Was the Muslim Who Tried to Kill an Elderly Danish Cartoonist Misinterpreting the Koran?

David Swindle

The cartoonist was at home and the alarm button was pushed as three men tried to force their way in.
The police department in East Jutland has confirmed the incident to politiken.dk. A press release will be sent out later tonight. The men were stopped by police-officers monitoring Westergaards house.
The attacker has been shot in the arm and the knee as he was throwing an axe at one of the officers and is now being treated in the hospital.
The police now have a strong presence around the house, and neighbors have been evacuated.
According to Ritzau´s Bureau [danish news agency] a bomb disposal unit has now arrived at Grøndalsvej in Viby, where jyllands-posten´s cartoonist resides.
Kurt Westergaard has been under death threats for many years. He drew one of the controversial Muhammad cartoons.
In 2006 two men were arrested for conspiring to kill the cartoonist. And he has experienced bomb threats since that time.
****MORE****
The shooters where apparently Somali and shouted “Blood and revenge” as they attempted to kill Westergaard
Huge thanks to KITMANTV for the translation
****MORE****
The attacker appear to have been shot. Kurt made it to the panic room. Attacker attempted to break in door. The attacker was swearing in bad Danish. At the end, he said he would return. The attacker had a knife and an axe.
****MORE****
Somali who tried to kill Kurt Westergard is 28 years old and has connections to the Somali terrorist organisation Al-Shabaab and Al-Queda leaders in E. Africa
The Perp is known to be connected to terror organisations with connections to Denmark. He has been under investigation by the Danish Intelligence Bureau for quite some time, though unrelated to Kurt Westergaard. The attack on Kurt according to Jylands Posten confirms terrorist threat to which Denmark is exposed.
Kurt’s 5 year old Granddaughter was in the house at the time but is fine.

BBC NEWS:

Danish police shoot intruder at cartoonist’s home

Kurt Westergaard Sept 2006
Kurt Westergaard has had a price on his head since 2006

Danish police have shot and wounded a man at the home of Kurt Westergaard, whose cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad sparked an international row.

Mr Westergaard was at home in Aarhus when a man broke in and threatened him. He pressed a panic button and police entered the house and shot the man.

Danish officials said the intruder was a 28-year-old Somali linked to the radical Islamist al-Shabab militia.

The cartoon, printed in 2005, prompted violent protests the following year.

One of 12 cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, it depicted the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

In 2006 the paper apologised for the cartoons, but other European media reprinted them.

Danish embassies were then attacked by Muslims around the world and dozens killed in riots.

Mr Westergaard went into hiding amid threats to his life, but emerged last year saying he wanted to live as normal a life as possible.

His house has been heavily fortified and is under close police protection.

Mr Westergaard told Jyllands-Posten that the man had entered his house by smashing a window with a hammer and had shouted in broken English that he wanted to kill him.

Anti-Danish protest in Pakistan 2006

The cartoons prompted anti-Danish outrage across the Muslim world

He said he had grabbed his five-year-old granddaughter and run to a specially designed panic room where he raised the alarm.

Mr Westergaard told the newspaper he was shocked that his granddaughter had witnessed the attack.

He has now been taken to a safe location, but said defiantly that he would be back, the newspaper reported.

Jakob Scharf, who heads the Danish intelligence service Pet, said the attack was “terror related” and that the suspected assailant has close contacts to Somalia’s al-Shabab group.

Police said he was shot in the knee and the shoulder after threatening officers who tried to arrest him. Preben Nielsen of Aarhus police, said the man was seriously hurt but his life was not in danger.

The BBC’s Malcolm Brabant, who interviewed Mr Westergaard when he emerged from hiding, says the incident will raise questions about security measures put in place by the Danish secret service to protect the artist.

Islamic militants have placed a $1m price on Mr Westergaard’s head.

Although he is one of 12 cartoonists whose drawings of the Prophet were published in Jyllands-Posten, he has the highest profile, our correspondent says.

Shots have been fired outside of cartoonist Kurt Westergaard´s home in Viby.The cartoonist was at home and the alarm button was pushed as three men tried to force their way in.The police department in East Jutland has confirmed the incident to politiken.dk. A press release will be sent out later tonight.The men were stopped by police-officers monitoring Westergaards house.The attacker has been shot in the arm and the knee as he was throwing an axe at one of the officers and is now being treated in the hospital.The police now have a strong presence around the house, and neighbors have been evacuated.According to Ritzau´s Bureau [danish news agency] a bomb disposal unit has now arrived at Grøndalsvej in Viby, where jyllands-posten´s cartoonist resides.Kurt Westergaard has been under death threats for many years. He drew one of the controversial Muhammad cartoons.In 2006 two men were arrested for conspiring to kill the cartoonist. And he has experienced bomb threats since that time.

4. Photos: Arabs Riot, Unafraid of IDF

Gil Ronen
A7 News

Arab youths from the village of Beit Rima rioted Friday outside the Jewish community of Nevei Tzuf in the Binyamin region of Samaria, north of Jerusalem, throwing rocks that injured a 16-year-old Israeli.Photographs of the confrontation between the Arab rioters and IDF soldiers show the Arabs brazenly confronting IDF soldiers. The Arabs appear unafraid, one even casually smoking a cigarette. They do not even bother to mask their faces with keffiyeh headdresses, seemingly not worrying that any punitive steps will be taken against them.

One of the photographs shows an Arab videotaping the entire confrontation.



Arabs from Deir Nizam confront IDF soldiers.



Reservists attempt to push back rioters who outnumber them.



Soldiers refrain from using weapons...



This goes on for about 90 minutes...



...until a small group of Border Police shows up and uses stun grenades and tear gas...



...ending the confrontation in a matter of minutes.

Photos: Shachar Cohen, Binyamin Residents' Council

Leftist groups have distributed cameras among Arabs and they regularly stage confrontations in the hope of catching IDF violence on camera. The presence of the cameras is also meant to cause IDF soldiers to refrain from using force, for fear of prosecution by the media and legal system.

The Shomron Liaison Office recently received video cameras as a donation from abroad but as of now it seems the Arab side in the conflict is the one making better use of its cameras, while the Jews fail to catch any Arab violence on tape.

The soldiers are obviously reservists and not the professional “riot-busters” that the IDF, Border Police and civilian police use for controlling violent crowds when they wish to strike fear into the hearts of demonstrators. According to Lt-Col (res) Itzik Shadmi of the grassroots Samaria Residents' Council, these only arrived after 90 minutes of a tug-of-war between the soldiers and the rioters, and ended the disturbance swiftly.

Shadmi noted that while the Arabs outnumbered the soldiers -- with about 100 rioters facing about 30 soldiers -- the IDF force was company-sized and is considered to be enough for conquering an entire village, if it only uses its fire power. However, the reservists did not even use their riot dispersal gear.

Peter Lerner of the IDF Spokesman's Unit said in response, “There was a disturbance of the peace at Nevei Tzuf, which included confrontations between Israelis and Palestinians. The forces that arrived on the scene used riot dispersal gear – mostly tear gas. Before forces go into action in Central Command, they are trained in facing the different threats that the Command deals with, including riots. If there was a problem of lack of motivation in this incident, it will be dealt with.”
Comment: Delegitimize and frame the narrative that Israeli military is mean-spirited. You do this by staging a riot, provide cameras to the rioters and demand that they "capture evil acts"-hmm, sound familiar and this is precisely what the Left is doing today. They are a major part of the ME problem and it is way past time to call them out-disgusting individuals!!

Arab MK: Tel Aviv is the Arab Village of Sheikh Munis!

Hillel Fendel
A7 News

A rancorous TV interview last week with an Arab Knesset Member that revealed his apparent desires to conquer Tel Aviv continues to make waves. Arutz Sheva's Hebrew site entitled its article on the topic, "The Israeli interviewer who did not forget that he is Jewish." The broadcast occurred on Thursday night, on the Erev Chadash (New Evening) program hosted by veteran broadcaster Dan Margalit and his younger co-host Ronen Bergman, and broadcast on Channel 1 and 23. Arab MK Jamal Zehalke (Balad) was their guest, and the discussion centered around that morning’s Arab protest against Israel. One Arab MK at the protest, Taleb A-Sana, used his cell phone to broadcast a live address to the rally by Hamas terrorist chief executive Ismail Haniye. Zehalke, for his part, said that Defense Minister Ehud Barak likes to listen to classical music and kill children, comparing him to a Nazi.

Zehalke told his interviewers that there is a “lack of knowledge among Israelis about the terrible situation in Gaza, and there is nothing wrong with Haniye expressing his opinion to the Israeli public.”



Also 'Palestine'? Tel Aviv. / Photo: Flash 90

Bergman said, “He is the head of a terrorist organization that is at war with Israel, and you give him a platform to speak. You don’t see how this is perceived here?” Zehalke responded that it was good for Haniye’s voice to be heard. At this point, Margalit said, “I don’t think there is such a humanitarian crisis in Gaza as you think there is, though that’s not the point--”

Zehalke: “I can bring you examples from the UN report.”

Margalit: “Come on, who believes the UN? The UN is an arm of - look at the Goldstone report.”



Zehalke: “OK, so you believe the Israeli generals?”



Margalit: “I don’t have to believe anyone. I was in Sderot myself for three years and I saw the Kassam rockets that came flying over there, courtesy of Haniye and his friends, well before Israel carried out any military campaign. So come on. But that’s not the point; the point is that Hamas is an enemy, and you, as Knesset Members, apparently couldn’t care less…

Bergman: “Why don’t you protest against Egypt? If they would open their blockade of Gaza in Rafiach, there would be no humanitarian crisis there!”

Zehalke: “I support the Egyptian opposition’s protest against their government” [evoking sarcastic laughter by the interviewer … We want to stop the suffering in Gaza, one must be totally obtuse in order not to see this.”



Margalit: "Not quite; Hamas has fired 8,000 rockets…"



Zehalke: “There were 1,400 dead Arabs and 400 children [in Cast [si.”

Margalit: “Because Hamas fired rockets…”



Zehalke: “Ehud Barak listens to classical music and kills children!”

Margalit: “Yes, we’ve heard that, we’ve heard that. What chutzpah (gall, nerve -- ed.) it takes to talk that way.”



Zehalke: “No, the chutzpah is the killing. Don’t say it is nerve.”

Margalit: “It is chutzpah.”



Zehalke (yelling): “Don’t you say chutzpah!”

Margalit: “I’ll say what I want, I don’t live in your [type o country, I live in a democracy.”



Zehalke (yelling): “You talk as if you’re in the marketplace!”

Margalit: “I talk that way? You say that Barak is a murderer! You are chatzuf [cheeky, rude, disrespectful, from the same root as the Hebrew word chutzpa!”



Zehalke (yelling): “Don’t call me chatzuf!”



Margalit: “You’re chatzuf!”



Zehalke: “Don’t call me chatzuf!”



Margalit: “You’re chatzuf!”



Zehalke: “Oh yeah? You’re a zero!”



Margalit: “Oh? OK, now you’ve convinced me.”



Zehalke: “You’re a zero! You’re a mouthpiece for all the prime ministers, and you’re a court reporter! You’re a court reporter!”

Margalit: “Yes, OK, Zehalke, you’re right, now get out of here. You don’t care about all the Kassams, now get out of here.”

After another round or two of mutual insults, when it appeared that Zehalke had finally left, Margalit had trouble calming down, and said, “You saw that chatzuf? He says that Barak is a child murderer!”

Zehalke’s voice is heard from offstage: “Don’t say chatzuf!”

Margalit: “Get out of here already!”



Zehalke: “Don’t say chatzuf! Don’t say get out of here already!”

Margalit: “Can you let me work, please?” (The next interviewee had already arrived)



Zehalke [still yelling from offsta: “This is Sheikh Munis here!” (referring to a former Arab village on the ruins of which northern Tel Aviv -- including the television studio -- was built)

Margalit [banging on the tab: “Aaah, now we see what you really want! Now it’s clear! You want to conquer this from us too! Now we see the truth!”



Zehalke: “No, we want to live together! I was born here, you are an immigrant!”

Margalit:”Oh, I’m an immigrant?” (Margalit was born in Tel Aviv in 1938)

Old Tactic - But Who's the Real Immigrant

Accusing the Jews of immigrating to Israel is an old Arab tactic – yet, as documented by several works, including "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters, most of the Arab populace that today occupies the Holy Land is itself made up of immigrants from various Arab countries. Many of them arrived over the course of the decades that preceded the formation of the State of Israel -- largely attracted by the economic growth and opportunities engendered by the area's growing Jewish presence.

A leading member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Zuheir Muhsin, said in March 1977, "Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel...

Assaf Wohl, writing in the Judaism section of Ynet on Saturday night, noted, “Do they [the Arab MKs who accuse Jews of immigratin believe that the ‘Palestinians,’ whose name no one ever heard until the 20th century, really grew from this land? People who don’t even know how to pronounce their own supposed name, seeing as it has a P [Arabic does not have that sou? Don’t they know that under the Arab villages in the Galilee are synagogues from the Second Temple Period? Don’t they know that at the end of the 19th century, there were only 140,000 non-Jews in the Land of Israel – 25% of them recent immigrants? And then in 1948, their number was more than 10 times higher, almost exclusively because of Arab immigration to the Land of Israel.”

Relevant Bill

Coincidentally, the ministerial committee for legislation is set to vote this afternoon on a bill that will require Knesset Members to swear allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state. MK David Rotem (Israel Our Home), who sponsored the bill, explained, “Whoever heard what the Arab MKs A-Sana and Zehalke said over the past few days, besmirching the Defense Minister and even allowing Israel’s enemy to speak to the public via a cell phone that belongs to the Knesset and the State, understands intuitively that we have to take action to ensure that the MKs are loyal to the State.”

Obama’s Tortured Rendezvous With Reality – by Jamie Glazov

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

First things first, let me ask you this.

If our government was serious about fighting Islamic terrorism and saving lives, wouldn’t Abdul Mutallab be getting water-boarded just about now? We know that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed – which included waterboarding – forced KSM to give up crucial information that ended up preventing countless terrorist attacks and saving an infinite amount of innocent lives. It allowed, for instance, the U.S. to capture key al- Qaeda terrorists and to thwart a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

But now, thanks to the Obama administration and its approach to the terror war, Abdul Mutallab will probably be getting a lawyer and not have to say anything. This, naturally, drastically increases, rather than minimizes, the possibilities of a future terror attack on our soil and against our citizens.

Your thoughts?

Hanson: I don’t think right now the question is over interrogation techniques, but rather not giving this foreign national would-be mass murderer full rights, as if he were a common criminal rather than a non-uniformed soldier at war.

Mutallab apparently, has been happy to tell all he knows without even being interrogated formally, which makes the entire foiled attack even more absurd: a Nigerian radical Muslim buys with cash a one-way ticket, carries no check-in luggage, was previously reported by his own father as a threat to America, and boards a plane to America after previous stays in Yemen?

Before we even get to questions of interrogation, how about first some sanity? And in reaction to all this, Secretary Napolitano nonchalantly talks about the system working like “clockwork”? I think very soon we will hear of no more “overseas contingency operations” and “man-made disasters”—and no more Janet Napolitano as head of our homeland security.

And when the next official struts and says “Bush did it”, the public will sigh “Thank God, he did”, since in comparison with the seriousness with which the prior administration dealt with terrorism, the Obama team seems to consider radical Islam an interesting catalyst for a civil liberties debate. “Reset” button probably won’t be used any more either—the phrase is too ironic now, and would mean going back to our anti-terrorism policies from 2001-9, which are preferable to the present mess. In political terms, one cannot ask millions of Americans to take off their belts and shoes, and then not put someone like Mutallab on a no-fly list.

FP: The fate of Gitmo?

Hanson: With over 100 Yemenis in Guantanamo, I doubt the facility will be closed; perhaps it will be virtually closed like the Iranian deadlines to stop building a bomb, or the health-care deadlines. I doubt too that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is ever tried in New York; that partisan gambit will be quietly Guatanamoized.

The present Obama diffidence—trash the Bush anti-terrorism protocols, bow, and apologize abroad, contextualize the US in the Al Arabiya interview and Cairo speech, promise to try KSM in New York, shut down Guantanamo—does not quite work in the context of a new series of human IEDs being unleashed against the US. Surely there are one or two astute advisors who will take the President aside and quietly say, “Your present rhetoric and policy are nuts! And you will destroy the Democratic Party for 30 years if you continue!”

FP: Abdul Mutallab doesn’t seem to come from the ranks of the poor, the oppressed and the downtrodden. What does this do to the Left’s belief that the devil made them do it when it comes to our enemies?

Hanson: Well that debate was over long ago, when we learned of the past profiles of the 9/11 killers, the West Bank suicide monsters, and many of the human bombs who went off in Iraq.

The angriest at the West are those with enough money, and education to have developed a full sense of inferiority, self-disappointment, envy, and jealousy. A Major Hasan or Mutallab or Atta inside the West sees the prosperity, liberality, informality, and success around him, begins to figure that no such thing exists in the world of the Middle East and Islamic world, and, presto, believes America and the Jews ensured that there is no resurgent majestic caliphate. We excite the appetites in these characters faster than radical Islam can repress them. That we too often apologize and convey a sense of shame about our own culture only emboldens these killers in their fantasies.

Every bit as important as our military response and vigilance, is our moral tone, which should be along the following lines: “Dear radical Muslims, you, not us, created your present misery through religious intolerance, gender apartheid, statism, corruption, tribalism, anti-scientific fundamentalism, and autocracy, and we have neither regrets about our own success nor responsibilities for your own self-induced miseries, unfortunate as they are.” Until they get that message, we will have the sort of image conveyed by Obama in Cairo and his Al Arabiya interviews: pleasing to the world, but a signal to those who despise the US that we really do not believe in our own exceptional history and institutions.

FP: You mentioned Napolitano, her moronic statements, and how she might not be around much longer. What’s the psychology here of this administration and its overall dance with denial?

Hanson: They seem very naive and inexperienced, almost as if to say: “This is not supposed to be happening to me; I was elected to undo George Bush’s anti-constitutional, so-called war against terror, not actually fight real life terrorists.” In this administration everything is “isolated” and “allegedly”, unless you’re the Cambridge police, and then we really can snap to instantaneous judgement.

Again, I think the Obama administration felt that it would prance in, and end the bad war in Iraq, finish off the good war in Afghanistan, and dismantle the unnecessary Bush crusade against mythical dragons. Instead, they learned that Iraq was essentially won by Bush, Afghanistan is heating up, and there are thousands of al Qaeda terrorists who hate us for who we are, and don’t give a damn that our President’s middle name is Hussein. We are no longer dealing here with college deans and TV pundits who are wowed by split-the-difference, hope-and-change soaring rhetoric.

FP: Two of the four leaders behind the Northwest Airlines passenger jet appear now to have been released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007. Significance?

Hanson: It reminds us of what happens when the Bush administration caved to the popular slur that Guantanamo was a veritable Gulag, and also reminds us that those in Guantanamo were there for a reason.

We have this la-la land fantasy that there are perfectly good and bad choices. But there are no such things. We are targeted by premodern killers, out of uniform, who are keen students of Western doubt and guilt. And in dealing with them, there are no easy solutions, as is always true when the postmodern meets the premodern.

Guantanamo was a bad solution amid far worse alternatives. Candidate Obama demogogued the issue, as he did tribunals, renditions, and the Patriot Act, and now, invested with responsibility rather than mere rhetoric, can’t close it when he promised. ‘Guantanamoize’ is a good verb for incessant rhetorical deadlines that are never met. Ask Ahmadinejad.

FP: Concluding thoughts? What most worries you about the threat we face and the people who are supposedly overseeing our protection?

Hanson: Our well intentioned leaders see radical Islam more as an alternative world view that has grievances, rather than a sick, perverted Nazi-like creed that wants to take the world back to a 7th century theocracy, where freedom is denied, heretics and gays stoned, and women relegated to servile status–all overseen by rather creepy autocrats that destroy almost any modern institution they encounter.

Too often Obama, Biden, Holder, Napolitano, etc. see terrorists in terms of domestic criminals, not as enemy combatants. But once one wades into that legalistic mess of war being a judicial circus, nothing good comes from it: is it a supposed sin to water-board the confessed architect of 9/11 to find out about future mass murdering, but OK in legal terms to be district attorney, judge, jury, and executioner in a nanno-second when sending Predator drone hellfire missiles into the mud-brick compounds of suspect terrorists and their families in Waziristan?

We are in a race between sober people around Obama trying to apprise him of the danger, and his natural Carter-like take on America’s partial culpability for world tensions. Let us hope that the serious people win.

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Iran FM: West has 1 month, or we'll make our own nuclear fuel

Jan. 2, 2010
Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST

Iran warned on Saturday the West has until the end of the month to accept Teheran's counterproposal to a UN-drafted plan on a nuclear exchange, or the country will start producing nuclear fuel on its own.

The warning was a show of defiance and a hardening in Iran's stance over its controversial nuclear program, which the West fears masks an effort to make nuclear weapons. Teheran insists the program is only for peaceful, electricity production purposes and says it has no intention of making a bomb. "We have given them an ultimatum. There is one month left and that is by the end of January," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, speaking on state television.

However, even if Teheran started working on the fuel production immediately, it would likely take years before it can master the technology to turn uranium, enriched to the level of 20 percent, into rods that make the fuel.

Iran dismissed an end-of-2009 deadline imposed by the Obama administration and the West to accept a UN-drafted deal to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. The deal would have reduced Iran's stockpile of low enriched uranium, limiting - at least for the moment - its capabilities to make nuclear weapons.

The US and its allies have demanded Iran accept the terms of the UN-brokered plan without changes.

Instead, Teheran came up with a counterproposal: to have the West either sell nuclear fuel to Iran or swap its nuclear fuel for Iran's enriched uranium.

The UN deal has been the centerpiece of the West's diplomatic effort toward Iran.

Under the plan, drafted in November, Iran would export most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium for further enrichment in Russia and France, where it would be converted into fuel rods. The rods, which Iran needs for a research reactor in Teheran, would be returned to the country about a year later.

Exporting the uranium would temporarily leave Iran without enough stockpiles to further enrich the uranium into the material for a nuclear warhead, and the rods that are returned could not be used to make weapons.

"[The West] must decide on supplying fuel for the Teheran reactor on one of the two offers, purchase or swap," Mottaki said. "Otherwise, the Islamic Republic of Iran will produce the 20 percent enriched fuel with its own capable experts."

Enrichment is at the core of the nuclear controversy. Iran currently has one operating enrichment facility that churns out 3.5 percent enriched uranium. The country needs fuel enriched to 20 percent to power a Teheran medical research reactor. For nuclear weapons, uranium needs to be enriched to 90 percent or more.

The UN has demanded Iran suspend all enrichment, a demand Teheran refuses, saying it has a right to develop the technology under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran has also defiantly announced it intends to build 10 new uranium enrichment sites, drawing a forceful rebuke from the UN nuclear watchdog agency and warnings of the possibility of new UN sanctions.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339371821&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Obama Executive Order Alters Your Legal Protections

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Friday, January 01, 2010

With the signing of an under-publicized amendment to Executive Order 12425, Barack Obama has fundamentally altered your constitutional rights. His actions are undermining your rights to protect personal privacy from a foreign internationalist police agency named Interpol. A one-paragraph executive order may seem inconsequential to many, but this action has far reaching implications and threatens the sovereignty of America. Obama's secretive Executive Order amended an order issued by President Reagan in 1983. Reagan's order recognized Interpol as an International Organization and gave it privileges and immunities commonly extended to foreign diplomats. Reagan opened the door to allow Interpol to operate in partnership with the U.S. but with significant constitutional safeguards. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure by American law enforcement, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Interpol had to answer to the FBI and U.S. courts under Reagan's order. These safeguards were stripped away by Obama's action the week before Christmas without debate or explanation. Obama picked the holiday season to make this radical change to minimize media coverage.

This order marks a significant change in federal policy and usurps the constitutional power of our government by yielding it to an international organization. Michael van Der Galien writes, "This foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse. Property and assets, including the organization's records, cannot now be searched or seized. Their physical operational locations are now immune from U.S. legal and investigative authorities."

Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

Andy McCarthy writing for the National Review asks some very significant questions: "Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?"

Interpol is the enforcement arm of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United States never signed onto the Rome Treaty which created the ICC because of the potential for abuse by foreign interests. Obama has signaled he may sign the treaty over these objections and subject Americans to prosecution overseas in the ICC. This is harmful for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of our land and allowing the ICC to supersede the U.S. Constitution violates America's sovereignty. Second, the War on Terror is unpopular with Europeans and the ICC may attempt to prosecute heroic American soldiers with trumped up war crimes. Obama is putting brave American men and women at grave risk.

An added wrinkle to this executive order is that Interpol's operations center for the United States is housed within our own Justice Department. Many of the agents are Americans who work under the aegis of Interpol. This order has potentially created the new civilian security force that Obama proposed during his campaign. This group of law enforcement officials is no longer subject to the restraints enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The order guarantees that Interpol officers have immunity from prosecution for crimes they may commit in the United States. Ironically, some Interpol nations are attempting to try American intelligence agents for their work abroad in the War on Terror.

This order shows blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution. While Obama is extending due process rights to terrorists he is weakening those same rights for American citizens. If a citizen were to be prosecuted by Interpol their newly granted immunity would interfere with the discovery process. Since Interpol files are immune to disclosure, a citizen could be denied his right to see the information used to prosecute him or her.

Obama's executive order has done more to weaken civil liberties than the much maligned Patriot Act. The silence in the mainstream media on this issue should scare all freedom loving Americans. Obama just signed away parts of our precious legal protections.



Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Pollyanna MSM Quick to Defend Obama and Napolitano

Michael van der Galien

Although I should’ve expected it, I’m afraid I have to admit that the mainstream media’s passionate defense of Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano took me by surprise.

I especially expected better from New York Times columnist David Brooks – as much of a centrist as they come – and Washington Post columnist David S. Broder. The former wrote yesterday: There have been outraged calls for Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security to resign, as if changing the leader of the bureaucracy would fix the flaws inherent in the bureaucracy. There have been demands for systemic reform — for more protocols, more layers and more review systems.

Much of the criticism has been contemptuous and hysterical. Various experts have gathered bits of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s biography. Since they can string the facts together to accurately predict the past, they thunder, the intelligence services should have been able to connect the dots to predict the future.

“Contemptuous and hysterical?” Pardon me? Whether Brooks likes it or not, Napolitano is in charge of homeland security. If the intelligence community makes a mistake which (almost) results in a terrorist attack, she and no one else is responsible. It’s a vital part of the West’s democratic system: democracies can’t expect to thrive if government officials aren’t held accountable for everything that happens under their watch.

Brooks’ column may be bad enough, but Broder proves it can always be worse. The man who is considered to be the “Dean” of the Washington press corps doesn’t merely defend Napolitano in his latest column, as Broder does, but even has the audacity to praise her:

It came as no surprise to anyone who knows her that Napolitano handled the incident and its aftermath with aplomb. In the years I have known her, she has managed every challenge that has come her way with the same calm command that she showed in this instance. If there is anyone in the administration who embodies President Obama’s preference for quiet competence with “no drama,” it is Janet Napolitano.

If that quote isn’t definite proof that politicians aren’t the only ones in Washington who are out of touch with the rest of the country (and reality), I don’t know what is.

Brooks and Broder: the MSM’s Pollyanna-twins.
http://newsrealblog.com/2010/01/01/pollyanna-msm-quick-to-defend-obama-and-napolitano/

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Dow Finishes 2009 With Nearly 19% Gain

PETER A. MCKAY And DONNA KARDOS YESALAVICH

A late burst of selling left stocks with a hefty loss Thursday at the end of what was otherwise a banner year, highlighted by the biggest annual percentage gain in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in six years.

The Dow ended near its intraday lows, down 120.46 points, or 1.1%, at 10428.05. The blue-chip measure ended 2009 with an 18.8% gain, though it is still down 26.4% from its all-time record set in October 2007. The selling was set off by interest-rate jitters but gathered momentum in the last half-hour of trading, which had been thin throughout the day. The lack of participation allowed a relative few participants to have an outsized influence at day's end, apparently through the use of automated trading programs, traders said.

"There's just no liquidity out there right now; guys have totally backed off," said Don Bright, a partner at the Chicago proprietary firm Bright Trading. "That makes it easier for a few people to push the market around."

View Full Image
wallstreet1231
Associated Press

The statue of George Washington near the New York Stock Exchange on the final trading day of 2009.
wallstreet1231
wallstreet1231
Markets Data Center

* Most Actives | Gainers | Losers

* New Highs and Lows | Money Flows

* Intraday Futures | Currencies

In the day's most closely watched economic announcement, the Labor Department said that weekly jobless claims fell by 22,000 to their lowest level in 18 months. Economists had expected a rise of about 3,000.

The report reinforced Wall Street's belief that a U.S. economic recovery is taking hold, but it also spurred some speculation about when the Federal Reserve might raise its key rate target to prevent inflation. That catch-22 is likely to remain a key consideration for traders well into 2010.

"People are looking at these claims numbers and thinking that maybe the [monthly] payroll numbers due out next week might show an increase in jobs," said Peter Cardillio, chief market economist at Avalon Partners in New York.

If that happens, it would snap a streak of 23 consecutive declines in U.S. employment and perhaps clear an important hurdle for the Fed, which is bound by its charter to encourage both price stability and maximum employment in the U.S. economy.

Earlier this month, the report of an unexpected drop in the U.S. unemployment rate to 10% stoked fears that a rise in interest rates was coming sooner than expected. The fears ebbed after the Fed reaffirmed its plans to keep its easy-money stance for some time, but Thursday's better-than-expected claims report has brought the interest-rate worries back.

Nevertheless, Karl Mills, chief investment officer at Jurika, Mills & Kiefer, was pleased with Thursday's report.

"It's a trend in the right direction," he said. "You have to have a strong economy to have a strong market, so we look at it as a positive on an otherwise quiet and non-representative day.

Other stock indicators fell Thursday amid scant volume. The Nasdaq Composite Index fell 1% to 2269.15, up 43.9% on the year. The Russell 2000 was down 1.3% to 625.39, up 25.2% on the year.

The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was off 1% to 1115.10, up 23.5% on the year. The broad index was hurt Thursday by declines in every sector, led by pullbacks of more than 1% each in technology, industrials, materials, utilities, consumer staples, and health care.

Investors digested reports that the U.S. Treasury this week officially ended the bank recapitalization portion of its Troubled Asset Relief Program, the massive bailout launched at the height of the financial crisis to prevent a wider meltdown.

The Treasury this week provided a combined $29.26 million in capital to 10 small banks across the country, it said in a report released Thursday. A Treasury spokesman said the banks would be the last to receive capital under the effort, dubbed the Capital Purchase Program. Through the program, launched in October 2008, the Treasury has provided 707 U.S. banks with $204.9 billion in capital.

Composite turnover in New York Stock Exchange-listed companies hit 2.3 billion shares, a new full-day low for the year. Decliners outnumbered advancers by more than two to one.

Thursday marks the end of what has been the worst calendar decade for stocks since the 1820s, when reliable stock-market records began, according to data compiled by Yale University finance professor William Goetzmann.

However, the rally from the stock market's 12-year low in March represents the strongest rebound since 1933. The Dow has risen 61% over that timespan.

Meanwhile, Treasury prices fell on the final day of 2009, leaving investors with a loss for the year.

Treasurys have handed investors a loss of 3.3% through Wednesday in 2009, on pace for the second-worst annual return since at least 1973, according to the latest data from Barclays Capital. In 1994, Treasurys posted a loss of 3.38%. In 2008, the government bond market saw hefty returns of 14%.

The benchmark 10-year note was off 13/32 to yield 3.84%, and the 30-year Treasury was down 17/32 to yield 4.64% in Thursday trading.

The dollar strengthened against the euro and Japanese yen. Crude-oil futures and gold futures were higher.

Write to Peter McKay at peter.mckay@dowjones.com

Iranian opposition grows beneath surface

Iason Athanasiadis
and Barbara Slavin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ISTANBUL | Iran's opposition movement has yet to produce a charismatic leader but has a diverse and growing group of organizers, including numerous students and veterans of an abortive 1999 uprising, Iran specialists say.. The Green Movement's titular heads remain Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, the two presidential candidates who refused to accept the results of June election that gave incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a tainted "landslide" victory.

Government repression has limited their ability to move among the people. On Tuesday, Mr. Karroubi's son said authorities were no longer providing protection for his father when he leaves home, in effect putting him under house arrest. On Sunday, a nephew of Mr. Mousavi was killed by security forces, according to opposition Web sites, to intimidate the candidate.

While the government focuses on these two men, however, a new generation of activists is working behind the scenes to sustain the movement's momentum.

"There appear to be a core of student leaders, recent graduates and people who were students in 1999," said Kenneth Katzman, an Iran specialist at the Congressional Research Service in Washington.

He said these leaders have "agreed on nonviolence and are trying to reach out to their parent's generation" and to supporters outside Iran.

Mr. Katzman said the activists had organized into cells of about 10 for security reasons.

"They are very optimistic," Mr. Katzman said. "They believe they are going to be rid of [the regime] in six months to a year. They feel that a lot of security people are starting to back off because they don't know how this will come out and don't want to be" on the losing side.

Amir Abbas Fakhravar, 35, a former student leader who spent several years in prison in Iran and now lives in the Washington area, said contacts are taking place on Facebook and Skype and that activists plan to create a "revolutionary council" of about 15 people inside and outside Iran to lead the "Iranian Green Revolution." He said this leadership might emerge before Feb. 11, the 31st anniversary of the fall of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi - another official holiday when masses of Iranians are likely to go into the streets to continue their protests.

Nader Uskowi, another Washington-based Iran specialist and consultant to the U.S. government, said, "We are probably a few months off from the day we see a clear leader emerging."

"The student organizations at major universities are still the most organized ones, but there are also other 'natural' organizations that appear nonpolitical but in fact are gathering places in which the news of planned actions and slogans are passed along, like associations of painters, calligraphers, etc.," he said.

"Students and youths are still the engine of the movement, but it is rapidly spreading to parents actively supporting their children."

Mr. Uskowi said the issue of leadership seems less urgent than the harder task of organizing a large organic movement. He said another strong incentive for leading personalities to keep a low profile is the regime's readiness to arrest anyone identified as an organizer.

The Ministry of Intelligence has infiltrated agents into the Office to Consolidate Unity, a student body that led the last widespread student protests in 1999.

In July of that year, students at Tehran University gathered to protest the closure of a reform newspaper and were set upon by government-backed vigilantes known as Ansar e-Hezbollahi. They threw students from dormitory balconies, killing at least one and injuring and arresting scores. Outraged, young people took to the streets of Tehran for a week, smashed store windows, threw stones at police and burned pictures of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. Then President Mohammad Khatami, who initially supported the students, backed down under pressure from Ayatollah Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards, and the movement fizzled.

Unlike the situation in 1999, however, the current movement has expanded far beyond university campuses to encompass disparate and overlapping groups, including human rights advocates, women, discontented clerics, unemployed and underemployed workers and directionless members of Iran's third post-revolutionary generation angry at the current order.

Clerical involvement, which had been relatively minor in the weeks and months after the June vote, has revived since the death Dec. 20 of Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, a dissident once slated to be Iran's supreme leader. Government efforts to restrict mourning for the cleric brought thousands of angry, devout Shi'ites to the streets in the theological center of Qom and the cleric's hometown of Najafabad, which was put under martial law.

"Reformists organized the protests for Montazeri's death," said Roohollah Shahsavar, a youth activist in the northeastern Iranian city of Mashhad who escaped the country after consecutive arrests and now runs a newspaper called Nedaye Sabz (Green Voice) from his Paris exile. "The Green Revolution group is composed of reformist supporters of Khatami, Karroubi and Mousavi spread across Turkey, France and Belgium and also inside Iran," he said.

Plenty of exiles are vying for control of the movement. Among them are Mr. Fakhravar and Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah.

On Thursday, Mr. Pahlavi urged nations worldwide to withdraw their ambassadors from Tehran. In an interview with the Associated Press, he equated the climate of the unrest in Iran now with the "revolutionary atmosphere" that preceded his father's overthrow. The difference, he said, is that this time the people know what they want - a secular democracy.

"Everyone wants to lead this movement but the question is whether the people out on the streets risking their own lives will accept self-styled leaders coming from Washington, Paris or even recent exiles in countries neighboring Iran," said Delbar Tavakoli, a journalist who was forced to flee to Ankara after the recent elections. "Even Mousavi and Karroubi have become a toy in the hands of the people - they don't have the latitude to issue anything beyond standard announcements or instruct supporters in how to behave."

A Washington Times reporter's experience in Iran immediately after the June elections gives a sense of how the protests are being organized.

A student leader in a bedroom in one of Tehran University's dormitories issued curt instructions into his cell phone to students in the streets.

"Let them burn rubbish bins but not any more banks," he said.

The spartan room was decorated with a potted cactus, a television monitor and a window whose glass had been smashed when a Basij paramilitary had lobbed a stone through it during a raid the previous week.

"Mousavi supporters are nearing Tajrish now," a cell phone caller informed the student leader, illustrating how demonstrations were being organized at opposite sides of the city to stretch the capacity of police to respond.

The student leader was among hundreds of activists who have gone underground since the crisis began, hopping between the houses of sympathizers and emerging on demonstration days to organize resistance to the government.

Djavad Salehi-Esfahani, a professor of economics at Virginia Tech and an Iran specialist, said Mr. Mousavi, a former prime minister and revolutionary stalwart, still has the potential to lead the movement.

He "is doing well so far. I can't see him losing the leadership to others outside the country," Mr. Salehi-Esfahani said. "He has wide appeal and will probably have to fight elements inside the Green Movement who are pushing for overthrowing the Islamic republic rather than reforming it."

Mr. Katzman said, however, that many of the young people with whom he has had contact are not interested in the reformers. He said these young activists criticize foreign media for paying too much attention to Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karroubi.

As violence escalates, the new leadership might be military, given the stake of the Revolutionary Guards in the status quo.

Whoever emerges, "the regime is definitely in trouble," Mr. Katzman said.

* Barbara Slavin reported from Washington.

Happy Tax Year!

Heritage Foundation

While millions of Americans are more than ready to put 2009 behind them, they should know that Congress failed to reauthorize dozens of tax breaks for individuals and businesses before the Members scurried home for the Holidays. These “expiring provisions” affect every American in one way or another as individuals or businesses. By allowing them to lapse, Congress has enacted tax increases at time when these taxpayers can least afford it.The House has passed legislation (H.R. 4213) that would have extended 63 current tax provisions, but the Senate failed to bring this bill to a vote. Thus, all of these provisions expired at midnight last night. Notable provisions as reported today by Tax Notes include:

* Deduction of state and local general sales taxes (section 164) (Personal Tax Incentives)
* Additional standard deduction, up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples, for state and local property taxes (section 63) (Personal Tax Incentives)
* Research tax credit and alternative simplified credit (section 41) (General Business Tax Incentives)
* New markets tax credit (section 45D) (Community Assistance Provisions)
* Empowerment zone incentives (sections 1391 and 1202) (Community Assistance Provisions)
* Renewal community tax incentives (sections 1400E, 1400F, 1400I, and 1400J) (Community Assistance Provisions)
* District of Columbia Investment Incentives (sections 1400, 1400A, 1400B, and 1400C) (Community Assistance Provisions)
* Net disaster loss designation and $500 limit per casualty for personal casualty losses attributed to federally declared natural disasters (section 165) (General Disaster Relief Provisions)
* Expensing for qualified disaster expenses (section 198A) (General Disaster Relief Provisions)
* Biodiesel and renewable diesel incentives (section 40A) (Energy Incentives)
* Alternative motor vehicle credit for heavy hybrids (section 30B) (Energy Incentives)


Although the House has acted and passed its version of the Tax Extenders Act of 2009, the Senate failed to act on similar legislation, as a result the following additional key tax provisions will expire:

* Increased exemption levels for the individual alternative minimum tax (section 55) and personal tax credits allowed against the AMT (section 26)
* Exclusion of unemployment compensation benefits from gross income (section 85)
* Alternative fuel mixture tax credit (section 6426(e))
* Reduced estimated tax payments for small businesses (section 6654(d)(1)(D))


The Senate has had a lot on its plate this year. But it is still unacceptable that they have stalled on the chance to extend these tax provisions that affect every American. By allowing these tax provisions to expire, taxes will rise on many individuals and businesses, and for some of these groups, a punitively steep tax hike.

At the very least, we hope for a New Year’s Resolution from Congress that it acts swiftly in 2010 on passing legislation to amend and extend tax laws that assist every American individual and business which will lead to a stronger, robust economy.

Even better, would be if Congress reformed the entire tax code and brought us a tax system based on one rate, applied once to all income, and in a form every taxpayer can understand. However, that may be asking too much in one New Year’s Resolution.

Good news from Israel

Yoram Ettinger, Jerusalem

1. Acquisition of Israeli companies accelerated. IBM acquires Israel's Guardium for $200MN in cash, its 9th Israeli acquisition. The 1st acquisition was in 1998 (Ubique) and then iPhrase (2005), Unicorn (2006), WatchFire (2007), TeleLogic, XIV, Diligent and FilesX in 2008 (Globes, Nov. 30, 2009). Broadcom acquired Israel's Dune Networks for $178MN in cash (Globes, Dec. 2), its 5th Israeli acquisition, following VisionTech (2000), M-Stream (2004), Siliquent Technologies (2005) and Octalica (2007). Alcon acquired Israel's Optonol for $150MN and additional sum preconditioned on milestones (Globes, Dec. 15).. Abbott Laboratories acquired Israel's Starlims Technologies for $123MN (Globes, Dec. 16). Autodesk acquired Israel's PlanPlatform for $25MN (Globes, Dec. 18). Oclaro acquired Israel's Xtellus for $33MN and additional sum preconditioned upon milestones (Globes, Dec. 21). CA acquired Israel's Oblicore for $25MN, its 10th Israeli acquisition (Globes, Dec. 31).



2. SGE invested $12MN in Israel's NetforMx (Globes, Dec. 15). Sequoia and Charles River participated in a $10MN round by Israel's CloudShare (Globes, Dec. 14). Emergence Capital led a $10MN 3rd round by Israel's SupportSpace (Globes, Nov. 27). JK&B Capital and Longworth participated in the $8.6MN 2nd round by Israel's ViewFinity (Globes, Dec. 24). DAG Ventures led am $8MN 3rd round by Israel's Clarizon (Globes, Dec. 15). Bessmer, Vulcan Capital and Ascent Ventures participated in a $6MN round by Israel's Bizo (Globes, Nov. 27). Intel Capital participated in a $4MN round by Israel's Zend and in a similar round by Israel's Saifan (Globes, Nov. 27).



3. Israel's Palsan, located in the Galilee on the Lebanese border (1,100 workers in Israel and 350 abroad in Israeli, US and French plants), is a global leader in the area of armor protection technology for vehicles. Palsan's chief client has been the US military. For example, Palsan has teamed up with Oshkosh to provide 6,244 armored vehicles for the US Army. In 2007, Palsan was awarded a $1.1BN contract, for 5,500 military vehicles, as Navistar Defense's subcontractor. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), a senior member of the Armed Service Committee, credited on Nov. 3, 2009 Palsan's protection of M-ATV combat vehicles with making a difference in the personal safety of US GIs in Afghanistan. Palsan's 2008 sales reached 2.5BN Shekels (3.8 Shekels per US dollar), a 100% leap compared to 2007 and 50MN in 2002 (Ha'aretz, Dec. 28).

A low and dishonest decade

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

Upon returning from Cairo on Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu proclaimed, "It's time to move the peace process forward."

The most sympathetic interpretation of Netanyahu's proclamation is that he was engaging in political theater. It was a low and dishonest statement uttered at the end of what has been, in the immortal words of W.H. Auden, "a low and dishonest decade." Everyone with eyes in their heads knows that there is no chance of making peace with the Palestinians. First of all, the most Israel is willing to give is less than what the Palestinians are willing to accept.

But beyond that, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, and Hamas is controlled by Iran.

For its part, Fatah is not in a position to make peace even if its leaders wished to. Mahmoud Abbas and his deputies know that just as Hamas won the 2006 elections in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Hamas would win elections today. To maintain even a smudge of domestic legitimacy, Fatah's leaders have no choice but to adopt Hamas's rejection of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state.

Clearly, now is not the time "to move the peace process forward."

No less than what it tells us about Netanyahu, his statement is notable for what it tells us about Israel. Our continued willingness to ensnare ourselves in the rhetoric of peace processes demonstrates how little we have progressed in the past decade.

In 1999, Netanyahu was ejected from office by an electorate convinced that he was squandering an historic opportunity for peace between Israel and its neighbors. A majority of Israelis believed that Netanyahu's signature policies of demanding that the Palestinians abide by their commitments to Israel, and maintaining the IDF's security zone in south Lebanon were dooming all hope for peace.

His successor, Ehud Barak, promised to remove IDF troops from Lebanon and forge a final peace with the Palestinians and with Syria within a year. After winning the election, Barak famously promised a swooning crowd at Rabin Square that the "dawn of a new day has arrived."

Barak lost no time fulfilling his campaign promises. He withdrew the IDF from south Lebanon in May 2000.

He launched talks with Syria in December 1999. For four months he begged Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to accept the Golan Heights, stopping only after Assad harshly rebuffed him in March 2000.

And in July 2000 at Camp David, Barak offered Yasser Arafat Gaza, 90 percent of Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem in exchange for peace. After Arafat rejected his offer, Barak sweetened it at Taba in September 2000, adding another 5% of Judea and Samaria, the Temple Mount, and extra lands in the Negev, only to be rejected, again.

Barak made these offers as the wisdom of appeasement exploded before his eyes. Hizbullah seized the withdrawal from Lebanon as a strategic victory. Far from disappearing as Barak and his deputy Yossi Beilin had promised it would, Hizbullah took over south Lebanon and used the area as a springboard for its eventual takeover of the Lebanese government. So, too, with its forces perched on the border, Hizbullah built up its Iranian-commanded forces, preparing for the next round of war.

Similarly, Barak's desperate entreaties to Assad enhanced the dictator's standing in the Arab world, to the detriment of Egypt and Jordan.

To the extent he required encouragement, the ascendance of Hizbullah, Syria and Iran made it politically advantageous for Arafat to reject peace. Buoyed by their rise, Arafat diverted billions of dollars in Western aid from development projects to the swelling ranks of his terror armies. Instead of preparing his people for peace, he trained them for war.

Arafat responded to Barak's beggary at Camp David and Taba by launching the largest terror offensive Israel experienced since the 1950s. The Palestinians' orgiastic celebration of the mass murder of Israelis was the final nail in Barak's premiership, and it seemed at the time, the death-knell of his policies of appeasement.

A year and a half after he took office, the public threw Barak from power. Likud leader Ariel Sharon - who just a decade earlier had been taken for dead - was swept into power with an electoral landslide. To the extent the public vote was for Sharon, rather than against Barak, the expectation was that Sharon would end Barak's appeasement policies and defeat Arafat and the terror state he had built in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

But this was not to be.

Rather than abandon Barak's policies, Sharon embraced them. He formed a unity government with Labor and refused to fight. He didn't fight after 22 teenagers were massacred outside the Dolphinarium nightclub in June 2001. He did not fight after the September 11, 2001, attacks and the Palestinian celebrations of the slaughter in New York and Washington.

Sharon did not order the IDF to fight until the carnage of March 2002 that culminated in the Seder massacre at Netanya's Park Hotel forced his hand. Had he not ordered the IDF to dismantle the Palestinian terror infrastructures in Judea and Samaria at that time, he faced the sure prospect of being routed in the Likud leadership race scheduled for November of that year.

Operation Defensive Shield was a textbook example of what you get when you mix weak politicians with a strong society. On the one hand, during Defensive Shield, the IDF took control of all the major towns and cities in Judea and Samaria and so enabled Israel to dismantle Palestinian terror networks by remaining in place in the years that followed.

On the other hand, Sharon refused to allow the IDF to launch a parallel operation in Gaza, despite repeated entreaties by the army and residents of the South. Most important, Sharon barred the IDF from toppling the PA or even acknowledging that it was an enemy government. And he maintained that the Palestinian jihad began and ended with Arafat, thus absolving all of Arafat's deputies - who were then and today remain deeply involved in the terror machine - of all responsibility.

In acting as he did, Sharon's signaled that he was not abandoning appeasement. Indeed, he made clear that his aim was to re-embrace appeasement as his national strategy as soon as it was politically feasible.

Most Israelis explained away Sharon's behavior in his first term as the price he was forced to pay for his coalition government with Labor. So when in 2003 Sharon, Likud and the political Right won an overwhelming mandate from the public to lead the country without the Left, the expectation was that he would finally let loose. He would finally fight for victory.

Instead, Sharon spat on his party, his coalition partners and his voters and adopted as his own the policies of the Left that he had condemned in his campaign.

To implement those policies, Sharon dismantled his government and his party and formed a coalition with the same Left the nation had just overwhelmingly rejected.

The past decade's major policies: the withdrawal from Gaza, the construction of the security fence, the acceptance of the road map peace plan, the Annapolis Conference, Operation Defensive Shield, the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead all shared one central feature. They were all predicated on ignoring the lessons of the failure of appeasement in 2000.

Whereas Defensive Shield's strategic success was owed to Israel's decision to maintain control over the territory the IDF seized in the fighting, in launching the wars with Hizbullah and Hamas, Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert, ignored that success and chose instead to emulate the operation's failures.

To further his government's appeasement policies, Olmert refused to order the IDF to seize south Lebanon or Gaza. By the same token, like Sharon in Defensive Shield, Olmert announced at the outset that he had no interest in defeating Israel's enemies. He limited the goals of the campaigns to "teaching them a lesson." And of course by not seeking victory for Israel, Olmert enabled both Hizbullah and Hamas to claim victory for themselves.

By opting not to defeat Hizbullah or Hamas, Olmert communicated the message that like Sharon before him, his ultimate strategic aim was to maintain the political viability of appeasement as a national strategy. He was fighting to protect appeasement, not Israel.

As we move into the second decade of this century, we need to understand how the last decade was so squandered. How is it possible that in 2010 Israel continues to embrace policies that have failed it - violently and continuously for so many years? Why, in 2010 are we still ignoring the lessons of 2000 and all that we have learned since then?

There are two main causes for this failure: The local media and Sharon. Throughout the 1990s, the Israeli media - print, radio and television - were the chief propagandists for appeasement. When appeasement failed in 2000, Israel's media elites circled the wagons. They refused to admit they had been wrong.

Misleading phrases like "cycle of violence" were introduced into our newspeak. The absence of a security fence - rather than the presence of an enemy society on the outskirts of Israel's population centers - was blamed for the terror that claimed the lives of over a thousand Israelis. Palestinian propagandists and terrorists such as Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti were treated like legitimate politicians. Palestinian ties to Iran, Syria, Iraq and the nexus of global jihad went unmentioned or uncommented upon.

At the same time, opponents of appeasement - those who had warned of the dangers of the Oslo process and had spoken out against the withdrawal from Lebanon and a potential withdrawal from the Golan Heights and Gaza - were not congratulated for their wisdom. They remained marginalized and demonized.

This situation prevails still today. The same media that brought us these catastrophes now derides Likud ministers and Knesset members who speak out against delusion-based policies, while suddenly embracing Netanyahu who - with Barak at his side - has belatedly embraced their pipe dreams of appeasement-based peace.

Then there is Sharon. The man who built the settlements, who removed the PLO from Lebanon, who opposed Oslo, Camp David and the withdrawal from Lebanon; the man who opposed the security fence and pledged to remain forever in Gush Katif. As Israel's leader for most of the past decade, more than anyone else Sharon is responsible for Israel's continued adherence to the dishonest, discredited and dishonorable dictates of appeasement.

Whether due to his alleged corruption, his physical enfeeblement, his fear of the State Department, or his long-held and ardent desire to be accepted by the Left, Sharon betrayed his voters and his party and he undermined Israel's ability to move beyond failure.

Auden's "low and dishonest decade" was the 1930s. It was the West's obsession then with appeasement that set the world on course for the cataclysm of World War II.

As Israel enters the new decade, we must redouble our efforts to forestall a repeat of the cataclysm of the 1940s. Disturbingly, Netanyahu's call for a fraudulent peace process shows that we are off to an ignoble, untruthful start.

caroline@carolineglick.com
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364564316&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

29 MKs Challenge Construction Ban in Letter to PM

Avi Yellin 29 MKs
A7 News

Nearly 30 members of Knesset sent a joint letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) this week challenging the government’s current ban on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. The letter, initiated by the Matot Arim organization in cooperation with Knesset House Committee Chairman Yariv Levin (Likud) and opposition MK Uri Ariel (National Union), claims that because of the colossal infringement of human rights resulting from the construction ban, the policy violates Israel’s Basic Law and would require extensive and protracted legislation in order to be legally implemented. Suzie Dym of Matot Arim told Israel National News the letter signed by 29 members of Knesset will – in addition to focusing on the human rights issues and dubious legality of the policy – take the struggle against the construction ban to an entirely new level. “Until now there has been shock at the infringement of human rights resulting from the freeze. This is what has been dealt with up to now. But this letter is asserting that the problem is not only about human rights. The lawmakers who signed the document are saying that they as elected officials know that the Zionist enterprise requires an extensive momentum of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. This construction is central to the Jewish people, to the Zionist endeavor and to the security of Israel.”

The letter was signed by 29 parliamentarians from seven different political factions representing a wide spectrum of Israeli society. According to Dym, the State of Israel is a representative democracy and therefore a letter to the prime minister signed by such a large number of lawmakers should have sweeping implications and be honored by the prime minister and defense minister on a policy level.

War? What War?

Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 01, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers. Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."

And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.

More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.



Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Shabbat protest for security near Ma'arat HaMachpela

Hebron-Kiryat Arba leaders call on all area residents to struggle for secure passage to the Tomb of the Patriarchs

Over the past few days it has became clear that the IDF and Civil Administration are permitting construction of a crowded Arab neighborhood on the access road used by people walking to and from the Tomb of the Patriarchs.This road is known as Simtat Erez – the Erez walkway, is named in memory of Erez Shmuel who was murdered there a number of years ago, and which serves as the access route from Kiryat Arba to the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

As a result of the terrible terror attack on the nearby Worshiper's Way 8 years ago, the Supreme Court ordered that security measures be implemented in order to allow safe and secure passage on the walkway. They ordered that all 'dangerous areas and windows be sealed, in order to offer protection to people walking to and from Ma'arat HaMachpela.

A few weeks ago the Hebron Brigade Commander requested that the Erez Walkway be closed to people on Shabbat, and to prevent the passage of Jews through that street for a few weeks in order to allow work on the sewer system in the area. People avoided walking there for a couple of weeks, believing that this was truly the reason for the closing. However, lately it was noticed that the work being carried out under the noses of the army and civil administration is nothing less than a large-scale construction project, allowing establishment of a large, dense Arab neighborhood, funded by the Gulf States and the Europe Union. This will significantly change the demographic balance in the entire area and result in additional security risks for people, between Hebron and Kiryat Arba.

After having discovered this fraud, Hebron Kiryat leaders demanded that the Hebron brigade commander reestablish all the security measures which had been dismantled.

In their letter they wrote, among other things:

"We want to remind you, that the sealing of these openings became the subject matter in the High Court of Justice , after the state declared before High Court of Justice that security needs are minimal, and after Supreme Court judges (Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, and judges Cheshin and Procaccia - 10497/02 HCJ 10356/0) ruled that these steps should be implemented, and that this is the right balance between the various human rights (right to life, right to worship, freedom of worship and freedom of expression, and property rights). For this reason, the IDF immediately sealed the openings compromising security, otherwise they would have been in contempt of court (as explained to us many times when the IDF acted resolutely against Jewish residents in the city, according to the High Court decision or positions of the Supreme Court). "

After a week, seeing that construction work was not discontinued, and that people's security was still being compromised, area leaders today called for all residents to participate in a struggle for a secure way to and from Ma'arat HaMachpela. A notice was distributed to Hebron-Kiryat Arba residents, which stated:

The works are carried out in the area of the Erez Walkway is being done under the guise of misleading fraud: we were told that the work being done was to renew the sewer pipes, and for this reason we stopped on walking there on Shabbat. However, instead of working on the sewer line, a hostile crowded Arab neighborhood is being built. This construction is being financed - on the order of tens of millions of dollars – by enemy organizations, as part of the war against the Jewish people and Eretz Israel.

All the safety measures placed on the road were removed, and that road is now being abandoned to terrorists and murderers! We will not we reconcile with this situation! We demand that the Arabs cease construction, ensuring the rights and safety of Jewish people in the city of the Patriarchs!

We should all remember: our physical and spiritual existence is based on our connection to the Tomb of the Patriarchs; safe passage to Ma'arat HaMachpela is part of our essence!

Residents are being called on to participate in a protest called for Shabbat morning together with rabbis and community leaders.

Orit Struck, director of legal department of the Jewish community in Hebron, said that "We see ourselves as guardians of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and of the ways to reach this holy site. If we did not struggle for this over the years, Ma'arat HaMachpela today would be in the same condition of Joseph's Tomb in Shechem, or at best, as Rachel's Tomb. We can not allow this to happen. Jews all over the country and the world who come to this holy place are entitled to reach it safely. Even the Supreme Court understood that, after weighing the right of property and freedom of movement of Arabs in the region, nevertheless ruling in favor of the right to life, and the right to freedom of worship. We will not allow this principle to be violated. "

Security and Defense: Learning to fly, Israeli-style

Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

'Should the United States and other countries adopt the Israeli model?" asked an article in the Financial Times. "Aviation security and the Israeli model," was a headline in The New York Times. "Learn a lesson from Israel," said an opinion piece in Canada's National Post. "Security the Israeli way" was the headline of an editorial in a California newspaper. Interest in the way Ben-Gurion International Airport is secured peaked this week after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian, tried blowing up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit by mixing different explosive substances and lighting them under a blanket. The amounts, however, were apparently incorrect and the plane, and its 278 passengers, were saved.

The timing of the incident - the end of a decade with the 9/11 terror attacks near its start - has raised fresh questions about airport security and the continued threat that terrorists pose to civil aviation. The key question that many around the world are now asking is what they can learn from Israeli security measures that would have likely prevented Abdulmutallab from even getting on the plane.

It is widely agreed that El Al is the safest airline in the world, and Ben-Gurion the safest airport. This has to do with the stringent security measures used mostly at its home base, but also at all of its overseas bases as well.

Israel learned its lessons the hard way. On May 31, 1972, in what became known as the "Lod Airport Massacre," terrorists from the Japanese Red Army - working on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - attacked the terminal with assault rifles, killing 26 people and wounding close to 80.

Thirteen years later, terrorists simultaneously attacked El Al ticket counters at the Rome and Vienna airports with assault rifles and grenades, killing 19 people.

Israel has also experienced more than its fair share of hijackings. In 1968, the PFLP hijacked an El Al flight that took off from London's Heathrow. The plane was diverted to Algeria and the Israeli nationals were only released more than a month later.

Possibly the most famous hijacking was Air France flight 139, which was taken to Entebbe Airport in Uganda. The IDF launched an extraordinary commando operation during which it killed the hijackers and released almost all of the hostages.

The most recent case of a hijacking involving Israel was in 2000, when a Russian charter plane was hijacked with a fake bomb. The hijacker, identified as a Chechen in his 20s, demanded that the plane be taken to Israel, which allowed it to land at an air force base near Eilat. After a short standoff, the man surrendered.

BEN-GURION AIRPORT has three layers of security. The first is on the perimeter, which can be accessed only by two gates that are manned by guards - armed with M-16s - who make you roll down your car window and tell them where you are coming from. The idea is to prevent cars filled with explosives or gunmen from entering the airport and attacking a terminal.

The second layer is the profiling of passengers. There are several methods, although the most common is the questions asked by security guards as you wait at the check-in counter along the lines of, "Who packed your suitcases?" and "What is the purpose of your trip?"

The questioning varies for the type of passenger. Starting in the 1970s, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), which oversees airport security, created different categories for types of people that require a more thorough inspection. This was based on an analysis of all known acts of aviation terror.

"People think that profiling is old fashioned and invasive, but it saves the day," said Pini Schiff, who served for close to 30 years in the Ben-Gurion security division. "The Nigerian terrorist would have undergone comprehensive inspections at Ben-Gurion Airport, and without a doubt I can tell you that the explosives he was carrying would have been discovered."

Schiff's proof is the Hindawi affair. On April 17, 1986, a pregnant Irishwoman, Anne-Marie Murphy, arrived at Heathrow Airport with a large bag to catch El Al flight 016 to Tel Aviv. Her bag, Schiff said, had been checked by British airport security and passed, but during the standard questioning, the El Al security guard decided to check it once more.

"Her answers to our questions just didn't add up," Schiff recalled.

A second inspection of the bag discovered a sophisticated bomb made up of Semtex plastic explosives with a detonator hidden inside a calculator that was set to activate when the plane reached a cruising attitude of 39,000 feet. During her subsequent interrogation, Murphy spoke about her Jordanian boyfriend, Nizar Hindawi, who, together with the Syrian Embassy in London, it turned out, had planned the attack. Murphy, who was carrying Hindawi's child, was entirely unaware that he had been sending her to her death.

"Profiling makes the biggest difference," explained another Israeli aviation official. "A man with the name of Umar flying out of Tel Aviv, whether he is American or British, is going to get checked seven times."

The third layer of security at Ben-Gurion consists of the CT scans and metal detectors that luggage and people go through which can detect explosives and weapons. In addition, there are more sophisticated explosive-detecting machines that are used infrequently.

The American Transportation Security Administration is now considering purchasing full-body scanners that will be able to reveal the type of explosives that Abdulmutallab was carrying under his clothes.

According to Schiff, the trick is how to use all of the different methods and to create a modus operandi that balances between security and the need to be able to keep on operating an airport with high-quality service.

"You cannot use all of the methods on all of the passengers," he said. "If you decided that everyone is suspicious, the real suspect would get lost and get away."

This is why, he said, profiling is the key, since it enables the airport security teams to put their focus where it is most needed.

"Security is first and foremost based on common sense, which is supposed to provide you with the right intelligence, technology and modus operandi," he said. "It is all about brains, since if you do everything automatic, it won't work."

This, for example, is one of the main reasons why not all of the passengers going through Ben-Gurion security are required to take off their shoes, in contrast to the US where it is mandatory for everyone, no matter how old or young.

Besides demonstrating poor airport security, the Abdulmutallab case also demonstrated something of even more concern for the US - that after an almost nine-year hiatus, terror may be knocking on America's shores again. Further, the use of a suicide terrorist on a plane - like the 9/11 model - has not been abandoned by al-Qaida and its affiliates.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364564590&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel seeks 'crippling sanctions' as time runs out on Iran

HILARY LEILA KRIEGER in Washington and HAVIV RETTIG GUR , THE JERUSALEM POST

As the deadline for Iran to respond to the international community's offer regarding its nuclear program passed Thursday, the US has toughened its rhetoric and is looking increasingly to sanctions rather than diplomacy.

That has pleased Israel, which wants strong action against the Islamic Republic as it continues to enrich uranium in defiance of international demands and has rejected US President Barack Obama's outstretched hand. The next step, according to Ambassador to the US Michael Oren, should be "imposing crippling sanctions" on the Teheran regime, which is in keeping with the pledge Oren said Obama made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in May that the US would end the engagement phase toward Iran if it were unsuccessful by year's end.

Oren told The Jerusalem Post that "there isn't an Israeli view and an American view" on the Iranian question, but rather "one view."

However, the Obama administration is showing signs that its approach to sanctions might not be in line with the "crippling" measures that Israel is expecting. Instead, a more calibrated approach has been emerging in which the US would press for another UN Security Council resolution this month and look at targeted sanctions rather than at disrupting Iran's energy markets and other more broad-based moves.

In addition, the US has repeatedly stressed that the door to diplomatic engagement remains open, notwithstanding Obama's pledge to review the process at the end of the year.

"The United States remains committed to a diplomatic resolution to the international community's concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program," a State Department official told the Post Thursday, though he added, "Unfortunately, thus far, our efforts have been rebuffed."

He also said, "We would welcome Iran taking concrete steps to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program," particularly by "Iranian acceptance of the IAEA's standing Teheran Research Reactor refueling proposal."

That deal - in which Teheran would have sent most of its enriched uranium abroad for processing so that Iran could then use it for medical purposes - was worked out by global leaders in October, who gave Iran until Thursday to accept the deal. There have been reports, however, that Turkey is working to provide a compromise proposal even though the US has in the past ruled out any modification to the offer, which Iran has not approved.

American officials have several times referred to "consequences" Iran would face for rejecting the efforts at diplomatic solutions, and in recent days have spoken increasingly about the option of sanctions.

Along with the track of ongoing diplomatic efforts, "we are moving on the pressure track in consultation with others," an administration official told the Post Thursday. "The United States will continue to implement its dual-track strategy to achieve its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. We continue to consult with our partners on how we will give full meaning to the dual tracks."

He added that "a variety of options are being explored" on implementing the latter track and that "the discussions are continuing."

Earlier in the week, a senior US official fleshed out some of the approach on the pressure track, telling The Washington Post that the administration would like to use fine-tuned measures. "We have never been attracted to the idea of trying to get the whole world to cordon off their economy," he said. "We have to be deft at this, because it matters how the Iranian people interpret their isolation - whether they fault the regime or are fooled into thinking we are to blame."

Though Obama has been more forceful in his criticism of the Iranian regime as the crackdown on opposition forces has turned bloodier in recent days, the administration doesn't want to see sanctions policy hurt average Iranians or fuel the government's anti-Western charges.

"There's strong support for sanctions on regime figures. Beyond that it gets to be more complicated," Iran expert Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said of popular Iranian attitudes toward such measures.

More targeted restrictions - on the Revolutionary Guard Corps and its economic enterprises in addition to the Iranian leadership - could also be an easier sell with many of the international countries that have at time been wary of sanctions.

The US is looking at leading another sanctions resolution through the UN Security Council once it reconvenes in the new year, a process that could take weeks or even months and in the past has resulted only in weak measures due largely to Russian and Chinese opposition.

Oren, speaking to the Post, expressed optimism over the possibility of such a resolution getting through. "All the indications we have are that the Russians are more cooperative now" on possible sanctions, though he indicated it wasn't clear whether China, which imports a large quantity of Iranian oil, would also cooperate.

Oren also referred to several other paths that could be taken, including targeting the financial activities of the government, curbing the import of refined petroleum and limiting the ability of Iranian leaders to travel around the world.

The US Treasury has already been going after some financial companies that work with Iran, including winning a $217 million settlement with Lloyds TSB Bank and a $536m. global settlement with Credit Suisse in December because of prohibited dealings with Iran. And designating leaders as personae non grata would be in line with a more focused approach.

But stemming refined petroleum imports is the kind of measure that the White House and international community might balk at. Though bills to do just that have been wending their way through Congress, some legislators have privately said they would prefer measures more focused on the regime than the people. In addition, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, who sponsored the House bill, said he wanted to give time for the Security Council process to work before passing any law.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364564164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull