Whither American Jewry?

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

During a recent speaking tour in Canada, MK Nahman Shai (Kadima) shocked some of his hosts when he said that his primary goal in politics today is to bring down the Netanyahu government. Although indelicate, Shai's comment was not surprising. Kadima is in the opposition. And like all opposition parties in all parliamentary democracies, the primary goal of its members is to bring down the government so that they can take power. Given that this is the case, it is unsurprising that until this week, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni tried to blame Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for US President Barack Obama's hostility towards Israel. Far more newsworthy than her criticism of Netanyahu was her public rebuke of Obama this week for his attempt to strong-arm Israel into barring Jewish construction in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood.

On Wednesday Livni said, "Gilo is part of the Israeli consensus... and it is important to understand this for all discussions of borders in any future agreement."

Indeed. There is an Israeli consensus. The Israeli consensus regarding Jerusalem is based among other things on the understanding that no nation can give up its capital city and survive.

Livni wants to be prime minister one day. For that to happen, Israel must survive until she wins an election. And Israel will not long survive if it surrenders its right to its capital.

One might have thought that American Jews could be counted on to stand by Israel on this issue. But then, one would be wrong.

FOR THE past six years, Republican Senator Sam Brownback has repeatedly submitted a bill to the US Senate that, if passed into law, would revoke the presidential waiver that has allowed successive presidents to refuse to implement the 1995 law requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. This year Brownback co-sponsored his bill with Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman. As luck would have it, the Brownback-Lieberman bill was submitted two weeks before Obama launched his latest campaign against Jewish building in Jerusalem.

In the 1980s and 1990s, American Jews lobbied hard to get the embassy moved to Jerusalem. But now some American Jewish leaders recoil at the very notion. In response to the Brownback-Lieberman Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 2009, the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle published an editorial last Friday titled, "Bad move, Senator Brownback."

The newspaper's editors condemned their retiring senator and called his bill, "a cheap, grandstanding move by a conservative Republican on his way out the door, playing to Jews and Christian Zionists while trying to throw a monkey wrench into President Obama's diplomatic spokes."

According to Sen. Brownback's office, the paper never had any criticism of the same bill when he submitted it during president George W. Bush's tenure in office. But now, as Israel's government and opposition stand shoulder to shoulder protecting Israeli control over Jerusalem from assaults by Obama, Kansas City's Jewish newspaper's editorial board willingly bucked what it acknowledged are the wishes of "Jews and Christian Zionists," in order to stand by their man in the Oval Office.

Some of Israel's most high-profile supporters in the US are conservative talk radio and television hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. But rather than thank them for their support, the Anti-Defamation League, which is supposed to be dedicated first and foremost to defending Jews from anti-Semitism, published a special report this week where it insinuated that they cultivate a climate of hatred and paranoia which could endanger Jews among others.

The ADL report, "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," dubbed Beck the "fearmonger-in-chief," for his opposition to Obama's domestic and foreign policies. It similarly castigated the so-called "tea party" movement which has attracted millions of Americans opposed to high taxes, and the townhall meetings this past summer where millions of Americans peacefully argued against Obama's healthcare policies.

The ADL's decision to issue a special report attacking Obama's political opponents and insinuating that Americans who oppose him cultivate an environment in which paranoid and dangerous fringe groups feel comfortable operating is strange given that the ADL never put out a similar report against parallel anti-Bush movements. As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted this week, the ADL was more likely to see overt and vicious anti-Semitic statements and placards being waved around at anti-Iraq war rallies than at anti-Obama healthcare and tax policy demonstrations.

Ironically, the ADL has a specific institutional interest in combating leftist paranoia. A recent movie attacking the ADL called Defamation, by leftist, anti-Israel Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir, is currently hitting the film festival circuit in the US and Europe. A major hit among anti-Israel activists and regular anti-Semites on the Left and Right, Defamation accuses the ADL of exaggerating the Holocaust and anti-Semitism to justify what Shamir views as its nefarious aims. Apparently, tribal loyalty to the Left trumps the institutional interests of the ADL.

It certainly trumps the interests of New York University's Hillel director Rabbi Yehuda Sarna. As James Taranto reported on Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, this week Sarna called for NYU's Jewish community to join NYU Muslims at a rally that both commemorated the massacre at Ft. Hood and denounced NYU professor Tunku Varadarajan for writing a column in Forbes magazine. In his article, Varadarajan committed the crime of stating the obvious fact that Ft. Hood terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was motivated by his Islamic beliefs when he shouted Allahu Akbar and shot some 40 people, killing 13.

Given that people and groups like al-Qaida and Hamas that share Hasan's views assert that all Jews should be killed, it would seem that the good rabbi would not feel the need to attack professors who point out that Hasan's views are dangerous. But then, it is no longer strange to see Hillels on American university campuses behaving in a manner that is not in line with what might be considered the interests of either the American Jewish community or the Jewish people as a whole.

Take UC Berkeley's Hillel center, for example. Since Ken Kramarz, Hillel's regional director for Northern California, started his job in June 2007, Berkeley's Hillel has adopted a hostile view towards Judaism and Israel. As pro-Israel community activist Natan Nestel notes, in the past year alone, Hillel held a dance party on Yom Hashoah, and it held a Cinco de Mayo barbecue on Remembrance Day for Fallen IDF Soldiers. It has also failed to hold community Seders for the past two years. Instead, last year, its members hung signs in the Hillel building declaring, "Matza sucks."

Beyond its derogatory treatment of Jewish and Israeli holidays, Berkeley's Hillel has allowed an extremist group called Students for Justice for Palestine to participate in its organizational meetings.

SJP calls for Israel's destruction through unlimited Arab immigration. It also advocates for UC Berkeley to divest from Israel. Edgar Bronfman, Hillel's International Chairman, has characterized SJP umbrella organization as "anti-Israel... anti-Semitic [and] alarming..."

No doubt owing in part to Berkeley Hillel's decision to permit SJP members to spread their propaganda at its organizational meetings, Hillel's student leaders and members participated in SJP's Israel Apartheid Week this past March.

The student meeting that SJP participated in at Berkeley's Hillel was sponsored by a group called "Kesher Enoshi."

This group describes itself as "a progressive Jewish community that engages directly with Israeli civil society. We do this by educating ourselves and others about the day-to-day struggles of people in Israel by making direct connections with human rights/social change organizations in Israel, linking their struggles with those on campus and in the wider community, and building a community of active participants in social change in Israel."

This mission statement, which says nothing about Zionism, sounds an awful lot like the goal of the New Israel Fund. This month, three Arab "civil society" groups supported to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the NIF published a poster depicting an IDF soldier touching the breast of an Arab woman with the caption, "Her husband needs a permit to touch her, the occupation penetrates her life every day."

The poster was issued to publicize a conference in Haifa called "My Land, Space, Body and Sexuality: Palestinians in the Shadow of the Wall," whose purpose was to demonize Israel using post-modern jargon.

Unlike Hillel, NIF is widely recognized as a far-left fringe group. But as Arab Israeli NGOs use the dollars of American Jewish NIF donors to advance their "civil society" programs aimed at delegitimizing Israel's right to exist, the Reform Movement - which is not a fringe group - decided unanimously two weeks ago to criticize and pressure Israel for what its leadership views as Israel's unfair treatment of its Arab citizens.

As this column goes to press, if its board members don't cancel their meeting, the San Francisco Jewish Federation will be grudgingly voting on a resolution that would prohibit it from sponsoring events that denigrate or demonize Israel or supporting organizations that partner with organizations that call for divestment, sanctions or boycotts against Israel.

The resolution follows the Jewish Federation of San Francisco's decision to co-sponsor the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival last summer. That festival featured Shamir's Defamation, and the egregiously anti-Israel film Rachel, about the late pro-terror activist Rachel Corrie. The film festival was also sponsored by the anti-Zionist Jewish Voices for Peace group, the American Friends Service Committee, which hosted a dinner for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York last year, the Rachel Corrie Foundation and other radical anti-Israel groups.

If the vote takes place, it will be a great victory for a small group of local Jewish activists. These individual Jews have banded together because they are deeply disturbed by the federation's willingness to use community funds to advance events whose basic message is that Israel should be destroyed.

KADIMA'S INTERESTS as a political party place it at loggerheads with the government on almost every issue. But its leaders this week were rational enough to recognize that they must support Israel's sovereign rights in Jerusalem despite the fact that doing so placed it on the government's side. Their display of sanity is a clear indication that Israeli society today is healthy and capable of meeting the challenges it faces.

It is clear that most American Jews believe that it is in their interests to support the Democratic Party and the Left. But like the anti-establishment Jewish activists in San Francisco, American Jews ought to realize that on issues like Israel's survival and their own survival as Jews they ought to stand by their interests even when they seem to clash with their leftist and Democratic loyalties. And they ought to stand by their friends on these issues, even when their friends are conservative Republicans.

It can only be hoped that the San Francisco pro-Israel upstarts' campaign against the federation was successful yesterday. Then, too, if the American Jewish community is to long survive, these San Francisco Jewish activists' demand that their community support Israel's right to exist must be joined by their fellow American Jews throughout the country.

caroline@carolineglick.com

_________________________________________________________________________________________
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1258624595737&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFul

Click Here to Read More...

Renouncing Islamism: To the brink and back again

A generation of British Islamists have been trained in Afghanistan to fight a global jihad. But now some of those would-be extremists have had a change of heart. Johann Hari finds out what made them give up the fight

Monday, 16 November 2009

British muslim Maajid Nawaz is the country's most famous former Islamist fanatic

Ever since I started meeting jihadis, I have been struck by one thing – their Britishness. I am from the East End of London, and at some point in the past decade I became used to hearing a hoarse and angry whisper of jihadism on the streets where I live. Bearded young men stand outside the library calling for "The Rule of God" and "Death to Democracy".

In the mosques across the city, I hear a fringe of young men talk dreamily of flocking to Afghanistan to "resist". Yet this whisper never has an immigrant accent. It shares my pronunciations, my cultural references, and my national anthem. Beneath the beards and the burqas, there is an English voice.

The East End is a cramped grey maze of council estates, squashed between the glistening palaces of the City to one side and the glass towers of Docklands to the other. You can feel the financial elites staring across at each other, indifferent to this concrete lump of poverty dumped in-between by the forgotten tides of history. This place has always been the swirling first stop for immigrants to this country like my father – a place where new arrivals can huddle together as they adjust to the cold rain and lukewarm liberalism of Britain.

The Muslims who arrive here every day from Bangladesh, or India, or Somalia say they find the presence of British Islamists bizarre. They have come here to work and raise their children in stability and escape people like them. No: these Islamists are British-born. They make up 7 per cent of the British Muslim population, according to a Populous poll (with the other 93 percent of Muslims disagreeing). Ever since the 7/7 suicide bombings, carried out by young Englishmen against London, the British have been squinting at this minority of the minority and trying to figure out how we incubated a very English jihadism.

But every attempt I have made up to now to get into their heads – including talking to Islamists for weeks at their most notorious London hub, Finsbury Park mosque, immediately after 9/11 – left me feeling like a journalistic failure. These young men speak to outsiders in a dense and impenetrable code of Koranic quotes and surly jibes at both the foreign policy crimes of our Government and the freedom of women and gays. Any attempt to dig into their psychology – to ask honestly how this swirl of thoughts led them to believe suicide bombing their own city is right – is always met with a resistant sneer, and yet more opaque recitations from the Koran. Their message is simple: we don't do psychology or sociology. We do Allah, and Allah alone. Why do you have this particular reading of the Koran, when most Muslims don't? Because we are right, and they are infidel. Full stop. It was an investigatory dead end.

But then, a year ago, I began to hear about a fragile new movement that could just hold the answers we journalists have failed to find up to now. A wave of young British Islamists who trained to fight – who cheered as their friends bombed this country – have recanted. Now they are using everything they learned on the inside, to stop the jihad.

Seventeen former radical Islamists have "come out" in the past 12 months and have begun to fight back. Would they be able to tell me the reasons that pulled them into jihadism, and out again? Could they be the key to understanding – and defusing – Western jihadism? I have spent three months exploring their world and befriending their leading figures. Their story sprawls from forgotten English seaside towns to the jails of Egypt's dictatorship and the icy mountains of Afghanistan – and back again.

I. The Imam

My journey began when, sitting in one of the grotty greasy spoon cafés that fill the East End, I heard a young woman in hijab mention that the imam of one of the local mosques was a jihadi who had fought in Afghanistan, but is now facing death threats from the very men he once fought alongside. His "crime"? To renounce his past and call for "a secular Islam".

After a series of phone calls, Usama Hassan cautiously agrees to talk. I meet him outside his little mosque in Leyton. It sits in the middle of a run-down sprawl of pound stores ("Everything only £1!!!"), halal kebab shops, and boarded-up windows at the edge of the East End.

Usama is a big, broad bear of a man in a black blazer and wire-rimmed glasses. He greets me with a hefty handshake; he has a rolled-up newspaper under his arm. He takes me upstairs to a pale-green prayer room. This building was once a factory, then a cinema; now, with Saudi money, it is a Wahabi mosque. Men are kneeling silently towards Mecca, rising and bending in reverential waves. "On Fridays, there are Islamists who stand outside and warn worshippers that their prayers won't count if they are led by me," he says as we squat in the corner, "because I'm supposedly an apostate. A fake imam." He looks away. "I get phone calls late at night. Threats. It's painful. You see, I was like them once."

And so Usama begins to tell me his story. He arrived in Tottenham in North London in the mid- 1970s, when he was five years old. His Pakistani father was sent here by the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, which aims to spread its puritan desert strain of Islam to every nation. His family led a locked-down life, trying to adhere to Saudi principles in a semi-detached house in the English suburbs. "We weren't allowed music or TV or any contact with the opposite sex," he says. "We were very sheltered. I didn't go out a great deal." By the age of 10, he had memorised every word of the Koran in its original Arabic.

He had a strong sense of the Britain beyond his walls – the Britain where I was growing up – as a hostile, violent place. "You have to understand – it was the time of the Tottenham riots. It felt violent in the streets," he says. "I got used to expecting white people to use the Paki word. We used to have a fear of skinheads the whole time."

But Usama was offered a scholarship to the heart of the English elite – the City of London Boys' School, where he could practice cricket at Lord's. He bonded with the Jews at the school as outsiders and supporters of Tottenham Hotspur football team. He still speaks like the public schoolboy he was – in long, confident sentences.

Some berobed men are staring at us, so he takes me down to the mosque's office. "At that time, being a Muslim meant being an Islamist. It was taken for granted," he says. So when he was 13, he joined an Islamic fundamentalist organisation called Jimas. At big sociable conferences every weekend, they were told: you don't feel at home in Britain, but you can't go "home" to a country you have never visited. So we have a third identity for you – a pan-national Islamism that knows no boundaries and can envelop you entirely.

It sounds familiar. This is the identity I hear shouted by young Islamists throughout the East End: I might sound like you, but I am nothing like you. I am Other. I belong elsewhere – in a place that does not yet exist, but that I will create, with my fists and my fury.

Jimas told their members they were part of a persecuted billion, being blown up and locked down across the world. "It was a bit like a gang," he says. "And we had a strong sense of being under siege. It was all a conspiracy against Islam, and we were the guardians of Islam. That's how we saw ourselves ... A lot of my friends would wear the army boots, and carry knives." I realise now that for a nebbish intellectual boy, it must have felt intoxicating to be told he was part of a military movement that would inevitably conquer history.

For his summer vacation in 1990 – as a break from studying physics at Cambridge University – he went to wage jihad on the battlefields of Afghanistan. He arrived with two friends from Jimas at an Arab-run training camp in the mountains of Kunar in Eastern Afghanistan. It was a sparse collection of tents and weapons left behind by the CIA in the snow and blood. They spent the days running up and down mountains learning how to fire Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers. "When you fire a Kalashnikov, it echoes all around the mountain," he says. "After this boring life, you feel the adrenaline pumping."

The Arab fighters wore four layers of clothes and still shivered. They had never seen snow before, so every now and then, they would lay down their weapons to have a long, gleeful snow-fight. Once they had all learned how to kill, they were taken to the front line to shell the communist hold-outs. "One of the shells landed very close to us, about 100ft away." He fired in retaliation. "I hope we never killed anybody," he says quickly.

Usama tells his story fluently and fast, and rides over these difficult moments – a killing – like a speed-bump. He thought an earthly paradise would rise from the rubble he was creating – and remake the world in its image. "The expectation was that Afghanistan would become this dream Islamic state," he adds, "which would then spread all over the world." He returned to Cambridge University determined to convert as many of his fellow Muslim students as possible to Wahabism. "It was relatively easy to persuade them," he says. "People were looking for group identity. They were very confused: what does it mean to live as a Muslim in society like this? We had easy answers. Go back to the original sources, and [follow it] literally."

At the centre of this vision was the need to rebuild the caliphate – the Islamic state under sharia law persisted from the time of Mohamed until 1924. "It was a very dreamy, romantic idea," he says. "If anybody asked questions about how it would work, we would just say – the people that will make it happen will be so saintly, they will make the right decisions." It was the old promise of the revolutionary down the ages: there would be a single revolutionary heave in which all political conflict would dissolve forever, and a conflict-free paradise would be born.

Usama's job was to persuade people to go to fight in Afghanistan and, from the mid-1990s, Bosnia. He was one of the best – and he says, again very fast, that one of his successes was to radicalise Omar Sheikh, the man now on death row in Pakistan for beheading Daniel Pearl. "I set him off on his path to Jihad," he says. He looks a little excited, and a little appalled. The first thing he remembers about Sheikh – who he met at a Jimas study circle – is the fresh lemonade he made in his university rooms. "It was delicious. And we drank and drank. My first impression of him was that he was a clean-shaven, well-educated British public schoolboy. A lovely bloke."

Sheikh was furious about the massacres of Muslims in Bosnia, and demanded the study group lay down their Koranic debates and act. Usama told him: "If you're really serious, you can go and fight. I know people who have gone and fought. I can introduce you to them." And so his journey to torturing and murdering a Jewish journalist – simply because he was a Jew – began.

Usama doesn't want to talk about him any more: he changes the subject, and I have to bring him back to it. "Nothing is proved against him. He's fighting extradition," he says, after a long pause. "But ... " He has an awkward smile. An embarrassed smile. He quickly carries on speaking, ushering us away from Daniel Pearl.

People come in and out of the mosque office, and Usama lowers his voice a little. He says that as he was persuading young men to go and kill, he noticed something disconcerting: the Afghan mujahedin he had fought for were not building a paradise on earth after all. Instead, they were merrily slaying each other. "This great, glorious Islamic revolution – it didn't happen, at all ... they just killed each other."

As he watched the news of the Luxor massacre in Egypt or Hamas suicide-bombings of pizzerias in Tel Aviv, "It just became more and more difficult to justify that." He found himself thinking about the Jewish friends he had made at school. "They were just like me – human beings. And we had a lot in common. The dietary laws, and the identity issues, and the fear of racism." As he heard the growing Islamist chants at demonstrations – "The Jews are the enemy of God," they yelled – something, he says, began to sag inside him.

The stifled language Usama is using to describe his past reminds me of a recovering alcoholic trying to piece together his fragmented memories and understand who he was. When he talks about anti-Semitism, he is clearly ashamed; he giggles almost randomly, looks away, and looks back at me with a puckered, disgusted look.

We have talked enough; we arrange to meet again. The second time I see him, in a café, he seems more guarded, as if he revealed too much. He shifts the conversation onto theology – the area where, I discover, every ex-jihadi feels happiest. He says the 7/7 bombings detonated a theological bomb in his mind: "How could this be justified? I began to wonder if parts of the Koran are actually metaphor, and parts of the Koran were actually just revealed for their time: seventh-century Arabia."

Once the foundation stone of literalism was broken, he had to remake the concepts that had led him to Islamism one-by-one. "Jihad has many levels in Islam – you have the internal struggle to be the best person you can be. But all we had been taught is military jihad. Today I regard any kind of campaigning for truth, for justice, as a type of Jihad." He signed up to the pacifist Movement for the Abolition of War. He redefined martyrdom as anybody who died in an honourable cause. "There were martyrs on 9/11," he says. "They were the firefighters – not the hijackers."

He says he found himself making arguments he once thought unthinkable – like arguing that women should be allowed to show their hair in public. Jihadi websites run by his old friends started to declare him an apostate, a crime that under their interpretation of sharia is punishable by death.

There have been demands that he should be ousted from the mosque, but his father is its founder and chief imam, so he is protected for now. He says – leaning forward, his voice losing its public school composure – that the threats have only made him more sure of the need for reform. He has started to call for Muslims to abandon the "medieval interpretation of the sharia" that calls for the killing of apostates and homosexuals. He has said there should be a two-state solution in the Middle East. He has reached the conclusion that evolution is "a scientific fact".

And for the first time in his life, Usama has begun to allow himself to listen to music. "I was taught to believe it shouldn't be allowed. But now, I listen on the car radio." I ask him what music he likes, and he lets out a high-pitched giggle. "You'll get me killed!" he says. "Everything in the charts." He gives me some names, but then calls later and asks me not to print them: "That would be a step too far."

As the threats against him rattle across the internet, I like to think of this as my last image of Usama – a 39-year-old man slowly slipping off the Puritan chains in which he has been bound and finally, in his fourth decade, beginning to dance, as he is circled by the angry ghosts of his younger self.

II. The Prisoner

The most famous former Islamist fanatic in Britain is Maajid Nawaz – a high-cheekboned 31-year-old who walks with a self-confident strut. I make an appointment with him through his personal assistant, and he strides into the hotel lobby where we have arranged to meet in an immaculate and expensive suit. He seems to blend perfectly into the multi-ethnic overclass who use expensive hotels like this as their base; I have to remind myself with a jolt that, not so long ago, he was caught up in a murder in London, helped to plot a coup in nuclear-tipped Pakistan, and served three years in the most notorious prison in Egypt.

Maajid begins to tell me his story as if he is delivering a PowerPoint presentation. He has offered it before, and he will offer it again; it is his job now. He has distilled it into a script. When I try to poke beneath it with questions, he seems irritated, and returns to the comfortable form of words he has established as soon as he can.

His journey towards Islamism began, he says, at the sandy edge of Essex, in the dilapidated coastal town of Southend-on-Sea. It is an old, elegant Victorian resort town drooping under a century of disrepair, reduced to a smattering of tatty arcades and a long, neglected pier that reaches into a filthy sea. Maajid's parents were mildly prosperous first-generation immigrants from Pakistan. "My upbringing was completely liberal from the start," he says. "In fact, I didn't even have a Muslim identity." He went to mosque only once, when he was 11, and an imam hit him with a stick for speaking too loudly.

Asian families were a rarity there in the 1980s, but he had a large group of white friends and felt no different to them. Yet when Maajid turned 14, a strange political shift was taking place in Southend. It began – for him, at least – one evening when Maajid, his brother and his friends were at the funfair, leaping on and off the rides and eating candy floss. A group of young skinheads spotted them and started making Nazi salutes and shouting "Seig Heil".

Maajid and his mates "ran the hell out of there", but a white van pulled up and seven skinheads piled out, wielding machetes. They cornered Maajid and one of his white friends. To his astonishment, they turned to the friend and stabbed him repeatedly with a carving knife, shrieking: "Traitor! Traitor! Race traitor!" They drove off, leaving Maajid covered in his friend's blood.

The story of what happened next is buried in yellowing cuts from the local newspapers. A pack of unemployed young men who had been kicking around on Southend's beaches had joined the Neo-Nazi group Combat 18, named after Adolf Hitler's initials: A is "1" in the alphabet, H is "8". They targeted Maajid's friends one by one for befriending a "Paki". Over the next two years, three of his friends were stabbed, and one was smashed up with a hammer. Maajid began to distance himself from his white friends, out of guilt. He drifted instead towards a group of young black people who were also being terrorised by Combat 18. They would meet at house parties and marinate themselves in hip-hop, Public Enemy, and cannabis fumes. He says: "Feeling totally rejected by mainstream society, we were looking for an alternative identity, and we found the perfect, cool, fashionable identity through listening to hip-hop and speeches by Malcolm X."

One day, his brother came home bearing a sheath of leaflets saying Muslims were being massacred all over the world, from India to Bosnia to Southend. He had stumbled on a stall in the High Street manned by a group called Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). They said he would never be accepted in irreparably corrupt, decadent and racist Britain: Combat 18 were the snarl hidden behind every net curtain. Western society was merely a purgatory for Muslims, and the only escape could be to migrate to a renewed and perfect caliphate somewhere in Arabia. He joined up that day.

Maajid climbed the ranks of HT fast, because – with his easy eloquence – he was especially good at recruiting new members. After a year, they sent him to live in London and conquer a sixth form college. Newham College is a sprawling glass-and-concrete school for 16- to 19-year-olds in the most depressed slab of London. There, Maajid found himself in a majority-Muslim environment for the first time. "I was like somebody who has been craving chocolate for a long time who ends up in Belgium. I thought: these are my people. I knew exactly how to manipulate their grievances. And I did it. We took over that college."

We are served tea by the kind of effusive waitress who works in high-end London hotels. Maajid does not acknowledge her. He says it was "unbelievably easy" to recruit young Muslims to Islamism at that time. He would start with lectures that "broke down the concepts they had been told they should hold dear – like freedom and democracy", he says. It was only in the second or third talk, once humanism lay in rhetorical rubble, that he would announce: "God is in a better position to set those limits than you are, because you'd always contradict yourself, being an imperfect human." So then he would announce: "Let me tell you what God says."

When Maajid enrolled, there were hardly any girls wearing headscarves; by the time he was thrown out a year later, most of them were. The stand-alones were jeered at and harassed.

Maajid was elected President of the college's student union and he was prickling with a Messianic sense of mission. He saw Newham College as a microcosm of the changes that were swelling in the world. "It literally felt revolutionary. We had taken over the campus, and that we were soon to take over the world ... We really believed the caliphate would be established any day soon." On the school's open day for prospective pupils and parents, they staged a massive prayer demonstration. Dozens of them stood in the main hall, yelling to Allah for vengeance. "We wanted to show the parents that if you're sending your kids here, these are the people in charge," he says.

I ask if anybody was arguing for a more liberal form of Islam. Maajid laughs. "Absolutely not. No way. In fact, the only people who were young that were articulating any form of Islam were the Islamists."

The only substantial push-back came from rival religious groups – especially students with a Nigerian Christian background, known universally as "the blacks". There was a racist hysteria that they were muggers and rapists and "somebody had to stand up to them", Maajid says. "Along came us, these crusading Islamists, who didn't give a shit. We'd stand in front of them and say – we don't fear death, we don't fear you, we only fear God." Allah was in their gang, and they were invincible. Young jihadis from outside the college started to hang around there, to defend the Muslims from "the Christian niggers". A tall, aggressive recruit from Brixton called Saeed Nur was appointed as their "bodyguard". He intimidated everyone into silence.

The news reports from the time confirm what happened next. One afternoon, a row broke over the use of the college pool table, as Maajid stood watching. A Nigerian student wanted to push the Muslims off it, and began making derogatory remarks about Islam. Somebody called Saeed to "sort him out". As soon as he arrived, the Nigerian student pulled out a knife – and Saeed produced a Samurai blade and thrust it straight into the boy's chest. As he fell, the other Muslim students set on him with hammers and knives and pool cues. They beat him to death.

How did he feel about the victim? Did he think about his family? He prods the questions away with a grunt. Maajid says he felt "indifferent" to the victim, but was pleased "the Muslims prevailed in the end". He adds: "We were heroes in HT ranks." And he is back to his story. He doesn't want to retrieve his emotions.

He was expelled, and spent the next few years ascending the ranks of HT, while pretending to study at various colleges. But he wanted to be at the heart of the jihad – and in 1999 he found a way. Abdel Kalim Zaloom, the global leader of HT, issued a command from his hidden base somewhere in the Middle East. Pakistan had just unveiled its nuclear weapons to the world. Zaloom wanted them to seize Pakistan, so when the caliphate came it would be nuclear-tipped. Maajid enrolled at Punjab University as a cover – and jetted off to the country his parents had left a lifetime ago.

In the sprawling slum-strewn chaos of Karachi, Maajid found "the first crack in my ideological armour ... I thought – oh, my God. I had idealised Muslim societies, but the people here know less about Islam than we do. And look at how disorganised it is."

He met with a slew of junior Pakistani army officers who had been training at Sandhurst, Britain's elite officer training academy. "They seemed like quite decent, amiable chaps, who believed in our ideology," he says. They had been recruited by other members to HT, "and I told them to rise up the ranks of the army, and when we had an opportunity, to mount a coup and declare the caliphate in Pakistan."

And then, in the strangely bland CEO-speak these ex-Islamists often lapse into, he adds enthusiastically: "It was a very exciting project. We thought it would happen in the medium-term."

Maajid won't be drawn – not now, and not in our later conversations – on the details of this coup plot. Perhaps this is because he is worried about compromising his ability to visit Pakistan. The Pakistani military spokesmen say it's a lie. The officers were, Maajid says, quietly arrested by Pervez Musharraf's government in 2003, and are currently in prison. Maajid decided to move on to Egypt, and arrived to study in Alexandria on 10 September 2001. When he saw the news from New York City, he felt – that word again – "indifferent". HT technically opposed the attacks, on the grounds they were carried out by private individuals rather than by the army of a renewed caliphate. But Maajid says "There was a huge wave of internal sympathy for [Bin Laden], because he's an ideological comrade, isn't he?"

He started to recruit other students, as he had done so many times before. But it was harder. "Everyone hated the [unelected] government [of Hosni Mubarak], and the US for backing it," he says. But there was an inhibiting sympathy for the victims of 9/11 – until the Bush administration began to respond with Guantanamo Bay and bombs. "That made it much easier. After that, I could persuade people a lot faster."

Then, at 3am one morning, a cadre of soldiers smashed into Maajid's bedroom bearing machine guns and grenades. He was taken, blindfolded and bound, to an underground bunker below the state security offices in Cairo. There were around 50 other men penned in. For three days, he kneeled, and heard the men around him being tortured with electric cattle prods.

"I thought, 'This is something I have been mentally preparing for, for a long time. I knew this day would come,'" he says. On the third day, the guards dragged him into an interrogation room with another British HT member. They punched him in the face and whacked him with batons. They produced the cattle prod. Maajid told them they wouldn't dare to torture a British citizen. "So they took the cattle prod and began electrocuting my friend in front of my eyes."

The British Embassy called looking for its citizens. The interrogation stopped suddenly, and transferred them to prison. Maajid felt no gratitude. "All I thought was – why did it take them three days to find us? They obviously didn't care about the rights of Muslims." He laughs now – a cold laugh, at his former self.

In Mazratora Prison, Maajid was held in solitary confinement for thee months. It was a bare cell with no bed, no light, and no toilet: just a concrete box. Then he was taken out suddenly and told his trial for "propagation by speech and writing for any banned organisation" was beginning in the Supreme State Emergency Court. But Maajid's Islamist convictions were about to be challenged from two unexpected directions – the men who murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Amnesty International.

HT abandoned Maajid as a "fallen soldier" and barely spoke of him or his case. But when his family were finally allowed to see him, they told him he had a new defender. Although they abhorred his political views, Amnesty International said he had a right to free speech and to peacefully express his views, and publicised his case.

"I was just amazed," Maajid says. "We'd always seen Amnesty as the soft power tools of colonialism. So, when Amnesty, despite knowing that we hated them, adopted us, I felt – maybe these democratic values aren't always hypocritical. Maybe some people take them seriously ... it was the beginning of my serious doubts."

For the duration of the trial, he was placed in a cramped cell with 40 of Egypt's most famous political prisoners. There were row after row of beds with only a thin crack between them to inch through. Maajid was thrilled to discover two of the men who had conspired to murder Anwar Sadat – Omar Bayoumi and Dr Tauriq al Sawah – had recently been moved to this dank cell. "This is like meeting Che Guevara – these great forerunners and ideologues who I can now get the benefit of learning from," he says. But "they were very fatherly, and they had been spending all these years studying and learning. And they told me I had got my theology wrong".

After more than 20 years in prison, they had reconsidered their views. They told him he was false to believe there was one definitive, literal way to read the Koran. As they told it, in traditional Islam there were many differing interpretations of sharia, from conservative to liberal – yet there had been consensus around once principle: it was never to be enforced by a central authority. Sharia was a voluntary code, not a state law. "It was always left for people to decide for themselves which interpretation they wanted to follow," he says.

These one-time assassins taught Maajid that the idea of using state power to force your interpretation of sharia on everyone was a new and un-Islamic idea, smelted by the Wahabis only a century ago. They had made the mistake of muddling up the enduringly relevant decisions Mohamed made as a spiritual leader with those he made as a political ruler, which he intended to be specific to their time and place.

Maajid's ideology crumbled. "I realised that the idea of enforcing sharia is not consistent with Islam as it's been practised from the beginning. In other words, Islam has always been secular, and I had been totally ignorant of the fact." But he says he found this epiphany excruciating. "I knew if I followed these thoughts wherever they would lead," he says, "I would go from being HT's poster boy to being their fallen angel."

His trial was finally ending with the inevitable verdict: guilty. When he emerged from Mazratora Prison into the damp half-light of Britain, he was dazed. HT hailed him as a hero. "After four years of ignoring me, they wanted me to be their rock star ... I was asked if I wanted to be the leader." But in March 2007, he sent out a mass email saying he was resigning from HT, threw away his mobile, and went home to Southend.

He spent a long summer eating his mother's cooking, watching television, and seeing the school friends he had shunned more than a decade before. "It amazed me. These were ordinary British guys and they knew what I had become – that I had hated Britain. And yet when they saw me, they showed me such warmth," he says. "They remembered me as I was. They didn't care what I had done. They had time for me."

In September 2007, Maajid appeared on Newsnight – the BBC's flagship current affairs show – to announce that he recanted not just HT, but Islamism itself. "What I taught has not only damaged British society, it has damaged the world," he said.

With a small band of other ex-Islamists, Maajid decided to set up an organisation dedicated to promoting liberal Islam and rebutting Islamism. They named in the Quilliam Foundation after William Abdullah Quilliam, an English businessman who converted to Islam in the late 19th century and set up the first British mosque. They are taking the organisational skills and evangelical fervour of HT, and turning it against them. They are also taking nearly £1m from the British government – the only way, Maajid says, to do their work effectively.

The last time I speak to Maajid he is on the refugee-strewn North-West frontier of Pakistan, touring the country's universities. He is lecturing to huge audiences about his own experiences, and arguing against literalism in Islam. The massed ranks of the neo-Taliban are not far away. "People here and in Britain keep saying – we've been waiting for something like this for such a long time," he says over the telephone. "They're so happy people are starting to speak out. They're terrified to do it themselves, but this emboldens them."

A large audience of young Muslims is waiting for him. Maajid says assertively: "You know, back when I was an Islamist, I thought our ideology was like communism – and I still do. That makes me optimistic. Because what happened to communism? It was discredited as an idea. It lost. Who joins the Communist Party today?" I can hear the audience applaud him as he walks onto the stage, and with that, Maajid hangs up.

III. Lost in liberalism

As the summer arrives and London begins to swelter, I sit with most of the "out" ex-jihadis in a slew of Starbucks across the city. We sip iced lattes and discuss how, not long ago, they tried to destroy Western civilisation.

They have different backgrounds: one is a Yorkshire girl with Hindu parents, another is a Northern boy whose father was a Conservative ultra-Thatcherite. Yet they are startlingly similar: they have all retained the humourless intensity of their pasts. And when they describe their Islamist former selves, they are distant and cold, as if describing a rather unpleasant acquaintance they did not entirely understand.

They wreath their stories in clouds of pointless detail: they talk for hours about the intricacies of seventh-century Meccan society, or the fine distinctions in the hierarchy of HT, willing you to understand it. It's a way of avoiding answering the hardest question – why? But from their scattered stories, I can trace something that seems genuinely new: an ex-jihadi way of looking at the world, that carries lessons about how to stop Western Muslims sinking into jihadism.

As children and teenagers, the ex-jihadis felt Britain was a valueless vacuum, where they were floating free of any identity.

Ed Husain, a former leader of HT, says: "On a basic level, we didn't know who we were. People need a sense of feeling part of a group – but who was our group?" They were lost in liberalism, beached between two unreachable identities – their parents', and their country's. They knew nothing of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or the other places they were constantly told to "go home" to by racists.

Yet they felt equally shut out of British or democratic identity. From the right, there was the brutal nativist cry of "Go back where you came from!" But from the left, there was its mirror-image: a gooey multicultural sense that immigrants didn't want liberal democratic values and should be exempted from them. Again and again, they described how at school they were treated as "the funny foreign child", and told to "explain their customs" to the class. It patronised them into alienation.

"Nobody ever said – you're equal to us, you're one of us, and we'll hold you to the same standards," says Husain. "Nobody had the courage to stand up for liberal democracy without qualms. When people like us at [Newham] College were holding events against women and against gay people, where were our college principals and teachers, challenging us?"

Without an identity, they created their own. It was fierce and pure and violent, and it admitted no doubt.

To my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy – which was real, and burning – emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it. They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. Usman Raja, a bluff, buff boxer who begged to become a suicide bomber in the mid-1990s, tells me: "Your inner life is chaotic and you feel under threat the whole time. And then you're told by Islamists that life for Muslims everywhere is chaotic and under threat. It becomes bigger than you. It's about the world – and that's an amazing relief. The answer isn't inside your confused self. It's out there in the world."

But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community – they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 – from Guantanamo to Iraq – made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think – anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"

But the converse was – they stressed – also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.

Britain's foreign policy also helped tug them towards Islamism in another way. Once these teenagers decided to go looking for a harder, tougher Islamist identity, they found a well-oiled state machine waiting to feed it. Usman Raja says: "Saudi literature is everywhere in Britain, and it's free. When I started exploring my Muslim identity, when I was looking for something more, all the books were Saudi. In the bookshops, in the libraries. All of them. Back when I was fighting, I could go and get a car, open the boot up, and get it filled up with free literature from the Saudis, saying exactly what I believed. Who can compete with that?"

He says the Saudi message is particularly comforting to disorientated young Muslims in the West. "It tells you – you're in this state of sin. But the sin doesn't belong to you, it's not your fault – it's Western society's fault. It isn't your fault that you're sinning, because the girl had the miniskirt on. It wasn't you. It's not your fault that you're drug dealing. The music, your peers, the people around you – it's their fault."

Just as their journeys into the jihad were strikingly similar, so were their journeys out. All of them said doubt began to seep in because they couldn't shake certain basic realities from their minds. The first and plainest was that ordinary Westerners were not the evil, Muslim-hating cardboard kaffir presented by the Wahabis. Usman, for one, finally stopped wanting to be a suicide bomber because of the kindness of an old white man.

Usman's mother had moved in next door to an elderly man called Tony, who was known in the neighbourhood as a spiteful, nasty grump. One day, Usman was teaching his little brother to box in the garden when he noticed the old man watching him from across the fence. "I used to box when I was in the Navy," he said. He started to give them tips and before long, he was building a boxing ring in their shed.

Tony died not long before 9/11, and Usman was sent to help clear out his belongings. In Tony's closet, he found a present wrapped and ready for his little brother's birthday: a pair of boxing gloves. "And I thought – that is humanity right there. That's an aspect of the divine that's in every human being. How can I want to kill people like him? How can I call him kaffir?"

Many of the ex-Islamists discovered they couldn't ignore the fact that whenever Islamists won a military victory, they didn't build a paradise, but hell.

At the same time, they began to balk at the mechanistic nature of Wahabism. Usman says he had become a "papier-mâché Muslim", defining his faith entirely by his actions, while being empty inside. "Wahabis are great at painting themselves [an Islamic] green on the outside, but when it comes to that internal aspect, it's not there. You pray five times a day, but why? Because God's told you to pray five times a day. You pay your charity – why? Because God's told you to pay your charity. This God of yours is telling you a lot. And why does he tell you to do that? Because if you don't do it, you'll end up in a fire. It's all based on being frightened. There's nothing to nourish you."

They had to go looking for other Islams – and often they found it in the more mystical school of the Sufis. "Wahabi Islam is totally sensory: eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," Usman says. "It lays out a strict set of rules to be followed here on earth, every moment of the day. Sufi Islam teaches instead that the realm of Allah is wholly separate and spiritual and nothing to do with the shadow-play of mere mortals. It is accessible only through a sense of mystery and transcendence." In this new Sufi Islam, Usman found something he had never known before: a sense of calm.

Ed Husain insists: "There are a lot of Muslims who agree with us. A lot. But they're frightened. They see what's happened to us – the hassle, the slander, the death threats – and they think: it's not worth it. But you know what? When I first spoke out, I was alone. I had no idea that, a year on, there would be this number of people speaking out, and many more who are just offering resources and support. Once a truth is spoken, it takes on its own life."

IV. Not Strawberry Season

Anjem Choudhary waves his hand angrily through the air, and says that in the world he wants to create, the people I have been interviewing will be put to death. "They are apostates. I don't consider [them] to be Muslim in any sense of the word," he says. "Everybody knows the punishment for apostasy." My facial muscles must involuntarily react, because he leans forward and asks suspiciously: "Are you Jewish?"

Anjem is one of the last of the famous Islamists from the 1990s still walking London's streets, free and furious. A decade ago, this city hosted a stream of fanatical Muslims who kept cropping up in the tabloid press as semi-comic pantomime villains. But gradually, one by one, they have been deported or arrested, leaving Anjem as their final public face. He has said the Pope and the Mohamed cartoonists should be executed, and has lauded the 7/7 bombers as "the Fantastic Four".

I wanted to see what the people the ex-jihadis have left behind make of them – and to sense if they are seen as a real threat. Anjem suggests meeting me in the Desert Rose Café in Leyton, not far from Usama's mosque. The 41-year-old lives here on social security benefits, paid for by a populace he believes should – in large measure – be lashed, stoned or burned in the hellfires. A long beard covers his chubby face, and long white robes cover his swollen form. I was surprised he agreed to meet me. He rarely speaks to print journalists. The last time he did, he stormed out, accusing the reporter of being a paedophile.

He immediately launches into a lecture about how the ex-Islamists are all liars and charlatans. They are "government bandits, set up by them and funded by them to do their dirty work within the [Muslim] community ... They were never actually practising! They were ignorant of Islam."

When I read him statements by ex-Islamists, he spits: "This is heresy ... The Muslim must submit to the sharia in all of his life. If I start to say things like, 'I don't believe the sharia needs to be implemented,' then that's tantamount to denying the message of Mohamed ... To say that any part of the Koran is not relevant nowadays is a clear statement of apostasy."

Taking any part of the Koran as metaphor will, he warns, cause the text to turn to dust in their hands. "I can't pick and choose what I like from the scripture. This is not strawberry season, where you can pick your own strawberries. You abide by whatever Allah brought in the final revelation with the example of the Prophet. And if there's something that you don't like, then you need to correct your own emotions and desires to make sure they're in line with the sharia."

He describes what is going to happen to them with a grin: "After they've been burnt, their skin will be recreated, and they will suffer the same punishment again and again and again."

I wondered if Anjem's biography fitted with that of the ex-jihadis' – or was there something different about them all along? Anjem says he was born in Welling in South-East London in 1967, where his father was a Pakistani immigrant who ran a market stall. He first realised the One and Eternal Truth when, one day in the early 1990s, he happened to hear a lecture at a local mosque by the Syrian-born Islamist Omar Bakri. Until then, Anjem had been living a life of sin as a young trainee lawyer, known to his friends as Andy. The British tabloids have exposed that he had sex with white women and dropped LSD.

But as he tells it, in the flames of Bakri's rhetoric, Andy was burned away, and Anjem was born. "Yeah, obviously, I had a period where I was not practising ... I have no shame at all in saying that I didn't always use to be like this. And I have great thanks to Allah that he guided me."

Yes, I say – but you would whip and lash and execute the person you were 20 years ago. His eyes flare. He pushes back his chair, half-rising to leave. "What I used to be like and what I used to say before isn't under discussion. If you're going to continue to ask about that, then I'll just stop the interview."

He then launches into half an hour of theological gobbledegook, where any question I try to interject is waved aside with a sneer. He has no interest in persuasion: with dull Torquemada eyes, he advocates the execution of anyone who disagrees. Is he scared of the ex-jihadis and their arguments? He is certainly angry with them – but he is so angry at everyone that it is hard to tell what this means.

He begins to ask – jabbing his finger – what my alternative is. "In the United States, bestiality is legal in the privacy of your own home," he says. Paedophiles are rampant, with the Man-Boy Love Association on the brink of success. Compare that with the 1,300-year long caliphate. In all those years, he says, "there were only 60 rapes".

Do you really believe that if people are not suppressed by a tyrant-God, they will become paedophiles and start fucking animals? Are you so rotten inside? Does Anjum fear Andy that much?

He stares at me, flat and emotionless now. "That is your last question," he says. And as I leave and look back at him through the glass, jabbering on his phone and daydreaming of annihilation, I realise how far all my interviewees – and new friends – have travelled.

They have burned in this fire of certainty. They have felt it consume all doubt and incinerate all self-analysis. And they dared, at last, to let it go. Are they freakish exceptions – or the beginning of a great unclenching of the jihadi fist? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html

Click Here to Read More...

Frolicking in the Quicksand: How the Obama Administration Keeps Making Huge Mistakes in the MIddle East

RubinReports
Barry Rubin

Of course, the Obama Administration has its defenders. They either ignore criticism of the Administration’s foreign policy or claim it is all partisan and ideological. And yet the truth is that if you watch the government's policy on a daily basis it is truly remarkable how many dumb, avoidable mistakes are made.I won’t supply a long list here but instead will talk about the latest one. Let’s take it step by step to see what a mess is being created.

Background: Israel announced in 1993, at the time of the Oslo agreement with the PLO, that it did not view construction on existing settlements as a violation. The Palestinians, during the ensuing 16 years, never made this a big issue. The U.S. government, while it can say it technically opposed this, was pretty quiet about it, never did anything.

Then President Barack Obama came to office and made the construction issue the centerpiece of his Middle East policy, sometimes it has appeared to be the keystone of his whole foreign policy. It may seem like an exaggeration but often it seems as if the administration believes that if Israel stopped building 3000 apartments all the region’s problems would go away.

So far, the Administration has wasted almost ten months in this pursuit. First, it shouted at Israel as if it were some servant to do it fast or else. Then when Israel didn’t, the Administration realized that perhaps Israel should get something in exchange for the concession. So it went to Arab states and asked—presuming, wrongly, that they are desperate for a peace agreement—for some compromise but got nothing.

Now it had destroyed its own policy since the Palestinian Authority (PA) refused to come to negotiations until there was a complete freeze. How could it be less hardline than the president?

But there was a solution, sort of. Israel agreed to stop all construction once the apartments currently being built are finished. And naturally, Israel said, this didn’t apply to east Jerusalem.

The United States accepted the deal, with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton exulting about what a huge concession Israel was making. Aside from everything else, the U.S. government knew how big a risk Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was taking with his coalition.

Ok. Sorry to give you all this background but it is necessary to understand how the Administration loves to jump in the quicksand.

So what happened? The PA couldn’t stand to see Israel being praised and doesn’t want to negotiate peace any way. So it threw a temper tantrum: riots in Jerusalem, threats by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to resign, refusal to go to negotiations with Israel, and a clamor for a unilateral declaration of independence.

The hubbub about a unilateral declaration of independence was almost universally described in the media as arising from Palestinian frustration. Not at all. It is based on their own position: Why make a compromise peace with Israel when you can just claim everything you want, ensuring the door be kept open for a future struggle to wipe Israel off the map entirely?

What did the Administration do? It backed down on everything except the independence bid! Having made a deal with Israel, having gotten Netanyahu to take an enormous risk, it then pulled the rug out from under him. Now it said: Well, maybe it wasn’t such a great deal after all.

Those who always advocate Israeli concessions as the solution should take note. Once again, we’ve seen that a concession doesn’t lead to a concession by the other side or progress. It just produces a demand for more concessions without giving any real credit to the last one.

This kind of thing is expected from the PA but one can only say: Et tu Obama? (William Shakespeare’s line for Julius Caesar after his supposed friend, Brutus, stabbed him in the back.) Mind you, the Administration doesn’t mean any harm—after all, it may end up the biggest loser—it just has no idea of what it’s doing.

The latest act in the drama is that after an announcement that Israel would some day build apartments in the Gilo section of Jerusalem—which is quite within the U.S.-Israel deal and, by the way, is not in east Jerusalem—the Administration complained bitterly, showing not only that it wouldn’t respect agreements others made with predecessors but it wouldn’t even respect the agreements it made itself.

Obama said that the Gilo construction complicates administration efforts to relaunch peace talks, makes it harder to achieve peace and embitters the Palestinians.

Funny, he never said this about: PA incitement to terrorism; failure to punish terrorists; negotiations with Hamas despite its hardline positions, genocidal goals, antisemitic views, and terrorist acts; refusal to return to talks with Israel despite Obama's express request to do so; breaking its promise on not to be a sponsor of using the Goldstone report to punish Israel; and other such actions. Each of these individually is more dangerous than the Gilo construction.

Now here’s another point you probably won’t see anywhere except here:

Having sabotaged negotiations by escalating the construction-on-settlements issue, the Administration has now escalated even higher: no construction in Jerusalem is the minimum demand. Of course, Arab states and the PA will echo this, refusing all talks unless that happens. And since Israel won’t stop building in Jerusalem and the Arab side won’t—unlike the Administration—back down—Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire four-year term in office. In fact, he’s probably ensured no comprehensive negotiations will take place, much less succeed.

Talk about painting yourself into a corner, and the Administration keeps making that corner smaller!

Here's another problem: By blaming Israel repeatedly for every failure, the Administration is not only signalling the PA and Arab states that they can do anything and pay no cost, it is also unintentionally encouraging them to sabotage any progress. Why? Because the worse and slower things go the more they can blame Israel and expect the United States and Europe to do so also. The Administration is making its own failure far more likely.

One final point: The same loss of U.S. credibility and reliability that affects Israel also hits the relatively moderate Arab states in the Administration's dealings with them. The Obama Administration is doing the same thing to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and other Arab regimes. See here for details on that factor.

No doubt we will soon be hearing that if Israel stopped building apartments in Gilo there would be Arab-Israeli peace, no terrorism, Iran would give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and Obama would get the Nobel Peace Prize. Oops, that last event has already happened. How about giving him the Nobel Peace-Destroying Prize.

The Daled Amos blog has a terrific evaluation of how much the Obama Administration has accomplished (not) on Arab-Israeli issues. The story begins with a hysterically funny State Department press briefing where a spokesguy claims Obama has done more in nine months than the previous president did in eight years.

Then, the claim quickly--and embarrassingly--collapses when a reporter who knows something on the subject asks a few questions. The spokesman insists that the Obama Administration succeeded in getting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a two-state solution. But, asks the reporter, didn't that happen under the Bush Administration? (Actually, it took place in 1996 under the Cllinton Administration).

Within a few minutes, the spokesman backs down entirely. Even he cannot think of a credible achievement for the Obama Administration. It reminds one of the famous essay about the snakes of Ireland whose whole text reads: There aren't any. In this case, the progress--to use the euphemistic language of Washington government--has been all in a backward direction. The exchange is also a great metaphor for the gap between what the Administration has done and what it gets away with claiming on lots of issues.

[PS: Within minutes of finishing the writing of this piece I started spotting media reactions claiming that Israel is “defying” the United States, that Gilo is a “new settlement” built on “Palestinian land,” that it is on the West Bank, etc. I don’t recall seeing headlines about the PA defying the United States on any of the points discussed above. As anyone who has been in Gilo knows, it’s a neighborhood in Jerusalem with 40,000 people, mostly in pre-1967 Israel, the land beyond that border was purchased by Jews before 1948, and the idea of building 900 more apartments there is in a years-long approval process and no construction whatsoever is imminent.]

Click Here to Read More...

Detecting Military Radicalism in the Wake of Fort Hood

IPT News
November 19, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1528/detecting-military-radicalism-in-the-wake-of-fort

The first congressional hearing in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre took place Thursday morning, with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing from security experts, including a retired general and a former top White House advisor. Lieberman wanted to hear from FBI officials about missed signals that Nidal Malik Hasan exhibited radical viewpoints and created concern among his colleagues. But the administration didn't allow any current government witnesses, in deference to the ongoing criminal investigation.

According to the Washington Post, Lieberman said conversations with Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates left him optimistic that the committee would gain access to some of the information it is seeking soon.

Thursday, the committee heard testimony on how to better identify potential radicals in the armed forces and how to empower people to report their concerns up the chain of command, even when the concerns involved an officer like Hasan. Among the witnesses were retired Gen. John Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Frances Fragos Townsend, President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser, and terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corp.

The New York Times reported that the Pentagon was initiating a review of the Hasan case that would have a similar focus. The Investigative Project on Terrorism covered the hearing and prepared a video summary below.

Click Here to Read More...

A Health Bill Nobody Believes In

Heritage Foundation

Last Saturday night Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) forced through a vote on her 2,032 page health care bill only a few days after releasing it to the public. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is poised for another Saturday night cram down, forcing a Senate cloture vote mere days before his 2,074 page bill was given to Senators. Yet again, Congress will be forced to vote on a bill that none of them have actually read. More importantly, as we pour through the details, it becomes obvious that none of them even believe the plan will do what the bill says.

Kills Jobs: All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year while unemployment is at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.

Hurts Small Businesses: The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused rises in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. After all exclusions, essentially the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.

Hurts Families: The Reid Bill includes an individual mandate that forces any American who does not have a federal bureaucrat approved health plan to pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per adult family member and $375 per child, with a maximum penalty of $2,250 per family. These penalties are indexed for inflation, which means they are likely to increase nearly every year. These taxes are fixed amounts based on family size, not income. A family of at least two adults and two children is actually worse off under the Senate bill if they make less than $99,350 a year. The only nod to affordability is a “hardship exemption” if the lowest available premium for a bare-bones plan is more than 8 percent of your income. But that saves you money only if your income is less than $28,125 a year.

Hurts Poor: The Reid Bill’s employer mandate is especially punitive on poor families. Firms that hire an employee from a low-income family who qualify for an insurance subsidy are charged a tax penalty of $3,000. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children. Worse, companies only have to pay $750 an employee instead of $3,000 if one quarter of employees are low-income. This creates a situation where, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can actually save money by dropping their health plan and just dumping all their employees into the federal exchange at their own expense.

Hurts States: The Reid bill expands Medicaid eligibility for people below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Even with a provision aimed at Senator Landrieu’s Louisiana that picks up some state costs, the CBO estimates that state spending under the Medicaid provisions will still increase by $25 billion. The Democratic Governor of Tennessee Phil Bredesen told a state budget meeting this Wednesday: “I wish every member of Congress would have to come sit in this room and listen to the real world of what’s going on in Medicaid today. I mean how can you listen to this stuff and the stuff you are talking about eliminating just to get through this and then talk about adding a whole bunch of new expenses onto the states.”

Funds Abortion: Unlike the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment which treats abortion funding the same way the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan does (the same health insurance all members of Congress have), the Reid Bill fosters taxpayer funding of elective abortion by authorizing the HHS Secretary to create a funding scheme that will permit inclusion of abortion coverage in the bill’s public option and mandates the inclusion of at least one plan with elective abortion coverage in each state’s health insurance exchange.

Hides True Costs: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Reid Bill as written would spend less than $900 billion over the next ten years. But the CBO is only allowed to score what Congress says it will do, not what everybody knows it actually will do. So the CBO warns: “These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades which is often not the case for major legislation … The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if key provisions of the bill were ultimately changed or not fully implemented.” The Senate bill depends on using cuts to Medicare to pay for its $1.2 Trillion coverage expansion. These dramatic savings, of course, assume that these spending cuts stay intact. Nobody believes they will. And the Massachusetts experience proves just that. Harvard Medical School Dean Dr. Jeffrey Flier explains:


There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.
…
Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.


That is exactly what the Reid health care bill is: a completely disingenuous plan to increase coverage while reducing cost. Nobody believes Congress can or will follow through with spending cuts required to keep this scheme from bankrupting our country. That is why the AMA can support Obamacare despite the fact that both the House and Senate bills call for at least a 21% cut in doctor pay starting in 2011. Nobody believes those cuts are going to happen. Nobody believes in this bill.

QUICK HITS
Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, told a House oversight committee yesterday that the Obama administration reports on jobs “created or saved” by the $787 billion stimulus package are “riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions.”

According to new data from the Mortgage Bankers Association, more than 14 percent of borrowers were in trouble on their mortgage during the third quarter, and foreclosures may not peak until next year.

The Obama administration is attempting to reinflate the housing bubble by underwriting loans at quadruple the rate of three years ago and offering easy loans in the country’s most expensive real estate markets.

While Republicans are arguing $200 billion in TARP money should go to taxpayers, Congressional Democrats are already fighting over which of their favored programs to spend it on.

ABC News reports that Congressional Democrats and Republicans are calling for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to resign.

Click Here to Read More...

Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood

Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
November 18, 2009-first post
http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine


One of the difficulties in discussing Islam's more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims — such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature? Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and "observant Muslim who prayed daily," who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons — he was "picked on," he was "mentally unbalanced" — the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.
Wala' wa Bara'

Perhaps best translated as "loyalty and enmity," this doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating (e.g., Koran 60:4), all things un-Islamic — including persons (a.k.a. "infidels"). This theme has ample support in the Koran, hadith, and rulings of the ulema, that is, usul al-fiqh (roots of Muslim jurisprudence). In fact, Zawahiri has written a fifty-page treatise entitled "Loyalty and Enmity" (AQR, p. 63-115).

One of the many Koranic verses on which he relies warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them" (Koran 5:51), i.e., he becomes an infidel. The plain meaning of this verse alone — other verses, such as 3:28, 4:144, and 6:40 follow this theme — and its implications for today can hardly be clearer. According to one of the most authoritative Muslim exegetes, al-Tabari (838-923), Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community" (AQR, p. 71).

Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are "obligated to befriend a believer — even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you" (AQR, p. 84).

In ways, Hasan's life was a testimony to loyalty and enmity. According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan "was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second." If his being "vocal about the war" is not enough to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him "over the edge" was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country (Afghanistan) — his "worst nightmare."

According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims "weighed heavily on him." Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since "Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims," again, showing where his loyalty lies. Tabari's exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community," i.e., he too becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).

Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that "in the Koran, you're not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell."

At any rate, surely none of this should come as a surprise. In April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. According to the AP, "he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq."
Taqiyya

This doctrine, which revolves around deceiving the infidel, is pivotal to upholding loyalty and enmity wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live among non-Muslim majorities. In fact, the Koran's primary justification for deception is in the context of loyalty: "Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions" (Koran 3:28). In other words, when necessary, Muslims are permitted to feign friendship and loyalty to non-Muslims, or, in the words of Abu Darda, a pious companion of Muhammad, "We grin to the faces of some peoples, while our hearts curse them" (AQR, p. 73). Taqiyya's importance for upholding loyalty and enmity is evidenced by the fact that, just three pages into his treatise, Zawahiri has an entire section called "The Difference Between Befriending and Dissembling." There he shows that, while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship — whenever beneficial to Muslims — is not.

Again, Zawahiri quotes that standard reference, Tabari, who explains Koran 3:28 as follows: "Only when you are in their [non-Muslims'] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim" (AQR, p. 74).

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims — whom, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty — it is forbidden. As Zawahiri concludes, the Muslim may pretend, so long as he does "not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims" (AQR, p. 75).

Again, we are reminded that the "moment of truth" for Hasan, who seems to have led something of a double life — American major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night — is the fact that he was being deployed to Afghanistan, i.e., he would have been aiding non-Muslim Americans against fellow Muslims (remember, he was "a Muslim first and an American second"). He tried to prevent this, getting a lawyer, to no avail. Thus, since he had taken deceit to its doctrinal limit and was now being placed in a position where he would have to actually demonstrate his loyalty to Americans against Muslims, it appears he decided to take it to the next level (see doctrine below).

Incidentally, we also find that "he [Hasan] was going to be kind of the caretaker for [American] Muslim soldiers. Sometimes Muslim soldiers have a rift between what they're doing and their faith," according to Major Khalid Shabazz, an Army Muslim chaplain. "That person who is a leader needs to quell some of those fears and help them through that process."

This all sounds well and good, but what, precisely, does it mean? If, as we have seen, Islam clearly forbids Muslims from aiding infidels against fellow Muslims, and if being in the U.S. Army requires American Muslims to fight non-American Muslims now and again, how was Hasan — or any other observant Muslim — going to "quell some of those fears and help through that process"? How, if not by merely instructing them in the centuries-old arts of taqiyya?
Jihad

Amongst learned infidels, jihad is the most recognized and notorious of all Muslim doctrines. Literally meaning to "struggle" or "strive," jihad can take on any form, though its most native and praiseworthy expression revolves around fighting, and killing, the infidel enemy — even if it costs the Muslim fighter (the mujahid) his life: "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the path of Allah; whoever fights in the path of Allah — whether he dies or triumphs — we shall richly reward him" (Koran 4:74). And "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and possessions, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight in the path of Allah, killing and being killed" (Koran 9:111).

The hadith also has its fair share of anecdotes advocating the "one-man jihad." Zawahiri's treatise, "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents," (AQR p. 137-171), spends much time justifying the desperate solo jihad — otherwise known as the "martyrdom operation" — including by offering the following hadith: "A Muslim asked Muhammad, O Messenger of Allah! If I plunge myself into the ranks of the idolaters and fight till I am killed — what then, to heaven? He [Muhammad] said yes. So the man plunged himself into the ranks of the idolaters, fighting till he was slain" (AQR, p. 153).

The learned ulema agree. According to al-Qurtubi (d. 1273), "There is no wrong for a man to singlehandedly attack a mighty army — if he seeks martyrdom — provided he has the fortitude." Others indicate that one of the reasons making the one-man jihad permissible is that it serves to "terrify the foe" (AQR, p. 155).

And there it is: When all else failed, when Hasan's forthcoming deployment into Muslim land forced him to expose where his true loyalty (wala') lies, pretense (taqiyya) gave way to full-blown struggle (jihad). Hasan, who sacrificed many years to become a psychiatrist and a U.S. Army major, in the clear words of the Koran "exchange[d] the life of this world for the Hereafter." Evidence also indicates that he believed "martyrdom operations" were not only valid but laudable acts of courage, writing "YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" (capitals in original). Zawahiri puts it more articulately: "The deciding factor is … the intention." Is the mujahid killing himself "to service Islam [laudable martyrdom], or is it out of depression and despair [forbidden suicide]?" (AQR, p. 157).

(Unfortunately and, no doubt, much to Hasan's chagrin, infidel medics ensured his failure to achieve martyrdom.)

The greatest proof that, at least in his own mind, Hasan was waging a jihad is the fact that he utilized that immemorial jihadi war cry — Allahu Akbar! — which has served to terrify the infidel denizens of the world for centuries. Here's an example from Muslim history (circa the early 8th century): "The [non-Muslim] inhabitants of eastern Anatolia were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming 'Allahu Akbar!' Allah planted terror in their hearts. … The [non-Muslim] men were crucified over the course of 24 km" (from Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk).

Indeed, while the takbir (the formal term for "Allahu Akbar") can be used in various contexts, it is by far primarily used in a jihadi context, past and present. Nearly 1,400 years ago, Muhammad and the early Muslims cried "Allahu Akbar" immediately before attacking their infidel neighbors; eight years before the Fort Hood massacre, Mohamed Atta cried "Allahu Akbar" immediately before crashing a hijacked plane into one of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Even Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith compiler, has an entire chapter titled "The Recitation of Takbir [i.e., Allahu Akbar] in War."

Yet confusion abides. An AP report writes: "As if going off to war, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan cleaned out his apartment, gave leftover frozen broccoli to one neighbor, and called another to thank him for his friendship — common courtesies and routines of the departing soldier. Instead, authorities say, he went on the killing spree that left thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, dead." Contrary to the tone of this excerpt, Hasan's actions were far from contradictory. After all, he was "going off to war."

Wala' wa bara,' taqiyya, and jihad all help explain Hasan's actions. Even so, other lesser-known aspects of Islam lend their support to the view that he was acting from an Islamist framework.
Sakina

Several people who encountered Hasan before, and even during, the time he went a-jihading note that he evinced an almost unnatural amount of calmness — certainly for one getting ready to go on a killing spree. No doubt, many will point to this as a sign that he was suffering from some sort of schizophrenic episode.

Yet the fact remains: according to jihadi lore, a feeling of tranquility and calmness is supposed to descend on the mujahid, especially during the most stressful moments of combat (see Koran 9:26 for confirmation). This is known as sakina (calmness, tranquility). Osama bin Laden himself often describes his experience of sakina during the Afghan-Soviet war: "Once I was only thirty meters away from the Russians and they were trying to capture me. I was under bombardment, but I was so peaceful in my heart that I fell asleep. Before a battle, Allah sends us sequina [sakina] — tranquility." Of course, whether Hasan experienced "true" sakina, or whether he was merely affecting to himself, is irrelevant. Rather, the point here is that, once again, that which appears inexplicable or indicative of "mental instability" can be explained through an Islamic paradigm.
Da'wa

According to Sharia law, Muslims are not permitted to voluntarily reside in non-Muslim nations, such as America, except under certain circumstances. One of these is if the Muslim is actively engaged in da'wa, that is, proselytizing; another is if he fights in the path of Allah, jihad. Both serve the same purpose: empowering Islam by numbers and territory, respectively. Merely living in infidel territory out of choice, however, because it offers a "better life," is forbidden. (To get an idea of how serious a matter it is for Muslims to reside in non-Muslims nations, see some online fatwas.)

Accordingly, we find that the observant Hasan, prior to his jihadi spree, was engaged in da'wa for years. In fact, he aggressively pursued it to the point that he was reprimanded by the authorities. Nor did he cease trying to proselytize — that is, trying to validate his living with infidels — until the day before he went on his rampage, when he gave his neighbor a copy of the Koran. Of course, many Westerners will project their notions of proselytism onto Hasan and see only a God-fearing man "altruistically" concerned for the souls of others. Unfortunately, even the business card he included with his Koran gifts is indicative of violence, as it stealthily introduces him as a "soldier of Allah." Moreover, the "altruistic" interpretation fails to take into account the sort of legalism observant Muslims such as Hasan often adhere to: if he literally believed he was "exchanging this life for the Hereafter," he most likely also believed that he had to justify his voluntary dwelling with infidels, hence the da'wa.

* * *

Soon following the Fort Hood massacre, FBI agent Brad Garrett explained Hasan's behavior as follows: "It's one of those things that he obviously went to kill a lot of people [jihad] and commit suicide [martyrdom]. Maybe in his own mind that he's saving future lives [Muslim loyalty]." Read with the bracketed concepts I supplied, Hasan's actions become logical and consistent — again, from an doctrinal point of view, that is, from a point of view the West, especially its leaders, are loath to explore and alacritous to ignore.

For example, "U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat who is one of two Muslims serving in Congress, cautioned against focusing on the alleged shooter's religion [and thus its doctrines] and instead said the discussion should be about mental health issues."

Flagrant obfuscations aside, the facts remain: loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels (wala' wa bara'), a secretive double life (taqiyya), violence in the name of Allah (jihad) — all these can easily explain Hasan's violent rampage in Fort Hood.

The ultimate lesson? So long as Muslim doctrines are downplayed in the West, so long will warning signs, even concrete intelligence, be ignored, so long will such seemingly inexplicable incidents occur, so long will the media continue grasping for straws and Americans be "completely blindsided," so long will "Muslim grievance" be the default answer, so long will appeasement and concessions (domestically and internationally) be the only solution, so long will jihadis and Islamists grow emboldened and contemptuous, expecting more. Ad infinitum.

Conversely, if the Fort Hood massacre causes Americans to begin taking Islam's doctrines more seriously, the thirteen slain, while dying tragically, will not have died in vain.

Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nidal-hasan-and-fort-hood-a-study-in-muslim-doctrine-part-1/ and http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nidal-hasan-and-fort-hood-a-study-in-muslim-doctrine-part-2/

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda

Click Here to Read More...

Egypt's abrupt shutdown of operations against tunnels revives missile flow to Gaza

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
November 20, 2009, 1:12 PM (GMT+02:00)
A "strategic" smuggling tunnel for arms

Tuesday, Nov. 18, Egypt's special forces and engineering units suddenly shut down operations against the smuggling tunnels to Gaza without warning to Washington or Jerusalem, DEBKAfile's military sources report. US and Israeli requests for clarifications from Cairo, which must have ordered the stoppage, were not answered. So the Obama administration signaled Egypt that if it continues to violate the international accords governing the status of the Egyptian-Gazan border, there will be consequences.

Washington is put out particularly because Cairo did not bother to notify the American engineering corps officers and men working with Egyptian troops in Sinai since early 2009 in a concerted effort to eradicate the tunnels that their mission was cut short.

DEBKAfile's Washington sources report that the congressional subcommittees responsible for approving US economic and military aid appropriations to Egypt have been informed of the Egyptian violation.

Our military sources report that the stoppage is pretty comprehensive:

1. Egyptian forces have been pulled out of northern Sinai and Rafah, the town split down the middle between Egyptian Sinai and the Gaza Strip and under which most of the smuggling tunnels run. The trucks carrying heavy weapons for the Palestinians in Gaza can now unload directly into the tunnel openings without interference.

2. The network of sensors and security cameras installed with the help of American military engineers in northern Sinai and along the Philadelphi border corridor were all deactivated as of last Tuesday.

3. The Egyptians discontinued a major project for driving huge iron beams 16 meters deep into the tunnels as an obstruction to traffic. Some of the shafts caved in.

4. Those beams were effective for disabling the 200-250 tunnels used to smuggle mostly civilian merchandise into the Gaza Strip because they are no more than 10-15 meters deep.

However, the roughly 50-60 "strategic tunnels" for the transportation of military hardware including heavy guns and missiles run 50-60 meters underground and are outside the range of the iron beams. They are moreover strong structures with reinforced concrete walls and ceilings, electric wiring, ventilation and safety hatches. Since the Egyptian troops' unexplained pullback from their border positions, hardware has been passing through those conduits freely and straight into the hands of Palestinian terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip.

Click Here to Read More...

From "the gotta scratch your head in wonderment" file

Muslim Council of Britain Spokesman: Still Extreme

Melanie Phillips

As has been pointed out here before, the idea that the Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala is a reformed character who now espouses moderate and liberal attitudes was always risible. Now he himself has helpfully provided fresh evidence that the very opposite is the case. On the Islamist website Islam Online, he has again supported the Muslim Brotherhood religious authority Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who supports human bomb attacks against both Israelis and coalition forces in Iraq, not to mention the execution of homosexuals and other similarly fanatical positions. Bunglawala writes:

It is very unfortunate that Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has been barred from visiting the UK since early 2007 by the British government, following pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies. Sheikh Al-Qaradawi is an Islamic scholar who commands huge respect among millions of Muslims worldwide. As a regular past visitor to the UK, he would consistently urge British Muslims to shun all forms of extremism and to focus their energies on ensuring that their children excelled in education. His long experience of dealing with youths influenced by extremist and takfiri ideas (ideas involving accusations of backsliding from Islam) would surely have been a valuable asset in the struggle against Al-Qaeda-inspired propaganda.

In fact, the only extremism Qaradawi has opposed is activity which is tactically counter-productive – such as bomb attacks in Britain – to the goal of Islamizing the West. As Alexander Hitchens observes on the Standpoint blog:

We should be under no illusions here: anyone who still feels that they need to defend or praise this man should be considered, at best, an apologist for murderous antisemitism and Islamic extremism. These people represent a fringe opinion that is slowly, but surely, being defeated by the voice of the (previously) silent majority. As well as having formulated the authoritative fatwa which provided the religious justification for Hamas suicide bombings, Qaradawi recently told viewers of al-Jazeera that his only regret about the Holocaust is that it wasn't done at the hands of ‘the believers’:

“Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.”

The disturbing fact is that, after a short period out in the cold during the tenure as Communities Secretary of Hazel Blears – one of the few politicians who understands what is at stake here – the MCB has now been brought back into the counsels of Whitehall through the patronage of the current Communities Secretary John Denham and the Justice Secretary Jack Straw. As Hitchens observes of Bunglawala:

Here we have a Muslim who excuses and praises an Islamist Holocaust promoter, and still finds himself in a position where he may yet act as an advisor to the government on extremism.

This is presumably what the government means when it invites us to admire its “anti-racist” credentials.

Contributor Melanie Phillips is the author of the powerful and frightening "Londonistan" which can be purchased here, and she blogs at The Spectator.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4825/pub_detail.asp

Click Here to Read More...

GET INVOLVED: WRITE/FAX Stop the Obama bomb of a bill

Guest Post today

Friends,

GET INVOLVED (My sample letter below)

Senator (dumb) Harry Reed closed the doors behind 300Million Americans to concoct another government run Healthcare bill. We do not know how many favors are attached to another such lunacy plan.

We have to fight his proposal and fast. Each of us getting involved can make the difference whether Harry’s plan passes or it does not. We must call or write to the following Senators: Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Evan Bayh to tell them that the American people will hold them accountable if they vote for this Harry Reid healthcare bill.

Things are getting more out of control in Washington because Congress has NO Constitutional authority to do much of what they are doing, which is illegal and criminal.

Are we, the American citizens are not going to allow the politicians and the bureaucracies to decide what type of healthcare we can get, and also who does and who doesn't?

Liberty is under assault because the statist does not accept liberty, the Constitution or limited government.

Call/write:

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La):

E-mail: http://landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Washington, DC

328 Hart Senate Building

United States Senate

Washington DC

Voice: (202)224-5824

Fax: (202) 224-9735

New Orleans

Hale Boggs Federal Building

500 Poydras Street, Room 1005 New Orleans, LA 70130

Voice: (504) 589-2427

Fax: (504) 589-4023

Baton Rouge

Room 326, Federal Building

707 Florida Street

Baton Rouge, LA 70801

Voice: (225) 389-0395

Fax: (225) 389-0660



Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska):

Washington, D.C. Office

720 Hart Senate Office Building

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

T: 1-202-224-6551

F: 1-202-228-0012

Omaha Office

7602 Pacific St. Ste 205

Omaha, NE 68114

T: (402) 391-3411

F: (402) 391-4725

Lincoln Office

440 North 8th Street

Suite 120

Lincoln, NE 68508

T: (402) 441-4600

F: (402) 476-8753



Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas):

E-mail: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

355 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-4843

Fax (202) 228-1371

912 West Fourth Street

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 375-2993

Fax (501) 375-7064

Toll Free 1-800-352-9364



Senator Evan Bayh: (D-Indiana)

E-mail: http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

131 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Tel.: (202) 224-5623

Fax: (202) 228-1377

1650 Market Tower

10 West Market Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Tel.: (317) 554-0750

Fax: (317) 554-0760

101 MLK, Jr. Blvd

Evansville, IN 47708

Tel.: (812) 465-6500

Fax: (812) 465-6503

-------------------------------------

To: Senator

Senator Harry Reed closed the doors behind 300Million Americans to concoct another government run Healthcare bill. We do not know how many favors are attached to another such lunacy plan.

If you voter “YES” for Harry Reid healthcare bill, the American people will hold you accountable.

Things are totally out of control in Washington because Congress has NO Constitutional authority to do much of what they are doing, which is illegal and criminal.

We, the American citizen, are not going to allow the politicians and the bureaucracies to decide what type of healthcare we can get, and also who does and who doesn't?

Liberty is under dangerous assault because the statist does not accept liberty, the Constitution or limited government.

Senator ________ vote NO or we hold you accountable.

Name

Address




---
Shalom,
Nurit
To maintain his liberty a man must remain eternally vigilance

Click Here to Read More...

"A Different PA Angle"

Arlene Kushner

Before I look at that angle (of necessity, briefly, before Shabbat), I want to add one other news item about Jerusalem housing that I inadvertently left out yesterday. This did not make mainstream news (thanks to Tamar A for calling my attention to it), but I located it in a couple of different sources. News is always selective. Rabbi Yitzhak Hershkowit who for many years has owned property in Beit Tzafafa, a Jerusalem suburb, has never been able to use that property because of Arab squatters. He fought this in the courts for over thirteen years, and has proven that the land is legally. The court agreed that the squatters should be removed, but the police have never executed the court order.

~~~~~~~~~~

As to the "angle": There are some analysts who see effecting an over-turn of SC Resolution 242 at the heart of what's going on with the PA right now.

Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the US, in a column yesterday, made this point. Shoval describes current PA efforts to establish a state as "a wheelless cart before a lame horse," which is great. But he suspects ulterior motives.

A Jerusalem Post editorial expresses the same suspicions.

~~~~~~~~~~

I've been doing some checking with regard to the Palestinians taking their theoretical state-in-the-making to the UN. It is a complicated business, and the complications are compounded by the fact that within the international arena theoretical rules are one thing, while in reality states often act as they damn please, in accordance not with law but political whim-- as we well know.

What is basic fact is that the Security Council does not "endorse" states, or -- whatever the term -- bring them into being by virtue of a resolution: there is no mechanism for this within international law via any agency. The PA would have to declare a state first. (And if this declaration is unilateral it would render Oslo null and void.)

According to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933, there is a basic “definition” of a state, which has been adopted by the international community. In order to qualify as a state, an entity must:

[] have a permanent population
[] have a defined territory
[] be under the control of its own government
[] have the capacity to enter into relations with other states

Does the PA qualify? No way. Consider, just for one example, that the PA seems bent on declaring a state that includes Gaza, where its government would have no control. Would it (wink wink) be considered to have met the required criteria in the course of its declaration, or be laughed out of the international arena?

As to whether to recognize this new state once it is declared, each nation would make its own decision. Recognition of a nascent state by other nations does seem to be an important part of creating the legal reality.

~~~~~~~~~~

This new state would then apply to the Security Council for UN membership. This membership does not create the state, but simply accords the state, which already exists, the rights and protections conferred upon member states.

What's important here, is this, from the International Judicial Monitor (as of this summer):

"...the Security Council must decide to submit a state’s application for admission to the General Assembly for a two-thirds majority vote. The two-thirds requirement means that a state may not be granted admission to the UN if it is not recognized by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. This is the case for Kosovo which will likely not be able to join the UN in the near future because it is only recognized by sixty-two UN members."

And so this new Palestinian state, were it to be declared, might be stopped right there. Which would render moot the entire discussion about Resolution 242.

~~~~~~~~~~

This is not what analysts are looking at, however. For them the real sticking point has to do with borders, which the PA quite obviously intends to set as the Green Line (everything that was not under Israeli control before the Six Day War of 1967).

If the SC were to accept "Palestine" as a member state, does this mean it would be sanctioning or endorsing those borders as unilaterally claimed?

If the answer is yes, this would mean setting up a conflict with SC Resolution 242, which, basically, says that Israel does not have to withdraw from all territories acquired in 1967, and is entitled to safe and recognized borders that are arrived at via negotiations. And Israel does not have to pull out of any territory until this negotiation occurs. The Green Line is not considered a safe border -- strategic depth is required. (This sets foolish Obama's statement about settlements not bringing security into conflict with this resolution as well.)

The concern is that the PA is seeking to overturn or override this resolution.

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs held a conference on 242 a couple of years ago (I was in attendance and learned a great deal). For detailed information from that conference see:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=452&PID=3111

~~~~~~~~~~

There'll be time for more after Shabbat.

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Click Here to Read More...

American convert to Islam says it is not permissible for Muslims to join an Infidel army

Wait a minute. I thought only greasy Islamophobes believed that there was any problem with Muslims in the military. Will Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR denounce Umar Lee as an "Islamophobe"? Glossary: Kaafir, kufr = Infidel. Deen = religion. Ummah = global Islamic community. Ulamaa = Islamic scholars. Al wala wal bara = "Love and hate," i.e., love for Muslims and hatred for non-Muslims.

"Is It Permissible To Join A Kaafir Army?," by Umar Lee, November 19:

In the years since 9/11, we have seen a serious re-defining and whitewashing of what our deen is and is not. Since the Ft Hood shootings, and even before that, we have seen many Muslim organizations refer to US troops which are occupying Muslim lands, as "our troops". They have celebrated Muslims that have gone over to fight and kill other Muslims. We see Muslim spokesmen saying that the Muslims must abandon the concept of "Ummah". We are seeing Muslims and Muslim Organizations calling for American citizenship to be put above their loyalty to other Muslims around the world. This is a very strange thing as prior to 9/11 the ulamaa of Islam had many fatwas that said just the opposite, especially with regards to a Muslim joining a kufr army and going to fight other Muslims.

We find the people nowadays saying that it is perfectly permissible and even praiseworthy to join the kufr army. This is in contrast to what we saw in the past from the scholars. I would like to know what our friends at Muslim Matters have to say about the following fatwas from such scholars as Sh Ibn Uthaymeen and Sh. Al Munajid. What do they think the scholars would say about al wala wal bara (something completely forgotten about and not taught these days)?

This first fatwa is from Sh Al-Munajjid:

I work in the army of a non-Muslim state, and there are wars between them and the Muslims. What is the ruling if they send me with a division of this army to wage war against the Muslims? As a Muslim, my feelings are that I never want to fight against Muslims in any war. What should I do? What is the ruling if I go...?

Praise be to Allaah.

If you are sent to wage war against the Muslims, then it is not permissible for you to take part at all. Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. Allaah says concerning one who supports the mushrikeen (interpretation of the meaning):

"And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa', i.e., friends), then surely, he is one of them"[al-Maa'idah 5:51]

With regard to how you may get out of this situation, and what excuse you can give to get out of this dilemma if it happens, we ask Allaah to help you, and we suggest that you consult some Muslims who have relevant knowledge or experience.

We want to emphasize to you the necessity of finding other employment and of leaving service in the army of the kaafirs, because that implies helping them, strengthening them and increasing the numbers of their fighters and supporters - unless your work can bring some benefits to the Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the Muslims so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da'wah, such as giving khutbahs and leading prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to avoid any work that will strengthen the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep you safe from temptation and to give you a good end in this world and in the Hereafter.

This one is from Sh Ibn Muhammad Saalih al-Uthaymeen, May Allah have mercy upon him:

What is the ruling on Muslims serving in the military of non muslim country ? What is the evidence for its permissibility or prohibition? And lastly, what is the status of a Muslim working to help those in the military to fulfill their obligations to Allaah while serving in the Army, Navy, or whatever?

Praise be to Allaah.

We put this question to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, may Allaah preserve him, who answered as follows:

"Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. Military matters are problematic, because they involve helping these kuffaar to wage war against the Muslims or those who have entered into a treaty with the Muslims. If no such thing is involved, it may be advantageous for Muslims to work in these armies so as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit, it may be permissible, otherwise it is not allowed."

On this basis, if a person works as a preacher or daa'iyah or imaam or muezzin, serving the Muslims and calling non-Muslims to Islam, then there is nothing wrong with this.

And for good measure, here is one more fatwa

So can the brothers find me a fatwa from a repudible scholar of the sunnah (not one that quotes from his desires) that says that it is permissible to put citizenship above our Islam and join the kafir army and to fight against Islam and the Muslims? It is permissible to join an army that calls for the men to shave their beards, salute the kufr flag and judge by other than what Allah revealed?

The evidence is clearly against those who are saying that these things are permissible.

Here is a question:

If a group of Muslims in Mecca attacked the United States and the US Army wanted to retaliate by taking the haram, would it still be permissible to join the kufr army?

Click Here to Read More...

Muslim countries trying again to criminalize criticism of Islam at the UN

Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch

They're doing it, of course, under the cover of criminalizing "blasphemy," but the real agenda here is to compel the West to adopt Sharia norms forbidding criticism of Islam, including analysis of the jihad terrorists' motives and goals. This, of course, would leave us mute and defenseless before them.AP thinks that the free nations of the West will oppose this. But with Barack Obama in the White House, that isn't actually certain. After all, he made sure that the U.S. not only supported, but cosponsored (with Egypt) a similar initiative at the United Nations not too long ago.

GENEVA (AP) -- Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery -- essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that Algeria and Pakistan have taken the lead in lobbying to eventually bring the proposal to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free speech if it risks seriously offending religious believers. The process, though, will take years and no showdown is imminent.

The proposal faces stiff resistance from Western countries, including the United States, which in the past has brushed aside other U.N. treaties, such as one on the protection of migrant workers.

Experts say the bid stands some chance of eventual success if Muslim countries persist. And whatever the outcome, the campaign risks reigniting tensions between Muslims and the West that President Barack Obama has pledged to heal, reviving fears of a ''clash of civilizations.''

Four years ago, a Danish newspaper published cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad, prompting angry mobs to attack Western embassies in Muslim countries, including Lebanon, Iran and Indonesia. In a countermovement, several European newspapers reprinted the images.

The countries that form the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference are now lobbying a little-known Geneva-based U.N. committee to agree that a treaty protecting religions is necessary.

The move would be a first step toward drafting an international protocol that would eventually be put before the General Assembly -- a process that could take a decade or more.

The proposal may have some support in the General Assembly. For several years the Islamic Conference has successfully passed a nonbinding resolution at the General Assembly condemning ''defamation of religions.''

If the treaty was approved, any of the U.N.'s 192 member states that ratified it would be bound by its provisions. Other countries could face criticism for refusing to join.

Just last month, the Obama administration came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.

''Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion,'' Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. ''I strongly disagree.''

But there are signs the U.S. is worried by the Islamic Conference campaign. Behind the scenes it has been lobbying hard to quash the proposal, dispatching a senior U.S. diplomat to Geneva last month for talks described as akin to trench warfare.

''The U.S. presence can be significant in determining the whole destiny of the process,'' said Lukas Machon, who represents the International Commission of Jurists at the U.N.

From a legal point of view, ''the whole exercise is dangerous from A-Z because it's a departure from the practice and concept of human rights,'' Machon said. ''It adds only restrictions.''

In a letter obtained by the AP, Pakistan said insults against religion were on the increase.

The Islamic Conference ''believes that the attack on sacredly held beliefs and the defamation of religions, religious symbols, personalities and dogmas impinge on the enjoyment of human rights of followers of those religions,'' the letter said. It was sent last month to members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, a temporary committee created to consider a previous anti-racism treaty.

In a separate submission to the committee, Pakistan proposed extending the treaty against racism to require signatories to ''prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.''

It's not clear who would decide what is considered grossly abusive, but each country's criminal courts would likely have initial jurisdiction over that decision, according to Marghoob Saleem Butt, a Pakistani diplomat in Geneva who confirmed the campaign's existence and has lobbied for the ban.

''There has to be a balance between freedom of expression and respect for others,'' Butt said in a telephone interview.

''Taking the symbol of a whole religion and portraying him as a terrorist,'' said Butt, referring to the Muhammad cartoons, ''that is where we draw the line.''

One American expert with more than 20 years experience of the U.N. human rights system said the treaty could have far-reaching implications.

''It would, in essence, advance a global blasphemy law,'' said Felice Gaer, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The independent, congressionally mandated panel issued a report last week warning that existing laws against blasphemy, including in Pakistan, ''often have resulted in gross human rights violations.''

In Egypt, blasphemy laws have been used to suppress dissidents, said Moataz el-Fegiery, executive director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. Abdel Kareem Nabil, a blogger, was sentenced in February 2007 to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

He said reformists who reinterpret traditional Islamic texts have also become the target of blasphemy accusations.

More broadly, introducing laws to protect religions from criticism would weaken the whole notion of human rights, said Sweden's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Hans Dahlgren.

''Religions as such do not have rights -- it's people who have rights,'' he said, adding that the European Union, whose presidency Sweden currently holds, would oppose attempts to limit freedom of speech.

The treaty goes against the grain of recent efforts by Western and Muslim countries to find common ground on human rights.

Only last month a joint U.S.-Egyptian resolution on freedom of expression won unanimous support in the U.N. Human Rights Council, much to the surprise of seasoned observers. ''We will engage, and we're going to keep engaging,'' said Michael Parmly, spokesman for the U.S. Mission in Geneva.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, the Ad Hoc Committee's chairman, Algerian Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, said concerns the treaty could stifle free speech have been ''whipped up into a bugaboo.''

Failure to agree on a treaty would boost extremists in the Arab world, said Jazairy, a former envoy to Washington now considered a key player in the U.N.'s human rights forum.

''If we keep hitting this glass wall and say there's nothing you can do about Islamophobia -- you can do something about anti-Semitism but Islamophobia is out of bounds -- you give an ideal platform for recruitment of suicide bombers,'' he said.

------

On the Net:

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: http://www.uscirf.gov

Click Here to Read More...

Major Hasan’s Islamist Life

by Daniel Pipes

As the Pentagon and Senate launch what one analyst dubs “dueling Fort Hood investigations,” will they confront the hard truth of the Islamic angle? Despite encouraging references to “violent Islamists” by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, there is reason to worry about a whitewash of the massacre that took place on Nov. 5; that is just so much easier than facing the implications of a hostile ideology nearly exclusive to Muslims.

Indeed, initial responses from the U.S. Army, law enforcement, politicians, and journalists broadly agreed that Maj. Nidal Hasan’s murderous rampage had nothing to do with Islam. Barack Obama declared “We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing” and Evan Thomas of Newsweek dismissed Hasan as “a nut case.”

But evidence keeps accumulating that confirms Hasan’s Islamist outlook, his jihadi temperament, and his bitter hatred of kafirs (infidels). I reviewed the initial facts about his record in an article that appeared on Nov. 9 but much more information subsequently appeared; here follows a summary. The evidence divides into three parts, starting with Hasan’s stint at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center:

* He delivered an hour-long formal medical presentation to his supervisors and some 25 mental health staff members in June 2007, the culminating exercise of his residency program at Walter Reed. What was supposed to be on a medical topic of his choosing instead turned into a 50-slide PowerPoint talk on “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military” that offered such commentary as “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims” and the “Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” One person present at the presentation recalls how, by the time of its conclusion, “The senior doctors looked really upset.”
* Hasan informed at least one patient at Walter Reed that “Islam can save your soul.”
* So apparent were Hasan’s Islamist proclivities, reports National Public Radio, that key psychiatry authorities at Walter Reed met to discuss if he was psychotic. One official told colleagues of his worries “that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide,” recalling Sergeant Hasan Akbar’s 2003 rampage.

Then followed Hasan’s record at Ft. Hood:

* His supervisor, Captain Naomi Surman, recalled his telling her that as an infidel she who would be “ripped to shreds” and “burn in hell.” Another person reports his declaring that infidels should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
* In his psychiatric counseling sessions with soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, Hasan heard information he considered tantamount to war crimes. As late as Nov. 2, three days before his murderous spree, he tried to convince at least two of his superior officers, Surman and Colonel Anthony Febbo, about the need legally to prosecute the soldiers.
* Hasan routinely signed his e-mails with “Praise Be to Allah.”
* He listed his first name as Abduwalli, rather than Nidal, in the e-mail address in his official Army personnel record. ‘Abd al-Wali is an Arabic name meaning “Slave of the Patron,” where Patron is one of God’s 99 names. It is not clear why Hasan did this, but Abduwalli could have been a nom de guerre, this being a common practice among Palestinians (Yasir Arafat even had two them – Yasir Arafat and Abu Ammar).

Finally, Hasan’s extracurricular activities revealed his outlook:

* He designed green and white personal business cards that made no mention of his military affiliation. Instead, they included his name, then “Behavior Heatlh [sic] Mental Health and Life Skills,” a Maryland mobile phone number, an AOL e-mail address, and “SoA (SWT).” SoA is the jihadi abbreviation for Soldier of Allah and SWT stands for Subhanahu wa-Ta‘ala, or “Glory to Him, the Exalted.”
* He wore Pakistani clothing and sent money to Pakistan. Noting his apparent lack of ties to Pakistan as well has his abundance of disposable income, his money probably went to support jihadi groups.
* Hasan contacted jihadi web sites via multiple e-mail addresses and screen names.
* He traded some 10-20 e-mails with Anwar al-Awlaki, Al-Qaeda recruiter and fugitive from U.S. justice who was Hasan’s spiritual leader at two mosques, Masjid Al-Ribat Al-Islami in San Diego and the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center outside Washington, D.C. Awlaki acknowledges becoming Hasan’s confidant, speculates that he may have influenced Hasan’s evolution, and praises Hasan for the massacre, calling him a “hero” who “did the right thing” by killing U.S. soldiers before they could attack Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Hasan had “more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI,” other than Awlaki, including some in Europe. One official characterized these as “Islamic extremists if not necessarily al Qaeda.”
* Duane Reasoner Jr., the 18-year-old Muslim convert whom Hasan mentored in Islam, calls himself a “extremist, fundamentalist, mujhadeen, Muslim” who outspokenly supports Awlaki, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Omar Abdur Rahman (the blind sheikh) and Adam Gadahn (Al-Qaeda’s top American figure).

These symptoms in the aggregate leave little doubt about Hasan’s jihadi mentality. But will the investigations allow themselves to see his motivation? Doing so means changing it from a war on “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters” to a war on radical Islam. Are Americans ready for that?

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Click Here to Read More...

COP: Ready to Pay Your $6 Trillion 'Climate Justice' Bill?

Dan Gainor

The $1,000 bill has President Grover Cleveland’s face on it. The $100,000 bill has the dour image of President Woodrow Wilson.

We’ve already seen President Barack Obama attach his name and face to the $787 billion stimulus bill. And if the left has its way, the face on the $6 trillion “climate justice” bill will also be Obama’s. Or maybe it will belong to Al Gore. December’s global warming conference in Copenhagen looms like a dark cloud on the horizon – just a few weeks away. The greedy left (and that’s pretty much all of them) is calling for “climate reparations.” A recent Rolling Stone article made it clear where lefties stand on American money going overseas. Writer Naomi Klein, who gained notoriety bashing ‘disaster capitalism,” said, “shifting to renewable energy, according to a team of United Nations researchers, will raise the cost far more: to as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade.”

For those who can’t count that high (all of us) or don’t care (members of Congress), that’s $6 trillion in just 10 years – double the entire 2009 U.S. budget. And we’re supposed to pay most or all of it. Of course, the article was titled “Climate Rage,” so we feel extra guilty and are that much more willing to pay off third worlders. You want to see real rage, try giving that bill to the American public. (Just the tip on that bill would be $900 billion. Can we order self serve?)

But that’s the liberal plan going into Copenhagen. Obama and a globe full of global warming believers wanted a big agreement to come out of the conference. It appears that won’t happen because American sanity stands in the way.

“President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement,” according to the Nov. 14 New York Times.

That strategic retreat showed the left didn’t have the muscle to ram through another climate treaty when the last one – Kyoto – failed so miserably. Congress took one informal vote and the treaty idea was squashed 95-0.

And if this trillion-dollar-scheme seems like news to you, that’s only because the major media don’t report it. In fact, America’s bid for the Olympics and Obama’s related trip to Copenhagen received eight times more coverage on the evening broadcast newscasts this year than plans for the climate conference in the exact same location.

Journalists on ABC, CBS and NBC told us everything about the Olympic bid, Obama’s trip, his wife’s involvement and more. The media hardly report anything about Copenhagen when it comes to the climate. They’re almost more willing to talk about Copenhagen smokeless tobacco than they are to talk about the climate talks.

You can’t blame that on the likely failure of the event. That’s only become obvious in recent weeks. No, there’s only one reason why the major networks aren’t touching this story – money.

That’s been the story all along for climate treaties. The United States has money and the rest of the world wants it. That was the idea behind the Kyoto Treaty. Take American money out of wallet a) insert into lefty charity b) and repeat.

But until now, eco-thieves were more discreet. They didn’t admit they just wanted our cash. They claimed they wanted a climate agreement to help Mother Earth. This next climate agreement is one big global Lotto.

Rolling Stone painted the picture green saying, “the U.S. negotiating position appears to be to pretend that 200 years of over-emissions never happened.” Then it criticized U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern because he “scoffed at a Chinese and African proposal that developed countries pay as much as $400 billion a year in climate financing as ‘wildly unrealistic’ and ‘untethered to reality.’” Nice. A compromise proposal so outlandish even the Obama team had to reject it.

Some lefties claim the cost is much lower, just so they can get their hands in our pockets – figuring we won’t be able to ever get them out. Environmentalist Bill McKibben, a cofounder of 350.org, wrote a piece for the liberal magazine Mother Jones calling Congress a “climate cheapskate.” He claimed in the Nov. 9 article that even a bad climate solution would “still leave about a good $10 or $20 billion-with-a-B for the U.S. to put up each year.”

Compared to $6 trillion, $20 billion seems reasonable.

OK, I had you going there. Of course it’s not reasonable. No one is rolling back the clock and repaying the United States for its help in World I or II or any of the countless humanitarian efforts we’ve handled from floods to earthquakes. No responsible American president expected to get paid for doing those good deeds.

But no responsible American president should entertain paying climate extortion. Harry Truman once said of the oval office, “the buck stops here.” Under a “climate justice” pact that would no longer be true. Six trillion dollars would stop everywhere but here.



Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Click Here to Read More...

Media Still Rely on "Jihad" Apologists

Diana West

You might have missed it, but for much of this past week, the Islamic apology-police were on the case of the Republican governor-elect of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell. It seems that following the jihadist attack on Fort Hood, Pat Robertson, a longtime ally of McDonnell's, criticized Islam on his TV show. And no one in these not just politically, but also Islamically, correct times is permitted to do that -- not even, as we have learned to our horror, senior Army personnel when presented with incontrovertible evidence that a jihadist is in their ranks. Speaking on "The 700 Club," Robertson called Islam "a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination." Given what we know of Islamic law (Sharia), which, for example, punishes "leaving Islam" with death; given what we know of the bloody history of Islamic expansionism; given what we know of current Islamic attitudes toward both Sharia and the caliphate -- almost exactly two-thirds of Muslims in four countries polled in a 2007 survey by University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org favored both -- and given what we know of the Muslim Brotherhood manifesto for "a grand Jihad" in America for "destroying the Western civilization from within" so that Islam is "victorious over all other religions," Robertson's statement could be considered humdrum were it not verboten for Americans to say anything about Islam that is not air-fresh sanitized.

But in bizarro world as we know it, Robertson's statement -- particularly the part about Islam being "a violent political system" -- showed up as so much political smoke around McDonnell, carefully tended for days by the Washington Post and a rogue's gallery of Muslim Brotherhood associates.

Not that the newspaper identified them as such. To the Washington Post, Mohamed Magid ("disappointed" that McDonnell had not repudiated Robertson) was "imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society," and not also vice president of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a known Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the landmark Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terrorism financing trial that last year convicted five defendants on all counts. To the Washington Post, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) (calling for McDonnell to disavow Robertson) was "a Washington-based civil rights group for Muslims," not a Hamas-linked, known Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the same landmark terrorism trial. To the Washington Post, Rep. Gerry Connolly's (D-Va.) demand for an apology from Robertson represented growing "political implications," not political payback from someone whom "Muslim Mafia" co-author Paul Sperry calls "the Saudi's new man in Congress" for Connolly's dogged defense of a bona fide Saudi madrassa in Fairfax Country coinciding with, as Sperry writes, "what appears to be an orchestrated outpouring of donations from Islamists with Saudi connections."

This is crucial information to deny readers. The story takes on a different cast when it becomes clear that behind this latest attempt to both stifle criticism of Islam and make it a liability to associate with a critic of Islam are groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which, according to its own manifesto, is engaged in a jihad against the United States. Indeed, the first news site to follow the Post's storyline was Islam Online, a Web site that the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yusef al-Qaradawi, helped establish, and where readers can find, for example, scholarly Islamic counsel condoning death for homosexuals. Qaradawi is himself a leading apologist for homicide bombings against Israeli civilians and insurgent violence against Americans, military and civilian, in Iraq.

But I digress -- or do I? Is not all of this information essential to understanding the motivations of those who have turned Pat Robertson's critical comments about Islam into a brickbat against the new Virginia governor? Such information never enters mainstream outlets or debate due to precisely this sort of hectoring enforcement of Sharia-style prohibitions on criticism, and even examination, of Islam that the Washington Post, in full dhimmi mode, is all too willing to enable.

Indeed, a recent lead editorial in the paper was headlined "Mr. McDonnell's albatross," with Robertson, of course, in the role of dreaded bird. The Post writes: "Doesn't Mr. McDonnell owe (Virginia Muslims" some reassurance that he doesn't share Pat Robertson's despicable views?"

Are they "despicable," or are they just too close to the historical record?

I guess we'll never know.



Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=842dfb4b-ff38-46d8-a03a-43b9ae974d48&t=c

Click Here to Read More...

What should we expect?

Palestinians taking their cues from Israeli leaders, American president

Moshe Dann
YNET News
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3807098,00.html

Declarations of virtual Palestinian statehood by asking the UN and international community for diplomatic recognition are a blunt way of avoiding the requirements for statehood. According to the Montevideo Convention this includes: "(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other state … The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace." Recent declarations by Arab Palestinian leaders, however, are not new; Palestinian statehood was implied when the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. Included in various "peace plans" since 1967 and more recently in the "Road Map," it has become a sacred fetish of the international community.



It was confirmed when Israel withdrew from Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria, and from Gaza. Israeli political leaders gave their tacit approval to such a state when Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton (in 2000) and then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President George W. Bush (in 2007) offered the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank, plus 3% of Israeli territory, most of eastern Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the "right of return" (to Israel) to a significant number of Arab Palestinians and their descendents currently living in UNRWA refugee camps. Palestinian leaders rejected the offer.



Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a similar offer in 2009, breaking a long-standing Likud position and electoral promises.



It wasn't enough, because Arab Palestinian leaders demanded – for starters – all of the territory acquired by Israel in 1967. It wasn't enough because they demanded that the "right of return" be available to all Arabs and their descendents who claim to be displaced "refugees" – a population which now is nearly equal to the number of Jews in Israel.



It wasn't enough because, according to Arabs, the "occupation of Arab land" did not begin in 1967, but in 1948 – the "Nakba" (catastrophe) – when the State of Israel was established. “Palestinian sovereignty” begins but does not end with the 1949 ceasefire (armistice) lines. It is grounded in the elimination of "the Zionist entity" – all of it.



“Palestinian sovereignty," therefore, is the raison d'etre of all Palestinian terrorist groups, including their political representatives.


‘You criminals deserve nothing’

A sovereign “Palestinian state” is the goal of US-sponsored, General Keith Dayton-led “Palestinian armed forces.” It is the goal of myriad US and EU-sponsored NGOs which oppose and defame Israel.



Granting Arab Palestinians a sovereign state is the sole issue that defines “the Left” in Israel. It's the "dream" of some, so why should anyone be surprised, or concerned now? That it wasn't negotiated – i.e. with concessions, that Palestinian leaders refused to play the game of waiting for the prize and accepting less, indicates their commitment. They took their cues from Israeli politicians and the media, and now, from President Obama.



As long as Israeli leftists are so intent on giving away the "West Bank" and Gaza, especially in brutally destroying thriving Jewish communities, as long as the IDF and Israeli police destroy Jewish homes, while allowing Arab homes a few hundred meters away to remain, why should anyone blame Arab Palestinian leaders for getting the message: it's yours!



As long as Israeli jurists, courts and the media condemn Israeli Jews for "illegally occupying Arab Palestinian land," why shouldn't Palestinian leaders conclude that the land is theirs?



As long as President Shimon Peres – who is supposed to represent all Israelis -- organizes conferences that promote Palestinian sovereignty, and his Peres Center for Peace advocates Palestinian statehood, why shouldn't Palestinians proclaim sovereignty?



As long as Israeli politicians beg their Arab counterparts to accept a deal, "land for peace," based on Israel's admitted illegal "occupation," what should one expect?



“Ah, we wanted something in exchange,” Israelis who advocate Palestinian sovereignty would say, like a thief who expects a reward for returning what he has stolen. “Shame on you Israelis,” Arab Palestinian leaders reply. “You criminals deserve nothing!'”




For Arab Palestinians the goal is not and never was "peace," but erasing their humiliation, ending the "occupation," eliminating of the Zionist entity and everything for which it stands.



This is not a matter for compromise and negotiations, but bold and decisive action. For four decades Israel refused to declare sovereignty over areas it acquired in 1967; Arab Palestinians are well on the way to fill that vacuum.



Arab Palestinian leaders who do not strive for sovereignty over all of Palestine are considered traitors; for many Israelis, those who demand secure and defensible borders, who advocate extending Israeli sovereignty, are fools and crackpots. Mea culpa.



The author is a writer and journalist living in Israel

Guest Comment:Palarabs: All we want is every single dunam (measure of land that was used in the Ottoman Empire and remained in use in Israel) of land Israel is sitting on! Who the hell believes they want peace?

The Jews have been humiliating the Arabs since they won the 1948 war and retained their state and then won each war...Arabs have no forgiveness...the only thing that will erase their humiliation is when Israel disappears DO YOU GET IS ISRAEL!?

This is the down fall of Israel's policy: For four decades, for no other reason than insanity or the ‘Mea culpa,’ "our own [Jewish] fault", Israel refused to declare sovereignty over areas it acquired in 1967 so now the Arab Palestinians are well on the way to fill that vacuum."

Israel should shock the world tomorrow and declare Shomron, Judea and Jordan Valley as part of sovereign Israel and let Shimon Peres, the Israeli Left and the entire world have gigantic heart arrack!

-----
Shalom,
Nurit
Divided we FALL! UNITED we stand and WIN!

Click Here to Read More...

HC: Married couples face extra tax in Senate health bill

Stephen Dinan and David M. Dickson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Democrats' health care bill would create a new marriage penalty by imposing a tax on individuals who make $200,000 annually but hitting married couples making just $50,000 more. hat's one of 17 new taxes imposed by the bill, which also creates a levy on elective plastic surgery - some call it "botax" - and places a 40 percent excise tax on those who have generous health care plans.

"If you have insurance, you get taxed. If you don't have insurance, you get taxed. If you need a life-saving medical device, you get taxed. If you need prescription medicines, you get taxed," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who is leading the fight against the bill.

The new taxes would be used to fund an expansion of government medical programs and to fund subsidies for lower-income individuals to buy insurance, extending health care coverage to 94 percent of eligible non-elderly Americans.

Democrats said the bill will offer lower health care costs for small businesses and families, and said the new taxes are aimed at upper-income earners, so costs would not go up for the middle class. They said that makes good on President Obama's campaign pledge not to increase taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year, which explains the reason for the new marriage penalty.

"We wanted to make this provision consistent with the president's pledge not to increase taxes on singles making under $200,000 and married couples making under $250,000," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who wrote the Senate bill.

"Yes, this structure can create a 'marriage penalty' for some couples. It also creates a 'marriage bonus' for others," he said. "A married couple with one wage earner can earn up to $250,000 without facing this higher tax, whereas a single person in the same job with the same pay would be hit by it."

But a married couple in which each earner makes $150,000 would be hit with the tax, whereas an unmarried couple living together with the same incomes would not.

Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, said the new marriage penalty comes on top of an existing one that's always been part of the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare.

He said when the payroll tax was created to fund Social Security during the New Deal, lawmakers didn't anticipate the freelance of two-income families, so there's always been a sort of marriage penalty for couples whose incomes topped the single-earner income taxation level.

Such penalties have been thorny issues in the tax codes for years.

The new tax would rise from 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent for singles making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Congress earlier this decade tried to reduce the marriage penalty in the income tax code by adjusting the standard deduction for single taxpayers and married couples and expanding the 15 percent tax bracket for couples filing joint tax returns.

Mr. Ellis said another problem with Democrats' plan is that the new payroll tax is not indexed for inflation, even though wage growth is about 5 percent a year. That means the tax will capture an ever-larger share of taxpayers.

"Fifteen years from now, someone who today is earning $100,000, if their wage growth just grows on average, 15 years from now they're going to be paying this tax," Mr. Ellis said.

The plastic surgery tax could increase the cost of nips and tucks by imposing a 5 percent tax on the cost of such surgeries. The tax is slated to go into effect Jan. 1 and is expected to raise $5.8 billion over 10 years. It would cover all elective procedures, whether covered by insurance or not, but would not be levied on surgeries intended to repair personal injuries.

Some of the taxes are already running into political trouble with Democrats' core supporters.

The Teamsters union on Thursday blasted the proposal to impose a 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" high-value health insurance plans, saying it would threaten the benefit-rich coverage unions have fought hard to win for their workers.

"Any claim that it affects only 'Cadillac' plans and thus the wealthy is misleading," said Teamsters President James P. Hoffa Jr. "This tax will fall on one-third of Americans in 10 years. ... The idea that this tax will curtail rising premiums is just dead wrong."

The tax is slated to go into effect in 2013 and would apply to individual policies worth $8,500 or family policies worth $23,000. A slightly higher threshold would apply for early retirees and those in high-risk professions.

Budget analysts said they expect that employers and consumers will start to ditch the high-value plans and instead pay the money to workers in higher wages and salaries, so most of the nearly $150 billion in revenue on which Democrats are counting from the provision would come from higher income taxes.

"Put a tax on my high-premium health plan and suddenly it's not such a good deal," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "I'd rather have the cash."

Several relatively small tax increases will be aimed at health savings accounts and medical savings accounts. One will change the definitions for medical expenses that qualify as itemized deductions. Another will raise the penalties for withdrawing funds from these vehicles. A third would limit health-related flexible spending arrangements.

"All of these changes are designed to make health savings accounts less attractive and cripple consumer-directed health care plans," said Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Altogether, they would raise about $20 billion through 2019.

* Jennifer Haberkorn and S.A. Miller contributed to this report.
http://eedition.washingtontimes.com/index.xml

Click Here to Read More...

ADL Crosses the Line with Report Bashing Obama Critics

Jonathan S. Tobin

Denunciations of the harsh tone of political discourse are an old standby of American commentary. Though presidents of the United States have been subjected to absurd and often vicious attacks for more than 200 years, it has been generally understood that the derangement engendered by extreme partisanship is an unavoidable if regrettable feature of our political life. But if the Anti-Defamation League has its way, the election of Barack Obama will herald a changing of the rules. Opponents of this president are apparently going to have tread a lot more lightly or face all the opprobrium that this group can muster Why is this so? As was the case with many of those who opposed his Republican predecessor, some of those speaking up against President Obama’s policies have engaged in uncivil discourse. While the far Left embraced conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war, the far Right wastes time pondering the president’s religious faith or where he was born. And some on the Right have tried to brand the object of their opposition as a new Hitler, just as some on the left did to Bush.

Such appalling statements should be condemned. But just as it was wrong — as well as politically tone-deaf — for conservatives to have assumed that opponents of the war in Iraq could be put down as merely the fellow travelers of the insane Left, where the Code Pink/Cindy Sheehan crowd dominated, it would be foolish for the Left to make the same mistake about the groundswell of opposition against Obama’s policies.

Yet as misguided as such an approach may be for the Democratic party, it is quite another thing when an organization tasked with monitoring genuine threats to democracy, as well as anti-Semitism, steps into this mess. But that is exactly what the ADL has done with its new report, “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies,” issued on Monday. The report claims that those who are disgruntled with the president have unleashed a “toxic atmosphere of rage in America” since Obama's election.

Some of the ADL’s work here is unexceptionable. Informing the public about scary fringe groups like the armed “militias” mentioned in the report is the sort of task for which the ADL was invented. But “Rage Grows in America” isn’t content with smoking out the nuts. Its goal is to link them to the broad spectrum of activists, writers, and thinkers who are less than enthralled with the age of Obama. For the ADL, the “rage” is the result of a three-headed monster: “mainstream political attacks,” “grass roots hostility,” and “anti-government extremists."

The first of these threats to American democracy — the word “mainstream” appears in the report in quotes as if to disparage the notion that such opinions are widespread, while simultaneously paying lip service to the fact that strong criticism of Obama is entirely legitimate — is the result of “partisan attacks against the Obama administration by some conservative politicians and media figures. Upset and anxious about their loss of power following the 2008 elections, they seek primarily to energize their political base and to delegitimize the Obama administration at the same time."

This passage ought to prompt disinterested readers to ask whether a defeated political party’s criticism of their opposition deserves mention in a report about extremism. After all, conservatives have attacked Obama on the issues not because they want to overthrow the government but because they disagree with him. The ADL then attempts to cover itself by saying that, “for the most part,” such mainstream critics “eschew the conspiracy theories and more outlandish notions and tactics propagated by others. Some of their activities parallel Democratic tactics during the Bush administration. These mainstream political attacks fall outside of the bounds of this report."

The mere mention of such Republican activities in this context, however, serves to reinforce the very conclusion that the ADL claims it wishes to disavow. Indeed, the report then goes on to say: “One of the most important effects of these activists, however, is to help create a body of people who may be predisposed to believe the assertions and claims of more extreme individuals and groups."

So, according to the ADL, one of the “most important” things about criticism of the stimulus package, ObamaCare, appeasement of Iran, dithering over Afghanistan, and perhaps even the president’s confrontational attitude toward Israel is to lay the groundwork for extremist conspiracy theories!

In one tidy package, the ADL links not only “mainstream” critics but radio and television talkers like Glenn Beck and peaceful “tea party” protests against higher taxes with those who talk of armed resistance to the government and even those responsible for the 1994 Oklahoma City bombing. Seen in this light, those who merely cry that they “want their country back” from the Democrats while standing outside a town-hall meeting become the thin edge of the wedge of a new threat to democracy and, by extension, a threat to the Jews.

The point is that the “tea parties” and protests at town halls are no more a threat to democracy than were the anti-Iraq-war protests of just a few years ago, where one was just as likely, if not more likely, to encounter not veiled anti-Semitism as the report implies about right-wing activities, but open vicious Jew hatred and Israel-bashing, as well as portrayals of Bush and Dick Cheney as Nazis.

More important, what the ADL seems to forget is that the right of the people to feel “anger and resentment” against the government of the day — be it Republican or Democratic — is what we call democracy in this country. The group is standing on firm ground when it calls on Republicans, as it recently did, to condemn those who outrageously link Obama with Hitler. Of course, Republican leaders have done exactly that. But had the ADL issued a report a few years ago that began by accusing Democrats of creating resentment against Bush and then linked opposition to the GOP to extremists who supported Hamas or rationalized
or even denied al-Qaeda’s role in 9/11, Democrats would have cried foul and been right to do so. That never happened. But by choosing to frame its report denouncing this brand of extremism in such a way as to associate all those who have opposed Obama’s policies in one way or another with the far Right, the ADL has stepped over a line that a nonpartisan group should never cross.

Jonathan Tobin is executive editor of COMMENTARY.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/adl-crosses-the-line-with-report-bashing-obama-critics-15290
Guest Comment: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/adl-crosses-the-line-with-report-bashing-obama-critics-15290

Click Here to Read More...

Peace in Arabic

David Suissa

It's not that I get tired of listening to Jewish speakers. More often than not, they motivate and inspire me. Whether I agree with them or not, there's a familiarity, a connection. I learn from my people and I embrace their diversity. But no matter how diverse, it's still the same Jewish tent.

That's why it was so fascinating the other night to listen to someone who describes himself as an Israeli-Arab-Muslim-Palestinian. His look, his dress, his accent and body language all felt different. His mother's "large clan," he said, lives in Ramallah, where he visits almost every day from his home in Jerusalem. I could easily imagine him drinking tea and eating hummus with them.

The man was Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, and he spoke at the home of Steve and Rita Emerson in Westwood.

Toameh has been reporting on Arab affairs for close to 30 years, for both Jewish and Arabic media. There's a quiet nonchalance about him, an old-school Middle Eastern dignity. Even when he says something familiar, it sounds different coming from him.

Toameh is in the middle of a U.S. tour sponsored by StandWithUs and was in Los Angeles for their annual "Israel in Focus" weekend conference, which gathers student activists from around the world. Of course, he wouldn't have been chosen if his views toward the Jewish state weren't sympathetic.

But when Toameh spoke, what stood out was not that he is pro-Israel, but that he is pro-Palestine.

For example, he spoke about the virulent anti-Israel atmosphere he is seeing on U.S. college campuses, about which, he observed, "there is sometimes more sympathy for Hamas than I see in Ramallah."

When he asked these students, "What makes you pro-Palestinian?" the answers were usually the same: "Israel is an apartheid state, Israel is a violent occupier, etc."
"But that's anti-Israel," he challenged them. "That's not pro-Palestine. I'm pro-Palestine. What makes you pro-Palestine?

"If you're really pro-Palestine, come help us instead of just spewing poison about Israel. Come teach my people democracy. Instead of Israel Apartheid Week, why don't you have Palestine Democracy Week?"

There was something authentic and disarming about him. His words didn't smell like propaganda or activism. He spoke for moderate Palestinians like himself, and he spoke from his heart, not from talking points.

He brought up a private meeting he'd had with President Obama a couple of years ago, while Obama was still a U.S. senator. Toameh told Obama that the key obstacle to peace is the hatred and incitement to violence that prevails throughout Palestinian society - in schools, the media and mosques - and is endorsed by the Palestinian leadership.

Commenting on the charge of incitement, Obama asked: "Is it true?" and later asked: "What can we do about it?"

Toameh suggested that the United States and other donor countries should predicate aid to the Palestinians on their stopping the incitement, to which Obama responded, "Isn't this political extortion?"

Toameh clearly thinks not. He thinks it is in the interest of the Palestinians to stop incitement, and he shared an Arab perspective on the subject.

"Look at the language that is now flying back and forth between Hamas and Fatah," he said. "It's the same poison you hear about the Jews: sons of pigs, infidels, etc. Incitement has spread and backfired on the Palestinians."

This incitement has also hurt the Palestinians' ability to make peace: "How do you tell people to make peace with the people you've called monsters and sons of pigs?"

Toameh sees no hope in the "top down" approach to peace. The soil is too rotten, he says. The Arab moderates have been undermined. "If I go to Ramallah and talk about Palestinian concessions on the right of return, I'll get shot in five minutes."

He says the Palestinians "already got their two-state solution - Gaza and the West Bank," and if it weren't for the Israeli presence in the West Bank, "Hamas would take over and Mahmoud Abbas would be lynched."

But lest you think there was no ray of hope in this Arab gentleman, he closed by discussing the people who he believes hold the key to an eventual peace between Jews and Arabs.

The Arab citizens of Israel.

"They are the ones who can build a bridge between Jews and Arabs," Toameh said. "They know what democracy is. They know about a free press and about freedom of religion. They know both sides."

He acknowledged the many obstacles - mutual mistrust, dual loyalties, Muslim radicalization, etc. - but he says Israel has no choice. If it wants a peaceful future, it must do a better job of embracing its Arab citizens.

The fact that some of them are becoming more radical is an even bigger incentive to embrace the moderates and preempt further radicalization.

It's true, he said, that Arabs have it better in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East. But that's not the point. Israel must see its Arab minority not as a threatening nuisance that must be tolerated and contained, but as potential allies who can eventually help bring peace to the Holy Land.

From your mouth to Allah's ears, Mr. Toameh.


David Suissa is the founder of OLAM magazine and a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. You can read his daily blog at suissablog.com and e-mail him at Suissa@olam.org

Click Here to Read More...

President Clinton, you're wrong!

In contrast to Clinton's statement, demography does not threaten Israel

Yoram Ettinger
YNET News

On November 15, 2009, former President Clinton stated in Jerusalem: "Two things remain unchanged since 1993 – geography and demographics. Palestinians have more children than Israelis can have or import." Clinton's intentions are positive. However, he is mistaken and misleading, while trying to convince Israelis to support a policy (withdrawal to the 1967 lines), which could determine the fate of the Jewish State: Oblivion or survival.


Hawks and doves would concur that public debate is dysfunctional when employing invalid numbers in order to frighten Israel into adopting a potentially-dangerous policy. Hawks and doves are aware that demographic-fatalism erodes confidence in Israel's cause and in Israel's steadfastness. It minimizes options and produces hasty decisions concerning critical national security issues. Decisions based on erroneous assumptions yield erroneous policy. Public debate should distance itself from baseless assumptions and position itself upon well-documented data.


In contrast to Clinton's statement, Israel's Jewish demography has been enhanced since 1993. A solid and a long-term 67% Jewish majority, west of the Jordan River (without Gaza) is documented by birth, death and migration records of the Palestinian Health and Education Ministry and Election Commission, as well as Israel's Border Police (which acts like the American INS), the World Bank and the Israeli and Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. In 2009, the Jewish population benefits from a substantial demographic tailwind, which could expand its majority.


And, here are the facts:



1. According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of annual Jewish births has increased by 45% from 1995 (80,400) to 2008 (117,000), in spite the cuts of child allowances – a global rarity. The number of Arab births within pre-1967 Israel has stabilized, around 39,000, during the same period.
2. The Jewish tailwind has persisted during the first eight months of 2009: 77,797 Jewish births, which amount to over 75% of total births within pre-1967 Israel, compared with 69% in 1995.
3. The significant decline in Arab fertility rate reflects a significantly improved standard of living, resulting from successful integration into Israel's infrastructures of health, education, employment, commerce, politics, media, sports, culture and the arts. The Arab-Jewish fertility gap was reduced from six births per woman in 1969 to 0.7 in 2008.
4. The Jewish secular sector – and especially the Olim (immigrants) from the USSR – is chiefly responsible for the upward trend of Jewish demography. The one million Soviet Olim arrived with a typical Russian fertility rate of one birth per woman, but they have adopted the typical secular Jewish fertility rate of 2-3 births per woman. In addition, Israel's yuppies are switching over from the European rate of 1-2 births to 3-4 births per woman.
5. A September 2006 World Bank survey of education in Judea, Samaria and Gaza documented a 32% distortion of Arab births by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. According to the Bank, the Arab demographic decline resulted from a drop in fertility and a rise in emigration.
6. The decline in Arab population growth follows a 20-year surge, which was a result of the post-1967 access to Israel's health infrastructure. The decline has been caused by urbanization (from a 70% rural to a 70% urban population in Judea and Samaria), unprecedented expansion of the education system, especially among women, and family planning.
7. Net-emigration has accelerated the fall of the Arab population growth rate in Judea and Samaria. From 1950 to 2009, there have been only six years of net-immigration. Net-emigration skyrocketed during the 1950-1967 Jordanian occupation, slowed down drastically following 1967, in response to the enhancement of health, education and employment, surged as a result of the 2000 Intifada and shifted to a higher gear in 2006, due to the rise of Hamas and the Hamas-PLO war.
8. The Arab fertility rate in Judea and Samaria declined to four births per woman and is trending downward. According to the UN Population Division, the decline typifies all Muslim countries other than Afghanistan and Yemen. For example, Jordan (a "twin-sister" of Judea and Samaria) has three births per woman, Iran – 1.7, Egypt – 2.5, Syria – 3.5 and Algeria – 1.8 births per woman.
9. The Judea and Samaria Arab population of 1.55 million – and not 2.5 million as claimed by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics – was documented in December 2008: a 66% distortion!

Theodore Herzl (1900) and David Ben Gurion (1947) did not subordinate their Zionist vision to the prophets of demographic doom – Simon Dubnov and Prof. Roberto Bacchi – although Jews were a minority of 8% and 33% respectively. In 2009, Israel's leaders should refrain from subordinating the future of the Jewish State to Clinton's pernicious demographic fatalism.

Comment: Clintons, Obama and his crew all know Dr. Ettinger's research, the science is in yet they continue to LIE. Yes, for political fodder they keep misrepresenting the truth-they know it still resonates in the media. The so-called mainstream media perpetuates these lies by first not challenging the leaders when they make preposterous comments and then by publishing the lies. So many people still operate today that if it is in the paper it must be true. It is these "leaders" who do not move us toward peace and I lay the responsiblity on their door steps!

Click Here to Read More...

A wheelless cart before a lame horse

Zalman Shoval , THE JERUSALEM POST

One should never underestimate the propensity of the Palestinians for shooting themselves in the foot, to wit, the situation Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has put himself in with regard to the peace process. True, this may not have been entirely his fault - mixed signals from abroad also had something to do with it, but Abbas seems to be bent on doing everything to get himself into an even deeper hole by adopting ever more intransigent positions. Then there was his zigzagging on the Goldstone Report, after first having asked Israel during the Gaza war to "smash" Hamas. Now someone has come up with the idea of unilaterally declaring Palestinian statehood. Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad had earlier broached the idea of building up Palestinian governance - a plausible concept in itself - but what the Palestinian functionaries around Abbas intend now is something completely different, amounting to putting a wheelless cart before a lame horse.

They had tried it before; back in 1999 Yasser Arafat, who as a result of the Oslo agreement was back in the country, announced that the Palestinians would forthwith declare their independence - only to be quickly disabused of this idea when the US and most of the Europeans made it clear to him that the declaration would not be recognized by the international community.

In the present case, there will probably be a replay of this scenario, there being indications that neither the US nor most members of the European community as well as others would legitimize a unilateral declaration by according it recognition. Even the support of Russia and China is in doubt, given that the former has not recognized the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, and that the latter is facing the threat in its own backyard of the Muslim community in Xinjiang declaring independence.

Someone should have explained to Abbas that this plan would in effect annul all past agreements including those which had granted legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority as part of the Oslo agreement. Also, any unilateral act regarding borders and territory could immediately trigger parallel annexations in the territories on the part of the State of Israel. In essence, a unilateral declaration of statehood would be in violation of international law and might be deemed an act of aggression, giving Israel the right to act in response, militarily or otherwise.

SO WHY does the official Palestinian leadership still threaten to go ahead with an act which so obviously goes against its own interests? It could be to pave the way towards a new wave of violence, as Arafat had planned and acted upon after the failure of the Camp David conference. But there may also be another, more immediate reason, namely, to bring about the elimination of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This resolution, which is the only agreed basis for all the agreements and initiatives to bring about a settlement of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, including the Palestinians (and of course, Syria), also determined that Israel was not required to withdraw from all the territories it holds as a result of repulsing Arab aggression in 1967, and that furthermore, future borders should be based on considerations of security. In other words, the dividing line between a future Palestinian state and Israel would not necessarily be commensurate with the former temporary armistice line called the "Green Line."

This then, as senior PLO and Fatah official Yasser Abd Rabbo has confirmed, is their real and immediate agenda: get the Security Council of the UN to adopt a resolution to say that the future Palestinian border would be the Green Line - thus, in effect, replacing Resolution 242 and making the latter null and void. Israel's diplomacy thus has its job cut out for it in coming months, but one trusts that the US and others too are aware of the Palestinian stratagems and that they will not lend a hand to an initiative which would seriously exacerbate the political situation in the Middle East and return any chance of peace to square one.

The writer is the former Israel Ambassador to the US, and currently heads the Prime Minister's forum of US-Israel Relations.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1258566461688&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Click Here to Read More...

PM: I want a final accord with PA, not an interim agreement

Nov. 20, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is interested in aiming for a final-status agreement, and not an interim one as some of his ministers are proposing, if and when negotiations with the Palestinian Authority resume, The Jerusalem Post has learned. In various internal discussions this week, Netanyahu said that were there "courageous leadership" on the Palestinian side, a resumption of negotiations could lead to a final peace agreement, and that this was preferable in his mind to an interim agreement based on a Palestinian state within temporary borders.

In recent days there have been various reports of ministers, and even President Shimon Peres, pressing for an interim accord that would include a Palestinian state with provisional borders. The logic behind this idea is that it would remove from the negotiating mix those core issues that have prevented an agreement in the past - such as the Palestinian refugee issue and Jerusalem - while giving the Palestinians at least something to show for negotiations until those issues could be dealt with at a later date.

Netanyahu, however, has said in private meetings that he thinks a final agreement could be reached, but that it would take courageous leadership taking courageous steps. He said this week that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who has said he would step down because of the stymied diplomatic process, should not be "counted out."

Netanyahu recalled that in 1971 no one thought that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat would eventually make peace with Israel, and that it was too early to "write off" Abbas. "Sometimes conventional wisdom is wrong," he was quoted as saying.

Sources in the Prime Minister's Office, meanwhile, gave no indication on Thursday that Netanyahu was on the verge of a public statement declaring a 10-month moratorium on housing starts in the settlements in an effort to lure the PA back to the negotiation table. Former MK Yossi Beilin on Wednesday said that such a declaration was in the works, which would be followed by an American announcement that while the moratorium was not everything they hoped for, it was enough to restart the negotiations.

The sources in the Prime Minister's Office said that Netanyahu has made clear in private discussions that he was prepared for a moratorium as long as it did not include Jerusalem and did not preclude construction of public buildings needed for normal life in the settlements. He has not yet, however, specified publicly the length of the proposed moratorium.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1258624598200&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Click Here to Read More...

Muslim attacks Christian in Pleasanton, Ca‏

Another case of “uncoverage” by the local news media.

Whether our local newspapers are reporting it (and most of them are not) and despite what the local police who handle the incidents say (there’s pressure to be “politically correct”) Muslim extremist terrorist events are happening all around us.

Now it has happened close to my home, too
The two largest local newspapers, The San Francisco Chronicle , and the Contra Costa Times, haven’t covered this, even though they have had more than a week to do so. (or if they have covered it, it is so miniscule, it isn’t found on search).

The online edition of a little local mailer, the Danville Express, gets kudos for checking police blotters and getting us the facts. Thanks also to KSFO Radio host Brian Sussman, who saw the article and alerted our community to this frightening act of terrorism on his talk show tonight.

In upscale Pleasanton, California, at the huge and trendy Stoneridge Mall, a young man suddenly ripped a crucifix off a woman’s neck, screaming “Islam is good” at the top of his lungs, and, according to police, “anti-Christian comments.” He clenched a pen in his hand over his head and threatened other customers, some of whom were hiding under tables and chairs nearby. (See Danville Express article). This has also posted on Homeland Security News.

The young man had, guess what, a Muslim name….Abdul Walid Hamid. He is now facing charges of battery, grand theft, exhibition of a deadly weapon and a possible hate crime in Alameda County. He tried to fight off police officers.

This story is troubling on many levels:
1. If this were a white kid who had ripped some Muslim’s headgear off, do you think the story would be getting more coverage as some sort of jack-booted Christian, Nazi stormtrooper “hate crime” against Islam? Ya think?
2. The Pleasanton city police lieutenant quoted in the Danville Express article says this Muslim punk’s assault and religious chantings and epithets were “similar” to recent, “loud” Christian protests in downtown Pleasanton??? Say what? Show me one report of a screaming Methodist or Presbyterian yanking burqas off Muslim women at a shopping mall.
Is law enforcement so getting pummeled with threats of litigation and brainwashed into such a “politically correct” mind-set that they can’t call it what it is?
3. The Islamo-creep kid was taken, according to the newspaper report, to a local mental health facility. Why? He is facing criminal charges, allegedly assaulted a woman and police officers. Let’s not chalk another jihad incident up to being “one, isolated crazy person.”
4. Walid Hamid-whatever was quoted in the police report as yelling “Allah is power” “Islam is GREAT”. Yet, he supposedly asked for an attorney later, THROUGH AN INTERPRETER. So was he yelling “Allah Akhbar” at the shopping mall? Was he using the Muslim war cry used during the 9/11, Ft. Hood and other jihadi attacks or was he speaking English? If so, why don’t police say so???
5. This incident occurred in a well-lit public shopping mall, already decorated for Christmas, in one of the more affluent suburbs in the eastern San Franscico bay suburbs. If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.
6. There is reason to be concerned that “copycat” jihads will take place due to the wide coverage given to Ft. Hood and the appeasement-mode of the news media.
7. If you think Muslim terrorist events are rare in the United States, think again.
Pamela Geller, noted jihad watcher, keeps a monthly list of all such events on her blog, Atlas Shrugs. It will shock you. See this month’s U.S. jihad report.
As the Christian”infidel” Christmas holidays approach and in light of Ft. Hood, let us resolve to be vigilant.

Be thy brother’s keeper. Report suspicious behavior and keep on reporting it until something is done.

http://www.uncoverage.net/2009/11/jihad-in-a-suburban-shopping-mall/

Click Here to Read More...

Another Vast Jewish Conspiracy

ROBIN SHEPHERD
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574543671980025770.html

Here is a small selection of events that have taken place in Britain since the end of Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza earlier this year. The government has imposed a partial arms embargo on Israel and failed to vote against the Goldstone report in the U.N . The charities War on Want and Amnesty International U.K. have both promoted a book by the anti-Israeli firebrand Ben White, tellingly called "Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide." The Trades Union Congress at its annual conference has called for boycotts of Israeli products as well as a total arms embargo.

In the media, the Guardian newspaper has stepped up its already obsessive campaign against the Jewish state to the extent that the paper's flagship Comment is Free Web site frequently features two anti-Israeli polemics on one and the same day. The BBC continues to use its enormous influence over British public opinion to whitewash anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in the Middle East. Its Web site, for example, features a profile of Hamas that makes no mention of the group's virulent hatred of Jews or its adherence to a "Protocols of Zion"-style belief in world-wide Jewish conspiracies.

Readers may be surprised to learn, therefore, that the British media and political establishment is apparently cowering under the sway of a secretive cabal of Zionist lobbyists who have all but extinguished critical opinions of Israel from the public domain.

Such charges have been aired to mass critical acclaim this week in a landmark documentary, "Inside Britain's Israel Lobby," on Channel 4—the same outlet that offered Iran's Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an uninterrupted, seven-minute propaganda slot on Christmas Day last year.

The makers of the documentary—top Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne and TV journalist James Jones—have also written about their program in the Guardian. Both furiously deny that they are peddling conspiracy theories. But the mindset we are dealing with was neatly exposed by the authors' own explanation on how their suspicions were aroused that something sinister is at work in the corridors of British power.

It all transpired, they told readers ominously, during an address earlier this year by Conservative Party leader David Cameron at a dinner hosted by the Conservative Friends of Israel.

"The dominant event of the previous 12 months had been the Israeli invasion of Gaza," they wrote. "We were shocked Cameron made no reference in his speech to the massive destruction it caused, or the 1,370 deaths that resulted, or for that matter the invasion itself. Indeed, our likely future prime minister went out of his way to praise Israel because it 'strives to protect innocent life.' This remark was not intended satirically."

Since it is inconceivable, the authors obviously believe, that anyone could honestly credit Israel with anything other than the most damnable motives it must therefore follow that those who do in fact praise the Jewish state must be being paid or bullied into doing so.

If you think this all sounds familiar, you'd be right. Messrs. Oborne and Jones produced an extensive pamphlet accompanying the documentary, which openly claimed inspiration from none other than John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"—another conspiracy theory alleging malign Zionist influence in the United States.

But if Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt at least felt the need to dress up their polemic in pseudo-academic wrapping paper, the sheer amateurishness of the British documentary they inspired is breathtaking. There was the endless superimposition of the Israeli Star of David on to the British flag, which, along with some absurdly melancholic background music, was presumably designed to prepare viewers for an astonishing series of revelations. But of course such revelations actually never materialized.

It turns out from the documentary itself that the allegedly secretive Jewish donors have been quite open in declaring their interests in accordance with the law. One of them, Poju Zabludowicz, the billionaire funder of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) is good friends with Madonna—not exactly the kind of company you'd choose if you were trying to hide behind a veil of obscurity.

Much is also made of the influence of Friends of Israel groupings in the British Parliament. Such allegations are, of course, rendered ridiculous with a moment's reflection on the countervailing influence of vast amounts of Arab oil money, not to mention the fact that membership in such groups for many parliamentarians is either purely formal or outright meaningless. Michael Ancram, for example, a former Northern Ireland minister and a member of Conservative Friends of Israel for more than 30 years, is famous for calling for talks with Hamas.

Given the paucity of the arguments, it would be tempting to dismiss the whole thing as unimportant. Would that we could. The documentary has already provoked a torrent of abuse against British Jews, not least on Channel 4's widely read Web site, whose moderators have seen fit to approve dozens of postings about the Zionist lobby's "seditious behavior," its "disgusting attack on British democracy," "the hand of global Zionism at work," and several along the lines of the following, which said flatly: "We want our country back. The agents of a foreign power embedded at all levels of our government and politics need flushing out."

If this sort of language takes hold, a bad situation in Britain may be about to get a whole lot worse.

Jewish leadership organizations have long feared accusations of divided loyalty between Britain and Israel and, ironically given the charges now being made against them, are frequently criticized in their own communities for failing to be sufficiently robust in Israel's defense. The risk is that some may now be panicked into silence.

Non-Jews who call for a more reasoned discussion of Israel—already a small and diminishing group in Britain—will likely face additional slanders against their integrity: Since there is supposedly no reasonable case to be made in favor of the Jewish state, we must have sold out to the "Lobby."

Such calumnies cannot be allowed to stand. Now more than ever, the forces of reason and decency must continue the fight to be heard.

Mr. Shepherd is director of International Affairs at the Henry Jackson Society. His new book, "A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem With Israel," has just been published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Thanks to Ronit Fraid

Click Here to Read More...

Life in an American Fourth-Grade: Did Americans Think That Asians “All Looked Alike”?

RubinReports
Barry Rubin

First, I have to report a really great exchange in class. Two students, my son and a boy who studied hitherto in Great Britain, responded to the endless romanticizing of Native Americans by pointing out that many tribes were very warlike. The teacher responded: We don't really have evidence of that. So much for actual history. Native Americans: good, innocent, children of nature living in a utopian society. American settlers: evil, warlike, and just plain mean. Welcome to the taxpayer-funded indoctrination into hating America. But mainly this article is an addendum to my previous dispatch from the classroom front about the teaching of Japanese internment during World War Two in my son’s fourth-grade class (see here). The kids were informed that also interned were Koreans and Chinese because the Americans couldn’t tell the difference between them. This is nonsense, of course, for Americans in 1941-1942 were easily able to do so.

Saying this is not to deny discrimination in immigration and other ways against Chinese, especially in California, in earlier years. If put side by side to the treatment suffered by every wave of immigrants starting with the Irish, however, it was quite comparable in many ways. I'm not, however, writing about that but rather on the situation by the 1930s and 1940s.

There is a wider problem here, an element of World War Two largely forgotten today, that gives us a key for understanding how America's story is distorted. In the United States at that time, there was tremendous sympathy for the Chinese before and during the war, and also for the Filipinos once the Japanese attacked. There are many articles and films of that period which express admiration and respect for these two groups. (Korea was pretty much unknown.)

Americans were well informed about the sufferings of the Chinese at the hands of Japan and there was much indignation about it. In fact, this is a major element now largely overlooked. It was because of what we would call today human rights concerns that the United States put up economic embargos on Japan, especially for oil and petroleum products.

Indeed, a major reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was this U.S. pressure on Tokyo. Just as the United States was nominally neutral but supported the United Kingdom against Nazi Germany, it also supported China against imperial Japan. This was noble behavior on the part of the United States. We should remember that estimates of Chinese war deaths, overwhelmingly civilian, were twenty million.

Once the war began, the United States worked hard to help and supply the Chinese Nationalist forces--many American airmen died taking supplies "over the hump" from Burma to China, and also came to work with the Communists as well. The Chinese Communist revolution after the war and the long hostility helped push these facts into oblivion.

Why is this important today? Because typically Political Correctness and the anti-Americanism so prevalent, in its urge to indict America as racist, ignores the fact that the United States was usually on the side of one “non-white” or Third World group against another. U.S. interventions in Latin America, for example, were almost always due to being asked for help by one faction against another.

While at times the United States intervened on behalf of dictatorships (Guatemala, 1953, being a prime example), it almost equally often (at least except for the brief high Cold War combat against Castro’s Cuba in the 1960s and early 1970s when Washington felt the dangerous situation necessitated backing anyone who was anti-Communist) was on the side of democratic forces. If Fidel Castro had ruled as a liberal democrat he would have had an excellent relationship with the United States.

Today American children are being taught in all too many classrooms that their country was always racist and imperialist. Even if you accept the basic framework of contemporary historical views this simply isn’t true. The United States was not “against” Asian people in 1941, for example. It supported one group of Asians against another and it was on the right side.

I remember growing up on films and books about heroic pre-World War Two Chinese peasants trying to eke out a living against flood and famine or bravely battling the Japanese (as with those who saved the American airmen from the Jimmy Doolittle raid on Tokyo) and films about brave Filipino partisans fighting side by side with American forces against great odds. There was never any distinction made on the basis of race or to portray these people as inferior. For that matter, compared to what went on in other countries (even among warring Europeans) materials about the Japanese enemy were pretty mild stuff despite Pearl Harbor.

It should equally be noted that today, and for the past half-century, the United States has not opposed or fought against “Arabs” or “Muslims” but supported one group against another. During the period between the 1950s and 1990s, those treated as enemies were radical, anti-American, and usually aligned with the USSR. Since then, they have been usually radical Islamists who want to install dictatorships even worse than the existing ones.

The United States has very little to apologize for in its history, especially compared to pretty much any other country on the face of the earth. Are we ever going to see the day when it is fashionable to be proud of America again, a pride that can easily be based on the facts?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

Click Here to Read More...

Holder’s al Qaeda Incentive Plan

William McGurn

Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2009 (first post)

When it comes to terrorists, you would think that an al Qaeda operative who targets an American mom sitting in her office or a child on a flight back home is many degrees worse than a Taliban soldier picked up after a firefight with U.S. Army troops. Your instinct would be correct, because at the heart of terrorism is the monstrous idea that the former is as legitimate a target as the latter. Unfortunately, by dispatching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders to federal criminal court for trial, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will be undermining this distinction. And the perverse message that decision will send to terrorists all over this dangerous world is this: If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.

"A fundamental purpose of rules such as the Geneva Conventions is to give those at war an incentive for more civilized behavior—and not targeting civilians is arguably the most sacred of these principles," says William Burck, a former federal prosecutor and Bush White House lawyer who dealt with national security issues. "It demolishes this principle to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even more legal protections than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone."

We don't often speak of incentives in war. That's a loss, because the whole idea of, say, Geneva rights is based on the idea of providing combatants with incentives to do things that help limit the bloodiness of battle. These include wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly, not targeting civilians, and so on.

Terrorists recognize none of these things. They are best understood as associations of people plotting and carrying out war crimes, whether that means sowing fear with direct and indiscriminate attacks on marketplaces, offices and airlines—or by engaging enemy troops without distinguishing uniforms, so that the surrounding civilians essentially become used as human shields. Terrorists reject both the laws of war and the laws of American civil society. To put it another way, they reject both the authority and the obligations their legal rights imply.

None of this seems to bother Mr. Holder. Since he dropped his bombshell on Friday, much commentary has focused on the possibility that KSM might be found not guilty. That, however, is unlikely: Mr. Holder is not a fool, and everyone in the Obama administration appreciates the backlash that would occur if a KSM trial results in an acquittal. Thus, the men he will send for trial will be those against whom he has the most evidence.

The perversity here is that the overwhelming evidence of their war crimes gain them protections denied a soldier fighting in accord with the rules of war.

It even gains them more protections than their associates who attack military targets. This double standard means that the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing are sent to military tribunals while the perpetrators of 9/11 are sent to federal court.

Andrew McCarthy has a unique perspective on the move to criminal trials. As an assistant U.S. attorney in 1993, he successfully prosecuted Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind sheikh") for the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Even though the cases were somewhat different—that plot was conceived, plotted and carried out on U.S. soil—Mr. McCarthy says the experience persuaded him that federal trials are a bad way of handling terror.

"At first, I was of the mind that a criminal prosecution would uphold all our high-falutin' rhetoric about the constitution and majesty of the law," says Mr. McCarthy. "But when you get down to the nitty gritty of a trial, you see one huge problem: The criminal justice system imposes limits on the government and gives the defendant all sorts of access to information, because we'd rather have the government lose than unfairly convict a man. You can't take that position with an enemy who is at war with you and trying to bring that government down."

By going down this line, says Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Holder has invited any number of dangers: making the Manhattan courtroom a target for terrorist attack, inviting the disclosure of sensitive intelligence, opening the possibility that some al Qaeda operative will be acquitted and released within the U.S., etc.

Worst of all, he says, is turning the laws of war upside down: Why fight the Marines and risk getting killed yourself or locked up in Bagram forever when you can blow up American citizens on their own streets and gain the legal protections that give you a chance to go free? With this one step, Mr. Holder is giving al Qaeda a ghastly incentive: to focus more of their attacks on American civilians on American home soil.

"It is foolish to think that al Qaeda does not train to our system and look for our vulnerabilities," says Mr. McCarthy. "Remember what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told his captors when we got him, 'I'll see you in New York with my lawyer.' It seems he knows our weaknesses better than our government does."

Click Here to Read More...

American Jews-"The King" wants you to ...

Hana Levi Julian
Jordan to US Jews: Help PA State

Jordan's King Abdullah II turned to Jewish leaders from the United States this week in hopes of convincing them to help pressure Israel to accept the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan as a means of getting talks with the Palestinian Authority back on track.

Using the King's language, American Jews", the King not my language-so, do you know the Saudi Plan? If you truly do you know why we rejected it 7 years ago.The king and his wife, Queen Rania, who was born in a region today controlled by the Palestinian Authority, met Tuesday with the heads of the American Jewish Congress at the Royal Court in Amman to urge them to support an independent PA state.

Abdullah told AJCongress President Richard S. Gordon and co-executive directors Matthew Horn and Marc Stern that Israel's security would be best served under the 2002 Saudi Peace Initiative. He added that it was in the strategic interests of the entire region for peace to be made between Israel and its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinian Authority.

The plan referred to by the Jordanian king was initiated by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002. It calls for the 22-member Arab League to recognize the State of Israel as a country, but not necessarily as a Jewish state. In return, Israel would be required to surrender all of the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as well as numerous neighborhoods in Israel's capital city of Jerusalem, and the ancient Old City of Jerusalem, which contains Judaism's holiest sites -- and where the proposed PA state intends to make its capital. In addition, the plan calls for Israel to allow the immigration of some five million foreign Arabs who claim ancestry in Israel, under a so-called "right of return."

The delegation discussed with the Jordanian king ways to eliminate the roadblocks that stalled negotiations between Israel and the PA, according to a front-page article published in the Jordan Times daily newspaper.

Abdullah also warned that intensive international action would be needed to create a "suitable environment for peacemaking" that could lead to regional prosperity and development. He added that "wasting the opportunity at hand" would cast doubt on the feasibility of the peace process and lead instead to more tension and conflict, which he said could affect "the entire globe."

Additional Comment: You do know why the "King" is pressuring you? He is under enormous pressure to accept responsibility for the impasse-if you really know the history you also know that counter proposals exist to have "The King" accept the Arab-Palestinians, 60% of his population already claim such a descriptor! This is part about survival for Jordan's current leadership.

Click Here to Read More...

A false flag of neutrality

The Middle East Institute claims to be neutral, but the events it hosts suggest otherwise.

Daniel Hertz
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2009/11/17/false-flag-neutrality

The Middle East Institute’s Web site claims that it “provides a neutral atmosphere for scholarly and student exchanges of views on issues concerning the Middle East,” but one only needs to attend a handful of its events to observe its true nature. MEI provides a platform for speakers to spread inaccurate “facts” and skewed characterizations of Israel. MEI has hosted nearly 30 events at Columbia this past semester, and almost every event that discussed Israel was void of this promised “neutral atmosphere.” A recent MEI event featured Israeli journalist Amira Hass. The event, titled “Goldstone’s Mistake,” implied a critique of the Goldstone Report, a controversial U.N. investigation into Israel’s alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead at the end of 2008. As Hass is best known for her strong criticism of Israel, exaggerated numbers, and a complete disregard of testimonial discrepancies, the title of the event caught many students by surprise.

Hass attempted to apologize for the misleading title of her speech, explaining that she wanted an eye-catching title. Only five minutes into her event, though, she had already exposed herself as misleading and untrustworthy. Hass argued, “I’m not biased. Here I examine the two sides. No one agrees more than me that we need to criticize Hamas and the Palestinian side… However, it is two different-sized yardsticks with which we need to criticize both sides.”

This outlook on the conflict is the very definition of bias, and it is unfortunately shared by many of MEI’s speakers. Rather than letting the facts speak for themselves, Hass attempted to skew and simplify the Operation Cast Lead in a disturbing fashion. Hass stressed that, much like Y2K and swine flu, the rockets launched from Gaza were “meant to instill fear and confusion behind enemy lines… but without any military effect.” Hass’ accusations are not only incorrect but also extremely dangerous to make in front of an audience likely to accept her words as fact. Eight years of Palestinian rocket attacks have caused over 19 Israeli deaths and thousands of injuries; randomly fired into Israeli cities without any military presence, the rockets have often landed on civilian infrastructure, including kindergartens, religious buildings, and private homes. I urge Hass, along with all those who blindly promote her message, to visit Dr. Mirela Siderer, an Israeli physician who was brutally disfigured when a rocket landed in her Ashkelon medical clinic, and to try to figure out why a rocket that was intended merely to “instill fear” has changed her life forever.

Amira Hass’ blatant disregard for objectivity continued as she told a story about a note that was found in a Gaza house where Israeli soldiers had taken refuge for the night. Hass stated that on this paper, she found the peculiar Hebrew phrase, “Hachla’at Batim,” which she interpreted to mean “defecating houses.” She then explained that the note must have been an order from a general to his soldiers to dirty Palestinian homes with fecal matter and garbage. It does not take much to debunk this offensive and baseless accusation, and in fact, one needs only a Hebrew dictionary to do so. Not only does this phrase have no logical or syntactical meaning, whether in its slang or proper form, but even those with the simplest of knowledge of the law enforced within the IDF know that this is extremely backwards. Strict military law forbids Israeli soldiers from even sleeping on Palestinian mattresses, let alone “dirtying” them.

Rather than being the exception, the Amira Hass event hosted by the Middle East Institute is representative of a greater trend. Until now, few have challenged the MEI and the speakers it brings in, and because of this, it is disturbing to consider the number of minds that have been molded by speakers with one-sided agendas. The MEI often invites Israeli journalists and historians to speak in an attempt to appear even-handed. However, it is these guests who are often the most biased against Israel. Every group and institution at Columbia has the right to bring in whomever they want, regardless of their views, but it is when these biased speakers wave a false flag of neutrality that we must speak up.

The author is a senior in the School of Engineering and Applied Science. He is the Legacy Heritage CAMERA Campus Fellow for Columbia University.

Click Here to Read More...

Americans, if you don't believe freedom of speech is being shut down then you ...

Another example of freedom of speech being slowly shut down in America. This action begins in the Universities and the media-take note how what is happening all across the USA

Columbia and Princeton cancel talks by ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish after Muslim pressure Free Speech Death Watch Alert from Pamela at Atlas Shrugs:

Apostate Nonie Darwish, author of "Cruel And Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law". and executive director, Former Muslims United, was scheduled to speak at Columbia University today and Princeton University tomorrow, and both events were canceled.

Columbia, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.

Just hours before she was scheduled to speak, the groups (the Debate Society and Tigers of Israel) succumbed to student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Nonie called me from her NY taxi, shocked that just weeks after an Islamic attack on a military base on US soil, the largest in US history, that activists who speak the truth about Islam are being shut down and marginalized.

Apostate Nonie Darwish, author of “Cruel And Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law”. and executive director, Former Muslims United, was scheduled to speak at Columbia University today and Princeton University tomorrow, and both events were canceled.

Columbia, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.

Just hours before she was scheduled to speak, the groups (the Debate Society and Tigers of Israel) succumbed to student Muslim groups and canceled her speaking event. Nonie called me from her NY taxi, shocked that just weeks after an Islamic attack on a military base on US soil, the largest in US history, that activists who speak the truth about Islam are being shut down and marginalized.

Nonie Darwish spoke at the rally I organized for Rifqa Bary on Monday.

I will post the speech Nonie was going to make at Columbia and Princeton and Nonie's account of this assault on free speech as soon as she gets to her machine -- she is on her way to the airport.

For those of us chronicling the advancing islamisation of America, things have gotten decidedly worse since Obama took over. We have entered a dark age.

Last night, they were throwing pies at a Robert Spencer event at NYU .......... what's next? grenades?

Fight back! Write, call, speak out!

Lee. C. Bollinger, President Columbia

Phone: (212) 854-9970
Fax: (212) 854-9973
Email: officeofthepresident@columbia.edu

Princeton University — President: Shirley M. Tilghman

Phone: (609) 258-6100
Fax: (609) 258-1615

Asst to President: email is gruschow@princeton.edu

Nonie Darwish (Arabic: نوني درويش‎) (born 1949[1][2]) is an Egyptian-American human rights activist, writer, scholar of Islam and founder of Arabs For Israel. She is the author of two books: Now They Call Me Infidel; Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror and Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Darwish's speech topics cover human rights, with emphasis on women's rights and minority rights in the Middle East. She is the director of Former Muslims United.[3]

Born in Egypt, Darwish is the daughter of an Egyptian Army lieutenant general, who was called a "shahid" by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser,[4] after being killed in an Israeli raid. Darwish blames "the Middle Eastern Islamic culture and the propaganda of hatred taught to children from birth" for his death, which she describes as an "assassination". In 1978, she moved with her husband to the United States, and converted to Christianity there. After September 11, 2001 she has written on Islam-related topics.[4]

UPDATE: Here's more from a Columbia student:

My name is Daniel Hertz, and I am a senior at Columbia University. I came across your article today regarding Nonie Darwish's events, and I was very happy to see that someone had picked up on the story.

I am the CAMERA fellow for Columbia and the President of Campus Media Watch. We are the group that tried to bring Nonie Darwish to speak yesterday . It was very unfortunate that we had our event canceled due to "security risks," and I am still dealing with ways to respond to what happened. Regardless of them shutting down the event, last night I took about 20 students and professors to a restaurant and reserved a private area. Nonie was able to give her speech and we all had amazing intimate conversations with her over dinner.

It is truly sad what is happening on our campus in terms of intimidation from many of the other groups/people, and I hope to combat it in any way possible.

Click Here to Read More...

Jerusalem Planning Over 5,000 New Arab Housing Units

Gil Ronen J'lem Plans 5,000 Apts for Arabs

The Jerusalem Municipality is plowing ahead with plans for construction of more than 5,000 housing units in Arab neighborhoods. These include the following:

A master plan for the Tel Adasa neighborhood in northern Jerusalem, where 2,000 new housing units are planned. A master plan for the Arab a-Sawahara area for a new housing compound with 2,500 units that is currently being prepared for discussion at the local council and district council levels. A master plan for the Dir el-Amud and Al-Muntar areas in Beit Safafa in southeastern Jerusalem, currently in advanced planning stages. A construction plan for 172 housing units and public buildings at the Jabal Mukabar neighborhood, which has completed the mandatory waiting period and will soon come up for additional discussion and approval in the district council.

The municipality noted that it is also destroying illegal structures in the Arab sector. Three buildings were demolished Wednesday: a structure, 90 square meters in size, that was built on public land in Isawiya; a structure in Wadi Hilwah, also built on public land, sized 32 square meters; and three temporary structures in Silwan that served as pens for sheep and horses. All of the structures were razed after courts ordered them to be torn down.





Mayor Nir Barkat noted that the Jerusalem Municipality is acting to meet the demands of both Jewish and Arab residents for new housing on a basis of equality.

Comment: It is imperative that the media and then the public learn about housing starts here in Israel rather than to believe our enemy's lies and those with an anti-Israel agenda. This article touches upon part of the situation. Another part, not reported conveniently in the mainstream media or by so-called "peace groups" is the legal protocol for securing building permits here. Exactly how many building permits were alloted to those in Judea and Samaria this year? ZERO!!!

Click Here to Read More...

Retaliation: IDF Strikes Gaza Weapons Factory, Tunnels

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz Retaliation: IDF Strikes Gaza

Responding to a rocket attack on southern Israel on Wednesday, the Israeli air force struck deep in Gaza during the night The IAF targets included factories used in the production of arms near Khan Younis and two tunnels used for weapons smuggling. The tunnels were located in the south of the Gaza region, connecting the Hamas regime in the Palestinian Authority with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Hamas-controlled tunnels in Gaza are regularly used for smuggling weapons, rockets, arms components and the terrorists themselves, as well as merchandise and contraband.

The precision strikes were successful, according to IDF spokespersons, and the aircraft returned to their bases unharmed.

Hamas sources admitted that two tunnels were hit, but claimed that the IAF had bombed a military training facility, not a factory. According to Hamas, three people were wounded in the Israeli air strike.

An IDF spokesperson said, "The attack comes in response to rocket fire directed yesterday morning at Israel. The IDF will respond forcefully to any attempt to disrupt the calm situation in the south of the country."

Wednesday's rocket attack by PA terrorists targeted the western Negev. The rocket, most likely a shortrange Kassam, landed in an open field between two towns in the Sha'ar HaNegev region. There were no reports of injuries or damage.

In the past month alone, PA terrorists have launched approximately 15 rockets at Jewish communities, primarily in the western Negev. .

Click Here to Read More...

A Historically Bad Decision

The Heritage Foundation

Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other terrorists would be tried in a civilian court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal. Pressing Holder on this decision at yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight hearing of the U.S. Department of Justice, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked: “Can you give me a case in United States history where a (sic) enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?” Holder responded: “I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made…” At which point Graham interjected: “We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.” Holder’s decision does make history. And not in a good way. Edwin Meese III, the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation as well as the United States Attorney General between 1985 and 1988 released the following statement yesterday on Holder’s unprecedented decision:


It is clear that foreign terrorists and terrorist groups have committed acts of war against the United States, and that our national security requires that we respond accordingly. This means that President Bush’s prudent actions and the military response which he led should continue as our answer to these attacks.

Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to military commissions in 2006, which have historically been the way that we respond to acts of war. To abandon our two centuries of tradition and to substitute some new civilian procedure as a response to such attacks endangers the security of our country and our national interest.

It was a tragic mistake to decide to abandon the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, which was designed physically and legally to handle these types of cases. It is a further tragic mistake to now bring the detained war combatants into the United States and to employ civilian criminal procedures which were never intended for this type of situation.

The U.S. Constitution protects American citizens and visitors from the moment they are suspected of criminal wrongdoing through a potential trial. These same protections are not, have never, and should not be granted to enemy combatants in war, since it is clear that regardless of the outcome of the trial, these detainees will likely remain in the custody of the United States.



QUICK HITS

According to the Government Accountability Office, the Obama administration has claimed 50,000 jobs “saved or created” from stimulus projects that have spent no money.

Pressed to defend the accuracy of the Obama administration’s jobs “saved or created” claim, Recovery.gov director of communications Ed Pound told the New Orleans Times Picayune: “Who knows, man, who really knows. There are 130,000 reports out there.”

Union members across the country are speaking out against big labor tactics including pressuring subordinates to disclose sensitive personal information under threat of dismissal from their union position.

Of the nearly 80 ambassadorship nominations or confirmations since President Obama’s Inauguration, 56 percent were given to big donors.

First, President Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize after only eight months in office, now he’s been give a Tae Kwan Do black belt.

Click Here to Read More...

Does the Administration Truly Understand the Threat of Islamism?

Pam Meister

While some Americans are busy swooning over the “news” that Johnny Depp is only the fourth man in history to receive the highly coveted endorsement of “Sexiest Man Alive” by People magazine twice (joining this exclusive club with luminaries George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Richard Gere), others are focusing on the extremely serious security situation that our nation faces with regard to Islamic terrorism. In recent news, there was the grisly attack at Fort Hood by a psychiatrist and Army major who, by all accounts, was an out-and-out jihadist. As Americans struggled to face the reality, the media tried to sideline the conversation with talk of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), even though Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, and depression – basically doing everything they could to avoid talking about the fact that he was a – wait for it – Muslim.

In times of crisis and strife, we look to our Commander in Chief for words of wisdom, direction, and reassurance. But the words coming out of President Obama’s mouth in the direct aftermath of Fort Hood were jarring, to put it mildly. During televised remarks from a Tribal Nations Conference, Obama started off by thanking everyone who helped make the conference a success. He then gave a “shout out” to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow, to whom he referred as a “Medal of Honor winner.” First of all, Dr. Crow did not receive the Medal of Honor – the highest award for valor in action bestowed to a member of the military – rather, he received the Medal of Freedom, the highest honor bestowed upon a civilian. And to refer to him as a “winner” rather than a “recipient” reduces the status of either award to the top prize in a Monopoly tournament. And Obama himself was the one who awarded Dr. Crow the Medal of Freedom – did he not remember? Perhaps his teleprompter was on the fritz.

It took Obama several minutes to get around to mentioning the horrific act of Maj. Hasan at Fort Hood, which he then termed as a “tragic shooting” and “horrific outburst of violence.” Interestingly enough, he was not “shocked and outraged,” although he expressed those sentiments after the murder of an abortion doctor.

News also leaked out that former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura made a clandestine trip to Fort Hood the evening following the attack to commiserate with the families and comrades of those slain and wounded. The Bushes eschewed all press coverage, preferring to keep the event as private and intimate as possible. Meanwhile, President Obama and First Lady Michelle went to Camp David for the weekend, and did not make an appearance at Fort Hood until the following Tuesday for the memorial service.

The comparison is breathtaking.

But beyond that, there are a number of troubling things about this administration’s reaction to Islam-related events:


* The decision to bring the 9/11 trials to a civilian court. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court in Manhattan, just blocks away from where the Twin Towers collapsed. Even after a lengthy explanation by Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the decision-making process, we still don’t know exactly why federal court is the better venue. And speaking in China, President Obama made a statement to the Chinese press that KSM would be “convicted” and had “the death penalty applied to him;” backing off from his comment after NBC correspondent Chuck Todd pointed out that the statement looked as though he were trying to interfere in the trial process. As Andrew McCarthy points out, “He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool.”
* The administration also asked Congress to delay its inquiry into the Fort Hood incident, and House Democrats agreed to honor that request. One can’t help but wonder why.
* Finally, it’s been more than 80 days since the administration has been asked to make a decision regarding Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s August 30th request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, although we are told that the administration is “very close” to a decision. Again, why the delay? The more we wait, the worse the situation becomes, and the more troops are shortchanged.


What does all of this mean? Does the administration truly understand the threat we face or … what? Dare we ask what the alternative is?

Pam Meister is the editor for FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Click Here to Read More...

The Doctor Who Shattered the Statues

Translated from article appearing in Hebrew in Sichat HaShavuah for Parshat Chaye Sarah http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp?ArticleID=6356&CategoryID=1341
Video: http://www.hebron.com/english/show.php?id=147

A year ago, Dr. Aharon Abraham was Director at the ICU Medical Center in prestigious British Kennedy in Mumbai, India. The horrible terror attack at the Chabad house caused him to leave India and go to Israel. "This house was the center of my life," he says with pain. "There we spent Shabbat and holidays. The terrorists took part of me, they took my soul. Following the incident, finally I decided to leave India and go to Israel. I have no more business there."

He currently resides in Kiryat Arba examining job opportunities suitable to his expertise and experience. Concurrently he completes the conversion process which he and his wife and children began in India, thereby closing a chapter of his life story, very not routinely.

Confrontation with the father

His previous name was Vagirds Frads. The story is very reminiscent of the story Abraham. His father was a senior Hindu cleric. "He had all kinds of statues, he attributed to them special powers," he says. "I did not understand how Dad honored a man-made statue. I didn't understand why Mother bother preparing food for statues, and sometimes I eat it in secret".

When grown up and graduated from high school, he began to confront openly his father. "I told Dad: How can you believe this nonsense?! Father heard and said nothing, had no answers. One day I took a hammer and simply smashed the statues. He shouted at me: the gods are angry! I answered him: If they're angry, let them do something, reconstruct themselves "...

Identification with Abraham

The young man left his village and enrolled to study medicine at the University of Mumbai, where he made contact with Christian students. They saw he was looking for faith, and gave him a Bible. "A new world opened before me," he recalls excitedly. "I eagerly read the Psalms and became acquainted with the figures of Moses and Abraham's story and with Am Israel."

He successfully graduated and became a doctor specializing in one of the medical centers in Mumbai where he met his wife, who worked as a nurse. She followed his interest in the Bible. After they married they decided to change their family name to 'Abraham', following the admiration they felt for Abraham. He also decided to change his first name to Aaron. "Aaron the priest was a wonderful person, full of glory," he explains with a smile.

That terrible night

They gradually made the decision to convert and become full-fledged Jews. The were tempted to undergo a Reform conversion, thinking they were already Jews. Then they met Chabad emissaries Rabbi Gabi and Rebecca Holtzberg HY"D in Mumbai. They approached him about their sick child (who later died later from disease). Following this bond, Dr. Abraham realized that a Reform conversion was worthless. He began studying Judaism with the Rabbi, while his wife studied with the Rabbi's wife.

'Our whole life centered around the Chabad House, "he said in a trembling voice." It's the only place where we could get kosher food. Gabi and Rivki were our guides, we did not move without them. They gave us Judaism and we gave them medical care for their sick child. We began a process of true conversion and found the extraordinary beauty of the Torah commandments. Then came that terrible night, and took away my Master ...". He sobs a few moments and says: "But what we learned from Gabi and Rivki will accompany us and our children forever."

Chabad Sichat HaShavuah for Parshat Chaye Sarah 5770 // David Wilder
November 19, 2009

I'm leaving tonite, together with Noam Arnon and Simcha Hochbaum for the annual Hebron Fund Dinner, to be held at Citi Field in Flushing Meadows, NY. We are looking forward to seeing many friends at the event. We're expecting many people to attend, and I'm told there are still some tickets left. So if you haven't purchased yours yet, call today - 718-677-6886 or register online at: https://secure40.securewebsession.com/hebron.site.aplus.net/english/form.php?id=4
You may have seen in the media that the NY left is trying to prevent the dinner from taking place at Citi Field and will probably show up to demonstrate on Saturday night. It is imperative that we have BIG numbers at the dinner, showing them that New York stands behind Hebron. (I even have a friend coming in from Texas, especially for this event!)

A couple of nights ago I had the privilege to attend an amazing wedding, of two amazing people, with an even more amazing story. Below are some of the photos at the ceremony, together with short version of Dr. Aharon Abraham's life story, translated from a Chabad Shabbat magazine. There's also a link to a half hour video of the wedding, at Ma'arat HaMachpela. Enjoy!
Also take a look at the photos of Kiryat Arba-Hebron's participation in International Clean Up week. (And see you Saturday night.)

Click Here to Read More...

Appeasers Wall:Police Chief Apologizes to Muslims over Fugitive Arrests

by Lloyd Bilinsgley

ANNOUNCEMENT:I am beginning a new feature entitled "Appeasers Wall"(AW)-stories that display appeasement to Islamists-abstractly it will be putting the stories on a wall for all to view.

Fallout from a raid on fundamentalist Islamic separatists confirms that police officials take no back seat to politicians and the media when it comes to appeasement. The Ummah, a violent fundamentalist Sunni Islamic group in Detroit, advocates a separate Islamic state that would be controlled by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, also known as H. Rap Brown, a veteran of the black power movement now in prison for gunning down two police officers. According to the U.S. Department of justice the Ummah group “is alleged to have engaged in violent activity over a period of many years, and known to be armed.”

Last month, as the result of a two-year investigation, the FBI raided the Michigan headquarters of the group, now headed by Luqman Ameen Abdullah, sought by the FBI for providing firearms and ammunition to a person known to be a convicted felon, sale or receipt of stolen goods, and other violations. Luqman Ameen Abdullah fired at federal officers, who returned fire and killed him.

Other members of the group remained at large, including Yassir Ali Khan and Mohammad Al-Sahli, also known as Mohammad Palestine, both wanted for conspiracy to commit federal crimes. The pair were arrested across the border in Windsor, Ontario, by local police cooperating with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

In the course of the arrest, Windsor police patted down one of the suspect’s wives. This sparked complaints about police insensitivity. Gary Smith, Windsor’s chief of police, promptly issued a public apology.

“It was never the intention for Windsor police officers to offend or embarrass the families of our Islamic community,” said Smith’s press release. “The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs. I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community.” The police chief further called for more “cultural sensitivity training.”

Arrests are generally embarrassing events for those being arrested and their families. It did not emerge which religious “belief” the officers had violated, but the police rank and file were at odds with their boss over the need for any apology.

“Usually, when you make an apology, that means something was wrong,” Ed Parent of the Windsor Police Association told reporters. “In my opinion, nothing went wrong here. . . I believe the officers were doing everything they’re entitled to do under the law. I believe they did it professionally. I don’t see an issue here.” The RCMP agreed.

Sgt. Marc LaPorte told reporters that officers have the right to determine whether or not there is a threat. “If they deemed it was necessary to pat her down, then the officers do have the authority to do that,” LaPorte said.

U.S. authorities wanted Yassir Ali Khan and Mohammad Al-Sahli to be denied bail. Canadian authorities released them on bail. Dr. Murad Aktas of the Windsor Islamic Association is slated to provide the training in cultural sensitivity for Windsor police officers. The sensitivity quality seems lacking in the Ummah group.

One of the FBI’s sources said that Luqman Ameen Abdullah would beat children with sticks until they couldn’t walk. And in a recorded 2004 sermon, Abdullah said, “Do not carry a pistol if you’re going to give it up to police. You give them a bullet!”

Click Here to Read More...

Vigilance wanted, apply within

Isi Leibler
on November 19th

Neither right- nor left-wing organizations can guarantee total immunity against infiltration by fanatics and extremists. Their real test of moral integrity can be determined by the degree to which they isolate, condemn and purge such elements from their ranks.

It is thus wrong to blame the Labor Party for spawning far-left Israeli defamers of the Jewish state. These extremists were in fact deviants from a social democratic movement which made a formative contribution to the foundation of the state, despite having today sadly degenerated into a caricature of its former glory. Those who besmirch Labor Zionists may be unaware that our founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, ferociously and ruthlessly purged extremists from his party, Mapai, which dominated Israel in its formative years. Ben-Gurion and other Labor leaders would never have tolerated those who today defame the IDF and pave the way for the global criminalization of Israel and the odious Goldstone Report. Nor would they have buried their heads in the sand and ignored the academics in our midst who have the gall to exploit universities as launching pads to defame and delegitimize the state and even call for global international boycotts of their own institutions. Ironically, Labor was far more effective in dealing with renegades and the mad Left than Likud under whose regime the post-Zionists emerged from the closet and bloomed.

Since the tragic assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, some of the far-left radicals have developed a penchant for accusing communities on the Right with collective responsibility for the crimes of individual extremists. They have been especially inclined to vent their spleen on their prime adversaries, religious Zionists, whose uninhibited patriotism and devotion to the state is manifested by the inordinately large proportion of their youngsters serving as role models in IDF combat units.

In the hyper-emotional climate of Israeli politics and religious fervor, it is not entirely surprising that a number of criminals motivated by extremism did indeed emerge from this sector. I have written previously about the danger posed by a handful of radical rabbis who endorsed the right to violently resist government decrees which they determined clashed with the will of the Almighty. These extremist zealots were condemned by responsible rabbinical and religious Zionist political leaders. But in retrospect, they should have been dealt with more ruthlessly.

NEVERTHELESS, it is outrageous to stigmatize the entire religious Zionist community for crimes committed by a few individuals, many of whom had no relationship with religious Zionism. For example, the mass murderer Baruch Goldstein may have been "observant." But he had no ties to religious Zionism and was simply a lone demented killer who probably unraveled after absorbing the radiant hatred from Arabs surrounding him.

On the other hand, prior to perpetrating his evil deed, Yigal Amir, Rabin's loathsome assassin, on the surface displayed all the positive characteristics of a religious Zionist role model. Had he not misunderstood or been influenced by the hysterical ravings of a few zealots or extremist rabbis, he may never have been transformed into a murderer.

After the assassination of Rabin, the religious Zionist movement relentlessly purged extremists from its ranks. However in the wake of the trauma of the Gaza disengagement, new wild extremist fringe groups emerged. Some sought to break away from the state, alleging it had betrayed them, identified with anti-Zionist haredim and refused to serve in the IDF. To this day, we still hear about unhinged rabbis babbling about killing non-Jews. Regrettably they are sometimes dismissed as madmen rather than prosecuted.

But renegade rabbis had no bearing on the sick and demented alleged serial murderer Ya'acov Teitel, whom religious Zionists and the settlers are falsely accused of having nurtured. The truth is that Teitel already had a shady record before arriving here from America and was simply an insane lone killer who even proclaimed that God would be happy with his depraved actions.

OF LATE, groups on the far Left have intensified campaigns primarily directed towards discrediting and defaming settlers and religious Zionists under the guise of commemorating the memory of Rabin.

As one who was privileged to know Rabin, I consider it nauseating to observe post-Zionists and extremists who detested Rabin now abusing his memory in order to promote their policies and attempt to silence their opponents.

Rabin's "gamble" with the Oslo Accords proved to have been a disastrous failure. But he was a consummate Zionist and few would deny that his sole motivation throughout his political life was to promote peace and the wellbeing of the nation. He would have despised and regarded with utter contempt many of those on the far Left who today claim to be promoting his legacy.

Admittedly, prior to his assassination, in the course of the bitter political debate, Rabin developed a love-hate relationship with the settlers and when condemned by them occasionally responded by employing vulgar language. But I vividly recollect a particular conversation in which he virtually predicted the Baruch Goldstein scenario by warning about uncontrollable extremist fanatics but accompanied these remarks with words of love and admiration for religious Zionists whom he regarded as amongst the most dedicated patriots in the land.

Needless to say, stereotyping or extending collective guilt to an entire community for the crimes of individuals is despicable, irrespective of whether it applies to religious Zionists, settlers, haredim, Russians, Ethiopians or any minority.

Only a few months ago, after a shocking case of child abuse in the haredi community, there were efforts to falsely stigmatize all haredim as child abusers. There were also irresponsible media outbursts trying to collectively bracket Russian olim with the alleged brutal slayings by Dimitry Kirilik.

As Jews we should be especially sensitive to such pernicious practices. Since time immemorial, highlighting the criminality of an individual Jew in order to defame entire Jewish communities was a central feature of anti-Semitic incitement. It is thus rather sickening in our time to see Jews using similar techniques against Jews.

In these difficult times we must strongly condemn the stigmatization of any group and also remain vigilant against any manifestations of extremism or incitement whether from the Right or the Left. That also applies especially within the religious arena in which the explosive fusion of nationalist extremism combined with zealotry has the potential of being transformed into the most brutal forms of violence and mayhem.

In this regard, the silence and failure of mainstream rabbis to condemn insubordination and refusal to obey orders by a handful of religious soldiers under the influence of a few radical spiritual leaders is highly disconcerting.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

Click Here to Read More...

Jerusalem stone and the genocide of Titus

James Lewis

Israel's high rise buildings in Jerusalem are built out of Jerusalem stone, a beautiful natural building material that makes even the new city look gloriously resurrected from the very hills themselves. Obama is a Third World socialist, meaning that he sees everything through the lens of revenge against Western colonialism of the 19th century. Where Obama sees "settlements," Israelis see 900 units of beautiful high-rise buildings made out of the living rock of the land.
Almost all Israelis serve in the army, and when you look at those stone buildings from a tactical viewpoint, as soldiers do, you see rank upon rank of defensive positions. Bullets don't penetrate those Jerusalem stone walls. Even radiation weapons only penetrate one or two ranks of buildings, allowing for defensive positions to be erected behind them. While nothing is impermeable to high explosives and powerful rockets, each row of high rises in Jerusalem can serve as a tactical fortification: a tank ditch, or a tactical position for a team of soldiers. Having seen a century of attacks from Arabs, the Israelis can't avoid thinking like that.

Fifty miles south, Hamas still fires rockets at surrounding Israeli villages every week. A hundred miles north, Hezbollah has now been resupplied with tens of thousands of fresh, long-range missiles from Tehran. So where Obama looks at Israel like the Dutch settlers of South Africa, the Israelis see the battle of Stalingrad: A place where Israel may take its last stand against another wave of tanks and RPGs, and still turn the tide.

The normally fractious Israelis have finally discovered a common enemy, and it's Obama. Politics in Israel is about as contentious as it gets without members of parliament coming to regular fisticuffs, Taiwanese-style. But now Obama has done the quarrelsome Israelis a favor, sort of. Ninety-six percent of the Israeli population believes that Obama is a threat to their survival. Israel is uniting against a common threat. Thank you, Mr. Obama.

The other day an Israeli archeologist presented a discovery of Biblical coins going back to the fall of Jerusalem in 67-70 CE. It was the Roman Emperor-to-be Titus Flavius Vespasianus who conquered Jerusalem that year, and razed it to the ground.

That was a long time ago, you say. In Jerusalem it's right there in a never-ending flow of archeological discoveries. It's here and now. Most of those Second Temple shekels went molten in the fire that swept the city when the Romans finally brought down the walls, killing indiscriminate numbers of Jews. Genocide was official Roman policy for rebels against Rome. In the city of Rome today you can still see the triumphal arch Titus built for himself, depicting his celebratory parade through Rome, followed by the defeated Jews in chains. They are carrying an enormous Menorah carved in the marble on the top of Titus' triumphal arch.



American military people can still understand that, but most Americans can't. We live only in the present moment. The average American has even forgotten Pearl Harbor, not to mention all the other bloody American sacrifices that still make us safe today. Third World Socialists like Obama can never, never understand it. Obama was quoted sanctimoniously honking that "More settlement building don't make Israel safer." That lofty and typically arrogant platitude is contradicted for Israelis when they look at rows upon rows of those Jerusalem stone buildings, every row another fortification against an enemy that has never stopped attacking. The "settlers" are those people who are putting their bodies and their children's bodies on the line of defense.

There's not a single family in Israel that hasn't lost relatives in war and genocide -- usually whole generations in the Holocaust. Or a beloved son or father in the constant warfare waged against Israel by Syria, Egypt, Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Iran. Obama has no idea. Millions of Israelis who hail from Muslim lands look back to two thousand years of miserably inferior dhimmi status, where every Muslim act of oppression was meant to wound and crush the morale of Jews who lived there. Israel has traded land for peace for a hundred years. It has never satisfied the militant Arabs. Obama is trying to nibble away at the next major concession, and this one is the newly walled and fortified city of Jerusalem. Meanwhile Hamas TV is indoctrinating Arab toddlers to prepare them for another genocide, and Ahmadinejad is promising to do it with nukes.

And yet the Israelis yearn for peace. They are like us. War seems an anomaly to them; but in the long reach of history warfare is the norm, and it is peace that is the exception. Europeans have been protected by the United States for sixty years, and by now they have come to expect our protection as an entitlement, like Obama's Mob-O-Care. When the United States fails to deliver on those defensive installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, Leftist Europeans who have been screaming at George W. Bush for years suddenly turn scared. Where the hell is Uncle Sam when they need him? That's so-called American imperialism.

In fact, it's just hostile-dependent rage, like a teenager unwilling to leave home. The anger is real and constant, all right, but he still won't clean his bedroom or earn his own living. That's Europe today, just like it is our dependent domestic populations that live on welfare. It's their right, dammit! Give that money, honey. You owe it to us, for, ummm ... well slavery? They know nothing about slavery.

It was Josephus who wrote the definitive history of the Jewish War. He was a turncoat who started as a Jewish rebel and became a citizen of Rome -- adopting the name of the Hitler of his time, Titus Flavius Josephus. Yet he saw both sides and could write a history for the ages.

So in Book VII, Chapter 1 of his WARS OF THE JEWS OR HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM we can still read, after Titus conquered Jerusalem,


"Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury ... Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple ... and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such (Roman soldiers) as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the


Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to ... a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind."

That was only yesterday.

On the basics, nothing has changed.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/jerusalem_stone_and_the_genoci.html at November 19, 2009 - 03:51:14 AM EST

Click Here to Read More...

President Zero Sum Goes to Asia

Larry Kudlow
Thursday, November 19, 2009

President Obama took his declining dollar to the Asia-Pacific economic conference, and he added to it a declinist opinion of America's economy. His big message? Don't count on American consumers to lead the world from recession to recovery and beyond. His second big message? In the U.S., we must save more and spend less. . Huh? This is the same limits-to-growth, central-planning wisdom we hear so often these days at home. It's also tone deaf, to say the least. Despite a sinking greenback that is wreaking havoc among the Asian economies, and in the face of repeated currency warnings by Asian officials, Obama brought no King Dollar stabilization message to the conference.

Before getting into the currency question, let me say this: I think more saving (and investment) by U.S. citizens is a great idea. But this need not come at the expense of consumption. In a prosperous free economy, people should be able to save, invest, work and spend as much as they like. More is better than less in each case. Grow the pie larger.

Of course, if the president and his team want more saving and investment, they should end the multiple taxation of saving and investment. Unfortunately, our system taxes saving as income, capital gains, dividends and inheritance.

Team Obama also intends to tax wealth more by raising the top personal tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent. And they apparently don't object to Nancy Pelosi's plan to slap another 5.4 percent tax on the incomes and capital gains of successful earners in order to finance a government takeover of health care.

Wealth is a crucial form of saving. And the investment that comes from extra saving is used to finance the entrepreneurial start-ups that create the jobs and incomes that allow families to spend. However, by creating a zero-sum game between saving and spending, the Obama planners are falling into an austerity trap -- one that would hand the American economy a second-place finish in the global race for capital and growth.

At the same time, Obama has no plan to stabilize King Dollar, and the Asian economies don't like it. China's top banking regulator said the Federal Reserve's money-creating binge was the main cause of "massive speculation." Similar sentiments came from top officials in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan.

And while Ben Bernanke tried to calm dollar worries during his recent speech at the New York Economics Club, it was clear that the greenback's value ranks low on his priority list. Nothing but dollar lip service from the Fed head.

Because of the slumping dollar, U.S. import prices have jumped 10 percent at an annual rate over the past three months, and nearly 6 percent excluding energy. This is a tax hike on consumers and businesses, and it could depress holiday sales. It's reminiscent of the gigantic energy shock of 2008 that was caused by the dollar's collapse.

And what's the current U.S solution to the dollar problem? Blame China, and call for a revaluation of the yuan. But beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism never works, and it causes bad blood between the countries involved.

The powerful Asian economies actually have a better idea. They want to move toward a free-trade currency-cooperation zone -- much like the euro zone, fathered by Nobel economist Robert Mundell. This makes more sense in terms of world price stability and free capital flows. But the U.S. refuses to play.

So Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and others are forced to desperately buy sinking dollars in order to protect their export industries. But this only creates inflationary money expansion. The beleaguered U.S. dollar is in effect exporting U.S. inflation overseas.

President Obama did talk about entering free-trade discussions. But his commerce secretary, Gary Locke, threw cold water on the idea in a Singapore speech. He said trade agreements have to wait because of a crowded U.S. legislative agenda. (Hat tip: James Pethokoukis.) He may have a point: The South Korean free-trade bill has been languishing for several years in the Democratic Congress.

Then there's the massive U.S. health care takeover plan, which is now estimated at $3 trillion. This additional dollar depressant will tax the patience of China, Japan and other would-be buyers of our massive debt creation.

We cannot spend, tax or devalue our way into prosperity. Nor can we command the respect of other nations by telling them our economy cannot grow as rapidly in the future as it has in the past.

Ironically, these same Asian countries -- with their accelerated growth rates -- have borrowed a page from American free-market capitalism. Yet Obama makes no defense of our free-market system and provides no leadership on the leading economic questions.

In terms of global leadership, Ronald Reagan would say: "If not us, who? If not now, when?" It's a pity that President Obama doesn't share the Gipper's commitment to American leadership.



Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Click Here to Read More...

Obama's Iran sanctions strategy is routed by Chinese, Russian rebuffs

Debkafile

Chinese president Hu Jintao said clearly after meeting US president Barack Obama in Beijing Tuesday, Nov. 17, that their governments disagree on tougher sanctions for Iran - or any other issue relating to the Islamic republic. In Moscow, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said it was too soon to talk about stepping up sanctions on Iran, if at all. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton made a last-ditch bid Wednesday, Nov. 18, to scale China's negative wall, before the US president left for South Korea. She tried to talk the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo into at least issuing a Beijing statement on Iran. He refused outright.

The Chinese rejection followed a rebuff from Moscow in the form of a comment by Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov that it was premature to say that diplomatic efforts for defusing tensions over Iran's nuclear program had failed. He said it was too soon to talk about stepping up sanctions on Iran, if at all, so contradicting the supportive message Obama received from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when they met in Singapore last week and agreed that time was running out for Iran to respond to international efforts to meet it halfway.

Tuesday, before Beijing and Moscow knocked sanctions on the head, Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu said optimistically that the Iranian nuclear issue should be left for the world powers and international community to deal with. In a few short hours, that option had melted away.

In the last 24 hours, Israelis have been too busy discussing the expansion of the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem to notice that their former and current governments, headed respectively by Ehud Olmert and Binyamin Netanyahu, have just suffered one of their biggest foreign policy defeats. They are now confronted with a most unwelcome dilemma.

Click Here to Read More...

Khaled Mashaal makes it clear that Hamas is determined to continue the path of “resistance” (

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

“resistance” (i.e., terrorism) and that “other statements are political maneuvers.” He reveals that Hamas uses most of its financial resources in the Gaza Strip for military purposes rather than rebuilding.

1. Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, recently revealed the movement’s political positions. On November 12, meeting with a number of senior participants at a conference of Arab parties in Damascus, he repeatedly stressed that Hamas would continue the path of “resistance” (i.e., terrorism), and noted that most of Hamas’ funds and efforts in the Gaza Strip were invested in military preparations.2. The main points he made were the following (according to the Filisteen al-’An website):

i) Hamas will never recognize Israel and will not abandon the “resistance:” “We will not recognize Israel, we will not give up the resistance, we cling to every inch of Palestinian soil, other statements are political maneuvers.”1

ii) Renewal of terrorism in Judea and Samaria: Opting for a new intifada is difficult but “the jihad continues until Judgment Day.” Hamas was forced to stop the resistance [i.e., terrorism] in the West Bank, its [cessation] was not a decision of the movement. It will take time to renew the “resistance” because objectively, the necessary conditions on the ground do not yet exist.
iii) Proposing the establishment of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967: Khaled Mashaal said that his statements in the past, according to which Hamas was prepared to accept a temporary solution of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967, were meant to create a basis for [political] activity and to eliminate excuses for holding a grudge against Hamas. As far as Hamas is concerned, its political view is that “the Oslo accord is dead” and Palestinians have to strengthen their capabilities [their “cards”], the most potent of which is “the resistance.”

iv) Most of Hamas’ efforts in the Gaza Strip are invested in military preparations: “On the surface, [statements in the Gaza Strip] refer to reconciliation [between Hamas and Fatah] and rebuilding, however, what is not revealed is that most of Hamas’ funds and efforts are invested in the resistance and military preparations... We are intent on the resistance.”

Khaled Mashaal’s original text.
Khaled Mashaal’s original text.

v) Hamas, which has financial difficulties, needs contributions for the “resistance:” Khaled Mashaal urged the Arab parties to enlist contributions in preparation for the next stage of the “resistance” [i.e., anti-Israeli terrorism], since Hamas is in financial straits. He warned against conditioning financial support for Hamas on the “resistance’s” carrying out terrorist [attacks] because, he said, “the money is invested in preparing for escalating the ‘resistance.’”

Conclusions

3. Khaled Mashaal’s remarks reflect Hamas’ true priorities, the most important of which is rebuilding its military infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, which was damaged by Operation Cast Lead, in preparation for the renewal of military-terrorist attacks [“the resistance”] against Israel. Hamas’ priorities are expressed by their investing most of the money flowing into the Gaza Strip for Hamas (including funds from Arab and international agencies) to further military preparations at the expense of the civilian rebuilding of the Gaza Strip, which is proceeding slowly.

4. In addition, the remarks made by Khaled Mashaal directly contradict the “smile campaign” he is conducting for the West.2 He has repeatedly stressed Hamas’ adherence to its strategy of “resistance” as the main means of “liberating” all Palestinian lands, its total refusal to recognize Israel and its readiness to agree to a “temporary solution” in the form of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967 as a political maneuver to ease Hamas’ political isolation.

5. Khaled Mashaal’s remarks refute one of the main conclusions of the Goldstone Report: The Report accused Israel of responsibility for the distress of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, while it completely ignored the responsibility borne by Hamas. His remarks show that relieving the Gazans’ distress is not one of Hamas’ main priorities, but rather it invests most of its efforts and resources in military preparations for the next round of anti-Israeli terrorism.

1 In Arabic, munawara.

2 For further information see our September 23, 2009 bulletin “Hamas’ smile attack for the West: KenLivingstone interviews Khaled Mashaal, a case study” at http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e083.pdf, and our August 3, 2009 bulletin “Hamas is conducting a “smile spin” for the West, particularly the United States. Its main objectives are to ease its political isolation, improve its position vis-à-vis the Palestinian Authority and get funds to rebuild the Gaza Strip.” at http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e077.pdf.

Click Here to Read More...

'Assad won't accept French mediation'

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

A day after French President Nicolas Sarkozy said his country was ready to facilitate a resumption of talks between Syria and Israel, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday that although Israel no longer trusts Turkey to mediate the talks, Damascus would not accept Paris's role.

"On this issue (of mediation), Israel's stance is that it doesn't trust us," Erdogan told a press conference in Rome. "Former Israeli prime minister Olmert trusted Turkey, but [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu doesn't trust us. That's his choice," he said, according to a Reuters translation.

"Now France is trying to take up the role we had," Erdogan added. "I'm not sure what kind of stance [Syrian President] Bashar Assad will take, but from what I've heard from him, they're not going to accept something like this."

Also referring to the Israel-Syria track, brought up during Netanyahu's visit to Paris last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner stressed that contrary to reports, the Israeli premier had not put the Golan Heights on the table.

"Of course we must discuss it though," he said. "It has already been the subject of many discussions."

Kouchner said talks can continue "between Israel and France, and between Syria and France."

"Turkey until now was an important mediator, and we're prepared to play a role alongside or without the Turks, or in coordination with another party," he said.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1258566461582&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Comment: More political gamesmanship-of course we do not trust Turkey-in the last year they chose to move "Eastward"-it is their own behavior that has determined our level of trust-it is all about responsible actions!

Click Here to Read More...

Why the U.S. should keep an eye on China's military

Thomas G. Mahnken

Thomas G. Mahnken is a Visiting Scholar at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at The Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Between 2006 and 2009, he served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for policy planning. In that capacity, he advised the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on strategy and planning. One topic that is likely to arise during President Obama's trip to Asia, if not in his meetings in Beijing, is the continuing modernization of the Chinese military. Asian leaders are privately, and increasingly publicly, concerned about China's growing military might and what they see as a failure of the United States to respond. This year's Australian defense white paper, for example, portrays a future in which China contests American primacy in Asia and beyond. When one of the United States' closest allies expresses such concerns, Washington should listen.

According to at least one high-ranking official, the United States has systematically underestimated the pace and scope of Chinese military modernization for years. On Oct. 21 in an interview with the Voice of America, the incoming Commander of U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), Admiral Robert F. Willard, USN, told reporters that, "In the past decade or so, China has exceeded most of our intelligence estimates of their military capability and capacity, every year. ... They've grown at an unprecedented rate in those capabilities. And, they've developed some asymmetric capabilities that are concerning to the region, some anti-access capabilities and so on." Willard should know. Prior to becoming the USPACOM commander, he was in command of all U.S. naval forces in the Pacific; before that, he was Vice Chief of Naval Operations.

Willard's observation should be cause for concern, but is not a surprise. Intelligence organizations have a tendency to underestimate rising powers. As I discuss in my book, Uncovering Ways of War, U.S. Army and Navy intelligence in the period between the two world wars underestimated the growth of the Japanese military power not because of racial bias or ethnocentrism, but rather because of the very real tendency to look back on Japan's modest military capabilities and project them into the future. As a result, American intelligence organizations overlooked a number of areas where the Japanese military innovated, failures that cost the United States and its allies dearly in World War II.

I suspect that the same pathologies may be at work today regarding China. The People's Liberation Army of the 1980s and 1990s was hardly first-rate. In recent years, however, China has made real strides, including the testing of an anti-satellite weapon in July 2007 and the development of an anti-ship ballistic missile designed to attack U.S. carrier strike groups. Outside a small circle of cognoscenti, however, perceptions of Chinese military power have failed to keep pace with this reality.

If we are in danger of underestimating Chinese military power, China's leaders are in danger of overestimating it. Some portions of the Chinese military have not seen action since China's 1979 war with Vietnam; others have not seen combat since the Korean War. Although China is in the process of fielding increasingly capable weapons, the military effectiveness of the PLA is very much an open question.

The United States needs to do more to understand the Chinese military. The PLA intently studies the U.S. military; the U.S. military lacks a similar curiosity about them. That needs to change. It would be worthwhile, for example, to translate and make available to scholars a broader array of Chinese writings about military affairs. In addition, the U.S. military needs to devote greater attention to understanding the Chinese military, as well as the strategic and operational challenges it poses. Doing so will not, as some assert, preordain conflict with China. To the contrary, a better understanding of the Chinese military should help us avoid misperception and bolster deterrence. Such an effort should include our allies and friends in the region, who have their own perspectives and their own concerns with China's military expansion.

Click Here to Read More...

Iraq's Enduring al-Qaeda Challenge

Myriam Benraad
November 18, 2009

Since the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities last June, Iraq has experienced a series of high-profile attacks by al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its affiliates that raises questions about the durability of its stabilization process. Last week, Iraqi authorities arrested 73 people related to AQI and suspected of involvement and complicity in the pair of suicide bombings that targeted the Ministry of Justice and the provincial council in Baghdad on October 25, killing 147. AQI also claimed responsibility for the two suicide attacks on the ministries of Foreign Affairs and Finance that killed 132 people last August. Mosul has suffered major security incidents and assassinations with an average of 100 deaths per month, while the al-Anbar governorate, which had been relatively quiet until now, has likewise seen increased levels of violence. With elections on the horizon, further violence appears likely.

AQI's Actions and Words
Since its emergence in 2003, AQI's strategy in Iraq has been to use spectacular attacks in order to promote sectarian and ethnic division while destabilizing the governing authorities, either American or Iraqi. In a clear attempt to discredit and destabilize Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government, the organization since 2008 has shifted the focus of most of its operations from U.S. forces to attacks on Iraqi institutions -- police stations, military headquarters, security forces, and federal ministries. The recent suicide bombings have again demonstrated that even if AQI remains unable to maintain a full-blown armed insurgency, it retains a residual capability to wage high-profile attacks and represents an ongoing obstacle to the country's long-term stability.

AQI's propaganda on Islamist forums and websites confirms this evolution and reflects the "Iraqification" of the organization. Following its proclamation of an "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI) in 2006, AQI has gradually reduced its reliance on foreign fighters while recruiting local Iraqis to replace them. In this regard, reports about the reactivation of AQI's networks through Syria must not be overstated. According to the Multinational Force in Iraq, in the last three years the number of foreign jihadists entering Iraq has declined from a high of 120 each month in 2007, to 40 in 2008, and 20 in 2009.

This change in AQI composition has been accompanied by a shift in objectives. Today, AQI's goals have become primarily political, and its propaganda focuses on delegitimizing the democratic process initiated by the United States and the Iraqi government -- referred to as a "bastion of faithlessness and citadel of atheism" -- and confronting Sunni nationalist insurgents and rival political forces, including the Tribal Awakening, that reject AQI's aim to set up a transnational pan-Islamic caliphate that would threaten Iraq's territorial integrity.

Last July, an audio recording released by AQI's media wing al-Furqan sought to claim victory for the U.S. decision to withdraw from Iraqi cities and the impending drawdown by recalling the steadfastness of jihadists who "have made the U.S. Army taste death and the bitterness of defeat." Seeking to discredit the Iraqi government after the U.S. withdrawal, AQI openly mocked al-Maliki for failing to maintain security in urban areas. So far, the attacks claimed by AQI have been used to reinforce this propaganda line. Making clear the Iraqi military was its target, an AQI "news report" released just last month announced that most of its attacks have targeted Iraqi officers, convoys, and patrols of the "apostate army" in various neighborhoods of Baghdad.

The ISI also continues its propaganda efforts against those who would usurp what it perceives as its rightful leadership of the Sunni Arab community. In communiques issued on behalf of its reputed leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi -- whom the Iraqi government maintains it captured earlier this year -- AQI criticizes Sunni entities and parties, such as the Iraqi Islamic Party, for participating in the political process and advocating tolerance and national unity, both of which "distort the true identity of jihad." Against these forces, AQI casts itself as the only legitimate political representative of the still marginalized Sunni Arab community. To demonstrate its seriousness, the group killed two moderate Sunni imams in October who had been opposing its extreme methods and political views, Jamal al-Humadi in Baghdad and Bashir al-Juhaishi in Mosul.

Explaining AQI's Resilience
Several factors account for AQI's resilience. First, the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities has increased AQI's margin of maneuver in these areas. Another factor has been the release of several Iraqi detainees this year who apparently became radicalized during their incarceration and have made contact with AQI. Since January, nearly 1,200 detainees have been transferred to the Iraqi authorities, and 5,300 have been released from prisons. While the U.S. military contends that detainee releases have been conducted in an orderly manner in compliance with the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement and that recidivism rates are low, sources from the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and police indicate a worrying number of Iraqi detainees returning to the struggle. Given the large number of released detainees, even a small percentage returning to jihad would be sufficient for a significant number of attacks.

Examples of detainees who have returned to insurgency and who are alleged to have developed ties with AQI before or during their detention include Iraqis held at the U.S. military base Camp Bucca, which was closed down in September. Among them is Muhammad Ali Murad, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's former associate in Falluja, suspected of running an armed cell in Baghdad that has been behind several suicide bombings targeting police stations. In October in Daquq, the Iraqi military and U.S. forces caught another AQI member and former detainee, Yasser Gafur, who had stored improvised explosive devices intended for use to attack Iraqi security forces. In Kirkuk, the Iraqi police captured nine Iraqis in possession of explosives -- including Abdallah Abd al-Qadir, AQI's facilitator in Baghdad -- some of whom had formerly been detained.

The withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities has not fundamentally altered AQI's "occupation narrative." The group has simply changed its propaganda to suggest Iraq's "illegitimate" armed forces are the new "occupiers." This line provides the organization and affiliated radical groups -- Ansar al-Islam, for instance, still active in the northern provinces -- with a new justification for their activities and a stream of new recruits.

The faltering Iraqi economy likely exacerbates matters. Despite improved living conditions at the local level, Iraq has been hit hard by the global downturn. The country still depends on oil exports for 90 percent of its income, and the fall in oil prices has drastically reduced government revenues. Al-Maliki's cabinet was forced to slash its budget for this year from $79 billion to $59 billion due to declining oil prices, which has affected the defense sector in particular. Baghdad has frozen hires in key sectors like the police and the military. In Mosul, the budget cuts have had an evident effect on levels of violence. The city's police force is short by 5,300 men -- more than half of its assessed requirements -- and the Iraqi army has only three brigades deployed in the area.

Economic hardship has worsened already endemic corruption, raising new security threats in Iraq, according to an internal report issued in October by the Ministry of Interior. In addition to sponsored attacks undertaken by unemployed men or mere opportunists, the report highlights instances in which radical groups such as AQI have bribed Iraqi police and security officers. According to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, in the August attacks on the ministries of Foreign Affairs and Finance, the organization paid up to $10,000 in bribes to guards and other accomplices to allow the suicide bombers to go through security checkpoints. The report also sheds light on how bribes have secured the release of some AQI affiliates from prisons. Last month, Iraqi security forces arrested a lawyer in Mosul allegedly linked to AQI for bribing prison guards to release jihadists and expunge their criminal records.

Conclusion
Despite dramatic improvements in security and the fact that AQI is not currently a strategic threat, the job of securing Iraq is far from finished. AQI's radical message does not currently resonate with most Iraqis -- who abhor its extreme methods and reject its pan-Islamic agenda -- but the jihadist organization retains its ability to conduct high-profile attacks. While AQI is unlikely to be eliminated in the near term, ways must be found to keep it marginalized. At present, the main challenge is to ensure that the Iraqi government continues to improve its delivery of public services, grows the Iraqi economy, and successfully manages (if not resolves) heightening Kurdish-Arab tension. Finally, ensuring the credibility and legitimacy of the upcoming elections will be critical for defusing the AQI threat to Iraq's stability. Of these priorities, the last is most urgent. The lesson from Afghanistan would indicate that elections perceived to be illegitimate are a propaganda gift to rejectionists -- a gift that is easily exploited.

Myriam Benraad is the Keston Family scholar for The Washington Institute's Project Fikra, focusing on radicalization and counterradicalization in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and the United States
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3144.

Click Here to Read More...

Dar Al-Hijrah Official's Deception on Awlaki

IPT News
November 18, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1521/dar-al-hijrah-officials-deception-on-awlaki

When a former imam from his mosque praised Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan as a "hero," Dar al-Hijrah outreach director Imam Johari Abdul Malik took to the airwaves to criticize the remarks and cast them as surprising:

"Let's be clear when Anwar Al Awlaki was at Dar Al-Hijrah, he was articulating the same message that I articulate today in Dar Al-Hijrah, a very open, a very engaging, a very community wise and contemporary understanding of the faith within the framework of its traditionalism."
But a look at Awlaki's statements and connections during his time at the northern Virginia mosque shows that, at best, Malik's characterization was misinformed as to the facts. While at Dar Al-Hijrah, a mosque with a history of leadership tied to terrorists, Awlaki made statements that endorsed terrorism and defended the 9/11 hijackers.

Awlaki participated as a scholar in a forum of the popular Islamist and Yusuf al-Qaradawi-linked website, Islamonline.net, the week after the 9/11 attacks. In it, he tacitly endorsed terror against Israeli civilians and denied that any Muslim extremists were a threat to Americans:

"There is no Muslim who advocates killing American civilians. We haven't heard that before. If you are talking about Palestinians fighting in Israel, these are freedom fighters fighting an illegal occupation. Muslims have never targeted American civilians."

That's an odd claim, since it had been more than three years since Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa saying that "to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

In the same Islamonline chat, Awlaki also expressed doubt that Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks:

"The evidence coming out is perplexing. You have a right to be confused. It appears that these people were victims rather than hijackers. It seems that the FBI went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default." [Emphasis added]

Furthermore, in a Washington Post forum in November 2001, Awlaki defended the Taliban movement and accused America of rushing into war in Afghanistan. At the time, the Taliban had been openly supporting Al Qaeda. Al-Awlaki argued:

"The Taliban repeatedly said: show us the evidence and we will turn over whoever is guilty with the crime. The US should have given them the benefit of the doubt."

Johari Abdul Malik, who has taken the lead in defending Dar Al-Hijrah and Awlaki, has his own record of radical statements. At a 2001 conference hosted by the Islamic Association of Palestine, a component of a U.S.-based network of Hamas-supporters, Malik called for attacks against Israeli infrastructure to show Muslim displeasure with Israel's treatment of Palestinians:

"I am gonna teach you now. You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies… the water supply, you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people."

Malik has called for Islamic supremacy in America, as he did in a November 2004 Friday Khutba, or sermon:

"Alhamdullilah [Praise to Allah] and we will live, will see the day when Islam, by the grace of Allah, will become the dominant way of life… I'm telling you don't take it for granted because Allah is increasing this din [religion] in your lifetime. Alhamdullilah [Praise to Allah] that soon, soon… before Allah closes our eyes for the last time, you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America – that's where we are now – to being the first religion in America."

Radicalism among Dar Al-Hijrah's leadership is not limited to Malik. At a June 5, 2001 press conference and sit-in at the State Department, Dar Al-Hijrah's current head imam, Shaker Elsayed, was asked, "Do you condemn the terrorist attacks from Hamas and the suicide bombings?" Shaker Elsayed replied in support of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians:

"I made a statement that we do support the Palestinian resistance...The so-called Israeli settlers are not civilian population. They are military reserves, they are armed, trained and dangerous. They invade the Palestinian neighborhoods at night and squander everything. They kill, maim, and destroy homes. If I were there, I would use every power in my hand to defend my family."

And:

"So long as occupation continues, we say to the Palestinian people, go ahead. Continue your fight against occupation no matter what name they give you because we give you the name of courageous people who stand for the rights and we're standing with you."

Yet another example of Elsayed's radicalism can be viewed here.

More than simple pro-terrorist rhetoric, elements of Dar Al-Hijrah's leadership and membership have provided financial and logistical support to terrorist organizations. Records from the successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development show that Abdulhaleem Al-Ashqar, a former member of Dar Al-Hijrah's Board of Trustees convicted of contempt and obstruction of justice, organized a 1993 meeting of Hamas members and sympathizers in Philadelphia. He was also the director of the Hamas-linked Al Aqsa Educational Fund. Likewise, Ismail Elbarasse, a founder of Dar Al-Hijrah, worked for Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and wired $735,000 to Hamas operative Mohammad Salah.

Likewise, additional imams who preceeded and followed Al-Awlaki at Dar Al-Hijrah have been linked to terrorist fundraising groups and extremism.

Mohammed Al-Hanooti, Dar Al-Hijrah's imam from 1995-1999, was the former director of the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 1995, federal prosecutors in New York named Al-Hanooti as a potential unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. While Hanooti had been an imam at the Islamic Center of Jersey City, the FBI considered him to be "a big supporter of Hamas," and the Albany Times Union reported in June 2002 that he regularly hosted events featuring terrorist mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman.

Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, the imam of Dar Al-Hijrah from August 2003-May 2005, was the former regional director of the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA) in Baltimore. In October 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the worldwide network of IARA, along with five of its senior officials, as Specially Designated Terrorist Groups. The government declared: "Information available to the U.S. indicates that international offices of IARA provided direct financial support for UBL [Osama Bin Laden]." IARA also supported the terrorist groups Hamas and Al-Ittihad Al-Islamiya (AIAI). El-Sheikh was also an active member of the Muslim Brotherhood in his native Sudan from 1973-1977.

All of these facts contradict Malik's assertion that Anwar Al Awlaki was a moderate during his time at Dar Al-Hijrah, or that the mosque is free from violent rhetoric that leads to radicalism. If connections to 9/11 hijackers, praise for Hamas and ties to terrorist support mechanisms are considered moderate, it's fair to ask what Malik considers to be extreme. .

Click Here to Read More...

What Does "Pro-Palestinian" Really Mean?

Khaled Abu Toameh
Journalist
Hudson New York

In recent years there has been a significant rise in the number of non-Palestinians who describe themselves as “pro-Palestinian” activists. These people can be found mostly on university campuses in North America and Europe. What is striking is that many of these “pro-Palestinian” activists have never been to the Middle East, let alone the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. In most cases, they are not even Arabs or Muslims.

What makes them “pro-Palestinian”?

In their view, inciting against Israel on a university campus or publishing “anti-Zionist” material on the Internet is sufficient to earn them the title of “pro-Palestinian.” But what these folks have not realized is that their actions and words often do little to advance the interests of the Palestinians. In some instances, these actions and words are even counterproductive.

It is hard to see how organizing events such as “Israel Apartheid Week” on a university campus could help the cause of the Palestinians. Isn’t there already enough anti-Israel incitement that is being spewed out of Arab and Islamic media outlets?

If anyone is entitled to be called “pro-Palestinian,” it is those who are publicly campaigning against financial corruption and abuse of human rights by Fatah and Hamas. Those who are trying to change the system from within belong to the real “pro-Palestinian” camp.

These are the brave people who are standing up to both Fatah and Hamas and calling on them to stop killing each other and start doing something that would improve the living conditions of their constituents.

Instead of investing money and efforts in organizing Israel Apartheid Week, for example, the self-described “pro-Palestinians” could dispatch a delegation of teachers to Palestinian villages and refugee camps to teach young Palestinians English. Or they could send another delegation to the Gaza Strip to monitor human rights violations by the Hamas authorities and help Palestinian women confront Muslim fundamentalists who are trying to limit their role to cooking, raising children and looking after the needs of their husbands.

Here is an idea: Let’s substitute Israel Apartheid Week with Palestine Democracy Week, where Palestinians would be urged and encouraged to demand an end to financial corruption and bad government.

The “pro-Palestinian” activists in the West clearly do not care about reforms and good government in the Palestinian territories. As far as these activists are concerned, delegitimizing Israel and inciting against “Zionists” are much more important that pushing for an end to financial corruption and violence in Palestinian society.

Telling the world how bad and evil Israel and the Jews are does not help the Palestinians as much as demanding good government and encouraging the emergence of young and “clean” leadership in the Palestinian territories.

If the “pro-Palestinian” camp in the West were investing a similar amount of its anti-Israel efforts in promoting moderation and civil society among Palestinians, it would be doing them a great service.

Shouting anti-Israel slogans or organizing Israel Apartheid Week in the US and Canada does not necessarily make a person “pro-Palestinian.”

But promoting good government and reform in the Palestinian territories does make one “pro-Palestinian.”

Being anti-Israel does not necessarily turn one into “pro-Palestinian.” On the other hand, promoting coexistence, peace and good government would be more beneficial to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians do not need students and professors on university campuses to tell them that Israel is bad. They have already had enough of this incitement from Hamas, Fatah and other Arab media outlets and leaders.

It is time for the “pro-Palestinian” camp in the West to reconsider its policies and tactics. It is time for this camp to listen to the authentic voices of the Palestinians – those that are shouting day and night that the Palestinians want good leaders and an end to lawlessness, anarchy and financial corruption.

Click Here to Read More...

Doc Fix Digs Debt Deeper

Heritage Foundation

Yesterday at 3:00 p.m. ET, the Treasury Department updated its calculation of the U.S. National Debt to: $12,031,299,186,290.07. That $12 trillion record high comes just eight months after it hit $11 trillion and is only expected to rise faster considering the federal deficit for 2009 was over $1.4 trillion. And what is the leftist majority of Congress going to do tomorrow about these skyrocketing deficits? They are going to pile on the spending faster.


The issue at hand is the congressionally created formula for annually updating the payments doctors receive for treating Medicare patients. The centrally planned price fixing formula was designed to control health care costs by tying doctor payments to the overall growth rate of the economy. Problem is the realities of supply and demand in the health care sector have pushed doctor’s fees higher than the formula allows for. So instead of going back and fixing the formula (or heaven forbid introducing some market based reforms into Medicare), every year Congress passes short-term fixes rescinding the scheduled rate cuts.

Fixing the problem permanently has long been the top legislative priority for the American Medical Association, and in exchange for their endorsement of Obamacare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) promised them she would do so. Problem is Pelosi and co. could not figure out how to game the Congressional Budget Office's numbers to show that Obamacare was deficit neutral and pay for the so called “doc fix” at the same time. So they solved the problem by pretending the “doc fix” was not health care reform. But to keep the AMA happy they took the unusual step of combining the debate rules for Obamacare and the doc fix.

As a result, Congress is set to debate the bill tomorrow for just one hour, and no amendments will be allowed. In other words, even if conservative Democrats or Republicans wanted to propose an amendment that would pay for the doctor’s higher payments, they are prevented from doing so. According to the CBO, just the ten year cost of the legislation will be $210 billion, but the damage does not end there. Medicare is a never ending entitlement program, so the real pain caused by the left’s free spending will be felt for decades to come. According to the latest report from the Medicare Trustees, the 75-year cost of allowing doctor payments to match the percentage change in the medical economic index is $1.9 trillion in more debt.

Americans who are concerned about our nation’s exploding deficits under President Obama and the leftist majorities in Congress should keep the doc fix debacle in mind when considering Obamacare. The deficit neutrality of the House-passed Obamacare bill entirely depends on Congress’ ability to cut $500 billion from hospital Medicare payments over the next ten years. Does anyone believe those cuts will ever happen?

QUICK HITS
The Dean of Harvard Medical School writes in the Wall Street Journal: “The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.”

In a sign of weakening political will, Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring.

President Obama directly acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay will not close by the January deadline he set.

Data released by the Federal Reserve, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the Labor Department Tuesday shows the economic recovery continues to be weak.

The chairman of the Obama administration’s Recovery Board admitted to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) yesterday that he can not certify that that the number of jobs reported as created/saved on Recovery.gov is accurate.

Click Here to Read More...

UNILATERALISM IS OUR ONLY OPTION‏

Ted Belman

Last August, PM Salam Fayyad released a Plan to “establish Palestine as an independent, democratic, progressive, and modern Arab state, with full sovereignty over its territory in the West Bank and Gaza, on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.” within two years. Israel took little notice of it. In early November Haaretz reported it included a secret provision which stipulated a “unilateral declaration of independence”. Then Israel took notice and said ‘If PA Declares State, Israel Will Annex Settlements’.

“If the Palestinians take such a unilateral line, Israel should also consider … passing a law to annex some of the settlements,” Environment Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) said.

MK Danon says that Israel must not settle for annexing settlement blocs, but must rather annex Judea and Samaria in their entirety, except for Arab cities.

Minister Erdan also said Israel has the option of tightening up travel restrictions for Arabs and stopping the transmission of tax money that the Israeli government currently transfers to the Palestinian Authority - money that is collected by Israel for the PA.

Meanwhile, Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud) and Minister Landau have taken action to introduce bills for annexing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

The PA also threatening to seek the formal endorsement of the UN but the Eu and the US have turned thumbs down on the issue.

So far Israel has been adamantly against abrogating the Oslo Accords no matter what the provocation. After 15 years of trying to negotiate a deal, perhaps its time for Israel to do so and the PA unilateral declaration, should it happen, could be just the pretext, if pretext is needed.

oslo1Everyone knows that there is no diplomatic solutions. Neither party is willing to make the necessary compromises. That’s why the PA talks about a unilateral declaration and the EU and some in the US talk about an imposed solution. Israel also is contemplating a unilateral solution. What might that be?

According to the remarks above, it would involve annexing parts, if not all Judea and Samaria. No land would have to be conquered. Israel has already annexed Jerusalem and the Golan and could do the same for other settlements such as Ariel and Maaleh Adumin and perhaps the Jordan Valley. At a minimum it would signal that these settlements, like Jerusalem, are non-negotiable.

This would be an incremental approach to gauge the reaction of the international community. It wouldn’t be pretty. The next step would be to annex all of Areas “B” and “C” with its Arab population of about 340,000. Area “A” with its 1.2 million Arabs would be dealt with thereafter assuming that it is not decided to do it all at once.

osloboxMike Wise, published the Jewish One State Plan, hereinafter referred to as the “Plan” a number of years ago. I first endorsed it in 2005 in my article Israel From the Mediterranean to the Jordan and have written much since.

In Caroline Glick’s article, Obama’s failure, Netanyahu’s opportunity she introduces this Plan.

Israel should strike out on a new course and work toward the integration of Judea and Samaria, including its Palestinian population, into Israeli society. In the first instance, this will require the implementation of Israeli law in the Jordan Valley and the large settlement blocs.

but she doesn’t fully, at least in this article, endorse the Plan. The Plan proposes that Israeli law be extended to all of Judea and Samaria as follows,

Annexation will provide a clear and well-defined status for West Bank Arabs. At the time of Annexation, the PA will no longer have a reason to exist and it and all terrorist infrastructures will be outlawed and dismantled. The PA and other terrorist organizations will be subject to Israel law and be dealt with in the same manner that all countries deal with internal subversive, treasonous and criminal organizations. Israel would no longer police the West Bank as an “occupation force”. It is important to understand that after Annexation, Israel will have significantly greater flexibility in dealing with issues and problems on the West Bank. Those problems will all be viewed as internal problems of the State of Israel and not problems subject to constant international scrutiny by those who view the West Bank as “occupied” territory.

Although Glick wants to integrate all of Judea and Samaria, she only wants to extend Israeli law to the “Jordan Valley and the Settlement Blocks”.

The Plan further provides,

It is essential that the process and strategy of offering Israeli citizenship to West Bank Arabs must be very carefully planned, including its timing, demographic, geographic, historical and social factors. Citizenship will include all the benefits currently available to the citizens of Israel including: health care, education, welfare, economic incentives, employment, social safety nets, voting rights and others. The responsibilities of citizenship will include a public oath of loyalty to the State of Israel. The procedures and the details of the citizenship offer will be determined as an internal matter by the State of Israel. Each country determines its own citizenship rules and there are many models ranging from extremes like Switzerland where citizenship is often not granted for several generations, and the extremely restrictive standards set by Islamic States to the more liberal standards applied by other countries. Since the process will be phased in over time, the possibility to adjust the procedures appropriately will be available as circumstances require.

The reason Glick excludes Area “A” is because of the 1.2 million Arabs living there. She and most Israelis don’t want to extend Israeli citizenship to them no matter on what terms. The Plan doesn’t see this as a problem that can’t be dealt with.

There are about 200,000 Arabs in Jerusalem who have been given blue cards which entitled them to work and vote in municipal elections. Some suggest that such cards, rather than citizenship, should ultimately be given to the Arabs in the annexed territories .

Jerusalem Summit, a Christian/Jewish think tank, in 2005 published Prof Martin Sherman’s article, Redefining the Palestinian Problem which proposed an humanitarian solution rather than a political one. This proposal involves resettling the refugees elsewhere and offering compensation to Arabs living in Judea and Samaria to leave. Nothing unusual about that.

Apparently, Denmark to pay immigrants $20,000 to go home if they “can’t or won’t” assimilate

Denmark is boosting cash incentives to entice immigrants to return to their homelands if they ‘can’t or won’t’ assimilate into society.

The offer now on the table is close to £12,000 for every person who takes up the offer to leave.

Critics of the measure say it sends the wrong message to foreigners but the centre-right government in Copenhagen is forging ahead with the plan.

The financial carrot is ten times more than that previously offered under a scheme which as been law since 1997.

Sarkozy has also floated such a plan. So why can’t Israel do likewise.

Paul Eidelberg is totally against relying on Netanyahu’s “economic peace” which Glick supports. He says they “succumb to the wishful thinking of crypto-Marxists and capitalists who think there is an economic solution to human conflict, including religious conflicts.”

One consequence of bettering their economic lot would be that Arabs would immigrate to this area rather than emigrate from it. The reverse of what we want. But that is not what he is concerned with. He wants to deal with reality and not fantasy. Therefore the problem must be solved in a different way.

One suggestion that he makes in The Eidelberg Plan is for Israel to become more Jewish. He believes that this would cause Arab Israeli emigration. But aside from not saying what to do with Judea and Samaria, he agrees that “Palestine” won’t come into existence because neither side will make the necessary compromises.

Currently PM Netanyahu, supported by Barak and Peres, is banging the peace drum for all he is worth. He is begging for negotiations to begin and hinting he will be generous but has not yet backed away from his demands of recognition, an undivided Jerusalem and demilitarization. The Obama administration has supported him in accepting that negotiations should be without pre-conditions. The PA wants to have negotiations begin where Olmert left off and to have an end result of the creation of Palestine with ‘67 borders.

I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Netanyahu is not about to give away the farm.

What negotiator starts negotiations by showing how much he wants them. The reverse is always the case. Therefore, I believe that Netanyahu is talking the talk knowing he won’t have to walk the walk. Many in the know, that I have talked with, agree.

Today, the focus of the Middle East players is Iran. The creation of Palestine is of little concern.

Assuming no diplomatic solution will be forthcoming for the creation of Palestine, Israel will begin to make moves, probably after Iran is dealt with, to incorporate Judea and Samaria unilaterally. The key questions in so doing will involve whether to extend Israel law to Area “C” only or to all of Judea and Samaria and whether to give blue cards or Citizenship based on significant requirements.

The peace process has brought death and destruction and not brought us closer to peace. Time for new approach.

Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times a week ago, agrees.

“It is time for a radically new approach. And I mean radical. I mean something no U.S. administration has ever dared to do: Take down our “Peace-Processing-Is-Us” sign and just go home.”

This would enable Israel to do its thing as suggested above.



ADDENDUM

The JCPA released a study entitled International Recognition of a Unilaterally Declared Palestinian State

International law has traditionally required that four separate criteria be satisfied before the recognition of an entity as an independent sovereign state can be considered:

1. The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control.
2. The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control.
3. The entity must have the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations.
4. There must be effective and independent governmental control over a permanent population.

Only if the Palestinian entity satisfies the traditional criteria for statehood by exercising independent and sovereign governmental control (including the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations) over a permanent population in a defined territory over which it has possession, can its recognition as a sovereign state be considered.

It concludes that “should the Palestinian Authority unilaterally declare a state, under present circumstances, it would not meet these legal criteria, and hence should not be recognized.” That doesn’t mean it won’t be.

Even if the U.N. recognizes a Palestinian state, it would make little difference to the reality. In 1988 the Palestinians also declared independence and many states recognized it, but nothing came of it.

So long as Israel controls the land it controls what happens there.

But Alan Baker, writing in JCPA, says such declaration Undermines the Legal Foundations of Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy and “could set off a series of reactions - whether legal or political - that might create substantive, structural damage to the peace process.” because the Oslo Interim Agreement provides

Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.



Ted Belman
Jerusalem

Click Here to Read More...

In Search of Déjà vu: For Intellectuals, Political Correctness is Twenty-First Century Communism

RubinsReport
Barry Rubin

We are all searching, in this bizarre era we inhabit, for a healthy sense of déjà vu. By this I mean, we seek precedents for some of the strange things that Political Correctness forces onto people and current political debates bring into play. Unfortunately, the virtually sole candidate brought up play in such matters is summarized by the word “fascism.” But the extremities of Nazi Germany generally don’t fit well with the relatively mild forms of mischief gotten up to in Western democratic states. Actually, the best parallel I can think of is the way that the Communist party and its fellow travelers tried to impose a cultural line on intellectual life, a process at its peak in the United States and in Britain during the 1930s, while continuingfor many decades longer in countries like France and Italy.

The experience described below by George Orwell in 1937 is a wonderful example of how history is repeating itself. I want to add quickly that I am not speaking here of subservience to a foreign state (the USSR) or even the kind of discipline exercised on party members, but how it permeated into the broader cultural, media, and intellectual scene.

To sum up the three themes:

--There is a party line which should be followed by everyone, even if they aren't in the party.

--Those who don’t follow it will be called all sorts of awful names which even horrifies the victim since these insults have nothing to do with what he was trying to do or say. In those days, it was fascist or Trotskyist; today it is racist, neo-conservative, or Islamophobic.

--The line is justified because not following it is said to lead to terrible results (historically, the triumph of fascism and big business; today, the triumph of racism, Islamophobia, and big business). Another reason is that telling the truth would help the enemy, in those days, fascism or capitalism, in these days, Republicans, George W. Bush, or various reactionary, Christian fundamentalist, or fuddy-duddy forces.

--The punishments are not torture, prison, and execution but ridicule, denial of a teaching job or tenure, or just not getting your book or articles published.

The particular examples cited by Orwell pertain to the treatment in Britain of the Spanish Civil War. Orwell, a militant socialist but not a Communist, went to Spain to fight and, partly by accident, ended up in the POUM militia. This was a socialist group, mainly in Catalonia, which did not follow the Communist party line and believed that such things as peasant land seizures and workers running factories would strengthen rather than weaken the Spanish Republic in its war against the Fascist forces.

The Communists, however, wanted to control the republic and saw the POUM as a barrier. It repressed the group using bloody attacks, executions, and denunciations of it as fascist or Trotskyist. Orwell would call this in a letter, “Fascism being imposed under the pretense of resisting Fascism.”

Wounded by a sniper, Orwell headed back to Britain for treatment and here our story begins. He quickly discovered that the Communists would suppress the truth out of self-interest and goals, while fellow travelers and “well-intentioned” people would do so because they believed that knowing the truth would not lead the masses in the right direction.

Remember, too, that it doesn’t matter how stupid any idea or belief is as long as it is fashionable.

Now to Orwell’s experience in 1937. As soon as he reached France, he contacted the left-oriented New Statesman about writing an article on his experiences. As he recounted in a letter to a friend:

“Of course they said yes, but when they saw my article was on the suppression of the POUM they said they couldn’t print it.”

So to buy him off, they offered to let him review a new book on the war. But, Orwell continued, “once again when they saw my review they couldn’t print it as it was “against editorial policy.” They did, however, offer to pay him the full fee for the review, which Orwell saw as “hush-money.” The magazine was desperate to ensure he wouldn’t reveal publicly its policy of censorship.

Orwell wrote that the editors warned it would “cause trouble” or, in Orwell’s words, “blow the gaff on the Communist party…..They were evidently very anxious to prevent me giving away the fact that they are covering up important pieces ot the news.”

Orwell also lost his publisher which, he explained, “is of course part of the Communism-racket” and as soon as it realized he had been with the POUM and would be critical of the Stalinists, explained it would be unable to publish the book even though they hadn't seen a word of the text. Orwell found another publisher and his Homage to Catalonia became a classic.

But this is how things worked then and work today. Blacklisting was not merely a technique of Senator Joe McCarthy. Back then, it was forbidden to write about Soviet concentration camps or antisemitism, or the economic incompetence of the USSR because that would allegedly “help” the bourgeoisie, or fascism, and hurt the cause of the workers.

Today, one cannot write about lots of things because they allegedly wouldn’t be good for people to think or believe. In the 1930s that was also true, except all the things designed to do good through self-censorship actually did immense harm. In fact, Orwell wrote as much in another letter:

“A number of people had said to me with varying degrees of frankness that one must not tell the truth about what was happening in Spain, and the part played by the Communist Party, because to do so would be to prejudice public opinion against the [Republican] Spanish Government and so aid [General Francisco] Franco [the fascist leader].”

Today we know that the Communists, including NKVD agents dispatched for the purpose, tortured and murdered huge numbers of people for the crime of having a view of their own. We also know about the Gulag of concentration camps and the framing of hundreds of thousands of people, many crimes of the USSR which were hidden from the world by those supposedly so solicitous of the rights of man and the worker’s cause. Of course, the result was that more people died and no effort was made to help them.

Another result was that the Republicans lost the war. You see, if you shut up about the misdeeds of those with the good fortunate of being dubbed "progressives" you do more harm both because of the people they victimize and since their weaknesses undermine whatever good there might be in the wider cause.

And all of this also shows one other thing: the cowardice of intellectuals. If the Wicked Witch of the West demanded that they surrender Dorothy, they probably would, and pronounce the deed just retribution for Dorothy’s house landing on the Wicked Witch’s sister. Disproportionate force, you know. And after all the Wicket Witch of the East was a civilian.

It is a cowardice both physical—though they beat their chest to advertize alleged courage in defying forces that in fact will do nothing to them—and moral. Dorothy Parker ridiculed such people long ago in a poem where she wrote: "Their one ambition is to get themselves arrested,/So that they can come out and be Heroes."

Yet nowadays even such minimal inconveniences are avoided, replaced by the feather-lined mattresses of rewards for alleged heroism with no pain or risk whatsoever. The pain is suffered by others, including victims of the causes rationalized by the self-described virtuous.

Leaping to the defense of courageous democrats crushed by left-wing (at least in rhetoric) dictatorships might not make them look like courageous battlers for progressive causes.

Publishing the “Danish cartoons” or telling the truth about the radical Islamist threat might hurt someone’s feelings. Remember, it is always more popular to avoid hurting the feelings of people who might want to kill you in response.

Ah yes, to paraphrase Bob Dylan once put it, we’ve been in this movie before.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

Click Here to Read More...

If this doesn't wake up Americans, we are doomed!!

Obama Warms to the Idea of an International Body Having Jurisdiction Over Americans

Proponents of central planning, collectivism and world government such as Amy Goodman, the good comrade in front of the camera at Democracy Now!, are giddy over the recent announcement from the administration of President Barack Obama that the United States may consider re-joining the International Criminal Court [ICC]. Goodman was extremely pleased to report that:

The United States has announced it will attend an International Criminal Court meeting this week as an observer for the first time since The Hague court was set up in 2002. The US signed the ICC treaty during Bill Clinton’s presidency, but it was never ratified by Congress. Clinton’s successor George W. Bush later rejected the idea of joining the court.

The ICC, you may recall, was established by treaty in 1998 to provide a forum in which to try persons who are “accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” Although that treaty (known as the Rome Statute) has been ratified by some 110 countries, the United States, which has always opposed the prospect of a foreign body having jurisdiction over American citizens, is not among those nations; nor, for that matter, are Russia, China, or India.

Clinton signed the Rome Statute during the final days of his presidency. George W. Bush, who feared that ambitious prosecutors and judges would subject American soldiers and government officials to politicized prosecutions, subsequently rescinded that signature.

Bush found the following language of a particular provision cited in Article 5, Section 2 of the ICC document particularly troubling:

The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with Articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime.

The Bush administration had a major problem with the use of the word “aggression;” and even today, years after the drafting of the treaty, there is still no satisfactory definition as to what constitutes “aggression.” Bush feared that the language was so broad that the potential for abuse in the form of targeted prosecution against American civilian and military leaders was too great a possibility to ignore. Water boarding a suspect, or an Abu Ghraib-type incident, might get an American soldier executed somewhere by a foreign government acting under the jurisdictional control of the ICC.

This was an unacceptable possibility for Bush, but doesn’t seem to be much of an issue for Obama, whose position on the issue was articulated by National Security Advisor Spokesman Ben Chang, who exclaimed during the first month of Obama’s administration that:

We support the ICC in its pursuit of those who’ve perpetrated war crimes.

But why would the folks at Democracy Now! and others on the left be so especially keen on having an International Criminal Court in which to try war criminals?

The real answer is chilling.

The left considers the biggest war criminal of all to be none other than: George W. Bush.

Wolfgang Kaleck, general secretary of the leftist European Centre for Human and Constitutional Rights–who has already tried unsuccessfully to sue Bush and former U.S. authorities in European courts–has articulated the left’s position clearly and without ambiguity:

Judicial clarification of the crimes against international law the former U.S. government committed is one of the most delicate issues that the new U.S. president Barack Obama will have to deal with.

Kalek went on to warn the Obama administration that it will have to:

Deal with the turpitudes committed by the Bush government. And, furthermore, the U.S. government will have to pay compensation to the innocent people who were victims of these crimes.
It’s all coming into focus now.

What an achievement it would be for the left to have an American ex-President on trial in a foreign court for “war crimes,” with the potential added bonus of a shakedown of the American taxpayer for the payment of crippling “reparations.” Obama would be opening a Pandora’s box with the re-ratification the Rome Statute.

Or is that the plan?

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/18/obama-warms-to-the-idea-of-an-international-body-having-jurisdiction-over-americans/

Click Here to Read More...

Obama’s Silence on Sudan – by Stephen Brown

President Obama’s recent trip to China presented a golden opportunity to address a crisis that has long confounded the international community: the ongoing conflict in Sudan. Unfortunately, it turned out to be an opportunity missed. The largest country in Africa, Sudan’s central government has been involved until recently in devastating civil wars in its western and southern regions. However, the Sudanese leadership has constantly shrugged off international attempts to solve these simmering conflicts, relying on its strong relationship with China to counter any foreign peace-making efforts, which it terms “western imperialism.”

Recognizing the importance of Obama’s China trip for Sudan’s future, 44 members of Congress sent a letter to the president last Friday before his departure, asking him “to make Sudan a priority” in his discussions with the Chinese.

“Failure to exert sufficient public pressure on China regarding its relationship with Khartoum will send a signal to the rest of the world that the United States places other interests ahead of achieving peace in Sudan,” the letter states.

Initially, Obama’s Sudan policy appeared promising. During the election campaign last year, he had made Sudan a priority in his foreign policy platform. And he had good reason for doing so.

Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese civilians have been killed and several million displaced in fighting in northern and southern Sudan. Human rights groups and the United Nations have condemned Sudan’s Arab government for committing crimes against humanity in both regions, especially in Darfur in western Sudan. There, a campaign of ethnic cleansing against black African Muslim tribes, begun in 2003, has resulted in an estimated 300,000 dead and earned Sudanese president, Omar Bashir, an indictment from the International Criminal Court last March.

The suffering and deplorable human rights situation of Sudan’s northern and western civilian African populations caused Obama to call for tough measures when on the 2008 campaign trail. Criticising then-President George Bush for being too soft on Khartoum, the Democratic candidate called for stricter international sanctions, especially against Sudan’s oil industry, the government’s major foreign currency earner. A no-fly zone for government warplanes over Darfur was also advocated and, according to the New York Times, Obama’s then chief advisor on Sudan, Susan Rice, even “hinted at US military action.”

“We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do the right thing,” Obama said when electioneering.

But when the president’s Sudan policy came out last month after a lengthy review, it looked similar to the Bush administration approach he had been faulting. Instead of isolating Khartoum with tougher sanctions, he will offer incentives and the chance to normalize relations with the American government if Bashir ends the conflicts.

The architect of this shift to a soft approach is retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, Obama’s special envoy to the Sudan. Gration described the new policy as awarding “cookies” and “gold stars” to Khartoum’s government, which must sound comical to a regime that is responsible for several million of its own citizens’ deaths.

Unlike Gration, the southern Sudanese are fully aware of the murderous threat from Khartoum. Southern Sudan, whose black African population is mostly Christian and animist, has already fought two brutal civil wars against the Arab and Muslim North.

The first one, begun soon after independence from Great Britain in 1956, ended in 1972 after an estimated 500,000 deaths and the odious practice of slavery had been revived, supported by the Arab world’s new oil wealth. In 1962, a Swiss journalist wrote that hundreds of black African Sudanese were enslaved and sent to northern Sudan and some even further to Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other oil sheikdoms.

The second conflict began in 1983 when the Khartoum government threw out the 1972 peace accord. Arabic was then declared the country’s only official language and sharia was made the law of the land.

In this terrible struggle, the Arab North’s religious and racial hatred for the South was fully in evidence. This was strengthened by the Khartoum government declaring jihad against its own southern citizens, of whom two million were to perish and another two million were displaced. Thousands were also enslaved. The war ended in 2005 with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), under which the south became an autonomous region and will vote for independence in a referendum in 2011.

Even then, it took another war, in Darfur, to get the Sudanese government to agree to the CPA. Becoming tied down in a war of horrifying proportions in Darfur, the Khartoum government used the CPA to shift its resources from the southern Sudan to the West. A peace agreement to end the Darfurian conflict was signed in 2006.

Both agreements, however, are largely shams. After 2005, the Khartoum government continued the war against southern Sudan only by different means. The Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS), the political entity that came into being under the CPA, and the Anglican Church’s archbishop for Sudan have both accused Khartoum of fomenting tribal violence in the South by arming tribal militias to attack and loot their neighbors.

In a further destabilizing effort, GOSS says the North is also responsible for attacks by the Congo-based Lord’s Resistance Army that have displaced more than 100,000 southern Sudanese. Darfur is also not at peace, as clashes are continuing between government forces and rebels.

When campaigning, Obama appeared to correctly recognize the problem with Sudan was the Khartoum regime. Composed of Islamic hardliners, they are adamantly opposed to independence for the South and to concessions in Darfur. It is doing all it can to sabotage the CPA and is arming itself with modern Chinese weapons for the next round of war with GOSS or in Darfur.

The Chinese would most likely have rebuffed any attempt by Obama, if any was made, to impose heavy sanctions on the Sudanese government if it continued its civil wars. Economic considerations would prevent such a move. China buys two thirds of Sudan’s oil production and has invested heavily in the country. Besides, Beijing has never been overly bothered by human rights violations.

Obama has done little to change China’s thinking. So, left with only Obama’s strategy of “cookies” and “stars” rather than one of hard substance, the tragedy in Sudan is set to repeat itself.

Click Here to Read More...

Hit the Reset Button on Obama's Foreign Policy Agenda

Lauri B. Regan
With ObamaCare barely passing in the House of Representatives last week, a federal deficit hitting unprecedented levels this past month, and unemployment rates achieving highs not seen in decades, few Americans seem focused on the direction of this administration's foreign policy agenda. That is not to say that people across the globe are not tuned into American foreign policy initiatives, decisions, and foibles; it is to say that the average American is more concerned with pocketbook issues more than long term national security. AClearly, we as American citizens need to prioritize the issues which hit home and have the most impact on our lives. But that does not mean that we only live in the moment and miss the forest for the trees. A country's domestic policies will impact its overall standing in the world as we have seen occur in the former world powers of France, Great Britain, Germany, and the USSR. Whether it was the fall of Communism, which occurred in the USSR and much of Eastern Europe, or the failure of socialist principles to which much of Western Europe has awoken, domestic policy can quickly turn a superpower into just an average civilized nation in an historical blink of an eye.

What are we witnessing at this juncture in American history? Are we witnessing the involuntary rebalancing of power across the globe resulting from an inevitable decline in civilization (a la the Roman Empire)? Or are we witnessing the voluntary relinquishment of superiority by a people too awash in political correctness, too disaffected to understand the significance of their country's important role in historic human events, and too spoiled by freedom and success to understand the responsibility inherited from their ancestors?

My view is that the latter hypothesis is correct and, if that is the case, the good news is that the projected course on which the present US government is taking the country can easily be corrected. It seems that the citizens of this great nation, who understand the lead up to America's attainment of superpower status as well as their civic duty in furthering that course, have woken up to assuming the role of protagonist, revolutionary, patriot, and freedom fighter not seen since World War II.

Barack Obama, socialist, conciliator, passivist, (and consummate bower) is not a student of history, let alone an individual with love for his country. Much has been written about his past associations, his socialist upbringing, his Muslim connections, and his inexperience. Notwithstanding, he was elected to the highest office in the land. He is the leader of the free world in fact. These characteristics -- his inexperience, his passivity, and his ignorance of history -- permeate his foreign policy strategies to date. And it is freedom loving people the world over who are, and will continue to be, the ones to pay the price for his misguided decisions.

George W. Bush made statements after 9/11 that illustrated the type of morality he had, not only as a human being, but also as a world leader -- morality that is a clear necessity in order to achieve greatness in the world. His recognition of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea forming an axis of evil, and his statement to the world players that they are either with us or against us, exemplified his decisiveness and clarity of the malevolence facing the world.

To the contrary, in Barack Obama's vision of the world, rich people are the enemy. Individuals who have taken advantage of hard work, capitalism, and entrepreneurial opportunities epitomize evil in the eyes of the decision-makers in the White House. Thus Obama panders to the socialist left of the country focusing on destructive policies to both Americans and the world's populace. Barack Obama does not care about the poor person in Bangladesh who only wants clean water, not a green car or a light bulb blessed by Al Gore.

To Barack Obama, human rights abuses only occur in Guantanamo Bay and by CIA interrogators, not in the gulags of North Korea or work camps across China. To Barack Obama, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earns the respect of an open hand without preconditions, yet Bibi Netanyahu must make concessions that may risk the survival of his country's people prior to being permitted a face-to-face with the US President.

On the one hand, Barack Obama views the illegal and fraudulent elections in Iran as fair and legitimate. Yet incomprehensively, he views the lawful and constitutional removal of the Honduran president as criminal. The will of the people of free nations is of no concern to Barack Obama, as right becomes wrong and the world is turned upside down based on the opinion of a community organizer who happened to have been in the right place at the right time in history.

People are starting to notice that what Barack Obama touches does not turn to gold; it turns to rust and quickly fades away. When Barack Obama determines that he will instill peace in the Mideast on his own very naïve, uneducated terms, what will be the result? A prolonged conflict, greater levels of violence, and disruption to the elected government of Israel (perhaps his goal).

When Barack Obama determines that he will support the illegally elected government in Iran at the expense of the freedom loving citizens of that nation, the result is the death and imprisonment of innocent civilians and popular resentment rather than support of America. The further result is the continued unhindered development of nuclear weapons, the abduction of United States tourists to be used as negotiating tools, and the continued shipment of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations across the globe.

When Barack Obama sends his minions into our peaceful ally in Central America in order to influence its sovereign constitutional determination to oust a power-grabbing dictatorial president, the result is an extended conflict and complete disarray lasting months longer than had we not meddled in the country's domestic affairs. The further result is the increased confidence of dictators Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro to continue to oppress their people with full support of the United States.

When Barack Obama decides to renege on missile defense agreements with America's Eastern European allies in the Czech Republic and Poland, which were agreed to by the predecessor administration, the result is a lack of trust in America's word across the globe and the risk of further aggression by neighboring Russia.

One of the biggest complaints of the left during the Bush administration was that the world did not like us. President Bush snubbed the UN, France, and Germany, and made decisions based on his determination of what was in the best interests of the United States of America. Yet George W. Bush understood his role as leader of the world's only superpower and freest country on the globe and he stood by our allies. He also stood by the values on which this country was founded and aimed to further those goals throughout his presidency.

I have no idea what Barack Obama stands for other than a weakened America based on his resentment of perceived inequities of its citizens. But he has a responsibility as our President to also further the values on which this country was founded. While Bush hoped to export democracy, what is it that Obama is exporting as he canvasses the world apologizing for our greatness? This is not a popularity contest and Americans do not need to be liked. America needs to remain strong and free and supportive of civilizations that share those same values.

It is time for Barack Obama to stop exporting failure and to recognize that his place in history only begins with becoming the first African American President. I hope it will end with successes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Mideast, as well as ensuring human rights and freedoms across the globe. But that means shedding the baggage that he brought to the job and starting anew -- it is not too late to push the reset button.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/hit_the_reset_button_on_obamas.html at November 18, 2009 - 04:25:28 AM EST

Click Here to Read More...

OC: Fact Check This, Associated Press!

Jack Cashill
"I think Obama's in a league with TR," observes historian and presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley. "He created his political reputation through the written word."

To be sure, no one has ever accused Sarah Palin, a defeated vice presidential candidate, of creating her reputation thusly. One has to wonder, then, why her book, Going Rogue, would merit a fact check by no fewer than eleven Associated Press reporters when neither the AP nor any other mainstream outlet has spent a moment vetting the books of the "author in chief," as President Barack Obama was anointed in a November GQ article, "Barack Obama's Work in Progress," by Tom Draper. In an observant piece, the Road to Bali, blogger Tom Maguire addresses the implicit media balance. He does so by calling attention to just one relevant question that the media might have profitably asked our president: did you take new bride Michelle to Bali with you in 1993?

In the course of asking that question, not terribly significant in and of itself, Maguire sheds light on a more substantive question: why have the media paid so little attention to how Barack Obama came to write the book that would make his reputation, his acclaimed 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father.

As source, Maguire turns to Draper, who has spent time with Michelle and Barack and written the most detailed account to date of the genesis of Dreams. Blinded by Obama's light, however, Draper fails to see the gaping holes in how own story line.

As Draper tells the story, a February 1990 New York Times article telling how Harvard has elected Obama president of the Harvard Law Review attracted the attention of a young agent named Jane Dystel. Draper implies that Obama's "irresistible" writing skills netted him the position, which is not at all true.

In fact, the election was a popularity contest held in racially charged environment. The culturally ambiguous Obama won on his race-healing talents, not on his literary ones. He would contribute only one leaden, unsigned case note to the HLR and has not written another legal article since.

According to Draper, on November 28, 1990, Poseidon Press, a Simon & Schuster imprint, issued "a six-figure contract" to Obama for a book tentatively titled Journeys in Black and White. In his recent book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of An American Marriage, Christopher Andersen specifies the amount at $150,000.

In the hope of recruiting Obama, the University of Chicago Law School offered him an office in the law school to use for finishing the book, and there he spent 1991 and 1992. Nearly two years passed, and Obama could not produce. "I just can't get it down on paper," Draper quotes an Obama confession to confidante Valerie Jarrett in 1992. "I'd much rather hang out with Michelle than focus on this."

Although Draper would never say so, this represented a failure of character as much it did a failure of talent. Obama had pocketed $75,000 of that advance and promised in return a manuscript by June 15, 1992. He had more than eighteen months to complete a memoir, the easiest of all genres. It required minimal research, no footnotes, and a narrative that needed not be factual as long as it was plausible.

As a point of comparison, I was offered a contract in April 2005 to write a memoir with a deadline of September 1, 2005. In other words, I had four months to do what Obama could not do in eighteen. To complicate matters mine was to be a story of growing up in the age of Muhammad Ali. So, in addition to writing, I read roughly 30-40 books on boxing and related subjects during that period and watched scores of fight films and documentaries.

I set as a goal a thousand words a day, and I made the September 1 deadline. It would have helped a lot if I had ever learned to type, but to me missing the deadline was unthinkable if for no other reason that I, like Obama, had signed a contract and accepted an advance. Although Sucker Punch was my fourth published book, I can assure you that my advance was considerably less than that of the untested Obama.

In any case, the June 15, 1992 deadline came and went without a manuscript from Obama. As Draper blithely notes, Obama had other things on his mind, namely his impending October 3rd marriage to Michelle. On October 20, 1992, according to Draper, Poseidon terminated Obama's contract.

Andersen adds a detail that mythmaker Draper chooses to omit. Obama feared that Simon & Schuster would demand the $75,000 already advanced. Writes Andersen, "But when Barack informed them that he had spent the money -- and that he and his wife were still chipping away at their massive student loan debt -- the publisher agreed not to press the issue." In other words, Obama asked for and received an undeserved bailout. A pattern was developing here.

The tenacious agent Jane Dystel managed to find another publisher, Times Books, and secured a smaller advance, $40,000. Draper tells us that Obama used the advance "to fulfill his outstanding financial obligation to Poseidon." Andersen's take sounds more credible.

"Now he's got to produce," writes Draper. "But how?" Although the sanctuary at the University of Chicago and a previous retreat to a friend's Wisconsin farm had done no good, Obama hit upon the idea of going to Bali to unblock. (For Sucker Punch, I went to my cabin on Lake Erie).

As blogger Maguire notes, the pre-election myth, advanced by the New York Times and others, is that Michelle accompanied him. Wrote the Times on May 18, 2008, Obama "eventually retreated to Bali for several months with his wife, Michelle."

A more recent and less romantic version, advanced by Draper and by the Times as well, is that Obama went by himself. "For a month," writes Draper, "he is a lone figure pacing on the white sand and hammering on his laptop. . . . "

Andersen describes the Obamas as "drowning in debt" during this period. How either Barack or Michelle could have afforded to go to Bali during this period, for one month or three, remains something of a mystery. Mysterious too is how the media could leave unresolved such glaring contradictions in the biography of the world's most famous man.

Maguire highlights still another hole in the Draper narrative. Incredibly, in a 5,000-word article on Obama's development as a writer, Draper says nothing about what happened between early 1993 when Obama returned from Bali to June 1995 when Dreams was published. Draper leaves the impression that the month-long Bali high was just what Obama needed to fire his synapses.

Andersen is much more credible here. As he tells it, Bali proved no more helpful than any other retreat. At the urging of Michelle, the "hopelessly blocked" Obama finally turned to "friend and Hyde Park neighbor" Bill Ayers to help him.

Andersen's details are specific. The Obamas were convinced of "Ayers's proven abilities as a writer." Barack particularly liked the novelistic style of To Teach, a 1993 book by Ayers. The key sentence in Andersen's account is the one that follows: "[The Obama family] oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers."

Adds Andersen, "Thanks to help from veteran writer Ayers, Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books." Based on my own research, I would argue that Ayers actually wrote the book's best sections. Obama's published efforts before Dreams show not a wisp of the skill on display in Dreams. Not surprisingly, Draper overlooks those early efforts.

With his man crush trumping his critical insights, Draper chooses not to relate the fate of plucky agent Dystel. That story was hard to miss. The proudly liberal but seriously disgusted publisher Peter Osnos went public three years ago. According to Osnos, Obama dumped his devoted long time agent after Dreams took off and then signed a seven-figure deal with Crown, using only a by-the-hour attorney.

Obama pulled off the deal after his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate but before being sworn in as Senator, this way to avoid the disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to members of Congress. Osnos publicly scolded Obama for his "ruthlessness" and "his questionable judgment about using public service as a personal payday."

But that was in 2006, when Obama was mere mortal. Today, Obama is a literary god, however false, and challenging the gods is apparently above the AP's pay grade.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/fact_check_this_associated_pre.html at November 18, 2009 - 04:22:25 AM EST

Click Here to Read More...

Worse Than Taxes

John Stossel
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Bill O'Reilly is mad at me because I'm not mad enough about taxes.

Last week on "The O'Reilly Factor", we talked about California's and New York's enormous budget deficits and planned tax increases. Those states would have big surpluses had they just grown their governments in pace with inflation. But of course they didn't. Now the politicians act like their current deficits are something imposed on them by the recession. But that's nonsense. They created the problem with their reckless spending.

Let's look at the particulars. Had the government of New York state grown at the rate of population and inflation over the past 10 years, it would have a $14 billion surplus today. Instead, spending grew at twice the rate of inflation (http://tinyurl.com/yguvfpm). So New York has a $3 billion deficit.

To dent California's deficit, bureaucrats will withhold an extra 10 percent from every taxpayer -- at least from those who don't flee the state. New York planned to raise the price of new license plates, but then backed off. The visible tax was unpopular. But the hidden taxes grow.

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

Hidden taxes are more pernicious because they disguise what we pay for government. We blame merchants, not our legislators, for the high price of gasoline, liquor, cigarettes and phone calls, but the money goes to the political thieves.

New York imposes a gas tax of 61 cents a gallon -- almost a quarter of the cost of the gas. New York City taxes cigarettes at $4.25 a pack. Washington state collects $26 per gallon of hard liquor. Illinois politicians take a sneaky cut when you buy junk food: They add 6.25 percent to the cost of soda and candy.

My phone bill lists seven different taxes -- unintelligible stuff like a "Public Safety Commission Surcharge" and an "MCTD tax." The payroll tax is one of the biggest hidden taxes. You assume that you know what you pay because it's listed on your paycheck, but that's actually only half of it. Employers must pay an equal amount -- money that otherwise would have been part your salary.

O'Reilly was most indignant about the visible taxes. "You, Stossel, are going to be paying 45 percent of your money to the government!" he said. I replied that I already pay more than that, since I live in New York City.

But I apparently was not indignant enough, because later in his show he told comedian Dennis Miller, "Stossel doesn't get it."

O'Reilly is right about my not being furious. It's not that taxes don't anger me. They do. But I'm more angry about the arrogance of the ruling class. It reminds me of Walter Williams' riff: "Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money, they don't expect you to thank them for it."

Taxes, even counting hidden taxes, are not the real measure of what the thieves take. The true burden of government, the late Milton Friedman said, is the spending level. Taxation is just one way government gets money. The other ways -- borrowing and inflation -- are equally burdens on the people. (State governments can't inflate, but they sure can borrow.)

O'Reilly told me that America is ready for a tax revolt. I hope he's right. But I don't think it will happen until more people see the ruling elite for what it is: a gang of arrogant bullies that has the audacity to believe that they know how to direct our lives better than we do.

That's why, bad as the taxes are, I'm more upset about ObamaCare, Medicare, the "stimulus," the auto bailout, the bank bailouts, the Fannie/Freddie bailouts, the trillions in guarantees, and on and on.

The politicians' spending schemes represent presumptuous interference in our lives. They are an assault on our autonomy.


Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Click Here to Read More...

A Minority View: Excused Horrors

Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Last Tuesday, I had the pleasurable task of being Master of Ceremonies for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation dinner in Washington, D.C., that celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Founded in 1981, the Atlas Foundation assists the formation of free market think tanks around the world to spread the ideas of personal liberty, private property rights and limited government.So far, they have been successful in at least 70 countries. Attending the two-day celebration were think-tank representatives from many of these countries, including those from Croatia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Mozambique, South Korea, Russia and Brazil.

Alan Kors, University of Pennsylvania history professor, gave the evening's keynote address. What he revealed about the dereliction and character weakness of academics, intellectuals, media elites and politicians is by no means complimentary, but worse than that, dangerous. Professor Kors said that over the years, he has frequently asked students how many deaths were caused by Joseph Stalin and Mao Tsetung and their successors. Routinely, they gave numbers in the thousands. Kors says that's equivalent to saying the Nazis are responsible for the deaths of just a few hundred Jews. But here's the record: Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 20 million of their own people and those in nations they conquered. Between 1917 and 1983, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.

Arguing with Idiots By Glenn Beck

Professor Kors asks why are the horrors of Nazism so well known and widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism? For decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought punishment for Nazi murderers. How much hunting down and seeking punishment for Stalinist and Maoist murderers? In Europe, especially Germany, hoisting the swastika-emblazoned Nazi flag is a crime. It's acceptable to hoist and march under a flag emblazoned with the former USSR's hammer and sickle. Even in the U.S., it's acceptable to praise mass murderers, as Anita Dunn, President Obama's communications director, did in a commencement address for St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral where she said Mao Tsetung was one of her heroes. Whether it's the academic community, the media elite or politicians, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism -- a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined.

Academics, media elites and leftist politicians both in the U.S. and Europe protested the actions and military buildup of President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and ultimately the breakup of the Soviet Union. Recall the leftist hissy fit when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire and predicted that communism would wind up on the trash heap of history.

Professor Alan Kors did not say this but the reason why the world's leftists give the world's most horrible murderers a pass is because they sympathize with their socioeconomic goals, which include government ownership and/or control over the means of production. In the U.S., the call is for government control, through regulations, as opposed to ownership. Unfortunately, it matters little whether there is a Democratically or Republican-controlled Congress and White House; the march toward greater government control continues. It just happens at a quicker pace with Democrats in charge.

You say, "Come on, Williams, there will never be the kind of socialist oppression seen elsewhere here!" You might be right because Americans have become very compliant with unconstitutional and immoral congressional edicts. But what do you think would happen if some Americans began to rise up and heed Thomas Jefferson's admonition "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." and decided to disobey unconstitutional congressional edicts?

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Click Here to Read More...

Only word-smithing has changed from May 2005-November 2009

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
November 18, 2009

There are no 1967 borders-this is intentional misrepresentation of fact by the PA

Now I, for one, am confused. Palestinian land? According to the oft-reported UN 242 and UN 338 resolutions serving as the basis for territorial claims to this land as well as the "West Bank" i.e., Judea and Samaria, these remain to this day disputed territories. Thus, how can one say these are Palestinian lands? There is a linguistic disconnect between statements that this is Palestinian land and what the precise language states within these two UN resolutions. They do NOT state that these are anything but disputed territories-note the word territories. Nor is there any language ever mentioning Palestine or Palestinian within these two resolutions. If one took the time to read these carefully, one would realize that this disputed area must be resolved via negotiations-some 42 years later no resolution has occurred. UN resolution 242 states (1):
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict: Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
If given this precise language directly from 242, combined with the following statements:
"The British UN Ambassador at the time (Nov. 22,1967), Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that:
It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them. (2)
The United States' UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that:
The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. [This would encompass] less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably Insecure."(2)
Then please help me understand the following: President Obama, the leadership of the PA and the world media state that this geographic area is anything but disputed land. Yet, it seems as though our administration has readily accepted that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land and therefore not entitled to any of it. Of course this began with former President Bush back in May 2005. In turn have we not changed our policy with respect to an international legally defined dispute? After misrepresenting the facts, on May 27, 2005, the very next day, May 28, 2005 Washington felt a need to once again clarify its position: "The U.S. National Security Council Spokesman said on Friday that the president had not changed his position on the Middle East peace process and that in his meeting he reiterated to the chairman major points from his letter of understanding to Sharon from April 2004 and in other official statements" (3) Words have meaning and can be used as powerful weapons that transform thoughts into "on the ground" actions. Palestinian leaders have used words and language much more effectively than Israel for many years. They understand the importance of media exposure, being first with certain messages that in turn make the 6 pm news- casts. Clarity of thought or historical accuracy is not crucial to the message; getting the words out first to the public is however of paramount importance.
So, with the world stage looking on, the Palestinian leader took the opportunity to once again lay claim to all the land the Arabs (not Palestinians) lost to Israel in the 1967 6-day war, including east Jerusalem. Abbas said, " It is time our people, after many decades of suffering and dispossessions, to enjoy living in freedom on their own land. The boundaries of a future Palestinian state should be those that existed before the 1967 war." This of course means east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Of course as I have previously pointed out, this is contrary to established international law. Did President Bush use this as an opportunity to clarify the truth? No, rather he said, "Israel needed Palestinian consent to retain land the Arabs lost 38 years ago." Mr. Bush further exacerbated this discussion of territorial integrity by with holding previous support he gave PM Sharon. Let us remember that last year President Bush indicated to a visiting Ariel Sharon that Israel could retain large settlements on the West Bank near Jerusalem.
Understandably Israeli officials became alarmed with what was being said in Washington D.C. on May 27; not to worry, a senior administration official (who refused to be identified) said that President Bush stood by past statements supporting claims to the settlements. Am I the only one confused at this point?
Finally, the confusion reaches an all time high when the discussion of borders is provided. Mr. Bush said explicitly that "any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 armistice lines must be mutually agreed to." This statement was aimed at assuaging Palestinian concern over his letter to Sharon last year, in which he stated that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." So Mr. President what is it? You have now publicly introduced the notion of the 1949 armistice lines as the bargaining point of departure. This comment is now "on the table". The PA did use this statement as the basis for negotiation. Mind you, Mr. Bush did not clarify the difference between armistice lines and borders. Nor did he offer historical context, as did Lord Caradon with respect to the artificial nature of these lines. Nor did Mr. Bush say that consistent with the agreed upon international legal UN 242, all of these lands are subject to negotiation and both parties, Israel and the PA have rights to these disputed territories. This is the truth.
So, here we are in November of 2009 and the mantra has shifted to the “1967 borders”-Erekat knows full well there are no such borders but he counts on the new Obama Administration to look past this small language event and take a non-position when the UN vote in the Security Council occurs in the coming days/weeks.
“"We want the Security Council to declare that the two-state solution is the only option and that it would recognize the state of Palestine on the '67 borders and to live side by side with the State of Israel Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.”4
This “languaging ”is classic Palestinian misdirect-even in a denial they promote a false statement-Erekat has just back tracked on his statement the day before indicating the PA would seek unilaterally the formation of a state. He knew then this would not “play in Peoria” but it did grab one day’s worth of headlines-it did go on offense and once again made Israel “respond/react” to such nonsense-thus, Erekat’s objective number one accomplished. However, he was not through-he knew if he came out with an adjustment to his statement he would once again be on the offense-note how he played the “good one” while promoting a lie-’67 borders-they never existed. Furthermore, the almost all other media printed this statement as if it were the “truth”-score another one for the Palestinian PR machine.
Without reviewing again international law, this writer has done so in multiple other posts as have hundreds of others, allow me once again suggest:
“On 10 June 1967, at the end of six days of fierce fighting in which 776 Israeli soldiers lost their lives, a cease-fire was reached. Previous cease-fire lines were now replaced by new ones - the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and a large part of the Golan Heights had come under Israel's control as a result of the war.”5
Erekat, all of Fatah and the PA know that these are legally “cease-fire lines” and furthermore they know that until a negotiated agreement is signed they remain so defined. The intentional misdirection of facts aka lies, and the subsequent lack of media responsibility add to the ongoing situations.
I predict that we will see, in the media, yet another distortion. It will read something like this: "President Obama says that Israel must now retreat back to the 1967 borders and thus evacuate all of the West Bank." Note the use of one word, "borders". The PA spokes people will make a one-word change that gives tacit approval for future discussions. The new mantra will be, "The 1967 border or nothing at all."
Yes, words do have meaning and unless we are clear, unless we hold people accountable to their proper use, the lives of millions of people are at stake.
Notes
1. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "UN Security Council Resolution 242," IMFA website.
2. "What was UN 242," reported on Palestine Facts website.
3. Eldar,Akiva et al "US: Our Position towards Israel is unchanged," Haaretz, May 28, 2005.
4.Jerusalem Post-November 18, 009
5. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November, 2009 via Myths and Facts, http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=11939

Click Here to Read More...

Two Ground Zeroes

A site of mourning became a symbol of defiance and then a metaphor for incompetence.
By BRET STEPHENS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539370097275800.html

I have long thought it would be a good idea to bring 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his accomplices to lower Manhattan. In my concept, the men would be taken by helicopter to a height of about 1,000 feet over Ground Zero and pushed out the door, so that they, too, could experience what so many of their victims did in the awful final flickering seconds of their lives.

And since al Qaeda intended the attacks as a spectacle for the benefit of its would-be recruits, I'd give al Jazeera the exclusive TV rights This, however, is not Eric Holder's concept. In announcing his decision last week to send KSM and four other defendants to stand trial for their crimes in a federal courthouse just a few blocks from Ground Zero, the attorney general said the trial would offer the bereaved of 9/11 "the opportunity to see the alleged plotters of those attacks held accountable in court," adding that he was "confident" the legal system would "rise to that challenge."

We'll see about that.

There are a few ways to predict the course of the trials. One is to consult what al Qaeda itself advises its members to do in the event that they are brought before a judge. "At the beginning of the trial . . . the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge," goes a line in what is known as the Manchester Document, a 180-page al Qaeda how-to obtained by British police in 2000.

This is, of course, a prescription for lying, though it shouldn't be a tough sell with the jury given that KSM was in fact waterboarded by the CIA some 183 times. If anything, it provides a perfect opening for him to turn the tables on his accusers and put the U.S. government on trial, while embellishing any which way he pleases. No small number of potential New York City jurors would find KSM a more credible witness than any number of Bush administration officials—think Alberto Gonzales or Dick Cheney—who might be called to the stand.

Ground Zero: the last thing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should see.

A second way to predict how the trials might go is to look back at the trial of al Qaeda's Zacarias Moussaoui, often described as the "20th hijacker." Moussaoui's case has been cited by defenders of Mr. Holder's decision as an example of how civilian courts have succeeded in dealing with some of the most hardened terrorists.

Really? Moussaoui was arrested in August 2001, and indicted that December. It would take until May 2006 before a jury would sentence him to life in prison, a single juror having spared him a death sentence. Assuming a similar time frame for the KSM trials, that means we can expect verdicts in 2015. That's a long time to keep lower Manhattan in a perpetual state of red alert.

Yet the Moussaoui trial wasn't merely interminable. It was also incompetent. Moussaoui did everything he could to turn it into a circus, at various times entering contradictory pleas on the view, as he put it, that "you're allowed to lie for jihad." Lawyers for the government were repeatedly accused of malfeasance, leading Judge Leonie Brinkema to observe at one point that "I have never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses." The judge herself came close to dismissing the entire case, even as the Fourth Circuit had to step in to reverse one of her rulings.

And this was a comparatively clean case, unlike, say, those of El Sayyid Nosair, acquitted in 1991 of the murder of Jewish fanatic Meir Kahane; or of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh at whose trial for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing critical intelligence information was disclosed that gave Osama bin Laden clues as to what the U.S. knew about his network.

The third way to consider the trials is to look at Ground Zero itself. After eight years of deliberation, planning, money and effort, what have we got? The picture nearby is the answer.

Let me be more precise. After eight years in which the views and interests of, inter alia, the Port Authority, NYPD, MTA and EPA, the several governors of New York and New Jersey, lease-holder Larry Silverstein, various star architects, the insurance companies, contractors, unions and lawyers, the families of the bereaved, their self-appointed spokespersons, the residents of lower Manhattan and, yes, even the fish of the Hudson river have all been duly consulted and considered, this is what we've got: a site of mourning turned into a symbol of defiance turned into a metaphor of American incompetence—of things not going forward. It is, in short, the story of our decade.

Barack Obama, energetic and smart, was elected largely to change all that. But the thrust of his presidency so far has been in the direction of bloated government, deficits and health-care bills; paralysis over Afghanistan and Iran; the convulsions over Gitmo and the CIA torture memos. And now this: An effort to demonstrate the purity of our methods and motives that is destined, as all these things have been, to wind up as the legal equivalent of Ground Zero. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for whom no real justice will ever be meted, understood his targets well.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Click Here to Read More...

Erekat denies PA plans to declare state unilaterally

Nov. 18, 2009
TOVAH LAZAROFF and HERB KEINON , THE JERUSALEM POST

The Palestinians will not unilaterally declare an independent state, but rather seek a UN Security Council resolution endorsing a two-state solution along the pre-1967 lines, Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

Israeli officials said Erekat was backtracking on earlier statements calling for a unilateral declaration of independence, even as he said that Israel was "twisting his words." The Palestinians want the Security Council to set the borders of their future state and those of Israel along the pre-1967 lines, Erekat said.

"What we are seeking is to preserve the two-state solution," he said. "One state is not an option."

In light of the deadlocked peace process and continued Israeli actions that jeopardized any possibility of a two-state solution, Palestinians felt that they had no choice but to appeal to the international community for help through the Security Council, Erekat said.

"We want the Security Council to declare that the two-state solution is the only option and that it would recognize the state of Palestine on the '67 borders and to live side by side with the State of Israel," he said.

One senior Israeli government source said that Erekat's comments were an effort to backtrack on the plan to unilaterally declare a state, following the refusal of either the US or the EU to support the idea.

Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU, said before a EU foreign ministers meeting on Tuesday that regarding a Palestinian state, "I don't think we are there yet. I would hope that we will be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state, but there has to be one first. I think that is somewhat premature."

At the same time, Bildt said, we are "discussing other steps to demonstrate our support for the Palestinian aspirations more than we have done so far, and clearly there is a need for that."

The senior Israeli government official said it was clear from the whole process of negotiations with the Palestinians over the past 16 years that the final borders needed to be negotiated, and "could not be set unilaterally."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said this week that a unilateral Palestinian declaration would have "no significance," but that such a move would break the "ground rules" and leave open to Israel "a whole range of possible responses." He did not elaborate.

Erekat said that a request for the UN Security Council to specify the pre-1967 lines as the future border between Israel and a Palestinian state was consistent with Security Council Resolution 1515 from 2003, which adopted the principles of the road map and a two-state solution, but did not specify what the borders would be.

Security Council Resolution 1397 from 2002 was the first to affirm a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state next to Israel.

"What we are asking the world to do is to specify the borders of the state as the 1967 border," Erekat said. If the UN Security Council already passed a resolution that endorses a two-state solution, why could it not say that this solution would be on the 1967 line? he asked.

"I want to make sure the Israeli people understand that we are not speaking of a unilateral declaration," Erekat said. "This is not an option."

He blamed Israeli leaders for reports that the PA was seeking a unilateral declaration of statehood, saying they were "always trying to twist our words."

Erekat said that while Israel's borders have yet to be finalized after 61 years, in the interim the country has changed the facts on the ground by continuing with unilateral steps such as settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The decision to turn to the Security Council, he said, was affirmed last Thursday at the Arab League's meeting of foreign ministers, and was necessary to prevent Netanyahu from "undermining the two-state solution" by continued settlement activity.

The Palestinians have not yet set a date by which they planned to turn to the Security Council, Erekat said.

At this stage, he said, they were consulting and seeking support from countries around the globe for the resolution. Statements by the US and the European Union rejecting Palestinian pursuit of unilateral statehood were not relevant, he said, because they did not correctly address the Palestinians' true goals.

He noted that the bulk of the international community has never recognized Israel's right to the West Bank or east Jerusalem.

Erekat said he did not believe that a Security Council resolution would stop the Palestinians and the Israelis from coming to a later agreement that would slightly modify the border through lands swaps such as those suggested in past negotiations.

What it would do, he said, was give the Palestinians an accomplishment to point to after nearly two decades of a diplomatic process from which they feel they have received nothing.

"I do not have anything now. The Israelis are still the authority," he said, adding that Israel continued building settlements and demolishing homes in east Jerusalem.

"Unfortunately we have an Israeli government that refuses to resume where we left off [with prime minister Ehud Olmert]," Erekat said.

"What should we do while the Israeli government is busy with fait accompli actions" but to turn to the Security Council to preserve the option of two states? he asked.

One senior Israeli diplomatic source said it was ironic that the PA, which turned down Olmert's offer just a year ago, was now "nostalgic" for that offer and trying to force the new Israeli government to take it up.

In Cairo on Tuesday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said that this plan was the only way to secure a state for his people.

He spoke with the media after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who urged him not to make good on the threat he had issued earlier this month to step down after a presidential election he had set for January 24.

But last week, in a move that made it hard for Abbas to quit, election officials postponed the vote indefinitely.

Many senior Israeli officials are still taking Abbas's resignation threat very seriously, convinced that Israel would be worse off without him.

Some are urging the government to take a strategic decision to bolster Abbas such as further easing movement in the West Bank, cutting in half the number of IDF raids into areas under PA control and placing more areas of the West Bank under the control of Palestinian security forces.

PA forces are deemed to be operating effectively.

A few have even urged the government to consider increasing the flow of goods into Gaza, which has been restricted solely to humanitarian aid since Hamas violently took over the area in 2007.

Proponents of easing Israel's blockade of the Gaza crossings have argued that this would reduce the reliance on goods smuggled into the area through Hamas-controlled tunnels from Sinai, thereby increasing support for Abbas.

American officials are also anxious for Israel to bolster Abbas. They believe that the economic and security progress the Palestinians attributed to measures instituted by Prime Minister Salaam Fayad would be lost, unless palpable momentum is achieved and conditions are created under which peace talks can take place.

Netanyahu on Sunday night, in an address at the Saban Forum, called on the Palestinian leadership to take "courageous" steps for peace, and said that once talks are resumed, "we can surprise the world."

But he warned the Palestinians that unilateral steps on their part would be met by similar measures on Israel's side.

AP contributed to this report.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1258489190816&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Comment: Nothing more than their ongoing strategy-continue to misrepresent the facts (1967 line are not "borders") Erekat knows this and does realize if he uses the term with a UN Security vote it further enriches the truth of the falsehood. We shall speak out frequently aned fervently and continue to expose the deceitful Palestinian leadership.

Click Here to Read More...

'Afghan quagmire negates US-Iran war'

Nov. 18, 2009
Yaakov Lappin , THE JERUSALEM POST

The US is too bogged down in Afghanistan to engage Iran militarily over its nuclear program, an ex-CIA South Asia expert and current adviser to US President Barack Obama said in Tel Aviv on Tuesday. Bruce Riedel, a senior Brookings Institute and Saban Center fellow for political transitions in the Middle East and South Asia, addressed scholars and journalists at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies.

He warned that the US was fighting a losing battle against Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, and that Washington would soon have to make difficult choices on beefing up troop levels there.

"Israelis need to understand that there's going to be a huge drain on resources, attention and capital, and that will have implications," Riedel told The Jerusalem Post before his talk.

He acknowledged that those implications would primarily affect the Iran question.

During his address, Riedel referred to the US's commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and said, "We've got two wars. You've got to be bold to say, let's start a war against a third party, particularly when the third party can hit you in the first two fronts."

The US has learned that it "can't fight two medium-sized wars simultaneously," he said.

Riedel retired from the CIA in November 2006 after 30 years of service. In 2007, he was asked by then-senator Barack Obama to be an expert volunteer adviser on counterterrorism.

"In June this year, the president called," Riedel said. Obama asked him to assemble a strategic review of US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"The president has inherited a disastrous war that is being lost," Riedel said. "Pakistan, next-door to Afghanistan, is being destabilized. Pakistan is the fastest growing nuclear arms state in the world, and has more terrorists per square kilometer than any other country," he continued.

Riedel said the scenario that kept him up at night was the potential for a jihadi sweep to power in Pakistan via a violent coup.

"That is the nig