This is what we are up against: Jihadist excoriates Zardari for "flirting" with Palin

No Fun In Islam* Alert: "Fatwa against Zardari for 'flirting' with Palin," from NDTV, September 29 (thanks to PRCS): Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari seems to be heading towards fresh trouble as the prayer leader of the Lal Masjid in the heart of Islamabad has issued a fatwa against him.

Maulana Abdul Ghafar, the prayer leader, seems to be irked by Zardari's "you're gorgeous" compliment to US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin during a meeting.

When Zardari was asked to keep shaking hands with Palin for the cameras, he said, "If he's (the aide) insisting, I might hug you."

He said the act was un-Islamic and unbecoming of a head of state of a Muslim country.

Maulana also said that Zardari shamed the entire Pakistani by publicly making indecent gestures towards Palin in Washington last Thursday....

*It was the Ayatollah Khomeini who enunciated the famous principle, "There is no fun in Islam."

Spencer interview with Le blog drzz

Robert Spencer

Annika of the French-language blog drzz recently interviewed me, and the interview, in French ... here is an English translation of the interview: ANNIKA: Fundamentalist Islam claims to find its roots in the Koran, therefore the holy book itself could be said to harbor directives irreconcilable with democratic values, the first amendment, equal rights for men and women, and the judicial system. Do you perceive this as correct?

SPENCER: Certainly the way the Koran has been understood throughout the history of Islam by the vast majority of orthodox commentators and theologians, and by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence and its various sects, harbor directives that are irreconcilable with democratic values, the first amendment, equal rights for men and women, and the judicial system. This enables contemporary jihadists to make the case successfully among peaceful Muslims and cultural Muslims that they represent pure and true Islam, and that if one wants to live Islam authentically, one must do as they do. Muslims who profess not to share their view have not yet formulated an effective Islamic comeback to that claim. It may not be utterly impossible for them to do this, but they have not done it yet, and it would involve an explicit rejection of Koranic literalism in many particulars.

ANNIKA: There has been some effort to prove "irreconcilable differences" between democratic values and the Koran. There were constitutional decrees written by the Turkish court as well as the European court. What else must be done to establish this as truth -- and how?

SPENCER: It will never be established as truth unless the current political and cultural environment changes radically. But if objective truth were the only or primary criterion, which it certainly is not now, one would be able by appeal to various Koranic verses and to the ways they have been understand in Islamic theology and law to establish that Islamic law, Sharia, is an all-encompassing system that has no room for democratic values in many particulars. It denies equality of rights before the law for women and non-Muslims. It denies the freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech.

This debate should ultimately be held in the public square, and Muslims in Western countries called upon to reject explicitly these elements of Islamic tradition, and to back up their rejection with deeds, instituting transparent and inspectable programs to teach against political Islam. But whether or not this debate is ever held, Europeans, and Americans also, will be faced sooner or later with the confrontation between democratic values and the Koran, because the bland denials of Islamic apologists will ultimately give way to the pressure of reality.

ANNIKA: "Jihad" is a term mentioned repeatedly in the Koran. Is the meaning of the word an "inner struggle" over temptation, as some Muslim apologists claim? Or what is the exact meaning of the word?

SPENCER: The word means “struggle,” and has as many connotations as the English word struggle does. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a Department of Agricultural Jihad, which has to do with the struggle to increase crop yields. But the primary meaning of “jihad” in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic law is warfare against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the hegemony of Islamic law. This effort can involve hot warfare, but need not. Muhammad explains in a hadith (Sahih Muslim 4294) that Muslims should invite non-Muslims to convert to Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, paying the poll tax (jizya) and submitting to various forms of institutionalized discrimination. If they refuse both, the Muslims should go to war with them.

Jihadist theorists such as Hassan Al-Banna and Abdullah Azzam have criticized as inauthentic the tradition of Muhammad establishing that jihad is primarily an inner struggle against temptation. And indeed, it does not appear in any of the collections of hadith (traditions of Muhammad’s words and deeds) that Muslims deem most authentic.

ANNIKA: The Koran states explicitly (2:106, 16:101) that Mohammed’s earlier words (deemed peaceful) are overruled by his later writings (deemed hostile). Is this analysis accurate?

SPENCER: Certainly the chronologically earlier passages of the Koran, such as sura 109, teach tolerance of other religions, while chronologically later passages teach warfare against unbelievers – even Jews and Christians, as in 9:29. And it is a central Islamic doctrine, shared by all orthodox sects and schools, that the chronologically later parts of the Qur’an take precedence over the earlier ones if there is any disagreement between the two.

ANNIKA: Since 9-11, Islam has been referred to as "the religion of peace" in the West. Would you characterize Islam as the "religion of peace"? And could you explain how you came to this understanding.

SPENCER: No, Islam is not a religion of peace. It is the only religion in the world with a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Of course, there are many millions of Muslims who have no interest in pursuing any of this, but those who do can and do claim the mantle of Islamic authenticity. I came to this understanding through study of Islamic texts and teachings.

ANNIKA: Western Islamic experts as well as some Muslims, advocate for reformation (modernization) of the Koran. After all, other monotheistic religions from the Middle East have grown and changed over time. Do you think that Islam can be modernized? And if so, how?

SPENCER: It will be very difficult, since the Koran claims for itself many times that it is the perfect and unalterable word of God. Islam could only conceivably be modernized by an explicit rejection of Koranic literalism.

ANNIKA: What is your opinion on the said secret archive of ancient Islamic texts, claimed to have surfaced after 60 years of suppression (Andrew Higgins' Wall Street Journal Report (The Lost Archives)). Are they real?

SPENCER: I haven’t seen them, but I see no reason why they wouldn’t be real. Islamic apologists frequently claim that there are no variant Koranic texts, and that this is a manifestation of the divine protection of the Koran, but this is factually false. There are already some known variants. There is no reason why more couldn’t be discovered.

ANNIKA: Is there any empirical evidence that Mohammed did in fact exist?

SPENCER: No. The earliest biography of him dates from 150 years after his death. The Koran contains almost no details about him. It is possible that he himself was cobbled together from traditions about other people, in order to give the new Arab religion a founding and unifying figure.

ANNIKA: There is relative "anarchy" in the clerical system (Ulemas) and it is difficult to identify a real hierarchy or organization. Is it Al Azar in Egypt, Mecca, Nadjaf, Qom? Where are the central places of Islamic influence? What power do they hold, and for whom?

SPENCER: There is no single hierarchy with one head, a la the Catholic Church. Rather, there are centers of scholarship – Al-Azhar for Sunnis, Najaf and Qom for Shi’ites – and centers of piety – holy cities such as Mecca. All are influential, but no single voice can command the loyalty of all the Muslim faithful. In Islamic theology there is a premium placed on ijma, or consensus: an agreement among the scholars gives great weight to a particular teaching. And unfortunately, there is consensus among the classical scholars on the necessity of jihad warfare against unbelievers.

ANNIKA: European integration problems are not racial in nature but rather symptomatic of a clash between civilizations. Do you agree with this statement?

SPENCER: Yes. They have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the Islamic supremacist ideology that regards European culture and civilization as inferior and to be supplanted by Islamic Sharia.

ANNIKA: As a group, Muslims who immigrated to Europe often collide with each other (Turks/Arabs, Kurds/Turks, Arabs/Maghrébins, etc.). Why do you think this happens? After all, they share the same religion.

SPENCER: Sure, but a religion is one thing, and how it is received and lived out in the life of any given individual is quite another. There are many loyalties and priorities in everyone’s life. These conflicts stem from cultural and political conflicts back home, which are being imported into Europe.

ANNIKA: Was there ever in history, groups of Muslims who willingly integrated and adopted the cultural standards of a non-Muslim host nation?

SPENCER: No.

ANNIKA: What will the future hold for Europe? And do you have a message for our European leaders on a long term approach for the harmonious integration of Muslims?

SPENCER: Europe will be Islamic by the end of this century, as Bernard Lewis has predicted, unless European leaders reverse their present policies on many issues. European leaders will ultimately find that Muslims in the aggregate will reject harmonious integration on any terms except the full implementation of Islamic law in Europe.

ANNIKA: Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for having taken time to answer us. It is a privilege to interview you….

And thank you, Annika and everyone at drzz, for the opportunity.

Change in post content-too serious to ignore!

Here is a letter from a citizen determined to let our leaders know that we are not all in the dark and remember quite well how it is that we've arrived at this financial crisis. Most importantly, we need to remind them that we are listening and cannot be duped.

"Since you are the Speaker of the House, I would expect that you would know which President signed the Glass-Steagall Act into law which dismantled the last of the banking regulations put in place by the Banking Act of 1933. However you seemed to have forgotten so I will remind you.
This act was passed in 1999 and into law by then President Bill Clinton." Dear Representative Pelosi,

I wish I lived in San Francisco rather than Los Angeles so that I could vote for who ever runs against you in the next election. I'm often shocked by your attacking comments which rarely have any shred of factual evidence to back them up. However I'm truly disgusted by your remarks on the House Floor this morning. May I quote:

"[The current economic turmoil is a result of the] right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation".

Since you are the Speaker of the House, I would expect that you would know which President signed the Glass-Steagall Act into law which dismantled the last of the banking regulations put in place by the Banking Act of 1933. However you seemed to have forgotten so I will remind you.
This act was passed in 1999 and into law by then President Bill Clinton.

* Also in 1999 the Clinton Administration pressured Fannie Mae to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.
* This led Fannie Mae to lower their standards and began the lending which has led to the "Sub prime Mortgage Meltdown" we are now dealing with.

In 2005 a Fannie May and Freddie Mac reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee.

The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets. However this bill never become law for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee. Not a single banking legislation bill has been presented to President Bush to sign in his nearly 8 years in office. NOT ONE.

So this appears to be the actual fault of Democrats, and their inability to look beyond the talking points supplied by their favorite lobbyists that we are now in the midst of a financial meltdown in this country.

Once again your barbed comments are nothing more than a partisan jab meant to enrage the public and make yourself appear as if you're fighting for "the little people".

As a mere little person I'd like to suggest that you stop "grandstanding", stop "making false and inflammatory accusations" and actually get down to the business of running this country.

Sincerely,
John T Russo
Democrat, Los Angeles

CAIR: Names Will Always Hurt You

IPT News
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/779

The Investigative Project on Terrorism is among those who are critical of new guidelines discouraging the use of terms like "Islamist" and "jihad" when discussing terrorism and extremism that were issued earlier this year by the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center. While the agencies argue that the words may boost the popularity of terrorists among Muslim radicals, it's a bad idea to hide the motivations behind those who seek to attack the United States, or innocent people around the world. Another weakness was exposed last month, when the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) attacked California Congressman Ed Royce (R-Orange County) for using the term "Islamist terrorism."

In an article posted on its website Sept. 10, CAIR engages in the kind of hyperbolic rationalization it routinely accuses others of using against it. The article describes a letter to Royce from 22 religious leaders of various faiths and community activists. The website article quotes Sharaf Mowjood, identified as CAIR-Los Angeles Government Relations Coordinator, claiming that the DHS language is meant to prevent future terrorist attacks. "So if Royce cares about preventing the next terrorist attack, maybe he should follow what the DHS says," Mowjood said.

Even by CAIR's standards, Mowjood's comment is inane. Stop calling people names and they'll stop attacking you? That might work on the third-grade playground, but hurt feelings aren't driving Osama bin Laden or those attracted to his cause. When he declared war on the United States in 1998, our nomenclature wasn't mentioned. Rather, he listed a series of grievances that he saw justifying his jihad against America, including the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. He also provided religious justification for his fight:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.'" (Emphasis added)

By the same token, charters for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad draw heavily from religious texts and interpretations. And all three vow to impose Sharia – Islamic law – once they ascend to power. Somehow, it's supposed to be good policy not to discuss that in polite company.

In the article, CAIR-Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush says religious motivations behind terrorist attacks shouldn't be considered.

"The fact remains, we don't describe extremist Israeli settlers who target Palestinian civilians as ‘Jewish terrorists' nor abortion clinic bombers as ‘Christian terrorists' -- and rightly so. No faith should be falsely associated with the criminal behavior of a few. Not Islam, not Judaism, not Christianity."

Such a sensitive man, Hussam Ayloush. He says he doesn't describe Israeli settlers who target Palestinian civilians as "Jewish terrorists." But he does call Israelis "zionazis." In a 2002 email, Ayloush wrote, "Indeed, the zionazis are a bunch of nice people; just like their nazi brethren! It is just that the world keeps making up lies about them! It is so unfair."

The bottom line is, once you think your God sanctions the murder of innocents, your terrorism is wed to your faith, no matter what it may be. So while we're on the subject, Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered 29 Palestinians at prayer before he was killed, was a Jewish terrorist. He was a member of Meir Kahane's Kach party, which President Clinton labeled as terrorist organization in 1995.

Would those sending Congressman Royce the letter disagree? Noting Royce's seat as ranking Republican on the House Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the letter suggested he should yield to the DHS guidelines. They are "more effective at isolating extremists and removing the false claim of religiosity they seek to justify their barbaric actions."

Meanwhile, the folks at Anti-CAIR report that Ayloush's paranoia hunt continued this week, when he sent a letter to Irvine, Cal. City Council member Steven Choi. The letter accused Choi of slurring CAIR during a recent candidate forum in a manner "tantamount to public defamation."

Choi's sin? He called CAIR a "dangerous Islamic organization."

In an interview Friday afternoon, Choi said he made his remarks after researching CAIR's history and seeing a number of other public officials express concern about the group. One of the candidates for Irvine's council, Todd Gallinger, is an attorney who has represented CAIR, Choi said. That made CAIR's radicalism relevant at the forum.

However, he said CAIR and others are twisting his comments to make it appear he condemned Muslims in general and not the organization. He said he has no intention of responding to CAIR's letter.

If a national political organization was founded by members of a secret committee created to help a terrorist group, if their officials admit the need to lie to Americans about their true objectives, does that make them dangerous?

California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore rallied to Choi's defense with a posting of his own in which he details why CAIR's denials about a link to Hamas aren't credible.

There is no dispute that CAIR's founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad participated in a secret meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee in 1993. It was called to discuss ways to "derail" the Oslo peace effort. Ahmad, now CAIR's chairman emeritus, actually called the meeting to order (page 10). And, in that meeting, Ahmad and others discuss the need to mislead Americans (page 14):

Omar Ahmad: We've always demanded the 1948 territories. I mean, we demanded …

Unidentified Speaker: Yes, but we don't say that publicly. You cannot say it publicly. In front of the Americans…

Omar Ahmad: No, we didn't say that to the Americans.

These transcripts have been in the public domain for more than a year. CAIR has yet to answer to them. Instead, its representatives like Ayloush lash out at those who have read them and use them as a basis to draw conclusions about the organization.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is documented to have duck DNA, pasting a tail and whiskers on it won't make it a cat. CAIR can call itself a "prominent Islamic civil rights organization" all it wants, it's still part of the Palestine Committee for the Muslim Brotherhood with major ties to Hamas.

The Arab world’s first reactions to Tzipi Livni’s winning the Qadima Party’s election

IICC

Overview

1. The Arab and Palestinian media closely followed the internal elections of Qadima ( Israel 's ruling party) for party head. They covered Tzipi Livni's biography, statements and cultural heritage (usually in a one-sided and biased way).

2. Their approaches fluctuated between two poles:

i) To-the-point and sometimes even positive , noting the fact that a woman had been chosen to head Qadima, comparing her to Golda Meir, the only other woman who had ever been Israel 's prime minister. They said her political positions were pragmatic. Such reports also expressed the hope that she would advance the peace process with the Palestinians and were found occasionally in the Palestinian Egyptian and Jordanian media. ii) Open hostility , claiming that Tzipi Livni had been a Mossad “terrorist” and had learned right-wing prejudices at home. According to the claims made (and clearly expressed in cartoons), there was no difference between Livni and the other Israeli leaders. They also claimed that she would continue “the slaughter of the Palestinians” while paying lip service to peace.

3. The following are some of the first reactions in the Arab media:

The Palestinian Authority

4. Senior PA figures congratulated Tzipi Livni on her victory, saying they would cooperate with her in negotiating a peace arrangement:

i) Abu Mazen called her to congratulate her on her victory (Wafa News Agency, September 18). He said he would cooperate with whoever was chosen: “…It makes no difference to us. It is an internal Israeli matter” (Syrian News Agency, September 18).

ii) Saeb Erikat , head of PLO negotiation department, expressed hope that now “serious” negotiations would begin and that the Israeli voter “would vote in favor of dismantling the settlements and the separation fence.” He added that the elections were “an internal Israeli matter,” and expressed hope that the situation [in internal Israeli politics] would stabilize (Agence France Presse, September 18).

iii) Abu Alla' , chief Palestinian negotiator, congratulated Tzipi Livni on winning the Qadima elections. He said that she had been involved in the peace process all along and that he believed she would aspire to make progress in negotiations with the Palestinians (Reuters, September 18).

iv) Yasser Abd Rabbo said that in the past the Palestinian government had cooperated with previous Israeli governments, but that the situation with the current one was different. He said he hoped Livni would act and not just talk (Italian News Agency, September 18).

5. While Abu Mazen and senior PA figures congratulated Tzipi Livni, on September 22 Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda published a cartoon portraying her as a murderess and enemy of peace. The paper belongs to the PA and is its semi-official organ, and it was not the first time it had published anti-Israeli propaganda and incitement.
Tzipi Livni as the Mona Lisa
Tzipi Livni as the Mona Lisa, holding a bloody knife. The dove of peace is about to be hanged, and the key symbolizing the Palestinian “right to return” is firmly attached to a chain. In the background there is a jail with guard towers. The use of the Mona Lisa, with her enigmatic smile, may be a way of saying that Tzipi Livni is herself an enigma as far as the Palestinians are concerned (Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda website, September 22). The cartoon was also posted on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's Qudsnet website.

6. As expected, Hamas did not relate seriously the Qadima elections, claiming there was no difference between Tzipi Livni and the other Israeli leaders. Ismail Haniya , head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, said that the Palestinian cause would not be influenced by the elections because all the Israeli leaders were united in their hostility to the Palestinian people and refused to recognize their rights, “including the right to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of the refugees” (Ramattan News Agency, September 17). Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said that her election was “an continuation of the policies of suppression and aggression,” and noted that Hamas adhered to the “option of resistance” (i.e., terrorism) as a strategic choice (Palestine-info website, September 18).
From the website of Omaya Joha
“Olmert resigns and hands the job over to his successor:” The knife is inscribed “Palestinian slaughter” (From the website of Omaya Joha, a Hamas-affiliated Palestinian cartoonist popular among the Palestinians and in the Arab world, September 22).

Egypt

7. The weekly column of Abdallah Hassan , editor-in-chief of the Middle East News Agency, was entitled “Israel in the Livni era and the difficult mission of establishing peace.””) He wrote that Livni's win signaled the end of the old generation of Israeli leaders and the beginning of a new generation, trying to what others had failed. World circumstances were changing rapidly, he said, and peace was Israel 's best alternative. Hassan raised the question of whether Livni would be able to make peace, unlike Golda Meir, whose policies led Israel to war in 1973 (Akhbar al-Youm, September 20, 2008).

8. Ahmed Abu Saleh wrote a column entitled “The second woman to rule Israel , Livni is an expert in taming men.” It stated that Livni's positions are often vague and unclear when it comes to negotiations with the Palestinians, and that was why she received so much support in the Arab world. However, recently the propaganda pressures during her political campaign had forced her to reveal her true positions, which were nothing more than Zionist-Israel ideology, which opposes giving up Jerusalem , returning to the 1967 borders and allowing the refugees to realize the “right to return.” In addition, the column called her the strongest woman in Israel , the woman of the hour who managed to get rid of Ehud Olmert and Shaul Mofaz (Al-Osboa, 1 September 20, 2008).
Al-Ahram, September 22, 2008
The signs read “Israel’s security” and “The first mission.” The Arab tells Tzipi Livni, “[Ruling party] Qadima, play a different tune.” The buildings at the left are labeled “settlements” (Al-Ahram, September 22, 2008).

Jordan

9. Tzipi Livni's victory received relatively modest coverage in the Jordanian media. Reactions ranged from optimism and hope regarding a possible agreement with the Palestinians to pessimism resulting from Livni's character and the political situations in Israel , the PA and the Middle East in general.

10. No general consensus was reached in the talkbacks on Internet sites. Alongside personal attacks there were some supportive postings. Some talkbacks viewed the fact that a woman could become a leader in Israel as a sign of democracy and of Israel 's advantage over the Arab countries (“The day will come when every country will be ruled by a woman.”). Others were shocked (“Allah will cure the people whose leader is a woman…”).

11. There was no agreement among columnists regarding Tzipi Livni and her ability to make progress toward a peace agreement with the Palestinians:

i) Mazen Hamed wrote a column for Al-Dustour calling Tzipi Livni “a hard woman” who, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, did not regard the fact that she was a woman as justification for her election. At first meeting, he said, one is amazed by her sincerity and ability to keep her distance from others. In addition, the column continued, despite her limited political experience, it could not be denied that she supported Ariel Sharon to realize the disengagement from the Gaza Strip and provided Ehud Olmert with a political exit from the second Lebanon war (Al-Dustour, a semi-official daily, September 21, 2008).

ii) Saleh al-Qalab , representing the Jordanian establishment, wrote a column for Al-Ra'i called “ Whither Livni ?” rejecting those who mention her right-wing past. He noted that in the end, Yitzhak Rabin, who was a general and a hawk, became a dove and signed the Oslo Accords, and that Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Accords and dismantled settlements once he saw it served Israeli interests. Tzipi Livni, he continued, was not in favor the Greater Israel concept but rather was more realistic and of the opinion that Israel had to be part of the Middle East , and that she should recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. It was wrong, he added, to generalize about Israelis because it was clear that the next prime minister would be one who knew that time was not on Israel 's side and that reality had to be faced and a historic compromise made (Al-Ra'i, September 22, 2008).

iii) Mahmoud Kaosh , writing for Al-Arab Al-Youm, noted that Tzipi Livni did not like the comparisons made between her and Golda Meir (the only other woman ever to serve as Israeli Prime Minister), because Meir was the daughter of a Ukrainian carpenter and a member of the Labor Party, while Livni's father was a member of “the Jewish terrorist gang led by Menachem Begin…” According to the column, Livni grew up in an atmosphere of hatred for Arabs and received terrorism along with her mother's milk.” Mahmoud Kaosh was of the opinion that no agreement would be reached in the near future and that the negotiations would be frozen because of the upcoming American presidential election and the political instability in both Israel and the PA (Al-Arab Al-Youm, September 22, 2008).

Syria

12. Establishment Syrian newspapers ( Tishrin, al-Thawra ), the regime's mouthpieces, gave distorted and biased biographies of Tzipi Livni, claiming in particular that as part of her Mossad career she had been involved in the assassinations of Palestinian leaders. Her past, her current statements and the legacy of her ancestors made the columnists pessimistic about the chance that she was willing to promote peace in the region.

13. Issam Dari , Tishrin's editor-in-chief, wrote a column entitled “ Tzipi , Israel 's new bird” [a play on words], which surveyed her biography and character, calling her “the Mossad's beauty queen” and “ Israel 's new princess,” a candidate for the Israeli prime minister club. He claimed that she had been discharged from the IDF as a lieutenant and had then gone to work for the Mossad. During her service there she was “gloriously successful” when she “went from one Arab capital to another to participate in assassinating ‘Arab terrorists.'” During the same period she served, claimed the column, as “a hunter of Palestinian leaders.” As far as the present was concerned, Livni had become the new “Iron Lady,” would have to make decisions affecting war and peace in the region (Tishrin, September 20, 2008).

14. Further on the column noted that “If the ‘Mossad Dove' wants to atone for her crimes and those of her family, and if she shows a genuine desire for peace, she will achieve peace. If not, then the region will continue in a state of war without peace, a state of tension and instability.” In addition, according to the column, Tzipi Livni knew well what “the requirements of peace” were, central to which was “the return of the occupied Arab lands to their owners.” The column ended on a pessimistic note regarding the possibility of Livni's denying the legacy of her parents and of deviating from the policies of former Israeli prime ministers.

15. Writing for Tishrin on September 24, Issam Dari again related to the environment in which Tzipi Livni grew up and her past with the Mossad. He asked, “can we expect anything good from someone who grew up in a family that murdered and assassinated and even did the same herself?” Dari claimed that Tzipi Livni's remarks during her term as foreign minister prove that “she has no inclination toward peace…” He ended the column by expressing his certainly that after she had formed the government “the truth, that Israel does not want peace, will be brought to light.”

16. Muhammad Ali Bouzha , writing for Al-Thawra, warned of an escalation in regional tension in view of the remarks made by Tzipi Livni on the eve of the election, in which she negated the “right to return” and said she would not negotiate over Jerusalem and the return of the Golan Heights . According to the column, the “three negatives” were not only election slogans but her commitment to the future, indicating that Israel was not interested in peace and would continue its aggressive policies. Thus the region was marching toward “another escalation” and a continuing crisis (Al-Thawra, September 18, 2008).

Lebanon

17. Mustafa Khazem , writing in Hezbollah's weekly Al-Intiqad, claimed that the implications of electing Tzipi Livni to the post of Israeli Prime Minister went beyond the policy of “an iron fist in a velvet glove.” According to the article, Livni would try to convince the world that “the good will win,” but the campaign against Israel was not between good and evil because Israel was “absolute evil. Livni, he claimed, was following in the footsteps of Golda Meir, from the Foreign Ministry to the office of Prime Minister, and he wondered if their fates would be the same, since Golda Meir was forced to leave office after the Yom Kippur war in 1973 (Al-Intiqad, September 19, 2008).

Saudi Arabia

Al-Watan, September 21, 2008
The Angel of Death exchanges on mask for another
(Al-Watan, September 21, 2008).

Kuwait

Al-Jarida , Kuwait , September 19, 2008
“Livni, Qadima's leader:” Tzipi Livni on skates, Ehud Olmert limping on crutches.
The sign reads “Qadima” ( Al-Jarida , Kuwait , September 19, 2008).

The Arab Emirates

Al-Biyan, the Emirates, September 19, 2008
“Six of one, half a dozen of the other:” Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, two sides
of the same coin (Al-Biyan, the Emirates, September 19, 2008).

Al-Ra'i, Qatar , September 21, 2008
“Tzipi Livni, from the Mossad to the Prime Minister's office:” A masculine version
of Tzipi Livni holding a rifle (Al-Ra'i, Qatar , September 21, 2008).

Yemen
Al-Ayyam , Yemen , September 21, 2008
“How the Arabs see Tzipi Livni after Golda Meir:” The cartoon's message is that the Arabs were blind regarding Golda Meir and are mistaken in their enthusiasm for Tzipi Livni ( Al-Ayyam , Yemen , September 21, 2008).

1 Al-Osboa is an independent Egyptian weekly which usually criticizes the regime.

From today's Iran Early Bird

Iran marked "Jerusalem Day" last Friday with mass demonstrations, calls of "Death to Israel" and "Death to the United States," and the burning of Israeli and U.S. flags. The day also saw the launch in Iran of a booklet of Holocaust caricatures, attended by Iranian Education Minister Ali-Reza Ali Ahmadi. The cover of the book displays a stereotypical anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew among bodies. 2. Jerusalem Day events: Former Majlis speaker Nateq Noori delivered an address ahead of Friday prayers in Tehran, saying: "Israel is a product that has passed its sell-by date. It failed in the Lebanon War against Hezbollah. It controls some of the Western states, and some of the Arab states too… It is interesting to know that the Israeli people on a whole serve in the army and are considered a part of it, and therefore one cannot differentiate between the people and the occupiers and criminals [criticism of Deputy President Mashaee's statements in support of friendly ties with the Israeli people]… It appears that Israel has passed its sell-by date in the eyes of the West, and the West therefore is trying to set it up for destruction."





3. The head of Iran's nuclear energy organization, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, will not attend the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual general conference. Official Iranian news agency are reporting that Aghazadeh will not attend the Vienna conference for "unknown reason," but Opposition websites claim that the Iranian nuclear chief was denied a visa to Austria. Iran will be represented at the conference by Aghazadeh's deputy, Mohammad Saeedi, and Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA. Yesterday, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution (1835) against Iran, confirming the sanctions that have been imposed on Tehran in the past but failing to impose new ones. The resolution quotes the IAEA report from September 15 that determines that Iran has not suspended its uranium-enrichment program and other related activities, and calls on Tehran to adhere to the previous Security Council resolutions in full and without further delay.



4. Iran's delegation to the United Nations has issued a harsh condemnation of "the hasty and unfair resolution against Iran's nuclear program for peaceful purposes." And for his part, the head of the Majlis Committee on National Security and Foreign Affairs said that the resolution did nothing to build trust between the parties, and did not fall in line with the Modality Agreement put together between Iran and the IAEA.



5. Iranian websites are reporting that the deployment of the new U.S. radar system in Israel is designed to combat any possible attack on the part of Iran. The radar, the websites say, has been deployed in the Negev region and U.S. Army technicians have arrived in Israel to initiate its operation.



6. "Bank Melli Iran recognizes the existence of the State of Israel!" reads the headline of a Conservative-affiliated website, which reveals that the bank's Internet registration form for customers includes Israel on the list of countries one can choose from – in total disregard of Iran's adamant standpoint that refuses to recognize its existence. The name of "Occupied Palestine" is not mentioned on the bank's site at all, the Conservative-affiliated website charges.



7. The Fars News website is quoting French News Agency AFP concerning a report aired on Israel Channel 10 about the sale of entry permits to the Israeli Defense Ministry compound (the Kirya) in Tel Aviv. Under the headline, "A new security oversight at the Defense Ministry of the Zionist regime," Fars News reports that an Israeli soldier, a member of the compound's security unit, had sold entry permits to all and sundry, thus compromising the security of one of Israel's most sensitive facilities.



8. Under pressure from the Iranian government, Malaysia has cancelled an address that was scheduled to be delivered by Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate and human and women's rights activist. Ebadi was invited to Malaysia by the International Peace Foundation.



9. In an interview with the Saudi Arabian daily, Al-Watan, Bahrain's prime minister said that Iran was Bahrain's neighbor and friend and that a relationship of mutual respect existed between the two countries.



10. The Coordination Council of Islamic Revolution Forces has named Ahmadi-Nejad as its candidate for the presidency, expressing sweeping support for the incumbent president. Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, meanwhile, says he has yet to decide whether or not to vie for the office.



11. The head of the Tehran Province administration, Kamran Daneshjoo, has been appointed director of the Interior Ministry's Political Wing. Daneshjoo confirmed the appointment following previous denials by him and his associates over the past few days.





12. In keeping with a decision by the Expediency Discernment Council that essentially overruled a decision by the president and government, the Supreme Councils on various issues will be re-established. The bodies to be re-established include the Supreme Council on Information Technology Affairs, the Supreme Council on Nuclear Energy Affairs, the Supreme Council on Monetary and Credit Affairs, and others.



13. An Iranian air force officer who was arrested in Bangkok in 2006 and charged with transferring sensitive military equipment to Iran has been acquitted by a Thai court and released from detention.







According to an announcement from Sardar Hamedani, deputy commander of the Basij resistance forces, pilots and naval units from the Basij forces have been incorporated into Iran's combat system. Hamedani said that Basij brigades were currently being supplied with modern weapons and shoulder-launched missiles.











1. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps' Khatam Alanbia Command has been awarded a tender worth 320 million euros that was issued by the Iranian National Gas Company. The project involves the laying of a 283-kilometer-long gas pipeline, and will be implemented over an 18-month period by the Sadid Corporation in conjunction with the Khatam Alanbia Command.



2. The Bolivian president has declared that in light of the strained relations between Bolivia and the United States, he wishes to encourage Iran, Russia and Venezuela to invest in his country's gas fields.



3. The Tabnak website claims that U.S. pressure on India is essentially the main obstacle that is blocking the export of Iranian gas to India and Pakistan through the so-called "Peace Pipeline." According to the website, Indian officials are trying to create the impression that Iran is the problematic element and is preventing the implementation of the agreement. The real problem, Tabnak says, is the pressure on India that is designed to restrict the export of energy from Iran.



4. Iran's accountant general has sent an official letter of warning to President Ahmadi-Nejad's first deputy, Parviz Davoudi, threatening legal action against what he termed "the violation of the law in the government's approval of the budget for 2008," and "illegitimate government expenditure."



5. The Iranian Transport and Transportation Ministry and the heads of the Iran Air airline have come under fire from Iranian Deputy President Davoudi for foot-dragging with respect to handing over the required details on the company for the purpose of its privatization and flotation. Davoudi commented on the heavy losses the airline has suffered over the past three years, noting that various options for solving the company’s problems were currently under review. The airline's large workforce was one of the causes of the problems, the deputy president added.



6. According to rumors, on hearing of the appointment of Hoseyn Smami as deputy director-general of Iran's Central Bank, a group of senior managers at the institution decided to resign their posts. The ILNA website (the Iranian workers' site) claims that in a conversation with Deputy President Davoudi, newly appointed Central Bank Director-General Behmani initially refused to accept Smami's appointment but had his refusal rejected. Smami served in the past as head of the Economics Ministry and the Treasury.



7. Akbar Torkan, Iran's deputy oil minister in charge of planning, says that Iran wishes to build a $4 billion natural-gas pipeline to the European Union that could rival projects backed by the EU and Russia. According to Torkan, Iran is in talks with a "renowned European company" that may be selected as the project's contractor. Torkan believes that the economic sanctions on Iran will not scare off potential European partners in the pipeline.











1. The Shia-Sunni hacker wars continue: This time, an Iranian hacker going by the name of "dnjournal 2005" attacked 100 Wahhabist websites, posting on their homepages pictures of the Iranian flag and the country's nuclear facilities, the slogan, "The Persian Gulf," and the broken flag of Israel.



2. An unknown group yesterday morning assassinated a Sunni religious figure in Mahabad. The group shot and killed the man who served as the community Imam at one of the Sunni mosques in the city. Mahabad, with a population of some 200,000 residents, is located in the south of the Western Azerbaijan Province.



3. The secretary of the Iranian Cancer Society has said that the increase in the age of the Iranian population over the coming decades is expected to also bring a rise in the number of breast cancer patients in the country. According to the Society's secretary, breast cancer is currently the most common form of cancer among Iranian women, affecting one-quarter of the overall number of female cancer patients throughout the country.



4. Amir Hoseyn Fatoohi, a medical student at Hormozgan University, has been suspended from his studies for two semesters for participating in the student demonstrations and giving an interview to the Voice of America television channel.



5. The Iranian academic year has begun, and students at Tehran University are reporting that new security gates and security measures are in place at the entrances to the campus, with students having to swipe an electronic identification card at the gates in order to gain access. The Tehran University president says the new measures are part of an extensive project to set up an electronic city within the university, and are also designed to ensure the safety and security of the students. Official Iranian websites are claiming that the issue of the new security measures will soon become "propaganda fodder" in the hands of the foreign and anti-revolutionary media, which will liken the situation and mood to that of a police state.



6. A CNN report on underground fashion shows in Tehran.



7. The top-selling cellular telephones in Iran include the Nokia 5310 and 3500, the Sony Ericsson K810, the Samsung F480 and the HTC Touch Diamond

Shana Tova from the outed PM: The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

JPost.com staff and AP , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israel will have to give up virtually all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem if it wants peace with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in a farewell interview published Monday, saying Israel faced a stark choice and needed to make a decision soon. Olmert also said Israel would have to leave the Golan Heights in order to obtain peace with Syria.

The comments were the clearest sign to date of Olmert's willingness to meet the Palestinians' demands, but their significance was uncertain, since Olmert's days in office are numbered and peace negotiations will soon become the responsibility of a different Israeli leader.

More than anything, the interview marked Olmert's transformation from a vocal hard-liner who for decades opposed any territorial concessions to the Palestinians to a leader whose views are virtually identical to those of the dovish politicians he once pilloried.

"We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, one meaning that we will withdraw in practice from nearly all of the territories, if not from all of them," Olmert told Yediot Aharonot.

Olmert said Israel would keep "a percentage" of the West Bank but would have to give Palestinians the same amount of Israeli territory in exchange, "because without this there will be no peace."

He said Israel would have to leave parts of east Jerusalem, saying Israel couldn't hope to maintain its control of the more than 200,000 Palestinian residents there.

He mentioned three recent attacks in which east Jerusalem residents have rammed Israelis with vehicles, killing three people and wounding dozens. He said anyone who wants to stop the attacks "must give up parts of Jerusalem."

There would be "special arrangements" for the city's holy sites, he said, without offering details.

As mayor of Jerusalem and a hard-line lawmaker, Olmert long opposed any compromise in the city and encouraged efforts to build Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem to cement Israel's control.

"I'm the first one who wanted to enforce Israeli sovereignty on the whole city. I admit this," he said. Olmert said that for decades he "was not prepared to look at reality in all of its depth."

Olmert said time was "so short that it is terribly distressing." In its attempts to make peace with the Palestinians and Syria, he said the decision Israelis now had to make "was a decision that we have been refusing to look at open-eyed for 40 years."

David Baker, a spokesman for Olmert, confirmed the content of the interview was accurate.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Olmert had not translated the conciliatory ideas he put forward in the interview into formal offers during nearly a year of peace talks.

"We have been having serious negotiations with the Israeli side, but up to this moment we have not received any written proposals from the Israeli side and Mr. Olmert," Erekat said. The Palestinians want to put the progress made so far in writing so that talks won't have to start from the beginning with Israel's next prime minister, he said.

Though Olmert might remain in power for several more months, his conversation with Yediot Aharonot was a farewell interview in which he summed up his time in office and defended his actions as Israel's leader.

Olmert said he would continue to try to strike a deal before he leaves office.

Israel "should not put off the decision," he said. "Either I will finish it, or [new Kadima leader] Tzipi Livni will, or whoever comes after her."

Olmert seemed to suggest the Palestinians were not matching what he described as Israel's far-reaching compromises. "Unfortunately, the Palestinians don't have the necessary courage, strength, internal determination, will or enthusiasm," he said.

Olmert said Israel would have to give up the Golan Heights in return for a peace deal with Syria.

In response to Olmert's statements, MK Zevulun Orlev (NU-NRP) said that the prime minister had proved he had lost control and was completely alienating himself from the ideological base he was educated by.

"The country is very lucky he is now leaving his post," Orlev told Army Radio.

MK Silvan Shalom (Likud) said that Olmert's comments exposed his leftist approach, like that of Meretz. In an interview with Israel Radio, Shalom likened Olmert to a blind man driving a car into the depths and said his idea to "establish Iranian and Hamas bases in the Golan Heights and West Bank" proved that he had lost his way.

Meretz MK Yossi Beilin lamented the fact that Olmert was only now exposing his true beliefs concerning Israel's national interests since he had nothing to lose.

"You believe it is in Israel's national interest to make peace, but for two-and-a-half years, almost three years, all you have done is wage an unnecessary war in Lebanon and woo [Israel Beiteinu chairman Avigdor] Lieberman into your government to stifle any peace process," Beilin told Army Radio, addressing the prime minister.

"You are today leaving the government having achieved a chemistry with Abu Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas] and with some sort of talks in Turkey with the Syrians, but these things won't be remembered," he said.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017420774&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.

Homesh First: 'Don't Believe PA'

Hana Levi Julian

The Homesh First activist organization bluntly denied a Palestinian Authority accusation Sunday that Jewish rights activists were behind the killing of a 19-year-old Bedouin shepherd in Samaria. Yihya Atta Bani Minya, a resident of the Jordan Valley town of Aqrabeh, was discovered shot to death Saturday night near the Jewish community of Gitit, also located in the Jordan Valley. His body was taken to the Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine in south Tel Aviv for further examination to determine the exact cause of death.



Police said it was difficult to determine the time and place of death, inasmuch as there were no signs of gunshots or spent bullet cartridges found in the area.



The PA government official responsible for the Shechem region, Ghassan Dajlas, told reporters that Bani Minya had been shot "execution style," more than 20 times at point-blank range.



He also claimed that two Arab teens saw a white car "belonging to settlers" chasing Bani Minya late Saturday, and then heard shots.



The Homesh First activist group denied the PA Arab claims that "Jewish settlers" were the ones who shot and killed the Bedouin shepherd. The group's members work to rebuild the northern Samaria Jewish community of Homesh, which was destroyed in the Disengagement of 2005.



In a somewhat bitter statement issued by the group, Homesh First declared causticly, "There is 'no doubt' that all 'settlers' are responsible for the murder in the Valley. There is also 'no doubt' that all settlers planted the pipe bomb on Prof. Sternhell's front door."



Professor Ze'ev Sternhell was wounded last Thursday when a pipe bomb exploded at his front door as he was locking his gate in the wee hours of the morning. The 73-year-old Hebrew University political science academician, who was a winner of the Israel Prize, had received threats due to statements he had made which some people said appeared to legitimize terrorism. Political leaders across the spectrum condemned the attack. Left-wing extremists blamed the attack on rights activists in Judea and Samaria.



Prime Minister Ehud Olmert referred to the attack Sunday at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting, saying that "an evil streak of radicalism, malice, hatred and disregard of State law is threatening Israeli democracy. One cannot help but see the resemblance between the murder of Emil Greenzweig (an extreme-left Peace Now activist who was killed in 1983 during a political march in Jerusalem –ed.), the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and the attack on the professor," said Olmert.



"We will also take responsibility for all the Christian children who disappeared last Passover," Homesh First continued in its statement. The reference was to the ancient anti-Semitic tradition of blood libels which accuse Jews of murdering Christian children in order to use their blood to prepare Passover matzoh.



"There is no need to believe every ridiculous accusation of the Palestinians," the group concluded bluntly.

Netanyahu's Plans

Hillel Fendel

In an exclusive New Year's interview with Arutz-7, Netanyahu says the issue is "not how much of the Land of Israel we want, but how much the present government wants to give away." Netanyahu, the leader of the Opposition in the Knesset and of the Likud Party, is currently overwhelmingly favored to win Israel's next national elections - which could be held anytime between January 2009 and November 2010.

Who Really Attacked Sternhell?
Speaking with Uzi Baruch and Chizky Ezra of Arutz-7's Hebrew newsmagazine on the eve of the Rosh HaShanah holiday, Netanyahu related to several issues on the public agenda. He strongly condemned the attack on radical left-wing Prof. Ze'ev Shternhell late last week, but said it is not clear who perpetrated it.


"It is now clear to anyone who considers himself a 'State of Israel lover,' and not just a 'Land of Israel lover,' that if we give away more territory, it will be taken over by Iran and its appendages."

"The attack was criminal and dangerous," Netanyahu said, "and those responsible must be put behind bars." However, he added, "there are two dangers to democracy, both of which are present in this case: The use of violence to impose opinions, and the delegitimization of the opponent in order to suppress his freedom of speech - i.e., the attempt here to attribute this attack to the law-abiding public of the residents [and supporters] of Judea and Samaria."

Greater Land of Israel
Netanyahu was asked about Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's recent eulogizing of the vision of the Greater Land of Israel. Olmert said at a Cabinet meeting two weeks ago, "The notion of a Greater Israel no longer exists, and anyone who still believes in it is deluding himself... I've come to realize that we have to share this land with the people who dwell here, if we don’t want to be a binational state."

Netanyahu's response: "The real debate is not about the Greater Land of Israel, but rather the little Land of Israel in which the Prime Minister and his people want to leave us. We're not talking now about annexing Ramallah, but rather the fate of the Jordan Valley. That's what the debate is about - about the abandonment of areas with no Palestinian presence. They [Olmert, Livni, et al - ed.] want to give up as much as possible, and we want to retain as much as possible in areas that are saturated with both historic significance and security significance for us."

Giving Away Territory
"Today, in light of our abandonment of Gaza and the Hamas takeover there, it is clear to anyone who considers himself a 'State of Israel lover,' and not just a 'Land of Israel lover,' that if we give away more territory, it will be taken over by Iran and its appendages."

"The retreat from Gush Katif turned the Gaza Strip into an Iranian base," Netanyahu stated.

Reminded of the diplomatic processes he advanced with the Palestinian Authority when he was Prime Minister ten years ago - including the signing of the Hevron and Wye Plantation agreements - Netanyahu noted the difference between his approach and that of the present government: "Before I took office, the conception was to give away everything except for 2% [of Judea and Samaria], while I turned everything around and gave just 2% to [full control of] the Palestinian Authority." He also gave additional percentages to Palestinian administrative control, while retaining Israeli military control - territory known in the Oslo Accords as Area B.

"Give - Get; Don't Give - Don't Get"
"I institutionalized the concept of reciprocity," Netanyahu said - referring to the concept known as, 'If they give, they'll get; if they don't give, they won't get' - "and without uprooting one Jew from his home. I halted the process of giving away land by demanding reciprocity. I did not destroy or evacuate any community, and no one had to leave his home when I was Prime Minister."
"I don't understand why natural growth is acceptable in Arab towns, but not for Jewish towns. There's no reason why the existing communities should not be allowed to develop."

"If I am elected Prime Minister," he said, "I will not volunteer concessions and the removal of Jewish communities."

Speaking with the Hebrew news site Walla, Netanyahu added, "I don't understand why natural growth is acceptable in Arab towns, but not for Jewish towns. There's no reason why the existing communities should not be allowed to develop."

Whither the Likud?
The recent addition to the Likud, with Netanyahu's enthusiastic blessing, of personalities whose opinions are not quite nationalist or right-wing, such as gen. (ret.) Uzi Dayan and former Police Commissioner Assaf Chefetz, has aroused some concern over the direction Netanyahu is taking the party. He told Arutz-7 that their joining does not prove the party is going leftward: "Perhaps they changed their ideas in the wake of Kadima's failures... Don't forget that they came to us; we didn't bring them... The Likud's political and economic approach has proven itself in the eyes of people like them, and that's why they found their way to us."

Be Firm!
Without getting into details, Netanyahu says Israel must be very firm in its contacts with the Palestinian Authority, both militarily and diplomatically: "Peace is made with an enemy," he said, quoting a left-wing motto, "but he must stop being your enemy - and even then, the negotiations must be handled with firmness. Today we have no partner who will obligate himself to take action. The other side must recognize not only Israel's existence, but also our right to exist, and must impose this recognition on his countrymen. These conditions do not currently exist, and therefore all the arguments are sterile."

"The only relevant option at present is 'economic peace,'" Netanyahu told Walla, "and afterwards, if it works, we can consider diplomatic options."

'The Public Must Choose'
Arutz-7's Baruch and Ezra asked him about his immediate political plans, and he responded that he has absolutely no intention of joining a government headed by Kadima and its leader, former Likud member Tzipi Livni: "The Livni government will be a continuation of the Olmert government, which has agreed to divide Jerusalem and return, more or less, to the pre-1967 borders. We will present an alternative, and the public will have to choose between two different paths. I believe that the nation will choose us, and then we will form a government including all those who wish to join."

Netanyahu added to Walla that it would be better "to end the government instability now and go to new elections quickly, instead of dragging it out for six or twelve months."

Obama and the Reagan Doctrine

Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, September 29, 2008

In his debate with John McCain, Barack Obama's attempted to portray the Bush administration as a complete failure both in domestic and foreign policy. This argument, however, is running into one big problem: Bush's Iraq policy appears to be succeeding. How embarrassing! Well, at least the Democrats can try to make sure that no one finds out about this. Obama attempted to change the subject by saying that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the central front of the war on terror. But Afghanistan was merely the launching pad for 9/11. The terrorists went to Afghanistan because they got rent-free terrorist training facilities. None of the hijackers or their planners actually came from Afghanistan. Every single one of them was from the Middle East, mostly Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Moreover, Afghanistan has only minor strategic significance compared to Iraq. Iraq’s neighbors include Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Islamic radicals, who have controlled Iran for a generation, fully understand the importance of winning a second major state in the Middle East. With Iran and Iraq in their control, they can then turn their sights to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. No wonder Bin Laden and his associates have declared Iraq the central front of the war on terror, the launching pad for a new world war. Obama, by contrast, still regards the Taliban as the vanguard of global jihad. This shows Obama as being both naïve and out of date.

During his foreign trip a few weeks ago, Obama tried to take advantage of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's statement that America should work out a withdrawal plan for Iraq. Obama triumphantly declared that now is the time for Iraqis to work out their own destiny. Obama failed to mention, however, that if he had been president, Iraq would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein. The only destiny that Obama would have consigned Iraq to is oppression, torture, and mass graves.

To understand what is going on in Iraq, we must distinguish between two approaches: the Bush doctrine and the Reagan doctrine. Unlike the Bush doctrine--which seemed to require invasion and occupation--the Reagan doctrine was one of assisted non-intervention. Reagan believed that people in foreign countries should fight for their own freedom. We do not fight for them. But if they are willing to fight, we are willing to help. And so in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Angola and to some extent in Ethiopia, Reagan supported rebels who sought liberation from Marxist tyranny. For intance, Reagan supplied Stinger missiles to the Afghani mujaheedin who were fighting to repel the Soviet invasion of that country. Reagan did not, however, send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan.

Now in Bush's defense it should be said that the Reagan doctrine could not have worked in Iraq. Unlike in Afghanistan, which the mujaheedin turned into a Soviet "bleeding wound," there was no Iraqi resistance that could substantially threaten Saddam Hussein. Bush's choice was either for America to get rid of Hussein, or to leave Hussein in power. But from the beginning the administration understood that, even in Iraq, over time the Bush doctrine must metamorphose into the Reagan doctrine.

It has taken longer than expected. But that's because Saddam's Baathist minority--let's call them the Saddamites--ran not only the government but the entire society. So it has been quite a process to train a Shia elected government to learn to govern a nation in which they were victimized for a quarter century. Slowly, however, the Iraqis have been rising to the task, assisted by able U.S. forces under the competent leadership of General Petraeus.

So now, finally, Iraqis are getting to the position where they can defend their own country and fight for their own freedom. This is what "success" means in Iraq: not the end of the insurgency, or the end of terrorism, but a situation in which Iraqis take the helm and America moves into a supporting role. Of course America is going to get out of Iraq. The only question is whether we will leave recklessly, precipitously, with the risk of escalating violence and chaos and perhaps even a return of the Saddamites. This seems to be the approach the Obama Democrats want. The other option is to leave cautiously, deliberately, in a way that leaves Iraq a self-governing society, the only pro-American Muslim democracy in the Middle East.



Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Assad losing control

Syria, once considered one of region’s most stable states, increasingly vulnerable

Ronen Bergman
Israel Opinion

A car bomb blast in south Beirut on December 22, 1994 killed Fouad Mugniyah, Imad Mugniyah’s brother. Three other people were killed in the explosion. At least 15 people sustained serious wounds. mad Mugniyah, who thought that the fact someone bothered to kill his brother was suspicious, did not show up at the funeral. In Lebanon, the killing was attributed to Israel, which according to foreign sources hoped to kill Imad Mugniyah during the funeral.


Terror in Damascus
Syrian FM: Israel has most to gain from terror attack / Roee Nahmias
Walid Muallem says car bomb which killed 17 people does not indicate a security breach and could have happened anywhere. 'Unfortunately, in the years following the American war on terror, terror has spread even further,' he adds


One thing is certain: There is no dull moment for our northern neighbor. It turns out that the state once considered one of the most stable in the Middle East – where leaders always made sure to respond aggressively to any display of opposition, and where streets are replete with secret agents – is particularly vulnerable. And so, President Bashar Assad is losing more and more points in Arab and international public opinion and is being portrayed as someone unable to control developments on his own turf.


So who could have been behind the explosion? On the face of it, this appears to be some kind of mishap or work accident, as according to the reports at least it doesn’t seem like the blast was not aimed at a specific target. If we are indeed dealing with an accident, it might be a Syrian shipment (to Hizbullah, for example) that was handled negligently. This is a problematic assumption as there is no information about arms or ammunition depots in that area.


Syrian opposition sources claim this was a work accident by Syrian security authorities. They argue that the branch specializing in building car bombs packed the vehicle with explosives, but the car blew up because of a technical mishap en route to its destination.


Is al-Qaeda involved?

Various Arab sources immediately blamed Israel’s Mossad. On the face of it, this appears to be no more than a conditioned reflex. At the same time, the area where the explosion took place is a hub of Iranian activity: It is home to offices of Iranian agencies and organizations, including intelligence elements from Tehran.


Iran’s intelligence in Damascus is of immense importance, as it is responsible for part of the coordination with Hizbullah. We can assume that had Israeli intelligence paid attention to what goes on in Damascus, this area would merit special attention.


Another possibility is that this was an act perpetrated by Lebanese elements that object to the ongoing Syrian involvement in their country, despite the seeming withdrawal. A conspiracy theory presented on a global Jihad forum Saturday suggested that the Syrian government carried out the bombing in order to justify a Syrian operation in Lebanon against Syria’s rivals.


Yet another possibility is that we are dealing with a Syrian opposition group that sought to embarrass the regime or kill someone specific.


Who else may be behind the blast? The news of the latest blow to Assad’s prestige prompted great joy on websites affiliated with al-Qaeda that are very hostile to the regime in Damascus. Al-Qaeda has already proven its operational capabilities in the Syrian capital when it attempted to target the American embassy there in 2006.

Syria resumes covert nuclear projects in partnership with North Korea

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report that it took Damascus a year to recover from the demolition of its plutonium project at El Kibar in northern Syria, but already the nuclear scientists and technicians who were to have been employed there have been hired for new projects. This time the installations are scattered in different parts of the country. North Korean nuclear experts are back too.

Our military sources describe rising tension between Syria and Israel in the wake of the car bomb explosion Saturday, Sept. 27, which killed 17 people and injured 14 outside a Syrian security installation at Sidi Kadad on the highway to Damascus airport. The victims were not officially identified.

Various Arab sources report that one was a Syrian brigadier who was not named. After the attack, DEBKAfile’s sources raised the possibility that it might have targeted people involved in Iranian/Syrian nuclear activity.

Damascus has been wary of accusing Israel of engineering the blast, but unofficial Syrian intelligence sources have indirectly pointed the finger at Israel claiming it was an attempt to spoil Syria’s improving relations with the West.

Western intelligence sources note that Syria has been hit in the past year with attacks associated with its clandestine nuclear activities.

The El Kibar reactor was knocked out on Sept. 6, 2007 while it was under construction. On Aug. 2, 2008, Gen. Muhammad Suleiman was shot dead by a sniper in Latakia. He was a key man in the Syrian nuclear program and acted as liaison officer for Damascus with Iran and North Korea.

If Saturday’s blast did indeed cause the death of a high Syrian officer involved in the program, it would have been the third consecutive operation against Damascus’ revived application to clandestine nuclear projects.

Where did the Saudi Aid to Lebanon Go?

Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Alawsat

It appears that Mr. Nabih Berri is trying to shine the media spotlight on questions surrounding Saudi aid for the state of Lebanon, particularly the aid Riyadh gave to the Lebanese people after the July 2006 War against Israeli courtesy of Hezbollah. Mr. Berri claims that Saudi money has been withheld from Southern Lebanon, and instead was distributed in other areas, forcing the Information Office of the Lebanese Prime Minister to respond and correct Mr. Berri by quoting accurate official figures.

Let's be clear, Saudi funds have gone to those who need it most, and not to media agencies engineering propaganda campaigns to humiliate the Lebanese. It's strange that Mr. Berri is so concerned about Saudi aid, especially when you consider the words of his ally Hassan Nasrallah’s during the 2006 war when he stated ‘We do not need your money’ because we have secured ‘pure money’!

Despite all of this, Saudi aid went to villages in Southern Lebanon, as well as other areas that required it; this was explained clearly in a detailed report to the Lebanese government two days ago. There are two issues surrounding Mr. Berri’s claim that deserve to be discussed further. Firstly, it is normal for Saudi aid to Lebanon to be misrepresented in this manner for the simple reason that Saudi money goes to those who need it most, and not, as I said before, to the media, and certainly not on political poster campaigns in Beirut and its suburbs.

Mr. Berri claims that Kingdom withheld funds to Southern Lebanon, but in reality Saudi funds have been used to rebuild 220 villages out of 323 villages in all of Lebanon, and not just the ‘five villages more or less’ which he claims. And not to mention the funds used for building bridges and roads, in addition to Saudi Arabia fulfilling its normal international obligations to the country.

And remember this aid was delivered swiftly and without delay, since it did not have to pass Hassan Nasrallah's "purity" test.

The Saudi aid is sincere, and has been from day one, for the support of all of Lebanon, there are those who believe the propaganda, and this is nothing but a pipe dream, and when we discuss this so-called ‘pure money’ bear in mind that the most that can come of it are buildings no stronger than a spider's web.

The second issue regarding Mr. Nabih Berri’s claim that Saudi aid is being redirected from Southern Lebanon to other areas, which implies that the Lebanese government itself is preventing aid reaching the Shiites in the South, to the benefit of the Sunnis.

This particular conclusion is an attack on the ‘Sunni’ Lebanese government, and portrays Saudi Arabia as helping one sect at the expense of another, instead of helping Lebanon as a whole. This is a fabrication! Since the Taif agreement Riyadh has been even-handed with all sects, treating them equally, even those who, in my opinion, do not deserve it, particularly the Iranian Hezbollah!

When the late Prime Minister Rafik Al Hariri had good relations with Hezbollah before his assassination, Saudi Arabia neither blamed nor boycotted his administration, because it was eager for the unity of all of Lebanon. Of course Riyadh and Mr. Berri find themselves taking different positions on this issue, since Mr. Berri believes the "opposition" has a right to receive external support, and by this of course he means Iran’s support of Hezbollah.

And why not? Nasrallah is proud of his connection to the Iranian Wilayat Al Faqih!

The real wonder in all this are those who are critical of the Lebanese government's distribution of foreign aid, but ignore the adventurers responsible for the death toll of 1200 Lebanese and five billion dollars in damages!

Arab Perspective: Global voices: US foreign policy

Al Jazeera is asking a global panel for their thoughts on the US presidential election and on the two candidates, Barack Obama, the Democratic hopeful, and his Republican rival, John McCain.

This week, with the first presidential debate between the two men dominated by foreign policy, we asked people how they thought each candidate performed and their thoughts on how the candidates' policies would affect them. Awab Alvi, dentist, Pakistan

In recent terms Pakistan has come under an extensive scrutiny and was important enough to come into discussion during the first presidential debate.

McCain kicked off by offering a more soft and understandable approach. He suggested taking the people of Pakistan into confidence on the "war on terror" and moving forward hand-in-hand to eradicate the menace of terrorism.

"We've got to get the support of the people of Pakistan ... he [Obama] said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan," he said.

Obama quickly reacted: "Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. If the United States has al-Qaeda, bin Laden [and] top-level lieutenants in our sights - and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act - then we should take them out."

McCain is definitely on the right track to talk about confidence building measures with the people of Pakistan, which at the moment is at its lowest in ages, but contrary to what he suggests, Bush administration has repeatedly failed to do exactly that in eight years, for which he must also accept responsibility.

Might we suspect these to be glamourous words just to win an election? I hope not, but eight years of uselessness will not salvage a sinking boat.

Committed to change?

Pakistan is at the centre of the US
"war on terror" [GALLO/GETTY]
Senator Obama on the other hand seems more committed to change, he suggests a strong hand to remove the terrormongers once in for all.

It took the Americans a few months to hunt down Saddam Hussein, but it's been seven years and the mountains in Afghanistan have yet to cough up Osama Bin Ladin and his deputies only to now have them hiding in Pakistan.

If this was not gross mismanagement then I wonder what is.

It was good to see Obama lash out at McCain for supporting a dictator in Pakistan, saying "We had a 20th century mindset that said 'well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator' and as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan."

McCain responded "I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when [former president Pervez] Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state."

This was a very lame response by McCain, as it definitely displayed the failures in the Bush administrations, failure to gauge the problem and the wrong decision to support the wrong individuals.

They continued to fork over billions of dollars without proper accountability and supported 'their friend' till he coughed up his last breath and succumbed to democracy.

No clear 'victor'

I must admit that apart from picking apart a few statements from within the debate, I do not come forth with a clear victor in regards to the issues of Pakistan.

Only in an attempt to bring this presidential debate into a wider perspective for the people in Pakistan, one just feels there is a desperate need for change.

Pakistan stands at a fork in the road. If the same old policies are followed, with the same blind-sighted relationship maintained with crooks and dictators running our country, the menacing war on terror will only get worse.

Obama represents a fresh change, as per my neutral review of the debate, it is my understanding that if they both support approximately the same line of action for Pakistan, I would carefully put my eggs into Obama's basket.

He talks with more commitment to the challenges ahead while simultaneously suggesting a "tough guy" approach on Pakistan.

Marco Arnez Cuellar, media producer, Bolivia

The first presidential debate showed no substantial changes in foreign policy beyond the expected.

Among disagreements about insurance, taxes policies, and other domestic issues, candidates showed the structural orthodoxies of American foreign policy.

Indeed, they skipped talk about Latin America. Since there is a financial crisis, and current South American governments are becoming more independent from Washington policies, it challenges United States (US) to deal with a changing context.

Morally, US foreign policy is compelled to shift from an open interventionist approach to a more dialogical, negotiated and diplomatic strategy, as suggested by Obama.

On the other hand, Senator McCain focused on strength security trough UN Security Council, and promoting the continuity of many foreign policies.

Shift to left

Not surprisingly, both candidates lack real change proposals. Since the US pretends to head worldwide politics, we can see only conservative reforms without changing the mainstream of its politics and economy.

"Since Latin America is shifting to the left, candidates must show themselves to be skillful to face this new scenario"

Marco Arnez Cuellar
I think neither McCain nor Obama are looking forward to readdress foreign affairs.

The US leadership consists of establishing relationships with worldwide democracies, but also defining what "democracy" is.

Ironically, a humourist said once: "The US is the main supporter of our current democracies .... as much as of our former dictatorships"

It is possible to foresee that after election the US new government will continue focussing on the main issues that ensures the preservation of power relationships over Latin America: terrorism, dugs control, immigration and trade.

But, since Latin America is shifting to the left, candidates must show themselves to be skillful to face this new scenario.

Indeed, US authority in economy is being challenged due to the breakdown of financial system.

Some Latin American governments as Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, have shown themselves as irreverent towards US policies.

The emergence of UNASUR (South American Nations Union) and the predictable end of unipolarity threats the historical leadership of the US.

I think what is looming is a conflictive scenario in foreign policy between United States and Latin America until the Washington government changes its paternalistic attitude to the world.

Mahardhika Sadjad, 22, student, Indonesia

I believe that there are two important issues that need to be addressed by America’s upcoming president.

The first is the fact non-state actors are playing a larger role in international affairs and thus, America must be able to embrace popular support, not only from governments, but also from individuals and groups around the world.

The next candidate must be the candidate with whom the world can relate to, and who can in return relate to the world.

In an interview with Time Obama said: "I work from a basis that there are some universal hopes and dreams and fear that people carry with them ... we've got to be honest and mindful of the fact that different countries have different cultural histories."

A 'different face'

To many Indonesians who feel that the Western world has often imposed what it believes must be universal values, Obama's background represents a face of America that acknowledges diversity and tolerates existing differences.

Second of all, the US's unilateral actions during the "war on terror" have created doubts regarding US willingness to co-operate for a common interest.

Obama has fans in Indonesia, where
he lived as a child
Obama also represents a US that believes in diplomacy and multilateralism, two aspects missing in current US foreign policies.

As he emphasised during the presidential debate, Obama believes that we cannot deal with terrorism or rogue nations by attacking other states.

His view that the US needs to focus on diplomacy to raise support for better co-operation is a view that many all over the world share.

McCain on the other hand during the debate, when stating his views on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, expressed his belief that the US should continue to display its hard power with the hope that potential allies will follow suit.

Unlike Obama, McCain represents the current administration, and not the maverick he proclaims to be.

For too long, we have seen the US grasping on to a double standard when talking about democracy, peace and co-operation.

I believe the US needs to start listening to what the rest of the world has to say.

The US also needs to understand that while it has extensive influence across the globe, this also means that its interests can be affected by the changes from other places.

Lina Ejeilat, 24, student, Jordan/New York City

It doesn't matter who the next president is; their policy towards the Middle East will be the same.

This was the comment I heard often in Amman months ago, when the wave of Obamamania was beginning to reside and the excitement of the primary season was beginning to wear off.

The unchanging policy towards the Middle East generally means unwavering support for Israel. That issue undoubtedly remains a key concern for many people in the Arab World.

I was a little child when I began hearing about the "lobby" and understanding that the US is always biased towards Israel. And even though I was often annoyed by conspiracy theorists and cynics, I often found that their arguments are not entirely unfounded.

Few 'concrete answers'

I was not blown away by the performance of either, although everyone is saying that Obama did better overall.

"I realised that whether we like it or not, everything the US does affects the rest of the world tremendously"

Lina Ejeilat
It took some time before they finally started addressing each other directly and delivering more concrete answers on issues.

I liked what Obama said about the importance of improving things at home, giving people better education, better health insurance, and a stronger economy.

Obama was continuously focused on the American middle class even in a debate about foreign policy, and ultimately, it's all connected.

You can't but grow tired of McCain's statements like "I know how to heal the wounds of war."

Being here for the past two months got me thinking about things I didn't pay attention to before - I started thinking about all the money the US government gives to my country and many others in aid while the US economy is crumbling down.

I was also thinking of how quick we were in Jordan to adopt the US business and financial model, and how scary it is to think of its proven flaws and their impacts.

Most importantly though, I realised that whether we like it or not, everything the US does affects the rest of the world tremendously.

We cannot say all US presidents will be the same for the Arab world because there's a lot more support for Israel that tips the balance.

For someone like me, even though I'm increasingly interested in how domestic politics here are handled, I guess the most relevant aspects of what was said were inevitably the Iraq-related points, the attitude towards Iran, and oil.

I'm not sure Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan is in the best interest of the region at this point, I'm also not sure how to feel about Iran's growing influence and his approach to it, but I think Obama can do the US image in the world a lot of good at this point.

Over one million European Christians kidnapped and enslaved by Muslims

Dhimmi Watch

Robert Davis' book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 has actually been out for several years, but I keep getting sent the press release below about it, and since it contains valuable information that is largely forgotten amid all the historical whitewash, I thought it would be worth posting. I'm only sorry that Davis used the term "white slavery." I understand that this is a common term, but it is misleading here: it must be understood that these people were enslaved because they were non-Muslims, not because they were white. The Qur'an sanctions slavery and Islam allows for the enslavement of prisoners of war, and it was under those auspices that these slaving operations were conducted.

"When Europeans Were Slaves: Research Suggests White Slavery Was Much More Common Than Previously Believed," from Ohio State Research, with thanks to all who sent this in:

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.

In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.

Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.

Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”

“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”

Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.

“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”

During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.

Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.

Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.

Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.

Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.

The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.

Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.

So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.

“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”

Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.

The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.

“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.

While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.

Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.

“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”