IRIS Blog

US Hiring Hong Kong Firm To Run Radiation Detector In Port

Terror's U.S. Breeding Ground
"Across America, terrorist sympathizers operate perfectly legal schools, mosques, and community centers, often with funding from Saudi sources"

Germany: Islamist Terror Threatens Europe, Israel

In Egyptian Movies, Americans Are the Heavies
"Americans are bullies, rapists, and mindless killers. By the way, the film is a comedy"

Top Syrian Officials Suspected in Hariri Murder Linked to Fraud

Hamas Says It Won't Arrest Militants Who Attack Israel

Incoming Palestinian interior minister Saeed Seyam, chosen by Hamas to oversee three security services, said on Thursday he will not order the arrest of militants carrying out attacks against Israel. "The day will never come when any Palestinian would be arrested because of his political affiliation or because of resisting the occupation," Seyam said.

Israel is facing an existential war. After Olmert's financial response to Hamas utterly failed, his Kadima party adopted the Chelm-like spin that Hamas' receipt of "good money" is a good thing bacause it minimizes the impact of the "bad money" from sources like Iran. His planned pullout from the strategic high ground of the West Bank will mean continuous, growing, and largely unpreventable attacks on Israel to the point where jets will be shot down at Ben Gurion airport and a nuclear bomb from Iran will likely be detonated. Olmert's Kerry-esque strategy of treating counter-terrorism as law enforcement is as logical under these conditions as the cartoon shown here of trying to intercept bullets.

Tuesday's election is the last moment in history where this can logically be stopped. Afterwards, only God can prevent Armageddon.

See also:

Palestinian Rocket Fire at Israel Continues

Gunmen Destroy Bethlehem TV Studio

Israel: Palestinian Corruption Causing Shortages in Gaza; New Palestinian PM "Has Jewish Blood on His Hands"

A must-read by Eli Lake (New York Sun):

Former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

In an interview Thursday, Kerrey said the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States."

On Thursday ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and bin Laden himself, where bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

When Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995, he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al-Ouda, requested by bin Laden.

The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.

The Israeli election is a referendum on the withdrawal from more territory in the face of Hamas' genocidal plans. A "yes" vote could be cast for either Kadima or Labor with no distinction whatsoever. An effective "no" vote in the complex coalition system, however, requires extraordinary game theory powers. Fortunately, Evelyn Gordon, Israel's finest political analyst, has put her Princeton Physics education to good use in this excellent, although arguable, piece (for Israelis only):

The upcoming elections are clearly crucial for anyone who opposes another unilateral withdrawal. Yet not any vote for a rightist party is an equally effective vote against withdrawal. In fact, anyone serious about preventing the pullout has only one realistic option: Likud.

There are several reasons for this. First, the only surefire way to prevent the withdrawal is if the Likud rather than Kadima forms the next government, and that requires the Likud to win enough seats to be a viable candidate....

Second, even if Kadima forms the government, some of its likely coalition partners, such as Shas, might still be persuaded to oppose the pullout itself....

Purists, of course, also have another argument: the Likud must be punished for the disengagement. That, however, is patently ridiculous: Since most pullout supporters have quit Likud for Kadima, "punishing the Likud" actually means punishing the very MKs who opposed the withdrawal!

Update: Her prediction about the UTJ party has apparently already come true: Hareidi UTJ Party Hints: We Will Join Kadima Government

ABC News Exec: 'Bush Makes Me Sick'; E-Mail Revealed

Israel Admits Impossible to Prevent Attacks from West Bank
The reason the Palestinians want the West Bank is because it is strategic ground for destroying the vulnerable lowland of central Israel

UK Islamist Terrorist Sought to Buy "Dirty Bomb"

Palestinian Terrorists Killed Placing Bomb Near Gaza Fence

Another Palestinian Suicide Bombing Foiled
"At this time, defense officials are dealing with 13 concrete warnings about plans to carry out terror attacks." Prediction: In the post-election year, attacks will rise dramatically

Palestinians Students Burn Their School

4 Palestinians Injured by Gunfire in a Wedding Celebration
What goes up must come down

Hamas Duplicity: Talk Peace in English and Deny it in Arabic
Most significant announcements in the Arab World are false

Mubarak's Recent Decree Allowing Church Rebuilding is "Toothless"

The West Must Refuse Aid to Palestinians

Israel Biggest Mideast Investor in U.S.

Hamas Unlikely to Moderate

Wahhabi Groups and Islamization of Turkey Threaten the Security of Bulgaria
The Jihad is Global

Women at War with the Mullahs

As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope for either kind words or bread and butter.

-Ze'ev Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall (1923)

Daniel Pipes was right in this must-read speech of November 2005, about the inflammatory effects of concessions to the Jihad. I encourage Israeli voters to consider whether the Left's strategy of handing the Jihad territory has any historical effect toward moderation. (Hat tip: Dan Friedman)

Q: Does Palestinian acceptance of Israel imply the existence of a Palestinian state?

A: There's a war taking place, and in times of war, it's not good to work out what the post-war arrangements will be. First, it's necessary to win the war. I am not opposed in principle to a Palestinian state, but I don't want to give any assurances that the Palestinians will get anything until they stop the violence and give up the irredentist attack on Israel.

Q: How do you see the situation playing out over the next months and years? What is your view of the disengagement in Gaza, of the Rafah crossing point ? is there any sign of progress? The World Bank getting involved in Gaza ? are there genuine attempts to revive a Palestinian economy?

A: Anything that induces the Palestinians to give up their goal of destroying Israel is positive. Anything that reinforces Palestinian belief that they can destroy Israel is negative. I look at the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in that light. Is it possible that the Palestinians will look at the Israeli withdrawal and say, "Israel's really tough, here to stay; terrorism has no impact on them; we really better give this up." Or is it likely they will say, "Terrorism works ? we attacked them in Lebanon, they left; we attacked them in Gaza, they left; let's attack them in Jerusalem, let's attack them in West Bank, let's attack them in Haifa and Tel Aviv." I have no doubt in my mind that the message sent in 2000, when the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon, and a few months ago, when they withdrew from Gaza, is that violence works.

Caveat: This entry presents an unreported observation regarding the November election. It does not attempt the premature, but important, task of analyzing specific races. I therefore accept the criticisms of the commenters that the title of this entry presents an unrealistic level of certainty. A better title would have been: "A Sign that the GOP May Gain Governors."


The Republican party, which currently holds a significant advantage in state governorships (28 versus 22), may actually widen its lead in November.

Here is a very interesting statistic: 5 out of the 7 "unpopular" governors (i.e. those who have higher disapproval than approval ratings) are Democrats:

Doyle (D-WI): 44 approve - 48 disapprove
Granholm (D-MI): 45-52
Blagojevich (D-IL): 44-52
Baldacci (D-ME): 39-55
Kulongoski (D-OR): 36-56
Schwarzenegger (R-CA): 36-61
Murkowski (R-AK): 29-65

On the other hand, one of the most vulnerable governor is a Republican from the largest state in the nation. Of course, this is only one observation and does not consider the larger question of incumbency.

Update: David, a perceptive commenter, encouraged me to consider the incumbency issue. 8 Republican governors are not seeking re-election (Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York and Ohio) as opposed to only 1 Democrat (Iowa). This seems to change the situation dramatically, to the point where Howard Dean and others are predicting large Democratic gains, resulting in a Democratic majority. However, 6 of those open-seat states elected Bush in 2004, although obviously some did so only narrowly.

Using the simplistic assumption that currently unpopular governors will lose and open seats will vote according to 2004 presidential patterns, the GOP would still gain 3 governorships, meaning that the current advantage of 6 more Republican governors would double, to 12.

A more realistic scenario, however, is that moderately vulnerable incumbents will win, and that the close 2004 elections will split evenly. If we define moderately vulnerable as those with a 5% approval deficit, the Republicans would gain 1.5 seats, meaning the current Republican advantage would increase from 6 to 9.

Only if we define vulnerable as those candidates with a 16% approval deficit do the Democrats break even, and actually gain 0.5 seats.

Update 2: I have come under significant attack because of my contrarian analysis, which varies with the leading experts such as Larry Sabato and the respected Congressional Quarterly site. See the comments for two major errors in Sabato's work and an element of silliness in Congressional Quarterly's analysis.

Switzerland: Hamas is a Partner
See this previous post for context

Bomber Nabbed en Route to Attack

IDF Uncovers Weapons Cache

Israel May Be Next Al-Qaeda Battleground

Workers Riot at Site of Dubai Skyscraper
Asian workers upset over low wages and poor treatment caused $1 million in damage. See this previous post for context

North Korean Defector Says Disabled Newborns are Killed

Palestinian Al-Qaeda Terrorists Caught in West Bank

Security Council Stalled Over Iran's Nuclear Program

Palestinian Attack on Rafedia Hospital in Nablus
"A recurrent problem on a daily basis"

Some U.S. Officials Fear Iran Is Helping Al-Qaeda

Palestinian Suicide Bomber Caught on Jerusalem-Tel Aviv Highway

Al-Qaeda Mega-Attack Thwarted in Jordan

After the avalanche of criticism of Harvard's anti-Israel diatribe, Harvard is now backing away somewhat from the "study." Here is one of the best examples, by Ruth Wisse:

-The thesis of Professors Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago is that a loose association of special-interest groups has persuaded the country to sacrifice its interests to a foreign power.

-Organized as a prosecutorial indictment rather than an inquiry, their essay does not tell us why the "Israel Lobby" should have formed in the first place. The 21 countries of the Arab League with ties to 1.2 billion Muslims world-wide are nowhere present as active political agents.

-There is no mention of the Arab rejection of the UN's partition of Palestine in 1948; no 58-year Arab League boycott of Israel and companies trading with Israel; no Arab attacks of 1948, 1967, and 1973; no Arab-Soviet resolution at the UN defining Zionism as racism; no monetary and strategic support for Arab terrorism against Jews and Israel; and no Hamas dedication to destroying the Jewish state.

-The authors do not ask why Arab aggression and Muslim "rage against Israel" should have morphed into a war against the U.S. and the West. Israel's existence elicits Arab and Muslim hostility, hence in their view Israel is to blame for Arab and Muslim carnage.
When the authors imply that the bipartisan support of Israel in Congress is a result of Jewish influence, they function as classic conspiracy theorists who attribute decisions to nefarious alliances rather than to the choices of a democratic electorate. Their contempt for fellow citizens dictates their claims of a gullible and stupid America. Their insistence that American support for Israel is bought and paid for by the Lobby heaps scorn on American judgment and values.

-Americans don't support Israel because of the strength of any lobby; Israel earns American support the hard way.

Europe is still unclear about the existential threat it faces from Islamists, as this story reveals:

After Nord-Eclair, France-Echos and Caroline Fourest, the weekly newspaper Marianne reveals one of the biggest scandals of modern France: in Roubaix and in the French department of Nord [near the Belgian Border], environmentalist and socialist elected representatives subsidized conferences and radio programmes for Islamists such as Hassan Iquioussen and Tariq Ramadan.

The Marianne delivery of March 11, 2006 contains a four-page article on that affair, exposed by Messaoud Bouras for years but strangely overshadowed by the media.

You heard it right: today, in France, French elected representatives have, in their pitiful run for votes, made subsidies available for declared enemies of the French Republic through associations, radio stations or ?school support? groups.

The beneficiaries of those generous gifts are people as despicable as Hassan Iquioussen, the anti-Jew preacher from UIOF [Union des organisations islamiques de France - Union of Muslim Associations in France], Tariq Ramadan, the takia-expert who wants to impose Sharia to French Muslims, the notorious ?Indig?nes de la R?publique? association [?Natives of the Republic?, ?Natives? meaning here former colonized people, i.e. mainly of African or Arab descent] and their call for racist Jihad against people of French descent, or ?school support? groups that form real Koranic Madrassas.

Although the Dubai ports takeover was universally reported to be "closed," it is very much alive. Dubai Ports World is firmly in control, after nothing more than a statement that the companies are separate, and that a buyer is being sought over the next six months. Perhaps they will indeed be forced to sell, or maybe the issue will blow over with the news cycle.

In any case, the nightmare risk scenario is that the Dubai-owned firm would enable nuclear proliferation by permitting insider information about port security to leak. Supporters have termed this possibility farfetched, but here is evidence that this has already occurred at ports in Dubai.

By Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee:

As recently as 2003, customs officials in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), of which the government of Dubai is a member, allowed 66 high-speed electrical switches, which can be used for detonating nuclear weapons, to go to a Pakistani businessman with ties to that country's military ? despite U.S. protests. Further evidence shows Dubai spurned U.S. requests to inspect containers holding the switches. Among other troubling examples, Pakistani physicist and nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan shipped black-market materials through Dubai, prompting one Middle East expert to call it an "atomic bazaar."

It is astounding that a congressman with a senior security role should be so naive as to credit Muslim Pakistan's nuclear proliferation to a single individual. Khan operated a "nuclear Wal-Mart" for 30 years and was pardoned by the president who called him "my hero." US and international officials said it was ludicrous to believe that the government was not fully involved in the affair. One US official compared Khan's destabilizing impact on the 21st century to Hitler's and Stalin's on the 20th.

What do Pakistan and Dubai (UAE) have in common? They both support bin Laden:

CIA Chief: Bin Laden is Being Protected by Pakistan

UAE Ranks Highest in Support for bin Laden

Did UAE Save Bin Laden?
The 9/11 commission strongly suggests that Richard Clarke made a call to a high-ranking UAE official which was transmitted to Afghanistan that saved bin Laden from a U.S. missile strike

The solution is for Dubai to turn over immediately the US subsidiary to a trustee charged with selling the company and certifying that the computer systems (particularly the file marked "Homeland Security briefing: details of US port operations") are inaccessible until the sale. All proceeds and interim profits would be turned over to the emir of Dubai.

If Dubai's claims are honest, the trustee would have minimal impact. The US subsidiary claims to have "no connection" with its owner and that an investment banking firm is already looking for a buyer.

Unfortunately, that file may already be in the emir's hands, as well as the hands of those whose "top priority is destroying Israel and the U.S."

Previous:

DPW Sale Announcement Update

Analysis Confirmed: Dubai Port Pullout a Fraud

Dubai Port Capitulation Likely Fraudulent

An "Army of Davids" May be Defeating the Suicidal Arab Port Sale