Scheuer's Faulty Memory
By Steven Emerson
Counterterrorism Blog
July 20, 2007

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/07/scheuers_faulty_memory.php

On Tuesday, I appeared on the Glenn Beck show with Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer to discuss the Bush administration’s release of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, and Mr. Scheuer experienced a bout of selective amnesia.

During the segment, the subject of the Islamists’ desire to re-establish the caliphate came up:

Beck: Do you really think that (Al Qaeda terrorists) would stop (targeting America) if we -- I mean, what behavior is it that we could possibly change that would stop them when they`re looking for a global caliphate?

Scheuer: Well, I think a global caliphate is kind of the last refuge of the neoconservatives after they`ve been wrong about everything else. There`s no chance of a caliphate in our world any more than there is of all Christians turning the other cheek, sir. (emphasis added)

In Mr. Scheuer’s haste to win debate points, he apparently forgot his own words and analysis, argued in his celebrated “anonymously” published book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.

In a section titled, “The Importance of Afghanistan,” (see underlined passages) Scheuer himself described the centrality of the re-establishment of the caliphate in the Islamist mindset, writing (on pages 141-142):

But why, one might ask, is one of the poorest countries [Afghanistan] on earth and a one-eyed, battle-scared, and not superbly educated mullah pivotal in the Islamists’ eyes? The answer, once again, is found in the annals of Islamic history. Since the British completed the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, no country has replaced Turkey as the Muslim world’s center. In other words, Islam has needed a site from which to launch a new Caliphate, a state that would be governed by the shariah, God's law. (emphasis added)

And:

Suddenly, when the Taleban captured Kabul I 1996, Afghanistan became an official Islamic state – or emirate – ruled by shariah principles, and so the Islamists found themselves having the long-sought basics: a state ruled by an Islamic scholar from which to revive the Caliphate. (emphasis added)

So what was once good enough for Mr. Scheuer and also “found in the annals of Islamic history,” is now somehow “the last refuge of neoconservatives” and something that there is “no chance” of becoming a reality.

Of course, whether or not the Islamists will actually be able to re-establish a caliphate is hardly the point. It is the fact that al Qaeda is intent on trying to do just that – a point which Scheuer himself makes in his book – which is a driving force behind al Qaeda’s extremism and terrorism.

Never mind the fact that one of the ways al Qaeda seeks to generate support amongst Muslims, both for themselves and for the idea of the re-establishment of the caliphate, is by attacking Western targets, obscuring the fact that much of the damage and violence launched by bin Laden and his minions have been against other Muslims.

Mr. Scheuer needs to brush up on his Islamic history a bit, and he should start by reading his own book.

July 20, 2007 12:16 PM

This is where your tax money is going:

Fayyad government to pay salaries of all PLC members, including deposed Hamas cabinet

Date: 23 / 07 / 2007 Time: 14:32

Salam Fayyad [Ma'anImages] Ramallah - Ma'an – The Palestinian caretaker government has resumed payment of members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), including Hamas members such as deposed Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and former Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahhar. The caretaker government, headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is also meeting today in Ramallah to discuss the plight of more than 6,000 Palestinians stranded in Egypt at the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip. Official sources in the PLC said that all members have received a portion of their salaries, which were not disbursed at all in the last period. The Palestinian daily Al Hayat quoted caretaker Information Minister Riyad Najib Al-Maliki saying, "The Government transferred part of the employees' salaries in addition to the PLC members' without any exclusions." He also said : "No one can seize the salary of any PLC member because of his political views. The salary payment is part of the job of the Palestinian Authority." PLC deputy speaker Hassan Khraishah said that he found NIS 12,000 in his bank account, part of his previously unpaid salary. He continued, "After a revision of the account and clarifying things with other members I found that the salaries of all the PLC members were paid including the salary of Prime Minister Haniyeh." The Ramallah-based caretaker government was sworn in by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Jully forth after the term of an emergency government expired. The emergency government had been declared following internecine fighting in the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinian Blood Libel Bee
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Palestinian Media Watch | July 23, 2007

The promotion of hatred of Jews through their depiction as cold-blooded murderers is a recurring theme on Hamas TV. Over the weekend at least 2 broadcasts presented these images.

One was during the latest episode of the children's program with Nahool the Hamas Bee, in which Nahool twice reminds the children that the Jews are guilty of murder.

Click to view video on YouTube or PMW website

The following are excepts:

Nahool: �You and we will liberate the sad Al-Aqsa that is waiting for us. Yes, we will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of the criminal Jews, who killed my grandfather, and killed Farfur, and history will bear witness to that��

A young caller, Sabah, is asked what she wants to be when she grows up.
Sabah: �Journalist.�
Saraa', girl in studio: �Wow, journalist! Nahool, we need journalists.�
Nahool: "Why? So that� so that they will photograph the Jews when they are killing Farfur and the little children?
Saraa�: �Yes, Nahool.�
Another young caller says: �We will go on [the path] of Jihad when we grow up.�
Nahool: �Yes, we are all Jihad warriors.
Saraa�: �Allah willing.�
[Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), July 20, 2007]

The killing of Farfur referred to by Nahool, the bee, was from a previous episode when beloved Farfur, the Mickey Mouse look-alike, was beaten to death by an Israeli interrogator. [Click to view video on YouTube or PMW website or to see original bulletin.] In an unusual propaganda technique that could only be effective with young children, it is this beating "death" that was created on their own TV that is now being used as a reason to see Jews as murderers. In an earlier program a child called in and insisted the Jews were dogs because they killed Farfur. So the propaganda may be working.

The second murder by Jews over the weekend on Hamas owned Al-Aqsa Television [July 22, 2007] shows a child running with an adult, presumably with his father, until the adult is shot in the back. The child seems to ignore the dead father but takes the key the father was holding � implying it is the key to their home in Israel.

Previously on Tomorrow�s Pioneers, Nahool said: �We shall avenge the enemies of Allah, the murderers of the prophets [i.e., the Jews], the murderers of innocent children, until Al-Aqsa will be liberated from their filth.� [Al Aqsa TV, July 13, 2007]

Also previously on the children's program, a three year old caller went on air saying the Jews killed Farfur. The hostess of the show, Saraa�, replied: �That�s right� The Jews are criminals and enemies, we must expel them from our land.� [Al-Aqsa TV, June 27, 2007]

Palestinian Oppression by their Arab Brothers


Dear Friends,

Difficulties faced by Palestinian Arabs have been a focus of world attention for decades. But oppression of Palestinians by fellow Arabs barely rates a mention.

Often subject to political racism, Palestinian Arabs have been forced into refugee camp ghettos in many Arab states . Identical to the racist laws against Jews in those places, they are also unable to hold citizenship, own land, get jobs or otherwise integrate into their host states. And despite Palestinian Authority or Hamas control of Gaza, there have been no steps toward dismantling the camps there. This is a situation condoned and maintained by the UN and its institutions. If the Arab states were truly interested in helping the Palestinians, they would give them full social and economic rights.

The world appears oblivious to this apartheid policy; both East and West politically and financially encourage it. Taxpayers support it with hundreds of millions channeled annually through UNRWA to pay for basic education, housing and medical services. All of which could probably be paid for by the welfare recipients themselves, if they were only allowed to work freely and integrate into the society around.

It is outrageous that the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in Tripoli, Lebanon , is nearly empty after months of bombing by the Lebanese army. The refugees, who were never allowed to integrate into their adopted country, have become refugees once again. In one day last week, a 16 year old was killed and a 13 year old girl was severely injured - both bystanders in the fighting between the Lebanese army and Palestinian 'militants'.

Or in Gaza; after a bloody coup, summary 'justice' is being handed out by Hamas against their Fatah rivals . Hamas allows a humanitarian disaster to accumulate, while spending fortunes importing huge supplies of advance weaponry into Gaza. Vast quantities of weapons and military equipment are smuggled in – and yet food and medicines are in short supply . It is easy to blame Israel for the poverty and distress and leave the Western taxpayer with the responsibility of picking up the pieces. No human rights group raises even an eyebrow.

Unfortunately, NGOs so vocal about Israel's infractions as she defends her citizens have more important things on their agenda than to be concerned about these innocent civilians. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Christian Aid (to name just three NGOs focusing significant resources on Palestinian issues) have yet to issue a condemnation of the attacks in Nahr el-Bared.

These same NGOs, supported by the world media, strongly criticize Israel for closing its borders to Gaza . Despite the use of these border crossings for the smuggling of weapons and terrorists that threaten her civilians, Israel assists the passage of food, medicine, stock feed and other basic necessities. In the last month I have counted reports of some 33,000 tons of solids and 1.2 million liters of liquids in these categories. Hamas response has been to attack those very border crossings , to scare away international supervisors, and force closures.

The last weeks have seen Israel release both hundreds of convicted terrorist prisoners and large sums of back taxes. Victims of violence in Gaza – civilian and militant – are receiving the best of medical care in Israel's hospitals. All this while the Kassams still rain down on the Israeli city of Sderot and its surrounds.

Those truly concerned about Palestinian welfare would best focus on making border crossings safe, allowing food and medicine to enter Gaza, allowing trade to flow in both directions; or help to stop the fighting in Lebanon; or prevent the destabilising arms build up in those two places; or end corruption in the Palestinian Authority that siphons billions in international aid away from the average Palestinian toward corruption and violence; or... the list is almost endless of important ways of helping the Palestinians which do not involve criticising Israel…unless, of course, the motivation is more sinister.

David

To subscribe or unsubscribe to my occasional "letter from Israel", just email me at David.Frankfurter@iname.com

To comment on this letter or read my archive, go to http://dfrankfurter.livejournal.com/

Fatah-affiliated fighters refuse to handover weapons or renounce violence
against Israel
Date: 22 / 07 / 2007 Time: 17:33
www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=24188

Jenin - Ma'an - The official spokesperson of the Fatah-affiliated Martyr Abu
Ammar Brigades, Abu Mohammad, affirmed the brigades' loyalty to political
leaders and Fatah decisions, but announced that the group refuses to
handover its weapons or renounce violence against Israel.

The announcement follows the declaration of the main military wing of Fatah,
the Al Aqsa Brigades, last Sunday in which the fighters abandoned the armed
struggle against Israel.

"We did not and will not handover our weapons and cease resistance against
the Israeli occupation as long as it is targeting Palestinians and invading
the Palestinian territories and as long as it continues to pursue the
Palestinian resistance everywhere," said Abu Mohammad.

Abu Mohammad also said that the brigades do no recognize "the Israeli pardon
of resistance men." He asserted "we, the Palestinians, are not murderers, so
we should automatically be immune to pursuit, we are resisting and this is
our legitimate right."

At the same time, Abu Mohammad congratulated the 256 Fatah prisoners on
their release from Israeli jails and appealed for ongoing efforts to release
all prisoners.

IDF: Hizbullah moving rockets inside s. Lebanese villages

---

Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jul. 22, 2007

---

Hizbullah guerrillas have moved most of their rockets in south Lebanon among civilians in villages in an apparent attempt to avoid detection by Israel and UN troops, IDF officials said Sunday.

The new moves are part of Hizbullah's reorganization after the Second Lebanon War, the officials said. During the summer's war, Hizbullah fired almost 4,000 rockets at Israel.

While Lebanon criticized the IDF for targeting civilian areas during the war, Israel said Hizbullah was to blame for operating among civilians and putting them at risk.

Last summer, many of Hizbullah's rocket batteries were located in unpopulated rural areas, where the guerrillas dug networks of tunnels and fortifications, the officials said. But the army's new intelligence indicates that those positions had now largely been abandoned in favor of populated villages, which provide better cover for the group's activities. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

The UN-brokered cease-fire that ended the war expanded UNIFIL, the international peacekeeping force in south Lebanon, to 13,000 troops, entrusting it with ensuring that Hizbullah was not rearming near the Lebanon-Israel border.

Yasmina Bouziane, a UNIFIL spokesman in Lebanon, refused to comment on the Israeli charges.

A Hizbullah official in Beirut also refused to comment on the allegations. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said only that in the past Hizbullah guerrillas fired rockets at Israel from valleys and mountainous areas and not from inside villages.

The officials said Hizbullah's postwar efforts also included the construction of new fortifications north of the Litani River, farther from the Israeli border and out of UNIFIL's jurisdiction.

Want to Understand Islam? Skip John Esposito's Apologias
by Winfield Myers
Campus Watch Web Log

This post from:

http://www.campus-watch.org/weblog/id/85

As if to confirm the observations that Cinnamon Stillwell made in her post from yesterday, below, John Esposito of Georgetown University has produced yet another breezy, ahistorical look at radical Islam. Writing in the Washington Post, Esposito titles his article, without a hint of irony, "Want to Understand Islam? Start Here." To which one might retort, start anywhere but there.

Esposito offers a series of bromides designed to paper-over the influence of Wahhabi Islam, the state religion of his financial benefactors at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding: Muslims worship the Abrahamic God, as do Jews and Christians; Muslims revere Moses and Jesus; Muslims see Islam as a continuation of those earlier religions. These are proferred as a substitute for rigorous examination of the epistemological crisis of much of modern Islam, a crisis manifested by terrorism, hatred for Jews and Christians, and jihad.

In fact, Esposito (keeping true to form) writes that keeping in mind Muhammed's place in Islam "helps us appreciate the widespread anger" many Muslims harbor toward the West. But he refuses to condemn the rampaging mobs and murderous thugs who put a fatwa on Saman Rushdie, sent into hiding the Danish cartoonist who lampooned terrorists with his drawing of Muhammed, and openly vowed to kill Pope Benedict XVI (and did kill a priest and a nun) following his Regensberg lecture last summer. Esposito nowhere mentions the details of these threats; he's concernced instead that we grasp the source of Muslim rage. Free speech, freedom of intellectual inquiry, outrage at killing one for his thoughts, the inability for mob rule and intimidation to co-exist with civil society and the rule of law: Esposito says nary a word about these matters, nor about the billions of Saudi dollars that support Wahhabi Islam worldwide.

Esposito also obfuscates the meaning of jihad by hauling out the tired, politically correct definition: "In the Koran, Islam's sacred text, jihad means 'to strive or struggle' to realize God's will, to lead a virtuous life, to create a just society and to defend Islam and the Muslim community."

But as Daniel Pipes has shown conclusively, "the way the jihadists understand the term [obligatory holy war] is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history." As Pipes has elsewhere pointed out, David Cook of Rice University has dismissed Esposito's definition of jihad as "bathetic and laughable."

Esposito ends his encomium with another apology for radical Islam: "My years studying those attitudes [of the world's Muslims] suggest that Muslim hostility toward the West is mostly political, not religious, and that Muslims hope the West will show their faith more respect."

Are we to think that the repression of Egypt's Copts, the murder of Iraq's Christians, the vile anti-Semitism so widespread on Arab television, and other acts of violence against Jews and Christians are mere expressions of political outrage? That there is no religious hatred at work--a hatred fanned by Wahhabi Islam?

Showing respect for Muslims is indeed a virtue, and bigotry is condemnable whenever and wherever it it practiced. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Middle East studies professors like John Esposito should hold radical Islamists to the same standards to which they hold the non-Muslim West. But, given his track record and the Saudi source of his sinecure at Georgetown, even-handedness and historical accuracy are not virtues he's likely to pursue.

New Feature-Every Saturday I will post what the Arab Press has been writing-Hang on!


Review of Arab Editorials

By UPI
Middle East Times

Published July 2007

A roundup of commentary from Arab newspapers.

The Arab press Thursday further focused on the significance of the planned Middle East peace conference from the US, Israeli, and Palestinian viewpoints, as well as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' refusal to speak with Hamas, calling for early elections.

Abbas call for early elections 'lesser of two evils'

A commentary in the Palestinian Al Quds focused Thursday examined Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' speech to the Palestine Central Council in which he insisted he would not speak to Hamas after its "coup d'etat" in the Gaza Strip, and called for early elections.

The mainstream daily said just as Abbas had reached a decisive position, so had Hamas in Gaza, as it repeatedly called for unconditional dialogue with Fatah, which the latter faction rejected.

"We now stand before a real strategic crossroads, as the call for elections carries many problems and repercussions," said the Jerusalem-based daily, close to Fatah, adding, "And remaining in this status quo carries even more problems and repercussions."

It stressed that holding new elections remain the "lesser of two evils" and that moving toward any dialogue should start with returning to the status quo before Hamas took total control of the Gaza Strip.

It said that after that, a serious dialogue between the two factions could begin, but not based on the same elements as the agreements reached in Mecca, which, it insisted, were a "cover to achieve ulterior motives."

Resolving Palestinian question key to Mideast summit success

An editorial in the United Arab Emirates' Al Bayan said US President George W. Bush's call for an international Middle East peace conference next fall could be significant if it meant serious action would be taken to resolve the Palestinian issue, based on the Arab peace initiative.

"Resolving the Palestinian issue needs a just solution, which is the key to solving most of the problems in the Middle East," it remarked.

The pro-government daily warned, however, that unless a specific timetable was set to ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab territories, and establishing a Palestinian state, the summit would achieve nothing.

"Past experience has shown that any effort that doesn't take this into consideration is going to [meet with] the same fate as previous attempts that failed to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict," it said.

It expressed the hope that Bush's offer was not a mere "political [posturing]," especially after the White House had changed the terminology it was using from "conference" to "meeting," to try to establish Palestinian democratic institutions.

The paper urged the Bush administration to reconsider the substance of its offer, and its implementation methods, if the meeting was to succeed in achieving peace and restoring stability in the region.

Mideast summit bound to fail if Israel not pressured to honor obligations

A commentary in Qatar's Al Rayah said the many fruitless Mideast peace conferences to date had become routine, and their results predictable, all of them ending in unfulfilled agreements.

It accused Israel of refusing to fulfill its obligations thanks to its military dominance over the Palestinians, saying that as long as no power forced Israel to commit to its obligations, and so long as the US continued to support it, the decisions of such conferences would continue to remain as ink on paper.

The pro-government daily added that choosing next autumn for the proposed summit would coincide with the US coalition commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus' expected assessment of the surge of American troops, as well as Bush's Iraq strategy in general.

"This shows the White House is trying to create a parallel event that will [divert] the spotlights [to] be focused on it on the eve of Petraeus' report," it remarked.

The Bush administration had already warned against having any expectations of the fall summit, it said, adding that the gathering would have a "painful outcome when it becomes clear the [US] administration's pockets [are devoid] of any initiative that might move forward the deadlocked peace [process]."

Mideast peace summit unnecessary if US ended pro-Israel bias

An editorial in Egypt's Al Gumhuriya argued that the US president could revive the peace process without resorting to playing for time, presenting promises in return for concessions, and calling for international conferences that achieved nothing.

"If only [Bush] would pressure Israel to declare its [acceptance of] the Arab peace initiative, and to start final status negotiations to draw up international boundaries for the [hoped for] Palestinian state, in accordance with international resolutions," said the semi-official daily.

But instead, it complained, the Bush administration continued to reaffirm its bias toward Israel by repeating its demands of the Palestinians and Arabs to give Israel free reign to continue its occupation and "brutal attacks against the Palestinian people."

The mass-circulation daily insisted the US' favoritism toward Israel had been the primary factor for the "death of the peace process, and it will not [be revived, other than] with an honest and honorable American policy."

Mideast peace summit haunted by ghosts of agreements past

Jordan's independent Al Ghad published a cartoon implying Bush's proposed Middle East summit for next fall was a desperate attempt to revive previous peace agreements that had collapsed.

The lampoon, titled, "Reviving the peace process," depicted a skeleton, identified as "Madrid," digging a grave whose headstone had "Oslo" written upon it.

"Madrid" was a reference to the first international Middle East peace conference that took place in the Spanish capital in 1991, and "Oslo" referred to the interim Palestinian-Israeli peace accords signed in the Norwegian metropolis in 1993, which had not been fully fulfilled.

Report: Iran to provide Syria with $1b for new weapons

---

JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jul. 21, 2007

---

Iran will reportedly fund, at a price of $1 billion, new Syrian fighter jets, tanks, missiles against naval craft and will aid in Syria's nuclear and chemical weapons research programs. In return, Syrian President Bashar Assad has reportedly promised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to cease the pursuit of peace talks with Israel in exchange for Iranian support of Syrian interests in Lebanon.

The sensitive details from the two leaders' meeting in Damascus earlier in the week were related to the Lebanese Arabic daily Asharq Alawsat by an anonymous Iranian source involved with the discreet meeting, and were brought to light on Saturday.

In response to the alleged deal, chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee MK Tzahi Hanegbi (Kadima) said "Iran is an ever-increasing threat not only to Israel, but to the stability of the region, to pragmatic Arab states and to the hegemony of the sane and realistic West.

"Syria's convergence to Iran demonstrates Assad's hasty and hazardous nature. In contrast to his father, Hafez, Bashar is taking exaggerated risks and is placing the very existence of his regime in jeopardy," said Hanegbi.

Eitan: We must not negotiate with Syria

The Iranian source went on to tell the newspaper that the countries made strides in tightening their diplomatic and military relations.

As a result of the new agreement, Asharq Alawsat reported, Syria will likely become increasingly dependent on Iran due to the large amount of money the Shi'ite country will transfer to it.

The report went on to say that aside from economic, cultural and scientific cooperation, Iran will help to fund Syria's purchase of Russian and North Korean weapons. These weapons reportedly will include 400 advanced Russian T-72 tanks, 18 Russian Mig 31s, as well as eight M-8 helicopters and other military equipment.

In addition, Iran will reportedly help Syria build factories that would manufacture medium-range missiles, and will also supply Syria with Iranian-made tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Syrian navy will also reportedly be rearmed with Chinese-made C-801 and C-802 missiles, which are presently being manufactured in Iran.

The same type of missile struck an IDF Navy ship off the Lebanese coast last summer during the Second Lebanon War, killing four IDF sailors.

On the diplomatic front, Ahmadinejad reportedly promised Assad to help topple Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and to push sway on the Lebanese parliament with the aim of restoring pro-Syrian influence there. Assad, for his part, agreed not to enter peace negotiations with Israel.

---

Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad
By Dr. Walid Phares
The American Thinker | July 20, 2007

In the years that followed 9/11, two phenomena characterized the Western public's understanding of the terrorists' ideology. The first characteristic stemmed from the statements made by the jihadists themselves. More than ever, Islamist militants and jihadi cadres didn't waste any opportunity to declare, clarify, explain, and detail the meaning of their aqida (doctrine) and their intentions to apply Jihadism by all means possible. Unfortunately for them, though, those extremely violent means changed the international public opinion: the public now was convinced that there was an ideology of Jihadism, and that its adherents meant business worldwide.

From Ayman al Zawahiri in Arabic to Azzam al Amriki in American English, via all of the videotapes made by "martyrs" in Britain, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public obtained all the evidence necessary. Against all the faulty academic literature of the 1990's, the statements by the jihadists themselves were very convincing.

The second phenomenon of help to the public was the surfacing of a new literature produced by alternative scholars, analysts, journalists, experts, and researchers who, from different backgrounds and countries, filled in some of the gaps is "jihadi studies." Producing books, articles, and blogs from Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America, a combination of Third World-born and Western-issued scholarship began to provide the "missing link" as to what Jihadism is all about. These factors came together to shift the debate from "Jihad is spiritual yoga" to "Why didn't we know it was something else as well?" And this triggered in response one of the last attempts to prevent jihad from being understood.

In the 1990's, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that jihad was a "spiritual experience only, and not a menace." [1] That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the "good cop, bad cop" strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality jihad can develop in two forms: good jihad and bad jihad.

The practice of not using "Jihad" and "Jihadism" was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University [2] who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard.[3] On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title "Loosly Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology." Streusand told CNN that "Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith." [4]

The article was posted under the title "Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms" by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. [5] Since then the "concept" of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of the defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that "Jihad has been hijacked" as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard's lobbying pieces.[6] Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.

The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the "real" Muslim leadership. According to this thesis, those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers." The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that "jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense."[7]

When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood as a plan to prevent jihad and Jihadism from being considered by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore forbidden activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy and plunges democracies back into the "black hole" of the 1990's. This last attempt to blur the vision of democracies can be exposed with knowledge of the jihadi terror strategies and tactics, one of which is known as Taqiya, the doctrine on deception and deflection. [8]

First, the argument of "good jihad" raises the question of how there can be a legitimate concept of religious war in the twenty-first century to start with. Jihad historically was as "good" as any other religious war over the last 2,000 years. If a "good jihad" is the one authorized by a caliph and directed under his auspices, then other world leaders also can wage a "good crusade" at will, as long as it is licensed by the proper authority. But in fact, all religious wars are proscribed by international law, period.

Second, the authors of this lobbyist-concocted theory claim that a wrong jihad is called a Hiraba. But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a "genuine" war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts "spin" on jihad but leaves the core idea of jihadism completely intact. The "spoilers" depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate's long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon "fail" their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.

This scenario fits the relations of the global jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the "hotheaded" Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the "great leap forward" made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real jihadists but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.

This article was adapted from his recently published book The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.

ENDNOTES:

[1] See John Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? 3rd edition. (New York: Oxford University Press) 1999.

[2] May 23, 2006

[3] "Hiraba Versus Jihad," the American Muslim. August 2003.

[4] See Henry Shuster, "Words in War," CNN, October 19, 2006.

[5] Quoting the American Forces Press Service on June 29, 2006.

[6] Michael Waller. "Making Jihad Work for America." The Journal for International Security Affairs. Spring 2006

[7] See James Fallows, "Declaring Victory," Atlantic Monthly (September 2006).

[8] According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Taqiya: "spelled Taqiyah, Arabic Taqiyah ("self-protection"), in Islam, [is] the practice of concealing one's belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury to oneself or one's fellow Muslims. The Qu'ran allows Muslims to profess friendship with the unbelievers (3:28) and even outwardly to deny their faith (16:106), if doing so would save them from imminent danger," on the condition that their hearts remain attached to faith. Also see Larry Stirling, "On Taqiya' and ‘Fatwas,'" San Diego Source, September 25, 2006; also Walid Phares, "al-Taqiyah: The Muslim Method of Conquest," Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, December 1997.

Dear friends

Today's New York Times carries a review of a film called "Hot House "
that goes inside Israeli prisons and examines the lives of
Palestinian prisoners. We're not recommending the film or the review .
But we do want to share our feelings with you about the beaming
female face that adorns the article. You can see it here.



The film is produced by HBO. So it's presumably HBO's publicity
department that was responsible for creating and distributing a
glamor-style photograph of a smiling, contented-looking young woman
in her twenties to promote the movie.

That female is our child's murderer. She was sentenced to sixteen
life sentences or 320 years which she is serving in an Israeli jail.
Fifteen people were killed and more than a hundred maimed and injured
by the actions of this attractive person and her associates. The
background is here.

Neither the New York Times nor HBO are likely to give even a moment's
attention to the victims of the barbarians who destroyed the Sbarro
restaurant in Jerusalem and the lives of so many victims. So we would
be grateful if you would pass along this link to some pictures of our
daughter whose name was Malki. She was unable to reach her twenties -
Hamas saw to that.

Though she was only fifteen years old when her life was stolen from
her and from us, we think Malki was a beautiful young woman, living a
beautiful life. We ask your help so that other people - far fewer
than the number who will see the New York Times, of course - can know
about her. Please ask your friends to look at the pictures - some of
the very few we have - of our murdered daughter.

They are at
http://www.kerenmalki.org/photo.htm

And remind them of what the woman in the Israeli prison - the woman
smiling so happily in the New York Times - said last year. "I'm not
sorry for what I did. We'll become free from the occupation and then
I will be free from prison."

With so many voices demanding that Israel release its terrorist
prisoners, small wonder she's smiling.

With greetings from Jerusalem,
Frimet and Arnold Roth

On behalf of Keren Malki

Rightist fury a myth

Are rightist reactions as 'furious' as journalists tend to describe them?
Uri Orbach

Incoming President Shimon Peres already said in an interview to some foreign network that we should get rid of the Territories, and newspapers reported about "rightist fury" in response to the statement.

I happened to be part of the rightist camp that day and wondered where this fury they were reporting was to be found. Does any response by rightist Knesset Members Zvi Hendel and Uri Ariel constitute "rightist fury?"

If there is fury, let it appear immediately. Fury is made up of raging protests, road-blocking, loud rallies and whistles. Rightist fury is something akin to the response of Beitar Jerusalem soccer fans when a referee disqualifies a goal. Now that's fury.

During that same morning this week, following Peres' statements, I was wandering around the Right and found no fury. Perhaps I found rightist chuckling, forgiveness, some giggling, and even some nose-picking (the right nostril, of course) in wake of Peres' declaration. But you call that fury?!

The answer to the question of when the Right is furious is not at all related to Peres' words. The truth is we are not talking about any fury, but rather, a journalist reflex. For them, the Right is always associated with fury and emotions while the Left is associated with logic and level-headedness.

Right and fury are like a bride and groom, Max and Moritz, Lindenstrauss and Olmert (no, that's not a good example.)

Google survey

Try the following trick and have some fun with it: I entered the phrase "rightist fury" into Google's Hebrew search and within a quarter of a second, 640 mentions appeared. There is almost no issue where fury is not attributed to the Right, ranging from construction of the security fence, to halts in fence construction, to head lice. Rightist fury, the settlers are furious, the religious community is furious, and so on and so forth.

Then, I entered the phrase "Leftist fury". Whoops! Only 167 mentions. As it turns out, the Left is only furious 25 percent of the times the Right is furious. Then I continued with this amusing game and searched the phrase "criticism on the Right." After all, criticism is a more moderate and solid expression.

The phrase "criticism on the Right" appeared online 123 times. And what about "criticism on the Left?" 297 mentions in Google – 250 percent more than on the Right.

There's a quick conclusion that can be drawn from this non-scientific Internet survey. When rightists issue criticism it is quite easy to define it as "fury," while when the Left is furious on occasion, it would obviously be simpler to note that the Left is "issuing criticism."

Indeed, sometimes the Right too is furious. But believe me, at the beginning of this week, after Shimon Peres said we should be getting rid of the Territories, there was no fury. There was rightist yawning and rightist boredom. I even counted six responses that can be characterized as "nodding of the head on the Right" and a "damn, him again?!" declaration on the right. But fury?!

Subject: Alert levels

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists themselves have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

Also, the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

It's not only the English and French that are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Syria scared of peace

Each time Israel shows willingness to cede Golan, Syrians shy away
Guy Bechor

Basher Assad's peace declarations publicized in the media over and over again this week may be misleading, and indeed they are designed to mislead.

An examination of Assad's speech before his parliament few days ago, and a monitoring of the Syrian arena, regretfully shows the opposite. The Syrian president, who was sworn in for a second term in office this week following a staged referendum, is doing all he can to flee any peace negotiations. Similar to the way his father fled when it became clear to him that the other side - then Ehud Barak and currently Ehud Olmert - may indeed cede the Golan Heights.

After all, the entire regime is premised on the animosity and conflict with Israel. If there is no conflict with Israel there will be no minority Alawite regime ruling Syria either.

The Syrian president took a sharp turn and is now hindering any chance of making progress with Israel. The conditions he is demanding make it impossible. Until his address this week, Syria stressed that contrary to the past it was setting no preconditions for engaging in talks with Israel. The Syrians argued that it was in fact Israel that was making such stipulations.

However, the moment the Syrians realized that Olmert could indeed cede the Golan Heights – or at least profess to do so – they went into a state of shock.

In his inauguration speech Assad announced the new conditions for engaging in talks:

• Prime Minister Olmert must transfer "written guarantees" in an official document, according to which Israel is prepared to hand over to Syria all of the Golan Heights up to the borders of July 4th, 1967 without any dispute. Such a document can be public or covert, similar to the one (according to the Syrians) handed over by Yitzhak Rabin. Incidentally, it is high time to put an end to the so-called "Rabin deposit." Let's assume there was such a document, why then didn't they agree to it? Similar to a petty lawyer, Assad is asking for everything to be put in writing.

• At this stage a type of indirect mediation will begin between Israel and Syria by means of a third party, to be agreed upon by both sides. There is no apparatus that can determine who the third party would be and why it is necessary.

• Assuming that all issues are clarified, open and public negotiations will commence.

What is Assad really saying here? That he wants it all. Does he really think that either side would agree to the demands of the other side without actually engaging in talks? And what is he giving in exchange? "We have no faith in the Israelis," Assad said in his address. Does anyone in the Middle East have faith in him?

Assad's speech attests to Syria's existential dilemma. On the one hand, Syria is in need of some kind of process with Israel that would save it from an international tribunal regarding the Rafik Hariri assassination. On the other hand, peace with Israel would mark the end of the regime.

It is astonishing to see how each time an Israeli leader demonstrates a willingness to cede the Golan Heights the Syrians flee as fast as they can. Assad's new conditions are akin to evasion. When will we finally be able to read the true intentions of the Assad family and the Syrians?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3427399,00.html

"Confronting Hamas"

An unnamed "senior IDF officer" has given a briefing with regard to the situation in Gaza that is being broadly cited. I am assuming that he remains unnamed because he is criticizing the government; what he has to say must be attended to with the greatest seriousness:

Hamas has developed enormous military sophistication in Gaza since the "disengagement," he says, and Israel has a limited window of opportunity for confronting that threat. That window of opportunity exists both because the world has not yet become accustomed to the Hamas entity in Gaza, and because Hamas has not yet completed its military buildup and thus does not find that it serves its interests to attack us yet. But its ultimate goals are clear.

"They have an organized military. They have the manpower, they have the training, they have the motivation."

Some 13,000 Hamas recruits now constitute a full-fledged army, consisting of four brigades, made up of a number of battalions and platoons. In the past two years hundreds of Palestinians have received training in Iran. Hamas, in the past two months, has smuggled over twenty tons of explosives from the Sinai into the Gaza Strip. They have obtained anti-tank missiles, as well as an unknown number of anti-aircraft missiles. Hamas also reportedly is in possession of old models of Katyusha rockets, and they are working to improve the range of their Kassam rockets.

The IDF, says this officer, has the ability to confront this threat: The IDF Southern Command has operational military plans for Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and recently conducted several weeks of training.

"I don't see the Egyptians, the Americans, the Europeans or Abbas, being able to restrain Hamas. Israel is the only one capable of making the change...

"The IDF has gone through the necessary preparations for a widespread operation in Gaza."

ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS GO-AHEAD FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

From: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Jordan not the solution

Notion of Jordanian-Palestinian confederation is not a viable prospect
Shlomo Brom

According to some observers, the phoenix of Jordanian-Palestinian confederation seems to have risen from the ashes. Discussion of this issue has been revived following the crisis in the Palestinian Authority, which peaked with the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas.


That crisis has deepened the Israeli-Palestinian impasse because it manifested the Palestinians’ inability to advance toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and aroused some nostalgia for the days before the Palestinian national movement moved to center-stage, when the fate of the Palestinians was determined by Arab states, especially Egypt and Jordan.


At first, the feeling took the form of proposals, especially by Israelis, that Egypt and Jordan send forces to restore order in Gaza and the West Bank and create the conditions for political progress. More recently, it has been expressed in the idea of confederation.


The idea of confederation was first raised in 1972 and resurfaced several times in the years since King Hussein decided in 1988 to sever links with the West Bank and recognize the PLO as the body responsible for the population there. The Jordanians never rejected the idea outright but did always stress that confederation can come about only if the Palestinians want it and that it can therefore be discussed only after an independent Palestinian state has come into being. Now, however, confederation is being considered from the outset as an alternative to a Palestinian state.


This version of the idea appears to have gathered momentum because of the conjuncture of two developments stemming from the Palestinian crisis. One is growing Jordanian concern at the possibility that the crisis will spill over into Jordan, in the form of a stream of Palestinian refugees. Those refugees would join the huge number of refugees from Iraq entering Jordan in recent years. They are already placing a strain on Jordanian infrastructure, but they do not constitute a truly heavy burden because Jordan has taken pains to allow only Sunnis with means to enter.


From the regime’s point of view, Palestinian refugees would be a more serious problem because they would lack their own resources and would threaten to upset the delicate demographic balance between East Bank Jordanians and those of Palestinian origin.

To read the entire article go to: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3426386,00.html

17% of prisoners resume terror activity
Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 18, 2007

Nearly one in every five Palestinian prisoners who has been released returns to terror activities, a senior Justice Ministry official said Wednesday.

The remarks by Pardons Department head Emmy Palmor came just two days before Israel is scheduled to free more than 250 Palestinian prisoners in a confidence-building measure aimed at bolstering Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

About 85 percent of the Palestinian prisoners slated for release on Friday morning were from Fatah, and the rest from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palmor said. None of the prisoners were from Hamas, she noted.

# Israel releases two Hamas members

Palmor said that about 17% of Palestinian prisoners convicted on terror-related offensives who had been freed by Israel later returned to terror activities.

"I cannot tell you that none of the 250 prisoners who will be released on Friday will return to terror," Palmor said in a press briefing.

The Almagor Terror Victims Association, which has petitioned the High Court of Justice to delay the release, said Wednesday that 179 Israelis have been killed over the last seven years by Palestinians freed in previous deals.

"From an initial inspection of the list, there are already some names of terrorists whose release is unreasonable," wrote Almagor head Meir Eindor.

By law, the list of Palestinian prisoners to be freed must be published 48 hours before their scheduled release to allow for petitions to the Supreme Court.

But Israel's highest court has never blocked a prisoner release in the past, deferring to the government's jurisdiction on the issue, Palmor said.

The Justice Ministry, which carefully selects the prisoners to be released, in consultation with security officials, does not expect any delays in this week's release either, she said.

None of the prisoners scheduled for release had "blood on their hands," meaning they had not killed Israelis, and had at least one year left until the end of their original incarceration period, Palmor said.

An earlier list of prisoners was nixed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert because many of the prisoners did not have one year left on their sentence, she noted.

Palmor also said that the Israeli legal term of "no blood on their hands" was morally ambiguous because it included convicted Palestinian prisoners who had tried to carry out mass murder but had failed in their attempts to kill or injure Israelis.

There are 7,000 Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails, she said. The figure does not include those who are being held without trial in administrative detention.

Among those slated for release Friday is Abdel Rahim Malouh, 61, second in command of the PFLP. The group orchestrated the 2001 assassination of tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi. Palmor said Malouh was not involved in the killing.

According to official statistics, fourteen of the prisoners to be released were due to complete their terms next year. The sentence of 70 others ended in 2008, 85 more in 2009, 46 in 2010, 32 in 2011, 6 in 2012, 2 in 2013 and 1 each in 2014 and 2015.

Palmor concurred that there were security risks inherent in the early release of Palestinian prisoners, but stressed that the release was a political decision taken by the government.

"I have a 15-year-old son taking the bus right now in Jerusalem. Nothing can be more personal," Palmor said.

During her briefing, Palmor also revealed that at least one Palestinian prisoner preferred to stay behind bars to continue receiving free arthritic medication.

The "Legal" War on Israel
By Moshe Dann
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 18, 2007

For nearly four decades the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has carried on a relentless battle against the right of Jews to live in Yehuda, Shomron, and Aza (YeShA). Declaring all Jewish presence beyond the 1949 Armistice lines "illegal," they condemn Israel for violating the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV). Acting as judge and jury in secret deliberations, they decided that Israel was guilty. And, despite objections from distinguished international legal experts, the ICRC refused to consider any appeal. There's only one problem: they made up 'the law' to fit their politics.

Several years ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) joined this effort by declaring Israel's 'security barrier' and all Israeli settlements "illegal" because they were built beyond the boundaries of 1949 on "occupied Palestinian territory." That territory was never defined; it couldn’t, since there is no such entity. And their conclusions ignored the facts.

Divided between two terrorist organizations, Fatah and Hamas, the Palestinian Authority is not a state, nor does it comply with the recognized attributes of statehood. Defining "Palestine" as a single unit between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, most Arabs agree that Israel has no right to exist. "The Nakba" (Catastrophe) was not in 1967, but 1948.

The ICJ, which includes former ambassadors of Jordan and Egypt, didn't consider any Israeli arguments (according to one of its members); in fact, Israel refused to participate in the charade, knowing the outcome had already been determined.


In other words, unlike domestic law which is made by legislatures and administrative bodies, the ICJ's decisions, as international "law," reflected political bodies (like the UN), or NGO's (like the ICRC) who are accountable only to themselves and whose criteria for decision-making when it comes to Israel lack objectivity, impartiality, or careful evaluation. Yet, that became "the law."



Charges that Israel "occupies Palestinian land" and "settlements are illegal" feed the myth that 'Jews stole Arab lands' and that 'Palestinians were forced to pay the price for The Holocaust.' Such unwarranted condemnations of Israel are elements in the volatile chemistry of demonization; they delegitimize and dehumanize Jews as perpetrators of lies and the cause of others' suffering, justify terrorism and may even become a prelude to genocide. In a modern rendition of blood libel, if Jews are evil it justifies whatever is done to them.



Denying the legal and historical rights of Jews to live in their homeland and refusing to recognize Jewish rights of self-defense is not only bigoted and immoral; in the context of terrorism, it's lethal.



Occupation, in and of itself, moreover, is not "illegal." International law recognizes the right of any state to occupy territory of an aggressor in self-defense and to remain in control to protect itself and until its security is assured. Jewish claims, however, rest on other grounds.



The historical right of Jews to their homeland in the Land of Israel was recognized in international conventions and agreements, including the League of Nations and the United Nations. Those confirmations cannot be abrogated – by anyone.



The Jewish people did not occupy territory of a legitimate and recognized sovereign authority. In wars of self-defense, Israel occupied territory that had been controlled by the British (the Mandate) and/or conquered by the Jordanians and Egyptians (along with other Arab countries) who declared a genocidal war against Jews.



The Fourth Geneva Convention does not prohibit Jews from living in YeShA. It states:



"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.



Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand…



The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."



Israelis moved to YeShA voluntarily; no one was 'deported or transferred.' In fact, the Israeli government often resisted such settlement. Nevertheless, the ICRC and ICJ declared that Jewish communities in YeShA are violations of GC IV, adding their own conditions -- that any assistance given by the Israeli government was an indirect transfer. That ruling is not supported by the Convention, or its context. Even if GC IV were applicable to YeShA, it was never intended to prevent Jews from building there.



Article 2 of GC IV states: "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of a High Contracting Party…"



The occupation of YeShA (the territories) by Jordan and Egypt, however, was never recognized – even by the Arabs. This part of the Convention, therefore, by its own requirements doesn't apply. At no time was "Palestine" a state, or a political entity.

Since the Oslo Agreements specifically mentioned that borders and settlements were to be negotiated at a later stage, there exists a legal basis, under international law, for the existence and expansion of settlements until otherwise determined by agreement between Israel and the PA.

Moshe Dann, a former asst professor of History (CUNY), is a journalist and writer living in Israel.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29202

To President Bush

Eli E. Hertz | July 17, 2007

I read with interest your remarks on the Middle East given on July 16, 2007 at the White House.

I appreciate your sincere commitment and devotion in promoting and advancing the creation of functional democracies and peace around the world - particularly your effort in the Middle East.

As one who devotes his time studying the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as a person of the Jewish race and religion, it became incumbent upon me to direct your attention to statements you made of which I found offending. Statements perceived as fact, but in reality are, in my humble opinion, misguided.

I would start with the notion that your administration will not 'do business' with terror organizations and those who call for the destruction of Israel, or at best, suggest to toss the "Jews to the sea."

This brings me to Fateh, the main faction of the PLO for whom Mahmoud Abbas is the driving force and was one of its founding members. This is the organization and leadership that the administration relies upon to bring functional democracy, freedom and peace to the region.

Mr. President, it takes little effort to learn what Fateh is all about. Its constitution calls under Article 12 for the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and obliteration of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."

As for how it will achieve its goal to wipe Israel off the map, Fateh's constitution, Article 19, minces no words:

"Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated" [italic by author]

If this does not suffice, please review Abbas' words in a recent rally on January 11, 2007, to a crowd estimated at nearly 250,000 supporters. Abbas calls on Palestinians to refrain from internal fighting and to direct their guns only against Israeli "occupation."

He promises to "not give up one inch of land in Jerusalem" and he "considers the settlements illegal."

In his book, "the issue of the refugees is non-negotiable"

So as much for the partner.

And now to the "Occupation"

I notice with relief that you did not spell out who is the occupier and who is the occupant - just to make sure I will discuss the legal occupation under international law of Jewish settlers in the area known forever as Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

In 1897 it was Benjamin Herzl, founder of modern Zionism who said: "Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency."

In 1917 it was Arthur James Balfour of Great Britain who declared:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object ..."

In 1922 it was Winston Churchill (your hero), British Secretary of State for the Colonies that declared:

Jews are in Palestine "as of right and not on sufferance ... When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride."

On July 24, 1922 it was fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - that published the legally binding document "Mandate for Palestine" and unanimously declared:

"Recognition Has Been Given to the Historical Connection of the Jewish People with Palestine and to the Grounds for Reconstituting their National Home in that Country."

The "Mandate for Palestine," a historical League of Nations document laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-mile area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day.

On June 30, 1922 it was the joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States that unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

"resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United State of America in congress assembled, That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [The resolution was incorporated in the 1937 Palestine Royal commission Report, Chapter II, page 31]

On September 21, 1922 it was Warren G. Harding, President of the United Sates of America who signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Mr. President, Palestine is a geographical area, not a nationality!

As a matter of fact there has never been a sovereign Arab state in Palestine. The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arab nations who never established a Palestinian state themselves. Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

Mr. President - Jewish "continuing occupation" that you speak about, is legal and endorsed by international law.

The "Mandate for Palestine" document defined where Jews are and are not permitted to settle. Article 6 of the Mandate clearly states:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

The "Mandate for Palestine" document is the last legally binding document regarding the status of what is commonly called "the West Bank and Gaza." The September 16, 1922 memorandum (of the Mandate) is also the last modification of the official terms of the "Mandate" on record by the League of Nations or by its legal successor - the United Nations - in accordance with Article 27 of the "Mandate" that states unequivocally: "The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate."

Mr. President, political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other mandates - in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. A forth Arab state east of the Jordan River - Trance-Jordan, came to fruition via the "Mandate for Palestine."

Mr. President:

300,000,000 Arabs in 21 'exclusive' Arab countries now occupy an area of 5,207,000 Square Miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centers.

6,000,000 Jews in 1 country now occupy an area of nearly 10,000 square miles [will fit into Lake Michigan with plenty of room left] in Palestine, and you Mr. President propose to reduce it even further.

This is an injustice and a grievous handicap to the continuous development and security of the Jewish State.

Thank you.

Eli E. Hertz
PO Box 941

Forest Hills, NY
718-544-8030

Sources:

The President speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070716-7.html

Commentary: This Land is My Land (Includes the "Mandate for Palestine" text at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/Mandate_for_Palestine.pdf

A short presentation at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/ThisLandIsMyLand.ppt

Mandate for Palestine, the legal aspects of Jewish Rights at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/Mandate_for_Palestine.pdf

Mandate Document - British Archive.