Jordan's King Hussein offered former PLO leader Yassir Arafat a senior position in the Jordanian government in 1974, London's Daily Telegraph reported overnight Thursday. According to newly-released documents, Hussein was afraid of losing control of his country following the capture of the West Bank - home to masses of Palestinian refugees - in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
In an effort to forestall such a rift, the king offered to make Arafat his deputy prime minister. However, the proposal was evidently not accepted.
Arafat aimed to create an independent Palestinian state and strongly advocated the Right of Return for the refugees in Jordan.
Hussein later ceded all of the West Bank in 1988, a move meant to ensure that any Palestinian state would be set up on land occupied by Israel and not by Jordan.
span>
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
There Is No Spoon Long Enough: Dining With Mahmoud
Would you have accepted the hospitality of the government of Iran in order to dialogue with the fanatic who is the darling of the world's media this week? "This is a devil, and no monster; I will leave him; I have no long spoon.'" --Shakespear, The Tempest
On Tuesday a group of Manhattan's elite accepted an invitation to dine with Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadienajd. Time Magazine's Richard Stengel recounts the vening here, and gives us a glimpse of the guest list which included NBC's Brian Williams and CNN's Christiane Amanpour. Stengel's column began:
The invitation was on creamy stationery with fancy calligraphy: The Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran "requests the pleasure" of my company to dine with H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The dinner is at the Intercontinental Hotel — with names carefully written out at all the place settings around a rectangular table. There are about 50 of us, academics and journalists mostly. There's Brian Williams across the room, and Christiane Amanpour a few seats down. And at a little after 8pm, on a day when he has already addressed the U.N., the evening after his confrontation at Columbia, a bowing and smiling Mahmoud Admadinejad glides into the room.
Would you have accepted the hospitality of the government of Iran in order to dialogue with the fanatic who is the darling of the world's media this week?
On Tuesday night I was a continet away from the Intercontinental Hotel, speaking to a large pro-life audience in Visalia, California. After my talk which touched on both the eneemy abroad and the crumbling of Constitutional majoritarianism at home, I was signing books and conversing with as many of the audience who wanted to chat when I was honored to meet Lynda Unger, a gold star mother, whose son Lt. Daniel Unger had been killed in Iraq in 2004. (Lt. Unger's father, a Baptist minister, became a National Guard chaplain a few months later.)
On the long drive home --it took about three and a half hours-- I thought about Mr. and Mrs. Unger, the sorrow they carry and the honor that is owed them and their son. Almost four thousand of America's finest have died fighting a war that must be won, and thousands more wounded.
What I cannot understand is how any American can accept an invitation to dine on Iran's tab even as that regime ships weapons and advisors into Iraq to kill more of the nation's finest. It is beyond moral confusion --it is moral collapse.
Journalists do have to cover evil fanatics. We need to cover them. Without a free press I could not relay to you what Ahmadienjad said from the U.N.'s podium yesterday:
The era of darkness will end. Prisoners will return home. The occupied lands will be freed. Palestine and Iraq will be liberated from the domination of the occupiers. And the people of America and Europe will be free of the pressures exerted by the Zionists.
It is crucial that a free press relay this fanatic's vision of a world without Israel, his anti-Semitic rants in full.
But American journalists should not accept a dime of hospitality from this enemy of the nation, this agent of a government that is killing our soldiers and Marines.
Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books including A Mormon in the White House?: 110 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney.
On Tuesday a group of Manhattan's elite accepted an invitation to dine with Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadienajd. Time Magazine's Richard Stengel recounts the vening here, and gives us a glimpse of the guest list which included NBC's Brian Williams and CNN's Christiane Amanpour. Stengel's column began:
The invitation was on creamy stationery with fancy calligraphy: The Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran "requests the pleasure" of my company to dine with H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The dinner is at the Intercontinental Hotel — with names carefully written out at all the place settings around a rectangular table. There are about 50 of us, academics and journalists mostly. There's Brian Williams across the room, and Christiane Amanpour a few seats down. And at a little after 8pm, on a day when he has already addressed the U.N., the evening after his confrontation at Columbia, a bowing and smiling Mahmoud Admadinejad glides into the room.
Would you have accepted the hospitality of the government of Iran in order to dialogue with the fanatic who is the darling of the world's media this week?
On Tuesday night I was a continet away from the Intercontinental Hotel, speaking to a large pro-life audience in Visalia, California. After my talk which touched on both the eneemy abroad and the crumbling of Constitutional majoritarianism at home, I was signing books and conversing with as many of the audience who wanted to chat when I was honored to meet Lynda Unger, a gold star mother, whose son Lt. Daniel Unger had been killed in Iraq in 2004. (Lt. Unger's father, a Baptist minister, became a National Guard chaplain a few months later.)
On the long drive home --it took about three and a half hours-- I thought about Mr. and Mrs. Unger, the sorrow they carry and the honor that is owed them and their son. Almost four thousand of America's finest have died fighting a war that must be won, and thousands more wounded.
What I cannot understand is how any American can accept an invitation to dine on Iran's tab even as that regime ships weapons and advisors into Iraq to kill more of the nation's finest. It is beyond moral confusion --it is moral collapse.
Journalists do have to cover evil fanatics. We need to cover them. Without a free press I could not relay to you what Ahmadienjad said from the U.N.'s podium yesterday:
The era of darkness will end. Prisoners will return home. The occupied lands will be freed. Palestine and Iraq will be liberated from the domination of the occupiers. And the people of America and Europe will be free of the pressures exerted by the Zionists.
It is crucial that a free press relay this fanatic's vision of a world without Israel, his anti-Semitic rants in full.
But American journalists should not accept a dime of hospitality from this enemy of the nation, this agent of a government that is killing our soldiers and Marines.
Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books including A Mormon in the White House?: 110 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Know Thy Enemy
Disdain for the enemy because he doesn’t fight by our methods or according to our military traditions is an MO for disaster. And yet, failure to understand fully the ramifications of the asymmetric, fourth generation, and irregular warfare that is now the norm in the war against radical Islam unfortunately is all too common among our academics, policymakers, and war fighters alike. Denial that today’s Islamist jihadi warrior is a proper ’soldier’ by Western definitions is an exercise in cultural arrogance that accomplishes little beyond exposing a myopic vulnerability that an agile, adaptive, and aggressive enemy will and does exploit.
At the early September 2007 counter terrorism conference held at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark called for terrorists to be classified and prosecuted as criminals, arguing that they do not deserve the title of ‘warriors’. While it is understandable that a much-decorated professional soldier such as Gen. Clark would find it distasteful to acknowledge that a fanatic Salafist suicide bomber shares anything with him, much less the honorable status of ‘warrior,’ treating an enemy determined to destroy us as a mere transgressor of societal rules amounts to willful ignorance of the magnitude of the assault that has been mounted against us.
We underestimate the Islamist Salafist warrior at our peril. History is littered with the remnants of civilizations and empires that have come to grief when they proved incapable of recognizing and adapting to meet the challenge of asymmetric tactics launched against them by fighters dismissed as mere barbarians, colonialists, or tribals.
Today’s Islamist jihadi perceives himself in the proud heritage of Muhammad’s early warriors, fighting in the way of Allay to spread the sacred word of God on earth. That their traditions allow for slaughter of what we view as ‘innocent civilians,’ suicide operations, or the deployment of fighters who wear no uniform and pledge allegiance to an Islamic emir instead of a national army is irrelevant to the deadly threat their ranks pose to liberal democratic society.
Were the radical Islamist threat merely some criminal gang of narcotraffickers or smugglers, or even the anarchists of our day, there would be every justification for dealing with it as a law enforcement problem. The Islamist rennovatio that began in the 20th century, however, is merely the latest iteration of an ideologically complex and committed campaign against Western civilization that has lasted 14 centuries. It is a mature, systematic, and lethal alternative to civil society, liberal democracy, and rule of law, as we know them.
The noble image of the Muslim warrior is grounded in centuries of martial tradition, infused through and through with eschatological belief and images. That tradition has its origins with the nomadic Bedouin of the Arabian desert, whose perennial mounted raids against the merchants’ camel caravans, under the banner of the Prophet, suddenly became divinely sanctioned campaigns that promised Paradise and immortality to the fallen. Muslim jurists and philosophers over the ages developed a theological concept of ‘holy war’ (jihad) as deeply reasoned and circumscribed by legalities as ever was Aquinas’ more familiar theory of ‘just war.’
This is by no means to say that every rag-tag street fighter recruited by Al-Qa’eda in Iraq follows the warrior creed of Muhammad’s early legions. Nor can mass slaughter of Muslim civilians, video-produced beheadings, or any of the other atrocities made all-too-common by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi be considered genuine ‘jihad’. But it is to say that Western liberal democracy faces an enemy whose tactics, however unfamiliar or unconventional by our standards, are calculated to exploit our weaknesses-the definition of asymmetric warfare. Those tactics have proven effective in at least a limited context: Hizballah suicide bombings against U.S. targets in Beirut accomplished a pull-out of U.S. forces from Lebanon; Iranian hostage-taking elicited sales of American missiles intended to win their release; and the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings succeeded in swinging the presidential elections of Spain and ensured that country’s subsequent withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. On a more insidious level, the aggressive demands of an expanding and increasingly radical Muslim population in Europe have won cultural and legal concessions unthinkable a decade or two ago.
Let us not underestimate the Islamist jihadi enemy. Linguistic sophistry does not change his determination, enmity, or skill in achieving his objectives. Nor will belittling his very real offensive prowess and skills compensate for a failure to understand his culture, history, and religion. A criminal is a willing member of society who transgresses against its lawful regulations for his own personal gain; arrest, indictment, prosecution, and punishment are appropriate measures to deal with criminals.
An Islamist jihadi is an ideologically motivated warrior who rejects our entire concept of society and commits his life to its destruction because he believes that his deity orders him to do so. The proper response to a declaration of war is mobilization of the totality of society’s resources to fight back. Only with an informed acknowledgement of the enemy’s strengths as well as weaknesses can we hope to prevail in the war against the Islamist jihad.
At the early September 2007 counter terrorism conference held at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark called for terrorists to be classified and prosecuted as criminals, arguing that they do not deserve the title of ‘warriors’. While it is understandable that a much-decorated professional soldier such as Gen. Clark would find it distasteful to acknowledge that a fanatic Salafist suicide bomber shares anything with him, much less the honorable status of ‘warrior,’ treating an enemy determined to destroy us as a mere transgressor of societal rules amounts to willful ignorance of the magnitude of the assault that has been mounted against us.
We underestimate the Islamist Salafist warrior at our peril. History is littered with the remnants of civilizations and empires that have come to grief when they proved incapable of recognizing and adapting to meet the challenge of asymmetric tactics launched against them by fighters dismissed as mere barbarians, colonialists, or tribals.
Today’s Islamist jihadi perceives himself in the proud heritage of Muhammad’s early warriors, fighting in the way of Allay to spread the sacred word of God on earth. That their traditions allow for slaughter of what we view as ‘innocent civilians,’ suicide operations, or the deployment of fighters who wear no uniform and pledge allegiance to an Islamic emir instead of a national army is irrelevant to the deadly threat their ranks pose to liberal democratic society.
Were the radical Islamist threat merely some criminal gang of narcotraffickers or smugglers, or even the anarchists of our day, there would be every justification for dealing with it as a law enforcement problem. The Islamist rennovatio that began in the 20th century, however, is merely the latest iteration of an ideologically complex and committed campaign against Western civilization that has lasted 14 centuries. It is a mature, systematic, and lethal alternative to civil society, liberal democracy, and rule of law, as we know them.
The noble image of the Muslim warrior is grounded in centuries of martial tradition, infused through and through with eschatological belief and images. That tradition has its origins with the nomadic Bedouin of the Arabian desert, whose perennial mounted raids against the merchants’ camel caravans, under the banner of the Prophet, suddenly became divinely sanctioned campaigns that promised Paradise and immortality to the fallen. Muslim jurists and philosophers over the ages developed a theological concept of ‘holy war’ (jihad) as deeply reasoned and circumscribed by legalities as ever was Aquinas’ more familiar theory of ‘just war.’
This is by no means to say that every rag-tag street fighter recruited by Al-Qa’eda in Iraq follows the warrior creed of Muhammad’s early legions. Nor can mass slaughter of Muslim civilians, video-produced beheadings, or any of the other atrocities made all-too-common by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi be considered genuine ‘jihad’. But it is to say that Western liberal democracy faces an enemy whose tactics, however unfamiliar or unconventional by our standards, are calculated to exploit our weaknesses-the definition of asymmetric warfare. Those tactics have proven effective in at least a limited context: Hizballah suicide bombings against U.S. targets in Beirut accomplished a pull-out of U.S. forces from Lebanon; Iranian hostage-taking elicited sales of American missiles intended to win their release; and the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings succeeded in swinging the presidential elections of Spain and ensured that country’s subsequent withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. On a more insidious level, the aggressive demands of an expanding and increasingly radical Muslim population in Europe have won cultural and legal concessions unthinkable a decade or two ago.
Let us not underestimate the Islamist jihadi enemy. Linguistic sophistry does not change his determination, enmity, or skill in achieving his objectives. Nor will belittling his very real offensive prowess and skills compensate for a failure to understand his culture, history, and religion. A criminal is a willing member of society who transgresses against its lawful regulations for his own personal gain; arrest, indictment, prosecution, and punishment are appropriate measures to deal with criminals.
An Islamist jihadi is an ideologically motivated warrior who rejects our entire concept of society and commits his life to its destruction because he believes that his deity orders him to do so. The proper response to a declaration of war is mobilization of the totality of society’s resources to fight back. Only with an informed acknowledgement of the enemy’s strengths as well as weaknesses can we hope to prevail in the war against the Islamist jihad.
My dear country men, you are naive!
A backlash against the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, who on Monday delivered a harsh rebuke to President Ahmadinejad, is coming from faculty members and students who said he struck an "insulting tone" and that his remarks amounted to "schoolyard taunts."The fierceness of Mr. Bollinger's critique bought the Iranian some sympathy on campus that he didn't deserve, the critics said, and amounted to a squandered opportunity to provide a lesson in diplomacy.
Mr. Bollinger opened a two-hour program during which the Iranian president spoke and answered questions at the Roone Arledge Auditorium in Morningside Heights by calling Mr. Ahmadinejad a "petty and cruel dictator." He chastised the Iranian for calling for the destruction of Israel, funding terrorism, persecuting scholars, women, and homosexuals, denying the Holocaust, and for fighting a proxy war against America within the borders of Iraq. Mr. Bollinger also tauntingly predicted that the Iranian would lack the "intellectual courage" to offer real answers to questions from the audience.
"It's odd to invite someone and then deal with the objections to inviting him by insulting him before he gets to talk," a professor of political science at Columbia, Richard Betts, said during an interview in his office yesterday. "He's having it both ways in a sense, honoring the principle of free speech by not choosing speakers on the basis of how nice they are, but being sharp to him before he speaks."
Mr. Betts said a more appropriate introduction would have been to make clear that an invitation to speak at Columbia did not qualify as approval of the content of the speech. He said the message should have been delivered as a "less in-your-face assault."
Students said they interpreted the severity of Mr. Bollinger's opening, in which he called Mr. Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," as a cowing to political and financial pressure from elected officials who in the days leading up to the event criticized Columbia for providing a platform for Mr. Ahmadinejad and said they would consider reducing capital aid to the university.
"It felt like Bollinger responded out of fear because he still has to be able to get money," a second-year Pakistani SIPA student, Noni Durrani, said. "It showed a serious difference of class, the way Bollinger behaved and the way Ahmadinejad behaved. Ahmadinejad could have walked out, and he handled it very well."
The professor of history and Iranian expert who had a role in bringing Mr. Ahmadinejad to campus, Richard Bulliet, said that if Mr. Bollinger led a mission of faculty and students to Iran, which he has expressed interest in doing, he would likely receive a more courteous welcome than was provided to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
In a meeting of the Columbia faculty senate on December 8, 2006, before the university extended and then rescinded an invitation to the Iranian president to speak on campus, Mr. Bulliet argued in favor of providing him a platform. Mr. Bulliet said he attended a breakfast meeting with the Iranian and found him to be a "very reasonable speaker, a very effective debater."
"There are students in SIPA who feel very strongly that President Bollinger didn't teach an enlightening lesson in diplomacy," Mr. Bulliet said in an interview yesterday.
Mr. Bollinger's opening speech "was pitched in a deliberately insulting tone, descending almost to the level of schoolyard taunts. (I hope students did not take away the lesson that this is how international politics should be conducted.)," a senior fellow at Columbia's Middle East Institute, Gary Sick, wrote on Gulf 2000, a listserv created to allow academics, analysts, and journalists to discuss Iran and Iraq issues.
"We all know who Ahmadinejad is and what his capabilities are. But where was the courtesy? If Mr. Bollinger knew a bit about the Iranian culture and custom of hospitality, he would have acted differently," a professor of Middle East politics, Mehdi Noorbaksh, wrote on Gulf 2000.
The director of the Middle East Studies department at Columbia, Rashid Khalidi, said he would not comment for this article.
Columbia's campus was buzzing with discussion yesterday of Mr. Bollinger's reception of the Iranian leader. Students at the university's School of International and Public Affairs said they were planning to send a petition to Mr. Bollinger later this week telling him that his behavior was out of line.
Students said they thought it was rude that Mr. Bollinger did not remain on stage to listen to Mr. Ahmadinjad's response to his accusations. Mr. Bollinger never thanked Mr. Ahmadinejad for speaking on campus, and he didn't extend him the common courtesy of shaking his hand, a first-year Palestinian Arab student at SIPA, Maher Awartani, noted. "I was personally offended by the way they were patronizing Ahmadinejad," Mr. Awartani said. "It was intellectually impairing the way the president introduced him."
Some faculty members on campus jumped to Mr. Bollinger's defense yesterday.
"I don't think he went overboard," the acting dean of SIPA, John Coatsworth, said. "The president made his own decisions, and had informed the audience that he would sharply challenge the president of Iran. The Iranians understood before they came that he would be challenged on the very outset." Mr. Coatsworth moderated the question and answer portion of Monday's event, and was responsible for extending the university's invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
A professor of history, Eric Foner, said faculty members objected more to the content than the form of Mr. Bollinger's remarks. "He accepts as true claims that are being made about Iran's role in Iraq, which are being put forward by people whose credibility on weapons in the Middle East has not always been 100% reliable," Mr. Foner said.
A professor of political science, Robert Shapiro, said Mr. Bollinger's remarks and tone were not out of line. "He stated in advance what he was going to do. He didn't blindside anyone," Mr. Shapiro said.
Comment: The contents of this article reflects the moral bankruptcy of a large segment of the American public; it must be an international phenomenon as Israel, threatened daily, has its share of the same: accept and embrace the murderer who comes to you - even as he promises your demise! What is wrong with human beings that they accept the one who de-humanizes them?! Where is the leadership - anywhere in the world that can reverse this and teach them values - respect for life and freedom? It appears not to come from liberal institutions of learning!! Unfortunately, they will have to learn by experience but they will drag us down with them!!
Mr. Bollinger opened a two-hour program during which the Iranian president spoke and answered questions at the Roone Arledge Auditorium in Morningside Heights by calling Mr. Ahmadinejad a "petty and cruel dictator." He chastised the Iranian for calling for the destruction of Israel, funding terrorism, persecuting scholars, women, and homosexuals, denying the Holocaust, and for fighting a proxy war against America within the borders of Iraq. Mr. Bollinger also tauntingly predicted that the Iranian would lack the "intellectual courage" to offer real answers to questions from the audience.
"It's odd to invite someone and then deal with the objections to inviting him by insulting him before he gets to talk," a professor of political science at Columbia, Richard Betts, said during an interview in his office yesterday. "He's having it both ways in a sense, honoring the principle of free speech by not choosing speakers on the basis of how nice they are, but being sharp to him before he speaks."
Mr. Betts said a more appropriate introduction would have been to make clear that an invitation to speak at Columbia did not qualify as approval of the content of the speech. He said the message should have been delivered as a "less in-your-face assault."
Students said they interpreted the severity of Mr. Bollinger's opening, in which he called Mr. Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," as a cowing to political and financial pressure from elected officials who in the days leading up to the event criticized Columbia for providing a platform for Mr. Ahmadinejad and said they would consider reducing capital aid to the university.
"It felt like Bollinger responded out of fear because he still has to be able to get money," a second-year Pakistani SIPA student, Noni Durrani, said. "It showed a serious difference of class, the way Bollinger behaved and the way Ahmadinejad behaved. Ahmadinejad could have walked out, and he handled it very well."
The professor of history and Iranian expert who had a role in bringing Mr. Ahmadinejad to campus, Richard Bulliet, said that if Mr. Bollinger led a mission of faculty and students to Iran, which he has expressed interest in doing, he would likely receive a more courteous welcome than was provided to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
In a meeting of the Columbia faculty senate on December 8, 2006, before the university extended and then rescinded an invitation to the Iranian president to speak on campus, Mr. Bulliet argued in favor of providing him a platform. Mr. Bulliet said he attended a breakfast meeting with the Iranian and found him to be a "very reasonable speaker, a very effective debater."
"There are students in SIPA who feel very strongly that President Bollinger didn't teach an enlightening lesson in diplomacy," Mr. Bulliet said in an interview yesterday.
Mr. Bollinger's opening speech "was pitched in a deliberately insulting tone, descending almost to the level of schoolyard taunts. (I hope students did not take away the lesson that this is how international politics should be conducted.)," a senior fellow at Columbia's Middle East Institute, Gary Sick, wrote on Gulf 2000, a listserv created to allow academics, analysts, and journalists to discuss Iran and Iraq issues.
"We all know who Ahmadinejad is and what his capabilities are. But where was the courtesy? If Mr. Bollinger knew a bit about the Iranian culture and custom of hospitality, he would have acted differently," a professor of Middle East politics, Mehdi Noorbaksh, wrote on Gulf 2000.
The director of the Middle East Studies department at Columbia, Rashid Khalidi, said he would not comment for this article.
Columbia's campus was buzzing with discussion yesterday of Mr. Bollinger's reception of the Iranian leader. Students at the university's School of International and Public Affairs said they were planning to send a petition to Mr. Bollinger later this week telling him that his behavior was out of line.
Students said they thought it was rude that Mr. Bollinger did not remain on stage to listen to Mr. Ahmadinjad's response to his accusations. Mr. Bollinger never thanked Mr. Ahmadinejad for speaking on campus, and he didn't extend him the common courtesy of shaking his hand, a first-year Palestinian Arab student at SIPA, Maher Awartani, noted. "I was personally offended by the way they were patronizing Ahmadinejad," Mr. Awartani said. "It was intellectually impairing the way the president introduced him."
Some faculty members on campus jumped to Mr. Bollinger's defense yesterday.
"I don't think he went overboard," the acting dean of SIPA, John Coatsworth, said. "The president made his own decisions, and had informed the audience that he would sharply challenge the president of Iran. The Iranians understood before they came that he would be challenged on the very outset." Mr. Coatsworth moderated the question and answer portion of Monday's event, and was responsible for extending the university's invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
A professor of history, Eric Foner, said faculty members objected more to the content than the form of Mr. Bollinger's remarks. "He accepts as true claims that are being made about Iran's role in Iraq, which are being put forward by people whose credibility on weapons in the Middle East has not always been 100% reliable," Mr. Foner said.
A professor of political science, Robert Shapiro, said Mr. Bollinger's remarks and tone were not out of line. "He stated in advance what he was going to do. He didn't blindside anyone," Mr. Shapiro said.
Comment: The contents of this article reflects the moral bankruptcy of a large segment of the American public; it must be an international phenomenon as Israel, threatened daily, has its share of the same: accept and embrace the murderer who comes to you - even as he promises your demise! What is wrong with human beings that they accept the one who de-humanizes them?! Where is the leadership - anywhere in the world that can reverse this and teach them values - respect for life and freedom? It appears not to come from liberal institutions of learning!! Unfortunately, they will have to learn by experience but they will drag us down with them!!
Palestinian Agency: 2 Qassams Aimed at Jerusalem Discovered by P.A.
The Palestinian news agency Ma'an is reporting that Palestinian security forces have discovered two Qassam rockets in Bethlehem. The report says the rockets were to be fired at Jerusalem. The Qassams were found near the Beit Jala municipal building, a short distance from the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem. No group has taken credit for planning such an attack and it has not yet been determined whose rockets they are and who left them where they were found. There have been occasional reports that Qassam rockets were being smuggled into the West Bank from the Gaza Strip. Rockets being fired from the West Bank as they are from the Gaza Strip is an Israeli security nightmare
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Subject Stages of Islamization
Stages of Islamization
STAGE ONE: INFILTRATION
* First migration wave to target non-Muslim society.
* Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the target non-Muslim society.
* Characterized by professed tolerance of others and their beliefs.
* Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion and Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism.
* Images of women and children used to portray Muslims.
* Establishment of mosques as power bases (today globally funded by Gulf countries oil revenue).(Mosques are safe havens for Jihadi recruitment and subversive projects).
* Muslim leaders promote large push for increased Muslim births in target non-Muslim society to increase native Muslim population.
* Misrepresentation of their intentions or aims as a cover up for clandestine operations.
STAGE TWO: CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
* Proselytizing efforts increase.
* Establishment and recruitment of fundamentalist Jihadi cells.
* Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population of target non-Muslim society to Islam.
* Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
* Efforts to destroy all evidence of incriminating historical evidence and sources that reveal true character of Islamism.
* Intellectual Jihad to discredit non-Muslim culture.
* Assault on cultural assumptions and icons of the non-Muslim world, such as democracy, law and science.
* Increased dissemination of anti-western propaganda and anti-western psychological warfare.
* Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (Communists, socialists, anti westerns activists, anti-globalists, anarchists).
* Alliances with the enemies of the Western society particularly anti capitalism leftists. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
* Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint. Efforts to infiltrate education system to propagate pro-Islamic points of view.
* Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslim intellectuals and leaders.
* Efforts to introduce blasphemy laws into non-Muslim society in order to silence critics.
* Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and migration to target non-Muslim society.
* Use of first and second generation Muslim citizens of target non-Muslim society as Jihadist foot soldiers and public fronts.
* Use of charities to recruit supporters.
* Use of crime and fraud to obtain funds to finance activities.
* Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of non-Muslim society from within.
* Development of Muslim political base in target non-Muslim society. Efforts to penetrate political and legal structure of country so as to support Islamic growth from within.
* Use of bribes and blackmail of non-Muslim authorities to get them to disregard establishment of subversive activities.
* Islamic Financial networks strengthened to fund political growth, large acquisition of land and resources by any means.(Today they are funded by Muslim charities; Gulf countries Oil revenue and criminal activities).
* Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.
* Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes and greater demands are placed upon Muslims to adopt strict Islamic conduct.
* Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives stores in hidden locations in target non-Muslim society.
* Continuous and covert attacks and challenges against target non-Muslim society leaders and religious symbols.
* Overt disregard and rejection of target non-Muslim society's legal system and culture.
* Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions such as Jews, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in target non-Muslim society.
* Efforts to destroy the social structure of the country and bring the downfall of non-Muslim government.
* Use of Islamic gangs in campaign of fear and terror against Jews, Christians, Hindus and non-Muslims to reduce their populations and influence in the target non-Muslim society.
_________________________________________________________________
Capture your memories in an online journal!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
STAGE ONE: INFILTRATION
* First migration wave to target non-Muslim society.
* Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the target non-Muslim society.
* Characterized by professed tolerance of others and their beliefs.
* Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion and Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism.
* Images of women and children used to portray Muslims.
* Establishment of mosques as power bases (today globally funded by Gulf countries oil revenue).(Mosques are safe havens for Jihadi recruitment and subversive projects).
* Muslim leaders promote large push for increased Muslim births in target non-Muslim society to increase native Muslim population.
* Misrepresentation of their intentions or aims as a cover up for clandestine operations.
STAGE TWO: CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
* Proselytizing efforts increase.
* Establishment and recruitment of fundamentalist Jihadi cells.
* Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population of target non-Muslim society to Islam.
* Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
* Efforts to destroy all evidence of incriminating historical evidence and sources that reveal true character of Islamism.
* Intellectual Jihad to discredit non-Muslim culture.
* Assault on cultural assumptions and icons of the non-Muslim world, such as democracy, law and science.
* Increased dissemination of anti-western propaganda and anti-western psychological warfare.
* Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (Communists, socialists, anti westerns activists, anti-globalists, anarchists).
* Alliances with the enemies of the Western society particularly anti capitalism leftists. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
* Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint. Efforts to infiltrate education system to propagate pro-Islamic points of view.
* Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslim intellectuals and leaders.
* Efforts to introduce blasphemy laws into non-Muslim society in order to silence critics.
* Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and migration to target non-Muslim society.
* Use of first and second generation Muslim citizens of target non-Muslim society as Jihadist foot soldiers and public fronts.
* Use of charities to recruit supporters.
* Use of crime and fraud to obtain funds to finance activities.
* Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of non-Muslim society from within.
* Development of Muslim political base in target non-Muslim society. Efforts to penetrate political and legal structure of country so as to support Islamic growth from within.
* Use of bribes and blackmail of non-Muslim authorities to get them to disregard establishment of subversive activities.
* Islamic Financial networks strengthened to fund political growth, large acquisition of land and resources by any means.(Today they are funded by Muslim charities; Gulf countries Oil revenue and criminal activities).
* Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.
* Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes and greater demands are placed upon Muslims to adopt strict Islamic conduct.
* Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives stores in hidden locations in target non-Muslim society.
* Continuous and covert attacks and challenges against target non-Muslim society leaders and religious symbols.
* Overt disregard and rejection of target non-Muslim society's legal system and culture.
* Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions such as Jews, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in target non-Muslim society.
* Efforts to destroy the social structure of the country and bring the downfall of non-Muslim government.
* Use of Islamic gangs in campaign of fear and terror against Jews, Christians, Hindus and non-Muslims to reduce their populations and influence in the target non-Muslim society.
_________________________________________________________________
Capture your memories in an online journal!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
Bank Hapoalim says cutting Gaza ties
Israel's biggest commercial bank says it is severing business ties with Palestinian banks in Strip in response to government's classification of territory as an enemy entity Discount Bank may follow suit, forcing Gaza banks to shut down
Israel's biggest commercial bank said on Tuesday it was severing business ties with Palestinian banks in the Gaza Strip in response to the government's classification of the territory as an enemy entity.
The decision could deepen economic hardship among Gaza's 1.5 million residents. Israeli currency is used by President Mahmoud Abbas's Western-backed government in the West Bank to pay salaries to its employees in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
A Palestinian banking official said Bank Hapoalim's move could force Gaza banks to shut down if other Israeli institutions follow suit and stop transferring shekel notes to them.
"In light of the government's decision to declare the Gaza Strip hostile territory, Bank Hapoalim has decided to terminate its banking activity with banks and branches in the Gaza Strip," the Israeli bank said in a statement.
A Hapoalim spokeswoman said it would take several weeks for the bank to cease completely what she described as "minimal services" to Gaza's financial institutions.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas official, called the move "a grave decision" that would have a strong impact on life in the Gaza Strip.
Israel Discount Bank, also a main provider of shekels and services to Palestinian banks, said the issue of severing ties with Gaza was under discussion "but we have not reached a decision."
Utility cuts
Israel declared the Gaza Strip an "enemy entity" last Wednesday and said it would reduce its fuel and power supplies to the territory in response to rocket attacks by Palestinian militants.
It has yet to carry out any cuts and pledged to keep humanitarian aid flowing.
Hamas, an Islamist terror group that opposes Abbas's peace moves with Israel, took over the Gaza Strip by force in June. A Hamas force now guards an armored car entering the territory once a month with shekels.
By formally defining Gaza as hostile, Israel could argue that it cannot be bound by international law to supply utilities and services to its 1.5 million people.
UN officials have challenged that contention. Israel withdrew troops and settlers in 2005 from the Gaza Strip but Palestinians say it is still occupied because Israel controls its air, land and sea borders.
Israel's biggest commercial bank said on Tuesday it was severing business ties with Palestinian banks in the Gaza Strip in response to the government's classification of the territory as an enemy entity.
The decision could deepen economic hardship among Gaza's 1.5 million residents. Israeli currency is used by President Mahmoud Abbas's Western-backed government in the West Bank to pay salaries to its employees in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
A Palestinian banking official said Bank Hapoalim's move could force Gaza banks to shut down if other Israeli institutions follow suit and stop transferring shekel notes to them.
"In light of the government's decision to declare the Gaza Strip hostile territory, Bank Hapoalim has decided to terminate its banking activity with banks and branches in the Gaza Strip," the Israeli bank said in a statement.
A Hapoalim spokeswoman said it would take several weeks for the bank to cease completely what she described as "minimal services" to Gaza's financial institutions.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas official, called the move "a grave decision" that would have a strong impact on life in the Gaza Strip.
Israel Discount Bank, also a main provider of shekels and services to Palestinian banks, said the issue of severing ties with Gaza was under discussion "but we have not reached a decision."
Utility cuts
Israel declared the Gaza Strip an "enemy entity" last Wednesday and said it would reduce its fuel and power supplies to the territory in response to rocket attacks by Palestinian militants.
It has yet to carry out any cuts and pledged to keep humanitarian aid flowing.
Hamas, an Islamist terror group that opposes Abbas's peace moves with Israel, took over the Gaza Strip by force in June. A Hamas force now guards an armored car entering the territory once a month with shekels.
By formally defining Gaza as hostile, Israel could argue that it cannot be bound by international law to supply utilities and services to its 1.5 million people.
UN officials have challenged that contention. Israel withdrew troops and settlers in 2005 from the Gaza Strip but Palestinians say it is still occupied because Israel controls its air, land and sea borders.
"History repeats itself because nobody listens" - Anonymous.
How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen state adopted their new
Constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
The University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
Permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters
Discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
Treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
Promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
Every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which
Is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
Beginning of history, has been about 200 years."
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
Following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush:
2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
Was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great
Country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
Government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government
Welfare.."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
Democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already
Having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
Invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the
USA in fewer than five years Oh, and by the way, Social Security will
Collapse, pension funds will default and guess what?...... we all
Watched it happen.
If you think the great depression of the
Nineteen-thirties was bad, at least many homes and farms had a garden And
livestock back then.
We have a refrigerator and a pantry. How
Long will that sustain a family?
Think About It ! ! !
Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
Thanks to N. North
Constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
The University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
Permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters
Discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
Treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
Promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
Every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which
Is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
Beginning of history, has been about 200 years."
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
Following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush:
2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
Was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great
Country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
Government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government
Welfare.."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
Democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already
Having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
Invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the
USA in fewer than five years Oh, and by the way, Social Security will
Collapse, pension funds will default and guess what?...... we all
Watched it happen.
If you think the great depression of the
Nineteen-thirties was bad, at least many homes and farms had a garden And
livestock back then.
We have a refrigerator and a pantry. How
Long will that sustain a family?
Think About It ! ! !
Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
Thanks to N. North
Did you know about this tv show? It's on state run Iranian television
Iran Holocaust show sympathetic to Jews
NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - It is Iran's version of ``Schindler's List,'' a miniseries that tells the tale of an Iranian diplomat in Paris who helps Jews escape the Holocaust - and viewers across the country are riveted.
That's surprising enough in a country where hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust even took place. What's more surprising is that goveing it on state-run television.
The Holocaust is rarely mentioned in state media in Iran, school textbooks don't discuss it and Iranians have little information about it.
Yet the series titled ``Zero Degree Turn'' is clearly sympathetic to the Jews' plight during World War II. It shows men, women and children with yellow stars on their clothes being taken forcibly out of their homes and loaded into trucks by Nazi soldiers.
``Where are they taking them?'' the horrified hero, a young Iranian diplomat who works at the Iranian Embassy in Paris, asks someone in a crowd of onlookers.
``The Fascists are taking the Jews to the concentration camps,'' the man says. The hero, named Habib Parsa, then begins giving Iranian passports to Jews to allow them to flee occupied France to then-Palestine.
Though the Habib character is fictional, it is based on a true story of diplomats in the Iranian Embassy in Paris in the 1940s who gave out about 500 Iranian passports for Jews to use to escape.
The show's appearance now may reflect an attempt by Iran's leadership to moderate its image as anti-Semitic and to underline a distinction that Iranian officials often make - that their conflict is with Israel, not with the Jewish people.
About 25,000 Jews live in Iran, the largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel. They have one representative in parliament, which is run mostly by Islamic clerics.
The series could not have aired without being condoned by Iran's clerical leadership. The state broadcaster is under the control of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, who has final say in all matters inside Iran.
Moderate conservatives have been gaining ground in Iran, where there is increasing discontent with the ruling hardliners over rising tensions with the West, a worsening economy and price hikes in basic commodities.
The government even allowed the series to break another taboo in Iran: For the first time, many actresses appear without the state-mandated Islamic dress code. The producers wanted to realistically portray 1940s Paris, and thus avoided the headscarves and head-to-foot robes that all women must normally wear on Iranian TV.
Ahmadinejad sparked widespread outrage in 2005 when he made comments casting doubt on the Holocaust and saying the state of Israel should be ``wiped from the map.'' His government organized a conference of Holocaust deniers and skeptics from around the world in December.
But the series has won support even from hardliners. Some argue that it links the Holocaust with Israel's creation, thus boosting an argument by Ahmadinejad that if the Nazi killing of Jews did take place, the Palestinians who then lived in Palestine should not have had to pay the price for it by the creation of Israel after the war.
``The series differentiates between Jews and Zionism. The ground for forming Israel is prepared when Hitler's army puts pressure on activist Jews. In this sense, it considers Nazism parallel to Zionism,'' the hard-line newspaper Keyhan said.
However, if the series does aim to make that point, it has not done so overtly.
State media have said the series, which began in April, is popular. It has been a revelation for some Iranians and has pulled them away from more popular satellite channels, which are banned but which many watch anyway on illegal dishes. The fare on state TV is usually dry.
``Once, I wept when I learned through the film what a dreadful destiny the small nation had during the world war in the heart of so-called civilized Europe,'' said Mahboubeh Rahamati, a Tehran bank teller.
Kazem Gharibi said he watches the series every Monday on a TV in his grocery store.
``Through this film, I understood that Jews had a hard time in the war - helpless and desperate, as we were when Iraq imposed war on us,'' he said, referring to the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
The series began with a love story between Habib, the embassy employee, and a French Jew, Sara Stroke, in the early 1940s. Viewers say the love story pulls them in as much as the history.
After Paris is occupied by the Nazis, Habib decides to forge Iranian passports for many French Jews to save them from the Holocaust - starting with Sara and her family. The German government accepts his embassy's claim that the passport holders are from an Iranian tribe and lets them leave France.
Habib is imprisoned by the Nazis for espionage after his forgeries are discovered. He then is released and returns to Tehran, where he is jailed again for forging passports.
Eight episodes remain in the series, and viewers drawn by the love story are on edge as they await the finish.
``I have watched the series from the beginning,'' said Sedigheh Karandish, a housewife and mother of two. ``It's pulling me in to see what these two people do at the end. Hopefully, it will be a happy ending.''
The Muslim News
NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - It is Iran's version of ``Schindler's List,'' a miniseries that tells the tale of an Iranian diplomat in Paris who helps Jews escape the Holocaust - and viewers across the country are riveted.
That's surprising enough in a country where hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust even took place. What's more surprising is that goveing it on state-run television.
The Holocaust is rarely mentioned in state media in Iran, school textbooks don't discuss it and Iranians have little information about it.
Yet the series titled ``Zero Degree Turn'' is clearly sympathetic to the Jews' plight during World War II. It shows men, women and children with yellow stars on their clothes being taken forcibly out of their homes and loaded into trucks by Nazi soldiers.
``Where are they taking them?'' the horrified hero, a young Iranian diplomat who works at the Iranian Embassy in Paris, asks someone in a crowd of onlookers.
``The Fascists are taking the Jews to the concentration camps,'' the man says. The hero, named Habib Parsa, then begins giving Iranian passports to Jews to allow them to flee occupied France to then-Palestine.
Though the Habib character is fictional, it is based on a true story of diplomats in the Iranian Embassy in Paris in the 1940s who gave out about 500 Iranian passports for Jews to use to escape.
The show's appearance now may reflect an attempt by Iran's leadership to moderate its image as anti-Semitic and to underline a distinction that Iranian officials often make - that their conflict is with Israel, not with the Jewish people.
About 25,000 Jews live in Iran, the largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel. They have one representative in parliament, which is run mostly by Islamic clerics.
The series could not have aired without being condoned by Iran's clerical leadership. The state broadcaster is under the control of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, who has final say in all matters inside Iran.
Moderate conservatives have been gaining ground in Iran, where there is increasing discontent with the ruling hardliners over rising tensions with the West, a worsening economy and price hikes in basic commodities.
The government even allowed the series to break another taboo in Iran: For the first time, many actresses appear without the state-mandated Islamic dress code. The producers wanted to realistically portray 1940s Paris, and thus avoided the headscarves and head-to-foot robes that all women must normally wear on Iranian TV.
Ahmadinejad sparked widespread outrage in 2005 when he made comments casting doubt on the Holocaust and saying the state of Israel should be ``wiped from the map.'' His government organized a conference of Holocaust deniers and skeptics from around the world in December.
But the series has won support even from hardliners. Some argue that it links the Holocaust with Israel's creation, thus boosting an argument by Ahmadinejad that if the Nazi killing of Jews did take place, the Palestinians who then lived in Palestine should not have had to pay the price for it by the creation of Israel after the war.
``The series differentiates between Jews and Zionism. The ground for forming Israel is prepared when Hitler's army puts pressure on activist Jews. In this sense, it considers Nazism parallel to Zionism,'' the hard-line newspaper Keyhan said.
However, if the series does aim to make that point, it has not done so overtly.
State media have said the series, which began in April, is popular. It has been a revelation for some Iranians and has pulled them away from more popular satellite channels, which are banned but which many watch anyway on illegal dishes. The fare on state TV is usually dry.
``Once, I wept when I learned through the film what a dreadful destiny the small nation had during the world war in the heart of so-called civilized Europe,'' said Mahboubeh Rahamati, a Tehran bank teller.
Kazem Gharibi said he watches the series every Monday on a TV in his grocery store.
``Through this film, I understood that Jews had a hard time in the war - helpless and desperate, as we were when Iraq imposed war on us,'' he said, referring to the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
The series began with a love story between Habib, the embassy employee, and a French Jew, Sara Stroke, in the early 1940s. Viewers say the love story pulls them in as much as the history.
After Paris is occupied by the Nazis, Habib decides to forge Iranian passports for many French Jews to save them from the Holocaust - starting with Sara and her family. The German government accepts his embassy's claim that the passport holders are from an Iranian tribe and lets them leave France.
Habib is imprisoned by the Nazis for espionage after his forgeries are discovered. He then is released and returns to Tehran, where he is jailed again for forging passports.
Eight episodes remain in the series, and viewers drawn by the love story are on edge as they await the finish.
``I have watched the series from the beginning,'' said Sedigheh Karandish, a housewife and mother of two. ``It's pulling me in to see what these two people do at the end. Hopefully, it will be a happy ending.''
The Muslim News
Intolerance in the name of tolerance
Cal Thomas
I would not be as bothered by Columbia University's decision to host Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Columbia and other universities had a consistent policy toward those they invite to speak and the rules applied equally to conservatives and liberals; to totalitarian dictators and to advocates for freedom and tolerance.
Any conservative who has ever tried, or actually succeeded, in speaking on the campus of predominately liberal academic institutions knows it can resemble to some extent the struggle experienced by African Americans when they attempted to desegregate lunch counters in the South during the Civil Rights Movement.
In the 1980s, I spoke at universities from Smith College in the East to the University of California at Davis in the West. At Smith, lesbians sat in the front row kissing each other while the rest of the crowd shouted so loud no one could hear me (NPR's Nina Totenberg witnessed the riotous behavior, prompting me to remark, "I hope you're getting this on tape, Nina, because this is what liberals mean by tolerance.").
Former U.S. News and World Report columnist John Leo has been among the chroniclers of the demise of free speech on many college campuses. Writing in last winter's issue of the publication City Journal, Leo noted that Columbia University officials prevented a large crowd from hearing Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who is now an anti-jihadist. The reason given was security, which as Leo pointed out is a frequent excuse for restricting speech. Had Shoebat remained a PLO terrorist, Columbia might have allowed the students in, because anti-Jewish rhetoric of the kind Ahmadinejad delivers always seems welcome on too many campuses. Only Columbia students and 20 guests were allowed to hear Shoebat speak.
Why would Columbia expect Ahmadinejad to answer what they promised in advance would be "tough" questions? Have they not seen him interviewed by America's best reporters? He doesn't answer questions. He uses the interviews to lecture America and make his propaganda points. The exercise is useless, except to him because he scores points at home for "standing up to Œthe Great Satan,' or whatever the preferred term du jour for the United States is at the moment.
Last October at Columbia, a mob of students stormed a stage, curtailing speeches by two members of the anti-illegal immigration group known as the Minutemen. The students shouted "They have no right to speak," which was revealing, given the "academic freedom" argument that is used to defend liberal professors and their frequent anti-American rants when conservatives attempt to shut them up.
As John Leo wrote, "Campus opponents of (Rep.) Tom Tancredo, an illegal immigration foe, set off fire alarms at Georgetown to disrupt his planned speech, and their counterparts at Michigan State roughed up his student backers. Conservative activist David Horowitz, black conservative Star Parker, and Daniel Pipes, an outspoken critic of Islamism, frequently find themselves shouted down or disrupted on campus." The number of instances involving censorship of conservatives on college campuses and denial of honorary degrees to people who don't toe the liberal line could fill a book.
There is something else about Columbia's decision to admit Ahmadinejad and that is the notion that by exposing a tyrant and religious fanatic to a liberal arts campus - a man who believes he has been "called" to usher in Armageddon - might make him less genocidal and students and the rest of us more understanding. We understand he and his legion of murdering thugs wish to kill us and are contributing to the death of Americans in Iraq. What part of mass murder do they not understand at Columbia, or don't they have time to study history these days?
Ahmadinejad is probably using his visit to case our country, like a bank robber does before a big heist.
Before we allow more of our enemies into America and give them a freedom unknown in their own countries, we should at least demand reciprocity. Their president gets to speak in America? Our president gets to speak in Iran. Their president has access to our media? Our president should have access to their media. And while we're at it, how about for every liberal who gets to speak on campus, the school must also invite a conservative.
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the forthcoming book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America"
I would not be as bothered by Columbia University's decision to host Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Columbia and other universities had a consistent policy toward those they invite to speak and the rules applied equally to conservatives and liberals; to totalitarian dictators and to advocates for freedom and tolerance.
Any conservative who has ever tried, or actually succeeded, in speaking on the campus of predominately liberal academic institutions knows it can resemble to some extent the struggle experienced by African Americans when they attempted to desegregate lunch counters in the South during the Civil Rights Movement.
In the 1980s, I spoke at universities from Smith College in the East to the University of California at Davis in the West. At Smith, lesbians sat in the front row kissing each other while the rest of the crowd shouted so loud no one could hear me (NPR's Nina Totenberg witnessed the riotous behavior, prompting me to remark, "I hope you're getting this on tape, Nina, because this is what liberals mean by tolerance.").
Former U.S. News and World Report columnist John Leo has been among the chroniclers of the demise of free speech on many college campuses. Writing in last winter's issue of the publication City Journal, Leo noted that Columbia University officials prevented a large crowd from hearing Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who is now an anti-jihadist. The reason given was security, which as Leo pointed out is a frequent excuse for restricting speech. Had Shoebat remained a PLO terrorist, Columbia might have allowed the students in, because anti-Jewish rhetoric of the kind Ahmadinejad delivers always seems welcome on too many campuses. Only Columbia students and 20 guests were allowed to hear Shoebat speak.
Why would Columbia expect Ahmadinejad to answer what they promised in advance would be "tough" questions? Have they not seen him interviewed by America's best reporters? He doesn't answer questions. He uses the interviews to lecture America and make his propaganda points. The exercise is useless, except to him because he scores points at home for "standing up to Œthe Great Satan,' or whatever the preferred term du jour for the United States is at the moment.
Last October at Columbia, a mob of students stormed a stage, curtailing speeches by two members of the anti-illegal immigration group known as the Minutemen. The students shouted "They have no right to speak," which was revealing, given the "academic freedom" argument that is used to defend liberal professors and their frequent anti-American rants when conservatives attempt to shut them up.
As John Leo wrote, "Campus opponents of (Rep.) Tom Tancredo, an illegal immigration foe, set off fire alarms at Georgetown to disrupt his planned speech, and their counterparts at Michigan State roughed up his student backers. Conservative activist David Horowitz, black conservative Star Parker, and Daniel Pipes, an outspoken critic of Islamism, frequently find themselves shouted down or disrupted on campus." The number of instances involving censorship of conservatives on college campuses and denial of honorary degrees to people who don't toe the liberal line could fill a book.
There is something else about Columbia's decision to admit Ahmadinejad and that is the notion that by exposing a tyrant and religious fanatic to a liberal arts campus - a man who believes he has been "called" to usher in Armageddon - might make him less genocidal and students and the rest of us more understanding. We understand he and his legion of murdering thugs wish to kill us and are contributing to the death of Americans in Iraq. What part of mass murder do they not understand at Columbia, or don't they have time to study history these days?
Ahmadinejad is probably using his visit to case our country, like a bank robber does before a big heist.
Before we allow more of our enemies into America and give them a freedom unknown in their own countries, we should at least demand reciprocity. Their president gets to speak in America? Our president gets to speak in Iran. Their president has access to our media? Our president should have access to their media. And while we're at it, how about for every liberal who gets to speak on campus, the school must also invite a conservative.
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the forthcoming book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America"
Of Free Speech And Academic "Progressives"
So, in the end, Monday the Iranian wild man Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got a dressing down from the man who had invited him -- in the name of free speech, you understand -- to speak at Columbia University. Likely, by time for the speech, Columbia President Lee Bollinger had no choice other than to perfume himself against the stench from a statesman who proposes to exterminate Israel, presides over one of the world's least free regimes and may, to boot, have a secret nuclear weapons program going.
Bollinger had been getting unshirted hell from reasonable people displeased -- as why wouldn't they be -- that Columbia would extend hospitality to such as Ahmadinejad. Among whose achievements, according to intelligence, is providing Iraqi terrorists with some of the most formidable explosives in play against U.S. military vehicles.
Columbia's president protested that, in presenting Ahmadinejad, he was acting within a "longstanding [Columbia] tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate." The kind of debate that would land the ordinary Iranian in the clink.
By the time all was said and done, Bollinger had clawed his way back to semi-respectability in polite society by insulting his guest -- not the usual practice in polite society, but consider the depth of the hole Bollinger had dug for himself by insisting on being a good academic liberal. It's the kind of thing academics do all the time -- dig moral and intellectual holes.
Something else they do is pretend the Reserve Officers Training Corps is an instrument of fascism, the Confederate Underground, or whatever; which perception excuses them from allowing ROTC to recruit on campus. Sen. John McCain, appraising the day's events, noted that Columbia has declared itself off limits to ROTC and its vital role in providing for the national defense.
The liberal academic establishment is something, all right. And has been, mostly, since the '60s, when Young America, or a significant portion of its alleged intellectual elite, decided the way to deal with "Fascist-Pig Amerika" was to burn draft cards and take over deans' offices. What with the demonstrators now running the campuses they demonstrated against, one isn't completely surprised to find Columbia hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and a portion of the Stanford community campaigning not to host Donald Rumsfeld.
Stanford's Hoover Institution, a prestigious and exemplary center "for the study of War, Revolution and Peace," has engaged the former Defense secretary as a distinguished visiting fellow, in which capacity he's to advise a task force on ideology and terrorism.
Well, wouldn't you know it? The New York Times records that 2100 professors, students, staffers and alumni have signed an online petition of protest, asserting the Rumsfeld appointment's incompatibility "with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, disinterested inquiry, respect for national and international laws, and care for the opinions, property, and lives of others to which Stanford is inalienably committed." Boo! Hiss! Throw da bum out!
It all seems to depend, in liberal academia, on whose free speech rights we're talking about -- those of a morally deranged foreign despot or of a retired American cabinet officer whose policies you don't like. The jailer-in-chief of a once-sophisticated nation -- let's hear him out. Yea, free speech! And wouldn't Mr. Madison be proud of our attachment to his First Amendment. As for a warmongering ex-flunky from the Bush administration -- no, no, no. Why, his very words would corrupt our delicate ears!
The apparent moral asymmetry here -- pay no attention to that. In the academy, we're all good "progressives." That's the central point. Listening to foreign creeps who hate the United States is a moral obligation (and sometimes an unadulterated joy). Lending an ear to patriots who have sought to serve the United States out of love for its life and institutions -- that's another matter entirely, as the Stanford progressives trust Mr. Rumsfeld will understand while pondering the call to withdraw.
Is it too much to hope that just this once, maybe, a patriot can enjoy in academia the same moral footing as a national jailer and Jew-baiter? We'll see soon enough.
Bill Murchison is a senior columns writer for The Dallas Morning News and author of There's More to Life Than Politics.
Bollinger had been getting unshirted hell from reasonable people displeased -- as why wouldn't they be -- that Columbia would extend hospitality to such as Ahmadinejad. Among whose achievements, according to intelligence, is providing Iraqi terrorists with some of the most formidable explosives in play against U.S. military vehicles.
Columbia's president protested that, in presenting Ahmadinejad, he was acting within a "longstanding [Columbia] tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate." The kind of debate that would land the ordinary Iranian in the clink.
By the time all was said and done, Bollinger had clawed his way back to semi-respectability in polite society by insulting his guest -- not the usual practice in polite society, but consider the depth of the hole Bollinger had dug for himself by insisting on being a good academic liberal. It's the kind of thing academics do all the time -- dig moral and intellectual holes.
Something else they do is pretend the Reserve Officers Training Corps is an instrument of fascism, the Confederate Underground, or whatever; which perception excuses them from allowing ROTC to recruit on campus. Sen. John McCain, appraising the day's events, noted that Columbia has declared itself off limits to ROTC and its vital role in providing for the national defense.
The liberal academic establishment is something, all right. And has been, mostly, since the '60s, when Young America, or a significant portion of its alleged intellectual elite, decided the way to deal with "Fascist-Pig Amerika" was to burn draft cards and take over deans' offices. What with the demonstrators now running the campuses they demonstrated against, one isn't completely surprised to find Columbia hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and a portion of the Stanford community campaigning not to host Donald Rumsfeld.
Stanford's Hoover Institution, a prestigious and exemplary center "for the study of War, Revolution and Peace," has engaged the former Defense secretary as a distinguished visiting fellow, in which capacity he's to advise a task force on ideology and terrorism.
Well, wouldn't you know it? The New York Times records that 2100 professors, students, staffers and alumni have signed an online petition of protest, asserting the Rumsfeld appointment's incompatibility "with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, disinterested inquiry, respect for national and international laws, and care for the opinions, property, and lives of others to which Stanford is inalienably committed." Boo! Hiss! Throw da bum out!
It all seems to depend, in liberal academia, on whose free speech rights we're talking about -- those of a morally deranged foreign despot or of a retired American cabinet officer whose policies you don't like. The jailer-in-chief of a once-sophisticated nation -- let's hear him out. Yea, free speech! And wouldn't Mr. Madison be proud of our attachment to his First Amendment. As for a warmongering ex-flunky from the Bush administration -- no, no, no. Why, his very words would corrupt our delicate ears!
The apparent moral asymmetry here -- pay no attention to that. In the academy, we're all good "progressives." That's the central point. Listening to foreign creeps who hate the United States is a moral obligation (and sometimes an unadulterated joy). Lending an ear to patriots who have sought to serve the United States out of love for its life and institutions -- that's another matter entirely, as the Stanford progressives trust Mr. Rumsfeld will understand while pondering the call to withdraw.
Is it too much to hope that just this once, maybe, a patriot can enjoy in academia the same moral footing as a national jailer and Jew-baiter? We'll see soon enough.
Bill Murchison is a senior columns writer for The Dallas Morning News and author of There's More to Life Than Politics.
Columbia University's Selective First Amendment Affinity
Over an avalanche of protests, New York's Columbia University invited Iran's Holocaust denying dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Over an avalanche of protests, New York's Columbia University invited Iran's Holocaust denying dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. That any American institution would furnish a propaganda platform for this murderous thug is symptomatic of staggering ignorance about our enemies in this global war on terror.
Self-congratulatory liberals, like Columbia's President Lee Bollinger, actually see the university's hosting of Ahmadinejad as a cause to celebrate -- advancing free speech and diverse viewpoints -- as opposed to something that must be reluctantly tolerated.
What will it t
ake to wake people up to the reality that this tyrant is every bit as pernicious as Osama bin Laden? Then again, many would probably jump to offer bin Laden a forum, as well. After all, they believe both have legitimate grievances against U.S. policy.
Columbia history professor Kenneth T. Jackson said New York has more than a legal duty to accommodate controversial figures from abroad. "It's a moral obligation as a great city," said Jackson. "New York's record is one of toleration of difference."
Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? Well, I'm not rejoicing over this wrongheaded decision to turn over a major university megaphone to Ahmadinejad to help him "teach Americans about the world."
We have no legal duty to accommodate the despot behind many, perhaps most, of the improvised explosive devices killing our soldiers in Iraq. The U.S. Constitution is not a global guarantor of civil rights. It does not protect the speech of foreign dictators. It was not written to safeguard al Qaeda's rights or its sensibilities.
Even if the First Amendment did apply, it wouldn't oblige us to provide rhetorical weapons, ammunition and delivery systems to our sworn ideological enemies in this deadly war of ideas. Ideas have consequences, and the promotion of deadly ones can have deadly consequences.
Some leftist media types are afflicted with this bizarre notion that their journalistic integrity requires them to strive for neutrality between the United States and her enemies. Remember CNN anchor Bernard Shaw professing such nonsense when refusing to be debriefed during Gulf War I?
Nor do we have a "moral obligation" to enable terrorists to kill us, destroy our nation and promote a worldwide caliphate. There's no ethical requirement that we prop up a sadistic egomaniac who has threatened to dispatch 40,000 suicide bombers throughout the civilized world and who is rattling his saber against this country amid chants from his indoctrinated, crazed subjects calling for "death to America."
There's also a larger point involved here that certain First Amendment charlatans choose to ignore. Contrary to their claims, there is nothing we can learn from Ahmadinejad that we don't already know -- at least not in this forum.
He's made quite clear who he is and what he stands for. He is an enemy of civilization who runs the nation the State Department has identified as the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today.
He is not here to debate or be persuaded. He doesn't seek dialogue or a give- and-take of ideas -- unless you want to humor him with an openness to his suggestion that 9/11 was an inside government job. He is not here to argue his case for Iran's nuclear proliferation, which he denies with the chutzpah and finesse of a Goebbels or Stalin.
He is an incorrigible believer in Islamic world conquest whose ideology makes him impervious to reason, negotiation, diplomacy or compromise. He's here to promote his propaganda and to recruit those amoral enough in our media to spread it and those gullible enough in our population to swallow it. The only thing that will dissuade him is force or credible threats to use it.
Besides, there are plenty of people in this country who are protected by the First Amendment who are more than willing to promote Ahmadinejad's ideas. Indeed, it seems many on the left derive some kind of perverse pleasure seeing Ahmadinejad taunting President Bush and his policies. Figuratively speaking, you can't help but wonder whether for some of them, it's not as much about promoting the First Amendment right to burn the flag as it is their delight in watching the flag burn.
Why else would comment posters on the liberal Daily Kos blog say they have a crush on this dictator? Why else would the mainstream media have marveled at his rambling, incoherent insulting letters to President Bush -- giving them and his warped ideas a shameful degree of credence?
If Columbia were serious about its openness to all ideas, it wouldn't have revoked its speaking invitation to the Minuteman Project's Jim Gilchrest.
Sadly, liberal academia's simulated love affair with the First Amendment and so-called tolerance for diverse viewpoints just goes one way.
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
Self-congratulatory liberals, like Columbia's President Lee Bollinger, actually see the university's hosting of Ahmadinejad as a cause to celebrate -- advancing free speech and diverse viewpoints -- as opposed to something that must be reluctantly tolerated.
What will it t
ake to wake people up to the reality that this tyrant is every bit as pernicious as Osama bin Laden? Then again, many would probably jump to offer bin Laden a forum, as well. After all, they believe both have legitimate grievances against U.S. policy.
Columbia history professor Kenneth T. Jackson said New York has more than a legal duty to accommodate controversial figures from abroad. "It's a moral obligation as a great city," said Jackson. "New York's record is one of toleration of difference."
Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? Well, I'm not rejoicing over this wrongheaded decision to turn over a major university megaphone to Ahmadinejad to help him "teach Americans about the world."
We have no legal duty to accommodate the despot behind many, perhaps most, of the improvised explosive devices killing our soldiers in Iraq. The U.S. Constitution is not a global guarantor of civil rights. It does not protect the speech of foreign dictators. It was not written to safeguard al Qaeda's rights or its sensibilities.
Even if the First Amendment did apply, it wouldn't oblige us to provide rhetorical weapons, ammunition and delivery systems to our sworn ideological enemies in this deadly war of ideas. Ideas have consequences, and the promotion of deadly ones can have deadly consequences.
Some leftist media types are afflicted with this bizarre notion that their journalistic integrity requires them to strive for neutrality between the United States and her enemies. Remember CNN anchor Bernard Shaw professing such nonsense when refusing to be debriefed during Gulf War I?
Nor do we have a "moral obligation" to enable terrorists to kill us, destroy our nation and promote a worldwide caliphate. There's no ethical requirement that we prop up a sadistic egomaniac who has threatened to dispatch 40,000 suicide bombers throughout the civilized world and who is rattling his saber against this country amid chants from his indoctrinated, crazed subjects calling for "death to America."
There's also a larger point involved here that certain First Amendment charlatans choose to ignore. Contrary to their claims, there is nothing we can learn from Ahmadinejad that we don't already know -- at least not in this forum.
He's made quite clear who he is and what he stands for. He is an enemy of civilization who runs the nation the State Department has identified as the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today.
He is not here to debate or be persuaded. He doesn't seek dialogue or a give- and-take of ideas -- unless you want to humor him with an openness to his suggestion that 9/11 was an inside government job. He is not here to argue his case for Iran's nuclear proliferation, which he denies with the chutzpah and finesse of a Goebbels or Stalin.
He is an incorrigible believer in Islamic world conquest whose ideology makes him impervious to reason, negotiation, diplomacy or compromise. He's here to promote his propaganda and to recruit those amoral enough in our media to spread it and those gullible enough in our population to swallow it. The only thing that will dissuade him is force or credible threats to use it.
Besides, there are plenty of people in this country who are protected by the First Amendment who are more than willing to promote Ahmadinejad's ideas. Indeed, it seems many on the left derive some kind of perverse pleasure seeing Ahmadinejad taunting President Bush and his policies. Figuratively speaking, you can't help but wonder whether for some of them, it's not as much about promoting the First Amendment right to burn the flag as it is their delight in watching the flag burn.
Why else would comment posters on the liberal Daily Kos blog say they have a crush on this dictator? Why else would the mainstream media have marveled at his rambling, incoherent insulting letters to President Bush -- giving them and his warped ideas a shameful degree of credence?
If Columbia were serious about its openness to all ideas, it wouldn't have revoked its speaking invitation to the Minuteman Project's Jim Gilchrest.
Sadly, liberal academia's simulated love affair with the First Amendment and so-called tolerance for diverse viewpoints just goes one way.
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
Stop coddling Assad
Farid Ghadry
Instead of reassuring Syrian president, Israel should prepare for his collapse Only two weeks after Israel reportedly carried out what looks like a daring raid on some Syrian nuclear site deemed too dangerous for Israel not to react, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered an olive branch to Syrian President Bashar Assad by saying: "I have a lot of respect for the Syrian leader and for Syria's conduct. They have internal problems, but we have no reason to rule out dialogue with Syria."
To us, this is like a head of a household beating his concubine and then telling her "I love you, honey."
Less than 48 hours after Olmert empowered Assad with his words, another March 14 Lebanese Member of Parliament was killed using the preferred methods Assef Shawkat has mastered for both Iraq and Lebanon: a car bomb.
Diplomatically speaking, it is one thing to poke someone in the eye but quite another to drive him to further his streak of violence, especially against Lebanon, an ally. Assad interpreted Prime Minister Olmert's words as an insurance policy, despite having just been shown the prowess of the IAF two days earlier.
Israeli policies towards Syria are sometimes baffling to outside observers like myself. Israel is a strong country with unlimited human resources and an unmatched military capability, yet it behaves, within the context of its regional security belt, as a junior country undecided at best as to what to do with the mushrooming problems it finds itself surrounded by.
Arab perception of Israeli prowess is slowly eroding, which directly affects Israeli deterrence. The propaganda machine of Hizbullah backed by the Ba'athist and the Palestinian terror groups in Damascus will eventually overcome the psychological advantage Israel has over its neighbors. Not yet though.
After my visit to the Knesset, Syrians inside Syria were heard uttering "If al-Ghadry has been received by Israel that means he is powerful." Little do they know how much we struggle for their freedom. But the fact remains: Israel is still hated and admired at the same time in most Arab countries. What you need to be aware of is that Assad and Hizbullah are working hard to ensure that the admiration factor is eradicated.
Israeli nonchalance a mystery
We, Syrian dissidents, are watching a phenomenon develop right in front of our eyes inside Syria that reminds us of Iran in late 1978. If you see the signs we are seeing, you would come to the same conclusion that Uri Lubrani came to in the late Seventies when he predicted the fall of the Shah of Iran. What remains a mystery to me today is the nonchalance Israel is showing in the face of a possible Syrian white revolution that would overthrow Assad the way the Shah was overthrown.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, which has stacked its cards and is developing a plan, Israel still has no plans to protect its interests in case Assad falls. In fact the only plan we see are the words that Prime Minister Olmert uttered lately to shore Assad up.
Syrians are on the brink of collapse economically, which is empowering them politically in ways we are still discovering. These signs start with a story that turns into a legend that turns into hope. Exactly as Khomeini was portrayed by the Iranian people when they started posting his pictures without fully knowing who he really was. The void in Syria's political leadership has reached a proportion mature enough to create a sensational outcome in lightening speed. Is Israel ready for this change or will it be caught flat-footed again?
The Syria of the future we see will be void of ideologies of the past and will contain Islamism through practicality and economic empowerment. If Prime Minister Olmert wants to empower Syrians, he needs to look to the liberal Syrians most likely able to start a revolution rather than the existing Ba'athist infrastructure determined to eradicate the Jewish experience in our midst.
The writer is the president of the Reform Party of Syria, an opposition political party to the Assad regime
Instead of reassuring Syrian president, Israel should prepare for his collapse Only two weeks after Israel reportedly carried out what looks like a daring raid on some Syrian nuclear site deemed too dangerous for Israel not to react, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered an olive branch to Syrian President Bashar Assad by saying: "I have a lot of respect for the Syrian leader and for Syria's conduct. They have internal problems, but we have no reason to rule out dialogue with Syria."
To us, this is like a head of a household beating his concubine and then telling her "I love you, honey."
Less than 48 hours after Olmert empowered Assad with his words, another March 14 Lebanese Member of Parliament was killed using the preferred methods Assef Shawkat has mastered for both Iraq and Lebanon: a car bomb.
Diplomatically speaking, it is one thing to poke someone in the eye but quite another to drive him to further his streak of violence, especially against Lebanon, an ally. Assad interpreted Prime Minister Olmert's words as an insurance policy, despite having just been shown the prowess of the IAF two days earlier.
Israeli policies towards Syria are sometimes baffling to outside observers like myself. Israel is a strong country with unlimited human resources and an unmatched military capability, yet it behaves, within the context of its regional security belt, as a junior country undecided at best as to what to do with the mushrooming problems it finds itself surrounded by.
Arab perception of Israeli prowess is slowly eroding, which directly affects Israeli deterrence. The propaganda machine of Hizbullah backed by the Ba'athist and the Palestinian terror groups in Damascus will eventually overcome the psychological advantage Israel has over its neighbors. Not yet though.
After my visit to the Knesset, Syrians inside Syria were heard uttering "If al-Ghadry has been received by Israel that means he is powerful." Little do they know how much we struggle for their freedom. But the fact remains: Israel is still hated and admired at the same time in most Arab countries. What you need to be aware of is that Assad and Hizbullah are working hard to ensure that the admiration factor is eradicated.
Israeli nonchalance a mystery
We, Syrian dissidents, are watching a phenomenon develop right in front of our eyes inside Syria that reminds us of Iran in late 1978. If you see the signs we are seeing, you would come to the same conclusion that Uri Lubrani came to in the late Seventies when he predicted the fall of the Shah of Iran. What remains a mystery to me today is the nonchalance Israel is showing in the face of a possible Syrian white revolution that would overthrow Assad the way the Shah was overthrown.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, which has stacked its cards and is developing a plan, Israel still has no plans to protect its interests in case Assad falls. In fact the only plan we see are the words that Prime Minister Olmert uttered lately to shore Assad up.
Syrians are on the brink of collapse economically, which is empowering them politically in ways we are still discovering. These signs start with a story that turns into a legend that turns into hope. Exactly as Khomeini was portrayed by the Iranian people when they started posting his pictures without fully knowing who he really was. The void in Syria's political leadership has reached a proportion mature enough to create a sensational outcome in lightening speed. Is Israel ready for this change or will it be caught flat-footed again?
The Syria of the future we see will be void of ideologies of the past and will contain Islamism through practicality and economic empowerment. If Prime Minister Olmert wants to empower Syrians, he needs to look to the liberal Syrians most likely able to start a revolution rather than the existing Ba'athist infrastructure determined to eradicate the Jewish experience in our midst.
The writer is the president of the Reform Party of Syria, an opposition political party to the Assad regime
The event is over-onto the next one!
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday challenged a university audience to look into "who was truly involved" in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, defended his right to question established Holocaust history and denied there were gay Iranians. When pressed about the harsh treatment of women, homosexuals and academics who challenge Iran's government, Ahmadinejad painted a rosy picture, saying, "Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom," he said.
He elicited laughter and boos from the audience at Columbia University when he said, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."
His remarks, which lasted about an hour, made several general references to God, religion and science. He portrayed himself as an academic, misunderstood and unfairly criticized in the United States.
Ahmadinejad is in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. He spoke at the invitation of Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, who in his introduction excoriated the leader by saying he "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."
Blaming his schedule, Ahmadinejad left Columbia after his speech before answering many questions posed to him, Bollinger said.
Hundreds gathered to protest Ahmadinejad's appearance, incensed that a leader who has publicly denied the Holocaust and called for the destruction of the state of Israel was given a prestigious forum to espouse his beliefs.
Christine C. Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council, said Columbia should not be giving Ahmadinejad a platform. "All he will do on that stage ... is spew more hatred and more venom out there to the world," she said.
Hamid Dabasi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia called the whole forum "misguided."
Refusing to back off of his stance on Israel, Ahmadinejad again questioned whether the Holocaust happened.
"If the Holocaust is a reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" he asked.
The Iranian leader has made statements in the past suggesting Israel be politically "wiped off the map," though he insists that can be accomplished without violence. See some of Ahmadinejad's controversial remarks »
While he would not respond with a "yes" or "no" when asked Monday if he sought the destruction of Israel, he said the status of Israel should be determined by a free election.
"Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future," he said.
Ahmadinejad has drawn fire for defying international demands that Iran halt production of enriched uranium.
At Columbia, he said Iran is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's central nuclear technology governing body, and has submitted many times to IAEA inspections. "Over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation," he said.
Washington and other nations accuse Tehran of trying to create a nuclear weapons program. Watch reaction to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University »
Ahmadinejad said Iran questions "the way the world is being run and managed today."
But he said Iran would hold talks with the U.S. government "under fair and just circumstances."
U.S. officials have said Iranian explosives and weapons are making their way to Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq's sectarian conflict and have been used against U.S. troops in the four-year-old war. U.S. commanders have said they have captured Iranian agents involved in supplying those weapons to the militias, some of which have longstanding ties to Iran.
On this point, Ahmadinejad employed a tactic he used often Monday -- answering questions with more questions.
Bollinger asked, "Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?"
Through a translator, Ahmadinejad replied, "Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you reward them or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist."
Earlier Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to visit ground zero in New York to "pay his respects" to those who died in the attack on the twin towers at the World Trade Center. Several groups were outraged. Security became an issue and the visit was canceled. Asked what he hoped to accomplish there, the Iranian president said it was unfair he could not extend his sympathies to victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Addressing the press directly, he seemed to make a connection between the "root causes" of the September 11, 2001 attacks and a solution in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."
He stressed repeatedly that Iran wants to negotiate with the United States and other nations, several times describing Iran as a "cultured" and "civilized" nation.
"I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation," he said. "For 28 years, they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day, under one pretext or another."
As he ended his talk at Columbia, he invited faculty and students to visit any university in Iran they choose.
"We'll give you the platform. We'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say," he assured.
Earlier Monday, in a question-and-answer videoconference with the National Press Club, Ahmadinejad said the Middle East can govern itself without interference from the United States and other Western nations.
Speaking from New York to the luncheon in Washington, Ahmadinejad said Iran wanted to see "an independent powerful Iraq ... which will benefit the entire region."
"We are two nations interconnected," he said of Iran and Iraq. "We are brothers and friends."
But he said the region didn't need U.S. help.
"We oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world. ... We propose more humane methods of establishing peace," he said.
He elicited laughter and boos from the audience at Columbia University when he said, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."
His remarks, which lasted about an hour, made several general references to God, religion and science. He portrayed himself as an academic, misunderstood and unfairly criticized in the United States.
Ahmadinejad is in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. He spoke at the invitation of Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, who in his introduction excoriated the leader by saying he "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."
Blaming his schedule, Ahmadinejad left Columbia after his speech before answering many questions posed to him, Bollinger said.
Hundreds gathered to protest Ahmadinejad's appearance, incensed that a leader who has publicly denied the Holocaust and called for the destruction of the state of Israel was given a prestigious forum to espouse his beliefs.
Christine C. Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council, said Columbia should not be giving Ahmadinejad a platform. "All he will do on that stage ... is spew more hatred and more venom out there to the world," she said.
Hamid Dabasi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia called the whole forum "misguided."
Refusing to back off of his stance on Israel, Ahmadinejad again questioned whether the Holocaust happened.
"If the Holocaust is a reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" he asked.
The Iranian leader has made statements in the past suggesting Israel be politically "wiped off the map," though he insists that can be accomplished without violence. See some of Ahmadinejad's controversial remarks »
While he would not respond with a "yes" or "no" when asked Monday if he sought the destruction of Israel, he said the status of Israel should be determined by a free election.
"Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future," he said.
Ahmadinejad has drawn fire for defying international demands that Iran halt production of enriched uranium.
At Columbia, he said Iran is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's central nuclear technology governing body, and has submitted many times to IAEA inspections. "Over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation," he said.
Washington and other nations accuse Tehran of trying to create a nuclear weapons program. Watch reaction to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University »
Ahmadinejad said Iran questions "the way the world is being run and managed today."
But he said Iran would hold talks with the U.S. government "under fair and just circumstances."
U.S. officials have said Iranian explosives and weapons are making their way to Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq's sectarian conflict and have been used against U.S. troops in the four-year-old war. U.S. commanders have said they have captured Iranian agents involved in supplying those weapons to the militias, some of which have longstanding ties to Iran.
On this point, Ahmadinejad employed a tactic he used often Monday -- answering questions with more questions.
Bollinger asked, "Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?"
Through a translator, Ahmadinejad replied, "Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you reward them or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist."
Earlier Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to visit ground zero in New York to "pay his respects" to those who died in the attack on the twin towers at the World Trade Center. Several groups were outraged. Security became an issue and the visit was canceled. Asked what he hoped to accomplish there, the Iranian president said it was unfair he could not extend his sympathies to victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Addressing the press directly, he seemed to make a connection between the "root causes" of the September 11, 2001 attacks and a solution in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."
He stressed repeatedly that Iran wants to negotiate with the United States and other nations, several times describing Iran as a "cultured" and "civilized" nation.
"I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation," he said. "For 28 years, they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day, under one pretext or another."
As he ended his talk at Columbia, he invited faculty and students to visit any university in Iran they choose.
"We'll give you the platform. We'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say," he assured.
Earlier Monday, in a question-and-answer videoconference with the National Press Club, Ahmadinejad said the Middle East can govern itself without interference from the United States and other Western nations.
Speaking from New York to the luncheon in Washington, Ahmadinejad said Iran wanted to see "an independent powerful Iraq ... which will benefit the entire region."
"We are two nations interconnected," he said of Iran and Iraq. "We are brothers and friends."
But he said the region didn't need U.S. help.
"We oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world. ... We propose more humane methods of establishing peace," he said.
Columbia's choice - and ours
Caroline Glick
THE JERUSALEM POST
Columbia University disgraced itself this week beyond repair.
Defending his decision to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to his campus, Columbia's President Lee Bollinger said he would confront the Iranian leader with a series of "sharp challenges" to his "alleged" support for terrorism, genocide, Holocaust denial, involvement in killing American servicemen and women in Iraq and human rights abuses during his speech on Monday.
John Coatsworth, the Dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, expanded on Bollinger's theme of the school's limitless devotion to debate saying, "If Hitler were in the United States and wanted a platform from which to speak, he would have plenty of platforms from which to speak in the United States. If he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him." With these blithe little embraces of public debate, Columbia's leaders have destroyed their once august institution of higher learning.
Columbia was rightly condemned from all quarters for its decision to host Ahmadinejad. The hypocrisy of the university which justified its invitation to Ahmadinejad in the name of free speech and then barred protesters who wished to exercise their right of free speech by opposing Ahmadinejad's presence at Columbia from entering the campus has properly been pointed out. So too, the irony of Columbia's decision to roll out the welcome mat for a man who has in recent months closed 15 universities, imprisoned some 3,000 students, hundreds of professors and banned books he claims advance "infidel" values, has been duly noted.
Moreover, Iran's position as the most active state sponsor of international terrorism, its role in directing the war in Iraq, and Ahmadinejad's own suspected role in the 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran and the subsequent illegal internment and torture of 51 American hostages held for 444 days has also been reasonably noted by critics of the university's move.
IRAN'S PERSECUTION of homosexuals and its oppression of women - both intensified since Ahmadinejad took office two years ago - have been rightly contrasted with Bollinger's decision in 2005 to maintain Columbia's policy of banning the military's ROTC officer training program from the campus due to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuality.
Some critics of Columbia's decision have placed the university's invitation to Ahmadinejad in the context of the university's longstanding and well-documented animus toward America and toward the State of Israel. This is the same university, they note, that gives tenure to professors who harass pro-American and pro-Israel students who dare to question their classroom rantings. This is the same university that refuses to host people who hold conservative views on issues like immigration.
Finally, opponents of Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak on campus have condemned Bollinger for providing a prestigious platform to a leader who denies the Nazi Holocaust, pledges to carry out a new Holocaust of Jewry, and is seeking the means to carry out this genocide by developing nuclear weapons.
For these actions, Columbia's critics argue, Ahmadinejad should have been denied a platform at Columbia.
WHILE ALL of these criticisms are accurate, many of the actions and hypocrisies they highlight are not unique to Columbia. Indeed, they describe the standard operating procedures in effect on most major American campuses today. Many major universities have given tenure to anti-American and anti-Zionist professors. Many major universities proscribe debate in classrooms and attempt to bar conservative speakers from their campuses.
Many major universities in the US bar ROTC from their campuses and yet act as apologists for regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt that outlaw homosexuality and treat women like chattel. And many major universities give platforms to speakers who represent racist, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-American and anti-Semitic regimes. Just last year Harvard University invited former Iranian president Muhammad Khatami to address its students and faculty.
To date, with some justification, supporters of Columbia have dismissed or set aside these criticisms of the university as partisan criticism in legitimate policy debates. In their view, Columbia, like other universities, has a perfect right to advance a far-Left world view. It is the job of the university's critics, including alumni and students, to seek to influence the school's behavior by selective contributions or by inviting conservative speakers to give lectures on campus. Both Columbia's detractors and defenders basically agreed that Columbia's position and criticism of its position are part and parcel of the workings of a functioning institution and of a functioning democratic society.
But Columbia's decision to host Ahmadinejad on campus was not of a piece with its previous moves. The problem with the decision was not that it exposed Bollinger and his colleagues as hypocrites. Nor was the principle issue their obvious left-wing political bias. Whether or not Ahmadinejad, who denies the Nazi Holocaust and is gunning for a new one has a right to express his views is similarly not the main issue raised by their move.
THE PROBLEM with Columbia's action, the reason that there can be no moral justification for the university's decision, is because by inviting Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia has made the pros and cons of genocide a legitimate subject for debate. By asking Ahmadinejad challenging questions, Bollinger has reduced the right of the Jewish people to live to a question of preferences.
No doubt, Bollinger prefers to see the Jewish people remain alive. But this is beside the point. The point is that by debating the issue with Ahmadinejad, Bollinger just put the right of the Jewish people to exist on the table.
Here it is important to note Ahmadinejad's uniqueness. It is true that in supporting the annihilation of Israel, Ahmadinejad is no different from his terrorist underlings Hassan Nasrallah, Khaled Mashaal and Farouk Kaddoumi. Moreover, Ahmadinejad's desire to wipe the largest concentration of Jews on earth off the map simply because it is Jewish is shared by all of his colleagues in the Iranian regime and most intellectuals and religious leaders in the Arab world.
But still there is a difference between Ahmadinejad and all the others. Through his words and his deeds, Ahmadinejad has become the symbol and the leader of the growing international movement which supports and engages in activities to advance the destruction of the Jewish people. Through his words and his deeds, Ahmadinejad has become the poster boy for genocide.
As a result, what was said Monday at Columbia is of no consequence whatsoever. What matters is that by inviting Ahmadinejad to its campus, Columbia University announced that supporting or opposing the genocide of the Jews is a legitimate topic for discussion. In so doing, as an institution Columbia has taken itself beyond the pale of legitimate discourse. As an institution, Columbia has embraced depravity by renouncing the intrinsic sanctity of human life.
COLUMBIA'S supporters who have defended it over the years through mounting criticism, cannot look at Ahmadinejad's visit to campus as simply another policy dispute without themselves legitimizing the school's belief that genocide is a reasonable subject for debate. They cannot defend the school without themselves rejecting the basic principle of Western civilization - that human beings have an intrinsic right to live.
Given this, it is incumbent on all those affiliated with Columbia who adhere to this basic principle to distance ourselves from the university. As an alumna of Columbia College, class of 1991, it is with great distress that I say it is time to disassociate with the school. This does not simply mean cutting off donations. It means understanding that the problem with Ahmadinejad had nothing to do with legitimate policy debates. It means recognizing and openly stating that by placing genocide on the debating table, Columbia ceased to be an institution that can be said to represent our values. It means stating publicly that we will not send our children to the school. It means stating openly that Columbia has abandoned the moral underpinning of civilization and has descended into the depths of evil. It means stating openly that Columbia is a depraved institution.
I DO NOT ENVY Columbia's students today. They worked very hard to get accepted to the school. They no doubt never wanted to be placed in the middle of all this. But they are in the middle and they too have a choice to make.
Will they demand the resignations of Bollinger, Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet who engineered Ahmadinejad's visit or will they sit back and allow these men to get away with making the value of human life a debating topic? Will they rise up in indignation and disgust, or will they, through inaction say that these men, and the immorality they ascribe to remain authority figures for them? Will they say that there are some things worth fighting for and that fighting the views these men advance is more important than the tainted degrees they confer?
The times in which we live are difficult times. They demand an accounting from all of us. Do we uphold our humanity and defend life or do we sink into an easy silence as life's sanctity is called into question by well-heeled, smooth-talking servants of evil who hide their depravity by speaking eloquently of freedom of speech?
Columbia University has made its choice. Now it is our turn to choose.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411476562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
THE JERUSALEM POST
Columbia University disgraced itself this week beyond repair.
Defending his decision to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to his campus, Columbia's President Lee Bollinger said he would confront the Iranian leader with a series of "sharp challenges" to his "alleged" support for terrorism, genocide, Holocaust denial, involvement in killing American servicemen and women in Iraq and human rights abuses during his speech on Monday.
John Coatsworth, the Dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, expanded on Bollinger's theme of the school's limitless devotion to debate saying, "If Hitler were in the United States and wanted a platform from which to speak, he would have plenty of platforms from which to speak in the United States. If he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him." With these blithe little embraces of public debate, Columbia's leaders have destroyed their once august institution of higher learning.
Columbia was rightly condemned from all quarters for its decision to host Ahmadinejad. The hypocrisy of the university which justified its invitation to Ahmadinejad in the name of free speech and then barred protesters who wished to exercise their right of free speech by opposing Ahmadinejad's presence at Columbia from entering the campus has properly been pointed out. So too, the irony of Columbia's decision to roll out the welcome mat for a man who has in recent months closed 15 universities, imprisoned some 3,000 students, hundreds of professors and banned books he claims advance "infidel" values, has been duly noted.
Moreover, Iran's position as the most active state sponsor of international terrorism, its role in directing the war in Iraq, and Ahmadinejad's own suspected role in the 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran and the subsequent illegal internment and torture of 51 American hostages held for 444 days has also been reasonably noted by critics of the university's move.
IRAN'S PERSECUTION of homosexuals and its oppression of women - both intensified since Ahmadinejad took office two years ago - have been rightly contrasted with Bollinger's decision in 2005 to maintain Columbia's policy of banning the military's ROTC officer training program from the campus due to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuality.
Some critics of Columbia's decision have placed the university's invitation to Ahmadinejad in the context of the university's longstanding and well-documented animus toward America and toward the State of Israel. This is the same university, they note, that gives tenure to professors who harass pro-American and pro-Israel students who dare to question their classroom rantings. This is the same university that refuses to host people who hold conservative views on issues like immigration.
Finally, opponents of Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak on campus have condemned Bollinger for providing a prestigious platform to a leader who denies the Nazi Holocaust, pledges to carry out a new Holocaust of Jewry, and is seeking the means to carry out this genocide by developing nuclear weapons.
For these actions, Columbia's critics argue, Ahmadinejad should have been denied a platform at Columbia.
WHILE ALL of these criticisms are accurate, many of the actions and hypocrisies they highlight are not unique to Columbia. Indeed, they describe the standard operating procedures in effect on most major American campuses today. Many major universities have given tenure to anti-American and anti-Zionist professors. Many major universities proscribe debate in classrooms and attempt to bar conservative speakers from their campuses.
Many major universities in the US bar ROTC from their campuses and yet act as apologists for regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt that outlaw homosexuality and treat women like chattel. And many major universities give platforms to speakers who represent racist, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-American and anti-Semitic regimes. Just last year Harvard University invited former Iranian president Muhammad Khatami to address its students and faculty.
To date, with some justification, supporters of Columbia have dismissed or set aside these criticisms of the university as partisan criticism in legitimate policy debates. In their view, Columbia, like other universities, has a perfect right to advance a far-Left world view. It is the job of the university's critics, including alumni and students, to seek to influence the school's behavior by selective contributions or by inviting conservative speakers to give lectures on campus. Both Columbia's detractors and defenders basically agreed that Columbia's position and criticism of its position are part and parcel of the workings of a functioning institution and of a functioning democratic society.
But Columbia's decision to host Ahmadinejad on campus was not of a piece with its previous moves. The problem with the decision was not that it exposed Bollinger and his colleagues as hypocrites. Nor was the principle issue their obvious left-wing political bias. Whether or not Ahmadinejad, who denies the Nazi Holocaust and is gunning for a new one has a right to express his views is similarly not the main issue raised by their move.
THE PROBLEM with Columbia's action, the reason that there can be no moral justification for the university's decision, is because by inviting Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia has made the pros and cons of genocide a legitimate subject for debate. By asking Ahmadinejad challenging questions, Bollinger has reduced the right of the Jewish people to live to a question of preferences.
No doubt, Bollinger prefers to see the Jewish people remain alive. But this is beside the point. The point is that by debating the issue with Ahmadinejad, Bollinger just put the right of the Jewish people to exist on the table.
Here it is important to note Ahmadinejad's uniqueness. It is true that in supporting the annihilation of Israel, Ahmadinejad is no different from his terrorist underlings Hassan Nasrallah, Khaled Mashaal and Farouk Kaddoumi. Moreover, Ahmadinejad's desire to wipe the largest concentration of Jews on earth off the map simply because it is Jewish is shared by all of his colleagues in the Iranian regime and most intellectuals and religious leaders in the Arab world.
But still there is a difference between Ahmadinejad and all the others. Through his words and his deeds, Ahmadinejad has become the symbol and the leader of the growing international movement which supports and engages in activities to advance the destruction of the Jewish people. Through his words and his deeds, Ahmadinejad has become the poster boy for genocide.
As a result, what was said Monday at Columbia is of no consequence whatsoever. What matters is that by inviting Ahmadinejad to its campus, Columbia University announced that supporting or opposing the genocide of the Jews is a legitimate topic for discussion. In so doing, as an institution Columbia has taken itself beyond the pale of legitimate discourse. As an institution, Columbia has embraced depravity by renouncing the intrinsic sanctity of human life.
COLUMBIA'S supporters who have defended it over the years through mounting criticism, cannot look at Ahmadinejad's visit to campus as simply another policy dispute without themselves legitimizing the school's belief that genocide is a reasonable subject for debate. They cannot defend the school without themselves rejecting the basic principle of Western civilization - that human beings have an intrinsic right to live.
Given this, it is incumbent on all those affiliated with Columbia who adhere to this basic principle to distance ourselves from the university. As an alumna of Columbia College, class of 1991, it is with great distress that I say it is time to disassociate with the school. This does not simply mean cutting off donations. It means understanding that the problem with Ahmadinejad had nothing to do with legitimate policy debates. It means recognizing and openly stating that by placing genocide on the debating table, Columbia ceased to be an institution that can be said to represent our values. It means stating publicly that we will not send our children to the school. It means stating openly that Columbia has abandoned the moral underpinning of civilization and has descended into the depths of evil. It means stating openly that Columbia is a depraved institution.
I DO NOT ENVY Columbia's students today. They worked very hard to get accepted to the school. They no doubt never wanted to be placed in the middle of all this. But they are in the middle and they too have a choice to make.
Will they demand the resignations of Bollinger, Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet who engineered Ahmadinejad's visit or will they sit back and allow these men to get away with making the value of human life a debating topic? Will they rise up in indignation and disgust, or will they, through inaction say that these men, and the immorality they ascribe to remain authority figures for them? Will they say that there are some things worth fighting for and that fighting the views these men advance is more important than the tainted degrees they confer?
The times in which we live are difficult times. They demand an accounting from all of us. Do we uphold our humanity and defend life or do we sink into an easy silence as life's sanctity is called into question by well-heeled, smooth-talking servants of evil who hide their depravity by speaking eloquently of freedom of speech?
Columbia University has made its choice. Now it is our turn to choose.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411476562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Monday, September 24, 2007
Islamists can be defeated
Moshe Ya'alon
The Islamist Jihad wave did not begin in September 2001 with the attack on the US. The Iranian revolution in 1979 marks the historic turning point where fanatical Islam began to gain strength and confidence. Iran's role as a Muslim state served as a source of inspiration for the emergence of al-Qaeda, the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and the rise of Hamas – these are varying movements and often even rival ones, but they share the common goal of Islamization.
The lack of resolve and disregard by the US and western states vis-à-vis the Islamist Jihad threat, and even the aid often provided to Islamist forces fighting common enemies (for example the Mujahideen in Afghanistan), also contributed to its sense of security. Only the 9/11 attacks roused resistance against the threat.
President Bush's decision to shift from defensive to offensive operations changed the situation: The toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the targeting of al-Qaeda leaders made organization leaders go underground, making it difficult for them to carry out large-scale terror attacks. The awakening of the West led to intelligence cooperation that culminated in the foiling of attacks in the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, Germany, Africa the Far East and other places. The awakening of Arab states to the threat (including Saudi Arabia) delivered a further blow to Jihadist elements.
The success of phase A in the preventative attack, alongside pinpointed successes, led to a sense that Islamist Jihad was on the defensive and even in retreat. However, the US' entanglement in Iraq, in what was supposed to be phase B of the preventative attack, brought this to a halt – and in turn made Jihadists rear their head once again.
Iran (and Syria as well) found Iraq to be fertile ground for carrying out attacks on the US, against its allies and its interests in the region. Even the halting of Israel's counter attack against the wave of Palestinian terror and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip have put new wind into Jihad's sails, as did Israel's performance in Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War.
Jihadist elements in all their forms have been encouraged by these developments, perceived as the deterioration of the US' and Bush's status, and the gaining of political power by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in the Palestinian arena. Hence, the balance in the conflict between Islamist Jihad and western culture is at this point in time mixed.
Never surrender to terror
Jihad and the terror and guerilla organizations operating on its behalf can (and must) be defeated. Such victory requires a clear strategy by the nations of the free world that would combine political, economic, PR, educational and military measures.
The strategy must include all the following elements:
1. Surrender to terror should not take place under any circumstances, under any conditions, or in face of any other threat.
2. An uncompromising war should be waged against all Jihadist elements, while leaders of the free world should be guided by the principle of "the best defense is offense."
3. A diplomatic campaign for strengthening "world order": Isolation and economic sanctions against wayward countries (such as Iran and Syria), and of course against Jihad organizations (such as al-Qaeda, Hizbullah and Hamas.)
4. Directing the West's economic aid to Muslim countries and elements that are prepared to instigate change; towards a culture that sanctifies life and not death. Many Muslims believe that a culture that sanctifies death has a self-destructive mechanism. These are the persons who should be spoken to and encouraged.
Even in the days leading up to World War II there were elements in the West who preferred not to confront the Nazi ideology, and were even willing to forgive it in order to buy short-term calm. Jihad's ideology does not match the intensity of Nazi Germany's and it does not equal the strength of the free world. Hence, if the countries of the free world have enough resolve, Islamist Jihad will be defeated even without the bloodshed of World War II.
The Islamist Jihad wave did not begin in September 2001 with the attack on the US. The Iranian revolution in 1979 marks the historic turning point where fanatical Islam began to gain strength and confidence. Iran's role as a Muslim state served as a source of inspiration for the emergence of al-Qaeda, the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and the rise of Hamas – these are varying movements and often even rival ones, but they share the common goal of Islamization.
The lack of resolve and disregard by the US and western states vis-à-vis the Islamist Jihad threat, and even the aid often provided to Islamist forces fighting common enemies (for example the Mujahideen in Afghanistan), also contributed to its sense of security. Only the 9/11 attacks roused resistance against the threat.
President Bush's decision to shift from defensive to offensive operations changed the situation: The toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the targeting of al-Qaeda leaders made organization leaders go underground, making it difficult for them to carry out large-scale terror attacks. The awakening of the West led to intelligence cooperation that culminated in the foiling of attacks in the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, Germany, Africa the Far East and other places. The awakening of Arab states to the threat (including Saudi Arabia) delivered a further blow to Jihadist elements.
The success of phase A in the preventative attack, alongside pinpointed successes, led to a sense that Islamist Jihad was on the defensive and even in retreat. However, the US' entanglement in Iraq, in what was supposed to be phase B of the preventative attack, brought this to a halt – and in turn made Jihadists rear their head once again.
Iran (and Syria as well) found Iraq to be fertile ground for carrying out attacks on the US, against its allies and its interests in the region. Even the halting of Israel's counter attack against the wave of Palestinian terror and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip have put new wind into Jihad's sails, as did Israel's performance in Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War.
Jihadist elements in all their forms have been encouraged by these developments, perceived as the deterioration of the US' and Bush's status, and the gaining of political power by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in the Palestinian arena. Hence, the balance in the conflict between Islamist Jihad and western culture is at this point in time mixed.
Never surrender to terror
Jihad and the terror and guerilla organizations operating on its behalf can (and must) be defeated. Such victory requires a clear strategy by the nations of the free world that would combine political, economic, PR, educational and military measures.
The strategy must include all the following elements:
1. Surrender to terror should not take place under any circumstances, under any conditions, or in face of any other threat.
2. An uncompromising war should be waged against all Jihadist elements, while leaders of the free world should be guided by the principle of "the best defense is offense."
3. A diplomatic campaign for strengthening "world order": Isolation and economic sanctions against wayward countries (such as Iran and Syria), and of course against Jihad organizations (such as al-Qaeda, Hizbullah and Hamas.)
4. Directing the West's economic aid to Muslim countries and elements that are prepared to instigate change; towards a culture that sanctifies life and not death. Many Muslims believe that a culture that sanctifies death has a self-destructive mechanism. These are the persons who should be spoken to and encouraged.
Even in the days leading up to World War II there were elements in the West who preferred not to confront the Nazi ideology, and were even willing to forgive it in order to buy short-term calm. Jihad's ideology does not match the intensity of Nazi Germany's and it does not equal the strength of the free world. Hence, if the countries of the free world have enough resolve, Islamist Jihad will be defeated even without the bloodshed of World War II.
Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on California’s Divestment from Iran
“California has a long history of leadership and doing what’s right with our investment portfolio. Last year, I was proud to sign legislation to divest from the Sudan to take a powerful stand against genocide. I look forward to signing legislation to divest from Iran to take an equally powerful stand against terrorism.”AB 221 by Assemblymember Joel Anderson (R- La Mesa) creates the California Public Divest from Iran Act which prohibits CalPERS and CalSTRS from investing public employee retirement funds in a company with business operations in Iran. CalPERS, the state’s employee retirement fund, is the largest pension fund in the nation and CalSTRS, the state’s public education retirement fund, is the second largest pension fund in the nation.
In September 2006 Gov. Schwarzenegger signed two bills, AB 2179 and AB 2941, prohibiting the state’s pension funds from investing in companies with active business in Sudan and indemnified the University of California from liability that might result from its divestments from Sudan.
In the 1980s, the state approved similar measures to allow state entities to divest in South Africa in order to protest its apartheid policies.
In September 2006 Gov. Schwarzenegger signed two bills, AB 2179 and AB 2941, prohibiting the state’s pension funds from investing in companies with active business in Sudan and indemnified the University of California from liability that might result from its divestments from Sudan.
In the 1980s, the state approved similar measures to allow state entities to divest in South Africa in order to protest its apartheid policies.
Putin Turns His Face to Tehran, His Back to Bush and Sarkozy
As American and European officials discussed a third round of UN Security Council sanctions, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, more pugnacious than ever, addressed a military parade Sat. Sept. 22 marking the 27th anniversary of the onset of the Iraq-Iran war of the eighties. “Those (countries) who assume that decaying methods such as psychological war, political propaganda and the so-called economic sanctions would work and prevent Iran’s fast drive towards progress are mistaken.”
"The Iranian nation is ready to bring any oppressive power to its knees," read a slogan from supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, inscribed on a massive board on a truck as a new, improved long-range, 1,800-km range surface missile trundled by.
Other slogans called for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Western military attaches, apparently warned in advance, boycotted the rally for the second year running.
But there is no escape: These are the messages Ahmadinejad takes with him this week to the UN General Assembly and Columbia University in New York.
The French president Nicolas Sarkozy meanwhile stands shoulder to shoulder with President George W. Bush. Friday, Sept. 21, he said: “Iran is trying to obtain an atomic bomb. That is unacceptable and I tell the French people it is unacceptable.”
A week ago, French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned that the world faced war if diplomacy and sanctions failed to curb Iran’s nuclear activities.
But Vladimir Putin pulled in the opposite direction from his two fellows in the UN Security Council when he decided to be the first Russian president to visit Tehran on Oct. 16. The visit, in the framework of the Caspian Asian Summit, is planned to encompass much more than state ceremonial and ritual photo-ops, although there will be plenty of that too.
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO), Reza Aghazadeh, said a document would be signed setting the timeline for Russia to complete the long-delayed Bushehr nuclear plant and deliver the fuel to activate it.
Last week, at the general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian and Russian teams began formulating the document to be signed by their heads of state. Reporting this, Aghazadeh also described a most useful conversation he had with the head of Russian’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Sergei Kiriyenko.
In its long dispute with Moscow, Tehran claims Russia had contracted to commission the Bushehr plant in 2000. This was later amended and under the fifth agreement negotiated between Tehran and Moscow, Russia undertook to deliver 90 tons of fuel by March 2007 and commission Bushehr nuclear plant by September 2007.
According to DEBKAfile’s sources in Moscow and Washington, the Russian president had four goals in sight when he decided to settle his dispute with the Islamic Republic and join the rulers of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan at the Caspian Sea Summit in Tehran:
1. He will be on hand to underscore Moscow’s concern and conviction that the last two or three months of 2007 will take the controversy over the Iranian nuclear program to crisis point and could determine whether or not America resorts to the military option.
The Russians have marked this period as crunch time for the international community. The UN and its Security Council will have to decide then between two options: endorse the IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei’s deal with Tehran, under which Iran promises to open up secret compartments of its program to international inspection, or else support the tougher economic sanctions advocated by the United States.
Our Washington sources report that administration heads accuse ElBaradei of practicing deceit and underhand machinations for the sake of giving Iran more time for large-scale uranium enrichment up to weapons grade, safe from the threat of a third round of sanctions until after President Bush departs the White House in Jan. 2009.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made no bones about the low esteem in which the chief nuclear inspector is held by the administration when she said Sept 19: “Diplomacy is best left to diplomats, not a technical body such as the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
This view is fully endorsed by Israel.
2. The Russian and Iranian presidents will publicly sign a new nuclear accord, attended by international television and media hype. This is a ploy to reposition Russia in Arab and Muslim eyes. Putin wants to demonstrate that Moscow has no objection to supplying a Muslim nation with a nuclear reactor, technology and fuel, in contrast to Washington, which is willing to go as far as military action to thwart such acquisitions.
3. The Russians are uneasy about the new Washington-Paris alliance. They were alarmed by the outspoken rhetoric coming from Sarkozy and Kouchner slamming Iran and aligning with the US - up to and including military conflict.
Putin sees the French president moving into position as Bush’s leading foreign partner in place of Britain’s Tony Blair as a portent of a potential American-European fence to block off Moscow’s influence in Europe. He links this potential with Washington’s plan to set up missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and perceives a strong line forming on the map of Europe that threatens to reverse his diplomatic gains on the continent and circumscribe his drive for the control of its supplies of energy.
These issues were undoubtedly thrashed out when the French foreign minister met his Russian opposite number Sergey Lavrov in Moscow last week.
4. Sitting together at the head of the table at the Caspian Sea Summit next month, Putin and Ahmadinejad will be broadcasting a message to Washington and the nations of Central Asia that the future and security of Caspian and Central Asian natural resources and oil do not depend entirely on their relations Washington, or even the US military bases going up on their soil. Russia will be posing a stiff challenge to America in Central Asia by holding out the offer of joint-strategic sponsorship with Iran.
"The Iranian nation is ready to bring any oppressive power to its knees," read a slogan from supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, inscribed on a massive board on a truck as a new, improved long-range, 1,800-km range surface missile trundled by.
Other slogans called for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Western military attaches, apparently warned in advance, boycotted the rally for the second year running.
But there is no escape: These are the messages Ahmadinejad takes with him this week to the UN General Assembly and Columbia University in New York.
The French president Nicolas Sarkozy meanwhile stands shoulder to shoulder with President George W. Bush. Friday, Sept. 21, he said: “Iran is trying to obtain an atomic bomb. That is unacceptable and I tell the French people it is unacceptable.”
A week ago, French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned that the world faced war if diplomacy and sanctions failed to curb Iran’s nuclear activities.
But Vladimir Putin pulled in the opposite direction from his two fellows in the UN Security Council when he decided to be the first Russian president to visit Tehran on Oct. 16. The visit, in the framework of the Caspian Asian Summit, is planned to encompass much more than state ceremonial and ritual photo-ops, although there will be plenty of that too.
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO), Reza Aghazadeh, said a document would be signed setting the timeline for Russia to complete the long-delayed Bushehr nuclear plant and deliver the fuel to activate it.
Last week, at the general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian and Russian teams began formulating the document to be signed by their heads of state. Reporting this, Aghazadeh also described a most useful conversation he had with the head of Russian’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Sergei Kiriyenko.
In its long dispute with Moscow, Tehran claims Russia had contracted to commission the Bushehr plant in 2000. This was later amended and under the fifth agreement negotiated between Tehran and Moscow, Russia undertook to deliver 90 tons of fuel by March 2007 and commission Bushehr nuclear plant by September 2007.
According to DEBKAfile’s sources in Moscow and Washington, the Russian president had four goals in sight when he decided to settle his dispute with the Islamic Republic and join the rulers of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan at the Caspian Sea Summit in Tehran:
1. He will be on hand to underscore Moscow’s concern and conviction that the last two or three months of 2007 will take the controversy over the Iranian nuclear program to crisis point and could determine whether or not America resorts to the military option.
The Russians have marked this period as crunch time for the international community. The UN and its Security Council will have to decide then between two options: endorse the IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei’s deal with Tehran, under which Iran promises to open up secret compartments of its program to international inspection, or else support the tougher economic sanctions advocated by the United States.
Our Washington sources report that administration heads accuse ElBaradei of practicing deceit and underhand machinations for the sake of giving Iran more time for large-scale uranium enrichment up to weapons grade, safe from the threat of a third round of sanctions until after President Bush departs the White House in Jan. 2009.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made no bones about the low esteem in which the chief nuclear inspector is held by the administration when she said Sept 19: “Diplomacy is best left to diplomats, not a technical body such as the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
This view is fully endorsed by Israel.
2. The Russian and Iranian presidents will publicly sign a new nuclear accord, attended by international television and media hype. This is a ploy to reposition Russia in Arab and Muslim eyes. Putin wants to demonstrate that Moscow has no objection to supplying a Muslim nation with a nuclear reactor, technology and fuel, in contrast to Washington, which is willing to go as far as military action to thwart such acquisitions.
3. The Russians are uneasy about the new Washington-Paris alliance. They were alarmed by the outspoken rhetoric coming from Sarkozy and Kouchner slamming Iran and aligning with the US - up to and including military conflict.
Putin sees the French president moving into position as Bush’s leading foreign partner in place of Britain’s Tony Blair as a portent of a potential American-European fence to block off Moscow’s influence in Europe. He links this potential with Washington’s plan to set up missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and perceives a strong line forming on the map of Europe that threatens to reverse his diplomatic gains on the continent and circumscribe his drive for the control of its supplies of energy.
These issues were undoubtedly thrashed out when the French foreign minister met his Russian opposite number Sergey Lavrov in Moscow last week.
4. Sitting together at the head of the table at the Caspian Sea Summit next month, Putin and Ahmadinejad will be broadcasting a message to Washington and the nations of Central Asia that the future and security of Caspian and Central Asian natural resources and oil do not depend entirely on their relations Washington, or even the US military bases going up on their soil. Russia will be posing a stiff challenge to America in Central Asia by holding out the offer of joint-strategic sponsorship with Iran.
The New Islamist War
The root cause of the Second Lebanon War was neither the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 nor the Israeli "occupation" of the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza following Israel's defensive war in 1967. Rather, it can be traced to 1979 when Iranian revolutionaries began to inspire and later to actively direct and finance Islamic radicals through out the world. They galvanized the leaders of Hizbullah and Hamas, and inspired other Jihadis, including PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who was one of the first Arab leaders to visit the newly triumphant Ayatollah Khomeini soon after the 1979 Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Today, despite the deployment of thousands of UNIFIL and Lebanese forces following Hizbullah's reluctant agreement to yield to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, southern Lebanon is still essentially a Hizbullah-ruled province of Iran. Hizbullah has maintained its weapons caches and continues to receive truckloads of short- and long-range missiles and anti-tank weaponry from Syria. IDF Intelligence Assessment Chief Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz noted in October 2006 that the army also has proof that the smuggling of weapons from Syria to Lebanon continues with the knowledge of Damascus. Hizbullah's underground networks of tunnels and bunkers are still operating despite the presence of UNIFIL and Lebanese armed forces south of the Litani River. Hizbullah is not hiding its postwar intentions. On October 12, 2006, Nabi Beri, Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, leader of the Shiite Amal party, and a Hizbullah interlocutor,
said, "Hizbullah will remain armed and fully operational in southern Lebanon, despite the newly deployed UN forces. The UNIFIL presence will not hinder Hizbullah defensive operations. The resistance doesn't need to fly its flags high to operate. It's a guerrilla movement; it operates among the people.
For its part, Iran invested some one to two hundred million dollars per year in Hizbullah war preparations for a total of between one and two billion dollars as of July 2006. Iran also maintains a representative office in Lebanon for nearly every one of its major government ministries including intelligence, social welfare, housing, transportation, and infrastructure.
Iran's financial and operational assistance and training of Hizbullah terrorists peaked in recent years. That was evident during the summer 2006 war against Israel. Hizbullah was very well equipped with a wide variety of short, medium and long-range Syrian and Iranian rockets, and highly sophisticated weaponry including a generous supply of anti-tank ordinance. Up to 250 of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) best trainers were on the ground in Lebanon assisting Hizbullah units. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Iranian C802 radar-guided missile that hit an Israeli warship during the firstweekofthewarwas launched from Lebanon by members of the IRGC. Iran has also trained up to 3,000 Hizbullah fightersinTehransince2004,including nearly all mid- and senior-level Hizbullah officers.
Further south, Iran also offers financial and operational support to the Hamas-led government in Palestinian-controlled Gaza. Palestinian terrorists have received Iranian weapons, technological know-how, and money, as evidenced by the $50-100 million commitment Iran made at the end of a terror summit in Tehran on April 14-17, 2006.
Moreover, between August and October 2006, nearly twenty tons of weaponry including anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets was smuggled from Egyptian Sinai, under the noses of the Egyptian authorities, into the Gaza Strip. Numerous reported meetings between Hamas political bureau leader Khaled Mashaal and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both during and in advance of the recent Lebanon war and immediately following the January 2006 Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, were previews of this dangerous alliance.
Concerns over the relationship between Iran and Hamas are well-founded. On December 11, 2006, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, known as more moderate than Mashaal, said following a visit with President Ahmadinejad in Tehran that Iran had stepped up its commitment to the Hamas-led PA, pledging $250 million. Iran even committed to pay the salaries of 100,000 Palestinian Authority employees for six months. The Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting carries additional significance. Previously, Hamas' relationship with Iran had been brokered exclusively by the Damascus-based Mashaal. Israeli military intelligence expressed concern that the Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting reflected an upgraded strategic relationship between Iran and Hamas. Haniyah confirmed Israel's assessment when he said, immediately following his return from Tehran in December 2006, that "Iran has provided Palestinians strategic depth." Upon Haniyah's return, he was found to be carrying $35 million in cash in several suitcases.
Despite the longstanding and violent sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that is being played out today in Iraq, Iranian-led radical Shiites and their Sunni adversaries share a common commitment to destroying the State of Israel on the way to defeating the West as a whole.
Syria, Iran's junior partner, continues to host Hamas and other Jihadi leaders, allowing them to order terrorist attacks against Israeli targets from the safety of Damascus. Syria may not be an Islamist state, but its leader, Bashar Assad, clings to power through the manipulation of anti-Western sentiment and pro-Iranian Shiite loyalty. The ruling Alawites were given the blessing of Iranian Shiite cleric Musa Sadr in 1973, a move that fomented enmity among Syria's Sunni majority and placed the Syrian regime squarely inside the Iranian Shiite camp.
Today, despite the deployment of thousands of UNIFIL and Lebanese forces following Hizbullah's reluctant agreement to yield to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, southern Lebanon is still essentially a Hizbullah-ruled province of Iran. Hizbullah has maintained its weapons caches and continues to receive truckloads of short- and long-range missiles and anti-tank weaponry from Syria. IDF Intelligence Assessment Chief Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz noted in October 2006 that the army also has proof that the smuggling of weapons from Syria to Lebanon continues with the knowledge of Damascus. Hizbullah's underground networks of tunnels and bunkers are still operating despite the presence of UNIFIL and Lebanese armed forces south of the Litani River. Hizbullah is not hiding its postwar intentions. On October 12, 2006, Nabi Beri, Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, leader of the Shiite Amal party, and a Hizbullah interlocutor,
said, "Hizbullah will remain armed and fully operational in southern Lebanon, despite the newly deployed UN forces. The UNIFIL presence will not hinder Hizbullah defensive operations. The resistance doesn't need to fly its flags high to operate. It's a guerrilla movement; it operates among the people.
For its part, Iran invested some one to two hundred million dollars per year in Hizbullah war preparations for a total of between one and two billion dollars as of July 2006. Iran also maintains a representative office in Lebanon for nearly every one of its major government ministries including intelligence, social welfare, housing, transportation, and infrastructure.
Iran's financial and operational assistance and training of Hizbullah terrorists peaked in recent years. That was evident during the summer 2006 war against Israel. Hizbullah was very well equipped with a wide variety of short, medium and long-range Syrian and Iranian rockets, and highly sophisticated weaponry including a generous supply of anti-tank ordinance. Up to 250 of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) best trainers were on the ground in Lebanon assisting Hizbullah units. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Iranian C802 radar-guided missile that hit an Israeli warship during the firstweekofthewarwas launched from Lebanon by members of the IRGC. Iran has also trained up to 3,000 Hizbullah fightersinTehransince2004,including nearly all mid- and senior-level Hizbullah officers.
Further south, Iran also offers financial and operational support to the Hamas-led government in Palestinian-controlled Gaza. Palestinian terrorists have received Iranian weapons, technological know-how, and money, as evidenced by the $50-100 million commitment Iran made at the end of a terror summit in Tehran on April 14-17, 2006.
Moreover, between August and October 2006, nearly twenty tons of weaponry including anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets was smuggled from Egyptian Sinai, under the noses of the Egyptian authorities, into the Gaza Strip. Numerous reported meetings between Hamas political bureau leader Khaled Mashaal and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both during and in advance of the recent Lebanon war and immediately following the January 2006 Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, were previews of this dangerous alliance.
Concerns over the relationship between Iran and Hamas are well-founded. On December 11, 2006, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, known as more moderate than Mashaal, said following a visit with President Ahmadinejad in Tehran that Iran had stepped up its commitment to the Hamas-led PA, pledging $250 million. Iran even committed to pay the salaries of 100,000 Palestinian Authority employees for six months. The Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting carries additional significance. Previously, Hamas' relationship with Iran had been brokered exclusively by the Damascus-based Mashaal. Israeli military intelligence expressed concern that the Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting reflected an upgraded strategic relationship between Iran and Hamas. Haniyah confirmed Israel's assessment when he said, immediately following his return from Tehran in December 2006, that "Iran has provided Palestinians strategic depth." Upon Haniyah's return, he was found to be carrying $35 million in cash in several suitcases.
Despite the longstanding and violent sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that is being played out today in Iraq, Iranian-led radical Shiites and their Sunni adversaries share a common commitment to destroying the State of Israel on the way to defeating the West as a whole.
Syria, Iran's junior partner, continues to host Hamas and other Jihadi leaders, allowing them to order terrorist attacks against Israeli targets from the safety of Damascus. Syria may not be an Islamist state, but its leader, Bashar Assad, clings to power through the manipulation of anti-Western sentiment and pro-Iranian Shiite loyalty. The ruling Alawites were given the blessing of Iranian Shiite cleric Musa Sadr in 1973, a move that fomented enmity among Syria's Sunni majority and placed the Syrian regime squarely inside the Iranian Shiite camp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)