Nidra Poller
It is difficult to imagine how European nations could find the will and the ways to counter the subversive forces they have invited upon themselves and allowed to flourish for more than three decades. The current phase of global jihad, already underway in the much vaunted decolonization process, coalesced with the seizure of power in Iran by Ayatollah Khomenei (who had been living as a pampered refugee in France). But the American reader should be wary of concluding that Europe is lost…and the United States is standing firm. On the contrary, all of Western civilization is under fire. As promised during the campaign, Barack Hussein Obama is making a radical change in American policy. Not of course the glorious change his worshippers promised themselves, but a troubling shift toward dhimmitude. The newly elected president lost no time in pleading guilty as charged by Muslim authorities and promising to refrain from further rebellion in order to receive their benevolent indulgence.
Similar methods produce similar results. Jihad forces in Europe–and in the United States–used Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza as a pretext to organize virulent, violent pro-Hamas demonstrations. Because Europe is further down the path to surrender, the enraged pro-Hamas mobs were more violent, destructive, and physically threatening here than in the United States. But in both cases they advanced their dominion. This should be recognized as authentic conquest of territory by enraged mobs bearing down on hapless victims in an ominous show of force and not, as claimed and widely accepted, citizen demonstrators exercising their right to free speech.
If you can carry signs equating the Magen David with the swastika, if you can scream “Jews to the ovens” in the face of Zionists in Ft. Lauderdale Florida, if you can storm into a synagogue in Caracas, Venezuela and terrorize the congregation, if you can bully the police in England, smash up the Place de l’Opéra in Paris, burn Israeli and American flags, shout Allahu Akbar without meeting resolute opposition, it means you can keep going and ultimately fulfill those murderous promises. Do American Jews understand what was acquired by these phony demonstrations that are really paramilitary operations? Wherever those enraged mobs set foot they transformed the streets into de facto waqf territory.
Each successive crisis is an opportunity to ratchet up Jew hatred and the concomitant assault on Western civilization, achieving, step by step, tacit acceptance of the unspeakable. Here is how it works: first, the provocation. Jihadist attacks—thousands of rockets launched against Israel, a few airplanes flown into the WTC, capture and beheading of hostages, roadside bombs, inhuman pizzeria bombers, nuclear weapons programs—finally provoke a riposte. Bingo! The Muslim wailing machine goes into action. It is immediately picked up by complicit Western media and transmitted, with a Good Journalism stamp of approval, to public opinion. Israel, the United States and anyone else who dares to fight back is accused of war crimes, peace crimes, and original sin. This justifies subsequent acts of subversion and aggression against the free world.
When the United States used its formidable military force and assumed its international responsibilities, European nations, with rare exceptions, exploited opposition to “the war in Iraq” to undermine the American superpower. This agitation was exploited in turn by jihad interests to advance the Islamization of Europe…and by ricochet to influence domestic politics in the United States as Obamamania surfed on the theme of repairing America’s battered image.
The European Union, with France in the lead, vaunting its diplomatic savoir faire, competes with the U.S. for influence in the Middle East, and always seems to pull in the Arab direction. French ceasefire diplomacy restrained Israel’s capacity to defeat Iranian proxies—Hizbullah in 2006, Hamas today. The harsh criticism of Israel and the U.S. that underlies this self-righteous peacemaking fuels domestic pro-jihad protest marches that end in attacks against police and property, further undermining government authority in Europe and endangering local Jewish populations.
All of this subversive activity is advanced by what I call “lethal narratives.” These are stories of what is happening generated by global jihad and relayed by Western media and officialdom. Unlike propaganda, which is used in conjunction with military activity aimed at defeating an enemy in battle, lethal narratives are used in lieu of military action. Promotion of enemy propaganda in past conflicts was limited to a small minority of traitors and fellow travelers; today, lethal narratives are swallowed by all but a minority of résistants, who are marginalized, labeled extremists, persecuted and prosecuted. Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers who stormed through European cities screaming “death to Israel, death to the Jews” go scot free but Dutch politician Geert Wilders is prosecuted for “hate speech” for showing the connection between these same declarations, from Qur’anic verses to contemporary sermons, and murderous acts such as 9/11.
The lethal narrative, a tissue of lies made credible by a superficial journalistic veneer, becomes the accepted version of what is happening. G.W. Bush lied about Saddam’s WMDs, the neocons wanted a war in Iraq, torture at Guantanamo, hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, an unbeatable insurgency, the war spawned a thousand terrorists for every one that was killed, etc. Another tissue of lies was issued during the Cast Lead operation: the homemade rockets were harmless; Gaza is an open prison; the Gaza population suffered a humanitarian crisis, no food, water, electricity, medicine; Israel engaged in intentional massacre of civilians, bombing mosques, UN schools, babes in arms and, the last straw, deliberately killed the daughters of the good-hearted doctor who practices in both Gaza and Tel Aviv.
In less than a decade life has become problematic for European Jews. It started with the al Dura blood libel on September 30, 2000 and has steadily worsened since. During periods of relative calm, we tell ourselves that the nightmare is over. When the tension exacerbates, as happened during the Gaza operation, it becomes obvious that we have no future anywhere in Europe—and Europe has no future anyway!
France, with the largest Muslim and Jewish populations and the greatest diplomatic ambition, is emblematic of the Western European condition. The Sarkozy government is sincerely troubled by the upsurge of anti-Semitism—approximately 150 incidents reported since the start of Cast Lead. The president promises to put an end to this unacceptable behavior but declares, in the next breath, that “Islamophobia” will be punished as severely as anti-Semitism, falsely implying that Jews are attacking Muslims, and effectively blocking an honest investigation of the Islamic sources of Jew hatred
On another level, the “Obama effect” works against Jews in France and more generally in Europe. Thrilled by the multicultural chic of a black president in the powerful U.S., Europeans vow to give more than equal opportunity to their own “visible minorities” in the hopes of getting themselves a YesWeCan president in the near future. Unfortunately, the integration of law-abiding Muslims into European society also serves as cover for infiltration by subversive Muslims.
Political enfranchisement of European Muslims in the absence of genuine acceptance of Western values is another destabilizing factor. Instead of promoting a peaceful climate of mutual respect, the rise of Muslims into executive positions in public and private sectors may lead to ethnic favoritism that will be prejudicial to Jewish colleagues and candidates, rebuffed to get even for an alleged previous supremacy or punished whenever there is a flare-up in the Middle East. Serious problems in public education, up to the university level, further compromise the future of Europe and more precisely of European Jews.
The far left, unashamedly aligned with European jihad movements, proudly marched with pro-Hamas mobs that systematically ended their “demonstrations” with attacks against property and the police. Fearful of losing ground, the parliamentary left also sidles toward this constituency, hiding its perfidy behind dubious humanitarian concerns. CID [Centre d’information et de documentation de démocratie et de Moyen Orient] reports from Brussels that all political parties except the droite libérale marched along with the keffieh-wrapped mobs that shouted “death to Israel, death to the Jews.” Another aggravating factor is the economic crisis, exploited by the left to mobilize and channel discontent into increasingly aggressive demonstrations, strikes and civil disobedience, while the right, hungry for capital, welcomes sharia finance with open arms.
In 2003, when Jewish boys from Hashomer Hazair were beaten up by anti-war protestors, I described the incident as a “peace march verging on pogrom.” Alain Finkielkraut applied the term to the 2005 banlieue riots, then withdrew it as inappropriate. Was it an exaggeration? Or foresight? There can be no doubt that the enraged mobs storming through European and American cities will go further.
No longer content to throw fire bombs or ram burning cars into synagogues, they now want to break in during services. Thirty men traveled from Mulhouse to Strasbourg for that purpose. Their plan failed…that time. Carjackers in a Parisian suburb, discovering their victim was Jewish, slashed his neck four times with exquisite cruelty until the blood flowed. That crime was denounced as anti-Semitic but the culprits have not been found, and other incidents are left hanging with question marks, as if to calm the populace. A Jewish doctor was shot dead in another Parisian suburb, the warehouse of the biggest kosher food distributor in still another was burned down.
Europeans who do cherish their freedom try to organize, speak out, influence their governments. They see—or saw—America as a refuge, a haven, a beacon of liberty. Many see Israel as a sterling example of résistance against global jihad. Though life looks quite normal on the surface, we are living in a perilous, highly volatile situation in which, precisely, normal life is a battlefield. As these lines are written, Iran announces the launch of a satellite that could leave southern European cities no less vulnerable than Sderot. The news landed like a monster walking into a bustling café. The excited chatter about peace talks and negotiation and friendly outreached hands falls silent. If existential fear has finally stricken the heart of European governments, all is not lost.
Nidra Poller is an American who moved to France in 1972 and is a journalist, novelist, and translator.
Ted Belman
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Hamas rejects calls to recognize Israel
Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Hamas rejected a call by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Islamic group to recognize the state of Israel, and said her request was unacceptable to the Palestinians, Army Radio reported on Saturday afternoon.
Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan reportedly said that the group will not recognize Israel nor comply with the conditions set by the Quartet. On Friday, Clinton was quoted as saying that the Egyptian-brokered efforts to bring about reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah will only work if the group recognizes Israel.
AFP cited a Voice of America radio report which quoted Clinton as saying "I believe that it's important, if there is some reconciliation and a move toward a unified authority, that it's very clear that Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth by the quartet, by the Arab summit."
Representatives of both Hamas and Fatah attended reconciliation talks in Cairo on Wednesday and Thursday. Previous reconciliation talks fell apart in November 2008 when Hamas pulled out at the last minute after a dispute with Fatah over releasing Hamas prisoners.
"They must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and abide by previous commitments, she said of Hamas, "otherwise, I don't think it will result in the kind of positive step forward either for the Palestinian people or as a vehicle for a reinvigorated effort to obtain peace that leads to a Palestinian state."
Clinton is set to arrive in the Middle East on Monday, where she will attend a summit in Egypt on reconstructing Gaza after Operation Cast Lead against Hamas terrorists. She will then visit Jerusalem on her first official visit in her new position.
Regarding US contribution to Palestinians in the Strip, the secretary of state was quoted as saying, "I will be announcing a commitment to a significant aid package, but it will only be spent if we determine that our goals can be furthered rather than undermined or subverted."
AP contributed to this report.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1235410737803&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
"Palestinians should govern their lives, not threaten ours"
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu expressed his support in an independent Palestinian government, noting the "broad agreement inside Israel and outside that the Palestinians should have the ability to govern their lives but not to threaten ours." In an interview published Saturday, the Likud leader reportedly told the Washington Post that he would continue peace talks with the Palestinians, while advancing the economic development in the Palestinian Authority.
Netanyahu was quoted as saying that he would personally "take charge of a government committee that will regularly address the needs of the Palestinian economy in the West Bank."
Asked about IDF Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the prime minister-designate stressed that "Hamas is incompatible with peace," and went on to express hope that the Palestinians in Gaza change the Islamic regime, "because we want to have peace with all the Palestinians."
"What we should do now is enable humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza but not in such a way as it enables Hamas to buy more rockets," he reportedly told the newspaper.
Referring to indirect talks between Israel and Syria, Netanyahu said that "Syria so far has been talking peace but has enabled Hizbullah to arm itself in contravention of UN Security Council resolutions."
"I would talk to Syria about abandoning these courses of action and building confidence that they really want to move toward peace. So far they're not giving that impression," the Likud chair reportedly said.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1235410738818&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Raymond Ibrahim: A Response to the Critics: Taqiyya Revisited (Part II)
Regarding my more recent “War and Peace—and Deceit—in Islam," others have written to me complaining that, by not juxtaposing more “moderate interpretations” to the mainstream ones I delineated (e.g., Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, al-Arabi, et al), I am supposedly “distorting.” While there are in fact “moderate interpretations,” most of these come from minority sects—such as the Ahmadiyyas or the Quraniyuns—who, as they make up a trivial percentage of the Islamic world, and are in fact often accused of and persecuted for apostasy by mainstream Muslims, are definitely not representative of the latter.Other critics express dismay as to how I can interpret certain verses as being supportive of taqiyya. Of course, being neither a Muslim nor one of the ulema, I hardly ever interpret this or that verse as being supportive of taqiyya/deception, but rather always attribute such exegeses to the appropriate jurist, scholar, or theologian—the ulema, who have the final say in mainstream Islam. (Ironically, being only a 4,000 word essay, I only supplied a tithe of the numerous albeit subtle taqiyya decrees and interpretations I have surveyed in Arabic texts dedicated to this topic.)
Still other critics point to strange English translations of the Koran that do not capture the actual meaning of the Arabic—definitely not the way the ulema understand it—in an effort to obfuscate the doctrine of taqiyya. For instance, some have written to me insisting that Koran 3:28 has “absolutely nothing” to do with deceit. As evidence, they quote the following translation from the website IslamUSA.org: “Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends in preference to the believers unless you very carefully guard against evil from them.”
The original Arabic says absolutely nothing about “guarding against evil from them.” (Is IslamUSA.org practicing taqiyya in regard to ayat al-taqiyya, or the verse of taqiyya?) Instead, the original Arabic most literally says, “Let believers not take infidels for friends in place of the believers; whoever does this shall have nothing left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” In other words, it does not warn Muslims against befriending infidels due to the latter’s proclivity for evil (which may contaminate Muslims who do not actively “guard” against it), but simply because they are infidels, non-Muslims—by default, the enemy. As for “guard[ing] yourselves” and “taking precautions,” once again, however one wants to interpret these, the fact is, the ulema have already settled and interpreted it as aforementioned: deceit.
(Incidentally, is it not curious that while people are nitpicking about what the latter half of that verse means, no one seems to be interested in the far from ambiguous former half, where Muslims are simply commanded to not befriend non-Muslims in the first place? Is that not, in and of itself, demonstrative of Islam’s position vis-à-vis the other, the infidel?)
Others have written to me, absolutely flabbergasted that I say Koran 4:29 or 2:195, which command Muslims to not “kill/destroy themselves,” encourages taqiyya. For the record, I said no such thing; the ulema have—such as the classical exegete Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (see Tafsir al-Kabir, vol.10, p.98). According to him, since Muslims are commanded to not “destroy themselves,” disclosing any truths that might lead to their destruction is forbidden. Thus a mujahid (“jihadist”), according to Razi, must conceal his identity, since infidels might “destroy” him if they were to discover what he was about. And so, in this sense, 4:29 and 2:195 do permit deception.
Others are scandalized that I wrote Allah himself is described in the Koran as being the best “deceiver” or “schemer.” They write to me insisting that the Koran uses no such language (based on their trusty English translations), but rather portrays Allah as the best “planner” or “plotter”—the words used, for instance, in the widely quoted translations of Yusuf Ali and Shakir. So, who am I to ascribe the word “deceiver” or “schemer” to Allah?
Simple: in the original Arabic, the word translated (actually, euphemized) into English as “planner/plotter”—makar—most literally denotes (and, to Arabic ears, connotes) deception. Moreover, according to the definitive Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, the trilateral root “m-k-r” means “to deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, double-cross.” One who takes on the attributes of “m-k-r”—such as Allah in the Koran—is described as “sly, crafty, wily, an impostor, a swindler.” In colloquial Arabic, a makar is a sly trickster.
My reliance on one canonical hadith as supportive of deception has also come under fire: Muhammad said, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath.” He also encouraged Muslims to do the same.
Many have written to me insisting that I “shamelessly” took these hadiths “out of context.” For the record, then, here is the context: Some Muslims came to Muhammad requesting camel mounts to ride, but “he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, ‘I have nothing to mount you on.’” Later, some mounts fell into the prophet’s share of war plunder, and he gave these to the men. Overcome by altruism, one of the men reminded Muhammad of his oath to which the latter replied, “If I take an oath [to not give the men mounts] and later find something else better [the opportunity to give mounts presents itself], I do what is better and break my oath.”
Now, if Muhammad swore he would not give mounts, but then when he was able to, he broke his oath (“to do what is better”), why should, say, jihadists fighting to make Allah’s word supreme, after giving oaths to infidels (e.g., peace-treaties of sulh, truces, etc) not break their oaths when they too are able “to do what is better”? After all, what is “better”: breaking an oath so some men can have camels to ride, or breaking an oath to make Islam—the embodiment of all good—supreme?
Once again, and whichever way one interprets this oath-breaking hadith, the fact remains: breaking truces with infidels has a long lineage in Islam. The authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam, for example, simply states: “[T]here can be no question of genuine peace treaties [between Muslims and non-Muslims]… only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict”—that is, if the opportunity to do “something better” presents itself.
In closing, it should be noted that the most revealing aspect of the recent, and atypical, barrage of disgruntled e-mails regarding my “War and Peace—and Deceit—in Islam,” is that no Muslim (minus fringe Ahmadiyyas, etc.) has written to deny the more troubling aspects of the essay. For instance, while many nitpicked over the aforementioned, none have denied the fact that Muhammad permitted lying in certain situations, affirmed that “war is deceit,” and permitted Muslims to deceive and assassinate infidels—all according to canonical (sahih) hadiths (hence the reason mainstream Muslims cannot refute them).
Moreover, the main point of my essay was not to demonstrate that Islam permits deceit during war—a phenomenon I indicated also prevails among many non-Muslim strategists as well—but to show that, for Islam, warfare with non-Muslims is eternal, “until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah (Koran 8:39). Yet no one wrote denying this classical Islamic formulation of the world into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, which must be in perpetual war until the latter subsumes the former (except of course Michael Ryan, but he is simply another non-Muslim apologist).
Usually, silence is not necessarily indicative of assent; however, when large numbers of people take it upon themselves to criticize certain (minor) aspects of an argument, it seems reasonable to assume that their silence regarding the more revealing and problematic issues—such as eternal jihad—is, in fact, implicit assent.
Still other critics point to strange English translations of the Koran that do not capture the actual meaning of the Arabic—definitely not the way the ulema understand it—in an effort to obfuscate the doctrine of taqiyya. For instance, some have written to me insisting that Koran 3:28 has “absolutely nothing” to do with deceit. As evidence, they quote the following translation from the website IslamUSA.org: “Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends in preference to the believers unless you very carefully guard against evil from them.”
The original Arabic says absolutely nothing about “guarding against evil from them.” (Is IslamUSA.org practicing taqiyya in regard to ayat al-taqiyya, or the verse of taqiyya?) Instead, the original Arabic most literally says, “Let believers not take infidels for friends in place of the believers; whoever does this shall have nothing left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” In other words, it does not warn Muslims against befriending infidels due to the latter’s proclivity for evil (which may contaminate Muslims who do not actively “guard” against it), but simply because they are infidels, non-Muslims—by default, the enemy. As for “guard[ing] yourselves” and “taking precautions,” once again, however one wants to interpret these, the fact is, the ulema have already settled and interpreted it as aforementioned: deceit.
(Incidentally, is it not curious that while people are nitpicking about what the latter half of that verse means, no one seems to be interested in the far from ambiguous former half, where Muslims are simply commanded to not befriend non-Muslims in the first place? Is that not, in and of itself, demonstrative of Islam’s position vis-à-vis the other, the infidel?)
Others have written to me, absolutely flabbergasted that I say Koran 4:29 or 2:195, which command Muslims to not “kill/destroy themselves,” encourages taqiyya. For the record, I said no such thing; the ulema have—such as the classical exegete Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (see Tafsir al-Kabir, vol.10, p.98). According to him, since Muslims are commanded to not “destroy themselves,” disclosing any truths that might lead to their destruction is forbidden. Thus a mujahid (“jihadist”), according to Razi, must conceal his identity, since infidels might “destroy” him if they were to discover what he was about. And so, in this sense, 4:29 and 2:195 do permit deception.
Others are scandalized that I wrote Allah himself is described in the Koran as being the best “deceiver” or “schemer.” They write to me insisting that the Koran uses no such language (based on their trusty English translations), but rather portrays Allah as the best “planner” or “plotter”—the words used, for instance, in the widely quoted translations of Yusuf Ali and Shakir. So, who am I to ascribe the word “deceiver” or “schemer” to Allah?
Simple: in the original Arabic, the word translated (actually, euphemized) into English as “planner/plotter”—makar—most literally denotes (and, to Arabic ears, connotes) deception. Moreover, according to the definitive Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, the trilateral root “m-k-r” means “to deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, double-cross.” One who takes on the attributes of “m-k-r”—such as Allah in the Koran—is described as “sly, crafty, wily, an impostor, a swindler.” In colloquial Arabic, a makar is a sly trickster.
My reliance on one canonical hadith as supportive of deception has also come under fire: Muhammad said, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath.” He also encouraged Muslims to do the same.
Many have written to me insisting that I “shamelessly” took these hadiths “out of context.” For the record, then, here is the context: Some Muslims came to Muhammad requesting camel mounts to ride, but “he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, ‘I have nothing to mount you on.’” Later, some mounts fell into the prophet’s share of war plunder, and he gave these to the men. Overcome by altruism, one of the men reminded Muhammad of his oath to which the latter replied, “If I take an oath [to not give the men mounts] and later find something else better [the opportunity to give mounts presents itself], I do what is better and break my oath.”
Now, if Muhammad swore he would not give mounts, but then when he was able to, he broke his oath (“to do what is better”), why should, say, jihadists fighting to make Allah’s word supreme, after giving oaths to infidels (e.g., peace-treaties of sulh, truces, etc) not break their oaths when they too are able “to do what is better”? After all, what is “better”: breaking an oath so some men can have camels to ride, or breaking an oath to make Islam—the embodiment of all good—supreme?
Once again, and whichever way one interprets this oath-breaking hadith, the fact remains: breaking truces with infidels has a long lineage in Islam. The authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam, for example, simply states: “[T]here can be no question of genuine peace treaties [between Muslims and non-Muslims]… only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict”—that is, if the opportunity to do “something better” presents itself.
In closing, it should be noted that the most revealing aspect of the recent, and atypical, barrage of disgruntled e-mails regarding my “War and Peace—and Deceit—in Islam,” is that no Muslim (minus fringe Ahmadiyyas, etc.) has written to deny the more troubling aspects of the essay. For instance, while many nitpicked over the aforementioned, none have denied the fact that Muhammad permitted lying in certain situations, affirmed that “war is deceit,” and permitted Muslims to deceive and assassinate infidels—all according to canonical (sahih) hadiths (hence the reason mainstream Muslims cannot refute them).
Moreover, the main point of my essay was not to demonstrate that Islam permits deceit during war—a phenomenon I indicated also prevails among many non-Muslim strategists as well—but to show that, for Islam, warfare with non-Muslims is eternal, “until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah (Koran 8:39). Yet no one wrote denying this classical Islamic formulation of the world into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, which must be in perpetual war until the latter subsumes the former (except of course Michael Ryan, but he is simply another non-Muslim apologist).
Usually, silence is not necessarily indicative of assent; however, when large numbers of people take it upon themselves to criticize certain (minor) aspects of an argument, it seems reasonable to assume that their silence regarding the more revealing and problematic issues—such as eternal jihad—is, in fact, implicit assent.
Geert Wilders: The World Needs an International First Amendment and a Ban on All 'Hate Speech' Laws
Jihad Watch
I was at this press conference this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Wilders stated the case for free speech forcefully. Will post video when available.
Geert Wilders will also be speaking tonight at 6PM EST at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, at an event sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, and Dr. Andrew Bostom. "Geert Wilders: An International First Amendment and a ban on all 'hate-speech' laws; Keynotes Center-sponsored press conference," a press release from the Center for Security Policy:
Washington, DC: Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, founder and floor leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), and member of the Board of Advisors of the International Free Press Society (IFPS), recounted today before a packed audience in Washington's National Press Club the recent, alarming attacks on free speech worldwide - including legal actions and death threats to which he and other political leaders and journalists have lately been exposed.
Notably, Mr Wilders is being prosecuted in his own county because of reaction to his film "Fitna," and his remarks challenging the contention that Islam is a "religion of peace."
Attendees at the press conference co-sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and the International Free Press Society had an opportunity to view "Fitna" in its entirety and to engage in a lively question and answer session with Mr. Wilders. The film features quotations from the Koran, documentary footage of Islamic leaders inciting violence (jihad) based on those quotations, and documentary footage of the results: deaths of innocent civilians and destruction of property in various Western nations.
The film can be viewed at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783
Highlights of Mr. Wilders' remarks (a copy of his entire statement may obtained here) included the following:
The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe's children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca Teheran, and Gaza?
Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West-in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.
...My prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the Left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims.
I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe....In Europe, we should defend freedom of speech like Americans do....Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than Shariah....there is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty.
In welcoming Mr. Wilders to America, Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, observed that the threats he faces are actually threats to all of us. They arise from the theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls "Shariah": Mr. Gaffney observed that:
The insinuation of Shariah legal codes and practices into Free World societies includes the effort to impose Shariah blasphemy, slander and libel laws in the West. According to Shariah, it is impermissible to engage in speech or writings that ‘defame' Islam or otherwise offend its followers. We must oppose all these efforts.
Diana West, the syndicated columnist and best-selling author who serves as Vice President of the International Free Press Society said:
The ideal speech protections lie in the spirit of the American First Amendment. While Mr. Wilders would clearly live and breathe more easily with such speech protections, it is important for all of us who are here today to witness him speak to note, that even under existing legal constraints, governmental efforts to further
Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society, introduced Wilders and outlined the IFPS 2009 campaign to ban hate speech laws and to work for an "International First Amendment." Mr. Hedegaard said:
The hate speech and blasphemy laws that are now common in many European countries lack clarity as to precisely what they aim to criminalize. Recent experience with their implementation further shows that they are unequally applied. This state of affairs is intolerable and the IFPS must therefore demand that all such laws be repealed. The way to deal with controversial, offensive or even hateful statements-unless they are directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action-is to expose them to public debate and criticism.
A video of the entire press conference will be available shortly at the Center for Security Policy's website: www.SecureFreedom.org.
Hamas finds an ally in 'inner-west bank' in Sydney
Imre Salusinszky, NSW political reporter | February 28, 2009
The Australian
SYDNEY'S "inner west bank" is in ferment over Israel's alleged crimes against its enemies.
Several councils in Sydney's inner-west have passed motions over the past 10 days accusing Israel of war crimes for its assault on Hamas strongholds in Gaza.
One of the councils, Marrickville, established a sister city relationship in 2007 with the West Bank town of Bethlehem, whose council is controlled by proscribed terror group Hamas. According to a motion passed by Marrickville Council last week, Israel is guilty of "the deliberate destruction on (sic) infrastructure and attacks on United Nations facilities".
The motion says Israel should be forced to negotiate directly with Hamas, despite the terror group's declared intention to destroy the Jewish state. It calls for the immediate closure of all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.
A motion passed last week by neighbouring Canterbury council "acknowledges the pain and suffering many Palestinian residents are experiencing as a result of the recent bombing by Israel".
The Canterbury motion "condemns all violence, and is particularly concerned with this disproportionate offensive of Israel".
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief Vic Alhadeff said the motions were "completely unbalanced" and ignored the fact the war between Israel and Gaza was the result of Hamas firing 8000 mortars into Israeli civilian areas "while using Palestinian civilians as human shields".
"The motion also misrepresents the test of proportionality in international law," he said. "What is a country to do in the face of sustained attacks on its population? What government would not act to protect its civilians?"
Independent Marrickville councillor and former mayor Dimitrios Thanos also criticised the council's move, saying it is "not our role to be writing letters to foreign governments stating positions that will be ignored".
Marrickville Greens councillor Cathy Peters rejected the suggestion local councils should be focused on improving services rather than meddling in conflicts.
Thanks Ronit Fraid
The Australian
SYDNEY'S "inner west bank" is in ferment over Israel's alleged crimes against its enemies.
Several councils in Sydney's inner-west have passed motions over the past 10 days accusing Israel of war crimes for its assault on Hamas strongholds in Gaza.
One of the councils, Marrickville, established a sister city relationship in 2007 with the West Bank town of Bethlehem, whose council is controlled by proscribed terror group Hamas. According to a motion passed by Marrickville Council last week, Israel is guilty of "the deliberate destruction on (sic) infrastructure and attacks on United Nations facilities".
The motion says Israel should be forced to negotiate directly with Hamas, despite the terror group's declared intention to destroy the Jewish state. It calls for the immediate closure of all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.
A motion passed last week by neighbouring Canterbury council "acknowledges the pain and suffering many Palestinian residents are experiencing as a result of the recent bombing by Israel".
The Canterbury motion "condemns all violence, and is particularly concerned with this disproportionate offensive of Israel".
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief Vic Alhadeff said the motions were "completely unbalanced" and ignored the fact the war between Israel and Gaza was the result of Hamas firing 8000 mortars into Israeli civilian areas "while using Palestinian civilians as human shields".
"The motion also misrepresents the test of proportionality in international law," he said. "What is a country to do in the face of sustained attacks on its population? What government would not act to protect its civilians?"
Independent Marrickville councillor and former mayor Dimitrios Thanos also criticised the council's move, saying it is "not our role to be writing letters to foreign governments stating positions that will be ignored".
Marrickville Greens councillor Cathy Peters rejected the suggestion local councils should be focused on improving services rather than meddling in conflicts.
Thanks Ronit Fraid
What I Learned at Duke University's 'Gaza Teach-In'
Jay Schalin
The American Thinker
February 28, 2009
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/what_i_learned_at_duke_univers.html
I attended a "teach-in" about Israeli-Palestinian relations at Duke University the other night. Part of my job is to attend college lectures and report on them, in order to provide the public with some idea of who is being invited on to the American campus and what ideas they present. As I entered the lecture hall, I saw a stack of blank Amnesty International petitions, asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to support a U.N. investigation into the commission of war crimes by the Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.The lecture was attended by perhaps 50 people, mostly young, and mostly of Middle Eastern descent (head scarves outnumbered yarmulkes by about six-to-one). There was also a smattering of American students.
Before the event, I was curious whether any of the four "teachers" would give a balanced presentation, or whether the affair would be totally one-sided. The two main speakers were young pro-Palestinian activists: Laila El-Haddad, a former Al-Jazeera journalist, and Duke graduate student Rann Bar-On. There was little reason to expect much ideological balance from them, given descriptions of their activities on the Web. I particularly expected Bar-On, who has been active in such organizations as the International Solidarity Movement, which used foreign college students to disrupt anti-terror activities in Israel, to make a few inflammatory statements.
Bar-On did not disappoint: as if on cue he proclaimed that Zionism is inherently racist. He also said that acts of violence are the only way Palestinians can get attention in the Western media: "Without the actions of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and others in the sixties, the hijackings of airplanes...Palestine would not be in the world's awareness today."
"I am not advocating violence," he continued, "but what I am saying is that it is both a legal and occasionally necessary tool in the long-term struggle for the end of oppression."
El-Haddad offered perhaps the most profound insight into the conflict's causes. While Israel insists that the Palestinians recognize its right to exist before negotiations, she said that, "The Palestinian response is, what borders do we recognize, and why do you not recognize the Palestinian state?" Such intransigence toward the existence of Israel makes any mutually acceptable peace agreement unlikely.
She also taught the following:
* "Israel was actually the one that broke the cease fire," she stated, suggesting that Gazans therefore had to resume firing rockets across the border. "In summer, there were almost no Palestinian rockets. The moment that Israel assassinated six Palestinians and killed a farmer, there was a new volley of rockets."
* Firing rockets into Israeli towns is not the real cause for Israel's recent military action ("they're just an excuse they're using"). She said the objection of the Israelis that the "rockets don't discriminate" between civilians and soldiers is justified by the Palestinians because "neither does the Israeli occupation discriminate, neither does the Israeli military might discriminate." She defends such actions by the Palestinians because, "They are a stateless people and international law gives them the right or obligation to resist with whatever means possible."
* The Palestinian use of "human shields" (armed combatants hiding behind civilians, particularly women and children) is unavoidable "given Gaza's crowded nature," while the Israeli army intentionally "used Palestinian women and children as shields by asking them to search homes and by using the homes as sniper positions."
* This is merely a local conflict, and the Palestinians are not connected to other Islamic extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda.
All this teaching by Bar-On and El-Haddad left me rather confused, for I have seen videos (here and here) on the Web of Hamas leaders proudly proclaiming their use of women and children as human shields. I have seen footage of armed Palestinian combatants grabbing small children and forcing them to act as shields while firing guns and rockets behind them (here and here). This didn't look very unavoidable to me.
I have also seen Palestinian babies dressed up as suicide bombers, and schoolchildren dressed in camouflage and holding guns, performing military exercises at school. And I have seen a Mickey Mouse-like character on Al-Aqsa, the Hamas-run television station, sing songs about AK-47s and exhort children to devote their lives to holy war. I have heard children profess their desire to kill all the Jews, and to call the Jews "animals."
But none of this was taught at the teach-in.
I have read about the ties between the Hamas and Al Qaeda-both of them offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. And while the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah has different origins, it often shares training, funding and tactics with Hamas in their mutual struggle against Israel.
Yet the participants at the teach-in denied these links. And, because so many things countered what I had seen with my own eyes, or had read in credible news sources, I didn't trust anything that was said.
Another speaker, Miriam Cooke, (or miriam cooke, as she prefers), a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Duke, was more restrained and kept her comments brief. A scholar of Islam, she had previously claimed that the brutal treatment of women in the Middle East is the result of European imperialism, and that Islam's one-sided polygamy laws are liberating for women. But she said nothing of the sort at the teach-in, and I was pleasantly surprised when she concluded her brief remarks with an off-hand suggestion that there was "plenty of blame on both sides."
I'd placed my greatest hope for hearing a balanced presentation on Abdullah Antepli. Surely, I thought, Duke would not hire as its first Islamic chaplain a man who would support apologists for Hamas's culture of death. (Not that anybody at the teach-in specifically defended children dressed as suicide bombers, of course; such unpleasant details were simply ignored.) Moreover, Antepli portrays himself as somebody "in the Muslim community who [has] been trying to build bridges between Jews and Muslims."
Alas, I was wrong. Behind the charm and ecumenical collegiality, Antepli appeared fully complicit with the views of Bar-On and El-Haddad. He did little to disguise his animosity toward the state of Israel, which, he said, "has been very destructive in many, many aspects...from its very beginning."
He employed Jewish teachings to attempt a critique of Israel: "Gaza," he said, "is another very fine example of Israel...failing miserably to project Jewish compassion" and "failing miserably to uphold Jewish ethical law standards." He continued, "As a state, Israel is shooting herself in the foot and pumping into the hearts and minds of millions of people anti-Semitism."
Antepli added that Israel's policies of "destruction" have caused the Muslim world to view the Palestinian situation as "hopeless," and that such hopelessness is why "throughout history, people shed blood."
When such a man provides legitimacy to the obfuscation and truth-twisting of El-Haddad and Bar-On, puts all of the blame for the breach between the Jews and Muslims on the state of Israel, and does not denounce, at the very least, the more depraved activities of Hamas, then one wonders whether he accepts other aspects of the world-wide Islamic Jihad.
So what I really learned at the teach-in is that universities like Duke are creating potential incubators of jihad on American soil while posturing as open-minded and morally superior centers of disinterested learning.
Jay Schalin is Senior Writer at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. He wrote this for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
The American Thinker
February 28, 2009
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/what_i_learned_at_duke_univers.html
I attended a "teach-in" about Israeli-Palestinian relations at Duke University the other night. Part of my job is to attend college lectures and report on them, in order to provide the public with some idea of who is being invited on to the American campus and what ideas they present. As I entered the lecture hall, I saw a stack of blank Amnesty International petitions, asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to support a U.N. investigation into the commission of war crimes by the Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.The lecture was attended by perhaps 50 people, mostly young, and mostly of Middle Eastern descent (head scarves outnumbered yarmulkes by about six-to-one). There was also a smattering of American students.
Before the event, I was curious whether any of the four "teachers" would give a balanced presentation, or whether the affair would be totally one-sided. The two main speakers were young pro-Palestinian activists: Laila El-Haddad, a former Al-Jazeera journalist, and Duke graduate student Rann Bar-On. There was little reason to expect much ideological balance from them, given descriptions of their activities on the Web. I particularly expected Bar-On, who has been active in such organizations as the International Solidarity Movement, which used foreign college students to disrupt anti-terror activities in Israel, to make a few inflammatory statements.
Bar-On did not disappoint: as if on cue he proclaimed that Zionism is inherently racist. He also said that acts of violence are the only way Palestinians can get attention in the Western media: "Without the actions of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and others in the sixties, the hijackings of airplanes...Palestine would not be in the world's awareness today."
"I am not advocating violence," he continued, "but what I am saying is that it is both a legal and occasionally necessary tool in the long-term struggle for the end of oppression."
El-Haddad offered perhaps the most profound insight into the conflict's causes. While Israel insists that the Palestinians recognize its right to exist before negotiations, she said that, "The Palestinian response is, what borders do we recognize, and why do you not recognize the Palestinian state?" Such intransigence toward the existence of Israel makes any mutually acceptable peace agreement unlikely.
She also taught the following:
* "Israel was actually the one that broke the cease fire," she stated, suggesting that Gazans therefore had to resume firing rockets across the border. "In summer, there were almost no Palestinian rockets. The moment that Israel assassinated six Palestinians and killed a farmer, there was a new volley of rockets."
* Firing rockets into Israeli towns is not the real cause for Israel's recent military action ("they're just an excuse they're using"). She said the objection of the Israelis that the "rockets don't discriminate" between civilians and soldiers is justified by the Palestinians because "neither does the Israeli occupation discriminate, neither does the Israeli military might discriminate." She defends such actions by the Palestinians because, "They are a stateless people and international law gives them the right or obligation to resist with whatever means possible."
* The Palestinian use of "human shields" (armed combatants hiding behind civilians, particularly women and children) is unavoidable "given Gaza's crowded nature," while the Israeli army intentionally "used Palestinian women and children as shields by asking them to search homes and by using the homes as sniper positions."
* This is merely a local conflict, and the Palestinians are not connected to other Islamic extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda.
All this teaching by Bar-On and El-Haddad left me rather confused, for I have seen videos (here and here) on the Web of Hamas leaders proudly proclaiming their use of women and children as human shields. I have seen footage of armed Palestinian combatants grabbing small children and forcing them to act as shields while firing guns and rockets behind them (here and here). This didn't look very unavoidable to me.
I have also seen Palestinian babies dressed up as suicide bombers, and schoolchildren dressed in camouflage and holding guns, performing military exercises at school. And I have seen a Mickey Mouse-like character on Al-Aqsa, the Hamas-run television station, sing songs about AK-47s and exhort children to devote their lives to holy war. I have heard children profess their desire to kill all the Jews, and to call the Jews "animals."
But none of this was taught at the teach-in.
I have read about the ties between the Hamas and Al Qaeda-both of them offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. And while the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah has different origins, it often shares training, funding and tactics with Hamas in their mutual struggle against Israel.
Yet the participants at the teach-in denied these links. And, because so many things countered what I had seen with my own eyes, or had read in credible news sources, I didn't trust anything that was said.
Another speaker, Miriam Cooke, (or miriam cooke, as she prefers), a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Duke, was more restrained and kept her comments brief. A scholar of Islam, she had previously claimed that the brutal treatment of women in the Middle East is the result of European imperialism, and that Islam's one-sided polygamy laws are liberating for women. But she said nothing of the sort at the teach-in, and I was pleasantly surprised when she concluded her brief remarks with an off-hand suggestion that there was "plenty of blame on both sides."
I'd placed my greatest hope for hearing a balanced presentation on Abdullah Antepli. Surely, I thought, Duke would not hire as its first Islamic chaplain a man who would support apologists for Hamas's culture of death. (Not that anybody at the teach-in specifically defended children dressed as suicide bombers, of course; such unpleasant details were simply ignored.) Moreover, Antepli portrays himself as somebody "in the Muslim community who [has] been trying to build bridges between Jews and Muslims."
Alas, I was wrong. Behind the charm and ecumenical collegiality, Antepli appeared fully complicit with the views of Bar-On and El-Haddad. He did little to disguise his animosity toward the state of Israel, which, he said, "has been very destructive in many, many aspects...from its very beginning."
He employed Jewish teachings to attempt a critique of Israel: "Gaza," he said, "is another very fine example of Israel...failing miserably to project Jewish compassion" and "failing miserably to uphold Jewish ethical law standards." He continued, "As a state, Israel is shooting herself in the foot and pumping into the hearts and minds of millions of people anti-Semitism."
Antepli added that Israel's policies of "destruction" have caused the Muslim world to view the Palestinian situation as "hopeless," and that such hopelessness is why "throughout history, people shed blood."
When such a man provides legitimacy to the obfuscation and truth-twisting of El-Haddad and Bar-On, puts all of the blame for the breach between the Jews and Muslims on the state of Israel, and does not denounce, at the very least, the more depraved activities of Hamas, then one wonders whether he accepts other aspects of the world-wide Islamic Jihad.
So what I really learned at the teach-in is that universities like Duke are creating potential incubators of jihad on American soil while posturing as open-minded and morally superior centers of disinterested learning.
Jay Schalin is Senior Writer at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. He wrote this for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
US official: We won't participate in Durban II conference
Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST
The United States has decided not to participate in a UN conference on racism in April unless the final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and the defamation of religion, a senior US official said Friday.
The conference is a follow-up to the contentious 2001 conference in the South African city of Durban which was dominated by clashes over the Middle East and the legacy of slavery. The US and Israel walked out midway through that eight-day meeting over a draft resolution that singled out Israel for criticism and likened Zionism to racism. Israel and Canada have already announced that they will boycott the upcoming World Conference Against Racism in Geneva from April 20-25, known as Durban II, but US President Barack Obama's administration decided to assess the negotiations before making a decision on US participation.
Last week, the State Department sent two US representatives to Geneva, where the final document to be issued by conference participants at the end of the conference is being negotiated, the US officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because an official announcement has not yet been made.
The representatives - Betty White, a former US ambassador to the UN Economic and Social Council, and Felice Gaer, the chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom - held 30 meetings with representatives of different countries and attended the negotiations, the US official said.
While the US presence was warmly welcomed, the US official said that in the negotiations, a bad document got worse.
The United States has decided that it will not participate in further negotiations on the outcome document and will not participate in the conference itself on the basis of the latest text, the US official said.
The Obama administration would reconsider its position if the document improves in a number of areas including dropping references to any specific country, references to defamation of religion which the US views as a free speech issue, and language on reparations for slavery. It also wants a shorter text and does not want the final document for Durban II to reaffirm the final document from the 2001 Durban conference, the US official said.
Itzhak Levanon, Israel's former UN envoy in Geneva, said before departing last August that with Libya chairing preparations for Durban II and Iran and Cuba also involved, the conference had the making of another international "bashing of Israel."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1235410736783&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
The United States has decided not to participate in a UN conference on racism in April unless the final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and the defamation of religion, a senior US official said Friday.
The conference is a follow-up to the contentious 2001 conference in the South African city of Durban which was dominated by clashes over the Middle East and the legacy of slavery. The US and Israel walked out midway through that eight-day meeting over a draft resolution that singled out Israel for criticism and likened Zionism to racism. Israel and Canada have already announced that they will boycott the upcoming World Conference Against Racism in Geneva from April 20-25, known as Durban II, but US President Barack Obama's administration decided to assess the negotiations before making a decision on US participation.
Last week, the State Department sent two US representatives to Geneva, where the final document to be issued by conference participants at the end of the conference is being negotiated, the US officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because an official announcement has not yet been made.
The representatives - Betty White, a former US ambassador to the UN Economic and Social Council, and Felice Gaer, the chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom - held 30 meetings with representatives of different countries and attended the negotiations, the US official said.
While the US presence was warmly welcomed, the US official said that in the negotiations, a bad document got worse.
The United States has decided that it will not participate in further negotiations on the outcome document and will not participate in the conference itself on the basis of the latest text, the US official said.
The Obama administration would reconsider its position if the document improves in a number of areas including dropping references to any specific country, references to defamation of religion which the US views as a free speech issue, and language on reparations for slavery. It also wants a shorter text and does not want the final document for Durban II to reaffirm the final document from the 2001 Durban conference, the US official said.
Itzhak Levanon, Israel's former UN envoy in Geneva, said before departing last August that with Libya chairing preparations for Durban II and Iran and Cuba also involved, the conference had the making of another international "bashing of Israel."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1235410736783&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Friday, February 27, 2009
Politics and power: The Muslim factor in European politics
Dinah A. Spritzer · February 5, 2009
IDENTITY CRISIS: MUSLIMS IN EUROPE
BRUSSELS (JTA) -- Viviane Teitelbaum was a new member of Brussels' regional legislature when she sponsored a bill in 2005 to renew the region's scientific and industrial research agreement with Israel.
Legislators had frozen the cooperation pact three years earlier to protest what they said was the Jewish state's inhumane response to the second Palestinian intifada. But when Teitelbaum's proposal came up for discussion at a committee meeting, she says she was shouted down by Socialist Party opponents."The only lawmakers who showed up to the meeting were Muslim," recalled Teitelbaum, a Jewish member of the Liberal Party. "They screamed insults at me, saying, 'Israel is a fascist country. You will never get this passed.' "
Later, at the actual vote, Teitelbaum again was shouted down. Her proposal was defeated.
Ten minutes later, she said, "We voted for an agreement between Libya and the Brussels region, and everyone supported it. It was very painful for me."
Although rarely discussed in Europe, the political impact and influence of the continent's growing Muslim population is playing an increasingly significant role in European politics. In some cases, politicians are catering to Muslim interests and concerns with an eye toward winning votes. In others, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant political parties are capitalizing on a backlash against Muslims to expand their power base.
With Muslims now roughly 5 percent of Europe's population and demographers predicting their proportion to double over the next 20 years due to birthrate disparities, their rising political awareness and ever-growing constituent base is likely to make them a factor in Europe's political constellation for decades to come.
Eventually that may translate into a tougher stance toward Israel, says Robin Shepherd, a senior research fellow at the London-based think tank Chatham House.
"As Muslims become more electorally significant, the obvious casualty is Israel," he said.
Many European politicians, particularly those from socialist parties, long have been strong critics of Israel's dealings with the Palestinians without any prodding from European Muslims.
When the streets of Europe exploded in January during Israel's 22-day operation against Hamas in Gaza, top European political figures were among those who participated in protests against the Israeli operation.
In Stockholm, the head of Sweden's Socialist Party and the country's former foreign minister joined 8,000 protesters Jan. 10 in a mostly Muslim demonstration full of anti-Israel slogans. In Spain, representatives of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero attended a rally in which some participants called for jihad, praised Hezbollah and cursed Israel. After the protest, which drew 100,000 people, the vast majority of them non-Muslims, the Israeli Embassy in Madrid took the rare step of openly chastising the prime minister for fueling anti-Israel anger.
Some analysts believe Europe's Muslims will exert further pressure on political leaders when it comes to Mideast policy.
"Muslim-related issues will be a growing focus and shaper of the European political scene," the U.S. National Intelligence Council noted in its forward-looking 2025 global trends report. "Ongoing societal and political tension over integration of Muslims is likely to make European policymakers increasingly sensitive to the potential domestic repercussions of any foreign policies for the Middle East, including aligning with the U.S. on policies seen as pro-Israeli."
Yet despite their rapid growth rate, Muslims will not be able to dictate foreign or domestic policy in Europe anytime soon, the report said.
For one thing, in some European countries up to 50 percent of Muslims do not have citizenship or national voting rights, according to some estimates.
Among Muslims in Europe generally, there is no hard data on what percentage are citizens with national voting rights, since European countries do not collect citizenship or immigration data by religion. Experts interviewed by JTA estimated that only about half of Europe's Muslims are citizens; those who are not include recent immigrants, those whose home countries prohibit dual citizenship and immigrants unable to meet stringent citizenship requirements. The proportions of Muslims who are citizens are higher in France and Britain, countries with long histories of Muslim immigration, and lower in Germany, where until 2000 the children of immigrants born in the country were not automatically granted citizenship.
The vast majority of Muslim immigrants to the continent hold legal residency permits, akin to green cards, which give them the right to vote in local elections but not national elections. In recent years, as concerns over the cultural integration of Europe's Muslim population have risen, some countries have made their citizenship tests much harder. In the Netherlands, applicants must demonstrate a certain level of financial independence and approval of Dutch values, such as affirmation of gender equality and tolerance of homosexuality.
Another factor limiting Muslim influence on European foreign policy is that the primary concerns of Muslims in Europe, who tend to be poorer than average, are economic, not religious issues, according to a 2006 Pew Research Center survey.
Rather than forming political parties of their own, Muslim voters have helped strengthen socialist and other left-leaning parties that cater to disadvantaged populations.
Nowhere is Muslim political influence in Europe more evident than in Belgium, where fully one-third of the residents of the capital city, Brussels, are Muslim. This is more than in any other major European city except for Marseilles, France, which has roughly the same proportion of Muslims. In some of Brussels' local municipalities, Muslims account for 80 percent of the population.
Following the last election of the Brussels regional legislature, in 2004, half the 26 legislators from the Socialist Party were of Muslim background, a record high for that legislature. Some Belgians attribute the strong showing by the Socialists in that election to the party's outreach to Muslim immigrants and the record number of candidates with Muslim names on the ticket.
Ermeline Gosselin, a spokeswoman for the Socialist Party in Belgium, insists that no one in her party looks at religion or ethnicity when selecting candidates.
"We are proud to represent Belgians of all backgrounds," she said.
The mere discussion of Muslim political influence is taboo in some corners of Europe. Several European academics interviewed by JTA refused to consider the issue, arguing that it is misguided and possibly racist because it addresses the religious rather than economic or cultural concerns of Muslim immigrants.
Susanne Nies, head of the French Institute of International Relations in Brussels, said religion plays no role in Europe's secular politics.
"If you want to talk about being critical of Israel, that is a feeling among many Europeans, so how can you characterize that as Muslim?" she said. "There is no such thing as a Muslim issue in Europe or growing Muslim influence on politicians."
To be sure, many European politicians have their biases against Israel. On Jan. 23, the minister of culture, youth and sport in the Flemish government in Belgium, Bert Anciaux, compared a deadly attack that day by a deranged gunman on a nursery school near Brussels to Israel's recent operation in Gaza. The Belgian Foreign Ministry later distanced itself from the remark.
Shepherd says the 2008 mayoral campaign in London is a revealing example of Muslim influence in European politics.
In 2005, London Mayor Ken Livingstone accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and called then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a war criminal. His criticism of Israel helped win him the support of Azzam Tamimi, the director of the London-based Institute of Islamic Political Thought and a public supporter of Hamas and Palestinian suicide bombers.
Tamimi mobilized British Muslims to support the mayor in his re-election bid last May, forming a group called Muslims 4 Ken that lambasted Livingstone's opponent for supporting Israel. Ultimately, however, Livingstone failed to win a third term, losing to Boris Johnson.
"Livingstone definitely sought Muslim support by slamming Israel," Shepherd said.
European governments increasingly are afraid of offending Muslims, Shepherd said, leading them to refrain from criticizing Islamic attitudes toward women or even toward terrorism.
"This is a potentially volatile constituency, as we saw with the Danish cartoon controversy," Shepherd said, referring to the widespread Muslim rioting in 2005 that followed publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. Government leaders made sure to criticize publication of the cartoons even as they defended free speech, Shepherd noted.
Jana Hybaskova, head of the Israel committee in the European Parliament, says that despite the hostility of many European Muslim organizations toward the Jewish state, they rarely petition lawmakers on Israel-related issues.
Presuming that Muslims share all the same political goals is a mistake, she added.
"To see Muslim as common denominator is like seeing Christians as all the same," Hybaskova said. "I don't see any common denominator on policy."
One major obstacle to Muslim political power is the absence of any significant pan-European Muslim political organization. Muslims even have trouble organizing politically within their own countries in Europe. In France, the French Council of the Muslim Faith, a Muslim umbrella organization created in 2002 at the behest of then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, has been virtually paralyzed by a rivalry between its Algerian and Moroccan factions.
The level of political activism among Muslims varies from country to country. In Britain, Muslims vote in higher proportions than non-Muslims, whereas in Belgium the Muslim vote is below average.
Another major obstacle, according to Riva Kastoryano, director of research at Sciences Politique in Paris and an author of several books on Islam in Europe, is the relative poverty of Muslims.
Muslims are not "in an economic position in Europe to make a big impact in politics," she said.
Muslim organizations often are completely in the dark about how to lobby government officials for their most pressing needs, Kastoryano observed. In some cases, Muslim groups have even sought the help of Jewish groups.
"In Germany a few years back, when there was a wave of anti-Muslim violence, Muslim clerics turned to Jewish leaders to ask how to get government support," she said.
In France and several other countries, Muslims have turned to Jewish organizations for help in acquiring overnment permission to continue to use halal meat -- kosher for Muslims -- when the method of Muslim slaughter risked violating local ordinances.
As for the few politicians in Europe of Muslim backgrounds, they tend to care more about loyalty to party, not Islamic ideology. On the national level, they're also all secular.
"I am a socialist first, then Dutch, then someone with a Turkish-Kurdish background," said Sadet Karabulut, a Dutch member of Parliament whose parents are from eastern Turkey.
Asked whether her religion affects her political choices, Karabulut said, "My parents are Muslims and it is my background, but I am not. It's not important for me."
Last October, Rotterdam became the first major city in Europe to elect a Muslim mayor, Ahmed Aboutaleb. Aboutaleb, who holds dual Dutch and Moroccan citizenship, has a reputation as a bridge builder between minority and majority groups. In 2004, after the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamic extremist, Aboutaleb told an audience at an Amsterdam mosque that Muslims who do not like Dutch values should leave the country.
That is little comfort to politicians like Teitelbaum, who points out that socialist politicians who used to condemn Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide now stay silent for fear of offending Belgium's large Turkish community.
Teitelbaum sees it as further evidence of pandering to an increasingly influential political constituency.
When, in 2005, Teitelbaum sponsored a bill condemning a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Belgium, the bill could not pass until she generalized the bill, adding condemnation of "racism and xenophobia." She was even urged by some colleagues to remove the word "anti-Semitism" from the bill.
She refused.
Raymond Ibrahim: A Response to the Critics: Taqiyya Revisited (Part I)
Having written at length on various aspects of Islam, it is always my writings concerning doctrinal deceit that elicit (sometimes irate) responses. As such, the purpose of this article is to revisit the issue of deceit and taqiyya in Islam, and address the many ostensibly plausible rebuttals made by both Muslims and non-Muslims. The earliest rebuttal I received appeared last year, days after I wrote an essay called “Islam’s doctrines of deception” for the subscription-based Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst. Due to the controversy it initiated among the intelligence community and abroad, the editors were quick to publish an apologetic counter-article by one Michael Ryan called “Interpreting Taqiyya.”
For starters, Ryan is not a careful reader: he says I fail to mention ijma (consensus) among the ulema, even though I repeatedly cite and delineate the ulema’s (quite consensual) verdicts supporting taqiyya; he sardonically suggests that, of course all people, not just Muslims, engage in deception during war—a point I stressed; and he evinces shock that I say Islam has no “common sense” and is “legalistic,” when I simply wrote that sharia law is not based on common sense but rather the 7th century words of Muhammad, which may or may not rely on what we would today call “common sense.” (I had in mind anecdotes of Muhammad saying camel urine heals, people should cover their mouths when yawning (lest Satan dive down their throat), men cannot wear gold, only silver, and in order to be in each other’s company, women should “breast-feed” strange men ).
Next, Ryan makes the usual (and ultimately superficial) arguments without any backing: that I “cherry-picked citations from the Quran”; that I focused on a “very narrow use of the term taqiyya”; and that there are “other respected jurists who disagree” with the notion of taqiyya I stressed.
Unfortunately, he overlooks the fact that, right or wrong, none of this denies that there are Koranic references that do permit deception; that, even if there are “broader” definitions for taqiyya, the “narrow” one I delineated is still valid; and that if there are “respected jurists who disagree,” there are still more who agree.
As expected, whereas I listed and quoted several authoritative jurists justifying taqiyya, Ryan makes only flat counter-assertions whose plausibility rests solely in the fact that they comport with the epistemology of the Western, secular reader, who cannot comprehend that a religion would actually mandate temporal conquests and permit deceit in their furtherance.
For instance, he makes comforting assertions such as “[I]t is manifestly not true that Muslims as a whole desire eternal warfare with non-Muslims,” even though I never argue that Muslims desire eternal war but rather that sharia mandates it. Regarding a verse I cited as being relied on by the ulema in support of taqiyya (2:73), he writes, “To this reader, the verse inspires admiration rather than any other emotion.” Odd that an article in a publication geared to the intelligence community and dedicated to analyzing Islam would bother evoking “emotions” in the first place—further revealing that Ryan’s rebuttal relies more on “shared feelings,” not facts.
Moreover, like most of Islam’s apologists who are obsessed with portraying the “true-peaceful-and-tolerant” face of Islam, Ryan overlooks the pivotal fact that it matters very little if the entire Muslim world believes in jihad and deception. What matters is that some Muslims have, do, and always will. If 19 surreptitious jihadists managed to cause horrific deaths and destruction on 9/11, insisting that not all Muslims accept these doctrines is neither relevant nor reassuring.
Ryan next spends time making the argument that the word taqiyya “never appears in the Quran. The root in other forms appears in various contexts, but it never means dissimulation.” As for taqiyya’s cornerstone verse (3:28), Ryan, presuming the mantle of mufasir (exegete), and after quoting an English translation, writes: “The English ‘guard against’ is a translation of a verb that is taken from the same root as the word taqiyya but it has nothing to do linguistically with lying or deception [emphasis added].”
Absolutely true. But of course, all this overlooks the fact that the Koran is not the all-in-all in Islam; more important in determining right and wrong (i.e., in articulating sharia) are the hadith-derived sunna, and the indispensable tafsirs and ijma (exegeses and consensus) of the ulema. And these do use the word “taqiyya” and do define it as lying and deception.
Moreover, there is widespread consensus among the ulema. According to Imam Tabari, whose multi-volume exegesis is a standard reference work in the Islamic world, 3:28 means: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them.” Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir recommends the advice of Muhammad’s companion: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”
Perhaps Ryan thinks his non-Muslim, that is, infidel, exegesis of 3:28 will be more acceptable to the average Muslim than the exegeses of the pious Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and other ulema? And what “consensus” does he have in mind when the Muslim author of the authoritative Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam asserts, “Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it [taqiyya] and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream”?
Ironically, and despite all the above, Ryan closes his article by saying
It would be fundamentally incorrect to suggest that the strained positions of Osama bin Laden and other extremists somehow grow out of normal or mainstream Muslim thought: Al-Qaeda's deception does not grow out of valid religious duty. [Yet Muhammad said, "War is deceit."] If we fail to make the distinction between radical Islamists and valid, thoughtful and authoritative views of expert Muslim jurists, [apparently the many I delineated in my original essay don't count] we risk undermining one of the most promising tools to defeat radical thought. I am referring to recent successful programmes by the Saudis and Egyptians to persuade what the West might call radical jihadists that their extremist activities are actually against the canons of Islam as interpreted by mainstream jurists [emphasis added].
What “successful programmes” have been initiated by the Saudis and Egyptians to de-radicalize Muslims? Is he referring to Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation through tennis, finger-paints, and GameBoys—which has by and large not been successful? And again, which “expert” and “mainstream” jurists is he talking about?
In short, Ryan’s points crumble in face of the fact that, all philology, sophistry, and appeals to emotions aside, in mainstream Islam, what ultimately matters is how the ulema—especially the “mainstream jurists” he continues evoking—have understood and articulated the doctrine of taqiyya.
For starters, Ryan is not a careful reader: he says I fail to mention ijma (consensus) among the ulema, even though I repeatedly cite and delineate the ulema’s (quite consensual) verdicts supporting taqiyya; he sardonically suggests that, of course all people, not just Muslims, engage in deception during war—a point I stressed; and he evinces shock that I say Islam has no “common sense” and is “legalistic,” when I simply wrote that sharia law is not based on common sense but rather the 7th century words of Muhammad, which may or may not rely on what we would today call “common sense.” (I had in mind anecdotes of Muhammad saying camel urine heals, people should cover their mouths when yawning (lest Satan dive down their throat), men cannot wear gold, only silver, and in order to be in each other’s company, women should “breast-feed” strange men ).
Next, Ryan makes the usual (and ultimately superficial) arguments without any backing: that I “cherry-picked citations from the Quran”; that I focused on a “very narrow use of the term taqiyya”; and that there are “other respected jurists who disagree” with the notion of taqiyya I stressed.
Unfortunately, he overlooks the fact that, right or wrong, none of this denies that there are Koranic references that do permit deception; that, even if there are “broader” definitions for taqiyya, the “narrow” one I delineated is still valid; and that if there are “respected jurists who disagree,” there are still more who agree.
As expected, whereas I listed and quoted several authoritative jurists justifying taqiyya, Ryan makes only flat counter-assertions whose plausibility rests solely in the fact that they comport with the epistemology of the Western, secular reader, who cannot comprehend that a religion would actually mandate temporal conquests and permit deceit in their furtherance.
For instance, he makes comforting assertions such as “[I]t is manifestly not true that Muslims as a whole desire eternal warfare with non-Muslims,” even though I never argue that Muslims desire eternal war but rather that sharia mandates it. Regarding a verse I cited as being relied on by the ulema in support of taqiyya (2:73), he writes, “To this reader, the verse inspires admiration rather than any other emotion.” Odd that an article in a publication geared to the intelligence community and dedicated to analyzing Islam would bother evoking “emotions” in the first place—further revealing that Ryan’s rebuttal relies more on “shared feelings,” not facts.
Moreover, like most of Islam’s apologists who are obsessed with portraying the “true-peaceful-and-tolerant” face of Islam, Ryan overlooks the pivotal fact that it matters very little if the entire Muslim world believes in jihad and deception. What matters is that some Muslims have, do, and always will. If 19 surreptitious jihadists managed to cause horrific deaths and destruction on 9/11, insisting that not all Muslims accept these doctrines is neither relevant nor reassuring.
Ryan next spends time making the argument that the word taqiyya “never appears in the Quran. The root in other forms appears in various contexts, but it never means dissimulation.” As for taqiyya’s cornerstone verse (3:28), Ryan, presuming the mantle of mufasir (exegete), and after quoting an English translation, writes: “The English ‘guard against’ is a translation of a verb that is taken from the same root as the word taqiyya but it has nothing to do linguistically with lying or deception [emphasis added].”
Absolutely true. But of course, all this overlooks the fact that the Koran is not the all-in-all in Islam; more important in determining right and wrong (i.e., in articulating sharia) are the hadith-derived sunna, and the indispensable tafsirs and ijma (exegeses and consensus) of the ulema. And these do use the word “taqiyya” and do define it as lying and deception.
Moreover, there is widespread consensus among the ulema. According to Imam Tabari, whose multi-volume exegesis is a standard reference work in the Islamic world, 3:28 means: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them.” Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir recommends the advice of Muhammad’s companion: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”
Perhaps Ryan thinks his non-Muslim, that is, infidel, exegesis of 3:28 will be more acceptable to the average Muslim than the exegeses of the pious Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and other ulema? And what “consensus” does he have in mind when the Muslim author of the authoritative Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam asserts, “Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it [taqiyya] and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream”?
Ironically, and despite all the above, Ryan closes his article by saying
It would be fundamentally incorrect to suggest that the strained positions of Osama bin Laden and other extremists somehow grow out of normal or mainstream Muslim thought: Al-Qaeda's deception does not grow out of valid religious duty. [Yet Muhammad said, "War is deceit."] If we fail to make the distinction between radical Islamists and valid, thoughtful and authoritative views of expert Muslim jurists, [apparently the many I delineated in my original essay don't count] we risk undermining one of the most promising tools to defeat radical thought. I am referring to recent successful programmes by the Saudis and Egyptians to persuade what the West might call radical jihadists that their extremist activities are actually against the canons of Islam as interpreted by mainstream jurists [emphasis added].
What “successful programmes” have been initiated by the Saudis and Egyptians to de-radicalize Muslims? Is he referring to Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation through tennis, finger-paints, and GameBoys—which has by and large not been successful? And again, which “expert” and “mainstream” jurists is he talking about?
In short, Ryan’s points crumble in face of the fact that, all philology, sophistry, and appeals to emotions aside, in mainstream Islam, what ultimately matters is how the ulema—especially the “mainstream jurists” he continues evoking—have understood and articulated the doctrine of taqiyya.
CHAS FREEMAN: 'HELP THE SHIITES (IRAN) WIN FAST, CONSOLIDATE THEIR DAMN DICTATORSHIP AND GET THE HELL OUT'
Sultan Knish
Chas Freeman's proposed appointment to head the National Intelligence Council is already getting lots of scrutiny. A former Saudi lobbyist who did business with the Bin Laden group, Chas Freeman has naturally spewed more than his share of bile toward Israel, and toadying toward the Saudi kingdom.
After 9/11, Chas Freeman sought to do business with the Bin Laden group and responded to critics by saying that Bin Laden was still "a very honored name in the kingdom [of Saudi Arabia]". He's called Hezbollah a legitimate outgrowth of Lebanese nationalism and denied that it was an Iranian puppet. He bragged about his million dollar donation from the Saudi King to fund his organization, which he used to publish Walt and Mearsheimer's article attacking the "Jewish lobby". These days he's pushing for a "One State Solution" in Israel, code for the destruction of Israel.Much of this has already been effectively laid out by such as Melanie Philips. There is however a lot more I have learned.
Chas Freeman is co-chair of the US China Policy Foundation and the American Iranian Council, with offices in Iran, holder of the Order of Abd Al-Azziz, 1st Class. He is also board chairman of Projects International Inc, a company that facilitates all sorts of projects, particularly in Saudi Arabia.
And even more significantly, Chas Freeman is on the International Advisory Board of China National Offshore Oil Co. CNOOC is a State owned enterprise , controlled by the Chinese government. As such Chas Freeman has openly worked for both Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China.
CNOOC did business pretty much the way you expect a Chinese state owned company to do business, with large scale pollution, intimidation and evictions. And CNOOC has designs on snapping up American oil companies, so it can do business in the US. This closeness between Chas Freeman and the People's Republic of China has translated into Freeman ruthlessly doing their propaganda for them.
This puts into perspective the Weekly Standard's revelation that Chas Freeman sent out a message saying that China did not go far enough in the Tiananmen Square Massacre
Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' "Bonus Army" or a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy" should expect to be displaced with despatch from the ground they occupy. I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill-conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined. while shutting down much of the Chinese government's normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang's dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic protesters in China.
This has been covered, but I present some more of Chas Freeman's Greatest Hits that have yet to be covered. Here's the view that Obama's nominee to head the National Intelligence Council offered to Rolling Stone when asked what to do about the War in Iraq.
A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be?
Chas Freeman: The most efficient way to avoid mass killings is to help the Shiites win fast, consolidate their damn dictatorship and get the hell out. The level of anarchy and hatred and emotional disturbance is such that it's very hard to imagine anything except a Saddam-style reign of terror succeeding in pacifying the place.
Clear on that? The man who will be advising the White House on the world situation, favored setting up an Iranian backed dictatorship in Iraq, and then quickly withdrawing.
And we're just getting started.
Chas Freeman became the darling of the left wing by repeatedly attacking the US war in Iraq, including repeatedly ridiculing the claim that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. However before the US invasion, Chas Freeman delivered a speech claiming that if we attacked Saddam, he would use weapons of mass destruction against us... while implying that 9/11 was justified because we had attacked Bin Laden's homeland.
Former U. S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, in a recent speech, warned that the U. S. could expect an eye-for-an-eye response: "One lesson of September 11th that we need to recall more than any other is that if we attack someone else's homeland in this day and age, we can expect that our own homeland will be attacked. We know that if we attack Saddam he will use weapons of mass destruction in whatever way he can. We don't know, however,what preparations he's made."
Of course this was par for the course as Chas Freeman had all but gone into business whoring for the Saudi Kingdom.
I would say that the last two years, as we mark the anniversary of September 11th, have seen a major deterioration in the atmosphere and tone of the U.S.-Saudi relations broadly written, even as the two governments have continued a fairly cordial and cooperative relationship.
The irony is that both Washington and Riyadh have ended up defending the value of the relationship and the quality of the relationship against, frankly, often very ignorant and uninformed, but malicious attacks from their own publics.
Naturally Chas Freeman was also against expecting any reforms in Afghanistan for the rights of women.
Chas Freeman, president of the Middle East Policy Council and a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia:
"We need to recall the reason we went to Afghanistan in the first place. . Our purpose was to deny the use of Afghan territory to terrorists with global reach. That was, and is, an attainable objective. It is a limited objective that can be achieved at reasonable cost. We must return to a ruthless focus on this objective. We cannot afford to pursue goals, however worthy, that it contradicts or undermines it. The reform of Afghan politics, society and mores must wait."
But lest you think that Chas Freeman's relationship with the Saudis is monogamous, he has a long history of being equally willing to write hosannas to the People's Republic of China. From justifying the Tianamen Square Massacre to constantly attacking Taiwan, Chas Freeman proved all too willing to serve another brutal dictatorship.
Sometimes, for example, in the matters of Taiwan, Tibet or the democracy movement in Hong Kong, Americans are enlisted by lobbyists acting on behalf of separatist or dissident movements in greater China.
Naturally the only "separatist" movements Chas Freeman seems to support are those backed by Iran or Saudi Arabia. Taiwan, which actually is a separate country, need not apply.
April 19, 2000: Chas Freeman argues that Taiwan has provoked a crisis,and that unless it reverses course, China and the US are headed for war.
Mr. Freeman: But you see, Les, I don't agree that those are the issues because I think that there is virtually zero prospect of Taiwan gratuitously provoking Beijing with a declaration of independence. I think the question before Taiwan now that has been put clearly by Beijing is "Are you prepared to reverse course from the declaration of independence, without using that word, that you have already pronounced. And if you are not prepared to reverse course. If you adhere to the view that you are entitled to be treated by the international community and by other Chinese as a separate state then the consequences of that will be the use of force."
... The Chinese are quite capable of negotiating solutions of issues that are very difficult and being patient. And the saddest thing here is that their counterparts in Taiwan have not allowed them to exercise that patience. Just consider the example of the difference between Indian actions in taking Goa by force and Chinese actions in waiting decades to negotiate a peaceful retrocession of Hong Kong.
In Chas Freeman's twisted worldview, China is to be praised by not invading by force. But what else should one expect from a man who penned the following description of Mao Zedong, China's own Stalin.
Mao Zedong had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor. He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Mao lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.
It is quite clear that Chas Freeman either has no principles that can't be bought, or outright worships and celebrates brutal tyrannies. As Melanie Philips writes, he is indeed the best weapon that Islamists could have in their armory. And not only Islamists. Every dictatorship around the world could not ask for a better friend.
And now Obama will put into place a second Saudi puppet to head a major piece of the national security structure, after James L. Jones. But let's close with one more excerpt from Chas Freeman on Israel.
Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection.
The framework proposed by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah at Beirut in 2002 offers Israel an opportunity to accomplish both. It has the support of all Arab governments.
Despite the fact that such a peace is so obviously also in Israel's vital and moral interests, history and the Israeli response to date both strongly suggest that without some tough love from Americans, including especially Israel's American coreligionists, Israel will not risk the uncertainties of peace. ... But unless they are changed, the Arab peace plan will exceed its shelf life, and Arabs will revert to their previous views that Israel is an ethnomaniacal society with which it is impossible for others to coexist and that peace can be achieved only by Israel's eventual annihilation, much as the Crusader kingdoms that once occupied Palestine were eventually destroyed.
An unsubtle threat from a Saudi apologist, which quite openly states that Israel has the choice of accepting the plan advanced by Freeman's Saudi masters or Israel will be annihilated.
This is the man Obama has put in place to have charge of the next National Intelligence Estimate. Kim Philby, eat your heart out. A foreign enemy agent has never had the kind of power that Chas Freeman Jr can expect to wield over American foreign policy on behalf of his clients in Saudi Arabia and China.
Chas Freeman's proposed appointment to head the National Intelligence Council is already getting lots of scrutiny. A former Saudi lobbyist who did business with the Bin Laden group, Chas Freeman has naturally spewed more than his share of bile toward Israel, and toadying toward the Saudi kingdom.
After 9/11, Chas Freeman sought to do business with the Bin Laden group and responded to critics by saying that Bin Laden was still "a very honored name in the kingdom [of Saudi Arabia]". He's called Hezbollah a legitimate outgrowth of Lebanese nationalism and denied that it was an Iranian puppet. He bragged about his million dollar donation from the Saudi King to fund his organization, which he used to publish Walt and Mearsheimer's article attacking the "Jewish lobby". These days he's pushing for a "One State Solution" in Israel, code for the destruction of Israel.Much of this has already been effectively laid out by such as Melanie Philips. There is however a lot more I have learned.
Chas Freeman is co-chair of the US China Policy Foundation and the American Iranian Council, with offices in Iran, holder of the Order of Abd Al-Azziz, 1st Class. He is also board chairman of Projects International Inc, a company that facilitates all sorts of projects, particularly in Saudi Arabia.
And even more significantly, Chas Freeman is on the International Advisory Board of China National Offshore Oil Co. CNOOC is a State owned enterprise , controlled by the Chinese government. As such Chas Freeman has openly worked for both Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China.
CNOOC did business pretty much the way you expect a Chinese state owned company to do business, with large scale pollution, intimidation and evictions. And CNOOC has designs on snapping up American oil companies, so it can do business in the US. This closeness between Chas Freeman and the People's Republic of China has translated into Freeman ruthlessly doing their propaganda for them.
This puts into perspective the Weekly Standard's revelation that Chas Freeman sent out a message saying that China did not go far enough in the Tiananmen Square Massacre
Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' "Bonus Army" or a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy" should expect to be displaced with despatch from the ground they occupy. I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill-conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined. while shutting down much of the Chinese government's normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang's dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic protesters in China.
This has been covered, but I present some more of Chas Freeman's Greatest Hits that have yet to be covered. Here's the view that Obama's nominee to head the National Intelligence Council offered to Rolling Stone when asked what to do about the War in Iraq.
A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be?
Chas Freeman: The most efficient way to avoid mass killings is to help the Shiites win fast, consolidate their damn dictatorship and get the hell out. The level of anarchy and hatred and emotional disturbance is such that it's very hard to imagine anything except a Saddam-style reign of terror succeeding in pacifying the place.
Clear on that? The man who will be advising the White House on the world situation, favored setting up an Iranian backed dictatorship in Iraq, and then quickly withdrawing.
And we're just getting started.
Chas Freeman became the darling of the left wing by repeatedly attacking the US war in Iraq, including repeatedly ridiculing the claim that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. However before the US invasion, Chas Freeman delivered a speech claiming that if we attacked Saddam, he would use weapons of mass destruction against us... while implying that 9/11 was justified because we had attacked Bin Laden's homeland.
Former U. S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, in a recent speech, warned that the U. S. could expect an eye-for-an-eye response: "One lesson of September 11th that we need to recall more than any other is that if we attack someone else's homeland in this day and age, we can expect that our own homeland will be attacked. We know that if we attack Saddam he will use weapons of mass destruction in whatever way he can. We don't know, however,what preparations he's made."
Of course this was par for the course as Chas Freeman had all but gone into business whoring for the Saudi Kingdom.
I would say that the last two years, as we mark the anniversary of September 11th, have seen a major deterioration in the atmosphere and tone of the U.S.-Saudi relations broadly written, even as the two governments have continued a fairly cordial and cooperative relationship.
The irony is that both Washington and Riyadh have ended up defending the value of the relationship and the quality of the relationship against, frankly, often very ignorant and uninformed, but malicious attacks from their own publics.
Naturally Chas Freeman was also against expecting any reforms in Afghanistan for the rights of women.
Chas Freeman, president of the Middle East Policy Council and a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia:
"We need to recall the reason we went to Afghanistan in the first place. . Our purpose was to deny the use of Afghan territory to terrorists with global reach. That was, and is, an attainable objective. It is a limited objective that can be achieved at reasonable cost. We must return to a ruthless focus on this objective. We cannot afford to pursue goals, however worthy, that it contradicts or undermines it. The reform of Afghan politics, society and mores must wait."
But lest you think that Chas Freeman's relationship with the Saudis is monogamous, he has a long history of being equally willing to write hosannas to the People's Republic of China. From justifying the Tianamen Square Massacre to constantly attacking Taiwan, Chas Freeman proved all too willing to serve another brutal dictatorship.
Sometimes, for example, in the matters of Taiwan, Tibet or the democracy movement in Hong Kong, Americans are enlisted by lobbyists acting on behalf of separatist or dissident movements in greater China.
Naturally the only "separatist" movements Chas Freeman seems to support are those backed by Iran or Saudi Arabia. Taiwan, which actually is a separate country, need not apply.
April 19, 2000: Chas Freeman argues that Taiwan has provoked a crisis,and that unless it reverses course, China and the US are headed for war.
Mr. Freeman: But you see, Les, I don't agree that those are the issues because I think that there is virtually zero prospect of Taiwan gratuitously provoking Beijing with a declaration of independence. I think the question before Taiwan now that has been put clearly by Beijing is "Are you prepared to reverse course from the declaration of independence, without using that word, that you have already pronounced. And if you are not prepared to reverse course. If you adhere to the view that you are entitled to be treated by the international community and by other Chinese as a separate state then the consequences of that will be the use of force."
... The Chinese are quite capable of negotiating solutions of issues that are very difficult and being patient. And the saddest thing here is that their counterparts in Taiwan have not allowed them to exercise that patience. Just consider the example of the difference between Indian actions in taking Goa by force and Chinese actions in waiting decades to negotiate a peaceful retrocession of Hong Kong.
In Chas Freeman's twisted worldview, China is to be praised by not invading by force. But what else should one expect from a man who penned the following description of Mao Zedong, China's own Stalin.
Mao Zedong had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor. He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Mao lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.
It is quite clear that Chas Freeman either has no principles that can't be bought, or outright worships and celebrates brutal tyrannies. As Melanie Philips writes, he is indeed the best weapon that Islamists could have in their armory. And not only Islamists. Every dictatorship around the world could not ask for a better friend.
And now Obama will put into place a second Saudi puppet to head a major piece of the national security structure, after James L. Jones. But let's close with one more excerpt from Chas Freeman on Israel.
Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection.
The framework proposed by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah at Beirut in 2002 offers Israel an opportunity to accomplish both. It has the support of all Arab governments.
Despite the fact that such a peace is so obviously also in Israel's vital and moral interests, history and the Israeli response to date both strongly suggest that without some tough love from Americans, including especially Israel's American coreligionists, Israel will not risk the uncertainties of peace. ... But unless they are changed, the Arab peace plan will exceed its shelf life, and Arabs will revert to their previous views that Israel is an ethnomaniacal society with which it is impossible for others to coexist and that peace can be achieved only by Israel's eventual annihilation, much as the Crusader kingdoms that once occupied Palestine were eventually destroyed.
An unsubtle threat from a Saudi apologist, which quite openly states that Israel has the choice of accepting the plan advanced by Freeman's Saudi masters or Israel will be annihilated.
This is the man Obama has put in place to have charge of the next National Intelligence Estimate. Kim Philby, eat your heart out. A foreign enemy agent has never had the kind of power that Chas Freeman Jr can expect to wield over American foreign policy on behalf of his clients in Saudi Arabia and China.
Understanding Obama
Caroline B. Glick
Date: Wednesday, February 25 2009
Since the Democratic Party's presidential primaries a year ago, there has been an ongoing debate about how Barack Obama perceives the U.S. alliance with Israel. After he entered office last month, the need to understand what President Obama thinks about Israel has become acute as we attempt to make sense of his emerging strategy of appeasement for dealing with Islamic terror groups, Pakistan, Iran, and the Arab world.. Starting with his first day in office, Obama has made clear he intends to end the U.S. war against Islamic terror. In his first week in office, he announced he will make good on his campaign pledges to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, outlaw most of Washington's means of dealing with captured terrorists, slash the defense budget, and diplomatically engage rather than militarily confront state sponsors of terror and weapons of mass destruction proliferators Iran and Syria. And ever since, he has been actively implementing policies aimed at achieving these goals.
In Pakistan for instance, rather than encourage the Zardari government to fight the burgeoning Taliban forces throughout the country, the Obama administration reportedly supports Pakistan's decision to surrender much of the country to Taliban rule. So it is that the Pakistani government's decision to surrender the Swat Valley -- located just a hundred miles from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in Islamabad -- to the Taliban reportedly enjoyed the quiet backing of the White House.
Then of course there is Iran. Even as the UN acknowledges that by illegally enriching uranium Iran now stands at the cusp of a nuclear bomb, and despite the fact that Iran's satellite test earlier this month shows that Iran has the capacity to attack Europe and is close to achieving the capacity to attack the U.S., the Obama administration insists it wants to talk to the mullahs. And while it is figuring out how to do that, it has opposed placing any new sanctions on Iran.
After Iran comes Syria. Over the past few weeks, the administration suspended the enforcement of U.S. sanctions against Syria. It has also expressed its interest in returning the U.S. ambassador to Damascus. The Bush administration withdrew the U.S. ambassador after Syria ordered the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Obama has reportedly selected Frederic Hof, known for his hostility to Israel, as his designated envoy.
The Obama administration's eagerness to renew ties with Damascus was made explicit with Senator John Kerry's visit with Syrian President Bashar Assad last week. Kerry didn't seem to mind that while he was talking to Assad, Syrian-sponsored and Hizbullah-controlled terrorists lobbed Katyusha rockets at Israel. Instead of decrying Syria for its co-sponsorship with Iran of Hizbullah and Hamas, Kerry applauded Syria for its willingness to support the reestablishment of a Hamas-Fatah government and asked Assad to help stabilize the situation in Hizbullah-controlled Lebanon.
As to Hamas, before traveling to Damascus, Kerry became the first U.S. official to visit Gaza since Hamas seized control of the area in June 2007. While there, he accepted a letter from Hamas to Obama. Kerry is not alone in his willingness to accept Hamas's control of Gaza and its legitimacy as a political force. To the contrary, he was following the administration's lead.
Last week the administration gave three signs that it is preparing the ground for future U.S. recognition of Hamas. First, the administration announced its support for the reconciliation of Hamas with Fatah. Next, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that in her first official visit to the Middle East next month, she will participate in an international conference in Cairo whose goal is to raise money to finance the rebuilding of Hamas-controlled Gaza in the wake of its missile war against Israel.
Obama's supporters claim these moves stem from the president's basic belief that it is better to talk with U.S. opponents than to boycott them. While the net effect of all of them is to weaken Israel, none of them, it is argued, is directed against Israel, which Obama of course supports.
It is comforting to believe Obama is motivated not by hostility toward Israel, but by naiveté. After all, if true, it means that as his attempts to appease the Arabs, Iran, and the Taliban are rebuffed, he will change course.
Unfortunately, two recent developments lend credence to the view that in courting the likes of Mullah Omar, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Assad and Khaled Mashal, Obama is not motivated by naiveté but by a conviction that the U.S. should abandon Israel. The first was the administration's Valentine's Day announcement that it was sending a delegation to Geneva to participate in the planning sessions preceding the UN's Durban review conference set to be convened in Geneva on Yom Hashoah in late April.
The purpose of the Durban II conference is to oversee implementation of the 2001 Durban conference's declaration. The 2001 Durban conference, it will be recalled, was an anti-Israel diplomatic pogrom where the Jewish people's right to self determination was vilified and the final declaration claimed that the Jewish state is illegitimate and racist.
The Bush administration walked out of the Durban conference and refused to participate in the related UN events that followed it. Recognizing that the Durban conference was part and parcel of the war against Israel the U.S. realized its interests lay elsewhere.
In contrast, by sending a delegation to participate in the planning session last week, the Obama administration signaled its willingness to participate in this war against Israel. During the planning session, American delegates in Geneva chose not to object to a Palestinian draft declaration that defined Israel as a racist state with no right to defend itself and that called for international protection for the Palestinians. U.S. silence enabled the draft to be adopted by unanimous consent.
The second development was the report that Obama intends to appoint former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman to serve as director of the National Intelligence Council, which charged with advising the president on intelligence matters and composing the National Intelligence Estimate.
Freeman is an outspoken opponent of Israel. He has stated repeatedly that the source of Islamic and Arab hostility toward the U.S. and violence against Americans -- including the September 11 attacks -- is the American alliance with Israel. Were the U.S. to abandon Israel - which he believes is solely to blame for the Arab world's rejection of its right to exist and for Iran's stated intention to destroy it -- then the U.S. would have no further difficulties with the Arabs or Iran.
Obama's support for Freeman, like his support for Samantha Power and Susan Rice, who largely share Freeman's view, make clear that contrary to what Obama's supporters believe, hostility toward the American alliance with Israel has played and will continue to pay a central role in determining Obama's strategies vis-à-vis the Arab and Islamic worlds. If, as Freeman has argued, the only reason the Arabs and Muslims hate the U.S. is its support for Israel, then the U.S. should be able to end the war simply by abandoning Israel and reaching out to the Arabs. Taken collectively and individually, all of Obama's policies toward the Arab and Islamic world and toward Israel comport with this basic notion.
This, of course, is distressing. But to forge a strategy to contend with the Obama administration, it is important to first understand what motivates the White House. Only by recognizing the ideological origins of Obama's policies can Israel and its allies in the U.S. have any hope of contending with them successfully.
--
---------------------------------
Caroline Glick
www.CarolineGlick.com
Date: Wednesday, February 25 2009
Since the Democratic Party's presidential primaries a year ago, there has been an ongoing debate about how Barack Obama perceives the U.S. alliance with Israel. After he entered office last month, the need to understand what President Obama thinks about Israel has become acute as we attempt to make sense of his emerging strategy of appeasement for dealing with Islamic terror groups, Pakistan, Iran, and the Arab world.. Starting with his first day in office, Obama has made clear he intends to end the U.S. war against Islamic terror. In his first week in office, he announced he will make good on his campaign pledges to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, outlaw most of Washington's means of dealing with captured terrorists, slash the defense budget, and diplomatically engage rather than militarily confront state sponsors of terror and weapons of mass destruction proliferators Iran and Syria. And ever since, he has been actively implementing policies aimed at achieving these goals.
In Pakistan for instance, rather than encourage the Zardari government to fight the burgeoning Taliban forces throughout the country, the Obama administration reportedly supports Pakistan's decision to surrender much of the country to Taliban rule. So it is that the Pakistani government's decision to surrender the Swat Valley -- located just a hundred miles from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in Islamabad -- to the Taliban reportedly enjoyed the quiet backing of the White House.
Then of course there is Iran. Even as the UN acknowledges that by illegally enriching uranium Iran now stands at the cusp of a nuclear bomb, and despite the fact that Iran's satellite test earlier this month shows that Iran has the capacity to attack Europe and is close to achieving the capacity to attack the U.S., the Obama administration insists it wants to talk to the mullahs. And while it is figuring out how to do that, it has opposed placing any new sanctions on Iran.
After Iran comes Syria. Over the past few weeks, the administration suspended the enforcement of U.S. sanctions against Syria. It has also expressed its interest in returning the U.S. ambassador to Damascus. The Bush administration withdrew the U.S. ambassador after Syria ordered the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Obama has reportedly selected Frederic Hof, known for his hostility to Israel, as his designated envoy.
The Obama administration's eagerness to renew ties with Damascus was made explicit with Senator John Kerry's visit with Syrian President Bashar Assad last week. Kerry didn't seem to mind that while he was talking to Assad, Syrian-sponsored and Hizbullah-controlled terrorists lobbed Katyusha rockets at Israel. Instead of decrying Syria for its co-sponsorship with Iran of Hizbullah and Hamas, Kerry applauded Syria for its willingness to support the reestablishment of a Hamas-Fatah government and asked Assad to help stabilize the situation in Hizbullah-controlled Lebanon.
As to Hamas, before traveling to Damascus, Kerry became the first U.S. official to visit Gaza since Hamas seized control of the area in June 2007. While there, he accepted a letter from Hamas to Obama. Kerry is not alone in his willingness to accept Hamas's control of Gaza and its legitimacy as a political force. To the contrary, he was following the administration's lead.
Last week the administration gave three signs that it is preparing the ground for future U.S. recognition of Hamas. First, the administration announced its support for the reconciliation of Hamas with Fatah. Next, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that in her first official visit to the Middle East next month, she will participate in an international conference in Cairo whose goal is to raise money to finance the rebuilding of Hamas-controlled Gaza in the wake of its missile war against Israel.
Obama's supporters claim these moves stem from the president's basic belief that it is better to talk with U.S. opponents than to boycott them. While the net effect of all of them is to weaken Israel, none of them, it is argued, is directed against Israel, which Obama of course supports.
It is comforting to believe Obama is motivated not by hostility toward Israel, but by naiveté. After all, if true, it means that as his attempts to appease the Arabs, Iran, and the Taliban are rebuffed, he will change course.
Unfortunately, two recent developments lend credence to the view that in courting the likes of Mullah Omar, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Assad and Khaled Mashal, Obama is not motivated by naiveté but by a conviction that the U.S. should abandon Israel. The first was the administration's Valentine's Day announcement that it was sending a delegation to Geneva to participate in the planning sessions preceding the UN's Durban review conference set to be convened in Geneva on Yom Hashoah in late April.
The purpose of the Durban II conference is to oversee implementation of the 2001 Durban conference's declaration. The 2001 Durban conference, it will be recalled, was an anti-Israel diplomatic pogrom where the Jewish people's right to self determination was vilified and the final declaration claimed that the Jewish state is illegitimate and racist.
The Bush administration walked out of the Durban conference and refused to participate in the related UN events that followed it. Recognizing that the Durban conference was part and parcel of the war against Israel the U.S. realized its interests lay elsewhere.
In contrast, by sending a delegation to participate in the planning session last week, the Obama administration signaled its willingness to participate in this war against Israel. During the planning session, American delegates in Geneva chose not to object to a Palestinian draft declaration that defined Israel as a racist state with no right to defend itself and that called for international protection for the Palestinians. U.S. silence enabled the draft to be adopted by unanimous consent.
The second development was the report that Obama intends to appoint former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman to serve as director of the National Intelligence Council, which charged with advising the president on intelligence matters and composing the National Intelligence Estimate.
Freeman is an outspoken opponent of Israel. He has stated repeatedly that the source of Islamic and Arab hostility toward the U.S. and violence against Americans -- including the September 11 attacks -- is the American alliance with Israel. Were the U.S. to abandon Israel - which he believes is solely to blame for the Arab world's rejection of its right to exist and for Iran's stated intention to destroy it -- then the U.S. would have no further difficulties with the Arabs or Iran.
Obama's support for Freeman, like his support for Samantha Power and Susan Rice, who largely share Freeman's view, make clear that contrary to what Obama's supporters believe, hostility toward the American alliance with Israel has played and will continue to pay a central role in determining Obama's strategies vis-à-vis the Arab and Islamic worlds. If, as Freeman has argued, the only reason the Arabs and Muslims hate the U.S. is its support for Israel, then the U.S. should be able to end the war simply by abandoning Israel and reaching out to the Arabs. Taken collectively and individually, all of Obama's policies toward the Arab and Islamic world and toward Israel comport with this basic notion.
This, of course, is distressing. But to forge a strategy to contend with the Obama administration, it is important to first understand what motivates the White House. Only by recognizing the ideological origins of Obama's policies can Israel and its allies in the U.S. have any hope of contending with them successfully.
--
---------------------------------
Caroline Glick
www.CarolineGlick.com
Are Acts of Staged Controversy an Islamist Strategic Tactic?
Madeleine Gruen and Edward Sloan
IPT News
February 27, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1002/are-acts-of-staged-controversy-an-islamist
Through careful study of terrorist incidents and investigations and study of the histories of the terrorist groups, U.S. law enforcement officers, security officials, and intelligence analysts have developed an understanding of the tactics, techniques and procedures used by terrorists preparing for and conducting attacks. Professionals can usually distinguish between a truly suspicious incident and benign behavior. However, there is a third category of non-violent activities that is more difficult to identify, which we will refer to as "acts of staged controversy."There are some cases where witnesses describe actors' behavior as "odd" yet very overt—behavior apparently designed to attract attention. Viewed under differing prisms, the behavior could be classified as either benign or as some type of terrorist activity. Decision makers and practitioners should consider the possibility that certain incidents are staged or that they are escalated by manipulation of the media and the legal system to create controversy and to provoke a response to serve strategic purposes.
It is very difficult to prove ulterior intentions behind what we are referring to as "acts of staged controversy." Perhaps these acts are deliberately provocative. Or, it is possible these are innocent events that may be seized upon by advocacy groups for political gain. We present this hypothesis to provide an alternative way of analyzing these types of incidents.
Strategic Motivations of Islamist Groups
Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, do not necessarily intend to engage in violence (though some branches of the Muslim Brotherhood are very violent). Nevertheless, they share the same long-term goal as violent jihadist groups: to establish an Islamic society. Part of their strategy is to weaken and dismantle democratic regimes.[1] They endeavor to "Islamize" society using a bottom up approach[2] so that eventually their doctrines are accepted as the norm rather than considered extreme or marginal.
This article offers two cases, both involving the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which describes itself as a Muslim advocacy organization. These cases are meant to be illustrative of how acts of staged controversy may be implemented by groups with an Islamist agenda.
Many of CAIR's founding members were members of the Muslim Brotherhood[3] and of a support network created by the Brotherhood to benefit Hamas. Some experts believe that CAIR continues to be deeply involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and supports their objectives.[4],[5] The Muslim Brotherhood is not considered a monolithic organization, and its various branches may disagree on specific tactics, but all are consistent in their commitment to its core ideological principles, including the adoption of their political version of Islam as a governing standard for all Muslims around the world.[6]
In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood issued a memorandum outlining its strategic goal in North America.[7] It reads, in part:
"The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
Minnesota Imams
On November 20, 2006, six imams boarded a US Airways jet that was about to depart from Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport for Phoenix, Arizona. They had attended a three-day conference of the North American Imams Federation. Three only had one-way tickets and no checked luggage.[8] Various witnesses reported observing the group praying in an unusually loud way in the waiting area prior to boarding.[9] One of the witnesses, a clergyman who was familiar with Islamic practices, described their behavior at the gate as "atypical."[10] This same witness was later seated next to one of the imams on the plane and intentionally engaged him in conversation. The imam initially expressed to the witness that he was in the United States to do work related to his Ph.D. Later in the discussion, he admitted he was not doing academic work but instead intended to "represent Muslims in the United States" by generating support for Shari'a law.[11]
Upon boarding the plane, the imams dispersed. Two sat in the front of the plane, two in the middle, and two in the rear.[12] The flight crew and passengers observed them changing seats, and several of the men requested seat-belt extenders.[13] Crew members thought the request was odd, as none of the imams appeared overweight.[14] Although the extenders were provided, they were never used and were left on floor of the plane.[15] One passenger stated that she believed that the imams deliberately acted out as a part of an attempt to intimidate airline employees.[16] Another passenger said, "I can't explain it, but it was like they were definitely trying to raise suspicion."[17] The flight was delayed and the imams were removed from the plane by the airport police, questioned, and released after their plane had already departed.
CAIR filed a complaint with the Department of Transportation, and a separate civil suit in federal court on behalf of the imams against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, citing civil rights violations. CAIR also sued the "John Does" who alerted the aircrew and authorities after becoming alarmed by the imam's behavior in the terminal and on the plane.[18] While the "John Doe" provision of a bill (designed to protect citizens who report possible terrorist-related behavior from being sued, and to protect officers acting in an official capacity to prevent terrorist attacks) was moving through Congress, CAIR persisted with its lawsuit, claiming the right to discover whether the complaints were actually made "in good faith" or if they were racially motivated.[19]
President George W. Bush signed the "John Doe" provision[20] into law on August 3, 2007 and CAIR dropped its claims against the "Does."[21] There may be a residual "chilling effect," however, that would prevent concerned citizens from reporting suspicious incidents for fear of getting sued.[22] Causing reluctance to report suspicious incidents in which Muslims are involved may be an aspect of Islamist strategy to reduce resistance to the Islamization of society.
In January 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation ruled that US Airways did not discriminate against the imams and that the airline's actions were reasonable. The civil suit is scheduled to go to trial in August, 2009.[23]
Giants Stadium
During a football game September 19, 2005 at Giants Stadium, five Muslim men were questioned by FBI agents after they prayed near the stadium's main air intake duct located in a sensitive area.[24] Former President George H.W. Bush attended the game and security was high. After approximately 20 minutes of questioning, FBI agents determined that the group did not pose a threat and allowed them to return to the game.
This group may have acted completely innocently. The issue, however, was not dropped by the men, and a few weeks later, on November 2, 2005, the group joined forces with the New Jersey-based American Muslim Union and the New York City chapter of CAIR for a joint press conference concerning the incident. At the conference, the men complained that they had been humiliated at Giants Stadium, and that their "main aim [in publicizing the episode] was to bring to light and educate people about what it is we're supposed to do."[25] They also took the opportunity to promote a campaign called "Pray for Understanding,"[26] which the executive director of the New York office of CAIR described as a way to teach people about Islam. The tie-in to the "Pray for Understanding" campaign at the press conference suggests the possibility that the incident at Giants Stadium may have been staged to create a platform to promote an ulterior public relations agenda.
What Islamists Might Gain from "Acts of Staged Controversy"
The Minnesota Imams and Giants Stadium incidents are just two examples where unusual but overt behavior has been investigated, dropped (because there was no clear indication of wrongdoing), and subsequently taken up and intensified by CAIR or by other Muslim groups. Due to the involvement of Islamist advocacy groups, news stories are generated and controversy stirred.
If the objective of Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, is to establish Islam as the dominant global societal doctrine, then how would creating acts of controversy - or seizing on opportunities to create controversy - further their strategy to achieve their objective? If they intend to achieve their objective through non-violent means then it is logical to conclude that they would want Muslims to embrace their perspective and to eschew democratic principles..
For example, acts of staged controversy could be used to:
* Cause Muslims to feel disaffection for the democratic system by promoting feelings of betrayal and abandonment.
* Convince Muslim Americans that they are not accepted as Americans. Acts of staged controversy provoke a response from authorities that can foment an "us vs. them" rift between Muslims and non-Muslims.
* Incite political divides that may ultimately cause political instability.
* Influence legislators to call for laws to outlaw profiling and/or repeal existing laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act.
* Draw attention from foreign media in an attempt to show that the U.S. rhetoric about acceptance is hollow.
Acts of staged controversy could also be exploited by groups who seek to use violence. For example, acts of staged controversy could be used to:
* Desensitize security personnel by making activity that common sense would deem suspicious instead seem routine and not worth any special effort.
* Intimidate security personnel and citizens by threatening lawsuits; making them reluctant to report suspicious behavior.
Handling Acts of Staged Controversy
Unfortunately, hatred, bigotry, and mistrust exist in the United States, and it is the role of civil rights groups to respond appropriately when acts of hatred do occur. It is the duty of responsible officials to monitor political, religious, and social tensions so that violent acts motivated by hatred can be prevented. The long view for homeland security, however, cannot be compromised by hasty responses to ambiguous situations. It is possible that some Islamist groups may exaggerate the occurrence of anti-Islamic discrimination in order to validate the premise that "Islamophobia" is rampant. According to FBI statistics, out of a total 7,624 hate crimes reported in the United States in 2007, 115 were motivated by anti-Islamic bias.[27] By contrast, 2,658 were motivated by bias against blacks, 749 were anti-white, 1,265 targeted people based on sexual orientation and 969 of the hate crimes reported were motivated by bias against Jews.[28]
Law enforcement and security personnel, airline and airport managers, legislators, politicians, media, and private citizens all have roles to play to prevent the spread of extremist ideology, which could lead to radicalization and, ultimately, a possible terrorist event.
Response at the Federal, Law Enforcement and Media Levels
Politicians must acknowledge Islamist ideology is being promoted in the United States, recognize who is promoting it, and understand the subtle tactics used by the Islamist groups before they can introduce effective counter-measures against terrorism. Politicians must realize that Islamist groups are competing for hearts and minds in the United States, so commitment to democratic values cannot be taken for granted.
How does law enforcement play a role in acts of staged controversy if there is no apparent crime committed? It is unlawful to conspire and to deliberately disrupt or interfere with the legitimate activities of law enforcement and security personnel. Engaging in deliberately suspicious behavior in order to distract security and law enforcement authorities is a tactic that has been discussed on Islamist message boards.[29] Of course, in ambiguous situations it is hard to prove the actual intent of the actors. Difficult though it may be, investigations should be conducted and cooperating witnesses sought and developed. The stakes are high, especially when the results of these incidents are considered in the aggregate and not individually.
Associations with terrorists or terrorist groups are not evidence of a crime, but are valuable data points in evaluating the true nature of an incident. If there are nefarious or questionable associations or prior activities that could shed light on possible motivations for ambiguous acts, they should be made known as much as possible. For example, one of the six imams involved in the Minnesota airport case, Omar Shahin, raised money for the Holy Land Foundation and for the Illinois-based KindHearts Foundation, which the government shut down last year for alleged support of Hamas."[30]
Additionally, the media should be aware of the possibility that it is being used to further an Islamist agenda. Media cooperation and extensive coverage is a key element of successful acts of staged controversy. Historically, global political Islamist groups have skillfully manipulated the media as part of their effort to circulate their message.[31] Statements made by spokespeople representing Islamist groups are often taken at face value by the media, and past involvements and associations often go unmentioned. Just as it is for law enforcement, it is important for the media to consider incidents in the aggregate.
Conclusion
It could be that individuals or groups unintentionally behave in a way that is deemed suspicious, and that official response may cause embarrassment. It also is true that innocent events create opportunities for groups like CAIR to influence the public's view of Islam, both politically and ideologically.
Acts of staged controversy or public relations campaigns manipulating otherwise innocent events may be an aspect of Islamist group strategy to Islamize society. Authorities dealing with such incidents should assess the behavior as an aggregate. Their responses should address the root of the problem, rather than potentially allowing such incidents to compel a response that supports the Islamist agenda.
Madeleine Gruen is a Senior Analyst for the NEFA Foundation. She is also a Senior Intelligence Analyst for Mike Stapleton Associates and is a contributor to the Counterterrorism Blog. Previously, she was an intelligence analyst for the New York Police Department's Counterterrorism Division.
Edward Sloan is a detective in the New York Police Department with 35 years of service. He is a Navy Reserve Officer and since 2001 has deployed several times to Afghanistan and the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His views are not necessarily those of the NYPD or the Navy.
[1] Stephen Coughlin, Analysis of Muslim Brotherhood's General Strategic Goals for North America, Statement entered as evidence in U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, September 7, 2007.
[2] Zeyno Baran, The Muslim Brotherhood's U.S. Network, Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, Vol. 6, Hudson Institute, 2008.
[3] Douglas Farah, Ron Sandee, and Josh Lefkowitz, The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States: A Brief History, NEFA Foundation, October 26, 2007, http://www1.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaikhwan1007.pdf (last accessed February 26, 2009)
[4] See: "Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Council on American-Islamic Relations' Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Instanter and Amicus Brief in Support of the Unindicted Co-Conspirators' First and Fifth Amendment Rights," USA v. Holy Land Foundation, 3:04cr240 (TXND September 4, 2007) in which prosecutors say "CAIR has been identified by the Government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew."
[5] "Beware of CAIR" letter from U.S. Reps. Sue Myrick, Pete Hoekstra, John Shadegg, Paul Broun and Trent Franks to other House members. January 30, 2009. It says "There are indications that this group has connections to HAMAS." And, letter from U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf to Michael Heimback, FBI Assistant Director, Counter Terrorism Division, February 2, 2009. Wolf asks about news reports that the FBI has cut off communication with CAIR "amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas."
[6] See The Muslim Brotherhood's English-language web site, http://ikhwanweb.com/index.asp.
[7] The Muslim Brotherhood's document outlining their strategy in North America and analysis of the document can be found on the NEFA Foundation web site: http://www.nefafoundation.org/hlfdocs.html. See Exhibit GX 4-21 (last accessed February 26, 2009).
[8] Minnesota Airport Police Incident Report, OCA # 06004536, November 20, 2006.
[9] Katherine Kersten, Ordering Imams Off Flight Was Reasonable Act, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, December 7, 2006.
[10] Minnesota Airport Police Incident Report, OCA # 06004536, November 20, 2006.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid
[18] Steven Huntley, Travelers Need Shield From Lawsuit, Chicago Sun-Times, July 29, 2007.
[19] Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director for CAIR, appearance on "Tucker," MSNBC, July 29, 2007.
[20] The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (H.R.1)
[21] Audrey Hudson, Imams Drop Lawsuit Against Doe Passengers, Washington Times, August 23, 2007.
[22] See Congressman Peter King appearance on Fox News Channel, July 20, 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYbev9SDMtc (last accessed February 24, 2009).
[23] David Hanners, Feds Refute Imams' Bias Case Against US Airways, Twin Cities Pioneer Press, February 18, 2009.
[24] A Place to Pray During Games, New York Times, November 23, 2005.
[25] Jeff Diamant and Russell Ben-Ali, Meadowlands to Add Worship Area, Newark Star Ledger, November 22, 2005.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2007 Hate Crime Statistics, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm (last accessed on February 24, 2009).
[28] Ibid.
[29] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, HSIA 04-0042, September 2, 2004.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Madeleine Gruen interview with former high-ranking member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, December 8, 2008. Also see Habib's Get Rich Quick Schemes, Manchester Evening News, December 18, 2008..
IPT News
February 27, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1002/are-acts-of-staged-controversy-an-islamist
Through careful study of terrorist incidents and investigations and study of the histories of the terrorist groups, U.S. law enforcement officers, security officials, and intelligence analysts have developed an understanding of the tactics, techniques and procedures used by terrorists preparing for and conducting attacks. Professionals can usually distinguish between a truly suspicious incident and benign behavior. However, there is a third category of non-violent activities that is more difficult to identify, which we will refer to as "acts of staged controversy."There are some cases where witnesses describe actors' behavior as "odd" yet very overt—behavior apparently designed to attract attention. Viewed under differing prisms, the behavior could be classified as either benign or as some type of terrorist activity. Decision makers and practitioners should consider the possibility that certain incidents are staged or that they are escalated by manipulation of the media and the legal system to create controversy and to provoke a response to serve strategic purposes.
It is very difficult to prove ulterior intentions behind what we are referring to as "acts of staged controversy." Perhaps these acts are deliberately provocative. Or, it is possible these are innocent events that may be seized upon by advocacy groups for political gain. We present this hypothesis to provide an alternative way of analyzing these types of incidents.
Strategic Motivations of Islamist Groups
Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, do not necessarily intend to engage in violence (though some branches of the Muslim Brotherhood are very violent). Nevertheless, they share the same long-term goal as violent jihadist groups: to establish an Islamic society. Part of their strategy is to weaken and dismantle democratic regimes.[1] They endeavor to "Islamize" society using a bottom up approach[2] so that eventually their doctrines are accepted as the norm rather than considered extreme or marginal.
This article offers two cases, both involving the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which describes itself as a Muslim advocacy organization. These cases are meant to be illustrative of how acts of staged controversy may be implemented by groups with an Islamist agenda.
Many of CAIR's founding members were members of the Muslim Brotherhood[3] and of a support network created by the Brotherhood to benefit Hamas. Some experts believe that CAIR continues to be deeply involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and supports their objectives.[4],[5] The Muslim Brotherhood is not considered a monolithic organization, and its various branches may disagree on specific tactics, but all are consistent in their commitment to its core ideological principles, including the adoption of their political version of Islam as a governing standard for all Muslims around the world.[6]
In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood issued a memorandum outlining its strategic goal in North America.[7] It reads, in part:
"The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
Minnesota Imams
On November 20, 2006, six imams boarded a US Airways jet that was about to depart from Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport for Phoenix, Arizona. They had attended a three-day conference of the North American Imams Federation. Three only had one-way tickets and no checked luggage.[8] Various witnesses reported observing the group praying in an unusually loud way in the waiting area prior to boarding.[9] One of the witnesses, a clergyman who was familiar with Islamic practices, described their behavior at the gate as "atypical."[10] This same witness was later seated next to one of the imams on the plane and intentionally engaged him in conversation. The imam initially expressed to the witness that he was in the United States to do work related to his Ph.D. Later in the discussion, he admitted he was not doing academic work but instead intended to "represent Muslims in the United States" by generating support for Shari'a law.[11]
Upon boarding the plane, the imams dispersed. Two sat in the front of the plane, two in the middle, and two in the rear.[12] The flight crew and passengers observed them changing seats, and several of the men requested seat-belt extenders.[13] Crew members thought the request was odd, as none of the imams appeared overweight.[14] Although the extenders were provided, they were never used and were left on floor of the plane.[15] One passenger stated that she believed that the imams deliberately acted out as a part of an attempt to intimidate airline employees.[16] Another passenger said, "I can't explain it, but it was like they were definitely trying to raise suspicion."[17] The flight was delayed and the imams were removed from the plane by the airport police, questioned, and released after their plane had already departed.
CAIR filed a complaint with the Department of Transportation, and a separate civil suit in federal court on behalf of the imams against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, citing civil rights violations. CAIR also sued the "John Does" who alerted the aircrew and authorities after becoming alarmed by the imam's behavior in the terminal and on the plane.[18] While the "John Doe" provision of a bill (designed to protect citizens who report possible terrorist-related behavior from being sued, and to protect officers acting in an official capacity to prevent terrorist attacks) was moving through Congress, CAIR persisted with its lawsuit, claiming the right to discover whether the complaints were actually made "in good faith" or if they were racially motivated.[19]
President George W. Bush signed the "John Doe" provision[20] into law on August 3, 2007 and CAIR dropped its claims against the "Does."[21] There may be a residual "chilling effect," however, that would prevent concerned citizens from reporting suspicious incidents for fear of getting sued.[22] Causing reluctance to report suspicious incidents in which Muslims are involved may be an aspect of Islamist strategy to reduce resistance to the Islamization of society.
In January 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation ruled that US Airways did not discriminate against the imams and that the airline's actions were reasonable. The civil suit is scheduled to go to trial in August, 2009.[23]
Giants Stadium
During a football game September 19, 2005 at Giants Stadium, five Muslim men were questioned by FBI agents after they prayed near the stadium's main air intake duct located in a sensitive area.[24] Former President George H.W. Bush attended the game and security was high. After approximately 20 minutes of questioning, FBI agents determined that the group did not pose a threat and allowed them to return to the game.
This group may have acted completely innocently. The issue, however, was not dropped by the men, and a few weeks later, on November 2, 2005, the group joined forces with the New Jersey-based American Muslim Union and the New York City chapter of CAIR for a joint press conference concerning the incident. At the conference, the men complained that they had been humiliated at Giants Stadium, and that their "main aim [in publicizing the episode] was to bring to light and educate people about what it is we're supposed to do."[25] They also took the opportunity to promote a campaign called "Pray for Understanding,"[26] which the executive director of the New York office of CAIR described as a way to teach people about Islam. The tie-in to the "Pray for Understanding" campaign at the press conference suggests the possibility that the incident at Giants Stadium may have been staged to create a platform to promote an ulterior public relations agenda.
What Islamists Might Gain from "Acts of Staged Controversy"
The Minnesota Imams and Giants Stadium incidents are just two examples where unusual but overt behavior has been investigated, dropped (because there was no clear indication of wrongdoing), and subsequently taken up and intensified by CAIR or by other Muslim groups. Due to the involvement of Islamist advocacy groups, news stories are generated and controversy stirred.
If the objective of Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, is to establish Islam as the dominant global societal doctrine, then how would creating acts of controversy - or seizing on opportunities to create controversy - further their strategy to achieve their objective? If they intend to achieve their objective through non-violent means then it is logical to conclude that they would want Muslims to embrace their perspective and to eschew democratic principles..
For example, acts of staged controversy could be used to:
* Cause Muslims to feel disaffection for the democratic system by promoting feelings of betrayal and abandonment.
* Convince Muslim Americans that they are not accepted as Americans. Acts of staged controversy provoke a response from authorities that can foment an "us vs. them" rift between Muslims and non-Muslims.
* Incite political divides that may ultimately cause political instability.
* Influence legislators to call for laws to outlaw profiling and/or repeal existing laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act.
* Draw attention from foreign media in an attempt to show that the U.S. rhetoric about acceptance is hollow.
Acts of staged controversy could also be exploited by groups who seek to use violence. For example, acts of staged controversy could be used to:
* Desensitize security personnel by making activity that common sense would deem suspicious instead seem routine and not worth any special effort.
* Intimidate security personnel and citizens by threatening lawsuits; making them reluctant to report suspicious behavior.
Handling Acts of Staged Controversy
Unfortunately, hatred, bigotry, and mistrust exist in the United States, and it is the role of civil rights groups to respond appropriately when acts of hatred do occur. It is the duty of responsible officials to monitor political, religious, and social tensions so that violent acts motivated by hatred can be prevented. The long view for homeland security, however, cannot be compromised by hasty responses to ambiguous situations. It is possible that some Islamist groups may exaggerate the occurrence of anti-Islamic discrimination in order to validate the premise that "Islamophobia" is rampant. According to FBI statistics, out of a total 7,624 hate crimes reported in the United States in 2007, 115 were motivated by anti-Islamic bias.[27] By contrast, 2,658 were motivated by bias against blacks, 749 were anti-white, 1,265 targeted people based on sexual orientation and 969 of the hate crimes reported were motivated by bias against Jews.[28]
Law enforcement and security personnel, airline and airport managers, legislators, politicians, media, and private citizens all have roles to play to prevent the spread of extremist ideology, which could lead to radicalization and, ultimately, a possible terrorist event.
Response at the Federal, Law Enforcement and Media Levels
Politicians must acknowledge Islamist ideology is being promoted in the United States, recognize who is promoting it, and understand the subtle tactics used by the Islamist groups before they can introduce effective counter-measures against terrorism. Politicians must realize that Islamist groups are competing for hearts and minds in the United States, so commitment to democratic values cannot be taken for granted.
How does law enforcement play a role in acts of staged controversy if there is no apparent crime committed? It is unlawful to conspire and to deliberately disrupt or interfere with the legitimate activities of law enforcement and security personnel. Engaging in deliberately suspicious behavior in order to distract security and law enforcement authorities is a tactic that has been discussed on Islamist message boards.[29] Of course, in ambiguous situations it is hard to prove the actual intent of the actors. Difficult though it may be, investigations should be conducted and cooperating witnesses sought and developed. The stakes are high, especially when the results of these incidents are considered in the aggregate and not individually.
Associations with terrorists or terrorist groups are not evidence of a crime, but are valuable data points in evaluating the true nature of an incident. If there are nefarious or questionable associations or prior activities that could shed light on possible motivations for ambiguous acts, they should be made known as much as possible. For example, one of the six imams involved in the Minnesota airport case, Omar Shahin, raised money for the Holy Land Foundation and for the Illinois-based KindHearts Foundation, which the government shut down last year for alleged support of Hamas."[30]
Additionally, the media should be aware of the possibility that it is being used to further an Islamist agenda. Media cooperation and extensive coverage is a key element of successful acts of staged controversy. Historically, global political Islamist groups have skillfully manipulated the media as part of their effort to circulate their message.[31] Statements made by spokespeople representing Islamist groups are often taken at face value by the media, and past involvements and associations often go unmentioned. Just as it is for law enforcement, it is important for the media to consider incidents in the aggregate.
Conclusion
It could be that individuals or groups unintentionally behave in a way that is deemed suspicious, and that official response may cause embarrassment. It also is true that innocent events create opportunities for groups like CAIR to influence the public's view of Islam, both politically and ideologically.
Acts of staged controversy or public relations campaigns manipulating otherwise innocent events may be an aspect of Islamist group strategy to Islamize society. Authorities dealing with such incidents should assess the behavior as an aggregate. Their responses should address the root of the problem, rather than potentially allowing such incidents to compel a response that supports the Islamist agenda.
Madeleine Gruen is a Senior Analyst for the NEFA Foundation. She is also a Senior Intelligence Analyst for Mike Stapleton Associates and is a contributor to the Counterterrorism Blog. Previously, she was an intelligence analyst for the New York Police Department's Counterterrorism Division.
Edward Sloan is a detective in the New York Police Department with 35 years of service. He is a Navy Reserve Officer and since 2001 has deployed several times to Afghanistan and the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His views are not necessarily those of the NYPD or the Navy.
[1] Stephen Coughlin, Analysis of Muslim Brotherhood's General Strategic Goals for North America, Statement entered as evidence in U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, September 7, 2007.
[2] Zeyno Baran, The Muslim Brotherhood's U.S. Network, Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, Vol. 6, Hudson Institute, 2008.
[3] Douglas Farah, Ron Sandee, and Josh Lefkowitz, The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States: A Brief History, NEFA Foundation, October 26, 2007, http://www1.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaikhwan1007.pdf (last accessed February 26, 2009)
[4] See: "Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Council on American-Islamic Relations' Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Instanter and Amicus Brief in Support of the Unindicted Co-Conspirators' First and Fifth Amendment Rights," USA v. Holy Land Foundation, 3:04cr240 (TXND September 4, 2007) in which prosecutors say "CAIR has been identified by the Government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew."
[5] "Beware of CAIR" letter from U.S. Reps. Sue Myrick, Pete Hoekstra, John Shadegg, Paul Broun and Trent Franks to other House members. January 30, 2009. It says "There are indications that this group has connections to HAMAS." And, letter from U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf to Michael Heimback, FBI Assistant Director, Counter Terrorism Division, February 2, 2009. Wolf asks about news reports that the FBI has cut off communication with CAIR "amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas."
[6] See The Muslim Brotherhood's English-language web site, http://ikhwanweb.com/index.asp.
[7] The Muslim Brotherhood's document outlining their strategy in North America and analysis of the document can be found on the NEFA Foundation web site: http://www.nefafoundation.org/hlfdocs.html. See Exhibit GX 4-21 (last accessed February 26, 2009).
[8] Minnesota Airport Police Incident Report, OCA # 06004536, November 20, 2006.
[9] Katherine Kersten, Ordering Imams Off Flight Was Reasonable Act, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, December 7, 2006.
[10] Minnesota Airport Police Incident Report, OCA # 06004536, November 20, 2006.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid
[18] Steven Huntley, Travelers Need Shield From Lawsuit, Chicago Sun-Times, July 29, 2007.
[19] Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director for CAIR, appearance on "Tucker," MSNBC, July 29, 2007.
[20] The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (H.R.1)
[21] Audrey Hudson, Imams Drop Lawsuit Against Doe Passengers, Washington Times, August 23, 2007.
[22] See Congressman Peter King appearance on Fox News Channel, July 20, 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYbev9SDMtc (last accessed February 24, 2009).
[23] David Hanners, Feds Refute Imams' Bias Case Against US Airways, Twin Cities Pioneer Press, February 18, 2009.
[24] A Place to Pray During Games, New York Times, November 23, 2005.
[25] Jeff Diamant and Russell Ben-Ali, Meadowlands to Add Worship Area, Newark Star Ledger, November 22, 2005.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2007 Hate Crime Statistics, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm (last accessed on February 24, 2009).
[28] Ibid.
[29] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, HSIA 04-0042, September 2, 2004.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Madeleine Gruen interview with former high-ranking member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, December 8, 2008. Also see Habib's Get Rich Quick Schemes, Manchester Evening News, December 18, 2008..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)