a lot to say after US President Barack Obama gave his State of the Union address in January 2015. They were not positive.

The liberals attacked their president as being divorced from reality. They highlighted several areas:

Iran continues towards nuclear weapons despite assurances to the contrary
Islamic State takes over Iraq after Obama calls them “JV” and claims that US forces have stopped their advance
Yemen falls despite Obama recent assurances
Assad controls Syria after Obama’s claim of helping moderate opposition forces (so marginal, can it be called true?)
Russia gets a mere slap on the wrist for invading Ukraine and taking over Crimea despite treaties with Ukraine

Conservatives have often berated Obama for practicing a policy which coddled enemies and rebuked allies:

Continued snubbing of ally Israel, particularly the Prime Minister Netanyahu (calling him “chicken*hit”, not meeting with him, walking out on him…)
Not showing up for unity rally in Paris after terrorist attacks (one of the only major western allies to not send anyone)
Refusing to help ally Canada with approving the Keystone pipeline
Pulling all troops out of Iraq after thousands of American forces died, to let the country fall into a terrorist haven

Here is a music video early in the Obama presidency which showed these paths started from the earliest days of his presidency (music by Genesis):

Sources:

Liberals attack Obama “asleep at the switch“: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxsyVO23G38

Mainstream media saying Obama “not close to reality“”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FcQE32_HSU

Criticism for snubbing Paris rally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yt5xqO0FgI

Obama’s Iranian Red Line

Posted on November 24, 2014 by First.One.Through

The world watched Israeli Prime Minister draw a red line over Iran’s nuclear program at the United Nations two years ago. US President Obama also described a “Red Line” for Syria’s chemical weapons- from which he quietly back-tracked.

The cartoon of Obama’s “Red Lines”

The cartoon of Obama’s red line is being spread around the Internet right now, as US Secretary of State John Kerry kicked-the-can on Iran once again, and Obama fired Defense Secretary Hagel:

Obama as Bug Bunny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttfhSJQPDlY

Sources:

Netanyahu Iranian nuclear red line: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-un-assembly-israel-iran-idUSBRE88Q0GI20120927

Obama Syrian red line: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-issues-syria-red-line-warning-on-chemical-weapons/2012/08/20/ba5d26ec-eaf7-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_story.html

Kicking the can on Iran: http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-nuclear-talks-likely-to-close-without-result-1416830109

Canning Defense Secretary Hagel: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html

Seeing Security through a Screen

Posted on November 24, 2014 by First.One.Through

The 44^th US President is surrounded by high walls
and peers out at the world through pretty screens.

In November 2014, “someone” in the Obama Administration chose to belittle the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The choice of expletives aside, the call was not just revealing about how much Barack Obama and his administration disliked Netanyahu, it reflected a smugness and cluelessness of the US Administration about living in the dangerous Middle East.

America at Peace

America has been blessed with peace on its shores. While the country has waged many wars over the past 70 years, the actual fighting was on foreign lands including: Europe; Iraq; Vietnam; Korea; Japan; Libya; Kosovo; Somalia and many other countries. Other than two attacks on American soil, the US has been spared fear and death at home.

Points in Time: There were only two days that the USA had foreigners attacking the country: December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001. America has not faced a prolonged attack on its shores for centuries.
Troops Trespassing: Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks were done via airplanes. Foreign warriors did not walk the streets of America.
Families Threatened: The two attacks were on military installations (the navy fleet and the Pentagon) and financial center (World Trade Center). America did not face an enemy that threatened homes and families.
Existential Threat: America is a superpower, armed with firepower that can destroy the world many times over. It has not engaged with an enemy that could threaten the very existence of the country.
Peaceful borders: America is lucky to have only two borders despite its enormous size. Both neighbors are friends, allies and trading partners of the USA.

None of these facts are true for Israel. Israel is surrounded by several enemy countries. These neighbors have stated their intention to wipe Israel off of the map and have repeatedly gone to war and fired directly into civilian population centers over and over again through the decades of Israel’s existence.

Lawyers as Commanders-in-Chief

America’s peaceful existence has enabled it to calmly elect presidents with no military experience over the last several decades. When America fought its great wars such as the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II, the American people elected the respective generals to become the Commanders-in-Chief in the following years (George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower).

Never in battle. The recent US presidents and vice presidents (particularly the Democratic ones) including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton had no military experience at all. George HW Bush fought in World War II, while George W Bush served in the National Guard but was never in battle. Al Gore served as a military reporter for a short stint. Other than HW Bush, these men never faced true fear or saw friends die in battle. They led the world’s largest military machine as Commanders-in-Chief without appreciating the danger and fear of deadly combat.
No draft. America no longer has a draft so every person that serves in the military does so as a volunteer. Such a system can mask the decision of deploying troops for a military commander. Each soldier is a volunteer and trained professional. This “professional army” is very different than “citizen armies” that pull people out of the workforce and touch every corner of a country. As such, American presidents fight wars without the same direct economic and emotional impact that face other countries.
The infrequent visitor. President George W Bush launched the Iraq War in response to the attacks on 9/11 and President Obama invested heavily in the War in Afghanistan. Each president made only four short trips to the regions despite deploying well over half a million troops in each war over many years.

In Israel, every person must serve in the armed forces. Every family deals with disruption to its business and annual routine. Each citizen faces the risks on a very personal level – physical, financial and emotional. Every family in Israel knows someone who died in one of its wars.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu served in the elite unit Sayeret Matkal, and took part in a number of military operations, including the 1972 rescue of a hijacked Sebana passenger jet. His brother died leading a raid to free Israeli civilians hijacked in Entebee in 1976. Other members of the current Israeli ruling coalition include Naftali Bennett who served in two elite units including Sayeret Matkal and Maglan. Yair Lapid served as a First Sergeant in the IDF.

Israeli Prime Ministers do not just visit the frontlines in each battle they fight- they can see the missiles standing next to their families from their bedroom windows.

The Obama Detachment

The detachment from reality regarding the fear and adrenaline of battle for an American president is compounded in the case of Obama, who is generally acknowledged to be a “detached” individual.

Constitutional law. President Obama has referred to himself as a professor of constitutional law. His leadership style exemplified this attitude whether on domestic matters such as Immigration Reform or the Targeted Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki when he delved into the nuances of particular laws in large legal briefs. Despite being the Commander-in-Chief, he is most comfortable as a lawyer surrounded by other lawyers sitting around a conference room table; he is clearly not a military leader surrounded by armed forces in the field of battle.
Community organizer. Obama’s background as a community organizer focused on ways to elevate a particular community within the 330 million-population of the United States. He has no background or experience in protecting the entire country, which every leader in Israel has experienced for several years.
Competitive sports. Obama is very proud of his athletic skills and people have noted his deep competitive streak. However, talking dirt about dunks is divorced from the reality of deploying troops in your backyard against enemies sworn to your destruction while the world admonishes your right to defend itself. Beating an opponent on the court has little to do with protecting ones citizens.
Battle by Remote. The best summary of the Obama detachment is in his moniker “The Drone President”. More than any president in US history, Obama has used drones to assassinate his enemies. The pilots of the drones may be hundreds or thousands of miles from the battle scene. Obama’s army drops the missiles and departs, never personally entering the zone of combat and therefore never exposed to danger.
The Ultimate belief in Self. Despite never being in battle, (other than some competitive basketball games), and relying more and more on mechanized drones in the battlefield, Obama has a tremendous sense of his centrality to the war machine. After US marines assassinated Osama bin Laden while Obama sat and watched on a screen, his speech to the nation the next day was littered with an active “I” to describe the mission.
1. “I directed Leon Panetta”
2. “I was briefed”
3. “I met repeatedly”
4. “I determined”
5. “I, as Commander-in-Chief”

Obama and his administration sit in their comfy offices in their calm country thousands of miles from confrontation and peer into the battle through TV screens and simulators. They watch their orders for assassinations and wars, with laptops and coffee. Their added security blanket of being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, adds yet another shield from any serious global charge. As Mel Brooks once aptly said “It’s good to be the King.”

Obama, Clinton and crew watch the attack on Bin Laden on monitors,
May 2011

Remarkably, Obama, the cloistered captain, touts his talents and has the temerity to taunt his unloved ally, the besieged Bibi Netanyahu.

The Israeli Prime Minister, the “chick*hit” that the Obama administration referred to, never had the ability to be so smug. His backyard contains a museum memorializing millions of relatives slaughtered for the crime of being a Jew just a few decades ago. He grew up with a gun in his hand to fight terrorists attacking his neighbors, and armies attacking his country. He wakes each morning knowing that his house and family are in the comfortable crosshairs of enemies sworn to destroy him, his country and his people.

In addition to his enemies, today Netanyahu has to fight against a world that admonishes him for protecting his people. He has to contend with his greatest ally, the United States, which continues to make it impossible to preemptively attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons.

Insults are not a big deal for a leader who has fought for the survival of his people; Bibi has been called worse by members of his own parliament.

The insult says much more about Obama than it does about Bibi.

Sources:

The Atlantic on Obama anger at Bibi: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/

Obama visits Afghanistan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-arrives-in-afghanistan-on-surprise-visit/2014/05/25/7df61452-e41f-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

Bush visit Iraq: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background-bushs-surprise-visits-to-iraq-afghanistan/

Obama Constitutional Law Professor: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

Obama detached: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democrats-privately-calling-obama-detached-flat-footed-incompetent_793544.html

Obama competitive sports: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/book-obama-driven-by-competitive-streak-/1#.VHMoCLMtCUk

Legal Case for Killing: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?hp&_r=0

Obama speech on Bin Laden: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead

Dancing with the Asteroids

Posted on November 14, 2014 by First.One.Through

Mankind has always been enamored with stars. Since our earliest history, people have looked up at the stars in wonder. The bright points of lights inspired some of civilization’s greatest poetry and stories of heroism. The beacons of light in the darkness guided sailors lost at sea and eased the fear of night for children at home.

Today, some of our favorite celebrities and sports heroes are referred to as “stars”. Compared to the heroes in mythology immortalized in the sky, today’s stars are modern heroes on the sports field and movie screens on earth. We cheer their successes as our own and wait anxiously for the next opportunity to watch them.

Conversely, asteroids are lightless, lifeless pieces of rock. They lack any internal source of light and warmth. Some may have, once upon a time, been a part of something greater and noble, but those days are long past.

A hit television show developed in 2005 called “Dancing with the Stars” in which famous celebrities were paired in dance competitions with ballroom dancers. The shows quickly rocketed to number one as audiences loved watching their stars compete in an entertaining new setting. The phenomenon spread to more than 40 countries around the globe, including in: Western Europe; North America; parts of South America; Australia; Russia and China. Almost all of Africa and the Middle East did not adopt the show, with the only exceptions being Israel, Lebanon and South Africa.

The map in blue of countries with “Dancing with the Stars”

The Politics of Dancing with Asteroids

In the fall of 2014, US President Obama formed a coalition of forces to fight the Islamic State or ISIS. Obama stated that: “The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.” Over 50 countries pledged support for the fight, but only a handful agreed to take part in military action.

Obama worked hard and touted his success in bringing Arab countries into the fighting coalition: Bahrain; Jordan; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; and the UAE. This was the US dance card Obama sought for what he claimed was “going to be a long-term campaign”.

Qatar: one of the leading financiers of terrorists, especially Hamas, but also extremists in Libya and Egypt. It’s Al-Jazeera TV has helped spread Salafism throughout the Middle East. It’s treatment of migrant workers is infamous.
Saudi Arabia: home to 15 of the 19 September 11 mass murderers. The greatest offenders of women’s rights in the world. Zero political empowerment for the masses.
Bahrain: a monarchy that successfully crushed the pro-democracy movement in its country (out of the lens of the western press or United Nations).
Jordan: a leading funnel of jihadists that cross into and out of Iraq and Syria.
UAE: another financier of terrorists

Obama’s dance card of the dark was seemingly not quite full. Reports emerged that Obama sent a secret letter to Iran to help battle the Islamic State.

Iran: perhaps the only country to finance and export terror more than Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It helped undermine the stability of Iraq. It is building nuclear capability while it threatens to destroy Israel.

US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (L)

Those are the partners Obama chose when he claimed that the battle is larger than ISIL, and that the coalition is “fighting an ideological strain of extremism that has taken root in too many parts of the region.” That is the very definition of the coalition he assembled.

Obama may argue that allying in the fight with such parties is a necessary evil. It arguably protects the US from criticism that it is not acting alone against an Arab/Muslim foe, as fellow Arab and/or Muslim countries are alongside of America in the fight. Practically speaking, it is easier to wage a battle from nearby territory, so many of these coalition partners are simply the neighbors of ISIS. Perhaps.

It may be politically expedient to dance with the asteroids, but it is certainly not pretty to watch.

Sources:

Dancing with the Stars show: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287630/Strictly-Come-Dancing-global-hit-BBCs-successful-export-rakes-millions.html

The coalition against Islamic State forms: http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/09/heres-map-obamas-coalition-against-islamic-state/95000/

Obama’s speech to the coalition: http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/15/president-obama-talks-strategy-anti-isil-coalition.html

America’s coalition partners: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/09/23/350877632/obama-coalition-against-isis-shows-it-is-not-americas-fight-alone

A perspective on the coalition partners: http://lubpak.com/archives/74002

Obama letter to Iran: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/07/lawmakers-slam-obama-letter-to-iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei/

Extreme and Mainstream. Germany 1933; West Bank & Gaza Today

Posted on October 25, 2014 by First.One.Through

Many books and studies have been written analyzing Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, including the famous “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” by Daniel Goldhagen. The premise of the book revolved around the question of how Hitler – a single madman – could possibly kill millions of people. The book advanced a theory that, putting it simplistically, a single extreme individual or idea could stop being viewed as extreme if many others harbored similar thoughts. Millions of people could be actively annihilated if an entire society believed in the extreme notion that Jews, gays, gypsies and other “undesirables” should be killed. Such a society was capable – and did – murder millions. It was not a lone extremist with a gun, but a country with an army.

The dynamics of the Palestinians in 2014 runs parallel to the Germans in the 1930s in many respects.

Mufti of Jerusalem visiting Nazi troops

Position

Position of Germany: The Nazi platform in 1920 made clear its intent of stripping Jews of citizenship. It allowed Jews to live in the country as “aliens”, but forbade any new Jews from moving to the country.
Position of Palestinians: The Hamas party made clear its position of Jews in its 1988 charter, calling for their murder and destruction of the Jewish State.
The more “moderate” Fatah leadership of the Palestinian Authority has called for a new country to be void of any Jews.
The PA has established laws that call for the death penalty for any Arab that sells land to a Jew.
The major Palestinian university bans Israeli Jews entry onto its campus.

Popularity

Majority support: The Nazi party won 44% of the votes in 1933. Hamas won 58% of the seats in Parliament in 2006 with their radical platform.
Last election. The Nazis suspended elections after the 1933 vote. The Palestinians have held neither presidential elections nor parliamentary elections since their 2006 election.
Popularity of Nazis: There are no polls to show how the Nazis would have fared if additional elections were held. Perhaps the Nazis feared that they could have lost an election and therefore did not allow one.
Popularity of Hamas: There are dozens of polls that show Hamas would win the presidential elections and the parliament with over 50% of the vote, no matter what year the poll was taken. The current acting PA President Mahmoud Abbas (of the Fatah party) and the world knows this, so has suspended any new elections which would clearly show the desires of the Palestinian Arabs for war.

Palestinians in Nazi Salute

As seen above, the Hamas positions are more extreme than the Nazis at the time of the respective elections. The Palestinians voted much more overwhelmingly for Hamas than the Germans did for the Nazis. Palestinian anti-Semitism in 2014 is more extreme and mainstream than the Germans in the 1930s.

As further evidence, in May 2014, the Anti Defamation League conducted a global poll of anti-Semitism. By a substantial margin, the Palestinians held the most anti-Semitic views in the world, with almost every single Palestinian Arab (93%) in the West Bank and Gaza holding anti-Semitic views. In comparison, 26% of countries outside of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region held anti-Semitic views.

Germany rose to power in the 1930s and the world did not hold the Nazi aspirations in check. As such, Nazi Germany went on to execute its plans killing millions of civilians until the world reacted. Perhaps the world only stepped in, because Germany crossed into their backyards.

Fatah leader in Nazi Salute

Today, the Palestinians do not have significant fire power and have therefore only been able to kill hundreds, not millions of Jews.

Will the world encourage and embrace such a nation and leadership on the world stage?
Will the world enable Iran or other allies of the Palestinians to obtain nuclear weapons?
Does the world believe that “Never Again” only means in Europe?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Abbas’ Jihad is a move to the mainstream Palestinian opinion: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/mainstream-and-abbas-jihad/

Why the media ignores Jihad in Israel: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/radical-jihadists-in-europe-and-dislocated-and-alienated-palestinians-in-Israel/

Abbas’ racism: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/abbas-knows-racism/

Antisemitism, Holocaust denial and terrorism in Palestinian society and leadership: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/what-do-you-recognize-in-the-palestinians/