Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Liberal Sore Losers


Daniel Greenfield

In January of 2009, huge numbers of eager liberals made the trip down to Washington D.C. to celebrate the inauguration of Hope and Change. The mood of the day was optimism. The big change had finally come. Nearly two years later, they returned to Washington D.C. on buses for Jon Stewart's clownfest, but the mood had changed. Contempt had replaced optimism. The left wing of the Democratic party had reverted to its Bush era sneers and jibes. The mocking costumes and signs had been staples of Anti-War rallies and Anti-Bush rallies from 2001 to 2008. But this was not a rally against a war or any specific policy, it was something far more unique. It was a rally held by the dominant political ideology with no other purpose than to mock the opposition party that they were about to lose to. Broken down to its core elements, it was nothing more than a stunningly expensive and widely hyped sore-loser fest. And it will probably go down in history as the highest profile temper tantrum ever thrown in Washington D.C.

If the American people needed any more convincing that there were no adults in charge on the left, spending unknown amounts of money to gather people at the Washington Mall in order to sneer at the opposition-- during an economic depression, should have done it. (The bill for the Huffington Post buses alone ran to a quarter of a million dollars.) The entire media backed production was a stunning testament to the pettiness, the meanness and frivolousness of the left. To its deficit of ideas and its surplus of spite.

Dealing with public rejection and looking political defeat in the face, liberals reached into their handbag of ideas and came up with a middle finger and a clown mask. The "Too cool for school" attitude of the emotionally stunted who can't deal with rejection, let alone learn anything from it. Rather than understanding why they're losing, their immediate response is to prematurely ridicule the people who will vote against them as stupid and irrational. And that is not just the attitude of the two middle aged nerds who took their best shot at a celebrity studded High School talent show in the nation's capital, but of the rest of the liberal media which pathetically looks to them for guidance.

Victory has many fathers, but defeat is an orphan. In this case it's an orphan tossed in the dumpster of the post-election narrative. And the spin is already coming. The narrative is that liberalism didn't fail the American people. The American people failed liberalism. The voters made their choices for emotional reasons. Too many people were worried or afraid. Obama is guilty of speaking "too far above" the level of Katie Couric's Great Unwashed populations. That Republicans didn't do as well as they should have. That Right wing TV and radio hosts fed on fear and paranoia. The people didn't have enough patience for the Summer of Recovery to turn into the bitterly cold Winter of Recovery. And then maybe wait around for the Spring of Employment and then the Autumn of Profit.

But the best metric of media hypocrisy, is that the same talking heads who will take the elevator up to the 12th floor studio where they will mournfully explain why the Democrats lost, used these same explanations when Obama won. Except then they endorsed kicking out a party that fails to immediately address economic problems and calm voter doubts. They were quite gleeful over voters making an emotional decision to support Obama. And they were more than happy to inject heavy doses of fear, paranoia, photoshopped pictures, smear campaigns and lies into the big picture. And to give high profile coverage to anti-government protesters. But when the Democrats get the boot, for the same reasons that the Republicans did, then suddenly the same Rust Belt voters who were on the mark when picking Obama, are irrational and crazy for going another way.

While the talking heads will dig through their thesauruses looking for polite synonyms for Temper-Tantrum, the truth is that they are the ones throwing the temper tantrum. They may do it with comedy skits and wacky costumes, accompanied by the likes of Cat Stevens, but a more cynical and sophisticated tantrum, it still a tantrum. And what it really displays is an inability to come to terms with the cause of their own failures. Calling the voters names, no matter how cleverly, betrays a fundamental lack of maturity. A giant hole where skills such as communicating with other people should be.

And those are rather crucial skills to have when trying to take power in a democracy. Because they allow you to actually know what other people are thinking.

The left has excelled at telling people what to think. They are great at assembling a set of talking points, distributing them through the media, and then grinning proudly when they can get stupid people to repeat them back to them in opinion surveys. But it's not that hard to do when you already control most forms of communication. And that kind of power breeds complacency and arrogance. A state of mind that cannot envision of tolerate defeat.

Like generals who assemble a battle plan and assume that it will carry them to victory through superior force alone, they tend to lose exactly when they're supposed to win. Because their plans don't allow for setbacks. Adjusting to setbacks, requires a flexible command structure that can adjust to changing conditions. And the more radical the ideology, the less its followers are capable of adjusting their battle plan. Instead they ride into the cannons and the valley of death of ObamaCare, without asking why. Until it's too late.

Liberals love to go on listening tours. Hillary Clinton and Katie Couric both did them. But to them, listening only means listening to themselves. People who are certain that they are both right and culturally superior are incapable of hearing and understanding dissenting messages. Instead they filter out the negative. Marginalize it and ridicule it. Until suddenly the entire situation is trending negative and they have no idea how it got that way. Like companies who go bankrupt because they refuse to listen to legitimate complaints by the people on the ground floor, liberals keep losing because they just don't listen.

And that isn't about to change. Washington D.C. will not stop being an echo chamber in a bubble now. It will just become more of one. Feeling isolated, the Democrats will keep on trying to fortify their base, reaching out to unions and left wing groups. Having never stopped blaming the Republicans in the two years that they controlled two out of the three branches of government, it'll just be more of the same. In the first two years, Obama masqueraded his deficit spending as economic stimulus plans. In the next two years, he'll try to pass them off as deficit reduction programs. (If you think this is farfetched, ObamaCare was promoted as a way to save money.) The game won't really change, because the top players don't think they did anything wrong.

To learn from your mistakes, you must first admit to making them. If you can't do that, then you throw tantrums. You dress up in clown suits and stick out your tongue. And if you can't listen the people, only talk at them, then your only resort is brute force. Trying to brainwash them, intimidate them, buy them off, organize them and otherwise dehumanize them becomes your only option.

And that is what makes the American liberal so frightening. It is not only his ends that are bad, but also his means. His ideology is populist, yet his methods are elitist. He campaigns for socialism, while demonstrating anti-social tendencies. He wants us to feel, yet the only emotions he can feel are his own. Democracy dooms him to be a perennial sore loser. Only by destroying a system in which people can choose their own leaders, rather than being driven to vote like cattle by class, organization and race, can they ever truly win.

How Many Barack Obamas Do You Need to Change a Light Bulb?

RubinReports
Barry Rubin

What effect will the congressional elections have on U.S. foreign policy generally and Middle East policy in particular?

It isn't a matter of the individual candidates, since nobody lost or won who will have some big influence on U.S. policy in the next couple of years. The important factor is to what extent the White House hears the message being delivered with the electorate, which of course is largely concerned with domestic issues. Even, by itself, will a Republican majority in the House of Representatives force any shift since the White House really does control foreign policy. And so this brings us to the central issue not only for U.S. policy but also for the world today: Is President Barack Obama both pragmatic and a politician, or is he an ideologue who has no grasp of the real world? After almost two years we are still asking this question because very little is really known about this man.

If Obama is pragmatic and a politician he will take note of three things. First, his foreign policy has not won great applause by the American people. Second, his foreign policy has not won great applause--at least outside of Western Europe, and even there they are having doubts--by foreign leaders. Third, his foreign policy has not won any real successes or resolved any issues.

In addition, much of his policy in the Middle East has failed, certainly regarding Israel-Palestinian issues, Lebanon, and Syria.

Regarding Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan one can argue that he has succeeded, respectively, in putting on tougher sanctions, withdrawing U.S. troops, and continuing the war against the Taliban. This success, however, may be most deceptive. Iran is hurt by the sanctions but is racing full speed ahead toward nuclear weapons. Iraq is in crisis, with no government, continuing violence, and growing Iranian influence. Afghanistan is teetering between the government's collapse and some kind of poisonous deal with the Taliban.

Here, though, we see the secret of Obama's Middle East policy, which has worked relatively well for him at home: try to maximize quiet and minimize conflict. What many have failed to recognize is that by appeasing, flattering, and engaging, Obama has avoided any open crisis or confrontation. This makes it possible to tell the American public that things are going well, they are not hated, and there is no new impending war. On terrorism, the United States has been lucky to avoid some new catastrophic attack. It is possible to argue credibly, then, that things are going okay.

Of course, the problem with this approach is that a crisis postponed is a crisis intensified. As Iran moves toward nuclear weapons, the radicals advance, Lebanon is lost, the Turkish regime joins the enemy, Hamas is made secure in the Gaza Strip, the U.S. position in the region deteriorates.

But returning to Obama, the question is whether he will act pragmatically and as a politician, or be deaf to experience and information in order to act as an ideologue. We will only know next year.

I must confess that it is hard for me to believe that Obama and his administration will act in a suicidal manner both politically and strategically. But it could happen. One concern is the policy process. After all, if Obama is going to change course someone on his team is going to have to persuade him to do so.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton can't do it because she is distrusted as a political rival. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates can't do it because he is distrusted as a Bush Administration carry-over and is too much of a careerist to speak out. This leaves the White House staff, the most ideological and internationally inexperienced sector of the government. The national security advisor is now a "yes-man" who isn't going to persuade the president of anything.

At some point, there might be a political operative who will say: If you are going to be reelected you must do things differently. That man is David Axelrod, architect of Obama's rise, who is now working on his reelection. It is hard to imagine anyone else capable of turning around Obama unless he himself decides that major foreign policy shifts are needed.

The word "pragmatic" here means that he will take note of failed policies and adjust them. The word "politician" means that he will not follow the unpopular course of bashing Israel. He will also want to avoid looking foolish, promising to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and failing; pledging a quick solution to the Israel-Palestinian issue and failing.

And the goal of this new realism, of course, would be his reelection as president in 2012.

It is a measure of Obama's unpredictability and uniqueness that the above cannot be taken for granted. Obama may really believe that he is anointed to bring about an Israel-Palestinian "solution." By trying to impose a settlement? By recognizing a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence? Who can say?

Equally, he can continue to be blind to Syria's behavior, Turkey's regime, Lebanon's drowning, and the Arab loss of faith in a strong, protective America. The interesting question then is whether the foreign policy disaster will be clearly visible before or only after the 2012 election.

How many Barrack Obama's do you need to change a light bulb? Only one. But he's going to have to want to change it.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Obama’s Real Agenda: Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Facility


Moshe Dann
Israpundit

“I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.”
Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, June 4, 2009 As a policy statement, this means that America (or any other country) cannot deny the right of any country to WMD. It undercuts the reasons for America’s attack in Iraq, assents to nuclear proliferation and precludes any action against Iran. It also turns the focus on Israel.

Amidst all of the distortions and inaccuracies of Pres Obama’s speech in Cairo, this paragraph sends chills through Israel’s intelligence community. His reference was not just to Iranian nuclear weapons, but “any nation” that has, or acquires them. That includes Israel.

Obama’s emphasis on a commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something which Israel has refused to agree, since that means opening all of its facilities to inspection – including its top secret plant in Dimona – is a direct threat to Israel’s security. Aware of Israel’s long-standing policy in this matter, Obama shifts the attack.

By linking support for Israel against Iran with a halt to all settlement building, and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state, Obama has set the stage for his big prize: Dimona.

Aware that no Israeli government can agree to a complete freeze in building, Obama can blame Israel for American inaction against Iran, and lack of support for its war in Afghanistan. It’s a perfect excuse: ‘Israel didn’t do enough; it’s Israel’s fault.’

“Israeli intransigence” will be given as the reason for America’s failure. ‘If only Israel had evacuated more settlements, stopped building, dismantled more checkpoints, given more aid to Hamas, stopped demolishing illegal Arab buildings, etc., we could have done something,’ Obama will say.

But Obama’s real agenda is not settlements; it’s Israel’s nuclear capacity. Egypt especially has been urging the US to force Israel to open its facility at Dimona. Prior to the “Six Day” War in 1967, Russian spy-planes flew over Dimona and, according to Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez (Foxbats Over Dimona) wanted to bomb it. No doubt, Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaida, Hamas and Hezbullah have Dimona in their sights as well.

The key to neutralizing Israel’s nuclear capacity is the NPT. As his speech clearly indicates, Israel’s agreement to the NPT is the lever to gain Iranian compliance. ‘How can Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons,’ Obama suggests, ‘and not Iran, or any other country?’

Unlike any other President, Obama has put Israel in a difficult, if not impossible position. If it refuses to agree to sign the NPT, Israel will be isolated and blamed for lack of progress on Iran. If it agrees, Israel will lose a vital strategic deterrent.

Well aware of terrorist threats to America, and concerned about investments and interests throughout the world, Obama sees pushing Israel against the wall as a convenient way of deflecting Muslim terrorism. As long as Islamists think that Obama is on their side, they’ll refrain from attacking, keep the oil flowing and the prices low.

Iran may even be willing to make cosmetic (and temporary) adjustments so that Obama can claim that the crisis has been defused. And Israel will pay the price: sanctions, boycotts, diplomatic and economic isolation similar to the international pressures that broke South Africa’s apartheid regime.

Obama’s speech is an ominous warning of what he is prepared to do in order to strip Israel of its military advantage. Along with the loss of control over Judea and Samaria, territories that are vital for Israel’s security and access to water reserves, faced with Arab terrorist militias backed by Arab armies, Israel will be completely vulnerable.

The face of this Jihad is not one of ranting, bearded clerics, but smooth-talking, clean-shaven smiling apostles of peace and the Philosopher-King of Hope.

The author, a former asst professor of History (CUNY) is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. moshedan@netvision.net.il

Obama lies about UPS bomb?, UPS denies bomb found, BBC confirms no explosive trace

Obama lies about UPS bomb?, UPS denies bomb found, BBC confirms no explosive traces

Increasingly, the story about a bomb found on a UPS flight appears to be fake, a ploy by Obama to appear strong on terrorism before the coming election. What is the truth about this story? From Fox News October 31, 2010.

“White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Sunday that explosives discovered on two airplanes could have been detonated en route to the United States, as he warned that more bombs may be out there as part of the same plot.

Brennan, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” said the plot had “all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda.” He would not confirm how many other potential mail bombs, if any, could be on the loose, but said officials are in a “full-court press” to stop Al Qaeda from attacking the homeland.

“We cannot presume, though, that there are (no) others that are out there, and so we are looking at all the packages that are originating in Yemen,” Brennan said. “The threat is certainly ongoing.”

Though the packages armed with explosives, pulled Friday from planes in England and the United Arab Emirates, were addressed to Chicago-area synagogues, Brennan appeared to lend credence to British claims that they were designed to potentially detonate in mid-air.

“This was something that could have been detonated en route here to the United States, or at the destination,” he said, calling them “self-contained devices” which didn’t require anybody to press a syringe or any other kind of external detonator. “It seems as though that these devices were designed to at least be capable to be detonated on the aircraft.”"

“According to sources, intelligence officials were tipped off to a pair of explosive packages on planes in England and the United Arab Emirates early Friday morning. After a six-hour sweep of cargo at the East Midlands airport in central England, Leicestershire police came up empty and removed the security perimeter they had set up, British aviation safety consultant Chris Yates said.

But when officials in Dubai said they had discovered a bomb disguised as a computer printer cartridge, authorities urged the British to look again, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

“As a direct consequence, they put the cordon back up again and looked again and found the explosives,” said Yates, relying on a report given to him by an eyewitness to the searches.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/31/white-house-says-mail-bombs/

From Fox News Insider October 29, 2010.

“We’ve just learned that UPS is denying claims that an ink toner cartridge converted into a bomb was found aboard a United Parcel Service flight traveling to Chicago from Yemen on Friday.

Earlier reports claimed the bomb was discovered when the plane was stopped at London’s Heathrow Airport en route to its final destination. UPS officials have since issued a statement that these claims were cleared as unfounded.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2010/10/29/update-ups-denies-bomb-found-aboard-cargo-plane-in-london/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoxNewsInsider+(Fox+News+Insider)

Lord Phillips: "America is in the grip of the well-organised Jewish Lobby"

Jonathan Hoffman
November 3, 2010
http://www.thejc.com/node/26697

Lord Phillips of Sudbury is no stranger to this blog. He was first up at tonight’s PSC meeting in a Committee Room at the House of Commons. He started confidently (or was he…). He seemed to be anxious (maybe too anxious) to convince us at the outset that “some of his best friends…” so he told us that his first visual memory was of the Holocaust (he was born in 1939). “I do believe in the right of Israel to exist” he said. (Well thanks buddy – and France? Germany? England?). He suggested that Israel was created only because of the guilt felt by the West after the Holocaust (nonsense of course, there were many other historic and political reasons) and that ¼ to 1/3 of “Israeli Jews” “loath what the government is doing” (nonsense, there is perhaps 90% support for government policy, that was what the polls were showing during Cast Lead).

Then he claimed that everything Israel does is illegal. “The Wall is illegal” (it isn’t) “and why has the British government never told Israel that “ (Errrrr – because it isn’t illegal……) “Europe cannot think straight about Israel because of the Holocaust and America is in the grip of the well-organised Jewish lobby” (yes, redolent of the nastiest tropes). “Lieberman is more racist than anyone on the Palestinian side”.

Phillips went on to agree with another speaker, Richard Allday of the Unite trade union, who advocated a boycott of Israeli goods and people.

Jeremy Corbyn MP also spoke. He said “When it’s in Israel’s self interest they do something” (Er, how about Magen David Adom’s humanitarian missions to Haiti and other natural disaster sites………)

Then Andrew Slaughter MP lamented the fact that the Palestinian Authority “does not have anything to give any more”. “Recognition” I suggested and nearly got thrown out by the Chair, Sarah Colbourne of the PSC, who is rather weak and clearly not used to debate.

Finally Kevin Ovenden, who referred to the “Zionist entity” and tried to spin the old lie about General Petraeus, suggesting he said that Israel’s actions were a threat to the lives of US soldiers in the region.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/25/petraeus-sets-the-record-strai

I asked Lord Phillips for support for his contention that America is in the grip of the well-organised Jewish lobby, in view of the fact that in the USA support for Israel comes from a huge variety of people. He could give me none. I pointed out that the Hamas Charter sought the genocide of Jews -- so how could he say that Liberman was more racist that any on the other side?

His answer was breathtakingly ignorant. He said that the Hamas Charter is a load of bullsh*t. He had been told that by a terrorist leader so it must be true.. I tried to remonstrate with this answer. Sarah Colbourne promptly threw me out.

The PSC are on the defensive: Bathurst Norman was severely reprimanded by the OCJ; they failed to get the general boycott of Israeli goods and people that they wanted the TUC to agree; and it is clear that this government will be a lot tougher on Islamist extremism than the previous one.

But animals are at their most dangerous when they are cornered…..

Oklahoma Voters Ban Judges From Using Islamic Law

Associated Press

Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases. Republican Rex Duncan, the sponsor of the measure, called it a "pre-emptive strike" designed to close the door on activist judges "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."
Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam and some of them said they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.

Comment: The issue continues, do not sit back and declare victory. This needs to be repeated in all other 49 states along with several other pre-emptive strikes. I would like to see how this would play in the liberal east and the moon-beam California. The Muslim Brotherhood watched this very closely and are at the moment planning their next attack upon democracy. They are in the game for the long term and our resolve must be stronger than theirs. Celebrate tonight for tomorrow you begin anew.

Canada vs. Radical Islam: Harper's Mixed Record

Kathy Shaidle
Pajamas Media

http://www.meforum.org/2771/canada-vs-radical-islam

A warning to those who believe that electing a "conservative" government automatically will inspire tougher measures to fight radical Islam: Canadians know from experience that this formula does not always work as planned.

When Canadian voters again rejected the nation's "natural ruling party" — the Liberals — and handed the Conservatives their second minority government in the fall of 2008, Islamist Watch asked some prominent Canadians how Prime Minister Stephen Harper would tackle creeping Shari'a and other manifestations of homegrown radical Islam.

Two years later, it is time to revisit those questions. In 2008, Ezra Levant, a lifelong Conservative Party supporter, had just emerged as the country's premier critic of Islamist lawfare, having been hauled before a government tribunal for publishing the infamous "Muhammad cartoons." Back then, Levant said that he was optimistic about the government's commitment to battling domestic Muslim belligerence.

Today, he admits that "progress is slower" than he had hoped, but Levant remains encouraged by what he has seen. For example, he lauds the Conservatives' refusal to bow to international progressive pressure to somehow rescue "child soldier" and Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, who currently is being held at Guantanamo and just pleaded guilty to murdering an American medic during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

On the home front, Levant reports that through sharp criticism and even funding cuts, "the government continues to marginalize the worst groups out there, such as the Canadian Islamic Congress" (CIC) — the Islamist body that unsuccessfully attempted to silence Mark Steyn — "and the Canadian Arab Federation," a peddler of anti-Semitism and 9/11 conspiracy theories.

However, the ruling government faces a continuous uphill battle when instituting even moderate reforms such as those, due in large part to Canada's particular parliamentary structure.

"The main problem for deep reform remains the minority government," Levant explains. "For example, a few months ago when there was evidence of niqab-clad women boarding a plane without revealing their faces, the Conservatives called for the matter to be discussed at a parliamentary committee. The [left-leaning] opposition parties, which together have a majority on all committees, blocked that discussion."

Salim Mansur agrees that any analysis of the Harper government's successes and failures must take mundane political realities into account. However, the author of Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim is not willing to excuse the Conservatives for failing to embrace necessary reforms.

Mansur accuses Harper of holding back on reforms because the prime minister fears alienating Muslim and centrist voters. Yet Mansur is convinced that if the Conservatives were bolder in their opposition to radical Islam, they would gain more overall votes than they would lose.

"It looks to me," says Mansur, that Harper "wants to win the majority without in any way rousing any controversy over the subject of Islamist jihad that he fears will make him lose centrist votes, hand the opposition a political stick to beat him up with, allow the mainstream media to paint him as a redneck, and drive him out of leadership if he cannot win the next election with a majority. So Harper is playing safe politically and he is betting that this subject will not turn into the make-or-break issue in the next election."

One of the issues that Mansur says Harper is trying to avoid is immigration reform. It has not escaped the average Canadian's notice that Omar Khadr's parents were immigrants, as were members of the Toronto 18 terrorist group and leaders of the lawfare campaigns targeting Levant and Steyn. Stories about Toronto's "welfare harems" and Quebec's proposed burqa ban also have been widely reported.

Yet bizarrely, just as voters and even the media have begun openly discussing this "third rail" of Canadian politics, the Conservative Party seems determined to ignore immigration reform. One exception did come late last year, when the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration unveiled a new guidebook for immigrants. At least in theory, all newcomers are required to read Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship, which advises them that "Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, 'honor killings,' female genital mutilation, or other gender-based violence." However, the ministry took some heat for appearing to tone down references to gay rights in the guide, presumably to avoid offending the same constituency being warned about honor killings.

David Harris, the director of the International and Terrorist Intelligence Program for INSIGNIS Strategic Research, seconded the need for immigration reform back in 2008, insisting that "immigration must be brought under immediate control. … Bringing over a quarter of a million people a year into Canada is unconscionable in this threat environment, and it should be no surprise that our few thousand security officials are overworked."

It seems that Harris' warnings have gone largely unheeded by the Conservative Party. He now observes, "Unfortunately, events of the last year or two point to a shifting of the Conservative government in favor of the promiscuous immigration approaches that place vote banks first, and safety and security a distant second."

Harris notes the mixed messages being sent by the Harper government. On the one hand, it has declared that it is distancing itself from groups like the Canadian Islamic Congress. Yet, at the same time, Harris points out, "the executive director of the CIC was a featured speaker at a Department of Foreign Affairs event put together by the Muslim Communities Working Group in 2008. The Working Group is a clearinghouse for all things Muslim, has no equivalent relating to any other religion or ideology, and came into existence early in the Harper government's tenure."

When the executive director of the CIC was scheduled to speak at an event in October 2010 — a celebration of "Islamic History Month" at the Department of National Defence (DND) — the outcome was markedly different. Canadian bloggers learned of it and asked why the head of the CIC, Zijad Delic, had been accorded such an honor and why a powerful state agency was granting one religion special recognition. As public pressure mounted, the DND canceled Delic's speech, but the rest of the Islamic history event went on as scheduled.

More mixed messages were sent, notes Harris, when Immigration Minister Jason Kenney addressed a breakfast meeting of the Islamic Society of North America Canada (ISNA Canada) in November 2008. Continues Harris, "ISNA Canada is apparently the Canadian arm of the American Islamist organization that was designated an unindicted co-conspirator by the United States Justice Department for the purposes of the Holy Land Foundation trial, a successful U.S. terror-funding prosecution."

Further, Harris had called on the new Conservative government in 2008 to ensure that radical Muslim groups "are never engaged in 'outreach' activity by police and security organizations." Yet even today, nine years after September 11, says Harris, institutions like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) remain clueless about the groups and individuals that they embrace.

"Earlier in its outreach program," Harris explains, "the RCMP set up a flurry of roundtables — for adults and youth — and their periodic get-togethers under this rubric have, according to some participants, come to be dominated by Muslim members and concerns. The tendency seems to have been to accept almost anyone as participants, a situation that lends itself to those wishing to gain the imprimatur of a prestige law enforcement organization."

Harris points out that the RCMP has regularly cited "notoriously inaccurate CAIR-CAN [Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations] studies" for "scare statistics" in their public briefings, which spread the myth that "Islamophobic" hate crimes are on the rise.

"This police blunder was the natural result of welcoming CAIR-CAN operatives into outreach activity," Harris says. "Not only has little discernibly been done about the situation, but the Conservative government appears to be allowing things to deteriorate."

Hence, the Young Muslims Canada website boasts of graduating from the Mounties' "Citizen's Academy" on one page, then showcases an essay by Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, on another.

When considering this environment of either inexcusable ignorance or cynical pandering by Canada's elites — even under the Conservative government of Prime Minister Harper — it is no wonder that Salim Mansur is pessimistic about the future of his adopted country.

"So you see I am fearful of where we are headed," he explains, "and how badly we need courageous political leadership that can speak to the people without fear about Islamism and the need to push them back now and not when it might be too late. We don't have that leadership in the West — and we don't have it in Canada."

Kathy Shaidle blogs at Five Feet of Fury. This article was sponsored by Islamist Watch.

U.S. Government "Threatens" Syria: Promote Terrorism, Take Over Lebanon, Block Peace, and We Won't Let You Make Apple iPads!

Barry Rubin

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/11/us-government-threatens-syria

If you think I'm exaggerating about the current administration's cluelessness toward the Middle East just read the State Department daily press conference transcripts. Even journalists covering these events are often shocked by what they hear.

Today's topic is Syria, but it's just an example and many others could be found. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley begins by referring to a speech by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice in which she says:

"We continue to have deep concerns about Hezbollah's destructive and destabilizing influence in the region, as well as attempts by other foreign players, including Syria and Iran, to undermine Lebanon's independence and endanger its stability." In saying this, Rice is praising a UN report about what's going on in Lebanon which reveals, though nobody makes this point, the total failure of the organization and the United States to keep the promises made in 2006 in order to end the Israel-Hizballah war.

So given this situation one would think U.S. policy is now prepared to do something about Lebanon's becoming an Iran-Syria puppet, Syria's continued support for anti-American terrorists in Iraq and sabotage of any peace process, and the obviously failed U.S. effort at engaging Syria.

Nope. Not a chance.

A reporter asks: "With these strong statements...it looks like the meetings the Secretary [of State] had with the Syrian foreign minister and the visit by his deputy here to Washington didn't lead to any improvements in relations with Syria. Do you agree on this?"

No, Crowley won't agree since if he does the United States will have to do something. He just wants to let everyone knows that the United States told Syria it is very very naughty:

"We were very clear about our expectation that Syria would play a more constructive role in the region. We expressed during that meeting our deep concern for Syrian interference with Lebanon's sovereignty. We also expressed in that meeting hope that Syria would make progress in its thread of the Middle East peace process."

No, Syria won't "play a more constructive role," so why the expectation? Yes, Syria will continue to undermine Lebanon's sovereignty so what are you going to do with that "deep concern?" No, Syria won't "make progress" toward peace with Israel so why the "hope"?

Jumping Jupiter! You've been watching all of this continuously for nineteen months, isn't it time to get the point?

Understandably, a reporter asks: "Do you see any evidence that [the Syrians] have actually taken that message on board?....It doesn't seem like they're listening if they're still doing things that you have to complain about as publicly as Ambassador Rice did."

Precisely. So what does Crowley say? I'm not kidding: that's why we have to talk to them even more and offer them goodies:

"Well, but it's one of the reasons why we have offered to engage Syria....[The U.S. wants] to offer the hope that...we can improve our relationship bilaterally and Syria can play a more constructive role in the region."

So let me get this straight: Syria ignores you and your answer is to try harder to engage them, to offer them more. Crowley continues:

"There's a choice here for Syria. If it wants to have a better relationship with the United States, then it has to be a more constructive player in the region. [Regarding] Lebanon, we remain very concerned about Syria's ...ongoing support of Hezbollah, its attempted intimidation of a Lebanese Government, the ongoing provision of arms to Hezbollah in violation of Lebanon's sovereignty....We would expect Syria to respect Lebanon's sovereignty."

Why do you expect they would respect Lebanon's sovereignty? And hasn't Syria already made a choice: No! No! No! Or, more accurately, they have made a choice based on your behavior along the following lines:

We can support Hizballah, intimidate Lebanon's government, and do just about whatever we want, and the United States won't do anything to us? Mu-ha-ha-ha!

So of course, a reporter asks--and remember this is October 2010 so they haven't heard any answer in the last twenty months: "You've laid out the carrots that are offered to the Syrians, i.e., potential of better or improved U.S. relationships if they do these things you want them to do. What's the consequences if they continue not to listen to you?"

Does Crowley hurl lightning bolts? Does he threaten and hint and warn? No, he does not: In fact, he seems rather surprised by the question. His answer is so amazing [in incoherence as well as content] I just have to quote it in full. [Note: If you wish I give you permission to skip the next paragraph]:

"Well, I mean, there are sanctions against Syria. It still is listed on the terrorism list by the United States, and those have an impact. But if Syria wants the potential-a change in the relation with the United States, a change in opportunities that come with normal relations, then it has to improve its performance. Give you an example: Earlier this summer, technology leaders under the auspices of the State Department had a delegation that visited Damascus, and our message to the leaders...is very clear. You want leading technology companies from the United States and other areas of the world to invest in Damascus, then you've got to create the appropriate climate to encourage them to do that. You've got to have a climate where-change the relationship between the government and the people. So if this is, in fact, the ambition by the Syrian leadership, then it has to change its policies and its practices."

So that's it! If you take over Lebanon, send terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans, back Hamas, arm Hizballah, and move so close to Iran that a hydrogen atom cannot pass between you, the United States will take a terrible vengeance: It won't let American technology companies invest in you!

So here's the real choice offered Syria: Either you have Iran providing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and low-cost oil; paying for your weapons, subsidizing your joint clients like Hamas and Hizballah, and giving you a nuclear umbrella, while being part of an alliance that believes it is going to gain hegemony in the Middle East OR alternatively you could throw all this away in exchange for some U.S. investments.

The horror. The horror.

After reading this nonsense an expert on these issues remarked: ''Really pathetic. The administration is just begging Syria. Our dialogue has been reduced to Washington pleading and Syria saying "no." No wonder everyone is siding with Iran these days."

Amen.

Oh, and here's David Schenker explaining to you what's really going on in U.S.-Syria issues, with optional audio.

"Courting Disaster"

Marc Thiessen

Here is an excerpt from "Courting Disaster":

Just before dawn on March 1, 2003, two dozen heavily armed Pakistani tactical assault forces move in and surround a safe house in Rawalpindi . A few hours earlier they had received a text message from an informant inside the house. It read: "I am with KSM."

Bursting in, they find the disheveled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his bedroom. He is taken into custody. In the safe house, they find a treasure trove of computers, documents, cell phones and other valuable "pocket litter."
Once in custody, KSM is defiant. He refuses to answer questions, informing his captors that he will tell them everything when he gets to America and sees his lawyer. But KSM is not taken to America to see a lawyer. Instead he is taken to a secret CIA "black site" in an undisclosed location.

Upon arrival, KSM finds himself in the complete control of Americans. He does not know where he is, how long he will be there, or what his fate will be.

Despite his circumstances, KSM still refuses to talk. He spews contempt at his interrogators, telling them that Americans are weak, lack resilience, and are unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals. He has trained to resist interrogation. When he is asked for information about future attacks, he tells his questioners scornfully: "Soon, you will know."

It becomes clear he will not reveal the information using traditional interrogation techniques. So he undergoes a series of "enhanced interrogation techniques" approved for use only on the most high-value detainees. The techniques include waterboarding.

His resistance is described by one senior American official as "superhuman." Eventually, however, the techniques work, and KSM becomes cooperative-for reasons that will be described later in this book.

He begins telling his CIA de-briefers about active al Qaeda plots to launch attacks against the United States and other Western targets. He holds classes for CIA officials, using a chalkboard to draw a picture of al Qaeda's operating structure, financing, communications, and logistics. He identifies al Qaeda travel routes and safe havens, and helps intelligence officers make sense of documents and computer records seized in terroristraids. He identifies voices in intercepted telephone calls, and helps officials understand the meaning of coded terrorist communications. He provides information that helps our intelligence community capture other high-ranking terrorists,

KSM's questioning, and that of other captured terrorists, produces more than 6,000 intelligence reports, which are shared across the intelligence community, as well as with our allies across the world.

In one of these reports, KSM describes in detail the revisions he made to his failed 1994-1995 plan known as the "Bojinka plot" to blow up a dozen airplanes carrying some 4,000 passengers over the Pacific Ocean .

Years later, an observant CIA officer notices that the activities of a cell being followed by British authorities appear to match KSM's description of his plans for a Bojinka-style attack.

In an operation that involves unprecedented intelligence cooperation between our countries, British officials proceed to unravel the plot. On the night of Aug.9, 2006 they launch a series of raids in a northeast London suburb that lead to the arrest of two dozen al Qaeda terrorist suspects. They find
A USB thumb-drive in the pocket of one of the men with security details for Heathrow airport, and information on seven trans-Atlantic flights that were scheduled to take off within hours of each other:

* United Airlines Flight 931 to San Francisco departing at 2:15 p.m.;

* Air Canada Flight 849 to Toronto departing at 3:00 p.m.;

* Air Canada Flight 865 to Montreal departing at 3:15 p.m.;

* United Airlines Flight 959 to Chicago departing at 3:40 p.m.;

* United Airlines Flight 925 to Washington departing at 4:20 p.m.;

* American Airlines Flight 131 to New York departing at 4:35 p.m; and

* American Airlines Flight 91 to Chicago departing at 4:50 p.m.

They seize bomb-making equipment and hydrogen peroxide to make liquid explosives. And they find the chilling martyrdom videos the suicide bombers had prepared.

Today, if you asked an average person on the street what they know about the 2006 airlines plot, most would not be able to tell you much. Few Americans are aware of the fact that al Qaeda had planned to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with an attack of similar scope and magnitude.

And still fewer realize that the terrorists' true intentions in this plot were uncovered thanks to critical information obtained through the interrogation of the man who conceived it: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This is only one of the many attacks stopped with the help of the CIA interrogation program established by the Bush Administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Editor's Note: For other foiled terrorist plots, see page 9 of Courting Disaster.

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda

Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda-how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks-came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Former CIA Director George Tenet has declared: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

Former CIA Director Mike Hayden has said: "The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work."

Even Barack Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has acknowledged: "High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Leon Panetta, Obama's CIA Director, has said: "Important information was gathered from these detainees. It provided information that was acted upon."

And John Brennan, Obama's Homeland Security Advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced-interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied : "Would the U.S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say yes."

On Jan. 22, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13491, closing the CIA program and directing that, henceforth, all interrogations by U.S personnel must follow the techniques contained in the Army Field Manual.

The morning of the announcement, Mike Hayden was still in his post as CIA Director, He called White House Counsel Greg Craig and told him bluntly:

"You didn't ask, but this is the CIA officially nonconcurring". The president went ahead anyway, overruling the objections of the agency.

A few months later, on April 16, 2009, President Obama ordered the release of four Justice Department memos that described in detail the techniques used to interrogate KSM and other high-value terrorists. In addition to objections from This time, not just Hayden (who was now retired) but five CIA directors ?including Obama's own director, Leon Panetta -- objected. George Tenet called to urge against the memos' release. So did Porter Goss. So did John Deutch. Hayden says: "You had CIA directors in a continuous unbroken stream to 1995 calling saying, 'Don't do this.'"

the men who led the agency for a collective 14 years, the President also heard objections from the agency's covert field operatives. A few weeks earlier, Panetta had arranged for the eight top officials of the Clandestine Service to meet with the President. It was highly unusual for these clandestine officers to visit the Oval Office, and they used the opportunity to warn the President that releasing the memos would put agency operatives at risk. The President reportedly listened respectfully-and then ignored their advice.

With these actions, Barack Obama arguably did more damage to America's national security in his first 100 days of office than any President in American history.

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Revolution Muslim Shifting from Ideological to Operational


IPT News
November 2, 2010
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2296/revolution-muslim-shifting-from-ideological-to

Followers of the outspoken groups Revolution Muslim and the Islamic Thinkers Society are moving from ideology to violent action, a review of recent terror indictments by the Investigative Project on Terrorism shows. U.S. counter terror agencies have traditionally paid little attention to those groups, presumably because they represent a safe and legal outlet for the frustrations of young, aspiring Jihadists. Similarly, Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have minimized the danger of these individuals. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper wrote off the RevolutionMuslim.com site as "an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community." "In fact, most Muslims suspect they were set up only to make Muslims look bad," Hooper added. "We just have very deep suspicions. They say such outrageous, irresponsible things that it almost seems like they're doing it to smear Islam." But the new indictments show that some overzealous participants in the groups are increasing their radical activity, resulting in the groups' heightened threat. Their influence is growing.

The case of Abdel Hameed Shehadeh is the most recent example. Shehadeh was arrested Oct. 26 in Hawaii on charges of lying about why he traveled to Pakistan and his attempts to join the Taliban. Shehadeh, who operated three websites hosting extremist material and Al-Qaeda videos, enjoyed a close relationship with Revolution Muslim.

According to the criminal complaint, a June 28, 2008 visit by a federal agent to one of these websites revealed a blog post "introducing www.civiljihad.com to the Revolution Muslim online community."

"It is time for the Muslims to start practicing our freedom of speech… My brothers of revolution islam [Revolution Muslim], I am with you as long as you keep struggling. Trust me there are many brothers and sisters in America that are ready to speak up. They just need a push," Shehadeh posted on his site. By August 03, 2008, www.civiljihad.com simply became a redirecting website, automatically sending viewers to Revolution Muslim's homepage.

Organizations like Revolution Muslim have been the "push" that many of these individuals needed to organize and act. These groups share a common belief in spreading their understanding of Islam through Da'wah [proselytizing]. They also promote a common narrative of a "War on Islam," and an identification with foreign terrorist organizations aimed at bringing down the West.

RM functions as one of the most visible English-language websites and organizations promoting al-Qaida's call to jihad. In addition to promoting the literature and videos of individuals like senior terrorist ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki, RM leaders have personally participated in all levels of the radicalization process, from identifying targets to providing advice about bombings.

For example, RM founder Yousef al-Khattab sparked heightened security at prominent Jewish sites by identifying them as sources of funding, spiritual guidance and material for Israel's January 2009 attack on Gaza. He also taunted law enforcement in his threat, noting that, "And Wallahi [really], New York City Police Department, CIA, and FBI, you can put me in jail for the rest of my life. As long as I got that information out there to people about what to do, I did something." The following picture on RM's website was linked to his threat.





An earlier posting featured a Jewish prayer book covered in what appears to be blood. Likewise, a posting concerning the Times Square Bomber stated, "I think people should be more careful when they plan operations. Try fertilizer, not firecrackers, Insha'Allah [Allah willing]."

Revolution Muslim has also been a stopover point for identification with larger terrorist groups like Hamas and al-Qaida, or an ideological breeding ground for homegrown jihadist sentiment. By giving would-be warriors a centralized place to review and discuss violent speeches by clerics such as Abdullah al-Faisal, RM gathers isolated individuals on varying levels of the radicalization process. It gives them "a push" to identify with the most violent extremes of Islamist theology and feeds the narrative that Muslims everywhere are the victim of a "War on Islam."

RM's efforts have registered with susceptible individuals, including Abdul Hameed Shehadeh, former RM leading member Zachary Chesser, and a host of other attempted terrorists.

Chesser, aka Abu Talhah al-Amreekee, recently pled guilty in Alexandria, VA federal court to providing material support to Al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist organization. Chesser also echoed calls by Awlaki aimed at inciting violence against cartoonists for the animated show "South Park" and a journalist who initiated the "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." In addition, he provided the personal information of several individuals involved with "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" on a jihadist forum. Other accused or convicted terrorists with noted Revolution Muslim ties include Colleen LaRose, Bryant Neal Vinas, Tarek Mehanna and Daniel Maldonado. Even Samir Khan, the suspected editor of Al-Qaeda's English magazine and the author of its second edition article, "I am proud to be a Traitor to America," gradually moved from the organization's circles to al-Qaeda.

RM is not alone in its connections to individuals who have carried out acts of terror. The Islamic Thinkers Society, another radical Islamist forum, promotes an identical message about a "War on Islam" and violent solutions. Islamic Thinkers Society went well beyond providing ideological support and identifying potential targets. According to CNN, "followers of the Islamic Thinkers Society not only helped radicalize [convicted terrorist Bryant Neil] Vinas, but also helped him connect with militants in Pakistan." Other accused terrorists affiliated with the movement include Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte, both reportedly negotiating guilty pleas to attempting to fight alongside Al-Shabaab.

Northern Israel called "1948 lands" and "occupied territories" on PA TV kids program


http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3497

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

A children's program on official Palestinian Authority television presents Northern Israel to Palestinian children as "occupied territories" and "1948 lands." A recent episode of The Best Home on PA TV takes a group of children on a trip to Tiberias and the Galilee in Northern Israel. During a break, the kids are told that they are on "occupied land" and "1948 land," the PA's way to describe all of Israel as "occupied" since its founding in 1948. The children are never told they are in Israel, and when referring to places in Israel, the PA TV host says "How beautiful our land is."

In the Golan Heights, the children are told by the Israeli-Arab guide that they are "at the exact border between Palestine and Syria," again portraying a world in which Israel doesn't exist and is replaced by "Palestine."

As Palestinian Media Watch has reported, teaching children that all of Israel is "Palestine," "1948 lands" and "occupied territories" is an essential component of the PA's education to deny Israel's legitimacy and existence. PA-controlled media and Palestinian academics likewise routinely refer to all of Israel, including such Israeli cities as Jaffa and Haifa, as Palestinian cities, or as "occupied."

Click to see more examples of the PA's denial of Israel's right to exist.

Click here to see an excerpt from the children's TV program, The Best Home.

Following is the transcript from the program.

"We're on a trip in the 1948 lands. On our right is Baqa Al-Gharbiya (village in Israel) , the land [home] of many friends of our program. We're on our way [to see] many beautiful areas so that you can get to know them and see how beautiful our land is, and how many beautiful places it has -- beautiful villages and cities. We're in the north of the occupied lands, the 1948 lands (Israel), on the Lebanese border."

Tour guide: "We're now at the Golan Heights border (inside Israel). We are at the exact border between Palestine and Syria."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 22, 2010]

UNESCO and the cradle of Jewish history


JPOST EDITORIAL
11/02/2010

If not for the Israeli security presence, Rachel’s Tomb, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and Joseph’s Tomb would be off limits to Jews today.


UNESCO, the United Nations body in charge of preserving historical sites, went too far this time.

There is a lot of chutzpah in this post-modernist era of “deconstruction” and “revision.” Warmly cherished religious faiths and customs are reduced to “false consciousness.” Nations with their own unique ethnicity and proud traditions become “imagined communities.”

Foundational histories are reduced to nothing more than subjective “narratives.” But even in this radically relativistic intellectual atmosphere, the latest UNESCO decision stands out. For this was a particularly blatant attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land of Israel.

In its biannual session which ended last week, UNESCO adopted proposals initiated by Arab member states to dub two Jewish historical sites “Palestinian.” In a 44-1 vote, with 12 abstentions, the UNESCO board declared the “Haram al-Ibrahm/the Cave of the Patriarchs and Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb” to be “an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories” and asserted “that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law.”

The move is seen in some quarters as a response to Israel’s decision in February to include the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb on a list of national heritage sites that would receive additional funding for refurbishing and for the development of educational tours.

While February’s decision was described by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as a way of “reconnecting” Israelis to their history, the UNESCO decision was denounced by the prime minister as an “absurd” attempt to “detach the people of Israel from its heritage.”

He asked: “If the places where the fathers and mothers of the Jewish nation are buried, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rachel, some 4,000 years ago, are not part of the Jewish heritage then what is?” Particularly absurd was the decision regarding Rachel’s Tomb. As scholars such as Nadav Shragai and Prof.

Yehoshua Porath have pointed out, it was only in 2000 that the Palestinians “discovered” its historical importance.

On Yom Kippur of that year, as the second intifada was being launched, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, a Palestinian daily, published an article that blatantly departed from Muslim tradition, which corresponds with Jewish tradition, to claim that “the tomb is false and was originally a Muslim mosque.” Until then, all official Palestinian Authority references to the site had recognized it as Rachel’s Tomb. (A similar tactic was used after the 1929 Arab riots, to transform the Western Wall into the al-Buraq wall, supposedly the place where Muhammed’s winged horse al-Buraq was tied after his night-flight from Mecca.) ZIONISM IS particularly susceptible to these types of attacks. As a movement, Zionists simultaneously rebelled against tradition – particularly the Jewish religion – and exile, while incorporating concepts from Judaism that emphasized Jews’ ties to the land of Israel.

Zionism strove for normalization of the Jewish people as “a nation among the nations.” But it also co-opted the idea of “chosenness” by aspiring to create a model nation – hevrat mofet. Bitter disputes in contemporary Israel over settlements and the proper balance between Israel’s Jewish and democratic dimensions have their roots in this “split” Jewish identity.

Nonetheless, whether one is for or against Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, or for or against emphasizing Israel’s “Jewishness” at the expense of its “democratic” nature, it is an undeniable fact that the geographical area referred to as the West Bank and that includes Hebron and Bethlehem was the cradle of Jewish history.

No amount of historical revisionism or UNESCO declarations will erase this fact.

Nor is there a doubt that Israel has done a better job at maintaining equitable access to religious sites for all faiths. In contrast, Jordan denied Israel the “free access to the Holy Places [including the Kotel] and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives” stipulated in the April 1949 Armistice.

The Palestinian Authority’s track record is no better. If not for the Israeli security presence, Rachel’s Tomb, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and Joseph’s Tomb would be off limits to Jews today.

Whatever future territorial agreements are reached with the Palestinians, it would be an intolerable and untenable injustice if Jews were prevented from visiting sites with such profound historical, cultural and religious import.

Our World: The Age of Dissimulation

Caroline B. Glick

Rather than discuss the nature and threat of Islamic supremacism, the Western media, Western political leaders and academics deny it.

Years from now, when historians seek an overarching concept to define our times, they could do worse than refer to it as the Age of Dissimulation. Today our leading minds devote their energies and cognitive powers to figuring out new ways to hide reality from themselves and the general public. Take US President Barack Obama’s senior counterterrorism advisor for example. On Sunday, John Brennan spoke on Fox News about the latest attempted Islamic terrorist attack on American soil.



Since the Obama administration has barred US officials from referring to terrorists as terrorists and effectively barred US officials from acknowledging that Islamic terrorists are Muslims, Brennan simply referred to the Islamic terrorists in Yemen who tried to send bombs to synagogues in Chicago as “individuals.”



Today, practically, the only individuals willing to speak honestly about who Islamic supremacists are and what they want are the Islamic supremacists themselves.



For instance, in an interview last week with Reuters, the Islamic supremacist Hamas movement’s “foreign minister” Mahmoud al- Zahar told the Christian West, “You do not live like human beings. You do not [even] live like animals. You accept homosexuality. And now you criticize us?”



Al-Zahar also made the case for Islamic feminism. As he put it, “We are the ones who respect women and honor women ... not you. You use women as an animal. She has one husband and hundreds of thousands of boyfriends. You don’t know who is the father of your sons, because of the way you respect women.”



Finally, al-Zahar claimed that Westerners have no right to question Islam or criticize it. In his words, “Is it a crime to Islamize the people? I am a Muslim living here according to our tradition. Why should I live under your tradition? We understand you very well. You are poor people. Morally poor. Don’t criticize us because of what we are.”



Al-Zahar can sleep easy. The citizens of the West have rarely heard anyone in any positions of power and influence criticize Islamic supremacists “because of what they are.”



In fact, the most remarkable thing about al- Zahar’s interview was not what he said but that Reuters decided to publish what he said. By letting its readers learn what al-Zahar thinks of them, Reuters inadvertently gave Westerners a glimpse at the simple truth its editors and their counterparts throughout the Western media routinely purge from coverage of current events.



Rather than discuss the nature and threat of Islamic supremacism, the Western media along with nearly all Western political leaders and academics deny and dissimulate. Rather than address the threat, they accept the Islamic line and blame Israel for everything bad that happens in the world.



THE ONE group of people that can almost be forgiven for this crime against reality is the non-Muslims who live under Islamic rule. On Sunday, we received a grim reminder of the plight of such minorities with the Islamic terror attack on Baghdad’s largest church, the Our Lady of Salvation Catholic church.



As some one hundred worshipers celebrated evening mass, Islamic terrorists stormed the church. According to an eyewitness account, they walked straight up to the priest administering the mass and executed him. The Muslim terrorists then took the Christian worshipers hostage.



As Iraqi military forces stormed the church under US military supervision, the Islamic terrorists threw grenades at the worshipers and detonated their bomb belts. By Monday, the death toll had reached 52.



It will be interesting to see how Catholic officials in Iraq and throughout the world respond to this attack. At the Vatican’s Synod on the status of Christians in the Middle East last month, Emmanuel III Delly, the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq proclaimed, “The population of [Iraq] …is 24 million, all Muslims, with whom we live peacefully and freely…Christians are good with their fellow Muslims and in Iraq there is mutual respect among them.”



As the noted Islamic expert Robert Spencer wrote last week in Frontpage Magazine, Emmanuel has not always been so outspoken in his praise of Muslim Iraqis. In 2008, when US forces were still in charge in Iraq, Emmanuel made a statement that more accurately reflected the plight of his co-religionists.



Then he said, “Christians are killed, chased out of their homes before the very eyes of those who are supposed to be responsible for their safety…The situation in some parts of Iraq is disastrous and tragic. Life is a Calvary: there is no peace or security… Everyone is afraid of kidnapping.”



Christian clergy in Muslim countries are so terrified of Islamic aggression that they systematically hide the truth of their oppression and often distort their own theology to win the tolerance of supremacist Islamic authorities. Spencer noted that the head of that Vatican Synod, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, who presently heads the Eastern Catholic church in the US, and in the past served as archbishop of Baalbek in his native Lebanon follows a similar pattern of dissimulation.



In Bustros’s case, his prevaricating goes beyond false depictions of the plight of Christians. In his bid to win the favor of his Islamic supremacist overlords in Hizbullah, Bustros has regularly engaged in theological revisionism.



At last month’s synod, Bustros repudiated the teachings of the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council and embraced the discredited supersessionist theology that Vatican II denounced. Bustros claimed that God’s covenant with the Jewish people and his promise to give us the Land of Israel “were nullified by Christ.”



In his view, “There is no longer a chosen people.”



Bustros did not simply assert a theological view at odds with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. He used his replacement theology to politically delegitimize Israel. Bustros said, “The theme of the Promised Land cannot be used as a basis to justify the return of the Jews to Israel and the expatriation of the Palestinians.” Bustros is set to return to Lebanon soon to serve as the archbishop of Beirut. The fact that he used his position as the head of the Vatican’s synod on the plight of Christians in the Middle East to earn him the protection of Hizbullah when he returns is made clear when his statements at the conference are compared to a speech he made in 2006, when he was still comfortably ensconced in the US.



As Spencer notes, in a speech Bustros made at St. Thomas University in Florida in 2006, Bustros minced no words about the plight of Christians in the Middle East. Addressing the Islamic precepts on relations with non-Muslims, Bustros said, “The doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers….[T]he concept of nonviolence is absent from Muslim doctrine and practice….Peace in Islam is based on the surrender of all people to Islam and to God’s power based on Islamic law. They have to defend this peace of God even by force.”



FEAR OF Islamic massacres of Christians – like the one in Baghdad on Sunday – goes a long way towards explaining anti-Jewish and pro-Islamic pronouncements by Christian clergy in the Islamic world. But what can explain the West’s embrace of lies about Islam?



Why would people who do not live under the jackboot of the likes of Hizbullah, Hamas or their sister groups in places like Iraq obsequiously parrot untruths about Islamic history and theology and deny the very existence of Islamic supremacism?



The most notable case of such behavior in recent weeks came with the UN Educational, Science and Cultural Organization’s Executive Board’s declarations about Israel and Jewish history. At its October 21 meeting, the governing board of the UN agency charged with naming and preserving world heritage sites engaged in a shocking episode of historic revisionism in the service of Islamic supremacism.



UNESCO’s board issued five declarations regarding Israel. In addition to its routine condemnations of the security fence, Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem and Israel’s refusal to give Hamas control over its border with Israel, UNESCO’s board asserted that the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, where Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca and Leah are all buried, is a mosque. Rachel’s Tomb, where Rachel is buried, is also a mosque, according to UNESCO’s governing body.



It is not surprising that UNESCO’s Muslim members pushed for these declarations. Islam is a supersessionist religion. It claims that all the Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs as well as all the Jewish prophets, kings and judges were Muslim. It similarly claims that Jesus, Mary and the apostles were Muslims. It is standard Islamic practice to transform Jewish and Christian holy sites in lands conquered by Islam into mosques.



It is this Islamic practice that led Yasser Arafat to shock and disgust Yitzhak Rabin in July 1995 when he proclaimed that, “Rachel was my grandmother.”



Arafat’s statement was the first time that a Muslim leader in modern times claimed Rachel’s grave is a mosque. Arafat made his preposterous claim in the course of negotiations about the disposition of Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem. Due to its significance to Jews, Israel demanded full security control over the tomb. Arafat based his counter-claim on standard Islamic historical revisionism.



While Rabin rejected Arafat’s baseless assertion, last month UNESCO’s executive committee, whose membership includes France, Belgium, Spain, Japan, Poland, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Italy, the US and India accepted Arafat’s wholly false rendition of the historical record. In so doing, they collaborated with an Islamic attempt to eradicate Jewish history.



Why would they do this? They are not bishops who have to worry that their communities will be annihilated if they step out of line.



No doubt, fear of Islamic terrorism fuels some of their behavior. But fear can’t be the full explanation. Most Westerners have no contact with Muslims. And Islamic terrorist attacks in the West are not a daily occurrence.



The West’s newfound obsession with Islamophobia probably also has something to do with it. Western elites are terrified of being accused of racism. This is particularly true when – as is the case with Islamophobia – the charge is leveled on behalf of people who were oppressed in the past by Westerners.



But while fear of the charge of Islamophobia does play a role in Western kowtowing to Islamic supremacists, the West’s aversion to the perception that it is oppressing those it once oppressed fails to provide an adequate explanation for its willingness to collaborate with Islamic supremacist attempts to blot out Jewish history. The West’s history of oppressing Jews is far bloodier and longer than its record of oppressing Muslims.



In the end, there is only one credible explanation for the West’s willingness to lie about the nature and goals of Islamic supremacism. There is only one credible explanation for the West’s willingness to collaborate with Islamic supremacists as they purge the historical record of the Jewish roots of Western civilization. There is only one explanation for the West’s willingness to accept the Islamic supremacist assertion that Israel is to blame for Islamic aggression against Jews and Christians alike.



But if I mention anti-Semitism, I will be attacked as a paranoid Jew.



###




[The Two-Part Solution: 1) Israel needs to use whatever means at its disposal to defeat its enemies without expecting or requesting anyone else’s permission. 2) The American people must take our country back from the corrosive forces that are in the process of separating us from our Founding values. df]





It’s Today or Never, America




Dan Friedman
NYC

No Occupied Territories

November 02, 2010 | Eli. E. Hertz

A UN coalition sought to rewrite history by labeling the Territories 'Occupied Territories,' thus endowing them with an aura of bogus statehood and a false history. They used capital letters for 'Occupied Territories' and then shifted to 'Palestinian Occupied Territories' and 'Palestine,' as if title or ownership could be assigned out of thin air. No legal binding authority has empowered any UN organ, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to decide that the territories of the West Bank, known as Judea and Samaria, and Gaza could be transformed into 'Occupied Palestinian Territories' or 'Palestine.' UN organs' the EU and the U.S. use of these dishonest, loaded terms empower terrorism and the Palestinian Arabs with the right to use all measures to expel Israel . The phrase 'illegal occupation' is a "careless language" and "perilous threat to the diplomatic search for peace," says Professor George Fletcher, an expert in international law: [1]

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been insistent, not least as regards questions of territorial title, that the rules and concepts of interna­tional law have to be interpreted 'by reference to the law in force' and 'the State practice' at the relevant period." [2]

General Assembly's attempts to legislate changes in the status of the territories against Israel and the rule of international law

One can easily trace the General Assembly's attempts to legislate changes in the status of the Territories, doctoring the definition of the status of the Territories, which is well documented on the website of the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations that posts landmark pro-Palestinian decisions.
Examination reveals how over the years in UN General Assembly resolutions and the wording of resolutions by sub-committees moves from "territories" to "occupied territories" to "Occupied Territories" and "Arab territories" to "occupied Palestinian territories" to "Occupied Palestinian Territory" and "occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem":

● Resolution 3236 (XXIX) passed in November 1974 speaks of "the question of Palestine";

● Resolution 38/58 in December 1983 speaks of "Arab territories" and "occupied territories";

● Resolution 43/176 passed in December 1988 expresses sentiments suggesting Palestinian entitlement - speaking of "the Palestinian people['s] right to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967";

● Resolution 51/133 passed in December 1996 adds Jerusalem in particular - speaking of "occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan...";

● Resolution 52/250 passed in July 1998 fully "assigns title" - speaking of "Occupied Palestinian Territory," a designation that is frequently used in subsequent resolutions.

None of these terms have a legal foundation any more than declaring "The world is flat" makes it so. Yet the International Court of Justice cites these terms as if they were legal documents. Even junior jurists know better.

It should be noted: The coining of the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" by the General Assembly, and all the more so it's 'adoption' by the International Court of Justice, is contrary to, and totally incompatible with, Article 12 of the UN Charter which states:

"While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests." (emphasis added)

The artificiality of the historical Palestinian identity

The use of the word 'Palestine' was adopted by the Arabs specifically for political gain, to brand Israelis as invaders and to inherit the geographic area called Palestine as exclusively belonging to the Arabs.

The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arabs who never established a Palestinian state or advocated one prior to the Six-Day War in 1967. What unites Palestinians has been their opposition to Jewish nationalism and the desire to stamp it out, not aspirations for their own state. Local patriotic feelings are generated only when a non-Islamic entity takes charge - such as Israel did in 1967 after the Six-Day War. It dissipates under Arab rule no matter how distant or despotic, as it was under the rule of Jordan prior to 1967.

Culturally, Palestinians are not distinct from other Arabs. The sole contributions Palestinians can take credit for are the invention of skyjacking for political purposes in the 1960s, and lately a special brand of suicidal terrorism that uses their own youth as delivery systems for bombing pizza parlors, discos, and public commuter buses.

Ironically, before local Jews began calling themselves Israelis in 1948 (the name Israel was chosen for the newly established Jewish state), the term 'Palestine' applied almost exclusively to Jews and the institutions founded by new Jewish immigrants in the first half of the 20th century, before independence. Some examples include:

● The Jerusalem Post, founded in 1932, was called the Palestine Post until 1948. [3]

● Bank Leumi L'Israel was called the "Anglo-Palestine Bank, a Jewish Company."

● The Jewish Agency - an arm of the Zionist movement engaged in Jewish settlement since 1929 - was called the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

● The house organ of American Zionism in the 1930s was called New Palestine.

● Today's Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936 by German Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany, was called the Palestine Symphony Orchestra, composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews. [4]

● The United Jewish Appeal (UJA) was established in 1939 as a merger of the United Palestine Appeal and the fundraising arm of the Joint Distribution Committee.

Princeton University professor of Semitic literature Philip Hitti (1886-1978) one of the greatest Arabic historians of the ninth century and author of 'The History of the Arabs,' testifying on behalf of the Arab cause, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine in 1946: "There is no 'Palestine ' in history, absolutely not." [5]

[1] George P. Fletcher is a professor at Columbia University School of Law and author of Romantics at War:
Glory and Guilt in the Age of Terrorism. See: "Annan's Careless Language," The New York Times, March 21, 2002, at:
www.uscj.org/neweng/worcester/Link_Fletcher020321.htm.

[2] See Professor Stone " Israel and Palestine", Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1982, p. 75.

The International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) has been insistent, not least as regards questions of territorial title, that the rules and concepts of interna­tional law have to be interpreted "by reference to the law in force" and "the State practice" at the relevant period. (Majority Opinion in the Western Sahara case, I.C.J. Reports, 1975, p. 12, esp. at 38-39). Judge de Castro in his Separate Opinion (ibid 127, at 168 ff.) declared the principle tempus regit factum as a recognized principle of international law. He continued (p. 169): "Consequently, the creation of ties with or titles to a territory must be determined according to the law in force at the time ... The rule tempus regit factum must also be applied to ascertain the legal force of new facts and their impact on the existing situation." He went on to illustrate this influence of "new facts and new law" by reference to the impact on the suppression of the colonial status of Western Sahara by the principles concerning non-self-governing territories emanating from the United Na­tions Charter and the later application to them of the principle of Self de­termination (pp. 169-71). This limiting rider has reference to the appearance of new principles of international law, overriding the different principles on which earlier titles are based. But, of course, it can have no application to vested titles based, as was the very territorial allocation between the Jewish and Arab peoples, on the principle of self-determination itself.

[3] The Palestine Post was founded by Gershon Agron, an American journalist and published its first issue on December 1, 1932. In 1950, the Palestine Post changed its name to The Jerusalem Post.

[4] Ibid.

[5] From the report by The High Commissioner on The Administration of Palestine 1920-1925 to the Right Honorable L. S. Amery, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies. Government Offices, Jerusalem, 22nd April, 1925.

Christians and Jews Once Again in the Muslim Line of Fire


Daniel Greenfield

With the attack on an Iraqi church and the mailbombs addressed to an American synagogue, while the media worry about Islamophobia-- Christians and Jews once again find themselves in the Muslim line of fire.

Just last week we were witness to the spectacle of a black NPR liberal being dragged through the muck, accused of being insane or racist, for even conceding that he was worried by Muslim terrorism. The indictment of Islamophobia is that it is somehow an irrational or unreasoning fear. But if a group is actively trying to kill you, then how can fear of it possibly be unreasonable? Acrophobia is unreasonable when walking across a sturdy bridge, but it is entirely reasonable to be afraid of heights when someone is trying to push you off the bridge. Aquaphobia is unreasonable on land, but when you're drowning, fear of the water is inevitable. So too with all phobias. They are only unreasonable to the extent which they are not an active and present danger.

Liberals are operating in a world in which there is no active and present danger from Islam. But that's something they need to pass on to the survivors of the Church massacre, the teenage girls executed in Somalia, to Farooq Ahmed who wanted to bomb Washington D.C. subway stations, to the Frenchmen kidnapped in Niger or any of the victims of the other incidents involving the Religion of Peace that didn't occur nine years ago, but this week and this month.

The New York Times has published a piece by Robert Wright claiming that Islamophobia and Homophobia have a lot in common. The most obvious thing they have in common, is that Muslims don't like gay people either. Or women. Or Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, atheists... and well let's face it, pretty much everyone else. Muslims are still killing each other over religion, at a time when members of other religions settle their differences with sternly worded editorials.

The recent synod to address the decline of Christianity in the Middle East took place in a strange vacuum, like a conference to discuss the reason why there's no more space in the living room and the couch has been crushed-- without ever mentioning the elephant in the room. The elephant in the Middle East is Islam. But no one dares mention it. Or draw cartoons of it. Instead the synod concluded that the blame rested somewhere between Israel and economics. Not the people who are machine gunning churches.

The reason for their silence was all too plain. Islamophobia.

And by that I don't mean that they wanted to torch a Koran or profile terrorists in airports-- but that they are actually afraid of Islam. Being afraid of Islam is a normal state for people living in Muslim countries. Or even in countries with large numbers of Muslims in them. Much like Plantationphobia among American slaves or Inquisitionphobia among Spanish Jews-- Islamophobia is the natural product of being an oppressed minority living among people who follow religious texts that command them to persecute and kill non-Muslims.

Let's apply a simple test. Western Muslims constantly complain about Islamophobia (which is rather like rapists complaining about Rapeophobia) but how many of them have actually picked up and left?

I can't count the number of European Jews that I have met, who were forced to leave Europe because of Muslim Anti-Semitism. I have yet to encounter anything similar on the Muslim side. The largest communities of Mizrahi Jews (from Muslim countries) are in Israel and Los Angeles. Not in the Muslim world. Jews from Muslim countries today exist primarily as refugees of an unacknowledged Nakba, who have gotten on with their lives, instead of endlessly dangling housekeys in front of the camera.

The Jews have vanished from most of the Middle East, for the same reason that the Christians are vanishing. Because of the elephant in the room that no one will talk about. An elephant with a Koran and a gun. You can't write about him. You can't draw cartoons of him. And you certainly can't single him out at the airport for any special attention. You had just better hope that the plane he decides to bomb isn't the plane that you're on.

The truth of Islamophobia is as obvious as the difference between the Middle Eastern Jewish and Christian immigrants to America, and their Muslim counterparts. Jews and Christians from the Middle East came to America as refugees. Muslims came here, not as refugees, but because there was more economic opportunity here than in their own overpopulated countries. That is the difference between the Mizrahi, the Maronite, the Copt... and the Muslim.

And that is the ugly truth at the heart of it all. Muslims are not victims. They are victimizers. They have reduced every minority in the Middle East to second-class status, and then when those minorities try to demand some semblance of human rights, they're machine gunned, set on fire, bombed and shelled to within an inch of their lives. And then the victimizers laughingly dispatch flotillas to the aid of their own fanatical terrorist gangs.

Islamophobia? What Islamophobia. The last remaining Jewish and Christian communities look carefully to their Mukhbarat (secret police) minders and denounce America and Israel. Then they go back to the few remaining houses of worship that they have, and hope that no one will kill them this week. They do their best to send their children out of the country. To Europe, to America, to Israel. Anywhere but a Muslim country. Not because there's anything wrong with Muslims. Allah forfend. No, it's because, like the Soviet anecdote about the man who punched a hole in an American diplomat's tire and tried to breathe in the escaping gas, they want to breathe the air of freedom.

Having made a proper hell of the countries they seized and occupied, Muslims are promptly moving to make a hell of the rest of the world too.
Jews are once again fleeing Europe, not because of the brownshirts this time, but because of the brownrobes. Not the Mein Kampf and the Swastika, but the Koran and the Crescent and the Star. Out of, dare we say it, "Islamophobia". The irrational fear of being murdered by people whose religion tells them that there's a golden ticket to Mohammed Wonka's virgins and rivers of wine paradise... for anyone who dies killing the infidels.

But of course we're determined to pretend that none of this is happening. And anyone who says otherwise must be crazy. If you doubt that, just look at the thriving communities of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians in the Muslim world. Look at how well Muslims are co-existing around the world, in Thailand, the Philippines, China, France, Holland, Israel, America, Kenya and Australia. And just look at the brotherly love between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, who can hardly take a breather from hugging each other with suicide belts wrapped around their waists. It's such a touching spectacle of fratricidal tolerance that only a lunatic would assume that there's anything in Islam to be worried about.

Islamophobia? Absurd. Just stop by the World Trade Center and ask the happy employees in either of the two towers about that. They'll tell you the same. There's nothing to be worried about. Nothing at all.

Israel’s Warning


P. David Hornik

While these days the focus is understandably on Al Qaeda, alarming news has also surfaced about Hezbollah, the Shiite terror group that is clustered near Israel’s border and has taken control of Lebanon.

The French daily Le Figaro reports that Hezbollah’s arsenal now numbers 40,000 missiles, and that the organization fields over 10,000 fighters. Le Figaro also gives details on three Hezbollah units tasked with maintaining and transporting the missiles, and on Syria’s close involvement in the whole enterprise. The article says that last January one of the three, Unit 108—in a move picked up by U.S. intelligence—received a delivery of 26 Syrian M-6002 missiles somewhere between Damascus and the Syrian-Lebanese border. While Unit 108’s main barracks are near that border, it also has a base near Damascus Airport for handling weapons shipments from Iran.

Le Figaro quotes the French Defense Ministry as saying Israel might strike Unit 108’s sites in Syria.

The paper also says the Syrian army has its own Scud missile base near Damascus. And while Syria denies having supplied Hezbollah with Scuds, satellite images seem to show Hezbollah operatives being trained in their use at the base.

EC: Guess Who?

Thomas Sowell
11/2/2010

Guess who said the following: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?

Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR's closest advisers. He added, "after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Professor Burton W. Folsom, Jr., of Hillsdale College. Ordinarily, what happened in the 1930s might be something to be left for historians to be concerned about. But the very same kinds of policies that were tried-- and failed-- during the 1930s are being carried out in Washington today, with the advocates of such policies often invoking FDR's New Deal as a model.

Franklin D. Roosevelt blamed the country's woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.

Whole generations have been "educated" to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History text books by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.

Although Professor Schlesinger admitted that he had little interest in economics, that did not stop him from making sweeping statements about what a great economic achievement the New Deal was.

Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia likewise declared: "The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties had been pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive." Anyone unfamiliar with the history of that era might never suspect from such statements that the 1920s were a decade of unprecedented prosperity and the 1930s were a decade of the deepest and longest-lasting depression in American history. But facts have taken a back seat to rhetoric.

In more recent years, there have been both academic studies and popular books debunking some of the myths about the New Deal. Nevertheless, Professor Folsom's book "New Deal or Raw Deal?" breaks new ground. Although written by an academic scholar and based on years of documented research, it is as readable as a newspaper-- and a lot more informative than most.

There are few historic events whose legends are more grossly different from the reality than the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. And there are few men whose image has been more radically different from the man himself.

Some of the most devastating things that were said about FDR were not said by his political enemies but by people who worked closely with him for years-- Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau being just one. Morgenthau saw not only the utter failure of Roosevelt's policies, but also the failure of Roosevelt himself, who didn't even know enough economics to realize how little he knew.

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt's ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics. To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

President Roosevelt's strong suit was politics, not economics. He played the political game both cleverly and ruthlessly, including using both the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate his critics and opponents.

It is not a pretty story. But we need to understand it if we want to avoid the ugly consequences of very similar policies today.