Rise of ISIS (10 page)

Such statements are both self-serving and misleading—especially when it is clear that one side (Israel) is making herculean attempts to fully comply with the law of war and the other side (Hamas) violates the law as a matter of intentional, premedi
tated strategy. There is no moral equivalency here. Readily available evidence establishes
beyond doubt
that Hamas is routinely, openly, and notoriously violating the law of war. Yet Israel is singled out by the Red Cross, the U.N., and the Obama administration for actions it would have preferred to avoid altogether, but for the incessant attacks on Israeli soil from Hamas-controlled Gaza. The U.N. is going so far as to launch an investigation of
Israel,
the only party to the conflict that complies with the law of war.
²

The Red Cross and the U.N. consistently ignore or minimize the fact that Hamas built tunnels in civilian areas or stored weapons in hospitals and schools, or that the Israeli military warns civilians (the very civilians Hamas put in danger in the first place) through various means before attacking a military target. The paragraph quoted above does not state which party in the conflict is violating the “rules of war.” While Hamas spends millions of dollars to dig tunnels in civilian areas to attack Israel
³
and puts Palestinian civilians (whom Hamas purports to represent) in the line of fire, Israel builds shelters for its people. While Hamas brags about its use of human shields,
⁴
Israel makes conscious attempts to abide by the rules of war to protect civilians.

In this book we have taken great pains to explain exactly how groups like Hamas and ISIS systematically violate the law of war in a depraved effort to create maximum human suffering. I would say that we have pulled no punches, graphically describing exactly how evil these enemies are. But though we want the reader to know the truth, the whole truth is simply too much for most people to bear. It is too graphic to print, to describe fully.

Veterans of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as well as
the IDF's veterans of conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon—will carry with them sights and experiences they can never forget. These memories will haunt them for a lifetime. They have witnessed evil as great as any the world has ever seen. They have witnessed evil acts from enemies that would re-create Auschwitz and Dachau if they could, from enemies who have openly declared war not just on Israel, but on the Jewish people themselves.

The fact that millions across the world support those enemies over Israel and the United States, even going to great lengths to strengthen terrorists and weaken the IDF and the U.S. military, demonstrates that the spirit of murder and collaboration that haunted much of Europe under Nazi occupation has not disappeared. It has only morphed into the preening high-mindedness of leftist “thought.”

History rightly looks at Neville Chamberlain and other appeasers of Hitler's Germany as instruments of death and disaster. Today's appeasers are not morally better and are indeed often much worse. After all, when Chamberlain appeased Hitler, Germany's leader had not yet unleashed his murderous armies across Europe. When the U.N., Red Cross, and—sadly—even our own American president and State Department appease jihad, they do so with eyes wide open, fully aware of the evil they empower.

They should hang their heads in shame.

H
ow many times do we have to learn the same lessons? Evil cannot be appeased, and the effort to do so leads invariably to death and heartbreak.

Don't believe me? Ask the Jewish people.

The history of World War II is by now too well known to repeat. A Europe that was desperate to avoid repeating the horrors of World War I (then known as the Great War and the War to end all Wars) refused to believe that Hitler presented an existential threat to peace and democracy, preferring to believe he could be negotiated with, boxed in, and contained.

Right the historical wrongs, grant him the territorial gains he demanded, and there would be “peace in our time.” But instead of the promised peace, there was death on a scale the world had never seen.

And no one suffered more than the Jews.

Fast-forward just a few years to 1948. The world, shocked by the Holocaust, finally facilitated the immigration of an
ever-larger number of Jews to their ancestral homeland, Israel. There the Jewish people could carve out their own state, protect themselves from genocide, and—finally—have a land to call home.

But then the world washed its hands of the problem, largely leaving the Jews of Israel to fend for themselves when, just three years after the end of World War II, Arab armies massed to destroy the brand-new Jewish state. As the young Israeli state fought armies equipped with modern weapons with the scraps they could beg for, borrow, and steal, the Arab countries launched a systematic and massive ethnic cleansing of Jews within their borders:

It is, sadly, a little-known fact that almost a million Jews lived in Arab countries when Israel declared independence in 1948. Now, there are less than 10,000. To take a few examples, 250,000 lived in Morocco, 140,000 in Iraq, 80,000 in Egypt, 140,000 in Algeria, and roughly 50,000 in Yemen. But now? 3,000 in Morocco, 100 in Iraq, 100 in Egypt, none in Algeria, and only a few hundred in Yemen. This [was] ethnic cleansing on a grand scale.
¹

How did this happen? The typical way:

Jews were shot, homes were burned (sometimes in front of cheering crowds), and governments confiscated their property. Anti-Semitic mobs surged through streets, and the Jews fled, often airlifted to Israel as they left the homes of their fathers (and their fathers' fathers) behind.
²

A world weary of war refused to confront jihadists and Arab nationalists who had not yet begun to fight. Only Israel's fierce resolve prevented yet another genocide, a genocide only three years after the Holocaust—only three years after the world promised “never again.”

In the United States we thankfully don't have a history of genocide, but we do have a recent history of failed appeasement.

During Bill Clinton's presidency, the Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat was invited to spend more time in the White House than any other foreign leader—thirteen invitations.
³
Clinton was dead set on helping the Israelis and Palestinians achieve a lasting peace. He pushed the Israelis to grant ever-greater concessions until the Israelis were willing to grant the Palestinians up to 98 percent of all the territory they requested.

And what was the Palestinian response? They walked away from the bargaining table and launched the wave of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks known as the Second Intifada.

And what of Osama bin Laden? Even while America was granting concessions to Palestinians—and thereby theoretically easing the conditions that provided much of the pretext for Muslim terror—bin Laden was bombing U.S. embassies in Africa, almost sank the USS
Cole
in Yemen, and was well into the planning stages of the catastrophic attacks of September 11, 2001.

After President George W. Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, respectively, bringing American troops into direct ground combat with jihadists half a world away, many Americans quickly forgot the
recent past and blamed American acts of self-defense for “inflaming” jihad.

One of those Americans was Barack Obama.

Soon after his election, Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt, where he delivered a now-infamous speech that signaled America's massive policy shifts. The United States pulled entirely out of Iraq despite the pleas of “all the major Iraqi parties.”
⁴

In Egypt, the United States actually backed the Muslim Brotherhood government, going so far as agreeing to give it advanced F-16 fighters and M1 Abrams main battle tanks, even as the Muslim Brotherhood government was violating its peace treaty with Israel and persecuting Egypt's ancient Coptic Christian community. The Obama administration continued supporting the Brotherhood, even when it stood aside and allowed jihadists to storm the American embassy, raising the black flag of jihad over an American diplomatic facility.

In Libya, the United States persuaded its allies to come to the aid of a motley group of rebels, including jihadists. Then many of these same jihadists promptly turned their anger on the United States, attacking our diplomatic compound in Benghazi the afternoon and evening of September 11, 2012—killing the American ambassador and three more brave Americans.

Compounding this disaster, the administration had steadfastly refused to reinforce the American security presence in spite of a deteriorating security situation, afraid that it would anger the local population. This naïve and foolish administration decision cost American lives.

During the most recent conflict between Hamas and Israel, the administration consistently rebuffed both Israel and Egypt, preferring instead to advance proposals that empowered Hamas's most staunch allies—Qatar and Turkey. This action not only undermined Israel but also—ironically enough—undermined Egypt as well as every other Palestinian group that had chosen not to join the latest round of fighting.

In other words, the Obama administration rewarded Hamas for its terrorist violence.

Even when the crisis in Iraq became so grave that tens of thousands of Christians and Yazidis faced imminent massacre, the Obama administration's military response was feeble. It consisted of pinprick attacks combined with a promise that ISIS had nothing to fear over the long run from the United States. The Obama administration emphatically emphasized, “This is not the authorization of a broad-based counterterrorism campaign against [ISIS].”
⁵

And as it made these declarations, it still refused to provide our Kurdish allies with the heavy weapons they needed to repel an ISIS invasion.

In other words, the Obama administration rewarded Hamas for its terrorist violence.

Again and again, President Obama appeased jihadists.

In the meantime, the jihadists only grew stronger and more dangerous, contemptuous of the United States.

But when it comes to jihad, America must oppose, not appease.

How can it oppose jihad? Does it necessarily have to engage in indefinite ground combat in the Middle East? Do we confront even more frustrating “nation building”?

At this time, we do not believe large-scale ground combat is necessary to battle the latest wave of jihad. In Iraq, we have willing allies, much stronger allies than we had at the time of the 2003 invasion. And Israel has more than enough military strength to repel attacks on its homeland; it needs only American support to resist crushing international pressure to stand down in the face of jihad, pressure that always allows jihadists to ultimately live to fight another day.

In fact, the Kurds possess the numbers and will to drive ISIS back and inflict severe losses on the jihadists.

First, America must commit to destroying ISIS, not just “managing” it or limiting its influence. To do so, we must support our true allies with arms, equipment, military advisers, and—if necessary—military power. Presently, the Kurds possess the fighters and will to defend Kurdistan and protect the thousands of Christians and others who have sought refuge there. In fact, the Kurds possess the numbers and will to drive ISIS back and inflict severe losses on the jihadists.

They do not, however, possess the weapons they need. There is no excuse for this failure. There is no excuse for abandoning friends in need. The message we're sending to the Muslim world is intolerable—that the world's largest mili
tary power will not lift a finger to protect its friends. Nothing drives recruits to jihadists faster than the idea that they are strong while America and its allies are weak.

It is time for America to make its allies strong and demonstrate that jihadists are weak. It is imperative that jihadists face strong
Muslim
opposition. And it is that very need that makes the Obama administration's reluctance to support proven Muslim allies—like the new Egyptian regime and the Kurds—most puzzling. Yet, at the same time, the administration seems all too willing to support unproven “moderates” in Syria, or even forces that have proven to be nothing but unreliable, hostile jihadists. We don't “win” if we defeat ISIS but only end up empowering the jihadists of Iran or competing Sunni jihadists.

Why abandon our allies while empowering potential enemies? The Obama administration has consistently overestimated its ability to “win over” the Muslim Brotherhood or other jihadist organizations. And in trying to win them over, it harms our true allies again and again. This strategy was misguided from the start, and it is now nothing short of foolish after more than five years of consistent and deadly failure. And if President Obama persists in this folly, Congress must do all that it can to end any American funding for jihad.

Further, when supporting our allies we cannot and must not begin by placing explicit limits on the use of our own military power. We must commit to fight to win, and beginning any military effort by announcing explicit limits on our use of force or announcing explicit limits on the length of our commitment merely provides the enemy with a roadmap to victory. While large-scale ground combat may not be necessary,
we cannot lead our enemy to believe that he will never face American troops.

Second, outside of Iraq and Syria, America must send a clear message to the Palestinian Authority: it will not get one dime of American taxpayer money while it has any formal or informal ties with Hamas. America will not support jihad anywhere, including in Palestine. Even further, America will not support any easing of the blockade of Gaza until Hamas is removed from power and the Gaza Strip is demilitarized, and it will fully support Israel's acts of self-defense, including by defending Israel in the U.N. and from any effort by any Western power to impose any kind of economic sanctions or arms embargos on Israel.