Feed aggregator

Le pantalon militaire ou treillis est une pièce essentielle de la tenue d’un soldat, quel que soit son régiment. Outre sa coupe distincte, il se distingue aussi par sa robustesse et sa fonctionnalité. Sa couleur sombre, souvent vert kaki, gris ou noir, facilite le camouflage durant les missions sur terrain. Voyons dans cet article les […]

(B2) Dans cet essai, Richard Werly, correspondant pour Blick.ch, et François d'Alençon, grand reporter et ancien chef du service étranger

Préparation administrative Mise à jour des documents officiels Assurez-vous que tous vos documents officiels (passeports, visas, cartes d’identité) sont à jour. Vérifiez les exigences spécifiques du pays de destination concernant les visas et les permis de séjour pour les militaires et leurs familles. Pour les informations sur les passeports et les visas, consultez le site […]

Négocier le prix d’un déménagement peut sembler intimidant, mais avec une bonne préparation et une stratégie déclinée en tactiques, vous pouvez parvenir à optimiser les prestations de votre déménagement militaire et obtenir un tarif plus avantageux. Obtenez plusieurs devis Contactez plusieurs entreprises de déménagement et demandez des devis détaillés. Assurez-vous que chaque devis inclut une […]

Le métier de commando dans l’armée attire de nombreux jeunes en quête de défis et de dépassement de soi. Pour ceux qui rêvent de rejoindre ces unités d’élite, il est essentiel de bien se préparer et de comprendre les exigences et les étapes à suivre. Voici les questions clés à se poser pour atteindre cet […]

Il est souvent dit qu’il y a 3 règles dans un achat de bien immobilier et les militaires ne dérogent pas à la règle ! C’est l’emplacement, l’emplacement et enfin l’emplacement. Néanmoins, il existe bien d’autres sujets à investiguer pour éviter une mauvaise surprise ! Pourquoi voulez-vous acheter un bien immobilier ? Il est crucial […]

Pour les militaires, la vie est souvent marquée par des déménagements militaires fréquents (voir notre article sur les avantages PFMD, généralement tous les trois ans. Cette mobilité constante peut compliquer les décisions d’achat, en particulier lorsqu’il s’agit d’investir dans l’immobilier. Cependant, en planifiant soigneusement et en tenant compte de divers facteurs, il est possible de […]

Le déménagement militaire, comme tout déménagement, représente un projet complexe et souvent coûteux. La bonne gestion de ce processus repose sur la compréhension détaillée de tous les coûts impliqués. Cette structure des coûts de déménagement couvre tous les aspects de la planification, des dépenses matérielles, logistiques et humaines. Coûts de Planification Consultation initiale : La […]

La réforme de la Protection sociale complémentaire santé pour les militaires, qui entrera en vigueur le 1er janvier 2025 prévoit une protection santé universelle pour l’ensemble des 340 000 militaires du ministère des armées (240 000 militaires) et du ministère de l’intérieur (100 000 gendarmes). Les assureurs retenus, Uneo (avec GMF) pour les militaires et […]

“If Hamas truly believes that the people, the Palestinian people are suffering, then why would they want to take this aid and use it for themselves to support their terrorist organization? One would hope that this aid will get to the people that are most deserving and in need.”
Pentagon spokesman Pat Ryder when asked how the US was going to ensure humanitarian aid reaches civilians and not Hamas, March 8, 2024

Did Ryder really acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization and then in the same breath expect that those terrorists would happily share humanitarian aid with the rest of Gaza?

We shouldn't be all that surprised. Remember, this is the same administration where Biden himself wholeheartedly accepts -- and repeats -- the Hamas claim that 30,000 Gazans have died so far.

The Biden administration, like most of the West, has fallen for the Hamas propaganda -- hook, line, and sinker. That is the point made in a recent YNet article, The US sees situation in Gaza through Hamas' optics:Hamas uses the suffering of the people in Gaza for its propaganda purposes and for pressuring Israel. The fact that the U.S. has fallen for this Hamas tactic is no less than shocking. It only reinforces Hamas’ incentive to use the civilian population as a human shield since this strategy works - it is more harmful to Israel than it is to Hamas.Of course, we can make the argument that the Biden administration is not fooled by Hamas at all -- they are merely undercutting Israel because this is an election year and the powers that be are afraid of losing votes. But that interpretation doesn't make Biden look any better.
Either way, the administration is publicly accepting Hamas disinformation and reinforcing it. That only strengthens the terrorists in their strategy and encourages them to hold out while putting lives and the future of Gaza at stake. Biden says he wants stability, but his actions have the opposite effect.
The destruction of Hamas terrorists is not a stated goal. The foreign policy is even more wishy-washy.
For that matter, in the recent UN Security Council Resolution 2728, there is no linkage between a cease-fire and the release of the hostages. Hamas wins again. 

 The resolution fails to explicitly tie humanitarian aid to the release of hostages. The resolution merely puts the two issues side by side.
During Monday's Press Briefing, Matt Lee of the Associated Press pushed State Department Spokesperson, Matthew Miller on this point:QUESTION: So last week when you guys presented your resolution at the UN, there were complaints from people who said that it delinked the ceasefire from the release of hostages, and U.S. officials were rather vociferous in saying that that is not the case. However, what you guys abstained on today does appear to delink them. Is that your understanding of —


MR MILLER: So we don’t believe it delinks them. You see in the same paragraph it – the resolution calling for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages. It’s not the exact language that we would have put forward, obviously, because the language that we would put forward is the language that we did put forward last week, but it is language that is consistent with our policy to call for both a ceasefire and the release of hostages, and that’s why we did not exercise a veto today.

As I said, we did have concerns about the lack of other provisions in the resolution, but as it pertains to a ceasefire and the release of hostages, both the things that we called for were there in the resolution. A few moments later, Miller admits this resolution is toothless since it is non-binding. Matt Lee asks the obvious question:QUESTION: So what’s the point?

MR MILLER: Well —

QUESTION: Why did you —

MR MILLER: — you could ask that —

QUESTION: Why did you abstain? Why didn’t you veto?

MR MILLER: We didn’t veto because we thought the language in it was consistent with something that – the language as it relates to the ceasefire and release of hostages was consistent with the longstanding United States position.

QUESTION: So you don’t believe anything is going to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution.

MR MILLER: So I think that separate and apart from this resolution, we have active, ongoing negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for, which is the – an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. I don’t – I can’t say that this – this resolution is going to have any impact on those negotiations. Matt Lee


This whole drama leading up to passing a resolution for a cease-fire has all been for nothing. That fact leads to Lee's obvious question:If that’s the case, what the hell is the point of the UN or the UN Security Council?Miller admits the US is not looking to the UN to get things done. It is looking to negotiate in Qatar. That would be the same Qatar that supports Hamas and plays host to Hamas leaders. This is not exactly neutral territory.
Is it any wonder that Hamas has shown no inclination to surrender and is willing -- and confident -- in its strategy to sit and wait?
I recall that during the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter administration, some suggested that the Iranians would not have dared to try taking Russians hostage -- such was the fear that the Soviet Union inspired. 
That was then.
The ISIS massacre at the concert hall shows that those days are over. Ukraine's ability to hold out against Putin has seen to that.
The West will blame Israel for the Hamas massacre and for unrest in the Middle East. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the weakness and indecision of the once powerful "superpowers" is seen as an invitation to Islamists to renew and expand their jihad.

(B2) Si la France était attaquée demain, aurait-elle les moyens de se défendre ? C'est autour de cette question que

When people argue that Israel and Hamas need to negotiate and make peace, they sometimes draw comparisons between Hamas and the IRA:

Yes, they have to negotiate w/ Hamas. Just like the Brits had to negotiate with the IRA in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. The IRA were terrorists. They almost killed Margaret Thatcher once. But negotiation was necessary for durable peace. Have to do it in Israel now & end the war https://t.co/3WblyxUcfB

— Zane (@zanealb04) March 8, 2024

It is not an unexpected sentiment.

Those negotiations led to the Good Friday Agreement in 2001, where the Irish Republican Army agreed to begin disarming. It was an amazing achievement.

CNN interviewed Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Powell praised the agreement, saying it "shows what can happen when one remains persistent and is determined to solve what appear to be intractable problems." Midway through the press conference, the topic of Israel came up.

The final question was, "Secretary Powell, does the situation in Northern Ireland not show us all that negotiations is really the only way forward in all of these situations?" Israel was not mentioned, but it clearly was on everyone's mind.

Powell responded:

what we have seen in Northern Ireland in the last 24 hours, which culminates a process that took many, many years long to get to this point, is an example of what can be achieved when people of good will come together, recognize they have strong differences -- differences that they have fought over for years -- but it's time to put those differences aside in order to move forward and to provide a better life for the children of Northern Ireland.

Very...tactful. He praised both the participants and the diplomatic process in general.

But Straw got in the last word:

It also has to be said that, before that happened, there had to be a change of approach by those who saw terrorism as the answer. And that approach partly changed because of the firmness of the military and police response to that terrorism. And if there had not been that firm response by successive British governments and others to the terrorist threat that was posed on both sides, we would not have been able to get some of those people into negotiation, and we'd not be marking what is a satisfactory day in the history of Northern Ireland today.

Before diplomacy could work, terrorism had to be defeated and those who practiced it had to reject it. And for that to happen, military force was necessary.

And terrorism still needs to be rejected. A diplomatic approach won't suffice.

Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, made this point in his Victory Project. He wrote in 2017 that Israel needs "to indicate to the Palestinians that this conflict, this war that they have been engaged in for a century, is over. And they lost. And they've got to recognize it." He describes a plan of deterrence that goes beyond tough tactics:

When Palestinian “martyrs” cause material damage, pay for repairs out of the roughly $300 million in tax obligations the government of Israel transfers to the Palestinian Authority (PA) each year. Respond to activities designed to isolate and weaken Israel internationally by limiting access to the West Bank. When a Palestinian attacker is killed, bury the body quietly and anonymously in a potter’s field. When the PA leadership incites violence, prevent officials from returning to the PA from abroad. Respond to the murder of Israelis by expanding Jewish towns on the West Bank. When official PA guns are turned against Israelis, seize these and prohibit new ones, and if this happens repeatedly, dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure. Should violence continue, reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies. In the case of gunfire, mortar shelling, and rockets, occupy and control the areas from which these originate.

Israel has used some of these suggestions, such as subtracting from the tax money that goes to the PA in response to Abbas's pay-to-slay program. And in light of the Hamas massacre of October 7, Israel may consider stricter measures, both in terms of Gaza and the West Bank. The measures themselves are not purely punitive. Their goal is deterrence and ultimately to show the Palestinian Arabs that they have lost.

That would be the opposite of the approach of the Dalai Lama to the terrorist attack of 9-11:

How to respond to such an attack is a very difficult question. Of course, those who are dealing with the problem may know better, but I feel that careful consideration is necessary and that it is appropriate to respond to an act of violence by employing the principles of nonviolence. The Dalai Lama (YouTube screenshot)
And yet even here, he leaves some wiggle room for a stronger, harsher approach:

Of course, in particular instances a more aggressive approach may also be necessary. Two years later, the Dalai Lama raised eyebrows when the New York Times reported, Dalai Lama Says Terror May Need a Violent Reply

The Dalai Lama, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and one of the world's most prominent advocates of nonviolence, said in an interview yesterday that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence... He goes on to say that ''terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures" and even suggests, at the time, that it was ''too early to say'' whether the war in Iraq was a mistake. 

In 2009, the Dalai Lama was still saying the same thing:

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa [non-violence] because the minds of terrorists are closed.

And if the minds of terrorists are closed, then as Jack Straw suggested, military force is necessary, and as Daniel Pipes says, you have to convince them that they have lost.

Who knows? Maybe even Biden understands that to a degree. In an interview following his State of the Union Address, Biden was asked when Hamas really wants a ceasefire:

Biden admits the futility of a ceasefire and acknowledges that Hamas will use the opportunity to rearm itself for more attacks -- before pausing and going back to attacking Israel, with an outlandish accusation that it is carpet-bombing Gaza, consistent with his unquestioning acceptance of Hamas's exaggerated number of casualties.

If Hamas is allowed to live to fight another day -- it will.
The fact remains -- Israel will not win unless Hamas loses.

 

From March 2018 to December 2019, the media reported on The Great March of Return. Each Friday, the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza approached the barrier separating Gaza from Israel in "spontaneous," "peaceful" protests, demanding the right to return to their homes in "Palestine." It didn't take long for Hamas to coopt the protests. Soon, amidst the smoke of burning tires and under cover of night, Gazans attempted to break through the fence into Israel.

These were not peaceful protests; they were destructive riots. But how does international law apply to civilian rioting in support of military objectives?

Which paradigm is applicable: Conduct of Hostilities or Law Enforcement -- or a combination of the two? 

And the media insisted on portraying the March as a series of "peaceful protests."

The March was useful for Hamas. It put pressure on Israel to deal with masses of Gazans at the barrier, many of whom tried to break through and infiltrate into Israel. The Gazans who were killed or injured became frontpage news generating worldwide condemnations of Israel

By the end of 2019, Hamas "postponed" the weekly riots.But on October 7, 2023, Hamas penetrated the barrier -- murdering, raping, and kidnapping Israeli civilians.

Now, riots against Israel are again in the news, but this time they are around the world. These are pro-Palestinian riots, and they are not peaceful -- but that does not stop the media from calling them "protests" even while describing the destruction they cause. After all, no one wants to admit the government is losing control:o  NBC: Buildings vandalized during pro-Palestinian rally in West Hartford: police
o  LA Daily News: Lawmakers call for DOJ investigation of pro-Palestinian vandalism at LA veterans cemetery
o  ABC News: Pro-Palestinian protesters deface front of the New York City Public Library
o  Axios: Multiple congressional offices hit with pro-Palestinian vandalism
o  Washington Times: Pro-Palestinian marchers push against White House fence, vandalize national monuments during protestBeyond the destruction, another goal of the riots is disruption:o  Reuters: Hundreds of Pro-Palestinian protesters arrested after blocking NYC bridges, tunnel
o  Haaretz: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Block Access to New York Times Newsroom, Accuse Staff of 'Complicity in Genocide'
o  NBC: Thousands of pro-Palestine protesters block downtown LA streets to call for ceasefireo  AP: Pro-Palestinian protesters block airport access roads in New York and Los Angeleso  ABC: Pro-Palestinian protests block New York City bridges, Holland Tunnel; over 300 arrestedSome have questioned the methods of the rioters. After all, how can they hope to change people's minds when they resort to violence and inconveniencing people? This misses the point. The rioters and those organizing them are not interested in reason and dialogue. They are pushing an agenda.
And they are using public disruptions as leverage.
This is not a new form of protest. It is an application and even a refinement of hybrid warfare. The NATO Review explains the concept:Conflicts are fought in new, innovative, and radically different ways. With the advent of modern hybrid warfare, they are less and less about lethal or kinetic force.

It is important to note here that the concept of hybrid warfare might not be entirely new. Many practitioners contend that it is as old as war itself. Nevertheless, it has gained significant currency and relevance in recent years as states employ non-state actors and information technology to subdue their adversaries during or—more importantly—in the absence of a direct armed conflict. [emphasis added]  Back in 2018, during The March, The Begin-Sadat Center For Strategic Studies made the connection between the Hamas-inspired riots and how other countries were also weaponizing unarmed civilians. For example, during the Russian campaign in Georgia:Those campaigns made deliberate and effective use of the combination of military force and civilian activity. In the fighting in Georgia, for example, armored forces were able to enter the north of the country thanks to the efforts of Russian-oriented Georgian-Abkhaz civilians, who, in a preparatory move, seized the tunnels and bridges of the expressway that leads to the capital, Tbilisi.
This is not limited to Russia, nor does there have to be a military component: "Similarly, Beijing is making use of thousands of civilian fishing boats in its efforts to extend its sovereignty over the South China Sea."
According to The NATO Review, hybrid warfare does not require a context of all-out war:What takes the centre stage here is the role of civilians: how they think and act in relation to the state. Contemporary digital and social media platforms allow hybrid actors to influence this to the detriment of the adversary state with considerable ease. The Russian online disinformation campaigns, some of which are very subtle yet grave, against some Western states constitute a good case in point. [emphasis added]The riots we are seeing are not spontaneous. They are a means to push an agenda, demanding that Biden and the Democratic Party support a ceasefire in Gaza. The alternative is the disruption of Biden's presidential campaign. 
These riots are not like the anti-Israel protests we are used to. The Toronto Sun points out that instead of the smaller, less organized anti-Israel protests we are used to, now: Hundreds, sometimes thousands, participate. They’ve got professionally-rendered signs and banners. They’ve got transportation, and food and drink. And they’ve got organizers who wear uniforms and control the crowds.

But there is more to this than just better organization; there is also better funding. But the money is for more than just staffing and supplies. People are being paid to riot:

pro-Palestine — and, increasingly, pro-Hamas — protestors are being paid to protest.  To block highways and roads.  To intimidate and threaten Jews and non-Jews. To cause chaos.

From the Palestinian Authority's pay-to-slay program, we have now arrived at the pay-to-riot program. The people who hold the money call the shots. Since the organizers are still paying out despite the riots, vandalism, and chaos  -- it appears that the rioting, vandalism, and chaos are what the organizers want.

According to Francesca Block, writing for The Free Press, one of those funding this chaos on the streets of the US is the American-born tech entrepreneur, Neville Roy Singham. He is the founder and one of the lead supporters of The People’s Forum. The group helped to organize at least four protests after October 7 as of November 14.  One of them was on October 8, before Israel had taken any action in Gaza:

The New York Times found ties between Singham and "a lavishly funded influence campaign that defends China and pushes its propaganda":

What is less known, and is hidden amid a tangle of nonprofit groups and shell companies, is that Mr. Singham works closely with the Chinese government media machine and is financing its propaganda worldwide.The article describes him as "a socialist benefactor of far-left causes." Singham denies any connection with the Chinese Communist Party or China itself. However, according to the article:He and his allies are on the front line of what Communist Party officials call a “smokeless war.” Under the rule of Xi Jinping, China has expanded state media operations, teamed up with overseas outlets and cultivated foreign influencers. The goal is to disguise propaganda as independent content. "Smokeless war" is a good description of hybrid warfare.
The August 2023 Times article makes no mention of Israel, Palestinian Arabs, or Gaza, but as a supporter of far-left causes Singham's People's Forum supporting violent protests is not surprising. For China, the riots are not necessarily a question of supporting Gaza, but rather using pro-Palestinian protests and the chaos they create to undermine the US. These Chinese media interests are helping sow discord in the U.S., Rep. Mike Gallagher, the chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, told The Free Press.

“The Chinese Communist Party uses tools like Confucius Institutes on college campuses, TikTok’s addictive algorithm, and organizations like those that Mr. Singham funds to divide and weaken America,” Gallagher said. If Gallagher is right, the chaos created by these "protests" is not a bug.
They are a feature.
Which means that Israel is not the only target.

Hamas has a history of executing Palestinians who the terrorists claim are collaborating with Israel. Back in 2014, for example, the Times of Israel reported that Hamas killed over 30 suspected collaborators with Israel. And that was over just a few days. Of course, there is no way to tell whether Hamas actually executes collaborators, or is killing off opposition to its rule in Gaza.

According to Hamas, collaborating with Israel is not limited to spying for the Jewish state and relaying information that helps to target Hamas terrorists. 
Helping Gazans can also get you killed by Hamas:A Hamas-linked website warned Palestinians who assist Israel in providing aid to Gaza that their actions will not be “tolerated”.

Those who did would be treated as collaborators and be handled with an iron fist, the Hamas Al-Majd security website said on Monday, quoting a security official in Palestinian militant forces. Considering how Hamas has been taking Gazan aid for themselves and in some cases selling it to the people at inflated prices, it is understandable that the terrorists might be piqued.

Hamas is stealing aid and trying to sell it back to Gazans at exorbitant prices. https://t.co/AXQ363orF7

— Haviv Rettig Gur (@havivrettiggur) January 17, 2024

But this time, Hamas may have gone too far. On Thursday, JNS reported, Hamas executes Gaza clan ‘prince’ in message to potential ‘collaborators’:Hamas has executed a “prince” of the Doghmush clan in Gaza City, sources in Gaza said on Thursday. The killing was a message to those considering cooperating with Israel, which is looking for ways to bypass the terror group in the enclave, according to the sources.

Israel has floated the idea of Gaza clans acting as partners in running the internal affairs of the Strip after Hamas has been eliminated.

If Hamas was trying to dissuade Gazans from participating in Israel's plan, it may have been unnecessary. The clans are reported to have rejected what they considered Israeli interfernce in internal matters. More to the point, if Hamas felt the need to kill tribal leaders in order to maintain control, that constitutes a major change in tactics indicating that Hamas is afraid of losing control.

On March 10, Khaled Abu Toameh reported that Hamas was competing with the PA to get the support of the clans:

The P.A. and Hamas understand that the backing of the clans is crucial for maintaining their control over the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That’s why P.A. and Hamas leaders have always treated the large families and their leaders with utmost respect. In some instances, clan leaders were elevated to the unofficial position of supreme judges and arbitrators, replacing the official judiciary and law enforcement of both organizations.

This is all the more reason to see the Hamas execution of a clan leader as an admission of a potential threat to Hamas control in Gaza. The fact that Hamas killed the leader supports Toameh's report that some of the clans sided with the PA and were enforcing law and order in some of the towns and refugee camps, preventing looting and anarchy. And one clan was in fact reported to be escorting some of the trucks carrying humanitarian aid that entered through Egypt and Israel.

This is not the first time Hamas has sparked revenge over their killing of an Arab. This past November, a Bedouin family accused Hamas of torturing, humiliating and executing Osama Abu Asa during the October 7 massacre. They offered a reward of $1 million for help in identifying who killed him. An uncle made clear, "as with the bedouins, we have a blood feud with the terrorists. This account will be closed, no matter how long it takes.”

But this time, the backlash is against all of Hamas: Major Gaza clan says it considers all Hamas members legitimate targets after leader assassinated:

The Doghmosh Family — a major clan in Gaza — has issued a statement declaring that all Hamas members are legitimate targets after its leader was assassinated by members of the terror group along with ten other relatives allegedly for stealing humanitarian aid and being in contact with Israel.

The statement pledges retribution against all responsible and warns Hamas fighters not to test the clan’s patience.

How serious is this threat to Hamas?

On November 9, 2005, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the three suicide bombers who killed 60 people at hotels in Amman Jordan. He was rebuked by members of his own tribe.

“We, the sons of the Bani Hassan tribe in all its branches in the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, support and express solidarity with our cousins, the al-Khalayleh clan, and their decision to sever relations with the terrorist Ahmad Fadheel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, who calls himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” said the letter published in four leading newspapers.

...In a similar letter on Nov. 20, almost 60 members of al-Zarqawi’s extended family disowned him and pledged fidelity to the crown.

This signaled the beginning of al-Zarqawi's downfall. He was killed in a US airstrike the following year.

We can only hope that the blood feud Hamas has brought upon itself, from Arabs who have outright threatened to kill Hamas members, will have similar results.

The following is the conclusion of the second interview with Dr. Harold Rhode.

The idea of a two-state solution being pushed by the US State Department does not attract the Palestinian Arabs. They are not interested in the benefits Arabs have in Israel as opposed to in the surrounding states.

So why did the Palestinian Arabs sign the Oslo Accords?

Signatures on documents do not mean much in Arab culture. Two weeks after the signing of the Oslo Agreement, Arafat spoke at a mosque in South Africa. He told his listeners he did not sign a peace agreement with Israel. It was a truce. He compared the Oslo Accords to the ten-year truce their prophet Muhammad signed at Hudaybiya (near Mecca) with his enemies, the Qureysh.

Two years later, when Muhammad realized he was stronger than his enemies, he attacked and conquered Mecca -- so much for the 10-year truce with his enemy. Similarly, on October 7, 2023, Hamas and Iran saw Israel as divided and weak. But they miscalculated because this wasn’t Hudaybiya. They did not understand Israel’s internal fortitude.

But all is not lost when it comes to Israel-Arab relations.

Muslims can sign agreements with their opponents which –- unlike the Hudaybiya truce –- can be periodically renewed when they believe it is in their interests. Netanyahu knew that once they needed what Israel had to offer -- such as hi-tech, security, and investments -- the Arabs would be the ones reaching out for an agreement.

This is the reason why the Abraham Accords were signed.

Moreover, Muslims respect power. When President Trump killed Qasem Soleimani, Iran became relatively quiet, except for some small probing attacks. We saw this also in Iran's reaction to President Ronald Reagan before he came into office. Forty-five minutes before Reagan took the oath of office, Iran put the US hostages on a plane to freedom. Iran saw Reagan as a cowboy who would destroy them.

You can make things happen once you understand the Muslim respect for power.

In comparison, a compromise is a blot on your honor. In the Muslim world, compromise is a sign of weakness, encouraging others to strike back at you even harder. You cannot give in. The Americans have not yet learned the Muslim concept of compromise.

Concepts are not the same as words. Anybody can look up a word in a dictionary and translate it the way you like. We assume a concept means the same thing in every language. But cultures don't communicate -- they clash.

I once asked an Arab friend how he would translate the word "compromise." He thought about it for a week and came back to me. He said the closest he could get to it in Arabic was a word with the root N-Z-L. We both laughed because in Hebrew that root means "a runny nose." In Arabic, it means to get off your camel -- the common idea being to go down, that you humiliate yourself. That is what the Western concept of compromise means in Arabic.

Compromise means humiliation.

That is why there can be no two-state solution. At best, it would be a temporary solution, but it will be like Gaza: they will take what you give them and then use it against you. An agreement might be renewed over and over, but it is not designed to last and there is always the possibility it will fall apart. There may be others who will be better allies, especially if they are also Arabs and in the same clan. It is not a nice way to live, but then again, there is no such thing as peace.

That doesn't mean we cannot have long periods of quiet.

The following is a second interview with Dr. Harold Rhode.

The key to discussing the Middle East is understanding the cultures and languages. In Hebrew, you have the root P-T-Ch, corresponding to F-T-Ch in Arabic. The root has the general meaning of "open." But in Arabic, there is an additional meaning: opening up a land to Islam. So the leader in battle is called Fatih and the man who conquered Istanbul was called Mehmed Fatih.

Similarly, there is Fatah, the organization. The name is a reverse acronym of the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine -- Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr l-Filasṭīn. The reference is to the liberation and return of all of today’s Israel – including Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip – to Islamic rule.

This concept of being "open" means that once a land has been conquered and is "open to Islam," it is Muslim forever, even if Muslim control comes to an end.

The Muslims ruled Spain from 712 CE until 1492, when the Christians finally expelled them from all of Spain. But in the Muslim mind, though their physical control over Spain ended centuries ago, Spain still belongs to the Muslims and will never be part of the non-Muslim world. Many Muslims, when mentioning Spain, often add the phrase “Allah-Willing, it will again be ruled by Muslims.”

Similarly, there was a time when all of Southeast Europe up to Vienna was under Ottoman rule. The Ottomans saw themselves as Muslims, not Turks. Their defeat in Vienna in 1683 gradually led to the complete Ottoman withdrawal from Southeast Europe, resulting in 1914 to the borders of present-day Turkey. Yet many Turks and other Muslims still talk about the area as being part of the Muslim world. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan still talks about Southeastern Europe as being “part of the Ottoman-Muslim area.”

That brings us to the years 1948-1949, when Israel defeated five Muslim armies. At the Rhodes talks in 1949, the Muslims insisted on the phrase "ceasefire lines" instead of "borders." The word "borders" implies the recognition of the people living there. Jews would have the right to live in Eretz Yisrael. A Muslim would find that unacceptable because those lands should remain Muslim forever.

To the Arabs, there is nothing magical about the lines drawn in the 1948-49 map. Those borders do not matter. The land is completely Muslim. But from the Western point of view, we are talking about how to divide up land and this is the point of pushing for the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. However, Netanyahu understands that the Arabs are not talking about Israel’s borders and how to renegotiate them. They are talking about Israel’s existence. And people cannot compromise on their existence.

This issue of borders and Israel's legitimacy caused a problem for Yasser Arafat. The 1993 Oslo Agreement was an interim agreement, not a Peace Treaty. Yet, at the very last moment, Arafat kept changing the terms. He was afraid of what might happen.

Years later, when President Clinton was trying to get Israel and Arafat to sign a Peace Agreement, Arafat was quoted as saying he would not sign because he did not want to end up drinking tea with Sadat. If Arafat had signed, he would have risked assassination like the Egyptian president, whose signing of the Egyptian agreement with Begin was viewed as a treasonous acknowledgment of Israel's right to “Muslim” territory.

There are YouTube videos of Israeli Muslim children -- whose ancestors had been living in Israel for 3 to 4 generations -- telling an Israeli journalist that Israel was Muslim land and that someday Muslims would get it back. 

When the interviewer pointed out his family had been living in Israel for many years, since 1948, the teenager responded that this is what he had been taught, both in school and at home: You Jews have no right to live here and we are going to take our land back from you. There was no issue of rights or that Jews were on the land long before the Arabs arrived in 637-638 CE.

None of that made any difference.
To the Palestinian Arabs, it still doesn't.

I had the opportunity to talk with Dr. Harold Rhode.

Dr. Harold Rhode has a Ph.D. in Islamic history and lived for years in the Muslim world. He served as an advisor on the Islamic world to the Department of Defense for 28 years.

Dr. Harold Rhode

Do all of the signatories to the Abraham Accords, Arabs and Israelis, see the Abraham Accord the same way?

We Jews want people to love us. And the peace we are looking for is that you will stop fighting, and we will stop fighting, and everyone will live together in peace. But the Muslims do not have a concept like that. They won't stop until the whole world will be Muslim. They follow what their prophet Muhammad did. He signed a 10-year ceasefire with Quraysh. After 2 years, Muhammad realized Quraysh had weakened -- so he attacked them, and won. There is a classic Latin phrase "Bellum omnium contra omnes, pace inter omnes interpellatur," that war is the natural state of man, interrupted by periods of peace.

We do not look at life like that, but historically most people do. From a Muslim point of view, they can agree to have relations with their enemies -- whether they be Muslims, Jews, or anybody else. They can make temporary agreements just like their prophet did. Those agreements can be renewed, renewed, and renewed. But to think that the Saudis see peace the way we Jews see it is a pipe dream. 

In 1949, after Israel's War of Independence, there was a peace conference in Rhodes. The Arabs insisted the borders be called "ceasefire lines" and not borders. The situation was not set in stone. Arabs do not have the concept that when the fighting is over, we can be friends. If we think we will have a peace agreement with the Saudis in the way we understand peace, we will be disappointed. 

Does this mean the Abraham Accords are a pipe dream?

No, that does not mean the Abraham Accords are an illusion. We can have agreements with the Arab countries -- as long as we have things they want from us, such as hi-tech, connections to the outside world, and alternate routes in place of the Suez Canal. They are interested in what is in it for them, not for the sake of friendship. Friendship is between people. Countries ally themselves because of common interests. The Abraham Accords are not about peace; they are about what is in both sides' interest. 

The Arab word “salam” has nothing to do with the Hebrew word shalom. Shalom comes from the root for "completeness." The word "shalaim", means to pay. When two people come to an agreement on a price, that payment completes the process.

In Arabic, the word “salam” is similar to the Hebrew word “shalom,” but they do not have the same meaning. “Islam” and “salam,” come from the same Arabic root. Islam means “submission,” while “salam” means something like the special sense of joy that someone has by submitting to Allah’s will through Islam. Shalom, on the other hand, means letting bygones be bygones, a concept that is totally alien to Islam. Clearly, "salam" and "shalom" do not mean the same thing.

The following example illustrates the Arabic meaning of the word in a Muslim context: If you take a look at the correspondence between Yemen and Saudi Arabia during the war in 1934, the leaders of the two sides wrote the most threatening things to each other -- and then closed their letters with "salam alaikum". These leaders hated each other, but they were fellow Muslims addressing each other. So if "salam" meant peace, how could they end their letters to each other with “salam alaikum?” How could they close their letters with "Peace be unto you"? Because the phrase has nothing to do with peace -- it is about submission to Allah, which both of them, as fellow Muslims, are required to do.”

So, we are dealing with cultures that are so incredibly different from ours, from the Western culture, which is partially based on the Hebrew culture.

I am for the Abraham Accords, very strongly so. The Arab countries are interested because Israel is strong. The proof of that goes back to when contact between Israel and the UAE became serious. Netanyahu spoke before Congress against the Iran deal in 2015, in defiance of the US. He showed Israel was an independent country that could make its own decisions, and was willing to stand up to the US. That was when the Arab countries decided they could do business directly with Israel. It is why Saudi Arabia and Israel have had good relations for a long while and both have a strong dislike for Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

But wouldn't you think that at some point the "experts" would catch on to the fact that the Arab world is different?

No, not at all. Few of these “experts” know the languages or haven’t taken the time to learn about and understand the cultures of the Muslim world. They think anyone who speaks English is a closet American. The White House ignored the Kurds, but when Iraq was liberated during The Gulf War, the White House greeted them as part of Iraq. A State Department senior official approached the Kurds and told them, "You have to stop thinking of yourselves as Kurds; you have to think of yourselves as Iraqis."  

The experts don't read Bernard Lewis. They read Edward Said. His approach is that you can never understand another culture, so don't waste your time trying to. Don't learn the languages and don't learn the culture. Bernard Lewis' attitude was quite different. He said you had to immerse yourself in the culture and the language. You have to try to understand what they are doing and saying in terms of their culture. In modern parlance, what the experts are doing is the equivalent of telling a person not to think of themselves as a man or a woman, but rather as a human. 

I recall the reaction of a very senior leader when war broke out in Syria in 2011. I suggested this was nothing more than the return of the ancient Shiite-Sunni conflict. His response was, "Well, we can't have that!" I said to myself it didn't matter if we could or could not have it. The fact is that they see it this way. The reality is the reality, and if you choose to ignore it, you do so at your own peril.

Let's talk about October 7. On the one hand, Israel's weakness was revealed by the Hamas attack. On the other hand, Israel has entered Gaza and taken the battle to Hamas to a degree few could have predicted.

Hamas misread the Jews. 

But how do the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf states read this? Do they see this as a sign of Israeli weakness or do they see Israel's reaction as a sign of Israel's strength?

They understand strength very well and Israel has come back very strongly. That part of the world has immense patience -- the Jews don't, but everyone else there does. They know how to wait. Let the Saudis put off signing the agreement. I don't really care if there is a formal agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, because their relationship is so strong. The relationship is between governments, because these Arab countries rule from the top, down, unlike in a democracy, where leaders are elected by the people and must take into account the will of the people they lead.

Israelis seem to have a Westernized view of the Middle East. You would think they would have a keener insight and understanding of their Arab neighbors.

Superficially, Israel is a Westernized country. But when you scratch the surface, you see how the Israelis have reacted to the issue of judicial reforms, which the Arabs saw as a weakness -- it is another reason why Hamas decided to pounce now -- but Israel has created a younger generation, who are going to have a huge say after this, a revolution against the politics, military, intelligence, and the media: "We put our lives on the line -- not for you, but for the Jewish people." That is what they are saying. We will see where all this leads. It is only going to be healthy.

(B2) Le projet Hunger de l'artiste Yona Tukuser vous projette à la figure cette famine du XXe siècle en Ukraine

(B2) Si vous n'avez pas encore vu l'exposition de l'artiste graphiste français Jean Jullien au Mima, le musée des arts

(B2) Un film aux couleurs merveilleuses, des mets choisis et un script ciselé. En cuisine, le couple Juliette Binoche et