New English Review: An Interview with Dr. Harold Rhode

China’s Islamist Separatist Threat: An Interview with Dr. Harold Rhode

by Jerry Gordon (January 2015)

Dr. Harold Rhode at Xian University China with Lecture Announcement
November 2014

When Islam swept along the ancient Silk Road a millennium ago, it found new adherents in what is now the People’s Republic of China. One ethnic group that responded were the Uyghurs (pronounced “wee-ghurs”), an indigenous Turkic-speaking people who adopted Sufism. The Uyghur heartland was contested by Turkic groups, Mongols and China. In the 18^th Century the Qing Dynasty in China asserted control over Xinjiang. However, during the 19^th Century, the Czarist Russian advance across Central Asia conquered the neighboring Khanates of Kokand and Bukhara. That led to Kokand general Yaqui Bey establishing a de facto Uyghur state in Kashgar in 1865.

Uyghurs in Urumqi

The Qing dynasty in 1884, ultimately won back control over the agricultural heartland of Uyghur settlement in Xinjiang province. With the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and establishment of the Republic of China in 1911, the Uyghurs who harbored irredentist aspirations briefly rose up in 1931 to 1934 to create an East Turkestan state, only to be crushed by Chinese Hui Muslim Nationalist forces. The second East Turkestan state was created during WWII with Soviet assistance in 1943 which lasted until 1949, when the Communist People’s Republic of China vanquished Nationalist forces in the province. The Uyghur leadership of East Turkestan mysteriously died on a plane flight back from Moscow, some believe on orders from Stalin.

The PRC established Xinjiang as the Uyghur Autonomous Region in Xinjiang (UXAR). In 1955, the PRC began a program of conscious resettlement of Han Chinese and investment of billions to exploit the vast natural resources of Xinjiang that encompasses fully one/sixth the land area of the PRC. This was in line with China’s strategy of “Go West” to exploit the rich agricultural, oil and gas resources. The PRC has been building a new Silk Road Eurasian Land Bridge  rail network through Xinjiang connecting Russian and Chinese Pacific ports across the adjacent Central Asian republics into Russia leading ultimately to ports in the EU. The resettlement and enormous investments came at the expense of Uyghur ethnic presence in Xinjiang. Today the Muslim Uyghurs comprise roughly 45 percent of the Xinjiang’s population, approximately 10 million with the balance being Han Chinese settlers. There is an estimated Uyghur diaspora of over one million. Uyghur refugees who fled Xinjiang after the PRC takeover in the early 1950’s found refuge in Turkey that included creation of a permanent community and economic opportunities. Under Islamist President Erdogan, that role has continued most recently reflected in a dispute with China over repatriation of Uyghurs from Thailand.

The East Turkestan Flag

Uyghur irredentism coupled with increasing Muslim extremism found support from Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban in Pakistan and Central Asian republics after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. That led to armed Uyghur separatist attacks under the banner of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. This Muslim extremist separatist group, recognized as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department seeks to establish a supra national Turkic state composed of “sections of Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).” According to a US State Department study Uyghurs have received “training and funding” and joined the ranks of Al Qaeda fighting US and coalition forces in Afghanistan. Hasan Mahsum, a Uyghur from Xinjiang’s Kashgar region was killed “by Pakistani troops in 2003 during a raid on a suspected al-Qaeda hideout near the Afghanistan border.” His successor Abdul Haq was killed in Pakistan in 2010. Co-founder of the ETIM Memetuhut Memetrozi, serving a life sentence for terrorism in China was educated in a Madrassa in Pakistan. In 1996, China concluded the Shanghai Treaty “with Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, using the accord to pressure Central Asian states to deter their ethnic Uighur minorities from supporting separatism in Xinjiang and to guarantee extradition of Uyghurs fleeing China.”

Deadly episodes involving Uyghur separatists have occurred. Probably the worst was 150 casualties in 2009 in the Xinjiang capital of Urumqi caused by protests by Uyghur workers in the province of Guangdong against Han Chinese over alleged “racial violence.” In 2011 attacks were launched against Xinjiang officials, a police Station in Hotan “claiming four lives; bomb and knife attacks in Kashgar left at least twelve dead and over forty injured.” A 2013 car bombing attack in Tiananmen Square in Beijing killed five and injured 40. It was “officially blamed on the ETIM” by the PRC. It worsened in 2014, according to a Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder on the ETIM:

A recent spate of knife attacks has heightened concerns. An assault outside a railroad station in Guangzhou in May 2014 marked the third of its kind since March, when a group of Uyghurs killed twenty-nine people at a railway station in Kunming, Yunnan province. In late April, a bomb and knife assault left three people dead outside a train station in Urumqi, Xinjiang. President Xi Jinping ordered Xinjiang authorities to take "resolute measures" and crush "violent terrorists" after the attack.

In March 2014, a leader of the Uyghur splinter group, the Turkestan Islamic Party, Abdullah Mansour vowed from his hideout in Pakistan to wage "a holy war against the Chinese," whom he described as "an enemy of all Muslims."

There is suspicion that among the foreign recruits of the Islamic State are Muslim extremist Uyghurs who are believed to have filtered into Syria via Turkey. China’s difficulty in controlling the rising Muslim fundamentalism in Xinjiang is reflected in recent draconian bans by Chinese authorities in Urumqi, of Muslim veils and head scarves for women and men growing long beards.

Hui Muslims, Source: Reuters

The problematic Uyghur Muslim extremist separatism and fundamentalism is apparently not reflected in another Muslim group in China, the Hui Muslims who number 11 million. The Hui can be found throughout China but are concentrated in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. The Hui people are ethnic Han Chinese who were converted by or intermarried with Persian and Arab traders who brought Islam to the Eternal Kingdom. Hui was also a term used to describe both Nestorian Christians and Jews who came to China. The last Chinese-Jewish congregation in Kaifeng was scattered at the time of the Taipeng Rebellion in the 1850’s. Hui people had illustrious leaders, including the fabled Admiral Zheng He who led the famed treasure fleets to Indonesia, India, Africa and Arabia in the 15^th Century.

The short lived First East Turkestan Republic was  ironically crushed by the 36^th Hui Muslim Nationalist Division in battles at Kashgar in 1933 and 1934 led by Hui Generals, Ma Shaowu, General Ma Zhancang and General Ma Fuyuan. (Ma means Mohammed in Chinese). Clearly, the Hui people have evinced more loyalty to China than to Islamic Jihad imperatives. There is a reason for it. The Hui adopted their Islamic practices to fit theConfucian-influenced Chinese culture to the extent that their mosques have “traditional Chinese dynastic architecture with Islamic motifs.“

Against this background, we arranged to hold an interview with Dr. Harold Rhode who had spent several weeks in China this fall lecturing at universities throughout the country on Sunni Muslim extremism. The Chinese are interested in how Israel contends with this problem, while building one of the most innovative societies in a region known for its instability. This is our third interview with Dr. Rhode who retired as an Islamic Affairs expert in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense in 2010. See New English Review interviews, The Savior of Iraqi Jewish Heritage (Dec. 2013) and The Future of the Babylonian Jewish Archives (June 2014).

Jerry Gordon:  Dr. Rhode thank you for consenting to this interview.

Harold Rhode:  Thank you for inviting me, again.

Gordon:  We're here with Dr. Harold Rhode, a former Pentagon expert on Islamic Affairs in the Office of Secretary of Defense. We interviewed him about the rescue of the Babylonian Jewish Archives. The archives were restored by the National Archives and Records Agency and exhibited both in Washington D.C. and other locations in the United States. Dr. Rhode you have just come back from an interesting sojourn in China. Tell us about the auspices under which you went to China and what were the purposes of these talks?

Rhode:  This was my third trip to China for an organization called SIGNAL (the Sino-Israel Global Network of Academic Leadership). Their goal is to strengthen academic intellectual ties between Israel, the Jewish people and China. This was a three week trip. Each of my previous trips were about the same length. On this trip I spoke at a few universities in Beijing. Then we went to Xi’An where thousands of terracotta soldiers, horses and other objects from 2000 years ago were discovered. From there I traveled to Kunming which is near the Burmese border to Yunnan University and from there to Chongqing for some academic conferences and lectures. Thereafter, I flew to Israel via Beijing and Moscow.

Gordon:  What topics did you lecture on in China?

Rhode:  A few things that interest the Chinese. First the Chinese are fascinated and intrigued by the Jewish mind. How Jews think about the world because the Chinese have enormous respect for Jews. They know that we're about fourteen million people in the world, which is less than the statistical error of the Chinese census. (China has about 1.4 billion people.) How do we Jews, they ask, have so many Nobel prizes? The Chinese told me that we Jews have the 25% of the Nobel Prizes in the United States. Not that most American Jews would even know that number.

The Chinese are often seen as good copiers - not inventors. They admire enormously our ability to analyze, to invent, and to create. They would like to increase these skills and are looking for ways to do so. Given the nature of their culture - which historically has emphasized obedience to authority instead of questioning - it might not be so easy to get there.

Gordon:  Have the Chinese invested in Israeli Venture Capital Investment?

Rhode:  To a certain extent yes. There seems to have been a government decision in China to work with Israel. Israel has a number of the things that China needs intellectually. I'm told that a Ph.D in China is often occupied by largely translating something which is not in Chinese into Chinese. It seems it is not always like a Western Ph.D which involves a lot of rigorous intellectual analysis, and, at least in the past, creative thought. A Western Ph.D. requires that you know the material and then do something with it. The impression is that this is less so in China. There are fascinating reasons for this. Traditionally, in China you are not supposed to question your superiors. We Jews, on the other hand, question everybody and everything. We even question God. We Jews respect authority but we question it. In many cases, the Chinese seem to have great difficulty understanding how one can question authority, yet at the same time deeply respect that authority.

Gordon:  Does this reflect Confucian ethics or the culture of the regime?

Rhode:  Chinese culture is about 5,000 years old. In some ways, they ascribe to ancient ethics, ancient traditions. In Confucianism where you can question your teacher it is done very differently and more gingerly. It could seem to Westerners that it is rare, but Chinese culture has its own protocols of interaction. 

Gordon:  You went to lecture on a topic that you know well. It is something that the world is immediately concerned about which is Islamic extremism, in this case, Sunni extremism. Do the Chinese have an interest in that topic?

Rhode:  Yes. They consider the terrorism sourced in Xinjiang to be very serious. Xinjiang is the Northwest Territories of China historically inhabited by a people called the Uyghurs who are a Turkic Sunni Muslim people. The Uyghurs number approximately 10 million people. Xinjiang is about 1/6^ththe land mass of China, and is rich in natural resources which the Chinese need. There are apparently more Han Chinese now in Xinjiang than there are Uyghurs. These Han were brought in to settle the province. The Chinese certainly have the people to do that. The Uyghurs are a Turkic people. Their language and their culture are very much related to the language and culture of the other Turkic peoples in the world including, the Turks of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and a few others. It is one language group, one family and the Chinese have this particular Muslim group in Xinjiang. There are other Muslim groups in China which we will address a little later.

China has a terrorist problem relating to this particular group of people, the Uyghurs. Not all Uyghurs, of course, are terrorists by any stretch of the imagination. But Uyghurs are involved with The Islamic State (ISIS/IS), in Iraq and Syria; some of them hold important positions in ISIS/IS. 

Russia has a similar problem as the Chinese do with their Muslims. With the exception of the Azerbaijanis, and a numerically insignificant numbers of others, all former Soviet Muslims are Sunni. About one fourth of Russia’s population is Muslim. Over one third of the population of Moscow is legal and illegal resident Sunni Muslims. The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Israelis recognize this problem. If Americans had a little more sense, and definitely the same is true in Europe which has very little sense, they would all understand that they suffer from the same problem: Sunni fundamentalism. The latest version of this scourge is ISIS/IS. The fanatics all want to live in one united state: the Islamic caliphate. The word Caliphate comes from the Arabic word Caliph which means “the single ruler” who was to replace their prophet Muhammad who died in 632 CE.

The question back then was who was going to inherit and rule after him? Very deep in the Sunni psyche is a longing for being ruled by a Caliph, to be living in one centrally ruled Islamic State. That state includes the entire Arab world, non-Sunni Shiite Iran, Central Asia, and Xinjiang – today’s northwestern China. There is reason to believe that Turkey’s President Erdoğan wants to be that ruler. If not him, then maybe a member of the Ottoman family. Erdoğan and his Prime Minister Davutoğlu have tried to bring back the Ottoman ruling family, which ruled the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire from 1389 through the early 1920s. However, Erdoğan is in big trouble at home and may just end up falling flat on his face.

Gordon:  President Erdoğan in Turkey has reached out to the Uyghurs.

Rhode:  Yes, he sure has. Now what is interesting is the language in Northwest China is a dialect of Turkish, which is closely related to the language spoken in Turkey today. Turkish, I would say is about 30 percent intelligible to a Uyghur speaker. But that percentage increases the more Uyghurs and Turks from Turkey listen to each other’s languages. The rage in Xinjiang is movies from Turkey and especially among the young Uyghurs. What is interesting is these movies glorify Islamic history, especially the early Islamic conquests and the Turkish Ottoman Empire. These movies are produced in Turkey and they go like hotcakes in Xinjiang. It is these films and propaganda from Saudi Arabia and other rich Gulf Sunni Arabs that arouse fundamentalism among the Uyghurs in China. Sunni Islamic fundamentalism is an existential threat to China.

I'd like to explain what China, Spain, Israel, India, and the former Soviet Union have in common and why this is so important for politics today and the future of Sunni Islam. According to Islamic law – i.e., the Shari’a - any land that has been conquered by Muslims must be ruled by Muslims forever. 

Now for example, Muslims ruled Spain from 712 CE to 1492 CE when the Muslims were kicked out of the Iberian Peninsula. There is a society today in Cordoba in Southern Spain which claims it is there to preserve the glorious heritage of Muslim Spain. However, when they are among fellow Muslims, this organization makes clear that their true reason for existence is they are preparing for the reconquest of Spain for Islam. They lost in 1492 that was 522 years ago. However according to Islamic doctrine Spain is Muslim because it was conquered and ruled by Muslims and it will thus always be Muslim.

Xinjiang in Northwest China was also conquered by Islam about a millennium ago. Therefore, according to the Shari’a, it is Islamic forever. China therefore faces the same problem with Xinjiang that Spain faces. The Uyghur Muslims who live in Xinjiang - Eastern Turkestan as the Uyghurs call it - will not come to terms with Chinese control of that territory, which, again from a Shari'a perspective - must be ruled by Muslims – i.e., not China - forever.

That is also the case for Israel. Muslims conquered what is today Israel in 637 CE, and, like Spain and Xinjiang, therefore must be ruled by Muslims forever. 

This is how Sunni Islam understands these things. It is why, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that in any peace agreement, there must be two states for two peoples - a Jewish State for the Jews and a Palestinian - i.e., Muslim state for the Palestinians. He added that in such an agreement the Palestinians must agree that after signing the conflict is over, i.e., that they recognize Israel has a right to exist permanently within recognized borders. 

The problem that the Palestinians and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) face is that they absolutely cannot accept any peace treaty which includes these statements. The same is true in Xinjiang in China; and the same is true in Spain. 

The Arabic word for conquest, an Islamic conquest, is futuh. It comes from the Arabic Hebrew root meaning "open." But in Arabic, that word has an additional meaning - i.e., a territory "opened for Islam" meaning conquered by Islam. That means that once such an "opening"/conquest happens, that territory is Muslim forever. It is Islamic forever so that is  what Israel, a lot of the former Soviet Republics, Spain, Xinjiang in China, India, and Spain all share in common. These Islamic territories are Islamic forever. From an Islamic point of view, there cannot be any compromise on this issue. The Chinese recognize they have a problem here. 

I have had a lot of dealings with Muslims from North Africa who talk to me quite openly about how they are going to reconquer Spain. Now we may think this is a bit crazy and bygones are bygones. You know we have a phrase in American English, “Oh that's history.” Which means it's over but not for these people. It's not over; it is never over for these people. It is theirs forever which is why they cannot sign a final status peace agreement. 

Now this says something unbelievably terrible about the truth of what we have to deal with including the United States, Russia, China, Israel, and Spain. That is there can be no compromise. The Western concept of the compromise - i.e., putting the past behind you - simply doesn't exist in any of these Muslim realms.

However, that doesn't mean that it's hopeless. There are sources in the Qur’an, the Muslim holy book and the Hadith, which are the traditions attributed to their prophet Mohammed, when Mohammed was a minority and failing at first. If Muslims want to they can call on these traditions. The truth is they are earlier traditions in Islam and there is a tradition in the Shari' a, that the later verses of the Qur’an which are the ones where Mohammed was already head of a state abrogate the earlier versions. 

Nevertheless, there are these early traditions in the Qur'an where Muslims lived as a minority among others. Can Muslims call upon these traditions to reform their religion so that they can get along with others? Unfortunately I can only see one way and I hope I am wrong and I hate what I am about to say. That is, that the Muslims must undergo an enormous defeat, a conflagration where they lose. Then and only then can the good Muslims - the ones who realize that they need to get along with the rest of the world - be able to safely reinterpret their sources as we Jews did 2300 years ago when we lost sovereignty. We had to get along with others and we found ways to do so.

The Christians did the same in the 1600's after the Thirty Years War when they were all killing each other off. The joke then was will the last one alive please blow out all of the torches. They found ways to reinterpret their sources, just like the Jews had done long beforehand.  

But the Muslims have never had to do this. That will only happen when they suffer a massive defeat. Anybody who tries to do that right now suffers a very interesting fate. Usually it is death. Why? Because if you don't follow the version of Islam that I do, this is the ISIS version, then I kill you. ISIS hates Sunni Muslims as well. They make Al Qaeda look moderate. Believe me if we defeat ISIS but don't make the Islamic world suffer a terrible defeat, there will be another more extremist Sunni organization. They want this Caliphate. They want this extremism. 

The only way that this can be defeated whether it's Iraq, Syria, Russia, the Caucasus, Xinjiang in China or anywhere else is through a massive defeat. Sadly I do not see the American President prepared to do what is necessary to solve or to put this problem in its proper perspective.

Gordon…not only the United States but the world.

Rhode:  I agree with you. I hate what I am saying. I wish it were not true. I wish the Sunni world had a concept of compromise. 

Chinese Muslims may have the answer. There is a group of Chinese Muslims called Hui. They are ethnic Han Chinese Sunni Muslims. They have been living as a minority in Chinese society. Over the centuries, they seem to have figured out a way to get along with their non-Muslim rulers; this is, in a Western sense, compromise. Maybe these Hui Muslims have the answer. Maybe they could be a model for the Sunni world at large. There is only one problem. Most of Hui, when they travel to the Muslim world – i.e., to the Arab world, to Turkey, to Afghanistan - if they start talking the way they do they would be labeled as non-Muslims.

Gordon:  They would be viewed as apostates.

Rhode:  That's the problem! Yes. Apostates and you know what the punishment for apostasy is in Islam? It's death! It's death without a trial. That's what the Shari'a, the Islamic holy law says. At first a lot of the Chinese Muslims were arguing with me about what I'm saying. I said look, you have never been to the Middle Eastern Muslim world. You live as a minority within an enormously large society and you figured out a way to do it. This is a wonderful thing. But, will Muslims from other nations look at their experience as something they can emulate? Sadly, from experience, I doubt so.

In Xinjiang where the Uyghurs live, both Sunni Turkey and Shi’ite Iran are fanning the flames of dissent and discord in that area, and are creating problems for the Chinese government. I would hope the Chinese government would be more concerned about Turkish and Iranian involvement in China’s Uyghur fundamentalist movement than it seems to be. However, I'm an expert on Islam, not on China.

Gordon:  How were the university audiences when you spoke about this issue in China?

Rhode:  China is most interested in "balance and harmony." They constantly talk about this side has to give a little and that side has to give a little. It's sort of in an odd way even somewhat Western, you shake hands, you let bygones be bygones and you work together. The problem is that does not work in the Middle East. For example, the Chinese are trying to figure out a role where they could help solve the Arab-Israeli dispute. The problem in the Middle East there is no concept of letting bygones be bygones. Your family name is Gordon. Mine is Rhode. Imagine that your great-grandfather killed my great-grandfather, and the Rhode family has never avenged the Gordon family. So it would be my responsibility to take out you, your children, your family, your cousins, to make matters equal. The word 'adalah in Arabic is usually, but incorrectly translated as justice. It really means balance, balance in the sense of revenge - not on truth or fairness.

The Chinese have a very difficult time understanding this because their society is not based on that concept. That is one of the reasons the Chinese are arming Iran and Saudi Arabia. They think that by doing so they can balance and harmonize and no one will kill each other. The problem is that in Iran, the rulers - most of whom are hated by the Iranian religious establishment - are extremists. They believe that if they have a war their savior, the Mahdi will come and save them. Thus, nuclear weapons are an inducement for them, not a deterrent. If these terrorist rulers of Iran used nuclear weapons, they believe that their savior would come out of the holy well in the city of Qum and save them.

The Chinese have a virtually impossible time understanding this because the Chinese don't really understand the concept of an identity based on religion. 

China obtains 60% of their oil from the Gulf. Now if the Iranians decide to block the Straits of Hormuz - the point from which all the Persian Gulf oil must exit - then the Chinese are up the proverbial creek. China knows America does not need Middle Eastern oil.

The Chinese just don't yet get how the Middle East works. So far, they have not been able to understand the society which is based on revenge. That is a problem they face in getting involved in the Middle East. They are aware of it but they don't understand it.

Gordon:  Lee Smith has a book called The Strong Horse which explains this Middle East culture that you have described.

Rhode:  Great man!

Gordon:  From your conversation with people in China I gather they do not understand that.

Rhode:  The Chinese believe in harmony and balance. They're interested in making money and having a better life and for themselves and a better society for their children. Which is why they are frankly so interested in Israel. For example, they have serious water problems. Moreover, the pollution in parts of China is unbelievable.

Gordon:  Part of their pollution problem stems from dependence on coal used to produce electricity, heat and power industry as well as their transportation system. Going back to the topic we were discussing, are the Chinese, in a kind of a Casablanca film scenario, “shocked, shocked” at what you told them about Sunni extremism? What do they perceive as the solutions?

Rhode:  Good question. I'm not an expert on China or Chinese way of thinking. They know they have problems and they are interested in finding out ways of solving them especially when it comes to their energy needs. This is where Israel comes in. First of all Israel has a serious water problem but solved it. They achieved this through desalination and more importantly recycling 80 percent of their waste water. The Chinese need this sort of technology. 

Second, Israel developed drip irrigation for agriculture. They have invented fascinating ways of using very little water to produce a lot of interesting, healthy crops in Israel. The Chinese need that. It is Israeli expertise and Israeli technology. Israel is a natural fit for China. The Chinese are obsessed with stability. The Middle East is anything but that. Since the so-called Arab Spring, the Chinese have realized that they have sustained serious losses. They lost a good deal of money in Libya. They have substantial money in other Arab countries as well. Israel, despite its many exterior challenges, is remarkably stable, which is what the Chinese are looking for - stability, balance, and harmony.

The Chinese seem to have decided that in their universities Middle Eastern centers which they are establishing, that in a few cases they are using Israel as a guide to help to set up these institutions and want Israeli academic expertise. There are a lot of Chinese students now in Israel studying all sorts of things. How does Israel make itself work? Many Chinese are fascinated by little Israel, and they want more connections.

Gordon:  China is a member of the UN Security Council. We are in the midst of a Palestinian statehood recognition campaign from the Palestinian Authority. The most recent examples were the French National Assembly which passed its version of a "symbolic resolution recognizing a Palestinian state"  and a similar symbolic resolution that passed the European parliament and the pending vote before the UN Security Council to end so-called Israeli occupation of the West Bank. We hope that doesn't occur. How do the Chinese deal with those issues before the UN?

Rhode:  During the recent summer war in Gaza, the Chinese were very much in the background. They were not criticizing Israel during this operation. The Russians really were not very much against Israel during the Gaza operation. The American people also strongly supported Israel. That is also the case for the American Congress.

They're wonderful vis-a-vis Israel and they understand that Israel and the United States are based on the same values. As Jim Woolsey, the former head of the CIA said, Israel and the founders of the United States both base their culture and values, on the values of Mount Sinai - i.e., liberty, equality and freedom.

The American people, the Congress support Israel; however, the question is still out on the current Administration. I worked in the Pentagon for twenty-eight years. From my experience, I would say that by and large, many people in the State Department, CIA, and other parts of the government see Israel at best as a nuisance. The people running the White House at the moment from my experience are not particularly enamored of Israel, unlike the American people which clearly identifies with Israel.

Gordon:  Jon Schanzer from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies pointed out the most sensitive line in a recent Jeffrey Goldberg article published by The Atlantic in October 2014. It was not about any expletive deleted characterization of Israeli PM Netanyahu but another line. A line from an unidentified senior official that perhaps in the future if a Palestinian statehood declaration comes up for consideration at the UN Security Council the US might abstain. That is a rather chilling remark given the kind of tradition that US government has held since the late 1960's with regard to protection of Israel's interests.

Rhode:  I have an odd thought here. America is basically a religious country much to the chagrin of the academic community and much of the intellectual self-appointed establishment in the United States. I would call them the “I hate America crowd” that is teaching in universities and in some high schools in the United States. They are saying that the greatness of America is past.

Historically, there is something in the Bible in the Book of Genesis. God says very clearly to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those that curse you.” Let me explain the significance with regard how Americans feel towards Israel. I had an experience in the Pentagon right before I left in January of 2010. A secretary who had lived the California lifestyle and then became a born-again Christian showed me a tee-shirt that was available on the internet. It jokingly said, look what happens to you if you mess with the Jews and it's based on that Biblical verse from the Book of Genesis. On the tee-shirt was printed: "Be careful. Look what happens to those who hurt the Jews. What happened to Egypt and the Pharaohs, the Hellenistic Empire, the Roman Empire, Spain, Russia, Soviet Union? At the bottom of the shirt was listed the word "Iran"! But that is not what interested her. What she was concerned about was not Iran. It was that if America abandons Israel would America then be on that list? I responded "God forbid!" I don't believe for a moment that the American people or the Congress have those sorts of thoughts. 

However, I do have questions from my 28 years in the American government about some of the people in this Administration. In the Administration, with the exception of the President and the Vice President, everybody else is appointed. They don't represent the American people. That is what the Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives do. In the Executive branch, only the President and Vice President are elected the rest are there to administrate and by and large they do what they want. During the George W. Bush Administration there were many times that they would leak things specifically having to do with Iran to make George Bush look bad.  

Now from my personal experience I watched the bureaucracy also withhold information from senior people because the bureaucracy didn't like the way the former would be using the information to make decisions. Now that isn't the case of course with the entire American bureaucracy but it is the case with a lot of it.

Gordon:  Do you see that as a danger?

Rhode:  Yes, It’s a danger.

Gordon:  Who are the strong horses involved in world class support of terrorism now in the Middle East? I raise that because we had a recent visit in Northwest Florida from the Qatari Ambassador to the US.

Rhode:  Let me put that in context. In 1979 forces of extremist Sunnis took over the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The Saudi Government had to make a deal. The Sunni government is a family, the Saud family along with the religious Wahhabi establishment. The radical Muslims who took over the mosque in 1979 said straightforwardly to the Sauds and the Wahhabi leadership you are not funding/supporting jihad, as you must, according to the Shari'a. Jihad is what we Muslims are all about. The deal the Saudi government made at the time with the Wahhabi religious establishment is that if you allow us to go into Mecca and to eliminate them, we - i.e. the Saudi government - will fund jihadism outside of Saudi Arabia. As a result, the Saudis and their allies in the Gulf funded extremist Sunni fundamentalism - i.e., jihadism - throughout the world. 

The Saudis basically controlled Sunni fundamentalism at first. They fund mosques in the United States which teach vicious anti-Americanism. Forget about Jews. They hate Christians as well. This has come back to haunt the Saudis. There are a lot of businessmen in the Persian Gulf, especially in the Arab areas who fund all of this. Now Qatar is a tiny little place and it spends it's time trying to stick its finger in the eyes of the Saudis. They have this satellite TV network, Al Jazeera. Saudi Arabia has its own TV satellite network called Al Arabiya which broadcasts out of the UAE in Abu Dhabi. Al Jazeera is in English but the English version has nothing to do with the Arabic one. The Arabic version is viciously anti-Western, viciously anti-Christian,  viciously anti-American, and viciously anti-Israel. The English version which is what we get in America is al Jazeera America, outside of America there is Al Jazeera English. This is like "soft porn." It is completely different from Al Jazeera in Arabic. The Qataris are funding this.  

Turkish President Erdoğan and his fundamentalist Prime Minister Davutoğlu look the other way when ISIS crosses the border or comes through Turkey and sells its oil or obtains its weapons. These are people who are funding and pushing Islamic fundamentalism throughout the world. The Turks are very good at it right now. They obviously have abandoned the Turkish democratic secular tradition of the founding father of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk. The Iranians are funding all sorts of things, and helped fund ISIS in the beginning, even though ISIS is vehemently anti-Shiite. The Iranian government was also helping Al Qaeda. Both organizations wanted destruction of the Shiites but it got out of control. Just because the Iranians do it doesn't mean they are going to succeed. 

We should not think that because the Iranians are Shiites and ISIS and the Turks hate Shiites with a passion that bygones are not bygones. They are fighting a war which took place when their prophet died over who would inherit the mantle of Islam. That war forced the major division of Islam between the Shiites versus the Sunnis. 

The Iranians, the Turks, the Qataris, a lot of businessmen in the Gulf, are the people funding and supporting Islamic terror. We Americans have chosen to look the other way. I am very aware that the US Treasury has done some very good work on this. However, are they allowed by the White House and the State Department to push their findings forward? I don't know. I suspect in time that in the interest of good international relations with some of the people, especially the Arabists in the State Department are prepared to look the other way. By doing so here in the United States they are helping sign our own death warrant.

Gordon:  I want to commend you for being clear-eyed about what threats that really afflicts the United States, Israel and the World at this moment And thank you for your intrepid adventures, some of which have really been on behalf of claiming the heritage of the Jewish people.

Rhode:  Thank you Jerry. God be with you.

Into the fray: It’s Islam, stupid!

By MARTIN SHERMAN

One out of six people all over the world is a Muslim... trying to say anything in general about this huge community – 1.5 billion people – will be wrong... The vast majority of these populations are not involved with all what’s happening with violence and terror all over the world.... I don’t think there is anything essential that connects between this huge and historically important religion and all the terrorism that’s going on
– Sami Abu Shehadeh, secretary-general of Balad, Tel Aviv-Jaffa 

With these words, Sami Abu Shehadeh, of the anti-Zionist Arab party Balad, commenced a debate with me on “The rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in the West,” which took place in the i24 News studios last month.

Clearly, the events in Paris on Wednesday, in which 12 people were brutally gunned down, gave the topic new and urgent relevance.

Islam is to terror as rainfall is to flooding 

Of course, there is much truth in Abu Shehadeh claim that most Muslims are not actively involved in terrorism. While this claim is factually correct, substantively it is meaningless.

For anyone with an iota of intellectual integrity and reasonably informed of world affairs, the answer to whether Islam and violence and terrorism are causally connected should be unequivocally clear. To ask whether Islam is associated with terrorism is a little like asking if rainfall is associated with flooding. Of course it is – as can be irrefutably deduced from Abu Shehadeh’s attempt to exonerate it.

After all, if one in six people in the world is a Muslim, it would mean that five out of six are not. Right? So if there were no inordinate affinity of Islam for violence/ terrorism, Muslim acts of terrorism should be one-fifth of those of non-Muslim terrorism – i.e. if Islam had no greater propensity for terrorism, one would have to expect non-Muslim acts of terrorism to be five times (!) those perpetrated by Muslims.

This is clearly not the case, and terrorist attacks committed by adherents of Islam far outweigh those carried out by non-Muslims.

It would therefore seem that – in stark violation of the protocols of political correctness – there is little choice but to conclude what many in the West sense instinctively: There is a disproportionate causal connection between Islam on the one hand, and acts of ideo-politically motivated violence against civilian populations, i.e. terrorism on the other.

Writing on the wall? 

Without wishing to appear callous, the carnage in Paris could hardly be considered unexpected. In many ways the writing has been on the wall for several years.

After all, it comes in the wake of a string of incidents of murderous Islamic-motivated violence across the country.

In mid-March 2012, several off-duty soldiers were gunned down in Montauban and Toulouse by a French-born Muslim of Algerian origin.

A few days later, he slaughtered a rabbi and three children, aged three to eight, in an attack on a Jewish day school in Toulouse.

More recently, just before Christmas, France was racked by a spate of “lone wolf” terrorist attacks, in Dijon, Nantes and Tours, which prompted the British Independent to report the incidents under the ominous headline “France gripped by fear at Christmas after third street attack in three days.” (December 23, 2014) In both the Dijon and Tours incidents, the attacker is reported to have shouted “Allahu akbar,” dispelling any suspicion that the assaults were perpetrated by Buddhist extremists.

Muslim violence has been simmering in France for years, boiling over regularly around Christmas and New Year, when hundreds of cars are torched in Muslim-majority neighborhoods to usher in the start of the Gregorian year.

Typically, reports in the mainstream media studiously avoid mention of any connection between this criminal arson on a massive scale and the culprits’ ethnic origins.

Catalogue of carnage 

The slaughter in Paris takes its place in a long list of acts of butchery, all committed in the name of Islam.

Consider the following (and decidedly partial) catalogue of carnage, of the gory events that took place across the globe over the past two decades and shocked the world with their brutally.

New York – Cataclysmic destruction of the Twin Towers Washington – Attempt to demolish the Pentagon London – Coordinated attack on the public transport system; the beheading of an off duty soldier in broad daylight in full public view Madrid – Bombing of crowded commuter trains at rush hour Nairobi – Seizure of Westgate shopping mall and murder of scores of innocents Burgas, Bulgaria – Bombing of a tourist bus Mumbai – Murderous attack on the Taj Mahal Hotel, Chabad House and other sites Boston – Bombing of the city’s annual marathon Bali – Bombing of crowded tourist locations Buenos Aires – Deadly attacks on Jewish institutions and the Israeli Embassy Ottawa – Assault on the Canadian Parliament Sydney – Recent seizure of a downtown café and murder of two customers In-Amenas, Algeria – Seizure of a gas facility and murder of dozens of civilians Chibock, Nigeria – Abduction of almost 300 schoolgirls, reportedly to serve as sex slaves This bloodcurdling list is in no way complete, and numerous other incidents could be added. It certainly does not include all the attempted attacks that were foiled by security services in various countries, preventing the commission of even more gruesome atrocities by adherents of Islam.

Horrors of intra-Muslim strife 

Try as one may, there is no way that, in the modern world, any other faith/creed can be associated with such violence/ terror – in scope, size, frequency or ubiquity of occurrence.

But as appalling as Muslim violence against non-Muslims might be, it pales into insignificance when compared to violence between Muslims themselves.

It would be impossible to give a comprehensive survey of the intra-Muslim carnage that has raged – and still rages – across vast swathes of the globe, from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean to the islands of Asia-Pacific. A brutally condensed synopsis will have to suffice.

Even before the unspeakable barbarism of al-Nusra and Islamic State began to sweep across much of the Levant, merciless massacres of Muslims at the hands of Muslims abounded.

For example, in the almost 10-year Algerian civil war, internecine frictions between rival Islamist factions resulted in massive fratricide – with a death toll reaching, by some estimates, 150,000. Acts of unimaginable brutality were perpetrated with entire villages wiped out and victims’ bodies mutilated.

Likewise, regular bombings of markets and mosques across countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have produced massive loss of Muslim life at the hands of belligerent brethren – yet hardly generate a footnote in the mainstream media. The intra-Muslim conflict seems so intense and complicated that even a reasonably informed layman would find it almost impossible to figure out who is killing whom, and why...

As a gauge of the scope of the slaughter, the Pakistani site Dawn reported in a post titled “Islam at war – with itself” that al-Qaida affiliates and other extreme Islamist groups “have perpetrated indiscriminate violence against civilians...resulting in over 48,000 deaths...”

The majority of Muslims…

The pervasive violence in the Muslim world inevitably raises the question of the general character of Islam and the kind of behavioral patterns it seems to generate.

It also raises the thorny question of minority actions vs majority inaction.

Thus, while Abu Shehadeh is probably right when he claims that only a minority of Muslims are engaged in abhorrent acts of terrorism, it is highly unlikely they would be able to sustain this activity without the support – or at least the tacit approval – of much larger segments of the population.

Even if the majority does not actively endorse the conduct of a delinquent minority, there is little evidence of effective disapproval, let alone active opposition to it. (In this regard one can only hope that the extraordinarily courageous speech by Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, calling for a “religious revolution,” will prove to be a harbinger of some radical change in the course Islam is currently set upon.) So, although, as Abu Shehadeh contends, it is difficult to formulate accurate generalizations for 1.6 billion people, several edifying measures are available that paint a daunting picture of the views held by much of the Muslim world.
The reputable Pew Research Center has conducted numerous in-depth surveys across much of the Muslim world. Its findings show solid – at times, overwhelming – majorities in many countries (and significant minorities in others) in favor of harsh corporal punishments (whipping/amputation) for theft/robbery; death by stoning for adultery; and death for apostasy.

With such a propensity for violence as a widely accepted cultural norm, it is not implausible to assume that wide sections of the Muslim population would not find the use of violence and terrorism totally incompatible with their core beliefs.

Attempts at apologetics: The ‘colonialism’ canard 

Numerous attempts have been made to explain away much of the prevalence of violence in the Muslim world and conflict with the West.

Arguably the most prominent among such apologists was none other than President Barack Obama. In his 2009 “outreach address” in Cairo, he offered the following explanation for the sad state of affairs between the West and Islam which, he alleged, followed “centuries of coexistence and cooperation.” (Really?) Obama suggested that “more recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims.”

This of course holds no water.

For while it is true that much of the Middle East was under imperial rule for centuries, this was mostly Muslim imperialism – i.e. the Ottoman Empire.

After all, with perhaps the exception of North Africa, Western colonialism was imposed for a relatively short period after World War I, and ended soon after World War II. This hardly seems sufficient to engender the obdurate Islamic enmity we see today.

So if complaints are to be lodged regarding colonialist deprivation of Muslim rights and opportunities, shouldn’t they be directed at the Muslim imperialists? Strangely, the the crucibles of today’s most extreme anti-Western Islam were barely touched by colonialism – the Arabian Peninsula and Iran.

Although neither has endured any imperial – including Western – rule of any consequence, the former birthed the Sunni-derivative version of Islamic radicalism and the latter the Shia-derivative. This fact sits uneasily with the diagnosis ascribing ongoing tensions between Muslims and the West to colonialism.

No call to ‘Kill for Krishna’? 

Moreover, one might well ask why the iniquities of colonialism have not afflicted, say, the Hindu-majority in India, whose people were certainly “denied rights and opportunities” under the yoke of British imperialism in the same way as the Muslims of Pakistan.

Yet, somehow we hear no cries of “Kill for Krishna” or “Ganesh is Great” from embittered Hindu terrorists, blowing themselves up in crowded buses, markets, cafes and mosques, as we do across the Muslim world – including in neighboring Pakistan.

Nor do we see aggrieved followers of Shiva embarking on a global holy war to subjugate all to the Hindu creed.

Why has India been able to put its colonial past behind it, and become a vibrant economic juggernaut? Why has it not allowed itself to remain tethered to the past and mired in homicidal frustration? Since by far most victims of Muslim violence are other Muslims, rights and opportunities allegedly denied by foreign occupiers seven decades ago seem a poor explanation for current conduct.

Modernity as culprit? 

Some have tried to contend that the onset of modernity and globalization has created a sense of threat to Islamic values, which has precipitated the tensions with the West.

Thus, in Cairo, Obama suggested that “the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to Islamic traditions.”

This too is difficult to accept.

After all, Islam is the youngest of all major religions, founded centuries – even in some cases, millennia – after Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity. Why would the newest religion find that the developments of modernity threaten its traditions in a manner that, apparently, does not threaten the traditions of faiths far more ancient? Why do they not generate the same tensions with the West that we find in the case of the Muslim faith? Could it perhaps be that Islam is fundamentally incompatible not only with modernity but with anything that is not Islam, and that many cannot – or worse, refuse to – recognize this? 

A clarion call 

Europe in general and France in particular are on the cusp of a grim, probably gruesome, future.

European leaders would do well to heed the clarion call from someone who has intimate knowledge of Islam – the Somalian-born former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was forced flee to the US because of threats from Muslims who objected to her criticism of Islam. She warned: “Islam is not a religion of peace. It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can. Every accommodation of Muslim demands leads to a sense of euphoria and a conviction that Allah is on their side. They see every act of appeasement as an invitation to make fresh demands.”

(March 21, 2009) Europe had best heed this dire caveat and tailor its policies accordingly, for if not, the consequences will be dire.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies www.strategicisrael.org.

The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders

BY GEORGE PACKER

They are only the latest blows delivered by an ideology that has sought to achieve power through terror for decades. It’s the same ideology that sent Salman Rushdie into hiding for a decade under a death sentence for writing a novel, then killed his Japanese translator and tried to kill his Italian translator and Norwegian publisher. The ideology that murdered three thousand people in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The one that butchered Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam, in 2004, for making a film. The one that has brought mass rape and slaughter to the cities and deserts of Syria and Iraq. That massacred a hundred and thirty-two children and thirteen adults in a school in Peshawar last month. That regularly kills so many Nigerians, especially young ones, that hardly anyone pays attention

Because the ideology is the product of a major world religion, a lot of painstaking pretzel logic goes into trying to explain what the violence does, or doesn’t, have to do with Islam. Some well-meaning people tiptoe around the Islamic connection, claiming that the carnage has nothing to do with faith, or that Islam is a religion of peace, or that, at most, the violence represents a “distortion” of a great religion. (After suicide bombings in Baghdad, I grew used to hearing Iraqis say, “No Muslim would do this.”) Others want to lay the blame entirely on the theological content of Islam, as if other religions are more inherently peaceful—a notion belied by history as well as scripture. 

A religion is not just a set of texts but the living beliefs and practices of its adherents. Islam today includes a substantial minority of believers who countenance, if they don’t actually carry out, a degree of violence in the application of their convictions that is currently unique. Charlie Hebdo had been nondenominational in its satire, sticking its finger into the sensitivities of Jews and Christians, too—but only Muslims responded with threats and acts of terrorism. For some believers, the violence serves a will to absolute power in the name of God, which is a form of totalitarianism called Islamism—politics as religion, religion as politics. “Allahu Akbar!” the killers shouted in the street outside Charlie Hebdo. They, at any rate, know what they’re about.

These thoughts don’t offer a guide to mitigating the astonishing surge in Islamist killing around the world. Rage and condemnation don’t do the job, nor is it helpful to alienate the millions of Muslims who dislike what’s being done in the name of their religion. Many of them immediately condemned the attack on Charlie Hebdo, in tones of anguish particular to those whose deepest beliefs have been tainted. The answer always has to be careful, thoughtful, and tailored to particular circumstances. In France, it will need to include a renewed debate about how the republic can prevent more of its young Muslim citizens from giving up their minds to a murderous ideology—how more of them might come to consider Mustapha Ourrad, a Charlie Hebdo copy editor of Algerian descent who was among the victims, a hero. In other places, the responses have to be different, with higher levels of counter-violence.

But the murders in Paris were so specific and so brazen as to make their meaning quite clear. The cartoonists died for an idea. The killers are soldiers in a war against freedom of thought and speech, against tolerance, pluralism, and the right to offend—against everything decent in a democratic society. So we must all try to be Charlie, not just today but every day.

***

But if  we are to be Charlie then we must also mention the Jerusalem synagogue massacre and face the fact that other religions are more inherently peaceful since Moses, Buddha and Jesus were not warlords. 

Je suis CHARLIE

President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi : "We Must Revolutionize Our Religion"

`

Here is another translation by Michele Antaki 

I am referring here to the religious clerics.   We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before.  It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma[Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.  Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world.  It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

Sen Graham: The Iranian nuclear ambitions are the biggest threat to the world in general

'I want Israel to know: Congress has your back'

In an interview with Israel Hayom, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vows to make sure that the Iranian nuclear talks are "handled properly" • The U.S. should embargo anyone who boycotts Israel, and never give up on the peace process, he says.

By Boaz Bismuth

If you ask U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) whether the average Israeli citizen should believe the mainstream media's assertion that relations between Israel and the U.S. are in decline and that the decades-long friendship between them is unraveling, the answer would be a definitive no. If not stopped, he may even launch into a detailed monologue on how committed the entire U.S. Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, is to the Israeli cause.

"There's been some friction between the administration and the Israeli government but I would say that the friction that has reared its head at times is not the strongest indicator of the relationship," Graham, 59, says. "I think the U.S.-Israel relationship's anchor tenant is the Congress."

He says there is nothing preventing the U.S. from standing by Israel while simultaneously supporting nuclear talks with Iran (without lifting sanctions), the way he does, in efforts to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. Or while supporting U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in his efforts to jumpstart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. On the latter, he makes sure to point out that "the United Nations is not a good venue for Israel when it comes to the peace process." This during the same week that the U.N. actually rejected the Palestinian proposal for statehood.

Q: So what is the average Israeli citizen to think about relations between Israel and the U.S.?

"Presidents come and go. [George H.W.] Bush 41's administration had problems with Israel's policies [led by then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir]. In business terms, the anchor tenant is the Congress.

"There's wide bipartisan support in a couple of areas: that the peace process should not be turned over to the United Nations. I sent a letter to the administration together with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) urging the administration to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution that would start getting involved with the peace process. The last thing in the world we should do is to avoid direct negotiations.

"Secondly, there's a lot of bipartisan support for the idea that sanctions against Iran brought them to the table, and the Iranians need to understand that the sanctions are not going away, unless we get a deal that we all can live with."

How else does Congress' support for Israel come into play?

"When it comes to military assistance, economic assistance, Congress is firmly in Israel's camp. There is absolutely no support in any segment of American political life to restrict aid to Israel. There is absolutely no support for the idea of sanctioning Israel over the settlement issue.

"Sen. Schumer and I are planning to introduce a Hamas sanctions bill that would sanction companies that do business with, or countries that support Hamas, we view it as a terrorist organization. We passed one resolution after another during the recent conflict with Hamas in Gaza supporting Israel's right to defend itself, applauding Israel's efforts to restrict civilian casualties and condemning Hamas efforts to inflict as much violence as possible."

You mentioned the need for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

"The Palestinian initiatives to gain statehood at the United Nations without first negotiating a peace agreement with Israel are going to be met with a lot of bipartisan resistance. I think that there is a lot of support on both sides of the aisle to make sure that the U.N. is put on notice that if they give membership status to the Palestinians, any subdivision of the U.N. that recognizes the Palestinians as a state, their funding would be terminated. We did that with UNESCO."

Despite his clear tone, Sen. Graham makes sure to clarify that "I just want the Israeli people to know that Congress does have your back. I am by no means anti-Palestinian. I am pro-Israel and I want to help the Palestinian people with their legitimate ambitions."

He also reiterates that "there will be a lot of bipartisan opposition to any effort by the Palestinians to use the International Criminal Court in the Hague against the Israel Defense Forces."

In Graham's view, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the key issue, and the most urgent problem at this time is the Iranian nuclear threat.

"The Iranian nuclear ambitions are the biggest threat to the world in general," he says. "Israel needs to be reassured that Congress will be there in an appropriate way. I can assure you that the Republican control of Senate and the House will be pushing measures to make sure that the Iranian nuclear negotiations are handled properly, that sanctions are reimposed if the Iranians walk away from the table or if they cheat on any deal."

According to the New York Times, the White House is not committed to bringing an Iranian deal, should one be reached, to Congress for approval. How will you react if they do bypass Congress?

"They seem to want our approval when it comes to operations in Syria and Iraq. We, the Congress, created the sanctions, and we should have a say on whether the deal justifies lifting the sanctions. I don't know how this will turn out, but I think there will be a strong bipartisan vote in favor of the idea that any deal between the P5+1 [and Iran] should come before Congress before the sanctions are lifted. I can't think of a more important decision that the world will make in 2015 than how to handle the nuclear ambitions of the ayatollahs in Iran.

"Islamic State and al-Qaida and radical Islam are a threat to our way of life. The Arab world is beginning to see radical Islam as a threat to their way of life as well. There is an opportunity here for the United States, Europe, the Israelis and Arab states to work together against two common enemies: radical Islam and the nuclear ambitions of the ayatollahs in Tehran."

With an emphasis on Iran?

"I would like to see a peaceful end to their program. I don't mind the Iranians having a nuclear power program for peaceful purposes, but I am very concerned about giving them an enrichment capability. Fifteen nations have nuclear power programs but they do not enrich uranium. That's why I want any deal to come before Congress for our vote and approval. I fear a North Korea outcome.

"The last time the world tried to regulate or control a rogue regime's nuclear ambitions was North Korea. Republicans and Democrats both bought into the idea that you could allow the North Koreans a small enrichment program and the U.N. would control the outcome. Well, it didn't work. They broke out. They have nuclear weapons."

Won't all this overshadow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while claims continue to be made that the settlements are the biggest obstacle standing in the way of peace?

"The rockets are not being fired because of settlements. The questions that need to be answered is, what is the source of the violence? What is Hamas' reason for firing the rockets? Land for peace did not end well when it comes to Gaza. At the end of the day, the source of the [Palestinian] violence is the existence of the Jewish state, not the settlements. I believe that Hamas' agenda is not a two-state solution but rather a one-state solution.

Europe doesn't seem to see it that way. Anti-Semitism is mounting, in contrast with the U.S. where Jews are not afraid to wear a kippah and go to synagogue.

"This issue perplexes me. The European hostility toward Israel is growing. How will it manifest itself? I could see a situation where you have non-tariff trade barriers. There will not be an embargo explicitly leveled against Israel but they will use other means to isolate Israel.

"I think part of it is due to a larger Muslim population throughout Europe that has not been able to assimilate. The Europeans are having a hard time getting their Muslim populations integrated into society, so one of the easy ways for them to deal with their domestic problems is to beat on Israel."

What is your main concern?

"I worry about where this is going. America needs to be ready and willing to push back against any European nation or business that would embargo Israel. If you embargo Israel, we will embargo you.

"I feel very strongly about this. The common values that the U.S. and Israel share, and the common enemies we share, obligate us to speak up and be protectors of the only democracy in the region. If Israel fails, God help us all."

Graham is also interested in Israeli politics. Ahead of Israel's March 17 elections, he tries to analyze the trends. Among other things, he talks about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he met this week: "I met a very confident man who understands and is very comfortable with who he is and what he believes."

About the elections, Graham says that "my job is not to decide who will govern Israel. My job is to be a friend of Israel in a fashion that is consistent with U.S. interests. It is in the United States' strategic, economic and national security interest to align ourselves with Israel.

"The relationship is not based on personalities. It is based on shared values and common enemies. I told every potential prime minister candidate that I will be the chairman of the foreign assistance account and I will do everything I can to make sure that the economic assistance we provide to Israel continues."

In addition to Netanyahu, you met with three potential candidates who are vying for the prime minister's seat (Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, Isaac Herzog). If one of them was at Israel's helm instead of Netanyahu, would things be different with the American president?

"I'm not a psychologist, but I do know that President Obama is seen as a distant figure in American politics. One of the complaints that his critics level at him is that he doesn't engage Congress. He is not hands-on. There are very few political leaders that I would want to go to a movie with. This is a business and the relationship is not based on whether you want to go see a movie together, but on whether you see the world the same. Israel is a democracy, and if America doesn't stand up for democracy, who will?

"The frustration that the president may have with the prime minister, and vice versa, does not define the relationship. These things have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. All I can tell the people of Israel is that the U.S. Congress is firmly in your camp.

"The personality of potential prime ministers may matter to some extent, but Iran's nuclear ambitions need to be controlled, and I don't think there is much difference among those running for office about Iran. All the candidates see the Iranian nuclear ambition as an existential threat to Israel.

"I found a common agreement among the candidates that direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians should be the way forward, not turning the process over to the United Nations. When it comes to the major themes, there is a lot of agreement. The personality differences are being overstated. The relationship is strong because the foundation is that the American people, as a body politic, respect, admire and love Israel."

As someone who specializes in foreign affairs, where do you think Obama's foreign policy is going after six years in the White House?

"I think Obama tried to not be President [George W.] Bush. I think he believed that Bush was too much of a cowboy who was involved in too many situations. Obama believes that the war in Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity. Obama approached Iran with an open hand, not a clenched fist, but I think that his 'leading from behind' model has not served our national security interests well. What you see is that after six years, there are more radical Islamic organizations than there were before 9/11, holding more territory, more safe havens, more money and more resources with which to strike the U.S. and our allies.

"I think American foreign policy should be re-evaluated. The campaign promise that Obama made to withdraw all troops from Iraq should have been modified based on sound military advice. One of the contributing factors for the rise of ISIS was our withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and I hope that we don't make the same mistake in Afghanistan.

"President Bush made his fair share of mistakes, but he corrected. I believe that the reason we are now going back into Iraq is because Obama was too focused on a campaign promise and didn't adjust based on reality on the ground. I fear that we want a deal with the Iranians too badly."

The Middle East is not an easy court to play on.

"One of the first things that you have to do in the Middle East is to gain respect. You have to enter negotiations from a position of strength. Congress is much more in the mindset that ISIS is a direct threat to the U.S.; there is more suspicion in Congress about dealing with the Iranian nuclear program than there probably is in the administration. In two years we will change presidents but in the meantime there is a historic opportunity for Arab states, Israel and the United States to jointly work to defeat radical Islam. The number one thing that Obama has to get right is how the negotiations with Iran end. It is his biggest opportunity to have a meaningful legacy."

What about the peace process?

"I don't see the peace process moving forward any time soon. I think we should always try. My number one goal in 2015 is to keep nuclear weapons out of the Middle East."

Out of all countries in the Middle East?

"Yes. It is a commonly held view that Israel has nuclear weapons. The thing that has always intrigued me about that is that not one Arab state that I know of has ever felt the need to get a nuclear weapon of their own because Israel has one. They are very confident that Israel will not misuse that capability. They didn't feel threatened enough to get a nuclear weapon of their own. That cannot be said of the Sunni Arab response to the Shiite Persian Iranians. People in the U.S. don't understand that as much as they should."

Can you explain?

"The Sunni Arab states are telling me privately and somewhat publicly that whatever we give the Iranians, they will want as well because they don't trust the Iranians. The Sunni Arab nations will not allow a nuclear capability to exist in the hands of the Iranians without having it themselves. This is my biggest fear: A bad outcome in the negotiations with Iran could set the Middle East on the path to a nuclear arms race."

Speaking of Sunni Arab states, is anything happening behind the scenes in Saudi Arabia?

"One of the reasons that oil prices are so low right now is that the Saudis want to make sure the Iranians suffer. They feel the sanctions are breaking apart and they want to punish Russia for helping [Syrian President Bashar] Assad. Syria is a vexing problem that has to be solved, but I would put that second to the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

"I do sense that in the last engagement with Hamas, for the most part they were isolated, except of Qatar and Turkey. Now we are seeing Qatar beginning to change. There is definitely realignment in the Arab world regarding radical Islam. There is an opportunity here to do something new and different: to create a regional coalition of Israelis, Arabs -- reasonable people -- to contain radical Islam and deal with Iranian nuclear ambitions. This is an opportunity to do something historic."

Looking ahead to the end of Obama's term, the question has to be asked: Whom will Graham and his friends support in the 2016 presidential election, and can their candidate win?

"The Democrats seem to feel very comfortable with Hillary Clinton, so if she runs she'll probably win the nomination and she will be a strong candidate. For a Republican to win the White House we have to perform better with minorities. It is important that the Republican Party show a willingness to solve the immigration problem in a rational way.

"I think foreign policy will be a very big issue in 2016. The Republican candidate needs to articulate why America needs to lead. When America withdraws from leadership, vacuums are filled and the world becomes a much more dangerous place. They will have to articulate that America is the leader of the free world, it is in our interest to do that.

What will the Republicans have to focus on in order to win the next election?

"We will have to offer an alternative to Obama on foreign policy that is stronger, but measured. We will have to convince the middle class that big government is not your friend, but your enemy. We need to convince them that Obamacare has blown up in people's faces. But it is not enough to criticize his approach. We need to prove to people that we can create a health care system that is more affordable, more sustainable, with better access and more private sector centered."

What will the key issues be in the 2016 election?

"The debate in 2016 will be about how to defend our values, ourselves and our friends in an increasingly hostile world. How to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of radical Islamists. I believe the best way to do that is to engage the world, not to withdraw from it.

"But if we don't show progress on immigration, it will be virtually impossible to win the White House, because we are losing the Hispanic community."

Do you think that the Democrats secured a victory by renewing ties with Cuba, thereby winning over the Hispanic community?

"No, I don't think so. The idea of normalized relations with Cuba? Sign me up. But the Castro brothers [former president Fidel and current president Raul] did nothing to deserve it. Iran is watching this administration and I worry about the signal we're sending. The Castro brothers got everything they wanted for decades, and democracy got very little in return. I think it was a bad deal. I don't mind one day normalizing relations with Cuba, but you have to show progress. If we're not for democracy, who will be? If we're not for freedom, who will be?

"That's why the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is unique, because Israel is unique. There are no Arab democracies. We are going to be a friend to those who embrace tolerance and freedom and allow people to express themselves and reach their goals as individuals. If we're not a friend of that, who will be? When you abandon those who seek those freedoms, you will one day lose yours."